2018 gerrymandering problem is really bad

[Milchshake]

How on earth can any human say cutting taxes is "incredibly unpopular". It's literally the easiest way to win an election, to propose tax cuts for the middle class.

Tax cuts for the rich are incredibly unpopular among most Americans. Sorry about your kool aid if you think Trump and Ryan's tax cuts are actually for the middle class.

According to the results of a Quinnipiac University poll:

• 54 percent of American voters disapprove “of the way President Trump is handling taxes,” while 52 percent “disapprove of his tax plan”
• 74 percent of American voters disapprove of the plan if it “significantly increase[s] the national debt,” as it is widely expected to do
• 55 percent of American voters think it’s a “bad idea” to cut the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 15 percent
• 63 percent of American voters think the tax plan will help the wealthy the most (27 percent think the middle class will benefit most and 4 percent, amazingly, think low-income taxpayers will benefit the most)
• 49 percent of American voters think Trump’s tax plan “will hurt the nation”

Only a party with no fear of electoral repercussions would continue to push such an unpopular agenda. They have no fear because they basically hacked the system to win no matter what voters do.

[Tijuana]

Tax cuts for the rich are incredibly unpopular among most Americans. Sorry about your kool aid if you think Trump and Ryan's tax cuts are actually for the middle class.

According to the results of a Quinnipiac University poll:

• 54 percent of American voters disapprove “of the way President Trump is handling taxes,” while 52 percent “disapprove of his tax plan”
• 74 percent of American voters disapprove of the plan if it “significantly increase[s] the national debt,” as it is widely expected to do
• 55 percent of American voters think it’s a “bad idea” to cut the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 15 percent
• 63 percent of American voters think the tax plan will help the wealthy the most (27 percent think the middle class will benefit most and 4 percent, amazingly, think low-income taxpayers will benefit the most)
• 49 percent of American voters think Trump’s tax plan “will hurt the nation”

Only a party with no fear of electoral repercussions would continue to push such an unpopular agenda. They have no fear because they basically hacked the system to win no matter what voters do.

Your rebuttal is based in a lie. I said tax cuts for the middle class, and you are responding about tax cuts for the rich. Why not just debate in a fair and honest manner, instead of what you are doing?

Your polls accept the lie that cutting taxes from a relative high, to a relative low, somehow reduces revenue to the government. Well, we have history as our guide here, so this can be easily refuted. Four times in US history, taxes were cut from relative highs to relative lows (Coolidge/Kennedy/Reagan/Bush2). In all four cases, revenue to the treasury went up under the new rates. So, your polls are just polling the ignorance of the public, but they don't support your actual position.

[Milchshake]

Your rebuttal is based in a lie. I said tax cuts for the middle class, and you are responding about tax cuts for the rich. Why not just debate in a fair and honest manner, instead of what you are doing?

Your polls accept the lie that cutting taxes from a relative high, to a relative low, somehow reduces revenue to the government. Well, we have history as our guide here, so this can be easily refuted. Four times in US history, taxes were cut from relative highs to relative lows (Coolidge/Kennedy/Reagan/Bush2). In all four cases, revenue to the treasury went up under the new rates. So, your polls are just polling the ignorance of the public, but they don't support your actual position.

Even by trying to use fancy words like rebuttal. Its plain to see you're continuing to argue in bad faith. Here by moving the goalposts. Also with no source with your false claims... fucking Coolidge. Bad faith in previously by trying to have this venue (forum) shut down because you can't handle the content.

[Ripster42]

Even by trying to use fancy words like rebuttal. Its plain to see you're continuing to argue in bad faith. Here by moving the goalposts. Also with no source with your false claims... fucking Coolidge. Bad faith in previously by trying to have this venue (forum) shut down because you can't handle the content.

You're talking to a dishonest person. They've repeatedly demonstrated that fact.

[I Push Buttons]

Your rebuttal is based in a lie. I said tax cuts for the middle class, and you are responding about tax cuts for the rich. Why not just debate in a fair and honest manner, instead of what you are doing?

Your polls accept the lie that cutting taxes from a relative high, to a relative low, somehow reduces revenue to the government. Well, we have history as our guide here, so this can be easily refuted. Four times in US history, taxes were cut from relative highs to relative lows (Coolidge/Kennedy/Reagan/Bush2). In all four cases, revenue to the treasury went up under the new rates. So, your polls are just polling the ignorance of the public, but they don't support your actual position.

Trump's plan has no possibility of ever becoming law... The GOP has only tried to implement one tax cut since he took office, the Cadillac Tax repeal, via the ACA repeal; IE: only tried to implement a tax cut on the wealthy.

[Blur4stuff]

Republicans won't pass a bill that's only tax cuts for the middle class. They'll try to pass one that gives huge cuts to rich and maybe a little to middle class. In that same bill they'll try to make spending cuts that hurt the middle class and poor.

There won't be a republican tax plan that actually makes life better for the middle class and poor.

[Tijuana]

Even by trying to use fancy words like rebuttal. Its plain to see you're continuing to argue in bad faith. Here by moving the goalposts. Also with no source with your false claims... fucking Coolidge. Bad faith in previously by trying to have this venue (forum) shut down because you can't handle the content.

What on earth are you talking about with the forum shutting down???

[Gestopft]

Your polls accept the lie that cutting taxes from a relative high, to a relative low, somehow reduces revenue to the government. Well, we have history as our guide here, so this can be easily refuted. Four times in US history, taxes were cut from relative highs to relative lows (Coolidge/Kennedy/Reagan/Bush2). In all four cases, revenue to the treasury went up under the new rates. So, your polls are just polling the ignorance of the public, but they don't support your actual position.

On what planet are taxes at "relative highs" right now?

Also, as an aside: Reagan's economy was aided by a huge fall in oil prices, and the two worst economic crises in the last 100 years happened right after Bush2 and Coolidge.

[satimy]

Gerrymandering doesn't lose you governorships or senate seats. It does affect the US house, but effects state legislatures the most

[Daelak]

Gerrymandering doesn't lose you governorships or senate seats. It does affect the US house, but effects state legislatures the most

No, but voter suppression does, the same type of voter suppression that is being fought on and struck down in the court system in Florida, Texas, Ohio, Kansas, Oklahoma, etc. You are delusional if you believe republicans aren't scrambling to find way to minimize voter rolls and participation. They win seats when there is low turnout, and they champion the restriction of voting rights and expanding accessibility and education of voting.

[satimy]

No, but voter suppression does, the same type of voter suppression that is being fought on and struck down in the court system in Florida, Texas, Ohio, Kansas, Oklahoma, etc. You are delusional if you believe republicans aren't scrambling to find way to minimize voter rolls and participation. They win seats when there is low turnout, and they champion the restriction of voting rights and expanding accessibility and education of voting.

Voter suppression is another meme being pushed by American progressives. People don't vote because they are lazy, don't care or hate politics far more often than some Id law. I'm all for making voting more accessible, put it on the internet. That's probably safer than a diebold machine

[Worvon]

The TX voter ID law is just one of many examples, on many fronts, where they are preventing people from voting.

Just another example of how the right hates everything in the Constitution except for half of the 2nd Amendment.

[Elegiac]

Voter suppression is another meme being pushed by American progressives. People don't vote because they are lazy, don't care or hate politics far more often than some Id law. I'm all for making voting more accessible, put it on the internet. That's probably safer than a diebold machine

Voter suppression has been a thing since Jim Crow, I'm not sure why you think it vanished overnight.

[Tijuana]

On what planet are taxes at "relative highs" right now?

Also, as an aside: Reagan's economy was aided by a huge fall in oil prices, and the two worst economic crises in the last 100 years happened right after Bush2 and Coolidge.

NO historian blames the Depression or the Recession specifically on tax policy. Literally no human alive has ever even uttered those words.

[Elegiac]

NO historian blames the Depression or the Recession specifically on tax policy. Literally no human alive has ever even uttered those words.

Not insofar as 'taxes cause recessions'; but taxes as a function of wealth equality is a factor in market stability.

[Gestopft]

NO historian blames the Depression or the Recession specifically on tax policy. Literally no human alive has ever even uttered those words.

Of course there were a myriad of factors involved; I'm merely throwing shade at the practicality of making policy based on your set of four whole data points.

The more important question, that you ignored, is "on what planet are taxes at 'relative highs' right now?"

- - - Updated - - -

Voter suppression is another meme being pushed by American progressives. People don't vote because they are lazy, don't care or hate politics far more often than some Id law. I'm all for making voting more accessible, put it on the internet. That's probably safer than a diebold machine

Except that states with voter id laws do actually tend to have greater differences in turnout between white and minority voters. The type of voter fraud that these laws purportedly stop has never been shown to be a statistically significant problem, and fixing a non-problem with laws strikes me as a rather un-Republican approach. The GoP lawmakers know damn well that they can depress turnout among Democrat-voting communities (and have pretty much admitted as such), so they push these laws to fix a problem that doesn't exist.

[satimy]

Voter suppression has been a thing since Jim Crow, I'm not sure why you think it vanished overnight.

And this thread is about gerrymandering, but how do you prove voter suppression exactly? Is it just when republicans win and support showing ids because democrats have sanctuary cities?

- - - Updated - - -

Of course there were a myriad of factors involved; I'm merely throwing shade at the practicality of making policy based on your set of four whole data points.

The more important question, that you ignored, is "on what planet are taxes at 'relative highs' right now?"

- - - Updated - - -



Except that states with voter id laws do actually tend to have greater differences in turnout between white and minority voters. The type of voter fraud that these laws purportedly stop has never been shown to be a statistically significant problem, and fixing a non-problem with laws strikes me as a rather un-Republican approach. The GoP lawmakers know damn well that they can depress turnout among Democrat-voting communities (and have pretty much admitted as such), so they push these laws to fix a problem that doesn't exist.

Again not related to gerrymandering, what if states provided free identification? Would you support it then?

[Elegiac]

And this thread is about gerrymandering, but how do you prove voter suppression exactly? Is it just when republicans win and support showing ids because democrats have sanctuary cities?

Same way the courts do when they strike down voter ID laws or unreasonable voting requirements.

You'd have to prove there is some evidence of widespread voter fraud due to a lack of IDs.

[Tijuana]

Of course there were a myriad of factors involved; I'm merely throwing shade at the practicality of making policy based on your set of four whole data points.

The more important question, that you ignored, is "on what planet are taxes at 'relative highs' right now?"

- - - Updated - - -



Except that states with voter id laws do actually tend to have greater differences in turnout between white and minority voters. The type of voter fraud that these laws purportedly stop has never been shown to be a statistically significant problem, and fixing a non-problem with laws strikes me as a rather un-Republican approach. The GoP lawmakers know damn well that they can depress turnout among Democrat-voting communities (and have pretty much admitted as such), so they push these laws to fix a problem that doesn't exist.

The term relative high to relative low is intended to reference the gap between them. Perhaps I could have worded that better. My point, is that a DRAMATIC change in tax rates WILL impact the economy in a significant way, as it has done every time prior in US history. I just didn't want everyone chasing down that one president that cut taxes by a tiny amount and low and behold got a tiny amount less in revenue. I'm talking about big tax cuts, that have the capability to change public perception about the economy. There are cases all around the world of this, and nearly every time it resulted in an economic boom. Heck, Reagan's boom from doing it lasted for 3 presidents after him.

[satimy]

Same way the courts do when they strike down voter ID laws or unreasonable voting requirements.

You'd have to prove there is some evidence of widespread voter fraud due to a lack of IDs.

You would never know currently if there was widespread voter fraud. And ids have been considered a poll tax and a violation of the voting rights act.....which is an odd position to have considering anything can be considered a poll tax under that logic