2016 US Presidential Race - Mod Warning in OP

Amerika

MightyMandarin wrote: »

That's nonsense. Every large country in history has had issues with consensus and different cultures, but there's nothing to suggest that a threshold, above which everyone should stand economically, is not possible to create.

In 1935 Roosevelt implemented social security and a proper welfare system, the benefits of which continued well past WW2 and was a catalyst for the boom. The population at the time was 127million.

A proper welfare system, where everyone can ,at the very least, lead a comfortable life with a roof over their heads, food in their bellies, an education for their children and an assurance that if they get sick, someone will take care of them. America in 2015 is a million miles from this.

Look at the political map of the US. You can't equate California to Iowa. Or urban to rural. The socialistic model might play well for left leaning states and urban areas but not elsewhere. Does Sweden have anything like that where battlegrounds on politics can be drawn so vividly? Our indivualiistic tendencies is key as to why socialism has been looked at as taboo for so long. And like it or not... So successful and a world leader.

Overheal

Amerika wrote: »

I don't know. I've asked what their position has been lately from the person who presented some acient history. When he gets me the info I'll be able to better respond.

You can use google: it is not my burden to research your counter-argument for you.

Black Swan

Amerika wrote: »

Look at the political map of the US. You can't equate California to Iowa. Or urban to rural. The socialistic model might play well for left leaning states and urban areas but not elsewhere. Does Sweden have anything like that were battlegrounds on politics can be drawn so vividly? Our indivualiistic tendencies is key as to why socialism I has been looked at as taboo for so long.

I find it amusing how Americans classify themselves in terms of left, middle, and right politically, then compare themselves using the same ordinal scale measure with across the pond countries as if there was an accepted and universal standard adopted by all. For example, someone perceived "left leaning" in America would probably be perceived as middle-of-the-road in Éire (or something entirely different). Personally, I do not care for such an ordinal classification system that over-simplifies and sometimes misrepresents the unique, and sometimes diverse positions that individuals may take politically.

Something to be mindful of when we Irish view the American news media reports, editorials, and opinion columns that may classify the Democrat and Republican candidates from left to right in presenting their political platforms for November 2016 presidential elections.

Added to this, I find these individualistic claims in contradiction to the ordinal scale groupings of left, middle, and right. If they were in fact so individualistic, it would seem that as individuals they would be quite unique from one another, rather than being lumped into some seemingly homogeneous left, middle, or right categorisation.

MightyMandarin

Amerika wrote: »

Look at the political map of the US. You can't equate California to Iowa. Or urban to rural. The socialistic model might play well for left leaning states and urban areas but not elsewhere. Does Sweden have anything like that where battlegrounds on politics can be drawn so vividly?
---
Our indivualiistic tendencies is key as to why socialism I has been looked at as taboo for so long. And like it or not... So successful and a world leader.

You can't, but one thing is for certain; nobody no matter how conservative or libertarian they are, wants to be homeless, worry about where their next meal is coming from, avoid going to the hospital when they're sick because they can't afford it. This is a fact, no matter what way you want to spin it.

The sad reality for the poor folks out in Alabama, Texas or other red states who live in trailer parks and always vote Republican is that they're doing more damage to themselves every time they vote a conservative into office, because their fate will never improve under the control of a conservative Congress and White House.
---
What I'm suggesting is not socialism. These supports are available in my country (Ireland) and indeed in most countries in the EU. Ireland is not a socialist state.

World leader in what? Income inequality? Most incarcerated citizens per capita? defense spending? 3rd highest level of poverty in the OECD?

Yeah, America's a real 'world leader' alright.

MightyMandarin

Amerika wrote: »

I don't know. I've asked what their position has been lately from the person who presented some acient history. When he gets me the info I'll be able to better respond.

That's a total cop-out Amerika.

You dismissed Overheal's facts about the Koch's beliefs and desires from their 1980 manifesto as if their views have changed, yet you provide no evidence to prove this, and attempt to put the burden of proof on others to disprove you. Absolute rubbish answer.

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

The category of size which leads to numerous differences of the population for a large country. No one can really compare a country like Sweden as being equivalent to the US with a straight face.

What? I'm actually bamboozled by your lady 2 replies. I'm not comparing the US to any other country. I fail to see what differences" have to do with the usefulness of social security.


You said the ideas to eliminate social security were forward thinking. I say they're a step backwards, we already know what a society without it is like.
I literally have no idea if you responded to that point.

20Cent

Trumps latest target is hedge fund managers and their tax breaks.
Amazing how Occupy Wall Street is influencing the election the candidates are falling over themselves even uber capitalist Trump to highlight the inequality.

Trump turns fire on hedge fund managers
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/cc67209e-49d2-11e5-9b5d-89a026fda5c9.html#axzz3jujzKCKa

Mr Trump, who leads the race for the Republican presidential nomination, indicated he would close a loophole that lets hedge fund and private equity managers pay taxes at a lower capital gains rate instead of as income tax.

Vowing to reform the tax law, Mr Trump said on Sunday that he would target hedge fund managers. “They are energetic. They are very smart. But a lot of them — they are paper-pushers. They make a fortune. They pay no tax. It’s ridiculous, OK?” he told CBS television.

“The hedge fund guys didn’t build this country. These are guys that shift paper around and they get lucky.”

jobbridge4life

20Cent wrote: »

Trumps latest target is hedge fund managers and their tax breaks.
Amazing how Occupy Wall Street is influencing the election the candidates are falling over themselves even uber capitalist Trump to highlight the inequality.

Trump turns fire on hedge fund managers
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/cc67209e-49d2-11e5-9b5d-89a026fda5c9.html#axzz3jujzKCKa

Mr Trump, who leads the race for the Republican presidential nomination, indicated he would close a loophole that lets hedge fund and private equity managers pay taxes at a lower capital gains rate instead of as income tax.

Vowing to reform the tax law, Mr Trump said on Sunday that he would target hedge fund managers. “They are energetic. They are very smart. But a lot of them — they are paper-pushers. They make a fortune. They pay no tax. It’s ridiculous, OK?” he told CBS television.

“The hedge fund guys didn’t build this country. These are guys that shift paper around and they get lucky.”

HE also flip flopped on a flat rate of tax in the space of one minute. The man is joke.

20Cent

jobbridge4life wrote: »

HE also flip flopped on a flat rate of tax in the space of one minute. The man is joke.

Someone probably told him he has loads of money in hedge funds!

Video online of his security removing a univision reporter form a press conference. He asks how Trump proposes to remove 11 million people from the country. Good question really but no answer. Trump gets rattled and losing his temper.
https://youtu.be/X3mj51qagx0

Amerika

Overheal wrote: »

You can use google: it is not my burden to research your counter-argument for you.

Okay, then I think you're wrong because I can find ABSOLUETLY NOTHING from recent times to support that tax point made way back in ancient history.

Amerika

20Cent wrote: »

Someone probably told him he has loads of money in hedge funds!

Video online of his security removing a univision reporter form a press conference. He asks how Trump proposes to remove 11 million people from the country. Good question really but no answer. Trump gets rattled and losing his temper.
https://youtu.be/X3mj51qagx0

First it wasn't his security. Second the Univision reporter was not called on when he interrupted the process and started shouting. Third the reporter was not asking questions... he was lecturing Trump. (If the reporter wanted to soapbox then he should rent a room and have his own press conference.) And finally, Trump allowed him back in and called on him three times and answered questions. A masterful political stroke!

jobbridge4life

Amerika wrote: »

First it wasn't his security. Second the Univision reporter was not called on when he interrupted the process and started shouting. Third the reporter was not asking questions... he was lecturing Trump. (If the reporter wanted to soapbox then he should rent a room and have his own press conference.) And finally, Trump allowed him back in and called on him three times and answered questions. A masterful political stroke!

Are you delusional? It looks like nothing more than Trump pulling a hissy fit as he did with Megyn Kelly as he will do again.

MightyMandarin

Amerika wrote: »

First it wasn't his security. Second the Univision reporter was not called on when he interrupted the process and started shouting. Third the reporter was not asking questions... he was lecturing Trump. (If the reporter wanted to soapbox then he should rent a room and have his own press conference.) And finally, Trump allowed him back in and called on him three times and answered questions. A masterful political stroke!

Wouldn't call it a 'masterful political stroke' but he dealt with him appropriately I thought. The reporter was being a bit of an arsehole and should've waited his turn or at least go on his rant at the end if Trump refused to take questions from him.

MightyMandarin

Amerika wrote: »

Okay, then I think you're wrong because I can find ABSOLUETLY NOTHING from recent times to support that tax point made way back in ancient history.

So what can you find to support your belief that their views from 1980 have changed?

Nicely dodging the question, as always.

Overheal

Amerika wrote: »

Okay, then I think you're wrong because I can find ABSOLUETLY NOTHING from recent times to support that tax point made way back in ancient history.

Argumentum Ex Selentio

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_silence

A logical fallacy.

Amerika

Overheal wrote: »

Argumentum Ex Selentio

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_silence

A logical fallacy.

More like Cannotus Findus Recentius Historious.

Overheal

Amerika wrote: »

More like Cannotus Findus Recentius Historious.

Can't help that they havent changed their tune since then. Have you heard the Koch brothers say they like some taxes?

Amerika

Overheal wrote: »

Can't help that they havent changed their tune since then. Have you heard the Koch brothers say they like some taxes?

I have found that they recently were against the Wind Production Tax Credit, which provides $9.5 billion a year in subsidies to producers of wind energy at the expense of traditional energy producers. That flies against the no tax at all claim.

And one would have to wonder if they didn't want to pay any taxes at all, why wouldn't they move their operations oversees to countries that have no taxes.

MightyMandarin

Amerika wrote: »

I have found that they recently were against the Wind Production Tax Credit, which provides $9.5 billion a year in subsidies to producers of wind energy at the expense of traditional energy producers. That flies against the no tax at all claim.

And one would have to wonder if they didn't want to pay any taxes at all, why wouldn't they move their operations oversees to countries that have no taxes.

Oh come on, Koch Industries' biggest operations is in the petrochemical field, so obviously they'd be against tax cuts for renewable energy sources, because they stand to lose money because of increased competition.

Show me one piece of evidence where they supported a tax or opposed a tax cut to a sector where they had no conflict of interest.

They didn't move their operations because they're 'great patriots' and wouldn't want to be seen as 'un-american'.

Overheal

Amerika wrote: »

I have found that they recently were against the Wind Production Tax Credit, which provides $9.5 billion a year in subsidies to producers of wind energy at the expense of traditional energy producers. That flies against the no tax at all claim.

How does it? Take me through your thought process on that one.

If I want to end all taxes in America,

And along the way I take out the time to attack a single one of those taxes/tax subsidies,

How does this logically follow that I am now no longer interested in ending taxation?

Amerika

MightyMandarin wrote: »

Oh come on, Koch Industries' biggest operations is in the petrochemical field, so obviously they'd be against tax cuts for renewable energy sources, because they stand to lose money because of increased competition.

Show me one piece of evidence where they supported a tax or opposed a tax cut to a sector where they had no conflict of interest.

They didn't move their operations because they're 'great patriots' and wouldn't want to be seen as 'un-american'.

Well, the Koch brothers provided the startup funding for Americans for Prosperity (AFP is a conservative political advocacy group), which was founded in 2004. The AFP advocates for LOWER taxes, not NO taxes.

MightyMandarin

Amerika wrote: »

Well, the Koch brothers provided the startup funding for Americans for Prosperity (AFP is a conservative political advocacy group), which was founded in 2004. The AFP advocates for LOWER taxes, not NO taxes.

Stepping stones, my friend. The vast majority of people would baulk at the thought of supporting people who wanted no taxes, but when they reach the stage of low taxes (which they're probably at already) they'll continue pushing and pushing until there's nothing left.

Amerika

Overheal wrote: »

How does it? Take me through your thought process on that one.

If I want to end all taxes in America,

And along the way I take out the time to attack a single one of those taxes/tax subsidies,

How does this logically follow that I am now no longer interested in ending taxation?

If they apposed the tax subsidy for producers of wind energy, then they wanted them to pay taxes. If their policy was NO TAXES AT ALL, one would think they would champion anything that would cause anyone not to pay taxes.

Amerika

MightyMandarin wrote: »

Stepping stones, my friend. The vast majority of people would baulk at the thought of supporting people who wanted no taxes, but when they reach the stage of low taxes (which they're probably at already) they'll continue pushing and pushing until there's nothing left.

I don’t understand how you can make such a claim "the stage of low taxes (which they're probably at already)" when US corporations currently face the highest statutory corporate income tax rate at 39.1% in the industrialized world... and of which applies to Koch Industries.

Amerika

Brian? wrote: »

What? I'm actually bamboozled by your lady 2 replies. I'm not comparing the US to any other country. I fail to see what differences" have to do with the usefulness of social security.


You said the ideas to eliminate social security were forward thinking. I say they're a step backwards, we already know what a society without it is like.
I literally have no idea if you responded to that point.

Perhaps I was misunderstood. I said give the people's social security money back to the people and let them manage their own money. How will this destroy the country? The government made a contract with me. They take my money, which doesn’t gain any interest you know, and promised to start paying me back at age 65. Now, because they (the US government) have robbed me, they penalize ME and require that I work to almost 68 years of age before I can start collecting it back. And No interest on MY money remember. And if I would happen to die tomorrow, there is nothing left… zero, zilch, nada for my family. Nothing to leave my family of the many hundreds of thousands of dollars I have contributed that the Social Security indicates is my money, in a yearly statement I receive from them. Yes, I do believe letting me control my own future with my own money, and being able to protect my family to a certain level in the event of my demise, because the traditional company provided pension system no longer exists, is forward thinking.

Overheal

Amerika wrote: »

Well, the Koch brothers provided the startup funding for Americans for Prosperity (AFP is a conservative political advocacy group), which was founded in 2004. The AFP advocates for LOWER taxes, not NO taxes.

Group A wants the door fully shut

Group B wants to shut the door more than it currently is shut at

Group A funds Group B

The door gets shut more

PROGRESS

Amerika

Overheal wrote: »

Group A wants the door fully shut

Group B wants to shut the door more than it currently is shut at

Group A funds Group B

The door gets shut more

PROGRESS

Unless it's a revolving door.

Amerika

Brian? wrote: »

I'll bow though to your predictive knowledge when it happens.

Right now in the RPC average of polls it has the New Hampshire Republican Presidential Primary with Fiorina in 3rd place with 10%. In the latest Iowa Republican Presidential Caucus she is tied with Cruz for 4th place at 8%. And in South Carolina Republican Presidential Primary she is tied for 4th place with Rubio at 6%.

Overheal

Unless it's a revolving door

My first choice of analogy involved hitler and killing jews, but a door seemed less godwinny.

MightyMandarin

Amerika wrote: »

I don’t understand how you can make such a claim "the stage of low taxes (which they're probably at already)" when US corporations currently face the highest statutory corporate income tax rate at 39.1% in the industrialized world... and of which applies to Koch Industries.

That's a nice chart and all, but it's meaningless when the likes of Warren Buffet pays less taxes than his secretary. The tax code is riddled with needless garbage allowing the rich to escape vast amounts of deductable income because of loopholes neatly inserted inside said garbage.

And if you're going to use OECD statistics, how do you explain America having the 3rd highest poverty rate in the OECD? I mentioned it in this post, which you've ignored.