Politics

[IrishLax]

I mean, nobody cared about the debt climbing when Obama was in, so if my choice is continued debt climbing and high taxes, or continued debt climbing and I get to keep my money... well....

And notice, the debt is not a big talking point from the primary candidates.

As U.S. debt, deficits mount, presidential candidates sweep them under the rug
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...idates-sweep-them-under-the-rug-idUSKCN1U715D

And really, is keeping my own money a "stimulus" if the alternative is a dem government keeps my money while the debt continues to grow.... Seems like it's only a stimulus package for policy I don't want.

The Government takes in a revenue of $X and has expenses of $Y. The delta between those numbers is added to the debt.

Obama put together a stimulus package to boost the economy. That increased $Y and increased the debt proportionally. Trump has decreased $X... for the same effect. They are two sides of the same coin.

Literally the only difference is who benefits. With Obama, it was targeted at affected industries. With Trump, rich people gain the biggest benefit. No one is denying that most everyone gets reduced taxes in Trump’s plan, but it is unarguable that the biggest beneficiary were those paying the largest marginal tax rate before. And yes, it is affecting the debt as revenues are proportionately lower. Whether you choose to care or not is anyone’s prerogative, but it’s unarguable that keeping more money in people’s hands boosts the economy relative to the previous tax code while also increasing the national debt.

 

[NorthDakota]

The Government takes in a revenue of $X and has expenses of $Y. The delta between those numbers is added to the debt.

Obama put together a stimulus package to boost the economy. That increased $Y and increased the debt proportionally. Trump has decreased $X... for the same effect. They are two sides of the same coin.

Literally the only difference is who benefits. With Obama, it was targeted at affected industries. With Trump, rich people gain the biggest benefit. No one is denying that most everyone gets reduced taxes in Trump’s plan, but it is unarguable that the biggest beneficiary were those paying the largest marginal tax rate before. And yes, it is affecting the debt as revenues are proportionately lower. Whether you choose to care or not is anyone’s prerogative, but it’s unarguable that keeping more money in people’s hands boosts the economy relative to the previous tax code while also increasing the national debt.

You are better than this and I dont think you are dumb enough to actually believe this absolute trash you wrote. Please edit and resubmit my man.

 

[Irish YJ]

The Government takes in a revenue of $X and has expenses of $Y. The delta between those numbers is added to the debt.

Obama put together a stimulus package to boost the economy. That increased $Y and increased the debt proportionally. Trump has decreased $X... for the same effect. They are two sides of the same coin.

Literally the only difference is who benefits. With Obama, it was targeted at affected industries. With Trump, rich people gain the biggest benefit. No one is denying that most everyone gets reduced taxes in Trump’s plan, but it is unarguable that the biggest beneficiary were those paying the largest marginal tax rate before. And yes, it is affecting the debt as revenues are proportionately lower. Whether you choose to care or not is anyone’s prerogative, but it’s unarguable that keeping more money in people’s hands boosts the economy relative to the previous tax code while also increasing the national debt.

Oh I get it. So Obama gave to rich businesses, Trump to everyone, including the rich and and rich business. I wouldn't call myself rich, but I have more money now. If one of the progressives are elected, I'll have less, businesses will have less, and everyone's $ including mine will fund policy I don't want. And the debt will still climb. Let me know when someone is serious about curbing spending, which I'm all for.

 

[IrishLax]

You are better than this and I dont think you are dumb enough to actually believe this absolute trash you wrote. Please edit and resubmit my man.

Which sentences are factually incorrect?

 

[Legacy]

So much of the economic impact on the Tax Act has been posted and addressed here before. Also posted were the forecasted real GDP and wage growth. Only 54% of Americans are invested in stocks whether directly or in a fund. So a slight majority have benefited from the rise in Wall Street growth as federal revenue falls short of what was projected and federal debt has grown and is projected to grow over the next decade.

For 46% of Americans, rely on wage growth,

Here's stock market ownership relative to income level,

Certainly, if someone was unemployed and is now employed, they benefited from economic growth. How much of those new employees have "good jobs" created by the Tax Act of 2017 vs low wage jobs created is also worth research.

The effect on personal consumption has been minimal. One factor may be the lack of real wage growth (above) coupled with the amount of Americans based on income level who are invested in Wall Street.

The Economic Effects of the 2017 Tax Revision: Preliminary Observations (Congressional Research Service, May 22, 2019 – June 7, 2019)

 

[Wild Bill]

It's been interesting watching Conservative Inc. get ripped to shreds the last week or two. There's schism on the right that could escalate into all out civil war, unless the establishment/donor class can figure out a way to silence the dissidents.

 

[Legacy]

Personal debt influences personal spending, which is one driver of the economy.

U.S. consumer debt is now above levels hit during the 2008 financial crisis (MarketWatch)

Blue - Mortgage
Green - HE Revolving
Red - Auto loan
Orange - Credit Card
Yellow - Student Loan
Purple - Other

Excerpt:

Mohr told MarketWatch that the increase in student loans — often cited as a source of consternation for economists and strategists — saw a notable increase. At the end of the first three months of 2019, student loan debt hit $1.486 trillion, according to credit data from the New York Federal Reserve. By comparison, student loan at the height of the financial crisis was $611 billion and has been mostly rising since, Mohr said. “It has ballooned and that’s a dramatic increase,” the fixed-income analyst said of the student-debt expansion.

(see graph for relative increases)

Also notes that consumer delinquency is at low end of historical levels and that first mortgage defaults are lower than pre-crisis levels.

 

[Bluto]

It's been interesting watching Conservative Inc. get ripped to shreds the last week or two. There's schism on the right that could escalate into all out civil war, unless the establishment/donor class can figure out a way to silence the dissidents.

It’s the same on the left. If lower, middle class and the lower to mid tier white collar voters set aside culture war issues I have not doubt we’d have national healthcare, low cost vocational and higher education as well as affordable housing.

Nader called it when he stated Occupy Wall Street and the original Tea Party movement had more in common than not.

 

[Bluto]

So in summary Obama is responsible for the past 3 years being drastically better economically than the EIGHT years he had, and there's a recession coming. Got it lol.

Let's try to put it in football terms: economically we're probably Clemson football since 2017 but you think we're closer to Michigan State

No, in summary the economy had been trending up and it has continued that trend. Trump may have goosed it short term with his great gift to billionaires however, the economy will inevitably fall off a cliff.

It is limited how much public policy from either administration has effected it the expansion. Now, how bad the downturn will be and who it will effect the most will very much have to do with public policy:

To put it in football terms I think we we are Notre Dame or Michigan State circa 2015...

 

[Bluto]

Were you drinking this evening? This post made no sense lmao

If it makes zero sense to you that usually means it’s spot on: So thank you and carry on my dear Dakota.

 

[Bluto]

What do you think Trump's tax cut that is adding trillions to the debt is?

A set up to defund social security, the EPA and what not.

That’s the GOP go to.

1. create a crisis that is totally avoidable.

2. propose throwing the baby out with the bath water to solve said avoidable crisis.

 

[ACamp1900]

A set up to defund social security, the EPA and what not.

That’s the GOP go to.

1. create a crisis that is totally avoidable.

2. propose throwing the baby out with the bath water to solve said avoidable crisis.

I’d say that’s a pretty standard strategy on all sides of the isle, but yeah

 

[Bluto]

I’d say that’s a pretty standard strategy on all sides of the isle, but yeah

On various issues sure.

How’s Texas? You struttin around in a Stetson, Wranglers and snake skin Tony Lamas yet?

 

[ACamp1900]

On various issues sure.

How’s Texas? You struttin around in a Stetson, Wranglers and snake skin Tony Lamas yet?

I almost banned you for that last part,... lol

It’s well enough thus far. Thanks for asking B. Hope all is well in the land of wind farms.

 

[Bluto]

I almost banned you for that last part,... lol

It’s well enough thus far. Thanks for asking B. Hope all is well in the land of wind farms.

Easy...lol

Things are good thanks. My kid is applying to college...crazy how fast it goes.

 

[ACamp1900]

Easy...lol

Things are good thanks. My kid is applying to college...crazy how fast it goes.

Which ones if you’re willing to share??

Truth be told I’ve always preferred wranglers, relaxed fit Cali style tho,... boots are full no go. Lol

 

[Bluto]

Which ones if you’re willing to share??

Truth be told I’ve always preferred wranglers, relaxed fit Cali style tho,... boots are full no go. Lol

Sure

A couple of the UC’s (Irvine, Merced, Davis, Berkeley)
Both Cal-Polys - insane how competitive San Luis Obispo is and the Cal States in general are really competitive these days.
Nevada Reno
A couple weirdly named East Coast Schools that look like Hogwarts and cost too much.
Cal Tech (long shot but you never know)

Wranglers? Never would have guessed...haha.

You work in the education field right?

 

[ACamp1900]

Sure

A couple of the UC’s (Irvine, Modesto, Davis, Berkeley)
Both Cal-Polys - insane how competitive San Luis Obispo is and the Cal States in general are really competitive these days.
Nevada Reno
A couple weirdly named East Coast Schools that look like Hogwarts and cost too much.
Cal Tech (long shot but you never know)

Wranglers? Never would have guessed...haha.

You work in the education field right?

They’re so comfortable and roomy compared to others, I need to breathe lol

Yes I work in higher ed.

Good list of schools, I started at Cal St but finished at La Verne.

 

[Wild Bill]

It’s the same on the left. If lower, middle class and the lower to mid tier white collar voters set aside culture war issues I have not doubt we’d have national healthcare, low cost vocational and higher education as well as affordable housing.

Nader called it when he stated Occupy Wall Street and the original Tea Party movement had more in common than not.

Probably even more similarities between occupy wall street movement and the current dissident right movement that consdervative inc is trying to stomp out tbh.

 

[ickythump1225]

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/AXGoWtK1NnY" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

One of the best political speeches I've heard in a long, long time.

 

[Irish#1]

Sure

A couple of the UC’s (Irvine, Merced, Davis, Berkeley)
Both Cal-Polys - insane how competitive San Luis Obispo is and the Cal States in general are really competitive these days.
Nevada Reno
A couple weirdly named East Coast Schools that look like Hogwarts and cost too much.
Cal Tech (long shot but you never know)

Wranglers? Never would have guessed...haha.

You work in the education field right?

Well, I wouldn't call it work.

 

[Bluto]

Well, I wouldn't call it work.

So he’s in administration...lol.

 

[Bluto]

Probably even more similarities between occupy wall street movement and the current dissident right movement that consdervative inc is trying to stomp out tbh.

Makes sense.

 

[ACamp1900]

Epstien's guards are talking...


meanwhile:

 

[no.1IrishFan]

A little long but Sacha Cohen hits the nail on the head with social media.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymaWq5yZIYM


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ulukinatme]

Eh, watched the video. While I agree with some of what he's saying, it's a bit too left leaning for me. Of course that bit makes some sense as he's speaking for the ADL, which is a good group in general as they fight Anti-Semitism, but the speech itself seems to focus an awful lot on squelching right wing messages with no mention of propaganda that comes from liberals.

While I agree that Neo Nazi messages should not get a platform for their influence to spread, he seemed rather supportive of Antifa who have overstepped their goals to fight more than just right wing extremists. The whole speech focuses greatly on destroying propaganda and lies on social media because it reaches a wide audience. His argument is that social media doesn't have to employ a basic standards and practices that other media use for information...but what about lies and garbage spewed from "news" sources and similar media? They have a huge platform that also reaches that masses and can greatly affect public opinion, but there's no call here to clean up journalism and get back to better ethics and unbiased news reporting. The speech seemed to focus quite a bit on right wing messages on social media, but these days I would say there's often more support from Conservatives when it comes to Jews and Israel than you would find with liberals. Trump was the first President to recognize Jerusalem as the Capital of Israel and move the US Embassy there, a bold move that sparked a lot of outrage from Palestine and the left. Also, when it comes to the Israel/Palestine conflict more often than not it seems like liberals will often side with Palestine rather than Israel, which kind of blows my mind.

Again, I agree with a lot of what he's saying, and I'm sure a lot of it has to do with the audience he's speaking too, I just found it a little too left leaning to really send a stronger message. Anti-Semitism should not stand, and Holocaust deniers should rot and not be allowed to spew their filth, but while we're smearing right wing extremists lets at least try to put up a fair argument and hit their left wing counterparts as well. I would be remiss if I also didn't say it's a bit...odd to hear Sasha Cohen making comments about Anti-Semitism when he's done stunts like this, even if it's comedy:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Vb3IMTJjzfo" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[Irish YJ]

I credit you both for this stance, but any legal standard that focuses on viability is incoherent, and cannot result in a stable political settlement (which is why the DNC has trended consistently more extreme on abortion since Roe was passed). Keeping infanticide legal up until "viability" (a constantly moving target) is basically the Three-Fifths Compromise of modern liberalism. It seems reasonable due to the way Overton Windows work; we naturally try to find a centrist compromise between the poles of acceptable mainstream political discourse. But if one of those poles is intrinsically evil, the centrist compromise just ends up putting a respectable gloss on some terrible policies.

But I don't want to derail Lax's thread, so let's take this over to Politics if anyone is interesting in continuing the discussion.

I disagree on some of the above. In terms of viability, yes, it's a moving target, but the target is moving "earlier", and will continue moving toward earlier as science improves. It's a scientific argument, not a morale or religious one (on the surface).

On the Overton Window analogy, yes I agree that we attempt at finding compromise, however current dems are way outside the window in many areas of their platform. IIRC the terms would be "radical", bordering on "unthinkable". In other words, from a mainstream perspective, the dems are attempting to enlarge the window or drag it to what is characterized as extreme by mainstream. I'd say that is more of a case of their attempts to use "creeping normality".

In terms of the 3/5s compromise, I don't see a great connection. It was more a topic of taxation and representation, than morality or any other subject. The South was actually against it at first. It both helped (increased power and representation), but also hurt (taxation).

Back to our willingness to accept centrist compromises and Overton theory.... I can compartmentalize my religious beliefs on the topic. IMO, science is the only way to gain any ground in the area. I'm not afraid to say that Bible quoting and shaming only emboldens the Pro Choice side and helps them rally supporters to their side.

Science however is a tool that libs have used over and over to push the Overton window where they want. It's time the PLers use it to their advantage, even if it doesn't get them exactly what they want. The staunch PLers will continue to fail so long as they lead with the Bible and demand total victory. I'd rather save what I can and then continue to lose them all.

Bonus.... the Church's views on birth control is also a hindrance to the fight. It's a silly hill to die on. Not only does it give Planned Parenthood another means of rallying support, it also helps creates the condition and outcome (abortion) that we are all trying to avoid. That's on top of being a hindrance to fighting the spread of disease and poverty.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

I agree here. I'm willing to tolerate arguments about abortion before that point. I' also... legally speaking not ethically speaking... pro-choice.

But at the point the baby can be born alive, there is no ethical or legal argument for being able to "abort" it. You're just killing a living person. It's quite black and white.

I credit you both for this stance, but any legal standard that focuses on viability is incoherent, and cannot result in a stable political settlement (which is why the DNC has trended consistently more extreme on abortion since Roe was passed). Keeping infanticide legal up until "viability" (a constantly moving target) is basically the Three-Fifths Compromise of modern liberalism. It seems reasonable due to the way Overton Windows work; we naturally try to find a centrist compromise between the poles of acceptable mainstream political discourse. But if one of those poles is intrinsically evil, the centrist compromise just ends up putting a respectable gloss on some terrible policies.

But I don't want to derail Lax's thread, so let's take this over to Politics if anyone is interesting in continuing the discussion.

I used to be pro-choice on the premise that I felt the government didn't belong in this decision making process. Small government and all that jazz. I also used to support the viability argument.

However, after much reading/discussion/and introspection, I'm more pro-life than ever before. Some points regarding these two premises.

1) Much of the Left focus solely on women's rights and that's done on purpose. It's much easier to accept reality when you don't consider an unborn child (at any stage) a "life." This life, this unborn baby, has inalienable rights as a human being. And these rights are completely ignored by the Left. The government has every right and it's their responsibility to get involved when necessary to protect these human rights.

2) The viability argument crumbles once you acknowledge item (1). This is a human life. Setting a threshold within its development is completely redundant. The baby has rights at life, at conception. Not to mention that the viability discussion carries into postpartum considering the fact that no baby can survive without intervention of a caring adult. Further, heartbeats are detected earlier as well as with a simple blood test from the mother, we can learn the sex of the baby in far earlier time frames than what's accepted w/ Roe v Wade. As Whiskey points out, the viability time frame is a moving target. If anything, it should be moving further towards conception but the Left is running towards birth. Insanity.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

I disagree on some of the above. In terms of viability, yes, it's a moving target, but the target is moving "earlier", and will continue moving toward earlier as science improves. It's a scientific argument, not a morale or religious one (on the surface).

On the Overton Window analogy, yes I agree that we attempt at finding compromise, however current dems are way outside the window in many areas of their platform. IIRC the terms would be "radical", bordering on "unthinkable". In other words, from a mainstream perspective, the dems are attempting to enlarge the window or drag it to what is characterized as extreme by mainstream. I'd say that is more of a case of their attempts to use "creeping normality".

In terms of the 3/5s compromise, I don't see a great connection. It was more a topic of taxation and representation, than morality or any other subject. The South was actually against it at first. It both helped (increased power and representation), but also hurt (taxation).

Back to our willingness to accept centrist compromises and Overton theory.... I can compartmentalize my religious beliefs on the topic. IMO, science is the only way to gain any ground in the area. I'm not afraid to say that Bible quoting and shaming only emboldens the Pro Choice side and helps them rally supporters to their side.

Science however is a tool that libs have used over and over to push the Overton window where they want. It's time the PLers use it to their advantage, even if it doesn't get them exactly what they want. The staunch PLers will continue to fail so long as they lead with the Bible and demand total victory. I'd rather save what I can and then continue to lose them all.

Bonus.... the Church's views on birth control is also a hindrance to the fight. It's a silly hill to die on. Not only does it give Planned Parenthood another means of rallying support, it also helps creates the condition and outcome (abortion) that we are all trying to avoid. That's on top of being a hindrance to fighting the spread of disease and poverty.

To the bolded, I agree that the Pro Lifers need a better "marketing strategy." The left has successfully lumped women's healthcare, birth control, etc, AND abortion into the same category. I'd prefer women's healthcare be covered under some version of Med for All. Also agree with your point on birth control. Leaving abortion in its own category and making it a human rights issue makes it a whole lot harder to defend.

To add, I'd love for the right to adopt a stronger position on postpartum support. Making adoption easier and more affordable, Universal healthcare, greater tax incentives for families, paid maternity/paternity leave incentives for companies, etc.

 

[Irish YJ]

To the bolded, I agree that the Pro Lifers need a better "marketing strategy." The left has successfully lumped women's healthcare, birth control, etc, AND abortion into the same category. I'd prefer women's healthcare be covered under some version of Med for All. Also agree with your point on birth control. Leaving abortion in its own category and making it a human rights issue makes it a whole lot harder to defend.

To add, I'd love for the right to adopt a stronger position on postpartum support. Making adoption easier and more affordable, Universal healthcare, greater tax incentives for families, paid maternity/paternity leave incentives for companies, etc.

Yup, it's a horrible marketing strategy. It's like politicians tacking on riders that can doom an incredibly important bill.

I agree to an extent on the PP support, but I think making adoption easier and affordable would help more than anything. Too may people want a child and have to go through almost insurmountable BS to succeed. I'd even be open to a level of compensation.

Back to birth control, God never explicitly addressed it. The Church want's to make the huge leap from "be fruitful and multiply" to thou shall not wear a condom. It's just nonsense to me. The folks that bring up Onan have even less of a case. The mental gymnastics around most of it is one of the areas where the Church fails to see the forest for the trees. Stick strongly to the direct basics and less on all the "interpretation" of indirect leaps.