A zillionaire's solution
« prev   misc   next »

3
6

A zillionaire's solution

By anonymous following x   2017 Oct 11, 6:47am 1,536 views   109 comments   watch   quote     share    


http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/10/11/republican-tax-cut-for-rich-economy-215696
"The Republican tax plan is a scam—a massive and destructive financial giveaway masquerading as pro-growth tax reform. Which is why our first response must be to demand not one penny of tax cuts for big corporations and rich guys like me. In fact, if I were Benevolent Dictator, I would substantially raise taxes on myself and my wealthy friends. Why? It is the only way to sustainably grow the economy, boost productivity, increase business opportunities and create more and better jobs."

Someone who gets it. This guy wants to help the middle class. Trump just wants to help himself and his family. Period.

« First    « Previous     Comments 63 - 102 of 102     Last »

70   CBOEtrader   ignore (1)   2017 Oct 13, 3:55pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote      

iwog says
the underclass is a permanent feature of capitalism


And yet the further a society sways from capitalism the worse off the underclass has it.

There is no solution to 15% of the worlds population having less than 85 IQ's. Even the army won't take these people.
71   Strategist   ignore (0)   2017 Oct 13, 3:57pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

CBOEtrader says

There is no solution to 15% of the worlds population having less than 85 IQ's. Even the army won't take these people.


Patnet will.
72   iwog   ignore (1)   2017 Oct 13, 4:15pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (3)     quote      

CBOEtrader says
And yet the further a society sways from capitalism the worse off the underclass has it.


Heard this 100 times. Totally destroyed it 100 times including in this thread. Is your scroll wheel broken? Unable to use arrows? Need help with basic Windows functions? Here it is again:

iwog says
American society has indisputably gone very hard RIGHT economically. Unions have been busted, taxes have fallen for the rich and will continue to fall. Wages have flat-lined since 1980 while profits keep going higher and higher. Trade barriers have been lifted, regulations have been eliminated, and anti-trust laws are a joke since Republican administrations refuse to enforce them. All of our treaties from NAFTA to CAFTA to the TPP are movements towards pure capitalism and all supported by Republicans. Wars have been fought with Republicans screaming their support while they called Democrats "seditionists". There is no more fairness doctrine, no more limitations on banks, no more limitations on media, and WalMart can destroy any town it wants. Right to work states proliferated across the country. Gun laws have almost universally been LOOSENED with open carry becoming the law in many states and Obama himself allowing guns in federal parks for the first time. Reagan made Eisenhower look like a communist. Bush Jr. made Reagan look like a communist and now the new Republicans in charge of congress will make Bush Jr. look like a communist by comparison.


Swaying from capitalism my ass. You simply cannot participate here without lying. Also you are totally incapable of building a case like I just did above with some very specific examples.

You are a troll. You cannot have a conversation. You cannot debate. You have no concept of supporting a point. The only rational conclusion I can come up with is you believe things that have no intrinsic value, meaning you accept them totally and without question but utterly without any explanation of WHY you believe them even in your own mind.
73   Strategist   ignore (0)   2017 Oct 13, 4:20pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

iwog says
CBOEtrader says
And yet the further a society sways from capitalism the worse off the underclass has it.


Heard this 100 times. Totally destroyed it 100 times including in this thread. Is your scroll wheel broken? Unable to use arrows? Need help with basic Windows functions? Here it is again:


you mean you tried to destroy it a 100 times. Even if you try another 100 times you cannot destroy the facts.
74   iwog   ignore (1)   2017 Oct 13, 4:21pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (2)     quote      

Strategist says
you mean you tried to destroy it a 100 times. Even if you try another 100 times you cannot destroy the facts.


Cite something you consider a fact relevant to the discussion. Keep it as simple as possible.

Do you people have any comprehension of the fact that every time you run away from a question you look ridiculous? Try doing it live in a classroom and see how good you feel.
75   Strategist   ignore (0)   2017 Oct 13, 4:25pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

iwog says
Strategist says
you mean you tried to destroy it a 100 times. Even if you try another 100 times you cannot destroy the facts.


Cite something you consider a fact relevant to the discussion. Keep it as simple as possible.


Just compare the standard of living of E Germany vs W Germany. N Korea, and S Korea. China today and China 40 years ago.
76   iwog   ignore (1)   2017 Oct 13, 4:30pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote      

Strategist says
Just compare the standard of living of E Germany vs W Germany. N Korea, and S Korea. China today and China 40 years ago.


What FACT do you want me to dispute? What FACT do you think I'm denying here? You made a claim and I'm not even asking you to support that claim. All I want to do is see if you can even justify the terms you are using and if you can actually find a FACT we disagree on, then perhaps we can have a debate about it.

Relating to the above point: East Germany doesn't exist. West Germany is more socialist now than 40 years ago. North Korea is a broken example and probably the same now as 40 years ago. South Korea is probably better off now as well as more socialist. China is a slave factory state with one of the lowest standards of living for any working class people in the entire world.

This is a shotgun smattering of irrelevant points. The truth is that the United States has gone economically HARD RIGHT over the last 40 years and that's indisputable. So where's all this prosperity for the people working at WalMart? Do tell!!!
77   bob2356   ignore (1)   2017 Oct 13, 4:55pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

Strategist says
bob2356 says
Strategist says
Now for the controversial part. Eventually, a lot of that money trickles down to the less skilled and the poor. How? The rich pay taxes. The rich spend on travel, restaurants. maids etc etc etc


Then why do the top few percent get more and more wealthy? When will this trickle down start. Reagan was elected in 1980.


Welfare Queens in America live better than most of the working class on the planet. You don't need more proof about trickle down.


This is supposed to mean what? You bring irrelevant to an art form. Most of the working class on the planet were a lot worse off compared to the average american worker in 1980. How has losing ground proved trickle down works?
78   Strategist   ignore (0)   2017 Oct 13, 6:17pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

bob2356 says
Welfare Queens in America live better than most of the working class on the planet. You don't need more proof about trickle down.


This is supposed to mean what? You bring irrelevant to an art form. Most of the working class on the planet were a lot worse off compared to the average american worker in 1980. How has losing ground proved trickle down works?


We have not lost ground. The rest of the planet, especially the third world is rapidly catching up to us. More they discover discover capitalism and democracy, the quicker they will progress.
79   Strategist   ignore (0)   2017 Oct 13, 6:23pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

iwog says
This is a shotgun smattering of irrelevant points. The truth is that the United States has gone economically HARD RIGHT over the last 40 years and that's indisputable. So where's all this prosperity for the people working at WalMart? Do tell!!!


Prosperity for working people at Walmart compared to what?
Compared to 40 years ago they are clearly enjoying a better standard of living. Even the welfare Queens are better off. You cannot just look at wages all the time, you also need to take a look at the prosperity gained through technology. Everyone, including the dirt poor enjoy what was once a rich man's toys. Cars, large screen TV's, computers, internet, smart phones. The list goes on and on and on. And you know what? The next 40 years will be even better.
80   iwog   ignore (1)   2017 Oct 13, 6:37pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote      

Strategist says
Everyone, including the dirt poor enjoy what was once a rich man's toys. Cars, large screen TV's, computers, internet, smart phones. The list goes on and on and on.


How about the luxury of a wife who doesn't work and a house you own and children you can feed from your factory job and a car you bought free and clear?

You think times are better now than before Reagan took over? You are out of your fucking mind and ignorant of history. But hey.......we're all richer for cell phones and video games right?
81   Strategist   ignore (0)   2017 Oct 13, 6:48pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

iwog says
How about the luxury of a wife who doesn't work

Wives worked. They worked like hell at home cleaning and cooking without the help of modern appliances like the microwave.

iwog says
house you own

America is the most housed country in the world. 60%+ own their own homes.

iwog says
children you can feed from your factory job

Children are over fed today. Look how fat they are.

iwog says
car you bought free and clear?

Families had only one car then. Now they have 2 or 3 luxury cars with lots of bells and whistles.
82   iwog   ignore (1)   2017 Oct 13, 6:55pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote      

Strategist says
Wives worked. They worked like hell at home cleaning and cooking without the help of modern appliances like the microwave.


Now you're being disingenuous. Name one single labor saving device that a housewife would use today that didn't exist in the 1960s.

Strategist says
America is the most housed country in the world. 60%+ own their own homes.


And dropping fast. Did you remember the point?

Strategist says
Children are over fed today. Look how fat they are.


Again disingenuous and has nothing whatsoever to do with the point. Try working at WalMart today while you feed a wife and two kids. Good luck!

Strategist says
Families had only one car then. Now they have 2 or 3 luxury cars with lots of bells and whistles.


This is just stupid so please tell me how the fuck a couple earning combined 28,000 per year can afford 2-3 luxury cars. Do you even pause to think before typing this bullshit?
83   Strategist   ignore (0)   2017 Oct 13, 7:19pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

iwog says
Strategist says
Wives worked. They worked like hell at home cleaning and cooking without the help of modern appliances like the microwave.


Now you're being disingenuous. Name one single labor saving device that a housewife would use today that didn't exist in the 1960s.

WTF. I just mentioned microwave.

iwog says
Strategist says
America is the most housed country in the world. 60%+ own their own homes.


And dropping fast. Did you remember the point?

Only for now.

iwog says
Strategist says
Children are over fed today. Look how fat they are.


Again disingenuous and has nothing whatsoever to do with the point. Try working at WalMart today while you feed a wife and two kids. Good luck!

WTF. Are you saying fat kids are starving? Put the wife to work.

iwog says

This is just stupid so please tell me how the fuck a couple earning combined 28,000 per year can afford 2-3 luxury cars. Do you even pause to think before typing this bullshit?

Both couples working would make more on minimum wage. If it's not enough they get food stamps. Their kids did not get fat eating grass.
84   bob2356   ignore (1)   2017 Oct 13, 7:24pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote      

Strategist says
Everyone, including the dirt poor enjoy what was once a rich man's toys. Cars, large screen TV's, computers, internet, smart phones. The list goes on and on and on. And you know what? The next 40 years will be even better.


Now that's funny. Yea sure. I knew a lot of people who had vacation homes and regular houses on middle class wages in the 60's and 70's. Took vacations. Bought a boat. Had money in the bank. (before you say something else stupid, this doesn't mean all people had all of these things) Tell me that happens now. I didn't know anyone without a car and the average fleet age was a lot less old then. Buying a smart phone and big screen tv is less than $1000. How does that show prosperity? That would be like buying a regular rv in the 70's, which everyone did.

So the rich are a lot richer and take an ever greater percentage of the wealth but that doesn't count because poor people can cough up to buy a $300 computer. Uh huh.
85   mell   ignore (1)   2017 Oct 13, 7:26pm   ↑ like (3)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

Strategist is mostly right here. The issue is that - roughly spoken - quality of life for middle-class to upper-class (not uber-wealthy) families has largely remained flat or even declined (if you factor in that both have to be working) while the quality of life for net drainers (up to lower middle-class) and welfare kings and queens has improved. They don't have to work and yet have plenty to eat (so many get fat). This phenomenon has been perpetuated by both sides forever (although to a lesser degree by mainstream Republicans), and under Obummer this phenomenon clearly got worse. Hence the urge for everybody who is not a net-drainer but a net-contributor with a decent salary to vote for whatever Republican tax plan comes down, even if it also greatly helps the uber-wealthy.
86   joeyjojojunior   ignore (1)   2017 Oct 13, 7:38pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote      

mell says
Strategist is mostly right here


No, Strat is 100% wrong here. I don't think he even knows what he's arguing other than welfare queens have cell phones so therefore their life must be better.

mell says
They don't have to work and yet have plenty to eat (so many get fat).


This narrative has been proven to be bullshit so many times I can't even count, but yet it persists by folks like you and Strat. It's really sad.
87   Strategist   ignore (0)   2017 Oct 13, 7:53pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

bob2356 says
Strategist says
Everyone, including the dirt poor enjoy what was once a rich man's toys. Cars, large screen TV's, computers, internet, smart phones. The list goes on and on and on. And you know what? The next 40 years will be even better.


Now that's funny. Yea sure. I knew a lot of people who had vacation homes and regular houses on middle class wages in the 60's and 70's. Took vacations. Bought a boat. Had money in the bank. (before you say something else stupid, this doesn't mean all people had all of these things) Tell me that happens now.

You are giving me a meaningless anecdotal example. Nevertheless, travel has increased exponentially in the last few decades. Only the rich, who would dress up for a flight, could afford airline travel. I just took a roundtrip on Spirit from San Diego to Baltimore for $114 roundtrip. I'm going to Italy Monday because it was so damn cheap. More and more people can travel, afford toys like boats, jet skis, RV's etc.
And here is something you and Iwog might think is stupid. The next 40 years, 100 years, 1000 years will be exponentially better, because technology will continue to increase exponentially. Life will continue to get better.
88   Sniper   ignore (8)   2017 Oct 13, 10:04pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

joeyjojojunior says
No, Strat is 100% wrong RIGHT here. I don't think he even knows what he's arguing other than welfare queens have cell phones OBAMA PHONES, SNAP, WIC, SECTION 8, TANF, MEDICAID, CHIP, etc, so therefore their life must be better.


There, I fixed it for you, and yes, their life is better.
89   bob2356   ignore (1)   2017 Oct 13, 10:18pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote      

Strategist says
Nevertheless, travel has increased exponentially in the last few decades. Only the rich, who would dress up for a flight, could afford airline travel. I just took a roundtrip on Spirit from San Diego to Baltimore for $114 roundtrip. I'm going to Italy Monday because it was so damn cheap.


Because Carter deregulated the airlines. What does that have to do with the the middle class losing ground the last 40 years?

Strategist says
More and more people can travel, afford toys like boats, jet skis, RV's etc.


Your evidence that average earners can afford toys today more than they could in 1970 is what exactly? Because you say so? You can't even come up with meaningless anecdotal examples.
90   iwog   ignore (1)   2017 Oct 14, 4:10am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote      

Strategist says
Now you're being disingenuous. Name one single labor saving device that a housewife would use today that didn't exist in the 1960s.

WTF. I just mentioned microwave.


https://www.edn.com/electronics-blogs/edn-moments/4399387/1st-domestic-microwave-is-sold--October-25--1955

So that's your only example?
91   CBOEtrader   ignore (1)   2017 Oct 14, 4:51am   ↑ like (3)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote      

iwog says
You are a troll. You cannot have a conversation. You cannot debate. You have no concept of supporting a point. The only rational conclusion I can come up with is you believe things that have no intrinsic value, meaning you accept them totally and without question but utterly without any explanation of WHY you believe them even in your own mind.


The ease w which you come unhinged is shocking. Have you ever tried behaving like an adult to see if just MAYBE people respond better to you that way?

iwog says
American society has indisputably gone very hard RIGHT economically.


The discussion is about how capitalism, specifically free market capitalism, helps the underclass. You changed the topic (like you always do) to right vs left, which means nothing anymore. The right and left are both fascism branded towards different groups of softbrained sheeple. The easiest way to spot softbrained brained sheeple is their morally righteous judgement of the other side. Who does that sound like in this discussion?

iwog says
Reagan made Eisenhower look like a communist. Bush Jr. made Reagan look like a communist and now the new Republicans in charge of congress will make Bush Jr. look like a communist by comparison.


This is your core problem. You consistently redefine the world around you to keep your labels in place to which you are loyal. You creatively translate language around you constantly. I've noticed Dan does this often as well (calling antifa conservative for example, lolz). TBF, right/left/conservative have all lost definitive meaning. Liberal does still cling to its original definition, but only outside of the democratic party in Rand Paul and a few others.

Communism vs capitalism however CAN be defined, and more importantly measured by metrics from the real world. For ex I suggest the most important metric should be % of GDP taxed by the state. How free is the economy?

In a close second:

Somehow you are arguing that despite HIGHER taxes than ever and HIGHER ratio of government involvement in our economy, this means we are more capitalistic?
92   bob2356   ignore (1)   2017 Oct 14, 5:06am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

CBOEtrader says

The discussion is about how capitalism, specifically free market capitalism, helps the underclass.


Like the guilded age or russia after the fall of the wall? That kind of free market capitalism?
93   joeyjojojunior   ignore (1)   2017 Oct 14, 5:12am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote      

What's hilarious is that folks on here are using government programs (SNAP, WIC, section 8, Medicaid, etc.) to show that free market capitalism helps the poor.

Perhaps you guys should rethink your argument? If free market capitalism helped the underclass, we wouldn't need those programs.
94   CBOEtrader   ignore (1)   2017 Oct 14, 5:17am   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

joeyjojojunior says
If free market capitalism helped the underclass, we wouldn't need those programs.


Brilliant analysis Joe. Also, if you lived in communist Russia you should probably starve to death rather than eat the bread you get from the food line. Wouldnt want to be a hypocrite, amirite?
95   joeyjojojunior   ignore (1)   2017 Oct 14, 5:20am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote      

CBOEtrader says
Brilliant analysis Joe. Also, if you lived in communist Russia you should probably starve to death rather than eat the bread you get from the food line. Wouldnt want to be a hypocrite, amirite?


Wtf are you talking about? That is not every remotely hypocritical.

Pointing out that free market capitalism doesn't help the underclass means I can't eat bread in Russia?
96   Strategist   ignore (0)   2017 Oct 14, 9:31am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

joeyjojojunior says
What's hilarious is that folks on here are using government programs (SNAP, WIC, section 8, Medicaid, etc.) to show that free market capitalism helps the poor.

Perhaps you guys should rethink your argument? If free market capitalism helped the underclass, we wouldn't need those programs.


If the bums were willing to work instead of freeloading, we wouldn't need those programs.
97   joeyjojojunior   ignore (1)   2017 Oct 14, 9:37am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

Strategist says
If the bums were willing to work instead of freeloading, we wouldn't need those programs.


Ah yes, the rationalization that allows Republicans to sleep at night. All welfare recipients are lazy bums who don't want to work. Freeloaders. Right up there with the myth that people who make more money are harder workers...
98   mell   ignore (1)   2017 Oct 14, 9:48am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

CBOEtrader says
This is your core problem. You consistently redefine the world around you to keep your labels in place to which you are loyal. You creatively translate language around you constantly. I've noticed Dan does this often as well (calling antifa conservative for example, lolz). TBF, right/left/conservative have all lost definitive meaning. Liberal does still cling to its original definition, but only outside of the democratic party in Rand Paul and a few others.

Communism vs capitalism however CAN be defined, and more importantly measured by metrics from the real world. For ex I suggest the most important metric should be % of GDP taxed by the state. How free is the economy?


Agreed. Well said.

joeyjojojunior says
mell says
They don't have to work and yet have plenty to eat (so many get fat).


This narrative has been proven to be bullshit so many times I can't even count, but yet it persists by folks like you and Strat. It's really sad.


Absolutely not. This narrative has been proven in countless studies. Please don't just spout stuff because you don't like the facts. People who earn more are also more active during the day and engage in more in physical activities - despite having less time from working all day.

http://healthland.time.com/2012/05/16/cdc-higher-income-and-education-levels-linked-to-better-health/
99   joeyjojojunior   ignore (1)   2017 Oct 14, 9:50am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

mell says
Absolutely not. This narrative has been proven in countless studies


OK great--please post one.

mell says
People who earn more are also more active during the day and engage in more in physical activities - despite having less time from working all day.


Yep--what does that have to do with the topic at hand?
100   joeyjojojunior   ignore (1)   2017 Oct 14, 11:04am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

me123 says
Not a myth, if you would actually work during the day, instead of stealing money from your employer while posting on Patnet, you'd be surprised how much you could earn.

But since you're a "taker" (and Bernie supporter), versus being a "maker", that concept totally escapes you.


And if you could ever stay on a topic rather than trying to make everything personal, you might not be such a troll.
101   iwog   ignore (1)   2017 Oct 14, 11:14am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote      

CBOEtrader says
The discussion is about how capitalism, specifically free market capitalism, helps the underclass. You changed the topic (like you always do) to right vs left, which means nothing anymore. The right and left are both fascism branded towards different groups of softbrained sheeple. The easiest way to spot softbrained brained sheeple is their morally righteous judgement of the other side. Who does that sound like in this discussion?


It's shorthand you twit.

The right is nearly universally FOR Ayn Rand free market capitalism.
The left is nearly universally FOR big government liberal redistribution policies.

You wasted an entire paragraph writing about nothing.

CBOEtrader says
Communism vs capitalism however CAN be defined, and more importantly measured by metrics from the real world. For ex I suggest the most important metric should be % of GDP taxed by the state. How free is the economy?


I'm going to attempt to educate you. I'm not very hopeful.

Capitalism refers to CAPITALISTS. (say it with me class) Capitalists are not the same as labor. You CANNOT measure this effect from your fucking idiotic metric BECAUSE capitalists pay almost ZERO taxes while labor pays the vast majority of taxes. Therefore you are creating a heaping mound of bullshit to support your point because nothing else in the world supports your point. Romney's tax rate is 14% on 20 million dollars. I have his tax return on my computer. YOUR tax rate is 15% in employment taxes plus another 15%-39% plus state taxes. Tell me again how the capitalists are less free today than when the capital gains rate was 28% or 38%? You can't. You wont. You're economically illiterate.
102   iwog   ignore (1)   2017 Oct 14, 11:16am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote      

CBOEtrader says
Somehow you are arguing that despite HIGHER taxes than ever and HIGHER ratio of government involvement in our economy, this means we are more capitalistic?


Again I'm going to make it fucking clear as glass that I can have this conversation and you can't. Here's my argument:

American society has indisputably gone very hard RIGHT economically. Unions have been busted, taxes have fallen for the rich and will continue to fall. Wages have flat-lined since 1980 while profits keep going higher and higher. Trade barriers have been lifted, regulations have been eliminated, and anti-trust laws are a joke since Republican administrations refuse to enforce them. All of our treaties from NAFTA to CAFTA to the TPP are movements towards pure capitalism and all supported by Republicans. Wars have been fought with Republicans screaming their support while they called Democrats "seditionists". There is no more fairness doctrine, no more limitations on banks, no more limitations on media, and WalMart can destroy any town it wants. Right to work states proliferated across the country. Gun laws have almost universally been LOOSENED with open carry becoming the law in many states and Obama himself allowing guns in federal parks for the first time. Reagan made Eisenhower look like a communist. Bush Jr. made Reagan look like a communist and now the new Republicans in charge of congress will make Bush Jr. look like a communist by comparison.


Here's your argument in its entirety: (also to be fair you made an invalid point about taxes)

CBOEtrader says
(we have a) HIGHER ratio of government involvement in our economy


Fucking brilliant. You're not qualified to have this conversation. You seriously aren't.

« First    « Previous     Comments 63 - 102 of 102     Last »


Comment as anon_85b70 or log in at top of page: