Mikeyavelli

That sounds like something Seth would come up with! 🤣👍👍👍

no propaganda please Loc: moon orbiting the third rock from the sun

Rashida Tlaib says Trump h**es "our country" but that is the Muslim country of her background not the USA to which she is referring.

JohnCorrespondent

Not surprising. It's even a little gratifying to see the simple drama play out as I could have predicted.

I believe it when you describe them as serious teachers who get "excellent" results. There are different kinds of seriousness and excellence, though. For me, excellence in the study of history would involve viewing history through multiple perspectives.

They can curse his name, and that's not very interesting. But if you hear them disagree with something specific that Zinn wrote or said, or if you hear a good reason why they are against him, let me know.



So far, so good. That's just sensible. After this point in the post, I start disagreeing with your interpretations. I don't have any good argument ready for that, though. (If I were to try, maybe I'd start with the idea that other kinds of people should also be interviewed, not just the kinds you chatted with.)

JohnCorrespondent

You write "Most of you lefties don't pay taxes"?? What a strange stereotype. Well, so far as know, lefties and righties pay taxes about the same way, with the exception of the very wealthy ones, who I guess tend to be more righties than lefties, and who pay effectively lower _rates_ of taxes (taking into account tax breaks and tax laws that favor some kinds of money over others).

In this context I suppose I'm a "lefty" and I certainly pay taxes, thus far anyway. I'm not particularly proud of it, but I just do it mainly because it's the traditional and safe thing to do. Theoretically, people _should_ pay taxes or contribute in some way to society, but which kinds of taxes, and to pay for which things, are questionable matters. I wish we had a different tax system (and someday we probably will). And I wish I could choose which things my tax money will pay for (but that's probably impractical).

JohnCorrespondent

The Holocaust? Sure, I believe it happened, sort of like the Nakba happened. Unless you don't believe _that_ happened ...

JohnCorrespondent

It's not surprising, if true, that Malcolm X would warn b****s about the Democrat party.

I don't remember what he said about it, but I guess he might have said that the Democrat party, appearing as a "friend", would turn out not to be as good a friend as they thought. That's an old story, and not just about some political party.

I don't know whether he bothered to say anything about the Republican party; but if I were in his shoes for a minute I'd like to say that we already know the Republican party's no good, so there's not much danger we'd be overtrusting of them as some "friend". A lot of Democrats _try_ to be a friend; they've got the idea that they _should_ be a friend; and then there are some other Democrats who don't really want to be a friend, but they've got the vague idea that they should sort of agree with the "friend" concept; but the Republicans don't even try. And I'm not just talking about race or any one thing to be a friend about.

Probably more than half of our societal and governmental problems are caused by both Democrats and Republicans.

Some of the "left" commentary (or probably the "progressive" commentary) blames the Democrats a lot. (But they do tend to blame Republicans even more.) (Rightly so, I think.)

Seth

Replying to John Correspondent.

"The kinds I chatted with" are employers and job creators -- who else are you going to talk to when you want to know how the tax cuts affect employers and job creators?

Between their being able to keep more of their profits (capital, to an individual business owner or a corporation) and now being able to deduct the costs of new equipment and business vehicles from same year's taxes, they are creating new jobs and paying all their employees more money.

What part of that is difficult to fathom?

Seth

Mikeyavelli

You lefties complain about lower taxes, but there is no law limiting the amount of taxes you can pay. Just pay as much as your little lefty hearts desire and send it in. Your IRS will take it. And you will feel so good about it.
Run for congressman, you'll get your wish about where your tax dollars go.

JohnCorrespondent

Why should we _only_ be interested in how the tax cuts affect _employers_ and _job creators_? That's the part of your post that's difficult to fathom.

What about how they affect all the people who _aren't_ employers or job creators?

Maybe the biggest group of people are "employees".

You say "paying all their employees more money". If true, that might address the needs of a lot of people. (A lot, but still not all; there would be some people who are not "employees", nor "employers", nor "job creators"; for example there could be a lot of layoffs in the steel industry or any other industries that might be affected by current trade war conditions. Maybe laid-off people aren't counted as "employees" anymore.) Did you also chat with employees, and with people who got laid off, and with any other kinds such as retirees? They might enlighten us with their perspectives and, perhaps, other information we haven't thought of. Are the employees forced to work overtime or two jobs to get the more money?

But there's more. If there's an effect _now_, is there some other effect _later_? I don't know yet (well, I _think_ I know; I think it will be like in the following example, but I don't know enough details to actually predict what will happen).

Here's a believable hypothetical example: Suppose the government were to borrow some huge amount of money, and use it to spread benefits (money, wages, salaries, tax cuts, etc.) to some, most, or all people _now_. In this hypothetical example, that all comes from borrowed money. Eventually, that will have an effect _later_: the effect might be "paying the interest" or "having a lowered credit rating" among nations, or some other "payback" kind of detrimental effect.

What we do _now_ might be affecting how the economy is 5 or 10 or more years in the future. If it's good now, sometimes that could be offset (in a cause-and-effect way) by it being bad later. I'm not saying it always works that way, I'm just saying that sometimes it might work that way.

If there is some detrimental effect that comes later, then when? During the Trump Administration? During one of the following Administrations? Should we even care? Yes. (Still in the hypothetical example: Anyone who _borrows_ should think ahead to how that affects the future, typically thinking about "paying back" the loan.) (Has there been such a scenario in our real history? I think it has happened more than once.)

JFlorio Loc: Seminole Florida

By virtue of the definition Federal tax cuts go to people who pay Federal tax’s. The argument is what the collected revenue is spent on. I’m for tax cuts. However; they shouldn’t be initiated without a decrease in govt. spending when you’re trillions in debt.

JohnCorrespondent

Thanks.

(But I still don't know whether it's true.)

JohnCorrespondent

Thanks but I have a couple of problems with following some links (especially cryptically named ones, and videos). I might be able to do it at the library computer.

JohnCorrespondent

As a joke the paying taxes line would work for some audiences.

Yes one could run for Congress and have some influence, though usually not a lot. (Or was that merely intended as a joke too?)

Of course things don't work the way you suggest. National matters work nationally, not just as one group of people paying for everybody. If everybody could just choose how much taxes to pay and what they pay for, we wouldn't have e******ns to elect people to decide on tax laws or budgets.

JohnCorrespondent

"tax cuts ... shouldn't be initiated without a decrease in gov't spending": Good point.

"tax cuts go to people who pay Federal taxes": I'm not sure why you wrote that.

Everybody here knows that employees are among the people who pay federal taxes, right?

"tax cuts" don't always affect all taxpayers equally. It depends on how the tax cut is designed.

There _could_ (theoretically) be some kind of "across the board" tax cut affecting all taxpayers equally but I'm pretty sure it hardly ever works that way in our current "income tax" system.