Politics Thread

[Caf]

I could not agree with you more on the matter of assault rifles. It is simply ridiculous to allow them in society the way we do.

The second amendment should stand today for the very reasons it was put in place originally. The problem now is that nobody back then who at the time used "pellet guns" could ever envision gun technology as it has evolved to today.

Heads up, Juice is going to question you on the term "assault rifles" next. Good luck.

[GoMuskies]

Heads up, Juice is going to question you on the term "assault rifles" next. Good luck.

Do you know what an assault rifle is? I don't. They sound "bad" and "dangerous", though. But shouldn't we know what something is before we go off all half-cocked and try to ban it?

[bobbiemcgee]

A device shooting 450 rounds in a few minutes rendering a substantial structure uninhabitable may qualify.

[Caf]

Do you know what an assault rifle is? I don't. They sound "bad" and "dangerous", though. But shouldn't we know what something is before we go off all half-cocked and try to ban it?

https://www.theonion.com/nation-to-wait-for-more-facts-on-texas-shooting-before-1820186609


We all need to take a deep breath, gather as much information as we can, and then sit with our hands folded indefinitely.

I don't know and I don't care about the semantics and straw men anymore. And I actually disagree with your "shouldn't we..." sentence. I've gotten to the point where I think intervening now and then figuring out the right way for guns to exist in our society is the best course of action. The status quo isn't working. I'd rather the government try something rather than sitting on its hands waiting for the reality to not be the reality.

[Juice]

Heads up, Juice is going to question you on the term "assault rifles" next. Good luck.

I actually like to know what something is and how it works or the differences between it and similar devices are before I suggest banning it.

The media constantly shoves incorrect information to the public on firearms and none of them know what the hell they're talking about so you guys parrot the same bullshit.

[Caf]

I actually like to know what something is and how it works or the differences between it and similar devices are before I suggest banning it.

The media constantly shoves incorrect information to the public on firearms and none of them know what the hell they're talking about so you guys parrot the same bullshit.

It kills things. That's how it works.

[Juice]

It kills things. That's how it works.

That's deep.

[GoMuskies]

I don't know and I don't care about the semantics and straw men anymore.

What straw man or semantics? You literally don't want to know what you're banning or what the consequences of it would be. How is that a rational way to discuss any issue? It's very Pelosi-esque.

[Caf]

What straw man or semantics? You literally don't want to know what you're banning or what the consequences of it would be. How is that a rational way to discuss any issue? It's very Pelosi-esque.

Like I said. "I'd rather the government try something rather than sitting on its hands waiting for the reality to not be the reality."

What are the consequences of inaction?

[Juice]

Like I said. "I'd rather the government try something rather than sitting on its hands waiting for the reality to not be the reality."

What are the consequences of inaction?

You know how this shooting or Dylan Roof could have been avoided? The Air Force could have entered the Texas shooter's DV conviction into the database and the FBI could have responded on the background check of Dylan Roof. Roof was prohibited from buying/owning a firearm because of his prior drug conviction. Rules/Laws are in place that would have prevented these shootings but the federal government f*cked up. Now you want that same federal government to "just do something"?

[Caf]

That's deep.

That concludes this edition of, "you can't say we should limit guns if you don't intricately understand them and are therefore pro-gun."

Thank you. Come again.

[Caf]

You know how this shooting or Dylan Roof could have been avoided? The Air Force could have entered the Texas shooter's DV conviction into the database and the FBI could have responded on the background check of Dylan Roof. Roof was prohibited from buying/owning a firearm because of his prior drug conviction. Rules/Laws are in place that would have prevented these shootings but the federal government f*cked up. Now you want that same federal government to "just do something"?

Half measures obviously don't work.

[GoMuskies]

There aren't two binary choices. Just because you don't willy nilly go out and "do something" because it feels good, that doesn't mean you have to do nothing.

[Caf]

There aren't two binary choices. Just because you don't willy nilly go out and "do something" because it feels good, that doesn't mean you have to do nothing.

This is exactly what I am referring to when I say semantics. This is the binary choice: a) reduce the current number of guns b) don't.

Talking about capacity etc. is a secondary argument. We as a country can't even get past the first one.

[GoMuskies]

This is exactly what I am referring to when I say semantics.

Then you don't know much about semantics.

[Juice]

That concludes this edition of, "you can't say we should limit guns if you don't intricately understand them and are therefore pro-gun."

Thank you. Come again.

So you want to ban assault rifles? Tell me why those and not all semi-automatic firearms? Even handguns? Give me something more than they kill people because lots of shit kills people.

And the weapon used by the former NRA instructor to help stop the attack? An AR-15.

[Caf]

So you want to ban assault rifles? Tell me why those and not all semi-automatic firearms? Even handguns? Give me something more than they kill people because lots of shit kills people.

And the weapon used by the former NRA instructor to help stop the attack? An AR-15.

We're not there yet. This debate is currently on, "should we look to limit the number of guns?" There's no reason to end this discussion because myself or anyone else doesn't know perfectly how this would ideally work.

[Juice]

The Associated Press‏
@AP
BREAKING: Official: Shooter had three gunshot wounds, one self-inflicted to head; two from armed citizen, one leg and one torso.



I'm happy the civilian had an AR-15.

[Lloyd Braun]

The Associated Press‏
@AP
BREAKING: Official: Shooter had three gunshot wounds, one self-inflicted to head; two from armed citizen, one leg and one torso.



I'm happy the civilian had an AR-15.

You don’t think the civilian could have used a handgun to the same effect? Is it a coincidence that most of these mass shootings are done with AR-15s?

As someone who hunts I can tell you there is no real good use for an AR-15 in most if not all hunting situations. In fact in the community I hunt in they are frowned upon. I can also imagine it not very useful in home defense. I just don’t see their purpose for civilians.

[Juice]

You don’t think the civilian could have used a handgun to the same effect? Is it a coincidence that most of these mass shootings are done with AR-15s?

As someone who hunts I can tell you there is no real good use for an AR-15 in most if not all hunting situations. In fact in the community I hunt in they are frowned upon. I can also imagine it not very useful in home defense. I just don’t see their purpose for civilians.

In his own words he stated that using a handgun he would not have stopped the shooter.

[Snipe]

I would be in favor of an IQ test to own a gun. And to vote as well. And I would like gun owners and voters to be tax payers in good standing. You don't pay taxes? No gun and no vote.

[xudash]

I would be in favor of an IQ test to own a gun. And to vote as well. And I would like gun owners and voters to be tax payers in good standing. You don't pay taxes? No gun and no vote.

You are making way too much sense.

You contribute to society and know how to behave, you get to play.

You don't contribute to society and are three sheets to the wind when it comes to cognitive thinking, then:

- You shouldn't be allowed to procreate.
- Vote.
- Own a gun.

But, on the matter of guns and what types should be made generally available to the private sector (public): any device that allows for volume shooting should be restricted to the military and law enforcement agencies of any type.

Why allow access to these killing machines to the general public?

[X-man]

You are making way too much sense.

You contribute to society and know how to behave, you get to play.

You don't contribute to society and are three sheets to the wind when it comes to cognitive thinking, then:

- You shouldn't be allowed to procreate.
- Vote.
- Own a gun.

But, on the matter of guns and what types should be made generally available to the private sector (public): any device that allows for volume shooting should be restricted to the military and law enforcement agencies of any type.

Why allow access to these killing machines to the general public?

Snipe isn't making sense. For one thing, how much in taxes should one pay to be able to vote? Is paying $1 per year in taxes enough? Are you in favor of a poll tax, for example? Should high income people pay more in taxes than low income people to be able to vote, because they have more at stake from protecting property rights and law enforcement? It's nonsense.

[Snipe]

Why not have voters who have skin in the game? You reject the idea as some sort of crazy talk. It's nonsense!

Instead, lets let in a third world horde of millions who can't speak English and go on benefits. That is a great plan there pal, and if you don't like it you are one big meanie racist!

[Lloyd Braun]

In his own words he stated that using a handgun he would not have stopped the shooter.

So the guy who owns an AR-15 says he needed it. Gotcha. I’m not saying it’s feasible to get rid of them but at least start on some common ground with the discussion that they are unnecessary for civilians.

[X-man]

Why not have voters who have skin in the game? You reject the idea as some sort of crazy talk. It's nonsense!

Instead, lets let in a third world horde of millions who can't speak English and go on benefits. That is a great plan there pal, and if you don't like it you are one big meanie racist!

You still haven't answered any of my questions. How much tax must one pay? Are you in favor of a poll tax? Because everyone buys something, everyone pays sales taxes. Do they count? Whether you rent or own, you pay property taxes. Do they count? Should high income households pay more because they have more to gain from the legal property protections funded by taxes? If yes, how much more? Your rule on taxes to vote makes no sense, either philosophically or operationally.

[xudash]

You still haven't answered any of my questions. How much tax must one pay? Are you in favor of a poll tax? Because everyone buys something, everyone pays sales taxes. Do they count? Whether you rent or own, you pay property taxes. Do they count? Should high income households pay more because they have more to gain from the legal property protections funded by taxes? If yes, how much more? Your rule on taxes to vote makes no sense, either philosophically or operationally.

That right there is an interesting insight into your way of thinking.

If you want to talk about utter nonsense, you provided it with that statement. If you're argument is they're paying into property taxes through their rental payment, and that gives them a de facto say in matters having to do with property ownership, then you are simply wrong.

Rent is rent. A renter has no skin in the game. They have no risk of ownership. They sign a rental agreement and they pay their rent and otherwise maintain their units in a proper manner as dictated by the requirements of the landlord/owner. Rental prices are otherwise set based on a number of factors, including coverage of any and all taxes related to the particular property and the local rental market. But you know all that already.

The idea that you can support your argument because they are a "contributor" to property taxes through a portion of their rental payments is absurd.

High income households are already responsible for the vast majority of actual cash tax dollars paid into the system. That is a FACT and it is not up for debate.

Answer this simple question: should an irresponsible person who does not contribute but takes from society, and has no intention of ever contributing to society be allowed to vote? I'm requesting a simple "Yes" or "No" initially; you may follow with whatever commentary you like.

[X-man]

That right there is an interesting insight into your way of thinking.

If you want to talk about utter nonsense, you provided it with that statement. If you're argument is they're paying into property taxes through their rental payment, and that gives them a de facto say in matters having to do with property ownership, then you are simply wrong.

Rent is rent. A renter has no skin in the game. They have no risk of ownership. They sign a rental agreement and they pay their rent and otherwise maintain their units in a proper manner as dictated by the requirements of the landlord/owner. Rental prices are otherwise set based on a number of factors, including coverage of any and all taxes related to the particular property and the local rental market. But you know all that already.

The idea that you can support your argument because they are a "contributor" to property taxes through a portion of their rental payments is absurd.

High income households are already responsible for the vast majority of actual cash tax dollars paid into the system. That is a FACT and it is not up for debate.

Answer this simple question: should an irresponsible person who does not contribute but takes from society, and has no intention of ever contributing to society be allowed to vote? I'm requesting a simple "Yes" or "No" initially; you may follow with whatever commentary you like.
You clearly know nothing about tax incidence. Of course renters pay part of property taxes. Landlords charge more when there are property taxes. How much they can pass forward to renters depends upon the elasticity of demand vs. the elasticity of supply...what renters are willing to pay vs. the competition from other landlords. No one who knows anything about the way markets work would claim that that sellers pay all of a tax levied on their product. Don't get into this unless you actually know something about the conversation.

[xudash]

You clearly know nothing about tax incidence. Of course renters pay part of property taxes. Landlords charge more when there are property taxes. How much they can pass forward to renters depends upon the elasticity of demand vs. the elasticity of supply...what renters are willing to pay vs. the competition from other landlords. No one who knows anything about the way markets work would claim that that sellers pay all of a tax levied on their product. Don't get into this unless you actually know something about the conversation.

Ha! Okay.

Do renters pay directly to taxing authorities?

What part of me acknowledging that landlords account for all costs, including taxes didn't you comprehend?

BTW, your tone is childish.

[Masterofreality]

Not sure if it's your intention, but this reads as you saying Dems and the liberal media need to take care of this since their idea of gun control obviously doesn't work. If it is what you mean, please name one tangible solution proposed by any Republican politician.

What I am clearly saying is that the Democrats and their liberal media cohorts always like to scream about stuff like gun control when they aren’t in power. Well, there were 24 mass shootings of note during Obama’s administration, 6 of them while the Dems had full power. They did NOTHING. They could rush up and pass a lousy, flawed “Healthcare” bill but ignored guns. Probably because there is a Second Amendment at play. So, my point is quit shouting about something that is clearly an empty political points effort and get to work crafting a proposal that may pass muster... with all sides... And by the way, get your own ineffective Government house in order too where the Database and background checks are accurate. That might actually help.

And unlike the Dems, the Repubs aren’t screaming hysterically - even though one of their own, Steve Scalise, was gunned down by a leftist shooter. They know NRA members don’t commit shootings. So, c’mon hysterical Dems. Shut up and propose a solution that fits the, you know, pre-existing Constitution.

[X-man]

Ha! Okay.

Do renters pay directly to taxing authorities?

What part of me acknowledging that landlords account for all costs, including taxes didn't you comprehend?

BTW, your tone is childish.

The part above. No one, who understands anything about tax incidence, would claim that landlords bear all property taxes.

[xudash]

The part above. No one, who understands anything about tax incidence, would claim that landlords bear all property taxes.

Wow.

Definition:

A tax incidence is an economic term for the division of a tax burden between buyers and sellers. Tax incidence is related to the price elasticity of supply and demand, and when supply is more elastic than demand, the tax burden falls on the buyers.

Even under its economic definition, it concerns itself with who ultimately bears the burden for the tax. I might be mistaken, but I believe a taxing authority will go after - you know - the owner who they have on record as being liable for the taxes, as they have no right to go after one of the owner's renters.

[Juice]

So the guy who owns an AR-15 says he needed it. Gotcha. I’m not saying it’s feasible to get rid of them but at least start on some common ground with the discussion that they are unnecessary for civilians.

Do people have to prove why they need free speech?

[Lloyd Braun]

Do people have to prove why they need free speech?

I am not arguing that assault rifles don’t fall within the 2nd amendment, they obviously are legal. I am hinting that they maybe shouldn’t be legal. They are military weapons that IMO do not have a place in the hands of civilians.

If you are using this event in Texas as an example of the “good” of having them in the hands of civilians you are part of the problem... and probably don’t even recognize a gun violence problem exists.

[waggy]

I think civilians should be allowed to have assault weapons.

[MauriceX]

If you have an hour to kill, I found this podcast about the history of the 2nd amendment and gun control to be quite interesting. I found it interesting that nobody really thought the 2nd amendment was about an individual's right to own a gun until recently.

https://www.wnyc.org/story/gun-show/

[Caf]

What I am clearly saying is that the Democrats and their liberal media cohorts always like to scream about stuff like gun control when they aren’t in power. Well, there were 24 mass shootings of note during Obama’s administration, 6 of them while the Dems had full power. They did NOTHING. They could rush up and pass a lousy, flawed “Healthcare” bill but ignored guns. Probably because there is a Second Amendment at play. So, my point is quit shouting about something that is clearly an empty political points effort and get to work crafting a proposal that may pass muster... with all sides... And by the way, get your own ineffective Government house in order too where the Database and background checks are accurate. That might actually help.

And unlike the Dems, the Repubs aren’t screaming hysterically - even though one of their own, Steve Scalise, was gunned down by a leftist shooter. They know NRA members don’t commit shootings. So, c’mon hysterical Dems. Shut up and propose a solution that fits the, you know, pre-existing Constitution.

Sounds like you're just figuring out that passing landmark legislation is difficult. ACA barely got through as a decrepit and stripped out law after an all out effort from a Dem Congress and Dem President. What you're saying also sounds familiar to what the GOP has done about Obamacare. Newsflash: changing the country is hard.

Also, you know the constitution is built to be amended, right?

[X-man]

Wow.

Definition:

A tax incidence is an economic term for the division of a tax burden between buyers and sellers. Tax incidence is related to the price elasticity of supply and demand, and when supply is more elastic than demand, the tax burden falls on the buyers.

Even under its economic definition, it concerns itself with who ultimately bears the burden for the tax. I might be mistaken, but I believe a taxing authority will go after - you know - the owner who they have on record as being liable for the taxes, as they have no right to go after one of the owner's renters.

You found a definition of tax incidence. That is a start. Now you need to think about what that definition really means. Statutory and economic incidence are not the same thing. A sales tax is collected from a seller, but the buyer pays part of the tax through higher prices. A corporate tax is paid by a corporation, but workers pay part of the tax because of lower wages. Property taxes are paid by property owners, but renters of such properties pay part of the tax through higher rents. How much each side pays of any particular tax does indeed depend upon the relative elasticities of supply and demand in the market where the tax is imposed. But all taxes tend to be paid in part by both sides.

[Caf]

Wow.

Definition:

A tax incidence is an economic term for the division of a tax burden between buyers and sellers. Tax incidence is related to the price elasticity of supply and demand, and when supply is more elastic than demand, the tax burden falls on the buyers.

Even under its economic definition, it concerns itself with who ultimately bears the burden for the tax. I might be mistaken, but I believe a taxing authority will go after - you know - the owner who they have on record as being liable for the taxes, as they have no right to go after one of the owner's renters.

This is a really a stupid discussion ultimately about whether we can prevent people from voting based on their capital and net worth. Some of you guys seem like you time traveled from the 18th and 19th century.

You are partially correct. An owner is ultimately responsible for the tax on a property. This is true but only relevant in a situation where the owner is unable to get any tenants whatsoever or if an owner can only get people to agree to a price that covers their expenses/debts. Any tenant would most likely pay part of the tax in any economic situation. If the owner couldn't recoup any of their tax expense from the tenant than it would likely be inequitable to rent the property at that price in the first place. There are undoubtedly outliers in certain markets, but if an owner doesn't plan on going bankrupt that burden will be shared.

[GoMuskies]

Renters pay property tax and consumers pay corporate income tax. Just not directly.

[xudash]

This is a really a stupid discussion ultimately about whether we can prevent people from voting based on their capital and net worth. Some of you guys seem like you time traveled from the 18th and 19th century.

You are partially correct. An owner is ultimately responsible for the tax on a property. This is true but only relevant in a situation where the owner is unable to get any tenants whatsoever or if an owner can only get people to agree to a price that covers their expenses/debts. Any tenant would most likely pay part of the tax in any economic situation. If the owner couldn't recoup any of their tax expense from the tenant than it would likely be inequitable to rent the property at that price in the first place. There are undoubtedly outliers in certain markets, but if an owner doesn't plan on going bankrupt that burden will be shared.

This truly is a stupid part of this discussion. And no, it's not about capital and net worth.

I was addressing this property tax obligation thing from a technical point of view. My focus is on ownership, which comes with risk and includes the ultimate responsibility for the payment of property taxes.

Prospective investors considering investments in residential rental properties focus on accurately estimating their projected operating expenses as part of the overall process of determining a projected return on their investment. Those operating expenses include property taxes, HOA fees, lawn care, property management fees, insurance, maintenance expenses and all costs other than the mortgage associated with owning and managing a property. The projected financials of real estate deals such as these involve OPEX ratios in the 35 to 80 percent of the gross operating income (GOI) range. Yes, that's a wide swing, but all that is a function of the type of rental property involved (i.e. slumlord stuff versus beachfront rentals on Kiawah Island or Nantucket or wherever).

Bottomline: the owners have to get it all right: competitive, sustainable rents from a well managed property that throws off cash flow sufficient to meet their return targets. If the renter likes the place and agrees to the rental payments, then off they go, paying their monthly rents in exchange for living at that place, free of any of the obligations that come from ownership.

Does the landlord otherwise cover all their costs, including property taxes on their way to establishing their rental prices? Hell, yes; of course they do.

I don't care that renters pay property taxes indirectly. But they don't pay them directly. And this notion of paying them indirectly as a means of that justifying them having a voice is stupid.

What I do care about is making sure those renters have a voice if they're upstanding citizens who collect a paycheck and contribute to society in some positive way. It's just not about their "share" of a landlord's property tax bill.

We should all agree that self-responsibility is a good thing. If you promote a society that emphasizes that, then that society will be fine. If you promote a society that emphasizes low performance standards of all kinds, reliance upon institutions, and handouts, then that society won't be so hot. Hello Venezuela.

“In the long run, we shape our lives, and we shape ourselves. The process never ends until we die. And the choices we make are ultimately our own responsibility.”
― Eleanor Roosevelt

We need to cultivate a society that carefully considers and then makes good choices. We need for our citizens to be self-responsible. JFK had an interesting thing to say about this stuff at his Inaugural Address.

[Caf]

This truly is a stupid part of this discussion. And no, it's not about capital and net worth.

I was addressing this property tax obligation thing from a technical point of view. My focus is on ownership, which comes with risk and includes the ultimate responsibility for the payment of property taxes.

Prospective investors considering investments in residential rental properties focus on accurately estimating their projected operating expenses as part of the overall process of determining a projected return on their investment. Those operating expenses include property taxes, HOA fees, lawn care, property management fees, insurance, maintenance expenses and all costs other than the mortgage associated with owning and managing a property. The projected financials of real estate deals such as these involve OPEX ratios in the 35 to 80 percent of the gross operating income (GOI) range. Yes, that's a wide swing, but all that is a function of the type of rental property involved (i.e. slumlord stuff versus beachfront rentals on Kiawah Island or Nantucket or wherever).

Bottomline: the owners have to get it all right: competitive, sustainable rents from a well managed property that throws off cash flow sufficient to meet their return targets. If the renter likes the place and agrees to the rental payments, then off they go, paying their monthly rents in exchange for living at that place, free of any of the obligations that come from ownership.

Does the landlord otherwise cover all their costs, including property taxes on their way to establishing their rental prices? Hell, yes; of course they do.

I don't care that renters pay property taxes indirectly. But they don't pay them directly. And this notion of paying them indirectly as a means of that justifying them having a voice is stupid.

What I do care about is making sure those renters have a voice if they're upstanding citizens who collect a paycheck and contribute to society in some positive way. It's just not about their "share" of a landlord's property tax bill.

We should all agree that self-responsibility is a good thing. If you promote a society that emphasizes that, then that society will be fine. If you promote a society that emphasizes low performance standards of all kinds, reliance upon institutions, and handouts, then that society won't be so hot. Hello Venezuela.

“In the long run, we shape our lives, and we shape ourselves. The process never ends until we die. And the choices we make are ultimately our own responsibility.”
― Eleanor Roosevelt

We need to cultivate a society that carefully considers and then makes good choices. We need for our citizens to be self-responsible. JFK had an interesting thing to say about this stuff at his Inaugural Address.

The free market and capitalism takes care of all of this. Why would you want the government to get involved in deciding who gets to vote or procreate? That much government control is a lot more like Venezuela than today's America.

[Masterofreality]

Sounds like you're just figuring out that passing landmark legislation is difficult. ACA barely got through as a decrepit and stripped out law after an all out effort from a Dem Congress and Dem President. What you're saying also sounds familiar to what the GOP has done about Obamacare. Newsflash: changing the country is hard.

Also, you know the constitution is built to be amended, right?

Dude, you are so freaking condescending. It’s supposed to be hard to change the Constitution and the Country. It’s called Checks and Balances- which our Founding Fathers put in, that Obama tried to skirt with his constant “Executive Memoranda”, and that the media and many millennials don’t get with their daily, tiresome knee jerk reactions to everything. Again, media and party out of power, just shut up and work through the system if there is something you don’t like. I grow tired of this discussion. Time for basketball

[Caf]

Dude, you are so freaking condescending. It’s supposed to be hard to change the Constitution and the Country. It’s called Checks and Balances- which our Founding Fathers put in, that Obama tried to skirt with his constant “Executive Memoranda”, and that the media and many millennials don’t get with their daily, tiresome knee jerk reactions to everything. Again, media and party out of power, just shut up and work through the system if there is something you don’t like. I grow tired of this discussion. Time for basketball

That's exactly my point! It's there for a reason, so it's ridiculous to criticize the dems and Obama for not changing the constitution in just 2 years of power. It won't get done unless there is bipartisan support and even then it will be difficult. That doesn't mean the media and democratic politicians need to just be quiet and watch. Making these statements to the electorate is "working the system" and trying to influence American voters. That is the game. The battle line seems to be background checks at the moment, the majority of Americans support it. Every other step is too close to call or on the pro gun rights side.

[Juice]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=46&v=iJmFEv6BHM0

Idiots like this guy are why Republicans and/or guns rights advocates don't take the lefts' criticisms seriously. This guy has literally zero idea what he is talking about. He could have called an "expert" up there and spoke for him about the subject and I would have taken it more seriously than the bullshit he just spoke out of his mouth.

[xudash]

The free market and capitalism takes care of all of this. Why would you want the government to get involved in deciding who gets to vote or procreate? That much government control is a lot more like Venezuela than today's America.

I know the free market and capitalism takes care of "all this".

The last thing I want is for the government to decide who gets to vote and who gets to procreate.

I want people to be responsible for themselves. I want people to be responsible for the people they bring into this world, raising them properly so that they don't become part of a systemic problem, or become an economic problem that then goes off half cocked, killing a bunch of innocent people.

[Caf]

I know the free market and capitalism takes care of "all this".

The last thing I want is for the government to decide who gets to vote and who gets to procreate.

I want people to be responsible for themselves. I want people to be responsible for the people they bring into this world, raising them properly so that they don't become part of a systemic problem, or become an economic problem that then goes off half cocked, killing a bunch of innocent people.

I totally agree with this.

[Caf]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=46&v=iJmFEv6BHM0

Idiots like this guy are why Republicans and/or guns rights advocates don't take the lefts' criticisms seriously. This guy has literally zero idea what he is talking about. He could have called an "expert" up there and spoke for him about the subject and I would have taken it more seriously than the bullshit he just spoke out of his mouth.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/453445/gun-control-never-happens-why

I think you'll find this article to be fair and accurate. I found it illuminating about the pro-gun side. Especially this paragraph:


Here then is another theory. Over the last 60 years public confidence in government has declined. Most people do not believe that it would be sensible for the government to try to disarm the population, no doubt in part because of the immensity of the task and the resistance it would spark. (The number of guns in circulation in the U.S. is generally estimated to top 300 million.)

Pretty hard to argue with that view. I think it would be worth a shot, but totally understandable that someone else's cost-benefit view would disagree.

[X-man]

Dude, you are so freaking condescending. It’s supposed to be hard to change the Constitution and the Country. It’s called Checks and Balances- which our Founding Fathers put in, that Obama tried to skirt with his constant “Executive Memoranda”, and that the media and many millennials don’t get with their daily, tiresome knee jerk reactions to everything. Again, media and party out of power, just shut up and work through the system if there is something you don’t like. I grow tired of this discussion. Time for basketball

I seem to recall that "shutting up" wasn't really one of your actions when your party was out of power.

[Juice]

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/453445/gun-control-never-happens-why

I think you'll find this article to be fair and accurate. I found it illuminating about the pro-gun side. Especially this paragraph:



Pretty hard to argue with that view. I think it would be worth a shot, but totally understandable that someone else's cost-benefit view would disagree.

I have zero trust in the federal government to do anything right.

[paulxu]

I'll go with this guy. Trump's nominee for a Pentagon job, and retired Air Force Colonel.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/11/08/trump-pentagon-pick-says-its-insane-for-civilians-to-own-semi-automatic-weapons.html

[Masterofreality]

I seem to recall that "shutting up" wasn't really one of your actions when your party was out of power.

A) I have no power.
B) I am not in the Government
C) I am not in the media
D) Pray tell when I Pontificated politically often on this board.
E) You got nothin’

[xudash]

I'll go with this guy. Trump's nominee for a Pentagon job, and retired Air Force Colonel.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/11/08/trump-pentagon-pick-says-its-insane-for-civilians-to-own-semi-automatic-weapons.html

+1

[boozehound]

We already place limits on the 2nd amendment, I think it's fair game to suggest a revisiting of those limits. They wrote that amendment with no idea what kind of weaponry we would have today. There are already many 'arms' I (generally) can't 'bear'. I can't buy a hand grenade. I can't buy a rocket launcher. I can't buy a heavy machine gun.

I think it's reasonable to review high capacity semi-automatic weapons to see if we need to alter the rules. I'm not sure that it will change a whole lot though - I think our society is the problem as much as anything else.

[X-man]

A) I have no power.
B) I am not in the Government
C) I am not in the media
D) Pray tell when I Pontificated politically often on this board.
E) You got nothin’

Of course. You are the essence of open-minded rational discourse in all things. We who disagree are just narrow-minded fools.

[UCGRAD4X]

He was also a professor at Stanford.

Not sure which side of the spectrum that places him (feel free to debate).

[GoMuskies]

If Al Franken and George Bush the First are sexual predators, who is NOT a sexual predator?!?

[paulxu]

The overwhelming response might give you a clue.

[XU 87]

I think before he died, Hugh Hefner endorsed this guy for Ohio governor:

https://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/politics/2017/11/17/ohio-supreme-court-justice-and-governor-candidate-defends-al-franken-reveals-sexual-past/874905001/

[GoMuskies]

I think before he died, Hugh Hefner endorsed this guy for Ohio governor:

https://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/politics/2017/11/17/ohio-supreme-court-justice-and-governor-candidate-defends-al-franken-reveals-sexual-past/874905001/

This guy's clearly not going to be governor, but if he writes a memoir I'll buy it!

[Masterofreality]

Of course. You are the essence of open-minded rational discourse in all things. We who disagree are just narrow-minded fools.

Aaaaaaaaaand you gave no answer as to D), because it doesn't exist.

But just go ahead with your delusional name calling, finger pointing rants with no evidence..... As liberals like your ilk typically do.

[Masterofreality]

I think before he died, Hugh Hefner endorsed this guy for Ohio governor:

https://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/politics/2017/11/17/ohio-supreme-court-justice-and-governor-candidate-defends-al-franken-reveals-sexual-past/874905001/

Hmmmmmmm, "Democrat for Governor".

[XU 87]

This guy's clearly not going to be governor, but if he writes a memoir I'll buy it!

I am thinking he could submit his Facebook post to Penthouse Letters.

[Caf]

This is beyond baffling. What did he think was going to come of this post haha?

[X-man]

Aaaaaaaaaand you gave no answer as to D), because it doesn't exist.

But just go ahead with your delusional name calling, finger pointing rants with no evidence..... As liberals like your ilk typically do.

Uhhhmmm, I guess what you are doing isn't name-calling. And of course everyone on this board know that YOU never engage in finger-pointing rants.

[Masterofreality]

Uhhhmmm, I guess what you are doing isn't name-calling. And of course everyone on this board know that YOU never engage in finger-pointing rants.

So "Liberals" is now a "name"? Huh. Are you denying that you are one or lean that direction?
And still no answer to D).

[XU 87]

So "Liberals" is now a "name"? Huh. Are you denying that you are one or lean that direction?
And still no answer to D).

Liberals don't like being called "liberals" anymore. They changed their name to "progressives".

[bobbiemcgee]

Trump wants to kill the Elephants. Many 'pubs say he already has. Is it really a "sport" to go out and shoot a Dumbo?

[Snipe]

The free market and capitalism takes care of all of this. Why would you want the government to get involved in deciding who gets to vote or procreate? That much government control is a lot more like Venezuela than today's America.

The government is the only party that decides who gets to vote, and it always has been the only party. Who do you think decides who gets to vote?

In some states the government lets felons vote, in other states it doesn't. People that aren't citizens aren't allowed to vote in Federal elections, but some localities let them vote. And policing those votes on a Federal level is different from state to state. Some states are pretty lax about it.

People that are under 18 don't get to vote. Some felons don't get to vote. Plenty of people are not allowed to vote by the government. Tens of millions of people in this country aren't allowed to vote. If that isn't government, who do you think is doing that.

As for procreation, government pays for poor people to move to America and have children. It is a pretty big incentive. Mexican women of child bearing age have more children in the United states per woman than they have in Mexico. We pay them to do this. Over 80% of first generation Mexican immigrants are on some type of welfare program. You might approve or disapprove, but government has a huge hand in the ongoing demographic displacement of the native born population.

[Juice]

The government is the only party that decides who gets to vote, and it always has been the only party. Who do you think decides who gets to vote?

In some states the government lets felons vote, in other states it doesn't. People that aren't citizens aren't allowed to vote in Federal elections, but some localities let them vote. And policing those votes on a Federal level is different from state to state. Some states are pretty lax about it.

People that are under 18 don't get to vote. Some felons don't get to vote. Plenty of people are not allowed to vote by the government. Tens of millions of people in this country aren't allowed to vote. If that isn't government, who do you think is doing that.

As for procreation, government pays for poor people to move to America and have children. It is a pretty big incentive. Mexican women of child bearing age have more children in the United states per woman than they have in Mexico. We pay them to do this. Over 80% of first generation Mexican immigrants are one some type of welfare program. You might approve or disapprove, but government has a huge hand in the ongoing demographic displacement of the native born population.

I wonder who supports this? Maybe the party of "we will give you everything you want and need in spite of cost."

[muskienick]

I think before he died, Hugh Hefner endorsed this guy for Ohio governor:

https://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/politics/2017/11/17/ohio-supreme-court-justice-and-governor-candidate-defends-al-franken-reveals-sexual-past/874905001/

Did you really think that Hugh Hefner would endorse a guy who remained a virgin throughout his life? Hefner is dead now. Why even bring up such a topic? As soon as Cordray enters the race, he was going to step away from a run for governor anyway.

[XU 87]

Did you really think that Hugh Hefner would endorse a guy who remained a virgin throughout his life? Hefner is dead now. Why even bring up such a topic? As soon as Cordray enters the race, he was going to step away from a run for governor anyway.

Is this a serious post?

[GoMuskies]

Is this a serious post?

Can't be

[Caf]

The government is the only party that decides who gets to vote, and it always has been the only party. Who do you think decides who gets to vote?

In some states the government lets felons vote, in other states it doesn't. People that aren't citizens aren't allowed to vote in Federal elections, but some localities let them vote. And policing those votes on a Federal level is different from state to state. Some states are pretty lax about it.

People that are under 18 don't get to vote. Some felons don't get to vote. Plenty of people are not allowed to vote by the government. Tens of millions of people in this country aren't allowed to vote. If that isn't government, who do you think is doing that.

As for procreation, government pays for poor people to move to America and have children. It is a pretty big incentive. Mexican women of child bearing age have more children in the United states per woman than they have in Mexico. We pay them to do this. Over 80% of first generation Mexican immigrants are on some type of welfare program. You might approve or disapprove, but government has a huge hand in the ongoing demographic displacement of the native born population.

You are a master of context. Obviously the government decides who gets to vote, but not on the basis of who "contributes".

[Snipe]

Well, my idea was contributions should be a factor. I know that isn't the current law. Your ramblings about the free market and Venezuela were incoherent and I wasn't sure what point you were making. Your clarification here does little to nudge your point either. I am not sure what your point was.


The free market and capitalism takes care of all of this. Why would you want the government to get involved in deciding who gets to vote or procreate? That much government control is a lot more like Venezuela than today's America.

See I just read it again, and I am not sure what your point is.

[Caf]

Well, my idea was contributions should be a factor.

And my idea is that they shouldn't be. Any requirement for voting other than citizenship and age is a step towards authoritarianism.

[GoMuskies]

If tax reform gets done, all the other bullshit with Trump will have been worth it.

The circus of the last 12 months is now officially worth it. Today is a glorious day.

[ArizonaXUGrad]

The circus of the last 12 months is now officially worth it. Today is a glorious day.

Kidding right? So do anything but put money in the hands of people who spend it is folly. This tax bill is Kansas on a national scale.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[GoMuskies]

This tax bill is a move towards sanity. Finally.

[ArizonaXUGrad]

This tax bill is a move towards sanity. Finally.

Because it worked so well in the 80s and 2000s and in Kansas, sure ok. I hope our corporate overlords are benevolent.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Juice]

Kidding right? So do anything but put money in the hands of people who spend it is folly. This tax bill is Kansas on a national scale.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It was their money in the first place, not the government's or anyone else's. God forbid them or anyone else who gets a tax cut gets some of it back.

[GoMuskies]

This tax bill puts money back in the hands of just about everyone.

Kansas?!? LOL

[X-man]

This tax bill puts money back in the hands of just about everyone.

Kansas?!? LOL

Except of course for all those in the bottom three income quintiles whose taxes are projected to increase from today's levels by 2025. This tax bill is neither "tax reform" nor "a big fat Christmas present" for anyone other than industry and the top 10%. It's a disaster. Hope I'm wrong abut this.

[chico]

Kidding right? So do anything but put money in the hands of people who spend it is folly. This tax bill is Kansas on a national scale.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Carry on My Wayward Son, all we are is Dust in the Wind.

[ArizonaXUGrad]

Carry on My Wayward Son, all we are is Dust in the Wind.

Mock with nothing, brilliant Trump is your guy. I have facts and history on my side. This bill is going to crap on people. Middle class has no spending power and this isn’t changing that. I will get around 2.5%, but as a whole this does nothing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[GoMuskies]

Except of course for all those in the bottom three income quintiles whose taxes are projected to increase from today's levels by 2025.

LOL. No, they're going to increase IN 2025 in the incredibly unlikely event that there are no changes to the law in the next 8 years.

The changes in the corporate tax world are the important ones anyway. Long overdue.

[chico]

Mock with nothing, brilliant Trump is your guy. I have facts and history on my side. This bill is going to crap on people. Middle class has no spending power and this isn’t changing that. I will get around 2.5%, but as a whole this does nothing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Please show me where, in any post and at any time, that I even intimated that "Trump is my guy." This is why I don't participate in this exercise of mental masturbation that is called the "politics thread." And please point me to the hordes of minds that you've changed through this voluminous discussion you've had.

Lighten up, Francis. It was merely a lame attempt at humor.

[ArizonaXUGrad]

Please show me where, in any post and at any time, that I even intimated that "Trump is my guy." This is why I don't participate in this exercise of mental masturbation that is called the "politics thread." And please point me to the hordes of minds that you've changed through this voluminous discussion you've had.

Lighten up, Francis. It was merely a lame attempt at humor.

Correct it was a lame attempt. If you like this cut, Trump is your guy and you ignore about 38 years of bad tax cut policy and believe the best way to boost the middle class is to give corporations and rich people money.

That or maybe give it to the middle class and let them boost demand.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Juice]

(CNSNews.com) -- According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics( BLS), the unemployment rate for black Americans is the lowest it has been since the year 2000, 17 years ago.

https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/michael-w-chapman/black-unemployment-rate-lowest-17-years?utm_source=sumome&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=sumome_share

[Juice]

CNBC Now‏
@CNBCnow
JUST IN: AT&T announces it will "pay a special $1,000 bonus to more than 200,000 AT&T U.S. employees" due to tax reform passage and will also increase US capital spending by $1 billion.

[Juice]

And now that it's not politically advantageous for Democrats to pretend to give a shit when one of their heroes has groped several women (aka the Roy Moore election is now over), they won't do shit about Franken.


The Hill‏
@thehill
Al Franken to give a "series of final speeches" before leaving Senate http://hill.cm/primcvH

[Juice]

The Boeing Company‏
@Boeing
#Boeing announces $300M employee-related and charitable investment as a result of #TaxReform legislation to support our heroes, our homes and our future.

God Trump is the worst...

[Juice]

Hahahahaha


CNBC‏
@CNBC
JUST IN: Fifth Third Bancorp announces plan "to raise its minimum hourly wage for all employees to $15, and distribute a one-time bonus of $1,000 for more than 13,500 employees" following passage of tax bill.

[paulxu]

We're going to rein in this growing national debt, that as fiscal conservatives we are concerned about.
We'll only add $1.5 trillion.

[GoMuskies]

We'll only add $1.5 trillion.

According to budget projections that everyone knows are wrong.

[XU 87]

Mock with nothing, brilliant Trump is your guy. I have facts and history on my side. This bill is going to crap on people. Middle class has no spending power and this isn’t changing that. I will get around 2.5%, but as a whole this does nothing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Me thinks you didn't get his joke, which references songs by the group Kansas.

[Smails]

Hahahahaha

Comcast and Wells Fargo following suit...

[bobbiemcgee]

[QUOTE Wells Fargo following suit..[/QUOTE]

However, they'll be depositing the funds in fake accounts.

[Lloyd Braun]

God Trump is the worst...

Forgive me if I am skeptical of giant corporations making announcements of “good deeds” on a day they receive giant tax breaks. Hopefully trickle-down will work this time.

[Lloyd Braun]

Comcast and Wells Fargo following suit...

Wells Fargo already pays $13.50/hr. Raising to $15/hr is nice. But where is the rest of their enormous pile of cash going? I think we know where.

[Juice]

Wells Fargo already pays $13.50/hr. Raising to $15/hr is nice. But where is the rest of their enormous pile of cash going? I think we know where.

Original talking point from the left: it's only a tax cut for the rich, no one else will benefit
/People start to benefit within hours
New talking point: yeah well rich people are getting something from this too

Tell the people getting a 1.50 raise that it isn't a big deal.

[GoMuskies]

Tell the people getting a 1.50 raise that it isn't a big deal.

It's only an 11% raise. Who gets excited by that.

As to where the rest will go: hopefully to dividends and buybacks. Things that, you know, put cash in people's pockets. (Hiriing - or deciding to avoid layoffs - and other investments would also be welcome).

[Lloyd Braun]

More trickle-down hopefuls... got it. I’m sure most of the middle class is excited for the dividends and buybacks.

[GoMuskies]

More trickle-down hopefuls... got it. I’m sure most of the middle class is excited for the dividends and buybacks.

The middle class don't have 401ks, IRAs and pensions? I'm pretty sure when corporations (employers) do well, the country as a whole is better off.

[BandAid]

I don’t know too much about how this calculator works. But its fun to play around with: http://taxplancalculator.com/

[Lloyd Braun]

The middle class don't have 401ks, IRAs and pensions? I'm pretty sure when corporations (employers) do well, the country as a whole is better off.

Are corporations struggling now? Where is the simplified tax code? I was warming up to the postcard idea!

[GoMuskies]

Do we need to wait for them to start to struggle? If they're doing well, wouldn't we want to be competitive with the rest of the world from a tax perspective so that more of the investment/employment/activity is here instead of offshore?

[bleedXblue]

some people are actually complaining about lower tax rates......think about that for a second

[boozehound]

some people are actually complaining about lower tax rates......think about that for a second

If these end up being deficit funded tax breaks I'll complain about them too. Right now I'm on the fence.

I know that fiscal conservatism is essentially dead, but I'm in the camp that doesn't want to see any significant increase in the budget deficit or national debt, whether spending-driven or tax-cut driven. I'm not sure either party gives a shit about that anymore though. I guess if you are only worried about getting elected pitching (a) profligate spending on entitlements or (b) tax cuts that we can't pay for are far more popular than proposing we reign in spending and get our financial house in order.

[JTG]

I don’t know too much about how this calculator works. But its fun to play around with: http://taxplancalculator.com/

Well according to that calculator I'll save $1500. Which I will spend, donate some to charity, and save. Chances are my 401k will grow from dividends. So I'm good. Everyone with any kind of decent job, or retiree who has a retirement account, will benefit. Good luck to Dems trying to get elected in 2018, after universally opposing this tax cut.

[bleedXblue]

If these end up being deficit funded tax breaks I'll complain about them too. Right now I'm on the fence.

I know that fiscal conservatism is essentially dead, but I'm in the camp that doesn't want to see any significant increase in the budget deficit or national debt, whether spending-driven or tax-cut driven. I'm not sure either party gives a shit about that anymore though. I guess if you are only worried about getting elected pitching (a) profligate spending on entitlements or (b) tax cuts that we can't pay for are far more popular than proposing we reign in spending and get our financial house in order.

You mean like the same way we have social programs that we cant pay for today either. Which window of the car do you want to throw your money out of? The left or right? It makes no difference.

Wake up, you are dreaming......

I will ALWAYS be in the camp of less tax that allows me (and others) to spend my hard earned money where I WANT to spend it....or save it for that matter.

As a country we will NEVER make any progress towards really attaining anything with social programs that enable people to sit on their ass and collect a check. There are many that really need help and there are millions that are f*ing lazy and have figured out the best way to work the system.

Get to work, do your fair share and contribute. That's the only way it CAN work.

[Juice]

You mean like the same way we have social programs that we cant pay for today either. Which window of the car do you want to throw your money out of? The left or right? It makes no difference.

Wake up, you are dreaming......

I will ALWAYS be in the camp of less tax that allows me (and others) to spend my hard earned money where I WANT to spend it....or save it for that matter.

As a country we will NEVER make any progress towards really attaining anything with social programs that enable people to sit on their ass and collect a check. There are many that really need help and there are millions that are f*ing lazy and have figured out the best way to work the system.

Get to work, do your fair share and contribute. That's the only way it CAN work.

The left wants people to funnel their money through the federal government and get less in return for their "investment." If the left could guarantee that the money would be wisely, efficiently, and properly then maybe they'd have an argument. But they know they can't and I know they can't. So I agree with you. Just let me and others like me keep our money let us spend it or save it on the things we like and need.

Bernie Sanders is claiming this is a robbery of the treasury or some shit like that. It's not the treasury's god damn money. It's the American people's. This is the same jackass that claims that the American dream is more possible in god damn Venezuela, a country where the average weight of their citizens has gone down 5-10 pounds, a country that is literally starving. Excuse if I don't feel bad when he cries about all the bad things that are going to happen because of the tax cuts. I want him to look people in the face and tell them the raises they're getting at work because of these tax cuts are a bad thing.

[Juice]

Charlie Kirk‏
@charliekirk11
Repealing the individual mandate is a middle class tax cut the media will never tell you about:
Nearly 80% of households that paid the penalty in 2016 had incomes below $50,000

[GenerationX]

Charlie Kirk‏
@charliekirk11
Repealing the individual mandate is a middle class tax cut the media will never tell you about:
Nearly 80% of households that paid the penalty in 2016 had incomes below $50,000

You’re neglecting to mention the millions of people who need the insurance but will no longer be able to afford it once the republican-sponsored mandate is gone.

[Lloyd Braun]

You’re neglecting to mention the millions of people who need the insurance but will no longer be able to afford it once the republican-sponsored mandate is gone.

Assumingly due to the incurred cost of an older, sicker pool of insured population, increasing costs at a greater rate.

[GenerationX]

Assumingly due to the incurred cost of an older, sicker pool of insured population, increasing costs at a greater rate.

Exactly. Many of the healthy people will drop out. That’s what insurance is... shared risk. If everyone with insurance is sick, obviously the costs will increase. Even though the idea of the mandate was championed by a Republican, it’s evil according to conservatives now. It’s common sense though, really, outside of universal healthcare. That’s why universal healthcare would be best... if all participate, the cost would be the lowest possible.

[Caf]

CNBC Now‏
@CNBCnow
JUST IN: AT&T announces it will "pay a special $1,000 bonus to more than 200,000 AT&T U.S. employees" due to tax reform passage and will also increase US capital spending by $1 billion.

Happy to see it for their employees, but I have to wonder if this has to do with the Time Warner deal. There's nothing Trump loves more than touting businesses helping Americans but nothing he hates more than CNN.

[GoMuskies]

This Al Franken resignation/transition has become a bit strange. He's almost reaching martyr status. He's going to do some "farewell" speeches now, and he'll be hailed as a hero by the time it's all said and done...after Democrats forced him out...and then changed their minds (seemingly immediately following the counting of votes in Alabama).

[Caf]

This Al Franken resignation/transition has become a bit strange. He's almost reaching martyr status. He's going to do some "farewell" speeches now, and he'll be hailed as a hero by the time it's all said and done...after Democrats forced him out...and then changed their minds (seemingly immediately following the counting of votes in Alabama).

You definitely hit the nail on the head there. They didn't need anything that would dampen democratic turnout in Bama.

[Smails]

Forgive me if I am skeptical of giant corporations making announcements of “good deeds” on a day they receive giant tax breaks. Hopefully trickle-down will work this time.

Skeptical of what? Passing some of the tax savings to their employees who in turn can use that cash to purchase goods and services? 4-5 companies literally just gave millions of dollars to hundreds of thousands of American workers...and then raised wages. More will certainly follow suit as the need to retain workers is at a premium right now. Sounds pretty shady to me...

[Lloyd Braun]

Skeptical of what? Passing some of the tax savings to their employees who in turn can use that cash to purchase goods and services? 4-5 companies literally just gave millions of dollars to hundreds of thousands of American workers...and then raised wages. More will certainly follow suit as the need to retain workers is at a premium right now. Sounds pretty shady to me...

If you can’t see that you have been duped then there really is no reason to continue the discussion. Let’s just continue to increase our debt and sell more dollars to China. Great idea.

[GoMuskies]

If you can’t see that you have been duped then there really is no reason to continue the discussion.

LOL. That's some technique there.

[Caf]

Skeptical of what? Passing some of the tax savings to their employees who in turn can use that cash to purchase goods and services? 4-5 companies literally just gave millions of dollars to hundreds of thousands of American workers...and then raised wages. More will certainly follow suit as the need to retain workers is at a premium right now. Sounds pretty shady to me...

There's obviously two-sides to every cut. More for companies and potentially employees means less tax revenue in a time where the deficit is reaching new heights. If this is paired with substantial spending cuts, it will be positive. If not, any gains from this bill will be primarily short-term and solely private.

A company like AT&T, who had revenues over $160B and $13B in income in 2016, pledging $200M in bonuses is nice, but it's far from a stamp that this tax cut is a success. The real victory would be many multiples of that and would happen through corporate expansion and long-term plans built in the board room. Again, this is a nice sign, but let's not go acting like anyone who isn't completely convinced is a moron.

[boozehound]

You mean like the same way we have social programs that we cant pay for today either. Which window of the car do you want to throw your money out of? The left or right? It makes no difference.

Wake up, you are dreaming......

I will ALWAYS be in the camp of less tax that allows me (and others) to spend my hard earned money where I WANT to spend it....or save it for that matter.

As a country we will NEVER make any progress towards really attaining anything with social programs that enable people to sit on their ass and collect a check. There are many that really need help and there are millions that are f*ing lazy and have figured out the best way to work the system.

Get to work, do your fair share and contribute. That's the only way it CAN work.

Did you even read the post you are responding too? I didn't say anything about social programs - we need to cut back on those too. As a 35 year old who hopes to live for another 60+ years I'm concerned about the amount of money we are borrowing. There used to be other people that shared this opinion, but now it seems like we are all just partying down with our tax savings. We should be cutting back to reduce our deficit, not to fund tax cuts, IMHO.

[bjf123]

I agree we should be cutting back to reduce the deficit. Unfortunately, no one in DC has the intestinal fortitude to actually cut spending and eliminate unnecessary or duplicative programs. In DC-speak, a program that was supposed to grow by 5% only getting 2% is trumpeted as a 3% cut. No, it’s still a 2% increase!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[X-man]

Did you even read the post you are responding too? I didn't say anything about social programs - we need to cut back on those too. As a 35 year old who hopes to live for another 60+ years I'm concerned about the amount of money we are borrowing. There used to be other people that shared this opinion, but now it seems like we are all just partying down with our tax savings. We should be cutting back to reduce our deficit, not to fund tax cuts, IMHO.

While I am no fan of this tax bill, I do want to say something about the "deficit issue". It is probably the most misunderstood issues associated with this tax bill. The reason is simple: the dangers of public debt are generally NOT what people talk about most, i.e. bankrupting future generations. Here's why: to the extent the debt is internally held (i.e. by US institutions and individuals), we "owe the debt to ourselves, and hence paying it down simply transfers income among future taxpayers; while roughly a third of publically held debt is foreign held, the rest is not. There are other issues, including crowding out and keeping the debt-to-GDP ratio low enough so that we can handle future debt increasers...wars and recessions. Crowding out is NOT a problem; the economy is swimming in cash because the private sector refuses to borrow and spend from the existing cash pools available. The debt-to-GDP ratio is concerning; it is now unusually high and limits what can be done if another recession hits (which will happen). So worry about the deficit issue, but do it for the right reasons.

[GoMuskies]

That's why we need to grow GDP.

[Smails]

If you can’t see that you have been duped then there really is no reason to continue the discussion. Let’s just continue to increase our debt and sell more dollars to China. Great idea.

I guess I missed the part where I said that this tax plan was debt/deficit friendly....odd. You're all over the place.

And the whole "If you don't agree with me then there's no point...blah" is some really weak sauce. It's just a worn out, tired and lazy attempt to silence someone who might see things a tad bit different. Be better than that.

[Smails]

There's obviously two-sides to every cut. More for companies and potentially employees means less tax revenue in a time where the deficit is reaching new heights. If this is paired with substantial spending cuts, it will be positive. If not, any gains from this bill will be primarily short-term and solely private.

A company like AT&T, who had revenues over $160B and $13B in income in 2016, pledging $200M in bonuses is nice, but it's far from a stamp that this tax cut is a success. The real victory would be many multiples of that and would happen through corporate expansion and long-term plans built in the board room. Again, this is a nice sign, but let's not go acting like anyone who isn't completely convinced is a moron.

I agree with most of what you say and I never called or insinuated that those with contrary opinions are morons. The sample size is minute but it's hard to argue with some of the early wins a.k.a. good start. I would love to see spending cuts next, but my faith in the federal government's willingness to spend less (regardless of the party in power) is also minute.

[Caf]

Tell me why Oprah isn't a lock for 2020?

[slysyl]

In politics nothing is a lock. 2020 is a long way off.

[GetUp5]

Tell me why Oprah isn't a lock for 2020?

The silent majority.

[GoMuskies]

Tell me why Oprah isn't a lock for 2020?

Do you think she should be?

[Caf]

Do you think she should be?

No, but I think a lot of people would vote for her. She seems like the liberal version of Trump in a lot of ways. Brand name, charismatic, successful in business, a true "outsider".

[boozehound]

No, but I think a lot of people would vote for her. She seems like the liberal version of Trump in a lot of ways. Brand name, charismatic, successful in business, a true "outsider".

I'm kind of hoping that this whole Trump 'experiment' is going to be more of a cautionary tale rather than a blueprint for how to build candidates going forward.

[GoMuskies]

Angelina Jolie will probably try to run to Oprah's left, but the Democratic party establishment will fix the primary in Oprah's favor.

Trump will have to fend off primary challenges from Dennis Miller and Ted Nugent.

[Caf]

Angelina Jolie will probably try to run to Oprah's left, but the Democratic party establishment will fix the primary in Oprah's favor.

Trump will have to fend off primary challenges from Dennis Miller and Ted Nugent.

What's crazy about Oprah being a candidate in a world where Trump is President? What can be said about her qualifications that couldn't be said about Trump's in 2016?

I agree Booze, but I think politics is a prisoner's dilemma. Why wouldn't the Dems pick the most charismatic and popular candidate they can if the GOP is going to do the same? A moderate might be the most utilitarian option, but we all know that isn't how the parties play the game.

[GoMuskies]

What's crazy about Oprah being a candidate in a world where Trump is President?

Sadly, none of my post seems beyond the realm of possibility to me.

[boozehound]

Sadly, none of my post seems beyond the realm of possibility to me.

We do seem intent on going full Idiocracy for some reason, so I definitely can't rule out an equally unqualified and ridiculous option coming from the left. Oprah might actually be a good candidate for that one. To bad Al Franken is out of commission... or is he? (I'm joking - he is)

[Nigel Tufnel]

We do seem intent on going full Idiocracy for some reason, so I definitely can't rule out an equally unqualified and ridiculous option coming from the left. Oprah might actually be a good candidate for that one. To bad Al Franken is out of commission... or is he? (I'm joking - he is)

Are you saying it's time to buy stock in Gatorade because in the near future we will be using it to water our crops?

I thought the movie was funny because it was so outrageous and ridiculous...but man...it's starting to be on the money. And that is terrifying.

[STL_XUfan]

Are you saying it's time to buy stock in Gatorade because in the near future we will be using it to water our crops?

I thought the movie was funny because it was so outrageous and ridiculous...but man...it's starting to be on the money. And that is terrifying.

but it has what plants crave.

[vee4xu]

Donald Trump, Mark Cuban, Oprah Winfrey, Mark Zuckerberg. Good god, man. I yearn for the days of some good ole bureaucrats!!!

[GoMuskies]

Apple is going to pay $38B in repatriation taxes and create 20,000 new jobs in the US. Who was opposed to this tax bill again?

[XU 87]

Apple is going to pay $38B in repatriation taxes and create 20,000 new jobs in the US. Who was opposed to this tax bill again?

This was just a giveaway to the big corporations!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

We were better off if all this money just sat in bank accounts in other countries.

[ArizonaXUGrad]

One company, others paid a one time bonus (worthless) then lays off a slew of employees. Those with Apple products know they more innovation to keep up. This plan didn’t encourage this, their declining market share did.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Masterofreality]

One company, others paid a one time bonus (worthless) then lays off a slew of employees. Those with Apple products know they more innovation to keep up. This plan didn’t encourage this, their declining market share did.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The “one” of many to come.

Stop being a bitter liberal that can’t take the fact that your leftist agenda under Obama was holding this country back.
Oh and stop believing all the butt hurt media’s fantasy creations that are trying to undermine this Administration. The ridiculous grilling of the Doctor who gave Trump his physical was ludicrous. Guess what you unbalanced “news” hacks? America spoke in November 2016 and is reaping the benefits. Thank Gawd for the Electoral College to right the wrong headed New Yorkers and nutty Californians.

[bobbiemcgee]

The ridiculous grilling of the Doctor who gave Trump his physical was ludicrous.
Funny how Trump "fat-shames" women when he is one big mac from being obese. haha. Check out his fat ass on the golf course.

[ArizonaXUGrad]

The “one” of many to come.

Stop being a bitter liberal that can’t take the fact that your leftist agenda under Obama was holding this country back.
Oh and stop believing all the butt hurt media’s fantasy creations that are trying to undermine this Administration. The ridiculous grilling of the Doctor who gave Trump his physical was ludicrous. Guess what you unbalanced “news” hacks? America spoke in November 2016 and is reaping the benefits. Thank Gawd for the Electoral College to right the wrong headed New Yorkers and nutty Californians.

Fun part is I don’t have to be bitter about supply-side. History has show time and time again that it is an abject failure. If you want a consumer economy, you need consumers ready to spend. Why that consumer money needs to pass through rich and corporate hands first is beyond me. Just get it to consumers and they will spend it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ArizonaXUGrad]

And yeah doctors and whatever, but now we have porn stars getting paid hush money while cheating on another pregnant wife. Family values blah blah blah.

Edit: MAGA.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Juice]

Fun part is I don’t have to be bitter about supply-side. History has show time and time again that it is an abject failure. If you want a consumer economy, you need consumers ready to spend. Why that consumer money needs to pass through rich and corporate hands first is beyond me. Just get it to consumers and they will spend it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Stock market reaching all time highs. Black unemployment at new lows. Bonuses going to workers. Businesses reinvesting in their own infrastructure and future. Tax cuts for most of America.

Yeah this all sounds really shitty.

[GoMuskies]

Why that consumer money needs to pass through rich and corporate hands first is beyond me.

Because corporations......wait for it....hire people to do productive things and pay those people wages and salaries.

[Masterofreality]

Stock market reaching all time highs. Black unemployment at new lows. Bonuses going to workers. Businesses reinvesting in their own infrastructure and future. Tax cuts for most of America.

Yeah this all sounds really shitty.

Yeah and 401K's reaching new highs while overall corporate "dead" debt in the US is waaaaaaaaay down and Corporate Cash levels are way up. Corporations have risen their debt levels, but it is because of confidence in the economy and they are using reasonable debt tools to reinvest while growing jobs.

Yeah, but by all means, let's go back to Obama's 1-1.5% growth rates- even after a deep recession which should have skewed the numbers higher when recovery occurred. Funny thing though. When debt levels and cash positions weren't so good, publications like The NYT, Time and Wash Post couldn't wait to blast that all over creation, but now that stuff is super, there's zero reporting on it.

But, oh, that's right. All that tax bill and the better economy is going to do is induce companies to buy back their stock and the employee will never see the benefits. Yeah, that's the answer, right Elizabeth Warren and Bernie?

[Caf]

Apple is going to pay $38B in repatriation taxes and create 20,000 new jobs in the US. Who was opposed to this tax bill again?

Apple employs EDIT: 80,000 (not 2,000,000) Americans by the way. 20,000 jobs is great, but in the grand scheme of things every corporate announcement that's been made is tiny. That $35B you mentioned, not only is it a small amount of money for Apple (they perpetually have free cash flow of $60B), but it was due no matter what and now instead of being deferred it's being paid at a lower rate. So let's not paint this like it's found money. What is happening is more or less a PR campaign by corporations to convince the government and leadership that lower taxes are key. It's all good news, but if it's not met with spending cuts, it's just going to send the deficit through the roof.

For those of us watching the market everyday, as I'm sure you do Go, we are coming off of multiple years of record corporate earnings before this law. At a time where the deficit is enormous, the Fed's balance sheet is insanely big, income inequality is at historic levels, and spending doesn't seem close to coming down, a corporate tax cut isn't even close to necessary.

Listen, I'm an investor, these cuts are great for me and my holdings (would've loved to see capital gains go down), but the US has the leverage to charge higher taxes. If these companies want lower taxes, go operate in Montenegro who has a rate of 9%. There's a reason they are here. We as a nation are the best place to do business in the world. I can't imagine how high the tax rate would have to be to change that. We have to pay for the largest army in the world, crumbling infrastructure, a god damn wall, and a possible conflict on the Korean Peninsula. Do we really need to be saving companies (who were already achieving historic success before the cut) money?

[ArizonaXUGrad]

Because corporations......wait for it....hire people to do productive things and pay those people wages and salaries.

I know more than a handful of business owners and they tell me the same thing. They will never expand their business when flush with cash, but they will when demand is high.

These corporate giveaways are great now but it’s not sustainable and it promotes a corporate working environment. Hopefully our new corporate overlords are benevolent.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[GoMuskies]

Apple employs 2,000,000 Americans by the way.

How can I take the rest of your post seriously when you lead with this? I mean, you're only off by 95%. Should I assume the rest of your post is also off by 95%?

[GoMuskies]

I know more than a handful of business owners and they tell me the same thing. They will never expand their business when flush with cash, but they will when demand is high.

Actually, it needs to be both. And just about every business has a hurdle rate when evaluating new projects. At the bottom of that analysis, when you're subtracting 21% instead of 35%, it makes it a helluva lot easier to get over the hurdle rate. All else being equal, that's going to lead to more projects coming to fruiting. Which leads to more jobs (more people being paid to do productive things).

Don't you think it's best for people to obtain money for doing productive things?

[Caf]

How can I take the rest of your post seriously when you lead with this? I mean, you're only off by 95%. Should I assume the rest of your post is also off by 95%?

Haha shit they count suppliers and jobs from the 'app ecosystem' in their number. That makes 95% more sense. Feel free to dodge the rest of my solid argument based on that stupid mistake.

[GoMuskies]

The rest of your argument is awful. The US is not competitive at 35%, and American companies have been moving everything they possibly can overseas to avoid paying the 35%. We can surely use some spending cuts. I'm pleased to hear you say you're on board with that. But US GDP growth to fill in some of the gaps would be even better.

[paulxu]

The US effective corporate rate was never 35%.
Many major CEO's when asked about the cut, said they plan on stock buy backs, not new projects.
Demand drives production, not tax cuts.
What the hell was wrong with our tax rates when we had a balanced budget? People were getting rich, people were working, etc.
But somehow it just wasn't enough. So now we have a ballooning debt, and the answer is more tax cuts?
Amazing.

[GoMuskies]

Many major CEO's when asked about the cut, said they plan on stock buy backs, not new projects.

You know what happens with stock buybacks, right? Corporations give investors their money back (with a nice return given the market moves). Most investors don't just sit on that money.

[Caf]

The rest of your argument is awful. The US is not competitive at 35%, and American companies have been moving everything they possibly can overseas to avoid paying the 35%. We can surely use some spending cuts. I'm pleased to hear you say you're on board with that. But US GDP growth to fill in some of the gaps would be even better.

No company was paying 35%.

There was certainly a need to reform the code, especially for multinational firms. Companies making merger decisions just for a tax break is definitely a symptom of a broken system. There are still cheaper havens obviously, so I think it'll take a few years before we see if the intended impact comes to fruition. There's still a chance firms do more abroad than they've been doing. Reforming this isn't dependent on a rate cut though. It helps, but the only thing worse than having this money crazed government where no one is able to run in the black, is cutting its funding.

[Juice]

I know more than a handful of business owners and they tell me the same thing. They will never expand their business when flush with cash, but they will when demand is high.

These corporate giveaways are great now but it’s not sustainable and it promotes a corporate working environment. Hopefully our new corporate overlords are benevolent.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Compared to what? Government overlords?

[Masterofreality]

The US effective corporate rate was never 35%.
Many major CEO's when asked about the cut, said they plan on stock buy backs, not new projects.
Demand drives production, not tax cuts.
What the hell was wrong with our tax rates when we had a balanced budget? People were getting rich, people were working, etc.
But somehow it just wasn't enough. So when Obama was President we had a ballooning debt, and the answer was more taxes?
Amazing.

Fixed that for you.

The Obama years added NINE TRILLION ($10.26 trillion to $19.947 trillion) to the National debt. The Liberal Siren Paul Krugman (who somehow won a Nobel prize for Snakeoil economics) used to always excuse away debt when his boy was in office saying that the debt didn't matter and the US should create MORE. Now the Liberals are decrying "Ballooning Debt" when, A) They're responsible for the last 8 years of garbage (Obama would have vetoed any bill that tried to change it) and B) Their math to project it is voodoo. Probably because the Libs only think that 1.5% growth is the max possible.

But yeah. Let's blame the corporations who actually produce goods and services and employ people. Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!

[ArizonaXUGrad]

Fixed that for you.

The Obama years added NINE TRILLION ($10.26 trillion to $19.947 trillion) to the National debt. The Liberal Siren Paul Krugman (who somehow won a Nobel prize for Snakeoil economics) used to always excuse away debt when his boy was in office saying that the debt didn't matter and the US should create MORE. Now the Liberals are decrying "Ballooning Debt" when, A) They're responsible for the last 8 years of garbage (Obama would have vetoed any bill that tried to change it) and B) Their math to project it is voodoo. Probably because the Libs only think that 1.5% growth is the max possible.

But yeah. Let's blame the corporations who actually produce goods and services and employ people. Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!

Not blame, I am asking why we try to boost consumers and give them buying power by first giving tax breaks to corporations and uber wealthy. It’s like you don’t trust the middle class with money. This policy has failed each and every time it has been employed so go ahead and parade this ‘victory’. Let’s see how long it lasts.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[GoMuskies]

. It’s like you don’t trust the middle class with money.

Side note: the tax plan also provided the middle class with a tax cut.

[Juice]

Bloomberg
@business
U.S. filings for unemployment benefits plummeted to the lowest level in almost 45 years https://bloom.bg/2mS85cd

[bobbiemcgee]

Not sure you've been paying attention, Juice. 'Pubs have decided the "deficit" is not a dirty word anymore since they want to increase it.

[Caf]

Anyone happy about these tariffs?

[muskienick]

Anyone happy about these tariffs?

We should ALL be unhappy with them since we'll be the ultimate ones paying for them as the end-use consumer. What will prevent the countries paying these tariffs to impose similar (or higher) ones on U.S. mining companies?

[paulxu]

What will prevent the countries paying these tariffs to impose similar (or higher) ones on U.S. mining companies?

Nothing.

(another edition of simple answers to simple questions)

[Juice]

We should ALL be unhappy with them since we'll be the ultimate ones paying for them as the end-use consumer. What will prevent the countries paying these tariffs to impose similar (or higher) ones on U.S. mining companies?

Europe has announced new tariffs on Harley's, Bourbon, and jeans (not kidding).

[X-man]

Europe has announced new tariffs on Harley's, Bourbon, and jeans (not kidding).

Great for all us bourbon drinkers. Now we need Asia to also impose tariffs on bourbon, and the domestic price will drop dramatically!

[Caf]

We should ALL be unhappy with them since we'll be the ultimate ones paying for them as the end-use consumer. What will prevent the countries paying these tariffs to impose similar (or higher) ones on U.S. mining companies?

It seems likely that retaliation will be against U.S. agriculture. I honestly don't hate the tariffs. In the short term a trade war would be a disaster, but the Chinese dumping has to be confronted at some point. There will never be a good time or way to do that. I think Trump's thinking that other nations will join in making global tariffs and that will hit China more than if we just placed quotas on them alone.

[boozehound]

It seems likely that retaliation will be against U.S. agriculture. I honestly don't hate the tariffs. In the short term a trade war would be a disaster, but the Chinese dumping has to be confronted at some point. There will never be a good time or way to do that. I think Trump's thinking that other nations will join in making global tariffs and that will hit China more than if we just placed quotas on them alone.

I'm kind of in this camp as well. What concerns me a little bit (OK, a lot) is that I don't think this administration will put in the necessary rigor and planning to ensure that this is well thought out. It seems like just another off-the-cuff policy adjustment vs. a measured and strategic approach.

[GoMuskies]

I'm kind of in this camp as well. What concerns me a little bit (OK, a lot) is that I don't think this administration will put in the necessary rigor and planning to ensure that this is well thought out. It seems like just another off-the-cuff policy adjustment vs. a measured and strategic approach.

I think the economic team is strong. As long as Trump is letting those guys make the actual decisions, and his role is just to send the incendiary Tweets about the policy, I think it will be fine.

[paulxu]

I think the economic team is strong. As long as Trump is letting those guys make the actual decisions, and his role is just to send the incendiary Tweets about the policy, I think it will be fine.

That's exactly why we might be concerned.


According to two officials, Trump's decision to launch a potential trade war was born out of anger at other simmering issues and the result of a broken internal process that has failed to deliver him consensus views that represent the best advice of his team.

On Wednesday evening, the president became "unglued," in the words of one official familiar with the president's state of mind.

A trifecta of events had set him off in a way that two officials said they had not seen before: Hope Hicks' testimony to lawmakers investigating Russia's interference in the 2016 election, conduct by his embattled attorney general and the treatment of his son-in-law by his chief of staff.

Trump, the two officials said, was angry and gunning for a fight, and he chose a trade war, spurred on by Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross and Peter Navarro, the White House director for trade — and against longstanding advice from his economic chair Gary Cohn and Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin.

[GoMuskies]

Hmm, whom to trust on economic/trade matters, Wilbur Ross, Peter Navarro, Gary Cohn and Steve Mnuchin...or Donald Trump? Really tough question here.

That ain't ideal.

[boozehound]

I think the economic team is strong. As long as Trump is letting those guys make the actual decisions, and his role is just to send the incendiary Tweets about the policy, I think it will be fine.

I don't know how strong anything can really be in this administration. I'd love the think that behind the scenes everything his happening for a reason and that well thought out and properly vetted decisions are being made by qualified individuals, however it looks unlikely to me.

[bigdiggins]

I assumed this thread was a recap of the Oscars.

[Caf]

I assumed this thread was a recap of the Oscars.

Me too

[bobbiemcgee]

I'm kind of in this camp as well. What concerns me a little bit (OK, a lot) is that I don't think this administration will put in the necessary rigor and planning to ensure that this is well thought out. It seems like just another off-the-cuff policy adjustment vs. a measured and strategic approach.

Trump's good old boys base may start bitching when their Pickup Trucks cost $100,000.

[GoMuskies]

Rex Tillerson apparently learned he was fired when someone showed him Trump's tweet about it. I guess that's one way to fire people in 2018.

[Caf]

I really liked Rex, this is a shame. DJT didn't do himself any favors in distancing himself from Russia suspicions with this. He didn't stand by England's accusations and then fired the only member of his cabinet who did.

[paulxu]

Rex Tillerson apparently learned he was fired when someone showed him Trump's tweet about it. I guess that's one way to fire people in 2018.

If that's the way it went down, it just proves he's like a neighborhood 5th grade bully.
Calls people names, but when it comes to the hard stuff (like firing someone face to face like Comey, or Tillerson) he's just a little boy.

[SemajParlor]

December 1 , 2017

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/936688444046266368


Probably a healthy reminder that not everything reported is Fake News because he says it is.

[X Factor]

December 1 , 2017

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/936688444046266368


Probably a healthy reminder that not everything reported is Fake News because he says it is.

That was over a year ago. How is that relevant?

[SemajParlor]

That was over a year ago. How is that relevant?

Try 3.5 months.

[paulxu]

It sure seems like a year...or years.

[X Factor]

Try 3.5 months.

:ashamed:

[ArizonaXUGrad]

I wasn’t a Tillerson fan, but he definitely seemed like a moderate rudder in this administration. Losing him is bad, I think Pompeo is a massive fool. All of this coupled with Tillerson’s backing of the poison findings in England make this a precarious decision.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[paulxu]

Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump

I have stated my concerns with Amazon long before the Election. Unlike others, they pay little or no taxes to state & local governments, use our Postal System as their Delivery Boy (causing tremendous loss to the U.S.), and are putting many thousands of retailers out of business!

So, it turns out that Amazon actually charges and collects state sales tax in all 45 states where there is a sales tax. Trump's online sales organization collects it for 2 states. Of course.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-organizations-web-store-collects-sales-tax-in-only-two-states-1523042739?mod=e2tw

PT was right. You CAN fool some of the people, all of the time.

[bobbiemcgee]

"Amazon.com Inc. is profitable for the U.S. Postal Service, former Postmaster General Patrick Donahoe “unequivocally stated” to UBS analysts, according to a Thursday note, contradicting tweets from President Donald Trump."

[bigdiggins]

"Amazon.com Inc. is profitable for the U.S. Postal Service, former Postmaster General Patrick Donahoe “unequivocally stated” to UBS analysts, according to a Thursday note, contradicting tweets from President Donald Trump."

Gross profit is solid on parcels. Would be interested to see if they allocate any overhead to the segment.

[waggy]

The postal service is taxpayer funded and not anywhere close to a real business model. Just look to Fedex and UPS pricing for what it actually costs to move a package. Amazon probably shouldn't highlight it's relationship with the USPS as some great thing for the American citizen.

[Masterofreality]

Oh yeah. That Bezos is a real prince:
Last Wednesday Amazon also disclosed another number that shows how much it relies on an army of people moving physical merchandise around the world: $28,446. Just a reminder that this means half of Amazon's workers make more than $28,446, and half make less. That is below the 2017 US Poverty level if you have a family of 5. So, I guess that's another way to force birth control on the populace.
That's the median annual compensation of Amazon employees. Amazon reported this number for the first time under a new requirement that companies disclose the gap between pay for the rank-and-file and the person in the corner office. (Amazon Chief Executive Officer Jeff Bezos, the world's richest person, reported total compensation of $1.68 million last year.

Median employee pay at select companies
McDonald's (restaurants only)- $7,000
Marathon Petroleum- $21,000
Amazon- $28,400
Hasbro- $74,200
AMD- $89,900
Verizon- $126,600
Facebook- $240,400

Good job Mr. Point the Finger Pontificator thru what has become your trash Washington Post!!
“Fair Wage for All!!”

#Charlatan

[X-man]

Oh yeah. That Bezos is a real prince:
Last Wednesday Amazon also disclosed another number that shows how much it relies on an army of people moving physical merchandise around the world: $28,446. Just a reminder that this means half of Amazon's workers make more than $28,446, and half make less. That is below the 2017 US Poverty level if you have a family of 5. So, I guess that's another way to force birth control on the populace.
That's the median annual compensation of Amazon employees. Amazon reported this number for the first time under a new requirement that companies disclose the gap between pay for the rank-and-file and the person in the corner office. (Amazon Chief Executive Officer Jeff Bezos, the world's richest person, reported total compensation of $1.68 million last year.

Median employee pay at select companies
McDonald's (restaurants only)- $7,000
Marathon Petroleum- $21,000
Amazon- $28,400
Hasbro- $74,200
AMD- $89,900
Verizon- $126,600
Facebook- $240,400

Good job Mr. Point the Finger Pontificator thru what has become your trash Washington Post!!
“Fair Wage for All!!”

#Charlatan
Wow what a surprising post, MOR. I always had you pegged as a free market guy rather than a socialist. Are you claiming that Bezos is not paying market wages? Do you want a higher minimum wage? Or do you just think Bezos should pay more than the market requires? And finally, where is the Post's position laid out on the market wage issue? I assume you have evidence given your last sentence above.

[Masterofreality]

Wow what a surprising post, MOR. I always had you pegged as a free market guy rather than a socialist. Are you claiming that Bezos is not paying market wages? Do you want a higher minimum wage? Or do you just think Bezos should pay more than the market requires? And finally, where is the Post's position laid out on the market wage issue? I assume you have evidence given your last sentence above.

Bezos pays his workers trash. Period. How do you know what the "market requires"? Aren't you one of the $15/hour minimum wage crowd? Does the "market require" that? Since Bezos has taken over the Post, they have become leftist propaganda that loses all balance. Hell, if Bozos (spelling intentional) went to a $15/hour rate and assuming he didn't cut his workers' hours, all of a sudden his folks get almost a $3,000 yearly raise. Yeah, here's an example of what shows up on the Post Opinion page about a $15/hour rate:

https://www.google.com/url?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Fnews% 2Fposteverything%2Fwp%2F2017%2F06%2F27%2Fseattles-higher-minimum-wage-is-actually-working-just-fine%2F%3Fnoredirect%3Don%26utm_term%3D.1d5a0c90cd c4&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNHAIUYxZYHXAT-OHhzZV_rVZUIbWg

Oh, and what does Bozos' Post Opinion say about the bonuses that companies have been giving out to employees after the tax cut bill- Bonuses that Bozos' Companies DID NOT participate in? A lot more trash:

https://www.google.com/url?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Fblogs %2Fplum-line%2Fwp%2F2018%2F01%2F02%2Fdont-get-spun-by-trumps-boasts-about-big-bonuses-and-the-tax-cut-bill%2F%3Futm_term%3D.3f632f07927b&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNHDXBgVIYqEhPgJbTeHB0e0BOg9_Q

Make no mistake. Charlatan Bozos is trash and so is his yellow journalistic paper.

And I anxiously await the next post on here by XMan or some other leftist about the "Awful imbalance between the worker and the CEO who's inflated pay borders on criminal". #Bozos $1.68 million

[X-man]

Bezos pays his workers trash. Period. How do you know what the "market requires"? Aren't you one of the $15/hour minimum wage crowd? Does the "market require" that? Since Bezos has taken over the Post, they have become leftist propaganda that loses all balance. Hell, if Bozos (spelling intentional) went to a $15/hour rate and assuming he didn't cut his workers' hours, all of a sudden his folks get almost a $3,000 yearly raise. Yeah, here's an example of what shows up on the Post Opinion page about a $15/hour rate:

https://www.google.com/url?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Fnews% 2Fposteverything%2Fwp%2F2017%2F06%2F27%2Fseattles-higher-minimum-wage-is-actually-working-just-fine%2F%3Fnoredirect%3Don%26utm_term%3D.1d5a0c90cd c4&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNHAIUYxZYHXAT-OHhzZV_rVZUIbWg

Oh, and what does Bozos' Post Opinion say about the bonuses that companies have been giving out to employees after the tax cut bill- Bonuses that Bozos' Companies DID NOT participate in? A lot more trash:

https://www.google.com/url?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Fblogs %2Fplum-line%2Fwp%2F2018%2F01%2F02%2Fdont-get-spun-by-trumps-boasts-about-big-bonuses-and-the-tax-cut-bill%2F%3Futm_term%3D.3f632f07927b&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNHDXBgVIYqEhPgJbTeHB0e0BOg9_Q

Make no mistake. Charlatan Bozos is trash and so is his yellow journalistic paper.

And I anxiously await the next post on here by XMan or some other leftist about the "Awful imbalance between the worker and the CEO who's inflated pay borders on criminal". #Bozos $1.68 million

You are the one making the charge against Bezos. Please share with us your evidence that Bezos isn't just being a free market employer with the salaries he pays. Absent such evidence, you are either being a hypocrite by attacking him while claiming to be a free market backer or you are in fact not the free market supporter you claim to be. In the latter case, please tell us all what Bezos should be paying his employees. And while you're at it, tell us what our president should be paying his hotel employees (the ones with comparable skill sets to the vast majority of Amazon employees). Thanks.

[Caf]

Bezos pays his workers trash. Period. How do you know what the "market requires"?

Because people accept those jobs at those wages. Pretty simple.

[X-man]

Because people accept those jobs at those wages. Pretty simple.

You got it, Caf. I am surprised that MOR, who arguably is a gung-ho free market supporter, doesn't understand that.

[bobbiemcgee]

Amazon offers entry level jobs to the masses. Basically, if you have a pulse and aren't actively wanted by the cops, you can get a job there. They advertise non-stop for employees wherever they locate. Why? Cuz these are crappy jobs that require heavy lifting and ones that you are on your feet all day walking up to 12 miles a day. They have a huge sortation facility here in Denver that offers NO FULL TIME jobs except for the skeleton management. But for a kid just out of HS with no prospects and still living at home going to school or a retiree who hates sitting around on the couch, it's not a bad gig. They give you $500 a yr. towards paying for your Medical Ins., free dental and vision and will pay for your community college after 90 days. So, yeah, working for 13.00/14.00 an hr. isn't really worth it, but it at least gives the kids time to get some experience and the first job on a resume. And like said above, nobody's holding a gun to their heads.

[boozehound]

You got it, Caf. I am surprised that MOR, who arguably is a gung-ho free market supporter, doesn't understand that.

I think he was a free market supporter, but then Trump got elected. Similar phenomenon to all the folks who used to care about the budget deficit.

It's the sports 'superfan' mentality applied to identity Politics. Nothing more.

[Masterofreality]

You are the one making the charge against Bezos. Please share with us your evidence that Bezos isn't just being a free market employer with the salaries he pays. Absent such evidence, you are either being a hypocrite by attacking him while claiming to be a free market backer or you are in fact not the free market supporter you claim to be. In the latter case, please tell us all what Bezos should be paying his employees. And while you're at it, tell us what our president should be paying his hotel employees (the ones with comparable skill sets to the vast majority of Amazon employees). Thanks.

Dude, I'm a free market guy, but this isn't a "free market" argument. You're making a totally false equivalence while trying to act all academia-like by shouting "free market" as a red herring. It's strictly about a disingenuous two-faced bastard who scream-preaches one way but acts the other. I have a huge problem with a hypocrite who through his mouthpiece paper downplays and minimizes bonuses given by companies due to the tax cuts (meanwhile he did everything to minimize taxes his company payed before the tax cuts and won't give a bonus anyway) and supports a $15 hour wage, but despite his personal success, won't pay his own people more. Again, actions speak louder than words. You are obviously too dense to grab my point. The same guy, who's mouthpiece paper rails against the CEO/employee discrepancy pay, makes $1.68 million/year vs $28,000. Lots of strawman talk and his paper has become fishwrap.

See, what I'm getting at is Bozos is slime as compared to a guy like Marc Benioff- the CEO & Chairman of Salesforce. He has a belief in what is the right thing to do, and rather than just preach-pontificating and avoiding doing it because it might cost money, he just does it with action. He is a stickler for equal pay for the genders and rather than just talking about it, he had his company do an audit, found that there were bad discrepancies, then he spent $6 MILLION to bring the women up to an equal status with the men. Benioff is totally "Free" to do so, because he is free to do whatever the hell he wants with his company, but he's a guy who walks the walk and does the right thing rather than finger pointing at others to keep attention off his delinquencies. Bozos is totally "Free" to do what he wants too, but the difference is he just finger points, while being the delinquent guy he's finger pointing about.

See words are cheap...just like over on the Global Warming thread. All the blah, blah, blah from the leftys on this board about "the US HAS to do THIS NOW", while they can't even handle their own back yard by telling us what ACTIONS THEY HAVE DONE to walk the walk. Where are the Chevy Volts in their driveway? How many of them have stopped having firepits? How many who live there now, have moved away the air conditioned Arizona while decrying man's "excessive" use of energy? Etc. Total hypocrisy from words and "talking the talk" to actually walking it. If you aren't going to walk it, just shut the hell up about it, but Bozos and his trash Post won't shut the hell up. they just keep screaming.

Last time I checked, Trump hadn't said anything about his employee pay, so what's your point?
How thick is your skull that you can't see this?

[Masterofreality]

Amazon offers entry level jobs to the masses. Basically, if you have a pulse and aren't actively wanted by the cops, you can get a job there. They advertise non-stop for employees wherever they locate. Why? Cuz these are crappy jobs that require heavy lifting and ones that you are on your feet all day walking up to 12 miles a day. They have a huge sortation facility here in Denver that offers NO FULL TIME jobs except for the skeleton management. But for a kid just out of HS with no prospects and still living at home going to school or a retiree who hates sitting around on the couch, it's not a bad gig. They give you $500 a yr. towards paying for your Medical Ins., free dental and vision and will pay for your community college after 90 days. So, yeah, working for 13.00/14.00 an hr. isn't really worth it, but it at least gives the kids time to get some experience and the first job on a resume. And like said above, nobody's holding a gun to their heads.

I'm sure you make the exact same statement when someone talks about the child labor in the Congo. No one's holding a gun to their heard either.
Sounds an awful lot like a guy who makes $1.6 million a year is building his company on the backs of indentured servants who are kids, but whatever. What a picnic for lousy pay. "Crappy job", "Heavy lifting" "12 mile a day walks". YEAH!! Where do I sign for peanuts? Oh, and how convenient that they don't offer "full time jobs" because that would require medical care and benefits. I'll bet Bozos was all for Nationalized Health Care that the Feds, errrrrrrr, you and I would pay for. Takes the onus totally off him.
When's the next march on Washington by the Bozos oppressed?

[bobbiemcgee]

Or maybe they could just apply to some other job with no work experience and the employer will automatically offer them $25.00 - $30.00 an hour. Dilly-Dilly! Maybe trump needs someone to bring him the Big Macs.

[paulxu]

Not going to happen.


While President Donald Trump rails at American companies that hire foreign workers, he’s not following his own advice. Of 144 openings at three of his properties, including Mar-a-Lago, only a single one went to an American, according to Department of Labor records. The rest went to seasonal foreign workers in the U.S. on special visas requested by the Trump Organization, reports Vox.

#MAGA

[X-man]

Dude, I'm a free market guy, but this isn't a "free market" argument. You're making a totally false equivalence while trying to act all academia-like by shouting "free market" as a red herring. It's strictly about a disingenuous two-faced bastard who scream-preaches one way but acts the other. I have a huge problem with a hypocrite who through his mouthpiece paper downplays and minimizes bonuses given by companies due to the tax cuts (meanwhile he did everything to minimize taxes his company payed before the tax cuts and won't give a bonus anyway) and supports a $15 hour wage, but despite his personal success, won't pay his own people more. Again, actions speak louder than words. You are obviously too dense to grab my point. The same guy, who's mouthpiece paper rails against the CEO/employee discrepancy pay, makes $1.68 million/year vs $28,000. Lots of strawman talk and his paper has become fishwrap.

See, what I'm getting at is Bozos is slime as compared to a guy like Marc Benioff- the CEO & Chairman of Salesforce. He has a belief in what is the right thing to do, and rather than just preach-pontificating and avoiding doing it because it might cost money, he just does it with action. He is a stickler for equal pay for the genders and rather than just talking about it, he had his company do an audit, found that there were bad discrepancies, then he spent $6 MILLION to bring the women up to an equal status with the men. Benioff is totally "Free" to do so, because he is free to do whatever the hell he wants with his company, but he's a guy who walks the walk and does the right thing rather than finger pointing at others to keep attention off his delinquencies. Bozos is totally "Free" to do what he wants too, but the difference is he just finger points, while being the delinquent guy he's finger pointing about.

See words are cheap...just like over on the Global Warming thread. All the blah, blah, blah from the leftys on this board about "the US HAS to do THIS NOW", while they can't even handle their own back yard by telling us what ACTIONS THEY HAVE DONE to walk the walk. Where are the Chevy Volts in their driveway? How many of them have stopped having firepits? How many who live there now, have moved away the air conditioned Arizona while decrying man's "excessive" use of energy? Etc. Total hypocrisy from words and "talking the talk" to actually walking it. If you aren't going to walk it, just shut the hell up about it, but Bozos and his trash Post won't shut the hell up. they just keep screaming.

Last time I checked, Trump hadn't said anything about his employee pay, so what's your point?
How thick is your skull that you can't see this?
And I have the same problem with someone who claims to be a free market supporter and then blasts a business owner for paying free market wages. And then makes matters worse by blasting the guy for only paying the taxes he legally owes. Can't you see how stunningly hypocritical you are about this? How thick is your skull?

[XU 87]

I think MOR is arguing that Bezos is the classical "Do as I say, not as I do". (recommended reading- Peter Schweizer's book also called - "Do as I Say not as I Do".)

[Caf]

I think MOR is arguing that Bezos is the classical "Do as I say, not as I do". (recommended reading- Peter Schweizer's book also called - "Do as I Say not as I Do".)

Except him "saying" something is actually the Washington Post saying something. A paper who's writing and stance has not changed an iota since he acquired them.

[boozehound]

I think MOR is arguing that Bezos is the classical "Do as I say, not as I do". (recommended reading- Peter Schweizer's book also called - "Do as I Say not as I Do".)

I don't even know where to begin with this.

Are we really going to equate the content of a newspaper owned by an individual who has amassed a massive business empire as his personal viewpoint? Do you guys think Bezos really weighs in to that extent on content? It's not like it's the only thing he owns. Hell, most of the stuff MOR has linked to in this thread are OP ED pieces. They aren't event positioned as news, per se. Do think Helaine freaking Olen (whoever the hell that is) runs her Op Ed articles by Bezos to make sure they align with his POV? This is a for-profit business. Not a mouthpiece for Bezos' political views. In fact, when I try to find examples of Bezos weighing in with preachy liberal political views I can't really find a whole lot, other than his support of marriage equality. In fact, he seems much more libertarian than liberal.

It really seems like this is much more about identity politics and making the enemies of your political idol's enemies. It smells like Oligarchy and I don't like it.

Also point of note: When googled it comes out that the full title of the book you recommended to is "Do As I Say (Not As I Do): Profiles In Liberal Hypocrisy", which sounds pretty objective to me. Guess what the first (or 2nd depending on specific syntax) seach result is? Amazon.com Should we equate the content sold on his website as an extension of his political views in the same manner with which we are treating WaPo? In that case, I don't know what to believe!

[Masterofreality]

Except him "saying" something is actually the Washington Post saying something. A paper who's writing and stance has not changed an iota since he acquired them.

And that is TOTAL BullShit. I subscribe to the Post, brother. I have for years since the days of Katharine Graham. I would fly into DC on Business trips almost weekly and always picked up a Post before I subscribed. I said for years that the Post was the "best newspaper in America". No longer. Now, I read that trash everyday because I want to see how ridiculous it can become. "Free Market you know. It is now totally Yellow Journalism and their headlines are nothing but sensationalistic. It's totally divisive to the country under this jerk and, unfortunately its more available being on line now than before. If you don't think Bozos is using the Post as his megaphone, I've got a Bridge in the "Global Warmed" Arizona desert to sell you.

[XU 87]

I don't even know where to begin with this.



I suggest you begin by reading the book. It discusses in great detail what hypocrites these liberals are (such as the Kennedys and Michael Moore). They preach one thing, and then live and do the exact opposite, hence the title of the book- "Do as I say, not as I do."

I'll lend you the book. After you finish it, please give it to X-Man.

[Masterofreality]

And I have the same problem with someone who claims to be a free market supporter and then blasts a business owner for paying free market wages. And then makes matters worse by blasting the guy for only paying the taxes he legally owes. Can't you see how stunningly hypocritical you are about this? How thick is your skull?


"Free market", "Free market", "Free market". Nice job one trick pony Red Herring. Your persistence on disconnected arguments is amazing.

As XU 87 said perfectly: "I think MOR is arguing that Bezos is the classical "Do as I say, not as I do". (recommended reading- Peter Schweizer's book also called - "Do as I Say not as I Do".) " Thanks. Pretty clear, unless the Blue Haze is too thick.

[Masterofreality]

I suggest you begin by reading the book. It discusses in great detail what hypocrites these liberals are (such as the Kennedys and Michael Moore). They preach one thing, and then live and do the exact opposite, hence the title of the book- "Do as I say, not as I do."

I'll lend you the book. After you finish it, please give it to X-Man.


Public Reps because Jeff Bozos has apparently taken over this website and has infiltrated it with his Manure Laden garbage block.

[boozehound]

I suggest you begin by reading the book. It discusses in great detail what hypocrites these liberals are (such as the Kennedys and Michael Moore). They preach one thing, and then live and do the exact opposite, hence the title of the book- "Do as I say, not as I do."

I'll lend you the book. After you finish it, please give it to X-Man.

So to be clear: Your response to my entire argument is not to address any of the issues that I brought, but merely to suggest that I read your conservative book by a conservative author? Should I recommend that you watch a Michael Moore documentary? I'm not going to, because I agree that he is a hypocrite and I don't value his opinion, but how would that be any different.

Let's also not act like Hypocrisy is the exclusive domain of liberals. There plenty of folks on the right not practicing what they preach. Particularly the religious right.

Of course none of this really relates Bezos specifically, unless we are going to take the step of equating the WaPo Op Ed content with his personal views.

[XU 87]

[QUOTE=boozehound;624104]So to be clear: Your response to my entire argument is not to address any of the issues that I brought, but merely to suggest that I read your conservative book by a conservative author? QUOTE]

Yes.

[X-man]

"Free market", "Free market", "Free market". Nice job one trick pony Red Herring. Your persistence on disconnected arguments is amazing.

As XU 87 said perfectly: "I think MOR is arguing that Bezos is the classical "Do as I say, not as I do". (recommended reading- Peter Schweizer's book also called - "Do as I Say not as I Do".) " Thanks. Pretty clear, unless the Blue Haze is too thick.
Please address my questions. Are you claiming that Bezos is paying below market wages? If so, what is the evidence. And if he is paying market wages, as well as all legally required taxes, on what basis are you claiming he should pay more on both counts? Don't you believe in markets? I do because I am an economist.

[Caf]

And that is TOTAL BullShit. I subscribe to the Post, brother. I have for years since the days of Katharine Graham. I would fly into DC on Business trips almost weekly and always picked up a Post before I subscribed. I said for years that the Post was the "best newspaper in America". No longer. Now, I read that trash everyday because I want to see how ridiculous it can become. "Free Market you know. It is now totally Yellow Journalism and their headlines are nothing but sensationalistic. It's totally divisive to the country under this jerk and, unfortunately its more available being on line now than before. If you don't think Bozos is using the Post as his megaphone, I've got a Bridge in the "Global Warmed" Arizona desert to sell you.

I do too, Hulk Hogan.

You've settled this one. Unlivable wages are fine as long as the CEO doesn't own a newspaper that has a liberal stance. Great. Otherwise they have to make the paper conservative or operate their business in a non-competitive manner. No point in arguing with this bullet proof logic.

[Masterofreality]

I do too, Hulk Hogan.

You've settled this one. Unlivable wages are fine as long as the CEO doesn't own a newspaper that has a liberal stance. Great. Otherwise they have to make the paper conservative or operate their business in a non-competitive manner. No point in arguing with this bullet proof logic.

No. Unliveable wages are NOT acceptable, but even more so if the owner of the company that pays those unliveable wages continually A)Rails against them in his megaphone fish wrap, B) Refuses to pay a live able wage in the main company he owns. C) Allows the fish wrap he owns to criticize and downplay companies that were willing to give their employees bonuses when his own company couldn't be bothered. In that case the screamer is just a hypocritical piece of trash. Pretty simple. #Bulletproof

[Masterofreality]

Please address my questions. Are you claiming that Bezos is paying below market wages? If so, what is the evidence. And if he is paying market wages, as well as all legally required taxes, on what basis are you claiming he should pay more on both counts? Don't you believe in markets? I do because I am an economist.

Congratulations. Karl Marx was an economist too.

[X-man]

Congratulations. Karl Marx was an economist too.
Still waiting. Economists as a group, at least those of us trained in the US, tend to believe in markets. Marx, whether he is an economist or not (that's highly debatable BTW) is irrelevant. As usual, you avoid answering questions or serious debate with bogus deflections.

[Caf]

No. Unliveable wages are NOT acceptable

Dude, I'm a free market guy.... It's strictly about a disingenuous two-faced bastard

Which one is it?

[xudash]

https://m.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10209466988977282&id=1402466522&set=a.4653450939912.2190308.1402466522&source=48

[Masterofreality]

Which one is it?

Both. One does not depend on the other. Unliveable wages are not acceptable in a free market society- or any society, but he free market society does not DICTATE individual behavior as a communistic or socialistic society would. Disingenous two faced bastards are fully free to exist in a free market society because they can with no limitation, but that doesn't make their behavior any less onerous- especially when they try to deflect from it by finger pointing to someone else.

[Masterofreality]

Still waiting. Economists as a group, at least those of us trained in the US, tend to believe in markets. Marx, whether he is an economist or not (that's highly debatable BTW) is irrelevant. As usual, you avoid answering questions or serious debate with bogus deflections.

Karl Marx
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Born 5 May 1818
Trier, Kingdom of Prussia
Died 14 March 1883 (aged 64)
London, England, UK
Residence Germany, France, Belgium, UK

Karl Marx[7] (German: [ˈkaɐ̯l ˈmaɐ̯ks]; 5 May 1818 – 14 March 1883) was a German philosopher, economist, historian, political theorist, sociologist, journalist and revolutionary socialist.

Bezos is the topic with my statements backed up with facts. You insist on trying to make me the topic. Ain't working sir. Nice deflection on your part.

I'm done here.

[Caf]

Both. One does not depend on the other. Unliveable wages are not acceptable in a free market society- or any society, but he free market society does not DICTATE individual behavior as a communistic or socialistic society would. Disingenous two faced bastards are fully free to exist in a free market society because they can with no limitation, but that doesn't make their behavior any less onerous- especially when they try to deflect from it by finger pointing to someone else.

Gotcha. I'm not sold on Bezos dictating WP writing, but that's something we'll never agree on. I'm also not sold on a rich CEO wanting a higher minimum wage while paying minimum wage as being hypocritical. I'm sure most CEO's of public companies with low wage labor would gladly pay more if they were assured their competitors would as well. A company like Amazon would be fully able to take advantage of a rise in wages for consumers. And just because he gets a tax break doesn't mean he has to bow down does it?

I do find people's view of Amazon to be hypocritical though, or maybe naive is the better word. As I said in the stock market thread, years ago people railed Walmart for low wages. Amazon is now doing the same thing (if they haven't automated away said job) but city dwellers can get paper towels delivered to their door in hours and not have to come face to face with Amazon's working reality so no one cares. A competition in the retail sector between only Amazon and Walmart may be good for the American consumer, but it's disastrous for the American worker.

[X-man]

Karl Marx
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Born 5 May 1818
Trier, Kingdom of Prussia
Died 14 March 1883 (aged 64)
London, England, UK
Residence Germany, France, Belgium, UK

Karl Marx[7] (German: [ˈkaɐ̯l ˈmaɐ̯ks]; 5 May 1818 – 14 March 1883) was a German philosopher, economist, historian, political theorist, sociologist, journalist and revolutionary socialist.

Bezos is the topic with my statements backed up with facts. You insist on trying to make me the topic. Ain't working sir. Nice deflection on your part.

I'm done here.
Still waiting. And please don't use Wikipedia as your source on anything. It is notoriously unreliable, so much so that most faculty I know refuse to allow students to cite it as a source in any of their papers.

[Masterofreality]

Gotcha. I'm not sold on Bezos dictating WP writing, but that's something we'll never agree on. I'm also not sold on a rich CEO wanting a higher minimum wage while paying minimum wage as being hypocritical. I'm sure most CEO's of public companies with low wage labor would gladly pay more if they were assured their competitors would as well. A company like Amazon would be fully able to take advantage of a rise in wages for consumers. And just because he gets a tax break doesn't mean he has to bow down does it?

I do find people's view of Amazon to be hypocritical though, or maybe naive is the better word. As I said in the stock market thread, years ago people railed Walmart for low wages. Amazon is now doing the same thing (if they haven't automated away said job) but city dwellers can get paper towels delivered to their door in hours and not have to come face to face with Amazon's working reality so no one cares. A competition in the retail sector between only Amazon and Walmart may be good for the American consumer, but it's disastrous for the American worker.

Excellent. I agree that I hate what is happening to the Mom & Pop retail sector, and many fixed based stores in the country. We NEVER shop Amazon nor Wal-Mart, but that's just us taking a stand, I guess. We have some common ground. Now back to the offseason. :-)

[GoMuskies]

OK, now that that's settled, I've got a completely separate question. Have any of you been following the "Jordan Peterson Phenomenon"? I've run into mentions of the guy here and there, saw his famous Channel 4 interview back in the day, but I really had not dug in on him at all until the last few days. This dude is a lightning rod if there ever were one. People LOVE him or HATE him, and it's pretty interesting because from what I can tell his views aren't exactly extreme. His self-help book that's currently on the market now seems to be (haven't read it, but from reading about it) mostly non-controversial common sense with some pseudo-science thrown in for good measure. I always find it nice to hear a voice pushing back in a rational, articulate manner on some of the more extreme nonsense of the SJWs of the world, but that doesn't necessarily make him a genius (or his actual theories correct). But man do the harder left hate the guy, and the fact that some of the more troubling right-wing groups find him appealing makes his situation even more interesting.

He seems like the kind of guy Snipe would like, for example, which doesn't make him wrong or extreme, but just that fact causes some people to label him "dangerous".

[X-man]

Excellent. I agree that I hate what is happening to the Mom & Pop retail sector, and many fixed based stores in the country. We NEVER shop Amazon nor Wal-Mart, but that's just us taking a stand, I guess. We have some common ground. Now back to the offseason. :-)

Wow, I agree as well! And not only do we not shop at Amazon or Walmart, we do shop at local book stores and the neighborhood butcher. Gotta do all we can to keep small businesses in business.

[Masterofreality]

Wow, I agree as well! And not only do we not shop at Amazon or Walmart, we do shop at local book stores and the neighborhood butcher. Gotta do all we can to keep small businesses in business.

Plus I bought some albums on Record Store Day last weekend! God Bless America!!!!

[Masterofreality]

OK, now that that's settled, I've got a completely separate question. Have any of you been following the "Jordan Peterson Phenomenon"? I've run into mentions of the guy here and there, saw his famous Channel 4 interview back in the day, but I really had not dug in on him at all until the last few days. This dude is a lightning rod if there ever were one. People LOVE him or HATE him, and it's pretty interesting because from what I can tell his views aren't exactly extreme. His self-help book that's currently on the market now seems to be (haven't read it, but from reading about it) mostly non-controversial common sense with some pseudo-science thrown in for good measure. I always find it nice to hear a voice pushing back in a rational, articulate manner on some of the more extreme nonsense of the SJWs of the world, but that doesn't necessarily make him a genius (or his actual theories correct). But man do the harder left hate the guy, and the fact that some of the more troubling right-wing groups find him appealing makes his situation even more interesting.

He seems like the kind of guy Snipe would like, for example, which doesn't make him wrong or extreme, but just that fact causes some people to label him "dangerous".

I put little stock in Canucks. :-)

[Caf]

I too have a question. Would you guys be okay with keeping the Iran deal so we can make a North Korea deal?

Macron made the suggestion yesterday that if Trump blows up the Iran deal it will hurt the odds of Jong Un trusting the US to stand by its word. It's a predicament for NK reminiscent of when Ukraine agreed to denuclearized in exchange for protection and then uhh yeah...

[boozehound]

OK, now that that's settled, I've got a completely separate question. Have any of you been following the "Jordan Peterson Phenomenon"? I've run into mentions of the guy here and there, saw his famous Channel 4 interview back in the day, but I really had not dug in on him at all until the last few days. This dude is a lightning rod if there ever were one. People LOVE him or HATE him, and it's pretty interesting because from what I can tell his views aren't exactly extreme. His self-help book that's currently on the market now seems to be (haven't read it, but from reading about it) mostly non-controversial common sense with some pseudo-science thrown in for good measure. I always find it nice to hear a voice pushing back in a rational, articulate manner on some of the more extreme nonsense of the SJWs of the world, but that doesn't necessarily make him a genius (or his actual theories correct). But man do the harder left hate the guy, and the fact that some of the more troubling right-wing groups find him appealing makes his situation even more interesting.

He seems like the kind of guy Snipe would like, for example, which doesn't make him wrong or extreme, but just that fact causes some people to label him "dangerous".

I have heard him interviewed, but haven't read any of his work. It struck me as a lot of opinion stated as fact without study or citation, but it was also mostly ripped straight from the pages of the 'no shit' files. Boys and girls are different, don't coddle your kids, etc.

I didn't form a strong opinion one way or the other. Many of his points I agreed with, but I remember thinking some were a little 'out there'.

[bobbiemcgee]

What possible reason does lame duck Ryan have to mess with the Jesuits?

[ChicagoX]

What possible reason does lame duck Ryan have to mess with the Jesuits?

Jesuits like helping poor people. GOP politicians...not so much.

[GoMuskies]

South Korean President Moon Jae-in says Trump should get the Nobel Peace Prize. Now, that may be a bit ridiculous, but it's certainly LESS ridiculous than Obama getting the Peace Prize for....winning an election.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-northkorea-southkorea-trump/south-korea-president-says-trump-deserves-nobel-peace-prize-idUSKBN1I10OD

[boozehound]

South Korean President Moon Jae-in says Trump should get the Nobel Peace Prize. Now, that may be a bit ridiculous, but it's certainly LESS ridiculous than Obama getting the Peace Prize for....winning an election.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-northkorea-southkorea-trump/south-korea-president-says-trump-deserves-nobel-peace-prize-idUSKBN1I10OD

Wow. That is a crazy thing to think about.

Having said that: If North Korea does, in fact, denuclearize this has to be a signature foreign policy win for the Trump administration, right? I'm a little suspicious about how serious North Korea is about getting rid of their nukes, but if they do follow though with and put an end to the Korean war that would be a major accomplishment that could shift how we think about foreign policy, at least with regard to 'rogue nations'. I guess Iran is next on the list?

[Juice]

Wow. That is a crazy thing to think about.

Having said that: If North Korea does, in fact, denuclearize this has to be a signature foreign policy win for the Trump administration, right? I'm a little suspicious about how serious North Korea is about getting rid of their nukes, but if they do follow though with and put an end to the Korean war that would be a major accomplishment that could shift how we think about foreign policy, at least with regard to 'rogue nations'. I guess Iran is next on the list?

After the news today of the documents revealing that Iran didn't stop their nuclear plans, I would hope so.

[ArizonaXUGrad]

After the news today of the documents revealing that Iran didn't stop their nuclear plans, I would hope so.

With Netanyahu being the source of that combined with his corruption charges, I am going to take it with a grain of salt.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Juice]

With Netanyahu being the source of that combined with his corruption charges, I am going to take it with a grain of salt.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

He's the main source for today's report. It's no secret that many believe that Iran hasn't ceased a damn thing since signing that wonderful nuclear deal with the great negotiator we once had as president.

[bobbiemcgee]

Maybe Israel should step up and take care of it, instead of constantly relying on the US.

[Caf]

Whether the nuclear deal is good is another discussion, but the consensus seems to be that Netanyahu is packaging old information as revelations. From WSJ:


Mr. Trump and critics of the 2015 agreement said the material shows why the deal should be overhauled or killed. But many experts and former officials said it provided no new information because the U.S., Europe and international nuclear inspectors have long held that Iran pursued a nuclear-weapons program until 2003 and that some of these activities continued as late as 2009.

Mr. Netanyahu said the documents—which he said Israel obtained from a hidden archive in Tehran, without specifying how—included 100,000 files on paper and disks, and show “Iran is brazenly lying when it says it never had a nuclear-weapons program.”

Mr. Netanyahu, displaying replicas of binders and CDs, said the 2015 agreement was a mistake and urged Mr. Trump to do “the right thing.” Iran’s false denials, he argued, represented a violation of the agreement.

There might be perfect correlation between politicians talking in front of stacks of paper and them bullshitting.

[ArizonaXUGrad]

I am not going to sit here and believe one thing Netanyahu spouts. Let’s wait and see what comes of his corruption and bribery charges.

At some point, there needs to be a world leader that is actually beyond reproach.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[xudash]

I am not going to sit here and believe one thing Netanyahu spouts. Let’s wait and see what comes of his corruption and bribery charges.

At some point, there needs to be a world leader that is actually beyond reproach.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes, by all means, let's assume the Iranians are good eggs with good intentions.

Which party is more likely to have the best interests of the United States in mind. Have you thought of that while you're sitting there?

[Juice]

Yes, by all means, let's assume the Iranians are good eggs with good intentions.

Which party is more likely to have the best interests of the United States in mind. Have you thought of that while you're sitting there?

We've had people side with Iran, Russia, and North Korea because they hate Trump so much (not necessarily on this board but in general). It's been a wild year or two.

[X-man]

We've had people side with Iran, Russia, and North Korea because they hate Trump so much (not necessarily on this board but in general). It's been a wild year or two.

Doesn't siding with Russia mean that they love Trump?

[ArizonaXUGrad]

Yes, by all means, let's assume the Iranians are good eggs with good intentions.

Which party is more likely to have the best interests of the United States in mind. Have you thought of that while you're sitting there?

Are you aware of how Israel operates in the region? Let’s not sit anywhere and think they are angels here. There are no good players in the Middle East.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[xudash]

Are you aware of how Israel operates in the region? Let’s not sit anywhere and think they are angels here. There are no good players in the Middle East.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Fully aware of it.

Yes, there are no true angels in the region.

BUT, the difference is that they are a strategic ally of the U.S. Their vengeful behavior is directed against fanatical Muslims who want them dead. So, sorry, they'll always get the benefit of the doubt from most true Americans, at least when the other specific choice is to argue in favor of the Iranians.

[bjf123]

There might be perfect correlation between politicians talking in front of stacks of paper and them bullshitting.

I really don’t think they need the stacks of paper for that!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk