Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-24-2017, 08:35 AM
 
Location: moved
13,660 posts, read 9,724,335 times
Reputation: 23487

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
The Obamacare taxes (additional 3.8% on investment income, additional 0.9% on income above $250,000). Definitely Obama's fault.
Fair enough. But what percentage of Trump voters is affected by these taxes? And what percentage of voters who are affected by these taxes, actually voted for Trump?

The irony of the modern political debate, is that Democrats are pilloried for pandering to "the elite" - yet is the above not an example of policies that adversely affect the elite - and ONLY the elite?

Quote:
Originally Posted by exm View Post
Here's the problem with Democrats. Someone like Elizabeth Warren works fine for the liberal base, but not for winning back middle America. If they want to win (and beat Trump), they'll need to run someone more centric.
There's enormous difference between being "centric" and "middle America". "Centric" means moderate policies on taxes, labor relations, the environment, social wedge-issues, entitlement programs and so forth. "Middle America" is a euphemism for precisely the sort of inflammatory issues that have galvanized Trump's base. To conflate the two, would imply that Trump's base is itself moderate/centric. Is that really true?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-24-2017, 10:18 AM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
89,060 posts, read 44,866,510 times
Reputation: 13718
Quote:
Originally Posted by ohio_peasant View Post
Fair enough. But what percentage of Trump voters is affected by these taxes? And what percentage of voters who are affected by these taxes, actually voted for Trump?
What does it matter? Why should anyone who's worked their butt off to earn more be taxed at a higher rate to fund those who don't? That's nothing but punishment for being responsible and achieving.

Why punish strivers and reward sloth? That's morally reprehensible.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-24-2017, 11:24 AM
 
3,221 posts, read 1,739,575 times
Reputation: 2197
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
What does it matter? Why should anyone who's worked their butt off to earn more be taxed at a higher rate to fund those who don't? That's nothing but punishment for being responsible and achieving.

Why punish strivers and reward sloth? That's morally reprehensible.
It appears to me that a lot of assumption and judgment is contained in those few sentences you wrote. So everyone who doesn't make it into the higher tax brackets is simply lazy? Everyone who's not rich is a "sloth" and "irresponsible"? Furthermore, how are they being rewarded?

What about paying in a higher tax bracket is morally reprehensible? I'm genuinely curious, since you brought it up....Setting aside economic arguments over taxes, I want to know what the moral issue is. I think if you claim something is immoral, you should be able to articulate it.

Taxes are meant to help fund government expenditures on behalf of all citizens. Someone who makes more money can therefore afford to pay more. Again, separate from the issue of whether this makes economic sense, what makes this immoral?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-24-2017, 12:14 PM
 
Location: moved
13,660 posts, read 9,724,335 times
Reputation: 23487
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
What does it matter? Why should anyone who's worked their butt off to earn more be taxed at a higher rate to fund those who don't? That's nothing but punishment for being responsible and achieving....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Valhallian View Post
... So everyone who doesn't make it into the higher tax brackets is simply lazy? ...What about paying in a higher tax bracket is morally reprehensible? ...
Folks, thank you both for commenting, for this exposes the crux of so much acrimony and frustration - to paraphrase a recently popular quip, "from both sides, from both sides".

There's legitimate reason to wonder, what tax-rate is confiscatory/punitive, and what is merely inevitable to fund the public sector... who pays how much, who pays too much, who pays insufficiently. But here's the part that baffles me. Very, very few people are in the top tax bracket. They of course have every reason from aiming to minimizing their taxes, lobbying the government and advocating for their position with the loftiest rhetoric. Fine. But how is this a MORAL issue? And why are some of the staunchest advocates for the cause of highest-bracket tax reduction, themselves persons of modest means and woefully unlikely prospect of personally ever joining that exalted group? Why does a man carrying a lunch-pail and earning $18/hour on the factory floor, raise clenched fist in fit of protest, that his CEO has to pay 3.8% capital-gains surtax owing to Obamacare?

Sure, we're all in this together... Martin Niemoeller's famous "First they came for the trade unionists, and I was not a trade unionist, so I said nothing...." But it's a question of emotional attachment and priorities. If the factory-worker regards it as being immoral that the CEO pays higher capital-gains taxes, well, what's the CEO's view, of the morality of factory-workers's pay and tax-rate? Should not both be moral issues - or neither?

Look, we all want to be successful. But is it not an idle fantasy to clamor for organizing society in such a way, as if we all were ALREADY successful?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-24-2017, 12:26 PM
exm
 
3,722 posts, read 1,783,344 times
Reputation: 2850
I think this is an excellent read.

Democrats take shots at one another in their hunt for a winning economic plan - LA Times

Democrats take shots at one another in their hunt for a winning economic plan



Ohio Rep. Tim Ryan is better acquainted than most Democrats with the financially stressed voters who helped carry Donald Trump to the White House. He comes home to them every week.


Throngs of erstwhile Democrats voted for Trump in Ryan’s Rust Belt district in Youngstown, and they cheered his return for a bombastic rally in July.


Yet Ryan’s plan for winning them back is increasingly out of step in a Democratic Party fast moving to the left.


“People from areas like where I come from don’t necessarily hate corporations,†said the congressman, who wants Democrats to focus on boosting business instead of berating it for economic inequality. In Ryan’s view, the “hate the rich guy thing†doesn’t work.


Union leader RoseAnn Demoro has equally strong views about what will fail Democrats: Ryan’s corporate-friendly approach, which she complains the party has clung to since Bill Clinton entered the White House. “In any other place they would have fired the entire group of people and started from a different narrative after the last election,†said the executive director of National Nurses United. “Not the Democrats. They have lost a thousand seats in the last decade and they are still staying the course.â€


Beneath the united front that Democrats project over matters such as President Trump’s appeasement of white supremacists and policy missteps is a deep fissure over how to win back voters on the issue that matters most, the economy. The centrist economic policies that have been a driving force of the Democratic agenda for decades are under heavy attack from an ascendant left, led by Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.).


Moderates are now scrambling to rebrand and reassert the “Clintonomics†that served them so well in the 1990s and into the Obama administration, including embracing global trade and collaborating with industry. But Hillary Clinton’s stinging loss has become a major drag on a platform that stops far short of progressives’ promises of Medicare for all, free college, expanded Social Security, increased taxes on the rich and protectionist trade policies.


Worried that they have nobody with equal star power to Sanders or Warren, centrists are eagerly seeking out recruits in such places as a stealthy confab held in Aspen, Colo., this month by the centrist New America Foundation. But in a sign of the sensitivities, organizers promised not to name the nationally known politicians in attendance lest they face harassment from the left for showing up.


A formidable group of Democratic elected officials led by one of the creators of Clintonomics, Will Marshall, has banded together under the name New Democracy to confront the growing influence of the left. Many of them hail from Trump country.


The group Priorities USA, which is packed with Hillary Clinton loyalists, has also plunged into the economic message debate armed with data from its focus groups of “persuadable†Trump voters in swing states. The effort is promoted as beneficial to Democrats of all varieties — and Priorities USA has no plans to get involved in primaries — but it also cautions candidates against banking too far left. Priorities Chairman Guy Cecil, citing the focus group findings, warned Democrats it would be a mistake to stress economic “fairness†over growth.


“Achieving economic success to these voters is more about working hard and leveraging the opportunities you are given, not leveling the playing field,†Cecil wrote in a widely distributed memo earlier this month.


A lot of this is familiar. Centrist and progressive Democrats have been tangling for decades over what economic path to take, and the tension only grew in the aftermath of the election. The fight is playing out in backrooms in Washington and hostile volleys between activists over social media.


California Sen. Kamala Harris is among those caught in the crossfire. Activists on the left created a vivid meme that attacked her as a “centrist corn cob†— an insult progressives hurl at politicians they accuse of twisting themselves into positions palatable to the heartland. They cited her decision while California attorney general not to prosecute billionaire Steven T. Mnuchin, now Trump’s Treasury secretary, for misdeeds state investigators uncovered at the California bank Mnuchin ran. Their meme went viral after Center for American Progress President Neera Tanden, a longtime advisor to Hillary Clinton, called on Sanders to tell his supporters to knock it off.


Party leadership sought to foster harmony with the rollout this summer of Democrats’ “A Better Deal†platform, which had populist undertones but was muted enough to not repel moderates. The vague document drew no small measure of mockery. Some complained it was about as inspired as the Papa John’s pizza chain slogan it sounded like (“Better ingredients. Better pizza.â€).


The plan was silent on the issue fast emerging as a key focus among Democrats in the economic debate: whether to pursue a single-payer, government-run healthcare system, also known as “Medicare for all.†Large numbers of Democratic politicians, emboldened by the failure of Republicans to repeal Obamacare, are now backing it, including even some moderates like Rep. Ryan. Ben Tulchin, lead pollster for the Sanders presidential bid, argues that the concept has broad support from voters and can give a boost to Democrats even in conservative districts.


But the push has energized a counter-movement by Third Way, a centrist think tank.
“I am completely dubious of these claims that socialized medicine is wildly popular,†said Jonathan Cowan, president of Third Way. “They never tell people in their polls that it would mean taxes go up significantly and they would not keep their doctor. Try that out. The moment you actually tell people what it is, support collapses.â€


Cowan noted that Colorado voters in November soundly defeated a single-payer proposal. “This is a dangerous political fantasy,†he said. “If you believe in single-payer health insurance and don’t care about the consequences, fine. But to argue it is a political winner when it literally has never gotten more than 30% in a ballot measure is wrong.â€


Third Way finds itself in a place it had not expected: Relitigating the same fights that played out during the Democratic primary. Its leaders anticipated that at this point they would be advising a Hillary Clinton White House on implementing the many policy proposals she had adopted from their playbook. Instead, they find themselves straining to bring them back into the discussion at all.


“Sandersism is the only cause on offer for Democrats right now,†Cowan said. “It didn’t win in the primary. It hasn’t been winning since the primary. It’s incumbent on Democrats to create and offer a true alternative to this.â€


Once they do, it’s going to be a tough sell in a party that has grown impatient with its own establishment.


Demoro, the union executive, has her own prediction on how it will be received by the voters that Democrats are eager to win back: “This is how it reads to middle America: ‘They are smug, they are not listening, they are not capable of listening.’â€
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-24-2017, 12:42 PM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
89,060 posts, read 44,866,510 times
Reputation: 13718
Quote:
Originally Posted by Valhallian View Post
It appears to me that a lot of assumption and judgment is contained in those few sentences you wrote.
How so? Do you think someone who starts with nothing and works their way up hasn't earned it the hard way?

Quote:
So everyone who doesn't make it into the higher tax brackets is simply lazy?
I'd say that's a fair assessment. Mechanics, plumbers, electricians, etc., all blue collar jobs, make very good money if they work hard enough.

Quote:
What about paying in a higher tax bracket is morally reprehensible?
It's unequal treatment of Americans who are supposed to be considered equal under the law. That's what makes it morally reprehensible. A flat tax, in which everyone pays the same tax RATE is neither discriminatory nor punitive.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-24-2017, 12:52 PM
 
Location: Texas
38,859 posts, read 25,554,711 times
Reputation: 24780
Lightbulb A question for my fellow Democrats: Have we lost focus?

Completely!

Until the Dems realize once again that every election is about the economy, they'll keep losing.

So far, they don't seem to be catching on.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-24-2017, 01:12 PM
 
Location: DFW
40,952 posts, read 49,213,992 times
Reputation: 55008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Old Gringo View Post
Completely!

Until the Dems realize once again that every election is about the economy, they'll keep losing.

So far, they don't seem to be catching on.
The Obama administration pushed it left into Social Justice as the main focus. That should be secondary to jobs and the economy.

That Social Justice caused a large split with the moderates. It will take time and a change in leadership to get the train back on track.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-24-2017, 01:17 PM
 
Location: 500 miles from home
33,942 posts, read 22,541,024 times
Reputation: 25816
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spikett View Post
I didn't vote for Trump or Hillary - but just because you don't like the way the right "demonized" your side doesn't make it right for you to use the same tactics. Grow up, for crying out loud! Act like an adult, not a petulant 4 year old. Don't point fingers and say "he started it!". These tactics just make people using them lose credibility. And, yes, that is what is happening to the left.
And the right, dear. And the right.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-27-2017, 08:17 PM
 
34,068 posts, read 17,096,341 times
Reputation: 17215
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rakin View Post
The Obama administration pushed it left into Social Justice as the main focus. That should be secondary to jobs and the economy.

That Social Justice caused a large split with the moderates. It will take time and a change in leadership to get the train back on track.

Correct.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:00 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top