Is this country just fucked going forward?

[L.T. Fan]

Just saw a meme on facebook that actually makes sense. It certainly makes you think, and fits right it to the theme of this thread.

It said... "How fucked as a country are we when half the population is truly pissed off that our President was proven NOT to be a traitor?"

Yep. A true indicator of hate before American loyalty. It’s a sad commentary that some people would rather fortiet the loyalty for self serving preferences.

 

[2233boys]

Just saw a meme on facebook that actually makes sense. It certainly makes you think, and fits right it to the theme of this thread.

It said... "How fucked as a country are we when half the population is truly pissed off that our President was proven NOT to be a traitor?"

I hate the President, I think he is a fool, liar and an embarrassment. However I am glad that he wasn't a traitor. I would suspect most people feel that way.

 

[Cotton]

Just saw a meme on facebook that actually makes sense. It certainly makes you think, and fits right it to the theme of this thread.

It said... "How fucked as a country are we when half the population is truly pissed off that our President was proven NOT to be a traitor?"

That's so true. In that same vein, this morning I'm wandering through the living room and saw the news talking about how Trump was not going to allow Devos to cut funding to the Special Olympics. Didn't think much about it, but even after making coffee and getting my lunch together, they were still talking about it. I thought, wow they sure are spending a lot of time on something good Trump did. Walk back in the living room where I can actually hear, and the theme was "Trump's administration is dysfunctional". No fucking wonder they spent so much time on the story. I have said all along, Trump could cure cancer and the media would report it as, "Trump is overpopulating the planet".

 

[Chocolate Lab]

Yep. "Trump puts thousands of anti-cancer scientists and advocates out of a job."

There's no doubt about it.

 

[Cotton]

Yep. "Trump puts thousands of anti-cancer scientists and advocates out of a job."

There's no doubt about it.

It's just become silly at this point.

 

[bbgun]

On March 25[SUP]th[/SUP], the National Guard Bureau officially announced new branding for recruiting. The traditional “Minuteman” logo will no longer appear on recruiting materials. It was reported that the image did not “resonate” with 16-18-year-old high school students because of lack of knowledge of the historic symbol. Concerns were also expressed that iconic figure from American history wasn’t “inclusive.” Furthermore, due to “no tolerance” policies concerning the display of images of firearms in schools, the traditional Minuteman logo could not be displayed due to inclusion of an 18[SUP]th[/SUP] century flintlock rifle. Now the National Guard will be represented by a lackluster shield shaped black logo with white and gold lettering. The new recruiting videos will focus primarily on the National Guard’s domestic mission of natural disaster relief.

 

[Chocolate Lab]

That seriously reads like something from the Onion.

 

[Simpleton]

Nothing makes me laugh more than the boogeyman of "socialism", probably half of this country immediately starts imagining 1965 communist Russia anytime they hear "socialism". I've talked to plenty of people who would say they support socialist policies and literally not a single one of them want anything resembling a communist system, and most don't even want full blown socialism like you might see in the Nordic countries.

From what I've seen socialism is basically used as a euphemism catch all for a variety of policies (single payer health insurance, increasing taxes on the mega rich, etc.) and not as some sort of fundamental tearing down of what the US has always been.

Of course there's also the fact that there are significant portions of the US system that are socialist in nature (social security, Medicare, etc.) that the majority of this country have relied on for damn near 100 years and somehow we've avoided descending into some Soviet-style hellscape.

At any rate, there are significant global economic shifts going on right now and I think the 1980 worldview of "capitalism" as a stand alone system vs. "socialism" as a stand alone system is completely breaking down. This Cold War mentality of "us vs. them" is going to have to be left for the history books, and the best guy that I've heard distill some of these thoughts is this dude, a Democratic candidate who is ironically being interviewed here by Tucker Carlson:

 

[jsmith6919]

 

[jsmith6919]

Nothing makes me laugh more than the boogeyman of "socialism", probably half of this country immediately starts imagining 1965 communist Russia anytime they hear "socialism". I've talked to plenty of people who would say they support socialist policies and literally not a single one of them want anything resembling a communist system, and most don't even want full blown socialism like you might see in the Nordic countries.

From what I've seen socialism is basically used as a euphemism catch all for a variety of policies (single payer health insurance, increasing taxes on the mega rich, etc.) and not as some sort of fundamental tearing down of what the US has always been.

Of course there's also the fact that there are significant portions of the US system that are socialist in nature (social security, Medicare, etc.) that the majority of this country have relied on for damn near 100 years and somehow we've avoided descending into some Soviet-style hellscape.

At any rate, there are significant global economic shifts going on right now and I think the 1980 worldview of "capitalism" as a stand alone system vs. "socialism" as a stand alone system is completely breaking down. This Cold War mentality of "us vs. them" is going to have to be left for the history books, and the best guy that I've heard distill some of these thoughts is this dude, a Democratic candidate who is ironically being interviewed here by Tucker Carlson:

Meanwhile Venezuelan's are eating zoo animals but sure...why not try the system that has killed more people than the nazi's

 

[Cotton]

probably half of this country immediately starts imagining 1965 communist Russia anytime they hear "socialism"

I imagine the very real and very current situation in Venezuela.

 

[Chocolate Lab]

That's a fair enough point by simp about more socialist vs full blown socialism. But, part of my point is that there's always been people who wanted higher taxes and more government involvement. That's mostly your traditional democrat. And reasonable people can disagree about where you draw that line. I'm arguing that what's going on with many young people today *is* different from that -- they want more of an overhaul of the entire system.

 

[Smitty]

I hope everyone realizes that increasing taxes on the mega-rich would do basically nothing since it's the NON mega rich who truly generate all the GDP in this country. You know who will get hit the hardest with tax increases? The people who make between 100k-300k. Yeah, making 300k is great, you are in the 1%, but people have this image of Scrooge McDuck with endless moneybags, and that's simply not true.

You make that much money as a household, and you can probably live in a million dollar "McMansion," maybe have a vacation home or condo for a couple hundred thousand, an extra car or two, put your kids through college, and have a nice comfortable retirement where you can travel at will; but we're not talking Andrew Carnegie lifestyle here, we're talking more like, oh, turn on a cable TV show and look at any family on there, living in a huge house and never having financial trouble. We're talking like, the Huxtables. The Sopranos. People are still out hustling and working to maintain that lifestyle -- not simply cashing trust fund checks.

To dramatically increase the receipts through income tax, you have to tax the bejesus out of people in THAT category. You have to take those 200-thousand-aires and turn them into 100-thousand-aires.

And that's gonna go over like a fucking lead balloon, because that's the exact thing the Democrats are promising they DON'T want to do. "We don't want to tax the middle class, we want to only tax the rich." Well, the people who make 200k a year don't necessarily feel like they are rich: They are probably still grinding away.

The problem is, the super-rich who actually ARE like Scrooge McDuck, and who actually DO fit the stereotype of "people who can afford to pay more taxes," aren't even 1% of the population. They are a miniscule, hardly statistically relevant minority, and what's more, they have no income. They have wealth but they aren't out there working jobs. To get tax revenue from them, you are talking about CONFISCATION of assets, not tax on income. And good fucking luck with that, because even if you can do it, that pot dries up immediately. Once you've seized the wealth and spent it, it's gone. It's over.

The only well left to tap becomes those people making 100k, 200k, 300k a year. That's where the IRS's real revenue base is.

And taxing those people more than the nearly 50% they already pay ain't gonna make no one happy. And because those are the people who actually ARE out there doing all the hard work, being engineers, doctors, dentists, successful small business owners, they are gonna say "Fuck it, why should I work so hard, if I can only bring home the revenue of someone making 90k a year, when I should be bring home 180k a year? I'm not gonna bother."

 

[Cowboysrock55]

I hope everyone realizes that increasing taxes on the mega-rich would do basically nothing since it's the NON mega rich who truly generate all the GDP in this country. You know who will get hit the hardest with tax increases? The people who make between 100k-300k. Yeah, making 300k is great, you are in the 1%, but people have this image of Scrooge McDuck with endless moneybags, and that's simply not true.

You make that much money as a household, and you can probably live in a million dollar "McMansion," maybe have a vacation home or condo for a couple hundred thousand, an extra car or two, put your kids through college, and have a nice comfortable retirement where you can travel at will; but we're not talking Andrew Carnegie lifestyle here, we're talking more like, oh, turn on a cable TV show and look at any family on there, living in a huge house and never having financial trouble. We're talking like, the Huxtables. The Sopranos. People are still out hustling and working to maintain that lifestyle -- not simply cashing trust fund checks.

To dramatically increase the receipts through income tax, you have to tax the bejesus out of people in THAT category. You have to take those 200-thousand-aires and turn them into 100-thousand-aires.

And that's gonna go over like a fucking lead balloon, because that's the exact thing the Democrats are promising they DON'T want to do. "We don't want to tax the middle class, we want to only tax the rich." Well, the people who make 200k a year don't necessarily feel like they are rich: They are probably still grinding away.

The problem is, the super-rich who actually ARE like Scrooge McDuck, and who actually DO fit the stereotype of "people who can afford to pay more taxes," aren't even 1% of the population. They are a miniscule, hardly statistically relevant minority, and what's more, they have no income. They have wealth but they aren't out there working jobs. To get tax revenue from them, you are talking about CONFISCATION of assets, not tax on income. And good fucking luck with that, because even if you can do it, that pot dries up immediately. Once you've seized the wealth and spent it, it's gone. It's over.

The only well left to tap becomes those people making 100k, 200k, 300k a year. That's where the IRS's real revenue base is.

And taxing those people more than the nearly 50% they already pay ain't gonna make no one happy. And because those are the people who actually ARE out there doing all the hard work, being engineers, doctors, dentists, successful small business owners, they are gonna say "Fuck it, why should I work so hard, if I can only bring home the revenue of someone making 90k a year, when I should be bring home 180k a year? I'm not gonna bother."

The sad part of all that is the last person who should be spending that money is the corrupt government who already waste fortunes on useless shit. It's like giving a toddler a credit card with a higher budget. It doesn't make things better, it makes them far worse. People don't understand the immense amount of inefficiency that government carries when they are spending your money. So let's say you want free college for all. So you tax the filthy rich to pay for it. The problem is the rich man who paid 100,000 in taxes isn't going to lead to someone not paying 100,000 to go to college. Only a small fraction of that would ever make it to a college student's education. So what you're really talking about is 10 rich guys paying 100,000 and one college kid going for free to college. That inefficiency hurts the economy greatly. But Joe Blow college kid doesn't see that. They only see the short term benefit of a free college education. And then on the back end when the economy sucks and they can't get a job for shit they will hope the government bails them out again.

 

[L.T. Fan]

I hear all these point counterpoint discussions and all have seemingly legitimate positions but I am a lot more simple minded about the topic of when is it okay for someone to decide that another has too much and it’s legitimate to arbitrarily take money and other possessions a give it to someone else or confiscate it for the general discretionary use of government entities. If it’s okay to bo this then who decided what is a fair amount to trigger this mindset.?

I know there are various religious and philosophical disciplines that are the basis for legitimizing some of this logic but still it’s unfortunately used against someone rather than allowing the owner of the wealth to make their own determinations. I cannot accept the determinations off onother to tell me how and why I should distribute my holdings.

Notwithstanding the needs of the government to.be funded by the majority of the populace, sufficient funds can be attained quite easily by a system oh parity which would not only yield the amounts needed but would also allow the owner of assets they hold to remain in the possession of the one who attained it. If this system provides the necessary criteria to meet the needs of the government and populace then it should also meet the ethics of the various religious and philosophical disciplines.

in the meantime don’t try to sell me on the idea that it is okay for anyone to arbitrate how my holdings should be administered beyond a system of fairness.

 

[Simpleton]

I imagine the very real and very current situation in Venezuela.

Basically all of Venezuela's economy is nationalized, when people start advocating for that here let me know.

I'm not saying we should be a "socialist" country, just that with how the world is shifting the lines are blurring between what is "capitalist" and "socialist", and a blended system is ideal. We already have a blended system to an extent, all we're really talking about here is the proportion of capitalist principles to socialist.

Universal basic income is the perfect example, it's inevitable given automation and it's a purely socialist idea, borne out of the effects of capitalism.

 

[Simpleton]

I hope everyone realizes that increasing taxes on the mega-rich would do basically nothing since it's the NON mega rich who truly generate all the GDP in this country. You know who will get hit the hardest with tax increases? The people who make between 100k-300k. Yeah, making 300k is great, you are in the 1%, but people have this image of Scrooge McDuck with endless moneybags, and that's simply not true.

You make that much money as a household, and you can probably live in a million dollar "McMansion," maybe have a vacation home or condo for a couple hundred thousand, an extra car or two, put your kids through college, and have a nice comfortable retirement where you can travel at will; but we're not talking Andrew Carnegie lifestyle here, we're talking more like, oh, turn on a cable TV show and look at any family on there, living in a huge house and never having financial trouble. We're talking like, the Huxtables. The Sopranos. People are still out hustling and working to maintain that lifestyle -- not simply cashing trust fund checks.

To dramatically increase the receipts through income tax, you have to tax the bejesus out of people in THAT category. You have to take those 200-thousand-aires and turn them into 100-thousand-aires.

And that's gonna go over like a fucking lead balloon, because that's the exact thing the Democrats are promising they DON'T want to do. "We don't want to tax the middle class, we want to only tax the rich." Well, the people who make 200k a year don't necessarily feel like they are rich: They are probably still grinding away.

The problem is, the super-rich who actually ARE like Scrooge McDuck, and who actually DO fit the stereotype of "people who can afford to pay more taxes," aren't even 1% of the population. They are a miniscule, hardly statistically relevant minority, and what's more, they have no income. They have wealth but they aren't out there working jobs. To get tax revenue from them, you are talking about CONFISCATION of assets, not tax on income. And good fucking luck with that, because even if you can do it, that pot dries up immediately. Once you've seized the wealth and spent it, it's gone. It's over.

The only well left to tap becomes those people making 100k, 200k, 300k a year. That's where the IRS's real revenue base is.

And taxing those people more than the nearly 50% they already pay ain't gonna make no one happy. And because those are the people who actually ARE out there doing all the hard work, being engineers, doctors, dentists, successful small business owners, they are gonna say "Fuck it, why should I work so hard, if I can only bring home the revenue of someone making 90k a year, when I should be bring home 180k a year? I'm not gonna bother."

When I said mega-rich I was referring more to corporations and not individual persons or families, and yes I realize that corporations are "people" and that there are economic implications of raising those taxes. I don't think anybody thinks taxes need to be hiked on a married couple making $175K a year, although with that said, there's absolutely no reason that someone making $550K is in the same tax bracket as someone making $40MM, no matter how small a percentage of the population that is.

And still, you're just talking income taxes. I don't have some sort of definitive tax plan for you but I'm sure it can't be difficult to come up with something that isolates the obscenely wealthy and raises taxes on their capital gains while leaving everything else as is. That'll never happen of course but I'm talking theoretically.

At any rate, my point is not to argue the finer points of the tax code, it's that there is an overly sensationalized branding of "socialists" in this country, which I'm guessing is only further exaggerated the older someone is due to the Cold War. From what I've seen it's basically just a vocal minority pushing for traditional liberal policy points (health insurance, climate change, taxes, etc.) and they're being ultra-aggressive about it and using the term "socialist" to help stand out from the crowd. Maybe in time this minority will turn into a legitimate socialist party but I don't see it right now, and I don't think it's something this country would allow on a national scale for at least 2-3 more generations.

 

[Simpleton]

That's a fair enough point by simp about more socialist vs full blown socialism. But, part of my point is that there's always been people who wanted higher taxes and more government involvement. That's mostly your traditional democrat. And reasonable people can disagree about where you draw that line. I'm arguing that what's going on with many young people today *is* different from that -- they want more of an overhaul of the entire system.

I see what you're saying, although I think that's primarily a visceral reaction from a generation that feels like they don't have any options. The idea of "socialism" is intoxicating because it's giving them a way out, an answer to a very uncertain future, much in the same way that Trump's rhetoric was intoxicating to the Midwest/Rust Belt when he basically promised to bring back a bygone era.

That's why I say that the idea of UBI is so important given the significant economic shifts around the world. The very nature of our economy is changing and that will only accelerate, and I think it's misguided for people to throw their hands up and say, "oh well, capitalism will take care of it, more jobs will come from somewhere, I don't know where but capitalism!"

The very nature of what we consider "work" is shifting right before our eyes, and that's what leads to the desperation from the Rust Belt who believe that Trump is going to bring back coal jobs like it's 1962, or from 20 somethings when their generation is set to be the first American generation to make less than their parents in who knows how long.

Long story short, large swaths of this country are being left behind but nobody seems to pay attention because people with $40K in their IRA use macroeconomic measures like the S&P 500 to gauge the strength of the economy.

 

[Smitty]

I don't think we're anywhere close to ready for UBI, but I do agree it's the end-result of wildly successful capitalism.

 

[L.T. Fan]

I don't think we're anywhere close to ready for UBI, but I do agree it's the end-result of wildly successful capitalism.

UBI would be the beginning of the end of capitalism and work incentives for everyone. It’s a worthless concept that is used by political hacks who want to perpetuate their careers and low ambition voters who keep them in office.