| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
mrgybe
Joined: 01 Jul 2008
Posts: 5180
|
 Posted: Sun Jan 17, 2021 12:47 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| boggsman1 wrote: | | Not true .. I’ve always been a Concord Coalition type .. I think the outrageous deficits will end badly |
I agree with you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
techno900
Joined: 28 Mar 2001
Posts: 4161
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 17, 2021 2:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mac wrote: | Techno’s post falls squarely under my Dad’s nostrum. There are liars, damned liars, and statisticians.
Spin. |
I hear the spin from the left all the time whining about the unfair tax cuts, but I haven't seen an analysis showing that the benefits only impacted the rich. I post an opinion that states otherwise - so if you believe differently, please show an analysis that supports your side of the issue. "Liars, damned liars" lends zero credibility to the "critical thinker". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
swchandler
Joined: 08 Nov 1993
Posts: 10588
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 17, 2021 3:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Puzder's opinion isn't even close to being an analysis, but you're easily sold on his BS because it tells you what you want to hear.
Again, maybe you can fill us in on the reasons why our deficit and debt skyrocketed during the Trump Administration, especially in a raging economy before the start of the Covid 19 pandemic.
If you really think hard enough, it might dawn on you why the US Government isn't pulling in the funds needed to address and deal with our exploding deficit and debt. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17748
Location: Berkeley, California
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 17, 2021 4:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| techno900 wrote: | | mac wrote: | Techno’s post falls squarely under my Dad’s nostrum. There are liars, damned liars, and statisticians.
Spin. |
I hear the spin from the left all the time whining about the unfair tax cuts, but I haven't seen an analysis showing that the benefits only impacted the rich. I post an opinion that states otherwise - so if you believe differently, please show an analysis that supports your side of the issue. "Liars, damned liars" lends zero credibility to the "critical thinker". |
I know that you are too lazy to check a balance of sources. Maybe you’ll read some if I spoon-feed them to you.
Source 1, from Forbes—hardly a socialist rag.
| Quote: | First, many people will technically have lower taxes, but the cuts are so tiny as to be hardly noticeable. The Tax Policy Center estimates the 60% of Americans at the lower end of the income distribution will have federal tax savings of less than $1,000. Also, most people believe the tax cuts didn’t benefit people like them but only the very wealthy. They are right. Those in the top 1% save $51,000.
Second, as Forbes contributor Howard Gleckman explained, the tax changes affected withholding through increases in the standard deduction and other provisions, especially the limit on deductibility of state and local taxes (SALT). But many taxpayers didn’t change their withholding allowances, so they may not have withheld the correct amounts in each time period. This means their tax refund is smaller than expected. The smaller-than-expected refund could be feeding a perception that taxes have increased even when they fell slightly.
Third, most Americans perceive the Trump tax cuts didn't benefit them because the highest income groups benefited the most . This is not only because of the rate changes, but because the drop in corporate taxes and rise in corporate profits ended up as higher incomes for the wealthiest households. The biggest winners in the Trump tax cuts were corporations and the households that get income from corporate profits—that is, the very wealthiest Americans. The top corporate income tax rate dropped by almost 40%, from 35% to 21%. And that cut is permanent, while the household rate cuts expire after 2025. The imbalance between household and corporate benefits is unpopular, with 62% of Americans saying it bothers them “a lot” that “some corporations don’t pay their fair share.” Even 42% of Republicans are bothered “a lot” about this.
Fourth, most Americans might doubt they benefited from the Trump tax reform because they believe the tax cuts are causing big deficits they will have to pay for sooner or later. Forbes contributor Chuck Jones showed the tax cuts were largely responsible for a 17% increase in the federal deficit last fiscal year. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that deficits will average 4.4% of GDP between now and 2029, much higher than the average 2.9% from the previous fifty years. And federal debt—growing every year with the deficits—will reach an estimated 93% of GDP by 2029 (as CBO notes, this would be “a larger amount than at any time since just after World War II.”)
|
How unbalanced are the cuts? Depends on how you look. The household cuts expire, so...
| Quote: | Since the wealthy pay most of the income taxes, they end up with most of the tax cuts. (The top 1 percent in 2014 earned 20 percent of adjusted gross income and paid nearly 40 percent of federal taxes, according to the Tax Foundation.) The TPC report shows that in 2018, the top 1 percent would get 20.5 percent of the tax cuts; the top quintile would get 65.3 percent. In other words, that’s not nearly as lopsided as Cicilline asserted.
In 2027, the study shows, 82.8 percent of the tax cuts will flow to the top 1 percent. The top quintile actually receives 107.3 percent of the tax changes — because taxes actually increase for the folks in the lowest, second-lowest and middle quintiles. It’s right there on Page 5 of the report.
What happened? The individual tax cuts expire over the course of the decade. Republicans structured the tax cut this way to keep the whole package — especially the corporate tax cut — in a budget box that allowed only for a $1.5 trillion increase in the federal deficit over 10 years. |
Like I said, spin. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
isobars
Joined: 12 Dec 1999
Posts: 20935
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 20, 2021 5:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Did Trump Incite Insurrection?
Townhall columnists Rachel Alexander
Opinion
Did Trump Incite Insurrection?
Rachel Alexander
Rachel Alexander
|
Posted: Jan 11, 2021 12:01 AM
The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Townhall.com.
Did Trump Incite Insurrection?
Source: AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin
Trending
Mark Davis
What's in the Heads of the Pro-Impeachment Republicans?
Gabriella Hoffman
“Build Back Better?”: Biden’s Gun Control Push Will Further Divide Us
Pat Buchanan
The Lynch Mob Comes for Citizen Trump
I didn’t really want to write this article since I’ll probably be banned faster from big tech than expected, but as a lawyer whose favorite area of law is constitutional law, I see it as my duty. The left is trying to get rid of President Trump before the end of his term, saying he incited an insurrection in the speech he gave near the White House on January 6. House Democrats have drafted Articles of Impeachment with over 150 sponsors. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi compared Trump’s actions to those of President Nixon’s in Watergate. Dozens of Democrats and some Republicans are also calling on Vice President Mike Pence and the cabinet to remove Trump through the 25th Amendment, saying he is no longer fit for office.
The Articles of Impeachment say Trump shall be removed for treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors under the Fourteenth Amendment, which prohibits the president (as well as the vice president, Congress and state legislators) from engaging in insurrection against the Constitution.
They use a lot of vague, lofty language but are short on specifics. They say he “gravely endangered the security of the United States government.” They claim he “threatened the integrity of the democratic system, interfered with the peaceful transfer of power, and imperiled a coordinate branch of government.” What do they cite as his dangerous words? Saying he won the election by a landslide. He encouraged “imminent lawless action” which “interfered with the peaceful transition of power.” They assert that he will “remain a threat to national security, democracy and the Constitution if allowed to remain in office.”
CARTOONS | Lisa Benson
View Cartoon
Does this meet the definition of incitement under the criminal code? In the past, Congress has looked to the criminal code in order to weigh impeachment offenses. The Supreme Court case Clarence Brandenburg v. Ohio established the legal standard for violent speech, which is speech that is “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”
So let’s look at what Trump actually said. "I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol Building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard." This is the opposite of inciting violence. This is speech protected under the First Amendment. In fact, it is the heart of free speech, the right to march in political protest.
As for remaining a threat if he stays in office and thwarting the peaceful transition of power, the Democrats failed to mention in their Articles that after the violence started, Trump tweeted twice denouncing the violence, then followed up with a video denouncing it again. He conceded the election, saying his “focus now turns to ensuring a smooth, orderly and seamless transition of power.”
Allan Favish, writing for The American Thinker, observed that the break-in occurred before Trump’s speech ended, and most people at the Capitol building could not hear Trump’s speech near the White House, nor did they appear to be watching it on their phones. Plenty of videos circulated later showing Capitol police letting the protesters in peacefully and even pointing out where they should go once they were inside the building.
Constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley, a longtime Democrat who is considered fair, observed, “While I was highly critical of the President's remarks, he never actually called for violence or a riot. Indeed, he expressly told his followers ‘to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.’ He said, ‘Let us walk down Pennsylvania Avenue.’ Such marches are common in both federal and state capitols.” Turley noted that under the Democrats’ standard, “any president could be removed for rhetoric that is seen to have the ‘natural tendency’ to encourage others to act in a riotous fashion.” He warned that to impeach him over this would create a dangerous precedent for free speech.
Laurie Levenson, a professor of law at UCLA and a former assistant U.S. attorney in Los Angeles, is also skeptical that Trump’s statements are prosecutable. Renato Marriotti, a former federal prosecutor and legal affairs columnist for Politico, said “Mere encouraging words would not be enough.”
The Democrats’ accusations are stunning considering their leaders’ encouragement of violent Antifa and BLM rioters this past summer. Vice President-elect Kamala Harris encouraged her millions of Twitter followers to donate to a fundraiser that paid bail for accused rioters. Biden staffers did too and nothing happened to them. Antifa wants to overthrow the Constitution. BLM is a Marxist movement. Additionally, in 2018, Biden said about Trump, “If we were in high school, I’d take him behind the gym and beat the hell out of him.”
And how many currently elected members of Congress and state legislators — who could also be impeached for inciting insurrection — have said far worse than Trump? In 2018, Pelosi complained about the separation of illegal immigrant family members at the southern border, “I just don’t even know why there aren’t uprisings all over the country. And maybe there will be when people realize that this is a policy that they defend.” Last September, she referred to Trump and Republican members of Congress as “domestic enemies” and “enemies of the state.”
Recommended
Lib Meltdown at Politico Over Ben Shapiro Is Why The Left Can Never Use 'Snowflake' Attack on Conservatives
Matt Vespa
In 2018, Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) told her supporters to physically harass members of Trump’s cabinet. “Squad” member Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.) called for continued "unrest in the streets." When Minneapolis was burning because of rioters, another Squad member, Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), tweeted, “Our anger is just. Our anger is warranted.”
Missouri Democratic State Sen. Maria Chappelle-Nadal said she hoped Trump was assassinated. She continued to serve out the rest of her term, over another year. If Trump can be impeached, then many others should be removed, too.
Twitter permanently banned Trump over the accusations, citing “risk of further incitement of violence.” This is bizarre, considering how many thousands of people Twitter has allowed to remain on the platform despite threats of violence. Twitter allowed the rioters last summer to discuss where to attack and where the good looting could be found. Nothing happened to Omar for her tweet; it’s still there without even a warning.
Verified Twitter users were allowed to threaten violence against conservative high school kids a year ago.
The left is far more guilty of inciting violence than the president, but they have the MSM behind them to focus all the attention on Trump, and big tech behind them to punish both the president and the right. Big tech is now using the Capitol break-in to speed up the purge of conservatives, attacking us on multiple levels including at the roots of the internet, which I will address how to combat next week.
ns Sitemap Jobs Contact Us Newsletters iPhone/Android Apps
Townhall.com Townhall.com
Townhall.com is the leading source for conservative news and political commentary and analysis.
Copyright © Townhall.com/Salem Media. All Rights Reserved. Terms under which this service is provided to you |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
isobars
Joined: 12 Dec 1999
Posts: 20935
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
isobars
Joined: 12 Dec 1999
Posts: 20935
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
isobars
Joined: 12 Dec 1999
Posts: 20935
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 20, 2021 5:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Idiots. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
swchandler
Joined: 08 Nov 1993
Posts: 10588
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 20, 2021 5:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| isobars, is there anything in Rachel Alexander's opinion that really adds up and makes a convincing argument? The answer is no. You are going to need to do much better, because most thoughtful folks aren't duped by dishonest lawyers. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
vientomas
Joined: 25 Apr 2000
Posts: 2343
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 20, 2021 5:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Opinions, they are like Isoholes, everybody has one. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
|
Search
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Register
