Pelosi 2, Ocasio-Cortez 0

Cristiano

Cosmos Betraying Fiend
Admin
Joined
Sep 19, 2018
Messages
4,987
SL Rez
2002
Joined SLU
Nov 2003
SLU Posts
35836
Last edited:

Han Held

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 20, 2018
Messages
618
Joined SLU
0
SLU Posts
0
Generally, I'm averse to the idea of centrism but I feel that calling for 70% tax on anyone will do nothing but feed into the fears about going down a socialist path.

You get the power, and then you nationalize. We don't have enough power to call for a radical tax yet.

I think it's suicidal and could potentially (between that and the crap Pelosi is trying to pull) take the wind out of any practical reforms that address income inequality.
 

Kaimi Kyomoon

Persistent Participant
VVO Supporter 🍦🎈👾❤
Joined
Oct 12, 2018
Messages
447
Location
San Diego, California
SL Rez
2004
Joined SLU
2007
I am always willing to listen and rethink my position. While I think the 70% tax idea would be a very hard sell and realistically probably would not work, it's not without merit:

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is floating a 70 percent top tax rate — here’s the research that backs her up
While I agree that proposing a 70% tax on the very rich seems like a radical idea to many people these days, I remember the Eisenhower years when I was a child. We were working toward a more equitable society. For my whole life I've been watching taxes ... blah blah blah.

I'm ready for visible people to start talking openly about returning to having a government for all of us and not just for those who figure they have enough power to force the rest of us us to build them sealed domes to save them from the impending disasters - or whatever they think is going to happen. Sanity has to happen soon and that means diverting resources from yachts and mansions and whatever else war profiteers spend our wealth on.
 

Brian

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 29, 2018
Messages
156
I think it's suicidal and could potentially (between that and the crap Pelosi is trying to pull) take the wind out of any practical reforms that address income inequality.
Pretending Paygo is outright evil, wrong, or forces austerity is dishonest. It's more complicated than that and has been bypassed when conditions seemed necessary. For the most part it is intended only to prevent debt being out of control for which it has been credited as being very effective.

Nor is it hampering any reform of income disparity. The reason many want the rule gone is because it would allow Medicare for All being possible without deciding how to pay for it.
There probably isn't a single thing possible with Paygo gone that would get through this GOP Senate anyway. Other than more tax breaks for the rich.
 

Romana

The Timeless Child
Joined
Sep 21, 2018
Messages
5,097
SL Rez
2010

Cindy Claveau

Radical Left Degenerate
Joined
Sep 21, 2018
Messages
2,936
Location
US
SL Rez
2005
Joined SLU
June 2007
SLU Posts
44403
That's good, but that's just cars - there is so much more that has to be done.
Agree. However, several other countries (Albania, Iceland, Paraguay, Sweden, Finland and Norway) already draw the majority of their energy sources from non-fossil sources. Granted, some of that is from hydro or geothermal but even Germany has moved to getting 78% of its energy needs met with solar. The US is trailing the pack, largely because of the political power of our fossil fuel companies.

It's more than just cars. We could start subsidizing a retool of energy companies who still use coal-fired generation. Manufacturers that buy or generate fossil-fueled energy. And, just as importantly, we could retrain workers from the fossil fuel industry to adapt to computer-era, solid state tech that is needed for the future. Those who still want to work would have the opportunity to work, despite the claim that "millions" would be out of work. The coal industry employed 76,572 people in 2014 including office workers and sales staff. No executive order is going to enlarge that number by creating more coal mines. More people work at car washes than in coal (150,000 +).

The problem, in my opinion, is less the viability of the idea than the resistance to change in the US. There is big money behind staying with the status quo.
 

Han Held

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 20, 2018
Messages
618
Joined SLU
0
SLU Posts
0
The problem, in my opinion, is less the viability of the idea than the resistance to change in the US. There is big money behind staying with the status quo.
While that's true, it's also worth mentioning that for generations (since the 80's, at least -and probably before) there's a lot of big money put into discrediting the entire notion of government and taxes entirely -hell, it's what makes Fox and the entire right wing go 'round!
 

Govi

Crazy woman yells at clouds
VVO Supporter 🍦🎈👾❤
Joined
Sep 20, 2018
Messages
1,475
Location
North of Surf City
SL Rez
2004
Joined SLU
27.05.2009
SLU Posts
5294
Dwight D. Eisenhower on tax cuts and a balanced budget (Forbes, Feb. 28, 2013)
Eisenhower's quote is often put in the context of the fact that the top marginal income tax rate in 1953 was 92%. The 92% tax bracket applied to income over $400,000 in 1953, equivalent to an income of $3,439,611 today.
With some bumps along the way, this is the economy that the Baby Boom generation grew up in, a much more egalitarian economy than exists now. We grew up knowing that with a high school education and hard work, we could get a job that would lead to owning our own home, kids in college, etc. Since the tax cuts of Kennedy, Nixon, Reagan, Bush II, and now, Trump, things have steadily worsened. We are far from egalitarian and the old American Dream.

The lowered tax rates have had a lot to do with that, fostering as they do, increased income inequality and concomitant reduction in class mobility (people moving up and down in income). AOC is right, as was Bernie Sanders: we need to increase the tax rates on wealth and high incomes.
 
Last edited:

Brian

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 29, 2018
Messages
156
The lowered tax rates have had a lot to do with that, fostering as they do, increased income inequality and concomitant reduction in class mobility (people moving up and down in income). AOC is right, as was Bernie Sanders: we need to increase the tax rates on wealth and high incomes.
In fairness, AOC and Bernie Sanders made significantly raising taxes on the wealthy the center of their campaigns, with example numbers given.
Other than that distinction, where are the Democrats that disagree? I don't know about the most conservative such as Manchin, but I doubt WV has as plentiful a population of the rich to protect as many other states.

This is definitely the part that won't happen without controlling both Houses of Congress. And if we don't have a Democratic president, the Houses both need a 2/3 supermajority, barring any executive privilege that might sabotage it. It would also have to last through at least two Congresses (full presidential term) for any adjustments to make sure it will accomplish needed goals.

Democrats leaning more to the left is great, but we still have to have more numbers, meaning we can't shoot our own party in the foot attacking our own.

Do the best we can in the House now and recognize that the next TWO US Senate races will have reversed odds with twice as many GOP defending their seats than Democrats. Democrats have great prospects for President in 2020. Some of those senate contests are ones I'd like to see starting early.
 

Han Held

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 20, 2018
Messages
618
Joined SLU
0
SLU Posts
0
Democrats leaning more to the left is great, but we still have to have more numbers, meaning we can't shoot our own party in the foot attacking our own.
1) If true, then the wall-street democrats ought to stop their assault on the left wing of the Democratic party, particularly the newly elected ones who are trying to fix the country
2) This, of course, isn't true at all; it has been "get along to get along" centrism, as well as the naive notion of "bipartisianship" (E.G. Obama wasting his time reaching out to a GOP that hated him) that is what has gotten us into this mess in the first place.
 

Han Held

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 20, 2018
Messages
618
Joined SLU
0
SLU Posts
0
Democrats leaning more to the left is great, but we still have to have more numbers, meaning we can't shoot our own party in the foot attacking our own.
1) If true, then the wall-street democrats ought to stop their assault on the left wing of the Democratic party, particularly the newly elected ones who are trying to fix the country
So you disagree that the wall-street democrats should stop attacking the left wing of the party?

Well, alrighty then...
 
  • 1Like
Reactions: Kaimi Kyomoon

Ellie

Heretical Raccoon Skunk with a Rainbow Pootbeam
Joined
Sep 20, 2018
Messages
628
Location
Ring Of Fire
SL Rez
2009
Joined SLU
Sep 2010
SLU Posts
1882
I think radical (70%) taxes on the rich will just persuade them to jump ship (leave the U.S.) or find creative ways to get around it, plus it will scare those who may be wavering about supporting Rump so they scurry back to the nest where its all safe & warm (for now).
Edited: Any comparison of Rump supporters to rodents is mostly unintentional and because I'm dealing with a biblical plague of them atm.
 
  • 2Disagree
Reactions: Archer and Govi

Brian

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 29, 2018
Messages
156
1) If true, then the wall-street democrats ought to stop their assault on the left wing of the Democratic party, particularly the newly elected ones who are trying to fix the country
Just the idea that you can come out with malicious branding such as wall-street/corportate democrats, then accuse everyone else of starting assaults is fucking rich.

One of the hardest tasks hammered into prospective politicians (esp. democrats) for years has been how to create messaging to convince corporate boards that their policies would benefit them even though it would cost them in areas such as taxes and higher employment/operating costs. People would fail at this more times than not. It would take years before they could do this successfully for public backing or monetary support.

That the most successful get rewarded for the hours of work it took them to do this by being labeled corrupt or corporate democrat has been the ultimate stab in the back from the very people who should have been grateful for the work.
As vicious as the "far left" has been, don't even come at ME with accusations of attacking Democrats. Look in the fucking mirror.
You guys have taken every GOP made up mocking points that they've repeated for years and ran with them.
You took the ones that originated from the Russian bot fests and did the same thing.

I don't care if I get ignored by half this board or the other way around. If you are still so much of a simpleton fucking idiot that you still run with the corporate democrat, neo-whatthefuckever labels, get used to getting called out on it. You think you're suddenly being attacked when what's happening is Democrats are not about to stand still and let people sling shit on them anymore. Those days are over.

It isn't the politicians that most Democrats have a problem with (although Bernie does it himself). It's their rabid supporters. Even Warren's twitter feed is filled with the bots and bros commenting with "We want Bernie!" intimidation bs.

2) This, of course, isn't true at all; it has been "get along to get along" centrism, as well as the naive notion of "bipartisianship" (E.G. Obama wasting his time reaching out to a GOP that hated him) that is what has gotten us into this mess in the first place.
What's naive is thinking any politician or president is supposed to address a hostile Congress with taunts that they will get nothing. There's a reason GOP and Trump do not have the House now.

ETA: *hostile Congress and half of American voters.
 
Last edited:

Han Held

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 20, 2018
Messages
618
Joined SLU
0
SLU Posts
0
I don't care if I get ignored by half this board or the other way around. If you are still so much of a simpleton fucking idiot that you still run with the corporate democrat, neo-whatthefuckever labels, get used to getting called out on it.
Conversely, if you're going to carry water for bluedog, centrist DINOs then you can damned well expect some flamage sent your way when you attack the left wing of my party.

Particularly when you indulge in such blatant hypocrisy as calling for "party unity" while doing so!