Pelosi 2, Ocasio-Cortez 0

[Brian]

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!

Show me where I carried water for anybody other than Democratic nominees against Republicans.

Show me where you get the idea I am not even far left. I used the scare quotes in the last post for a reason. Definition of far left or progressive is not restricted to 4 exact issues as all for it as is by any one person's decided specs.
I can be also be a heavy supporter of Medicare for all - I would expect Medicare to cover more than it does and have more time and effort spent on proving it can paid for first. That's not being against it. It's being in agreement with those believing it needs to have more than half of its financing figured out first.

As much as you attack Pelosi is my example. She has a different role since becoming party leader.
When only a Representative, she was one of the members of the first Progressive Caucus, still with an A score from progressive punch. As party leader, she has to get all Democrats, regardless of caucus preference to agree on legislation instead of pushing for just one group. When Speaker, she has to get legislation together that stands reasonable chance of passing the Senate as well. That isn't even possible by pushing for causes of any one caucus alone.

Maxine Waters is also one of the first Progressive Caucus members. She gets called establishment even though WoC have been fighting for years (and still are) to be accepted by the establishment. Establishment by the way, has itself become a cliche that doesn't carry honest meaning. Political establishment is mostly spelled out by the Constitution. No matter how much you can cry out against it, once your non-establishment candidate is elected and serving, they become part of that establishment by any real definition.
After 30 years in Congress, Bernie Sanders is as much or more a part of that establishment as any other member.

What you aren't going to do is convince anyone that THEY are trying to cause division because they reject him getting in front of audiences repeatedly criticizing Democrats, along with TYT and the likes of Greenwald, who pushes his own conspiracies half the time aligning with Republicans.

 

[Han Held]

Bernie Sanders

Okie doke! I see you've got some heavy lifting to do there -so I'll get out of your way and let you get to it.

 

[Kamilah Hauptmann]

Iunno, I'm just one of them foreigners and all, but seems to me the top priority is get the nuke button out of the hands of the manbaby.

 

[Myficals]

Iunno, I'm just one of them foreigners and all, but seems to me the top priority is get the nuke button out of the hands of the manbaby.

You'd think that, but if this thread is any guide, beating the shit out of your potential allies is more important.

 

[Free]

Come on Myf, let's fight.

 

[Myficals]

Come on Myf, let's fight.

Sure. Do you prefer mud or jello?

 

[Free]

Sure. Do you prefer mud or jello?

Mud is sexier for a fight, but it sucks when you get it in your mouth.

 

[Myficals]

Mud is sexier for a fight, but it sucks when you get it in your mouth.

We could split the difference and do chocolate pudding?

 

[Free]

We could split the difference and do chocolate pudding?

We can have a girl fight *and* indirectly smack the rep of Bill Cosby in one go. YOU'RE ON.

 

[Govi]

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.

We all remember so clearly the huge exodus of extremely wealthy Americans from the United States during the 30s, 40s, 50s, and 60s. They left in droves, fleeing the outrageously high tax rates that were imposed by Hoover, FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Johnson. Their mansions stood empty, the luxury car and yacht builders had to relocate offshore to follow their customers and our economy crashed so hard that it made the Great Depression look like a Gold Rush Boom.

 

[Myficals]

We all remember so clearly the huge exodus of extremely wealthy Americans from the United States during the 30s, 40s, 50s, and 60s.

The exodus, by and large, started in that period and continues to this day. So while I do agree with the philosophy behind a 70% tax rate on high income earners, you're kidding yourself if you think the intended targets are actually going to pay it.

 

[Govi]

Let me see. In this calculation, wealthy deceptive taxpayers deceive the tax agents, so there's no possible federal fiscal revenue consequence to increasing their tax rates, because they'll just weasel around them. Continuing the calculation from the other side, there is no possible federal revenue consequence to decreasing their tax rates, because they've already weaseled around them. Thus, the reasoning goes, Trump's recent tax cut for the rich had no fiscal consequence, the deficit did not hugely increase, and we're all fat and happy because the rich only think they got a tax cut but they didn't because they already had weaseled it out of the existing tax system.

Do you see anything wrong with this reasoning? I hope so. It might be the notion that increasing tax rates on the rich will have no effect. Yes, it might be that. It seems so.

 

[GoblinCampFollower]

I was getting excited for a jello fight between Myf and Free, then you guys had to go back to a silly, boring talk about taxes...

On a serious note, "closing tax loopholes" has long been a winning campaign issue that never happens because the congress people themselves really benefit from them. If we got a 70% tax passed, it's a near certainty that it would have a backdoor installed. I think it would be a big step in the right direction if they passed a law saying that you must pay a minimum of 50% of all personal income beyond 500K a year. The language of such a law should be short and iron handed.

So much of this problem isn't in what you put in laws, it's in funding the IRS so that it can go after cheaters. For example, you have mom and pop businesses who gross a million a year, but really are only pocketing a few percent of that after expenses. And then, you have rich people who just claim everything is a business expense. It's proper enforcement, not just written laws that can go after cheaters.

 

[danielravennest]

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,

Even with *current* tax rates, corporations and the rich go offshore, because 0% tax rate is still lower than the US rates:

Google Shifted $23 billion to Bermuda in 2017

There's some overhead in setting up offshore accounts, so it doesn't make sense for average people, but once your income gets high enough, or you are a larger corporation, you do it.

Please note that offshoring your *assets* isn't the same as moving to another country yourself. Google is still mainly a US company, but they park their surplus income in places like Bermuda to avoid getting taxed on it. It is done through shell corporations that only have a mailbox in a lawyer's office in Bermuda. Our new Senator from Utah did it too, when he worked for a Wall Street company:

Offshore Strategies Helped Increase Romney's Wealth

The "private banking" departments of large banks do this kind of stuff all day long for their clients. But Bank of America, for example, want's $10 million in investable assets before their private banking department will talk to you. The poor need not apply.

 

[Kamilah Hauptmann]

Good enough thread.

 

[Cristiano]

That motherfucker should be thrown out of office as well. Manchin is garbage - and his daughter is the asshole who raised the price exhorbitantly on epi pens. Fuck them both.

 

[Ashiri]

You'd think that, but if this thread is any guide, beating the shit out of your potential allies is more important.

Yeah, I've seen it all before. And the results where a fractured party gets trounced.

 

[Myficals]

Do you see anything wrong with this reasoning? I hope so. It might be the notion that increasing tax rates on the rich will have no effect. Yes, it might be that. It seems so.

You're arguing with things I didn't say. I refer you back to my earlier comment unless you collectively stop treating ostensible allies as mortal enemies your country is fucked.

 

[Kaimi Kyomoon]

We all remember so clearly the huge exodus of extremely wealthy Americans from the United States during the 30s, 40s, 50s, and 60s. They left in droves, fleeing the outrageously high tax rates that were imposed by Hoover, FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Johnson. Their mansions stood empty, the luxury car and yacht builders had to relocate offshore to follow their customers and our economy crashed so hard that it made the Great Depression look like a Gold Rush Boom.

When I imagine the oligarchs leaving the country it just doesn't seem like a bad thing. Let there be a surge in workers rights etc. We'd need a lot of progressive new legislation but we want that anyway. My head is probably in the clouds.

...

On a serious note, "closing tax loopholes" has long been a winning campaign issue that never happens because the congress people themselves really benefit from them. If we got a 70% tax passed, it's a near certainty that it would have a backdoor installed. I think it would be a big step in the right direction if they passed a law saying that you must pay a minimum of 50% of all personal income beyond 500K a year. The language of such a law should be short and iron handed.
...

This sounds like a good start to me.

 

[Kaimi Kyomoon]