Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
I assume the conversation should be more about "How are you going to pay for all of this?!?!" I assume the Nordic countries don't have the defense budget (as a % of total budget) we do?
Maybe by not having a defense budget that is the equal of the next 14 highest spending countries......... combined?
See, now you're talking. That's the conversation to have.
Yep. You’ve hit on one of two things that would have to happen, IMO:
And I assume their taxes are higher?
He used UK's Labour Party as an example, when over half the voting population went against them was simply the point I was making. A good portion of them listed immigration and protecting borders as a reason, feels like they disagree with his assertion.
I disengage quickly when I hear either side pointing a finger, and it feels like 99.9% of these conversations are just that. 
And I believe the school of thought from the right and Trump supporters at the current moment is to reduce our military footprint around globe and start making other countries up their spend on military to pay "their fair share." If that is the case, then they should agree with reducing our military budget.
But they also spend less disposable income on healthcare and education, no?
So let’s be realistic here. Here’s what I predict may happen, based on history: in the next several years, there’s going to be wave of Democratic socialist politicians getting elected in the same way there was a Tea Party Wave in 2010. Like the original Tea Party folks, they will arrive in Washington with idealism. Like the Tea Party folks, they won’t have quite enough votes to get their agenda through: they won’t be able to truly cut defense spending, and they won’t be able to significantly raise taxes on the wealthy. So instead they’ll increase spending, moving us closer to free college and Medicare for all, and worry about who pays for it later (Meaning it will add to the debt.)
This is the second post of yours I've read in this thread and both contained this word. You can dismiss this opinion if you want, but I'll be direct about it; both sides are fairly equal in size give/take (Dem/GOP) - I dislike both of them for different reasons, however you need those of us in the middle at times to break ties. Your points are drowned out when you're pointing a finger at the other side, just my
Yes, but that doesn't change the fact that a high percentage of people in this country are reflexively anti-taxes and anti-government. My understanding is that Danish people's views on taxation and the government are very different.
Wait, what? There were a bunch of Democratic Socialists in the Labour Party who backed "Leave" in the Brexit vote. Dennis Skinner and John Mann both came out heavily in favor of "leave" - and the official Labour position against Brexit was almost entirely based on economics, not their party platform.He used UK's Labour Party as an example, when over half the voting population went against them was simply the point I was making. A good portion of them listed immigration and protecting borders as a reason, feels like they disagree with his assertion.
This is the second post of yours I've read in this thread and both contained this word. You can dismiss this opinion if you want, but I'll be direct about it; both sides are fairly equal in size give/take (Dem/GOP) - I dislike both of them for different reasons, however you need those of us in the middle at times to break ties. Your points are drowned out when you're pointing a finger at the other side, just my
I was curious, so I just checked, to date, I've pocketed in my bank account 56.4% of my income (included in some of those are contributions to 401k, healthcare, etc.), but still, 43.6% of the income I've earned hasn't landed in my personal bank account... Should I pay more?
Yes, higher taxes. Roll back the recent tax cut for starters, of course. Combine it with a rate increase for the highest bracket at least back to the 40% we had until 2003. Increase the estate tax bigly (I was under the impression that we wanted America to be a meritocracy). And so on.
I don't know enough about your financial situation to even offer an opinion here. But in the abstract, sure, I don't have an ideological problem with higher tax rates.
Contributions to 401k should absolutely be counted as income into your accounts, and healthcare costs would be paid for Medicare for all.
I like her platform also, but the "Universal Jobs Guarantee " reminds me of the movie "Dave"
Or people who think they are more like (or want to be like) the wealthy and thus adopt the same outlook as them.
I think this is where the Dems have to refine their message. Its not just a tax increase, its offset by the expenses you WON'T have to pay. I'll gladly pay 50% more in income taxes if that means I don't have to pay my insurance premium and deductibles. I still come away with more money in my pocket without the headaches that comes from fighting insurance companies.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-39665835
The result is the result.
Well, we'll never agree. Personally, I was against these tax cuts, FWIW.
It’s not just a matter of breaking ties.
Sure, that's a problem. It's not an easy sell. But it's not as impossible as people seem to think. Clinton passed a tax increase on the wealthy in 1993. Then he fought tax cuts proposed by the Contract for America GOP in 1994 and still won reelection easily. The economy did just fine, too.
Did you just refer to yourself in the 3rd person, or did you just pull a Kevin Durant?
Right, I understand the argument but the messaging is not easy. A large percentage of people in the U.S. intensely mistrust the government.
Which is what I’m afraid of. But another part of me agrees with Shamrock that this is what’s coming, like it or not, and best get out of the way.
The platform in the OP is what Ocasio-Cortez and the Democratic Socialists want. I offered my own views in the 2nd post.
And let this generation of entitled babies destroy us?
I understand that part of it too. But our current system is horrible and getting worse. They need a good PR campaign to sell it.
Winston Churchill or someone else was going to be making an appearance in the thread
Are they entitled or just want more for their tax money besides endless wars and tax breaks for billionaires?
Interesting. I wonder what else we could have done with $5.5 trillion. Probably best to throw it in the desert halfway around the world.
In this very thread, I said I was against these tax cuts, go read through it.
Hmmm, you called a person is entitled if they'd rather get more for their taxes than pay for an endless war. I pointed out we've spent over $5.5 trillion for a war. I'd rather get something else for my money, even if that makes me entitled in your eyes.
