This will work to their advantage when everyone's taxes go up, they'll get more support next time when they want to cut taxes for the rich again because poor people's taxes will be too high. And it will give them cover to cut education, medicaid, medicare, and other programs because people's taxes are too high.
win win win win (especially for corporations and the ultra wealthy). Soooo much winning Trump said.
And, again, they are backloading the worst parts 10 years out. By 2027, here is how it looks, even when you address the main conservative argument about the mandate:
In ten years, everyone making under 100k is going to see their taxes go up from roughly $250-1000 per year. Brass tacks: within the decade, the bottom 80% of the population will be paying more so the top 20% can pay less.
I was the one who cited a Project Veritas video a while back, and while I expressed some skepticism since I heard they creatively edited their videos, I ultimately agreed with their assessment of the Democratic operative they were covering. I didn't see an alternate explanation for the words he was speaking.
But in light of these new facts, I have to withdraw any trust, no matter how slim or how conditional, in Project Veritas and its claims to be an honest organization. Selective editing, creative license, biased reporting, exaggeration, misinterpretation--you know, that's one thing.
But when you flat-out fabricate entire stories, that's very different. And by fabricating this story, Project Veritas has proven that it has absolutely no sense of loyalty to the truth. I will give no credence to anything they say from now on, no matter the subject.
Being biased is one thing, but people who lie are not worth listening to.
I was the one who cited a Project Veritas video a while back, and while I expressed some skepticism since I heard they creatively edited their videos, I ultimately agreed with their assessment of the Democratic operative they were covering. I didn't see an alternate explanation for the words he was speaking.
But in light of these new facts, I have to withdraw any trust, no matter how slim or how conditional, in Project Veritas and its claims to be an honest organization. Selective editing, creative license, biased reporting, exaggeration, misinterpretation--you know, that's one thing.
But when you flat-out fabricate entire stories, that's very different. And by fabricating this story, Project Veritas has proven that it has absolutely no sense of loyalty to the truth. I will give no credence to anything they say from now on, no matter the subject.
Being biased is one thing, but people who lie are not worth listening to.
Wasn't calling anyone out specifically, and apologies for being strident, but after a decade of watching the media fall for his scams and seeing at least one innocent career (Shirley Sherrod) destroyed by his antics, I have a low tolerance level for his BS.
Caveat: neither of those tables are actual tax numbers which anyone will be paying. Instead, they are changes in changes to Net Federal Revenues. Those numbers are *based* on tax revenues but these numbers do not reflect actual changes in the amount of taxes any individual person will be paying. Direct links to the documents may be found and here.
People on the very low end of the income spectrum typically aren't paying any Federal income taxes other than whatever they might have taken out every time they earn a paycheck. Once they fill out their form for the IRS if they have one or two children they will probably be issued a refund because they had been overpaying every two weeks (or however often they got paid). For people in this group, "receiving a smaller refund than last year" is mathematically equivalent to "paying more in taxes" but the net result is still the same--they got a refund.
The entire tax code as it currently exists in the United States needs to be thrown out and rebuilt from scratch.
Caveat: neither of those tables are actual tax numbers which anyone will be paying. Instead, they are changes in changes to Net Federal Revenues. Those numbers are *based* on tax revenues but these numbers do not reflect actual changes in the amount of taxes any individual person will be paying. Direct links to the documents may be found and here.
People on the very low end of the income spectrum typically aren't paying any Federal income taxes other than whatever they might have taken out every time they earn a paycheck. Once they fill out their form for the IRS if they have one or two children they will probably be issued a refund because they had been overpaying every two weeks (or however often they got paid). For people in this group, "receiving a smaller refund than last year" is mathematically equivalent to "paying more in taxes" but the net result is still the same--they got a refund.
The entire tax code as it currently exists in the United States needs to be thrown out and rebuilt from scratch.
From an economic standpoint, taking this money away from the poor and middle-class is a disaster. Why?? Because people making less than 50k a year HAVE to spend most of it to make ends meet. A millionaire's tax cut is going into the bank or into the stock market. Nothing is getting purchased at businesses, no demand for manufacturing of products goes up. This is why trickle-down economics never works. Because it assumes rich people do things with their money (spend it and hire more workers) that they simply don't do. They simply hoard it in most cases.
Or, as I've described in layman's terms before, this is 200 million people who aren't getting their kid a new winter coat or spending money in the community for their kid's birthday party because it doesn't fit in the budget. And THAT economic effect is what will, in fact, trickle down.
The tax plans expiration dates are a multilevel scam reminiscent of a lot of things Mitch McConnell does.
By guaranteeing corporate and rich people tax cuts and by not guaranteeing regular individual tax cuts he is setting up his party to be for tax cuts again in 10 years.
At that point, the Republicans will campaigning on "all Democrats want to raise your taxes, you got to vote for us!" They are cynically counting on the support of the narrow minded self interested people saying "I don't care about BEFORE, don't raise my taxes now".
Who is going to campaign on raising peoples taxes? That is not a winner at the ballot box especially since services and benefits will have been cut leaving regular people with less cash.
They are banking on stupid people who don't look back at who put the country in the fix it will be in at that point. They believe people won't see past the end of their noses and they won't blame Republicans for giving tax cuts for the rich and putting us in the mess.
North Korea has fired another ballistic missile. Call me crazy, but I don't remember the amount of provocation in the form of missle launches that North Korea has undertaken in Trump's first year in the previous two Administrations combined. It used to happen once every couple years, now it is happening nearly once a month. Since 9/11, it's been Democrats who have been painted as appeasing our enemies and weak on national defense. Apparently North Korea views Donald Trump as far weaker than Obama, at a minimum, since nothing remotely like these constant missile tests took place the last 8 years. And since Trump has undermined his own Secretary of State in any diplomatic talks with the regime, they have no incentive to stop. And unless Trump is willing to condemn the South to a nuclear attack, he has no leverage.
Kamala Harris has her eyes on a run for the Presidency, if not in 2020, then 2024. My dream scenario is this: Bernie Sanders vows to serve only one-term based on his age, puts Kamala on the ticket as his VP, and sets the stage for Harris in 2024. She is taking all the right stands on policy issues in regards to the left, she is a tough former prosecutor, and, most importantly, she is a qualified woman who isn't Hillary Clinton. The resistance to Trump (as proven on Election Day a few weeks ago) is being fueled by women, specifically minority women. When Obama have his speech at the Democratic Convention in 2004, I was fairly sure I'd seen the first African-American President. I'm starting to get the same vibes from Kamala Harris.
From an economic standpoint, taking this money away from the poor and middle-class is a disaster. Why?? Because people making less than 50k a year HAVE to spend most of it to make ends meet. A millionaire's tax cut is going into the bank or into the stock market. Nothing is getting purchased at businesses, no demand for manufacturing of products goes up. This is why trickle-down economics never works. Because it assumes rich people do things with their money (spend it and hire more workers) that they simply don't do. They simply hoard it in most cases.
Very few people argue against trickle down more adamantly than I do. I am on the record, multiple times, of stating that we should try "bubble up" once just to see what happens--give the tax break or bailout to the people on the bottom of the income spectrum. As they spend that extra money it will have a multiplier effect which should give a significant positive boost to the economy.
Like @smeagolheart said, though, this is more of Congress kicking the can down the road for a future Congress to deal with. Don't forget, though--the government doesn't *need* tax revenue because it can just print what it needs. The true purpose of taxation (at the Federal level) is to shrink the money supply as a hedge against inflation and currency devaluation from overprinting.
Ms. Harris should definitely run for 2020 but not as Sanders' VP choice--she should throw her hat into the Democrat ring for President. From her point of view the best case scenario is that she wins; her worst case scenario is that she loses but figures out what not to do for her 2024 run. Sanders is "damaged goods" at this point, as is Clinton. No, the Democrats really need new faces; if not, they risk losing in 2020. (I normally don't give good advice to a political party with which I disagree but in the interest of equity that would be my best advice to them.)
I'd say 2020 and 2024 is too far away to speculate on today. There's enough on the plate in front of us and things could change. Suppose Trump gets us in a nuclear war with Korea or Harris has a corruption scandal in a year. Today, she seems a strong candidate but there's battles in front of us.
Even though he lost the rigged primary polls show Sanders as far and away the most popular politician in America so we should not discount him.
I'd say 2020 and 2024 is too far away to speculate on today. There's enough on the plate in front of us and things could change. Suppose Trump gets us in a nuclear war with Korea or Harris has a corruption scandal in a year. Today, she seems a strong candidate but there's battles in front of us.
Even though he lost the rigged primary polls show Sanders as far and away the most popular politician in America so we should not discount him.
Bernie may not even be alive in 2020. He's getting a bit long in the tooth. Just sayin'...
I'd say 2020 and 2024 is too far away to speculate on today. There's enough on the plate in front of us and things could change. Suppose Trump gets us in a nuclear war with Korea or Harris has a corruption scandal in a year. Today, she seems a strong candidate but there's battles in front of us.
Even though he lost the rigged primary polls show Sanders as far and away the most popular politician in America so we should not discount him.
The nuclear war part is pretty wild--the JCoS will refuse to follow any orders they know are illogical, illegal, or not warranted based on the circumstances.
I didn't say that Sanders wasn't popular, only that he will have twice the uphill battle Kamala will face since he has already officially left the Democrat Party and he lost the 2016 primary. As far as the Puerto Rico story, though, it is about flipping time we funnel them sufficient aid to rebuild. Had I been in charge things there would have gone differently--an indefinite suspension of the Maritime Act, FEMA support, post-hurricane aid, etc.
"Pocahontas" is, in and of itself, *not* a racial slur; rather, it is a woman's name (and not even her real birth name, at that). Trump's use of it was to deride Senator Warren, though, and in that regard he turned it into an insult. This is not dissimilar to how some college friends and I starting using "clint" as a derogatory term based on a jerk who ran a comic book shop in Mesquite whose name was Clint (no offense to anyone named Clint here). Incidentally, when used in that manner "clint" sounds filthier than it actually is, much like the word "finger". Anyway...his intent turned it into a slur, which is utterly childish.
I think DPRKs recent bout of missile tests has less to do with Trump and more to do with the fact that they are trying to get their nuclear missile program to the point where they are prepared. Prepared for what? They think we are itching to invade them just any day now, just like we have been itching to invade them for the last 50 years. China is still our best option for keeping the DPRK under control--China does *not* want that kind of instability on its doorstep.
I'd say 2020 and 2024 is too far away to speculate on today. There's enough on the plate in front of us and things could change. Suppose Trump gets us in a nuclear war with Korea or Harris has a corruption scandal in a year. Today, she seems a strong candidate but there's battles in front of us.
Even though he lost the rigged primary polls show Sanders as far and away the most popular politician in America so we should not discount him.
Bernie may not even be alive in 2020. He's getting a bit long in the tooth. Just sayin'...
There is a serious case to be made we shouldn't be electing people over 70 to that office. Exhibit A being the almost certainty that Ronald Reagan was suffering from the early stages of Alzheimer's as early as his first debate with Mondale. I happen to have read the autobiography of one of his Chief of Staff, and he all but confirms that Ronnie's schedule in the 2nd term was being dictated by Nancy's astrologer.
I'm for term limits or age limits. Definitely no one over say 75 should be trusted with important decisions in any branch of the government (congress, president, judiciary).
This can change maybe if medical science advances in the future. But like when the constitution was written and they made Supreme Court justices serve for life they probably were worried some guys might reach 50 on the bench but thought it might be OK. I've seen stories about people in their 90s in Japan climbing trees and running around all spry like but in the US mid 70s seems to be downhill mentally after that for most.
More total bullshit. The Republicans are in TOTAL CONTROL of the Federal Government on every level. For those with only a School House Rock level understanding, that is the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial. The ONLY reason there might be a government shutdown would be if extremist Tea Party elements in the House aren't voting with their own party, thus (once again) forcing Nancy Pelosi to come to the rescue with Democratic votes to keep the government running. Screw that. Why should they play ball after being shut out of everything else when the other party can't get their own shit together?? There is no conceivable way you can blame a government shutdown on a party that holds power in ZERO branches of government. If Trump is the great deal-maker, he can get the votes from his own party, or he can't. It has nothing to do with Democrats. A basic 8th-grade civics course would explain why. The Democrats do not have the numbers to force a government shutdown. The only thing that can cause a spending bill to not pass is rogue elements in the Republican House caucus refusing to vote for any spending. Whether or not a citizen understands this concept is a good baseline for telling if they know anything at all about how government functions.
Without control of the House, Senate or Presidency, every Democrat in DC is simply window dressing. They can hold the line with their own caucuses, but that doesn't matter one iota, since Republicans can pass ANYTHING they want with enough Republican votes. If something passes, or doesn't pass, it is wholly the result of what members of the Republican Party do with their votes. No one was under any illusion during the fight to pass Obamacare that any Republicans were going to cross the aisle, or that Obama would have blamed Republicans if it had failed. It would have been viewed as a Democratic Party loss, and the Democratic Party is the one who reaped the fallout from passing it in 2010 (which I believe was a worthwhile trade-off, but that is beside the point). Apparently, the rules no longer apply. In 2008 (when Democrats were in control) they were expected to take responsibility for what happened (which they did). In 2016, if something does or does not pass, it is all of a sudden the fault of the minority party who, mathematically, has no real influence on the outcome other than keeping their caucus in line, which forces the GOP to minimize defections on their own side. If they can't manage that, it is NOT the fault of Democratic Party.
The Democratic party has neither the desire nor even the power to implement or even threaten a shutdown. That was a Tea Party tactic from the years when the GOP controlled Congress but Obama was president. It wasn't the Democratic party that voted for the shutdown back then, and there is no Democratic vote for a shutdown now.
I normally don't bother condemning Trump because I don't see the point, but Jesus Christ. You shouldn't just make stuff up about other people.
Obama had to spend two full terms trying to clean up Bush's mess while facing 100% opposition from the party that enabled Bush. In 2008, we took the car keys away from the drunk driver, and let someone sober handle things for awhile. In 2016, we decided it was ok to drive drunk again, but this time at night with no headlights on.
The Democratic party has neither the desire nor even the power to implement or even threaten a shutdown. That was a Tea Party tactic from the years when the GOP controlled Congress but Obama was president. It wasn't the Democratic party that voted for the shutdown back then, and there is no Democratic vote for a shutdown now.
I normally don't bother condemning Trump because I don't see the point, but Jesus Christ. You shouldn't just make stuff up about other people.
Since this government shutdown crap became a political tactic, never once has it been the idea or wish of the Democratic Party. Newt Gingrich engineered the one in the '90s. The House GOP did so on a yearly basis once they won the House in 2010 during Obama's Presidency. It is a 100% GOP tactic. And even the American public, as stupid as they are, understand this, because the Democrats are the party that BELIEVES in government and the Republicans, by and large, don't. You can't sell yourself as the anit-government party (which they have since Reagan), paint the other party as pro-government (with a negative connotation), and then expect any reasonable person to believe that the pro-government party is the one that wants to shut down the federal government. And shit like this is why nothing matters anymore. Because basic rules of logic are now completely lost on 35% of the population. Even discounting logic, I would settle for people being able to conduct a basic math problem in their heads.
And as long as I'm complaining, I think it's a disgrace that the office of the presidency is communicating in 280-character tweets instead of press conferences and speeches. It's unprofessional and it doesn't give us very much information.
And as long as I'm complaining, I think it's a disgrace that the office of the presidency is communicating in 280-character tweets instead of press conferences and speeches. It's unprofessional and it doesn't give us very much information.
Actually, I've found that since Twitter went to 280 characters, Trump's tweets have become almost unintelligible. It's almost as if he can't hold a line of thought for that long. He could manage a sentence, but not a paragraph.
And yes, I don't think Trump has held anything resembling a press conference since the Monday after Charlottesville, when he famously called Neo-Nazis marching in the streets "very fine people". That was in August. It is almost December.
And as long as I'm complaining, I think it's a disgrace that the office of the presidency is communicating in 280-character tweets instead of press conferences and speeches. It's unprofessional and it doesn't give us very much information.
The only place he'll appear in front of the press is on Fox News. Where they ask him such hard hitting things as "Isn't it tough getting so much done and being so great?"
Not to pile on the wife here, but what is Melania Trump going for in these Christmas decorations, Ice Queen of Narnia?? I'm told Trump speaks to flyover country. I'm from the rural upper midwest, and I've never seen anything remotely like this in regards to Christmas decorations. Nothing says down home American holiday decor like black tendrils of shadow on the ceiling of a long corridor and Black Swan-esque ballet dancers:
Not to pile on the wife here, but what is Melania Trump going for in these Christmas decorations, Ice Queen of Narnia?? I'm told Trump speaks to flyover country. I'm from the rural upper midwest, and I've never seen anything remotely like this in regards to Christmas decorations. Nothing says down home American holiday decor like black tendrils of shadow on the ceiling of a long corridor and Black Swan-esque ballet dancers:
It was ridiculous when people complained about Michelle Obama's right to bare arms, and this is just as pointless. I'd like this thread to remain interesting and focused on politics, not devolve into partisan cheap shots.
Not to pile on the wife here, but what is Melania Trump going for in these Christmas decorations, Ice Queen of Narnia?? I'm told Trump speaks to flyover country. I'm from the rural upper midwest, and I've never seen anything remotely like this in regards to Christmas decorations. Nothing says down home American holiday decor like black tendrils of shadow on the ceiling of a long corridor and Black Swan-esque ballet dancers:
It was ridiculous when people complained about Michelle Obama's right to bare arms, and this is just as pointless. I'd like this thread to remain interesting and focused on politics, not devolve into partisan cheap shots.
Oh for god sakes, I'm old enough to remember when she plagiarized Michelle Obama at the convention, I think we can handle one light-hearted jab when they decorate the White House like Versailles. It's not like I'm insisting she personally changed the lunch menu of every school in America by First Lady fiat. It was meant to be funny. I can't believe anyone would think it was meant as a serious conversation starter. The pictures they released were over the top and ridiculous, thus an over the top and ridiculous post about them. I don't care how she decorates the White House. I found the photos absurd given who Trump's base voters are demographically and threw in a couple pop-culture references. Good lord.
Quite honestly, there IS a legitimate issue about Melania given the fact that based on reporting, she was clearly working as a model as an undocumented worker when she first came to the US, which is an issue because (and ONLY because) of her husband's stance on deporting everyone he can find. And I've specifically not brought it up because of the First Lady rule. But since we can't joke about Christmas decorations, let's talk about how the deportation President's wife once worked in the country illegally:
From a policy standpoint, I absolutely DO NOT care Melania did this, as I do not care when migrant workers from Mexico pick lettuce. But this reminds me a hell of a lot of the fact that in high school, I personally watched my friend's conservative dad hand money to and house illegal immigrants on his property, only to turn around and vote to have them deported.
Matt Lauer is the latest person to face the consequences of his poor choices regarding sexual misconduct in the workplace.
Was Rep. Conyers the "civil rights and women's champion" mentioned at some point? I would like to see all of the secret payout deals from the Office of Compliance unsealed. It's obviously a system open for abuse if sexual harassment or assault is treated by secret courts who hand out payoff money, only after you spend another 90 days with the one you are accusing of course.
Comments
win win win win (especially for corporations and the ultra wealthy). Soooo much winning Trump said.
In ten years, everyone making under 100k is going to see their taxes go up from roughly $250-1000 per year. Brass tacks: within the decade, the bottom 80% of the population will be paying more so the top 20% can pay less.
But in light of these new facts, I have to withdraw any trust, no matter how slim or how conditional, in Project Veritas and its claims to be an honest organization. Selective editing, creative license, biased reporting, exaggeration, misinterpretation--you know, that's one thing.
But when you flat-out fabricate entire stories, that's very different. And by fabricating this story, Project Veritas has proven that it has absolutely no sense of loyalty to the truth. I will give no credence to anything they say from now on, no matter the subject.
Being biased is one thing, but people who lie are not worth listening to.
People on the very low end of the income spectrum typically aren't paying any Federal income taxes other than whatever they might have taken out every time they earn a paycheck. Once they fill out their form for the IRS if they have one or two children they will probably be issued a refund because they had been overpaying every two weeks (or however often they got paid). For people in this group, "receiving a smaller refund than last year" is mathematically equivalent to "paying more in taxes" but the net result is still the same--they got a refund.
The entire tax code as it currently exists in the United States needs to be thrown out and rebuilt from scratch.
Or, as I've described in layman's terms before, this is 200 million people who aren't getting their kid a new winter coat or spending money in the community for their kid's birthday party because it doesn't fit in the budget. And THAT economic effect is what will, in fact, trickle down.
By guaranteeing corporate and rich people tax cuts and by not guaranteeing regular individual tax cuts he is setting up his party to be for tax cuts again in 10 years.
At that point, the Republicans will campaigning on "all Democrats want to raise your taxes, you got to vote for us!" They are cynically counting on the support of the narrow minded self interested people saying "I don't care about BEFORE, don't raise my taxes now".
Who is going to campaign on raising peoples taxes? That is not a winner at the ballot box especially since services and benefits will have been cut leaving regular people with less cash.
They are banking on stupid people who don't look back at who put the country in the fix it will be in at that point. They believe people won't
see past the end of their noses and they won't blame Republicans for giving tax cuts for the rich and putting us in the mess.
Kamala Harris has her eyes on a run for the Presidency, if not in 2020, then 2024. My dream scenario is this: Bernie Sanders vows to serve only one-term based on his age, puts Kamala on the ticket as his VP, and sets the stage for Harris in 2024. She is taking all the right stands on policy issues in regards to the left, she is a tough former prosecutor, and, most importantly, she is a qualified woman who isn't Hillary Clinton. The resistance to Trump (as proven on Election Day a few weeks ago) is being fueled by women, specifically minority women. When Obama have his speech at the Democratic Convention in 2004, I was fairly sure I'd seen the first African-American President. I'm starting to get the same vibes from Kamala Harris.
Like @smeagolheart said, though, this is more of Congress kicking the can down the road for a future Congress to deal with. Don't forget, though--the government doesn't *need* tax revenue because it can just print what it needs. The true purpose of taxation (at the Federal level) is to shrink the money supply as a hedge against inflation and currency devaluation from overprinting.
Ms. Harris should definitely run for 2020 but not as Sanders' VP choice--she should throw her hat into the Democrat ring for President. From her point of view the best case scenario is that she wins; her worst case scenario is that she loses but figures out what not to do for her 2024 run. Sanders is "damaged goods" at this point, as is Clinton. No, the Democrats really need new faces; if not, they risk losing in 2020. (I normally don't give good advice to a political party with which I disagree but in the interest of equity that would be my best advice to them.)
Even though he lost the rigged primary polls show Sanders as far and away the most popular politician in America so we should not discount him.
I didn't say that Sanders wasn't popular, only that he will have twice the uphill battle Kamala will face since he has already officially left the Democrat Party and he lost the 2016 primary. As far as the Puerto Rico story, though, it is about flipping time we funnel them sufficient aid to rebuild. Had I been in charge things there would have gone differently--an indefinite suspension of the Maritime Act, FEMA support, post-hurricane aid, etc.
"Pocahontas" is, in and of itself, *not* a racial slur; rather, it is a woman's name (and not even her real birth name, at that). Trump's use of it was to deride Senator Warren, though, and in that regard he turned it into an insult. This is not dissimilar to how some college friends and I starting using "clint" as a derogatory term based on a jerk who ran a comic book shop in Mesquite whose name was Clint (no offense to anyone named Clint here). Incidentally, when used in that manner "clint" sounds filthier than it actually is, much like the word "finger". Anyway...his intent turned it into a slur, which is utterly childish.
I think DPRKs recent bout of missile tests has less to do with Trump and more to do with the fact that they are trying to get their nuclear missile program to the point where they are prepared. Prepared for what? They think we are itching to invade them just any day now, just like we have been itching to invade them for the last 50 years. China is still our best option for keeping the DPRK under control--China does *not* want that kind of instability on its doorstep.
This can change maybe if medical science advances in the future. But like when the constitution was written and they made Supreme Court justices serve for life they probably were worried some guys might reach 50 on the bench but thought it might be OK. I've seen stories about people in their 90s in Japan climbing trees and running around all spry like but in the US mid 70s seems to be downhill mentally after that for most.
More total bullshit. The Republicans are in TOTAL CONTROL of the Federal Government on every level. For those with only a School House Rock level understanding, that is the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial. The ONLY reason there might be a government shutdown would be if extremist Tea Party elements in the House aren't voting with their own party, thus (once again) forcing Nancy Pelosi to come to the rescue with Democratic votes to keep the government running. Screw that. Why should they play ball after being shut out of everything else when the other party can't get their own shit together?? There is no conceivable way you can blame a government shutdown on a party that holds power in ZERO branches of government. If Trump is the great deal-maker, he can get the votes from his own party, or he can't. It has nothing to do with Democrats. A basic 8th-grade civics course would explain why. The Democrats do not have the numbers to force a government shutdown. The only thing that can cause a spending bill to not pass is rogue elements in the Republican House caucus refusing to vote for any spending. Whether or not a citizen understands this concept is a good baseline for telling if they know anything at all about how government functions.
Without control of the House, Senate or Presidency, every Democrat in DC is simply window dressing. They can hold the line with their own caucuses, but that doesn't matter one iota, since Republicans can pass ANYTHING they want with enough Republican votes. If something passes, or doesn't pass, it is wholly the result of what members of the Republican Party do with their votes. No one was under any illusion during the fight to pass Obamacare that any Republicans were going to cross the aisle, or that Obama would have blamed Republicans if it had failed. It would have been viewed as a Democratic Party loss, and the Democratic Party is the one who reaped the fallout from passing it in 2010 (which I believe was a worthwhile trade-off, but that is beside the point). Apparently, the rules no longer apply. In 2008 (when Democrats were in control) they were expected to take responsibility for what happened (which they did). In 2016, if something does or does not pass, it is all of a sudden the fault of the minority party who, mathematically, has no real influence on the outcome other than keeping their caucus in line, which forces the GOP to minimize defections on their own side. If they can't manage that, it is NOT the fault of Democratic Party.
I normally don't bother condemning Trump because I don't see the point, but Jesus Christ. You shouldn't just make stuff up about other people.
And yes, I don't think Trump has held anything resembling a press conference since the Monday after Charlottesville, when he famously called Neo-Nazis marching in the streets "very fine people". That was in August. It is almost December.
Matt Lauer is the latest person to face the consequences of his poor choices regarding sexual misconduct in the workplace.
Quite honestly, there IS a legitimate issue about Melania given the fact that based on reporting, she was clearly working as a model as an undocumented worker when she first came to the US, which is an issue because (and ONLY because) of her husband's stance on deporting everyone he can find. And I've specifically not brought it up because of the First Lady rule. But since we can't joke about Christmas decorations, let's talk about how the deportation President's wife once worked in the country illegally:
https://apnews.com/37dc7aef0ce44077930b7436be7bfd0d
From a policy standpoint, I absolutely DO NOT care Melania did this, as I do not care when migrant workers from Mexico pick lettuce. But this reminds me a hell of a lot of the fact that in high school, I personally watched my friend's conservative dad hand money to and house illegal immigrants on his property, only to turn around and vote to have them deported.