Fun times ... back when the "Constitution" mattered to Republicans
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Supplier Forecasts Product Shortages in US Amid Tariff Chaos
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Fun times ... back when the "Constitution" mattered to Republicans
None of this is going to pay down the deficit. That’;s just not happening. Trump has already said it will go for trillions in tax cuts for the wealthy. He added a massive amount to the deficit last time, and this time it will be worse.
Except they did govern from the middle. Almost all significant legislation they passed had Republican votes. They almost passed a Republican immigration bill until 45 told Republicans to pull out. They wouldn't even hold a vote on Medicare for All. There's nothing "radical" about it.
Bernie and AOC are the left wing of the Democratic party, but that's hardly the party as a whole.
It's hilarious to me that anyone considers Republicans "fiscally conservative".
They only care about the deficit when a Democrat is in the White House.
"We have to slash Medicaid!"
"Tax cuts for rich people are still definitely happening"
No, they didn't govern from the middle. They tried to use OSHA to force a vaccine mandate, they opened the border, they caved to the far-left and did the "inflation Reduction Act" that was a lie and was almost all about climate fluff. He lied to Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema about the "Build Back Better" cost and the giveaways to far-left groups in it. He had his administration oppose and fight every single state voter integrity measure, that was a clear nod to the far-left. He pushed DEI measures all through the government, engaged in further intersectional and racial politics. Was too scared to do anything at all to get the Pro-Hamas constituency too upset, talking out of both sides of his mouth on that one. Pushed the transgender issue into areas it need not be. I could go on all day listing stuff, this is just the stuff that the majority of the people opposed and pushed independents away.
That immigration bill was a trojan horse. It allowed a continuous flow in, up to a daily limit, rather than actually closing the border. That was the Republican objection, along with it turning border agents into form fillers.
It was easily the most progressive administration since LBJ and a case could be made that maybe it was the most progressive since Wilson. As I said before, the Clinton "New Democrats" are FAR to the right of the elected Democrats today and that Bernie and AOC wing is where all the energy is. It will not surprise me one bit to see the pendulum swing hard to the left and left-wing populism take over in 2028 and AOC be the Dem nominee.
ANY tax cut will benefit the wealthy disproportionally because they pay the vast majority of taxes. The tired old canard of "tax cuts for the rich" that the left likes to spout (not saying it's you
) is just a play to the segment of their voters that hate the rich and believe in class warfare and don't understand how our tax systems works.Neither side has a monopoly on economic dullards.
And yet, even if you believe half of that nonsense that you posted, none of that is objectively far left. It's simply stuff that people on the far right don't like. A grievance list. For reference, the far left is communism.
That's the problem with being on the far right. The center looks pretty far away.
ANY tax cut will benefit the wealthy disproportionally because they pay the vast majority of taxes. The tired old canard of "tax cuts for the rich" that the left likes to spout (not saying it's you
Neither side has a monopoly on economic dullards.
Really? I'm not an expect on US taxes, but I'm assuming that there is a tiered to income system. If the govt currently says that "You are tax free up until $15,000 per annum" and changes that to "You are tax free up until $20,000 per annum" then that will affect everyone, but proportionally, it will affect the poorer significantly more than the rich.
Or are you saying that's not true? Or that there is no tiered system in the US? What am I misunderstanding?
So you blame VAT? Not the vendor? So when you receive a discount? Do you say thank you to the vendor or to the VAT?
The VAT and tariffs have nothing to do with each other. Tariffs are used to benefit one product over another. VAT is basically a sales tax. The Trump administration has said they are the same thing to justify tariffs, but they are either lying or stupid or both.
And that's the problem with YOU being on the far left, everything that is way left, looks perfectly acceptable to you. Again, go back to the year 2000, Clinton is in office, do you think any of those things are even whispered then? As I said, the Overton Windows has been pushed quite to the left in the last quarter century. Bill Clinton cut the size of government, was able to get a budget surplus, and was a strong proponent of welfare to work.
Sure the far right doesn't like it, but the middle didn't like it either and they voted accordingly. I'll be glad to post some post-electoral autopsies done by non-right leaning pundits that show their agreement. James Carville was a frequent and recent critic of the racial and identity politics, as an example.
My friend, please, my degree is in History Education with a Poly Sci minor. Sure, I've been out of college since the mid-90's but no lecture on the political spectrum is necessary.
Read this and tell me your side hasn't gone way to the left.
Yes, we have a bracketed system. Thing is, lower incomes, basically pay no income taxes, hence, nothing to cut. For any tax cuts to have the desired effect, you have to start cutting taxes at a higher bracket. The 2017 tax cuts were across the board, though at my wife and I's income level, we only saw a small rate cut, but it was large enough to be obvious on our take home pay. Should those cuts not be made permanent, you'll see across the board EVERYONE'S taxes increase and that will NOT be good for the economy.
The realistic libertarian perspective is laid out pretty well by Cato and I agree with most of their ideas. https://www.cato.org/blog/twelve-wa...VXKC1ax4w0s9EvvovY_aem_Xqup_uUSdqPpfkr2uUww_w
Your first two sentences are 110% true. The GOP (the party not voters) are spineless and will NEVER do what needs to be done to fix the nation's fiscal health.
Your next two sentences.....no.
Unfortunately, they seem intent to NOT touch social programs. Trump, much to my chagrin, has said over and over they're not gonna do squat to cut entitlements, which means we're just trimming around the edges while the center grows and grows.
Also, again, tax cuts do not just benefit the wealthy. They will almost always benefit them the most because they pay the vast majority of taxes.
So in other words, changing the lower bracket threshold DOES proportionally benefit the poor? I think we agree on that.
I don't appreciate you making stuff up about me. I'm a conservative whose values where abandoned by the Republican party. I believe in science, democracy, civil rights, free speech, due process, religious liberty, equal opportunity, overturning Citizens United, and an end to gerrymandering.
If you consider that a far left agenda, than you're not engaging in good faith.
Maybe I'm not quite following. So you're saying that if you adjusted the lower bracket and said anyone under 25k instead of 20k pays no taxes, that benefits them? Yes, definitely. However, as a cut, that's not really going to accomplish a lot on a macro level.
Really what we need is like a 10/10/10 system. 10% income tax, 10% corporate tax rate, 10% capital gains. The old Steve Forbes plan from the 90's was designed so you could literally do your taxes on a post card. Of course this would have to apply to everyone so anyone working and earning would be subject also.
Well lets just say you didn't exactly come off as Barry Goldwater.
No, those aren't "far left" but we weren't talking about those issues, were we? We were talking about the governance, on a scale, of the previous administration. Also, we're not a democracy and depending on your definition of gerrymandering and how much "manipulation" of districts you want, I might not agree with you on that. State legislatures should have broad powers to do redistricting, but I am not a fan of creating or editing a district because of racial makeup of said district.
You said that ANY tax cuts will disproptionatly benefit the wealthy (and that any who doesn't agree is a dumbass
), but I'm saying that this isn't the case. It depends how those tax cuts are applied. A change to the bottom end of the tax bracket might mean and extra $1k to $10k to low income families and the super wealthy, but you can be sure that the lower income families will feel it, while the super wealthy will not. It's not going to disproportionally benefit the wealthy, it's going to disproportionately benefit the poor. (And I'm neither wealthy nor poor, so I guess 10/10/10 I'd have to consider!)
I'm certainly talking about those issues. I haven't said one thing to support a "far left" policy, and yet you accused me of being on the far left because I disagree with you.
We are certainly a democracy, no matter how much Republicans want to run away from that fact. Specifically, we are a representative democracy and constitutional republic.
I don't want any "manipulation" of districts. Like I said, I want an end to gerrymandering.
You said that ANY tax cuts will disproptionatly benefit the wealthy (and that any who doesn't agree is a dumbass
I don't recall calling anyone a dumbass. Yes, any tax cut program is going to benefit the wealthy. It wouldn't be worth doing a rate cut on the lowest income because it's not going to stimulate enough economically. I agree wholeheartedly that it would help those folks but it's not gonna be done on its own.
Ok, you're reading far too much into the discussion. As I said, we were discussing the previous administrations policies, that is what was far left, and I provided examples of them.
No, we're not a Democracy, we're a Constitutional Republic, period. The Founding Fathers intentionally did not want a Democracy and their writing make that very clear. Now, what many do is use "democracy" as a euphemism for our system of government, that is fine, if that's how you're using it.
You have to create a district so that's going to require a set of standards. I'm all ears on alternatives to settings boundary lines.
Then why did the whole world see America as a democracy (except you?)
Or do you again have your own definition of democracy, which is more truth than the one that has become consensual in the world?
The Americans were instrumental in forcing a formally democratic system in Europe after WW2. And now you say that they have always favored other systems, that is absurd.
I look forward to your reply when you are in a position to do so.
Last edited:
You're right, you said dullard, not dumbass. But all the same, clearly some tax cuts CAN be beneficial to the poor.
This is what I don't get. Biden, by and large, was a quiet president, he invested in infrastructure, spent a lot of money but did well to steer the ship to a good place. Weeks could go by and you could forget who the president was. The Both Sides gives you a Media hungry Lump, with no discernible intelligence, just a talent for publicity, EVERY BLOOMIN DAY, making things worse for the USA!!!!
Are they really as bad as each other?