Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Sign in to follow this  
bostonfred

Liberals, what do you actually want?

Recommended Posts

25 minutes ago, parasaurolophus said:

This is my favorite list of this thread. Would love to see all of these things done. 

Can you guys please unpack fair tax for me?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Opie said:

Someone....Anyone....NOT with the last name of Trump......easy enough?

Oh...and that someone MUST have a "D" next to his name.

Just how hard is this to understand?

Now...gimme, gimme, gimme or it will be ARMAGEDDON...the END of TIMES!

Literally....we ALL WILL DIE if this does not happen.

So you finally converted. Glad you came around!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure how it got here but Fair Tax is generally considered a conservative idea, because it taxes everyone at the same rate regardless of the marginal value of their dollars.  Most liberal tax policy is based on the idea that a dollar doesn't mean the same thing to Jeff Bezos, myself and someone living at the poverty line.  If all three of us are paying the same amount in taxes at McDonald's, that's not really a liberal tax policy.  In addition, generally speaking the richer you are the lower the percentage of your income that you spend on consumption, so the fair tax would actually be regressive (poor people pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes than rich people).  Obviously you could tinker with all of that via exemptions and credits and refunds and whatnot, but the basic idea is definitely not a liberal one.

An example of a liberal tax policy would be a massive increase in the estate tax, with the added revenue being distributed to social programs and tax cuts to the middle and lower classes. It's absolutely ridiculous that we pay more taxes on our salaries than rich people pay on their inheritances.  In a real meritocracy that would be flip-flopped.  What we have is a plutocracy, not a meritocracy.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Need to eliminate all the tax breaks the filthy rich can use to avoid paying taxes.  The estate tax is awful as it's the government's way of saying they really own your property instead of your family owning it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ramblin Wreck said:

Need to eliminate all the tax breaks the filthy rich can use to avoid paying taxes.  The estate tax is awful as it's the government's way of saying they really own your property instead of your family owning it.

I would love to discuss this in another thread if you'd like to start one. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, bostonfred said:

I would love to discuss this in another thread if you'd like to start one. 

I don't know why. The post mischaracterizes both the estate tax (it's a tax on a transaction, just like income, payroll and capital gains taxes) and taxes generally (real and personal property taxes already exist and are far closer to being "the government's way of saying they really own your property" than estate taxes).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Affordable effective healthcare for all, including the mentally ill, which I do not believe can be accomplished through a for-profit system.
Equal protection, for real.
Massive cuts to military spending.
Massive increase in education spending.
Livable minimum wage.
Environmental policies grounded in science.
A president with a functioning brain.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, timschochet said:

Maybe I'm out of place here because I've never really considered myself a liberal. Even so, since liberals are now the most vocal opponents of Donald Trump, I am on their side. So here's what I want, in order of importance:

1. A recognition that man-made climate change is our most serious problem, and a national effort to combat it.

2. A reaffirmation of the United States as leader of the free world, and a commitment to NATO and our other allies such as South Korea, Taiwan, Japan, that we WILL continue to defend them against aggression.

3. Free trade. No tariffs, and re-explore the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

4. A path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants already here. More open immigration allowed, specifically from Latin American countries. Open to taking in refugees from every political hot spot all over the world.

5. An end to institutionalized racism in our justice system against blacks and Latinos.

6. An end to the private sales loophole, background checks for all gun sales, registration of all privately held firearms, a ban on AR-15s and similar weapons.

7. Make homosexuals and transgenders protected classes against discrimination in our society.

8.  Equal pay and rights for women and an emphasis on the "Metoo" movement.

9. Pro small business and business in general. 

That'll do for now. 

How is healthcare not in your top 9?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, timschochet said:

3. Free trade. No tariffs, and re-explore the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

What exact areas do you want re-examined with regard to TPP? I've read numerous analyses of the deal from all angles of the political spectrum and probably I'd estimate 80-90% of what I read found it a net negative to Americans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/11/2018 at 11:10 AM, bostonfred said:

I agree with that, and appreciate the positive contribution, but again, I think that belongs in the conservative thread. 

Why is investment in infrastructure a conservative ideal?  This can and should be here in this thread. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Ramblin Wreck said:

Need to eliminate all the tax breaks the filthy rich can use to avoid paying taxes.  The estate tax is awful as it's the government's way of saying they really own your property instead of your family owning it.

Eliminating the estate tax would be a tax break the filthy rich can use to avoid paying taxes.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, TobiasFunke said:

Not sure how it got here but Fair Tax is generally considered a conservative idea, because it taxes everyone at the same rate regardless of the marginal value of their dollars.  Most liberal tax policy is based on the idea that a dollar doesn't mean the same thing to Jeff Bezos, myself and someone living at the poverty line.  If all three of us are paying the same amount in taxes at McDonald's, that's not really a liberal tax policy.  In addition, generally speaking the richer you are the lower the percentage of your income that you spend on consumption, so the fair tax would actually be regressive (poor people pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes than rich people).  Obviously you could tinker with all of that via exemptions and credits and refunds and whatnot, but the basic idea is definitely not a liberal one.

An example of a liberal tax policy would be a massive increase in the estate tax, with the added revenue being distributed to social programs and tax cuts to the middle and lower classes. It's absolutely ridiculous that we pay more taxes on our salaries than rich people pay on their inheritances.  In a real meritocracy that would be flip-flopped.  What we have is a plutocracy, not a meritocracy.

I assume that the thought here is that at least under the Fair Tax, all loopholes for the rich are closed.   While it wouldn't be progressive tax, at least they wealthiest would be paying taxes instead of paying nothing or next to nothing through innumerable tax shelters.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, TobiasFunke said:

Not sure how it got here but Fair Tax is generally considered a conservative idea, because it taxes everyone at the same rate regardless of the marginal value of their dollars.  Most liberal tax policy is based on the idea that a dollar doesn't mean the same thing to Jeff Bezos, myself and someone living at the poverty line.  If all three of us are paying the same amount in taxes at McDonald's, that's not really a liberal tax policy.  In addition, generally speaking the richer you are the lower the percentage of your income that you spend on consumption, so the fair tax would actually be regressive (poor people pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes than rich people).  Obviously you could tinker with all of that via exemptions and credits and refunds and whatnot, but the basic idea is definitely not a liberal one.

An example of a liberal tax policy would be a massive increase in the estate tax, with the added revenue being distributed to social programs and tax cuts to the middle and lower classes. It's absolutely ridiculous that we pay more taxes on our salaries than rich people pay on their inheritances.  In a real meritocracy that would be flip-flopped.  What we have is a plutocracy, not a meritocracy.

Can we negotiate? I'll give you single payer health care and free universal care for all children up to age 16 for the Fair Tax and total elimination of the federal income tax structure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, BAT1man said:

Why is investment in infrastructure a conservative ideal?  This can and should be here in this thread. 

In fact, extensive infrastructure spending was a notable part of the Progressive platform that Bernie Sanders presented.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Yankee23Fan said:

Can we negotiate? I'll give you single payer health care and free universal care for all children up to age 16 for the Fair Tax and total elimination of the federal income tax structure.

Is replacing the ifederal income tax with the Fair Tax revenue neutral? On its face a Fair Tax seems regressive in nature. But that’s a very tempting deal you’ve offered there.

In fact your full list doesn’t differ from my full list that much at all. But mine is posted in the liberal thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Yankee23Fan said:

Can we negotiate? I'll give you single payer health care and free universal care for all children up to age 16 for the Fair Tax and total elimination of the federal income tax structure.

Can you  also throw in a BIG that is more than 23% poverty level that is the prebate (assuming that number is still the same).  And the language that was in most (all?) of the bills that were proposed automatically reset the 30% tax rate when the FairTax failed to be revenue neutral needs to be there except it needs to say "fully pay for government" and not lock in and/or create more structural deficits.  Now if Congress want to react to a sticker shock when the rate is much higher by doing the hard work of cutting spending (no sequester style automated cuts allowed as we have plenty of experience that they don't get proper attention) then the rate can reset lower also in subsequent years.  

Deal?

Oh and I mostly like your style of conservatism in the other thread.   Too bad that it seems so foreign now a days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Grace Under Pressure said:

Is replacing the ifederal income tax with the Fair Tax revenue neutral?

Revenue neutral means it collects the same as today's various taxes (income, payroll, tariffs (which from some perspectives the FairTax would be), etc.).  That is problematic when we are scheduled to be running almost a trillion dollar annual deficit. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Bottomfeeder Sports said:

Revenue neutral means it collects the same as today's various taxes (income, payroll, tariffs (which from some perspectives the FairTax would be), etc.).  That is problematic when we are scheduled to be running almost a trillion dollar annual deficit. 

That wouldn’t work too well. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Bottomfeeder Sports said:

Revenue neutral means it collects the same as today's various taxes (income, payroll, tariffs (which from some perspectives the FairTax would be), etc.).  That is problematic when we are scheduled to be running almost a trillion dollar annual deficit. 

Agreed, thus the question. But I’m willing to listen when single payer and  guaranteed health insurance coverage for all kids under 17 are being put on the table. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Grace Under Pressure said:

Agreed, thus the question. But I’m willing to listen when single payer and  guaranteed health insurance coverage for all kids under 17 are being put on the table. 

I'm willing to listen when those aren't on the table.   But when we shift 1.6 trillion from private spending on healthcare (plus whatever the states pay, plus whatever should be paid by those that skip it minus the efficiencies that are gained) to the federal government I'd want to pay for it rather than putting the burden on future generations.  So I don't care that the national sales tax is 50% or so to make this work, but it is also a tough sell for the masses who won't understand that this is still "revenue neutral" at the macro level.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/11/2018 at 2:20 PM, Bruce Dickinson said:

Then I’d remove laws intended to make votes count as little as possible.  So that’s banning partisan gerrymandering, elimination of the Electoral College, expand the House of Representatives to equalize district sizes as much as possible.

Do you support the Congressional Apportionment Amendment to the Constitution, which has been approved by Congress and is now in the process of obtaining ratification by 3/4 of the state legislatures? (It’s been ratified by 11 states already, so it seems like it’s on track.)

I personally think it would be kind of fun to have ~6,500 members of the House of Representatives.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

Do you support the Congressional Apportionment Amendment to the Constitution, which has been approved by Congress and is now in the process of obtaining ratification by 3/4 of the state legislatures? (It’s been ratified by 11 states already, so it seems like it’s on track.)

I personally think it would be kind of fun to have ~6,500 members of the House of Representatives.

I feel like the House is often already scraping the bottom of the barrel of humanity.  Do we really want 15x as many openings? At some point isn’t it like QB play if the NFL had 500 teams?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:

I feel like the House is often already scraping the bottom of the barrel of humanity.  Do we really want 15x as many openings? At some point isn’t it like QB play if the NFL had 500 teams?

 Not seeing the metaphor.  If the best talent that comes out of the combine is Louie Gohmert, you might have a point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

Do you support the Congressional Apportionment Amendment to the Constitution, which has been approved by Congress and is now in the process of obtaining ratification by 3/4 of the state legislatures? (It’s been ratified by 11 states already, so it seems like it’s on track.)

I personally think it would be kind of fun to have ~6,500 members of the House of Representatives.

Yes!  Been saying it for years.  Though not nearly as long as it's been pending.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Bottomfeeder Sports said:

I'm willing to listen when those aren't on the table.   But when we shift 1.6 trillion from private spending on healthcare (plus whatever the states pay, plus whatever should be paid by those that skip it minus the efficiencies that are gained) to the federal government I'd want to pay for it rather than putting the burden on future generations.  So I don't care that the national sales tax is 50% or so to make this work, but it is also a tough sell for the masses who won't understand that this is still "revenue neutral" at the macro level.

I'm fine with whatever the NST is in the new FairTax structure because yes we can't run trillion dollar deficits.

I don't know if I can throw a complete B.I.G. into the deal without something more back.  But its understood, right, that if there is a BIG that the social welfare net has been almost completely abolished, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, BAT1man said:
On 11/7/2018 at 8:10 PM, bostonfred said:

I agree with that, and appreciate the positive contribution, but again, I think that belongs in the conservative thread. 

Why is investment in infrastructure a conservative ideal?  This can and should be here in this thread.

Also - if both liberals and conservative want the same thing, that would potentially mean that it could happen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Yankee23Fan said:

I'm fine with whatever the NST is in the new FairTax structure because yes we can't run trillion dollar deficits.

I don't know if I can throw a complete B.I.G. into the deal without something more back.  But its understood, right, that if there is a BIG that the social welfare net has been almost completely abolished, right?

Yes, good bye to social welfare on the  spending side.  And while there would be debates as to what is social welfare I'd hope a rather expansive list would prevail.  However, with the FairTax we already replaced close to a trillion with the elimination of tax expenditures (home mortgage deduction, ESI deduction, etc.)..  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At some point I'll try to write up a comprehensive list of things I would want to be implemented, but I do have to say that I'm surprised Fair Tax is getting as much talk in here as it is. I've always viewed that as a very Libertarian idea for some reason (was Ron Paul promoting it at some point?) and personally I'm very against it, especially as a full on replacement of taxes on income. As others have stated, I feel that it makes the problem of wealth inequality worse rather than better, due to putting the burden of taxation more heavily on the poor and middle class houses that spend nearly all of their income. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

Do you support the Congressional Apportionment Amendment to the Constitution, which has been approved by Congress and is now in the process of obtaining ratification by 3/4 of the state legislatures? (It’s been ratified by 11 states already, so it seems like it’s on track.)

I personally think it would be kind of fun to have ~6,500 members of the House of Representatives.

Maybe, if the number of constituents was 200,000 instead of 30,000. I would prefer multi-member districts instead with proportional voting. Say about five reps per million-person district. Gives us about 1,600 in Congress.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Yankee23Fan said:

I'm fine with whatever the NST is in the new FairTax structure because yes we can't run trillion dollar deficits.

I don't know if I can throw a complete B.I.G. into the deal without something more back.  But its understood, right, that if there is a BIG that the social welfare net has been almost completely abolished, right?

That was a nice post you made in the other thread but we need single payer health care for all and what's the deal with the insistence on the giant military? I saw that you wanted their mission to change somewhat but the biggest military in the world by a huge margin still represents a threat to everybody else, no matter how you slice it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, mcintyre1 said:

At some point I'll try to write up a comprehensive list of things I would want to be implemented, but I do have to say that I'm surprised Fair Tax is getting as much talk in here as it is. I've always viewed that as a very Libertarian idea for some reason (was Ron Paul promoting it at some point?) and personally I'm very against it, especially as a full on replacement of taxes on income. As others have stated, I feel that it makes the problem of wealth inequality worse rather than better, due to putting the burden of taxation more heavily on the poor and middle class houses that spend nearly all of their income. 

FairTax as usually presented is rather conservative, rather regressive, and promoted with a bunch of :bs: such as we will be collecting taxes on the underground economies  [that we aren't collecting now].  But ultimately an income tax is just a consumption tax anyway in the sense that the income tax you pay is past on to our employers in the price they pay for our labor.  That is eventually passed on in the price of the final good or service is consumed.  What the income tax does is make the consumption tax higher on [US] labor intensive items as opposed to items that utilize less labor.   That is a big part of the "Fair" in its name (with being a fat tax the other part - the part you and I find unfair at least in a vacuum).  So in one way a consumption tax acts the same way as a tariff for foreign made goods assuming it removes income tax advantages. And on the flip side there are no taxes on stuff made here and then sold abroad. 

While free trade concerns are there, the main concern for us liberals is the regressive nature of a sales tax, of a flat tax.  This is replacing more than just the progressive income tax.  It also replaces the payroll tax which is rather regressive itself.   The FairTax people approach this in a similar way that the Forbe's Flat Tax addressed it.   Make the first $X of consumption tax free.  To accomplish this they create a monthly check to each family (I'd prefer individual) which pays the equivalent of the tax for poverty level purchases.   The fair tax people go nuts when you suggest it, but they fix in their minds the regressive nature with a tiny basic income guarantee.  BIG is a conservative idea also, at least until recently.  I don't think the FairTax BIG is big enough, but that is what some of the back and forth has been about.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Late to the party, but here are a few of mine:

For all politicians to put country before party. Treason and treason enablers should face firing squads.

Adhere to the Constitution. Stop attacking the press, don't pass laws based on Christian beliefs, and put the well-regulated in the 2A.

Don't take children from their parents when they seek asylum at our borders. Especially don't lose them when you do.

Don't enrich yourself off taxpayers. The swamp was supposed to be drained, not stocked.

Thous shall not attack the very institutions that are in place to protect us.

That's just a start

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/13/2018 at 3:23 PM, JamieMurphy said:

Late to the party, but here are a few of mine:

For all politicians to put country before party. Treason and treason enablers should face firing squads.

Adhere to the Constitution. Stop attacking the press, don't pass laws based on Christian beliefs, and put the well-regulated in the 2A.

Don't take children from their parents when they seek asylum at our borders. Especially don't lose them when you do.

Don't enrich yourself off taxpayers. The swamp was supposed to be drained, not stocked.

Thous shall not attack the very institutions that are in place to protect us.

That's just a start

 

I appreciate the effort and I understand that those things are upsetting, but I don't want a thread about "why are you upset with Trump".  I want to talk about the platform that liberals/democrats want as we approach the next election cycles. Plenty of other threads to discuss Trump (or Obama, or Hillary, or Bush).

Let's say we get Trump out of office.  What would you want the next president to do?  Or a Democrat controlled Congress? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure i'm a typical liberal, more likely I'm left of center but not too much.  But here goes:

I want first and foremost someone who makes decisions based on the best data and science out there.  This includes decisions on economics, as well as evidence around climate change, and more.

I want more funding for scientific research, investing in our future.

I want net neutrality, better consumer protections.

I want the leader to understand the shifting technological landscape and how that impacts the labor force.  Convene leaders from the industries and work to plan for a future where less jobs will be needed to produce everything we need.

Would love to have someone address the risks of artificial intelligence at a national level.

Single payer healthcare.

Progressive but not liberal SC justice nominations, along with other important judicial appointments.

Undo the tax cuts Trump put in place, and move toward a more reasonable tax structure that taxes the rich at a higher rate and lets the middle class off.

Want to tackle immigration reform.  We need immigrants, but we also need a better system that protects our borders and moves faster than it currently does.

We need to modernize our election process and secure our voting machines.  Need a nationwide push to improve security on almost all cyber-related activities.

With technology where it is, we need some type of program researching digital teaching using either mixed reality or VR.  If anyone has listened to the Great Courses, there is incredible benefit to having the best teachers in the world recorded, teaching subjects of interest to people.  Why not merge this into various programs for students across america?  Folks in struggling school districts could have access to the best teachers in the world.  Not sure exactly how this would work but it's overdue that we start looking at making it happen.

Need to strengthen our alliances with friendly nations, and do what we can to push back against totalitarians and dictators across the world, while trying to help folks in need as much as we can.

Increase our push to go to renewable or green energy.

...

Probably missing some really important ones, but these are things that just come to mind.

Edited by adonis
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Clean energy initiatives.  Not gutting it like we have been in favor of fossil fuels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/14/2018 at 7:37 PM, bostonfred said:

I appreciate the effort and I understand that those things are upsetting, but I don't want a thread about "why are you upset with Trump".  I want to talk about the platform that liberals/democrats want as we approach the next election cycles. Plenty of other threads to discuss Trump (or Obama, or Hillary, or Bush).

Let's say we get Trump out of office.  What would you want the next president to do?  Or a Democrat controlled Congress? 

I'd like a serious effort at getting everyone health care that is affordable and is easily accessible. In a country as rich and prosperous as ours, no one should have to decide between paying rent or having medicine. No one should go bankrupt due to medical bills.

There are some things that simply should not be for-profit: health care. including medicine, education, and insurance. By insurance, I mean if you pay a policy for your home to be covered and a hurricane wipes it out, the insurance industry shouldn't screw you after sending all their profits to the Cayman Islands.

The one thing that should NEVER be for-profit is prisons. That is a travesty. End all for-profit prison contracts.

I'm still all about following the Constitution and not a warped and perverted version that fits one group's ideology.

Let's get some real immigration laws passed that are fair and realistic.

Legalize marijuana already. At the federal level. Release all the non-violent victims of the War on Drugs.

Let women make their own reproductive decisions and let the gays share the same rights as the hetero population. What someone does to their own body or in their bedroom should not be the government's business.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not really a full blown liberal but I would like to see us spend close to the same amount we spend on prisoners on our K-12 students. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.