Anybody going to watch the Debates tonite?

[Bill]

Yup. I died laughing when he was asked about reparations he launched into a word salad about making kids from age 3 go to school....real school here,
not just daycare. That morphed into Venezuela and Maduro. I can see why he wanted to divert from the topic of reparations, though.
Back in '75 he said, “I’d be damned if I feel responsible to pay for something that happened 300 years ago.”
Poor ol' Plugs.

They did quote him on that..

As you know it was a much different time in 75.... You could go into down town NOLA, even the French Quarter & still see signs painted on walls saying-> coloured entrance..

 

[Cancel 2020.2]

And THIS is the best the DIM DEMS have to offer? They are DOOMED.

 

[Stretch]

And THIS is the best the DIM DEMS have to offer? They are DOOMED.

The best money can buy.

 

[RB 60]

The best money can buy.

And if they win, they'll take even more of our money than they do now.

 

[Stretch]

 

[RB 60]

Hello Darth,



Lots of very creative ideas there. Yang would institute a UBI, giving every American over the age of 18 $1000 a month income from the government, taxing the super-rich to pay for it. That would be so much buying power in the hands of the public the economy would SOAR!

Bush tried that, he gave us $600 and you libs bitched.

 

[Darth Omar]

Hello Darth,

Lots of very creative ideas there. Yang would institute a UBI, giving every American over the age of 18 $1000 a month income from the government, taxing the super-rich to pay for it. That would be so much buying power in the hands of the public the economy would SOAR!

I do that believe it lol.

I don’t believe they’d stop with taxing the super rich. And with human nature being what it is, soon people would demand more than $1000/month from the government. And/or politicians would run on raising it in order
to get elected—and we’re off to the races.

Race to the bottom.

Though in theory it could work. The federal government hordes/confiscates an insane amount of *our money*; such that, they could give everyone $1000/month. And yes, it would boost the economy—and perhaps inflation too.

Here’s a thought: why not approach it from the opposite direction? Many of us approach $1000/month in monies confiscated by the federal government. Why don’t they just let us keep it—then watch what happens to the economy.

But here’s the rub: it would only work if they cut costs somewhere else. Once they declared war on the super rich that money would end up going somewhere else. It’s been proven time and again. That’s why Social Security is in trouble: once the government gets ahold of money they spend it. If you think the tax dollars confiscated from the super rich would be put in Al Gore’s Lock Box or given straight-over to you and me—-you are delusional or you don’t know how our government works.

The federal government can’t be trusted with money any more than a drug addict can be trusted with it. And the day you realize that is the day you become a fiscal conservative.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

And, you won't.

Liz is going to take 2% of Bernie's houses each year.......

 

[NiftyNiblick]

I watched the debate and saw Bernie, Liz, and nobody else for whom I'd want to vote. I'll obviously vote for the Democratic nominee no matter who it is because that's all I've ever done. Republicans are Nazi-Lite to me.

Still, just once, I wish I'd here a presidential candidate say, "Neither I nor anybody else who becomes president can do jack shit unless you stupid fucking assholes elect a decent congress for the first fucking time!" The President can only sign a bill. Congress has to come up with a decent bill for him/her to sign. And fucktard middle Americans, who wouldn't know a progressive idea if it slapped them across the face, are vastly over-represented in congress.

I really hate those fucking crackers in flyover country. I wish that Blue America could be its own nation. We coastal elites will never be happy living under the same government as those fucking goobers. And we're all donor states, supporting those hicks with our tax dollars. We should trade with them. Buy food from them. Sell tech to them. But not be the same damned country as they are.

 

[Darth Omar]

I watched the debate and saw Bernie, Liz, and nobody else for whom I'd want to vote. I'll obviously vote for the Democratic nominee no matter who it is because that's all I've ever done. Republicans are Nazi-Lite to me.

Still, just once, I wish I'd here a presidential candidate say, "Neither I nor anybody else who becomes president can do jack shit unless you stupid fucking assholes elect a decent congress for the first fucking time!" The President can only sign a bill. Congress has to come up with a decent bill for him/her to sign. And fucktard middle Americans, who wouldn't know a progressive idea if it slapped them across the face, are vastly over-represented in congress.

I really hate those fucking crackers in flyover country. I wish that Blue America could be its own nation. We coastal elites will never be happy living under the same government as those fucking goobers. And we're all donor states, supporting those hicks with our tax dollars. We should trade with them. Buy food from them. Sell tech to them. But not be the same damned country as they are.

Can we get it *in writing* that you’d never flee your frightfully expensive Blue Utopia only to come to Fly Over Country and vote to raise our taxes or ban straws/guns/sodas etc lol?

If so, you might have a deal. Also, can we have a wall between us?

We agree on Congress. Though a dysfunctional congress would be the only thing standing between the American people and the madness a Warren/Biden/Crazy Joe would try to institute.

Part of me thinks the only way to get the democrat party out of La-La Land is to allow them to win just to allow the country to experience four years of it.

Make 2024 like waking up with a bad hangover.

 

[Wolverine]

3 hours of people trying to make Americans who work, worship God, own Guns, and don't kill babies, feel bad? Nah I'm good, it will be a commercial for socialism, that we already know is false advertising! Heard that at least Bedo and Hooker want to infringe on my second amendment rights, which means they could not even take the oath to be President, as it calls for them to uphold the Constitution. Of Course Booker, and others lied when they took the Oath to be in congress!

 

[Wolverine]

I watched the debate and saw Bernie, Liz, and nobody else for whom I'd want to vote. I'll obviously vote for the Democratic nominee no matter who it is because that's all I've ever done. Republicans are Nazi-Lite to me.

Still, just once, I wish I'd here a presidential candidate say, "Neither I nor anybody else who becomes president can do jack shit unless you stupid fucking assholes elect a decent congress for the first fucking time!" The President can only sign a bill. Congress has to come up with a decent bill for him/her to sign. And fucktard middle Americans, who wouldn't know a progressive idea if it slapped them across the face, are vastly over-represented in congress.

I really hate those fucking crackers in flyover country. I wish that Blue America could be its own nation. We coastal elites will never be happy living under the same government as those fucking goobers. And we're all donor states, supporting those hicks with our tax dollars. We should trade with them. Buy food from them. Sell tech to them. But not be the same damned country as they are.

My goodness but you are a triggered Socialist Elitist, living a lie that you are some how elite! You depend on those goobers to visit the coast and spend money there!

Crackers? How very intolerant, bigoted, and racist of you!

 

[NiftyNiblick]

My goodness but you are a triggered Socialist Elitist, living a lie that you are some how elite! You depend on those goobers to visit the coast and spend money there!

Crackers? How very intolerant, bigoted, and racist of you!

I wasn't always so bitter. It's amazing what a Nixon, a Ford, a Reagan, two fucktard Bushes, and an orange pigfucking ape can do to alter a man of good will's personality.
And to be honest, Clinton was no prize either signing every right wing fascist bill rather than having the balls to veto them. Repealing Glass-Steagall almost caused a second major depression. I voted for his old lady holding my nose, but I couldn't have voted for Trump with a gun to my head.

 

[Gonzomin]

Bush tried that, he gave us $600 and you libs bitched.

I don't remember the bitching.

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello Darth,

I don’t believe they’d stop with taxing the super rich.

That's called making things up. We need to talk about what is real and known and actually said. The imaginary belongs in dream world. If your fears are proposed, that would be the time to have that debate.

And with human nature being what it is, soon people would demand more than $1000/month from the government. And/or politicians would run on raising it in order
to get elected—and we’re off to the races.

The only way that could be shown is if we try taxing the rich more and see how it works out. And if more is asked for after that, there will be plenty of time to have that discussion then.

Race to the bottom.

We've already got that. How much of the middle class can be decimated? How much debt can we place the young in for their required education? How difficult can we make it to start out in this economy and buy a home? When we have labor and environmental laws that require people to be paid a minimum amount and those workers are in competition with underpaid overworked foreigners who work for next to nothing then our workers are in a race to the bottom. We need to require that imports come from countries with labor and environmental standards which match our own.

Though in theory it could work. The federal government hordes/confiscates an insane amount of *our money*; ...

No, it doesn't. Revenue has been cut too much. The government can't pay it's current bills without borrowing a trillion a year. We have to address that.

... such that, they could give everyone $1000/month.

No it can't unless we tax the rich more to pay for it.

And yes, it would boost the economy—and perhaps inflation too.

A little inflation is preferable. Stagnation and deflation are just as much of a problem.

Here’s a thought: why not approach it from the opposite direction? Many of us approach $1000/month in monies confiscated by the federal government. Why don’t they just let us keep it—then watch what happens to the economy.

Anybody who is paying a $1000 a month in taxes doesn't need any help from the government. If they can't live on the income which would be in that tax rate, then they are not spending their income wisely. This is not the part of the economy that needs help. You don't help the poor by helping the well-off. You help the poor by helping the poor.

But here’s the rub: it would only work if they cut costs somewhere else. Once they declared war on the super rich that money would end up going somewhere else. It’s been proven time and again.

That's pie in the sky. There is not enough government spending which can be cut to balance the budget. And there is no agreement on what to cut. Liberals would cut the military, conservatives would cut social programs. There is no consensus, so neither can be done.

The rich will not leave the USA to get richer by paying less tax. People don't choose where they like to live based on the tax rate. The live where they want to live. I can just hear the conversation now. He says: "Honey, we have to move to XYZ p[lace because they have lower taxes and we'll save a lot of money." And she says: "Go ahead dear. I'm staying right here near where my grandchildren live. We already have plenty of money. Having more doesn't interest me. Spending time with our family does."

That’s why Social Security is in trouble: once the government gets ahold of money they spend it. If you think the tax dollars confiscated from the super rich would be put in Al Gore’s Lock Box or given straight-over to you and me—-you are delusional or you don’t know how our government works.

The federal government can’t be trusted with money any more than a drug addict can be trusted with it.

That is total hogwash. Nobody has a more stringent budgeting process than the federal government. It is examined, defined, planned, and gone over with a fine tooth comb. Detailed records are kept and thorough informed projections made based on the best analysis. It is debated and reported on, and published for all to see. It could hardly be a more methodical process. Every cent the government collects is already scheduled to be spent for a specific purpose. All new spending proposals include detailed plans for how they get paid for. The one absolutely most secure investment agreed upon by all financial experts is government Treasury Bills. If you want to keep your wealth as safe as possible the place to keep it is in the federal government. There is universal agreement on this. The US federal government has the best credit in the world, because the US Federal Government is THE most secure place you can put your money. Not only is it the most secure place you can put your money, it is the world wide standard, by which all other investments are gauged.

And the day you realize that is the day you become a fiscal conservative.

My views clearly represent a position of being socially liberal and fiscally conservative. I have been a regular proponent of balancing the federal budget, and continually noted that the Republican tax cut would not and has not paid for itself, and advocated for collecting more revenue from those who can pay it without batting an eyelash, and for collecting sufficient revenue to pay our bills. Fiscally conservative means being responsible with the budget, not cutting taxes with no plan for replacing the lost revenue. I have called the tax cut irresponsible because that is exactly what it is. You can't cut your income and continue to pay as many bills, and you certainly can't cut your income and pay MORE bills, as Trump has tried to do. THAT's irresponsible, and NOT fiscally conservative!

 

[Earl]

3 hours of people trying to make Americans who work, worship God, own Guns, and don't kill babies, feel bad? Nah I'm good, it will be a commercial for socialism, that we already know is false advertising! Heard that at least Bedo and Hooker want to infringe on my second amendment rights, which means they could not even take the oath to be President, as it calls for them to uphold the Constitution. Of Course Booker, and others lied when they took the Oath to be in congress!

Indeed.

 

[Earl]

Oh, look, Phantasmal wants to tax the rich.

Let’s tax the poor.

That would be as unfair as confiscating the wealth of the very group that provides jobs.
Tax the very group that works hard, is sucessful and starts companies and provides employment.

The war against the wealthy by the left has been around for decades.
The wealthy remain wealthy and the poor remain poor.

“The poor will always be with you.” The Bible

 

[Wolverine]

Hello Darth,



That's called making things up. We need to talk about what is real and known and actually said. The imaginary belongs in dream world. If your fears are proposed, that would be the time to have that debate.



The only way that could be shown is if we try taxing the rich more and see how it works out. And if more is asked for after that, there will be plenty of time to have that discussion then.



We've already got that. How much of the middle class can be decimated? How much debt can we place the young in for their required education? How difficult can we make it to start out in this economy and buy a home? When we have labor and environmental laws that require people to be paid a minimum amount and those workers are in competition with underpaid overworked foreigners who work for next to nothing then our workers are in a race to the bottom. We need to require that imports come from countries with labor and environmental standards which match our own.



No, it doesn't. Revenue has been cut too much. The government can't pay it's current bills without borrowing a trillion a year. We have to address that.



No it can't unless we tax the rich more to pay for it.



A little inflation is preferable. Stagnation and deflation are just as much of a problem.



Anybody who is paying a $1000 a month in taxes doesn't need any help from the government. If they can't live on the income which would be in that tax rate, then they are not spending their income wisely. This is not the part of the economy that needs help. You don't help the poor by helping the well-off. You help the poor by helping the poor.



That's pie in the sky. There is not enough government spending which can be cut to balance the budget. And there is no agreement on what to cut. Liberals would cut the military, conservatives would cut social programs. There is no consensus, so neither can be done.

The rich will not leave the USA to get richer by paying less tax. People don't choose where they like to live based on the tax rate. The live where they want to live. I can just hear the conversation now. He says: "Honey, we have to move to XYZ p[lace because they have lower taxes and we'll save a lot of money." And she says: "Go ahead dear. I'm staying right here near where my grandchildren live. We already have plenty of money. Having more doesn't interest me. Spending time with our family does."

That’s why Social Security is in trouble: once the government gets ahold of money they spend it. If you think the tax dollars confiscated from the super rich would be put in Al Gore’s Lock Box or given straight-over to you and me—-you are delusional or you don’t know how our government works.



That is total hogwash. Nobody has a more stringent budgeting process than the federal government. It is examined, defined, planned, and gone over with a fine tooth comb. Detailed records are kept and thorough informed projections made based on the best analysis. It is debated and reported on, and published for all to see. It could hardly be a more methodical process. Every cent the government collects is already scheduled to be spent for a specific purpose. All new spending proposals include detailed plans for how they get paid for. The one absolutely most secure investment agreed upon by all financial experts is government Treasury Bills. If you want to keep your wealth as safe as possible the place to keep it is in the federal government. There is universal agreement on this. The US federal government has the best credit in the world, because the US Federal Government is THE most secure place you can put your money. Not only is it the most secure place you can put your money, it is the world wide standard, by which all other investments are gauged.



My views clearly represent a position of being socially liberal and fiscally conservative. I have been a regular proponent of balancing the federal budget, and continually noted that the Republican tax cut would not and has not paid for itself, and advocated for collecting more revenue from those who can pay it without batting an eyelash, and for collecting sufficient revenue to pay our bills. Fiscally conservative means being responsible with the budget, not cutting taxes with no plan for replacing the lost revenue. I have called the tax cut irresponsible because that is exactly what it is. You can't cut your income and continue to pay as many bills, and you certainly can't cut your income and pay MORE bills, as Trump has tried to do. THAT's irresponsible, and NOT fiscally conservative!

Stop saying tax the rich, what you mean is over tax the successful, who at one time or another put their capital on the line, to start a business and now you want to punish them for being successful to buy votes, it's called coveting!

 

[Darth Omar]

Hello Darth,



That's called making things up. We need to talk about what is real and known and actually said. The imaginary belongs in dream world. If your fears are proposed, that would be the time to have that debate.



The only way that could be shown is if we try taxing the rich more and see how it works out. And if more is asked for after that, there will be plenty of time to have that discussion then.



We've already got that. How much of the middle class can be decimated? How much debt can we place the young in for their required education? How difficult can we make it to start out in this economy and buy a home? When we have labor and environmental laws that require people to be paid a minimum amount and those workers are in competition with underpaid overworked foreigners who work for next to nothing then our workers are in a race to the bottom. We need to require that imports come from countries with labor and environmental standards which match our own.



No, it doesn't. Revenue has been cut too much. The government can't pay it's current bills without borrowing a trillion a year. We have to address that.



No it can't unless we tax the rich more to pay for it.



A little inflation is preferable. Stagnation and deflation are just as much of a problem.



Anybody who is paying a $1000 a month in taxes doesn't need any help from the government. If they can't live on the income which would be in that tax rate, then they are not spending their income wisely. This is not the part of the economy that needs help. You don't help the poor by helping the well-off. You help the poor by helping the poor.



That's pie in the sky. There is not enough government spending which can be cut to balance the budget. And there is no agreement on what to cut. Liberals would cut the military, conservatives would cut social programs. There is no consensus, so neither can be done.

The rich will not leave the USA to get richer by paying less tax. People don't choose where they like to live based on the tax rate. The live where they want to live. I can just hear the conversation now. He says: "Honey, we have to move to XYZ p[lace because they have lower taxes and we'll save a lot of money." And she says: "Go ahead dear. I'm staying right here near where my grandchildren live. We already have plenty of money. Having more doesn't interest me. Spending time with our family does."

That’s why Social Security is in trouble: once the government gets ahold of money they spend it. If you think the tax dollars confiscated from the super rich would be put in Al Gore’s Lock Box or given straight-over to you and me—-you are delusional or you don’t know how our government works.



That is total hogwash. Nobody has a more stringent budgeting process than the federal government. It is examined, defined, planned, and gone over with a fine tooth comb. Detailed records are kept and thorough informed projections made based on the best analysis. It is debated and reported on, and published for all to see. It could hardly be a more methodical process. Every cent the government collects is already scheduled to be spent for a specific purpose. All new spending proposals include detailed plans for how they get paid for. The one absolutely most secure investment agreed upon by all financial experts is government Treasury Bills. If you want to keep your wealth as safe as possible the place to keep it is in the federal government. There is universal agreement on this. The US federal government has the best credit in the world, because the US Federal Government is THE most secure place you can put your money. Not only is it the most secure place you can put your money, it is the world wide standard, by which all other investments are gauged.



My views clearly represent a position of being socially liberal and fiscally conservative. I have been a regular proponent of balancing the federal budget, and continually noted that the Republican tax cut would not and has not paid for itself, and advocated for collecting more revenue from those who can pay it without batting an eyelash, and for collecting sufficient revenue to pay our bills. Fiscally conservative means being responsible with the budget, not cutting taxes with no plan for replacing the lost revenue. I have called the tax cut irresponsible because that is exactly what it is. You can't cut your income and continue to pay as many bills, and you certainly can't cut your income and pay MORE bills, as Trump has tried to do. THAT's irresponsible, and NOT fiscally conservative!

I know lol!

Trump is vulnerable on fiscal responsibility. The glaring problem is that NOBODY on the scene is a fiscal conservative. ESPECIALLY, on the democrats side. Trump says he wants to get around to it in his second term.

We’ll see.

You have way too much faith in government and/or their ability to handle other people’s money. The naïveté nearly leaves me speechless, in fact.