Trump

[PumaG]

why make this about colour?

As Trump is: he is the one making it about race, in many different ways. He has largely ignored the other issues Republicans focus on. He seems uninterested in abortion as an issue and has contradicted himself a couple of times as he makes it up on the fly, not having an actual policy on it. He seems similarly interested in the other culture war shibboleth, “traditional marriage” i.e. denying marriage and other rights to gays.

Not only is Trump focussed on the most racially charged issues, but he has combined them with racist attacks in a very explicit way. Calling Mexicans rapists. Saying Muslims are terrorists. And most ridiculously reducing a complex trade relationship to “China is raping us”. Other Republicans use dog-whistle messaging to attract those with racist sympathies. Trump though bypasses this altogether, going straight to the racism.

His black and Mexican supporters are clearly more intelligent than the shouty Liberals who think this issue is what makes him the most scary

[pogo]

“clearly more intelligent”? They certainly are exceptional as a very small minority among his white support, and a very small minority of Blacks. But intelligent?

Trump’s platform is clearly a big con. He is not going to get Mexico to build a wall, or ban all Muslims from the US, or change China’s behaviour through threats. But even if he did manage to enact some of this it is the solution to precisely none of the problems faced by his supporters.

They have been left behind by the growing inequality in the US. A proper solution to this would involve much greater redistribution, with higher taxes paying for universal healthcare perhaps. Obamacare has gone part way to achieving this but only part way. Trump though has a policy of tax cuts for the very rich. He does not say how he would pay for it, but the pain would fall on the less well off, whether through cuts or economic damage as the deficit rises.

Anyone who is not a millionaire that supports Trump is pretty stupid to do so. You can see why racists do it, though they are being conned. But non-racists do not even have that excuse.

[PumaG]

“clearly more intelligent”? They certainly are exceptional as a very small minority among his white support, and a very small minority of Blacks. But intelligent?

Trump’s platform is clearly a big con. He is not going to get Mexico to build a wall, or ban all Muslims from the US, or change China’s behaviour through threats. But even if he did manage to enact some of this it is the solution to precisely none of the problems faced by his supporters.

They have been left behind by the growing inequality in the US. A proper solution to this would involve much greater redistribution, with higher taxes paying for universal healthcare perhaps. Obamacare has gone part way to achieving this but only part way. Trump though has a policy of tax cuts for the very rich. He does not say how he would pay for it, but the pain would fall on the less well off, whether through cuts or economic damage as the deficit rises.

Anyone who is not a millionaire that supports Trump is pretty stupid to do so. You can see why racists do it, though they are being conned. But non-racists do not even have that excuse.

Trump only talks about deporting illegals, so no wonder the racists are being conned,

[pogo]

Ah, forgot about that. His “plan” to deport 11m people. Best word on that is the following from the Boston Globe imagining his presidency 100 days in. Linked also in case your browser does not support the embed:

https://assets.documentcloud.org/docume ... t-page.pdf

Spoiler: show

[PumaG]

Ah, forgot about that. His “plan” to deport 11m people. Best word on that is the following from the Boston Globe imagining his presidency 100 days in. Linked also in case your browser does not support the embed:

https://assets.documentcloud.org/docume ... t-page.pdf

Spoiler: show

Luckily it;s not my problem that you don't think they should abide by rules.

[pogo]

You mean I support the illegal immigrants? Sort of. I mean I understand why they are there, etc.. But they are there illegally. I support the US keeping out illegal immigrants as much as I support the British government doing so, as much as they can.

The problem is: 11 million people ! To make a serious dent in that within a reasonable time scale, such as Trump’s four years, would require a massive expansion of government. Of immigration officers to find and detain people, of courts and officials to process them, of staff and facilities to detain them. All this at the same time as massive tax cuts.

And even that is too simplistic and optimistic. Probably any serious attempt to deport millions of settled immigrants would result in a massive program of civil disobedience. In particular of people aiding and abetting immigrants, protesting continually against the removals, even rioting and acting to keep immigration officials out of immigrant heavy areas with blockades.

Then what does Trump do? Lock up hundreds of thousands if not millions of Americans for aiding and abetting? Bring in the army and martial law to restore order? Tear up the constitution so he can ride roughshod over the rights of those detained to e.g. due process and a fair trial?

[Darkflame]

Its not just the illegals as such either. While not deporting them if he actually wants Mexicans to pay $16+billion for a wall plus $1+billion a year in maintenance then that would involve somehow, basically, taxing specifically the well off working Mexicans in the country for his pointless project. Because that's basically the only group he would have control over.

[Neon360]

“clearly more intelligent”? They certainly are exceptional as a very small minority among his white support, and a very small minority of Blacks. But intelligent?

Trump’s platform is clearly a big con. He is not going to get Mexico to build a wall, or ban all Muslims from the US, or change China’s behaviour through threats. But even if he did manage to enact some of this it is the solution to precisely none of the problems faced by his supporters.

They have been left behind by the growing inequality in the US. A proper solution to this would involve much greater redistribution, with higher taxes paying for universal healthcare perhaps. Obamacare has gone part way to achieving this but only part way. Trump though has a policy of tax cuts for the very rich. He does not say how he would pay for it, but the pain would fall on the less well off, whether through cuts or economic damage as the deficit rises.

Anyone who is not a millionaire that supports Trump is pretty stupid to do so. You can see why racists do it, though they are being conned. But non-racists do not even have that excuse.

From what I understand, he's wanting to completely eliminate the income tax to zero on anyone making less than $50k a year. This is the exact opposite of tax cuts for only the rich. If anything, he would have to be taxing the rich more. It would make the world of difference to actually be able to retain the money we earn.

[pogo]

No, Trump’s tax plan overwhelmingly benefits the wealthy.

http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/sta ... rumps-tax/

It does cut taxes for low paid, but they are not the main beneficiaries. The top 0.1% gain more than the bottom 60% of taxpayers. You are right, to balance the budget he would have to combine tax cuts with tax rises elsewhere. His across the board cuts simply blow holes in the finances. There is no indication he plans to make deep cuts to pay for them. Some of his plans such as building a wall, rounding up 11m illegal immigrants, would be very expensive instead.

[zip accident]

No, Trump’s tax plan overwhelmingly benefits the wealthy.

http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/sta ... rumps-tax/

It does cut taxes for low paid, but they are not the main beneficiaries. The top 0.1% gain more than the bottom 60% of taxpayers. You are right, to balance the budget he would have to combine tax cuts with tax rises elsewhere. His across the board cuts simply blow holes in the finances. There is no indication he plans to make deep cuts to pay for them. Some of his plans such as building a wall, rounding up 11m illegal immigrants, would be very expensive instead.

He's a failed businessman, this is standard thinking for such people, there is no connection (for them) between income and outgoing.

[Neon360]

No, Trump’s tax plan overwhelmingly benefits the wealthy.

http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/sta ... rumps-tax/

It does cut taxes for low paid, but they are not the main beneficiaries. The top 0.1% gain more than the bottom 60% of taxpayers. You are right, to balance the budget he would have to combine tax cuts with tax rises elsewhere. His across the board cuts simply blow holes in the finances. There is no indication he plans to make deep cuts to pay for them. Some of his plans such as building a wall, rounding up 11m illegal immigrants, would be very expensive instead.

Good. I think for the government to take close to anyone's income of close to 40% if fucking thievery and dropping it down to 25% is still high in my opinion but it beats the almost double 40%. We could probably afford a wall if we kept our assess out of every single country but our own and stop prying our nose in every single matter that doesn't pertain to us.

[PumaG]

Its not just the illegals as such either. While not deporting them if he actually wants Mexicans to pay $16+billion for a wall plus $1+billion a year in maintenance then that would involve somehow, basically, taxing specifically the well off working Mexicans in the country for his pointless project. Because that's basically the only group he would have control over.

what about the money being sent back to Mexico by illegals? the finance people watching this process are part of the way in estimating that there are 11.5 million illegals.
Ironically Mexico has forbid outsiders to own land in its country for fear of being 'invaded by foreigners'

[pogo]

Good. I think for the government to take close to anyone's income of close to 40% if fucking thievery and dropping it down to 25% is still high in my opinion but it beats the almost double 40%. We could probably afford a wall if we kept our assess out of every single country but our own and stop prying our nose in every single matter that doesn't pertain to us.

There are good arguments that US rates now are too low. Many countries manage very well with higher rates. In most of Europe, where not only are headline income tax rates higher but other taxes such as NI and VAT or their equivalents are added to them, taking the effective rate well over 50%.

An even stronger argument is one implicitly made by Trump and other Republicans. They promise to Make America Great Again, harking back in particular to the 1950s and 1960s when the middle classes did very well, when manufacturing was the bedrock of American economic performance. But that time, when America was Great ? The top tax rate was way higher, as high as 90%.

No-one proposing restoring tax rates to such high levels. But they could afford to be higher, to pay for e.g. universal healthcare. Will never happen? A recent poll suggest most Americans support replacing Obamacare with a govt., i.e. income tax, funded system.

Majority in U.S. Support Idea of Fed-Funded Healthcare System

[zip accident]

Good. I think for the government to take close to anyone's income of close to 40% if fucking thievery and dropping it down to 25% is still high in my opinion but it beats the almost double 40%. We could probably afford a wall if we kept our assess out of every single country but our own and stop prying our nose in every single matter that doesn't pertain to us.

When does comparing your countries defence spending to all other countries attack spending become irrelevant?

[Neon360]

Good. I think for the government to take close to anyone's income of close to 40% if fucking thievery and dropping it down to 25% is still high in my opinion but it beats the almost double 40%. We could probably afford a wall if we kept our assess out of every single country but our own and stop prying our nose in every single matter that doesn't pertain to us.

When does comparing your countries defence spending to all other countries attack spending become irrelevant?

Attack defense and world policing are two different things which unfortunately have become so neck and tie as being the same it's become completely acceptable to use endless money we don't have to jump into matters that are completely alien to us. I'm not trying to compare ours vs any other country just stating that we need to do more of minding our own business and less of butting into everyone elses.