• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

2020 Democratic Presidential Nominees

Sure. So anyone identifying as “fiscally conservative” over the past 40 years should be continually mortified. But they keep voting gop even though what the gop spends benefits barely anyone.

Yep. If anything the GOP is worse than the donkeys. They keep cutting taxes but maintaining or increasing spending (especially on wars and shit). Obama and Clinton had much better fiscal performance than any GOP president in 40 years. Only a nut job would keep voting for the GOP if fiscal policy was their number one issue
 
So you want to cut defense spending, return to global trade policies, scale social security down for the wealthy and overall raise taxes on the wealthy.

Now contrast this with the party you vote for and defend daily.
 
exactly why people would opt out of the dues and kill the unions, thus the point of the policy.

killing unions is a major reason wages have stagnated and benefits have be grossly diminished for most Americans. The end of unions in the United States would be the worst thing that could happen to the middle class.

As to your premise about globalization vs. isolation. You really can't have one without the other in this era. Isolationism is basically impossible at this time.
 
I think he’s saying globalization in trade (anti trump stance) while reducing defense spending and being super team America world police (also not what trump does)
 
*NOT being team America world police.

Either way those don’t seem mutually exclusive
 
Criminalize unions that enforce mandatory dues? How would that work and how do you square that with first amendment concerns?
 
Imagine looking at the current American economy and system of governance where corporations’ powers have exploded over the last 30 years and holding a position that we should criminalize an aspect of labor unions. I mean Jesus fucking Christ.
 
So you want to cut defense spending, return to global trade policies, scale social security down for the wealthy and overall raise taxes on the wealthy.

Now contrast this with the party you vote for and defend daily.

But yes. Getting away from that union comment, this was my underlying point. What has the GOP done that in any way addresses any of your core concerns? It’s fine to align with a party on the theory of what they say they will do but at some point do you cut bait since none of that has been done? I mean look at the tariffs yesterday - how in the world does that correspond with any conservative principles?
 
If you cut SS payments for people making X over a lifetime, they just paid into the fund for their entire earning career and get nothing correct?
 
If you cut SS payments for people making X over a lifetime, they just paid into the fund for their entire earning career and get nothing correct?

It was never meant to pay rich people.

Lots of people pay into unemployment and never collect any. There are lots of things you pay taxes for that one never gets the benefit.
 
I'm not against that, it's just an interesting position to hear Catamount take given his other views. Plus as SS is basically one of the most liberal programs ever passed at the federal level, it's interesting to hear people with more conservative views would be in favor of that change.

I have no problem with it at all.
 
But yes. Getting away from that union comment, this was my underlying point. What has the GOP done that in any way addresses any of your core concerns? It’s fine to align with a party on the theory of what they say they will do but at some point do you cut bait since none of that has been done? I mean look at the tariffs yesterday - how in the world does that correspond with any conservative principles?

I think the answer is that fiscal conservatism doesn’t rate very high on his priority list, as much as he’s pretending it does. Similarly for GTB, who claimed that Trump was his perfect policy president while in the same post outlining supposed values that are 180 degs away from Trump.

The most important policy, really the only one that matters to them is owning the libs who make them feel bad.
 
It was never meant to pay rich people.

Lots of people pay into unemployment and never collect any. There are lots of things you pay taxes for that one never gets the benefit.

that's a terrible analogy, of course, because the people paying for unemployment are hoping to never collect (just like those purchasing term life insurance or disability insurance), unlike those currently paying into social security, who are definitely hoping/planning to receive a benefit in line with the benefit projections they can download every year
 
People who make over X, paying in to Social Security, but never seeing a dime when they reach 67, is the absolute OPPOSITE of conservative thought.

If that is what you want to see happen, please tell me you want every dollar earned over $10million/year to be taxed at a very high rate.
 
I don’t think you should reduce or eliminate SS for high income folks based on their working income. It’d make more sense to introduce means testing at the point they start drawing on SS but that’d be somehow based on their ability to fund their own retirement at that time, not whether they saved enough way back when.

Regardless, if the goal is to promote SS solvency then just raise the income level subject to SS tax.
 
lol catamount sucks so much. fucking bootlicker

But it tastes so good, so good. You should give it a lick you just might like it. Probably be more fun than driving around going to DSA conferences with your buddies, payed for by the unemployment checks your cashing.
 
Back
Top