Hillary has endorsed several tax increases on middle income Americans, despite her pledge not to raise taxes on any American making less than $250,000.

https://www.atr.org/full-list-hillary-s ... d311ea9c5c

What a nightmare if true.
How to kill off a country

Seems to me most of the taxes listed concern stock investors and not "middle income Americans". Not that middle income Americans don't invest in the stock market, but if you don't have millions in the stock market, it won't make much of a difference.

My God that looks like a reliable, unbiased and nonpartisan website without an axe to grind...

[/sarcasm]

Do not post this bullshit in the forums. Save it for annoying the shit out of your facebook friends and email lists of angry, lying people.

Any trashy web site that immediately gives me a John Stossel pop-up ad before I can get to it, is just that. Trash. It's not worth my time. If you can't post a non-partisan / non-pop-up b.s. site, don't post at all. Got it?

Ugh. We all just got Rick Rolled by an Illuminati quack. Yuck.
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=606885&p=9684737#p9684737

jpetekyxmd80 wrote:

Do not post this bullshit in the forums.

PacificBeach88 wrote:

If you can't post a non-partisan / non-pop-up b.s. site, don't post at all. Got it?

Any time either of you want to provide a factual counterargument would be just fine.

BMI727 wrote:

jpetekyxmd80 wrote:

Do not post this bullshit in the forums.

PacificBeach88 wrote:

If you can't post a non-partisan / non-pop-up b.s. site, don't post at all. Got it?

Any time either of you want to provide a factual counterargument would be just fine.

BMI, are you not capable of the same thing? I'm sure there's plenty of info out there for you to read up on the subject.

I am fine with the list. As a Republican I found it refreshing that someone actually thinks of how we are going to meet our obligations and pay for what we want to do. Lord knows the current Republican party seems to want to do nothing but finger point and provide solutions that would increase our debt and seem to be unwilling to actually negotiate and compromise on a solution that would be able to be passed and signed into law.

To those that want some counterargument, to the proposed taxes or otherwise, go ahead and provide a legitimate plan that will be supported and passed and provide the tax income to pay for the defense of the nation, infrastructure, current required obligations, and all the other needed items of the federal government.

And trite statements like "the government needs to be smaller" and "lower taxes would cause tax receipts to increase" are not sufficient (to convince me at least, I was always taught that you pay your obligations, and do so with a plan that works - not "I plan to win the lottery" Of course you may be different). Preferably actual plans that are reviewed and vetted and shown to improve the federal deficit and can actually pass.

So at least Hillary has a plan that can be reviewed

Tugg

Hillis wrote:

BMI, are you not capable of the same thing? I'm sure there's plenty of info out there for you to read up on the subject.

I've found it much simpler to just put that twat on ignore. If I wanted an insane Ayn Randian, moronic, mouth breathing opinion, I'd dig up her corpse and ask her. Trust me, it makes your reading pleasure much higher.

rmoore7734 wrote:

Hillary has endorsed several tax increases on middle income Americans, despite her pledge not to raise taxes on any American making less than $250,000.

https://www.atr.org/full-list-hillary-s ... d311ea9c5c

What a nightmare if true.
How to kill off a country

American EFFECTIVE taxes, especially taxes on the wealthy, are nowhere near the highest in the world.

But I'll take some taxes over Guiliani's electronic tagging of Muslims, or Trump's troop-hating, misogynistic, barbarian policies.

A candidate has championed a foreign power attacking the U.S., speaks in similar terms to a Nazi, but towards Muslims and Mexicans, trashes the family of a fallen soldier, wants to throw women in jail for having abortions, wants to spend billions on a wall that will do nothing, won't show his tax returns, has a child rape allegation proceeding through litigation...

...you're worried about his opponent's tax policies?

You and I have a serious disagreement on priorities, sir.

Aesma wrote:

Seems to me most of the taxes listed concern stock investors and not "middle income Americans". Not that middle income Americans don't invest in the stock market, but if you don't have millions in the stock market, it won't make much of a difference.

So, the millions of "middle income Americans" with 401(k) plans are suddenly not considered stock investors? Help me to understand the logic underlying that conclusion.

Let us elect her and the see how accurate this site was on her goals to help the 99%. Who knows, maybe she will help the small guys for a change. Can it be any worse than it is now?

Hillis wrote:

BMI, are you not capable of the same thing?

I am, but since I'm not the one asserting the OP source as being bullshit it's not my responsibility. But since the left hates facts so much, here's what it out there:

1. Income Tax: Hillary's plan of a 28 percent cap on deductions appears to be true.[1]
2. Business Tax Increase: Hillary did propose a plan to spend $275 billion but, as the OP article notes, with no specific plan to get the revenue.[2]
3. "Fairness" Tax Increase: Hillary is in favor of increases on capital gains, a surtax on high incomes, enacting a "Buffett Rule" and hiking the death tax. [1]
a) Capital Gains Increase: Clinton plans to eliminate carried interest and up capital gains taxes by changing the holding period rules. [1]
b) Tax on Stock Trading: This one is a bit murky since "Tax on Stock Trading" is a pretty broad description, but I would give them the benefit of the doubt and say that increasing the rates and holding periods for capital gains along with a high-frequency trading tax fits the bill. [1],[3]
c) Exit Tax: Unless Clinton has changed gears, this one is true.[5]

It also appears that Clinton favors the soda tax [6], but the gun tax thing is questionable since she apparently said that in 1993. So unless Hillary has changed course or some reporters are just terrible at their jobs, it seems that the only thing possibly wrong in that bullshit article from a trashy website is what she said about the gun tax, mainly because a lot can change in 23 years.

[1] http://www.factcheck.org/2016/06/trump- ... tax-plans/
[2] http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc ... al/418068/
[3] https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing ... in-street/
[4] http://www.forbes.com/sites/anthonynitt ... 548e2a1c23
[5] http://bigstory.ap.org/article/65f4224f ... inversions
[6] http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/23/upsho ... .html?_r=0

PacificBeach88 wrote:

I've found it much simpler to just put that twat on ignore.

This twat just cluster bombed you with facts, so if you want to make an actual argument please go ahead. Or you can just continue with what seems to be the new liberal playbook: 1) Play identity politics (e.g. "Your opinion doesn't count because you aren't..." or "You should vote for [candidate] because you are...") and 2) Attempt to shut down the conversation rather than make a case.

So you are upset that Hillary proposes we increase income? Again, you need to look no further than Kansas vs California as far as "tax cuts create income" vs "tax increases create income."

But, also, an increase in taxes would also increase jobs under Hillary

http://money.cnn.com/2016/07/29/news/ec ... bs-moodys/

So, yeah, let's do it.

seb146 wrote:

So you are upset that Hillary proposes we increase income? Again, you need to look no further than Kansas vs California as far as "tax cuts create income" vs "tax increases create income."

But, also, an increase in taxes would also increase jobs under Hillary

http://money.cnn.com/2016/07/29/news/ec ... bs-moodys/

So, yeah, let's do it.

Add MN to your California side and Wisconsin side to Kansas. Two neighboring states. MN raised taxes, WI slashed them. Today, some 6 1/2 years later MN economy is booming, WI is sucking hind teat.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... ghbor.html

http://blogs.mprnews.org/newscut/2015/0 ... s-1-table/

BMI727 wrote:

1. Income Tax: Hillary's plan of a 28 percent cap on deductions appears to be true.[1]
2. Business Tax Increase: Hillary did propose a plan to spend $275 billion but, as the OP article notes, with no specific plan to get the revenue.[2]
3. "Fairness" Tax Increase: Hillary is in favor of increases on capital gains, a surtax on high incomes, enacting a "Buffett Rule" and hiking the death tax. [1]
a) Capital Gains Increase: Clinton plans to eliminate carried interest and up capital gains taxes by changing the holding period rules. [1]
b) Tax on Stock Trading: This one is a bit murky since "Tax on Stock Trading" is a pretty broad description, but I would give them the benefit of the doubt and say that increasing the rates and holding periods for capital gains along with a high-frequency trading tax fits the bill. [1],[3]
c) Exit Tax: Unless Clinton has changed gears, this one is true.[5]

[...]
just cluster bombed you with facts,

Ummm OK.... but nothing to show the facts are a bad or good thing? Just "facts" (which they really aren't since you use words like "appears" and "murky")?

The "facts" you noted were essentially nothing new and nothing supportive of a counter-view which is what I think you intended. And none of these things could be done without express cooperation in the legislature.

So how about that wall? Do you support that? And odd trillion dollar price tag that would go along with it? I mean if you are going to share the above "facts" why not also counter with how effective the programs and proposals of the Republican nominee are. How the costs of those and tax proposals he is making make far more economic sense to achieve the results of a balanced budget and a reduced deficit.

Tugg

PacificBeach88 wrote:

seb146 wrote:

So you are upset that Hillary proposes we increase income? Again, you need to look no further than Kansas vs California as far as "tax cuts create income" vs "tax increases create income."

But, also, an increase in taxes would also increase jobs under Hillary

http://money.cnn.com/2016/07/29/news/ec ... bs-moodys/

So, yeah, let's do it.

Add MN to your California side and Wisconsin side to Kansas. Two neighboring states. MN raised taxes, WI slashed them. Today, some 6 1/2 years later MN economy is booming, WI is sucking hind teat.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... ghbor.html

http://blogs.mprnews.org/newscut/2015/0 ... s-1-table/

WI and MN are much more comparable, I agree. I would also add that California has the fifth or sixth largest economy in the world. And we raised taxes. And are running a budget surplus. And are adding jobs.

Tugger wrote:

BMI727 wrote:

1. Income Tax: Hillary's plan of a 28 percent cap on deductions appears to be true.[1]
2. Business Tax Increase: Hillary did propose a plan to spend $275 billion but, as the OP article notes, with no specific plan to get the revenue.[2]
3. "Fairness" Tax Increase: Hillary is in favor of increases on capital gains, a surtax on high incomes, enacting a "Buffett Rule" and hiking the death tax. [1]
a) Capital Gains Increase: Clinton plans to eliminate carried interest and up capital gains taxes by changing the holding period rules. [1]
b) Tax on Stock Trading: This one is a bit murky since "Tax on Stock Trading" is a pretty broad description, but I would give them the benefit of the doubt and say that increasing the rates and holding periods for capital gains along with a high-frequency trading tax fits the bill. [1],[3]
c) Exit Tax: Unless Clinton has changed gears, this one is true.[5]

[...]
just cluster bombed you with facts,

Ummm OK.... but nothing to show the facts are a bad or good thing? Just "facts" (which they really aren't since you use words like "appears" and "murky")?

The "facts" you noted were essentially nothing new and nothing supportive of a counter-view which is what I think you intended. And none of these things could be done without express cooperation in the legislature.

So how about that wall? Do you support that? And odd trillion dollar price tag that would go along with it? I mean if you are going to share the above "facts" why not also counter with how effective the programs and proposals of the Republican nominee are. How the costs of those and tax proposals he is making make far more economic sense to achieve the results of a balanced budget and a reduced deficit.

Tugg

Trump has said he would get Mexico to pay for the wall. Mexico's response was "in your dreams." Which, in essence, means that Trump's budget would have to include the wall price tag. Labor and materials (which would probably go to Mexico anyway...)

seb146 wrote:

WI and MN are much more comparable, I agree. I would also add that California has the fifth or sixth largest economy in the world. And we raised taxes. And are running a budget surplus. And are adding jobs.

And that is probably simply because Tax revenue almost always gets spend locally, while they otherwise would be used to export jobs to China or Vietnam.

best regards
Thomas

Tax increases on the wealthy?

Great Scot! This is the end of the World as we know it. We'd better play it safe and elect Trump. He seems reasonable, thick-skinned, intelligent and has a solid and concrete plan to lead interior and exterior affairs for the country.

Sarcasm aside, I feel the right-wingers are grasping at straws at this stage.
The GOP has essentially dissolved itself and what remains is a gathering of white trash chanting around an tangerine-hued dumpster fire.

It's no surprise many mainstream republicans have openly stated they will vote for Hillary.
Maybe the GOP can rise from its ashes after this election and recreate a sensible republican right wing party that isn't led by interested corporations and religious nuts and fueled by fearmongering and a complete disregard for facts or sensible discourse.

Why not create a 3 or 4 parties system with a mainstream right and Left and a couple more on the far left and right for the Bernie and Trump lovers. That way the crazies get their own party rather than hijack the mainstream ones. It seems to work in many democracies.

There are so many Republicans would would have made good candidates against Hillary.
She will win not because she is popular, but because she's better than the alternative... This election might have been firmly within reach of the GOP if it hadn't, once again, given in to its dark side and gave the stage to whoever screamed the loudest and managed to foster the greatest amount of irrational fear and hatred.

Coming from a democratic president below that had the right idea to stimulate the economy so not being partisan here

http://www.forbes.com/sites/briandomitr ... 88dfb23087

Why not create a 3 or 4 parties system with a mainstream right and Left and a couple more on the far left and right for the Bernie and Trump lovers. That way the crazies get their own party rather than hijack the mainstream ones. It seems to work in many democracies.

I agree. I don't think too highly of the Finnish system with 8 significant parties, but compared to the American system it certainly works well. I would hate it if I had only two bad choices to choose from rather than 8 bad choices. Every now and then in this country some minority party even becomes mainstream for a while when people get tired of lying politicians, until of course in the government this new party behaves just the same way as the old ones did, and people lose interest.

seb146 wrote:

PacificBeach88 wrote:

seb146 wrote:

So you are upset that Hillary proposes we increase income? Again, you need to look no further than Kansas vs California as far as "tax cuts create income" vs "tax increases create income."

But, also, an increase in taxes would also increase jobs under Hillary

http://money.cnn.com/2016/07/29/news/ec ... bs-moodys/

So, yeah, let's do it.

Add MN to your California side and Wisconsin side to Kansas. Two neighboring states. MN raised taxes, WI slashed them. Today, some 6 1/2 years later MN economy is booming, WI is sucking hind teat.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... ghbor.html

http://blogs.mprnews.org/newscut/2015/0 ... s-1-table/

WI and MN are much more comparable, I agree. I would also add that California has the fifth or sixth largest economy in the world. And we raised taxes. And are running a budget surplus. And are adding jobs.

Claiming California is healthy is disingenuous. One region, SF Bay area, is booming because of the computer industry but 35% of its residents are miserable enough that they want to leave, while many businesses are leaving for lower regulation states such as Texas. And when they do leave, California wants to continue to tax them. The roads are crap - everywhere, they cannot keep up with basic services and they raise taxes (actually, they have learned to call them "fees") at every level, city, county, and state. My California tax return was 10 pages longer than the federal forms last year. Basic services, such as electricity and other energy costs rank among the highest in the world. The formally world class education system now ranks below Mississippi, the previous butt of California snobs. The university system can no longer survive without ever increasing the higher tuition paying foreign student, shutting the doors to Californians.

This is a prime example of one party rule and it is not pretty, in fact most people would damn this place as some backwater dictatorship if it were another country. Think about that 35% of the healthiest economy in the country, Silicon Valley, who dislike the area enough to move. This is hardly "healthy" and it won't last.

mham001 wrote:

seb146 wrote:

PacificBeach88 wrote:

Add MN to your California side and Wisconsin side to Kansas. Two neighboring states. MN raised taxes, WI slashed them. Today, some 6 1/2 years later MN economy is booming, WI is sucking hind teat.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... ghbor.html

http://blogs.mprnews.org/newscut/2015/0 ... s-1-table/

WI and MN are much more comparable, I agree. I would also add that California has the fifth or sixth largest economy in the world. And we raised taxes. And are running a budget surplus. And are adding jobs.

Claiming California is healthy is disingenuous. One region, SF Bay area, is booming because of the computer industry but 35% of its residents are miserable enough that they want to leave, while many businesses are leaving for lower regulation states such as Texas. And when they do leave, California wants to continue to tax them. The roads are crap - everywhere, they cannot keep up with basic services and they raise taxes (actually, they have learned to call them "fees") at every level, city, county, and state. My California tax return was 10 pages longer than the federal forms last year. Basic services, such as electricity and other energy costs rank among the highest in the world. The formally world class education system now ranks below Mississippi, the previous butt of California snobs. The university system can no longer survive without ever increasing the higher tuition paying foreign student, shutting the doors to Californians.

This is a prime example of one party rule and it is not pretty, in fact most people would damn this place as some backwater dictatorship if it were another country. Think about that 35% of the healthiest economy in the country, Silicon Valley, who dislike the area enough to move. This is hardly "healthy" and it won't last.

Really? Because I live in the Bay Area and I don't see any of that at all. My tax return for the past few years has been one page, front and back. The UC system faces constant opposition to raising tuition. Students are always staging sit-ins at Berkeley demanding certain programs and things be cut before raising tuition. Housing is private. Rents go up because the private companies can charge what they think people are willing to pay. And they do. Pacific Gas & Electric has been found they are working hand in glove with the California Public Utilities Commission. Roads are being fixed, but there are only so many crews that can fix just so much and it takes time.

Despite all of this, the state of California has gone from a budget deficit under Republican leadership to a budget surplus under Democratic leadership. But, let's just ignore that little fact, shall we?

seb146 wrote:

Really? Because I live in the Bay Area and I don't see any of that at all. My tax return for the past few years has been one page, front and back. The UC system faces constant opposition to raising tuition. Students are always staging sit-ins at Berkeley demanding certain programs and things be cut before raising tuition. Housing is private. Rents go up because the private companies can charge what they think people are willing to pay. And they do. Pacific Gas & Electric has been found they are working hand in glove with the California Public Utilities Commission. Roads are being fixed, but there are only so many crews that can fix just so much and it takes time.

That you don't see it only implies you don't open your eyes, (such as the many headlines about universities coveting higher paying, out of state students before Califonai students). The entire state economy is based on a regional boom cycle. I've been through three boom/busts here and they never last forever. Have you looked at the numbers for California -Silicon Valley? A one-trick economy is not healthy.

The *only* reason roads are being fixed, (if that were true) is because of special bonds to do the work that used to be accomplished with general funds. Basic needs are no longer sustained with general funds, many, many htings we used to receive are now "special" tax, hidden among various other fees. Ever looked at your property tax, phone bills, PGE bill and the long list of added fees? Have you tried to build a house in Santa Cruz county, for example? It is a minimum of $30k to the county just for permits for a basic house. Last week, going through tax papers, I discovered there is now a "lumber tax" added onto the receipt of every stick of wood we buy. I also know for a fact that that same wood was already heavily taxed several times.
I will not even begin with DMV, they have been turned into robber barons by the legislature, with their outlandish fees, especially late fees which hit the poor hard. Those numbers are just one of many that never make the "tax" statistics.
My 2015 California tax forms were 21 pages, as dictated by TurboTax, federal was 11 and no, I am not rich, in fact, my end number indicates we are living at poverty level. I hate this government, they are nickle and dimeing us to death.
Housing costs are not a result of "private" forces. This kind of thinking is why we are where we are. They are a result of long term decisions and policies by local politicians. San Jose for example recently commissioned a study which showed they have too many residents to jobs. Jobs pay more taxes. So what are they doing? they are building more huge crackerbox developments, adding more people with no roads to transport them to the jobs in other cities. Bozo the Mayor Liccardo, (a Hillary democrat) was a council member who approved all of it. Now, just two months ago, he floated yet another new bond to "fix the potholes".
PGE is gouging us (gas rates are going up significantly soon because they failed to maintain the lines) I own an electric car, like a "good" Californian should, shouldn't they?. Regular daily use quickly pushes me into Tier 4, or $.34/kWh and it appears with sleight of hand, Tier 2, which was farcically small, will be going up as it is merged with Tier 3 this month. Tier 1 base cost went up 16% in the first six months this year alone, highlighting that this state pays some of the highest energy costs in the world. As we pay the highest gasoline costs in the country. It should not be like that.
Our state edcation system, with one of the highest expenditures in the country, is ranked in the low 40's, depending on criteria. Speaks for itself.

seb146 wrote:

Despite all of this, the state of California has gone from a budget deficit under Republican leadership to a budget surplus under Democratic leadership. But, let's just ignore that little fact, shall we?

Once again, based on a regional, one industry boom. Have you looked at the numbers for California -Silicon Valley? I give Jerry Brown credit for having more discipline than I expected keeping that extremist legislature in check. Gavin Newsome will be the next pre-ordained governor. This will be disaster. Ever played Sim City? It is prescient in how people and business leave when taxes are too high or too low. You should play with it sometime. When 35% of the population of the only bright spot in your economy "want to leave". you have real, deep-seated problems.

What the the California Democrats has already done is no less than what Erdogen is doing in Turkey, ensuring they will stay in power forever.

EA CO AS wrote:

Aesma wrote:

Seems to me most of the taxes listed concern stock investors and not "middle income Americans". Not that middle income Americans don't invest in the stock market, but if you don't have millions in the stock market, it won't make much of a difference.

So, the millions of "middle income Americans" with 401(k) plans are suddenly not considered stock investors? Help me to understand the logic underlying that conclusion.

Are they taxed ?

mham001 wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Really? Because I live in the Bay Area and I don't see any of that at all. My tax return for the past few years has been one page, front and back. The UC system faces constant opposition to raising tuition. Students are always staging sit-ins at Berkeley demanding certain programs and things be cut before raising tuition. Housing is private. Rents go up because the private companies can charge what they think people are willing to pay. And they do. Pacific Gas & Electric has been found they are working hand in glove with the California Public Utilities Commission. Roads are being fixed, but there are only so many crews that can fix just so much and it takes time.

That you don't see it only implies you don't open your eyes, (such as the many headlines about universities coveting higher paying, out of state students before Califonai students). The entire state economy is based on a regional boom cycle. I've been through three boom/busts here and they never last forever. Have you looked at the numbers for California -Silicon Valley? A one-trick economy is not healthy.

The *only* reason roads are being fixed, (if that were true) is because of special bonds to do the work that used to be accomplished with general funds. Basic needs are no longer sustained with general funds, many, many htings we used to receive are now "special" tax, hidden among various other fees. Ever looked at your property tax, phone bills, PGE bill and the long list of added fees? Have you tried to build a house in Santa Cruz county, for example? It is a minimum of $30k to the county just for permits for a basic house. Last week, going through tax papers, I discovered there is now a "lumber tax" added onto the receipt of every stick of wood we buy. I also know for a fact that that same wood was already heavily taxed several times.
I will not even begin with DMV, they have been turned into robber barons by the legislature, with their outlandish fees, especially late fees which hit the poor hard. Those numbers are just one of many that never make the "tax" statistics.
My 2015 California tax forms were 21 pages, as dictated by TurboTax, federal was 11 and no, I am not rich, in fact, my end number indicates we are living at poverty level. I hate this government, they are nickle and dimeing us to death.
Housing costs are not a result of "private" forces. This kind of thinking is why we are where we are. They are a result of long term decisions and policies by local politicians. San Jose for example recently commissioned a study which showed they have too many residents to jobs. Jobs pay more taxes. So what are they doing? they are building more huge crackerbox developments, adding more people with no roads to transport them to the jobs in other cities. Bozo the Mayor Liccardo, (a Hillary democrat) was a council member who approved all of it. Now, just two months ago, he floated yet another new bond to "fix the potholes".
PGE is gouging us (gas rates are going up significantly soon because they failed to maintain the lines) I own an electric car, like a "good" Californian should, shouldn't they?. Regular daily use quickly pushes me into Tier 4, or $.34/kWh and it appears with sleight of hand, Tier 2, which was farcically small, will be going up as it is merged with Tier 3 this month. Tier 1 base cost went up 16% in the first six months this year alone, highlighting that this state pays some of the highest energy costs in the world. As we pay the highest gasoline costs in the country. It should not be like that.
Our state edcation system, with one of the highest expenditures in the country, is ranked in the low 40's, depending on criteria. Speaks for itself.

seb146 wrote:

Despite all of this, the state of California has gone from a budget deficit under Republican leadership to a budget surplus under Democratic leadership. But, let's just ignore that little fact, shall we?

Once again, based on a regional, one industry boom. Have you looked at the numbers for California -Silicon Valley? I give Jerry Brown credit for having more discipline than I expected keeping that extremist legislature in check. Gavin Newsome will be the next pre-ordained governor. This will be disaster. Ever played Sim City? It is prescient in how people and business leave when taxes are too high or too low. You should play with it sometime. When 35% of the population of the only bright spot in your economy "want to leave". you have real, deep-seated problems.

What the the California Democrats has already done is no less than what Erdogen is doing in Turkey, ensuring they will stay in power forever.

If you actually lived here and saw the things that are actually going on and not just what right wing media tells you, you would understand why I say what I say. I have first hand knowledge. I am living it. Silicon Valley is not just tech. There are manufacturing jobs and retail and construction and related fields. Just because it is still called "Silicon Valley" does not mean that is all they do.

And, yes, California Democrats have done things to ensure they stay in power for a long time. Like creating jobs and making health care more affordable and increasing pay so people can afford things. Darn those California Democrats for trying to help their citizens!

Aesma wrote:

EA CO AS wrote:

Aesma wrote:

Seems to me most of the taxes listed concern stock investors and not "middle income Americans". Not that middle income Americans don't invest in the stock market, but if you don't have millions in the stock market, it won't make much of a difference.

So, the millions of "middle income Americans" with 401(k) plans are suddenly not considered stock investors? Help me to understand the logic underlying that conclusion.

Are they taxed ?

The companies whose stock those middle income Americans rely on for investment and retirement are, absolutely. And a swing toward increased taxation on corporations that create both jobs and investment wealth absolutely represents a one-two punch to the gut of those middle income Americans.

seb146 wrote:

Despite all of this, the state of California has gone from a budget deficit under Republican leadership to a budget surplus under Democratic leadership. But, let's just ignore that little fact, shall we?

And, yes, California Democrats have done things to ensure they stay in power for a long time. Like creating jobs and making health care more affordable and increasing pay so people can afford things. Darn those California Democrats for trying to help their citizens!

The 1994 Prop 187 "Save our State" regarding Illegal immigration to the United States, supported by then-Governor Wilson, is the main reason why the Democrats have the power in California now, and of course Wilson appointing the neocon John Seymour to replace him in the United States Senate hasn't helped the Republican in state wide races.

My county Del Norte, has always had a high unemployment rate, yet somehow the unemployment rate has dropped from nearly 15% to 6.6% since Governor Brown was elected.

seb146 wrote:

If you actually lived here and saw the things that are actually going on and not just what right wing media tells you, you would understand why I say what I say. I have first hand knowledge. I am living it. Silicon Valley is not just tech. There are manufacturing jobs and retail and construction and related fields. Just because it is still called "Silicon Valley" does not mean that is all they do.

That's pretty funny. I've lived within 5-10 miles of the largest technology companies on earth for over 30 years. You?

PS: In today's news, PGE announced rates increases of 8.7% over July.

Great Scot! This is the end of the World as we know it. We'd better play it safe and elect Trump. He seems reasonable, thick-skinned, intelligent and has a solid and concrete plan to lead interior and exterior affairs for the country.

That is sarcasm? I will bet that is very close to the feelings of the True Trump-ets. True Roadies of the right.

mham001 wrote:

seb146 wrote:

If you actually lived here and saw the things that are actually going on and not just what right wing media tells you, you would understand why I say what I say. I have first hand knowledge. I am living it. Silicon Valley is not just tech. There are manufacturing jobs and retail and construction and related fields. Just because it is still called "Silicon Valley" does not mean that is all they do.

That's pretty funny. I've lived within 5-10 miles of the largest technology companies on earth for over 30 years. You?

PS: In today's news, PGE announced rates increases of 8.7% over July.

Yes, because they need to pay for lawyers and work that should have been done 30 years ago.

And I did split time between Portland and Seattle for 10 years. Both tech centers. What is your point?

Really impressed that this unsourced propaganda piece managed to get 33 replies.

I'd much rather discuss something with some factual basis behind it.