***Official Political Discussion Thread***

[junglejim]

We budgeted $174 billion dollars this year to blow up people in the middle east.

Despite all that spending terrorism appears to be alive and well.

 

[dwalk31]

Get the **** out of here, the average middle class families tax bill went down $1,050 a year or about $20 a paycheck per wage earner. That's considering only individuals who claimed the standard deduction on their 2017 tax returns. People who live in states where property and state taxes are much higher than the rest of the nation got hammered by the new law's cap of a $10,000 for SALT related deductions. If you itemized prior to 2018, it is likely that your tax bill didn't go down much if any at all. Mine went down $450 because I itemized in previous years.

Additionally people who filed head of household also got screwed because they didn't get an increase in their standard deduction from prior year, but lost any exemptions for any qualifying dependents.

The only people who got a benefit from the tax cuts were the rich and corporations. Even the stuff that was supposed to pay for the tax cuts like the implementation of Global Low Taxed Intangible Income was drafted under an incredibly flawed understanding of the tax law because the basic assumption was all companies who have subsidiaries in foreign jurisdictions do so for the sole purpose of evading US tax which simply is not true. In practice, most of the revenue raisers that they put in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act ended up getting offset by a Foreign Derived Intangible Income deduction which republicans vastly underestimated the potential impact.

I mentioned earlier that the deregulations and agency interpretations of various rules (along with conservative judges that I didn’t mention) are the most profitable changes, to me. Not the tax cuts.

Also people throw out “average worker” and “the rich” super loosely.

The way folks talk on here it seems most that post consistently would be “the rich.”

 

[Belgium]

 

[dwalk31]

BuT wE bEnEfIt FoR tHe NeXt FoUr YeArS.

Do you? Do you see wage growth outpacing the cost of living? Good for you! Me too! But the majority of people in the country DONT. Including those closest to me.

As I say often, the hood been the hood. Ever since I’ve been on Niketalk. Through Democratic presidents and Republican presidents. Same rhetoric every 4 years. Now, all of a sudden, if a Democrat gets elected all the problems will be solved and wage growth will outpace the cost of living? There won’t be any government waste, etc. Give me a break.

Let’s be serious.

The more practical approach, in my opinion, is getting people to educate themselves on profiting in spite of who’s in office. Not relying on a certain party.

I think the better argument on the left is social issues. Than selling a dream of free education and healthcare.

 

[Belgium]

Unless I missed something that article was about William Barr and the justice department.

Barr is a 'tough on crime' guy with archaic views on criminal justice, that was very clear long before his appointment. When you appoint someone like Barr, naturally this is what you're gonna get.
Sessions was as well, the only reason he was fired was because he wouldn't obstruct the Mueller investigation.

 

[dwalk31]

Barr is a 'tough on crime' guy with archaic views on criminal justice, that was very clear long before his appointment. When you appoint someone like Barr, naturally this is what you're gonna get.
Sessions was as well, the only reason he was fired was because he wouldn't obstruct the Mueller investigation.

I understand your point.

Now using your same, practical, reasoning, why would Trump sign the First Step Act or Fair Chance Act into law? Why commute the sentence of Alice Johnson?

He did not have to do any of that.

 

[Belgium]

 

[RustyShackleford]

Who’s trolling now?

But the issue on the left is messaging.

Let’s say I’m with you on the math.

The groups I’m in are like okay... we benefit personally for another 4 years. When the various bubbles burst we can come in and buy in low. Rinse. Repeat.

Is that line of thinking wrong from a numbers perspective?

I guess that is the question and I don’t think the left does a very good job of explaining another alternative. The sky is falling routine is old.

And the utopian promises either 1) seem like they would take longer than 4-8 years to achieve; or 2) be met with gridlock in congress.

You line of thinking as one issue. It relies on the assumption you will always be on the right side of the economic downturn. You won't.

If the economy because too structurally broken then conventional methods to stimulate it will not work in times of recession. Then that leads to a situation where the economy will be in a depressed state for an extended period of time, which will eventually drag down the value of your capital assets, and keep them depressed. Can't buy low and sell high if the price stays low. Can't buy low if your wealth is eroded by said downturn. Your ways of thinking only works because the federal government protects capital so much. But if the government is runs out of options, then you are left to fend for yourself. What's a rental property good for if there is a lack of available tenants, climate change causes insurance rates to sky rocket, and powerful incumbent landlords get more market power. What happens when the government is humstrung to pull the economy out of depression.

You are all for pumping more uncertainty a risk into the system just cause you think you will always come out on top. But if things continue the way they do, it increases the chances of you being on the wrong side of a downturn, and never being able to benefit from an upswing.

On the politicial side, if we enter a mass depression (which Obama saved us from), then people will vote in Bernie Sanders types in mass. And then you face the prospect of mass nationalization of private assets. So they if you guys don't want full blown socialism, they you should warm up to a balanced well manged mixed economy.

I'm the one trying to protect people like you because I want to structurally strengthen the economy to get rid of the uncertainty and downside risk. I'm a liberal progressive dentist telling you that you either let me fill that cavity now, or else socialist dentist gonna root canal it later, or even the communist dentist gonna want to pull the tooth and put in a publicly own implant.

Smarten up now, or keep enjoying that right wing sugar and thinking the pain will never come. Your choice, b.

 

[Belgium]

I understand your point.

Now using your same, practical, reasoning, why would Trump sign the First Step Act or Fair Chance Act into law? Why commute the sentence of Alice Johnson?

He did not have to do any of that.

Trump appears to have very little firm policy views and is very easily influenced by flattery and personal political or business favors. Given that Republicans stonewalled that bill during the Obama administration and then kept stalling for another 2 years until shortly before the 2018 midterms, even amidst protest from some Republicans during that time, it seems clear that was ended the stonewalling was a push for political gain rather than a firm view on criminal justice reform. A result is a result at the end of the day.

Trump ran on a tough on crime platform that did not advocate for criminal justice reform and subsequently installed an AG who instituted that view. Sessions ramped up the war on drugs via sentencing instructions, reversed the phasing out of private prisons, rolled back civil rights enforcement, reversed the demilitarization of the police, ...
And despite signing those 2 bills, he then appointed another AG with a similarly tough on crime view.

 

[dwalk31]

You line of thinking as one issue. It relies on the assumption you will always be on the right side of the economic downturn. You won't.

If the economy because too structurally broken then conventional methods to stimulate it will not work in times of recession. Then that leads to a situation where the economy will be in a depressed state for an extended period of time, which will eventually drag down the value of your capital assets, and keep them depressed. Can't buy low and sell high if the price stays low. Can't buy low if your wealth is eroded by said downturn. Your ways of thinking only works because the federal government protects capital so much. But if the government is runs out of options, then you are left to fend for yourself. What's a rental property good for if there is a lack of available tenants, climate change causes insurance rates to sky rocket, and powerful incumbent landlords get more market power. What happens when the government is humstrung to pull the economy out of depression.

You are all for pumping more uncertainty a risk into the system just cause you think you will always come out on top. But if things continue the way they do, it increases the chances of you being on the wrong side of a downturn, and never being able to benefit from an upswing.

On the politicial side, if we enter a mass depression (which Obama saved us from), then people will vote in Bernie Sanders types in mass. And then you face the prospect of mass nationalization of private assets. So they if you guys don't want full blown socialism, they you should warm up to a balanced well manged mixed economy.

I'm the one trying to protect people like you because I want to structurally strengthen the economy to get rid of the uncertainty and downside risk. I'm a liberal progressive dentist telling you that you either let me fill that cavity now, or else socialist dentist gonna root canal it later, or even the communist dentist gonna want to pull the tooth and put in a publicly own implant.

Smarten up now, or keep enjoying that right wing sugar and thinking the pain will never come. Your choice, b.

Even if you’re right—which you seem to admit is based on a lot of variables—I don’t see how this message will realistically resonate with voters.

Have you been to Vegas?

The whole system collapses and rexanglorum and you emerge with an “I told you so.” In four years?

I’ll take my chances.

 

[RustyShackleford]

The more we wait to intervene ti fix issues like income inequality, and healthcare; the larger the inventual intervention will have to be.

I don't know why young conservatives let older conservatives kick the can down the road. Because when the crisis comes, those older conservatives are gonna be long dead.

 

[RustyShackleford]

I understand your point.

Now using your same, practical, reasoning, why would Trump sign the First Step Act or Fair Chance Act into law? Why commute the sentence of Alice Johnson?

He did not have to do any of that.

He did it because Kushner convinced him it would play well with black voters

His ego motivated him, not a sense of justice.

He has ton tons of regressive criminal justice moves that you ignore.

 

[dwalk31]

Trump appears to have very little firm policy views. Given that Republicans stonewalled that bill during the Obama administration and then kept stalling until shortly before the 2018 midterms, it seems clear that was ended the stonewalling was a push for political gain rather than a firm view on criminal justice reform. A result is a result at the end of the day.

Trump ran on a tough on crime platform and installed an AG who instituted that view, ramped up the war on drugs, reversed the phasing out of private prisons, rolled back civil rights enforcement, reversed the demilitarization of the police, ...
And despite signing those 2 bills, he then appointed another AG with a similarly tough on crime view.

I don’t mind if political gain is the motive if the policies are policies that I support—such as prison reform.

I also don’t mind if he genuinely cares about said policies as long as they get passed and there is legitimate prison reform.

 

[RustyShackleford]

As I say often, the hood been the hood. Ever since I’ve been on Niketalk. Through Democratic presidents and Republican presidents. Same rhetoric every 4 years. Now, all of a sudden, if a Democrat gets elected all the problems will be solved and wage growth will outpace the cost of living? There won’t be any government waste, etc. Give me a break.

Let’s be serious.

The more practical approach, in my opinion, is getting people to educate themselves on profiting in spite of who’s in office. Not relying on a certain party.

I think the better argument on the left is social issues. Than selling a dream of free education and healthcare.

You are basically using the partisan stand off the the GOP created as the reason why the Dems shouldn't have power.

How about the Dems, who have better plans, be given the power to improve things. If they pass their agenda fails, then we can vote them out.

And if economics is such a wash, and social issues are better for the Dems, then again, why does your *** vote Dem?

 

[swendro]

Despicable

 

[Belgium]

Well Trump’s spokeswoman did say that people should be held accountable for trying to “hurt” Trump, in other words those who testified truthfully about the Ukraine scheme.

 

[dwalk31]

You are basically using the partisan stand off the the GOP created as the reason why the Dems shouldn't have power.

How about the Dems, who have better plans, be given the power to improve things. If they pass their agenda fails, then we can vote them out.

And if economics is such a wash, and social issues are better for the Dems, then again, why does your *** vote Dem?

You are essentially conceding that congressional gridlock would prevent all these great ideas we are hearing on the campaign trail.

And I told you that the deregulations, agency interpretations of rules and the conservative judges are the most profitable as they typical lean in support of businesses. This typically happens under Republican presidents as opposed to Democratic presidents. Pre-Trump.

I think saying trump is a misogynist, racist, xenophobic, wanna-be dictator is the best selling point for the left. It’s easier to understand—whether true or not. Problem is, their favorite celebrity acts and talks the same way.

His winning changed the traditional notions for “presidential.” For better or worse.

 

[dwalk31]

Despicable

Did he serve at the pleasure of the president?

 

[swendro]

**** off

 

[gry60]

While Joe Walsh is a racist and generally misinformed guy...he’s principled and even minded. He finally sees it for what it is. His slow transformation from hardcore trump supporter to this has been amazing to watch in real time. Dude called it balls & strikes...and sometime after Helinsky...it dawned on him fully.



I hope he will one day take the time to fully reflect on his role in getting Trump elected and how he himself played a major role in setting the foundation for what the Republican Party is. Also hope he does even more digging over the past 50 years to see how we got here...and how racism/greed/fear & white resentment, southern strategy, imperialism, white-washing historygerrymandering, voter suppression, corruption have been the motivating factors and tactics within his party for decades now.

But that takes REAL reflection. Stuart Stephens (longtime high level GOP strategist) is coming out with a book on this. “It was all a lie”.

Amazon product ASIN 0525658459

Won’t get a cent from me. But if somebody can throw me the oop...I’ll check it out when it drops.

Support your local public library. Go borrow the book.

 

[RustyShackleford]

You are essentially conceding that congressional gridlock would prevent all these great ideas we are hearing on the campaign trail.

And I told you that the deregulations, agency interpretations of rules and the conservative judges are the most profitable as they typical lean in support of businesses. This typically happens under Republican presidents as opposed to Democratic presidents. Pre-Trump.

I think saying trump is a misogynist, racist, xenophobic, wanna-be dictator is the best selling point for the left. It’s easier to understand—whether true or not. Problem is, their favorite celebrity acts and talks the same way.

His winning changed the traditional notions for “presidential.” For better or worse.

Again, you are wrong about business. You can repeat it but economic data doesn't back it up.

And I am not conceding anything. I feel the Dem voters should flood the polls, get the trifecta with Congress and the Presidency, pack the courts with liberal judges, get rid of the filibuster, and then put in place pro democracy reforms to increase voter turnout which will lock in their majority and give them the power to push through even more reforms. The GOP doesn't have the right to have this much power. They should made to really answer to voters.

Who is the Dems favorite celebrity that acts like Trump? The most popular Democrat in the country is Barack Obama. And Obama acts nothing like Trump. So spare me the both sides nonsense.

 

[gry60]

Yeah, the numbers are little different from the 2016 numbers. Job creation for the year came in a tad under that of 2016. GDP and wage growth not much different than when Obama left office. The sacred labor participation rate is up a smidge since 2016, and economists are projecting a GDP growth of 1.5 % in 2020.

In 2016 these numbers were tepid. Today they are booming...

Seems like you didn't hear about how DJT fixed the economy on January 20th, 2017. You, my friend, need to watch da real news. Preferably, 16 hours a day, everyday.

 

[noskey]

As I say often, the hood been the hood. Ever since I’ve been on Niketalk. Through Democratic presidents and Republican presidents. Same rhetoric every 4 years. Now, all of a sudden, if a Democrat gets elected all the problems will be solved and wage growth will outpace the cost of living? There won’t be any government waste, etc. Give me a break.

Let’s be serious.

The more practical approach, in my opinion, is getting people to educate themselves on profiting in spite of who’s in office. Not relying on a certain party.

I think the better argument on the left is social issues. Than selling a dream of free education and healthcare.

How can people educate themselves if public school curriculum and university funding are being slashed at record pace?

 

[aepps20]

If you were a single issue voter would you vote for

Did he serve at the pleasure of the president?

Do you serve at Roy Moore's pleasure as well?

 

[dwalk31]

How can people educate themselves if public school curriculum and university funding are being slashed at record pace?

Private funding