Jump to content
~*Please Support the GoFundMe Campaign for HardAct*~ Read more... ×
Sign in to follow this  
mikechorney

Proving That Democrats Are Actively Trying To Lose The Next Election

Recommended Posts

On 1/6/2019 at 12:58 PM, SFLUFAN said:

She's going easy.

 

I'm in favor of a 100% marginal tax rate on income over $5 million.

 

 

This and a wealth tax

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It felt to me like she was speaking mostly off the cuff. She doesn't currently have a plan to pay for the Green New Deal and merely suggested that a 70% marginal rate for income over $10M would be a place to start. Considering that only affects the top .05% (I think), that doesn't seem unreasonable. It wouldn't be enough for everything, but it's a place to begin a conversation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/6/2019 at 11:58 AM, mikechorney said:

If energizing the base means a move into Democratic Socialism, there is no chance to win the next election.  Neither the Rebublican, nor the Democratic base  is big enough to win the election.  Appealing to moderate independants is needed.

 

No they aren't needed, and even if they are, they'll come towards the populist messages, not away from. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, RedSoxFan9 said:

 

This and a wealth tax

Care to define a "wealth tax"?  Do you mean something different to the estate tax?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, SFLUFAN said:

Care to define a "wealth tax"?  Do you mean something different to the estate tax?

 

Something like Norway has

 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/07/31/trump-1999-wealth-tax-lower-deficits-reduce-inequality-column/826224002/

Quote

France has a solidarity tax of 0.5 to 1.5 percent on net assets of more than 800,000 euros for those with a net worth greater than 1.3 million euros. Norway taxes net assets over 1.48 million kroners at the rate of 0.85 percent. Spain has a wealth tax of 0.2 to 3.75 percent on net assets over 700,000 euros (excluding 300,000 euros for a primary residence). Argentina taxes net assets of 1.050 million pesos at a rate of 0.25 percent.

 

the imbecile had a good idea too

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, RedSoxFan9 said:

OK - I figured that's what it meant.

 

Florida used to have an "intangible assets tax" which operated in a similar manner, but only one intangible assets such as stocks, bonds, mutual funds, etc. that were not part of a retirement account.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Greatoneshere said:

 

No they aren't needed, and even if they are, they'll come towards the populist messages, not away from. 

Democratic Socialism (with the essential difference between Communism is that the government is democratic, as opposed to authoritarian) is not a populist message, at least not  in the U.S.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, mikechorney said:

Democratic Socialism (with the essential difference between Communism is that the government is democratic, as opposed to authoritarian) is not a populist message, at least not  in the U.S.

 

I'm talking about what AOC's platform policies are. It doesn't matter if anyone calls her a democratic socialist, everyone will agree with the messaging. That's clear given how quickly both Bernie in 2016 and AOC in 2018 became popular. Also see: Gillum, O'Rourke, Ro Khanna, etc. Enough compromising to win invisible moderate independent votes.

 

Bernie would have beat Trump (in my opinion) for this very reason. Both were populists, for very different reasons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Greatoneshere said:

 

I'm talking about what AOC's platform policies are. It doesn't matter if anyone calls her a democratic socialist, everyone will agree with the messaging. That's clear given how quickly both Bernie in 2016 and AOC in 2018 became popular. Also see: Gillum, O'Rourke, Ro Khanna, etc. 

Bernie and AOC are only popular within left leaning circles.  AOC's messaging is scary to anyone who has half a brain when it comes to Economics.  And only continues to further polarize the Democratic party, and disenfranchise moderate independents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, mikechorney said:

Bernie and AOC are only popular within left leaning circles.  AOC's messaging is scary to anyone who has half a brain when it comes to Economics.  And only continues to further polarize the Democratic party, and disenfranchise moderate independents.

 

Bernie is the most popular politician in DC in terms of followings, only popular in left leaning circles? 

 

By popularity I meant how well known they've become, not how well liked they are, and as we've seen with Trump, populists don't need to be well liked by everyone to win, they just need to be well known. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, mikechorney said:

Bernie and AOC are only popular within left leaning circles.

 

Bernie is the most popular active politician in the US

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, mikechorney said:

AOC's messaging is scary to anyone who has half a brain when it comes to Economics.

Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman would like a word about that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Greatoneshere said:

 

Bernie is the most popular politician in DC in terms of followings, only popular in left leaning circles? 

 

By popularity I meant how well known they've become, not how well liked they are, and as we've seen with Trump, populists don't need to be well liked by everyone to win, they just need to be well known. 

You're referring to familiarity, not popularity.  Those are two very different concepts.  Popularity refers to how favourable someone is viewed.  People need to be viewed favourably to win an election.

59 minutes ago, RedSoxFan9 said:

 

Bernie is the most popular active politician in the US

Source?

56 minutes ago, SFLUFAN said:

Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman would like a word about that.

My comments were more general than taxation.  I was thinking more general to her POV on things such as zero-emissions by 2030, and tuition free and a single payer health care system -- which all can't be funded by a 70% tax on the rich (nor by diverting non-traceable transactions at the Pentagon).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, mikechorney said:

Source?

 

2017 - https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/bernie-sanders-most-popular-politician-poll-trump-favorability-a7913306.html

2017 - https://www.newsweek.com/bernie-sanders-most-popular-politician-655315

2017 - https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/xww4ek/bernie-sanders-is-the-most-popular-politician-in-america-poll-says-vgtrn (Notably he is the only national politician with an approval rating above 50%)

2018 - https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/bernie-sanders-popular-politician_us_58f921f2e4b018a9ce599bde?ec_carp=3660506294028522888

2018 - https://morningconsult.com/2018/04/12/americas-most-and-least-popular-senators/ (of just Senators)

 

Basically he posts favourable ratings between 57% and 72%, and is often the only one with a majority who approves of him. It seems that lately Biden is coming close, though.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, CitizenVectron said:

In a poll last year, 76% of American voters said they would not vote for a socialist.

I'll clarify what I said earlier, because it was poorly said.  AOC and Bernie's views on the future of America are only popular among left wing Americans.  Both would be unelectable (in the short-term) as President.  Socialist views and rhetoric only hurt the Democratic parties chances of taking the Senate and Presidency.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rather than tank election prospects it would appear that she’s juiced legitimate discussions over a) what marginal tax rates are, b) what is really appropriate, c) whether it’s enough, d) a reminder of America’s prosperous past with high top marginal rates, and e) skewering Republican’s decades long disinformation campaign to confuse people over how they get taxed. 

 

It would seem that rather than harming Democrats chances she eating the republicans for fucking lunch. This is how I want all Democrats talking to the media. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, mikechorney said:

In a poll last year, 76% of American voters said they would not vote for a socialist.

I'll clarify what I said earlier, because it was poorly said.  AOC and Bernie's views on the future of America are only popular among left wing Americans.  Both would be unelectable (in the short-term) as President.  Socialist views and rhetoric only hurt the Democratic parties chances of taking the Senate and Presidency.

The Left Right divide is bullshit, it's "America is great as it is!" vs "Let's get shit done after just talking about it for decades". Since Medicare for All is the only big idea on the table regarding healthcare, is has insane support both Left and Right. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Anathema- said:

Rather than tank election prospects it would appear that she’s juiced legitimate discussions over a) what marginal tax rates are, b) what is really appropriate, c) whether it’s enough, d) a reminder of America’s prosperous past with high top marginal rates, and e) skewering Republican’s decades long disinformation campaign to confuse people over how they get taxed. 

 

It would seem that rather than harming Democrats chances she eating the republicans for fucking lunch. This is how I want all Democrats talking to the media. 

Party wide ban on all Corporate money and donations over $100 is the only way that'll happen. How many calls do you think Pelosi got from angry DNC donors telling her to "reign in" AOC?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Jwheel86 said:

Party wide ban on all Corporate money and donations over $100 is the only way that'll happen. How many calls do you think Pelosi got from angry DNC donors telling her to "reign in" AOC?

 

Thats false. Plenty of dems aren’t immediately and irrevocably corrupted by a five figure donation but will take it because it’s fucking stupid not to. Besides, I don’t see any history of pelosi ever reigning in her caucus and it’d be dumb of her to try. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tired: a tax on wealth

 

Wired: asset forfeiture on wealth until proven it wasn't gained via illegal or criminal means. :cool:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

Tired: a tax on wealth

 

Wired: asset forfeiture on wealth until proven it wasn't gained via illegal or criminal means. :cool:

 

...back two generations 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mikechorney said:

In a poll last year, 76% of American voters said they would not vote for a socialist.

I'll clarify what I said earlier, because it was poorly said.  AOC and Bernie's views on the future of America are only popular among left wing Americans.  Both would be unelectable (in the short-term) as President.  Socialist views and rhetoric only hurt the Democratic parties chances of taking the Senate and Presidency.

 

Americans hate the word socialism, but support many socialist policies. It's the same way they hate being called racist, but love being racist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Moderate independents are overall fans of taxing the rich and a clean environment. If we're suggesting that taxing rich people like we used to in the 50s (actually less than we did IIRC) is communism or close to it, then somehow we were a democratic socialist country in the 50s and I missed it.

 

I don't know why Republicans/conservatives/libertarians always give advice on how Democrats should win and not scare off independents and what not to talk about. Apparently Dems were supposed to lose again to them before nabbing 350 state legislative seats, 8 governors' mansions, and 41+ House seats in the past two years despite a bunch of them touting Medicare-for-All and pro-environment policies to counter the really shitty anti-business/anti-economy/loose regulation policy that's been shitting up the environment and scaring people away from areas that need a good environment to thrive. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/6/2019 at 10:29 AM, mikechorney said:

Ocasio-Cortez Suggests 70% Ultra-Rich Tax Could Pay for Climate Plan

 

If you're trying to scare independent moderates away from voting Democrat, the best way is to scare people with talk of huge tax hikes and that Democratic Socialism is part of the party dogma.

 

She is dumb.  Not as dumb as Trump, but stupid all the same.  

Why waste your time here?  Its a marxist circle jerk echo chamber.  (Not sure if I got the order correct though).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Massdriver said:
Quote

In short, the oft-repeated claim of spiraling inequality in the United States is a myth, premised on outdated statistics and poor historical analysis.

Throw this trash out.

 

The rich benefit most from government. They need to pay more. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At one point the article simply says rich people will commit tax evasion.

 

Best part of it might be the second of 2 comments left on the article, calling it the ramblings of an unhinged incel, lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Mithan said:

 

She is dumb.  Not as dumb as Trump, but stupid all the same.  

Why waste your time here?  Its a marxist circle jerk echo chamber.  (Not sure if I got the order correct though).

 

Being from Canada, you should know that what the Americans here are hoping for is still to the right of what Canada has had for what, 50+ years? True our university isn't totally free, but it's very heavily subsidized (and free in many provinces if you are under a certain family income), and we have universal healthcare. Canada is a much better place to live as a result, on average.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Massdriver said:

 

The counter-argument has been that they didn't "really" pay that much because of tax evasion. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, SaysWho? said:

 

The counter-argument has been that they didn't "really" pay that much because of tax evasion. 

The actual rate was more around 42 percent. There were always ways back then to write off just about anything. Politicians are not really about getting the riches money, they just want uneducated voters to think they are hosing the rich.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone also forgets that back then it didn't matter what the tax rate was the rest of the industrialized world was blown to shit and we were the only game in town. Thats all gone now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×