Democratic Debate Thread

[DBA]

The choice who to vote for will be difficult.


As for what happened, well...

Norman, if you didn't lie, you'd have nothing to post.

This is the actual color of your electoral map. You see all that purple, Norman, those are the people who are pretty much fed up with Donald Trump. These are decent, God-fearing people who think attacking women and children is wrong. Housing people in conditions which would see farmers arrested for abuse if they treated their animals like Trump is treating these families.

Conservatives are losing this battle. As people move from blue states to red states, and they see the poverty, deprivation and lack of opportunities for the poor in those states, and as the states become increasingly urbanized, the rural conservative voter will become overwhelmed by the continued urbanization of America.

Having lived most of my adult life and have retired to the same kind of small town I grew up in, I can see clearly the rural/urban divide, and why the rurals have no hope of winning, nor should they. There's poor people where I live now. Not many. Most have alcohol and/or drug problems, and they're really lazy. As one of my friends said, pointing out one such couple, "They're playing the system". That's pretty much the ONLY kind of poverty we see out here.

In rural North America, if you have a kid who likely isn't going to amount to much, you get him a job with the Works Department for the county. They drive the snow plows, the big equipment, they make a nice life for themselves, and they don't end up on the streets. Lazy bums end up poor.

City poverty is much, much different. City poverty is working people struggling to make ends meet. It's not driven by laziness, because you can't be lazy in the city. You have to hustle to even be poor. When rural people think of poverty, and government programs, they think of the lazy bums sitting all drugged out on the park benches in the town square. I could send you pictures. What they don't realize is that these people are taking a free ride on the same programs that are helping people who are working full time, but at low wage jobs that require long, long hours in order to support their families. My small town 2-bedroom apartment with bonus storage room and ensuite laundry, would cost me triple the rent in the city. And more money every time you walk out the door because you need transit to go anywhere.

So rural people see rural poor people and think that urban poverty is just like that. All these lazy people "working the system". The fastest way to turn a conservative into a liberal is to plant them in the middle of the city for 6 months, preferably in winter, and let them see the difference.

Here is an idea...get out of the city if you can't make it. If your theory is correct, these folks could work hard in rural areas and actually make a decent living.

The real issue is that liberals are moving out of urban areas to blue states due to high taxes but then, like sheep, continue voting for the same folks that were responsible for raising the taxes where they came from originally. It is completely bone-headed.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

To recap, a doctor who earns $300,000 per year after 20+ years of education and lots of debt can only hope to take home $131,000 based on this 70% marginal tax rate.

Nobody will EVER be a doctor. EVER!!!

.

You shouldn’t show your knowledge level, it’s telling. Learn what marginal rate means. After a certain level that incremental income is taxed at that rate. So the first $100k @ 30% then the next $50k at 50% and anything over $150k at 70% would be an example. That doesn’t generate the math you just came up with. I’m not for a 70% top rate nor starting the steep increase at $100k but I am for a much higher rate than it is at top income levels.

That's not what she said.

You shouldn't talk about "knowledge level".

Let's look at the figures based on your percentages above, shall we?

First $100,000 @ 30% = $70,000
Next $50,000 @ 50% = $25,000
Last $150,000 @ 70% = $45,000
TOTAL: $140,000

Congratulations. You just added a whopping $9,000 to what I said before, Mr. Knowledge Level!!!



.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

I was talking about Penelope, who said she had no problem with 70% on the top 10%.

I think she clarified that she was talking about AOC's plan. I think the people who would have to pay the 70% rate is < .1%

However, imo, without a plan to balance the budget and reduce the debt, raising federal taxes is like pissing in the wind.

I agree with this.

No tax hike without a balanced budge amendment or some other safeguard. The spendthrifts in Congress will immediately find a way to overspend on the new revenues from any hike.


.

 

[Thinker101]

$150,000 and they'll take home somewhere near $65,000. So no one will EVER be a doctor. EVER.

So is that 150,000 dollars over the first 10,000,000 dollars? Because the proposed 70% tax rate only applies to income over 10 million.

And democrats wanting to be fair will raise yours to only 50% over $60,000.

 

[DBA]

To recap, a doctor who earns $300,000 per year after 20+ years of education and lots of debt can only hope to take home $131,000 based on this 70% marginal tax rate.

Nobody will EVER be a doctor. EVER!!!

.

You shouldn’t show your knowledge level, it’s telling. Learn what marginal rate means. After a certain level that incremental income is taxed at that rate. So the first $100k @ 30% then the next $50k at 50% and anything over $150k at 70% would be an example. That doesn’t generate the math you just came up with. I’m not for a 70% top rate nor starting the steep increase at $100k but I am for a much higher rate than it is at top income levels.

That's not what she said.

You shouldn't talk about "knowledge level".

Let's look at the figures based on your percentages above, shall we?

First $100,000 @ 30% = $70,000
Next $50,000 @ 50% = $25,000
Last $150,000 @ 70% = $45,000
TOTAL: $140,000

Congratulations. You just added a whopping $9,000 to what I said before, Mr. Knowledge Level!!!



.

My wife is a physician and I do fairly well myself. It is complete crap that we would be paying a marginal 70% tax rate on income above even 150k. We have worked hard and continue to work hard to get where we are only to be penalized to help pay for healthcare for illegals and welfare for those who choose not to work. We WILL leave the country as will many others if it gets to this. Who will be left to pay for all this "free" stuff?

 

[BlindBoo]

It is complete crap that we would be paying a marginal 70% tax rate on income above even 150k.

Yes it is complete crap.

 

[USAF 2023]

To recap, a doctor who earns $300,000 per year after 20+ years of education and lots of debt can only hope to take home $131,000 based on this 70% marginal tax rate.

Nobody will EVER be a doctor. EVER!!!

.

Well, if Medicare-for-all is implemented that $300,000 will become $150,000 and they'll take home somewhere near $65,000. So no one will EVER be a doctor. EVER.

Don’t forget; that does NOT include State or Local Taxes

 

[USAF 2023]

To recap, a doctor who earns $300,000 per year after 20+ years of education and lots of debt can only hope to take home $131,000 based on this 70% marginal tax rate.

Nobody will EVER be a doctor. EVER!!!

.

You shouldn’t show your knowledge level, it’s telling. Learn what marginal rate means. After a certain level that incremental income is taxed at that rate. So the first $100k @ 30% then the next $50k at 50% and anything over $150k at 70% would be an example. That doesn’t generate the math you just came up with. I’m not for a 70% top rate nor starting the steep increase at $100k but I am for a much higher rate than it is at top income levels.

That's not what she said.

You shouldn't talk about "knowledge level".

Let's look at the figures based on your percentages above, shall we?

First $100,000 @ 30% = $70,000
Next $50,000 @ 50% = $25,000
Last $150,000 @ 70% = $45,000
TOTAL: $140,000

Congratulations. You just added a whopping $9,000 to what I said before, Mr. Knowledge Level!!!



.

My wife is a physician and I do fairly well myself. It is complete crap that we would be paying a marginal 70% tax rate on income above even 150k. We have worked hard and continue to work hard to get where we are only to be penalized to help pay for healthcare for illegals and welfare for those who choose not to work. We WILL leave the country as will many others if it gets to this. Who will be left to pay for all this "free" stuff?

Bernie even wants to raise taxes on the Middle Class so ILLEGALS get free Health Care and free College

 

[Penelope]

I have no issue with 70% tax rate for the top 5-10%.

also your post has no link. I doubt anyone said abortion for men, or take guns away, but no one in the US should have an assault weapon, if you want to fire one join the military.

And yeah you are saying that because you are a gop-her.

Dear Penelope:
I could understand if you were in the top 5-10% and your whole group
AGREED to be taxed at a higher rate.

But if you object to other people making policies for you,
that's where this disagreement is coming from.

Taxation has to represent the people being taxed in order to be REPRESENTATIVE.

Govt cannot punish people by taking away income, labor, liberty or property
UNLESS there is DUE PROCESS to PROVE they owe some penalty or payment for something.

Creating more wealth is NOT A CRIME to be punished,
just like BEING POOR is not a crime that merits losing rights or equal protections under law.

Penelope my concern is that we be consistent:
if "being poor" is not justification for making laws that target poor people
then "being wealthy" is not justification for making laws that target rich people either!

We should craft laws where the people ABUSING laws to STEAL or COST taxpayers
for CRIME, CORRUPTION or VIOLATIONS are the ones compelled to pay back taxpayers.
NOT PEOPLE WHO HAVE COMMITTED NO WRONGS.

Yes I know, as we do not pay taxes now, or is it patriotic to pay taxes. The poor lose rights, the rich get them. That is the way it is, and I do not care if you believe it or not. There is no stealing involved , its the law of the land.
All they need to do is make a new bracket at the top , like they have done in the past. The rich were going broke which is why tramp and the pubs lowered the taxes. BS.

Now they want to take away social programs and have been. They won't be happy till all of the middle income are slaves to wait hand and mouth to the rich elite like tramp. Do you want to wipe his arse, it sounds like you do.

 

[Penelope]

I have no issue with 70% tax rate for the top 5-10%.

also your post has no link. I doubt anyone said abortion for men, or take guns away, but no one in the US should have an assault weapon, if you want to fire one join the military.

And yeah you are saying that because you are a gop-her.

Top 10% is only about 140k per year. You are ok with a 70% tax rate for that amount of income? That is NUTS. It is all about perspective, but I can assure you that 140k/yr is nowhere near "rich".

I corrected myself and said the top 1% a few posts back.

 

[Penelope]

I was talking about Penelope, who said she had no problem with 70% on the top 10%.

I think she clarified that she was talking about AOC's plan. I think the people who would have to pay the 70% rate is < .1%

However, imo, without a plan to balance the budget and reduce the debt, raising federal taxes is like pissing in the wind.

I agree with this.

No tax hike without a balanced budge amendment or some other safeguard. The spendthrifts in Congress will immediately find a way to overspend on the new revenues from any hike.


.

Since when are gophers concerned about the debt, they aren't and you should not be. They are only concerned when the Democrats are in office, not when they vote themselves in a huge tax cut.

 

[Penelope]

I misspoke the top 1% pay 70%.

Again....where's the incentive to create more jobs?
The rich will just stop making money at a certain point which hurts the economy.

People will always create jobs.

Only if there is a financial incentive to do so.

.

What is your financial incentive. To make a living. Not to make a killing.

They're already making a living.
Why bother expanding their business if they wont make any money?

Why did Tramp expand his business when he wasn't making any money???

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Again....where's the incentive to create more jobs?
The rich will just stop making money at a certain point which hurts the economy.

People will always create jobs.

Only if there is a financial incentive to do so.

.

What is your financial incentive. To make a living. Not to make a killing.

They're already making a living.
Why bother expanding their business if they wont make any money?

Why did Tramp expand his business when he wasn't making any money???

It's called potential to make money dumbass. It's a certainty you wont make money if the gov is going to steal 70% of it.
Something a liberal wouldnt understand.

 

[Auld Phart]

I was talking about Penelope, who said she had no problem with 70% on the top 10%.

I think she clarified that she was talking about AOC's plan. I think the people who would have to pay the 70% rate is < .1%

However, imo, without a plan to balance the budget and reduce the debt, raising federal taxes is like pissing in the wind.

I agree with this.

No tax hike without a balanced budge amendment or some other safeguard. The spendthrifts in Congress will immediately find a way to overspend on the new revenues from any hike.


.

Since when are gophers concerned about the debt, they aren't and you should not be. They are only concerned when the Democrats are in office, not when they vote themselves in a huge tax cut.

Since when are gophers concerned about the debt,

Q. Since when are dems concerned about the debt?

A. Only when Republicans are in charge

 

[Penelope]

People will always create jobs.

Only if there is a financial incentive to do so.

.

What is your financial incentive. To make a living. Not to make a killing.

They're already making a living.
Why bother expanding their business if they wont make any money?

Why did Tramp expand his business when he wasn't making any money???

It's called potential to make money dumbass. It's a certainty you wont make money if the gov is going to steal 70% of it.
Something a liberal wouldnt understand.

Why did the tramp expand his business when he was always in debt. I know he always spent more than he made. Champagne taste on beer income.

 

[jillian]

Was that a joke?

I just listened to the Democrat presidential debate for the first time.

Wtf was that.

If a playwright wrote that as comedy twenty years ago, it wouldn't have even been considered funny since no one ever thought that that could actually happen in real life.

Seriously what kind of a fucking joke was that.

I'm not saying this because I'm conservative.

I'm saying this as a someone who just heard candidates discussing abortion rights for transgender "men."

I just heard candidates give more than 2/3 of the airtime in spanish.

I just heard 70% tax rates.

I just heard take the guns.

Why do you want our guns?

Why do you want our money?

Why are you speaking in spanish?

Why on earth are you talking about transgender abortion rights?

What kind of a fucking joke was that.

I still believe in a single payer healthcare system...but holy shit, there's nothing else I agree with this new "Democrat?" party on. Is it even the Democrat party? Wtf is this shit.

After what I saw, I don't even think the new Democrat party could evne implement a single payer helathcare system anyway.

I think the left leaning Republicans are going to become the new "rational" left of America. Probably gonna turn into a three party system.

Republicans, Centrists (left republicans) and Socialist (communists?)

Mark my words.

I cannot comprehend what i just watched.

wtf was that shit.

What a moron you are

 

[Cecilie1200]

Was that a joke?

I just listened to the Democrat presidential debate for the first time.

Wtf was that.

If a playwright wrote that as comedy twenty years ago, it wouldn't have even been considered funny since no one ever thought that that could actually happen in real life.

Seriously what kind of a fucking joke was that.

I'm not saying this because I'm conservative.

I'm saying this as a someone who just heard candidates discussing abortion rights for transgender "men."

I just heard candidates give more than 2/3 of the airtime in spanish.

I just heard 70% tax rates.

I just heard take the guns.

Why do you want our guns?

Why do you want our money?

Why are you speaking in spanish?

Why on earth are you talking about transgender abortion rights?

What kind of a fucking joke was that.

I still believe in a single payer healthcare system...but holy shit, there's nothing else I agree with this new "Democrat?" party on. Is it even the Democrat party? Wtf is this shit.

After what I saw, I don't even think the new Democrat party could evne implement a single payer helathcare system anyway.

I think the left leaning Republicans are going to become the new "rational" left of America. Probably gonna turn into a three party system.

Republicans, Centrists (left republicans) and Socialist (communists?)

Mark my words.

I cannot comprehend what i just watched.

wtf was that shit.

Nobody spoke more than a sentence in Spanish.

Not once did I hear the phrase "transgender abortion rights". It appears that you "heard" things but you weren't really listening. Maybe you were passing through the room, but you clearly weren't listening to what was being said.

Perhaps people in THIS country were listening closer than jagoff drones in leech countries for whom it was none of their fucking business did.

“All of you on stage support a women’s right to abortion. You all support some version of a government health-care option. Would your plan cover abortion, Mr. Secretary?” asked MSNBC debate moderator Lester Holt.

“Yes it would. I don’t believe only in reproductive freedom, I believe in reproductive justice. And what means is just because a woman, or let’s also not forget someone in the trans community — a trans female — is poor, doesn’t mean they shouldn’t exercise that right to choose. So I absolutely would cover that right to have an abortion,” Castro said.

Next time, tend to your own country's elections. I get that they're boring, given that your nation is largely irrelevant, but the important nations STILL neither need nor want your ignorant input.

 

[Third Party]

Was that a joke?

I just listened to the Democrat presidential debate for the first time.

Wtf was that.

If a playwright wrote that as comedy twenty years ago, it wouldn't have even been considered funny since no one ever thought that that could actually happen in real life.

Seriously what kind of a fucking joke was that.

I'm not saying this because I'm conservative.

I'm saying this as a someone who just heard candidates discussing abortion rights for transgender "men."

I just heard candidates give more than 2/3 of the airtime in spanish.

I just heard 70% tax rates.

I just heard take the guns.

Why do you want our guns?

Why do you want our money?

Why are you speaking in spanish?

Why on earth are you talking about transgender abortion rights?

What kind of a fucking joke was that.

I still believe in a single payer healthcare system...but holy shit, there's nothing else I agree with this new "Democrat?" party on. Is it even the Democrat party? Wtf is this shit.

After what I saw, I don't even think the new Democrat party could evne implement a single payer helathcare system anyway.

I think the left leaning Republicans are going to become the new "rational" left of America. Probably gonna turn into a three party system.

Republicans, Centrists (left republicans) and Socialist (communists?)

Mark my words.

I cannot comprehend what i just watched.

wtf was that shit.

"Anything you can left I can left better, I can left anything better than you". Now, write the play.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Only if there is a financial incentive to do so.

.

What is your financial incentive. To make a living. Not to make a killing.

They're already making a living.
Why bother expanding their business if they wont make any money?

Why did Tramp expand his business when he wasn't making any money???

It's called potential to make money dumbass. It's a certainty you wont make money if the gov is going to steal 70% of it.
Something a liberal wouldnt understand.

Why did the tramp expand his business when he was always in debt. I know he always spent more than he made. Champagne taste on beer income.

You know absolutely nothing about business.
And you'll have to provide proof he has always been in debt....which I know you cant provide.

LOL.....you can tell Trump is really hurting financially.

 

[USAF 2023]

People will always create jobs.

Only if there is a financial incentive to do so.

.

What is your financial incentive. To make a living. Not to make a killing.

They're already making a living.
Why bother expanding their business if they wont make any money?

Why did Tramp expand his business when he wasn't making any money???

It's called potential to make money dumbass. It's a certainty you wont make money if the gov is going to steal 70% of it.
Something a liberal wouldnt understand.

What she is too stupid to understand is that the top 1 percent can range anywhere from just over 225,000 to over 550,000 depending on the State.
Why should 70 percent be taken away? That does not include state or local. For those who make significantly more, by the time you calculate ALL taxes it could be around 80 percent