The Political Discussion Thread

[thekillman]

So the tax bill isn't really going to help anyone but corporations now won't it?

It will help people other than big cooperations, as annoyed says. Doubtlessly various groups of people will benefit.

Which is why i'm quite surprised there isn't more discussion of the tax cut's bigger issues:

1: it'll grow the deficit by a massive amount (trillions, i think), despite the fact that the federal debt limit has been increased several times by now. Coupled with trump's wishes for multi-billion dollar walls, it's not clear what his plan is to actually ensure the debt doesn't become insurmountable.

2: despite what he keeps saying, this is a massive cut for Trump's own taxes, as well as the taxes of many of his friends and beneficiaries. I've seen numbers quoted like 15 million. Which brings me to the real issue: this cut disproportionally favors the rich.

Which brings me to this:

(pick one, or google another).
https://www.commondreams.org/news/20...ping-financial

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/11/13/po...ash/index.html

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...b0f76b05c4249e

Republicans aren't really hiding that this is really done because of their donors. I think Annoyed once dismissed carbon tax on the words of one UN official, so this should be all the evidence for him that this is really the aim. I also think people hated Hillary's Wallstreet connections, yet this is basically a paid-for favor.

3: while this is undeniably a good thing for many people on the short run, it's almost certainly a cigar out of their own box for the lesser-off. This bill will have to be paid (no such thing as a free meal, right? it's basically a trillion-dollar loan), and as Annoyed likes to remind us, will be paid by the middle-class. It'll probably take a while before the effects will be felt (For now, every debt extension has been narrowly averted with no more than a few days' shutdown at worst), but inevitably it'll have to be dealt with.

It's shortsighted. Although at this point i think trump's real agenda is to simply hollow out the government, delegitimize it's institutions and in a few years continue his shady business with nobody to check his actions. Because he really seems to hate people second-guessing or criticizing him, and really seems to make money off shady business (daddy's million-dollar illegal aid, university scams, numerous bankrupcies).

[aretood2]

Belgium itself was once cobbled together from different parts -- your point?
We didn't exist as a country before 1831.

I was referring to the middle east.

No moral high ground for Costa Rica:
In the close presidential election of 1948, Rafael Calderon fraudulently claimed victory over Otilio Ulate. The dispute precipitated a six-week civil war, resulting in over 2000 deaths. Jose Ferrer, a supporter of Ulate, assumed presidency for 18 months before deferring to Ulate.

No moral hight ground for the Maldives either:
The 2008 constitution established Islam as the official state religion. Non-Muslims cannot become citizens, and the People’s Majlis is prohibited from making any law that contravenes the tenets of Islam.
The highest legal authority is the Supreme Court. All judges must be Sunni Muslims.

Can Swiss claim moral high ground...
Damn it... no moral high ground for Switzerland...

We are talking about foreign policy. You are simply moving the goal posts.

However, might I add that we (Belgium that is) have acknowledged our black pages in history, our colonial past in the Congo. We made plenty mistakes, but we are taking responsibility for it.

Belgium Confronts Its Heart of Darkness; Unsavory Colonial Behavior in the Congo Will Be Tackled by a New Study
Article from 2002 -- the Museum mentioned only recently re-opened after being closed intermittently for repairs and reorganisations.

Do we really pretend?
Cause I don't feel like we do when I look back on my European history classes.

Your history classes don't stop your neighbors from constantly harping on the US like it is the only country who has ever done any wrong of any significance past and present.

Republicans aren't really hiding that this is really done because of their donors. I think Annoyed once dismissed carbon tax on the words of one UN official, so this should be all the evidence for him that this is really the aim. I also think people hated Hillary's Wallstreet connections, yet this is basically a paid-for favor.

When it comes to republicans, especially his populist friends, he finds ways of justifying these things.

[Annoyed]

Everyone likes to dismiss the idea of tax cuts spurring economic growth, but that idea is part of what's behind this plan. And despite the naysaying of the left, it does work.

I cite the 1990's as an example. During the 1980's, Reagan did big tax cuts too. And the 1990's saw an unprecedented economic expansion for most of the country* that ran for around 10 years until the dot.com bubble burst and triggered an economic downturn.

The problem with Reagan's plan is that he got the tax cuts, but he never got the spending cuts that went along with it. (Congress shafted him several times in this manner; immigration for example; Reagan granted amnesty to 6-ish? million illegals in the country in exchange for stepped up enforcement of immigration law to stem the flow of illegals into the country, we never got the enforcement part of that)

* An effective emphasis of the "tax cuts spur growth" strategy's effectiveness is the area I live in, Western NY state. NY state has had obscenely high taxation rates for decades, and as a result of those tax rates, that massive expansion bypassed this area. Quite a few very large employers such as General Electric, Xerox, Bauch & Lomb, Kodak and a host of others moved most of their facilities out of this region to escape NY's confiscatory tax rates.

[aretood2]

Everyone likes to dismiss the idea of tax cuts spurring economic growth, but that idea is part of what's behind this plan. And despite the naysaying of the left, it does work.

I cite the 1990's as an example. During the 1980's, Reagan did big tax cuts too. And the 1990's saw an unprecedented economic expansion for most of the country* that ran for around 10 years until the dot.com bubble burst and triggered an economic downturn.

The problem with Reagan's plan is that he got the tax cuts, but he never got the spending cuts that went along with it. (Congress shafted him several times in this manner; immigration for example; Reagan granted amnesty to 6-ish? million illegals in the country in exchange for stepped up enforcement of immigration law to stem the flow of illegals into the country, we never got the enforcement part of that)

* An effective emphasis of the "tax cuts spur growth" strategy's effectiveness is the area I live in, Western NY state. NY state has had obscenely high taxation rates for decades, and as a result of those tax rates, that massive expansion bypassed this area. Quite a few very large employers such as General Electric, Xerox, Bauch & Lomb, Kodak and a host of others moved most of their facilities out of this region to escape NY's confiscatory tax rates.

This is a great example of you ignoring facts. I mean, I've posted videos of the man himself arguing in his first primary for amnesty and you still float around the idea that it was hoisted upon him by democrats. Good grief.

I don't mind tax cuts myself. But they have to be smart. You can't just cut taxes to a multibillion corp and say "Economy fixed!" Those corps, if they wanted to expand they have the profit margins to do so. The people that should get the cuts are the small businesses, and middle level companies. The rich don't need tax cuts in their personal accounts. The middle and working classes do. But this was, as Trump himself said, mostly a big corporation tax cut. The lower middle class and the working class only get a temporary reprieve.

The real job creators aren't getting as much help from this cut as they should have. And not to mention, the big corps that are taking the cuts...they have a nack of not following through. And then I see these articles where they mention their normal pay raises and Christmas bonuses and try to pass them off as a result of the tax cut, I'm sure your populist compatriots bought into that easily

[thekillman]

Everyone likes to dismiss the idea of tax cuts spurring economic growth, but that idea is part of what's behind this plan. And despite the naysaying of the left, it does work.

There are also plenty of examples that it doesn't. But it's not really the argument i wanted to make. With the federal debt limit having been increased several times now, it's just irresponsible to lower taxes. The US invested billions into keeping the economy from going down the drain (and it worked. Not always as advertised, but it worked). It'll take some time to recover from that. You can't give away a trillion dollars in cuts and expect nothing to go wrong in a few years, with the current debt issue.

[aretood2]

There are also plenty of examples that it doesn't. But it's not really the argument i wanted to make. With the federal debt limit having been increased several times now, it's just irresponsible to lower taxes. The US invested billions into keeping the economy from going down the drain (and it worked. Not always as advertised, but it worked). It'll take some time to recover from that. You can't give away a trillion dollars in cuts and expect nothing to go wrong in a few years, with the current debt issue.

I do believe that it does, but only if done correctly. But yes, tax cuts should also be met with spending cuts. But there is also the issue of fiscal policy as a way to stabilize the economy. If inflation is taking hold, then increasing taxes and decreasing spending would be the way to go. But if the economy is contracting too much (heading towards high unemployment) raising spending and cutting taxes would actually be recomendable.

But the biggest failure here is people forgetting that here in the US states also play a huge role. The president can move heaven and earth to fix the economy, but all that effort can be for not if the governors work in the opposite direction.

Another issue to consider is....our inflation rate. If it is increasing too much then these tax cuts could cause trouble down the road.

[Coco Pops]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/report-uk...152217711.html


Serious question:

Why must the world bend over so not to offend Trump. Shouldn't Harry be allowed to invite whoever the hell he wants to his wedding?

[Gatefan1976]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/report-uk...152217711.html


Serious question:

Why must the world bend over so not to offend Trump. Shouldn't Harry be allowed to invite whoever the hell he wants to his wedding?

Tuck Frump

[Falcon Horus]

Serious question:

Why must the world bend over so not to offend Trump. Shouldn't Harry be allowed to invite whoever the hell he wants to his wedding?

The world doesn't bend over backwards -- but I guess, they'd rather not tick him off so he starts a war somewhere.

If I was Harry, I'd definitely invite Obama, especially to tick of the child in the WH.
I have a feeling, they will invite him and it will tick off the orange idiot as it should.

After all, Obama's still more popular than he is anyway.
His league is so far behind, he can erase the entire Obama era and still loose.

[Coco Pops]

The world doesn't bend over backwards -- but I guess, they'd rather not tick him off so he starts a war somewhere.

If I was Harry, I'd definitely invite Obama, especially to tick of the child in the WH.
I have a feeling, they will invite him and it will tick off the orange idiot as it should.

After all, Obama's still more popular than he is anyway.
His league is so far behind, he can erase the entire Obama era and still loose.

Can you imagine if they invite both?

[Annoyed]

Can you imagine if they invite both?

That's actually exactly what they ought to do.

[aretood2]

That's actually exactly what they ought to do.

They can sit Trump next to Erdogan and that nut job from the Philippines. They'll enjoy each other's company.

[Gatefan1976]

They can sit Trump next to Erdogan and that nut job from the Philippines. They'll enjoy each other's company.

Erdogan might not like that anymore, his view of frump has changed a little since he declared Jerusalem the capital of Israel.
But I am sure Duturte would still be happy.

[aretood2]

Erdogan might not like that anymore, his view of frump has changed a little since he declared Jerusalem the capital of Israel.
But I am sure Duturte would still be happy.

Put Erdogan with Maduro and Raul Castro, and swap in Putin in his place. Though, in another life, they would all get along rather well.

[Gatefan1976]

Put Erdogan with Maduro and Raul Castro, and swap in Putin in his place. Though, in another life, they would all get along rather well.

Do you really need another life?