I hope Biden acts like a second term president with nothing to lose. He can do so much good if this is his last time ever holding public office and has a DGAF attitude when it comes to much needed reforms to America. Best part is, it might even help those spineless democrats.
I agree, but what’s the point when the next guy to sit in the chair can just undo whatever was done before him?
No idea how to do it, but it just seems to me like the entire concept of “Government” needs to be overhauled.
Amazing how 4 years of Trump can completely normalize this sort of thing in some minds.
There may be some hot button issues, but depending on how many things get done, how quickly, and how far along they are by the next transition, it is unlikely that a new President would undo everything.
And that's precisely why you do everything you can and the things you were elected on. If they were good, meaningful things that benefit people and that the majority agree with, they are not going to elect someone who just wants to take them away.
Amazing how 4 years of Trump can completely normalize this sort of thing in some minds.
There may be some hot button issues, but depending on how many things get done, how quickly, and how far along they are by the next transition, it is unlikely that a new President would undo everything.
And that's precisely why you do everything you can and the things you were elected on. If they were good, meaningful things that benefit people and that the majority agree with, they are not going to elect someone who just wants to take them away.
Uh, like Obamacare?
__________________
"If stupidity got us into this mess, then why can't it get us out?"
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to JohnnyB For This Useful Post:
I agree, but what’s the point when the next guy to sit in the chair can just undo whatever was done before him?
No idea how to do it, but it just seems to me like the entire concept of “Government” needs to be overhauled.
If he does them properly with the help of congress and senate, which the dems fully control, then it will be difficult for the next government to simply "undo" them. Thats why obamacare still exists.
If he goes the Trump way and just orders everything through EOs then yeah, the next President could change them however he/she wanted. That's the problem with executive orders; they bypass the actual political systems designed to govern the country and ensure continuity and stability.
The ACA has been an awkward mess from the beginning, with the majority of people not understanding it, its effects, its benefits or drawbacks, and the majority disapproving of it until about 2017, after the last election, which preceded repeated attempts to repeal it.
And yet... it is still here... and many of those who wanted to repeal it even after it's gain in approval... are not.
Which should make clear just how difficult it is to snap something meaningful, beneficial, and with majority approval out of existence.
If they couldn't get rid of the ACA which nearly half the population has been more or less against since its inception and which has been and remains a mess, even one the Democrats admit to, what are we worried about?
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to PepsiFree For This Useful Post:
I hope Biden acts like a second term president with nothing to lose. He can do so much good if this is his last time ever holding public office and has a DGAF attitude when it comes to much needed reforms to America. Best part is, it might even help those spineless democrats.
I kind of think anyone who's Biden's age should take a DGAF approach. The guy is surpassing average life expectancy for American men this year. He might not see a second term regardless of how he handles his first term. Best to make the most of it.
__________________
"If stupidity got us into this mess, then why can't it get us out?"
In some ways, it was nice to get a break from ads for Raid Shadow Legends and that shirtless dude who knows just how to help me lose weight. But what the hell did I watch that got me targeted with that bull####?
I hope Biden acts like a second term president with nothing to lose. He can do so much good if this is his last time ever holding public office and has a DGAF attitude when it comes to much needed reforms to America. Best part is, it might even help those spineless democrats.
I think that every president that has a path to passing bills through majorities have to do this, There's no guarantee that he'll keep his house majority going forward.
With America as polarized as it is, I expect that there will be a lot of fluidity. The Democrats can't sit back and believe that Biden having favorable conditions is a permanent thing.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
I kind of think anyone who's Biden's age should take a DGAF approach. The guy is surpassing average life expectancy for American men this year. He might not see a second term regardless of how he handles his first term. Best to make the most of it.
If you take the average age of democratic senators in states where if they die while in office they aren’t replaced or would be replaced by republicans there is something like a 1/10 chance of Biden losing his majority before the next election.
Rand Paul forced a vote in the Senate today on the constitutionality of Trump's impeachment trial, and it was narrowly defeated. This tells us all we need to know about how this trial is gonna pan out. Even Turtle Mitch has suddenly had a change of heart after appearing to lean towards a conviction last week. Dude is gonna wuss out and continue to worship at the altar of Trump just like the rest of the spineless turds in the GOP.
I assume a lot of these a**holes are up for reelection in 2022, so there's no way they're gonna risk upsetting the MAGA voters that they'll desperately need if they want to remain in office. So as expected, Trump will likely get away with everything...again. And he'll also be free to run again in 2024 should he decide to do so. Ugh, what a f***ed up country.
In order to convict Trump at his trial, at least 17 Republicans will need to vote with all Democrats when the trial begins next month. Significantly, Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell sided with Paul in the vote -- a potential indicator that he agrees the constitutionality of impeaching a former President is in question.
Paul argued after the vote that the fact that 45 Republicans sided with him "shows that impeachment is dead on arrival."
"If you voted that it was unconstitutional then how in the world would you ever hope to convict somebody for this?" Paul asked, adding ,"45 of us, almost the entire caucus, 95% of the caucus, voted that the whole proceeding was unconstitutional. This is a big victory for us. Democrats can beat this partisan horse as long as they want -- this vote indicates it's over, the trial is all over."
Even those Republicans who voted against Paul's measure -- including Collins -- said Tuesday's vote was a sign of the eventual outcome of the trial.
"Do the math," she said. "I think it's extraordinarily unlikely that the President will be convicted."
Tax breaks for corporations and let the job creators pass those savings along to their employees and the public
Quote:
Originally Posted by New Era
Corporations shouldn't have to pay taxes. People should pay taxes to corporations. We need to go back to the start of the 20th century where corporations can pay their employees in company script and only let them spend it in their stores. Hell, make corporations the government and then we all work for their script and pay directly to them! We're just about there right now!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mull
Based on my... less than limited knowledge on economics, I think I would like to see a proposal discussed that reduces corporate tax rates (or maintain current low levels) and higher minimum wages and employee burdens (i.e. paid time off, employer CPP matching beyond 1:1, etc).
Force the tax savings from the employer to the employee. Reduces the desire to move taxes offshore. However, has a potential unfair negative impact on pre-revenue companies and companies not profitable.
I get that none of these are the burn it all down deregulation tactics of some right wing ideologs, but did we actually see a back to back to back endorsement of trickle down economics theory?
Not to dig too deep into my own ideologies, but I think a lot about economics for a layman. We should be using productivity gains to generally provide more to the average person with fewer inputs, in a world where the primary means for the average person to participate in the economy is to sell their labour. Rather than using productivity gains to convert create more and more gains in productive output, that isn't necessary for human well being. I think it understandably sounds idealistic, but you look at things like farms were we successfully eliminated 96% of labour and still increased output, why can't we do this for other things? And I do understand this creates problems where we have to consider who will do the really crappy work that has not been automated, but I don't really mind to economic impacts of constraining labour supply on crappy jobs to the point that we need to pay it better or find a better way to do that crappy work. The long term implication of this vision renders income tax an unideal revenue stream for government, so that necessarily requires that we find better ways to tax corporations.
For all of these reasons I believe the biggest problem that plagues western democracies is an inability to adequately tax corporate earnings and capital gains. I really see this as a competition problem more than as a problem for the companies, because with a level playing field those companies will create pricing structures that make sense for the tax regime. It is the unlevel taxation structures across different economies that creates the problems. So I think the ideal unconstrained market solution to this problem is to set a robust corporate/capital tax structure that allows government and social infrastructure to thrive, infrastructure which these companies rely on. Then construct trade barriers that adjust the costs of goods based on the corporate taxes and wages in the place of origin. The US is probably the only economy in the world with the weight to undertake this type of action. It's unfortunate Trump was simply the manifestation of people defining themselves in opposition the rhetorical ideals of their perceived adversaries lacking any articulated vision how to resolve his grievances, because he went about half way without understanding what the goal actually needed to be.
I think the biggest problem that arise from this idea is countries that try to skirt the idea, much in the way textile manufacturers tried to sneak into NAFTA by having clothing "assembled in Mexico", after having all of the component pieces manufactured in cheaper jurisdictions. Probably the second largest problem that arises, is that currency rates render the numbers I would like to see driving the trade barriers highly volatile, creating market uncertainty in my ideal unconstrained market, that very volatility becoming a constraint on the market. But I think with careful regulation, both of these problems can be managed.
In either case, I think the best possible open/free market would be the exact opposite of what the 3 of you are talking about. I can respect people coming to a different conclusion, if their ideology dictates that never ending economic growth is the goal of an economy. But I respectfully disagree with that ideal.
I get that none of these are the burn it all down deregulation tactics of some right wing ideologs, but did we actually see a back to back to back endorsement of trickle down economics theory?
.
No. I’m 99% sure new era and resalien’s posts were firmly tongue-in-cheek.
Unless they’ve both lost their minds. Which I’m not ruling out.
OMG. I just saw my first Epoch Times advertisement before a YouTube video.
Out of curiosity, what were you watching? It started coming up on Seth Meyers for us, which is on the one-hand a little weird because it's a pretty liberal show, but on the other hand obviously they're trying to disguise the leanings of their paper in the ads.
