The Conservative Cave
Current Events => The DUmpster => Topic started by: franksolich on March 03, 2013, 05:15:21 PM
-
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022453600
Oh my.
MannyGoldstein (20,395 posts) Sun Mar 3, 2013, 11:57 AM
We need a new Democratic Party
Austerity has been proven to make depressions worse for the 99%. But both parties demand more austerity, now. Krugman, Stieglitz and the other reality-based economists are persona non grata.
Health care costs are twice those of other countries, crippling our wallets and our health. One party wants little people to do without health care, the other wants to cover most folks but keep prices staggeringly high through taxpayer subsidies.
The President now has sweeping powers to ignore the Constitution. Both parties are cool with that.
The wealthiest Americans continue to be taxed at incredibly low rates, far lower than many in the middle class. Both parties are all for it.
Social Security is fully funded for decades, probably for at least 75 years. Both parties want to cut benefits to keep low taxes on the wealthy.
Bankers dine regularly with the President, whose staff and cabinet are filled with other bankers on loan from Wall Street. They are treated with fawning and obsequious respect by both parties in Congress.
We expect Republicans to do this stuff, but we expect Democrats to be on our side. A few individuals *are* on our side, but precious few.
This will not be fixed by tweaks. We need to rebuild our party from the ground up.
Big campfire, so only a few primitive comments, selected at random; Manny's great at getting a lot of primitives involved in a discussion. He was that way years ago, too, before Skins's island erupted from the bottom of the ocean.
DollarBillHines (1,667 posts) Sun Mar 3, 2013, 02:12 PM
52. That's the point
Tax "rates" for the wealthy are a joke. I know quite a few people whose income runs into millions of dollars per year, and damned few of them pay any real "income" tax.
They write off everything.
They do, however, pay a lot of other taxes, but those are pretty much proportionate to what everyone else pays.
DollarBillHines (1,667 posts) Sun Mar 3, 2013, 03:33 PM
95. I was speaking of property, gas, sales taxes, etc.
I suppose 'proportionate' doesn't apply to gasoline taxes.
As for income taxes, I pay very little. But I pay a boatload of property and sales tax.
cali (77,590 posts) Sun Mar 3, 2013, 12:01 PM
2. Sorry, it's the system that needs changing more than anything else
Until we change how political campaigns are funded, any rebuilt party would fall victim to the same pressures extant today.
MineralMan (50,963 posts) Sun Mar 3, 2013, 01:05 PM
18. That is absolutely true.
And that makes it almost impossible to change, as many have noted over time. Change is slow, at best.
.
.
.
.
.
gussmith (48 posts) Sun Mar 3, 2013, 02:16 PM
53. Are You Sure?
I just read that the top earners are being taxed higher that in modern history. Who's right?
nadinbrzezinski (116,806 posts) Sun Mar 3, 2013, 02:36 PM
60. Was that at RW central? Or when did their taxes go up to 90%
I sure missed it.
gussmith (48 posts) Sun Mar 3, 2013, 04:29 PM
108. Look Further down on DU front Page
Quoting "Tax bills for rich families approach 30 year high"
nadinbrzezinski (116,806 posts) Sun Mar 3, 2013, 05:03 PM
124. Really...somebody made a mistake
And they are not that high...15% was what Romney paid, that *is* average. My mind, at the very east 70% and taxing every Wall Street trade would start to correct it.
Oh and ext time...add a link.
.
.
.
.
.
nadinbrzezinski (116,806 posts) Sun Mar 3, 2013, 02:33 PM
58. Close but no cigar...
What we need is sit ins, strikes and the rest.
-
Krugman reality based?
:rotf: :rotf: :rotf: :rotf: :rotf: :rotf: :rotf: :rotf: :rotf: :rotf: :rotf: :rotf:
-
nadinbrzezinski
... and taxing every Wall Street trade would start to correct it
Sounds like nadin's itching to be on the George Soros hit list with comments like that. Hey nads, don't mess with George's ability to make bling bling while telling you he hates capitalism.
MannyGoldstein
Social Security is fully funded for decades, probably for at least 75 years.
Look *****, there's an impending insolvency of Social Security and Medicare. Do you know how to read?
.
-
nadinbrzezinski (116,806 posts) Sun Mar 3, 2013, 02:33 PM
58. Close but no cigar...
What we need is sit ins, strikes and the rest.
And, and, boycotts, and, and innertubeweb petitions and DUACS.
Ya, we need all of those.
:banghead:
-
Social Security is fully funded for decades, probably for at least 75 years. Both parties want to cut benefits to keep low taxes on the wealthy.
Oh good night. Where did you read that lie or did you just make it up?
-
Oh good night. Where did you read that lie or did you just make it up?
DUmmie wasn't reading any tea leaves for that comment.
I think he was sniffing the skidmarks in his shorts again.
-
MannyGoldstein
Social Security is fully funded for decades, probably for at least 75 years.
Hmmm. Hey dummie? Let me quote something obumbles said at the last debt ceiling raise debate. I quote:
"Social Security checks and veterans benefits will be delayed. We might not be able to pay our troops or honor our contracts with small business owners. Food inspectors, air traffic controllers, specialists who track down loose nuclear materials wouldn't get their pay checks."
Don't believe me dummies? Here it is!!!! (http://money.cnn.com/2013/01/14/news/economy/debt-ceiling-deadline/index.html)
I guess dummie, you have no clue how the "SS lockbox" is funded. Don't surprise me none. You can't even take care of your own life without government help. You are an idiot dummie. A loser. A no good parasite.
Sucks to be you.
-
Response to 99Forever (Reply #23)Sun Mar 3, 2013, 02:12 PM
DollarBillHines (1,669 posts)
52. That's the point
Tax "rates" for the wealthy are a joke. I know quite a few people whose income runs into millions of dollars per year, and damned few of them pay any real "income" tax.
They write off everything.
They do, however, pay a lot of other taxes, but those are pretty much proportionate to what everyone else pays.
Yeah TiTboy, we get it, you're a big shot. You're in with the in crowd.
Phony baloney liar.
:badass:
-
Krugman, Stieglitz and the other reality-based economists are persona non grata.
Non-sequitur.
MannyGoldstein
Social Security is fully funded for decades, probably for at least 75 years.
Your talking points sheet is about 4 years out of date. Even Billary the PIAPS doesn't use that joke anymore.
-
MannyGoldstein (20,395 posts) Sun Mar 3, 2013, 11:57 AM
We need a new Democratic Party
Why? You fools keep voting for the current one, why should you need a new one?
-
nadinbrzezinski (116,806 posts) Sun Mar 3, 2013, 05:03 PM
124. Really...somebody made a mistake
And they are not that high...15% was what Romney paid, that *is* average. My mind, at the very east 70% and taxing every Wall Street trade would start to correct it.
Oh and ext time...add a link.
Hey Nads, you stupid ugly beast...google finger break or something? That 15% he pays is NOT on his income! He already paid taxes on INCOME. Income is the money you get from your employer (even when you're self employed) for doing a job...hard concept for a bald dwarf who thinks she's a reporter cuz she posts on an Internet blog, I know. The Romney's are retired and, thus, are living off of savings (investments).
Cindie