Pocahontas? So What?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

If that comment didn't make you chuckle though....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Of course it did. But I would have advised him, if you want to throw elbows at Warren (and that's a very worthwhile hobby), don't do it at that ceremony, do it later. This is who he is. If my IRA is going to increase 25% for each of the next 3 years (hopefully 8), I can tolerate his putting his being a jerk, especially if his target is a gargoyle like Princess Lie-awatha.

[zimmy]

Sad thing is there were probably people who thought it was funny and appropriate. Oh, now wait...

[PaulS]

Love the fetus, care less about the baby. Look at the Repub. budget and tax bill. Both hurt the poor and the most vulnerable amongst us. At least we don't have to hear about "compassionate conservativism" any longer.

The thing that makes me laugh about the whole thing is Pres. Trump is making fun of Warren for lying yet lies more than any other politician in history (probably more than 99.9% of people). His base eats it up though.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Love the fetus, care less about the baby. Look at the Repub. budget and tax bill. Both hurt the poor and the most vulnerable amongst us. At least we don't have to hear about "compassionate conservativism" any longer.

The thing that makes me laugh about the whole thing is Pres. Trump is making fun of Warren for lying yet lies more than any other politician in history (probably more than 99.9% of people). His base eats it up though.

"Love the fetus, care less about the baby"

And your evidence of this, is what, exactly?

"Look at the Repub. budget and tax bill. Both hurt the poor '

Not sure how doubling the standard deduction hurts the poor, most of whom utilize the standard deduction. It may help the rich more...but that's not the same thing as hurting the poor.

"The thing that makes me laugh about the whole thing is Pres. Trump is making fun of Warren for lying yet lies more than any other politician in history (probably more than 99.9% of people). His base eats it up though"

Most of the conservatives here have criticized Trump for his many shortcomings. I'm not to blame for his personal behavior. I am to blame for the public policy he advocates.

Character wasn't on the ballot in 2016. It was a choice of two morally bankrupt reptiles. I won't begin to claim Trump is more ethical than Hilary. I am quite comfortable debating that conservatism (which he advocates for, at least at the moment) is more ethical than liberalism (which she advocates for). I'm holding all the cards in that debate.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"Love the fetus, care less about the baby"

And your evidence of this, is what, exactly?The Repub. budget and tax bill which both hurt the poor (as I stated below)

"Look at the Repub. budget and tax bill. Both hurt the poor '

Not sure how doubling the standard deduction hurts the poor, most of whom utilize the standard deduction. It may help the rich more...but that's not the same thing as hurting the poor.Every analysis that I have seen says the tax bills hurt the lower income people (some said below 35K, others up to 125K in yearly income) and benefit the rich. If the end result is that someone making less money pays more in taxes and someone making more money pays less in taxes that shows where the Repub. priorities are.

"The thing that makes me laugh about the whole thing is Pres. Trump is making fun of Warren for lying yet lies more than any other politician in history (probably more than 99.9% of people). His base eats it up though"

Most of the conservatives here have criticized Trump for his many shortcomings. I'm not to blame for his personal behavior. "Your team/side" voted for him when they had many other choices - woman, more conserv, less conserv, minorities

.

Bottom line Repub. policies hurt the poor and benefit the rich.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Bottom line Repub. policies hurt the poor and benefit the rich.

"The Repub. budget and tax bill which both hurt the poor (as I stated below)"

You can state that the earth is flat. Doesn't make it so.

"Every analysis that I have seen says the tax bills hurt the lower income people (some said below 35K, others up to 125K in yearly income) and benefit the rich. "

And SOME of the ones that I have seen, claim it will help the poor and the middle class, and also help the rich.

"If the end result is that someone making less money pays more in taxes and someone making more money pays less in taxes that shows where the Repub. priorities are. "

If that's what happens, I agree with you. I don't know, that's what is going to happen. And neither do you.

Why can't you tell me, how doubling the standard deduction, fails to help the people who utilize that deduction, none of whom are wealthy?

""Your team/side" voted for him when they had many other choices - woman, more conserv, less conserv, minorities"

True. Your team also voted for an ethically bankrupt lizard.

"Bottom line Repub. policies hurt the poor and benefit the rich"

Well with such convincing supporting data, that's a compelling argument.

"Bottom line, 2+2=5".

See what I di dthere.

Sorry Paul, I spent half my life living near New Haven, and the other half working near Hartford. Liberal cities in a liberal state. There is zero evidence that liberalism has helped these people. I have seen firsthand what a generation of pure liberalism has done.

After 40 years of voting for Democrats, the fatherlessness rate among blacks has more than doubled.

Fat lot of good liberalism has done for poor people.

I'm not saying conservatism eliminates poverty either.

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Look at the Repub. budget and tax bill. Both hurt the poor and the most vulnerable amongst us.

One says that it hurts and another says it doesn't help them as much. You guys might want to get together and have a little "Team Meeting" so you can get on the same page.

Originally Posted by wdmso

"In 2019, those making less than $25,000 would get an average $50 tax reduction, or +0.3 percent of their after-tax income. Middle-income earners would get average cuts of $850, while people making at least $746,000 would get average cuts of $34,000, or +2.2 percent of income.
The center also said the Senate proposal would generate enough economic growth to produce additional revenue of $169 billion over a decade. That's far short of closing the near $1.5 trillion in red ink that Congress' nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation has estimated the bill would produce over that period."

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

One says that it hurts and another says it doesn't help them as much. You guys might want to get together and have a little "Team Meeting" so you can get on the same page.

when people consider those of one party or the other a "team" or a "side" there should be no wonder why our political climate is so decisive.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

when people consider those of one party or the other a "team" or a "side" there should be no wonder why our political climate is so decisive.

So the divisiveness isn't because liberals believe that conservatives hate everybody. And the divisiveness has nothing to do with the way liberals play the race card. Rather, the divisiveness comes from people who admit that today, there are two distinct political camps, and that most of us fall into one or the other.

Gotcha.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

So the divisiveness isn't because liberals believe that conservatives hate everybody.

Who here demonstrates the hate you do? The tenor of this forum changed when you started posting here. Look at the hate you spew in almost all your posts.

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by PaulS

when people consider those of one party or the other a "team" or a "side" there should be no wonder why our political climate is so decisive.

You may want to talk to this guy too then....

Originally Posted by zimmy

Your side is delusional if it thinks there is evidence that it has more empathy for the voiceless and vulnerable.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

You may want to talk to this guy too then....

It's OK when liberals do it. It's only problematic when I do it.

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

You may want to talk to this guy too then....

That was in response to Jim claiming a side. Good work on the selective quote though.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

You may want to talk to this guy too then....

That was in response to Jim claiming a side. Good work on the out of context quote though.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

One says that it hurts and another says it doesn't help them as much. You guys might want to get together and have a little "Team Meeting" so you can get on the same page.

There is a huge difference between a bill that hurts the poor, and a bill that helps the poor, but helps the rich more.

If the feds passed a law that said everyone gets a 10% raise tomorrow, that helps the rich more than it helps the poor. That doesn't mean it hurts the poor.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

There is a huge difference between a bill that hurts the poor, and a bill that helps the poor, but helps the rich more.

If the feds passed a law that said everyone gets a 10% raise tomorrow, that helps the rich more than it helps the poor. That doesn't mean it hurts the poor.

Agreed on both statements but the independent analysis say that on average the poor will pay more in taxes than they pay now while the rich will pay less in taxes than they pay now.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Agreed on both statements but the independent analysis say that on average the poor will pay more in taxes than they pay now while the rich will pay less in taxes than they pay now.

not sure what your definition of "poor" is but from what I understand the "poor" in this country are, in general, not paying any income tax and in many cases getting money through the earned income tax credit...

from Marketwatch..I think this was a 2015 analysis

On average, those in the bottom 40% of the income spectrum end up getting money from the government. Meanwhile, the richest 20% of Americans, by far, pay the most in income taxes, forking over nearly 87% of all the income tax collected by Uncle Sam.

[Jim in CT]

I am not an accountant. So I could absolutely be wrong here...

But when I heard about the doubling of the standard deduction, I was very glad to see that in there. I figured that cannot fail to put more money in the pockets of people who are, I presume, mostly lower middle class. Isn't that who uses the standard deduction?

That piece alone, must necessarily reduce taxes for these people. Is there another feature of the bill, that increases their taxes by more than the deduction lowers them?

This is an honest, sincere question, not sarcasm or hyperbole.

[scottw]

I was just reading this about Pocahontas...too funny

touted after her hire at Harvard Law School as, yes, the school’s “first woman of color"


"My favorite Elizabeth Warren story involves a cookbook. Warren, who was at that time posing as a trailblazing Cherokee, actually contributed recipes to a recipe book with the name, I kid you not, “Pow Wow Chow.” But here’s the best part of the story. She plagiarized some of the recipes. Yes indeed, her version of “pow wow chow” came directly from a famous French chef. My second-favorite Warren story involves breastfeeding. She once claimed to be the first “nursing mother” to take the New Jersey bar exam, making her, I suppose, the Jackie Robinson of lactating lawyers. The problem? There’s no evidence this is true. Women have been taking the New Jersey bar since 1895, and the New Jersey Judiciary was “not aware” whether they tracked the nursing habits of test-takers. Warren is a bit of an academic grifter. She’s willing to fake her way to the top. When she came to Harvard Law School, she was — believe it or not — considered by some to be a “minority hire.” She listed herself as a minority on a legal directory reviewed by deans and hiring committees. The University of Pennsylvania “listed her as a minority faculty member,” and she was touted after her hire at Harvard Law School as, yes, the school’s “first woman of color.”

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I am not an accountant. So I could absolutely be wrong here...

But when I heard about the doubling of the standard deduction, I was very glad to see that in there. I figured that cannot fail to put more money in the pockets of people who are, I presume, mostly lower middle class. Isn't that who uses the standard deduction?

That piece alone, must necessarily reduce taxes for these people. Is there another feature of the bill, that increases their taxes by more than the deduction lowers them?

This is an honest, sincere question, not sarcasm or hyperbole.

I think the issue is they while they may double the standard deduction they also remove other exemptions and tinker with the rates so it's neutral or in some cases a net loss. The CBO report just hammered the Senate plan as a big hit on the middle class and will add substantially to our deficit spending.

[Nebe]

Originally Posted by spence

I think the issue is they while they may double the standard deduction they also remove other exemptions and tinker with the rates so it's neutral or in some cases a net loss. The CBO report just hammered the Senate plan as a big hit on the middle class and will add substantially to our deficit spending.

Someone has to cover the tax cuts for private jets, golf courses and hotels. Sheeeesh
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Sea Dangles]

Neither have you Jeff
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

You don't know what you're talking about.

If that's a rant. what you call your frequent anger induced hatred filled posts?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by PaulS

You don't know what you're talking about.

If that's a rant. what you call your frequent anger induced hatred filled posts?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It's worse. He's completely in denial or simply incapable of reason.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

It's worse. He's completely in denial or simply incapable of reason.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If Paul is right, and millions of people simply moved from one federal entitlement program to another, how did it decrease spending and generate a surplus?

His welfare reform wasn't called "moving people from one federal program to another". It was, literally, called "The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act".

The point was to recognize that people on welfare too long, lose the initiative to work.

And it worked. Clinton and Gingrich did an amazing job.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

It's worse. He's completely in denial or simply incapable of reason.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Oh, indeed. I said that the point of the Clinton/Gingrich welfare reform was to get people off federal assistance, you and Paul disagree, and I am the one in denial.

I’m a republican. Yet I can admit that Bill Clinton did some things that were extremely beneficial to the country. You say that’s devoid of reason.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

this is good....


Cherokee genealogists have pored through her family history to find that “None of her direct line ancestors are ever shown to be anything other than white, dating back to long before the Trail of Tears.” To add insult to injury, despite Warren’s public claims of Native American heritage, she has decidedly avoided talking with Native leaders and, in 2012, refused to meet with a group of Cherokee women at the Democratic National Convention.

https://thinkprogress.org/elizabeth-...-c1ec6c91b696/

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

You don't know what you're talking about.

If that's a rant. what you call your frequent anger induced hatred filled posts?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You said Clinton's welfare reform just switched people from one program to another. That's not remotely true. You made it up. His program said that no one could receive welfare for more than 2 consecutive years, and no more than 5 years of benefits in a lifetime, and required that recipients be looking for work. His program moved many people from welfare to the workforce. Most people consider that a good thing.

[scottw]

have they announced the ceremony date yet to give Matt Lauer, Harvey Weinstein, Al Franken, Russell Simmons, Bill Clinton, Anthony Weiner, John Conyers, Charlie Rose...it's hard to keep up,,, and anyone else... their lifetime achievement awards?