In this clip Meyers shows how Trump is neither progressive nor conservative, just an idiot.
See this page for both. See the difference?
“Hillary Clinton proposes raising taxes on high-income taxpayers, modifying taxation of multinational corporations, repealing fossil fuel tax incentives, and increasing estate and gift taxes. Her proposals would increase revenue by $1.1 trillion over the next decade. Nearly all of the tax increases would fall on the top 1 percent; the bottom 95 percent of taxpayers would see little or no change in their taxes. Marginal tax rates would increase, reducing incentives to work, save, and invest, and the tax code would become more complex. The analysis does not address a forthcoming proposal to cut taxes for low- and middle-income families.”
And now Trump’s:
“His [Trump’s] plan would significantly reduce marginal tax rates on individuals and businesses, increase standard deduction amounts to nearly four times current levels, and curtail many tax expenditures.His proposal would cut taxes at all income levels, although the largest benefits, in dollar and percentage terms, would go to the highest-income households. The plan would reduce federal revenues by $9.5 trillion over its first decade before accounting for added interest costs or considering macroeconomic feedback effects. The plan would improve incentives to work, save, and invest. However, unless it is accompanied by very large spending cuts, it could increase the national debt by nearly 80 percent of gross domestic product by 2036, offsetting some or all of the incentive effects of the tax cuts.
And this is going to fix the tax system? For whom? To pay for these tax cuts for the wealthy they gut social programs for the needy. Sick bastards. Their true agenda is out there, if only the ignorant would look at it instead of listening to the lying spin. But that would of course require a brain, and like the straw man in the Wizard of Oz most people just don’t have one and need to believe in an Oz to save them. Who, by the way, turns out to be a con man. Sound familiar?
“Trump and House Republicans have proposed different tax plans, but they are largely in sync on major principles. Both would cut the top tax rate for individuals to 33 percent from the current 39.6 percent. The corporate rate would drop to 15 percent under Trump’s plan and 20 percent under the House GOP plan, from 35 percent today. Both plans also would drain federal coffers of several trillion dollars and give the biggest boost to the wealthy. By the end of the decade, the richest 1 percent would have accumulated 99.6 percent of the benefits of the House GOP plan, according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center.”
Funny how the ones complaining the loudest are the ones who created this mess. Then they try to pin it on someone else, like immigrants or blacks or the government. They are the government, so when they say the government has failed us they are talking about themselves.
Following up on the last post, it does seem that in the future, not for this election, the likes of a Sanders or a Warren does need to run an independent Presidential campaign. It would seem the majority in the US does support the progressive agenda so something like that will gain steam in the future. But I’m guessing it will be independent of the Green Party as well. Just maybe Party politics of any kind is dead.
I wholeheartedly agree with Theo on this one so will re-post his FB post below. (See the post for his ongoing comments).
“The Green Party can accomplish nothing by running a Presidential candidate, who has no conceivable hope of winning in 2016. They cannot generate the mass appeal needed to build the party, because if they are at all successful, they will be hated for a generation by the people they most hope to win over.
“And they cannot influence the Democratic Party in the way Bernie did through his 2016 campaign, because Democratic centrists are more interested in controlling their party than winning elections, as demonstrated by their preference for Hillary in spite of her poor polling among the general electorate. Voting for Stein just demonstrates to the party that left-leaning progressives have no stamina and give up easily.
“The idea that the Green Party needs to run a Presidential candidate to establish itself is as strategically impoverished as it is unimaginative. The Green Party can build itself through a series of campaigns at the local and state level, building up to the House and Senate. If it so chooses it can make itself a serious contender in liberal college towns and urban ghettoes without losing safe Democratic seats. If it does swing some of these elections to Republicans the risk will be distributed, unlike with the Presidency where the consequences could be catastrophic. This was the Green Party strategy in the early nineties when I was a small-time party organizer. The Green Party can also work to oust corrupt and centrist Democrats, much as the Tea Party did from the right.
“The idea that Jill Stein can break the two-party system is simply absurd. Nader was a political genius with as much legislative accomplishment under his belt as many one-term presidents, who might have had a shot at the Presidency if he ran as a Democrat in ’76, and he barely got 2 percent of the vote. Meanwhile, Stein has the resume of a relatively successful small-time non-profit leader, who has been at it for a couple of decades. Imagining her in the Oval Office is as difficult as it is pointless. The current Green Party is simply unprepared consider the Presidency. And this is to say nothing of Trump…”
It starts around 4:15 in this speech given at the GQ Men of the Year awards. Very funny bit.
Yes, there really is a basket and it is really big. Here’s Samantha Bee’s crew interviewing Trump supporters on why they think the election is rigged.
Continuing from the last post, here‘s what I wrote on Rifkin’s chapter on education in The Zero Marginal Cost Society:
Chapter 7 on education is eye-opening. It is being transformed from the authoritarian top-down model where the teacher has all the answers to collaborative learning experiences with teachers as facilitators. Critical and holistic thinking are encouraged over memorization. Previously learning was thought of as a private, autonomous experience where the knowledge was one’s exclusive property, and that one had to hoard it to compete with others for grades and jobs, just as in the capitalist paradigm. In the collaborative era knowledge is something to be shared in a community of peers, thereby creating a public good for all.
Virtual, online classrooms are currently supplementing brick-and-mortar and may eventually replace them. Pedagogy is also having students provide services in their local communities, as well as engage in environmental projects. Again this encourages moving education from a private affair into seeing how one empathically relates to others, their communities and the world at large. Such online classes also cost considerably less than attending universities, sometimes even free, thereby making an education available to a much larger portion of society. One of the primary requisites for a functioning democracy is an educated, informed and active public, and this new model is ‘paving the way’* toward that end.
Typically academics, imbued in that ivy tower process, tend not to give any consideration to those not in that insular milieu because they don’t adhere to their own standards. Zak Stein wrote a recent blog post on how education, like the entire world-system from which it arises, must undergo a transition into the emerging world-system I call the collaborative commons. An excerpt:
“I argue that we should begin to design technologies and direct the resources of our communities toward a radically different set of educational futures, where the categories of schooling—such as GPA, class rank, standards and tests, aged-normed classes, subject majors, etc.—are the meaningless categories of a bygone bureaucracy. Our task as educators today is to evolve the very form of schooling itself, looking beyond the institutional vestiges of a prior era and toward the emergence of educational configurations of almost unimaginable abundance, freedom, and efficiency.”