thedoctorisinthehouse

The Die Is Cast: A Democratic Party Full of Wimps Can Be The Last Gasp of a Truly democratic Society

  
By:  thedoctorisinthehouse  •  Politics  •  4 weeks ago  •  207 comments

The Die Is Cast: A Democratic Party Full of Wimps Can Be The Last Gasp of a Truly democratic Society
The Republicans won Virginia, almost won New Jersey, and made local gains all through the country arguing from the side of untruths and poking the fingers of blame on the inaction of Democrats.

Partisanship aside, we are our own worst enemies. Sometimes I believe that I am living in the shadows of the great Will Rogers who famously said when asked about his choice of political party, "I belong to no organized political party, I'm a Democrat." His voice rings as true today as they did back in the 1930s and 1940s. Being a Democrat continues to be an exercise in political futility. Not because the ideas of the Democratic Party are bad, but we continue to destroy the good in search of the perfect. We pass an infrastructure bill with 8 progressives voting with the Trumpian right, not because they disagree with what is in the bill, but because they were unable to get a firm enough commitment to move forward on the social infrastructure bill. At the same time, Dick Durbin, the second in charge in the Senate, stated that he was unsure whether Joe Manchin would vote for the social infrastructure bill because Manchin has some on-going love affair with the coal and fossil fuel industry and thinks that the bill, though fully funded, costs too much money. 

The real pity here is that Manchin has taken the position of the Republican Party, when that party wanted to be a partner in governance. He is arguing for the special interests that controlled the Republican party and is seeking his own twisted version of "fiscal responsibility" in threatening to blow up the bill even after he has gotten most of the changes he wanted to see in that legislation, including bringing the price tag in at under 2 trillion dollars over ten years instead of 3.4 or even 6 trillion dollars.

If I didn't know better {and I don't}, I would think that Manchin is maneuvering to turn Republican and challenge Mitch McConnell for the leadership of the Republican Party. 

Yes, I'm being a bit facetious. Manchin generally votes in line with the Democratic Party. He couldn't become a Republican because he isn't Trumpian enough, and would face a Republican primary opponent even further to the "insane" than Mr. Trump. Manchin is "stuck", for all intent and purpose in the Democratic Party. Here, he insists on being a one man wrecking crew.

This has gotten me wondering {my mind actually does that occasionally} why the Democrats cannot bring Manchin and to a lesser extent Sinema back into the tent for major legislation while McConnell, who actually has a somewhat more diverse group to manage in the Republican Party {e.g. Collins, Murkowski, and a number of retiring Senators}, keeps his minions in the "I refuse to govern unless it is to appoint conservative justices" caucus.

The answer seems to be at least twofold. First, the Democrats are no where near as ruthless as their Republican colleagues. You never hear any discussion of banishing recalcitrant senators to the hinterlands of committee assignments. The Republican leadership has no qualms about doing that {see Lynne Cheyney in the House}. The leadership of the Republican Party is faithful to a person to the cult of Trumpism. They seem to have signed a blood oath to it and will destroy any Republican who does not show absolute fealty to the cult. The Democrats will do no such thing. You can be a progressive, moderate, or even a conservative and vote on major issues accordingly without any fear of reprisal from the leadership. There is an actual effort to open up a big tent for their caucus.

Second, we move back to the sacrifice of the good for the perfect. Those in the progressive wing will withhold votes if they don't have a perfect bill to meet their perception of perfection. Those in the moderate wing of the party will withhold votes if they don't get their idea of perfection. This ties the Democrats into knots and keeps them from passing legislation that will help all Americans. This happens while the Republicans sit back and laugh at these internal battles because they know that they can spin inaction, not on their unwillingness to govern, but on the intransience of one, two, or a small group of Democrats. They argue that the Democrats don't know how to govern. The Republicans won Virginia, almost won New Jersey, and made local gains all through the country arguing from the side of untruths and poking the fingers of blame on the inaction of Democrats. They are good at that argument and actually have a bit of truth to hang that accusation on.

The message to Democrats all over the country....... Get it through your heads.....we are losing the battle for the hearts and minds of the electorate. We have to force the elected officials in the Democratic Party to get off their collective rumps, lock themselves into a room and come out with a plan they all can vote yes on. That plan will be flawed. Nobody will get everything that they want, but everyone will get something. Most of all, the American people will get a government that provides them with some of the much needed assistance that is necessary for the country to grow and thrive.

If we fail to do that, the Republican Trumpists will take back the House and the Senate in 2022 and the Orange-topped Troll will be back in the White House in 2024. That will make the legacy of the 2020 Democratic class, the fall of American democracy and the laying of the framework by which the ball of Fascism will pick up speed while rolling downhill and crush the life out of a democratic America.

Tags

jrBlog - desc
[]
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1  JohnRussell    4 weeks ago

Democrats can be wimps but I relate it more to a reluctance to go after the insurrectionist traitors of Jan 6 and the Republican politicians who continue to aid and abet the insurrectionist spirit , than I relate it to Democrats reluctance to unite in a vote on infrastructure. 

I am having a little bit of trouble understanding how the title of your article is expressed in the text of the article. 

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
Professor Guide
1.1  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  JohnRussell @1    4 weeks ago

Wimps can always toughen up, but the traitors in the senate will never rid themselves of that albatross.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2  CB     4 weeks ago

I agree. Time for the democrats to continue executing policies. Oh, and after this social bill passes, Voting Rights bill's got 'NEXT'!  (I am going to call Nancy Pelosi just as soon as the Build Back Better Bill passes out of the House.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1  Texan1211  replied to  CB @2    4 weeks ago
(I am going to call Nancy Pelosi just as soon as the Build Back Better Bill passes out of the House.

In its current form, I don't see how it can pass the Senate.

Bernie Sanders has said no to the SALT cap raise and Manchin has said no to paid leave. Nancy Pelosi knows this, but yet she chose to include both things in the bill.

Democrats might have a hard time explaining why it took so long for them to even hold a vote on the real infrastructure bill passed by the Senate that Nancy sat on for months.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.1  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @2.1    4 weeks ago

Well, here's the good news for me-I am more interested in what comes after Build Back Better Bill signing. So rush the que! Voting Rights Matter.

Somebody, anybody, put burrs in their saddles and get those butts moving into action!

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.2  Texan1211  replied to  CB @2.1.1    4 weeks ago
I am more interested in what comes after Build Back Better Bill signing.

That's the thing. There may well not be any signing.

If it does pass in some capacity, I would be shocked if they actually got it done before the end of the year. Too many things to work out, to many Democrats to placate.

Somebody, anybody, put burrs in their saddles and get those butts moving into action!

If that was possible, I would think the Democrats would have already done this thing by now.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.3  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.2    4 weeks ago

Does not alter my focus (on what comes after). I believe Voting Rights Matter.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.4  Texan1211  replied to  CB @2.1.3    4 weeks ago

Yes, voting rights matter.

Which is why we already HAVE them!!!!!!!!!!!!

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.5  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.4    4 weeks ago

And we can do better than letting BULLSHITTERS like Donald J. Trump lie about the intentions and motivations of good, decent people. VOTING RIGHTS MATTER.

Congress, democrats, get on with turning yourself around and get it done!

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.6  Texan1211  replied to  CB @2.1.5    4 weeks ago
VOTING RIGHTS MATTER.

Yes, again, they do.

Which is why we already HAVE them.

Trump doesn't have squat to do with it, but I am sure they will issue you points for managing to include him in something he isn't connected with.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.7  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.6    4 weeks ago

Bull patty. Donald J. Trump is masterminding the rigging of the American election system. But, you don't stay current with news (according to your own words) so you  may have missed his compelling of 'red-state' elected officials to act against select counties and pin-point mining of election data analyses to demoralize and quench voter enthusiasm and literal turn-out.)

Don't waste your time trying to convince me Donald J. Trump is not behind your (vain) attempts to keep him out of the news!

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.8  Texan1211  replied to  CB @2.1.7    4 weeks ago
Bull patty. Donald J. Trump is masterminding the rigging of the American election system.

Oh, yeah, Trump is a criminal mastermind who will rule America forever!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Jeeze, what WON'T people believe about him.

Why do you keep shifting the conversation every time I shoot down one of your dubious claims?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.9  Texan1211  replied to  CB @2.1.7    4 weeks ago
But, you don't stay current with news (according to your own words)

Quote me, and when you refuse to even try and can't, retract that lie.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.10  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.9    4 weeks ago

Enough! I don't care to talk about you and your feelings about Donald. Back to the topic or just "poof" off!

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.11  Texan1211  replied to  CB @2.1.10    4 weeks ago

back to the topic is hilarious considering the source. got that quote yet?

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.12  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.11    4 weeks ago

IMPASSE.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Junior Quiet
2.1.13  Jack_TX  replied to  CB @2.1.7    4 weeks ago
Donald J. Trump is  masterminding

You've just used the phrase "mastermind" referring to Donald Trump.

That's hilarious.

 

 

 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.14  Texan1211  replied to  Jack_TX @2.1.13    4 weeks ago
You've just used the phrase "mastermind" referring to Donald Trump.

That's hilarious.

 

I am quite sure the sheer irony of the statement has slipped by unnoticed.

Trump must be very, very special.

Not too many men can be a total dumbass (according to the TDS-riddled) AND a criminal mastermind!!

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.15  CB   replied to  Jack_TX @2.1.13    4 weeks ago
Donald J. Trump is masterminding the rigging of the American election system.

See the distinction. Donald Trump is an evil man, but still manages to get things done on the Right. Through using the Right. It's all reminiscent of a mob-boss.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.16  Texan1211  replied to  CB @2.1.15    4 weeks ago

Masterminding the  rigging of the American election system.

LOL!!

Brilliant!

Far fetched nonsense, of course, but highly entertaining.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.17  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.16    4 weeks ago

IMPASSE.

 
 
 
thedoctorisinthehouse
Freshman Guide
2.1.18  author  thedoctorisinthehouse  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.16    4 weeks ago

I have a feeling that when Trump is indicted in Georgia, you might have to eat those words. Trump has always had the modus operandi of lying in plain sight and then trying to use his money and influence to wriggle out of it. Generally, if people fight back {see Trump University} he loses. The Atlanta DA and the Manhattan DA don't seem to want to back off. That tells me that Trump is in trouble. Both of those situations may lead to criminal indictments. It will be hard for Trump to keep his ability to manipulate and bully when his money and time will be spent trying to keep him out of prison.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.19  Texan1211  replied to  thedoctorisinthehouse @2.1.18    4 weeks ago
I have a feeling that when Trump is indicted in Georgia, you might have to eat those words.

Which specific ones in this:

Masterminding the rigging of the American election system.

LOL!!

Brilliant!

Far fetched nonsense, of course, but highly entertaining.

Did my words confuse or did you fail to recognize sarcasm?

 
 
 
gooseisback
Freshman Silent
2.1.20  gooseisback  replied to  CB @2.1.5    4 weeks ago
Congress, democrats, get on with turning yourself around and get it done!

The states run voting for their constituents, not the federal government.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.21  CB   replied to  gooseisback @2.1.20    4 weeks ago

The Supremacy Clause in the Constitution allows congress to make laws that supercede state laws as long as said laws are constitutional (passing 'muster'). A possible reason we 'forget' this is because congress (and red-state congresspersons) are sitting on their damn hands letting their constituent states 'run' issues while congressional representatives and senators stall out their duties for the good of this nation.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
3  Buzz of the Orient    4 weeks ago

If the Trump-inspired January 6th attempted insurrection and Trump's incompetent governance and narcissist behaviour didn't cause the failure of America's democratic society, nothing will,

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
3.1  CB   replied to  Buzz of the Orient @3    4 weeks ago

This nation is not done with its serial predator, Donald J. Trump, unfortunately. Even so, he has 'off-spring.'

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1.1  Texan1211  replied to  CB @3.1    4 weeks ago
This nation is not done with its serial predator, Donald J. Trump, unfortunately. Even so, he has 'off-spring.'

Democrats actually NEED Trump to run against. Without him running, what do they have?

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
3.1.2  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.1    4 weeks ago

Of course, we liberals have nothing of interest for the likes of you, Texan! That I am confident!

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1.3  Texan1211  replied to  CB @3.1.2    4 weeks ago
Of course, we liberals have nothing of interest for the likes of you, Texan! That I am confident!

Yeah, you may well be right about that. I have no interest in sky-high spending on social "infrastructure" financed with tax dollars and paid for by our grandchildren and great grandchildren.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.1.4  JohnRussell  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.3    4 weeks ago

AVvXsEgnk36AUAzFDaufgMD8YHgfO2VxN7z82dsSUra0Y1x6OWws_exzZs-ir6jj2ZE5l6_BiEWY2fBostMo-jJk8nFyAlTgrCDDMXmQnf0y8-wYZg-NTSpYJ5417TbYUEig2IEzw9gR_bl-nK8e9ZRZFdFi9BR7qJOFcwp6a3HAGwMe2bJp2dze4-3LOYTp=s16000

 
 
 
thedoctorisinthehouse
Freshman Guide
3.1.5  author  thedoctorisinthehouse  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.3    4 weeks ago

Did you have anything against the sky high spending on tax cuts for the rich.....sky high spending on subsidies to the fossil fuel industry......sky high spending on the military {mostly for war related activities}...sky high spending on all the things that the Trump administration did to put more than 8 trillion on the national debt, by far the largest increase in history.....Spending only seems to count when Democrats do it.....Any talk about spending is bull....both sides do it....just so happens that historically, the Republicans do it more.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
3.1.7  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.3    4 weeks ago

Your grandchildren will benefit from services like everybody else. Stop with the "we're BROKE" - woe is me crap! It's trite. It's a talking point. Moreover, it takes no stock of the situation or the state of play. It is a 'card' played to keep the money and wealth 'at the top' in the hands of select people who parse it out to a select relative few. If you don't think of it that way—it's time you should!

As for your disapproval of spending money to make life work for people: Who the heck else gets the money spent besides people?! Huh?  Animals and inanimate things have no use for cash or income.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1.8  Texan1211  replied to  CB @3.1.7    4 weeks ago
Your grandchildren will benefit from services like everybody else. Stop with the "we're BROKE" - woe is me crap! It's trite. It's a talking point. Moreover, it takes no stock of the situation or the state of play. It is a 'card' played to keep the money and wealth 'at the top' in the hands of select people who parse it out to a select relative few.

That's a load of crap. Get real at least. When the amount of interest we pay becomes too large (and it will), we will be broke. I know that doesn't seem to matter to folks who just love to spend, spend, spend, but facts are facts.

The amount of money appropriated just for debt interest payments is becoming a larger and larger share of our gross tax receipts collected. At some point it becomes unsustainable. 

This is math, not some "conspiracy" theory bandied about by progressive liberals about concentrating wealth.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1.9  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.4    4 weeks ago

Don't come at me with that stupid shit.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.1.10  JohnRussell  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.8    4 weeks ago

The national debt is not a serious problem. If it was, Donald Trump would have addressed it, right? 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.1.11  JohnRussell  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.9    4 weeks ago
Don't come at me with that stupid shit.

I try to make my audience feel at home. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1.12  Texan1211  replied to  thedoctorisinthehouse @3.1.5    4 weeks ago
Did you have anything against the sky high spending on tax cuts for the rich.

Yes I do, which is one reason why I am so against the Democrats trying to lift or raise the SALT cap. I don't understand how one can bitch about the rich not paying their fair share (always undefined) while giving them a HUGE tax break.

Neither party is fiscally responsible, I just admit it while others pretend their party is.

Me, I am all for a graduated flat tax for ALL, with NO deductions or tax credits. What about you--do you want to keep the same system everyone is always griping about?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1.13  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.10    4 weeks ago

Don't be obtuse.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1.14  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.11    4 weeks ago
I try to make my audience feel at home. 

Oh, well you failed miserably. Try something a little closer to the truth next fucking time.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.1.15  JohnRussell  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.13    4 weeks ago

That was a yes or no question dude. You are not good enough at semantics to try and play that game. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.1.16  JohnRussell  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.8    4 weeks ago
The amount of money appropriated just for debt interest payments is becoming a larger and larger share of our gross tax receipts collected. At some point it becomes unsustainable. 

If the national debt situation was a crisis, wouldnt we be hearing about it constantly, and not just when conservatives want to avoid spending on the lower classes?

The United States prints its own money. We can never run out of money.  Lets put it like this. Future generations will never be required to pay off the national debt. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1.18  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.15    4 weeks ago

See post 3.1.12. Read it. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1.19  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.16    4 weeks ago
The United States prints its own money. We can never run out of money.  Lets put it like this. Future generations will never be required to pay off the national debt. 

This may very well be one of the stupidest comments I have ever read at any time and any place.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.1.20  JohnRussell  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.19    4 weeks ago
This may very well be one of the stupidest comments I have ever read at any time and any place.

Never say I didnt try and help you understand something. 

  • 7 Reasons We Don't Need to Pay Off the National Debt ...

    ...

    Apr 18, 2016  · Economics isn't that simple, and the per-capita value of the national debt is a factoid. Presenting it as some sort of personal tab is irresponsible. 2.   We don’t want  

    • Estimated Reading Time:   7 mins
  • Here’s Why It Is Impossible to Pay Off the National Debt ...

    And the government would still be in debt because   it still hasn’t paid off the interest.   Our currency is now on the debt standard, not the gold standard. It could not exist without debt. And the only way to keep our monetary system from imploding is to borrow more and more money. Compare these two numbers. The national debt is 25 trillion dollars.

  • [PDF]

    https://scholarship.law.gwu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1025&context=faculty_publications" > Why We Should Never Pay Down the National Debt

    ...

    Aug 01, 2009  · WHY WE SHOULD NEVER PAY DOWN THE NATIONAL DEBT Neil H. Buchanan* I. INTRODUCTION. The   Great Recession of 2008   and   its aftermath—with persistently high unemployment,   1.   grinding poverty, ruinous state and local government budget cuts,   and   the continued risk of renewed distress in the housing and financial markets, both at home and abroad.   2

    • Cited by:   1
    • Publish Year:   2012
    • Author:   Neil H. Buchanan
  • Why the $22 trillion national debt doesn't matter – here's ...

    ...

    Feb 14, 2019  · Higher spending levels today require more borrowing – and a larger debt – as   long as the taxes needed to pay for those expenditures are pushed into the future.

    • Estimated Reading Time:   6 mins
  • Seven reasons why the U.S. will never pay down the debt ...

    economiccollapsenews.com/2013/01/11/seven-reasons...

    Jan 11, 2013  · With the national debt nearly half way to the $17 trillion mark, there are some that don’t expect the U.S. to ever pay down its debt   due to several factors, including the inept public officials   ...

    • Estimated Reading Time:   8 mins
  • Why the U.S. Government Never, Ever Has to Pay Back All ...

    ...

    Feb 01, 2013  · The government, unlike us, doesn't need to pay back its debts before it dies, because it   doesn't die (barring secession   or a sneak   attack   from across the world's longest unprotected border -- …

    • Estimated Reading Time:   4 mins
 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1.21  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.20    4 weeks ago

Crap.

Pure crap.

Congrats.

You will believe almost anything, it would appear.

Pretending our debt doesn't matter is so shortsighted and so ignorant that I am shocked someone would publish that tripe.

I am not shocked someone would believe it.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.1.22  JohnRussell  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.21    4 weeks ago

In other words, you have no idea.  Its ok. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1.23  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.22    4 weeks ago
In other words, you have no idea.  Its ok. 

I do. One must be able to comprehend what I wrote to get that, though.

Better luck to you next time!

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
3.1.24  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.8    4 weeks ago

Then fix the borrowing, but not at the expense of spending on 'other things' not involving people. Living and breathing people are the source of wealth and economic prosperity. Take care of (more and more) human suffering and loss in this country. Perhaps, capitalism will take care of us all when it is spread out more instead of locked down in 'store-houses' on and off our shores!

This is what progressives are trying to promulgate: An understanding that too much interests in stinginess and lack exist in a country with the concentration of wealth our has! We can build on each other-when we 'bet' on each other. Instead, it is this grimy, deceptive, life-long uphill (never reaching it) slog we create for people. Millions of whom shall never reach such capitalistic "loftiness," because they are not inclined to lie, cheat, steal, and yes kill and dishonor themselves for sordid gains.

For example, our "tussles" are legion in this country and the infrastructures built to tear-down people are costing us in human capital and personal investments.

We waste billions in this country each year on "throw-away" projects, specifically intending to cut whole swaths of our society out of achieving success, power, influence, and wealth!

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1.25  Texan1211  replied to  CB @3.1.24    4 weeks ago
Then fix the borrowing,

You don't fix borrowing by borrowing trillions more, as Democrats are trying to do.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
3.1.26  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.25    4 weeks ago

Look! As has been offered before and in reality, don't talk to me about the 'passions of congress' and cut-throat political interplay. Either you are onboard with helping to make life work for us living in the here and now through governmental policies- r you are not!

Wealthy people don't need your policy support: Unless, of course, they pay you for it. Moving on. Help and support people who need the help in this country day in and day out.

The wealthy Americans will do just fine.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1.27  Texan1211  replied to  CB @3.1.26    4 weeks ago
Look! As has been offered before and in reality, don't talk to me about the 'passions of congress' and cut-throat political interplay. Either you are onboard with making like work for us living in the here and now or you are not!

Climb down off your soapbox. I didn't say anything about all that.

Rich people don't need your support: unless, of course, they pay you for it.

I never claimed they did. Why you are getting so far off topic and talking about things I haven't even mentioned?

 Help and support people who need the help in this country day in and day out.

Never had any problem helping people in need when they need help. I am not for supporting their poor choices and demanding I pay for them.

The wealthy will be just fine.

I am sure they will, especially if Democrats can get that HUGE tax cuts for them!

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
3.1.28  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.27    4 weeks ago

Poor choices? That's an opinion. We all have one or a set of 'those.' However, it is people (with their opinions) for which we should be making compromises on their behalf.

People can not eat f-ing talking points. People can't get ahead on rhetoric!

What we do know is that 'untold' billions of dollars are wasted trying to make people divide over manipulative issues. That is whole college industry set up to make life-long merchandise out of the movement of people on one 'wedge' issue after another. Wash. Rinse. Repeat.

Chi-Lites – Give More Power to the People (TD Ext Remix)

For God's sake, you got to give more power to the people

There's some people up there hoggin' everything
Tellin' lies, givin' alibis about the people's money and things
And if they gonna throw it away, might as well give some to me
Yeah they seen and heard it, but never had misery
There are some people who are starvin' to death
Never knew but only hate us, and they never had happiness
Oh, oh, oh, if you don't have enough to eat, how can you think of love
You don't have the time to care so it's crime you're guilty of, oh yeah

For God's sake, you got to give more power to the people
For God's sake, why don't you give more power to the people

Cut this jive and see who's got the power to kill the most
When they run out of power, the world's gonna be a ghost
They know we're not satisfied, so we begin to holler
Makin' us a promise and throwin' a few more dollars
There's no price for happiness, there's no price for love
Up goes the price of livin', and you're right back where you was
So whatever you got, just be glad you got it
Now we're gonna get on up and get some more of it

Time out for the bull-patty.

Time in for people first and telling divisive "spokespeople" for the status quo to piss off!

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1.29  Texan1211  replied to  CB @3.1.28    4 weeks ago
People can not eat f-ing talking points. People can't get ahead on rhetoric!

True. Most have jobs and we give food stamps to others. They CAN get ahead with hard work, good planning, sacrificing their wants, and making sound financial decisions.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
3.1.30  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.29    4 weeks ago

And yet there are villainous decision-makers currently exploiting their state legislatures to suppress the rights, privileges, and beliefs of liberals under their control, because letting people have what makes their lives functional is taboo to some conservatives. Oh yes, it's true. It's true.

Our society needs to make treatment of people its measurement of success and not just wealth heaped up in barns. Make the people well-off, smart, and participants in the moral 'fabric' of the nation and national "wholesomeness" will increase as less disease, confusion, and failure occurs in a 'well' preventive-minded society.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
3.1.31  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.29    4 weeks ago
Most have jobs and we give food stamps to others

And when that "most' fall their behinds through the cracks in the 'top' they come careening down and apply for the 'stamps' and other safety net items! As a for instance, we can start with those at the top who fell during the pandemic and those who were assisted by President Trump's efforts and desires to mercilessly end careers; effectively throwing men and women on the 'dump heap' of financial ruin.

 
 
 
thedoctorisinthehouse
Freshman Guide
3.1.32  author  thedoctorisinthehouse  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.8    4 weeks ago

How about spending by the Republicans? If you're pissed about spending, you have to be more pissed at the Republicans than the Democrats. Every Republican administration has outspent every Democratic administration since 1952. Republicans and fiscal responsibility are oxymorons.

 
 
 
thedoctorisinthehouse
Freshman Guide
3.1.33  author  thedoctorisinthehouse  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.25    4 weeks ago

Actually, you fix borrowing when the interest rate is close to zero and the payback occurs during periods of inflationary rates. That is playing the game with free money. I only wish our government has had the wisdom to do that in the past. Our debt service would be a hell of a lot lower.

 
 
 
thedoctorisinthehouse
Freshman Guide
3.1.34  author  thedoctorisinthehouse  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.21    4 weeks ago

Why doesn't the debt matter when the Republicans are in charge? They spend like drunken sailors giving out riches to their wealthy donors and then start the crocodile tears when some of the money actually is used to help our most needy brethren.

 
 
 
thedoctorisinthehouse
Freshman Guide
3.1.35  author  thedoctorisinthehouse  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.20    4 weeks ago

Thank you for the researched and cited responses. We need more of that here.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1.36  Texan1211  replied to  thedoctorisinthehouse @3.1.32    4 weeks ago

Read post 3.1.12.

It should give you the answer you seek from me.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1.37  Texan1211  replied to  thedoctorisinthehouse @3.1.34    4 weeks ago

Read post 3.1.12. It should give you the answer you seek from me.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1.38  Texan1211  replied to  CB @3.1.31    4 weeks ago

Oh, gee, whatever shall we dooooooooo????????????????????

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
3.1.39  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.38    4 weeks ago

I know. . . "we" can stop supporting and enabling lying 'wunderkind' Donald J. Trump to be a strong man who fires people, damaging and ruining careers and highly likely breaking up families, simply for having the courage to tell the world he is wrong and should piss off

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1.40  Texan1211  replied to  CB @3.1.39    4 weeks ago

Why are you obsessed with Trump?

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
3.1.41  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.40    4 weeks ago

I am not obsessed with Donald, but he is the predator that likes making our country his prey. That is notable. Why do you give Trump your support?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1.42  Texan1211  replied to  CB @3.1.41    4 weeks ago
Why do you give Trump your support?

See here, I don' support Trump, I would not vote for him again, and pray he isn't the nominee for the GOP.

You assume I did and you have never bothered to ask.

Now, why are YOU obsessed with Trump, or is this where you play 20 questions on me without ever answering one of mine? 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1.43  Texan1211  replied to  CB @3.1.41    4 weeks ago
I am not obsessed with Donald, but he is the predator that likes making our country his prey.

Might have been more believable if you simply didn't bring him up in virtually every conversation then.

It looks like you can't help yourself.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
3.1.44  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.43    4 weeks ago

As if I should spend time with what it "looks like" for you. Your 'denial' of Donald has been 'recorded.' I don't believe it, nevertheless. I could likely throw Donald farther than I can trust you right this minute. And furthermore, Donald Trump is repulsive as a person, sitting president, and former president.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1.45  Texan1211  replied to  CB @3.1.44    4 weeks ago
I don't believe it, nevertheless.

Your choice. Who cares?

I could likely throw Donald farther than I can trust you right this minute.

I'll be sure to never use you as a character reference, okay?

And furthermore,Donald Trump is repulsive as a person, sitting president, and former president.

Okay.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Junior Quiet
3.1.46  Jack_TX  replied to    4 weeks ago
Spending trillions on an antiquated model.

This the first valid point I've seen so far.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
3.1.47  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.12    4 weeks ago

How will a graduated flat tax work when we have billionaires (and millions) and corporations that do not pay any or enough of their taxes? (Using various schemes.) And, of course, Donald Trump thinks not paying any sufficient taxes is. . . "smart."

And, yet these companies 'feed from the trough' of the government when a seat is available.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1.48  Texan1211  replied to  CB @3.1.47    4 weeks ago
How will a graduated flat tax work when we have billionaires (and millions) and corporations that do not pay any or enough of their taxes? (Using various schemes.) And, of course, Donald Trump thinks not paying any sufficient taxes is. . . "smart."

As I have stated previously, I am all for a graduated flat tax WITH NO DEDUCTIONS OR CREDITS for ANYONE or ENTITY.

Paying more taxes than you owe is indeed rather foolish. Do you do it often?

What say you--do you continue to support our current tax structure? why?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.1.49  JohnRussell  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.48    4 weeks ago

what would be the highest rate? 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1.50  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.49    4 weeks ago

$0-25k = 0 in taxes.

$25001k-40k = 5% in taxes

$400001k- 75k = 10% in taxes

$750001k-125k = 15% in taxes

$125001k- 250k = 20% in taxes

$2500001k-750k = 25% in taxes

Over $750001= 28% in taxes

All based on earned income.  

No deductions or credits for ANYTHING.

And all easily collected through payroll deductions.

Now, I have explained my view, can you tell me what "fair share" numbers are?

No one I have asked ever can answer with numbers, just mindlessly chanting the rich don't pay their fair share.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
3.1.51  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.48    4 weeks ago

Yes. I support our current tax structure over and beyond a graduated flat tax with no deductions or credits for anyone or entity. Why?

Because that flat tax plus sounds good in theory, but the usual "pinching, massaging, and 'casting about'' will happen as in past history of tax rulings. ("Damn all the lawyers.)

And no one is complaining about 'paying more taxes than you owe' (which you did not define by the way), if everybody is doing their tax paperwork properly.

And libertarians, those "government haters" we can presume they are not paying enough taxes just 'because' even as they saddle up to the trough to feed accordingly.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1.52  Texan1211  replied to  CB @3.1.51    4 weeks ago
Yes. I support our current tax structure over and beyond a graduated flat tax with no deductions or credits for anyone or entity.

Why? Because you support the very thing you are complaining about, which is senseless.

Because that flat taxplussounds good in theory, but the usual "pinching, massaging, and 'casting about'' will happen as in past history of tax rulings. ("Damn all the lawyers.)

I don't think you understand what a flat tax with no deductions or credits is then. 

And no one is complaining about 'paying more taxes than you owe' (which you did not define by the way).

Look, you brought that crap up because you HAD to get your pathetic little dig in at Trump. You REALLY need a definition for "paying more taxes than you owe"??? WTF?

Okay, here it is. Under our current system, tax rates are published and people fall into one category or another. And then their taxes are based on that rate for their income bracket. If you pay MORE than what that published rate is, then you have indeed paid more than what you owed.

I hope that definition clears things up for you.

And libertarians, those "government haters" we can presume they are not paying enough taxes just 'because' even as they saddle up to the trough to feed accordingly.

Under a flat tax plan, everyone but the lowest earners would be paying taxes. No way around it. You really don't understand this, do you?

BTW, either stop commenting to me or cease the childish use of IMPASSE every time you can't refute a point I make.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
3.1.53  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.52    4 weeks ago

I don't know who you think you are ranting to, but you must have your liberals confused. I stand by what I wrote. And, for the record, you suggested a "graduated" flat tax. That may be what it is,—until the lawyers get around to dealing with it. After all, the present tax structure was SUPPOSED to bring all the taxes into the 'storehouse.'  Alas, some (fake) 'storehouses' turned up on foreign shores; the Cayman Islands and the like!

But, you dream all you want about a 'flat tax' that won't happen.

As for the impasse rule. Obey the rules (on a thread) accordingly. That is all the advice I have for you right now.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1.54  Texan1211  replied to  CB @3.1.53    4 weeks ago
I don't know who you think you are ranting to, but you must have your liberals confused. 

No confusion on my part at all. No ranting, either, just giving you exactly what you asked for.

And, for the record, you suggested a "graduated" flat tax. That may be what it is,—until the lawyers get around to dealing with it.

Why, yes, yes I did! I was unaware that was in dispute. Lawyers wouldn't have a damn thing to do with it. It is statements like that which prove you have no clue what a flat tax with no deductions or credits even is.

If I am ever in such a desperate situation as to sink to asking your advice, I will be the first to let you know right before I kill myself.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Junior Quiet
3.1.55  Jack_TX  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.50    4 weeks ago
All based on earned income.  

What about interest, dividends or capital gains?

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
3.1.56  CB   replied to  Jack_TX @3.1.55    4 weeks ago

jrSmiley_124_smiley_image.gif Thank you for seeing through the 'veneer' from our resident 'fog-machine' (abuser).

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1.57  Texan1211  replied to  Jack_TX @3.1.55    4 weeks ago
What about interest, dividends or capital gains?

If we had the flat tax I want, none of that would be necessary to tax. We would have plenty of money for the government to operate.

But if someone really wanted to tax that money, they could simply tax it upon withdrawal at whatever rate the person falls into, and at the same rate. I would be opposed to that personally, but can see where some might want to tax it.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1.58  Texan1211  replied to  CB @3.1.56    4 weeks ago
Thank you for seeing through the 'veneer' from our resident 'fog-machine' (abuser).

You dare to say that about me after refusing to answer a simple question repeatedly? After throwing Trump into every conversation? After myriad deflections whenever I ask you something? After yelling impasse when you get cornered?

LMMFAO!

 
 
 
thedoctorisinthehouse
Freshman Guide
3.1.59  author  thedoctorisinthehouse  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.12    4 weeks ago

We actually have a point of agreement. As long as the flat tax is graduated and doesn't fall primarily on the working poor, its not a bad idea. Start at about 30K and work up with realistic gradations. The key to a flat tax is that in order to be fair, it has to tax unearned income as well as earned.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1.60  Texan1211  replied to  thedoctorisinthehouse @3.1.59    4 weeks ago
The key to a flat tax is that in order to be fair, it has to tax unearned income as well as earned.

I don't agree with that at all.

If you TRULY are arguing for "fairness", then EVERYONE regardless of income should pay something.

But we realize that will never happen.

 
 
 
thedoctorisinthehouse
Freshman Guide
3.1.61  author  thedoctorisinthehouse  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.60    4 weeks ago

not so......if we truly believed in fairness, there would be a reverse tax and people who earn under a certain income would get a percentage of that income given back to them.....this would alleviate the problem of the working poor.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1.62  Texan1211  replied to  thedoctorisinthehouse @3.1.61    4 weeks ago
not so......if we truly believed in fairness, there would be a reverse tax and people who earn under a certain income would get a percentage of that income given back to them.....this would alleviate the problem of the working poor.

I don't consider that remotely fair. Why should anyone get to "eat" for free while others are forced to pay? Is that fair to taxpayers? Taking their money and giving it to someone else?

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
3.1.63  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.54    4 weeks ago

Two words: Tax attorneys.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1.64  Texan1211  replied to  CB @3.1.63    4 weeks ago

OMG, please don't be deliberately obtuse.

If we had a graduated flat tax with no deductions, there would never be a need for tax attorneys.

Why do have such a hard time understanding what a flat tax with no deductions or credit means????

SMH

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.1.65  JohnRussell  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.60    4 weeks ago
If you TRULY are arguing for "fairness", then EVERYONE regardless of income should pay something.

Unfortunately that is a ridiculous idea. If you tax the poor, you would literally be making poor people poorer. There are very few Republicans even that want that on their resume. 

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Junior Quiet
3.1.66  Jack_TX  replied to  thedoctorisinthehouse @3.1.61    4 weeks ago
if we truly believed in fairness, there would be a reverse tax and people who earn under a certain income would get a percentage of that income given back to them

See, there is a fundamental disagreement about whether or not taking money from working families and giving it to other people who may or may not be working is "fair".

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Junior Quiet
3.1.67  Jack_TX  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.64    4 weeks ago
If we had a graduated flat tax with no deductions, there would never be a need for tax attorneys.

Meh....  That seems a really, really idealistic mindset.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Guide
3.1.68  bugsy  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.42    4 weeks ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1.69  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.65    4 weeks ago
Unfortunately that is a ridiculous idea. If you tax the poor, you would literally be making poor people poorer. There are very few Republicans even that want that on their resume. 

I didn't say it was a good idea, I said it was a fairer idea.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Junior Quiet
3.1.70  Jack_TX  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.65    4 weeks ago
Unfortunately that is a ridiculous idea.

If everybody in America benefits from the programs funded by our income taxes, then everybody should help pay for them.  

If everybody doesn't benefit, why are we doing them?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1.71  Texan1211  replied to  Jack_TX @3.1.67    4 weeks ago
Meh....  That seems a really, really idealistic mindset.

I am under no illusions that we will ever have a flat tax here. Too many politicians content to buy votes by cow-towing to different factions, all wanting their very own tax breaks, be they rich or be they poor.

I shared my ideas on taxes because I was asked to specifically, and I answered because I thought maybe, just maybe, I could get someone to define "fair share" with actual numbers.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.1.72  JohnRussell  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.57    4 weeks ago
What about interest, dividends or capital gains?
If we had the flat tax I want, none of that would be necessary to tax. We would have plenty of money for the government to operate.

If you only taxed salaries, how many rich people do you reckon would never have to pay taxes? 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1.73  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.72    4 weeks ago
If you only taxed salaries, how many rich people do you reckon would never have to pay taxes? 

Relatively few of them.

Why won't anyone put a number on fair share??????

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Junior Quiet
3.1.74  Jack_TX  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.71    4 weeks ago
because I thought maybe, just maybe, I could get someone to define "fair share" with actual numbers.

LOL.

Two for two on "idealistic mindset", I see.jrSmiley_7_smiley_image.png

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.1.75  JohnRussell  replied to  Jack_TX @3.1.70    4 weeks ago

Having people who are under the federal poverty guidelines pay income taxes is ludicrous.  I dont care what your political ideology informs you. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1.76  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.75    4 weeks ago

JR, what exactly is fair share?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.1.77  JohnRussell  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.76    4 weeks ago

I dont play with numbers. The people in Congress who have great experience with tax rates can figure that out. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1.78  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.77    4 weeks ago
I dont play with numbers. The people in Congress who have great experience with tax rates can figure that out. 

Cop out, because you certainly have claimed the rich don't pay their fair share.

So since you leave it all to Congress, the current tax code is okay with you, and if people use tax laws to claim deductions and credits, you must be okay with it, even if they are rich.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
3.1.79  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.64    4 weeks ago

Hell, you can't even get an agreement "here" on your flat tax. So imagine what tax attorneys will do with it. I digress, nevertheless. Because you are simply throwing out 'chaff' while all the time knowing (likely from experience) what tax lawyers will do. Case in point: Donald "the tax cheat 'god'" Trump who is 'smart' because he has lawyers that get him 'life-time' audits and he never has to explain it himself!

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.1.80  JohnRussell  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.78    4 weeks ago

The marginal tax rate for high earners has fluctuated quite a bit over the years. It was once over 70%.  I would say somewhere from 35% and up would be appropriate for the highest earners depending on what the experts could demonstrate was best. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1.81  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.80    4 weeks ago

Now, why was that so darn hard to answer?

However, if you simply adopted a flat tax with no deductions or credits, you would collect more tax money.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1.82  Texan1211  replied to  CB @3.1.79    4 weeks ago
Hell, you can't even get an agreement "here" on your flat tax. So imagine what tax attorneys will do with it.

OH MY GOD.

I can not explain what a flat tax is to you, obviously.

I tire of attempting the fucking impossible.

And there is TDS AGAIN, even though I am talking taxes.

SMMFH 

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
3.1.83  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.60    4 weeks ago

What is being argued for is "equity."

What-does-equity-mean--1024x560.jpg

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1.84  Texan1211  replied to  CB @3.1.83    4 weeks ago

Wrong.

Astoundingly wrong.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
3.1.85  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.84    4 weeks ago

I must be a prophet! I just KNEW ahead of time you would not see equity as having any value. Good old 'one-way" Texan1211!

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
3.1.86  CB   replied to  Jack_TX @3.1.66    4 weeks ago

No one is talking about making 'bum's out of people or having "laps of luxury" through taxation. Case in point, for every person conservatives can point to as "exploiting the system" you can point to some farmer's 'groups' or corporations (overseas accounts) that exploit the tax system in a myriad of ways.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.1.87  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @3.1.70    4 weeks ago

For the health of our society, everyone should always have skin in the game.

The progressive taxation approach could (if properly done) be used to ensure everyone has skin in the game while providing relief to lower incomes and progressively tapping into the extant discretionary income of the higher income individuals.

Key thing is that if we want to really fuck up our society, just make it possible for people to survive off of public funds.    That will drain our work ethic quite nicely.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.1.88  JohnRussell  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.87    4 weeks ago

Making poor people pay income tax is absurd and no politician who wants to be re-elected would vote for it. 

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
3.1.89  Ender  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.87    4 weeks ago

I don't buy the not everyone has skin in the game. No matter what one does there is taxes. Even poor people pay taxes.

People like to zero in on federal income tax as some kind of base when in reality it is not.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
3.1.90  Ender  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.88    4 weeks ago

Poor people actually do pay federal income tax. Saying that they don't is a lie. Some just get a 'refund'.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.1.91  TᵢG  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.88    4 weeks ago
Making poor people pay income tax is absurd and no politician who wants to be re-elected would vote for it. 

Do you also think it is absurd to ensure that everyone has skin in the game?    That was my point.   Progressive taxation was but an obvious example since the concept already exists.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.1.92  TᵢG  replied to  Ender @3.1.89    4 weeks ago
I don't buy the not everyone has skin in the game. No matter what one does there is taxes. Even poor people pay taxes.

My point was that it is important that everyone have skin in the game.   Yes, everyone pays sales taxes, excise taxes, etc.   Never stated otherwise.

My point is that it is important that we do not produce a society where people can live off public funds:

TiG @3.1.87Key thing is that if we want to really fuck up our society, just make it possible for people to survive off of public funds.    That will drain our work ethic quite nicely.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
3.1.93  Ender  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.92    4 weeks ago

People can manage to already live off of public funds, if one wants to call that living.

I would call paying a gas tax, tax on food and beverage, school taxes, etc. as having skin in the game.

Like I said, poor people do pay federal income tax. It is year end giveaways to me that makes people say otherwise.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.1.94  TᵢG  replied to  Ender @3.1.93    4 weeks ago
People can manage to already live off of public funds, if one wants to call that living.

Ender, do you agree or disagree that enabling people to live off of public funds would be detrimental to our society?   If you disagree, please enlighten me.    What happens to our society if we continually enable more people to live off public funds and not contribute to society?

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
3.1.95  Ender  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.94    4 weeks ago

There has been forms of public assistance as long as I have been around.

Imo taking them away would be more detrimental.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
3.1.96  Ender  replied to  Ender @3.1.95    4 weeks ago

Not everyone can so called contribute to society. I actually think that term is a slap in the face to a lot of people.

Should Social Security be taken away as the elderly do not contribute to society, should Medicare be taken away, etc.

How in the world would having more homeless people instead of government assisted living be preferable...

We already have a society where rich people are given preferred status and even free things while poor people have to rent to own a washing machine and pay three times the worth.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.1.97  TᵢG  replied to  Ender @3.1.95    4 weeks ago
Imo taking them away would be more detrimental.

Is that what you think I am talking about??

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.1.98  TᵢG  replied to  Ender @3.1.96    4 weeks ago
Not everyone can so called contribute to society. I actually think that term is a slap in the face to a lot of people.

Well people who are retired, physically or mentally incapacitated, etc. of course are excluded.    I am talking about healthy adults during their productive years.

Should Social Security be taken away as the elderly do not contribute to society, should Medicare be taken away, etc.

No, of course not.   Why would you even assume I am talking about this??   By this level of extrapolation, do you think I am suggesting that children be put to work?  

How in the world would having more homeless people instead of government assisted living be preferable...

What??   You keep extrapolating off into the ozone.   I have talked about everyone having skin in the game and now my comments translate into making people homeless?

 
 
 
thedoctorisinthehouse
Freshman Guide
3.1.99  author  thedoctorisinthehouse  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.98    4 weeks ago

Do you understand the term "working poor"? There are millions of Americans who work one or two jobs and because of their skill sets or just flat out bad luck are still living in poverty. Is someone who works 60 hours a week at an average wage of $7.00 an hour entitled to get some benefit from the government. These people aren't freeloading, they are just poor. Industriousness is not being paid. How about a $15 an hour minimum wage? Then possibly, the 60 hour work week would raise the individual out of poverty. S/he might be able to support a family and actually be able to pay some income tax. That wage translates into $900 a week, or $46,500 a year. Not quite a princely sum for someone who is working and supporting the mythical family of 4/

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
3.1.100  Ender  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.97    4 weeks ago
Is that what you think I am talking about??

What else could you be talking about because I don't see people getting a refund at the end of the year as living off of the government.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.1.101  TᵢG  replied to  Ender @3.1.100    4 weeks ago

The concept of having skin in the game boils down to everyone contributing to society.   And 'everyone' means capable adults in their working years.

So, for example, if someone is receiving public funds they should be using their talents to contribute back to society.   A one-way street where individuals simply receive is unhealthy at the societal level because it creates a dependency culture, expands the power and scope of government and degrades work ethic.

How we might effect a fair and practical implementation of 'skin in the game' is up for discussion.   I do not think there is one and only one way to accomplish that.   But I definitely am not in favor of moving towards a society where the government increasingly provides for unproductive / non-contributing dependents as a one-way street.

I hope/trust that you would not want our society to move in that direction either.


Addendum.   This issue is important to me because I see no alternative to a future where public funds will indeed increase.  Part of the reason for this is that AI is replacing jobs and will continue to do so.   There will not be enough higher jobs to retrain people to assume as we have been doing with past levels of automation.   Thus we will automate our way to critical unemployment levels and will be forced to find an alternative to employment.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
3.1.102  Ender  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.101    4 weeks ago

Imo we already crossed the threshold when we turned into a service society.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.1.103  TᵢG  replied to  Ender @3.1.102    4 weeks ago

The problem will get worse.   What should we do?

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
3.1.104  Ender  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.103    4 weeks ago

I was trying to remember what got us out of the depression.

I still support a good infrastructure bill that could put people to work rebuilding our highways and bridges.

Things that can get people jobs other than walmart or some clothing store.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.1.105  JohnRussell  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.91    4 weeks ago

Making poor people pay income tax is absurd and no politician who wants to be re-elected would vote for it. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.1.106  TᵢG  replied to  Ender @3.1.104    4 weeks ago
I was trying to remember what got us out of the depression.

World War II was a major factor.

I still support a good infrastructure bill that could put people to work rebuilding our highways and bridges.

I support a true infrastructure bill as well.    Not just for the (temporary) employment but because it is one of the areas that is properly the role of government to champion and our nation is well behind in infrastructure.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.1.107  TᵢG  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.105    4 weeks ago
Making poor people pay income tax is absurd and no politician who wants to be re-elected would vote for it. 

John, that is twice you have made that comment.    My point is about having skin in the game.   If you are not going to take the time to read my comments where I have added substantial detail then don't bother to engage me since you will be ill-equipped to intelligently comment on what I have written.

Skin in the game can be accomplished a number of ways.   I mentioned progressive taxation because that is an extant practice.   It illustrates taxation for wealthy people and a degraded rate of taxation as we descend the income scale.

Instead of comprehending the principle, you translate my example into taxing the poor (adding taxation to those who are currently not taxed).   Well, wrong.   Instead of taxing the poor, my position is that the poor contribute to society in return for public funds.   The specifics of this principle have not been stated since I am not going to author legislation on a forum.   But I trust there are many potential ways in which people who are receiving public funds can reciprocate.   Not only is this healthy for society (see my posts) but I think it is healthy for the recipient.   If I were poor, I would feel like shit simply receiving from the public without doing something on my part to contribute back to the society that is providing for me.

In short, get off your single, narrow interpretation of the principle I have articulated.  

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.1.108  JohnRussell  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.107    4 weeks ago

If a family of four has one working parent and he or she makes 25,000 a year that family and that wage earner are poor. 

If you tax him or her 2000 dollars it is just 2000 dollars more that will have to be made up through food stamps or EITC. It is pointless, other than you feeling better about demanding "skin in the game". Poor people are not required to pay income tax in our country because THEY DONT HAVE ANY MONEY. 

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
3.1.109  Ender  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.107    4 weeks ago

I think here they tried to implement a program where one has to work to get food stamps.

I think it has its good points and bad points. I think most people want to work yet if someone finds themselves with no job, the last thing they need is to lose that lifeline.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.1.110  TᵢG  replied to  Ender @3.1.109    4 weeks ago
I think it has its good points and bad points. I think most people want to work yet if someone finds themselves with no job, the last thing they need is to lose that lifeline.

I agree.  

And remember my addendum.   Whatever severity we apply to the problem today will simply increase with time.   We will necessarily deal with this.   If we do not start figuring out how then we will simply react when the pressure is too great and the 'solution' (I predict) will suck.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.1.111  TᵢG  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.108    4 weeks ago

John, it is now crystal clear that you are trolling me.   Take your fucking strawman with you when you leave.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.1.112  JohnRussell  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.111    4 weeks ago

You have to be kidding. I made a concrete point. I might as well say you are trolling me. 

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
3.1.113  Ender  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.110    4 weeks ago

Something I just thought of. I think we should stop putting too much power into higher education. Stop acting like it makes one a better candidate.

Imo people learn on the job anyway.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
3.1.114  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.71    4 weeks ago

Why? Some conservatives don't respect what is fair (for all); they respect power, influence, and (their own)authority.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.1.115  TᵢG  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.112    4 weeks ago
I made a concrete point.

A point based on a ridiculously narrow interpretation of my point and then an extrapolation from there.   Worse, your interpretation was wrong.   And this is done while ignoring a series of comments I have made in this thread which added more details to my point.

You ignore what I have written and instead forge a strawman that you repeatedly use.   I ignored your first attempt because, frankly, I have had my fill of such tactics recently.  But you had to come back and issue the same strawman ignoring all that I had written since.

That, John, is trolling.

Real clear:   my position is that public dollars should be reciprocated with contributions to society by the receiver.     You can only imagine one way of doing that (and it does not even accomplish what I described):  by providing public dollars and then taxing the recipient.   That does not even accomplish the psychological aspect of my point.   Government charity is unhealthy for a society.   Government safety nets and services are healthy when the recipients (capable adults in their working years) apply their talents to benefit society in reciprocation.  And, if you had read my posts, I have predicted that we will increase public funding due to a potentially critical level of unemployment due to the lack of jobs.

Simply taxing the poor does not accomplish my skin in the game point.   It is a strawman, and a stupid one at that.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.1.116  TᵢG  replied to  Ender @3.1.113    4 weeks ago
Something I just thought of. I think we should stop putting too much power into higher education. Stop acting like it makes one a better candidate.

I am replying out of courtesy.   I do not want to get into that discussion at this point.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
3.1.117  Ender  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.116    4 weeks ago

Understood.

 
 
 
thedoctorisinthehouse
Freshman Guide
3.1.118  author  thedoctorisinthehouse  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.115    4 weeks ago

I agree that taxing the poor doesn't accomplish skin in the game. I wonder, however, what the game is? Isn't the purpose of government to assist all citizens to be productive, self-sufficient {as much as possible}, content human beings who value their government and what they can do for all citizens. There is a clear distinction between taxation as skin in the game and patriotism, love of country, and acceptance of your fellow citizens. We do not create that deep felt love of country when people feel left out, left behind, or taken advantage of. We need a country where we define skin in the game as people supporting the structure and institutions of the nation. We don't need hate groups, nationalist jingoism, or riots if people feel that they are being treated fairly. To me that is more important skin in the game than whether we bleed the poor with taxes they can't afford.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.1.119  TᵢG  replied to  thedoctorisinthehouse @3.1.118    4 weeks ago
Isn't the purpose of government to assist all citizens to be productive, self-sufficient {as much as possible}, content human beings who value their government and what they can do for all citizens.

I do not think that is the purpose of government as much as it is society.  The purpose of government is to support/encourage a civil society and that includes supporting the public needs of said society (infrastructure, money, property rights, etc.) as well as defense, law-and-order, etc.

We need a country where we define skin in the game as people supporting the structure and institutions of the nation. We don't need hate groups, nationalist jingoism, or riots if people feel that they are being treated fairly. To me that is more important skin in the game than whether we bleed the poor with taxes they can't afford.

And of course bleeding the poor makes zero sense as a method of getting skin in the game.   Skin in the game means contribution, not punitive actions.  The ideal is that everyone contributes because everyone can provide value (everyone=functioning adults in working years).    Getting into a situation where we have recipients with no skin in the game and providers (with, of course, skin in the game) is unhealthy for pretty much everyone.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1.120  Texan1211  replied to  CB @3.1.114    4 weeks ago
Why? Some conservatives don't respect what is fair (for all); they respect power, influence, and (their own)authority.

Pointless talking to you when you won't even bother to try to understand a flat tax.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
3.1.121  CB   replied to  TᵢG @3.1.103    4 weeks ago

We must remember that people come first! Capitalism at its rawest (or best) will not be efficient if people are considered hindrances; nemeses. We must never devalue people! Why? Because people will revolt, and that means a waging of war on systems and networks that effectively will be 'starving' them of their freedoms, liberties, and prosperity. (Basic needs.)

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Junior Quiet
3.1.122  Jack_TX  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.80    4 weeks ago
The marginal tax rate for high earners has fluctuated quite a bit over the years. It was once over 70%.  I would say somewhere from 35% and up would be appropriate for the highest earners depending on what the experts could demonstrate was best. 

It's 37% now.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Junior Quiet
3.1.123  Jack_TX  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.108    4 weeks ago
If a family of four has one working parent and he or she makes 25,000 a year that family and that wage earner are poor.  If you tax him or her 2000

I'm not suggesting anything like a $2000 tax on such a family.

I do suggest that everybody should pay something.  It could be $50/yr.  

At no point should the US govt be "refunding" you than you paid in taxes, and that happens for millions of filers every year.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Junior Quiet
3.1.124  Jack_TX  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.92    4 weeks ago
My point is that it is important that we do not produce a society where people can live off public funds:

This.

I don't know how people miss the obvious observation that people will do what they get paid to do.  The easier the thing is, the less money it takes to get them to do it.

If you pay people to do nothing, you will find plenty of people willing to do that for money.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
3.1.125  CB   replied to  Ender @3.1.93    4 weeks ago

Also, payroll taxes collected quarterly draw interest amounts for the government that are not calculated or refunded to individual 'members' by the taxing authority: The U.S. Treasury.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.1.126  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @3.1.124    4 weeks ago
If you pay people to do nothing, you will find plenty of people willing to do that for money.

Worse, it will establish a trend in our society where not only is living off public funds acceptable but it will be deemed as honorable and smart.   I cannot think of a better way to screw up our socio-economic system than to enable an ever-growing portion of the electorate to happily live off of public funds without contributing back to society with their talents and work potential.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
3.1.127  CB   replied to  Ender @3.1.113    4 weeks ago

Problem is much work in the future will be done by "smart" and AI-minded machines.  (For example: Toll booths just got a lot 'smarter' when from coast to coast Transit Authorities were compelled to 'learn' how to bill 'direct' using cameras, toll receivers, and direct withdrawals for millions. What can we bet that those employees are going to be back on the job at the end of this mid-long pandemic?)

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.1.128  TᵢG  replied to  CB @3.1.127    4 weeks ago

Here is another example.   IBM's Watson technology is currently used to write legal briefs.   This is typically the job of associates (young lawyers) but still that is a step above simply automating a process.

As many knowledge workers (especially as this evolves to the high end) are automated out of a job our nation will be desperate to find employment.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Junior Quiet
3.1.129  Jack_TX  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.126    4 weeks ago
Worse, it will establish a trend in our society where not only is living off public funds acceptable but it will be deemed as honorable and smart.

It already has.

   I cannot think of a better way to screw up our socio-economic system than to enable an ever-growing portion of the electorate to happily live off of public funds without contributing back to society with their talents and work potential.

That's easy.  Convince them they deserve to live happily off of public funds while simultaneously convincing them that anybody who suggests otherwise is "shaming" them and must be stopped.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
3.1.130  CB   replied to  TᵢG @3.1.128    4 weeks ago

The future is becoming decidedly foreboding for the labor force. People are recasting their career paths due to the pandemic. Also, there is a 'disturbing' trend that has been going on since the digital age took off in earnest: Much information, training, and skill and certification data are being 'traded' on the world wide web for advertising dollars, influence, and 'celebrity.'  That is, whole sectors of schoolings and tech are finding themselves obsolete in a single 'generation.'

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
3.1.131  CB   replied to  Jack_TX @3.1.129    4 weeks ago

Just how much money do you think will be available for millions of people if everyone somehow and some (improbable) day 'floated' to the top (creme de la creme) and decided to be greedy ("cut-throat) capitalists?

Balance is the thing, yes!

There will always be people standing on the shoulders (or 'corpses') of other people to some degree. The thing is to keep order as a motivator and not let the country fall into a mindset that if one falls into squalor that one should live in rat-infested tenements for the duration or life's end or sat in 'piss and shit' while dining off food supplied from dumpsters and calling it "The American Way."

Some people, many people, would rather go out pillaging, robbing, and killing—first!

Be careful with the use of terms like "deserve" pejoratively. The citizens of this country strive for EQUITY even when they do not know the word or its meaning! And yet, capitalism at its zenith can be a dastardly and dangerous set of enterprises that takes no prisoners. Instead, chewing up and spitting out people who slip and fall into its gears.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
3.1.132  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.120    4 weeks ago

Texan, I give a 'flat tax's ass' if you don't discuss issues with me. And I am sorry it took me so long to get around to letting that be known. What is wrong with this country is this: Federal system versus states system.

All these red-states clamoring to be free of the federal system control over them. For me, it is 'haunting.' Why? Because without (major) federal oversight red states have evidences they will revert to nationalistic tendencies of old. Long story short: that is the problem here: A perpetual cycle of red-states trying to make a 'hodge-podge' of who/what winners are in our culture, society, and union. Irrespective of equity and what makes for 'happy' citizens as a whole.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Junior Quiet
3.1.133  Jack_TX  replied to  CB @3.1.131    4 weeks ago
Just how much money do you think will be available for millions of people if everyone somehow and some (improbable) day 'floated' to the top (creme de la creme) and decided to be greedy ("cut-throat) capitalists?

Why do you imagine people who accumulate wealth are greedy or cut-throat?

The thing is to keep order as a motivator and not let the country fall into a mindset that if one falls into squalor that one should live in rat-infested tenements for the duration or life's end or sat in 'piss and shit' while dining off food supplied from dumpsters and calling it "The American Way."

How about if we equip people with the tools they need to stay out of squalor in the first place?

Some people, many people, would rather go out pillaging, robbing, and killing—first!

The overwhelming majority of people would rather make their money honestly, and would if they knew how.

Be careful with the use of terms like "deserve" pejoratively.

I absolutely do.  Why should anyone "deserve" for other people to be compelled to pay their way?  If you "fall into squalor" as you say, our society may decide that it is in all our best interests to help you get back on a path to productivity.  But that has nothing to do with you "deserving" anything.

The citizens of this country strive for EQUITY even when they do not know the word or its meaning!

How do you define it?

And yet, capitalism at its zenith can be a dastardly and dangerous set of enterprises that takes no prisoners. Instead, chewing up and spitting out people who slip and fall into its gears.

That's why we regulate it, and why I support such regulations.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
3.1.134  CB   replied to  Jack_TX @3.1.133    3 weeks ago
Why do you imagine people who accumulate wealth are greedy or cut-throat?

That is not what I wrote or meant.

I said and mean it: There ARE GREEDY cut-throat capitalists at the top. And, they arrive up there through hook or crook because that is where the money is.  I hope you can parse the distinction.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
3.1.135  CB   replied to  Jack_TX @3.1.133    3 weeks ago
How about if we equip people with the tools they need to stay out of squalor in the first place?

Jack_TX, that's rhetoric. Like shouts of, "liberty" and "freedom" - how is that working for the nation? We have a whole political apparatus devoted to taking away liberty/ities and freedoms from their fellow citizens based on what they dislike about those liberties and freedoms. So tell, me when will it EVER be time to "equip people" to not be poor in the United States when some here do 'mortal' combat against others here?

(The grand-sized foolishness is staggering and out of proportion to the scale of intelligentsia (and massive wealth) in this country.)

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
3.1.136  CB   replied to  Jack_TX @3.1.133    3 weeks ago
Some people, many people, would rather go out pillaging, robbing, and killing—first!
The overwhelming majority of people would rather make their money honestly, and would if they knew how.

I guess you have to get these rhetorical matters out and I am okay with it. (Smile.)

People do want to make their money honestly. But in the future with automation and AI and little to work for - what else shall people when society wants to pay them sub-standard wages or not hire people at all or in sub-sufficient numbers?

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
3.1.137  CB   replied to  Jack_TX @3.1.133    3 weeks ago
The citizens of this country strive for EQUITY even when they do not know the word or its meaning!
How do you define it?

What-does-equity-mean--1024x560.jpg

People getting what they 'deserve' in a country that CARES for its citizens!

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Junior Quiet
3.1.138  Jack_TX  replied to  CB @3.1.135    3 weeks ago
Jack_TX, that's rhetoric. Like shouts of, "liberty" and "freedom" - how is that working for the nation? 

It is a statement of where I believe US policy should be going.  

The vast majority of our problems are related to the lack of earning power of many of our citizens, and ignorance about what to do with the money they do earn.

So tell, me when will it EVER be time to "equip people" to not be poor in the United States when some here do 'mortal' combat against others here.

That's a great question.

The greedy, cut throat capitalists you describe want very much for you not to be poor.  The more money you have, the more of their stuff you can buy.  

But when will we change what we do?  Probably never.  Americans demand to be told what we want to hear, and we do NOT want to hear any of the facts we'll have to acknowledge in order to address inequality. 

We don't want to hear that our schools are mismanaged dens of racism, the diplomas they've issued are worthless, and all those teachers that "gave us a break" were actually doing us harm.

We don't want to hear how much we really don't know about money, and how much work it will take to learn enough to actually get control of our own financial situations.

We don't want to hear that we cannot begin to address poverty and inequality until we acknowledge that poor people will have to change their thought processes and behaviors.

Above all, we don't want to hear that this is all going to be very, very hard work for a very, very long time.  

We would much rather hear that it's somebody else's fault and we can fix it all with somebody else's money.  The fact that's complete nonsense is just an inconvenient truth we're going to ignore.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
3.1.139  CB   replied to  Jack_TX @3.1.138    3 weeks ago

Again, rhetoric (aspiration, nevertheless.)  But, from this country's inception it is clear to me (and may be you and others) that our financial system "constitutionally leaned toward capitalism (or self-reliance). However, in reality, what occurred was capitalism tinged with racism, sexism, gender bias, tribalism, favoritism, and nepotism,  that 'robber barons,' trusts, monopolies, and corporations wrecked any order of the 'day.' Subsequently, standards, policies, rules and regulations, and yes even a progressive tax system became essential to the country's long-term survival.  That is, who would wish to live in this country, in its communities, without established and 'true' standards, policies, rules and regs, an a taxing system properly holding society together?

We don't know all that we should. It is not freely taught to us. Why? Because in this country certain populations detest mandates on education about a host of topics. These people shout: "Freedom!"  again: "Liberty!" At the most inappropriate of settings and demand attention in perpetuity!

Thus, and accordingly, the people 'perish.' That is, we have millions indulging in lives of ignorance, misery, and okay—varying levels of luck and OPPORTUNITY.

It is going to be very hard work, and lo and behold, look at congress with the power to affect change and yet is 'neutered' to begin this laborious and generational tasking. All while some people eat the 'fat' belonging by birth to many, many, others!

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Junior Quiet
3.1.140  Jack_TX  replied to  CB @3.1.139    3 weeks ago
Again, rhetoric (aspiration, nevertheless.)  But, from this country's inception it is clear to me (and may be you and others) that our financial system "constitutionally leaned toward capitalism (or self-reliance). However, in reality, what occurred was capitalism tinged with racism, sexism, gender bias, tribalism, favoritism, and nepotism,  that 'robber barons,' trusts, monopolies, and corporations wrecked any order of the 'day.' Subsequently, standards, policies, rules and regulations, and yes even a progressive tax system became essential to the country's long-term survival.  That is, who would wish to live in this country, in its communities, without established and 'true' standards, policies, rules and regs, an a taxing system properly holding society together? We don't know all that we should. It is not freely taught to us.

I agree with everything so far.

Why? Because in this country certain populations detest mandates on education about a host of topics. These people shout: "Freedom!"  again: "Liberty!" At the most inappropriate of settings and demand attention in perpetuity!

No.  We're not taught the things we should know because the educational institutions would have to massively overhaul what they do and how they do it.  But they are run by people who sought out that job in large part because it never involves any change.

Thus, and accordingly, the people 'perish.' That is, we have millions indulging in lives of ignorance, misery, and okay—varying levels of luck and OPPORTUNITY.

We're back in agreement.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Junior Quiet
3.2  Jack_TX  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @3    4 weeks ago
If the Trump-inspired January 6th attempted insurrection and Trump's incompetent governance and narcissist behaviour didn't cause the failure of America's democratic society, nothing will,

I have been saying "we will be fine" since the night he was elected.  

We survived LBJ.  We survived Nixon.  We survived Andrew Jackson and Andrew Johnson.  

The powers of the presidency are limited by design.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.2.1  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @3.2    4 weeks ago
The powers of the presidency are limited by design.  

Exactly.   People presume far too much power exists in the office when in reality it remains limited.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
3.2.2  CB   replied to  TᵢG @3.2.1    4 weeks ago

We have a whole political party 'coup' double-down effectively having in slow-motion as republicans give their institutional power and influence over to a 'lunatic-'genius' who is more than a figurehead. Triple-down if the courts 'lay-down' before Trump. We will practically become a nation hoisted on its own petard: A nation which talks good rhetoric about liberties and freedoms, when all it;s really after is control and theft of and from whole swathes of the citizenry!

If this country was serious about liberties and freedoms and rule of law,  Donald J. Trump would have been sat down, shut-down, and told to never be heard from again. However, the jig is up and known. There are forces rising in this country that want nationalistic tendencies mainstream (as in the beginning of this 'experiment' in inviting diverse multitudes to exist in one place.) once more.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
3.2.3  CB   replied to  Jack_TX @3.2    4 weeks ago

Can we survive a repeat of nationalism? This country has no GOP! It is done. Trump is pushing GOPers out of the party, single-mindedly. What this thing is in its place? Somebody needs to tell us! 

Former GOP members are sitting in the bleachers or getting on with their lives.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.2.4  Texan1211  replied to  CB @3.2.3    4 weeks ago
This country has no GOP! It is done.

What a fantastical false claim on the heels of the GOP having a very successful run last Tuesday.

Say, do you think Virginia Democrats think as you do--that they got beat by a nonexistent, irrelevant party?

You are close saying Democrats were so bad they couldn't beat their way out of a wet paper bag.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Junior Quiet
3.2.5  Jack_TX  replied to  CB @3.2.3    4 weeks ago
Can we survive a repeat of nationalism?

Absolutely.

Former GOP members are sitting in the bleachers or getting on with their lives.

I would agree with that to some degree. 

But that's how the system is designed to work. If one party or group moves too far away from the mainstream, their supporters defect and go elsewhere.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
3.2.6  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @3.2.4    4 weeks ago

Your comment is hasty. That's all. You are not in the GOP, Texan. I don't yet know what is the appropriate title for your 'outfit' but I am sure you will let me know when it is declared and certified.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
3.2.7  CB   replied to  Jack_TX @3.2.5    4 weeks ago

Republicans have left their 'first love.' Pray for them to return and kick this five-year 'riff-raff' out on its nationalist butts:

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.2.8  Texan1211  replied to  CB @3.2.6    4 weeks ago
Your comment is hasty.

Hasty? Tuesday's elections are a done deal. Not hasty at all, how absurd!

You are not in the GOP, Texan. I don't yet know what is the appropriate title for your 'outfit' but I am sure you will let me know when it is declared and certified.

Choose to deny reality if you must.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
3.2.9  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @3.2.8    4 weeks ago

And choose to adorn bull patty  as comment 'enhancements' if you must.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.2.10  Texan1211  replied to  CB @3.2.9    4 weeks ago

Just addressing your rather BIZARRE claims.

If you don't wish me to address them, you can stop making wild, false claims or stop addressing your comments to me.

Your choice.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Junior Quiet
3.2.11  Jack_TX  replied to  CB @3.2.7    4 weeks ago
Republicans have left their 'first love.'

I don't disagree with that.

The question will be whether or not they are able to move beyond Trump and return to reasonable practices without re-disenfranchising the working class voters who put Trump in the WH in the first place.

The Virginia governor's race gave them the start of a road map, but we'll see if they're able to fill in the rest.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
3.2.12  CB   replied to  Jack_TX @3.2.11    3 weeks ago

Yes, 'those people' need to 'fix' themselves. They have got it bad, and win or lose - that ain't good!

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4  Vic Eldred    4 weeks ago

 The Republicans won Virginia, almost won New Jersey, and made local gains all through the country arguing from the side of untruths and poking the fingers of blame on the inaction of Democrats. 

You even got that wrong. Virginia is now a red state and democrats got beat nationwide not because of their inaction, but because of their actions. Defund the police candidates and measures were defeated in Seattle & Portland. In NYC it was the law & order candidate (a democrat) that won. In New Jersey Gov Murphey, who was favored in a monmouth poll by 8 points, barely hung on to his job and there was no issue of CRT in that election. You see, it's because of what democrats have done. We have open borders and any honest human being can see that it was deliberate. We have run-away inflation, a rise in crime in major cities and an abandonment of the nation's brief experience at being a self sufficient energy producer. The bill democrats are so giddy about passing is only about 10% for infrastructure, yet it is another $Trillion dollar spending bill. The other bill waiting in the wings is actually Sanders Green New Deal AKA the Build Back Better Deal.

The reason democrats are going to get their heads handed to them in 2022 and 2024 is because 1) they had no mandate to do what they have done and 2) Biden and his fellow democrats have allowed the radical left to run things. All of Biden's first 10 months have been an exercise in radical rule.  That's why.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @4    4 weeks ago

Your propaganda is nothing but far right talking points. 

If the "far left" is running the Biden presidency, why did the progressives in effect surrender to the "moderate" position on the infrastructure vote. 

And there are no "far left" proposals presented in the Build Back Better legislation. Most of the proposals are approved of by a majority of the American people, according to polling. 

Vic, is a proposal to provide funding so that poor senior citizens can get their teeth fixed a "far left" proposal to you? 

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Masters Principal
5  Nerm_L    4 weeks ago

Obviously Democrats want to focus on national politics and completely ignore that the Republican Party won the 2020 election down ballot.  The 2021 off year elections only continued the down ballot success of the Republican Party.  Republicans winning down ballot has become a trend.

Democrats have focused their attention on Wall Street and have ignored Main Street.  Democrats have pinned the future of the country onto the prospects (and prosperity) of globalized big finance and business.  Democrats have become the party of big tech and big money.  Big pharma is the solution for the pandemic; just throw more money.  Big tech is the solution for climate change; just throw more money.  Big finance is the solution for poverty; just throw more money.  Big payouts is the solution for injustice; just throw more money.  And all that money is intended to trickle up to the very rich.

Democrats view the people of the United States (citizen and non-citizen alike) as dollar signs.  Democrats are using the people of the United States to pass public money to big finance, big business, and the very rich.  People aren't constituents, people are pass throughs that aren't even allowed to handle the money before it is put into the pockets of the very rich.  Democrats have taken neoliberalism to an obscene level of favoring the rich.  Even neoliberal Gordon Gekko Republicans, at their worst, were not as lavish with trickling up public money to the very rich. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
5.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Nerm_L @5    4 weeks ago

Not a fucking word in your rant about how great Republicans are. The last two of your paragraphs are ENTIRELY about how bad you think Democrats are.

Tell us, when was the last time the Republican Party did anything for the poor and working classes, and even the middle class, in America? 

 
 
 
Greg Jones
PhD Expert
5.1.1  Greg Jones  replied to  JohnRussell @5.1    4 weeks ago

the doctor wrote: "Not because the ideas of the Democratic Party are bad, but we continue to destroy the good in search of the perfect."

No...the ideas and schemes of the Democratic Party are really bad, and a growing threat to our democracy and freedoms. They can't govern and  haven't done anything lately for the poor and working classes, or even the middle class, in America? 

 

      
 
 
 
Nerm_L
Masters Principal
5.1.2  Nerm_L  replied to  JohnRussell @5.1    4 weeks ago
Not a fucking word in your rant about how great Republicans are. The last two of your paragraphs are ENTIRELY about how bad you think Democrats are. Tell us, when was the last time the Republican Party did anything for the poor and working classes, and even the middle class, in America? 

Relief checks sent directly to households during the pandemic in 2019.  Those checks weren't tax credits.  And people could use the money however they wished.

Those relief checks dramatically lowered poverty in the United States.  And those relief checks were paid for, in part, by capping SALT deductions.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
5.1.3  JohnRussell  replied to  Nerm_L @5.1.2    4 weeks ago

They had no choice. 

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Masters Principal
5.1.4  Nerm_L  replied to  JohnRussell @5.1.3    4 weeks ago
They had no choice. 

Pandemic relief sailed through a Republican controlled Senate.  Twice.  And there weren't any strings attached.

Pandemic relief wasn't anything like the TARP crap that Democrats approved.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.1.5  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @5.1.3    4 weeks ago
They had no choice. 

That is certainly not true.

 
 
 
thedoctorisinthehouse
Freshman Guide
5.1.6  author  thedoctorisinthehouse  replied to  Greg Jones @5.1.1    4 weeks ago

Which ideas are bad? Allowing medicare to negotiate prices with drug companies? Pre-school education for all? Community college for those who want to better themselves? Infrastructure repairs and upgrades? Voter rights for every American citizen? None of those seem like bad ideas to me. They also don't seem to be bad ideas in every democracy in the world. 

Argue policy, not talking points.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Masters Principal
5.1.7  Nerm_L  replied to  thedoctorisinthehouse @5.1.6    4 weeks ago
Which ideas are bad? Allowing medicare to negotiate prices with drug companies? Pre-school education for all? Community college for those who want to better themselves? Infrastructure repairs and upgrades? Voter rights for every American citizen? None of those seem like bad ideas to me. They also don't seem to be bad ideas in every democracy in the world.  Argue policy, not talking points.

Implementation matters.  It's not just the idea that must be considered.  Good ideas can also be used to justify paying political debts to donors, shuttling public money into incumbent districts, and for creating haves and have nots.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Junior Quiet
5.1.8  Jack_TX  replied to  JohnRussell @5.1.3    4 weeks ago
They had no choice. 

Of course they did.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Junior Quiet
5.1.9  Jack_TX  replied to  thedoctorisinthehouse @5.1.6    4 weeks ago
Which ideas are bad? 

A $12.5k freebie for affluent families to buy electric vehicles. (poor families can't afford them even with the credit)

$150b clean electricity program to pay utility companies for something they're already doing anyway.  

Adding expenses to Medicare while doing nothing to address the looming insolvency, and failing to address that the program already taxes the poor to pay for the wealthy.

Giving $3k/yr per child to people already making $150k.

If you favor abolishing the SALT cap, you look a bit silly if you complain about any Republican ever " cutting taxes for the wealthy".

Community college is already free almost everywhere in America through either a Pell Grant or an AOTC.  If someone didn't bother to look that up or they can't manage to fill out the paperwork, college may not be the best decision.  If you make too much to get an AOTC, shut up and write the check, FFS.

The whole structure relies on the idea that corporations won't simply pass tax increases through to consumers and that wealthy people with access to high-end tax professionals are somehow magically just going to pay hundreds of billions of additional taxes.

 
 
 
thedoctorisinthehouse
Freshman Guide
5.1.10  author  thedoctorisinthehouse  replied to  Jack_TX @5.1.9    4 weeks ago

Look up the 100 most affordable community colleges in the country. They are not free.....much lower cost than 4 year schools....but not free. It's hard to imagine those in poverty having the abiltiy to pay 6-10,000 a year for community college.

Below are the first 10 on the list of most affordable community colleges in the country. 

School Name Tuition and Fees (In-state) Average Net Cost
San Bernardino Valley College
San Berndardino, CA
$1,238 $7,655
American River College
Sacramento, CA
$1,104 $7,838
Chabot College
Hayward, CA
$1,138 $7,410
Cosumnes River College
Sacramento, CA
$1,104 $9,231
Feather River Community College District
Quincy, CA
$1,446 $9,254
Folsom Lake College
Folsom, CA
$1,104 $10,660
Curtis Institute of Music
Philadelphia, PA
$2,475 $6,751
City College of San Francisco
San Francisco, CA
$1,290 $4,865
Southwestern Indian Polytechnic Institute
Albuquerque, NM
$1,095 $9,222
Sacramento City College
Sacramento, CA
$1,104 $7,659
 
 
 
Jack_TX
Junior Quiet
5.1.11  Jack_TX  replied to  thedoctorisinthehouse @5.1.10    4 weeks ago
Below are the first 10 on the list of most affordable community colleges in the country. 

You appear to be looking at "average net cost"... which of course includes room and board and assumes students do not live at home. 

You are no doubt aware the Biden plan wasn't going to pay for any of that anyway.

Truly poor students with very low EFCs already qualify for a Pell Grant.  Those max out at about $6500, which is far more than the tuition at most community colleges.  Pell Grants also can be used for room and board, books, new laptops, or any other school related expense.

Students with higher EFCs who may not qualify for a Pell Grant will qualify for an AOTC up to $2500 unless their single parents make more than $90k or their married parents make more than $180k. 

If you get a Pell Grant you can still get an AOTC, maxing out at $9k total per student per year.

If you make more than $90k/yr, you can damn well write a $1k check every 6 months if something is important to you.

None of that considers any of the tens of thousands of private scholarships that are awarded based on financial need every year, or the tens of thousands more that are awarded based on academic or other criteria.

It's hard to imagine those in poverty having the abiltiy to pay 6-10,000 a year for community college.

It's hard to imagine a kid who won't spend an hour in the financial aid office or an hour Googling "how do I pay for community college" enjoying a whole lot of academic success at the collegiate level.

 
 
 
thedoctorisinthehouse
Freshman Guide
5.1.12  author  thedoctorisinthehouse  replied to  Nerm_L @5.1.7    4 weeks ago

You're at least partially in agreement with me. Good ideas can often be used for bad purposes. The problem we face now on both sides of the political aisle is that good ideas fail not because they can't be negotiated to reach goals each party is supposed to have, but because they are decided on partisan lines. The infrastructure bill is a good example. Its been reported that the Republicans are looking to strip committee assignments from those members who voted for the infrastructure bill, not because the bill is bad {many of the Republicans in the House have said they support it}, but because they were afraid to give Biden the victory. Wouldn't it make more sense to put partisanship aside for a while and support bills that are good for the nation.

Neither side should worry about not having enough partisan issues to fight over. There will be bills introduced on gun rights, choice issues, tax policy, etc. that the parties have genuinely contrarian views. Debate those policies in the House and Senate, but don't let the good rot on the vine because partisanship gets in the way of good legislation..

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Masters Principal
5.1.13  Nerm_L  replied to  thedoctorisinthehouse @5.1.12    4 weeks ago
You're at least partially in agreement with me. Good ideas can often be used for bad purposes. The problem we face now on both sides of the political aisle is that good ideas fail not because they can't be negotiated to reach goals each party is supposed to have, but because they are decided on partisan lines. The infrastructure bill is a good example. Its been reported that the Republicans are looking to strip committee assignments from those members who voted for the infrastructure bill, not because the bill is bad {many of the Republicans in the House have said they support it}, but because they were afraid to give Biden the victory. Wouldn't it make more sense to put partisanship aside for a while and support bills that are good for the nation.

Biden pushed infrastructure only to obtain a political win; what's in the legislation is less important than simply passing something that Biden proposed to show 'leadership'.  And the infrastructure legislation includes bad ideas as well as good ideas since it is an omnibus piece of legislation.   As we've seen, a few good ideas are being used politically to justify passing the omnibus bill that includes a number of bad ideas.

The political argument is that the electorate has to settle.  Getting the good ideas requires compromising acceptance of the bad ideas.  Anytime a President or Congress proposes omnibus legislation then, be assured, the purpose is to turn bad ideas into law.  A few good ideas are used as political leverage to enact a lot of bad ideas.

The parts of the infrastructure law supporting electric vehicles means we are locked into current technology and will have to live with that for a long time.  Electric vehicles are still in the developmental stage; the technology has not had time to mature yet.  And the Federal deployment of current technology establishes a barrier for innovation and improvement.  Electric vehicles will be required to be compatible with Federal charging stations.

The politicians want an immediate political win.  Big business wants the money now instead of going through development to maturity.  And a good idea has been transformed into a barrier and a future problem.  And the electorate will wave their little 'woke' flags and be oblivious to the fact that they've been screwed.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Masters Principal
5.1.14  Nerm_L  replied to  thedoctorisinthehouse @5.1.12    4 weeks ago
Neither side should worry about not having enough partisan issues to fight over. There will be bills introduced on gun rights, choice issues, tax policy, etc. that the parties have genuinely contrarian views. Debate those policies in the House and Senate, but don't let the good rot on the vine because partisanship gets in the way of good legislation..

IMO, the overwhelming majority of people think banning guns is a bad idea.  IMO, the overwhelming majority of people think no controls on guns is a bad idea.

Politics is forcing the public to choose between two bad ideas.  Why wouldn't that be divisive?  

 
 
 
thedoctorisinthehouse
Freshman Guide
5.1.15  author  thedoctorisinthehouse  replied to  Nerm_L @5.1.14    4 weeks ago

Of course that would be divisive. I'm a Democrat who believes in the right to own arms. I am for legislation that does something to keep guns out of the hands of those who abuse that right, or for people with certain past felonies. Gun ownership, to me, is a right that should be controlled much as licensing to drive a motor vehicle. I want stronger and more enforceable laws against gang violence. The one thing that I have learned in my almost 75 years on this planet is that no right is absolute. Acceptable points of concurrence need to be found. That is what governance is. Nobody is happy because nobody gets everything, but everybody is happy because everybody gets something. I would like to see our representatives at the federal, state, and local levels get back to doing the hard job of governance.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
5.1.16  CB   replied to  thedoctorisinthehouse @5.1.15    4 weeks ago
I would like to see our representatives at the federal, state, and local levels get back to doing the hard job of governance.

Emphatically.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Junior Quiet
6  Jack_TX    4 weeks ago
Partisanship aside, 

Why is it that this phrase is almost always followed by raving partisanship?

The real pity here is that Manchin has taken the position of the Republican Party

The real pity is that when a Democrat stood up and tried to be the adult in the room and argue for responsible governance, huge sections of Democrats treated him like the anti-Christ.

You can be a progressive, moderate, or even a conservative and vote on major issues accordingly without any fear of reprisal from the leadership. There is an actual effort to open up a big tent for their caucus.

Democrats have a long history of not being able to tell any other Democrat that his or her idea is moronic, so moronic ideas abound, which pushes centrist voters away.

The Republicans won Virginia, almost won New Jersey, and made local gains all through the country arguing from the side of untruths and poking the fingers of blame on the inaction of Democrats.

No.... They won Virginia, almost won NJ, and will probably clean up in 2022 because every time a Democrat takes the WH, the far looney leftists come out from wherever they've been hiding, declare a referendum in favor of their insanity, and demand that the rest of us pay all their bills.

American voters roll their eyes and remind the president in question that he was elected as a centrist and NOT because we all wanted a mandatory switch to vegan cheeseburgers or some other such foolishness.

 
 
 
thedoctorisinthehouse
Freshman Guide
6.1  author  thedoctorisinthehouse  replied to  Jack_TX @6    4 weeks ago

LOL! Are you trying to tell us that the Republican party is centrist? It isn't right, left or center. It is an ideological wasteland that seems to get people elected by publicly divesting itself from Trump and then tee-heeing to each other when they are elected and govern like Mussolini. Do you consider Abbot a centrist? How about Marjorie Taylor Greene, or Paul Gosar, or some of the others in the lunatic fringe that want to pass themselves off as politicians. We need some intellectual honesty here.....The modern Republican party is dominated by the extreme. Any party that has a prominent member picking fights with Big Bird has gone off the deep end.

 
 
 
Lucifer Morningstar
Professor Guide
6.1.1  Lucifer Morningstar  replied to  thedoctorisinthehouse @6.1    4 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
6.1.2  Tessylo  replied to  thedoctorisinthehouse @6.1    4 weeks ago

Gosar recently posted some hateful evil shit with some anime cartoon or some such bullshit depicting killing Ms. Ocasio-Cortez - and this is what passes for republican leadership these days.  The gqp/gop are evil scum.  

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Junior Quiet
6.1.3  Jack_TX  replied to  thedoctorisinthehouse @6.1    4 weeks ago
LOL! Are you trying to tell us that the Republican party is centrist?

No.  Which is why the Democrats control the House, Senate and WH.

But we're seeing the repeat of 1994 and 2010.  

Far too many Democrats are operating under the misplaced hubris that their return to power was some sort of endorsement of their ideas.  It wasn't.  It was a rejection of Donald Trump.  Full stop.

For his part, Trump made the same mistake, believing his election was all about him and not understanding how much it was about rejection of Hillary.

Being "not Trump" was enough to get Democrats elected, and "not fucking it up" would enough to keep them in office, but they can't stop themselves.

 
 
 
Lucifer Morningstar
Professor Guide
7  Lucifer Morningstar    4 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Lucifer Morningstar
Professor Guide
8  Lucifer Morningstar    4 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
MalamuteMan
Professor Participates
9  MalamuteMan    one week ago

"I belong to no organized political party, I'm a Democrat."

So true... Sadly, it seems we are going down with little more than a whimper.

If I didn't know better {and I don't}, I would think that Manchin is maneuvering to turn Republican and challenge Mitch McConnell for the leadership of the Republican Party.

Actually, I have been wondering for some time whether he is, and has always been, a Republican mole... Planted amongst Democratic ranks for a moment just like this...

Cheers,
Mal