No, it's not. It's from a global perspective. At 28% our corporate taxes would be some of the highest globally.

Asian corporate taxes are at 21% currently. European corporate taxes are at less than 19%.

He's starting from a high point trying to set the midpoint or compromise point somewhere around 25%.

Oh so now we're going global for what's left and right? I don't think you want to go down that path while arguing we aren't incredibly right wing. Since you seem to be obsessed with thinking about more than one thing, it might behoove you to not try to take things global while talking about tax rate and not being able to afford things like national healthcare.

This post was edited by Thor123422 on May 8 2021 12:33pm

I'm using an objective comparison by looking at it globally. Higher corporate taxes in one region lead to capital outflows from that region. It doesn't matter that our corporate taxes were 30%+ years ago, what matters is how they compare with competitor regions.

28% would be too high and only hurt Americans in the long term

https://home.kpmg/xx/en/home/services/tax/tax-tools-and-resources/tax-rates-online/corporate-tax-rates-table.html

Probably. There's also a virtue signalling aspect to it, I guess. More moderate members of the House Dems can vote for these quite radical lefty bills knowing that they wont go anywhere in the Senate. If you're from a D-trending seat and more worried about a primary challenge from your left than about losing the general to your Republican opponent, that's smart politics. Also, I would assume that Biden would step in on at least some of these bills if they had a realistic chance of passing Congress.




It's a tricky issue for the GOP, no doubt about that. I'm not entirely sure on the best way forward either btw.

But like I said, I believe that this issue will fizzle out over time as long as the party stays disciplined and keeps silent on it. Imho, this issue has only stayed so relevant because Biden has avoided controversy so far. He doesnt give Republicans material to attack him which really sticks, just like he did during the 2020 campaign. But at some point, he will inevitable have to take sides and do or say something that really riles up conservatives. The midterms, when neither Trump nor Biden are on the ballot, will also help reduce the salience of the dispute over the 2020 election.


If you're a GOP strategist, or a media ally of the GOP, and you want these voters to move on from 2020 without telling them that Trump lied to them, then I would spin it like this: "Whatever happened in the 2020 election, we have to accept that we lost this fight, no matter how bitter it might be to acknowledge that. The only thing we can do is to look forward, learn from our mistakes, shore up our election integrity and turn out in such YUUUUGE numbers that no amount of Democratic cheating can stop our big and beautiful landslide victory!"



Words matter... well, if that's the standard, then Biden should be blasted for how he broke norms by taking sides in the Chauvin trial before the verdict was out, or how he very deliberately keeps replacing "equality" with "equity" in his speeches, signalling that he wants to move on from striving for equal opportunity for all and toward state-enforced equality of outcome.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on May 8 2021 12:42pm

So we have higher taxes than a good portion of the world.

The rest of the world can easily afford a national healthcare system, mandated retirement, mandatory vacation days, etc.

Therefore, we can too. Pretty easily, since we have higher tax income due to our higher tax rates.

QED. Get rekt son.

The ideal scenario is for Trump to shut the fuck up about the past and focus on the future. People have short memories but HE keeps fucking up the strategy. It must be immensely frustrating for McCarthy and McConnell because it prevents them from stopping Biden's agenda. Trump, as the leader of the party, needs to be a team player and focus on 2022 and 2024. If he did his part, Cheney would NEVER speak about Trump. She'd ignore him just like McConnell does.

Biden WAS blasted for taking sides during the Chauvin trial. Thankfully, the jury was sequestered because that would have caused real problems. You can't have the most powerful man in the world commenting on an ongoing trial. FYI, Obama was also skewered for commenting on the Zimmerman trial when he said that "Trayvon could have been his son." Equality vs. equity is fine because that's a policy discussion. If that's Biden's stance, so be it. I lean more towards equality but I also understand that you can never have true equality due to our biases. Equality is an admirable goal to have and we should try and bridge the gap between equal access and equal outcomes. If you can get chip away at 5% of equality in order to achieve 90% equity, that's probably acceptable. Chipping away 50% of equality in order to achieve 40% equity is completely unacceptable. Everyone has their thresholds and I think it's fine to have philosophical discussions regarding the two.

You are going to have to flesh out what those "viable strategies" are. Trump was a toxic candidate who catastrophically flubbed a very simple crisis, and the Republican party was still more competitive than in either 2008 or 2012. The Republican party needs to do better in the suburbs, and Trump hurts them their, but cutting off their only growing base of support would be a disaster.

Biden has proposed over $6 trillion in net new spending, over and above regular discretionary and non-discretionary spending. His administration is opposed to the Civil Rights Act, and supports discriminating based on race. You can support or oppose one or both of these things, but in what universe are they not radical?

Yes, the GOP is a mess and many of their candidates are terrible. The same can be said for the Democrats, but at least the Democrats put pen to paper with their terrible ideas. The Republican party is hamstrung by their inability to seriously consider any form of revenue generation. The government is not getting smaller, and discretionary spending increases are probably needed. We need to figure out what to do with non-discretionary spending, but of course it's politically toxic to even talk about it.

You weren't talking to me, but the answer is quite easy: Trump's platform without Trump's personal incompetence and obnoxiousness.

Just find someone who is not tainted by the swamp, has the ability to stay on the message, is capable of strategic thinking and has the self-restraint to fade into the background when a situation calls for it.

Like you rightfully point out, the Democrats have embraced a lot of really toxic and radical policy/ideology in recent years. As long as ordinary Americans feel like the GOP is on their side (rather than standing primarily for Wall Street tax cuts and endless shitty wars), the GOP will have a majority coalition when pitted against the wokeism, CRT, reckless debt-making and radical climate policies of the Democrats.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on May 8 2021 02:22pm

If China has a freer economy than us, we should start worrying.



The jury was NOT sequestered you lying fuck.

This post was edited by EndlessSky on May 8 2021 02:25pm

Perhaps I don't understand what point you're trying to make.

Cheney has taken a very particular stand against Trump, which she continues to advance in very public settings. Trump is not persona non grata to the extent Cheney would like him to be, and of course that puts some of her colleagues in a bad spot, and her job is to support her colleagues. I have no problem with what she is saying, but I can see how it doesn't make her a very good choice for a leadership position.

What is the "Flight 93 justification"? Conservatives are between a rock and a hard place. On the issues, every conservative is much closer to Trump than they are to Biden, Pelosi, or Schumer. That makes for a very difficult situation. How do you push back against Trump without helping your true opponents accomplish policy that is counter to your interests? I don't think anyone has figured that out.