• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Do you want brains or brawn.

SINFUL

We (supporters of Clinton) should not get terribly upset with the way things are going. Some of us (very left of center) are disenchanted by the fact Bernie did not get the Democrat candidature. First of all, Bernie was not a Democrat. He was, however, a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC) as a Senator - and the only Senator.

Being a member of the CPC shows one's tendency towards Progressive Politics, and that is what has come, finally, to impress the American public. That, perhaps, time has come to change fundamentally the direction in which the nation is being run. Because, since Reckless Ronnie changed the Tax Code to favor overwhelmingly the upper-income tax-payer by instituting a flat-rate taxation (of 30%) for all revenues beyond $100K.

Bernie nonetheless was promulgating some damn fine ideas that are at the heart of Social Democracies in Europe. And these policies of high-taxation in order to provide free (or nearly free) Public Services like National HealthCare and Postsecondary Education) are entrenched in European political values. (But, I digress.)

Reckless Ronnie was a brilliant stroke of good-fortune for our elitist families, living on a soft-cushion of easy-money. And why they have created so many statues in his image, like some craven god that he was not.

If we, as a nation, are to make our collective existence a bit more easy for the 15% of American households (that's the population of California and Illinois combined) who find themselves below the Poverty Threshold, then we shall have to spend more of the Federal budget where it will do the most good.

But that first means we need to increase upper-income taxation, because the revenues that escape taxation are going to build the Wealth of the Wrong People! Do we need a Confiscatory Taxation?

Perhaps we do, because it seems that America's BigBusiness has been having a wild-time playing "who get's paid most", with that dubious honor being printed in "their" national magazines. (See that nauseating fact here.)

Better yet, see the national distribution of revenues here of income-groups by quintiles (20% of households), from the Tax Policy Center):
Household Income Distribution.jpg

What in heaven's name are they going to do with all that income that accumulates into megabucks? Here's what: They are going to leave it to their dynasties. That is, their kids.

We are thus creating exactly the same kind of "monarchy" that we fought a revolution to overthrow. One that has no "King" but are nonetheless recognizable for their political activity in maintaining the status-quo of upper-income taxation. That is, a very select group of families that create fortunes and then pass them down the line historically. (Whilst 15% of the nation lives below the Poverty Threshold of $23K per year for a family of four.)

Tell me how it isn't so. Tell me how upper-income taxation - the fifth 20% of households - is not so infamously warped compared to rest of us as to be sinful ...
_____________________
 
Would really love to see Obama critique himself, honestly, as a person that should never have ever have been president, much less twice. The damage he has done may not be irreparable, we have recovered from a terrible Civil War, Hoover and FDR, Jimmy Carter, not yet completely from LBJ nor Nixon. And we will recover from Obama 1 & 2.

Obama 3, Hillary, may just be the nail that seals the deal, though.
 
SINFUL

We (supporters of Clinton) should not get terribly upset with the way things are going. Some of us (very left of center) are disenchanted by the fact Bernie did not get the Democrat candidature. First of all, Bernie was not a Democrat. He was, however, a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC) as a Senator - and the only Senator.

......
If we, as a nation, are to make our collective existence a bit more easy for the 15% of American households (that's the population of California and Illinois combined) who find themselves below the Poverty Threshold, then we shall have to spend more of the Federal budget where it will do the most good. ........
_____________________

I agree that we do not want Trump. But that does not mean that the socialism you propose is an acceptable idea. You continuously produce numbers to generate hate and envy without putting them in context. That is false argumentation and it leads those that have not studied the material into false expectations. I have been watching this in Europe for years.

European countries have been laboring to make their countries social for a long time now. They have been spending huge amounts of money on this. I just saw these numbers in Eurostat (They use the euphemism "Risk of Poverty" instead of "Poverty"):

"Almost 25% of the EU’s population, or 122.6 million people, were at risk of poverty or social exclusion in 2013, the EU’s statistics office Eurostat said on Tuesday (4 November).
According to Eurostat, the proportion of persons at risk of poverty or social exclusion in the 28 member states in 2013 (24.5%) has slightly decreased compared with 2012 (24.8%), but is higher than in 2008 (23.8%).
Eurostat identifies a person ‘at risk of poverty’ as someone who is living in a household with an equivalised disposable income below the risk-of-poverty threshold, which is set at 60% of the national median equivalised disposable income (after social transfers).
In 2013, more than a third of the population was at risk of poverty or social exclusion in five member states, including Bulgaria (48.0%), Romania (40.4%), Greece (35.7%), Latvia (35.1%) and Hungary (33.5%).
The lowest shares of persons being at risk of poverty or social exclusion were at the same time recorded in the Czech Republic (14.6%), the Netherlands (15.9%), Finland (16.0%) and Sweden (16.4%)."

That is the reason we should not take the seemingly easy way of Social Democracy that facile tongues whisper into ignorant ears. It does not work and it will harm the country without achieving the false promises of those that want to leverage ignorance and greed in segments of the population for their own purposes.
 
I agree.

What's beyond woeful, though? We need a word for Hillary Clinton and merely "woeful" doesn't cut it.
 

Not quite. More likely?

Conniving.

To cooperate secretly in an illegal or wrongful action; collude.

v. To scheme; plot.

v. To feign ignorance of or fail to take measures against a wrong, thus implying tacit encouragement or consent.

v. To pretend to be ignorant of something in order to escape blame.

v. Encourage or assent to illegally or criminally.

v. Form intrigues (for) in an underhand manner.
https://www.wordnik.com/words/connive
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom