halobob

its funny that at some point in her history, we tried to scare people away by threatening them with weird orgies and wild parties

Right?  That sign makes me want to go get some mary jane!

AFL you should probably leave America.  

I think that was a typo by Trump.  Instead of saying "beans," I believe he meant to say "seed." 

Kudos

Like I said, we already give up enough of our money.

Well we are half way there AJ, we are already a "highly taxed" nation. I'm not an unreasonable man, once they show they can actually live within the budget of the money they already get, then I would consider giving more, but until then, absolutely not.

This exactly.  

Good stuff - not far from what I've been saying. That last bit in bold is what many don't seem to understand, that it isn't either/or: either Maoist China on one hand or laissez-faire pipe dream libertarian utopia.

 

While there may be no strict or narrow ideal, the basic approach should be how to incorporate strong social programs into a free market economy, and also how best regulate that economy so wealth is more evenly distributed and not pooled at the top.

I understand the last bit in bold perfectly AJ.  We are already giving up enough of our hard earned money.  

Good: Angels make the WS.

Bad: They lose the WS to the Giants.

Wow, I totally want to give up more of my hard earned money after reading that article.  Thanks for changing my views AJ, I'm feelin the Bern!

This. At some point, this is a matter of Darwinism. It isn't hard to stay out of a North Korean prison.

I'd like to see the U.S. assassinate Kim Jong Poon. I know it is technically against some foreign convention or something, but really WTF would the world do if we dropped a couple hundred smart bombs in and around YongYang. It'd be a good closing move for Obama on his way out.

Did North Korea just make Phil great again?

In 2013 the payroll tax went up from 4.2% on the employee side to 6.2%...a whopping 48% increase.  Obama raised a big middle finger to the middle class with that one.  

AJ...mother ****in payroll tax.

I guess I was in denial.

 

 

I'll bite. What have the conservatives given to the liberals? What exactly do you mean by this?

 

 

Which I agree with you in principle. But here's my problem with it: Two things, really. One, I don't mean to butter your corn, but I don't think the majority of people are as nice as you. Its like kids in a playground who don't know how to, or don't care to share. Maybe you'll give freely, but most won't. Two, there are simply certain costs to living in a country. I know you like usury fees, and maybe that's a good idea in principle, but I'm not sure if it could actually work. Whether we like it or not, we've gone the route of taxes. We also disagree with what should be include in what taxes pay for. I agree more with the Sandinavian/Northern European model, which gives a higher quality of life for more citizens, but with more taxes. To me that's more humane than our system.

Tax increases over Obama's term in office.  Hell even without the increases taxes were too high.  

Look at it this way. In some ways this forum is a microcosm of American politics, a tug-of-war between left and right (although I'd say Angelspin is more conservative than America as a whole, perhaps because of the OC demographic). Let's say I'm on one side of the aisle and you guys are on the other. I want progressive policies, strong social programs, etc, and you guys want laissez-faire libertarianism. So how do we compromise? We have to start with understanding each other, what we're really saying. All I get from you guys is, "You're wrong, I'm right." We'll never get anywhere that way.

 

Where's the middle ground? And, to be honest, I probably come across as more left-leaning than I am, because I over-compensate because of this forum. There are actually some areas where we broadly agree.

 

For instance, we all share a distaste for SJWs. We mostly share a dislike of establishment politics and the mixing of church and state. Most of us also broadly agree on social libertarianism. But where we disagree is on the scale of socialism to capitalism and the role of government. The main difference seems to be that most here want all capitalism, no socialism, and an almost complete lack of a federal government. I see a mix as being best, an integration, and that the role of government should be to serve and protect the people.

 

So let's say nate says "100 capitalism, 0 socialism," and I counter with, "How about 50-50," and he says, "No, 100-0." And so we're left at a stalemate (or a statenate?).

 

But the reality of the political situation is that we're never going to one extreme or the other. So how to compromise? And let's say we humor the "100-0" group, my question, again, is if we do that, how do we deal with the problems of poverty, health care, education, the environment, climate change, etc? "The market will decide" is not an answer, in my opinion. It is an extremism that will never fully see the light of day, so we might as well grow up a bit and try to find compromise.

We are already past the middle ground in your favor AJ...that's why we don't budge.  All the libs do is ask for more and more.  Compromise and give back to the conservatives what we have given the libs.  

You're probably right, arch.

 

Geoff, the nomination may now be truly out of reach for Bernie, but this is only the beginning. Bernie's main goal is not to become president (unlike Hillary or Trump), but to incite revolution. More to come.

 

wopphil, of course it matters. And no, I don't think we should re-distribute their wealth in the manner you describe. Rather, I'd like to see them use their money to create jobs, re-build infrastructure, develop renewable energies. One way to "incentivize" would be to greatly increase their tax rates so that money that they are currently speculating, they would "protect" by creating new business ventures, that in turn create new jobs.

 

But the main point is that clearly something is rotten in Denmark if the 20 richest people have as much money as half the population.

What do you mean by money they are currently speculating?

It's funny because I agree with AJ's statement even though he is being sarcastic.  Good for those 20 people and all billionaires in the US.  

I have one of those hats!

But do you have a make Phil great again hat?

Very happy I went to that game, Ducks flat out dominated after the 1st period!

I hope the Aztecs make the tourney!  Would be a shame if losing a tight conference tourney final kept them out of the big dance.  

Hoosiers ****in blow

Kasich is my favorite of the GOP...too bad he stands no chance to win the nomination.  

How Alford wasn't fired before getting into the locker room after the game on Tuesday is ridiculous.  Losing 3 times to SC the way we did this year should be immediate removal an subject to a tar and feathering by the students.

Thanks for actually giving it a shot, halobob - you're the first, which speaks to your character. One thing that's been unclear to me is how exactly Bernie's plan will work. I've seen different variations. I like his basic idea, but the specifics remain unclear - mainly because different folks are interpreting things differently.

 

That said, I think you are exaggerating a bit. I don't see anyone but the top 1-5% being taxed a "HUGE" amount more. Plus, he's emphasized that the tax rate for people making more than $250K goes up mostly for income over $250K. That's a big difference, no?

 

Also, you're not really addressing Edelman's point, which is that the more money the lower quintiles have, the more the economy thrives because the more money they spend. The whole point being, the very wealthly should be re-investing, rather than speculating. T

The lower people on the economic rung will have more money in their pockets under Trumps tax plan (well those that actaully work anyway).  Trump wants to tax earnings from 0-50K (0-25K for single folk) at 0%.  Then the extra income earned after 50K up to 100K will only be taxed at 10%.  Think of that extra money they will have to spend.  Compare this to Bernie's plan which wants to tax 0-18,550 at 12.2%, 18,550-75,300 at 17.2% and $75,300-151,900 at 27.2%.  

This also doesn't factor in an extra 2.2% that will be taken directly out of EVERYONE's paycheck if Bernie gets his payroll tax increase he is looking for along with the employers having to pay an extra 6.2%.  If you thought corporate inversions were bad now...just wait until Bernie is in charge.  Many corporations will slowly but surely leave the US.  All of the .1% money will be drying up and we will become a poor socialist nation as many have become in the past.  

I understand and partially agree with your point. But again, I was asking for someone to address what Edelman actually said, rather than make attacks on his character (which are probably justified, but irrelevant) or offering links we've all seen before.

 

Edelman makes a very basic point about economy, what he calls the "velocity of money."  Here's what he said:

 

 

“When you have the top one percent getting money, they spend five-ten percent of what they earn. When you have the lower end of the economy getting money, they spend a hundred, or a hundred and ten percent of what they earn. As you’ve had a transfer of wealth to the top, and a transfer of income to the top, you have a shrinking consumer base, basically, and you have a shrinking velocity of money.”

 

“Bernie is the only person out there who I think is talking at all about both fiscal stimulation and banking rules that will get the banks to begin to generate lending again as opposed to speculation.”

 

“So from an economic point of view, it’s straight-forward.”

 

 

I will address what he said AJ.  Bernie is taxing much more than the top 1%.  He will be taxing the top 50% a huge amount more.  This means those people will have less money to spend which will greatly slow the velocity of money.  So from an economic point of view, it's pretty straight forward.

Just bought my playoff strips yesterday...pumped!!!

You are spinning in circles with these people, to them everyone with money is corrupt and the pot smoking liberals will spend their money correctly.

Do pot smoking conservatives spend money correctly?