SCOTUS ruling VA

[ChicagoFineForNow]

Chicago, state and local taxes tend to be more regressive than say the progressive federal income tax.

State and local taxes include sales, property, and user taxes which in most cases are impossible to escape.

On the federal level most workers find money coming out of their paycheck for Medicare and Social Security.

Often argued our total government taxation system which includes federal, state, and local government is actually fairly equitable for the rich and less affluent when you take into consideration the progressive federal income taxes and the regressive state/local taxes.

There is nothing saying state taxes can’t be made more progressive. States can also provide retirement plans that can be liquidated without penalty or are portable if someone moves out of state. This would look more like a 401K plan but could conceivably be structured to still offer monthly payouts upon retirement like SS.

Medicare is more challenging and perhaps that’s something that remains on the federal level. But I also believe there is a market gap for proving healthcare to the elderly that could be filled if we’re weren’t so reliant on employer based plans.

 

[Stuffshot]

Junior, I've been on here since the late 90s and I was old then.

If you truly were old then (25 years ago) as you say, then you're surely senile now. That explains everything.

 

[Stuffshot]

There is nothing saying state taxes can’t be made more progressive. States can also provide retirement plans that can be liquidated without penalty or are portable if someone moves out of state. This would look more like a 401K plan but could conceivably be structured to still offer monthly payouts upon retirement like SS.

Medicare is more challenging and perhaps that’s something that remains on the federal level. But I also believe there is a market gap for proving healthcare to the elderly that could be filled if we’re weren’t so reliant on employer based plans.

Who said eight years ago that he was going to "repeal and replace Obamacare" and make our healthcare better? And then did nothing about it.

 

[ChicagoFineForNow]

Who said eight years ago that he was going to "repeal and replace Obamacare" and make our healthcare better? And then did nothing about it.

Obamacare is completely irrelevant to what I’m suggesting.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

Of course. I've been on these forums for decades, as several others have, as well. You were still in diapers when we were having our best discussions.

Uh. . . DANC is an old codger.

 

[NPT]

Seriously? Trump is the first president of the modern era chosen by the people, not the party, not the rulers, not the lobbyists, not the influenceers, not the elitetes, not superdelegates—the voters. Contrast that to how and why Kamala is on the ballot.

The sad part is those who reject the voters choice and I guess want “The Republican Party” to reject their own voters.

Even though I don't like Trump that is true about who chose the president. And I think a lot of him being chosen was because he wasn't one the elites. People were tired of the status quo.

 

[snarlcakes]

Of course. I've been on these forums for decades, as several others have, as well. You were still in diapers when we were having our best discussions.

You forgot to switch handles

 

[IUCrazy2]

Even though I don't like Trump that is true about who chose the president. And I think a lot of him being chosen was because he wasn't one the elites. People were tired of the status quo.

No, he was one of the elites too. His money put him there. He is just an elite who ran afoul of most of the others.

 

[NPT]

No, he was one of the elites too. His money put him there. He is just an elite who ran afoul of most of the others.

But he wasn't one of the established Washington elites which I guess is kinda what you're saying.

 

[IUCrazy2]

But he wasn't one of the established Washington elites which I guess is kinda what you're saying.

He was an east coast elite who was tied to the Clintons throughout the 90's.

Most of the people who rule over us attended a handful of schools and hobknob amongst themselves around the mainly 3 power centers in this country. Trump was entrenched with these people for decades and is? a billionaire. He is as elite as they come. The thing that separated him from the others is that he was able to pick up on a political undercurrent that his colleagues really had not at the time. The GOP and Democrat establishment live in a DC, NY, LA type of bubble and IMO aren't really that far from each other on quite a few beliefs. They both had a blind spot he stepped into. And 8 years later they still haven't figured it out.

 

[hoot1]

Even though I don't like Trump that is true about who chose the president. And I think a lot of him being chosen was because he wasn't one the elites. People were tired of the status quo.

No, he was one of the elites too. His money put him there. He is just an elite who ran afoul of most of the others.

Craze and NPT, your posts touch upon something which has been on my mind since Trump ran in 2016 and won.

IMO, Trump is more of a celebrity than just an elite. In addition his published wealth and perceived successful business acumen added up to him being someone many Americans felt would make a good president.

Furthermore he wasn't a Bush or a Clinton elite who represented the kind of typical politician who inherited the presidency simply by being the next in line.

Once in office, Trump stood for policies and a broad set of talking points which were accepted by enough people to again be His Party's nominee even after being defeated for a second term.

His Party in my view incorporates much of the old GOP plus working class citizens whose families years ago may have been Democrats.

 

[IUCrazy2]

Craze and NPT, your posts touch upon something which has been on my mind since Trump ran in 2016 and won.

IMO, Trump is more of a celebrity than just an elite. In addition his published wealth and perceived successful business acumen added up to him being someone many Americans felt would make a good president.

Furthermore he wasn't a Bush or a Clinton elite who represented the kind of typical politician who inherited the presidency simply by being the next in line.

Once in office, Trump stood for policies and a broad set of talking points which were accepted by enough people to again be His Party's nominee even after being defeated for a second term.

His Party in my view incorporates much of the old GOP plus working class citizens whose families years ago may have been Democrats.

He is like a 1980's moderate Democrat IMO, particularly on economics. The Democrats lost the John Cougar Mellencamp blue collar white workers and he tapped into that base.

He talks to them like Democrats talk to minorities.....

 

[snarlcakes]

He was an east coast elite who was tied to the Clintons throughout the 90's.

Most of the people who rule over us attended a handful of schools and hobknob amongst themselves around the mainly 3 power centers in this country. Trump was entrenched with these people for decades and is? a billionaire. He is as elite as they come. The thing that separated him from the others is that he was able to pick up on a political undercurrent that his colleagues really had not at the time. The GOP and Democrat establishment live in a DC, NY, LA type of bubble and IMO aren't really that far from each other on quite a few beliefs. They both had a blind spot he stepped into. And 8 years later they still haven't figured it out.

One nit. I think about this graph a lot. My personal opinion/theory is I think they have known about the undercurrent since GFC. The problem is to fix the issues, it would require both parties giving up a significant amount of control, power, and money. That’s not an option, so they chose dividing and conquering the populace with MSM and other institutions they control. The part they missed was a character like Trump getting in power and piecing enough voters together to win. It also explains why there are so many strange groups together in the parties now. Warhawks = Democrats, Union = Republicans and etc.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

It also explains why there are so many strange groups together in the parties now. Warhawks = Democrats, Union = Republicans and etc.

Bouncing off that, the other day on a Bulwark podcast, JV Last said “Did the neocons just take over the Democratic Party?”

Tim Miller was aghast and chimed in “Don’t…don’t say that!” And Sarah Longwell concurred “Yeah, don’t say it.”

LOL

 

[DANC]

There are those who think that way. One guy on this favor says to hell with voters, return the Senate to appointment by the elite

FYI - the Senate used to be appointed by elected state representatives.

EDIT: I see that's already been pointed out

 

[Marvin the Martian]

That is still in the hands on the voters. It places a larger emphasis on who you vote into your state legislature who are much more accessible than your U.S. Senator. It was a brilliant concept.

Emphasis on National Politics is every thing wrong today. Democracy is a tool. A useful one. Not a goal in and of itself.

Tell me Marv. When you think of the “elites” do you think of your local State Rep?

You don't believe there is a long history of state legislators being bought? And they come fairly cheap compared to federal.

 

[hoot1]

He is like a 1980's moderate Democrat IMO, particularly on economics. The Democrats lost the John Cougar Mellencamp blue collar white workers and he tapped into that base.

He talks to them like Democrats talk to minorities.....

Craze, by stressing the control over immigration as a major issue Trump has found a perfect subject to appeal to both the majority (White Europeans) and minorities.

To whites, tying crime with new immigrants can be effective.

Hispanics, Blacks, and less affluent White minorities often see new immigrants as competing for jobs along with being willing to work for less pay. Yep, Trump definitely talks to minorities.

 

[ChicagoFineForNow]

You don't believe there is a long history of state legislators being bought? And they come fairly cheap compared to federal.

That’s another subject entirely. Believe I know just how easily local politics can be corrupted. Corrupt is default status in Illinois. That’s attributable to two things.

A. One party states
B. Voters overlooking local politics in favor of federal

Another case for repealing the 17th.

 

[hoot1]

That’s another subject entirely. Believe I know just how easily local politics can be corrupted. Corrupt is default status in Illinois. That’s attributable to two things.

A. One party states
B. Voters overlooking local politics in favor of federal

Another case for repealing the 17th.

Arguably our founders were more fearful about the potential power of the federal government and a king like president. Thus at the federal level we have three strong branches of government complete with checks and balances.

In addition the executive branch has career bureaucrats who over the years have frustrated power hungry presidents. On this point, it can be argued the bureaucrats by stifling the president are cancelling out the will of the people.

At the state and local level there is always the prevalent possibility of one party having a super majority which can go almost unchecked by those in the minority.

At the federal level with representatives coming from a cross section of states and local communities the likelihood of a super majority by one party is highly unlikely. In fact divided government with one of the parties controlling a branch is fairly common.

At any rate, we have what we have and somehow or other our governments have balanced the interests of the various constituents on a fairly equitable basis. Not perfect, but not all that bad.

 

[ChicagoFineForNow]

Arguably our founders were more fearful about the potential power of the federal government and a king like president. Thus at the federal level we have three strong branches of government complete with checks and balances.

In addition the executive branch has career bureaucrats who over the years have frustrated power hungry presidents. On this point, it can be argued the bureaucrats by stifling the president are cancelling out the will of the people.

At the state and local level there is always the prevalent possibility of one party having a super majority which can go almost unchecked by those in the minority.

At the federal level with representatives coming from a cross section of states and local communities the likelihood of a super majority by one party is highly unlikely. In fact divided government with one of the parties controlling a branch is fairly common.

At any rate, we have what we have and somehow or other our governments have balanced the interests of the various constituents on a fairly equitable basis. Not perfect, but not all that bad.

I do not think the balance of Federal power would be changed all that much with the repeal of the 17th. What I do think would change is the quality of those in congress.

 

[UncleMark]

Seriously? Trump is the first president of the modern era chosen by the people, not the party, not the rulers, not the lobbyists, not the influenceers, not the elitetes, not superdelegates—the voters.

You're a riot. How many times have you weighed in on various and sundry topics with "we have too much democracy"? Yet here you're happy that the rabble put Trump in office. Make up your fvcking mind.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

You're a riot. How many times have you weighed in on various and sundry topics with "we have too much democracy"? Yet here you're happy that the rabble put Trump in office. Make up your fvcking mind.

Seriously? Where have I ever said what you said I said about Trump? How many fvcking times do I need to remind you I supported his opponent with cash and a vote? My post was a response to the point that the Republican Party nominated Trump. Noting is farther from the truth. Either read and understand better or ignore me. You never post anything interesting anyway.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

I do not think the balance of Federal power would be changed all that much with the repeal of the 17th. What I do think would change is the quality of those in congress.

I think the influence of big money would also be diminished by repealing the 17th.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

You don't believe there is a long history of state legislators being bought? And they come fairly cheap compared to federal.

That was one of the main reasons we switched.