No, I don't read any of those sources, either. They are not news. Nor do I read liberal sites posters quote like Progress, MSNBC, alternet, Drudge, Raw Story.
A person doesn't learn anything from news sources if you already know their conclusions; unless, you are just trying to amass facts and talking points to argue your side and attack the other.
I mentioned Mother Jones because it seems to represent your view of the world: all the problems are caused by capitalism, big nasty corporations, and the wealthy ("plutocrats"). The "big guy" vs. the "little guy" (often characteristic of people from union households).
Last edited by Flash; 06-21-2018 at 11:24 AM.
Cypress (06-21-2018)
You are right. It seems to be varying by state. Iowa was just 13% and early CA reports projected low turnout but I think it was around 35%.
Many times primary turnout depends on the primary rules of a state. Texas voters tend to vote in the primary with the most competition and there were no state-wide competitive elections in the Republican primary.
Due to resignations there are several open congressional seats and those attracted a lot of urban voters. Some of the increased Democratic primary turnout was due to cross-over Republicans. This will be the last year Texans will have the straight party option on the ballot.
I'm just sitting back and watching Republicans do all the hard work.
ONE-N-DONE, YOU GOT PLAYED; Time To Play-On
Remember ... ELECTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES ... So STFU Bitch
See, Mother Jones. Politics, power, and economics is not that simplistic. You can make an equal argument for how much power the people and voters have (not necessarily an opposite argument but a concurrent model). "Trickle down" is not a policy, it is just a derogatory term used to refer the policy of giving tax cuts.
Trickle down is the idea that giving tons of money and breaks to the top will result in some of that wealth trickling down to the masses. That is descriptive, not derogatory. Much more efficient and fair is giving help to the masses. if that is the intent. However creating a plutocracy is the real aim of those on top.. Trickle down is the meme created to justify that by Laffler.
Last edited by Nordberg; 06-23-2018 at 10:43 AM.
But that description came from opponents. Proponents of tax breaks don't suggest the wealth will trickle down. The Laffer curve primarily dealt with productivity and government revenues. Giving help to the masses is why we spend almost $1 trillion annually on means tested programs.
Laffler curve was written on a napkin in a bar. it was a spontaneous idea to justify what they were going to do anyway to give more power and money to the top. Every single Repub in front of congress and the senate, used it as a fact of economics. It wasn't .https://www.thebalance.com/trickle-d...t-work-3305572
[QUOTE=Nordberg;2441210]Laffler curve was written on a napkin in a bar. it was a spontaneous idea to justify what they were going to do anyway to give more power and money to the top. Every single Repub in front of congress and the senate, used it as a fact of economics. It wasn't .https://www.thebalance.com/trickle-d...t-work-3305572[/QUORTE]
As your article explains, Laffer's supply side theory said all tax cuts help economic growth. It differentiates supply side from "trickle down" which targets those cuts. The Reagan, Bush, and Obama's extension of the Bush tax cuts were across the board. If you cut everybody by 10% those at the top get more but everybody got the same tax cut. Under Bush federal income taxes for the bottom 40% were virtually eliminated. They got a larger percentage cut although those at the top got a larger dollar amount. The Reagan and Bush cuts were supply side, not trickle down. That is a description from the opponents.
[QUOTE=Flash;2441250] An accurate description of what it was supposed to do. but it did not than and will not now. laffler lied and the supply siders lied. The wealth gap being worse that the Gilded Age is proof.. The money is moving up and staying there.. http://money.cnn.com/2017/11/03/news...ica/index.html
USFREEDOM911 (07-23-2018)
DEMOCRAT turnout was up.
Republican turnout was substantially higher.
1.5 million Republicans voted in the primary and 1 million DEMOCRATS did.
Despite the blue Texas hype and anti-Trump national environment, Republicans held a 500,000-vote advantage once all the ballots were counted.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/3/7/17092410/texas-primary-2018-turnout-evan-smith
Bookmarks