[leann2001nl]

Those people basically pay nothing in taxes now.

If you’re married and you make 100k you’re in the 12% bracket after standard deduction. You have a couple kids that is 4k in credit. They literally pay like 4k or less in taxes. So I really don’t think this kind of stuff accomplishes anything. If you make 50k combined you literally pay 0 federal income tax. So I’m not sure what we’re supposed to do, give them free money?

We do need a simpler tax structure. It’s just hard to say you’re going to help middle class when they already pay almost nothing in taxes. Simplify and remove deductions you’ll see a big bump in revenue. Why mess with rates? Just simplify it all. Obviously simplifying the tax structure will predominately affect the rates the ultra rich pay, I’m just not sure why the middle class need ever more help. They have a pretty sweet gig now. They all pay single digits effective income tax. I’m not sure of any other countries in the world where that is the case. I’d love for somebody to show me. 

[leann2001nl]

Does anyone understand math?

100k – 24k = 76k x. 12 they are paying 8k in federal income tax without kids. 4k if they have 2 kids and that is assuming no other above line deductions which most people will probably have some like student loan interest for example.

So you’re saying the 75th percentile in the country for household income is only paying like 4k a year in taxes and we think that is too high and they need further help?

[btomba_77]

[link=https://www.politico.com/story/2019/01/21/kamala-harris-2020-campaign-plan-1116052]Politico[/link]: [b]Inside Kamala Harris’ Campaign Strategy[/b]

Kamala Harris Democratic opponents are already telegraphing that they plan to make her law-and-order background an enormous vulnerability with voters on the left. But the California senator, who announced her bid for the White House on Monday amid an early wave of scrutiny of her career as a prosecutor, thinks she can turn the criticism on its head.

According to interviews with a half-dozen of her confidants and strategists, Harris will court voters wary of law enforcement by presenting herself as a kinder and gentler prosecutor a progressive attorney who advocated for the vulnerable and served the public interest.

At the same time, they believe leaning into her background will allow her to project toughness against Donald Trump, and contrast what they call her evidence-based approach to law and politics with the presidents carelessness with facts and legal troubles with the special prosecutor.

[link=https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-kamala-harris-san-francisco-20190121-story.html]Los Angeles Times[/link]: Her rivals could soon see the mix of cold calculation, relentless fundraising and force of personality that drove Harris quick rise, starting with the overthrow of her old boss in the prosecutors office. It set her on a path to statewide office and, barely two years into her Senate term, a top-tier try for the White House.

[leann2001nl]

How is it even possible for a family that makes 100k to owe 6k in federal taxes? They would have to have 1 kid or none.  Like I said this will result in them paying literally 0 federal income tax. I have no idea how one could argue the 75th percentile of income should pay 0 federal income tax. That is ludicrous. 
 
Do they actually run the numbers before they come up with this stuff? It’s literally hilarious to me, some of the situations they describe are mathematically impossible with our current tax schemes. aka there are no families will multiple children who make 100k who pay 6k in federal income tax. It’s literally impossible. 
 
“tax credit for people who pay more than 30 percent of their income in rent and utilities.”

yes lets go out and encourage gluttony for people to rent apartments they can’t afford, instead of collecting tax revenue. that sounds good for the country. I mean you can’t make this stuff up. 
 
Types of people who are paying > 30 % of their income on rent and utilities and living cheaply are already paying no income tax. So you’re  just enabling people to rent expensive apartments to avoid taxes. you truly cannot make this stuff up. 

[ruszja]

‘Law and order background.’
 
Lolz.

[kaldridgewv2211]

I’m not really all that excited about any Dem candidate at this point.

On the whole tax thing all I wonder is why the country seemed to be well when the highest rates were very high.

We’ll see I guess. ACO was talking high rates too.

[leann2001nl]

Quote from DICOM_Dan

I’m not really all that excited about any Dem candidate at this point.

On the whole tax thing all I wonder is why the country seemed to be well when the highest rates were very high.

We’ll see I guess. ACO was talking high rates too.

effective rates have been pretty similar for like 70+ years. those crazy high rates back then don’t really mean anything, no one was paying them. There was also massive tax evasion seeing as the organization is obviously quite a bit different now.

[kaldridgewv2211]

Quote from IR27

Quote from DICOM_Dan

I’m not really all that excited about any Dem candidate at this point.

On the whole tax thing all I wonder is why the country seemed to be well when the highest rates were very high.

We’ll see I guess. ACO was talking high rates too.

effective rates have been pretty similar for like 70+ years. those crazy high rates back then don’t really mean anything, no one was paying them. There was also massive tax evasion seeing as the organization is obviously quite a bit different now.

I suspect if you look up some charts you’ll see it was like 15%-20% higher than say the 80’s when income inequality started to increase more and more.  I do think income inequality is a big issue in America.  I don’t think there’s an easy answer either.  If the top 1% really has more $ than the rest of 99% I think you have to effectively tax the bejesus out of them or some other way disincentive paying huge sums of money to the tippy top earners.  Maybe that gets more $$$$ flowing to the bottom.  The rising tide then lifts those big boats.  I’m way on a tangent though.    

[leann2001nl]

Top 1% and 0.01% are two different animals. The people making billions are getting a free ride. The doctor making 250k really isn’t. Tax the bejesus out of the first. Not the second. To do that you have to simplify tax system and remove deductions. Deductions overwhelmingly favor the extremely rich.

As I showed above middle class families pay almost 0 tax now. So I’m not sure how the tide can rise any higher with respect to the taxes they owe. They should contribute a reasonable amount now, like 15-20 %, instead of 3-5% effective which is standard now.

Income equality means nothing. If everyone is well fed and happy does it matter that some guy makes 50 billion a year? What we should try to do is help poor people. That is a different concept than bringing everyone closer for some arbitrary reason.

[leann2001nl]

I just laugh at all these liberal politicians who run on promise of 70% rate or whatever. No one will end up paying it. It’s pointless. All spin, no bite. If they actually wanted to increase the taxes the rich pay they’d get rid of the deductions. And then there IRS wouldn’t have to be a multiple billion dollar ineffective industry and there wouldn’t be an entire industry devoted to tax preparation. It’s ridiculous. It shouldn’t be that complicated.

[Unknown Member]

The 70% tax is like the southern border wall

Its gets the extreme left base fired up to soak the rich

It gets the right fired up to fight against it

…… but in the end there are ways around it…. over it and through it.

Political red herring just like the stupid fng border wall

[leann2001nl]

Kpack finally something we can agree on!

[kayla.meyer_144]

Too much misinformation being thrown around about historical tax rates and inequality, etc. 
 
[link=http://www.nbcnews.com/id/29861648/ns/politics-capitol_hill/t/how-tax-burden-has-changed]http://www.nbcnews.com/id…tax-burden-has-changed[/link]
 

But whats different is that the income tax burden is being carried to a greater extent today by upper-income people than it was 30 years ago, according to an analysis by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office which tracks data going back to 1979.
 
[b]In 1979, the top 10 percent of households, as measured by income, paid 40.6 percent of all federal taxes; other ninety percent paid 59.4 percent.[/b]
 
But by 2005, the top 10 percent accounted for nearly 55 percent of all federal tax revenues, while the rest of the population paid about 45 percent.
 
[b]In large part this is due to the large increase in the concentration of income, rather than a more progressive tax system, said Joel Slemrod, the director of the Office of Tax Policy Research at the University of Michigan Business School.[/b]
 
[b]Economists Thomas Piketty of the Paris School of Economics and Emmanuel Saez of the University of California at Berkeley find that the share of income going to the top 0.1 percent of the income distribution “was around 2.5 of total income in the 1970s and reached a peak above 9 percent of total income in 2000. In fact, most of the overall increase in the inequality of income has been driven by the very top of the income distribution…[/b]

 
And the 70% tax rate is not 70% of whatever is earned. 70% is a “marginal” tax rate.
 
[link=https://www.gobankingrates.com/taxes/tax-laws/70-percent-tax-rate-explained/]https://www.gobankingrate…nt-tax-rate-explained/[/link]

Its important to note that those being taxed at a rate of 70 percent wouldnt have their whole income taxed at that rate. Everyone is [link=https://www.gobankingrates.com/taxes/tax-laws/new-irs-tax-brackets/]taxed at 10 percent on their first $9,700 in income[/link] if they are filing as single. From there, the more you earn, the higher your tax rates are.

 
[link=https://www.fool.com/investing/2019/01/09/who-would-pay-a-70-tax-rate-on-income-over-10-mill.aspx]https://www.fool.com/inve…come-over-10-mill.aspx[/link]
 

Recently elected U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York went on [i]60 Minutes [/i]on Sunday, and called for a 70% marginal tax rate on income over $10 million, with the added revenues to be earmarked toward a variety of social programs. Republican politicians’ and right wing pundits’ responses to the idea were swift and (unsurprisingly) outraged.
 
In the United States, we currently have seven tax brackets. As you earn more, your increased income lifts you into brackets for which you pay increasingly higher percentages in taxes — but only for the money earned [i]in[/i] those brackets.
 
Approximately 16,000 Americans earned over $10 million in 2016, the most recent year for which data is available, according to [i]The Washington Post.[/i] That’s about 0.05% of all households, or 1 in 2,000, [i]Post [/i]reporter Jeff Stein noted.

 
Middle class taxpayers and especially those in the median income group and lower experienced lower taxes as their median income remained stagnant while the upper income groups grew greatly in income. For the longer run what needs to be done is reduce inequality so that most of the GDP value is not shunted towards the top but towards the middle as it was in the past.
 
[link=https://www.epi.org/publication/charting-wage-stagnation/]https://www.epi.org/publi…rting-wage-stagnation/[/link]
 

[leann2001nl]

Quote from Frumious

Too much misinformation being thrown around about historical tax rates and inequality, etc. 

[link=http://www.nbcnews.com/id/29861648/ns/politics-capitol_hill/t/how-tax-burden-has-changed]http://www.nbcnews.com/id…tax-burden-has-changed[/link]

But whats different is that the income tax burden is being carried to a greater extent today by upper-income people than it was 30 years ago, according to an analysis by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office which tracks data going back to 1979.

[b]In 1979, the top 10 percent of households, as measured by income, paid 40.6 percent of all federal taxes; other ninety percent paid 59.4 percent.[/b]

But by 2005, the top 10 percent accounted for nearly 55 percent of all federal tax revenues, while the rest of the population paid about 45 percent.

[b]In large part this is due to the large increase in the concentration of income, rather than a more progressive tax system, said Joel Slemrod, the director of the Office of Tax Policy Research at the University of Michigan Business School.[/b]

[b]Economists Thomas Piketty of the Paris School of Economics and Emmanuel Saez of the University of California at Berkeley find that the share of income going to the top 0.1 percent of the income distribution “was around 2.5 of total income in the 1970s and reached a peak above 9 percent of total income in 2000. In fact, most of the overall increase in the inequality of income has been driven by the very top of the income distribution…[/b]

And the 70% tax rate is not 70% of whatever is earned. 70% is a “marginal” tax rate.

[link=https://www.gobankingrates.com/taxes/tax-laws/70-percent-tax-rate-explained/]https://www.gobankingrate…nt-tax-rate-explained/[/link]

Its important to note that those being taxed at a rate of 70 percent wouldnt have their whole income taxed at that rate. Everyone is [link=https://www.gobankingrates.com/taxes/tax-laws/new-irs-tax-brackets/]taxed at 10 percent on their first $9,700 in income[/link] if they are filing as single. From there, the more you earn, the higher your tax rates are.

[link=https://www.fool.com/investing/2019/01/09/who-would-pay-a-70-tax-rate-on-income-over-10-mill.aspx]https://www.fool.com/inve…come-over-10-mill.aspx[/link]

Recently elected U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York went on [i]60 Minutes [/i]on Sunday, and called for a 70% marginal tax rate on income over $10 million, with the added revenues to be earmarked toward a variety of social programs. Republican politicians’ and right wing pundits’ responses to the idea were swift and (unsurprisingly) outraged.

In the United States, we currently have seven tax brackets. As you earn more, your increased income lifts you into brackets for which you pay increasingly higher percentages in taxes — but only for the money earned [i]in[/i] those brackets.

Approximately 16,000 Americans earned over $10 million in 2016, the most recent year for which data is available, according to [i]The Washington Post.[/i] That’s about 0.05% of all households, or 1 in 2,000, [i]Post [/i]reporter Jeff Stein noted.

Middle class taxpayers and especially those in the median income group and lower experienced lower taxes as their median income remained stagnant while the upper income groups grew greatly in income. For the longer run what needs to be done is reduce inequality so that most of the GDP value is not shunted towards the top but towards the middle as it was in the past.

[link=https://www.epi.org/publication/charting-wage-stagnation/]https://www.epi.org/publi…rting-wage-stagnation/[/link]

 
how does taxing rich people more do anything about the income of the poor and middle class? It doesn’t. 
 
again ,why is inequality a bad thing. If everyone made 100k, and you needed 30k to live and some guy made 100 billion a year, is that a bad thing? Why do you deserve some of that guys money? Again, all you should worry about is if the poor have enough to live. You can say they don’t and we can discuss that. There’s no logical basis for doing anything inequality because inequality doesn’t inherently say anything about the quality of living of people. 

[leann2001nl]

income inequality is the dumbest argument the left possibly has. 
 
If everyone makes the exact same, but everyone is poor, is that a good thing? but there’s no inequality right?! 
 
all you should worry about is people being able to afford what they need to live, which is a completely independent function of income inequality. 
 
again someone could make a 100 billion a year, but if everyone has what they need to live reasonably well, that wouldn’t be a bad system. 

[kayla.meyer_144]

You mean if wealth is directed more to the top and away for the middle and bottom, it has no effect whatsoever on people and the economy?
 
That is your argument?
 
Explain then.

[leann2001nl]

I gave you scenarios.
 
If everyone has what they need and some random guy has 10000000x that, is that a problem to you? That is income inequality. Yet everyone has what they need. 
 
If no one has what they need, but everyone makes the same amount, is that a problem to you? That is no income inequality. Yet no one has what they need. 
 
Wealth is not a vacuum, it can be created. It is possible for the rich to be rich and the poor to have what they need. Address those two scenarios for me. Are they a problem? Which one or both? 

[kayla.meyer_144]

Here, read these articles. Unless you dismiss Scientific American as some sort of leftist rag.
 
[link=https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-american-economy-is-rigged/]https://www.scientificame…can-economy-is-rigged/[/link]
 
[link=https://www.scientificamerican.com/report/the-science-of-inequality1/]https://www.scientificame…cience-of-inequality1/[/link]
 
Or go to the library and pick up the November 2018 issue & read the special report to get a handle.
 
It is nothing to do with envy of the rich. That is your blind spot.

[leann2001nl]

address what I said. 

[Unknown Member]

If you create a product or service that benefits many
and builds incredible wealth for you, the left has decided that you are immoral.

A conservative vegan eats no meat.
A liberal vegan eats no meat and demands that you eat no meat.
It’s that simple.

[Unknown Member]

Funny that education is now thought bad by conservatives

If you are educated you are elite

Elite is bad

Republicans should stop educating their children immediately

[Unknown Member]

Of course

When you are independently wealthy from family money….. use to be a cardiologist who now is an IR radiologist who doesnt practice much anymore because he is independently wealthy and who hangs out on a Radiology message board for sheets and giggles…… then education for common folk doesnt matter much too you …..does it

[Unknown Member]

And has many many liberal friends

[kayla.meyer_144]

Quote from IR_CONSULT

If you create a product or service that benefits many
and builds incredible wealth for you, the left has decided that you are immoral.

A conservative vegan eats no meat.
A liberal vegan eats no meat and demands that you eat no meat.
It’s that simple.

You watch Tucker Carlson or something?
 
These are 101% totally bogus beliefs. You might as well believe in fairies and magic. Yours is a defensive rationalization, “They want to take my money. They don’t want to work for it themselves. They believe my money is evil and therefore I am evil & their salvation for me is to take my money for me.”
 
I’ll get back to your request to answer your question as soon as I figure out what exactly you are asking. My problems with your past arguments is primarily twofold, you argue extreme absolutes and you start off from an imagined conclusion about your “opposition.”
 
Even Karl Marx did not believe such infantile nonsense. Where did you develop these beliefs? 
  
Please provide some source materials rationally arguing what you have said. It’s crazy nonsense.
 
 

[kayla.meyer_144]

Quote from IR27

I gave you scenarios.

If everyone has what they need and some random guy has 10000000x that, is that a problem to you? That is income inequality. Yet everyone has what they need. 

If no one has what they need, but everyone makes the same amount, is that a problem to you? That is no income inequality. Yet no one has what they need. 

Wealth is not a vacuum, it can be created. It is possible for the rich to be rich and the poor to have what they need. Address those two scenarios for me. Are they a problem? Which one or both? 

Yours are bogus scenarios. Please give me a link showing where you get your conclusions. What “leftie” person or publication states what you say is their/our/my belief.
 
Who says no one can earn wealth? & how do you propose to provide for the poor? Or even the middle class who have lost much in the past decades?
 
Your starting point is bogus and not based on any actual reality. There is no there, there.
 
I provided you a few articles from Scientific American regarding economic inequality. SciAm is not some Lefty rag. I you think so then defend your argument. 

[leann2001nl]

I contend that income inequality isn’t a thing. like I don’t care about it, it doesnt matter. I care if average people can buy the stuff they need. I don’t care how much bill gates or bezos makes. It does not matter. 
 
dude I literally don’t think you can read. like your responses to what I say you literally cannot read. when did I say anything about everyone making 100 billion?
 
I want to help poor people. I don’t want to bring down rich people. There’s a difference and by bringing down rich people you are’t inherently helping poor people. 
 
 

[leann2001nl]

again why does it matter what bezos makes. if everyone is happy and healthy then it doesn’t. again yes we can help poor people. that doesn’t mean we need to bring bezos down. 
 
the middle class have gotten more rich on average. you yourself have posted graphics that prove this. I have no idea how you can say the middle class have lost much, it’s a straight up lie.

[leann2001nl]

I can make up some random stat and write an article about it. Who cares. like I said it doesn’t matter. 
 
if everybody made 20k we’d be screwed, yet that has no income inequality. if everyone made 100k except jeff bezos and prices remained the same, we’d prosper for the most part. yet that is a lot of income inequality. 
 
I honestly don’t know if you’re capable of having rational discussions, these are extremely basic points. 

[ruszja]

Quote from IR27

I want to help poor people. I don’t want to bring down rich people. There’s a difference and by bringing down rich people you are’t inherently helping poor people. 

 
The economy is not a zero-sum game. We know that. Socialists dont.

[Unknown Member]

The socialists are all around you

Cmon cut the sheet

Trump is a turd and everyone is starting to realize that

No you guys are all crying saying how bad the evil liberals are

Get use to losing

[Unknown Member]

The socialists are all around you

Cmon cut the sheet

Trump is a turd and everyone is starting to realize that

No you guys are all crying saying how bad the evil liberals are

Get use to losing

[kayla.meyer_144]

In reply to IR27
Quote from IR27

I want to help poor people. I don’t want to bring down rich people. There’s a difference and by bringing down rich people you are’t inherently helping poor people.

The economy is not a zero-sum game. We know that. Socialists dont.

Ummm, dont look now fw, but your shorts are showing. It is your man, Trump who believes in the zero sum game. And yet you support him while speaking out the other side of your mouth?

Shame.

[ruszja]

Quote from kpack123

The socialists are all around you

Cmon cut the sheet

Trump is a turd and everyone is starting to realize that

No you guys are all crying saying how bad the evil liberals are

Get use to losing

Quote from kpack123

The socialists are all around you

Cmon cut the sheet

Trump is a turd and everyone is starting to realize that

No you guys are all crying saying how bad the evil liberals are

Get use to losing

 

Quote from Frumious

 

In reply to IR27 
Quote from IR27 

I want to help poor people. I don’t want to bring down rich people. There’s a difference and by bringing down rich people you are’t inherently helping poor people. 

The economy is not a zero-sum game. We know that. Socialists dont.  

Ummm, dont look now fw, but your shorts are showing. It is your man, Trump who believes in the zero sum game. And yet you support him while speaking out the other side of your mouth? 

Shame. 

 
 
Unhinged.

[kayla.meyer_144]

Trump certainly is & it is obvious.

[Unknown Member]

Someone has been spending too much time in the shower fixating on Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

These middle aged to old frustrated guys have a secret fetish with her so they try to justify it by claiming socialist are out to get them

Its these Fox News craziness that are unhinged fixating on a cute young Latino girl

Creepy

[ruszja]

Quote from kpack123

Someone has been spending too much time in the shower fixating on Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

 
I haven’t said a word about her. 
 
It’s called projection. Read up on it.

[katiemckee84_223]

The only conclusion at this point (one just needs to read posts on this page alone) is that kpack is mentally disturbed.

[kayla.meyer_144]

Assuming that’s true, are you backing kpack for President then as Trump’s successor due to the qualification of “mentally disturbed?”
 
VOTE PRESIDENT KPACK!

[leann2001nl]

You care hence when you talk about income inequality. When you are talking about fixing “inequality” you are literally talking about bringing the rich down.

Not sure if you read the things you write. You consistently make statements and then backtrack

[kayla.meyer_144]

DOWN? As in POOR? 
 
You are nuts. The small tax on billionaires is small change compared to what these billionaires are left with in the bank after the tax. Somehow the rich survived in the 1950’s when the top marginal rate was 90% and through the 1970’s when the marginal rate was 70%.
 
How did they ever survive?

[leann2001nl]

No one paid those rates then. Effective rates are pretty constant. Liberals love these nominal things. Just like the 70%. No one pays it. It will not raise revenue at all. It’s so obvious it hurts.

[kayla.meyer_144]

Quote from IR27

No one paid those rates then. Effective rates are pretty constant. Liberals love these nominal things. Just like the 70%. No one pays it. It will not raise revenue at all. It’s so obvious it hurts.

Well, no one “pays” 70% marginal rate now because there is no such marginal rate.
 
As for alleging “it will not raise revenue,” that is silly just on its face.  Please justify that argument with some facts showing that.
 
 

[kayla.meyer_144]

Meet George Romney. Before your time I know but he lived during the time of 91% marginal tax rates yet he still worked.
 
[link=https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/05/opinion/rich-getting-richer-taxes.html]https://www.nytimes.com/2…ting-richer-taxes.html[/link]
 

A half-century ago, a top automobile executive named George Romney yes, Mitts father turned down several big annual bonuses. He did so, he told his companys board, because he believed that no executive should make more than $225,000 a year (which translates into almost $2 million today).
 
He worried that the temptations of success could distract people from more important matters, as he said [link=http://www.gcpress.com/romney/]to a biographer[/link], T. George Harris. This belief seems to have stemmed from both Romneys Mormon faith and a culture of financial restraint that was once commonplace in this country.
 
Romney didnt try to make every dollar he could, or anywhere close to it. The same was true among many of his corporate peers. In the early 1960s, the typical chief executive at a large American company made only [link=http://www.epi.org/publication/ceo-pay-continues-to-rise/]20 times as much as[/link] the average worker, rather than the current [link=http://www.epi.org/press/top-ceos-took-home-271-times-more-than-the-typical-worker-in-2016/]271-to-1[/link] ratio. Today, some C.E.O.s make $2 million in a single month.

 

The theory behind all those high-end tax cuts a theory that I once found persuasive, I admit was that it would unleash entrepreneurial energy: The lure of great wealth would inspire business leaders to work harder and smarter, and the economy would flourish.
 
The first half of that theory may well have come true. Many of the worlds most successful companies are American not only Amazon, Apple, Facebook and Google, but also Exxon Mobil, Walmart, Johnson & Johnson and JPMorgan Chase. The second half of the theory, however, has been a bust. [b]Most Americans have not flourished in the era of a reduced top-end tax rate[/b].

 

What would be the right top tax rate today? I dont know the precise answer.  But I am convinced that the current top tax rate, 39.6 percent, is too low.
 
It has contributed to soaring inequality, with the affluent having received both the biggest pretax raises and the biggest tax cuts. Plus, there is [link=http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/16/opinion/sunday/do-tax-cuts-lead-to-economic-growth.html?mcubz=0&module=inline]no evidence[/link] that a modestly higher rate would hurt the economy. [b]The recent president with the strongest economic record, Bill Clinton, increased the rate, while the one with the [link=http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/02/13/growth_under_george_w_bush_was_pretty_lousy.html]weakest[/link] economic record, George W. Bush, cut it.[/b]

 
  [link=https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/08/07/opinion/leonhardt-income-inequality.html]https://www.nytimes.com/i…income-inequality.html[/link]
 

 

[kayla.meyer_144]

More news related to DAVOS and the Billionaire$ who attended. Seems there was a Dutch historian who attended who got the billionaires’ panties in a collective knot by telling them the solution they did not want to hear, meaning the solution to the world’s inequality is not tax avoidance and tax cuts but taxes. As he said, it’s like going to a firemen’s convention but not being allowed to talk about water.
 
Well, seems Tucker Carlson & Faux News are trying to rebrand themselves a bit to the rubes by claiming he/Faux is for the regular guy getting screwed by the elites. Rutger Begman told Tucker that was a lie & Tucker lost it entirely. The “interview” was not aired by Faux as it portrays Tucker as the nasty idiot that he is. But the video was rescued by NowThis.
 
Enjoy!
 
[size=”0″][link=https://nowthisnews.com/videos/politics/leaked-fox-news-segment-with-rutger-bregman-gets-out-of-hand]https://nowthisnews.com/v…egman-gets-out-of-hand[/link][/size]
 
[size=”0″]
[/size]
 

[kayla.meyer_144]

Found some commentary on VOX.
 
[link=https://www.vox.com/2019/2/20/18233556/tucker-carlson-rutger-bregman-nowthis-dutch-historian]https://www.vox.com/2019/…owthis-dutch-historian[/link]
 

The interview starts off calmly enough, but ends with Carlson telling Bregman to go f.uck yourself:
 
If Carlson had actually read Bregmans book [link=https://go.redirectingat.com/?id=66960X1516588&xs=1&url=https%3A%2F%2Fsmile.amazon.com%2FUtopia-Realists-Build-Ideal-World-ebook%2Fdp%2FB01MXDBTWM%3Fsa-no-redirect%3D1]Utopia for Realists[/link], or [link=https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2019/1/30/18203911/davos-rutger-bregman-historian-taxes-philanthropy]read his interview with Vox[/link] where he condemns right-wing anti-immigrant populists like Donald Trump and Geert Wilders (and, by extension, Carlson), none of this would be surprising. Matching him up against Carlson who has railed against [link=https://www.businessinsider.com/tucker-carlson-roma-gypsies-defecating-public-2017-7]gypsies,[/link] decried immigrants for making America [link=https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/12/17/18144620/tucker-carlson-immigration-dirtier-advertiser-pacific-life]dirtier[/link]and California a [link=https://www.mediamatters.org/video/2018/03/02/tucker-carlson-california-turning-third-world-because-latin-american-immigrants/219547]third-world country,[/link] and said that Americas changing racial demographics represent [link=https://www.vox.com/2018/3/21/17146866/tucker-carlson-demographics-immigration-fox-news]more change than human beings are designed to digest[/link]  was bound to end in a fight, one for which Carlson apparently wasnt prepared.

 
 
 

[Unknown Member]

Not that I love giving advice to political adversaries, but you guys might want to think twice about touting that Dutch guy as your champion. I think the word that would spring to most people’s minds when watching him is “weasel.”
 
That thing he does, the cross between a snarl and a smirk… bizarre.

[kaldridgewv2211]

Too many Dems. Gillibrant sent some dumb arse crap about running as a mom. Really lady? Congrats.

[tdetlie_105]

Quote from DICOM_Dan

Too many Dems. Gillibrant sent some dumb arse crap about running as a mom. Really lady? Congrats.

 
Ironically the top contenders are old white men….I don’t know much about Gillibrant’s policies but she does not come across as very like-able, seems kinda angry

[kayla.meyer_144]

??? Bernie is the only older candidate running against Trump who will be 74 in 2020.

Who else? Biden has not said hes running.

[tdetlie_105]

Quote from Frumious

??? Bernie is the only older candidate running against Trump who will be 74 in 2020.

Who else? Biden has not said hes running.

 
Even if he’s not running, Biden leads in polls.  He probably has the best chance of beating Trump but really hard to predict these things given 2016 results.  Will be interesting to see how this all plays out.  

[katiemckee84_223]

I agree, but they hate competence (I say this tongue and cheek as it is poltiics) and tradition), so he’s become an impossible candidate for the mad leftist Democrat party, as it stands.

[kayla.meyer_144]

We love competence. Its why we support Pelosi who has been kicking Trumps arse.

[btomba_77]

[b]Trump Steps Up Attacks on Kamala Harris[/b][/h1]  
[link=https://apnews.com/b4665166708eb28e2255605b2a04984e]Associated Press[/link]: Trump said this week that nobody likes Harris, feeding into a standard of likability that is applied to women in leadership far more often than men. He told voters in North Carolina it would be an insult to our country if Harris became the first female president. And Trump and his allies repeatedly mispronounce Harris first name, a pattern her supporters say amounts to a deliberate effort to portray the daughter of immigrants as someone who does not belong at the top ranks of politics.
 
Trump is focusing on Harris as he has sometimes struggled to land on a consistent, coherent attack against Biden, who has built a reputation as a bipartisan deal maker rather than a progressive ideologue. And the racism and sexism underlying Trumps critique of the first Black woman and person of Asian descent on a major party ticket are part of an aggressive strategy to appeal to white suburban voters.

 

[clickpenguin_460]

Trump is a d!ck, jerk, etc. and says terrible people about everyone.  I promise you he doesn’t care what color she is or that she’s a woman.  
 
Also, Biden mispronounced her name too.

[btomba_77]

[b]Harris Prepares by Studying Bidens Legacy[/b][/h1]  
 
[link=https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/18/politics/kamala-harris-prepares-biden-legacy/index.html]CNN[/link]: Harris has told people close to her that she wants to shape her vice presidency after the way Biden worked with President Barack Obama over eight years: testing and pushing the administration in private, while in public remaining a dedicated and loyal lieutenant. Harris, in effect, wants to be Bidens Biden.

 

[kayla.meyer_144]

Michael Dell partakes in that sort of ignorance of a 70% marginal rate by boldly stating, “Name a country where thats worked. Ever.”
 
The audience’s response was simple laughter for his ignorance.
 
Proving that even being rich and graduating from the University of Texas does not ensure one against personal ignorance.
 
[link=https://www.theatlantic.com/notes/2019/01/tax-rates-davos/581257/]https://www.theatlantic.c…ax-rates-davos/581257/[/link]
 

At the World Economic Forum in Davos this week, Michael Dell, founder of Dell Computers, was asked about the idea of raising the top marginal tax rate to 70 percent. (Its now 37 percent.)
 
He saidto laughsthat from his personal perspective  it would be a bad idea. But he also thought it would be bad for the countrys growth. When the moderator, Heather Long of the [i]Washington Post[/i], asked him to explain why, Dell said, Name a country where thats worked. Ever.
 
You can see the exchange in a [link=https://twitter.com/CNN/status/1088154452132052994]CNN video here[/link].
 
[b]Sitting on the same panel was the economist Erik Brynjolfsson, of MIT, who spoke up immediately to say: actually there is such a country. It is the United States, through most of its post-World War II expansion.[/b]
 
[b]As youll see in the chart below, through the entire administrations of presidents Franklin Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, and Carter, the top-tax-bracket rate was at least 70 percent, and for long periods was much more. (John Kennedys tax-cut plan of the early 1960s took the top rate from 90 percent down to 70 percent.)[/b]

 
 

[kayla.meyer_144]

Quote from IR27

I contend that income inequality isn’t a thing. like I don’t care about it, it doesnt matter. I care if average people can buy the stuff they need.

 
You care? So how do you propose helping to ensure that “average” people can get the things they need?
 

Quote from IR27

 
 I don’t care how much bill gates or bezos makes. It does not matter. 

dude I literally don’t think you can read. like your responses to what I say you literally cannot read. when did I say anything about everyone making 100 billion?

 
Ummm, who does?
 

Quote from IR27

 
I want to help poor people. I don’t want to bring down rich people. There’s a difference and by bringing down rich people you are’t inherently helping poor people. 

You want to help poor people but exactly how?
 
As for “bringing down rich people,” that’s another non sequitur. No one is proposing such a screwy defensive idea other than Fox & Tucker Carlson types.

[kayla.meyer_144]

Quote from IR27

income inequality is the dumbest argument the left possibly has. 

 
First question I suppose, based on your other statements is what do you think income is? You don’t agree that is has got worse or you think the poor will always be with us so little point in making an effort? They are poor because they don’t work as hard? Or have some intellectual or physical deficit? Not their fault necessarily but still they are not trying to correct their situation either?
 
What?

Quote from IR27

If everyone makes the exact same, but everyone is poor, is that a good thing? but there’s no inequality right?! 

 
Please show me some argument where the fix for income inequality is that everyone make the identical income regardless of anything?
 
Another conclusion of yours that is a non sequitur and therefore I cannot address a coherent answer.
 

Quote from IR27

all you should worry about is people being able to afford what they need to live, which is a completely independent function of income inequality. 

again someone could make a 100 billion a year, but if everyone has what they need to live reasonably well, that wouldn’t be a bad system. 

What do they need to live on then? Based on what? & what does any of your argument have to do about “earning” $100B a year? Again with the strange conclusion that the belief of income equality is that everyone earns $100B a year???
 
How so?

[kaldridgewv2211]

Quote from IR27

Income equality means nothing. If everyone is well fed and happy does it matter that some guy makes 50 billion a year? What we should try to do is help poor people. That is a different concept than bringing everyone closer for some arbitrary reason.

it really does mean a lot.  If people want to work and work hard there shouldn’t be a poverty class in the USA.  Amazon just move to a $15 minimum wage, mind you they are also known for harsh working conditions.  I’ve seen jobs advertised for local Amazon and descriptions are like must work 10 hours on your feet with little to no accommodations.  Does that mean you can’t even take a dump at work?  Meanwhile Jeff Bezos (even when cut in half) is worth more than he could spend in a 1000 lifetimes.  To me that’s more of a business ethics thing.  He doesn’t have to pay people more than a minimum.  Should he though?  My general thought is that if people way at the bottom earn a livable wage they can pay for necessities (food, rent, transportation, healthcare) and even get off government assistance (corporate welfare).
 
I’m sure if you watch any local news or national news you’ll see stories of people that are getting hammered by the shutdown.  It’s really showing how many people are living pay check to pay check.  Having to sell your car in order to make another mortgage payment, not being able to feed you family or get to your non-paying job.  It’s the people on the bottom that are getting hurt the most by the Mitch/Trump shutdown.

[leann2001nl]

Show me a civilization in the history of the world where there has not been a poverty class. 

[leann2001nl]

Ethics? a lot of poor people are there of their own doing or choices. some people do get screwed over but this picture you’re painting where the only difference between bezos and a minimum wage worker is luck or timing or something similar is ridiculous. 
 
by removing their agency to create the conditions they are in, you are removing their agency to change their situation. 
 
minimum wage is not meant for people to live on. It is a stop on the destination, not the destination. 

[kaldridgewv2211]

I don’t disagree.  Drugs being a choice that can ruin someone and they’ll be living on the streets.  
 
I’m simply saying there’s enough pie to go around in Amazon as an example.  I said people that want to work shouldn’t be in a poverty class.  Not everyone is a rocket scientist and there’s always going to be adults who employed in the most basic of jobs.  That doesn’t mean they shouldn’t earn a livable wage.
 
Back on to Kamala.  It looks like the field is getting more people.  Some mayor from Indiana I think just jumped in also.  So I’m more thinking whomever pulls the most fund raising is going to have the best chance of winning, and don’t forget to visit Michigan democrats.

[kayla.meyer_144]

IR27 arguing absolutes. What a surprise.

Read my post in another thread, IR27, a paper from a Libertarian think tank on addressing poverty improves society in many ways. No one talks absolutes because you know absolutes are nothing but deliberate Red Herrings running down blind alleys. Thats high school level of arguments, freshman level.

Here, answer this papers conclusions:

Interesting paper by Niskanen Center, a Libertarian think tank on “government size” and government social welfare, noting that the large government & social welfare countries in Europe have a very large degree of freedom and stability and open markets. The paper’s conclusion is that the belief of small government and decreasing or removing social welfare efforts should be examined based on their results.

And this from a Libertarian group?

[link]https://niskanencenter.or…rket-Welfare-State.pdf[/link]
Quote from
Indeed, when developed countries are grouped according to their commitment to free and open markets and the strength of their social insurance system, free-market welfare states stand out as among the freest countries on earth. Contrary to our ideological axis, which runs from small government libertarian (pro-market, anti-transfer) to big government progressive (anti-market, pro-transfer), countries tend to converge around an off-diagonal axis running from reactionary (anti-market, anti-transfer) to liberal (pro-market, pro-transfer). Universal social insurance programs are thus not only freedom- and dynamism-enhancing in and of themselves, but appear to go together as part of a stable political equilibrium. This provides a framework for a research and reform agenda that goes beyond insulating markets from a reactionary backlash, to one based on social welfare policy as a tool for actively accelerating the American economy into the future.

[btomba_77]

Back on to Kamala.  It looks like the field is getting more people.  Some mayor from Indiana I think just jumped in also.  So I’m more thinking whomever pulls the most fund raising is going to have the best chance of winning, and don’t forget to visit Michigan democrats.

 
With so many Dems swearing off of super-PACs this cycle it’s going to be necessary to drive micro-donation through social media.
 
Harris, Beto, Sanders (if he still has the juice … he might be fading) 
 
 

[kaldridgewv2211]

I think the only thing Sanders will do is give Trump the win in 2020 assuming DJT isn’t oustered by then.  From accounts I’ve seen he’s not popular with black voters.  I guess he’s trying to image rehab in South Carolina.
 
Is Beto actually in the race yet?  I actually do like Beto and I think what he did against Lyin’ Ted in Texas is actually impressive.  Kamala I mostly know from what I’d call the grandstanding on committees.  Like appointee X getting grilled by Senator Harris.

[kayla.meyer_144]

Horse races and racing & picking horses without even knowing the stable or issues other than Never-Trump is wayyy too early. I think thats part of the reason we won Trump. & nit-picking candidates isnt constructive. We have this war to win first the next 2 years.

Ill be patient & see how this present race finishes or at least progresses before I pick the next horse.

[Unknown Member]

Quote from Frumious

Horse races and racing & picking horses without even knowing the stable or issues other than Never-Trump is wayyy too early. I think thats part of the reason we won Trump. & nit-picking candidates isnt constructive. We have this war to win first the next 2 years.

Ill be patient & see how this present race finishes or at least progresses before I pick the next horse.

As a non-partisan voter, I think Trump’s doing a great job (taking into account the obstruction from Democrats and weak Republicans).
 
Your “Never-Trump” schtick is immature and lame. Grow up and focus on issues.

[kayla.meyer_144]

Hey sonny, that schick is really getting old and lame. That your go-to insult?
 
Take your own advice & grow up. 
 
As for non-partisan Trump supporter? That is the biggest crock of oxymoron I’ve ever heard.

[Unknown Member]

Now to answer my disgraced critic

For starters I never claimed to be a great predictor but…..

Several of my recent predictions

1. Figler would soon embarrass himself and create a new alias…….. got that one right

2. Market would fall about 20% from its alltime high….. hot that one right

3. Trump would eventually F things up……. still in play and looking good

4. Apple at 150 a better buy than Microsoft at 105……. wait a year and find out

5. ATT buy at these levels, reinvest the dividends and it will make you quite wealthy in 10 years

Now those are my predictions and for you newbies figler/cigar/Spears/intermittent boasting famous predictions

1. gold 3500$ a no brainer…….. Hahahaha never got over 2000

2. Dow 12,000 under Obama when it was at 17500…….. Hahahaha never even went below 16750

3. bitcoin easy double in a year……. it was down nearly 70%

So please Nostradumbarse stfu or learn a lesson

[tdetlie_105]

Quote from kpack123

5. ATT buy at these levels, reinvest the dividends and it will make you quite wealthy in 10 years

 
would you buy now (think around $30)?

[Unknown Member]

Im loading up

[Unknown Member]

6.8% yield and increases its dividend for 35 straight years

It would be a lot higher but when it bought time warner it went down a few bucks because trump hates CNN so he put the Justice Department on it

Just a speed bump

Long term this big winner

[Unknown Member]

Quote from Frumious

Hey sonny, that schick is really getting old and lame. That your go-to insult?

Take your own advice & grow up. 

As for non-partisan Trump supporter? That is the biggest crock of oxymoron I’ve ever heard.

No wonder this circle-jerk consists of about five people (none of whom write very well). 

[kayla.meyer_144]

Boo hoo, you balloon is bust.
 
All you’ve ever said is that you support Trump, you support a Wall because Trump wants it, we “Liberals” better just ante up because we have no say where our taxes go.
 
Did I miss your total argument?
 
My answer is simply, “No, I don’t agree because…” the reasons I provided.
 
You are upset and crying so you accuse me of being immature.
 
Grow up.

[Unknown Member]

I was thinking the same thing

What is this guys argument

Trump is great build the wall?????

Just another non thinking angry guy

He is just mad. He doesnt know why or how it happened but he is just mad

[katiemckee84_223]

Quote from Knob Creek Rye

Quote from Frumious

Hey sonny, that schick is really getting old and lame. That your go-to insult?

Take your own advice & grow up. 

As for non-partisan Trump supporter? That is the biggest crock of oxymoron I’ve ever heard.

No wonder this circle-jerk consists of about five people (none of whom write very well). 

 
Yeah it’s brutal around here. Odd that people don’t want to discuss or learn anything, just yell at others with differing viewpoints (non ideological ones).

[Unknown Member]

Ok we could easily learn why gold slumped and why bit coin crashed……. but that still doesnt stop your stupidity and even dumber predictions

[katiemckee84_223]

Quote from DICOM_Dan

I think the only thing Sanders will do is give Trump the win in 2020 assuming DJT isn’t oustered by then. 

 
Didn’t you and kpack say that he wouldn’t make it out of the first year?
 
Come on, man. These kind of statements are just beyond laughable.

[kaldridgewv2211]

I wrote if he isn’t oustered by then.  Looks like Roger Stone got taken down today and the indictment sure looks like he was working between the Trumps and the Wikileaks(Russian).

[kayla.meyer_144]

Correct me if I’m mistaken but cigar was suspended & changed his name, “figler” was suspended & changed his name; how long before Fartiblartfast is suspended again for 3 strikes? And then will rise again with a new identity.
 
 

[Unknown Member]

You are correct

He/she also has multiple additional identities too

Spears was one of the more recent ones

[Unknown Member]

When you are wrong as much as he is you have to establish new identities to get rid of the stench

[katiemckee84_223]

You call others wrong, yet you have year running threads about how Trump is going here there or anywhere, and you’re WRONG.
 
You were wrong about the Trump election, that was embarrassing. You were wrong about every prediction since that election, which is also pathetic. Recession coming? Is another loser, especially in light of the fact that a recession is always coming eventually … 
 
Identities? You guys don’t even know what facts or logic are

[ruszja]

Quote from IR27

How is it even possible for a family that makes 100k to owe 6k in federal taxes? They would have to have 1 kid or none.  Like I said this will result in them paying literally 0 federal income tax. I have no idea how one could argue the 75th percentile of income should pay 0 federal income tax. That is ludicrous. 

 
When it suits the agenda, democrats like to count insurance payments to medicare and social security as ‘tax’. Only if you redefine them as ‘tax’, you can claim that the majority of people even pays any federal taxes. But its not a tax. Its an insurance payment that goes into a trust-fund (which is stuffed with worthless government IOUs, but that’s a different discussion). 

[kayla.meyer_144]

Actually, Trump’s IOUs are worthless, the government pays its IOUs.

[btomba_77]

[b]Harris moves into 2nd place in CNN poll[/b]

A new [link=https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/01/politics/2020-democratic-candidates-poll/index.html]CNN poll[/link] conducted after first Democratic debate finds 22% of backing Joe Biden for the partys presidential nomination, followed by Kamala Harris at 17%, Elizabeth Warren at 15% and Bernie Sanders at 14%. No one else in the 23-person field tested hits 5%.

That represents a 10-point decline in support for Biden since the last poll in May, while Harris has posted a 9-point increase and Warren has boosted her support by 8 points.
 
No other candidates have seen significant movement since the last poll.
 
__________
 
Listening to Harry Enten (data analytics and political commentator from 538 and now CBS) on a broadcast that was taped immediately after the second debate.

“I think Kamala Harris is going to need to prosecute herself … for the murder of Joe Biden.”

[katiemckee84_223]

She already got prosecuted by Willie Brown
 
Big Willie Style

[kaldridgewv2211]

If she gets on stage with Trump I think she guts him like a fish, however, he is pretty easy to pick apart. Guys a train wreck.

[Unknown Member]

Yes. I agree. Just like Hilary easily picked
him apart. It was so easy. Thank God. Can
you imagine if Trump destroyed Hilary?

[kayla.meyer_144]

She did pick him apart. As the joke goes about talking horses (arses) is not so much that they talk but that they think they have something to say.

His supporters did not care what he said (witness comeback of, No! Youre the puppet! Of Putin & Russians. Oww! That stung with wit & sarcasm.) All the supporters want to hear is that it is not their faults, its the faults of the invaders, immigrants, Mexicans & all Hispanics and Muslims. They are taking their jobs & wealth, getting free stuff, want to impose their wants on Americans like making it illegal to speak English, or Sharia Law, etc.

Crazy thoughts.

[kaldridgewv2211]

Quote from IR_CONSULT

Yes. I agree. Just like Hilary easily picked
him apart. It was so easy. Thank God. Can
you imagine if Trump destroyed Hilary?

Big difference IMO.  Hilary ran against Trump who at the time was kind of like BO running for the first term.  Trump was kind of the Hopey/Changey appealing to a certain population.  Neither of them really had much/any political experience.  So you can go on stage and talk about how great things will be and be inspirational.  However, we’ve had 2 years of day after cluster fudges.  He has done nothing to show he can run the country.  Can’t even keep a semblance of a cabinet.  Ran off what i would consider the better choices to run the defense.  Look at how schmucky we look on the world stage with the latest round of take your daughter to work day.  He’s proven himself to be a true turd of a person.     

[Unknown Member]

Lol. The US is nothing but stronger. Did you notice that the democratic candidates spent almost all their time discussing what we should do to help the illegal aliens in this country at the debates. No discussion about all the homeless American citizens in the democratic controlled cities. So sad how anti-American the democratic party has become.

[Unknown Member]

I didnt watch

I was in Russia at the World Cup

Remember that bull sheet lie?

[Unknown Member]

The womens world cup is in Paris.
Kpuck , everyone understands that
a redneck like you has never traveled
outside of the country. You just show your
ignorance and lack of intelligence by your
inability to comprehend the desire to explore any society outside of your redneck paradise. Expand your life outside of your
racist upbringing….

[kaldridgewv2211]

Quote from IR_CONSULT

Lol. The US is nothing but stronger. Did you notice that the democratic candidates spent almost all their time discussing what we should do to help the illegal aliens in this country at the debates. No discussion about all the homeless American citizens in the democratic controlled cities. So sad how anti-American the democratic party has become.

if you believe everything Trump says sure.  Maybe you’d like to buy my share of the Brooklyn bridge?  Nothing about Trump’s admin projects strength.  We look like little teeny boppers.  Who’s Trump going to threaten on twitter today?  The first debates kind of sucked.  It needs to get trimmed down to way less candidates, there should be more substantive questioning, and shouldn’t have the stupid Chuck Todd down the line questions.  I’m pretty sure I heard them talk about minimum wages, healthcare, etc… which are very well parts of what leads to homelessness.  Not that they were asked anything specific about homelessness to my recollection.  

[btomba_77]

Harris Surges Into Second Place Nationally[/h1]  
A new [link=https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2631]Quinnipiac poll[/link] finds Joe Biden leading the Democratic presidential race with 22%, followed by Kamala Harris at 20%, Elizabeth Warren at 14%, Bernie Sanders at 13% and Pete Buttigieg at 4%.
No other candidate tops 3%.
Said pollster Mary Snow: Round 1 of the Democratic debates puts Kamala Harris and Joe Biden on two different trajectories, as support for Harris surges but continues to slip for Biden. Bidens once commanding lead has evaporated. There are other red flags for him in areas where he still leads, including double digit drops among Democrats and Democratic leaners who view him as the best leader, or as the best candidate to defeat President Trump in 2020.

 

[Unknown Member]

Its one debate

Really it means little

But Biden does need to look sharper or he is toast

Biggest risk is democrats going too far left…… all they really need to do is win back Pennsylvania Michigan and Wisconsin

Democrats are there own worst enemy sometimes

[Unknown Member]

…. and is it just me or is watching Corey Booker make electric shock therapy look fun

He is the most boring scripted fake candidate that I can remember

The guy just rubs me the wrong way

[katiemckee84_223]

^
Hey look, even the blind squirrel proves he can find a nut.

[katiemckee84_223]

Quote from dergon

Harris Surges Into Second Place Nationally  
A new [link=https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2631]Quinnipiac poll[/link] finds Joe Biden leading the Democratic presidential race with 22%, followed by Kamala Harris at 20%, Elizabeth Warren at 14%, Bernie Sanders at 13% and Pete Buttigieg at 4%.
No other candidate tops 3%.
Said pollster Mary Snow: Round 1 of the Democratic debates puts Kamala Harris and Joe Biden on two different trajectories, as support for Harris surges but continues to slip for Biden. Bidens once commanding lead has evaporated. There are other red flags for him in areas where he still leads, including double digit drops among Democrats and Democratic leaners who view him as the best leader, or as the best candidate to defeat President Trump in 2020.

 
Who is your prediction for the nominee, dergs?

[ruszja]

Quote from Intermittent Blasting

Who is your prediction for the nominee, dergs?

Sherrod Brown.

I know, he is not running. He will be pulled like a rabbit out of a hat on day three of the convention when the leadership realizes that Biden is losing it and none of the other also-rans with their left fringe platform stand a chance to beat Trump in the general.

[19462008]

When the heard thins, Kamala will be in the new group. But I think she will get addressed or cornered the way she does while on the committee’s. She’s a trapper, gets you to a Yes or No Answer with no room to squirm. and decides what your answer is based on her last comment That’s going to happen to her eventually either by Biden or Warren. Buttigieg has that capability. Booker… Big Wind, Big Dust, No Rain. He’s an intimidator by his looks and stature, like a pissed off Vascular Surgeon who believe staring down his Surgical staff will get him respect and action. But Kamala will give Warren and Bidden a run for their money for sure. I look forward to the next one. 

[katiemckee84_223]

Quote from CudaRad

When the heard thins, Kamala will be in the new group. But I think she will get addressed or cornered the way she does while on the committee’s. She’s a trapper, gets you to a Yes or No Answer with no room to squirm. and decides what your answer is based on her last comment That’s going to happen to her eventually either by Biden or Warren. Buttigieg has that capability. Booker… Big Wind, Big Dust, No Rain. He’s an intimidator by his looks and stature, like a pissed off Vascular Surgeon who believe staring down his Surgical staff will get him respect and action. But Kamala will give Warren and Bidden a run for their money for sure. I look forward to the next one. 

 
I hope they run another leftist woman again, funny thing is that they’ll be running a less viable candidate (more left leaning, still woman) than before against an incumbent = no chance.
 
(unless 40% market drop or some other crazy event happens and people go full retard)

[katiemckee84_223]

Quote from fw

Quote from Intermittent Blasting

Who is your prediction for the nominee, dergs?

Sherrod Brown.

I know, he is not running. He will be pulled like a rabbit out of a hat on day three of the convention when the leadership realizes that Biden is losing it and none of the other also-rans with their left fringe platform stand a chance to beat Trump in the general.

 
I love how you are proving my point about “righties” vs “lefties” here.
 
Only us traditionalists or conservative types sack up and actually make predictions. And nice, bold ones at that. The rest are just pssies.

[btomba_77]

Kamala Harris has resigned her Senate seat

[link=https://medium.com/@SenKamalaHarris/thank-you-california-d89ff421a0a4]https://medium.com/@SenKamalaHarris/…a-d89ff421a0a4[/link]
 
 
Since our nations founding, [link=https://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/reference/four_column_table/Tie_Votes.htm#:~:text=%22The%20Vice%20President%20of%20the,breaking%20votes%20have%20been%20cast.]only 268 tie-breaking votes[/link] have been cast by a Vice President. I intend to work tirelessly as your Vice President, including, if necessary, fulfilling this Constitutional duty. At the same time, it is my hope that rather than come to the point of a tie, the Senate will instead find common ground and do the work of the American people.
 
Just a year before I interned in the Senate, Martin Luther King Jr. Day was made a federal holiday. The legislation did not sail through Congress by any means. There was a heated debate and a fair amount of grandstanding. In the end, the [link=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/opinions/articles/solemn_senate_votes_for_national_holiday.html]Democratic-led House passed the bill, the Republican-controlled Senate did the same, and the Republican president signed it into law[/link].
 
 
 
Now, we have the pastor from the very church Dr. King preached in  [link=https://twitter.com/politico/status/1346640380310253569]the eleventh Black Senator since Reconstruction, out of nearly 2,000 Senators total[/link]  about to be sworn in. And with him, the [link=https://books.google.com/books?id=ACTF56SnaykC]first Jewish Senator from the Deep South since the 19th century.[/link]
 
Change is possible. For that, I am grateful and ready to get to work.
 
Thus, as I leave the United States Senate, this is not goodbye. This is hello.
 
 

[btomba_77]

[link=https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/537035-kamala-harris-is-constant-on-camera-presence-for-biden][b]Kamala Harris is a constant on-camera presence for Biden[/b]

[/link]

The White House is clearly communicating the president values the VP and she is more of a deputy president than a leader with a discrete portfolio, said Democratic strategist Jamal Simmons. 
 
The choreography is also important because of the unique nature of Bidens presidency. 

Since taking office two weeks ago, Harris has joined Biden more than half a dozen times, including for remarks hes delivered on healthcare, COVID-19, and racial equity. In addition to receiving the presidential daily briefing together, they have also carried on the tradition of having a weekly lunch together, something Biden and Obama did during his administration. 

On Tuesday, Harris joined Biden in the Oval Office as he signed executive orders on immigration. A day earlier, they sat together in the same room, a fire crackling behind them, when they met with Republican senators to discuss a coronavirus relief package. 

[/QUOTE]
 
I was literally *just* remarking on this to mrs_dergon last night watching PBS NewsHour. Kamala is just about always in the camera frame.

[btomba_77]

[b]Harris Emerges as Major Foreign Policy Player[/b][/h1]  
[link=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/03/08/daily-202-kamala-harris-is-playing-an-unusually-large-role-shaping-bidens-foreign-policy/]Washington Post[/link]: Just six weeks since taking office, Vice President Harris is playing an integral role in President Bidens foreign policy, putting her personal stamp on behind-the-scenes debates and on the world stage as she works to advance Bidens diplomatic agenda.
 
Harris has spoken independently of Biden to at least six world leaders, the White House says, an unusually large number for a new vice president; joined his virtual White House summit with Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau; and given remarks at the State Department.

 

[clickpenguin_460]

lol that’s one way to say it.

[btomba_77]

[h1][b]Harris Is Underwater With 47% Unfavorable Rating[/b][/h1] [link=https://politicalwire.com/2021/07/21/harris-is-underwater-with-47-unfavorable-rating/#disqus_thread]

[/link]A new [link=https://www.politico.com/f/?id=0000017a-c756-d4d6-ad7f-e75623c00000]Morning Consult-Politico poll[/link] finds President Joe Biden with a 52% to 45% favorable rating roughly comparable to other public polls.
 
However, Vice President Kamala Harris has an upside down 45% to 47% favorable rating.
 

[btomba_77]

[b]Kamala Harris Briefly Assumes the Presidency[/b][/h1]  
 
President Biden will undergo a routine colonoscopy this morning and will transfer power to Vice President Kamala Harris for the brief period of time while he is under anesthesia.
 
Harris will work from her office in the West Wing during this time.

 

[btomba_77]

[h3][link=https://www.businessinsider.com/warren-called-harris-twice-apologize-comments-hasnt-called-back-2023-3]Sen. Warren has called twice to apologize to VP Harris for comments stopping short of endorsing her.[/link][/h3]

“I really want to defer to what makes Biden comfortable on his team,” Warren told [link=https://www.wgbh.org/news/politics/2023/01/27/warren-stops-short-of-backing-harris-for-vp-in-2024]Boston Public Radio[/link] when asked about Harris, shortly after enthusiastically endorsing Biden. 
 
She added: “I’ve known Kamala for a long time. I like Kamala. I knew her back when she was an attorney general, and I was still teaching and we worked on the housing crisis together, so we go way back. But they need they have to be a team, and my sense is they are I don’t mean that by suggesting I think there are any problems. I think they are.”
…

In February, several Democrats from the White House and congress told The [link=https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/06/us/politics/kamala-harris-vice-presidenct-legacy.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare]New York Times[/link] they had [link=https://www.businessinsider.com/kamala-harris-democrats-told-nyt-theyve-lost-hope-in-her-2023-2]lost hope in Harris[/link], who they felt failed to rise to the occasion of her office. 

[/QUOTE]
 

[btomba_77]

[link=https://www.reuters.com/world/us/tethered-together-biden-harris-move-toward-2024-re-election-run-2023-03-23/]https://www.reuters.com/w…ection-run-2023-03-23/[/link]

[h1]Tethered together, Biden and Harris move toward 2024 re-election run[/h1]

If {Biden} wins and becomes ill or cannot fulfill his duties, Harris, 58, would succeed him. That reality will hang over their 2024 re-election bid.

While the pair have a good working relationship, Democratic sources say Biden has frustrations about some of her work. He is also convinced that neither Harris nor any other Democratic hopefuls would be able to beat former President Donald Trump if he is the Republican nominee, a factor that has influenced Biden’s inclination to run again, one former White House official said.

…

“I think this is actually one of the fundamental strategic challenges for (Biden) … how to navigate this,” said one Democrat with close ties to the White House, noting the implausibility of replacing Harris on the presidential ticket. “It’s almost impossible for them to make a change.”

[/QUOTE]
 

[btomba_77]

A milestone for us legislative history buffs: today Kamala Harris cast her 31st [link=https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/redirect-to/?redirect=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.senate.gov%2Flegislative%2FLIS%2Froll_call_votes%2Fvote1181%2Fvote_118_1_00183.htm]tie-breaking vote[/link] in the Senate, now itself a tie for the most cast by any VPOTUS in US history. [image]https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/images/smilies/wink.gif[/image]

The existing record holder was John C. Calhoun, who cast his 31st tiebreaker in the early 1830s after nearly eight years on the job.

[ruszja]

Ask her about culture, or AI.

Vacuous ditz.

[satyanar]

A few heartbeats away from our Commander in Chief.