Trump and AOC, Very Similar Tactics!

[Philip]

Good observations here: https://nypost.com/2019/01/26/trump-and ... -politics/

[RickD]

That's offensive and divisive. I can't believe a moderator would post this. Blah blah blah blah. Cry cry cry. Cue the violin.

Signed,

Aussie SJW

[Kurieuo]

Aussie SJW?? Isn't that like a tautology?

[RickD]

Aussie SJW?? Isn't that like a tautology?

Isn't the first rule when using a tautology, the first rule when using a tautology?

[edwardmurphy]

Good observations here: https://nypost.com/2019/01/26/trump-and ... -politics/

Yeah, they use similar tactics to get themselves in front of the camera and get their messages out, but that's where the similarities end.

Actually, I suppose one could argue that both are politically inexperienced and have some unrealistic views of how things work, except that AOC is a brand new, junior Congresswoman who admits that she's still learning the ropes and Sideshow Don is the [love] President and insists that he knows more than the "so-called experts."

Also, a 70% marginal tax rate on the extremely wealthy is a fantastic idea that would be really good for the whole country.

[Philip]

Also, a 70% marginal tax rate on the extremely wealthy is a fantastic idea that would be really good for the whole country.

But the REAL problem is in how we spend the resources we already DO have (and mostly DON'T), without much stricter budgetary controls, living within our means, and working toward debt reduction. If all we do is blow whateveramount is taken in, if we simply keep expanding spending like drunken sailors, then we'll simply blow through whatever and remained prisoner to our enormous debt. We need to optimize those generating jobs and increasing the numbers of those who could work if helped and trained properly. And some people will require a carrot and stick approach - provide them training an assistance options to help them become producers of income. Whatever we can do to break generational cycles and mentalities, we should. But we'll always have a segment of society that sincerely needs support and healthcare, because they are otherwise ill or somehow unable to do what it takes to care for themselves.

In 2019, it is estimated that the U.S. government will take in $6.54 trillion in revenue. But in 2018, the U.S. borrowed about A TRILLION DOLLARS to keep it's rate of spending - which was an 84 percent increase in borrowing over the previous year. How long does anyone think we can keep up doing this without catastrophic results - especially for our children and grandchildrens' generations? Newsflash, we can't significantly make a dent in our debt by taxing the wealthy at whatever rate (and whatever is fair can be a separate debate). You just can't keep spending beyond what you take in. And if you don't get the debt down, it's a multi-trillion dollar boat anchor that has many terrible ramifications! What I can't understand is why so-called fiscal conservatives aren't screaming at the top of their lungs, daily, about this debt monster!

[RickD]

ed wrote:
Also, a 70% marginal tax rate on the extremely wealthy is a fantastic idea that would be really good for the whole country.

Good for the whole country? What about the rich that are being taxed at that high rate?

Doesn't that take away, or at least inhibit, motivation to be more successful?

Why on earth would someone want to make more money, to get that extra money put into a tax bracket that they only get 30% of what they earn?

[Philip]

Rick: Doesn't that take away, or at least inhibit, motivation to be more successful?

Why on earth would someone want to make more money, to get that extra money put into a tax bracket that they only get 30% of what they earn?

Which is the core of why socialism will never produce the quality economy that capitalism can. Of course, capitalism has the dangers of its excesses, monopolies, capitalist owners who often don't adequately share the profits or treat workers wrongly - and these truly are things that need addressing. And the rich are no fools - you put mega taxes on them and they'll simply move their money off shore, or take their companies as well. It's far better if the wealthy have fair taxes but that don't also kill their incentives to create businesses and jobs. This idea that the wealthy are all capitalist pigs who have no respect for the working class - sure, there are wealthy like that - but most want to grow their wealth via companies that have to have people to run them. And those that constantly practice class warfare / hate the rich, etc. - so many of them advocate things that will only harm our economic well being.

And always beware those who would like to be the stewards of the rich's mega-taxes. They'll typically use it as political "capital" to promise voters ever more stuff - and thus by doing so, it will build dependencies further. Again, we just took in record taxes to the government, and yet we borrowed about a trillion last year. It's just NEVER enough - and government is the absolute worst-possible steward of our tax dollars. The Congress can't even cap spending and stick to a budget - and we're supposed to cast more and more money at them?

[thatkidakayoungguy]

Also, a 70% marginal tax rate on the extremely wealthy is a fantastic idea that would be really good for the whole country.

But the REAL problem is in how we spend the resources we already DO have (and mostly DON'T), without much stricter budgetary controls, living within our means, and working toward debt reduction. If all we do is blow whateveramount is taken in, if we simply keep expanding spending like drunken sailors, then we'll simply blow through whatever and remained prisoner to our enormous debt. We need to optimize those generating jobs and increasing the numbers of those who could work if helped and trained properly. And some people will require a carrot and stick approach - provide them training an assistance options to help them become producers of income. Whatever we can do to break generational cycles and mentalities, we should. But we'll always have a segment of society that sincerely needs support and healthcare, because they are otherwise ill or somehow unable to do what it takes to care for themselves.

In 2019, it is estimated that the U.S. government will take in $6.54 trillion in revenue. But in 2018, the U.S. borrowed about A TRILLION DOLLARS to keep it's rate of spending - which was an 84 percent increase in borrowing over the previous year. How long does anyone think we can keep up doing this without catastrophic results - especially for our children and grandchildrens' generations? Newsflash, we can't significantly make a dent in our debt by taxing the wealthy at whatever rate (and whatever is fair can be a separate debate). You just can't keep spending beyond what you take in. And if you don't get the debt down, it's a multi-trillion dollar boat anchor that has many terrible ramifications! What I can't understand is why so-called fiscal conservatives aren't screaming at the top of their lungs, daily, about this debt monster!

As someone who is in the "young" generation, I think we're screwed.

[edwardmurphy]

Rick: Doesn't that take away, or at least inhibit, motivation to be more successful?

Why on earth would someone want to make more money, to get that extra money put into a tax bracket that they only get 30% of what they earn?

Which is the core of why socialism will never produce the quality economy that capitalism can.

First off, a marginal tax rate of 70% doesn't mean that a rich guy pays 70% of his total income in taxes. Not even close, actually. Here's how a progressive, marginal tax rate actually works. AOC actually proposed a 70% marginal tax rate starting at $10,000,000, meaning that you don't start paying 70% until your income hits $10,000,001, and you only pay that rate on the last $1 you earned.

Second, nobody wants socialism. Trickle-down economics is a lie. The idea that cutting taxes for rich people and corporations will cause them to create more jobs is also a lie. If you disagree then explain why we didn't see an explosion of job creation after the tax cut. We didn't, and won't, because businesses exist to make money, not to employ people. The only reason a business will hire more workers is if it's losing money (or at least stagnating) because it doesn't have enough workers to meet demand. If demand doesn't increase then a windfall will be given to upper management and stockholders, not wasted on temporarily hiring a bunch of unneeded workers.

The reality is that the best way to get a free market economy firing on all cylinders is to decrease wealth inequality, free up the money that the billionaires have locked away offshore, and give the workers money to spend. Give them the money and they'll spend it. Better yet, they'll spend a lot of it in their own communities. That will lead to more business for restaurants, stores, theaters, and everyone else. One way to do that is to use organized labor to negotiate for better wages. Another is to provide people with universal healthcare so they have the security to take more financial risks (like buying houses, starting businesses, and the like). A third is to lower the cost of education so that our kids can more quickly join the grown-up economy. Still another would be to raise taxes on the wealthiest Americans and invest in R&D and infrastructure.

What liberals want, by and large, is a social safety net that's worthy of the name and free market economy that's not corrupted by crony capitalism and stifled by out of control wealth inequality. That's not socialism, it's capitalism with a soul.

[Philip]

Ed: Trickle-down economics is a lie.

Depends upon how you define it. Tax cuts are no magic economic boost - least not long term. But it is true that it is the wealthy who build companies and hire people. Should they be generous with how they pay their workers? Absolutely.

Ed: The reality is that the best way to get a free market economy firing on all cylinders is to decrease wealth inequality

Isn't that what socialism tries to do? Again, wealthy people, if you tax them too high - or what THEY consider so, they'll take their money off shore. Or close up or downsize, or move the company off shore.

Ed: free up the money that the billionaires have locked away offshore

Good luck with that one!

"One way to do that is to use organized labor to negotiate for better wages."

One has to realize that there is a tipping point where companies will do their business elsewhere. Also, if labor costs are too high, cars, etc. will not be able to be made at as competitive of prices as many overseas can.

Ed: Another is to provide people with universal healthcare so they have the security to take more financial risks.

Many businesses can't afford this - and the government is broke. Would the public be willing to raise taxes sufficiently to do this? I seriously doubt it! Also, a huge percentage of businesses are small, and always must remain exceptionally competitive, so as to survive. Didn't find the most current data, but in 2016, firms with fewer than 500 workers accounted for 99.7 percent of those businesses. Firms with fewer than 100 workers accounted for 98.2 percent of them. So this idea of the greedy mega rich owning a high percentage of American companies with many thousands of workers - those are the exception.

And when you use words like "crony capitalism" - well, capitalism works AND has excesses per human nature. You'll find cronies in every economic system on earth! While capitalism certainly needs mandated oversight and regulation, there has to be a balance. You simply cannot take away a reasonable profit incentive for businesses, or they will begin to go away. And when the government starts telling business people how they have to run their businesses, or what level of profit they can keep beyond fair taxes, well, it will hurt us economically, because people will begin to close companies, won't open new ones.

Again, we must get a handle on our national debt. And people are very upset about taxes NOW. So a whole other set of goodies, national healthcare, free or greatly reduced college - that would require an enormous growth in our taxes - it would never fly politically!

[edwardmurphy]

I had a lot to say, but I'm going to skip all of it in order to avoid distracting you from this part, which is the part that matters most:

Would the public be willing to raise taxes sufficiently to do this? I seriously doubt it!

I think you're missing the point of a single payer system.

As things stand, most of us get health insurance as part of a benefits package from work. What that actually means is that we're permitted to buy into a group plan that is negotiated and subsidized by our employer. The employer pays part of the cost of the plan and deducts money from our paychecks to pay the rest. If you lose your job you lose eligibility to be part of the group plan (as well as the subsidy, obviously).

Suppose that we were to raise taxes 10% in order to pay for universal healthcare. Oh no, everyone screams! I can never afford that! Oh, tyranny!

But wait -

You're already giving at least 15% of your paycheck back to your employer to cover your share of the company healthcare plan. If we had universal healthcare then your company wouldn't be taking that 15%, so after a 10% tax hike you'd actually wind up with the security of knowing that a catastrophic injury wouldn't cost you your job and everything that you worked for your entire [love] life, plus a 5% bump in pay. Moreover, that poor, broke company would have higher taxes, but they wouldn't be paying through the nose to subsidize your healthcare, so they'd come out ahead, too.

Phil, there's a reason why every single developed country in the entire damned world has a universal healthcare system, and that reason isn't that they're all morons that love stupid ideas that don't work.

[abelcainsbrother]

Good observations here: https://nypost.com/2019/01/26/trump-and ... -politics/

Yeah, they use similar tactics to get themselves in front of the camera and get their messages out, but that's where the similarities end.

Actually, I suppose one could argue that both are politically inexperienced and have some unrealistic views of how things work, except that AOC is a brand new, junior Congresswoman who admits that she's still learning the ropes and Sideshow Don is the [love] President and insists that he knows more than the "so-called experts."

Also, a 70% marginal tax rate on the extremely wealthy is a fantastic idea that would be really good for the whole country.

You are anti-business Ed.However the Democrats have NEVER raised taxes on the rich that high and NEVER will.I don't know why you continue to believe their lies about taxing the rich,because all Democrats do is raise taxes on the middle class and poor driving them to be more poor to be dependent on government for votes.Democrats are owned by the rich. You already had Bernie Sanders and you rejected him for Hillary.But yet you actually forget that your vote does not matter if you're a Democrat because the DNC decides who is going to get the delegates before the people even vote. And then we get to watch on every news channel Bernie win states and yet the delegates STILL go to Hillary. I mean the Democrats are not even hiding rigged elections,they are right out in the open doing it and yet people like you still trust them and believe them. And you think rigged elections is a conspiracy theory when we know Democrat elections are rigged.

[edwardmurphy]

So a system that would lower healthcare costs for both consumers and businesses is anti-business. Got it.

You're projecting, Abe. I'm not the one who blindly trusts anyone who says what I want to hear. That's you.

I have beliefs and opinions based on knowledge and personal experience. I don't know everything, and I freely admit that. When someone here makes a claim that strikes me as unlikely I take a few minutes and investigate it. And as a result of my willingness to seek knowledge I've learned many new things. I have actually benefited from posting on this forum and interacting with people that I disagree with on virtually everything.

You, on the other hand, are the epitome of the Dunning–Kruger Effect. I've said that to you many times, but I'm willing to bet that you still don't know what it means. And that's not me projecting, it's me making an educated guess based on years of watching you fail to think critically, seek new knowledge, or even attempt to respond to an opposing argument. You think you understand the world because you watch cranks on YouTube and read conspiracy theories on Reddit. You routinely converse with a real live liberal, but somehow you still have no idea what I believe or why I believe it. I tell you all the time, but you still just make [poop] up. It's incredible. You are literally impervious to information that contradicts your beliefs. It rolls off you like water off a duck - they stay dry in the rain and you stay ignorant in the information age.

Oh well. I like playing with words, so it was actually fun trying to eloquently express just how irritating you are. Thanks for that, Abe. Pity you won't get anything out of it, but I guess that's how it goes.

[thatkidakayoungguy]

I like his Speech of the Union.