The Republican Agenda 2021 and Forward

[Herdfan]

I’m genuinely surprised. I know many of the people who swear the Civil War had nothing to do with slavery will throw out the fact that slaves were sold to traders by their own people. Thank you.

yep somehow that justifies slavery in their minds.

These are two completely different issues.

You can be for or against slavery regardless of the color of your skin. But simply blaming it on white people is inaccurate.

 

[GermanSuplex]

But simply blaming it on white people is inaccurate.

What race instituted African American slavery, spread it, fought to save it and seceded if it wasn’t an option? I mean, there’s a time and place to learn this stuff, but if you’re going to try to argue the finer points of slavery as a way to absolve what white Americans did in this country from its inception, then it comes across as apologetic.

In this country, with its history, slavery was a form of imprisonment by whites, for whites at the expense of black Americans.

Personally, I don’t know why white Americans have a problem admitting this. An accurate representation is not an indictment of people living today. It’s what it is and what happened.

 

[Herdfan]

What race instituted African American slavery, spread it, fought to save it and seceded if it wasn’t an option?

With all those qualifiers, then yes it was the white man.

But it existed in Africa PRIOR to any white colonization efforts. It most likely would not have existed at the scope it did had Blacks in Africa not been willing to sell other Blacks to white men.

It was a joint effort.

 

[GermanSuplex]

With all those qualifiers, then yes it was the white man.

But it existed in Africa PRIOR to any white colonization efforts. It most likely would not have existed at the scope it did had Blacks in Africa not been willing to sell other Blacks to white men.

It was a joint effort.

It’s not a qualifier when we’re discussing American history and the institution of slavery. I have long known settlers and Americans both captured and negotiated with blacks in Africa for slaves.

What are we gonna do, erase the couple hundred years of white institutionalized slavery to focus on thousands of years of slavery before that? Maybe go back far enough to when the first amoeba became parasitic?

There are no qualifiers needed - the qualifiers come from the apologists who can’t state the obvious, and then we have to try - incredulously - to explain why slavery is a white institution in America.

This is the mindset that keeps republicans a losing party trying to retain power with an electorate that has outgrown their outdated ideas. Slavery already happened. A lot of white people enslaved millions of black men, women and children.

Trying to temper the story with tribes in Africa or an almost non-existent of black slave owners _ themselves with no rights who could be enslaved at a moments notice if a white man was having a bad day - doesn’t change it.

I’ve got no problem with learning nuggets of info like that - but that’s what they are, nuggets. It’s not the narrative, and republicans want to change the narrative. If we had it the Republican way, in another couple of decades, slavery will be taught as religious white men making rescue missions to Africa to enroll illiterate, enslaved savages in vocational programs. We both know this, look at what DeSantis and Haley have said in the last few months.

 

[Yoused]

There is a substantive argument that the American Revolution was fought in part because of slavery issues. In Somerset v Stewart 1772, Crown Judge Lord Mansfield wrote,

The state of slavery is of such a nature that it is incapable of being introduced on any reasons, moral or political, but only by , which preserves its force long after the reasons, occasions, and time itself from whence it was created, is erased from memory. It is so odious, that nothing can be suffered to support it, but positive law. Whatever inconveniences, therefore, may follow from the decision, I cannot say this case is allowed or approved by the law of England; and therefore the black must be discharged.​

A few years after that, the shot heard 'round the world. Britain was on a clear path toward the elimination of slavery, banning slave trade in 1807 and abolishing slavery in '33, three decades before the US. Nearly half the population of the Colonies was in the firm slave belt, and their support was key to prosecuting the war. The owners of chattels saw the path Britain was on and were eager to avoid it.

 

[GermanSuplex]

There is a substantive argument that the American Revolution was fought in part because of slavery issues. In Somerset v Stewart 1772, Crown Judge Lord Mansfield wrote,

The state of slavery is of such a nature that it is incapable of being introduced on any reasons, moral or political, but only by , which preserves its force long after the reasons, occasions, and time itself from whence it was created, is erased from memory. It is so odious, that nothing can be suffered to support it, but positive law. Whatever inconveniences, therefore, may follow from the decision, I cannot say this case is allowed or approved by the law of England; and therefore the black must be discharged.​

A few years after that, the shot heard 'round the world. Britain was on a clear path toward the elimination of slavery, banning slave trade in 1807 and abolishing slavery in '33, three decades before the US. Nearly half the population of the Colonies was in the firm slave belt, and their support was key to prosecuting the war. The owners of chattels saw the path Britain was on and were eager to avoid it.

Probably the actual truth, supplanted over the centuries by whitewashed history books and phony acts of patriotism - like the anthem and the pledge of allegiance - which I have no issue with in theory but also find meaningless.

I take Christopher Hitchens’ question on religion - “Name me a moral action taken or a moral statement made by a believer that could but have been made by a non-believer. Now, name me an evil action taken or an evil statement made by someone purely because they are religious.”

Needless to say, nobody can answer the first, but can easily answer the second. The same is true of patriotism - name something patriotic a flag-waving, hand-on-heart “patriot” can do that a kneeling BLM protester could not.. serve the country? Vote? Work in a soup kitchen? Start a charity?

Look at how mislead people are today, even with the world’s knowledge at their fingertips, carried in their pocket all day. We are dumber than ever. I say all that because if we are this dumb today and can bullshit ourselves about facts and history in the modern era, I can absolutely believe this about the war for American independence.

 

[Chew Toy McCoy]

Stunning Republican Probe Finds 4,000 Missing Votes From Trump-Biden Election — Votes TAKEN FROM Biden

In another blow to Trump's "STOLLEN ELECTION" narrative, Republicans have found 4,000 votes that were miscounted — in Trump's favor and to Biden's detriment.

www.mediaite.com

I’ve said before, whatever the Republicans are accusing others of the loudest is a confession and given how much they’ve whined about the supposed stolen election it’s because they are in complete disbelief that their rigging didn’t work.

 

[GermanSuplex]

Stunning Republican Probe Finds 4,000 Missing Votes From Trump-Biden Election — Votes TAKEN FROM Biden

In another blow to Trump's "STOLLEN ELECTION" narrative, Republicans have found 4,000 votes that were miscounted — in Trump's favor and to Biden's detriment.

www.mediaite.com

I’ve said before, whatever the Republicans are accusing others of the loudest is a confession and given how much they’ve whined about the supposed stolen election it’s because they are in complete disbelief that their rigging didn’t work.

Maybe Trump has an unyet uncovered plot to steal the election that failed, which made him certain he was going to win. So perhaps he believes something funny must have happened for his plot to have been thwarted.

I base this on nothing, which according republicans, should be more than enough to begin an impeachment inquiry should Trump make it back into office. Let’s get those subpoenas for closed-door testimony drafted, we’ve got a lot of work to do to get down to the bottom of this dreamt-up theory.

 

[Huntn]

Maybe Trump has an unyet uncovered plot to steal the election that failed, which made him certain he was going to win. So perhaps he believes something funny must have happened for his plot to have been thwarted.

I base this on nothing, which according republicans, should be more than enough to begin an impeachment inquiry should Trump make it back into office. Let’s get those subpoenas for closed-door testimony drafted, we’ve got a lot of work to do to get down to the bottom of this dreamt-up theory.

Yeah, like expect lawfulness from the blatantly lawless party.

 

[GermanSuplex]

Iowa Caucuses soon underway. Trump seems like the certain bet, and Haley is hoping for a second place finish to diminish DeSantis. Then what? Will Haley start running for number one instead of seeing who will be the also-ran runner-up? She’s clearly the best option to defeat Biden. She’ll kill the “revenge” vote that will drive unenthusiastic Biden voters out to vote against Trump. Many of those folks will stay home, either through lack of enthusiasm or with being unhappy with either candidate.

Of course, will Trump voters refuse to vote for her if she wins the nomination? Cults are hard to break from. Just read this story out of St. Louis…. Im not sure about posting links to cult sites here, but if you google the page it’s interesting for about six seconds until you realize it’s not just spiritual gibberish on Reddit, but something people apparently take seriously.

And of course, the leader is a self-proclaimed prophet.

6 people missing from St. Louis area believed to be in clutches of online cult — NBC News

Police believe the six have become followers of Rashad Jamal, a convicted child molester and former rapper-turned-online guru who operates the University of Cosmic Intelligence.

apple.news

*Edit - Iowa caucus called for Trump by NBC News/CNN/Fox

Trump will win Iowa Republican caucuses, CNN projects — CNN

Former President Donald Trump will win the Iowa caucuses, CNN projects, solidifying his place as the front-runner for the 2024 Republican nomination.

apple.news

*I’ll try to find a link, but NBC reported a 130,000 voter turnout projection, which is lower than anticipated. Iowa hasn’t picked the Republican winner in some time, so the real test will be ahead, though this most certainly is a good boost for Trump.

The devil will be in the exit polling details, and based on early results, it really doesn’t look good for Trump. It’s amateur guesswork on my part, but with or without a strong third party ticket, I see Trump having a hard, hard time winning, even with stunted turnout for low enthusiasm for himself or Biden. I’m also willing to bet that for every MAGA voter (or at least two for every three), there’s a Democrat just as anxious to vote for anyone else not named Trump. If a Democrat shows up, they’re not voting Trump. Almost half of Haley’s voters in Iowa said they’d vote for Biden over Trump.

 

[Alli]

*I’ll try to find a link, but NBC reported a 130,000 voter turnout projection, which is lower than anticipated. Iowa hasn’t picked the Republican winner in some time, so the real test will be ahead, though this most certainly is a good boost for Trump.

Keep in mind he lost IA last go round, so this could be good for Hailey.

 

[Eric]

Best headline of the night.

Florida man facing 91 criminal counts wins Iowa caucuses

Donald Trump crushed his Republican rivals.

www.motherjones.com

 

[Citysnaps]

Best headline of the night.

Florida man facing 91 criminal counts wins Iowa caucuses

Donald Trump crushed his Republican rivals.

www.motherjones.com

Even better:

Florida Con Man Facing 91 Criminal Counts Wins Iowa Caucuses​

 

[GermanSuplex]

Now is the time for Ron DeFuture DeFeat to really emulate his idol and declare himself the winner of Iowa. If you’re going to go MAGA, do it right.

Trump wins, but as a former president, it was low turnout (may be weather related). But half of republicans still went elsewhere. You can’t judge a national election in Iowa’s primary.

That said, Haley up to this point has not really been running for the top spot. Neither has DeSantis. I think Haley is dead even if she wins S.C., which is not looking so good. A second-place win and a win in NH would have helped, but New Hampshire will seem like a parting gift.

The problem anyone in second place has is that a lot of states are winner take all for delegates, making it nearly impossible to topple Trump without beating him in damn near every state, you can’t lose a state like California because you don’t win any delegates, you can’t walk away with a handful.

Keep in mind he lost IA last go round, so this could be good for Hailey.

Well, Trump knows his supporters are either dumb or brainwashed, so he made sure to let them know it was his third win in Iowa tonight (it was his second, he lost to Cruz in 2016 and claimed that was a stolen election as well).

Vivek couldn’t drop out and endorse Trump fast enough.

*Nikki gave her second-place “acceptance” speech as if she wasn’t third. She’s happy to announce it’s now a two-person race, which I guess means she’s written off DeSantis’ win. Her crowd gets silent when she tiptoes around Donald Trump - they want her to attack him. It’s just a total silence, and I have a feeling they want her to fight. She’s actively doing the opposite, which is everything in her power to avoid criticizing Trump by painting him the same as Biden.

Basically, she’s standing on stage after coming in third, speaking as if she came in second, and pretending Trump isn’t number one.

 

[AG_PhamD]

Can’t do anything, it won’t help, so why bother… is that your stance? What should be done? Do you agree there is a mostly one-way transfer of wealth in this country that has been going on for some time and getting worse?

I’m merely pointing out the reality. These tax “loopholes” do not exist by mistake as the term seems to insinuate. There’s been plenty of time and opportunity for either side or both to reform taxes, yet it has yet to happen. It’s not favorable to the donor class or the corporations with whom they have incestuous relationships. Aside from a small minority, I think complaints by our politicians are mere political theater.

We can’t even get Congress to police insider trading under their existing policies (honestly probably more sensible considering investigating likely costs far beyond the negligible penalties) let alone enact regulations to stop this blatant corruption.

if you have a suggestion of how to enact tax reforms, I’m genuinely interested.

I grew up in CT and their tax policies have ruined, perhaps irreparably- or at least for decades, the state’s economy. After the recession the governor created the most business-unfriendly state in the country and one with the worst economic recovery. GE’s global HQ’s was in Fairfield, CT since the 70’s and was the states biggest tax payer. After being increasingly taxed every way possible, GE warned a new tax policy would make them leave. The Gov played hardball and lost and GE moved to Boston where they were welcomed with open arms (and lots of incentives). CT lost 5700 jobs and caused extreme harm to property values in Fairfield county, some of the most expensive in the county.

GE is not alone. Lego’s US HQ also moved to Boston. Aetna insurance- one of the oldest companies in he state/country, old enough to have insured slaves (as property) - off to NY. And there’s plenty of companies that have had huge presences they’ve moved elsewhere- like Pfizer.

Over the holidays I spent a few weeks in various parts of CT and haven’t spent that much time there in 10+ years. The place is a disaster. Even the ultra affluent towns are showing signs of decay. And the quaint rural towns have been overrun with out-of-state investors building giant condo/apt complexes to fulfill low income quotas and provide “affordable housing”. Since when is a $700k 2BR condo outside of Hartford “afforable housing”?

It’s not hard to imagine high taxes- whether for business or individuals ultimately drive people out and especially into places that will offer incentives. Reportly Norway has a wealth tax (>$135k) that was increased and has started a historic efflux of their most wealthy citizens. And a lot of these schemes have been abandoned because they rely on taxing unrealized gains which makes no sense and is legally problematic. Many people are obviously migrating within the US from high to low tax states.

While there is certainly a problem with wealth distribution in the US, I think corporations are more of the problem than billionaires personally- though to some respect they’re related.

What I do have a problem with are billionaires who believe their wealth entitles their opinion to more valuable if not inherently always correct. Why should Musk consider himself the arbiter of free speech? Why is Bill Gates treated like a public health authority when he has no credentials? Or the many elite who demand society sacrifices for the climate yet they are justified in flying private jets (perhaps several), sailing their mega yacht(s), and owning a portfolio of mansions they rarely use. Just how I dislike billionaires are treated as the enemy unless they share political views? How often has ie MSNBC included George Soros in their criticism of billionaires.

There is definitely a one way wealth transfer. But our government has allowed it if not often promoting it. I suppose we all have some responsibility ie favoring the bottom line versus supporting our local businesses. Offshoring our jobs probably doesn’t help our case.

I’m not sure how to resolve this issue, but it’s a much deeper issue than a simple wealth transfer back. Because it’s unlikely to work as many other nations have discovered and the political elite lack the incentive. And for whatever reason we elect the same people over and over again despite their failures.

 

[GermanSuplex]

TLDR: Haley would be wise to bring up Trump's age, with more of a focus on Trump than Biden, since she has to beat Trump before she can take on Biden.
----

She seems unwilling or unable to do that. She mentions their age, but only as equals. When Nikki talks, Trump and Biden are both the same. I don't agree with that, but she's running in the GOP primary. I can understand why she does it, but it comes across as less of a tactic and more of fear. You can even hear it in her cadence.... "we need to look forward, not to the past. both trump aaAAAAAAAAND BIDEN! are both too old! trump is facing allegations, AND BIDEN IS FACING ALLEGATIONS!"

If Biden is too old, then republicans don't have much of an argument, because Trump will be the third consecutive president to be the oldest ever to take office - that's kind of going in the wrong direction if we want younger and less divisive candidates.

I urge everyone to watch Trump at any place that isn't a rally, where he is made up well before taking the stage. A lot of the time, he looks gaunt, defeated, not all there. No worse than Biden, but remember - Trump doesn't think, he's not reserved, he doesn't pick and choose what to say or how to frame something - Biden might appear a lot more lively if, when asked about Trump, he could simply say "That dumbass chucklef*ck?" But because he stutters and tries to word things like a normal adult, he looks like a normal adult, which for him is an elderly 80+ year old man. If Trump had any discipline, he'd look less lively.

 

[GermanSuplex]

I’m merely pointing out the reality. These tax “loopholes” do not exist by mistake as the term seems to insinuate. There’s been plenty of time and opportunity for either side or both to reform taxes, yet it has yet to happen. It’s not favorable to the donor class or the corporations with whom they have incestuous relationships. Aside from a small minority, I think complaints by our politicians are mere political theater.

We can’t even get Congress to police insider trading under their existing policies (honestly probably more sensible considering investigating likely costs far beyond the negligible penalties) let alone enact regulations to stop this blatant corruption.

if you have a suggestion of how to enact tax reforms, I’m genuinely interested.

I grew up in CT and their tax policies have ruined, perhaps irreparably- or at least for decades, the state’s economy. After the recession the governor created the most business-unfriendly state in the country and one with the worst economic recovery. GE’s global HQ’s was in Fairfield, CT since the 70’s and was the states biggest tax payer. After being increasingly taxed every way possible, GE warned a new tax policy would make them leave. The Gov played hardball and lost and GE moved to Boston where they were welcomed with open arms (and lots of incentives). CT lost 5700 jobs and caused extreme harm to property values in Fairfield county, some of the most expensive in the county.

GE is not alone. Lego’s US HQ also moved to Boston. Aetna insurance- one of the oldest companies in he state/country, old enough to have insured slaves (as property) - off to NY. And there’s plenty of companies that have had huge presences they’ve moved elsewhere- like Pfizer.

Over the holidays I spent a few weeks in various parts of CT and haven’t spent that much time there in 10+ years. The place is a disaster. Even the ultra affluent towns are showing signs of decay. And the quaint rural towns have been overrun with out-of-state investors building giant condo/apt complexes to fulfill low income quotas and provide “affordable housing”. Since when is a $700k 2BR condo outside of Hartford “afforable housing”?

It’s not hard to imagine high taxes- whether for business or individuals ultimately drive people out and especially into places that will offer incentives. Reportly Norway has a wealth tax (>$135k) that was increased and has started a historic efflux of their most wealthy citizens. And a lot of these schemes have been abandoned because they rely on taxing unrealized gains which makes no sense and is legally problematic. Many people are obviously migrating within the US from high to low tax states.

While there is certainly a problem with wealth distribution in the US, I think corporations are more of the problem than billionaires personally- though to some respect they’re related.

What I do have a problem with are billionaires who believe their wealth entitles their opinion to more valuable if not inherently always correct. Why should Musk consider himself the arbiter of free speech? Why is Bill Gates treated like a public health authority when he has no credentials? Or the many elite who demand society sacrifices for the climate yet they are justified in flying private jets (perhaps several), sailing their mega yacht(s), and owning a portfolio of mansions they rarely use. Just how I dislike billionaires are treated as the enemy unless they share political views? How often has ie MSNBC included George Soros in their criticism of billionaires.

There is definitely a one way wealth transfer. But our government has allowed it if not often promoting it. I suppose we all have some responsibility ie favoring the bottom line versus supporting our local businesses. Offshoring our jobs probably doesn’t help our case.

I’m not sure how to resolve this issue, but it’s a much deeper issue than a simple wealth transfer back. Because it’s unlikely to work as many other nations have discovered and the political elite lack the incentive. And for whatever reason we elect the same people over and over again despite their failures.

I appreciate your well-reasoned argument. I disagree. This is like a religious thinking (not you, but the wealthy and their defenders) in that "If we have to pay more and can't keep virtually all of it, then we'll go elsewhere."

That's a threat to fear people to keep the status quo. I don't care. Take your money to a tax haven and let us work on the tax code. You're right, it hasn't been done. There are legislators who are trying - mostly dems - and its hard. Clearly, there aren't enough - the answer why is obvious. Campaign funds, lobbyists, corporate interest and general greed.

I'm quite aware the loopholes exist for a reason. Sometimes, the loopholes may have been a necessary tax credit that outlived its purpose but is still there. Perhaps one is to combat someone being double-taxed elsewhere (not corporate gains, I don't consider a tax on investment or other earnings "double-dipping". If I win the lottery, I can't claim I paid taxes on the dollar I used to purchase the ticket, so I should have to pay no taxes on my winnings.)

At any rate, the argument always seems to fall back to "they'll take their businesses and money elsewhere and then we'll have none of it!" I don't believe that, especially given how many times federal and states government have been wrong on Armageddon scenarios. In Illinois, the ending of cash bail is a good example. I was told prison cells and jail cells would be flung open, murderers would be fingerprinted and released back onto the street, etc. Well, I'm happy to say business is continuing as usual, dangerous criminals get held, non-violent offenders get released providing they fit criteria, and the world keeps going. The only difference is, we're not letting RICH suspects go and holding the poor.

 

[Herdfan]

It’s not hard to imagine high taxes- whether for business or individuals ultimately drive people out and especially into places that will offer incentives. Reportly Norway has a wealth tax (>$135k) that was increased and has started a historic efflux of their most wealthy citizens. And a lot of these schemes have been abandoned because they rely on taxing unrealized gains which makes no sense and is legally problematic. Many people are obviously migrating within the US from high to low tax states.

For you and I to imagine it, not hard at all.

But there are many, including some on this forum, that can not. They can not envision a world where people make decisions about where to live based on financial or quality of life considerations.

But as you noted, it is happening. Wealthy are moving from high tax states to low tax states and leaving budget holes in their wake. They are leaving crime-ridden cities for places where QoL is higher. Where they can go to the store, pick things off the shelf (ie not locked up) and go out to their car which hasn't been broken into and go home.

COVID has exacerbated this trend as more and more people can WFH. So they are now deciding where home is going to be. I am having dinner tonight with a buddy from college. He is originally from NJ and went back there after college to work. He now is WFH and he and his wife sold their home in NJ and are traveling around the country checking out places they may want to live. They stay a month or so and move on. So his taxes are no longer going to NJ.

People who thought they had to be in a certain city for their career are now free to move away.

I don't know whether some people either don't want to believe it is happening because they can't envision it, or they know deep down it is happening but will assign 100 reasons in their minds because they don't want the real ones to be true.

 

[Chew Toy McCoy]

TLDR: Haley would be wise to bring up Trump's age, with more of a focus on Trump than Biden, since she has to beat Trump before she can take on Biden.
----

She seems unwilling or unable to do that. She mentions their age, but only as equals. When Nikki talks, Trump and Biden are both the same. I don't agree with that, but she's running in the GOP primary. I can understand why she does it, but it comes across as less of a tactic and more of fear. You can even hear it in her cadence.... "we need to look forward, not to the past. both trump aaAAAAAAAAND BIDEN! are both too old! trump is facing allegations, AND BIDEN IS FACING ALLEGATIONS!"

If Biden is too old, then republicans don't have much of an argument, because Trump will be the third consecutive president to be the oldest ever to take office - that's kind of going in the wrong direction if we want younger and less divisive candidates.

I urge everyone to watch Trump at any place that isn't a rally, where he is made up well before taking the stage. A lot of the time, he looks gaunt, defeated, not all there. No worse than Biden, but remember - Trump doesn't think, he's not reserved, he doesn't pick and choose what to say or how to frame something - Biden might appear a lot more lively if, when asked about Trump, he could simply say "That dumbass chucklef*ck?" But because he stutters and tries to word things like a normal adult, he looks like a normal adult, which for him is an elderly 80+ year old man. If Trump had any discipline, he'd look less lively.

Trump supporters conflate anger and grievance with mental acuity. His speeches always trail off into nonsense but since he’s confident in his nonsense they think he is sharp. Well, that, and they don’t have a Plan B. Luckily for Trump his base has been making excuses for him for the past 8 years. There’s no reason for them to stop now.

 

[GermanSuplex]

For you and I to imagine it, not hard at all.

But there are many, including some on this forum, that can not. They can not envision a world where people make decisions about where to live based on financial or quality of life considerations.

But as you noted, it is happening. Wealthy are moving from high tax states to low tax states and leaving budget holes in their wake. They are leaving crime-ridden cities for places where QoL is higher. Where they can go to the store, pick things off the shelf (ie not locked up) and go out to their car which hasn't been broken into and go home.

COVID has exacerbated this trend as more and more people can WFH. So they are now deciding where home is going to be. I am having dinner tonight with a buddy from college. He is originally from NJ and went back there after college to work. He now is WFH and he and his wife sold their home in NJ and are traveling around the country checking out places they may want to live. They stay a month or so and move on. So his taxes are no longer going to NJ.

People who thought they had to be in a certain city for their career are now free to move away.

I don't know whether some people either don't want to believe it is happening because they can't envision it, or they know deep down it is happening but will assign 100 reasons in their minds because they don't want the real ones to be true.

This sounds like "we can't do anything without them, give them what they need", which is probably the exact system they were aiming for, which is why I hate it. Its the exact proof of the outsized power and wealth the uber-rich possess.

Fair tax or progressive tax is the way to go. We have a progressive tax system in theory, which is clearly very regressive. A regressive tax where the more you make, the less you pay is - as I always say in these debates - not sustainable. It's basic math.
The same reason they want to dismantle social security is the same reason why they shouldn't be given the tax breaks, loopholes and havens they have.

And something else I've always said - we've tried our current system for quite a while. Costs go up, personal wealth goes down, people can't have any savings (most don't even have $1,000 in the bank) and the wealthy somehow keep doing bettter, and better, and better, and better - at a faster and faster and faster rate. That's the system we have NOW, that is supposedly too harsh on the wealthy, even though we've always had wealthy people and greater middle class wealth in decades past when they paid more.

Here's a nice little chart of what our current tax system has given us over the years since 1989:

The Fed - Table: Distribution of Household Wealth in the U.S. since 1989

The Federal Reserve Board of Governors in Washington DC.

www.federalreserve.gov