Politics Princess' Sweet Sixteen

[Zoraptor]

at this rate Cheney and Wolfowitz will return

 

What's Ronald Dumsfeld, chopped liver?

 

No coincidence that Mohamed bin Salman is in the US at the moment and an arch anti Iran hawk gets appointed. Best case scenario for Iran is Saudi gets militarily involved, given MBS's military genius they'd be in Riyadh in a month- dude even manages to get planes shot down by air to air missiles when fighting a foe who has literally no operative air force.

[HoonDing]

[Bartimaeus]

[smjjames]

Heh, yeah, he learned the lession Obama learned which is to not attach yourself too closely to the vagaries of the stock market.

[Guard Dog]

And so, the nearly 2300 page omnibus spending bill has been passed by the Congress. I would say kudos to Rand Paul, the last sane man in Washington DC, for being the only Republican to vote against it. But he dropped his procedural challenges and let it go to a vote.

 

The bill was released 48 hours prior to the vote. Not enough time foe the members to actually read what they were voting for considering this is what it looked like:

 

 

 

You know I seem to recall a certain political party pitching a fit over that very thing not too long ago when a certain OTHER political party was doing it. Like I always say Republicans = Democrats and Democrats = Republicans. When you are being forcible f----d in the rear does it really matter which is holding you by the hips?

 

But, if you work in the US and see 39% of your paycheck missing I'm sure it will comfort you to know that your labors were not entirely in vain. Your Senators carved out a $12.8 Million Dollar pay raise for themselves and their staff. If that does not make you want to give Old Glory a misty eyed salute I don't know what will. http://freebeacon.com/politics/congress-gives-bonus-omnibus/

 

So it's a race to national insolvency between the donkeys and the elephants. And since no one in the US appears to be considering perhaps it's time to vote for someone other than donkeys or elephants the only question is who is holding the whip when the team goes over the cliff. So what are we to do? I have a modest suggestion:

 

[smjjames]

As not-100%-serious as that idea is, the question is how would you split it. The North-South divide no longer exists, though traces of it remain. Urban vs Rural? The cities can't exist without the farms and the farms need the cities to sell food to. Red states vs Blue? No red or blue state is so homogenous as to be utterly one or the other. Even liberal California has lots of Republicans and ruby red Idaho has plenty of Democrats too.

 

If a dissolution of the union or a split ever does happen, it'll most likely happen along the path of least resistance, whatever that happens to be at the time.

[HoonDing]

I watch some Ron Paul vids now and then and it's nothing but "deep state" this, "cultural marxism" that. What happened?

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

I watch some Ron Paul vids now and then and it's nothing but "deep state" this, "cultural marxism" that. What happened?

Ronnie gotta pay the bills.

[Terminator]

 

First Alex Jones sounds like against Trump in that video. However if you watch it all though in the beginning a bit confusing to me until I understood he mentions signing the budget usage etc. then I finally understood that Alex Jones still supports Trump.

 

Yes I agree that president power in some matter is limited.

 

Here is what people don't understand. A president alone can not go against congress etc easily and make changes in some matters.

 

People are afraid of what Trump can do? The thing is I think his power is limited in some regards specially regarding budget.

 

However on warfare. Trump can start war tomorrow if he so wishes and people that think he can not do it are stupid! For example Trump says tomorrow we attack North Korea!

 

As for this Republicans vs Democrats to that I am neutral that is the American people who decide which of them should have power. I am from Europe, but I wish the best future for American people.

Edited March 24, 2018 by Terminator

[Guard Dog]

As not-100%-serious as that idea is, the question is how would you split it. The North-South divide no longer exists, though traces of it remain. Urban vs Rural? The cities can't exist without the farms and the farms need the cities to sell food to. Red states vs Blue? No red or blue state is so homogenous as to be utterly one or the other. Even liberal California has lots of Republicans and ruby red Idaho has plenty of Democrats too.

 

If a dissolution of the union or a split ever does happen, it'll most likely happen along the path of least resistance, whatever that happens to be at the time.

I was being 100% non serious. But there is at least a fair chance some kind of break up may occur someday. I do not think it will be along state lines like last time. What people today fail to understand about 1860 is the United States was a very different country then. The states were the principle organizing force. The idea of being loyal to the "United States" was a strange one and not commonly held. When a state seceded most folks did not see that as a betrayal so much as sticking by your kin and kind as they said in those days. The Civil War played a part in changing that and creating a national identity. The rail road played an even bigger part to tell the truth. 

 

If something like that were to happen again it would be organic. It would cross state lines. And it would likely not be into two entities but three or four. It takes more to make a country than lines on a map. Like tends to call to like. Look in Europe following the collapse of the USSR several nations that were held together only by soviet guns split apart because they were made up of different cultures and languages that had no common history. The entire 20th Century history of the middle east was written in the Syles-Picot agreement in 1917 before any of it ever happened when the British & French reneged on their promise to allow the Arab states to organize themselves and carved up the Ottoman Empire between themselves. Since then all there has been is blood because people who hate each other won't willingly organize with each other. 

 

No matter our political differences here Americans still share a common language and a common culture. That counts for a lot. The day may come when political differences become so great it won't count for enough. If the day ever comes where actually freedom is expected to be sacrificed in the name of legislative progress we may reach a breaking point. Therein lies the danger of the gun debate. But we are nowhere near that today. I hope it never happens. 

 

I figure you could tell from the tone of my post I was being sarcastic. We are far more likely to wreck our economy with the incompetence of our political leadership than any other demise I could imagine. They took another step down that road yesterday. 

[Fiach]

It's my understanding that Trump had to pass the bill and had no choice. If not passed there would be a shut down?

 

Is this because of lack of support from the Republican Party, he couldn't veto it?

 

I don't know enough about it tbh. Any insight would be appreciated.

[Raithe]

 

 

Also, for the amusing quote of the day for our American friends: "The only thing that should be fired inside a school in America, is Betsy DeVos."

[Guard Dog]

It's my understanding that Trump had to pass the bill and had no choice. If not passed there would be a shut down?

 

Is this because of lack of support from the Republican Party, he couldn't veto it?

 

I don't know enough about it tbh. Any insight would be appreciated.

He could have signed it, vetoed it, whichever he chose. It would be unusual for the President to veto a bill passed by a Congress controlled by his own party. But hardly unheard of. Obama did it once and George W Bush did it a number of times.  And if it shuts the government down then shut it down. Better to do nothing than the wrong thing. 

 

Cutting taxes cuts revenue in the short term but raises it in the long term. That may sound paradoxical but it is absolutely true. The reason is capital in the hands of consumers and investors gets used. The citizens want widgets. If they have more money they buy more widgets. The means revenue growth for the people who sell widgets, make widgets, deliver widgets, make the parts to make widgets. Revenue growth means re-investment, expansion, hiring, which means more taxes. More people with jobs means more taxpayers. More revenue means business pay more. The effect is exponential becoming larger  the further down the road you get from the cuts.  Ultimately the government has more money even though it cut taxes.

 

Buuuuuut, it DOES mean less revenue in the short term. So if you are earning a little less you need to spend a little less right? Not here. The spending is utterly and completely out of control. And no one is even suggesting cutting it any more. Now it's a race to see who can spend the most. So when you or I run out of money that's just tough tittie for us. Break out the Ramen noodles for dinner. Governments don't run out of money. They create deficits by spending money that does not actually exist. That can lead to currency devaluation due to inflation and other bad things. 

[Hurlshort]

I have been saying for years that the NRA needs to step up when these shootings happen and advocate for responsible and safe gun ownership. They haven't done that, and after reading the response they issued about the marches, I've got to say they are absolutely delusional. 

 

 

 

 "Today's protests aren't spontaneous. Gun-hating billionaires and Hollywood elites are manipulating and exploiting children as part of their plan to DESTROY the Second Amendment and strip us of our right to defend ourselves and our loved ones."

 

That reads like a crazy person's response.

[Guard Dog]

 

 

Even if every word of that were true that is not the way to go about it. If you discovered space aliens were living under your house and plotting to take over the world would you go tell the cops they are there? They would lock YOU up! No you tell them someone hid drugs under there. You don't just go right at something, you go diagonal. Flanking attacks are far preferable to frontal assaults. 

 

As far as this particular situation goes, sometimes it best just to STFU. These protest movements will go one of two ways. They will either burn themselves out or be hijacked by the radicals who really do dream of kicking down doors and taking everyone's guns by force. Either way this all blows over. My advice would be not to make yourselves look like jackasses before it does. But, of course that advice comes unheeded and too late. 

[smjjames]

I have been saying for years that the NRA needs to step up when these shootings happen and advocate for responsible and safe gun ownership. They haven't done that, and after reading the response they issued about the marches, I've got to say they are absolutely delusional. 

 

 

 

 "Today's protests aren't spontaneous. Gun-hating billionaires and Hollywood elites are manipulating and exploiting children as part of their plan to DESTROY the Second Amendment and strip us of our right to defend ourselves and our loved ones."

 

That reads like a crazy person's response.

 

 

They've been delusional for years.

 

 

 

 

Even if every word of that were true that is not the way to go about it. If you discovered space aliens were living under your house and plotting to take over the world would you go tell the cops they are there? They would lock YOU up! No you tell them someone hid drugs under there. You don't just go right at something, you go diagonal. Flanking attacks are far preferable to frontal assaults. 

 

As far as this particular situation goes, sometimes it best just to STFU. These protest movements will go one of two ways. They will either burn themselves out or be hijacked by the radicals who really do dream of kicking down doors and taking everyone's guns by force. Either way this all blows over. My advice would be not to make yourselves look like jackasses before it does. But, of course that advice comes unheeded and too late. 

 

As far as the protest movement goes, this time around seems different in some way or other. So far, they seem to have control of their message, which is generalized gun control and pushing Congress to do something.

 

The generalized and diverse messaging may be an advantage here.

[Fiach]

 

It's my understanding that Trump had to pass the bill and had no choice. If not passed there would be a shut down?

Is this because of lack of support from the Republican Party, he couldn't veto it?

I don't know enough about it tbh. Any insight would be appreciated.

 

He could have signed it, vetoed it, whichever he chose. It would be unusual for the President to veto a bill passed by a Congress controlled by his own party. But hardly unheard of. Obama did it once and George W Bush did it a number of times.  And if it shuts the government down then shut it down. Better to do nothing than the wrong thing. 

 

Cutting taxes cuts revenue in the short term but raises it in the long term. That may sound paradoxical but it is absolutely true. The reason is capital in the hands of consumers and investors gets used. The citizens want widgets. If they have more money they buy more widgets. The means revenue growth for the people who sell widgets, make widgets, deliver widgets, make the parts to make widgets. Revenue growth means re-investment, expansion, hiring, which means more taxes. More people with jobs means more taxpayers. More revenue means business pay more. The effect is exponential becoming larger  the further down the road you get from the cuts.  Ultimately the government has more money even though it cut taxes.

 

Buuuuuut, it DOES mean less revenue in the short term. So if you are earning a little less you need to spend a little less right? Not here. The spending is utterly and completely out of control. And no one is even suggesting cutting it any more. Now it's a race to see who can spend the most. So when you or I run out of money that's just tough tittie for us. Break out the Ramen noodles for dinner. Governments don't run out of money. They create deficits by spending money that does not actually exist. That can lead to currency devaluation due to inflation and other bad things.

Cool, thanks for the insight Guard Dog

[213374U]

Cutting taxes cuts revenue in the short term but raises it in the long term. That may sound paradoxical but it is absolutely true. The reason is capital in the hands of consumers and investors gets used.

Not anymore it doesn't. Thanks to financial markets, capital no longer needs to be invested and work to create tangible wealth to make investors a profit. Indeed, it's undeniably riskier and potentially less profitable to put down a few hundred millions to bankroll Ol' Musky's gigafactory than it is to speculate with some investment "vehicle" that hedges risk onto low-income homeowners or Joe taxpayer. Hell, even crypto investments are more profitable than investing in a business that produces something and employs people.

 

Taxes shmaxes. It doesn't matter. Raise them? Capital flight and tax evasion. Cut them? "Healthy" upwards wealth redistribution, happy carefree financial shenanigans, and fiscal engineering will ensure that what isn't covered by the cuts will be ensconced safely away from the taxman anyway.

 

It would take a coordinated global effort to put that genie back in the bottle, and it ain't happening unless **** gets ugly.

[Guard Dog]

Never mind. It was a nasty comment.

Edited March 25, 2018 by Guard Dog

[Zoraptor]

 

Cutting taxes cuts revenue in the short term but raises it in the long term. That may sound paradoxical but it is absolutely true. The reason is capital in the hands of consumers and investors gets used.

Hell, even crypto investments are more profitable than investing in a business that produces something and employs people.

 

 

That's not really a change though, except in method- while the crypto craze uses modern methods it's still at its base Tulip Madness and similar to every other bubble, underpinned by the willingness of people to pay an even more ridiculous price for something than the previous buyer. I don't think anyone really believed that a tulip bulb was worth $40k each or whatever the peak price was, even if theoretically you got a physical bulb instead of some ephemeral 1s and 0s.

 

The modern funny money banking/ share market/ derivative etc tools though, absolutely. Most of them take things that used to enable normal people to make money as well and turn them into the preserve of the elites, usually to the detriment of the normal people. A standard human share trader not only has a far harder time of it than some automated algorythm making trades every 5ms but will often be actively manipulated by them.

[Guard Dog]

An excellent argument for limiting investments to commodities and real assets. Real estate, gold, silver, etc might not make you rich but they have a real value not tied to any one currency (real or imaginary) and will never be worthless.

[Blarghagh]

I have been saying for years that the NRA needs to step up when these shootings happen and advocate for responsible and safe gun ownership. They haven't done that, and after reading the response they issued about the marches, I've got to say they are absolutely delusional. 

 

 

 

 "Today's protests aren't spontaneous. Gun-hating billionaires and Hollywood elites are manipulating and exploiting children as part of their plan to DESTROY the Second Amendment and strip us of our right to defend ourselves and our loved ones."

 

That reads like a crazy person's response.

 

Apparently they also told the Parkland teens "no one would know who you are if your classmates were still alive" as if it were some kind of taunt?

 

[Pidesco]

The NRA has been a bunch of evil bastards for quite some time, now.

[Malcador]

Eh, mostly just bad PR

[Guard Dog]

The NRA isn't evil. I'm a member. A lifetime member. It serves a purpose that no other national group is doing. Even those that claim they are dedicated to defending rights. The problem with the NRA is a guy named Wayne LaPierre. He takes great joy in diving into the political pig pen and wallowing with the worst of them. And he has made the NRA a fundraising arm of the Republican Party. That is something it never was in the past. The cause would be better served by being more apolitical and more "colorblind" in support of candidates on both sides of the aisle.Rather than antagonizing opponents it's better to focus on electing allies. The cause would also be much better served by focus on one simple message, stay on that message, don't say ANYTHING that varies from that, and for God's sake don't publicly attack teenagers. Nothing good comes from that.