Your totally baseless claims are false, but feel free to post any evidence to the contrary to bolster your case. Maybe you could post a video from Dukes of Hazard that explains your position.
Politics and Religion
- Thread starter Mr. Deez
- Start date
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
The campaign colluded, that is a fact based on the Trump tower meeting, Stone's interaction with Wickipedia and Manafort sharing polling data. The only question is whether Trump was involved or like I've always believed and merely looked the other way and used it as wind at his sails.
And yet unemployment is extremely low, growth is pretty high, and the federal government had record revenue in 2018. I think a lot of people could go for that kind of "failure."
If people want to criticize specific facets of the tax cut, that's fine. I've done that myself. However, coming from a party that views financial dumpster fires like Social Security and Medicare to be roaring success stories, summaily calling the tax cuts "failures" rings pretty hollow and laughably hypocritical.
Okay, what was said, and by whom, at the Trump Tower meeting?
Meanwhile we have Hillary actually funneling money to Russians.
Monahorns
10,000+ Posts
The Trump tower meeting was set up by a Russian lawyer who had ties back to Hillary and other in the Obama Administration.
The meeting was an attempt to entrap Trump. Even if the Russians had anything to share it still doesn't pass the definition of collusion. There had to cooperation in getting the information and then Trump had to use it.
Believe me if Mueller has anything that he can even twist to look like collusion he will use it to indict for collusion. He hasn't done that. He gets people for procedural things or crimes that have no tie to the 2016 election.
But go on deluding yourself that there was collusion.
The meeting was an attempt to entrap Trump. Even if the Russians had anything to share it still doesn't pass the definition of collusion. There had to cooperation in getting the information and then Trump had to use it.
Believe me if Mueller has anything that he can even twist to look like collusion he will use it to indict for collusion. He hasn't done that. He gets people for procedural things or crimes that have no tie to the 2016 election.
But go on deluding yourself that there was collusion.
Monahorns
10,000+ Posts
- the 2008 financial crisis had NOTHING to do with lack of regulation. there wasn't 1 regulation that was removed that would have prevented it and there isn't 1 regulation that was added after that would have prevented it. that claim is based on very lazy thinking.
- please name these judges that no one else has heard of
- prison reform. agree to your agreement
- welfare reform. Please educate. Farmers already receive huge subsidies what else do they need from my wallet?
- VA reform. the problem isn't money. the problem is supplying care not from a market system but a bureaucratic system. VA is a good example of centrally planned state healthcare. no amount of money given to it will solve the fundamental problem it has which is: a knowledge problem and a calculation problem. the bureau will never know enough to ration it out properly and it can't calculate what goods/services are most valuable to those who need care.
- the tax reform wasn't perfect, I wasn't benefited by it, but many were. People and companies get to choose what they do with their money. It is always a success when the government takes less of what isn't theirs.
It’s like the media is full of young people who don’t know how the world works. Consultants rarely have their own data, etc to throw around. They just add some commentary on top of publically available info. If the data was truly confidential and valuable, you better believe that would only be given under a hefty contract.
Wish our elected officials would remember that. 
OUBubba
5,000+ Posts
1. So, we're trusting unemployment rates now? We didn't trust them prior to 1/20/2017. And, they're on the same trendline that they've been on since 2009.
2. Has Revenue Risen in 2018? The record revenue actually shows a decline in revenue between 4 and 9 percent.
3. I've come across multiple references to a "sugar rush" related to the tax cuts.
I agree that a Dem talking about the deficit is hypocritical. Just slightly less hypocritical than a non-Dem spackling over the growing deficit since 1/20/2017.
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
Deficit spending during recessions are justifiable. Deficit spending when the economy is strong...idiotic.
OUBubba
5,000+ Posts
Trump Picks More ‘Not Qualified’ Judges (1) as judged by the American Bar Association. These are lifetime appointments.
Trade wars are so easy! Welcome - GovExec.com
I generally disagree on VA healthcare. The problem is that we have an arseload of newly diagnosed PTSD and we have a soldier in Afghanistan who was born AFTER the conflict began. I think our disability system is screwed up and the PTSD of the last 3 decades asymmetrical and urban warfare is helping skew things.
Monahorns
10,000+ Posts
I am fine with admitting that Trump picks some bad judges. Sounds plausible.
Never been a fan of tariffs and trade wars. There are other things we can do to help our economy. Like never having deficit spending. Even during recessions it isn't the solution. Aggregate demand doesn't cause recessions so stimulating demand doesn't help.
It doesn't matter what forms of healthcare the VA is poor at providing. What matter is that they are poor at providing because supply is dictated by bureaucracy and not the market. A functioning health care market would quickly respond to new needs.
Never been a fan of tariffs and trade wars. There are other things we can do to help our economy. Like never having deficit spending. Even during recessions it isn't the solution. Aggregate demand doesn't cause recessions so stimulating demand doesn't help.
It doesn't matter what forms of healthcare the VA is poor at providing. What matter is that they are poor at providing because supply is dictated by bureaucracy and not the market. A functioning health care market would quickly respond to new needs.
It isn't a matter of "trusting" them or not, but they're a significant part of the picture, along with economic growth, labor participation rate, wages, etc.
Yes, it has risen. Look at the raw numbers, not the woulda-coulda-shoulda spin. The tax cuts were supposed to cost $1.5T or $150B per year. It didn't happen. In fact, those horse crap predictions have never been accurate.
That kind of talk was said in the 1980s too, and we're still seeing the benefits of that "sugar rush."
They could have been slightly less hypocritical, but once they started getting on board with Medicare for All and the Green New Deal, they blew what little supposed credibility they had out the window. Rather than countering GOP fiscal irresponsibility with fiscal responsibility, they're countering it with lunacy. "Shame on you for charging $2,000 on the credit card. Just to show how reckless you are, we're going to charge $200,000 on the credit card."
OUBubba
5,000+ Posts
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ey-made-him-look-good/?utm_term=.3f3a72765e7a
The Tax Bill Did Not Cause Revenue to Rise
"Nominal revenue did increase, according to Treasury's fiscal year-end report, which shows that total federal tax revenue is up only $14 billion, or 0.4 percent, between FY 2018 and FY 2017. This revenue growth rate is the eighth lowest in the past 50 years, and the seven lower years either coincided with a recession or tax cuts/expiring tax increases enacted shortly after a recession.
However, this nominal increase is well below the rate of inflation – meaning that the value of revenue collection has actually declined in real terms. "
Is this inaccurate?
I don't necessarily disagree. Both sides could take a dose of anti-hypocrisy. That said, this whole Green New Deal is nothing that is going to happen. It's a pipe dream. Hopefully, it brings up some real policy discussion.
I can't open this.
It's accurate, but it runs counter to the idea that the tax cuts cost us money, which was the BS charge that Democrats put forth. If they were right, we wouldn't be talking about a "growth rate."
A policy discussion about nonsense isn't a serious discussion. Furthermore, our political media isn't competent to lead such a discussion. We constantly hear the belabored point about the tax cuts costing a bunch of revenue (which is false), but when we hear about the GND, I never hear talk about how it's going to be paid for with any kind of serious analysis. We hear about dumping the Trump tax cuts and cutting defense. Well, we could close the Pentagon and dump the Trump tax cuts, and it wouldn't even come close to paying just for the socialized medicine component of the GND. It would cover about 1/3 of it. But who's confronting Sanders or AOC about that? Nobody. Until we're ready to explain where that other couple trillion dollars per year are going to come from, there is no real policy discussion.
Statalyzer
10,000+ Posts
There were, however, several regulations that that were added before 2008 that might have caused it.
OUBubba
5,000+ Posts
if we could just have an adult conversation about migrating away from coal power. we could do it over decades.
We could, and frankly I'm all for transitioning away from fossil fuels. They aren't renewable, so we'll eventually run out or at least have a harder time extracting them. Furthermore, regardless of the climate change angle, they do pollute. Accordingly, it certainly makes sense to fund alternative fuel research.
However, when one side is demanding that we reorganize the entire economy and society and won't tell anybody how much it would cost or how it'll get funded, we can't have a serious discussion.
It's a bit like the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The Palestinians do have some legitimate points to make, but until they acknowledge Israel's right to exist, denounce aggressive violence, and stop with the Holocaust denial, it's not really possible to have a serious discussion with them.
Monahorns
10,000+ Posts
Th government shouldn't do anything about switching energy sources away from fossil fuels. The market can do it better. If people really value renewable energy over fossil fuels the switch will occur. Fossil fuels don't lead to much pollution these days but there may be sensitive areas where solar or wind make more sense today. But solar and wind come with their own huge environmental costs.
As fossil fuels run out the price of oil will go through the roof. Renewable will be there to take up the slack. Though you will need nuclear or some other active source so that load and capacity can be better controlled.
As fossil fuels run out the price of oil will go through the roof. Renewable will be there to take up the slack. Though you will need nuclear or some other active source so that load and capacity can be better controlled.
Anyone advocating getting away from fossil fuels, and yet does not have nuclear power at the top of their list of replacements, is unserious.
I wonder what all the fossil fuel deleters like AOC will be using to lube all the windmills on the windfarms? Those things take a couple of gallons of oil each to operate and that oil has to be changed regularly.
I wonder what all the fossil fuel deleters like AOC will be using to lube all the windmills on the windfarms? Those things take a couple of gallons of oil each to operate and that oil has to be changed regularly.
OUBubba
5,000+ Posts
Building a significant number of large new hydroelectric dams is also in order.
That's about the "greenest" form of BIG MW energy available under current technology. Yet so many supposedly "green" people either never talk about that, or actually oppose them!
Weighing the interests of society at large against a small number of disgruntled kayakers and some rare river cave worms, society at large wins.
The government pisses money away on so many useless things. I don't see much reason why it shouldn't spend some money developing renewable energy sources like it spent money on nuclear energy. And just to clarify, I do think we should pour a lot into nuclear power. We're crazy not to. We should put more into building nuclear plants and figuring out ways to manage and/or reuse the waste and make them safer (though they are already very safe).
Monahorns
10,000+ Posts
There is already tons of money being poured into renewable energy development. Are you advocating more subsidies?
My goal is that the government subsidizes less and less not more and more. I don't even advocate the government funding basic science research. Not sure what alternate system needs to be in place but private institutions supplied this in the past before government crowded it out.
Remember when government funds science it gets the science it wants. If you want less policy battles over things like the GND, you have to shift research funding to an entity that doesn't legislate and regulate.
My goal is that the government subsidizes less and less not more and more. I don't even advocate the government funding basic science research. Not sure what alternate system needs to be in place but private institutions supplied this in the past before government crowded it out.
Remember when government funds science it gets the science it wants. If you want less policy battles over things like the GND, you have to shift research funding to an entity that doesn't legislate and regulate.
I get your point, but the government has always spent money on scientific research. Some of it has been well-spent. Much if it hasn't been. But they've been doing it for a hell of a long time, and it isn't going to stop. Given that, they may as well spend some on something worthwhile such as better nuclear power plants.
Weekly Prediction Contest
* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC
Recent Threads
-
The Media Industry
- Started by texas_ex2000
- Replies: 8K
- West Mall
-
President Biden Accountability Thread
- Started by 2003TexasGrad
- Replies: 4K
- West Mall
Prediction Results Threads
