All purpose news and politics thread part v: The quickening

[Malvolio]

Here's the thing about the tax cuts. Yes, the middle class may see a few more dollars in each paycheck. But when the Federal government gets fewer tax dollars, they give less money to the states, so the states are forced to raise fees on government services like renewing a driver's license or parking your car at a state park. So that extra $5.00 or so in each middle class paycheck goes right back to the government one way or the other.

[GindyPosts]

Obama added to the deficit to help Americans after a Republican president ruined the economy. trump added to the deficit to help out the rich.

And then, surprisingly to anyone who isn't a Republican, the deficit shrank during the Obama administration.

It's funny what military contracts and sweetheart tax breaks do to the federal budget.

Here's the thing about the tax cuts. Yes, the middle class may see a few more dollars in each paycheck. But when the Federal government gets fewer tax dollars, they give less money to the states, so the states are forced to raise fees on government services like renewing a driver's license or parking your car at a state park. So that extra $5.00 or so in each middle class paycheck goes right back to the government one way or the other.

And meanwhile, public services such as city libraries have to juggle hours and even branches, where people use computers to access information and employment opportunities.

Again; taxes suck. But they serve a purpose in society, and yet it is ironic how we have a system set up in which the top partition of our wealth aren't obligated to pay their share (and are even rewarded for dodging it) while politicians make a career out of telling the rest that they're too damn high as it is.

[Malvolio]

Ross Perot took almost nineteen percent of the vote in the 1992 General Election.

If you have examples that point to that not being an oddity, it would be interesting to hear them.

Edit:

Never mind Buchanan getting North of two million votes during an attempt to primary a sitting President.

And Perot and Buchanan combined got a big fat 0 electoral votes.

[aja_christopher]

Here's the thing about the tax cuts. Yes, the middle class may see a few more dollars in each paycheck. But when the Federal government gets fewer tax dollars, they give less money to the states, so the states are forced to raise fees on government services like renewing a driver's license or parking your car at a state park. So that extra $5.00 or so in each middle class paycheck goes right back to the government one way or the other.

We've been here before, regardless.

"The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results."

These choices only make sense if division is the goal.

------
"The biggest tax policy changes enacted under President George W. Bush were the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, often referred to as the “Bush tax cuts” but formally named the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (EGTRRA) and the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 (JGTRRA). High-income taxpayers benefitted most from these tax cuts, with the top 1 percent of households receiving an average tax cut of over $570,000 between 2004-2012 (increasing their after-tax income by more than 5 percent each year).

Policymakers enacted the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts with the promise that they would “pay for themselves” by delivering increased economic growth, which would generate higher tax revenues.[11] But even President Bush's Treasury Department estimated that under the most optimistic scenario, the tax cuts would at best pay for less than 10 percent of their long-term cost with increased growth.[12]

Evidence suggests that the tax cuts — particularly those for high-income households — did not improve economic growth or pay for themselves, but instead ballooned deficits and debt and contributed to a rise in income inequality.[13]

In fact, the economic expansion that lasted from 2001 to 2007 was weaker than average. A review of economic evidence on the tax cuts by Brookings Institution economist William Gale and Dartmouth professor Andrew Samwick, former chief economist on George W. Bush's Council of Economic Advisers, found that “a cursory look at growth between 2001 and 2007 (before the onset of the Great Recession) suggests that overall growth rate was … mediocre” and that “there is, in short, no first-order evidence in the aggregate data that these tax cuts generated growth.”[14]

In comparison, the economic expansion of the early 1990s — which followed considerable tax increases — produced a much faster rate of job growth and somewhat faster GDP growth than the expansion of the early 2000s.[15] An analysis of business activity between 1996 and 2008 found that even the sharp cut in dividend tax rates in 2003, which proponents claimed would spur immediate business growth, had no significant impact on business investment or employee compensation after 2003...[16]

As one comprehensive review of the empirical literature by three leading tax economists found, "there is no compelling evidence to date of real responses of upper income taxpayers to changes in tax rates.”[19]



https://www.cbpp.org/research/federa...-bush-tax-cuts

[shooshoomanjoe]

"(George W.) Bush 43 took it from 0 to 1.2 trillion." This is in the ballpark. Ignoring the fact that he actually started his presidency with a surplus, Bush left office in 2009 with a federal deficit of roughly $1.41 trillion.

"(Barack) Obama halved it to 600 billion." This is essentially accurate. Obama left the presidency with a deficit of approximately $584.6 billion, which is more than halving $1.41 trillion. The deficit was even lower in 2015 at around $441.9 billion."

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...ibute-deficit/

Obama brought down his own deficit but the deficit was still greater when he left than when he was sworn in.

[aja_christopher]

And then, surprisingly to anyone who isn't a Republican, the deficit shrank during the Obama administration.

I don't think they were surprised -- I think they know they're running a con.

They discuss them like they are the most important budget issue when Democrats are in power, then ignore them when they regain office.

The goal is to have people talk about Obama instead of Bush's tax cuts, deficits and subsequent recession, or Trump's solicitation and outright extortion of foreign interference in our election.

[Mister Mets]

It's a temporary bump, and just like with Bush who did exactly the same before the Great Recession, it will eventually come due.

https://www.npr.org/2019/12/20/78954...-gops-promises

And that still doesn't justify Republicans lying about them paying for themselves -- they did so because they know we have to pay one way or another.



Try not supporting a party that defends a candidate who openly solicits foreign interference in our elections for a start.

From the Mueller report to the Ukraine impeachment, Republicans (via Barr) are aiding and defending said interference, not attempting to "solve" it.



Not to record levels -- the two parties are not comparable in that respect to anyone with any sense of logic.

And that still doesn't excuse the lies told by Republicans regarding how the deficit only matters when Democrats are in office.

It's impossible to have a serious discussion with you on these issues because of statements like the above.

They only confirm that Republicans will say anything to justify the unethical and fiscally irresponsible behavior of their party.

----
"(President Ronald) Reagan took the deficit from 70 billion to 175 billion." This is more or less accurate. The federal deficit went from about $78.9 billion at the beginning of Reagan’s presidency to $152.6 billion at the end of it. At points between 1983 and 1986, the deficit was actually more than $175 billion.

"(George H.W.) Bush 41 took it to 300 billion." Close, but not exactly. The number was around $255 billion at the end of Bush’s term. The deficit spiked at around $290.3 billion the year before he left office.

"(Bill) Clinton got it to zero." This is true. During his presidency, Clinton managed to zero out the deficit and end his term with a $128.2 billion surplus.

"(George W.) Bush 43 took it from 0 to 1.2 trillion." This is in the ballpark. Ignoring the fact that he actually started his presidency with a surplus, Bush left office in 2009 with a federal deficit of roughly $1.41 trillion.

"(Barack) Obama halved it to 600 billion." This is essentially accurate. Obama left the presidency with a deficit of approximately $584.6 billion, which is more than halving $1.41 trillion. The deficit was even lower in 2015 at around $441.9 billion."

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...ibute-deficit/

"The US budget deficit ballooned to nearly $1 trillion for the 2019 fiscal year, according to data released by the Treasury Department on Friday, the biggest gap since 2012 -- despite President Donald Trump's promises to shrink or even eliminate it. The deficit, which is the gap between how much the government spends and how much it takes in, grew 26% to $984 billion for the 12-month period ending in September, driven in part by the Republican tax cut package passed in late 2017.

The Trump administration narrowly averted crossing the $1 trillion threshold this year thanks to $70 billion in tariffs Trump has imposed on goods coming in from China and other countries. But the deficit is projected to top $1 trillion in 2020 as signs of Trump's trade war begins to weigh on the US economy and global growth slows.

The last time the gap was as big was in 2012, in the aftermath of the financial crisis."

https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/25/polit...019/index.html

There's a distinction between debt and deficit.

As long as the deficit is above one dollar, we're always going to have record debts.

However, the deficit did go up significantly under Obama.

https://www.thebalance.com/us-deficit-by-year-3306306

It surpassed a trillion dollars during four years of his administration.

The 2019 deficit is still below what it was in 2009, 2010 and 2011. It was also consistently higher as a percentage of GDP.

I think it would be better for the country if we got the deficit down enough to actually pay off the debt, but I don't see any indication that I should back the Democrats to get that goal, especially with candidates to Obama's left running for President with promises of increased spending.

No, they base it mostly on the truth, which is why they don't claim climate change is a hoax, that tax cuts will pay for themselves, that deficits only matter when Democrats are in power, that "voter fraud" justifies closing polling stations in black neighborhoods, and that an immigrant "invasion" justifies separating children from their mothers as a "deterrent".

We're talking about the same Mets who claims Democrats want "open borders" -- who selectively chooses not to credit Obama with presiding over a period of decreased immigration while simultaneously trying to claim that he was "routinely dishonest", which is the statement that started this discussion.

Basing their agenda on lies is standard procedure for the Republican party.

My views on Democratic positions on open borders are a bit more nuanced in that I don't think they're all for open borders, but that they are unwilling to answer the most meaningful question about what limits there should be under immigration. Usually, when politicians neglect to address a controversial topic, it's not because the answer is going to be popular.

We've talked about decreased immigration and increased arrests under Obama although the truth is a bit muddier. http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-s...talking-points[/I][/QUOTE]The increase in arrests under Obama was more of a procedural change about what to do with people caught near the border. Previously they were just sent back. Towards the end of the Bush administration, the decision was made to have formal proceedings including detaining and fingerprinting.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ob...d-more-people/

The main reason for a decline in the number of illegal immigrants was changing conditions in the home country. It wasn't about Obama, or stricter immigration policies.

https://cmsny.org/publications/warre...cumented-2016/

You seem to think my view on this is so outrageously wrong as to merit referencing it months later, so I'm curious what exactly you disagree with.

Incidentally, if someone has a top ten lies list, they are routinely dishonest.

Here's the thing about the tax cuts. Yes, the middle class may see a few more dollars in each paycheck. But when the Federal government gets fewer tax dollars, they give less money to the states, so the states are forced to raise fees on government services like renewing a driver's license or parking your car at a state park. So that extra $5.00 or so in each middle class paycheck goes right back to the government one way or the other.

That's a fair argument.

However, the point to which I was responding was to zinderel saying "Except you and I BOTH know that the only people who benefit from Republican tax breaks are the super wealthy, who then hoard it in offshore accounts or spend it on luxuries rather than actually putting the money back into the economy." That was factually inaccurate on multiple levels, suggesting that only the superwealthy benefitted, and that this is something any reasonably informed person is aware of.

Obama brought down his own deficit but the deficit was still greater when he left than when he was sworn in.

Yeah, it's an odd thing to give someone credit for decreasing the deficit when they're bringing it down from their record highs.

I'd imagine people giving Obama credit on this wouldn't do the same for Trump. Nor should Trump get credit for having a deficit lower than 2019.

[PaulBullion]

But didn't the deficit balloon initially early in Obama's presidency partly because of laws that had been passed before he took office? Spending bills that were needed to balance the economy after 8 years of banking deregulation and the Lehmann disaster?

[aja_christopher]

Incidentally, if someone has a top ten lies list, they are routinely dishonest.

We really can't have this discussion anymore -- a person is not routinely dishonest just because they have a list of ten lies after eight years in office.

Ten known lies in eight years does not make one a routine liar and I really can't take you seriously when you continue to make statements like that.

All of your arguments come down to accusing the Democrats of wrongs both real and imagined -- mostly imagined -- instead of holding Republicans accountable for their actions, which are often far more corrupt and far less ethical. You focus on trying to brand Obama as "routinely dishonest" and Democrats as supportive of "open borders", while dodging issues of Republicans lies regarding tax cuts, deficits, voter suppression, foreign interference, climate change and family separation utilizing false equivalency and "both sides" ideology.

I can't even believe you'd try to make the argument that telling ten lies in eight years makes one "routinely dishonest" -- that telling an average of one lie a year makes one a routine liar.

I expect that kind of thing from 30 -- not from you, but it's time to adjust said expectations accordingly.

[Robotman]

Apparently the stock market is on the verge of having its best year since 1997.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/27/b...best-year.html

Trump will no doubt ride this to victory if these trends continue.

Civil rights and women’s rights are being rolled back, science funding and climate change research is being slashed, white nationalism is running rampant, etc. but hey the stock markets are in good shape. I’m waiting for someone to say “at least the trains are running on time.”

[Tami]

Apparently the stock market is on the verge of having its best year since 1997.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/27/b...best-year.html

Trump will no doubt ride this to victory if these trends continue.

Civil rights and women’s rights are being rolled back, science funding and climate change research is being slashed, white nationalism is running rampant, etc. but hey the stock markets are in good shape. I’m waiting for someone to say “at least the trains are running on time.”

I still say the only reason why the Stock Market is doing so good is because Trump was Impeached. If the Senate convicts him, the Stock Market will go through the roof. Of course, the 'experts' don't believe me.

[GindyPosts]

I don't think they were surprised -- I think they know they're running a con.

They discuss them like they are the most important budget issue when Democrats are in power, then ignore them when they regain office.

The goal is to have people talk about Obama instead of Bush's tax cuts, deficits and subsequent recession, or Trump's solicitation and outright extortion of foreign interference in our election.

I meant to say "not surprisingly". Missing one word makes a key difference. But, seriously; in 8 years, the government's reckless spending on two wars went way out of hand, turning a rare "surplus" into over a trillion dollars in the deficit, and 8 years after, we managed to get things under control in spite of the GOP bickering about how Obamacare would cripple the economy and the "bailouts" were rampant... never minding the fact that the Bush administration coined the phrase "too big to fail".

[aja_christopher]

I meant to say "not surprisingly". Missing one word makes a key difference. But, seriously; in 8 years, the government's reckless spending on two wars went way out of hand, turning a rare "surplus" into over a trillion dollars in the deficit, and 8 years after, we managed to get things under control in spite of the GOP bickering about how Obamacare would cripple the economy and the "bailouts" were rampant... never minding the fact that the Bush administration coined the phrase "too big to fail".

They are both hypocritical and fiscally irresponsible -- they lead us into depressions and recessions then blame Democrats for their mistakes.

They lie and claim that the tax cuts will pay for themselves even when they know reports show that they won't.

They lie so much -- especially under Trump -- that people can't even keep track of all of their lies at this point.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disinformation

------
"Trump's farmer bailout is already more than twice as expensive as Obama's automaker bailout"

"Many Republicans were highly critical of former President Barack Obama's decision to bail out U.S. automakers after taking office at the peak of the Great Recession. Mitt Romney, now a U.S. senator, even wrote an op-ed urging Obama to let Detroit go bankrupt. President Trump has his own bailout, sending extra federal subsidies to farmers hurt by his trade war with China. The $28 billion and counting isn't fully offsetting the loss of Chinese purchases and markets for U.S. soybeans, pork, and other agricultural products, but it is still relatively generous, as Bloomberg Businessweek notes:

China hawks in Trump's administration want Beijing to quit subsidizing strategic industries, yet that hasn't deterred the White House from doling out billions in aid to American farmers, who have become more dependent on government money than they've been in years. At $28 billion so far, the farm rescue is more than twice as expensive as the 2009 bailout of Detroit's Big Three automakers, which cost taxpayers $12 billion.

And farmers expect the money to keep flowing."

https://theweek.com/speedreads/86656...omaker-bailout

[zinderel]

WRT “In a free country, it is difficult to deal with propaganda and social media manipulation. I'm eager to hear any workable solutions.”:

Stop supporting the party that has a propaganda arm that spreads blatant lies about science, sexuality, religion, politics, life, and everything else? Fox News and it’s various associated channels and websites trade in falsehoods and propaganda CONSTANTLY. DANGEROUS falsehoods (often obfuscated begins euphamisms and dog whistles, to maintain ‘respectability’), like “Some are saying that Barack HUSSEIN Obama is a secret Kenyan Muslim Brotherhood Manchurian Candidate, not a REAL American” and “Trump was chosen by Jesus to make America white again!”. And that’s when they don’t omit or deliberately ignore and avoid informing their viewers about things that don’t conform to their politics. The Republican Party benefits from deliberately misinforming their base, though, so they stripped away every regulation intended to protect the public from the VERY THING right wing media fills the airwaves with now: partisan idiocy, propaganda, and misinformation. You can chart the radicalization and rise to power of the white nationalist base of the Republican Party with the rise of right wing media spewing bigotry and hate and fear back to Reagan’s removal of regulations on broadcasting at the behest of his hard right handlers.

So, there’s a place we can start. Make the news publicly owned again, not privately owned and for sale, and thus beholden to ‘shareholders’ and ‘owners’. We have literally been here before, in print media, back in the days of Hearst and his buddies. Rich, conservative men owning all outlets get to control the narrative. Those monopolies got broken up, but it wasn’t enough, because here we are again, only worse. So, we break up the monopolies on the media again, only this time, we create publicly owned news outlets, beholden to US, not the corporate owners, not the government. Something like OPB, but on a larger scale, and funded by taxpayer dollars we divert from paying off wealthy donors and blowing up brown people across the ocean and caging brown people here at home. (Republicans will HATE this. All of it.)

Then, we reinstate strict regulations on news outlets going forward, INCLUDING blogs that get categorized as ‘news’, like Drudge or Breitbart, before both became bloated monstrosities of white nationalism and homophobia. if you want to be labeled ‘NEWS’, you must present FACTS, and information that is both relevant and timely. Conspiracy theories are not facts. Propaganda is not facts. “Both sides”, when one side has facts and the other side has ignorance and/or lies, is not facts. If a thing IS, the news should not be forced to present ‘opposing thought’. To be clear, this is not in regards to matters of opinion, and news outlets absolutely SHOULD be free to present opinion pieces and editorials and the like. This in regards to things like ‘gay people exist, and deserve human rights’, or ‘the earth is a somewhat irregular sphere’. FACTS, that are not in dispute by any reasonable person, do not need to have ‘both sides’ presented. We don’t need to give Jenny McCarthy airtime to say ‘vaccines cause autism because durrdedurrderpiderp...’ that is not fact. It is not ‘opinion’. It is misinformation and doesn’t belong on the news.

To ensure this, each outlet should have an in-house fact checker department. Wanton disregard for the truth in pursuit of ‘ratings’ or in service to partisan politics would lead to fines for those found deliberately tainting the purpose of journalism. If it gets bad, there should be the potential of prison time for repeat offenders. Not in a ‘silence the truth’ sort of way, since this would require transparency at every level, to ensure public trust. But in a ‘punish lying liars trying to corrupt the discourse for nefarious reasons’ way. If one outlet is particularly bad, we could even have a policy for a complete washout and restaffing of the outlet, if needed.

We need to be able to TRUST the news to deliver unbiased, not-for-profit facts and information. right now, the right doesn’t trust anything that doesn’t reinforce their belief that Jesus wants them to own all the guns and burn all the coal and oil and styrofoam they can so that they can kill the homosexual Jew government when it comes to force interracial, gay Muslim marriage on them. The left is fragmented due to purity tests and loyalty to specific people over the concept of ‘unity’ we love talking about but rarely do anything to bring into reality. No one trusts any news outlet right now because they’re either owned by the Freemason Illuminati or they’re ‘not really progressive enough for my tastes...’. Maybe my specific ideas are problematic, fine. But tell me we wouldn’t benefit from a broad and comprehensive overhaul towards truth of our news media and how it operates? Isn’t that kind of benefit worth taxing wealthy assholes a bit more? Isn’t it worth diverting funds from endless war profiteering and death?

[numberthirty]

Apparently the stock market is on the verge of having its best year since 1997.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/27/b...best-year.html

Trump will no doubt ride this to victory if these trends continue.

Civil rights and women’s rights are being rolled back, science funding and climate change research is being slashed, white nationalism is running rampant, etc. but hey the stock markets are in good shape. I’m waiting for someone to say “at least the trains are running on time.”

On that one...

I think that the small amount of gains in wages and unemployment numbers are potentially more likely to benefit Trump than the market.

While I know that folks have their reasons why they believe that "Group Of People X/Y/X" shouldn't support the guy, how do those groups react to policy that is against them but an economy that they might be doing better in?

On the other hand, some groups that should be in his back pocket got a punch in the nose during his first term. How do they react to that?

That's the question mark that's making me uncomfortable. Trump probably doesn't need a really big amount of holdover in votes to still be competitive.