|
Who will you vote for in 2020? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| Biden |
|
425 | 18.06% |
| Trump |
|
105 | 4.46% |
| whoever the Green Party runs |
|
307 | 13.05% |
| GOOGLE RON PAUL |
|
151 | 6.42% |
| Bernie Sanders |
|
346 | 14.70% |
| Stalin |
|
246 | 10.45% |
| Satan |
|
300 | 12.75% |
| Nobody |
|
202 | 8.58% |
| Jess Scarane |
|
110 | 4.67% |
| mystery man Brian Carroll of the American Solidarity Party |
|
61 | 2.59% |
| Dick Nixon |
|
100 | 4.25% |
| Total: | 2089 votes | ||
|
Gabriel S. posted:Maybe, but that's a ton of speculation. And far cry from the claim that he wants the tax cuts to stay. And I think increasing corporate taxes is applied across the board not just publicly traded companies in the stock market. Not every company is doing well, I could see how it wouldn't make sense to increase taxes for those companies at this time. You know corporate taxes only apply to profits, right? If a company is not doing well (not making profits) they don't pay income tax
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2020 15:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 13:26 |
|
|
Somfin posted:E: What I mean is, is there a meaningful line to draw between "people who will vote for Trump" and "people who will think that this speech is okay?" Is there a group of folks who see this, think "yeesh," and then vote Trump anyway? There's a significant group that hates him/ the way he talks in general but still sees taxes as the main (or only) way national politics affects their lives, and thus will never vote D no matter what, yeah. These people are also often confused about how proposed tax increases would work, of course. The racism and STRENGTH voters are a big group, but trump wasn't elected by them alone
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2020 15:14
|
|
|
Flying-PCP posted:There's a significant group that hates him/ the way he talks in general but still sees taxes as the main (or only) way national politics affects their lives, and thus will never vote D no matter what, yeah. These people are also often confused about how proposed tax increases would work, of course. I think the most important supporters are definitely the wealthy ones. They're the reason he can afford all the ads and rallies and generally the entire campaign. Like, Donald Trump is not spending a penny of his own money, it's all wealthy donors. And those donors fully understand his tax policies, and are very, very happy with it. Frankly, they're fine with the Biden tax policy too, but hey want MORE.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2020 16:15
|
|
|
Thats the problem with the way we fund elections in the states. We will never see any positive change in our lives because it would cost the donors of either party a fraction of a percent more to operate. Its why I have become so disillusioned with the democrats. They are supposed to be the party of unions and workers but they just don't give two shits anymore. The media and the party establishment will fight positive change so hard that it is going to be near impossible to make anything happen without dramatic upheaval. When it comes to how the party shapes it's platform and goals it is not the public they have in mind whatsoever. They really only care about their donors. They care about their lobbyists and industries that fund them. Its why they fought Bernie so hard and why they fight people like AOC so hard. The progressive caucus is bullshit. Its just slightly better money grubbing. Does anyone else just get really angry anymore when you think about party politics?
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2020 16:33
|
|
|
Am I crazy, or is there a non-zero chance Trump drops out of the election before he's nominated? He's not delusional. He saw the lovely turnout at his big comeback rally, he pays attention to polls, and he knows he's down and he has to know, deep down, that the pandemic, and the economy, is not going to turn around before Nov 3 and both will probably get worse. So he declares victory, announces that he accomplished more in four years than any president has in eight, and decides not to play rather than lose in humilitating fashion, with the idea to run again in 2024 as an insurgent which is really more his thing anyway. Then Mike Pence scrambles together a campaign and beats Joe Biden because we live in a nightmare
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2020 16:34
|
|
|
Ramrod Hotshot posted:Am I crazy, or is there a non-zero chance Trump drops out of the election before he's nominated?
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2020 16:43
|
|
|
Gabriel S. posted:Maybe, but that's a ton of speculation. And far cry from the claim that he wants the tax cuts to stay. And I think increasing corporate taxes is applied across the board not just publicly traded companies in the stock market. Not every company is doing well, I could see how it wouldn't make sense to increase taxes for those companies at this time. If anything, I find closing the Ireland and Cayman Island tax loopholes almost a more important issue. Uhhhhh him publicly stating "I want the tax rate on corporations to be 28%" is him EXPLICITLY STATING, IN WORDS, that he wants at least one-half of Trump's cuts to stay in place. So not only do people tell me I have to take Biden at his word, now I have people telling me I have to assume his word is actually double-secret messaging that doesn't explicitly state his intent? And as mentioned previously, taxes are on PROFITS, which is explicitly the money made above operating expenses. Taxes do not make a corporation more costly to run, as they do not impact operating expenses in any way. What they definitely do is leave less extra money laying around to be paid out in dividends, which impacts stock price.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2020 16:59
|
|
|
Ramrod Hotshot posted:Am I crazy, or is there a non-zero chance Trump drops out of the election before he's nominated? Absolutely no chance. The only thing Trump cares about is being seen as a winner. If he drops out he'll always be a loser. Also, he absolutely is delusional and I have no doubt that, though he may be having doubts, he still believes he'll win.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2020 17:01
|
|
|
Yeah Trump will never drop out. He is surrounded by the worst kind of sycophant that is telling him every poll is wrong, the people love you, silent majority, etc etc.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2020 17:05
|
|
|
Trump is also already plotting his moves if he loses. He plans to blame almost everyone in the GOP for his failure, and also plans to claim that the election was outright stolen from him with massive nationwide voter fraud. If you want to hear more, than tune in to Trump TV, and ask your local cable provider to carry Trump TV!
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2020 17:07
|
|
|
There's also entirely too much risk that the dems will become complacent as a result of the current advantages.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2020 17:09
|
|
|
ColonelMuttonchops posted:Incorrect. I do not agree, because it was a major factor. Was it the only factor? Of course not, again, voter suppression was another part of it, and there's surely more poo poo that I can't think of right now. But the behavior of the media played a big part in how super Tuesday turned out. I think what's going on must necessarily be much more complex than that. There are many different aspects of this complexity; people have written whole books about it and I'm not smart enough to summarize it all, but here's a tiny little bit of it. I also want to say that I understand that the following simplifies the perspective I am criticizing. I'm not trying to strawman, I'm just trying not to go nuts with how much I write. In a simplified form, a common conception of the relationship between individuals and the media is something like this:  The media delivers a message to the audience. The audience receives that message and is changed by it in some way. There are many different ways we could begin to complicate this model: every part of it is open to critique. For example, we could ask questions about the media as a concept. In this model, the media is presented as the origin for the messages it distributes. Is that accurate? Or -- to put things more clearly within my own perspective -- given that any representation is going to have limits and affordances, what are the limitations of a model which sees the media as the origin point of messaging? We could also ask questions about the media as an category: of what is the media composed? What is the internal structure of the media? How much agency or control over the message does any part of the media have? We could also examine the "message" itself. When you say "people change their opinions based on what news media tells them," what is news media telling them and how do we know? Of what is that message composed? Is that message unified in meaning, or is it made of multiple, possibly contradictory parts? We could examine relationship suggested in the model. Is it the case that the interaction between media and audience is one-way, from media to audience? If the audience has an effect on the media, what effect might that be and how might it be registered? How does that relationship structure the form and content of the message? We could also look at the audience and ask questions about how people recieve messages. When I see a news report, or watch a talking heads show, what am I actually seeing, how am I processing it? Is that processing a unitary process directed towards a particular end, or could there be multiple and perhaps contradictory processes occurring at the same time (or at different times but working with the same material)? What does persuasion mean? How do we know when a person as been persuaded? Or we could look at the interactions between the audience and the media. How do people know what to pay attention to? What role do people have in seeking out and consuming media? How much agency, control, or freedom do they have over what they see, when they see it, under what circumstances they see it, and so on? These are only some of the areas of inquiry suggested by the model I started with. One set of objections to that model is described by Stuart Hall in his classic 1973 essay "Encoding and Decoding in Television Discourse" which is available online, bizarrely, only in its original typed manuscript, which is kind of cool but also not the easiest to read: https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/81670115.pdf Essentially, Hall's point is that the meaning of a message transmitted through mass media is not fixed or determined by the sender (the media), the message is never communicated without distortion, and the audience is not just a passive recipient of meaning. In particular, the audience "decodes" the message according to a variety of possible relationships to the hegemonic -- that is, the accepted, "standard" -- set of symbolisms which range from the dominant hegemonic (using the hegemonic coding), to oppositional (using the hegemonic coding but disagreeing with it), to negotiated (rejecting the hegemonic coding but attempting to replace it with a different, more sufficient one) to abberant (reading the message according to an entirely different code). I've been thinking about Cops a lot now that it's been pulled off the air. Cops is one of my favorite shows of all time and did a lot to make me skeptical of the police. I recognize that for many people, it did the opposite, and also that it was the "intent" of the show to present the police in a positive light. But since I went into watching it with the presumption that it was distorted in favor of the police, and that whatever they were showing me was the absolute most charitable possible story for the police, the show I was watching, and the message I was receiving was very different -- if this was the best they could do, then holy loving poo poo, what were they not showing? A watcher of Cops could do any of the following: Dominant-hegemonic: The show demonstrates that cops are good. Oppositional: The show tries to demonstrate that cops are good, but actually, they're bad. (My position w/r/t Cops) Negotiated: The show tries to demonstrate that cops are good, but the reality is something else; some of this stuff may be good, but not all of it. Abberant: The show tries to demonstrate that cops are good, but actually what it's demonstrating is that there are massive economic inequalities in this country. This kind of formulation helps explain why it's challenging to argue with denialists. If you present a flat-earther with evidence that the earth is round, what they will instead see is evidence of a conspiracy to convince people that the earth is round when it is actually flat. But beyond its utility in a case like that, on a more general level it also emphasizes the degree to which the audience is responsible for what the "message" is. At this level, then, we have to question the idea of "persuasion" as such since many of the possible decoding positions can be seen as defensive towards impression by the dominant-hegemonic code. One compelling suggestion for me is that people choose media that are likely to tell them what they already want to hear. In this understanding, people don't watch MSNBC and then get turned into centrist liberals. They're centrist liberals (latent or active) who watch MSNBC because it confirms political and cultural predispositions they already have. The media doesn't persuade them, it coordinates them by giving them a common language and common reference points to talk to other centrist liberals, and common justifications that, because they are repeated and echoed, gain the legitimacy of common sense or natural right etc. If they were to turn on MSNBC and see messages which they perceived were contrary to their priorities, values, principles, etc, they would just turn it off and go watch something else. Or they would continue to watch, but in an oppositional, a negotiated, or an abberant way ("hate-watching" etc.). Another way to approach this would be by thinking about questions related to that old Marxist concept, false consciousness. Does false consciousness exist? If so, how does it operate? Can it be replaced with authentic consciousness? What would authentic consciousness look like, and how would we know? To bring this down to earth: my own experience has been that I have never seen anyone persuaded to a specific opinion by anything other than a significant change in their own life circumstances -- hanging around different people, losing or getting a job, a major health event. However, if I sound like I'm saying that media is not persuasive on some level, I'm overselling my case. I do think in aggregate media can normalize certain ways of behaving. Advertising would be a good example. I'm skeptical of the argument that, say, a Bud Light commercial makes people buy Bud Light. But I am more supportive of a case that a Bud Light commercial makes people by beer generally, think of beer as a determinant factor in identity ("I'm a Coors man" or whatever), consider that identity in relation to other identity categories like American, man or woman, race and so forth, consider themselves as consumers to whom brands are addressing themselves...so I think MSNBC is certainly persuading people that, for example, voting is an important and effective means of political engagement, that a two-party system makes sense and is just the way it is, and, in fact, I think it persuades them that the point of news media is to be persuasive (in the case of openly partisan broadcasts) or descriptive (in the case of supposedly "neutral" ones) rather than to be coordinative. It installs a sense of the "rational democracy" that the book Helsing was talking about ably criticizes. It does not, however, persuade people in great numbers to vote for Biden instead of Bernie, or to buy an iPhone over an Android or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2020 17:11
|
|
|
Chinese Gordon posted:Absolutely no chance. The only thing Trump cares about is being seen as a winner. If he drops out he'll always be a loser. This right here. His ego would allow nothing less than to see this through to the end, because being a one-term president would be synonomous with being a loser who couldn't get re-elected.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2020 17:21
|
|
|
yea plus trump knows he can spin 'MY ELECTION WAS STOLEN' way better than 'gently caress THIS I QUIT'
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2020 17:31
|
|
|
sexpig by night posted:yea plus trump knows he can spin 'MY ELECTION WAS STOLEN' way better than 'gently caress THIS I QUIT' Absolutely. When he loses he will scream constantly about voter fraud until the day he dies. He's not going to try and stay in the White House because he's a huge coward, but he will absolutely be tweeting every single day about how the rigged election was stolen from him and going on OAN calling for Biden/Clinton/Obama to be locked up or shot. I've no doubt there will be sporadic terrorism as a result. E-Actually I'm going to call it that he will be banned from Twitter within 6 months of no longer being President. Chinese Gordon fucked around with this message at 17:43 on Jun 21, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2020 17:39
|
|
|
Ramrod Hotshot posted:Am I crazy, or is there a non-zero chance Trump drops out of the election before he's nominated? Yes, Trump is delusional.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2020 17:41
|
|
|
cda posted:
The problem is not that Bernie Sanders is a center left candidate. His policies are widely favorable by anyone in the center or the left. They barely gave him any time and the time they did give him was negative in addition to a sweeping campaign of saying joe biden was electable. That is the problem. Its not because centrists dont like him. Centrists do like him but having media empires and pretty much 2/3ds of a party against you is hard to beat. Now we have a senile old republican and a crazy old republican at the head of both parties. ManBoyChef fucked around with this message at 19:41 on Jun 21, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2020 18:49
|
|
|
cda posted:I think what's going on must necessarily be much more complex than that. There are many different aspects of this complexity; people have written whole books about it and I'm not smart enough to summarize it all, but here's a tiny little bit of it. I also want to say that I understand that the following simplifies the perspective I am criticizing. I'm not trying to strawman, I'm just trying not to go nuts with how much I write. The data shows, in pretty conclusive and consistent terms, that Bernie's policies and Bernie himself are well liked, regardless of what the media says. So in that sense the media doesn't manipulate opinions directly. But the data also shows, conclusively and consistently, that Biden won because the number 1 issue for democrats who voted for him was electability. And on that front, there is substantial evidence that the media influences strategic voters by influencing what they believe what the media tells them regarding what other people are doing and the impact that media has on other people: Cohen, Jonathan, and Yariv Tsfati. "The influence of presumed media influence on strategic voting." Communication Research 36.3 (2009): 359-378. Tsfati, Yariv, and Jonathan Cohen. "Perceptions of media and media effects: The third person effect, trust in media and hostile media perceptions." The international encyclopedia of media studies (2012). Third person effect, bandwagon effect, etc. Research has moved far beyond the idea of whether media manipulates an individual's opinion. So the media doesn't have to have changed people's opinions of Bernie. Just convinced them that other people wouldn't vote for him, or would be manipulated by the media, etc. Every boomer professor in my circle of friends and acquaintances like Bernie's policies better, but most of them said that they wouldn't vote for Bernie because they thought he didn't have a chance in the general, because everyone else would be turned off by the socialist label. And these are sociologists, public policy professors, and so on.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2020 20:01
|
|
|
Wicked Them Beats posted:Uhhhhh him publicly stating "I want the tax rate on corporations to be 28%" is him EXPLICITLY STATING, IN WORDS, that he wants at least one-half of Trump's cuts to stay in place. So not only do people tell me I have to take Biden at his word, now I have people telling me I have to assume his word is actually double-secret messaging that doesn't explicitly state his intent? I'm not following you here, you originally said that Biden "publicly pledged to preserve the Trump tax cuts for wealthy corporations". That is not true. And to be absolutely clear, I along with many others want these entirely reversed. Personally, I'd strongly prefer a high-taxation Scandinavian State but that isn't going to happening anytime soon. Wicked Them Beats posted:And as mentioned previously, taxes are on PROFITS, which is explicitly the money made above operating expenses. Taxes do not make a corporation more costly to run, as they do not impact operating expenses in any way. What they definitely do is leave less extra money laying around to be paid out in dividends, which impacts stock price. As far as I understand, this would reduce the appeal from investors and hence reduce company growth. No? Gucci Loafers fucked around with this message at 23:32 on Jun 21, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2020 23:26
|
|
|
Gabriel S. posted:I'm not following you here, you originally said that Biden "publicly pledged to preserve the Trump tax cuts for wealthy corporations". That is not true. sometimes the quality of society is more important than growth to put more dividends in shareholders pockets.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2020 23:44
|
|
|
ManBoyChef posted:sometimes the quality of society is more important than growth to put more dividends in shareholders pockets. I mean, I agree with you entirely but the larger a companies grows the more jobs we're going to have. If lovely wealthy investors get a cut but others get employment that's a fair trade.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2020 23:50
|
|
|
Gabriel S. posted:I'm not following you here, you originally said that Biden "publicly pledged to preserve the Trump tax cuts for wealthy corporations". That is not true. Here let me help you because you seem to have trouble with numbers: the tax rate under the Obama admin was 35%. Trump lowered it to 21%. Biden wants to raise it to 28%. That is still 7% below where the tax rate was under the Obama admin, and thus Biden's public position is that he wants to preserve one half of the cut that Trump instituted. He is publicly stating that he will lock in one half of the massive cuts that were handed out to wealthy corporations. His problem with Trump isn't that he slashed taxes for the wealthy, it's that he slashed them slightly too much. Gabriel S. posted:I mean, I agree with you entirely but the larger a companies grows the more jobs we're going to have. If lovely wealthy investors get a cut but other get employment that's a fair trade. Literally Republican "job creator" rhetoric. No wonder you like Biden.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2020 23:51
|
|
|
Gabriel S. posted:I mean, I agree with you entirely but the larger a companies grows the more jobs we're going to have. If lovely wealthy investors get a cut but others get employment that's a fair trade. This is, very clearly, not what happens in modern economies, and you'd know that if you checked.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2020 23:58
|
|
|
Wicked Them Beats posted:Here let me help you because you seem to have trouble with numbers: the tax rate under the Obama admin was 35%. Trump lowered it to 21%. Biden wants to raise it to 28%. That is still 7% below where the tax rate was under the Obama admin, and thus Biden's public position is that he wants to preserve one half of the cut that Trump instituted. This is what you originally said, Wicked Them Beats posted:Also Biden has publicly pledged to preserve the Trump tax cuts for wealthy corporations, which is substantially to the right of most Democrats, including the Obama administration. There's a big difference between "preserving the Trump tax cuts" and "lock in one half the massive cuts." Wicked Them Beats posted:Literally Republican "job creator" rhetoric. No wonder you like Biden. I agree that the whole "trickle down economics" theory is largely bullshit but at the same I would still suspect that investors putting their money into companies is going to increase employment. If this isn't true, then please show me how that isn't true.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2020 00:01
|
|
|
Gabriel S. posted:I agree that the whole "trickle down economics" theory is largely bullshit but at the same I would still suspect that investors putting their money into companies is going to increase employment. If this isn't true, then please show me how that isn't true. You cannot prove a negative. It's up to you to show that increased investment leads to increased employment.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2020 00:03
|
|
|
Gabriel S. posted:I mean, I agree with you entirely but the larger a companies grows the more jobs we're going to have. If lovely wealthy investors get a cut but others get employment that's a fair trade. Trickle-down economics doesn't work though. Do you believe otherwise, because that's the only framework in which "give rich people money to hire poor people" makes sense. This theory was tried, in Kansas, it was a colossal failure, turns out if you give rich people free money they don't give it away, they hoard it. For very obvious reasons too: if hiring someone made a rich person profit, they would do it anyway, regardless of whether they kept $0.65 on every dollar of profit or $0.75. If they're not hiring it's because they don't expect to make more profits by hiring, and changing the tax rate on profits doesn't change the underlying reality. quote:In 2012 and 2013, at the urging of Governor Sam Brownback, lawmakers cut the top rate of the state’s income tax by almost 30 percent and the tax rate on certain business profits to zero. Under “supply-side” economic theory, these deep tax cuts should have acted — as Brownback then predicted — like “a shot of adrenaline into the heart of the Kansas economy,” stimulating strong growth in economic output, job creation, and new business formation. But in reality, Kansas underperformed most neighboring states and the nation on all of those measures after the tax cuts. For example: E: Somfin posted:You cannot prove a negative. It's up to you to show that increased investment leads to increased employment. Sure you can! Just compare economies that institute corporate tax cuts with economies that don't and see if there's any detectable positive employment effect (turns out: nope!) E2: Gabriel S. posted:I agree that the whole "trickle down economics" theory is largely bullshit but at the same I would still suspect that investors putting their money into companies is going to increase employment. If this isn't true, then please show me how that isn't true. I cannot rightly apprehend the confusion of ideas that could lead to such a statement. "Trickle-down economics is bullshit, but I would still suspect if we give money to the rich it's going to trickle down to everyone else". Regardless, here's your proof, above. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 00:16 on Jun 22, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2020 00:12
|
|
|
Gabriel S. posted:I mean, I agree with you entirely but the larger a companies grows the more jobs we're going to have. If lovely wealthy investors get a cut but others get employment that's a fair trade. This isn't what happens, there's been studies of where this money goes. When you had the corporate bailout in 2008 almost all of the money went to bonuses and stock buybacks. There was no expansion of the corporate sector, just greedy people lining their pockets with whatever they can loot. You'll see a similar thing as a result of the trillions congress gave out this year, I guarantee it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2020 00:15
|
|
|
Gabriel S. posted:This is what you originally said, There needs to be some strict regulations on these companies as well as some pretty high taxes. Right now the average worker is getting hosed so hard and you and I both know it. There is no reason why they can't take care of their employees better. What about retirement, or paid time off? Many jobs don't even offer that pittance. Trickle down economics doesn't work man. Why not just give that money to people that will spend it in the economy. Biden is a Reagan Democrat. He believes in trickle down economics hence why he wants to keep the tax rate so low. ManBoyChef fucked around with this message at 00:21 on Jun 22, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2020 00:17
|
|
|
Gabriel S. posted:This is what you originally said, This is playing semantics, and it's really stupid. He is fighting to preserve a large portion of the Trump tax cuts. A public drive to reverse only a portion of the cuts is locking in part of the Republican gains to the detriment of the public. "Ah, you should have said he is preserving only one half of Trump's cuts, and therefore I win by being technically correct!" He has permitted the Republicans to make the new normal even lower than ever before. They have successfully driven in one more wedge and the complete dissolution of the state's ability to generate revenue proceeds apace, with the Republicans the active instigators and the Democrats the willing enablers. Gabriel S. posted:I agree that the whole "trickle down economics" theory is largely bullshit but at the same I would still suspect that investors putting their money into companies is going to increase employment. If this isn't true, then please show me how that isn't true. If the top marginal corporate rate was 90% investors would STILL invest, because they would still be generating revenue above what they would have had they not invested any money at all. So long as the tax rate isn't so high that investing has returns lower than just leaving your money in the bank, people with excess capital will invest. Tax cuts have a place in a cash-starved environment. Meaning, if capital is restricted, you cut taxes so that people have more money in pocket either for spending or investment. But in an environment where banks are happy to lend, corporate tax cuts don't really accomplish much except maybe the company can reinvest for "free" (no investment is free since there are opportunity costs, but blah blah) instead of having to hand the bank interest payments. Of course their borrowing is at such low rates that it doesn't really outstrip inflation, so it's not much different financially from reinvesting out of pocket. Which means when you slash their taxes in an environment with freely flowing capital, you've made them double-rich: they still borrow at ridiculously low rates should they need to expand, and then they have all this extra money they can pay out to themselves in the form of dividends and executive bonuses.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2020 00:23
|
|
|
Give me some time and I'll do some light reading however I would prefer we limit the scope to corporate taxes because throwing this into Google is giving me a billion answers. I just wasted 15 minutes reading an article and I realized it was from the CATO institute. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2020 00:25
|
|
|
Julias posted:This isn't what happens, there's been studies of where this money goes. When you had the corporate bailout in 2008 almost all of the money went to bonuses and stock buybacks. There was no expansion of the corporate sector, just greedy people lining their pockets with whatever they can loot. You'll see a similar thing as a result of the trillions congress gave out this year, I guarantee it. Remember when the GOP called CEOs into congress to testify about the tax cut, and the CEOs explicitly said they weren't going to use the money to create jobs. Now BidenBros are repeating GOP lies about the tax cut in order to protect themselves from admitting that their candidate endorsed bad policy
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2020 00:42
|
|
|
even when private investment does create jobs, the question is what that money - or more accurately, that inflationary space for printing other money - could be used for instead Broadly speaking though, i don't care even a fraction as much about how much money we give to the rich as how much money we spend on everyone else. It's a bad Biden statement (that I haven't particularly looked into and am assuming was accurately represented) but it's not particularly high priority to me. Wicked Them Beats: the federal government doesn't NEED to generate revenue, it can just create it. "We need to pay for things with taxes" is a bad way to look at it. Taxing the rich isn't a means, it's a (good) end - we would like them to have less money. Goatse James Bond fucked around with this message at 01:05 on Jun 22, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2020 01:01
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:Wicked Them Beats: the federal government doesn't NEED to generate revenue, it can just create it. "We need to pay for things with taxes" is a bad way to look at it. Taxing the rich isn't a means, it's a (good) end - we would like them to have less money. Biden is not keeping corporate taxes low to signal his embrace of Modern Monetary Theory. He's a deficit scold who uses it as a cudgel constantly to argue against spending money
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2020 01:11
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:Wicked Them Beats: the federal government doesn't NEED to generate revenue, it can just create it. "We need to pay for things with taxes" is a bad way to look at it. Taxing the rich isn't a means, it's a (good) end - we would like them to have less money. I agree with you, but the systems we have in place and the popular understanding of them is predicated on treating the government's spending like a household budget (for anything that isn't war abroad, anyways). Money in, money out. Thus when revenue is reduced it is the first step in creating a justification for reducing spending. You and I might understand deficit spending or how the state can create money but someone like Biden is setting up to "make hard choices" and to use, like VitalSigns just said, the lack of revenue as a cudgel to force the hard choices he favors. Namely, balancing the budget on the collective back of the poor. Now if we can create a society where people realize that money is a collective fiction used to arbitrarily direct limited resources, then hooray, but until then I favor using the common parlance.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2020 01:24
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Biden is not keeping corporate taxes low to signal his embrace of Modern Monetary Theory. He's a deficit scold who uses it as a cudgel constantly to argue against spending money yeah, he'll use it as an excuse for why SS needs cutting Condiv fucked around with this message at 02:30 on Jun 22, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2020 02:28
|
|
|
Condiv posted:good news for those of you who feel like you need to vote joe to save the US The link has changed to say the guy denies it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2020 02:30
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure Bolton is trolling Trump because he hates the man, not voting Biden because he expects his bloodlust to be sated. Either way, fine by me. I'll gladly take Biden's foreign policy over the catastrophe that has been 3 years of Trump.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2020 02:34
|
|
|
How are u posted:I'm pretty sure Bolton is trolling Trump because he hates the man, not voting Biden because he expects his bloodlust to be sated. Either way, fine by me. I'll gladly take Biden's foreign policy over the catastrophe that has been 3 years of Trump. Buddy their foreign policies are, in the grand scheme of things, gonna be pretty much entirely identical in terms of goals, means, and body count because there's only one playbook these ghouls go by.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2020 02:43
|
|
|
Oh Snapple! posted:Buddy their foreign policies are, in the grand scheme of things, gonna be pretty much entirely identical in terms of goals, means, and body count because there's only one playbook these ghouls go by. It's especially hilarious because Biden foreign policy means launching multiple wars at all ends of the Earth, and Trump foreign policy is one missile killing one general.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2020 02:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 13:26 |
|
|
How are u posted:I'm pretty sure Bolton is trolling Trump because he hates the man, not voting Biden because he expects his bloodlust to be sated. Either way, fine by me. I'll gladly take Biden's foreign policy over the catastrophe that has been 3 years of Trump. In terms of foreign policy, siding with Bolton is never the right answer. Firing Bolton is one of the few good things Trump ever did.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2020 02:53
|
|