2016 Democratic Thread

[lostfan]

Relevant. If you had already seen this when you made the post, that's cheating.

 

https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/783645247247114240

 

Also LMAO at Repubs complaining Kaine interrupted too much.

Pence kept saying the Clinton campaign was insult-driven and denying the Trump campaign was, so during the debate Clinton's campaign retweeted Trump actually insulting Kaine in real-time. Peak 2016.

 

Oh, and Trump himself said Kaine interrupted too much.

Edited October 5, 2016 by Ezio Auditore

[StrangeSox]

Literally whatever Trump accuses someone else of, he's guilty of to a much more bigly extent. It's amazing.

[StrangeSox]

If you actually want to get into the policy parts of course, those 46.9% who "pay no taxes" are mostly paying the payroll tax, which is still a 10% slice off the top plus the behind the scenes part. It doesn't count because it doesn't hit rich people so it gets ignored.

 

I don't know whether you can use $900 million in losses to offset the payroll tax, but because it is capped to the first $100k of your income it doesn't matter when your income is in the millions. Interestingly, Clinton's proposal to establish some new version of the AMT would actually deal with situations like Trump - high incomes have their deductions limited, as would expanding the payroll tax.

 

Not just payroll, don't forget state and local taxes that are also typically regressive. I'm fairly certain that you can't deduct payroll taxes, but I would doubt that much if any of Trump's income is in the form of a W-2.

Edited October 5, 2016 by StrangeSox

[lostfan]

Literally whatever Trump accuses someone else of, he's guilty of to a much more bigly extent. It's amazing.

Last night he tweeted about Clinton's ties to Putin last night. I s*** you not.

[southsider2k5]

Come on Mike, this is weak sauce and you know it. The left's objection to Romney's 47% comments wasn't a pedantic dispute about how many people don't pay federal income taxes. It was the subtext - he was saying to a crowd of wealthy donors that all Obama supporters were moochers who refused to take responsibility for themselves (whatever percentage of people don't pay income taxes, they're not all Democrats, but Romney tied a direct line) and that he was going to ignore them as president. He spoke in stereotypes, not facts, and people took issue with how he talked about them, not whether he was technically right or wrong.

 

The big idea is that the system doesn't work when a smaller and smaller percentage support more and more of the country. Where they fall on the income ladder is honestly irrelevant. I mean I could just as easily argue that a guy like Trump generates billions in taxes (payroll taxes, gambling taxes, property taxes, corporate taxes, etc) so that any argument that he doesn't pay taxes is silly anyway, but what it comes down to is that the more of a pyramid the system turns into, the more unsustainable it is. The tax code as it is built now has a lot of loopholes for both the rich and the poor to get out of paying taxes. It has turned into an unnecessary bloated government bureaucracy, because no one can clearly figure out what is going on in the code. All of these things shift burdens and cause harmful secondary and tertiary effects to the economy as a whole. I also don't think it is a coincidence that each subsequent recession we see takes longer to recover from, more stimulus to recover from, and is on a lower recovery curve. It is all related to the velocity of money through the tax code.

[StrangeSox]

But that's still not what Romney's argument was, and it still doesn't address the reasons why Romney's argument was wrong. His argument was a political one about what sort of people would or wouldn't vote for him with explicitly saying that the 47% of non-federal-income-tax-payers were just going to vote for the other guy because of "free stuff." The actual breakdown of who comprises that 47% contains a pretty big chunk of retirees who generally skew conservative/Republican and people in the military (same). The rest are the working poor and the lower end of middle class who are a mixed bag politically.

 

The points you raise may be legitimate, but Romney's comments weren't a nuanced microeconomic critique of tax policy.

Edited October 5, 2016 by StrangeSox

[Balta1701]

The big idea is that the system doesn't work when a smaller and smaller percentage support more and more of the country. Where they fall on the income ladder is honestly irrelevant. I mean I could just as easily argue that a guy like Trump generates billions in taxes (payroll taxes, gambling taxes, property taxes, corporate taxes, etc) so that any argument that he doesn't pay taxes is silly anyway, but what it comes down to is that the more of a pyramid the system turns into, the more unsustainable it is. The tax code as it is built now has a lot of loopholes for both the rich and the poor to get out of paying taxes. It has turned into an unnecessary bloated government bureaucracy, because no one can clearly figure out what is going on in the code. All of these things shift burdens and cause harmful secondary and tertiary effects to the economy as a whole. I also don't think it is a coincidence that each subsequent recession we see takes longer to recover from, more stimulus to recover from, and is on a lower recovery curve. It is all related to the velocity of money through the tax code.

Of course, what you don't acknowledge is that thanks to policies that have your support, a smaller and smaller percentage own more and more of the country. The top 1% goes from receiving 1% of income in 1980 to >25% of income in 2015, then either they must support more and more of the country.

 

And the suggestion that this relates to the length of the recession deserves a sigh. That was an enormous consumption bubble that burst, killing a huge amount of demand, and because people were worried about "inflation" that was mathematically impossible we decided we were ok with it being long.

[southsider2k5]

Of course, what you don't acknowledge is that thanks to policies that have your support, a smaller and smaller percentage own more and more of the country. The top 1% goes from receiving 1% of income in 1980 to >25% of income in 2015, then either they must support more and more of the country.

 

And the suggestion that this relates to the length of the recession deserves a sigh. That was an enormous consumption bubble that burst, killing a huge amount of demand, and because people were worried about "inflation" that was mathematically impossible we decided we were ok with it being long.

 

When you count all of the spending done with this recession, specifically the untold trillions from the Fed, the last sentence is almost laughable.

[Jenksismyhero]

So let me get this straight: when people complain that a large chunk of the population pays no federal income tax, the response is that's not really true since they pay a variety of other taxes. When a rich person pays no federal income tax, it's a huge sin and it doesn't matter that he has generated hundreds of millions in other taxes, and also paid his own share of sales taxes and other taxes.

 

Look, at the end of the day Trump's a scheming, greedy POS. But Pence is right - the fact that he paid zero federal income tax due to a huge loss is simply a part of our tax code. Perhaps that should be changed, perhaps not. But it's BS to hit a guy for taking advantage of the law. We all take deductions and credits and therefore we too have taken money way from our military and the poor.

 

edit: it's also humorous that democrats complain about this when some of the biggest donors to the democratic party run companies that dodge taxes in the US because the tax code allows it.

Edited October 5, 2016 by JenksIsMyHero

[caulfield12]

When you count all of the spending done with this recession, specifically the untold trillions from the Fed, the last sentence is almost laughable.

 

Which governments haven't done the same?

 

China and Japan are much worse off from an overhanging debt and negative interest rates perspective.

 

Europe, same scenario...with immigration/Syria, Brexit, Greece and terrorism weakening Germany to the point where the whole EU system is being torn apart. Brazil and Rissia are seriously struggling because of oil export revenue dependence.

 

I honestly don't see ANY G-20 countries that are negotiating this last decade very well in terms of monetary and fiscal policy.

 

You can argue China still has 2+ trillion in reserves, compared to the US debt situation, but at least 80% of US govnt debt

is owed to Americans rather than foreign countries. Another positive has been all the venture capital flowing into new ideas that will continue to support the economy. For every 10 Theranos stories, there's an Uber or airbnb.

 

 

I guess we all need to move to Finland, Sweden or Norway? Maybe Singapore?

Edited October 5, 2016 by caulfield12

[caulfield12]

The big idea is that the system doesn't work when a smaller and smaller percentage support more and more of the country. Where they fall on the income ladder is honestly irrelevant. I mean I could just as easily argue that a guy like Trump generates billions in taxes (payroll taxes, gambling taxes, property taxes, corporate taxes, etc) so that any argument that he doesn't pay taxes is silly anyway, but what it comes down to is that the more of a pyramid the system turns into, the more unsustainable it is. The tax code as it is built now has a lot of loopholes for both the rich and the poor to get out of paying taxes. It has turned into an unnecessary bloated government bureaucracy, because no one can clearly figure out what is going on in the code. All of these things shift burdens and cause harmful secondary and tertiary effects to the economy as a whole. I also don't think it is a coincidence that each subsequent recession we see takes longer to recover from, more stimulus to recover from, and is on a lower recovery curve. It is all related to the velocity of money through the tax code.

 

Lowering the capital gains tax certainly hasn't helped.

 

You've got a huge number of Baby Boomers retiring, so you're going to need more "high tech"-skilled/knowledge worker immigration, that's obvious.

 

Educational reform, when and if it occurs, will take 10-15 years before there are any measureable changes of significance. Likely it keeps getting punted down the road, like Social Security/entitlement reform, which all politicians know to be a political third rail.

[Soxbadger]

So let me get this straight: when people complain that a large chunk of the population pays no federal income tax, the response is that's not really true since they pay a variety of other taxes. When a rich person pays no federal income tax, it's a huge sin and it doesn't matter that he has generated hundreds of millions in other taxes, and also paid his own share of sales taxes and other taxes.

 

Look, at the end of the day Trump's a scheming, greedy POS. But Pence is right - the fact that he paid zero federal income tax due to a huge loss is simply a part of our tax code. Perhaps that should be changed, perhaps not. But it's BS to hit a guy for taking advantage of the law. We all take deductions and credits and therefore we too have taken money way from our military and the poor.

 

edit: it's also humorous that democrats complain about this when some of the biggest donors to the democratic party run companies that dodge taxes in the US because the tax code allows it.

 

He is taking a hit because he states that his qualifications for President are being a successful great businessman. As of today, he has shown 0 evidence to support that claim. The only evidence we have seen is that in 1 year he said he lost 900 mil.

 

That is the argument. It has nothing to do with whether or not he should have taken losses. It has nothing to do with whether he has paid real estate taxes, sales tax or whatever other thing.

 

When a Democratic donor runs for President on the platform "I am great at business" you better damn believe that I would call them out if they lost 900 bil in a single year. Until that day, I dont really see what the relevance is about whether or not people use tax advantages. None of those donors are running for President on their business record, so its really a red herring.

 

Just to reiterate, it is not about whether he paid taxes, it is about the fact he lost 900 mil in a single year and whether someone who lost that much money is actually qualified to run the United States.

[Jenksismyhero]

He is taking a hit because he states that his qualifications for President are being a successful great businessman. As of today, he has shown 0 evidence to support that claim. The only evidence we have seen is that in 1 year he said he lost 900 mil.

 

That is the argument. It has nothing to do with whether or not he should have taken losses. It has nothing to do with whether he has paid real estate taxes, sales tax or whatever other thing.

 

When a Democratic donor runs for President on the platform "I am great at business" you better damn believe that I would call them out if they lost 900 bil in a single year. Until that day, I dont really see what the relevance is about whether or not people use tax advantages. None of those donors are running for President on their business record, so its really a red herring.

 

Just to reiterate, it is not about whether he paid taxes, it is about the fact he lost 900 mil in a single year and whether someone who lost that much money is actually qualified to run the United States.

 

I don't think that's the argument. Clinton and Kaine are using the "you didn't pay taxes so you're not funding the military and the poor" argument. I have yet to hear either of them claim that his business loss is an indication of his lack of business expertise.

 

edit: nor do I believe that losing 900 million is really indicative of his business skills or lack thereof. Billionaires lose a s*** ton of money based on their holdings routinely. Zuckerberg and Gates recently lost BILLIONS because of Brexit (http://www.vanguardngr.com/2016/06/bill-gates-zuckerberg-lose-3-4-billion-brexit/).

 

(note: I am NOT arguing positively that Trump is some great expert at business.)

Edited October 5, 2016 by JenksIsMyHero

[Soxbadger]

I don't think that's the argument. Clinton and Kaine are using the "you didn't pay taxes so you're not funding the military and the poor" argument. I have yet to hear either of them claim that his business loss is an indication of his lack of business expertise.

 

Not concerned with what their arguments are, this is my argument in this thread. Im neither Hillary nor Kaine, they arent here to argue.

 

(edit)

 

The article you linked doesnt say how they lost it, but I assume they are saying that Zuckerberg and Gates are major shareholders of Facebook/Microsoft respectively and that their companies stock went down due to Brexit. The only way they would be able to claim this as a "loss" would be if they then immediately sold the stocks, which would be a terrible business move.

 

Its not a good comparison, because the reason Trump likely lost the money is that he destroyed 2 companies. If Zuckerberg or Gates put their companies into BK, we probably wouldnt consider them "Great businessmen."

Edited October 5, 2016 by Soxbadger

[Chisoxfn]

Right, but Pence was playing with an awful hand coming into this with Donald as his running mate.

 

Thought Pence was solid, things got even toward the end, but Pence looked good.

Pence did a good job. Unfortunately he had to spend a lot of time defending the knucklehead that is running for president and Kaine had to be who he wasn't as part of Hillary's strategy (a total attack dog). Unfortunate that the main candidates are so much worse then the running mates / other potential options. I don't agree with Pence on certain social issues, but I do agree with him on quite a few things and would have been willing to vote for him (not my preferred candidate, but one I'd vote for) if I could.

 

Instead I'll vote for neither and stick to my moral values and I think everyone in America who doesn't like either candidate should vote for either independent (just to stick it to the major two parties and point out how pissed we are) or write-in someone else. Don't vote for someone who is the lesser of two evils; Actually reject the system. I literally have talked to almost no one who likes either candidate, yet, most of them are all voting party line. If you want to change the process, speak up, and don't actually vote for the clowns. Help one of the independents win a state or two and use them as your referendum for telling both candidates they suck. Unfortunately from there, we end up putting it back in the hands of our government to pick, but they might actually recognize the statement made by the American people and pick a candidate who isn't one of them.

[Jenksismyhero]

Pence did a good job. Unfortunately he had to spend a lot of time defending the knucklehead that is running for president and Kaine had to be who he wasn't as part of Hillary's strategy (a total attack dog). Unfortunate that the main candidates are so much worse then the running mates / other potential options. I don't agree with Pence on certain social issues, but I do agree with him on quite a few things and would have been willing to vote for him (not my preferred candidate, but one I'd vote for) if I could.

 

Instead I'll vote for neither and stick and stick to my moral values and I think everyone in America who doesn't like either candidate should vote for either one independent (just to stick it to the major two parties and point out how pissed we are) or write-in someone else. Don't vote for someone who is the lesser of two evils, actually reject the system. I literally have talked to almost no one who likes either candidate, yet, most of them are all voting party line. If you want to change the process, speak up, and don't actually vote for the clowns. Help one of the independents win a state or two and use them as your referendum for telling both candidates they suck. Unfortunately from there, we end up putting it back in the hands of our government to pick, but they might actually recognize the statement made by the American people and pick a candidate who isn't one of them.

 

Totally agree.

[Chisoxfn]

My best friend...the man and his father that I named my son after...two very intelligent, rational, reasonable, good people....actually support Trump.

 

It has more to do with the state of our political system than with the candidate they support.

 

At least that's what I keep telling myself.

My mom and dad who were ripping on Trump the whole debate process, now say they'll vote for him cause at least the supreme court. NO THAT IS NOT A GOOD ARGUMENT. And on the flipside, the people I know voting for Hillary, are voting cause well, it can't be Trump. Again, no that is not acceptable. That is not okay for America's presidency to come down to those type of arguments. The government needs to realize how fed up people are with the status quo and start working together and driving real change to ensure that the America of 50 years from now is better then the America today (which is better then the America of 50 years ago).

[CrimsonWeltall]

I don't think that's the argument.

 

It's not.

 

The argument is that it's s***ty that someone who lives in opulence somehow doesn't pay income taxes and gloats about it while also complaining about paying too many taxes and bashing poor people for not paying them.

 

I also sincerely doubt that he has only engaged in tax avoidance, and not tax evasion.

[illinilaw08]

My mom and dad who were ripping on Trump the whole debate process, now say they'll vote for him cause at least the supreme court. NO THAT IS NOT A GOOD ARGUMENT. And on the flipside, the people I know voting for Hillary, are voting cause well, it can't be Trump. Again, no that is not acceptable. That is not okay for America's presidency to come down to those type of arguments. The government needs to realize how fed up people are with the status quo and start working together and driving real change to ensure that the America of 50 years from now is better then the America today (which is better then the America of 50 years ago).

 

To me, the Supreme Court is an extremely good reason to vote for Hillary Clinton if you care at all about social issues. Supreme Court positions are lifetime appointments. If the next President replaces Scalia and Ginsburg, they are shaping the Court for the next 40 years potentially. And with the gay marriage decision out there, and the Right's push to overturn that decision, if you are moderate or progressive on social issues, Clinton is the obvious choice...

 

To the other point, I've said it before in this thread, but it's a binary decision. Either Trump or Hillary are going to be the next President of the United States. I think we know, generally, what we'll get with Clinton. It will be a center left government that will probably be to the right of Obama on foreign policy, and will struggle to get any major reforms passed because the Republicans will control the House.

 

I don't know what you get with a Trump Presidency, beyond the fact that he's a thin skinned narcissist who flies off the handle at the smallest slight. I know you are in CA, and so you can get away with a protest vote. But to me, voting for Hillary Clinton because she is not Donald Trump is absolutely a good argument for voting for her in any state that can swing either way.

[CrimsonWeltall]

My mom and dad who were ripping on Trump the whole debate process, now say they'll vote for him cause at least the supreme court. NO THAT IS NOT A GOOD ARGUMENT.

 

It's really not that bad. If you're socially conservative, hoping that Trump will nominate conservative judges is better than knowing that Hillary won't.

[southsider2k5]

Pence did a good job. Unfortunately he had to spend a lot of time defending the knucklehead that is running for president and Kaine had to be who he wasn't as part of Hillary's strategy (a total attack dog). Unfortunate that the main candidates are so much worse then the running mates / other potential options. I don't agree with Pence on certain social issues, but I do agree with him on quite a few things and would have been willing to vote for him (not my preferred candidate, but one I'd vote for) if I could.

 

Instead I'll vote for neither and stick to my moral values and I think everyone in America who doesn't like either candidate should vote for either independent (just to stick it to the major two parties and point out how pissed we are) or write-in someone else. Don't vote for someone who is the lesser of two evils; Actually reject the system. I literally have talked to almost no one who likes either candidate, yet, most of them are all voting party line. If you want to change the process, speak up, and don't actually vote for the clowns. Help one of the independents win a state or two and use them as your referendum for telling both candidates they suck. Unfortunately from there, we end up putting it back in the hands of our government to pick, but they might actually recognize the statement made by the American people and pick a candidate who isn't one of them.

 

We are brothers from another mother here.

[BigSqwert]

If you have any friends or family who are gay or not white, how could you possibly vote for Trump? Their lives will be negatively impacted by a Trump presidency and I'm being kind. It could get quite ugly.

[StrangeSox]

To me, the Supreme Court is an extremely good reason to vote for Hillary Clinton if you care at all about social issues. Supreme Court positions are lifetime appointments. If the next President replaces Scalia and Ginsburg, they are shaping the Court for the next 40 years potentially. And with the gay marriage decision out there, and the Right's push to overturn that decision, if you are moderate or progressive on social issues, Clinton is the obvious choice...

 

To the other point, I've said it before in this thread, but it's a binary decision. Either Trump or Hillary are going to be the next President of the United States. I think we know, generally, what we'll get with Clinton. It will be a center left government that will probably be to the right of Obama on foreign policy, and will struggle to get any major reforms passed because the Republicans will control the House.

 

I don't know what you get with a Trump Presidency, beyond the fact that he's a thin skinned narcissist who flies off the handle at the smallest slight. I know you are in CA, and so you can get away with a protest vote. But to me, voting for Hillary Clinton because she is not Donald Trump is absolutely a good argument for voting for her in any state that can swing either way.

 

This is where I come down, too, and it's different from my POV in say 2008. We may not like that we're only left with two real options, and we may really not like those two particular options this time, but we can't wish away the current system. You can definitely work towards changing the system in the future, but you still have to play by the rules of the game as they exist today. I view my vote as a tool to try to push policy towards my preferred direction not as a moral stance on the individual candidates. Even if I don't particularly like Clinton, I still feel I'm "voting my conscience" when I'm using one of the few tools I have to directly influence policy. I couldn't in good conscience cast a protest vote that would make a Donald Trump presidency incrementally more likely.

 

I care about the executive branch being run by competent liberals and the courts being staffed with more liberal justices because, in the long run, that's a lot more important than the individual person occupying the White House for 4-8 years. If Scalia is replaced by a Republican, we'll likely get someone very similar to Scalia's ideology and we'll have lost the opportunity to fundamentally shift the court's outlook for years to come. It's hard to overstate how important the next couple of appointments to the court will be, and that's without getting into the impact staffing the lower courts has as well.

Edited October 5, 2016 by StrangeSox

[lostfan]

This ain't hard.

 

I didn't agree with everything Obama did, because such a person does not exist, but as someone who generally falls on the left for issues, I approve of Obama's presidency. Clinton wasn't my first choice, but she knows what she's talking about will essentially do the same as Obama's done, and I'm okay with that, hence I'm voting for her and I don't feel the need to hedge on it or pretend that's not what I'm doing so I can have it both ways, like conservatives are doing with Trump. Trump, specifically, is terrifying to me, and represents an existential threat to American democracy, and not in a productive way either. There is no f***ing way in hell I would ever be convinced to vote for him.

 

Everything else y'all are talking about is noise to me. It doesn't matter.

[bigruss]

My best friend and mentor at work is voting for Trump, even though he hates him, has consistently called himself a libertarian, etc but he hates Hillary at a Greg-level.

 

I just don't understand how he isn't going to vote for Johnson, but man party lines are so strong.

 

I honestly don't know who I'm voting for yet, it won't be Trump or Stein, that much I know.