We all love more money in our paychecks. The problem is as long as the government is spending money it is promising that it will take it from tax payers eventually. For FY19 the government plans to spend $985B (yes with a B) more than it takes in. It is promising that it will take that money from you (or your children) eventually. It could also just print money and inflate away the debt. There goes your savings too.The economics have been very good to me so far. Just ran my projected taxes and much better than last year. I know it’s not the whole picture but I voted in part because I did not want higher taxes and watch more of my paycheck disappear. Note leaving the military really opened my eyes to how tax shielded you are while on active duty.
Hey, I have polices that I favor of course. They are generally libertarian. Some of them match up to the policies that the President has helped to enact.And you’re not? GMAFB.
Wait, what's the news report that it is a lie?Thanks for the vector. Seems to me Cohen had a crappy lawyer. Given Lanny's background and friends maybe he had other interests then his clients in mind. Alan Dershowitz, Clinton voter, no friend of Trump, but a highly consistent civil libertarian, makes all this plain.
Also in Cohen news is the report from Lanny Davis that the "news" repeated over and over that Cohen will say he has personal knowledge of Trump knowing about the famous meeting in Trump Tower is a lie. He has no such knowledge and will not testify to it. But that story was reported wildly. @HokiePilot take note. Where are the corrections and the explanations on how that lie got reported. Davis said they could not shut it down at the time because they were still in negations with the government and had to remain silent. Also confirmed by Davis, as reported by Cohen months ago, the Steele documents are hogwash. Haven't heard that in the news yet. Nope, the press is too busy impeaching a president.
As I have said before. None of this gets me worked up because it is just human nature. It happens at all levels with some regularity. The public simply is not exposed to it at the unprecedented detail as today. It is a combination of hatred for Trump and modern communications. But the same issues have occurred throughout history. Some of our contemporary pols would have looked as bad or worse then Trump if the press had reported it in the same detail with the same technology. Bill Clinton, Couple of Kennedys, to start with. Even Thomas Jefferson had his fill with the press at one time.
“… the man who never looks into a newspaper is better informed than he who reads them, inasmuch as he who knows nothing is nearer to truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods and errors.”
Only Mueller knows and he isn't talking. Everyone else is full of shit.
Citation needed. Citation needed. And Citation needed.All politicians and probably most high government officials lie. And occasionally, they lie about substantive things, like lying to congress by denying a congressional committee had been spied on by the CIA. That is only one lie Brennan has told, for which he got a pass by the press. Sec Clinton and her husband are world class liars. McCain is a liar.
We agree, but the question is why I voted Trump, I answered. The tangent regarding fiscal spending is not something you or I control except by going out and voting in elections and writing my elected officials. Well, the government "plans" and "promise" across multiple administrations states that GDP growth will get us out this mess. CBO forecasts require a sustained growth in GDP to even stay abreast of federal spending let alone the financial cliff ahead. And this doesn't even factor in the problems at the state level where you have unfunded retirement programs (California, Dallas, Chicago, etc). (Some of those retirement programs are ridiculous with the promised benefits). Quite a few articles regarding the squeeze at the state level where they are also unable to pay for public services and infrastructure due to medical/retirement taking up larger and larger portions of the state budget.We all love more money in our paychecks. The problem is as long as the government is spending money it is promising that it will take it from tax payers eventually. For FY19 the government plans to spend $985B (yes with a B) more than it takes in. It is promising that it will take that money from you (or your children) eventually. It could also just print money and inflate away the debt. There goes your savings too.
There are certainly arguments to be made that this tax scheme is a more efficient way to pay for the costs of government. I don't think it is more efficient, but I'm willing to hear the argument.
That's a stretch....I'm not sure I agree.Yeah but you left out the pet that a member of the Commission was viewed as personally hostile to the baker’s religion. That’s the ruling. It says the law itself is not violating freedom of religion in fining or punishing the baker.
In other words, if the commission had dotted its i’s and crossed its t’s, the Court would have had no religious freedom issue with their decision.
But you didn't have issue that the commission on THREE simular cases ruled in favor of the baker but not Phillips? [precidence]
"while enforcement proceedings against Phillips were ongoing, the Colorado Civil Rights Division itself endorsed this proposition in cases involving other bakers’ creation of cakes, concluding on at least three occasions that a baker acted lawfully in declining to create cakes"
I agree that the commission erred by violating the Free Exercise Clause, but it does not minimize the merits of freedom of speech nor the free exercise of religion when applied to any business.
If I'm following you correctly, you are saying that had the commission not conducted themselves in a hostile manner toward the defendant, then Phillips would have lost the case? Based on what?From the authoritative source:
“The Court reversed in a 7-2 decision, holding that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission's conduct in evaluating a cake shop owner's reasons for declining to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple violated the Free Exercise Clause.”
I assume you follow here that it was the conduct of the commission the court took issue with, NOT the law itself.
I agree with your last paragraph here. We don’t know what the outcome would have been if the commission hadn’t been hostile.If I'm following you correctly, you are saying that had the commission not conducted themselves in a hostile manner toward the defendant, then Phillips would have lost the case? Based on what?
Your application of transitive logic does not compute and that's why I said in my previous statement that I did not agree.
We will never know how the court would have decided had they not treated hostile, ruled against (and sanctioned) Phillips, thus getting the supreme court involved, then ruling in favor of Phillips.
I think the Roberts court is going to continue to do this if they can get away with it. With two sides screaming for blood and insisting THEIR WAY is the only way, if the Supremes come down on one side or the other too often, they're going to begin to lose credibility. And credibility is their stock in trade. It's one of the reasons I'm shaking my head at some parts of the left losing their collective minds over the Kavanaugh nomination. We saw moderation with Kennedy, but we also saw it with Roberts' shift on Obamacare. Further back, we saw it with "A Switch in Time Saves Nine." The Court has shown a talent for saving its own ass, and trampling on twice-established precedent is basically the opposite of that. The Court is going to check and balance, but it's not going to put itself in a position where the other branches are going to check and balance it into irrelevance.My gripe with some folks here is in disagreement over whether the SC ruled broadly on the anti-discrimination law or narrowly on the specifics of conduct of the commission in this case. It’s clear they chose to rule narrowly, here.
Why do you say that is reason for impeachment?Of all the dumb stuff he tweets:
This tweet alone is reason enough for impeachment. I have no confidence in the GOP congress though.
Who here is going to defend it?
IMO, I'd say Trump's policies, including the tax cuts, have greatly stimulated the economy. Back when Trump was running, the news was full of headlines such as, "Trump Promises 4% GDP Growth. Economists Say No Way." The party line was that we had reached a "new normal" of 1-2% growth, that the condition was permanent, that right-wing talking point ideas of "tax cuts, deregulation, etc..." were not going to stimulate the economy at all, that this was a structural change.I’ll praise POTUS... kind of. As a relative fiscal conservative, I’m interested to see whether the recent tax cut will, as hoped, stimulate the economy/grow GDP, or simply result in continued deficit spending, growing the national debt. How long do we accept large budget deficits before the juice is no longer worth the squeeze? With interest rates and inflation under control, how fast do we really want the economy to expand before inflation becomes a concern, particularly as wages have stagnated? A lot of this seems out of balance to me. Without spending discipline, tax cuts are less effective at stimulating growth.