Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting!
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.
On November 16 2020 09:36 Zambrah wrote: Yeah, like I said, he cut taxes.
Its not going to help any actual Americans and isn't going to cut THEIR taxes, but lets be realistic, that was never the goal lol. Its always going to be about lowering corporate taxes and shifting as much of that burden back on to the American people.
I still count it as a tax cut though, I'd argue this was the plan, that his supporters are happy with cutting taxes for corporations at their own expense, and whether or not its actually a good thing to have happened for the vast majority of people doesn't so much matter when it comes to counting it, after all the Wall would've been useless and expensive too, but if he had built it I'd have counted it.
US corporate taxes are higher compared to almost all EU and OECD countries (or at least were prior to 2017) and income tax rates (and we have no national 20%+ VAT) are lower for "middle class" tax brackets in the US compared to EU countries. In almost every metric the US has the most progressive tax code among the "developed" world. It is staggering to hear these arguments from progressives.
Take...Denmarks corporate tax rate of 22% or Netherlands at is 15% and 21.7% (they have two brackets) or Sweden at 22%.
Currently US rate is 21%. How is this egregious but these other countries not? Want to know what US rates were before the Trump tax cuts? 35%.
For talk about facts I am always amazed by how little is evident when discussing progressivity between countries that folks point to to emulate.
What does corporate taxes actually mean?
E: lol no, dont even compare US taxes to nordic countries......... Your 35% was fine ^_^
The countries progressives love love love have very regressive tax structures. Ya the US doesnt have UHC or free college, but the US does have a very large welfare state as well. Their reality is just not well...reality.
I disagree though with what you said about US corporations paying more taxes then EU ones. It's just simply wrong for most of the countries in EU.
Compare the US to the EU countries. If you want the 2017 numbers I can give you those. (The US was #1 then at 35%)
Because the effective tax rate that most companies pay is substantially lower.
We have an extremely convoluted tax system with countless write-offs and loopholes.
The tax rates that you and other conservatives constantly quote are talking points with no basis in actual reality.
Even if, for the sake of argument, we took everything that you said as true, then you need to explain why, when the U.S. taxes comparably and spends comparably to other nations, that every other peer nation in the world can accomplish significantly more with all of their money spent than we can. This includes an infinitely better healthcare system, significantly cheaper college, significantly better public education, a significantly more robust social safety net/welfare system, etc. etc. etc.
You realize the US subsidizes EU defense? The EU countries cannot afford the level of defense spending of the US and maintain its welfare spending. (They can barely afford their welfare states as is which is why you see Sweden moving in the last decade to reduce it)
You knew this before you even typed what you said, but you chose to ignore it for some reason..?
There is no level of defense in EU. Only NATO.
For future reference when I say EU im talking about European countries not the organization EU.
On November 16 2020 09:36 Zambrah wrote: Yeah, like I said, he cut taxes.
Its not going to help any actual Americans and isn't going to cut THEIR taxes, but lets be realistic, that was never the goal lol. Its always going to be about lowering corporate taxes and shifting as much of that burden back on to the American people.
I still count it as a tax cut though, I'd argue this was the plan, that his supporters are happy with cutting taxes for corporations at their own expense, and whether or not its actually a good thing to have happened for the vast majority of people doesn't so much matter when it comes to counting it, after all the Wall would've been useless and expensive too, but if he had built it I'd have counted it.
US corporate taxes are higher compared to almost all EU and OECD countries (or at least were prior to 2017) and income tax rates (and we have no national 20%+ VAT) are lower for "middle class" tax brackets in the US compared to EU countries. In almost every metric the US has the most progressive tax code among the "developed" world. It is staggering to hear these arguments from progressives.
Take...Denmarks corporate tax rate of 22% or Netherlands at is 15% and 21.7% (they have two brackets) or Sweden at 22%.
Currently US rate is 21%. How is this egregious but these other countries not? Want to know what US rates were before the Trump tax cuts? 35%.
For talk about facts I am always amazed by how little is evident when discussing progressivity between countries that folks point to to emulate.
What does corporate taxes actually mean?
E: lol no, dont even compare US taxes to nordic countries......... Your 35% was fine ^_^
The countries progressives love love love have very regressive tax structures. Ya the US doesnt have UHC or free college, but the US does have a very large welfare state as well. Their reality is just not well...reality.
I disagree though with what you said about US corporations paying more taxes then EU ones. It's just simply wrong for most of the countries in EU.
Compare the US to the EU countries. If you want the 2017 numbers I can give you those. (The US was #1 then at 35%)
Because the effective tax rate that most companies pay is substantially lower.
We have an extremely convoluted tax system with countless write-offs and loopholes.
The tax rates that you and other conservatives constantly quote are talking points with no basis in actual reality.
Even if, for the sake of argument, we took everything that you said as true, then you need to explain why, when the U.S. taxes comparably and spends comparably to other nations, that every other peer nation in the world can accomplish significantly more with all of their money spent than we can. This includes an infinitely better healthcare system, significantly cheaper college, significantly better public education, a significantly more robust social safety net/welfare system, etc. etc. etc.
You realize the US subsidizes EU defense? The EU countries cannot afford the level of defense spending of the US and maintain its welfare spending. (They can barely afford their welfare states as is which is why you see Sweden moving in the last decade to reduce it)
You knew this before you even typed what you said, but you chose to ignore it for some reason..?
There is no level of defense in EU. Only NATO.
For future reference when I say EU im talking about European countries not the organization EU.
On November 16 2020 09:36 Zambrah wrote: Yeah, like I said, he cut taxes.
Its not going to help any actual Americans and isn't going to cut THEIR taxes, but lets be realistic, that was never the goal lol. Its always going to be about lowering corporate taxes and shifting as much of that burden back on to the American people.
I still count it as a tax cut though, I'd argue this was the plan, that his supporters are happy with cutting taxes for corporations at their own expense, and whether or not its actually a good thing to have happened for the vast majority of people doesn't so much matter when it comes to counting it, after all the Wall would've been useless and expensive too, but if he had built it I'd have counted it.
US corporate taxes are higher compared to almost all EU and OECD countries (or at least were prior to 2017) and income tax rates (and we have no national 20%+ VAT) are lower for "middle class" tax brackets in the US compared to EU countries. In almost every metric the US has the most progressive tax code among the "developed" world. It is staggering to hear these arguments from progressives.
Take...Denmarks corporate tax rate of 22% or Netherlands at is 15% and 21.7% (they have two brackets) or Sweden at 22%.
Currently US rate is 21%. How is this egregious but these other countries not? Want to know what US rates were before the Trump tax cuts? 35%.
For talk about facts I am always amazed by how little is evident when discussing progressivity between countries that folks point to to emulate.
What does corporate taxes actually mean?
E: lol no, dont even compare US taxes to nordic countries......... Your 35% was fine ^_^
The countries progressives love love love have very regressive tax structures. Ya the US doesnt have UHC or free college, but the US does have a very large welfare state as well. Their reality is just not well...reality.
I disagree though with what you said about US corporations paying more taxes then EU ones. It's just simply wrong for most of the countries in EU.
Compare the US to the EU countries. If you want the 2017 numbers I can give you those. (The US was #1 then at 35%)
Because the effective tax rate that most companies pay is substantially lower.
We have an extremely convoluted tax system with countless write-offs and loopholes.
The tax rates that you and other conservatives constantly quote are talking points with no basis in actual reality.
Even if, for the sake of argument, we took everything that you said as true, then you need to explain why, when the U.S. taxes comparably and spends comparably to other nations, that every other peer nation in the world can accomplish significantly more with all of their money spent than we can. This includes an infinitely better healthcare system, significantly cheaper college, significantly better public education, a significantly more robust social safety net/welfare system, etc. etc. etc.
You realize the US subsidizes EU defense? The EU countries cannot afford the level of defense spending of the US and maintain its welfare spending. (They can barely afford their welfare states as is which is why you see Sweden moving in the last decade to reduce it)
You knew this before you even typed what you said, but you chose to ignore it for some reason..?
Because that has literally nothing to do with what I said?
You really need to work on reading comprehension, as previously shown during the election.
I said that, for the sake of argument, we'll take your claims as true. Considering this, you said that the U.S. and comparable European countries spend similar amounts of their money on their entitlements/welfare systems and are taxed to a similar degree.
In other words, "The U.S. and Germany/UK/France/Denmark (Insert-Country-Here) both spend roughly X on welfare".
It is an objective fact that all western European countries have significantly more affordable and better healthcare systems, have better public education systems, have significantly more affordable post-secondary education, and have a significantly stronger welfare system. If we spend roughly the same kind of money on our welfare system that other countries do, why have we failed to accomplish what they have?
US corporate taxes are higher compared to almost all EU and OECD countries (or at least were prior to 2017) and income tax rates (and we have no national 20%+ VAT) are lower for "middle class" tax brackets in the US compared to EU countries. In almost every metric the US has the most progressive tax code among the "developed" world. It is staggering to hear these arguments from progressives.
Take...Denmarks corporate tax rate of 22% or Netherlands at is 15% and 21.7% (they have two brackets) or Sweden at 22%.
Currently US rate is 21%. How is this egregious but these other countries not? Want to know what US rates were before the Trump tax cuts? 35%.
For talk about facts I am always amazed by how little is evident when discussing progressivity between countries that folks point to to emulate.
What does corporate taxes actually mean?
E: lol no, dont even compare US taxes to nordic countries......... Your 35% was fine ^_^
The countries progressives love love love have very regressive tax structures. Ya the US doesnt have UHC or free college, but the US does have a very large welfare state as well. Their reality is just not well...reality.
I disagree though with what you said about US corporations paying more taxes then EU ones. It's just simply wrong for most of the countries in EU.
Compare the US to the EU countries. If you want the 2017 numbers I can give you those. (The US was #1 then at 35%)
Because the effective tax rate that most companies pay is substantially lower.
We have an extremely convoluted tax system with countless write-offs and loopholes.
The tax rates that you and other conservatives constantly quote are talking points with no basis in actual reality.
Even if, for the sake of argument, we took everything that you said as true, then you need to explain why, when the U.S. taxes comparably and spends comparably to other nations, that every other peer nation in the world can accomplish significantly more with all of their money spent than we can. This includes an infinitely better healthcare system, significantly cheaper college, significantly better public education, a significantly more robust social safety net/welfare system, etc. etc. etc.
You realize the US subsidizes EU defense? The EU countries cannot afford the level of defense spending of the US and maintain its welfare spending. (They can barely afford their welfare states as is which is why you see Sweden moving in the last decade to reduce it)
You knew this before you even typed what you said, but you chose to ignore it for some reason..?
There is no level of defense in EU. Only NATO.
For future reference when I say EU im talking about European countries not the organization EU.
Still no european defense, aside from nato,
You realize Im talking about the US military spending and power projection subsiding european countries defense as were the de facto power in the area to rebut surrounding powers. If it was me I would disband NATO and recall all US troops from Europe and force Europe to pay for their own defense. Its not the US role to subsidize your safety (and certainly not taxpayer obligation). Without US subsidy from hard and soft power (and directly through personnel and bases) Europeans countries will have to spend more on defense and less on welfare. Its why pointing to them is disingeuous (theyre not a model that the US can emulate because the US has to spend on defense. Europeans do not in the amount they would have to if the US werent there).
On November 16 2020 09:46 raynpelikoneet wrote: [quote] What does corporate taxes actually mean?
E: lol no, dont even compare US taxes to nordic countries......... Your 35% was fine ^_^
The countries progressives love love love have very regressive tax structures. Ya the US doesnt have UHC or free college, but the US does have a very large welfare state as well. Their reality is just not well...reality.
I disagree though with what you said about US corporations paying more taxes then EU ones. It's just simply wrong for most of the countries in EU.
Compare the US to the EU countries. If you want the 2017 numbers I can give you those. (The US was #1 then at 35%)
Because the effective tax rate that most companies pay is substantially lower.
We have an extremely convoluted tax system with countless write-offs and loopholes.
The tax rates that you and other conservatives constantly quote are talking points with no basis in actual reality.
Even if, for the sake of argument, we took everything that you said as true, then you need to explain why, when the U.S. taxes comparably and spends comparably to other nations, that every other peer nation in the world can accomplish significantly more with all of their money spent than we can. This includes an infinitely better healthcare system, significantly cheaper college, significantly better public education, a significantly more robust social safety net/welfare system, etc. etc. etc.
You realize the US subsidizes EU defense? The EU countries cannot afford the level of defense spending of the US and maintain its welfare spending. (They can barely afford their welfare states as is which is why you see Sweden moving in the last decade to reduce it)
You knew this before you even typed what you said, but you chose to ignore it for some reason..?
There is no level of defense in EU. Only NATO.
For future reference when I say EU im talking about European countries not the organization EU.
Still no european defense, aside from nato,
You realize Im talking about the US military spending and power projection subsiding european countries defense as were the de facto power in the area to rebut surrounding powers. If it was me I would disband NATO and recall all US troops from Europe and force Europe to pay for their own defense. Its not the US role to subsidize your safety (and certainly not taxpayer obligation). Without US subsidy from hard and soft power (and directly through personnel and bases) Europeans countries will have to spend more on defense and less on welfare. Its why pointing to them is disingeuous (theyre not a model that the US can emulate because the US has to spend on defense. Europeans do not in the amount they would have to if the US werent there).
PS. Sorry Poland.
So you have a conflict here you need to resolve.
You said this last page:
You can see from the link below. The US public spending on welfare is just under OECD average, but combine public and private and its near the top in GDP %.
You either need to
1) Admit that your point about the military is irrelevant because last page's post is true, or
2) Admit that you lied on the last page and that we actually spend less on welfare than other countries.
On November 16 2020 09:36 Zambrah wrote: Yeah, like I said, he cut taxes.
Its not going to help any actual Americans and isn't going to cut THEIR taxes, but lets be realistic, that was never the goal lol. Its always going to be about lowering corporate taxes and shifting as much of that burden back on to the American people.
I still count it as a tax cut though, I'd argue this was the plan, that his supporters are happy with cutting taxes for corporations at their own expense, and whether or not its actually a good thing to have happened for the vast majority of people doesn't so much matter when it comes to counting it, after all the Wall would've been useless and expensive too, but if he had built it I'd have counted it.
US corporate taxes are higher compared to almost all EU and OECD countries (or at least were prior to 2017) and income tax rates (and we have no national 20%+ VAT) are lower for "middle class" tax brackets in the US compared to EU countries. In almost every metric the US has the most progressive tax code among the "developed" world. It is staggering to hear these arguments from progressives.
Take...Denmarks corporate tax rate of 22% or Netherlands at is 15% and 21.7% (they have two brackets) or Sweden at 22%.
Currently US rate is 21%. How is this egregious but these other countries not? Want to know what US rates were before the Trump tax cuts? 35%.
For talk about facts I am always amazed by how little is evident when discussing progressivity between countries that folks point to to emulate.
What does corporate taxes actually mean?
E: lol no, dont even compare US taxes to nordic countries......... Your 35% was fine ^_^
The countries progressives love love love have very regressive tax structures. Ya the US doesnt have UHC or free college, but the US does have a very large welfare state as well. Their reality is just not well...reality.
I disagree though with what you said about US corporations paying more taxes then EU ones. It's just simply wrong for most of the countries in EU.
Compare the US to the EU countries. If you want the 2017 numbers I can give you those. (The US was #1 then at 35%)
Because the effective tax rate that most companies pay is substantially lower.
We have an extremely convoluted tax system with countless write-offs and loopholes.
The tax rates that you and other conservatives constantly quote are talking points with no basis in actual reality.
Even if, for the sake of argument, we took everything that you said as true, then you need to explain why, when the U.S. taxes comparably and spends comparably to other nations, that every other peer nation in the world can accomplish significantly more with all of their money spent than we can. This includes an infinitely better healthcare system, significantly cheaper college, significantly better public education, a significantly more robust social safety net/welfare system, etc. etc. etc.
You realize the US subsidizes EU defense? The EU countries cannot afford the level of defense spending of the US and maintain its welfare spending. (They can barely afford their welfare states as is which is why you see Sweden moving in the last decade to reduce it)
You knew this before you even typed what you said, but you chose to ignore it for some reason..?
Please do explain to me how the US subsidizes Swedish or Finnish defense.
If anything, European countries subsidizes US wars with their lives.
On November 16 2020 09:36 Zambrah wrote: Yeah, like I said, he cut taxes.
Its not going to help any actual Americans and isn't going to cut THEIR taxes, but lets be realistic, that was never the goal lol. Its always going to be about lowering corporate taxes and shifting as much of that burden back on to the American people.
I still count it as a tax cut though, I'd argue this was the plan, that his supporters are happy with cutting taxes for corporations at their own expense, and whether or not its actually a good thing to have happened for the vast majority of people doesn't so much matter when it comes to counting it, after all the Wall would've been useless and expensive too, but if he had built it I'd have counted it.
US corporate taxes are higher compared to almost all EU and OECD countries (or at least were prior to 2017) and income tax rates (and we have no national 20%+ VAT) are lower for "middle class" tax brackets in the US compared to EU countries. In almost every metric the US has the most progressive tax code among the "developed" world. It is staggering to hear these arguments from progressives.
Take...Denmarks corporate tax rate of 22% or Netherlands at is 15% and 21.7% (they have two brackets) or Sweden at 22%.
Currently US rate is 21%. How is this egregious but these other countries not? Want to know what US rates were before the Trump tax cuts? 35%.
For talk about facts I am always amazed by how little is evident when discussing progressivity between countries that folks point to to emulate.
What does corporate taxes actually mean?
E: lol no, dont even compare US taxes to nordic countries......... Your 35% was fine ^_^
The countries progressives love love love have very regressive tax structures. Ya the US doesnt have UHC or free college, but the US does have a very large welfare state as well. Their reality is just not well...reality.
I disagree though with what you said about US corporations paying more taxes then EU ones. It's just simply wrong for most of the countries in EU.
Compare the US to the EU countries. If you want the 2017 numbers I can give you those. (The US was #1 then at 35%)
Because the effective tax rate that most companies pay is substantially lower.
We have an extremely convoluted tax system with countless write-offs and loopholes.
The tax rates that you and other conservatives constantly quote are talking points with no basis in actual reality.
Even if, for the sake of argument, we took everything that you said as true, then you need to explain why, when the U.S. taxes comparably and spends comparably to other nations, that every other peer nation in the world can accomplish significantly more with all of their money spent than we can. This includes an infinitely better healthcare system, significantly cheaper college, significantly better public education, a significantly more robust social safety net/welfare system, etc. etc. etc.
You realize the US subsidizes EU defense? The EU countries cannot afford the level of defense spending of the US and maintain its welfare spending. (They can barely afford their welfare states as is which is why you see Sweden moving in the last decade to reduce it)
You knew this before you even typed what you said, but you chose to ignore it for some reason..?
You mean the US overspends on defense and blames it on the euros?
On November 16 2020 10:21 Wegandi wrote: I love when presented with facts folks resort to but not really then turn around and point at the same tax bracket information and yell from the rafters. How can you dismiss the statutory rates then yell that Trump is destroying everyone by pointing to.....the statutory tax brackets.
On November 16 2020 08:54 Zambrah wrote: [...]how flagrantly useless Trump was[....]
Can you explain this to me? Because i think (or at least thought) economics and jobs are a big thing for Americans, and i dont think Trump has done bad in that (am i mistaken?).
Disclaimer; I think you can blame him for handling covid bad, but i don't think you can blame him for it.
Presidents always get outsized credit for good and bad things happening with the economy. It's a role that has very little actual influence on the economy other than as a messaging platform.
The one actual economic act of Trump's presidency, the tax cuts, were pretty awful for everyone making <500k a year.
This is because they literally wrote into the law that these cuts were going to expire after a couple of years for those middle class and below, then redefined how they calculated yearly increases to some standards to make the cuts worthless even sooner than that expiration date.
In fact, I think the only thing they passed that economists liked was the least popular part of the law - repealing SALT deductions, which meant it was actually a tax raise on many residents of blue states.
Even that act can't really be credited to Trump and should instead be laid at the door of congress. A generic republican president would have done the same, aside from maybe the SALT part (as it hurt republicans in those states too).
Economies are slow to move - we're certainly still feeling effects from decisions made under GWB's second term and Obama's first, for instance. They move on a time scale that the average voter has a very hard time understanding, for the positive signals, at the least.
Some of Trump's changes that have had an economic impact are also going to be temporary by nature - he can't repeal regulations, for instance, he can only choose to selectively not enforce them, so the next president (GOP or democrat) with a different vision would change them. Legal immigration being down is probably bad for the economy in the long run.
The reason Trump isn't getting credit for the economy is that it's (mostly) been too soon for any positive or negative effects of his policies to be felt. The exceptions here are going to be his tariffs which absolutely ruined many farmers. Are tariffs a good idea in the longrun, though? History suggest no, but it's probably too soon to KNOW.
edit: Also, the other economic act of his presidency, the covid stimulus, we can KNOW would have been better under any other politician. There was significant delay in sending the paper check portion of it out so that his signature could be added.
Trump now straight up claims he has won the election. Congrats on four more years guys.
I like how a message from the president and what official sources say are 180 degrees opposite. That's a nice healthy country :X
Now more than ever it's apparent how weird it is that the US president doesn't have to answer for the things he says. It's nuts how he can just stay inside without facing any questioning or reckoning.
I like how a message from the president and what official sources say are 180 degrees opposite. That's a nice healthy country :X
Now more than ever it's apparent how weird it is that the US president doesn't have to answer for the things he says. It's nuts how he can just stay inside without facing any questioning or reckoning.
This is just sad and not worthy of the US, he is behaving like a 3rd world dictator of a dysfunctional country.
The scary part is that millions still support and believe him, as he tells them what they want to hear.
For how long are the spineless Republicans going to allow him to contiune this? Is that even legal? Afaik, a court told him he had to stop claiming that mail-in votes were all fraudulent.
On November 16 2020 09:36 Zambrah wrote: Yeah, like I said, he cut taxes.
Its not going to help any actual Americans and isn't going to cut THEIR taxes, but lets be realistic, that was never the goal lol. Its always going to be about lowering corporate taxes and shifting as much of that burden back on to the American people.
I still count it as a tax cut though, I'd argue this was the plan, that his supporters are happy with cutting taxes for corporations at their own expense, and whether or not its actually a good thing to have happened for the vast majority of people doesn't so much matter when it comes to counting it, after all the Wall would've been useless and expensive too, but if he had built it I'd have counted it.
US corporate taxes are higher compared to almost all EU and OECD countries (or at least were prior to 2017) and income tax rates (and we have no national 20%+ VAT) are lower for "middle class" tax brackets in the US compared to EU countries. In almost every metric the US has the most progressive tax code among the "developed" world. It is staggering to hear these arguments from progressives.
Take...Denmarks corporate tax rate of 22% or Netherlands at is 15% and 21.7% (they have two brackets) or Sweden at 22%.
Currently US rate is 21%. How is this egregious but these other countries not? Want to know what US rates were before the Trump tax cuts? 35%.
For talk about facts I am always amazed by how little is evident when discussing progressivity between countries that folks point to to emulate.
What does corporate taxes actually mean?
E: lol no, dont even compare US taxes to nordic countries......... Your 35% was fine ^_^
The countries progressives love love love have very regressive tax structures. Ya the US doesnt have UHC or free college, but the US does have a very large welfare state as well. Their reality is just not well...reality.
You can see from the link below. The US public spending on welfare is just under OECD average, but combine public and private and its near the top in GDP %.
I think you should not look at welfare spending in a vacuum,you should look at it in relation to inequality. The higher the inequality and the higher the percentage of people living below the poverty line the more welfare spending will be needed to give the poorest of people a somewhat decent life.
Eu countries could support their welfare system,its a choice about how to divide the pie. Though it is under pressure i do agree with that,mostly because inequality is rising in combination with an aging population. The higher the inequality and the more inactive people (aging population) the more difficult it becomes to maintain a "welfare" state. You have to look at it in an abstract way,the economic pie which can only be divided once.
I don't know how useful it is to talk about what the basic number of tax % is in the US when there is an entire industry dedicated to handling the complicated tax returns of even ordinary citizens.
What matters is what % of your paycheck you have left to spend after all is said and done (and that includes things like healthcare and pensions).
I like how a message from the president and what official sources say are 180 degrees opposite. That's a nice healthy country :X
Now more than ever it's apparent how weird it is that the US president doesn't have to answer for the things he says. It's nuts how he can just stay inside without facing any questioning or reckoning.
I'm gonna go buy a lottery ticket, because as long as I can claim I won the lottery, I should be given millions of dollars!
I like how a message from the president and what official sources say are 180 degrees opposite. That's a nice healthy country :X
Now more than ever it's apparent how weird it is that the US president doesn't have to answer for the things he says. It's nuts how he can just stay inside without facing any questioning or reckoning.
Legally, a candidate does not have to concede the election on election day, or really, ever. It is generally done as a formality when a candidate see that it is mathematically impossible (or close to zero chance) for them to be elected president. Each state will send electors to pick the new President on December 14th, and the inauguration is not until January 21st. Until then, I suppose the President is within his rights to protest or even contest the results of the election.
I like how a message from the president and what official sources say are 180 degrees opposite. That's a nice healthy country :X
Now more than ever it's apparent how weird it is that the US president doesn't have to answer for the things he says. It's nuts how he can just stay inside without facing any questioning or reckoning.
Legally, a candidate does not have to concede the election on election day, or really, ever. It is generally done as a formality when a candidate see that it is mathematically impossible (or close to zero chance) for them to be elected president. Each state will send electors to pick the new President on December 14th, and the inauguration is not until January 21st. Until then, I suppose the President is within his rights to protest or even contest the results of the election.
There is a difference between a "right to protest" and claiming that he won on the back of non-existant proof of fraud and dismissed lawsuits. He is down 36 electors, and not even his most far-fetched legal claims have even attempted to change enough votes to bring that many to his side.
EDIT: They are not giving up. There are absolutely forces which are trying to force state governments to send their own EC electors, ignoring the popular vote in the state:
On November 16 2020 08:54 Zambrah wrote: [...]how flagrantly useless Trump was[....]
Can you explain this to me? Because i think (or at least thought) economics and jobs are a big thing for Americans, and i dont think Trump has done bad in that (am i mistaken?).
Disclaimer; I think you can blame him for handling covid bad, but i don't think you can blame him for it.
Presidents always get outsized credit for good and bad things happening with the economy. It's a role that has very little actual influence on the economy other than as a messaging platform.
The one actual economic act of Trump's presidency, the tax cuts, were pretty awful for everyone making <500k a year.
This is because they literally wrote into the law that these cuts were going to expire after a couple of years for those middle class and below, then redefined how they calculated yearly increases to some standards to make the cuts worthless even sooner than that expiration date.
In fact, I think the only thing they passed that economists liked was the least popular part of the law - repealing SALT deductions, which meant it was actually a tax raise on many residents of blue states.
Even that act can't really be credited to Trump and should instead be laid at the door of congress. A generic republican president would have done the same, aside from maybe the SALT part (as it hurt republicans in those states too).
Economies are slow to move - we're certainly still feeling effects from decisions made under GWB's second term and Obama's first, for instance. They move on a time scale that the average voter has a very hard time understanding, for the positive signals, at the least.
Some of Trump's changes that have had an economic impact are also going to be temporary by nature - he can't repeal regulations, for instance, he can only choose to selectively not enforce them, so the next president (GOP or democrat) with a different vision would change them. Legal immigration being down is probably bad for the economy in the long run.
The reason Trump isn't getting credit for the economy is that it's (mostly) been too soon for any positive or negative effects of his policies to be felt. The exceptions here are going to be his tariffs which absolutely ruined many farmers. Are tariffs a good idea in the longrun, though? History suggest no, but it's probably too soon to KNOW.
edit: Also, the other economic act of his presidency, the covid stimulus, we can KNOW would have been better under any other politician. There was significant delay in sending the paper check portion of it out so that his signature could be added.
This was a good post and should be pinned to the top of the page with an added note that even top economists struggle with measuring the impacts of individual policy decisions. There is more desire for actual policy impact analysis nowadays, but it is still very much a field where 100 people can look at the dame graphs and figures and come to 100 different conclusions.
EPT
