2016 US Presidential Election Thread - VII - Page 12 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 04-02-2016, 10:30 AM   #166
Blue Crack Addict
 
Hewson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Your own private Idaho
Posts: 26,482
Local Time: 02:26 PM
I believe Perot was a legit candidate, not there to upset the apple cart and hand the election (erection) to Bill Clinton.
He ran based almost purely on an economic platform, the prosperous economy under Ronny Ray Gun had quickly fizzled under Papa Bush and Perot claimed to be able to set things straight.

Clinton that year was the first "cool" presidential candidate in my lifetime (probably what JFK was to folks a generation before), he played saxophone on Arsenioe Hall's show, did an interview with Tabitha Soren on MTV where the minx asked him "boxers or briefs". He probably would have beaten Bush without Perot in there, but Perot's candidacy definitely hurt Bush more. But I believe Perot ran believing he had a shot (he got almost 20% of the popular vote) and not to undermine Bush.

Imagine if somehow Jeb had emerged as the GOP frontrunner this year, and was facing Hillary in November and Trump entered as a 3rd party candidate. It would be like waking up to "I Got You Babe" on the clock radio all over again.
__________________

__________________
Hewson is offline  
Old 04-02-2016, 10:35 AM   #167
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,486
Local Time: 02:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7 View Post
I just had a little bit of a wild thought... about the 1992 election what with Bush/Clinton/Perot, and the similarity to today's potential Cruz/Clinton/Trump matchup, were the Donald to be jettisoned by the potential contested republican convention.

So, I was born in 1992. I merely know of Perot's existence, and some of the political positions he took (in some sense, he and Trump share similar economic populist positions). But, I can only assume the relationship between Bush and Perot was far more sour than the relationship between Perot and Clinton. Probably because Bush knew Perot was stopping any chance he had at reelection. Similar to what would happen were Trump to run independent.

Now, there's the early conceived notion that Trump was a Clinton plant. It just makes me think... if that were legitimately true, what about Perot? Was that just the learning example, or in some way could Ross Perot have been running knowing he would throw the race? And, does that mean we are likely to see Trump in 2020, if he so chooses to run independent? The question about Perot is mostly because I don't really have an understanding of the dynamic of that race, as a 92 baby.


The best way to learn about Perot is to watch Dana Carvey's impersonations of him on old SNLs.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 04-02-2016, 10:38 AM   #168
ONE
love, blood, life
 
LuckyNumber7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Leicester, UK
Posts: 12,367
Local Time: 02:26 PM
2016 US Presidential Election Thread - VII

What about his second run? It all just seems so... Clintonian conspiracy.
__________________
LuckyNumber7 is offline  
Old 04-02-2016, 10:41 AM   #169
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,289
Local Time: 02:26 PM
On the tax thing, our taxes went up quite a bit under the new Trudeau government. I "escaped" by making under the threshold because I was on mat leave for part of the year but my husband is getting dinged quite significantly. I don't complain too much as we are doing ok, so I suppose better tax us than some other people. However, what continually irritates me about all these politicians running on "increase taxes on the top 1%" is that usually it is not the top 1%, but what they are really talking about are the top 1-5% or so, and secondly they are doing the easy thing but taxing the INCOME of those people. This could catch people like, for example Irvine or myself who live in expensive urban centres and have high salaries BUT are not wealthy. When you raise income taxes on the "top 1%" what you're doing is really dinging people who in many parts of the country are kind of borderline upper middle class and many of whom are probably working like dogs to get that money. I used to pull 80, 90 hrs a week regularly in a corporate law firm, and even as in house corporate counsel I still never work just 40 hours. My husband is in finance, I won't even go into the horrors of his hours. We've paid off student loans, live in a nice but not extravagant house, vacation when we please but we don't have some massive accumulated wealth. We have a pretty sizeable mortgage, maybe around 50% of the value of our home. We aren't public sector employees so the only pensions we have are ones we're building. I just think that when most voters think of the 1% they are envisioning somebody living in Beverly Hills with a butler and vacationing in Tahiti. When in fact the higher tax burden ends up being carried unfairly by a segment of the population which yes, is much better off than the average, but does not actually live in some super comfort.

Look up, for example, what it takes to be a 1% income earner in the US vs a 1% WEALTH holder. And then tell me why it's the former that's constantly and aggressively being taxed on an increased basis.
__________________
anitram is online now  
Old 04-02-2016, 11:34 AM   #170
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
trojanchick99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Los Feliz, CA (between Hollywood and Downtown LA)
Posts: 8,090
Local Time: 11:26 AM
Ahhh. Perot. That was the first election I really paid attention as I was in high school. I remember Perot bought time on broadcast TV to talk about his plan, which included his iconic pie charts. The Dana Carvey impersonation was hilarious and spot on.

The Democratic primary was a mess, and somehow Clinton emerged. He had a sex scandal but his intense charisma won people over.
He hammered Bush on the "no new taxes" pledge that was broken.
The thing is, Perot was a serious candidate. He had an actual plan and wasn't running on fear.

Sent from my SM-G920V using U2 Interference mobile app
__________________
trojanchick99 is offline  
Old 04-02-2016, 11:59 AM   #171
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,486
Local Time: 02:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by anitram View Post
On the tax thing, our taxes went up quite a bit under the new Trudeau government. I "escaped" by making under the threshold because I was on mat leave for part of the year but my husband is getting dinged quite significantly. I don't complain too much as we are doing ok, so I suppose better tax us than some other people. However, what continually irritates me about all these politicians running on "increase taxes on the top 1%" is that usually it is not the top 1%, but what they are really talking about are the top 1-5% or so, and secondly they are doing the easy thing but taxing the INCOME of those people. This could catch people like, for example Irvine or myself who live in expensive urban centres and have high salaries BUT are not wealthy. When you raise income taxes on the "top 1%" what you're doing is really dinging people who in many parts of the country are kind of borderline upper middle class and many of whom are probably working like dogs to get that money. I used to pull 80, 90 hrs a week regularly in a corporate law firm, and even as in house corporate counsel I still never work just 40 hours. My husband is in finance, I won't even go into the horrors of his hours. We've paid off student loans, live in a nice but not extravagant house, vacation when we please but we don't have some massive accumulated wealth. We have a pretty sizeable mortgage, maybe around 50% of the value of our home. We aren't public sector employees so the only pensions we have are ones we're building. I just think that when most voters think of the 1% they are envisioning somebody living in Beverly Hills with a butler and vacationing in Tahiti. When in fact the higher tax burden ends up being carried unfairly by a segment of the population which yes, is much better off than the average, but does not actually live in some super comfort.

Look up, for example, what it takes to be a 1% income earner in the US vs a 1% WEALTH holder. And then tell me why it's the former that's constantly and aggressively being taxed on an increased basis.



Exactly right.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 04-02-2016, 12:19 PM   #172
Blue Crack Distributor
 
Headache in a Suitcase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Stateless
Posts: 56,414
Local Time: 02:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
The best way to learn about Perot is to watch Dana Carvey's impersonations of him on old SNLs.
I have the feeling he's not gonna do it...
__________________
Headache in a Suitcase is online now  
Old 04-02-2016, 12:23 PM   #173
Blue Crack Distributor
 
Headache in a Suitcase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Stateless
Posts: 56,414
Local Time: 02:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by anitram View Post
On the tax thing, our taxes went up quite a bit under the new Trudeau government. I "escaped" by making under the threshold because I was on mat leave for part of the year but my husband is getting dinged quite significantly. I don't complain too much as we are doing ok, so I suppose better tax us than some other people. However, what continually irritates me about all these politicians running on "increase taxes on the top 1%" is that usually it is not the top 1%, but what they are really talking about are the top 1-5% or so, and secondly they are doing the easy thing but taxing the INCOME of those people. This could catch people like, for example Irvine or myself who live in expensive urban centres and have high salaries BUT are not wealthy. When you raise income taxes on the "top 1%" what you're doing is really dinging people who in many parts of the country are kind of borderline upper middle class and many of whom are probably working like dogs to get that money. I used to pull 80, 90 hrs a week regularly in a corporate law firm, and even as in house corporate counsel I still never work just 40 hours. My husband is in finance, I won't even go into the horrors of his hours. We've paid off student loans, live in a nice but not extravagant house, vacation when we please but we don't have some massive accumulated wealth. We have a pretty sizeable mortgage, maybe around 50% of the value of our home. We aren't public sector employees so the only pensions we have are ones we're building. I just think that when most voters think of the 1% they are envisioning somebody living in Beverly Hills with a butler and vacationing in Tahiti. When in fact the higher tax burden ends up being carried unfairly by a segment of the population which yes, is much better off than the average, but does not actually live in some super comfort.

Look up, for example, what it takes to be a 1% income earner in the US vs a 1% WEALTH holder. And then tell me why it's the former that's constantly and aggressively being taxed on an increased basis.
Couldn't have possibly said it better... And you described almost the exact same situation we're in, only we still rent because we can't afford 20% down on an apartment in a good neighborhood that wouldn't add an hour to each of our commutes, cause new york.

We do pay $24,000 a year for daycare, though. For three days a week of daycare, I should add... which equates to roughly two years of SUNY college tuition, and/or roughly the amount of added tax we would have to pay under Sanders plan.

So yea... fuck Bernie.
__________________
Headache in a Suitcase is online now  
Old 04-02-2016, 02:36 PM   #174
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,237
Local Time: 01:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Headache in a Suitcase View Post
I have the feeling he's not gonna do it...
Wouldn't be prudent.
__________________
Diemen is offline  
Old 04-02-2016, 04:39 PM   #175
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
ntalwar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 4,900
Local Time: 02:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by anitram View Post
Look up, for example, what it takes to be a 1% income earner in the US vs a 1% WEALTH holder. And then tell me why it's the former that's constantly and aggressively being taxed on an increased basis.
Someone like Romney (with no payroll income) is harder to target because he has trusts set up. He only pays something like 14% in tax. Sanders does want to tax capital gains at a lot higher rate, but the wealthy still have a lot more ways to evade taxes. They would have to really overhaul the tax system to go after people like him.
__________________
ntalwar is offline  
Old 04-02-2016, 05:27 PM   #176
ONE
love, blood, life
 
namkcuR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Kettering, Ohio
Posts: 10,290
Local Time: 02:26 PM
Tax increases or not, I think the real issue still ought to be that income has stagnated over the last 3-4 decades. The cost of everything has gone way up, but income has not kept pace. Median U.S. income is $52,000, and I just read something that said that if it had kept come with the economy all these years, it would be between $90-100,000 instead. Same with the minimum wage. A 1950 minimum wage for one year was enough to buy a new - not used, new - car, while a minimum wage today would cover half the average cost of a new car.

We always talk about how tax rates were so high in the 50s and 60s, but maybe those rates hurt less then because the income you were left with could buy a lot more than it would now.
__________________
namkcuR is offline  
Old 04-02-2016, 06:27 PM   #177
Blue Crack Distributor
 
Headache in a Suitcase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Stateless
Posts: 56,414
Local Time: 02:26 PM
I agree with that, I don't however after with fixing it in one big swoop. 10 to 15 in a short period of time could end up backfiring big time.
__________________
Headache in a Suitcase is online now  
Old 04-02-2016, 06:31 PM   #178
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Mack_Again's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: definitely Osaka
Posts: 6,620
Local Time: 02:26 PM
but what if we can't just trust incremental changes anymore? can politicians convince me?
__________________
Mack_Again is offline  
Old 04-02-2016, 07:07 PM   #179
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,289
Local Time: 02:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Headache in a Suitcase View Post
We do pay $24,000 a year for daycare, though. For three days a week of daycare, I should add... which equates to roughly two years of SUNY college tuition, and/or roughly the amount of added tax we would have to pay under Sanders plan.
Brutal, it's $2,100 here per month (I'm still on mat leave but that's what it would be for a 12 month old when I go back). I don't even know if that's doable, not in terms of $ but pick ups/drop offs, our schedules are so erratic I may end up forced into a nanny situation. I've priced that out, if you're doing it above board (i.e. declaring everything, paying into her EI, etc) it's about $40-45K/year for a non-live in.
__________________
anitram is online now  
Old 04-02-2016, 07:16 PM   #180
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 11:26 AM
rich people problems
__________________

__________________
deep is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:26 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com