Quote:

---

I'm not sure the argument is that we have NO public safety net, more that it's not as good and/or affordable as it used to be. In the case of education that seems pretty clearly true, and also for much of the other stuff on that list. This also feeds into the question about the top tax rate: people know that it used to be much steeper, so seeing it at 50% seems comparatively unfair.

---

That's not an argument in support or rejection of what the top marginal tax rate should be. Saying it used to be 90% is not an argument. "Unfair" is also a poor term to use in this debate.

Quote:

---

Demagoguing happens, of course, but I'm not sure you're giving enough credit for how much nuance already exists in the public debate. The above arguments are made (in some form or another) by liberal politicians and pundits routinely.

---

I see the discourse on key issues like health care and tax rates etc are almost purely ideological. Hell, most of the "news" both MSM and internet are "meta discussion" about what prominent people think about the news, ideas, etc.

The Right has to oppose health care because it is antithetical to some broad principles of their ideology. It raises cost, taxes, and gives considerable authority to the government. If a conservative politician supports universal health care, his career is effectively over. The Left supports health care...because they have to. They subscribe to the "compassion" ideology. Never turn down an opportunity to support the "little guy" at all costs

The Left talks about tax rates, but they can't articulate what's the threshold that will satisfy "fairness". The Right never talks about what tax rates would be considered too low (lol). Everyone just wants higher or lower. That's the definition of an ideological (and stupid) debate.

Purely personal opinion. I think the idea of somebody who is affluent but not wealthy ($500k/yr?) paying 50% in taxes is abhorrent. And there are cost/benefits everything, and ideology cannot address that. Over 50% of Americans don't pay any taxes (forget the source). Both uber rich and the poor.

You're right it requires a nuanced conversation with ideology left at the door. I don't think we're having that at all. And I don't think we ever will. Too much at stake. The system is built to be stable and to be very hard to change drastically in a short period of time. Partisanship has exacerbated that reality. There are of course benefits to that as well as downsides.

There is simply nothing (in virtually all cases) to be gained politically by supporting legislation proposed by the other party. None. Very few politicians can get away with it. And they do it because they know their constituency and know they can take those positions -- safely.

GBear4Life said:

---

Quote:

---

I'm not sure the argument is that we have NO public safety net, more that it's not as good and/or affordable as it used to be. In the case of education that seems pretty clearly true, and also for much of the other stuff on that list. This also feeds into the question about the top tax rate: people know that it used to be much steeper, so seeing it at 50% seems comparatively unfair.

---

That's not an argument in support or rejection of what the top marginal tax rate should be. Saying it used to be 90% is not an argument. "Unfair" is also a poor term to use in this debate.

Quote:

---

Demagoguing happens, of course, but I'm not sure you're giving enough credit for how much nuance already exists in the public debate. The above arguments are made (in some form or another) by liberal politicians and pundits routinely.

---

I see the discourse on key issues like health care and tax rates etc are almost purely ideological. Hell, most of the "news" both MSM and internet are "meta discussion" about what prominent people think about the news, ideas, etc.

The Right has to oppose health care because it is antithetical to some broad principles of their ideology. It raises cost, taxes, and gives considerable authority to the government. If a conservative politician supports universal health care, his career is effectively over. The Left supports health care...because they have to. They subscribe to the "compassion" ideology. Never turn down an opportunity to support the "little guy" at all costs

The Left talks about tax rates, but they can't articulate what's the threshold that will satisfy "fairness". The Right never talks about what tax rates would be considered too low (lol). Everyone just wants higher or lower. That's the definition of an ideological (and stupid) debate.

Purely personal opinion. I think the idea of somebody who is affluent but not wealthy ($500k/yr?) paying 50% in taxes is abhorrent. And there are cost/benefits everything, and ideology cannot address that. Over 50% of Americans don't pay any taxes (forget the source). Both uber rich and the poor.

You're right it requires a nuanced conversation with ideology left at the door. I don't think we're having that at all. And I don't think we ever will. Too much at stake. The system is built to be stable and to be very hard to change drastically in a short period of time. Partisanship has exacerbated that reality. There are of course benefits to that as well as downsides.

There is simply nothing (in virtually all cases) to be gained politically by supporting legislation proposed by the other party. None. Very few politicians can get away with it. And they do it because they know their constituency and know they can take those positions -- safely.

---

I mean, some politicians do have specific ideas about what the top marginal tax rate should be. They make arguments like "fair" or "unfair" to gain support for it. That seems like typical politics to me.

I do agree that there is a strong polarization going on right now, with neither side willing to give much of anything to the other. I'm not sure I'd expect it to go on forever. The country has been polarized before, and there have been other times where nuance and compromise reigned. IMO, this is part of a usual cycle in free democracies. It's healthy to have ideological battles from time to time, provided the very system of democratic representation isn't torn apart in the process. Eventually one of the ideologies will win out and become dominant, and that's when the nuance of how to implement it comes in.

The last historic moment that could have united the nation, even the world, was 9/11. Dubya not only blew chunks on that deal...the motherf*cker inflamed the world and it will be centuries before it's fixed, maybe. Complete lack of insight, history and common sense.

The Russian election interference should also be an event that should unite the nation...but NO.

Again, this is upside down, reverse, blizzaro crazy...can't make this sh*t up.

Another Bear said:

---

The last historic moment that could have united the nation, even the world, was 9/11. Dubya not only blew chunks on that deal...the motherf*cker inflamed the world and it will be centuries before it's fixed, maybe. Complete lack of insight, history and common sense.

The Russian election interference should also be an event that should unite the nation...but NO.

Again, this is upside down, reverse, blizzaro crazy...can't make this sh*t up.

---

Purely IMO, but it feels to me like the big ideological shift right now is from a country that mostly believed in just leaving everyone alone to fend for themselves (the Reagan ideology, basically) to one that believes we need to pool resources for the collective good (FDR, only maybe with less racism this time). You saw something resembling the Reagan mindset in the Gilded Age of the 19th century: rapid economic expansion but also rapidly rising inequality. You can see this dichotomy in just about everything: arguments about taxes, social programs, racial/sexual inequality, etc. Liberals are increasingly moving towards a "collective good" model on all of these, conservatives increasingly returning to their "individual freedom" defaults.

There are legitimate arguments for both (America does seem like a constant teetering balance between collective safety and individual freedom), but right now I think there is more a need for the collective good to take precedence. If I had to guess what event might actually unite people, it's climate change. That's something that really can't be dealt with except by strong collective action. The trouble is that it's a slow-moving crisis, so I'm not sure where the breaking point will be.

The number of former Alameda County deputy district attorneys running for president has jumped from 1 to 2.

An interesting study and characterization of the electorate below. The only thing that people across ideological lines ageee upon is that the system of rigged. The author finds- not surprisingly- that people are more nuanced ideologically than parties. He characterizes the electorate as follows

Liberal (44.6 percent): Lower left, liberal on both economic and identity issues
Populist (28.9 percent): Upper left, liberal on economic issues, conservative on identity issues
Conservative (22.7 percent): Upper right, conservative on both economic and identity issues
Libertarian (3.8 percent): Lower right, conservative on economics, liberal on identity issues

What this does is sort of blow apart the consensus of some on this board that there are large number of socially liberal/ economically conservative voters.

The other ( scary) thing that follows is that if Trump were really smart he'd win in a landslide.

In terms of issues in 2020 there is only one- economic inequality.

Very long

https://www.voterstudygroup.org/publications/2016-elections/political-divisions-in-2016-and-beyond

Another Bear said:

---

The last historic moment that could have united the nation, even the world, was 9/11. Dubya not only blew chunks on that deal...the motherf*cker inflamed the world and it will be centuries before it's fixed, maybe. Complete lack of insight, history and common sense.

The Russian election interference should also be an event that should unite the nation...but NO.

Again, this is upside down, reverse, blizzaro crazy...can't make this sh*t up.

---

Are you seriously comparing a two bit hacking with 9/11?

Anarchistbear said:

---

Another Bear said:

---

The last historic moment that could have united the nation, even the world, was 9/11.
Dubya not only blew chunks on that deal...the motherf*cker inflamed the world and it will be centuries before it's fixed, maybe. Complete lack of insight, history and common sense.

The Russian election interference should also be an event that should unite the nation...but NO.

Again, this is upside down, reverse, blizzaro crazy...can't make this sh*t up.

---

Are you seriously comparing a two bit hacking with 9/11?

---

Try reading comprehension and the context of the reply. Key words: historic event. The Russkie hacking isn't historic because it hasn't been proven. It might in the future but as of now, no.

Otherwise the two clown share more than it appears: rich families, draft dodging, lacking in intellectual ability, didn't win the popular vote.

Another Bear said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

Another Bear said:

---

The last historic moment that could have united the nation, even the world, was 9/11.
Dubya not only blew chunks on that deal...the motherf*cker inflamed the world and it will be centuries before it's fixed, maybe. Complete lack of insight, history and common sense.

The Russian election interference should also be an event that should unite the nation...but NO.

Again, this is upside down, reverse, blizzaro crazy...can't make this sh*t up.

---

Are you seriously comparing a two bit hacking with 9/11?

---

Try reading comprehension and the context of the reply. Key words: historic event. The Russkie hacking isn't historic because it hasn't been proven. It might in the future but as of now, no.

Otherwise the two clown share more than it appears: rich families, draft dodging, lacking in intellectual ability, didn't win the popular vote.

---

Now I'm really confused. Mueller says the Russian hacking happened so how is it not proven- because it's just an accusation? I actually might agree with this but didn't think you did.

Anarchistbear said:

---

Another Bear said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

Another Bear said:

---

The last historic moment that could have united the nation, even the world, was 9/11.
Dubya not only blew chunks on that deal...the motherf*cker inflamed the world and it will be centuries before it's fixed, maybe. Complete lack of insight, history and common sense.

The Russian election interference should also be an event that should unite the nation...but NO.

Again, this is upside down, reverse, blizzaro crazy...can't make this sh*t up.

---

Are you seriously comparing a two bit hacking with 9/11?

---

Try reading comprehension and the context of the reply. Key words: historic event. The Russkie hacking isn't historic because it hasn't been proven. It might in the future but as of now, no.

Otherwise the two clown share more than it appears: rich families, draft dodging, lacking in intellectual ability, didn't win the popular vote.

---

Now I'm really confused. Mueller says the Russian hacking happened so how is it not proven- because it's just an accusation? I actually might agree with this but didn't think you did.

---

The prudent thing is just wait for the full report. It might be a historic event but can't tell yet and can't trust the Barr letter or the pundit read. I think the Russia interference happened but there's a lack of clarity, don't know the extent and of course Trump and the GOP are intentionally crapping in the water. Given we've waited this long, what's a few months? If Trump tries to bury it, it won't work, might be clear obstruction.

Just listened to an hour long form interview with Buttigieg. Very impressive thinker and speaker. I havent read through his policy beyond the headlines but we would all be much better off with someone like him in charge. Unfortunately I don't think moderate conservatives would ever 1) give up on their God Trump or 2) vote for a gay man for President, or even vote for his ability to marry, or receive healthcare, or labor rights, or anything else. Sick that that has to come into play

Cal88 said:

---

It's going to come up, like the stuff Biden is having to face now. They're going to paint him as a roving molester, and her as an insider careerist who slept her way to the top. Unfair but that's politics.

---

Right wing media will always swarm with a blizzard of attacks. What Biden and Harris will face is not different from what any Democrat will face.

concordtom said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

Agreed. Furthermore, a substantial share of the debt servicing is due to recent military expenditure, close to 40%. As well the military budget posted above does not include the dark budget/intelligence agencies spending. The Pentagon's missing trillions give you an indication of the scale of that dark budget.

Yang mentioned a figure of $200 billion for a military budget cut.

---

The US is doomed when interest rates rise.

Look at a long term chart of rates and you'll see that we are at historical lows. We've been devoting perhaps 6% of our annual budget to debt service, and it's actually gone down in recent years as the average rate we pay has gone down. But it is projected that when rates normalize, our debt service percentage could double to 12% of fed budget, or worse. It then becomes a runaway train.
Which all means less money to spend on things like infrastructure, Medicare, let alone military.

I am furious at Trump for inflating the stock market via his tax cuts and stimulative deficit spending for his own current period political gain at the expense of future stability.

And it is frustrating that most Americans are fools to not see it.

---

The benefit of wealth inequality is that there is plenty of funding for buying government debt. That is why interest rates are down and will continue to be down as our debt spirals. The good news is that when the American middle class pulls its head out, it will reduce wealth inequality, spurring economic growth and reducing deficits in the process. That is when rates will gradually start to rise.

Everybody looks at the supply side of debt and how it affects interest rates but nobody ever looks at the demand side. The demand side is as large as it has ever been.

concordtom said:

---

Socialism is classically defined by a central government owning the means of production.
We don't want that, need that. It doesn't work.

Gordon Gecko was right when he said that greed works. We know why the Soviet Union failed.
People are motivated by the prospect of personal gain, and that is the mother of invention and productivity growth, not some central government schemer.

Socialism that America is considering is one where we says that the success of the many improves the success of the one. This comes via improved universal health care, universal income gains, universal rights. It's a fight against the 1% owning everything and leaving the masses in the cold.

Democratic socialism, as I understand it, is different from the fear mongering "socialism" which trump and the right want to sell to everyone.

It is an unfortunate confusion of language that Bernie Sanders has been using the socialism term. If he were to use a different term, he would take away the ability of the right to confuse everyone.

---

This is exactly right. Using the word socialism is stupid and Democrats and the left are famous for stupid marketing. I am a liberal. I want to save capitalism the way FDR did. Through liberal policy.

GBear4Life said:

---

The Left talks about tax rates, but they can't articulate what's the threshold that will satisfy "fairness". The Right never talks about what tax rates would be considered too low (lol). Everyone just wants higher or lower. That's the definition of an ideological (and stupid) debate.

Purely personal opinion. I think the idea of somebody who is affluent but not wealthy ($500k/yr?) paying 50% in taxes is abhorrent. And there are cost/benefits everything, and ideology cannot address that. Over 50% of Americans don't pay any taxes (forget the source). Both uber rich and the poor.

---

I think conservatives are often more rigid thinking than liberals and it shows in asking for things like "the threshold that will satisfy "fairness". If you understand economics you understand that it is about equilibrium. Therefore the proper tax rates will fluctuate over time. Not saying tax rates should be adjusted on a short term basis, but over the long term tax rates should definitely fluctuate. For example, I am a liberal. I understand that in 1980 tax rates were too high and capital was constrained. Reagan was correct to lower them. In my opinion, he lowered them too much. Liberal JFK also correctly lowered tax rates. I think you'll find the blind ideology is more pronounced on the right.

As for a person earning $500k / yr and paying an average tax rate of 50%, this liberal agrees with you that is too high. Fortunately they don't pay that (I don't know if you are being theoretical or making a claim about the current state). They likely pay an average rate of about 23% give or take. They do pay a marginal rate of about 50% in some states. I'm okay with that.

dajo9 said:

---

Another Bear said:

---

The last historic moment that could have united the nation, even the world, was 9/11. Dubya not only blew chunks on that deal...the motherf*cker inflamed the world and it will be centuries before it's fixed, maybe. Complete lack of insight, history and common sense.

The Russian election interference should also be an event that should unite the nation...but NO.

Again, this is upside down, reverse, blizzaro crazy...can't make this sh*t up.

---

We all know that if a Democrat was President during 9/11 the attacks on the right against the President would have been extremely strong. Republican leadership is ALWAYS about putting politics first.

---

I asked Madeleine Albright once circa 2006 how the US would have responded to 9/11 if not but for 1000 votes in Florida.
She said we would have gone into Afghanistan but not Iraq.
I appreciated her quick, concise candor.

The history of the country has been immensely affected as a result of that election. Hundreds of thousands of lives lost. Anyone see the movie RECOUNT? Little things add up to big things.

We must blow back against the GOP insanity.

dajo9 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

Agreed. Furthermore, a substantial share of the debt servicing is due to recent military expenditure, close to 40%. As well the military budget posted above does not include the dark budget/intelligence agencies spending. The Pentagon's missing trillions give you an indication of the scale of that dark budget.

Yang mentioned a figure of $200 billion for a military budget cut.

---

The US is doomed when interest rates rise.

Look at a long term chart of rates and you'll see that we are at historical lows. We've been devoting perhaps 6% of our annual budget to debt service, and it's actually gone down in recent years as the average rate we pay has gone down. But it is projected that when rates normalize, our debt service percentage could double to 12% of fed budget, or worse. It then becomes a runaway train.
Which all means less money to spend on things like infrastructure, Medicare, let alone military.

I am furious at Trump for inflating the stock market via his tax cuts and stimulative deficit spending for his own current period political gain at the expense of future stability.

And it is frustrating that most Americans are fools to not see it.

---

The benefit of wealth inequality is that there is plenty of funding for buying government debt. That is why interest rates are down and will continue to be down as our debt spirals. The good news is that when the American middle class pulls its head out, it will reduce wealth inequality, spurring economic growth and reducing deficits in the process. That is when rates will gradually start to rise.

Everybody looks at the supply side of debt and how it affects interest rates but nobody ever looks at the demand side. The demand side is as large as it has ever been.

---

Hmmmm.
I was gonna say that rates are low because China is buying it, as a result of their currency manipulation, designed to keep domestic labor wages low so we keep buying their stuff and they keep buying our debt, which is a play at long term flip of relative financial strength: they suffer today while we consume, so tomorrow they hold the cards (see Jeremy Siegel here).

But I'm surprised to see that they hold much less than I thought they did. Still, this is a bit distorted because it includes the Fed Govt holdings, and it also an aggregate of the long term issues of debt not yet retired. So, the better question is how much of current debt issuance is being bought by China. I bet it's larger than what is shown here.

The interesting analysis would be to compare how much China is buying to how much the 1% are buying, which is your assertion, I think. I think China is keeping our rates low.

If China ever makes a policy of halting US Treasury purchases, rates would skyrocket, says I.

That's not a secure place to be.

On the left, you'll see how we spend over 6% of our annual budget on interest to pay off our accumulated debt. In 2015, it was about $18T. Today, it is about $22T, going up $1T per year.



The problem is that rates are at historical lows. If there is reversion to mean, and rates go up, we are in trouble. It's like being in an Adjustable Rate Mortgage (ARM) on a house, except that you can't sell the house, you can't move, and it's an Interest aonly loan, while you are using your Home Equity Loan to increase the overall debt load.

Revolving and Increasing Debt at Increasing Interest Rate.
How will we ever overcome the scenario?
War.
Inflation.
We ain't gonna be able to pay it off.
Other suggestions?

Yogi Bear said:

---

GBear4Life said:

---

concordtom said:

---

ducky23 said:

---

Sure I get that. And I hate stereotyping. And I get that there may had been "some" valid reasons to vote for trump and not Hillary. But it's just very very difficult for me to give the benefit of the doubt to any state that voted for trump.

Being a red state is fine (such as a state who may have voted for a McCain or Romney or even bush), but to be a trump state? I have zero confidence that such a state can vote for a trump one year and then a black woman 4 years later.

I'd love to be wrong though

---

agree strongly with all, except the first bold. There are NO valid reasons for having voted for trump.
When he announced, I said it was a joke, and nothing during his campaign or presidency has contradicted that.

If you voted for trump, you should forever hang your head in shame.
Don't tell your grandchildren. You will go down in the family history book as that idiot who did so, similar to those who shamefully have ancestors who had slaves, or Germans who were nazis.

Shame, shame!

---

A perfect combination of virtue signaling, ignorance, bigotry. Only someone who spent a lot of time on a college campus is capable of saying something that vapid.

---

Heaven forbid people spend time at college.

---

Yeah, that's an odd argument to make on a Cal message board.

concordtom said:

---

If China ever makes a policy of halting US Treasury purchases, rates would skyrocket, says I.

That's not a secure place to be.

---

China buys US Treasuries because they get dollars from trade. If they sold the dollars instead of buying US Treasuries then the dollar would drop in value making their goods more expensive for us and causing a recession in China. They don't have a sword of damocles over us - it's a mutual suicide pact. I would bet on our ability to adjust over their ability to adjust in such a scenario.

That spike in interest rates around 1980 on your chart above was a time when debt was much lower than it is today. It spiked because the 1% was not nearly as well off as they are today. Demand (availability of funds to buy debt due to wealth inequality) drives interest rates - not the supply of debt.

Okay, well, you make some interesting points for consideration.
But one thing that cannot be disputed, I think, is that we are screwed (no way out) is if rates DO go up, no matter the reason.

What do you think about that?

concordtom said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Another Bear said:

---

The last historic moment that could have united the nation, even the world, was 9/11. Dubya not only blew chunks on that deal...the motherf*cker inflamed the world and it will be centuries before it's fixed, maybe. Complete lack of insight, history and common sense.

The Russian election interference should also be an event that should unite the nation...but NO.

Again, this is upside down, reverse, blizzaro crazy...can't make this sh*t up.

---

We all know that if a Democrat was President during 9/11 the attacks on the right against the President would have been extremely strong. Republican leadership is ALWAYS about putting politics first.

---

I asked Madeleine Albright once circa 2006 how the US would have responded to 9/11 if not but for 1000 votes in Florida.
She said we would have gone into Afghanistan but not Iraq.
I appreciated her quick, concise candor.

---

Going into Afghanistan was a no-brainer; any administration would have done that. A Gore administration would likely have done it more slowly, methodically, and deliberately, like Bush the Elder did to liberate Kuwait. The Bush/Rumsfeld method was light and quick, relying largely on special ops working in concert with local forces, particularly the Northern Alliance, and it was wildly successful - it's not clear whether a slower and more massive response would have worked out so well, at least initially. Slower may have allowed AQ forces to get over the Paki border and not get holed up in Tora Bora, but you can bet that if they had been holed up in Tora Bora we would have had enough forces to surround and eradicate them instead of allowing them to slip across the border because the required forces had already been assigned for redeployment in the Iraq invasion.

And, yes, a Gore administration would never have gone into Iraq, because the neocons who hijacked the Bush administration post 9/11 would still have been yelling at clouds from their think tanks instead of crafting policy in the West Wing and Pentagon. Containment was working just fine, but they framed the issue as appeasement versus regime change.

And Powell would never have been pushed to go lie in front of the world at the United Nations and claim that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

Here's a depiction.

concordtom said:

---

And Powell would never have been pushed to go lie in front of the world at the United Nations and claim that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

Here's a depiction.

---

Powell likely didn't lie; he probably believed the cherrypicked assessment that he was given. The egregious part of it all wasn't whether or not Saddam had a nuclear weapons program, but the unchallenged assumption that the US had to go into Iraq if he did have one, because he'd give them to terrorists. The whole WMD issue was a red herring, one that even Wolfowitz conceded immediately post-invasion. And I save my special ire for Condi Rice who said in testimony that we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud; she should know better than to say stupid things like that.

Framing the debate in terms of whether or not he had WMD was always going to be manipulable by the neocons in the administration. Had the debate properly been framed in terms of whether or not it was wise to go to war over a fantastical notion of Saddam sharing nukes with terrorists, the administration would have been on shakier ground. But post 9/11 few in DC wanted to be seen as being soft on security issues, so the proper question was never vetted.

dajo9 said:

---

I think conservatives are often more rigid thinking than liberals and it shows in asking for things like "the threshold that will satisfy "fairness". If you understand economics you understand that it is about equilibrium. Therefore the proper tax rates will fluctuate over time. Not saying tax rates should be adjusted on a short term basis, but over the long term tax rates should definitely fluctuate. For example, I am a liberal. I understand that in 1980 tax rates were too high and capital was constrained. Reagan was correct to lower them. In my opinion, he lowered them too much. Liberal JFK also correctly lowered tax rates. I think you'll find the blind ideology is more pronounced on the right.

As for a person earning $500k / yr and paying an average tax rate of 50%, this liberal agrees with you that is too high. Fortunately they don't pay that (I don't know if you are being theoretical or making a claim about the current state). They likely pay an average rate of about 23% give or take. They do pay a marginal rate of about 50% in some states. I'm okay with that.

---

Appealing to fairness and virtue and economic theory for lesser or more taxes in public discourse is invariable a cheap political trick. Liberals will never acknowledge what tax rate would all but guarantee you can not come back and take more of my money. Conservatives will never acknowledge what tax rate would be low enough to ensure the "correct" amount of innovation and investment. Because they don't know and they don't care.

I understand effective tax rates are what matters. Roughly 50% of Americans have zero skin in the game -- their effective tax rates are negative. Nobody seems to care to address this. However high the tax rates are, the spending priorities are higher stakes.

GBear4Life said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

I think conservatives are often more rigid thinking than liberals and it shows in asking for things like "the threshold that will satisfy "fairness". If you understand economics you understand that it is about equilibrium. Therefore the proper tax rates will fluctuate over time. Not saying tax rates should be adjusted on a short term basis, but over the long term tax rates should definitely fluctuate. For example, I am a liberal. I understand that in 1980 tax rates were too high and capital was constrained. Reagan was correct to lower them. In my opinion, he lowered them too much. Liberal JFK also correctly lowered tax rates. I think you'll find the blind ideology is more pronounced on the right.

As for a person earning $500k / yr and paying an average tax rate of 50%, this liberal agrees with you that is too high. Fortunately they don't pay that (I don't know if you are being theoretical or making a claim about the current state). They likely pay an average rate of about 23% give or take. They do pay a marginal rate of about 50% in some states. I'm okay with that.

---

Appealing to fairness and virtue and economic theory for lesser or more taxes in public discourse is invariable a cheap political trick. Liberals will never acknowledge what tax rate would all but guarantee you can not come back and take more of my money. Conservatives will never acknowledge what tax rate would be low enough to ensure the "correct" amount of innovation and investment. Because they don't know and they don't care.

I understand effective tax rates are what matters. Roughly 50% of Americans have zero skin in the game -- their effective tax rates are negative. Nobody seems to care to address this. However high the tax rates are, the spending priorities are higher stakes.

---

50% of Americans pay no federal income taxes because their incomes are too low. That is the problem. I support them paying higher taxes. Let's find ways to get them more money from their work. Also, how many of them are retirees? How many children?

Pretty much all Americans have skin in the game and pay taxes. Whether it be sales taxes, property taxes, payroll taxes, or what-have-you. It's not fair to discount their contributions to their communities.

The IRS Tried to Take on the Ultrawealthy. It Didn't Go Well.

https://apple.news/AOolNpbdNSG-Kmq6PH3Zw8w

BearsWiin said:

---

concordtom said:

---

And Powell would never have been pushed to go lie in front of the world at the United Nations and claim that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

Here's a depiction.

---

Powell likely didn't lie; he probably believed the cherrypicked assessment that he was given. The egregious part of it all wasn't whether or not Saddam had a nuclear weapons program, but the unchallenged assumption that the US had to go into Iraq if he did have one, because he'd give them to terrorists. The whole WMD issue was a red herring, one that even Wolfowitz conceded immediately post-invasion. And I save my special ire for Condi Rice who said in testimony that we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud; she should know better than to say stupid things like that.

Framing the debate in terms of whether or not he had WMD was always going to be manipulable by the neocons in the administration. Had the debate properly been framed in terms of whether or not it was wise to go to war over a fantastical notion of Saddam sharing nukes with terrorists, the administration would have been on shakier ground. But post 9/11 few in DC wanted to be seen as being soft on security issues, so the proper question was never vetted.

---

All,well said!
So, I'll agree that Powell didn't lie of his own volition. But he did lie on behalf of the Administration, and on behalf of all us Americans. Condo Rice, et al, too!

bearister said:

---

The IRS Tried to Take on the Ultrawealthy. It Didn't Go Well.

https://apple.news/AOolNpbdNSG-Kmq6PH3Zw8w

---

Both Warren and Yang have a wealth tax as part of their platform. This would be a good idea for very high net worth individuals (say around $50M and up), as opposed to the versions in other countries like France that targeted individuals with net worth as low as $500,000.

Yang also has a Tobin tax on financial transactions, which is a great idea IMHO, given that most of the wealth generated in the economy has been monopolized by big finance and the 0.01%. This pattern of wealth concentration has occurred at a time when there has been tremendous technological leaps forward, which should have resulted in an increase in purchasing power. What we've had instead is a shrinking middle class and a booming ultrarich stratum.

Oh god damn, the Democrats grew a pair and have an ad campaign for 2020.

Democrat candidates who are gun owners
Beto
Pete
Kamala
Hickenloooper
Tim Ryan

Joe's not packing?