It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

To Lefties: Why Won't Nancy Vote On A Proper Impeachment Resolution?

page: 6
23
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 29 2019 @ 02:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: Deetermined
a reply to: neo96

It just goes to show you how desperate Democrats are to find ANYTHING they can to remove Trump before everything else gets revealed.


That's one way to look at it.

Another is that Mr. Trump has done plenty of things in plain sight of all of us to merit Impeachment, Republicans have demonstrated that they are just as dishonest as the Democrats and have no more respect for the Constitution.

Also, I know many are banking all hopes and dreams on Durham/Barr, but, whatever happens there, it's not going to touch the real players ... and I would submit that anyone who doesn't realize that might be playing on the wrong site.

In my opinion.




posted on Oct, 29 2019 @ 03:09 PM
link   
To date I have heard two consistent things from the DNC and their candidates... 1: Orange man Bad... 2: Got to raise taxes on the middle class to pay for all the free stuff being promised.

Of the two only one can be used as a smokescreen, I dont think there is a chance they actually try to impeach before the election cause then their candidate would have to run on the merits of their platform... which would be a hefty tax increase which floors their chances again.



posted on Oct, 29 2019 @ 03:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Irishhaf
To date I have heard two consistent things from the DNC and their candidates... 1: Orange man Bad... 2: Got to raise taxes on the middle class to pay for all the free stuff being promised.

Of the two only one can be used as a smokescreen, I dont think there is a chance they actually try to impeach before the election cause then their candidate would have to run on the merits of their platform... which would be a hefty tax increase which floors their chances again.


I think there would have to be a tax increase given that we're still going massively into debt, but I haven't seen any of the candidates arguing for an increase on middle-class Americans ... most of the time they're talking about taxing the "super rich" or "1 percent" or whatever catchphrase.

DId I miss it?



posted on Oct, 29 2019 @ 03:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

It sounds like you have the same mindset as Lt. Colonel Alexander Vindman who might as well have come out in his testimony today to say that having the Ukraine as a buffer against Russia is more important than any corruption being committed by the Ukraine or between Ukraine and the U.S..

The truth is, the real national security issue is all of the corruption that's bound to backfire.

If it's true that Ukraine has been paying our FBI millions of dollars to look the other way, the only ones who are going to suffer is us as we send them billions more to continue their corrupt schemes.



posted on Oct, 29 2019 @ 03:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66


How well has taxing the 1% worked in the past? it inevitably fails to get the money promised which typically leads to the middle class taking it in the shorts.


ETA: some of my reading has said 3-4 trillion more in revenue would be required for Warrens promises which would be a hefty tax hike to gather that much more money.


edit on 29-10-2019 by Irishhaf because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 29 2019 @ 03:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66


I think there would have to be a tax increase given that we're still going massively into debt, but I haven't seen any of the candidates arguing for an increase on middle-class Americans ... most of the time they're talking about taxing the "super rich" or "1 percent" or whatever catchphrase.


Are there really people stupid enough to fall for that?! Medicare-For-All would demand a tax increase on everyone. In the meanwhile, the super rich are already looking/finding new ways and tax exemptions to write off those tax increases that the working class don't have. What fools.


edit on 29-10-2019 by Deetermined because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 29 2019 @ 03:19 PM
link   





posted on Oct, 29 2019 @ 04:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Deetermined
a reply to: Gryphon66


I think there would have to be a tax increase given that we're still going massively into debt, but I haven't seen any of the candidates arguing for an increase on middle-class Americans ... most of the time they're talking about taxing the "super rich" or "1 percent" or whatever catchphrase.


Are there really people stupid enough to fall for that?! Medicare-For-All would demand a tax increase on everyone. In the meanwhile, the super rich are already looking/finding new ways and tax exemptions to write off those tax increases that the working class don't have. What fools.



I don't disagree completely. I think the "super rich" would do a bottom-line calculation. IF they paid a tax that would ... create a national system of healthcare that all could access or whatever pony ... what would their net loss be compared with ... moving to another country or what-not.

These folks don't think about money the same way we do.



posted on Oct, 29 2019 @ 04:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Irishhaf
a reply to: Gryphon66


How well has taxing the 1% worked in the past? it inevitably fails to get the money promised which typically leads to the middle class taking it in the shorts.


ETA: some of my reading has said 3-4 trillion more in revenue would be required for Warrens promises which would be a hefty tax hike to gather that much more money.



Worked okay in the 50s I guess. You know the AG in MAGA?

I want to see a workable, sustainable national healthcare plan. I don't want pie-in-the-sky promises, and I don't want to crash the economy again to do it.

I'm not a fan of Bernie/Warren/AOC's economics by any stretch of the imagination.



posted on Oct, 29 2019 @ 04:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Deetermined
a reply to: Gryphon66

It sounds like you have the same mindset as Lt. Colonel Alexander Vindman who might as well have come out in his testimony today to say that having the Ukraine as a buffer against Russia is more important than any corruption being committed by the Ukraine or between Ukraine and the U.S..

The truth is, the real national security issue is all of the corruption that's bound to backfire.

If it's true that Ukraine has been paying our FBI millions of dollars to look the other way, the only ones who are going to suffer is us as we send them billions more to continue their corrupt schemes.


As I understand it, the pressures from the US and EU during the last Obama term were directed at just that concern. Basically, if you want to keep our help, clean up your house. Thus, Shokin was removed by their Parliament as a "token" gesture ... and of course JoeyB had to brag about it ... and here we are.

Russia wants to control natural gas supply to the EU. So far, we don't want them to. I think that's a fair summary of where we are geopolitically.

... and I am saddened by that.



posted on Oct, 29 2019 @ 04:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Irishhaf
a reply to: Gryphon66


How well has taxing the 1% worked in the past? it inevitably fails to get the money promised which typically leads to the middle class taking it in the shorts.


ETA: some of my reading has said 3-4 trillion more in revenue would be required for Warrens promises which would be a hefty tax hike to gather that much more money.



Worked okay in the 50s I guess. You know the AG in MAGA?



Nah, more like '88
edit on 29-10-2019 by Wardaddy454 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 29 2019 @ 04:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Irishhaf
To date I have heard two consistent things from the DNC and their candidates... 1: Orange man Bad... 2: Got to raise taxes on the middle class to pay for all the free stuff being promised.

Of the two only one can be used as a smokescreen, I dont think there is a chance they actually try to impeach before the election cause then their candidate would have to run on the merits of their platform... which would be a hefty tax increase which floors their chances again.


I think there would have to be a tax increase given that we're still going massively into debt, but I haven't seen any of the candidates arguing for an increase on middle-class Americans ... most of the time they're talking about taxing the "super rich" or "1 percent" or whatever catchphrase.

DId I miss it?



Anyone with half a brain knows there isn't enough money among all the wealthy and corporations to pay for what they want. So it has to come from somewhere. For most of the people being offered free stuff, anyone making north of the average income for the country is "wealthy", so that means most of the middle class.

Besides, look up the figures, the amount of wealth held in private retirement accounts dwarfs anything held by the so-called 1% even if you confiscate everything they have. Politicians ain't dumb. They know it.

If they want to propose trillions in new spending, they have to likewise propose trillions in new taxation, and that comes from those who collectively actually have it -- the middle class.

Also, no one who is proposing these things is saying let's raise taxes to pay off the debt. They're talking about free health care, free college, free, free, free, etc., which is more spending on top of the spending we already cannot tax enough to pay for.



posted on Oct, 29 2019 @ 04:59 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96


Gryphon66
Impeachment is the sole power of the House.



originally posted by: neo96

No.

Peas and Carrots.

House starts it.

Senate gets the final say.

Those checks and balances eh.


You're almost right. Impeachment is like an indictment. It's basically drawing up and filing charges, and is the sole power of the House, so you're wrong on that count.

The Senate then acts like a court where a "trial" is held on those charges/indictments (aka: the impeachment by the House). "Verdicts" are then made, and any punishment is decided.

For instance saying "Clinton was impeached for lying under oath" is similar to saying "Clinton was indicted for lying under oath". Congress just uses different language than the courts, and has its own process through impeachment by the House, and a "trial" by the Senate.

Claiming the Senate shares the power of impeachment is like claiming a jury gets to file charges/indictments in a court case that they've been assigned to. That's not their job, nor their privilege. They're simply a part of the trial, get to vote guilt or innocence on the charges, and, in Congress, also act like a judge in determining any punishment.
edit on 10/29/19 by redmage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 29 2019 @ 05:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Irishhaf
a reply to: Gryphon66


How well has taxing the 1% worked in the past? it inevitably fails to get the money promised which typically leads to the middle class taking it in the shorts.


ETA: some of my reading has said 3-4 trillion more in revenue would be required for Warrens promises which would be a hefty tax hike to gather that much more money.



Worked okay in the 50s I guess. You know the AG in MAGA?

I want to see a workable, sustainable national healthcare plan. I don't want pie-in-the-sky promises, and I don't want to crash the economy again to do it.

I'm not a fan of Bernie/Warren/AOC's economics by any stretch of the imagination.


Different mind set prior to greed is good in the 80s I dont doubt that even the rich guys saying they will pay will not pay whats expected.



posted on Oct, 29 2019 @ 05:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Deetermined




Are there really people stupid enough to fall for that?! Medicare-For-All would demand a tax increase on everyone.


FICA TAXES.

Your already paying for it.

Your employer is 'helping' you pay for it.

Your capital gains medicare surtax is paying for it again.

On top of printing more money.

On top of borrowing from China.

All for that so called safety net.

Thats what we have now which is a little of 72 million.

Now imagine 'medicare for ALL' which is over 325 million plus illegal immigrants. That don't stop coming.

Medicare right now is a disaster.

Medicare for all would be apocalyptic.



posted on Oct, 29 2019 @ 06:13 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

That is such a curious rhetorical device ... "anyone with half a brain" ... which is almost always followed up by opinion.

You forget that the middle-class has shrunk considerably in the last few decades, due mostly to Republican economic theories. The middle-class IS NOW the poor.

Pick one of Pony Pack that you like the least and present their plan and what's wrong with it. Making sweeping statements about generalities gets us nowhere.

The American middle-class does not hold most of the wealth in this country and you know that. You're making a purely partisan argument, not an economic one.

The debt has soared under the Trump tax-cuts, which were supposed to, if I remember the President's words, pay for themselves in two years.

Nope. Not even close. Not even in the same universe.

I agree with you wholeheartedly that the converse answer is absurd as well, e.g. Free Ponies.

The true answer is to understand clearly that the American economy is a MIXED economy, and we need to find balance between taxes and tax cuts, spending and spending cuts, regulation and deregulation, and utterly avoid the extremist nonsense from all quarters.
edit on 29-10-2019 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Oct, 29 2019 @ 06:14 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

Can we ask if you utilize any government benefits?

You don't have to be specific, just yes or no.



posted on Oct, 29 2019 @ 06:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Irishhaf

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Irishhaf
a reply to: Gryphon66


How well has taxing the 1% worked in the past? it inevitably fails to get the money promised which typically leads to the middle class taking it in the shorts.


ETA: some of my reading has said 3-4 trillion more in revenue would be required for Warrens promises which would be a hefty tax hike to gather that much more money.



Worked okay in the 50s I guess. You know the AG in MAGA?

I want to see a workable, sustainable national healthcare plan. I don't want pie-in-the-sky promises, and I don't want to crash the economy again to do it.

I'm not a fan of Bernie/Warren/AOC's economics by any stretch of the imagination.


Different mind set prior to greed is good in the 80s I dont doubt that even the rich guys saying they will pay will not pay whats expected.


Good point. I hadn't considered that MAGA folks might be thinking of the 80s as the Great America.

Gordon Gekko, what an aptly-named character, eh?



posted on Oct, 29 2019 @ 06:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: neo96

Can we ask if you utilize any government benefits?

You don't have to be specific, just yes or no.


I personally pay for a ton of them benefits and am not getting my money's worth....

Lolz🤪



posted on Oct, 29 2019 @ 06:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

That's your counter to triple taxation?

WEAK.




top topics



 
23
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join