Trump

[Deleted]

Aug 18, 2018 14:59:22 GMT -5 Walter said:

Aug 18, 2018 12:04:50 GMT -5 AlaCowboy said:

So, post a link stating PROOF that 60M Americans will be buying short term insurance next year. Unless you can post this proof, I ask Walter to delete your posts here and publicly (on this site) admonish you to comply with the rules or be banned for a length of time.
By the way, in my younger family days I purchased short term insurance a couple of times when changing jobs and waiting for new coverage to kick in. It served the purpose exactly as advertised. Do you prefer Americans not be allowed to purchase this if they need it? Then you Liberal Democrats are the ones putting Americans in harms way.

You can ask, but you don't always get.

Ra mey, obviously, didn't understand my point.

To wit, the lion's share of the Trump tax cut has gone to the wealthiest 1 per cent-- roughly 3.25 million Americans.

If we subtract the 3.25 million from the 63.5 million white people who were dumb enough to vote for Trump, we get about 60 million dumbass peckerwoods who still haven't realized that Trump doesn't give a damn about them.

What is that old adage-- "There are two kinds or Republicans; those who are very rich, and those who are very stupid?"

[kaz]

Aug 18, 2018 15:22:56 GMT -5 DrSchadenfreude said:

Aug 18, 2018 14:59:22 GMT -5 Walter said:

You can ask, but you don't always get.

Ra mey, obviously, didn't understand my point.

To wit, the lion's share of the Trump tax cut has gone to the wealthiest 1 per cent-- roughly 3.25 million Americans.

If we subtract the 3.25 million from the 63.5 million white people who were dumb enough to vote for Trump, we get about 60 million dumbass peckerwoods who still haven't realized that Trump doesn't give a damn about them.

What is that old adage-- "There are two kinds or Republicans; those who are very rich, and those who are very stupid?"

Who pays the lion's share of the taxes in this country??

[Walter]

Aug 18, 2018 19:32:21 GMT -5 kaz said:

Aug 18, 2018 15:22:56 GMT -5 DrSchadenfreude said:

Ra mey, obviously, didn't understand my point.

To wit, the lion's share of the Trump tax cut has gone to the wealthiest 1 per cent-- roughly 3.25 million Americans.

If we subtract the 3.25 million from the 63.5 million white people who were dumb enough to vote for Trump, we get about 60 million dumbass peckerwoods who still haven't realized that Trump doesn't give a damn about them.

What is that old adage-- "There are two kinds or Republicans; those who are very rich, and those who are very stupid?"

Who pays the lion's share of the taxes in this country??

So let us explore that concept.
Do those that make the most in this country benefit by utilizing a system to which we all contribute? If so, do those people, in some manner, have any vested interest in ensuring that said system thrives?

[oujour76]

Aug 18, 2018 22:12:47 GMT -5 Walter said:

Aug 18, 2018 19:32:21 GMT -5 kaz said:

Who pays the lion's share of the taxes in this country??

So let us explore that concept.
Do those that make the most in this country benefit by utilizing a system to which we all contribute? If so, do those people, in some manner, have any vested interest in ensuring that said system thrives?
[/quot

?? What is your point?

[AlaCowboy]

Aug 18, 2018 22:12:47 GMT -5 Walter said:

Aug 18, 2018 19:32:21 GMT -5 kaz said:

Who pays the lion's share of the taxes in this country??

So let us explore that concept.
Do those that make the most in this country benefit by utilizing a system to which we all contribute? If so, do those people, in some manner, have any vested interest in ensuring that said system thrives?

Spend a few days and nights walking alone through those South Central L. A. and Watts ghetto areas and tell us how much the people there have contributed to the system. Then tell us just how much more the taxpayers must contribute while those others contribute nothing. We can indeed explore the concept that some pay much and others pay little or nothing. Therein lies the rub.

[Walter]

Aug 18, 2018 22:15:46 GMT -5 oujour76 said:

Aug 18, 2018 22:12:47 GMT -5 Walter said:

So let us explore that concept.
Do those that make the most in this country benefit by utilizing a system to which we all contribute? If so, do those people, in some manner, have any vested interest in ensuring that said system thrives?
[/quot

?? What is your point?

My point is that we all have an interest in bettering America.
Rising tide lifts all ships.
Somewhere in that mantra resides concepts that transcend politics.
That, fundamentally, is what the argument is about.
I tire of polemics that cite absolutism on either side.
Somewhere resides the correct path.
The discussion should be what that path should be.

[Deleted]

Aug 18, 2018 19:32:21 GMT -5 kaz said:

Aug 18, 2018 15:22:56 GMT -5 DrSchadenfreude said:

Ra mey, obviously, didn't understand my point.

To wit, the lion's share of the Trump tax cut has gone to the wealthiest 1 per cent-- roughly 3.25 million Americans.

If we subtract the 3.25 million from the 63.5 million white people who were dumb enough to vote for Trump, we get about 60 million dumbass peckerwoods who still haven't realized that Trump doesn't give a damn about them.

What is that old adage-- "There are two kinds or Republicans; those who are very rich, and those who are very stupid?"

Who pays the lion's share of the taxes in this country??

Not corporations.

Were there any provisions in Trump's YUGE tax scam bill for corporations that would incentivize the use of their tax cut windfalls for investment and job creation in the U.S.-- as opposed to outsourcing?

Any provisions that would prevent the use of the windfalls for CEO bonuses-- through stock buybacks, followed by stock sales and stashing the cash off shore?

Meanwhile, the GO P scammers will use their YUGE budget deficits to try to continue slashing funding for essential American services-- Medicaid, Medicare, education, etc.

It's plutocratic, Robber Baron horseshit-- government of, by, and for billionaire GOP donors.

[oujour76]

Aug 18, 2018 22:27:20 GMT -5 Walter said:

Aug 18, 2018 22:15:46 GMT -5 oujour76 said:

My point is that we all have an interest in bettering America.
Rising tide lifts all ships.
Somewhere in that mantra resides concepts that transcend politics.
That, fundamentally, is what the argument is about.
I tire of polemics that cite absolutism on either side.
Somewhere resides the correct path.
The discussion should be what that path should be.

How do you devise a tax cut that doesn’t return more to those in the highest brackets?

[kaz]

Aug 18, 2018 22:15:46 GMT -5 oujour76 said:

Aug 18, 2018 22:12:47 GMT -5 Walter said:

So let us explore that concept.
Do those that make the most in this country benefit by utilizing a system to which we all contribute? If so, do those people, in some manner, have any vested interest in ensuring that said system thrives?
[/quot

?? What is your point?

That's what I'm wondering. Yes, those people benefit, and they contribute a hell of a lot more than you or I do. Everybody who uses "the system" has a vested interest in ensuring that it thrives. So, what is your point?

[Walter]

Aug 18, 2018 22:43:09 GMT -5 kaz said:

Aug 18, 2018 22:15:46 GMT -5 oujour76 said:

That's what I'm wondering. Yes, those people benefit, and they contribute a hell of a lot more than you or I do. Everybody who uses "the system" has a vested interest in ensuring that it thrives. So, what is your point?

The point is that an eqilibrium exists that is the apex of "good" which transcends that which individually might be considered fair. For instance, condemning a stretch of land for a new highway is most certainly unfair individually, but serves the greater good, no?

[Deleted]

Aug 18, 2018 22:39:42 GMT -5 oujour76 said:

Aug 18, 2018 22:27:20 GMT -5 Walter said:

How do you devise a tax cut that doesn’t return more to those in the highest brackets?

In 1993, Bill Clinton and the Democrats narrowly passed an increase in the top income tax rate (by a 51-50 Senate vote, with Al Gore casting the tie breaking vote.)

During the next eight years, the growth rate of the national debt declined dramatically,  U.S. GDP and employment increased robustly, and Clinton handed Bush and Cheney a significant budgetary surplus in 2001.


Bush and Cheney promptly lowered the top tax rates for their billionaire donors, sfarted two wars, crashed the economy, and drove the country into a fxcking ditch.


Now Trump is repeating the same mistakes...

[kaz]

Aug 18, 2018 23:03:35 GMT -5 Walter said:

Aug 18, 2018 22:43:09 GMT -5 kaz said:

The point is that an eqilibrium exists that is the apex of "good" which transcends that which individually might be considered fair. For instance, condemning a stretch of land for a new highway is most certainly unfair individually, but serves the greater good, no?

What does that have to do with tax rates??

[Walter]

Aug 18, 2018 23:25:10 GMT -5 kaz said:

Aug 18, 2018 23:03:35 GMT -5 Walter said:

What does that have to do with tax rates??

It speaks to the irrelavance of the rates.
Tax rates are not about fairness. They are about maximizing the "good".
Similarly, mimimum wages are irrelevant unless they maximize the "good" as well. If jobs are lost because of it, not so good, right?

[kaz]

Aug 19, 2018 0:05:57 GMT -5 Walter said:

Aug 18, 2018 23:25:10 GMT -5 kaz said:

It speaks to the irrelavance of the rates.
Tax rates are not about fairness. They are about maximizing the "good".
Similarly, mimimum wages are irrelevant unless they maximize the "good" as well. If jobs are lost because of it, not so good, right?

What in the world are you talking about? I doubt you even know anymore. Tax rates, minimum wages, eminent domain, irrelevance, fairness... pick one and stick to it.

[Walter]

Aug 19, 2018 0:20:40 GMT -5 kaz said:

Aug 19, 2018 0:05:57 GMT -5 Walter said:

What in the world are you talking about? I doubt you even know anymore. Tax rates, minimum wages, eminent domain, irrelevance, fairness... pick one and stick to it.

All illustrate how a society ticks. You want to stick with tax rates, fine. They are part of the quilt. If cutting tax rates for corporations and the rich has less benefit to society than not cutting them, why do it?