The Trump Presidency

[thethe]

The checks in the mail

Keep supporting measures that keep minorities down in this country (Endless immigration / Job killing regulation / Anti-business tax policy / etc..)

At some point minorities will catch on to how bad Democrats are for their well being.

[Jaw]

I'm sorry but cutting taxes just to cut taxes is akin hiring someone to dig a hole then hire someone else to fill it.
" Look, we cut taxes "

Don't think of it as cutting taxes. Think of it as stealing a little bit less from other people. Stealing less is always a good thing.

[Jaw]

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...ir-checkbooks/

Wait wait wait wait wait. Now that your guy is out of office, your guy that added more to the national debt than all of the other Presidents combined, now you care about deficits?

I mean, it seems kind of strange that you didn't care about them when we were spending millions on tunnels for turtles to cross the roads, or when we were spending millions on road signs to advertise that the road work was part of the stimulus, or when we were spending millions on figuring out why fat guys are more likely to have erectile dysfunction. You didn't retweet Vox or Mother Jones or DailyKos complaints about all the money we spent to help prepare lesbians to adopt, or to pay college students to keep a journal of how much pot they smoke and how much malt liquor they drink. You were even silent about paying for "socially conscious" puppet shows and for funding a study on the evolution of waterfowl genitalia.

But now that taking less from your fellow Americans' paychecks in taxes may increase the debt it becomes important to you?

[57Brave]

Keep supporting measures that keep minorities down in this country (Endless immigration / Job killing regulation / Anti-business tax policy / etc..)

At some point minorities will catch on to how bad Democrats are for their well being.

Brian Schatz‏Verified account @brianschatz
3h3 hours ago

Taxing tuition waivers as regular income seems designed to punish people for studying hard. Especially poor people.

[57Brave]

Wait wait wait wait wait. Now that your guy is out of office, your guy that added more to the national debt than all of the other Presidents combined, now you care about deficits?

Taking this at face value -- are you ignoring the unfunded Iraq War or the last time our country was given huge tax cuts ?

Certain you didn't mean to confuse debt and deficit while throwing words around
[( you might want to fix that before Hawk wakes up )

[sturg33]

I'm sorry but cutting taxes just to cut taxes is akin hiring someone to dig a hole then hire someone else to fill it.
" Look, we cut taxes "

... what?

[sturg33]

Don't think of it as cutting taxes. Think of it as stealing a little bit less from other people. Stealing less is always a good thing.

This.

The money does not belong to the government. It belongs to the people who earned it. Why do we have to justify taking less away from people? Our only focus should be how we can continue to do so (reduce spending)

[57Brave]

BillMoyers.com‏Verified account @BillMoyers
30s31 seconds ago

“There are going to be new corporate loopholes, including actual new subsidies for moving profits and jobs overseas.” -@mkink of @StrongForAll Coalition on the GOP tax plan.

http://billmoyers.com/story/ridiculo...fair-tax-plan/

[sturg33]

57 - anything you like about the tax bill?

[thethe]

57 - anything you like about the tax bill?

You know how 57 is he's very concerned about our debt. I mean...he expressed his concerns constantly under obama.

[jpx7]

Brian Schatz‏Verified account @brianschatz
3h3 hours ago

Taxing tuition waivers as regular income seems designed to punish people for studying hard. Especially poor people.

This is perversely punitive. It's a minuscule drop-in-the-bucket to the federal budget, but will meaningfully burden a great many folks simply trying to improve their skills or advance important scholarship. It will keep good students from becoming better students; skilled workers from gaining more skills; it will send brighter folks to better-funded opportunities abroad; it will send public-good research, conducted largely by graduate students in public and private-non-profit research institutions, into the private-for-profit hands of corporate research institutions. It will significantly impinge upon or endanger the quality of life of many of my colleagues. And personally, it may make pursuing doctoral studies after I finish my masters program financially infeasible.

And this isn't about "subsidizing" people's education. One of the most damaging measures is the proposal to tax waived tuition, which simply is not income and should not be taxed as such. Graduate student income—teaching salaries, stipends, et cetera—are already taxed. This is anti-pedagogic score-settling.

[thethe]

To be fair - You are getting something for free that has value. From a tax/accounting perspective that would fall under the definition of 'income'. Its just a matter of whether or not that form of income should be taxed.

[jpx7]

I encourage those people to re-skill, up-skill, right-skill or find an appropriate position for the current skill set. And save the speech about how people can't just do that. I'm currently teaching myself machine learning and there are TONS of free courses online allowing me to do so. I have no machine learning skillset at all, but I recognize that is where the future is heading so I need to get there

I'm sorry - but hiring people just to hire people is akin to hiring someone to dig a hole and then hiring someone else to fill it. "Look, we created two jobs!"

Save the speech about how reality actually functions and impinges on people's everyday lives. Got it.

And with all that smarm and self-satisfied trumpeting of your bootstraps, you still didn't even answer my question as much as side-step it.

Let me put it this way: if you have the market the way you want it, and yet there is simply not enough employment for the number of citizens living amongst that marketplace, what do you propose doing for/with them?

[sturg33]

Save the speech about how reality actually functions and impinges on people's everyday lives. Got it.

And with all that smarm and self-satisfied trumpeting of your bootstraps, you still didn't even answer my question as much as side-step it.

Let me put it this way: if you have the market the way you want it, and yet there is simply not enough employment for the number of citizens living amongst that marketplace, what do you propose doing for/with them?

I answered your question.

I'd tell them to find a job that meets their skillset, or re-skill.

You can say I'm being smarmy... But I work 60 hours a week and am making time to to better my skillset.

Why can't others do the same?

[jpx7]

I answered your question.

I'd tell them to find a job that meets their skillset, or re-skill.

You can say I'm being smarmy... But I work 60 hours a week and am making time to to better my skillset.

Why can't others do the same?

Again: Let me put it this way: if you have the market the way you want it, and yet there is simply not enough employment for the number of citizens living amongst that marketplace, what do you propose doing for/with them?

[57Brave]

57 - anything you like about the tax bill?

I am fond of the ability of oil companies to drill in preserved areas

[57Brave]

.@SenAngusKing on tax reform process "The Bangor City Council wouldn't amend the leash law with this process."

[sturg33]

Again: Let me put it this way: if you have the market the way you want it, and yet there is simply not enough employment for the number of citizens living amongst that marketplace, what do you propose doing for/with them?

Your world philosophy doesn't even allow you to imagine what's possible, and that's quite sad. In your "equal outcome" philosophy, you can only think about how we can subsidize the lack of progress of people.

However, in an economy that is not strangled by needless regulation, wealth is created and growth is had. When this happens, more jobs are created out of necessity, not out of pity. As new technologies and products emerge, new opportunities are created. If we adapt, we will grow. If you're not growing, you're dying.

Even today, technology has advanced so rapidly, that your premise would seem to stand that there aren't enough jobs for people. And yet, here we are, with more Americans working than in the history of the country. This is not an accident. This is because we have created wealth. And we have grown. And people were needed to accelerate that. We would do so much faster if it weren't for our ridiculous tax and regulatory system.

So, I reject your question as even a possibility.

I do not believe we should hire someone to dig a hole, and then hire someone to fill that hole. Do you?

[sturg33]

I am fond of the ability of oil companies to drill in preserved areas

You don't like that the overwhelming majority of tax payers will keep to keep more of their money?

[Hawk]

Sturg channeling Schumpeter.