Moderators: nate33, montestewart, LyricalRico
Wizardspride wrote:Donald Trump was just interviewed on CNN by Suzanne Malveaux and it's official: He's lost his mind.
MUST SEE INTERVIEW!
http://www.cnn.com/video/?utm_source...ma.citizen.cnn
nate33 wrote:Thanks Wizardspride. Like I said, I haven't followed the issue very closely.
nate33 wrote:Thanks Wizardspride. Like I said, I haven't followed the issue very closely.
willbcocks wrote:Anyway else work for the government? I'm in training and we're waiting to see if we have to go in monday to pick up our furlough letters.
Wizardspride wrote:willbcocks wrote:Anyway else work for the government? I'm in training and we're waiting to see if we have to go in monday to pick up our furlough letters.
I work at State and we're pretty much in limbo....at least for a few more hours.
Severn Hoos wrote:hands11 wrote:How about this for common sense?
End the mortgage deductions for people personal homes. That is all part of overvaluing properties.
End property taxes for personal homes. You can keep them for commercial properties I guess.
Collect the money you need for the state with state taxes
End the child credits
Tax people who sent their kids to public schools
Don't tax those who want to send them elsewhere
It makes no sense to me that a renter with kids is not contributing to the funding of those schools and it makes no sense that someone that owns a house with no kids is.
It also makes no sense to give those that get mortgages for their own a tax write off. This only inflates the house prices and put more money in the banks pockets instead of the government.
The workforce would actually be more mobile is they rented instead of owned.
Hmm, interesting set of proposals, hands. Kinda all over the map politically - enough to make everyone happy, or enough to tick everyone off, depending on how you look at it.
First, ending mortgage deductions AND property tax: Not so realistic, since one is Federal and the other state/local. Probably a decent trade for homeowners, but my hunch is that it would result in a net reduction in tax revenue. Wonder if it'd be an easy find to compare the two totals. Still - you could end the Federal deduction and have no guarantee that the states cooperate, so not sure I'd want to take that risk personally.
"Collect the money you need for the state with state taxes" I assume you mean ending transfers from Federal to state governments? I know it's popular to say that Red states take more from the fed. govt than they pay in, but I bet you'd find a lot of support for that proposal among the knuckle-dragging tea party crowd. I'd sign up for it.
"End the child credits - Tax people who sent their kids to public schools - Don't tax those who want to send them elsewhere"
Hmm, is that a school choice proposal? Again, you'd have lots of support from the Right on that one. I do get tax credits for my 4 kids, but then I don't feel bad about claiming them, if only because we're helping to keep the inverted pyramid Ponzi scheme they call Social Security going. (That's a joke, folks. Sort of.) Now, having said that - there's a pretty compelling argument (via Milton Friedman) that educating children has a significant positive neighborhood effect, and thus justifies asking (i.e., compelling) all members of society to contribute to their education.
But you touch on a different point, in that it's a positive effect for all members, not just homeowners. OF course, renters still end up paying taxes via higher rents if the Landlord has to pay the taxes anyway, so ultimately it's a wash. What really doesn't make sense in that argument, however, is that the benefit is not limited to children educated via the Public schools. Society benefits just as much if that child is educated in a private school as in a public school, maybe more. And especially if that child can receive a better education at lower expense, there's no rationale for not allowing - and even encouraging - school choice.
I agree that the government shouldn't be blindly encouraging home ownership for its own sake, but you almost sound like you'd prefer the government to discourage home ownership. Don't think I'd go there, but definitely don't want to see any more of quasi-governmental agencies helping people get into homes that they can't afford....
But a damn sure believe in taxing the riches 2% more before cutting food stamps, closing the corporate loop holes and regulating thing and funding to enforcing those regulation. Food, financial markets, etc. Like you said. Enough for everyone to find something they like and something they hate. nate33 wrote:Wizardspride wrote:Donald Trump was just interviewed on CNN by Suzanne Malveaux and it's official: He's lost his mind.
MUST SEE INTERVIEW!
http://www.cnn.com/video/?utm_source...ma.citizen.cnn
It's really a fascinating situation. Trump isn't a GOP insider, he's not part of the Tea Party, and he doesn't travel in the circles of other conservative leaders and opinion makers. He's is a fairly popular and successful guy with an independent reputation. He has a lot to lose if he gets labeled as a "birther" yet he is still leading the charge.
I just don't see a cynical political angle. His base is independents. He'll never really capture the core of the conservative voting block. If he comes out two weeks from now and declares, "I've researched this to the best of my ability and have concluded that Obama was in fact born in the U.S.", he'll still have discredited himself among independents and moderate liberals. If he concludes that Obama wasn't born in the U.S., it's unlikely that he'll ever truly prove it and will have discredited himself among independents and moderate liberals without really ingratiating himself to conservatives.
Basically, I think the guy honestly believes this. It's the only explanation for what he is doing.
I haven't really followed this issue. Is what he is saving about the Certificate of Live Birth true? Can you not even get a driver's license with one? And what was that comment he made (not in that video) about Obama spending $2M in legal fees to prevent his birth certificate from being released? Is that true? And if so, what is the justification?
hands11 wrote:How about this one. He makes a boat load based on name recognition and he is getting a ton of free advertising by doing what he is doing. You ever heard of Sarah Palin ? Trump isn't going to run. America would not elect someone like this. He is just in it for the free publicity and the money that follows.
willbcocks wrote:Anyway else work for the government? I'm in training and we're waiting to see if we have to go in monday to pick up our furlough letters.
nate33 wrote:hands11 wrote:How about this one. He makes a boat load based on name recognition and he is getting a ton of free advertising by doing what he is doing. You ever heard of Sarah Palin ? Trump isn't going to run. America would not elect someone like this. He is just in it for the free publicity and the money that follows.
I considered that, but I don't think it makes sense. Trump is already popular. Everyone already knows who he is. All this stunt does is alienate him from half the population.
Zonkerbl wrote:There's no definition of what "natural born citizen" means.
If you are born in, say, Panama, like John McCain was, but one of your parents is a U.S. citizen, then you are a citizen. If that is not a "natural born" citizen then John McCain is not a natural born citizen.
Obama's mom is a U.S. citizen. End of argument. The rest really does not matter. I've had to explain this to Tea Partiers on the metro twice already, it's really getting tiring.
DCZards wrote:I agree with hands that Trump likely won't run...and if he does he wouldn't be nominated by the Repubs. While Trump is obviously already well-known, I don't think he's "already popular."
It’s no use pretending that what has obviously happened has not in fact happened. The upper 1 percent of Americans are now taking in nearly a quarter of the nation’s income every year. In terms of wealth rather than income, the top 1 percent control 40 percent. Their lot in life has improved considerably. Twenty-five years ago, the corresponding figures were 12 percent and 33 percent. One response might be to celebrate the ingenuity and drive that brought good fortune to these people, and to contend that a rising tide lifts all boats. That response would be misguided.
Economists long ago tried to justify the vast inequalities that seemed so troubling in the mid-19th century—inequalities that are but a pale shadow of what we are seeing in America today. The justification they came up with was called “marginal-productivity theory.” In a nutshell, this theory associated higher incomes with higher productivity and a greater contribution to society. It is a theory that has always been cherished by the rich. Evidence for its validity, however, remains thin. The corporate executives who helped bring on the recession of the past three years—whose contribution to our society, and to their own companies, has been massively negative—went on to receive large bonuses. In some cases, companies were so embarrassed about calling such rewards “performance bonuses” that they felt compelled to change the name to “retention bonuses” (even if the only thing being retained was bad performance).
Some people look at income inequality and shrug their shoulders. So what if this person gains and that person loses? What matters, they argue, is not how the pie is divided but the size of the pie. That argument is fundamentally wrong. An economy in which most citizens are doing worse year after year—an economy like America’s—is not likely to do well over the long haul. There are several reasons for this.
When you look at the sheer volume of wealth controlled by the top 1 percent in this country, it’s tempting to see our growing inequality as a quintessentially American achievement—we started way behind the pack, but now we’re doing inequality on a world-class level. And it looks as if we’ll be building on this achievement for years to come, because what made it possible is self-reinforcing. Wealth begets power, which begets more wealth.
dobrojim wrote:You could start with the financial sector but I don't think it stops there.
The guys at the top are massively overpaid in virtually every sector outside
of the public sector anyway where the pay comes for the top guys when
they start using the revolving door after the leave govt service.