"... the prospect of an ultraliberal Democratic nominee bent on raising taxes and slapping regulations on their firms. The result is a kind of nervous paralysis of executives pining for a centrist nominee like Michael Bloomberg while realizing such an outcome is unlikely from a party veering sharply to the left.... While Bloomberg represents something of the platonic ideal on Wall Street — fiscally responsible while strong on climate change and gun policy and not in need of cash — Biden represents something of a wild card. The former vice president does not have deep relationships across Wall Street, but he’s viewed favorably as a candidate who could win and would take a somewhat more moderate approach on taxes and regulation.... 'Everybody likes him. I don’t know if you want him to be president at 78 in 2020, but it looks like he’s in great shape,' said one hedge fund manager and top Democratic donor."
From Politico,
"Wall Street freaks out about 2020/Many of the nation’s top bankers want Trump gone, but they’re growing anxious about some Democratic presidential contenders."
AND: Then there's Schultz:
"Howard Schultz Might Reelect Trump Because He Doesn’t Understand How Politics Works" (Jonathan Chait, New York Magazine).
The reality is that a Schultz candidacy probably would draw more support from the Democrats than from Trump. Schultz has liberal views on a wide array of social issues, like immigration, gay rights, and racial justice. These cultural issues form the main basis for the polarization of the electorate. To the extent that anything has scrambled the culture-war polarization, it is Trump’s lightning-rod personality.
But this fact simply underscores the degree to which anybody who isn’t Trump simply divides the anti-Trump vote....
Posts
246 comments:
1 – 200 of 246 Newer› Newest»Just make sure you don't buy a 16 ounce soda with your slice!
> while strong on climate change and gun policy
And right there is why I wouldn't vote for him. Bloomberg is a smart guy, but not nearly as smart as he thinks he is and a total sucker for the consensus of his peers.
Trump should come out in favor of a 70% top bracket, a wealth tax for the tippy-top wealthiest families and tax on large University endowments.
Let the Top Wall Street Executives choke on their embrace of the left.
It's Politico so don't take the article too seriously. All these guys want is Trump's economic policies without his theatrics and style. And of course more rent seeking the climate change idiocy requires. Screw them.
fiscally responsible while strong on climate change
That strikes me as somewhat contradictory, since as far as I can tell most of the proposed "solutions" to the climate change crisis involve heavy handed regulations, most notably the various carbon tax schemes. Of course we all know that carbon tax indulgence system would heavily favor the very large, ultra rich businesses at the expense of small and mid sized firms, which of course a lot of Wall Street types would absolutely love.
"... the platonic ideal on Wall Street — fiscally responsible while strong on climate change and gun policy and not in need of cash..."
It's been along way down for platonic ideals since late 5th Century BCE Greece.
I suppose we should consider the source (Politico). Could these guys really be that stupid? Let's see: Democrat donors, more money than brains, sure, why not?
Trump is certainly goading Schultz into running, much as Obama did to him at that dinner.
Wall Street wants more regulation to suppress competition.
As the saying goes, when it comes time to hang the capitalists, they will sell us the rope. They have done this to themselves but unfortunately we are the ones at risk. I'm sure the folks at the top will find a way to safety.
Trump is centrist despite his radical personality. All the Democratic prospects are some variety of lunatic seeking the power of government so they can hammer square pegs into round holes.
Bill, Republic of Texas said...
Trump should come out in favor of a 70% top bracket, a wealth tax for the tippy-top wealthiest families and tax on large University endowments.
Let the Top Wall Street Executives choke on their embrace of the left."
70% is too high. We aren't Communists yet. Still Trump started out right by eliminating almost all of their SALT deductions. He can further enhance their social consciousness by taxing all their revenue over $300,000 , not just ordinary income at the 37% rate plus the Medicare surcharge and to ice the cake eliminate the tax exempt status of state and municipal bonds for new issues.
These globalist shitheads are converting me.
Time for a wealth tax on fascist globalist assholes who want to take my guns and ban soda drinks.
And about NATO.
They are convincing me we no longer need that either.
It's nice to have the conversation shift to trying to replace a current president via a subsequent election, as opposed to impeachment, 25th amendment, beheading, etc. How old school! Halfway through Trump's [first] term, the fact of his election seems to be sinking in.
Baby steps!
70% is too high.
The rate was 90% under "Socialist" Eisenhower.
I'd rather have a asset tax of 5% on those with net value over $100 million.
"Howard Schultz Might Reelect Trump Because He Doesn’t Understand How Politics Works"
Agreed. Schultz running would be a gift for Trump. There's no significant group of people who voted for Trump who would vote for Schultz.
Schultz seems somewhat similar to Bloomberg in that regard. They are both plutocrats who love the idea of a big intrusive government that they can use to punish enemies (be they business competitors or uppity deplorables) and reward other members of their nastly little cohort. They could use government to guard against disruptive innovations of the free market, push a "virtuous" social agenda, and disarm those awful hicks in flyover country.
like a dozen other executives interviewed for this story, declined to be identified by name
That's convenient.
Funny how Trump bragged that Wall Street loves him and the market is doing so well because of him.
During our period of greatest economic growth - 1946-1973 - the top tax rate was never less than 75%
How in the Hell can anyone consider Biden qualified to run for president?
He is a former Vice President. That seems to be an almost absolute disqualification to his candidacy.
In the very unlikely event that a former VP were to win the presidency, the chances of him even a marginally successful presidency are not zero but they are in that ballpark.
John Henry
At best they cherry picked from lefties like Dimon and Blankfein then spun it to make it sound like 'Wall Street' hates Trump...and somehow we're supposed to take away that Howard Schultz running as an independent will be bad for Trump. So. Fucking. Stupid.
Schultz would just split the anti_trump vote.
Just like Egg McMuffin and the Libertarians split the Anti-Hillary vote in 2016.
Biden would be 78 - he's been in DC since 1973.
IF he was Presidential material - he would've been nominated before. He had plenty of chances to run: 1976, 1984, 1988, 1992, 2000, 2004, 2008, 2016.
Nonapod: "That strikes me as somewhat contradictory, since as far as I can tell most of the proposed "solutions" to the climate change crisis involve heavy handed regulations, most notably the various carbon tax schemes."
Shhhhhh.
Thou Shalt Not Interrupt The Lefty/LLR Narrative With Inconvenient Facts.
I'm also in favor of a massive tax on University endowments.
90% on everything over $1 Billion.
Blogger Bill, Republic of Texas said...
a wealth tax for the tippy-top wealthiest families
A question for Ann in her Con Law Prof emeritus status. Any others too, of course.
Does the Constitution permit a tax on wealth? (Not income but wealth)
It required an Amendment to permit a tax on income. Wouldn't a wealth tax fall into the same problems?
Yes, of course states can do wealth taxes. I am wondering about the federal govt.
John Henry
Inga #IngaOnlyReadsHeadlines: "Funny how Trump bragged that Wall Street loves him and the market is doing so well because of him."
LOL
The market returns speak for themselves.
Unemployment numbers speak for themselves.
Manufacturing numbers speak for themselves.
Corporate reinvestment in the US numbers speak for themselves.
The market rocketed upward after every Trump policy victory and retrenched after every squeezing by the Fed.
I know you don't understand numbers and "stuff" (numbers are icky and a tool of the white supremacist patriarchy, etc), but these numbers speak fairly clearly.
I don't doubt that a Schultz candidacy would help Trump get reelected, but it's funny to say that's because Schultz "doesn't understand how politics works." I'm guessing he understands that reasonably well.
To my earlier musing about the intelligence of these people: Wall Street types are basically the filter-feeders of the economic system, sort of like clams or sponges in the ocean. The broth there is thin, but there is a lot of it, and all you have to do is sit there and catch the tasty bits as they float by. Similarly, financial intermediaries sit in the middle of huge cash flows and just take a tiny, tiny little piece of everything that flows through. It adds up.
Clams and sponges don't need much of a nervous system, much less brain, just a good spot with a decent, if dilute, nutrient stream. Wall Streeters, much the same.
Yep, they could be that stupid.
I'm also in favor of a massive tax on University endowments.
90% on everything over $1 Billion.
I guess if we confiscated the endowments of the top 100 Universities, we could use that money to pay down a large chunk of the estimated $1.5 trillion in student loan debt.
My house is worth $25,000; i have to pay property taxes on it
Harvard's houses are worth millions? Billions? they pay No taxes on them
i pay income tax on my 401k disbursements
Harvard pays NOTHING on their tuition, or their endowments
I AM SUPPORTING THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT and live in a $25,000 house!!
HARVARD PAYS NOTHING.
why is this?
Blogger rcocean said...
70% is too high.
The rate was 90% under "Socialist" Eisenhower.
The nominal rate was 90% but the average rate paid by the top 10% of income earners was more in the 30-40% range.
Interesting article in the WSJ a week or so back about this but also plenty of other stuff written about it.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-wealthy-americans-like-jack-benny-avoided-paying-a-70-tax-rate-11547807401
The WSJ article is behind a paywall but I found a copy last week. Which I can't find today. Interestng article if you find it.
John Henry
DC loves high tax rates because it increases the selling price of tax shelters and wiggles--and of claiming to want lower rates.
The left want to tax the shit out of everything and everyone to pay for their bribe-the-voter-for-free-stuff ponzi scheme.
We are already swimming in debt - and Schultz is right about that being our #1 threat.
For those of you piling on Trump for the debt - the gargantuan debt ballooned under Obama, and we are still paying for all his programs.
rate was 90% but the average rate paid by the top 10% of income earners was more in the 30-40% range.
Right. Effective rates were much lower because you could write off so much. It also didn't raise much revenue.
Shultz can't even make a decent cup of coffee. How the Hell could he be president?
ave
Starbucks is supposed to be a "coffee" shop but mostly they sell just coffee flavored beverages.
The dozen or so times I've been to Starbucks over the past 20 years I 1) Have had to spend what seemed like a lot of time explaining that I just wanted a cup of plain black coffee. and 2) found what I got pretty much undrinkable.
And he wants to be my president? I don't think so.
John Henry
First, we need to tax the fuck out of Harvard's Endowment.
Then, we should tax the fuck out of Michael Bloomberg, Bill Gates, Howard Schultz, Jeff Bezos, Tom Steyer, and most of the assholes at Goldman-Sachs.
If Liz Pochahontas Warren can pull this off, I might support her.
The Federal Reserve asserts that it is raising rates because the economy is stronger and can handle it.
Inga thinks they are lying.
#FunnyThingsIngaHasntFiguredOutYetEvenThoughTheInformationIsRightThere
Apparently, unless its in a hoax dossier, Inga is unable to accept it.
I think Schultz should run as an independent. He could win. Perot could have won if he didn't flake out.
Trump is so awful only 5-10% of the people would vote for him if there was a credible alternative. There are only about 30-35% that would vote for a far left.
That means Schultz could easily win a majority in a three way race.
Run Schultzie Run!
There's also a demographic dynamic at work here that our dear, dear Wall Streeters are not yet willing to face up to -- they are, voter-wise, a dwindling minority in the modern Democratic Party.
The majority of Wall Streeters tend to be East Coast, urban ethnics (Jewish, Irish, Italian, etc). They give a lot of money to the Democratic Party. A lot. They tend to expect that the Democratic Party look after their concerns for that money.
The problem arises with the fact that the Democratic Party is an inherently unstable high-low coalition --- educated, high income, "ethnic" coastal whites, who provide the money, & poorer, much less educated minorities, who provide the votes. These two groups often (like now) see their interests in starkly different terms. The elites pay lip service to "liking" the minorities, but it's clear on a day to day basis they don't. The minorities don't even pay lip service to liking the white elite.
So, here's the conundrum: No Democrat now can get elected on main street while taking money from Wall Street, but no Democrat can afford to run without Wall Street money, however it gets "laundered" before it's doled out.
Wall Street spent a lot of money on W, Obama, and Hillary.
They spend a lot on Schumer and McConnell.
The Nationalists and The Socialists both hate Wall Street. Nowhere for them to hide now.
My advice to them is to offer up a few sacrifices to the Nationalists. They have a chance of surviving in some form under The Nationalists. They stand no chance under The Socialists.
Remember, lads: President Trump is super weak and can be EASILY defeated by absolutely anyone. Anyone! So go ahead, run a dozen nonentities. Have billionaires try to suck the oxygen off the stage, as they throw their money around declaring how important they are.
If money could buy the office, it would have managed in 2016. All this does is make a Trump re-election certain.
Only you can save America, Howard Schultz!
They're always tslking about diversity - a field of 12 sounds great to me.
Schultz would get 3% of the votes at most. Bloomberg wouldn’t do much better.
The Socialists hate these guys even more than The Nationalists. Suburban people are mostly practical. Voting third party isn’t practical. The Nationalists and the Socialists.
Those are the choices.
We should tax the fuck out of all rich socialists.
Tank does not believe Politico.
End of story.
"Schultz has liberal views on a wide array of social issues, like immigration, gay rights, and racial justice. These cultural issues form the main basis for the polarization of the electorate. "
I take issue with the premise put forth. In all fairness, Trump's views on legal immigration, gay rights and racial justice are quite 'liberal'. Had the article listed abortion among these issues, there may have been some validity for the 'basis for the polarization' assertion. As usual, they got Trump [and his base] quite wrong.
"Top Wall Street executives would love to be rid of President Donald Trump. But they are getting panicked about..."
Ultimately it comes down to a choice. Do you want someone you can brag about meeting for dinner or do you want someone who won't fuck up the country?
Since I'm not actually required to invite the President over for dinner I'm not sure that's much of a cost.
"Does the Constitution permit a tax on wealth? (Not income but wealth)"
Ever hear of the inheritance tax?
Trump's views on ..., are, presumably, not liberal, but rather principled.
The Dems are threatening to boycott Starbucks, if Howie Schultz runs as an independent.
In life, this is called a "win-win" scenario.
Run, Howie, Run!
@BAG,
The Dems are threatening to boycott Starbucks, if Howie Schultz runs as an independent.
But, ya know, if they do, said Demos are gonna have to buy a cuppa Joe if they want to pee at Peets or Caribou.
"Bloomberg represents something of the platonic ideal on Wall Street — fiscally responsible while strong on climate change..."
A serious question that no one asks but me is: Why does the Street love climate change?
Tesla is Exhibit A. If there was no federal tax credit for purchasing Teslas then no company.
The Street is driven by the issuance of new debt and equity. Tesla was one example. The companies that build the windmills that Warren Buffett's MidAmerican Energy set up in Iowa is another. Warren said he never would have bought the windmills but for the one billion in federal income tax credit he could offset against his candy stores, jewelry store, furniture store and railroad.
That's why CAGW is a scam. It is all about creating new energy companies that need debt and equity. No way the Street funds them but for the federal tax law.
I always remember the words of Albert Jay Nock (wording approcimate) : Big business doesn't want a government that will leave it alone. Big Business wants a government it can use.
Politico and NY Magazine -- basically conventional wisdom from Dems not in the game but who would like to be. Their statements about what 'Wall Street' wants is as probative as Brokaw's views about what Westerns or residents of Flyover Country think or want.
Why would Politico lie to us?
I note that Slate thinks Schultz should run --- as a Republican! (Surprise!)
rcocean said...
70% is too high.
The rate was 90% under "Socialist" Eisenhower."
Not by Ike's choice. Don't blame him for FDR's thievery plus he didn't have a Congress to lower the rates. Incidentally from 1946 to 1973 we did pretty damn good since we were pretty much most of the world's GDP. But hey, the government takes donations so feel free to donate 90% of your income.
The big guys on Wall Street want to be rid of Trump in order to return the Dow to the market highs at the end of the Obama Boom. Dow 18000!
"We should tax the fuck out of all rich socialists.
yes.
Yo Jim Carey - and the rest of you fuckers in Hollywood - empty your easy street bank accounts to the Universal Treasury --- for the common good.
Howard Schultz is running because he knows exactly how politics works.
And he wants to change it.
I note that Slate thinks Schultz should run --- as a Republican! (Surprise!)
Yeah,recently I was thinking Trump should float the idea of running as a Democrat. Fuck with them a little bit.
"Top Wall Street executives would love to be rid of President Donald Trump."
Would they? You mean, they would love to be rid of the guy who got them lower taxes and deregulation, and who finally is putting the screws on the cheatin' Chinese, in a way even George Soros in Davos approved, and who has presided over healthy growth and low inflation, and who made solid appointments to all the positions that matter, including the Fed?
Maybe "Wall Street" is caving to prog symbolic politics, and no Wall Streeter can come out as a deplorable, but from a rational self-interest standpoint they should at least not want to trade him in for any Dem model.
BTW -- I also advocate taxing University Endowments.
Markets don't like uncertainty, and Trump can be unpredictable, so from that perspective I can imagine there are a fair number of Wall Street types that would like him gone. But if they want action on climate change, I have to ask why? I suspect they see government action as a large trough that they can feed at.
The Wall Street Global Fat Cats got a tax cut from Trump but don't like his nationalist policies that make it harder to keep shipping jobs overseas.
But they're stuck with Trump who wants them to invest in American jobs and socialist Dems who want to reverse the tax cuts and start taxing their wealth?
Boo fucking hoo.
Markets don't like uncertainty, and Trump can be unpredictable
They are perfectly fine with trade agreements that screw the American worker. As long as they don't change, Wall Street knows where to put the assets to maximize returns.
It's when trade agreements start changing and money finds itself suddenly in the wrong place that Wall Street executives start to cry foul.
If it keeps up, they might not have the biggest jet at Davos next year...
Which Wall Street executives? Who are they?
They work on Wall Street and they don't like a prosperous economy?
Trump should threaten to bomb Davos, Switzerland.
That would rattle some of these people.
I note that Slate thinks Schultz should run --- as a Republican! (Surprise!)
He can't win the Republican nomination.
He can't win the Democrat nomination.
He's smart enough to know both of those facts.
chuck said...
Trump is centrist despite his radical personality. All the Democratic prospects are some variety of lunatic seeking the power of government so they can hammer square pegs into round holes."
Jeez Chuck, you finally realized that Trump is the only sensible and electable Democrat?
Politico talked to one or two lefties and spun the article to seem like there’s an anti-Trump Wall Stret consensus. How soon forgotten was the double Irish, tax inversions, Hillary exit taxes, price controls and criminal penalties for corporate executives but we’re suppsed to believe the Street hates Trump.
cubanbob: "Jeez Chuck, you finally realized that Trump is the only sensible and electable Democrat?"
Wrong Chuck cubanbob.
I long ago recommended to "chuck" to modify his handle in some way to avoid being confused for "Chuck", our fake LLR.
Schultz has liberal views on a wide array of social issues, like immigration, gay rights, and racial justice. These cultural issues form the main basis for the polarization of the electorate. To the extent that anything has scrambled the culture-war polarization, it is Trump’s lightning-rod personality.
But this fact simply underscores the degree to which anybody who isn’t Trump simply divides the anti-Trump vote....
Chait can't see the forest for the trees. The polarization of the electorate in 2020 is those who like Trump vs. those who don't. Period.
The Dems were giddy at the idea of running a far-left candidate on the strength of the "you can't vote for Trump" appeal. Two options to not vote for Trump is going to dilute the anti-Trump vote, and a centrist independent is the Dems worst nightmare.
+1 what Rick said at 3:55p
We didn’t NEED an amendment to get an income tax. The politicians needed it to cover their ass. They could have done it but preferred to kick the can to the public, telling them it would ONLY BE USED TO TAX THE RICH!
And Bush increased the debt from 5-10T. Obama did 10-20. But the % of increase is the same.
There is never a reason to read anything by Jonathan Chait. He is, in essence, the kid in class who ate his boogers and was picked last in every football/baseball/basketball game. Now, at age 45, he lives in his parents' basement, and earns a meager living, writing polemics.
rcocean said...
During our period of greatest economic growth - 1946-1973 - the top tax rate was never less than 75%
**************
It's not a top rate, it's a marginal rate, and it was even higher during the Eisenhower administration.
But because anyone making enough money to be subject to those marginal rates had teams of lawyers and accountants who found every loophole and exemption in the tax code---and there were many---to keep their AGI out of that territory, no one paid it.
More to the point: during the years you cite, the US was the sole superpower in the world after WWII; for much of that time we were the only major nation with our industrial infrastructure intact.
Economically, it was a Golden Age.
So your attempt to associate usurious tax rates with prosperity is a major FAIL
Blogger rcocean said...
"During our period of greatest economic growth - 1946-1973 - the top tax rate was never less than 75%"
Yet, no one paid at that rate. There were loopholes and write offs galore. Why do you think they instituted the Alternative Minimum Tax? It was the backlash to the wealthy not paying any taxes. There was almost no expense, personal or business, you couldn't write off. So, if you want to bring back 50's/60's tax rates, without the write offs and loopholes, and are expecting the same outcomes, you're delusional.
Under Schultz' proposed immigration policy he stops short of full amnesty for illegals, but they can use America's bathrooms.
Wall St made money under Obama. They can make money no matter who is in office. It's the rest of us who will suffer under socialism.
I like Biden, he's not as stupid as those who have achieved little and count on affirmative action to make their way. When Joe slips into his dotage nothing will happen. Nothing happening in DC is a good thing.
McDonald's understands better than Starbucks how to make a good cup of coffee.
Maybe their CEO should run instead..
The Democratic Party is really trotting out some winners.
Really begging the question here, that is, the, "Wall Street executives."
I wouldn't read a Politico article if Meade himself told me it was on the level. I'm going to infer that these Wall St. execs are personal friends of the columnist.
he Dems are threatening to boycott Starbucks, if Howie Schultz runs as an independent.
Why would he care? He's the former CEO.
Ironically, Schultz knows his best chance is if the D's nominate someone insane. Stunts like that boycott would be exactly what he needs.
Charlie Currie said...
Blogger rcocean said...
"During our period of greatest economic growth - 1946-1973 - the top tax rate was never less than 75%"
For most that time, the US was in the unique position of not having had its industry destroyed by the war. Want to successfully repeat the post-war boom? First you need to repeat the war.
We already have a wealth tax. The inheritance tax. 30% of amounts over $10 million. People spend more on lawyers and accountants to avoid the tax than they pay the tax itself. A wealth tax would accelerate the tax planning and professional fees.
Most of the commentary about Schultz is guilty of “national popular vote” thinking.
Suppose Schultz peals off 5 million Democratic votes in NY and CA? File that under “who gives a crap.” But let him peal off 50,000 Trump votes in Michigan or Wisconsin and Trump loses.
seriously coffee boy is not that interesting:
https://www.jpost.com/Arab-Israeli-Conflict/Top-Saudi-official-says-Obama-lied-set-Middle-East-back-20-years-578922
Williams Jennings Bryan is reincarnated as roughly the 100,000 most active Democrats.
Trump is gonna be reelected, folks. Take it to the bank. Heading that Wall Streeters want him out is just more proof.
Many of the nation’s top bankers want Trump gone...
Seriously? I'll bet it's just their fat and psychopathic wives who would thrash them in polite company if they didn't spout such nonsense.
Howard Schulz fumbled the Sonics to Oklahoma City. He's not going to win any popularity contests in Seattle.
I can see a future CNN headline stating that "Schulz is directly responsible for the suicide of Aubrey McClendon".
rcocean said...During our period of greatest economic growth - 1946-1973 - the top tax rate was never less than 75%
There also wasn't a permanent underclass which paid no income taxes while demanding more and more services. Everyone had skin in the game. The permanent "no tax" bracket" was created to create a permanent constituency.
Limbaugh might be driving a lot of the right away with absolute pro-life rants, the half that thinks choice meets right to life sometime in pregnancy to be compromised on.
Wall Street is in New York. They are mostly all Democrats and have been for a long time. Goldman, Morgan, Citi, etc. these bankers get away with murder when a Democrat is running the justice department. The New York Attorney General's office and the New York Fed are corrupt allies of the Democrat party. Of course they want a Democrat to be president. Did we tell you the name of the game, boy, we call it riding the gravy train.
I think what they did in new York state, was really detestable, notably there was little comment about it on the sunday shows, well there is little of value, like stay puft expressing his wit and wisdom, when he crosses that bridge,
Why are they so big on climate change? Or is that just window dressing?
@ Charlie Currie:
As an old Bob Dylan song put it, "Ain't no use you talkin' to me, same as me talkin' to you!"
"For most that time, the US was in the unique position of not having had its industry destroyed by the war."
1) People keep repeating this crap like it means something. French Industry, Italian Industry, Latin America industry, Spanish Industry, UK industry - was NOT destroyed by the War.
2) International trade - aka exports before 1965 - was a small part of USA GNP. It was 10% in 1960, and 5% in 1929. Japanese industry was much stronger in 1955 than in 1939, because we let them exports goods to us while keeping tariffs on OUR goods.
Many of our other exports were in fact FINANCED by the USA.
3) But anyway, thanks for repeating some meaningless BS! I get it, you don't like high tax rates on super wealthy people - because you are one - I hope. because otherwise that would be moronic.
Ha, ha, this is HILARIOUS. If anything ever demonstrated the "on the hand, but on the other hand' idiot savants who are the supposed Wise Men of Wall St AND 'The Media', this is def in the top 5 at least!
"... nervous paralysis ... pining ... ..while realizing ... unlikely ...platonic ideal .....something of a wild card...could ... I don’t know ...but ...Wall Street freaks out ... growing anxious...AND: ...Might ...probably... has scrambled ...while realizing ... is unlikely . ....something of the platonic ideal ... while ... something of a wild card. ... does not have ... but ... who could ..somewhat more moderate ... I don’t know ...but it looks like ... ...Wall Street freaks out ...Many ... growing anxious..the reality is ...probably...To the extent that "
OMG, where's Hillary when she's really needed by her 'Liberal' party?! Stand by...on the other hand....
Quit talking about top marginal tax rates.
All that matters is the effective tax rate.
And the absolute fact is people change their respective behaviors so that the federal government never receives much above 20% of GDP (and never much below 18%, either).
Those numbers - undeniable facts - are the guardrails that politicians pretend do not exist.
No plan - not a one - regardless of marginal rate will raise more revenue over any significant time frame.
Any politician who tells you otherwise is lying.
The question big business muckety-mucks are always asking is how to divide the existing pie using the coercive power of government.
Adam Smith wrote as much in 1776.
Nobel Laureate James Buchanan proved it empirically.
That comment reminds of Bozo McCain claiming WW 2 was started by Smoot-Hawley in the debates in 2008, and everyone just giving it a pass.
certainly smoot Hawley, cut capital flow back to Europe, to what degree isn't clear, but that's like arguing the McKinley tariff of 1890, provoked the crash three years later,
> I long ago recommended to "chuck" to modify his handle in some way to avoid being confused for "Chuck"
Some new guy shows up, steps on my name without so much as a "sorry", and I should change my long time handle? Don't think so. It can be amusing, though.
Federal spending, of course, runs about 25-27% of GDP.
That means we are going to run $1 trillion deficits each year until spending is cut.
Revenue is relatively flat as a percentage of GDP so the only solution is to cut spending.
Deal with it, everybody.
Wall Street does not care about Republicans or Democrats. They care about establishment candidates who will carry on the neoliberal agenda. This includes every president of the last 30 years at least.
we've had social justice platitudes coming out of our TV sets for decades. Racial justice is what Trump is delivering in this economy. Obama was for the Muslims not blacks. Hillary's crew was embarrassingly white. Bernie is a cracker. Kamala is a cop. All the "Journalists" now have seen the layoffs. They'll just be talkin more shit to keep their parking spaces. Donald is getting results. That's what terrifies Pelosi and Schumer. They haven't done dick.
You could have a new version of pick up sticks where all the Dem issues and possible pols are written on sticks. Then nationwide we have contest to draw out sticks with names without shifting the general policy pile. The winner, last name pulled at the Sticks Super Bowl, gets to run against Trump. It would work as well as the present system. But it wouldn't pour money into battleground states. (Wisconsin is battle ground state, for sure.)
Another way would be to have commentary on how well campaign managers are doing rather than the candidate. I'm reading Shattered all the way through and it's very striking how the campaign managers and players judged everything in a very solipsistic way, namely how the campaign was doing that day - or week- vis a vis the enemy campaign in terms of points related to the news cycle as interpreted by the campaigns. Nothing was in terms of what we now know was really happening. Jobs going to China? How can Hillary suppress Bernie and Trump as they bring up the issue? Discontent in the heartland - non existent in the news cycle, hence non-existent. And the candidates listened to these managers and to no one else except people criticizing the campaign managers. "Well, Kamala's Team had a good week, folks, she got 20,000 to turn out for her in Oakland and she's more popular than Obama by that metric so the KT's have the mo in minority country. But back east two Billionaires are throwing their cashboxes in the ring. "She got 20,000 people - I get that many customers in an hour" their PR exploratory maybe teams chorused. Tune in again in a minute or so in case one of them wipes out on Twitter."
rhhardin said...
Limbaugh might be driving a lot of the right away with absolute pro-life rants, the half that thinks choice meets right to life sometime in pregnancy to be compromised on.
*******************
I ask again: why have men for all human history have to surrender their own bodies to fight and die in WARS, while wymyn today claim they have the right to SEXUAL PLEASURE and NOT to deal proactively with its consequences?
Does no one understand that procreation is every much an essential part of the human future, every bit as much as protecting one's country?
When libs favor massive immigration, why not see the advantages of having "our own kind" (white/black and assimilated hispanic/asian AMERICANS) take on the role of creating and nurturing new American citizens with our own values?)
Don't the experiences of the rest of the world, with their religious, racial, ethnic, linguistic and tribal conflicts ever register with the Left?
And where in your "analysis", rhardin, do the rights of the fetus kick in? Even Roe V. Wade claimed that the state could weigh in to protect the fetus during the third trimester, something the NY state law overrides.
So you abort a baby at eight months. Then kill it. In NY, that's now OK!
I'm reminded of the Spanish fascists during the 1930's, whose motto was "LONG LIVE DEATH".
Democrats have a lot to answer for. I fear that something another poster alluded to the other day ---that we may be forced into a Cambodian solution---awaits us.
Unless, of course, we surrender to the "Progressive" Borg.
Either way: God help us.
As Waters said tonight, nobody has been so wrong so often and kept a job as those in the media.
RCOcean,
The inheritance tax is on non-American Non-citizens. Dead people. I think that is the justification.
John Henry
high tax rates on super wealthy people -
RE OCean,
Do you mean wealthy people there or high income people?
Jeff Bezos is wealthy but not particularly high income at $89,000 per year. (Yes, 89 thousand)
John Henry
chuck: "Some new guy shows up, steps on my name without so much as a "sorry", and I should change my long time handle?"
LOL, well played.
I'm getting a Monty Python "without so much as a 'by your leave'" vibe from your comment.
From articles I have read since Warren brought up the wealth tax it is considered to be unconstitutional. The inheritance tax is associated with an event, the transfer of an asset from one entity to another, it is not just the seizure of an asset. At least, that was the way I understood the explanation for it. I am personally opposed to inheritance taxes. .
A wealth tax is a really dumb idea. Wealth doesn't just sit there; it is invested and generates more income in the form of dividends, interest, and capital gains - all of which are taxed. If the remainder is re-invested such that wealth grows this compounding will generate even more income tax revenue in the future. Why would you want to encumber that?
MadisonMan said...
BTW -- I also advocate taxing University Endowments.
Isn't there something in Trumps tax bill that does Levy a tax on endowments? Calculated by dividing the endowment by enrollment, and taxing X $'s over ? $1 million/student enrolled?
The way to get less of something is to tax it. I'm sure the left is aware of that, yet they can't help themselves. And they are considered the party of smart people?
Again we are spending 6% more as a percentage of GDP, on average, for the last 11 fiscal years than will be collected in taxes. That will be 12 years soon enough.
Unless we cut spending by that 6% of GDP (just under a quarter of total US federal government spending) then the deficits will continue into perpetuity until nobody will loan the government any more.
Try to find an answer, anybody. Give it a go.
@ moron rhardin:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Plan
http://www.allempires.com/article/index.php?q=Britains_Post-War_Decline_1945-50
https://study.com/academy/lesson/post-war-france-politics-economy-rebuilding.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_economic_miracle#The_Recovery_Stage_(1946-1954)
OK, rhardin: where did the $$ come from to give these economically devastated countries?
You seem to being saying that post-WWII--things "just happened". When actually, the USA was the driving force that made them happen. WHO THE FUCK DO YOU THINK DECIDED THE TARIFFS?
Marshall Plan: why do you think Europe needed one? OK, the USSR was an emergent adversary, but after WWII their economy had been destroyed, too.
As for South American industry---are you fucking serious?
I'll answer. You're not. You're a flake.
Their pocket book will over rule their virtue signals. They will not publicly support Trump, but they will vote for Trump. Now they need some excuses to donate fewer dollars to Dem nominee.
Jay Elink,
You are attacking the wrong flake.
You meant rcocean.
well they don't evince that degree of common sense, do you, although chaitred's agita is quite amusing
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2019/01/28/us-charges-huawei-fraud-violating-iran-sanctions/
So now Wall Street banksters are the new prog Democrat party heroes who are going to rid the world of the big bad orange man? That's the democrat party big tent with Wall Street banksters fighting arm in arm with OWS against America. JFC Democrat party members are dangerous evil people utterly without principles.
If only we could tax hate.
New and improved chuck.
rcocean@5:55PM Speaking for myself, I don't like high tax rates on super wealthy people because it isn't right and fair. I don't want to pay%90 of my earnings to the government, so I'd be a hypocrite to wish that on others just because they make more money than me. The fucking government is not entitled to the lion's share of anyone's money. There should be a lot less money being forked over to the federal government, and a lot less government to suck up our wealth.
Bay Area Guy @ 4:31pm,
As long as he does win the right day!
Birkel said...
Jay Elink,
You are attacking the wrong flake.
You meant rcocean.
**************
Correctamente!
My bad.
Top Wall Street executives are regular swimmers in the swamp. Trump doesn't need their bribes and doesn't fear their threats. He's gotta be replaced with someone who "can be more flexible after the election."
Birkel, I have different numbers. I think you’re quoting the budget numbers and ignoring the unbugeted numbers? If you use the unbugeted deficit, you get a total borrowing of over $1.25T and that’s in an average year. Obama got close to $2T one year. The way I see the numbers is a lot more grim than you.
$4T collected in taxes
$5.25T spent
====================
$1.25T and growing of new debt each year
Assuming a true balanced budget
$4T, less
$.6T of unbugeted debt which MUST be paid
$.4T interest each year
=================
Gives $3T of spendable money
Which is $2.25T less of spending PER YEAR
Which will crash our economy in no time
Anyone thinking that we can survive our current trajectory is ?
Its always amusing to see Politico palm off some liberal dumbfuck like Schultz as a "centrist" when his whole SJW schtick at Starbucks shows exactly how he would govern. Opening up restrooms to the homeless lets me know all about his judgement when confronted with a crisis. "Make Junkies Feel Good Again" is not a winning campaign theme.
alanc709 said...The way to get less of something is to tax it. I'm sure the left is aware of that
--
The vast voting left? I'm not convinced of that. My favorite quote from a lefty (with econ degree a la AOC to boot) is "taxes are the source of wealth"
Another lefty acquaintance thinks education and healthcare should be "free", yet freaked out when craigslist began charging $5 for her to place an ad for services because it would impact her business.
Both are moms raising the next generation.
Where is the centrist part? What policies?
Nothing is free, regardless of what the left likes to believe. All that happens are the costs are hidden.
"Jeff Bezos is wealthy but not particularly high income at $89,000 per year. (Yes, 89 thousand)"
I assume you mean Bezos is drawing a salary of $89 thousand. That's certainly NOT his total income.
Jack Wayne,
You are correct about Obama's record of increasing the debt about 1.25 trillion per year.
Trump has been better than that because of the rapidly growing GDP.
Still, we need to remove a bit less than 25% of federal spending if we want the debt to stagnate at $21 trillion (give or take).
"Anyone thinking that we can survive our current trajectory is ?"
Obviously, we'll have to raise taxes, unless you can detail $1 Trillion in spending cuts that will get through Congress.
Remember according to Turkey McConnell - 40 senators can filibuster the budget
Jack Wayne,
And just so we are clear:
I blame Bush, Reid, Pelosi, and Obama in roughly equal measure for the off the books spending that was started with the idiotic stimulus package.
And the 1974 Budget Act pushed by Ted Kennedy against a failing President Nixon comes in for equal share, also.
Exactly, Michael Fitzgerald.
The government should never take more than 1/3 - in my opinion.
1/2 or more - that's unreasonable theft. 70-90% is insanity.
rcocean:
You are out of your depth in this.
Raising marginal tax rates will NEVER raise an extra one trillion.
People change their respective behaviors rather than paying more than about 20.5% of GDP for taxes.
Look it up and quit being a dope.
He's my "Moderate/Libertarian Republican" Campaign Platform:
1 Cut Medicare and Social Security
2 Don't tax the Rich
3 Open borders and Amnesty.
It'll sweep the nation!
"You are out of your depth in this."
Fuck You, Lame brain.
I'm gone anyway, I got better things to do.
The ONLY answers are 1) lower spending, 2) grow the GDP to support current spending without raising spending, or 3) federal default of the debt.
A start:
https://www.nysun.com/national/stage-is-set-for-democrats-to-compromise/90551/
You'd fall in love and I'd fall asleep.
Start here, anybody besides rcocean who is not a blithering idiot:
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYFRGDA188S
If you think we can raise taxes to cover the debt, you're a fucking moron.
Birkel is correct- we collect roughly a similar percentage of GDP each year- monkeying with the rate structure doesn’t change it. It does have a big impact on the level od GDP growth however.
If you want government to get more revenue you need to optimize the rate structure to maximize growth.
So The Wall Street executive think of Donald Trump as democracy itself. The worst form of government except for all the others.
RC Ocean,
Virtually all of his wealth is in Amazon stock. He gets no income from that.
I assume that he has some other income but I have seen the total estimated at $3-5 million.
If he pays 40% effective on that, he would be paying $1.2 to $2mm a year in taxes.
You can run his taxes all the way to 98% and it will won't even rise to the level of sofa change as far as the federal budget is concerned.
He is just not that high income. Certainly not relative to his wealth.
John Henry
rcocean: "He's my "Moderate/Libertarian Republican" Campaign Platform:
1 Cut Medicare and Social Security
2 Don't tax the Rich
3 Open borders and Amnesty.
It'll sweep the nation!"
LOL
#3 guarantees full-blown permanent far left control of government at all levels within 10 years n perpetuity and a leviathan state that will remove all individual rights.
The Libertarians are self-defeating idiots.
RC Ocean,
Buffett is another who has always had a very low income relative to his wealth. He has said he doesn't care what his income tax rate is.
And he would not, it doesn't affect his wealth. If he needs to buy something, he just peels off a piece or two of his supermoney.
It's a bit dated, I think from '72 or so but Supermoney, by "Adam Smith" (George Goodman) is still in print and still a great read though it's been 10 years since I last read it. (Just downloaded the sample to my Kindle pile.)
It is a really good explanation of how "supermoney" (wealth vs income) works. It was the first time I heard of Warren Buffett and I was impressed. Berkshire Hathaway stock was around $300 at the time, I had some extra money and thought about buying some. $300 a share seemed awful expensive at the time (77-78). So I made another of my famously stupid youthful decisions and didn't buy any. Closed at $301,000 today.
Buffett explained why he had pretty much all of his wealth in B-H and why it would never, ever, under circumstances, pay a dividend. He also never took much income from the company. $100,000 a year or so up until 2010 or so.
Available through the portal, of course.
John Henry
"If 10% was good enough for Jesus, it ought to be enough for Uncle Sam"
Ray Stevens
John Henry
Here Birkel et. al are talking about the stark reality of the deficits and Occasional Cortex and the rest of the democrats are talking about universal healthcare or medicaid for all like it's easily paid for. Crikey, we are so screwed.
If I'd just bought 10 shares...
Sometimes I get to thinking about this and feel a need to start drinking again.
Don't worry, I won't. I just feel the need.
John Henry
As I have said other places:
Trump is not a Socialist douchebag
He is not an Antifa Apologist Douchebag
He is not a Free Speech Suppressing Academic douchebag.
He is not an Anti-Capitalist douchebag
He is not a department kingdom establishing, private server FBI using douchebag.
He is not an Anti American, Anti Border douchebag.
He does not necessarily have any positive attributes in excess. However he lacks the incredible number of negatives that his opponents possess or are forced to kowtow too.
to
Nice one, johnhenry100. Tack on another ten percent. You rock!
Gk1
The problem is that my argument has no emotional hook. The argument is based on facts. But that is precisely useless for political purposes.
My argument must be phrased in a way that appeals to emotions. It must be about little old widows and orphan children. The problem that everybody has is getting people to concentrate on reality when reality is so easy to demagogue.
I challenge all of you to brainstorm and help find the emotional hook necessary to appeal to voters based on the facts at hand.
Limbaugh is hard core right. If you listen long enough on the hard wavelengths; ie, the AM radio band, you might find him RANT against degeneracy, Propecia and Viagra notwithstanding. Whheeeee!
"Jeff Bezos is wealthy but not particularly high income at $89,000 per year. (Yes, 89 thousand)"
This is why genius Elizabeth Warren is offering up a wealth tax. A sure-fire way to destroy the economy in one fell swoop.
There are other ways to raise taxes besides marginal rates on income (eg national retail sales tax, VAT, etc.). Not saying I support them necessarily, but the options do exist.
"The Libertarians are self-defeating idiots."
I support the concept of freedom of movement, but I understand that sovereign nations deserve secure borders. You can put down the broad brush.
"There are other ways to raise taxes"
Cut spending.
J Farmer,
Your argument is with the Saint Louis Fed.
Good luck.
Heh
Hillary IS Tanya Harding.
A VAT or a national sales tax would be politically impossible and economically destructive.
So the current batch of politicians might very well try it. They're fucking morons.
Go HOwie!
Hiccup
"Limbaugh might be driving a lot of the right away with absolute pro-life rants, the half that thinks choice meets right to life sometime in pregnancy to be compromised on."
Where, what position, might Limbaugh be driving from, if he's potentially driving them away from some as yet named spatial orientation?
See, this is where I get weary. How rare is my nonmanic, nondepressive phase?
Economics. The 1 hand the government only rapaciously takes takes takes and provides little if anything the privates couldn't do better, with reasons explained many times we all here know of well resulting in Buywaya's well-informed attitude.
2 hand, Jeff Bezos, Steve Jobs, and Mark Zuckerberg.
I feel it only moral to limit what they can do, for very moral reasons, knowing any government with that power will abuse it or be abused.
There is no other way.
So, second level thinking, beyond the not misinformed but only at the level of those danged ol' heads a talkin' as the fella says.
No way to limit the next level above, mentioned, and the ones (same level though) above them with no names.
Only God.
You guys worried about the debt and the deficit sinking the country are ridiculous. You all sound like global warming doom mongers.
They are simply going to print more money. When a Republican is president they will whine about inflation and cause a recession like Powell is trying to do now.
Yes there are costs to printing off more money. But they are easier to deal with than trying to cut social security and medicare.
If the economy isn't growing fast enough they will just print more money.
Rather than bitch and moan about spending too much and other things that will never change just understand what is.
Cash is a poor investment.
Debt is a great investment as long as you use the debt to accumulate assets that will go up in value with inflation.
They can't print real estate.
If a politician is guaranteed to lose if they propose cutting these entitlements they would be fucking stupid to listen to people who want them to try that.
So stop being silly.
The GOP never Trump establishment guy postured tonight that we need no ideologues but middle of the road problem solvers to be President. Of course that describes Trump, but he had never thought it out.
Achilles,
You are talking about Jimmy Carter level inflation.
I am worried about Venezuela level inflation.
Slight difference.
It's like this: Do I believe had the Founders conceived of the Internet they would have changed certain things?
No, they did know of it.
But we lasted a Hell of a long time, and we're only at this point. Our gratitude ought be overwhelmingly used to keep it going. Self-perpetuation.
Birkel that is easily the most depressing thing you've laid out so far. There is nothing sexy or enticing about paying debt down. Our culture has opted to put flashy rims on its 1995 LeBaron when the mechanic is telling us the rotors are shot and that we are taking our life into our hands driving it any farther. But instead we have half of the country looking at gold plated rims now.
Birkel said...
I challenge all of you to brainstorm and help find the emotional hook necessary to appeal to voters based on the facts at hand.
path 1: Try to convince emotionally stunted soap opera women, ignorant dumbshit millennials glued to their facebook/twitter news, and greedy baby boomers sucking the social security/medicare teat that we can't "tax the rich and get free stuff." Remember those baby boomers "earned" their right to suck the life out of their kids even though they already spent that money on themselves once.
path 2: Understand what is going to happen no matter how logical we think the alternative is and plan for the federal government to print off enough money to devalue their debt.
hm.
Well that is the question, when does the rate hikes make the debt utterly unsustainable, the answers are not easy to implement.
ot: Border Patrol wives invite Pelosi to border to see why they want wall
We were assured by Chuck Todd(D) that nobody in TX or AZ are worried about border security.
Weird - it's almost like he's lying.
Birkel said...
Achilles,
You are talking about Jimmy Carter level inflation.
I am worried about Venezuela level inflation.
Slight difference.
The only thing that has staved off Venezuelan levels of inflation during the Obama years when he quintupled the physical money supply is the massive gains in productivity and automation.
The things that cause Venezuelan levels of inflation are government corruption and interference/regulation. People need toilet paper. They destroyed the people that make toilet paper. If they had let the people who make toilet paper get rich they could print off all the money they wanted.
If you let people get rich prices will go up at a reasonable level.
"I feel it only moral to limit what they can do, for very moral reasons, knowing any government with that power will abuse it or be abused."
What's so great is I feel you know why feelings matter but don't like it so will react emotionally, fooling yourself into thinking it's logic.
Also, anyone who thinks Billionares ought be spelled properly or above the law, not answerable for any of their actions, well, you SirMa'am are the problem.
Blind not above.
"We were assured by Chuck Todd(D) that nobody in TX or AZ are worried about border security." Well for one thing, Chuck Todd is a partisan piece of shit married to a democratic operative. Of course he will slip howlers into discussions on this rarely watched show. How its not been replaced by sunday wrestling is a question experts have puzzled with since the late 90's.
Narciso, one clue is found in the unbudgeted expenses, currently running about $.6T per year. The government is pretty coy about what this money is being used for. I believe it is the money needed to rollover the debt. The second clue is how much debt is being rolled over every year. Again, hard data to find. In 2014, the government rolled over $8T. A lot of people think we will have hyper-inflation a la Venezuela. I don’t buy it. I think we will bite the dust when our rollover is so big and/or frequent that the banks can’t accommodate it. One the one hand we have wheelbarrows of money. On the other, there is no money, just debt. Theoretically, we could sell assets to settle the debt. Which could be the armed services or the Grand Canyon. Maybe all of Iowa.....
Very often, as has been shown at a certain site we're all at, there can be seen the grain of truth that is a clear, clear grain, and not by chance, and if we take the time to microscope through our mind that very clear grain, we can understand the reason the Left claims to believe what it does.
They all know it is lies and evil, but they assume maybe some innocent people don't know and therefore the lies and evil don't matter.
I can't do much better than this.
Achilles,
You are a bit off in your analysis of the Obama money supply. The reason we did not get aggressive inflation under Obama is because the velocity of money slowed considerably so that the effective increase in the money supply was significantly lower than what the Fed balance sheet and the QE would otherwise suggest.
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/v/velocity.asp
Short version:
$4 is the money supply and it is spent once a year
is precisely equivalent to
$1 is the money supply and it is spent four types per year
Jack Wayne,
Again, you will find the off the books spending is dollar for dollar the Stimulus spent every year since 2008, inclusive. It's not an estimate.
The 1974 Budget Act pushed by Ted Kennedy means that without a budget the last year of spending will be reproduced the following year.
That is why Pelosi/Reid/Obama troika never passed a budget. The spending was rolled over and the one time spending of the Stimulus happened every year. W let Pelosi and Reid roll him. And we managed to spend $8 trillion since then.
Why are there never any polls about the media? [Rhetorical question].
---Gk1 said...
"We were assured by Chuck Todd(D) that nobody in TX or AZ are worried about border security." Well for one thing, Chuck Todd is a partisan piece of shit married to a democratic operative. Of course he will slip howlers into discussions on this rarely watched show. How its not been replaced by sunday wrestling is a question experts have puzzled with since the late 90's.---
You sure got him! Zing 'im 'gain Gk1!!
The only stimulus money I know of is the QE by the Fed. That nearly $5T is on their books. But it is really part of the national debt as it will be repaid one way or another. So our collective debt is currently at about $28T. Which is peanuts compared to corporate debt or the derivative market. I saw an article recently claiming that the global derivative market is at $500Q(uadrillion). If that levee breaks, head for the hills.
Jack Wayne,
Were you born after 2008?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_Stimulus_Act_of_2008
I'm not even being my normal obtuse self in this thread and people aren't following? I'm talking about the one time spending package signed into law by Bush during the housing market crash of 2008.
And since Pelosi/Reid/Obama never passed a budget, that money was spent every year. That's what baseline budgeting - established in the 1974 Budget Act - requires. The whole point of not passing a budget was to spend the Stimulus from the 2008 crisis every year.
Now the U.S. economy expects that much government spending and nobody is willing to get the spending under control. Again: spending would have to be reduced a bit less than 25%.
"Limbaugh might be driving a lot of the right away with absolute pro-life rants, the half that thinks choice meets right to life sometime in pregnancy to be compromised on."
I get it. It's beautiful.
Limbaugh might be "driving a lot of (the right away)" as "Limbaugh might be driving a lot of the right a way with absolute pro-life rants" like from the great Chicklit Italian Goes To Malto Clip.
Spaced.
"Well, yeah he's driving the right away."
"Sure, good driver."
"You don't like the Right?"
"What?"
"He drivin' the right away!"
"Yeah, I said he's a Good Driver!"
"He Drivin' the Right A Way! Son of beach!"
tim maguire said...
"Most of the commentary about Schultz is guilty of “national popular vote” thinking."
Suppose Schultz peals off 5 million Democratic votes in NY and CA? File that under “who gives a crap.” But let him peal off 50,000 Trump votes in Michigan or Wisconsin and Trump loses."
I can't help but think that the magical Evers/Kaul victory in WI was a test run for 2020. Ballots marked only for the (D) presidential candidate, and maybe the same party's Senate candidate, appear at the last minute.
I wrote a song "Three Asses to the Wind" but I don't abuse elders.
Jack Wayne,
And the further part that might not have been clear:
The Stimulus of 2008 was off book spending.
It added to the debt but it was not counted as part of the deficit.
That's why the deficits reported under Obama were just about $800 billion below the yearly increases in the federal debt.
And each year the Stimulus package was spent, it was off books for the deficit.
And it was real money that was added to the debt.
But the press got to report the deficit number and that made Obama look relatively good when he was fiscally irresponsible.
Trump's deficit includes the baseline budget because they actually passed a budget and the deficit now actually reflects the spending of the federal government instead of hiding it within the 2008 Stimulus package.
George W Bush was an idiot for getting rolled by Pelosi/Reid. A willing idiot who didn't see the whole $8 trillion play.
The Founders would ask, and maybe have asked, Trump to invite AOC into the Oval yo.
Trump would supplicate.
Glory.
I can't help but think that the magical Evers/Kaul victory in WI was a test run for 2020. Ballots marked only for the (D) presidential candidate, and maybe the same party's Senate candidate, appear at the last minute.
It's hard for me to believe that the there are no legal challenges so far. Must not be any money in it for the lawyers.
I don't give lawyers no credence, not after Lincoln and the House Divided speech.
House of Reps been 'round long time, divided, PURPOSELY, and for the benefit of all of mankind for over two hundred years.
China Stand Taller?
Okay, they got the brains after all. Not like us.
China? Hardly.
Their economy is nowhere near what they pretend it is.
Check the nighttime pictures of China and compare to the United States.
Understand that those pictures cannot be faked and they tell the incredible tale of China's lies about economic growth.
When the Senate became Statewide everyone lost.
The oppourtunity cost is incalcuable.
Now hyper-localism is America's next challenge She shall bare burdens to meet.
Post a Comment