I agree with this, yes. I just don’t think it can be saved–in it’s current form–if the only consideration is the end result of debt reduction (i.e. not considering the politics of telling voters you are taking something away)
Yes
Be really, really careful with that assumption. That’s a popular talking point but considering the hidden cost of financing healthcare through income tax hikes makes the picture a LOT less like the one you painted.
I’m not opposed to shaving military spending at all. My point, and the reason I asked you at first, as that I believe it’s going to have to come from everywhere not Just military spending or entitlements
The same is true regarding gay marriage, is it not? Pretty sure the SCOTUS put that one to bed once and for all. Doesn’t seem messier to me.
You’re going to have to expand on that for me. After all, circa the CRA, the religious white supremacists were not advocating chattel slavery. They were simply advocating that they be left alone to run their private businesses as they saw fit–to serve only those folk for whom their sincerely-held religious beliefs provided no objection.
Likewise, he’s free to engage in civil disobedience under anti-discrimination laws. No one is going to physically force him to make the ‘gay cake.’
Poorly phrased on my part. What I meant was, why shouldn’t the same logic (‘let everyone win’) have precluded enacting the CRA? That is, why aren’t you raising the same objection (retroactively) to the CRA that you’re raising in the baker case now?
But, see my SCOTUS comment above.
No business law expert am I, so the following is undoubtedly a gross oversimplification, but I think tax liabilities are largely related to where a business is incorporated–to where it officially ‘resides.’ So a company can ‘live’ on St Lucia, while still producing goods hither, thither and yon.
But we agree on the premise–whatever set of incorporations/factory locations/administration settings/etc results in the greatest profit, that’s where businesses are likely to go. We shall see soon enough if the proposed tax changes make a difference to the bottom line here.
Assume there are currently 20 countries with a lower effective tax rate than the US. (I totally made that number up.) So ostensibly American companies have, for tax purposes, incorporated in those countries. Now assume that the proposed corporate tax rate here makes incorporating in America more attractive (read: financially advantageous). If just one country can manage to be more attractive than we are at our new rate, that one country would be in a position to garner all of the companies that were heretofore spread among the 20 countries that were beating us previously. The point being, our tax-rate cut provides a very powerful incentive for any single country to beat us and thereby ‘corner the market’ on tax rates.
Can I ask what you would cut specifically, and how much you would cut it? And if you are inclined what you think the ramifications of doing so would be?
Would HRC only be president of the people that voted for her? There is only one winner. Sometimes you like it sometimes you don’t. In this case we were losing either way. I don’t believe for a second we would be better off with HRC. If I thought that I would have voted for her.
You can hate the president all you want, unless you relinquish your citizenship, he’s your president as much as any other legal citizen of the U.S.
It’s ok to hate the guy, there are plenty of reasons too. But I wouldn’t put too much effort into it. After all, he could care less if you don’t like him and the only person suffering from the hate is you.
You have to look at the positives. This republic will withstand trump and the pendulum will swing back to the left soon enough.
No it wasn’t. It was contentious for a long time, abolitionists lived in the south as well as the north and it was never normal as most white southerners did not own slaves. It was accepted by certain segments of the population, particularly land rich white southerners.
Further it’s totally disingenuous to compare the plight of Blacks in history to the ‘plight’ of homosexuals. There is a vast Grand Canyon size difference between what black went through with slavery and Jim Crow and homosexuals.
That doesn’t mean that homosexuals didn’t have their issues, but its no where near close to the systemic discrimination of Blacks in history.
I’m a little behind on the discussion, but SS has a trust fund that it is drawing fund because the incoming payments aren’t matching the outgoing payments. If it remains untouched, the current payout would be ~77% of it’s current output. That will happen in 2034 (or so, going off memory).
Not a dig at you, but there is a certain other poster who says this a lot and is a complete lunatic. I chuckled a bit at the “have better outcomes” part because that is his catch phrase.
It’s not and @EyeDentist and anybody else temped to drag it into the conversation do a great disservice to the Civil Rights movement. There were separate laws for blacks and whites. There have never been separate laws for gays, ever.
Things need to be dealt with on the basis of their reality not the histrionics of hypersensitivity. And if @EyeDentist is gay, nobody cares. It’s a non-issue.
The best conversations I had were on this forum with an openly gay man blessed with super intelligence. Somebody please remind me his screen name, I am drawing a blank, but I wish he’d come back.
Irrelevant? The people RESPONSIBLE for Trump POTUS are those that voted for him.
Do you believe if HRC had won you would be personally equally responsible when compared to the people that actually voted for her? C’mon.
I put a very very small amount of effort into it. In my personal life I’m fairly quiet re: politics in general. Beyond trolling my backasswards family 90+% of my political conversations happen on anon forums such as this.
Yeah, you got to choose and you lost. I lost during the obama years. But laws he signs will apply to both you and I. Just as laws Obama signed applied to me and you. I don’t particularly like trump as a person, but I agree with most of the policies being considered and voted upon. Like simplifying the tax code. Or like the change in the rules of engagement for our troops in active combat zones.
I am looking under the veneer and I like what I see there for the most part. I know now is the time to get it because the pendulum will swing back and I will not get the things I want done during that time.
That’s the way this goes. You had a mega-liberal in the executive for 8 years, this was the harsh reaction to that. He wasn’t my choice in the primaries. I still cannot believe he actually won, but I know when not to look a gift horse in the mouth either. When things are happening that I want to happen, I am less concerned with who is doing it. I prefer it do be a decent person with a heightened sense of standard, but I will take the pimp if I have to, so long as he does not break the law during his tenure.
Guess I’m confused as to your entire line of speech. Seems like you’re arguing against a point I didn’t make? Or you’re just restating how you swallow a Trump POTUS? Not totally sure
No, all I am saying is once the dust settles on the election, trump is the POTUS. And he is the POTUS for everybody. You can disavow him symbolically, you can fight policy through the avenues available to us. BUT, he cannot be POTUS for just the people who voted for him.
I don’t want to get between the back and forth you two have going here, but I am pretty sure none of the churches (excepting westboro equivalents) had any ACTUAL religious objections to serving black folks in their businesses.
On the other hand, there is much more evidence for various religious prohibitions of homosexual action among the major world religions.