Democrats, it's after Thanksgiving. Lean into the Christmas thing.
"It's the Season of Giving. Of Compassion. Why are the Republicans trying to steal your money for the rich?"
We have to rephrase this argument, if you tell poor republicans their leaders are giving money to the rich, they celebrate because they think that will be them soon enough. It's built into the establishment 'be nice to the rich, youill be them someday'.
The problem is that it is an article of faith. And it doesn't just apply to Republicans, though they are significantly more prone to believing it.
There was a clip a few years back, when Olbermann had a real TV show, where he went through a survey. I can't remember the numbers exactly, but a small number of people self-identified "well off" (~<20%), and significantly less identified as "rich".
But when asked about the future, a majority of those who didn't list as being well off or better, said they'd be rich in 5-10 years.
It's that delusion that allows Republican policy on taxation to be what it is, and be successful politically. Neverminding that economic stratification is actually getting HARDER to overcome than it's been in a long time.
Yeah, ot's extremely difficult for people to self identofy as rich because it both seems like bragging and long after you have every reasonable luxury, you're still 10x less wealthy than somebody else.
Like, I have relatives with mid 7 digit net worth and multiple houses who don't accept that they're rich, even though there's basically nothing that could happen that could affect their lifestyle.
Democrats, it's after Thanksgiving. Lean into the Christmas thing.
"It's the Season of Giving. Of Compassion. Why are the Republicans trying to steal your money for the rich?"
We have to rephrase this argument, if you tell poor republicans their leaders are giving money to the rich, they celebrate because they think that will be them soon enough. It's built into the establishment 'be nice to the rich, youill be them someday'.
There's a line from my favorite musical 1776 that talks about this.
John Hancock:
(Traitors, Mr. Dickinson? To what? The British crown? Or the British half-crown? Fortunately, there are not enough men of property in America to dictate policy.)
John Dickinson:
(Well, perhaps not. But don't forget that most men with nothing would rather protect the possibility of becoming rich than face the reality of being poor. And that is why they will follow us)
I don't believe I'll ever be rich but I'm still in favor of tax cuts. Our government does too much stuff and tax cuts are the long way around to shrinking it. I know the estate tax won't apply to me, I still find it ghoulish. The default position should be that the government is not entitled to my money, no matter how much or how little of it I have.
0
Options
38thDoelets never be stupid againwait lets always be stupid foreverRegistered Userregular
I don't believe I'll ever be rich but I'm still in favor of tax cuts. Our government does too much stuff and tax cuts are the long way around to shrinking it. I know the estate tax won't apply to me, I still find it ghoulish. The default position should be that the government is not entitled to my money, no matter how much or how little of it I have.
How does government exist without anyone's money? How is education, police, sanitation, etc. paid for?
I don't believe I'll ever be rich but I'm still in favor of tax cuts. Our government does too much stuff and tax cuts are the long way around to shrinking it. I know the estate tax won't apply to me, I still find it ghoulish. The default position should be that the government is not entitled to my money, no matter how much or how little of it I have.
How does government exist without anyone's money? How is education, police, sanitation, etc. paid for?
Additionally, money doesn't exist without a government.
roads, education, parks, museums, diplomacy, defense, disaster relief, and etc. are all things I like!
in fact, if they tossed in decent healthcare, I'd give them MORE. Giving my pittance and taking more from me to give to those that are wealthier, however, is a big no-no
I don't believe I'll ever be rich but I'm still in favor of tax cuts. Our government does too much stuff and tax cuts are the long way around to shrinking it. I know the estate tax won't apply to me, I still find it ghoulish. The default position should be that the government is not entitled to my money, no matter how much or how little of it I have.
Taxes are the price of civilization. The government is entitled to your money because you travel its roads, enjoy its education, secure its protection, and shade beneath its peace.
As for starving the beast, leaving aside the moral aspects, has it ever worked? Rather than forcing the government to cut spending, we’ve had a decades long political equilibrium in which taxes get cut, spending rises, and the country simply takes on more debt. Maybe it’s time to admit you can’t reduce the government’s size simply by cutting taxes.
I don't believe I'll ever be rich but I'm still in favor of tax cuts. Our government does too much stuff and tax cuts are the long way around to shrinking it. I know the estate tax won't apply to me, I still find it ghoulish. The default position should be that the government is not entitled to my money, no matter how much or how little of it I have.
Unless you just moved here, you have earned your money by leveraging the services your taxes provide.
If you did just move here, municipal, country, state, and federal services will inevitably support your wealth acquisition going forward.
I don't believe I'll ever be rich but I'm still in favor of tax cuts. Our government does too much stuff and tax cuts are the long way around to shrinking it. I know the estate tax won't apply to me, I still find it ghoulish. The default position should be that the government is not entitled to my money, no matter how much or how little of it I have.
Taxes are the price of civilization. The government is entitled to your money because you travel its roads, enjoy its education, secure its protection, and shade beneath its peace.
As for starving the beast, leaving aside the moral aspects, has it ever worked? Rather than forcing the government to cut spending, we’ve had a decades long political equilibrium in which taxes get cut, spending rises, and the country simply takes on more debt. Maybe it’s time to admit you can’t reduce the government’s size simply by cutting taxes.
Starving the beast doesn't work because the GOP gets too much pushback every time they've tried to really pull the trigger.
Given what they've been up to this yeah, I wouldn't count on that this time though.
I don't believe I'll ever be rich but I'm still in favor of tax cuts. Our government does too much stuff and tax cuts are the long way around to shrinking it. I know the estate tax won't apply to me, I still find it ghoulish. The default position should be that the government is not entitled to my money, no matter how much or how little of it I have.
How does government exist without anyone's money? How is education, police, sanitation, etc. paid for?
Police and education are funded by property taxes not income or estate taxes. That's actually much more reasonable from my perspective, I am paying for services for my community, not so that my government can bomb people I've never heard of overseas. I don't think the government should be involved in education. As far as I'm concerned the only proper function of government is roads, courts, police, local emergency services, and border security. Everything else the government should not be involved in.
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
What about diplomacy?
0
Options
ButtersA glass of some milksRegistered Userregular
edited December 2017
If your plan to shrink the US government doesn't begin with cutting the Pentagon's budget then your plan is a farce. It is the largest socialist institution on the planet and one of the least efficient.
The Republican argument against "big government" and "overreach" is crock of shit because it NEVER applies to defense spending which makes up the bulk of non-mandatory spending.
I don't believe I'll ever be rich but I'm still in favor of tax cuts. Our government does too much stuff and tax cuts are the long way around to shrinking it. I know the estate tax won't apply to me, I still find it ghoulish. The default position should be that the government is not entitled to my money, no matter how much or how little of it I have.
How does government exist without anyone's money? How is education, police, sanitation, etc. paid for?
Police and education are funded by property taxes not income or estate taxes. That's actually much more reasonable from my perspective, I am paying for services for my community, not so that my government can bomb people I've never heard of overseas. I don't think the government should be involved in education. As far as I'm concerned the only proper function of government is roads, courts, police, local emergency services, and border security. Everything else the government should not be involved in.
Yes let us live in a country of illiterates and idiots
I don't believe I'll ever be rich but I'm still in favor of tax cuts. Our government does too much stuff and tax cuts are the long way around to shrinking it. I know the estate tax won't apply to me, I still find it ghoulish. The default position should be that the government is not entitled to my money, no matter how much or how little of it I have.
How does government exist without anyone's money? How is education, police, sanitation, etc. paid for?
Police and education are funded by property taxes not income or estate taxes. That's actually much more reasonable from my perspective, I am paying for services for my community, not so that my government can bomb people I've never heard of overseas. I don't think the government should be involved in education. As far as I'm concerned the only proper function of government is roads, courts, police, local emergency services, and border security. Everything else the government should not be involved in.
Yes let us live in a country of illiterates and idiots
Close all embassies, remove all troops from overseas, let every country know if they want to fight us they can do it at the border. Most of this diplomacy is just rich people milking our tax dollars. If we minded our businesses the only diplomacy we would need are guys with guns and tanks at our borders, and ships patrolling our coastline.
+4
Options
IlpalaJust this guy, y'knowTexasRegistered Userregular
And when the time for trade deals comes around, we have absolutely no relationship with other countries to lean on when trying to extract concessions? Or do we go super full hog isolationist in that arena too?
FF XIV - Qih'to Furishu (on Siren), Battle.Net - Ilpala#1975
Switch - SW-7373-3669-3011
Fuck Joe Manchin
Close all embassies, remove all troops from overseas, let every country know if they want to fight us they can do it at the border. Most of this diplomacy is just rich people milking our tax dollars. If we minded our businesses the only diplomacy we would need are guys with guns and tanks at our borders, and ships patrolling our coastline.
That's not how the world works. That's not how taxes work. That's not how defense works. That's not how militaries work. That's not how diplomacy works. That's not how trade and prosperity work.
That's not how any of this works.
Who gave you ideas like these, and why haven't you seen fit to challenge them?
Fleur de Alys on
Triptycho: A card-and-dice tabletop indie RPG currently in development and playtesting
Close all embassies, remove all troops from overseas, let every country know if they want to fight us they can do it at the border. Most of this diplomacy is just rich people milking our tax dollars. If we minded our businesses the only diplomacy we would need are guys with guns and tanks at our borders, and ships patrolling our coastline.
Posted to FP thread instead, as this is less about taxes and more about the perceived cost savings of isolationism.
Close all embassies, remove all troops from overseas, let every country know if they want to fight us they can do it at the border. Most of this diplomacy is just rich people milking our tax dollars. If we minded our businesses the only diplomacy we would need are guys with guns and tanks at our borders, and ships patrolling our coastline.
We live in the future, I can travel around the planet in a little over a day, this method no longer works. Every nation must participate in international relations in order to survive. Like we can't even make most of the things we use day to day without talking to other countries as part of the production pipeline. Even just to get the natural resources. We have to be involved in making sure other countries don't collapse
+16
Options
MayabirdPecking at the keyboardRegistered Userregular
edited December 2017
It used to be, back in the days of pork, that the money at least was applied to a district, theoretically effecting a lot of people. Money to build some local-ass town's puppet museum would at least employ people in that town to build and maintain the thing.
This tax cut applies pork but only for the wealthiest senators, like McCain himself. There's a cut in taxes for producing and importing alcoholic beverages, and his wife owns a beer distributor. He was bought. He has less than a year to live, and one of his last actions upon this Earth is to throw the US down the drain to save his wife a few bucks.
For trade, the government does not pass trade deals I believe to be in my best interest or that of the American people. No trade agreements, you bring a ship to one of our ports and the rules are the same. If you don't like the rules trade somewhere else.
The world would work just fine this way. If we aren't blowing so many people up overseas or threatening the sovereignty of other countries we won't need all this facade of diplomacy.
We don't need the government to police the world nor do we need it to keep the sky from falling. If anything we are in constant danger of government help creating large crisis.
So, in regards to yesterday's corporate deduction typo, what is going to be the outcome of that. Will there actually be delays in the process, or will it just be fixed by jotting in the margin with no real resistance? Is it actually a potential thread we can pull on or is it just a fun chuckle for a few minutes as we continue to the gallows?
I'm having a hard time figuring out the actual implication.
So, in regards to yesterday's corporate deduction typo, what is going to be the outcome of that. Will there actually be delays in the process, or will it just be fixed by jotting in the margin with no real resistance? Is it actually a potential thread we can pull on or is it just a fun chuckle for a few minutes as we continue to the gallows?
I'm having a hard time figuring out the actual implication.
To my understanding they can't just change the bill after its been voted on, and thusly the bill will go to committee
Sleep on
+5
Options
TraceGNU Terry Pratchett; GNU Gus; GNU Carrie Fisher; GNU Adam WeRegistered Userregular
So, in regards to yesterday's corporate deduction typo, what is going to be the outcome of that. Will there actually be delays in the process, or will it just be fixed by jotting in the margin with no real resistance? Is it actually a potential thread we can pull on or is it just a fun chuckle for a few minutes as we continue to the gallows?
I'm having a hard time figuring out the actual implication.
Yeah they've got to go to conference over the tax bill now and then after that both the House and the Senate need to vote again (taking bets on if they fuck it up again) on the Bill.
an actual government shut down keeps looking more and more likely over this honestly.
So, in regards to yesterday's corporate deduction typo, what is going to be the outcome of that. Will there actually be delays in the process, or will it just be fixed by jotting in the margin with no real resistance? Is it actually a potential thread we can pull on or is it just a fun chuckle for a few minutes as we continue to the gallows?
I'm having a hard time figuring out the actual implication.
It just means the House can't pass the bill as-is. Which is actually good news! It means another chance to kill it, and even if it doesn't die going through conference should make it a better bill. Not a good bill by any measure, but better than the hand written pile of shit the Senate passed.
+1
Options
TraceGNU Terry Pratchett; GNU Gus; GNU Carrie Fisher; GNU Adam WeRegistered Userregular
actually
if we get a shut down does -that- kill the tax bill?
So, in regards to yesterday's corporate deduction typo, what is going to be the outcome of that. Will there actually be delays in the process, or will it just be fixed by jotting in the margin with no real resistance? Is it actually a potential thread we can pull on or is it just a fun chuckle for a few minutes as we continue to the gallows?
I'm having a hard time figuring out the actual implication.
It means the House can't just rush through the Senate version of the bill. It will either have to go to conference committee to make the changes which will require another vote in the Senate and the House.
The more times they're forced to vote for this piece of crap the more reporting will get done on how bad it is.
+6
Options
daveNYCWhy universe hate Waspinator?Registered Userregular
So, in regards to yesterday's corporate deduction typo, what is going to be the outcome of that. Will there actually be delays in the process, or will it just be fixed by jotting in the margin with no real resistance? Is it actually a potential thread we can pull on or is it just a fun chuckle for a few minutes as we continue to the gallows?
I'm having a hard time figuring out the actual implication.
If they decide to fix it they'll have to go to conference with the House (even if it's just rubber stamping that one change) and then the changed bill would have to pass the Senate again, and I guess be judged by the parliamentarian too. It'd have to pass the House too, but that would have needed to happen anyway. If nothing else, it delays the passage and gives us a second chance to apply pressure to the Senate, and this time we'll know exactly what's in it.
It might not prevent passage, but making the Republican Senators miserable for another week can't be all bad.
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
if we get a shut down does -that- kill the tax bill?
Nah. The expiration date on this thing is next September. They just REAAAALLLLLY don't want to do it then because of midterms and/or whatever fresh chaos the White House may have cooked up in the interim.
if we get a shut down does -that- kill the tax bill?
Nah. The expiration date on this thing is next September. They just REAAAALLLLLY don't want to do it then because of midterms and/or whatever fresh chaos the White House may have cooked up in the interim.
Also the new year so their pay masters can get them tax cuts ASAP.
if we get a shut down does -that- kill the tax bill?
Nah. The expiration date on this thing is next September. They just REAAAALLLLLY don't want to do it then because of midterms and/or whatever fresh chaos the White House may have cooked up in the interim.
They potentially lose Sessions seat after the Alabama election, and then in Jan there is a fairly good chance the Russia investigation will pick up even more. Plus the longer this goes the more people have a chance to organize against it.
Their timetable may be much more limited than September. It's possible, if unlikely, that they can't get this done if they don't do it now.
There's no plan, there's no race to be run
The harder the rain, honey, the sweeter the sun.
Basically Mitch McConnell learned from the health care debacle that allowing voters too much time to learn what's in a bill hurts its chances of passing.
if we get a shut down does -that- kill the tax bill?
Nah. The expiration date on this thing is next September. They just REAAAALLLLLY don't want to do it then because of midterms and/or whatever fresh chaos the White House may have cooked up in the interim.
They potentially lose Sessions seat after the Alabama election, and then in Jan there is a fairly good chance the Russia investigation will pick up even more. Plus the longer this goes the more people have a chance to organize against it.
Their timetable may be much more limited than September. It's possible, if unlikely, that they can't get this done if they don't do it now.
Also, it is my overwhelming opinion, that there are a small number of specific wealthy billionaires and companies who are very concerned they may die quite soon, or very concerned that they need to repatriate some profits to do a big share buyback before some kind of bonus vesting period for the board which is contingent on share price increases (not an uncommon board incentive structure).
As in, they are 'in trouble' and are concerned that their odds of actually dying and paying huge estate taxes or missing out on big bonuses in the next 12 months is pretty high. As such, their donors are literally breathing down their necks every second to try and get this passed ASAP.
To me, this is the only thing which explains the silly rush, and the complete lack of an attempt to do this the 'easy' way, by which they give democrats something that they don't actually give a crap about (not deporting DACA recipients) and in return, they cut everyone's taxes a bit with a neat bill, cut corporate taxes and raise the estate tax threshold. No question a 'simple'..
1) DACA folk get to be citizens
2) Everyone's taxes down 1%
3) Rich people taxes down 2%
4) Corporation taxes down 5%
5) Estate tax threshold up to $20 million
bill picks up some democratic votes. Schumer and Pelosi have message discipline, but they wouldn't be able to get the caucus to vote against DACA citizenship in order to preserve the deficit. It just wouldn't work.
Basically Mitch McConnell learned from the health care debacle that allowing voters too much time to learn what's in a bill hurts its chances of passing.
By voters, you mean the other senators voting on it, right?
Posts
There was a clip a few years back, when Olbermann had a real TV show, where he went through a survey. I can't remember the numbers exactly, but a small number of people self-identified "well off" (~<20%), and significantly less identified as "rich".
But when asked about the future, a majority of those who didn't list as being well off or better, said they'd be rich in 5-10 years.
It's that delusion that allows Republican policy on taxation to be what it is, and be successful politically. Neverminding that economic stratification is actually getting HARDER to overcome than it's been in a long time.
Like, I have relatives with mid 7 digit net worth and multiple houses who don't accept that they're rich, even though there's basically nothing that could happen that could affect their lifestyle.
There's a line from my favorite musical 1776 that talks about this.
(Traitors, Mr. Dickinson? To what? The British crown? Or the British half-crown? Fortunately, there are not enough men of property in America to dictate policy.)
John Dickinson:
(Well, perhaps not. But don't forget that most men with nothing would rather protect the possibility of becoming rich than face the reality of being poor. And that is why they will follow us)
Nixon after seeing this wanted this entire song cut from the movie and it was.
Everyone I've spoken to thinks the Estate tax will apply to them. There should really be a class on taxes and civics in high school.
How does government exist without anyone's money? How is education, police, sanitation, etc. paid for?
Additionally, money doesn't exist without a government.
roads, education, parks, museums, diplomacy, defense, disaster relief, and etc. are all things I like!
in fact, if they tossed in decent healthcare, I'd give them MORE. Giving my pittance and taking more from me to give to those that are wealthier, however, is a big no-no
Taxes are the price of civilization. The government is entitled to your money because you travel its roads, enjoy its education, secure its protection, and shade beneath its peace.
As for starving the beast, leaving aside the moral aspects, has it ever worked? Rather than forcing the government to cut spending, we’ve had a decades long political equilibrium in which taxes get cut, spending rises, and the country simply takes on more debt. Maybe it’s time to admit you can’t reduce the government’s size simply by cutting taxes.
Unless you just moved here, you have earned your money by leveraging the services your taxes provide.
If you did just move here, municipal, country, state, and federal services will inevitably support your wealth acquisition going forward.
Starving the beast doesn't work because the GOP gets too much pushback every time they've tried to really pull the trigger.
Given what they've been up to this yeah, I wouldn't count on that this time though.
Police and education are funded by property taxes not income or estate taxes. That's actually much more reasonable from my perspective, I am paying for services for my community, not so that my government can bomb people I've never heard of overseas. I don't think the government should be involved in education. As far as I'm concerned the only proper function of government is roads, courts, police, local emergency services, and border security. Everything else the government should not be involved in.
The Republican argument against "big government" and "overreach" is crock of shit because it NEVER applies to defense spending which makes up the bulk of non-mandatory spending.
Reporter for News Hour
Yes let us live in a country of illiterates and idiots
Sleep, I have some bad news for you ....
Close all embassies, remove all troops from overseas, let every country know if they want to fight us they can do it at the border. Most of this diplomacy is just rich people milking our tax dollars. If we minded our businesses the only diplomacy we would need are guys with guns and tanks at our borders, and ships patrolling our coastline.
Switch - SW-7373-3669-3011
Fuck Joe Manchin
That's not how any of this works.
Who gave you ideas like these, and why haven't you seen fit to challenge them?
Posted to FP thread instead, as this is less about taxes and more about the perceived cost savings of isolationism.
We live in the future, I can travel around the planet in a little over a day, this method no longer works. Every nation must participate in international relations in order to survive. Like we can't even make most of the things we use day to day without talking to other countries as part of the production pipeline. Even just to get the natural resources. We have to be involved in making sure other countries don't collapse
This tax cut applies pork but only for the wealthiest senators, like McCain himself. There's a cut in taxes for producing and importing alcoholic beverages, and his wife owns a beer distributor. He was bought. He has less than a year to live, and one of his last actions upon this Earth is to throw the US down the drain to save his wife a few bucks.
Fuck you and your supposed principles, McCain.
The world would work just fine this way. If we aren't blowing so many people up overseas or threatening the sovereignty of other countries we won't need all this facade of diplomacy.
We don't need the government to police the world nor do we need it to keep the sky from falling. If anything we are in constant danger of government help creating large crisis.
I'm having a hard time figuring out the actual implication.
Nintendo ID: Pastalonius
Smite\LoL:Gremlidin \ WoW & Overwatch & Hots: Gremlidin#1734
3ds: 3282-2248-0453
To my understanding they can't just change the bill after its been voted on, and thusly the bill will go to committee
Yeah they've got to go to conference over the tax bill now and then after that both the House and the Senate need to vote again (taking bets on if they fuck it up again) on the Bill.
an actual government shut down keeps looking more and more likely over this honestly.
It just means the House can't pass the bill as-is. Which is actually good news! It means another chance to kill it, and even if it doesn't die going through conference should make it a better bill. Not a good bill by any measure, but better than the hand written pile of shit the Senate passed.
if we get a shut down does -that- kill the tax bill?
It means the House can't just rush through the Senate version of the bill. It will either have to go to conference committee to make the changes which will require another vote in the Senate and the House.
The more times they're forced to vote for this piece of crap the more reporting will get done on how bad it is.
If they decide to fix it they'll have to go to conference with the House (even if it's just rubber stamping that one change) and then the changed bill would have to pass the Senate again, and I guess be judged by the parliamentarian too. It'd have to pass the House too, but that would have needed to happen anyway. If nothing else, it delays the passage and gives us a second chance to apply pressure to the Senate, and this time we'll know exactly what's in it.
It might not prevent passage, but making the Republican Senators miserable for another week can't be all bad.
Nah. The expiration date on this thing is next September. They just REAAAALLLLLY don't want to do it then because of midterms and/or whatever fresh chaos the White House may have cooked up in the interim.
Also the new year so their pay masters can get them tax cuts ASAP.
They potentially lose Sessions seat after the Alabama election, and then in Jan there is a fairly good chance the Russia investigation will pick up even more. Plus the longer this goes the more people have a chance to organize against it.
Their timetable may be much more limited than September. It's possible, if unlikely, that they can't get this done if they don't do it now.
The harder the rain, honey, the sweeter the sun.
Also, it is my overwhelming opinion, that there are a small number of specific wealthy billionaires and companies who are very concerned they may die quite soon, or very concerned that they need to repatriate some profits to do a big share buyback before some kind of bonus vesting period for the board which is contingent on share price increases (not an uncommon board incentive structure).
As in, they are 'in trouble' and are concerned that their odds of actually dying and paying huge estate taxes or missing out on big bonuses in the next 12 months is pretty high. As such, their donors are literally breathing down their necks every second to try and get this passed ASAP.
To me, this is the only thing which explains the silly rush, and the complete lack of an attempt to do this the 'easy' way, by which they give democrats something that they don't actually give a crap about (not deporting DACA recipients) and in return, they cut everyone's taxes a bit with a neat bill, cut corporate taxes and raise the estate tax threshold. No question a 'simple'..
1) DACA folk get to be citizens
2) Everyone's taxes down 1%
3) Rich people taxes down 2%
4) Corporation taxes down 5%
5) Estate tax threshold up to $20 million
bill picks up some democratic votes. Schumer and Pelosi have message discipline, but they wouldn't be able to get the caucus to vote against DACA citizenship in order to preserve the deficit. It just wouldn't work.
Also, does anyone have info on the headlines I'm seeing, where they already reneged on their 'promise' to Collins?
By voters, you mean the other senators voting on it, right?