Saysumthinfunnymike
VOTE!!!
It's not as easy as choosing the right candidate. Look at the electoral map and what it's going to look like in four years. Then tell me which states the pubs are gonna flip. I'll wait.. 
The Liberal Tears When Hillary Starts Implementing Her Policies :banderas:
- Thread starter Domingo Halliburton
- Start date
levitate
I love you, you know.
...Small corporations and Mid size regonal ones will be decimated by TPP...its gonna negate the only exclusive advantage they have ....proximity to the customer...
The multinational blue chip companies are the ones who will eat off TPP because they will move their production to vietnam or wherever they pay 50 cents a day..container ship that shyt free of tariffs and duties and undercut all the local and regional competitors..and its not just dry goods....Agricultural products as well.
Inexpensive goods dont mean much if you dont have the cash to buy them
Its not "free trade" Its a weak attempt to throttle China but it wont work because China still has Huge markets in Europe and an emerging Africa
As the great philosopher Shaquille O'Neal once eloquently stated - "I don't give a shyt". I'm against small-business welfare and unnecessary inflation of prices that occurs through the limiting of international trade deals.
Randy in the Midwest is not entitled to manufacture my car over Raul in Mexico. Especially if Randy's cost is 15x that of Raul's. fukk Randy.
I want large companies, and all companies, to have access to the best possible mix of goods and services that support their businesses. I want US companies to minimize their COGS and maximize their income. The TPP is one small step in the right direction.
If a few companies have to go down in the process...such is the price of progress.
ADevilYouKhow
Rhyme Reason
The Automotive industry is poor example of anything bruh..its mismanaged and torn between the state,unions,subsidies and protectionism and ironically they will probably benefit from TTP
But back to the main point...Your post ignores the proven history and nature of monopolies,once they eliminate their competition they wont lower prices as we have already seen with that AIDS medicine scandal where the price went from $13.50 to $750.00
The competition is what holds prices down
Having a handful of Massive multinational corporations completely cornering the market is NOT progress...its a return to Feudalism
Dusty Bake Activate
Fukk your corny debates
I don't talk to king kreole anymore, but he is the smartdumbest cracker on this whole site.
I remember one time after all his pro-protectionism anti-establishment rantings, he started defending supply side economics and said that tax reductions for the richest 1% aren't hoarded they're re-invested in the economy to create growth.
Dude just temporarily adopts whatever political theory that is convenient for the moment in order to stan Trump.
King Kreole
natural blondie like goku
What I'm talking about is politics not being a game of mathematics but one of perception. Most campaign proposals are supported by voodoo economics, the point is to paint the most compelling picture. You may not have been paying attention to the election at this point, but during the Democratic primary, one of the most sustained lines of attack against Sanders was that his budget couldn't cover his progressive domestic agenda. His universal healthcare and free college tuition plans were written off as nonsensical because his math didn't add up.
Why Bernie Sanders’s free college plan doesn’t make sense
Democratic Economists Say Bernie Sanders’s Math Doesn’t Add Up
Sanders's economic math doesn't add up, say former White House economists
Bernie Sanders’s Health-Care Plan Does Not Add Up
More Signs Of Fuzzy Math In The Bernie Sanders Health Plan | Huffington Post
See, one way I can tell you're relatively new to political thought is that you cannot conceive of politics as anything other than the bean counting. I may only be 15 years old, but as a student of history I am aware of political movements that were not beholden to CBO dictates. That's a product of the "pragmatic politics"; a purposeful atrophying of political thought by people in whose best interest it is to see the realm of what is considered politically possible constricted as tightly as possible. "The only realistic course is to raise the top marginal tax rate by 5%. The voters are happy because it looks like we're sticking it to the wealthy, and my wealthy donors are happy because I'm not touching their real pockets." What Sanders and Trump were doing was stepping outside that box, speaking to underlying elements of not only the economy, but the entire political system, which is why they both of their campaigns had to be funded in large part by millions of small, individual donations, yet another natural link between the two.
First of all, whether or not Trump's plans pay for themselves is inconsequential to the discussion at hand. We are (or at least I am) talking about political proposals and how they shape the politico-ideological landscape. Trump saying he wants to heavily invest in infrastructure and not touch social security is a radical shift that you're attempting to hand-wave away.
Secondly, taxation is a red herring. I understand the temptation to see increasing taxes on the wealthy as this "one weird trick" to juicing the budget, but as Trump himself has exemplified, the wealthy aren't even paying their allotted rate. Why would increasing that rate result in this windfall that would cover all the progressive policies Hillary claims she wants to enact? It won't. And they know that. Which is why they're supporting Hillary. We're locking in this pitched battle where Democrats go "Raise the top rate a few percentage points!" and Republicans go "Lower the top rate a few percentage points!", and regardless of who wins, the wealthy win. Because the real factors driving the economic state of the country are not HRC's tax hikes, which have always been avoided and evaded by the wealthy. They're offshoring literally trillions and trillions of dollars, go the fukk ahead and increase their rate lmfao. The real factors are the ones Bernie and Trump made cornerstones of their campaign, namely trade deals, money in politics and using America's leverage as the world's largest market to force concessions from corporations. Don't take my word for it, follow the money. Which candidate are the wealthy overwhelmingly donating to? Who are they trusting to look out for their interests? Bernie, Trump or Hillary?
Your historical revisionism is not in questioning Trump's math, it's in claiming his position mirrors typical Republican orthodoxy. By doing this, you're trying to reframe his campaign in a delegitimizing light, thereby avoiding any threat to the political establishment status quo.
Whether you would support Trump or not is your prerogative, not my concern. I'm here to ensure the historical record is upheld. Social Security was brought up because you made a fallacious claim about Trump's position on it in order to spin your own narrative.
I'm sorry, Sanders' campaign wasn't about political bribery?
<--- pay attention to his first sentence
Here, again, we see you omitting critical elements of a campaign to spin a narrative. By reducing the Sanders campaign to a tax rate crusade, you're priming its cooptation by centrist Democrats, neutering any cross-partisan potential in the future. Democrats will come back and say "We did what you wanted, we raised taxes back to pre-Bush cut levels, now go home and don't forget to vote for us in the next election."
King Kreole
natural blondie like goku
you don't respond to my posts because I called your number and you had no response The vast majority of wealth is not sitting in some fukking vault on some Scrooge McDuck shyt
, it's on the markets. Either refute that or kick rocks.
Dusty Bake Activate
Fukk your corny debates
Except I didn't say "the vast majority of wealth," I said the money saved by tax reductions. It doesn't go toward job creation or stimulating economic growth, it's hoarded.
The vast majority of wealth is not sitting in some fukking vault on some Scrooge McDuck shyt
Tax Cuts Don't Lead to Economic Growth, a New 65-Year Study Finds
Lol@"in the markets." Like giving money to a broker to invest in the stock market is causing economic gains for the middle class and poor.
At least you openly admit to not giving a fukk about the middle class.
The midwestern states due to young people leaving. They're leaving to go to states that are already blue or to states in the South and making those states toss ups. If they can hold onto to governorships and gerrymander the fukk out of shyt, they can hold on for another decade.It's not as easy as choosing the right candidate. Look at the electoral map and what it's going to look like in four years. Then tell me which states the pubs are gonna flip. I'll wait..
King Kreole
natural blondie like goku
Hoarded where? And for what purpose? Your assumption relies on the idea that the wealthy would rather literally look at their money than multiply it. It's an absurd contention on its face. It doesn't matter if the money was obtained directly or through tax reductions, only an idiot would literally hoard it. It doesn't make any sense, assuming you want to acquire more money, because multiplication requires activity. Making your money work for you is a cornerstone of compounding wealth. You're giving the wealthy too much credit, they're greedier than you believe.
again we see this canard that supply-side = tax cuts. It does't! There's a reason it's called the Laffer Curve and not the Laffer Line. No true Supply-Sider would advocate incessant tax cuts. Reagan himself raised taxes multiple times! You can criticize the Bush Tax cuts as unnecessary and not have to turn in your Supply-Side membership card. But the idea that tax cuts cannot create economic growth is absurd, which is why anti-supply siders have resorted to absurd explanations for the massive, post-supply side economic boom of the 80s and 90s. The societal distribution of economic gains is not the market's responsibility. I don't know who told you it is. That's the government's job. Which is why the failure of Reaganomics was not in the supply-side model it used to successfully generate wealth, but in the government's inability or unwillingness to spread that newfound wealth to needed social programs like education and healthcare to create an equality of opportunity. Profits are at an all-time high, supply-side has worked, and is working.
Saysumthinfunnymike
VOTE!!!
Which states did you have in mind? Colorado is solid blue now. The rest of the Midwestern states are already red.. Pennsylvania is going to be solid blue, that wraps up anything of importance out east, Virginia is now solid blue also, Hill would have won without Tim. Maybe they can take back Florida or pull off Ohio but it's not enough
I would not call Virginia solid blue. It's trending blue, but it has a lot of professional people that would be susceptible to "moderate" Republicans. Her lead in VA is more of a reflection of Kaine + Trump being trash. If Mitt Romney was the nominee then VA would have been much closer. Let us not forget Mark Warner winning a nailbiter last time. NC, FLA and VA are still toss ups.
Ohio most definitely. She trailed in Iowa until recently, and it elected that wingnut to the Senate. Wisconsin just elected Scott Walker three different times, and Dems are lucky that Russ Feingold is back. Make no mistake, they're at a disadvantage, but I wouldn't go getting THAT excited like we did back in 2008. Moreover, we continue to overstate the impact of Hispanics who still don't vote at a high rate. People keep talking about a rise in their numbers this election but that is in line with their population growth as opposed to a genuine historic surge to combat Trump.
I guess the point is that the variables are there but Dems have yet to capitalize on them.