Solutions?

Some of you more literally inclined are already doing that "for me".
Is that how you want to deal with people on here? I am fine with that if that's how you want to do it. Just let me know.

I generally put "Tax cuts for the Rich" in quotes to show that is how it is being used in the media. Most people would probably pick up on that.

In a post where you were railing AGAINST people making assumptions like that?

I have said nothing about having a problem with people who disagree with me

Other than they are not critical thinkers if they don't make all the same assumptions you did. And yes, that's a huge part of the problem. People like yourself dismiss others who do not make the same assumptions that you do, as you did in your first post. And taking that approach nothing will ever be solved. Why listen to solutions from people who can't think critically? You say as much in your post.

I would suggest you don't do that if you want to have constructive discussions. If your goal is to 'own the libs' then keep on keeping on, I guess.
 
Is that how you want to deal with people on here? I am fine with that if that's how you want to do it. Just let me know.



In a post where you were railing AGAINST people making assumptions like that?



Other than they are not critical thinkers if they don't make all the same assumptions you did. And yes, that's a huge part of the problem. People like yourself dismiss others who do not make the same assumptions that you do, as you did in your first post. And taking that approach nothing will ever be solved. Why listen to solutions from people who can't think critically? You say as much in your post.

I would suggest you don't do that if you want to have constructive discussions. If your goal is to 'own the libs' then keep on keeping on, I guess.
I think it's pretty obvious that in society, as a whole, there is plenty of room for critical thinking to become more widespread. Do you disagree? Let me know.

Is it your impression that those who don't agree with the prevailing opinions on here are treated well? Again, let me know.

A lot of negative comments are freely dished out and no one has a problem with it until it is directed their way. Then, suddenly, they are offended. People are funny aren't they?
 
Last edited:
Again, I agree.
So why all the push back? You imply that I'm not using critical thinking, you close with a little snarkiness and I do same in my reply and suddenly you are offended by the behavior I was just responding to.

We usually agree, you start out saying that and then tell me that what I said wasn't "literally" true and you use an example that you point out shows that I'm wrong but that your example wouldn't work and isn't a good one?

You do that over and over. You basically agree with me, use literalness as a debate tacit and acknowledge that it's unrealistic, end with a snarky comment and lecture me on snarkiness in your reply.

Am I making this up or being unfair in my comment?

Parmalee can tell someone they are a fucking idiot, are functionally illiterate and rather than saying, "hey dude, let's not do that" you will jump in and lecture me even though you basically agree with 99% of what I say.

What's up with that? Then at the end you throw in a little "threat" like "Is that the way we are going to do this, because I can do that".

Do you really think you are the impartial one here?

I'm talking about the tax cuts and the way it's understood in public and I personally am not for the cuts and yet I'm supposedly the one who isn't being nuanced? It's ridiculous and I'm sure you know it.
 
So why all the push back? You imply that I'm not using critical thinking
Nope. You started with a post that assumed that anyone who thought "taxes on the rich" meant "taxes on the rich" and nothing more was not a critical thinker. That's where the pushback came from.
tell me that what I said wasn't "literally" true and you use an example that you point out shows that I'm wrong but that your example wouldn't work and isn't a good one?

No, again. "Taxes on the rich" means "taxes on the rich" and that is literally true; the term for that is logical identity. Your claim was that anyone who thought that was not a critical thinker unless they made all the same assumptions you do about that statement. Again, that's where the pushback came from.
Parmalee can tell someone they are a fucking idiot, are functionally illiterate and rather than saying, "hey dude, let's not do that" you will jump in
Have I ever "jumped in" and told you that Parmalee was right in attacking you and calling you names?

You sound like you are equating me and Parmalee because at some point both of us have disagreed with you. That is both lazy and clearly untrue.

If you want to debate this, great. Stop being so sensitive and defensive and stick to the topic.
 
Nope. You started with a post that assumed that anyone who thought "taxes on the rich" meant "taxes on the rich" and nothing more was not a critical thinker. That's where the pushback came from.


No, again. "Taxes on the rich" means "taxes on the rich" and that is literally true; the term for that is logical identity. Your claim was that anyone who thought that was not a critical thinker unless they made all the same assumptions you do about that statement. Again, that's where the pushback came from.

Have I ever "jumped in" and told you that Parmalee was right in attacking you and calling you names?

You sound like you are equating me and Parmalee because at some point both of us have disagreed with you. That is both lazy and clearly untrue.

If you want to debate this, great. Stop being so sensitive and defensive and stick to the topic.
Haha..OK, I agree with you but also disagree.
 
Are you not able to do both? It's an open-ended discussion. We could talk about chemistry (yet again).
Don't be a twat. A "solution" needs to relate to a specified problem. And it is not clear what problem you want us to consider.
 
Last edited:
I'm not misrepresenting anything. If you were engaging in critical thinking you'd realize that motion to exempt below $1m, $10m, and then $100m was just a stunt and was just done in the last few days.
You are misrepresenting things. You are misrepresenting the complaints about the policy as being "tax cuts for the rich" as applying to the entire policy, rather than the parts of the policy that, you know, offer tax cuts for the rich, or that it disproportionately aids the already wealthy. The exemptions sought, even if just as a stunt, highlighted quite clearly that the policy includes tax cuts for the rich. That is what people are complaining about, and the extent to which they do. And you are misrepresenting their complaints as being complaints of all aspects of the policy.
No one was referring to extending cuts for some but not all. The whole bill in it's entirety was what people were talking about No one was doing as you suggest and supporting cuts for the middle-class.
If one complains about the part of the bill that offers tax cuts to the rich, that doesn't mean that they're not supporting cuts for the less well off, does it?? They were complaining about the bill, yes, because it offered tax cuts to the rich. No other bill was being offered, because the Reps - as demonstrated by the "stunt" - had no intention of putting forward a bill that exempted the rich from tax cuts.
You are continuing to confuse the complaint against the tax cuts for the rich as being a complaint against the whole bill.
The bit about the $1m, $10m, $100m, wouldn't make a dent if you excluded those since it would still leave millions in the middle class and that is where the money would be.
Sure, but by exempting them, you could increase the tax-reductions of the least well off, even if just by a bit. You know, helping the least well off a bit more. The Republicans chose not to. They provided tax cuts, yes, to all, but that benefit the rich far more. To a person earning under $50k, for example, the tax cut would barely afford them an extra cup of coffee a week. To someone earning over $1m, it would almost enable them to buy a new Tesla a year. That is what people complain about with these "tax cuts for the rich".
It also makes no sense to be OK with someone making $400k but $1 million is just too much?
Lines need to be drawn somewhere when looking at progressive taxation. And one can easily make the differences between each band less impactful between those on either side of the lines. So a small tax cut to those between $400k and $1m, then a slightly larger one for those between $200k and $400k, etc, all the way down to the largest at those at the bottom end of things.
In any event, as posted, since we have this debt problem, I wouldn't extend these cuts just because we could use the $400 billion that would be generated to reduce the deficit and we are only talking about having the top rate go from 37% to 39%.
Not extending any of those tax cuts in some form would hit the lowest earners by far the hardest. So that would be even worse than extending them as-is.
For example, the cuts included a near-doubling of the standard deduction from $6350 to $12k, so those at the lowest would have to find another $600 a year minimum. Sure, those at the top would have to find a few $10k, but they have income. And they got by far the biggest boost from the tax cuts when they really didn't need it.
For someone earning $50k, for example, if the tax rates and bandings returned to pre-Trump-tax-cuts then the person would pay c.$2.3k MORE. A change from c.$6.6k down to $4.3k That's a significant difference. It's an increase of c.30% in their tax bill.
For someone earning $1m, this would be a change from £326k to $350k - just a 7% increase in their tax bill.
Sure, the absolute $ amount is higher, but who would you rather be in that situation? Earning a million and having to find an extra $24k, or earning $50k and having to find another $2.3k??
Note, this is just impact of Federal income tax.

Yes, those initial tax-cuts did help the less well off, but they, and other tax cuts, still significantly helped those at the upper ends - e.g. through corporation tax reduction, inheritance tax exemption being doubled, etc.
And the issue has always been that if you reduced tax cuts to the already wealthy you could increase the tax cuts to those that need them the most.

Again, no one over here was only referring to the top portion of the Trump tax cuts for the rich while proposing to keep the bottom cuts. You just made that up (until the recent stunt in committee).
I have made nothing up. Criticism of the bill is because, taken as a whole, the tax-cuts help the wealthy more than the lower earners. Noone is saying that there are not tax cuts for the poor.
It's not ironic at all and there are still not many people here discussing their solutions. Bill and I are fine and Tiassa and Parmalee are angry and violent but still few suggestions. No irony there.
Your "solutions" (e.g. critical thinking) aren't solutions, though. They are tools, as explained. Useful, but not solutions. And as has been asked: solutions to what, exactly??
Yes, I'm good with rational people, thinking critically and living with whatever the outcomes are. The outcomes will be better that way. Rates are within a normal realm and result in near optimal tax receipts. Tax receipts as a percentage of GDP have been remarkably similar regardless of the top tax rate. Spending is wildly out of control.
Your concern seems solely about the economy. Is that what you're looking for "solutions" for?
Arguing about Trump, Musk, the Republicans, or the Democrats doesn't change that (or anything really). Critical thinking, give it a try?
If all you're concerned about is the deficit, then cutting spending is eminently sensible. Complaining about Musk, Trump, the Republicans goes beyond just concern for the deficit. In fact, very little of the complaints against them is to do with the deficit. So if you're framing all of this solely with regard to the deficit, your criticisms are merely arguing against a strawman.
 
This wasn't about Trump but your comments are valid enough so thanks for the comments.
In my defense, the title thread sounded pretty general and you mentioned Trump, tax cuts, critical thinking and the budget so I jumped in.
I surmised "solution" meant there was a problem in the first place, that problem being people being so stupid they voted in Trump and now we have a shit show.
 
For example, the cuts included a near-doubling of the standard deduction from $6350 to $12k, so those at the lowest would have to find another $600 a year minimum. Sure, those at the top would have to find a few $10k, but they have income. And they got by far the biggest boost from the tax cuts when they really didn't need it.
It's hard to find any solid data on this, but various reports suggest that roughly half of American households would be... let's say significantly impacted (given the difficulty in locating substantive stats) by a 500 dollar emergency. It goes without saying that those people are not saving--because they can't--and they are not investing--because they can't. This is pretty elementary: It comes down to whether or not you find that acceptable within a society. And given that this is the US, those "emergencies" include things like basic medicine. As far as categorizing people as social or antisocial goes, well... it's pretty clear.
 
It's hard to find any solid data on this, but various reports suggest that roughly half of American households would be... let's say significantly impacted (given the difficulty in locating substantive stats) by a 500 dollar emergency. It goes without saying that those people are not saving--because they can't--and they are not investing--because they can't. This is pretty elementary: It comes down to whether or not you find that acceptable within a society. And given that this is the US, those "emergencies" include things like basic medicine. As far as categorizing people as social or antisocial goes, well... it's pretty clear.
Yeah a shocking statistic. 63% according to the below.

 
Yeah a shocking statistic. 63% according to the below.

And there are a lot of people who actually want the majority of society to be living hand-to-mouth and desperate. Why? That's kind of a rhetorical question--I mean, there are like a million Bertolt Brecht songs precisely about this.

The thing is, even if you are antisocial, it just doesn't make sense for a society to function this way. You go to places with pretty extreme inequities--even more extreme than the US--and the affluent classes often live in these compounds that impart a whole new meaning to the notion of gated communities. Armed security and all that. Wouldn't it be easier not to have to constantly worry about being besieged by the proles and the rabble, even if you do in fact detest them?
 
Parmalee can tell someone they are a fucking idiot, are functionally illiterate...
If you don't want to be accused of being functionally illiterate, the solution is pretty simple: Stop regularly mischaracterizing what other posters say. Stop misusing words--I could come up with literally dozens of examples here, but let's just consider one: "antisocial". Now, personally, I do actually have a number of antisocial qualities, but I believe that the qualities to which you are alluding here are anything but--I am surmising this on the basis of you also describing me as "violent" here. Any number of terms would be more appropriate--ranging from "passionate" to even perhaps "insane" (I am saying that would be more appropriate here than "antisocial", not necessarily accurate)--but why not just go with something like "indignant"?

Again, this is pretty elementary. We can only work with what you give us.
 
I've commented quite extensively about our system.

Common, meaningless rhetoric. One could easily say you've trolled the subject, before, and be equally correct.

I also pointed out the I'm fine with anyone's conclusions if critical thinking was involved. It generally isn't involved. I'll also point out that after all of these years of descent, have we ever heard Parmalee or Tiassa lay out their alternatives?

Common rightist gaslight: If right-winger does not like what someone says, then that someone has said nothing at all.

For instance, when we discusssed this before↗:

It's something Americans have been learning and struggling with throughout my lifetime; remember, while needle exchange didn't solve heroin addiction, the arc that started in Seattle and came up through Tacoma and Pierce County went on to change the world. And, oh, I'm sorry, were they being too nice to drug addicts who just need to grow up and be responsible? Watching the stuff wreck people I know, yes, checking the HIV epidemic on that front was important, which is the living legacy of those programs. My community actually got safer in a very particular way because people were willing to risk being seen facilitating drug addiction by providing clean needles for users, and because politicians were willing to risk being seen greenlighting that facilitation.

And decades later, we learned that lesson anew, in Scott County, Indiana:

What ultimately curbed the outbreak were solutions rooted in the community. Scott County's syringe exchange was part of a "one-stop shop," where people could also get drug treatment referrals, free HIV testing and other services. More people were referred to Medicaid, which had recently been expanded in Indiana.

That's an example from over two years ago. You never responded to it. But you did go on to change the subject↗ to tax cuts for the wealthy and make demands that people explain other stuff to you.

Kind of like this whole thread.

You're pretty much on pace for being you.
 
And there are a lot of people who actually want the majority of society to be living hand-to-mouth and desperate. Why? That's kind of a rhetorical question--I mean, there are like a million Bertolt Brecht songs precisely about this.

The thing is, even if you are antisocial, it just doesn't make sense for a society to function this way. You go to places with pretty extreme inequities--even more extreme than the US--and the affluent classes often live in these compounds that impart a whole new meaning to the notion of gated communities. Armed security and all that. Wouldn't it be easier not to have to constantly worry about being besieged by the proles and the rabble, even if you do in fact detest them?
That's 200 million people in the worlds largest economy. I would be interested to know what that figure is in the UK.
Low wages high rent usual suspects, not a great combo.
High inflation, recession those guys get laid off miss rent and are on the street.
If they do cause problems like rioting, Trump would just have them shot and blame it on Biden.
A large % of those will be MAGA, so not that well educated, lower paid jobs and the guys who cannot even afford to have that 500 dollar cushion in the bank for a rainy day.
Brecht is high brow sophisticated arts to a hard Manc! I will have a look though, thanks!
 
It's hard to find any solid data on this, but various reports suggest that roughly half of American households would be... let's say significantly impacted (given the difficulty in locating substantive stats) by a 500 dollar emergency. It goes without saying that those people are not saving--because they can't--and they are not investing--because they can't. This is pretty elementary: It comes down to whether or not you find that acceptable within a society. And given that this is the US, those "emergencies" include things like basic medicine. As far as categorizing people as social or antisocial goes, well... it's pretty clear.
Most Americans do earn enough to save $500. There are many factors for why they don''t including poor planning, spending too much, putting it in HYSAs, 401ks, IRAs, and simply poor planning. The wording of the poll matters as well. What is "savings"? Who uses a banking savings account at almost no interest?

Some cover emergencies with a credit card and pay that with the next paycheck.Some don't.

The bottom 20% probably would have that problem but not "most" Americans. It's a matter of making a poor choice or a matter of poor wording on a poll in many cases. Do you disagree?
 

If we take £500 as the equivalent for comparison, this suvey by Lowell suggests c.1/3 of adults have £500 or less in savings.
So as the world's sixth largest economy we are doing a little better? That is still 22 million people at risk of an economic crisis should a curve ball come their way.
I actually thought we were 5th but India have that spot now according to Google.
 
So as the world's sixth largest economy we are doing a little better? That is still 22 million people at risk of an economic crisis should a curve ball come their way.
I actually thought we were 5th but India have that spot now according to Google.
This is a double edged sword. If you rely on the government to take care of you, you save less. If you have to take care of yourself, you are forced to save more.
 
Back
Top