Political Roundtable Part XXIV

[queridiculo]

Except it does.

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/trump-tax-cuts-federal-revenues-deficits/

You have ignored to read what I have posted, it spells out precisely why the assertion you are making is factually incorrect.

You cannot ignore that one of the core drivers of the increase in the deficit is the lack of receipts as a result of the tax reform.

[popper]

Ok. Do you remember not long ago when the Clintons and Obama’s said that marriage is between a man and women? Maybe you were still in diapers then. I can name many other “evolutions” in thought and process that occurred in the recent past where D’s held what you now refer to as backward (conservative) views.

Are you trying to make a point, and what is it, because I'm confused, are evolutions of thought bad, or are your quotations simply intended to attribute malice?

Yes, I'm trying to make a point. To answer your question, evolution of thought can be either good or bad. The evolution of thought that led to the communist movement was bad. The evolution of thought that led to our constitutional republic was good. I could go on but I'm sure you get my point.

My main point was to remind that D's and R's held many of the same positions in the recent past regarding marriage, illegal immigration, etc. (I can name many others but you get the point). So the D's thinking evolved and they have changed their positions on these issues. So far so good. Soon after the D's changed their position those on the R side became deplorable, racist, etc. for holding the very same opinions that D's held just a short while ago.

[daoneandonly]

Just as you find that your tolerance is crossed with the std quote above I find my tolerance crossed when Gtn and pointgod consistently attach judgements like “deplorable, idiot, dumb, lemmings, despicable, evil, etc. to posters that challenge their views. That’s their MO and has been since they’ve joined the thread. I’ve tried to politely make the point that that behavior forecloses any useful discussion on important topics. Which, btw may very well be their intent.

popper, I genuinely and truthfully believe that the current iteration of the GOP is entirely illegitimate and fraught with grifter charlatans. Like, when I call them 'Deplorables' or 'idiots' it's because I honestly believe they fit those descriptions, and I don't think their beliefs should be validated because they don't actually represent anything honest or moral. For example:

• The tax cuts were a handout for the wealthy at the expense of the middle class (and the deficit!)
• Privatizing and deregulating unquestionably leads to really bad results and only serves billionaires and corporations
• All GOP machinations regarding healthcare in the last decade have been totally dishonest and depraved
• Climate change denialism is depraved and wrong and a symptom of moral rot brought on by Citizens United
• The NRA is a terrorist group
• All of the GOP-led wars are 100% wrong and evil (Dems share plenty of guilt here)
• The GOP elected Trump, a fascist reality show clown who proudly knows nothing

Neocons like you tend to associate the GOP with Romney or Kasich or GHWB, but in reality those days are over. Trump is your party now and you seem to be doing a bunch of mental gymnastics in an effort to ignore that fact and ignore what has happened to the GOP over the last decade or so.

Like at some point you need to decide if you're a full blown Deplorable or if you're just a rube buying what the Koch Brothers Paul Ryan is selling. Or, just leave the party and rethink some of this stuff!

How exactly was the tax cut at the expense of the middle class to help the wealthy? I'm middle class, as I'm sure most ppl on here are as well, and I have more money now thanks to those cuts, so no, not at our expense.

And your use of the word handout in that comment is truly one to remember. There's only one political party associated with the word handout, and it's not the current Republican party you claim exists, or the former.

[Pointgod]

Just as you find that your tolerance is crossed with the std quote above I find my tolerance crossed when Gtn and pointgod consistently attach judgements like “deplorable, idiot, dumb, lemmings, despicable, evil, etc. to posters that challenge their views. That’s their MO and has been since they’ve joined the thread. I’ve tried to politely make the point that that behavior forecloses any useful discussion on important topics. Which, btw may very well be their intent.

popper, I genuinely and truthfully believe that the current iteration of the GOP is entirely illegitimate and fraught with grifter charlatans. Like, when I call them 'Deplorables' or 'idiots' it's because I honestly believe they fit those descriptions, and I don't think their beliefs should be validated because they don't actually represent anything honest or moral. For example:

• The tax cuts were a handout for the wealthy at the expense of the middle class (and the deficit!)
• Privatizing and deregulating unquestionably leads to really bad results and only serves billionaires and corporations
• All GOP machinations regarding healthcare in the last decade have been totally dishonest and depraved
• Climate change denialism is depraved and wrong and a symptom of moral rot brought on by Citizens United
• The NRA is a terrorist group
• All of the GOP-led wars are 100% wrong and evil (Dems share plenty of guilt here)
• The GOP elected Trump, a fascist reality show clown who proudly knows nothing

Neocons like you tend to associate the GOP with Romney or Kasich or GHWB, but in reality those days are over. Trump is your party now and you seem to be doing a bunch of mental gymnastics in an effort to ignore that fact and ignore what has happened to the GOP over the last decade or so.

Like at some point you need to decide if you're a full blown Deplorable or if you're just a rube buying what the Koch Brothers Paul Ryan is selling. Or, just leave the party and rethink some of this stuff!

Trust me I really tried on this board with right wingers, I really did. Even with STD I tried to be reasonable and point out to him his misleading statements, but I quickly realized that he’s just one of the countless MAGA trolls that you find on the internet. His act is not unique or new and I’ve seen it countless times before. What else but an idiot can you call someone who trumpets in unsubstantiated conspiracy theories like the Clintons killing Seth Rich or Uranium One? I actually don’t care about his insults because frankly I see STD for what he is a deeply insecure, man child. However if he’s going to continually just post lies and misleading then he’s not looking to have an honest discussion and nobody on this board owes him anything. This goes for anyone on this board that makes contradictory or misleading statements. I’ve had words with TGW as well many times but Ill also give him and1s if he makes a sound argument even if I don’t agree.

But everything that you’ve posted about the Republican Party is true. They’ve eschewed their principles to bow down and kiss up to Trump. The same party that claims to care about children is fine with babies in cages, the same party that claims to care about the military is fine with a transgendered ban and deporting people that have served, they claim to care about family values but support a serial cheater and sexual predator. I could go on but the list of hypocrisies are too long. If the Republican Party stayed true to its principles you’d have more Rick Wilsons and Steve Smhidts who may agree with some Trump policies but would admit it’s not worth the cost to the country and frankly the world. So when I call Republicans deplorables and morally bankrupt I’m only holding them to the standards that they themselves have set. But people like Popper want it both ways, they want to get what they see are benefits of voting for Trump but they don’t want to feel bad about it. I think most right wing posters on this site are fine people but their politics are too toxic to have any type of reasonable conversation with them.

I guarantee you that they won’t be able to respond to my post without:

1) Bringing up Obama and Clintons
2) Saying both sides are equally to blame
3) Engaging in whataboutism
4) Saying I’m generalizing Republicans
5) Talking about Trumps tone, when the problem is clearly more than tone
6) Insert any other silly rhetorical arguments

[popper]

Just as you find that your tolerance is crossed with the std quote above I find my tolerance crossed when Gtn and pointgod consistently attach judgements like “deplorable, idiot, dumb, lemmings, despicable, evil, etc. to posters that challenge their views. That’s their MO and has been since they’ve joined the thread. I’ve tried to politely make the point that that behavior forecloses any useful discussion on important topics. Which, btw may very well be their intent.

popper, I genuinely and truthfully believe that the current iteration of the GOP is entirely illegitimate and fraught with grifter charlatans. Like, when I call them 'Deplorables' or 'idiots' it's because I honestly believe they fit those descriptions, and I don't think their beliefs should be validated because they don't actually represent anything honest or moral. For example:

• The tax cuts were a handout for the wealthy at the expense of the middle class (and the deficit!)
• Privatizing and deregulating unquestionably leads to really bad results and only serves billionaires and corporations
• All GOP machinations regarding healthcare in the last decade have been totally dishonest and depraved
• Climate change denialism is depraved and wrong and a symptom of moral rot brought on by Citizens United
• The NRA is a terrorist group
• All of the GOP-led wars are 100% wrong and evil (Dems share plenty of guilt here)
• The GOP elected Trump, a fascist reality show clown who proudly knows nothing

Neocons like you tend to associate the GOP with Romney or Kasich or GHWB, but in reality those days are over. Trump is your party now and you seem to be doing a bunch of mental gymnastics in an effort to ignore that fact and ignore what has happened to the GOP over the last decade or so.

Like at some point you need to decide if you're a full blown Deplorable or if you're just a rube buying what the Koch Brothers Paul Ryan is selling. Or, just leave the party and rethink some of this stuff!

I don't question your sincerity Gtn. I just encourage you to present your positions, advocate for them, and argue on their behalf without malice. As you know, because I've posted it here more than once, Trump was my last choice in the R primary. I also stated in this thread that I would have voted D over Trump had Jim Webb made it out of the primary. He didn't so I had a choice between two bad candidates. I voted Trump because I prefer his policies and SC picks over what I believe would have occurred under Hillary. Do I think Trump is a good and honest man. No. Nor do I think Hillary is a good and honest women. Am I embarrassed to have a President that lies, exaggerates, bullies, etc. Yes I am. Hillary would have embarrassed me as well and I wouldn't have got the policies that I prefer. I was a big Romney supporter. Maybe he will primary Trump (wishful thinking). Maybe Mueller will find enough reason to prove obstruction or something. Who knows.

If it's any solace to you, I think Trump gets killed in the next election (assuming D's nominate a credible candidate) and I think there's a 50% chance the D's retake the Senate. Couple that with the D's outstanding performance in the mid terms and your team will have full control of the govt. Let's hope things go well after that.

[Pointgod]

Except it does.

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/trump-tax-cuts-federal-revenues-deficits/

You have ignored to read what I have posted, it spells out precisely why the assertion you are making is factually incorrect.

You cannot ignore that one of the core drivers of the increase in the deficit is the lack of receipts as a result of the tax reform.

Let me help you out.

https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2018/aug/17/patriot-news-alerts/did-us-have-record-tax-haul-after-trump-tax-cuts-s/

[Pointgod]

The stupid thing about STDs anti immigrant stance is that unless you’re Indigenous American, everyone in the US are immigrants. This same stupid argument has been made decades before. Guess what if immigrants come to the US and have kids, then their kids grow up as Americans! Imagine that.

Stupider still are the policy ideas that the GOP has vehemently opposed for decades. "Raise the minimum wage!!!" Lol, like how big of a rock do you have to be living under to miss that one? Even the conservatives who would benefit hate it; they'd rather spend their energy freaking out about Muslims and Mexicans swarming over the border. One again, LBJ's quote about how to manipulate working class whites was one of the most accurate political observations of all time. Right behind Trump noting that he could kill somebody and still not lose any voters.

About that... I think those are two different policy decisions.

And a "US" based minimum wage isn't necessarily a good idea. One that is better implemented on a state by state, region by region basis. Why? Because a high minimum wage in rural Mississippi will have a different affect than that same minimum wage in NY, NY.

And it would be most useful to have a real immigration policy (the one that was agreed on before was a non-policy policy). As gtn put it - we don't currently reconcile what immigration against our social services. But we also don't reconcile immigration against what we really need (demographically or work force).

But yes, Trump one because of fear and a lot of that is tied into how they are governing now.

Bingo! Such a nuanced and under discussed part of the minimum wage debate. I don’t know why Democrats don’t bring up this point more. Not only would it alleviate the scaremongering regarding companies going out of business, it would also play well with the whole States rights argument.

[daoneandonly]

Stupider still are the policy ideas that the GOP has vehemently opposed for decades. "Raise the minimum wage!!!" Lol, like how big of a rock do you have to be living under to miss that one? Even the conservatives who would benefit hate it; they'd rather spend their energy freaking out about Muslims and Mexicans swarming over the border. One again, LBJ's quote about how to manipulate working class whites was one of the most accurate political observations of all time. Right behind Trump noting that he could kill somebody and still not lose any voters.

About that... I think those are two different policy decisions.

And a "US" based minimum wage isn't necessarily a good idea. One that is better implemented on a state by state, region by region basis. Why? Because a high minimum wage in rural Mississippi will have a different affect than that same minimum wage in NY, NY.

And it would be most useful to have a real immigration policy (the one that was agreed on before was a non-policy policy). As gtn put it - we don't currently reconcile what immigration against our social services. But we also don't reconcile immigration against what we really need (demographically or work force).

But yes, Trump one because of fear and a lot of that is tied into how they are governing now.

Bingo! Such a nuanced and under discussed part of the minimum wage debate. I don’t know why Democrats don’t bring up this point more. Not only would it alleviate the scaremongering regarding companies going out of business, it would also play well with the whole States rights argument.

Dems are the ones always preaching majority, Clinton won the popular vote, Cali should have more senators than Wyoming and Montana. So why is the minimum wage exempt from the majority argument, the majority of people would end up having to pay more for the same services & products with a minimum wage hike just to help the small minority who make it.

[popper]

Except it does.

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/trump-tax-cuts-federal-revenues-deficits/

You have ignored to read what I have posted, it spells out precisely why the assertion you are making is factually incorrect.

You cannot ignore that one of the core drivers of the increase in the deficit is the lack of receipts as a result of the tax reform.

Didn't mean to ignore your main point Q. You are right that the tax reform contributes to the deficit. I disagree it is a core part. My response to you argues that it is but a small part of the overall increase in the deficit and that the boost in growth, jobs, etc. mitigates the damage. I'm exhausted by this thread now and am going to take a walk on the beach, eat some stone crab and then watch the Monday night game. If you care to respond I'll gladly read it tomorrow.

[dckingsfan]

About that... I think those are two different policy decisions.

And a "US" based minimum wage isn't necessarily a good idea. One that is better implemented on a state by state, region by region basis. Why? Because a high minimum wage in rural Mississippi will have a different affect than that same minimum wage in NY, NY.

And it would be most useful to have a real immigration policy (the one that was agreed on before was a non-policy policy). As gtn put it - we don't currently reconcile what immigration against our social services. But we also don't reconcile immigration against what we really need (demographically or work force).

But yes, Trump one because of fear and a lot of that is tied into how they are governing now.

Bingo! Such a nuanced and under discussed part of the minimum wage debate. I don’t know why Democrats don’t bring up this point more. Not only would it alleviate the scaremongering regarding companies going out of business, it would also play well with the whole States rights argument.

Dems are the ones always preaching majority, Clinton won the popular vote, Cali should have more senators than Wyoming and Montana. So why is the minimum wage exempt from the majority argument, the majority of people would end up having to pay more for the same services & products with a minimum wage hike just to help the small minority who make it.

So, first from an economic point of view. You have the largest growth when you stimulate the economy from the bottom two quintiles. Since the minimum wage would spur the bottom quintile, a minimum wage hike locally targeted would be a better stimulus than just put through by this administration.

Second, the cost point of view. When you don't earn a living wage, the government ends up augmenting those wages. So, the net costs are generally neutral.

[gtn130]

Dems are the ones always preaching majority, Clinton won the popular vote, Cali should have more senators than Wyoming and Montana. So why is the minimum wage exempt from the majority argument, the majority of people would end up having to pay more for the same services & products with a minimum wage hike just to help the small minority who make it.

Is this where we're supposed to coddle the very smart conservatives and tell them their views are rock solid and totally thought out?

[TGW]

Read on Twitter

?s=20

[stilldropin20]

Except it does.

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/trump-tax-cuts-federal-revenues-deficits/

You have ignored to read what I have posted, it spells out precisely why the assertion you are making is factually incorrect.

You cannot ignore that one of the core drivers of the increase in the deficit is the lack of receipts as a result of the tax reform.

Wrong. And in fact [b]this is a lie. Tax receipts in 2018 are up from both 2017 and 2016 [/b] 5.2% in Q2 and Q3 and 6.6% in Q1. And almost 6% on the year!!!! (sorry Doc, i know you dont like being directed on how to read )

DCkings keeps "lying" about this as well. He doesn't like Trump and doesn't want to give Trump the win. He knows damn well that tax receipts are up almost 6% but he keeps tying the tax plan and the deficit together just to say "the tax plan is not working." fact is the tax plan is working and tax revenue increased and at record highs. Almost $1.3 Trillion higher than 2010. and almost 6% this year over last year. Spending is up too. and that is why the deficit is larger but that has NOTHING to do with the tax plan...which, again, is working.

The tax plan has worked because it both triggered the economy into more growth and repatriated corporate funds from over seas.

Its a chess vs checkers approach. And I understand that many here may not understand tax revenue fully like Nate does. Like Popper does. Or other accountants and small business owners that have been doing their own taxes for decades. It just may not be your thing...but by strictly looking at tax rates (21.5% vs 39.6%) its like strictly looking at FG% and not considering TS% and also not factoring in usage%.

It's a chess over checkers metaphor. In advanced stats we look deeper than surface level stuff like tax rates. We have to understand that it is better to receive 21.5% of something than 39.6% of nothing. So repatriating corporations is a major issue... And as those corporation come back, foreign markets will weaken because their revenue will decrease. As they weaken they will become less stable which will scare of the remaining stragglers and they too will repatriate over time...and more and more of those corporations will return. there may even come a point to where foreign markets will struggle as the US markets boom and even foreign(global) corporations will look for stability in US markets. Our current 21.5% corporate rates will be more appealing than our past 39.6% rate were not...they would rather deal with the flotsom and jetsom of a turbulent foreign economy and pay 10% rates (and lower) elsewhere than pay 39.6%. But with a competitive 21.5%, they will look to the US for cover is necessary.

^^and that's why trump is simultaneously putting pressure on them for Trade balance and hitting them with tariffs. As well as calling on foreign states to secure Nato commitments. Combined, the plan is to: repatriate wealth, repatriate corporations, which also Bring jobs back, balance trade, and charge for tariffs where trade is not balanced.

As of right now? in 2018? its working. revenue is up and Popper has demonstrated that.


Furthermore, This is where D's and left is being completely disingenuous in saying that there is "less tax money coming in." No there is not less and in fact tax revenue is up. And in fact, we still have massive US corporations on the sidelines that still have their corporate headquarters off shore paying their taxes to foreign states (but most have repatriated their corps). Trillions of "corporate profits have been repatriated resulting in Billions of tax revenue due to the tax plan itself and lowered corporate rates. And overall tax revenue is up 6% in 2018. That's a fact. And MSM wont talk about it. No one is talking about it...because the left has Trump mired in fake scandal and that is all they talk about. so right wing media instead, daily, defends the president instead of talking about real wins. This tax plan is a major major major win for the American people! Huge win!!! And if you give Trump the win and explain this tax plan to the left's base, 3% of them might actually like what trump is doing.<--which secures his victory in 2020 and might even bring the house back red with it.

And that's the problem with US politics. We have a tax plan that is working better for all americans right now. I mean we have NOT even talked about the historically low UE rates but that is due to the growth! And the growth is due to the tax plan. And the tax plan has brought us increased revenue not decreased.


...and I'm going to tie Doclinkin in on this thread...because there is a gross misunderstanding of tax revenue. Its a chess vs checkers approach...and most importantly this is an issue that there should be common ground from the left and the right. because there are stable US Allies with both stable governement and stable banking that give special rates to our largest US(global) corporations. Ireland is the standard example where they offer Apple and others a 10% corporate tax rate...and this is a conundrum on multiple levels. Ireland is an Ally. The US is filled with those with Irish decent. Ireland doesn't create problems. But the fact is that Apple Corp only pay 10%


if our corporate tax rates are not competitive...US corporations will locate their corporate headquarters overseas and pay federal taxes to a different state altogether. WE MUST COMPETE. Now if i were in charge i would make it illegal for say apple corporation to park its head quarters overseas just so it can pay 10% federal income taxes to ireland and almost nothing to the USA. <--which would be a huge loss for the USA (our citizens). I haven't checked in awhile...but Apples annual profits are near $200-500 billion annually. 21.5% of $500 Billion a lot of money!! But instead in Ireland they only pay 10%. In grand caymen they would pay even less.

Apple is not alone. Many US-Global corporations like Apple "shop" for better rates to avoid the US tax code as much as possible. And apple is not alone. All they need is a stable federal government because the only fear is their funds being naturalized. Most of our major US corps that do global business do their accounting in foreign shores. Why? Why we allow this is beyond me. Apple gets away with it because they truly have a global product. If US consumers boycott, Apple will still be able to sell around the globe.

So we didn't lower the taxes to give Apple a free gift. Apple was paying minimal taxes to the US federal government as it was with our 39.6% corporate tax rates. We lowered the tax rates to 21.5% so Apple would be motivated to repatriate their corporate headquarters and pay their taxes here in the USA and 21.5% instead of 10% to the State of Ireland.


Now let's talk about trade!!

Now let talk about tariffs. Tax revenue and tariff revenue is separate. I believe the increased tariff revenue is over $100 billion year to date and might approach $200 billion on the year. add that to the tax revenue and we have a US governement is raking in revenue at record levels by 7-8%.

Nearly everyone is employed.

Credit markets are wide open! Whoever wants a loan can get a loan right now.

A new nafta will create even more us manufacturing in 2019. and even more revenue.

China trade deal is on deck.

But let's talk about Mueller!! Lets charge more people with perjury!!

[gtn130]

But people like Popper want it both ways, they want to get what they see are benefits of voting for Trump but they don’t want to feel bad about it. I think most right wing posters on this site are fine people but their politics are too toxic to have any type of reasonable conversation with them.

Yeah, this is a great point. It's like when daoneandonly is all like "I only voted for Trump for the justices and abortion" as if it's some sort of a la carte menu.

[daoneandonly]

Dems are the ones always preaching majority, Clinton won the popular vote, Cali should have more senators than Wyoming and Montana. So why is the minimum wage exempt from the majority argument, the majority of people would end up having to pay more for the same services & products with a minimum wage hike just to help the small minority who make it.

Is this where we're supposed to coddle the very smart conservatives and tell them their views are rock solid and totally thought out?

No, its where you can logically explain why majority only matters to you when it benefits you, and no other time.

[daoneandonly]

But people like Popper want it both ways, they want to get what they see are benefits of voting for Trump but they don’t want to feel bad about it. I think most right wing posters on this site are fine people but their politics are too toxic to have any type of reasonable conversation with them.

Yeah, this is a great point. It's like when daoneandonly is all like "I only voted for Trump for the justices and abortion" as if it's some sort of a la carte menu.

it is when the unfortunate reality was Trump won the Republican primaries. Like i said, if the field wasnt so ridiculously large, we would've had a kasich, Rubio, or Bush, and we all would have been better off

But fast forward from ym decision in 2016 to vote for Trump, knowing now in 2018, I'd still vote for him 10 times out of 10 if the other option was Hillary, Sanders, Warren, Schumer, Biden, or Kamala Harris

[pancakes3]

Dems are the ones always preaching majority, Clinton won the popular vote, Cali should have more senators than Wyoming and Montana. So why is the minimum wage exempt from the majority argument, the majority of people would end up having to pay more for the same services & products with a minimum wage hike just to help the small minority who make it.

Is this where we're supposed to coddle the very smart conservatives and tell them their views are rock solid and totally thought out?

No, its where you can logically explain why majority only matters to you when it benefits you, and no other time.

wanting majority rule doesn't mean implementing policies that can only benefit a majority of the people.

some people are capable of wanting policies in place, that even if it's to their detriment, can benefit others.

if a class of 30 kids all vote to raise the cost of milk to subsidize the 5 kids in the class that can't afford milk is both the majority making a decision that does not directly benefit the majority of the class.

[Pointgod]

Bingo! Such a nuanced and under discussed part of the minimum wage debate. I don’t know why Democrats don’t bring up this point more. Not only would it alleviate the scaremongering regarding companies going out of business, it would also play well with the whole States rights argument.

Dems are the ones always preaching majority, Clinton won the popular vote, Cali should have more senators than Wyoming and Montana. So why is the minimum wage exempt from the majority argument, the majority of people would end up having to pay more for the same services & products with a minimum wage hike just to help the small minority who make it.

So, first from an economic point of view. You have the largest growth when you stimulate the economy from the bottom two quintiles. Since the minimum wage would spur the bottom quintile, a minimum wage hike locally targeted would be a better stimulus than just put through by this administration.

Second, the cost point of view. When you don't earn a living wage, the government ends up augmenting those wages. So, the net costs are generally neutral.

Daoneandonly’s question was already answered by dckingsfan.

[Wizardspride]

Read on Twitter

?s=19

[Pointgod]

Read on Twitter

?s=19

You’re the puppet!