This is "starve the beast" philosophy of governing, from within supply-side (trickle-down) economics.

Doesn't matter how rich you are, you can only sleep on one bed every night.

*quality

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by JiggaJonson.

Really, people can't understand this with money, it has to be described using cereal? No wonder they get away with this bullshit over and over, people as a group must be dumber than rocks, with worse memories.

Pretty damn simple, people, you don't get richer by giving more money to rich people....they do.

This, like so many of these tax discussions, happily ignores the fact that those top 1% of income earners pay 40% of ALL taxes... (and more than the combined tax revenues of the bottom 90% of income earners). The reality is that nearly 50% of all income earners pay NO taxes - this really isn't a good social policy - where nearly half the potential voting public have no vested interest in how government money is being spent

Let George explain....

Probably has something to do with this statistic....

Democrats lead by 22 points (57%-35%) in leaned party identification among adults with post-graduate degrees.

Ignorant people can be convinced of any insanity....they bought the line that Trump's plans weren't designed specifically to benefit him, and you had to be a total brain dead moron with zero historical context to refer to in order to believe that.

The roots of this issue in the US go deeper than partisan "Dems vs. Reps" politics.

By the time any normal voter (including the "ignorant people") get to cast a ballot, the "Funders" (from "the big club" George describes) have already had their way with the candidates.

Turd Sandwich or Giant Douch, Kang or Kodos, the "Funders" choose who is on the ballot. The Ignorant People only get to pick which one will be the least bad for them, but neither choice will ever work on their behalf. Both candidates are beholden to the Funders.

Larry can explain in greater detail....

The normal voter is "the ignorant people". As a whole, Americans are increasingly uneducated rubes.....all of us, not just one party.

It's only dems vs reps politics that allows you to put the choices as Kang vs Kodos. While dems have offered mostly far from perfect options, the reps have lined up behind the worst choices proffered to date. I think it's closer to a Nixon vs Putin....with the dems being Nixon. Sure, they're dirty, but the alternative is covered is shit and bile. I prefer corruption to sliding towards murderous totalitarian dictatorship.

Still goes to education...because education fosters critical thinking, without which you ARE under the thumbs of the "funders", being incapable of distinguishing lies and hyperbole from fact. The fact that such a majority of those with a proven ability to think choose dems is a clear indicator which is the more intelligent choice.

Granted, neither choice is usually good, but one is definitely less bad....and far more sane and rational. I try to remind people there are more than two choices, I rarely vote for a major party candidate. Don't blame me, I voted for Lrrr. (I do admit, Melania is a more attractive first lady than Ndnd)

Side note: I kept reading your last as "...beholden to the Flanders".....stupid Flanders.

Didn't watch the Ted talk, sorry. Too long to make a point for me.

"[I] didn't watch the Ted talk, sorry. Too long to make a point for me."

Then you missed the entire argument.

Everything you said is moot in the face of Lawrence Lessig's talk.

This kind of thinking: "Granted, neither choice is usually good, but one is definitely less bad....and far more sane and rational."Is completely missing the point.

If you are continuing to see this this as a partisan problem, you do not grok this issue.

You should not be choosing between "terrible and slightly less terrible." You should be choosing between "good and better."

I reiterate: The roots of this issue in the US go deeper than partisan "Dems vs. Reps" politics. This issue is money in politics.

"I want you to take hold, to grab the issue you care the most about. Climate change is mine, but it might be financial reform or a simpler tax system or inequality. Grab that issue, sit it down in front of you, look straight in its eyes, and tell it there is no Christmas this year. There will never be a Christmas. We will never get your issue solved until we fix this issue first."

Here's a video referencing a Princeton study that backs up Lessig's arguments pretty well.



As an aside, Lawrence Lessig tried to run for president last year...

Wait...your post didn't contain your argument? ;-)

If you read that as a mere partisan argument, you fail to grok my position.
As I wrote, I do not choose terrible vs less terrible, but for those who do, I suggest it's clear which is which.

As I often reiterate, finance reform is the number one issue that must be tackled in order to make any other political reform. That's why I backed Sanders, and still do but less so. I just wish he would leave the democratic party.

Dismissive and wrong.
I gave it 2 minutes, he's vastly overstating things.
There are non Lester candidates that don't just make Lesters happy, granted they don't get a level playing field, but they do get to play, and they can win.
When he starts off with that intentional misrepresentation of reality, his talk is moot.

Argument: The roots of this issue in the US go deeper than partisan "Dems vs. Reps" politics.

"I gave it 2 minutes..."

Let me know when you finish the talk. Please listen with an open mind. I think you'll like what he has to say, though some what he says may be things you have heard by now. Do bear in mind that this talk by Lessig is a few years old now.

That, I do not have any real argument with.

That's been my thesis the whole time.

A Mitt Romney fan, eh? You should probably read this article, which absolutely guts the myth that only half of income earners pay taxes.

As far as the top 1% paying 40% of the taxes, I agree that is atrocious--they are supposed to be paying almost ALL of it! See, when the income tax was introduced with the 16th Amendment, it was primarily meant to be a tax on the rich. The federal tax rate for middle-class people was meant to be around 1-2% whereas the tax rate on the rich was around 7%. You can see the original 1913 tax form here.

Of course, since literally the income tax's inception, the federal government has continuously been shafting the middle classes while reducing the tax burden of the wealthy. It's about as American as apple pie by this point!

The big problem is that the government relies more and more on income tax to fund federal projects. Take a look at the graph in the article I linked to at the start of this comment and note how corporate taxes keep going down while income and payroll taxes keep going up.

It doesn't help at all that most of America's biggest businesses have offshore tax havens where they can avoid paying taxes (think Ireland for Apple, Inc., though that hasn't worked out so well for them thanks to the EU being less corporate cock-sucking than the U.S. government).

So, to solve America's tax deficit problem, the solution is pretty clear--tax rich people more (as was intended), tax corporations more and cut off their tax havens, and maybe give a tax break to the people who actually need and deserve it--the middle and lower classes.

But of course all of that sounds suspiciously like socialism, which as we all know is the devil incarnate and about as un-American as naming your kid Stalin.

The devil's in the details.

This what happens when TrumpTards are allowed to vote...