Democrat leaders - what do they have to offer?

[Adam]

The same old crap agenda.
....

I of course was NOT trying to hit the AMEN button, but the other one. Apparently he knows how hard it is for a "conservative" (Reactionary really) to get banned here.

[klaus54]

I of course was NOT trying to hit the AMEN button, but the other one. Apparently he knows how hard it is for a "conservative" (Reactionary really) to get banned here.

Well, if a --- whatever you are --- can't make substantive answers, why should I be banned?

Didn't see yet, but did you ever answer these:

"Democrats are bad, but Republicans are worse"

"Is there a difference between tax rates and tax revenue?"

And since we're both "racist" according to TWeb PC standards...

[Adam]

I, more "racist" than you are, what's your point?
I have been using the name "Adam" here regularly, so you're asking the other questions having not read or having forgotten my (often impassioned and report-worthy) posts here. You're saying I have been too TAME is castigating Dems? In castigating Repubs? I don't remember having a good word to say about either one of them this year, except maybe in (completely ridiculous) hopes that James Webb might become the Dem POTUS nominee (or maybe as VP to an Elizabeth Warren nomination, as he would to perfectly balance out her ignorance of military and foreign affairs) or in my brief flirtation with a Trump candidacy until he made fun of Carly Fiorina and leaving me without any remaining doubt that he is a boor, the worst kind of leader.
I recall speaking well only of one political party, the Reform Party in 1992 and 1996 for which I was an avid volunteer for Ross Perot. Other than that, I am an all-directional antagonist whether the Party is Democrat, Republican, Green, Libertarian, Peace and Freedom, or Constitutionalist (American Independent). Nevertheless I do on occasion vote for the nominees of each one of these parties, if only to California state-wide minor office. (There is currently no "None of the Above" box available.) (I might switch my registration to Repub and vote for Gov. Gilmore as the nominal "none of the above" for being refused debate space by the RNC--but he probably won't be on the California ballot anyway. Or for whomever is on the ballot with the lowest poll numbers.)

[Adam]

Tax rates are usually stated as percentages of the highest marginal income of an individual (usually joint) taxpayer. A 97% tax rate over something like one million pounds was in effect in Englan, I believe, during World War II or shortly afterward. I don't think U. S. rates were ever over 90% or 91%, but though that might be fair enough, you have to consider on the one hand that one's state and/or city might levy it's only high rate on high incomes. Could top 100% I guess! On the other hand the allowable deductions get enormous for the richest people. For a ten million dollar mansion, figure deducting (no tax at all) on $100,000+ of property tax and (if mortgaged) $500,000 of interest. Zero tax on that, to restate.
Eisenhower 1950's the highest rate was something like 70%, and adding 10% state tax that would be 80%. Of course, the states with the richest people (TEXAS!) get bought out by these billionaires and assess NO state income tax, preferring to tax the poor with sales taxes.
Currently even the super-earners don't pay as much as 40% on their income, but they are so rich that much of their income comes from capital gains that only get taxes at one-half (thus 20% maximum). Could easily be raied. Repubs rail about how higher tax rates would hurt economic growth, which the Eisenhower years prove is a myth, but if it did THAT WOULD BE BENEFICIAL to the extent it slowed autogenetic (?) global worming.

[klaus54]

Yikes!

Thank you...

[Starlight]

Wall St is one of the biggest problems for the US economy, tanking it in 2008 and by most accounts gearing up to tank it again in the near future, due to a general lack of action taken to prevent a repeat of last time... Under a Republican or Hillary administration, I would anticipate another major Wall St crash in the next 8 years.

Further to this topic, in the most recent Republican debate, the strongest proposal given to regulate Wall St was...
...by John Kasich, a managing director of Lehman Brothers' investment banking division when it bankrupted the company in 2008
...who proposed giving the Wall St bankers ethics lessons.

~giant, giant, facepalm~

Gee I bet that will totally rein them in. Bonus points for the hypocrisy. Seriously, the strongest regulation the Republican candidates between them can come up with to rein in Wall St excesses, is ethics lessons? Those people are such an utter joke, it's almost unbelievable. It seems like they've become a parody party.

[Sam]

Further to this topic, in the most recent Republican debate, the strongest proposal given to regulate Wall St was...
...by John Kasich, a managing director of Lehman Brothers' investment banking division when it bankrupted the company in 2008
...who proposed giving the Wall St bankers ethics lessons.

~giant, giant, facepalm~

Gee I bet that will totally rein them in. Bonus points for the hypocrisy. Seriously, the strongest regulation the Republican candidates between them can come up with to rein in Wall St excesses, is ethics lessons? Those people are such an utter joke, it's almost unbelievable. It seems like they've become a parody party.

But who will provide the ethics lessons? Welders?

[Starlight]

But who will provide the ethics lessons?

One commentator I listen to pointed out that Kasich is Catholic, and wondered whether Catholic ethics lessons would be... "Now class, is clerical child abuse 'good', or 'bad'?"

To be fair, the current Pope has been good about ethics surrounding money.

Welders?

Well certainly not philosophers, who appear to be the Republican candidates' most-hated group.

[Adam]

It seems like they've become a parody party.

I sometimes fancy myself a prophet, but it DOES NOT apply to predicting the future.
By 2009 the Greenspan Bubble and the Neocon Disaster under Bush 43 in Iraq was so bad and feeding right into the Bush Depression (that we're still in, thanks to the Repubs aborting Obama's Jobs Bill before delivery to Congress (that is, after it was conceived and announced in the State of the Union but before it could even get introduced into the Republican Congress) that I was sure the Republican Party would die completely and be replaced by another. Well, another Party DID come along, the Tea Party, but it was even worse than the Repubs.
Yes, the Tea Party was parody of the outlandish (though sinister and deadly) Neocons, Which makes the current Repubs a parody of a parody, you didn't go far enough.

[Sam]

One commentator I listen to pointed out that Kasich is Catholic, and wondered whether Catholic ethics lessons would be... "Now class, is clerical child abuse 'good', or 'bad'?"

To be fair, the current Pope has been good about ethics surrounding money.

Well certainly not philosophers, who appear to be the Republican candidates' most-hated group.

No surprises there:

10407902_10152781600387811_8672616369489821785_n.jpg

Called this Zeno's campaign paradox back in June.

[Adam]

Gee whiz, Star,
I guess you really liked it, the Amen was there before I had barely edited it enough to insert your quote!
(I wonder if the veiled profanity rule will catch even this one sentence interjection.)