The 2017 General Political discussion thread, Part 2!

[Alpo]

I didn't vote for Obama, and have said so several times on INGO going years back. Thus your point is moot. As far as how it sounds, we as I have come to learn, have different sets of ears.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I didn't vote for Obama, and have said so several times on INGO going years back. Thus your point is moot. As far as how it sounds, we as I have come to learn, have different sets of ears.

This is a good thing. He would probably look really funny with your ears!

 

[Kutnupe14]

This is a good thing. He would probably look really funny with your ears!

touchè, undoubtedly

 

[2A_Tom]

First, find the thread where anyone was aware of it. Oh, and Obama didn't campaign on draining the swamp. Just another failure of the appointees of this administration that picks "all the best people."
-Price, Spicer, The Mooch, Priebus, Bannon, Gorka, Walsh... all those great picks... gone. And the FEMA director looks to be in good company.

You are correct. He was right at home in it.

 

[jamil]

I didn't vote for Obama, and have said so several times on INGO going years back. Thus your point is moot. As far as how it sounds, we as I have come to learn, have different sets of ears.

No. The point isn't made moot by you not actually voting for Obama. I agreed with you that it's "fleecing". It pisses me off when government isn't careful with our money. So why not care about all the fleecing government does? Why only select THIS administration's fleecing to care about? All unnecessary government spending is fleecing. And most government spending is unnecessary.

To see how consistent you are about what you say you don't like, I gave you an opportunity to be against past fleecing. And you declined by dismissing it. It's therefore clear that rather than the fleecing you oppose, it's simply the Trump administration you oppose, regardless of what it does. And I don't mind that you're generally opposed to Trump. I'm not a fan either. But when you pick at Trump's administration doing it, while dismissing Obama, whether you voted for him or not, yeah, THAT's pretty much justification for your righteous indignation. You're only saying it because you hate him. That's at most selectively honest.

 

[jamil]

This is a good thing. He would probably look really funny with your ears!

Hey. Couldn't hurt. I don't look all that great with mine! At least he's pretty.

 

[printcraft]

I didn't vote for Obama, and have said so several times on INGO going years back. Thus your point is moot. As far as how it sounds, we as I have come to learn, have different sets of ears.

You didn't vote for Trump either but that hasn't stopped you from whining about pretty much everything he does.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

Lot's of "news" about the Republican push for tax reform and tax reduction. BEWARE any article that is based upon the analysis of the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, such as this WaPo article:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...dle-class-report-says/?utm_term=.b44c6f4c854a

The biggest driver of their finding that the cut (no details of rates, etc, have been announced) overwhelmingly favors the 1% is based upon the following bad assumption made by Brookings:

It also assumed that wealthy people would reclassify their personal income as business income in order to take advantage of a lower tax rate aimed at helping small businesses, even though the GOP plan said it would introduce measures to prevent that behavior.

Note that currently if, say a doctor, attempts to do this with his S-Corp practice, attempts to "hide" his personal income inside the business, the IRS can and will basically "dissolve" (pierce is the word the IRS case law uses) the S-Corp protections and apply personal tax rates to the ENTIRE practice with disastrous tax consequences for the doc who attempts this.

IMO, this qualifies as "fake" news analysis.

 

[jamil]

Lot's of "news" about the Republican push for tax reform and tax reduction. BEWARE any article that is based upon the analysis of the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, such as this WaPo article:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...dle-class-report-says/?utm_term=.b44c6f4c854a

The biggest driver of their finding that the cut (no details of rates, etc, have been announced) overwhelmingly favors the 1% is based upon the following bad assumption made by Brookings:



Note that currently if, say a doctor, attempts to do this with his S-Corp practice, attempts to "hide" his personal income inside the business, the IRS can and will basically "dissolve" (pierce is the word the IRS case law uses) the S-Corp protections and apply personal tax rates to the ENTIRE practice with disastrous tax consequences for the doc who attempts this.

IMO, this qualifies as "fake" news analysis.

Especially now, I don't think any of the major news outlets are capable of reporting anything honestly on either side.

 

[Kutnupe14]

No. The point isn't made moot by you not actually voting for Obama. I agreed with you that it's "fleecing". It pisses me off when government isn't careful with our money. So why not care about all the fleecing government does? Why only select THIS administration's fleecing to care about? All unnecessary government spending is fleecing. And most government spending is unnecessary.

To see how consistent you are about what you say you don't like, I gave you an opportunity to be against past fleecing. And you declined by dismissing it. It's therefore clear that rather than the fleecing you oppose, it's simply the Trump administration you oppose, regardless of what it does. And I don't mind that you're generally opposed to Trump. I'm not a fan either. But when you pick at Trump's administration doing it, while dismissing Obama, whether you voted for him or not, yeah, THAT's pretty much justification for your righteous indignation. You're only saying it because you hate him. That's at most selectively honest.

I think by my using the word "fleecing," the implication was obvious.... at least to me. I'm clear that it's not to anyone else, but I'm ok with it.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Now the president, whose administration has been slow to respond to the needs of the Puerto Rican people, has gone on a twitter rant about the mayor of San Juan. Apparently his secret police have been tapping the lines of the mayor allowing him to know that the Democrats have spoken with the mayor and told her to complain about his poor response.

“The Mayor of San Juan, who was very complimentary only a few days ago, has now been told by the Democrats that you must be nasty to Trump,” the president wrote at 7:19 am.“…Such poor leadership ability by the Mayor of San Juan, and others in Puerto Rico, who are not able to get their workers to help. They…….want everything to be done for them when it should be a community effort. 10,000 Federal workers now on Island doing a fantastic job,”

http://nypost.com/2017/09/30/trump-launches-personal-attack-on-mayor-amid-crisis-in-puerto-rico/

...and of course the lil quip "they want everything done for them," carries with it, a particular connotation, to his base.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

Especially now, I don't think any of the major news outlets are capable of reporting anything honestly on either side.

Yup... and the thing that gets me is that ANY income tax cut (as opposed to refundable credit increases) will solely go to the top half (50%) of households who pay income taxes, and disproportionally go to the top 10% (and 1%) who disproportionally pay a much higher portion of income taxes.

But they need "shocking" numbers to drive their propaganda so they do this dishonest stuff...

 

[printcraft]

 

[SheepDog4Life]

Now the president, whose administration has been slow to respond to the needs of the Puerto Rican people, has gone on a twitter rant about the mayor of San Juan. Apparently his secret police have been tapping the lines of the mayor allowing him to know that the Democrats has spoke with the mayor and told her to complain about his poor response.


http://nypost.com/2017/09/30/trump-launches-personal-attack-on-mayor-amid-crisis-in-puerto-rico/

...and of course the lil quip "they want everything done for them," carries with it, a particular connotation, to his base.

Do you have a source for the highlighted section or are you just making that cr*p up?

 

[Kutnupe14]

Do you have a source for the highlighted section or are you just making that cr*p up?

Not sure if srs?

 

[SheepDog4Life]

Not sure if srs?

So, I guess that means you totally made it up? BTW, you left some "fake news" on the table... if you're making it up, it might as well be that PUTIN spied on the mayor for Trump. Lol!

'Member? Russians, Russians, Russians... lol.

 

[Birds Away]

...and of course the lil quip "they want everything done for them," carries with it, a particular connotation, to his base.

So the underlying reason for any action or inaction by conservatives is racism?

 

[2A_Tom]

The heart of Progressiveism is to apply their own definitions to words.
I know no one on this forum would do that.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

So the underlying reason for any action or inaction by conservatives is racism?

For me, it recalls New Orleans mayor Nagin after Katrina... rather than IMMEDIATELY helping his people, with assets at his IMMEDIATE disposal, someone else needed to do it, and only with air conditioned luxury buses...

I need reinforcements, I need troops, man. I need 500 buses, man. We ain't talking about -- you know, one of the briefings we had, they were talking about getting public school bus drivers to come down here and bus people out here.

I'm like, "You got to be kidding me. This is a national disaster. Get every doggone Greyhound bus line in the country and get their asses moving to New Orleans."


That's -- they're thinking small, man. And this is a major, major, major deal. And I can't emphasize it enough, man. This is crazy.


I've got 15,000 to 20,000 people over at the convention center. It's bursting at the seams. The poor people in Plaquemines Parish. ... We don't have anything, and we're sharing with our brothers in Plaquemines Parish.

Meanwhile, 100's of NOLO school buses that could have moved tens of thousands to safety were left parked to be flooded.

 

[BugI02]

Waiting on ammoman...
I'll be impressed if he admits he was mistaken. For some reason, that's an amazingly hard thing to do for some folks.

We just have to accept that that is part of ... some INGOers ... personae. lolz