I put up a comprehensive piece on the merits of the electoral college over a week ago, mate.
You have to accept that there are people who donât accept the result (of which Iâm not one) , which is their right.
If you want to moan about people moaning, fine, but accept that automatically makes you a hypocrite and guilty of the exact same thing youâre complaining about.
In fact youâre worse - youâre telling these people what to think - theyâre not telling you what to think.
Itâs really simple.
Also, if you tell people, to âSTFUâ, donât be surprised youâre ridiculed about ânot debatingâ.
Itâs quite revealing that the nutter wing of the Democratic party are focused on their perceived unfairness of the electoral system, rather than the reasons they lost the election. This is the same electoral system that gave Obama an overwhelming majority in 2012, so perhaps , just perhaps, itâs not the system that caused Hillary to lose.
Democrats lost the election because they have lost touch with working people across the country. Whether they are defined as working class or middle class is irrelevant, the simple fact is that the average working person is earning the same as they did 20 years ago, and likely working longer hours as the quality of jobs has declined, while their costs have skyrocketed. The hope and change promised by Obama turned out to be just empty rhetoric. The only person talking about changing anything that would improve their outlook was Trump, while Hillary was focused on calling them deplorables, racists and sexists.
Itâs truly remarkable that so many liberals cannot grasp this simple fact.
The policies that led to the loss of higher quality jobs and the destruction of the middle class were supported by both political parties. The repeal of Glass Seagal allowing banks do what they liked was signed into law by Bill Clinton, as was NAFTA and other trade agreements. The vote for Trump wasnât a vote for Republican over Democratic policies, it was a vote against both partyâs policies which have led to the decline in US manufacturing and US business investment.
Whether Trump can deliver on his promises is debatable, but to say they are âmore of the sameâ is based on complete ignorance of the underlying economic issues. For example changing the corporate tax rate from its existing 39% to 15% is not âmore of the sameâ, not when the existing tax structure 1. incentivizes US companies to move their profit centers offshore and keep their cash offshore rather than reinvesting it in the US, and 2. Disincentivizes small businesses to invest, as it just isnât worth it.
Thatâs quite a journey youâve come on. From âthe party of stupidâ to âthe party of sensibleâ.
Ridiculing tax breaks for the rich in 2012, eulogising them now.
One could say youâre confused if being charitable, or being more realistic, one could say you donât know your arse from elbow when it comes to economics.
Typical Sidney, when you have your ass handed to you, trolling through years of posts to try and find a contradiction, the debating tactics of a beaten docket.
You still donât get it. I pointed out in 2012 that the Republican party had lost touch with the average working American, and I am now pointing out that the Democratic party has done the same. Trump was elected because both parties have ignored the economic realities of working people.
Clearly you donât understand the difference between corporate tax and individual tax, or between tax rate and tax break. I donât have time to educate you, but in short tax rates should encourage investment and consumption, tax breaks encourage the opposite. Can you get your head around that distinction?
Youâre arguing here for the same exact same trickle down policies you were previously arguing against.
Thatâs a 180 degree flip flop.
Thatâs what Trump offers. Have a listen to his economic adviser Stephen Moore talking, itâs on Marian Finucane 8 days ago. The exact same philosophy as Bush - tax cuts for the rich, abolition of financial regulation.
Accept it when youâve had youâre arse handed to you in such an obvious fashion.
You simply havenât a clue. This will be my last response of the day, as I have work to attend to.
Simply reducing marginal tax rates on individuals does very little, as wealthy individuals tend to save rather than spend. Letâs say you are a very wealthy individual with for argumentsâs sake, $100M, here are your legal options under the current US system:
Move it all offshore, invest in a basket of assets, make say 5% a year in returns and pay nothing in taxes. There is about $21 trillion in offshore accounts, so do the math. Ironically, a large component of the tax evaders are celebrities who claim to be liberals, think U2.
Keep the money in the US, invest in a basket of assets, make 5% return annually, and pay a reduced tax rate of 20% (current long term capital gain rate).
Invest the money in starting a business, invest your time and energy in the business, pay salaries, workers comp, health insurance, state and local taxes, regulatory costs, and then pay 39% on any profit you make.
Do the math, which would you choose? The current system rewards tax avoidance and does nothing to encourage business investment in the US. Thatâs why tax reform needs to be comprehensive, and focused on business investment.
All these stupid protests. So if they donât want Trump to be president, what do they want because there is no way in hell that Clinton will be accepted president?
