US Political Discussion: Trump Administration Edition (Rules in OP)

Discussion in 'Politics & Current Events' started by mongey, Mar 2, 2016.

  1. Jeff

    Jeff Banned from Reality

    Messages:
    4,708
    Likes Received:
    691
    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2004
    Location:
    Illinois
    Dumb question: why do Conservatives complain and/or make light of the amount of spending Democratic candidates want to do (Green New Deal, education, healthcare, etc.) but completely ignore the issue that massive corporations completely skirt taxes? Couldn't we just tax them fairly, and use that money for good stuff, i.e. not stuff that blows up people? Just a thought.
     
    zappatton2 likes this.
  2. Drew

    Drew Forum MVP

    Messages:
    28,712
    Likes Received:
    4,210
    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2004
    Location:
    Somerville, MA
    Because the GOP, at least pre-Trump and to a certain extend still to this day, espouses small-government conservativism. Low/no taxes, little to no social program sending, "the government that governs best governs least" or Reagan's crack about "I'm from the government and I'm here to help" being the nine scariest words in the English language. Corporations skirting taxes is a feature, not a bug, in the coonservative world view, because taxes are an inefficient deadfall loss.

    Obviously not saying I agree.
     
    Adieu, StevenC and Thaeon like this.
  3. MaxOfMetal

    MaxOfMetal Likes trem wankery. Super Moderator

    Messages:
    31,863
    Likes Received:
    13,157
    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2008
    Location:
    Racine, WI
    I know you're being rhetorical, and I believe we're of the same mind here.

    Because "Trickle Down Economics" apparently. :lol:

    The GOP (and to a similar extent, centrist/old Democrats) is beholden to big business and big donors who own big businesses, which they rely on for lobbying and campaign cash, as well post-government employment.

    Until those factors are effectively neutralized, we'll always have a party that shuns redistribution of wealth, from a select few hoarders, to remain in power.

    The GOP has spent decades teaching poor, stupid people that it's shameful to need help, and have done such a poor job actually governing that regular people distrust the government to help them. So they'll vote against their own interests.

    EDIT: Drew = :ninja:
     
    Jeff, StevenC, zappatton2 and 2 others like this.
  4. Randy

    Randy Sous Chef Super Moderator

    Messages:
    20,904
    Likes Received:
    4,922
    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2006
    Location:
    The Electric City, NY
    Aside but related and also dovetailing with Max/Drew's points...

    I don't think corporations need to be treated as the enemy. There's some truth to the value of corporate investment and job creation. The issue is that this can be achieved through tiering of your taxes at the corporate level and also when executives cash in or out (so, salaries and capital gains) through incentives for reinvestment or hey, even on spending (since they go back into the economy). A master plan.

    There didn't seem to be massive movement on the Trump administration on incentives to corporations to invest or reinvest, it looks like they achieved the bulk of their stability through SOME relaxation on regulations but primarily on the tax cuts favoring the incomes of the types of people who are RUNNING these corporations. It's an especially snakey way of doing it because you keep the stock market running at a high level not because of the actual performance of the companies day to day, you just keep the people that own, manage or trade them happy. That keeps the effects on main street of that company's success (like hiring, wage increases, infrastructure investment) limited.

    The biggest issue with the taxes favoring the rich is that they don't reinvest or even spend the money, they stash it away somewhere. Even if you're rich and buy very expensive cars or big houses, you're only driving one of those cars at a time, drying your hands with one roll of paper towels at a time, etc. A person that makes 1,000x more than the average person doesn't have as much economic activity as 1,000 average people combined.

    I personally think MOST people and corporations are taxed enough or more than enough. The money we give the government isn't appropriated correctly, there are too many loopholes for taxes on the wealthy class and not enough incentives to spend or invest the money on tangible things as opposed to stashing it away. The money we are spending (through taxes and individual spending) don't do enough to help us :2c:
     
    tedtan, StevenC, zappatton2 and 2 others like this.
  5. Drew

    Drew Forum MVP

    Messages:
    28,712
    Likes Received:
    4,210
    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2004
    Location:
    Somerville, MA
    Excellent post.

    FWIW, if it wasn't for the fact that this is so open to abuse, I'd much rather see corporations treated as pass--through entities and instead have higher progressive personal income taxes, but that's a loooooong conversation for a different thread.
     
    StevenC and Thaeon like this.
  6. BlackMastodon

    BlackMastodon \m/ (゚Д゚) \m/ Contributor

    Messages:
    5,901
    Likes Received:
    994
    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2010
    Location:
    Windsor, ON
    Sounds like commie talk to me... :squint:

    This does blow my mind, though, but the quick answer is probably corporate lobbyists making deals so they pay less taxes and politicians don't bring it up.
     
    Thaeon likes this.
  7. Drew

    Drew Forum MVP

    Messages:
    28,712
    Likes Received:
    4,210
    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2004
    Location:
    Somerville, MA
    No, this has been a pretty consistent trend through at least the modern post-silent-majority era of American policics - Democrats promote government social programs that require high spending, and want to raise taxes to pay for them, while Republicans just want to cut taxes and not spend on anything except the military. It's a fundamental different understanding of economics - the Democrats favor stimulus spending, while the Republicans believe tax cuts themselves are stimulative. FWIW, while both sides have enthusiastic support from certain economists, the general economic consensus are that while both stimulus spending and tax cuts are capable of driving growth, the latter becomes less effective as the marginal rate falls and the US is already well below that threshold, and while it certainly matters where you direct spending, the former tends to be much more effective at driving economic growth. I suppose this could be another reason why the GOP has turned increasingly anti-science; economics is less scientific than some social science disciplines, maybe, but it certainly doesn't back their tax cuts above all else ethos.
     
    zappatton2 and Thaeon like this.
  8. narad

    narad SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    7,796
    Likes Received:
    6,644
    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2009
    Location:
    Tokyo
    Feel like if I need a new username anytime soon it'll be MyDadTheUnionElectrician
     
  9. Ralyks

    Ralyks The One Who Knocks Contributor

    Messages:
    3,921
    Likes Received:
    739
    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2011
    Location:
    Dutchess County, NY
    Can't believe I'm saying this, but I feel like Warren did the best over both nights of debates.
     
  10. MaxOfMetal

    MaxOfMetal Likes trem wankery. Super Moderator

    Messages:
    31,863
    Likes Received:
    13,157
    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2008
    Location:
    Racine, WI
    I'm not sure why folks are surprised by this. She's a very strong candidate, a skilled debater, sharp as a tack, and as fed up with this bullshit as Bernie, maybe even more so.

    Really Warren and Sanders are after the same goal, they just have different ideas of how to accomplish it.

    Truthfully, while I'm probably more of a Sanders supporter, I think Warren's "how" is probably more likely to be able to be implemented in the real world.

    In a perfect world we'd have Sanders as President and Warren as Senate Majority Leader. One can dream.
     
  11. Adieu

    Adieu SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    476
    Likes Received:
    287
    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2010
    Location:
    Moscow
    Amd free zero-calorie ice cream. That tastes good. And is free.
     
    JoshuaVonFlash likes this.
  12. narad

    narad SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    7,796
    Likes Received:
    6,644
    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2009
    Location:
    Tokyo
    Not to get go as similar as the guy who was all height-obsessed, but even though I agree with her points, it's very hard for me to stand behind her as a person/candidate. Her delivery is just not great to me. Put Warren ideas through a Mayor Pete or Williamson mouthpiece and I think I'd have a candidate.
     
  13. Jeff

    Jeff Banned from Reality

    Messages:
    4,708
    Likes Received:
    691
    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2004
    Location:
    Illinois
    Yeah I’d be happy with any combination of Warren/Sanders.
     
  14. Ordacleaphobia

    Ordacleaphobia Shameless Contrarian

    Messages:
    1,967
    Likes Received:
    1,223
    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2013
    Location:
    Chico, CA
    Pete: 5'9"
    Warren: 5'8"

    Coincidence? I THINK NOT.
     
    vilk, tedtan and jaxadam like this.
  15. Randy

    Randy Sous Chef Super Moderator

    Messages:
    20,904
    Likes Received:
    4,922
    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2006
    Location:
    The Electric City, NY
    I agreed although I think general consensus would be that they're too similar on policy to scratch all the necessary bits in the general.

    I do think Sanders has shown to be successful as a thought leader, considering 99% of what he advocated in 2016 is considered mainstream now, but you'd need someone pragmatic to temper that in a general.

    Harris took a lot of people by surprise going for the throat on Biden in the first debate and she's seemingly kept up her fervor but I dunno its already gotten a little old, especially with Tulsi confronting her on her aggressive prosecutions. She still may end up being the candidate but if she's going to get there it'll be through trash and burn, and that worked for Republicans in 2016 but I'm not sure that's the Democratic 2020 brand.

    I think my current favored combo is Warren/Booker.
     
  16. Drew

    Drew Forum MVP

    Messages:
    28,712
    Likes Received:
    4,210
    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2004
    Location:
    Somerville, MA
    Agreed.

    I think, regardless of who wins, Warren has done the best job really moving/setting the goalposts for WHAT the Democrats are talking about and proposing policies for in 2020, and hers have consistently been the most fleshed out and complete of any of the candidates - "I have a plan for that," etc. When it comes time to nail down the DNC platform next summer, regardless of the name at the top of the ticket I think Warren's fingerprints are going to be all over it, and as a guy who's never been really wild about her for her overt populism in the past, I think she's tempered that a bit and frankly I'm pretty cool with her being the party's thought leader this time around.

    I'm probably more Harris than Warren, myself, but honestly of the front-runners, pretty much any of them would be an acceptable choice to me, so I just want to winnow the field and get on to the general election ASAP.
     
    StevenC likes this.
  17. Xaios

    Xaios Foolish Mortal Contributor

    Messages:
    10,337
    Likes Received:
    2,656
    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2007
    Location:
    Nimbus III
    I remember I posted when Warren announced her candidacy at the end of last year, and the response to that post was pretty tepid. Looking at it now, it seems like people are a lot more enthusiastic about her. What's been the change? Does it come down to how she's handled the debates so far? Has there been something external which happened in the interceding time that has shifted people's perspectives on her?
     
  18. Adieu

    Adieu SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    476
    Likes Received:
    287
    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2010
    Location:
    Moscow
    Any port in a storm?
     
    vilk likes this.
  19. iamaom

    iamaom SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    302
    Likes Received:
    435
    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2016
    Location:
    Washington
    She announced to run soon after the whole native American DNA test debacle. Since this race is 100% about beating Trump, letting him get to her like that was seen as a move of major weakness. People were also holding out for Bernie and a lot of Bernie voters are still kind of bitter about her endorsing Hillary on Maddow's show. I've also been keeping a fairly close eye on politics since the 2016 election, and after she gave a very lack-luster announcement she just kind of fell off the radar until now. Hardly heard a single word about her on reddit, 538, or any of the political YT channels I'm subscribed to except in passing. It really felt like her campaign was DOA and no one gave a shit. The debates put her in the limelight again and time seems to have mellowed out a lot of her detractors on the far left (especially after Biden announced he was running).

    That said I'm not sure if she gets the nomination that she can take on Trump. In an age of soundbyte-twitter media, Trump's reality TV personality shines and I'm not sure if Warren can keep up. As much as I hate Hillary, she was pretty stoic against Trump's nonsense. I feel a lot of fence sitters will sit this election out if Warren and Trump make it to a debate together. All it'll take is one "Alright, easy there Pocahontas" from Trump and I fear Warren would turn into a bumbling Jeb like figure. As much as I like Warren, she has a frail "may I speak to your manager" kind of voice that I think is kinda of off putting and will hurt her image against Trump's loud never ending stream of insults and gotchas.
     
  20. BlackSG91

    BlackSG91 Loves Black Guitars

    Messages:
    1,200
    Likes Received:
    1,285
    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2013
    Location:
    Oshawa, ON
    I think Americans really deserve this President. Donald still has a lot of supporters and a majority who cling onto his every word. After the Mueller report people still choose Donald's lies. I feel tired of how Americans respond especially Evangelical Christians who turn a blind eye to his actions. America is going downhill and the Russians and Chinese will benefit from this. How long will it take for all the Wal-Mart shoppers to realize their country is going downhill. I'm just here to watch the entertainment like Donald would have it because it's all about HIM and not your country. At this point I think it is hopeless due to the dumbing of the masses. Good luck to the U.S. of A. because you really need it!!!:usa:


    ;>)/
     
    zappatton2 likes this.

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.