TGHusker

I don't think she will run anyway. Health issues may be her main concern. Ok - what is MAGA hay? Hat* My fat thumbs and poor autocorrect make mobile a challenge! Good - I thought this old man was missing some new acronym for something really important!!

I agree RD. Trump fires Mueller and all hell breaks loose. He has zero loyalty wt Congressional Repubs except to pass their agenda. I think the Congressional Repubs would act quickly in their own self interest to avoid a 2018 shakedown at the polls. That shakedown may come regardless, but they don't need a Trump firing of a SP to hang around their necks. Isn't there enough to impeach the guy just from today's tweets - he's not able to carry out the duties of the office - psyco unfit: From Yahoo: President Donald Trump lashed out at Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Rep. Adam Schiff, the top Democrat on the House committee investigating possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, in a set of Monday morning tweets. The president called Sessions, who he's had a strained relationship with since the attorney general recused himself from investigations related to Trump's campaign, "beleaguered" and asked why the Justice Department and Congress aren't investigating "Crooked Hillarys crimes & Russia relations." Following up with another tweet minutes later, Trump called Schiff "sleazy" and "totally biased," and accused him of spending "all of his time on television pushing the Dem loss excuse!" In a remarkable admission during an interview with The New York Times last week, Trump said that he would not have chosen Sessions to be attorney general had he known that he would recuse himself from the ongoing Russia investigation. "Sessions should have never recused himself, and if he was going to recuse himself, he should have told me before he took the job and I would have picked somebody else," Trump told the Times.

I don't think she will run anyway. Health issues may be her main concern. Ok - what is MAGA hay?

I posted on the impeachment proceedings thread in error this question which belongs on this thread. Since this thread stalled in January, are you more or less confident that Trump will be impeached? If more so - why and if less so- why? This was my prediction in the thread. I still stand by it. I am probably more confident that impeachment will occur based on what appears to be Mueller's investigation into Trump's financial dealings. I think their will be evidence of money laundering, tax evasion, and bank irregularities. So my conclusion now is that it will be more than just his general ineptness in office, it will be tied to real financial issues. Turning the Russian investigation from a political only investigation and into a financial investigation was vital. quote from my January post: I said 2018. The Repubs will use him for their purposes in 2017 - get things passed. By the end of the year, they will tire of his antics. His incompetent words and actions will first become realized in foreign affairs where the executive branch has a lot of latitude. The Russia and China issues will explode - hopefully not in war but in bad relationships or in the Russia case - hidden ties. The repubs in Congress will want to act quick in 2018 to get rid of the embarrassment before the Nov mid term election. or They may wait until after the elections - but that would be risky if Trump is a 100% disaster chained to them. Congressional repubs have no loyalty to him and they will act in their best interest before or after the midterms. The Dems will be all to happy to assist. Pence was a long time member of the congressional club so they will get someone that they know and who knows them.

See when will trump be impeached thread post

Idiot

https://www.axios.com/exclusive-trump-ponders-rudy-giuliani-for-attorney-general-2464579234.html Ok everyone would you prefer Giuliani or Sessions for AG or maybe even Crispy Cream Christy? Here is an interesting take on the situation. I figured Session's time was limited because he did the RIGHT THING by recusing himself from the Russian investigation. President Trump is so unhappy with Attorney General Jeff Sessions that he has raised the possibility of bringing back Rudolph Giuliani to head the Justice Department, according to West Wing confidants. In internal conversations, Trump has recently pondered the idea of nominating Giuliani, a stalwart of his campaign. Even before last week's blast at Sessions in a New York Times interview, Trump had expressed fury at Sessions — also one of the first prominent Republicans to back the Trump campaign — for recusing himself from the Russia investigation. And in a Monday morning tweet, Trump referred to "our beleaguered A.G." not investigating Hillary Clinton. Our thought bubble: Trump often muses about possible personnel moves that he never makes, sometimes just to gauge the listener's reaction. So the Giuliani balloon may go nowhere. As Axios reported Saturday, Newt Gingrich — who also went all-in with the Trump campaign — may take a more visible, frequent role as a defender as Trump girds for battle with special counsel Bob Mueller. Giuliani would have a tough time getting 50 Republicans senators to vote to confirm him. He was such an early and ardent Trump backer that he wouldn't be seen as an independent guardian of the department in these tumultuous times. In fact, the nomination could be seen as Trump throwing gasoline on a fire. And Giuliani's stop-and-frisk police policy as New York mayor, and clients since then, also would be controversial with many senators. Nevertheless, the leaks about Giuliani and Gingrich are revealing in four ways: Trump wants to surround himself with enablers and junkyard dogs, as we saw with the selection of the pugilistic Anthony Scaramucci as White House communications director. Presidents like the personnel equivalent of comfort food — people with whom they have a long, happy history. Presidents often find they can only really trust people they knew before they took office, since it's hard to trust new people at the pinnacle of power. Rudy and Newt were both overlooked in the first round of administration picks. By reviving some of his original band members, he's able to blame other people for his problems. And the West Wing conversations show that Trump originals can always come back. Paging Chris Christie!

Opps Sorry RedDenver - I see you already had the Schumer throws Hillary under the bus angle covered.

I think both parties are major CFs right now. The first party to get their act together will be the lead dog in 2018. I have little hope for either. Under what party banner is McMullen going to run under in 2020!!! I need to research Libertarian some more otherwise just be a pure independent. Schumer throws Hillary under the bus. We know who he won't be voting for in 2020. Quote: When you lose to somebody who has 40% popularity, you don't blame other things -- Comey, Russia -- you blame yourself," Schumer, the top ranking Democrat in the Senate, told The Washington Post over the weekend. "So what did we do wrong? People didn't know what we stood for, just that we were against Trump. And still believe that." Dem Chair throws San Fran Nan under the bus - sort of: http://www.wfaa.com/news/politics/democrats-face-two-problems-its-national-chairman-explains/458935274 quote: Democrats face two problems, according to the party’s national chairman, Tom Perez: lack of infrastructure and no clear message to convey values. “We not only lost the presidential election in November of 2016 but we’ve also lost a number of elections for state legislature and the senate, et cetera. What we have to do is get back to basics. We have to organize 12 months a year, not just the two months that lead up to the election,” said Perez during an appearance on WFAA-TV’s Inside Texas Politics this morning. “When we have an every ZIP code strategy and when we’re talking to people everywhere, that’s how we succeed. And we got away from that. And that’s what we’re doing differently and better now.” But as the Democratic Party rebuilds, some on the left say it needs new faces as much as it needs new ideas. Perez would not directly answer whether House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, 77 and in Congress since 1987, should step away from her leadership position. “Well listen, the Affordable Care Act has been a life saver. Nancy Pelosi is one of the two or three people singularly responsible for the passage of the Affordable Care Act. What we've seen from Donald Trump is he doesn't know how to govern. He can't get things done. He claims he's the wheeler dealer and he can't close the deal. When pressed whether Democrats should have someone else besides the congresswoman up front, Perez said: “What we need to do is make sure we're out there every single day telling people what we stand for.” Perez, the former U.S. Secretary of Labor under President Obama who prefers to be called ‘Tom,’ said Democrats primary focus now is to resist and rebuild. Still, internally, the party is as divided as Republicans.

Repubs have control of congress and WH but cannot control their own party. Thus nothing much is being accomplished. https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/republicans-are-in-full-control-of-government--but-losing-control-of-their-party/2017/07/23/b1ab6bbc-6d92-11e7-9c15-177740635e83_story.html?utm_term=.4f2ec2c39e75

http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/07/donald-trump-deutsche-bank-russia And update...Deutsche Bank will be turning over their records. WOW. and WOW backwards!

Cautiously optimistic. I think we will do better than the preseason predictions are stating. Based on 2 things: Tanner Lee I think will surprise on O and our new DC will inspire the D. However, there are enough 'unknowns' on this team to see it go the other way. Which if it does, would make for a long season knowing that MR has his QB and his system fully in place.

Interesting read. Yes, there still would be investigation, obstruction and turmoil. Maybe we can come up wt a coalition ticket to stop this partisanship. Now wouldn't it take courage a leading candidate to run as an indep and reach across to the other party and find an equally courageous person to run with him/her. Yes, I know a pipe dream.

Puppet on the string. All of these Russian leaning actions should give Mueller some fuel I would think. What is next- Making Moscow the center of the Euro Zone - replacing Brussels?

http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/President-Donald-Trump-Secretary-of-State-Rex-Tillerson-Iran-certification/2017/07/23/id/803289/ So is Trump now dissatisfied wt Tillerson? Maybe so. For a guy who 'knows how to hire the best' he seems to be at odds wt many of his appointees. In this case, it appears Tillerson didn't give Trump info he needed or wanted in time and now he is going to rely on his trusted White House people on Iran.

https://www.axios.com/better-deal-economic-agenda-house-democrats-plan-2463550316.html Dems want to rebrand as the economic party. Senate and House Dems, after an intensive process spanning seven months, on Monday will unveil a new economic agenda, Axios has exclusively learned, meant to counter the perception that Democrats are only the anti-Trump party, with no message of their own. Top Dems see the new message as the key to turning things around after their losses in the presidential race and this year's House special elections. An opening theme/frame: "excessive corporate power and its impacts." Keep reading 146 words Pollster Geoff Garin writes in a memo kicking off the project: "[T]he Democratic policies related to curbing excessive corporate power that are being highlighted in the first day of the rollout have real resonance with voters and are strongly supported by a significant majority of Americans." The agenda's big idea: "Too many families in America today feel that the rules of the economy are rigged against them. Special interests have a strangle-hold on Washington — from the super-rich spending unlimited amounts of secret money to influence our elections, to the huge loopholes in our tax code that help corporations avoid paying taxes." "If the government goes back to putting working families first, ahead of special interests, we can achieve a better deal for the American people that will raise their pay, lower their expenses, and prepare them for the future."

A sitting president can be indicted - as revealed during Ken Star's investigation of Bill Clinton http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Memo-President-Indicted/2017/07/22/id/803211/ https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/22/us/politics/can-president-be-indicted-kenneth-starr-memo.html WASHINGTON — A newfound memo from Kenneth W. Starr’s independent counsel investigation into President Bill Clinton sheds fresh light on a constitutional puzzle that is taking on mounting significance amid the Trump-Russia inquiry: Can a sitting president be indicted? The 56-page memo, locked in the National Archives for nearly two decades and obtained by The New York Times under the Freedom of Information Act, amounts to the most thorough government-commissioned analysis rejecting a generally held view that presidents are immune from prosecution while in office. “It is proper, constitutional, and legal for a federal grand jury to indict a sitting president for serious criminal acts that are not part of, and are contrary to, the president’s official duties,” the Starr office memo concludes. “In this country, no one, even President Clinton, is above the law.” Advertisement Continue reading the main story Mr. Starr assigned Ronald Rotunda, a prominent conservative professor of constitutional law and ethics whom Mr. Starr hired as a consultant on his legal team, to write the memo in spring 1998 after deputies advised him that they had gathered enough evidence to ask a grand jury to indict Mr. Clinton, the memo shows. In 1974, the Watergate special counsel, Leon Jaworski, had also received a memo from his staff saying he could indict the president, in that instance Richard M. Nixon, while he was in office, and later made that case in a court brief. Those documents, however, explore the topic significantly less extensively than the Starr office memo. In the end, both Mr. Jaworski and Mr. Starr let congressional impeachment proceedings play out and did not try to indict the presidents while they remained in office. Mr. Starr, who had decided he could indict Mr. Clinton, said in a recent interview that he had concluded the more prudent and appropriate course was simply referring the matter to Congress for potential impeachment. As Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel in the latest inquiry, investigates the Trump campaign’s dealings with Russia and whether President Trump obstructed justice, the newly unearthed Starr office memo raises the possibility that Mr. Mueller may have more options than most commentators have assumed. Here is an explanation of the debate and what the Starr office memo has to say. Why do some argue presidents are immune?Nothing in the Constitution or federal statutes says that sitting presidents are immune from prosecution, and no court has ruled that they have any such shield. But proponents of the theory that Mr. Trump is nevertheless immune for now from indictment cited the Constitution’s “structural principles,” in the words of a memo written in September 1973 by Robert G. Dixon Jr., then the head of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel. This argument boils down to practicalities of governance: The stigma of being indicted and the burden of a trial would unduly interfere with a president’s ability to carry out his duties, preventing the executive branch “from accomplishing its constitutional functions” in a way that cannot “be justified by an overriding need,” Mr. Dixon wrote. In October 1973, Mr. Nixon’s solicitor general, Robert H. Bork, submitted a court brief that similarly argued for an “inference” that the Constitution makes sitting presidents immune from indictment and trial. And in 2000, Randolph D. Moss, the head of the Office of Legal Counsel under Mr. Clinton, reviewed the Justice Department’s 1973 opinions and reaffirmed their conclusion. Go to the NYT link for the rest of the story.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-idUSKBN1A61T6 Mueller trying to turn Manafort against Trump. This could get interesting pretty fast if Mueller offers a deal for Mueller to spill the beans. Manafort could be to Trump what Dean was to Nixon. John Wesley Dean III (born October 14, 1938) is an investment banker, author, columnist, lecturer and former attorney who served as White House Counsel for United States President Richard Nixon from July 1970 until April 1973. In this position, he became deeply involved in events leading up to the Watergate burglaries and the subsequent Watergate scandal cover-up. He was referred to as the "master manipulator of the cover-up" by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).[1] He pleaded guilty to a single felony count, in exchange for becoming a key witness for the prosecution. This ultimately resulted in a reduced prison sentence, which he served at Fort Holabird outside Baltimore, Maryland. Part of the article: U.S. investigators examining money laundering accusations against President Donald Trump’s former campaign manager Paul Manafort hope to push him to cooperate with their probe into possible collusion between Trump's campaign and Russia, two sources with direct knowledge of the investigation said. Special Counsel Robert Mueller's team is examining Manafort's financial and real estate records in New York as well as his involvement in Ukrainian politics, the officials said. Between 2006 and 2013, Manafort bought three New York properties, including one in Trump Tower in Manhattan. He paid for them in full and later took out mortgages against them. A former senior U.S. law enforcement official said that tactic is often used as a means to hide the origin of funds gained illegally. Reuters has no independent evidence that Manafort did this. The sources also did not say whether Mueller has uncovered any evidence to charge Manafort with money laundering, but they said doing so is seen by investigators as critical in getting his full cooperation in their investigation. "If Mueller's team can threaten criminal charges against Manafort, they could use that as leverage to convince him to cooperate," said one of the sources.

To the above post about the misconceptions on Reagan's policies on the poor I found this article https://www.firstthings.com/article/1991/04/006-the-rich-the-poor-and-reaganomics copied here When we come to measure the success of a presidency, it matters a great deal whether the administration in question made life better or worse for the poor. A culture whose values spring from Judaism, Christianity, and a compassionate humanism cannot be satisfied unless the poor are well cared for. Those who are better off can pretty much take care of themselves. But most (not all) of the poor are too young or too old, too ill or too disabled, to care for themselves. In this regard, the two accusations most consistently directed against the administration of Ronald Reagan are: (1) that it hurt the poor (and the middle class) and (2) that it increased the gap between the rich and the poor. Getting at the validity of these propositions requires careful and disinterested analysis. Such analysis is not easily come by. In the religious communities, as elsewhere, almost nobody was entirely nonpartisan about Reagan and his policies. Yet it is perhaps not too old-fashioned to think that religious thinkers should be devoted to telling the truth. Moreover, what happens to the poor among us is a matter of great moral moment, and our reflections about alternative policies should be informed by careful attention to the facts. Admittedly, it is not easy to get at the truth, especially since most journalism, on which we depend for our sense of what is going on, is both intellectually weakest and most partisan in reporting economic questions. It is best, therefore, to go directly to primary sources, in this case the neutral annual report of the Census Bureau, Money, Income and Poverty Status in the United States, 1988 (Series P-60, No. 166). This record shows, in sum, that the Reagan administration did far better for the poor than did the Carter administration. In particular, the economic achievements of black Americans reached all-time highs. Yet this is not the record most people have heard of through the media. For eight long years the nation’s cultural elites did everything in their power to persuade the general public to think as ill of Ronald Reagan as they did. They predicted eight recessions to the one that actually occurred. They spoke with derision of “Reaganomics,” until the so-called “misery index” invoked by Jimmy Carter—which stood as Carter left office at a postwar high—was brought down far more authoritatively (and quickly) than anyone had expected. At that point, as Reagan wryly noted, the media stopped speaking of “Reaganomics.” And when the media began perceiving good economic news—about the growing millions of employed persons and the longest peacetime expansion in American history—their reporting of it typically came surrounded with as many fragments of bad news as they could find. The Reagan era by no means brought economic Utopia, but in between the malaise of the Carter era and the malaise of the Bush era, it achieved a great deal for the poor. Three years of double-digit inflation under Jimmy Carter had wreaked havoc on the poor. Those bad years cumulatively depleted nearly 40 percent of the value of all incomes. During Carter’s single term, the poverty level for a nonfarm family of four soared from $5,815 to $8,414, and thus some 4.3 million persons (those on fixed incomes) were pulled down into poverty. The basic facts of the Reagan years are now a matter of historical record. The Harvard economist Lawrence Lindsey expected to show that the growth achieved by Reaganomics decreased the taxes of the rich and hurt the poor, but found that the facts were exactly the reverse, as he reports in The Growth Experiment (1988). And later figures than his, the figures for 1988, can now be matched against the figures for 1980, Carter’s last year. One can measure exactly how much Ronald Reagan achieved for the poor and what an enormous increase in taxes he exacted from the rich, even while lowering tax rates across the board. Reagan exempted virtually all the poor from federal income taxes, in part by almost doubling personal exemptions. Thus, a household earning less than $14,000 was by 1986 highly unlikely to be paying any federal income tax at all. (The effect of this was weakened by the steep increases in Social Security Taxes [FICA] mandated during the Carter years.) The Tax Reform Act of 1986 continued the reform process, expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit to the point where households with dependents in effect now pay no federal taxes up to nearly $10,000, and only a fraction of the combined employer/employee contribution to FICA up to nearly $20,000. In 1976, Carter had attacked President Ford for a “misery index” much lower than his own policies were to cause by 1980. Carter ended up with interest rates at 19 percent, inflation at 13.5 percent, and unemployment at over 7 percent—a total of 40. By the end of his term, Reagan lowered this total to 17: interest rates 8 percent, unemployment 5.2 percent, inflation less than 4 percent. (In the narrow sense, the misery index counts only the inflation plus unemployment rates: a total of 20 for Carter, 9 for Reagan.) All this was very good for the poor—not only the drop in inflation (which under Carter had driven so many people into poverty), but also the rise in employment and income. For example, the number of blacks employed when Carter left office was 9 million; during Reagan’s eight years, this number shot up to 11.4 million. A higher proportion of black adults was then employed than at any time in history. Partly for this reason, the total income received by the 27 million American blacks, which in 1980 was $191 billion (in constant 1988 dollars), soared in 1988 to $25 9 billion. This sum is larger than the GNP of nearly all of black Africa and, indeed, of all but ten nations in the world. By 1988, half of all married-couple black families had an income above $30,424, the highest median income ever achieved by black families. The number of black families earning more than $50,000 (in constant 1988 dollars) jumped from 392,000 to 936,000 during Reagan’s eight years. All this good news for blacks has to be matched, however, against a continuing serious problem caused by cumulative personal choices. The number of single parent families among blacks, which had been rising with great rapidity since the 1960s, grew more slowly, but still significantly, from 1.9 million in 1980 to 2.2 million in 1988. More than half of all black children were by then the financial and psychological burden of one parent. Most of these single parents were female and the vast majority were not in the work force. Such families, therefore, were hardly able to benefit by economic growth, since they were disconnected from employment. Indeed, the rapid growth in the number of female-headed households during the past thirty years dramatically altered the shape of poverty (not only in the U.S., but in virtually every welfare-state economy). Fifty years ago, a high proportion of the poor lived in married-couple families, so that higher employment levels and decent wages—economic growth—could eliminate most poverty. In that context, President John F. Kennedy could credibly say that “a rising tide lifts all boats.” The new shape of poverty has falsified this belief. Female heads of household who are neither employed nor in the work force—and who perhaps, with young children to care for, shouldn’t be expected to be—no longer rise with rising tides. They depend almost entirely on welfare. Such families, especially in urban areas and when the women are quite young, may also live in considerable isolation from the rest of society except for their children, their boy friends, and the television set. Such poverty is not easy to cure by government programs. Indeed, expanding government programs, if they do not cause this phenomenon, are at least coincident with its growth. Because of the success of Reaganomics in generating an unprecedented number of months of uninterrupted economic growth, the media began to turn attention away from the absolute condition of the poor and towards a second issue: inequality. The Census Bureau divides the 92 million U.S. households into five equal segments (“quintiles”), ranked by annual reported income, and the media began to stress the fact that the proportion of income earned by the bottom 20 percent declined during Reagan’s two terms. Most journalists overlooked the more important reality that the total income of the bottom quintile (in constant dollars) rose substantially between 1980 and 1988, by nearly 15 percent. Since noncash income from welfare benefits isn’t even counted in Census Bureau figures, the income of the bottom quintile cannot be raised by higher welfare benefits, except those in cash. And if all welfare were given in cash, the cost of bringing every single person above the poverty line would be a mere $35 billion, one-third of the present total federal expenditure for means-tested programs. Three times more money is now allotted in benefits than in cash. The 18 million householders in the bottom 20 percent no longer have the same characteristics as those who were in the same quintile sixty years ago. In 1930, most householders in the bottom quintile presided over married-couple families. In 1988 more than half (52 percent) were single persons. One-third of all such householders in 1988 were widows and one-third were single mothers with small children. So it is not surprising that nearly two-thirds of the householders in the bottom quintile did not work at all, and that only 12 percent worked full-time for at least 48 weeks. After all, some 40 percent were older than sixty-five. Thus, most of these householders were either living in retirement or else were unemployed single females with small children. In 1988, only one-fifth of the whole quintile lived as married-couple families (often with grown children). Nonetheless, nearly one-third of those in the bottom quintile were above the poverty line. The cutoff point defining the bottom fifth was 115,102 in 1988, well above the poverty line (|12,385) for a family of four. Over half of the householders at the bottom were living alone, and for such persons the poverty line was much lower. Indeed, it was possible for one person (or couple) to have an income nearly twice as high as the poverty line and still be in the bottom 20 percent. In sum, the bottom fifth did better in 1988 than it had in 1980. And so did every other quintile. In fact, practically all brackets of Americans moved up the income ladder between 1980 and 1988. In one of its measurements, the Census Bureau divides households by fixed (real) dollar amounts into nine brackets. According to this method, the percentage of American households reporting an income of 115,000 or less dropped between 1980 and 1988 from 28.8 to 27.3 percent. The percentage of households reporting in the next two brackets, between $15,000 and $49,999, decreased by more: from 55 percent to just under 52 percent. These figures indicate that households at the lower end were moving upwards. And indeed, the percentage of those earning from 150,000 to 174,999 jumped from 11.3 to 13.4, while the percentage of those in the next bracket, $75,000 to $99,999, also jumped (from 2.9 to 4.2) and the percentage of those earning more than $100,000 actually doubled, from 1.6 to 3.2. In sum, from 1980 to 1988, lower brackets were shrinking, upper ones expanding; Americans were moving up. Indeed, if you want a pocketbook reason for President Reagan’s popularity, recall that the number of American households reporting an income of $50,000 or more (in constant 1988 dollars) grew by 6.3 million between 1980 and 1988, and the percentage of working-age Americans holding jobs (63.4 in July 1988) reached an all-time high. Since these achievements cannot be erased from the neutral Census Bureau reports, those who despised Reagan and what he stood for had two choices: either grudgingly to admit that he did far better than they had predicted, or to change the terms of measurement. As a result, critics stopped insisting that the poor fared worse under Reagan than under Carter. They began stressing instead the growing “gap” between the top quintile and the bottom quintile. Even here, if they were honest, they were obliged to notice as causes of the phenomenon profound social changes far beyond the reach of government. For one thing, the Reagan tax cuts had little to do with the “gap”; the Census Bureau figures defining quintiles of income are pre-tax. More importantly, the demographic profiles of householders in the top and bottom quintiles have diverged increasingly in recent decades. Thus, only 22 percent of the householders in the bottom quintile are married, compared to 82 percent in the top quintile. At the bottom, 52 percent are single-person households, at the top only 5 percent. Put differently, at the bottom, 52 percent are living alone; at the top, 83 percent have at least two persons under one roof, and two-thirds have three or more. At the bottom, 40 percent are 65 or older, at the top 8 percent. At the bottom, only 12 percent worked full time, year round; at the top, 93 percent. Moreover, at the bottom, nearly two-thirds of households have no one working at all, whereas 83 percent of the households at the top have two to four persons bringing in income. Given these divergent characteristics (all of which affect income) is it any wonder that the top quintile has considerably more income than the bottom quintile? It could hardly be otherwise. Then there is the factor of education. Two-thirds of the householders in the top quintile have some college education and nearly one-half have four years or more. By contrast, in that portion of the bottom quintile that falls below the poverty line, only 9 percent had completed high school and only 4 percent had as much as a year or more of college. In the top quintile, most spouses are also working full-time (this means, in most cases, at least two high incomes), but in the bottom quintile very few households have even one person working full-time. So long as the nation is committed to higher education for both sexes and to employment outside the home for both (if they so choose) high-income householders whose spouses are as educationally advantaged as themselves are bound to put ever more distance between themselves and the bottom quintile. The much-lamented “gap” is thus an inevitable product of the nation’s commitment to both higher education and employment for both sexes. It is also sometimes alleged that the Reagan administration “cut” welfare benefits for the poor. The President claimed strenuously that he was cutting only the “rate of growth” of such expenditures. What is the truth? According to the Statistical Abstract: 1990, the actual expenditures in 1980 and 1987 (latest available) look like this: U.S. Expenditures for Means-Tested Welfare Programs (Current Dollars, in millions) | | 1980 | 1987 | | Public Aid | $48,666 | $69,233 | | Medicaid | 14,550 | 27,613 | | Food Stamps | 9,083 | 12,362 | | Education | 13,452 | 16,054 | | Housing | 6,608 | 11,110 | |Other Social Welfare | 8,786 | 8,504 | These numbers are given in current dollars for each year, in order to reflect the political realities of the time. If they were corrected for inflation during the eight Reagan years, most would still show greater cumulative real spending for welfare. It is true that some programs, such as “other social welfare” (including child nutrition, child welfare, ACTION, etc.) did decline. Much has also been written—falsely—about the tax cuts by which Reagan supposedly favored the rich. It is true that Reagan championed tax cuts, much to the dismay of the policy elite, both Democratic and establishment Republican. (I have always thought of establishment Republicans as representing the GOP School of Dentistry—they don’t seem to think a policy is good for you unless it hurts. If Democrats are “tax and spend,” establishment Republicans are “tax and reduce the deficit.”) Given cuts in tax rates, Reagan promised economic growth and a higher tax intake from the rich. He said tax cuts would provide incentives that would stimulate economic activity, producing higher tax revenues. He was right. Late in 1990, the Swedish Parliament openly recognized this by lowering the top Swedish tax rate from 72 percent to 51 percent, and the Swedish minister for tax policy declared: “What was achieved in tax reform in the U.S. played a big part in our Swedish debate.” In reporting on the Reagan tax cuts, however, most US. journalists failed to observe the simple distinction between tax rates and tax revenues. Reagan did cut tax rates, not solely for the rich but across the board. But he also extracted a great deal more revenue from the rich than anyone ever had, both absolutely and as a proportion of all taxes paid. For example, in 1988, an income of just over $50,000 placed a household in the top 20 percent of taxpayers, and an income of almost $86,000 qualified a household for the top 5 percent. By these standards, many full professors, if their spouses also work, qualify as rich. In fact, so do most journalists and other activists who regularly attack the rich without recognizing in this a self-accusation. In any case, the top 5 percent of all taxpayers paid 35 percent of all federal income taxes in 1981, but 46 percent in 1988. By contrast, the share of federal income taxes paid by the rest of the top half of taxpayers (from 50-95 percent) declined from 57 percent to 49 percent. And the share paid by the entire bottom 50 percent of the taxpayers fell from 7.4 percent to 5.7 percent. In other words, Reagan shifted the tax burden significantly from the poor and the middle class to the rich. It bears repeating: He soaked the rich. In comparing these facts to the more commonly heard accounts of the Reagan era, it may help to note that those who deride Reagan usually rely on two tricks. The most important of these is to report figures starting from 1979, instead of 1981. In this way, they bring into the picture the last two extremely damaging Carter years, with their withering inflation. They thus lay on Reagan blame for the devastation Carter wrought. The other trick is the usual one of not allowing conservatives to play on the same level playing field as liberals; when they lose on an issue, they change the subject and never admit defeat. There is much in the Reagan years for a fair-minded observer both to celebrate and to fault. One should raise serious questions about the federal deficit, the deregulation of the Savings and Loans, and the restructuring of industry through buyouts and takeovers. On these issues, one should hear out both the prosecution and the defense and form a judgment. But on the issue whether the poor benefited more under Reagan or under Carter, and whether the rich paid a larger share of federal income taxes under Reagan or Carter, a fair-minded judgment is also called for, and this one is clearly in Reagan’s favor. The American people may come to appreciate Reagan’s achievement even more than they did in the elections of 1984 and 1988, now that the establishment Republican leaders—George Bush, Richard Darman, and Nicholas Brady—have abandoned Reagan’s policies of growth through incentives. For all its faults, the dynamism of the Reagan era looks pretty good framed between two periods of malaise. Alas, the poor suffer most from the current administration’s turning away from that dynamism. Michael Novak is the George Frederick Jewett Scholar in Religion and Public Policy at the American Enterprise Institute.

The bold in my previous post reminded me of something. Didn't someone post once that you can trace back today's republicans to yesterdays Dems and todays Dems back to yesterdays Republicans. If so, maybe that person or someone else can start a new thread on that topic. I had dismissed it at the time but maybe there is some validity to it.

Yea, I know - a bit of an overreach My goodness - think about this. We just elected a guy and we are already talking about Watergate type issues - while impeachment was a wish list item for many non-Trump voter from day one - the escalation has gone from fantasy to this may become reality. We have coverups, denials, investigations, intrigue etc.

^^^ uhm that is a tough quiz Knapp. Let me think for a moment. Blacks vote mostly for the Republican Party and are suppressed by the Dem party. Oh, no that was in the pre-FDR world. Currently, Blacks vote Dems and the regressive voter laws come from Republican held states. I don't have a problem at all for felons to vote. I don't think taking away their vote was a deterrent to crime. No felon before they committed the crime said to self - I might lose my right to vote if I do this but I'm going to do it anyway. But Knapp brings up the other part that is worthy of another thread - the disproportionately % of blacks who are charged wt felonies.

Yes and we see that today wt Amazon among others. The rise of globalism has the side affect of the rise of the mega corporation that are almost 'mini govts/countries' in themselves.

Knapp, I have to disagree with your conclusions. Policy makes a difference and it isn't all rhetoric. Reagan enacted policies that drove down inflation, reduced poverty as a % of population, and increased job opportunities. Yes, Reagan made us feel good but it was for good reason - Real things happened: Jobs were up, inflation was down, taxes were down, and the nuclear threat was removed from the back of our mind. Finding a job is the best welfare program there is and employment #s rose dramatically during his term. We have to remember the times - Reagan, like Obama, came into office with the worse economic conditions since the Great Depression (debates still can be had which one was worse- they were different in how they played out so not easily compared) plus he had to address the very aggressive Soviet threat which was overtaking the world after our collapse in Vietnam and subsequent withdrawal and military downsizing. Without addressing those 2 major crises, rhetoric and action to help the poor would be meaningless. Continued high inflation, unemployment, high interest rates would drive more and more people into poverty and devalue any financial aid & buying power they would receive from the govt assistance. Of course not addressing the Soviet threat would have meant years and years of continued conflicts and surrogate wars around the globe - drawing away resources that could be used for social programs. Reagan's high military spending in the 1980s eventually led to the 'peace dividend' of the 1990s - the closing of bases, military reduction and more money available for social programs that both Bush 1 and Clinton took advantage of. Now Reagan, himself, admitted that he wish his admin had done more to recognize quicker, the dangers of and the solutions for the aids crisis which came to light in the early 1980s. Could there have been more he could have done on the social side - yes. One could always say more could be done if the resources were available. But when we look at cuts, those were cuts in the growth of those programs but as show below, the % of GDP spending on social/health programs went up under Reagan. However, the priority at the time had to be (1) Turn around the economic decline of the 1970s (2) Stop the Soviet threat Many on HB are too young to remember those days and easily fall prey to revisionist history of what we faced, but I lived it like many now live in the new world of the threat of terrorism. This link below, compares the year Reagan took office to the year he left office and the % change in many categories. Sorry for the sloppy copy. The link has more info that isn't relevant to this portion of the discussion. It does compare Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush terms. It is too old for Obama's #s. http://reagan.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=004090 1981 1989 % change Health Program Expenditures (% of GDP) 2.5 2.9 +16 Inflation (%) 8.9 4.6 -48 Population Below Poverty Threshold (% of US population) 14 13 -7 Unemployment Rate (%) 7.6 5.3 -30

http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/trump-democrats-russia-pardons/2017/07/21/id/802964/ Trump considering pardons already for those who may have might be implicated in the Russian investigation - including family and even himself. So when he says there is nothing to see here, you know he is lying through his teeth. quote The highest-ranking Democrat on the U.S. Senate intelligence committee said it was "extremely disturbing" if President Donald Trump was contemplating a pardon for aides that could be implicated in a probe on Russian meddling in last year's presidential election. Sen. Mark Warner was referring to a Washington Post article late Thursday saying that Trump was consulting with advisers "about his power to pardon aides, family members and even himself" in connection to the probe led by special counsel and former FBI director Robert Mueller. The possibility that the President is considering pardons at this early stage in these ongoing investigations is extremely disturbing," said Warner, the senior senator from Virginia and vice-chair of the Select Committee on Intelligence. "Pardoning any individuals who may have been involved would be crossing a fundamental line." The White House has yet to comment on the Post report. However in an interview with The New York Times on Wednesday, Trump warned Mueller that some of his family finances should be off-limits to the ex-FBI director's wide-ranging investigation. Asked if Mueller looking at finances unrelated to Russia would be a red line, Trump responded, "I would say yes." Trump's lawyer denies that pardons are being discussed here: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-lawyer-jay-sekulow-denies-pardons-being-discussed/ One of President Trump's attorneys is denying a Washington Post report that Mr. Trump's legal team has been "discussing the president's authority to grant pardons" with respect to Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation of Russian meddling in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. Jay Sekulow tells CBS News chief White House correspondent Major Garrett, "Pardons are not being discussed and are not on the table." The Post says Mr. Trump "asked his advisers about his power to pardon aides, family members and even himself in connection with the probe, according to one of those people. A second person said Trump's lawyers have been discussing the president's pardoning powers among themselves." The newspaper notes, "One adviser said the president has simply expressed a curiosity in understanding the reach of his pardoning authority, as well as the limits of Mueller's investigation." Garrett also reported late Thursday that Mr. Trump's legal team has been shuffled. Marc Kasowitz is out as the president's personal attorney and Kasowitz's spokesman, Mark Corallo, has resigned, Garrett says. The reasons for the moves were not immediately known. Kasowitz has represented Mr. Trump since the early 2000s, and led his defense in the Trump University fraud case.