Good morning! How are all you LRC stable geniuses doing this fine am?
Good morning! How are all you LRC stable geniuses doing this fine am?
Tyrone ReXXXing wrote:
so Igloi, since we have you here, how do you feel about Trump's TRILLION $ DEFICITS as far as the eye can see....***DURING an economic boom*** (supposed to happen only during crises), AFTER he guaranteed he balance the budget in 8 years, AFTER his mega tax cut that was supposed to pay for itself, AFTER he and repubs attacked Obama for years for large deficits.
So what's your opinion of that, Mr Ig ? Looking FW to a "fair and balanced" answer. ( I noticed "Rigged" completely ignored this one)
The major problem with the GOP tax cuts is they NEVER “get to govt spending cuts” that they promise.
How dumb are people? Why do they forget so quickly? The modern GOP is NOT fiscally conservative. They have cut taxes before—several times in most of our lifetimes—and they NEVER get to cutting spending.
I suppose a tax cut would be fine IF they passed legislation slashing government spending FIRST. In other words, cut spending by X amount so they know how much less revenue they’l be taking in and then give X amount back to tax payers. But that’s not what happens. We’ve seen this playbook before—recently.
The GOP controlled both houses of Congress AND had a GOP POTUS for 6 of the 8 Bush II years—this was not that long ago, the early 2000s. They passed a massive tax cut. What else did they do? Well they 1) said the tax cuts would “pay for themselves by driving economic growth 2) they simultaneously MASSIVELY INCREASED government spending!
What happened? We had a short term boom followed by a MASSIVE economic collapse AND a MASSIVE increase in the national debt. But since the economic collapse happened several years later dumb people with short attention spans that are obsessed with tax cuts who think that the minute tax legislation is passed the full effect of said tax legislation is felt—are and where mentally unable to connect the collapse to the very bad tax & spend policies of the GOP.
So, what is happening now? 1) the GOP is saying the same thing about “tax cuts paying for themselves” by driving economic growth 2) CEOs are smart and know if they throw peons short term benefits (like a one time bonus rather than a permanent increase in worker salaries...which are peanuts to the CEOs and which do nothing to address the real issue of wage stagnation) that they can connect that to the tax cuts and say “see trickle down works! What’s good for corporations is good for individuals”...meanwhile those same corporations pocket > 90% of the benefit from the cut 3) the GOP proposes MASSIVE increases in defense spending, infrastructure spending, and spending for a border wall with no plan to pay for any of it.
These tax cuts will have the same effect as prior cuts—a huge increase in the national debt and an eventual economic collapse that disproportionately effects individuals (who, yeah, got a short term increase in $) while corporations make out like bandits (their cuts are permanent). Plus, all the benefits (short term) will be attributed to the current admin, while the long term effects will be blamed on whomever is in office when the $hit hits the fan in several years.
Why do you tax obsess Morans not understand that at this point the ONLY rational approach is an INCREASE in taxes coupled with a DECREASE in spending. We owe too much already to get tax cuts, they are a bad idea.
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
Chemo cause brain damage wrote:
Agree. Too much smoke for there not to be a fire. It is very true—as many right leaning pundits point out—that Russia has consistently meddled in elections for a long time but 2016 was different in terms of scale and breadth. What is coming out now about links between Cambridge Analytica, Russia, the Trump campaign and the Brexit movement is also deeply concerning for all Americans (or it should be) and Democracy in general.
I also think Trump likely didn’t have direct knowledge of his campaigns ties to Russia (or at least it’ll be very hard to prove that he did) but the fact that so many people he hired likely did know is not good.
My guess is most Republicans agree with the above but it is very telling that the only congressional republicans willing to really call out Russia and Trump’s apparent subservient behavior toward Putin in public are those republicans that are leaving office. Most of the rest of them are too weak and pathetic to call him out because his poll numbers are so high among GOP voters.
Classic case of party / career self interest over country. Sad!
Posting above to give everyone a flavor of iggy’s “thinking” abilities. Please have compassion for the old man. R-CHOP is well know to cause brain damage in older white men.
Hide behind your unregistered handle pu$$y.
As opposed to hiding behind a registered handle.
Same playbook, different decade wrote:
The major problem with the GOP tax cuts is they NEVER “get to govt spending cuts” that they promise.
Because the result would massive unemployment. Kill off social safety programs and there would be massive homelessness. And the result is an economic disaster.
Trump has no chance to win in 2020...unless there is a serious 3rd party candidate....or he starts a small skirmish in a third world country.
Look at his poll numbers. Compare his numbers with other presidents at the same time. Only Clinton and Reagan have managed to come back to win re-election after similarly low numbers. Clinton because of the third party candidate. Reagan because his numbers bounced up after this:
“Indeed, although 1983 began for Reagan with a 35% job approval rating -- the worst of his administration -- things started to look better.
His ratings moved back above 50% by November 1983 -- not only because the economy was picking up, but also in part as a result of rally effects associated with the U.S. invasion of Grenada and the terrorist explosion that killed 241 American Marines in Beirut, Lebanon.”
https://news.gallup.com/poll/11887/ronald-reagan-from-peoples-perspective-gallup-poll-review.aspx
Derp Reason wrote:
Same playbook, different decade wrote:
The major problem with the GOP tax cuts is they NEVER “get to govt spending cuts” that they promise.
Because the result would massive unemployment. Kill off social safety programs and there would be massive homelessness. And the result is an economic disaster.
While what you say is true, that’s not the reason the GOP never follows through on the cuts. They don’t make the cuts because they know that while they constantly scream about “irresponsible” spending and even campaign on cutting spending bigly (and their base says they want the cuts) the reality is cutting entitlement spending would cost the GOP politically. In other words, they say one thing but do another because they want to keep their jobs—it has nothing to do with doing the right thing, improving the situation for their voters, economic reality, or patriotism it has to do with politicians keeping their jobs.
A huge portion of Trump’s base (poor uneducated white men from rural areas and their submissive wives) are dependent on federal entitlements and, despite incessantly talking about wanting to decrease government spending and voting for GOP politicians who say they will do so, they would go home DEVASTATED if they got what they asked for.
When Trumpers talk about cutting entitlements they are only talking about cutting “other people’s” entitlement not their own. This all has to do with RWNJs/Trumpers disconnection from their own reality and the most severe example of cognitive dissonance the US has ever seen.
Flagpole wrote:
Chemo cause brain damage wrote:
Agree. Too much smoke for there not to be a fire. It is very true—as many right leaning pundits point out—that Russia has consistently meddled in elections for a long time but 2016 was different in terms of scale and breadth. What is coming out now about links between Cambridge Analytica, Russia, the Trump campaign and the Brexit movement is also deeply concerning for all Americans (or it should be) and Democracy in general.
I also think Trump likely didn’t have direct knowledge of his campaigns ties to Russia (or at least it’ll be very hard to prove that he did) but the fact that so many people he hired likely did know is not good.
My guess is most Republicans agree with the above but it is very telling that the only congressional republicans willing to really call out Russia and Trump’s apparent subservient behavior toward Putin in public are those republicans that are leaving office. Most of the rest of them are too weak and pathetic to call him out because his poll numbers are so high among GOP voters.
Classic case of party / career self interest over country. Sad!
Posting above to give everyone a flavor of iggy’s “thinking” abilities. Please have compassion for the old man. R-CHOP is well know to cause brain damage in older white men.
I don't think you people are reading enough.
Donald Trump has ties with the Russian Mob which is different from the Mob in the US. The Russian mob is tied to the Russian government. Russia uses the mob to get money out of the country and launder it. The best way to launder? Real estate! It will be discovered that Trump has been involved in money laundering with Russia for years and perhaps decades.
This is for sure ONE thing Russia and Putin have over Trump.
He is not an innocent man no matter how dumb he is.
Oh, and what is the second-best way to launder money? Diamonds. Who had a jewelry business that dealt in loose diamonds who has been suspected of money laundering? Ivanka Trump!
Mueller is coming.
The clown is done.
Keep the wild conspiracy theories going. Very entertaining.
Don’t forget that he’s a Freemason.
Same playbook, different decade wrote:
Tyrone ReXXXing wrote:
so Igloi, since we have you here, how do you feel about Trump's TRILLION $ DEFICITS as far as the eye can see....***DURING an economic boom*** (supposed to happen only during crises), AFTER he guaranteed he balance the budget in 8 years, AFTER his mega tax cut that was supposed to pay for itself, AFTER he and repubs attacked Obama for years for large deficits.
So what's your opinion of that, Mr Ig ? Looking FW to a "fair and balanced" answer. ( I noticed "Rigged" completely ignored this one)
The major problem with the GOP tax cuts is they NEVER “get to govt spending cuts” that they promise.
How dumb are people? Why do they forget so quickly? The modern GOP is NOT fiscally conservative. They have cut taxes before—several times in most of our lifetimes—and they NEVER get to cutting spending.
I suppose a tax cut would be fine IF they passed legislation slashing government spending FIRST. In other words, cut spending by X amount so they know how much less revenue they’l be taking in and then give X amount back to tax payers. But that’s not what happens. We’ve seen this playbook before—recently.
The GOP controlled both houses of Congress AND had a GOP POTUS for 6 of the 8 Bush II years—this was not that long ago, the early 2000s. They passed a massive tax cut. What else did they do? Well they 1) said the tax cuts would “pay for themselves by driving economic growth 2) they simultaneously MASSIVELY INCREASED government spending!
What happened? We had a short term boom followed by a MASSIVE economic collapse AND a MASSIVE increase in the national debt. But since the economic collapse happened several years later dumb people with short attention spans that are obsessed with tax cuts who think that the minute tax legislation is passed the full effect of said tax legislation is felt—are and where mentally unable to connect the collapse to the very bad tax & spend policies of the GOP.
So, what is happening now? 1) the GOP is saying the same thing about “tax cuts paying for themselves” by driving economic growth 2) CEOs are smart and know if they throw peons short term benefits (like a one time bonus rather than a permanent increase in worker salaries...which are peanuts to the CEOs and which do nothing to address the real issue of wage stagnation) that they can connect that to the tax cuts and say “see trickle down works! What’s good for corporations is good for individuals”...meanwhile those same corporations pocket > 90% of the benefit from the cut 3) the GOP proposes MASSIVE increases in defense spending, infrastructure spending, and spending for a border wall with no plan to pay for any of it.
These tax cuts will have the same effect as prior cuts—a huge increase in the national debt and an eventual economic collapse that disproportionately effects individuals (who, yeah, got a short term increase in $) while corporations make out like bandits (their cuts are permanent). Plus, all the benefits (short term) will be attributed to the current admin, while the long term effects will be blamed on whomever is in office when the $hit hits the fan in several years.
Why do you tax obsess Morans not understand that at this point the ONLY rational approach is an INCREASE in taxes coupled with a DECREASE in spending. We owe too much already to get tax cuts, they are a bad idea.
So I would say at some point in our history we will have to right? Well maybe not.
Cool read:
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/heres-how-the-us-got-to-20-trillion-in-debt-2017-03-30Anyone paying attention to the Brett Kavanaugh nomination hearings this week? Did anyone catch his response to a Roe v. Wade question in which he sited a ruling in which he referred to contraception as “abortion inducing drugs”? What are your thoughts on that exchange and the difference between contraception and abortion? I recognize this topic is complex but I think it is useful to try and understand each sides point of view. But, conflating contraception and abortion is not helpful for either side of the abortion debate.
The fundamental disagreement about abortion in the USA, I think, lies in if a fetus should be defined as an autonomous human. Despite what each side will argue, there is not a definitive scientific or legal answer to that question.
Pro-lifers say a fetus, or even a zygote or embryo, is the same as a fully formed child. Thus, for pro-lifers the “baby” is their primary concern.
Pro-choicers say a fetus is not an autonomous human until it has taken its first breath or is capable of doing so on its own (some time around 22-24 weeks gestational age). Thus, for pro-choicers the mother is the focus of their concern.
If one can see this clearly, then I think one should be able to understand why each side is so passionate about their cause—one side truly believes “babies” are being murder and the other side truly believes people are trying to dictate to women what they do with their own body. Using each sides perspective and assuming they really believe what they are saying, one can see how each side can claim to be the more compassionate and how each side could view their position as trying to defend those (fetuses for the right, women for the left) who have traditionally been marginalized.
Where the argument starts to breakdown is when anti-abortion folks are also anti-contraception—and it is true that a very common position is to be both anti-abortion AND anti-contraception. Those two things are contradictory. If pro-lifers really want fewer abortions how can they also oppose easy access to contraception?
As noted in the links below modern, recent data from Colorado has clearly shown how free access to contraception significantly decreased abortions.
http://www.5280.com/2017/09/end-free-birth-control/
https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/sites/default/files/PSD_TitleX3_CFPI-Report.pdf
Another common association between political beliefs and pro-life views is the desire to decrease government spending on “social programs”—many of which are designed to help poor children get food, housing, education, and healthcare coverage. Thus, these two positions (anti-contraception /abortion and anti-spending on poor children) being held simultaneously by the same person make no sense. Because if pro-lifers want the government to end abortions which will result in more poor children but then they suddenly—after birth—no longer care about those “babies” and think they need to “stop whining and pull themselves up by the boot straps” the result will be a total disaster.
Again, the Colorado example has shown that as the use of contraception increases among poor women the abortion rate drops by a lot AND government spending drops.
The above is the major problem with this debate—that one side (pro-lifers) have no actual real world proposals to deal with this issue. They actual oppose actions that have been shown to reduce abortions. Simply saying people need to “accept Jesus”, “not have premarital sex”, or “reap what they have sewn “ is not public policy, it’s fantasy and not based on reality. Can a pro-lifer explain what they would be willing to actually do to address the issue of abortion—and the associated issue of poor children—other than banning abortion? How are you going to enforce your “don’t have premarital sex rule”? Are you going to force church attendance? What are your thoughts on Bristol Palin as an example of the success of your proposed policies?
Kavanaugh is a shoe in but what about reality? wrote:
Anyone paying attention to the Brett Kavanaugh nomination hearings this week? Did anyone catch his response to a Roe v. Wade question in which he sited a ruling in which he referred to contraception as “abortion inducing drugs”? What are your thoughts on that exchange and the difference between contraception and abortion? I recognize this topic is complex but I think it is useful to try and understand each sides point of view. But, conflating contraception and abortion is not helpful for either side of the abortion debate.
Pro-lifers say a fetus, or even a zygote or embryo, is the same as a fully formed child. Thus, for pro-lifers the “baby” is their primary concern.
Pro-choicers say a fetus is not an autonomous human until it has taken its first breath or is capable of doing so on its own (some time around 22-24 weeks gestational age). Thus, for pro-choicers the mother is the focus of their concern.
It could be taken that Kavanaugh believes that God should be the decider if a sperm and egg should try to make a baby. And the contraceptives defeat God's intent. In other words: Only have sex if you want to have kids. Mike Pence is cheering; no touching women unless you want to have kids. Trump will continue to payoff women to have abortions, but by going to foreign countries.
We’ve been here before....many many times.
Roe v Wade is never being overturned. Look back at the history of abortions before RvW. Abortions aren’t going away even if you get rid of RvW.
The SCOTUS hearings are nothing more than political theatre. It’s been that way for quite some time. It’s all about posturing and getting your message out. SCOTUS appointeees used to not have these grand theatrical hearings.....
Alan
Runningart2004 wrote:
Same playbook, different decade wrote:
The major problem with the GOP tax cuts is they NEVER “get to govt spending cuts” that they promise.
How dumb are people? Why do they forget so quickly? The modern GOP is NOT fiscally conservative. They have cut taxes before—several times in most of our lifetimes—and they NEVER get to cutting spending.
I suppose a tax cut would be fine IF they passed legislation slashing government spending FIRST. In other words, cut spending by X amount so they know how much less revenue they’l be taking in and then give X amount back to tax payers. But that’s not what happens. We’ve seen this playbook before—recently.
The GOP controlled both houses of Congress AND had a GOP POTUS for 6 of the 8 Bush II years—this was not that long ago, the early 2000s. They passed a massive tax cut. What else did they do? Well they 1) said the tax cuts would “pay for themselves by driving economic growth 2) they simultaneously MASSIVELY INCREASED government spending!
What happened? We had a short term boom followed by a MASSIVE economic collapse AND a MASSIVE increase in the national debt. But since the economic collapse happened several years later dumb people with short attention spans that are obsessed with tax cuts who think that the minute tax legislation is passed the full effect of said tax legislation is felt—are and where mentally unable to connect the collapse to the very bad tax & spend policies of the GOP.
So, what is happening now? 1) the GOP is saying the same thing about “tax cuts paying for themselves” by driving economic growth 2) CEOs are smart and know if they throw peons short term benefits (like a one time bonus rather than a permanent increase in worker salaries...which are peanuts to the CEOs and which do nothing to address the real issue of wage stagnation) that they can connect that to the tax cuts and say “see trickle down works! What’s good for corporations is good for individuals”...meanwhile those same corporations pocket > 90% of the benefit from the cut 3) the GOP proposes MASSIVE increases in defense spending, infrastructure spending, and spending for a border wall with no plan to pay for any of it.
These tax cuts will have the same effect as prior cuts—a huge increase in the national debt and an eventual economic collapse that disproportionately effects individuals (who, yeah, got a short term increase in $) while corporations make out like bandits (their cuts are permanent). Plus, all the benefits (short term) will be attributed to the current admin, while the long term effects will be blamed on whomever is in office when the $hit hits the fan in several years.
Why do you tax obsess Morans not understand that at this point the ONLY rational approach is an INCREASE in taxes coupled with a DECREASE in spending. We owe too much already to get tax cuts, they are a bad idea.
So I would say at some point in our history we will have to right? Well maybe not.
Cool read:
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/heres-how-the-us-got-to-20-trillion-in-debt-2017-03-30
Thanks for the link. I agree with the premise of the argument—both political parties are to blame for our current debt. It does seem like the problem is getting worse too. Partially due to compounding interest on the debt and partially because it seems like we are in a cycle where the GOP takes the reins and decreases revenue (via tax cuts) and increases spending (via defense spending) followed by the Dems taking over who then increase spending and are generally revenue neutral (because they never really raise taxes enough to cover their spending or the prior GOP admins spending.
Not a great cycle, clearly unsustainable. Do you see a way out? Because I don’t.
The cycle continues, will it ever stop? wrote:
Runningart2004 wrote:
So I would say at some point in our history we will have to right? Well maybe not.
Cool read:
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/heres-how-the-us-got-to-20-trillion-in-debt-2017-03-30Thanks for the link. I agree with the premise of the argument—both political parties are to blame for our current debt. It does seem like the problem is getting worse too. Partially due to compounding interest on the debt and partially because it seems like we are in a cycle where the GOP takes the reins and decreases revenue (via tax cuts) and increases spending (via defense spending) followed by the Dems taking over who then increase spending and are generally revenue neutral (because they never really raise taxes enough to cover their spending or the prior GOP admins spending.
Not a great cycle, clearly unsustainable. Do you see a way out? Because I don’t.
For one, stop massively funding military adventures. Put all those people to work fixing the country's infrastructure. Get military people off the government money roles. Hire private firms to build the infrastructure, and make that work a continuous upgrade cycle.
A very stabIe genius! wrote:
Good evening! How are all you LRC stable geniuses doing this fine PM?
None of us could be considered a stable genius
Kavanaugh is a shoe in but what about reality? wrote:
[sigh] It's "shoo-in".
Flagpole wrote:I don't think you people are reading enough.
Donald Trump has ties with the Russian Mob which is different from the Mob in the US. The Russian mob is tied to the Russian government. Russia uses the mob to get money out of the country and launder it. The best way to launder? Real estate! It will be discovered that Trump has been involved in money laundering with Russia for years and perhaps decades.
This is for sure ONE thing Russia and Putin have over Trump.
He is not an innocent man no matter how dumb he is.
Oh, and what is the second-best way to launder money? Diamonds. Who had a jewelry business that dealt in loose diamonds who has been suspected of money laundering? Ivanka Trump!
Mueller is coming.
The clown is done.
I knew that Trump's real estate was used to launder money. I didn't know about the diamonds though.
But how is this something Russia and Putin have over Trump? Won't it be bad for them as well if it's proven that they have been money laundering?
Bank records wrote:
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
At this point it is a theory like Uranium One and Clinton Global Initiative pay for play.
Mueller has the bank records. Keep your hopes up.
I hope that you realize that you are arguing with Lying Gary Lite. Squirrelly, squirmy, infinitely disingenuous . . . There isn't much point.
If you want to check, just wade through some of the Down with the Dow thread. It is basically a monument to Igy's endless capacity to create and rebut straw men, hype himself and never, ever admit his own error.
Runningart2004 wrote:
Trump has no chance to win in 2020...unless there is a serious 3rd party candidate....or he starts a small skirmish in a third world country.
This is why I think they will Primary him. His base isn't that big. Something like 14m (45%) voted for him in the primaries. I expect most of them have been big supporters throughout, but perhaps some weren't especially keen on him then (just more than Cruz, Rubio, Kasich, or whoever was in the race at that point). Others may have become disenchanted. On the other hand, some may vote for Trump in the Primary this time, having not done previously. Overall, I doubt the numbers will move that much, but will probably fall.
This is assuming that everyone just votes for the candidate they want. There may be some people who really want Trump to have a second term, but can be persuaded that he isn't popular enough with the rest of the country. In that case more Republicans may be prepared to vote for another candidate.
As long as the anti-Trump vote isn't split and can co-ordinate on one candidate, Trump will get shitcanned.
Wibster wrote:
Flagpole wrote:I don't think you people are reading enough.
Donald Trump has ties with the Russian Mob which is different from the Mob in the US. The Russian mob is tied to the Russian government. Russia uses the mob to get money out of the country and launder it. The best way to launder? Real estate! It will be discovered that Trump has been involved in money laundering with Russia for years and perhaps decades.
This is for sure ONE thing Russia and Putin have over Trump.
He is not an innocent man no matter how dumb he is.
Oh, and what is the second-best way to launder money? Diamonds. Who had a jewelry business that dealt in loose diamonds who has been suspected of money laundering? Ivanka Trump!
Mueller is coming.
The clown is done.
I knew that Trump's real estate was used to launder money. I didn't know about the diamonds though.
But how is this something Russia and Putin have over Trump? Won't it be bad for them as well if it's proven that they have been money laundering?
What legal authority is going to hold Putin accountable? No one in Russia will or can. It's just one of likely many things Putin has on Trump...recordings of him saying anti-American things or Pro-Russia things, or stuff with hookers, or agreements that he will do things for Russia if they help him get elected and on and on. Also the money laundering is a stream of money that Trump counts on, so just for that reason alone he is beholden to Putin.
Bank records wrote:
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
At this point it is a theory like Uranium One and Clinton Global Initiative pay for play.
Mueller has the bank records. Keep your hopes up.
Oh the Clinton’s bank records, good. Looks like the investigation is going to be fair afterall.