Current or modern politics in the United States - Page 309

**scoundrel** · February 3rd, 2019, 06:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bowlinggreen

Do VEF members think that the current dem trend of really taxing the super-rich is a good idea?

Moore's latest love is solidly behind that.

Any specifics on what "really taxing the super-rich" actually means?

I have to say I think it was foolish to cut taxes when the US government is running a current account deficit and I noted that the tax cuts were concentrated heavily on people in the top income brackets. If the purpose was to stimulate economic growth, then that is the wrong choice. However, I think we all know what the real reason for that one is.

America needs to grow her tax revenues to keep her deficit under control. Tax cuts work against this need. But conversely. punitive tax rises for the super-rich ignore the point that these are not patriotic people and they will merely leave the country if their taxes get too high. What is needed is economic growth because this generates more revenue from the existing tax base.

**diamelsx** · February 3rd, 2019, 06:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyLuck

On rare occasions I agree with Michael Moore. More often than not I disagree with him. This time he is truly batshit crazy:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/mic...mocratic-party

Documentary filmmaker Michael Moore declared U.S. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez the new leader of the Democratic Party, while urging political moderates to take a position because there “is no middle ground anymore.”

“She is the leader. Everybody knows it. Everybody feels it,” Moore said of the freshman congresswoman from New York during a Friday interview on MSNBC.

Moore said the age requirement to run for president - 35 - should be constitutionally amended so that Ocasio-Cortez could make a play for the White House.

I'd vote for Pelosi before I would ever vote for that crazy bitch AOC.

Call this a consequence of Hillary losing. Hillary Clinton being about as far right as any Democrat has been in decades when she lost it's sort of put a hole in the idea of the party running right being the most practical strategy and embolden the Left Flank to understand that without them the party could not win. So yes I think Michael is spot-on in his assessment.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bowlinggreen

Do VEF members think that the current dem trend of really taxing the super-rich is a good idea?

Moore's latest love is solidly behind that.

This is a brilliant idea. The main problem over these last couple of decades for the Democratic party has been turn out and part of that problem is rooted in the fact that a lot of their electorate does not does not feel that the party fights for their platform especially on the fiscal end. The party putting fourth policy goals like free public college, Medicare for all and a livable wage well at least Electrify the base and may even reach across the aisle and draw some Republicans over to their side.

**Rogerbh** · February 3rd, 2019, 06:18 PM

The idea of a wealth tax is rather repugnant to me because in order to enforce it, the tax agency would have to know everything you own - and that level of information on an individual would be so much greater than they have now......its kind of mind blowing.

The valuation arguments that would be going on would require tons of resources on both sides - a huge allocation of assets. If the US government is losing its battle on section 482 (transfer pricing between related entities) right now, this proposed battle seems pretty imposing based on its crappy track record. I can see haphazard enforcement on the horizon along with selective enforcement - basically political use against the enemies of the party in power........

**Devius** · February 3rd, 2019, 06:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bowlinggreen

Do VEF members think that the current dem trend of really taxing the super-rich is a good idea?

Moore's latest love is solidly behind that.

I guess Jeremy Corbyn's Labour Party will have similar "soak-the-rich" ambitions, should they ever acquire power in the UK.
Problem is, if I was rich and facing what I consider was punitive taxes, I would vote with my feet and relocate to a country less hazardous to my wealth...

**Arturo2nd** · February 3rd, 2019, 08:03 PM

Point #1 - the 20 year olds are influenced by socialist ideas, but even then most voters Republican, Democrat, and Independent are more centerist and moderate. The current meltdown will likely shake the Republicans free of the grip of the right wing crazies. Even the Koch crowd is backing away. But Socialist ideas (universal healthcare, increased funds for education and rebuilding infrastructure) are sounding very good to the mass of working folks who have been getting screwed for the past 30 years.

Point #2 - The 70% rate Ocasio-Cortez is quoting is quite a bit less than was paid by the top brackets in the Eisenhower years. There is also a lot of revenue to be had by beefing up the IRS again. The Republicans have slashed its budget and reduced the staff to the point where almost no enforcement is done anymore.

Point #3 - There is also a lot of money to be saved by cracking down on the crooks filing false Medicare claims. Many seniors have no idea that dishonest folks are billing Medicare for services in their names that were never provided. It may be as much as half the Medicare budget.

Point #4 - If you want to jump start the economy transferring income from the investing class to the consumers will ramp up demand and stimulate businesses increasing capacity. GDP is a bad measurement because it counts government spending on the military as "production."

Point # 5 - Voter suppression, gerrymandering, and right wing control of the media have made the "conservatives" seem more popular than they are. Americans are used to the New Deal reforms and the additional social programs enacted in subsequent years. They have become aware that other nations do a lot more for working people and see no reason that we should settle for crumbs. The right wing is deluding themselves if they think they can take away long established programs without severe repercussions.

Point #6 - Michael Moore is another fat guy who is over the top.

**DTravel** · February 4th, 2019, 12:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scoundrel

Any specifics on what "really taxing the super-rich" actually means?

I have to say I think it was foolish to cut taxes when the US government is running a current account deficit and I noted that the tax cuts were concentrated heavily on people in the top income brackets. If the purpose was to stimulate economic growth, then that is the wrong choice. However, I think we all know what the real reason for that one is.

America needs to grow her tax revenues to keep her deficit under control. Tax cuts work against this need. But conversely. punitive tax rises for the super-rich ignore the point that these are not patriotic people and they will merely leave the country if their taxes get too high. What is needed is economic growth because this generates more revenue from the existing tax base.

Historically over the last 100 years in the US the higher the taxes on the wealthiest the greater the economic prosperity and growth. Economic growth is driven by consumer demand and the biggest driver of consumer demand is a healthy, large middle class. 200 households with a $50,000/year income generate more demand than 1 household with a $10,000,000/year income. A lot more.

The cost of going to college also plays a part. The more higher education is subsidized, the more people who graduate, the more they drive economic growth. (Yes, the GI Bill really did have a big part in the 1950s US economic boom.) Social "safety net" programs have similar effects to a much lesser degree.

Otherwise wealth (and the attendant power) concentrate on a very small segment of the population. (Note which American political party favors deconstruction of social safety nets and lowering taxes on the wealthy.)

**bowlinggreen** · February 4th, 2019, 04:57 AM

I think the rich fear a strong middle class and this is why they have done nothing to preserve it, and perhaps have deliberately contributed to its downfall in some cases.

The uneducated worker who does marginal jobs in the new "gig economy", driving for Uber and working at Starbucks spends most of his time struggling to make ends meet, has little political awareness except for what is spoonfed to him by the popular media, and is more or less at the mercy of his masters. He poses little threat to the rich elite.

Take by contrast the relatively intelligent middle class working man with at least a competent technical education and spare time to read, with a good job, perhaps a union job, and who actually has something to lose (a decent house, a family, good car etc.), who participates in middle-class community life, belongs to the usual clubs and organizations, and is part of a discrete political bloc which is closely tied to his best self interests and those of his like-minded fellows. He and they stick together when voting time rolls around, and they stick together on the job when the ever-greedy company owners try to scrub their pay raises and benefits.

These latter folk pose much more of a threat to the elites than the former.

En masse, they can stifle the sort of political swinery the elites would like to inflict upon us.

But there are less and less of that sort around.

As history shows, the ideal worker from the point of view of the rich man is the slave. You pay him nothing, feed and clothe him with the basics, and tell him what to believe in. He has no stake in your society, being prohibited ownership of anything, and must simply obey.

Slavery is now illegal, but it's clear that the rich are in love with the ideal of serfdom, or at least as close as can be gotten to it, for the greater mass of society.

More serfs = less middle class = less threat to the rich.

**diamelsx** · February 4th, 2019, 04:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian249x

Maybe because I'm old I agree with him. Times, standards, and expectations were much different in 1984. Also, some idiot thing a person did in his college days 35 years ago ought not automatically disqualify him today. Most of us learn and grow over the years. His actions were well short of criminal.

I'm going to have to push back on this one. First off he was 25 at the time he wasn't some college freshman all green he was in med school after doing time in the military so the exuberance of Youth excuse is not going to fly. Also his current handling of the situation denotes that he really hasn't learned the error of his ways when they ask you to demonstrate the moonwalk your wife should not have to tell you that it is inappropriate.

**Arturo2nd** · February 12th, 2019, 07:34 AM

I'm reading "Dark Money," which is about the Koch Brothers and the unfettered anonymous corporate and billionaire political spending that has taken over politics and fueled Republican dominance since the Citizens United decision. I also am seeing signs that Trump could be reelected despite losing the popular vote by an even greater margin in 2020.

I really have to wonder how long American workers are going to put up with a party winning elections and controlling the country despite losing the popular vote. The polls show growing support among the voters for programs espoused by Bernie Sanders and Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez. Those programs are an anathema to the tax dodging wealthy controlling the Republicans.

The Kochs are close to their goal of rolling the legal framework back to the late 19th century. What folks are overlooking is those times and the pre-World War 2 20th century featured multiple armed labor riots and increasing electoral victories for socialists. They may be gathering up all the wealth and gaming the political process, but we have the votes. If push comes to shove and the masses have little to lose, we also have the numbers to overrun their rent-a-thugs. Do they really think they can dodge a shooting class war by continuing on the current path?

**Roubignol** · February 12th, 2019, 09:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bowlinggreen

I think the rich fear a strong middle class and this is why they have done nothing to preserve it, and perhaps have deliberately contributed to its downfall in some cases.

The French revolution was perpetrated by middle-class.
Today French governement is terrified by Yellow Vests movement, because it's not the poorest working class that is manifesting. It's a huge part of the French middle class. (77% of the French population agree with Yellow Vests)

The problem for the richs is that there are not enough environmental resources to satisfy a growing middle-class that wants to live like rich. Richs don't want to give up their unstainable way of life. Since the 80's, the old rich Western class decided to let down its costly middle class, transferring the jobs in emerging countries.

Western middle class played the game during almost 40 years... but now are tired. Particularly in Latin countries, like France, Spain, Italy, where people are happier during their free time instead of during their working time.
It seems that even German "slaves" are awaking a little bit.

When the right working class becomes unsatisfied, politicians are afraid, because rightists usually think that exploitation is normal or tolerable, when leftists always are unhappy.

February 4th, 2019, 04:57 AM	#3087
bowlinggreen Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2015 Posts: 4,192 Thanks: 48,676 Thanked 49,166 Times in 4,188 Posts	I think the rich fear a strong middle class and this is why they have done nothing to preserve it, and perhaps have deliberately contributed to its downfall in some cases. The uneducated worker who does marginal jobs in the new "gig economy", driving for Uber and working at Starbucks spends most of his time struggling to make ends meet, has little political awareness except for what is spoonfed to him by the popular media, and is more or less at the mercy of his masters. He poses little threat to the rich elite. Take by contrast the relatively intelligent middle class working man with at least a competent technical education and spare time to read, with a good job, perhaps a union job, and who actually has something to lose (a decent house, a family, good car etc.), who participates in middle-class community life, belongs to the usual clubs and organizations, and is part of a discrete political bloc which is closely tied to his best self interests and those of his like-minded fellows. He and they stick together when voting time rolls around, and they stick together on the job when the ever-greedy company owners try to scrub their pay raises and benefits. These latter folk pose much more of a threat to the elites than the former. En masse, they can stifle the sort of political swinery the elites would like to inflict upon us. But there are less and less of that sort around. As history shows, the ideal worker from the point of view of the rich man is the slave. You pay him nothing, feed and clothe him with the basics, and tell him what to believe in. He has no stake in your society, being prohibited ownership of anything, and must simply obey. Slavery is now illegal, but it's clear that the rich are in love with the ideal of serfdom, or at least as close as can be gotten to it, for the greater mass of society. More serfs = less middle class = less threat to the rich. __________________ So much porn, so little time...

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

February 3rd, 2019, 06:18 PM	#3083
Rogerbh Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Land of the free within reasonable limitations Posts: 10,900 Thanks: 50,519 Thanked 91,155 Times in 10,747 Posts	The idea of a wealth tax is rather repugnant to me because in order to enforce it, the tax agency would have to know everything you own - and that level of information on an individual would be so much greater than they have now......its kind of mind blowing. The valuation arguments that would be going on would require tons of resources on both sides - a huge allocation of assets. If the US government is losing its battle on section 482 (transfer pricing between related entities) right now, this proposed battle seems pretty imposing based on its crappy track record. I can see haphazard enforcement on the horizon along with selective enforcement - basically political use against the enemies of the party in power........

February 3rd, 2019, 08:03 PM	#3085
Arturo2nd Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2012 Location: Oakland, California, United States. I have a beautful view of the BART tracks and I-980 Posts: 8,955 Thanks: 103,061 Thanked 151,470 Times in 8,946 Posts	Point #1 - the 20 year olds are influenced by socialist ideas, but even then most voters Republican, Democrat, and Independent are more centerist and moderate. The current meltdown will likely shake the Republicans free of the grip of the right wing crazies. Even the Koch crowd is backing away. But Socialist ideas (universal healthcare, increased funds for education and rebuilding infrastructure) are sounding very good to the mass of working folks who have been getting screwed for the past 30 years. Point #2 - The 70% rate Ocasio-Cortez is quoting is quite a bit less than was paid by the top brackets in the Eisenhower years. There is also a lot of revenue to be had by beefing up the IRS again. The Republicans have slashed its budget and reduced the staff to the point where almost no enforcement is done anymore. Point #3 - There is also a lot of money to be saved by cracking down on the crooks filing false Medicare claims. Many seniors have no idea that dishonest folks are billing Medicare for services in their names that were never provided. It may be as much as half the Medicare budget. Point #4 - If you want to jump start the economy transferring income from the investing class to the consumers will ramp up demand and stimulate businesses increasing capacity. GDP is a bad measurement because it counts government spending on the military as "production." Point # 5 - Voter suppression, gerrymandering, and right wing control of the media have made the "conservatives" seem more popular than they are. Americans are used to the New Deal reforms and the additional social programs enacted in subsequent years. They have become aware that other nations do a lot more for working people and see no reason that we should settle for crumbs. The right wing is deluding themselves if they think they can take away long established programs without severe repercussions. Point #6 - Michael Moore is another fat guy who is over the top.

February 12th, 2019, 07:34 AM	#3089
Arturo2nd Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2012 Location: Oakland, California, United States. I have a beautful view of the BART tracks and I-980 Posts: 8,955 Thanks: 103,061 Thanked 151,470 Times in 8,946 Posts	I'm reading "Dark Money," which is about the Koch Brothers and the unfettered anonymous corporate and billionaire political spending that has taken over politics and fueled Republican dominance since the Citizens United decision. I also am seeing signs that Trump could be reelected despite losing the popular vote by an even greater margin in 2020. I really have to wonder how long American workers are going to put up with a party winning elections and controlling the country despite losing the popular vote. The polls show growing support among the voters for programs espoused by Bernie Sanders and Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez. Those programs are an anathema to the tax dodging wealthy controlling the Republicans. The Kochs are close to their goal of rolling the legal framework back to the late 19th century. What folks are overlooking is those times and the pre-World War 2 20th century featured multiple armed labor riots and increasing electoral victories for socialists. They may be gathering up all the wealth and gaming the political process, but we have the votes. If push comes to shove and the masses have little to lose, we also have the numbers to overrun their rent-a-thugs. Do they really think they can dodge a shooting class war by continuing on the current path?