The simple answer is those people don't eat. And that's the problem. Trump supporters will get out to vote. Ones who don't like tuna melt may not.
I'm not convinced that Trump isn't losing some wishy washy voters of his own, the I never voted before Trump crowd, mostly in the rust belt.
He isn't exactly putting forward any life altering vision, fake or not, for the working class this time around, like he did in 2016. Nafta, TPP, China, bringing back manufacturing jobs, coal, better cheaper healthcare, revitalizing the military, immigration, the wall ect.
His campaign is essentially more of the same with nothing on his populist agenda, no real wall progress, sweet FA on healthcare, and none of the rhetoric around the working class. All he has from the above are a few items on the trade agenda that everyone knew is superficial, or can't see tangible results in their own lives. Add that to the pandemic boat anchor and I think he's bleeding more support than Biden is from the left.
House Democrats on Tuesday killed a Republican resolution that would have effectively banned the Democratic Party or any political organization with a past history of supporting slavery and the Confederacy
To be clear, none of this means that Trump’s chances are kaput. As of this writing, our forecast still gives him around a 21 percent chance of winning the Electoral College. That’s not great, but it’s a lot better than zero.
But it’s possible Trump’s chances may decline further after post-debate polling begins to roll into our forecast. Furthermore, the mere passage of time helps Biden in our model, because every day that Trump doesn’t gain ground is a day when his fate becomes slightly more sealed. (Lots of people have already voted!) Case in point: In an election held today — Trump has no more time to make up ground — his chances would be 9 percent, not 21 percent, according to our forecast.
I'm not convinced that Trump isn't losing some wishy washy voters of his own, the I never voted before Trump crowd, mostly in the rust belt.
Add that to the pandemic boat anchor and I think he's bleeding more support than Biden is from the left.
That's approval rating, his chances of winning on 538 have declined about 10% in the month of September. We don't even have results of the debate last night which could torpedo his chances of a comeback.
That's approval rating, his chances of winning on 538 have declined about 10% in the month of September. We don't even have results of the debate last night which could torpedo his chances of a comeback.
I've been saying that we'll see those Trump wishy-washy voters come back to him after the first debate, in part because the approval rating numbers suggest that he has a ceiling somewhat higher than his current poll numbers (but still not high enough to win a fair election).
But I was saying that before the first debate. Now, I'm really not sure. He may have just turned off those people who were getting ready to make up their minds to vote for him.
Probably off topic, but I find it so odd when working middle class, especially working poor defend, deflect, and explain away with mental gymnastics why the rich do what they do and how we should be thankful that in their infinite wisdom and kindness, they employ us plebs. It's like they cheer for the rich to remain uber rich, and regular folk should just be happy to live paycheck to paycheck driving a crappy car, living in a crappy apartment, and driving on crappy pothole filled roads.
How about we close tax loopholes, legal or otherwise, and have the uber rich pay their fair share? If we did that, we could probably lower taxes for people making less than $150k a year, and eliminate taxes for people making less than $50k a year. Perhaps have an overall happier society as a side benefit?
Taxing the uber-rich is everyone's fantasy. Who wouldn't want more government stuff without paying for it themselves? But how many countries have done it? Give me some real-world examples of this program you're advocating.
I can give real-world examples of the program I'm advocating:
Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark.
They have the kinds of egalitarian policies and strong public services that Canadians say they want. And they pay for them with higher taxes across the board than Canadians currently pay.
I guess the downside is they pay those high taxes. Though fair to say, they're more cohesive societies than we are. Like Americans, we want the best of everything, but we want someone else to pay for it.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
Taxing the uber-rich is everyone's fantasy. Who wouldn't want more government stuff without paying for it themselves? But how many countries have done it? Give me some real-world examples of this program you're advocating.
I can give real-world examples of the program I'm advocating:
Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark.
They have the kinds of egalitarian policies and strong public services that Canadians say they want. And they pay for them with higher taxes across the board than Canadians currently pay.
I guess the downside is they pay those high taxes. Though fair to say, they're more cohesive societies than we are. Like Americans, we want the best of everything, but we want someone else to pay for it.
These countries are all 'happier' when studied as well, oddly enough knowing your not a pay cheque away from destitution is less stressful and allows people to thrive
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to afc wimbledon For This Useful Post:
Taxing the uber-rich is everyone's fantasy. Who wouldn't want more government stuff without paying for it themselves? But how many countries have done it? Give me some real-world examples of this program you're advocating.
By your argument against it, namely that it's never been shown to work before, nothing new would ever happen.
But I'll give you a real world example anyways: USA, 1936-1980, with a highest marginal tax rate of at least 70% for the entire period - a country that put a man on the moon, invented a multitude of technologies, and was the flag-bearer of capitalism during the Cold War.
By your argument against it, namely that it's never been shown to work before, nothing new would ever happen.
But I'll give you a real world example anyways: USA, 1936-1980, with a highest marginal tax rate of at least 70% for the entire period - a country that put a man on the moon, invented a multitude of technologies, and was the flag-bearer of capitalism during the Cold War.
It was at a high threshold, for limited types of income. Almost no one paid it, and if they did, it was just on a small portion of their income. It raised very little revenue, and rich people then were not paying a significantly higher effective tax than rich people now.
Rich people during that time also switched to corporate income from personal and that rate has historically been lower and more ripe with loopholes, deductions and splitting. It's a graph with perfect correlation...the higher personal tax went the fewer people paid it.
It was at a high threshold, for limited types of income. Almost no one paid it, and if they did, it was just on a small portion of their income. It raised very little revenue, and rich people then were not paying a significantly higher effective tax than rich people now.
What you say is accurate, to a point. This graph should help people understand the issue better as it shows top effective rate over time.
The biggest issue to what you're saying is the wealth gap was not quite so large historically. Since the 80s that wealth gap has skyrocketed and now we see more people in that top bracket than ever before. If the US would be consistent in the tax code and make the rich pay their fair share, we would be able to pay for those "free things" - like health care and basic retirement - that Cliff thinks are luxuries.
