|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
|
|
On May 03 2017 03:23 hunts wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2017 02:48 biology]major wrote:
Lol holy shit hrc straight trying to delegitimize trump. I don't think she has to do much of anything to show how illegitimate he is.
Reality, his own actions and staff are doing far more work that HRC ever could.
|
On May 03 2017 03:30 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2017 03:23 hunts wrote:On May 03 2017 02:48 biology]major wrote:
Lol holy shit hrc straight trying to delegitimize trump. I don't think she has to do much of anything to show how illegitimate he is. Reality, his own actions and staff are doing far more work that HRC ever could.
Yeah, although it appears many of his supporters reject this reality. But he seems to simultaneously be picking fights with his own populist base and with the more traditional republicans, as well as with everyone else.
|
On May 03 2017 02:37 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2017 02:20 ticklishmusic wrote:On May 03 2017 02:00 WolfintheSheep wrote:On May 03 2017 01:45 Danglars wrote:On May 03 2017 01:39 WolfintheSheep wrote:On May 03 2017 01:26 Danglars wrote:House Tax Plan includes support for Universal Savings Accounts, already present in the UK and Canada. For individuals, the House plan suggests creating Universal Savings Accounts (USAs), based on legislation introduced by Sen. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) and Rep. Dave Brat (R-VA). The accounts would simplify and reduce taxes on personal savings, thus encouraging individuals to save more and build greater financial security. Both the United Kingdom and Canada have created USA-style accounts. The accounts are popular, and a large share of people in every age and income group use them. This bulletin discusses the taxation of savings, the British and Canadian reforms, and the opportunity to simplify the tax code and increase savings with USAs. Cato Just looking at the chart on page 1, your version sucks ass. Also kind of laughing my ass off that they'd call it a "Universal Savings Account" just to get a USA acronym, even though it's anything but Universal. Any comment besides "sucks ass?" I want to know if your argument sucks ass. Nevermind, I thought the chart on page 1 was the proposed USA plan. It's just your retirement investment plan or something. There's also a 401k plan which caps at 18k in addition to the Roth/ traditional IRA of 5.5k. Also, only the earnings in a Roth IRA are subject to the penalty (ie a regular old tax). The contributions you can pull out whenever because it's a post-tax contribution. Earnings in a Roth IRA are also post tax. That's the purpose of the Roth.
i meant for early withdrawals, which is what the cato thing refers to. general point is that cato presents a pretty cruddy & inaccurate picture of what americans can do for retirement.
|
On May 03 2017 03:34 hunts wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2017 03:30 Plansix wrote:On May 03 2017 03:23 hunts wrote:On May 03 2017 02:48 biology]major wrote:
Lol holy shit hrc straight trying to delegitimize trump. I don't think she has to do much of anything to show how illegitimate he is. Reality, his own actions and staff are doing far more work that HRC ever could. Yeah, although it appears many of his supporters reject this reality. But he seems to simultaneously be picking fights with his own populist base and with the more traditional republicans, as well as with everyone else.
40% of voters supported Nixon right up until he left office. People do not enjoy admitting they were wrong/tricked publicly. Polling admitting that publicly.
|
On May 03 2017 03:11 ragz_gt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2017 02:52 Mercy13 wrote:On May 03 2017 02:47 Tachion wrote:On May 03 2017 02:33 Mercy13 wrote:On May 03 2017 02:10 Danglars wrote:On May 03 2017 01:53 Mercy13 wrote:On May 03 2017 01:43 Danglars wrote:On May 03 2017 01:33 Mercy13 wrote:On May 03 2017 01:15 Danglars wrote:On May 03 2017 00:57 KwarK wrote:
Zero tax dollars fund abortion as you well know Danglars. Tell me why Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion provider doing in excess of 320,000 abortions per year needs taxpayer money. You have enough of an economic understanding to know the fungibility argument. If it was spent on new community health centers and other organizations providing women's health services instead of Big Abortion, the situation would be improved. You don't indirectly support abortions, today you do. But if this was Exxon Mobil or mining enterprises (the more recognizably mixed-motive organizations) and the money could ONLY go for housing of displaced persons, people might better see the issue for people of conscience. But they're the only ones that can do it!! Yeah, right. On May 03 2017 01:10 Mohdoo wrote:
[quote]
I guess that's a fair point. In the absence of federal funding, number of abortions would remain steady. They might well raise the same amount of money from abortion groups, pro-choice groups, and their own drives. The difference being those people know the primary service PP provides and aren't compelled to help out. "Hey they're still going to kill the same amount of babies" isn't very compelling for someone helping keep them solvent. Even consider how much flak was recently in the news on legislation forcing doctors to inform expectant mothers of their right to see a sonogram ... a reasonable person would conclude PP is biased towards one of the two choices in pro-choice arguments based on abortion law and income stream. Better off in community health centers/women's health clinics. The vast majority of taxpayer money paid to PP is for Medicaid reimbursements. If that funding is cut they would keep providing abortions, and just stop performing reimbursable procedures for Medicaid recipients. Edit: and A LOT of those Medicaid payments go to family planning and contraceptives. I wonder what will happen to the abortion rate if those suddenly go away? The argument isn't to do away with all money to the very accepted portions of family planning and women's health. If you were honest about the issue of availability, we work together to sunset funding for one divisive organization and coordinate the implementation for others. I suspect very little cooperation, because it's always been about abortions and not women's health. But prove me wrong, we may get the chance in September. Why should we send the money elsewhere just because it's divisive? PP does a very good job of serving low income communities, and I care far more about that than about how divisive they are. Do you think it would really be worth it to go through all the trouble and expense of building brand new medical clinics to replace PP, which in many cases would not be as effective as PP in serving their communities, all while not decreasing abortion rates? There's all kinds of divisive shit the federal government does, should all of that be de-funded too? If you believe in freedom of conscience and the rights of people of the pro-life persuasion, it's worth it. Some rights actually end up being quite costly, particularly when a current of ignorance and regression has held sway for so many years. There would be very little cost if better thinking had prevailed decades ago, but returning to the right arrangement now necessitates more. I totally reject your assertion that PP is uniquely qualified to serve certain communities such that new clinics are doomed to fail because they're named differently. Do they have some kind of monopoly on good doctors, administrators, community outreach programs, and the like? Come on now, this all is sounding like I'm talking about comparisons of different banking establishments with the CEO of Goldman Sachs. I have limited time with this thread and some conversations just can't be resolved on the different bases of the conversant. Nothing is stopping new clinics from opening in areas already served by Planned Parenthood. Maybe there's even a demand for "pro-life" medical providers, and they would have the added advantage of not constantly being punching bags for politicians trying to score easy points with evangelicals. It is entirely possible that such clinics would be competitive with PP, and they would be able to draw some of those Medicaid reimbursements away.It's not like the federal government has a line item in the budget for "Planned Parenthood Medicaid payments." It just reimburses clinics which provide certain Medicaid services, and in many cases those clinics happen to be PP. Anyway, if what you mean by "freedom of conscience" is that a minority should be able to dictate where tax dollars are spent without regard to practical outcomes then no, I do not believe in freedom of conscience. Aren't abortion rates at their lowest point in 40 some odd years anyway? Can't this at least in part be attributed to PP providing quality, affordable birth control and health services? The argument for defunding reeks of fluffy ideology more so than practicality. They could inadvertently end up increasing abortion rates if they follow through. Danglars doesn't seem to care about abortion rates. He cares more about peoples' tax dollars going to an organization that they find morally objectionable (correct me if I'm wrong Danglars). So arguing about abortion rates isn't going to change his mind. That's a stupid assertion though. If you are against prison you don't get to choose where you tax dollar go to. If you are against public education you don't get to choose where your tax dollar go to. If you are against military intervention you don't get to choose where your tax dollar go to. How is it different as long as government accept it is a valid spending, as opposite to your personal opinion.
I like this idea. If evangelicals can raise hell over some of their tax dollars possibly going to an organization that might also perform abortions, why can't pacifists complain that their tax dollars go to a military whose sole purpose is killing people?
If you want freedom of conscience for abortions, i demand freedom of conscience for war.
|
On May 03 2017 03:44 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2017 03:11 ragz_gt wrote:On May 03 2017 02:52 Mercy13 wrote:On May 03 2017 02:47 Tachion wrote:On May 03 2017 02:33 Mercy13 wrote:On May 03 2017 02:10 Danglars wrote:On May 03 2017 01:53 Mercy13 wrote:On May 03 2017 01:43 Danglars wrote:On May 03 2017 01:33 Mercy13 wrote:On May 03 2017 01:15 Danglars wrote:[quote] Tell me why Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion provider doing in excess of 320,000 abortions per year needs taxpayer money. You have enough of an economic understanding to know the fungibility argument. If it was spent on new community health centers and other organizations providing women's health services instead of Big Abortion, the situation would be improved. You don't indirectly support abortions, today you do. But if this was Exxon Mobil or mining enterprises (the more recognizably mixed-motive organizations) and the money could ONLY go for housing of displaced persons, people might better see the issue for people of conscience. But they're the only ones that can do it!! Yeah, right. [quote] They might well raise the same amount of money from abortion groups, pro-choice groups, and their own drives. The difference being those people know the primary service PP provides and aren't compelled to help out. "Hey they're still going to kill the same amount of babies" isn't very compelling for someone helping keep them solvent. Even consider how much flak was recently in the news on legislation forcing doctors to inform expectant mothers of their right to see a sonogram ... a reasonable person would conclude PP is biased towards one of the two choices in pro-choice arguments based on abortion law and income stream. Better off in community health centers/women's health clinics. The vast majority of taxpayer money paid to PP is for Medicaid reimbursements. If that funding is cut they would keep providing abortions, and just stop performing reimbursable procedures for Medicaid recipients. Edit: and A LOT of those Medicaid payments go to family planning and contraceptives. I wonder what will happen to the abortion rate if those suddenly go away? The argument isn't to do away with all money to the very accepted portions of family planning and women's health. If you were honest about the issue of availability, we work together to sunset funding for one divisive organization and coordinate the implementation for others. I suspect very little cooperation, because it's always been about abortions and not women's health. But prove me wrong, we may get the chance in September. Why should we send the money elsewhere just because it's divisive? PP does a very good job of serving low income communities, and I care far more about that than about how divisive they are. Do you think it would really be worth it to go through all the trouble and expense of building brand new medical clinics to replace PP, which in many cases would not be as effective as PP in serving their communities, all while not decreasing abortion rates? There's all kinds of divisive shit the federal government does, should all of that be de-funded too? If you believe in freedom of conscience and the rights of people of the pro-life persuasion, it's worth it. Some rights actually end up being quite costly, particularly when a current of ignorance and regression has held sway for so many years. There would be very little cost if better thinking had prevailed decades ago, but returning to the right arrangement now necessitates more. I totally reject your assertion that PP is uniquely qualified to serve certain communities such that new clinics are doomed to fail because they're named differently. Do they have some kind of monopoly on good doctors, administrators, community outreach programs, and the like? Come on now, this all is sounding like I'm talking about comparisons of different banking establishments with the CEO of Goldman Sachs. I have limited time with this thread and some conversations just can't be resolved on the different bases of the conversant. Nothing is stopping new clinics from opening in areas already served by Planned Parenthood. Maybe there's even a demand for "pro-life" medical providers, and they would have the added advantage of not constantly being punching bags for politicians trying to score easy points with evangelicals. It is entirely possible that such clinics would be competitive with PP, and they would be able to draw some of those Medicaid reimbursements away.It's not like the federal government has a line item in the budget for "Planned Parenthood Medicaid payments." It just reimburses clinics which provide certain Medicaid services, and in many cases those clinics happen to be PP. Anyway, if what you mean by "freedom of conscience" is that a minority should be able to dictate where tax dollars are spent without regard to practical outcomes then no, I do not believe in freedom of conscience. Aren't abortion rates at their lowest point in 40 some odd years anyway? Can't this at least in part be attributed to PP providing quality, affordable birth control and health services? The argument for defunding reeks of fluffy ideology more so than practicality. They could inadvertently end up increasing abortion rates if they follow through. Danglars doesn't seem to care about abortion rates. He cares more about peoples' tax dollars going to an organization that they find morally objectionable (correct me if I'm wrong Danglars). So arguing about abortion rates isn't going to change his mind. That's a stupid assertion though. If you are against prison you don't get to choose where you tax dollar go to. If you are against public education you don't get to choose where your tax dollar go to. If you are against military intervention you don't get to choose where your tax dollar go to. How is it different as long as government accept it is a valid spending, as opposite to your personal opinion. I like this idea. If evangelicals can raise hell over some of their tax dollars possibly going to an organization that might also perform abortions, why can't pacifists complain that their tax dollars go to a military whose sole purpose is killing people? If you want freedom of conscience for abortions, i demand freedom of conscience for war.
There is a West Wing quote that is always on point for this subject:
Toby Ziegler: I don't know from where you get the idea that taxpayers shouldn't have to pay for anything of which they disapprove. Lots of 'em don't like tanks... even more don't like Congress.
|
On May 03 2017 00:47 Plansix wrote:
It should be noted that removing the filibuster is seen as a net loss for Republican/conservatives over the long term. Removing entitlements is harder than putting them in place and the Democrats could create more social programs and taxes without Republican buy-in if the filibuster is removed.
Also the Senate is pretty unified in keeping the rule in place. They do not want to become the house where only a simple majority is required to pass a law. The prevailing view is that it is a net loss for the courtry.
Which is why once Democrats get back in power they will make sure to bring back the filibuster for Republicans to use against them.
Also love how Hillary is still talking about how her loss wasn't her fault.
|
danglars thinks a majority disapprove of pp/abortions. if we got a majority that disapproved of war we could defund it
|
On May 03 2017 03:59 IgnE wrote:
danglars thinks a majority disapprove of pp/abortions. if we got a majority that disapproved of war we could defund it
Was thinking we need a religion whose only tenet is that we don't pay for war/war machines.
EDIT: Also Texas police murdered an unarmed black teenage boy who was fleeing a high school party in a car.
Many of us (I know there's a lot of nerds here though) have fled a party getting broke up by the cops, I bet none of you thought a cop was going to put a .223 rifle round through you for running away from a party, then not get fired let alone arrested. Oh he lied about what happened too (like the police ALWAYS DO in these situations).
As family and friends mourned the death of a 15-year-old boy shot in the head by a police officer in a Dallas suburb over the weekend, the police chief said Monday that new evidence showed the killing did not unfold the way the authorities had originally claimed.
The Police Department in Balch Springs, Tex., said Sunday that the officer, whose name has not been released, fired on a car carrying the teenager, Jordan Edwards, a freshman at Mesquite High School in nearby Mesquite, Tex., because the car was reversing down a street toward the officer in an “aggressive manner.”
But Jonathan Haber, the police chief, told reporters at a news conference on Monday afternoon that video showed the opposite. He said the officer fired when the car was “moving forward as the officers approached,” according to The Associated Press. The Dallas County medical examiner’s report ruled the death a homicide caused by a “rifle wound” to the head.
Lee Merritt, a lawyer for the Edwards family, praised the police chief for his willingness to admit the department’s mistake and called the new account “a big deal.”
“There were no weapons involved; there was no aggressive behavior; these were not suspects,” Mr. Merritt said in a telephone interview. “The lone motive they had for the murder was that the vehicle was being used as a weapon, and now that is no longer there.”
Source
|
On May 03 2017 03:49 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2017 00:47 Plansix wrote:
It should be noted that removing the filibuster is seen as a net loss for Republican/conservatives over the long term. Removing entitlements is harder than putting them in place and the Democrats could create more social programs and taxes without Republican buy-in if the filibuster is removed.
Also the Senate is pretty unified in keeping the rule in place. They do not want to become the house where only a simple majority is required to pass a law. The prevailing view is that it is a net loss for the courtry.
Which is why once Democrats get back in power they will make sure to bring back the filibuster for Republicans to use against them.Also love how Hillary is still talking about how her loss wasn't her fault.
I never said the Democrats agreed that it was for the good of the country. Just that political analysis said it would be better for democrats long term. I agree with my senators assessment removing the filibuster is bad for the Supreme Court and for the country. I don’t agree with his assessment that it should be restored unless we see significant changes GOP leadership in the Senate.
|
On May 03 2017 04:13 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2017 03:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 03 2017 00:47 Plansix wrote:
It should be noted that removing the filibuster is seen as a net loss for Republican/conservatives over the long term. Removing entitlements is harder than putting them in place and the Democrats could create more social programs and taxes without Republican buy-in if the filibuster is removed.
Also the Senate is pretty unified in keeping the rule in place. They do not want to become the house where only a simple majority is required to pass a law. The prevailing view is that it is a net loss for the courtry.
Which is why once Democrats get back in power they will make sure to bring back the filibuster for Republicans to use against them.Also love how Hillary is still talking about how her loss wasn't her fault. I never said the Democrats agreed that it was for the good of the country. Just that political analysis said it would be better for democrats long term. I agree with my senators assessment removing the filibuster is bad for the Supreme Court and for the country. I don’t agree with his assessment that it should be restored unless we see significant changes GOP leadership in the Senate.
I'm just saying Democrats are so good at losing they even want to use their power to bring back rules to make it easier for them to lose.
|
On May 03 2017 04:15 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2017 04:13 Plansix wrote:On May 03 2017 03:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 03 2017 00:47 Plansix wrote:
It should be noted that removing the filibuster is seen as a net loss for Republican/conservatives over the long term. Removing entitlements is harder than putting them in place and the Democrats could create more social programs and taxes without Republican buy-in if the filibuster is removed.
Also the Senate is pretty unified in keeping the rule in place. They do not want to become the house where only a simple majority is required to pass a law. The prevailing view is that it is a net loss for the courtry.
Which is why once Democrats get back in power they will make sure to bring back the filibuster for Republicans to use against them.Also love how Hillary is still talking about how her loss wasn't her fault. I never said the Democrats agreed that it was for the good of the country. Just that political analysis said it would be better for democrats long term. I agree with my senators assessment removing the filibuster is bad for the Supreme Court and for the country. I don’t agree with his assessment that it should be restored unless we see significant changes GOP leadership in the Senate. I'm just saying Democrats are so good at losing they even want to use their power to bring back rules to make it easier for them to lose.
The only way politics gets better is the members of congress undo all the terrible rules put in place by the GOP in the last 20 years. From the Haster rule in the House to this rule in the Senate. There does need to be a rethinking of how the chambers should conduct themselves.
But it needs to be both parties. You are not wrong that the Democrats want to hand over weapons to the GOP for no real reason. The democrats are desperate to get back to the era of bipartisanship, but they need win elections first and stay in office first.
|
On May 03 2017 04:18 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2017 04:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 03 2017 04:13 Plansix wrote:On May 03 2017 03:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 03 2017 00:47 Plansix wrote:
It should be noted that removing the filibuster is seen as a net loss for Republican/conservatives over the long term. Removing entitlements is harder than putting them in place and the Democrats could create more social programs and taxes without Republican buy-in if the filibuster is removed.
Also the Senate is pretty unified in keeping the rule in place. They do not want to become the house where only a simple majority is required to pass a law. The prevailing view is that it is a net loss for the courtry.
Which is why once Democrats get back in power they will make sure to bring back the filibuster for Republicans to use against them.Also love how Hillary is still talking about how her loss wasn't her fault. I never said the Democrats agreed that it was for the good of the country. Just that political analysis said it would be better for democrats long term. I agree with my senators assessment removing the filibuster is bad for the Supreme Court and for the country. I don’t agree with his assessment that it should be restored unless we see significant changes GOP leadership in the Senate. I'm just saying Democrats are so good at losing they even want to use their power to bring back rules to make it easier for them to lose. The only way politics gets better is the members of congress undo all the terrible rules put in place by the GOP in the last 20 years. From the Haster rule in the House to this rule in the Senate. There does need to be a rethinking of how the chambers should conduct themselves. But it needs to be both parties. You are not wrong that the Democrats want to hand over weapons to the GOP for no real reason. The democrats are desperate to get back to the era of bipartisanship, but they need win elections first and stay in office first.
I find it hard to believe that we are so smart that we see how obviously stupid bringing back the filibuster for Republicans to use, then losing every time Republicans are in power is, but these people who do this for a living don't see it.
They see it and think losing is in their interest.
The big lie is that they are fighting with each other representing the two major factions of "the people". The fight is a lie to cover for the fact that they both represent the wealthy, with sometimes opposing factions within the wealthy.
|
On May 03 2017 04:26 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2017 04:18 Plansix wrote:On May 03 2017 04:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 03 2017 04:13 Plansix wrote:On May 03 2017 03:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 03 2017 00:47 Plansix wrote:
It should be noted that removing the filibuster is seen as a net loss for Republican/conservatives over the long term. Removing entitlements is harder than putting them in place and the Democrats could create more social programs and taxes without Republican buy-in if the filibuster is removed.
Also the Senate is pretty unified in keeping the rule in place. They do not want to become the house where only a simple majority is required to pass a law. The prevailing view is that it is a net loss for the courtry.
Which is why once Democrats get back in power they will make sure to bring back the filibuster for Republicans to use against them.Also love how Hillary is still talking about how her loss wasn't her fault. I never said the Democrats agreed that it was for the good of the country. Just that political analysis said it would be better for democrats long term. I agree with my senators assessment removing the filibuster is bad for the Supreme Court and for the country. I don’t agree with his assessment that it should be restored unless we see significant changes GOP leadership in the Senate. I'm just saying Democrats are so good at losing they even want to use their power to bring back rules to make it easier for them to lose. The only way politics gets better is the members of congress undo all the terrible rules put in place by the GOP in the last 20 years. From the Haster rule in the House to this rule in the Senate. There does need to be a rethinking of how the chambers should conduct themselves. But it needs to be both parties. You are not wrong that the Democrats want to hand over weapons to the GOP for no real reason. The democrats are desperate to get back to the era of bipartisanship, but they need win elections first and stay in office first. I find it hard to believe that we are so smart that we see how obviously stupid bringing back the filibuster for Republicans to use, then losing every time Republicans are in power is, but these people who do this for a living don't see it. They see it and think losing is in their interest. The big lie is that they are fighting with each other representing the two major factions of "the people". The fight is a lie to cover for the fact that they both represent the wealthy, with sometimes opposing factions within the wealthy.
Why would you think that message is for everyone? Or the official line of the DNC? I understand the fear of the DNC doing stupid things. Their record shows they love to shoot themselves in the leg. There is a chance that he is one Senator voicing his opinion on the subject and what he would like to see. If congress is ever going to be made functional again, we have to talk about these rules. And changing them back means empowering the potential minority Republicans. Unlike the Republicans, the Democrats know they need to accomplish things when they are in office and they really can’t do that totally alone.
I would argue that biggest mistake the Democrats made in 2008 was not removing all the rules the Republicans put into place during the hold on the House. It took the Republicans over 10 years to get the House to be the little dictatorship for the Speaker that it is. But then I remember who they put up there as speaker of the house and totally understood why.
|
United States42868 Posts
On May 03 2017 03:34 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2017 02:37 KwarK wrote:On May 03 2017 02:20 ticklishmusic wrote:On May 03 2017 02:00 WolfintheSheep wrote:On May 03 2017 01:45 Danglars wrote:On May 03 2017 01:39 WolfintheSheep wrote:On May 03 2017 01:26 Danglars wrote:House Tax Plan includes support for Universal Savings Accounts, already present in the UK and Canada. For individuals, the House plan suggests creating Universal Savings Accounts (USAs), based on legislation introduced by Sen. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) and Rep. Dave Brat (R-VA). The accounts would simplify and reduce taxes on personal savings, thus encouraging individuals to save more and build greater financial security. Both the United Kingdom and Canada have created USA-style accounts. The accounts are popular, and a large share of people in every age and income group use them. This bulletin discusses the taxation of savings, the British and Canadian reforms, and the opportunity to simplify the tax code and increase savings with USAs. Cato Just looking at the chart on page 1, your version sucks ass. Also kind of laughing my ass off that they'd call it a "Universal Savings Account" just to get a USA acronym, even though it's anything but Universal. Any comment besides "sucks ass?" I want to know if your argument sucks ass. Nevermind, I thought the chart on page 1 was the proposed USA plan. It's just your retirement investment plan or something. There's also a 401k plan which caps at 18k in addition to the Roth/ traditional IRA of 5.5k. Also, only the earnings in a Roth IRA are subject to the penalty (ie a regular old tax). The contributions you can pull out whenever because it's a post-tax contribution. Earnings in a Roth IRA are also post tax. That's the purpose of the Roth. i meant for early withdrawals, which is what the cato thing refers to. general point is that cato presents a pretty cruddy & inaccurate picture of what americans can do for retirement.
That's a flat penalty, not a tax. Shouldn't confuse the two.
|
On May 03 2017 04:36 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2017 04:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 03 2017 04:18 Plansix wrote:On May 03 2017 04:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 03 2017 04:13 Plansix wrote:On May 03 2017 03:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 03 2017 00:47 Plansix wrote:
It should be noted that removing the filibuster is seen as a net loss for Republican/conservatives over the long term. Removing entitlements is harder than putting them in place and the Democrats could create more social programs and taxes without Republican buy-in if the filibuster is removed.
Also the Senate is pretty unified in keeping the rule in place. They do not want to become the house where only a simple majority is required to pass a law. The prevailing view is that it is a net loss for the courtry.
Which is why once Democrats get back in power they will make sure to bring back the filibuster for Republicans to use against them.Also love how Hillary is still talking about how her loss wasn't her fault. I never said the Democrats agreed that it was for the good of the country. Just that political analysis said it would be better for democrats long term. I agree with my senators assessment removing the filibuster is bad for the Supreme Court and for the country. I don’t agree with his assessment that it should be restored unless we see significant changes GOP leadership in the Senate. I'm just saying Democrats are so good at losing they even want to use their power to bring back rules to make it easier for them to lose. The only way politics gets better is the members of congress undo all the terrible rules put in place by the GOP in the last 20 years. From the Haster rule in the House to this rule in the Senate. There does need to be a rethinking of how the chambers should conduct themselves. But it needs to be both parties. You are not wrong that the Democrats want to hand over weapons to the GOP for no real reason. The democrats are desperate to get back to the era of bipartisanship, but they need win elections first and stay in office first. I find it hard to believe that we are so smart that we see how obviously stupid bringing back the filibuster for Republicans to use, then losing every time Republicans are in power is, but these people who do this for a living don't see it. They see it and think losing is in their interest. The big lie is that they are fighting with each other representing the two major factions of "the people". The fight is a lie to cover for the fact that they both represent the wealthy, with sometimes opposing factions within the wealthy. Why would you think that message is for everyone? Or the official line of the DNC? I understand the fear of the DNC doing stupid things. Their record shows they love to shoot themselves in the leg. There is a chance that he is one Senator voicing his opinion on the subject and what he would like to see. If congress is ever going to be made functional again, we have to talk about these rules. And changing them back means empowering the potential minority Republicans. I would argue that biggest mistake the Democrats made in 2008 was not removing all the rules the Republicans put into place during the hold on the House. It took the Republicans over 10 years to get the House to be the little dictatorship for the Speaker that it is. But then I remember who they put up there as speaker of the house and totally understood why.
Well there's no opposing voice in the Democratic party on the issue so there's that, plus the whole creatures of habit thing. Maybe he's alone, but still emblematic of how remarkably ineffectual Democrats are. No question that Trump's incompetence has caused Trump more problems than the Democratic party, if they were "resisting" someone even remotely capable they would be getting dragged through the square.
Democrats are losing in popularity to literally the least liked president in history who is known by his own voters as a serial liar.
I don't think many Democrats really appreciate how god awful terrible they are in the eye's of the country. Meanwhile they'd rather float ol' Joe for 2020 than admit they need to be more like the most popular politician in the country that they spent the last year or so marginalizing and trying desperately to argue that he and his idea's are actually less popular than Hillary/Democrats and their ideas.
|
On May 03 2017 00:38 Doodsmack wrote:This was actually the most egregious case of a cop being on video gunning someone down in cold blood. Show nested quote +A white former South Carolina police officer planned to plead guilty Tuesday to violating the civil rights of an unarmed black motorist he shot and killed as the man ran from a 2015 traffic stop, according to a copy of the plea agreement obtained by The Associated Press.
The 13-page document also notes that as part of the deal, state prosecutors would drop a pending murder charge against Michael Slager, effectively bringing to a close both parallel cases against the former North Charleston police officer.
...
"The defendant willfully used deadly force even though it was objectively unreasonable under the circumstances," according to the plea agreement. "The defendant acknowledges that during the time he used deadly force, he knew that the use of deadly force was unnecessary and excessive, and therefore unreasonable under the circumstances." www.yahoo.com
Is it really considered cold blood if the person is running away?
|
On May 03 2017 04:43 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2017 04:36 Plansix wrote:On May 03 2017 04:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 03 2017 04:18 Plansix wrote:On May 03 2017 04:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 03 2017 04:13 Plansix wrote:On May 03 2017 03:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 03 2017 00:47 Plansix wrote:
It should be noted that removing the filibuster is seen as a net loss for Republican/conservatives over the long term. Removing entitlements is harder than putting them in place and the Democrats could create more social programs and taxes without Republican buy-in if the filibuster is removed.
Also the Senate is pretty unified in keeping the rule in place. They do not want to become the house where only a simple majority is required to pass a law. The prevailing view is that it is a net loss for the courtry.
Which is why once Democrats get back in power they will make sure to bring back the filibuster for Republicans to use against them.Also love how Hillary is still talking about how her loss wasn't her fault. I never said the Democrats agreed that it was for the good of the country. Just that political analysis said it would be better for democrats long term. I agree with my senators assessment removing the filibuster is bad for the Supreme Court and for the country. I don’t agree with his assessment that it should be restored unless we see significant changes GOP leadership in the Senate. I'm just saying Democrats are so good at losing they even want to use their power to bring back rules to make it easier for them to lose. The only way politics gets better is the members of congress undo all the terrible rules put in place by the GOP in the last 20 years. From the Haster rule in the House to this rule in the Senate. There does need to be a rethinking of how the chambers should conduct themselves. But it needs to be both parties. You are not wrong that the Democrats want to hand over weapons to the GOP for no real reason. The democrats are desperate to get back to the era of bipartisanship, but they need win elections first and stay in office first. I find it hard to believe that we are so smart that we see how obviously stupid bringing back the filibuster for Republicans to use, then losing every time Republicans are in power is, but these people who do this for a living don't see it. They see it and think losing is in their interest. The big lie is that they are fighting with each other representing the two major factions of "the people". The fight is a lie to cover for the fact that they both represent the wealthy, with sometimes opposing factions within the wealthy. Why would you think that message is for everyone? Or the official line of the DNC? I understand the fear of the DNC doing stupid things. Their record shows they love to shoot themselves in the leg. There is a chance that he is one Senator voicing his opinion on the subject and what he would like to see. If congress is ever going to be made functional again, we have to talk about these rules. And changing them back means empowering the potential minority Republicans. I would argue that biggest mistake the Democrats made in 2008 was not removing all the rules the Republicans put into place during the hold on the House. It took the Republicans over 10 years to get the House to be the little dictatorship for the Speaker that it is. But then I remember who they put up there as speaker of the house and totally understood why. Well there's no opposing voice in the Democratic party on the issue so there's that, plus the whole creatures of habit thing. Maybe he's alone, but still emblematic of how remarkably ineffectual Democrats are. No question that Trump's incompetence has caused Trump more problems than the Democratic party, if they were "resisting" someone even remotely capable they would be getting dragged through the square. Democrats are losing in popularity to literally the least liked president in history who is known by his own voters as a serial liar. I don't think many Democrats really appreciate how god awful terrible they are in the eye's of the country. Meanwhile they'd rather float ol' Joe for 2020 than admit they need to be more like the most popular politician in the country that they spent the last year or so marginalizing and trying desperately to argue that he and his idea's are actually less popular than Hillary/Democrats and their ideas.
This isn’t new for Democrats or progressives as a whole. Look at the EU. Or if you need the US example, go back to Nixon. The Democrats have a popular, young, charismatic president in JFK. He dies and the next election they are dumpstered by the trash fire that was Nixon. If you read reports from the time, the Democratic leadership was dumbfounded and couldn’t understand what happened. There is a choice quote out there “I don’t even know a single person who voted for Nixon. I never spoke to anyone who said they would” from someone in the leadership at the time.
You are not wrong, but this is part of the political cycle we go through. The “party” or the left needs renewed leadership and a way forward. That process is a fight unto itself. And that fight won’t end even if Bernie is the next presidential candidate in 2020. It won’t end after the election. You will be fighting with centrist-liberals until the heat death of the universe. Just embrace it.
|
On May 03 2017 04:58 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2017 04:43 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 03 2017 04:36 Plansix wrote:On May 03 2017 04:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 03 2017 04:18 Plansix wrote:On May 03 2017 04:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 03 2017 04:13 Plansix wrote:On May 03 2017 03:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 03 2017 00:47 Plansix wrote:
It should be noted that removing the filibuster is seen as a net loss for Republican/conservatives over the long term. Removing entitlements is harder than putting them in place and the Democrats could create more social programs and taxes without Republican buy-in if the filibuster is removed.
Also the Senate is pretty unified in keeping the rule in place. They do not want to become the house where only a simple majority is required to pass a law. The prevailing view is that it is a net loss for the courtry.
Which is why once Democrats get back in power they will make sure to bring back the filibuster for Republicans to use against them.Also love how Hillary is still talking about how her loss wasn't her fault. I never said the Democrats agreed that it was for the good of the country. Just that political analysis said it would be better for democrats long term. I agree with my senators assessment removing the filibuster is bad for the Supreme Court and for the country. I don’t agree with his assessment that it should be restored unless we see significant changes GOP leadership in the Senate. I'm just saying Democrats are so good at losing they even want to use their power to bring back rules to make it easier for them to lose. The only way politics gets better is the members of congress undo all the terrible rules put in place by the GOP in the last 20 years. From the Haster rule in the House to this rule in the Senate. There does need to be a rethinking of how the chambers should conduct themselves. But it needs to be both parties. You are not wrong that the Democrats want to hand over weapons to the GOP for no real reason. The democrats are desperate to get back to the era of bipartisanship, but they need win elections first and stay in office first. I find it hard to believe that we are so smart that we see how obviously stupid bringing back the filibuster for Republicans to use, then losing every time Republicans are in power is, but these people who do this for a living don't see it. They see it and think losing is in their interest. The big lie is that they are fighting with each other representing the two major factions of "the people". The fight is a lie to cover for the fact that they both represent the wealthy, with sometimes opposing factions within the wealthy. Why would you think that message is for everyone? Or the official line of the DNC? I understand the fear of the DNC doing stupid things. Their record shows they love to shoot themselves in the leg. There is a chance that he is one Senator voicing his opinion on the subject and what he would like to see. If congress is ever going to be made functional again, we have to talk about these rules. And changing them back means empowering the potential minority Republicans. I would argue that biggest mistake the Democrats made in 2008 was not removing all the rules the Republicans put into place during the hold on the House. It took the Republicans over 10 years to get the House to be the little dictatorship for the Speaker that it is. But then I remember who they put up there as speaker of the house and totally understood why. Well there's no opposing voice in the Democratic party on the issue so there's that, plus the whole creatures of habit thing. Maybe he's alone, but still emblematic of how remarkably ineffectual Democrats are. No question that Trump's incompetence has caused Trump more problems than the Democratic party, if they were "resisting" someone even remotely capable they would be getting dragged through the square. Democrats are losing in popularity to literally the least liked president in history who is known by his own voters as a serial liar. I don't think many Democrats really appreciate how god awful terrible they are in the eye's of the country. Meanwhile they'd rather float ol' Joe for 2020 than admit they need to be more like the most popular politician in the country that they spent the last year or so marginalizing and trying desperately to argue that he and his idea's are actually less popular than Hillary/Democrats and their ideas. This isn’t new for Democrats or progressives as a whole. Look at the EU. Or if you need the US example, go back to Nixon. The Democrats have a popular, young, charismatic president in JFK. He dies and the next election they are dumpstered by the trash fire that was Nixon. If you read reports from the time, the Democratic leadership was dumbfounded and couldn’t understand what happened. There is a choice quote out there “I don’t even know a single person who voted for Nixon. I never spoke to anyone who said they would” from someone in the leadership at the time. You are not wrong, but this is part of the political cycle we go through. The “party” or the left needs renewed leadership and a way forward. That process is a fight unto itself. And that fight won’t end even if Bernie is the next presidential candidate in 2020. It won’t end after the election. You will be fighting with centrist-liberals until the heat death of the universe. Just embrace it.
I can deal with that, would just be nice for them to realize how wrong they've been and how disconnected they are from the overwhelming majority of Americans both on a personal and political level.
Like Hillary should probably shut up or next time she answers a question about losing, suggest that she probably shouldn't have cheated during the primary and supported that cheater being made interim chair of the DNC (replacing the previous chair who resigned in disgrace before immediately being hired by Hillary, who went on to campaign for DWS).
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
