Why do working class Americans vote against their self interests?

[The Sage of Main Street]

Yeah, because people have no right to expect to continue working family farms and businesses that have been in the family 3 and 4 generations. That's just stupid. They should be forced to sell everything to the wealthy people you hate, right?

Supporting the Privileges of Trustfundee Trash Won't Make You Rich; It Will Just Make You Trash

You Preppyloving liars know perfectly well I'm not referring to the middle class. Pretty slimy to include your HeirHead idols in with the common people.

We don't punish sons for the sins of their fathers. Therefore, it is illogical to reward freeloading sons for the success of their fathers. You worthless master-loving serfs are so stupid you think one-sided opinions are smart.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

I think you've been brainwashed. Again. Trump cut my $40-50k/yr taxes the first time. And then it's become obvious that the Democrats are the party of the rich.

The Democrats Are The Party of the Rich

And famous, as we all know. Nancy Pelosi lives in a posh San Fransisco neighborhood where homes are valued in the tens of...

ted.servepics.com

Daddy Buying Dummy a Job

Rich is too broad a term. It is meaningless, unless you completely separate those who worked for their money and those who inherited it. That second and totally different class is also set up for live by their Daddy's Money, especially when he pays their college tuition and (what is far more important) gives them an adult allowance to live comfortably on.

The Liberal elitism of the formerly Democratic Party began with the spoiled and authoritarian Kennedys. That's why Goldwater Girl Hillary Rodham switched over to that anti-American ideology soon after, following all the other useless snobs at her Female Ivy college.

 

[daveman]

You fuckers SCREAMED about the debt just two weeks ago.

You didn't ask me a question about the debt you unhinged twat.

And Trump is going to extend existing tax cuts that would end .

The middle-class tax cuts that you leftards whined were only temporary? Yes!

Democrats hate Trump's middle-class tax cuts because to take advantage of them, you have to have a job. And that's not fair!

 

[DBA]

I will keep asking until I get an answer.

Democrats continually talk about tariffs raising consumer prices but never mention that raising corporate taxes would have the same effect, but only on US corporations, putting them at an even bigger disadvantage with their foreign competitors. Maybe Democrats expect US companies to take from their profits to remain competitive? Guess what geniuses, foreign companies could do the same if they were forced to pay tariffs because they need the US consumer to buy their products. The US holds the cards in this battle due to the strength of our consumer. Targeting tariffs make more sense than higher corporate taxes for every US corporation.

Lesh Did you ever respond to this? I can’t seem to get an answer from any of you self-proclaimed economic geniuses regarding this rather simple question.

 

[Lesh]

Lesh Did you ever respond to this? I can’t seem to get an answer from any of you self-proclaimed economic geniuses regarding this rather simple question.

Tariffs most definitely get passed on to consumers. The cost to get those goods to market increases and they raise the price accordingly. If we had the capacity to produce those products here in the volume required it "might" allow domestic producers an edge. We don't in most cases so that's a moot point.
Corporate taxes hit all domestic producers evenly. They are currently making record profits. If one or several producers want to gain market share, don't raise prices while their competitors do. Supply and demand dictates that they will make a somewhat lower profit per wigit but overall larger revenue by increasing volume. They're still making profit.

 

[DBA]

Tariffs most definitely get passed on to consumers. The cost to get those goods to market increases and they raise the price accordingly.

Imported goods have competition as well, but typically with other imports. Tariffs level the playing field so they are competing with US corporations as well. This does in fact mean some higher prices for consumers, at least in the short term, however, it also means that US corporations are more competitive. It also means that less people are exploited worldwide to support our cheap imports, not to mention that US corporations are far more environmentally friendly. Being champions of human rights and the environment, one would think the left would be in favor of more goods being made in the US. It is almost as if Democrats don’t want US corporations to be profitable.

If taxes are raised on US corporations, they are even less competitive with imported goods. Again, you point to them cutting their profits, as if they aren’t supposed to make “too much” money, whatever that is. What many would do is take advantage of the pro import, anti-US corp. environment created by the left and open shop out of the country as opposed to cutting profits. Why wouldn’t they?

The more competition the better. Currently, US corporations are competing with other US corporations, not foreign companies directly. Tariffs increase competition, but blanket higher corporate taxes puts US corporations at an even bigger disadvantage. Foreign companies rely on the spending power of the US consumer for their profits. They will not abandon the US market(they can’t and survive) and will do whatever is necessary to remain competitive in our market. Force them to take a hit to their profits instead of US corporations. We are in the driver’s seat. We should be making deals from a position of strength. We hold the cards. We should be calling the shots.

Targeted tariffs make perfect sense. Raising taxes on all US corporations doesn’t, unless the goal is the drive them out of the country. Perhaps a combination of targeted tariffs and targeted corporate tax hikes could be beneficial.

 

[Lesh]

Imported goods have competition as well, but typically with other imports. Tariffs level the playing field so they are competing with US corporations as well. This does in fact mean some higher prices for consumers, at least in the short term, however, it also means that US corporations are more competitive. It also means that less people are exploited worldwide to support our cheap imports, not to mention that US corporations are far more environmentally friendly. Being champions of human rights and the environment, one would think the left would be in favor of more goods being made in the US. It is almost as if Democrats don’t want US corporations to be profitable.

If taxes are raised on US corporations, they are even less competitive with imported goods. Again, you point to them cutting their profits, as if they aren’t supposed to make “too much” money, whatever that is. What many would do is take advantage of the pro import, anti-US corp. environment created by the left and open shop out of the country as opposed to cutting profits. Why wouldn’t they?

The more competition the better. Currently, US corporations are competing with other US corporations, not foreign companies directly. Tariffs increase competition, but blanket higher corporate taxes puts US corporations at an even bigger disadvantage. Foreign companies rely on the spending power of the US consumer for their profits. They will not abandon the US market(they can’t and survive) and will do whatever is necessary to remain competitive in our market. Force them to take a hit to their profits instead of US corporations. We are in the driver’s seat. We should be making deals from a position of strength. We hold the cards. We should be calling the shots.

Targeted tariffs make perfect sense. Raising taxes on all US corporations doesn’t, unless the goal is the drive them out of the country. Perhaps a combination of targeted tariffs and targeted corporate tax hikes could be beneficial.

That's only true if we make a competing product and do so in the quantity required. In most cases we don't

 

[DBA]

That's only true if we make a competing product and do so in the quantity required. In most cases we don't

Yes, exactly. This allows for new US companies to create the product and/or to increase production. As it stands now, it is either not profitable for them to do so due to more regulations, higher taxes and higher wages.

 

[Lesh]

Yes, exactly. This allows for new US companies to create the product and/or to increase production. As it stands now, it is either not profitable for them to do so due to more regulations, higher taxes and higher wages.

And that will be paid for by consumers

 

[DBA]

And that will be paid for by consumers

Yes, as will raising corporate taxes. One way ultimately helps US corporations and the other ultimately helps foreign corporations. I prefer the former.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

And that will be paid for by consumers

Outsource All the Free Traders' Jobs

They can't consume if their job opportunities have been outsourced, or insourced because of legal immigrants. It's better to have our money circulating in America than have Wall Street hand it over to foreigners.

Bitter cripple Charles Krauthammer opined about the cheap prices that comes from deporting our jobs. He intentionally omits the fact that some English-speaker in India could write his column and charge far less than he did.

 

[georgephillip]

Working class Americans making $40,000- $50,000 a year proudly fly their TRUMP flags from their Pickup Trucks

But it is Bidenomics and the Harris economic plans that focus on stimulating the middle class. Do what is best for the working class.

The Trump economic plan is focused on what is best for Elon Musk

Two big pieces in Trump's economic plan are crypto and private equity. Imho, Democrats need to focus their objections to those scams with the same laser-like intensity they used for Russia-gate 8 years ago:

"Given the increasing role that crypto is playing in fraud against the most vulnerable citizens in the U.S., one has to seriously question Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump’s decision last evening to announce that he and his family are launching a crypto firm called World Liberty Financial.

"CNBC reported the following about the new crypto firm yesterday:"

As Trump Launches a Crypto Firm, FBI Reports Crypto Fraud Has Exploded to $5.6 Billion; Representing Almost 50 Percent of All Financial Fraud

 

[daveman]

700+ replies to this thread and no leftist has yet defined what's in the working class' best interests.

Obviously, the leftists believe it's "keeping Democrats in power forever", although that's a flat-out lie.

But then, leftists don't give a damn about the working class.

 

[dudmuck]

700+ replies to this thread and no leftist has yet defined what's in the working class' best interests.

Obviously, the leftists believe it's "keeping Democrats in power forever", although that's a flat-out lie.

But then, leftists don't give a damn about the working class.

 

[daveman]

Leftists can't meme.

And compare and contrast to Harris' love for the working class:

Union questions if Harris campaign debt contributed to DNC mass layoffs​

 

[Monoculturalist]

I've read The Big Short several times. Michael Lewis makes no mention of the CRA.

In fact, in the movie version, Mark Baum says assholes like you will try to blame the poor.

I'm not blaming the poor so much as the government, but you can shove your attitude up your ass.

 

[Monoculturalist]

I wrote a comprehensive explanation of the GLOBAL derivatives bubble in 21 parts, with an appendix.

You can start here: Banks should never be forced to give subprime loans.

If you're familiar with why 30 year mortgages exist in the first place, you should understand why government is the root of the problem. Government never should have made the decision to buy up bad loans.

Mortgages used to only be 3 to 5 years long. After the Great Depression and the New Deal, this started the trend of lengthening mortgage terms and government intervention. If it had remained a free market without intervention, banks would still lend very conservatively. It is true that fewer people would be able to buy homes, but ownership is something that logically should be exclusive in nature. It should be reserved for the financially independent. The more government intervenes, the worse debt becomes, and the more risk for banks is subsidized through things like bailouts.