patrick.net

joeyjojojunior says

KimJongUn says

I know. All I'm saying that when your side rejects some tax moves absolutely w/o condition it makes you look not serious.

Not if the proposals are all ridiculous like Trump's tax plan.

Yawn agan.

joeyjojojunior says

When you have to borrow to give it away, what would you call it?

A democrat strategy that never worked. Borrow, and give it away to the able bodied welfare queens.

Goran_K says

You're right, I actually meant Switzerland. They shelved it after figuring out they couldn't pay for it.

The swiss never had single payer. Where did you get that? At the very least you could tell creditable lies.

Lets check this out. The Swiss have compulsory insurance, medicare style price controls, old and young pay the same premiums, pre existing must be covered and not charged extra, the government defines the benefits, insurers must be non profit, the government subsidizes the premiums of the poor, no employer insurance. OMG the Swiss invented obamacare. That's just amazing.

So you are advocating government price and benefit controlled doctors/hospitals/insurance companies, compulsory insurance, no employer insurance? I don't believe that.

Strategist says

A democrat strategy that never worked. Borrow, and give it away to the able bodied welfare queens.

No, Dems are the ones that raise taxes when needed to pay for their programs. It's the Reagans and W. Bush's that borrow to give huge breaks to rich people.

joeyjojojunior says

Strategist says

A democrat strategy that never worked. Borrow, and give it away to the able bodied welfare queens.

No, Dems are the ones that raise taxes when needed to pay for their programs. It's the Reagans and W. Bush's that borrow to give huge breaks to rich people.

No Joey, if that was the case we would not have deficits when democrat Presidents are in power.
By the way, are you OK with our money being given away to able bodied bums who refuse to work?

Strategist says

No Joey, if that was the case we would not have deficits when democrat Presidents are in power.
By the way, are you OK with our money being given away to able bodied bums who refuse to work?

Actually, if you look the budget deficit over time, it's clear that Dems do a MUCH better job and balancing the budget than do Republicans. It's not even close.

The US Budget is like the titanic--you can't turn it around in 1 year. But you can start a trend towards balance like Clinton did. Like Obama did.

Or you can start a trend towards unbalancing it--like W. Bush did. Like Reagan did.

Goran_K says

Whatever credit he gets for a budget surplus, is erased and puts him deep in the negative for signing and championing Gramm–Leach–Bliley. He basically setup the country for 2008.

So he was too much like a Republican for you then.

Begs the question--why do you continue to vote for politicians that are all the bad of Clinton and none of the good?

Strategist says

Economy, inflation, interest rates, unemployment, etc

Perhaps you ought to read up on the Federal Reserve and how it's controlled. (hint--the Fed probably played a big role in Reagan's win)

I think their tax proposal is good, less money government takes, more money stays in private sector. Government should spend less, and tax less. Solution is simple, it's just not easy.

Strategist says

He screwed up with everything to do with the:
Economy, inflation, interest rates, unemployment, etc
Foreign policy, dumping the Shah of Iran and allowing the Ayatollah to rule Iran. Gosh, he even ended up destroying Iran, a country with a future.
What good was Carter for the USA, and for the world?

You don't know very much about history do you? Actually you nothing about history. Nixon dumped the economy, Carter picked up the pieces, Reagan got credit. The Shah of Iran was going down from his own stupidity no matter who was in the white house. If Carter had sent the entire US military, at least what was left of it after vietnam destroyed the military, to Iran it couldn’t have kept the shaw propped up.

Deregulation was carter's legislation. Which set up the huge boom in airline travel, communications, trucking, shipping, and oil exploration that continues today. So next time you fly coast to coast on a super discount $300 ticket thank carter. In 1976 when carter took office it was illegal to charge less than $1442 (inflation adjusted) NY to LA. Think the internet cell phone, and telecommunications revolution would have happened under Ma Bell and the FCC? No way. You don't remember when Bell owned the lines right to the jack (which was hard wired to the phone) and all the hardware, but I do. When the biggest innovation was the lighted princess phone. Oil dropping to $10 a barrel by the mid 90's. The cost of trucking dropping by 50% or more. The cost of ocean transport dropped even more. Next time you buy cheap at walmart thank carter for cheap transportation to get it there.



Oh my look how that growth line trends up more steeply starting in 1980. Growth isn't good for America in your world apparently.

Not even going to get into Carter establishing diplomatic relations with china or peace treaties.

Sorry you didn't know about this stuff, or anything else in history it seems.

bob2356 says

You don't know very much about history do you? Actually you nothing about history. Nixon dumped the economy, Carter picked up the pieces

Cough cough cough. Carter replaced Ford, not Nixon. And I'm the one who knows nothing about history?

Strategist says

bob2356 says

You don't know very much about history do you? Actually you nothing about history. Nixon dumped the economy, Carter picked up the pieces

Cough cough cough. Carter replaced Ford, not Nixon. And I'm the one who knows nothing about history?

Nixon polices crashed the economy. It wasn't a time line dufus, it was a list of who did what. I not only voted for Ford, I was a campaign volunteer. I know who Carter replaced.

That's the best reply you can come up with? A misdirection while avoided the issue?

For anyone to suggest that wages are determined by productivity is laughable. Everything is determined by supply and demand. Period.

Strategist says

The benefits of higher productivity will go to those who contribute to higher productivity.

Like ceo's that run the company into the ground and walk away with millions? That the kind of benefits we are talking about?

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.

joeyjojojunior says

In fact, if I were Benevolent Dictator, I would substantially raise taxes on myself and my wealthy friends.

Regardless of deeper political, philosophical and ethical questions around this proposal it has certainly never been implemented by either party for a long time. What Obummer did was raising taxes on the middle and upper-middle and upper class while letting the real wealthy people untouched. This is were the problem is. The middle-class and upper middle-class and upper-class will gladly vote for a "Republican" proposal that reduces their taxes as well as those of the wealthy because under the Dems they have gotten nothing but assraped. Let me be clear. Raising the taxes on the "wealthy" would be raising taxes on income and other gains on those that make at least one million dollar year per year from their income and other holdings, maybe the bar needs to be set even higher. Anybody making 500K or less working hard is not wealthy, but working for a living. It's that simple. Furthermore you can take from the uber-wealthy as long as you limit the taking until the budget is balanced or debt reduction goals have been met so that this has been revisited and approved every year again. Taxing the upper middle and upper class like Obummer did was just a dick move and thus we have Trump/Republican tax policies now.

mell says

What Obummer did was raising taxes on the middle and upper-middle and upper class while letting the real wealthy people untouched.

>$250K isn't middle class.

mell says

The middle-class and upper middle-class and upper-class will gladly vote for a "Republican" proposal that reduces their taxes as well

Let me know when Trump proposes such a deal. This one raises their taxes.

But, I disagree anyway.

mell says

Raising the taxes on the "wealthy" would be raising taxes on income and other gains on those that make at least one million dollar year per year from their income and other holdings, maybe the bar needs to be set even higher. Anybody making 500K or less working hard is not wealthy, but working for a living.

Exactly. Let's raise taxes on UNEARNED INCOME. Tax capital, not labor. But you'll NEVER see such a proposal from anyone with an R after their name.

joeyjojojunior says

>$250K isn't middle class.

In the SF bay area and other high state/municipal tax and high cost of living areas (many coastal areas) it is definitely "just" (upper) middle-class unless you plan on staying single without kids forever.

joeyjojojunior says

mell says

The middle-class and upper middle-class and upper-class will gladly vote for a "Republican" proposal that reduces their taxes as well

Let me know when Trump proposes such a deal. This one raises their taxes.

In my case tax brackets stay the same but deductions double. So I will get a little break. Under Obama my taxes (ACA etc.) and my cap gains went up quite a bit. So if you have the choice between a relief vs a raise on your tax burden the choice is easy. Many are in the same boat.


joeyjojojunior says

Exactly. Let's raise taxes on UNEARNED INCOME. Tax capital, not labor. But you'll NEVER see such a proposal from anyone with an R after their name.

Sure but not blindly. We have already high capital gains taxes on many things. Tax cap gains at the effective (median) tax bracket for everybody and remove all exceptions such as the mortgage interest deduction and the 250/500K free gains if you "live" in your house for 2 years or any other crony crap. If you lump income and cap gains together you don't have to differentiate between the two and the convoluted tax law can become much simpler. Just raise the taxes on the uber-wealthy.

mell says

In the SF bay area and other high state/municipal tax and high cost of living areas (many coastal areas) it is definitely "just" (upper) middle-class unless you plan on staying single without kids forever.

And in those coastal, high cost of living areas, Trump's tax plan will lead to higher taxes as well. Getting rid of the state and property tax deduction will be a killer.

mell says

In my case tax brackets stay the same but deductions double. So I will get a little break. Under Obama my taxes (ACA etc.) and my cap gains went up quite a bit. So if you have the choice between a relief vs a raise on your tax burden the choice is easy. Many are in the same boat.

Many are in the same boat as me and will see their taxes go up. While watching billionaires get huge tax breaks. How do you think that is going to play?


mell says

Sure but not blindly. We have already high capital gains taxes on many things. Tax cap gains at the effective (median) tax bracket for everybody and remove all exceptions such as the mortgage interest deduction and the 250/500K free gains if you "live" in your house for 2 years or any other crony crap. If you lump income and cap gains together you don't have to differentiate between the two and the convoluted tax law can become much simpler. Just raise the taxes on the uber-wealthy.

Raising cap gains tax hits the uber wealthy. Cap the MID or keep the AMT in place.

Who cares about simple?? Why should simple be a desire? Let's make it function well and lead to a prosperous economy, lots of jobs, and real income gains for everyone. If it has to be a bit more complicated, so be it.

There is absolutely NO reason why labor should EVER be taxed higher than capital. None. Unearned income is by definition not earned. The US is awash with capital. The government needs to tax it rather than borrow it.

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.

bob2356 says

Like ceo's that run the company into the ground and walk away with millions? That the kind of benefits we are talking about?

No my dear friend. That benefit is called a tax write off for the share holders.

joeyjojojunior says

For anyone to suggest that wages are determined by productivity is laughable. Everything is determined by supply and demand. Period.

My dear short sighted friend....Burger flippers are in excess supply, while tech workers are in excess demand. It all boils down to productivity.

It's very sad I have to explain every single detail to you guys, and you still don't get it.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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?

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.

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...

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/

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?

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.