|
|
Post by RinsePrius on Oct 2, 2024 23:01:08 GMT
...is really no kind of populism at all. Trumpism is genetically an elitist ideology. Institutional MAGA wants to identify as populist and might actually be interested in making that transition but it's early and there are often moments of awkwardness and contradiction. There are numerous examples revealing MAGA's elitism but for the purposes of this thread I have in mind only one: the uneasy fit between populist rhetoric and support for regressive forms of taxation. Taxes are regressive when they fall disproportionately on those with the smallest incomes. Regressive taxation is the inversion of progressive taxation: the idea that you should pay a higher % as you move up the income ladder. Progressive tax rates have some common sense notions of justice supporting them. Those who gain the most from society deserve to pay a little more. But it seems wildly perverse to increase the burden, in % terms, as you move down the income ladder. That can't be the right way to run a country... But it makes total sense if you are a billionaire who only has eyes for helping people such as yourself! Here is an article offering a quick lesson on the regressive nature of tariffs. Note the source.  www.heritage.org/trade/commentary/how-tariffs-and-regressive-trade-policies-hurt-the-poorIf you thought the Trump GOP might be different from the old guard, that they might be a new kind of conservative, one who champions the interests of the little guy over big business and the elite. Sorry! Guess again! He's planning to throw the common man to the wolves. |
|
thor
Legend
Posts: 20,489
|
Post by thor on Oct 2, 2024 23:09:53 GMT
...is really no kind of populism at all. Trumpism is genetically an elitist ideology. Institutional MAGA wants to identify as populist and might actually be interested in making that transition but it's early and there are often moments of awkwardness and contradiction. There are numerous examples revealing MAGA's elitistism but for the purposes of this thread I have in mind only one: the uneasy fit between populist rhetoric and support for regressive forms of taxation. Taxes are regressive when they fall disproportionately on those with the smallest incomes. Regressive taxation is the inversion of progressive taxation: they idea that you should pay a higher % as you move up the income ladder. Progressive tax rates have some common sense notions of justice supporting them. Those who gain the most from society deserve to pay a little more. But it seems wildly perverse to increase the burden, in % terms, as you move down the income ladder. That can't be the right way to run a country... But it makes total sense if you are a billionaire who only has eyes for helping people such as yourself! Here is an article offering a quick lesson on the regressive nature of tariffs. Note the source. www.heritage.org/trade/commentary/how-tariffs-and-regressive-trade-policies-hurt-the-poorIf you thought the Trump GOP might be different from the old guard, that they might be a new kind of conservative, one who champions the interests of the little guy over big business and the elite. Sorry! Guess again! He's planning to throw the common man to the wolves. Fascism always throws the common man to the wolves. |
|
|
|
Post by RinsePrius on Oct 2, 2024 23:30:03 GMT
...is really no kind of populism at all. Trumpism is genetically an elitist ideology. Institutional MAGA wants to identify as populist and might actually be interested in making that transition but it's early and there are often moments of awkwardness and contradiction. There are numerous examples revealing MAGA's elitistism but for the purposes of this thread I have in mind only one: the uneasy fit between populist rhetoric and support for regressive forms of taxation. Taxes are regressive when they fall disproportionately on those with the smallest incomes. Regressive taxation is the inversion of progressive taxation: they idea that you should pay a higher % as you move up the income ladder. Progressive tax rates have some common sense notions of justice supporting them. Those who gain the most from society deserve to pay a little more. But it seems wildly perverse to increase the burden, in % terms, as you move down the income ladder. That can't be the right way to run a country... But it makes total sense if you are a billionaire who only has eyes for helping people such as yourself! Here is an article offering a quick lesson on the regressive nature of tariffs. Note the source. www.heritage.org/trade/commentary/how-tariffs-and-regressive-trade-policies-hurt-the-poorIf you thought the Trump GOP might be different from the old guard, that they might be a new kind of conservative, one who champions the interests of the little guy over big business and the elite. Sorry! Guess again! He's planning to throw the common man to the wolves. Fascism always throws the common man to the wolves. Totalitarian ideologies share that in common. |
|
thor
Legend
Posts: 20,489
|
Post by thor on Oct 3, 2024 0:00:55 GMT
Fascism always throws the common man to the wolves. Totalitarian ideologies share that in common. Also true. Communism shares that same trait. You could argue that it doesn't in theory, but in practice it most certainly does. |
|
|
|
Post by rabbitreborn on Oct 3, 2024 1:07:29 GMT
...is really no kind of populism at all. Trumpism is genetically an elitist ideology. Institutional MAGA wants to identify as populist and might actually be interested in making that transition but it's early and there are often moments of awkwardness and contradiction. There are numerous examples revealing MAGA's elitistism but for the purposes of this thread I have in mind only one: the uneasy fit between populist rhetoric and support for regressive forms of taxation. Taxes are regressive when they fall disproportionately on those with the smallest incomes. Regressive taxation is the inversion of progressive taxation: they idea that you should pay a higher % as you move up the income ladder. Progressive tax rates have some common sense notions of justice supporting them. Those who gain the most from society deserve to pay a little more. But it seems wildly perverse to increase the burden, in % terms, as you move down the income ladder. That can't be the right way to run a country... But it makes total sense if you are a billionaire who only has eyes for helping people such as yourself! Here is an article offering a quick lesson on the regressive nature of tariffs. Note the source. www.heritage.org/trade/commentary/how-tariffs-and-regressive-trade-policies-hurt-the-poorIf you thought the Trump GOP might be different from the old guard, that they might be a new kind of conservative, one who champions the interests of the little guy over big business and the elite. Sorry! Guess again! He's planning to throw the common man to the wolves. If it takes one policy or position that favors elites to turn a political movement into an elitist one, then there won’t be any left standing. Including Sacred Progressive Democracy. |
|
|
|
Post by RinsePrius on Oct 3, 2024 2:44:04 GMT
...is really no kind of populism at all. Trumpism is genetically an elitist ideology. Institutional MAGA wants to identify as populist and might actually be interested in making that transition but it's early and there are often moments of awkwardness and contradiction. There are numerous examples revealing MAGA's elitistism but for the purposes of this thread I have in mind only one: the uneasy fit between populist rhetoric and support for regressive forms of taxation. Taxes are regressive when they fall disproportionately on those with the smallest incomes. Regressive taxation is the inversion of progressive taxation: they idea that you should pay a higher % as you move up the income ladder. Progressive tax rates have some common sense notions of justice supporting them. Those who gain the most from society deserve to pay a little more. But it seems wildly perverse to increase the burden, in % terms, as you move down the income ladder. That can't be the right way to run a country... But it makes total sense if you are a billionaire who only has eyes for helping people such as yourself! Here is an article offering a quick lesson on the regressive nature of tariffs. Note the source. www.heritage.org/trade/commentary/how-tariffs-and-regressive-trade-policies-hurt-the-poorIf you thought the Trump GOP might be different from the old guard, that they might be a new kind of conservative, one who champions the interests of the little guy over big business and the elite. Sorry! Guess again! He's planning to throw the common man to the wolves. If it takes one policy or position that favors elites to turn a political movement into an elitist one, then there won’t be any left standing. Including Sacred Progressive Democracy. The distribution of wealth and its determinants looms large in the discussion. I'm not sure what you have in mind, though. I wonder if the consensus as to causation will be as neat and clean, or with the same force of consensus? |
|
petep
Legend
Posts: 26,024
|
Post by petep on Oct 3, 2024 12:18:09 GMT
...is really no kind of populism at all. Trumpism is genetically an elitist ideology. Institutional MAGA wants to identify as populist and might actually be interested in making that transition but it's early and there are often moments of awkwardness and contradiction. There are numerous examples revealing MAGA's elitistism but for the purposes of this thread I have in mind only one: the uneasy fit between populist rhetoric and support for regressive forms of taxation. Taxes are regressive when they fall disproportionately on those with the smallest incomes. Regressive taxation is the inversion of progressive taxation: they idea that you should pay a higher % as you move up the income ladder. Progressive tax rates have some common sense notions of justice supporting them. Those who gain the most from society deserve to pay a little more. But it seems wildly perverse to increase the burden, in % terms, as you move down the income ladder. That can't be the right way to run a country... But it makes total sense if you are a billionaire who only has eyes for helping people such as yourself! Here is an article offering a quick lesson on the regressive nature of tariffs. Note the source. www.heritage.org/trade/commentary/how-tariffs-and-regressive-trade-policies-hurt-the-poorIf you thought the Trump GOP might be different from the old guard, that they might be a new kind of conservative, one who champions the interests of the little guy over big business and the elite. Sorry! Guess again! He's planning to throw the common man to the wolves. I suspect most would agree that to become a top athlete requires hard work and practice and sacrifice and talent It often feels like the left perceives becoming wealthy is a function of luck and some sort of societal caste system. In my life I don’t know anyone who has become or maintained or increased wealth who did not work hard to do so. It would seem placing a disproportionate burden of taxes on hard work is a disincentive and would create animosity. |
|
|
|
Post by RinsePrius on Oct 3, 2024 12:32:07 GMT
...is really no kind of populism at all. Trumpism is genetically an elitist ideology. Institutional MAGA wants to identify as populist and might actually be interested in making that transition but it's early and there are often moments of awkwardness and contradiction. There are numerous examples revealing MAGA's elitistism but for the purposes of this thread I have in mind only one: the uneasy fit between populist rhetoric and support for regressive forms of taxation. Taxes are regressive when they fall disproportionately on those with the smallest incomes. Regressive taxation is the inversion of progressive taxation: they idea that you should pay a higher % as you move up the income ladder. Progressive tax rates have some common sense notions of justice supporting them. Those who gain the most from society deserve to pay a little more. But it seems wildly perverse to increase the burden, in % terms, as you move down the income ladder. That can't be the right way to run a country... But it makes total sense if you are a billionaire who only has eyes for helping people such as yourself! Here is an article offering a quick lesson on the regressive nature of tariffs. Note the source. www.heritage.org/trade/commentary/how-tariffs-and-regressive-trade-policies-hurt-the-poorIf you thought the Trump GOP might be different from the old guard, that they might be a new kind of conservative, one who champions the interests of the little guy over big business and the elite. Sorry! Guess again! He's planning to throw the common man to the wolves. I suspect most would agree that to become a top athlete requires hard work and practice and sacrifice and talent It often feels like the left perceives becoming wealthy is a function of luck and some sort of societal caste system. In my life I don’t know anyone who has become or maintained or increased wealth who did not work hard to do so. It would seem placing a disproportionate burden of taxes on hard work is a disincentive and would create animosity. Whether its luck or hard work or some mixture of the two, I don't know anyone who thinks those who win the most out of this game of life don't have a greater responsibility when it comes to tax time. Earn very little, pay very little. Earn a great deal, pay more. That's fair. And it hasn't been a disincentive given how many rich people we have. One thing we know for sure, placing the burden disproportionately on the poor is both immoral and ineffective. |
|
|
|
Post by rabbitreborn on Oct 3, 2024 13:31:44 GMT
If it takes one policy or position that favors elites to turn a political movement into an elitist one, then there won’t be any left standing. Including Sacred Progressive Democracy. The distribution of wealth and its determinants looms large in the discussion. I'm not sure what you have in mind, though. I wonder if the consensus as to causation will be as neat and clean, or with the same force of consensus? Your threshold of consensus may include biases, I think you'd agree, but I imagine a few of the below examples may come close. Others you will now likely disagree with. 1. Gas tax. Highest state gas tax is California. Highly regressive tax. 2. Sin Taxes, particularly on things such as cigarettes and beer and fast food / soft drinks, are regressive. 3. Social Security. Capped out for the high income earners. Payments from the younger are given to the older, with insolvency threatening the future of this entitlement for people currently paying to those who have more than them. (Don't take this as tacit support for the idea of Social Security...) 4. Cultural. Wealthy coastal elites in academia, media, etc. telling poor and middle class citizens in middle America that they are inherently racist and have privilege and benefit from systemic racism. This is inherently elitist. 5. Business destruction due to COVID policy. Small businesses were especially harmed. Big businesses (Walmart, Kroger, etc.) were seen as essential. Favored the elites. 6. The Federal Reserve system coupled with the Nixon shock. wtfhappenedin1971.com/ Whatever that was, it was obviously preferential to the elites. |
|
|
|
Post by RinsePrius on Oct 3, 2024 15:19:41 GMT
The distribution of wealth and its determinants looms large in the discussion. I'm not sure what you have in mind, though. I wonder if the consensus as to causation will be as neat and clean, or with the same force of consensus? Your threshold of consensus may include biases, I think you'd agree, but I imagine a few of the below examples may come close. Others you will now likely disagree with. 1. Gas tax. Highest state gas tax is California. Highly regressive tax. 2. Sin Taxes, particularly on things such as cigarettes and beer and fast food / soft drinks, are regressive. 3. Social Security. Capped out for the high income earners. Payments from the younger are given to the older, with insolvency threatening the future of this entitlement for people currently paying to those who have more than them. (Don't take this as tacit support for the idea of Social Security...) 4. Cultural. Wealthy coastal elites in academia, media, etc. telling poor and middle class citizens in middle America that they are inherently racist and have privilege and benefit from systemic racism. This is inherently elitist. 5. Business destruction due to COVID policy. Small businesses were especially harmed. Big businesses (Walmart, Kroger, etc.) were seen as essential. Favored the elites. 6. The Federal Reserve system coupled with the Nixon shock. wtfhappenedin1971.com/ Whatever that was, it was obviously preferential to the elites. Sure, consensus is not without bias but I would imagine the more fringe non-consensus views potentially contain even more bias, especially those that are not firmly grounded in empirical methods. 1) Agree with your point 2) Disagree because this isn't a specifically Democratic policy, you will find sin taxes across all states and at the federal level. 3) While we can agree that SS may have regressive elements, I would argue that the poor would be worse off without it. Also support for SS is largely bi-partisan. 4) Not convinced this is an accurate depiction and I also see latent elitism in structural racism. 5) Disagree because this was a bi-partisan policy decision. 6) Perhaps but like SS, the elements of elitism you mention have to be balanced by considering how bad things are without the program. Prior to the central bank, credit was rationed and limited to certain groups, and this led small farms and firms having to sell because of a shortage of money. The lack of credit can be a form of elitism, too. Remember what Bryant said about being crucified on a cross of gold. His silverite movement was populist. |
|
|
|
Post by rabbitreborn on Oct 3, 2024 17:33:02 GMT
Your threshold of consensus may include biases, I think you'd agree, but I imagine a few of the below examples may come close. Others you will now likely disagree with. 1. Gas tax. Highest state gas tax is California. Highly regressive tax. 2. Sin Taxes, particularly on things such as cigarettes and beer and fast food / soft drinks, are regressive. 3. Social Security. Capped out for the high income earners. Payments from the younger are given to the older, with insolvency threatening the future of this entitlement for people currently paying to those who have more than them. (Don't take this as tacit support for the idea of Social Security...) 4. Cultural. Wealthy coastal elites in academia, media, etc. telling poor and middle class citizens in middle America that they are inherently racist and have privilege and benefit from systemic racism. This is inherently elitist. 5. Business destruction due to COVID policy. Small businesses were especially harmed. Big businesses (Walmart, Kroger, etc.) were seen as essential. Favored the elites. 6. The Federal Reserve system coupled with the Nixon shock. wtfhappenedin1971.com/ Whatever that was, it was obviously preferential to the elites. Sure, consensus is not without bias but I would imagine the more fringe non-consensus views potentially contain even more bias, especially those that are not firmly grounded in empirical methods. 1) Agree with your point 2) Disagree because this isn't a specifically Democratic policy, you will find sin taxes across all states and at the federal level. 3) While we can agree that SS may have regressive elements, I would argue that the poor would be worse off without it. Also support for SS is largely bi-partisan. 4) Not convinced this is an accurate depiction and I also see latent elitism in structural racism. 5) Disagree because this was a bi-partisan policy decision. 6) Perhaps but like SS, the elements of elitism you mention have to be balanced by considering how bad things are without the program. Prior to the central bank, credit was rationed and limited to certain groups, and this led small farms and firms having to sell because of a shortage of money. The lack of credit can be a form of elitism, too. Remember what Bryant said about being crucified on a cross of gold. His silverite movement was populist. 2, 3, and 5. Whether or not it’s bi-partisan isn’t really the question, is it? If it’s promoting benefit to the elite at the expense of the common man, your argument is that the movement is elitist. This seems like a remarkably party-binary argument, in which case, don’t democrats support tariffs as well? Is that not bipartisan? 4 Regardless of whether there is structural racism, telling poor white people in middle America that they have inherent racism or racial privilege from MSNBC studios or the halls of academia is still elitist. |
|
bama beau
Legend
Fish will piss anywhere. They just live in water.
Posts: 11,591
|
Post by bama beau on Oct 3, 2024 17:46:37 GMT
The distribution of wealth and its determinants looms large in the discussion. I'm not sure what you have in mind, though. I wonder if the consensus as to causation will be as neat and clean, or with the same force of consensus? Your threshold of consensus may include biases, I think you'd agree, but I imagine a few of the below examples may come close. Others you will now likely disagree with. 1. Gas tax. Highest state gas tax is California. Highly regressive tax. 2. Sin Taxes, particularly on things such as cigarettes and beer and fast food / soft drinks, are regressive. 3. Social Security. Capped out for the high income earners. Payments from the younger are given to the older, with insolvency threatening the future of this entitlement for people currently paying to those who have more than them. (Don't take this as tacit support for the idea of Social Security...) 4. Cultural. Wealthy coastal elites in academia, media, etc. telling poor and middle class citizens in middle America that they are inherently racist and have privilege and benefit from systemic racism. This is inherently elitist. 5. Business destruction due to COVID policy. Small businesses were especially harmed. Big businesses (Walmart, Kroger, etc.) were seen as essential. Favored the elites. 6. The Federal Reserve system coupled with the Nixon shock. wtfhappenedin1971.com/ Whatever that was, it was obviously preferential to the elites. To the extent that you are correct, you are buttressing his point. Regardless, none of that changes the fact that the so-called MAGA movement is anything other than an attempt to crush the masses rather than liberate them. trumP is all about consolidating wealth and power in the fewest hands possible, his being not only among the smallest, but also certainly the wealthiest and most powerful. |
|
|
|
Post by rabbitreborn on Oct 3, 2024 17:51:07 GMT
Your threshold of consensus may include biases, I think you'd agree, but I imagine a few of the below examples may come close. Others you will now likely disagree with. 1. Gas tax. Highest state gas tax is California. Highly regressive tax. 2. Sin Taxes, particularly on things such as cigarettes and beer and fast food / soft drinks, are regressive. 3. Social Security. Capped out for the high income earners. Payments from the younger are given to the older, with insolvency threatening the future of this entitlement for people currently paying to those who have more than them. (Don't take this as tacit support for the idea of Social Security...) 4. Cultural. Wealthy coastal elites in academia, media, etc. telling poor and middle class citizens in middle America that they are inherently racist and have privilege and benefit from systemic racism. This is inherently elitist. 5. Business destruction due to COVID policy. Small businesses were especially harmed. Big businesses (Walmart, Kroger, etc.) were seen as essential. Favored the elites. 6. The Federal Reserve system coupled with the Nixon shock. wtfhappenedin1971.com/ Whatever that was, it was obviously preferential to the elites. To the extent that you are correct, you are buttressing his point. Regardless, none of that changes the fact that the so-called MAGA movement is anything other than an attempt to crush the masses rather than liberate them. trumP is all about consolidating wealth and power in the fewest hands possible, his being not only among the smallest, but also certainly the wealthiest and most powerful. By all accounts, Trump lost money by entering politics. Others got significantly wealthier, such as Bush and Obama and Clinton and Biden. Giving speeches and writing books with outlandishly high pre-orders from wealthy donors. Like the donors who got Biden to drop out and replaced with Harris. That’s not proof Trump is not corrupt, but it might give insight into our corrupt overall system. Nothing I said “buttressed” Rinse’s post. We’re having a discussion about one policy or position determining whether or not a movement is fully elitists, and what movements could stand up to that level of scrutiny. |
|
thor
Legend
Posts: 20,489
|
Post by thor on Oct 3, 2024 20:47:46 GMT
To the extent that you are correct, you are buttressing his point. Regardless, none of that changes the fact that the so-called MAGA movement is anything other than an attempt to crush the masses rather than liberate them. trumP is all about consolidating wealth and power in the fewest hands possible, his being not only among the smallest, but also certainly the wealthiest and most powerful. Others got significantly wealthier, such as Bush and Obama and Clinton and Biden. Giving speeches and writing books with outlandishly high pre-orders from wealthy donors. Like the donors who got Biden to drop out and replaced with Harris. That’s not proof Trump is not corrupt, but it might give insight into our corrupt overall system. Nothing I said “buttressed” Rinse’s post. We’re having a discussion about one policy or position determining whether or not a movement is fully elitists, and what movements could stand up to that level of scrutiny. Trump also bankrupted three casinos. It's almost like he is incompetent at running businesses and a country. |
|
|
|
Post by rabbitreborn on Oct 3, 2024 20:59:48 GMT
By all accounts, Trump lost money by entering politics.Others got significantly wealthier, such as Bush and Obama and Clinton and Biden. Giving speeches and writing books with outlandishly high pre-orders from wealthy donors. Like the donors who got Biden to drop out and replaced with Harris. That’s not proof Trump is not corrupt, but it might give insight into our corrupt overall system. Nothing I said “buttressed” Rinse’s post. We’re having a discussion about one policy or position determining whether or not a movement is fully elitists, and what movements could stand up to that level of scrutiny. Trump also bankrupted three casinos. It's almost like he is incompetent at running businesses and a country. How many businesses has he started and owned? How many development deals which operate as their own companies? You need more details to determine whether 3 bankruptcies is a lot. Each real estate deal likely has its own LLC. Is it hundreds? Probably. You need to find that out if you're claiming that three failures is indicative of a poor business mind. How many have you started? How many are still operating? Just so we have a baseline. |
|
thor
Legend
Posts: 20,489
|
Post by thor on Oct 3, 2024 21:10:10 GMT
Trump also bankrupted three casinos. It's almost like he is incompetent at running businesses and a country. How many businesses has he started and owned? How many development deals which operate as their own companies? You need more details to determine whether 3 bankruptcies is a lot. Each real estate deal likely has its own LLC. Is it hundreds? Probably. You need to find that out if you're claiming that three failures is indicative of a poor business mind. How many have you started? How many are still operating? Just so we have a baseline. Three casinos bankrupted, dummy. Where the house ALWAYS wins. Even got put on an allowance by his creditors. |
|
|
|
Post by rabbitreborn on Oct 4, 2024 12:31:40 GMT
How many businesses has he started and owned? How many development deals which operate as their own companies? You need more details to determine whether 3 bankruptcies is a lot. Each real estate deal likely has its own LLC. Is it hundreds? Probably. You need to find that out if you're claiming that three failures is indicative of a poor business mind. How many have you started? How many are still operating? Just so we have a baseline. Three casinos bankrupted, dummy. Where the house ALWAYS wins. Even got put on an allowance by his creditors. The house wins if there are enough people walking in the doors to spend money. I doubt they just didn't know how to run blackjack tables. They have to have enough customers/suckers to cover the cost of G&A and servicing debt. If they don't, the casino goes out of business. It was poor market research, or conditions changed in the area. The only explanation you can think of is that "THEY DON'T EVEN KNOW THAT GAMBLERS ALWAYS LOSE TO THE HOUSE! HAHAHAH!" How many businesses did he start? How many different LLCs? What's that batting average? And again, for a baseline, how many companies have you started that are still operating? |
|
|
|
Post by rabbitreborn on Oct 4, 2024 12:37:27 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by RinsePrius on Oct 4, 2024 12:40:18 GMT
This is the kind of thing people are talking about when they say the Trump and Biden regimes are closer on economic policy (as it regards trade issues) than people realize. Yeah, I have no real response. Your point is sound. |
|
|
|
Post by RinsePrius on Oct 8, 2024 12:46:12 GMT
Trump's defense of his tariff policy gave up the lie that this was ever a populist idea. Trump adheres to a "gilded" populism.
An interesting note about Pres Mckinley, the day before he was shot, he gave a speech saying that it was time to move away from tariffs:
“The period of exclusiveness is past. The expansion of our trade and commerce is the pressing problem. Commercial wars are unprofitable. A policy of good will and friendly trade relations will prevent reprisals.
”https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/14/politics/tariffs-trump-mckinley-what-matters/index.html
Pointing to the 1890's as the time you want to bring back is so on the nose it is almost funny.
This period is not known as one that was good economically. The "long depression" was going on during the 1890s.
This is the Gilded Age, the age of obscene wealth concentration and it is no surprise that the billionaire on the ticket is aching to bring it back.
The mystery is why anyone of the working class or middle class would go along with it.
|
|
