|
Post by johneppstein on Nov 18, 2017 0:22:51 GMT -6
The corporate tax rate reduction is designed to encourage multinational American companies to repatriate profits earned abroad. Tons of money and economic activity is kept overseas because the rest of the world has lower taxes than the US. Equalizing that rate would pour a lot of money back into the US economy. On the other hand, if a tax cut has to be 'paid for,' it's not really a tax cut, is it? The government can never do with less, but taxpayers have to, constantly. Lowering marginal rates has historically resulted in higher revenue for the government, when JFK did it in the sixties and when Reagan did it in the '80's. The '80's boom lasted 20 years. The lower rates stimulate economic growth. Growth creates higher tax revenue to government. This is a fact. Class and wealth envy is an emotional, not a rational point of view. The best tax would be a flat rate on everybody and all sources of income. Then we'd all have skin in the game, and share the incentive to demand efficiency and real thrift from government. Reaan's cuts wrecked havoc on the economy that we still have not recovered from. There was a temporary bubble under Bill Clinton that was was the first time we had a surplus, but that was rapidly undone by Bush.
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Nov 18, 2017 0:29:32 GMT -6
I guess it depends how you define sitting on cash, but it's a fair point that many rich people make money from capital gains and rentier income with low taxes rather than "working" for a living. But the income you describe comes from successful investments in businesses, which means the investment money is being put to work in the form of paying employees of companies they own, renting office space to other businesses, etc. So that money is not just being horded, but is actively cycling through various parts of the economy. Beyond that, any capital gains spent on day to day items cycles through the economy just like anyone else's money. That's true if you consider buying a business, laying off employees, and stripping it of assets before abandoning it to bankruptcy an "investment". Right now the majority of companies that are actually expanding productivity in this country are foreign owned. US companies are sending jobs and production overseas. They are not investing in the US economy.
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Nov 18, 2017 0:37:32 GMT -6
The idea Medicaid is for "the poor" is BS. Medicaid is what you go on when your Medicare or Medicare disability co-pays have bankrupted you. Medicare disability is what you go on after a few weeks in the hospital. The net result will be to force the elderly onto their children's' care and that erosion of the middle class as customers could easily crash the economy. Exactly. And is EXACTLY what the people behind this bill are planning, because then they can take the stolen billions they've been hoarding in offshore tax havens and move in an d pick up thed scraps for pennies on the dollar. This is nothing less than a deliberate plan to bankrupt the country. Why do think the Russians moved in to rig the election? It's certainly not to STRENGTHEN the USA.
|
|
|
Post by jakeharris on Nov 18, 2017 0:46:52 GMT -6
Lowering marginal rates has historically resulted in higher revenue for the government, when JFK did it in the sixties and when Reagan did it in the '80's. The '80's boom lasted 20 years. The lower rates stimulate economic growth. Growth creates higher tax revenue to government. This is a fact. Class and wealth envy is an emotional, not a rational point of view. The best tax would be a flat rate on everybody and all sources of income. Then we'd all have skin in the game, and share the incentive to demand efficiency and real thrift from government. Growth does create higher revenues, but lower tax rates don't. JFK era rates were still at 70%, and they increased tax rates both in the 80's and 90's (and Reagan rates were still at 50% for most of his presidency). You're confusing need with envy as well – the rich need to carry a higher burden in a modern society. If you want everyone to be equal, you have to keep society in balance. The pre-80's tax rates on the rich did exactly that: the top 1% earned less than 10% of total income. Fast forward to 2017, and they're earning just shy of 30% of total income! That isn't a balanced society, and the problems and pressures it creates for the poor and middle-class are very real. This latest move will increase this inequality even more.
|
|
|
Post by donr on Nov 18, 2017 1:30:31 GMT -6
I think Ragan has a point on correlation/causation of boom and bust. But the last 8 years of around 1% growth, discouraging prosperity in the name of climate change and fairness and doubling the deficit isn't sustainable policy. And even in that environment, the distance between the super wealthy and the rest of us got worse, not better. We actually need prosperity and economic growth, even as future demographics don't look good. Capitalistic growth is the only thing that creates wealth. Government doesn't. It just redistributes wealth confiscated from people who create it, while it dilutes the buying power of the currency. Our political class has failed us miserably as economic stewards. Some of our present and future problems are structural, maybe that's why everybody in gov't seems to be ok with open borders. But hordes of unskilled labor won't do anything for wages. Mandated minimum wages just speed the adaption of touch screen kiosks, robotics and other automation in minimum wage employment situations. As for income tax, the top half of earners pay virtually all the income tax. The top 1% pays almost 40% of taxes. The top 10% pays 70%. Just what is the fair share supposed to be? www.ntu.org/foundation/blog/who-pays-taxes-2015 I have faith in tech to continue to help make everyone's life worth living. And I think the best tax policy is to let everyone keep more of what they earn, including the wealthy.
|
|
|
Post by keymod on Nov 18, 2017 5:27:36 GMT -6
Well said, Donr, and quite true.
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Nov 18, 2017 7:47:26 GMT -6
You gotta be kidding me. Or you haven't known many rich people and you don't know anything about how major corprations work. I've known enough and I've helped friends build successful companies from nothing. The old axiom "it takes money to make money" applies, and any rich who follow your prior statement and don't reinvest in their businesses (investing, hiring employees, expanding into new markets, etc) simply aren't going to stay rich. Reading is crucial. You contradict yourself. You say you have friends who "Built successful companies from nothing". Then you say "It takes money to make money". Which is it? Then you say "any rich who follow your prior statement and don't reinvest in their businesses (investing, hiring employees, expanding into new markets, etc) simply aren't going to stay rich. " which is patently nonsense. The primary methods of making large amounts of money these days are by investing in financial devices that pay more than the normal amounmt of interest and by predatory takeovers of existing businesses and stripping their assets. The next most common method is predatory real estate and development speculation, which drives people like me from their homes and fills the market with cheesy housing at inflated prices,. which is a windfall for predatory Wall Street financial institutions and a disaster for everybody else. The banks get bailed out because they're "too big to fail" and everybody else pays. The last time that happened it cost me 1/3 of my assets - and I was lucky. Many people ended up broke. You say "The idea that people sit on cash (which is ever-decreasing in value) forever and remain rich is ludicrous." Which simply proves you know nothing about how money works. Anybody who knows anything about current finances knows you don't make money by investing your own money, you make money by investing other people's money and making them carry the risk. If (when) your venture goes south you bankrupt the corporation and let the investors eat it, while you walk away with what you've skimmed. We might call this the Trump model for financial success. You say "Reading is crucial." Sure, but it depends on what you read. I read a LOT - but I don't believe any song and dance promoted by every con man who comes down the pike. I also do something that's even more important than reading - I observe what goes on in the real world and the operation of cause and effect.
|
|
|
Post by joseph on Nov 18, 2017 9:19:47 GMT -6
I think Ragan has a point on correlation/causation of boom and bust. But the last 8 years of around 1% growth, discouraging prosperity in the name of climate change and fairness and doubling the deficit isn't sustainable policy. And even in that environment, the distance between the super wealthy and the rest of us got worse, not better. We actually need prosperity and economic growth, even as future demographics don't look good. Capitalistic growth is the only thing that creates wealth. Government doesn't. It just redistributes wealth confiscated from people who create it, while it dilutes the buying power of the currency. Our political class has failed us miserably as economic stewards. Some of our present and future problems are structural, maybe that's why everybody in gov't seems to be ok with open borders. But hordes of unskilled labor won't do anything for wages. Mandated minimum wages just speed the adaption of touch screen kiosks, robotics and other automation in minimum wage employment situations. As for income tax, the top half of earners pay virtually all the income tax. The top 1% pays almost 40% of taxes. The top 10% pays 70%. Just what is the fair share supposed to be? www.ntu.org/foundation/blog/who-pays-taxes-2015 I have faith in tech to continue to help make everyone's life worth living. And I think the best tax policy is to let everyone keep more of what they earn, including the wealthy. But government does create wealth when it invests in research and new technologies that become entire industries. Pharmaceutical drugs are often based on proof of concept studies done by academics with public funding. Then you have NASA and the internet and so on. Trump admin wanted to massively cut the NSF and NIH, this is not good policy. This is what China is doing right now with green tech. Stimulating an entirely new industry. Also people do not create wealth in a bubble. They rely on public infrastructure and the legal enforcement of contracts, copyright and trade deals, all supported by the immense power of the US government.
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Nov 18, 2017 9:22:32 GMT -6
Well said. Most people that want to preach to me about how bad the rich have it, are not wealthy enough to hire their own business attorneys and accountants. Once they do reach that amount of wealth and learn about the loopholes and reduced tax structures and protections available to them, they return to me with a smile as wide as our president's. If someone reading this has money and doesn't understand, they should shop around for legal counsel in business, accounting, also look into umbrella insurance policies and financial investments and estate planning. Anyone in studio business should know this though, since most studios are a total loss and deductible from taxes. Some rich who are investing their money are able to qualify for subsidized healthcare, reducing healthcare payments to $1 monthly. One. dollar. No doubt the current tax system is broken and a joke, so I'm not sure the next plan is gonna help studios any. Maybe psychologically? Or maybe start another punk movement?
|
|
|
Post by jimwilliams on Nov 18, 2017 11:33:42 GMT -6
Interest on the national debt is the third largest expenditure in the Federal budget. It's right behind entitlements and the military. We have gotten a great deal the last 20 years with the interest rates set below market value. That encouraged more borrowing (hole digging) because the money was cheap.
Those chickens are coming home to roost. When the interest rates rise (they will) that will cut into what ever is left in the Federal budget after welfare and war. Taxpayers might wake up when they realize a large portion of their taxes outside war and welfare is being spent to pay the interest on money spent years ago for basically nothing gained.
Will the USA default on those loans because of the inability to pay back the principle? No, we control the money, it's value and the rest of the world follows the almighty dollar too. Re-set the value and you re-set the cost of the loans. Devaluation is a common technique to deal with these debts. If and when the 'ol USA is forced to do that it will be a bad day for fiat currencies and a good day for metals.
After that there will be a huge call for a constitutional amendment calling for a balanced budget. That also will not pass as many states are leveraged worse than the feds and will need federal bailouts themselves.
I'm just glad I don't have kids. If I did we would be living in New Zealand.
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Nov 18, 2017 12:10:58 GMT -6
I think Ragan has a point on correlation/causation of boom and bust. But the last 8 years of around 1% growth, discouraging prosperity in the name of climate change and fairness and doubling the deficit isn't sustainable policy. And even in that environment, the distance between the super wealthy and the rest of us got worse, not better. We actually need prosperity and economic growth, even as future demographics don't look good. Capitalistic growth is the only thing that creates wealth. Government doesn't. It just redistributes wealth confiscated from people who create it, while it dilutes the buying power of the currency. Our political class has failed us miserably as economic stewards. Some of our present and future problems are structural, maybe that's why everybody in gov't seems to be ok with open borders. But hordes of unskilled labor won't do anything for wages. Mandated minimum wages just speed the adaption of touch screen kiosks, robotics and other automation in minimum wage employment situations. As for income tax, the top half of earners pay virtually all the income tax. The top 1% pays almost 40% of taxes. The top 10% pays 70%. Just what is the fair share supposed to be? I have faith in tech to continue to help make everyone's life worth living. And I think the best tax policy is to let everyone keep more of what they earn, including the wealthy. I find this attitude inexplicable. " But the last 8 years of around 1% growth, discouraging prosperity in the name of climate change and fairness and doubling the deficit isn't sustainable policy." Do you not look around you? This year The US has suffered weather disasters that are unparalleled in history, disasters that have caused billions and billions of dollars in damage. I don't know if you pay any attention to weather science, but the Artic Ice cap has shrunk by about 30% and the Antartic glacial ice has just calved an ice island bigger than anything ever seen. These things are clearly visible in photos taken by weather satellites. They are the effects of global warming and will cause sea level to rise significantly. Don, you own property in Florida. Most of Florida is only a foot or two above sea level, and within your lifetime the rise in sea level will almost certainly render your property worthless. Meanwhile, Florida is receiving an influx hundreds of thousands of people from Puerto Rico whose island has been wrecked by one of the worst hurricanes ever. These people are US Citizens, they are not immigrants. At ther same time the weather on the West Coast has been changing visibly. The ongoing drought caused this summer to be the worst wildfire season in history. It came within about three miles of consuming everything I own. In the center of the country tornados have been intensifying and spreading beyond the traditional "tornado alley" and have been taking place beyond the traditional tornado season. Over the last five or so years, each year is worse than the last. And in Oklahoma fracking has brought on frequent earthquakes. I grew up in Oklahoma. We NEVER had earthquakes. Now in parts of the state they're more frequent than in California. This stuff isn't made up propaganda - it's visible to anybody who opens their eyes or watches the news. "But hordes of unskilled labor won't do anything for wages. " Those people do jobs that our own citizens are unwilling to do. Do YOU want to pick vegetables and fruit for a few dollars a day? I know I wouldn't even if I could, which I can't. Our entire agricultural industry relies on this labor. While some types of crops can be harvested by machine, a great many can't, they have to be hand harvested. Of course this problem may solve itself as climate change makes increasing amounts of land unsuitable for agriculture. Then we'll have famine. "As for income tax, the top half of earners pay virtually all the income tax. The top 1% pays almost 40% of taxes. The top 10% pays 70%. Just what is the fair share supposed to be?" First, those figures are somewhat cooked, as those high earners have access to tax shelters that are unavailable to most people. And the fact that the very rich make most of their wealth via capital gains, which are not legally counted as income. So that "40%" is actually a lot closer to 20%. It also ignores the fact that, although the top 1% pays 40% of the taxes (which they really don't) they also make 90% of the money. Let me tell you, even 10% of 90% of the money is more than anybody could conceivably need. Another thing it ignores is that the 50% that pay little or no taxes also make virtually no money- they live below the poverty line and lack available resources to change that. And a great many of those people work, very often two or more jobs. Corporate policies exploit these people by strategies such as limiting their employment hours to 38 per week so they don't have to be paid as full time employees. Tell me, does anybody really NEED to make a billion dollars a week? A month? Even a year? The answer, of course, is that no, they don't. So what ISD a "fair share" supposed to be? How many yachts, private jets, and mansions does one person need? "I have faith in tech to continue to help make everyone's life worth living." I don't. I used to, back when I was naive and believed in a sci-fi future of unlimited prosperity and flying cars. But the truth is that tech displaces workers. When a company that employs, say, 500 people gets taken over buy a corporation that institutes technological "upgrades" those 500 jobs typically are reduced to 50 and often many of those are "outsourced" to India, Singapore, or Eastern Europe. That doesn't exactly help the US workforce. And the executives who are left in-country write themselves criminally large salaries and bonuses essentially for doing nothing but attacking the US economy. I strongly recommend reading Jaron Lanier's books "You Are Not A Gadget" and "Who Owens The Future" for anybody who believes in a tech salvation. You can ignore the second half of "Future" though, is basically Lanier trying to make excuses for the fact that the internet that he played an essential part in founding has turned into a distopic nightmare by suggesting pie-in-the-sky "solutions" that will never happen and wouldn't work if they did. For those who don't know, Lanier was one of the founders of the commercial internet and is generally recognized as "The Father of Virtual Reality". Another small thing - I mentioned Oklahoma earlier. Well, Oklahoma is, by far the "reddest" state in the country, but it appears that over the last year they've been seeing the makings of a "blue" revolution. Why? Because their economy, thanks to total Republican domination of the state since the '70s, is in unbelievably bad financial shape - so bad that many towns don't have functional fire departments or adequate medical facilities and schools are reduced to being open only four days a week. If this tax bill passes that's the future of our entire country.
|
|
|
Post by keymod on Nov 18, 2017 15:12:47 GMT -6
I honestly never thought the wealthy should pay more, as a percentage, than anyone else. I don't begrudge anyone their income amounts as long as those amounts are earned legally. I just don't understand why it is so impossible in the United States to implement a flat tax. As Donr suggested, this is really the only fair tax for everyone. If I pay the same percentage as everyone else, how can I claim that is unfair? We need a flat tax on income, with everyone allowed the same deductions. Tie to that a VAT tax on non-essential purchases and we should have no reason to complain.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Olhsson on Nov 18, 2017 15:39:22 GMT -6
The thing that gets forgotten is that where the wealthy make their money is from middle-class customers. Crippling the middle class is financial suicide but the trust fund babies don't understand how their parents made their money.
|
|
|
Post by rowmat on Nov 18, 2017 16:41:09 GMT -6
This guy had it worked out a long time ago....
“The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can “throw the rascals out” at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy.” - Professor Carroll Quigley, Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time (Published in 1966)
|
|
|
Post by ragan on Nov 18, 2017 17:36:18 GMT -6
I think Ragan has a point on correlation/causation of boom and bust. But the last 8 years of around 1% growth, discouraging prosperity in the name of climate change and fairness and doubling the deficit isn't sustainable policy. And even in that environment, the distance between the super wealthy and the rest of us got worse, not better. We actually need prosperity and economic growth, even as future demographics don't look good. Capitalistic growth is the only thing that creates wealth. Government doesn't. It just redistributes wealth confiscated from people who create it, while it dilutes the buying power of the currency. Our political class has failed us miserably as economic stewards. Some of our present and future problems are structural, maybe that's why everybody in gov't seems to be ok with open borders. But hordes of unskilled labor won't do anything for wages. Mandated minimum wages just speed the adaption of touch screen kiosks, robotics and other automation in minimum wage employment situations. As for income tax, the top half of earners pay virtually all the income tax. The top 1% pays almost 40% of taxes. The top 10% pays 70%. Just what is the fair share supposed to be? www.ntu.org/foundation/blog/who-pays-taxes-2015 I have faith in tech to continue to help make everyone's life worth living. And I think the best tax policy is to let everyone keep more of what they earn, including the wealthy. Just as a point of fact, Obam's avg growth was about 2.13% (the low being 1.6% and the high being 2.6%) Which isn't great, but it's more than double "1% growth". And, as always, the thing that matters is context. The economy imploded in 2008, as everyone knows. That matters to GDP figures, like, a lot. Even so, unemployment went from 10% to 4% under Obama. When he took office, we were losing 800,000 jobs a month. His presidency saw that turn into 75 months of straight job growth. Granted we were Quantitative Easing The Living Shit Out of Ourselves. And also, workforce participation is at it's lowest in a couple decades. But that's largely a factor of the baby boomers retiring. But I'm not trying to argue Obama was some sort of amazing economic president. I don't care about that at all. And come to think of it, I think the effect presidents have on the economy is vastly overblown. But we may as well get the figures right if we're going to talk about it. Also, as per the "top 1% pay 40% of taxes", it's actually more like 27% if you're talking all federal taxes, if you specify income tax it's more like 40% but it bears mentioning that that 1% also makes around 17% of the income. So yes, it's a progressive tax system so the wealthier you get, the higher your rate goes, but it's not as disparate as "wow, 1% paying 40%!" looks on its face. Also, some taxes are actually regressive. That same top 1% pays like 5% of payroll taxes (though they make 17% of the income). The middle bracket (quintile I think?) pays like 16% of payroll taxes but they only account for like 13-14% of the income. Anyway, I'm just pointing out that a lot of these partisan sort of Headline Talking Points we all hear are highly dependent on rhetorical framing. And they're all related too (though in extremely complex ways, obviously). Take Reagan. Conservatives love Reagan and his economics, and look on the 80s as this shining beacon of conservative economic principles. And there's a lot to be recommended there (I'm mostly agnostic on the economic stuff, but I friggin' love Ron Reagan's speeches, some of the best). But looking at how people really fared around then, wages had been rising almost dollar for dollar with productivity up through the 70s. Since then, productivity has risen like 80% and wages have risen like 4%. Now that's attributable to many factors, and again, I don't think presidents affect the economy anywhere near as much as people think. But the Reagan years weren't all gravy. There were some major systematic shifts that took place and some of them sucked for the middle class (i.e., most of us). Also when the GOP tries to take a piss on the working poor, like with the infamous "47% pay no tax" thing Romney used in 2008, it bears reminding that the GOP luuurvs kicking people off the tax rolls. Like the '86 Tax Reform Act (Reagan), the Child Tax Credit (GOP Congress in the 90s), the expansion of that credit (under GW Bush), cutting the bottom rate (also under GW). Conservatives can't come out and say "we're introducing a new entitlement" out loud because they claim to hate entitlements, but that's what they are. And you can't kick people off the tax rolls and then in the same breath castigate them for not paying their share. Plus, of that "47%" that Romney made a big deal out of in his campaign, 2/3 of them still pay payroll taxes, which go to social security and Medicare, which they use themselves widely. And if you don't count the elderly, it's only about 7% who truly pay no income or payroll tax. I'm no partisan. I've voted for Republicans and Democrats, and will do so again (once the GOP finishes this current demon exorcism) but when the GOP is painted as the more fiscally conservative party, it's just very unpersuasive to me. Another example. Conservatives love to say "Government shouldn't pick winners and losers", which is a statement I mostly agree with. But then they run giggling to legislation that says "this income is good, that income is bad" like with the Bush tax cuts, which made it so that capital gains/hedge fund income is cheap and wages are expensive. So say you work your ass off and make $200k of wages in a year, you pay 36%, but if you make that much in cap gains you're at like 15%, like Romney making 20 million bucks or so and paying 15%. Or take GWB creating a huge Medicare prescription drug benefit with no financing mechanism. And putting two wars off the budget. That stuff gave us gigantic deficits right when Wall Street's bullshit math fell apart. So in a situation where any administration, conservative or liberal, would have pumped in stimulus, we had to do it with already gigantic deficits, so they got...gigantic-er. Anyway, I don't even necessarily disagree with all the stuff I'm talking about conservatives doing, but they should at least be honest about it. If a conservative candidate said, "Yes, we believe government should in fact control the markets and dictate winners and losers, we just want to do it in a different way than the Democrats do", that would be honest. I'd respect it. But I'm not holding my breath for that type of honesty. The GOP is an absolute dumpster fire right now. Good, honest conservatives who give a shit about our country are afraid to speak up because they know they'll be primary'd by the Bannon/Fourth Reich crowd. If there still is a GOP after all this, I sincerely hope it finds its balls again and can be a healthy counter-balance to the Dems (who are also a mess BTW, don't take my criticism of the GOP as an endorsement of the Dems). We need some honest leadership on both sides or we're fucked and I don't see that happening soon. Buckle up for a bumpy ride, my fellow 'Mericans.
|
|
|
Post by rowmat on Nov 18, 2017 19:13:30 GMT -6
Firstly I know about the issues with political posts on forums like these but in the light of this thread I think this is relevant and because it's not hearsay or someone else's opinion it's worth watching.
Also, for the record, I'm a political atheist and treat all political leaders and parties with equal distain.
So the former Democratic POTUS says he would have been considered a 'moderate' Republican during the time Ronald Regan was in office? Interesting...
|
|
|
Post by Quint on Nov 18, 2017 20:05:01 GMT -6
Firstly I know about the issues with political posts on forums like these but in the light of this thread I think this is relevant and because it's not hearsay or someone else's opinion it's worth watching. Also, for the record, I'm a political atheist and treat all political leaders and parties with equal distain. So the former Democratic POTUS says he would have been considered a 'moderate' Republican during the time Ronald Regan was in office? Interesting... Yet a lot of Republicans would have you believe Obama was some sort of foreign born Manchurian candidate, or a Muslim (which he's not, not that it should matter), or whatever. The real reason is because he was black or, worse yet, someone who was, in some Republican's estimation, a person who is half black and "chose" to use his ethnic identity for political gain. That is a ridiculous stance and one that I find disgusting. Obama was one of the most moderate presidents we've had in a while. But because he was well spoken on topics that matter and thought global warming is real and that the middle class should stop getting fucked over and that black lives actually DO matter, he was some sort of devil. An easy assertion to sell to certain parts of the conservative base that is sympathetic to such racist overtures. I'm sick of Republicans saying that their platform isn't racist while also taking advantage of those sentiments when it provides them a benefit. trump being the most obvious case in point. We very much need a discussion in this country about our out of control government spending habits. But we also need a discussion about how the wealth gap is a very real thing and how white privilege is a very real thing. I'm still inclined to say fuck both parties, but I know which party goes out of its way to ensure that all of the money stays at the top. I mean, which party (the Republicans) was in favor of the Citizens United decision? That was maybe the worst supreme Court decision ever. It essentially allowed an unlimited hose of money from big money interests to influence politics. The Koch brothers aren't Democrats....
|
|
|
Post by ragan on Nov 18, 2017 20:37:58 GMT -6
Firstly I know about the issues with political posts on forums like these but in the light of this thread I think this is relevant and because it's not hearsay or someone else's opinion it's worth watching. Also, for the record, I'm a political atheist and treat all political leaders and parties with equal distain. So the former Democratic POTUS says he would have been considered a 'moderate' Republican during the time Ronald Regan was in office? Interesting... Yet a lot of Republicans would have you believe Obama was some sort of foreign born Manchurian candidate, or a Muslim (which he's not, not that it should matter), or whatever. The real reason is because he was black or, worse yet, someone who was, in some Republican's estimation, a person who is half black and "chose" to use his ethnic identity for political gain. That is a ridiculous stance and one that I find disgusting. Obama was one of the most moderate presidents we've had in a while. But because he was well spoken on topics that matter and thought global warming is real and that the middle class should stop getting fucked over and that black lives actually DO matter, he was some sort of devil. An easy assertion to sell to certain parts of the conservative base that is sympathetic to such racist overtures. I'm sick of Republicans saying that their platform isn't racist while also taking advantage of those sentiments when it provides them a benefit. trump being the most obvious case in point. We very much need a discussion in this country about our out of control government spending habits. But we also need a discussion about how the wealth gap is a very real thing and how white privilege is a very real thing. I'm still inclined to say fuck both parties, but I know which party goes out of its way to ensure that all of the money stays at the top. I mean, which party (the Republicans) was in favor of the Citizens United decision? That was maybe the worst supreme Court decision ever. It essentially allowed an unlimited hose of money from big money interests to influence politics. The Koch brothers aren't Democrats.... I agree with much of what you posted but it's important to not paint with too broad a brush. There are plenty of valid criticisms of Obama that have nothing to do with race. And when people on the left try and use race as a panacea against legitimate criticism it weakens it for those times when it's the truth. And gives shitloads of fodder to far right mouthpieces. That said, it's absolutely true that the right baits the racism. They've relied on it for support. It used to be dog whistles, like instead of saying "this guy sympathizes with blacks!" they'd say "he's an, um, urban values kind of guy". With this current situation, you've got a whole 'nother ballgame. Giving press credentials to groups like Breitbart and InfoWars so that you've got people like Mike Cernovich and Cassandra Fairbanks smugly doing the White Power hand gesture in front of the presidential podium is something we haven't seen before. We are in uncharted waters. And, even though much of the GOP isn't racist, in my opinion they're absolute frauds when they subtly and unsubtly stoke up racist factions for years, in order to get votes, and then when that paradigm takes over their party, stand back and say, "boy, how in the world did this happen???". If you're not crazy yourself, but you spend decades stoking up the crazies for your own gain, you can't credibly plead ignorance when the lunatics get hold of the asylum.
|
|
|
Post by Quint on Nov 18, 2017 20:52:15 GMT -6
Yet a lot of Republicans would have you believe Obama was some sort of foreign born Manchurian candidate, or a Muslim (which he's not, not that it should matter), or whatever. The real reason is because he was black or, worse yet, someone who was, in some Republican's estimation, a person who is half black and "chose" to use his ethnic identity for political gain. That is a ridiculous stance and one that I find disgusting. Obama was one of the most moderate presidents we've had in a while. But because he was well spoken on topics that matter and thought global warming is real and that the middle class should stop getting fucked over and that black lives actually DO matter, he was some sort of devil. An easy assertion to sell to certain parts of the conservative base that is sympathetic to such racist overtures. I'm sick of Republicans saying that their platform isn't racist while also taking advantage of those sentiments when it provides them a benefit. trump being the most obvious case in point. We very much need a discussion in this country about our out of control government spending habits. But we also need a discussion about how the wealth gap is a very real thing and how white privilege is a very real thing. I'm still inclined to say fuck both parties, but I know which party goes out of its way to ensure that all of the money stays at the top. I mean, which party (the Republicans) was in favor of the Citizens United decision? That was maybe the worst supreme Court decision ever. It essentially allowed an unlimited hose of money from big money interests to influence politics. The Koch brothers aren't Democrats.... I agree with much of what you posted but it's important to not paint with too broad a brush. There are plenty of valid criticisms of Obama that have nothing to do with race. And when people on the left try and use race as a panacea against legitimate criticism it weakens it for those times when it's the truth. And gives shitloads of fodder to far right mouthpieces. That said, it's absolutely true that the right baits the racism. They've relied on it for support. It used to be dog whistles, like instead of saying "this guy sympathizes with blacks!" they'd say "he's an, um, urban values kind of guy". With this current situation, you've got a whole 'nother ballgame. Giving press credentials to groups like Breitbart and InfoWars so that you've got people like Mike Cernovich and Cassandra Fairbanks smugly doing the White Power hand gesture in front of the presidential podium is something we haven't seen before. We are in uncharted waters. And, even though much of the GOP isn't racist, in my opinion they're absolute frauds when they subtly and unsubtly stoke up racist factions for years, in order to get votes, and then when that paradigm takes over their party, stand back and say, "boy, how in the world did this happen???". If you're not crazy yourself, but you spend decades stoking up the crazies for your own gain, you can't credibly plead ignorance when the lunatics get hold of the asylum. Agreed. There are valid criticisms of Obama regardless of race. All presidents have valid criticisms of their policy. But.... Thinly veiled hits on Obama because of his heritage are bullshit. And the conservative media has made hay of that shit for a LONG time. Red meat to ignorant people looking for excuses to justify their backward views.
|
|
|
Post by ragan on Nov 18, 2017 20:55:18 GMT -6
And obviously this stuff is political to the maximum. No hard feelings from me if it all gets deleted. It's impossible to have a discussion about policy without being political.
I don't attach my identity to any of this so I'm not emotional about it. A good point is a good point and I'm happy to be wrong. I wish it were widespread that we could discuss these kinds of things without crazy passions and embitterments but alas, a big chunk of the power wielders in our culture have a hugely vested interest in making sure we're all frothing at the mouth with tribalism and so we get conditioned to live in that reality.
Still seems to me that you can go hard after a given argument (IF YOU HAVE A GOOD POINT TO MAKE) without remotely going after the person making it. This discussion in my view has been pretty dang civil thus far.
|
|
|
Post by Quint on Nov 18, 2017 20:59:09 GMT -6
And obviously this stuff is political to the maximum. No hard feelings from me if it all gets deleted. It's impossible to have a discussion about policy without being political. I don't attach my identity to any of this so I'm not emotional about it. A good point is a good point and I'm happy to be wrong. I wish it were widespread that we could discuss these kinds of things without crazy passions and embitterments but alas, a big chunk of the power wielders in our culture has a hugely vested interest in making sure we're all frothing at the mouth with tribalism and so we get conditioned to live in that reality. Still seems to me that you can go hard after a given argument (IF YOU HAVE A GOOD POINT TO MAKE) without remotely going after the person making it. This discussion in my view has been pretty dang civil thus far. By modern day standards, yeah, I'd say it's been pretty civil. Haha
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Nov 18, 2017 21:44:48 GMT -6
I find it interesting that so many reasonable people with obvious intelligence can have such differing views. I agree that economics is not a science, and there are probably way more failures to predict outcomes than there are accurate predictions based on known facts. It is clearly a very complicated subject, and it begins to seep into other areas like religion and racism when you look closely.
I think it's undeniable the climate is changing for the worse, and our economy is probably already overburdened with the current disaster issues. We'll eventually reach an end point where we finally look at all we do as people and either adjust or die. We may not see it, but our grandchildren will. There are many things that are facts, yet people deny or ignore them for their own purposes I guess. Something as simple allowing wolves to return to Yosemite completely altered the ecology. Rivers changed locations, animal population balance was restored, species thrived, and the entire eco system benefitted, yet people want to kill them. Recent studies of whales have proven their movements up and down in the ocean creates more abundant plankton that feeds the entire food chain, so more whales equals more fish for everyone, yet they'll continue to hunt them to the brink of extinction. Our self destructive tendencies will either have to change or we will in fact, self destruct. Otherwise we'll make life on earth a misery when it should be a paradise. I'd say greed and selfishness are the primary factors in this.
So then, what must we do?
I've abandoned party affiliations that divide us. I try to discuss what I'm for, and then see if I have agreement.
I'm for clean water for everyone, are you?
I'm for clean air, are you?
I'm for safe natural food, not chemical infused disease makers, are you?
The issue becomes one of who will suffer to make these changes, and politicians allow destructive policies to continue to gain support and money. How many pipelines and oil spills must happen before people wise up?
If you can agree to those fundamental things, then decisions get clearer, though no less easy for many. The US has allowed workers jobs to be exported, but not supported re-training in a meaningful effective way, so we have good hard working people abandoned to subsist. I understand where some people believe in a survival of the fittest structure, but I've often found those people were of privilege, born into somewhat wealthy homes, that can afford higher education.
The racism is in between the lines of the tax reforms. There's also ageism, and wealthy politicians giving themselves more money through policy.
Will a studio owner see any benefit, that remains to be seen, but I'd bet it'll be small, and the working class and middle class will lose it somewhere else, they'll sneak in higher fees for other things like licenses, or add on taxes to cable bills. Wait until half the country can't afford or get medical coverage, maybe then people will wake up and demand real change.
Here in NYC, we've seen Trump in action for forty years, we know him better than the rest of the country does, and believe me, he'll rationalize screwing everyone except himself. I wouldn't trust him to do anything that will truthfully help the people struggling in our country, he's been a disaster everywhere he lands.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Olhsson on Nov 18, 2017 22:11:05 GMT -6
I think we all share the same goals but differ in how we think they can be achieved.
|
|
|
Post by Quint on Nov 18, 2017 22:16:52 GMT -6
I think we all share the same goals but differ in how we think they can be achieved. For sure. I hate how things have become. Internet forums don't help. Meeting for a beer to discuss things sounds so much more productive. I hate how we've all become us vs them.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Olhsson on Nov 18, 2017 22:40:33 GMT -6
Music is collaboration.
|
|