PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: Steingar on September 06, 2018, 06:06:15 AM
-
This isn’t the work of the so-called deep state. It’s the work of the steady state.
Yeah, Woodward had it all wrong. The senior administration official who wrote the Op Ed piece in the New York times is fake. It must all be fake, since it didn't come from some right wing blog.
I was right about one thing. I said a Trump Presidency would be entertaining.
-
Yeah, Woodward had it all wrong. The senior administration official who wrote the Op Ed piece in the New York times is fake. It must all be fake, since it didn't come from some right wing blog.
I was right about one thing. I said a Trump Presidency would be entertaining.
What I find entertaining is a (supposed) respected NYT would publish an inflammatory anonymous letter in it's paper. Especially when this same paper has shown such contempt for the President. Add in the total melt down going on this week by the left over the SC nomination hearing, the left's realization that their "big blue wave" will more than likely result in a "little yellow trickle", and now we hear the President is getting ready to start declassifying FISA documents that will implicate several of those who are involved in the DoJ/FBI scandal that leads right back to BHO.
If you think it's entertaining now, just wait till the left's meltdown goes volcanic.
-
Steingar NEEDS his fantasies to be true or everything he’s spent his life proclaiming will turn to dust in his mouth.
-
Trump has promised to drain the swamp.
Does it surprise any one that the swamp would resist? Or to what lengths they would be willing to go?
-
The SC nomination hearing has thrown the dems over the edge as they are realizing by the end of the week we will have Kavanaugh on the bench and they couldn't stop it. They're even lashing out at their leadership.
Add in that Woodward's book is being laughed off as a work of fiction as those he supposedly quoted have come forward and told how they never made such statements.....and all Woodward would have to do to prove them wrong is release his recordings, something he won't discuss.
But the icing on the cake is the revelation that the FISA documents are getting ready to be declassified by the President. This will show exactly who did what and more importantly it will blow Mueller's investigation out of the water proving it was created out of thin air. And BTW, Rosenstein is now under investigation by the IG.
Yep, entertaining it will be.
-
The senior administration official who wrote the Op Ed piece in the New York times is fake.
The senior administration official should resign because apparently they work for a boss who is apparently intolerable. Intentionally obstructing the president because you're afraid of what he will do? Would you have considered this acceptable if someone did it to Obama?
Yes, we know he is brash and has a different way of thinking. Still feel better about him than I do about Hillary.
-
Olympic hypocrisy for the Dems to attack Trump. He’s a victim! An outlier! A person on the fringe! He doesn’t act as expected! It’s not his fault he’s the way he is!
They should be embracing him in line with their protection of the marginalized.
Apparently Elena Kagan hired Kavanaugh to teach at Harvard Law School. I’m sure that will come out on the major outlets.
https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/306724/A
-
Can you imagine the utter insanity that would have prevailed if the republicans organized civil disobedience at a Senate confirmation hearing? The new york slimes would have devoted entire editions to attacks on the GOP, but as the communist party is behind it all, led by their deluded captains schumer and pelosi, occasion-cortez and kamela harris, they barely notice it...
I can see why steingar is so delusional. His entire peer group is a bunch of mentally disturbed, idiots.
-
The only adults in the Room have been Judge (soon to be Supreme Court Justice) Kavanaugh, the overly restrained Republicans on the committee, and the Capitol Police who have been removing these unhinged lunatics when they act up.
'Gimp
-
The senior administration official should resign because apparently they work for a boss who is apparently intolerable. Intentionally obstructing the president because you're afraid of what he will do? Would you have considered this acceptable if someone did it to Obama?
Yes, we know he is brash and has a different way of thinking. Still feel better about him than I do about Hillary.
Except... if that boss is CiC of the most powerful military on Earth, don't you think putting duty to country and the world ahead of doing the ethical thing as an employee might just be the right decision?
Mind you, I don't normally put a lot of stock in anonymous sources, including those allegedly used by Woodward. Nevertheless, it appears the decision to allow the anonymous op-ed was not made by one person but by the NYT editorial staff, who are aware of the person's identity, and that raises its credibility for me just a little.
The "two track presidency" also gibes with my own impression of what is going on... and why I said I agree with a lot of what Trump's *administration* is doing while not having a lot of respect for the man himself.
So I'm keeping an open mind on this one. Might be real. Might.
-
Except... if that boss is CiC of the most powerful military on Earth, don't you think putting duty to country and the world ahead of doing the ethical thing as an employee might just be the right decision?
Mind you, I don't normally put a lot of stock in anonymous sources, including those allegedly used by Woodward. Nevertheless, it appears the decision to allow the anonymous op-ed was not made by one person but by the NYT editorial staff, who are aware of the person's identity, and that raises its credibility for me just a little.
The "two track presidency" also gibes with my own impression of what is going on... and why I said I agree with a lot of what Trump's *administration* is doing while not having a lot of respect for the man himself.
So I'm keeping an open mind on this one. Might be real. Might.
The NYT editorial staff? Have we forgotten Sarah Jeong so quickly?
-
I suspect much of what's said in the op-ed is true in the mind of the author and represents a lot of the thinking behind long-time beltway 'crats. Many, even most of the 20 year hangers on in DC that have never faced an election get a new admin and think to themselves; 'it will only take me X months to get ______ to figure out how WE do things here'. Where X may be 2 or 6 or something. Trump has not fallen into line like he was supposed to after those honeymoon period, and the 'crats aren't having it.
This leads to first - institutional intransigence. That is - it was done like this before, and no new 'guy' at the top is going to upset OUR means and methods. Second it leads to fear of loss. Loss of power, prestige, control, and authority. Any time a person's power, control or authority is challenged, the person underneath can only find fault, and denigrate, or even undermine the legitimate power of the leader. This can be clearly heard in the defensive nature of the statement. A theme of 'We're only doing this for your own good(Mr pres, citizens of the US, foreign leaders, etc).'
I'm actually glad it's out there now. As far as I'm concerned, Trump can take a wrecking ball to the whole thing. Everyone from the head chef on down stays, everyone above the head chef - your resignation is accepted, and please turn in your badge, all your clearances are cancelled. We're talking baby, bathwater, bassinet, and while I'm at it, here goes the changing table, diaper bag and bottle too.
It's pretty clear the toxicity has migrated from those 'public servants' who really do care about their nation(a nation which is a republic, and NOT a democracy), to everyone in the beltway that is infected with the bile from the media, through the DNC and RNC both, and on to the leaders of each SCOTUS, including the conservatives.
I did not elect a group of oligarchs to determine policy behind my back, and behind the back of the president. If they are unable or unwilling to follow his rants, and his rules, and his outrageous policy then GTFO. We have well trod procedures and policy limits in our form of govt to regulate any one individual. let Trump be exposed for his outlandish methods, and let them be put into play to fail, but STOP covering up!
The most important part of the Caine Mutiny is not the decent into mistrust and disaffection, and disloyalty up to the storm. Has nothing to do with Queeg wanting shirts tucked in, or where the strawberries went. The critical part of the Caine Mutiny is the last chapter. Fortunately, youtube has captured it so I don't have to type it all out.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jw6gwGawbXA
Once the officers of the Caine refused to go to the admiralty with their case, that was the turning point, and everyone WAS guilty of mutiny. So, maybe Trump is Queeg. Maybe he is a ranting, raving, control-freak with paranoid tendencies. If so, let's see it. Let's get it out there, let him show his mistakes, and be judged, first by the HR and should they see fit to remove him, tried by the senate.
Frankly, I don't think they have a leg to stand on. I think they are conducting a covert mutiny against the constitution of the US. I think every one of them should be brought before the bar of justice(if they have interfered with policy as stated) and shown their true colors. Lets tear it down, and see where we stand, because - I'm not interested in being 'represented' by a bunch of back-door, closed-room, closet 'crats who think they know more than the fly-over mouth-breathing goobers that put Trump in office.
FUCK YOU CRATS! Put up or shut up publicly.
-
The most important part of the Caine Mutiny is not the decent into mistrust and disaffection, and disloyalty up to the storm. Has nothing to do with Queeg wanting shirts tucked in, or where the strawberries went. The critical part of the Caine Mutiny is the last chapter. Fortunately, youtube has captured it so I don't have to type it all out.
[...]
Once the officers of the Caine refused to go to the admiralty with their case, that was the turning point, and everyone WAS guilty of mutiny.
One of my favorite movies and you hit the nail right on the head. Thank you for putting it so clearly.
-
Let's get it out there, let him show his mistakes, and be judged, first by the HR and should they see fit to remove him, tried by the senate.
Unfortunately the only provision to remove him via the impeachment process is for "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors". Mistakes don't qualify. There is no allegation that he is guilty of anything like that, only of poor judgment, inconsistency, and being temperamentally unfit for office. The only other way is the 25th amendment, which the author claims was considered and rejected.
Personally my feeling is that IF what the author alleges is factually true (and not just in his own mind), then the status quo is better than any alternative that is likely to come out of playing his hand openly. No it isn't honorable, yes it is mutiny, but it is better than him and his co-conspirators (if they really exist) being replaced by lackeys who might obediently set the events in motion that lead to World War III.
And I realize that is a big IF.
-
The NYT editorial staff? Have we forgotten Sarah Jeong so quickly?
The NYT like Washpo, CNN, NBC/MSNBC/Comcast, ABC, CBS, PBS, etc have become pure propaganda outlets for the Democrats. They do not report anything that doesn't advance their agenda, and often either purposely misrepresent the issues, or omit critical info, and stories. The also just out, and out lie using conjecture, hearsay, and no facts, nor evidence. That is why there sources are almost always anonymous if the cite any sources at all. It is disgusting.
-
I suspect much of what's said in the op-ed is true in the mind of the author and represents a lot of the thinking behind long-time beltway 'crats. Many, even most of the 20 year hangers on in DC that have never faced an election get a new admin and think to themselves; 'it will only take me X months to get ______ to figure out how WE do things here'. Where X may be 2 or 6 or something. Trump has not fallen into line like he was supposed to after those honeymoon period, and the 'crats aren't having it.
This leads to first - institutional intransigence. That is - it was done like this before, and no new 'guy' at the top is going to upset OUR means and methods. Second it leads to fear of loss. Loss of power, prestige, control, and authority. Any time a person's power, control or authority is challenged, the person underneath can only find fault, and denigrate, or even undermine the legitimate power of the leader. This can be clearly heard in the defensive nature of the statement. A theme of 'We're only doing this for your own good(Mr pres, citizens of the US, foreign leaders, etc).'
I'm actually glad it's out there now. As far as I'm concerned, Trump can take a wrecking ball to the whole thing. Everyone from the head chef on down stays, everyone above the head chef - your resignation is accepted, and please turn in your badge, all your clearances are cancelled. We're talking baby, bathwater, bassinet, and while I'm at it, here goes the changing table, diaper bag and bottle too.
It's pretty clear the toxicity has migrated from those 'public servants' who really do care about their nation(a nation which is a republic, and NOT a democracy), to everyone in the beltway that is infected with the bile from the media, through the DNC and RNC both, and on to the leaders of each SCOTUS, including the conservatives.
I did not elect a group of oligarchs to determine policy behind my back, and behind the back of the president. If they are unable or unwilling to follow his rants, and his rules, and his outrageous policy then GTFO. We have well trod procedures and policy limits in our form of govt to regulate any one individual. let Trump be exposed for his outlandish methods, and let them be put into play to fail, but STOP covering up!
The most important part of the Caine Mutiny is not the decent into mistrust and disaffection, and disloyalty up to the storm. Has nothing to do with Queeg wanting shirts tucked in, or where the strawberries went. The critical part of the Caine Mutiny is the last chapter. Fortunately, youtube has captured it so I don't have to type it all out.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jw6gwGawbXA
Once the officers of the Caine refused to go to the admiralty with their case, that was the turning point, and everyone WAS guilty of mutiny. So, maybe Trump is Queeg. Maybe he is a ranting, raving, control-freak with paranoid tendencies. If so, let's see it. Let's get it out there, let him show his mistakes, and be judged, first by the HR and should they see fit to remove him, tried by the senate.
Frankly, I don't think they have a leg to stand on. I think they are conducting a covert mutiny against the constitution of the US. I think every one of them should be brought before the bar of justice(if they have interfered with policy as stated) and shown their true colors. Lets tear it down, and see where we stand, because - I'm not interested in being 'represented' by a bunch of back-door, closed-room, closet 'crats who think they know more than the fly-over mouth-breathing goobers that put Trump in office.
FUCK YOU CRATS! Put up or shut up publicly.
Holy Shit! You drilled to the bone. That's EXACTLY what's going on.
-
It is a complex subject. I'll give a hypothetical, what if you knew what was going on with the Nazis and were in a position to head it off? Would you be better off bravely getting out of the country and publicly trying to undermine him, or would it be better to quietly remain in place and do what good you could surreptitiously. Do keep in mind that I am NOT comparing Trump to Hitler, nor inferring anything. To do so would be entirely demeaning. After all, one is a misanthropic bigoted bastion of evil, while the other just has a dopey little mustache.
I think my one objection to it is that if the person is really doing what they claim and heading off WWIII, then they should have continued to do it in anonymity. I really don't see the positives for this editorial, other than the entertainment value for the American electorate.
-
Do keep in mind that I am NOT comparing Trump to Hitler, nor inferring anything. To do so would be entirely demeaning. After all, one is a misanthropic bigoted bastion of evil, while the other just has a dopey little mustache.
Michael, you are just saying stuff to get a reaction again. I know that, but others may not. It hurts your credibility, and makes you look juvenile.
-
Unfortunately the only provision to remove him via the impeachment process is for "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors". Mistakes don't qualify. There is no allegation that he is guilty of anything like that, only of poor judgment, inconsistency, and being temperamentally unfit for office. The only other way is the 25th amendment, which the author claims was considered and rejected.
Personally my feeling is that IF what the author alleges is factually true (and not just in his own mind), then the status quo is better than any alternative that is likely to come out of playing his hand openly. No it isn't honorable, yes it is mutiny, but it is better than him and his co-conspirators (if they really exist) being replaced by lackeys who might obediently set the events in motion that lead to World War III.j
And I realize that is a big IF.
I think you will find that high crimes and misdemeanors means whatever congress thinks it means at the time.
-
Michael, you are just saying stuff to get a reaction again. I know that, but others may not. It hurts your credibility, and makes you look juvenile.
He is a ten year old, pathetic, weak, whiner, and wants everybody to know it.
-
This “senior administration official” will turn out to be a jock sniffer wannabe power broker deputy to the assistant secretary of the department of hand towel supplies.
If it was a real player, Trump would already know who he is, and will secure his resignation by 0800 tomorrow.
There are hundreds of these types working in the White House or the Executive building.
-
Michael, you are just saying stuff to get a reaction again. I know that, but others may not. It hurts your credibility, and makes you look juvenile.
Same shit, different day for him. I don’t enjoy debating children.
-
but it is better than him and his co-conspirators (if they really exist) being replaced by lackeys who might obediently set the events in motion that lead to World War III.
You owe me a keyboard. I should not be drinking coffee when reading the SZ because occasionally I occasionally read something so stupid it makes me laugh through my nose.
I can't count all the times leftists use the scare tactic of some deranged Republican going to set off WWIII. They said it about Reagan, Bush II and Trump. Remember his tough talk about N. Korea? I know some libs that were talking about building bomb shelters.
It is the weak kneed pansy politicians (of both parties) we have had for decades that were so afraid of Russia, China, Iran, Iraq, N. Korea et al that they were afraid to stand up say "this is how it's going to be".
-
It is a complex subject. I'll give a hypothetical, what if you knew what was going on with the Nazis and were in a position to head it off? Would you be better off bravely getting out of the country and publicly trying to undermine him, or would it be better to quietly remain in place and do what good you could surreptitiously. Do keep in mind that I am NOT comparing Trump to Hitler, nor inferring anything. To do so would be entirely demeaning. After all, one is a misanthropic bigoted bastion of evil, while the other just has a dopey little mustache.
I think my one objection to it is that if the person is really doing what they claim and heading off WWIII, then they should have continued to do it in anonymity. I really don't see the positives for this editorial, other than the entertainment value for the American electorate.
I have 30 min to kill so I'll play the 'what if' game. If I knew in mid-1937 what would come in 9/1939(5/37 - approx the last date at which Hitler could have been stopped, I would take all LAWFUL actions to stop him. I would raise my voice in the German Chancellery and in as clear and concise statements that I could possibly make that we were headed for disaster, and would be far better to maintain our status-quo and proceed cautiously. I would do it publicly, and I would use every LAWFUL means at my disposal within the Republic to press my case.
I'm not an expert on the Weirmar govt, but I do know that there were many people who fought against the rise of National Socialism. They were unsuccessful. Translating to the Trump admin, I expect those who oppose his political position, and hold deep held beliefs that he is unfit to bring LAWFUL evidence before the constitutional authority. That is - for the NYT, WaPo, Woodward, HuffPo, et-al to submit their grievances to the HR members of their district and have those members bring up a motion to invoke the 25th A article.
This is how we do things in the US! Otherwise, we descend into the madness that brought us the rise of National Socialism(and what parallels are we seeing with the liberal movement right now!???). It is the left - sir, that is not using the levers of govt to press their case. They are using foreign govt operatives, underground traitors, salacious spokesmen, and of course the deep state to advance an agenda. Who does this remind you of vis-a-vis mid 30s Germany? Ever heard of the Brownshirts? Kristelnach? Are you not seeing parallels because you don't want to, or because you choose not to believe? These are not rhetorical devices, you may answer in specie.
This is the kind of shit I'm talking about. Just saw it an hour ago:https://www.yahoo.com/news/kavanaugh-hearing-cory-booker-tells-republicans-threatening-expulsion-bring-160720165.html
This Dem is GLAD he broke the senate rules. Add him to the list with Harris who both should face censure. But - unlike Trump, the 'leaders' in the senate have absolutely no spine.
-
In the history of America it has been far more often that democrats started wars that republicans had to clean and finish.
The truth never outshines the lies of the left.
Remember Vietnam? It was Kennedy that lit that fire, Johnson who made it unwinnable and Nixon who figured out to end it.
To hear democrats tell it, Nixon was the war monger.
-
Now that I've calmed down some, I have come up with another thought. And, given the corrupt nature of the players involved, it may be more accurate.
So far, Trump is playing the media like a fiddle. Every time he makes a policy statement, they are in unison against him. Thus, to take back control of the levers of authority by the media, they must sow dissension and mistrust within the cabinet, and advisors. Push Trump to make a bold move(as I rashly advised in prev), to wipe out the cadre, and try something else.
Basically, the media is content to throw sand in the gears of Trump and see what happens. At the least, they irritate and deflect. At the greatest, they cause a management shift, and force the public servants of the admin to be replaced, and slow the progress of Trump agenda.
Which means, maybe the smart play is to ignore the anon op-ed, to continue to trust the members of his admin/cabinet/armed forces and make sure that his policies are in stone, and done to his direct orders. No more waffling, no more re-writes, no more interpretations. Lets go biblical on the left. So let it be written, so let it be done. (alternately, we could go all Chinese dynasty; "fear this and tremblingly obey").
-
You owe me a keyboard. I should not be drinking coffee when reading the SZ because occasionally I occasionally read something so stupid it makes me laugh through my nose.
I can't count all the times leftists use the scare tactic of some deranged Republican going to set off WWIII. They said it about Reagan, Bush II and Trump. Remember his tough talk about N. Korea? I know some libs that were talking about building bomb shelters.
It is the weak kneed pansy politicians (of both parties) we have had for decades that were so afraid of Russia, China, Iran, Iraq, N. Korea et al that they were afraid to stand up say "this is how it's going to be".
Glad I could supply a few lolz and sorry for your keyboard. ;)
You call it stupid, but I'm just following the line of logic that assumes the op-ed piece is for real and the allegations it makes are true. I'm not passing judgment either way, but IF they are, then Trump is so incompetent and has so little appreciation for the consequences of some of his actions that blundering his way into WWIII would be a realistic possibility.
I was also not making shit up, but alluding to a quote that was cited recently from Woodward's book, that I think was attributed to Mattis.
But no, you can relax, Joe, I don't think anything Trump's administration has done so far has moved us any closer to war. Foreign policy-wise, his administration is actually doing a fairly competent job IMO. The only question is how much of that is because of Trump, and how much is in spite of him.
-
The only question is how much of that is because of Trump, and how much is in spite of him.
As you might expect, I not only think it is because of Trump, but I wonder how much more he could accomplish if he didn't have the swamp and the media busting his balls for every thing he says or does or for everything they make up about him, or that they are afraid he might do.
-
So the hail mary attempt by the dems has failed....spectacularly.
The NYT OpEd that was suppose to get congress to invoke the 25th Amendment and remove the President and hopefully derail the Kavanaugh confirmation just shows the desperation of the alt left progressives.
Stand by, it's gonna get even wilder.
-
On Trump's Twitter feed are statements from Mattis and Kelly that the quotes attributed to them in Woodward’s book are fiction.
https://mobile.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor
Also Trump responding to the NYT article.
-
Flotus has her say.
https://www.dailywire.com/news/35550/melania-trump-goes-scorched-earth-cowardly-nyt-op-amanda-prestigiacomo
-
On Trump's Twitter feed are statements from Mattis and Kelly that the quotes attributed to them in Woodward’s book are fiction.
I believe Woodward, sorry. Guy's got two Pulitzers, he's not going to sully a reputation that long in the building by publishing BS under his own name for short term gain. Heck, in the phone call he recorded the Short Fingered Vulgarian said himself that Woodward would be fair.
-
IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Statement by Secretary of Defense James N. Mattis
Sept. 4, 2018
News Release
Release No: NR-256-18
"The contemptuous words about the President attributed to me in Woodward's book were never uttered by me or in my presence. While I generally enjoy reading fiction, this is a uniquely Washington brand of literature, and his anonymous sources do not lend credibility.
"While responsible policy making in the real world is inherently messy, it is also essential that we challenge every assumption to find the best option. I embrace such debate and the open competition of ideas. In just over a year, these robust discussions and deliberations have yielded significant results, including the near annihilation of the ISIS caliphate, unprecedented burden sharing by our NATO allies, the repatriation of U.S. service member remains from North Korea, and the improved readiness of our armed forces. Our defense policies have also enjoyed overwhelming bipartisan support in Congress.
"In serving in this administration, the idea that I would show contempt for the elected Commander-in-Chief, President Trump, or tolerate disrespect to the office of the President from within our Department of Defense, is a product of someone’s rich imagination.”
James N. Mattis SecDef
-
I believe Woodward, sorry. Guy's got two Pulitzers, he's not going to sully a reputation that long in the building by publishing BS under his own name for short term gain. Heck, in the phone call he recorded the Short Fingered Vulgarian said himself that Woodward would be fair.
Yea, millions of dollars in personal gain doesn’t have anything to do with it. ::)
-
I believe Woodward, sorry. Guy's got two Pulitzers, he's not going to sully a reputation that long in the building by publishing BS under his own name for short term gain. Heck, in the phone call he recorded the Short Fingered Vulgarian said himself that Woodward would be fair.
He wants CASH, air time, and recognition for his ego to be stroked. Therefore he will publish just about anything to get both.
-
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/washington-secrets/flashback-obama-prosecuted-staff-leakers-gave-lie-detector-tests-paranoid
-
I believe Woodward, sorry. Guy's got two Pulitzers, he's not going to sully a reputation that long in the building by publishing BS under his own name for short term gain. Heck, in the phone call he recorded the Short Fingered Vulgarian said himself that Woodward would be fair.
Of course you do.
Emoting is so much easier than rational thought.
-
Of course you do.
Emoting is so much easier than rational thought.
All Woodward would have to do is release his tapes and notes if he wants to prove all of the supposed things in his book.
Strangely though he doesn’t want to discuss that. I mean, after all, according to the perfesser Woodward is only pursuing a noble cause with his book, financial gain has nothing to do with it.
-
I believe Woodward, sorry. Guy's got two Pulitzers, he's not going to sully a reputation that long in the building by publishing BS under his own name for short term gain.
For years I believed Lance Armstrong was not doping.
Tim
-
I believe Woodward, sorry. Guy's got two Pulitzers...
So what, Obama and Yasser Arafat have Peace Nobels.
-
Do keep in mind that I am NOT comparing Trump to Hitler, nor inferring anything. To do so would be entirely demeaning. After all, one is a misanthropic bigoted bastion of evil, while the other just has a dopey little mustache
So you all complained about what I thought was an obvious joke, and a funny one. Perhaps I was wrong. Even the best comedians blow it once in a while, and I am certainly not the best. So I told this to a number of people, including a couple die hard Republicans. All laughed and thought it funny. The GOP members did think it bad taste, nor would I disagree. But humor isn’t supposed to be tasteful, just funny.
What that tells me is you all are a bunch of thin skinned Nancys who get their little panties in a wad if anyone says anything at all against their dear leader. The dear leader would agree, since he’s asked the justice department to prosecute whoever put that piece in the NYT. And that is probably the main thing I dislike about him. Whoever put that piece in the NYT broke no laws. They may have been disloyal. They may have been arrogant. The piece might have been a truly bad idea, but the one thing it wasn’t was illegal. Americans have the freedom of speech under the constitution. The author of the piece did not breech national security, he or she revealed no secrets. He or she simply said things Trump didn’t like.
Trump’s publicly stated desire to prosecute this individual therefore can only mean one of two things. Either he has so little understanding of the Constitution to understand that the author of that piece hadn’t done anything illegal, or he understands it and really doesn’t care. Either is disastrous for the rest of us.
-
So you all complained about what I thought was an obvious joke, and a funny one. Perhaps I was wrong. Even the best comedians blow it once in a while, and I am certainly not the best. So I told this to a number of people, including a couple die hard Republicans. All laughed and thought it funny. The GOP members did think it bad taste, nor would I disagree. But humor isn’t supposed to be tasteful, just funny.
What that tells me is you all are a bunch of thin skinned Nancys who get their little panties in a wad if anyone says anything at all against their dear leader. The dear leader would agree, since he’s asked the justice department to prosecute whoever put that piece in the NYT. And that is probably the main thing I dislike about him. Whoever put that piece in the NYT broke no laws. They may have been disloyal. They may have been arrogant. The piece might have been a truly bad idea, but the one thing it wasn’t was illegal. Americans have the freedom of speech under the constitution. The author of the piece did not breech national security, he or she revealed no secrets. He or she simply said things Trump didn’t like.
Trump’s publicly stated desire to prosecute this individual therefore can only mean one of two things. Either he has so little understanding of the Constitution to understand that the author of that piece hadn’t done anything illegal, or he understands it and really doesn’t care. Either is disastrous for the rest of us.
The problem with the person who supposedly wrote the NYT oped piece is they have openly admitted they are willing to subvert the government for personal reasons.
They obviously by the writing hold a high security clearance and are privy to classified information. This is dangerous for national security as they could take something very sensitive and either leak it to harm the President, while at the same time harm national security.
This is not freedom of the press or freedom of speech issue. This is sedition and it carries grave consequences.
People who are granted security clearances and positions within the WH are expected to follow protocol as well as respect the laws they work under. Writing an article anonymously in which they are threatening to subvert the government is a crime.
And you seem to be forgetting that your Mocha Messiah vigorously prosecuted leakers in his administration as well as giving lie detector test. See post 35 for the article.
Personally I think the OpEd is a hoax by the NYT. It's just yet another sign of desperation.
-
What that tells me is you all are a bunch of thin skinned Nancys who get their little panties in a wad if anyone says anything at all against their dear leader.
If my panties are in a wad, it's got nothing to do with the exercise of free speech, even if it is 100% negative, and destructive. The freedom of speech is most important for chicken-shit weaklings like the anonymous op-ed writer, with whom I disagree vehemently. No, my panties are in a bunch because this un-elected person has used their position of power to thwart, and obfuscate the will of the elected representative that I put in office. They are working against the will of the people, and think that they know better than I do what I want for a republic. And no matter the party, no matter the side you and I are on, this is subversive activity, and may be punishable by law. If the situation were reversed, and there was a traitor in the Hillary WH who published a similar manifesto on dailycaller, I gar-on-tee that the person would be found out, and hung by their balls within minutes.
I have no problem with freedom of speech and opinion. I have a huge problem with an un-elected crat double dealing behind the back of the man I WANT running this country. That is the kind of third-world, banana republic shit that has to stop.
-
I gar-on-tee that the person would be found out, and hung by their balls within minutes.
You sure you didn't mean they would commit suicide? :D
-
You sure you didn't mean they would commit suicide? :D
...by shooting themselves five times in the back with their weak hand. And Steingar would believe that too.
-
And for a change we actually have a flow of ideas rather than insults. Utterly refreshing. It comes back to the question about what do you do if you see things headed off a cliff.
I begin to agree with you all. As bad as Trump is, he hasn’t sent us to war or pushed the button, and I don’t think he will. The writer talked about “supporting republican principles” and not saving the Constitution. I wonder, if it could be proven that he or she was actually engaging in these activities, and that the NYT piece wasn’t a wild hoax, if it is actually a prosecutable offense? On what charge(s)? Thoughts?
-
And for a change we actually have a flow of ideas rather than insults. Utterly refreshing. It comes back to the question about what do you do if you see things headed off a cliff.
I begin to agree with you all. As bad as Trump is, he hasn’t sent us to war or pushed the button, and I don’t think he will. The writer talked about “supporting republican principles” and not saving the Constitution. I wonder, if it could be proven that he or she was actually engaging in these activities, and that the NYT piece wasn’t a wild hoax, if it is actually a prosecutable offense? On what charge(s)? Thoughts?
There are about a dozen charges that comes to mind that apply if this is real. 18 USC 2384 is a good start. 18 USC 2385 could apply.
See also 5 U.S.C. 7311 (1). See also Executive Order 10450.
-
And for a change we actually have a flow of ideas rather than insults. Utterly refreshing. It comes back to the question about what do you do if you see things headed off a cliff.
I begin to agree with you all. As bad as Trump is, he hasn’t sent us to war or pushed the button, and I don’t think he will. The writer talked about “supporting republican principles” and not saving the Constitution. I wonder, if it could be proven that he or she was actually engaging in these activities, and that the NYT piece wasn’t a wild hoax, if it is actually a prosecutable offense? On what charge(s)? Thoughts?
If you as a far left who hates Trump, can admit that he hasn't set off WWIII, let me ask you this; have you done one of those compare 2017 to 2018 tax calculators? And if so did you find you will save with the Trump tax cut? And whether or not you save can you see that if the average household saves $2000 a year in Federal taxes, that might be a good reason for them to support Trump?
Did you see Nancy Pelosi call that $2000 "crumbs"? That the crumbs don't matter and we don't need them? Does that not sound a bit elitist and uncaring to you? Does that not sound like Pelosi is totally noncompassionate toward people with lower incomes than hers?
I am genuinely interested in your thoughts about these things because I would like to try to understand the logic of liberals to vote against this tax cut. A common argument is about the budget and the deficit and that we all need to pay our fair share. But to hold that position one must close one's heart to the lower income taxpayers, the middle classes, the working people, who aren't poor enough to pay zero tax but aren't rich enough where $1000, $2000, $3000 or $4000 per year doesn't hurt. That kind of money goes to medical deductibles or car maintenance or a long term care premium or a kids college tuition.
Are liberals that full of hate that they don't give a fuck if the deplorables suffer from having to cough up more tax? Or are they simply blind and unknowledgable about the working class's problems? But surely many liberals are also in those income brackets and themselves will keep those dollars. In this case, are they so full of hatred for Trump and Republicans that they want to happily pay that extra money in taxes just to stick it to the deplorables even if it means they must suffer along?
Or is it that MSM doesn't show that Pelosi said that, or does MSM lie about your tax savings and liberals don't bother to do the math? I am having a lot of trouble understanding how liberals can go to the polls in November and vote to repeal the tax cuts. Do you believe they won't be repealed if the Democrats take over Congress? What logic do you tell yourself that makes you feel good about deliberately voting to pay the Feds that much more of your own money every year? Or if you've found personal loopholes so that your own taxes don't change how do you square the purported greater moral compassion of the left for the common people with pulling the lever to screw them out of much needed income?
-
^^^^^^There is no understanding the progressive mindset as there is no logic, nor reason. It is mostly lies to advance an agenda, that's all.
-
And for a change we actually have a flow of ideas rather than insults. Utterly refreshing. It comes back to the question about what do you do if you see things headed off a cliff.
I begin to agree with you all. As bad as Trump is, he hasn’t sent us to war or pushed the button, and I don’t think he will. The writer talked about “supporting republican principles” and not saving the Constitution. I wonder, if it could be proven that he or she was actually engaging in these activities, and that the NYT piece wasn’t a wild hoax, if it is actually a prosecutable offense? On what charge(s)? Thoughts?
You still continue to willingly miss the point. Let me shout, see if that helps. I VOTED FOR TRUMP! NOT SOME ELITIST, KNOW-IT-ALL BACK STABBING, DICKHEAD THAT THINKS HE KNOWS BETTER THAN THE AMERICAN PUBLIC WHAT IS 'BEST' FOR ALL OF US.
-
I would like to try to understand the logic of liberals
There's the source of your frustration right there? It isn't "logic"; it is "feelings". Just like your video that described the fallacy of "safe places" in schools.
-
There's the source of your frustration right there? It isn't "logic"; it is "feelings". Just like your video that described the fallacy of "safe places" in schools.
In yet another of his videos he says, "Every group holds things sacred. Every group values the truth. And when truth and the sacred conflict, every group throws truth under the bus.” - Jonathan Haidt
In that video he talks about religion as something sacred for example, fundamentalist Christians will reject evolution because it conflicts with their Sacred Thing. Then he blew my mind when he said liberals do the same thing, they reject evolution for the same reason. What? Yes, the liberal Sacred Thing is that everyone is equal. They believe evolution when it comes to animals but when it comes to humans they don't accept that people who evolved differently physically might also have evolved differently behaviorally or intellectually. Therefore they reject evolution just as surely as the Creationists.
So it makes complete sense in that light that they'd vote against their own tax cut. Saving money on your taxes is truth, but if it conflicts with your Sacred Thing which right now looks like the Cult of Hate Trump, then you've no choice but to vote against a Trump tax cut.
Here is a link to that video: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=n9kJkuuedw0
-
I vehemently dislike the tax cut because it is regressive and adds 1.5 trillion to the deficit according to the GAO.
-
I vehemently dislike the tax cut because it is regressive and adds 1.5 trillion to the deficit according to the GAO.
Bullshit walks.... and so do you.
-
I vehemently dislike the tax cut because it is regressive and adds 1.5 trillion to the deficit according to the GAO.
I agree that the deficit is a horrible thing and can't continue. But thinking more taxes will fix it doesn't make sense. Spending cuts are what's needed, along with a growing economy so actual total revenue will be higher.
-
I vehemently dislike the tax cut because it is regressive and adds 1.5 trillion to the deficit according to the GAO.
Non-responsive. This thread is about the willful abuse of the executive in office, who was put there by the public under the rules we all agreed to. Back to your defense of 'what you do if you see things heading off a cliff'. Because - we faced that in 1776. A lot of good men publicly, and willingly wrote a rejection of the current system of govt, and SIGNED THEIR NAMES to it. Many men died defending that rejection of colonial rule from behind the guns of a king.
If you are a senior official in the WH of the US and you see things headed off a cliff, you go to your boss(the elected guy in office) and you tell him where he's wrong, and how to solve it. And if he doesn't listen to you only then do you petition your govt for grievances, and if you choose to do it in pubic, expect to lose your job, and your career and if you have worked against the lawful govt(as in this case) expect to be arrested, tried, convicted and sentenced to hard labor. Better than what faced the signers of the declaration of independence.
-
I vehemently dislike the tax cut because it is regressive and adds 1.5 trillion to the deficit according to the GAO.
In what way is it regressive if it results in more jobs and people taking home more of their paycheck.
Oh, I know: it causes more poor people to have to work for a living rather than living off of government handouts.
-
Non-responsive. This thread is about the willful abuse of the executive in office, who was put there by the public under the rules we all agreed to. Back to your defense of 'what you do if you see things heading off a cliff'. Because - we faced that in 1776. A lot of good men publicly, and willingly wrote a rejection of the current system of govt, and SIGNED THEIR NAMES to it. Many men died defending that rejection of colonial rule from behind the guns of a king.
If you are a senior official in the WH of the US and you see things headed off a cliff, you go to your boss(the elected guy in office) and you tell him where he's wrong, and how to solve it. And if he doesn't listen to you only then do you petition your govt for grievances, and if you choose to do it in pubic, expect to lose your job, and your career and if you have worked against the lawful govt(as in this case) expect to be arrested, tried, convicted and sentenced to hard labor. Better than what faced the signers of the declaration of independence.
Well, yes. To bring in the other thread, didn’t Woodward win the Pulitzer for writing down what his anonymous sources told him?
-
I agree that the deficit is a horrible thing and can't continue. But thinking more taxes will fix it doesn't make sense. Spending cuts are what's needed, along with a growing economy so actual total revenue will be higher.
Exactly. We don't have a problem collecting taxes, we have a spending problem. Increasing taxes so politicians will have bigger pork barrels to buy votes with doesn't solve the deficit, responsible spending does.
https://www.businessinsider.com/james-lankford-federal-fumbles-report-of-government-waste-2017-11
https://www.usnews.com/news/slideshows/rand-pauls-festivus-reveals-1b-in-wasteful-government-spending
https://www.rd.com/culture/wasteful-government-spending-examples/
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/nov/27/james-lankfords-government-waste-report-totals-ove/
https://www.circa.com/story/2017/11/27/politics/james-lankford-finds-100-examples-of-wasteful-spending
-
Every low information progressive babbles the same, tired, bullshit every time the discussion includes people keeping more of what they earn, instead of giving to asshole democrats who use it to purchase votes from people who live off the tax payers for a living.
The very idea of cutting spending and entitlements to reduce the deficit and retire the national debt is met with howls of racism from imbeciles who talk out of both sides of their mouths while claiming to hold the moral high ground.
Hypocrisy is the sole family value of a progressive.
-
I agree that the deficit is a horrible thing and can't continue. But thinking more taxes will fix it doesn't make sense. Spending cuts are what's needed, along with a growing economy so actual total revenue will be higher.
Here is another situation where a conservative doesn't understand a liberal. To a liberal, it just "feels like" raising taxes will increase revenue.
-
It always pisses me off when they say, "How are we going to pay for these tax cuts?" The proper question is: How are we going to pay for these programs? Of course that question opens up a lot of unpleasant (to them) possible solutions. One of which is to get rid of the program. Framing the question in terms of the tax cut keeps that solution off the table.
-
It always pisses me off when they say, "How are we going to pay for these tax cuts?" The proper question is: How are we going to pay for these programs? Of course that question opens up a lot of unpleasant (to them) possible solutions. One of which is to get rid of the program. Framing the question in terms of the tax cut keeps that solution off the table.
Exactly.
If we had a congress that were truly interested in balancing the budget the tax cuts wouldn't even be a question. And we have a glut of programs that are nothing more than pork barrel projects aimed at vote buying.
-
Bullshit walks.... and so do you.
6 miles a day. I'd make it seven, but then I'd be emulating you, something I never want to do. Then again, I know you don't walk, you'd get lost on a straight dead-end street.
The problem with deficit reduction is the solution is easily envisioned and difficult to enact. So-called entitlement spending has to come down along with military spending, those are the big drivers. Conservatives will decry reductions in military spending as making us less safe, and to a small degree that's true. What's more important is our military has a proven track record of excellence. They will not be able to maintain that in an era of austerity. That said, poor people can't afford to be safe, and we're a people deeply in debt.
Liberals will decry any reduction in medicare or social security, but they really need to come about and soon. The problem is the politician who cuts these popular programs will quickly become an ex-politician, and they all know it. Thus both D's and R's dance around the issue without addressing it. I can tell you that the token reductions to the discretionary program put forth by the R's won't cut it. Raising taxes and cutting military and benefits are the only way its going to happen.
My big fear is it will never happen. the politicians will just keep kicking the can down the road, and we'll wind up being a much larger much more dangerous economic problem than Greece. I only hope I don't live to see it, but I strongly suspect I will.
-
6 miles a day. I'd make it seven, but then I'd be emulating you, something I never want to do. Then again, I know you don't walk, you'd get lost on a straight dead-end street.
The problem with deficit reduction is the solution is easily envisioned and difficult to enact. So-called entitlement spending has to come down along with military spending, those are the big drivers. Conservatives will decry reductions in military spending as making us less safe, and to a small degree that's true. What's more important is our military has a proven track record of excellence. They will not be able to maintain that in an era of austerity. That said, poor people can't afford to be safe, and we're a people deeply in debt.
Liberals will decry any reduction in medicare or social security, but they really need to come about and soon. The problem is the politician who cuts these popular programs will quickly become an ex-politician, and they all know it. Thus both D's and R's dance around the issue without addressing it. I can tell you that the token reductions to the discretionary program put forth by the R's won't cut it. Raising taxes and cutting military and benefits are the only way its going to happen.
My big fear is it will never happen. the politicians will just keep kicking the can down the road, and we'll wind up being a much larger much more dangerous economic problem than Greece. I only hope I don't live to see it, but I strongly suspect I will.
This is exactly why we need an Article V convention and a balanced budget amendment.
Our government waste $billions$ on giving foreign aid to countries that hate us and work against us. They waste $billions$ with federal agencies that duplicate what the individual states should be handling. There are endless "grants" that are nothing more than pork spending for just absolutely inane projects. There are ballooning cost over runs on government contracts.
Planned Parenthood, NPR, Amtrack and the Dept of Education are prime examples of waste.
Balance the budget, prioritize what is needed and cut the waste. Why is that so difficult? Households and businesses do this everyday.
-
6 miles a day. I'd make it seven, but then I'd be emulating you, something I never want to do. Then again, I know you don't walk, you'd get lost on a straight dead-end street.
The problem with deficit reduction is the solution is easily envisioned and difficult to enact. So-called entitlement spending has to come down along with military spending, those are the big drivers. Conservatives will decry reductions in military spending as making us less safe, and to a small degree that's true. What's more important is our military has a proven track record of excellence. They will not be able to maintain that in an era of austerity. That said, poor people can't afford to be safe, and we're a people deeply in debt.
Liberals will decry any reduction in medicare or social security, but they really need to come about and soon. The problem is the politician who cuts these popular programs will quickly become an ex-politician, and they all know it. Thus both D's and R's dance around the issue without addressing it. I can tell you that the token reductions to the discretionary program put forth by the R's won't cut it. Raising taxes and cutting military and benefits are the only way its going to happen.
My big fear is it will never happen. the politicians will just keep kicking the can down the road, and we'll wind up being a much larger much more dangerous economic problem than Greece. I only hope I don't live to see it, but I strongly suspect I will.
I gotta admit I pretty much agree with all of this, you have a great point that cutting social programs is very difficult once you have people dependent on them. And cutting military is also difficult because we definitely don't want to reduce our ability to defend and protect ourselves. Even all the other miscellaneous expenditures are hard to cut once agencies have a budget, they fight to keep it and increase it every year. The federal government and all its spending is like a malignant cancer - it is self-regenerating.
Where I disagree with you is that you seem to think feeding it by confiscating money from the private sector is a good way to handle it. When what that does is contract the total wealth available to draw from. Companies send their money overseas, markets shrink, consumers have less to spend and invest.
If the deficit is going to exist and we cannot get rid of it, better to at least let people keep their money, have more jobs, better quality of life with a good economy. You may be right it's not sustainable in the long run, but neither is doing it your way.
If the Federal government and its spending deficit is too far gone to reverse then eventually our nation will collapse. I think keeping money in the private sector will prolong the life of the nation and we will be happier in the meantime. But killing us with high taxes will bring about our decline faster and we will suffer more sooner.
-
I gotta admit I pretty much agree with all of this, you have a great point that cutting social programs is very difficult once you have people dependent on them. And cutting military is also difficult because we definitely don't want to reduce our ability to defend and protect ourselves. Even all the other miscellaneous expenditures...
Difficulty in doing it does not mean it should not be done. If there is harm in cutting social programs, isn't there more harm in leaving people permanently dependent on them? The most noble thing that you can do for someone is to help them be a person capable of taking care of themselves. Social programs pretty much undercut that notion by sending the message "Aww, you poor thing, you cannot take care of yourself."
I am all for temporary social programs, I've used unemployment once myself and glad I did not have to depend on more than that. But they must be temporary and there must be ways to move people off the programs into good paying jobs - and I don't mean make them an IT manager or even a computer programmer. Electrical, plumbing, building trades, etc...all used to be target jobs that made Americans well off, but it seems like all these jobs have gone to immigrants. We are literally giving jobs away to non-citizens and then telling citizens to sit back and not work. Insanity!
-
6 miles a day. I'd make it seven, but then I'd be emulating you, something I never want to do. Then again, I know you don't walk, you'd get lost on a straight dead-end street.
The problem with deficit reduction is the solution is easily envisioned and difficult to enact. So-called entitlement spending has to come down along with military spending, those are the big drivers. Conservatives will decry reductions in military spending as making us less safe, and to a small degree that's true. What's more important is our military has a proven track record of excellence. They will not be able to maintain that in an era of austerity. That said, poor people can't afford to be safe, and we're a people deeply in debt.
Liberals will decry any reduction in medicare or social security, but they really need to come about and soon. The problem is the politician who cuts these popular programs will quickly become an ex-politician, and they all know it. Thus both D's and R's dance around the issue without addressing it. I can tell you that the token reductions to the discretionary program put forth by the R's won't cut it. Raising taxes and cutting military and benefits are the only way its going to happen.
My big fear is it will never happen. the politicians will just keep kicking the can down the road, and we'll wind up being a much larger much more dangerous economic problem than Greece. I only hope I don't live to see it, but I strongly suspect I will.
Wow, actually agree with just about all of this.
Unfortunately the system isn't setup to decrease power or decrease spending.
-
Difficulty in doing it does not mean it should not be done. If there is harm in cutting social programs, isn't there more harm in leaving people permanently dependent on them? The most noble thing that you can do for someone is to help them be a person capable of taking care of themselves. Social programs pretty much undercut that notion by sending the message "Aww, you poor thing, you cannot take care of yourself."
I am all for temporary social programs, I've used unemployment once myself and glad I did not have to depend on more than that. But they must be temporary and there must be ways to move people off the programs into good paying jobs - and I don't mean make them an IT manager or even a computer programmer. Electrical, plumbing, building trades, etc...all used to be target jobs that made Americans well off, but it seems like all these jobs have gone to immigrants. We are literally giving jobs away to non-citizens and then telling citizens to sit back and not work. Insanity!
Agree. It also occurs to me that maybe starving the federal deficit monster is the correct thing. Let the Feds go bankrupt. Leave money in the private sector and we the people will happily continue on without the overlord.
The problem with that is the dollar; which the Feds control. As long as we have our wealth tied up in dollars, we are vulnerable to also go bankrupt if the system collapses. What I fear most is hyperinflation. The Feds normal answer is to print more dollars which naturally does not create wealth, only devalues each dollar.
Which is why taxing the economy only makes things worse because each dollar given to the government is a dollar that does not create real wealth. Leaving money in the economy so more real wealth will be created is better but also won't solve things in the long run if you don't fix the deficit. We are truly kicking the can down the road. I'm not sure it can be fixed. Possibly the entire federal government will need to be overthrown in a revolution.
I know that's what the far left actually wants, but not to start afresh with a vibrant new free market but rather to impose 100% control over the economy which history tells us of course is a complete disaster.
But from the right - not fascist right which is also authoritarian, but liberal right in the old definition or conservative by today's definition- an overthrow would essentially fire all the malignant agencies and politicians that now constitute this massive government which has become like a flesh eating bacteria.
Steingar' solution is to keep allowing the flesh eating bacteria to devour more and more of the economy. My preference of lower taxes merely slows the inevitable process. What we really need is a surgical amputation of the diseased parts of the system. What is diseased and what is healthy tissue? Maybe look to the Constitution. Anything not explicitly spelled out as Federal responsibility goes. That would eliminate 3/4 of the bullshit that is now our federal government.
-
I vehemently dislike the tax cut because it is regressive and adds 1.5 trillion to the deficit according to the GAO.
So far this year, the data shows a dramatic rise in corporate cash brought home since the tax cuts.
Companies during the first quarter brought home $300 Billion in cash they had been holding overseas.
And I got that from CNBC.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/10/chart-shows-surge-in-corporate-cash-brought-home-since-tax-cuts.html
Of course, you may point out that a lot of that cash went to stock buy-backs. But that is still cash in American's pockets that wasn't there before. That is cash available for spending, which is better than any government "stimulus" spending and it is cash available for further investment in America and in jobs.
Yeah, I see why you hate that. It makes liberals look eternally wrong.
-
I vehemently dislike the tax cut because it is regressive and adds 1.5 trillion to the deficit according to the GAO.
Take a walk down to the Economics Dept and talk to a non Progressive economist. Also check the record Federal Income Tax REVENUE after the tax cuts. Due to a GROWING economy, more Tax REVENUE is being generated at the lower Tax Rates. The pie is getting larger, and therefore, so is the government's pieces they take.
Progressives love higher tax RATES as they think this is a way to get government more money. It often acts as a way to slow the economy which can result in less tax REVENUE. Focus on tax revenue, not tax rates.
The Feds, and many states have a SPENDING PROBLEM, not a Revenue problem.
-
I gotta admit I pretty much agree with all of this, you have a great point that cutting social programs is very difficult once you have people dependent on them. And cutting military is also difficult because we definitely don't want to reduce our ability to defend and protect ourselves. Even all the other miscellaneous expenditures are hard to cut once agencies have a budget, they fight to keep it and increase it every year. The federal government and all its spending is like a malignant cancer - it is self-regenerating.
Where I disagree with you is that you seem to think feeding it by confiscating money from the private sector is a good way to handle it. When what that does is contract the total wealth available to draw from. Companies send their money overseas, markets shrink, consumers have less to spend and invest.
If the deficit is going to exist and we cannot get rid of it, better to at least let people keep their money, have more jobs, better quality of life with a good economy. You may be right it's not sustainable in the long run, but neither is doing it your way.
If the Federal government and its spending deficit is too far gone to reverse then eventually our nation will collapse. I think keeping money in the private sector will prolong the life of the nation and we will be happier in the meantime. But killing us with high taxes will bring about our decline faster and we will suffer more sooner.
You’re on the right track, but I say we can and should work on austerity measures. We must.
You’re spot on with tax cuts. It’s simpleminded thinking like Steingar that never consider the dynamic effects tax cuts have on an economy. They merely look at
The static results as if the economy would make no changes if it had more money to work with.
As much as leftists thrash the trickle down benefits of tax cuts, the record low unemployment, major movement in Quarterly GDP, and an economy that
Doesn’t have enough workers to fill available jobs are a direct result of pro-growth policies like that cuts and deregulation put in place by Trump. That’s dynamic, not static. And that’s reality.
-
The democrat response to the deficit is always so enlightening.
First you get the hypocrisy of blaming the deficit on any republican president, then they switch to 'well the deficit is so high the only thing to do is ignore it and let it continue, because you CAN'T make any cuts significant enough to make any difference...
That's like saying that water is coming in to the boat and there's so much water in the ocean that we can't bail it all... so we should pretend we're not sinking and keep spending to buy votes as long as possible.
-
A tax cut has never increased tax revenue. It is a myth of the right, just like the Laffer curve.
My problem with the wealth being created now is it become stratified and may not work efficiently for the economy. Note I said efficiently. After WWII wealth was widely distributed, so everyone had the means to buy houses, cars and other material things. That created jobs for folks to make those things, and jobs for the people to take care of the folks who made those things.
Wages have been stagnant for decades. Fewer people have the means to afford such things, thus fewer people make them (and what is made is highly automated). Fewer jobs, fewer people to take care of the people who make things. In the mean time more wealth is going into fewer hands. The idea is that these will all be perfect actors, and will put that money back into the economy in the form of business, infrastructure, or technology. Problem is not everyone is a perfect actor.
I don't like putting in any more to a wasteful government, but like it or not a big enough collection of people gets wasteful. Happens in big companies too. Archaeology is the study of dead people's garbage. But the way to stop the deficit is to spend less and collect more. It doesn't get any simpler than that. I think a balanced budget amendment is useless in an age of debt, but if the deficit is ever tamed and paid back, it will be time. But cuts to teh department of Education, or PBS, or Planned parenthood or whatever your pet peeve of the discretionary program WILL NOT DO IT. You could get rid of the entire discretionary program, send Congress home, send Trump packing, and we'd still run a small deficit. And its going to get worse, because very soon the interest payments on said debt are going to become monstrous.
-
A tax cut has never increased tax revenue. It is a myth of the right, just like the Laffer curve.
https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/federal-tax-revenues-hit-record-highs-are-trumps-tax-cuts-paying-for-themselves/
https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/income-tax-revenues-trump-tax-cuts-economic-growth/
https://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/total_revenue
-
https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/federal-tax-revenues-hit-record-highs-are-trumps-tax-cuts-paying-for-themselves/
https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/income-tax-revenues-trump-tax-cuts-economic-growth/
https://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/total_revenue
Mikey is clearly channeling Milton Friedman, the 'world renowned' economist that claimed the internet would never be any kind of force in American life. But he is the economic god of the left because he won a prize and says things progressives want to hear instead of the facts.
You’ve gone and done it. Telling a delusional progressive the truth in the face of his fantasies is definitely racist, sexist, white sepremacist and homophobic. Just ask him.
Facts trigger little mikey.
He’ll be seeking out the university counselors now for an afternoon of play-doe and crayons.
I guess steingar is trying to repeat the nancy pelosi lie that higher taxes and more spending is the only way to combat the deficit.
-
A tax cut has never increased tax revenue. It is a myth of the right, just like the Laffer curve.
My problem with the wealth being created now is it become stratified and may not work efficiently for the economy. Note I said efficiently. After WWII wealth was widely distributed, so everyone had the means to buy houses, cars and other material things. That created jobs for folks to make those things, and jobs for the people to take care of the folks who made those things.
Wages have been stagnant for decades. Fewer people have the means to afford such things, thus fewer people make them (and what is made is highly automated). Fewer jobs, fewer people to take care of the people who make things. In the mean time more wealth is going into fewer hands. The idea is that these will all be perfect actors, and will put that money back into the economy in the form of business, infrastructure, or technology. Problem is not everyone is a perfect actor.
I don't like putting in any more to a wasteful government, but like it or not a big enough collection of people gets wasteful. Happens in big companies too. Archaeology is the study of dead people's garbage. But the way to stop the deficit is to spend less and collect more. It doesn't get any simpler than that. I think a balanced budget amendment is useless in an age of debt, but if the deficit is ever tamed and paid back, it will be time. But cuts to teh department of Education, or PBS, or Planned parenthood or whatever your pet peeve of the discretionary program WILL NOT DO IT. You could get rid of the entire discretionary program, send Congress home, send Trump packing, and we'd still run a small deficit. And its going to get worse, because very soon the interest payments on said debt are going to become monstrous.
You’re delusional, and denying the very effect happening today that you say is impossible to happen. Home ownership is up. Minority unemployment is at historic lows.
Others have shown proof below. Do you even know what the Laffer curve is, besides being a source of endless laughter in the faculty lounge? Educate yourself about it.
-
Mikey is clearly channeling Milton Friedman, the 'world renowned' economist that claimed the internet would never be any kind of force in American life. But he is the economic god of the left because he won a prize and says things progressives want to hear instead of the facts.
You mean Paul Krugman, not Milton Friedman.
Paul Krugman said: “The growth of the Internet will slow drastically, as the flaw in ‘Metcalfe’s law' becomes apparent: most people have nothing to say to each other! By 2005, it will become clear that the Internet’s impact on the economy has been no greater than the fax machine’s”
Milton Friedman said: “I think that the Internet is going to be one of the major forces for reducing the role of government.”
Friedman is one of the good guys, IMHO, but his prediction has yet to pan out ... though one can continue to hope.
-
Mr. Steingar seems oblivious to the fact that tax revenue is a pretty tight percentage of GDP. Grow the economy and you grow tax revenue. The pie can expand and contract and does not stay the same.
-
Mr. Steingar seems oblivious to the fact that tax revenue is a pretty tight percentage of GDP. Grow the economy and you grow tax revenue. The pie can expand and contract and does not stay the same.
CNN or MSNBC, the NYT or WashPo has yet to make that a "talking point", so yes, the perfesser is oblivious.
-
Bill Clinton created a huge tax increase, which corresponded to a tremendous economic expansion. George Bush the Younger created a big tax break, and the economy nearly nose dived. The two are not necessarily intertwined.
-
Bill Clinton created a huge tax increase, which corresponded to a tremendous economic expansion. George Bush the Younger created a big tax break, and the economy nearly nose dived. The two are not necessarily intertwined.
It’s not a 1:1 correlation. Spending is involved too, as well as other factors (eg. over regulation). But a healthy economy generates more revenue than a stagnant one.
-
Bill Clinton created a huge tax increase, which corresponded to a tremendous economic expansion. George Bush the Younger created a big tax break, and the economy nearly nose dived. The two are not necessarily intertwined.
Where in the hell do you get this stuff from?
-
Where in the hell do you get this stuff from?
My memory. Heck, I was even in Washington when some of it happened.
-
My memory. Heck, I was even in Washington when some of it happened.
You are seriously fucked up when the discussion comes to economics.
How about presenting a few facts instead of “this is how I remember it”
-
Bill Clinton created a huge tax increase, which corresponded to a tremendous economic expansion. George Bush the Younger created a big tax break, and the economy nearly nose dived. The two are not necessarily intertwined.
Bill Clinton saw an huge artificial economic expansion and thought to exploit it with a tax increase. Worked fine until the dot-bomb. That crash was well on its way when Bush tried to slow it down with tax breaks.
-
My memory. Heck, I was even in Washington when some of it happened.
Michael,
I have to give you credit. You keep coming back here instead of seeking safe-spaces.
One of the most dangerous myths that has infected the current debate over the direction of tax policy is the oft repeated claim that the tax increases under President Bill Clinton led to the boom of the 1990s. In their Wall Street Journal Op-Ed last Friday, for example, Clinton campaign manager James Carville and Democratic pollster and Clinton advisor Stanley Greenberg write the increase in the top tax rate to 39.6% “produced the one period of shared prosperity in this past era (since 1980).”
While this myth is now a central part of liberal Democratic folklore, it is contradicted by the political disaster and poor economic results that followed the tax increase.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/charleskadlec/2012/07/16/the-dangerous-myth-about-the-bill-clinton-tax-increase/#619270736e8a
-
Bill Clinton saw an huge artificial economic expansion and thought to exploit it with a tax increase. Worked fine until the dot-bomb. That crash was well on its way when Bush tried to slow it down with tax breaks.
Exactly. He was an opportunist and parasite to the pre-existing tech boom, not the cause of it.
-
To be honest, I am not convinced that Presidents can really do all that much to boost the economy. They can certainly wreck it, for example in the middle of the largest increase in energy prices since the Arab embargoes of the 70s Bush the Younger began topping off the strategic reserve, increasing the cost of energy and slowing the economy. They can increase economic spending through government spending, which was Obama's strategy to keep up out of depression in '08. Seems like it worked to.
I honestly think economic activity in the US is closely related to energy costs, because we're such an energy intensive society. When energy costs rise the economy stalls, when they're cheap (like right now) the economy rocks. If you look at any economic indicator I think it follows energy prices very very closely, far more than tax cuts. I admit I haven't read this in any economics journal or anything, its just what I've seen in my life. I think when energy prices increase again (they will) you'll see the economy sputter. It could sputter sooner if someone does something untoward, like declare economic war on everyone, for example.
-
You mean Paul Krugman, not Milton Friedman.
Paul Krugman said: “The growth of the Internet will slow drastically, as the flaw in ‘Metcalfe’s law' becomes apparent: most people have nothing to say to each other! By 2005, it will become clear that the Internet’s impact on the economy has been no greater than the fax machine’s”
Milton Friedman said: “I think that the Internet is going to be one of the major forces for reducing the role of government.”
Friedman is one of the good guys, IMHO, but his prediction has yet to pan out ... though one can continue to hope.
It's hell to try and post ona small screen.
Thanks!
-
Mike, do you channel some prostitute, like say Stormy Daniels, when you make up this shit?
-
Mike, do you channel some prostitute, like say Stormy Daniels, when you make up this shit?
And are you so devoid of original thought that you can post up nothing but insults?
-
I honestly think economic activity in the US is closely related to energy costs, because we're such an energy intensive society. When energy costs rise the economy stalls, when they're cheap (like right now) the economy rocks. If you look at any economic indicator I think it follows energy prices very very closely, far more than tax cuts. I admit I haven't read this in any economics journal or anything, its just what I've seen in my life. I think when energy prices increase again (they will) you'll see the economy sputter. It could sputter sooner if someone does something untoward, like declare economic war on everyone, for example.
Correlation is not necessarily causation. However they may be somewhat intertwined. Energy use is also related to declines in economy. For example there is a significant decline in energy use around 2008.
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=4690
Was that a cause of the economic decline, or an effect? I vote effect. But it's easy for people with an agenda to call it a cause. Unlikely, but I guess anything is possible in the land of economic govt control.
-
And are you so devoid of original thought that you can post up nothing but insults?
Not when the best you can provide to back up your fallacies is bullshit that had to come out of a men's room, somewhere near the faculty lounge.
-
Correlation is not necessarily causation. However they may be somewhat intertwined. Energy use is also related to declines in economy. For example there is a significant decline in energy use around 2008.
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=4690
Was that a cause of the economic decline, or an effect? I vote effect. But it's easy for people with an agenda to call it a cause. Unlikely, but I guess anything is possible in the land of economic govt control.
I thought the decline in energy prices was because the Saudis started pumping like mad, to put our shale oil industry out of business. That's what I recall reading at the time. Problem for the Saudis was when the price went down they really had a time by the tail. They depend on those oil revenues to fund their government. They couldn't reduce the flow or they'd go broke.
-
Bill Clinton created a huge tax increase, which corresponded to a tremendous economic expansion. George Bush the Younger created a big tax break, and the economy nearly nose dived. The two are not necessarily intertwined.
That's the opposite of what I remember.
-
That's the opposite of what I remember.
You remember Bill Clinton giving out a big tax cut, and the economy tanking? And then Bush the Younger raising taxes, and the economy surging? Just where were you in 2008?
-
To be honest, I am not convinced that Presidents can really do all that much to boost the economy.
That has always been my opinion too. But I may be changing my mind. I think Donald Trump deserves a lot of credit for our improving economy.
OR
It may be that our economy was going to have a big recovery after the recession, but Obama's policies restrained the recovery to the extent that the recession lasted longer than it should have, and the recovery, if you could call it that was very restrained, due to Obama's restrictive policies.
What Trump has done was remove a lot of Obama's roadblocks to our recovery, and the American system was able to "do it's thing".
But I still give Trump credit for lowest unemployment in history, more manufacturing jobs, AND CASH returning to our shores from overseas and to the most optimistic small business environment in years (where most new jobs for the middle class are created).
-
That has always been my opinion too. But I may be changing my mind. I think Donald Trump deserves a lot of credit for our improving economy.
OR
It may be that our economy was going to have a big recovery after the recession, but Obama's policies restrained the recovery to the extent that the recession lasted longer than it should have, and the recovery, if you could call it that was very restrained, due to Obama's restrictive policies.
What Trump has done was remove a lot of Obama's roadblocks to our recovery, and the American system was able to "do it's thing".
But I still give Trump credit for lowest unemployment in history, more manufacturing jobs, AND CASH returning to our shores from overseas and to the most optimistic small business environment in years (where most new jobs for the middle class are created).
Exactly, it was the VERY FIRST thing he did upon stepping into the Oval Office, remember? Regulation after regulation was revoked, with the new Trump rule that for any new regulation a number of old ones had to be discontinued. He later RAISED the number of old regs that would have to go.
-
Bill Clinton created a huge tax increase, which corresponded to a tremendous economic expansion. George Bush the Younger created a big tax break, and the economy nearly nose dived. The two are not necessarily intertwined.
You're drunk or stoned again. Maybe both. Yeah, definitely both.
Stick to sexing tadpoles, you're not cut out for economics.
-
Exactly. He was an opportunist and parasite to the pre-existing tech boom, not the cause of it.
Come on, his veep invented the Internet! :o
-
Come on, his veep invented the Internet! :o
And his wife colluded to hand over a huge part of our uranium state compile I exchange for “donations” to the scan family foundation.
-
And his wife colluded to hand over a huge part of our uranium state compile I exchange for “donations” to the scan family foundation.
She colluded with the heads of something like a dozen agencies. There were a lot of eye son that transaction. And that "scam" foundation had one of the highest rankings I've ever seen for a charity. I won't claim it didn't wield political influence, nor will I claim it did. There is no real evidence wither way, though there is some smoke. But that charity really did good works.
-
She colluded with the heads of something like a dozen agencies. There were a lot of eye son that transaction. And that "scam" foundation had one of the highest rankings I've ever seen for a charity. I won't claim it didn't wield political influence, nor will I claim it did. There is no real evidence wither way, though there is some smoke. But that charity really did good works.
Now you are smoking crack, or the worst damned liar on earth.
When 98% of the expenditures were on themselves, only an idiot would try to sell that crack coated idocy.
-
And that "scam" foundation had one of the highest rankings I've ever seen for a charity.
Can you prove or cite that?
When 98% of the expenditures were on themselves,
Can you prove or cite that?
-
She colluded with the heads of something like a dozen agencies. There were a lot of eye son that transaction. And that "scam" foundation had one of the highest rankings I've ever seen for a charity. I won't claim it didn't wield political influence, nor will I claim it did. There is no real evidence wither way, though there is some smoke. But that charity really did good works.
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html
https://www.nationalreview.com/2016/07/hillarys-america-secret-history-democratic-party-dinesh-dsouza-clinton-foundation/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/the-fbi-is-investigating-the-clinton-foundation/2018/01/05/1aca0d4a-f1cf-11e7-97bf-bba379b809ab_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.9478e10f6ad5
https://www.businessinsider.com/why-fbi-investigating-clinton-foundation-2018-1
https://www.weeklystandard.com/tag/clinton-foundation
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/fbi-investigating-clinton-foundation/
-
Can you prove or cite that?Can you prove or cite that?
You mean you DIDN'T know?
Or are you providing cover?
The Clinton Foundation’s finances are so messy that the nation’s most influential charity watchdog put it on its “watch list” of problematic nonprofits last month.
The Clinton family’s mega-charity took in more than $140 million in grants and pledges in 2013 but spent just $9 million on direct aid.
The group spent the bulk of its windfall on administration, travel, and salaries and bonuses, with the fattest payouts going to family friends.
https://nypost.com/2015/04/26/charity-watchdog-clinton-foundation-a-slush-fund/
The Clinton Foundation spent less than 6 percent of its budget on charitable grants in 2014, according to documents the organization filed with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) in 2015.
During the 2014 tax year, the tax-exempt foundation spent a total of $91.2 million, but less than $5.2 million of that money, or 5.7 percent, was granted to charitable organizations, the group’s tax filings show. The Clinton Foundation raised nearly $178 million in 2014. The organization’s charitable grants also declined significantly when compared to its donations in 2013. Compared to its 2013 charitable grants of $8.8 million, the Clinton Foundation’s grants in 2014 declined by more than 40 percent, even as its revenue over the same period increased by 20 percent. According to the tax filings, the Clinton Foundation is currently sitting on $354 million in assets, including $125 million in cash or cash equivalents and $108 million in property or equipment.
http://thefederalist.com/2016/09/16/clinton-foundation-spent-6-percent-charitable-grants-2014/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/foreign-governments-gave-millions-to-foundation-while-clinton-was-at-state-dept/2015/02/25/31937c1e-bc3f-11e4-8668-4e7ba8439ca6_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.f42fa7a388c6
https://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/14/us/politics/unease-at-clinton-foundation-over-finances-and-ambitions.html?pagewanted=3&_r=2&hp&
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/kateandrews/2013/08/14/revealing-nytimes-exposes-clinton-foundation-n1664254
-
Guess they must be lying as well:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-economy-poverty/u-s-incomes-rise-as-poverty-rate-declines-in-2017-idUSKCN1LS2HX
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2018/09/12/middle-class-income-hit-an-all-time-high-last-year-us-census-says/?utm_term=.05b257bdcaa4
-
https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/feds-collect-record-individual-income-taxes-through-august-still-run
(CNSNews.com) - The federal government collected a record $1,521,589,000,000 in individual income taxes through the first eleven months of fiscal 2018 (October 2017 through August 2018), according to the Monthly Treasury Statement released today.
However, the federal government also ran a deficit of $898,112,000,000 for those eleven months, according to the statement.
Prior to this year, the record federal individual income tax collections for the first eleven months of the fiscal year occurred last year, when the Treasury collected $1,460,379,260,000 in individual income taxes in constant August 2018 dollars (adjusted using the Bureau of Labor Statistics inflation calculator).