USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
POTUS 45.6 - Russia Is Just A Witch Hunt
- Thread starter ScoobyDoo
- Start date
- Status
Handyman
Hug someone you care about...
Re: POTUS 45.6 - Russia Is Just A Witch Hunt
It was a lie. If it was a mistake his braindead staff would be defending it a different way. (they would be talking about how hard it is and how he needs time to do it properly) They are spinning it and have been since almost the day he was elected because this was always the plan. They had been playing the "dont take what he says seriously" card since he talked about "Second Amendment Solutions" specifically so it could be used for stuff like this and be considered legit.
This isnt some mistake, this was the plan all along.
It was a lie. If it was a mistake his braindead staff would be defending it a different way. (they would be talking about how hard it is and how he needs time to do it properly) They are spinning it and have been since almost the day he was elected because this was always the plan. They had been playing the "dont take what he says seriously" card since he talked about "Second Amendment Solutions" specifically so it could be used for stuff like this and be considered legit.
This isnt some mistake, this was the plan all along.
mookie1995
there's a good buck in that racket.
Re: POTUS 45.6 - Russia Is Just A Witch Hunt
"200 million does not buy you what it used to"
"200 million does not buy you what it used to"
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: POTUS 45.6 - Russia Is Just A Witch Hunt
They had it in the bag. Never get involved in a land war in Asia. #MFGA
That didnt work out so well for France
They had it in the bag. Never get involved in a land war in Asia. #MFGA
Re: POTUS 45.6 - Russia Is Just A Witch Hunt
I was agreeing with what Handy said in my original reply.
I was agreeing with what Handy said in my original reply.
Re: POTUS 45.6 - Russia Is Just A Witch Hunt
When real jobs remain stagnant, but corporate profits and upper management profits continue to rise, perhaps we can finally kill the idea of trickle down economics. Duh.
But it's interesting that people seem jealous of China in terms of it's air, water, and worker laws. A race to the bottom, as it appears.
When real jobs remain stagnant, but corporate profits and upper management profits continue to rise, perhaps we can finally kill the idea of trickle down economics. Duh.
But it's interesting that people seem jealous of China in terms of it's air, water, and worker laws. A race to the bottom, as it appears.
Handyman
Hug someone you care about...
Re: POTUS 45.6 - Russia Is Just A Witch Hunt
Except that you really werent. You may have been agreeing with the words but not the context.
Except that you really werent. You may have been agreeing with the words but not the context.
unofan
Well-known member
For malpractice? A lot more, again not because there are more claims, but because the claims that are made cost more because their patients survived.
Tort reform in this case means giving a financial break to doctors making six figures and screwing over their patient who now needs a lifetime of ongoing care due to the doctor's mistake.
Last edited:
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: POTUS 45.6 - Russia Is Just A Witch Hunt
That's all been going on ever since Reagan, yet The Great Theft is allowed to continue. The GOP actively cheers it on, while the Dems do almost nothing to reverse it.
Compare how aggressively the Democrats have advanced the social agenda to how little they talk about inequality. In my mind the main message should always be that there should be progressive taxation reaching confiscatory levels at outlandish incomes which is used to put a floor under the poor. This should be what we spend 99% of our time doing, because most of the rest will take care of itself once we restore some semblance of wealth equality. And yet that is the one place Democrats fear to tread.
Tis a puzzlement.
That's all been going on ever since Reagan, yet The Great Theft is allowed to continue. The GOP actively cheers it on, while the Dems do almost nothing to reverse it.
Compare how aggressively the Democrats have advanced the social agenda to how little they talk about inequality. In my mind the main message should always be that there should be progressive taxation reaching confiscatory levels at outlandish incomes which is used to put a floor under the poor. This should be what we spend 99% of our time doing, because most of the rest will take care of itself once we restore some semblance of wealth equality. And yet that is the one place Democrats fear to tread.
Tis a puzzlement.
Last edited:
Re: POTUS 45.6 - Russia Is Just A Witch Hunt
The reasons why aren't that complicated. For far too long way more people thought they were in the top tax bracket than actual were. So if Dems talked about raising the top tax rate voters thought that meant them. Yes, you can't fix stupid. Try reasoning with Fishy or Flaggy sometime and get back to me about how it went. Despite all that, the last two Dem Presidents did push the top level tax rate higher and I'm including the surcharge that came as part of the ACA.
In that regard the term "the 1%" has helped a lot with the messaging, because a lot fewer people think they're making more money than 99% of the population. That term didn't really join the mainstream until Occupy Wall St IIRC.
The reasons why aren't that complicated. For far too long way more people thought they were in the top tax bracket than actual were. So if Dems talked about raising the top tax rate voters thought that meant them. Yes, you can't fix stupid. Try reasoning with Fishy or Flaggy sometime and get back to me about how it went.
Despite all that, the last two Dem Presidents did push the top level tax rate higher and I'm including the surcharge that came as part of the ACA. In that regard the term "the 1%" has helped a lot with the messaging, because a lot fewer people think they're making more money than 99% of the population. That term didn't really join the mainstream until Occupy Wall St IIRC.
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: POTUS 45.6 - Russia Is Just A Witch Hunt
Not at all. Americans GREATLY underestimate wealth inequality. They just don't know how badly they're being ripped off.
A lot of the problem is that the lobbyists and flacks and propagandists employed by the rich have managed to get by by intentionally confusing the difference between mean and median.
What if we simply said nobody should have more wealth than 1000x the median? 1000x median wealth would limit each of us to $44M. I'm pretty sure 51% of voters would go for that.
So why not propose it? Just it, nothing else? Not get lost in the details but simply "there is a max wealth if you want to live in America and be an American citizen." And when people ask why the answer is because enormous numbers of people are so poor they will never have a chance to succeed. I would say to the rich: "You won the game: congratulations! Enjoy your many millions. But you can't dance on the graves of those who are born into and live their entire lives in sh-t misery."
"We must have freedom to make as much money as we want" is a simple moral statement. I rebut as follows: "Your freedom to have more than $44M is not more important than the lives of the impoverished." Both of these statements have nothing behind them except for the aggregate moral judgment of the people of the country.
Not at all. Americans GREATLY underestimate wealth inequality. They just don't know how badly they're being ripped off.
A lot of the problem is that the lobbyists and flacks and propagandists employed by the rich have managed to get by by intentionally confusing the difference between mean and median.
What if we simply said nobody should have more wealth than 1000x the median? 1000x median wealth would limit each of us to $44M. I'm pretty sure 51% of voters would go for that.
So why not propose it? Just it, nothing else? Not get lost in the details but simply "there is a max wealth if you want to live in America and be an American citizen." And when people ask why the answer is because enormous numbers of people are so poor they will never have a chance to succeed. I would say to the rich: "You won the game: congratulations! Enjoy your many millions. But you can't dance on the graves of those who are born into and live their entire lives in sh-t misery."
"We must have freedom to make as much money as we want" is a simple moral statement. I rebut as follows: "Your freedom to have more than $44M is not more important than the lives of the impoverished." Both of these statements have nothing behind them except for the aggregate moral judgment of the people of the country.
Last edited:
Re: POTUS 45.6 - Russia Is Just A Witch Hunt
The rich like to attack it as "an attack on the American Dream", or something like "they are just jealous of us" kind of crap.
Even when the uber rich point out big problems- like Warren Buffet pointing out that his tax rate was lower than his secretary's, people don't care. Some thing it's ok, even. $15M in taxes is more than enough, even if that's only 10% of their earnings kind of thinking. I don't get that.
Then again, people justify buying a house for the tax deduction, ignoring the fact that they qualify for that because of the interest they pay someone else. Pay $500 to save $200, net -$300. That's ok.
The rich like to attack it as "an attack on the American Dream", or something like "they are just jealous of us" kind of crap.
Even when the uber rich point out big problems- like Warren Buffet pointing out that his tax rate was lower than his secretary's, people don't care. Some thing it's ok, even. $15M in taxes is more than enough, even if that's only 10% of their earnings kind of thinking. I don't get that.
Then again, people justify buying a house for the tax deduction, ignoring the fact that they qualify for that because of the interest they pay someone else. Pay $500 to save $200, net -$300. That's ok.
Handyman
Hug someone you care about...
Re: POTUS 45.6 - Russia Is Just A Witch Hunt
Well people like to assume that one day they could be that rich too. these are people that waste thousands per year on lottery tickets and go to the casino thinking they will hit it big.
Well people like to assume that one day they could be that rich too. these are people that waste thousands per year on lottery tickets and go to the casino thinking they will hit it big.
Slap Shot
I got nothing
Re: POTUS 45.6 - Russia Is Just A Witch Hunt
I think some people are just wired differently in how they think about it.
I'm not that much younger than Bill Gates, or what Steve Jobs would be if he were alive today. Personal computers and their processing systems could have been improved by my ideas, but they weren't.
When I see people like Gates, or Donald Trump or even some guy making $50 million heading up some corporation, it doesn't bother me in the least. If people steal money from others by committing fraud or outright theft, that bothers me. But if they got their wealth through hard work, through an idea they happened to have, or just through plain luck because their daddy happened to leave it to them, I really don't care. I don't even care if their money comes from investment returns on money their parents left them, and they've never done a days worth of work in their lives. It doesn't bother me.
It also doesn't cause me to conclude that somehow they are not entitled to it, or that they have more than they need, therefore they should be compelled to give it to society or individuals who need it more. I just don't think that way. I don't assume they should have to pay more for roads and bridges and the army than I should. I don't accept the "they have more to lose or protect than I do" argument.
Not sure why I think that way. But that's just how I look at the world. If you're in it, you contribute just like the next guy.
Maybe that's a tiny part of it, but I think most people realize they aren't going to be rich, and certainly not mega millions rich.
I think some people are just wired differently in how they think about it.
I'm not that much younger than Bill Gates, or what Steve Jobs would be if he were alive today. Personal computers and their processing systems could have been improved by my ideas, but they weren't.
When I see people like Gates, or Donald Trump or even some guy making $50 million heading up some corporation, it doesn't bother me in the least. If people steal money from others by committing fraud or outright theft, that bothers me. But if they got their wealth through hard work, through an idea they happened to have, or just through plain luck because their daddy happened to leave it to them, I really don't care. I don't even care if their money comes from investment returns on money their parents left them, and they've never done a days worth of work in their lives. It doesn't bother me.
It also doesn't cause me to conclude that somehow they are not entitled to it, or that they have more than they need, therefore they should be compelled to give it to society or individuals who need it more. I just don't think that way. I don't assume they should have to pay more for roads and bridges and the army than I should. I don't accept the "they have more to lose or protect than I do" argument.
Not sure why I think that way. But that's just how I look at the world. If you're in it, you contribute just like the next guy.
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: POTUS 45.6 - Russia Is Just A Witch Hunt
That doesn't bother me, either, out of context. But the bulk of great fortunes is inherited wealth -- people who did nothing. Even so that wouldn't bother me if a huge number of people were not born into and spending their entire lives in crushing poverty. Then it bothers me.
I don't see any reason not to limit wealth to a certain number and take everything above that and distribute it to people with nothing, in order to give them enough traction where they can then make something of their lives. I see that as completely reasonable, and it doesn't come down to "deservingness" arguments even though, with inheritors, I'd be perfectly comfortable casting it in those terms if you insisted.
Right now I liken our economic system to rule by force. Once human society was colored by force of arms. Then we created rule by law in order that the physically and militarily strong would not simply brutalize the weak. But money now has become just another tool of brutalization. I can well imagine knights in the 12th century arguing that some external standard -- divine will or their own merit -- had given them sufficient resources that they could now enforce their will on weak people, and they should be permitted to do it. Thus now do people make that argument about wealth.
I aint buyin' it. As long as people are starving, you can go without your tenth home. I am perfectly happy being called a Randian Monster for that ethic.
That doesn't bother me, either, out of context. But the bulk of great fortunes is inherited wealth -- people who did nothing. Even so that wouldn't bother me if a huge number of people were not born into and spending their entire lives in crushing poverty. Then it bothers me.
I don't see any reason not to limit wealth to a certain number and take everything above that and distribute it to people with nothing, in order to give them enough traction where they can then make something of their lives. I see that as completely reasonable, and it doesn't come down to "deservingness" arguments even though, with inheritors, I'd be perfectly comfortable casting it in those terms if you insisted.
Right now I liken our economic system to rule by force. Once human society was colored by force of arms. Then we created rule by law in order that the physically and militarily strong would not simply brutalize the weak. But money now has become just another tool of brutalization. I can well imagine knights in the 12th century arguing that some external standard -- divine will or their own merit -- had given them sufficient resources that they could now enforce their will on weak people, and they should be permitted to do it. Thus now do people make that argument about wealth.
I aint buyin' it. As long as people are starving, you can go without your tenth home. I am perfectly happy being called a Randian Monster for that ethic.
rufus
rock and roller
Spartanforlife4
Generic Catchy Message
ScoobyDoo
NPC
Re: POTUS 45.6 - Russia Is Just A Witch Hunt
It's not even that. And it's not what SJHovey said. You can explain it till you're blue in the face but the current tax/insurance system is rigged towards those at the top. That's the problem. Basic point. Capital is taxed less than labor. Everyone who is poor uses labor to make money and not capital. My labor should not be taxed at a higher rate than your 6 billion in the bank.
It's really that simple. You can also easily point to FICA and how massively regressive that system is right now. No adjustments in years. And Paul Ryan's solution is to tear the house down instead of fixing it, which would be easy.
That doesn't bother me, either, out of context. But the bulk of great fortunes is inherited wealth -- people who did nothing. Even so that wouldn't bother me if a huge number of people were not born into and spending their entire lives in crushing poverty. Then it bothers me.
I don't see any reason not to limit wealth to a certain number and take everything above that and distribute it to people with nothing, in order to give them enough traction where they can then make something of their lives. I see that as completely reasonable, and it doesn't come down to "deservingness" arguments even though, with inheritors, I'd be perfectly comfortable casting it in those terms if you insisted.
Right now I liken our economic system to rule by force. Once human society was colored by force of arms. Then we created rule by law in order that the physically and militarily strong would not simply brutalize the weak. But money now has become just another tool of brutalization. I can well imagine knights in the 12th century arguing that some external standard -- divine will or their own merit -- had given them sufficient resources that they could now enforce their will on weak people, and they should be permitted to do it. Thus now do people make that argument about wealth.
I aint buyin' it. As long as people are starving, you can go without your tenth home. I am perfectly happy being called a Randian Monster for that ethic.
It's not even that. And it's not what SJHovey said. You can explain it till you're blue in the face but the current tax/insurance system is rigged towards those at the top. That's the problem. Basic point. Capital is taxed less than labor. Everyone who is poor uses labor to make money and not capital. My labor should not be taxed at a higher rate than your 6 billion in the bank.
It's really that simple. You can also easily point to FICA and how massively regressive that system is right now. No adjustments in years. And Paul Ryan's solution is to tear the house down instead of fixing it, which would be easy.
- Status