Trump: Civil War

[bigrebnc1775]

The freedom of our nation wasn’t secured by sideline sitters, and neutral parties. Love it or hate it. The future will be determined by those who have the will to act. And neutral parties will be subject to the will of the victorious...

France is going to help us again?

The military doesn't need up to put down the uprising of the left

PussyBitch, impeachment is not an uprising. It's a Constitutional remedy for a criminal president.

YTou leftist have been up in arms since 2016 and this witch hunt is just that a witch hunt C un T anytime YOU LIKE.

PussyBitch be like

Translation: I surrender because I have nothing legitimate to add to the discussion

 

[bigrebnc1775]

dude a little FYI you are about as left as they come.

Then you don't know my politics.

FYI.
.

Sure I do you show it with every post

 

[Mac1958]

dude a little FYI you are about as left as they come.

Then you don't know my politics. FYI.

Sure I do you show it with every post

Yeah, including the post that YOU QUOTED, the one in which I said "the Left has wrecked our culture."

You must have "missed" that.

I realize that folks like you don't understand this, but not everyone is a blind, obedient winger. Really.
.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Well C un T most of your democrats should be removed and obama should get some jail time

Well, with geniuses like you at their backs, I'm amazed the GOP hasn't accomplished this already!

Of course a clown like you would support the democrat clown car

 

[JoeB131]

Funny how the Left openly declared Civil War against Trump, republicans and his supporters three years ago and NO ONE HARDLY RAISED AN EYEBROW. And they have waged it (viciously) ever since.

Now that Trump rightly points out that the constitutional patriots of this country seeking a return to a People's Government back to them as the Founders intended in the form of a Tea Party will rise again should a democratically-led political coup succeed, all of a sudden everyone is crapping their pants calling Trump a bad man?

Remove Trump from office without clear and obvious malfeasance (which you don't have) and see if Trump is not once again right. This is not a war against America, it is a war to SAVE America from what the Left are trying to make it.

Your side tried to impeach a legitimately elected president over lying about a blow job, but no one was talking about "Civil Wars" or any shit like.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Funny how the Left openly declared Civil War against Trump, republicans and his supporters three years ago and NO ONE HARDLY RAISED AN EYEBROW. And they have waged it (viciously) ever since.

Now that Trump rightly points out that the constitutional patriots of this country seeking a return to a People's Government back to them as the Founders intended in the form of a Tea Party will rise again should a democratically-led political coup succeed, all of a sudden everyone is crapping their pants calling Trump a bad man?

Remove Trump from office without clear and obvious malfeasance (which you don't have) and see if Trump is not once again right. This is not a war against America, it is a war to SAVE America from what the Left are trying to make it.

Your side tried to impeach a legitimately elected president over lying about a blow job, but no one was talking about "Civil Wars" or any shit like.

My side didn't start off day 1 threatening to impeach

 

[Mac1958]

You could either quote or ask. It couldn't be more simple.

There's no reason for you to be ignorant. That's your choice.

You sure do whine a lot about my posts.
.

Fine, I'll ask you a straight up question. Do you believe the democrat attacks of Russia collusion, the attack on Kavanaugh, or the Ukranian whistleblower are legit? Normally you say it is all 'winger' make believe dreamed up on AM radio.

Their actions on Russia and Kavanaugh were motivated by partisan politics.

No doubt so is this Ukranian story, although we don't have enough facts yet to know if the story actually has teeth.

Anything else?
.

Wow, you shocked me. I didn't think you would go there. lol I do kinda feel like a wheeny now. I'm still going to have to jab you a bit though, because you know what this means. It means you agree with Rush Limbaugh on at least two, possibly three major points. It isn't too late you know, you can still join us. If you tally the list, you might be surprised on how many points we agree on.

No, I'm afraid I'm a hopeless case. I'm so sick of the behaviors of both ends of the spectrum that the last thing I want to do is attach myself to either.

Here's how I see things, in a nutshell: The Left has wrecked our culture, the Right has wrecked our socio-economics. Both of those are absolutely unforgivable offenses in my book. And BOTH ends have wrecked our politics. That's been a team effort.

So I'll just stumble along, leaning Left somewhat, but I've got no use for either tribe.
.

I find your stance fascinating. I mostly hear the other way around. People who are for smaller government but less restrictive social stances. I'm curious about your view on socio-economics. I know you are big on regulation. I have no problem with that if it is not redundant and wasteful. That is a big area. Not even your rivals would say there should be 'no' regulation. I'd appreciate it if you could hit us with some economic kung fu. I'm not sure, but I thought I saw a post where you were critical of the Laffer Curve. Do you not think it is possible to overtax? Taxation must have some non theoretical, real life impact if people leave heavily taxed states for less taxed states. Is this not empirical evidence? I honestly don't know what your economic beliefs are, but it seems as if you want people to freely vote themselves into collective policies. To me that is not a natural position to take. I've heard you bring up Europe and Canada? What part of their systems are you interested in, and do you think such positions make sense in a country our size with so many dissenting opinions? To better phrase it, not make sense, but is such a system doable and not just theoretical wishing. If it can't be done, it doesn't matter how pretty a theory is. Thanks

First of all, individual taxation and corporate taxation are two different things. Yes, I would definitely increase individual taxation, and I would do it by adding four new margins on the top end. However, I think that corporate taxes need to remain low (although there should be regulations, and there's that word, that motivate business investment rather than stock buybacks and other short term, non-productive corporate financial actions). This is a topic on which we could go pretty freaking deep, it's my profession, and I'm happy to get into it as much as you want.

Of course it's possible to over-tax. The key is finding the proper equilibrium between the revenue generated by taxation and avoiding too much drag on the positive dynamics of an economy. We are clearly not there, and the GOP is entirely complicit in that, since Trump just exploded the deficit. Low taxes and high spending - not a great idea. The Laffer Curve says that lower taxes will stimulate enough economic activity to more than make up for the drop in tax revenue, and we have seen it clearly not work. In real time. It couldn't be more clear, if we're being honest.

I think that thoughtful, rational equilibrium should apply everywhere, which is why I'm so out of step with current American politics. Government spending on a social safety net and basic services would be another example. On one hand, an advanced, civilized country does not let its people rot. There are people who simply don't function well in a capitalist system, and it is what it is. So we must maintain an equilibrium between making sure they have a safety net, and making them too dependent on the government. And by the way, a strong safety net is also an insurance policy against electoral revolution. Poor people vote.

Regarding Europe and Canada, they are simply to the Left of us on this continuum. Their vision of a fair and proper civilization includes making the conscious choice to reward their best producers somewhat less while providing more basic assistance to all. Could you live with a 42" TV instead of a 60" TV? Could you manage to survive driving a compact car instead of a huge SUV? Would it be possible for you to eat smaller, healthier portions instead of piling on potatoes and ribs onto your plate at the neighborhood all-you-can-eat buffet? Do you need that expensive watch in order to be happy? Their answer is "yeah, no big deal".

Equilibrium matters. Not just because it stimulates innovation (coming up with new ideas together to face and address problems), but also because it puts everyone's skin in the game. Instead of each party taking turns shoving its agenda down our throat, both sides have input and therefore responsibility for outcomes. What we have now is each side hoping the other fails, and that's a big component of our decay. It couldn't be more obvious to me. But, granted, I also may be nuts.
.

 

[JGalt]

That's just plain crazy.

Yeha, history changes. But you, for sure, would have been a Democrat in 1860. Not one person would say otherwise.

Your lack of knowledge is astounding. You probably don't know this, but Abraham Lincoln? Republican.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

That's just plain crazy.

Yeha, history changes. But you, for sure, would have been a Democrat in 1860. Not one person would say otherwise.

Your lack of knowledge is astounding. You probably don't know this, but Abraham Lincoln? Republican.

Of course i knew that. And I know you would have been a democrat at the time. We all know this.

 

[toobfreak]

Funny how the Left openly declared Civil War against Trump, republicans and his supporters three years ago and NO ONE HARDLY RAISED AN EYEBROW. And they have waged it (viciously) ever since.

Now that Trump rightly points out that the constitutional patriots of this country seeking a return to a People's Government back to them as the Founders intended in the form of a Tea Party will rise again should a democratically-led political coup succeed, all of a sudden everyone is crapping their pants calling Trump a bad man?

Remove Trump from office without clear and obvious malfeasance (which you don't have) and see if Trump is not once again right. This is not a war against America, it is a war to SAVE America from what the Left are trying to make it.

Your side tried to impeach a legitimately elected president over lying about a blow job, but no one was talking about "Civil Wars" or any shit like.

A). No one tried to impeach Bill Clinton. He WAS impeached. But the Dimocriters refused to remove him from office.
B). Legitimately elected president? IRRELEVANT. No one has ever questioned a presidential election until Obama who for YEARS told the world he was Kenyan.
C). Impeachment was over suborning perjury. Stop trying to lie abut the blowjob. That was simply vulgar. God only knows what else Clinton did we never heard about.
D). No. The Civil War did not begin until GW got in office and they tried to eviscerate him for doing his job. With Clinton, it was simply high crimes of treason with China.

 

[DustyInfinity]

Fine, I'll ask you a straight up question. Do you believe the democrat attacks of Russia collusion, the attack on Kavanaugh, or the Ukranian whistleblower are legit? Normally you say it is all 'winger' make believe dreamed up on AM radio.

Their actions on Russia and Kavanaugh were motivated by partisan politics.

No doubt so is this Ukranian story, although we don't have enough facts yet to know if the story actually has teeth.

Anything else?
.

Wow, you shocked me. I didn't think you would go there. lol I do kinda feel like a wheeny now. I'm still going to have to jab you a bit though, because you know what this means. It means you agree with Rush Limbaugh on at least two, possibly three major points. It isn't too late you know, you can still join us. If you tally the list, you might be surprised on how many points we agree on.

No, I'm afraid I'm a hopeless case. I'm so sick of the behaviors of both ends of the spectrum that the last thing I want to do is attach myself to either.

Here's how I see things, in a nutshell: The Left has wrecked our culture, the Right has wrecked our socio-economics. Both of those are absolutely unforgivable offenses in my book. And BOTH ends have wrecked our politics. That's been a team effort.

So I'll just stumble along, leaning Left somewhat, but I've got no use for either tribe.
.

I find your stance fascinating. I mostly hear the other way around. People who are for smaller government but less restrictive social stances. I'm curious about your view on socio-economics. I know you are big on regulation. I have no problem with that if it is not redundant and wasteful. That is a big area. Not even your rivals would say there should be 'no' regulation. I'd appreciate it if you could hit us with some economic kung fu. I'm not sure, but I thought I saw a post where you were critical of the Laffer Curve. Do you not think it is possible to overtax? Taxation must have some non theoretical, real life impact if people leave heavily taxed states for less taxed states. Is this not empirical evidence? I honestly don't know what your economic beliefs are, but it seems as if you want people to freely vote themselves into collective policies. To me that is not a natural position to take. I've heard you bring up Europe and Canada? What part of their systems are you interested in, and do you think such positions make sense in a country our size with so many dissenting opinions? To better phrase it, not make sense, but is such a system doable and not just theoretical wishing. If it can't be done, it doesn't matter how pretty a theory is. Thanks

First of all, individual taxation and corporate taxation are two different things. Yes, I would definitely increase individual taxation, and I would do it by adding four new margins on the top end. However, I think that corporate taxes need to remain low (although there should be regulations, and there's that word, that motivate business investment rather than stock buybacks and other short term, non-productive corporate financial actions). This is a topic on which we could go pretty freaking deep, it's my profession, and I'm happy to get into it as much as you want.

Of course it's possible to over-tax. The key is finding the proper equilibrium between the revenue generated by taxation and avoiding too much drag on the positive dynamics of an economy. We are clearly not there, and the GOP is entirely complicit in that, since Trump just exploded the deficit. Low taxes and high spending - not a great idea. The Laffer Curve says that lower taxes will stimulate enough economic activity to more than make up for the drop in tax revenue, and we have seen it clearly not work. In real time. It couldn't be more clear, if we're being honest.

I think that thoughtful, rational equilibrium should apply everywhere, which is why I'm so out of step with current American politics. Government spending on a social safety net and basic services would be another example. On one hand, an advanced, civilized country does not let its people rot. There are people who simply don't function well in a capitalist system, and it is what it is. So we must maintain an equilibrium between making sure they have a safety net, and making them too dependent on the government. And by the way, a strong safety net is also an insurance policy against electoral revolution. Poor people vote.

Regarding Europe and Canada, they are simply to the Left of us on this continuum. Their vision of a fair and proper civilization includes making the conscious choice to reward their best producers somewhat less while providing more basic assistance to all. Could you live with a 42" TV instead of a 60" TV? Could you manage to survive driving a compact car instead of a huge SUV? Would it be possible for you to eat smaller, healthier portions instead of piling on potatoes and ribs onto your plate at the neighborhood all-you-can-eat buffet? Do you need that expensive watch in order to be happy? Their answer is "yeah, no big deal".

Equilibrium matters. Not just because it stimulates innovation (coming up with new ideas together to face and address problems), but also because it puts everyone's skin in the game. Instead of each party taking turns shoving its agenda down our throat, both sides have input and therefore responsibility for outcomes. What we have now is each side hoping the other fails, and that's a big component of our decay. It couldn't be more obvious to me. But, granted, I also may be nuts.
.

Mac, I agree with much of this. I am disabled, and I went to school with a lot of kids who were not disabled, but it was obvious their future was going to be in the margins. I do think you need to be careful about engineering a society where everybody wins. When you try to force everybody to have 42" TVs, you could create much more poverty and hopelessness than if you let some people win. Trying to force an outcome seems dangerous, and at some point personal liberty does come into play. Being disabled, I am unfortunately aquainted with existing programs of the safety net. They are not designed to 'cure' poverty, they are the safety net to help those are indeed disabled. I'm curious what your new safety net would look like, how it would differ from the current one. You brought up dependency on government programs. That is a very real threat, and it currently engenders generational poverty. What makes it worse is that we are punishing the successful to pay for this endless poverty. More power to you if you can cure poverty, but try not to squash choice and liberty, and create a permanent dependent underclass.

 

[toobfreak]

Equilibrium matters. Not just because it stimulates innovation (coming up with new ideas together to face and address problems), but also because it puts everyone's skin in the game.

I do think you need to be careful about engineering a society where everybody wins. When you try to force everybody to have 42" TVs, you could create much more poverty and hopelessness than if you let some people win. Trying to force an outcome seems dangerous

Government is mad and has gotten itself involved in many things it has no business being in, one of the worst: social engineering. What started out as a good and just thing, Equality, or equal opportunity of giving everyone an equal, undifferentiated helping so they are all better advantaged than they were got morphed by the Left into the now-discriminatory practice of giving certain classes of people a LOT of help and others none. THEY get to decide and now seek that all people come out the same regardless of differences, and they call that FAIRNESS, even though it ISN'T fair that a harder working person gets no further ahead, or that a smarter student with better grades gets no better job.

That is a bit like having a NASCAR race and giving the worse drivers all cars with bigger engines, better handling and tires. What starts out as sounding good and common sense ends up being very UNfair with many people actually disadvantaged in the zeal to advantage others.

Like it or not, life is not fair, we are all different of differing capabilities, but now that government has gotten involved in MAKING everything "equitable," they have confused equal opportunity with equitable OUTCOME, and so have gotten into the business of now picking winners and losers so that preferred groups of people actually come out ahead. As a result, instead of equality, equal help for all, we now have special classes of minorities like transgenders getting special protection and consideration to come out AHEAD. Because of government, we now have cases where Indian immigrants seeking business grants get $4,500 a month in food stamps which they can then SELL for a profit at their business while other regular Americans go hungry (true story), and they call that "fair."

 

[JGalt]

That's just plain crazy.

Yeha, history changes. But you, for sure, would have been a Democrat in 1860. Not one person would say otherwise.

Your lack of knowledge is astounding. You probably don't know this, but Abraham Lincoln? Republican.

Of course i knew that. And I know you would have been a democrat at the time. We all know this.

Revisionist bullshit. You Democrats like spewing that only because you can't face up to your undeniably racist past. Instead of your Klan robes and lynchings, you've institutionalized racism to keep blacks in poverty, in the ghettos, and murdering each other. Not mention how many unborn black babies you people have murdered through abortion.

You're not fooling anyone with your BS, only yourself.

 

[Mac1958]

Their actions on Russia and Kavanaugh were motivated by partisan politics.

No doubt so is this Ukranian story, although we don't have enough facts yet to know if the story actually has teeth.

Anything else?
.

Wow, you shocked me. I didn't think you would go there. lol I do kinda feel like a wheeny now. I'm still going to have to jab you a bit though, because you know what this means. It means you agree with Rush Limbaugh on at least two, possibly three major points. It isn't too late you know, you can still join us. If you tally the list, you might be surprised on how many points we agree on.

No, I'm afraid I'm a hopeless case. I'm so sick of the behaviors of both ends of the spectrum that the last thing I want to do is attach myself to either.

Here's how I see things, in a nutshell: The Left has wrecked our culture, the Right has wrecked our socio-economics. Both of those are absolutely unforgivable offenses in my book. And BOTH ends have wrecked our politics. That's been a team effort.

So I'll just stumble along, leaning Left somewhat, but I've got no use for either tribe.
.

I find your stance fascinating. I mostly hear the other way around. People who are for smaller government but less restrictive social stances. I'm curious about your view on socio-economics. I know you are big on regulation. I have no problem with that if it is not redundant and wasteful. That is a big area. Not even your rivals would say there should be 'no' regulation. I'd appreciate it if you could hit us with some economic kung fu. I'm not sure, but I thought I saw a post where you were critical of the Laffer Curve. Do you not think it is possible to overtax? Taxation must have some non theoretical, real life impact if people leave heavily taxed states for less taxed states. Is this not empirical evidence? I honestly don't know what your economic beliefs are, but it seems as if you want people to freely vote themselves into collective policies. To me that is not a natural position to take. I've heard you bring up Europe and Canada? What part of their systems are you interested in, and do you think such positions make sense in a country our size with so many dissenting opinions? To better phrase it, not make sense, but is such a system doable and not just theoretical wishing. If it can't be done, it doesn't matter how pretty a theory is. Thanks

First of all, individual taxation and corporate taxation are two different things. Yes, I would definitely increase individual taxation, and I would do it by adding four new margins on the top end. However, I think that corporate taxes need to remain low (although there should be regulations, and there's that word, that motivate business investment rather than stock buybacks and other short term, non-productive corporate financial actions). This is a topic on which we could go pretty freaking deep, it's my profession, and I'm happy to get into it as much as you want.

Of course it's possible to over-tax. The key is finding the proper equilibrium between the revenue generated by taxation and avoiding too much drag on the positive dynamics of an economy. We are clearly not there, and the GOP is entirely complicit in that, since Trump just exploded the deficit. Low taxes and high spending - not a great idea. The Laffer Curve says that lower taxes will stimulate enough economic activity to more than make up for the drop in tax revenue, and we have seen it clearly not work. In real time. It couldn't be more clear, if we're being honest.

I think that thoughtful, rational equilibrium should apply everywhere, which is why I'm so out of step with current American politics. Government spending on a social safety net and basic services would be another example. On one hand, an advanced, civilized country does not let its people rot. There are people who simply don't function well in a capitalist system, and it is what it is. So we must maintain an equilibrium between making sure they have a safety net, and making them too dependent on the government. And by the way, a strong safety net is also an insurance policy against electoral revolution. Poor people vote.

Regarding Europe and Canada, they are simply to the Left of us on this continuum. Their vision of a fair and proper civilization includes making the conscious choice to reward their best producers somewhat less while providing more basic assistance to all. Could you live with a 42" TV instead of a 60" TV? Could you manage to survive driving a compact car instead of a huge SUV? Would it be possible for you to eat smaller, healthier portions instead of piling on potatoes and ribs onto your plate at the neighborhood all-you-can-eat buffet? Do you need that expensive watch in order to be happy? Their answer is "yeah, no big deal".

Equilibrium matters. Not just because it stimulates innovation (coming up with new ideas together to face and address problems), but also because it puts everyone's skin in the game. Instead of each party taking turns shoving its agenda down our throat, both sides have input and therefore responsibility for outcomes. What we have now is each side hoping the other fails, and that's a big component of our decay. It couldn't be more obvious to me. But, granted, I also may be nuts.
.

Mac, I agree with much of this. I am disabled, and I went to school with a lot of kids who were not disabled, but it was obvious their future was going to be in the margins. I do think you need to be careful about engineering a society where everybody wins. When you try to force everybody to have 42" TVs, you could create much more poverty and hopelessness than if you let some people win. Trying to force an outcome seems dangerous, and at some point personal liberty does come into play. Being disabled, I am unfortunately aquainted with existing programs of the safety net. They are not designed to 'cure' poverty, they are the safety net to help those are indeed disabled. I'm curious what your new safety net would look like, how it would differ from the current one. You brought up dependency on government programs. That is a very real threat, and it currently engenders generational poverty. What makes it worse is that we are punishing the successful to pay for this endless poverty. More power to you if you can cure poverty, but try not to squash choice and liberty, and create a permanent dependent underclass.

I have no interest in forcing outcomes or forcing 42" TVs on people. None. Zero. This isn't a binary, either/or situation in which either everyone is running around with no restrictions OR they're strangled by an authoritarian government. That's why I carefully pointed out finding a point of equilibrium. Balance.

Finding that point of equilibrium would take a great deal of effort and collaboration, so we both know it's not going to happen any time soon. It appears that we have lost the ability to collaborate or innovate. So what we're going to see is continued wild swings back and forth as both parties try to do everything their way and eventually get voted out after they screw it up.

Personally, I don't see the point of that. And I think that wild swings back and forth will only divide & damage us further. But I know that many think this is the way to go. I don't get it.
.

 

[Faun]

Funny how the Left openly declared Civil War against Trump, republicans and his supporters three years ago and NO ONE HARDLY RAISED AN EYEBROW. And they have waged it (viciously) ever since.

Now that Trump rightly points out that the constitutional patriots of this country seeking a return to a People's Government back to them as the Founders intended in the form of a Tea Party will rise again should a democratically-led political coup succeed, all of a sudden everyone is crapping their pants calling Trump a bad man?

Remove Trump from office without clear and obvious malfeasance (which you don't have) and see if Trump is not once again right. This is not a war against America, it is a war to SAVE America from what the Left are trying to make it.

Your side tried to impeach a legitimately elected president over lying about a blow job, but no one was talking about "Civil Wars" or any shit like.

A). No one tried to impeach Bill Clinton. He WAS impeached. But the Dimocriters refused to remove him from office.
B). Legitimately elected president? IRRELEVANT. No one has ever questioned a presidential election until Obama who for YEARS told the world he was Kenyan.
C). Impeachment was over suborning perjury. Stop trying to lie abut the blowjob. That was simply vulgar. God only knows what else Clinton did we never heard about.
D). No. The Civil War did not begin until GW got in office and they tried to eviscerate him for doing his job. With Clinton, it was simply high crimes of treason with China.

Lying Birther. Obama did not tell the world for years that he was Kenyan.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Revisionist bullshi

Hmm, no, spot on and historically accurate. A puke like you would have definitely been a democrat back then. No question.

 

[DustyInfinity]

Wow, you shocked me. I didn't think you would go there. lol I do kinda feel like a wheeny now. I'm still going to have to jab you a bit though, because you know what this means. It means you agree with Rush Limbaugh on at least two, possibly three major points. It isn't too late you know, you can still join us. If you tally the list, you might be surprised on how many points we agree on.

No, I'm afraid I'm a hopeless case. I'm so sick of the behaviors of both ends of the spectrum that the last thing I want to do is attach myself to either.

Here's how I see things, in a nutshell: The Left has wrecked our culture, the Right has wrecked our socio-economics. Both of those are absolutely unforgivable offenses in my book. And BOTH ends have wrecked our politics. That's been a team effort.

So I'll just stumble along, leaning Left somewhat, but I've got no use for either tribe.
.

I find your stance fascinating. I mostly hear the other way around. People who are for smaller government but less restrictive social stances. I'm curious about your view on socio-economics. I know you are big on regulation. I have no problem with that if it is not redundant and wasteful. That is a big area. Not even your rivals would say there should be 'no' regulation. I'd appreciate it if you could hit us with some economic kung fu. I'm not sure, but I thought I saw a post where you were critical of the Laffer Curve. Do you not think it is possible to overtax? Taxation must have some non theoretical, real life impact if people leave heavily taxed states for less taxed states. Is this not empirical evidence? I honestly don't know what your economic beliefs are, but it seems as if you want people to freely vote themselves into collective policies. To me that is not a natural position to take. I've heard you bring up Europe and Canada? What part of their systems are you interested in, and do you think such positions make sense in a country our size with so many dissenting opinions? To better phrase it, not make sense, but is such a system doable and not just theoretical wishing. If it can't be done, it doesn't matter how pretty a theory is. Thanks

First of all, individual taxation and corporate taxation are two different things. Yes, I would definitely increase individual taxation, and I would do it by adding four new margins on the top end. However, I think that corporate taxes need to remain low (although there should be regulations, and there's that word, that motivate business investment rather than stock buybacks and other short term, non-productive corporate financial actions). This is a topic on which we could go pretty freaking deep, it's my profession, and I'm happy to get into it as much as you want.

Of course it's possible to over-tax. The key is finding the proper equilibrium between the revenue generated by taxation and avoiding too much drag on the positive dynamics of an economy. We are clearly not there, and the GOP is entirely complicit in that, since Trump just exploded the deficit. Low taxes and high spending - not a great idea. The Laffer Curve says that lower taxes will stimulate enough economic activity to more than make up for the drop in tax revenue, and we have seen it clearly not work. In real time. It couldn't be more clear, if we're being honest.

I think that thoughtful, rational equilibrium should apply everywhere, which is why I'm so out of step with current American politics. Government spending on a social safety net and basic services would be another example. On one hand, an advanced, civilized country does not let its people rot. There are people who simply don't function well in a capitalist system, and it is what it is. So we must maintain an equilibrium between making sure they have a safety net, and making them too dependent on the government. And by the way, a strong safety net is also an insurance policy against electoral revolution. Poor people vote.

Regarding Europe and Canada, they are simply to the Left of us on this continuum. Their vision of a fair and proper civilization includes making the conscious choice to reward their best producers somewhat less while providing more basic assistance to all. Could you live with a 42" TV instead of a 60" TV? Could you manage to survive driving a compact car instead of a huge SUV? Would it be possible for you to eat smaller, healthier portions instead of piling on potatoes and ribs onto your plate at the neighborhood all-you-can-eat buffet? Do you need that expensive watch in order to be happy? Their answer is "yeah, no big deal".

Equilibrium matters. Not just because it stimulates innovation (coming up with new ideas together to face and address problems), but also because it puts everyone's skin in the game. Instead of each party taking turns shoving its agenda down our throat, both sides have input and therefore responsibility for outcomes. What we have now is each side hoping the other fails, and that's a big component of our decay. It couldn't be more obvious to me. But, granted, I also may be nuts.
.

Mac, I agree with much of this. I am disabled, and I went to school with a lot of kids who were not disabled, but it was obvious their future was going to be in the margins. I do think you need to be careful about engineering a society where everybody wins. When you try to force everybody to have 42" TVs, you could create much more poverty and hopelessness than if you let some people win. Trying to force an outcome seems dangerous, and at some point personal liberty does come into play. Being disabled, I am unfortunately aquainted with existing programs of the safety net. They are not designed to 'cure' poverty, they are the safety net to help those are indeed disabled. I'm curious what your new safety net would look like, how it would differ from the current one. You brought up dependency on government programs. That is a very real threat, and it currently engenders generational poverty. What makes it worse is that we are punishing the successful to pay for this endless poverty. More power to you if you can cure poverty, but try not to squash choice and liberty, and create a permanent dependent underclass.

I have no interest in forcing outcomes or forcing 42" TVs on people. None. Zero. This isn't a binary, either/or situation in which either everyone is running around with no restrictions OR they're strangled by an authoritarian government. That's why I carefully pointed out finding a point of equilibrium. Balance.

Finding that point of equilibrium would take a great deal of effort and collaboration, so we both know it's not going to happen any time soon. It appears that we have lost the ability to collaborate or innovate. So what we're going to see is continued wild swings back and forth as both parties try to do everything their way and eventually get voted out after they screw it up.

Personally, I don't see the point of that. And I think that wild swings back and forth will only divide & damage us further. But I know that many think this is the way to go. I don't get it.
.

The schizophrenic nature of government is horrible. Each side tries to erase the damage of the other. Sadly I agree with many that gridlock is our best bet. It limits the lunacy. You are the biggest optimist I have ever seen. The government actually trying to help people in a common sense way would be a dream. I've long ago given up on government 'helping'. It is like everywhere else in the world, the elite rulers rule over the oppressed masses. Our founders did their best to prevent this, but that is where we are. We have power hungry nitwits in their mansions having a great time on tax payer money. I see a broken system, and I'm at a loss to see how the citizens come out the winners.

 

[DustyInfinity]

I empathize with people that want to be left alone.

 

[Hellbilly]

Wouldn't be much of a "civil war."

Although some on the right might laugh themselves to death when being confronted by a horde of leftists armed with cardboard signs and dildos.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[JoeB131]

My side didn't start off day 1 threatening to impeach

That's true.. you guys went after Bill Clinton before he ever took the oath of office.