Thread: Trump proposes massive one time tax on the rich

Originally Posted by antisocialcreep

reality check; social welfare is NOT A FUCKING 'RIGHT'! dont whine that they are taking YOUR health care,social security, welfare, ect away. you never should have gotten a fucking penny of it to start anyhow!

welfare is not a right but every single civilized nation in the world has some sort of welfare system. fiscal support at 2% of GDP and 20% publicly mandated the US spends the least out of every other country on the planet and also has the greatest income inequality, surely no direct correlation there...

Originally Posted by LAM

welfare is not a right but every single civilized nation in the world has some sort of welfare system. fiscal support at 2% of GDP and 20% publicly mandated the US spends the least out of every other country on the planet and also has the greatest income inequality, surely no direct correlation there...

your response sounds like you want MORE money from hardworking taxpayers to go to welfare? HELL NO.....we need to cut much of it so the "welfare culture" stops......when people have no free rides they're forced to work instead of gov't handouts......you couldn't be any more of a left wing nutjob lam......people create they're own situations and get out it they do the right things.....i have no sympathy for anyone living in the trailer parks or projects....i got out....so can they....fuck 'em all!

Originally Posted by irish_2003

your response sounds like you want MORE money from hardworking taxpayers to go to welfare? HELL NO.....we need to cut much of it so the "welfare culture" stops......when people have no free rides they're forced to work instead of gov't handouts......you couldn't be any more of a left wing nutjob lam......people create they're own situations and get out it they do the right things.....i have no sympathy for anyone living in the trailer parks or projects....i got out....so can they....fuck 'em all!

welfare has existed in one form or another since the 1800's and the US will never do away with it. I do not want to increase it but I surely don't want it to go away. it is a necessary part of any modern society that functions on capitalism, especially the perverted form practiced here in the US with our severely managed and not free market economy.

the Census puts out annual reports on poverty every year, you should try reading one. only about 2% of the population lives in poverty full time the rest fall in and out depending the economy, INCOME and the costs of energy and food, etc. in every single report you see the same word repeated, over and over, income, income, income.. you also see that word over and over again in studies about the relationship between income and education. families with higher incomes achieve more and get better educations, doesn't matter if the studies comes from the US, UK or Europe they all say the same thing. hell all of the global 500 company's are located in northern states with the exception of Texas, this may be because of the great schools in the south.

call me a left wing nut job all you want but you and the rest of the GOPe'rs here couldn't no any less about world history, economics or sociology. you preach the same far right rhetoric and never have any empirical data to support your side. the conservative agenda is nothing except harmful to the overall health of the country. China just invested 2T dollars to educate their ENTIRE country and the GOP plan is to cut education funding along with fighting for lower wages for families, brilliant....

to make a long story short the CPI is infective for use in regards to determining wages in this day and age.

2001 Poverty Report
http://www2.census.gov/prod2/popscan/p60-219.pdf

2009 Poverty Report
http://www.census.gov/prod/2010pubs/p60-238.pdf

Originally Posted by LAM

you sure can't and it doesn't help when the "parent" is only 16-18 years older than the child and they themselves don't have a complete education. it's a viscous cycle that we have to find a way to break somehow.

we can start by glorifying it all over national television!!!!

oh wait, MTV already does that. Great helping hand

Originally Posted by LAM

NCLB made things much worst in terms of education and what does unionization have to do with the performance of students?

most of the education problems can be traced back to the decline of the family, there is now 40 years of evidence that shows children born and raised by single mothers achieve less across the board.

divorce..children generally have more problems than those that come from parents that stay together. this group performs better than the single mother group because they typically get child support while 50% of single mothers receive $0.

today both parents typically work long hours, this creates less of a family environment further disrupting the educational process...

God , there is so much truth on this post. Without a family environment a child is vulnerable and destined to fail. plain and simple

NCLB was just one more example of the Fed govt getting involved and "helping" where it wasn't needed. Yes, the decline of the fambly is definitely a huge factor, much more so than the teachers' union. I would attribute a lot of that to the feminist movement which marginalized and ridiculed stay at home moms and paints women who don't have careers, and play a more traditional role in the family, as weak and something of a genetic throwback. Single motherhood has often been glorified somewhat over the last couple decades (i.e. Murphy Brown et al).

Originally Posted by GearsMcGilf

NCLB was just one more example of the Fed govt getting involved and "helping" where it wasn't needed. Yes, the decline of the fambly is definitely a huge factor, much more so than the teachers' union. I would attribute a lot of that to the feminist movement which marginalized and ridiculed stay at home moms and paints women who don't have careers, and play a more traditional role in the family, as weak and something of a genetic throwback. Single motherhood has often been glorified somewhat over the last couple decades (i.e. Murphy Brown et al).

+1, couldn't agree more.

At least in the US religion somewhat counteracts it, you should see the effect this shit has on a secular society. Fucking awful.

Originally Posted by Hench

+1, couldn't agree more.

At least in the US religion somewhat counteracts it, you should see the effect this shit has on a secular society. Fucking awful.

Teen birth rates highest in most religious states
Teen birth rates highest in most religious states - Health - Kids and parenting - msnbc.com

Religiosity and teen birth rate in the United States
http://www.reproductive-health-journ...-4755-6-14.pdf

Originally Posted by LAM

Teen birth rates highest in most religious states
Teen birth rates highest in most religious states - Health - Kids and parenting - msnbc.com

Religiosity and teen birth rate in the United States
http://www.reproductive-health-journ...-4755-6-14.pdf

I get what you're saying LAM, but I don't feel those stats are directly applicable to the quality of family life, which is what I was referring to.

I gotta dash, I'll make a more detailled post in a couple of hours.

organized religion I can see having a positive effect in regards to keeping some family's together but most likely those families in general are fairly disciplined already in family structure.

ultimately the family has been declining all over the world since the industrial revolution. even faster in the US because of the rapid growth in this country post WWII, then you add in the 70's, etc. single mothers being glorified on tv today also adds fuel to this fire.

it now takes 2 full-time working adults in the US to provide the same means that 1 did 30-40 years ago. wages from single mothers are significantly less than married then decrease further depending on education, race, etc.

ultimately nothing in the US is going to get better now or in the future until wages are increased at the lower quintiles. the problem is the majority of the smart people that work in economics all work on wall street and are occupied with finding new ways for that market to make money instead of replacing the consumer price index (CPI) which is inefficient in today's world for determining wages.

the middle class is screwed so obviously those at the very bottom in terms of wages don't have a prayer.

Below are 2 papers from the EPI in regards to jobs and the economy

* This one talks about our current unemployment rate and the future of jobs for recent HS and college grads

Young workers face a dire labor market without a safety net
http://epi.3cdn.net/c7d6ec52122ea9c188_rbm6bc14a.pdf

* this paper talks about how even if every job in the US was filled today 80% of the unemployed would still be unemployed because their simply are no jobs (go globalization!)

Reasons for Skepticism about Structural Unemployment Examining the Demand-Side Evidence
http://epi.3cdn.net/c1218e8213c58051e4_tlm6b5tf9.pdf

Originally Posted by LAM

Teen birth rates highest in most religious states
Teen birth rates highest in most religious states - Health - Kids and parenting - msnbc.com

Religiosity and teen birth rate in the United States
http://www.reproductive-health-journ...-4755-6-14.pdf

I seriously doubt that teen birth rates directly correlate with religiosity. It probably has more to due with the fact that more people are religious in rural and inner city communities (particularly black and hispanic) and those are the communities where you see more teen pregnancies. IOW, the grape juice and wafers served at communion doesn't affect fertility. lol But, that finding certainly does help make an argument for those with an anti religion agenda.

I don't think you guys realize who the poor are.

Teachers are showing up at our food bank that I volunteer at to get food for their family, Teachers and fire fighters on Long Island, New York subsist on food stamps since cost of living is so high. When I was on a post doc tract doing research I was making less than minimum wage, if I had to support a family I would have had to rely on social services ( in fact some of my fellow chemist's with three kids to feed) actually qualified for medicaid and food stamps. The medical residency when I was training and living in a big city made 21 grand working 120 hours a week. ( before taxes). The ones who had families and children had to put their kids on medicaid for health insurance since they could not afford the health care premiums to insure the whole family. It's not just the "leeches" and uneducated. There are many of us were highly educated and working our butts off.

When my dad was a POW ( was in Air america so he did not exist and therefore my mom had no financial support from the US government), my mom starved down to 65 pounds ( she is 5 6) trying to raise three kids in a country that provided absolutely no social services ( Malaysia and Thailand). Noone gave a mother with eurasian children a job due to racism back in the pacific rim even though she could speak 4 languages. ( she had to tote us kids on some of her job interviews since there is no such thing as daycare, nannies etc. in these countries back in the 70's, they took one look at us and assumed she was a prostitute.

as for the rich not leeching off social security,etc. Ayn Rand who wrote Atlas Shrugged developed lung cancer ( self induced from her chain smoking) . She was quick to dip into social security and get medicare to pay for her own chemo, radiation and lung surgery for a disease that was self induced. She was rich enough and if true to libertarian values should have just self funded all her medical care from her book proceeds, espcially something she was entirely responsible for. ( not like developing ALS or MS etc.)

Originally Posted by Hench

+1, couldn't agree more.

At least in the US religion somewhat counteracts it, you should see the effect this shit has on a secular society. Fucking awful.

actually societies that are most egalitarian and secular have the best educational attainment and adult literacy. look at norway, iceland, australia, canada, sweden , Iceland etc. Japan, though not egalitatarian, is one of the most athiestic and their educational system is unfucking believable. We feminists are not responsible for the decline of eduction , my mother was a single mom for a decade when my dad was a POW, she made sure she educated us ( we were in a stringent asian system at that) despite working full time ( we all became physican, physicist and software engineers).

As a scientist I encourage to look at real data, not gut instinct.

There are tons of data linking maternal educational status with favorable long lasting advantages and outcomes of the children. This can only happen in an egalitarian society ( advocated by feminists)

and I will cite primary references rather than some internet blog : Rosenzweig and Wolpin (1994) found that maternal education completed during the first three years of a child's life improved his or her later vocabulary and academic skills. In a more recent study also using the NLSY data, a mother's enrollment in education during the first three years of her child's life was associated with higher math and reading achievement by age 6 (Moore & Schmidt, 2007).

Finally, Magnuson (2007) demonstrated that maternal education obtained when children were between the ages of 6 and 12 predicted children's academic skills but only among children with young and educationally disadvantaged parents. Positive associations were more pronounced for reading skills than for math skills and were concentrated among younger children.

here is data on working moms like myself

The Effects of the Mother's Employment on the Family and the Child

there were subtle diffeences between boy or girl child

Daughters of employed mothers have been found to have higher academic achievement, greater career success, more nontraditional career choices, and greater occupational commitment.


Studies of children in poverty, in both two-parent and single-mother families, found higher cognitive scores for children with employed mothers as well as higher scores on socioemotional indices.

In our study, the children of employed mothers obtained higher scores on the three achievement tests, for language, reading, and math, across gender, socioeconomic status, and marital status, middle-class boys included. It was our most robust findings for the child outcome differences. And yes, we controlled on the mother's education.



The other social adjustment findings from the recent Michigan study were generally consistent with previous results but extended them. Daughters with employed mothers, across the different groups, showed more positive assertiveness as rated by the teacher (that is, they participated in class discussions, they asked questions when instructions were unclear, they were comfortable in leadership positions), and they showed less acting-out behavior. They were less shy, more independent and had a higher sense of efficacy. Working-class boys also showed more positive social adjustment when their mothers were employed, and this was true for both one-parent and two-parent families. For the middle-class boys, although their academic scores were higher, there was little evidence of social adjustment benefits from their mothers' employment. In fact, there was some evidence that those with employed mothers showed more acting-out behavior than the sons of full-time homemakers.

etc.

the last showed both positive and negatives

Originally Posted by bandaidwoman

I don't think you guys realize who the poor are.

my guess in today's economy more married couples with children that fall in the lower 3rd-4th quintiles in income are requiring food-stamps, etc. to get buy.

below is a link to a marriage study commissioned by the GOP House in 2005 ($500M over 5 years was the budget). Bush had originally proposed the idea in 2002.

The BUILDING STRONG FAMILIES PROJECT
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/opre..._exec_summ.pdf

Originally Posted by LAM

"Trump predicts his debt elimination combined with his tax cuts would trigger a 35 to 40 percent boost in economic activity, with more business startups, more jobs, and more prosperity."

more supply-side voodoo economics....lol at taking financial advice from someone that uses bankruptcy courts as part of his business model.

LAM, I'm not saying I agree with what he's proposing, but take a look; this country is in serious trouble. We've tried almost everything. Everyone freaked when Obama wanted health care-did it change anything? No. What makes you think this plan of his will screw us?

Originally Posted by LAM

my guess in today's economy more married couples with children that fall in the lower 3rd-4th quintiles in income are requiring food-stamps, etc. to get buy.

below is a link to a marriage study commissioned by the GOP House in 2005 ($500M over 5 years was the budget). Bush had originally proposed the idea in 2002.

The BUILDING STRONG FAMILIES PROJECT
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/opre..._exec_summ.pdf

exactly , we need to look at data, and by no means do we feminist advocate single parenthood. We know marriage is the best ( unless one is a pedophile or very violent) but an egalitarian society now allows the man to contribute equally to family rearing if the woman has the better ability to provide income. Also, through no fault of their own, if the husband dies or become disabled, a educated woman can return to the work force instead of resorting to prostitution or working menial jobs that won't allow for adequate day care etc. as in countries that don't advocate women empowerment in terms of education.

case in point, my friend's husband owned a very successful landscaping business ( they have three kids), well, needless to say his business is bankrupt, she has a degree in mathmatics, she went back to working as an acturarialst after 10 yrs, they were able to keep their house , the kids continue to go to a very good school district. In a society that did not allow this woman that chance for education and salary attainment ,where would her family be?

Originally Posted by juggernaut

LAM, I'm not saying I agree with what he's proposing, but take a look; this country is in serious trouble. We've tried almost everything. Everyone freaked when Obama wanted health care-did it change anything? No. What makes you think this plan of his will screw us?

supply-side economics and especially the tax breaks for the wealthy, etc. has never worked in US economic history. it has never created any jobs and has only increased the federal deficit by trillions dollars due to interest payments on borrowed monies to pay for those tax breaks, this is what all the data shows over the past 30+ years. in terms of bang for the buck they offer the least in return (see the graph on page 5 on the 3rd paper that I posted).

the US has been bleeding jobs for decades, jobs that have not been replaced all due to globalization. the US never recovered from the recession in 2001 in terms of jobs.

When you get the time read the 3 papers below from the EPI. If you don't have the time to read all three, I implore you to find time to read the 2nd and 3rd.

THE CLASS OF 2011
Young workers face a dire labor market without a safety net
http://epi.3cdn.net/c7d6ec52122ea9c188_rbm6bc14a.pdf


Reasons for Skepticism about Structural Unemployment Examining the Demand-Side Evidence
http://epi.3cdn.net/c1218e8213c58051e4_tlm6b5tf9.pdf

ABANDONING WHAT WORKS (AND MOST OTHER THINGS, TOO)
Expansionary fiscal policy is still the best tool for boosting jobs
http://epi.3cdn.net/ec12c2ff3297c3785e_rkm6bh9l9.pdf

Originally Posted by maniclion

Hopefully it would get rid of some of the misers who just horde money cause they're stingy. My gf's step-grandmother has several million just sitting in banks while she leached off of her husbands retirement money for years. This bitch got mad at me once cause I threw out 20 years worth of her hoarding straws from each time shed go to a fast food restaurant, the bitch was psychotic I tells ya....

So, that's where your blind hate of the rich comes from

Originally Posted by LAM

supply-side economics and especially the tax breaks for the wealthy, etc. has never worked in US economic history. it has never created any jobs and has only increased the federal deficit by trillions dollars due to interest payments on borrowed monies to pay for those tax breaks, this is what all the data shows over the past 30+ years. in terms of bang for the buck they offer the least in return (see the graph on page 5 on the 3rd paper that I posted).

the US has been bleeding jobs for decades, jobs that have not been replaced all due to globalization. the US never recovered from the recession in 2001 in terms of jobs.

When you get the time read the 3 papers below from the EPI. If you don't have the time to read all three, I implore you to find time to read the 2nd and 3rd.

THE CLASS OF 2011
Young workers face a dire labor market without a safety net
http://epi.3cdn.net/c7d6ec52122ea9c188_rbm6bc14a.pdf


Reasons for Skepticism about Structural Unemployment Examining the Demand-Side Evidence
http://epi.3cdn.net/c1218e8213c58051e4_tlm6b5tf9.pdf

ABANDONING WHAT WORKS (AND MOST OTHER THINGS, TOO)
Expansionary fiscal policy is still the best tool for boosting jobs
http://epi.3cdn.net/ec12c2ff3297c3785e_rkm6bh9l9.pdf

I see you know your shit. REPPED.