60% of Americans hate all of the major candidates running for the Presidency
66 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Reshy;50168185]You mean no democratic or republican candidate? There's plenty of good third party candidates that, if they got enough votes, could up-heave the two party system.[/QUOTE]
Can you give me a few examples of third-party candidates? I haven't seen anything about them tbh
[QUOTE=Pine Cone;50166848]The raise in minimum wage, and mandatory coverage from businesses only hurts mom and pop shops, which a huge portion of businesses in America consist of.[/quote]
They're in a better position to adapt to it, to pay it. Big megacorps have shareholders to appease, shareholders that don't give a fuck about the slaves on the sales floor.
I should know. I work for one of the worst.
[quote] Walmart could afford it, but they will probably just buy more self check-out counters instead of hiring more people.[/quote]
Walmart could afford to pay everyone in the company $25 an hour. I should know. I work there, in the meat department. I have access to monthly sales reports. My department manager posts them on the corkboard in the cooler we tag meat up in. Last month my department made around $40,000 in pure fucking profit. ONE MONTH, for ONE DEPARTMENT, in ONE STORE, was enough to pay someone a living wage. Spread that across all departments and stores...yah. They could afford to start everyone at $25/hr and go up from there without any problems turning a profit.
But, no, we're replaceable. Walmart embraces the ridiculously high employee turnover, because it means they don't have to worry too much about things like pensions and vacation time. They don't want career associates, they want people popping in for a few months until better work shows up. So unless there's a mandatory min wage hike that's > the current pay level, they're only paying half to three fourths of a living wage...I kinda support a federal min hike up to $15, I'd get a $4.50/hr raise from it!
[quote] I just can't see why people want this country to be more like European countries when a lot of those countries are doing as bad if not worse then our own financially, why people are wanting more taxes to give to a government that shows time and time again they fail at managing it.[/QUOTE]
Lemme put this out here:
If I travel to Britian for whatever reason...let's say to enjoy Tiger Day and Bovington Tank Museum, something I genuinely want to do...and someone T-bones me running a red light? I don't have to worry about paying the doctors that put me back together something I could never afford. A few thousand bucks, tops.
To get there I'd road-trip to Canada and fly from there, to avoid the unnecessary searches of the TSA. Say someone runs into me in Canada...same dealio. The docs put me back together, I don't go into crippling debt.
Someone does that to me here, in the 'States, driving to work? Well shit, someone making $20,000 a year just got handed a bill for a couple million in doctor's fees and told to 'pay up or else'. GG. [b]Just having the ambulance transport me from the crash site to the ER would cost more than the total bill in any other proper western country.[/b]
For that reason alone we need some aspects of European society. I'm 100% in favor of keeping our dirt cheap gas and the Second Amendment needs expanded IMO, but things like universal healthcare and mandatory living wages pegged to inflation? Yes pls.
[QUOTE=Reshy;50168185]You mean no democratic or republican candidate? There's plenty of good third party candidates that, if they got enough votes, could up-heave the two party system.[/QUOTE]
Voting independent won't cause an upheaval in the two party system. The only way that would happen is if there is a schism in one of the existing parties. And even then it'll end up with two parties anyways.
I have been playing Black Desert Online for the last few days, and it has been non-stop "so.. anyone wanna kill a politician??" in global chat. I'm less surprised by people being pissed off about the politicians, and more surprised that we haven't seen someone go Lee Harvey Oswald at the moment.
[QUOTE=ThePanther;50168139]Should you not vote if there is no candidate you feel truly inclined to vote for?[/QUOTE]
Given that write-ins are a thing, not voting is pretty inexcusable.
[editline]20th April 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=kijji;50168152]I've been told that if you don't vote, you have no right to complain, which is bullshit imo. If you don't like any of the candidates, then don't vote.[/QUOTE]
Given that write-ins are a thing and you don't take advantage of that, then I would think your lack of trying to vote is really detrimental to any complaints afterward.
[QUOTE=plunger435;50168195]Voting independent won't cause an upheaval in the two party system. The only way that would happen is if there is a schism in one of the existing parties. And even then it'll end up with two parties anyways.[/QUOTE]
Yes, except the two parties are beginning to resemble one another more and more closely, an upheaval might get us an actual liberal party. The problem is getting enough people to vote and getting rid of the spoiler effect mentality.
[QUOTE=Reshy;50168369]Yes, except the two parties are beginning to resemble one another more and more closely, an upheaval might get us an actual liberal party. The problem is getting enough people to vote and getting rid of the spoiler effect mentality.[/QUOTE]
I don't think the parties are resembling one another so much as the Democrats are compromising so much to the GOP that they may as well just vote the same way on the issues.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;50168383]I don't think the parties are resembling one another so much as the Democrats are compromising so much to the GOP that they may as well just vote the same way on the issues.[/QUOTE]
Both are conservative and corrupt when it comes to the economy, the only difference now is Democrats are social progressives and Republicans are social conservatives. They are one and the same when it comes to the economy.
[QUOTE=TestECull;50168193]
Someone does that to me here, in the 'States, driving to work? Well shit, someone making $20,000 a year just got handed a bill for a couple million in doctor's fees and told to 'pay up or else'. GG. [b]Just having the ambulance transport me from the crash site to the ER would cost more than the total bill in any other proper western country.[/b]
For that reason alone we need some aspects of European society. I'm 100% in favor of keeping our dirt cheap gas and the Second Amendment needs expanded IMO, but things like universal healthcare and mandatory living wages pegged to inflation? Yes pls.[/QUOTE]
Hit the nail on the head, here. The cost of healthcare here is absolutely insane. I'm fortunate in that I have health insurance, but if I didn't and couldn't afford to pay back my medical care (which is absurdly over-priced, money grubbing shit backed by corporate entities), not only does it put me in debt, but also destroys my hard-earned credit. The entire medical and pharmaceutical industry is a big fucking scam. "Helping people" my ass.
[QUOTE=Reshy;50168369]Yes, except the two parties are beginning to resemble one another more and more closely, an upheaval might get us an actual liberal party. The problem is getting enough people to vote and getting rid of the spoiler effect mentality.[/QUOTE]
I think you're just confusing bipartisanship with permanent change. There is never going to be a situation where the independents get enough votes to change things because by getting more votes they deny another party votes, historically the Democratic Party, which if they succeeded would either simply replace them as a continuation of the two party system, or more likely and backed up by history they might have a small surge, be blamed for a presidential defeat then lose their voter base all over again.
[QUOTE=plunger435;50168640]I think you're just confusing bipartisanship with permanent change. There is never going to be a situation where the independents get enough votes to change things because by getting more votes they deny another party votes, historically the Democratic Party, which if they succeeded would either simply replace them as a continuation of the two party system, or more likely and backed up by history they might have a small surge, be blamed for a presidential defeat then lose their voter base all over again.[/QUOTE]
If we can get election reform with a surge it might be enough.
[QUOTE=Reshy;50168718]If we can get election reform with a surge it might be enough.[/QUOTE]
What do you mean if we can get election reform with a surge?
[QUOTE=plunger435;50168926]What do you mean if we can get election reform with a surge?[/QUOTE]
Do you know how the electoral college works?
[QUOTE=Reshy;50169108]Do you know how the electoral college works?[/QUOTE]
I don't see how election reform would result from a surge of independent voters though.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;50168310]Given that write-ins are a thing, not voting is pretty inexcusable.[/quote]
Write ins have as much effect on the election overall as simply not voting does. In order for a write-in to even be noticed, must less be binding, you'd have to have 20-30 [b]million[/b] Americans all writing the same name on the ballot. That's just to get it recognition, to actually get a win you'd have to convince somewhere on the neighborhood of 75-100 million voters to write in a single candidate.
And that ain't gonna fuckin' happen. You know it as well as anyone else.
You're wasting your time either way, only one option also has you wasting some gas to drive to a polling place as well.
[quote]
Given that write-ins are a thing and you don't take advantage of that, then I would think your lack of trying to vote is really detrimental to any complaints afterward.[/QUOTE]
Anyone who has to put up with the policies of the elected officials has every right to complain about said policies. To say otherwise is, to put it simply, fucking rude as hell.
[QUOTE=Aetna;50168434]Hit the nail on the head, here. The cost of healthcare here is absolutely insane. I'm fortunate in that I have health insurance, but if I didn't and couldn't afford to pay back my medical care (which is absurdly over-priced, money grubbing shit backed by corporate entities), not only does it put me in debt, but also destroys my hard-earned credit. The entire medical and pharmaceutical industry is a big fucking scam. "Helping people" my ass.[/QUOTE]
Even with insurance it's ridiculous. I get insurance coverage through work...I have my doubts its going to go very far at all. If I'm in a crash bad enough to need an ambulance, chances are, they're not gonna pay enough down that I'd be able to handle the rest.
It's ridiculous. We need universal healthcare like our hat has, like Europe, like Austrailia/NZ, like Japan and SK have. There's no excuse for a country's healthcare system to put [i]anyone[/i] on the 'Don't get hurt' health plan I grew up on.
[QUOTE=Pine Cone;50166848]The raise in minimum wage, and mandatory coverage from businesses only hurts mom and pop shops, which a huge portion of businesses in America consist of.[/QUOTE]
Then you must ask yourself, how did we get here? How did it work in the past, and why can't it work now as it did then? There was a time when Mom & Pop shops were far more common than the faceless superstores of today, yet their employees were not living on the poverty line. We did it before, and if we can't do it again, then we fucked it somewhere and we need to unfuck it.
Back then, companies actually wanted employee retention. They offered good insurance to attract and retain their workers. The Unions were on point with negociations. People stayed at a company for over a decade. That's been long dead in this day and age.
Now that they see that it's cheaper to have a revolving door, constantly having employees move on very few months to few years. Insurance is now a liability to your profits when you keep switching employees out.
I wonder what kind of impact making voting days national holidays and passing mandatory voting laws would have on our society
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;50168216]I have been playing Black Desert Online for the last few days, and it has been non-stop "so.. anyone wanna kill a politician??" in global chat. I'm less surprised by people being pissed off about the politicians, and more surprised that we haven't seen someone go Lee Harvey Oswald at the moment.[/QUOTE]
The amount of politics discussed on that game actually gets rather annoying on occasion
[QUOTE=Pantz Master;50166683]This only makes sense for minimum wage workers. It would simply amount to higher taxes for many people.[/QUOTE]
It makes sense for Americans as a whole. I think you, and many others, are underestimating how ridiculous our healthcare system is. Who gives a shit about higher taxes if the tax increase you get is lower than what you already pay for health insurance, and the new plan has no deductibles?
[url]http://valadian.github.io/SandersHealthcareCalculator/[/url]
Let's start with a minimum wage worker that's single and working full time, using the average cost for employees and employers. 7.25*2080= $15,080. Under Bernie's plan the employer would save $9767. That means that employer could give that employee a raise of +$4.70/hr and spend the [i] same exact amount of money[/i]. Of course the employee would also save $6273(this number includes the subsidies that worker gets so not all of it is their money, but saving tax dollars is just as important)
For a single American making $50k? They save $4921 and their employer saves $7602; equivalent to 3.65/hr.
Yeah maybe some employers would be dicks and pocket the money, but that's up to the employees and the free market to deal with. What the government CAN do is raise the minimum wage to ensure those savings are passed to those who need it most.
It's important to consider the legislation would raise it to $10.50 in one year and $15 after another 4. This means that those minimum employers would have one year of saving $9767 per employee, and a further 4 of saving $3k/employee/year. If they can't use that money to invest in their business and prepare for the wage increase, then the company is poorly run.
I mean, shit most places that pay minimum wage are retail and food businesses, right? After some quick googling I see that 3.9% of workers earn at or below minimum wage. It's not hard to imagine what happens to revenues when 3 million people receive a 44% raise plus a few thousands in savings from insurance. Currently, 50% of Americans make <30k, which is less than $15/hr.
Consumer spending makes up 68% of the GDP, which has been growing at a depressing rate bordering recession. Something tells me that perhaps, maybe, the GDP would grow significantly if half of working Americans got raises over 5 years and saved thousands on health insurance.
[QUOTE=Pine Cone;50166848]The raise in minimum wage, and mandatory coverage from businesses only hurts mom and pop shops, which a huge portion of businesses in America consist of.[/QUOTE]
This is severely untrue, as the law only applies to business over 30 employees. According to this [url=http://www.nsba.biz/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Health-Care-Survey-2014.pdf]study[/url] 91% of small bussiness with 20-49 employees give health benefits. Not only that, but as mentioned before, people tend to buy more things when they have more money. It's cutting costs and increasing revenues
The fact of the matter is that the united states spends nearly twice as much per capita than any other developed country in the world, yet still has millions uninsured and yields worse results.
I often hear the argument that America is just "different", which frankly is a poor argument. The only thing different is our joke of a campaign finance system that allows the insurance and pharmaceutical companies to exploit the country.
[QUOTE=DanTehMan;50170056]I wonder what kind of impact making voting days national holidays and passing mandatory voting laws would have on our society[/QUOTE]
PRobably make people hate voting even more, foster even more disinterest in the system, not to mention make people more likely to vote down party lines.
Compulsory voting is good in theory but in practice it isn't any better than voluntary voting.
[QUOTE=Mooman;50165912]I will admit the way he funds his college plan is a bit unrealistic, but what's poorly thought out about the rest of his plans?
I think his single payer plan is absolutely what we need in America, especially when combined with a plan to raise the minimum wage. Those two combined essentially make health insurance significantly cheaper for every employer currently providing health insurance and for the majority of Americans. A good chunk of those savings are then phased into wages. Even the people who would technically be paying more would see either a net zero or positive change due to the wage increases. Not to mention the fact that people won't be afraid to leave a job for fear of losing health insurance. His income tax plan is also by far the most well structured I have seen.
He actually has a pretty solid plan to try to reverse the massive increase in wealth/income inequality that has occured in recent decades. Unfortunately, I feel the plans work best in tandem which would be hard to accomplish. Nevertheless, it's a goal that America should work towards.
Even ignoring anything that would involved the legislative branch his administration could: End the war on drugs and pardon hundreds of thousands of low level drug offenders(saving tens of billions of dollars a year), break up the big banks(3/4 of the largest are now even larger than pre-2008), appoint supreme court justices who would overturn citizens united(fighting for a less corrupt government), and negotiate trade deals that aren't shit-tier ala TPP/NAFTA.
In the scope of what he can definitely do, those sound like pretty nice well thought out policies to me[/QUOTE]
As far as I'm aware Sander's plan makes it cheaper to pay the penalty of not having health insurance instead of paying for the ~Afforadable~ plan. Not to mention he has some of the biggest income tax in my income bracket (and I don't make a lot of money).
I think people aren't actually looking into Sander's policies and just want him to win because of how he acts. He's a great guy compared to the other big runners, but not what I need.
On the other hand, Trump is actually looking better as time goes on. He's literally manipulated his way into the front. A couple of his important policies are similar to Sander's but slightly better.
When this race started I never thought I'd see myself saying anything positive about Trump.
[QUOTE=kijji;50168152]I've been told that if you don't vote, you have no right to complain, which is bullshit imo. If you don't like any of the candidates, then don't vote.[/QUOTE]
vote 3rd party then ?
[QUOTE=theevilldeadII;50172587]vote 3rd party then ?[/QUOTE]
But then the evil republicans/democrats get in office. See you don't want to throw your vote away, now do you? You do not wanna be responsible for democrat/republican win do you?
This is the root of the problem. Tribalism. Fuck quality.
[QUOTE=TestECull;50169495]Write ins have as much effect on the election overall as simply not voting does. In order for a write-in to even be noticed, must less be binding, you'd have to have 20-30 [b]million[/b] Americans all writing the same name on the ballot. That's just to get it recognition, to actually get a win you'd have to convince somewhere on the neighborhood of 75-100 million voters to write in a single candidate.
And that ain't gonna fuckin' happen. You know it as well as anyone else.
You're wasting your time either way, only one option also has you wasting some gas to drive to a polling place as well.
Anyone who has to put up with the policies of the elected officials has every right to complain about said policies. To say otherwise is, to put it simply, fucking rude as hell.
[/QUOTE]
You're bound to be wasting your time voting for a potential loser anyway, so so what?
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;50172639]You're bound to be wasting your time voting for a potential loser anyway, so so what?[/QUOTE]
If I'm going to waste my time I'd rather waste it at home playing Fallout 4 than waste it + gas going into town to throw my vote into a sea of piss on a candidate that likely will only get my vote anyway.
The only thing write-in ballots do in our bullshit two-party system is make life more miserable for everyone involved. The voter, for having to put up with the lines and the hassle of coming down there. The election commission, for having to tally up votes for everything from 'Fluffy McFluffKins' to 'Codsworth' to 'The Flying Spaghetti Monster', other voters who have one more body in line that's there for no real reason...blah. You're accomplishing fuck all by writing in a ballot unless you can somehow convince a few million people to also write in that same name. It's not 'voting for a potential loser'. It's 'voting for someone who doesn't even have a snowball's chance of hell of winning in your daydreams much less the real world'. I'd be as well off writing in my old pickup or one of my Fallout characters as I would a legit candidate for all the good it'd do.
And, hey, benefit of the doubt, let's assume we get enough write-ins for the same person that it actually registers, the person is eligible and willing, blablabla. Then what? The electoral college, [b]which is what actually decides who goes into the oval office instead of the popular vote[/b]. isn't going to give them the time of day. They'll just shrug and grab whichever red or blue dickhead got the most votes of the balance. You'll end up electing a shitlord like Trump or Hilary with just 30-odd percent of the vote. You can see these sorts of things happening in countries with compulsory voting, where joke names get written in just so the person doesn't get fined for not voting...you also get people who just check whichever name is there first and move on, but that's not quite relavent to 'write-in votes'.
Whether you like it or not, our voting system is so badly FUBAR that if you're not voting red or blue you might as well just not vote at all. It's the whole reason we're seeing Sanders V Hilary in the primaries. He would much rather run indy, but he knows it's political suicide to do so on a presidential level, that he'd never get any media attention or votes that way. He's forgotten more about the election process than you and I combined have ever learned and he's not even trying to go third party, what's that say about write-in efficacy?
[QUOTE=TestECull;50172994]If I'm going to waste my time I'd rather waste it at home playing Fallout 4 than waste it + gas going into town to throw my vote into a sea of piss on a candidate that likely will only get my vote anyway.
The only thing write-in ballots do in our bullshit two-party system is make life more miserable for everyone involved. The voter, for having to put up with the lines and the hassle of coming down there. The election commission, for having to tally up votes for everything from 'Fluffy McFluffKins' to 'Codsworth' to 'The Flying Spaghetti Monster', other voters who have one more body in line that's there for no real reason...blah. You're accomplishing fuck all by writing in a ballot unless you can somehow convince a few million people to also write in that same name. It's not 'voting for a potential loser'. It's 'voting for someone who doesn't even have a snowball's chance of hell of winning in your daydreams much less the real world'. I'd be as well off writing in my old pickup or one of my Fallout characters as I would a legit candidate for all the good it'd do.
And, hey, benefit of the doubt, let's assume we get enough write-ins for the same person that it actually registers, the person is eligible and willing, blablabla. Then what? The electoral college, [b]which is what actually decides who goes into the oval office instead of the popular vote[/b]. isn't going to give them the time of day. They'll just shrug and grab whichever red or blue dickhead got the most votes of the balance. You'll end up electing a shitlord like Trump or Hilary with just 30-odd percent of the vote. You can see these sorts of things happening in countries with compulsory voting, where joke names get written in just so the person doesn't get fined for not voting...you also get people who just check whichever name is there first and move on, but that's not quite relavent to 'write-in votes'.
Whether you like it or not, our voting system is so badly FUBAR that if you're not voting red or blue you might as well just not vote at all. It's the whole reason we're seeing Sanders V Hilary in the primaries. He would much rather run indy, but he knows it's political suicide to do so on a presidential level, that he'd never get any media attention or votes that way. He's forgotten more about the election process than you and I combined have ever learned and he's not even trying to go third party, what's that say about write-in efficacy?[/QUOTE]
Not to mention if they've been elected in a write in then they've now pissed off the republicans and the democrats, so good luck passing anything meaningful in your stay.
[QUOTE=TestECull;50172994]If I'm going to waste my time I'd rather waste it at home playing Fallout 4 than waste it + gas going into town to throw my vote into a sea of piss on a candidate that likely will only get my vote anyway.
The only thing write-in ballots do in our bullshit two-party system is make life more miserable for everyone involved. The voter, for having to put up with the lines and the hassle of coming down there. The election commission, for having to tally up votes for everything from 'Fluffy McFluffKins' to 'Codsworth' to 'The Flying Spaghetti Monster', other voters who have one more body in line that's there for no real reason...blah. You're accomplishing fuck all by writing in a ballot unless you can somehow convince a few million people to also write in that same name. It's not 'voting for a potential loser'. It's 'voting for someone who doesn't even have a snowball's chance of hell of winning in your daydreams much less the real world'. I'd be as well off writing in my old pickup or one of my Fallout characters as I would a legit candidate for all the good it'd do.
And, hey, benefit of the doubt, let's assume we get enough write-ins for the same person that it actually registers, the person is eligible and willing, blablabla. Then what? The electoral college, [b]which is what actually decides who goes into the oval office instead of the popular vote[/b]. isn't going to give them the time of day. They'll just shrug and grab whichever red or blue dickhead got the most votes of the balance. You'll end up electing a shitlord like Trump or Hilary with just 30-odd percent of the vote. You can see these sorts of things happening in countries with compulsory voting, where joke names get written in just so the person doesn't get fined for not voting...you also get people who just check whichever name is there first and move on, but that's not quite relavent to 'write-in votes'.
Whether you like it or not, our voting system is so badly FUBAR that if you're not voting red or blue you might as well just not vote at all. It's the whole reason we're seeing Sanders V Hilary in the primaries. He would much rather run indy, but he knows it's political suicide to do so on a presidential level, that he'd never get any media attention or votes that way. He's forgotten more about the election process than you and I combined have ever learned and he's not even trying to go third party, what's that say about write-in efficacy?[/QUOTE]
You're essentially arguing the "you're throwing your vote away if you vote for the loser" argument, which completely rides against the whole idea of voting and democracy to begin with.
Yeah, I know how the system works. I never said write-ins would work or would do change anything. They guy said "should I not vote at all if there's no one I like" and my point is that since you can literally vote for anyone through a write in, then he should go vote regardless of disliking Trump, Cruz, Clinton or Sanders. My point was [I]never[/I] about how effective write-ins were.
And stop using that "it's too much gas" bullshit. Catch a bus, ride a bike, walk to the poll station. My polling place is literally two blocks away, I've always walked there. It's a stupid excuse "I don't want to vote, it's too much work to get there and I just can't be bothered to not be lazy about it".
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;50174284]You're essentially arguing the "you're throwing your vote away if you vote for the loser" argument[/quote]
No, I'm not. I'm saying you're throwing your vote away if you do a write-in.
[quote] Catch a bus,[/quote]
Not everyone lives on a bus route.
[quote] ride a bike,[/quote] Would take me an hour just to get to city limits by bicycle
[quote] walk to the poll station.[/quote]
Three hours just to get to town.
[quote] My polling place is literally two blocks away[/quote]
Great! Hey, guess what, not everyone lives that close. The only thing you'll find two blocks from my house is cattle. And my nearest neighbor. They're his cattle I'd expect him to be somewhere nearby. It's half an hour [b]by car[/b] for me, and with the fuel economy of the vehicles I have at my disposal, it'd take me about two gallons or so of gas to vote. Think about that when you suggest your alternates. If it takes me half an hour to drive to the polling place what alternatives am I gonna have?
I'm not going to piss away a work day's worth of fuel casting a pointless ballot and nothing you say is going to change my mind on the subject. So until they make easy online voting a thing(Last election they outright didn't have it in my state that I could find) I'm not wasting my gas driving down there to vote without a damn good candidate on the blue or red side of the ballot to vote for.
[QUOTE=TreasoN.avi;50172578]As far as I'm aware Sander's plan makes it cheaper to pay the penalty of not having health insurance instead of paying for the ~Afforadable~ plan. Not to mention he has some of the biggest income tax in my income bracket (and I don't make a lot of money).
I think people aren't actually looking into Sander's policies and just want him to win because of how he acts. He's a great guy compared to the other big runners, but not what I need.
On the other hand, Trump is actually looking better as time goes on. He's literally manipulated his way into the front. A couple of his important policies are similar to Sander's but slightly better.
When this race started I never thought I'd see myself saying anything positive about Trump.[/QUOTE]
That's surprising to hear. What's your income? Because besides the payroll tax for paid family and medical leave, his increased income tax brackets don't kick in until $250k<. Anything below that is the same as it is not, bar a slight increase for paid family and medical leave.
[img]https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/6a/3b/6e/6a3b6ebab0f932a28ec44503d2539845.jpg[/img]
I agree with you on Trump, it's very sad how he's actually the best Republican running. I'm interested to see how moderate he goes after winning the nomination. In my opinion, he could wipe the floor with Clinton. We'll see what happens though
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.