U.S. Politics Vol. 7: A Dream of 2020

1212224262753

Comments

  • Check out the Buffett Rule advocated by the Obama Administration (and Warren Buffett). Proposed establishing a minimum effective (not marginal) income tax rate of 30% on those with >$1mil of income; inclusive of investment income. Still shocking to me that this was/is controversial.
    Travis
  • @Travis  My hat is off to you for giving this so much thought and wanting to take it to the next step. What you said about Warren specifically is why I hope she stays in the legislative branch, we really need an attack dog like her there imo even more than as president, given that we'll probably see a Dem elected in 2020 who wouldn't veto balanced financial bills. Personally I'd like something done about extreme wealth hiding in LLCs.
    Travis
  • TravisTravis CA
    edited February 2019
    LordBy said:
    Check out the Buffett Rule advocated by the Obama Administration (and Warren Buffett). Proposed establishing a minimum effective (not marginal) income tax rate of 30% on those with >$1mil of income; inclusive of investment income. Still shocking to me that this was/is controversial.
    Thanks, man! I appreciate it. I did a very minimal poking around last night and saw that referenced (not in any depth, but referenced), kind of bookmarked it in my head to look into. I also saws references to Simpson Bowles which I plan on reading up on as well. I just think it's completely asinine that if nothing else we just don't see income as income (and don't get me started about Specified Service Industries in relation to the new 199A deduction). I get that we should have the 121 exclusion because of the practical reality of selling a house, plus the fact that you don't get to take a loss on it. I like 121 a whole lot, but when you're just talking about capital gains and long term dividends in general you're still making that money. You may not see it every day, but that doesn't mean it's not there. We have a client who makes a couple million a year and whines about his taxes because it doesn't reflect his bank account (nice guy, don't get me wrong), and the CPA has to remind him every year that he made a shit ton of money out of these investment accounts and that is income. He has all of this money that he didn't have before. Income.

    Really the thing to me is that there is this an entitlement culture to it. The investor side (and I've seen it in my finance class through the way that many students answer their questions) is too comfortable with this notion that labor is disposable. Feels like football fans saying "why spend so much on a running back when you can find replacement level players all over the place." The CEO of this pharma company was very quick to talk in detail about how he sees the small investor and what they are trying to build (like a college fund or their retirement) and is very sensitive to that need, but referred to laying off 12% of his workforce as "it's never easy." I'm not saying he's a bad guy for it. He seems like a nice, thoughtful guy who works within a fucked up culture and has a clear mandate. I think getting how both sides of the equation are how they are is what irks me the most. He has his fiduciary responsibility and I get that, the only problem is that the whole value system is completely out of whack. It's as if there is more honor in having money to being with and hanging out while it grows than actually going to work, and that's just wrong.

    Kate23 said:
    @Travis  My hat is off to you for giving this so much thought and wanting to take it to the next step. What you said about Warren specifically is why I hope she stays in the legislative branch, we really need an attack dog like her there imo even more than as president, given that we'll probably see a Dem elected in 2020 who wouldn't veto balanced financial bills. Personally I'd like something done about extreme wealth hiding in LLCs.
    Thanks Kate. It's tough. I totally see where you're coming from about her being utilized in the legislature, but imagine the symbol of having someone with her values elected to lead us. What that would say would be remarkable. Truth be told though, there are so many good options right now. I can't imagine being unhappy with the result. 
    Given my industry, I should know more about wealth hiding in LLCs, but I don't see it so much. I know there are a lot of strategies that revolve around them, but it's something to learn about. I guess that's the whole thing though. It's why I slap my head when I hear rich people whining about entitlements. Sure, you MIGHT pay a ton of tax, but you also have so many resources and so many breaks and strategies and loopholes that cut into your bill (not to mention that you pay a ton of tax because you made A TON of money). 
  • Travis said:
    Thanks @CretanBull and @Kate23 That information is incredibly helpful. I started doing some research and what I'm hoping for has already (at least to some extent) been run up the flagpole by Bernie. Not a new idea (and I wouldn't be shocked if it is a part of Warren's tax plan already though I didn't see it referenced in what she put forth on her website), just evening the gap (or honestly I would be in favor of flipping it to some limited extent, but at least equaling) between the taxation of investment income and working income. I knew it wouldn't be something new, but I think it's a good time to message it with some of the other ideas that Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders particularly are talking about. The way I see it, they're starting to get at the problem with the way they are talking about corporate stock buybacks and forcing companies to be held to a certain standard when it comes to things like wages and benefits, but I think it's important that Washington holds up their end to the culture change too. By taxing investors so much more favorably than people who work, they are sending a symbolic message that there is more societal value to sitting back and letting your money grow than actually getting your hands dirty, not to mention that as far as general constituencies go labor needs that favorable treatment far more than the investor class (and I would propose low income carve outs so that particularly seniors and people with disabilities, but others that fall into an acceptable range don't get screwed on the deal). It is also good timing for something like this with the Democrats putting a premium on campaigns that deny funding from corporate interests. Hell, Wall Street already despises Elizabeth Warren. Not like they can vote for her less.

    Anyhoo, like I said, this isn't some revolutionary (I know that even Bernie was far from the first person to bring it up) idea but I think it would play really well in the current populist climate and I think it's something that we as a country have wrong. Unfortunately I still have a lot of research to do because as much as this has been a thorn in my brain for years I only Monday started telling myself "so why don't you do something about it and start advocating for it?" Time to start looking at statistics and reading the history of the issue. Oddly sounds kind of fun, though time consuming when I don't have a ton of it.

    Thanks again for the advice. I really appreciate it and I will use it.
    Would you be surprised to learn that one of the biggest problems with this is Trump?  His 'tax cut' plan made it easier for companies to shuffle money through 'pass-through' entities to avoid corporate/investment taxation.  In the past, a company like Trump International (or whatever his company is called) would make money, pay taxes on their profits, then pay Donald Trump his salary/dividends etc and he'd pay tax on his income.  Now Trump can use a 'pass-through' entity, so his company doesn't pay taxes and he registers his company's money as his own income and pays taxes on that (he pays taxes once, as income not twice as profit, and then as income)...and wouldn't ya know it, he just slashed the tax rates on the super rich.
    Travis
  • Travis said:
    Thanks @CretanBull and @Kate23 That information is incredibly helpful. I started doing some research and what I'm hoping for has already (at least to some extent) been run up the flagpole by Bernie. Not a new idea (and I wouldn't be shocked if it is a part of Warren's tax plan already though I didn't see it referenced in what she put forth on her website), just evening the gap (or honestly I would be in favor of flipping it to some limited extent, but at least equaling) between the taxation of investment income and working income. I knew it wouldn't be something new, but I think it's a good time to message it with some of the other ideas that Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders particularly are talking about. The way I see it, they're starting to get at the problem with the way they are talking about corporate stock buybacks and forcing companies to be held to a certain standard when it comes to things like wages and benefits, but I think it's important that Washington holds up their end to the culture change too. By taxing investors so much more favorably than people who work, they are sending a symbolic message that there is more societal value to sitting back and letting your money grow than actually getting your hands dirty, not to mention that as far as general constituencies go labor needs that favorable treatment far more than the investor class (and I would propose low income carve outs so that particularly seniors and people with disabilities, but others that fall into an acceptable range don't get screwed on the deal). It is also good timing for something like this with the Democrats putting a premium on campaigns that deny funding from corporate interests. Hell, Wall Street already despises Elizabeth Warren. Not like they can vote for her less.

    Anyhoo, like I said, this isn't some revolutionary (I know that even Bernie was far from the first person to bring it up) idea but I think it would play really well in the current populist climate and I think it's something that we as a country have wrong. Unfortunately I still have a lot of research to do because as much as this has been a thorn in my brain for years I only Monday started telling myself "so why don't you do something about it and start advocating for it?" Time to start looking at statistics and reading the history of the issue. Oddly sounds kind of fun, though time consuming when I don't have a ton of it.

    Thanks again for the advice. I really appreciate it and I will use it.
    Would you be surprised to learn that one of the biggest problems with this is Trump?  His 'tax cut' plan made it easier for companies to shuffle money through 'pass-through' entities to avoid corporate/investment taxation.  In the past, a company like Trump International (or whatever his company is called) would make money, pay taxes on their profits, then pay Donald Trump his salary/dividends etc and he'd pay tax on his income.  Now Trump can use a 'pass-through' entity, so his company doesn't pay taxes and he registers his company's money as his own income and pays taxes on that (he pays taxes once, as income not twice as profit, and then as income)...and wouldn't ya know it, he just slashed the tax rates on the super rich.
    Oh, that did not get by me. I remember screaming about the Pass Through stuff and how brazenly transparent it was. It's just egregious. That said, Trump is certainly exacerbating the problem, but it was pre-existing. We're at the most nauseating point, but the fundamentals have been around for decades.
    CretanBull
  • Reinvigorating the Estate Tax has to be part of this also. If you can just sit on your gains without recognizing them (just borrow against your portfolio if you need cash) or park your money in municipal bonds then the estate tax is where the freight is paid.

    I don’t understand the controversy over making it more difficult to create a permanent landed aristocracy in America. The GOP has done a great job marketing this as the unfair death tax that destroys farmers and small businesses, but that doesn’t make it true.
    TravisCretanBull
  • TravisTravis CA
    edited February 2019
    LordBy said:
    Reinvigorating the Estate Tax has to be part of this also. If you can just sit on your gains without recognizing them (just borrow against your portfolio if you need cash) or park your money in municipal bonds then the estate tax is where the freight is paid.

    I don’t understand the controversy over making it more difficult to create a permanent landed aristocracy in America. The GOP has done a great job marketing this as the unfair death tax that destroys farmers and small businesses, but that doesn’t make it true.
    That's precisely what it is though. They're crazy good at messaging/marketing. The GOP has somehow made this an "everyone" issue so people who wouldn't come anywhere close to experiencing it think the government is coming to get them. It's one of the things that has always bewildered me, that they can exploit people into buying into policies that ultimately work against them, and buy in with such vigor. It'll never make an ounce of sense to me.
  • Rick Gates is singing like Adele.  The newest story about a meeting in a cigar bar - details had to come from somewhere!

    Why are all of the lies about meeting with Russians??
    TravisMarci
  • HatorianHatorian Dagobah
    edited February 2019
    So my home state Illinois is closing in on raising minimum wage to $15 an hour by 2025. since the latest bill was passed and has gone up the chain i've been in constant arguments on facebook about it. 

    the arguments i've had to deal with are...

    1. Minimum wage(MW) was created as a stepping stone for teenagers and never meant to support a family or person living.
    - my response was they are completely wrong. MW was introduced in 1938 exactly for the reason to make sure people had a living wage. look up the fair labor act

    2. Coffee will cost $13. enjoy. 
    - my response. even in countries like Australia that pay $15+ to their baristas a coffee costs $5 at most. total bullshit. by 2025 $15 an hour will basically equal what MW is now. so prices will only rise based on inflation and might even get cheaper due to automation. 

    3. why should police officers and other critical jobs make near minimum wage?
    -my response. they don't understand economics. lets say doomsday scenario happens and everyone quits their job to work at mcdonalds cuz they would rather work there and make $15 then be a first responder and make $20 an hour. Simple supply and demand means those job's will see a rise in their salaries to draw people to those jobs. Economics 101. BTW most of these people are right wing capitalists, yet they fail to understand how the market works and how salaries are based on demand. Just look at the current unemployment. go look at unfilled jobs where skills are in demand and see how much they are paying. instead of bitching about a living wage go get a skill in demand and make some money. 

    ultimately the people i have been arguing with are just simply mad at the realization that if the MW increases, they are closer to it. 
    MarciTravisFlukesCretanBullDee
  • @Hatorian  Just to add that, when people get a small bump in their salary, they don't put it into stocks and bonds. They spend the money locally, supporting small business, local chains (that employ local folks), and local independent contractors. They buy better food; they Get Things Fixed. 

    MarciHatorianTravisCretanBull
  • Kate23 said:
    @Hatorian  Just to add that, when people get a small bump in their salary, they don't put it into stocks and bonds. They spend the money locally, supporting small business, local chains (that employ local folks), and local independent contractors. They buy better food; they Get Things Fixed. 

    And conversely, when rich people get more money, they DON'T put it back into the economy or hire more workers, they squirrel it away. 
    MarciHatorianTravisweeniegirlCretanBullDee
  • And to add. Increasing MW means more tax money which means those public jobs like police officers and first responders will be able to get paid more than they do now. 

    The other argument i  forgot to mention 

    4. If you force companies to pay $15 an hour they will just automate those jobs instead. News flash, those jobs are getting automated regardless of the MW. Which is why we need to start considering how to tax automation to support things like UBI or the inevitable increase in welfare. 
    TravisMarciFlukesJoshuaHeter
  • TravisTravis CA
    edited February 2019
    One argument you forgot:

    Fire will rain down from the sky, Poseiden will release winged sharks, and Stalin will possess the White House and by speaking through the walls will influence all of its inhabitants thus creating the destruction of America! (this ad was brought to you by Koch Industries).

    I mean, there is a reasonable argument and that is the barely getting by mom and pop shop who will really feel a pinch and perhaps not a ton of the economic benefit because perhaps being pushed around by larger corporations and what they can offer doesn't allow them to necessarily get over that particular hump of the economic benefits. My mind is wandering to a small retail store that perhaps hires high school kids and is barely staying afloat anyway and those extra few bucks an hour and increased payroll taxes might be that last straw. It will have an impact on some people who may not be able to take advantage of the rising tide of putting more money in more pockets. That really does suck. This, in a way, could further corproratize our economy and ultimately and very ironically, make the strong even stronger. I always come back to our local video store that clearly didn't make much money and how Blockbuster literally moved in on the other side of the strip mall and pushed them out. An increased minimum wage probably would have ended that fight much quicker.

    That said, this is a bigger issue than that. People need to be able to get by and the deck gets stacked more and more towards the wealthy and labor gets less and less power in the equation so rapidly. Our economy is so top heavy. Mom and pops who are going to buckle under this are getting forced out by giant corporations anyway. Ultimately, I just wish that people like Amazon or Walmart or Starbucks, etc. would see the fact that more money in the hands of the larger percentage of society just feeds them more, like you guys were saying. There may be a sting on the front end, but it's just a more powerful consumer base in the end. Plus, if you follow the trends and see more and more households being left behind by relying on crappy wages (that if I'm correct aren't keeping up with inflation) and being forced out by automation and outsourcing society falls into chaos. This is the shit that breeds revolution, as history has shown. Take the "goodwill" out of it. It makes the economy stronger, and keeps our society stable. All the people making these decisions are thinking quarter to quarter. Try thinking about a decade or two.
    Hatorian
  • Climate Change and you (or your grandkids) - LINK
  • DeeDee Adelaide
    @Hatorian I paid $5.40 this morning for a large cappucino. Outrageous! 

    My opinion is that in any reasonable, functional society, a person should be able to make enough to live a reasonably decent life in one job in any industry working normal full time hours (40ish per week). I genuinely do not understand why anyone would find that objectionable. 
    TravismylifeaskirkcdriveweeniegirlJennyHatorianCretanBullMarci
  • Dee said:
    @Hatorian I paid $5.40 this morning for a large cappucino. Outrageous! 

    My opinion is that in any reasonable, functional society, a person should be able to make enough to live a reasonably decent life in one job in any industry working normal full time hours (40ish per week). I genuinely do not understand why anyone would find that objectionable. 
    This is America...it’s funny though. The Australian government is so inept at their jobs but they at least take care of their citizens. We could argue for days how the AU government is like a real world GOT. But at least people can live there. Now they just need to find a way to fix housing. I feel like as an Australian PR I can say this..
  • Travis said:
    One argument you forgot:

    Fire will rain down from the sky, Poseiden will release winged sharks, and Stalin will possess the White House and by speaking through the walls will influence all of its inhabitants thus creating the destruction of America! (this ad was brought to you by Koch Industries).

    I mean, there is a reasonable argument and that is the barely getting by mom and pop shop who will really feel a pinch and perhaps not a ton of the economic benefit because perhaps being pushed around by larger corporations and what they can offer doesn't allow them to necessarily get over that particular hump of the economic benefits. My mind is wandering to a small retail store that perhaps hires high school kids and is barely staying afloat anyway and those extra few bucks an hour and increased payroll taxes might be that last straw. It will have an impact on some people who may not be able to take advantage of the rising tide of putting more money in more pockets. That really does suck. This, in a way, could further corproratize our economy and ultimately and very ironically, make the strong even stronger. I always come back to our local video store that clearly didn't make much money and how Blockbuster literally moved in on the other side of the strip mall and pushed them out. An increased minimum wage probably would have ended that fight much quicker.

    That said, this is a bigger issue than that. People need to be able to get by and the deck gets stacked more and more towards the wealthy and labor gets less and less power in the equation so rapidly. Our economy is so top heavy. Mom and pops who are going to buckle under this are getting forced out by giant corporations anyway. Ultimately, I just wish that people like Amazon or Walmart or Starbucks, etc. would see the fact that more money in the hands of the larger percentage of society just feeds them more, like you guys were saying. There may be a sting on the front end, but it's just a more powerful consumer base in the end. Plus, if you follow the trends and see more and more households being left behind by relying on crappy wages (that if I'm correct aren't keeping up with inflation) and being forced out by automation and outsourcing society falls into chaos. This is the shit that breeds revolution, as history has shown. Take the "goodwill" out of it. It makes the economy stronger, and keeps our society stable. All the people making these decisions are thinking quarter to quarter. Try thinking about a decade or two.
    This is definitely another one of the biggest arguments. “Small businesses will be destroyed by MW”. I don’t agree. There’s policies we can put in place to protect them. I think we can institute regulation and law that ensures and supports these businesses. It all comes down to tax reform. 

    The idea that SMB business will die with MW is only based on the belief that they benefit from cheap labor. How is that fair or reasonable? So People believe that SMBs have the right to treat their employees like shit just so they can stay in business? Honestly I’d rather buy from Amazon than buy from a local business that pays slave wages..

    And once again it’s right wing supporters saying government support for a living wage is socialist. Yet they want to kill immigration. So they don’t want Americans to have a living wage and they don’t want to allow immigrants into the country to take these Low paying jobs. So what are SMBs supposed to? I’m keen to hear the argument for supporters of no minimum wage and against immigration. 
  • cdrivecdrive Houston, TX
    edited February 2019
    Can’t tax automation, man. That’s bonkers and I’ll explain.  We used to say “advanced manufacturing and automation is the way to compete against foreign labor and bring manufacturing back.” Now cheap labor in Asian markets is also the leading buyer globally of robots. It’s a real thing that is going to eat our American A S S.   
  • April_May_JuneApril_May_June California
    edited February 2019
    There's an interview that former acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe did on 60 minutes.  (He's the guy who got fired the day before he would have been eligible for a pension)
    It's very interesting. I don't think it's aired yet, but here's a link to the transcript of the interview. 

    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/andrew-mccabe-60-minutes-interview-full-transcript-watch-acting-fbi-director-trump-investigation-james-comey-russia-investigation-2019-02-17/
    mylifeaskirkMarcigiardinelloCretanBull
  • giardinellogiardinello Long Island, NY
    There's an interview that former acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe did on 60 minutes.  (He's the guy who got fired the day before he would have been eligible for a pension)
    It's very interesting. I don't think it's aired yet, but here's a link to the transcript of the interview. 

    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/andrew-mccabe-60-minutes-interview-full-transcript-watch-acting-fbi-director-trump-investigation-james-comey-russia-investigation-2019-02-17/
    I just watched it thanks to your link. It’s compelling. 
    April_May_June
  • giardinellogiardinello Long Island, NY
    edited February 2019
    Has anyone seen the documentary, Active Measures (2018)? It’s currently streaming on Hulu.

    If you’re at all interested in Russia’s meddling in the 2016 election, as well as Trump’s personal history with Russia and Russian oligarchs, it’s a must see. 

    I’m kind of surprised this documentary has been under my radar for so long. Like a lot of people in this thread, I’m a big news junkie. We’re so desensitized by the constant stream of breaking news, it’s easy to lose touch with the big picture.

    This documentary does an excellent job of laying out the pieces to the puzzle and presenting it clearly and methodically. It’s riveting.


    Kate23
  • TravisTravis CA
    edited February 2019
    Hatorian said:
    Travis said:
    One argument you forgot:

    Fire will rain down from the sky, Poseiden will release winged sharks, and Stalin will possess the White House and by speaking through the walls will influence all of its inhabitants thus creating the destruction of America! (this ad was brought to you by Koch Industries).

    I mean, there is a reasonable argument and that is the barely getting by mom and pop shop who will really feel a pinch and perhaps not a ton of the economic benefit because perhaps being pushed around by larger corporations and what they can offer doesn't allow them to necessarily get over that particular hump of the economic benefits. My mind is wandering to a small retail store that perhaps hires high school kids and is barely staying afloat anyway and those extra few bucks an hour and increased payroll taxes might be that last straw. It will have an impact on some people who may not be able to take advantage of the rising tide of putting more money in more pockets. That really does suck. This, in a way, could further corproratize our economy and ultimately and very ironically, make the strong even stronger. I always come back to our local video store that clearly didn't make much money and how Blockbuster literally moved in on the other side of the strip mall and pushed them out. An increased minimum wage probably would have ended that fight much quicker.

    That said, this is a bigger issue than that. People need to be able to get by and the deck gets stacked more and more towards the wealthy and labor gets less and less power in the equation so rapidly. Our economy is so top heavy. Mom and pops who are going to buckle under this are getting forced out by giant corporations anyway. Ultimately, I just wish that people like Amazon or Walmart or Starbucks, etc. would see the fact that more money in the hands of the larger percentage of society just feeds them more, like you guys were saying. There may be a sting on the front end, but it's just a more powerful consumer base in the end. Plus, if you follow the trends and see more and more households being left behind by relying on crappy wages (that if I'm correct aren't keeping up with inflation) and being forced out by automation and outsourcing society falls into chaos. This is the shit that breeds revolution, as history has shown. Take the "goodwill" out of it. It makes the economy stronger, and keeps our society stable. All the people making these decisions are thinking quarter to quarter. Try thinking about a decade or two.
    This is definitely another one of the biggest arguments. “Small businesses will be destroyed by MW”. I don’t agree. There’s policies we can put in place to protect them. I think we can institute regulation and law that ensures and supports these businesses. It all comes down to tax reform. 

    The idea that SMB business will die with MW is only based on the belief that they benefit from cheap labor. How is that fair or reasonable? So People believe that SMBs have the right to treat their employees like shit just so they can stay in business? Honestly I’d rather buy from Amazon than buy from a local business that pays slave wages..

    And once again it’s right wing supporters saying government support for a living wage is socialist. Yet they want to kill immigration. So they don’t want Americans to have a living wage and they don’t want to allow immigrants into the country to take these Low paying jobs. So what are SMBs supposed to? I’m keen to hear the argument for supporters of no minimum wage and against immigration. 
    I didn't say it was a winning argument. I only said that it is a reality and a shame. One thing that I do think is tough is that there is a difference between "high school kid" labor and "adult supporting a family" labor. I imagine there is typically a much higher quality to having a mature, grown ass adult to a kid out for their first job. I think that is a labor pool that a lot of small businesses rely on (particularly in retail and restaurants, but all over really). I don't think paying high school kids $11 or $12 an hour is "slave wages." I don't know well an over 18, under 18 dividing line, and that isn't to say that there aren't kids who are trying to support themselves and need grown up wages. Currently, we pay $14 an hour to a college kid at a part time, entry level position in our company, and our previous employees in that role we trialed at $12 for a couple of months (but our current new employee has a bit of experience). Is my boss a "slave master?" I'm agreeing with you ultimately, but that's some pretty strong rhetoric.

    I also didn't say that small business will "die." I never said that. I said that there is a reality that some people will be left behind, and that's a shame. There are plenty of small businesses who are doing great and will continue to do so. Will competition be driven out and the economy be further corporatized? Yes. Of course it will. Does that ultimately matter when weighing the two issues? No. 

    (EDIT NOTE: I now see that I personalized this when it was just a retort to the arguments. My bad. I've been having a crappy/really stressful day so I'm a bit out of sorts. Sorry about that.)
    Landscraping
  • Wow, Seth Abramson wrote a fascinating and informative thread about the things McCabe said on 60 Minutes. This is a link to the thread, compiled: https://threader.app/thread/1097539215800352768

    CretanBull
  • Marci said:
    Wow, Seth Abramson wrote a fascinating and informative thread about the things McCabe said on 60 Minutes. This is a link to the thread, compiled: https://threader.app/thread/1097539215800352768

    The man does love him some threads :)

    What's funny is on the one hand my eyes almost roll out of my head onto the floor when InfoWars and Trump talk about rogue agents plotting against him, so I have to kind of check my reflex to believe all of this about rogue agents plotting against Clinton. COUNTERPOINT: We know for pretty much fact now that if the GOP, or more specifically the Trump Apparatus, cries about something happening to them it's because they've done the exact thing to other people. They are projection machines. So in that sense: seems certain there are rogue FBI agents plotting *for* Trump.
    Marci
  • edited February 2019
    Seriously! If our last 2 years was a novel or a movie, you'd just write it off for being too ridiculous or unbelievable.
    EDIT: I'm also finding it hard to get used to seeing the word "Resistance" in a Pro-Trump way, as it is being discussed in terms of this story.
    mylifeaskirkCretanBull
  • Travis said:
    Hatorian said:
    Travis said:
    One argument you forgot:

    Fire will rain down from the sky, Poseiden will release winged sharks, and Stalin will possess the White House and by speaking through the walls will influence all of its inhabitants thus creating the destruction of America! (this ad was brought to you by Koch Industries).

    I mean, there is a reasonable argument and that is the barely getting by mom and pop shop who will really feel a pinch and perhaps not a ton of the economic benefit because perhaps being pushed around by larger corporations and what they can offer doesn't allow them to necessarily get over that particular hump of the economic benefits. My mind is wandering to a small retail store that perhaps hires high school kids and is barely staying afloat anyway and those extra few bucks an hour and increased payroll taxes might be that last straw. It will have an impact on some people who may not be able to take advantage of the rising tide of putting more money in more pockets. That really does suck. This, in a way, could further corproratize our economy and ultimately and very ironically, make the strong even stronger. I always come back to our local video store that clearly didn't make much money and how Blockbuster literally moved in on the other side of the strip mall and pushed them out. An increased minimum wage probably would have ended that fight much quicker.

    That said, this is a bigger issue than that. People need to be able to get by and the deck gets stacked more and more towards the wealthy and labor gets less and less power in the equation so rapidly. Our economy is so top heavy. Mom and pops who are going to buckle under this are getting forced out by giant corporations anyway. Ultimately, I just wish that people like Amazon or Walmart or Starbucks, etc. would see the fact that more money in the hands of the larger percentage of society just feeds them more, like you guys were saying. There may be a sting on the front end, but it's just a more powerful consumer base in the end. Plus, if you follow the trends and see more and more households being left behind by relying on crappy wages (that if I'm correct aren't keeping up with inflation) and being forced out by automation and outsourcing society falls into chaos. This is the shit that breeds revolution, as history has shown. Take the "goodwill" out of it. It makes the economy stronger, and keeps our society stable. All the people making these decisions are thinking quarter to quarter. Try thinking about a decade or two.
    This is definitely another one of the biggest arguments. “Small businesses will be destroyed by MW”. I don’t agree. There’s policies we can put in place to protect them. I think we can institute regulation and law that ensures and supports these businesses. It all comes down to tax reform. 

    The idea that SMB business will die with MW is only based on the belief that they benefit from cheap labor. How is that fair or reasonable? So People believe that SMBs have the right to treat their employees like shit just so they can stay in business? Honestly I’d rather buy from Amazon than buy from a local business that pays slave wages..

    And once again it’s right wing supporters saying government support for a living wage is socialist. Yet they want to kill immigration. So they don’t want Americans to have a living wage and they don’t want to allow immigrants into the country to take these Low paying jobs. So what are SMBs supposed to? I’m keen to hear the argument for supporters of no minimum wage and against immigration. 
    I didn't say it was a winning argument. I only said that it is a reality and a shame. One thing that I do think is tough is that there is a difference between "high school kid" labor and "adult supporting a family" labor. I imagine there is typically a much higher quality to having a mature, grown ass adult to a kid out for their first job. I think that is a labor pool that a lot of small businesses rely on (particularly in retail and restaurants, but all over really). I don't think paying high school kids $11 or $12 an hour is "slave wages." I don't know well an over 18, under 18 dividing line, and that isn't to say that there aren't kids who are trying to support themselves and need grown up wages. Currently, we pay $14 an hour to a college kid at a part time, entry level position in our company, and our previous employees in that role we trialed at $12 for a couple of months (but our current new employee has a bit of experience). Is my boss a "slave master?" I'm agreeing with you ultimately, but that's some pretty strong rhetoric.

    I also didn't say that small business will "die." I never said that. I said that there is a reality that some people will be left behind, and that's a shame. There are plenty of small businesses who are doing great and will continue to do so. Will competition be driven out and the economy be further corporatized? Yes. Of course it will. Does that ultimately matter when weighing the two issues? No. 

    (EDIT NOTE: I now see that I personalized this when it was just a retort to the arguments. My bad. I've been having a crappy/really stressful day so I'm a bit out of sorts. Sorry about that.)
    all good mate. i wasnt really arguing with your points. especially the fact our politicians are only thinking about policies to help them get re-elected in 2 years instead of what is best for the US in 20 years..
    Travis
  • Has Kris Kobach (or anyone at a national level in the GOP) weighed in on the most notable case of voter fraud in recent history - North Carolina 9th district?  Actual election rigging by the party that utilized 'crosscheck' to remove thousands of democrats from voter rolls.
    mylifeaskirkKate23
  • Redo election in NC-09! The hearing on election fraud this week has been pretty wild. Yesterday the Mark Harris' (Harris is the R candidate) son (the son is a US attorney) testified that he had warned his dad not to hire the shady guy in the middle of all this, and that he didn't heed his warning. Harris was crying during his son's testimony. And today he testified that he thinks there should be a new election (before this week he had been calling to be certified as the winner), and the election board voted to hold a new election.

    With the focus on just one district I'm guessing a bunch of $$ is going to pour into the race. Harris only won by 900 something votes (with cheating) so the Democrat has a real chance.

    https://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/politics-government/article226561504.html
    bridgy1112rustywright4CretanBulltom_g
  • MrX said:
    Redo election in NC-09! The hearing on election fraud this week has been pretty wild. Yesterday the Mark Harris' (Harris is the R candidate) son (the son is a US attorney) testified that he had warned his dad not to hire the shady guy in the middle of all this, and that he didn't heed his warning. Harris was crying during his son's testimony. And today he testified that he thinks there should be a new election (before this week he had been calling to be certified as the winner), and the election board voted to hold a new election.

    With the focus on just one district I'm guessing a bunch of $$ is going to pour into the race. Harris only won by 900 something votes (with cheating) so the Democrat has a real chance.

    https://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/politics-government/article226561504.html
    So Harris can still run in election? Have they investigated or will they investigate if Harris or his party knew this was happening? Wasn't the guy already a felon for doing these things?
    Kate23tom_g
This discussion has been closed.