Total posts: 4,222
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Most Americans, even lower middle class, have personal retirement funds directly linked to the performance of the stock market, meaning All of America are investors of capital, not just the one-percenters.
roughly half of americans own some sort of stock or investment, 52-54%. So I would disagree when you say most people benefit from the stock market. It is only a touch over half. That still leaves 46-48% who get no benefit from the stock market at all.
Wall Street has been made main street due solely with the creation of the 401k.
Of the approximately 52% who do own some sort of stock, then yes, literally speaking the majority do benefit. But if you take a step back you see that the benefits are massively skewed. If you look at that link you will see a chart showing that 93.3% of stocks are owned by the top 20% of the population.
So to break it down, a touch under half get no benefit at all. of the slightly more than half that do get some kind of benefit, they are getting a fraction of a penny on the dollar of the wealthy. The vast majority of people would be better off pushing for better wages and work conditions than paying any attention at all to stock prices.
There is nothing wrong with using the stock market, but if you are making the majority of your money from a salary and not from investments (ie the vast majority of americans) then you should be far more concerned about fixing the economy so all the money doesn't go to the top than with how well the stock market is doing.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Nah bro. Dems haven't created private-sector jobs since JFK. Go fish.
You are either being super hyperbolic, or are disconnected from reality. Obama was in charge during a huge recovery and expansion of the economy. Trump then inherited that strong economy that developed under Obama, and it is now slowing and preparing to go into recession. Obama got America through a huge recession caused in large part by republican policies. Then shortly after he finished fixing problems we went back to a republican damaging things again.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Do you consider private-sector job creation a negative?
In general job creation is positive. However there is no evidence trump has had any positive effect on that. In fact, his trade wars are hammering a number of industries, soy bean farmers being an obvious example. Job growth is continuing to slow as well. While republicans love to claim that tax cuts for the rich create jobs, there is very little evidence to support that. What it does create is ever greater income gaps between a the tiny sliver of the population with the vast majority of the money and everyone else.
The corporate insiders are selling off their stocks at a fast pace, faster than they have in over 10 years. You don't sell off all your stocks if you think things are going to go well. They all know that a recession is coming. And while trump certainly can't be entirely blamed for it, he definitely made things worse.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
No, we actually do not. And it is clear how completely bamboozled you are with the doublespeak indoctrination to assume every Trump voter is like that
Did I ever say every trump voter was like that? I do not believe that I did. Fox news is just as guilty of that as every other news agency. And many of the people who watch fox news are as well.
It's been said over and over that his improvements to the country are much more important than the cosmetics of a president from all of us, yet you refuse to take that as a representation of the Trump voter because the media has told you that it can not be.
I keep asking over and over what improvements he has made. I have never actually been given any of any significance. He is doing massive damage but people just keep cheering on the madness and corruption.
And even yet, the media would have you believe that Trump is an idiot that is wrecking the economy with his policies while AT THE SAME TIME being smart and wise enough to allow Obama's "awesome" economic policies to remain untouched.
Starting trade wars with half of the world and massively cutting taxes on the rich are not Obama economic policy. What positive effects is he having on the economy other than giving handouts to rich people? And no, I don't consider that positive, but I would guess you do.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
The doublethink is where you first stated that he has lied 10,000 times, which means he is smart enough to know the truth 10,000 times, was in control of the narrative to craft 10,000 lies purposefully, and was mistaken due to stupidity zero times.
I don't believe I said he has lied 10,000 times. I did say thousands of times. But if even 20% of the incorrect or misleading statements he has made were knowing false or misleading, then that would still be thousands.
The press has made it acceptable to SIMULTANEOUSLY hold contradictory views about Trump with no critical dissonance. Namely, that he is smart enough to know the truth 10,000 times and evil enough to deceive us in every case while also at the same time being too stupid to know he was wrong 10,000 times.
And the right does not have the exact same cognitive dissonance about trump? "He hires all the best people", but he fires them or forces them to quit in disgrace every few months. "He is smart and has a plan", but when that plan blows up or is shown to be illegal then it totally isn't his fault or wasn't his idea. "trump is working hard for america", while he has gone to his golf resorts 223 times in less than 3 years costing the tax payers 10's if not hundreds of millions of dollars. In the age of trump where false statements are made at a break neck pace, I think everyone has trouble trying to figure out what is true, what is lies, and what is just his complete stupidity.
It's a clear failure of our higher education systems to allow such a casual disregard for critical thinking.
Trump literally called part of the constitution "phoney" because he didn't like it and fox news just agrees with whatever he says. Anyone who hear the president say such patently stupid and/or insane things and think he should be president shows the failure of our education system.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
There you go again with that Orwellian DoublethinkYou're like a walking case study in 1984 paradigms.
What are you talking about? Do you think only smart people can lie? Trump is an idiot who will say anything that comes into his mind if he thinks it will help him. He doesn't care if it is true or not. Sometimes he says things he has no idea if they are true or not. Often he says things he knows aren't true. He lies so habitually I'm not even sure he knows when he is lying anymore.
I don't think he is evil. I don't think he is a genius. He is a narcissist who will do anything to get what he wants. This is typically money, power and prestige/respect. He will lie, cheat, steal and hurt anyone who gets between him and those goals. He doesn't care about you, about america, about his family. He would burn it all down in an instant he if he thought it would make him richer and more powerful.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
Welcome to politics. The claim works for both sides of the aisle. You have to give Trump credit that he’s a master at persuasion.
Agreed. He is a skilled con man. If only he had the intelligence to actually do something positive with it.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
That's a far smaller group than the insane people that believe the "evil genius" has lied 10,000 times.
A great many people believe he has lied thousands of times, because he has. No one thinks he is a genius. He is an idiot who can't control the things he says and so a large percentage of it is just insane, stupid, or a lie.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Now, what do you think of the 90% unfavorable Main Stream corporate media claiming Trump is a deranged idiot while also being an evil genius at the same time capable of crafting over 10 thousand lies?
I think some people at some point thought he had some evil plans. no one thinks that any more. years of watching him bumble his way through a presidency has convinced everyone of that. However, some still do think that there are people around him pulling strings and they could have evil genius plans. Although that being said, he hired mostly incompetent morons, so it would mostly be stupid evil plans...
The 10 thousand lies things has nothing to do with intelligence. He just lies so often that most people have just tuned it out. the vast majority of people just expect him to be lying and therefore don't even care that he is. And a small percentage are so delusional that they honestly believe he doesn't lie.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Now, what do you think of the 90% unfavorable Main Stream corporate media claiming all of those as lies?
Frankly, I think lie is often the charitable way to put it. If he is a clever man who is lying at least he is competent, if dishonest. Many of the them are lies, but many of them are just complete incompetence. He is so stupid he simply doesn't know what the constitution says 3 years into being president. That is the kind of thing they tried to teach him before his inauguration but he was too dumb to learn. He is now shocked to learn that the partial transcript they released didn't end the impeachment inquiry. He honestly thought that a document that proves his crime would convince Pelosi to end the impeachment inquiry.
So if the media thinks he is in any way intelligent, then they would read these as lies and deceptions. When often the reality is he is just too stupid to understand.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Give me some examples where Trump was just wrong and not lying.
When such a high percentage of things that come out of his mouth are untrue, how can you tell? I mean he said he was a building a wall in Colorado. I assume that was him being wrong. Unless he wanted people to think he was walling off New Mexico.
He may have initially thought he had a bigger crowd at his inauguration than Obama. I'm sure it looked like a big crowd to him. But there were lots of photos proving that wasn't true. If he honestly thought that at 1st, it became a lie later when he saw the photos on the news.
He still thinks the central park 5 are guilty. I'm not sure he is lying about that, but he is very wrong.
He probably honestly thinks that his call with Ukraine was perfect and that hosting the G7 at his property was a great idea. But mostly because he doesn't know what the constitution says. I mean he called a clause of the constitution "phony". That is probably a combination of Trump's ignorance and his staff being too cowardly to tell him it is illegal.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Assigning malice to everything with zero context is exactly what is wrong with the crazy left today.
Assigning malice to 1 or 2 odd things they forgot to mention would probably be wrong. Assigning malice to dozens of contacts with russians when they claimed there were none at all, including meetings set up to get info from them and meetings set up to give them polling data, that isn't forgetfulness. That is lying.
Do you realize what an idiot I would look like if I asked one of my students a question then said they were lying if they got the answer wrong?
If you ask your student if they snuck out of class to go to the bathroom and they say no, they might not be lying. If they say "what, no. i don't go to the bathroom. I have never, in my life been to the bathroom. Anyone who says I have been to the bathroom is liar." You can be pretty sure they are lying to you. Saying you have had no contacts with russians when you have had dozens of them, is some pretty obvious lying.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Lying means an intent to deceive, which would mean repeating the same thing over and over multiple times to show malicious intent
That is not what lying means. You can say something not true once, and it is still a lie. Just because Trump changes what he is lying about 90 times a day doesn't mean he isn't a liar. It just means he is a MASSIVE liar that can't keep his lies straight.
, such as saying you can keep your healthcare 100 times.
Medicare for all would just change your insurance provider. It would have no change on what doctor you go to. In fact it would remove restrictions on what doctors you can see giving you more choice. So in what way is saying that a lie?
Or saying 100 times you have evidence Trump colluded with Russia.
There is a great deal of circumstantial evidence that rump colluded with russia. For example the hundreds of contacts he and his staff had with russians that they claimed repeatedly never happened and only acknowledged once it was proven that they happened. Or the fact that multiple members of his campaign met with russians for the express intent of getting dirt on a political opponent. I believe the quote was "If it's what you say, I love it". Or the fact that his campaign manager gave their polling data to the russians. Why would the russians want polling data if they had no intent to try to affect the election? Or the fact that he said in a speech that he wanted the russians to get hilary's emails, and days later russian hackers started attempting to hack the DNC. There is a great deal of evidence, but unfortunately none that is the smoking gun that could tie trump directly to the russians. So saying that this evidence exists is in no way a lie.
Trump hasn't done anything like that.
There is evidence he did. unfortunately we are not able to say conclusively whether he is guilty.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Most fact-checkers are actually opinion checkers.
No one is completely unbiased. Fact checkers are no different. Sometimes they judge things to be false based on that bias. I saw them rule something sanders had said about medical bankruptcies to be false, when the paper the fact checker worked for had reported the stats a few months earlier.
But trump lies multiple times per day and if you asked some of his supporters they would tell you he never lies. How someone can be that disconnected from reality is hard for me to understand.
Created:
Posted in:
I don't pretend to know which polls are accurate and which aren't, but I just thought I would point out that other polls done in California recently still show biden in 2nd or 3rd with Elizabeth warren in 1st. I would say we shouldn't put too much stock in 1 outlier poll.
Biden's support in south carolina is down a few points as well. He is still well ahead, but it's not like he has that guaranteed.
Created:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
For all the great many faults Trump has, this is one thing he does better than the rest, he lays it on the line, doesn't sugar coat or pander like the rest. That is to say he seems to do it the least amount.
Strongly disagree. Trump says entirely contradictory things pretty much constantly. He uses such vague, and in many cases nonsensical, language that people literally don't know what he means and then his supporters just assume he means whatever they want him to mean. Most politicians use double speak and talk around an issue. Unfortunately it is a very successful strategy. Trump just straight out lies constantly, often in ways where it is obvious he is lying. But since most people either don't listen to or don't believe the fact checkers that easily prove he is lying, most people just choose to believe his lies.
I'd prefer someone who will talk around an issue to someone who will just straight out lie to your face, then insult you when you point out he is lying.
Created:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
it's not who would you invite but rather what questions would you ask, fail to answer directly gives increasing levels of electric shock.
To be fair, the hosts of the debates are pretty biased and they ask lots of stupid questions, or phrase them in stupid ways. For example when they apologized to Biden while they asked him about he and his son's corruption. Or when they wasted like 10 or 20 minutes on "tell us about a surprising friendship"
If you only directly engage with the question they give, then the moderators can control what kinds of answers you are allowed to give. And the moderators seem to favor certain candidates.
That being said, when the questions actually make sense, it would be nice if they wouldn't go off on stupid tangents about radios and sending social workers into peoples' homes.
Created:
-->
@coal
Bernie, Warren, Tom Stier and Biden.
I'm curious why Tom Stier. He is a billionaire that bought his way onto the stage. I haven't seen him show any kind of platform to differentiate himself other than "look at me, I'm rich!".
What about Tom Stier makes you want to see him in a debate?
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
Warren. Only. I would give her the floor and sit in awe.
That's not a debate. That is a speech. She already gives lots of those.
Created:
I mostly agree with that list and the points you had for everyone. I would include Tulsi. She has some opinions that separate her from others so I see some value in her presence. I don't really like her as a candidate but at least she adds something to the conversation. She also crushed Kamela in the 1st debate.
I don't think Klobuchar should be there. She basically is just a centrist candidate the same as Biden, Butigeg etc. Her only difference I have seen is that she makes REALLY cringey jokes that someone else clearly wrote for her and that she seriously thinks that the Republicans will compromise and work with her, which is just obviously not going to happen. I don't see how she adds anything positive to the debate.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
if you go back and read what I wrote that may helpthe left wing plans will not improve things and would probably make things worse for the very reasons I have already stated and many that I have not.I would encourage you to search this topic and read the lengthy discussions many of which I have participated in. I'm not inclined to do all the work I have already done numerous times when it can be found.I don't need a better idea to point out one that is bad.
So your final point is that despite every economic paper on the subject saying it would save money, you choose to believe it would cost more money. You are afraid that poor people getting healthcare might cause a line that you would have to wait in. And while you have no idea of any other plan that anyone has that could actually address and fix the issue, you choose to just pretend like there are other solutions and that it is the left that needs to actually look into this. Even though the right has released 0 plans for how to fix healthcare.
that is just sad.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
No, he didn't. It's just one stooge in a long list of Schiff's clown car of witnesses with expert hearsay testimony. 2nd hand information isn't going to get this president impeached without a total flip of the house.
Wow you have really drank the coolaid haven't you? This isn't some "deepstate" guy. This isn't one isolated nut job saying things everyone else disagrees with. This is a trump appointee. He is confirming what the whistleblower and the chief of staff have already said.
There are now 3 reports by 3 seperate members of the government all saying they understood it was a quid pro quo. We are just a few weeks into this and we already have bulletproof evidence of 1 crime. 3 people reporting they knew of a 2nd crime. it is looking REALLY bad for trump.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
There fixed it for you
And yet despite me asking multiple times for you to clarify what your argument is, you still don't bother to do that. How is anyone supposed to be able to accurately debate against you if you won't tell anyone what your point is?
sure all or nothing, I got it the first example you gave.
Obviously helping everyone is better than helping a small number of people. That is pretty straight forward. But on a more fundamental level, I don't think that the survival of people should be a matter for individuals to address with charity. The only way to address the underlying problem is with government policy.
it's not a right
Not yet. Medicare for all would make it one. That's the point.
nope, it's not their job nor within their scope of practice, they will not do a good job at it. My opinion is based on past performance which is limited. Expanding it to all would magnify the incompetence and inefficiency that already exists.
So you see that the system is broken. But you don't want to make any kind of significant changes to that broken system. What exactly is your point? Do you want to keep the system exactly as it is? If not, what improvements are you arguing we should make?
if your car breaks down, doesn't work properly, do you just run out and buy another car? Do you replace the whole motor rather than just what is needed?
If your car is too old and there are no replacement parts, yes that is exactly what you do. The american healthcare system is so fundamentally broken that replacing small parts of it cannot hope to correct the issue.
You see the wheel doesn't need to be reinvented.I know, such a monster huh.
Maybe I missed it, but I didn't see any argument at all for any specific policy to improve things. You basically just said, someone should come up with something with nothing close to a specific plan. The republicans have had 10 years to come up with a plan to replace obamacare. They still have not provided a single idea for how to do that. They just keep repeating they want to repeal it without saying what their idea is. The reason they do this is because they don't have any ideas. There is no way to improve access to healthcare without more government intervention. They know that. If they released a plan it would be really easy to see that their intention is take healthcare away from people. So they just keep refusing to tell anyone what their plan is.
You seem to not want any left wing plans that would improve things, but there are no other plans available. If you are aware of a real plan to fix healthcare I would love to hear it. But as far as i know, no right wing plans for that exist, I think you will be unable to provide one.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
The linger the wait to impeach him, the worst it gets for them. But if they do impeach, they’re screwed. Pelosi is surrounded by two walls closin in rapidly.
Have you heard what they have found? The current top diplomat testified and confirmed that trump did engage in a quid pro quo. He testified that ambassador sondland made it clear to the Ukrainians that if they didn't publicly announce that they were investigating the Bidens that the US government would not provide aid.
That is confirming crime #2. Crime #1 being the fact that he asked for dirt on Biden in the 1st place.
How can you look at that and think "Wow, if they find him guilty of the crimes we now know he committed, they are screwed"?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
You still didn't watch the clip, nor had anything relevant to respond to since you have no fucking clue what they said.
They're idiots who broke into a room they had no right to be in to try to get media attention. Why would I give them that attention?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Watch this.
She is putting words in his mouth and not asking what he actually means. I have repeatedly told him what I percieve his position to be and asked him to clarify. He responds by not clarifying in any way and saying i'm just "emotional".
There is no method I can use to judge his position other than my perception of it if he won't explain it. But conservatives do love to pretend that they are victims all the time.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
A 23-minute clip with a response after 5 minutes. Color me surprised.
These idiots are all over the news. I already new the stupid thing they had done before you posted. Forgive me for not watching a bunch of partisan idiots talk for 20 minutes after they had essentially just committed a break in to get attention. If anyone else had tried that they would have been arrested.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
lol, strawman.
I specifically asked him several times to explain his position and he has repeatedly refused to explain it. All I can do is judge his position on how i perceive it to be because he won't tell me what it is. That isn't a strawman.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
since this is the 2nd time you've said this and I asked you to show where I said any such thing and you didn't because you can't because I never said anything like that, I view you as a liar.
I laid out what I interpreted your argument to be and why the logical extension of that is that you want poor people to die. if I have misunderstood then please lay out precisely what it is you are advocating for.
you could sponsor 1 child or add to what is already donated to "resolve the problem" of a few people. guess it's an all or nothing thing for you.
I could, but the system would still be broken. thousands, if not millions, of other children would not get help. I believe we should deal with the entire problem. Why would I advocate for only helping a tiny percentage of children when I can advocate for helping all of them?
LOL yeah I hear they've been doing a great job with the V.A. and medicare, they do deserve the whole thing from doing such a good job with those.
Those programs were fundamentally flawed. They weren't based on the concept that healthcare is a right. They were based on the idea that poor people can have some charity. Welfare programs are very easy to cut and undermine because most people don't care about them because most people don't benefit from them. But if you make it a program that affects every single american, it is extremely difficult to cut it or undermine it because you are directly harming all of your voters. That is one of the reasons why medicare for all is a much better plan.
I've long advocated in many, many threads that the system needs to be fix,changes made etc, most of which means LESS government.
Like what? there is no organization that is willing to help everyone other than the government. Companies exist to profit. There is no profit in helping sick people who don't have money. You will never find a privatized system that will help everyone. If you want everyone to get healthcare, I do not believe there is any alternative to the government providing it.
citation?
Here is a study showing 45,000 americans die per year from lack of coverage. Please note that this does not include people who are under covered (ie they have some coverage but still can't afford proper healthcare) as these numbers are much harder to determine. There are a great many people who die because they have insurance but can't afford the co-pay so they put off medical care and end up dying from complications. It also doesn't include people who die from trying to stretch out their medicine, ie taking less of it trying to make it last longer, which also kills lots of people. Unfortunately there is no 1 source which can show you the true level of death the American healthcare system causes.
citation for that one too
Here is a link showing that medical debt is tied to 66.5% of bankruptcies, approximately 530,000 families per year. With medicare for all this would be 0.
your assumptions are so far off the mark it makes you look kinda dumb to be honest, perhaps calm down, put your emotions in check, take the blinders off and read the words written in front of you without injecting your emotional knee jerk response to them.
What emotions are you referring to? You haven't given a single point disproving what I interpret your argument to be. Do you support a government plan to provide healthcare to every single american? Do you have some other plan that would accomplish this? If you don't, then you are supporting the continuation of the status quo, which as I have shown, kills a great many poor people. If you know that and still advocate for this position then you are advocating for their deaths. That is not an emotional argument, it is a factual one. If this is not your position then please tell me what your position is. It would be much easier to discuss this if you would clarify your position.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Well, housing necessarily has to be expensive. They have a large population compared to how little usable land they have. They have a median income that rivals ours with nearly no natural resources. They have very free markets according to the economic freedom index. They are quite an impressive country. Didn't know about all of those land taxes, but again, it makes sense based on the size of their country.
High housing costs would make sense. The fact that 1/3rd of their budget is made up from taxing it is certainly making the problem alot worse.
Their income tax is capped at 15% gross income, so it is in operation, a flat tax. Income is a good thing, so you shouldn't excessively tax productivity.
You are assuming that income is a measure of productivity. This is often not the case for the rich. They are often paid large sums of money to just sit on a board and do very little. HK also has no capitol gains tax. So people can inherit a large sum of money from their parents, never earn any actual income but just earn more money (tax free) from investments. You are thereby letting a large percentage of the country's income go entirely un-taxed.
As of 2013, the homelessness ratio in Hong Kong was .02%. I have heard it is going up, but that seems like less of a problem than you say it
Not being homeless and owning property are not the same thing. The home ownership rate in HK is 10-20% lower than other developed countries. This disproportionately affects young people who have virtually no chance of being able to afford a home. Here is an article I looked at saying that over 50% of the people they polled aged 19-34 had no intention to buy property. And the ones that did intend to thought it would take 10-25 years of working before they could afford it.
The government doesn't reimburse me if my investments fail, so what right do they have to take money made off of money they already taxed?
1) there are tax writeoffs for investment costs/loses. I don't pretend to understand them all.
2) i don't see the comparison. If you lose your job and lose income, the government doesn't reimburse you for that either. The point of taxes is to tax profit/income. That doesn't mean they are required to reimburse you if you lose your money.
But that being said. I would be totally in favor of taxing the total net worth of an individual (with 10's of millions of dollars) instead of their capitol gains. Then if you lose all your money your taxes would go down.
Yeah, I could look into those rates further. I don't know if methodologies for defining "poverty" have changed over time or have been accounted for in the graphs I have seen.
My short amount of research says they do update them yearly to account for inflation and cost of living increases. But since they don't take region into account, it is unclear to me how they determine what the cost of living would be since it will be wildly different depending on the region.
the rich almost never paid those 80-90% rates because of all of the deductions they lobbied for. If you are proposing a tax plan that they cannot avoid and are planning on actually taxing 80%, things will go quite a bit differently. Also, is your plan to tax capital gains at higher rates as well? If so, around what rate.
True, they didn't actually pay the 90% rate. But they were still paying at least double what they are paying now. I don't think an effective tax rate (IE the amount they actually pay after deductions) of 90% would work. But an effective rate of 50-60% certainly would. The capitol gains tax rate would need to be included in that effective tax rate.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Short version. A bunch of idiots and partisan hacks tried to storm into a meeting they had no right to be in so that they can get some attention and suck up to Trump. They aren't on that committee they had no right to be there. There are republicans who are actually on the committee who were there. This is the 2nd time he has pulled this publicity stunt. I hope the sergeant at arms tazes him if he pulls this again.
But this is the new stage of trump defense. They can't disprove the evidence showing trump committed crimes, so they will whine about the process. They want people to look at anything other than Trump, because there is no way you can defend and not look stupid. But if everyone thinks it's just a "witch hunt" then maybe they won't notice all the damning evidence.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
The wealthy are under attack every day by jealous retards. It's much less fair for them than any other.
Oh my god that is an insane comment. So the system that gives them all the advantages, all the wealth, all the opportunity is more unfair to them than people who are starving to death? I'm not certain you know what the word fair means.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Hong Kong is super profitable and they have some kind of flat tax-esque system.
I'm not super familiar with their system. But a quick check tells me that they get a large percentage of their income in other ways. In their 2019-20 budget they are getting HK$143 billion of their total HK$626.1 billion revenue from the land premium. Basically, and I am not an expert, it looks like any time land gets rezoned the government charges the developer a large sum of money. This looks to me like they are just heavily taxing 1 particular industry and that is having a significant negative impact on their economy. There isn't enough housing being built because it is too expensive to build. And even when it is built, the cost is so high few can afford it. The middle and lower class can almost never own property in hong kong.
They also get HK$76 billion of their total HK$626.1 billion from something called a "stamp duty". Basically (and again, i'm not an expert) they charge people a large tax any time the ownership of property (land) changes. This means that over a 1/3rd of their budget comes from heavily taxing land and development. That doesn't seem like a good taxation method to me.
Here is the article I got the numbers from.
But the money they invest has been taxed. The investments grow from the after tax dollars, so they are getting taxed again.
No they are not. The income was taxed when they earned it (assuming they earned it at all). They then use that money to earn more money. Those new earning are now being taxed. So nothing is ever being taxed twice. The income is taxed once, and the capital gain is taxed once. But those are 2 separate incomes they are receiving, each being taxed once. Think of it like if you had 2 jobs. You would be expected to pay taxes on the income from both jobs. That isn't being taxed twice. That is being taxed once on 2 different sources of income.
Our poverty rate has been rather stable since the War on Poverty began.
I took a look at the statistics. It is unclear to me how valid their statistical method is. I'm having trouble finding a detailed account of how they decide what the threshold for poverty is but it seems to be so low that these people are not able to afford the basics to survive. I did see that they do not account for region in their method. So someone living in new york city where the cost of living is much higher is counted the same as someone living in a low cost of living area. This could potentially skew results to be lower than they are because they are counting people in New York as above the poverty line even if they were starving to death because their rent is triple what is elsewhere. However I can't be certain without looking more thoroughly.
Additionally, the US poverty rate seems to be 30-50% higher than Canada's (depending on which year you look at). So it is still considerable.
I would say that we need to extensively study the opportunity cost of taxing the hell out of rich people.
But taxing rich people was the norm for the majority of the 20th century. The idea that the rich shouldn't pay more taxes only started in the last 20-30 years. If America was growing from 1944-1980's (which it was) then obviously taxing the rich didn't prevent growth and prosperity. Why would you want to waste more time studying the thing america did for half a century?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
you called me a monster, I'm telling you to take a good look in the mirror, if you want to claim some kind moral superiority then I expect you to live like it, which obviously you don't.
I am advocating for society as a whole to make sure everyone gets healthcare. You are advocating for poor people to get sick and die. I don't have the resources to resolve the problem. Anything I could do would be a band-aid. The government can resolve the issue entirely.
do you understand what cause and effect are? If you could ever learn to tame your emotions you'd understand that is exactly what I have presented. Because you lack self control you resort to personal attacks and name calling.
Here is what I perceive your argument to be. If this is incorrect them please clarify what your position is.
1) you disagree with medicare for all because you think it would be too expensive and might increase wait times.
2) you would prefer to leave things more or less the way they are now.
in the current system millions of people die from not receiving proper care. Millions more go bankrupt trying to afford the care they need to survive. The logical extension of your argument is that you want poor people to not be able to get care (thus killing or bankrupting them) so that you don't have to wait a little longer. There is nothing emotional in that, there is no personal attack. I am simply laying out what you are advocating for.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
yes other countries are irrelevant to me generally speaking, problems are unique and so are solutions.
Problems are not unique. Every country in the world has the same problems providing healthcare. Pretending you can't learn from other people who are doing better than you is a pretty big problem.
How much of your money do you donate to places like Bradley free clinic or St. Judes?
Are are attempting to shift the conversation and the responsibility. I am saying that society, as a whole, should be responsible for these things. By definition that would include me. You are attempting to straw man me by saying if I don't donate everything I own to charity, then I shouldn't be allowed to say that society should be improved. It is a silly argument. I don't think basic human survival should depend on charity.
Why stop at healthcare? Don't people need food and shelter?
Yes absolutely. We shouldn't stop at healthcare. The government already has assistance programs to help people who can't afford food and shelter. But I would fully support fixing those too.
Stop letting your emotions control you, you should try harder to control them and see things how they actually are.
You are advocating that poor people shouldn't have healthcare. The obvious extension of that is that they will die when they get sick. Ergo, you want poor people to die. It is a logical extension of the argument you are making. There is nothing emotional about that. if you withheld all food from your child, the logical extension would be that you are attempting to starve it. It is not emotional to say that you are starving it, it is just a fact.
Stop pretending that logical examinations of your argument are somehow emotional and invalid.
Created:
Posted in:
Another update. The current top diplomat (appointed by Trump government) to Ukraine, Bill Taylor, confirmed in his testimony before congress that he was told that investigating the Bidens was a requirement for the aid money to be released. He also testified that trump insisted that the president of Ukraine needed to publicly announce that they were doing this investigation. He testified that Ambassador Sondland had to told an aide to the president of Ukraine this.
So for those keeping track, that is the current US ambassador to Ukraine and the current Chief of staff to the white house who have confirmed a quid pro quo.
How long do you think continuing to argue that there was no quid pro quo will continue? My guess is that they knew the quid pro quo was going to come out and they were using mulvaney to float their new defense. Namely "this happens all the time". Basically it is the trump classic, "I didn't do it, but if I did do, it totally isn't illegal".
Taylor testified that on September 1 he learned from National Security Council aide Tim Morrison that Sondland had spoken with a top Zelensky adviser, Andriy Yermak, in Warsaw, where Zelensky and Vice President Mike Pence were meeting. Morrison told Taylor that Sondland had informed Yermak that the funding would not come until Zelensky "committed to pursue the Burisma investigation."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
lol I don't care what other countries do or do not do, it's irrelevant to me.
You are arguing that bad things would happen if this was done. I explained that lots of countries do this and their system works much better than yours. But you see that as irrelevant?
another appeal to emotion and no denial of what I presented, duly noted.
Let me try this another way. Would be OK with it being legal to murder someone ahead of you in line so you could get a service faster? The wait at your favorite coffee shop is too long so you stab a guy and move up in the line. That is essentially what you are arguing for. You want poor people to not be allowed to have healthcare so you don't have to wait in a line. You are advocating for people to die for your convenience. While I agree that there is an emotional response to that, what with that making you a monster, but there should be a legal response as well. The law says you cannot kill someone to get coffee faster. It should also say that you cannot kill someone to get healthcare faster.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
facts don't care about your feelings
And the facts show that most other countries don't let poor people get sick and die because they can't afford to go the hospital. This sort of system (or something like it) is the norm in much of the world. It's your feelings that are the problem.
Americans like to tell anyone who will listen that they are the greatest country on earth. But America can't even provide healthcare for Americans. How can America possibly be the greatest when most other modern countries take better care of their people?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
So your argument is, if poor people get healthcare then rich people might have to pay more and wait longer. So we therefore should let poor people get sick and die to save a little bit of money and to make sure you get healthcare faster. That is a horrible, horrible argument.This is why I don't believe it will save individuals money but rather cost them more, increase wait times and create shortages. I can't see any other outcome.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Yeah, we will disagree a lot on what taxes should be. I believe in a flat tax. But we can agree in having very little deductions. I believe that the rich should pay their fair share, but that they have an equal right to their income as anyone else.
So you believe that the bulk of tax revenue should be drawn from people who can't afford to pay it while the people who can afford to pay it don't have to? That is not a stable system. It is the kind of system that lead to the financial ruin of other nations. (rome, france etc)
It was as I suspected. Rich people gain most of their money through investments, and since the capital gains tax is lower, they pay a "lower" percentage. I don't really have a problem with that. It is double taxation anyway.
It is in no way double taxation. Income would be taxed. If they invest that money to make more money, the original income does not get taxed again. It is only the new income they earn that is taxed. That is not double taxation.
Ok, if they aren't agreeing to cut military spending and end the war on drugs, that furthers my point that the debt will grow.
Not once the tax system is reformed so that the rich are actually paying their share.
And if you actually taxed the rich at 90%, do you think they would stay? You are taxing the people with the ability to avoid taxes quite easily. They have the resources to either take advantage of deductions or leave. If you put in a wealth tax like Warren proposes, that is exactly what will happen.
The US is the biggest market in the world. Rich people need access to that market to make their money. Some of them might leave. Most can't without risking losing their money.
Poor people don't invest.
Your're right. And that is why the whole point is to have poor people move up into the middle class. Once they have some income, more people will invest. At the moment, only a very small chunk of the population has enough resources to invest. That is the problem.
And cutting spending doesn't always have to include cutting welfare programs, but it typically would.
I agree there is wasteful spending that could be cut. But that is usually a fairly small percentage. If you are talking about making cuts to bring down a 1 trillion dollar deficit, you are going to have to massively screw over poor people. Instead of kicking poor people while they are down, the better plan is to get rich people who can afford to pay to actually do so.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Secretive Dems want to lynch that witch.
How can you continue to say it is a witch hunt when he has already confessed to 1 crime and his chief of staff has admitted a 2nd? Are you just willfully ignoring reality? Or do you understand that he has committed crimes and just don't care?
If it is the latter then it isn't a witch hunt. You just want to have a criminal president.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
New update, Schiff and Co. have yet to find a single Ukrainian official that knew aid was being withheld.
Any current Ukranian official has a great deal to lose if they say that. That's like saying if a witness won't testify so clearly there was no crime, while a gun is pointed at the witness' head.
No Quid established after almost a month of this nonsense.
1) watergate took months and months to find the truth. Expecting them to know everything after a month is ridiculous. Especially considering the white house has forbidden anyone in the government from co-operating.
2) the white house chief of staff admitted to the quid pro quo in a press briefing last week.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SirAnonymous
I looked it up. It looks like she's just refusing to say they will go up rather than saying they won't go up. Not an outright lie, but still not very honest.
She wants to avoid people misrepresenting her statement. She is saying that you will save money. Taxes will go up, but you will save way more with no healthcare costs. She isn't being dishonest. She is trying to prevent dishonest people from spinning her statement. I guarantee you if she said the words "taxes will go up", the headline for fox news would be "Warren promises to raise your taxes!!" and they would never get around to mentioning that you would be saving money.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Sure, I'm down with cutting deductions across the board. Most are unnecessary and are added to help the super rich avoid taxes.
I'm glad we agree.
Unfortunately I don't have a Washington Post subscription, so I will have to look around for that one.
sorry, try this one. I didn't read it thoroughly but much of the same info seemed to be there.
Nearly nobody ever paid 90% of their taxes. Because of tax exemptions, the effective tax rate was about 30-40%.
Ok, but the link i just gave you shows that the effective tax rate on the richest people is now 23%. They are paying about half of what they used to in taxes.
You say that you will gut the military, stop the war on drugs
I didn't say they would do these things. I said I think they should.
The debt is a huge problem, and most of our spending goes towards welfare programs. Do you not care about all of the debt we will incur?
Of course I do, but you are talking about balancing the budget on the backs of the poor. You want to cut spending that helps poor people instead of actually trying to take in the revenue from people who can afford to pay it. Rich people are paying a fraction of the tax rate they did 20 or 30 years ago. The way to fix the debt issue is to actually collect those taxes on the people who can afford to pay them, not to try to cut off poor people who can barely afford to live.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Trent0405
That record deficit Harper recorded was during an economic recession, he recovered incredibly quickly while the liberals running Ontario took several years to get the deficit below 11 digits.
Canada is a country of regions. some of those regions recovered faster than others. Ontario took longer to recover. The federal government's revenues include the areas that improved faster. Ontario's revenues don't.
Doug inherited a 15 billion dollar deficit BTW and got that down to 7.4 billion.
Did you actually read that article you linked? It says doug ford claims he inherited a 15 billion dollar deficit but that everyone else agrees that number is wildly inflated. Basically, he lied so that he could make it look like he was cutting deficit spending when he was actually increasing it. That link also says he is on track for the next fiscal year to go up another 3 billion. so he increased deficit spending in his 1st year and is on track to increase it even more.
Conservatives net the lowest average deficits for the province as well.
You put up a chart that covers 15 years of liberal rule. 6 of those years were an economic disaster and the recovery from it. If you don't include the years of financial crisis (which you just said harper shouldn't be blamed for, so the liberals shouldn't either) then the liberals average out to 6.6 billion per year in deficit. The conservatives averaged out to 5.9 billion per year. That is a pretty small difference.
Additionally, that chart does not account for inflation. 11 billion in 1992 dollars is alot more than 11 billion in 2018 dollars. So since the liberal's numbers are all more recent, if you don't account for inflation it makes the conservatives look better than they really are. So if you counted in the inflation the conservatives would be even higher. That isn't a stellar record for a "fiscally responsible" party.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Trent0405
Doug Ford hasn't run high deficits, it's supposed to be 7.4 billion added to the debt this year and it was 6.6 billion last year for Ontario.
So he is cutting spending everywhere he can in a period of economic prosperity, and he is still increasing the deficit. That is not good.
The former liberal government averaged much higher deficits, 13.08 billion, some years even upwards of 20 billion.
True, but those years were during an economic crisis. Governments always run higher deficits in a recession, and the 2008 one was a big recession. The last 2 liberal budgets were 6.2 and 6.6 billion. The conservatives got elected and increased it by a billion while we are still in a period of prosperity. That is not the economic stewardship they promised.
Also our former conservative PM in Canada had a few bad years but basically ran no deficit in his last years, maybe sheer wouldn't do as well as harper but still.
Harper ran some record deficits. It is true he was down in his last 2. However, debt as a straight number is not usually the metric used by economists. It is debt to GDP ratio. Essentially how much money do you owe compared to the size of your economy. By that scale our debt is really low and getting lower. Our economy is growing much faster than our debt. It is the lowest of any of the G7. Debt is not a an issue that needs any attention in canada.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Amazon doesn't pay federal taxes because of deductions. They pay payroll, state, and local taxes.
And that is a very serious problem. They are earning billions, killing off companies that do pay federal taxes, and are not paying a dime of that back. Those deductions need to be removed.
I am not sure about your claim about us paying more (percentage-wise). Is capital gains included in that calculation?
For the 1st time in US history the top 400 richest families in the US paid a lower effective tax rate than the bottom half of american households.
I don't see much value in taxing the uber rich. If we taxed the 1% at 100%, it wouldn't be enough to cover our spending
The top tax bracket in the US used to be 94%. During the 50's, 60's and 70's it was above 70%. Today it is 37%. The reason the US is running such massive deficits isn't because of social spending. It is because it stopped actually taxing the people who could afford to pay it and pushed more of the burden onto the middle on lower class. Decades of Republican pushes to protect the rich have massively defunded the government. The rich are paying about 1/3rd of what they did in the 40's (this was WW2 so it was high) but about half what they did for the decades that followed.
I hear no calls by Democrats to reduce spending below where it currently is.
Why would democrats call for such a terrible idea? there are lots of places where funding could be cut, the military or the war on drugs for example. But social spending needs to increase.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SirAnonymous
It isn't that she's trying to avoid giving a soundbite. She is lying outright and saying middle class tax rates won't have to go up.
No she's not. I've heard her answer that question multiple times. She says costs will go down. Which is true. She never says taxes will not go up, at least I have never heard her say those words.
Warren is trying to have it both ways by eliminating private insurance and instituting single-payer without paying for it in taxes. In reality, someone has to pay for health insurance.
No she's not. She is saying that taxes will go up, but by less than the amount people will save on healthcare costs. She just doesn't want to say the words taxes will go up out loud. She has never said, to my knowledge, that taxes will not go up.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SirAnonymous
The first half (by which I mean the part between the first and second quotes) assumes that the studies concluding single-payer would save money are accurate. The second half of my post explains why they are probably underestimating the costs and that single-payer would not actually save money.
Even if medicare didn't save money, my answer would be, so what? Then the US would pay the same amount and cover everyone. It would still be a massively better plan. But the evidence still suggests it would save money.
Sure, but that still doesn't change the fact that their single-payer healthcare system isn't nearly as good as advertised.
I don't think anyone has ever claimed the Canadian system is perfect. It isn't. But no one dies because they don't have coverage for a medical procedure. People don't get sicker because they skipped seeing a doctor for something minor because they couldn't afford it, then end up with a much more serious medical issue. No one goes bankrupt because they get in an accident and can't pay for their hospital bill.
The Canadian model isn't perfect. But it is leaps and bounds better than the US system for 90% of people. The only people who are better off with the American system are rich people who don't have to worry about the costs. And those 45,000 people you mentioned, are mostly rich people who want to pay extra to skip the line.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
The current medicare system is a seriously flawed system. Medicare for all covers everything with no out of pocket expenses(I think there was a maximum of like $100 per year for drugs, but I could be wrong). It is a very different plan. People like Biden want to do very marginal expansions of the current medicare system. Sanders and (probably) warren want a serious overhaul of the system to cover everyone.but that's not how medicare currently works, there are out of pocket expenses and premiums, heck if you want prescription drug coverage that's a totally different policy, it's an addon.
Created: