Tax Cuts Steal Democracy

[yiostheoy]

Only concerned with Social Security at the moment.

The Feds owe so much money to SS which they have already spent that they will need to raise taxes to make up for it.

So when DJ Trump wants to give everybody especially himself a big tax cut he really needs to do the opposite.

This is why BH Obama raised taxes on the rich. And after GW Bush lowered them on the rich.

The far right (bless their hearts) was balanced budgets.

So they are not going to vote for DJT's tax cuts.

And neither is Pelosi or Schumer either.

D.O.A.

 

[yiostheoy]

o then vote Republican since they want to reduce the power the central govt monopoly has while Democrats want more like Obamacommiecare or Obamafascistcare. Do you understand?

Republicans don't want to reduce the power of the central authority; they want to transfer that power to the unaccountable wealthiest among us or the foreign agents that compromised them...not sure which with this current group of GOPers.

No.

The GOP mostly just wants more tax cuts for the rich.

But the far right GOP wants a balanced budget too.

 

[The Derp]

o. Not even close.

You don't know that, by your own admission! When asked how many workers those 424 companies employ, you said "a lot!" So that tells me you have no idea and are just talking hot air. Your entire premise hinges on that. So if it turns out that those 424 companies employ a majority (or more) of American workers, your entire premise falls apart. So that's why you don't and won't do the work of actually knowing these things. Instead, you deflect, dodge and obfuscate. But we both know you're full of it. So there's nothing more to say, really.

Yes, when you claim that 400,000 CEOs now make 450 times what their employees make, I have to laugh.

That is not what I said. Go back and re-read the thread carefully. Also, until you can say for sure those 424 CEO's don't employ a majority of workers in this country, you shouldn't be laughing. Because you're talking out of your rear end.

My argument is that 400,000 CEOs do not make 450 times what their average employee makes.

Well, if the majority of workers in this country work for those 424 CEO's that do get exorbitant pay, then the wide gap would be true because those 424 companies would outweigh the remainder. Again, we don't know because you refuse to do the work to back yourself up. I already admitted I was wrong about the ratio...I did qualify it by saying "Something like". But you ignored that in favor of scoring a cheap point in the debate. But that's OK. Anyone can go back and read the thread for themselves.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Ah, but the cost increase of say, raising wages, is not equally offset by an increase in goods.

can you try that again in useful english

 

[yiostheoy]

"Tax Cuts Steal Democracy"
Note to the OP.... We ARE a Republic. North Korea IS a Democracy.

We were a Republic. Now we are a crypto-fascist plutocratic serfdom. Not unlike Putin's Russia.

We are still a democratic republic.

But the plutocrats are more powerful than ever. That part of your comment is correct.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The GOP mostly just wants more tax cuts for the rich.

But the far right GOP wants a balanced budget too.

they have to be for the rich since they pay all the taxes. Top 1% alone pays 40%.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Your own chart, orange line, shows you're wrong.

No, it doesn't. Again, you aren't looking at the red line of median weekly earnings of full-time workers.

Your chart says they've increased, after dropping from 1972-1980. Real wages, as shown in your chart ARE adjusted for inflation. That's what REAL means. Moron.

Wow...wow, dude. So, surely you know the difference between average wages and median weekly earnings of full time workers, right? So, the average wage means all wages averaged together (which would include things like CEO pay and compensation, which is not weekly earnings). CEO pay, for example has gone from something like 80-1 to 450-1. So that's going to skew the average wage upward. However, when you look at weekly earnings for Full Time workers, that factors out all those deferred compensation and stock dividend pay that is counted toward the average wage, you see, very plainly, that the median weekly wage declined from 1980-2014.

Average real wages dropping before Reagan's tax cuts, rising after Reagan's tax cuts.

Right, because CEO pay skyrocketed starting under Reagan. And the average wage includes those executives whereas the median weekly wage does not.

Also, just because the ideology you adhere to is dickish doesn't mean you have to be a dick too.

CEO pay, for example has gone from something like 80-1 to 450-1.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics says the mean (that's average) annual wage for Chief Executives in May 2016 was $194,350. I guess it's possible that their average employee made 194350/450 = $432, but that seems awfully low.
Maybe they made 194350/80 = $2429?
Or maybe your statistic isn't very useful?

Chief Executives

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

But the plutocrats are more powerful than ever. That part of your comment is correct.

who are these plutocrats exactly??

 

[The Derp]

No.The GOP mostly just wants more tax cuts for the rich. But the far right GOP wants a balanced budget too.[/QUOTE]

Tax cuts serve two goals; 1) they transfer wealth to the top, and more importantly, 2) they manufacture deficits that are used as an excuse to cut spending. Those spending cuts are almost always operational, which causes those programs to fail. Then Conservatives point to those failures and use them as an excuse to sell the functions off to private interests who profit at our expense while not providing any improvement to the function. That is clearly the case with charter schools and private prisons, and the VA is the next thing in their sights. What I described is exactly what fascism is. Republicans are fascists. Literally, technically fascists.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Tax Cuts don't steal democracy.

Interesting you say that because that's exactly what happened. That's why we had a multi-millionaire and a billionaire running to be President. What do you think rich people do with all the money they get from their tax cuts? What they don't spend on foreign-made luxury goods, or put in overseas bank accounts in socialist countries like Switzerland, they give to politicians who then act in their interests. Since most politicians spend about 80% of their time raising money, from whom do you think they do most of that raising? Could it be the same people who benefit from the tax cuts those legislators pass? Come on...we're not dumb. We know what's happening. It just takes balls to admit it. So do you have balls? Lady- or otherwise?

The Wilsonian-Expert-Administrative State to which Congress has delegated writing actual laws does steal democracy.

Hey man, Glenn Beck admitted he was wrong to Samantha Bee. They made a whole thing about it. They even had cake. So you can drop this faux-intellectual act. It's not fooling anyone anymore.

Interesting you say that because that's exactly what happened. That's why we had a multi-millionaire and a billionaire running to be President.

If your claim was correct, Hillary wouldn't have bothered running, because her ex-husband would have lost in 1992 to billionaire Ross Perot.

 

[The Derp]

so you think tax and regulation cuts increase the power of central govt????

No, what it does is facilitate the transfer of that authority to private interests. Look at private prisons and charter schools.

 

[The Derp]

If your claim was correct, Hillary wouldn't have bothered running, because her ex-husband would have lost in 1992 to billionaire Ross Perot.

Campaign finance rules were different in 1992 than 2016. You know that. Stop being obtuse.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

But the far right GOP wants a balanced budget too.

yes they have introduced 30 Balanced Budget Amendments since Jefferson's first. If Newts had passed debt would be $0 today rather than $20 trillion. Democrats killed every BBA because it might have meant a cut in welfare entitlement spending. This is the only way they get votes, they buy them thus subverting our democracy.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Only concerned with Social Security at the moment.

The Feds owe so much money to SS which they have already spent that they will need to raise taxes to make up for it.

So when DJ Trump wants to give everybody especially himself a big tax cut he really needs to do the opposite.

This is why BH Obama raised taxes on the rich. And after GW Bush lowered them on the rich.

The far right (bless their hearts) was balanced budgets.

So they are not going to vote for DJT's tax cuts.

And neither is Pelosi or Schumer either.

D.O.A.

The Feds owe so much money to SS which they have already spent that they will need to raise taxes to make up for it.

I prefer they cut other spending.

This is why BH Obama raised taxes on the rich.

To pay back Social Security?

 

[yiostheoy]

Only concerned with Social Security at the moment.

The Feds owe so much money to SS which they have already spent that they will need to raise taxes to make up for it.

So when DJ Trump wants to give everybody especially himself a big tax cut he really needs to do the opposite.

This is why BH Obama raised taxes on the rich. And after GW Bush lowered them on the rich.

The far right (bless their hearts) was balanced budgets.

So they are not going to vote for DJT's tax cuts.

And neither is Pelosi or Schumer either.

D.O.A.

The Feds owe so much money to SS which they have already spent that they will need to raise taxes to make up for it.

I prefer they cut other spending.

This is why BH Obama raised taxes on the rich.

To pay back Social Security?

DJ Trump needs to try to cut spending -- correct.

Reagan promised he would but he never did. Most DEMs blame Reagan. Most GOPs blame Tip ONeill.

BHO raised taxes on the rich because GW Bush had given away the store to them.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

so you think tax and regulation cuts increase the power of central govt????

No, what it does is facilitate the transfer of that authority to private interests. Look at private prisons and charter schools.

so, many private competing interests are far better than the interest of one monopoly govt which our founders described as the source of evil in human history, not charter schools( for God's sake!!) that replace the worst schools in the civilized world. 1+1=2

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

o. Not even close.

You don't know that, by your own admission! When asked how many workers those 424 companies employ, you said "a lot!" So that tells me you have no idea and are just talking hot air. Your entire premise hinges on that. So if it turns out that those 424 companies employ a majority (or more) of American workers, your entire premise falls apart. So that's why you don't and won't do the work of actually knowing these things. Instead, you deflect, dodge and obfuscate. But we both know you're full of it. So there's nothing more to say, really.

Yes, when you claim that 400,000 CEOs now make 450 times what their employees make, I have to laugh.

That is not what I said. Go back and re-read the thread carefully. Also, until you can say for sure those 424 CEO's don't employ a majority of workers in this country, you shouldn't be laughing. Because you're talking out of your rear end.

My argument is that 400,000 CEOs do not make 450 times what their average employee makes.

Well, if the majority of workers in this country work for those 424 CEO's that do get exorbitant pay, then the wide gap would be true because those 424 companies would outweigh the remainder. Again, we don't know because you refuse to do the work to back yourself up. I already admitted I was wrong about the ratio...I did qualify it by saying "Something like". But you ignored that in favor of scoring a cheap point in the debate. But that's OK. Anyone can go back and read the thread for themselves.

When asked how many workers those 424 companies employ, you said "a lot!"

Yes! The 424 biggest companies employ a lot of workers.
If you think they employ over 75 million people, you've proven your ignorance yet again.

So if it turns out that those 424 companies employ a majority (or more) of American workers, your entire premise falls apart.

Go for it, prove my premise wrong. LOL!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If your claim was correct, Hillary wouldn't have bothered running, because her ex-husband would have lost in 1992 to billionaire Ross Perot.

Campaign finance rules were different in 1992 than 2016. You know that. Stop being obtuse.

Campaign finance rules were different in 1992 than 2016.

Ross Perot was free to spend as much of his own money in 1992 as he wished. Same as today. Duh.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Only concerned with Social Security at the moment.

The Feds owe so much money to SS which they have already spent that they will need to raise taxes to make up for it.

So when DJ Trump wants to give everybody especially himself a big tax cut he really needs to do the opposite.

This is why BH Obama raised taxes on the rich. And after GW Bush lowered them on the rich.

The far right (bless their hearts) was balanced budgets.

So they are not going to vote for DJT's tax cuts.

And neither is Pelosi or Schumer either.

D.O.A.

The Feds owe so much money to SS which they have already spent that they will need to raise taxes to make up for it.

I prefer they cut other spending.

This is why BH Obama raised taxes on the rich.

To pay back Social Security?

DJ Trump needs to try to cut spending -- correct.

Reagan promised he would but he never did. Most DEMs blame Reagan. Most GOPs blame Tip ONeill.

BHO raised taxes on the rich because GW Bush had given away the store to them.

BHO raised taxes on the rich because GW Bush had given away the store to them.

Could you define, "given away the store to them"?
With numbers included please.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

BHO raised taxes on the rich because GW Bush had given away the store to them.

insane and liberal of course since the top 1% paying 35% of govt spending, not 1% , under Bush is the opposite of giving away the store.

If liberals had even a low IQ they would see that ripping off productive people to make others lazy makes things worse not better. This is how the USSR and Red China slowly starved 120million to death??