US 2024 Presidential Election

Gergar12

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 24, 2020
4,173
902
118
Country
United States
Really seems like the fall of the US is pretty much inevitable then.
Not if the left can resist and gather counter-rich people who check the right's advantage in the media.

Who doesn't have some positions on the right and left wings? Who wouldn't take a cabinet position if they were offered it?

That's not true and misinformation.



He also endorsed Bernie Sanders. You're allowed to endorse who you think is the better candidate regardless of party affiliation.
Some political positions yes, but a cabinet position for Trump means your right aligned, and a cabinet position given due to being the right fit for anti-science right wing medical positions means you are really much even more right-wing aligned.

It is true.



That doesn't mean they aren't right-wing aligned. Two things can be true at once.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
12,642
6,589
118
Country
United Kingdom
That's just a silly numbers game they are playing. Quite famously, the bottom 47% (at least at one time, don't know the exact current statistic) of people pay effective 0% income tax, you can't cut from zero (other than giving a rebate, which they do with child tax credits). So if the bottom 60% got average $500, that would imply the 13% between that 47% and 60% saved enough to add up to $500 for the whole 60%, which would be $2300. Which is over 5% of the median income, that is not meagre at all.
A few things to point out about this. First is that you say "the bottom 47% of people pay effective 0% income tax", but that's not the case.

47% (the number given by Mitt Romney in that infamous private get-together) is the proportion of individuals filing income tax returns who didn't owe anything in federal income taxes, according to the Tax Policy Center. That includes a chunk of the elderly who don't work but receive income & file returns, and is otherwise primarily made up of people whose tax burden is in payroll taxes.

Secondly: although generally the lower the income, the less the federal income tax burden, this correlation isn't absolute. A big chunk of households in the lowest quintile are paying federal income taxes, while some in the second-highest quintile (over $75k pa) are paying no federal income taxes.

Finally: the "$500 for lowest 60% of households and tens of thousands for highest few" isn't based solely on the change in federal income tax. It's based on the overall federal tax (incl. Individual & corporate income taxes, payroll, estate & excise) as a proportion of household income. In that, every quintile has an average positive federal tax burden. And the lowest quintiles gain the least from the 2017 cuts, while the highest quintiles gain the most, and it ain't even close.
 

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Aug 4, 2011
7,471
974
118
Country
USA
A few things to point out about this. First is that you say "the bottom 47% of people pay effective 0% income tax", but that's not the case.

47% (the number given by Mitt Romney in that infamous private get-together) is the proportion of individuals filing income tax returns who didn't owe anything in federal income taxes, according to the Tax Policy Center. That includes a chunk of the elderly who don't work but receive income & file returns, and is otherwise primarily made up of people whose tax burden is in payroll taxes.

Secondly: although generally the lower the income, the less the federal income tax burden, this correlation isn't absolute. A big chunk of households in the lowest quintile are paying federal income taxes, while some in the second-highest quintile (over $75k pa) are paying no federal income taxes.
You say that's not the case, but then you don't actually contradict me. I said "effective" for a reason, it's a qualified statement. I am aware, the bottom quartile of both personal wealth and annual income includes a lot of actually wealthy people: retirees, students, people taking on large debts to start a business. I'm telling you that they are playing with numbers to give you the wrong impression. It's like when they say the top 1% has as much wealth as the bottom 90%, but don't mention the bottom 30% are overall in debt, the 35th percentile alone has more wealth than the bottom 60% combined despite being included in that 60%. There being natural ways the numbers have unintuitive meanings doesn't contradict that they are trying to mislead you.
Finally: the "$500 for lowest 60% of households and tens of thousands for highest few" isn't based solely on the change in federal income tax. It's based on the overall federal tax (incl. Individual & corporate income taxes, payroll, estate & excise) as a proportion of household income. In that, every quintile has an average positive federal tax burden. And the lowest quintiles gain the least from the 2017 cuts, while the highest quintiles gain the most, and it ain't even close.
Excise and payroll taxes weren't touched by that act. The estate tax limit was doubled, but that change doesn't benefit either the poor or the ultra wealthy, they'll still be on the same side of the limit in either direction, Trump's net worth is down but he's still going to be passing on more than $12 million when he dies. So ultimately what you're saying is that they calculated that corporate tax cuts benefit the poor. Who could have told you that? (It's me!)

Yes, the marginal benefit that everyone gets from lower corporate taxes is less than a 2% reduction in income tax for the highest earners. All of my points still stand.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
12,642
6,589
118
Country
United Kingdom
You say that's not the case, but then you don't actually contradict me. I said "effective" for a reason, it's a qualified statement. I am aware, the bottom quartile of both personal wealth and annual income includes a lot of actually wealthy people: retirees, students, people taking on large debts to start a business. I'm telling you that they are playing with numbers to give you the wrong impression. It's like when they say the top 1% has as much wealth as the bottom 90%, but don't mention the bottom 30% are overall in debt, the 35th percentile alone has more wealth than the bottom 60% combined despite being included in that 60%. There being natural ways the numbers have unintuitive meanings doesn't contradict that they are trying to mislead you.
You said "effective" in reference to the tax rate-- which is itself misleading, because the federal income tax alone is not the "effective tax rate".

You had no such qualifiers for "the bottom 47%". That phrase in this context would imply the 47% with the lowest income, especially since you're using it to dispute the $500 stat, which is specifically about those on the lowest income.


Excise and payroll taxes weren't touched by that act. The estate tax limit was doubled, but that change doesn't benefit either the poor or the ultra wealthy, they'll still be on the same side of the limit in either direction
Yes, I'm aware. Yet obviously they should be taken into account when calculating the tax burden as a proportion. Someone whose tax burden is skewed more towards payroll than fed income will gain less as a proportion, and vice versa.

Trump's net worth is down but he's still going to be passing on more than $12 million when he dies. So ultimately what you're saying is that they calculated that corporate tax cuts benefit the poor. Who could have told you that? (It's me!)
The pass-on effect of income tax changes is well known and taken into account by the Tax Policy Center. The result is still that the lower the quintile, the less you gain, by far.
 

Phoenixmgs

The Muse of Fate
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
10,052
843
118
w/ M'Kraan Crystal
Gender
Male
It would have kept Trump and Musk out of power.
And voting for Trump kept Kamala out of power... your point?

Some political positions yes, but a cabinet position for Trump means your right aligned, and a cabinet position given due to being the right fit for anti-science right wing medical positions means you are really much even more right-wing aligned.

It is true.



That doesn't mean they aren't right-wing aligned. Two things can be true at once.
You act like the left wing isn't anti-science.

Here's a bullshit study saying butter is worse than seed oils just because RFK Jr said they are bad. This isn't science, it's propaganda.

And then the lying about climate change and the California wildfires:


RFK Jr didn't have anything to do with the Samoa measles outbreak:
 

Hades

Elite Member
Mar 8, 2013
2,487
1,888
118
Country
The Netherlands
And voting for Trump kept Kamala out of power... your point?
That those two outcomes inherently aren't the same thing, and that allowing Trump in power carries far worse implications. You'd think that be obvious.
 

Chimpzy

Simian Abomination
Legacy
Escapist +
Apr 3, 2020
13,364
10,022
118
So Trump personally approved and signed all 1500 of the J6 pardons?

Also, why stop here? Retroactively unpardon both Obama term pardons too. Revoltingly weak.
 
  • Like
Reactions: XsjadoBlayde

Hades

Elite Member
Mar 8, 2013
2,487
1,888
118
Country
The Netherlands
So Trump personally approved and signed all 1500 of the J6 pardons?

Also, why stop here? Retroactively unpardon both Obama term pardons too. Revoltingly weak.
And to imagine you still have some posters here trying to argue Trump acts in good faith and isn’t out to abuse his powers against those that objected to replacing democracy with Trump.

Still it be kinda nice if this sets a precedent that can be used to deprive the coup doing traitors of their pardon
 
Last edited:

Agema

Do everything and feel nothing
Legacy
Mar 3, 2009
9,565
6,797
118
You say that's not the case, but then you don't actually contradict me. I said "effective" for a reason, it's a qualified statement.
"Qualified statement" being a euphemism for "bullshit designed for the purpose of obscuring reality more than illuminating it".

After all, if the reality is easily explainable and understandable and instead someone uses a "qualified statement", odds are their motivation wasn't good.
 

Agema

Do everything and feel nothing
Legacy
Mar 3, 2009
9,565
6,797
118
I am aware, the bottom quartile of both personal wealth and annual income includes a lot of actually wealthy people: retirees, students, people taking on large debts to start a business. I'm telling you that they are playing with numbers to give you the wrong impression.
I can assure you that the bottom quartile of personal wealth manifestly does not include actually wealthy people.

The thing about spending money is that it buys things that have value. If you take out a $500,000 mortgage to buy a $500,000 house, your net asset wealth does not change, because the debt is offset by the equivalent value of the asset. Same principle applies to investing a business. You might of course lose wealth on the transaction as time passes (e.g. depreciation, negative equity). However, at the point your debts approach or exceed your assets, you're not "actually wealthy".

What some of these wealth-poor people might have is potential. A student, for instance, is just plain and simple poor because of the student loans, but likely has a good chance of earning well, especially in the long run. However, potential is not the same as wealth. After all, it's also possible that maybe something will go wrong (e.g. illness) and they'll just be fucked with that massive debt dragging them down for the rest of their miserable life.
 

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Aug 4, 2011
7,471
974
118
Country
USA
I can assure you that the bottom quartile of personal wealth manifestly does not include actually wealthy people.

The thing about spending money is that it buys things that have value. If you take out a $500,000 mortgage to buy a $500,000 house, your net asset wealth does not change, because the debt is offset by the equivalent value of the asset. Same principle applies to investing a business. You might of course lose wealth on the transaction as time passes (e.g. depreciation, negative equity). However, at the point your debts approach or exceed your assets, you're not "actually wealthy".

What some of these wealth-poor people might have is potential. A student, for instance, is just plain and simple poor because of the student loans, but likely has a good chance of earning well, especially in the long run. However, potential is not the same as wealth. After all, it's also possible that maybe something will go wrong (e.g. illness) and they'll just be fucked with that massive debt dragging them down for the rest of their miserable life.
If you can take 4+ years out of your life, convince people to loan you 6-figure loans, and not qualify for needs-based assistance, you are not poor by any reasonable definition.
 

Phoenixmgs

The Muse of Fate
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
10,052
843
118
w/ M'Kraan Crystal
Gender
Male
That those two outcomes inherently aren't the same thing, and that allowing Trump in power carries far worse implications. You'd think that be obvious.
It's not, you all act like the democrats are so much better than they actually are. Both parties are essentially driving us off a cliff with one going say 90mph and the other going 100mph and it's quite arguable which is the worse one. But why even argue over that and just vote them both out?
 

Agema

Do everything and feel nothing
Legacy
Mar 3, 2009
9,565
6,797
118
If you can take 4+ years out of your life, convince people to loan you 6-figure loans, and not qualify for needs-based assistance, you are not poor by any reasonable definition.
Students are frequently poor on at least two definitions:
1) low disposable income
2) disadvantageous debt:asset ratio

There are reasons we might be much less concerned about their poverty compared to many others in society, but there's not much point pretending that they aren't poor.
 

XsjadoBlayde

~ just another dread messenger ~
Apr 29, 2020
3,579
3,710
118
is something burning

1000013181.jpg




ICE has ‘disappeared’ 48 New Mexico residents, attorneys say
Immigrant families, advocates call for New Mexico Legislature to act

By: Austin Fisher - March 17, 2025 1:20 pm


“What we know is people in our community are gone, workers are gone, family members are gone, our neighbors are gone,” said Marcela Diaz, founding executive director of Somos un Pueblo Unido, during a news conference on March 17, 2025 at the New Mexico Legislature. (Photo by Austin Fisher / Source NM)

In the first week of March, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement says it arrested four dozen New Mexico residents as part of immigration raids in Albuquerque, Santa Fe and Roswell.

Now those people are unaccounted for, according to an American Civil Liberties Union of New Mexico civil rights complaint filed Sunday, which alleges all 48 “have been forcibly disappeared.”

“What we know is people in our community are gone, workers are gone, family members are gone, our neighbors are gone,” said Marcela Diaz, founding executive director of Somos un Pueblo Unido.

According to ICE’s own announcement, it arrested most of those people not for criminal convictions, but for violations of civil immigration law, such as illegal entry or re-entry after deportation. Diaz said Albuquerque, Santa Fe and Roswell’s mayors told members of her organization that they didn’t know the arrests would happen, and that ICE had assured them they would only be going after people with criminal convictions.

According to the complaint filed with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties and the Office of the Immigration Detention Ombudsman, ICE hasn’t identified any of the 48 people they arrested, nor indicated where or in what conditions they’re being detained, whether they have access to attorneys or which agency is holding them.

“We don’t know what’s happened to these four dozen New Mexicans. They’ve effectively disappeared. They’re gone,” said Becca Sheff, senior staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union of New Mexico, during a Monday news conference at the New Mexico Legislature.

The complaint states that neither ACLU-NM nor any other legal service providers have made contact with any of the people arrested. ICE’s online detainee locator only allows people to be located by their names, dates of birth, countries of origin or numbers assigned to them by DHS, it states.

Attorneys who help people held New Mexico’s three ICE detention facilities – the Otero County Processing Center, the Cibola County Correctional Center and the Torrance County Detention Facility – are typically only able to conduct pre-representation or representation legal visits with detainees if they are able to identify them beforehand, the complaint states.

The complaint also notes that arbitrary and enforced disappearance is unlawful under the U.S. Constitution and international human rights law.

“No one here in New Mexico should have to live with this kind of fear that they or their loved ones could be picked up and effectively disappeared,” Sheff said.

The complaint calls on the civil rights and detention ombudsman offices to investigate, ensure the disappeared people’s physical and psychological well-being, ensure no retaliation occurs against them for the complaint’s submission and “pursue accountability for all personnel and contractors” involved.

“We are alarmed and disturbed that these four dozen New Mexican individuals remain unidentified and that insufficient transparency, oversight, and accountability has taken place to date regarding their whereabouts and wellbeing,” the complaint states.

Sheff told reporters on Monday the offices with which the ACLU filed the complaint have their own authority under the law separate from ICE, and she had not yet received confirmation that they have received the complaint.

The Trump administration is developing Fort Bliss in El Paso, Texas, into a “deportation hub” and considering Kirtland Air Force Base in Albuquerque as a possible military detention site for undocumented immigrants, the New York Times reported on Feb. 21. New Mexico’s all Democratic congressional delegation on March 5 wrote a letter to Trump and Department of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth objecting to the plans.

When Edwin Jesus Garcia Castillo, a fellow with the New Mexico Dream Team, was detained in the Torrance detention center in 2019 and in 2024, he said his family didn’t know where he was or what was happening and the guards denied him access to a phone to call them or a lawyer.

“I saw how these places tear you down, physically and mentally,” he said at the news conference. “These places are inhumane places, they’re really cruel places.”


“These places are inhumane places, they’re really cruel places,” said Edwin Jesus Garcia Castillo, a fellow with the New Mexico Dream Team who was detained in the Torrance detention center in 2019 and in 2024. (Photo by Austin Fisher / Source NM)

Two immigration bills still pending

The arrests and the complaint come as the New Mexico Legislature debates two legislative proposals that would limit state and local collaboration with federal immigration enforcement and detention.

Garcia Castillo encouraged lawmakers to pass one of them, House Bill 9, saying “it will save lives.”

Garcia Castillo encouraged lawmakers to pass one of them, House Bill 9, saying “it will save lives.”

For immigrant New Mexicans to feel safe calling and interacting with state or local police, they cannot be perceived to be involved with enforcement of federal immigration law, said Gabriela Ibañez Guzmán, staff attorney at Somos Un Pueblo Unido.

“There must be a clear and distinct line between who is enforcing federal immigration law and who is in our community to keep us safe,” she said.

Senate Bill 250 would ensure that distinction by prohibiting local and state jurisdictions from using public funds; personnel time; property and office space; or equipment to help federal agencies enforce immigration law, Ibañez Guzmán said.

New Mexico Immigrant Law Center Director of Policy and Coalition Building Jessica Martinez said any reduction in the number of ICE detention beds in New Mexico would make communities safer, because research shows ICE is more likely to conduct raids and make arrests closer to where they have existing detention beds.

With a decrease in border crossings, she said, ICE will fill detention centers by separating immigrants from within the U.S. from their families.

Martinez said HB9 and SB250 complement each other and are “critical” to ensure immigrants’ safety in New Mexico.

Less than one week remains for lawmakers to pass bills and send them to Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham, who would need to sign them into law. Diaz said people need state lawmakers, state and local agencies need to step up.

“We’ve seen a lot of good bills already die,” Martinez said. “Ours are still standing because we are organized and time is of the essence.”

At the news conference, New Mexico Conference of Catholic Bishops Executive Director Allen Sánchez called on the New Mexico Senate to pass both bills, and cited a letter by Pope Francis from last month about the dignity of every human being, and Jesus Christ’s identity as an immigrant.

“Some votes — and not all votes, but some votes — follow you to the gates of heaven, and these are one of them,” Sánchez said.
if one were to guess they'd be already sent to gruelling exploitative jobs with little to no rights, if not dead for whatever various reasons from overzealous overconfident policing
 

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Aug 4, 2011
7,471
974
118
Country
USA
There are reasons we might be much less concerned about their poverty compared to many others in society, but there's not much point pretending that they aren't poor.
And the context of this discussion is tax policy, where the people earning some amount of money got a bigger tax break than those you're reasonably less concerned about.

Let's imagine a roughly minimum wage full time worker, that varies by state but the national average is between $9/hr and $10/hr (lower if you average them all together, higher if you weight by state populations). Multiply by about 2080 work hours in a year, we get roughly $20,000/yr. This person is decidedly the working poor. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act doubled the standard deduction and changed the tax brackets. I'm using the tax bracket cutoffs from this year since they change with inflation, as well as the standard deduction from this year ($14,600), and dividing that by two as an approximate of what the old one would be in 2024 ($7300).

The Old System: $20,000 income - $7300 deduction = $12,700 taxable income. First $11,600 at the 10% tax bracket + remaining $1100 at 15% = $1325 in federal income tax.

The New System: $20,000 income - $14,600 deduction = $5400 taxable income. All of that taxed at 10% is $540 in federal income tax.

An average minimum wage worker gets a $785 tax reduction from only the income tax changes of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. At federal minumum wage, the numbers would be $778 in taxes before down to $48 now, a $730 drop. In DC at $17.50/hr, it drops from $3785 down to $2384, a $1401 drop. Minimum wage workers, with just the income tax changes, save 1.5 to almost 3 times as much as what the left wing think tanks that Silvanus trusts claim the cumulative effect of the entire bill would be for the poor, cause they're smooshing the numbers into statistics that hide the real, calculable effects.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
12,642
6,589
118
Country
United Kingdom
Minimum wage workers, with just the income tax changes, save 1.5 to almost 3 times as much as what the left wing think tanks that Silvanus trusts claim the cumulative effect of the entire bill would be for the poor, cause they're smooshing the numbers into statistics that hide the real, calculable effects.
Or perhaps, a proper detailed analysis will reach different conclusions from your napkin-maths.
 

Agema

Do everything and feel nothing
Legacy
Mar 3, 2009
9,565
6,797
118
And the context of this discussion is tax policy, where the people earning some amount of money got a bigger tax break than those you're reasonably less concerned about.
Sure, but I think we need to better than treat students like they're not poor, because many actually are... and whilst this is often transient and even trivial, it does not do us any good to obscure reality.

Let's imagine a roughly minimum wage full time worker
It's not that I'm saying your calculation wrong, but at the same time there's a very high risk you're just replacing mush with a different grade of mush.

The problem here comes with the fact that there are usually a massive host of alterations to tax codes, benefits, etc.. Looking at the impact on income tax alone may be deeply unrepresentative depending on these other factors. Secondly, there becomes a risk that numerous other factors may mean how it shakes out for even some people with relatively similar circumstances may vary significantly: i.e. some minimum wage workers may be big winners, and others might not.

Nor does it necessarily alter a fundamental objection with whether the tax changes have been fairly or reasonably distributed. For instance, one can make a fairly obvious case for improving the lot of the poor. The case for enriching the very rich is perhaps much lower, especially when that enrichment is at the cost of the national debt. More so when the national debt is, well, really high. Although obviously, genuine concern about high national debt has been on of the great casualties of the last couple decades.
 

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Aug 4, 2011
7,471
974
118
Country
USA
Or perhaps, a proper detailed analysis will reach different conclusions from your napkin-maths.
I told you why it doesn't match up. They aren't doing anything fancy that you aren't capable of, I promise.
Sure, but I think we need to better than treat students like they're not poor, because many actually are... and whilst this is often transient and even trivial, it does not do us any good to obscure reality.
I would not say we shouldn't treat students like they are poor. I would say we shouldn't use their existence as evidence of tax reform failures. Undergrads in the US outnumber minimum wage workers 16:1, more than half of those students have no income. Conclusions pulled from a data set combining the groups are not going to lead to useful conclusions about income tax rates.
i.e. some minimum wage workers may be big winners, and others might not.
Oh yeah, that's true. If they're a parent, the act also doubled the child tax credit from $1000 to $2000, with up to $1400 refundable, so if that person on federal minimum wage had 1 child and sole custody, they would previously had not paid income tax and gotten $222 in refund, now that number would be $1400 in refund, a difference of $1178 in their life.
Nor does it necessarily alter a fundamental objection with whether the tax changes have been fairly or reasonably distributed. For instance, one can make a fairly obvious case for improving the lot of the poor. The case for enriching the very rich is perhaps much lower, especially when that enrichment is at the cost of the national debt. More so when the national debt is, well, really high. Although obviously, genuine concern about high national debt has been on of the great casualties of the last couple decades.
I have no problem with the honest take. If someone says "I want to keep the parts that helped the poor and get rid of the cuts for the rich", I can respect that stance. There'd probably be an argument between us about the effects of corporate income tax rates, and I would insist that if they want to tax the rich they should just tax the rich instead of doing it poorly by proxy through corporate taxes that also hurt everyone else, but the principle of it is something I can appreciate.

My issue is with the wrong argument, that overall that act was a handout for the rich. It absolutely wasn't. And it doesn't need to be to take the aforementioned stance of wanting to tax the rich more. The claims that the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act was all to benefit the rich are made the way they are because the important political point is to say that Republicans don't help poor people. A person with a clear mind of what they think is good can look at that and say "yeah, that was really good for the poor of America, I just wish it didn't cut the top tax rate", and not feel the need to rationalize how the whole thing was actually a mistake.