Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

[mookie1995]

As if tax breaks weren't "free stuff."

The GOP bribes voters every bit as much as the Dems, my friend. They just use different narratives, but in the end it's the same game.

At least Bernie learned from past mistakes and stopped with the "if you go to college I'll give you a tax break" crap and made it about money in your pocket. Free is easy to understand.

 

[Rover]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

I vowed I wouldn't respond to your trolling anymore but for FDR's sake at least be logically consistent. Your thesis is a candidate may act in ways in the primary which also look forward to the general. Sanders' appeal to the inclusion of independents is a perfect example of that: broadening appeal despite it not necessarily paying off immediately in the nomination round.

Your adolescent poutrage is getting in the way of your own arguments, silly.

I think you misunderstand. Minority voters have historically and currently are being disenfranchised by right wing legislatures putting up barriers to voting. That word is associated with this practice. Sanders supporters using the same word to describe them missing a deadline to join the party in a closed primary is extremely tone deaf.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

I think you misunderstand. Minority voters have historically and currently are being disenfranchised by right wing legislatures putting up barriers to voting. That word is associated with this practice. Sanders supporters using the same word to describe them missing a deadline to join the party in a closed primary is extremely tone deaf.

LOL. Twist, man, twist.

 

[Rover]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

LOL. Twist, man, twist.

And you wonder why I have fun at your expense! Since you can read minds, read Bernie's and tell us how he plans on pulling out a victory in the primary.

 

[geezer]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

As if tax breaks weren't "free stuff."

This is one of the places where you libs always lose me. If you call a reduction in taxes a "giveaway" (most common terminology) or "free stuff", you have to believe that the thing that is being taxed never belonged to the taxee but that the taxer has prior claim to everything... right? What, are they just letting us use their stuff for a while, or what? Is your income or real estate your own, or the federal government's? Your shoes? Your education? Is there anything that you consider to truly belong to you?
I'm not advocating for tax cuts here, but trying to understand this view of property.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

And you wonder why I have fun at your expense

Um... right.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

As if tax breaks weren't "free stuff."

Meanwhile in Kansas.........................................GOP lawmakers losing patience with Gov. Brownback’s Kansas tax cuts.

Uh, huh?

“We’re growing weary,” said Senate President Susan Wagle, a conservative Republican from Wichita. While GOP legislators still support low income taxes, “we’d prefer to see some real solutions coming from the governor’s office,” she said.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

It's pretty bad when Reaganomics is so dead even a few Republicans get it.

 

[mookie1995]

Meanwhile in Kansas.........................................GOP lawmakers losing patience with Gov. Brownback’s Kansas tax cuts.

Uh, huh?

Why isn't Susan in the kitchen making dinner!?!?!?!

 

[unofan]

This is one of the places where you libs always lose me. If you call a reduction in taxes a "giveaway" (most common terminology) or "free stuff", you have to believe that the thing that is being taxed never belonged to the taxee but that the taxer has prior claim to everything... right? What, are they just letting us use their stuff for a while, or what? Is your income or real estate your own, or the federal government's? Your shoes? Your education? Is there anything that you consider to truly belong to you?
I'm not advocating for tax cuts here, but trying to understand this view of property.

A targeted tax cut is simply a subsidy by another name.

Surely you would agree that the government giving corn farmers a check for $.10/planted acre is a giveaway.

If they give that in the form of a tax credit rather than a direct check, most people would say it's still a giveaway.

If they then give a tax credit of "1% of adjusted gross income" or something else which is hypothetically the equivalent to the $.10/acre giveaway, how is that not also a giveaway? It's something corn farmers get that the rest of us don't.

What if they instead phrase it as the base tax rate being X, but all non-corn farmers must pay X+1%. Still functionally equivalent, but you would say that's not a giveaway?

 

[Kepler]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

This is one of the places where you libs always lose me. If you call a reduction in taxes a "giveaway" (most common terminology) or "free stuff", you have to believe that the thing that is being taxed never belonged to the taxee but that the taxer has prior claim to everything... right? What, are they just letting us use their stuff for a while, or what? Is your income or real estate your own, or the federal government's? Your shoes? Your education? Is there anything that you consider to truly belong to you?

I'm not advocating for tax cuts here, but trying to understand this view of property.

The free-ness isn't the lower tax itself, it's the evasion from paying your fair share for something we're already paying for in some other way (either taxes on somebody else less able to bear them or reduction of somebody else's services or debt).

The greatest "FREE STUFF" campaign in history was Reagan. He promised people they could keep on getting all their goodies but no longer pay for them because by the mythical magic of the market our revenues would rise the lower we pushed tax rates.

Spoiler: that didn't happen. Instead the rich got a tax holiday that has resulted in $18T in debt and counting. We all bear this equally as citizens, in fact, not even so equally since the services that are curtailed with the inevitable spending cuts are disproportionately lost by the poor.

What GOP fiscal policies accomplish is a tremendous redistribution of pain, from the rich to the middle class and the poor. And that is exactly what they were designed to do, which is why they were sold as a package deal with social policies so that rural and suburban whites would cut their own throats to spite blacky.

It worked. I'll give em that.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

Frankly a Sanders nomination would have been very risky. Would minorities turn out?

Why wouldn't they? He is for more free money/food than Billery is.

Minorities should turn out for Sanders because he's for more free money? That's kind of an 'out there' statement.

Minorities would turn out for Hillary because they identify with her much more. The same reason anyone else turns out for their preferred candidate.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

This is one of the places where you libs always lose me. If you call a reduction in taxes a "giveaway" (most common terminology) or "free stuff", you have to believe that the thing that is being taxed never belonged to the taxee but that the taxer has prior claim to everything... right? What, are they just letting us use their stuff for a while, or what? Is your income or real estate your own, or the federal government's? Your shoes? Your education? Is there anything that you consider to truly belong to you?
I'm not advocating for tax cuts here, but trying to understand this view of property.

I may own my house but my ownership of the house is based on a market that Wall Street is able to destroy without consequence. See the problem? You may own things but no matter what you are in partnership with the government. It's always entertaining for us libs to watch Mitt Romney live in the United States, send his kids to the schools that the United States governments (state and federal) provide and then ship all his money to the bahamas so he doesn't have to pay for it. Or the CEO who moves his corporate office to Ireland and then sends his kid to Harvard.

I can BS on both of those. You want your company in Ireland then move there with your family. Don't let the door hit you in the *** on the way out.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

The paradox is that when communities grow too large and too diverse people stop giving a crap about others who don't look like them or live near them, but because we self-segregate we live in rich local communities where nobody needs assistance or poor local communities where nobody can afford to pay for others' assistance. So, national assistance creates resentment that is easily exploited by right wing ideologues, while local assistance doesn't work.

Nobody's figured out a practical solution to the problem yet, other than the Greeks' "when your town population gets to 10,000 send all but the first sons to either found a colony or steal somebody else's."

 

[Rover]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

The paradox is that when communities grow too large and too diverse people stop giving a crap about others who don't look like them or live near them, but because we self-segregate we live in rich local communities where nobody needs assistance or poor local communities where nobody can afford to pay for others' assistance. So, national assistance creates resentment that is easily exploited by right wing ideologues, while local assistance doesn't work.

Nobody's figured out a practical solution to the problem yet, other than the Greeks' "when your town population gets to 10,000 send all but the first sons to either found a colony or steal somebody else's."

My experience is a bit different. Struggling communities can't get ahead because all the people with talent leave instead of staying and building the place up. I can't blame them. I did the same thing. But if the choice is move to the prosperous community near where the jobs are, or commute 60 miles which is like 2 1/2 hours in rush hour traffic to stay where you're from, moving to live with snooty people wins out nearly every time. People gravitate to where the jobs are (BOS, NYC, DC, Austin, SF, Seattle, etc) unless they're moving somewhere to retire.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

My experience is a bit different. Struggling communities can't get ahead because all the people with talent leave instead of staying and building the place up. I can't blame them. I did the same thing. But if the choice is move to the prosperous community near where the jobs are, or commute 60 miles which is like 2 1/2 hours in rush hour traffic to stay where you're from, moving to live with snooty people wins out nearly every time. People gravitate to where the jobs are (BOS, NYC, DC, Austin, SF, Seattle, etc) unless they're moving somewhere to retire.

I think we're describing the same elephant. High achieving kids who come from poor communities and beat the odds often don't have the ability, even if they wanted to, to go back home, raise their family, and contribute to the tax base to improve things, because the kind of work they do just isn't available in those communities. If you grow up in Atherton and go to Stanford you can live right down the block from where you grew up and work for HP. If you grew up in Pig's Knuckle, Arkansas and follow the same education and career path, you can't go home again.

We could solve part of this problem by moving school funding from local to at least state, if not national, granularity. But then you run right back into the "community too large and diverse for people to give a crap" part of monkey nature.

 

[St. Clown]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

I may own my house but my ownership of the house is based on a market that Wall Street is able to destroy without consequence. See the problem? You may own things but no matter what you are in partnership with the government. It's always entertaining for us libs to watch Mitt Romney live in the United States, send his kids to the schools that the United States governments (state and federal) provide and then ship all his money to the bahamas so he doesn't have to pay for it. Or the CEO who moves his corporate office to Ireland and then sends his kid to Harvard.

I can BS on both of those. You want your company in Ireland then move there with your family. Don't let the door hit you in the *** on the way out.

You may dislike Romney for a whole host of reasons, but those you've ascribed to him in this post are pretty much all wrong. I guarantee you that all of his kids, like he did, attended private schools for all of their educations. When it came to taxes, his IRS filings released during the election showed that he routinely skipped out on taking advantage of certain deductions and credits he was permitted, based upon tax experts' analyses, paying a higher percentage of his income in taxes than President Obama, and also giving more in charitable contributions.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

Ready the fainting couches.

 

[unofan]

You may dislike Romney for a whole host of reasons, but those you've ascribed to him in this post are pretty much all wrong. I guarantee you that all of his kids, like he did, attended private schools for all of their educations. When it came to taxes, his IRS filings released during the election showed that he routinely skipped out on taking advantage of certain deductions and credits he was permitted, based upon tax experts' analyses, paying a higher percentage of his income in taxes than President Obama, and also giving more in charitable contributions.

And by routinely, you meant one time (since he only released one year) and he likely refiled after the election to take advantage of said deductions and credits.

 

[St. Clown]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

And by routinely, you meant one time (since he only released one year) and he likely refiled after the election to take advantage of said deductions and credits.

I recall reading that he released five years of data, but could easily be mistaken.

Mind you, I did not vote for the man.

ETA: Just did a small bit of research, and he release two years of data, per MotherJones.