Donald Trump presidency discussion thread V

rossie1977

Funny thing is the top rate of tax in the US was over 90% from about 1944-64 and still at 70% throughout the 70s and those periods had 16 years of Republican presidents in Eisenhower, Nixon and Ford. Wasn't until Reagan came in, cut taxes for rich and shifted all the wealth to top 1% thus killing middle class America in the process.

seamus wrote: »

Trump's 2020 issue is that you can't defend an election by making up lies about what the opposition have done and promises about what you'll do.

This works when you're trying to take power (worldwide - it's what our political parties do), but the incumbent is the one with a recent record to defend. And if you can't do that, you're finished. Sure, he'll make up lies about what he's done, and make claims that the Dems have been blocking him. But even now, nobody except his ~20% believe a word out of his mouth.

As Leroy points out, there are already reports coming out of the US of people deeply disappointed by their tax returns. It's always about the money in peoples' pockets. If someone is not seeing the money they expected there, then they will come to realise that Trump was full of it. Even strong supporters won't deny the evidence that's right in their hands.

It's more than 20%. Trump has 85-90% high approval rating among Republicans.

He is changing the entire party in his image. You see it every day. Even Lindsay Graham is becoming Trump like. Susan Collins has gone from moderate to being Trump like. Whitaker and Kavanagh addressed committees like you would expect Trump to.

mayordenis

seamus wrote: »

The top rate of tax was 70%+ in the US for about 50 years. Virtually the entire period from the end of the depression to the end of the cold war - a period of massive growth in the US economy.

Henceforth this period of time will be known as the great immorality.

batgoat

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Taxation over 49.9% is morally wrong in every case,

But back to the point, do you agree that the twitter poster that everlast posted blew what donald said out of proportion and he made an accurate reference to the 70% tax rate and late term abortion bill as has actually been proposed,

And i dont want any ‘do you agree to this other thing’ whataboutery

A large proportion of the US population support such taxation including a substantial number of Republicans. You're applying moral relativism btw. In your view, it is immoral. But for many, it's pretty fine. Nobody suffers or struggles to make ends meet as a result of it. I would say letting people suffer because they can't afford healthcare would be far more immoral.

Brian?

At the same rally where Trump peddled blatant lies a bbc camera man was attacked by someone in the crowd. I wonder if it had anything to do with Trump declaring the media “the enemy of the people”?

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47208909

weisses

batgoat wrote: »

A large proportion of the US population support such taxation including a substantial number of Republicans. You're applying moral relativism btw. In your view, it is immoral. But for many, it's pretty fine. Nobody suffers or struggles to make ends meet as a result of it. I would say letting people suffer because they can't afford healthcare would be far more immoral.

Problem is that in America higher taxes doesn't automatically mean a better social system.

I am willing to pay more taxes if that means Im cared for when sick, have substantial backing when getting unemployed.

But not if that means funding 4 more nuclear aircraft carriers.

everlast75

The problem I have with Trump is that he is completely unable to use specific facts to support his case. Instead he conflates and has to have people like you sift through the BS to find a comment which, when twisted enough, supports an off shoot narrative.

You can see why he would be destroyed before a jury when questioned by anyone competent.

Imagine how his rally would go if he said

-AOC wants to raise the rax rate to 70%, but only after your first 10 million

-Climate change is real and something needs to be done about it

-Late term abortions only apply if the health of the mother is at risk or the fetus is not viable.

-Mexico won't pay for the wall and never were going to

You see, he can't win arguments like that, so he lies.

And if you have to lie to win your argument, you have to accept you don't have logic or facts on your side.

Quin_Dub

everlast75 wrote: »

The problem I have with Trump is that he is completely unable to use specific facts to support his case. Instead he conflates and has to have people like you sift through the BS to find a comment which, when twisted enough, supports an off shoot narrative.

You can see why he would be destroyed before a jury when questioned by anyone competent.

Imagine how his rally would go if he said

-AOC wants to raise the rax rate to 70%, but only after your first 10 million

-Climate change is real and something needs to be done about it

-Late term abortions only apply if the health of the mother is at risk or the fetus is not viable.

-Mexico won't pay for the wall and never were going to

You see, he can't win arguments like that, so he lies.

And if you have to lie to win your argument, you have to accept you don't have logic or facts on your side.

I was reading an article the other day about his statements about El Paso and how it used to be "one of the most dangerous cities in America and that the crime rate dropped because of the Wall being built".

Now , that's not true or even close to being true - El Paso was never especially dangerous in the grand scheme of things and the crime rate there peaked in 1993 and has been steadily dropping ever since , except for a brief blip up in 2009 AFTER the Wall was built..

That Trump lied isn't the story about El Paso though.

He 1st used that lie in his SOTU address , which was a script written and planned by his team (I guess Stephen Miller).

So , despite having plenty of time to research and find an actual true story about how a wall on the Southern border reduces crime.They couldn't, so they had to lie.

They couldn't find a single factual example of how walls help reduce crime , not a single one.

So they lied - And as sure as eggs are eggs (particularly after Hannity got stuck into the leaked details of the proposed deal) Trump will not sign the compromise deal this week and will cause another shut-down.

Based on a demonstrably provable Lie.

amandstu

Eric Cartman wrote: »

But the green new deal is really just an excercise in screwing over high earners under the guise of environmental savings. Its not really about climate change at all

So what should be done about man made global warming in the restricted timeframe we are being told we may have available ? (do you dispute the premise that there is a problem?)


Perhaps we can just run the clock down and see what happens? (the high earners will be sure to bail us (and our children) then.

everlast75

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Taxation over 49.9% is morally wrong in every case

Funny.

You don't have a moral objection to taking away healthcare for the poor, or rich people avoiding paying their taxes.

I guess our set of morals don't align.

I'm 100% okay with that.

jooksavage

seamus wrote: »

The top rate of tax was 70%+ in the US for about 50 years. Virtually the entire period from the end of the depression to the end of the cold war - a period of massive growth in the US economy.

It's pretty irrelevant what it's called. A 70% marginal tax rate is not exceptional, not even in the US, and doesn't harm the economy one iota. The reduced tax rate has come about due to persistent corruption and lobbying by marginal rate payers to have the rate reduced. 99% of Americans see no benefit from the reduction in this rate, and will not be affected by an increase in this rate.

Screwing over high earners? Boo-hoo. One less ivory backscratcher.

I can't remember who said this on Twitter (sorry) but it made me laugh: If the some people can't afford to maintain their lifestyles when their > $10M income is taxed at 70%... I guess they just need to get a second job or be more responsible with their money

Eric Cartman

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=i&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwiWnYfBlLbgAhU0pnEKHbXODwAQzPwBegQIARAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Fpolitics%2F2019%2F02%2F11%2Fwhats-actually-green-new-deal-democrats%2F&psig=AOvVaw04gLYppS7mCYkUiRYA624l&ust=1550059702932399

The green new deal is just a trojan horse under the guise of global warming to guarantee socialist principals like free education and free healthcare, job guarantees, cutting emissions to unreachable 0% targets .

It has very little to do with clomate change and very much do do with instituting a just left of european style social democracy.

batgoat

Eric Cartman wrote: »

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=i&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwiWnYfBlLbgAhU0pnEKHbXODwAQzPwBegQIARAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Fpolitics%2F2019%2F02%2F11%2Fwhats-actually-green-new-deal-democrats%2F&psig=AOvVaw04gLYppS7mCYkUiRYA624l&ust=1550059702932399

The green new deal is just a trojan horse under the guise of global warming to guarantee socialist principals like free education and free healthcare, job guarantees, cutting emissions to unreachable 0% targets .

It has very little to do with clomate change and very much do do with instituting a just left of european style social democracy.

Cutting emissions would actually be of benefit in terms of a climate change goal, you realise this right?

Eric Cartman

batgoat wrote: »

Cutting emissions would actually be of benefit in terms of a climate change goal, you realise this right?

Yes , but theres a difference between wanting to cut climate emissions and the 80% of the green new deal which has nothing to do with climate change or emissions.

duploelabs

Eric Cartman wrote: »

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=i&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwiWnYfBlLbgAhU0pnEKHbXODwAQzPwBegQIARAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Fpolitics%2F2019%2F02%2F11%2Fwhats-actually-green-new-deal-democrats%2F&psig=AOvVaw04gLYppS7mCYkUiRYA624l&ust=1550059702932399

The green new deal is just a trojan horse under the guise of global warming to guarantee socialist principals like free education and free healthcare, job guarantees, cutting emissions to unreachable 0% targets .

It has very little to do with clomate change and very much do do with instituting a just left of european style social democracy.

Still waiting for you to back up those b*llsh!t comments from earlier

Gbear

seamus wrote: »

The top rate of tax was 70%+ in the US for about 50 years. Virtually the entire period from the end of the depression to the end of the cold war - a period of massive growth in the US economy.

It's pretty irrelevant what it's called. A 70% marginal tax rate is not exceptional, not even in the US, and doesn't harm the economy one iota. The reduced tax rate has come about due to persistent corruption and lobbying by marginal rate payers to have the rate reduced. 99% of Americans see no benefit from the reduction in this rate, and will not be affected by an increase in this rate.

Screwing over high earners? Boo-hoo. One less ivory backscratcher.

Is the bigger issue not that it's a red herring?

How many of the ultra wealthy actually earn more than $10m in ordinarily taxable income? Is it not mostly earned as stock options, capital gains and so on, and as such income tax would have no bearing on it?

Dohnjoe

Eric Cartman wrote: »

The green new deal is just a trojan horse under the guise of global warming to guarantee socialist principals like free education and free healthcare, job guarantees, cutting emissions to unreachable 0% targets .

It has very little to do with clomate change and very much do do with instituting a just left of european style social democracy.

Okaay.

An increasing number of people in the US are interested in free healthcare, more affordable education, job guarantees and even the climate. That includes Republicans who when polled before the midterms placed higher importance on healthcare over other policies (including border/immigation)

batgoat

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Yes , but theres a difference between wanting to cut climate emissions and the 80% of the green new deal which has nothing to do with climate change or emissions.

In your linked article, three bullets relate to healthcare etc. The remainder focus entirely on reducing emissions and it's the majority of its goals..

seamus

Gbear wrote: »

Is the bigger issue not that it's a red herring?

Well no, because it's not the only thing in the Green New Deal proposal. Far from it.

But it has been seized upon by libertarians as proof that the whole plan is crazy. If this 70% tax rate wouldn't bring in very much anyway, then why the opposition to it?
The proposal would apparently bring in around $80bn a year. Which, in the grand scheme of a $3tn budget isn't a lot, but in real terms it's a lot of money; $270 for every US citizen. So why oppose it?

And there's no good reason not to put it in place. Nobody "earns" more than $10m. That's all unearned income - share appreciation, inheritance and interest. Nobody is being robbed of the fruits of their labour.

Eric Cartman

batgoat wrote: »

In your linked article, three bullets relate to healthcare etc. The remainder focus entirely on reducing emissions and it's the majority of its goals..

The first 3 are all about free stuff, then the last 3 are all about price regulation of energy and ‘affordable’ access , then theres the one about paying for infrastructure and building upgrades. Theres a hell of a lot of spending and regulation in that plan that has nothing to do with the environment.

Eric Cartman

seamus wrote: »

Well no, because it's not the only thing in the Green New Deal proposal. Far from it.

But it has been seized upon by libertarians as proof that the whole plan is crazy. If this 70% tax rate wouldn't bring in very much anyway, then why the opposition to it?
The proposal would apparently bring in around $80bn a year. Which, in the grand scheme of a $3tn budget isn't a lot, but in real terms it's a lot of money; $270 for every US citizen. So why oppose it?

And there's no good reason not to put it in place. Nobody "earns" more than $10m. That's all unearned income - share appreciation, inheritance and interest. Nobody is being robbed of the fruits of their labour.

If somebody buys 5 warehouses, 50 trucks and creates 50 driver jobs, gets in sales etc... and makes over 10 million is that not earned ?

If an actor brings life to a role and causes a movie to earn millions at a box office is that not earned

Lots of other sources of 10 million than shares or inheritance

Eric Cartman

Eric Cartman wrote: »

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=i&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwiWnYfBlLbgAhU0pnEKHbXODwAQzPwBegQIARAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Fpolitics%2F2019%2F02%2F11%2Fwhats-actually-green-new-deal-democrats%2F&psig=AOvVaw04gLYppS7mCYkUiRYA624l&ust=1550059702932399

The green new deal is just a trojan horse under the guise of global warming to guarantee socialist principals like free education and free healthcare, job guarantees, cutting emissions to unreachable 0% targets .

It has very little to do with clomate change and very much do do with instituting a just left of european style social democracy.

What's wrong with any of that. Sounds like progress to me!

spacecoyote

[Deleted User] wrote: »

What's wrong with any of that. Sounds like progress to me!

You must not have read much of Eric's previous posts. He basically believes that the only people who should have access to what many see as basic human rights, is if they afford them.

Speaking of AOC, I thought this video is great of her & really points out a lot of the depth of the corruption in the US political system (even if I do have to post a tweet from the painful James Corden)

https://twitter.com/JKCorden/status/1093634176845139968?s=09

Leroy42

AOC really blows apart the corruption inherent in the US political system (and it applies to both parties).

It needs fundamental reform, which to be fair to the Trump supporters, is the initial part of their support for Trump. That they have allowed this call for change to be hijacked by such a conman is on them, but it should not diminish the calls for reform.

I don't agree with those that voted for Trump because I feel there was more than enough evidence to show that he was not the person to deliver change and it was a very big risk that required too much movement on standards. But I did appreciate where they were coming from in their calls for change and they saw HC as the embodiment of everything wrong with DC.

And therein lies a major problem for Trump, as mentioned earlier. He is no longer the outsider. He, by 2020, will have been in DC for 4 years and will have very little to show for it it terms of delivering the change that people wanted. Is there more accountability? Has spending been brought under control? Has the corruption of politics been addressed?

No. In fact in many cases his appointees have been shown to be more than happy to make the best of the corruption in the system.

Igotadose

Trumplodyte attacks BBC cameraman at the San Antonio Nuremberg rally while shouting "F*ck the media:"
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-supporter-attacks-bbc-cameraman_us_5c629078e4b0ffd8515dd234

Fortunately, no one was hurt and no one armed. Wonder when that will change....

batgoat

Eric Cartman wrote: »

The first 3 are all about free stuff, then the last 3 are all about price regulation of energy and ‘affordable’ access , then theres the one about paying for infrastructure and building upgrades. Theres a hell of a lot of spending and regulation in that plan that has nothing to do with the environment.

Everything but the first 3 points relate to reducing emissions... You're misrepresenting the actual content of the very article you're linking to.

Eric Cartman

[Deleted User] wrote: »

What's wrong with any of that. Sounds like progress to me!

Why does ‘progress’ always hirt the pockets of those who work hard and deliver them nothing.
Just another government money grab as always

Brian?

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Why does ‘progress’ always hirt the pockets of those who work hard and deliver them nothing.
Just another government money grab as always

It doesn't and it isn't.

Eric Cartman

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Why does ‘progress’ always hirt the pockets of those who work hard and deliver them nothing.
Just another government money grab as always

Seriously, what's wrong with having a healthy, well educated population? Everyone benefits.
I work hard in a fairly low paying job and I wouldn't mind the money I pay in tax going to education and healthcare.
Edit: if your earning over ten million you are probably not going to be put out by higher tax. I doubt you'd be struggling to pay the mortgage etc. You'd probably have a clever accountant to figure out how not to pay your taxes too.

amandstu

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Why does ‘progress’ always hirt the pockets of those who work hard and deliver them nothing.
Just another government money grab as always

You didn't reply to my question

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=109403155&postcount=3714

as to what should be done to combat man made global warming (if you accept the premise?) if you are not happy with the "New Green Deal"

btw I am not familiar with the contents of the "New Green Deal but what ,if anything would you replace it with since you seem to be?

Eric Cartman

amandstu wrote: »

You didn't reply to my question

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=109403155&postcount=3714

as to what should be done to combat man made global warming (if you accept the premise?) if you are not happy with the "New Green Deal"

btw I am not familiar with the contents of the "New Green Deal but what ,if anything would you replace it with since you seem to be?

Remove all taxation on new green vehicles, remove the ability to block new nuclear power plants in rural areas, tax the use of certain hormones and drugs on animals and encourage organic farming through tax breaks , openly condemn asia and africa for not doing enough for climate change with possible sanctions on products manufactured in a non friendly way. Tax breaks for rural small operators trying to make a go of public bus services.
Allow a tax writeoff for companies investing in renewable projects.

If i was to re write the new green deal id remove all references to health, education, affordable and anything else that makes way for government spending and regulation on businesses.