Republicans stunned to learn voters understand exactly what their tax cut did

[Keith & Arileidi 437]

On 9/28/2018 at 7:28 PM, Satisfied said:

But you DID.  You said:

 

Let’s say you make 50% more than I make: I make $50k, and you make $75k.  So you should give some of your excess to me, since I have less disposable income than you do, and it’s all about equity.  So how much of your excess are you willing to give me, so that we can have more equitable lifestyles?  I wanna be like Keith, so help a brother out here...

 

No I didn't. 

Don't put words in my mouth. 

You were simply suggesting a transfer payment. 

 

I was suggesting taxation for widespread services. There's a different. If you cant see it ... Google is your friend. 

 

[Dashinka 23,370]

1 hour ago, Keith & Arileidi said:

This is just wrong.. and goes against just about every economic principle. Lol. 

 

And your assumption that leaders only emerge for economic game is a slap in the face to many historical figures. 

How is it wrong?  I keep hearing that the middle class is shrinking due to capitalism, and in fact it is, but what isn't being told by the leftist media is that they are not falling into the poverty category (poverty rates have been very flat for many years), they are moving into higher income brackets which I think is a good thing.  As to instituting socialism type programs as is being proposed, well, you end up with the poor, and the powerful, with nothing in the middle.  I have first hand knowledge of this from my wife and what she lived through in the former Soviet Union.  I know, you are not proposing full socialism like Bernie or the Dems in NY, but I contend that anytime the government confiscates income from one tax bracket in excess, they will soon run out of that source and start looking at lower tax brackets, etc, etc, etc, and we will spiral into a socialist economy which of course will eventually collapse.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

5 hours ago, Keith & Arileidi said:

No I didn't. 

Don't put words in my mouth. 

You were simply suggesting a transfer payment. 

 

I was suggesting taxation for widespread services. There's a different. If you cant see it ... Google is your friend. 

 

The (off) topic is income re-distribution via harsher taxes for those with greater disposable incomes.  If you get paid more, you get taxed more (which, as I have stated, we ALREADY HAVE in our country.  But it seems you want even MORE taxes on the “rich” (define that word, if ye will).

Now you want widespread services paid for by the rich, and enjoyed by the less rich.  What services are you referring to?

[Keith & Arileidi 437]

4 hours ago, Bill & Katya said:

How is it wrong?  I keep hearing that the middle class is shrinking due to capitalism, and in fact it is, but what isn't being told by the leftist media is that they are not falling into the poverty category (poverty rates have been very flat for many years), they are moving into higher income brackets which I think is a good thing.  As to instituting socialism type programs as is being proposed, well, you end up with the poor, and the powerful, with nothing in the middle.  I have first hand knowledge of this from my wife and what she lived through in the former Soviet Union.  I know, you are not proposing full socialism like Bernie or the Dems in NY, but I contend that anytime the government confiscates income from one tax bracket in excess, they will soon run out of that source and start looking at lower tax brackets, etc, etc, etc, and we will spiral into a socialist economy which of course will eventually collapse.

Probably because all your sources have a conservative bias, you have to explore outside your comfort zone.

 

These people who are saying these things are politicians. They have a political incentive to do so. Furthermore you get a limited amount information from entertainment sources *cough* fox news * cough*. When people like Bernie Sanders talk they ussually refer to Crony captalism and economies of scale as being the pitfall of captalism. 

 

Captalism is a great environment for innovation , progress and productivity. Working for the automotive industry I know this as a fact, because we use friendly competitions like F1 to create new tech that will eventually be kicked down to the customer.

 

This is  true for products that require a large amount of R&D. Other companies that deal in things like real estate and retail. Just use economies of scale to kill of competition, making industries rather homogeneous. 

 

If implemented correctly ,we can use socialism to help spread equity to  increase capitalistic competition. 

 

 

 

[Keith & Arileidi 437]

1 hour ago, Satisfied said:

The (off) topic is income re-distribution via harsher taxes for those with greater disposable incomes.  If you get paid more, you get taxed more (which, as I have stated, we ALREADY HAVE in our country.  But it seems you want even MORE taxes on the “rich” (define that word, if ye will).

Now you want widespread services paid for by the rich, and enjoyed by the less rich.  What services are you referring to?

Rich and large corporate interests are already making money from the dwindling middle class. 

 

Again another economic fact. 

[Dashinka 23,370]

21 minutes ago, Keith & Arileidi said:

Probably because all your sources have a conservative bias, you have to explore outside your comfort zone.

 

These people who are saying these things are politicians. They have a political incentive to do so. Furthermore you get a limited amount information from entertainment sources *cough* fox news * cough*. When people like Bernie Sanders talk they ussually refer to Crony captalism and economies of scale as being the pitfall of captalism. 

 

Captalism is a great environment for innovation , progress and productivity. Working for the automotive industry I know this as a fact, because we use friendly competitions like F1 to create new tech that will eventually be kicked down to the customer.

 

This is  true for products that require a large amount of R&D. Other companies that deal in things like real estate and retail. Just use economies of scale to kill of competition, making industries rather homogeneous. 

 

If implemented correctly ,we can use socialism to help spread equity to  increase capitalistic competition. 

 

 

 

I love it, a better mousetrap for socialism.    Btw, the only way to spread equity is to have the government confiscate our money (all of it) and distribute it "equally", there will be no capitalism, just government which we all know is not an economic producer.

 

How do you keep it sustainable?  How do you keep the leadership class from becoming too powerful with our (they think their) money?  How do you keep tax revenues coming in as people find other more friendly economic countries.  The social democracies of Europe are probably the closest to succeeding, but most of the programs there fail the sustainability test over the long run, but hey, who cares about that, our kids, grandkids, and great grand kids can worry about that.  The Democratic Socialists of America (not the same a social democracies) is even worse in their platform and the cost of it is astronomical, but right, who cares.

 

I am sorry to burst your bubble, but the actual last news channels I watched were CNN and BBC since those were the only channels available in the Chinese and Korean hotels where I was staying.  Haven't watched Fox News for quite some time.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

16 minutes ago, Keith & Arileidi said:

Rich and large corporate interests are already making money from the dwindling middle class. 

 

Again another economic fact. 

So... no answer to my question.  Gotcha.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

56 minutes ago, Keith & Arileidi said:

Probably because all your sources have a conservative bias, you have to explore outside your comfort zone.

 

If implemented correctly ,we can use socialism to help spread equity to  increase capitalistic competition.

 

 

 

Did you read what you wrote?  If implemented correctly, socialism will remove capitalistic competition, because those who used to work hard to make a lot of money... won’t.  No reason to innovate, when everyone gets the same thing regardless of effort.

 

The average US wage is about $22.73.  Are you willing to take that pay cut so your money can go to help those who make only $7 per hour?  Do you think doctors, or lawyers, or pilots, or... anyone who has climbed upwards in their career, will be willing to do that?

Do you think folks like Elon Musk will be support you in your desire to move everyone’s salary to $45,460 per year for the good of people who have never earned that much in their life?  Do you think folks who are making 5-10 times that will stil have incentive to work so hard to create new tech?

ETA:  Why do you assume that people who don’t think like you use Fox News as their source for information?  I don’t assume you watch CNN just because your ideas are wrong.

Edited October 3, 2018 by Satisfied

[Neonred 3,461]

Here you go Keith.  This should make you happy.  Also a topic of another thread here.

 

http://fortune.com/2018/10/03/bernie-sanders-bill-big-banks/

 

 

[Keith & Arileidi 437]

@Satisfied

TheUS has a hybrid economy, so we already have socialist value implemented in our system.Without a socialistic public education, we would not have a highly educated population severely limiting competition within our capitalistic system. 

 

And I believe I said a fraction of 1 percent. average and low income workers are the ones suffering from things like expensive schooling and day care. 

 

I made the assumption that you guys only watch/listen/read conservative news because that's the only thing you share on here. All while bashing every source that is not strictly conservative. 

Edited October 4, 2018 by Keith & Arileidi

[Keith & Arileidi 437]

18 hours ago, Neonred said:

Here you go Keith.  This should make you happy.  Also a topic of another thread here.

 

http://fortune.com/2018/10/03/bernie-sanders-bill-big-banks/

 

 

What exactly is the significance.. 

You kind of just posted a random article without a clear point. 

[AshMarty 359]

Just an interesting conversation I had with my husbands family from Australia (more socialist then the US) their healthcare system is well organized and free to use, my husband had a free heart surgery the month before he moved to the US but they also have the option of a private system to buy into. My husbands (Australian) family were complaining about high taxes and they made a comment how the US must have much lower taxes then them because a majority of their taxes goes to their healthcare system/welfare programs. I asked what percentage of taxes they pay for their bracket and I think it was the same or maybe even a little less than the US taxes (they were shocked).

 

So out of curiosity l looked up were America spends all their money, and it isn't on government socialist programs but the military. We have the largest military budget out of any country in the world (by a large margin). I guess that is the trade off, my Australian brother in law laughed after we talked about and said it makes sense because they just relay on the US for large conflicts and help, military wise.   

 

 

Edited October 4, 2018 by AshMarty

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

1 hour ago, Keith & Arileidi said:

@Satisfied

TheUS has a hybrid economy, so we already have socialist value implemented in our system.Without a socialistic public education, we would not have a highly educated population severely limiting competition within our capitalistic system. 

 

And I believe I said a fraction of 1 percent. average and low income workers are the ones suffering from things like expensive schooling and day care. 

 

I made the assumption that you guys only watch/listen/read conservative news because that's the only thing you share on here. All while bashing every source that is not strictly conservative. 

Socialism is the collective ownership and management of the workplace.  Even if one TRIED to apply that to public education, it does not fit the definition.  The state education board controls schools, not the collective.

 

Socialism is a classless society.  Everyone the same, everyone equal, no one gets ahead.  Yet you say our current public education system (which is more welfare capitalist and nowhere near socialist) produces highly educated kids.  I disagree.  If anything, we are LIMITING their education with standardized testing, which means kids are being taught to the standards of the test, so that teachers keep their jobs.  It’s a POOR way of educating kids, actually.  Children are not encouraged to be free thinkers.  Their parents do not push them to learn (if you want to see some smart kids, look at Japan or S. Korea.  Or Asia in general). Sorry, but your argument about education is not very accurate.  Here’s a look at how we stack up as a nation:

https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2013/12/american-schools-vs-the-world-expensive-unequal-bad-at-math/281983/

 

TBH, I rarely watch ANY news.  It’s either morally depressing, pure malarkey, or just noise.  The media folks will say just about ANYTHING to get a tick in ratings.  I don’t need that.  Haven’t had cable TV in my houses for over 15 years.  I see it on the monitors in public, but usually don’t pay attention.  I get more from CEHST than anywhere else, actually.  (Some from FB, but lately, I find even FB to be depressing.  Just haven’t deactivated my account because of my kids, but I think that may change soon, and I will deactivate for good.  Pray for me.)

 

I’m actually more liberal than conservative.  I have more conservative friends than liberal ones, but those I hold dear are only slightly right of center.  The folks I know personally who are liberal are... in your FACE liberal.  Pushy.  Trying to change my mind types.  I’ll argue my viewpoint all day, but when it’s over, I don’t expect anyone to “come to my side” or think that if they disagree with me, they are just wrong or bad people.  The truth is out there, but I think it will always be somewhere near the middle.

 

So back to what we were talking about... I cannot agree with you that the rich need to pay more than they do now.  They already DO pay more than you and I.  But I don’t think they need to pay so much so as to “bring them down to our level”, or to reduce their “obscene disposable income”.  They earned it, they should get to spend it.  Look at Jeff Bezos.  Not saying anything one way or the other about him personally nor his business acumen.  Just his wealth.  Some guy who woke up one day and decided to do a mail order delivery business.  It has been said that at his wealth level, dropping $88,000 is akin to you and I spending $1.  That’s just wack, and I cannot even begin to imagine how that feels.  But I also don’t want any of his money.  I can take care of my family just fine.  And if my family convinces me they want more than we have now, then I will work harder or longer to get it for them.  

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

1 hour ago, AshMarty said:

Just an interesting conversation I had with my husbands family from Australia (more socialist then the US) their healthcare system is well organized and free to use, my husband had a free heart surgery the month before he moved to the US but they also have the option of a private system to buy into. My husbands (Australian) family were complaining about high taxes and they made a comment how the US must have much lower taxes then them because a majority of their taxes goes to their healthcare system/welfare programs. I asked what percentage of taxes they pay for their bracket and I think it was the same or maybe even a little less than the US taxes (they were shocked).

 

So out of curiosity l looked up were America spends all their money, and it isn't on government socialist programs but the military. We have the largest military budget out of any country in the world (by a large margin). I guess that is the trade off, my Australian brother in law laughed after we talked about and said it makes sense because they just relay on the US for large conflicts and help, military wise.   

 

 

Thank you.  I have said this before, and gotten shot down.  It’s the same in many close-to-socialist nations that are doing it successfully.  All the Scandinavian countries have small military budgets.  Yet get a lot of protection from other militaries (the US would jump on a grenade for them).  So they can spend more money on programs like health care.  Ditto Canada.  Their biggest border is protected by the might of the US military.  So their biggest military expense is horse food.  (Laugh)

[Keith & Arileidi 437]

19 minutes ago, Satisfied said:

Socialism is the collective ownership and management of the workplace.  Even if one TRIED to apply that to public education, it does not fit the definition.  The state education board controls schools, not the collective.

 

Socialism is a classless society.  Everyone the same, everyone equal, no one gets ahead.  Yet you say our current public education system (which is more welfare capitalist and nowhere near socialist) produces highly educated kids.  I disagree.  If anything, we are LIMITING their education with standardized testing, which means kids are being taught to the standards of the test, so that teachers keep their jobs.  It’s a POOR way of educating kids, actually.  Children are not encouraged to be free thinkers.  Their parents do not push them to learn (if you want to see some smart kids, look at Japan or S. Korea.  Or Asia in general). Sorry, but your argument about education is not very accurate.  Here’s a look at how we stack up as a nation:

https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2013/12/american-schools-vs-the-world-expensive-unequal-bad-at-math/281983/

 

TBH, I rarely watch ANY news.  It’s either morally depressing, pure malarkey, or just noise.  The media folks will say just about ANYTHING to get a tick in ratings.  I don’t need that.  Haven’t had cable TV in my houses for over 15 years.  I see it on the monitors in public, but usually don’t pay attention.  I get more from CEHST than anywhere else, actually.  (Some from FB, but lately, I find even FB to be depressing.  Just haven’t deactivated my account because of my kids, but I think that may change soon, and I will deactivate for good.  Pray for me.)

 

I’m actually more liberal than conservative.  I have more conservative friends than liberal ones, but those I hold dear are only slightly right of center.  The folks I know personally who are liberal are... in your FACE liberal.  Pushy.  Trying to change my mind types.  I’ll argue my viewpoint all day, but when it’s over, I don’t expect anyone to “come to my side” or think that if they disagree with me, they are just wrong or bad people.  The truth is out there, but I think it will always be somewhere near the middle.

 

So back to what we were talking about... I cannot agree with you that the rich need to pay more than they do now.  They already DO pay more than you and I.  But I don’t think they need to pay so much so as to “bring them down to our level”, or to reduce their “obscene disposable income”.  They earned it, they should get to spend it.  Look at Jeff Bezos.  Not saying anything one way or the other about him personally nor his business acumen.  Just his wealth.  Some guy who woke up one day and decided to do a mail order delivery business.  It has been said that at his wealth level, dropping $88,000 is akin to you and I spending $1.  That’s just wack, and I cannot even begin to imagine how that feels.  But I also don’t want any of his money.  I can take care of my family just fine.  And if my family convinces me they want more than we have now, then I will work harder or longer to get it for them.  

Lol , cherry pick much? 

 

Socialism: 

1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

2a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property

b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state

3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism andcommunism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

 

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism

Edited October 4, 2018 by Keith & Arileidi