All Purpose News and Politics Thread Part IV: The Center Cannot Hold

[Detox]

Reuters poll shows that in the past week, Americans leaned +8 towards impeaching Trump, with it now standing a a virtual dead heat of 42/40.

Robert Mueller still is being called to testify before Congress to elaborate on his report (which still has a bunch of Trump crimes redacted in the summary, that were relayed to other prosecutors).

And i'm sure he's chomping at the bit. I can't wait for it, personally.

[WestPhillyPunisher]

Soooooooooo has something to hide.

Yeah, Mango Mussolini is falling back on his old trick: when all else fails and the hounds are nipping at his heels----FILE LAWSUITS!

Of course, of course. Of course this happened.

I'm sure all those kids were just DYING to hear about egg farmers, records being set in the stock market, low unemployment numbers and how great the military is. Let's get real here, folks, Stevie Wonder could see Trump aimed that speech at his base, NOT the crowd on the White House lawn since it was being televised. Anyone who thinks that wasn't the case is naïve on steroids.

[Tuck]

Electoral college was originally created to put the slave-owning states on equal footing as the free states for the power to elect the President of the United States.

Why the electoral college was chosen as the way to elect the President is speculation. Any notes from the Constitutional Convention on how to choose the President are a bit chaotic. It comes up and gets tabled repeatedly. Congress elects the President to one seven-year term. An elected monarch (Hamilton's idea, after which he was basically told to shut up).

The idea of electors originally came from James Wilson as a way to deal with the fact that the average voter in Massachusetts would have little knowledge of a qualified candidate from Georgia and vice versa, but that he would likely know of a well-traveled local citizen he trusted to vote on his behalf.

Other ideas came up between that and the Electoral College, but there's no connective tissue in any writing that really says how they got from A to B at the Convention. (The Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers were saies pitches after the fact, with the former specifically aimed at New Yorkers. They need to be taken in that context.)

[The Overlord]

You don't seem to be responding to my specific points, so I'm getting the impression you want someone conservative to explain their view on fiscal issues that matter to you. I'll do my best, although these are complex issues on which people have written books, and at the very least, extensive articles.

I'd agree Republicans are failing to be fiscally responsible. It's not a scam as much as it is politicians having an easier time make promising than governing, and Trump deciding that McCain and Romney lost largely because they ran on messages of fiscal responsibility, which leads him to go in a different direction. In a two party system, it doesn't immediately follow that Republicans who wish the party could be more fiscally responsible would support the Democrats, or find their policies fiscally responsible.

As for health care costs, it's a combination of perverse incentives (hospitals inflating prices of procedures in order to provide "discounts" to insurers), the high cost of living in the US, payment for an extensive bureaucracy, financial support for Research & Development, unnecessary prodcedures and expectations of a high level of care. Some of this is good, and some of it should be fixed.

The relatively poor outcomes have a variety of contributing factors: high poverty rate within the US, variations in reporting (IE- If a child dies in its first day of life in France it is legally considered a stillbirth), higher obesity rated, and the difficulties in managing a large heterogeneous country.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/physici.../#329ac24f1232


There may be some voters who want disruption, but a bigger force is voters who are tired of the status quo. In the Republican primaries, they backed Ron Paul in 2008 and 2012, and Trump in 2016, even if their agendas were different. This would be where some potential overlap exists between Trump supporters and Sanders supporters. They want to see politicians trying something bold, and are willing to support very different types of figures until they get positive results. This isn't necessarily rational, and may be based on inflated expectations over what a President can do.

There was a different argument that the video wasn't doctored, but that it was changed in the process of converting a gif into a zoomed-in mp4. This explains the discrepancy without any intentional doctoring.

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article...-sarah-sanders

You were talking about taxes and debt in general, so I think my point was valid. It's not like Trump is the only GOP President who raised the debt, how did Reagan and George W. Bush raise the debt by? I do not think the GOP has been the party of ''fiscal responsibility'' since Reagan, its been lies since then and I bet McCain and Romney would have raised the debt as well if elected because debt reduction is a not a real ideal for the GOP and can be dropped when convenient, Dick Cheney said as much, when he said ''Reagan proved deficits don't really matter''.

How Republicans with a straight say they support ''fiscal responsibility'' and want to increase defense spending, despite the fact the US spends more on defense than the next 8 countries combined? Do you think there is no waste or pork in the military? Also how much have Republican ''law and order'' policies cost in terms of financial and social costs, because they have led the US to have the highest prison population in the world, twice that of China. Really, how much does keeping 2 million people in prison cost?

Also if the insurance companies are creating waste in the health care system, why do conservatives defend their level of involvement in the system.

Seems to me the US has debt problem due to the military, the health care system, and the prison system being corporate welfare schemes and I think GOP likes that way, waste and big government are fine, if some defense contractor, private insurance provided or private prison CEO get a bonus every quarter.

[TheDarman]

I didn't say SS isn't funded, although there are concerns that it will soon pay out more than it's taking in.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/05/polit...uts/index.html

That is because of what, Mets? Be honest. Is it because Social Security suddenly got more expensive?

Part of it is that people are living longer than they did when the program was established. (Life expectancy is a weird metric because it often addresses issues with infant mortality as well as issues of when someone is likely to die as an elderly individual but I digress it is one of the best measures we have.) That would certainly cause expenditures to go up.

However, the bigger problem is that the younger generations, who have always been relied upon to fund the program, are smaller in size than they need to be (they are essentially replacements to the outgoing generation more than changing the size of the population). Not only are they smaller in size than they need to be, but the economy has shifted to service industry jobs--which pay less and Republicans have consistently gutted the unions of. In order for young people not to be stuck in service industry jobs (service industry jobs are like industrial work jobs from yesteryear, except it pays a fraction as well), they have to spend, collectively, hundreds upon thousands of dollars to get a college education. That college education only continues to get more expensive because of a multitude of situations (for one, states have had a hard time increasing taxes on their population in order to meet the rising tide of inflation, particularly of school costs), but one of the primary reasons is the Republican mandated war on drugs. The fact that we police a public health crisis as a national security one is part of the reason why states, especially given minimum sentencing laws, are strapped for cash on anything that isn't a prison. With that, young people have to wait four more years after adulthood to even consider having a family or career and, often, they have to establish their careers.

As a result, during the most "sexually active" period of their lives, they are actually frightened of having children. There are a variety of structural things that are driving this problem of slowing population growth and almost none of them are seriously being addressed by Republicans as concerns. Democrats voice their concerns on these issues not as a cohesive argument to keep programs like Social Security going (it's more human rights rhetoric than anything else), but at least they are addressing these problems in a round-about way. Indeed, the only solution to not addressing the strains that slowing population growth are having on society is inviting more immigrants in--something which has been demonstrated even "reasonable" (if there is such a thing any more) Republicans are totally against too. So, let us not pretend that this program is dying underneath its own weight. It was a product of its time and we've made no effort to reasonably replicate the prosperity needed to facilitate the program's survival in any case.

Looking at a calculator, middle class people will save anything from a few hundred dollars to a few thousand dollars on their liability.

https://taxfoundation.org/tax-calculator/

A big story today is about how Robert Iger, the CEO and Board Chair for Disney, makes more than 1,400x his employees. The rate that he would've paid in taxes on his biggest, and highest proportion, of income was 39.6% in 2016. As of today, it is 37 percent. What does that mean in real dollars?

Mr. Iger (who isn't even a Republican--he supported Hillary Clinton in 2016) will pay $24,015,688 in taxes this year (assuming that he doesn't do any creative accounting, but, let's be real, that number will be much, much smaller). If he was paying at the 2016 rate, Mr. Iger would've paid $25,696,100.84. That's a difference of $1.5 million. Did the company's employees receive that $1.5 million that went back into Iger's coffers? No. They just recently got a pay increase to $15 an hour to work at Disneyland, in one of the most expensive places to live in the country (Orange County), where the average cost of rent would cost them more than three-fifths of their before-tax income. These were people that were already covered by the standard deduction anyway.

Look, the tax cut bill did create some changes in revenue that allowed for middle class to cut some corners and help with the bills. However, it was no where near the windfall that CEOs and corporations got out of the deal. Did they pass on their savings to their workers like we hear so much from Reaganites? Nope. They bought stocks to inflate the value of their companies. We should stop pretending that the middle class was the reason these tax cuts were passed. If they were the primary target, they would've had their taxes cut while we would've seen increases in the top tax rates to make it fiscally responsible and revenue neutral. We didn't see that.

There is a misunderstanding about the effect of the tax cuts since it came with an increase in take-home pay so some people are disappointed by the size of their refunds. The media has screwed up in its role in educating the public.

The people in America that really need breaks are often those that are covered by the standard deduction at any given time. They aren't concerned about the tax system (which is part of the reason Republicans can leverage it to their donors' advantages). They are concerned about even being able to pay rent. Republicans often sell them on false promises that the money will make its way down to them when taxes are lowered. We have seen very little of that. And what we have seen has hardly made up for the lack of wage increases to meet living cost increases.

As for the middle class, I don't think so. The bill was sold to the American public as a windfall for middle class Americans--a relief act for them. That didn't happen. Sure, an extra $2,000 a month for a middle class family is always nice--but wouldn't it have been nicer if there was a real direct want to decrease taxes to put an extra $500 a month in the middle class person's pocket? Why should they have to pay that when folks like Mr. Iger are making many millions more than them?

As far as I can tell, the debt increased every year under President Clinton.

Deficits and surpluses are different than debt. Debt isn't something that we immediately pay down. There are bonds that have prescriptive pay out dates. That debt isn't going to naturally decrease with a surplus. It just means that you aren't adding to the debt with public spending. You are spending less than you are taking in--hence a surplus. Who was president during the last recorded surplus?

The last recorded surplus was under Bill Clinton. Every year under Reagan, Bush Sr., Bush Jr., and Trump we've run a deficit. The only president to decrease the deficit that he inherited was Obama out of those latter mentioned guys.

Mandatory spending is still spending. And it's nearly two-thirds.

Not being disputed. The issue is that mandatory spending is mandatory because people pay for it. They don't just pay taxes--they literally pay for these programs. Social Security comes out of everyone's checks, regardless of standard deductions. Medicare recipients still buy in to Medicare. It's a better option because private insurers would blow them to hell with the size of their premiums, but it still costs them money, on top of what they get taxed, to pay for Medicare. It is dishonest to say that the only way that either program gets funded is through standard revenue channels like federal tax. They cost money, sure. But they would cost more in lives and real money to those individuals (not to mention tax payers should people overwhelmed by the cost of cancer treatments default on the payment) if they were left to the private market. This is to correct for market failures in the economy full stop. Military spending, and other discretionary programs, aren't. Period.

[PaulBullion]

Herman Cain removed himself from consideration for a fed seat. Can't wait for the Pokemon movie quote he'll no doubt use.

Which leaves the other candidate, Stephen Moore, in the spotlight...

Trump Fed pick Stephen Moore called it a 'travesty' that women 'feel free' to play sports with men

One of President Donald Trump's picks to serve on the Federal Reserve Board has written that women should be banned from refereeing, announcing or beer vending at men's college basketball games, asking if there was any area in life "where men can take vacation from women."

Stephen Moore, an economic commentator and former Trump campaign adviser, made those and similar comments in several columns reviewed by CNN's KFile that were published on the website of the conservative National Review magazine in 2001, twice in 2002 and 2003.
In a 2000 column, Moore complained about his wife voting for Democrats, writing, "Women are sooo malleable! No wonder there's a gender gap." In another column in 2000, Moore criticized female athletes advocating for pay equality, writing that they wanted "equal pay for inferior work."

No doubt Susan Collins will find this disturbing before voting for him anyway.

[Mister Mets]

There's a lot of 2020 News.

Elizabeth Warren has a plan to cancel college debt.

Warren's new plan would forgive $50,000 in student loans for Americans in households earning less than $100,000 a year. According to analysis provided by her campaign, that would provide immediate relief to more than 95% of the 45 million Americans with student debt. The Massachusetts Democrat and 2020 contender is also calling for a drastic increase in federal spending on higher education that would make tuition and fees free for all students at two- and four-year public colleges and expand grants for lower-income and minority students to cover costs like housing, food, books and child care.

The campaign estimates that the plan would cost $1.25 trillion over 10 years.

The revenue from Warren's wealth tax proposal -- a 2% tax on wealth above $50 million and a 3% tax on wealth above $1 billion -- would pay for her newest proposal, her campaign said. According to details shared by her campaign, the massive debt cancellation and free college plan additionally asks states to chip in to cover the cost of tuition and fees. Warren has also said her universal child care proposal would be paid for by her wealth tax.

Asked about connecting the viability of her new proposal to another, Warren insisted that there is broad support for the idea of taxing the ultra-rich.

"For two cents on the dollar, we could pay for universal child care, universal pre-K, universal college and knock back the student loan debt burden for about 43 million Americans and still have nearly, just short, of $1 trillion leftover," Warren said in an interview with CNN. "It tells you how badly out of whack our economy is right now."

Warren -- a co-sponsor of Sen. Bernie Sanders' 2017 legislation that would make four-year public colleges tuition-free for some students -- said her new plan is "bigger" and "goes further" than Sanders', who is also vying for the Democratic nomination.
"It covers more and it addresses both the access question of going to college and the problem of the debt burden for our students," she said.

The former college dropout and law professor described the proposal as one of the most "personally important" of her growing White House platform.

"I got married at 19 and I took a job answering phones and I thought that was going to be my whole life. And the fact that there was a commuter college about 45 minutes away that I could pay for on a part-time waitressing job -- you know, it opened a door," said Warren, who has made the story a fixture of her stump speech. "It all started with that chance in college."

And she's rather insightful on Game of Thrones.

A New Hampshire poll shows Sanders with a strong lead, and Buttigieg pretty close to Biden in third place.

South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg and former Vice President Joe Biden are essentially tied in a new 2020 New Hampshire poll.

A survey released by the University of New Hampshire on Monday has Buttigieg in third place behind Biden, earning 15 percent of the vote to Biden's 18 percent. That's a smaller gap than the poll's margin of error. In first place is Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who earned 30 percent of the vote.

Buttigieg has jumped up 13 percentage points since February, at which point he had launched a 2020 exploratory committee fairly recently. On the other hand, Biden has slipped about four points since then, while Sanders has gained four points. Biden hasn't officially entered the 2020 race yet, but he's expected to do so in the coming days.

Biden is expected to announce his presidential bid in Charlottesville.

“Two sources familiar with Biden’s preliminary plans said the former vice president will announce his candidacy for the Democratic nomination for president on Wednesday in Charlottesville, Va., the site of a clash in August 2017 between white supremacists and counterprotesters that claimed one life,” the Philadelphia Inquirer reports.

“Biden then will fly to Pittsburgh for a rally in the afternoon and then come to Philadelphia, where he will hold a rally at the Art Museum, though the sources said the plans have been shifting in recent days and could change again.”

Maryland Governor Larry Hogan is paying a visit to New Hampshire.

Larry Hogan will speak at a “Politics and Eggs” event in New Hampshire on Tuesday as pundits wonder whether the Maryland governor will mount a primary challenge to Donald Trump in the 2020 presidential election.

“The fact that Hogan is coming into New Hampshire is surely something of great interest to people who follow politics,” said Neil Levesque, executive director of the New Hampshire Institute of Politics at Saint Anselm College, which hosts the speaker series.

Held in the state with the first presidential primary, “Politics and Eggs” is considered a must-stop event for presidential hopefuls. The series serves as a “forum for local business leaders to hear from presidential candidates in an intimate setting,” according to its website.

Several candidates have already spoken at the series this year, including these Democrats: South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg; former Housing and Urban Development Secretary Julián Castro; former Maryland Rep. John Delaney, and California Sen. Kamala Harris. In addition, Democratic Rep. Eric Swalwell of California spoke before he declared his candidacy, while Republican Bill Weld announced the creation of an exploratory committee during his appearance.

[Mister Mets]

Herman Cain removed himself from consideration for a fed seat. Can't wait for the Pokemon movie quote he'll no doubt use.

Which leaves the other candidate, Stephen Moore, in the spotlight...

Trump Fed pick Stephen Moore called it a 'travesty' that women 'feel free' to play sports with men



No doubt Susan Collins will find this disturbing before voting for him anyway.

I thought they were angling for different seats.

You were talking about taxes and debt in general, so I think my point was valid. It's not like Trump is the only GOP President who raised the debt, how did Reagan and George W. Bush raise the debt by? I do not think the GOP has been the party of ''fiscal responsibility'' since Reagan, its been lies since then and I bet McCain and Romney would have raised the debt as well if elected because debt reduction is a not a real ideal for the GOP and can be dropped when convenient, Dick Cheney said as much, when he said ''Reagan proved deficits don't really matter''.

How Republicans with a straight say they support ''fiscal responsibility'' and want to increase defense spending, despite the fact the US spends more on defense than the next 8 countries combined? Do you think there is no waste or pork in the military? Also how much have Republican ''law and order'' policies cost in terms of financial and social costs, because they have led the US to have the highest prison population in the world, twice that of China. Really, how much does keeping 2 million people in prison cost?

Also if the insurance companies are creating waste in the health care system, why do conservatives defend their level of involvement in the system.

Seems to me the US has debt problem due to the military, the health care system, and the prison system being corporate welfare schemes and I think GOP likes that way, waste and big government are fine, if some defense contractor, private insurance provided or private prison CEO get a bonus every quarter.

I'm fine with addressing new points. If you quote what I say but talk about different stuff, it leaves the impression you're addressing those specific points, which wasn't the case.

Republicans haven't done well in fiscal responsibility, but this isn't an argument for the other party.

I've made no claim that there is no waste and fraud in the military, and this is a category where we can find smarter ways to use our money. The military remains important, and there is a potential problem in the future when costs decrease so that other countries and organizations will be able to afford cheaper equipment.

Another factor on the spending of other countries is that they don't need to spend much on the military because they expect the US and the international community to protect them. One thing I agree with Trump on is the need for countries to pay their fair share for NATO defense.

Prison is a net gain to society in terms of costs, since it keeps criminals out of the streets, and provides incentives not to do crime. The prison reform movement has good points, but it's a bit unrealistic to look at something that wasn't mainstream until recently, and wonder why politicians haven't always addressed it.

One of the major complications with health insurance reform is that the majority of Americans are happy with their employer-based coverage (this number is higher among Republicans, who are more likely to be established in their careers.) So that's one reason it's hard to change things (the system started with pay caps during World War 2, which meant that employers had to offer generous benefits if they couldn't offer salaries.)

That is because of what, Mets? Be honest. Is it because Social Security suddenly got more expensive?

Part of it is that people are living longer than they did when the program was established. (Life expectancy is a weird metric because it often addresses issues with infant mortality as well as issues of when someone is likely to die as an elderly individual but I digress it is one of the best measures we have.) That would certainly cause expenditures to go up.

However, the bigger problem is that the younger generations, who have always been relied upon to fund the program, are smaller in size than they need to be (they are essentially replacements to the outgoing generation more than changing the size of the population). Not only are they smaller in size than they need to be, but the economy has shifted to service industry jobs--which pay less and Republicans have consistently gutted the unions of. In order for young people not to be stuck in service industry jobs (service industry jobs are like industrial work jobs from yesteryear, except it pays a fraction as well), they have to spend, collectively, hundreds upon thousands of dollars to get a college education. That college education only continues to get more expensive because of a multitude of situations (for one, states have had a hard time increasing taxes on their population in order to meet the rising tide of inflation, particularly of school costs), but one of the primary reasons is the Republican mandated war on drugs. The fact that we police a public health crisis as a national security one is part of the reason why states, especially given minimum sentencing laws, are strapped for cash on anything that isn't a prison. With that, young people have to wait four more years after adulthood to even consider having a family or career and, often, they have to establish their careers.

As a result, during the most "sexually active" period of their lives, they are actually frightened of having children. There are a variety of structural things that are driving this problem of slowing population growth and almost none of them are seriously being addressed by Republicans as concerns. Democrats voice their concerns on these issues not as a cohesive argument to keep programs like Social Security going (it's more human rights rhetoric than anything else), but at least they are addressing these problems in a round-about way. Indeed, the only solution to not addressing the strains that slowing population growth are having on society is inviting more immigrants in--something which has been demonstrated even "reasonable" (if there is such a thing any more) Republicans are totally against too. So, let us not pretend that this program is dying underneath its own weight. It was a product of its time and we've made no effort to reasonably replicate the prosperity needed to facilitate the program's survival in any case.

The main reason social security is in danger of putting out more than it's taking is that people are living longer. Another key issue is that baby boomers are reaching retirement age.

https://www.investopedia.com/ask/ans...-out-money.asp

I wasn't really considering the problems of younger Americans getting their careers established, although this is an important factor.

On immigration, the majority of Republicans are in favor of some form of increasing legal immigration, which is actually an unpopular position.

[Mister Mets]

A big story today is about how Robert Iger, the CEO and Board Chair for Disney, makes more than 1,400x his employees. The rate that he would've paid in taxes on his biggest, and highest proportion, of income was 39.6% in 2016. As of today, it is 37 percent. What does that mean in real dollars?

Mr. Iger (who isn't even a Republican--he supported Hillary Clinton in 2016) will pay $24,015,688 in taxes this year (assuming that he doesn't do any creative accounting, but, let's be real, that number will be much, much smaller). If he was paying at the 2016 rate, Mr. Iger would've paid $25,696,100.84. That's a difference of $1.5 million. Did the company's employees receive that $1.5 million that went back into Iger's coffers? No. They just recently got a pay increase to $15 an hour to work at Disneyland, in one of the most expensive places to live in the country (Orange County), where the average cost of rent would cost them more than three-fifths of their before-tax income. These were people that were already covered by the standard deduction anyway.

Look, the tax cut bill did create some changes in revenue that allowed for middle class to cut some corners and help with the bills. However, it was no where near the windfall that CEOs and corporations got out of the deal. Did they pass on their savings to their workers like we hear so much from Reaganites? Nope. They bought stocks to inflate the value of their companies. We should stop pretending that the middle class was the reason these tax cuts were passed. If they were the primary target, they would've had their taxes cut while we would've seen increases in the top tax rates to make it fiscally responsible and revenue neutral. We didn't see that.

You may be addressing points I haven't made regarding the tax bill. The specific standards were "A few cents for the middle class is part of the con job you conservative pull." "And you live in NY Mets. You know the prpoerty tax deduction hurt a lot of middle class people here. You are being disengenuous, again." "In Colorado, I paid at my part time job a total of $9,000 in state taxes (without local taxes included) while I was in school (that was before a pretty small, comparatively, refund). These also add up quick and virtually anyone working full time, even at a service level job, would it exceed that here and certainly in places like New York and California." "Here is another idea I am sure Mets and his ilk support. It wasn't the massive tax cuts for the rich, that actually hurt many middle class taxpayers, that has ballooned the deficit the last two years."

The specific standards I was addressing was whether the middle class gets something a reasonable person would consider the equivalent of a few cents, whether middle class people in New York were hut, whether someone in Colorado could reach the SALT limits on a middle-class salary/ service level job, whether the Trump tax cuts hurt the middle class, and whether the Trump tax cuts are a major part of the deficit.

The people in America that really need breaks are often those that are covered by the standard deduction at any given time. They aren't concerned about the tax system (which is part of the reason Republicans can leverage it to their donors' advantages). They are concerned about even being able to pay rent. Republicans often sell them on false promises that the money will make its way down to them when taxes are lowered. We have seen very little of that. And what we have seen has hardly made up for the lack of wage increases to meet living cost increases.

As for the middle class, I don't think so. The bill was sold to the American public as a windfall for middle class Americans--a relief act for them. That didn't happen. Sure, an extra $2,000 a month for a middle class family is always nice--but wouldn't it have been nicer if there was a real direct want to decrease taxes to put an extra $500 a month in the middle class person's pocket? Why should they have to pay that when folks like Mr. Iger are making many millions more than them?

The power of the tax cuts is going to be limited by the fact that middle class people ultimately spend a small percentage of their income on federal taxes.

There also aren't enough rich people to transfer $2,000 a month from to give every middle class person $500 a month.

Deficits and surpluses are different than debt. Debt isn't something that we immediately pay down. There are bonds that have prescriptive pay out dates. That debt isn't going to naturally decrease with a surplus. It just means that you aren't adding to the debt with public spending. You are spending less than you are taking in--hence a surplus. Who was president during the last recorded surplus?

The last recorded surplus was under Bill Clinton. Every year under Reagan, Bush Sr., Bush Jr., and Trump we've run a deficit. The only president to decrease the deficit that he inherited was Obama out of those latter mentioned guys.

Money bills originated in the House, so the Republican congress would get credit for the Clinton surplus. Good points on the distinction of the difference between the deficit and the debt.

The debt did decrease from 1996 to 1997, although some of the credit seems to go to welfare reform.

https://www.thebalance.com/national-...events-3306287

Not being disputed. The issue is that mandatory spending is mandatory because people pay for it. They don't just pay taxes--they literally pay for these programs. Social Security comes out of everyone's checks, regardless of standard deductions. Medicare recipients still buy in to Medicare. It's a better option because private insurers would blow them to hell with the size of their premiums, but it still costs them money, on top of what they get taxed, to pay for Medicare. It is dishonest to say that the only way that either program gets funded is through standard revenue channels like federal tax. They cost money, sure. But they would cost more in lives and real money to those individuals (not to mention tax payers should people overwhelmed by the cost of cancer treatments default on the payment) if they were left to the private market. This is to correct for market failures in the economy full stop. Military spending, and other discretionary programs, aren't. Period.

The term mandatory spending means that Congress must appropriate all funds to keep these programs running, not that people are paying more than they use for Medicaid services.

https://www.cbo.gov/content/what-dif...onary-spending

[worstblogever]

Herman Cain removed himself from consideration for a fed seat. Can't wait for the Pokemon movie quote he'll no doubt use.

Herman Cain applied for the federal reserve... IT WASN'T VERY EFFECTIVE.

[TheDarman]

The specific standards I was addressing was whether the middle class gets something a reasonable person would consider the equivalent of a few cents, whether middle class people in New York were hut, whether someone in Colorado could reach the SALT limits on a middle-class salary/ service level job, whether the Trump tax cuts hurt the middle class, and whether the Trump tax cuts are a major part of the deficit.

Truth be told, my own memory of my financial situation having failed me (in this case, ridiculously) contributed to the framing of the discussion. Especially since my memory issue was also used to make a political point that had a sort of confirmation bias. For that, I apologize. That being said, I think the points about the issues with the tax cuts I identified are quite clearly demonstrated. Especially in the part you quoted, stating that I was addressing points you never made, even though those are the points that actually supported the tax cuts and their case. And, without those arguments, there is little to support a case for the tax cuts we got.

The power of the tax cuts is going to be limited by the fact that middle class people ultimately spend a small percentage of their income on federal taxes.

Ultimately, I find myself quite concerned with the fact that our definitions of middle class have shifted too idly given the decreasing purchasing power associated with an income. My idea is that anyone that struggles to make rent or pay for their childÂ’s school ought to receive a direct public benefit rather than a deliberate extraction. Given those people are middle class, by median income metrics, I think they need to be beneficiaries more than paying subjects, at least until their income is sufficient for decent purchasing power.

There also aren't enough rich people to transfer $2,000 a month from to give every middle class person $500 a month.

Certainly enough of their money though, especially if we arrive to a point where money above $500,000, $1,000,00, and, further, $10,000,000 get tax increases. There is no reason to have anyone spending an ungodly amount of money on luxury goods when we have people starving on their feet, a hernia away from bankruptcy, or, otherwise, unfortunate.

Money bills originated in the House, so the Republican congress would get credit for the Clinton surplus. Good points on the distinction of the difference between the deficit and the debt.

The debt did decrease from 1996 to 1997, although some of the credit seems to go to welfare reform.

https://www.thebalance.com/national-...events-3306287

Right. But the White House proposes a budget and compromises with the Congress. What you are pointing to is that compromise on budgets has had a positive effect on fiscal responsibilty goals. WeÂ’ll see if that will happen with Democrats running the House. But, often, Democrats have been unable to yield the same political influence in the House as Republicans have.

The term mandatory spending means that Congress must appropriate all funds to keep these programs running, not that people are paying more than they use for Medicaid services.

https://www.cbo.gov/content/what-dif...onary-spending

Right. But you have to admit that the revenue is even more than federal taxes. Expenditures are high but they are often necessary. Given they are paying for it, and ripping away these programs would callous and cruel, I think it is high past time we stop looking at these items. We need to be looking at discretionary spending and the kinds of spending we do with only federal tax revenue.

[InformationGeek]

So who is taking the lead now that Herman Cain is out? Meet Stephen Moore... and his bullshit.

[Tami]

Still no word on whether Alec Baldwin is running, but something called a Seth Moulton has entered the Democratic primaries.

Seth Moulton spearheaded the movement to oust Nancy Pelosi even though his constituents supported Pelosi. I think he verges on being an April 1st entry in WBE's Blog.

[Tendrin]

*reads some Warren statements*

Have I mentioned how much I love Warren?

[Dalak]

*reads some Warren statements*

Have I mentioned how much I love Warren?

+1 and if the only negative they can find against her is the Native ancestry then let them have at it!