Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

General Interest > Political Discussion
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies   Sporeworks.EU Spores for European Microscopy   MagicBag.co All-In-One Bags That Don't Suck   Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds

Jump to first unread post Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 |
Re: The new GOP tax plan [Re: akira_akuma] * 3
    #24667377 -

A US default would probably permanently cripple the US economy. A good chunk of why the USD is so strong is because of a longstanding tradition, started by Alexander Hamilton shortly after the war for independence, to always pay back debts. Of all the countries in the world, the US is the only one with a sizeable economy and a history of always paying back debt.

This is not a track record that we want to break.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The new GOP tax plan [Re: Kryptos]
    #24667382 -

i was kidding. i was making fascist satirical comedy! :yesnod:


Quote:
They work harder, they work cheaper, they don't have a firm understanding of basic workplace safety laws and labor standards, and if there's ever any problems, then the prof can "accidentally" forget to sign a visa application and the government deals with them.



nicely said. welcome to the leftist attrition..or at least, in Canada it's leftist! although the demarcation between what is "left" and what is "right" is becoming quite blurry.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The new GOP tax plan [Re: Kryptos] * 1
    #24667385 -

Kryptos said:
qman said:
Like I said, the economy is structurally damaged. If we can't deport illegals then there's no hope for higher wages and stopping the lower standard of living.

This tax plan isn't even revenue neutral, it would cause even higher deficits and increase the already $20 trillion and growing debt.

Trump is fucked, just wait until the business cycle comes to and end in the next few years, we haven't seen anything yet.


If anything, deportation makes not paying people easier. I can hire some illegals (because there will always be illegals) and instead of paying them, threaten to report them to ICE. Who wants to deal with American workers and their "rights" and "minimum wage" bullshit? I sure as shit don't. There's a reason pretty much every professor with good foreign connections ships grad students in from places like Russia, China, and India. They work harder, they work cheaper, they don't have a firm understanding of basic workplace safety laws and labor standards, and if there's ever any problems, then the prof can "accidentally" forget to sign a visa application and the government deals with them.


You make a valid point, who does want to deal with hiring American workers today?  Obviously, not many people.

Like I said, the US economy is structurally damaged for the vast majority of the population.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The new GOP tax plan [Re: Kryptos] * 1
    #24667391 -

GOP wants massive tax cuts for the wealthy.
Democrats dont.

Clearly the answer is somewhere in middle: a moderate amount of tax cuts for the rich.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The new GOP tax plan [Re: qman]
    #24667393 -

yeah Kryptos actually sums up leftist attrition pretty well.

Quote:
Clearly the answer is somewhere in middle: a moderate amount of tax cuts for the rich.


it gets the ball rolling- GOP wants Trump slain...he's working with Nancy Pelosi, for christ sakes...he's trying to get his wall, and he's a mild tax reformer, at best. all that was gonna happen, anyway. all that's going on. i don't even know if he'll run a second term, kinda doubt it. but maybe that will be his "plan b", then.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The new GOP tax plan [Re: Kryptos] * 1
    #24667397 -

Kryptos said:
A US default would probably permanently cripple the US economy. A good chunk of why the USD is so strong is because of a longstanding tradition, started by Alexander Hamilton shortly after the war for independence, to always pay back debts. Of all the countries in the world, the US is the only one with a sizeable economy and a history of always paying back debt.

This is not a track record that we want to break.


The debt will be defaulted on in way or another, it's basic math at this point.

We shouldn't feel too bad, all developed nations will also be in the same boat.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The new GOP tax plan [Re: qman]
    #24667410 -

Quote:
The debt will be defaulted on in way or another, it's basic math at this point.

We shouldn't feel too bad, all developed nations will also be in the same boat.


exactly.
The illusion provides nothing but cuts, the shattering of the illusion brings nothing but cuts.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The new GOP tax plan [Re: akira_akuma] * 2
    #24667418 -



--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The new GOP tax plan [Re: akira_akuma] * 3
    #24667422 -

akira_akuma said:
Quote:
Most of the bailout money went to banks, but of that that went to states California and New York are the two highest. That's not unreasonable when you consider that those two states combined make up about 1/5 of the entire US population. Do you honestly think other states were somehow different when it came to the housing crash?


different is defined as...? you mean different in a manner more so than what i've already mentioned? you just said it..."those two states combined make up about 1/5 of the entire US population"... so yes, there is a difference, and you already answered your own question.


Different as in holding differing political idealogies, the point you are trying to purport here. The banks did not care if they were lending to a conservative or a liberal or a Californian or a Missourian, their money spends the same. 
Quote:
Quote:
The housing crash wasn't even confined to the United States much less two states you disagree with politically, it was broad and systemic. It was caused by a lack of oversight of our regulatory agencies, a lack of responsibility of the bankers handing out the loans as well as those repackaging and selling them as investments, those who are supposed to be ranking the value of said loans, and of course those who took out the loans without understanding the ridiculous terms. It has nothing to do with social programs or ideologies.



^ says you. i say it has everything to do with ideology and social programs, precisely.



Then support that with reason or evidence. So far you've simply said that's what you believe, why? How does NY offering more public assistance create a housing crisis?

To me that doesn't even correlate, people receiving public assistance are not likely to be the ones taking out mortgages to buy houses in the first place. I'm sure there were some that were, I've heard some pretty crazy loans being given out in that time, but the majority of the people were simply low income earners taking out mortgages that exceeded what they could feasibly pay back. This happened to conservatives just the same as liberals.

If you actually look at how federal aid is distributed you'll see California receives one of the lowest amounts (while paying the most in federal taxes), NY is in the middle, and the more conservative states actually receive the most. If anything that goes directly counter to your theory, but I don't think there's any correlation between the two either way and I don't see why there even would be. Your post just reads like an attack on people you disagree with without any supporting rational behind it much less supporting evidence.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The new GOP tax plan [Re: krypto2000]
    #24667430 -

Nothing will ever get passed in the Senate anyway.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The new GOP tax plan [Re: akira_akuma]
    #24667448 -

akira_akuma said:
yeah Kryptos actually sums up leftist attrition pretty well.

Quote:
Clearly the answer is somewhere in middle: a moderate amount of tax cuts for the rich.


it gets the ball rolling- GOP wants Trump slain...he's working with Nancy Pelosi, for christ sakes...he's trying to get his wall, and he's a mild tax reformer, at best. all that was gonna happen, anyway. all that's going on. i don't even know if he'll run a second term, kinda doubt it. but maybe that will be his "plan b", then.


I think you may be putting words in my mouth there, a bit. My ideal society is one with welfare for all who want it, in the form of a concrete 8x8 with internet access and an xbox, as well as free McD's three times a day along with a few doses of your drug of choice. I think about 30-50% of the population will end up in one of those permanently, happy, dumb, and soon to be dead. They weren't gonna add much anyway. We have enough automation and efficiency that we don't need all hands on deck. Feed them the scraps. This is a safety net. While they have all they need to survive in their little boxes, they also have all they need to better themselves and learn valuable skills. It depends on if they care enough about to do it. If they don't, fuck them. I'll pay some extra taxes just to keep them out of my way.

Now, the flip side of this society is going to be people that actually want more. The rising stars, the guys that love what they do, who are currently saddled with 9-to-5 robots that don't give a shit and want out. It would make hiring easier, because you don't have to figure out if the guy is there for subsistence money and doesn't give a shit or wants to actually work for you. If they wanted subsistence money, they'd be in a box upstate.

Notice I refer to these as "concrete 8x8" and "a box upstate", now, what does that remind you of? Let the nonviolent drug offenders go, and give the prisons free reign to run these things. Keep a few prisons around for the real criminals, the kind that fillet family members. and load the minimum securities up with burnouts.

Logistically, operating one of these things on a massive scale would be cheaper per head than our current system of welfare.

akira_akuma said:
Quote:
The debt will be defaulted on in way or another, it's basic math at this point.

We shouldn't feel too bad, all developed nations will also be in the same boat.


exactly.
The illusion provides nothing but cuts, the shattering of the illusion brings nothing but cuts.


Nah, debt can rise infinitely. Big money does not follow the same rules as little money. We just need to cut down on spending (military, maybe? I wonder how many of those guys are just there for the paycheck...) and have a positive trend for a bit to settle everyone's nerves.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The new GOP tax plan [Re: akira_akuma]
    #24667475 -

Quote:
I'm sure there were some that were, I've heard some pretty crazy loans being given out in that time


this was one of the prime reasons the bubble occurred. sure there were many faults...but this one was primary. tell me how i'm wrong, if you're so sure of yourself.

Quote:
This happened to conservatives just the same as liberals.


conservatives don't tend to vote in socialist legislative policies. :shrug: that's the point of the ideology subtext being brought up.

Quote:
If you actually look at how federal aid is distributed you'll see California receives one of the lowest amounts (while paying the most in federal taxes)


this isn't a "race", is it? California has the most big business, techfirms, agriculture, ect.
and of course it pays the most in federal taxes and receives less, it's a socialist paradise. that's why it pays so much in taxes & receives less from the federal government- because they are opting to make themselves richer at the behest of their corporate interests, instead for the good of the nation as a whole.

plus it's not the least...Delaware is the least...and you might wanna think about why.

Quote:
NY is in the middle, and the more conservative states actually receive the most. If anything that goes directly counter to your theory, but I don't think there's any correlation between the two either way and I don't see why there even would be.


no it doesn't run counter to my theory at all. :shrug: they receive aid because they are impoverished due to constraints on business practices.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The new GOP tax plan [Re: krypto2000]
    #24667479 -

krypto2000 said:
If you actually look at how federal aid is distributed you'll see California receives one of the lowest amounts (while paying the most in federal taxes), NY is in the middle, and the more conservative states actually receive the most.


fuck yeah Virginia.

carry on.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The new GOP tax plan [Re: Kryptos]
    #24667485 -

I actually agree with that plan except I'd give them healthy food as opposed to mcdonalds. Nothing fancy, probably not even as 'tasty' as mcdonalds, but I think poor quality food is a major issue in this country. Feeding them mcdonalds will not be cheaper to produce anyway and will just increase healthcare costs which in this scenario is coming directly out of tax dollars anyway.

Also I don't think you should 'ship them upstate' or whatever. Every locale should have a center or area designated to this and I think it would benefit both sides, you shouldn't be deprived of your family because of differing ideologies. If the 8x8 people all live together in a separate part of the state/country then they won't really see what they're missing or be motivated to better themselves, at least not to the same extent. Likewise any children born into that will essentially be trapped.

On the other hand the working class may both grow to resent them feeling they don't have that option, and not appreciate how limited a life it actually is, but also it prevents them from being taken advantage of themselves because they always have an out, they don't have to work that job, they would instead choose to. If the only jobs in your area are low wage at mcdonalds for instance and you have no upward mobility then it may well be in that societies interests to quit their jobs and go live in one of these concrete boxes, that would put pressure on the job creators to offer better jobs, improve conditions, or whatever the issue may be. If your job is worse than effectively being in prison then it's probably not worth doing to begin with.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The new GOP tax plan [Re: krypto2000]
    #24667490 -

you want everyone's life to be equally corporate-made consumer shit. got ya...only don't call it Mcdonalds, no, call it, Socialist Gruelcakes.

Edited by akira_akuma (09/29/17 12:33 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The new GOP tax plan [Re: akira_akuma] * 3
    #24667666 -

akira_akuma said:
Quote:
I'm sure there were some that were, I've heard some pretty crazy loans being given out in that time


this was one of the prime reasons the bubble occurred. sure there were many faults...but this one was primary. tell me how i'm wrong, if you're so sure of yourself.


You could be right, but I'm not seeing a logical connection here and I don't know what I would search for to prove this point either way, you can't prove a negative. You're the one who proposed there's a connection, the burdon of proof is on you to show it exists. I don't even have to propose an alternative theory to disagree, I just have to point out flaws in the evidence or reason that support yours, or in this case the absence there of.

Quote:
Quote:
This happened to conservatives just the same as liberals.


conservatives don't tend to vote in socialist legislative policies. :shrug: that's the point of the ideology subtext being brought up.


Unless you can show first that there's a connection between social programs and the housing crash then I just don't see your point though. Simply because the states with the most social programs had the most people affected doesn't mean much for reasons I've already mentioned; those states have the highest population per capita and generate the most income so of course you will have a bigger housing markets and more people affected. That's a very loose correlation.

Quote:
Quote:
If you actually look at how federal aid is distributed you'll see California receives one of the lowest amounts (while paying the most in federal taxes)


this isn't a "race", is it? California has the most big business, techfirms, agriculture, ect.
and of course it pays the most in federal taxes and receives less, it's a socialist paradise. that's why it pays so much in taxes & receives less from the federal government- because they are opting to make themselves richer at the behest of their corporate interests, instead for the good of the nation as a whole.

plus it's not the least...Delaware is the least...and you might wanna think about why.


This comment just seems all over the place to me. It generates the most wealth, pays the most in taxes, and receives less because it's a socialist paradise? Maybe that is true, but wouldn't that be an argument for social programs, it's clearly working for them right? And since when do corporate interests equate to social welfare programs? How does california not benefit the nation as a whole, they're effectively subsidizing the nation as a whole, they pay more taxes than they receive, in itself that's a net positive for everyone but california. Obviously there may be other issues that counter that, perhaps they're out competing the rest of us an stifling our economic ability for instance, but either you're not expressing anything like that if so or I'm not understanding it. Do you care to elaborate?

Quote:
Quote:
NY is in the middle, and the more conservative states actually receive the most. If anything that goes directly counter to your theory, but I don't think there's any correlation between the two either way and I don't see why there even would be.


no it doesn't run counter to my theory at all. :shrug: they receive aid because they are impoverished due to constraints on business practices.


If constraints on business practices required aid then wouldn't that put California at the top? They have more regulations on business than anyone in the nation yet they have the highest GDP by a healthy margin.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The new GOP tax plan [Re: krypto2000]
    #24667735 -

Quote:
You could be right, but I'm not seeing a logical connection here and I don't know what I would search for to prove this point either way, you can't prove a negative. You're the one who proposed there's a connection, the burdon of proof is on you to show it exists.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_the_United_States_housing_bubble#Speculative_fever
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_the_United_States_housing_bubble#Risky_mortgage_products_and_lax_lending_standards

Quote:
Unless you can show first that there's a connection between social programs and the housing crash then I just don't see your point though.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_the_United_States_housing_bubble#Mandated_loans

there? happy now?

Quote:
Simply because the states with the most social programs had the most people affected doesn't mean much for reasons I've already mentioned; those states have the highest population per capita and generate the most income so of course you will have a bigger housing markets and more people affected. That's a very loose correlation.


just look at the loans statistics yourself, i've PROVEN the correlations exist (not that i proved them, because other's already have done so before me). the thing is all the stats i can find on subprime loans are in AGGREGATES of the entirety of the US (more of the same OMITTANCE as usual, no state-by-state statistics studies i can find BUT i do have...), but there is this useful sheet...

as you can see.

there is rationale to this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subprime_mortgage_crisis

Quote:
Maybe that is true, but wouldn't that be an argument for social programs, it's clearly working for them right?


it would require purview to see how this is good for people in the US who don't want to see supergiants like California or New York to make all the rules for everyone in the country. it's partly why Trump won, for example...because of this fact.

Quote:
And since when do corporate interests equate to social welfare programs? How does california not benefit the nation as a whole, they're effectively subsidizing the nation as a whole, they pay more taxes than they receive, in itself that's a net positive for everyone but california.


no, it's clearly a net positive for California for all that, as you've already stared. and people don't want to be subsidized by Californina, they don't want to owe them anything. but they are being foisted into that position. it's frankly unconstitutional.

Quote:
Obviously there may be other issues that counter that, perhaps they're out competing the rest of us an stifling our economic ability for instance, but either you're not expressing anything like that if so or I'm not understanding it. Do you care to elaborate?



they are "outcompeting" and they complain about everyone else's "having less need" than everyone else, the people they speak for, though, are the people who get drained of opportunity from this socialism...they have to all, by default, to achieve the same net results, move to California...imagine that. :shrug:

that's the problem.

Quote:
If constraints on business practices required aid then wouldn't that put California at the top? They have more regulations on business than anyone in the nation yet they have the highest GDP by a healthy margin.


if people drop their bullshit, then they'll be the one's in aid. good reason why they want to make themselves a "sanctuary state". they are...frankly, acting like contemporary traitors.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The new GOP tax plan [Re: akira_akuma] * 4
    #24667827 -

akira_akuma said:
Quote:
You could be right, but I'm not seeing a logical connection here and I don't know what I would search for to prove this point either way, you can't prove a negative. You're the one who proposed there's a connection, the burdon of proof is on you to show it exists.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_the_United_States_housing_bubble#Speculative_fever
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_the_United_States_housing_bubble#Risky_mortgage_products_and_lax_lending_standards


"Speculative Fever" is price speculation, it's not related to social programs in any way. It's basically just saying that people, like with all bubbles, assumed prices/home values will rise forever without taking note of the real world implications such as there's only so many people to buy houses, only so many people can afford them, etc. The speculation also artifically inflated, or deflated, true values.

Risky mortgage products and lax lending is something I've already touched on. It can include lending to people on social welfare who cannot afford a home, but that's a tiny subset and not remotely required. It just means that the banks were essentially lending to unqualified people. Where they unqualified because they didn't make enough money, didn't understand the terms of the loan, or was it because they had no income besides public welfare? That's what's in question here and is yet to be proven, until it is I see no reason to assume the later.

Quote:
Quote:
Unless you can show first that there's a connection between social programs and the housing crash then I just don't see your point though.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_the_United_States_housing_bubble#Mandated_loans

there? happy now?


I'm glad you're making an effort to back up your position, definitely, but that doesn't yet prove it. Mandated loans first off is a federal program, but more importantly it's not even a social welfare program. It's essentially an anti-discrimination program.

In the past a bank could deny you from receiving a loan simply due to your demographic, "Oh you live in that neighborhood? Well you must not be able to afford a home then, sorry." Basically the intention was to be that they actually have to assess applicants based on merits, eg "can you afford this home." In practice it was obviously instead used as a way to push sub prime loans knowing or at the very least not caring if they could afford it.

Quote:
Quote:
Simply because the states with the most social programs had the most people affected doesn't mean much for reasons I've already mentioned; those states have the highest population per capita and generate the most income so of course you will have a bigger housing markets and more people affected. That's a very loose correlation.


just look at the loans statistics yourself, i've PROVEN the correlations exist (not that i proved them, because other's already have done so before me). the thing is all the stats i can find on subprime loans are in AGGREGATES of the entirety of the US (more of the same OMITTANCE as usual, no state-by-state statistics studies i can find BUT i do have...), but there is this useful sheet...

as you can see.

there is rationale to this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subprime_mortgage_crisis


I never denied there was a correlation, I even said something to the effect that there is a correlation because obviously if the housing market crashes as a whole those states that have more people, more wealth, and thus more homes will be affected the most. Uganda was not affected by the housing crash but we obviously are not going to say it's because of a lack of social programs, it's because of a lack of any real economy or housing market to begin with. The same goes for Wyoming, who was well affected I'm sure, but being a low population, low economic state you're not going to see much impact relative to the national average which is skewed by the most heavily populated cities and states.

Quote:
Quote:
Maybe that is true, but wouldn't that be an argument for social programs, it's clearly working for them right?


it would require purview to see how this is good for people in the US who don't want to see supergiants like California or New York to make all the rules for everyone in the country. it's partly why Trump won, for example...because of this fact.



I think you seem to be equating lobbying power with votes and that's far from the case. As far as voting power goes the less populated red states actually have far more power, that's what the electoral college is for, it skews votes so that those in red states have more say.

I absolutely agree that corporate interests are overshadowing the populaces voice, that's imo probably the biggest problem in the country right now, but those corporations do not speak for the citizens in their state, they are probably more often than not in direct conflict. Do you think the average new yorker or Californian has the same interests as these corporate giants? That seems to be what you're saying. And on that point how is trump even fixing that? He seems to be supporting it ten fold from what I've seen, I mean shit, just look at this tax proposal. This isn't helping you or me and it sure isn't helping people receiving welfare.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The new GOP tax plan [Re: krypto2000]
    #24667865 -

Quote:
Speculative Fever" is price speculation, it's not related to social programs in any way.


it is related to the overall pattern, however. social programs require the ever expanding state, which i refer to this subsection here of material:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_the_United_States_housing_bubble#Belief_that_housing_is_a_good_investment

and

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_the_United_States_housing_bubble#Expansion_of_subprime_lending

this is a more wide reaching problem than can be demarcated at this length.

Quote:
or was it because they had no income because public welfare?


what do you think?

Quote:
I'm glad you're making an effort to back up your position, definitely, but that doesn't yet prove it. Mandated loans first off is a federal program, but more importantly it's not even a social welfare program. It's essentially an anti-discrimination program.


true, but it's nevertheless a 'program', which needs ever the more federal funding, which is stagnant, due to socialist programs and their subsidies.

there is room for flexibility. but note how this feeds into the "expansion of subprime loan" concept above.

Quote:
Uganda was not affected by the housing crash but we obviously are not going to say it's because of a lack of social programs, it's because of a lack of any real economy or housing market to begin with.


i've been saying, the place that could use "socialism" right now is Africa. :shrug: not the US though, there is already too much.

Quote:
I never denied there was a correlation, I even said something to the effect that there is a correlation because obviously if the housing market crashes as a whole those states that have more people, more wealth, and thus more homes will be affected the more.


yes, and this situation of "more people" might just be the crux of the issue. and it might as well be a 'natural progression' in and of itself- not that i think that; i think that it's being led along this path to do socialist thought. :shrug: funny that by sucking other states dry, big cities get bigger.

Quote:
The same goes for Wyoming, who was well affected I'm sure, but being a low population, low economic state you're not going to see much impact relative to the national average which is skewed by the most heavily populated cities and states.



EXACTLY --- you said IT...now everyone can see for themselves, at least from another perspective than mine, but YES...PRECISELY. you got it. "RELATIVE TO the national AVERAGE...exactly. but what about the ability for upward mobility for Wyoming? it's being lowered (and thus the standard of living) because their industry suffers from a lack of subsidy which couldn't be afforded by the state anyway, so the fed just says "fuck you". you'd think that might be a problem. NY and CA get plenty of help...so, Wyoming has to pay more taxes, which they can't afford, to pay for subsidies they can't afford...what a conundrum, because i'm sure they are all incorporated into the federation now, no?

where to pool the money?

who deserves it more?

who deserves anything?

Quote:
I think you seem to be equating lobbying power with votes and that's far from the case. As far as voting power goes the less populated red states actually have far more power, that's what the electoral college is for, it skews votes so that those in red states have more say.


and people are calling now for it's abolishing. :shrug: does that strike you as odd?

Quote:
I absolutely agree that corporate interests are overshadowing the populaces voice, that's imo probably the biggest problem in the country right now, but those corporations do not speak for the citizens in their state, they are probably more often than not in direct conflict. Do you think the average new yorker or Californian has the same interests as these corporate giants?


no, but yet they like to prop them up. that's essentially the apex of the problem.

Quote:
That seems to be what you're saying. And on that point how is trump even fixing that? He seems to be supporting it ten fold from what I've seen, I mean shit, just look at this tax proposal. This isn't helping you or me and it sure isn't helping people receiving welfare.


mild reformer. everyone shitting on him aren't even shitting on him for rational reasons half the time (see the news?) and everyone says Bernie would be better (i find that there are problems with "free education" [diplomas are becoming useless lest you're in a STEM field], and there are economic problems and social problems that can stem form that [no pun intended]), and some just want to shit on him for no reason- technically it won't be till Oct. 1st when Obama's administrations finally fully cease, and it's all on Trump- his tax proposal is only mild in it's ability to reign in the corporatocracy, and build the middle class- it's not as strong as i'd like to see it.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The new GOP tax plan [Re: akira_akuma] * 2
    #24667984 -

Here's a good expose of the guy Trump brought out to show how his estate tax cancelation is supposed to help those farm families.

A good example of the right's deceptive tactics whenever challenging any kind of progressive agenda. 

At a rally in Indiana, Trump touted Kip Tom, a Leesburg resident, as a potential victim of this estate tax. “With us today is Kip Tom, a family farmer,” the president said. He explained that Tom’s family has been in farming for 187 years. “That could come to an end because of the death tax or the estate tax,” he warned.

The estate tax starts to kick in somewhere above $5,400,000 with a top rate of 40%.

99.8% of deaths are exempt from the death tax. 

If Trump succeeds in repealing it he will have given his twerp kids a gift worth billions at America's expense, not to mention the incredible warping effect inequality of this magnitude has on democracy.  It's already out of control, this will make it even worse.


--------------------
 

Either you repeat the same conventional doctrines everybody is saying, or else you say something true, and it will sound like it's from Neptune.  -Noam Chomsky

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 |

Shop: North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies   Sporeworks.EU Spores for European Microscopy   MagicBag.co All-In-One Bags That Don't Suck   Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds

General Interest > Political Discussion
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Income Tax checks!!
( 1 2 3 all )		 Innvertigo 6,608 52 08/21/01 02:04 AM
by capncracker
* Bush sneaks through more tax cuts for the rich during war
( 1 2 all )		 EchoVortex 5,163 39 03/26/03 11:09 PM
by luvdemshrooms
* Whining about taxes
( 1 2 3 4 ... 9 10 all )		 silversoul7 9,986 187 06/16/03 06:10 PM
by Azmodeus
* Tax Scam Redux EchoVortex 571 2 05/09/03 08:15 PM
by CoreHard
* GOP economic policy, a ticking timebomb?
( 1 2 3 4 all )		 Ellis Dee 5,248 65 11/07/05 12:04 PM
by Silversoul
* W.House: Tax Cuts to Create 800,000 Jobs
( 1 2 3 all )		 Ellis Dee 5,907 40 03/03/02 11:53 PM
by sparafucile
* Privatisation and Tax Cuts at work...USA
( 1 2 all )		 carbonhoots 2,903 39 02/13/03 06:59 AM
by Prisoner#1
* tax: questions from a libertarian Anonymous 774 8 06/13/03 07:33 AM
by Phred

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
2,298 topic views. 1 members, 51 guests and 20 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.035 seconds spending 0.01 seconds on 18 queries.