fireworks with Trump in DC

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

It may not be necessary, it may not be required, but it seems that Trump has always sought the advice of "experts" to accomplish what he wants to do. Is that a bad thing? You make it sound God-awful.

Another log on the fire.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

Why would that even be necessary? And for Kelly to clarify? I thought Trump had called every Gold Star Parent...and now he needs coaching?

The man has been a CEO for how many decades and he needs help to console a military widow? Jesus, this doesn't require help...

It just requires a little empathy.

Hillary would feign shriek "WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE??"

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

Hillary would feign shriek "WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE??"

Sexist.

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by spence

Why would that even be necessary? And for Kelly to clarify? I thought Trump had called every Gold Star Parent...and now he needs coaching?

The man has been a CEO for how many decades and he needs help to console a military widow? Jesus, this doesn't require help...

It just requires a little empathy.

Ohh he lies, he is just not anywhere as competent at clearing up the lying as his predecessor and he doesn't have the benefit of the media that generally covered Obama favorably.

Had Obama been a real centrist or a moderate rather than a progressive he could have been great - he was just great to his fans.

[spence]

Originally Posted by JohnR

Ohh he lies, he is just not anywhere as competent at clearing up the lying as his predecessor and he doesn't have the benefit of the media that generally covered Obama favorably.

Had Obama been a real centrist or a moderate rather than a progressive he could have been great - he was just great to his fans.

What did Obama ever lie about?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Why would that even be necessary? And for Kelly to clarify? I thought Trump had called every Gold Star Parent...and now he needs coaching?

The man has been a CEO for how many decades and he needs help to console a military widow? Jesus, this doesn't require help...

It just requires a little empathy.

The approach that served Trump well in business (be bold, and if necessary, a jerk) doesn't always carry over well into every human endeavor.

"It just requires a little empathy"

For Gods sake man, Trump has a 4-star general who is a gold star father, as his right hand man. How on earth is it a character flaw, for Trump to seek his guidance, to make sure he is using the best words possible, when speaking to people who are grieving?

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

For Gods sake man, Trump has a 4-star general who is a gold star father, as his right hand man. How on earth is it a character flaw, for Trump to seek his guidance, to make sure he is using the best words possible, when speaking to people who are grieving?

I thought Trump had spoken with nearly every family of those killed on duty? And now he needs coaching??? Doesn't make any sense. Oh wait, sure it does...it's called yet ANOTHER cover up story.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Thats been my point all along he doesn't have the Maturity to be POTUS but no one has an issue with it as long he gives them something they want ... like lowering the corporate tax rate the fact are trickle down economics dont work .. and hows he paying for this ?

Since you conveniently avoided answering the question " If you truly believe that "trickle down" doesn't work, then why on earth are you for government trickle down policy?", you should absolutely read this entire article by Thomas Sowell regarding the bogus notion of "Trickle Down theory of economics":

http://www.tsowell.com/images/Hoover%20Proof.pdf

There is no such theory. This fabricated notion of "trickle down" is used in trying to discredit the proven connection between lowering tax rates, including and especially for the wealthy, and the following increase in federal tax revenue. How successful this ruse is in convincing those who don't know the real history, nor how economy and taxation work together, is demonstrated by how you refer to the trickle down theory and confidently state that it doesn't work.

If you're interested in the truth of the matter rather than regurgitating false political talking points, please read the whole article.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Since you conveniently avoided answering the question " If you truly believe that "trickle down" doesn't work, then why on earth are you for government trickle down policy?", you should absolutely read this entire article by Thomas Sowell regarding the bogus notion of "Trickle Down theory of economics":

http://www.tsowell.com/images/Hoover%20Proof.pdf

There is no such theory. This fabricated notion of "trickle down" is used in trying to discredit the proven connection between lowering tax rates, including and especially for the wealthy, and the following increase in federal tax revenue. How successful this ruse is in convincing those who don't know the real history, nor how economy and taxation work together, is demonstrated by how you refer to the trickle down theory and confidently state that it doesn't work.

If you're interested in the truth of the matter rather than regurgitating false political talking points, please read the whole article.

https://www.thebalance.com/trickle-d...t-work-3305572

Trickle-down economics says that Reagan's lower tax rates should have helped people in all income levels. In fact, the opposite occurred. Income inequality worsened. Between 1979 and 2005, after-tax household income rose 6 percent for the bottom fifth. That sounds great until you see what happened for the top fifth. Their income increased by 80 percent. The top 1 percent saw their income triple. Instead of trickling down, it appears that prosperity trickled up.

is that a talking point ? no those are the facts... funny how your the only one here that posts the Truth .

[scottw]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Income inequality worsened.

after-tax household income rose 6 percent for the bottom fifth. That sounds great so you're saying everyone's income went up

doesn't income have more to do with the motivation and drive of the individual than government policy? and that would be directly affected by opportunity available and a vibrant economy with as much money flowing through it as possible?....the idea with "trickle down" was/is that there was more money moving through the free market economy as opposed to more money controlled and doled out through government agencies and coffers...I don't think there was ever any promise of "Income Equality"....whether the individual takes advantage of that or not is up to them....I guess if you are locked into a job where your pay scale and advancement opportunity is pre-determined it would not matter either way except to complain that others are getting "richer"

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

doesn't income have more to do with the motivation and drive of the individual than government policy? and that would be directly affected by opportunity available and a vibrant economy with as much money flowing through it as possible?....the idea with "trickle down" was/is that there was more money moving through the free market economy as opposed to more money controlled and doled out through government agencies and coffers...I don't think there was ever any promise of "Income Equality"....whether the individual takes advantage of that or not is up to them....I guess if you are locked into a job where your pay scale and advancement opportunity is pre-determined it would not matter either way except to complain that others are getting "richer"

What a crock.

[Nebe]

When you are a narcissistic sociopath, empathy is non existent.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Nebe

When you are a narcissistic sociopath, empathy is non existent.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Narcissist, yes.

Sociopath? Come on. There are plenty of stories of his generosity. That doesn't come close to making him a good guy, he's not a sociopath.

[detbuch]

WDMSO--from your article:
Definition: Trickle-down economics is a theory that says benefits for the wealthy trickle down to everyone else. These benefits are usually tax cuts on businesses, high-income earners capital gains and dividends.


It is not an actual economic theory. Sowell, if you read the article I posted, said "No such theory has been found in even the most voluminous and learned histories of economic theories, Including J. A. Schumpeter's monumental 1260 page History of Economic Analysis. Yet this non-existent theory has become the object of denunciations from the pages of the New York Times and the Washington Post to the political arena. It has been attacked by Professor Paul Krugman of Princeton, and Professor Peter Corning of Stanford, among others, and similar attacks have been repeated as far away as India. It is a classic example of arguing against a caricature instead of confronting the argument actually made."

Further from your article:
Trickle-down economics assumes investors, savers and company owners are the real drivers of growth (they are real drivers, not the only drivers). It assumes they’ll use any extra cash from tax cuts to expand businesses. Investors will buy more companies or stocks. Banks will increase business lending. Owners will invest in their operations and hire workers. The theory says these workers will spend their wages, driving demand and economic growth.

This caricature, not theory, oversimplifies what is assumed. The reason tax RATES were originally lowered under Coolidge was because the rates were so high that it was more profitable for investors and businesses to put money into tax shelters. The assumption was that lowering tax rates would encourage the money holders to return to making profit by spending on those things that grow business rather than sheltering the money for dividends and tax evasion. When such tax cuts under Coolidge, Kennedy, Reagan, and Bush were made, less money was put into tax shelters and was spent on business growth, and the economy did expand and the federal government actually received greater tax income. Saying that the results might have been because of other factors, therefor merely coincidental, is not convincing when the result occurred every time the tax rates were lowered.


Further from your article:
Trickle-down economic theory is similar to supply-side economics. That theory states that all tax cuts, whether for businesses or workers, spur economic growth. Trickle-down theory is more specific. It says targeted tax cuts work better than general ones.

Wait . . . I thought that "targeted tax cuts" are what Progressive economists like. Oh, that's right, they are the true believers in trickle down, government trickle down economics--from government to the masses.


Further from your article:
It [trickle down] advocates cuts to corporations, capital gains and savings taxes. It doesn't promote across-the-board tax cuts. Instead, the tax cuts go to the wealthy.

But Trump's, and Bush's, and Reagan's tax cuts were across-the-board cuts. So they must not be considered trickle down. Your article is very confusing.


Further from your article:
Did It Work?
During the Reagan Administration, it seemed like trickle-down economics worked.

But it wasn't trickle down. It was across-the-board tax cuts.

His policies, known as Reaganomics, helped end the 1980 recession.

Trickle-down economics was not the only (Oh, "not the only"--so it was part of the equation?) reason for the recovery, though. Reagan also increased government spending by 2.5 percent a year.
That almost tripled the federal debt. It grew from $997 billion in 1981 to $2.85 trillion in 1989. Most of the new spending went to defense. It supported Reagan's successful efforts to end the Cold War and bring down the Soviet Union. Trickle-down economics, in its pure form, was never tested. (Because there is no such theory of economics. It doesn't exist.) It's just as likely that massive government spending ended the recession.

Every time the rates were lowered, economy was spurred. But not every time massive government spending occurred (without tax cuts) did the economy respond--at best it remained stagnant as in Obama. Or worse as in Franklin Roosevelt. So why is it just as likely that massive government spending ended the recession? What historical evidence is there for such a "just as likely" scenario?

Further from your article:
President George W. Bush used trickle-down theory to address the 2001 recession. He cut income taxes with EGTRRA. That ended the recession by November of that year.
But unemployment rose to 6 percent. That often occurs, because unemployment is a lagging indicator.

It takes time for companies to start hiring again, even after a recession has ended. Nevertheless, Bush cut business taxes with JGTRRA in 2003.
It appeared that the tax cuts worked. But, at the same time, the Federal Reserve lowered the fed funds rate. It fell from 6 percent to 1 percent. It's unclear . . .

If it's unclear, what is the argument against tax cuts? And your author admits that the initial Bush tax cuts ended the recession by November, and that the rise to 6% unemployment was the result of the past recession--it was a lagging indicator.


. . . whether tax cuts or another monetary policy caused the recovery.

If the other monetary policy is low fed rates, then why did the economy resist recovering under Obama's several years of extremely low Federal Reserve rates? Again, where is the empirical, historical evidence that low fed rates are the cause of economic recovery?

Further from your article:
Trickle-down economics says that Reagan's lower tax rates should have helped people in all income levels. (it did.) In fact, the opposite occurred. (No, all income levels were helped. And, oh, BTW, it was not, by the author's own definition, not Trickle-down, it was across-the-board.) Income inequality worsened. (worsened is a value judgment. If all are financially improved, but some more than others, that is not an inherently bad or "worse" thing. And to expect that there should be a dollar for dollar equivalency in gains between different scales of income is ridiculous. What the difference should be may be debatable, but if all are actually better off is not debatable, it is a fact.) Between 1979 and 2005, after-tax household income rose 6 percent for the bottom fifth. That sounds great (It was great.) until you see what happened for the top fifth. Their income increased by 80 percent. The top 1 percent saw their income triple. Instead of trickling down, it appears that prosperity trickled up.

So if it took a lowering of the tax rate to achieve 80 percent or more income at the top in order to get a 6 percent increase at the bottom, it would be better just to stay in recession? And how much of that greater income gain at the top made it possible or favorable for the top to spend and invest in ways that spurred the economy thus make it feasible to rise out of recession and aid the bottom to get their 6 percent. If the bottom got their tax rate lowered, and the top did not get a low enough tax rate to invest in spending rather than hiding money in tax shelters, would the economy have improved or would it have remained stagnant thus depriving the bottom of the chance to gain a six percent rise in income or greater chance of employment?

Despite its shortcomings, Republicans use trickle-down economic theory to guide policy. In 2017, Republican President Donald Trump proposed cutting taxes for the wealthy. (He is proposing an across-the-board cut in taxes--which by your author's definition, is not "Trickle down.") He also wants to end taxes on capital gains and dividends for everyone making less than $50,000 a year. (That's another tax reduction at the bottom end of wage earners.) Trump's tax plan would reduce the corporate tax rate to 15 percent. That's been upped to 25 percent) He said it would boost growth enough to make up for the debt increase.

Nothing in your article, nor in historical evidence, says that he is wrong. Generally, debt increases because of spending. Cutting taxes has historically led to (or consistently "coincided" with) increased federal tax revenue. Your article doesn't dispute that. So, if the federal government gets more revenue, how does that increase the debt? It will increase only if spending increases beyond the ability to pay for the spending.

Your article finishes with:
In 2010, the Tea Party movement rode into power during the midterm elections. They wanted to cut government spending and taxes. As a result, Congress extended the Bush tax cuts, even for those making $250,000 or more.

Sowell's article ends with:
"Even when empirical evidence substantiates the arguments made for cuts in tax rates, such facts are not treated as evidence relevant to testing a disputed hypothesis, but as isolated curiosities. Thus, when tax revenues rose in the wake of the tax rate cuts made during the George W. Bush administration, the New York Times reported: 'An unexpectedly steep rise in tax revenues from corporations and the wealthy is driving down the projected budget deficit this year.' Expectations, of course, are in the eye of the beholder. However surprising the increases in tax revenues may have been to the New York Times, they are exactly what proponents of reducing high tax rates have been expecting, not only from these particular tax rate cuts, but from similar reductions in high tax rates at various times going back more than three-quarters of a century. To the extent that the American economy has changed since the time of Andrew Mellon, it has changed in ways that make it even easier for wealthy investors to escape high tax rates. A globalized economy makes overseas investments a readily available alternative to buying taxexempt bonds domestically. Even if the domestic tax rate is not 'high' by historic standards, what matters now is whether it is high compared to tax rates in other countries to which large sums of money can be readily sent electronically. Meanwhile, unemployed workers cannot nearly so readily relocate to other countries to take the jobs created there by American investments fleeing higher tax rates at home."

I'll wrap up this long reply to you by saying that your article does not address what Sowell says. Your article deflects from the true nature of reduced tax rates into some mythic theory of "Trickle down economics." Reduced tax rates encourage and enable needed money to stay at home rather than going abroad. Reduced tax rates are not based on the assumption that people will react as your author says. Rather, they are based on where, historically, money goes when rates are too high. They are based on evidence, not assumption.

From your response, it sounds as if you didn't read Sowell's article, or if you did, you do not understand it. More's the pity.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

No.

Merriam-Webster Definition of stupid
1
a :slow of mind btuse

The speed of mind (whatever that is) does not, in itself, prevent right or wrong, good or bad, decisions or ideas. Given the right (good) info, a slow mind can make a good decision. Or, given wrong info the slow mind, or fast mind, can make a bad decision

b :given to unintelligent decisions or acts :acting in an unintelligent or careless manner

If intelligence is defined as "one's capacity for logic, understanding, self-awareness, learning, emotional knowledge, planning, creativity, and problem solving . . . more generally described as the ability or inclination to perceive or deduce information, and to retain it as knowledge," it would require good info to gather and retain knowledge that is beneficially useful. An "intelligent" person (Lenin for example) whose knowledge is composed of bad info would necessarily have bad knowledge, which would be considered "stupid" because it would lead to harmful or destructive or useless or "unintelligent" decisions or acts.

c :lacking intelligence or reason :brutish

Don't know how one can lack intelligence other than either your mind being filled with bad info or your brain being functionally, physically deficient (which would be a result of its receptors not receiving sufficient or good info).

2
:dulled in feeling or sensation :torpid still stupid from the sedative

Again, for whatever reason, being physically unable or disabled from receiving signals (info) relating to actual conditions.

3
:marked by or resulting from unreasoned thinking or acting :senseless a stupid decision

Reason requires information. Bad info leads to bad reasoning.

4
a :lacking interest or point a stupid event

It requires info to create "interest" or "point." No info leads to no interest or point. Ergo, an event about which there is no info, or bad info could be considered a "stupid" event.

b :vexatious, exasperating the stupid car won't start

This is totally a colloquial expression. A car is not actually stupid, it is inanimate. Metaphorically, however, it won't start because it's "brain" (its mechanism) is not receiving the mechanical signals (info) in order to function properly. And the ensuing exasperation of the would be driver results from his immediate inability (lack of knowledge or info) to make the car start. He emotionally blames the car, but eventually settles down and gets help from those who have the proper info to get the car working.

So, yes, bad info which includes lack of info (which is a bad thing) is the cause of most stupidity.

[spence]

That was a really long response. I'd just say in this context it's more about a lack of curiosity to understand or an inability to understand.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

That was a really long response. I'd just say in this context it's more about a lack of curiosity to understand or an inability to understand.

Lacking the curiosity to understand something is endemic to somewhere in the highest percentile of the human population. Except for a miniscule minority, most of us lack the curiosity to understand SOME things. That doesn't make us stupid. Just willingly ignorant in those areas which we lack curiosity.

And the "inability to understand" is either a lack of the physical mental capability to function at the normal human level, which is not "stupid" except in the sense that the brain is not able to process information. That is, it is not capable of properly receiving information. In which case only mentally impaired people would, by your definition, be "stupid." That is not how that word is used.

Or, otherwise, in a physically sound brain/body connection, the "inability to understand" would be a result of bad information as described in my "really long response."

I'll stick with Webster's definition over yours.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

No just Trump in my example .. the eye of the beholder has nothing to do with its the actions of the snake that concern me

you knew what he was when you picked him up...

It's true that your eye saw your example. That's a tautology. A needless repetition. It's also true that other's eyes could see the opposite example, or the examples I gave. Your example is your opinion. Others would disagree with you, and others would give whatever variation of examples they came up with. They all would be as valid as yours.

You used a "fable" as a metaphor for what you think is reality. A reality that is contingent on future possibility. A reality based on biased opinion. Your thrice removed from reality metaphor is no better or truer in any real sense than other such metaphors.

In short, your little fiction is not worth much.

And yes, I knew something about what he was, as I did about his opponent. When I considered what would be the most important outcome in terms of the impact either candidate would have on our constitutional form of government, the choice was not difficult. There have been several scoundrel Presidents who, in spite of their flaws, did not damage our system of government. There have been some very "intelligent," slick ones who promised various collective groups more money in their pocket, but did harm to our constitutional foundation in order to fulfill their promises. And individuals in the collective groups were happy to get their goodies, not concerned about the change in the nature and power of government.

Using your fable as metaphor for the harmless, even beneficial sounding, snake, brought to life by voters who cared more for their pockets than for a system that guaranteed them freedom, I insert in place of the snake all the Progressive Presidents of the past whose resuscitation by unaware, ignorant, voters brought us to the point where we either elected another one of them who could potentially wrap her Progressive snake body around the Constitution and squeeze the final life out of it (after all, it's a living breathing thing, right?), or elect a reproachable character who might do one of the things left, and necessary, to help reverse the trend. You know, the supposedly "stolen" Justice. Hopefully Trump gets the chance to nominate a few more.

And if expanding your pocketbook a little more is so important to you that you would prefer, in order to get a few more shekels, an unbridled government which can dictate what and how your life is, and spend our way to oblivion in order to hold on to its power, then I don't give a fig about your little, useless fable.

[PaulS]

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/05/u...democrats.html

WASHINGTON — A federal watchdog investigating whether the Internal Revenue Service unfairly targeted conservative political groups seeking tax-exempt status said that the agency also scrutinized organizations associated with liberal causes from 2004 to 2013.

The findings by the Treasury Department’s inspector general mark the end of a political firestorm that embroiled the I.R.S. in controversy, led to the ouster of its commissioner and prompted accusations the tax collection agency was being used as a political weapon by the Obama administration.

The exhaustive report, which examined nine years worth of applications for tax-exempt status, comes after a similar audit in 2013 found that groups with conservative names like “Tea Party,” “patriot” or “9/12” were unfairly targeted for further review.

[Slipknot]

So what, they also targeted Democrats. Big deal, they must be so proud of their smokescreen. I say it marks the end of the watchdog investigating, not the end of the firestorm or controversy.
Maybe Obama is a saint

[spence]

Originally Posted by Slipknot

So what, they also targeted Democrats. Big deal, they must be so proud of their smokescreen. I say it marks the end of the watchdog investigating, not the end of the firestorm or controversy.
Maybe Obama is a saint

Maybe, just maybe...there's no conspiracy.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Slipknot

So what, they also targeted Democrats. Big deal, they must be so proud of their smokescreen. I say it marks the end of the watchdog investigating, not the end of the firestorm or controversy.
Maybe Obama is a saint

Just pointing out that they only didn't target Republicans for all who have brought this subject up numerous times. So the "firestorm or controversy" should continue on even though there's nothing here? that's a good one.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Slipknot]

I thought you'd like that

[scottw]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Just pointing out that they only didn't target Republicans for all who have brought this subject up numerous times. So the "firestorm or controversy" should continue on even though there's nothing here? that's a good one.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim wrote...."conservative groups that had their applications for tax exempt status delayed “based solely on their viewpoint or ideology"

your article simply confirms that this was happening after years of denial and claims that this was not the case...that some liberal groups were scrutinized should not be news as all applications should have been "scrutinized" through the process....the complaint was that applications were unfairly delayed based on viewpoint/ideology.....based on what has been reported, Lerner and crew were overstepping their bounds...not surprised the NY Times took this angle on the story

“The IRS admits that its treatment of Plaintiffs during the tax-exempt determination process, including screening their applications based on their names or policy positions, subjecting those applications to heightened scrutiny and inordinate delays, and demanding some Plaintiffs’ information that TITA determined was unnecessary to the agency’s determination of their tax-exempt status, was wrong,” the IRS said in court documents. “For such treatment, the IRS expresses its sincere apology.”

[PaulS]

The IRS targeted both sides as a shortcut bc they were overwhelmed due to a lack of personnel and a huge increase in entities applying for non profit status. There was no political targeting like what happened w/Nixon and other Pres.

The whining is funny.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by PaulS

The IRS targeted both sides as a shortcut bc they were overwhelmed due to a lack of personnel and a huge increase in entities applying for non profit status. There was no political targeting like what happened w/Nixon and other Pres.

The whining is funny.

who is whining?...winning?...yes... the IRS/DOJ settled with hundreds of groups...apparently no wrong doing...The DOJ reached an undisclosed monetary settlement with over 400 conservative groups that had their applications for tax exempt status delayed “based solely on their viewpoint or ideology,” Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced Thursday.

someone should notify Trump that you and the left have no problem with the IRS acting in such a way going forward....he'll have fun with that

[PaulS]

Complaining that they targeted Cons. when they also targeted Libs. is whining. No one said it was appropriate.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Complaining that they targeted Cons. when they also targeted Libs. is whining. No one said it was appropriate.

your article only stated that a few lib keywords were used...there was no mention that or if those groups after being "identified" were subjected to the same harassment that the conservative groups alleged...

they clearly targeted and impeded conservative groups...not sure regarding the lib groups...we'll assume that they(libs) wouldn't mind..OK

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Complaining that they targeted Cons. when they also targeted Libs. is whining. No one said it was appropriate.

The DOJ concluded that conservative groups were specifically targeted because of their ideology. Come on, Paul.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

The DOJ concluded that conservative groups were specifically targeted because of their ideology. Come on, Paul.

They looked at keywords, ideology, etc. bc they were trying to determine if they were social orgs. and not political. Low level ees made that decision.

What did Obama have to do w/it other than fire the head of the agency bc Obama viewed it as wrong?

I guess the moral is that the Repub. shouldn't starve an agency of the necessary funds to do its job.