Makes sense, I’ve been arguing the opposite. You have brain damage.
He’s talking to a group of 1%ers whose lives won’t be impacted at all by raising the top income tax bracket from 37% to 40%, while also making sure he doesn’t come out and directly say “I’m going to raise your taxes” because that’s political suicide.
4 Likes
All the finalists clearly bring different features to the cost/benefit analysis (duh), and some of the potential costs are harder to measure (again, duh). For example, it’s hard to know if the three months of Benghazi-rage will make the Repubs look even more out of touch or will be just what Trump needs to turn Biden into a swamp monster. But I don’t think most of that stuff sticks to Biden.
The other case being offered for Rice is that she offers an obvious return to the Obama era, which is a clear potential benefit but again, hard to quantify. I feel pretty strongly that an unspoken (but incredibly loudly unspoken) “Return to ObamaWorld” promise is a huge winner.
The key language is “you all know in your gut what has to be done”. That is language that people use to rally a group to accept or acknowledge some responsibility that they have.
Yeah, I suppose you would feel that way if your interpretation was that the rich were going to pay “way more in taxes” based on that quote. Complete fantasyland.
I am not giving him any credit for it, I am saying that one specific quote taken out if context is just about the dumbest thing to hang your hat on if you want to criticize Joe Biden. It undermines your credibility.
Yeah, I suppose you would feel that way if your interpretation was that the rich were going to pay “way more in taxes” based on that quote. Complete fantasyland. I accidentally edited my above post to this one.
It’s not taken out of context. He showed up to a bunch of Wall Street folks and was too cowardly to mention the word taxes, yet he’ll get people to cape for him and say that they are going to pay “way more in taxes”. Just a total fucking joke to show up on a message board defending Joseph Biden on the rich and then talk about how my credibility is shot.
Nothing will fundamentally change, your wealth will still be in place. That fucking sucks. Absolving the rich for their role in wealth inequality? That fucking sucks too. His whole speech is about licking rich asshole and reassuring them that a ‘revolution’ isn’t coming and somehow the poors will defend it as saying the rich are going to pay “way more” in taxes.
Still refusing to do a simple google search to protect ones delusion.
1 Like
I’ll help. Biden’s plan raises taxes on the rich, in several different ways.
That’s just the random first 4 that show up on a simple google search.
1 Like
The article you link to says:
One interpretation of Biden’s comments is that he’s telling these rich donors, essentially, that some redistribution of wealth won’t hurt them all that much, and that it’s better for everyone (including them) if it happens, so they shouldn’t freak out about it.
A less sympathetic glean is that Biden is assuring the wealthy that whatever redistribution of wealth he pursues will be limited and moderate, and there’s no “revolution” coming that they should freak out about.
The article even says:
But it’s certainly not encouraging to those hoping the next Democratic president would try and rein in the power of the wealthy.
In that sense, I suppose Biden’s intent is clear.
The progressive idea of raising taxes isn’t about “how do we pay for it”. A liberal tax policy should be about deciding how much influence the rich have, which ought to be much less than it currently is.
Biden sounds like he is trying to negotiate how much window dressing the wealthy will let him have so that he can avoid doing what really needs to be done.
1 Like
I’m not going to get in the middle of whatever is going on between you two but EDems don’t exactly have a strong record of trying to enact their plans once granted power.
He is doing politics. He is playing to the audience. It’s literally 101 on tactics.
His actual policy contains several ways he will raise taxes on the rich. It’s not enough in my opinion but it’s hardly fair to pretend he isn’t suggesting it.
This is an odd rebuttal that gets made every time it’s shown Biden has some actual progressive policy. Why complain about his policy at all if you honestly think he will never enact it? Seems odd to both argue his policy isn’t progressive enough and he never goes through with it anyway.
For the record, I agree all politicians says lots on the campaign trail they never do.
It wasn’t really a rebuttal to your point. I agree his plan states he will raise taxes on the rich. I also have observed decades of Dems not doing what they say they are going to do and then eventually voting for GOP policies and bills.
Does that mean Joe won’t do it? No. But it is hard to not be skeptical.
1 Like
That is totally fair. I take solace in his advisory panel which is pretty progressive. Who knows how much actual say they will have but it helps.
I’m not much of a Biden fan obviously but brining in AOC/Bernie in advisory roles has worked to change my mind about what a Biden president might be some.
2 Likes
How would you feel if he was playing to a religious social conservative audience? Playing to a billionaire audience is worse.
1 Like
I don’t understand what your tactic would be. Go into every speech and focus on the things in his platform that specific audience would hate the most? That doesn’t sound like a winning tactic.
1 Like
Yeah I think that’s fair.
I think he should drag one rich person out of every fundraising crowd and execute them on the spot.
4 Likes