Jump to content

Welcome to Hoosier Sports Nation | Indiana Basketball and Sports Forum

Welcome to HoosierSportsNation 3.0 -- our newest and best iteration.  We promise we won't bite -- come on in and register to join the party!


Brass Cannon

2018 Midterm Elections

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, FKIM01 said:

The uber rich also take very little out of social security and they get taxed again on what they pull out.  I'm fine with taking my fair share out of social security but I don't feel entitled to David Letterman's portion.  The real reason social security is underfunded is (A) The government used outdated mortality assumptions and (B) invested the entire fund in low-interest treasury notes (AKA government IOU's).  A partial answer for social security is to divert funds for younger workers into the stock market, but no one has the political courage to do what is right because they are too worried about being re-elected.

A thoughtful post.  I disagree about "privatizing" S.S. though I would be for something like investing in Index Funds. BTW-most people don't realize that there is over 2 trillion in the trust fund.  In terms of "fair share" I look at it a little differently.  If I think about resources that this planet provides, guys like Letterman have far more than their fair share.  In comparison to millions and millions of people, I do too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, FKIM01 said:

Yes you are.  You are absolutely ignoring the trend and that includes the federal trend.  You picked two dates out of 118 that support your ridiculous thesis while you ignore the overall trend that is obvious in that graph.  I've spent the last hour and a half talking a college-aged daughter down from an anxiety attack making me realize that there are more important things than having a stupid political argument with someone determined to be obtuse.  I'm done here.  There is absolutely no redeeming value in continuing this discussion.

My daughter has serious anxiety too.  I can fully relate brother.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, PoHoosier said:

The graph is good information.  Something I needed to see.  I was curious as to where money is going.  This graph shows me the problem isn't as much the government as it is GREED in the capitalistic system.

This conclusion is based on several findings.  Corporate tax rate.  A study of this tax since it's 1909 inception has shown it has only decreased since the 1950s from over 50% then, to it's current 35%.  The Economic Policy Institute in 2013 published that corporate profitability is at an all time high.  If corporate taxes are lower, the now even larger disparity of money is going somewhere.  If it's not the government, and we certainly know it's not going to the employees.  A study on wages adjusted for inflation shows the working class became just that through wage stagnation.  They are no longer the middle class. That leaves only one place for the money to go. 

The rich get richer.  This policy is reinforced by both parties through different means as it keeps them elected.

I would say both parties are responsible but not to the same degree. Neo-liberals certainly aren't a great fix for this trend (though perhaps not as bad a tea-partier) but the progressive wing of the Democratic Party would be a big shake up. 

The biggest fix we can get is major campaign finance reform, but the Conservative SCOTUS screwed the pooch on that in 2010. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, FKIM01 said:

Yes you are.  You are absolutely ignoring the trend and that includes the federal trend.  You picked two dates out of 118 that support your ridiculous thesis while you ignore the overall trend that is obvious in that graph.  I've spent the last hour and a half talking a college-aged daughter down from an anxiety attack making me realize that there are more important things than having a stupid political argument with someone determined to be obtuse.  I'm done here.  There is absolutely no redeeming value in continuing this discussion.

There is no value because you think 22% is an increase from 22%. If you are that disconnected with reality then you are never going to be able to rethink your positions. And once again your chart is wrong for your claim of 30+%. You can't even find evidence that supports your ridiculous claim. Since 1954 it's fluctuated between 20 and 25 and is currently at 22  It's not ballooning like you have been scared into thinking

BTW in full disclosure I think on this bigger screen it was 22 percent in 1954. You argued that the problem was a big federal government and thats not the problem.  And that's not the problem. Ironically the largest federal spending happened in Reagans years until Obama. The growth in total government spending is state and local which is different the federal Do let facts ruin your perception of reality. 

9 hours ago, PoHoosier said:

The graph is good information.  Something I needed to see.  I was curious as to where money is going.  This graph shows me the problem isn't as much the government as it is GREED in the capitalistic system.

This conclusion is based on several findings.  Corporate tax rate.  A study of this tax since it's 1909 inception has shown it has only decreased since the 1950s from over 50% then, to it's current 35%.  The Economic Policy Institute in 2013 published that corporate profitability is at an all time high.  If corporate taxes are lower, the now even larger disparity of money is going somewhere.  If it's not the government, and we certainly know it's not going to the employees.  A study on wages adjusted for inflation shows the working class became just that through wage stagnation.  They are no longer the middle class. That leaves only one place for the money to go. 

The rich get richer.  This policy is reinforced by both parties through different means as it keeps them elected.

Yep as I said overall tax revenue and spending has stayed relatively the same. We have gradually increased the tax burden on the working class person. By increasing payroll taxes and decreasing the corporate tax rate. I would take that graph with a grain of salt as it has Federal wrong. 4.1 divided by 18.57 is 22 percent and that graph is showing well under 20

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, KoB2011 said:

I would say both parties are responsible but not to the same degree. Neo-liberals certainly aren't a great fix for this trend (though perhaps not as bad a tea-partier) but the progressive wing of the Democratic Party would be a big shake up. 

The biggest fix we can get is major campaign finance reform, but the Conservative SCOTUS screwed the pooch on that in 2010. 

I could go on forever about the Supreme Court.  Something needs to be done about how that works.  I ain't happy with them either.  Where is the "checks and balances" on them?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More on topic Poll came out from Texas that I was expecting. They changed their target to Likely Voters and Cruz had a lead grow by 3 from an earlier poll. 

Cruz' best bet is to just keep his head down and not upset his base in the next 7 weeks. Might be tough that guy is very awkward 

Still looking like North Dakota will determine the U.S. Senate. Majority  

 

Edited by Brass Cannon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Brass Cannon said:

More on topic Poll came out from Texas that I was expecting. They changed their target to Likely Voters and Cruz had a lead grow by 3 from an earlier poll. 

Cruz' best bet is to just keep his head down and not upset his base in the next 7 weeks. Might be tough that guy is very awkward 

Still looking like North Dakota will determine the U.S. Senate. Majority  

 

Another poll came out that showed Beto was up. I think, given the way special elections have gone and the primaries, that just looking at traditionally likely voters in mid-terms is a bad recipe this year. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, KoB2011 said:

Another poll came out that showed Beto was up. I think, given the way special elections have gone and the primaries, that just looking at traditionally likely voters in mid-terms is a bad recipe this year. 

I didn't see that. Would like to check that out do you have a link. And yes while I agree likely voters is flawed for this year but 9 points is a lot to make up. But who knows maybe Trump will grab Cruzs wife's butt and Cruz will invite him to do it again. 

I will say I really am curious about 63% of women voting for Cruz According to the one poll

Just found that poll. The methodology does seem more detailed for an odd election like this. If Beto really is up now then I don't think Cruz comes back. He's just too strange 

Edited by Brass Cannon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Brass Cannon said:

I didn't see that. Would like to check that out do you have a link. And yes while I agree likely voters is flawed for this year but 9 points is a lot to make up. But who knows maybe Trump will grab Cruzs wife's butt and Cruz will invite him to do it again. 

I will say I really am curious about 63% of women voting for Cruz According to the one poll

Just found that poll. The methodology does seem more detailed for an odd election like this. If Beto really is up now then I don't think Cruz comes back. He's just too strange 

I don't know if I'm willing to say Beto is really up, either. I just know that Ted Cruz is in serious jeopardy of losing his seat to a guy who may be the President in 6 years. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am increasingly disregarding polls. The last election showed they are flawed and I believe they are becoming worse (personal opinion/ observation- not fact based).

Focus more on the actual results. For example, the recent GOP special election win in TX (in a long term blue seat) does not jive with a "blue wave". It is still too early too predict the midterms a there will be a lot of movement between  now and then. What was accurate a month ago no longer is and todays polls reflect today- not election day. 

Regarding Social Security, raising eligibility ages would be huge (politically unpopular but what needs to be done. Was never designed to support people for 30+ years.  Really should have early eligibility at 70 instead of 62, IMO.

This leads me to the pension crisis. Especially severe in places like IL. Watch for that to be the true crisis unfolding over the next decade. Pensions were overpromised- not underfunded as this chart clearly details-

A-dramatic-rise-in-pension-benefits-G1.png?resize=640%2C516

http://www.wirepoints.com/illinois-state-pensions-overpromised-not-underfunded-wirepoints-special-report/

As for income inequality, the needle is finally moving in the right direction there. Ironically it is happening under Trump and not Obama (under whose watch inequality soared). Less people on food stamps, historically low unemployment for minority groups are raising them up while the new tax law is slowing down the wealthy- especially in high tax states like NY.  

I'm off to learn about socially responsible investing, hope to get back on here tonight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, KoB2011 said:

I don't know if I'm willing to say Beto is really up, either. I just know that Ted Cruz is in serious jeopardy of losing his seat to a guy who may be the President in 6 years. 

Interesting thing to me was that it was an English only poll. When Beto polls much better with Spanish speakers.  The poll from yesterday is from the more respected and accurate institution but as you said this election cycle is going to be crazy. 

Interesting to me that the poll had Nelson down. But on a ballot Gillum will help Nelson a lot. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Proud2BAHoosier said:

Drain the Swamp.....  That's all I have

I agree with this. Get corporate money out of politics. Give us campaign finance reform. Stop giving important jobs to big business and large donors. 

Congress should represent the people, not their donors. 

Edited by KoB2011
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, KoB2011 said:

I agree with this. Get corporate money out of politics. Give us campaign finance reform. Stop giving important jobs to big business and large donors. 

Congress should represent the people, not their donors. 

How about get union $ out of politics? That seems to be a much larger problem with the same people donating to the people who can give them raises. That's a big reason why pensions are in such trouble. To say nothing of the union members forced to donate to causes contrary to their values...

As far as corporate $, that is their right. What is wrong with a business owner making a political contribution? Just make sure it is adequately disclosed from both the company and the receiving party. The public can (and does) boycott if they choose. Get rid of foreign $ (which benefited Hillary and Obama greatly), reign in the lobbyists/ prohibit elected officials from becoming lobbyists, crack down on cronyism.... there are lots of reforms to be made. 

Are you opposed to Google for all the money they donated to Dems as well as the in kind services thy made and were only offered to one political party? The access they were granted (hundreds of visits) to the Obama White House?

BTW, not sure if this is what you were referring to earlier, but Quinnipiac has Cruz up +9 as of 9/18. https://poll.qu.edu/texas/release-detail?ReleaseID=2570

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw this bumper sticker years ago....."A Union man voting for a Republican is like a chicken voting for the Colonel".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Reacher said:

How about get union $ out of politics? That seems to be a much larger problem with the same people donating to the people who can give them raises. That's a big reason why pensions are in such trouble. To say nothing of the union members forced to donate to causes contrary to their values...

As far as corporate $, that is their right. What is wrong with a business owner making a political contribution? Just make sure it is adequately disclosed from both the company and the receiving party. The public can (and does) boycott if they choose. Get rid of foreign $ (which benefited Hillary and Obama greatly), reign in the lobbyists/ prohibit elected officials from becoming lobbyists, crack down on cronyism.... there are lots of reforms to be made. 

Are you opposed to Google for all the money they donated to Dems as well as the in kind services thy made and were only offered to one political party? The access they were granted (hundreds of visits) to the Obama White House?

BTW, not sure if this is what you were referring to earlier, but Quinnipiac has Cruz up +9 as of 9/18. https://poll.qu.edu/texas/release-detail?ReleaseID=2570

 

We have to get rid of PACs. No way to stop Unions from being involved in politics sadly. But PACs are the biggest issue. 

That Quin poll I tend to agree with more than the one today. Quinnipiac I think actually called Florida, Michigan and Pennsylvania for trump

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Brass Cannon said:

We have to get rid of PACs. No way to stop Unions from being involved in politics sadly. But PACs are the biggest issue. 

I think they (PACS) can be reformed. No anonymous donations and clear timely reporting of the donors. No foreign $. Transparency goes a long ways in clearing up these issues. I'm ok with labor unions as long as they are not making political contributions favoring one party. It is the government worker unions that have clear conflicts of interests.No way should they be contributing to politicians. 

Just saw this video of an IL Dem urging people to vote early and often- 

Eventually sunshine and transparency will put an en end to it - IF we have fair and even prosecutions!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Reacher said:

I think they (PACS) can be reformed. No anonymous donations and clear timely reporting of the donors. No foreign $. Transparency goes a long ways in clearing up these issues. I'm ok with labor unions as long as they are not making political contributions favoring one party. It is the government worker unions that have clear conflicts of interests.No way should they be contributing to politicians. 

Just saw this video of an IL Dem urging people to vote early and often- 

Eventually sunshine and transparency will put an en end to it - IF we have fair and even prosecutions!

As long we let PACs donate unlimited funds the problems persist. We need to make it to where only private citizens can donate and to limit the amount. 

And that includes limiting the amount of work outside groups can put in that is aimed directly at benefitting a candidates campaign. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Brass Cannon said:

As long we let PACs donate unlimited funds the problems persist. We need to make it to where only private citizens can donate and to limit the amount. 

And that includes limiting the amount of work outside groups can put in that is aimed directly at benefitting a candidates campaign. 

I understand the desire to get the $ out out as that does bring problems but this is America. We should be be free to say what we want and put our $ where we want. Disclosures, transparency and prosecutions should take care of problems. Lets try that before we take something away. 

Full disclosure- I have never contributed to a political campaign. Partly cause I am under ridiculous rules that govern that in the securities industry. 

I wish the politicians lived under the same rules I did and would lose their political "licenses" for using personal email or violating any of these other rules they put on others.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Reacher said:

I understand the desire to get the $ out out as that does bring problems but this is America. We should be be free to say what we want and put our $ where we want. Disclosures, transparency and prosecutions should take care of problems. Lets try that before we take something away. 

Full disclosure- I have never contributed to a political campaign. Partly cause I am under ridiculous rules that govern that in the securities industry. 

I wish the politicians lived under the same rules I did and would lose their political "licenses" for using personal email or violating any of these other rules they put on others.

We can already look up who donates money to a campaign. Not sure how much more transparent you can get. For example Terrell Jones donated 2700 to Rosen  And Shanti Baker donated 250 to Beto  

Same problem will persist if you let people donate unlimited funds as exists now. 

The republicans give rich people billion dollar tax breaks. Who then donate a portion back to the republicans to keep them elected.  Nothing will change until we limit how much money a single entity can contribute. We already have the individual contribution limit. Not sure why we would get rid of that. 

Look how dependent politicians are on a select few rich people.  A handful of people outside of this state were able to torpedo Mike Braun’s campaign. Without Koch Brothers money his campaign was basically broke on 6/30. He was counting on them to buy his ads for him. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Brass Cannon said:

We can already look up who donates money to a campaign. Not sure how much more transparent you can get. For example Terrell Jones donated 2700 to Rosen  And Shanti Baker donated 250 to Beto  

Same problem will persist if you let people donate unlimited funds as exists now. 

The republicans give rich people billion dollar tax breaks. Who then donate a portion back to the republicans to keep them elected.  Nothing will change until we limit how much money a single entity can contribute. We already have the individual contribution limit. Not sure why we would get rid of that. 

Look how dependent politicians are on a select few rich people.  A handful of people outside of this state were able to torpedo Mike Braun’s campaign. Without Koch Brothers money his campaign was basically broke on 6/30. He was counting on them to buy his ads for him. 

I understand a lot of the PACs aren't so transparent.

I'm not as familiar with IN as I live in IL. I'd be for banning contributions to elections you cannot personally vote in. I agree NYers should not be donating to GA or the Kochs to IN. Keep it local. Give as much as you want, with prompt disclosures, to candidates on your ballot. Wouldn't that solve most of the problems?

How about a national clearinghouse to receive, vet and disclose all contributions? JPMorgan would be happy to collect the money and disburse to the candidates earmarked. Keep the politicians from using campaign funds as slush funds for payoffs, cronies and family.

Edited by Reacher

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Reacher said:

I understand a lot of the PACs aren't so transparent.

I'm not as familiar with IN as I live in IL. I'd be for banning contributions to elections you cannot personally vote in. I agree NYers should not be donating to GA or the Kochs to IN. Keep it local. Give as much as you want, with prompt disclosures, to candidates on your ballot. Wouldn't that solve most of the problems?

How about a national clearinghouse to receive, vet and disclose all contributions? JPMorgan would be happy to collect the money and disburse to the candidates earmarked. Keep the politicians from using campaign funds as slush funds for payoffs, cronies and family.

That still wouldn’t stop a few rich people in  Indiana from buying the elections

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Reacher said:

How about get union $ out of politics? That seems to be a much larger problem with the same people donating to the people who can give them raises. That's a big reason why pensions are in such trouble. To say nothing of the union members forced to donate to causes contrary to their values...

As far as corporate $, that is their right. What is wrong with a business owner making a political contribution? Just make sure it is adequately disclosed from both the company and the receiving party. The public can (and does) boycott if they choose. Get rid of foreign $ (which benefited Hillary and Obama greatly), reign in the lobbyists/ prohibit elected officials from becoming lobbyists, crack down on cronyism.... there are lots of reforms to be made. 

Are you opposed to Google for all the money they donated to Dems as well as the in kind services thy made and were only offered to one political party? The access they were granted (hundreds of visits) to the Obama White House?

BTW, not sure if this is what you were referring to earlier, but Quinnipiac has Cruz up +9 as of 9/18. https://poll.qu.edu/texas/release-detail?ReleaseID=2570

 

I'd get all of that out of politics without hesitation. 

Regarding Cruz, that poll was discussed then I referenced another one. @Brass Cannonand I know both polls exist and I went as far as to say I don't think Beto is leading. It's almost as if I don't just look for sources that say what I want them to and even if they say what I want I don't automatically agree. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Labor union contributions is just the bundling of $3-5 a paycheck from lots of workers to allow them to amplify their voice as a unified force rather than individuals.  Voluntary political contributions (which all union political contributions are) will never be made illegal and they shouldn't be.  If we're arguing for corporations being people and being allowed to donate to political campaigns, unions are the least of our problems.

Campaign finance is, though, the great underbelly that is ruining our politics.  Citizens United opened floodgates that McCain-Feingold unintentionally started.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, HoosierFaithful said:

Labor union contributions is just the bundling of $3-5 a paycheck from lots of workers to allow them to amplify their voice as a unified force rather than individuals.  Voluntary political contributions (which all union political contributions are) will never be made illegal and they shouldn't be.  If we're arguing for corporations being people and being allowed to donate to political campaigns, unions are the least of our problems.

Campaign finance is, though, the great underbelly that is ruining our politics.  Citizens United opened floodgates that McCain-Feingold unintentionally started.  

I’m alright with the bundling as long as no individual is donating more than a reasonable amount. 2700 is the current limit. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×