Comey Testimony

[OUBubba]

That's another matter. If we're talking about spending cuts, JFK didn't do it either. And don't be duped into the superficial mindset that the president is primarily responsible for spending. Congress writes and passes spending legislation.



And what difference did that make? Growth was already underway a year before he took office. Furthermore, you leave out the fact that the income tax hike was followed by a sharp reduction in the capital gains rate and a child tax credit. (Just FYI - I think capital gains should be taxed as ordinary income, but that's beside the point.)

And I'm still looking for the list of presidents who did Reaganomics in reverse and saw success.

That may take a while.

Apparently, I bought into the JFK myth as well: https://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2011/01/26/the-myth-of-jfk-as-supply-side-tax-cutter

I think either system will work as well as the other IF you do it with discipline. We're short on that on both sides of the isle. Additionally, I'm not an economist but I don't think switching back and forth from supply side economics to Keynsian principles every 4-10 years is helpful.

 

[Mr. Deez]

That may take a while.

Apparently, I bought into the JFK myth as well: https://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2011/01/26/the-myth-of-jfk-as-supply-side-tax-cutter

I think either system will work as well as the other IF you do it with discipline. We're short on that on both sides of the isle. Additionally, I'm not an economist but I don't think switching back and forth from supply side economics to Keynsian principles every 4-10 years is helpful.

The constant is that spending virtually always increases because of political pressures. Only the size of increase varies. Nobody does anything with discipline, because the public isn't disciplined.

The merit that supply side economics delivers is that it promotes growth, which boosts revenue.

 

[iatrogenic]

To do supply side economics correctly you have to decrease spending in an amount corresponding to the amount that you're decreasing taxes.

This would make sense if it made any sense at all. Tax receipts by the federal government increased during the Reagan Administration in all but one of the years from 1981-1988. He cut TAX RATES. In fact, during the last year of his administration, the government collected $391billion more in taxes than during any year under Carter. In percentage terms, the government took in 76% more in taxes that year than in any year of any other administration. In addition, the "rich" paid more in taxes after the tax rate cuts, and they paid a higher percentage of all of the taxes paid in the country.

Those that cannot understand concrete empirical evidence, such as OUBubba, suffer from something d o o education. Anyone? Anyone? That's right, doo doo education.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Any of you guys want to argue with Dershowitz?

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017...nd-all-democratic-commentators-are-wrong.html

He brings up a good point. How can the president be accused of obstruction when he could just pardon the person regardless (and kill the investigation right then and there).

If this article is accurate, Bob Mueller and his team disagree with you and Derschowitz. Oh...there is still article 1 of Nixon's impeachment too that deflates Derschowitz' argument.

 

[mchammer]

If this article is accurate, Bob Mueller and his team disagree with you and Derschowitz. Oh...there is still article 1 of Nixon's impeachment too that deflates Derschowitz' argument.

GOP is not going to vote for impeachment for political obstruction. Legal obstruction has a much higher bar that requires something like bribery, black mail, etc.

 

[Seattle Husker]

GOP is not going to vote for impeachment for political obstruction. Legal obstruction has a much higher bar that requires something like bribery, black mail, etc.

You are correct that the GOP will not promote an impeachment case unless the evidence of Mueller's investigation is too great to ignore. Of course, this investigation will likely take years which should but up against Trump's re-election attempt. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be investigated and/or didn't occur depending on the evidence. I'll let Mueller's investigation play out before banging the "impeachment" gong.

 

[Brad Austin]

Legal obstruction has a much higher bar that requires something like bribery, black mail, etc.

There's no way in hell DT gets impeached for obstruction without severely damning, concrete evidence. The same way HRC skated by on mountains of provable evidence.

She was protected by POTUS, DOJ and FBI, but the same latitudes will apply to DT in Congress and the evidence against him will never come anywhere near HRC's level.

Without an irrefutable smoking gun it won't happen no matter how high the deck is stacked against him with the MSM, Dems, special counsel, etc.

The most Mueller can do is conclude obstruction took place and present the evidence to the House for impeachment consideration.

It then requires a simple majority in the Republican dominated house (239-194) to impeach (charge with obstruction).

With 433 seats occupied (2 vacant) they'd need 217 votes for a majority...23 Reps would have to flip assuming all Dems stick together.

Nearly all considering the flip would be scared to death of making the guaranteed list of Reps who stabbed DT in the back blasted on every Conservative news site.

Good luck getting that outcome when all those guys face 2018 elections and know damn well half their base will desert them unless the evidence was beyond reproach.

IMHO, it'll be harder to pass the actual impeachment than convict in Senate. There's much more to answer for at the polls at stake and this directly effects their own base.

If impeachment passed it would take a 2/3 majority (67 votes) in the Rep controlled Senate (52-46-2) to convict and remove from office.

With 100 Senators, Dems would need to flip 19 Reps to get there. Or better yet, DT would only need to lock down 34 allies.

As I said, no way in hell he gets convicted of obstruction without rock solid evidence of smoking gun stature. He said/she said and implied meanings won't make a dent.

The whole thing is just the next lame Lib pipe dream once collusion blew up in their face. I'm sure they'll be another hysterical overthrow scheme once obstruction is ruled out.

Gonna be funny come 2018 elections when the public realizes the Dems spent the last two years stirring up false claims to obstruct and take down DT.

All the while offering zero new improvements that help the American people to their already dying platform. Plus the added dimension of constant hysteria and violence.

 

[nashhorn]

One thing I think you may be ignoring, or just overlooking, is how serious is the distaste for the Donald within his own party. I'm beginning to feel there is an undertone of animosity towards the 'outsider' that gets clouded out of public view. My feeling is there is a crowd within the party that privately says "go for it" with the Russia innuendos, etc. but will make passive comments of support publicly. The elitist of Washington don't like his being there, imo.

 

[I35]

I'm beginning to feel there is an undertone of animosity towards the 'outsider' that gets clouded out of public view.

That's because he's a threat to the good ole boys club. The GOP Establishment is worried that he'll change their way of life. It's like the employee that gets away with showing up for work an hour late and leaves an hour early. He gets a new boss and he actually now has to be on time and work all of his hours.

 

[Brad Austin]

One thing I think you may be ignoring, or just overlooking, is how serious is the distaste for the Donald within his own party.

I've considered this point a lot. But the party knows they live and die at the hands of the base. I'll explain further down. Yes I agree the distaste is real, especially in the Senate.

Which is a big factor in my believing there's a far less chance of DT being impeached in the House than convicted in the Senate.

Senators (except those up for re-election next cycle) have more flexibility to be stubborn, selfish pricks and can stab away at will.

DT seems to have really solid support in the House within his own party. Plus House Reps answer to the voter every two years.

Even if they wanted to stab DT, and make no mistake an impeachment vote is a beheading, they know there'll be hell to pay in 2018.

Don't underestimate how aware vote conscious Rep House members (and Senators with coming elections) are that they're on a new playing field.

With DT, most have realized at least half their support now identifies more with the MAGA platform than the splintering and in-fighting within the Rep party factions.

IMHO, DT's platform has secured more loyalty within the base now than the party has. Reading articles at conservative news sites shows this overwhelmingly in the comments. Any Rep who goes after DT is typically slaughtered by the masses.