Hating the rich over liking the poor

People like to complain about entitlements and taxes. Entitlements are what keep the poor shooting at your family and eating your dog. Without them there would complete and total chaos. You already have chaos in the major urban areas it could be a lot worse. Desperate people do desperate things.

a reply to: wantsome

If what you say were true, the last eight years would have seen massive chaos in rural areas. It did not.

The chaos you describe is due to a lack of morals, not a lack of money. Desperate people may do desperate things, but it's not a lack of money that makes them desperate... it's a lack of hope. Where there is no hope, morals can decay. Where there are no morals, crime runs rampant.

Obama promised us hope and change, remember? What did we get? Massive fuel price increases, high unemployment, jobs leaving our country in droves, and the highest food stamp usage in history. It's hard to have hope when the government is in direct charge of whether or not you get to eat this month and every attempt to better your position results in not only failure regularly, but also in potential punishment for your attempts as your meager allotment for food may be taken away before your first meager paycheck comes in.

Trump promised us a chance for jobs to come back and our taxes to decrease so we have more means to have actual hope for the future. He has delivered an attempt at least. Many companies are beginning to invest in new plants and expansions, and they are creating new jobs. Trump is delivering what Obama promised and failed to deliver, and those who play these games of class warfare are denouncing him for doing so. They support crime and desperation, whether out of unbridled greed, hatred, or irrational fear, I do not know.

You describe a society which can only exist through extortion. I reject that. I would rather round up and destroy a billion criminals than allow one person to be forced to pay a criminal one penny to not be a criminal.

TheRedneck

a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

I am guessing it was your point that they didn't bail out the banks like we did. However, it appears that the IMF actually bailed out the government, according to your article.

And I'm guessing that you already forgot your stupid "socialism doesn't work" slogan. Wanna know what the IMF said?

Iceland’s recovery can also be explained by sound policies. The quick restoration of the domestic banking system and early steps to facilitate domestic debt restructuring were important. Steady fiscal adjustment, while carefully preserving its Nordic welfare model, has made Iceland one of just a handful of European countries running budget surpluses. Central bank policies have helped steer inflation close to target while capital controls continue to provide breathing room to address remaining vulnerabilities. In addition, the country has maintained much of the boost in competitiveness spurred by the early depreciation of the krona, contributing to a rebalancing towards export-oriented sectors. It is also important to recognize both Iceland’s strong ownership and performance under the 2008-2011 IMF-supported program.

www.imf.org...

Michelle Obama in particular said expressly that we have to give up some of our pie so that others can have more. Remember that?

Obama is a neoliberal dixiecat just like most of his party comrades. I still think that he did better than Bush but he's far from being a socialist, like Sanders for example.


a reply to: TheRedneck

Science requires thought before blindly accepting things. just sayin'.

Funny story though! With all your blind support for this piece of oligarch subsidies garbage, I can't say that I see any thought to begin with.

i can't help but laugh at some of the gullibility that these kinds of articles rely on.

Go into some details if you wanna have a real conversation. Just saying.

a reply to: Grambler

Would you rather have a country where there is massive income imequality, but most of the poor have base living conditions like food and shelter. Or would you rather there be very little income inequality, but the poor be worse off.

Why the leading questions. In Japan there is a word called Mu. It means the answer is bigger than the question. Are these really the only two valid scenarios you can think of. Is that really as far as your imgination spreads.

a reply to: PublicOpinion

Go into some details if you wanna have a real conversation. Just saying.

Oh, I did:

originally posted by: TheRedneck

Their prediction is for 2027, ten years from now, and after the new tax bill sunsets on most things in it. in other words, their terrible prediction is what would have happened in 2018 without the tax bill.

Maybe you didn't understand, so I'll try it again.

The tax bill, like almost every tax bill in recent years, has a sunset clause. In ten years, the personal income tax rates sunset if not renewed. I don't like that idea either, but it is disingenuous to state how terrible the bill is in ten years without mentioning that the same problems that make it so terrible then exist NOW without the bill passing.

That article might as well have said "Thank God the Republicans saved us for ten years!"

Incidentally, there are some Congressmen already saying they plan on introducing a bill in 2018 to make those personal tax rates permanent. I feel certain the sunset clause is there to try and get at least one Democrat to vote for letting the American people keep a little more of their money. That attempt failed, of course.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

The tax bill, like almost every tax bill in recent years, has a sunset clause. In ten years, the personal income tax rates sunset if not renewed. I don't like that idea either, but it is disingenuous to state how terrible the bill is in ten years without mentioning that the same problems that make it so terrible then exist NOW without the bill passing.

That article might as well have said "Thank God the Republicans saved us for ten years!"

Who is "us" again?

Overall, 53.4 percent of American households would see a tax increase and 25.2 percent would see a tax cut in 2027. But the shares depend substantially on what income group you're in. Most Americans in the bottom fifth of the distribution — those in poverty, or near poverty — wouldn't see their taxes change either way, as they typically don't earn enough money to pay income taxes. The different inflation measure can reduce the tax refund they receive from the earned income tax credit and child tax credit, but the effect is fairly small.

By contrast, nearly 70 percent of Americans in the middle fifth of the income distribution — earning $54,700 to $93,200 a year in 2017 dollars — would see their taxes go up, with an average tax hike of $150. That's not a huge change, but the direction is certainly not favorable.

Republicans advocating for the bill have focused less on 2027, when much of the bill’s changes will have expired, than on 2018 through 2025, when all its cuts, including for individuals, will be in effect. In 2018, the bill is an across-the-board cut for all income groups, but the biggest cuts are reserved for the upper middle class:

www.vox.com...

Ah well. No surprise there, let's mock a Dixiecat now?

I feel certain the sunset clause is there to try and get at least one Democrat to vote for letting the American people keep a little more of their money.

Sure. For the American people, of course. For "nearly" all of them...

a reply to: PublicOpinion

Ummm, at the bottom corner of your screen there is a time and date. The last number is the year. It is 2017, not 2027.

Your complaint is that after this tax bill expires, there will be a tax increase ten years from now. That means there will be a tax decrease now. If this tax bill raised taxes, as you seem to want to claim, and expired in ten years as this one does, then in ten years there would be a tax decrease.

Slow down and think about it. I know time is complicated, but you can do it. I have faith in you.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: PublicOpinion

Sure. For the American people, of course. For "nearly" all of them...

Its an unfortunate fact that any change in the taxable rate is going to impact people differently. If the only measure of a change in taxable rate is whether it benefits every single person...then you will become deadlocked in a fruitless search for perfection.

My 2 cents: anything that gets the economy moving again, and that can grow wages (and maybe slow inflation while they are at it) is going to benefit everyone in the US in some way or another.

Out of curiosity, would you have been happier with an austerity approach, so we all pay more in taxes and decrease debt? Just so i understand what you think would have been "better", for context.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Plain and simple: more socialism and less wet pants. The leftwing administration running Portugal managed to turn the tide without any austerity whatsoever, there are alternatives. Meanwhile the EUlites crapped their pants, running around like hysteric chicken with another member state not giving a fck about the Troikas sacred austerity cuts. Things are about to change already.

And besides... I don't think that this dictate of "free markets" is going to end well for any human being at all, thus the economy shouldn't be of any concern whatsoever. The sooner this bubble of "too big to jail" bursts, the better for all of us who actually produce something.
If there's one thing the Chinese are willing to sacrifice a 'communists' revolution, their environment and their own people for, then it's probably the 'free' markets they're going to conquer. Said economy obviously isn't our friend, she never was anything else than a cheap whore that some people lifted on an altar, let's be candid about that as well.

Amusing to watch the Chinese reaction though, further dropping the taxes for corporations in order to render any foreign efforts as de facto useless. You guys saw that, too? This is big corp already running the world while we're left fighting for literal crumbs, talking about a few little pieces in a bigger game of memory.