(04-27-2018 10:05 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  More demonizing. Effective tool of the right.

Maybe. But for those of who try to pay attention to what is going on around us on a daily basis it certainly has a disturbing ring of truth.

In Oct./Nov., 2016, in my generally left-leaning, urban neighborhood of roughly 100 homes, roughly half of my neighbors had proudly posted Clinton/Kaine yard signs or bumper stickers. A few of us had Johnson/Weld signs/stickers. The rest were empty. There was exactly one -- and only one -- neighbor who posted a Trump/Pence sign on his yard.

Now, based upon the precinct numbers published on November 9, it is clear that many of those non-posting neighbors were Trump/Pence supporters. So why the remarkable silence?

In my personal opinion, it's because the political left -- with which I more often than not agree from a policy standpoint -- has lost much of its capacity for fundamental values and basic human decorum. My first thought when I saw the sole Trump/Pence sign by my brave neighbor was that this was a guy who is asking to have his car keyed. That awful thought would never have occurred to me if the ideological circumstances were reversed.

Too many on the political left seem to think that the righteousness of their own views, and the utter wrongheadedness of those who are on the right, justifies the abandonment of what used to be normal political manners. Hillary, unfortunately, was not speaking just for herself when she popped off with the "deplorables" comment. There are many who I encounter daily who think that she was entirely correct in her assessment.

Do conservatives likewise have their share of smug and disrespectful adherents? Of course. We don't have to look any further than most any thread on this "spin room" forum to find examples. Yet, in my unqualified assessment, those unpleasant thoughts and expressions from the right are much less likely to be acted upon than those from the left. My Congressman, Bobby Scott (D. Va.), can safely go about his daily routine without any concern beyond the occasional letter or e-mail pointing out that he is a disappointing do-nothing. An adjacent Congressman, Scott Taylor (R. Va.), has had to deal with actual threats and added security at his town hall meetings.

Deny it all you wish, Mr. Machiavelli, but that is the reality that I am seeing. It is not a pleasant one.

[B.t.w., on the morning of Nov. 9 I made a point of shaking my neighbor's hand to congratulate him -- not so much of the stunning (at least to me) Trump victory, but instead to commend him for his lonely show of support. I wonder how many of my left-leaning neighbors did the same. Did you, Mr. Machiavelli, have the grace to congratulate your Trump-supporting neighbors or co-workers? If you did, it would make you an exception from the left.]

(04-28-2018 11:15 AM)AdoptedMonarch Wrote:  

(04-27-2018 10:05 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  More demonizing. Effective tool of the right.

Maybe. But for those of who try to pay attention to what is going on around us on a daily basis it certainly has a disturbing ring of truth.

In Oct./Nov., 2016, in my generally left-leaning, urban neighborhood of roughly 100 homes, roughly half of my neighbors had proudly posted Clinton/Kaine yard signs or bumper stickers. A few of us had Johnson/Weld signs/stickers. The rest were empty. There was exactly one -- and only one -- neighbor who posted a Trump/Pence sign on his yard.

Now, based upon the precinct numbers published on November 9, it is clear that many of those non-posting neighbors were Trump/Pence supporters. So why the remarkable silence?

In my personal opinion, it's because the political left -- with which I more often than not agree from a policy standpoint -- has lost much of its capacity for fundamental values and basic human decorum. My first thought when I saw the sole Trump/Pence sign by my brave neighbor was that this was a guy who is asking to have his car keyed. That awful thought would never have occurred to me if the ideological circumstances were reversed.

Too many on the political left seem to think that the righteousness of their own views, and the utter wrongheadedness of those who are on the right, justifies the abandonment of what used to be normal political manners. Hillary, unfortunately, was not speaking just for herself when she popped off with the "deplorables" comment. There are many who I encounter daily who think that she was entirely correct in her assessment.

Do conservatives likewise have their share of smug and disrespectful adherents? Of course. We don't have to look any further than most any thread on this "spin room" forum to find examples. Yet, in my unqualified assessment, those unpleasant thoughts and expressions from the right are much less likely to be acted upon than those from the left. My Congressman, Bobby Scott (D. Va.), can safely go about his daily routine without any concern beyond the occasional letter or e-mail pointing out that he is a disappointing do-nothing. An adjacent Congressman, Scott Taylor (R. Va.), has had to deal with actual threats and added security at his town hall meetings.

Deny it all you wish, Mr. Machiavelli, but that is the reality that I am seeing. It is not a pleasant one.

[B.t.w., on the morning of Nov. 9 I made a point of shaking my neighbor's hand to congratulate him -- not so much of the stunning (at least to me) Trump victory, but instead to commend him for his lonely show of support. I wonder how many of my left-leaning neighbors did the same. Did you, Mr. Machiavelli, have the grace to congratulate your Trump-supporting neighbors or co-workers? If you did, it would make you an exception from the left.]

THIS. A thousand times this. The radical lib left are the new Nazi Brown Shirts who have convinced themselves that thier cause is so righteous that violence, made up accusations, and law breaking is ok. They think they are fighting “Nazis” when they actually ARE Nazis.

(04-27-2018 07:54 PM)usmbacker Wrote:  

Based on the insanity and hate on the left, I don't blame them for worrying.

Quote:Alabama Rep. Mo Brooks says the flood of departing GOP members of Congress this year might be related to fear of “assassination risk” from violent “leftists” following the deadly shooting attack on the Republican’s baseball practice in 2017.

“One of the things that’s concerning me is the assassination risk may become a factor,” Brooks said in a radio interview with the Dale Jackson Show.

Brooks was speaking about the first congressional baseball practice Thursday, the first time the team had practiced at the Simpson field in Alexandria, Va., since the June attack that wounded six, including House Majority Whip Steve Scalise.

“You have to wonder with that kind of disproportionate retirement number whether what happened in June played a factor,” Brooks said.

Keep reading here.

Would not surprise me at all. The left is ultra violent.

Left condones violence against Trump...no specific reason why its ok----mainly, it would apepar they believe its ok simply because their candidate didnt win. Apparently they want to become more like the many unstable central african governments than follow a US Constitution that has served us quite well for almost 250 years.

http://thefederalist.com/2016/06/06/left...-violence/

(04-28-2018 09:49 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Republican Tax reform explained with cereal. Watch and comment for honest dialogue.

Owl asked so I will try to deliver.

https://youtu.be/48SbgzxKW-E

I would like to hear your comments on this Owl. Short video.

Wow!

That LEGO cartoon was freaking awesome! in its stupidity and simple minded simplicity.

Build roads and fly fighter jets... yes, indeedy, that’s where the federal bloat is all going.

Is “Vox” a branch of Vanity Fair or Rolling Stone? No wonder people are so desperately stupid in this once great country.

If that’s what now passes for “conjunction junction”,

We’re freaking doomed...

(04-28-2018 10:51 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  We could kick up the rates til we balance the budget.

No, we can't. We really, seriously, can't. At least not on an across the board basis, and certainly not on a "progressive" or "soak the rich" basis. Either way, we would end up with the highest marginal tax rates in the world, by a mile. Do you really think that would not drive money and jobs overseas on a massive scale? We'd end up with farms and mines on one end of the economy (because they have to be where the resources are), and Wal-Mart on the other (because retail has to be where the customers are), with nothing in between. We'd ship our raw materials overseas and get back finished goods. We'd be a banana republic, or Argentina. Not a lot of people realize this, but 100 years ago Argentina was the 7th most prosperous economy in the world, and after they managed to dodge WWI, there were great expectations for the future, in some quarters even greater than for the US. They adopted a massive wealth redistribution model, as personified by the Peronistas. Look at where they are today. It would take longer for the US to get there IMO, because we have far greater natural advantages. But we'd get there.

Quote:We have to start making our politicians make hard decisions. I think Republicans would pay a heavy price if they cut social programs. For every attack clog I can give you three people who would want health care. Stop calling it Obamacare too. It’s Trump Care now. They’ve cut so much of the revenue side but we still have the goodies of it. Typical Washington.

They haven't cut that much on the revenue side. Get off that deceptive "$1.5 trillion" number. That's a ten-year number. Politicians are very good at using that technique to overstate the effect of something they oppose. If we're going to talk about that number, then it needs to be compared to the $8.5 trillion that was already baked into the cake under Obama. See https://www.cbo.gov/about/products/budge...mic-data#3 for CBO projections. And on an annual basis that "$1.5 trillion" number actually averages $150 billion, on top of revenues in the $3 trillion range now and climbing to the $5 trillion range (and spending about a trillion higher across the board) by the end of the decade. So this "huge" Trump tax cut is really little more than a drop in the bucket compared to the problem inherited from Obama (and yes, from GWB, although attributing most of it to him requires some really dishonest and disingenuous manipulation of the numbers).

You are absolutely correct in that we have to start forcing our politicians to make tough decisions. But here's the thing. Without cuts to social programs, we can't get there. There's just too much money there, and not enough elsewhere. But that doesn't mean screwing the poor. There are better ways to do social programs. For example, France's Bismarck system provides truly universal care--and unlike UK's NHS or Canada's single-payer, good care--but costs the French taxpayers less per capita than we spend on Obamacare (and it's still Obamacare, cut out the Trump Care nonsense) not to provide universal care. How? Simple, they don't have the myriad gatekeepers and redundant levels of bureaucracy that accompany anything our federal government does. Same thing for welfare. We could provide every American a subsistence-level guaranteed basic income--using either Milton Friedman's negative income tax or the Boortz-Linder prebate/prefund--for less that we spend on our current welfare hodge-podge. Again, how? Simple, those approaches don't require the legions of bureaucrats that cause the 3 counties with the highest household incomes in the US, and 7 of the top 12, to be in the DC area--where virtually no value-added production takes place. Those things could be run by the IRS with a decent computer system. This approach would also go a long way to eliminate the "welfare plantation" whereby democrats have kept the poor dumb and poor and dependent on handouts--and thereby reliable democrat voters for half a century (to be fair, republican insistence on "means testing" is a major contributor to the problem, and will remain so as long as republicans continue to be "democrats lite"--just do what the democrats want, only don't spend as much on it--instead of pushing for meaningful reform).

Do those reforms, and on the military side never spend a nickel fighting another war that we don't intend to win--or even a penny fighting a war that we don't want anyone to win--and we'd make a pretty big dent in spending. Then put in a consumption tax and lower and flatten and broaden our income taxes to the point that we are truly competitive against the world.

We need massive reforms on both the tax and spending sides. Both Bowles-Simpson and Domenici-Rivlin were baby steps toward what we need. I was really hopeful in 2010 that the republicans, as the opposition party, would pick up the ball and run with it, along with Bismarck as a far superior alternative to Obamacare. But they didn't. So we have republicans who are idiots as the only bulwark against democrats who are evil. Not good.

We’ve had our tussles but you ALWAYS take the time to give thoughtful responses Owl. I know they are heartfelt. I’ve racked my brain on how to increase revenue. Perot’s Gas tax? How about 1/16th of a penny on every stock trade? You’re living in a fairy tale world though if you think you can cut social welfare programs. It’s not going to happen. I think people on the the right know this too so they jus try to starve it. Let’s cut taxes so much we will bankrupt the US, but how do you bankrupt something that has he ability to print what they owe? Do deficits matter? They certainly do when your political opposition is in power. When your side is in power everybody develops immunization on the nausea of it. No one likes it but you tolerate it.

We could eliminate charitable donations asa tax write off too. Go like Canada and give a 15% tax credit. That would help. Home deduction too. What would eliminating those deductions do?

[cquote='Machiavelli' pid='15274782' dateline='1525014705']
We could eliminate charitable donations asa tax write off too. Go like Canada and give a 15% tax credit. That would help. Home deduction too. What would eliminating those deductions do?
[/quote]

Crush charitable contributions and cripple the housing market and ability of some to own a home?

Look, here’s the thing- we’re heading, faster than even imaginable, to the arena of 5 TRILLION in revenues pouring into the federal coffers...

Think about that. 5 Trill!

We DO NOT have a revenue problem, we quite clearly have a spending problem.

(04-29-2018 10:09 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  We’ve had our tussles but you ALWAYS take the time to give thoughtful responses Owl. I know they are heartfelt. I’ve racked my brain on how to increase revenue. Perot’s Gas tax? How about 1/16th of a penny on every stock trade? You’re living in a fairy tale world though if you think you can cut social welfare programs. It’s not going to happen. I think people on the the right know this too so they jus try to starve it. Let’s cut taxes so much we will bankrupt the US, but how do you bankrupt something that has he ability to print what they owe? Do deficits matter? They certainly do when your political opposition is in power. When your side is in power everybody develops immunization on the nausea of it. No one likes it but you tolerate it.

The only way to generate revenues on the scale we need (roughly $1 trillion per year) is a general consumption tax (VAT/GST). Nothing else generates enough revenues. Yes, it is “regressive.” Get over it. Europe’s tax structures are way more regressive than ours, and they have more equal dispersions of income and wealth. And spending less on social programs does not have to mean less in benefits to the needy. It can be done by adopting models where the ratio of benefits to dead admin costs is much higher than what we do now. See the French Bismarck discussion above. We could do the same thing on the welfare side by going to negative income tax or probate/prefund. You get rid of the welfare Cadillacs, you get rid of the freeloaders working the system, you get rid of the hidden economy to avoid losing benefits, and you get rid of the “poverty trap” and resulting “welfare plantation.” Real estate values in northern Virginia and southern Maryland would crater, but it would be a huge benefit to the rest of the country.

That’s my prescription for the Republican Party. Actually, I’d support either party that would go that way, but I don’t expect democrats to give up the welfare plantation as long as blacks and browns are reliable 90% democrat voters.

(04-28-2018 09:29 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(04-28-2018 09:10 AM)cb4029 Wrote:  Destroy the future of the country with tax cuts for the rich, then quit. These Republicans are the best people.

Stroke a check. Still a free country, you’re welcome to send in allllll you’d like.

Money where mouth, and all.

...or move to a socialist country. It's so easy.

(04-29-2018 10:09 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  We’ve had our tussles but you ALWAYS take the time to give thoughtful responses Owl. I know they are heartfelt. I’ve racked my brain on how to increase revenue. Perot’s Gas tax? How about 1/16th of a penny on every stock trade? You’re living in a fairy tale world though if you think you can cut social welfare programs. It’s not going to happen. I think people on the the right know this too so they jus try to starve it. Let’s cut taxes so much we will bankrupt the US, but how do you bankrupt something that has he ability to print what they owe? Do deficits matter? They certainly do when your political opposition is in power. When your side is in power everybody develops immunization on the nausea of it. No one likes it but you tolerate it.

How about we stop trying to increase revenue, and start trying to decrease spending instead? Why is the answer always "more money"?

(04-30-2018 01:55 AM)geosnooker2000 Wrote:  

(04-29-2018 10:09 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  We’ve had our tussles but you ALWAYS take the time to give thoughtful responses Owl. I know they are heartfelt. I’ve racked my brain on how to increase revenue. Perot’s Gas tax? How about 1/16th of a penny on every stock trade? You’re living in a fairy tale world though if you think you can cut social welfare programs. It’s not going to happen. I think people on the the right know this too so they jus try to starve it. Let’s cut taxes so much we will bankrupt the US, but how do you bankrupt something that has he ability to print what they owe? Do deficits matter? They certainly do when your political opposition is in power. When your side is in power everybody develops immunization on the nausea of it. No one likes it but you tolerate it.

How about we stop trying to increase revenue, and start trying to decrease spending instead? Why is the answer always "more money"?

It's all they know.

You can't win elections that way......... I wish you guys would go ahead and actually cut. I keep hearing about these fairy tale Republicans that cut spending. Whenever you get in power the budget explodes. You know it and so do I. You will pay lip service to it but when the rubber meets the road you spend recklessly and cut taxes. Obama spent to get us out of the biggest financial disaster since the Great Depression. Drumpf........ well he had campaign donors to keep promises to.

(04-27-2018 10:05 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  More demonizing. Effective tool of the right.

The left does a very effective job of demonizing itself.

(04-29-2018 10:29 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  

(04-28-2018 09:29 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(04-28-2018 09:10 AM)cb4029 Wrote:  Destroy the future of the country with tax cuts for the rich, then quit. These Republicans are the best people.

Stroke a check. Still a free country, you’re welcome to send in allllll you’d like.

Money where mouth, and all.

...or move to a socialist country. It's so easy.

I'm already in a socialist country.

(04-30-2018 10:05 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(04-27-2018 10:05 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  More demonizing. Effective tool of the right.

The left does a very effective job of demonizing itself.

The right has this guy...

(04-30-2018 01:55 AM)geosnooker2000 Wrote:  

(04-29-2018 10:09 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  We’ve had our tussles but you ALWAYS take the time to give thoughtful responses Owl. I know they are heartfelt. I’ve racked my brain on how to increase revenue. Perot’s Gas tax? How about 1/16th of a penny on every stock trade? You’re living in a fairy tale world though if you think you can cut social welfare programs. It’s not going to happen. I think people on the the right know this too so they jus try to starve it. Let’s cut taxes so much we will bankrupt the US, but how do you bankrupt something that has he ability to print what they owe? Do deficits matter? They certainly do when your political opposition is in power. When your side is in power everybody develops immunization on the nausea of it. No one likes it but you tolerate it.

How about we stop trying to increase revenue, and start trying to decrease spending instead? Why is the answer always "more money"?

Simple.

Cause our money is better spent by sending it into the bloated Federal monstrosity in DeeCee and having them decide how and to whom to dole it out, instead of letting those that actually earn the money make those decisions.

See? More government is always better government...

(04-30-2018 09:50 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Obama spent to get us out of the biggest financial disaster since the Great Depression.

No, he didn't. He really didn't.