|
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 December 20 2017 23:39 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2017 23:02 Danglars wrote:On December 20 2017 20:49 Simberto wrote:
It is strange how in the US the spending and taxes don't seem to be linked in the minds of a lot of people.
It is as if they think that taxes are just there to punish them, and government spending comes from a totally other place that has nothing to do with taxes.
If i hear "We reduce taxes for everyone", i stop to ask "Where does that money come from?". In the US, reducing taxes seems to be seen completely unrelated to what is cut for those tax cuts. That is weird. Increases in government spending are unmoored from revenues. It has been for decades now. The rest of it is weariness with government rhetoric. Every program is too crucial to be cut. Only taxes on the rich are ever considered. Any tax cut is blamed on giving breaks to the rich, though they pay the vast majority of taxes. Civics isn’t taught to ordinary Americans about how social security is bankrupt, and spending on entitlements generally outpaces any possible revenue increases in the next fifty years. So the rhetoric is mismatched and Americans aren’t demanding spending responsibility and options narrow. Starve the beast? Put the money back in the wallets of hard working Americans? No real comprehensive options truly remain, speaking generally and not specifically about this tax cut I opposed. Would you consider voting for democrats? Since they opposed the tax bill.
The day they go for real simplification of the tax code and individual rate cuts. They oppose a bill for different reasons, and would oppose tax cuts I support with the same exact arguments they used yesterday and throughout the last two months. The times of JFK conservative Democrats campaigning on tax cuts is long gone.
|
On December 20 2017 23:02 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2017 20:49 Simberto wrote:
It is strange how in the US the spending and taxes don't seem to be linked in the minds of a lot of people.
It is as if they think that taxes are just there to punish them, and government spending comes from a totally other place that has nothing to do with taxes.
If i hear "We reduce taxes for everyone", i stop to ask "Where does that money come from?". In the US, reducing taxes seems to be seen completely unrelated to what is cut for those tax cuts. That is weird. Increases in government spending are unmoored from revenues. It has been for decades now. The rest of it is weariness with government rhetoric. Every program is too crucial to be cut. Only taxes on the rich are ever considered. Any tax cut is blamed on giving breaks to the rich, though they pay the vast majority of taxes. Civics isn’t taught to ordinary Americans about how social security is bankrupt, and spending on entitlements generally outpaces any possible revenue increases in the next fifty years. So the rhetoric is mismatched and Americans aren’t demanding spending responsibility and options narrow. Starve the beast? Put the money back in the wallets of hard working Americans? No real comprehensive options truly remain, speaking generally and not specifically about this tax cut I opposed.
Obamacare was drafted to be revenue neutral, and (admittedly just because several states didn't sign up for the Medicaid expansion) it actually caused the deficit to decrease. At least one party has made a stab in recent years at being fiscally responsible.
I think a tax cut for "hard working Americans" is defensible, but I work pretty hard, and this bill will cause my taxes to go up because I live in a high property tax area, itemize, and don't have kids.
I'm not rich.
It would have been easy for them to draft a bill which cuts taxes on the all members of the middle class, but that's not what they set out to do.
|
On December 20 2017 23:44 hunts wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2017 23:02 Danglars wrote:On December 20 2017 20:49 Simberto wrote:
It is strange how in the US the spending and taxes don't seem to be linked in the minds of a lot of people.
It is as if they think that taxes are just there to punish them, and government spending comes from a totally other place that has nothing to do with taxes.
If i hear "We reduce taxes for everyone", i stop to ask "Where does that money come from?". In the US, reducing taxes seems to be seen completely unrelated to what is cut for those tax cuts. That is weird. Increases in government spending are unmoored from revenues. It has been for decades now. The rest of it is weariness with government rhetoric. Every program is too crucial to be cut. Only taxes on the rich are ever considered. Any tax cut is blamed on giving breaks to the rich, though they pay the vast majority of taxes. Civics isn’t taught to ordinary Americans about how social security is bankrupt, and spending on entitlements generally outpaces any possible revenue increases in the next fifty years. So the rhetoric is mismatched and Americans aren’t demanding spending responsibility and options narrow. Starve the beast? Put the money back in the wallets of hard working Americans? No real comprehensive options truly remain, speaking generally and not specifically about this tax cut I opposed. Except that the hard working Americans are getting next to nothing back from this and in time will be paying more while the rich reap almost all of the benefit. Plus tepublicons already said they will be looking at cutting healthcare and social security to help pay for this, so yeah. I guess you at least tried, kind of.
You really missed that last sentence. The point was general, and I answered generally.
|
|
|
New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, who helped put Jared Kushner's father in prison, showed no mercy toward the senior White House adviser on Tuesday, encouraging Russia probe investigators to closely examine any hand he may have had in potential wrongdoings by the Trump campaign.
President Donald Trump’s son-in-law “deserves the scrutiny, you know why?” Christie said on MSNBC’s Deadline White House. “Because he was involved in the transition and involved in meetings that call into question his role.
“Well then if he’s innocent of that, then that will come out as (special counsel Robert) Mueller examines all the facts. And if he’s not, that will come out too,” Christie continued.
Kushner was the “very senior member” of the president’s transition team who ordered former national security adviser Michael Flynn to contact Russian officials to try to stop a United Nations resolution condemning Israeli settlement activity before Trump was inaugurated, various news outlets reported earlier this month.
www.msn.com
|
That was a great year for the US economy.
Serious, we don't talk about the pre ww2 economy for a reason.
|
On December 21 2017 00:02 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2017 15:18 mozoku wrote:
Define "conclusively linked."
The US is a unique country in the world. Every country that is similarly developed has zero resemblance to it in terms of geographic diversity, ethnic diversity, size, and population. Every country that is comparable to it in those characteristics is nothing like the US in terms of development.
Taking lessons from other countries can be instructive, but there's certainly nothing empirically "conclusive" about how such policies would affect the US.
Worse still, even within Europe, the question of which way the causality points between lower inequality and outcomes is an open question.
I could likely just as easily claim that, amongst sufficiently wealthy countries, inequality and innovation are "conclusively linked."
Before someone asks, I'm not positing that inequality drives lower health, lower crime, etc. The argument is that inequality is a byproduct of growth, and that in the long-term it's better to be a faster growing, more innovative nation with greater inequality than the converse. Low inequality is great for Europe, but they're also freeloaders on the American innovation train. Growth also allows increased military spending, which ensures the defense of a liberal (and less necessarily) Western order against countries led by authoritarian despots such as Xi Jinpeng and Vladimir Putin.
Efforts should be made to allow everyone the opportunity to live a good life and to take care of those who've encountered misfortune, but I feel no obligation to slow growth and innovation for the sake of raising outcome numbers of those unwilling to work for outcomes themselves.
It's hardly surprising that countries who rely on someone else for defense and technological advancement are more concerned with inequality than growth. You’re putting in more effort than that post deserves. It shortcuts any thought besides that his private bugaboo proves people that don’t agree are anti-science and pro-misery. Grand talk about what the inequality demons cause is conclusively linked to envy of the well off and personal laziness, if we’re going to sling lines.
One of these 'lines' is backed up by data, the other is ridiculous (and in some places opposed by data - in the U.K., there is currently a slow realignment of voting demographics in which the better off are voting for the more left wing parties). That inequality and various pathologies and societal problems are linked should be beyond debate at this point.
|
On December 21 2017 00:53 Plansix wrote:That was a great year for the US economy. Serious, we don't talk about the pre ww2 economy for a reason.
Proves that most people in the administration are so far removed from the reality that everyday, lower class Americans face, that they think what they say makes sense.
|
Great, more utterly mediocre shit head small business owners will be kept alive on that government teet while they pat themselves on their back for opening a shitty bike shop.
|
On December 21 2017 01:05 Mohdoo wrote:Great, more utterly mediocre shit head small business owners will be kept alive on that government teet while they pat themselves on their back for opening a shitty bike shop.
To be fair to the New Deal, that entire thing was about national moral and unity. It was never about having a perfect plan, but doing something.
|
And forgive me for taking a random reply to that tweet:
If you check rule #8 in that document it seems like the vote should be counted.
|
Holy shit, I have heard of one vote victories... but how many times do we get an actual tie?
|
On December 21 2017 01:27 IyMoon wrote:Holy shit, I have heard of one vote victories... but how many times do we get an actual tie?
i'm gonna guess about half as often as one vote victories? if i'm looking at the math right at least.
laws do have tiebreaker rules for elections, those don't come up much.
|
Tiny margins become a mess because every ballot thrown out can matter and a lot of disputes back and forth can happen.
|
On December 21 2017 01:01 kollin wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2017 00:02 Danglars wrote:On December 20 2017 15:18 mozoku wrote:
Define "conclusively linked."
The US is a unique country in the world. Every country that is similarly developed has zero resemblance to it in terms of geographic diversity, ethnic diversity, size, and population. Every country that is comparable to it in those characteristics is nothing like the US in terms of development.
Taking lessons from other countries can be instructive, but there's certainly nothing empirically "conclusive" about how such policies would affect the US.
Worse still, even within Europe, the question of which way the causality points between lower inequality and outcomes is an open question.
I could likely just as easily claim that, amongst sufficiently wealthy countries, inequality and innovation are "conclusively linked."
Before someone asks, I'm not positing that inequality drives lower health, lower crime, etc. The argument is that inequality is a byproduct of growth, and that in the long-term it's better to be a faster growing, more innovative nation with greater inequality than the converse. Low inequality is great for Europe, but they're also freeloaders on the American innovation train. Growth also allows increased military spending, which ensures the defense of a liberal (and less necessarily) Western order against countries led by authoritarian despots such as Xi Jinpeng and Vladimir Putin.
Efforts should be made to allow everyone the opportunity to live a good life and to take care of those who've encountered misfortune, but I feel no obligation to slow growth and innovation for the sake of raising outcome numbers of those unwilling to work for outcomes themselves.
It's hardly surprising that countries who rely on someone else for defense and technological advancement are more concerned with inequality than growth. You’re putting in more effort than that post deserves. It shortcuts any thought besides that his private bugaboo proves people that don’t agree are anti-science and pro-misery. Grand talk about what the inequality demons cause is conclusively linked to envy of the well off and personal laziness, if we’re going to sling lines. One of these 'lines' is backed up by data, the other is ridiculous (and in some places opposed by data - in the U.K., there is currently a slow realignment of voting demographics in which the better off are voting for the more left wing parties). That inequality and various pathologies and societal problems are linked should be beyond debate at this point.
Exactly. The people that think it’s beyond debate are simply not worth the time in a debating thread. You let their preconceived notions of what is and isn’t ridiculous continue, and reserve your energies for topics on which they’re more reasonable. (Particularly if you’re in countries other than the US, where you bear the costs and accept the cons with the pros on your own shoulders).
|
On December 21 2017 00:07 Mercy13 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2017 23:02 Danglars wrote:On December 20 2017 20:49 Simberto wrote:
It is strange how in the US the spending and taxes don't seem to be linked in the minds of a lot of people.
It is as if they think that taxes are just there to punish them, and government spending comes from a totally other place that has nothing to do with taxes.
If i hear "We reduce taxes for everyone", i stop to ask "Where does that money come from?". In the US, reducing taxes seems to be seen completely unrelated to what is cut for those tax cuts. That is weird. Increases in government spending are unmoored from revenues. It has been for decades now. The rest of it is weariness with government rhetoric. Every program is too crucial to be cut. Only taxes on the rich are ever considered. Any tax cut is blamed on giving breaks to the rich, though they pay the vast majority of taxes. Civics isn’t taught to ordinary Americans about how social security is bankrupt, and spending on entitlements generally outpaces any possible revenue increases in the next fifty years. So the rhetoric is mismatched and Americans aren’t demanding spending responsibility and options narrow. Starve the beast? Put the money back in the wallets of hard working Americans? No real comprehensive options truly remain, speaking generally and not specifically about this tax cut I opposed. Obamacare was drafted to be revenue neutral, and (admittedly just because several states didn't sign up for the Medicaid expansion) it actually caused the deficit to decrease. At least one party has made a stab in recent years at being fiscally responsible. I think a tax cut for "hard working Americans" is defensible, but I work pretty hard, and this bill will cause my taxes to go up because I live in a high property tax area, itemize, and don't have kids. I'm not rich. It would have been easy for them to draft a bill which cuts taxes on the all members of the middle class, but that's not what they set out to do.
It was drafted to have a price tag under $1 trillion, partly due to the whole ten years of taxes for six years of benefits maneuver. My point isn’t on any single passed policy, but on Simberto’s tax/spending de-linkage.
|
Since I haven’t seen it reported in the thread yet, the Senate passed the conference tax bill early this morning just before 1am. The House has to re-pass it due to some the technicalities, but it’s as good as passed now. Trump will sign it the second it hits his desk, and will hold a congratulatory press conference today.
|
On December 21 2017 01:46 Danglars wrote:
Since I haven’t seen it reported in the thread yet, the Senate passed the conference tax bill early this morning just before 1am. The House has to re-pass it due to some the technicalities, but it’s as good as passed now. Trump will sign it the second it hits his desk, and will hold a congratulatory press conference today.
I am looking forward to my projected 2k tax cut and for all the poor peoples services to be cut so I can have it. Thank god for being middle class
|
god bless the new republican party, all or nothing take no prisoners partisan legislation resulting in this being the only significant legislation to pass the whole first year of Trumps presidency. the cherry on top is the audacity to give out the person by person handouts needed to get the votes. what idiots elect these people? they’re literally showing their constituents they represent only themselves. sad times.
lowest taxes since the great depression! hurray. and yea, parroting IyMoon. adding on, i feel a little bad saving this money, and it’s not even enough that it matters to me. i would sooner pay an additional thousand and see everyone the better for it. oh well. looking forward to the eviseration of the necessary spending programs.
|
On December 21 2017 01:48 IyMoon wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2017 01:46 Danglars wrote:
Since I haven’t seen it reported in the thread yet, the Senate passed the conference tax bill early this morning just before 1am. The House has to re-pass it due to some the technicalities, but it’s as good as passed now. Trump will sign it the second it hits his desk, and will hold a congratulatory press conference today. I am looking forward to my projected 2k tax cut and for all the poor peoples services to be cut so I can have it. Thank god for being middle class
Yeah, growing up poor my whole life and only recently "hitting it big", this is how I feel:
+ Show Spoiler +
Gotta admit, getting a free $2700 ain't too shabby. I am definitely going to be dumping that right back into the economy, so props there. Well, I'll be using it for a downpayment on a house, so I dunno if that counts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/CTufIxP.gif)
