Jump to content
TEWKS

Impeach the Motherf _ _ _ _ _

Impeach the Motherf_ _ _ _ _ ! r.t.  

89 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

realshelby

Doesn't matter what I or anyone thinks about Stop and Frisk. Trump went off half cocked, again, and put his foot in his mouth big time. Which is common. I don't get how his followers can allow that. 

 

Justice Department? Well, we are talking about interfering with witnesses, perjury, on a case where the Russians influenced a United States Presidential election. This is not lying about the cash you were paid for selling something and didn't put that on your tax return!  The punishment guidelines fit the crime. He would not likely serve all that time, good behavior or a likely Pardon from Trump would shorten it. So there is nothing unusual about the punishment or cruel. Look what this country has been through over this! 

 

Regardless, it isn't good politics or ethical for Trump to override the justice department. This is Cronyism at its highest level.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
mickeym3

With the back and forth on this thread it’s pretty easy to see how polarized even this community is.  Looking at this thread’s poll numbers I wouldn’t be surprised if this year’s election falls about the same. I can hardly imagine another four years of this, especially with the chief narcissist emboldened by the impeachment farce. But apparently there are no moderate Democrats in the land so we shall just continue to be a nation divided against itself.  A century from now historians will marvel. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Rougarou
5 hours ago, realshelby said:

Doesn't matter what I or anyone thinks about Stop and Frisk. Trump went off half cocked, again, and put his foot in his mouth big time. Which is common. I don't get how his followers can allow that. 

 

Cause he's human and not a typical "say what you want me to say" person/politician.  Does he screw up and say stupid shit, yep, do we, yep......but wait, he's the president and should be held to a "higher" standard,.....I say bullshit to that, he's still a person that can put his foot in his mouth on a daily/hourly basis .

 

 

Quote

 

Justice Department? Well, we are talking about interfering with witnesses, perjury, on a case where the Russians influenced a United States Presidential election. This is not lying about the cash you were paid for selling something and didn't put that on your tax return!  The punishment guidelines fit the crime. He would not likely serve all that time, good behavior or a likely Pardon from Trump would shorten it. So there is nothing unusual about the punishment or cruel. Look what this country has been through over this! 

 

Regardless, it isn't good politics or ethical for Trump to override the justice department. This is Cronyism at its highest level.

 

So you're ok with someone getting nine years for those charges, while violent offenders get equal to or less?   I guess sentencing for speeding should be equal to vehicular homicide.

Share this post


Link to post
realshelby

I am not "OK" with either of them. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
lawnchairboy

selective outrage (depending on how one feels about other politicians in recent history).   plenty of that around.  Outraged over politician X's folks, could give two shakes less when politician Y's folks pull shenanigans.  If only the media were honest and objective... 

 

cronyism? 

 

We surely haven't heard of that before in politics in recent history?  have we?   please. 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Patallaire
On ‎2‎/‎6‎/‎2020 at 7:23 PM, poodad said:

even the US had higher tax rates in our not distant history, and we were doing just fine.

Well, I just got back from two weeks vacation and I see he wasn't impeached.  Who really thought he would be?  As to taxes being higher, deductions were also higher.  As an example, business entertainment was $1.00 for a $1.00, credit card interest was deductible, mortgage interest and taxes were fully deductible, there was no cap on medical expenses.  Your comparison on taxes is apples and oranges. Yes rates were higher, the net was lower after deductions. 

Are there really those here who believe Bernie and his policies of free everything is a rational solution for this country?  Just asking.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Hosstage

Those thinking Bernie's proposals are the solution would best remember that if the government gives you everything you want, it can take away everything you have.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Rinkydink
33 minutes ago, Hosstage said:

Those thinking Bernie's proposals are the solution would best remember that if the government gives you everything you want, it can take away everything you have.

Everything the government gives to someone for “free” was earned by and taken from someone else. As a business the government produces nothing. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
poodad
5 hours ago, Patallaire said:

Well, I just got back from two weeks vacation and I see he wasn't impeached.  Who really thought he would be?  As to taxes being higher, deductions were also higher.  As an example, business entertainment was $1.00 for a $1.00, credit card interest was deductible, mortgage interest and taxes were fully deductible, there was no cap on medical expenses.  Your comparison on taxes is apples and oranges. Yes rates were higher, the net was lower after deductions. 

Are there really those here who believe Bernie and his policies of free everything is a rational solution for this country?  Just asking.

Bad news, Trump was impeached. He is impeached. He shall always be impeached. He wasn't removed, but only because Senate Republicans said, in effect, "yes we know he did it. We know it was impeachable. We just don't care." But no one ever expected him to be removed anyway.

 

Free? What Sanders (and Democrats in general) want to do is cut out all the subsidies given to the wealthy and big business and instead use that money to provide for society as a whole.

 

You know, like

social security

the Internet (100% government funded in the early days - still government subsidized)

rural telephones

rural electric

the interstate system

And a whole bunch of other things that our tax dollars fund that benefits everyone, and not just the rich.

 

The things Sanders is proposing works for most every other 1st world country on the planet. 

Share this post


Link to post
Rinkydink

1. Social Security.
The biggest Ponzi scheme ever. Do I partake? Yes, I want/deserve a portion of my $$ back. I had two brothers who both passed at age 61. They payed in all those years and got nothing. Their wives preceded them in death so that money is gone. At the onset I wasn’t asked if I wanted to participate or not and the government (Republicans AND Democrats) stole a ton of money never to be repaid. I would rather take just the money I’ve paid in minus interest...in lump sum. Of course I’d prefer it be tax free unlike my monthly SS benefits are now. 

 

2. Rural Telephones

Divestiture was one of the biggest government boondoggles forced upon America. It was initially because of the so called “Bell System Monopoly.” Then Southwestern Bell outperformed all the other Baby Bells and bought the majority of them back including AT&T putting us right back where we were pre 1984. Americans were  (and I believe still are)“taxed” to pay for rural telecom development. The USA still lags Euro/Asia big time in internet speeds and connectivity. Go go government

 

3. Rural Electricity

I know nothing....except that millions of dollars of government subsidies for many solar energy start ups that went bankrupt is gone forever. 

 

4.Interstate System

A very good thing but our upkeep is failing and it as a whole is an under engineered mess. 
 

I guess my point is government programs are as a rule inefficient and rife with cost overruns and waste. I am not all in on that. See the VA
 

So, I am to put my faith in a candidate (Sanders) who has been in public service for going on 39 years and all of the sudden magically he has what it takes to fix what Trump has supposedly ruined in just 3 1/4 years? Really?
 

Ditto, Biden, McConnell, Warren (she is an Indian you know), Blum, Pelosi, McCaul, Schumer, Upton, and all of the rest of them. Millionaire hacks that used insider trading (legal for Congresspersons by the way) and many other elitist perks to help themselves to millions at our expense. 
 

Want Social Security and Healthcare fixed????

Remove Congress’ golden pensions and health care plans and give them what we end up with and it will be corrected posthaste, I promise.

 

It’ll never happen. 
 

Sorry, but more government is not the answer   

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Hosstage
7 hours ago, poodad said:

Bad news, Trump was impeached. He is impeached. He shall always be impeached. He wasn't removed, but only because Senate Republicans said, in effect, "yes we know he did it. We know it was impeachable. We just don't care." But no one ever expected him to be removed anyway.

 

Free? What Sanders (and Democrats in general) want to do is cut out all the subsidies given to the wealthy and big business and instead use that money to provide for society as a whole.

 

You know, like

social security

the Internet (100% government funded in the early days - still government subsidized)

rural telephones

rural electric

the interstate system

And a whole bunch of other things that our tax dollars fund that benefits everyone, and not just the rich.

 

The things Sanders is proposing works for most every other 1st world country on the planet. 

 

Sanders is creating the same class warfare as Trump, it's just the class of the poor against the rich. Sanders hasn't come close to figuring out how he's going to pay for it, he doesn't even know how much it's going to cost.

If you think he's not going to come after your money, I think you're in for a surprise.

Remember that you are probably in the top 20% of the population in income, especially in the world, closer to the top 5%. Eventually you will be part of the "rich" that he will come after. The current "super rich" can't support all these programs, not even at a 99% tax rate.

And, what is "rich"? Where is that line? $100 million? $10 million? $250,000? Eventually that line will be yours.

 

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

The foundation of communism.

 

This country was founded on freedom, freedom to succeed, freedom to fail.

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
lawnchairboy
16 hours ago, poodad said:

Bad news, Trump was impeached. He is impeached. He shall always be impeached. He wasn't removed, but only because Senate Republicans said, in effect, "yes we know he did it. We know it was impeachable. We just don't care." But no one ever expected him to be removed anyway.

 

Free? What Sanders (and Democrats in general) want to do is cut out all the subsidies given to the wealthy and big business and instead use that money to provide for society as a whole.

 

You know, like

social security

the Internet (100% government funded in the early days - still government subsidized)

rural telephones

rural electric

the interstate system

And a whole bunch of other things that our tax dollars fund that benefits everyone, and not just the rich.

 

The things Sanders is proposing works for most every other 1st world country on the planet. 

https://www.aei.org/economics/even-a-partial-dose-of-democratic-socialism-seems-to-be-economic-poison/

But I'm a public school product.

 

 

social democracy economics are fantasy.     Trump is not my favorite president, his impeachment was partisan bulls?!$.   

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Patallaire
18 hours ago, poodad said:

Bad news, Trump was impeached. He is impeached. He shall always be impeached

Trump was impeached along party lines, not on facts. This was a disgusting display by the House to convict without solid evidence, just innuendo and imaginary witnesses.  It apparently appealed to your sense of right as probably did the Russian collusion twisted facts.  In this country, you are innocent until proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, to be guilty.  I fail to understand how the left chooses not to understand basic Constitution 101.

 

18 hours ago, poodad said:

Free? What Sanders (and Democrats in general) want to do is cut out all the subsidies given to the wealthy and big business and instead use that money to provide for society as a whole.

 

You know, like

social security

the Internet (100% government funded in the early days - still government subsidized)

rural telephones

rural electric

the interstate system

And a whole bunch of other things that our tax dollars fund that benefits everyone, and not just the rich.

Seriously, just do the math.  Free childcare, free college, Medicare for all also free, etc.  There is not enough money in this country to support one of those programs,  much less all of them..  Only in La La land is this remotely possible.  No math supports these outrageous claims.  If you want to tax the rich, however it is defined, it wouldn't put a dent in these costs.  Bernie is playing fast and loose with arithmetic. Please grasp this fact, the Government produces nothing!  It simply re-distributes tax money to wherever it wants whenever it wants.  All of those re-distributions are supported on the backs of income earners.  It is really a simple model, however, once the government gets it hands on either a program or money it gets to be funny money supporting inefficiency. Big business is the engine that moves this country forward.  Why would you not understand that employment rising and the economy moving forward is a pure result of big business as well as small business doing the right things.  Wages are up, employment is up across all demographics, this is a function of the economy, not freebees! People are motivated to work, tax them and give out free stuff and it will be a dis-incentive.  If you believe that other countries have better benefits, try living there.  You might ask why so many people want to emigrate to this country.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
realshelby
41 minutes ago, Patallaire said:

Trump was impeached along party lines, not on facts. This was a disgusting display by the House to convict without solid evidence, just innuendo and imaginary witnesses.  It apparently appealed to your sense of right as probably did the Russian collusion twisted facts.  In this country, you are innocent until proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, to be guilty.  I fail to understand how the left chooses not to understand basic Constitution 101.

 

Your opinion. And completely written along party lines. Already been stated, but again the impeachment process is not a "trial". Trump was and is impeached and like it or not there is plenty of evidence of wrong doing. Even his own party finally had to admit that. Of course the Senate chose not to remove him from office, the term acquitted is used. Removal from office or censorship are the two other options. Not a trial and not to be compared. Because Trump obstructed justice by not allowing witnesses and pertinent factual material to be present for the impeachment hearing he got "off". But still impeached. I might feel differently had some witnesses been allowed. We may yet hear what they would have said, and I may or may not change my position. 

 

This "debate" started with the feeling that the Impeachment was all about ROBBING voters of their elected President. But there was and is more to that. Many are very scared of the fact that Russia did in fact influence the 2016 election. Enough that there is and always will be considerable doubt that Trump was the actual winner. Electoral or Popular. Trump followers don't like to hear that and will be very defensive about anything related to the election of  Trump. 

 

I don't think Trump actually asked for help from Russia. Beyond the obvious remarks about the Clinton e-mails he made. But I do think his campaign knew what was going on and used it/allowed it to further their cause.  

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
mickeym3

I see that Trump is going to address the coronavirus in a press conference of sorts, perhaps he’ll draw us a map with his sharpie in order to share his brilliance on this as well. And watching a little of the Demo slugfest last night it’s pretty clear Blue has no answer. Geez, what’s a Pro-Life moderate to do?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
TEWKS
26 minutes ago, mickeym3 said:

 And watching a little of the Demo slugfest last night it’s pretty clear Blue has no answer. Geez, what’s a Pro-Life moderate to do?

 

Buckle up, the next four and a half is going to be one heck of a ride. :D I really wish the haters would cut the guy some slack, I don't think he's that far "right" where common interests can't be found. Maybe I dream too big. :dontknow:

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Rougarou
17 minutes ago, TEWKS said:

 

Buckle up, the next four and a half is going to be one heck of a ride. :D I really wish the haters would cut the guy some slack, I don't think he's that far "right" where common interests can't be found. Maybe I dream too big. :dontknow:

 

At least I can admit that Obama and Clinton had some good qualities about them,......While I like neither, I accepted that they were my Presidents.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Paul De

Forget about the inane Democratic primary, but buckle up for sure.  Trump was out there prognosticating that the coronavirus issue will be over by April. Larry Kudlow spouts off that it virus was “contained” and that it was pretty close to “air-tight,” both of which are inane comments on several counts.  Simultaneously, Nancy Messonnier, the director of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases tells Congress “It’s not a question of if this will happen but when this will happen and how many people in this country will have severe illnesses,”  and  “Disruption to everyday life might be severe.”  Sure I get it, Trump and Kudlow are trying to calm the markets, but using made up BS that is far out of line with the facts and the science only serves to breed fear and uncertainty which is exactly what the markets hate.   Funny part is this is just as Shi of China initially tried to handle it. Derp!

 

So what has this administration done to deal with this crisis and any future one that may be around the corner?  The Trump administration put out a budget proposal that again cuts funding to the NIH and CDC, both of which are government agencies that do the research to develop a vaccine (which will be turned over to the private sector pretty much free of charge to make plenty of money on scaling it up).    Myopic is the kindest word I can come up with.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
AZgman

Sanders says "Medicare for all". What I want to know is, will that include him and all other politicians, or will they continue to live under different rules (and healthcare) than the rest of us?

These "debates" should be renamed "arguments"...  I fear the Democrats will be handing the presidency to the Republicans (and unfortunately, Trump) once again. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
realshelby

Corona virus scare is made up by scientists. Probably the same ones clamoring about climate change! 

 

If you think he isn't so far "right" he cannot work to find common interest, how do you explain all the venomous names, threats, and falsehood accusations he is making about his opposing party? And if you are ok with that, how about the same things he has said about his fellow Republicans!  Few can look past that. It is called burning bridges.

 

Anyway, if you don't think Trump is playing to the Evangelists, White Power constituents, and Deep State believers I really don't know what to say. It is after all what got him elected. I don't think for a moment there is anything religious about Trump, and I am completely ok with that. Politics. All about stirring up his fan base. Which is why I lost my respect for him as President. I agree the office should have that, no matter who is elected. But Trump isn't worthy. 

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Hosstage

If only that one picture of All Franken hadn't come to light....

Share this post


Link to post
TEWKS
37 minutes ago, realshelby said:

 

If you think he isn't so far "right" he cannot work to find common interest, how do you explain all the venomous names, threats, and falsehood accusations he is making about his opposing party? 

 

 

 

Now that's funny. :grin: I can't quite remember all of them. (Russian spy-Ukraine-Judge appointees-he's a Racist- and so on)  Maybe just maybe, the democrats haven't treated this president fairly or with the slightest hint of respect. :dontknow: 

 

  

Share this post


Link to post
poodad
5 hours ago, Patallaire said:

Trump was impeached along party lines, not on facts. This was a disgusting display by the House to convict without solid evidence, just innuendo and imaginary witnesses.  It apparently appealed to your sense of right as probably did the Russian collusion twisted facts.  In this country, you are innocent until proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, to be guilty.  I fail to understand how the left chooses not to understand basic Constitution 101.

 

Seriously, just do the math.  Free childcare, free college, Medicare for all also free, etc.  There is not enough money in this country to support one of those programs,  much less all of them..  Only in La La land is this remotely possible.  No math supports these outrageous claims.  If you want to tax the rich, however it is defined, it wouldn't put a dent in these costs.  Bernie is playing fast and loose with arithmetic. Please grasp this fact, the Government produces nothing!  It simply re-distributes tax money to wherever it wants whenever it wants.  All of those re-distributions are supported on the backs of income earners.  It is really a simple model, however, once the government gets it hands on either a program or money it gets to be funny money supporting inefficiency. Big business is the engine that moves this country forward.  Why would you not understand that employment rising and the economy moving forward is a pure result of big business as well as small business doing the right things.  Wages are up, employment is up across all demographics, this is a function of the economy, not freebees! People are motivated to work, tax them and give out free stuff and it will be a dis-incentive.  If you believe that other countries have better benefits, try living there.  You might ask why so many people want to emigrate to this country.

Vendman and Sondland are imaginary? Remember, most of the people with first-hand knowledge were forbidden to testify by the White House. If you want to compare the impeachment inquiry to a trial, how many employers get to block their employees from testifying at a trial?

 

And spare us the innocent until proven guilty bit. The Senate Republicans admitted that Trump tied Ukraine aid to the announcement of an investigation in order to make Biden look bad. Hell,  Marco Rubio even admitted that what Trump did was impeachable. The Republicans didn't say Trump was innocent. What they said was that they aren't required to convict, and therefore weren't.

 

Only La La Land? How about most western European and Scandinavian counties? Canada? Have you already forgotten our last debate where I proved that strong social policies don't stifle business end economy?

 

Employment may be up, but wages are down. Way down. Almost all of the job growth in this country in the last few years is minimum wage jobs.

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Rougarou
41 minutes ago, poodad said:

Only La La Land? How about most western European and Scandinavian counties? Canada? Have you already forgotten our last debate where I proved that strong social policies don't stifle business end economy?

 

 

I can offer you a fine advertisement of what it "can or should" be, but in reality, nothing more than junk. 

 

Image result for yugo advertisement

Share this post


Link to post
poodad

At least Bernie isn't trying to tell you Mexico will pay for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Patallaire
19 hours ago, poodad said:

most of the people with first-hand knowledge were forbidden to testify by the White House.

You must be forgetting the "Mysterious WhistleBlower" who no one has seen or heard from since he is forbidden to be either identified or to testify.  You must also be forgetting the intractable proof that there was Russian Collusion which we were going to be given solid proofs of and they never materialized. Or all the falsehoods in the FISA report.  That's ok, age has that impact on facts.

19 hours ago, poodad said:

I proved that strong social policies don't stifle business end economy

You actually proved nothing, you just cherry picked stats. But since you humbly believe that you solidified your position lets explore that in more depth. Keep in mind that to begin we need to agree that the government produces nothing, it simply collects taxes and re-distributes them as they please. If we agree to that point we can continue. In more liberal countries, poverty and unemployment have not been reduced and frankly social welfare programs are a drain on the economy and have not proven in their purest sense to be successful.  There have been increased divorce rates and they have increased taxes on income and capital and have caused run-away expenditures on social programs.  This can be seen clearly in college graduates where free education is the norm, they can't find jobs as there are no differentiators in society, also in the elderly, which all over the world are a like a giant snowball sucking social programs dry as longevity increases, birth rates decrease,  and migration exerts its impact.

You can see this shift in the Social State where the Federal government tries to shift the burden of support programs to the local governments and non-profits to support the poor and homeless.  Nowhere is that more transparent than in the big cities, ie: San Francisco, LA, Denver, NY Chicago etc.  Demographics are shifting to less liberal states and therefore creating stress on the liberal states liberal programs, the only solutions appear to be , Raise taxes or lower expenditures.  Add to this quagmire, the intervention of AI {Artificial Intelligence{ and Robotics and you can see that part of the workforce going forward will be impacted.

Liberal socialist approaches are a factor in Europe, while a Social Democratic model is prevalent in Scandinavian countries, Capitalism is the American way.

So no model is perfect, policies need to be modified, as in California for example,  migration needs to be stifled, taxes lowered, social programs modified, government shrunk, private sector participation as in perhaps schools geared to careers, childcare on sight.  The entitlement programs need to be reviewed in light of longevity, etc.  There are no easy solutions, but more liberalism is not a solution.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
realshelby
33 minutes ago, Patallaire said:

Keep in mind that to begin we need to agree that the government produces nothing, it simply collects taxes and re-distributes them as they please. If we agree to that point we can continue. In more liberal countries, poverty and unemployment have not been reduced and frankly social welfare programs are a drain on the economy and have not proven in their purest sense to be successful.  There have been increased divorce rates and they have increased taxes on income and capital and have caused run-away expenditures on social programs.  This can be seen clearly in college graduates where free education is the norm, they can't find jobs as there are no differentiators in society, also in the elderly, which all over the world are a like a giant snowball sucking social programs dry as longevity increases, birth rates decrease,  and migration exerts its impact.

You can see this shift in the Social State where the Federal government tries to shift the burden of support programs to the local governments and non-profits to support the poor and homeless.  Nowhere is that more transparent than in the big cities, ie: San Francisco, LA, Denver, NY Chicago etc.  Demographics are shifting to less liberal states and therefore creating stress on the liberal states liberal programs, the only solutions appear to be , Raise taxes or lower expenditures.  Add to this quagmire, the intervention of AI {Artificial Intelligence{ and Robotics and you can see that part of the workforce going forward will be impacted.

Liberal socialist approaches are a factor in Europe, while a Social Democratic model is prevalent in Scandinavian countries, Capitalism is the American way.

So no model is perfect, policies need to be modified, as in California for example,  migration needs to be stifled, taxes lowered, social programs modified, government shrunk, private sector participation as in perhaps schools geared to careers, childcare on sight.  The entitlement programs need to be reviewed in light of longevity, etc.  There are no easy solutions, but more liberalism is not a solution.

 

See, we actually agree on something!

 

I really don't get the "Whistleblower" must be questioned and uncovered point by Republicans? I assume those on Trumps side assume that someone from the dreaded Democrats made up that whole thing, at least made the actual whistleblower come forward after they hand fed facts?

The point is that a whistleblower is supposed to be protected by law. Whether you do or don't like what was brought forward no longer matters. There is plenty of proof of wrongdoing to back up what the whistleblower reported. 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
poodad
48 minutes ago, Patallaire said:

You must be forgetting the "Mysterious WhistleBlower" who no one has seen or heard from since he is forbidden to be either identified or to testify.  You must also be forgetting the intractable proof that there was Russian Collusion which we were going to be given solid proofs of and they never materialized. Or all the falsehoods in the FISA report.  That's ok, age has that impact on facts.

You actually proved nothing, you just cherry picked stats. But since you humbly believe that you solidified your position lets explore that in more depth. Keep in mind that to begin we need to agree that the government produces nothing, it simply collects taxes and re-distributes them as they please. If we agree to that point we can continue. In more liberal countries, poverty and unemployment have not been reduced and frankly social welfare programs are a drain on the economy and have not proven in their purest sense to be successful.  There have been increased divorce rates and they have increased taxes on income and capital and have caused run-away expenditures on social programs.  This can be seen clearly in college graduates where free education is the norm, they can't find jobs as there are no differentiators in society, also in the elderly, which all over the world are a like a giant snowball sucking social programs dry as longevity increases, birth rates decrease,  and migration exerts its impact.

You can see this shift in the Social State where the Federal government tries to shift the burden of support programs to the local governments and non-profits to support the poor and homeless.  Nowhere is that more transparent than in the big cities, ie: San Francisco, LA, Denver, NY Chicago etc.  Demographics are shifting to less liberal states and therefore creating stress on the liberal states liberal programs, the only solutions appear to be , Raise taxes or lower expenditures.  Add to this quagmire, the intervention of AI {Artificial Intelligence{ and Robotics and you can see that part of the workforce going forward will be impacted.

Liberal socialist approaches are a factor in Europe, while a Social Democratic model is prevalent in Scandinavian countries, Capitalism is the American way.

So no model is perfect, policies need to be modified, as in California for example,  migration needs to be stifled, taxes lowered, social programs modified, government shrunk, private sector participation as in perhaps schools geared to careers, childcare on sight.  The entitlement programs need to be reviewed in light of longevity, etc.  There are no easy solutions, but more liberalism is not a solution.

 

I love how you attempt to deflect any points you can't address. No, I haven't forgotten about the whistelblower. Once other witnesses came forward, the whistleblower became irrelevant. Federal law provides protection for the whistleblower, and he or she elected to take advantage of that protection. And with what has happened with Sondland and Vendman, do you blame the whistleblower?

 

Again, Trump's innocence or guilt are not in question. Republicans have admitted that Trump tied aid to helping him gather dirt on a political rival.

 

I didn't "cherry pick" anything. If you can name a better metric than per-capita GDP to compare economies of countries, by all means please name it.

 

As far as blue states versus red states, you might be surprised at how much blue states subsidize red states. https://apnews.com/2f83c72de1bd440d92cdbc0d3b6bc08c/AP-FACT-CHECK:-Blue-high-tax-states-fund-red-low-tax-states

 

You continue to claim that lowering taxes is the way to improve the economy. This has been tried by every Republican since Reagan, and it has NEVER worked. All it does is explode the deficit and leaves a mess for the next Democratic president to clean up.

 

The simple fact of the matter is that several other countries around the world provide the social programs that Sanders proposes and they all have as good, if not better economies than the US. This, as well as the proven abject failure of trickle down economics, are empirical facts which you continue to pretend don't exist.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Rougarou

 

If I recall, the whistileblower protection act is only from retaliation.  Nothing states that the whistleblower cannot be questioned on the accusations he/she made.

Share this post


Link to post
Marty Hill

Obviously there are two sides to this and they will never come together.  Is there really a point to this continuing BS?

Share this post


Link to post
poodad
22 minutes ago, Marty Hill said:

Obviously there are two sides to this and they will never come together.  Is there really a point to this continuing BS?

Other than its fun?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Rinkydink
34 minutes ago, Marty Hill said:

Obviously there are two sides to this and they will never come together.  Is there really a point to this continuing BS?

How about a Michelin vs. Pirelli thread? :rofl:
Or Castrol vs.Quaker State. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Rougarou
1 hour ago, Rinkydink said:

How about a Michelin vs. Pirelli thread? :rofl:
Or Castrol vs.Quaker State. 

 

Clearly you have been misinformed as SuperTech is the most superior oil brand.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Hosstage

How about slender verses curvy? I lean toward curvy...

Share this post


Link to post
Rougarou
8 hours ago, Hosstage said:

How about slender verses curvy? I lean toward curvy...

 

All sizes and all shades for my preferences,........but it really boils down to attitude and independence.........I don't need another device I have to "maintain".

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Patallaire
21 hours ago, poodad said:

Once other witnesses came forward, the whistleblower became irrelevant.

The entire Impeachment nonsense was driven by the existence of the "Whistle blower." In the absence of such a person, one needs to accept that it was fiction and a creation of Shiff, in one of his late night fantasies. This fantasy as well as Shiff's Russian Collusion non-existent proof, cost the tax payers well over twenty Million dollars and a government that was not working for the people.  Please recognize this as pure politics. 

 

22 hours ago, poodad said:

You continue to claim that lowering taxes is the way to improve the economy.

I suggested in California, they have a choice, continue increasing taxes on an already over taxed state, or reduce socialist support systems for immigrants etc.  The total tax base in California is closer to 65%, most people don't want to recognize, between sales tax,{an after income tax levy} state income tax as high as 13%, Federal tax, Real Estate taxes, {an after income tax levy} as well as real estate being out of reach, Social Security and Medicare tax, add medical insurance which you believe should be free and you are well over that mark. If you give it away, as they do in Sweden, the income tax rate hides the cost of the medical insurance, its the same number, just packaged differently, and the people that are older and living longer are breaking the system.  

You referenced Canada as having great health care, I live on the border, they inundate our hospitals for health care.  They can get it without waiting at a lower cost.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
poodad
42 minutes ago, Patallaire said:

The entire Impeachment nonsense was driven by the existence of the "Whistle blower." In the absence of such a person, one needs to accept that it was fiction and a creation of Shiff, in one of his late night fantasies. This fantasy as well as Shiff's Russian Collusion non-existent proof, cost the tax payers well over twenty Million dollars and a government that was not working for the people.  Please recognize this as pure politics. 

 

I suggested in California, they have a choice, continue increasing taxes on an already over taxed state, or reduce socialist support systems for immigrants etc.  The total tax base in California is closer to 65%, most people don't want to recognize, between sales tax,{an after income tax levy} state income tax as high as 13%, Federal tax, Real Estate taxes, {an after income tax levy} as well as real estate being out of reach, Social Security and Medicare tax, add medical insurance which you believe should be free and you are well over that mark. If you give it away, as they do in Sweden, the income tax rate hides the cost of the medical insurance, its the same number, just packaged differently, and the people that are older and living longer are breaking the system.  

You referenced Canada as having great health care, I live on the border, they inundate our hospitals for health care.  They can get it without waiting at a lower cost.  

No, the case wasn't driven by the whistleblower. Vendman was independent of the whistleblower. Pure politics? Hardly. Remember, even the Republicans have admitted that Donald Trump attempted to use the power of the presidency to generate dirt on a political rival. That isn't "pure politics". That is pure evil. 

 

You might want to read the Mueller report. Mueller clearly documents a troublesome amount of Russian help for the Trump campaign. He notes that while the evidence does not reach criminal conspiracy level , it likely would have if the White House hadn't stonewalled his every attempt at investigation.

 

Democrats are trying to work for the people. The impeachment didn't stop them. The House has passed more than 400 bills since the Democrats took control, and the vast majority of those are sitting on Mitch McConnell's desk. There's a problem in Congress all right, but the Democrats aren't it.

 

Even if this Russia investigation costs $20m, it collected $35m in fines. We could spend $15m more on investigations and still break even.

 

Your point about medical costs being the same number, just packaged differently is kind of the point. Except that currently we have a whole added layer of inefficiency caused by the insurance and medical industries working their hardest to screw each other. We have the added problem that people who cannot afford routine care let their medical issues snowball until we foot the bill for their expensive emergency hospitalization.

 

And I'm still waiting on what metric you believe should be used to compare economies. And an explanation of how Sanders' policies can be so disastrous when several countries are already operating under those policies with healthy economies.

Share this post


Link to post
Hosstage

Poodad, you just mentioned that the House has passed over 400 bills waiting to be put into law.

Why, why so many laws? My God, we've got more laws than can possibly be read by one person in a lifetime.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Rinkydink
19 minutes ago, Hosstage said:

Poodad, you just mentioned that the House has passed over 400 bills waiting to be put into law.

Why, why so many laws? My God, we've got more laws than can possibly be read by one person in a lifetime.

Hell Hosstage per the old senile Pelosi you pass them just to see what’s in them. Lol

 

Uh, enforcing them isn’t Congress’ problem. They just come up with ‘em. What a gig. 

Share this post


Link to post
Patallaire
43 minutes ago, poodad said:

Except that currently we have a whole added layer of inefficiency caused by the insurance and medical industries working

There is the point.  The are not on tax payer payrolls, if the company doesn't make a profit they lose their jobs.  Under the current proposals, by the socialists running it would all be a function of big government, not free enterprise. The same with your comment on 400 laws, more big government.  How do you even suggest that the government is more efficient than private industry.  You seem to ignore that the government does not produce anything, it just is a wealth transfer agency, held to no particular performance standards.  

 

46 minutes ago, poodad said:

Democrats are trying to work for the people.

Seriously??  How did they do with the Blacks and Hispanic population over  the years, poverty in the inner cities, respect for police officers, taxes, education in the inner cities,  etc.  Not so well, I submit.  I am not sure what people they are working for, but it sure wasn't us.

 

52 minutes ago, poodad said:

You might want to read the Mueller report.

 I see, you have your "Smarter than everyone " hat on again.  Not everyone interpreted the Mueller report as you have, it actually, and you may find this hard to believe, split along party lines with a few exceptions.  The legal scholars also split.  So, with your perfect insight, you might want to take a trip to Washington and re-litigate this event, as well as all the others.  Make sure you include the FISA report. 

Share this post


Link to post
Patallaire

 

Quote

 

 

57 minutes ago, poodad said:

And an explanation of how Sanders' policies can be so disastrous when several countries are already operating under those policies

You actually need to understand history, I tried to explain it to you before.  Social programs started under Bismark and his Social Security net, they have expanded since.  Different regions of the world adopted different approaches

 

On 2/27/2020 at 9:15 AM, Patallaire said:

Liberal socialist approaches are a factor in Europe, while a Social Democratic model is prevalent in Scandinavian countries, Capitalism is the American way.

, Our ideology wand country was built on the premise of "Freedom of Choice", not programs dictated by big government.  While other countries have had early success in the 40s, 50s and 60s, they have since been demonstrated their weaknesses as the populations have aged and are draining the systems, college graduates under free college can not find jobs so the tax payers are paying for their education and they are leaving the country which stresses the system even further,  through diminished  income taxes to support the socialist programs and a zero return on the educational investments. We on the other-hand are a capitalist society. We provide opportunity, which is why the immigrants want to flood our country, we create opportunities through innovation, technology, medicine manufacturing etc.  Even a small business can succeed.  You really need to re-visit your ideology.  If you feel compelled to adapt to the socialist ideology, feel free to sell your boat, motorcycle and share your wealth with the rest of us.  We would greatly appreciate it. 

Share this post


Link to post
poodad
2 hours ago, Hosstage said:

Poodad, you just mentioned that the House has passed over 400 bills waiting to be put into law.

Why, why so many laws? My God, we've got more laws than can possibly be read by one person in a lifetime.

That's par for the course for the 2000s and actually down from the 1990s. 

Share this post


Link to post
realshelby
4 hours ago, Patallaire said:

The entire Impeachment nonsense was driven by the existence of the "Whistle blower." In the absence of such a person, one needs to accept that it was fiction and a creation of Shiff, in one of his late night fantasies. This fantasy as well as Shiff's Russian Collusion non-existent proof, cost the tax payers well over twenty Million dollars and a government that was not working for the people.  Please recognize this as pure politics. 

 

The whistleblower brought this up first. But not the only one to present the problem. I am actually surprised at your position on this. Impeachment nonsense is only that if you can say the testimony and facts were ALL wrong. There was enough brought forward to confirm Trump wanted dirt dug up on Biden to help him in his campaign. 

 

Not everything is fiction, or even fake news in this United States. 

 

No one here has read the Mueller report. Since much of it has been kept away from the public. I would very much like to see what has NOT been made public. Even so, there is plenty of evidence that Russia did in fact influence the election. I don't think Trump was on the phone daily with Putin asking for his help. But the Trump campaign was happy to see what direction the influence from Russia was taking the election process. 

Share this post


Link to post
Hosstage

I met a guy at the bar who hated the rich, Trump, republicans, blah, blah, blah, so I decided to have some fun with him. He wasn't just for making them pay their fair share of taxes, but to also take away a bunch of their money because they don't need all of it, its way too much. I asked why, I want to be filthy rich some day, don't you?

When I pointed out that he was already rich, he of course denied it. I asked him if he had a house, yes. A car? Yes. 2 cars? Well, one's a truck. (Brain surgeon this guy.) And a car he bought for his kid. An ATV? Yes. A snowmobile? 2, but one doesn't run right now (more brilliance). A nice yard, lawnmower, etc? All yes. I said you're rich.

He didn't agree of course. His occupation was as a union laborer, so I went for the kill. Look around this bar, I said, now look at all the people in this bar and do a general estimate of each person's income in here, including the bartender and cook. (This was a local neighborhood bar, not some high end joint, he knew many of them) I told him to add up all the wages including his, and divide it equally among everybody. Does your wage go up or down? He thought, and said probably down. I told him he should take out that difference and give it to them to be divided. It's the only way you can pay your fair share.

He left shortly after.

 

Share this post


Link to post
poodad
20 hours ago, Hosstage said:

I met a guy at the bar who hated the rich, Trump, republicans, blah, blah, blah, so I decided to have some fun with him. He wasn't just for making them pay their fair share of taxes, but to also take away a bunch of their money because they don't need all of it, its way too much. I asked why, I want to be filthy rich some day, don't you?

When I pointed out that he was already rich, he of course denied it. I asked him if he had a house, yes. A car? Yes. 2 cars? Well, one's a truck. (Brain surgeon this guy.) And a car he bought for his kid. An ATV? Yes. A snowmobile? 2, but one doesn't run right now (more brilliance). A nice yard, lawnmower, etc? All yes. I said you're rich.

He didn't agree of course. His occupation was as a union laborer, so I went for the kill. Look around this bar, I said, now look at all the people in this bar and do a general estimate of each person's income in here, including the bartender and cook. (This was a local neighborhood bar, not some high end joint, he knew many of them) I told him to add up all the wages including his, and divide it equally among everybody. Does your wage go up or down? He thought, and said probably down. I told him he should take out that difference and give it to them to be divided. It's the only way you can pay your fair share.

He left shortly after.

 

I'm not aware of anyone who is suggesting that everyone pools their salary and divides it equally as a government policy. 

Share this post


Link to post
poodad
23 hours ago, Patallaire said:

 

 

You actually need to understand history, I tried to explain it to you before.  Social programs started under Bismark and his Social Security net, they have expanded since.  Different regions of the world adopted different approaches

 

, Our ideology wand country was built on the premise of "Freedom of Choice", not programs dictated by big government.  While other countries have had early success in the 40s, 50s and 60s, they have since been demonstrated their weaknesses as the populations have aged and are draining the systems, college graduates under free college can not find jobs so the tax payers are paying for their education and they are leaving the country which stresses the system even further,  through diminished  income taxes to support the socialist programs and a zero return on the educational investments. We on the other-hand are a capitalist society. We provide opportunity, which is why the immigrants want to flood our country, we create opportunities through innovation, technology, medicine manufacturing etc.  Even a small business can succeed.  You really need to re-visit your ideology.  If you feel compelled to adapt to the socialist ideology, feel free to sell your boat, motorcycle and share your wealth with the rest of us.  We would greatly appreciate it. 

You need to understand reality. And that reality is that there are countries that long ago implemented the policies Sanders' is suggesting, and these countries continue to flourish TODAY. Not 50 years ago. TODAY. These countries have similar, or higher per capita GDP (adjusted to buying power) as compared to the US (and BTW, I'm STILL waiting on you to provide a better metric than my "cherry picked" one).

 

Please cite references showing that kids who graduate from government provided college leave the country at a larger rate than those who don't.

 

You (and others) in this discussion also seem to want to conflate social democracy with socialism. No one is suggesting we change the structure of our democratic republic. No one is suggesting that we have the government own business. The only thing that Sanders and the other Democratic candidates want to change is to stop subsidizing the wealthy and big business and start subsidizing programs that help people. This isn't exactly a new idea. Every big social program this country has ever undertaken was opposed by conservatives and derided as socialism. Harry Truman said it pretty well in a speech in 1952.

 

Quote

Taft explained that the great issue in this campaign is “creeping socialism.” Now that is the patented trademark of the special interest lobbies. Socialism is a scare word they have hurled at every advance the people have made in the last 20 years.

Socialism is what they called public power.

Socialism is what they called social security.

Socialism is what they called farm price supports.

Socialism is what they called bank deposit insurance.

Socialism is what they called the growth of free and independent labor organizations.

Socialism is their name for almost anything that helps all the people.

When the Republican candidate inscribes the slogan “Down With Socialism” on the banner of his “great crusade,” that is really not what he means at all. What he really means is, “Down with Progress

 

 

It was true then, and it is true now.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Hosstage

Can someone post a solid specific example of a subsidy for a wealthy person or a business that they would like to see end, ideally a subsidy used by a wealthy person? I would just like to see how it works, how much this person pays in taxes on earnings (not personal wealth or money already in the bank), how much is given to charity, etc. I want to see how fair share is not paid. This is for my education, I am ignorant to the wealthy workings, as I am so far from it.

Share this post


Link to post
poodad
On 2/28/2020 at 10:16 AM, Patallaire said:

There is the point.  The are not on tax payer payrolls, if the company doesn't make a profit they lose their jobs.  Under the current proposals, by the socialists running it would all be a function of big government, not free enterprise. The same with your comment on 400 laws, more big government.  How do you even suggest that the government is more efficient than private industry.  You seem to ignore that the government does not produce anything, it just is a wealth transfer agency, held to no particular performance standards.  

 

Seriously??  How did they do with the Blacks and Hispanic population over  the years, poverty in the inner cities, respect for police officers, taxes, education in the inner cities,  etc.  Not so well, I submit.  I am not sure what people they are working for, but it sure wasn't us.

 

 I see, you have your "Smarter than everyone " hat on again.  Not everyone interpreted the Mueller report as you have, it actually, and you may find this hard to believe, split along party lines with a few exceptions.  The legal scholars also split.  So, with your perfect insight, you might want to take a trip to Washington and re-litigate this event, as well as all the others.  Make sure you include the FISA report. 

 

I'm not suggesting that government is more efficient. Anything but. I worked for the federal government for nine soul crushing years. However, even though it doesn't operate efficiently, it can do things that private industry cannot. The preamble of the US Constitution:

 

Quote

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

 

The job of the government isn't to produce. The job of the government is to

  • Provide common defense
  • Promote the general Welfare
  • Secure the blessing of liberty

The main resource the US government has at its disposal to discharge those duties is "wealth transfer" as you call it (most of us call it taxes).  Social programs fall clearly in the second role listed.

 

No particular performance standards? We give the US Government leaders job reviews every few years, firing those who we find to not be performing.

 

"Smarter than everyone hat"? Yet another attempt at deflection - this time with a nice little personal attack thrown in for good measure. You can't argue with the Mueller report, so lets hand wave it away by painting me as an intellectual elitist for actually having read the report.

 

"The Russian government interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion"

"The Office identified multiple contacts – 'links', in the words of the Appointment Order – between Trump Campaign officials and individuals with ties to the Russian government."

"Third, we considered whether to evaluate the conduct we investigated under the Justice Manual standards governing prosecution and declination decisions, but we determined not to apply an approach that could potentially result in a judgment that the President committed crimes."

“The President engaged in a second phase of conduct, involving public attacks on the investigation, non-public efforts to control it, and efforts in both public and private to encourage witnesses not to cooperate with the investigation.”

"The investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts.”

 

Those statements in the report aren't really open to interpretation.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
poodad
20 minutes ago, Hosstage said:

Can someone post a solid specific example of a subsidy for a wealthy person or a business that they would like to see end, ideally a subsidy used by a wealthy person? I would just like to see how it works, how much this person pays in taxes on earnings (not personal wealth or money already in the bank), how much is given to charity, etc. I want to see how fair share is not paid. This is for my education, I am ignorant to the wealthy workings, as I am so far from it.

How about the fact that hedge fund managers' federal taxes are capped at 15%?

Did you forget about the new private jet deductions in the latest tax law?

Donald Trumps tax returns that we've seen (from when he was getting in the casino business) show he paid no federal taxes.

Warren Buffet admitted that he pays less taxes than his secretary.

 

For all current minimum wage earner out there, a large percentage of them also receive public assistance. The net effect is that we are subsidizing those employers' low wages.

Share this post


Link to post
Hosstage

Buffet may pay less taxes, I don't know that, I haven't seen his records, but what does he donate to charities, what does he pay in sales taxes, business taxes, employee wages and taxes? Just curious of the overall effect generated in income earned, money given out?

I forgot about the private jet deductions because I don't have one, never will, don't know anyone that does, and don't remember it being reported on the news with the accompanying protests about it. I do know that new jet probably generated a shit ton of taxes earned by the people that built it.

We can't tax our way out of debt, the spending has to be cut dramatically.

I do know that portraying the rich as the problem is just another class warfare that misses the mark of what the problems are. If it comes down to rich verses poor, rather than a well thought out fair plan for everybody, I think I know who wins.

Again, I would like to see one, fully drawn out example of one person, who made maybe $5 million, and the whole process of income verses taxes paid and other monies paid out.

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...