Should the Republicans Dump Trump at the Convention?

[etucker1959]

It looks like Trump will have the most delegates going into the Republican convention, but not a majority so he doesn't automatically win the nomination. (it's then called a brokered convention) In the past of the 10 brokered conventions, only 3 times the leading delegate winner going into the convention got the nomination. (so there is history to be able to dump Trump) In listening to the Demorats commentators they couldn't imagine the Republicans dumping Trump. (remember they are the sane ones in the room) They said, "do you think the Trump supporters would then suddenly support the new guy!!!!" Donald Trump being Donald Trump he would probably then run as a third party candidate. Thus splitting the Trump supporters away from the other Republican candidate. Thus clearing a path for a Land slide victory for Hillary!!!!!!! Damned if they do, damned if they don't!!!!!

I'm bringing up the point again that the Conservatives on this board living in California are, "smarter then their Conservative brethren living in other states." So I don't think many of you are fire breathing Trump supporters. However, very few of you have the stomach to ever consider voting for Hillary. So you people are the perfect ones to ask, "Should the Republicans Dump Trump at the convention??????????" If you do think Trump should be dumped, who would you like to see replace him?????

[HawgZWylde]

The real question begs should both parties be allowed to subvert the will of their respective majorities. It's not just the repubs etucker, demorats have a thing called super delegates who seem to all be in the tank for Clinton irrespective of how the demorat majorities voted...

[Brent]

The real question begs should both parties be allowed to subvert the will of their respective majorities. It's not just the repubs etucker, demorats have a thing called super delegates who seem to all be in the tank for Clinton irrespective of how the demorat majorities voted...

Very very true

[Lady Quagga]

Should the Republicans Dump Trump at the Convention?

No, of course not. He earned the nomination, fair and square. The Repugnicans should follow through. I mean, their base chose him.

As far as your second question that was poorly worded, if it's Hillary versus Trump, you already have my answer for that.

(Funny that the Trump-Humper who posted carefully skirted that question, again.)

[Marley]

Could be a very interesting election if Trump is not the republican nominee and winds up running as a third-party candidate at the same time Bernie, who has real momentum, leaves the democratic ticket and also runs as a third party. As one of those left coast conservatives, I would NEVER vote for Hillary even if she were the proverbial last candidate on Earth.

[DarkShadow]

Could be a very interesting election if Trump is not the republican nominee and winds up running as a third-party candidate at the same time Bernie, who has real momentum, leaves the democratic ticket and also runs as a third party. As one of those left coast conservatives, I would NEVER vote for Hillary even if she were the proverbial last candidate on Earth.

Marley,

Something tells me that The Bern may not run as a 3rd party candidate, considering he's come out and said it before.

You know, that damn socialist stiill has the, "what's best for the majority," mentality which prevents him from splitting a Dem vote.

Now, Trump? Heh.... :Cool:

As I've proved before my in my previous posts, ask a Conservative who he/she'd vote for, Hillary v Trump, and make sure you back away enough so the head explosion doesn't ruin your nice shirt. But of course, before they answer that question, they'll make sure they deflect enough to move the subject from "Damn, what happened to the GOP" to "OMG, look at the Dems, they're in disarray too!"

But I blame that on the OPs that don't have enough tact to ask questions that require multiple choice answers.

And I'd be a hypocrite not to ask.

Hillary v Trump? From your previous response, it looks like you're not voting (A), or voting from Trump (B). A, or B?

[hookdfisherman]

Marley,

Something tells me that The Bern may not run as a 3rd party candidate, considering he's come out and said it before.

You know, that damn socialist stiill has the, "what's best for the majority," mentality which prevents him from splitting a Dem vote.

Now, Trump? Heh.... :Cool:

As I've proved before my in my previous posts, ask a Conservative who he/she'd vote for, Hillary v Trump, and make sure you back away enough so the head explosion doesn't ruin your nice shirt. But of course, before they answer that question, they'll make sure they deflect enough to move the subject from "Damn, what happened to the GOP" to "OMG, look at the Dems, they're in disarray too!"

But I blame that on the OPs that don't have enough tact to ask questions that require multiple choice answers.

And I'd be a hypocrite not to ask.

Hillary v Trump? From your previous response, it looks like you're not voting (A), or voting from Trump (B). A, or B?

it's kinda like when i ask you if you think the edges are straight on your pseudo-monogrammed net lettering...(and i'm not even asking if you think the spacing between your 3 initials are the same)

YOU... are not obligated to answer, so you don't have to...

47967 <---- click here for a better view! lol

but in all fairness: a?, b?, c?

a) straight unwavering edges

b) crooked uneven edges

c) i drank a lot of cervezas, CHEE looking good!

try not to let your head explode...




you need to stop asking your question and i'll stop asking my question... no one seems to want to answer anyways!

lol

:LOL::Rolls Eyes::LOL::Rolls Eyes::LOL::Rolls Eyes::LOL::Rolls Eyes::LOL::Rolls Eyes::LOL::Rolls Eyes::LOL::Rolls Eyes::LOL::Rolls Eyes::LOL::Rolls Eyes::LOL::Rolls Eyes::LOL::Rolls Eyes::LOL::Rolls Eyes::LOL::Rolls Eyes::LOL::Rolls Eyes::LOL::Rolls Eyes::LOL::Rolls Eyes::LOL::Rolls Eyes::LOL::Rolls Eyes::LOL::Rolls Eyes::LOL::Rolls Eyes::LOL::Rolls Eyes::LOL::Rolls Eyes:

[Marley]

Marley,

Something tells me that The Bern may not run as a 3rd party candidate, considering he's come out and said it before.

You know, that damn socialist stiill has the, "what's best for the majority," mentality which prevents him from splitting a Dem vote.

Now, Trump? Heh.... :Cool:

As I've proved before my in my previous posts, ask a Conservative who he/she'd vote for, Hillary v Trump, and make sure you back away enough so the head explosion doesn't ruin your nice shirt. But of course, before they answer that question, they'll make sure they deflect enough to move the subject from "Damn, what happened to the GOP" to "OMG, look at the Dems, they're in disarray too!"

But I blame that on the OPs that don't have enough tact to ask questions that require multiple choice answers.

And I'd be a hypocrite not to ask.

Hillary v Trump? From your previous response, it looks like you're not voting (A), or voting from Trump (B). A, or B?

It would still be fun to watch, especially the Trump v. Hillary debate.

I wonder how much of Trump's running started as an ego trip and when it looked like it started to grow legs he said to himself, "Self," he said. "You'd better say something totally outrageous and scare off these folks that are gonna vote for you." But the more he said, the more people turned and started to follow and the more he realized that he could actually win the nomination.
But the American people ARE tired of the same political equine dung and Trump is their answer. Me? I don't want to see Cruz whining and nasaling every night on the news, no one respects him. I don't want to hear Hillary smarming down at me and lying to me and telling me what's best for me, all the while scheming, and I sure don't want to see Berns come even close to winning because of all the candidates, I think he's telling us the truth of just what it is he will if he's elected. American doesn't need any larger degree of socialism than it already has.
Republicans (rightfully) point to Ronald Reagan as among the greatest of presidents and that happened because he was willing to compromise and make a deal while leading, not while pandering to our enemies like Obama seems wont to do. Trump has built a small empire on doing just the same. He's not squeaky clean and I'm sure there is more than a couple of sound bites ready to be released the week and few days leading into the general election (didn't the New York Times say they are sitting on just such story?) If for no other reason that examining the list of media and pundits who are almost uniformly united against him, Trump gets my vote.

[etucker1959]

I would have thought that after all the years of people barbecuing Obama on here. They would at least had someone in mind who they thought would do a much better job then Obama did!!! Now when I asked for their opinion of who that might be the crickets came out. Donald Trump can't be their big White Hope can he??? I'm shocked no one has suggested dumping Trump at the convention and then turn to Ryan to put things right. If you think about it, "What's not to like about Ryan!!!!" He's the speaker of the House and a fiscal Conservative!!!!! He's young and energetic and when compared to Hillary, he's in touch with this generation and not your fathers generation. Yet the Trump man keeps going!!!! If Donald Trump is going to get the nomination of the Republican party to be President of the USA. It's time they come up with a new party to replace the Republicans. The party of a bunch of do nothings, has no place in the Great United States of America!!!!

[hookdfisherman]

I would have thought that after all the years of people barbecuing Obama on here. They would at least had someone in mind who they thought would do a much better job then Obama did!!! Now when I asked for their opinion of who that might be the crickets came out. Donald Trump can't be their big White Hope can he??? I'm shocked no one has suggested dumping Trump at the convention and then turn to Ryan to put things right. If you think about it, "What's not to like about Ryan!!!!" He's the speaker of the House and a fiscal Conservative!!!!! He's young and energetic and when compared to Hillary, he's in touch with this generation and not your fathers generation. Yet the Trump man keeps going!!!! If Donald Trump is going to get the nomination of the Republican party to be President of the USA. It's time they come up with a new party to replace the Republicans. The party of a bunch of do nothings, has no place in the Great United States of America!!!!

What a great idea!!!!!

Let's take a poll... who would like to nominate pucker boy to "call paul" and give him the good news???????

Dumb puck, call Paul and let him know that you're totally shocked that no one, but you, has suggested he'd do a way better job than dumbama and in fact you'd like to replace trump with him... (Paul is after all your suggestion, right???????)

Tell Paul you asked for everyone's opinion on fnn: "who'd do a better job than scumbama?" and all you heard were crickets. Tell paul he's got your vote and Let him know you think he's young and energetic too...

Is that how that works? You're surprised and trump gets dumped?

[Marley]

I would have thought that after all the years of people barbecuing Obama on here. They would at least had someone in mind who they thought would do a much better job then Obama did!!! Now when I asked for their opinion of who that might be the crickets came out. Donald Trump can't be their big White Hope can he??? I'm shocked no one has suggested dumping Trump at the convention and then turn to Ryan to put things right. If you think about it, "What's not to like about Ryan!!!!" He's the speaker of the House and a fiscal Conservative!!!!! He's young and energetic and when compared to Hillary, he's in touch with this generation and not your fathers generation. Yet the Trump man keeps going!!!! If Donald Trump is going to get the nomination of the Republican party to be President of the USA. It's time they come up with a new party to replace the Republicans. The party of a bunch of do nothings, has no place in the Great United States of America!!!!

The big reason Trump is doing so well is that he is not a politician at all and the politicians don't know what to do with him. Enough of America is speaking and I think enough of politics is listening. Party of do-nothings? Because they aren't letting bills get through? Obama promised to fundamentally change America but she wasn't, and isn't, fundamentally flawed. Thank God the republicans are there to block legislation and nominees; it's what the process was designed to do.

[Lady Quagga]

it's kinda like when i ask you if you think the edges are straight on your pseudo-monogrammed net lettering...(and i'm not even asking if you think the spacing between your 3 initials are the same)

YOU... are not obligated to answer, so you don't have to...

47967 <---- click here for a better view! lol

but in all fairness: a?, b?, c?

a) straight unwavering edges

b) crooked uneven edges

c) i drank a lot of cervezas, CHEE looking good!

try not to let your head explode...




you need to stop asking your question and i'll stop asking my question... no one seems to want to answer anyways!

lol

:LOL::Rolls Eyes::LOL::Rolls Eyes::LOL::Rolls Eyes::LOL::Rolls Eyes::LOL::Rolls Eyes::LOL::Rolls Eyes::LOL::Rolls Eyes::LOL::Rolls Eyes::LOL::Rolls Eyes::LOL::Rolls Eyes::LOL::Rolls Eyes::LOL::Rolls Eyes::LOL::Rolls Eyes::LOL::Rolls Eyes::LOL::Rolls Eyes::LOL::Rolls Eyes::LOL::Rolls Eyes::LOL::Rolls Eyes::LOL::Rolls Eyes::LOL::Rolls Eyes::LOL::Rolls Eyes::LOL::Rolls Eyes:

So tell us hookd, when you were getting that net handle rammed up inside you, did you pay as much attention to the inlays? Because you seem awfully obsessed with them.

[DarkShadow]

So tell us hookd, when you were getting that net handle rammed up inside you, did you pay as much attention to the inlays? Because you seem awfully obsessed with them.

The inlays were the last things he saw....

;-)

[etucker1959]

What a great idea!!!!!

Let's take a poll... who would like to nominate pucker boy to "call paul" and give him the good news???????

Dumb puck, call Paul and let him know that you're totally shocked that no one, but you, has suggested he'd do a way better job than dumbama and in fact you'd like to replace trump with him... (Paul is after all your suggestion, right???????)

Tell Paul you asked for everyone's opinion on fnn: "who'd do a better job than scumbama?" and all you heard were crickets. Tell paul he's got your vote and Let him know you think he's young and energetic too...

Is that how that works? You're surprised and trump gets dumped?

BREAKING NEWS!!!!!!! BREAKING NEWS!!!!!! BREAKING NEWS!!!!!!!!!!

Some where in America a village has lost their IDOIT!!!!! If located approach very carefully, he's been known to SHITE his pants when confronted by normal people!!!!!!

[etucker1959]

The big reason Trump is doing so well is that he is not a politician at all and the politicians don't know what to do with him. Enough of America is speaking and I think enough of politics is listening. Party of do-nothings? Because they aren't letting bills get through? Obama promised to fundamentally change America but she wasn't, and isn't, fundamentally flawed. Thank God the republicans are there to block legislation and nominees; it's what the process was designed to do.
Obama was the first Black President, so fundamentally change America could mean many things to different people. How about one of the things to change is to end Bigotry and Racism? Just look at Trump, do you see any signs of him being a Racist?????? (he may also be our next President) That sure looks like a fundamentally flaw our country still has!!!!

As for the Congress is suppose to "Do nothing," come on did you really sleep through every history class you were in. Look at all the great public works the government as done, Hoover Dam was named after a very Conservative person who pushed the deal through. What about our National Parks, The New Deal, Eisenhower Interstate program. (the freeway you drive across our country on) Kennedy's dream of going to the Moon!!!!!!!! All the Civil Rights Bills Johnson passed. Are you going to tell me when you turn 65 you aren't going to take advantage of Medicare!!!! What about Obama Care????? Now that's it's really here and people are taking advantage of it, it's hard to argue it's just one big disaster. (I personally use it, so I'm not talking out of my arse on that subject) What about repairing our infrastructure??? How do you think the American public is going to react when the bridges start falling down and killing dozens of people??? (the demorats are going to blame the Republicans for that one) I think the audience gets the point!!!!!! Yea, a Do nothing government is a bad thing!!!!!!!

[John Harper]

If these Senators and Congressmen hate government so much, why do they run for the job in the first place? They are legislators, elected to legislate, expected and required by our Constitution to legislate. Not obstruct and just say no to everything.

Legislation requires compromise, that's how it works. Why can't the Republicans come up with some ideas that most of the population would agree with? Sensible tax reform, without just ineffective cuts for the rich. Jobs programs, like infrastructure projects, sorely needed across our nation. Student loan reform, so our children are not saddled with debt, precluding them from first home or other domestic purchases that actually boost the economy.

John

[Marley]

If these Senators and Congressmen hate government so much, why do they run for the job in the first place? They are legislators, elected to legislate, expected and required by our Constitution to legislate. Not obstruct and just say no to everything.

Legislation requires compromise, that's how it works. Why can't the Republicans come up with some ideas that most of the population would agree with? Sensible tax reform, without just ineffective cuts for the rich. Jobs programs, like infrastructure projects, sorely needed across our nation. Student loan reform, so our children are not saddled with debt, precluding them from first home or other domestic purchases that actually boost the economy.

John

Legislation does require compromise, but compromise happens from all sides and is not "my way or the highway." Sensible tax reform is everyone paying the same percentage, not allowing many to live tax-free while the few at the top pay the most. Give people an incentive to be more productive and to make more money if they want to. If not then they can stay where they are. Jobs programs are fine as long as there is oversight. Student loans? Best way to stop the student loan problem is to allow the loans to be discharged in bankruptcy and requiring schools to re-pay those loans instead. It won't take long for schools to become very picky with whom the admit. Not every kid should go to college and we should stop insisting on that. Many kids are not cut out for college but would be better suited to learning a trade. Why punish those students who can't succeed in college with big debt and a dropout because they can't handle the college environment? Why punish those with good grades by saddling them with a lifetime of debt after graduating? Make college free for the top grade earners if you want, something that has real return on investment. Give real incentive to be productive members of society.

[hookdfisherman]

The inlays were the last things he saw....

;-)

apparently for you too!!!!!

lifetime guarantee, use it.

[etucker1959]

Legislation does require compromise, but compromise happens from all sides and is not "my way or the highway." Sensible tax reform is everyone paying the same percentage, not allowing many to live tax-free while the few at the top pay the most. Give people an incentive to be more productive and to make more money if they want to. If not then they can stay where they are. Jobs programs are fine as long as there is oversight. Student loans? Best way to stop the student loan problem is to allow the loans to be discharged in bankruptcy and requiring schools to re-pay those loans instead. It won't take long for schools to become very picky with whom the admit. Not every kid should go to college and we should stop insisting on that. Many kids are not cut out for college but would be better suited to learning a trade. Why punish those students who can't succeed in college with big debt and a dropout because they can't handle the college environment? Why punish those with good grades by saddling them with a lifetime of debt after graduating? Make college free for the top grade earners if you want, something that has real return on investment. Give real incentive to be productive members of society.
Marley first and foremost I want to say, "I think you're are one of the more popular members on this board." You are always quick to offer useful fishing advice to anyone who ask's for it. (I respect that a lot) When it comes to politics on this board, I know there is a fair amount of people who really don't follow it and might actually learn something by reading our comments. Which further illustrates that point is the lurkers to members ratio. I use to say it was a 7/1 ratio lurkers to members. In the last few days when I've checked that number, it is now a 20/1 ratio in favor of the lurkers. What I'm getting at is this, "I don't think I'm going to change your mind on anything." But some lurker out there after hearing both sides of an argument will hopefully then be able to make up his own mind what he thinks the truth really is.

You bring up the point of sensible tax reform. Where everyone is paying the same percentage of Tax's. This is the old flat tax argument over the graduated Income tax scale. For those of you who don't know the dynamics of what that argument is, "here's go nothing." Everyone would pay 15% of everything they earned instead of the top earners pay up to 50% of what they make. The system where the top earners pay up to 50% of everything they earn is called the Graduated Income Tax system. (the one we currently have in place.) I've always wondered why the average Joe believes so much in that system. (flat tax system) The big winners in that system would be the super rich and the big losers would be the poor. The middle class might have a slight advantage in that system, but it is totally unfeasible. It try's to get money from the poor who don't have it and then let the Rich get totally richer. Would that system even work????? Noooooooo!!! It would not allow the Federal government to collect enough tax revenue to do much of anything. So what would they then do???? Totally Gut popular social programs???? (probably) Yet they would still want a big military budget. Guess who that sounds like????? The former USSR right before it all fell apart!!!! I'm not kidding!!!!!!!! Even though we hoped Obama could have done more. These crazy Republicans want to turn our whole system on top of itself to the point it may all fall apart!!!!! I'm not kidding!!!!!! Plain and simple their idea's just wouldn't work!!!!!!! If you don't believe that, think of some of the things Trump said, "do you really think deporting 11 million people is remotely possible????" Or building a border wall and make Mexico pay for it!!!! These Republicans and their ideas are nothing more then snake oil salesman and are you going to buy into that?????????

[John Harper]

Thanks etucker1959, for explaining the downside of a flat tax. Some ideas sound simple, but just won't balance the books considering the fixed costs of a stable government and society. I really don't think anyone envisions Somalia as a "small government" utopia. We all want to drink clean water, breathe good air, work in a safe environment, have good roads, schools, hospitals, etc. Not to mention our national defense. And social safety net programs. It all costs money. What's wrong with accepting that fact?

Taxing poor people will just make them poorer, and more dependent on government help, food assistance, shelter, etc. This is where some Republicans even favor an increase in the EIC. It would be great if everyone was rich (and thin, and beautiful, and smart), but not even Jesus was able to change that situation. Income inequality has existed pretty much forever. Unfortunately, everyone needs food, shelter, healthcare, education, and security. Maslow's hierarchy of needs in action.

I actually took a couple classes in finance from Dr. Arthur Laffer at USC in the 1980's. He never promoted his theory (The Laffer Curve) as a panacea. Only to illustrate how increasing tax rates would eventually produce less revenue. This was derived from sustainable fisheries theory, aka environmental economics. Just like overfishing, there is a point where you begin to destroy the resource.

Of course, determining what "too high rates" actually are is the hard part. We know there were marginal rates at 90% or more in the 1950's, yet our economy was not stifled. And, continuing to lower upper tax rates since St. Reagan has not ever been shown to produce any boost of jobs. Only deficits. Hmm.

Capital gains rates are out of whack in a lot of areas as well. Mitt Romney pays lower tax rates than most middle class families, cause all his (investment) income is taxed at 15% IIRC. That's why his tax returns showed about 13% overall taxes paid. I'm sure he makes substantial contributions to charity, he seems like a decent fellow. The hedge fund guys use the "carried interest" laws to pay almost no taxes. Is that fair? They churn money and pay no taxes. Hmm.

Once again, complex issues require complex solutions, often involving.................compromises.

John

[Marley]

Marley first and foremost I want to say, "I think you're are one of the more popular members on this board." You are always quick to offer useful fishing advice to anyone who ask's for it. (I respect that a lot) When it comes to politics on this board, I know there is a fair amount of people who really don't follow it and might actually learn something by reading our comments. Which further illustrates that point is the lurkers to members ratio. I use to say it was a 7/1 ratio lurkers to members. In the last few days when I've checked that number, it is now a 20/1 ratio in favor of the lurkers. What I'm getting at is this, "I don't think I'm going to change your mind on anything." But some lurker out there after hearing both sides of an argument will hopefully then be able to make up his own mind what he thinks the truth really is.

You bring up the point of sensible tax reform. Where everyone is paying the same percentage of Tax's. This is the old flat tax argument over the graduated Income tax scale. For those of you who don't know the dynamics of what that argument is, "here's go nothing." Everyone would pay 15% of everything they earned instead of the top earners pay up to 50% of what they make. The system where the top earners pay up to 50% of everything they earn is called the Graduated Income Tax system. (the one we currently have in place.) I've always wondered why the average Joe believes so much in that system. (flat tax system) The big winners in that system would be the super rich and the big losers would be the poor. The middle class might have a slight advantage in that system, but it is totally unfeasible. It try's to get money from the poor who don't have it and then let the Rich get totally richer. Would that system even work????? Noooooooo!!! It would not allow the Federal government to collect enough tax revenue to do much of anything. So what would they then do???? Totally Gut popular social programs???? (probably) Yet they would still want a big military budget. Guess who that sounds like????? The former USSR right before it all fell apart!!!! I'm not kidding!!!!!!!! Even though we hoped Obama could have done more. These crazy Republicans want to turn our whole system on top of itself to the point it may all fall apart!!!!! I'm not kidding!!!!!! Plain and simple their idea's just wouldn't work!!!!!!! If you don't believe that, think of some of the things Trump said, "do you really think deporting 11 million people is remotely possible????" Or building a border wall and make Mexico pay for it!!!! These Republicans and their ideas are nothing more then snake oil salesman and are you going to buy into that?????????

Thanks. Who knows who those lurkers really are? Trump campaign workers? Sanders campaign workers, Hillary campaign workers (oh ****!)
But I see no reason to soak the rich because I like to think there is some incentive to working hard, doing the right things and becoming my idea of rich. The two issues I have with soaking the rich is that (1) it becomes an income re-distribution system where the rich are taxed to pay for the leeches at the bottom, which is what we have with so very many of the social programs. Obamacare hasn't been around long enough for a large fraud network to develop but just give it a little more time. And (2), the income definition of "rich" drops dramatically to the point that $70K in net annual income suddenly makes you a tax target because you have that exorbitant income. Everyone should pay income taxes, and they're not.
All this creates class envy, which is as divisive as bigotry and discrimination (though not nearly as destructive). A FAIR progressive/graduated tax is fine but only if everyone but the truly destitute pays it, if only Congress could agree on the definition of "fair", which helps bring us right back to gridlock.

Deporting 11 million people? Not possible unless they leave on their own because it's no longer comfortable for them to live here. If it is desirable to make them leave, and the cost of the social programs alone that they consume would make me say that it is, then stop the social programs, repeal the 14th amendment and make citizenship relative to the parent's citizenship. That would remove much of the incentive for them to stay. At the same time, make employing someone who is here illegally a crime with steep monetary penalties and enforce the penalty. There would be no need for a tangible wall at all, perhaps what Trump is actually talking about.



I think I need to kill some fish.

[John Harper]

At the same time, make employing someone who is here illegally a crime with steep monetary penalties and enforce the penalty. There would be no need for a tangible wall at all, perhaps what Trump is actually talking about.

Unfortunately, the Republicans and the US Chamber of Commerce are totally against any employer penalties. Only having (corporate welfare) la migra take out the poor employees is acceptable. How many companies just happen to get raided on "pay day" and employers get free labor? Urban legend, or not?

Levying fines on corporations for anything unethical, much less criminal, is virtually verboten. Look at the huge settlement reduction in New Jersey.

So much for the concept that "corporations are people." You or I would be making big rocks into small rocks, for a long time.

John

[etucker1959]

Thanks etucker1959, for explaining the downside of a flat tax. Some ideas sound simple, but just won't balance the books considering the fixed costs of a stable government and society. I really don't think anyone envisions Somalia as a "small government" utopia. We all want to drink clean water, breathe good air, work in a safe environment, have good roads, schools, hospitals, etc. Not to mention our national defense. And social safety net programs. It all costs money. What's wrong with accepting that fact?

Taxing poor people will just make them poorer, and more dependent on government help, food assistance, shelter, etc. This is where some Republicans even favor an increase in the EIC. It would be great if everyone was rich (and thin, and beautiful, and smart), but not even Jesus was able to change that situation. Income inequality has existed pretty much forever. Unfortunately, everyone needs food, shelter, healthcare, education, and security. Maslow's hierarchy of needs in action.

I actually took a couple classes in finance from Dr. Arthur Laffer at USC in the 1980's. He never promoted his theory (The Laffer Curve) as a panacea. Only to illustrate how increasing tax rates would eventually produce less revenue. This was derived from sustainable fisheries theory, aka environmental economics. Just like overfishing, there is a point where you begin to destroy the resource.

Of course, determining what "too high rates" actually are is the hard part. We know there were marginal rates at 90% or more in the 1950's, yet our economy was not stifled. And, continuing to lower upper tax rates since St. Reagan has not ever been shown to produce any boost of jobs. Only deficits. Hmm.

Capital gains rates are out of whack in a lot of areas as well. Mitt Romney pays lower tax rates than most middle class families, cause all his (investment) income is taxed at 15% IIRC. That's why his tax returns showed about 13% overall taxes paid. I'm sure he makes substantial contributions to charity, he seems like a decent fellow. The hedge fund guys use the "carried interest" laws to pay almost no taxes. Is that fair? They churn money and pay no taxes. Hmm.

Once again, complex issues require complex solutions, often involving.................compromises.

John
John that was one of the best posts I've seen in quite awhile. I'm sure many people after reading it will walk away with a little bit better understanding of what the issues are that we all face.

[John Harper]

John that was one of the best posts I've seen in quite awhile. I'm sure many people after reading it will walk away with a little bit better understanding of what the issues are that we all face.

I have a really good brain. It's huge.

John

[etucker1959]

Thanks. Who knows who those lurkers really are? Trump campaign workers? Sanders campaign workers, Hillary campaign workers (oh ****!)
But I see no reason to soak the rich because I like to think there is some incentive to working hard, doing the right things and becoming my idea of rich. The two issues I have with soaking the rich is that (1) it becomes an income re-distribution system where the rich are taxed to pay for the leeches at the bottom, which is what we have with so very many of the social programs. Obamacare hasn't been around long enough for a large fraud network to develop but just give it a little more time. And (2), the income definition of "rich" drops dramatically to the point that $70K in net annual income suddenly makes you a tax target because you have that exorbitant income. Everyone should pay income taxes, and they're not.
All this creates class envy, which is as divisive as bigotry and discrimination (though not nearly as destructive). A FAIR progressive/graduated tax is fine but only if everyone but the truly destitute pays it, if only Congress could agree on the definition of "fair", which helps bring us right back to gridlock.

Deporting 11 million people? Not possible unless they leave on their own because it's no longer comfortable for them to live here. If it is desirable to make them leave, and the cost of the social programs alone that they consume would make me say that it is, then stop the social programs, repeal the 14th amendment and make citizenship relative to the parent's citizenship. That would remove much of the incentive for them to stay. At the same time, make employing someone who is here illegally a crime with steep monetary penalties and enforce the penalty. There would be no need for a tangible wall at all, perhaps what Trump is actually talking about.



I think I need to kill some fish.
Even the poor pay some tax's (state sales tax's) and hidden fees which are really tax's anyway. Remember the 1% they own 24% of all of our nations wealth and that number keeps increasing. So if all of our nations wealth keeps going into fewer and fewer hands, it only makes sense for them to carry more of the burden to actually pay the tax's.

[John Harper]

Even the poor pay some tax's (state sales tax's) and hidden fees which are really tax's anyway. Remember the 1% they own 24% of all of our nations wealth and that number keeps increasing. So if all of our nations wealth keeps going into fewer and fewer hands, it only makes sense for them to carry more of the burden to actually pay the tax's.

Yes, it's probably more an issue of wealth inequality than income inequality. The only way to climb the ladder in America is to be able to build some net wealth, and then build on that. That's what Herr Donald (loan/inheritance) did, as well as most of us lucky enough to be prudent with our income, build a business, or inherit some money. On the other hand, we all know someone who had it all and blew it all. There is no law against stupidity, even banks got away in 2008.

Unfortunately, people need income, from jobs, that pay enough, to gain any net wealth. Where's the jobs growth ideas, Republicans? Silence? Tax cuts?

It appears that the 1% are on the way to owning more than 50% of the worlds wealth. And now more than 34% of the US wealth. Hmm.

John

[DarkShadow]

I have a really good brain. It's huge.

John

"My brain is leading in the polls. Ask anybody."

[Lady Quagga]

"My brain is leading in the polls. Ask anybody."

I'm gonna build a wall around John's brain, and make the conservatives on this forum pay for it!

[DarkShadow]

I'm gonna build a wall around John's brain, and make the conservatives on this forum pay for it!

I'm gonna round up all the Johns!

And send them back where....well wherever John comes from.

[DockRat]

Even the poor pay some tax's (state sales tax's) and hidden fees which are really tax's anyway. Remember the 1% they own 24% of all of our nations wealth and that number keeps increasing. So if all of our nations wealth keeps going into fewer and fewer hands, it only makes sense for them to carry more of the burden to actually pay the tax's.
http://i285.photobucket.com/albums/ll80/HillbillReport/Bernie.jpg (http://media.photobucket.com/user/HillbillReport/media/Bernie.jpg.html)