Let's carry liberal policies to ther conclusion.

[Katzndogz]

Ok, the Clinton-era tax rates is the one we'll use for the purpoese of this thread. I have heard this used many times by progressives as a desirable tax rate.

Clinton era tax rates, includes the reduction in capital gains taxes? Say it does. Clinton Era tax rates can be tolerated in a thriving economy. This isn't a thriving economy. The mistake is in imagining that the tax rates created the thriving economy.

 

[LeftCoastVoter]

Ok, the Clinton-era tax rates is the one we'll use for the purpoese of this thread. I have heard this used many times by progressives as a desirable tax rate.

Clinton era tax rates, includes the reduction in capital gains taxes? Say it does. Clinton Era tax rates can be tolerated in a thriving economy. This isn't a thriving economy. The mistake is in imagining that the tax rates created the thriving economy.

look back at my post it combines the clinton era income tax rates with the policy of taxing capital gains at the same rate as normal income. clinton era tax rates do not need a "thriving economy" to be implemented. they can be implemented and produce a thriving economy similar to what happened in the 90's when the GOP made the same claim. these tax rates, combined with spending cuts can produce a stronger middle class. when the middle class is strong, the economy grows as a whole and everyone makes more money including those at the top.

if you were wealthy would you rather pay 39.6% tax on $2M or 36% on $1.5M (as an example). for those keeping score without any deductions the take home pay would be $1.22M vs. $960,000. this is exactly what happened during the Clinton years. the stock market was booming and the middle class was strong producing more disposable income for them. this allowed more goods and services to be purchased which created more jobs, more tax revenues and more profits for corporations.

 

[Katzndogz]

The stock market was booming. The stock market depends on the private sector not taxes. Taxes depend on a booming stock market, not the other way around.

We will experience the consequences of our foolishness.


The idea that high taxes creates economic growth is what gave Japan their lost decade. The difference is, in Japan it was economic misadventure, in the US its by design.

 

[LeftCoastVoter]

The stock market was booming. The stock market depends on the private sector not taxes. Taxes depend on a booming stock market, not the other way around.

We will experience the consequences of our foolishness.


The idea that high taxes creates economic growth is what gave Japan their lost decade. The difference is, in Japan it was economic misadventure, in the US its by design.

the stock market has gone from 6500 to over 13000 under Obama. by your reasoning, the economy should be booming as well. but the majority of the profits from this boom have been concentrated at the top of the income scale, which also means that a lower percentage of taxes have been paid on this money. if capital gains were taxed as normal income instead of at the level of 15% how much more federal revenue would have been generated? and how much less of a deficit would have been seen over the past 4 years?

 

[PredFan]

Alright, we'll start with the goals now. Remember, in this thread we're going to give the left everything you want.

So far here's what I got:

Progressive goals:

Investment in education.
Investment in green energy.
Investment in housing.
An effective and affordable system of health care;
Clean air and clean water;
Effective Campaign Finance Reform (the repeal of CU v. FEC);
Reasonable gun control;
Safe food;
Equal rights for all citizens;
Sound fiscal policies;
Tax reform;
A committment to Social Security;
An end to ideology and pragmatic solutions to long term problems.

What about a "living wage" as the Occupy people want?

What about it? Most working poor work for small business; the goal is for tax reform to allow small businesses to profit without exploiting their employees.

What about higher minimum wage? What about employer exploitation of workers. Do you support that?

What about unionizing all working people? (I know I already have one "nay" vote)

Workers have the right to organize, no business or industry are required to be a closed shop

What about free college education as some propose?

What about affordable college/trade/vocational schools? What about public high schools offering 21st century technical skills along with math, science, English?

Any others before we go on?

Other what? Would you like details on why I posted the 10 items? Maybe before I do you might consider the consequences and costs to not implementing them.

Let me see if I can get this through your thick skull. I'm not arguing. I'm asking. You want to add to the discussion or be an asshole?

 

[PredFan]

Ok, the Clinton-era tax rates is the one we'll use for the purpoese of this thread. I have heard this used many times by progressives as a desirable tax rate.

Clinton era tax rates, includes the reduction in capital gains taxes? Say it does. Clinton Era tax rates can be tolerated in a thriving economy. This isn't a thriving economy. The mistake is in imagining that the tax rates created the thriving economy.

You know that and I know that. The purpose of this thread is to follow the progressive policies to their conclusion. It's not about who's right or who's wrong.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I see we have a reading comprehension problem. The suggestion was: start your own thread addressing this topic.

No. And my reading comprehension is fine and I have no duty to protect you or others from cognitive dissonance. BTW, my points are those articulated by some conservative Republicans; a straw man it ain't.

Off topic deflection it most certainly is.

On the contrary, calling out the OP for building a straw man is most appropriate. This is a political message board not a bath house for the echo chamber to hold circle jerks.

 

[PredFan]

Reposted to get us back on track.

Alright, we'll start with the goals now. Remember, in this thread we're going to give the left everything you want.

So far here's what I got:

Progressive goals:

Investment in education.
Investment in green energy.
Investment in housing.
An effective and affordable system of health care;
Clean air and clean water;
Effective Campaign Finance Reform (the repeal of CU v. FEC);
Reasonable gun control;
Safe food;
Equal rights for all citizens;
Sound fiscal policies;
Tax reform;
A committment to Social Security;
An end to ideology and pragmatic solutions to long term problems.

What about a "living wage" as the Occupy people want?
What about higher minimum wage?
What about unionizing all working people? (I know I already have one "nay" vote)
What about free college education as some propose?

Any other Progressive goals before we go on?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Alright, we'll start with the goals now. Remember, in this thread we're going to give the left everything you want.

So far here's what I got:

Progressive goals:

Investment in education.
Investment in green energy.
Investment in housing.
An effective and affordable system of health care;
Clean air and clean water;
Effective Campaign Finance Reform (the repeal of CU v. FEC);
Reasonable gun control;
Safe food;
Equal rights for all citizens;
Sound fiscal policies;
Tax reform;
A committment to Social Security;
An end to ideology and pragmatic solutions to long term problems.

What about a "living wage" as the Occupy people want?

What about it? Most working poor work for small business; the goal is for tax reform to allow small businesses to profit without exploiting their employees.

What about higher minimum wage? What about employer exploitation of workers. Do you support that?

What about unionizing all working people? (I know I already have one "nay" vote)

Workers have the right to organize, no business or industry are required to be a closed shop

What about free college education as some propose?

What about affordable college/trade/vocational schools? What about public high schools offering 21st century technical skills along with math, science, English?

Any others before we go on?

Other what? Would you like details on why I posted the 10 items? Maybe before I do you might consider the consequences and costs to not implementing them.

Let me see if I can get this through your thick skull. I'm not arguing. I'm asking. You want to add to the discussion or be an asshole?

Pointing out that this thread is nothing more than your attempt to build a straw man isn't inappropriate and doesn't make the case that I'm an asshole. I posted ideas that I believe many Democrats would support and challenged you to think of the consequences if those ten items were not implemented. What more are you asking (or, what is your agenda)?

 

[PredFan]

No. And my reading comprehension is fine and I have no duty to protect you or others from cognitive dissonance. BTW, my points are those articulated by some conservative Republicans; a straw man it ain't.

Off topic deflection it most certainly is.

On the contrary, calling out the OP for building a straw man is most appropriate. This is a political message board not a bath house for the echo chamber to hold circle jerks.

So lefties don't like strawmen now? Dont tell rdean or Lakhota!

 

[PredFan]

Other what? Would you like details on why I posted the 10 items? Maybe before I do you might consider the consequences and costs to not implementing them.

Let me see if I can get this through your thick skull. I'm not arguing. I'm asking. You want to add to the discussion or be an asshole?

Pointing out that this thread is nothing more than your attempt to build a straw man isn't inappropriate and doesn't make the case that I'm an asshole. I posted ideas that I believe many Democrats would support and challenged you to think of the consequences if those ten items were not implemented. What more are you asking (or, what is your agenda)?

Like I said, you are free to leave. No one is forcing you to add to the thread's numbers dumbass.

 

[Katzndogz]

The stock market was booming. The stock market depends on the private sector not taxes. Taxes depend on a booming stock market, not the other way around.

We will experience the consequences of our foolishness.


The idea that high taxes creates economic growth is what gave Japan their lost decade. The difference is, in Japan it was economic misadventure, in the US its by design.

the stock market has gone from 6500 to over 13000 under Obama. by your reasoning, the economy should be booming as well. but the majority of the profits from this boom have been concentrated at the top of the income scale, which also means that a lower percentage of taxes have been paid on this money. if capital gains were taxed as normal income instead of at the level of 15% how much more federal revenue would have been generated? and how much less of a deficit would have been seen over the past 4 years?

There would have been a lot less investment that's for sure. We'd get an initial windfall and then nothing. Let's try it. After all if China and Russia can transition to a capitalist economy, we can transition back to a capitalist economy once communism fails.

After all, the US got a huge tax payment from Eduardo Savarin, then he moved to Singapore and that's the last we will get from him.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Let me see if I can get this through your thick skull. I'm not arguing. I'm asking. You want to add to the discussion or be an asshole?

Pointing out that this thread is nothing more than your attempt to build a straw man isn't inappropriate and doesn't make the case that I'm an asshole. I posted ideas that I believe many Democrats would support and challenged you to think of the consequences if those ten items were not implemented. What more are you asking (or, what is your agenda)?

Like I said, you are free to leave. No one is forcing you to add to the thread's numbers dumbass.

I see you've devolved into name calling (I'm not surprised). I'll let you party on now as you've made it quite clear your agenda is open to closed minds and hackneyed ideas.

 

[PredFan]

Pointing out that this thread is nothing more than your attempt to build a straw man isn't inappropriate and doesn't make the case that I'm an asshole. I posted ideas that I believe many Democrats would support and challenged you to think of the consequences if those ten items were not implemented. What more are you asking (or, what is your agenda)?

Like I said, you are free to leave. No one is forcing you to add to the thread's numbers dumbass.

I see you've devolved into name calling (I'm not surprised). I'll let you party on now as you've made it quite clear your agenda is open to closed minds and hackneyed ideas.

Don't let the door hit ya.

 

[LeftCoastVoter]

The stock market was booming. The stock market depends on the private sector not taxes. Taxes depend on a booming stock market, not the other way around.

We will experience the consequences of our foolishness.


The idea that high taxes creates economic growth is what gave Japan their lost decade. The difference is, in Japan it was economic misadventure, in the US its by design.

the stock market has gone from 6500 to over 13000 under Obama. by your reasoning, the economy should be booming as well. but the majority of the profits from this boom have been concentrated at the top of the income scale, which also means that a lower percentage of taxes have been paid on this money. if capital gains were taxed as normal income instead of at the level of 15% how much more federal revenue would have been generated? and how much less of a deficit would have been seen over the past 4 years?

There would have been a lot less investment that's for sure. We'd get an initial windfall and then nothing. Let's try it. After all if China and Russia can transition to a capitalist economy, we can transition back to a capitalist economy once communism fails.

After all, the US got a huge tax payment from Eduardo Savarin, then he moved to Singapore and that's the last we will get from him.

investment in the stock market hasnt led to gains in the middle class. there is no proof that higher taxes leads to less investment in the stock market. the same claim was made by the GOP when Clinton raised tax rates and the exact opposite happened.

im assuming that you have no idea what the word communism means if you truly believe that america is a communist society.

 

[PredFan]

LeftCoastVoter

Check out this previous post and give me your input please:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...olicies-to-ther-conclusion-5.html#post6454243

Thanks.

 

[LeftCoastVoter]

Reposted to get us back on track.

Alright, we'll start with the goals now. Remember, in this thread we're going to give the left everything you want.

So far here's what I got:

Progressive goals:

Investment in education. - yes, this would also help pull people out of poverty and get them off government assistance.
Investment in green energy. - yes, although it must be viable not necessarily "experimental"
Investment in housing. - not sure what this means? housing is not the responsibility of the government
An effective and affordable system of health care; - this would be a yes, but in my personal opinion HC should not be a for profit business. the current health care model utilized in the US needs reform as a whole
Clean air and clean water; - this is already law, it really doesnt need to be on the list
Effective Campaign Finance Reform (the repeal of CU v. FEC); - yes. campaigns should not last 2-3 years (president). there should be a limited about of time for campaigning (2-3 months) and each candidate should have equal money and airtime. SuperPACs should be banned and both corporations and unions should not be able to influence elections. only personal donations to the "general election fund" should be able to be made my voting citizens.
Reasonable gun control; - yes, and gun control, not gun elimination. this can include back ground checks for all firearm sales including sales at gun shows. private gun sales would need to go through a licensed dealer to insure this. im on the fence about psych testing (think the colorado shooting and virginia tech) but it may be something that needs at least a conversation.
Safe food; - not necessarily "safe food" but proper labeling and identification of foods
Equal rights for all citizens; - this should be a no brainer of a yes
Sound fiscal policies; - yes. we need to stop being both the world police as well as force personal responsibility on our citizens. budgets should be done in 2 year cycles not 1 year cycles. and there should be term limits put on congress
Tax reform; - yes
A committment to Social Security; - in its current form, yes for those who are nearing retirement ages. but for those who are nowhere near, the entire program needs to be revamped. not sure what even to suggest here.
An end to ideology and pragmatic solutions to long term problems. - not necessarily ideology, but being ideologically rigid and immovable. being ideological is fine, but people need to realize that just because they believe things should be a certain way, not everyone has that same view. stop making compromise a dirty word.

What about a "living wage" as the Occupy people want? - this would be an affect of an better educated population. but until wealth gap is addressed, then this can not be addressed either
What about higher minimum wage? - this should be handled at the state level, the cost of living in places the CA & NY is not the same as the COL in Kansas or OH
What about unionizing all working people? (I know I already have one "nay" vote) - not all industries would benefit from being unionized. however the right to unionize should be protected.
What about free college education as some propose? - college needs to be more affordable, but at the same time our education systems needs to do a better job preparing our children for college. too many students are taking remedial classes in college which causes schools to be impacted.

Any other Progressive goals before we go on?

see my responses above in red