Archy1221

2 minutes ago, teachercd said:

The fact that some people think low income tax is bad...is so weird to me.

 

 

Absolutely.   Anyone who thinks they aren’t paying enough can certainly refuse the tax breaks they claim (they don’t) or send money in to the treasury willingly (they don’t) 

3 hours ago, teachercd said:

This is soooo funny!  Look at the other reporters faces as they start to crack a d smile and laugh!  The question is awesome her response is awesome (If this was a Hallmark Movie they would end up falling in love) and honestly, if It was Billy C in the White House or Obama, they would totally do something "cool" for that frat.  Especially in their second term.

 

Joe probably wants to but can't right now.

 

 

What an awesome question and back and forth.   Well done to both!  

53 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

Ah yes, the supply side economics makes a comeback. Remember when Kansas was going to be the experiment that showed how great it was?

The Kansas law was extremely poorly written and legislature took out some offsets making it even worse at the time of passage. It was a stupid bill to pass as written and does not reflect success other states have had with low income tax rates.  

2 hours ago, teachercd said:

That actually took longer than I thought.  The comments are amazing!

That kid looks like he is getting what he deserves 

3 hours ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

 

Because it's a fair and well written piece it addresses the various qualifiers and caveats as part of its larger conclusions. 

 

Are you sure that's a left lens and "piss poor" reporting?  Investopedia has a singular agenda and it's about making money. Odd place for a socialist to seek out. You linked to the author's bio, as if it contained some smoking gun about his bias. I sure couldn't find it. 

 

Tons of similar views on this subject, but I'll assume you won't trust the source. 

From the article…..These Presidents advocates AND GAVE, tax cuts for everyone who pays income tax.   A fair and balanced reporting wouldn’t be framing his article that way 

Tax cuts for the rich is an economic policy that’s been championed by several leading politicians since, including former U.S. Presidents George W. Bush and Donald Trump.

3 hours ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

Are you sure that's a left lens and "piss poor" reporting?  Investopedia has a singular agenda and it's about making money.

Yes I am.  Just read the article you posted for verification of my assessment.  
 

3 hours ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

Tons of similar views on this subject, but I'll assume you won't trust the source. 

Tons of views that say the opposite  is the assumption you will trust those sources.  

17 minutes ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

 

There's plenty of evidence to the contrary. I grabbed an overview from a source vested in financial accuracy. 

 

https://www.investopedia.com/supply-side-economics-6755346

https://www.investopedia.com/contributors/68104/
 

I would invite you to re-read the article and look at it from the left lense the author writes it from.  Carefully look at the words chosen when he refers to data points.  One glaring example is his point #5.   Saying debt to GDP exploding does not preclude saying tax cuts pay for themselves.   Tax cuts and them increasing revenues have no bearing on what government ends up spending during that time and increasing the debt.     
Just one example of piss poor reporting. 

15 minutes ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

 

The tax cuts were promoted and passed for the positive impact they would have on the larger economy. That didn't happen at all.  They did not improve economic growth or pay for themselves, but ballooned deficits and debt and contributed to the rise in income inequality.  They were very much tax cuts for the wealthy.

 

Basically, the entire supply side argument did nothing it's proponents promised, and everything its detractors warned about

They absolutely did foster an economic growth spurt and have paid for themselves as evidence by the massive increase in government revenues in subsequent years.  A stronger economy btw going into Covid….also allowing for a much stronger post Covid recovery (combined with quite a lot of government spending).  
 

Tax cuts do have an immediate deficit component to them, they also foster growth in years after which increase treasuries revenue which in turn pays for the tax cuts.  It’s not an immediate process like so many talking heads like Krugman on the left conflate it to be.  

2 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

 

 

From the article….

Cannon's office told Newsweek that the two trips are likely listed on the U.S government's federal judge disclosure website. The court clerk stated in an email to Newsweek that "there are two trips listed for Judge Cannon. These are likely the trips you are referring to. You can find them here" with a link to the U.S government's website.

The links show that the seminars were funded by the George Mason University Foundation.

Possible change to scholarships for baseball coming.  This would be a great thing and should have been done long ago.

It was always dumb for Joe and Left to demonize the Trump tax cuts.  That demonization is coming home to roost soon since Joe promised to not raise taxes on those making under $400,000.  He can’t keep that pledge and pledge to let the tax cuts expire.    Dems are also now coming to the realization that the rhetoric of only tax cuts for the wealthy isn’t going to be believable anymore to those easily duped, when taxes get raised for the common folk.  

https://www.mediaite.com/news/texas-democrat-expected-to-be-indicted-by-the-justice-department-after-raid-on-home/
 

Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-TX) was indicted by the Department of Justice and taken into custody on Friday following a lengthy investigation that included a raid of the Texas Democrat’s home over allegedly illicit ties to Azerbaijan.

9 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

Hey republicans. This is your prize candidate.  
 

 

Politician stages photo op???  I’m shocked!  Shocked I tell ya.  In all seriousness.   Is there a politician who doesn’t try and do this photo op stuff?   Do people left and right no see it for what it is no matter who the politician? 

36 minutes ago, JJ Husker said:

Yeah, I don’t think it belongs with the states. Too much of it veers into personal rights. Kinda crazy to have one state banning everything at 6 weeks while the state next door bans virtually nothing. Roe v Wade seemed to be functioning pretty well until…

The problem with it was it was unconstitutionally decided.   You can’t just say one thing is fine being decided unconstitutionally and others not be.  There has to be a standard for law and Congress has the ability to make one.  Until then, it rightfully sits with each State to decide. 

43 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

I didn’t say it was pertaining directly to DJT. But, it’s a common theme that he hires shady frauds that are just like him. 

I made zero comment on your post.  I only gave context to the headline. 

38 minutes ago, JJ Husker said:

 

I personally don’t have a problem with a cutoff near 16 weeks. But that would be dependent on how well my aforementioned exceptions were protected. Problem is, the people writing these laws want the bans and as few exceptions as possible. And as stated before, I believe it is much worse to deny a woman proper healthcare than it is for an unborn fetus (or baby if you prefer) to be aborted in the 2nd trimester. We can’t continue to send women who are experiencing serious problems out of ERs to bleed out in their car until they are at death’s door or prevent abortions on victims of rape because they are at 9 weeks just to satisfy some of these ridiculous laws.

Once again, I appreciate your respectful back and forth and really don’t disagree with much of what you posted.   It also doesn’t conflict at all with my original assertion that a few people here are having a hissy fit over.  
 

Abortion is here to stay…no restrictions is ridiculous, 6 week maximum law is also ridiculous for an issue this divided.  Currently it’s up to the State’s individually as it should up until the point Congress can pass a national law that is reasonable for the middle (not the extremes) 

58 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

Shocking. 
 

 

BF Borgers, Trump Media & Technology Group’s independent accounting firm, was charged by the Securities and Exchange Commission on Friday with widespread fraud and accused of operating a “sham audit mill.”

The SEC made no allegation of wrongdoing against Truth Social owner Trump Media (DJT), which is not mentioned in the charges from the regulator.

https://www.mediaite.com/news/texas-democrat-expected-to-be-indicted-by-the-justice-department-after-raid-on-home/
 

Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-TX) was indicted by the Department of Justice and taken into custody on Friday following a lengthy investigation that included a raid of the Texas Democrat’s home over allegedly illicit ties to Azerbaijan.

52 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

 

How I would have answered the poll question is, I support it being legal in most cases

There ya go pal!  See that wasn’t so hard.   All the Huss and fuss only to come back to what I’ve been saying all the time. 
 

54 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

Abortions on a perfectly healthy baby and mother a day before a normal birth has been illegal in the US for a long time. But, you act like it actually happens. 

#1..I don’t act like it happens, nor have I said it happens (that I am aware of) but I have said 29% think it should be a legal option.  Whether they would personally do it or not is beside the point.  
 

#2 you conveniently leave out the other scenarios I’ve mentioned that do actually happen. 

1 hour ago, JJ Husker said:

Apparently it is happening in some people’s imaginations. Oddly, it seems to be of paramount concern for those who desire near total bans. Weird.

1 hour ago, JJ Husker said:

It’s not because anyone really wants to terminate a 36 week pregnancy just because they changed their mind. That is the strawman that has been constructed. It doesn’t happen.

Appreciate your measures response. 
 

One thing here, you latch on to 36weeks as if it’s the only example that was given.  Forgetting about the other types of examples given.  According to the KFF source Buster gave, 40% of abortions that happened at or after 20 weeks, patients said they just couldn’t make up their mind by then.  45% had a factor of patients claiming they just didn’t know they were pregnant (which in fact does happen, however I do not believe all 45% actually didn’t know yet it’s a convenient excuse) 

1 hour ago, JJ Husker said:

The 29% are answering with that in mind. I mean c’mon, no mother wants to carry a baby for the first two trimesters and then eliminate it for no good reason. It’s why multiple people here are telling you that isn’t an actual problem.

As stated above, it depends on what you view as a good reason.   And just an fyi….the data presented does not include Illinois or CA or DC.  

Kimberly G just continues to look worse and worse.  Time (and plastic surgery and too much filler) has not been kind to her.   Oooof