The U.S. Already Soaks the Rich

4,575 Views | 86 Replies | Last: 1 mo ago by concordtom
DiabloWags
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:59p, 3/31/24

The U.S. Already Soaks the Rich

In 2021, the richest 1% paid 45.8% of income taxes.
Up from 33.2% in 2001.

WSJ Editorial Board, March 29, 2024

President Biden is proposing a bevy of tax increases, and his State of the Union address included the familiar call for the wealthy to pay their "fair share." He should examine the Internal Revenue Service data. Recently released figures for 2021 show that the top 1% of Americans reported 26.3% of the country's adjusted gross income, while paying 45.8% of total income taxes.

Is this not a "fair share" to Mr. Biden? Then what would be? Democrats always deploy the language of fairness without defining it or answering those questions. The truth is that the income tax is already steeply progressive. The top 10% of earners in 2021 provided 75.8% of the revenue. (See the nearby bar chart.)

These figures are from a Tax Foundation analysis of the IRS data. They include temporary Covid relief, which skews the results even more progressively. They don't include the payroll tax, which covers lower-income workers, but Mr. Biden is making his "fair share" point about income taxes.


Start with the bottom half of earners, the 76.8 million returns that reported adjusted gross income up to about $46,500. In tax year 2021, they earned 10.4% of the country's total income, while paying 2.3% of all income taxes. Their average tax rate was 3.4%.

The next group is between the bottom half and the top 25%, a total of 38.4 million returns that showed earnings from about $46,500 to $94,500. They reported 17.5% of income, while paying 8.4% of income taxes. Their average tax rate was 7.2%.

Move up to the cohort between the top 25% and 10%, or 23 million returns with earnings from about $94,500 to $170,000. They reported 19.5% of income, paid 13.4% of taxes, and had an average tax rate of 10.3%
.
Between the top 10% and 5% were 7.7 million returns with earnings from about $170,000 to $253,000. They reported 10.6% of income, paid 10.2% of income taxes, and had an average tax rate of 14.3%.

Between the top 5% and 1% were 6.1 million returns with earnings from about $253,000 to $682,500. They reported 15.7% of income, paid 19.9% of all income taxes, and had an average tax rate of 18.9%
.
Finally, we come to the top 1%, another 1.5 million returns with earnings in excess of about $682,500. Their share of income taxes paid was 45.8%, not quite double their share of income. Their average tax rate was 25.9%.

Among the tippy-top 0.1%, or 154,000 returns with earnings above about $3,775,500 a year, the average tax rate was similar, 25.7%.

The burden of income taxes, in other words, falls almost entirely on the top half of earners and disproportionately on the top 1%. Notice that tax rates rise steadily with income, a basic feature of a progressive code. The average income tax take is 10% or less for the middle class, which jumps to more than 25% for the highest earners.

The overall tax burden looks somewhat less progressive if you include the payroll tax, such as the one for Social Security that caps out in 2024 at $168,600 in wage income. But the IRS's income-tax data also leave out "refundable" portions of tax credits, which are treated as outlays and go to lower earners.

Erica York, a senior economist at the Tax Foundation, points to broader tax distribution data for 2020 from the Congressional Budget Office. That year, the CBO says, the bottom 60% of taxpayers had an average income-tax rate that was effectively negative. The lowest quintile paid minus 27.6%. For the middle quintile it was minus 2.4%.

This isn't the story Democrats tell. "No billionaire should pay a lower federal tax rate than a teacher, a sanitation worker, or a nurse," Mr. Biden recently said, while pitching a new wealth tax on assets disguised as "a minimum tax for billionaires of 25%." In a given year, specific ultrawealthy people might pay little or no income taxes, and setting up a foundation is a major loophole. Yet the numbers clearly show in 2021 that on average the top 0.1% of earners forked over to the IRS more than a quarter of their reported incomes.

The truth is that the wealthy are shouldering a huge and rising share of the income-tax burden. (See the nearby line chart.) In 2001 the top 1% paid only 33.2% of the total tab. As that figure has risen, the share paid by most of the rest of us has correspondingly fallen. The bottom 90% of taxpayers in 2001 provided 36.3% of the cash. Twenty years later, that had dropped to 24.2%.

Taxing the rich is popular these days, in part because Republicans are now playing the same tax redistribution game as Democrats. The problem in Washington isn't that the rich refuse to pay their "fair share," whatever that means. The trouble is that with the notable exception for national defense, Mr. Biden's progressive spending ambitions are limitless. Washington could confiscate the income of every billionaire in the country and still not finance what Democrats want to spend.



https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-income-taxes-top-1-percent-irs-tax-foundation-joe-biden-fair-share-3394355b?st=4ox7pdoxpntla50&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink


"Cults don't end well. They really don't."
Reply Quote
4
1 edit
DiabloWags
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
3:00p, 3/31/24

JUST THE FACTS.
"Cults don't end well. They really don't."
Reply Quote
2
calpoly
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to DiabloWags • 3:33p, 3/31/24
DiabloWags said:

The U.S. Already Soaks the Rich

In 2021, the richest 1% paid 45.8% of income taxes.
Up from 33.2% in 2001.

WSJ Editorial Board, March 29, 2024

President Biden is proposing a bevy of tax increases, and his State of the Union address included the familiar call for the wealthy to pay their "fair share." He should examine the Internal Revenue Service data. Recently released figures for 2021 show that the top 1% of Americans reported 26.3% of the country's adjusted gross income, while paying 45.8% of total income taxes.

Is this not a "fair share" to Mr. Biden? Then what would be? Democrats always deploy the language of fairness without defining it or answering those questions. The truth is that the income tax is already steeply progressive. The top 10% of earners in 2021 provided 75.8% of the revenue. (See the nearby bar chart.)

These figures are from a Tax Foundation analysis of the IRS data. They include temporary Covid relief, which skews the results even more progressively. They don't include the payroll tax, which covers lower-income workers, but Mr. Biden is making his "fair share" point about income taxes.


Start with the bottom half of earners, the 76.8 million returns that reported adjusted gross income up to about $46,500. In tax year 2021, they earned 10.4% of the country's total income, while paying 2.3% of all income taxes. Their average tax rate was 3.4%.

The next group is between the bottom half and the top 25%, a total of 38.4 million returns that showed earnings from about $46,500 to $94,500. They reported 17.5% of income, while paying 8.4% of income taxes. Their average tax rate was 7.2%.

Move up to the cohort between the top 25% and 10%, or 23 million returns with earnings from about $94,500 to $170,000. They reported 19.5% of income, paid 13.4% of taxes, and had an average tax rate of 10.3%
.
Between the top 10% and 5% were 7.7 million returns with earnings from about $170,000 to $253,000. They reported 10.6% of income, paid 10.2% of income taxes, and had an average tax rate of 14.3%.

Between the top 5% and 1% were 6.1 million returns with earnings from about $253,000 to $682,500. They reported 15.7% of income, paid 19.9% of all income taxes, and had an average tax rate of 18.9%
.
Finally, we come to the top 1%, another 1.5 million returns with earnings in excess of about $682,500. Their share of income taxes paid was 45.8%, not quite double their share of income. Their average tax rate was 25.9%.

Among the tippy-top 0.1%, or 154,000 returns with earnings above about $3,775,500 a year, the average tax rate was similar, 25.7%.

The burden of income taxes, in other words, falls almost entirely on the top half of earners and disproportionately on the top 1%. Notice that tax rates rise steadily with income, a basic feature of a progressive code. The average income tax take is 10% or less for the middle class, which jumps to more than 25% for the highest earners.

The overall tax burden looks somewhat less progressive if you include the payroll tax, such as the one for Social Security that caps out in 2024 at $168,600 in wage income. But the IRS's income-tax data also leave out "refundable" portions of tax credits, which are treated as outlays and go to lower earners.

Erica York, a senior economist at the Tax Foundation, points to broader tax distribution data for 2020 from the Congressional Budget Office. That year, the CBO says, the bottom 60% of taxpayers had an average income-tax rate that was effectively negative. The lowest quintile paid minus 27.6%. For the middle quintile it was minus 2.4%.

This isn't the story Democrats tell. "No billionaire should pay a lower federal tax rate than a teacher, a sanitation worker, or a nurse," Mr. Biden recently said, while pitching a new wealth tax on assets disguised as "a minimum tax for billionaires of 25%." In a given year, specific ultrawealthy people might pay little or no income taxes, and setting up a foundation is a major loophole. Yet the numbers clearly show in 2021 that on average the top 0.1% of earners forked over to the IRS more than a quarter of their reported incomes.

The truth is that the wealthy are shouldering a huge and rising share of the income-tax burden. (See the nearby line chart.) In 2001 the top 1% paid only 33.2% of the total tab. As that figure has risen, the share paid by most of the rest of us has correspondingly fallen. The bottom 90% of taxpayers in 2001 provided 36.3% of the cash. Twenty years later, that had dropped to 24.2%.

Taxing the rich is popular these days, in part because Republicans are now playing the same tax redistribution game as Democrats. The problem in Washington isn't that the rich refuse to pay their "fair share," whatever that means. The trouble is that with the notable exception for national defense, Mr. Biden's progressive spending ambitions are limitless. Washington could confiscate the income of every billionaire in the country and still not finance what Democrats want to spend.



https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-income-taxes-top-1-percent-irs-tax-foundation-joe-biden-fair-share-3394355b?st=4ox7pdoxpntla50&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink


Cry me a river.
Reply Quote
6
dajo9
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
4:24p, 3/31/24
I think most people would find it useful to know the unrealized capital gains and the wealth of the people in these brackets to have a full understanding of the fairness of this situation.
Reply Quote
2
bearister
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
4:50p, 3/31/24
Warren Buffett on Tax: The Rich Should Pay More - The Investor's Podcast


https://www.theinvestorspodcast.com/warren-buffett-videos/warren-buffett-tax/
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
Reply Quote
4
concordtom
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
6:08p, 3/31/24


Top 1% pay the most because they earn and own the most.
Rather than crying for taxes, think about all the masses who don't have the opportunity to pay taxes, then say, Thank You, Lord.

Paying is a privilege.


https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/richest-1-bag-nearly-twice-much-wealth-rest-world-put-together-over-past-two-years#:~:text=The%20richest%201%20percent%20grabbed%20nearly%20two%2Dthirds,had%20captured%20around%20half%20of%20all%20new
Reply Quote
6
1 edit
DiabloWags
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:17p, 3/31/24
"Cults don't end well. They really don't."
Reply Quote
3
concordtom
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:24p, 3/31/24


-Last guy to run a balanced budget.
Reply Quote
2
dajo9
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to DiabloWags • 4:00a, 4/1/24
DiabloWags said:


Based on the data (just the facts) that Tom has already provided and that you are ignoring we are far, far from the predicament that Thatcher warned us about.
Reply Quote
1
concordtom
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
4:22a, 4/1/24
There are a million resources we could use to bolster our discussions on this topic. But how about we go to that bastion of liberalism, The Brookings Institute, for starters:

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/rising-inequality-a-major-issue-of-our-time

It begins with an discussion of rising wealth inequality globally and ends with this:

Quote:

Conclusion

Income and wealth inequality is elevated. In the absence of policies to counter recent trends, inequality could rise to still higher levels. High and rising inequality entails adverse economic, social, and political consequences. Policymakers must pay more attention to the changing distributional dynamics in the digital age and harness the forces of change for more inclusive prosperity. History tells us that large and unabated rises in inequality can end up badly.


The bolded word above, "history", links to a book review:

https://press.princeton.edu/books/paperback/9780691183251/the-great-leveler

The Great Leveler deals with wealth inequality and war and revolutions.

But I'm going to ignore fear/threats of violent uprisings and instead focus on this sentence from the conclusion, above:

"High and rising inequality entails adverse economic, social, and political consequences."

Because I was always taught in my economics courses that when the middle class was the dominant robust class, growth was strongest. In hindsight, maybe those were politicked liberal commentaries. But if the Brookings Institute of all places is saying it….

"Adverse Economic Consequences"
Plain English. No spin.

Reply Quote
3 edits
tequila4kapp
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to calpoly • 6:57a, 4/1/24
calpoly said:
DiabloWags said:

The U.S. Already Soaks the Rich

In 2021, the richest 1% paid 45.8% of income taxes.
Up from 33.2% in 2001.

WSJ Editorial Board, March 29, 2024

President Biden is proposing a bevy of tax increases, and his State of the Union address included the familiar call for the wealthy to pay their "fair share." He should examine the Internal Revenue Service data. Recently released figures for 2021 show that the top 1% of Americans reported 26.3% of the country's adjusted gross income, while paying 45.8% of total income taxes.

Is this not a "fair share" to Mr. Biden? Then what would be? Democrats always deploy the language of fairness without defining it or answering those questions. The truth is that the income tax is already steeply progressive. The top 10% of earners in 2021 provided 75.8% of the revenue. (See the nearby bar chart.)

These figures are from a Tax Foundation analysis of the IRS data. They include temporary Covid relief, which skews the results even more progressively. They don't include the payroll tax, which covers lower-income workers, but Mr. Biden is making his "fair share" point about income taxes.


Start with the bottom half of earners, the 76.8 million returns that reported adjusted gross income up to about $46,500. In tax year 2021, they earned 10.4% of the country's total income, while paying 2.3% of all income taxes. Their average tax rate was 3.4%.

The next group is between the bottom half and the top 25%, a total of 38.4 million returns that showed earnings from about $46,500 to $94,500. They reported 17.5% of income, while paying 8.4% of income taxes. Their average tax rate was 7.2%.

Move up to the cohort between the top 25% and 10%, or 23 million returns with earnings from about $94,500 to $170,000. They reported 19.5% of income, paid 13.4% of taxes, and had an average tax rate of 10.3%
.
Between the top 10% and 5% were 7.7 million returns with earnings from about $170,000 to $253,000. They reported 10.6% of income, paid 10.2% of income taxes, and had an average tax rate of 14.3%.

Between the top 5% and 1% were 6.1 million returns with earnings from about $253,000 to $682,500. They reported 15.7% of income, paid 19.9% of all income taxes, and had an average tax rate of 18.9%
.
Finally, we come to the top 1%, another 1.5 million returns with earnings in excess of about $682,500. Their share of income taxes paid was 45.8%, not quite double their share of income. Their average tax rate was 25.9%.

Among the tippy-top 0.1%, or 154,000 returns with earnings above about $3,775,500 a year, the average tax rate was similar, 25.7%.

The burden of income taxes, in other words, falls almost entirely on the top half of earners and disproportionately on the top 1%. Notice that tax rates rise steadily with income, a basic feature of a progressive code. The average income tax take is 10% or less for the middle class, which jumps to more than 25% for the highest earners.

The overall tax burden looks somewhat less progressive if you include the payroll tax, such as the one for Social Security that caps out in 2024 at $168,600 in wage income. But the IRS's income-tax data also leave out "refundable" portions of tax credits, which are treated as outlays and go to lower earners.

Erica York, a senior economist at the Tax Foundation, points to broader tax distribution data for 2020 from the Congressional Budget Office. That year, the CBO says, the bottom 60% of taxpayers had an average income-tax rate that was effectively negative. The lowest quintile paid minus 27.6%. For the middle quintile it was minus 2.4%.

This isn't the story Democrats tell. "No billionaire should pay a lower federal tax rate than a teacher, a sanitation worker, or a nurse," Mr. Biden recently said, while pitching a new wealth tax on assets disguised as "a minimum tax for billionaires of 25%." In a given year, specific ultrawealthy people might pay little or no income taxes, and setting up a foundation is a major loophole. Yet the numbers clearly show in 2021 that on average the top 0.1% of earners forked over to the IRS more than a quarter of their reported incomes.

The truth is that the wealthy are shouldering a huge and rising share of the income-tax burden. (See the nearby line chart.) In 2001 the top 1% paid only 33.2% of the total tab. As that figure has risen, the share paid by most of the rest of us has correspondingly fallen. The bottom 90% of taxpayers in 2001 provided 36.3% of the cash. Twenty years later, that had dropped to 24.2%.

Taxing the rich is popular these days, in part because Republicans are now playing the same tax redistribution game as Democrats. The problem in Washington isn't that the rich refuse to pay their "fair share," whatever that means. The trouble is that with the notable exception for national defense, Mr. Biden's progressive spending ambitions are limitless. Washington could confiscate the income of every billionaire in the country and still not finance what Democrats want to spend.



https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-income-taxes-top-1-percent-irs-tax-foundation-joe-biden-fair-share-3394355b?st=4ox7pdoxpntla50&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalin
Cry me a river.
Care to elaborate? You are fine with the current system? You think D's are right to say the rich should pay even more than the do?
Reply Quote
4
bearister
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to DiabloWags • 7:45a, 4/1/24
DiabloWags said:


Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
Reply Quote
bearister
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
7:52a, 4/1/24
Go Bears!

Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
Reply Quote
1
DiabloWags
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:32a, 4/1/24
Ummm.... many liberal economists have challenged the claim made by Zucman and Saez that the rich pay lower effective tax rates than poor and middle-class Americans, because the two Berkeley professors leave out some tax benefits to the poor, like the earned-income tax credit in their calculations.

The Liberal Economists Behind the Wealth Tax Debate - The New York Times (nytimes.com)

"Leaving them out seems both analytically and politically mistaken," said Jared Bernstein, a former top economist for Mr. Obama who counts himself a fan of Mr. Zucman and Mr. Saez.

Others have also challenged the details of Zucman and Saez's wealth inequality calculations.
Economists Matthew Smith, Eric Zwick and Owen Zidar have shown that there is a much smaller concentration of wealth among top earners. Thus, less for the government to gain by taxing the very wealthy.

Wojciech Kopczuk, a Columbia University economist published a rebuttal to the pair's wealth data in 2015:

What Do We Know About Evolution of Top Wealth Shares in the United States? (columbia.edu)

One can certainly make the case that compared to their earlier work, the Berkeley economists' recent book made more aggressive (and according to Kopczuk) incorrect - - - assumptions.

"That's when you can say without any doubt they crossed from academic research to advocacy," Mr. Kopczuk said. "It's liberating when you don't have to deal with reviewers."



"Cults don't end well. They really don't."
Reply Quote
1
DiabloWags
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to concordtom • 9:42a, 4/1/24
concordtom said:


-Last guy to run a balanced budget.

If those tax increases were good for the middle class, then they should have been popular.
The fact of the matter is that in the 1994 elections, the Democratic Party suffered historic losses.

The GOP gained 54 seats in the House and 8 seats in the Senate to win control of both the House and the Senate for the first time since 1952.

Just 1-year of recovery from the 1991 recession, GDP was 1/2 point slower than Reagan during the 4 years following the first year of the recovery from the 1982 recession

Employment growth was a respectable 2 million a year.
But real hourly wages stagnated, rising only .02 cents to $7.43 an hour in 1996 from $7.41 in 1992.

No real gains for the middle class there.

Clinton then did a flip-flop on taxes and it paved the way for his re-election.

  • Welfare reform, which he signed in the summer of 1996, led to a massive reduction in the effective tax rates on the poor by ameliorating the rapid phase out of benefits associated with going to work.
  • The phased reduction in tariff and non-tariff barriers between the U.S., Mexico and Canada under the North American Free Trade Agreement continued, leading to increased trade.
  • In 1997, Clinton signed a reduction in the (audible liberal gasp) capital gains tax rate to 20% from 28%.
  • The 1997 tax cuts also included a phased in increase in the death tax exemption to $1 million from $600,000, and established Roth IRAs and increased the limits for deductible IRAs.
  • Annual growth in federal spending was kept to below 3%, or $57 billion.
  • The Clinton Administration also maintained its policy of a strong and stable dollar. Over his entire second term, consumer price inflation averaged only 2.4% a year.
The boom was on. Between the end of 1996 and the end of 2000:

  • Economic growth accelerated a full percentage point to 4.2% a year.
  • Employment growth nudged higher, to 2.1 million jobs per year as the unemployment rate fell to 4.0% from 5.4%.
  • As the tax rate on capital gains came down, real wages made their biggest advance since the implementation of the Reagan tax rate reductions in the mid 1980s. Real average hourly earnings were (in 1982 dollars) $7.43 in 1996, $7.55 in 1997, $7.75 in 1998, $7.86 in 1999, and $7.89 in 2000.
  • Millions of Americans shared in the prosperity as the value of their 401(k)s climbed along with the stock market, which saw the price of the S&P 500 index rise 78%
  • .
  • Revenue growth accelerated an astounding 59%, increasing on average $143 billion a year. Combined with continued restraint on government spending, that produced a $198 billion budget surplus in 2000.
Shared prosperity indeed! But one created not by raising tax rates on high income but not yet rich middle class families, and certainly not by raising the capital gains tax rate or by imposing the equivalent of the Buffett rule, a new alternative minimum tax of 30% on incomes over $1 million, nor by massively increasing federal spending.


The Dangerous Myth About The Bill Clinton Tax Increase (forbes.com)


"Cults don't end well. They really don't."
Reply Quote
2
2 edits
concordtom
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to DiabloWags • 10:44a, 4/1/24
Quote:
If those tax increases were good for the middle class, then they should have been popular.
The fact of the matter is that in the 1994 elections, the Democratic Party suffered historic losses.



You make the mistake of thinking that what's good for people, or society, and what's popular go hand in hand. Popularity of an issue does not make it the best remedy.

And it's stupid that voters vote for low high-end tax rates even though they'll never be in those brackets. That'd be exhibit 1.



Exhibit 2, which I know we agree on: DJT



Exhibit 3: Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas had their famous debates. Douglas argued that people in new states should get to decide for themselves whether slavery would be allowed.
Lincoln famously argued that rather than Popular Sovereignty (might makes right), that which is morally "Right makes Might".







Educational!
Reply Quote
1
8 edits
tequila4kapp
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to DiabloWags • 10:45a, 4/1/24
Interesting stuff. It is my opinion that Clinton and JFK couldn't get elected in today's D party - they are effectively establishment Republicans.

In any case, Clinton's economic record coincided with the invention / start of the internet. Massive amounts of growth and innovation came with that. Maybe that doesn't happen without his underlying policies?? Maybe he was the beneficiary of some very lucky timing??
Reply Quote
3
DiabloWags
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to tequila4kapp • 11:35a, 4/1/24
tequila4kapp said:
Interesting stuff. It is my opinion that Clinton and JFK couldn't get elected in today's D party - they are effectively establishment Republicans.

In any case, Clinton's economic record coincided with the invention / start of the internet. Massive amounts of growth and innovation came with that. Maybe that doesn't happen without his underlying policies?? Maybe he was the beneficiary of some very lucky timing??

Agreed.

"Cults don't end well. They really don't."
Reply Quote
1
DiabloWags
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to concordtom • 11:37a, 4/1/24
concordtom said:
Quote:
If those tax increases were good for the middle class, then they should have been popular.
The fact of the matter is that in the 1994 elections, the Democratic Party suffered historic losses.



You make the mistake of thinking that what's good for people, or society, and what's popular go hand in hand. Popularity of an issue does not make it the best remedy.


I specifically replied to your post about Clinton being the last one to balance the budget and his emphasis on helping the middle class.

I did so by pointing out the FACT that he reversed his tax policy and restrained govt spending.
That's what lead to a Boom and that produced a $198 billion budget surplus in 2000.

You failed to mention that he reversed course on his TAX POLICY.

And as Tequila aptly points out, Clinton couldn't win these days as a Democrat.
His policies were more aligned with that of an establishment Republican.
"Cults don't end well. They really don't."
Reply Quote
2
3 edits
concordtom
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to DiabloWags • 11:49a, 4/1/24
DiabloWags said:
concordtom said:
Quote:
If those tax increases were good for the middle class, then they should have been popular.
The fact of the matter is that in the 1994 elections, the Democratic Party suffered historic losses.



You make the mistake of thinking that what's good for people, or society, and what's popular go hand in hand. Popularity of an issue does not make it the best remedy.


I specifically replied to your post about Clinton being the last one to balance the budget and his emphasis on helping the middle class.

I did so by pointing out the FACT that he reversed his tax policy and that's what lead to a Boom.

You failed to mention that he reversed course.

Oh. I see your point.
I was respondido your first sentence, which I quoted.


Perhaps tax cuts are like sugared candy - short terms bursts of energy to the body, and not long term sustainable health obtained from lots of vegetables and other foods less immediately appetizing.

I'd be more interested in decades long economic health rather than these low taxes, high spending deficit generated boosts we've been getting.
Reply Quote
bearister
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
12:00p, 4/1/24
Kara Swisher says the billionaire techies are part of the Grievance Industrial Complex. They spend a lot of time contemplating how badly they are getting screwed.
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
Reply Quote
DiabloWags
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to bearister • 12:15p, 4/1/24
bearister said:
Kara Swisher says the billionaire techies are part of the Grievance Industrial Complex. They spend a lot of time contemplating how badly they are getting screwed.

Don't care about loud-mouth liberals like Kara Swisher.
In my personal case, I've been retired for quite some time and not a billionaire.

But I still do some investing (which seems to be contrary to many of the folks here) given how the stock market thread has never gained any serious interest.

In any event, I spent 10 years of my life and career working in NYC in the '80's and '90's.
I wasn't by any means a "whale". I was a "minnow."

I RISKED MY OWN CAPITAL every single day on the trading floor.

I didnt have a job where I got a paycheck every two weeks, a W2.
I didn't have the luxury of "going through the motions" until I received my yearly review.
I sank or swam on my own immediate decisions.

I wasn't "backstopped" by anyone or anything.
The capital that I used was 100% my own. No one else's.

But.... I had to watch nearly 50% of my income go to the Feds, NY State, and NY City (3.1%) for the latter.

Perhaps this doesn't seem terribly wrong to most liberals.
I don't see where the Government was entitled to 50% of my income when they did NOT RISK ANYTHING.

That's a word that you'll never ever hear Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders use . . .

Risk.






"Cults don't end well. They really don't."
Reply Quote
3
6 edits
Unit2Sucks
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to tequila4kapp • 12:23p, 4/1/24
tequila4kapp said:
Interesting stuff. It is my opinion that Clinton and JFK couldn't get elected in today's D party - they are effectively establishment Republicans.

In any case, Clinton's economic record coincided with the invention / start of the internet. Massive amounts of growth and innovation came with that. Maybe that doesn't happen without his underlying policies?? Maybe he was the beneficiary of some very lucky timing??
I don't know about JFK, that was too long ago, but you are on another planet if you think "establishment" republicans are anything like Clinton.

First - it needs to be said that every politician is a product of their era. We live in a different world than we did 30 years ago. The Overton Window has shifted on numerous topics. Clinton is very much aligned with today's democratic party. Disingenuous people like to bring up Don't Ask Don't Tell as if it was some sort of deeply held belief by Clinton to limit gay rights. It was a radical notion back then and a pivotal movement in civil rights history. It was opposed by the GOP and even many democrats who weren't ready.

What exactly do you think "establishment" even means for the GOP? Are you ignoring the base and all GOP elected officials to construct some sort of sane utopian version of the party or are you talking about the party as it actually is? If someone like Clinton showed up to the GOP today he would be labeled a RINO. The closest thing to an "establishment" in the GOP is whatever Trump believes at any given time. He's the only person that matters and any attempt to define the GOP that ignores his total influence and control is foolish. The only thing preventing us from passing certain legislation right now (like immigration and Ukraine aid) is Donald Trump stopping it.
Reply Quote
DiabloWags
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Unit2Sucks • 12:28p, 4/1/24
I don't want to speak for Tequila, but I don't think he was talking about today's "Trump GOP".
He's talking about an establishment Republican during the era that Clinton came from or any era sans Trump.

In similar vein, I can't really see a present day Democrat running on a platform where they come out and publicly state that they are for keeping the long term capital gains rate at the current 20% for those individuals making over $492,300

As it is, Biden's own proposal for the FY 2025 budget is to nearly double the capital gains rate to 39.6%

What Bill Clinton did is not typical of the Democratic policy platform.
I think we can all AGREE on that.






"Cults don't end well. They really don't."
Reply Quote
1
3 edits
prospeCt
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
12:41p, 4/1/24




Reply Quote
1
Unit2Sucks
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to DiabloWags • 12:52p, 4/1/24
DiabloWags said:
I don't want to speak for Tequila, but I don't think he was talking about today's "Trump GOP".
He's talking about an establishment Republican during the era that Clinton came from or any era sans Trump.

In similar vein, I can't really see a present day Democrat running on a platform where they come out and publicly state that they are for keeping the long term capital gains rate at the current 20% for those individuals making over $492,300

As it is, Biden's own proposal for the FY 2025 budget is to nearly double the capital gains rate to 39.6%

What Bill Clinton did is not typical of the Democratic policy platform.
I think we can all AGREE on that.
Sure, I can agree with all of that. If you set aside all of the impeachment and Newt Gingrich nonsense, the 90's GOP still seemed to have some interest in governing. So from that perspective both Clinton and Biden are closer to the mid 90's establishment GOP than the current GOP is to that era.

I'm just not sure there is a real takeaway here, other than acknowledging the modern GOP is very far away from any prior iteration of a modern American political party which was intent on governing or like helping Americans in any meaningful way. That's pretty clearly not the focus on the "establishment" GOP since 2016 or so.
Reply Quote
blungld
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to DiabloWags • 1:38p, 4/1/24
DiabloWags said:

The capital that I used was 100% my own. No one else's.
I fundamentally reject the premise that capital is anyone's.

Currency and economy is a social contract and the gaining of capital is NEVER the product of one person. It is a whole set of interconnected actions, valuations, exchanges, opportunities, etc. This to me is one of the biggest problem in conservative capitalism the "I" "mine" ego. We are humans living in a society and we should see capital and wealth as more fluid and means to help all...and yes to also reward the talented and hard working, but not to stroke their ego or to their excess or to their unholy imbalanced influence on the system itself.

And before you get cute, of course there is ownership and propriety and property, but what I wrote above is also true. I personally believe that there should never be a billionaire (let alone thousands of them). There is no reason that one individual should own that large a share of a social system. They don't even need it.

I will never forget the conversation I had with an ultra wealthy friend who when I asked why he flies his private jet to Paris for the weekend replied, "Why not? I make more money each day in interest alone than I could ever spend. I literally can not spend money fast enough." You can say all you want about how that person "earned it" and it is "theirs" but how does a person live with themself when there are thousands of people homeless and indigent while they do that? How do they even enjoy it. It's like eating a steak at a table of starving people and still thinking it tastes great. You have to be a special brand of ass to think that you are that special and that this is not a corrupt and broken system and that your wealth shouldn't be heavily heavily taxed and rightfully so.
Reply Quote
3
calbear93
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Unit2Sucks • 1:40p, 4/1/24
Unit2Sucks said:
tequila4kapp said:
Interesting stuff. It is my opinion that Clinton and JFK couldn't get elected in today's D party - they are effectively establishment Republicans.

In any case, Clinton's economic record coincided with the invention / start of the internet. Massive amounts of growth and innovation came with that. Maybe that doesn't happen without his underlying policies?? Maybe he was the beneficiary of some very lucky timing??
I don't know about JFK, that was too long ago, but you are on another planet if you think "establishment" republicans are anything like Clinton.

First - it needs to be said that every politician is a product of their era. We live in a different world than we did 30 years ago. The Overton Window has shifted on numerous topics. Clinton is very much aligned with today's democratic party. Disingenuous people like to bring up Don't Ask Don't Tell as if it was some sort of deeply held belief by Clinton to limit gay rights. It was a radical notion back then and a pivotal movement in civil rights history. It was opposed by the GOP and even many democrats who weren't ready.

What exactly do you think "establishment" even means for the GOP? Are you ignoring the base and all GOP elected officials to construct some sort of sane utopian version of the party or are you talking about the party as it actually is? If someone like Clinton showed up to the GOP today he would be labeled a RINO. The closest thing to an "establishment" in the GOP is whatever Trump believes at any given time. He's the only person that matters and any attempt to define the GOP that ignores his total influence and control is foolish. The only thing preventing us from passing certain legislation right now (like immigration and Ukraine aid) is Donald Trump stopping it.
I will say this. I view myself as an establishment Republican with conservative views on economy, budget, rule of law, crime and safety, etc. I don't view myself as a current day Republican where I view their isolationist, nationalistic politics more focused on fighting divisive social wars than governing and building a future for the next generation as more akin to the southern populist Democrats from 5 or 6 decades ago.

And as an establishment Republican, I agreed quite often with Clinton. Not so much Biden anymore. The only reason I will vote for Biden is because of Trump. That's it. If Clinton ran again, I would vote for him in a heartbeat.
Reply Quote
1
1 edit
calbear93
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to blungld • 1:46p, 4/1/24
blungld said:
DiabloWags said:

The capital that I used was 100% my own. No one else's.
I fundamentally reject the premise that capital is anyone's.

Currency and economy is a social contract and the gaining of capital is NEVER the product of one person. It is a whole set of interconnected actions, valuations, exchanges, opportunities, etc. This to me is one of the biggest problem in conservative capitalism the "I" "mine" ego. We are humans living in a society and we should see capital and wealth as more fluid and means to help all...and yes to also reward the talented and hard working, but not to stroke their ego or to their excess or to their unholy imbalanced influence on the system itself.

And before you get cute, of course there is ownership and propriety and property, but what I wrote above is also true. I personally believe that there should never be a billionaire (let alone thousands of them). There is no reason that one individual should own that large a share of a social system. They don't even need it.

I will never forget the conversation I had with an ultra wealthy friend who when I asked why he flies his private jet to Paris for the weekend replied, "Why not? I make more money each day in interest alone than I could ever spend. I literally can not spend money fast enough." You can say all you want about how that person "earned it" and it is "theirs" but how does a person live with themself when there are thousands of people homeless and indigent while they do that? How do they even enjoy it. It's like eating a steak at a table of starving people and still thinking it tastes great. You have to be a special brand of ass to think that you are that special and that this is not a corrupt and broken system and that your wealth shouldn't be heavily heavily taxed and rightfully so.
1. Under the social contract, I own the capital. Not sure what social contract you are reading.

2. No billionaire? That seems a bit arbitrary. Why not no millionaire? When you consider the wealth on a global scale, no one should even have $100K in assets.

3. How do billionaires live with themselves while there are starving people? That could be asked of almost everyone who is not dirt poor in this country. How can you eat so well or focus on more costly energy / climate issues when people are starving? How can you throw away your left over? How can you own and live in your house when you could house so many homeless people in your home? How much should people sacrifice before they can live with themselves? I am not questioning the concept of taking care of the poor. I just question you choosing to dictate arbitrarily and without assent from anyone else that your standards (no billionaires but millionaires are OK) are what should apply to everyone.
Reply Quote
4
1 edit
DiabloWags
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to blungld • 2:27p, 4/1/24
blungld said:
DiabloWags said:

The capital that I used was 100% my own. No one else's.
I fundamentally reject the premise that capital is anyone's.

Currency and economy is a social contract and the gaining of capital is NEVER the product of one person. It is a whole set of interconnected actions, valuations, exchanges, opportunities, etc. This to me is one of the biggest problem in conservative capitalism the "I" "mine" ego. We are humans living in a society and we should see capital and wealth as more fluid and means to help all...and yes to also reward the talented and hard working, but not to stroke their ego or to their excess or to their unholy imbalanced influence on the system itself.

And before you get cute, of course there is ownership and propriety and property, but what I wrote above is also true. I personally believe that there should never be a billionaire (let alone thousands of them). There is no reason that one individual should own that large a share of a social system. They don't even need it.

I will never forget the conversation I had with an ultra wealthy friend who when I asked why he flies his private jet to Paris for the weekend replied, "Why not? I make more money each day in interest alone than I could ever spend. I literally can not spend money fast enough." You can say all you want about how that person "earned it" and it is "theirs" but how does a person live with themself when there are thousands of people homeless and indigent while they do that? How do they even enjoy it. It's like eating a steak at a table of starving people and still thinking it tastes great. You have to be a special brand of ass to think that you are that special and that this is not a corrupt and broken system and that your wealth shouldn't be heavily heavily taxed and rightfully so.

Sadly, you're conflating an awful lot here.

And your claim that I did not use capital that was 100% my own is not supported by any material facts.
That claim isn't even remotely close to having any merit.

I'm not a Billionaire. I'm not ultra-wealthy. I never came from "money".
I attended public schools. Came from a middle-class background here in the East Bay.
I'm 4th generation Californian. My parents met at CAL.

I'm self-made and worked hard for what I have. I was self-employed for 98% of my career.
I didn't rely on anyone or any organization for funding.
And I certainly did not ride anyone's coattails.

I don't eat steak at a table of starving people.
I don't think that I'm all that "special".

I love California and even though we are progressively taxed to death here,
I'm not fleeing the state like others have. I pay my taxes.

But I've been a board member of a non-profit and have given over a thousand hours of my time in the last year to a local high volume animal Kill Shelter here in the Bay Area that the "special" government employees (making six-figures) and elected city councilmembers (making six-figures) couldn't give a rat's ass about.

Why do they not care?

Because there is (a) no profit incentive to allow for termination of incompetent staff who perform poorly (b) the shelter animals aren't able to hold the City accountable for their suffering because they have no legal recourse, and (c) they don't have a vote. - - - So much for government being able to run an animal shelter. They can't even do that properly.

And you want government to have even more of my money?

I've given back to my community in ways that would have most people shaking their head in disbelief.
And I'm happy to say that your "standards" are not my standards and that I am not a "corrupt" person.
I will be more than comfortable taking the person that I am today to my grave someday in Folsom, California.

Good luck to you and your journey.
"Cults don't end well. They really don't."
Reply Quote
4
12 edits
Unit2Sucks
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to calbear93 • 3:27p, 4/1/24
calbear93 said:
Unit2Sucks said:
tequila4kapp said:
Interesting stuff. It is my opinion that Clinton and JFK couldn't get elected in today's D party - they are effectively establishment Republicans.

In any case, Clinton's economic record coincided with the invention / start of the internet. Massive amounts of growth and innovation came with that. Maybe that doesn't happen without his underlying policies?? Maybe he was the beneficiary of some very lucky timing??
I don't know about JFK, that was too long ago, but you are on another planet if you think "establishment" republicans are anything like Clinton.

First - it needs to be said that every politician is a product of their era. We live in a different world than we did 30 years ago. The Overton Window has shifted on numerous topics. Clinton is very much aligned with today's democratic party. Disingenuous people like to bring up Don't Ask Don't Tell as if it was some sort of deeply held belief by Clinton to limit gay rights. It was a radical notion back then and a pivotal movement in civil rights history. It was opposed by the GOP and even many democrats who weren't ready.

What exactly do you think "establishment" even means for the GOP? Are you ignoring the base and all GOP elected officials to construct some sort of sane utopian version of the party or are you talking about the party as it actually is? If someone like Clinton showed up to the GOP today he would be labeled a RINO. The closest thing to an "establishment" in the GOP is whatever Trump believes at any given time. He's the only person that matters and any attempt to define the GOP that ignores his total influence and control is foolish. The only thing preventing us from passing certain legislation right now (like immigration and Ukraine aid) is Donald Trump stopping it.
I will say this. I view myself as an establishment Republican with conservative views on economy, budget, rule of law, crime and safety, etc. I don't view myself as a current day Republican where I view their isolationist, nationalistic politics more focused on fighting divisive social wars than governing and building a future for the next generation as more akin to the southern populist Democrats from 5 or 6 decades ago.

And as an establishment Republican, I agreed quite often with Clinton. Not so much Biden anymore. The only reason I will vote for Biden is because of Trump. That's it. If Clinton ran again, I would vote for him in a heartbeat.
If Clinton were allowed to be President again, he would probably be to the left of Biden. I think he would be painted as a pinko commy liberal coming for your guns and bringing socialism.

And I guess maybe it's just semantics but what "establishment" do you represent? Certainly not the mainstream GOP. I guess you could represent a theoretical sane GOP that stands for stuff that the GOP used to stand for in theory but not really in practice. I would argue that in practice the GOP's only consistent policy priorities over the past few decades were lowering taxes on the wealthy and conservative social values. The GOP never made our government smaller or reduced our deficit. It has consistently failed to deliver promised results for the American people apart from lower taxes and expansion of certain individual liberties (mostly guns) while curtailing others (abortion, etc.).
Reply Quote
calbear93
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Unit2Sucks • 3:57p, 4/1/24
Unit2Sucks said:
calbear93 said:
Unit2Sucks said:
tequila4kapp said:
Interesting stuff. It is my opinion that Clinton and JFK couldn't get elected in today's D party - they are effectively establishment Republicans.

In any case, Clinton's economic record coincided with the invention / start of the internet. Massive amounts of growth and innovation came with that. Maybe that doesn't happen without his underlying policies?? Maybe he was the beneficiary of some very lucky timing??
I don't know about JFK, that was too long ago, but you are on another planet if you think "establishment" republicans are anything like Clinton.

First - it needs to be said that every politician is a product of their era. We live in a different world than we did 30 years ago. The Overton Window has shifted on numerous topics. Clinton is very much aligned with today's democratic party. Disingenuous people like to bring up Don't Ask Don't Tell as if it was some sort of deeply held belief by Clinton to limit gay rights. It was a radical notion back then and a pivotal movement in civil rights history. It was opposed by the GOP and even many democrats who weren't ready.

What exactly do you think "establishment" even means for the GOP? Are you ignoring the base and all GOP elected officials to construct some sort of sane utopian version of the party or are you talking about the party as it actually is? If someone like Clinton showed up to the GOP today he would be labeled a RINO. The closest thing to an "establishment" in the GOP is whatever Trump believes at any given time. He's the only person that matters and any attempt to define the GOP that ignores his total influence and control is foolish. The only thing preventing us from passing certain legislation right now (like immigration and Ukraine aid) is Donald Trump stopping it.
I will say this. I view myself as an establishment Republican with conservative views on economy, budget, rule of law, crime and safety, etc. I don't view myself as a current day Republican where I view their isolationist, nationalistic politics more focused on fighting divisive social wars than governing and building a future for the next generation as more akin to the southern populist Democrats from 5 or 6 decades ago.

And as an establishment Republican, I agreed quite often with Clinton. Not so much Biden anymore. The only reason I will vote for Biden is because of Trump. That's it. If Clinton ran again, I would vote for him in a heartbeat.
If Clinton were allowed to be President again, he would probably be to the left of Biden. I think he would be painted as a pinko commy liberal coming for your guns and bringing socialism.

And I guess maybe it's just semantics but what "establishment" do you represent? Certainly not the mainstream GOP. I guess you could represent a theoretical sane GOP that stands for stuff that the GOP used to stand for in theory but not really in practice. I would argue that in practice the GOP's only consistent policy priorities over the past few decades were lowering taxes on the wealthy and conservative social values. The GOP never made our government smaller or reduced our deficit. It has consistently failed to deliver promised results for the American people apart from lower taxes and expansion of certain individual liberties (mostly guns) while curtailing others (abortion, etc.).
I don't know why your facts differ so much from my recollection of facts. How is a President who agreed to put in a work requirement for welfare, cut benefits, etc. left of Biden?

As far as establishment, I don't think it is a term that I came up with. It is commonly understood as the governing, compromising group of Republicans as opposed to disruptive, anti-establishment no-compromise segment like the Tea Party and now the Freedom Caucus. It just happens that the anti-establishment, even when having control of the party, cannot govern because how do you stay anti-establishment when you choose to participate in an organization that is by its nature and core intended to govern? If you are still confused, you can Google the term and it may help you understand what is commonly understood when people refer to establishment Republican as opposed to anti-establishment Republicans like the Freedom Caucus.

You are generally a smart person, but then when you describe the Republican party historically, your emotions take over your brain and you present things in a tilted manner no different than someone who argues that Democrats are all about socialism and woke politics. No, neither is correct. For example, I was for lowering corporate taxes, because unlike some who promote it based on rhetoric, I actually practiced M&A and knew of all of the corporate inversions, with countries otherwise known for high taxes like France and Germany and of course Ireland having much lower corporate tax to attract global corporations. And simpletons who have never practiced in any meaningful way in the economy will say just ignore jurisdiction and tax US companies for revenue earned from Ireland or from France. Well, you know what happens? They will retaliate by taxing US companies for revenues earned globally, including in the US. And corporations will pay double, triple, etc. taxes for the same income. That will really help our economy. People without any real life experience are completely clueless to the war that is being fought among nations on taxing multinational entities. Our tax rate was such a disadvantage that we had to use leverage to even have EU agree to a minimal tax that is still lower than our current corporate tax. I know of a few potential corporate inversions even beyond Pfizer before TCJA that would have reduced corporate tax revenue with higher rate than what we get after the lower corporate tax rate. Unlike individual income tax, that is an actual fact.

And the whole concept of wealth tax is not even a practical consideration. So, saying that Republicans just want to lower taxes when they are often OK with it when coupled with lower entitlements if the purpose is to balance the budget. Just like it is not accurate to say all Democrats just want to spend, spend, spend, and then spend some more and solve everything through tax and spending and bigger government. That wouldn't describe you, would it? Now if someone said that was what Democrats represented, would you think they were smart?

While I think we need to raise taxes for everyone else, I don't buy into this fallacy that someone richer than me has to pay more. Why them and not me or you? And we should tax to reduce the deficit while also reforming entitlements that use up almost all of our revenues and comprise of most of our budget. WE talk of military or discretionary, but it's entitlements that cause 70-80% of our deficit. And adding more entitlements is not the solution just like cutting taxes is not.

Reply Quote
2
2 edits
tequila4kapp
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Unit2Sucks • 3:59p, 4/1/24
When I said "establishment Republicans" I meant non-Trump Republicans. Personally, the picture I see in my head when I say the phrase is Mitch McConnell. Not because of policy decisions, because his core belief is working The System. Bill Clinton is way way closer to a McConnell Republican - or if it makes us feel better, a Manchin Democrat - than the D party.
Reply Quote
2
2 edits
Unit2Sucks
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to calbear93 • 4:03p, 4/1/24
calbear93 said:
Unit2Sucks said:
calbear93 said:
Unit2Sucks said:
tequila4kapp said:
Interesting stuff. It is my opinion that Clinton and JFK couldn't get elected in today's D party - they are effectively establishment Republicans.

In any case, Clinton's economic record coincided with the invention / start of the internet. Massive amounts of growth and innovation came with that. Maybe that doesn't happen without his underlying policies?? Maybe he was the beneficiary of some very lucky timing??
I don't know about JFK, that was too long ago, but you are on another planet if you think "establishment" republicans are anything like Clinton.

First - it needs to be said that every politician is a product of their era. We live in a different world than we did 30 years ago. The Overton Window has shifted on numerous topics. Clinton is very much aligned with today's democratic party. Disingenuous people like to bring up Don't Ask Don't Tell as if it was some sort of deeply held belief by Clinton to limit gay rights. It was a radical notion back then and a pivotal movement in civil rights history. It was opposed by the GOP and even many democrats who weren't ready.

What exactly do you think "establishment" even means for the GOP? Are you ignoring the base and all GOP elected officials to construct some sort of sane utopian version of the party or are you talking about the party as it actually is? If someone like Clinton showed up to the GOP today he would be labeled a RINO. The closest thing to an "establishment" in the GOP is whatever Trump believes at any given time. He's the only person that matters and any attempt to define the GOP that ignores his total influence and control is foolish. The only thing preventing us from passing certain legislation right now (like immigration and Ukraine aid) is Donald Trump stopping it.
I will say this. I view myself as an establishment Republican with conservative views on economy, budget, rule of law, crime and safety, etc. I don't view myself as a current day Republican where I view their isolationist, nationalistic politics more focused on fighting divisive social wars than governing and building a future for the next generation as more akin to the southern populist Democrats from 5 or 6 decades ago.

And as an establishment Republican, I agreed quite often with Clinton. Not so much Biden anymore. The only reason I will vote for Biden is because of Trump. That's it. If Clinton ran again, I would vote for him in a heartbeat.
If Clinton were allowed to be President again, he would probably be to the left of Biden. I think he would be painted as a pinko commy liberal coming for your guns and bringing socialism.

And I guess maybe it's just semantics but what "establishment" do you represent? Certainly not the mainstream GOP. I guess you could represent a theoretical sane GOP that stands for stuff that the GOP used to stand for in theory but not really in practice. I would argue that in practice the GOP's only consistent policy priorities over the past few decades were lowering taxes on the wealthy and conservative social values. The GOP never made our government smaller or reduced our deficit. It has consistently failed to deliver promised results for the American people apart from lower taxes and expansion of certain individual liberties (mostly guns) while curtailing others (abortion, etc.).
I don't know why your facts differ so much from my recollection of facts. How is a President who agreed to put in a work requirement for welfare, cut benefits, etc. left of Biden?

As far as establishment, I don't think it is a term that I came up with. It is commonly understood as the governing, compromising group of Republicans as opposed to disruptive, anti-establishment no-compromise segment like the Tea Party and now the Freedom Caucus. It just happens that the anti-establishment, even when having control of the party, cannot govern because how do you stay anti-establishment when you choose to participate in an organization that is by its nature and core intended to govern? If you are still confused, there is this called Google that may help you understand what is commonly understood when people refer to establishment Republican as opposed to anti-establishment Republicans.

You are generally a smart person, but then when you describe the Republican party, your emotions take over your brain and you present things in a tilted manner no different than someone who argues that Democrats are all about socialism and woke politics. No, neither is correct. For example, I was for lowering corporate taxes, because unlike some who promote it based on rhetoric, I actually practiced M&A and knew of all of the corporate inversions, with countries otherwise known for high taxes like France and Germany and of course Ireland had such lower corporate tax. It was such a disadvantage that we had to use leverage to even have EU agree to a minimal tax that is still lower than our current corporate tax. I know of a few potential inversions even beyond Pfizer before TCJA.

And the whole concept of wealth tax is not even a practical consideration. So, saying that Republicans just want to lower taxes when they are often OK with it when coupled with lower entitlements. Just like it is not accurate to say all Democrats just want to spend, spend, spend, and then spend some more and solve everything through tax and spend and bigger government. That wouldn't describe you, would it? Now if someone said that was what Democrats represented, would you think they were smart?

While I think we need to raise taxes for everyone else, I don't buy into this fallacy that someone richer than me has to pay more. Why them and not me or you? And we should tax to reduce the deficit while also reforming entitlements that use up almost all of our revenues and comprise of most of our budget. WE talk of military or discretionary, but it's entitlements that cause 70-80% of our deficit. And adding more entitlements is not the solution just like cutting taxes is not.

Quite simple, that was the mid 90's and it was a completely different environment.

Let me ask you an easy question - was BIden to the left or right of Clinton in the 90's? I think we will both agree that Biden was to the right. One of the consistent points of attack from the right on Biden is that he used to be conservative (lol, they attack him for previously sharing their positions). The difference is that Biden's views have evolved along with the rest of our country. There is no reason to believe that Clinton's "solutions" or policies which he felt were the best for our country in the mid-90's would be the same today.

As to the latter part of your message, saying the GOP is "for" certain things is a bit too glib for me. The GOP had control of both houses of congress under Trump and mad no attempts to reduce the size of the government. They reduced taxes and increased our deficit. They talked about repealing and replacing ACA but never even came close to starting a plan. They talked about infrastructure week but never did anything. They pay lip service to entitlements but have no plans. At some point you have to look at their actions.

And, I think you know this, but you and I aren't that different when it comes to taxing and spending. I think we spend too much. I agree we can't just arbitrarily raise taxes and hope for the best. I agree the wealth tax is problematic for any number of reasons. I just don't think the GOP is in any position to govern responsibly so the democrats are our only chance to move forward responsibly.
Reply Quote
1
1 edit
calbear93
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Unit2Sucks • 4:15p, 4/1/24
Unit2Sucks said:
calbear93 said:
Unit2Sucks said:
calbear93 said:
Unit2Sucks said:
tequila4kapp said:
Interesting stuff. It is my opinion that Clinton and JFK couldn't get elected in today's D party - they are effectively establishment Republicans.

In any case, Clinton's economic record coincided with the invention / start of the internet. Massive amounts of growth and innovation came with that. Maybe that doesn't happen without his underlying policies?? Maybe he was the beneficiary of some very lucky timing??
I don't know about JFK, that was too long ago, but you are on another planet if you think "establishment" republicans are anything like Clinton.

First - it needs to be said that every politician is a product of their era. We live in a different world than we did 30 years ago. The Overton Window has shifted on numerous topics. Clinton is very much aligned with today's democratic party. Disingenuous people like to bring up Don't Ask Don't Tell as if it was some sort of deeply held belief by Clinton to limit gay rights. It was a radical notion back then and a pivotal movement in civil rights history. It was opposed by the GOP and even many democrats who weren't ready.

What exactly do you think "establishment" even means for the GOP? Are you ignoring the base and all GOP elected officials to construct some sort of sane utopian version of the party or are you talking about the party as it actually is? If someone like Clinton showed up to the GOP today he would be labeled a RINO. The closest thing to an "establishment" in the GOP is whatever Trump believes at any given time. He's the only person that matters and any attempt to define the GOP that ignores his total influence and control is foolish. The only thing preventing us from passing certain legislation right now (like immigration and Ukraine aid) is Donald Trump stopping it.
I will say this. I view myself as an establishment Republican with conservative views on economy, budget, rule of law, crime and safety, etc. I don't view myself as a current day Republican where I view their isolationist, nationalistic politics more focused on fighting divisive social wars than governing and building a future for the next generation as more akin to the southern populist Democrats from 5 or 6 decades ago.

And as an establishment Republican, I agreed quite often with Clinton. Not so much Biden anymore. The only reason I will vote for Biden is because of Trump. That's it. If Clinton ran again, I would vote for him in a heartbeat.
If Clinton were allowed to be President again, he would probably be to the left of Biden. I think he would be painted as a pinko commy liberal coming for your guns and bringing socialism.

And I guess maybe it's just semantics but what "establishment" do you represent? Certainly not the mainstream GOP. I guess you could represent a theoretical sane GOP that stands for stuff that the GOP used to stand for in theory but not really in practice. I would argue that in practice the GOP's only consistent policy priorities over the past few decades were lowering taxes on the wealthy and conservative social values. The GOP never made our government smaller or reduced our deficit. It has consistently failed to deliver promised results for the American people apart from lower taxes and expansion of certain individual liberties (mostly guns) while curtailing others (abortion, etc.).
I don't know why your facts differ so much from my recollection of facts. How is a President who agreed to put in a work requirement for welfare, cut benefits, etc. left of Biden?

As far as establishment, I don't think it is a term that I came up with. It is commonly understood as the governing, compromising group of Republicans as opposed to disruptive, anti-establishment no-compromise segment like the Tea Party and now the Freedom Caucus. It just happens that the anti-establishment, even when having control of the party, cannot govern because how do you stay anti-establishment when you choose to participate in an organization that is by its nature and core intended to govern? If you are still confused, there is this called Google that may help you understand what is commonly understood when people refer to establishment Republican as opposed to anti-establishment Republicans.

You are generally a smart person, but then when you describe the Republican party, your emotions take over your brain and you present things in a tilted manner no different than someone who argues that Democrats are all about socialism and woke politics. No, neither is correct. For example, I was for lowering corporate taxes, because unlike some who promote it based on rhetoric, I actually practiced M&A and knew of all of the corporate inversions, with countries otherwise known for high taxes like France and Germany and of course Ireland had such lower corporate tax. It was such a disadvantage that we had to use leverage to even have EU agree to a minimal tax that is still lower than our current corporate tax. I know of a few potential inversions even beyond Pfizer before TCJA.

And the whole concept of wealth tax is not even a practical consideration. So, saying that Republicans just want to lower taxes when they are often OK with it when coupled with lower entitlements. Just like it is not accurate to say all Democrats just want to spend, spend, spend, and then spend some more and solve everything through tax and spend and bigger government. That wouldn't describe you, would it? Now if someone said that was what Democrats represented, would you think they were smart?

While I think we need to raise taxes for everyone else, I don't buy into this fallacy that someone richer than me has to pay more. Why them and not me or you? And we should tax to reduce the deficit while also reforming entitlements that use up almost all of our revenues and comprise of most of our budget. WE talk of military or discretionary, but it's entitlements that cause 70-80% of our deficit. And adding more entitlements is not the solution just like cutting taxes is not.

Quite simple, that was the mid 90's and it was a completely different environment.

Let me ask you an easy question - was BIden to the left or right of Clinton in the 90's? I think we will both agree that Biden was to the right. One of the consistent points of attack from the right on Biden is that he used to be conservative (lol, they attack him for previously sharing their positions). The difference is that Biden's views have evolved along with the rest of our country. There is no reason to believe that Clinton's "solutions" or policies which he felt were the best for our country in the mid-90's would be the same today.

As to the latter part of your message, saying the GOP is "for" certain things is a bit too glib for me. The GOP had control of both houses of congress under Trump and mad no attempts to reduce the size of the government. They reduced taxes and increased our deficit. They talked about repealing and replacing ACA but never even came close to starting a plan. They talked about infrastructure week but never did anything. They pay lip service to entitlements but have no plans. At some point you have to look at their actions.

And, I think you know this, but you and I aren't that different when it comes to taxing and spending. I think we spend too much. I agree we can't just arbitrarily raise taxes and hope for the best. I agree the wealth tax is problematic for any number of reasons. I just don't think the GOP is in any position to govern responsibly so the democrats are our only chance to move forward responsibly.
Trump was a liberal in the mid 90s. People change. Biden has changed. I wasn't referring to some theoretical version of Clinton as a politician he may have had to become to win an election now. I was referring to the actual president he was in the mid 90s. That is the type of president I would support and is closer to the establishment Republican who want to solve problems within the establishment and through compromise despite disagreement with the other side. How do you go from me saying I liked Clinton when he was president in the 90s to Clinton is left of Biden NOW? I don't know, but if he were, I wouldn't like him the way I did when he was president in the 90s. If you are saying the Democratic party has shifted so far left that even Clinton would have to become a tax and spend politician to get elected, I wouldn't necessarily disagree but I would not then consider him one of the best presidents in modern history.

I think you are so set in your argument that no matter what I write about what establishment Republicans mean, you will just skip past it and then refer to anti-establishment Republicans as why I am wrong about establishment Republicans. During Obama, there was a small faction that called themselves the Tea Party (and now Freedom Caucus) that made it impossible for establishment Republicans to govern. And the Republicans couldn't get anything done because of anti-establishment Republicans (other than McCain - an establishment Republican - cratering the attempt to remove ACA without a replacement). I mention that anti-establishment Republicans cannot govern because they are against establishment, and then you refer to the period when anti-establishment Republicans drove the agenda as proof that establishment Republicans also cannot govern? Not sure why you keep asking about establishment Republicans and then ignore the discussion to act as if anti-establishment Republicans are the same as establishment Republicans.

I agree on current Republican party not being the answer as long as the party caters to Trump and to the anti-establishment sector of the party. They are just a blackhole that sucks up all possibility of the government functioning to serve America.
Reply Quote
2
3 edits
Last Page
Page 1 of 3 ▼
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.