Rdskns2000

Presidential Election 2020 - Baby Sharpie vs Elizabeth Warren & 19+ other Dems

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Jumbo said:

 

but what i was gonna post about was seeing if any of you on twitter/facebook will be able to tell when/if the rooskie bot army starts doing all it can for schultz's cause :D

 

 

2 days ago. 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As an aside, I really had no idea electric fences were around in the 1920s. Always thought of then as a modern (1950s on) invention.

Edited by The Evil Genius
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Question: Going by electoral math, if Texas ever flipped to blue would that effectively end any chance for a GOP presidency going forward?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, NoCalMike said:

Question: Going by electoral math, if Texas ever flipped to blue would that effectively end any chance for a GOP presidency going forward?

No. Things change Texas was a Dem stronghold and California a Republican stronghold until they weren't.  BTW would you want a permanent one party Presidency?

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, NoCalMike said:

Question: Going by electoral math, if Texas ever flipped to blue would that effectively end any chance for a GOP presidency going forward?

 

Yes assuming NC, Wisconsin, and Michigan are still tossups (and not semi permanent GOP stongholds). But I suspect Texas going blue isn't happening anytime soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

Cutting taxes for the rich is very unpopular.  And that was before it was widely reported that cutting those taxes had no benefit for the broader economy.  Meanwhile, increasing taxes on the rich is favored by a huge majority of Americans.

 

I suspect that's true.  But I also suspect that it depends on how you define "the rich".  

 

I suspect almost everybody would be in favor of raising taxes on Mitt Romney.  But there really aren't that many Mitt Romney's in our economy.  If you want to cut the deficit, then you need to do something more like raising taxes on everybody over $100,000.  And those people will howl that they aren't rich, they meant those other people.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, NoCalMike said:

Question: Going by electoral math, if Texas ever flipped to blue would that effectively end any chance for a GOP presidency going forward?

 

Not necessarily.  If you took the 2016 map and flip Texas blue, but flipped Nevada red (which is certainly something that could happen), GOP would have 274 electoral votes. 

 

image.png.2f0d5ddd776336ea2c02b20a72bbba11.png

Edited by PleaseBlitz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, nonniey said:

They won't be voting in most of the Dem primaries.

 

****. Yea that makes sense. I totally missed that 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

I suspect that's true.  But I also suspect that it depends on how you define "the rich".  

 

I suspect almost everybody would be in favor of raising taxes on Mitt Romney.  But there really aren't that many Mitt Romney's in our economy.  If you want to cut the deficit, then you need to do something more like raising taxes on everybody over $100,000.  And those people will howl that they aren't rich, they meant those other people.  

 

 

I do not believe that any of this is true.  People will favor taxing "the rich" so long as it isn't them.  If you said "tax the top 1%" that would be very popular and only impact people earning roughly $700,000+ per year. 

 

The plan popularized recently by AOC favors making the top marginal tax rate 70% on earnings over $10 million in a year.  That is the top 0.1% (zero point one percent). 

 

And just the top 1% of wealth holders control roughly 40% of America's collective wealth.  The top 1 percent of households own more wealth than the bottom 90 percent combined.  You could absolutely cut the deficit just taxing those people.  

Edited by PleaseBlitz
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love Elizabeth Warren but her campaign has fallen flat. Feels like she'll be out of the race in less than six months at this point.

 

Watched the Kamala Harris TH this morning. I still really like her. Strong progressive candidate. Like her stances on healthcare, criminal justice reform, education, immigration. Tho she's basically Californias answer to Bernie. Not a full on pinko commie but certainly far left of center.

 

Id advise Kamala lose that "Let me tell ya something" line she kept repeating. Sounded like she was cutting a promo with mean gene okerlund at one point.

 

Im glad the Democratic party has contuined to embrace a capitalist socialisist hybrid type of platform. Deregulation and Voodoo economics has crippled a good portion of our population.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

I suspect that's true.  But I also suspect that it depends on how you define "the rich".  

 

I suspect almost everybody would be in favor of raising taxes on Mitt Romney.  But there really aren't that many Mitt Romney's in our economy.  If you want to cut the deficit, then you need to do something more like raising taxes on everybody over $100,000.  And those people will howl that they aren't rich, they meant those other people.  

 

I think $100k is too low.  I was going to say over $500k.  PleaseBlitz numbers for 1% also would be a good starting point. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

I think $100k is too low.  I was going to say over $500k.  PleaseBlitz numbers for 1% also would be a good starting point. 

Honestly, there would be need of data from the irs to consider what will be the best bang for the buck for tax increases without being detrimental to the tax revenue brought in 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

I think $100k is too low.  I was going to say over $500k.  PleaseBlitz numbers for 1% also would be a good starting point. 

 

Also keep in mind that (1) we are talking marginal tax rates on regular income (i.e., wages) and (2) most of the wealth earned by the top 0.1% comes by way of capital gains, not wages.  

 

SO, with respect to #1, it would be both economically workable and politically popular to tax income over $10 million in wages at 70%, but also tax income between, say, $500,000 (to use your number, which I think makes sense) and $10 million at 50% (the top marginal tax bracket is currently 37%).  Or whatever numbers make the most sense in balancing economic costs/revenue gains, I'm just illustrating that there is a lot of flexibility with what the % is and what income level they impact.  

 

With respect to #2, you can increase the long-term capital gains tax from its current level (20%, but with some caveats that could make it lower depending on your income).  I think doubling that (to 40%) for the richest people would be popular and, while it would have negative impacts on the stock market, it would raise a ton of revenue and, what are rich people going to do, not own stock?

 

And also, obviously, bring back the estate tax to it's prior coverage.  

 

 

And, Jesus Christ, Republicans are RIGHT NOW, trying to cut more taxes for rich people.  

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2019/01/28/top-gop-senators-propose-repealing-estate-tax-which-is-expected-be-paid-by-fewer-than-americans-year/?utm_term=.8f364ac99859

 

Top GOP senators propose repealing estate tax, which is expected to be paid by fewer than 2,000 Americans a year

 

Quote

Three Republican Senators introduced a plan Monday to repeal the federal estate tax, moving to eliminate a tax on a small number of the wealthiest households just as leading Democrats ramp up calls to tax the richest Americans.

 

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) joined Sens. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) and John Thune (R-SD), members of the Senate Finance Committee, in releasing legislation to permanently repeal the federal estate tax, which conservatives refer to as “the death tax.”

 

The Republican tax law passed in 2017 already dramatically weakened the estate tax, allowing couples with $22 million to pass on their estates without facing the tax.

 

Edited by PleaseBlitz
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Schultz is running a vain fart of a campaign. If he wants to show something better than the 2 party system, he should work smaller.... like actually work to elect Reps or Senators. Trump was actually smart about this because he just hijacked/went with one of the parties.

I don't want someone to heckle him every stop he makes, but I do want people to point out his chances of success are nil, and he's being ineffective if he wants to "make a difference".

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Fergasun said:

Schultz is running a vain fart of a campaign. If he wants to show something better than the 2 party system, he should work smaller.... like actually work to elect Reps or Senators. Trump was actually smart about this because he just hijacked/went with one of the parties.

I don't want someone to heckle him every stop he makes, but I do want people to point out his chances of success are nil, and he's being ineffective if he wants to "make a difference".

 

I fear that Schultz is just a run-of-the-mill billionaire that just cares about his own personal fortune, and although his chances of success in becoming President are nil, he could be extremely effective and make a gigantic difference if he uses his billions to run as an independent and garner 2% of the vote from the anti-incumbent, anti-Trump bloc and thereby deliver another election to Trump that would otherwise go the other way.*  Trump will then give Schultz tax cuts for his efforts.  

 

It is therefore incumbent upon everyone that does not want another 4 years of Trump to disabuse Schultz of his narcissistic notion that he should run for President as an independent.  If he's so ****ing smart and so many people like his ideas, then he should run in the Dem primary and see how far he gets.  As long as he's running (or making noises about running) as an independent, he should be jeered at every opportunity.  

 

*Remember, Trump won WI, PA and MI (the 3 states that swung the election) by less votes than Jill Stein or Gary Johnson got.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, nonniey said:

No. Things change Texas was a Dem stronghold and California a Republican stronghold until they weren't.  BTW would you want a permanent one party Presidency?

 

No, I would like 2 or more viable parties. The problem is that currently, with Trumpism infecting the GOP, I don't find them to be any kind of viable alternative. Do you? 

 

I remember the day after Obama won re-election, right-wing media was somber. For the first time since I had been following politics they were actually self reflecting, looking inward, and talking about their own issues.   However, that barely lasted 48 hours. After that it was right back to how evil everyone not ultra right-wing is. The GOP is still stuck trying to sell baby boomers a vision of the country they grew up in, but of course only the parts the benefit upper-middle class to rich white folks.  From my perspective, until the GOP can start living in the modern era ad come up with policies that reflect the realities of today's struggles, they are not viable. 

 

I'd love another party or two or three out there to challenge the Dems on their own brand of BS when necessary.  The problem  right now is that the GOP in it's current form, is not fit to criticize anyone.

Edited by NoCalMike
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The entire "run the gov't like a business" angle is something that always sounds good on the surface, but it's just not practical.  I don't care who is trying to sell it, whether it is a blowhard con man like Trump or successful businessman like Schultz.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, PleaseBlitz said:

Also keep in mind that (1) we are talking marginal tax rates on regular income (i.e., wages) and (2) most of the wealth earned by the top 0.1% comes by way of capital gains, not wages. 

I don't want to go too far OT here but my tax plan would be far simpler.  Tax all compensation (income, gains, gambling, whatever) at 17%.  Then everyone gets a standard deduction of $50k.  So if you make >$50 a year, you don't pay taxes.  if you make $60k a year, you pay a 17% tax on $10k.  And so on.  Then after that standard deduction everyone gets, there would be very few other deductions.  The percentage and deduction amount could be played with to figure out what exactly they need to be but that is my basic concept.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, TryTheBeal! said:

You can lead a horse to water...

 

Theres water in the the toilet bowl, doesn’t mean I’m gonna drink it. :D

Edited by CousinsCowgirl84

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

I don't want to go too far OT here but my tax plan would be far simpler.  Tax all compensation (income, gains, gambling, whatever) at 17%.  Then everyone gets a standard deduction of $50k.  So if you make >$50 a year, you don't pay taxes.  if you make $60k a year, you pay a 17% tax on $10k.  And so on.  Then after that standard deduction everyone gets, there would be very few other deductions.  The percentage and deduction amount could be played with to figure out what exactly they need to be but that is my basic concept.

 

 

 

Flat taxes are simplistic and regressive, which is why rich people love the concept and think they can sell it to everyone else. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don’t think Shultz is going to stay in unless he gets a lot of support, which judging from here and what I’ve seen on CNN he won’t. I think most Americans are over the “America as a business” kick...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 

Flat taxes are simplistic and regressive, which is why rich people love the concept and think they can sell it to everyone else. 

Can you explain a little more?  I think it would shut down a lot of loopholes the rich use.  It sounds pretty fair to me but I'm no expert.  And it's a something that all the candidates will be discussing (tax plans in general) as part of their campaigns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

I don’t think Shultz is going to stay in unless he gets a lot of support, which judging from here and what I’ve seen on CNN he won’t. I think most Americans are over the “America as a business” kick...

 

It's a couple of things.  

 

1) Schultz is a bit of an asshole.  For example, he used to own the Seattle Supersonics and, when the city wouldn't give him millions of dollars to build a new arena (the current arena was only 10 years old), he sold the team to Oklahoma City to spite Seattlites.  

2)  You are correct, Americans (most of them, anyways) are over the America is a business kick.

3)  Maybe a successful businessperson could make a great political leader.  Start at mayor or congressperson, don't try to start at President of the United States.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.