imsirius
Prolific Pea
Call it as I see it.
Posts: 7,661
Location: Floating in the black veil.
Jul 12, 2014 19:59:28 GMT
|
Post by imsirius on Feb 6, 2019 13:48:51 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 14, 2024 19:33:28 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2019 13:55:48 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Feb 6, 2019 14:00:59 GMT
We run centrists and they still call them socialists. There is no candidate we can run that will prevent the Republicans from using this narrative with their base, which is generally unable or unwilling to discern social democracy from socialist totalitarianism. Trying to prevent the RNC from running against us as "socialists" is futile IMO. And the reason is, is because we gave it to them. But we had better find a way to change the narrative because it will the ACA fiasco all over again when the Democrats let the Republicans control the narrative. IMO I can still see some old lady, who was on Medicare, saying “keep the government out of my health care.” And let’s don’ forget those death panels. The problem as I see it is that the right-wing media will create whatever narrative it wants. I think people who are lost to Fox and Breitbart, who believe that mainstream media and anyone who is not a Trumper are lying to them, are lost to any messaging we might put out there as well. We can control our own narrative but we can't control what dishonest media says about us. I agree with your other post below this one that we have to focus on the people who sat out 2016. People who engage with right wing, partisan media will believe anyone we run, no matter how moderate, is a socialist who wants to take all their money and guns, and kill full-term infants for fun. Those people are beyond our reach no matter how centrist our candidate. And some of them identify as "independents," so yeah. It's going to be a fun election cycle.
|
|
|
Post by gar on Feb 6, 2019 14:03:19 GMT
Her expression just before the end is funny and telling
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Feb 6, 2019 14:04:32 GMT
Where has this sudden focus on "HIV epidemic" come from? I was wondering the same thing. Maybe HIV is a short enough acronym that he could remember it? I think it was a misguided attempt to show he "cares" about the LGBT community. Because in Republican minds, it's still 1988, and AIDS is a problem only for gay men.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 14, 2024 19:33:28 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2019 14:12:52 GMT
And the reason is, is because we gave it to them. But we had better find a way to change the narrative because it will the ACA fiasco all over again when the Democrats let the Republicans control the narrative. IMO I can still see some old lady, who was on Medicare, saying “keep the government out of my health care.” And let’s don’ forget those death panels. The problem as I see it is that the right-wing media will create whatever narrative it wants. I think people who are lost to Fox and Breitbart, who believe that mainstream media and anyone who is not a Trumper are lying to them, are lost to any messaging we might put out there as well. We can control our own narrative but we can't control what dishonest media says about us.I agree with your other post below this one that we have to focus on the people who sat out 2016. People who engage with right wing, partisan media will believe anyone we run, no matter how moderate, is a socialist who wants to take all their money and guns, and kill full-term infants for fun. Those people are beyond our reach no matter how centrist our candidate. And some of them identify as "independents," so yeah. It's going to be a fun election cycle. That! We need to run true progressives who talk about a Financial Transaction Tax of .1 to 1% on the $1TRILLION traded every stinking day. We need to talk about MORE marginal tax brackets. We need to hire more at the Federal level and pass funds to states to hire more at the local levels - law enforcement, nurses, teachers, food inspectors - doing the DOUBLE GOOD of providing a service AND paying a salary in this increasingly outsourced, downsized, off-shored, automated world. The right-wing will tar ANYONE to the left of right-wing reactionary as a "communist" or "socialist" or a libtard or a cuck or whatever their favorite pejorative of the month is. They are lost. The ones who matter are those who never vote because no one is listening to their struggles and working to alleviate them as much as practical.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 14, 2024 19:33:28 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2019 14:16:07 GMT
|
|
|
Post by crimsoncat05 on Feb 6, 2019 14:17:39 GMT
The difference in the looks...😂😂😂 Nancy: " God, I want to punch your face in" Pence: "squee....I love you Trumpy" I love the video of her clapping; she's doing it sooo pronounced- as if to say "look, DT-- everyone can see, I'm clapping for you, so you can't whine about it" but not meaning it at ALL! And the little smirk is just priceless. I love the pic of her clapping while he's golfing, lol!!
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 14, 2024 19:33:28 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2019 14:19:19 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 14, 2024 19:33:28 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2019 14:28:53 GMT
Oh no!!! Not "fairness"!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Feb 6, 2019 15:56:35 GMT
Everything is fine, Russia is fine, Vladimir if fine, nothing to see here. Hillaries emails, Wall, Hillaries emails. IMHO Trump is the greatest threat to the national security of the USA I have witnessed during my lifetime. Bigger risk than N Korea, China, Iran or even Russia because he’s letting them all in the back door without a shot fired. People who can’t see what he is doing are willfully ignorant. As I said a few days ago, your kids will need to learn Russian... Tough language too!
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Feb 6, 2019 16:03:25 GMT
Oh no!!! Not "fairness"!!!!! I guess I should stop teaching the "life isn't fair" song in my classes. 😂
|
|
|
Post by ntsf on Feb 6, 2019 16:21:56 GMT
one of my kids took 8 yrs of russian... could read a newspaper. the other kid took mandarin chinese.. and the other japanese. we are ready for whomever!!!!
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 14, 2024 19:33:28 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2019 19:43:54 GMT
Newsweek...
”Mike Pence, who walked out of NFL game due to anthem protests, says standing up for your beliefs is "never" a mistake”
How do you spell hypocrite? Mike Pence.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 14, 2024 19:33:28 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2019 20:25:10 GMT
That! We need to run true progressives who talk about a Financial Transaction Tax of .1 to 1% on the $1TRILLION traded every stinking day. We need to talk about MORE marginal tax brackets. We need to hire more at the Federal level and pass funds to states to hire more at the local levels - law enforcement, nurses, teachers, food inspectors - doing the DOUBLE GOOD of providing a service AND paying a salary in this increasingly outsourced, downsized, off-shored, automated world. The right-wing will tar ANYONE to the left of right-wing reactionary as a "communist" or "socialist" or a libtard or a cuck or whatever their favorite pejorative of the month is. They are lost. The ones who matter are those who never vote because no one is listening to their struggles and working to alleviate them as much as practical. Devil advocate here aka as middle of the road Democrat. How is what you propose going to solve the problem of income inequality for those who’s salaries don’t come from the government coffers? Right now there are more jobs then the people qualified to do them. Even with that wages are flat. How is a “true progressive agenda” going to solve that problem? I believe this to be true. 1. Within the next 20 years, 40-45% of the jobs that exist today will be gone. 2. On 60 Minutes a couple of weeks ago this tech guy in China, said he believes the technology/automation revolution is moving faster then many though it would be. How is a “progressive agenda” going to solve the problem of people losing their jobs to automation and technology? What is the plan? I’ve read the New Green Deal. I have read where AOC’s chief of staff, who worked on the plan, believes a lot of it is unattainable but why not include it anyway. Kind of like “just pay for it”. I’ve read AOC and her 70% marginal tax on incomes over $10M will generate roughly $52B a year or over 10 years $520B. That is how she proposes to pay for the New Gree. Deal. Is that enough to pay for the laundry list in the New Green Deal, which is also a 10 year plan? What about the current debt? What about Social Security that is suppose to run dry in I think the latest estimate is 15 years? Should both of those items be swept aside as unimportant? Now Elizabethe, soon to be leaving the race for president, Warren’s tax plan will raise $2. Something trillion a year. Is that enough to end income inequality? As well as addressing other programs the government is responsible for? In theory I support most of what is being tossed out there as being progressive. But what I see is a lot of unanswered questions that are being pushed aside in the enthusiasm of these ideas. But the devil is always in the details so these questions need to be answered. And when we talk about those who don’t vote, did anyone stop to think the reason they don’t vote is because they’ve heard it all before and nothing changes so why bother? That maybe they are waiting for their political candidates to actually lay out the case for change that will work and that can actually be done? Realistic goals that bring change in the right direction and that can be accomplished in a divided country? That are realistic enough they bring support from the other side?
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 14, 2024 19:33:28 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2019 20:48:50 GMT
linkI have said many times that I Paul Waldman. In his column today in The Washington Post he brings up a really good question we should be asking when we vote for our candidate for president. IMO. “As two more Democrats edge toward 2020 runs, here’s the big question we should ask”From the column.. ”But here's my real complaint: What if instead of just asking what kind of candidate each contender will be, we asked what kind of president they'd be? The fact that I even have to suggest this shows how distorted the discussion of the campaign is. I don't mean to say that Democrats shouldn't spend time thinking about which candidate would have the best chance of beating Trump; that will always be something the opposition party is justifiably worried about. But it seems like 90 percent of our discussion of the candidates is about their campaign strengths and weaknesses, with only occasional thought given to what they would actually be like in the Oval Office.” Good question. How many of us do? And if we don’t how come? The reality is, a candidate running for president will only be able to accomplish a fraction of what they promise if they are elected. So that would mean how he/she runs the country becomes as important if not more important then what campaign promises they can actually deliver on. trump is proof of that in so many ways. On the other side President Obama promised a lot with his hope and change. A lot of it never happened, and that is why some of his voters voted for trump. But regardless, he is a popular president because of how he conducts himself and how he ran the country. I’m just sorry he ran into Mitch McConnel and angry Republicans who had no intention of agreeing to anything he proposed. It might have interesting to see what of the hope and change he could have accomplished if he had been dealing with honest brokers.
|
|
|
Post by hop2 on Feb 6, 2019 20:55:08 GMT
Put someone as far left as Bernie in the Oval Office and you’ll see a drastic swing the opposite way quickly. They have the deck stacked in their favor already with gerrymandered maps and the SC that if you do elect someone somewhat far left whatever gains the left made at the midterms will dissolve. Poof.
Besides the stupid sheeple who believe anything he tweets, you’ll become unappealing to any conservatives that actually value conservative values any more. There are a few left.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 14, 2024 19:33:28 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2019 21:06:39 GMT
NBC News...
”Special counsel will receive House Intel Cmte. transcripts from interviews with:
-Kushner -Parscale -Sessions -Bannon -Hicks -Lewandowski -Podesta -Wasserman-Schultz -Trump Jr. -Cohen -Erik Prince -Page -Brennan -Lynch -Yates -McCabe -Rice -Clapper
and many more - @mikememoli”
That is quite a list.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 14, 2024 19:33:28 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2019 21:17:15 GMT
trump: “ Adam Schiff is a political hack and there is no reason to investigate.”
This shows you how dumb trump is. Instead of saying “I have not done any wrongdoings and I’m confident that is what these investigations prove” and nothing more, he goes out and yells witch hunt, threatens the Democratic group in the House, and find ways to obstruct justice. Which makes one automatically think “what is he hiding?” Not I wonder if he is hiding something but what is he hiding.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 14, 2024 19:33:28 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2019 21:34:44 GMT
That! We need to run true progressives who talk about a Financial Transaction Tax of .1 to 1% on the $1TRILLION traded every stinking day. We need to talk about MORE marginal tax brackets. We need to hire more at the Federal level and pass funds to states to hire more at the local levels - law enforcement, nurses, teachers, food inspectors - doing the DOUBLE GOOD of providing a service AND paying a salary in this increasingly outsourced, downsized, off-shored, automated world. The right-wing will tar ANYONE to the left of right-wing reactionary as a "communist" or "socialist" or a libtard or a cuck or whatever their favorite pejorative of the month is. They are lost. The ones who matter are those who never vote because no one is listening to their struggles and working to alleviate them as much as practical. Devil advocate here aka as middle of the road Democrat. How is what you propose going to solve the problem of income inequality for those who’s salaries don’t come from the government coffers? Right now there are more jobs then the people qualified to do them. Even with that wages are flat. How is a “true progressive agenda” going to solve that problem? I believe this to be true. 1. Within the next 20 years, 40-45% of the jobs that exist today will be gone. 2. On 60 Minutes a couple of weeks ago this tech guy in China, said he believes the technology/automation revolution is moving faster then many though it would be. How is a “progressive agenda” going to solve the problem of people losing their jobs to automation and technology? What is the plan? I’ve read the New Green Deal. I have read where AOC’s chief of staff, who worked on the plan, believes a lot of it is unattainable but why not include it anyway. Kind of like “just pay for it”. I’ve read AOC and her 70% marginal tax on incomes over $10M will generate roughly $52B a year or over 10 years $520B. That is how she proposes to pay for the New Gree. Deal. Is that enough to pay for the laundry list in the New Green Deal, which is also a 10 year plan? What about the current debt? What about Social Security that is suppose to run dry in I think the latest estimate is 15 years? Should both of those items be swept aside as unimportant? Now Elizabethe, soon to be leaving the race for president, Warren’s tax plan will raise $2. Something trillion a year. Is that enough to end income inequality? As well as addressing other programs the government is responsible for? In theory I support most of what is being tossed out there as being progressive. But what I see is a lot of unanswered questions that are being pushed aside in the enthusiasm of these ideas. But the devil is always in the details so these questions need to be answered. And when we talk about those who don’t vote, did anyone stop to think the reason they don’t vote is because they’ve heard it all before and nothing changes so why bother? That maybe they are waiting for their political candidates to actually lay out the case for change that will work and that can actually be done? Realistic goals that bring change in the right direction and that can be accomplished in a divided country? That are realistic enough they bring support from the other side? Possibly a UBI for those not on gov't payroll. I was at a conf. last week where someone spoke who'd recently been to Davos and he said the conversation there turned to UBI so "the revolution won't be at our gates". The wealthiest of the wealthy understand that we don't need as many people working to still throw off billions in income for the wealthiest. But they are no fools. They realize that with a vast underclass of unemployed, they are vulnerable to revolution and violence - everywhere. We have to unlock the trillions and trillions locked up in the hands of the wealthiest 10% who own 88% of the wealth of the world: "The bottom half of adults collectively own less than 1% of total wealth, the richest decile (top 10% of adults) owns 88% of global assets, and the top percentile alone accounts for half of total household wealth," the Credit Suisse report said. Put another way: "The top 1% own 50.1% of all household wealth in the world." www.businessinsider.com/richest-1-own-over-half-the-worlds-wealth-2017-11It is not sustainable. It will only continue to concentrate. That is what capital married to enormous advances in productivity and automation does. The money to feed, clothe and house millions and millions must come from the concentration of the wealthy - because that's where it all is. Whether it's UBI or some other means, the money either comes to the majority or the majority will riot and we will have revolutions the world over. My suggestion is a financial transaction tax of .1 to 1% on the $1TRILLION traded each and every day in the US. That could net anywhere from tens to hundreds of billions per year to help ease the displacement of workers outsource, downsized, off-shored and automated out of jobs. Not to mention the old, the young, the sick, the disabled.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 14, 2024 19:33:28 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2019 21:36:14 GMT
linkNot nice by this Gaetz. Also a fun fact. Not long after the hearing started the majority of the Republican Congressmen were gone. Not interested in hearing what was said. Not worth their time. NPR.. “Trump Ally Tries to Remove Parkland Fathers From Gun Violence Hearing”
From the article “A longtime Trump ally pushed to have two fathers of Parkland victims tossed out of a Congressional hearing on gun violence — a reflection of the vociferous nature of the debate Democrats have made a priority in the new Congress. Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., sparked commotion in the hearing when he listed circumstances in which violence was committed by undocumented immigrants, and said the solution would be to build the Trump-backed wall along the southwest border."I hope we do not forget the pain, and anguish, and sense of loss felt by those all over the country who have been the victims of violence at the hands of illegal aliens," Gaetz said. "[Firearms background check legislation] would not have stopped many of the circumstances I raised, but a wall, a barrier on the southern border may have, and that's what we're fighting for."This led to protests in the hearing room by the fathers of two Parkland shooting victims, Manuel Oliver and Fred Guttenberg. Gaetz responded by asking for their removal. The public is not allowed to comment during congressional hearings, and the two were given a warning.Nikolas Cruz entered Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida last February and opened fire, killing 17 students and faculty members. Pointing at Oliver and Guttenberg, the Florida Republican continued to press for them to be removed from the room. "I'd observe three interruptions of my time by the same individual, and the chair is not exercising his discretion to remove that individual," Gaetz said. After the exchange, Guttenberg told NPR what he and Oliver had said to Gaetz in the hearing: "Manny told Gaetz his comments were not true, and I said our loved ones were killed by an American male." Aka as an angry white guy with a gun.
Later, Democratic Rep. Steve Cohen, D-Tenn., tried to rebut Gaetz's remarks. Listing off a number of mass shootings, Cohen noted that they were not conducted by immigrants who entered the country illegally. Sarcastically, Cohen added: "I got confused. I thought illegal aliens, when they got in, they went straight to a taco shop and started killing people. But that doesn't happen?" The House Judiciary Committee's Wednesday hearing on gun violence was the first of its kind in nearly eight years. The panel has not had a hearing on this topic since Republicans took control of the House in 2011 following the Tea Party wave in the 2010 midterms. "It's our turn to set the agenda, and listen to the American people," said Rep. Zoe Lofgren, a California Democrat, a nod to the new Democratic majority. The lobby of Rayburn House Office Building, where the hearing was held, was flooded with young people as early as 7 a.m. — three hours before the hearing was to begin. Students skipped classes and came from as far away as Portland, Ore., to pack the committee room for the hearing. But the angry exchange between Gaetz and two Parkland victim family members reflected just how far apart Republicans and Democrats are on this issue of firearms legislation. With Democrats now in control of the House, one of their priorities is to pass gun control legislation, with many members of their conference coalescing around a bill to require background checks on almost all gun sales and most gun transfers, and is co-sponsored by a bipartisan group of 230 lawmakers. That measure is also supported by Aalayah Eastmond, a survivor of the 2018 Parkland shooting, who testified before the committee Wednesday.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 14, 2024 19:33:28 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2019 21:47:06 GMT
He said it at Davos. Maybe the world is finally turning:
1500 private jets at Davos - to hear about climate change.
|
|
|
Post by hop2 on Feb 6, 2019 21:52:53 GMT
trump: “ Adam Schiff is a political hack and there is no reason to investigate.” This shows you how dumb trump is. Instead of saying “I have not done any wrongdoings and I’m confident that is what these investigations prove” and nothing more, he goes out and yells witch hunt, threatens the Democratic group in the House, and find ways to obstruct justice. Which makes one automatically think “what is he hiding?” Not I wonder if he is hiding something but what is he hiding. YOU maybe thinking ‘what’s he hiding’ but there’s a yuge chuck if our population who believes his tweets about it being a biased witch hunt Anyone with 1/2 a brain & a teeny tiny amount of research skills could see how Russian money has been propping him up for years. His sons used to freely admit that’s where thier money for their golf courses came from. As for me, I know what kinds of things he’s hiding. But when it’s he said she said against a ‘rich’ man the little people get swept under the rug. The good ole boys club works for the good ole boys all the time. The news papers ( probably on microfilm ) from AC & NYC are full of clues to what he did to people and got away with. All the lawsuits against him over the years are clues. I will lmao if he gets taken down because he could have continued his shell game in semi-obscurity in NYC indefinitely. If he doesn’t get what’s coming to him, eh well, he’s escaped consequences for years it won’t be earth shattering if he escapes them again. Especially with the good ole boys he’s got now
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Feb 6, 2019 22:06:26 GMT
If he doesn’t get what’s coming to him, eh well, he’s escaped consequences for years it won’t be earth shattering if he escapes them again. Especially with the good ole boys he’s got now Trouble is the damages he is doing to the USA!
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 14, 2024 19:33:28 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2019 22:09:44 GMT
Devil advocate here aka as middle of the road Democrat. How is what you propose going to solve the problem of income inequality for those who’s salaries don’t come from the government coffers? Right now there are more jobs then the people qualified to do them. Even with that wages are flat. How is a “true progressive agenda” going to solve that problem? I believe this to be true. 1. Within the next 20 years, 40-45% of the jobs that exist today will be gone. 2. On 60 Minutes a couple of weeks ago this tech guy in China, said he believes the technology/automation revolution is moving faster then many though it would be. How is a “progressive agenda” going to solve the problem of people losing their jobs to automation and technology? What is the plan? I’ve read the New Green Deal. I have read where AOC’s chief of staff, who worked on the plan, believes a lot of it is unattainable but why not include it anyway. Kind of like “just pay for it”. I’ve read AOC and her 70% marginal tax on incomes over $10M will generate roughly $52B a year or over 10 years $520B. That is how she proposes to pay for the New Gree. Deal. Is that enough to pay for the laundry list in the New Green Deal, which is also a 10 year plan? What about the current debt? What about Social Security that is suppose to run dry in I think the latest estimate is 15 years? Should both of those items be swept aside as unimportant? Now Elizabethe, soon to be leaving the race for president, Warren’s tax plan will raise $2. Something trillion a year. Is that enough to end income inequality? As well as addressing other programs the government is responsible for? In theory I support most of what is being tossed out there as being progressive. But what I see is a lot of unanswered questions that are being pushed aside in the enthusiasm of these ideas. But the devil is always in the details so these questions need to be answered. And when we talk about those who don’t vote, did anyone stop to think the reason they don’t vote is because they’ve heard it all before and nothing changes so why bother? That maybe they are waiting for their political candidates to actually lay out the case for change that will work and that can actually be done? Realistic goals that bring change in the right direction and that can be accomplished in a divided country? That are realistic enough they bring support from the other side? Possibly a UBI for those not on gov't payroll. I was at a conf. last week where someone spoke who'd recently been to Davos and he said the conversation there turned to UBI so "the revolution won't be at our gates". The wealthiest of the wealthy understand that we don't need as many people working to still throw off billions in income for the wealthiest. But they are no fools. They realize that with a vast underclass of unemployed, they are vulnerable to revolution and violence - everywhere. We have to unlock the trillions and trillions locked up in the hands of the wealthiest 10% who own 88% of the wealth of the world: "The bottom half of adults collectively own less than 1% of total wealth, the richest decile (top 10% of adults) owns 88% of global assets, and the top percentile alone accounts for half of total household wealth," the Credit Suisse report said. Put another way: "The top 1% own 50.1% of all household wealth in the world." www.businessinsider.com/richest-1-own-over-half-the-worlds-wealth-2017-11It is not sustainable. It will only continue to concentrate. That is what capital married to enormous advances in productivity and automation does. The money to feed, clothe and house millions and millions must come from the concentration of the wealthy - because that's where it all is. Whether it's UBI or some other means, the money either comes to the majority or the majority will riot and we will have revolutions the world over. My suggestion is a financial transaction tax of .1 to 1% on the $1TRILLION traded each and every day in the US. That could net anywhere from tens to hundreds of billions per year to help ease the displacement of workers outsource, downsized, off-shored and automated out of jobs. Not to mention the old, the young, the sick, the disabled. Devil advocate here again. The discussion about what to do when there are fewer jobs because of automation/technology has been around for sometime and it’s nothing new. But that’s down the road. There are people who need help now, today, not down the road. Could or would net “tens to hundreds of billions per year”? And what is it? Tens or hundreds of billions? Not good in math, but even I know there is big difference between 10s of billions and 100s of billions of dollars a year, big enough difference that would dictate what and how and problems are handled. And saying all this money appears, how is the government going to get it to do as promised? I’m not trying to be a pain in the ass about this. But people are really tired of empty promises. I see nothing but questions that need to be answered before I buy into this. I would love to sit down with Elizabeth Warren, or Sanders, or even AOC and ask specifically how are they going to pull off what they are promising. I read Sanders white paper on how he planned to pay for Medicare for all. I had so many questions. I’m not against taxing the wealthy and the corporations their fair share, I just want to make sure that if we do, we get what we are being promised. And I’m not a fan of a government becoming so big it becomes all things to all people. Because at some point, as France is finding out, “all the people” are going to demand more, more then the big government can give. Then what?
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 14, 2024 19:33:28 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2019 0:15:30 GMT
Kyle Griffin...
”Paul Erickson, the American political operative and boyfriend of admitted Russian agent Maria Butina, has been indicted by a federal grand jury in South Dakota on charges of wire fraud and money laundering, according to The Daily Beast.”
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 14, 2024 19:33:28 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2019 0:30:44 GMT
Possibly a UBI for those not on gov't payroll. I was at a conf. last week where someone spoke who'd recently been to Davos and he said the conversation there turned to UBI so "the revolution won't be at our gates". The wealthiest of the wealthy understand that we don't need as many people working to still throw off billions in income for the wealthiest. But they are no fools. They realize that with a vast underclass of unemployed, they are vulnerable to revolution and violence - everywhere. We have to unlock the trillions and trillions locked up in the hands of the wealthiest 10% who own 88% of the wealth of the world: "The bottom half of adults collectively own less than 1% of total wealth, the richest decile (top 10% of adults) owns 88% of global assets, and the top percentile alone accounts for half of total household wealth," the Credit Suisse report said. Put another way: "The top 1% own 50.1% of all household wealth in the world." www.businessinsider.com/richest-1-own-over-half-the-worlds-wealth-2017-11It is not sustainable. It will only continue to concentrate. That is what capital married to enormous advances in productivity and automation does. The money to feed, clothe and house millions and millions must come from the concentration of the wealthy - because that's where it all is. Whether it's UBI or some other means, the money either comes to the majority or the majority will riot and we will have revolutions the world over. My suggestion is a financial transaction tax of .1 to 1% on the $1TRILLION traded each and every day in the US. That could net anywhere from tens to hundreds of billions per year to help ease the displacement of workers outsource, downsized, off-shored and automated out of jobs. Not to mention the old, the young, the sick, the disabled. Devil advocate here again. The discussion about what to do when there are fewer jobs because of automation/technology has been around for sometime and it’s nothing new. But that’s down the road. There are people who need help now, today, not down the road. Could or would net “tens to hundreds of billions per year”? And what is it? Tens or hundreds of billions? Not good in math, but even I know there is big difference between 10s of billions and 100s of billions of dollars a year, big enough difference that would dictate what and how and problems are handled. And saying all this money appears, how is the government going to get it to do as promised? I’m not trying to be a pain in the ass about this. But people are really tired of empty promises. I see nothing but questions that need to be answered before I buy into this. I would love to sit down with Elizabeth Warren, or Sanders, or even AOC and ask specifically how are they going to pull off what they are promising. I read Sanders white paper on how he planned to pay for Medicare for all. I had so many questions. I’m not against taxing the wealthy and the corporations their fair share, I just want to make sure that if we do, we get what we are being promised. And I’m not a fan of a government becoming so big it becomes all things to all people. Because at some point, as France is finding out, “all the people” are going to demand more, more then the big government can give. Then what? No worries. It's good to talk it through. A financial transaction tax of .5% on the $1Trillion traded daily would bring into government revenue approx. $5BILLION per trading day. Say the tax cuts down on the number of algo trades, it would still bring in somenumber of billions/day - let's say $3BILLION. Over 220ish trading days/year, thats $660BILLION/year. Why am I taxed on the gas I buy, the phone I use, the house I sell, everything and anything - yet the richest of the rich trade tax free??!?!?!?!?!?!?!?! Things that make you go HMMMMM. Now imagine using some of that money to up the salaries so that the best and brightest and kindest go into gov't service instead of service to Wall St. or as functionaries to billionaires. More and better teachers, more and better federal and state LEO, more and better planners, more and better research funding, etc., etc., etc. We can't make it as the next wave of automation comes through the next few decades if we don't try UBI and/or FTT and/or higher marginal rates - things that break up that monolith of wealth that moves primarily at the highest echelons of economies - yachts, private jets, mansions, servants, gambling, extravagant parties, factories in low-wage low-environment-reg countries, etc., etc., etc.
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Feb 7, 2019 1:05:15 GMT
Devil advocate here again. The discussion about what to do when there are fewer jobs because of automation/technology has been around for sometime and it’s nothing new. But that’s down the road. There are people who need help now, today, not down the road. Could or would net “tens to hundreds of billions per year”? And what is it? Tens or hundreds of billions? Not good in math, but even I know there is big difference between 10s of billions and 100s of billions of dollars a year, big enough difference that would dictate what and how and problems are handled. And saying all this money appears, how is the government going to get it to do as promised? I’m not trying to be a pain in the ass about this. But people are really tired of empty promises. I see nothing but questions that need to be answered before I buy into this. I would love to sit down with Elizabeth Warren, or Sanders, or even AOC and ask specifically how are they going to pull off what they are promising. I read Sanders white paper on how he planned to pay for Medicare for all. I had so many questions. I’m not against taxing the wealthy and the corporations their fair share, I just want to make sure that if we do, we get what we are being promised. And I’m not a fan of a government becoming so big it becomes all things to all people. Because at some point, as France is finding out, “all the people” are going to demand more, more then the big government can give. Then what? No worries. It's good to talk it through. A financial transaction tax of .5% on the $1Trillion traded daily would bring into government revenue approx. $5BILLION per trading day. Say the tax cuts down on the number of algo trades, it would still bring in somenumber of billions/day - let's say $3BILLION. Over 220ish trading days/year, thats $660BILLION/year. Why am I taxed on the gas I buy, the phone I use, the house I sell, everything and anything - yet the richest of the rich trade tax free??!?!?!?!?!?!?!?! Things that make you go HMMMMM. Now imagine using some of that money to up the salaries so that the best and brightest and kindest go into gov't service instead of service to Wall St. or as functionaries to billionaires. More and better teachers, more and better federal and state LEO, more and better planners, more and better research funding, etc., etc., etc. We can't make it as the next wave of automation comes through the next few decades if we don't try UBI and/or FTT and/or higher marginal rates - things that break up that monolith of wealth that moves primarily at the highest echelons of economies - yachts, private jets, mansions, servants, gambling, extravagant parties, factories in low-wage low-environment-reg countries, etc., etc., etc. This exchange is both thought provoking and educational for me. I appreciate that the peas are so knowledgeable about so many things. Thanks to both of you for asking hard questions and offering well thought out answers.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 14, 2024 19:33:28 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2019 2:20:33 GMT
Buying the presidency - thanks, Donald. Just another bragging right at the club or the speaking circuit. No legislative, no governmental executive experience. Just lots of money to buy lots of the press.
|
|
|
Post by scrapsotime on Feb 7, 2019 2:36:25 GMT
Buying the presidency - thanks, Donald. Just another bragging right at the club or the speaking circuit. No legislative, no governmental executive experience. Just lots of money to buy lots of the press. Shultz will be speaking at Purdue University tomorrow and the scuttlebutt is that he will be announcing that he will be running for president.
|
|