American Politics

[Sanity Check]

Florida Republicans considering new election bill that would effectively ban giving voters water

Similar to a provision in Georgia's new election law, it's one of a number of proposals moving through the state's GOP-controlled Legislature.

www.nbcnews.com

You know, this sort of thing kind of makes sense when people don't have to wait in lines all day to vote, but it's like that because the GOP wants it.

Some on social media claimed Kamala illegally campaigned to ppl standing in lines for polls.

I think florida wanting to ban giving pollers water is in response to that claim.

They want to eliminate excuses someone might have to approach pollers under false pretense to try to influence them.

 

[SharkBait]

They want to eliminate excuses someone might have to approach pollers under false pretense to try to influence them.

that was already illegal...

The law in Georgia is crystal clear: intimidating voters is a crime. Ga. Code §§21-2-566(3)-(4) and 21-2-567; 18 U.S.C. §§ 241 and 594; 52 U.S.C. § 10101(b). Examples of illegal voter intimidation could include:

Direct confrontation of prospective voters
Insulting, offensive, or threatening language
Raised voices
False information about voter requirements
Blocking entry to a polling place
The use or threat of physical force
Guns at polling places. All firearms, apart from those belonging to police officers and certified security guards, are prohibited within 150 feet of polling places. Ga Code § 21-2-413(i).


No one was being forced or coerced by a bottle of water, also poll workers keep watching outside to keep lines in orders, officers are present as well.

 

[xi0]

They want to eliminate excuses someone might have to approach pollers under false pretense to try to influence them.

I mean yeah, that's what they're all going to say but I think you have to be naive to think it's only about that.

 

[M3J]

Gotta love GA trying to suppress voters despite being all about "freedom" and shit. Republicans are a joke.

 

[SharkBait]

i cant believe this is real

 

[xi0]

I guess the Fort Pelosi Wall is a selectively permeable membrane that only protects filthy, satanic liberals and not the entire federal government.

Gotta love the gunshot sound effect added at the end for the effect. Yeah, I guess that's just a "cool", extremely tone-deaf branding thing and not intended to be some dog-whistle or anything. Sure.

 

[Sanity Check]

If anyone would like to share thoughts or comment on the above.

I would be interested to hear it.

 

[Pat]

If anyone would like to share thoughts or comment on the above.

I would be interested to hear it.

That article may be of interest to you:

Do Tax Cuts Create Jobs?

Quoting some parts from the article:

The report found that extending unemployment benefits is more cost effective than any tax cut.

Tax cuts for the middle class and poor do better... The CBO study found that providing tax credits for the households with low and middle incomes created 6 jobs per $1 million in credits.

The CBO found that tax cuts for the rich would create 4 jobs for every $1 million in cuts.

Across-the-board corporate tax cuts don't do much to create jobs. That's according to a 2017 study by the Institute for Policy Studies. It compared 92 publicly-held corporations who paid less than the 35% corporate tax rate. It found that, between 2008 and 2016, these corporations lost jobs while the overall economy increased jobs by 6%. Instead of paying taxes or hiring, these companies bought back their own stocks. They also increased CEO pay at a higher rate than the average for companies listed on the S&P 500.

This was a similar finding to a 2014 New York University study. It compared companies in low-tax states to those in high-tax states. They found the tax rate didn't affect job creation unless tax cuts were offered during recessions.

Payroll tax cuts are the most cost-effective ways to increase jobs because they lower the cost of labor.

According to the CBO, every $1 million in payroll tax cuts creates 13 new jobs.

The payroll tax cuts specifically targeted for new hires is the most cost-effective tax cut. Every $1 million in targeted payroll tax cuts creates 18 new jobs.

According to Laffer's model, the tax rate must be in the "Prohibitive Range," which is above 50%, for the cuts to stimulate the economy enough to recoup all the losses.

The CBO study found that extending unemployment benefits works better than any tax cuts. It creates 19 jobs per $1 million spent.

Although tax cuts do add more jobs, how effective these are depends on where and when these cuts are applied. Tax cuts are best applied on individual income rather than on corporate income. Tax cuts work well to boost employment and GDP only if the previous taxes were high enough to have dampened economic growth.

Long story short, according to the article, tax cuts only work when tax rates are very high, otherwise they just create debt and make rich people richer whereas targeting poor and middle class people with payroll tax cuts and unemployment benefits is a more cost-effective way of reducing unemployment.

 

[M3J]

That article may be of interest to you:

Do Tax Cuts Create Jobs?

Quoting some parts from the article:

















Long story short, according to the article, tax cuts only work when tax rates are very high, otherwise they just create debt and make rich people richer whereas targeting poor and middle class people with payroll tax cuts and unemployment benefits is a more cost-effective way of reducing unemployment.

pls don't take him seriously, I don't think he really cares.

But also, tax cuts often don't help, do they? I think companies got tax cuts and still laid off people after giving out bonuses few years ago.

 

[Sanity Check]

That article may be of interest to you:

Do Tax Cuts Create Jobs?

Quoting some parts from the article:

















Long story short, according to the article, tax cuts only work when tax rates are very high, otherwise they just create debt and make rich people richer whereas targeting poor and middle class people with payroll tax cuts and unemployment benefits is a more cost-effective way of reducing unemployment.

China economy: Beijing unveils $298bn tax cuts to boost growth

China's premier told its annual parliamentary session the country faces "a tough struggle".

www.bbc.com

China economy: Beijing unveils $298bn tax cuts to boost growth
Published5 March 2019

Ok. Would anyone be interested in explaining why china utilizes tax cuts if they don't work?

pls don't take him seriously, I don't think he really cares.

But also, tax cuts often don't help, do they? I think companies got tax cuts and still laid off people after giving out bonuses few years ago.

Attacking a person's character.

To avoid addressing a topic.

Isn't that what is known as a straw man fallacy on your part?

 

[Pat]

But also, tax cuts often don't help, do they? I think companies got tax cuts and still laid off people after giving out bonuses few years ago.

According to the site I quoted, they help under certain circumstances like recessions but Trump's tax cuts came out of nowhere and was highly counterproductive in terms of offsetting the lost revenue. Apparently it will expire for individuals in 2025, convenient timing when Trump's possible second term would potentially end at the time whereas they remain permanent for corporations despite the data that indicate the reverse would be more cost-effective in creating jobs.

Apparently many large corporations even said they didn't need the money from Trump's tax cuts and instead of increasing production, creating more jobs, or raising wages, the money mostly went to using the extra cash to pay dividends to shareholders, buying back shares of stock and increasing CEO salaries. (More info here)

Ok. Would anyone be interested in explaining why china utilizes tax cuts if they don't work?

Disclaimer: I'm not a financial expert, I tell what I see but my assumptions may not be accurate.

From what I gather, the Chinese subsidize certain key sectors, namely transportation, construction and manufacturing in an attempt to fight a potential recession which is a direct consequence of the pandemic and US-China trade war. Whether or not it will work remains to be seen and I reckon the tax cuts will be temporary.

If the tax cuts was a solution to everything every time, we would completely abolish taxes and be done with it but then the government would be nonfunctional. And if this is not an option and we need to draw the line somewhere, this is the point we are trying to make by evaluating the data in hand. If you think Trump reduced taxes for the greater good, I certainly disagree with you, he thinks of nobody but himself and all economical data, all budget deficits that flow into his own pocket is an evidence of that.

Sorry if I can't reply to you anymore since I don't check the posts regularly, just wanted to put in my two cents but to each their own.

 

[xi0]

Small government conservatives are called libertarians, not republicans. They're still horribly deluded individuals who don't understand the point of a country or civic obligations in general, but at least they have principles. Republicans want tax cuts in order to funnel money to existing top earners or starve government programs they take exception with. You know, like poor women having access to pap smears or regulatory bodies that exist to prevent full economic collapse or environmental disasters. That kind of useless shit.

 

[M3J]

According to the site I quoted, they help under certain circumstances like recessions but Trump's tax cuts came out of nowhere and was highly counterproductive in terms of offsetting the lost revenue. Apparently it will expire for individuals in 2025, convenient timing when Trump's possible second term would potentially end at the time whereas they remain permanent for corporations despite the data that indicate the reverse would be more cost-effective in creating jobs.

Apparently many large corporations even said they didn't need the money from Trump's tax cuts and instead of increasing production, creating more jobs, or raising wages, the money mostly went to using the extra cash to pay dividends to shareholders, buying back shares of stock and increasing CEO salaries. (More info here)

Permanent tax cuts for corporations is horrible, especially considering that major corps pay little to no tax.

I'm not shocked at all that's what they used the money for. Companies don't put money to good use, and I hate that they keep getting breaks and are allowed to exploit loopholes when smaller businesses and poor people could benefit more from lower taxes. It's so shitty, and just another reason why the right should never have any say in economic operations.

 

[Sanity Check]

Disclaimer: I'm not a financial expert, I tell what I see but my assumptions may not be accurate.

From what I gather, the Chinese subsidize certain key sectors, namely transportation, construction and manufacturing in an attempt to fight a potential recession which is a direct consequence of the pandemic and US-China trade war. Whether or not it will work remains to be seen and I reckon the tax cuts will be temporary.

If the tax cuts was a solution to everything every time, we would completely abolish taxes and be done with it but then the government would be nonfunctional. And if this is not an option and we need to draw the line somewhere, this is the point we are trying to make by evaluating the data in hand. If you think Trump reduced taxes for the greater good, I certainly disagree with you, he thinks of nobody but himself and all economical data, all budget deficits that flow into his own pocket is an evidence of that.

Sorry if I can't reply to you anymore since I don't check the posts regularly, just wanted to put in my two cents but to each their own.

Its not about level of experience or competence. Its about learning. Supporting the correct policy on economic and finance is important to society and affects millions of lives. Its important that people discuss these topics and are informed so they can support the right things. That's how I see it anyway. I'm certain everyone has their own ideas and agendas for things.

It seems to me that Trump passed tax cuts in 2016, which boosted economic growth and job markets in the USA. A few years later china observed this success and tried to emulate it with their own series of tax cuts to remain competitive versus the US.

"Trump only thinks about himself." That sounds more like projection to me than anything else. Senators and congressman who have net worths of $100 million are the opposite of everything Trump has done or stood for.

Small government conservatives are called libertarians, not republicans. They're still horribly deluded individuals who don't understand the point of a country or civic obligations in general, but at least they have principles. Republicans want tax cuts in order to funnel money to existing top earners or starve government programs they take exception with. You know, like poor women having access to pap smears or regulatory bodies that exist to prevent full economic collapse or environmental disasters. That kind of useless shit.

I support tax cuts as I believe individuals and the private sector will make better use of capital/cash.

Than the government can.

The US government wasted more than $6 trillion dollars on war in the middle east that benefited no one. Imagine what Elon Musk could have achieved with $6 trillion. That money is better utilized in the hands of individuals and corporations than it is by governments.

Companies don't put money to good use

Based on ______?

Space X builds rockets, NASA does not.

 

[xi0]

I support tax cuts as I believe individuals and the private sector will make better use of capital/cash.

Than the government can.

The US government wasted more than $6 trillion dollars on war in the middle east that benefited no one. Imagine what Elon Musk could have achieved with $6 trillion. That money is better utilized in the hands of individuals and corporations than it is by governments.

But surely there is government funding that needs to happen as industry simply wouldn't handle those things. Such as any kind of oversight or instrument of public welfare.

Still, this seems like a hop, skip, and jump away from libertarianism, taxation is theft, the government shouldn't exist, etc.

Space X builds rockets, NASA does not.

SpaceX build rockets with government subsidies. They would not be doing what they're currently doing without them. Tesla was propped up by government money during the last recession.

 

[ninjabot]

Attacking a person's character.

To avoid addressing a topic.

Isn't that what is known as a straw man fallacy on your part?

That's not what a straw man fallacy is. A straw man is when you intentionally misrepresent someone's argument because your "fake" version of their argument is easier to defeat than their actual argument is. He didn't even address your argument, so you can't claim he's misrepresenting your argument.

On Topic: Tax cuts for any demographic other than the rich and corporations seem to be preferable... and tax cuts for corporations can be justified in SOME occasions... like Pat is saying. It's a "sometime it's okay, but only in some occasions, and only for certain sectors."

 

[M3J]

I think tax cuts for corps COULD be acceptable if they ensure that the corps won't use the money to line their top people and investors' pockets and will put it towards the actual business or employees, whether increasing pay or hiring more. It's incredibly frustrating to see them be so greedy with the money and people who aren't even wealthy or entrepreneurs defend that shit.

 

[ninjabot]

That's the thing though: We can't ensure they won't do things like that. In fact we can be sure they WILL do things like that if they can, based off of what they've done in the past. That's why we should limit the occasions where they can exploit tax cuts to very few, very distinct situations IMHO.

That seems to be the safest bet.

 

[M3J]

Well, I was thinking more like penalties if they didn't, yanno? But otherwise yeah, that's why I'm rarely ever in favor of tax cuts for them, when it's poor people that need more assistance.

Also, I did a quick research on why voter ID laws are racist because of a conservative friend on FB saying it's horseshit, and I learned something new. It is racist especially since republicans know people of color are more likely to vote for Dems.

 

[ninjabot]

Yeah. And it's not anything new either. Analysts find out how POC are most likely to vote, and if it isn't favorable they'll do seemingly miniscule alterations to their voting means to make sure they're less likely to vote. For example:

Voter Suppression Laws Cost Americans Their Voices at the Polls

States are making it much harder to vote. Elections have consequences, and so does voter suppression.

www.americanprogress.org

I hope beyond all hope that we destroy the electoral college some day.

--- Double Post Merged, Apr 5, 2021, Original Post Date: Apr 5, 2021 ---

On another note: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/apr/05/us-gun-ownership-black-americans-surge

Conservatives in favor of comprehensive gun reform in 3...2...