|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Right Side of the News | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22388 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Hyroglyphx writes: Its interesting, SSA used to be an opt-in program when it first rolled out...Originally you could choose whether or not you wanted to pay into the system or pick your own form of retirement. This is incorrect, but I'm curious where you found this bit of misinformation. See History of Social Security in the United States - Wikipedia for more accurate information (Theodoric cited it, too). It says pretty much what I thought based upon my recollection of past readings of histories of The Depression. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22388 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Faith writes: The talk show hosts you mention are actually good researchers... The steady flow of false and misleading information from conservative talk show hosts conclusively demonstrates that they're very poor researchers. What they're good at is working you up so you keep coming back.
...and I trust them far more than any "news" source these days, since they are all nothing but partisan propaganda machines. You trust talk show hosts more than reporters? Even Fox News reporters? No wonder you're so misinformed.
Levin exposed this in his book but we on the right have already known it for years. Levin exposed nothing. He was only pandering to the right-wing base.
It's too bad those on the left just go on treating it as if it were news. There you go with the pronouns again. What does "it" refer to?
They've completely manufactured story after story against Trump though none of them stick. Any yet you can't cite any manufactured story, because like the conservative talk show hosts you love so much you're making it up.
No matter they just pretend they stick, they pretend they're true. It's so transparent it is hard to understand why the Left goes on accepting it. I think anyone who follows the rule "accept that for which there is evidence" will have the most accurate understanding of the world. You're never able to provide evidence for anything you say, and that's because it is made up. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22388 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Faith writes: Let me guess. This is pure spin. Words like "admitted" and "withholding" and "acknowledgment" and "revelation" in your title as well, are there to insinuate there's something wrong with whatever Trump did, while I'd bet what they actually said was something completely straightforward and innocent. Of course whatever he did was the right thing to do but you'll never get that information from such a description. JonF quoted from RawStory which was citing the CNN story. A reading of CNN's story (Trump administration reveals it's blocking dozens of emails about Ukraine aid freeze, including President's role - CNNPolitics) makes it appear that RawStory made a couple minor errors. It wasn't Trump lawyers who made the disclosure, unless you interpret "Trump lawyers" very loosely. It was actually Department of Justice lawyers. And CNN didn't use the word "admitted" but "revealed," which perhaps aren't sufficiently close in meaning for your taste. The story opens like this:
quote: I looked for the text of the DOJ filing but was unable to find it online. If I knew what court maybe I could find it, but the articles don't say. But the Washington Post in https://www.washingtonpost.com/...03-2b077c436617_story.html quotes from the filing:
quote: There you have it, straight from the court filing itself. It says there are 24 emails about the hold on Ukraine security assistance that the DoJ argues should not be made public because of presidential privilege. The emails are from back in June, a month before Trump's July 25th phone call with Zelensky. One has a feeling that if the emails confirmed that Trump was concerned about Ukrainian corruption and not investigations of Democrats and the Bidens that they wouldn't be trying to keep them secret. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22388 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Prompted by your post to investigate further, I just learned that the national debt is not just the sum of the federal deficits over the years. For instance, the national debt rose from $21.516 trillion at the end of 2018 to $22.719 trillion at the end of 2019, an increase of $1.203 trillion. The natural assumption would be that the federal deficit for 2019 was $1.203 trillion, but one would be wrong. The 2019 deficit was only $0.984 trillion, $0.219 trillion less than the increase in our national debt. What accounts for the difference?
The answer is mandatory spending. Some types of mandatory spending are not included in the annual deficit but are included in the national debt, such as Social Security. My head hurts. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22388 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2
|
Faith writes: I WILL NOT CALL HIM A LlAR AND SINCE YOU DO I WILL NOT READ YOUR POST. Heavens no, don't read any posts chock full of information. You might learn something. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22388 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
JonF writes: I have no difficulty understanding that. I am not a lawyer. All credit to you then, and Theodoric, too. I did give it the old college try. I'm giving it another try now, and I think I may understand (c). The "declarant" is not the person testifying. The person testifying is "a party offers in evidence," though I guess they use that phrasing so that it also includes a lawyer introducing an affidavit or a letter or email or text and such things. If I've got that right then I think I've got it. But then why does (c.1) say "testifying?" Why shouldn't it exclude not only the declarant's testimony at trial or hearing but also any of their affidavits, letters, emails, texts, etc., that were offered into evidence? I'm reminded of calling one of our corporate lawyers (back when I was working) about the language in a contract. I explained why the statement was highly ambiguous about the required order of events, and he told me that it didn't matter, that the court was completely familiar with these kinds of situations and knew exactly what the passage meant, even if it was very imprecise. I despair of ever understanding (d), but if you and Theodoric again assert how easy it is I'll give that part another try, too. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22388 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
dwise1 writes: She repeats the same sick and demented pattern over and over and over and f*cking over again. She spouts her liies. Everybody corrects her and she ignores them and just repeats her liies. When she does "engage", she does so by lying about what we tell her, citing sources who are lying, citing valid sources whom she then misrepresents and lies about, and/or by spouting a new set of liies. Then when she finally finds her position untenable, she concocts some lame excuse to run away, including her eyesight (which just conveniently happens to go out at that point), somebody looked at her wrong so now she's too upset, she arbitrarily decides to ignore the facts because of some dreamed up offense, whatever other lie she can dream up as an excuse. Then later she comes back with the same old liies and starts the cycle all over again. And she does it all deliberately! I mostly endorse this description of Faith's pattern of behavior, which is pretty close to what I would have said myself. These are mostly DWise1's words, just toned down a bit:
quote: Over the course of nearly twenty years the behavior has worsened. Attempts to connect ideas to facts have lessened and lessened to the point of extinction. Through all this moderation has never found approaches that led to sustained improvement, and some attempts at moderation have received strong expressions of disapproval by members. Suffice to say that Faith's style of debate is the antithesis of what I envisioned when I started the site. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22388 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
RAZD writes: So many corporations used their tax bounty to increase bonuses, pay down debt, buy back stock, upgrade or replace aging equipment, etc. Most did not employ more workers. Exactly, whereas higher taxes mean they allocate more to lower their taxable value, and THAT creates jobs or increases payroll. Don't know what it means to "lower their taxable value." Do you mean lower the amount they pay in taxes?
Curiously it seems to me that if the economy depends on some people being unemployed there is something amiss in the system. 0% unemployment isn't achievable because people lose or leave jobs and it takes time to find another, and there is technological change, economic change (decline of steel industry and coal mining), personal situations, etc.
And IF having people unemployed is of value to the economy then they should be compensated. I've never seen it argued that unemployment is of value to the economy.
There are also other considerations: earning money isn't the end-all be-all of life, where does capitalism provide for arts and crafts? The idea that a pursuit is of no value unless it makes money, especially enough to live on, seems stunted, narrow minded, and drab. I'm reminded of the joke, "Under a communist system the Detroit Lions would win the Super Bowl every 16 years" (pick your sport and team), but I understand your point.
Not just unemployment but under-employment as well, where jobs worked are insufficient for living and so these workers qualify for assistance. A living wage requirement would eliminate the need for such assistance for most of the people in the system. Should every job pay a living wage? When you and I were kids there was such a thing as paperboys. There were tons of low paying jobs filled by teenagers.
But I also like Yang's basic income, as it allows artists and musicians, dancers, academicians, scientists, etc to pursue their crafts and in the process brighten the lives of everyone. The return is a more complete population. Public support of art and culture is important. It was once a higher priority than it is today. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22388 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2
|
Thugpreacha writes: She repeats the same sick and demented pattern over and over and over Yes she does. I do the same thing. No you do not. No one's pattern here except Faith's can be characterized as "sick and demented." I would have chosen other words, like antagonistically passive-aggressive (ignoring most things factual, especially well researched posts that take much time and effort to compose), antagonistically aggressive (explicitly denying most things factual), insulting, misrepresentative, and fact-free.
Some of us are more adaptable in our conversations than are others. I personally see Faith improving in some areas, but I note your reaction. I see nothing in Faith's posts over the past few years that doesn't reflect a consistent and continuous retreat from fact.
When she does "engage", she does so by lying about what we tell her, citing sources who are lying, citing valid sources whom she then misrepresents and lies about, and/or by spouting a new set of liies. Again, its all about interpretation. Have you ever heard the advice to "put yourself in the other guys shoes"? Think about what she is trying to defend, whether or not she fully understands it, and how she views her opponents here at the Forum and in conversations. I feel that many of us (myself included) get stuck in patterns and do not critically think about our positions. This leads to repetition. I see the problem as one side wants to engage with the facts and the other side does not. If you doubt this go back through Faith's last fifty posts and find where she discussed or introduced any facts.
Then when she finally finds her position untenable, she concocts some lame excuse to run away, including her eyesight (which just conveniently happens to go out at that point), somebody looked at her wrong so now she's too upset, she arbitrarily decides to ignore the facts... See, now this is where you get too personal. It is no lie that her eyesight is bad, and this is a personal attack. Love your enemies and adversaries. Heck, I even prayed for that darn shoplifter who caused my hackles to rise. It's not easy, but is it not basic good advice? It seems a very accurate description to me, especially the eyesight thing. I have commented consistently over at least the last decade how conveniently timed her attacks of visual impairment and indignation are. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22388 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Why am I not surprised: Susan Collins will vote to acquit Trump at impeachment trial | CNN Politics
Senator Susan Collins (R-ME) from a purple state is walking a fine line by agonizing publicly over issues before the vote, then voting with Trump. She did this with the Trump tax cuts, she did this with Bret Kavanaugh, and now she's going to do it again with the impeachment trial. Each time Collins repeats this pattern I send a donation to the Sara Gideon campaign, Collins opponent in the upcoming election. Gideon is currently Maine's Speaker of the House. Collins is perhaps the most vulnerable Republican in the Senate. She deserves to lose her seat not because she supports Trump but because of the duplicitous way she is doing it. Click here to donate to the Sara Gideon campaign. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22388 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
jar writes: There is a simpler, fairer and faster fourth solution. Simply remove the Social Security Tax Limit. God I loved that limit, but you might be right. Has anyone done the calculation to make sure that's sufficient to fix the problem? Or maybe the limit only has to be raised instead of eliminated. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22388 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Theodoric writes: Seemingly you are not able to grasp the concept between high individual compensation, individual tax rates and corporate tax rates. Interesting persuasive technique you've got there.
If income over 10 million is taxed at a substantially higher rate, corporations will be less likely to pay them this exorbitant amount because such a high percentage of it will go toward taxes. Instead of paying it to a few individuals they should be incentivized to spread it around or invest in capital projects. Or they find non-taxable or lower taxable means of executive compensation, just like they did in the 1950's.
If their corporate tax rate is higher they are going to be incentivized to get that profit off the books by spending the money. I agree that the higher the taxes the greater the incentive to reduce them, but I don't agree that spending the money is their only or best alternative. Here are some situations to consider. Let's say the corporation figures it will have $100 million in profits for the current year and knows it will pay $20 million in taxes, netting them $80 million after taxes (the tax isn't necessarily paid in the same tax year in which the profits were made, but we'll skip that detail). There's a business in their industry they could buy for $100 million, but they decide against it. Now, same situation except that there's a higher corporate tax rate and their taxes will be $50 million instead of just $20 million. How does that change the equation on purchasing that business? Or same situation, but instead of purchasing a business they consider building another plant to increase production. Given that demand for their product isn't directly affected by their profits or tax rate, how would a change in tax rate change the equation for building another plant? Or same situation, and let's say they spend all of what would have been a $100 million profit on something (doesn't matter what) but let's say their stock pays a dividend that depends upon profits. How are stockholders going to react to a reduction in profits? How will that affect the stock price? How will stockholders holding shares of lower value going to vote the next time a board of directors is elected? Or same situation, but instead of purchasing a business they consider increasing rank-and-file compensation by $100 million. How does an increase in the corporate tax rate change the equation on doing that? Given the variability of corporate profits, what assurance can they give stockholders that they'll be able to sustain a level of corporate performance commensurate with the higher payroll? How will it affect their competitiveness going forward? I don't pretend to have answers to these questions. I just raise them to point out that it isn't as simple as just spending the profits before they're made. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22388 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Faith writes: ... regarding Presidential decision-making about the scope, duration, and purpose of the hold on military assistance to Ukraine, Walsh wrote.
There it is, without the spin, thank you. There what is without the spin? What you quoted is Walsh confirming the headlines where they say that the emails were about the Ukraine scandal. Here are the RawStory, CNN and Washington Post headlines:
They all communicate very similar and accurate information.
But now it would be nice if "the scope, duration and purpose of the hold" were made known. Yes, I think we can all agree on that. We also agree that the Trump administration has mounted a strong legal defense to prevent this information from becoming public. Why do think this is?
Whatever the reasons we on the right know it was all perfectly correct and legal,... As with most claims you make I have to ask: And you know this how? How can you know what the information is before it is released?
...and that only the left, -- a word you may not allow me to use? -- or the Democrats, try to make a criminal offense out of it. If you actually followed the House and Senate impeachment proceedings you would know that Trump wasn't charged with any actual crime. He was charged with constitutional violations: abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.
Which is all they've done for three years now and will no doubt continue to do for years to come, just making one innocent act after another into something criminal. After the articles of impeachment were voted a court ruled that the withholding by the OMB of funds for Ukraine voted by Congress was a violation of law, a crime.
There ought to be a law against this so we could send all the Democrats to prison... You *do* realize, I hope, that imprisoning your political opposition is what tinpot dictators do.
...or take away their outrageously extravagant salaries. Congressional salaries are the same for all members of Congress regardless of political affiliation. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22388 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2
|
Hyroglyphx writes: If anything, she's lying to herself and tries to convince herself more than she is trying to convince you. Faith has beliefs that come from within. No process of convincing is involved. Anyone who expresses opinions she agrees with is right because they are honest and truthful, and those expressing opinions she disagrees with are wrong because they are lying leftists who belong in prison.
It is possible to be sincere while also being sincerely wrong (inaccurate). It is also possible to be sincerely wrong while constructively engaging in discussion.
This is also pretty typical behavior for her, which shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone here. We shouldn't normalize (by judging it acceptable) the behavior of people like Faith or Trump. --Percy Edited by Percy, : Typo.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22388 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Faith writes: Funny then that they do in fact add to the deficit. Duh. To repeat something said earlier, and add a little to it, Social Security is not included in the federal deficit but is included in the national debt. But it isn't the full future obligation of Social Security that is included in the national debt, only the amount in the trust funds that are invested in special issue Treasury securities. --Percy
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024