Political Roundtable Part XX

[Pointgod]

Read on Twitter

?s=20

Read on Twitter

?s=20

Oh the Trump campaign did something illegal? This is my shocked face

[Wizardspride]

Read on Twitter

?s=20

[Wizardspride]

Read on Twitter

?s=20

[Wizardspride]

This stood out to me:

A few questions reveal that Mr. Mueller is still investigating possible coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia. In one of the more tantalizing inquiries, Mr. Mueller asks what Mr. Trump knew about campaign aides, including the former chairman Paul Manafort, seeking assistance from Moscow: “What knowledge did you have of any outreach by your campaign, including by Paul Manafort, to Russia about potential assistance to the campaign?” No such outreach has been revealed publicly.

[stilldropin20]

Monte has this one right - although it is more based upon urban living vs. rural living. The per capita spending is listed here - you can click on the revenue per capita column and see that is the case.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_tax_revenue_by_state

And here where you can see the state dependencies on federal spending:

https://wallethub.com/edu/states-most-least-dependent-on-the-federal-government/2700/

impossible. I call bull-effing-shxt!

if ss/medicare/medicaid etc. are 75% of the annual budget according to lindsey graham this morning

I think Lindsey Graham was confused (although 50% is close to 75%). And since SS has been holding steady, he should have concentrated on Medicare/Medicaid. And he should have been concentrating on how those two programs are squeezing all other spending.

Since your argument follows from the above (bolded) statement - here is the figure:

51% in 2016.

estimated to be just under 54% in 2018. notice the "etc."?

That "etc" stood for the rest of the entitlement programs + interest on the debt +ss/medicare/caid= 72% of the budget...sorry for rounding up.

unemployment insurance/pensions(25.4%) + Hud/welfare (8.5%) + interest (now 7.4%).

Most budget hawks lumps these (costs) in together because they are not progressive costs. like dept of education, transportation, or various protection agencies. Nor necessities like defense.

These costs are nothing more than various forms of welfare. And it is these various forms of welfare that have been largely responsible for a very large portion of the debt aside from Gulf Wars and Obama's stimulus (which was really just another form of welfare).

And my point is that these welfare programs dont work. so why are we spending nearly 75% of our annual budget on various forms of welfare and interest on that welfare?? I think we could instead, spend that money on different programs completely outside of the box of welfare where we give money away. Again, I'm not against safety net programs. But to me a safety net is 6 months, with perhaps a 1 time potential extension up to a year per recipient...and than that same recipient is not eligible for the same kind nor any other kind of welfare for at least 5 years. I think when safety programs are allowed to become lifestyle programs, the human spirit is deflated not inspired. A body at rest tends to stay at rest and a body at work tends to stay at work. IMO, we must encourage people to work.

1. Another problem with the current safety net programs that have become long term life style choices is that the rich are still getting richer and the poor are getting poorer despite all of the welfare programs. So i just dont see the point?Its not working. Its a temporary fix(pun intended). The "wealth that is given away is not retained by the poor or working poor. If we were getting some traction??? If the rich were getting poorer and the poor were getting richger??? Sure!! Do it! keep at it!!! if poor people were getting some use of these programs??? different story. I would be in full support.

2. According to most quality of life studies, the overwhelming majority Americans believe their "quality of life" has been going down hill for over 25 years.

3. In terms of the old and aging? we are over medicating and over treating the old and the aging. which keeps them alive longer but the quality of that "life" is not necessarily good or even decent. Often the quality of life that is prolonged is quite awful yet we keep the old and the aging alive longer. Nursing homes are encouraged to keep these "residents" alive because they keep getting a check each month. The Patient themselves and their family have come to fear death. as if it is some awful thing instead of just looked at as the final chapter of life. So we keep ourselves alive longer by choice and so do our families as do private nursing homes. Obviously big pharma is in on it with all of the comercials. And while are alive longer, the costs escalate. Pointgod can call me a sociopath all he wants but I would prefer to die a year earlier than later when I'm incompetent and incpacitated. I prefer to be able to walk around and go out while I'm alive. Do things. Once i'm almost entirely house/bedridden I'd rather not be alive...

anecdote time: ive got a lady...a rather angry old lady whose children want nothing to do with her. She has no contact with them. she rents from me...been there for over 40 years...used to rent from my grandparents. So I allowed her to stay and kept her rent low. She has not left the apartment in 3 years. sometimes my family runs errands for her like bank stuff and groceries. Through th eyears, we have come to learn everything about her. frankly, she is very depressed, unhappy, and miserable. she collects about $4k in ss/disability and collects another $11k in medicare/caid (she has both-pays for care-about $400 per month) as her nurses come to her for care. dialysis comes to her. Physical therapy comes to her. nurses come and bathe her daily. So she receives a total in $15,000 per month in benefits. here's the weird thing. I've opened and processed her ss for her so ive see her info. The last year she worked she earned about $11,000 (for the year). and she was divorced for over 20 years but still somehow gets some her ex husbands SS even though he remarried and has been dead for 8 years. She, herself, worked part-time though the years and never earned more than a total of around $130,000 for her entire career!!!!! yet she receives $15,000 per month in total benefits!!?? I know many people in quite similar situations.

I know where DCKings stands on all of this, but you guys seriously think this is OK? You think that is Money well (efficiently/deservedly) spent??? And I'm a sociopath for thinking this women costs the rest of us too much??? That she should be moved to a place where they can manage her health at a lower cost like a nursing home? I mean if nursing homes were NOT private and NOT for profit. And were more efficient??

call me crazy but i think its insane for the rest of the country to spend $180,000 per year on this woman. or any man or woman. even me. if i could not afford my own medical care nor cost of living why should you guys pay my bills???? again, she has NOT left the unit in 3 years. She can NOT get out of bed on her own. Her kids dont visit her neither the grand children. So im just not seeing the quality of life here either. She watches TV all day long. And there are a lot of people that spend the last 2-3 years of their lives in similar situations and the cost to the public is tremendous. I just dont see the point.

[TGW]

Just saw Michelle Wolf's set at the correspondance dinner for the first time....and holy s**t was that good.

Oh that was good.

All those pompous, self-aggrandizing a-holes got destroyed. It was beautiful to watch. The only thing that would have made it better is if President P-Grabber was in attendance. That would have been the cherry on top.

[Zonkerbl]

Just saw Michelle Wolf's set at the correspondance dinner for the first time....and holy s**t was that good.

Oh that was good.

All those pompous, self-aggrandizing a-holes got destroyed. It was beautiful to watch. The only thing that would have made it better is if President P-Grabber was in attendance. That would have been the cherry on top.

She threw shade at *everyone* in the room. It was brutal.

[Wizardspride]

Read on Twitter

?s=20

Read on Twitter

?s=20

[dckingsfan]

impossible. I call bull-effing-shxt!

if ss/medicare/medicaid etc. are 75% of the annual budget according to lindsey graham this morning

I think Lindsey Graham was confused (although 50% is close to 75%). And since SS has been holding steady, he should have concentrated on Medicare/Medicaid. And he should have been concentrating on how those two programs are squeezing all other spending.

Since your argument follows from the above (bolded) statement - here is the figure:

51% in 2016.

estimated to be just under 54% in 2018. notice the "etc."?

That "etc" stood for the rest of the entitlement programs + interest on the debt +ss/medicare/caid= 72% of the budget...sorry for rounding up.

unemployment insurance/pensions(25.4%) + Hud/welfare (8.5%) + interest (now 7.4%).

Most budget hawks lumps these (costs) in together because they are not progressive costs. like dept of education, transportation, or various protection agencies. Nor necessities like defense.

These costs are nothing more than various forms of welfare. And it is these various forms of welfare that have been largely responsible for a very large portion of the debt aside from Gulf Wars and Obama's stimulus (which was really just another form of welfare).

And my point is that these welfare programs dont work. so why are we spending nearly 75% of our annual budget on various forms of welfare and interest on that welfare?? I think we could instead, spend that money on different programs completely outside of the box of welfare where we give money away. Again, I'm not against safety net programs. But to me a safety net is 6 months, with perhaps a 1 time potential extension up to a year per recipient...and than that same recipient is not eligible for the same kind nor any other kind of welfare for at least 5 years. I think when safety programs are allowed to become lifestyle programs, the human spirit is deflated not inspired. A body at rest tends to stay at rest and a body at work tends to stay at work. IMO, we must encourage people to work.

1. Another problem with the current safety net programs that have become long term life style choices is that the rich are still getting richer and the poor are getting poorer despite all of the welfare programs. So i just dont see the point?Its not working. Its a temporary fix(pun intended). The "wealth that is given away is not retained by the poor or working poor. If we were getting some traction??? If the rich were getting poorer and the poor were getting richger??? Sure!! Do it! keep at it!!! if poor people were getting some use of these programs??? different story. I would be in full support.

2. According to most quality of life studies, the overwhelming majority Americans believe their "quality of life" has been going down hill for over 25 years.

3. In terms of the old and aging? we are over medicating and over treating the old and the aging. which keeps them alive longer but the quality of that "life" is not necessarily good or even decent. Often the quality of life that is prolonged is quite awful yet we keep the old and the aging alive longer. Nursing homes are encouraged to keep these "residents" alive because they keep getting a check each month. The Patient themselves and their family have come to fear death. as if it is some awful thing instead of just looked at as the final chapter of life. So we keep ourselves alive longer by choice and so do our families as do private nursing homes. Obviously big pharma is in on it with all of the comercials. And while are alive longer, the costs escalate. Pointgod can call me a sociopath all he wants but I would prefer to die a year earlier than later when I'm incompetent and incpacitated. I prefer to be able to walk around and go out while I'm alive. Do things. Once i'm almost entirely house/bedridden I'd rather not be alive...

anecdote time: ive got a lady...a rather angry old lady whose children want nothing to do with her. She has no contact with them. she rents from me...been there for over 40 years...used to rent from my grandparents. So I allowed her to stay and kept her rent low. She has not left the apartment in 3 years. sometimes my family runs errands for her like bank stuff and groceries. Through th eyears, we have come to learn everything about her. frankly, she is very depressed, unhappy, and miserable. she collects about $4k in ss/disability and collects another $11k in medicare/caid (she has both-pays for care-about $400 per month) as her nurses come to her for care. dialysis comes to her. Physical therapy comes to her. nurses come and bathe her daily. So she receives a total in $15,000 per month in benefits. here's the weird thing. I've opened and processed her ss for her so ive see her info. The last year she worked she earned about $11,000 (for the year). and she was divorced for over 20 years but still somehow gets some her ex husbands SS even though he remarried and has been dead for 8 years. She, herself, worked part-time though the years and never earned more than a total of around $130,000 for her entire career!!!!! yet she receives $15,000 per month in total benefits!!?? I know many people in quite similar situations.

I know where DCKings stands on all of this, but you guys seriously think this is OK? You think that is Money well (efficiently/deservedly) spent??? And I'm a sociopath for thinking this women costs the rest of us too much??? That she should be moved to a place where they can manage her health at a lower cost like a nursing home? I mean if nursing homes were NOT private and NOT for profit. And were more efficient??

call me crazy but i think its insane for the rest of the country to spend $180,000 per year on this woman. or any man or woman. even me. if i could not afford my own medical care nor cost of living why should you guys pay my bills???? again, she has NOT left the unit in 3 years. She can NOT get out of bed on her own. Her kids dont visit her neither the grand children. So im just not seeing the quality of life here either. She watches TV all day long. And there are a lot of people that spend the last 2-3 years of their lives in similar situations and the cost to the public is tremendous. I just dont see the point.

Nice - went from a defense of Monte's point that money flows from cities to the country and you switch to an ancedotal issue of a women's end-of-life care costs.

There is a good point burried in there somewhere on healthcare costs squeezing out all other costs - but you just don't seem to be able to pull it out with your ramble.

They keys gets back to healthcare spending and the cost drivers - the other programs are quite stable. Our federal system of healthcare as now implimented is now bankrupting both the federal government and state governments. The ACA was an epic failure to this end. As was this congress choice of how to tackle the problem.

[dckingsfan]

They are misguided and asking the wrong question. The question should be, did the tax cut increase or decrease receipts, did the tax cut make businesses more competitive. Does this tax cut incent businesses to reinvest into productivity gains in this country.

And the most important question - even if we didn't cut the taxes, would we be able to balance the budget.

This is where our media continually lets us down...

BTW, the answers are, "don't know", "yes", "no" and "no".

Read on Twitter

?s=20

[TGW]

Read on Twitter

?s=20

Read on Twitter

?s=20

the Trump taxcuts was a big stock buyback scam by CEOs

people on the progressive left were saying this months ago

[dckingsfan]

the Trump taxcuts was a big stock buyback scam by CEOs

people on the progressive left were saying this months ago

But even the sane progressives acknowledged that the corporate tax rates were too high and making our corporations non-competitive. And they acknowledged that the taxes on overseas earnings were a bad idea (no other country does this).

The problem on that end is that this tax bill made our tax code even longer, more complex and more unenforceable. Add to that there were no incentives for reinvestment in this country around productivity.

[TGW]

the Trump taxcuts was a big stock buyback scam by CEOs

people on the progressive left were saying this months ago

But even the sane progressives acknowledged that the corporate tax rates were too high and making our corporations non-competitive. And they acknowledged that the taxes on overseas earnings were a bad idea (no other country does this).

The problem on that end is that this tax bill made our tax code even longer, more complex and more unenforceable. Add to that there were no incentives for reinvestment in this country around productivity.

no, progressives never made that argument. corporations pay a historically low effective tax rate due to loopholes in the tax code (it's at 16% right now...ridiculous). Progressives wanted to lower the marginal tax rate and close the loopholes. R's and D's don't want that because it...wait for it...wait for it...EVENS THE PLAYING FIELD.

And let's be honest...these corporations will not "reinvest" in this country. That argument is a farce. Corporations look out for their bottom-line, and if that means getting a cheap, Chinese boy working 18 hours in a polluting factory over an average American worker, they'll do it. I don't see why our government continues to kiss the corporate ass when they have access to the greatest spending market in the world.

[I_Like_Dirt]

I think you're missing the mark using China as an example, TGW. The investments, beyond stock buybacks, are going to go into automation. If they can own the company outright, own the labour, own the distribution... realistically they control everything. It's clearly a long term end. Steve Jobs, for instance, didn't hide his goals of controlling every aspect of bringing a product to market. And it's proving increasingly easier to keep governments so muddled and paralyzed that they don't do anything to stop it.

And that's actually where dc has a great point about entitlements eating into the ability to pay for them. Revenues and spending are linked. Government revenues are generally linked to the collective welfare. When the collective welfare tanks, revenues go down, and when the collective welfare goes down, reliance on government supports (i.e. entitlements) goes up. Stagnant wages, massive tax cuts, etc. drive down revenues at a time when lower wages relative economic capacity are pushing entitlements across the board. Whenever people need/want something now, they far more powerless to get anything from their employer, which means they wind up going to government. The results are predictable.

[dckingsfan]

the Trump taxcuts was a big stock buyback scam by CEOs

people on the progressive left were saying this months ago

But even the sane progressives acknowledged that the corporate tax rates were too high and making our corporations non-competitive. And they acknowledged that the taxes on overseas earnings were a bad idea (no other country does this).

The problem on that end is that this tax bill made our tax code even longer, more complex and more unenforceable. Add to that there were no incentives for reinvestment in this country around productivity.

no, progressives never made that argument. corporations pay a historically low effective tax rate due to loopholes in the tax code (it's at 16% right now...ridiculous). Progressives wanted to lower the marginal tax rate and close the loopholes. R's and D's don't want that because it...wait for it...wait for it...EVENS THE PLAYING FIELD.

And let's be honest...these corporations will not "reinvest" in this country. That argument is a farce. Corporations look out for their bottom-line, and if that means getting a cheap, Chinese boy working 18 hours in a polluting factory over an average American worker, they'll do it. I don't see why our government continues to kiss the corporate ass when they have access to the greatest spending market in the world.

Progressives didn't want to close the loopholes or carveouts. They didn't do this during the Obama administration or other times that they have had a supermajority - they just increased THEIR careveouts (progressives love their carveouts). So, there is that. Have you ever heard progressives endorse a flat tax?

And yes, corporations will and have reinvested when the tax code incented them to do so...

And 16% isn't that far off - it should probably be around 20%. Please see what happened to tax receipts when Canada lowered its corporate taxes.

And this still doesn't get to the main point - taxes are secondary until we can get our healthcare spending under control (other than fairness).

[gtn130]

Presented without comment

[TGW]

Progressives didn't want to close the loopholes or carveouts. They didn't do this during the Obama administration or other times that they have had a supermajority - they just increased THEIR careveouts (progressives love their carveouts). So, there is that. Have you ever heard progressives endorse a flat tax?

And yes, corporations will and have reinvested when the tax code incented them to do so...

And 16% isn't that far off - it should probably be around 20%. Please see what happened to tax receipts when Canada lowered its corporate taxes.

And this still doesn't get to the main point - taxes are secondary until we can get our healthcare spending under control (other than fairness).

The Obama Administration was not a progressive administration. You're confusing Democrats with progressives--the two are not the same.

And show me when corporations ever have invested in this country? Ever. American wages have completely stagnated and haven't gone up since the 60's. Corporations don't want to pay for worker's healthcare, they don't want American workers (unless they're subsidized by corporate welfare), and they don't want to produce anything here unless it's HEAVILY incentivized by taxpayer money.

I know you want to think slashing taxes is the cure to everything, but it's not. As for healthcare, the system stinks because of CORPORATIONS and PROFIT MOTIVE. If we took profit motive out of healthcare and cut the middleman out, the costs would decrease significantly.

[Pointgod]

Read on Twitter

?s=20

Read on Twitter

?s=20

Literally every independent and non right wing analysis predicted this would happen. This is why it's so disingenuous to give equal weighting to both sides on issues. Every single Republican was full of **** on this issue talking about unleashing animal spirits of the economy nonsense.

[dckingsfan]

Progressives didn't want to close the loopholes or carveouts. They didn't do this during the Obama administration or other times that they have had a supermajority - they just increased THEIR careveouts (progressives love their carveouts). So, there is that. Have you ever heard progressives endorse a flat tax?

And yes, corporations will and have reinvested when the tax code incented them to do so...

And 16% isn't that far off - it should probably be around 20%. Please see what happened to tax receipts when Canada lowered its corporate taxes.

And this still doesn't get to the main point - taxes are secondary until we can get our healthcare spending under control (other than fairness).

The Obama Administration was not a progressive administration. You're confusing Democrats with progressives--the two are not the same.

And show me when corporations ever have invested in this country? Ever. American wages have completely stagnated and haven't gone up since the 60's. Corporations don't want to pay for worker's healthcare, they don't want American workers (unless they're subsidized by corporate welfare), and they don't want to produce anything here unless it's HEAVILY incentivized by taxpayer money.

I know you want to think slashing taxes is the cure to everything, but it's not. As for healthcare, the system stinks because of CORPORATIONS and PROFIT MOTIVE. If we took profit motive out of healthcare and cut the middleman out, the costs would decrease significantly.

Fair enough on the Obama Administration.

Corporations have continually invested in their corporations (one only needs to go to the corporate annual reports to find out where they are investing) sometimes here and sometimes abroad - as it best fits their needs. What you don't want to do is provide a disinsentive to invest (or an incentive to invest in the wrong things - as our current tax code does - M&A, stock buybacks, etc.).

I cry BS to the corporations being the reason for the healthcare mess, that was a systematic mess created by government on well meaning but terrible legislation.

Corporations (and government entities) should NEVER have been responsible for healthcare - that was incredibly stupid and created the haves and have nots (definition of NOT progressive). Medical care should always have been purchased by the individual - that's why those working for the government or large corporations ignored the problem for so long - there had no associated costs and it drove up healthcare spending.

Where we probably agee is that giving discounts to corporations to purchase medical insurance for their employees wasn't progressive - it was and is stupid policy.

I don't know if we agree that healthcare cost drivers are the elephant in the room and tax cuts are just a side show.

[dckingsfan]

Double post.