Jump to content
SkylabPatel

Election advice

Recommended Posts

 

17 hours ago, Roxy Couturier said:

So, it's been said I have no 'facts'.

Trump on Social Security
https://www.forbes.com/sites/teresaghilarducci/2019/08/23/trumps-second-term-plan-for-social-security-starve-the-beast/#211c7c7f3794

Trump on SSDI, Medicaid and Medicare
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/3/12/18260271/trump-medicaid-social-security-medicare-budget-cuts

Trumps VA spending
https://www.veterans.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2019 budget one pager.pdf

https://www.stripes.com/key-veterans-groups-blast-trump-s-va-budget-proposal-as-falling-short-of-veterans-needs-1.572485

Sure, there are short term gains, but there will be long term losses if he gains a second term. As explained in the articles, it's an old Repug strategy. Cut taxes to the point where the deficit requires cuts to 'entitlement programs'.


These are four different outlets all reporting virtually the same thing.

Let's not forget the cuts to other departments that independently oversee inspections and compliance.

Putting up charts is disingenuous as they fail to show the actual shortfalls. To not equivocate, the budget crisis is a direct result of the tax cuts. Tax cuts that peter out for most Americans except for the ultra rich.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/5/29/18642928/trump-tax-cuts-and-jobs-act-analysis

*drops mic*

Putting up charts is "disingenuous"? So, data is disingenuous?  Another example of "facts don't matter" thinking.

By the way, all 5 of your links are opinion pieces - they aren't factual, they are guesstimates and suppositions about what Trump and the GOP may be planning to do and arguments over what he SHOULD do.  Since there is limited space, let's only take the Forbes piece on Social Security in detail.  MY GOD HOW DARE THE GOP TALK ABOUT SOCIAL SECURITY REFORM!!!  THEY WANT TO MURDER GRANDMA!

Not so much.  The SSA Trustees have been talking for at least a decade about the need to reform Social Security.  Why do we need to reform it?  Because it's going broke.  Here, read the report:

https://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TRSUM/index.html

See, that's not some "journalist" trying to fill space.  That's information right from the agency that handles the money coming in and going out.  The fact is, SS is going broke because there are too many people collecting benefits relative to the number of working Americans paying social security taxes.  It's not Trump's fault, it's not Reagan's fault.  One could blame Obama for it going broke 2 years earlier than it would have otherwise (due to his SS payroll tax "holiday" after the recession), but that just sped it up a bit.  It's actually a design flaw (how the program is funded) coupled with changing population growth.

You want to blame tax cuts for everything.  Well, the Trustees have been saying this for a long time, and, guess what, SS is NOT funded by anything to do with Trump's tax cuts.  It's funded by a tax on payroll, and those have been going...UP.  In fact, " The Trustees project that the combined trust funds will be depleted in 2035, one year later than projected in last year’s report."  So, apparently the situation has IMPROVED under Trump.  Gee, who woulda thought?  Certainly nobody who relies on Vox.

ETA: Left this out.  We can argue over HOW to reform SS, and you can dig around on SSA.gov to see projections of various proposals they have been asked to evaluate.  But, the need to reform it should be patently clear, and trying to blame any particular president for the problem is ridiculous.  Personally, I prefer eliminating the earnings cap coupled with implementing "chained" CPI on benefits growth.

Let's go one step further - blaming deficits and budget problems on Trump's budget cuts is an outright lie.  You know why?  Because federal tax revenues have actually been INCREASING under Trump - projected to go up half a trillion dollars over his 4 year term.  Revenues under Obama grew a mere $13B between his last two fiscal years.  You can see this from the OMB link I shared earlier, I believe table 1.3 is the revenue, spending, and deficit history.  So, if revenue is INCREASING faster than it was, how can tax cuts be to blame?

This all applies to Medicare as well, since it has the same funding mechanism, and it's covered in the same Trustees report.

As far as your VA article - it's people arguing over how much they want to spend.  As I showed earlier, Trump's budgets greatly expand VA funding.  It's actually one of the fastest growing parts of the budget, so to try and pretend he's cutting it is not just ludicrous, it's delusional.

Facts, Roxy, straight from the source of the data, do not support what you claim.

Edited by Tolya Ugajin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On Social Security reform:  This is another area where the Democrats and the Republicans are pointing fingers at one another and casting blame.  The actual situation is a little different from what either party says.

The Democrats are proposing to increase taxes to restore the solvency of Social Security.

The Republicans are proposing to cut benefits to restore the solvency of Social Security.

There are both pluses and minuses to either approach.  What is NOT happening, and what SHOULD be happening, is compromise between the two positions:  SOME tax increases, and SOME benefits reductions, possibly for those people further out from retirement.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And here we all thought this thread would be nuked by the moderators pages and pages ago. I think they are toying with us. :) Well played, well played.

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Want to make this discussion REALLY fun?! Let's talk about forced birth! One party wants to force me to push a parasite out of my hoo-ha, and the other trusts me to know what's best for me. 

The same party that wants to force me to have a baby (I can't be responsible for having safe sex, but it's okay to hand me a baby?!) believes in killing other human beings that may or may not be guilty of committing the crimes they've been convicted of. OH! And they see no problem with locking kids in cages! And they love guns and think pretty much anybody should be able to own a machine gun or bazooka because "mah rights!" They LOVE human beings before they're born but after? Oh hell no! Screw 'em after they're born! Honestly, they are just really terrible people, and no, I don't tolerate them anymore. 

If that doesn't get this thread nuked, nothing will...

  • Like 2
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope the thread doesn't close. I would like this to be a place for those in the U.K. to express the problems they encounter as social services are cut. And make no mistake, when Conservatives come into power the money available for vulnerable populations decreases. I saw this years ago, when poor children had to drop out of a preschool my daughter was attending after a Conservative government came into power. I saw it again when funds available for low-income families needing counseling were decreased and at-risk individuals were turned away at their counselor's door without warning.
I have a few friends still in Social Work, attending to the needs of vulnerable populations, and they witness time and again the loss of needed funds (federal matching funds) when Conservatives take over after an election. The homeless population, the disabled, the mentally ill, children, and the elderly, all suffer.

Edited by Luna Bliss
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is such a distorted and hateful view of conservatives, Beth.  I obviously can't even begin to have a rational discussion with someone like you; i.e., a liberal nutter.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Seicher Rae said:

And here we all thought this thread would be nuked by the moderators pages and pages ago.

Oh....it’s coming.....

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Lindal Kidd said:

That is such a distorted and hateful view of conservatives, Beth.  I obviously can't even begin to have a rational discussion with someone like you; i.e., a liberal nutter.

Immagonna regret this, but as posted elsewhere, I'm feeling self-destructive.  While Beth put it colorfully :::cough::: she also put it accurately. The Party of Cheeto is anti-abortion, to the point where some states are passing laws that would imprison a woman for a natural miscarriage. (I'm too lazy to look it up, but it was one of the glorious southern states.) Party of Cheeto is pro capital punishment. They are pro gun and run with the NRA to prevent any sane gun legislation. They are pushing for huge, huge reductions of social safety nets, and so casting a blind eye to the kids they force women to have. The Senate and other Party of Cheeto electeds do not speak up out against any of the lies or outrages. People vote these guys (primarily old, white) in. So... not really sure where "liberal nutter" comes into play. More like, "The truth hurts."

I actually used to vote GOP, but they lost me a long, long time ago. When you get people like George Will leaving the Party... Call me a liberal nutter, that's cool. My Canadian friends think I'm a fascist. 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Beth Macbain said:

Let's talk about forced birth!

   Hm. I know that abortion is a sensitive subject to many, and that no one really wants a 'man's opinion' on the matter, but my mother has worked as an operation nurse her entire life and for some years she worked at the maternal clinic in my home town, and some of the things she have told me has been beautiful, whilst others have been very dark.

   One of the things that I found distressing, was that she once told me about a young woman she had worked on. She came into the clinic like clockwork, once every few months, to have an abortion. Why? Because she and her boyfriend didn't want to use a condom, or any other contraceptive, but they also didn't want a child. That woman has burnt through a lot of resources (i.e. time and money) for the clinic, and added to the wait times for other people who come in with actual need for medical help.

   If a woman is made pregnant by mistake, or against her will, then I think that abortion is probably the best option in most cases. Same if circumstances change, say their partner is killed in a car accident or they have a breakup during the early stages of pregnancy and suddenly there's no home or income with which to raise a child. But that some people do it so lightheartedly, abusing a generous system, then at the very least they should pay for it - but in our healthcare model that's not the reality.

   Besides, the philosophical concerns may not be so entirely without merit as some like to portray it. Is a woman's body hers alone to decide over? Absolutely - but at what stage do we recognize human life? I've heard the scientific side, and also of the sometimes distressful brutality of late-stage abortion. The debate has raged here in Sweden, whether doctors and nurses working for the maternity clinics have the right to choose whether they want to conduct or assist in terminations or not - the public outcry from most liberals and socialists were 'absolutely not'. As a result, many simply changed specialization or went back to general practice, resulting in longer wait times and worse quality of care for all women. Can someone be forced to conduct an abortion against their will, when they've chosen their profession because they wish to bring life safely into the world? I think that the law actually went in favor of the nurses' having a choice on whether it should be part of their job or not, but it remains a sensitive topic here.

   Either way, I don't think that it's as black or white as the political discourse often presents it.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Lindal Kidd said:

That is such a distorted and hateful view of conservatives, Beth.  I obviously can't even begin to have a rational discussion with someone like you; i.e., a liberal nutter.

She is not talking about conservatives  per se, just a certain sect that for the most part has nothing whatsoever to do with Conservatism.

I have zero desire to discuss politics here or anywhere, since people cannot agree on basic facts. I have plenty of friends with an opposing view and I don’t discuss politics with them. 
 

But what I think should be allowed here, perhaps, is just talking about how feelings are affected. Like, I feel like my heart is ripped out multiple times a days by the viciousness and cruelty. I am terrified that democracy is being dismantled. I do know history, and the world has been here before, and what it portended then was beyond anyone’s imagination. . 

I will not look away, tho. I want to bear witness to the many heroes who are standing up..
 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Luna Bliss said:

I hope the thread doesn't close. I would like this to be a place for those in the U.K. to express the problems they encounter as social services are cut. And make no mistake, when Conservatives come into power the money available for vulnerable populations decreases. I saw this years ago, when poor children had to drop out of a preschool my daughter was attending after a Conservative government came into power. I saw it again when funds available for low-income families needing counseling were decreased and at-risk individuals were turned away at their counselor's door without warning.
I have a few friends still in Social Work, attending to the needs of vulnerable populations, and they witness time and again the loss of needed funds (federal matching funds) when Conservatives take over after an election. The homeless population, the disabled, the mentally ill, children, and the elderly, all suffer.

 

1 hour ago, Lindal Kidd said:

That is such a distorted and hateful view of conservatives, Beth.  I obviously can't even begin to have a rational discussion with someone like you; i.e., a liberal nutter.

Note the difference in use between capital-C "Conservatives" and small-c "conservatives." There are political parties with the name "Conservative party" in several countries.

Edited by Theresa Tennyson
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Pamela Galli said:

She is not talking about conservatives  per se, just a certain sect that for the most part has nothing whatsoever to do with Conservatism.

Yup. The GOP used to be conservative, an actual conservative party. (For a hoot, go back and read some of Barry Goldwater's things and see how freaking liberal it sounds now!) It is now the Party of Trump, and anyone who is or was pro-Trump is not a conservative. In a lot of cases, Trumpism is quite literally fascism. Trumpism is a lot of things--none of them positive or healthy. Trumpism is anti-democracy. Trumpism is lies. Trumpism is favoring the 1% over the 99%. Trumpism is a war on the poor, not on poverty. Trumpism is racist. Trumpism is fear and hatred. The list goes on. Trumpism is numbing the entire population, with daily assaults. We are not alone in the USA with Trumpism. Brazil, UK, and the list goes on. I have never, ever said this in the past about someone (in general) from the "other" side, but with Trumpism if you ever supported him, in the past or currently, then I have no use for you. I doubt your intelligence and basic humanity. I will stop talking to you. And *that* is what Trumpism has brought to the landscape, a polarization so divisive I fear we have marked the point at which history will note the absolute decline of this and other countries.

Well, I was stressed, grumpy and depressed when I got up this morning. This topic has helped... sigh

Edited by Seicher Rae
  • Like 2
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Pamela Galli said:

I will not look away, tho. I want to bear witness to the many heroes who are standing up.

None of us should look away. None of us should give any of this "stuff" a pass. Not only should we bear witness to the people who are standing up to the actual horrors that are passing as business as usual these days, but we need to bear witness and hold accountable those people who are endorsing the behavior, either tacitly or overtly: from the person who fails to vote, for whatever reason (besides as a result of the voting tricks being done by the Party of Trump) to the evil a88holes like Graham and McConnell.

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Orwar said:

One of the things that I found distressing, was that she once told me about a young woman she had worked on. She came into the clinic like clockwork, once every few months, to have an abortion. Why? Because she and her boyfriend didn't want to use a condom, or any other contraceptive, but they also didn't want a child. That woman has burnt through a lot of resources (i.e. time and money) for the clinic, and added to the wait times for other people who come in with actual need for medical help.

 

That's obviously utterly irresponsible, and let's not forget that there's at least one man who's just as culpable. Abortion is not intended to be used instead of contraception, and there are really not many people who use it that way, especially nowadays when there are so many non-barrier methods.

At the same time, though, the alternative, however you slice it, is forcing a woman to carry and birth a child when she doesn't want to. You'll never hear me defend abortion being used as contraception, but between that and forced pregnancy and motherhood, it's the lesser of the two evils. I have been pregnant, given birth (traumatic labour, permanent injuries), experienced postnatal depression that led to suicidal ideation, and am a mother, which is...life changing, to say the least. I love my son more than life and I accept that I chose to take these risks. But my God, I am even more pro choice after having him than I was before. It is beyond barbaric to force that upon a woman against her will, utterly inhuman. It doesn't help that the hardline anti-abortionists are rarely in favour of actually giving any assistance to the woman and the child either. They're not pro life, they're pro birth, and pro forced birth at that. Having had a child, I don't think I could ever have an abortion myself, but dear God, I would not force it on any woman if she wasn't prepared to go through with it. No, not even if she and her partner - please let's not forget him - are a pair of repeatedly selfish, feckless and irresponsible wastrels. It's too much. It's absolutely monstrous. And no, even if she gives the child up for adoption, it's still not OK. You don't carry a child for nine months, endure labour (I'd really encourage anyone who's not gone through it to look up what it actually entails and the kinds of injuries it causes) and then have the baby whisked away and carry on with your life and body and mind completely unchanged. It doesn't work like that.

With that said, clearly there does need to be a cut-off point, and I agree it's not easy to determine precisely when that should be. But I have never known a pro-choice person who didn't agree that, if there is to be a termination, it should be as early as possible. Which is another reason why abortion as contraception is a terrible thing to do; as you say, it puts unnecessary strain on the services.

2 hours ago, Orwar said:

   If a woman is made pregnant by mistake, or against her will, then I think that abortion is probably the best option in most cases. Same if circumstances change, say their partner is killed in a car accident or they have a breakup during the early stages of pregnancy and suddenly there's no home or income with which to raise a child. But that some people do it so lightheartedly, abusing a generous system, then at the very least they should pay for it - but in our healthcare model that's not the reality.  

Yes, I could theoretically get behind making people pay for it if they're using it as contraception; if nothing else, it might stop some of them doing it. But there are still pitfalls. How do you ascertain that that's what they're doing? Some people are very unlucky with contraception. Pregnancy is often used as a method of control in abusive relationships, so what of the women who are being forcibly impregnated because they can't use contraception, and abortion is their only option? And what of people who can't afford the abortion, and therefore definitely can't afford the child?

 

Edited by Amina Sopwith
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Theresa Tennyson said:

Note the difference in use between capital-C "Conservatives" and small-c "conservatives." There are political parties with the name "Conservative party" in several countries.

You do have a point there, Theresa, perhaps we should just call this new breed taking over the world the New Fascists   :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

You do have a point there, Theresa, perhaps we should just call this new breed taking over the world the New Fascists   :(

Not speaking on the varied C/conservative parties around the world, but as long as the allegedly more sane conservatives in the US refuse to stand up and separate themselves from the fascist conservatives by not only speaking out against them, but running them right out of their party, then they're all the same to me. 

There are children in cages in the US dying of flu-related illnesses but DHS refuses to allow these children to be vaccinated even though a group of doctors have offered to vaccinate the children for free. As a matter of fact, some of those doctors were arrested when they protested against this inhumane policy under the inhumane president. 

Yet someone wants me to believe for one hot second that the conservative party gives a single damn about children after they're born?!

No. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Beth Macbain said:

Not speaking on the varied C/conservative parties around the world, but as long as the allegedly more sane conservatives in the US refuse to stand up and separate themselves from the fascist conservatives by not only speaking out against them, but running them right out of their party, then they're all the same to me.

I could say the same thing about moderate Democrats.  Yet the moderates, for the most part, go along with the more vocal and more extreme left wing of their party for the same reason the "more sane conservatives" in the US go along with President Trump:  once either group "stands up and separates themselves" from their respective nutty extremists, they become ineffective.

I hate that, but that is the dynamic at work here.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Generally in the UK, we alternate between a left of centre government and a right of centre government. Nothing really significant changes. Thatcher’s government of the eighties repaired the UK’s economy and dragged the UK into financial sobriety. Blair’s government then reinvested some of that financial security back into society. Every few years, it all balances out.

The NHS is safe, education will be safe, defence will be safe. Anything else is hysterical nonsense or just lies.

A key difference this time was that the UK was offered a far left alternative for the first time for decades. And it was firmly rejected. Labour will now shift back to a centre-left perspective and normal service will be resumed. They will probably get into government next time round and then lose and then win. Repeat.

The other key element was Brexit, which is again subject to hysteria. The UK will leave the EU and sadly, there will be an impact on the economy but it won’t be seismic. Nor will the UK run out of medicines or god forbid, tea. That doesn’t stop us being “Europeans” and it won’t change much, apart from slightly longer queues when travelling. It’s a shame but the UK has always had an odd relationship with the EU. Neither side - remain or leave - has behaved with much decorum. And a few people have displayed spectacular unpleasantness.

The UK should be concerned about the rise of the far right but also the rise of the far left, whose behaviour is often more “fascist” than the far right. Both are extremist and lack tolerance. Fortunately, they are both tiny minorities.

Other than that, no real problems.
 

Keep calm and carry on.

 

Edited by Hans Modan
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Beth Macbain said:

Not speaking on the varied C/conservative parties around the world, but as long as the allegedly more sane conservatives in the US refuse to stand up and separate themselves from the fascist conservatives by not only speaking out against them, but running them right out of their party, then they're all the same to me. 

There are children in cages in the US dying of flu-related illnesses but DHS refuses to allow these children to be vaccinated even though a group of doctors have offered to vaccinate the children for free. As a matter of fact, some of those doctors were arrested when they protested against this inhumane policy under the inhumane president. 

Yet someone wants me to believe for one hot second that the conservative party gives a single damn about children after they're born?!

No. 

Half the MSNBC guests and hosts are Never Trumpers, most of whom have left the R party. Bill Kristol, David Frum, George Conway, Nicole Wallace, Steve Schmidt,mJoe Scarborough, Michael Steele,  Jennifer Rubin, Brett Stephens, Charlie Sykes, George Will, dozens more. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Beth Macbain said:
2 hours ago, Luna Bliss said:

You do have a point there, Theresa, perhaps we should just call this new breed taking over the world the New Fascists   :(

Not speaking on the varied C/conservative parties around the world, but as long as the allegedly more sane conservatives in the US refuse to stand up and separate themselves from the fascist conservatives by not only speaking out against them, but running them right out of their party, then they're all the same to me. 

Yes, and your phrase "allegedly more sane conservatives" is apropos -- I don't think we've actually had any sane conservatives for a good long while -- they, along with most of the Democrats, have moved far to the right and have been purchased by the elite. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Hans Modan said:

Generally in the UK, we alternate between a left of centre government and a right of centre government. Nothing really significant changes. Thatcher’s government of the eighties repaired the UK’s economy and dragged the UK into financial sobriety. Blair’s government then reinvested some of that financial security back into society. Every few years, it all balances out.

The NHS is safe, education will be safe, defence will be safe. Anything else is hysterical nonsense or just lies.

A key difference this time was that the UK was offered a far left alternative for the first time for decades. And it was firmly rejected. Labour will now shift back to a centre-left perspective and normal service will be resumed. They will probably get into government next time round and then lose and then win. Repeat.

The other key element was Brexit, which is again subject to hysteria. The UK will leave the EU and sadly, there will be an impact on the economy but it won’t be seismic. Nor will the UK run out of medicines or god forbid, tea. That doesn’t stop us being “Europeans” and it won’t change much, apart from slightly longer queues when travelling. It’s a shame but the UK has always had an odd relationship with the EU. Neither side - remain or leave - has behaved with much decorum. And a few people have displayed spectacular unpleasantness.

The UK should be concerned about the rise of the far right but also the rise of the far left, whose behaviour is often more “fascist” than the far right. Both are extremist and lack tolerance. Fortunately, they are both tiny minorities.

Other than that, no real problems.
 

Keep calm and carry on.

 

You've made sensible points but I must question your confidence in the NHS being safe.  Have you not noticed the privatisation that has been going on slowly for decades, now more apparent?  Of course if you genuinely believe that private enterprise puts people before profit in this area then we are probably not going to see eye to eye.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow! haven't logged in for a while and straight into this.
Firstly, I'd just like to say.. IBTL 🤩
Secondly - who cares?
All I wish is that "progressive" England would keep its misery to itself. 😜

And Trumpophobia *rolls eyes. Get over it people!
Lets mix it up a bit:

"Never have so many.... been bored to death by so few" 

Edited by Maryanne Solo
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Tolya Ugajin said:

The SSA Trustees have been talking for at least a decade about the need to reform Social Security.  Why do we need to reform it?  Because it's going broke.  Here, read the report:

https://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TRSUM/index.html

the SSA Trustees have a fairly narrow view, as they must, fiduciary duty

a thing with US social security is that back in 1983 the baby boom bubble retirement was anticipated and planned for. The social security funds began taking in more tax than was needed, with the knowledge that this surplus would be saved to cover the difference between receipts and expenditure beginning about now, 2020. We have to give the planners some credit for their foresight, and the US Congress since 1983 some credit also for their resolve in making this happen

the current projection is that the funds will exhaust their combined savings reserves in about 2035. The current projected shortfall between tax receipts and expenditure reaching its nadir by about 2039 - a about 23% shortfall. The shortfall closing by about 2053 to about 11%. The baby boom bubble being extinguished by then. A projected shortfall which will have to be met in some way


what was not anticipated by the social security planners at the outset, was that which caused the projected shortfall. The deteriorating change in the way that generated wealth is distributed in the USA. Traditionally the bulk distribution method was a social construct - maintaining wage and salary proportional parity with the wealth generated by those wage and salary earners. These earners as a body today now get relatively less of that generated wealth than they had previously. Which has affected the amount of tax payable by these people

the result of this is that currently about 20% of taxpayers in the USA pay about 70% of total tax revenues.  This is not sustainable. We (and by we I mean we lefties) can't just keep saying tax the 20% more, because it is 'fair' that the current wealthy bourgeoisie should pay more. The about bottom 20% of wage and salaried workers currently don't pay any federal tax nett. The tax rebates they get is greater than the amount of tax they currently pay. This bottom number of nett non-taxpayers is increasing due to the deterioration of the social construct   

what we need to do I think as lefties (as a body) is to re-discover our working class roots - as opposed to the beneficiary roots which are largely espoused by the wealthy bourgeoisie. The bourgeoisie who frame the debate in terms of benefits paid by them thru the 70% of taxes they pay

re-discovering our working class roots. In the USA this is beginning to happen. In different parts of the country the minimum wage is being pushed up. The cumulative long term effect of this is that the bottom percent of working people who currently pay no nett taxes, is reduced. The number goes down. Not up as it is currently. These people begin to pay nett taxes, which they aren't doing at the moment

the recent NAFTA re-negotiations. Nancy Pelosi typifies lefty leadership that is pragmatic and thinks smart. Lefty leadership that knows Donald Trump is actively destroying the bourgeoisie hold on the Republican party, for the simple reason that he wants to get re-elected President. He doesn't care about anything else more than this. To get re-elected he needs to hold the blue collar working class vote he got at the last election. So Nancy Pelosi sees the crumbling of the bourgeoisie-erected fortress in the Republican party, that has held solid since Ronald Reagan. A crumbling brought about solely by Donald Trump  

NAFTA includes a minimum wage of $16 an hour for wage workers in auto manufacturing plants in Mexico. This suits Donald Trump, Nancy Pelosi and Richard Trumpka the AFL-CIO person. Pelosi and Trumpka see the long term effect of this being a return of manufacturing to the USA. Donald Trump sees it more from the zero sum short term - the number of days to his re-election  

on the intersectional issues Donald Trump is not good. On destroying the bourgeoisie on his own team (the Republican party) who get in his way to being re-elected, he is a ruthless zero sum political player

i think that unless the Democratic party presidential candidates start concentrating on the single issue uppermost in the minds of the working class, which is wages and salaries, then Donald Trump will get re-elected

a thing is that working class as individual people have a base desire. Go to work, work hard and smart and get paid well. When this happens they can pay their own way as they would much prefer. And not be reliant on other people to give them 'benefits'. This base desire is what separates the working class from the beneficiary class. Workers are not beneficiaries. Workers are people who are happy to work and earn and pay their own way. And contribute to the commonweal of elderly, infirm and children, thru paying taxes. Which they can't do when the social construct that underpins this is deteriorating

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since you guys brought it up.  And this turned into another hate thread . . .

As the Brits like to say: in it for a penny, in it for a pound.

MAGA 2020.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...