The Trump Presidency

jpx7 said:
You're just giving up on even having conversations, aren't you?

Meanwhile: the spending-priorities of the center-left neoliberals who have actually been in position to advance policy the last forty years are very different from the spending-priorities of those leftists who "blame capitalism for lack of wage growth and wealth inequality". This confusion (purposeful or not) gives you the illusion that anyone who "blames capitalism" is having any cake.
Click to expand...

My conversation was that spending increases has outpaced tax decreases by wide margin... Do you disagree?
 
sturg33 said:
like 70% of Americans own stocks. Why are dividends a bad thing?
Click to expand...

I think the intangible value of having more people having job far outweighs the bit of dividends. Working everyday builds values and teaches those values to the next generation. More jobs also means less welfare which also means a reduced budget which of course translate to additional flexibility for the government to institute different policies.

Aagain, we need to get as many Americans working as possible. That would be my number 1 goal as a public servant.
 
sturg33 said:
My conversation was that spending increases has outpaced tax decreases by wide margin... Do you disagree?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure that "pace" is the right metric since federal spending is litigated annually while the tax-code hasn't been substantially changed in over two decades.

Beyond that, I'm more concerned with the right spending and the right taxing, as opposed to this over-simplifying axis of increase/decrease. I think it's possible to spend better and spend less, federally, just as I think it's possible to tax more intelligently in a fashion that actually increases federal revenues. Neither are mutually exclusive; it's not (or shouldn't be) a competition between who can spend more and who can slash more, and more/less taxing or more/less spending aren't goods or good ends in-and-of-themselves.
 
thethe said:
I think the intangible value of having more people having job far outweighs the bit of dividends. Working everyday builds values and teaches those values to the next generation. More jobs also means less welfare which also means a reduced budget which of course translate to additional flexibility for the government to institute different policies.

Aagain, we need to get as many Americans working as possible. That would be my number 1 goal as a public servant.
Click to expand...

More jobs is great if they are needed. But I'm not interested in hiring people just to hire people. They need to create value for the company.

If the company can't do it, I'd rather them do M&A, cut costs of their product, reward share holders, hire better talent, etc.
 
sturg33 said:
More jobs is great if they are needed. But I'm not interested in hiring people just to hire people. They need to create value for the company.

If the company can't do it, I'd rather them do M&A, cut costs of their product, reward share holders, hire better talent, etc.
Click to expand...

I'm not arguing for no dividends. I want a balances approach that creates more opportunity for all Americans.
 
jpx7 said:
I'm not sure that "pace" is the right metric since federal spending is litigated annually while the tax-code hasn't been substantially changed in over two decades.

Beyond that, I'm more concerned with the right spending and the right taxing, as opposed to this over-simplifying axis of increase/decrease. I think it's possible to spend better and spend less, federally, just as I think it's possible to tax more intelligently in a fashion that actually increases federal revenues. Neither are mutually exclusive; it's not (or shouldn't be) a competition between who can spend more and who can slash more, and more/less taxing or more/less spending aren't goods or good ends in-and-of-themselves.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with you.

I was repying to your original comment - which was about how you wished we could have a conversation without hyper-sensationalism about spending/tax cuts.

I merely pointed out that spending has resoundingly won the battle... and as soon as someone actually pushes tax cuts, they get labeled as wanting to kill poor people
 
sturg33 said:
I don't disagree with you.

I was repying to your original comment - which was about how you wished we could have a conversation without hyper-sensationalism about spending/tax cuts.

I merely pointed out that spending has resoundingly won the battle... and as soon as someone actually pushes tax cuts, they get labeled as wanting to kill poor people
Click to expand...

I think it's because it often is "pushing tax cuts, period", as opposed to a more robust push for what else "cutters" want to do to promote better outcomes for the majority of this nation's folk. And I think, moreover, there is healthy skepticism that "tax cuts, period" actually helps most of the US without concomitant changes and re-prioritizations elsewhere.
 
sturg33 said:
More jobs is great if they are needed. But I'm not interested in hiring people just to hire people. They need to create value for the company.

If the company can't do it, I'd rather them do M&A, cut costs of their product, reward share holders, hire better talent, etc.
Click to expand...

So what do you do if "value for the company" writ large across the nation ultimately means a lot of un- or under-employed people?
 
DP4JFhPWAAEHtB3.jpg
 
Michael Linden‏ @MichaelSLinden
7h7 hours ago

Oh and by the way, 15 million households get a tax increase in YEAR 1 under the Senate GOP bill, while the richest 0.1% get an $85k tax cut. And it increases health care premiums, and it cuts Medicare.

So let's not pretend that everything is hunky dory before 2027.
 
[video]https://youtu.be/_nPpQOVGwxI[/video]

NFL floating a possible 100 million donation to make the kneeling stop. I am sure this is nothing but a bribe that will go to race pimps and all kinds of bull**** that completely ignores the actual problem. The justice system is the systemic racism that has caused the poor black communities to devolve into war zones. This doesnt have to be one side winning. Both sides can win here. Ending the war on drugs would cut our incarceration rate in half. It would also cut down on cops killed since drug raids are the second leading cause of officer deaths behind car wrecks. Unfortunately less cop deaths isnt the top goal of police unions. Its about the money. The federal grants. Civil Asset Forfeiture allowing them to legally steal from whoever they want. Overtime pay. More jobs since more crime needs more cops to catch them. Reality is cops spend 10% of their time focusing on violent crimes. Judges have to give court orders demanding police departments get their backlog of rape kits tested because its such a low priority to them. What kind of sick world do we live in where rape is treated as a low priority crime but selling pot warrants a SWAT team.

You wanna talk about honoring veterans.....


This happens every day in this country. This time it was a veteran. Sometimes cops die. Sometimes babies get flashbangs in their crib. Sometimes its a Hibiscus plant. This doesnt have to happen anymore. These raids are deadly for both sides. If we have to bribe the cops to get this to stop I am fine with that. All the taxes can go to pay cops to 250k a year to guard the donut shop or sleep in their car or whatever the **** they want to do so long as its not 80,000 SWAT raids a year.
 
jpx7 said:
So what do you do if "value for the company" writ large across the nation ultimately means a lot of un- or under-employed people?
Click to expand...

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!"
 
sturg33 said:
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!"
Click to expand...

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 "
 
Daily Kos‏Verified account @dailykos
12m12 minutes ago

McCain, undergoing cancer treatment, will vote to end cancer treatment for Medicare patients
 
Just wait till McCain uses medical marijuana. That's probably the point I have an aneurysm. Mother****er voted to throw dying patients into prison for using medicine will use it to prolong his life.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top