2 Old Men Yelling At Clouds

[Incredulity 11555]

1 minute ago, elfenix said:

Tens of billions for new transmission (which is the real problem, generation has gotten so cheap it’s connecting and moving the electricity that’s the issue) but “no plan”

 

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2023/10/30/fact-sheetbiden-harris-administration-announces-historic-investment-to-bolster-nations-electric-grid-infrastructure-cut-energy-costs-for-families-and-create-good-paying-jobs/

Out of 1.3 TRILLION.

fart in a stiff breeze

[elfenix 34172]

1 minute ago, Incredulity said:

Out of 1.3 TRILLION.

fart in a stiff breeze

Government does multiple things at once, film at 11.

[Incredulity 11555]

2 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

Thanks. 

Agreed on SCOTUS, but it was the GOP who did that, so I'm assuming you didn't agree with Mitch McConnell on that one.

Who is suggesting eliminating the Senate?  I haven't seen that one.

Why are you against the US becoming a real democracy?  We could debate whether the electoral college was needed in the first place, but I have a hard time seeing why national races shouldn't be decided by the majority of voters.

Are you against universal healthcare, or just using Medicare as the mechanism for achieving it?  Having experienced universal healthcare in action, I can't understand how anyone could be against it.  No one should go bankrupt because of a medical issue.  We have the most expensive healthcare in the world and it's not even good.  I had much a much better healthcare, both in terms of experience and results, in Europe than I ever have here.

I agree with you in principle on wealth tax, but I do think we need a tax overhaul that better addresses investment and stock-based compensation.  No reason Warren Buffet should have a lower tax rate than his admin assistant.

No problem with limiting tax rates for those earning less than $1 million ($2m joint)

Agree on the estate tax min

I think the mandate is designed to spur investment in infrastructure.  But I don't like mandates in general, so I would probably side with you if pushed.  Although I think the debate is a bit more nuanced.

As with the elimination of the Senate, I don't know who's pushing for the elimination of hydroelectric dams.  

Its a long list(my making).  I'll address couple..

Elimination of the Senate has been called for here on Surly.  Repeatedly.  Maybe heavy modification of Senate is a better description.  As with the Electoral Vote there are interests that should be represented in a democracy that are not as simple as 1 person 1 vote.  I think the Senate is an excellent example of that and the founding fathers were not naïve when they set up our system.  If areas like Wyoming or Montana don't have an equal seat at some table they are going to get bulldozed by NY and CA in a simple popular vote.

Look up the Biden Salmon/Tribes agreement of last week.  Leftists are steaming he didn't include damn removal on the lower snake river in the agreement.

I don't believe government run healthcare will deliver a better product.  That's based on every interaction I have with government entities.  Agreed what we have now is fucked, so we probably end up with something like SP/UH/MFA.  I could be wrong.

 

 

 

[nbmishoid 941]

I’m on Medicare, I disagree

[SydneyCarton 47885]

2 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

Its a long list(my making).  I'll address couple..

Elimination of the Senate has been called for here on Surly.  Repeatedly.  Maybe heavy modification of Senate is a better description.  As with the Electoral Vote there are interests that should be represented in a democracy that are not as simple as 1 person 1 vote.  I think the Senate is an excellent example of that and the founding fathers were not naïve when they set up our system.  If areas like Wyoming or Montana don't have an equal seat at some table they are going to get bulldozed by NY and CA in a simple popular vote.

Look up the Biden Salmon/Tribes agreement of last week.  Leftists are steaming he didn't include damn removal on the lower snake river in the agreement.

I don't believe government run healthcare will deliver a better product.  That's based on every interaction I have with government entities.  Agreed what we have now is fucked, so we probably end up with something like SP/UH/MFA.  I could be wrong.

 

 

 

Something being called for by a couple posters on Surly is not a national platform, or something to be taken seriously. Just like the Green New Deal wasn't taken seriously by literally most of the democratic party. You're being disingenuous. 

Biden Salmon Tribes Agreement:
https://apnews.com/article/salmon-dams-tribes-columbia-snake-river-biden-51408c120a2e2dc147e6b07fe01d3531
All the way down in the whole second paragraph:

Quote

The plan, announced in December, stopped short of calling for the removal of four controversial dams on the Snake River, as some environmental groups and tribal leaders have urged. But officials said it would boost clean energy production and help offset hydropower, transportation and other benefits provided by the dams should Congress ever agree to breach them.

See the bolden CONGRESS. So basically, the thing you said you were concerned about was never part of the deal at all. You're being ill-informed or...disingenuous.

 

[Boss Hogg 808]

3 hours ago, Dbeasy said:

This thread does have potential. As an independent, I’m desperate to understand why someone would vote Republican at this point given the extremity, obstructiveness, and incompetence that the Republican Party is currently demonstrating.

However , I’m open to a real, substantive viewpoint. So why won’t you provide one? Your views may get shit on by the partisans on the left, but those of us who are moderate independents will give it an honest review. I think there are three of us on the entire site. 

In summary, I think many will go with "law and order".

We have leadership at the federal that doesn't respect or enforce our own borders. On a state and local level distributed around the country we have similar leadership enacting policies that encourage crime.

You combine the two and you get situations like the nursing student in Georgia bludgeoned to death by an illegal immigrant that had been previously arrested for acting in a manner to injure a child less than 17 in NYC. Can you guess what happened? He got released. 

Don't believe me, look at the polls. 

 

 

 

 

[Incredulity 11555]

17 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

Donald Trump's Tax Cuts were only FOR high income earners. His SALT tax bullshit hurt the middle class. Meanwhile, Joe Biden has only proprosed raising taxes on people who make more than 400k a year, which would be literally the top 1% of earchers not just in America, but in the WORLD. Meanwhile, Biden's tax proposal for an incerase on the wealthy would raise tax rates back to...what they were a few decades ago. I'll support this stance with actual fucking data:

I have never said DT tax cuts were ideal.  They were very focused on business taxes.  They were a vindictive fuck you to high tax blue states, and some red states were caught in that attempt too.  

BTW the horror of the Trump tax cuts are rolling off so your long national nightmare is set to end pretty soon.

Regarding Biden.  I stated above my opinion on where taxes MAYBE should be discussed to increase.  But thats not where the money is, and everyone knows it.

[nbmishoid 941]

If Biden wins, split guy means no new FIT

[Incredulity 11555]

1 minute ago, SydneyCarton said:

See the bolden CONGRESS. So basically, the thing you said you were concerned about was never part of the deal at all. You're being ill-informed or...disingenuous.

Well lets see if we can triangulate this one...if congress is controlled by R or D who is most likely to vote to remove dams?...boy, this is a tough one.

[elfenix 34172]

3 minutes ago, Boss Hogg said:

We have leadership at the federal that doesn't respect or enforce our own borders.

This is utter horseshit, Chrispy.

[Incredulity 11555]

6 minutes ago, nbmishoid said:

I’m on Medicare, I disagree

[SydneyCarton 47885]

1 minute ago, Incredulity said:

I have never said DT tax cuts were ideal.  They were very focused on business taxes.  They were a vindictive fuck you to high tax blue states, and some red states were caught in that attempt too.  

BTW the horror of the Trump tax cuts are rolling off so your long national nightmare is set to end pretty soon.

Regarding Biden.  I stated above my opinion on where taxes MAYBE should be discussed to increase.  But thats not where the money is, and everyone knows it.

I'm confused. You think the money is in the middle class and lower class, as upposed to the super wealthy? Listen, I'll start at a million.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2023/12/06/top-1-american-earners-more-wealth-middle-class/71769832007/#:~:text=The top 1% holds %2438.7,about 3% of the wealth.
Key takeaway, the top 1% owns more than the entire middle class in regards to wealth. Sure, we can start at 1 million. The wealth is certainly in the top 1%..which starts at around 400k per year. 

Where does "everyone know" the money is, exactly, becuase I'm confused. 

Biden's tax plan would move corporate taxes from 21 to 28%, which is also where they have been at the past. These aren't hardworking American people getting fucked, it's companies paying their fair share to do business in the greatest economy in the world. I'd think you'd be all for that if it means reducing our out of control deficit. Which literalyl increased 40% under donald trump in just 4 years. Man, maybe those tax cuts weren't agreat idea?

[nbmishoid 941]

In other words, I have data and experience that national health care does work

[SydneyCarton 47885]

3 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

Well lets see if we can triangulate this one...if congress is controlled by R or D who is most likely to vote to remove dams?...boy, this is a tough one.

Democrats aren't a monolith. That vote would never pass. And if it did, it wouldn't pass the Senate...so it's not really an issue. It's a made up hypothetical grievance you're nursing. 

[Incredulity 11555]

2 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

I'm confused. You think the money is in the middle class and lower class, as upposed to the super wealthy? Listen, I'll start at a million.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2023/12/06/top-1-american-earners-more-wealth-middle-class/71769832007/#:~:text=The top 1% holds %2438.7,about 3% of the wealth.
Key takeaway, the top 1% owns more than the entire middle class in regards to wealth. Sure, we can start at 1 million. The wealth is certainly in the top 1%..which starts at around 400k per year. 

Where does "everyone know" the money is, exactly, becuase I'm confused. 

Biden's tax plan would move corporate taxes from 21 to 28%, which is also where they have been at the past. These aren't hardworking American people getting fucked, it's companies paying their fair share to do business in the greatest economy in the world. I'd think you'd be all for that if it means reducing our out of control deficit. Which literalyl increased 40% under donald trump in just 4 years. Man, maybe those tax cuts weren't agreat idea?

Your conflating wealth and income.  Are you prosposing a wealth tax?  That is competely different than an income tax.

[HendersonHorns 85]

31 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

Lets start with

I am 100% opposed to

 

Packing the Supreme Court

Eliminating the Senate

Changing Presidential Election to Popular Vote

Medicare for All

Wealth Tax

Tax increases for anyone making less than 1million  2million as married couple.

Estate taxes below current exemption(probably should he higher) set to reduce in half in '25

Mandating EV conversion without any rational plan to produce enough electricity(read crash grid)

Tearing out hydroelectric dams(100% carbon free)

 

Lets start with

I am 100% opposed to

 

Packing the Supreme Court:

 agree - progressives called for this less than a year ago.  Biden is against

Eliminating the Senate:

 never heard this

Changing Presidential Election to Popular Vote:

 Agree….  EC is how it should be. 

Medicare for All:

 have been against this in the past, but would rather have healthcare for all than spending so much money over seas  

Wealth Tax:

 agree 

Tax increases for anyone making less than 1million  2million as married couple.

 Agree 

Estate taxes below current exemption(probably should he higher) set to reduce in half in '25:

ok

 

Mandating EV conversion without any rational plan to produce enough electricity(read crash grid)

 agree 

Tearing out hydroelectric dams(100% carbon free)

 Yep

 

 Roe - stay with states

 2A - leave as is.

 Border - closed to illegal immigration

 Undocumented:  get citizenship figured out asap. Felony conviction or pending assaultive felony in another country should be sent back. 
 

 

[Incredulity 11555]

3 minutes ago, nbmishoid said:

In other words, I have data and experience that national health care does work

Hey guess what, if we take from 60% of the population to fund healthcare for 40% of the population national healthcare for the 40% works fanfuckingtastic.

[mchookem 16225]

my husband started Medicare two years ago. he has a number of 'maintenance' health issues. Medicare has been thorough, seamless, and quite frankly excellent. i kind of can't wait.  *shrug*

Edited February 28 by mchookem

[nbmishoid 941]

1 minute ago, Incredulity said:

Hey guess what, if we take from 60% of the population to fund healthcare for 40% of the population national healthcare for the 40% works fanfuckingtastic.

That part can be fixed by tax legislation.   

[SydneyCarton 47885]

3 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

Your conflating wealth and income.  Are you prosposing a wealth tax?  That is competely different than an income tax.

With wealth usually comes taxable income. This is absurd. I'm fine with just taxing the income they do recieve fairly and proportionally. 

[Longhorn_Fan68 33843]

5 hours ago, RomaVicta said:

Oddly, written without rancor. 

you leave him out of this!

[Incredulity 11555]

6 minutes ago, nbmishoid said:

That part can be fixed by tax legislation.   

6 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

With wealth usually comes taxable income

Who is going to tell him

[DixonHur 11228]

14 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

I don't believe government run healthcare will deliver a better product.  That's based on every interaction I have with government entities.

This is an old trope that I applaud for its staying power in the face of all evidence.

My experiences with universal healthcare have been decidedly positive.  The government isn't "running" healthcare, ala the DMV.  The doctors are still highly trained medical professionals, with access to the latest technology.  And while they are paid less than doctors in the US, they are still among the highest paid professionals...they just can't afford a Farrari.  And frankly, if someone is going into medicine because they want the fancy house and car, that's probably not the doctor I want to see anyway.

Here are the key differences I noticed.  The medical buildings are not fancy.  No fountains in the lobbies, no receptionists in the office, nor modernist furniture in the waiting rooms...in fact, there aren't a lot of waiting rooms period.  TBH, at first that was a shock, especially since I didn't speak the local language, so it was difficult to navigate the first time or 2, but once I got used to it, I actually appreciated it.

On the medical care front, they actually treated the issue instead of telling you the procedure/test was too expensive and/or not covered by my insurance. 

So in summary, facilities ugly, but doctors were competent and worked for the benefit of the patient, not the insurance company, or hospital system.

[SydneyCarton 47885]

4 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

Who is going to tell him

There are ways around any rule, but at the end of the day at some point most wealthy eventually have to either have consistent income from businesses, or they have to sell assets to pay loans they took out to avoid having taxable income. I'm suggesting any kind of step in the right direction, but you seem to be obfuscating by implying any improvement is a waste of time. 

[RomaVicta 29795]

54 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

Elimination of the Senate has been called for here on Surly. 

And whomever you're alluding to calls the goddamn shots for the Dems! Dems don't to dick without consulting the hallowed, hollowed echo chamber!

You did put up some reasons, though, so thanks for that. 

[Incredulity 11555]

1 hour ago, SydneyCarton said:

There are ways around any rule, but at the end of the day at some point most wealthy eventually have to either have consistent income from businesses, or they have to sell assets to pay loans they took out to avoid having taxable income. I'm suggesting any kind of step in the right direction, but you seem to be obfuscating by implying any improvement is a waste of time. 

At the end of the final day Uncle Sam is taking 40% of everything beyond 13 million. Will revert to 5 million after next year.  After having already paid income tax, property tax, capital gains tax,…..

 

 

[Incredulity 11555]

1 hour ago, DixonHur said:

So in summary, facilities ugly, but doctors were competent and worked for the benefit of the patient, not the insurance company, or hospital system.

As I admitted above I may be wrong.  I don’t believe it will work, but given the fucked state of our medical system I could probably be sold if someone went hard and heavy on proving the math and services.  I don’t have a rock solid definition of “proving” in that context.

 

Related, I just came home to a $1400 ambulance bill from a hospital visit my wife had last May.  Transport from one side of the hospital to another that they would only allow via ambulance.  What a fucking joke.

[Goredho 17349]

Given the thread title, I thought this was going to be the Presidential debate thread.

[Dbeasy 14970]

2 hours ago, Incredulity said:

Lets start with

I am 100% opposed to

 

Packing the Supreme Court

Eliminating the Senate

Changing Presidential Election to Popular Vote

Medicare for All

Wealth Tax

Tax increases for anyone making less than 1million  2million as married couple.

Estate taxes below current exemption(probably should he higher) set to reduce in half in '25

Mandating EV conversion without any rational plan to produce enough electricity(read crash grid)

Tearing out hydroelectric dams(100% carbon free)

 

In my response below, I'm addressing these topics from the perspective of someone who used to like some of the high level messaging of the Republican Party many years ago, but then realized that the world is changing drastically and that many of the messages put forth by the Republican Party have been disengenuous. In addition, I've also started sharply questioning the basic ideas we hear in the media, because they are driven by progaganda in many cases and not facts. So here we go:

Packing the Supreme Court - several others have already pointed out that the only ones really doing it right now and trying to do it are Republicans. Yes, extreme parts of the left have discussed this. But being a staunch Republican doesn't fix this issue given what Republicans have been doing, so how can this make you feel better as a Republican?

Eliminating the Senate - as several others have said, this is a viewpoint from extremists. So why are you fearful of these extremists and not extreme Republicans, or Republicans on the payroll of Russia, or Republicans who cater to white supremicists? We had a President and group of Republicans literally try to eliminate the Excecutive branch as a voting decision. Shouldn't your concern here cause you to distrust both parties and want to support people who have the right moral integrity and are moderate, regardless of party?

Changing to Popular Vote - This is a decent topic for people to argue over. While on one hand you can make the argument that popular vote should be the rule, there is an equal counter-argument that preserving a minority population's (small state) ability to have control over how they live in the US is an important protected right. If this item is really that important to you, then this might be a decent reason to align right.

Medicare For All - I agree that totally run government healthcare may not be the right answer. It comes down to the fact that companies have way more bargaining power than individuals. If we had Medicare for all, there might not be a sufficient governor on costs, like there is with competition. The winning strategy needs to be some sort of combination of multiple ideas that ensures competition but also efficiency. But how can you be Republican because of your opposition to this? The Republicans have offered NOTHING for a decade in terms of an idea. Hell, they even controlled both houses and the Presidency and DID NOTHING. Nothing doesn't deserve support or a vote. Get moderates from both parties.

Wealth Tax - I probably differ from almost everyone on this topic in supporting some sort of wealth tax but not in the currently envisioned model of Elizabeth Warren. Why? Envision the middle ages when the wealthy had so much control of land, resources and wealth that the rest of the population was living as serfs.  The wealth inequality changes we are now facing as a world are becoming so large, the risk of the 90-99% never being able to live a decent life is a real future threat.  The amount of money in a small number of people's hands is stunning. So I don't understand why so many are against this idea given the impact on the 90-99%. And being a Republican for just this issue seems crazy. The billionaires don't need your help to make their lives awesome. Why align with them?

Tax Increases for $1-2M couples - This is where your logic really runs aground. As Sydney and others have said, right now the Republicans are cutting taxes, but driving up massive deficits, but only wanting to cut spending in areas that hurt people making under $1M.  The Republicans are protecting everyone OVER $1-2M. Again, why are you wanting to help the $50-100M aires and billionaires, but not yourself and the majority of the population? This is a classic example of listening to Republican party rhetoric but not understanding they are pulling money out of your back pocket while you salute the flag.

Estate Taxes as is - While $25M is pretty high, dropping it to $6M is bullshit. But again, why align with Republicans? The right answer is probably $15-25M for now. But Republicans want to remove it completely for their ultra-rich donors who have Republicans on their payrolls. So why in the world support that? Can't we find a mix of Republican and Democrat moderates that set it at $15-20M?

EV Conversion Mandates - There are some open issues here. But again, what in the world are Republicans doing to help this transition over the next 20 years? Nothing. They just are trying to advocate for the interests of their wealthy energy donors. So why are you aligning with people on the take from energy donors?

Hydroelectric Dams - This is a nonsense red herring. Moderates on both sides of the aisle can make the right choices here.

So in summary, some of your topics of concern are valid, but what I've realized over the last 10 years is that not only will the Republican party not address any of them, their major focus is on padding their own bank accounts from the wealthy, who are trying to use them to stay wealthy and get wealthier. Why align with that? I'd rather align with whoever is moderate to solve real problems for the 90-99%.

 

 

Edited February 28 by Dbeasy

[Dbeasy 14970]

1 hour ago, Boss Hogg said:

In summary, I think many will go with "law and order".

We have leadership at the federal that doesn't respect or enforce our own borders. On a state and local level distributed around the country we have similar leadership enacting policies that encourage crime.

You combine the two and you get situations like the nursing student in Georgia bludgeoned to death by an illegal immigrant that had been previously arrested for acting in a manner to injure a child less than 17 in NYC. Can you guess what happened? He got released. 

Don't believe me, look at the polls. 

 

 

 

 

These two issues (immigration, crime) are perfect examples of needing to separate reality from perception, polls, and rhetoric.

1. Immigration - this is an area where I definitely align with wanting better immigration control, but look at what just happened LAST WEEK. The bipartisan legislation was shot down by the Republican Party and Trump.  If you really care about the issue, why in the world would you align yourself with Republicans. If anything, you could either be independent and vote for moderates on both sides, or just go Democrat because they've at least shown a willingness to do something. You are caught up in the Republican headlines that they are using to campaign, and not reality. With all of that said, if you had a totally Democrate controlled government, then there might be much more free flowing immigration, and hence why I'm independent and will vote for moderates from each party. I want immigration, but legal with people following rules that are rational.

2. Crime - there is no question some highly publicized decisions and situations have occured where Democrats have shown to be soft on crime, with things like high misdemeanor levels, soft sentences, etc.  But Republicans aren't doing anything to solve crime. They talk about it, but leave slums crime ridden. So why align with that? Align with moderates who solve problems.

Your posting of polls is just a reaffirmation that the propaganda is working. While there is some truth to the issues, the Republicans are not the saviors to these problems. We need to quit voting solely for parties, but for politicians who solve real problems.

[Brian Fantana 6668]

1 hour ago, Incredulity said:

Hey guess what, if we take from 60% of the population to fund healthcare for 40% of the population national healthcare for the 40% works fanfuckingtastic.

Yeah the current system is great. Take an exorbitant amount of money from everyone so you can pretend to fund their healthcare but really just pocket billions in profit.

[Brian Fantana 6668]

Not to mention it exists in a market space that's effectively entirely separate from the rest of the economy and is presented to the customer in the most abjectly anti-free market whateverthefuck way possible. The health insurance marketplace is literally a money cheat code for an industry that provides as little value as possible to the American consumer in a way that's fully codified by the American government.

It's one of the grossest, most exploitative, shitty ways to treat your populace and yet we have a million morons every day that call you a fucking commie if you say you want it to go the fuck away.

[aggie08 21434]

The electoral college argument is always so pointless and hollow to me. We all know damn well that the, "We have to honor the Constitution's foresight to look out for the little guy and give Idaho a say!" arguments would completely flip in today's GOP the second that the electoral college became beneficial to Democrats. And yes, I'm sure a fair number of Democrats would flip flop too. The difference is that the GOP would have had their stacked Court change it by now.

Edited February 28 by aggie08

[mchookem 16225]

44 minutes ago, Dbeasy said:

In my response below, I'm addressing these topics from the perspective of someone who used to like some of the high level messaging of the Republican Party many years ago, but then realized that the world is changing drastically and that many of the messages put forth by the Republican Party have been disengenuous. In addition, I've also started sharply questioning the basic ideas we hear in the media, because they are driven by progaganda in many cases and not facts. So here we go:

Packing the Supreme Court - several others have already pointed out that the only ones really doing it right now and trying to do it are Republicans. Yes, extreme parts of the left have discussed this. But being a staunch Republican doesn't fix this issue given what Republicans have been doing, so how can this make you feel better as a Republican?

Eliminating the Senate - as several others have said, this is a viewpoint from extremists. So why are you fearful of these extremists and not extreme Republicans, or Republicans on the payroll of Russia, or Republicans who cater to white supremicists? We had a President and group of Republicans literally try to eliminate the Excecutive branch as a voting decision. Shouldn't your concern here cause you to distrust both parties and want to support people who have the right moral integrity and are moderate, regardless of party?

Changing to Popular Vote - This is a decent topic for people to argue over. While on one hand you can make the argument that popular vote should be the rule, there is an equal counter-argument that preserving a minority population's (small state) ability to have control over how they live in the US is an important protected right. If this item is really that important to you, then this might be a decent reason to align right.

Medicare For All - I agree that totally run government healthcare may not be the right answer. It comes down to the fact that companies have way more bargaining power than individuals. If we had Medicare for all, there might not be a sufficient governor on costs, like there is with competition. The winning strategy needs to be some sort of combination of multiple ideas that ensures competition but also efficiency. But how can you be Republican because of your opposition to this? The Republicans have offered NOTHING for a decade in terms of an idea. Hell, they even controlled both houses and the Presidency and DID NOTHING. Nothing doesn't deserve support or a vote. Get moderates from both parties.

Wealth Tax - I probably differ from almost everyone on this topic in supporting some sort of wealth tax but not in the currently envisioned model of Elizabeth Warren. Why? Envision the middle ages when the wealthy had so much control of land, resources and wealth that the rest of the population was living as serfs.  The wealth inequality changes we are now facing as a world are becoming so large, the risk of the 90-99% never being able to live a decent life is a real future threat.  The amount of money in a small number of people's hands is stunning. So I don't understand why so many are against this idea given the impact on the 90-99%. And being a Republican for just this issue seems crazy. The billionaires don't need your help to make their lives awesome. Why align with them?

Tax Increases for $1-2M couples - This is where your logic really runs aground. As Sydney and others have said, right now the Republicans are cutting taxes, but driving up massive deficits, but only wanting to cut spending in areas that hurt people making under $1M.  The Republicans are protecting everyone OVER $1-2M. Again, why are you wanting to help the $50-100M aires and billionaires, but not yourself and the majority of the population? This is a classic example of listening to Republican party rhetoric but not understanding they are pulling money out of your back pocket while you salute the flag.

Estate Taxes as is - While $25M is pretty high, dropping it to $6M is bullshit. But again, why align with Republicans? The right answer is probably $15-25M for now. But Republicans want to remove it completely for their ultra-rich donors who have Republicans on their payrolls. So why in the world support that? Can't we find a mix of Republican and Democrat moderates that set it at $15-20M?

EV Conversion Mandates - There are some open issues here. But again, what in the world are Republicans doing to help this transition over the next 20 years? Nothing. They just are trying to advocate for the interests of their wealthy energy donors. So why are you aligning with people on the take from energy donors?

Hydroelectric Dams - This is a nonsense red herring. Moderates on both sides of the aisle can make the right choices here.

So in summary, some of your topics of concern are valid, but what I've realized over the last 10 years is that not only will the Republican party not address any of them, their major focus is on padding their own bank accounts from the wealthy, who are trying to use them to stay wealthy and get wealthier. Why align with that? I'd rather align with whoever is moderate to solve real problems for the 90-99%.

 

 

 

29 minutes ago, Dbeasy said:

These two issues (immigration, crime) are perfect examples of needing to separate reality from perception, polls, and rhetoric.

1. Immigration - this is an area where I definitely align with wanting better immigration control, but look at what just happened LAST WEEK. The bipartisan legislation was shot down by the Republican Party and Trump.  If you really care about the issue, why in the world would you align yourself with Republicans. If anything, you could either be independent and vote for moderates on both sides, or just go Democrat because they've at least shown a willingness to do something. You are caught up in the Republican headlines that they are using to campaign, and not reality. With all of that said, if you had a totally Democrate controlled government, then there might be much more free flowing immigration, and hence why I'm independent and will vote for moderates from each party. I want immigration, but legal with people following rules that are rational.

2. Crime - there is no question some highly publicized decisions and situations have occured where Democrats have shown to be soft on crime, with things like high misdemeanor levels, soft sentences, etc.  But Republicans aren't doing anything to solve crime. They talk about it, but leave slums crime ridden. So why align with that? Align with moderates who solve problems.

Your posting of polls is just a reaffirmation that the propaganda is working. While there is some truth to the issues, the Republicans are not the saviors to these problems. We need to quit voting solely for parties, but for politicians who solve real problems.

i want to commend your patience and willingness to try to break thru the bullshit propaganda wall in these responses. i doubt it will do any good... but you've done a good job trying to reach thru the noise, at least in this little microcosm. who knows, there could be an actual open-minded lurker or two who will read your responses and actually accept reality.

[956 Worldwide 34444]

The Senate GOP spent the better part of two months carefully crafting a border solution that might pass and get signed and then it got shot down because the GOP POTUS nominee wants the border to be a mess so he can run on the issue.  
 

I mean, it’s fine to care about this issue but please try to realize when you’re getting played. 

[956 Worldwide 34444]

Once you accept that the GOP is trying to endlessly fuck up the government so that they can run on a platform of “the government is fucked up” it’s really easy to separate from them.  Treat them like a shady mechanic that breaks shit so you’ll come back and have it repaired. 

[Covri 6231]

1 hour ago, Incredulity said:

At the end of the final day Uncle Sam is taking 40% of everything beyond 13 million. Will revert to 5 million after next year.  After having already paid income tax, property tax, capital gains tax,…..

 

 

Have you ever in your life hit the 13 million or even the 5 million threshold you’re bemoaning here? 

[DixonHur 11228]

1 hour ago, BeardIP said:

There's no real value in doing this anecdotal/experience thing here, because nobodies minds or hearts are ever changed, but I have firsthand experience that is the opposite. Horribly long wait times, insta-denials/rejections on expensive treatment (even generic) for biologics/chemos/expensive meds, and way, way sub-par expertise compared to the States. 

But this is for specialized medicine and rare/chronic/serious illnesses-- not just a broken arm or basic, by the book appendectomy or the 80% of medicine that is rote and most doctors can easily do.

Basic/Regular things - socialized/universal healthcare is awesome.

Expensive/Hard things- private healthcare (with good insurance) is awesome.

People will view through their individual lenses.

Just curious, where was your experience?  Mine was Czech Republic.  

I wait way longer to see specialists here than I ever did there.  Of course, here I get to spend $750 a month in insurance premiums for the privilege of paying $60 a visit, plus hundreds more for tests...and God forbid I need an MRI or worse, surgery.  Maybe my experience was unique, but I had plenty of them, and it was always top notch and my "insurance" was less than $150/month with no co-pays.

Plus you can always add private insurance if you want, by I never needed to.

[Boss Hogg 808]

1 hour ago, Dbeasy said:

These two issues (immigration, crime) are perfect examples of needing to separate reality from perception, polls, and rhetoric.

1. Immigration - this is an area where I definitely align with wanting better immigration control, but look at what just happened LAST WEEK. The bipartisan legislation was shot down by the Republican Party and Trump.  If you really care about the issue, why in the world would you align yourself with Republicans. If anything, you could either be independent and vote for moderates on both sides, or just go Democrat because they've at least shown a willingness to do something. You are caught up in the Republican headlines that they are using to campaign, and not reality. With all of that said, if you had a totally Democrate controlled government, then there might be much more free flowing immigration, and hence why I'm independent and will vote for moderates from each party. I want immigration, but legal with people following rules that are rational.

.

Bipartisan legislation that was soft.

 

1 hour ago, Dbeasy said:

2. Crime - there is no question some highly publicized decisions and situations have occured where Democrats have shown to be soft on crime, with things like high misdemeanor levels, soft sentences, etc.  But Republicans aren't doing anything to solve crime. They talk about it, but leave slums crime ridden. So why align with that? Align with moderates who solve problems.

I’m not sure what Republicans have to do with criminal justice policies and enforcement in Democratic dominated jurisdictions and the crime ridden state that results. 

[Incredulity 11555]

12 minutes ago, Covri said:

Have you ever in your life hit the 13 million or even the 5 million threshold you’re bemoaning here? 

Is this where we post paychecks?  Maybe post photos of corvettes?

What difference does it make if I have or have not made X amount of money?  

 

Here is another tell from Joey

https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/briefing-room/2022/03/28/presidents-budget-rewards-work-not-wealth-with-new-billionaire-minimum-income-tax/

 

President’s Budget Rewards Work, Not Wealth with new Billionaire Minimum Income Tax

 

 

The tax will apply only to the top one-one hundredth of one percent (0.01%) of American households (those worth over $100 million)

 

[Captainant 27467]

2 hours ago, BeardIP said:

There's no real value in doing this anecdotal/experience thing here, because nobodies minds or hearts are ever changed, but I have firsthand experience that is the opposite. Horribly long wait times, insta-denials/rejections on expensive treatment (even generic) for biologics/chemos/expensive meds, and way, way sub-par expertise compared to the States. 

But this is for specialized medicine and rare/chronic/serious illnesses-- not just a broken arm or basic, by the book appendectomy or the 80% of medicine that is rote and most doctors can easily do.

Basic/Regular things - socialized/universal healthcare is awesome.

Expensive/Hard things- private healthcare (with good insurance) is awesome.

People will view through their individual lenses.

The US healthcare system is great if you have a shitload of money and can afford fast passes for all your procedures, appointments, etc etc. Try taking care of a parent through a degenerative disease requiring lifelong specialized care, you're gonna get the runaround ad infinitum from your """healthcare providers""" (health insurance) as they hope they can run the clock out on your loved one rather than pay for care. 

Edited February 29 by Captainant

[DixonHur 11228]

8 minutes ago, Boss Hogg said:

Bipartisan legislation that was soft.

 

I’m not sure what Republicans have to do with criminal justice policies and enforcement in Democratic dominated jurisdictions and the crime ridden state that results. 

15 Most Dangerous States in the US in 2024 based on violent crime...

1. Alaska - GOP
2. New Mexico - Dem
3. Tennessee - GOP
4. Arkansas - GOP
5. Arizona - Dem
6. Louisiana - GOP
7. Missouri - GOP
8. South Carolina - GOP
9. South Dakota - GOP
10. Oklahoma - GOP
11. Michigan - Dem
12. Colorado - Dem
13. Nevada - GOP
14. Montana - GOP
15. Washington - Dem

You were saying?

[aggie08 21434]

9 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

You were lying?

Fify

[aggie08 21434]

25 minutes ago, Boss Hogg said:

Bipartisan legislation that was soft.

Oh fuck all the way off. You know damn well that wasn't why they killed it. You fucking puppet.

[Stilicho 1397]

Just now, aggie08 said:

Oh fuck all the way off. You know damn well that wasn't why they killed it. You fucking puppet.

This is like his 8th different handle. Fuck him.

[Covri 6231]

17 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

Is this where we post paychecks?  Maybe post photos of corvettes?

What difference does it make if I have or have not made X amount of money?  

I’m just trying to understand your mentality. Why vote for a party that doesn’t actually represent your interests? I’m not making 5 mil a year, I’m looking at taxes that actually affect me, not some hypothetical person who makes so much money they can afford to pay higher taxes and not change their lifestyle one bit.

[DixonHur 11228]

37 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

The tax will apply only to the top one-one hundredth of one percent (0.01%) of American households (those worth over $100 million)

So how does this effect you aside from the government getting additional revenue without impacting your taxes?

[Covri 6231]

@ChiTownDoc can you pop in here and thank @Incredulity for fighting the good fight for you while you jet between Chicago and Miami? I know you just cut the check between events and keep on livin’, but @Incredulity wants you to know if he ever makes that kind of money, he’ll know he stood the line for you, you Sooner doctor!

[Incredulity 11555]

32 minutes ago, Covri said:

I’m not making 5 mil a year,

Its not 5 mil a year.  It’s 5 mil accumulated over a lifetime.

Given approximately 10% of the US population are millionaires lets not pretend 5 million over a lifetime is Bezos money.

[Incredulity 11555]

24 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

So how does this effect you aside from the government getting additional revenue without impacting your taxes?

Not directly.  Probably a safe assumption the “billionaire” tax for 100 million spreads.

You are aware of the “temporary” nature of the original Federal Income Tax, correct?