• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF 2016 |OT9| The Wrath of Khan!

Status
Not open for further replies.
P

plagiarize

Banned
Watching a foxnews video on the 2nd amendment people thing yesterday and it includes a quote from Donald saying he has no plans to change tactics. "I certainly see no reason to change tactics when we've been winning" or words to that effect. Just as I expected.

They also showed him yet again saying "Hillary Clinton will be four more years of Obama".

I just don't see how he can course correct at this point.
 
S

Spoiled Milk

Banned
TumblingHippo said:
The convention bump is fading, time to panic?
!
Click to expand...
uSPUgSt.gif
 
D

dramatis

Member
The NYT has a somewhat lengthy article detailing the long history of the Clintons' finances.
Even some of Mrs. Clinton’s allies privately say they are mystified by her choice to make the Wall Street speeches, given the likelihood that they would become an issue in a presidential campaign. And to some of them, her financial moves clash with the selfless Methodist credo to do good for others that she so often says guided her toward a life of public service.

But her longtime friends say the contradiction is rooted in Mrs. Clinton’s practicality and the boom-and-bust cycles that have characterized her life with Bill Clinton.

At no time did those stresses fall more squarely on Mrs. Clinton’s shoulders than in the difficult two-year period in Arkansas when she and her husband found themselves cast out of office, financially strained and deeply uncertain about the future. And the memory of that time shaped her desire to be free from financial burden.

“Hillary had a couple years of the taste of what it means to be a working mother, without any help, to have to take care of a small baby and care for your job,” said James B. Blair, a close Clinton friend and lawyer who offered Mrs. Clinton investment advice in the 1970s.
Click to expand...
The deals were certainly tempting, given the couple’s income at the time. In 1978, Mr. Clinton became one of the youngest, and lowest paid, governors, in the country, earning $33,519.14 his first year in office. Mrs. Clinton’s income from the Rose Law Firm brought their combined wages in 1978 to $51,173.

Two years later, the state increased the governor’s term to four years, and the Clintons’ finances appeared more stable. Mrs. Clinton went on to join the board of Walmart, and she continued to work at the Rose Law Firm. By the time Mr. Clinton was running for president, they reported $297,177 in total income on their 1992 tax returns, a sum that would put most Americans in the upper income tier, but seemed meager compared with the wealth of his opponents, George Bush and Ross Perot.

“When we moved into the White House, we had the lowest net worth of any family since Harry Truman,” Mr. Clinton has said.
Click to expand...
 
J

jevity

Member
Question for anyone in the know.

I'm watching MSNBC right now, and one of Trumps advisors is analysing the economy speech from monday.

To me it all sounds like the a bunch of regurgitated trickly-down - insertTHATgif- nonsense.
Especially the part about reducing the business tax to 15. His claim is a significant reduction of the business tax, will result in growth and higher wages, because the companies will stop outsourcing and/or shipping their profits abroad to avoid being taxed. But isn't this the same old dance and song that has been on repeat on the republicans playlist since the glass-steagal and even before that.

He is pushing the point that the republicans had never before had a chance to reduce corporate and business taxes enough, to create a new climate where trickle down economics effectively can work it's inherent magic and make everybody better off.

Could there be any truth to this?

I would suggest that most, if not all the available data, emphatically rejects this hypothesis, but then again, I am not any kind of a financial policy expert, nor an economist with certified credentials .
 
G

Gruco

Banned
52-48 is very reasonable as a Senate target. I think there is still plenty of time to catch up in other races too. It is going to be hard for candidates to navigate their Trump position and the Dems will be able to exploit that for months. Not only that, but GOTV should be a big factor in FL, OH, NC, and maybe even IA and AZ.

Catching the house too would be the greatest thing ever. Pls keep falling apart Donald.
 
B

balladofwindfishes

Member
Frank the Great said:
This is very short-sighted. Rs will definitely have the Senate and House in 2018. And with a decent candidate they could win the presidency in 2020 or 2024.

It's tempting to extrapolate current conditions into the future, but politics doesn't work that way.
Click to expand...

What decent candidate hasn't tainted themselves with Trump support or some other ludicrous ideology or scandal?

At this point, the potential savior of the GOP in 4 years would already be making a name for themselves.
 
S

Spoiled Milk

Banned
jevity said:
Question for anyone in the know.

I'm watching MSNBC right now, and one of Trumps advisors is analysing the economy speech from monday.

To me it all sounds like the a bunch of regurgitated trickly-down - insertTHATgif- nonsense.
Especially the part about reducing the business tax to 15. His claim is a significant reduction of the business tax, will result in growth and higher wages, because the companies will stop outsourcing and/or shipping their profits abroad to avoid being taxed. But isn't this the same old dance and song that has been on repeat on the republicans playlist since the glass-steagal and even before that.

He is pushing the point that the republicans had never before had a chance to reduce corporate and business taxes enough, to create a new climate where trickle down economics effectively can work it's inherent magic and make everybody better off.

Could there be any truth to this?

I would suggest that most, if not all the available data, emphatically rejects this hypothesis, but then again, I am not any kind of a financial policy expert, nor an economist with certified credentials .
Click to expand...
He's absolutely right. His new tax plan, which is vanilla Republican, will definitely grow the economy. But the government would be completely unfunded. Lol. Also, there's nothing in there for the middle class.
 
P

plagiarize

Banned
jevity said:
Question for anyone in the know.

I'm watching MSNBC right now, and one of Trumps advisors is analysing the economy speech from monday.

To me it all sounds like the a bunch of regurgitated trickly-down - insertTHATgif- nonsense.
Especially the part about reducing the business tax to 15. His claim is a significant reduction of the business tax, will result in growth and higher wages, because the companies will stop outsourcing and/or shipping their profits abroad to avoid being taxed. But isn't this the same old dance and song that has been on repeat on the republicans playlist since the glass-steagal and even before that.

He is pushing the point that the republicans had never before had a chance to reduce corporate and business taxes enough, to create a new climate where trickle down economics effectively can work it's inherent magic and make everybody better off.

Could there be any truth to this?

I would suggest that most, if not all the available data, emphatically rejects this hypothesis, but then again, I am not any kind of a financial policy expert, nor an economist with certified credentials .
Click to expand...

I'm not aware of any good proof that trickle down economics work. I'm unaware of any good test case, or country that successfully implemented such policies and saw the money actually trickle down in a meaningful way.

It still *sounds* like it would work, so I guess they'll keep trying it. Small government types who hope they themselves will one day be rich will vote for it no matter how much evidence there is it doesn't work, because it sounds like it could work, and they want it to. I wouldn't expect the GOP to stop trying to implement trickle down economics, well, ever. If your whole thing is small government, cutting taxes and tax funded measures is sort of your main thing. Enough people who are already financially stable and aren't likely to need the programs that get gutted will happily vote to get a bit more disposable income to keep GOP types from abandoning such goals.

Maybe we'll get another HW who realizes in office it doesn't work, and turns away from it. But probably not given that that is exactly what cost him his reelection. Voters need to realize it's not workable before the GOP will stop putting it out there, and voters are very stubborn about it. Look at Brownback getting reelected in Kansas.
 
E

Emarv

Member
Sorry, but Carol Costello is the worst/dumbest of all of the CNN anchors. She's the most "I'm just reporting what the producers tell me" CNN has. Even silly people like Wolf or Ashleigh Banfield sometimes ask real questions. Just can't handle this.
 
I

ItWasMeantToBe19

Banned
It sounds like No Man Sky is basically if you procedurally generated Endless Ocean so everything seemed samey and then made it more tedious with crafting stuff. Right or wrong?
 
S

Spoiled Milk

Banned
Thomas Picketty has a pretty simple inequality that will blow your mind.

If ROI > Inflation, income inequality rises.

It's so simple. The wealth makers get greater return than everyone else's wealth is increasing. It's like they're on an entirely different track. So the only remedy is a progressive tax that redistributes income.
 
B

balladofwindfishes

Member
shem935 said:
Y'all heard about our lord and savior Ted Cruz?
Click to expand...

Yes. Cruz is trying to position himself as the savior of the GOP, who will usher in a new age of Conservative values in 2020 with his record breaking presidential win.

Except that won't happen because Cruz is the dead opposite of where the GOP needs to be to win the presidency. But he's also in a good position to win primaries because the GOP primary system is messed up and moderate Republicans don't vote in them.

They pretty much just need to lose the racism, and adopt more liberal social policies and ease up on trickle down and they'd be a better party.

It should be voting between the party that wants to aggressively move forward and the party that wants to move forward a little more cautiously. That would be the optimal balance, but the GOP doesn't want that. There's no place for a party that wants to actually move backwards in politics.
 
E

Emarv

Member
Just FYI, Texas won PPP's Twitter poll about "Where should we poll this weekend?"

Arizona 31%
Iowa 15%
Texas 44%
Virigina 10%


So it looks like we may be getting our Texas poll after all.
 
The Lamonster

The Lamonster

Member
ItWasMeantToBe19 said:
It sounds like No Man Sky is basically if you procedurally generated Endless Ocean so everything seemed samey and then made it more tedious with crafting stuff. Right or wrong?
Click to expand...

Mostly right, but keep in mind it's still possible to enjoy something like that.

I compare it to the uncharted worlds in Mass Effect 1; a modern day equivalent of that.
 
T

thefro

Member
Emarv said:
Sorry, but Carol Costello is the worst/dumbest of all of the CNN anchors. She's the most "I'm just reporting what the producers tell me" CNN has. Even silly people like Wolf or Ashleigh Banfield sometimes ask real questions. Just can't handle this.
Click to expand...



Worst maybe, but probably not the dumbest.
(this is Celebrity Jeopardy, remember, so it's a lot easier than the normal shows)
 
U

User 463088

Banned
S

Slurpy2k20

Member
Watching Guliani's speech in NC, this guy is the epitome of the snake oil salesman and conman. Can't believe people can listen to what he spews with a straight face. He's just so full of shit on every level. I mean, *I* am almost tempted to commit violence towards Hillary based on the lies he spews to demonize her in the worst way possible and makes her seem like the worst human being on earth.

HE WILL BE YOUR CHAMPION!!

Yeah, just like Trump University eh? All he cares about is the little guy.
 
S

Spoiled Milk

Banned
I also think it's important to note the marginal utility of wealth. Kennedy should have cut taxes. So should have Reagan. But Bush shouldn't have. As the taxes get smaller, the gains get smaller too. I think the most obvious proof that cutting taxes doesn't work anymore is that Bush's economy was horrendously and historically tepid even before the crash. That's not inspiring and Republicans should be ashamed of their debunked economics. (Liberals should be similarly ashamed for their debunked social programs.)
 
S

sangreal

Member
Speaking of Trump lying and court, everyone should read his deposition in the Trump University case if you haven't already. His managerial incompetence and bullshit could not be made more clear
 
P

Plinko

Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
jevity said:
Question for anyone in the know.

I'm watching MSNBC right now, and one of Trumps advisors is analysing the economy speech from monday.

To me it all sounds like the a bunch of regurgitated trickly-down - insertTHATgif- nonsense.
Especially the part about reducing the business tax to 15. His claim is a significant reduction of the business tax, will result in growth and higher wages, because the companies will stop outsourcing and/or shipping their profits abroad to avoid being taxed. But isn't this the same old dance and song that has been on repeat on the republicans playlist since the glass-steagal and even before that.

He is pushing the point that the republicans had never before had a chance to reduce corporate and business taxes enough, to create a new climate where trickle down economics effectively can work it's inherent magic and make everybody better off.

Could there be any truth to this?

I would suggest that most, if not all the available data, emphatically rejects this hypothesis, but then again, I am not any kind of a financial policy expert, nor an economist with certified credentials .
Click to expand...

There is absolutely zero proof that corporations do anything other than pocket the money.
 
V

Vahagn

Member
Kristoffer said:
I also think it's important to note the marginal utility of wealth. Kennedy should have cut taxes. So should have Reagan. But Bush shouldn't have. As the taxes get smaller, the gains get smaller too. I think the most obvious proof that cutting taxes doesn't work anymore is that Bush's economy was horrendously and historically tepid even before the crash. That's not inspiring and Republicans should be ashamed of their debunked economics. (Liberals should be similarly ashamed for their debunked social programs.)
Click to expand...


Social programs haven't been debunked?
 
S

Spoiled Milk

Banned
Vahagn said:
Social programs haven't been debunked?
Click to expand...
Great Society and New Deal. Besides social security and Medicare, have we really decreased the number of poor? Homeless? What ever happened to the war on poverty?

I'm not saying liberal programs don't work, because many do. But you can't ignore some of the biggest ones and then call liberalism a resounding success.
 
P

plagiarize

Banned
Kristoffer said:
Great Society and New Deal. Besides social security and Medicare, have we really decreased the number of poor? Homeless? What ever happened to the war on poverty?

I'm not saying liberal programs don't work, because many do. But you can't ignore some of the biggest ones and then call liberalism a resounding success.
Click to expand...

Who was saying that all of the social programs liberals have implemented worked?

Trickle down economics has, to my knowledge, failed *everywhere* it was tried. I don't have to caveat that statement with 'sometimes liberal programs also fail'.
 
P

pigeon

Banned
Kristoffer said:
Great Society and New Deal. Besides social security and Medicare, have we really decreased the number of poor? Homeless? What ever happened to the war on poverty?
Click to expand...

Wait, are you kidding me? Yes, we really decreased the number of poor people with the Great Society. Hugely.
 
D

darkstar0155

Member
Plinko said:
There is absolutely zero proof that corporations do anything other than pocket the money.
Click to expand...

Yep, although I would say a good argument can be made that it keeps some companies in certain communities. Its why a lot of cities provide tax incentives, and it works.

I would love a federal low business tax, a high personal tax for top earners, and in the same bill a profit sharing requirement for the workers.
 
D

darkstar0155

Member
Kristoffer said:
Great Society and New Deal. Besides social security and Medicare.....
Click to expand...

Ok, "besides the two biggest ones that contradict the point im making".... isn't really the best way to make a argument.

"Besides seatbelts laws and the lives they have saved, have we really decreased the number of traffic deaths" is the same type of argument your making.
 
S

Spoiled Milk

Banned
plagiarize said:
Who was saying that all of the social programs liberals have implemented worked?

Trickle down economics has, to my knowledge, failed *everywhere* it was tried. I don't have to caveat that statement with 'sometimes liberal programs also fail'.
Click to expand...
Well, I had that line "conservatives should be ashamed", and I wanted to caveat that liberalism is not flawless.

pigeon said:
Wait, are you kidding me? Yes, we really decreased the number of poor people with the Great Society. Hugely.
Click to expand...
Remember: side of the bus. I don't actually know anything.
 
P

plagiarize

Banned
Let's put this another way. Which liberal programs which failed, are a cornerstone of the current liberal party and are things they are still trying to implement?
 
V

Vahagn

Member
Kristoffer said:
Great Society and New Deal. Besides social security and Medicare, have we really decreased the number of poor? Homeless? What ever happened to the war on poverty?

I'm not saying liberal programs don't work, because many do. But you can't ignore some of the biggest ones and then call liberalism a resounding success.
Click to expand...

Uh, because the forces of globalization and conservatism pushing upper income taxes down since the 60's are opposite forces that increase poverty and income inequality?


That's like saying 1) your decision to clean your house once a week isn't making your house cleaner because some time ago, and after you made that decision, 2) you got a messy dog that fucks shit up on the regular. so it's better to not clean because your place was consistently the same level of dirty before both events happened.
 
P

plagiarize

Banned
Kristoffer said:
Well, I had that line "conservatives should be ashamed", and I wanted to caveat that liberalism is not flawless.
Click to expand...

This is as pointless as journalists trying to be 'balanced' by ensuring they always say a negative thing about both parties.

Conservatives should be ashamed for sticking to an idealogy (trickle down economics) that has measurably failed in places and times when it was attempted.

That needs no caveat.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Show us your gaming setup: 2025 Edition
2 3
102
7K
OverHeat replied
Show us your gaming setup: 2024 Edition
2 3 4 5 6
263
52K
Topher replied
  • Locked
Show us your gaming setup: 2023 Edition | 20th anniversary thread
2 3 4 5 6
268
61K
DGrayson replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT6| Made this thread during Harvey because the ratings would be higher
338 339 340 341 342
17K
2M
UselessNapkin replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT5| The Man In the High Chair
395 396 397 398 399
20K
2M
RDreamer replied
Top Bottom