1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

President Trump: The NEW one and only politics thread

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by Moderator1, Nov 12, 2016.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Neutral Corner

    Neutral Corner Well-Known Member

  2. RickStain

    RickStain Well-Known Member


    The hypocrisy, as always, is not an accident. It is an intentional weapon. His world is based around the idea that he is a born winner with winner genes who is inherently better than everyone else. When he criticizes you for something he is even more guilty of, he is proving that you can’t touch him. It’s a dick-waving move.
     
    Neutral Corner and wicked like this.
  3. HanSenSE

    HanSenSE Well-Known Member

    Will repeal and replace be tied to the Senate bill, as it was in the House? Then those who shot it down last time would have to be against this plan too, no?
     
  4. YankeeFan

    YankeeFan Well-Known Member

    Hillary’s camp is not pleased.

     
  5. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    So Steve Mnuchin was just on CNBC trying to sell the tax mess. I won't get into all of the BS. ... but the other day Mick Mulvaney did the " "I don't think it's up to the federal government to save New York from its bad decisions" thing about state and local tax deductions. Just now, Mnuchin largely suggested the same thing, but it was even worse to me because he said the Federal government shouldn't be "subsidizing" New York and California.

    It would be fine (and not a complete perversion of reality), if the Federal government didn't take much more money from each person who pays taxes in those high-tax states than those states get back. ...to redistribute via the entitlement programs that suck up trillions of dollars a year. Only in a Kafkaesque world are New York or New Jersey or Connecticut or Cali being subsidized by everyone else because their high state and local taxes are currently deducible. It's nonsense.

    None of the additional mess they are cooking up is "tax reform," obviously. It wouldn't be possible anyhow, because they won't first address their runaway spending (and the corruption they are a part of). But, in their game of picking winners and losers as part of this exercise (depending on which special interests get the biggest footholds), there are a gazillion things in their bills that are much closer to being actual subsidies, which they won't touch. The mortgage interest deduction, for example, gives a random benefit that others don't get to a group of people who borrowed money (receiving the benefit of it) in return for interest payments (how the lenders' benefit). They each transact that way because they each benefit from their relationship. But then they each benefit again via tax laws. Which makes no sense.

    In the case of state and local taxes, what is the remotely similar "benefit" to that kind of deduction? For most people, they get taxed at the state level via withholding. ... the extortion is that seemlessly integrated that they never even touch what they earned, let alone benefit in any way from it. And then their earnings, which they never even got a sniff of, are taxed all over again.

    I'd personally love to really reform and simplify the tax code. ... and sure, then I would understand getting rid of that kind of messy deduction (and make New York or California get their shit together). But as long as they are doing the usual BS, it is downright dishonest to suggest that New York or Cali are being subsidized by the Federal government. And really, anyone handing over any portion of what they legally earned to the Federal government is doing the exact opposite thing.
     
  6. Dick Whitman

    Dick Whitman Well-Known Member

    It’s also just a really gross thing for a president to say. I guess that could be construed as false moral outrage by me. But I just find it unbecoming.
     
    Iron_chet, lakefront and YankeeFan like this.
  7. Michael_ Gee

    Michael_ Gee Well-Known Member

    Since the whole matter has made it politically impossible for Trump to give Russia anything of substance, I think the Russians get some satisfaction out of reminding the world who has who by the balls in their relationship.
     
    Neutral Corner likes this.
  8. lakefront

    lakefront Well-Known Member

    So, since he is the Projector in Chief, I take it that tweet is actually saying there are unseen women he (trump) has harassed and maybe there are pics!
     
  9. Michael_ Gee

    Michael_ Gee Well-Known Member

    It's his narcissism in action. Ha, ha! I got away with it and you didn't. As a political matter, it's the biggest favor to Franken he could've done, because now the focus will switch back in large part to all the accusations of sexual assault made against Trunp last October.
     
    lakefront likes this.
  10. YankeeFan

    YankeeFan Well-Known Member

    Trump, campaigning for President: I have a plan to defeat ISIS.

    Democrats & the media: LOL. Sure you do. Tell us your plan.

    Trump: I’m not going to tell you or our enemy our plan to defeat them, or announce when we are going to take action.

    Democrats and the media: LOL. Trump is an idiot, and has no plan.

    (Less than one year into office, ISIS holds no territory in Western Iraq, have been evicted from their capitol in Raqqa, and have been generally decimated.)

    Democrats and the media: (Crickets)

     
  11. poindexter

    poindexter Well-Known Member

    Shaq and Barkley were clowning on Trump -" he can't pass Healthcare, he can't pass tax reform, but he can get the Ball kid home. His only accomplishment."
     
    HanSenSE likes this.
  12. Pete

    Pete Well-Known Member

    My understanding is that eliminating the individual mandate isn't repeal and replace, or even a true "repeal," but rather a cripple and leave in place. The whole projected savings is based on the fact that fewer lower-income people will be able to afford insurance at all, or will "choose" not to get it, and thus the gov't won't be paying subsidies on those policies. That's the explicit intent of this move – saving money because fewer poors will be insured. But hey, screw the poors. If they just worked harder like the rest of us, they'd be fine, amirite?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page