Destroying an entire country will always rank Obama as a worser President then Trump by any objective means unless he starts an un-justified war as well, and i've always liked Obama but he truly screwed up in that.
Particularly since Obama actually went around congress in doing so, not even Bush launched a war bypassing all checks and balances created to curb such things.
The repercussions of it is still felt today, even the Immigrant/refugee crisis is influenced by the total destabilization of Libya, Gaddafi himself warned that such a phenomenon would happen if his country was crippled.
The intervention in Libya didn't happen until a massive uprising against Gaddafi, a multi-decade military dictator, was well under way. Furthermore, it was a United Nations operation that did nothing but provide air support to the rebels. After that it was turned over to NATO. What was the alternative to Egypt and Libya, sit back and watch two military strongmen slaughter their own populations on the streets??
If the debt/deficit is such an issue why did Republicans just pass this gigantic tax cut for the wealthy that independent and conservative economists says will grow it?
That's the trillion dollar question.
The assumption is that you can get a smaller piece of a bigger pie. That's been the idea since Reagan. But even in theory, even if you make the most generous assumptions you can possibly have, the math makes no sense.
Let's say you have an economy worth $100. Currently the government taxes, say, 10% of it. So the government has $10 and the private sector has $90. You want to lower taxes in order to get a smaller piece of a bigger pie. Is it possible for the government to lower taxes and still at least $10 in total?
Let's say the government lowers taxes from 10% to 5%. Now, the government has $5 and the private sector has $95. How much does the economy have to grow for the government to break even?
The answer is 100% growth. In order for a 5% tax to get the government $10, the total economy must be worth $200. To get a smaller piece of a bigger pie, a $5 tax cut must give a return of over $100.
An average rate of return would be 10% per year. It takes 32 years for a $5 tax cut to just break even. And for the entirety of those 32 years, the government would have its revenue cut in half--which either means deficit spending or a 50% average pay cut for every government agency.
And that assumes that government spending is literally just burning money. The reality is that government spending puts money back into the economy. It's not always as efficient as a business, but when the government spends money, they're hiring and contracting and working with agents of the private sector. Who do you think builds roads if not private construction companies? Where do you think a police officer spends his salary, if not the private sector?
You can change the numbers around, but the root problem is just a function of basic algebra. As long as tax revenue is less than 100% of GDP, a tax cut will only "pay for itself" after many years of underfunded public programs, and even then, the model assumes that tax dollars are burned.
This is why tax cuts have never resulted in revenue surpluses. People predicted that the Bush tax cuts would pay for themselves, and after 8 years, they did not.
Of course, you can always say that decreased tax revenue is worth the GDP growth. Some folks just think the latter is more important than the former, enough to justify a tax cut of a certain magnitude. Ultimately, the question is whether we are willing to drastically slash the public sector in order to slightly grow the private sector.
The intervention in Libya didn't happen until a massive uprising against Gaddafi, a multi-decade military dictator, was well under way. Furthermore, it was a United Nations operation that did nothing but provide air support to the rebels. After that it was turned over to NATO. What was the alternative to Egypt and Libya, sit back and watch two military strongmen slaughter their own populations on the streets??
An American President doesn't have the authority, nor the moral standing to launch a war against another nation unless said nation attacked his country, with an exception i grant on a case-by-case basis for aiding an ally that has been attacked.
Both Bush and Obama are guilty of that.
Even if a President tried, he should at least respect the due process in place in America which is to run it through congress as an official procedure.
If i were to make an exception in this case which i won't, the destabilization of Libya as an end result is morally reprehensible, just like Iraq.
I am curious as to @vanatos stance on the U.S. being I'm Africa, where some troops were ambushed and killed.
Why is the U.S. even in Africa?
Is he holding Trump and Rollers in accountable for those deaths to same standard that he is holding Clinton for Libya?
I don't hold Trump responsible for U.S. being in Africa, which is an arrangement before Trump, like i don't hold Obama responsible for Iraq or the mess that came afterwards despite some narratives that he is at truly at fault for stuffing up some reconstruction efforts post-war, which was a typical republican defense of Bush.
For the record, no US troops were killed in Libya.
The new prevalence of drone killing was a factor, and drone killing is a whole nother kettle of fish with the Obama administration, on top of the sheer amount of innocent people dead and struggling now in Libya.
Well on this I can agree with you on principle, the US should not be involved in wars without actually declaring war and foreign interventions should have some damn good reasons. Gaddafi was definitely a bad dude, at least we got him and got out. I'm less enthusiastic about endless war in Afghanistan with no clear objective. And drone strikes...
The assumption is that you can get a smaller piece of a bigger pie. That's been the idea since Reagan. But even in theory, even if you make the most generous assumptions you can possibly have, the math makes no sense. [etc omitted]
Your first sign of trouble is that the aptly-named Laffer curve is always presented with unlabeled axes.
In its defense, however, it did work once. Post-WWII, when the highest tax bracket was at 94% (yes, 94%) we did see an increase in revenues when it was stepped down to a mere 85%-ish.
That's right--the next time tax rates hit 94% we can count on tax cuts to increase revenues.
I am curious as to @vanatos stance on the U.S. being I'm Africa, where some troops were ambushed and killed.
Why is the U.S. even in Africa?
Is he holding Trump and Rollers in accountable for those deaths to same standard that he is holding Clinton for Libya?
For the record, no US troops were killed in Libya.
Can you tell my phone's auto correct was spazzing out?
A diplomat on the other hand... after a embassy was stormed, which is considered American soil.
I guess it's ok to tell the world it is ok to do that because the President and the Congress are of differing parties. Much easier for the Republicans to shove all the blame on Clinton for the fiasco.
I am curious as to @vanatos stance on the U.S. being I'm Africa, where some troops were ambushed and killed.
Why is the U.S. even in Africa?
Is he holding Trump and Rollers in accountable for those deaths to same standard that he is holding Clinton for Libya?
For the record, no US troops were killed in Libya.
Can you tell my phone's auto correct was spazzing out?
A diplomat on the other hand... after a embassy was stormed, which is considered American soil.
I guess it's ok to tell the world it is ok to do that because the President and the Congress are of differing parties. Much easier for the Republicans to shove all the blame on Clinton for the fiasco.
Benghazi was litigated for, literally, years. Hillary Clinton sat and answered questions about it for 11 hours.
That's right--the next time tax rates hit 94% we can count on tax cuts to increase revenues.
I can just remember when the top rate of tax in the UK was 98% . The analysis @semiticgod used breaks down a long way before you get to rates that high. The reason for that is that if rates are high then considerable numbers of people avoid (legally) or even evade (illegally) taxes. Reducing the rate to a more realistic level can thus increase actual tax takes without any growth at all - simply by virtue of better compliance rates.
Part of the rationale for the sort of tax cuts the Republicans are proposing is the belief that this factor of increased compliance is important even at much lower rates of tax, i.e. that reducing tax from say 30% to 20% will largely pay for itself by more of the money in the economy being taxed. I'm not convinced that will happen, but time will tell ...
Part of the rationale for the sort of tax cuts the Republicans are proposing is the belief that this factor of increased compliance is important even at much lower rates of tax, i.e. that reducing tax from say 30% to 20% will largely pay for itself by more of the money in the economy being taxed. I'm not convinced that will happen, but time will tell ...
If they were remotely serious about countering tax evasion, then they would be bolstering the IRS. They are not.
Hmm, this was unexpected. Bernie would probably be happy.
How do we know this is actually going to happen?? Because Wells Fargo sent out a coordinated press release?? I'm old enough to remember when a Carrier Plant in Indiana said they wouldn't send their jobs to Mexico because of Trump. Six months later, they had moved the jobs to Mexico. Without receipts, this is nothing but blowing smoke up the ass of the public. Let's see the pay stubs and the receipts for the contributions. This is the company that was caught red-handed opening up false accounts in customer's names.
Hmm, this was unexpected. Bernie would probably be happy.
I despise them. Wells 'Crookgo' needs to pay more than that for its illegal practices in the mortgage business they partake in. I had the FBI visit me years back (around '09 I think)when I had my house (pre-forclosure) investigate their mortgage business. I gave all the info I could as a housing contractor. Buncha crooks that get no more than a slap on the wrist.
Hmm, this was unexpected. Bernie would probably be happy.
I despise them. Wells 'Crookgo' needs to pay more than that for its illegal practices in the mortgage business they partake in. I had the FBI visit me years back (around '09 I think)when I had my house (pre-forclosure) investigate their mortgage business. I gave all the info I could as a housing contractor. Buncha crooks that get no more than a slap on the wrist.
I rest my case. AT&T sent out a similar notice minutes after the passage. They happen to be trying to complete a mega-merger the Administration can nix. Nothing but PR bullshit that, in 6 months, will prove to amount to nothing if investigated, just like the Carrier Plant.
Well, the police code of ethics once was: "Article 1. General obligations. The policeman: a. Serves the Greek people and performs its duties, as defined by the Constitution and laws. " now is: "I swear to obey my superiors and to execute their orders gladly" and I wonder if the order is of criminal nature what then? logical paradox... And we wonder why we are full of anti authoritarians...
To be honest, I'm mildly shocked the tax bill is polling as bad as it is. I thought WAY more people would fall for the 10-year phase-out trick. Turns out they didn't. Frankly, it shows an interest in policy nuance that Americans aren't all that prone to.
Trumps proud of this tax scam right? Why hasn't he signed it yet?
If he signs it now, Trump would trigger $25 billion in automatic Medicare cuts.
That's why he's not signing the bill until January. That way, due to Congressional 'Paygo' rules the cuts won't go into effect immediately but will occur in 2019. That way Trump thinks he and Republicans won't suffer from this in the 2018 midterms. He's hoping to hoodwink people again.
Trumps proud of this tax scam right? Why hasn't he signed it yet?
If he signs it now, Trump would trigger $25 billion in automatic Medicare cuts.
That's why he's not signing the bill until January. That way, due to Congressional 'Paygo' rules the cuts won't go into effect immediately but will occur in 2019. That way Trump thinks he and Republicans won't suffer from this in the 2018 midterms. He's hoping to hoodwink people again.
I can't stress enough how EXPLICITLY Trump said he wouldn't touch Medicare during the campaign. It was the practically the most stark policy distinction that separated him from the Republican pack. And it was a total lie. I said from day one that all policy would come from Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan, that it had to because Trump has no policy positions of his own. Certain people scoffed at the idea. And yet, here we are.
It looks like more companies are jumping on the bandwagon, good publicity for them and Trump. Interestingly a commentator said that its likely this will encourage more and more companies to do this stuff like a chain reaction.
Same sex marriage in Australia is expected to be legalized this coming Christmas.
Why did they wait til TODAY to announce the raises/bonuses (supposed raises/bonuses)?? This bill hasn't even been signed yet. It is not in effect. They have not yet received the untold billions that are going to flow into their coffers?? They clearly have and HAVE HAD the money to do this for some time, certainly PRIOR to this afternoon. And, they've....what?? Been holding it hostage until they get their payoff?? This honestly feels like a straight-path to corporate serfdom.
Trumps proud of this tax scam right? Why hasn't he signed it yet?
If he signs it now, Trump would trigger $25 billion in automatic Medicare cuts.
That's why he's not signing the bill until January. That way, due to Congressional 'Paygo' rules the cuts won't go into effect immediately but will occur in 2019. That way Trump thinks he and Republicans won't suffer from this in the 2018 midterms. He's hoping to hoodwink people again.
Maybe Trump's just waiting for Friday so he can do a double whammy. "I'M SIGNING THIS GREAT TAX BILL THAT WILL BE JUST GREAT FOR EVERYBODY. DID I MENTION THAT IT'S GREAT? mueller you're fired."
Comments
Let's say you have an economy worth $100. Currently the government taxes, say, 10% of it. So the government has $10 and the private sector has $90. You want to lower taxes in order to get a smaller piece of a bigger pie. Is it possible for the government to lower taxes and still at least $10 in total?
Let's say the government lowers taxes from 10% to 5%. Now, the government has $5 and the private sector has $95. How much does the economy have to grow for the government to break even?
The answer is 100% growth. In order for a 5% tax to get the government $10, the total economy must be worth $200. To get a smaller piece of a bigger pie, a $5 tax cut must give a return of over $100.
An average rate of return would be 10% per year. It takes 32 years for a $5 tax cut to just break even. And for the entirety of those 32 years, the government would have its revenue cut in half--which either means deficit spending or a 50% average pay cut for every government agency.
And that assumes that government spending is literally just burning money. The reality is that government spending puts money back into the economy. It's not always as efficient as a business, but when the government spends money, they're hiring and contracting and working with agents of the private sector. Who do you think builds roads if not private construction companies? Where do you think a police officer spends his salary, if not the private sector?
You can change the numbers around, but the root problem is just a function of basic algebra. As long as tax revenue is less than 100% of GDP, a tax cut will only "pay for itself" after many years of underfunded public programs, and even then, the model assumes that tax dollars are burned.
This is why tax cuts have never resulted in revenue surpluses. People predicted that the Bush tax cuts would pay for themselves, and after 8 years, they did not.
Of course, you can always say that decreased tax revenue is worth the GDP growth. Some folks just think the latter is more important than the former, enough to justify a tax cut of a certain magnitude. Ultimately, the question is whether we are willing to drastically slash the public sector in order to slightly grow the private sector.
Both Bush and Obama are guilty of that.
Even if a President tried, he should at least respect the due process in place in America which is to run it through congress as an official procedure.
If i were to make an exception in this case which i won't, the destabilization of Libya as an end result is morally reprehensible, just like Iraq.
Why is the U.S. even in Africa?
Is he holding Trump and Rollers in accountable for those deaths to same standard that he is holding Clinton for Libya?
Not a comparable situation. The new prevalence of drone killing was a factor, and drone killing is a whole nother kettle of fish with the Obama administration, on top of the sheer amount of innocent people dead and struggling now in Libya.
In its defense, however, it did work once. Post-WWII, when the highest tax bracket was at 94% (yes, 94%) we did see an increase in revenues when it was stepped down to a mere 85%-ish.
That's right--the next time tax rates hit 94% we can count on tax cuts to increase revenues.
A diplomat on the other hand... after a embassy was stormed, which is considered American soil.
I guess it's ok to tell the world it is ok to do that because the President and the Congress are of differing parties. Much easier for the Republicans to shove all the blame on Clinton for the fiasco.
Part of the rationale for the sort of tax cuts the Republicans are proposing is the belief that this factor of increased compliance is important even at much lower rates of tax, i.e. that reducing tax from say 30% to 20% will largely pay for itself by more of the money in the economy being taxed. I'm not convinced that will happen, but time will tell ...
Hmm, this was unexpected.
Bernie would probably be happy.
The policeman:
a. Serves the Greek people and performs its duties, as defined by the Constitution and laws. "
now is: "I swear to obey my superiors and to execute their orders gladly" and I wonder if the order is of criminal nature what then? logical paradox...
And we wonder why we are full of anti authoritarians...
If he signs it now, Trump would trigger $25 billion in automatic Medicare cuts.
That's why he's not signing the bill until January. That way, due to Congressional 'Paygo' rules the cuts won't go into effect immediately but will occur in 2019. That way Trump thinks he and Republicans won't suffer from this in the 2018 midterms. He's hoping to hoodwink people again.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/12/why-trump-wont-be-signing-his-tax-cuts-right-away/548906/
1. a democrat
2. a good politician
3. a bad politician
4. a dictator
5. a tyrrant
6. a fascist
Pick your poison
Interestingly a commentator said that its likely this will encourage more and more companies to do this stuff like a chain reaction.
Same sex marriage in Australia is expected to be legalized this coming Christmas.