Why It Is Mathematically Impossible for Trump to win the White House

[QUOTE="Tiger in NC, post: 1549849, member: 18421

And I have said all along, we need to look at Obamacare as a work in progress that needs to be tweaked along the way as needs arise. We cannot expect a piece of legislation that large, which encompasses so many people to be perfect on the first go, but we need political will to do those things.

You're missing my point entirely. There are some people who are not even able to fish and that's the ones that I'm talking about that we have to care for, not the ones who are capable.[/QUOTE]
No you're missing the point or don't bother to really read. Yes people like your uncle deserve help. However my point had nothing to do with specifics like him. My point is and has been shown that the growing dependence on government programs increases poverty rather than reduces. Pat Moynihan (no heartless Republican) wrote volumes about the effect welfare rules and programs were destroying the fabric of poor and predominantly African American society from the 1960's on. Obamacare is just the latest manifestation of the same old shit. There in more regulation and influence from a central government. It is unwieldy and has done as much or more damage as it purports to help.
I have no problem with a focused limited and narrow form of welfare for the truly helpless. What you need to understand is the first law of bureaucratic thermodynamics is that the government much grow and continue to expand its reach. This will strangle us and no person is smart or strong enough to control it. Giving them credit for wanting to do good it is still a flaw of progressives of any stripe to believe they're smarter than their predecessors and won't end up with the same problems.
That is what the constitution and bill of rights is all about...limiting the power of government over the individual. Current progressive politics wants the exact opposite.
Teaching men to fish allows a society to help those who truly can't. A successful society is one that can see the difference.
One last point. In general I'm for people and ideas that follow the above. I have no truck with those left or right that want to overimpose government on individuals. Neither do I follow the Ayn Rand idea of complete power to the individual. That is anarchy.

 

Winston, you just cannot help stumbling all over your own words can you?

Agreed. And I posted a link showing that GDP in Japan and Germany was 5% and higher in other parts of the world. The notion that we could have made the investments that we did during that era without the top marginal rate being 70-90% is ridiculous. So far you've tried to tell me that our growth during that era was because we were the only ones left standing and the rest of the world was decimated and had nothing to do with tax intakes, then you tried to say it was because we were holding Great Britain's gold reserves and now you are telling me that it is actually, after all, really about GDP. Well, you are wrong on all accounts and I have been able to cite articles that support my positions. So far, you've only been able to give us personal examples. Your argument always goes back to your own personal experiences and you've yet to provide a single shred of evidence to support what you are saying. You accuse me of reading only the headlines but you are the one who isn't providing facts here.
So let me take you back to kindergarten. I don't care when you grew up or who your daddy was or how many corporations they were involved in. I can find economist after economist who will tell you that our prosperity was largely due to ample tax intakes. The other reason that I know I am correct is because we were also running balanced budgets then. You don't make those kind of investments and balance the budget unless you have enough tax intakes.

 

I am so glad that you stated it this way because there is indeed an extreme wing of the Democratic party. The Republican party does not have an extreme wing because the entire party is extreme. Take a look at your two leading candidates for President, Winston. One one hand you have Donald Trump who recently said that abortion should be outlawed and then went on to say that women who have abortions should be arrested and imprisoned. He's also said that he wants to deport 11 million people, build a ridiculous wall along the border and ban all Muslims from entering the country. By any measure those are extreme positions. Then you have Ted Cruz who believed that the Bible has more authority than the constitution, who wants to go to a flat tax that every economist in the world says would be economic suicide. So if you want to act like your entire party isn't extreme go ahead but you guys sure have a helluva way of showing it.

Who is hurling insults now, Winston? You want to get up on your sanctimonious high horse when I use a curse word but you can't make a post without questioning my intelligence, which I find hilarious. You can't even provide a link to support any of your assertions about post WW2 American top marginal tax rates, other than to tell me your family stories, which do not interest me or sway my thinking in any shape form or fashion. I shouldn't blame you though, you are only using the same only Republican tactics: short on facts, long on personal assertions that lack merit or support.....then get angry and outraged when someone like me puts those pesky facts in front of your face.

 

Have you even bothered to do a little research and see why we have a growing dependence on government programs? Let me help you a little. It isn't what you think. Our growing dependence is because the baby boomers are retiring and those who aren't retiring on going on social security disability. This bleeds over into Medicare and Medicaid too. But the problem isn't "welfare queens" like I am sure you think, although there are some.....it's baby boomers. That's right....the laziest, most fiscally irresponsible generation in the history of this country are to blame for where we are right now.

Once again, proof that you view this as a problem that originates with the African American community or people who don't live in the same community as you, but you are wrong as I pointed out above. The people who are mooching on our social programs are lazy ass, fat baby boomers who are dying of diabetes or heart disease because they bellied up to a buffet too many times.

Says Winston? No, this is a myth purported by the right for years and years yet Bill Clinton signed the Welfare reform bill. Again, it doesn't matter how many times you repeat the Republican talking points, Winston, it still doesn't make them fact. It's a scare tactic that the right has used for decades and it just isn't so.

You know, Winston, I agree with this statement but I have reservations about your sincerity because your rhetoric of late just doesn't match.

 

Sport as usual you have no clue as to what I said or meant. Using curse words shows you are lazy and/or have a poor command of the language. Of course it could also mean you're infantile and have little emotional control.
Trading insults is part of the fun and I have no problem with the concept....just your poor use of the language.

 

You're like an art critic discussing a dab of paint on a pointalist canvas. First off I take offense at your accusing me of blaming the African American community for the welfare mess. THOSE TRAPPED ARENT THE CAUSE. THEYRE THE VICTIMS!!!! They system is the trap. I merely used the studies Moynihan made while a Harvard as the first documentation of the effect. That you note the baby boomers and others as being part is actually spot on. It pretty much confirms my point that the dependence on government programs is a growing trend and cancer.
Now that you use Bill Clinton's signature on the 1994 welfare reform as a defense to the fact that the growth of the welfare state isn't a Democrat movement is laughable. First Bill was dragged kicking and screaming to the table as he was with budget reform. It wasn't his idea at all. Second he had to do it over the dead bodies of the Democrat congress. Don't you remember how he supposedly saved the D's from their leftist ways by using triangulation???
The heart and soul of the Democrat party is the extreme left as demonstrated by this election cycle. HRC has had to disavow her husband's programs time and time again.
If you don't see the growing power of the federal government and dependence on it by ALL of the population as a problem then you're part of the problem not the solution.

 

http://www.sciencealert.com/people-...vocabularies-than-those-who-don-t-study-finds
http://distractify.com/fyi/2015/12/16/beth-are-you-shitting-me-science
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/12/14/swear-words-vocabulary_n_8807636.html
Once more you use a personal anecdote that flies in the face of every bit of research that we have. Turns out, Winston, that people who curse are actually more intelligent and have larger vocabularies. So.....looks like, again, you are fucking wrong.

 

Damn I wish I'd waited till this post to make my pointalist comment. My bad . You can't see the forest for the trees NC. Rather than go through another attempt to teach you about history and economics, let me ask you a question.
Would we be able to have a great economy and make all the investments today if the top tax rate were put back to 90% and the rest of the 1950's tax structure were too? Simple question requires only a yes or no answer.

 

But this is a temporary problem, not a permanent one as you suggest. The Baby Boomers cannot retire forever.

Is his signature on the legislation or not? Did the Republicans hold his hand and make him sign it? No. The only thing that is laughable is that I knew, without doubt, that you would immediately discount Clinton's signing of the bill, just like you've done with the top marginal tax rate from the 50's and 60's.

Millenials are indeed far more community oriented and do not have the biases against social programs or socialism as other generations. As a whole they are as large as the Baby Boomers generation. In part, you cannot blame them for believing socialism is a viable alternative. Think about what they have seen of Capitalism over the past 8-10 years. They've never seen it function the way we have, when greed is kept in check and the middle class is allowed to climb the ladder.

I do see the growing breadth of the government but I don't see that we've had much of a choice after the recession of '08. The private sector was decimated by the crash and I personally believe we've done a pretty decent job of not going overboard with government intervention. Healthcare was, and is, a subject that we couldn't afford to ignore. Literally.

 

That is not a simple question nor does it merit a simple answer, though I am sure you would like one. Our economy is driven by totally different things than it was then and we need a tax code that better reflects where we are today. That said, I could see a top marginal tax rate of 50% for every dollar earned over a million per year. This also allows us to keep tax rates lower for middle class families and fulfill our obligations. The conservative notion that lowering taxes over and over again will somehow equal greater intakes is just ludicrous.