US Politics XXVI: Sorry you're not Canada

[anitram]

It kind of angers me that all of those democrats all have incomes large enough such that the amount of taxes they pay are multiple times the amount most Americans make in a year.

But let’s not lose sight of the billionaire who contributes absolutely nothing.

Biden was a private citizen in 2017 so he's drawing from consulting fees, speeches, etc.

Because this states household income, most of the taxes attributed to Harris are actually paid on account of her husband (who is a high income earner/lawyer in CA).

Bernie and Liz Warren have household taxes that are basically upper middle class.

Not that any of them are slumming it or anything close, but the 3 that were Senators in 2017 are nowhere near the absurdly wealthy members of Congress like Mittens.

 

[LuckyNumber7]

Biden was a private citizen in 2017 so he's drawing from consulting fees, speeches, etc.



Because this states household income, most of the taxes attributed to Harris are actually paid on account of her husband (who is a high income earner/lawyer in CA).



Bernie and Liz Warren have household taxes that are basically upper middle class.



Not that any of them are slumming it or anything close, but the 3 that were Senators in 2017 are nowhere near the absurdly wealthy members of Congress like Mittens.

I don’t care what Biden was in 2017. You’re missing the point. None of them can understand the common American if they’re all so far removed from common America. It doesn’t matter if it’s a spouse or their own income.

And they are absolutely not upper middle class. Someone paying 300k in taxes, at a modestly approximated effective tax rate, is making $1 million a year. I’m in the middle or upper middle class. Middle class is like 80k, not 500-1000k.

I’m not here to shame Mittens or Biden for being notably richer than the rest. I’m saying that if 20-40% of your income is 3-4x a middle class income (assuming you’re not legally evading taxes), you don’t have a clear grasp at the common American.

This is another reason why America needs AOC (while she is young). And another reason why we need term limits... and hell, age limits.

 

[anitram]

We can agree to disagree.

Liz Warren + husband pulling in $600-700K per year in Boston/Washington are probably the top 1% based on INCOME. They are upper middle class as wealthy as it may sound to most average people.

Income is a different matter than (real) wealth, which is built up either generationally or by way of extremely successful entrepreneurship.

Every single one of the Dems on that list know what it is like to be either poor or middle class and spent their formative years (childhood, early adulthood and some even middle age) as such. To me it’s disingenuous to say that because they are relatively well off today they have no concept of what everyone else lives like.

And for heaven’s sake get real, AOC will be just like them in a decade, maybe sooner given that she’s far more marketable and capable of making $ than the 4 of them combined.

 

[LuckyNumber7]

We can agree to disagree.

Liz Warren + husband pulling in $600-700K per year in Boston/Washington are probably the top 1% based on INCOME. They are upper middle class as wealthy as it may sound to most average people.

Income is a different matter than (real) wealth, which is built up either generationally or by way of extremely successful entrepreneurship.

Every single one of the Dems on that list know what it is like to be either poor or middle class and spent their formative years (childhood, early adulthood and some even middle age) as such. To me it’s disingenuous to say that because they are relatively well off today they have no concept of what everyone else lives like.

And for heaven’s sake get real, AOC will be just like them in a decade, maybe sooner given that she’s far more marketable and capable of making $ than the 4 of them combined.

I will not agree to disagree lol, you’re making up a definition for upper middle class that is just categorically false. And it isn’t per person, it’s a household income... middle class is so much lower than you’re making it seem.

https://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/0912/which-income-class-are-you.aspx

It’s not “disingenuous” to be concerned with how someone who was poor 20-60 years ago doesn’t know what it’s like to be poor in 2020. And don’t tell me to get real.

 

[Hewson]

We can agree to disagree.

Liz Warren + husband pulling in $600-700K per year in Boston/Washington are probably the top 1% based on INCOME. They are upper middle class as wealthy as it may sound to most average people.

That's not upper middle class. That's upper class through and through.
Its not absurdly wealthy but its definitely upper class income.

 

[womanfish]

A real, honest to goodness clap back from Biden camp to Trump. Good to see.

Biden campaign on President Trump's attempts to make up a drug test policy for the upcoming presidential debate:

Joe Biden "intends to deliver his debate answers in words. If the president thinks his best case is made in urine he can have at it. We’d expect nothing less from Donald Trump, who pissed away the chance to protect the lives of 200K Americans when he didn't make a plan to stop COVID-19."

 

[Irvine511]

I pay significantly more per pay period.

But then I don’t owe $421m to the Russians, so I guess I can live with that.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

A real, honest to goodness clap back from Biden camp to Trump. Good to see.

Biden campaign on President Trump's attempts to make up a drug test policy for the upcoming presidential debate:

Joe Biden "intends to deliver his debate answers in words. If the president thinks his best case is made in urine he can have at it. We’d expect nothing less from Donald Trump, who pissed away the chance to protect the lives of 200K Americans when he didn't make a plan to stop COVID-19."

LOL, oh, damn. Well said.

I'm pretty well solidly lower class, and I do agree with what LN is saying in general. Any of that kind of money is a lot to someone like me-my family would live so comfortably off that kind of income. And I think it's fair to acknowledge that, and point out where that can pose an issue for working class voters.

That said, I do also agree with anitram that I think all those Democratic candidates still, at the end of the day, have a better understanding of what it's like to actually have to work for your pay, and will be more wiling to listen to working class people. And in that case, if they win, we need to not let up on encouraging them to hold the rich accountable and making them pay more.

And another reason why we need term limits... and hell, age limits.

Also very much agreed on this. Yes.

Also, if the New York Times has any more big stuff to spill about Trump, be it in relation to his tax returns or anything else, please keep sharing it every day until the election. Anything to help further motivate anyone that's not part of Trump's cult to get out and vote.

 

[womanfish]

I would highly recommend hopping on Kyle Griffin's Twitter right now and see the long list of findings in the tax returns. like: Trump claimed in his financial disclosure that he made 439 million. Actually he lost 47 million.
He has several large debts that are in the hundreds of millions coming due over the next 1 to 4 years. etc...

 

[Vincent Vega]

It’s not “disingenuous” to be concerned with how someone who was poor 20-60 years ago doesn’t know what it’s like to be poor in 2020. And don’t tell me to get real.

But what in the things e.g. Harris or Warren (or Sanders for that matter) say, or in the policies they propose suggests that they have lost that connection to the lower and middle classes?

 

[Vincent Vega]

Which brings up another good and NOT a gotcha question that needs to be asked at the debate.

Mr. Trump. You continually say that mail in ballots are rife with fraud. Can you name any study of voter fraud in the last 20 years that has shown this to be the case? And also, why is your campaign, including Laura Trump and Kimberly Gilfoyle (sp?) promoting and encouraging mail in voting on robocalls to your voters if mail in voting is indeed fraudulent?

The problem with American TV journalists is not that their questions aren't long or detailed enough. The problem is that they just accept anything the interviewee answers and move on, treating their questions more like a list of assignements to get through. Ask the question, hear the answer, and move on. I'm not sure if it's a lack of preparedness, a lack of skill, or deliberate, but it's very frustrating to see.

And since this is the debate, they have no choice but to move on anyway, because there's just no time to nail down either candidate on anything. Nor would it be fair of course, and we don't want to be seen as being unfair to the person vying to run our country (into the ground) because we grill him on one question for a little while.

 

[womanfish]

No matter where you stand on what is lower/middle/upper class. I think we can agree that someone like Biden or Bernie that grew up poor, didn't go to Ivy League schools, and haven't used their wealth later in life to make things worse for everyone but the very rich, are still someone we would prefer in office over someone like Mittens or Trump. Or even like the Obamas that were still paying off student loans after entering the White House. I get the point of view of wanting lawmakers that have had more recent experience of knowing what it's like to struggle, and I agree that those people are important to have in the system. What I don't want is someone who has NEVER known what it's like.

 

[LuckyNumber7]

But what in the things e.g. Harris or Warren (or Sanders for that matter) say, or in the policies they propose suggests that they have lost that connection to the lower and middle classes?

A good politician that is representative of its people comes from its people. It’s why we need more women, more black people, more Hispanics, more lgbt people, etc etc. That is Getting voices heard. Elizabeth Warren can have great policies because she put good people around her, no doubt.

But there is a certain bourgeoise about saying “I’m not you but I know what’s best for you.” Of course, a candidate won’t likely be everything in one (and literally can’t be in some cases). But what irked me about the list was that it was literally all of them. That’s our democracy. I want representation that is like me.

 

[Vincent Vega]

Warren worked herself up from moderate means, and everything in her career as a Professor all the way through to her time as Senator seems to suggest she never lost the connection to this struggle. And certainly also gets that it has become much tougher to work yourself out of poverty and low-income jobs.

I'm sure Warren's policy program is also informed by capable staffers. But so is Bernie's, I'd think. And even Ocasio-Cortez won't come up with all of her ideas just from the brilliance of her own mind. If you decide to become a politician, then naturally you make the decision that you know what's best for others. But if you also know your limitations, then the way to go about it will be to also listen to people to figure out what you can learn from them, and build a team around you that also brings in more experience, expertise and perspectives.

I'm totally with you that the requirements to enter the Senate are making it close to impossible for any non-rich person to enter. And it's a great shame. It prevents the Senate from becoming a more diverse place, and forces the House to try and balancing it out somehow.

While I would also agree that diversity in representation is needed to shape fairer and more inclusive policies, I wouldn't agree with the notion that Warren is necessarily out of touch, just like Ocasio-Cortez is not as qualified to speak about the issues she stands for as she is simply because she has been working low-income jobs, but because she has been studying these very topics as well.

I'm only picking Warren here because from what I've read about her, and seen from her, she strikes me as the last person who is only talking about poverty, working poor, bankruptcy etc. in the abstract.

 

[LuckyNumber7]

You might be only picking on warren for that reason, but the fact that you’re working with her the individual and not instead “this entire group of people” is why I believe you’re missing my point.

This wasn’t a criticism on anyone as an individual.

AOC was highlighted simply because she’s an exception in terms of age. She is a millennial. She won’t last for long before she becomes one of them. That’s not her fault. That’s the critique of the system.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

The problem with American TV journalists is not that their questions aren't long or detailed enough. The problem is that they just accept anything the interviewee answers and move on, treating their questions more like a list of assignements to get through. Ask the question, hear the answer, and move on. I'm not sure if it's a lack of preparedness, a lack of skill, or deliberate, but it's very frustrating to see.

And since this is the debate, they have no choice but to move on anyway, because there's just no time to nail down either candidate on anything. Nor would it be fair of course, and we don't want to be seen as being unfair to the person vying to run our country (into the ground) because we grill him on one question for a little while.

It also doesn't help that in the few instances where they do try and grill Trump further on a question, he either talks over them, insults them, or just up and ends the interview or briefing or whatever and leaves. I think that's a big reason why a lot of journalists just give up with him after a while, because they know that the conversation isn't going to go anywhere productive.

But still, on a general level, yes, I agree with you that journalists need to needle these people further and not just accept any pat answers they give and move on.

I'm totally with you that the requirements to enter the Senate are making it close to impossible for any non-rich person to enter. And it's a great shame. It prevents the Senate from becoming a more diverse place, and forces the House to try and balancing it out somehow.

And this is where overturning stuff like Citizens United would be very instrumental in changing that. Amongst all the other changes people keep discussing, another big one that would do wonders is, alongside overturning Citizens United and putting a limit on how much money each candidate is allowed to raise and use, thus making the playing field more even, I also think we desperately need to limit the election season as a whole, kind of the way other countries have shorter election seasons. Every candidate is only allowed to do their campaigning/fundraising and such in a specific amount of time (say, like, three months prior to the election or something like that) and that's it, nothing before and nothing after until the next election rolls around. That would also help make it so people are starting on a more equal footing, and just on a general level, it'd sure make things a hell of a lot less exhausting for voters, too, so we're not all burned out and sick of this craziness by the time the actual election rolls around.

I would highly recommend hopping on Kyle Griffin's Twitter right now and see the long list of findings in the tax returns. like: Trump claimed in his financial disclosure that he made 439 million. Actually he lost 47 million.
He has several large debts that are in the hundreds of millions coming due over the next 1 to 4 years. etc...

Well, this should make for some fun late night reading, thank you!

 

[Hewson]

So the Tulsa rally has had one more lasting effect...causing Brad Parscale to become suicidal.
Everything Trump touches dies, or at least wants to.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

Trump wrote off 70 grand in haircuts. 70 grand for that mess? He should demand a complete refund, let alone a tax deduction.

 

[anitram]

https://washingtonmonthly.com/2020/...-enormous-debts-could-be-running-the-country/

It really is the stuff of nightmares.

He has to come up with over $400 million to pay off his personal debts over the next couple of years.

There are a lot of failures at the level of the media, but not following the Trump $ is probably the biggest. Now that the tax returns are in the open, let's see who is going to be calling on those debts and why they hell they would have loaned him $ when no other institution would.

 

[womanfish]

https://twitter.com/MariaBartiromo/status/1310221953110888449

Breaking news: NO John durham interim report. No indictments before election - Bartiromo sources.

Wow. So translation. What they found after almost a year of trying was not just totally insufficient to say anything bad about Biden/Obama/Hunter/FBI etc... But it most likely dug up more bad news on Trump. Because they can't even twist what they found to say something bad.

 

[womanfish]

Trump wrote off 70 grand in haircuts. 70 grand for that mess? He should demand a complete refund, let alone a tax deduction.

https://twitter.com/TheRickWilson/status/1310362783762886657

I actually think this would be a great jab for Biden to throw out there tomorrow night.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

https://twitter.com/TheRickWilson/status/1310362783762886657

I actually think this would be a great jab for Biden to throw out there tomorrow night.

Biden needs to focus on what's at stake in this election. I can't recall any Presidential election with more at stake than this one.

Trump's going to be his usual ridiculous insulting self, giving in to that distraction just plays right into the tax fraudster's strategy.

Honestly I wish Senator Harris was debating Trump tomorrow.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

https://washingtonmonthly.com/2020/...-enormous-debts-could-be-running-the-country/

It really is the stuff of nightmares.

He has to come up with over $400 million to pay off his personal debts over the next couple of years.

There are a lot of failures at the level of the media, but not following the Trump $ is probably the biggest. Now that the tax returns are in the open, let's see who is going to be calling on those debts and why they hell they would have loaned him $ when no other institution would.

He literally needs to stay in the WH in order to avoid criminal prosecution. Sure seems that way to me.

And yes he's beholden to other countries for personal bailouts-just what you want in a President.

What an epic failure, on so many levels. I want out of this nightmare.

 

[gump]

https://washingtonmonthly.com/2020/...-enormous-debts-could-be-running-the-country/

It really is the stuff of nightmares.

He has to come up with over $400 million to pay off his personal debts over the next couple of years.

There are a lot of failures at the level of the media, but not following the Trump $ is probably the biggest. Now that the tax returns are in the open, let's see who is going to be calling on those debts and why they hell they would have loaned him $ when no other institution would.

Failure of the media, yes, but bigger failure of Congressional Democrats for not subpoenaing them the day after they took control of the House (as well as of Robert Mueller for not going after this).

 

[anitram]

Biden needs to focus on what's at stake in this election. I can't recall any Presidential election with more at stake than this one.

Trump's going to be his usual ridiculous insulting self, giving in to that distraction just plays right into the tax fraudster's strategy.

Honestly I wish Senator Harris was debating Trump tomorrow.

I go back and forth on the debates.

On the one hand, Hillary was a good debater and obviously outperformed him in 2016, even with him stalking her around the stage like a Category 5 creep. On the other hand I really think that there were a lot of people watching in 2016 for shits and giggles - let's see what this moron says today, we can all laugh about it in the morning - it was all so hilarious until it wasn't. I don't think anyone is tuning in for some sort of inherent entertainment value. The Trump voters are a lost cause and the rest of the world falls somewhere on the scale of concerned to totally horrified. Trump's immature jabs and insults will also fall flat without a studio audience.

But at the end of the day, we basically have to hope that Biden is coherent and doesn't have any weird thought lapses that the media will obsessively replay.

 

[womanfish]

Biden needs to focus on what's at stake in this election. I can't recall any Presidential election with more at stake than this one.

Trump's going to be his usual ridiculous insulting self, giving in to that distraction just plays right into the tax fraudster's strategy.

Honestly I wish Senator Harris was debating Trump tomorrow.

I guess my point is the that the tax thing will come up. Biden needs to hit hard on the new "Scranton vs. Wall St." Theme. That Trump is nearly broke with debts coming due, that he is committing tax fraud, that he is taking huge amounts from foreign countries, and drive home that he wouldn't be approved for security clearance if he were trying to work in the in the government. I also think that a jab about the 70k in hair care, is not only memorable, but something that everyday people will find objectionable and that they can actually relate to, more than "he overestimated this property value, didn't report earnings on this fund," etc...

I think we will hear Joe mainly hit the Scranton vs. Wall St. thing and healthcare, especially around the supreme court questions. And that's where it should be for the most part. You have a completely failed businessman that makes the worst deals and loses all the time, and pays less than you in taxes, and he's trying to take away your healthcare.

 

[Hewson]

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...rump-ivanka-running-mate-2016-book-rick-gates

Of course he did.
And they say a picture is worth 1,000 words..."blech", "incest" and "gross" have to be the first 3 on the list.

 

[womanfish]

I go back and forth on the debates.

On the one hand, Hillary was a good debater and obviously outperformed him in 2016, even with him stalking her around the stage like a Category 5 creep. On the other hand I really think that there were a lot of people watching in 2016 for shits and giggles - let's see what this moron says today, we can all laugh about it in the morning - it was all so hilarious until it wasn't. I don't think anyone is tuning in for some sort of inherent entertainment value. The Trump voters are a lost cause and the rest of the world falls somewhere on the scale of concerned to totally horrified. Trump's immature jabs and insults will also fall flat without a studio audience.

But at the end of the day, we basically have to hope that Biden is coherent and doesn't have any weird thought lapses that the media will obsessively replay.

Yeah, it's gonna be odd. But I think this format is going to be a huge plus for Biden. First, he is much better one on one than the huge primary stage debates. And like you said, Trump's only real "moments" are when there is a live audience. When he doesn't get that immediate reaction, I think it will throw him.
I wish that we could sub in Mayor Pete right now, but since we can't, Joe just has to be even, collected, and disciplined and he will do just fine. Trump is the one on trial here. The first debate is always focused on the incumbents record, and Trump's is not a good one. He will be playing defense and Biden can hopefully keep on offense. Trump is also 8 points down nationally and 2-8 points down in the most important swing states. So Trump is the one that has to do something tomorrow to change the trajectory. Biden just needs to hold it.

 

[BEAL]

The media will be waiting for Joe to say something stupid, or maybe pause a little too long before speaking and pounce on it.

Media want a horse race.

I have confidence Joe will perform just fine, but under such scrutiny it's impossible that something won't be twisted into a scandal.

I'm not ready for the sniffling

 

[womanfish]

So after the Biden camp explicitly said yesterday that if Trump wants to make the debate about urine, he can have it.

Trump today said - Sleepy Joe refuses to take a drug test. I wonder why??

please make it stop