New political thread - Biden vs Trump (only!)

[Loyal Coug1]

Goddamit I had a prior commitment and missed the Biden interview. Will have to catch it Sunday or whatever. The post-interview spin doctors annoy me.

So how about we reset, and limit the argument to 2024 and beyond, Biden (or replacement) vs. Trump. What happens after Nov. 5th?

Biden first. I think that the Democrats are idiots to be floating all the talk of him backing out. Who is going to beat Trump? Kamala? some other ringer? NO. Stupid f-ers. So if he is re-elected, I see a potential for 4 years of stable, educated, semi-coherent governance and foreign policy. And really hope that the Dems can reset, shut up the left-wingers, and work with the R's on addressing the problems we face. Immigration. China. Ukraine, etc. Could it be moving back to the Reagan/Tip O'Neill days? or the Clinton/Newt (or whoever) days? Where we actually got something done via compromise? Geezus. If I could wave my magic wand, Biden would dump Kamala for one of several other potential VP's, win the election, then feign a physical trauma a year or two in and hand it over.

Trump. It is just so frightening. 4 years of revenge and retribution. Hate, hate, hate. Lies, lies, lies. Think back to the (real or perceived) Putin pacifying. The theatrical stepping into North Korea. Ill-advised China tariffs. Lowering or continuing tax cuts for the rich. More rocketing deficit. Women's rights further butchered. Abandoning Ukraine and by extension Europe.

China in specific pisses me off. I think we should just embargo those F-ers and throw their disgusting, pollution and human rights violating filled economy into the toilet. I've always been sort of an isolationist. F-it. Hunker down and see how they do when we quit importing their crap.

Immigration. The one issue I would side with Trump over. I think Biden's late but significant changes are a good thing and are working. Fine, let's get legislation to strengthen it. Trump's draconian approach? Well, sometimes the pendulum has to swing the other way.

 

[KRUSTYtheCOUG]

Biden wouldn't get through another 4 years. Essentially by keeping the ticket the same folks will be voting for Kamala anyway.

I'm resigned to the reality of another trump term. That's all I have to say about that.

 

[Coug90]

Goddamit I had a prior commitment and missed the Biden interview. Will have to catch it Sunday or whatever. The post-interview spin doctors annoy me.

So how about we reset, and limit the argument to 2024 and beyond, Biden (or replacement) vs. Trump. What happens after Nov. 5th?

Biden first. I think that the Democrats are idiots to be floating all the talk of him backing out. Who is going to beat Trump? Kamala? some other ringer? NO. Stupid f-ers. So if he is re-elected, I see a potential for 4 years of stable, educated, semi-coherent governance and foreign policy. And really hope that the Dems can reset, shut up the left-wingers, and work with the R's on addressing the problems we face. Immigration. China. Ukraine, etc. Could it be moving back to the Reagan/Tip O'Neill days? or the Clinton/Newt (or whoever) days? Where we actually got something done via compromise? Geezus. If I could wave my magic wand, Biden would dump Kamala for one of several other potential VP's, win the election, then feign a physical trauma a year or two in and hand it over.

Trump. It is just so frightening. 4 years of revenge and retribution. Hate, hate, hate. Lies, lies, lies. Think back to the (real or perceived) Putin pacifying. The theatrical stepping into North Korea. Ill-advised China tariffs. Lowering or continuing tax cuts for the rich. More rocketing deficit. Women's rights further butchered. Abandoning Ukraine and by extension Europe.

China in specific pisses me off. I think we should just embargo those F-ers and throw their disgusting, pollution and human rights violating filled economy into the toilet. I've always been sort of an isolationist. F-it. Hunker down and see how they do when we quit importing their crap.

Immigration. The one issue I would side with Trump over. I think Biden's late but significant changes are a good thing and are working. Fine, let's get legislation to strengthen it. Trump's draconian approach? Well, sometimes the pendulum has to swing the other way.

We need China and they need us. Look at the labels on your shit. You think inflation is bad now…

 

[Coug90]

Biden wouldn't get through another 4 years. Essentially by keeping the ticket the same folks will be voting for Kamala anyway.

I'm resigned to the reality of another trump term. That's all I have to say about that.

Trump is also a quarter pounder with cheese away from a massive heart attack. Either candidate you should be voting for the VP too.

 

[KRUSTYtheCOUG]

Trump is also a quarter pounder with cheese away from a massive heart attack. Either candidate you should be voting for the VP too.

I dunno. I'm more and more inclined to think that guy is gonna live another 20 years. He seems no different - physically or cognitively than he was 10 yrs ago.

But...we can always hope... taihtsat

 

[dgibbons]

Goddamit I had a prior commitment and missed the Biden interview. Will have to catch it Sunday or whatever. The post-interview spin doctors annoy me.

So how about we reset, and limit the argument to 2024 and beyond, Biden (or replacement) vs. Trump. What happens after Nov. 5th?

Biden first. I think that the Democrats are idiots to be floating all the talk of him backing out. Who is going to beat Trump? Kamala? some other ringer? NO. Stupid f-ers. So if he is re-elected, I see a potential for 4 years of stable, educated, semi-coherent governance and foreign policy. And really hope that the Dems can reset, shut up the left-wingers, and work with the R's on addressing the problems we face. Immigration. China. Ukraine, etc. Could it be moving back to the Reagan/Tip O'Neill days? or the Clinton/Newt (or whoever) days? Where we actually got something done via compromise? Geezus. If I could wave my magic wand, Biden would dump Kamala for one of several other potential VP's, win the election, then feign a physical trauma a year or two in and hand it over.

Trump. It is just so frightening. 4 years of revenge and retribution. Hate, hate, hate. Lies, lies, lies. Think back to the (real or perceived) Putin pacifying. The theatrical stepping into North Korea. Ill-advised China tariffs. Lowering or continuing tax cuts for the rich. More rocketing deficit. Women's rights further butchered. Abandoning Ukraine and by extension Europe.

China in specific pisses me off. I think we should just embargo those F-ers and throw their disgusting, pollution and human rights violating filled economy into the toilet. I've always been sort of an isolationist. F-it. Hunker down and see how they do when we quit importing their crap.

Immigration. The one issue I would side with Trump over. I think Biden's late but significant changes are a good thing and are working. Fine, let's get legislation to strengthen it. Trump's draconian approach? Well, sometimes the pendulum has to swing the other way.

The problem is spending not revenue. This says the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act raised revenue. You guys will call the author a liar and the outlet right wing propaganda, but it’s based on a CBO report.

It’s official: Trump’s tax cuts paid for themselves - Washington Examiner

Opinion It’s official: Trump’s tax cuts paid for themselves By Stephen Moore January 20, 2023 09:05 AM Twitter LinkedIn Facebook Email Print Opinion It’s official: Trump’s tax cuts paid for themselves By Stephen Moore January 20, 2023 09:05 AM Twitter LinkedIn Facebook Email Print How many times...

www.washingtonexaminer.com

I propose Loyal forfeit social security.

 

[BSpike76]

The problem is spending not revenue. This says the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act raised revenue. You guys will call the author a liar and the outlet right wing propaganda, but it’s based on a CBO report.

It’s official: Trump’s tax cuts paid for themselves - Washington Examiner

Opinion It’s official: Trump’s tax cuts paid for themselves By Stephen Moore January 20, 2023 09:05 AM Twitter LinkedIn Facebook Email Print Opinion It’s official: Trump’s tax cuts paid for themselves By Stephen Moore January 20, 2023 09:05 AM Twitter LinkedIn Facebook Email Print How many times...

www.washingtonexaminer.com

I propose Loyal forfeit social security.

Why didn’t the Rs cut spending at the same time they cut taxes? They had the trifecta and budget items aren’t subject to filibuster. I’m thinking they like to talk about cuts in spending but don’t have the ball to do it.

 

[BleedCrimsonandGray]

Why didn’t the Rs cut spending at the same time they cut taxes? They had the trifecta and budget items aren’t subject to filibuster. I’m thinking they like to talk about cuts in spending but don’t have the ball to do it.

Because the biggest cuts (non-military) are to be had from the entitlements and you can't piss off the boomers.

 

[Flatlandcoug]

Because the biggest cuts (non-military) are to be had from the entitlements and you can't piss off the boomers.

The problem with the "entitlements" discussion is that people paid into the system for decades with the promise that the money that they paid into the system would be returned to them. The other problem is that Congress is too chicken sh!t to remove the income cap from social security and Medicaid.

On the military spending side of the equation, if we made our military contractors more responsible for mistakes and over-runs, we could likely cut spending 10% without losing any effectiveness...but that wouldn't help stock prices for those companies.

On the topic of Biden vs. Trump......we might as well reconcile ourselves to the fact that we are going to be stuck with Trump for four more years. I just hope our democracy survives it.....but hey....."he'll be good for the economy".....because that's all that matters for some people.

 

[dgibbons]

Why didn’t the Rs cut spending at the same time they cut taxes? They had the trifecta and budget items aren’t subject to filibuster. I’m thinking they like to talk about cuts in spending but don’t have the ball to do it.

Easy. Handing out money = votes. Or so electeds think. Same reason Democrats handout money.

Basic fiscal management tells you to raise taxes when the economy is good and lower taxes when the economy is bad. But electeds care about getting re-elected.

 

[dgibbons]

The problem with the "entitlements" discussion is that people paid into the system for decades with the promise that the money that they paid into the system would be returned to them. The other problem is that Congress is too chicken sh!t to remove the income cap from social security and Medicaid.

On the military spending side of the equation, if we made our military contractors more responsible for mistakes and over-runs, we could likely cut spending 10% without losing any effectiveness...but that wouldn't help stock prices for those companies.

On the topic of Biden vs. Trump......we might as well reconcile ourselves to the fact that we are going to be stuck with Trump for four more years. I just hope our democracy survives it.....but hey....."he'll be good for the economy".....because that's all that matters for some people.

If you unclutch your pearls you may find greater enjoyment in life. The same people that told you Biden is a sharp as he’s ever been are telling you that Trump is a threat to democracy.

And “rich” people pay into social security too. Those “rich” people are more likely to vote.

 

[Loyal Coug1]

The problem is spending not revenue. This says the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act raised revenue. You guys will call the author a liar and the outlet right wing propaganda, but it’s based on a CBO report.

It’s official: Trump’s tax cuts paid for themselves - Washington Examiner

Opinion It’s official: Trump’s tax cuts paid for themselves By Stephen Moore January 20, 2023 09:05 AM Twitter LinkedIn Facebook Email Print Opinion It’s official: Trump’s tax cuts paid for themselves By Stephen Moore January 20, 2023 09:05 AM Twitter LinkedIn Facebook Email Print How many times...

www.washingtonexaminer.com

I propose Loyal forfeit social security.

Oh brother. You reach back to a January, 2023 article devoid of detail to make your point? How about we look at actual numbers from the OMB.

Year	Receipts	Expenses	Deficit
2016	3,267,965	3,852,615	-584,650
2017	3,316,184	3,981,634	-665,450
2018	3,329,907	4,108,981	-779,074
2019	3,463,364	4,446,952	-983,588
2020	3,421,164	6,553,620	-3,132,456
2021	4,047,111	6,822,461	-2,775,350
2022	4,897,339	6,273,259	-1,375,920
2023	4,440,947	6,134,672	-1,693,725

So let's see - in the 3 Trump years after the cuts took effect (2018-2020), revenues went up $100 billion (3%). Expenditures went up $2.5 trillion (64%). 3 years of Biden gave us another $1 trillion in revenues and a reduction of $400 billion in expenses. I'll take the latter, thank you. Of course, let's not take into account the many, many factors that affect the numbers. Like that pesky COVID.

Stick to being a lawyer Gibby. You may know more big words, but I think the Mighty Loyal has a little edge on you as far as accounting skills.

 

[dgibbons]

Oh brother. You reach back to a January, 2023 article devoid of detail to make your point? How about we look at actual numbers from the OMB.

Year	Receipts	Expenses	Deficit
2016	3,267,965	3,852,615	-584,650
2017	3,316,184	3,981,634	-665,450
2018	3,329,907	4,108,981	-779,074
2019	3,463,364	4,446,952	-983,588
2020	3,421,164	6,553,620	-3,132,456
2021	4,047,111	6,822,461	-2,775,350
2022	4,897,339	6,273,259	-1,375,920
2023	4,440,947	6,134,672	-1,693,725

So let's see - in the 3 Trump years after the cuts took effect (2018-2020), revenues went up $100 billion (3%). Expenditures went up $2.5 trillion (64%). 3 years of Biden gave us another $1 trillion in revenues and a reduction of $400 billion in expenses. I'll take the latter, thank you. Of course, let's not take into account the many, many factors that affect the numbers. Like that pesky COVID.

Stick to being a lawyer Gibby. You may know more big words, but I think the Mighty Loyal has a little edge on you as far as accounting skills.

So what exactly was wrong about saying spending was the problem, not revenue?

And you’re dumber than a doornail. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act is currently in effect. That’s the one Trump got through. It didn’t go away because Biden won in 2020. It’s going to expire in during this next term and why Biden is talking about “fixing” the tax system. If you had a functioning brain you should have realized, or you didn’t read the article. Or both.

 

[Loyal Coug1]

So what exactly was wrong about saying spending was the problem, not revenue?

And you’re dumber than a doornail. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act is currently in effect. That’s the one Trump got through. It’s going to expire in during this next term and why Biden is talking about “fixing” the tax system.

Oh I don't know. I guess your point is correct, except that you are inadvertently referring to the numbers under Trump. Under Trump, revenue was essentially flat, expenses skyrocketed. Expenses exploded to $6.5 trillion all right, UNDER TRUMP.
How about we quote your source directly:

"An obvious question is, why are we running a $1.4 trillion deficit if we have an all-time high in tax payments?

Because under Biden, federal spending has exploded to more than $6 trillion. Washington doesn’t have a revenue problem. It has a problem of runaway spending."

According to actual numbers, spending has gone down $400 billion and the deficit has gone down by $1.4 trillion in 3 years of Biden. So how does that equate to "exploded" spending under Biden?

Just let this one lay and move on. Your source IS a right-wing liar. Like his master. Many fine people would agree with me.

 

[dgibbons]

Oh I don't know. I guess your point is correct, except that you are inadvertently referring to the numbers under Trump. Under Trump, revenue was essentially flat, expenses skyrocketed. Expenses exploded to $6.5 trillion all right, UNDER TRUMP.
How about we quote your source directly:

"An obvious question is, why are we running a $1.4 trillion deficit if we have an all-time high in tax payments?

Because under Biden, federal spending has exploded to more than $6 trillion. Washington doesn’t have a revenue problem. It has a problem of runaway spending."

According to actual numbers, spending has gone down $400 billion and the deficit has gone down by $1.4 trillion in 3 years of Biden. So how does that equate to "exploded" spending under Biden?

Just let this one lay and move on. Your source IS a right-wing liar. Like his master. Many fine people would agree with me.

Showing why you’re not management material.

 

[BSpike76]

Because the biggest cuts (non-military) are to be had from the entitlements and you can't piss off the boomers.

So. no balls it is. They assays bitch about spendingwhen a D is pres. and don’t do or say shit when in charge. Then deficits don’t matter, like Vheney said.

 

[Loyal Coug1]

Showing why you’re not management material.

Funny you should say that since I WAS in management for many years during my career. Right up until early retirement. So there buddy. But nice insult.

 

[95coug]

And really hope that the Dems can reset, shut up the left-wingers, and work with the R's on addressing the problems we face. Immigration. China. Ukraine, etc. Could it be moving back to the Reagan/Tip O'Neill days? or the Clinton/Newt (or whoever) days? Where we actually got something done via compromise? Geezus.

This part right here is where you’re optimistic to the point of being naive.

Whichever side wins, no matter how close it is, will take their victory as confirmation that they’re on the right track and doing what people want. If it’s a comfortable win - or worse, a landslide - then it will be taken as a voter mandate that they double down on the insanity and dial it up for 4 more years.

The only way that’s avoided is a way that’s not going to happen - a tight race with the biggest 3rd party showing we’ve ever seen. If a 3rd was able to pull enough votes to come in #2 in a few early states - preferably some big ones - then party leadership on both sides would have to take notice. At least for a minute.

 

[dgibbons]

Funny you should say that since I WAS in management for many years during my career. Right up until early retirement. So there buddy. But nice insult.

As a taxpayer, you’re welcome for PERS 2.

 

[KRUSTYtheCOUG]

Because the biggest cuts (non-military) are to be had from the entitlements and you can't piss off the boomers.

Don't need to cut entitlements. This is money we owe to ourselves. All they need to do is raise "premiums" (SSI tax contributions) OR raise the level of income subject to SSI taxes. Taihtsat

 

[KRUSTYtheCOUG]

I

Easy. Handing out money = votes. Or so electeds think. Same reason Democrats handout money.

Basic fiscal management tells you to raise taxes when the economy is good and lower taxes when the economy is bad. But electeds care about getting re-elected.

Agree with your second paragraph. But trump cut taxes with a robust economy? What gives?

 

[Loyal Coug1]

Trump and Project 2025. If you haven't already, read up on this. It is pretty scary in many aspects. But Trump's denial of knowledge of it yesterday is pretty funny. Keep in mind that several members of his former administration are involved with Project 2025.

"On Friday, Trump appeared to criticize the plan while denying his involvement in it.

"I know nothing about Project 2025. I have no idea who is behind it. I disagree with some of the things they're saying and some of the things they're saying are absolutely ridiculous and abysmal. Anything they do, I wish them luck, but I have nothing to do with them," Trump wrote in a Truth Social post on Friday."

So Donald, if you "know nothing" about it, how do you know "the things they are saying"? And if you know the things "they" are saying, doesn't that strongly imply that you know who is behind it? I mean, who are "they" anyway?

 

[Loyal Coug1]

As a taxpayer, you’re welcome for PERS 2.

Gibby, Gibby, Gibby. As a long-term management employee, the vast majority of my retirement monies are in TIAA, deferred comp and a couple of non-public plans. I am eligible for a very modest PERS II pension when I turn 65 for the barely 5 years I spent in that system, but I'm not that old yet and may end up drawing out the cash instead of taking the pension - need to sit down and do a comparison before that time and assess my expected longevity. Given my lifestyle to date the cash may make more sense. But that is a ways away still.

As an aside, since you brought PERS up, the people that really pissed me off were the ones that were old enough to be in PERS I, put in their 30 years then "retired" for a month and went back to their often-high-level jobs and went into TIAA and drew their 60% PERS I at the same time. You remember the furor over all that in Washington I'm sure, and I think the rules got changed to disallow it. It's been a while. But I knew several high-ranking WSU people, including 2 VP's, who took advantage of what was basically a 60% raise on the taxpayer's dime with the full approval of their supervisor. Which at the time was our beloved V. Lane Rawlins in the case of the VP's, and those VP's in the case of their underlings. That was about the time I went from not really liking public Higher Ed to despising it. But I digress.

 

[Coug90]

If you unclutch your pearls you may find greater enjoyment in life. The same people that told you Biden is a sharp as he’s ever been are telling you that Trump is a threat to democracy.

And “rich” people pay into social security too. Those “rich” people are more likely to vote.

Biden’s gone downhill with age. Trump has always been a threat to democracy (as a “politician”)

 

[Coug90]

Oh brother. You reach back to a January, 2023 article devoid of detail to make your point? How about we look at actual numbers from the OMB.

Year	Receipts	Expenses	Deficit
2016	3,267,965	3,852,615	-584,650
2017	3,316,184	3,981,634	-665,450
2018	3,329,907	4,108,981	-779,074
2019	3,463,364	4,446,952	-983,588
2020	3,421,164	6,553,620	-3,132,456
2021	4,047,111	6,822,461	-2,775,350
2022	4,897,339	6,273,259	-1,375,920
2023	4,440,947	6,134,672	-1,693,725

So let's see - in the 3 Trump years after the cuts took effect (2018-2020), revenues went up $100 billion (3%). Expenditures went up $2.5 trillion (64%). 3 years of Biden gave us another $1 trillion in revenues and a reduction of $400 billion in expenses. I'll take the latter, thank you. Of course, let's not take into account the many, many factors that affect the numbers. Like that pesky COVID.

Stick to being a lawyer Gibby. You may know more big words, but I think the Mighty Loyal has a little edge on you as far as accounting skills.

Numbers don’t lie

 

[Loyal Coug1]

Numbers don’t lie

No they don't. Pick on the silly old Loyal One all you guys want, but don't F with me when it comes to the numbers. I am a savant when it comes to those. Almost deity-like, if I say so myself, and I just did. Of course we have already established that I have the highest-ranking sense of humor on this Board, by a long shot. Even when confronted by the puny barrage of insults by others.

 

[Loyal Coug1]

I'm bored tonight, but still amped up from watching the Fever beating NY this morning. Lexie Hull is so smoking hot. So, get ready for about 20 posts.

Let's see. Where to start. Former Trump advisor Stephen Miller, in the wake of Trump's denial yesterday of any knowledge of Project 2025, denies any involvement - even though he appears in a video on their website! 4 other former Trump staff are also in the video. But Trump himself knows nothing about Project 2025.

MSN

Did I mention the Colbert monologue segment that shows Trump in a very recent Fox(?) interview denying that he ever said "lock her up" regarding Hillary Clinton, whereupon Colbert shows video clips from 3 Trump speeches where he said exactly that? Gawd.

 

[dgibbons]

I

Agree with your second paragraph. But trump cut taxes with a robust economy? What gives?

Already answered. Electeds like being re-elected.

And this is Laffer curve. The magic spot on the graph where you increase revenue by cutting rates, because of the increase in taxable income.

 

[dgibbons]

Numbers don’t lie

Loyal doesn’t know what he’s talking about here and even admitted it.

 

[dgibbons]

No they don't. Pick on the silly old Loyal One all you guys want, but don't F with me when it comes to the numbers. I am a savant when it comes to those. Almost deity-like, if I say so myself, and I just did. Of course we have already established that I have the highest-ranking sense of humor on this Board, by a long shot. Even when confronted by the puny barrage of insults by others.

Managing the 10 key is not a management position.

 

[dgibbons]

So, for the radio interview after the debate, Biden’s aides provided the hosts with approved questions. I don’t see anything on whether the same happened with the ABC interview.

Radio host who interviewed Biden says aides provided questions in advance | CNN Politics

Joe Biden’s team provided a list of questions to a radio host who interviewed the president this week in the aftermath of his debate performance, the host told CNN.

amp.cnn.com

 

[Observer11]

In what universe is high tax receipts and high government spending any indication of efficiency and effectiveness?

Let alone well being of the populace.

 

[Loyal Coug1]

Already answered. Electeds like being re-elected.

And this is Laffer curve. The magic spot on the graph where you increase revenue by cutting rates, because of the increase in taxable income.

Managing the 10 key is not a management position.

Loyal doesn’t know what he’s talking about here and even admitted it.

What is your problem tonight Gibby? Wife not putting out? I don't know what I'm talking about with regard to numbers? In order:

Stop pretending that you are some sort of economic expert. Your Laffer Curve reference is sort of a laugher.

"Managing the 10 key". F-you, you smarmy f-ing lawyer. You don't know me, you know nothing about me and my successful 38-year career that allowed me to retire early, including positions that were pretty f-ing important. Controllerships, etc., that garnered respect, collegiality and affinity from my colleagues, executives, bankers, prominent community members and others. Including lawyers. Doubt you can say the same. But like the typical F-ing lawyer that you are, you sneer at accountants. I've worked with so many of you self-aggrandizing POS's in my career that I can't even count. There's a reason why lawyers are so poorly thought of in any poll/survey that I could pull up.

I don't know what I'm talking about when I quote OMB facts to parry your pathetic reference to a BS article about Trump's tax cuts? F you again.

Gawd what a POS you are. I have tried to civilly converse with you on many topics, even gave you credit for decent arguments. But you just continue to pull out your string of one-liner personal insults towards me and anyone else who you happen upon.

Oh, and your little "10 key" insult, in response to my very tongue-in-cheek post that tried to bring some levity to this Board and topic, is pretty funny to me. I bet you are a lot of fun at parties. If you ever get invited to them.

 

[dgibbons]

What is your problem tonight Gibby? Wife not putting out? I don't know what I'm talking about with regard to numbers? In order:

Stop pretending that you are some sort of economic expert. Your Laffer Curve reference is sort of a laugher.

"Managing the 10 key". F-you, you smarmy f-ing lawyer. You don't know me, you know nothing about me and my successful 38-year career that allowed me to retire early, including positions that were pretty f-ing important. Controllerships, etc., that garnered respect, collegiality and affinity from my colleagues, executives, bankers, prominent community members and others. Including lawyers. Doubt you can say the same. But like the typical F-ing lawyer that you are, you sneer at accountants. I've worked with so many of you self-aggrandizing POS's in my career that I can't even count. There's a reason why lawyers are so poorly thought of in any poll/survey that I could pull up.

I don't know what I'm talking about when I quote OMB facts to parry your pathetic reference to a BS article about Trump's tax cuts? F you again.

Gawd what a POS you are. I have tried to civilly converse with you on many topics, even gave you credit for decent arguments. But you just continue to pull out your string of one-liner personal insults towards me and anyone else who you happen upon.

Oh, and your little "10 key" insult, in response to my very tongue-in-cheek post that tried to bring some levity to this Board and topic, is pretty funny to me. I bet you are a lot of fun at parties. If you ever get invited to them.

It’s your fault you didn’t read or understand a very short article on tax policy. Not mine. It’s your fault that you didn’t know the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act is still in effect. Not mine.

 

[Coug90]

Already answered. Electeds like being re-elected.

And this is Laffer curve. The magic spot on the graph where you increase revenue by cutting rates, because of the increase in taxable income.

Can you teach us about voodoo economics next?

 

[UberCougars]

I'm bored tonight, but still amped up from watching the Fever beating NY this morning. Lexie Hull is so smoking hot. So, get ready for about 20 posts.

Let's see. Where to start. Former Trump advisor Stephen Miller, in the wake of Trump's denial yesterday of any knowledge of Project 2025, denies any involvement - even though he appears in a video on their website! 4 other former Trump staff are also in the video. But Trump himself knows nothing about Project 2025.

MSN

Did I mention the Colbert monologue segment that shows Trump in a very recent Fox(?) interview denying that he ever said "lock her up" regarding Hillary Clinton, whereupon Colbert shows video clips from 3 Trump speeches where he said exactly that? Gawd.

Agenda 25 is from the Heritage Foundation and is a Mike Pence agenda.

Nice try.

 

[UberCougars]

The problem with the "entitlements" discussion is that people paid into the system for decades with the promise that the money that they paid into the system would be returned to them. The other problem is that Congress is too chicken sh!t to remove the income cap from social security and Medicaid.

On the military spending side of the equation, if we made our military contractors more responsible for mistakes and over-runs, we could likely cut spending 10% without losing any effectiveness...but that wouldn't help stock prices for those companies.

On the topic of Biden vs. Trump......we might as well reconcile ourselves to the fact that we are going to be stuck with Trump for four more years. I just hope our democracy survives it.....but hey....."he'll be good for the economy".....because that's all that matters for some people.

Nowhere was that promise ever made.

Loosely implied? OK, sure.

 

[Coug90]

It’s your fault you didn’t read or understand a very short article on tax policy. Not mine. It’s your fault that you didn’t know the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act is still in effect. Not mine.

The funny thing about this pissing match is that it doesn’t matter who knows more about the laffer curve or tax/spending policy. You guys are both smart well educated individuals obviously. Let’s get back to Biden vs Trump. Serious question. If you took both of them aside and asked them each about their thoughts on the laffer curve, what do you think you’d get? I’ll give you an idea what it would sound like:

Biden: it’s a m-m-mathematical representation of tax r-r-rates vs govment r-r-revenue from taxes.

Trump: Well I’ll tell you something, I’m very much for the laffer curve…sometimes. Sometimes it’s not so good you know. We had a tremendous laffer curve, one of the best anyone’s ever seen I can tell you that! The democrats want to turn the laffer curve upside down. Like an arch…like the Golden Arches, which is a good upside down curve. They make an incredible hamburger, have you tried them?

Trumpers: Biden’s done, he’s so old, what a blithering moron. Trump tells it like it is! Nobody’s had a laffer curve as good as his!

 

[Loyal Coug1]

The funny thing about this pissing match is that it doesn’t matter who knows more about the laffer curve or tax/spending policy. You guys are both smart well educated individuals obviously. Let’s get back to Biden vs Trump. Serious question. If you took both of them aside and asked them each about their thoughts on the laffer curve, what do you think you’d get? I’ll give you an idea what it would sound like:

Biden: it’s a m-m-mathematical representation of tax r-r-rates vs govment r-r-revenue from taxes.

Trump: Well I’ll tell you something, I’m very much for the laffer curve…sometimes. Sometimes it’s not so good you know. We had a tremendous laffer curve, one of the best anyone’s ever seen I can tell you that! The democrats want to turn the laffer curve upside down. Like an arch…like the Golden Arches, which is a good upside down curve. They make an incredible hamburger, have you tried them?

Trumpers: Biden’s done, he’s so old, what a blithering moron. Trump tells it like it is! Nobody’s had a laffer curve as good as his!

That's pretty funny 90! And probably not that far off.

Speaking of Biden, I managed to see most of the disappointingly short interview in bits. Here's my take. Biden should take the cognitive test, whatever the F that is, and share it with the country - good, bad or meh. Voters deserve to know. With the caveat that Trump takes the same test by the same (impartial?) doctors. Aside from that, Biden's indignance doesn't play well with me. He's lost a step (at least). Shit when I'm 81 I will have lost several steps if I'm not dead. So answer questions directly. Don't avoid, like he did the cognitive test question. Admit that you have lost a step, but that you have plenty of steps left to do the job. Angry Joe can't match angry Trump. Thoughtful, relaxed, contemplative Joe may have a chance.

 

[95coug]

. Angry Joe can't match angry Trump. Thoughtful, relaxed, contemplative Joe may have a chance.

To be fair, Thoughtful, relaxed, contemplative Joe has a pretty good shot mostly because Thoughtful, relaxed, contemplative Trump is like Santa, the tooth fairy, the Easter bunny, and unicorns.