2 minutes ago, dawkins4prez said:

1/3 of that is good place to start.

Yeah, it wouldn't generate that either. And are you talking about his wealth tax idea? That's a non-starter as it would require a constitutional amendment first, and good luck with that.

4 hours ago, DEagle7 said:

And per usual I think you're being dramatic about the outcome and influence of a mayor. The ecosystem of one of the most powerful cities in the world isn't fragile enough to be broken by a few years of some socialist policies. If crime rises and businesses shutting down he'll be booted in 4 years with minimal long term damage.

He's an extremely version of what's been in place for years.

Conservatives didn't really bother with the education system for decades either. How's that working out?

3 hours ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

Detroit is in a terminal decline? Overall it's had quite a reasonable resurgence economically as it has diversified away from auto manufacturing. It's a bit of a K shaped recovery, but you never cared about the poors anyway.

Detroit used to be the single wealthiest city in the entire world. Not in the mid west. Not in the country. In the WORLD.

Its population is one third of what it was at its peak.

So, yes, terminal decline by any reasonable assessment.

1 hour ago, DEagle7 said:

1) why the F would you punish people trying to move to your state if you think the people leaving are high earners and don't want to deal with socialism?

2) tariff them how? There's no "importer" here to charge. And if you're just charging the person entering then isn't that just a tax? Are we just using tariff as a euphemism now for taxes

That’s a big "if.”

Democrat locusts have ruined so many states and cities people have realized the bad outweighs the good.

What happens is crap libs move in and shift the culture to the left, then push for more leftist policies which attracts more leftists, and then you go from California and Colorado in the 80’s to today and the entire state is ruined.

It’s just not worth whatever short term economic benefit you might gain because they will absolutely ruin your state in the long run. Much better to have a totally hostile environment that runs them out of town.

7 minutes ago, TEW said:

That’s a big "if.”

Democrat locusts have ruined so many states and cities people have realized the bad outweighs the good.

What happens is crap libs move in and shift the culture to the left, then push for more leftist policies which attracts more leftists, and then you go from California and Colorado in the 80’s to today and the entire state is ruined.

It’s just not worth whatever short term economic benefit you might gain because they will absolutely ruin your state in the long run. Much better to have a totally hostile environment that runs them out of town.

Why would leftists flee New York though? The leftist was elected. By definition the people "fleeing" would be those who voted against him and his policies. So you're "tariffing" (again completely nonsensical in this context) more conservative people. Not to mention they harped on these policies as causing high income earners and corporations out of the city. So you're taking for frustration out on...high income earners who have rejected socialism? Yeah that's who you're gonna chase away?

It's a moronic, bordering on full-blown retarded statement by Abbott. It's ok to admit that even if you don't like The Zorhan.

40 minutes ago, lynched1 said:

He's an extremely version of what's been in place for years.

Conservatives didn't really bother with the education system for decades either. How's that working out?

21 minutes ago, TEW said:

then you go from California and Colorado in the 80’s to today and the entire state is ruined.

Yeah man, the economy in California is really suffering. Terminal decline!

31 minutes ago, TEW said:

Detroit used to be the single wealthiest city in the entire world. Not in the mid west. Not in the country. In the WORLD.

Its population is one third of what it was at its peak.

So, yes, terminal decline by any reasonable assessment.

A main problem for Detroit is that it was a boom city that quickly ascended and was propped up by 1 single industry. Not really an apples to apples comparison to New York. New York has been the most populous city in the US since 1790.

33 minutes ago, DEagle7 said:

Why would leftists flee New York though? The leftist was elected. By definition the people "fleeing" would be those who voted against him and his policies. So you're "tariffing" (again completely nonsensical in this context) more conservative people. Not to mention they harped on these policies as causing high income earners and corporations out of the city. So you're taking for frustration out on...high income earners who have rejected socialism? Yeah that's who you're gonna chase away?

It's a moronic, bordering on full-blown retarded statement by Abbott. It's ok to admit that even if you don't like The Zorhan.

Because they’re all hypocritical morons with cognitive dissonance and will flee the shot hole they created for a better place they haven’t ruined yet and then turn that place into a shot hole just like the place they fled.

Many such cases.

7 minutes ago, Phillyterp85 said:

A main problem for Detroit is that it was a boom city that quickly ascended and was propped up by 1 single industry. Not really an apples to apples comparison to New York.

New York is propped up by the financial industry.

And just like auto unions combined with globalization destroyed Detroit’s economic foundation, so too can socialist policies combined with modern communications destroy NYC’s.

5 minutes ago, TEW said:

Because they’re all hypocritical morons with cognitive dissonance and will flee the shot hole they created for a better place they haven’t ruined yet and then turn that place into a shot hole just like the place they fled.

Many such cases.

6 minutes ago, TEW said:

Because they’re all hypocritical morons with cognitive dissonance and will flee the shot hole they created for a better place they haven’t ruined yet and then turn that place into a shot hole just like the place they fled.

Many such cases.

....who hurt you?

1 minute ago, TEW said:

New York is propped up by the financial industry.

And just like auto unions combined with globalization destroyed Detroit’s economic foundation, so too can socialist policies combined with modern communications destroy NYC’s.

New York has been the most populous city in the US since 1790. 4 years of a terrible mayor isn’t going to "destroy” New York.

Detroit had a population of 285,000 in 1900. At its peak in 1950 it got up to 1.85 million. An increase of 6.5x. Not at all comparable to New York’s history.

In 1950, 220,000 people in Detroit worked in the auto industry. The total labor force was 816,000. So 27% of the labor force was in the auto industry.

Meanwhile, in NYC today there are about 330,000 people employed in the financial industry out of a labor force of 4.3 million. So about 8% of the labor force.

So again, not an apples to apples comparison.

1 hour ago, we_gotta_believe said:

You should stick to non verbal on that topic.

The little commie from NYC said its ok for you idiots to start sending him money again.

8 hours ago, Phillyterp85 said:

Yeah, it wouldn't generate that either. And are you talking about his wealth tax idea? That's a non-starter as it would require a constitutional amendment first, and good luck with that.

Yes the wealth tax. Income tax isn't gonna cut it. This extent of extreme wealth disparity will need new solutions like the anti trust laws were new solutions to the monopolies that distorted capitalism over 100 years ago. These measures are needed to save the system not destroy it.

7 hours ago, lynched1 said:

The little commie from NYC said its ok for you idiots to start sending him money again.

Done! Can't wait for his trading cards and shoes to drop!

2 hours ago, dawkins4prez said:

Yes the wealth tax. Income tax isn't gonna cut it. This extent of extreme wealth disparity will need new solutions like the anti trust laws were new solutions to the monopolies that distorted capitalism over 100 years ago. These measures are needed to save the system not destroy it.

Yeah so a measure that isn’t even constitutional. So again, a non starter.

We don’t have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem.

16 minutes ago, Phillyterp85 said:

Yeah so a measure that isn’t even constitutional. So again, a non starter.

We don’t have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem.

The constitution ain't quite the firewall we thought it was, is it? Call it a national emergency and do whatever you want.

21 minutes ago, dawkins4prez said:

The constitution ain't quite the firewall we thought it was, is it? Call it a national emergency and do whatever you want.

LOLOL no. Doesn't work like that. The constitution is actually very clear when it comes to congresses power to lay taxes. Direct taxes (which a wealth tax would be), must be apportioned among the states, making such a measure impossible to implement. So in order to institute a wealth tax, we'd need to pass an amendment to allow congress to do so, and that isn't happening. So your pie in the sky idea (which wouldn't even fix the problem anyway) is a non starter.

And you know what, just for argument's sake. Let's say congress did amend the constitution and we were able to put forth Bernie's plan, and for argument's sake let's also say his prediction is correct that it would bring in an additional $3 trillion in revenue over the next decade. We are currently projected to run $22.7 trillion in deficits over the next 10 years. So you think running $19.7 trillion in deficits instead will do.....what exactly?

24 minutes ago, Phillyterp85 said:

LOLOL no. Doesn't work like that.

We sure about that?

19 minutes ago, Phillyterp85 said:

LOLOL no. Doesn't work like that. The constitution is actually very clear when it comes to congresses power to lay taxes. Direct taxes (which a wealth tax would be), must be apportioned among the states, making such a measure impossible to implement. So in order to institute a wealth tax, we'd need to pass an amendment to allow congress to do so, and that isn't happening. So your pie in the sky idea (which wouldn't even fix the problem anyway) is a non starter.

And you know what, just for argument's sake. Let's say congress did amend the constitution and we were able to put forth Bernie's plan, and for argument's sake let's also say his prediction is correct that it would bring in an additional $3 trillion in revenue over the next decade. We are currently projected to run $22.7 trillion in deficits over the next 10 years. So you think running $19.7 trillion in deficits instead will do.....what exactly?

Wait what? If that's the case where'd all these tariffs come from? Trump has already drawn the roadmap, built the roads and bought the fleet of trucks to go down this path. Barring a major smackdown from his caddies at the SC, you can kiss the constitution and the 16th goodbye. And if you suggest the wealth tax should be 10% instead of 3%, well, naughty you.

This is going to be fun to watch this upcoming disaster. Get your popcorn ready

44 minutes ago, dawkins4prez said:

Wait what? If that's the case where'd all these tariffs come from? Trump has already drawn the roadmap, built the roads and bought the fleet of trucks to go down this path. Barring a major smackdown from his caddies at the SC, you can kiss the constitution and the 16th goodbye. And if you suggest the wealth tax should be 10% instead of 3%, well, naughty you.

Congress has passed legislation giving the president authority to impose tariffs under certain situations. Trump may have overstepped those bounds, which is why the case is currently being heard by the Supreme Court.