POLITICAL THREAD
- Thread starter kybobcat
- Start date
They could probably start with cutting your job, Fuzz, if they want to eliminate waste. Zing.
Who has more incentive to get rid of waste? A private company that is dependent upon sales of their product or a Government agency that has a seemingly unlimited amount of guaranteed cash in which to operate?
Oh, it's called Continuous Improvement. You will never get rid of "waste", or what I call inefficiencies as long as technology keeps improving.
As I said yesterday, we will never agree on this topic.
There's a fundamental difference in how we view income and taxation. You will never convince me federal spending should be the starting point, and the people should only be able to keep the remainder of the money they earn after the government pays for all the $10,000 hammers it wants to buy.
I guess when you deal with taxes all day, and see the true numbers people and businesses are sending to the government, you get a different viewpoint. There's only so much you can do to legally drive down your tax liability in the US. At the end of the day, tax rates are what they are.
There's a fundamental difference in how we view income and taxation. You will never convince me federal spending should be the starting point, and the people should only be able to keep the remainder of the money they earn after the government pays for all the $10,000 hammers it wants to buy.
I guess when you deal with taxes all day, and see the true numbers people and businesses are sending to the government, you get a different viewpoint. There's only so much you can do to legally drive down your tax liability in the US. At the end of the day, tax rates are what they are.
We're never going to get it through Fuzz's head that people using the money they earn as they see fit is 20 trillion times different that the federal government shitting away the money it confiscates from people.
Yes Fuzz, you are right. There will always be waste within the federal government and there is no way to completely eliminate it. That's why I believe in keeping the government as small as possible. The less they have, the less they can waste. Cutting down what they have the ability to waste is the best way to curb it.
![[eyeroll]](http://l.yimg.com/j/assets/img/emoticons/rolleye/rolleye0011.r191677.gif "Eye roll [eyeroll]")
As I've said before, inheritance have already been taxed. Essentially, the $15K exemption gives an undue benefit to the people that it would impact. Interesting that you bring up a scriptural reference. Do not doubt that I believe we have a responsibility to care for the poor, thus I believe I will answer as to how I've used the gifts and resources bestowed upon me. That will be between the Lord and me. The government has no role in that issue. Caring for the poor may be the ethical, religious, etc...right thing to do, but that is a decision to be made according to one's free will. The gov does not have a dog in that fight. Nor is it the role of government to force anyone to take care of anyone else's needs.
IMO, no person should benefit from the system anymore than others thus my view re: the flat tax with limited deductions that would most likely benefit lower and middle class people.
Philosophically, we may be in agreement on some issues. However, it appears we have divergent views on the approach to dealing with those issues.
My view on taxation is that it should equate to the level of spending. IDGAF if you start with spending and work your way to taxation or vise versa. Just quit kicking the can down the road.
I believe that our representatives who vote on spending and taxing should be required balance the two. That tax cuts require equal cuts in spending, increases in spending would require tax hikes. If you want to cut social programs and have the votes to do so, cut them.
It wasn't that long ago that conservatives were calling for a balanced budget amendment...but then they realized they might actually have to make some tough decisions and couldn't just willy-nilly call for tax cuts every year without actually saying EXACTLY what it is that they wanted to cut. It sounds like you want to be just as irresponsible if you think it will benefit you.
Calling for tax cuts when we are running budget deficits is irresponsible.
Of course most of those $10,000 are being purchased by the Pentagon who some seem to think needs more money. Hypocrisy?
My view on defense spending is well documented. So the hypocrisy accusations can go right up your ass alongside your head.
I WANT to cut spending. I don't want to run budget deficits. Maybe cutting taxes will drive up revenue. Only time will tell.
A while back, a POTUS asked me, "where yooooo dolla". And you know what, he's right.
I want to cut spending. But Washington, and you lefties (including the establishment Rs) far moreso than conservatives, refuse to cut a single dime of spending. So fvck it. Spending creates deficits. Not tax cuts.
I'm tired of being told we can't cut a single dime of spending, but I also can't keep anymore of my money because to do that we'd have to cut spending.
Me, my kids and grandkids aren't ever going to be able to pay off the $20 trillion of debt that's already been tied around our necks. At this point another meaningless few trillion so I can keep some more of my hard earned difference really doesn't make a goddam bit of difference to me.
You didn't care about the national debt when the past $10 trillion were added. So all you lefties can go **** yourselves if you think I'm going to start paying attention to your whining now.
I WANT to cut spending. I don't want to run budget deficits. Maybe cutting taxes will drive up revenue. Only time will tell.
A while back, a POTUS asked me, "where yooooo dolla". And you know what, he's right.
I want to cut spending. But Washington, and you lefties (including the establishment Rs) far moreso than conservatives, refuse to cut a single dime of spending. So fvck it. Spending creates deficits. Not tax cuts.
I'm tired of being told we can't cut a single dime of spending, but I also can't keep anymore of my money because to do that we'd have to cut spending.
Me, my kids and grandkids aren't ever going to be able to pay off the $20 trillion of debt that's already been tied around our necks. At this point another meaningless few trillion so I can keep some more of my hard earned difference really doesn't make a goddam bit of difference to me.
You didn't care about the national debt when the past $10 trillion were added. So all you lefties can go **** yourselves if you think I'm going to start paying attention to your whining now.
Trump called Elizabeth Warren 'Pocahontas' during his NRA speech lol
Regardless of your personal beliefs government is a "team game". The people we have elected have put our dog in the fight so to claim it doesn't is to deny reality.
We have to live in the real world and deal with the "as is". We made the decision as a "team" to care for the poor so funding to do so must be allocated.
As I said before...every dollar has been previously taxed and is taxed over and over again and again each time it changes hands. Inheritance is no different.
I most certainly did. I cared about it back in 1980 when it was $800 billion and Ronny promised us he'd balance the budget. He left office with a $2.4T debt.
Oh, so you care about the debt when Republicans are in office, but not the past $10 trillion like I said.
he would just show up the next day pretending to be someone else.
yep...can see ole rq ranting to some HR fattie about nordic labor squatters rights and Reagan's illegal dismissal of air traffic controllers. zero doubt the nut job has been tased at some point in his life.Didn't George Costanza pull some stunt like that on Seinfeld once?![[laughing]](http://l.yimg.com/j/assets/img/emoticons/classic/laugh.r191677.gif "Laughing [laughing]")
Good points Bernie, but I would rather see the truth be shown to cardkilla via a good old fashioned curb stomping. Ah, the fantasies.
Rich Kids Duped Into Fyre Music Festival Debacle In Bahamas - All Hell Breaking Loose, Ja Rule Involved
Check this zerohedge link out about this mess. Next time they should promise a music festival and fly them to the middle of syria. Probably safer.
For the record I saw Ja Rule in concert during a festival with several stages set up at once. By far the worst performance ever.
Check this zerohedge link out about this mess. Next time they should promise a music festival and fly them to the middle of syria. Probably safer.
For the record I saw Ja Rule in concert during a festival with several stages set up at once. By far the worst performance ever.
Documents Tie Berkeley Riot Organizers To Pro-Pedophilia Group, NAMBLA
The left-wing activists behind the anti-conservative riots at Berkeley have ties to one of the nation’s most prominent pro-pedophilia organizations.
The Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, Integration & Immigrant Rights, and Fight for Equality By Any Means Necessary — more commonly referred to as By Any Means Necessary or BAMN — is one of the militant leftist groups waging a campaign against conservatives and Trump supporters in Berkeley.
BAMN’s parent organization worked directly with the North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) in the years just before it founded BAMN, according to NAMBLA documents reviewed by The Daily Caller. In addition, a member of that parent organization said to have founded BAMN is an admitted member of NAMBLA, which she has described as the victim of a “witch-hunt.”
An anonymous group of researchers provided TheDC with copies of internal NAMBLA publications. The internet sleuths requested anonymity, citing fear of retaliation by BAMN members, and asked instead to be collectively referred to as, “The shadowy and/or mysterious organization known as Antifaleaks.”
The University of Michigan’s Joseph Labadie Special Collection maintains copies of the NAMBLA documents.
NAMBLA’s bulletin, reviewed by TheDC, described at one of its conferences the “participation of Revolutionary Workers League, a Trotskyite group centered in the Detroit area. RWL is supportive of gay rights in general and NAMBLA in particular.” The journal contained details of the organization’s conferences and activities, as well as detailed, erotic stories about naked young boys.
I wasn't able to read your link (like unfortunately many other websites in this day and age, there is so much slop on zerohedge that my hoopty computer can't keep it from crashing). So, I googled it and read an article about it on NYT. Amazingly, the majority of the commenters were getting a hearty laugh about these "millennial snowflakes" getting their comeuppance.
I hate millennial snowflakes as much as anyone, but what happened here is absolute bullshit. I love it when the snowflakes go nuts on Twitter over some un-PC comment from Trump or Milo or whoever, but they're going to nuts about this debacle on Twitter, as well, and this is totally different. These people paid good money for a good vacation- in some cases, REAL money. They got ripped off. Some heads need to roll over this- and I bet that the culprits who need to be decapitated are mostly American and NOT Bahamian.
MSM so fake Germany's media is even calling them out.
German Paper: US Media Got It Wrong, Ivanka Wasn’t Booed
US media reports that Ivanka Trump was booed in Germany are false, according to German paper Bild.
“Many people were surprised by Ivanka Trump’s performance in Berlin. Contrary to the stereotype, the daughter of the US President made a sophisticated and level-headed impression at the panel discussion with Chancellor Angela Merkel, Queen Máxima of the Netherlands, and head of the IMF, Christine Lagarde. The glamorous White House ambassador also cleverly handled a controversial issue,” the paper reports.
“US media, however, are focusing on something else: they claim that Ivanka was booed and sneered at.”
According to the paper, there was nothing like US media outlets reported. CNN reported that Ivanka was booed and hissed by the crowd when she defended her father. ”Ivanka Trump Got Jeered in Germany, and Late Night Joins In,” wrote The New York Times. Time Magazine devoted not one but two stories to pushing the narrative that Ivanka was booed. The Washington Post pushed out a piece titled, “Germany booed Ivanka Trump. America says she doesn’t belong in the White House.”
According to Bild, however, such claims by the media didn’t resembles what actually happened. “There was no booing or heckling at all, however,” Bild reports.
“This makes it even more surprising that US media are painting an entirely different picture of Ivanka’s appearance in Berlin. The murmuring that could be heard as Ivanka defended her father against criticism was interpreted as massive booing of the President’s daughter."
German Paper: US Media Got It Wrong, Ivanka Wasn’t Booed
US media reports that Ivanka Trump was booed in Germany are false, according to German paper Bild.
“Many people were surprised by Ivanka Trump’s performance in Berlin. Contrary to the stereotype, the daughter of the US President made a sophisticated and level-headed impression at the panel discussion with Chancellor Angela Merkel, Queen Máxima of the Netherlands, and head of the IMF, Christine Lagarde. The glamorous White House ambassador also cleverly handled a controversial issue,” the paper reports.
“US media, however, are focusing on something else: they claim that Ivanka was booed and sneered at.”
According to the paper, there was nothing like US media outlets reported. CNN reported that Ivanka was booed and hissed by the crowd when she defended her father. ”Ivanka Trump Got Jeered in Germany, and Late Night Joins In,” wrote The New York Times. Time Magazine devoted not one but two stories to pushing the narrative that Ivanka was booed. The Washington Post pushed out a piece titled, “Germany booed Ivanka Trump. America says she doesn’t belong in the White House.”
According to Bild, however, such claims by the media didn’t resembles what actually happened. “There was no booing or heckling at all, however,” Bild reports.
“This makes it even more surprising that US media are painting an entirely different picture of Ivanka’s appearance in Berlin. The murmuring that could be heard as Ivanka defended her father against criticism was interpreted as massive booing of the President’s daughter."
The biggest joke from the NYT is that most commentators seem to believe that these kids are "1%" Trump voters, and base their comments accordingly. I would guarantee that these kids voted 80%+ for Hillary.
Doesn't matter. What happened was still bullshit.
Doesn't matter. What happened was still bullshit.
Clinton Pollster: Trump’s Support Is ‘5 Or 6 Points Better’ Than Polls Suggest
As President Trump enters his 100th day, several of the same organizations are using their polls to proclaim that he has had the worst start of any modern president and the worst ratings of a president at this time in his presidency. While Trump is no FDR when it comes to forming a political coalition, a fairer reading of the polls and the election results shows his performance is probably 5 or 6 points better than is being touted and that his base of support with which he won the election remains intact.
There are several reasons for this mismatch between likely reality and the interpretations we are seeing. Most polls have moved away from voters or likely voters to U.S. adults with no screen for registration or even citizenship. And the questions often focus on storylines and narratives critical of Trump. Rarely are they written from the perspective of having missed the major swings and economic discontent that upended the election.
The current crop of stories also sets Trump ratings expectations, as though America went through the typical process of coming together around the winner. Instead we had recounts, Russian conspiracies, investigations and rallies unlike any seen after any election. The country was sharply politically divided on Election Day and remains that way today. That is the backdrop of any realistic assessment of what is happening in America.
But there are some facts and trends that are being missed in the polls.
First, Trump is likely NOT at 40 percent approval with the American electorate. He is likely higher. Trump got 46.1 percent of the popular vote, several million votes less than Clinton did, but neither candidate got a majority. Six million voters opted for a libertarian candidate and most of those votes would never go to a liberal Democrat. And when all of the congressional votes were tallied, Republicans got 3 million more votes than the Democrats and won a majority of both the popular vote and of the seats in Congress.
The recent special election in Georgia came out about the same as the Trump/Hillary vote, with Republicans nosing out Democrats. As The Washington Post poll reported, a replay of the Trump/Hillary race would today come out more for Trump than Hillary.
So what is the disconnect between polls that show his job rating at 40 and the electoral results? The major network polls all now report “U.S adults” as the sampling frame, not people who voted in the last election or expect to vote in the next one. The non-voters include 11 million undocumented aliens and a lot of folks who liked neither candidate and stayed home, as well as younger people who have lower rates of participation. These polls should not be confused with the views of the American electorate.
If you look just at the past voters, Trump is holding his base – The Washington Post said that 94 percent of Trump voters approve of the job he is doing. That would be 43.1 percent of the voting electorate. Trump then conservatively gets 10 percent approval from the remaining voters (30 percent from voters to other candidates and 8 percent among Clinton voters) which would give him another 5 percent or about 48 percent approval among the group that voted in the last election. That’s a more realistic assessment. And attitudes towards the economy are surging, which is usually good news for whoever occupies the White House.
But another piece of this polling bubble is also created by the narrow questioning in many of the polls. Many of the hot-button issues and expressions Trump uses are rarely if ever polled compared to questions about Russian election interference. No major poll in five years had polled on the support for local law enforcement contacting immigration authorities when they arrest someone, for instance. While many polls have picked up the genuine sympathy Americans have for “Dreamers” or for those who work hard and pay taxes, none of the polls examined what they think should be done with undocumented aliens who are arrested for crimes, or the deep support out there for something like Kate’s law.
Trump campaigned on a unique set of issues that indicted bad trade deals for economic dislocation, supported the police over the Black Lives Matter movement, called for making NATO members pay their fair share, and deporting criminal undocumented aliens. He called for repeal and replacing ObamaCare, lower taxes, more immigration police and a border wall paid for by Mexico.
You will find plenty of polling on what a bad idea Americans think the wall is and on the “Muslim ban” (often without even mentioning security), but where is the polling on the rest of his themes and messages? On the power of “Buy American, Hire American”? On tax cuts to stimulate jobs?
That was the ultimate mistake of 2016 and the polling bubble: The election turned not on Hollywood Access or Huma Abadein’s laptop, it turned on serious issues too easily dismissed by polling focused on Trump’s temperament, conflict of interest, tweets and Russian conspiracies. And because none of the pollsters or analysts saw it that way, they concluded that Trump, the developer/entertainer, could not possibly win even if the polls had in fact tightened up.
So as we enter the second hundred days, Trump has not crossed the 50 percent mark to expand his base, but he is also not down at 40 percent. On key issues he has a lot of support, especially when it comes to America being taken advantage of by its allies and trading partners, failing to stand up to its red lines, and the need for change that drains the corruption and gridlock of Washington. Don’t let the polling bubble obscure the fact that the forces – pro and con – that produced the surprise upset last November are just as powerful today.
As President Trump enters his 100th day, several of the same organizations are using their polls to proclaim that he has had the worst start of any modern president and the worst ratings of a president at this time in his presidency. While Trump is no FDR when it comes to forming a political coalition, a fairer reading of the polls and the election results shows his performance is probably 5 or 6 points better than is being touted and that his base of support with which he won the election remains intact.
There are several reasons for this mismatch between likely reality and the interpretations we are seeing. Most polls have moved away from voters or likely voters to U.S. adults with no screen for registration or even citizenship. And the questions often focus on storylines and narratives critical of Trump. Rarely are they written from the perspective of having missed the major swings and economic discontent that upended the election.
The current crop of stories also sets Trump ratings expectations, as though America went through the typical process of coming together around the winner. Instead we had recounts, Russian conspiracies, investigations and rallies unlike any seen after any election. The country was sharply politically divided on Election Day and remains that way today. That is the backdrop of any realistic assessment of what is happening in America.
But there are some facts and trends that are being missed in the polls.
First, Trump is likely NOT at 40 percent approval with the American electorate. He is likely higher. Trump got 46.1 percent of the popular vote, several million votes less than Clinton did, but neither candidate got a majority. Six million voters opted for a libertarian candidate and most of those votes would never go to a liberal Democrat. And when all of the congressional votes were tallied, Republicans got 3 million more votes than the Democrats and won a majority of both the popular vote and of the seats in Congress.
The recent special election in Georgia came out about the same as the Trump/Hillary vote, with Republicans nosing out Democrats. As The Washington Post poll reported, a replay of the Trump/Hillary race would today come out more for Trump than Hillary.
So what is the disconnect between polls that show his job rating at 40 and the electoral results? The major network polls all now report “U.S adults” as the sampling frame, not people who voted in the last election or expect to vote in the next one. The non-voters include 11 million undocumented aliens and a lot of folks who liked neither candidate and stayed home, as well as younger people who have lower rates of participation. These polls should not be confused with the views of the American electorate.
If you look just at the past voters, Trump is holding his base – The Washington Post said that 94 percent of Trump voters approve of the job he is doing. That would be 43.1 percent of the voting electorate. Trump then conservatively gets 10 percent approval from the remaining voters (30 percent from voters to other candidates and 8 percent among Clinton voters) which would give him another 5 percent or about 48 percent approval among the group that voted in the last election. That’s a more realistic assessment. And attitudes towards the economy are surging, which is usually good news for whoever occupies the White House.
But another piece of this polling bubble is also created by the narrow questioning in many of the polls. Many of the hot-button issues and expressions Trump uses are rarely if ever polled compared to questions about Russian election interference. No major poll in five years had polled on the support for local law enforcement contacting immigration authorities when they arrest someone, for instance. While many polls have picked up the genuine sympathy Americans have for “Dreamers” or for those who work hard and pay taxes, none of the polls examined what they think should be done with undocumented aliens who are arrested for crimes, or the deep support out there for something like Kate’s law.
Trump campaigned on a unique set of issues that indicted bad trade deals for economic dislocation, supported the police over the Black Lives Matter movement, called for making NATO members pay their fair share, and deporting criminal undocumented aliens. He called for repeal and replacing ObamaCare, lower taxes, more immigration police and a border wall paid for by Mexico.
You will find plenty of polling on what a bad idea Americans think the wall is and on the “Muslim ban” (often without even mentioning security), but where is the polling on the rest of his themes and messages? On the power of “Buy American, Hire American”? On tax cuts to stimulate jobs?
That was the ultimate mistake of 2016 and the polling bubble: The election turned not on Hollywood Access or Huma Abadein’s laptop, it turned on serious issues too easily dismissed by polling focused on Trump’s temperament, conflict of interest, tweets and Russian conspiracies. And because none of the pollsters or analysts saw it that way, they concluded that Trump, the developer/entertainer, could not possibly win even if the polls had in fact tightened up.
So as we enter the second hundred days, Trump has not crossed the 50 percent mark to expand his base, but he is also not down at 40 percent. On key issues he has a lot of support, especially when it comes to America being taken advantage of by its allies and trading partners, failing to stand up to its red lines, and the need for change that drains the corruption and gridlock of Washington. Don’t let the polling bubble obscure the fact that the forces – pro and con – that produced the surprise upset last November are just as powerful today.
"My view on taxation is that it should equate to the level of spending."
The above quote is scary and telling. Democrats want to spend until we have no more money left and then tax you more so they can spend more. Moronic approach to taxation. The level of stupid in that quote exceeds the amount of stupid one should ingest in a year..
The above quote is scary and telling. Democrats want to spend until we have no more money left and then tax you more so they can spend more. Moronic approach to taxation. The level of stupid in that quote exceeds the amount of stupid one should ingest in a year..
Last edited:
Just saw the local news cover the Transylvania attacks. Saying it was a guy who used a hatchet on people who weren't Republicans. In custody. Glad to hear the details because when it happened I was afraid it sounded like terrorism.
I volunteer for the job. I would sing the battle hymn of the republic to add insult to serious injury.
What point are you trying to make..that eliminating waste is impossible? Okay. Doesn't mean that the private sector isnt way better at it than government. Government is absolutely efficient at nothing in anything. But here's an idea, if cutting waste is a priority, and the government wasn't trying to rob money from ppl at every single opportunity it has, then there would be a niche for a new industry to start to eliminate waste and companies would have funds to spend on said industry. Which is exactly what musk is proving...he finds a way to eliminate waste, he approaches industry of how to eliminate waste...they pay money for him to eliminate waste, creates jobs, etc, runs efficiently bc there is motive for profit all the way around..government shown they are unnecessary once again bc they don't care about efficiently they get money all the same...they will try to find ways to take money put their hands all over it and regulate with beaucracy only so they can inefficiently blow more money.
Ok, I'll agree to that, but I want to be close enough that I get a good blood spatter pattern on my shirt.
I saw a now-famous Internet photo of some biker giving Cardkilla a wedgie in Berkeley. It was hilarious.
Been sitting on this one for a while, eh?
You're seriously touting a 1 in 50 success rate in the terror game? Desperate much? Depraved much?
You do know that if conservatives had their way we'd still be in serfdom with a King ruling over us and a bunch of slaves in the back. They have literally fought for the 'status quo' since the Renaissance. And Elon Musk is a progressive and a flipping immigrant to boot.
The hypocrisy on the tax cuts imploding the deficit are hilarious though...and not minutely surprising. It didn't work for Reagan, didn't work for Bush I and it won't work now. The only reason it somewhat worked for Reagan is because the economy was god awful thanks to Nixon with ridiculous interest rates and a really high upper income tax rate. 15% corporate tax rate is an absolute joke. Only the wealthy benefit from this and since me and everyone on this board aren't there yet, nope.
Jesus Christ do you actually believe the bullshit you post on here?
Do you understand how economics work? Honest to God how any American can be against tax cuts is mind boggling. If a corporation can make more money, it will do more to make that money. If it does more to make that money, it requires workers and capital. Money that is infused into the economy that now isn't.
It's not GD rocket science!
Do you understand the difference between ILLEGAL immigration and legal immigration?
Conservatives aren't against immigration, it's the illegal part that is a stickler.
