Jump to content
Radio Shack Killa

God save us....

Recommended Posts

Just now, DirtyThirdFrog said:

 

Why wouldn't it?

 

I thought the government took care of this, no?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, DirtyThirdFrog said:

 

Why wouldn't it?

 

Because the costs are not paid, or not only paid, only by those who are making the problem. 

 

Basically a variant of the tragedy of the commons. When actual costs are not part of the market, well the market however perfect cannot allocate resources most efficiently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So apparently the Democratic primary's early focus will be on which candidate can propose the most outrageous new tax plan.  

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Army Frog Fan said:

So apparently the Democratic primary's early focus will be on which candidate can propose the most outrageous new tax plan.  

 

Their strategy seems to be actively turning away the centrist voter that could easily be theirs this cycle.  

 

As little as I care for Trump, earning my vote requires a lot more than simply being "Not Trump".  

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All they have to do is nominate a boring Democrat and they win the presidency. If they nominate crazy, Trump will out-crazy them to re-election.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Lyle Lanley II said:

 

Their strategy seems to be actively turning away the centrist voter that could easily be theirs this cycle.  

 

As little as I care for Trump, earning my vote requires a lot more than simply being "Not Trump".  

 

The actual strategy push right now appears to be to use the word "radical" in every sentence just like the old strategy was to use "job-killing ___" a few years back. Not sure it's really working as well this time around as such over-repeated talking points are getting much more boring now these days. Works well enough within the echo chamber but not necessarily so well out of it especially once people outside the chamber start tuning out the messages for other reasons like the constant barrage of misinformation/disinformation/flat out lying.

 

For example: Note Bannon's THREE underlines :o as one example on Jan 23 this year so he'd be sure to work it in. The other talking points are pretty clear as well and were widely echoed word-for-word.

 

XDZ7RRRECEI6TEGN33NQZEW4C4.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, NewfoundlandFreeFrog said:

 

The actual strategy push right now appears to be to use the word "radical" in every sentence just like the old strategy was to use "job-killing ___" a few years back. Not sure it's really working as well this time around as such over-repeated talking points are getting much more boring now these days. Works well enough within the echo chamber but not necessarily so well out of it especially once people outside the chamber start tuning out the messages for other reasons like the constant barrage of misinformation/disinformation/flat out lying.

 

For example: Note Bannon's THREE underlines :o as one example on Jan 23 this year so he'd be sure to work it in. The other talking points are pretty clear as well and were widely echoed word-for-word.

 

XDZ7RRRECEI6TEGN33NQZEW4C4.jpg

 

"Radical" isn't too far off describing the majority of those who have the best chance running on the democrat ticket in 2020.

 

A moderate democrat like Howard Schultz won't run as a democrat because he sees how extreme the direction of the party is going.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, SuperToad said:

 

"Radical" isn't too far off describing the majority of those who have the best chance running on the democrat ticket in 2020...

 

I'd say not true in any historical context if we look at those more likely to win than not, but we can agree to disagree.

 

That said, I'd suggest you DEFINITELY not start playing a drinking game where you go knocking back a shot for every time you hear the word "radical" prefacing any mention of the word "democrat" on any right wing news source over the next while!!! It's pretty obviously on the talking points memo that has gone around. 

Share this post


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

 

Was he yelling, screaming, and fake crying when he announced his run for 2020? The guy is basically Nicolas Cage in a nice suit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, SuperToad said:

 

Was he yelling, screaming, and fake crying when he announced his run for 2020? The guy is basically Nicolas Cage in a nice suit.

Image result for nicolas cage meme

  • Haha  (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One man's "extreme" is another man's "left/right-of-center".  It's the political corollary to Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity ... where you place someone else on the political spectrum depends on their position relative to you on the political spectrum ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Army Frog Fan said:

I would say the proposal of an unconstitutional wealth tax is pretty extreme.

 

Some debate as to whether it is constitutional or not, but Warren is definitely further left of most of the others who have thrown their hat in the ring.  She's definitely "solid left" rather than "left-of-center". 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Army Frog Fan said:

I would say the proposal of an unconstitutional wealth tax is pretty extreme.

If a specific tax were unconstitutional I would think the Supremes would let this be known at some point.

 

(Thanks for giving me a chance to use the subjunctive in English!!!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Army Frog Fan said:

I would say the proposal of an unconstitutional wealth tax is pretty extreme.

 

Wealth taxes are basically a move to the state owning the means of production. How does the government collect from Bill Gates' wealth, which is mostly the fair value of Microsoft stock? He has to sell of course. Who's going to buy it? More sellers in the market will push the strike price down which means he's technically not worth as much if he has to sell. So is the tax based on the unrealized value or the realized? Well then he's really exercising a capital gain when he is forced to sell. Strike less basis equals gain times the rate, etc. Who's going to buy this stock? Some other wealthy individual who is also selling their positions? China? Do we want to force billionaires to sell their ownership to foreign nationals and sovereign wealth funds? Microsoft would then be majority held by ADIA or SAMA? Or is the US government going to buy Gates' stock, so that they can tax Bill Gates, to pay for the costs of buying Bill Gates' stock? So no more money is really created into the government's revenue stream, only now the government is the majority shareholder of Microsoft. What are going to do in year 2? Bill Gates' doesn't have any more stock to sell.

 

What floors me is that there is plenty of investment dollars held by global "workers" pension funds, in the trillions, that they could just buy out a company and run it however they wanted. But. They. Don't. Why? They know why.

 

Also, the "billionaires" of the US really only hold something like 5% of the total wealth of the US. Pension funds hold way more, which is basically all of our retirement funds put together. Are they going to tax those as well? Because that is where the wealth really is.

 

If you want a Scandinavian type welfare state you are going to need to have a Scandinavian type tax structure. Which is a less progressive tax structure that hits the middle and lower segments of the earnings scale, because that is where the money is.

 

Using Denmark as an example:

 

Local tax is a flat tax depending on where you live the average rate is 25%.

National tax is 12.16% and then goes to 15% on income exceeding DKK 513,400.

Labor market tax is a flat 8%.

 

So the poor and middle class pay 45% or more.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, NewfoundlandFreeFrog said:

If a specific tax were unconstitutional I would think the Supremes would let this be known at some point.

 

(Thanks for giving me a chance to use the subjunctive in English!!!)

supremes_001v2.jpg?itok=59UdbKwZ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The difference between Ralph Northam and Michael Jackson is that Michael Jackson is only dangerous to male children.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The difference between Ralph Northam and Michael Jackson is that when Michael Jackson dangles babies over the balcony he pulls them back to safety.

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...