First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
Post Reply Liberals love Trump's tax plan when told its Bernies tax plan.
15052 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
☆Land of sweets☆
Offline
Posted 10/21/17 , edited 10/23/17

Cydoemus wrote:The crux of the issue is that the majority of people do not investigate or research these things in their spare time.
This issue extends to both sides of the political aisle, on an International scale.
Older citizens tend to utilize mainstream media as their primary source of news (even if this is the "12 o'clock" and "11 o'clock" [PM] local news).
Younger citizens often obtain their information from websites; blogs, Youtube, and news sites.
Both will always focus on the easiest path to gain an opinion.


you pretty much hit the nail on the head. people are subject to confirmation bias, and this is true for people on both sides.
as a non-political example, people would find an article claiming that 80% of men in asia are rapists. only one article was given with no actual verifiable sources and no links to any study. yet people saw the uncofirmed and possibly fabricated news as 'proof" about their negative stereotypes in asia.

people simply don't know or refuse to do their homework and instead will just parrot whatever they heard on the news that agrees with their own personal bias.

edit: to add, some people read one article or two about healthcare or economy, and suddenly they consider themselves to be experts in the subject matter. you know who you are.
16161 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M
Online
Posted 10/21/17 , edited 10/23/17

Rujikin wrote:

The estate tax barely takes in more than it costs to administer the program. It causes family run businesses to suffer through taxes that corporations are immune to because it is owned by an individual instead of having a CEO. Many times family run farms have to sell off acreage every generation to pay for a tax that puts little to no money into the general fund due to high administration costs. Get rid of it, shrink government, and help people out. They earned that money let them give it to their kids.

Small businesses frequently have to pay more than large corporations due to their inability to shift around assets in a way that gives them tons of tax deductions. Really we need to get rid of the ability to shift stuff around to avoid taxes but that is a long fight through a lot of thick swamp.


Only 80 small farms and closely held businesses are expected to pay the estate tax in 2017. This accounts for fifteen hundreths of one percent of the total revenue from the estate tax. Nearly 90% of the tax comes from the top 10% of earners. If you are tremendously concerned about those 80, the first $5.43million is exempt from being taxed. For farms, they can have the value of their estate lowered by another $1.1million due to leeway given to them by the government. Then, they have the option to pay the estate tax over fifteen years with low interest rates.

The estate tax only effects a tiny minority of small businesses and farms (which is exactly what I said above) and those it does effect are often exempted almost $7mil of the value of their estate before having a single dollar taxed.

As for the cost to the government of the tax, the only source for your claim I could find was pretty much saying it was bogus (https://www.cbpp.org/research/cost-of-estate-tax-compliance-does-not-approach-the-total-level-of-estate-tax-revenue). That said, I did find an analysis by the CBO who provided an analysis of the Death Tax Repeal Bill of 2015 and estimated the cost to be $269billion over ten years.
23740 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
The White House
Offline
Posted 10/21/17 , edited 10/23/17

sundin13 wrote:


Rujikin wrote:

The estate tax barely takes in more than it costs to administer the program. It causes family run businesses to suffer through taxes that corporations are immune to because it is owned by an individual instead of having a CEO. Many times family run farms have to sell off acreage every generation to pay for a tax that puts little to no money into the general fund due to high administration costs. Get rid of it, shrink government, and help people out. They earned that money let them give it to their kids.

Small businesses frequently have to pay more than large corporations due to their inability to shift around assets in a way that gives them tons of tax deductions. Really we need to get rid of the ability to shift stuff around to avoid taxes but that is a long fight through a lot of thick swamp.


Only 80 small farms and closely held businesses are expected to pay the estate tax in 2017. This accounts for fifteen hundreths of one percent of the total revenue from the estate tax. Nearly 90% of the tax comes from the top 10% of earners. If you are tremendously concerned about those 80, the first $5.43million is exempt from being taxed. For farms, they can have the value of their estate lowered by another $1.1million due to leeway given to them by the government. Then, they have the option to pay the estate tax over fifteen years with low interest rates.

The estate tax only effects a tiny minority of small businesses and farms (which is exactly what I said above) and those it does effect are often exempted almost $7mil of the value of their estate before having a single dollar taxed.

As for the cost to the government of the tax, the only source for your claim I could find was pretty much saying it was bogus (https://www.cbpp.org/research/cost-of-estate-tax-compliance-does-not-approach-the-total-level-of-estate-tax-revenue). That said, I did find an analysis by the CBO who provided an analysis of the Death Tax Repeal Bill of 2015 and estimated the cost to be $269billion over ten years.


Really stop with your class discrimination its quite sickening. Just because someone makes more than me doesn't mean I have to viciously attack them in fits of greed and envy. If they make more than me then they were lucky, smart, or both and thats fine. I want BOTH of us to play by the SAME rules and I don't want EITHER of us to have special rules applied to us.

The fact that you willing to throw "80" small farms under the bus and possibly ruin their business is sickening. I don't think we should throw any of them under the bus and we should be proud that those 80 family owned farms were able to make such a booming and successful business. We should not punish them for being successful we should encourage it. If we had more small business that were able to rise up and become highly successful then they could counter these mega corporations which have no real competition because people like you want to stop the family businesses from competing with mega corporations.

Mega corporations do not have to deal with the estate tax so they have an advantage that small businesses cannot match. How do you intend on making those two equal while punishing small businesses for being highly successful? Do you want more mega corporations without competition?

I learned about it in a few college courses a long time ago. On average 90-95% of what it took in was spent on administering it. Most rich people know simple ways to get around it simply by transferring the wealth before hand or shuffling it around in business deals or non-profits.
31761 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / Bundaberg, Queens...
Offline
Posted 10/21/17 , edited 10/23/17
So no difference to a conservative when the same is done with something else proving humans are guillable and have bias also proving water is wet.

So my one question is

This comes across as a "Hah liberals are so stupid" post if anything which honestly doesn't surprise me if that was the intention i don't see any other reason as to why one would bring up something so obvious...
16161 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M
Online
Posted 10/22/17 , edited 10/23/17

Rujikin wrote:

Really stop with your class discrimination its quite sickening. Just because someone makes more than me doesn't mean I have to viciously attack them in fits of greed and envy. If they make more than me then they were lucky, smart, or both and thats fine. I want BOTH of us to play by the SAME rules and I don't want EITHER of us to have special rules applied to us.

The fact that you willing to throw "80" small farms under the bus and possibly ruin their business is sickening. I don't think we should throw any of them under the bus and we should be proud that those 80 family owned farms were able to make such a booming and successful business. We should not punish them for being successful we should encourage it. If we had more small business that were able to rise up and become highly successful then they could counter these mega corporations which have no real competition because people like you want to stop the family businesses from competing with mega corporations.

Mega corporations do not have to deal with the estate tax so they have an advantage that small businesses cannot match. How do you intend on making those two equal while punishing small businesses for being highly successful? Do you want more mega corporations without competition?

I learned about it in a few college courses a long time ago. On average 90-95% of what it took in was spent on administering it. Most rich people know simple ways to get around it simply by transferring the wealth before hand or shuffling it around in business deals or non-profits.


If you want to take up issue with the tax code as a whole because rich people have to pay more than poor people, you do that, but then your argument just becomes "yeah, poor people should pay way more taxes", which in my opinion doesn't really hold much water. The estate tax is no different in that regard than the fact that we have tax brackets. Thats how the American tax system works and in my opinion, it is how it should work. Do you really want to argue that poor people should get a serious tax increase for the sake of fairness?

And again, this only applies to farms valued over $6.5million before a single dollar is taxed, and if that farm belongs to married individuals, that exemption rises to about $11million. Then you have 15 years to pay it off. It is far from the death knell you are making it out to be.

As for the fact that small businesses have to contend with this but corporations don't, that is somewhat true. Of course only a tiny fraction of a fraction of farms/small businesses qualify for the estate tax so its not exactly widespread, but it is true that corporations are exempt. However, the owners of large corporations are not. The incredibly wealthy, who hold valued assets outside of their businesses pay almost 90% of the revenue from the estate tax. Eliminating the estate tax to help small businesses and farmers is basically throwing the baby out with the bathwater. If you want to help small businesses, there are hundreds of things that could be done to better effect. Hell, you could just funnel the revenue from the estate tax into farms/small businesses and it would help farms/small businesses about 70,000x more than eliminating the estate tax will.
23740 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
The White House
Offline
Posted 10/22/17 , edited 10/23/17

sundin13 wrote:


Rujikin wrote:

Really stop with your class discrimination its quite sickening. Just because someone makes more than me doesn't mean I have to viciously attack them in fits of greed and envy. If they make more than me then they were lucky, smart, or both and thats fine. I want BOTH of us to play by the SAME rules and I don't want EITHER of us to have special rules applied to us.

The fact that you willing to throw "80" small farms under the bus and possibly ruin their business is sickening. I don't think we should throw any of them under the bus and we should be proud that those 80 family owned farms were able to make such a booming and successful business. We should not punish them for being successful we should encourage it. If we had more small business that were able to rise up and become highly successful then they could counter these mega corporations which have no real competition because people like you want to stop the family businesses from competing with mega corporations.

Mega corporations do not have to deal with the estate tax so they have an advantage that small businesses cannot match. How do you intend on making those two equal while punishing small businesses for being highly successful? Do you want more mega corporations without competition?

I learned about it in a few college courses a long time ago. On average 90-95% of what it took in was spent on administering it. Most rich people know simple ways to get around it simply by transferring the wealth before hand or shuffling it around in business deals or non-profits.


If you want to take up issue with the tax code as a whole because rich people have to pay more than poor people, you do that, but then your argument just becomes "yeah, poor people should pay way more taxes", which in my opinion doesn't really hold much water. The estate tax is no different in that regard than the fact that we have tax brackets. Thats how the American tax system works and in my opinion, it is how it should work. Do you really want to argue that poor people should get a serious tax increase for the sake of fairness?

And again, this only applies to farms valued over $6.5million before a single dollar is taxed, and if that farm belongs to married individuals, that exemption rises to about $11million. Then you have 15 years to pay it off. It is far from the death knell you are making it out to be.

As for the fact that small businesses have to contend with this but corporations don't, that is somewhat true. Of course only a tiny fraction of a fraction of farms/small businesses qualify for the estate tax so its not exactly widespread, but it is true that corporations are exempt. However, the owners of large corporations are not. The incredibly wealthy, who hold valued assets outside of their businesses pay almost 90% of the revenue from the estate tax. Eliminating the estate tax to help small businesses and farmers is basically throwing the baby out with the bathwater. If you want to help small businesses, there are hundreds of things that could be done to better effect. Hell, you could just funnel the revenue from the estate tax into farms/small businesses and it would help farms/small businesses about 70,000x more than eliminating the estate tax will.


Oh really? Why do you think I am saying poor people should pay more? You seem to be trying to make yourself feel better there and somehow manage to keep labeling me as an opponent when there are many quite obvious solutions that you yourself have even supported.

You know that when a farm is valued at 6.5 million that doesn't mean they have 6.5 million dollars. Their assets will take up about 6 million of it, including land, and maybe if they were really lucky they would have 500,000 that they saved for an emergency but that isn't usually even the case. An estate tax has caused many family farms to sell off acreage every generation or become a corporation to avoid the estate tax. The estate tax isn't solving anything it is just forcing everything to become a corporation and make it easy for large corporations to buy small corporations. It's funny how you who hates corporations is now advocating for giving larger corporations more of an advantage. Are you aware of this or are you just trying to oppose what I say?

If you reach that size any financial planner will advise you to incorporate yourself. Its not that there aren't many farm of this size its that they have now incorporated because incorporating is the smart thing to do at that size. Its simple economics, I really advise you to go to college and take some economics courses it will change your world view. The owners of large corporations are share holders and fund managers on wall street who pay a different tax rate than you because they make all their money through capital gains. Eliminating the estate tax will create many more family run businesses and we will have less companies incorporating. How about no to wasting money redistributing wealth and just lower their tax rate it would cost less in administration costs.
Posted 10/22/17 , edited 10/22/17

Rujikin wrote:

What happens when liberals are told that Trump's tax plan is Bernie's tax plan? They suddenly support it.

Why is it that so many people have Trump Derangement Syndrome and cannot help but hate everything that has Trump's name on it? I can understand if you dislike certain parts and like other parts but to just blindly hate/like a tax plan based on who's name is in front of it seems like an easy way to get duped regardless of who is the president at the current year.


What you have posted exists in every country on either side of politics. In short its nothing new. Left or right are sheep following whatever their respective leader/s says even if they never have actually said it. A lot of elections both sides attempt to spin the other into saying something they never said. Next time there is a federal election in a westen country have a watch of their ads and read their social media posts. You will likely see what you posted is nothing new.

Here is a first hand example
My grandmother who is 79 years old and is right wing complains about 'leftist' policies. Until she finds out it was the only party she votes for that did them then it becomes "oh well then I guess its a good thing." She has never visited America let alone in the past year nor cares about anything in US politics. So it has nothing to do with anything Trump related.
558 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 10/22/17 , edited 10/22/17

octorockandroll wrote:

Well first of all that seems to focus only on the aspects of the tax plan that poeple don't have a problem with, so I don't see how that would make anyone deranged. Secondly, it's not all that surprising, really. Remember when people were fine with Obamacare as long as you described it without mentioning the Obama relation? Healthcare is going the same way as environmental protection, more about attacking people you don't like than trying to work towards progress and mutual benefit.


Yeah, calling it by "The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" boosted the acceptance level by some 20% over calling it "Obamcare."
16161 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M
Online
Posted 10/22/17 , edited 10/25/17

Rujikin wrote:


sundin13 wrote:


Rujikin wrote:

Really stop with your class discrimination its quite sickening. Just because someone makes more than me doesn't mean I have to viciously attack them in fits of greed and envy. If they make more than me then they were lucky, smart, or both and thats fine. I want BOTH of us to play by the SAME rules and I don't want EITHER of us to have special rules applied to us.

The fact that you willing to throw "80" small farms under the bus and possibly ruin their business is sickening. I don't think we should throw any of them under the bus and we should be proud that those 80 family owned farms were able to make such a booming and successful business. We should not punish them for being successful we should encourage it. If we had more small business that were able to rise up and become highly successful then they could counter these mega corporations which have no real competition because people like you want to stop the family businesses from competing with mega corporations.

Mega corporations do not have to deal with the estate tax so they have an advantage that small businesses cannot match. How do you intend on making those two equal while punishing small businesses for being highly successful? Do you want more mega corporations without competition?

I learned about it in a few college courses a long time ago. On average 90-95% of what it took in was spent on administering it. Most rich people know simple ways to get around it simply by transferring the wealth before hand or shuffling it around in business deals or non-profits.


If you want to take up issue with the tax code as a whole because rich people have to pay more than poor people, you do that, but then your argument just becomes "yeah, poor people should pay way more taxes", which in my opinion doesn't really hold much water. The estate tax is no different in that regard than the fact that we have tax brackets. Thats how the American tax system works and in my opinion, it is how it should work. Do you really want to argue that poor people should get a serious tax increase for the sake of fairness?

And again, this only applies to farms valued over $6.5million before a single dollar is taxed, and if that farm belongs to married individuals, that exemption rises to about $11million. Then you have 15 years to pay it off. It is far from the death knell you are making it out to be.

As for the fact that small businesses have to contend with this but corporations don't, that is somewhat true. Of course only a tiny fraction of a fraction of farms/small businesses qualify for the estate tax so its not exactly widespread, but it is true that corporations are exempt. However, the owners of large corporations are not. The incredibly wealthy, who hold valued assets outside of their businesses pay almost 90% of the revenue from the estate tax. Eliminating the estate tax to help small businesses and farmers is basically throwing the baby out with the bathwater. If you want to help small businesses, there are hundreds of things that could be done to better effect. Hell, you could just funnel the revenue from the estate tax into farms/small businesses and it would help farms/small businesses about 70,000x more than eliminating the estate tax will.


Oh really? Why do you think I am saying poor people should pay more? You seem to be trying to make yourself feel better there and somehow manage to keep labeling me as an opponent when there are many quite obvious solutions that you yourself have even supported.

You know that when a farm is valued at 6.5 million that doesn't mean they have 6.5 million dollars. Their assets will take up about 6 million of it, including land, and maybe if they were really lucky they would have 500,000 that they saved for an emergency but that isn't usually even the case. An estate tax has caused many family farms to sell off acreage every generation or become a corporation to avoid the estate tax. The estate tax isn't solving anything it is just forcing everything to become a corporation and make it easy for large corporations to buy small corporations. It's funny how you who hates corporations is now advocating for giving larger corporations more of an advantage. Are you aware of this or are you just trying to oppose what I say?

If you reach that size any financial planner will advise you to incorporate yourself. Its not that there aren't many farm of this size its that they have now incorporated because incorporating is the smart thing to do at that size. Its simple economics, I really advise you to go to college and take some economics courses it will change your world view. The owners of large corporations are share holders and fund managers on wall street who pay a different tax rate than you because they make all their money through capital gains. Eliminating the estate tax will create many more family run businesses and we will have less companies incorporating. How about no to wasting money redistributing wealth and just lower their tax rate it would cost less in administration costs.


Red: Yes. Decreasing taxes on the rich proportionally increases the amount of taxes paid by the poor, often directly increases taxes paid by the poor (because revenue needs to come from somewhere) or indirectly increases economic burden on the poor (cuts to social programs and side effects of increased federal debt). The argument for eliminating a tax is always an argument to increase the burden elsewhere. To argue for a "fair" tax structure is to argue that the poor aren't doing their part. I'm not sure which obvious solutions I've advocated for which fall under the idea of a fair and equal tax code. I obviously advocate numerous changes in the tax code, but I don't think "fairness" really plays a part in those arguments.

Blue: Yes. I know that. However, if they have a massive amount of land which isn't producing the capital to pay these taxes over a fifteen year span (for this category, this tax equates to an average of less than 6%), chances are, selling off some small fraction of that land is better for the economy and again, a value of around $6.5million is the lowest you can go, so the continuing cost of the estate tax has a clear limit. Now, I am not a business or economics major so I would like you to provide reading stating that incorporation allows you to be bought without your permission. From what I can tell, you would have to go public for that to be the case and incorporation doesn't require that so it seems like a bit of a misleading argument, but I am no expert.

Green: Again, such a small percentage of small businesses fall under the threshold that eliminating the estate tax will do nothing to change the overall flow of the market. You are massively overselling the impact of the estate tax. Again, if you wish to help small businesses, targeting a tax which affects a fraction of a percent of small businesses and whose primary revenue source is individuals who are in the top 10% of earners, you are missing the mark. If you were to propose a change which states that estates associated with farms are exempt from the estate tax, that would be significantly more reasonable than simply nixing the estate tax. Again, you are trying to throw the baby out with the bathwater. It is misleading and disengenuous to use farms to pass this change. Its like those images of Diglett actually being a Lovecraftian horror under the ground, just sticking its cute little face up: http://0.media.dorkly.cvcdn.com/12/17/fe3375ad1f1842edeb5861b8994fc6dd.jpg

EDIT: It might be a bit late, but I want to clarify something. My argument is not that no farm has ever been hurt by the estate tax. My argument is that to repeal the estate tax due to the fact that 0.0015% of the revenue generated comes from small farms/businesses is a bit stupid. If the president were to introduce a measure stating that farms are exempt, I would probably support it. Farms don't really fit the intent of the bill. However, the other 99.9985% of the revenue does fit the intent and should be taxed and I'd support eliminating some loopholes to prevent individuals from avoiding it.
897 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
57 / M
Offline
Posted 10/22/17 , edited 10/22/17

Rujikin wrote:


sundin13 wrote:


Rujikin wrote:

Really stop with your class discrimination its quite sickening. Just because someone makes more than me doesn't mean I have to viciously attack them in fits of greed and envy. If they make more than me then they were lucky, smart, or both and thats fine. I want BOTH of us to play by the SAME rules and I don't want EITHER of us to have special rules applied to us.

The fact that you willing to throw "80" small farms under the bus and possibly ruin their business is sickening. I don't think we should throw any of them under the bus and we should be proud that those 80 family owned farms were able to make such a booming and successful business. We should not punish them for being successful we should encourage it. If we had more small business that were able to rise up and become highly successful then they could counter these mega corporations which have no real competition because people like you want to stop the family businesses from competing with mega corporations.

Mega corporations do not have to deal with the estate tax so they have an advantage that small businesses cannot match. How do you intend on making those two equal while punishing small businesses for being highly successful? Do you want more mega corporations without competition?

I learned about it in a few college courses a long time ago. On average 90-95% of what it took in was spent on administering it. Most rich people know simple ways to get around it simply by transferring the wealth before hand or shuffling it around in business deals or non-profits.


If you want to take up issue with the tax code as a whole because rich people have to pay more than poor people, you do that, but then your argument just becomes "yeah, poor people should pay way more taxes", which in my opinion doesn't really hold much water. The estate tax is no different in that regard than the fact that we have tax brackets. Thats how the American tax system works and in my opinion, it is how it should work. Do you really want to argue that poor people should get a serious tax increase for the sake of fairness?

And again, this only applies to farms valued over $6.5million before a single dollar is taxed, and if that farm belongs to married individuals, that exemption rises to about $11million. Then you have 15 years to pay it off. It is far from the death knell you are making it out to be.

As for the fact that small businesses have to contend with this but corporations don't, that is somewhat true. Of course only a tiny fraction of a fraction of farms/small businesses qualify for the estate tax so its not exactly widespread, but it is true that corporations are exempt. However, the owners of large corporations are not. The incredibly wealthy, who hold valued assets outside of their businesses pay almost 90% of the revenue from the estate tax. Eliminating the estate tax to help small businesses and farmers is basically throwing the baby out with the bathwater. If you want to help small businesses, there are hundreds of things that could be done to better effect. Hell, you could just funnel the revenue from the estate tax into farms/small businesses and it would help farms/small businesses about 70,000x more than eliminating the estate tax will.


Oh really? Why do you think I am saying poor people should pay more? You seem to be trying to make yourself feel better there and somehow manage to keep labeling me as an opponent when there are many quite obvious solutions that you yourself have even supported.

You know that when a farm is valued at 6.5 million that doesn't mean they have 6.5 million dollars. Their assets will take up about 6 million of it, including land, and maybe if they were really lucky they would have 500,000 that they saved for an emergency but that isn't usually even the case. An estate tax has caused many family farms to sell off acreage every generation or become a corporation to avoid the estate tax. The estate tax isn't solving anything it is just forcing everything to become a corporation and make it easy for large corporations to buy small corporations. It's funny how you who hates corporations is now advocating for giving larger corporations more of an advantage. Are you aware of this or are you just trying to oppose what I say?

If you reach that size any financial planner will advise you to incorporate yourself. Its not that there aren't many farm of this size its that they have now incorporated because incorporating is the smart thing to do at that size. Its simple economics, I really advise you to go to college and take some economics courses it will change your world view. The owners of large corporations are share holders and fund managers on wall street who pay a different tax rate than you because they make all their money through capital gains. Eliminating the estate tax will create many more family run businesses and we will have less companies incorporating. How about no to wasting money redistributing wealth and just lower their tax rate it would cost less in administration costs.


What is the point of your comments?
Is it that farms are primarily non-liquid assets?
Is it that at a certain asset level, people should incorporate (which most of us do already)?
Is it that the estate tax prevents family run businesses (even though incorporated does not mean non family run)?





77844 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
51 / F / Toronto
Offline
Posted 10/22/17 , edited 10/23/17
My favourite variation of this game is when people were given quotes from Hitler, told they were quotes from Trump and asked if they supported them.

One apologist after the gag was revealed. "I did (support them) when you said it was Trump!"
897 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
57 / M
Offline
Posted 10/22/17 , edited 10/23/17

papagolfwhiskey wrote:

My favourite variation of this game is when people were given quotes from Hitler, told they were quotes from Trump and asked if they supported them.

One apologist after the gag was revealed. "I did (support them) when you said it was Trump!"




My favorite was when they gave quotes from Reagan and said that Hillary said them. I remember reading one republican saying that they proved she was a communist
20171 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
38 / M / Small Wooded town...
Offline
Posted 10/22/17 , edited 10/23/17

tomas123987 wrote:


papagolfwhiskey wrote:

My favourite variation of this game is when people were given quotes from Hitler, told they were quotes from Trump and asked if they supported them.

One apologist after the gag was revealed. "I did (support them) when you said it was Trump!"




My favorite was when they gave quotes from Reagan and said that Hillary said them. I remember reading one republican saying that they proved she was a communist


'O even better wen the was posting quotes from Hillary and claimed it was Trump quotes and everyone was saying what a monster, and he so racist for that. I got a kick from that one..


23740 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
The White House
Offline
Posted 10/22/17 , edited 10/23/17

penguincat wrote:


Rujikin wrote:

What happens when liberals are told that Trump's tax plan is Bernie's tax plan? They suddenly support it.

Why is it that so many people have Trump Derangement Syndrome and cannot help but hate everything that has Trump's name on it? I can understand if you dislike certain parts and like other parts but to just blindly hate/like a tax plan based on who's name is in front of it seems like an easy way to get duped regardless of who is the president at the current year.


What you have posted exists in every country on either side of politics. In short its nothing new. Left or right are sheep following whatever their respective leader/s says even if they never have actually said it. A lot of elections both sides attempt to spin the other into saying something they never said. Next time there is a federal election in a westen country have a watch of their ads and read their social media posts. You will likely see what you posted is nothing new.

Here is a first hand example
My grandmother who is 79 years old and is right wing complains about 'leftist' policies. Until she finds out it was the only party she votes for that did them then it becomes "oh well then I guess its a good thing." She has never visited America let alone in the past year nor cares about anything in US politics. So it has nothing to do with anything Trump related.


Its a huge problem. I can understand why a true democracy doesn't work because people don't do any research and just read titles.
37676 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 10/22/17 , edited 10/22/17

Tyrconnell wrote:


octorockandroll wrote:

Well first of all that seems to focus only on the aspects of the tax plan that poeple don't have a problem with, so I don't see how that would make anyone deranged. Secondly, it's not all that surprising, really. Remember when people were fine with Obamacare as long as you described it without mentioning the Obama relation? Healthcare is going the same way as environmental protection, more about attacking people you don't like than trying to work towards progress and mutual benefit.


Yeah, calling it by "The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" boosted the acceptance level by some 20% over calling it "Obamcare."


I was going to mention the same. People loved Obamacare, as long as you don't call it Obamacare.

At a certain point in busyness/apathy, brains turn off and people blindly follow figureheads claiming to represent their identity.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.