gandalfe
Well-Known Member
Yes, that's what I was referring to.
America is great and everything is NOT Pres. Trump's fault thread
- Thread starter Heathme
- Start date
He was trolling(the OP), ya jackass. And cowhide made great points(a few out of a seemingly endless list) of why focusing on the "robust" economy is horse pucky. But again, go ahead and celebrate your riches(probably poorer than before Trump) while America burns.
Last edited:
Joe Bagadonuts
Well-Known Member
I've got a feeling he was being facetious. Trump doesn't deserve a Nobel Prize any more than Obama did.
fishonjazz
Well-Known Member
Contributor
2018 Award Winner
2019 Award Winner
2020-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
Trump doesnt deserve a cracker jacks prize
LogGrad98
Well-Known Member
Contributor
2020-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
Well trolling is certainly a good reason to derail the thread. My apologies.
idestroyedthetoilet
Well-Known Member
He's accomplished or put on the path to accomplish what he set out for. America is in an overall good place right now. We bicker over injustices that were once much larger. Hays, women, blacks all have a voice now. It's time to stop the race baiting and attacking those considered once the powerful - H.A.R.M. hetero, Anglo, rich males. Everyone who in one of those categories or related to them is now blasted for having an opinion as if they are in all 4, and guilty by association. They need to shut up and listen, regardless. Your opinion is all that matters and they do not. It is no longer MLK, Jr.'s dream of content of character but only color of your skin.
Trump reached out to that crowd and rightfully won. Dislike him for it all you want but those currently vacating the power vacuum once occupied H.A.R.M are now using the same power tactics they supposedly are fighting against. A vote/hate against Trump is de facto support of illiberal powerful elite groupthink. I'll vote for Trump as a true liberal and what that means. Give him cracker jacks and milk n cookies.
gandalfe
Well-Known Member
Yes, that's what I was referring to.
The very use of "H.A.R.M." as an acronym makes me think you may not not entirely serious with this rant, but since it relfects how many other people seem to feel, I will respond seriously anyhow. I don't like the acronym, so I will just use "the currently privileged".
As someone in three of those categories (looking at it from a global status, probably all four) as well as many other categories you did not bother to mention, may I just say perhaps you should stop your whining, enjoy the fact that you are still on the top of the privilege pyramid, listen to people when they describe the real problems that you will never have to face, and maybe once in a white use the tremendous social power you possess as a result of these privileges to lift other people up instead of worrying about how seriously they take you. I know it's hard to believe that the struggles of other people dwarf the ones you have faced (because, who struggles more than you, right?), but it is nonetheless true.
How do you vacate a vacuum? I assume you meant "occupying".
I haven't seen the currently privileged offered lower salaries for equivalent job histories, face harsher treatment at every step of the criminal justice system, endure housing discrimination (much less legal housing discrimination), face employers who can fire you just for who you are, etc. Until the currently privileged face some of those tactics, those trying to occupy a small portion of the power structure the currently privileged have not clung on to are by no means using the same tactics that were used on them.
The ability to continue to access social privilege that Trump tries to deny to those without it?
idestroyedthetoilet
Well-Known Member
Self-righteous indignation chock full of assumptions. You know my privilege and act as I and others are unaware of what station in life we were born into. Since you know my privilege so much better than I you need to preach to me about my shortcomings, and how my "tremendous social power" needs to be used for your greater good. Is that a joke? You know I have some magical, ungodly tremendous power and you know that I dont use what I've been blessed with to try and do good, right?
Your philosophy is a broken one and the reason a huge voting block feels disenfranchised. I am not in that voting block but only attempt to explain what they feel. Continue on ignoring them, preaching to them that they need to shut up and listen to you because their privileged voice does not matter and you know more and know better, and your all knowing insight understands their life better than them.
A broken philosophy built on assumptions and self righteousness has no foundation. Neither does the intersectionality that you preach as when boiled down divisiveness is it's only tenet.
idestroyedthetoilet
Well-Known Member
OB, you have a long history of showing you ascribe to a philosophy that sees good in pushing one side only and always, as the greater benefits of castigating and sounding out The Other will pay off. You rarely, if ever, stick up for injustices done to the other side and when you do it is as muted and unemotional as possible. "I agree". You went on a month long tirade against Archie for only posting one side's view, which is something you have done for the decade that I've been posting here. Were you angry that someone else used your tactics or trying to shame and crowd out, or both? Or simply hypocritical with your self righteousness? Those are rhetorical.
I disagree with what you've portrayed as a philosophy.
I disagree with what you've portrayed as a philosophy.
idestroyedthetoilet
Well-Known Member
@Archie Moses asked for a self ban? What a *****.
As as I said in the first paragraph, I don't know how serious you specifically were. I even pointed out a reason for the doubt. Still, your diatribe certainly resembled diatribes from many people who are perfectly serious and quite unaware of their privileged status.
For all I know, assuming you are in all the categories you listed, you could still be disadvantaged in any number of ways. I'm lucky enough to be on the positive axis of every category of privilege I've seen described, except for religion, and it has given me tremendous social power I did not earn. I do make efforts to use that power for those with fewer privileges.
If this were a board game of trying to win votes, I would care. I think it's sad that people who get enormous social advantages can't take the time to appreciate them and help others.
Sorry, but when white people tell black people when and where to protest, it always seems to be "in the time and place where I don't have to bothered by it". When men tell women what feminism means, it always seems to mean something that makes the men more comfortable. Real social change creates bother and is uncomfortable. Not telling people the actual effects of their whitesplaining/mansplaining is not doing anyone a favor.
While I don't claim to know everything about anyone life, I do know what privilege does for that life and the many ways it can help a life even when times are rough. It's my lived experience, and I'm not going to stop talking about that simply to make other people comfortable.
Only one of us is casting "listening" as "assumptions" and casting "help others" as "divisiveness".
I eagerly wait your long list of injustices done to "the other side", after you calculate in the effects of years of social planning, redlining, exclusion, etc. I mean, you're not going to pretend that everyone gets an equal start right now, equal treatment in elementary schools, etc., are you?
Actually, my tirade was that Archie was putting forth conservative arguments without being willing to endorse or engage in the arguments and responses to them, while simultaneously claiming he was not taking a side. One he removed the mask and came out as endorsing the conservative position, I stopped.
I don't mind responding to rhetoric.
I revel in confrontations. I don't think Archie Moses enjoys wallowing in the rhetorical mud nearly so much as I, so I don't think he would be capable of trying to shame or crowd out. That probably speaks better of him than of me. On the conservative side, that's more of a babe/DutchJazzer tactic.
Was it hypocrisy to ask him to be open about the positions he was endorsing? I think I am pretty open about my positions.
OK. It keeps life interesting.
AlaskanAssassin
Well-Known Member
Lots of interesting thoughts on this thread. I'm a little late to the party, but had a few thoughts.
Trump's tax cuts (predominantly benefiting the wealthy) did not reduce federal tax revenue. They reached record highs in 2017 and are projected to be even higher in 2018.
https://www.thebalance.com/current-u-s-federal-government-tax-revenue-3305762
Liberals trying to associate the tax cuts that Trump implemented with the alarming deficit numbers should be focused on the spending, not the tax cuts. I think many Libertarians and Conservatives anticipated he would cut spending..........not increase it.
If you are not familiar with the concept, research "Hauser's Law". Since WWII, federal tax receipts have consistently stayed between 15-20% of our GDP. This has occurred despite wildly fluctuating marginal tax rates.
In other words, adjusting the tax rate, taxing the rich, whatever...........doesn't have the impact that most believe it should. Why? Because changes in tax policy and rates impact behavior. In times of high tax rates, the wealthy simply engage in less profit generating activity (because they won't keep a large percentage of it). They will also defer as much of their revenue as possible, take advantage of tax breaks and incentives, save for retirement, invest in areas that provide tax relief, etc. I say this not just as someone who has done research, but as a CPA who has seen individuals do it for years. If you honestly think that Bernie can successfully pay for medicaid for all and free public universities by taxing the rich, you are ignoring what has occurred over the past 70 years of American history.
The only way, outside of massive tax reform (not just a tax increase......), to solve the National Debt problem is to shrink government. I'm not sure how this ever happens considering the high percentage of our population that rely on the government to survive. These individuals, understandably, will never vote for someone that campaigns on cutting back on programs they take advantage of. Democracy at work.
Meanwhile, we continually kick the can down the road for our children, or our grandchildren, to have to deal with. If you have a child today, they are blessed with being born with $60,000 of debt. This is their portion of the federal debt that someday has to be repaid.
Trump's tax cuts (predominantly benefiting the wealthy) did not reduce federal tax revenue. They reached record highs in 2017 and are projected to be even higher in 2018.
https://www.thebalance.com/current-u-s-federal-government-tax-revenue-3305762
Liberals trying to associate the tax cuts that Trump implemented with the alarming deficit numbers should be focused on the spending, not the tax cuts. I think many Libertarians and Conservatives anticipated he would cut spending..........not increase it.
If you are not familiar with the concept, research "Hauser's Law". Since WWII, federal tax receipts have consistently stayed between 15-20% of our GDP. This has occurred despite wildly fluctuating marginal tax rates.
In other words, adjusting the tax rate, taxing the rich, whatever...........doesn't have the impact that most believe it should. Why? Because changes in tax policy and rates impact behavior. In times of high tax rates, the wealthy simply engage in less profit generating activity (because they won't keep a large percentage of it). They will also defer as much of their revenue as possible, take advantage of tax breaks and incentives, save for retirement, invest in areas that provide tax relief, etc. I say this not just as someone who has done research, but as a CPA who has seen individuals do it for years. If you honestly think that Bernie can successfully pay for medicaid for all and free public universities by taxing the rich, you are ignoring what has occurred over the past 70 years of American history.
The only way, outside of massive tax reform (not just a tax increase......), to solve the National Debt problem is to shrink government. I'm not sure how this ever happens considering the high percentage of our population that rely on the government to survive. These individuals, understandably, will never vote for someone that campaigns on cutting back on programs they take advantage of. Democracy at work.
Meanwhile, we continually kick the can down the road for our children, or our grandchildren, to have to deal with. If you have a child today, they are blessed with being born with $60,000 of debt. This is their portion of the federal debt that someday has to be repaid.
I looked up Hauser's Law, and it's accuracy is disputed on different grounds.
Ultimately, many modern democracies manage to do better than Medicare for all and offer free university educations. If we can't raise that money, it's because the tax code is being set up to allow people to avoid taxes (several examples of how you have just given). It's not a question of ability, but political will.
That's beside the point that Medicare for all costs less than the current health insurance industry in the US. If you divert all the current health insurance premiums into Medicare, you over-fund Medicare for all.
Plenty of other places to cut spending. Like the program where the gov. will pay for their employees to get new glasses. Or god forbid we reign in lavish spending by politicians, ambassadors and the like. But F it. 70k curtains is completely valid.
Sure each of those is small fry. But it starts the ball rolling. And there are hundred if not thousands of programs like that. Often hidden in agency budgets.
Then there is all the military spending...
AlaskanAssassin
Well-Known Member
I think most of the criticisms of Hauser's Law suggest that it's implying something that it's not. It's not suggesting that it's impossible to collect more than the established range, rather that changes in the marginal tax rate, under the current progressive tax system, will not bring revenues outside of the established range. It's hard to argue with the 70 years of data we have on it. We certainly could implement a flat tax, national sales tax, vat tax, etc., but most agree that a change in that direction will disproportionately impact the poor. Of course, Bernie hasn't suggested implementing anything like that, which is the only way to generate the tax revenue needed to run the programs he's suggesting. You can't just increase the highest tax rate to 75% and think that everything will be covered.
Your point on diverting insurance premiums is a good one. If government hadn't "married" health insurance with employment (requiring it to be offered to employees) and people had to write a giant check to the health insurance company every month (instead of the cost being hidden by "employer" contributions) people would have been rioting in the streets a long time ago. Most people don't recognize that employer contributions is basically money coming out of your pocket.
idestroyedthetoilet
Well-Known Member
I want to stab you in the left eyeball for this.
Hahahahaha. Why lmfao
idestroyedthetoilet
Well-Known Member
I'm generally against the attack on government employees. Vested interest though .