Trump Continues to Lead After Debate

[RoyleRedlegs]

[Nebuchadnezzar]

I really thought it would be the next election cycle that the American people would vote in a total whack job but I was wrong...it's this election cycle.

No matter if it's Trump, Clinton or Sanders who wins the Presidency, it will be the American people who suffers. I kind of hope Biden jumps into the race now since Trump will most likely be the Republican nomination. I know, there's still a lot of time between now and the Pimaries but I have to say, I do not want Trump, Clinton or Sanders anywhere near the Presidency.

[GodHatesBengals]

(09-04-2015, 02:20 AM)Nebuchadnezzar Wrote: I really thought it would be the next election cycle that the American people would vote in a total whack job but I was wrong...it's this election cycle.

No matter if it's Trump, Clinton or Sanders who wins the Presidency, it will be the American people who suffers. I kind of hope Biden jumps into the race now since Trump will most likely be the Republican nomination. I know, there's still a lot of time between now and the Pimaries but I have to say, I do not want Trump, Clinton or Sanders anywhere near the Presidency.

How is Sanders a "whack job"? And why do you so eagerly desire another establishment politician?

[JustWinBaby]

(09-04-2015, 02:20 AM)Nebuchadnezzar Wrote: I really thought it would be the next election cycle that the American people would vote in a total whack job but I was wrong...it's this election cycle.

Until we stop the assault on irrelevant personal details, no one other than narcissistic legacy builders will run.  Romney really was the type we want (successful in business and politics, I'd contend as good a resume as anyone who's run in the past 50 years), although it seems some equate being moderate with establishment/progressive.  In a less polarized envrionment, and not facing an incumbent, Romney probably would have won.  He'd stand an excellent chance against any Dem, but he'd never get the nomination seen as damaged goods. Maybe he should have waited and run in 2016 as a Dem.

Trump's resume actually isn't bad, but he's an asshole with no filter.  Carson may be brilliant, but he has little to no leadership and talks about God WAAAAAYYYYYYY too much.

Fiorina could be good.  I don't know if it should really matter how successful or not someone was in business, but I think being a major CEO puts someone on par, in many respects, with being a governor.

And a lot of this might simply be solved with practical term limits on Congress.  Take away a career in politics, much less a path to becoming rich, and we'll get more people with the interest of the country ahead of their own.

[JustWinBaby]

(09-04-2015, 02:43 AM)GodHatesBengals Wrote: How is Sanders a "whack job"?

He's the Democratic equivalent of Ron Paul. 90% tax and abolish the fed. Socialism and go back to the gold standard. Whack jobs.

It's pretty interesting if you think about it.  In many cases, you can find an almost mirror image of someone on the left with someone on the right.  They all agree on pretty much the same things, but they choose opposite ends of the spectrum on popular wedge issues.

[RoyleRedlegs]

(09-04-2015, 02:43 AM)GodHatesBengals Wrote: How is Sanders a "whack job"? And why do you so eagerly desire another establishment politician?

Personally, I think all socialists are whack jobs

[GodHatesBengals]

(09-04-2015, 05:18 PM)RoyleRedlegs Wrote: Personally, I think all socialists are whack jobs

Why's that?

[GodHatesBengals]

(09-04-2015, 03:30 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: He's the Democratic equivalent of Ron Paul.  90% tax and abolish the fed.  Socialism and go back to the gold standard.  Whack jobs.

It's pretty interesting if you think about it.  In many cases, you can find an almost mirror image of someone on the left with someone on the right.  They all agree on pretty much the same things, but they choose opposite ends of the spectrum on popular wedge issues.

90% tax is a little misleading; we're talking about the tip of the top of the top earners in the nation, not some flat 90% tax.

If you take the time to read the actual policy proposal and the logic behind it, you'll find it makes a lot of sense. Absolutely zero reason the wealthiest in this country get away with paying back so little to the same government that often facilitates and assists their businesses.

[RoyleRedlegs]

(09-04-2015, 09:43 PM)GodHatesBengals Wrote: Why's that?

Because I enjoy personal freedom and free markets and think the idea of restricting both of those is a sign of a vast superiority complex, megalomania and asshole-itis. 
and those who want to be subjugated to the control of others are also just messed up.

[JustWinBaby]

(09-04-2015, 09:54 PM)GodHatesBengals Wrote: 90% tax is a little misleading; we're talking about the tip of the top of the top earners in the nation, not some flat 90% tax.

If you take the time to read the actual policy proposal and the logic behind it, you'll find it makes a lot of sense. Absolutely zero reason the wealthiest in this country get away with paying back so little to the same government that often facilitates and assists their businesses.

I don't need to read the logic behind it to know it's stupid - I actually studied economics.  And I also know there's little correlation between marginal tax rates and revenues collected by the govt.  But a 90% tax rate is just the tops for attracting future investment and businesses!

And the wealthy pay quite a bit more than you realize.  Let's take the owner of a C Corp:
1) 35% corporate tax rate
2) top federal rate on his income of nearly 40%
3) state and local taxes vary significantly, but let's call it 5%

So right there, every dollar his business earns he takes home $0.37 after taxes, which is an effective rate of 63%.

But we're not done.  He invests that money back into his company and then has 23%+ taken out as a capital gain AFTER the 35% tax the corporation paid.  Now we're north of 80% effective tax rate.

[GodHatesBengals]

(09-04-2015, 10:03 PM)RoyleRedlegs Wrote: Because I enjoy personal freedom and free markets and think the idea of restricting both of those is a sign of a vast superiority complex, megalomania and asshole-itis. 
and those who want to be subjugated to the control of others are also just messed up.

Which personal freedoms are diminished by Sanders's policies?

Do you believe a true "free market" has ever--or indeed ever could--exist on a national level?

Who wants to be subjugated to the control of others? Wouldn't that be those who are in favor of unfettered corporate domination and monopolization of resources and services, not to mention the ability of said corporate masters purchasing the loyalty of political office holders such that their interests are respected above others?

[GodHatesBengals]

(09-04-2015, 10:08 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: I don't need to read the logic behind it to know it's stupid - I actually studied economics.  And I also know there's little correlation between marginal tax rates and revenues collected by the govt.  But a 90% tax rate is just the tops for attracting future investment and businesses!

And the wealthy pay quite a bit more than you realize.  Let's take the owner of a C Corp:
1) 35% corporate tax rate
2) top federal rate on his income of nearly 40%
3) state and local taxes vary significantly, but let's call it 5%

So right there, every dollar his business earns he takes home $0.37 after taxes, which is an effective rate of 63%.

But we're not done.  He invests that money back into his company and then has 23%+ taken out as a capital gain AFTER the 35% tax the corporation paid.  Now we're north of 80% effective tax rate.

First, you're assuming all corporations actually do pay the statutory corporate tax rate, which surely you are aware is not the case.

Second, you're assuming all or most of the enormous income which would be required to qualify for a 90% income tax rate comes directly from the individual's corporation, which you also should be well aware is rarely the case.

Third and finally, while you're busy trying to write up sob stories for billionaires, most people are much more concerned about a country where a fraction of the top 1% of earners in the country possess about 90% of the wealth; wealth which they, of course, earned on the backs of their underlings who are fighting for some portion of the remaining 10%. While I understand your deep concern for those who have exponentially more than enough means to take care of themselves, I think you'll find most people--left, right or center--are more worried about those who are struggling.

[RoyleRedlegs]

(09-04-2015, 10:13 PM)GodHatesBengals Wrote: Which personal freedoms are diminished by Sanders's policies?

Do you believe a true "free market" has ever--or indeed ever could--exist on a national level?

Who wants to be subjugated to the control of others? Wouldn't that be those who are in favor of unfettered corporate domination and monopolization of resources and services, not to mention the ability of said corporate masters purchasing the loyalty of political office holders such that their interests are respected above others?

Choice. Freedom choice.

Doesn't have to be a "true free market" that's just the extreme those against it throw against the wall.

People who want to limit the choice of others. 
No. Again with hyperbole. 

I'm done. 

[GodHatesBengals]

(09-04-2015, 11:09 PM)RoyleRedlegs Wrote: Choice. Freedom choice.

Doesn't have to be a "true free market" that's just the extreme those against it throw against the wall.

People who want to limit the choice of others. 
No. Again with hyperbole. 

I'm done. 

"Freedom choice". Spectacular. Now I know exactly what freedoms you're concerned about it.

Actually, a true free market in the classical, Adam Smith sense would be something I'm in favor of: an open marketplace of informed individuals freely negotiating as equals. A shame that it doesn't exist in reality.

Again with ambiguity. Yes. Whining.

I'm not surprised.

[jakefromstatefarm]

(09-04-2015, 02:43 AM)GodHatesBengals Wrote: How is Sanders a "whack job"? And why do you so eagerly desire another establishment politician?

Sanders is an idiot. 

He's as establishment as anyone in this race.  Just another big-government stooge that the idiotic masses will vote for because he promises the most free shit. 

[GodHatesBengals]

(09-05-2015, 12:04 AM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: Sanders is an idiot. 

He's as establishment as anyone in this race.  Just another big-government stooge that the idiotic masses will vote for because he promises the most free shit. 

Sorry, you and I don't share the same definition of "establishment". His refusal to accept any form of corporate money makes him the one without any strings attaching him to the interests of the wealthy elite.

But yes, it would be very stupid for the average person to vote for someone who favors policies that benefit them instead of those who possess enough wealth to take care of themselves and their entire families forever.

[fredtoast]

(09-04-2015, 10:08 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: I don't need to read the logic behind it to know it's stupid - I actually studied economics.  And I also know there's little correlation between marginal tax rates and revenues collected by the govt.  But a 90% tax rate is just the tops for attracting future investment and businesses!

And the wealthy pay quite a bit more than you realize.  Let's take the owner of a C Corp:
1) 35% corporate tax rate
2) top federal rate on his income of nearly 40%
3) state and local taxes vary significantly, but let's call it 5%

So right there, every dollar his business earns he takes home $0.37 after taxes, which is an effective rate of 63%.

But we're not done.  He invests that money back into his company and then has 23%+ taken out as a capital gain AFTER the 35% tax the corporation paid.  Now we're north of 80% effective tax rate.

You have no clue how any pf this works.

A corporation only pays taxes on PROFITS.  And the salary that he earns from his company is a tax deduction that reduces the corporations profits.

Plus pretty much all money re-invested in the corporation is a tax deduction that reduces the profits that are taxed.

So pretty much every one of your points is false.

[fredtoast]

(09-05-2015, 12:04 AM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote:  Just another big-government stooge that the idiotic masses will vote for because he promises the most free shit. 

Are corporations who build factories in the states that offer to give them the most free shit also "ignorant"?

[GodHatesBengals]

To both of Fred's posts....

[jakefromstatefarm]

(09-05-2015, 12:26 AM)GodHatesBengals Wrote: Sorry, you and I don't share the same definition of "establishment". His refusal to accept any form of corporate money makes him the one without any strings attaching him to the interests of the wealthy elite.

But yes, it would be very stupid for the average person to vote for someone who favors policies that benefit them instead of those who possess enough wealth to take care of themselves and their entire families forever.

I admire his refusal to accept money from the big players.  It doesn't change the fact that he's an idiot, and the things that he's proposing are pure nonsense that he offers no specifics for or plans for how to pay for them. 

It's drivel.