I could probably just riposte with my argument that folks on the left live in 'La la Kumbaya Land' naivety where everything is fair, everybody gets along and nobody wants for anything, but I really don't believe that all liberal pegs fit in that slot. Likewise I'd like to see a little less paladin-like morality preaching on your side as well.
This is one of the serious problems with US politics in that people seem to genuinely think that centrist neoliberals and liberals are leftists. The Overton Window is a hell of a drug.
Actual leftists (as in various flavors of socialists, communists, and anarchists, excluding ancaps who are neither leftist nor anarchist) are perfectly aware of what the world is like, which is why many would love to overthrow the current order. I don't know a single leftist who believes the nonsense you just spouted. This is why they want a world where things are as fair as possible, where people can at least try to get along, and where no one wants for anything. These are good goals.
As far as "paladin-like morality preaching" from anyone to the left of Hillary Clinton? Conservatives want to destroy people's lives with their policies, let the infrastructure break down, and do this while funneling as much money as possible into the wealthiest one percent's bank accounts. I'm hard-pressed to see the modern GOP as anything but profoundly immoral and unethical to the point of openly advocating genocide, and the people who vote them in are culpable as well.
If paladin-like morality preaching is "You know, maybe it's actually good to let people live their lives, insure they have good health care, shelter, and enough food, and aren't persecuted just for who they are" then I can only imagine where the typical Republican wants everything to be, and it really does make them look like genuinely awful people
There's a way for people to have good healthcare, shelter, and enough food. It's called working. As far as letting people live their lives and not persecuting them? Fine by me...
Up to 25 percent of homeless individuals have jobs, so employment doesn't always work as a solution for that problem. Having been in the position of being "working homeless" at one point several years ago, I can honestly say that having a job and working as hard as you can at it isn't necessarily a guarantee that you'll secure the goods and services needed to maintain a roof over your head, let alone be able to prosper.
Services that can assist with that are certainly welcome.
In the UK we have "In-work benefit payments" which are given to thousands of people every month because their lousy zero-hour contract jobs don't pay nearly enough to keep a roof over their heads or food on the table.
In today's society hard work doesn't guarantee anything.
I could probably just riposte with my argument that folks on the left live in 'La la Kumbaya Land' naivety where everything is fair, everybody gets along and nobody wants for anything, but I really don't believe that all liberal pegs fit in that slot. Likewise I'd like to see a little less paladin-like morality preaching on your side as well.
This is one of the serious problems with US politics in that people seem to genuinely think that centrist neoliberals and liberals are leftists. The Overton Window is a hell of a drug.
Actual leftists (as in various flavors of socialists, communists, and anarchists, excluding ancaps who are neither leftist nor anarchist) are perfectly aware of what the world is like, which is why many would love to overthrow the current order. I don't know a single leftist who believes the nonsense you just spouted. This is why they want a world where things are as fair as possible, where people can at least try to get along, and where no one wants for anything. These are good goals.
As far as "paladin-like morality preaching" from anyone to the left of Hillary Clinton? Conservatives want to destroy people's lives with their policies, let the infrastructure break down, and do this while funneling as much money as possible into the wealthiest one percent's bank accounts. I'm hard-pressed to see the modern GOP as anything but profoundly immoral and unethical to the point of openly advocating genocide, and the people who vote them in are culpable as well.
If paladin-like morality preaching is "You know, maybe it's actually good to let people live their lives, insure they have good health care, shelter, and enough food, and aren't persecuted just for who they are" then I can only imagine where the typical Republican wants everything to be, and it really does make them look like genuinely awful people
There's a way for people to have good healthcare, shelter, and enough food. It's called working. As far as letting people live their lives and not persecuting them? Fine by me...
Up to 25 percent of homeless individuals have jobs, so employment doesn't always work as a solution for that problem. Having been in the position of being "working homeless" at one point several years ago, I can honestly say that having a job and working as hard as you can at it isn't necessarily a guarantee that you'll secure the goods and services needed to maintain a roof over your head, let alone be able to prosper.
Services that can assist with that are certainly welcome.
I could get on board with that idea. I feel bad for people who live on the coasts. It's rather ironic that some of the most liberal cities are the least friendly to the poor and lower middle classes...
In international news, to distract from impeachment proceedings Trump is threatening our traditional allies in East Asia, Japan and Korea.
"Shame if something were to happen to your country, you'd better pay up, four times what you've been paying."
It looks like he's trying to destroy America's reputation on the way out in order to create a different story apart from his blatant corruption.
Oh and this move benefits Putin of course who stands to gain from a reduced US presence in the region.
Trump hikes price tag for US forces in Korea and Japan almost 400% as Seoul questions alliance
In international news, to distract from impeachment proceedings Trump is threatening our traditional allies in East Asia, Japan and Korea.
"Shame if something were to happen to your country, you'd better pay up, four times what you've been paying."
It looks like he's trying to destroy America's reputation on the way out in order to create a different story apart from his blatant corruption.
Oh and this move benefits Putin of course who stands to gain from a reduced US presence in the region.
Trump hikes price tag for US forces in Korea and Japan almost 400% as Seoul questions alliance
Trump is using his usual ham-fisted methods but clearly when the GDP of South Korea is $1.7 trillion, paying an extra $4 billion won't break their banks. $Billions sound like a lot, but it's really a rounding error for the 11th largest world economy. Ditto for Japan. I say these types of agreements need to be addressed. It's funny how liberals and conservatives are almost flipped in regards to foreign policy. Trump seems to be willing to shake things up, while the left (and a sizable minority of the right) are unwilling to change the status-quo...
I could probably just riposte with my argument that folks on the left live in 'La la Kumbaya Land' naivety where everything is fair, everybody gets along and nobody wants for anything, but I really don't believe that all liberal pegs fit in that slot. Likewise I'd like to see a little less paladin-like morality preaching on your side as well.
This is one of the serious problems with US politics in that people seem to genuinely think that centrist neoliberals and liberals are leftists. The Overton Window is a hell of a drug.
Actual leftists (as in various flavors of socialists, communists, and anarchists, excluding ancaps who are neither leftist nor anarchist) are perfectly aware of what the world is like, which is why many would love to overthrow the current order. I don't know a single leftist who believes the nonsense you just spouted. This is why they want a world where things are as fair as possible, where people can at least try to get along, and where no one wants for anything. These are good goals.
As far as "paladin-like morality preaching" from anyone to the left of Hillary Clinton? Conservatives want to destroy people's lives with their policies, let the infrastructure break down, and do this while funneling as much money as possible into the wealthiest one percent's bank accounts. I'm hard-pressed to see the modern GOP as anything but profoundly immoral and unethical to the point of openly advocating genocide, and the people who vote them in are culpable as well.
If paladin-like morality preaching is "You know, maybe it's actually good to let people live their lives, insure they have good health care, shelter, and enough food, and aren't persecuted just for who they are" then I can only imagine where the typical Republican wants everything to be, and it really does make them look like genuinely awful people
There's a way for people to have good healthcare, shelter, and enough food. It's called working. As far as letting people live their lives and not persecuting them? Fine by me...
And once anagin, leaving the disabled, elderly, and their caretakers out of the lurch. Don't even give me the "I didn't mean the disabled" line either. If you had remotely considered them at all, you would have mentioned them. Nevermind that "working" in the US just means you starve slower for a lot of people.
I could probably just riposte with my argument that folks on the left live in 'La la Kumbaya Land' naivety where everything is fair, everybody gets along and nobody wants for anything, but I really don't believe that all liberal pegs fit in that slot. Likewise I'd like to see a little less paladin-like morality preaching on your side as well.
This is one of the serious problems with US politics in that people seem to genuinely think that centrist neoliberals and liberals are leftists. The Overton Window is a hell of a drug.
Actual leftists (as in various flavors of socialists, communists, and anarchists, excluding ancaps who are neither leftist nor anarchist) are perfectly aware of what the world is like, which is why many would love to overthrow the current order. I don't know a single leftist who believes the nonsense you just spouted. This is why they want a world where things are as fair as possible, where people can at least try to get along, and where no one wants for anything. These are good goals.
As far as "paladin-like morality preaching" from anyone to the left of Hillary Clinton? Conservatives want to destroy people's lives with their policies, let the infrastructure break down, and do this while funneling as much money as possible into the wealthiest one percent's bank accounts. I'm hard-pressed to see the modern GOP as anything but profoundly immoral and unethical to the point of openly advocating genocide, and the people who vote them in are culpable as well.
If paladin-like morality preaching is "You know, maybe it's actually good to let people live their lives, insure they have good health care, shelter, and enough food, and aren't persecuted just for who they are" then I can only imagine where the typical Republican wants everything to be, and it really does make them look like genuinely awful people
There's a way for people to have good healthcare, shelter, and enough food. It's called working. As far as letting people live their lives and not persecuting them? Fine by me...
And once anagin, leaving the disabled, elderly, and their caretakers out of the lurch. Don't even give me the "I didn't mean the disabled" line either. If you had remotely considered them at all, you would have mentioned them. Nevermind that "working" in the US just means you starve slower for a lot of people.
Don't put words in my mouth or try to divine my meaning by what I don't mention. We already have Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security for the disabled and elderly. I clearly said in my response to @GundanRTO that I could get on board with expanding our safety net, but I guess that doesn't fit your 'heartless conservative' template so it must have been in your blind spot.
In international news, to distract from impeachment proceedings Trump is threatening our traditional allies in East Asia, Japan and Korea.
"Shame if something were to happen to your country, you'd better pay up, four times what you've been paying."
It looks like he's trying to destroy America's reputation on the way out in order to create a different story apart from his blatant corruption.
Oh and this move benefits Putin of course who stands to gain from a reduced US presence in the region.
Trump hikes price tag for US forces in Korea and Japan almost 400% as Seoul questions alliance
Trump is using his usual ham-fisted methods but clearly when the GDP of South Korea is $1.7 trillion, paying an extra $4 billion won't break their banks. $Billions sound like a lot, but it's really a rounding error for the 11th largest world economy. Ditto for Japan. I say these types of agreements need to be addressed. It's funny how liberals and conservatives are almost flipped in regards to foreign policy. Trump seems to be willing to shake things up, while the left (and a sizable minority of the right) are unwilling to change the status-quo...
I don't have a problem in principle with changing the basis of the agreement to be a more equal partnership - in fact I would encourage it. I would note though that this sort of negotiation tactic he loves (sort of a combination of chaos theory and bullying) is dreadful if you want to build a lasting partnership (equal or otherwise). That doesn't worry Trump of course as he doesn't believe in such things - any deal has to be seen as beneficial right now, rather than of long term benefit.
However, this still seems to me like muddled thinking. I suspect if you asked Trump if he wanted the US to have less influence in the world he would say no, but almost all his foreign policy actions seem to be having that effect, e.g.:
- trying to move military agreements to a basis of equal partnership (rather than the current position of effectively purchasing influence);
- withdrawing from some international agreements such as climate change and Iran (leaving the US isolated while other countries take decisions that effect it);
- undermining other international bodies such as UN and WTO (reducing the tools the US can use to project power);
- disparaging historic allies and praising historic enemies (potentially ending up in a position where no country wishes to ally with the US);
- using naked power tactics to try and get specific policies adopted (like in Ukraine and Mexico / South America - reducing popularity and making it harder to achieve consensus in the future).
In international news, to distract from impeachment proceedings Trump is threatening our traditional allies in East Asia, Japan and Korea.
"Shame if something were to happen to your country, you'd better pay up, four times what you've been paying."
It looks like he's trying to destroy America's reputation on the way out in order to create a different story apart from his blatant corruption.
Oh and this move benefits Putin of course who stands to gain from a reduced US presence in the region.
Trump hikes price tag for US forces in Korea and Japan almost 400% as Seoul questions alliance
Trump is using his usual ham-fisted methods but clearly when the GDP of South Korea is $1.7 trillion, paying an extra $4 billion won't break their banks. $Billions sound like a lot, but it's really a rounding error for the 11th largest world economy. Ditto for Japan. I say these types of agreements need to be addressed. It's funny how liberals and conservatives are almost flipped in regards to foreign policy. Trump seems to be willing to shake things up, while the left (and a sizable minority of the right) are unwilling to change the status-quo...
I don't have a problem in principle with changing the basis of the agreement to be a more equal partnership - in fact I would encourage it. I would note though that this sort of negotiation tactic he loves (sort of a combination of chaos theory and bullying) is dreadful if you want to build a lasting partnership (equal or otherwise). That doesn't worry Trump of course as he doesn't believe in such things - any deal has to be seen as beneficial right now, rather than of long term benefit.
However, this still seems to me like muddled thinking. I suspect if you asked Trump if he wanted the US to have less influence in the world he would say no, but almost all his foreign policy actions seem to be having that effect, e.g.:
- trying to move military agreements to a basis of equal partnership (rather than the current position of effectively purchasing influence);
- withdrawing from some international agreements such as climate change and Iran (leaving the US isolated while other countries take decisions that effect it);
- undermining other international bodies such as UN and WTO (reducing the tools the US can use to project power);
- disparaging historic allies and praising historic enemies (potentially ending up in a position where no country wishes to ally with the US);
- using naked power tactics to try and get specific policies adopted (like in Ukraine and Mexico / South America - reducing popularity and making it harder to achieve consensus in the future).
I agree that although I may not object much to any 'individual' action on Trump's part, the overall picture is really foggy. I'm not sure if he has any clear strategy. It sure doesn't look like it to me. His foreign policy is all over the place...
In international news, to distract from impeachment proceedings Trump is threatening our traditional allies in East Asia, Japan and Korea.
"Shame if something were to happen to your country, you'd better pay up, four times what you've been paying."
It looks like he's trying to destroy America's reputation on the way out in order to create a different story apart from his blatant corruption.
Oh and this move benefits Putin of course who stands to gain from a reduced US presence in the region.
Trump hikes price tag for US forces in Korea and Japan almost 400% as Seoul questions alliance
Trump is using his usual ham-fisted methods but clearly when the GDP of South Korea is $1.7 trillion, paying an extra $4 billion won't break their banks. $Billions sound like a lot, but it's really a rounding error for the 11th largest world economy. Ditto for Japan. I say these types of agreements need to be addressed. It's funny how liberals and conservatives are almost flipped in regards to foreign policy. Trump seems to be willing to shake things up, while the left (and a sizable minority of the right) are unwilling to change the status-quo...
I don't have a problem in principle with changing the basis of the agreement to be a more equal partnership - in fact I would encourage it. I would note though that this sort of negotiation tactic he loves (sort of a combination of chaos theory and bullying) is dreadful if you want to build a lasting partnership (equal or otherwise). That doesn't worry Trump of course as he doesn't believe in such things - any deal has to be seen as beneficial right now, rather than of long term benefit.
However, this still seems to me like muddled thinking. I suspect if you asked Trump if he wanted the US to have less influence in the world he would say no, but almost all his foreign policy actions seem to be having that effect, e.g.:
- trying to move military agreements to a basis of equal partnership (rather than the current position of effectively purchasing influence);
- withdrawing from some international agreements such as climate change and Iran (leaving the US isolated while other countries take decisions that effect it);
- undermining other international bodies such as UN and WTO (reducing the tools the US can use to project power);
- disparaging historic allies and praising historic enemies (potentially ending up in a position where no country wishes to ally with the US);
- using naked power tactics to try and get specific policies adopted (like in Ukraine and Mexico / South America - reducing popularity and making it harder to achieve consensus in the future).
I agree that although I may not object much to any 'individual' action on Trump's part, the overall picture is really foggy. I'm not sure if he has any clear strategy. It sure doesn't look like it to me. His foreign policy is all over the place...
His foreign policy is dictated by whoever buys out floors at his hotels. He isn't psychologically capable of caring about anyone but himself, much less the country as a whole. He believes winning the Presidency means he owns the United States.
Conservatives want to destroy people's lives with their policies, let the infrastructure break down, and do this while funneling as much money as possible into the wealthiest one percent's bank accounts. I'm hard-pressed to see the modern GOP as anything but profoundly immoral and unethical to the point of openly advocating genocide, and the people who vote them in are culpable as well.
If paladin-like morality preaching is "You know, maybe it's actually good to let people live their lives, insure they have good health care, shelter, and enough food, and aren't persecuted just for who they are" then I can only imagine where the typical Republican wants everything to be, and it really does make them look like genuinely awful people
Several of our most common contributors to this thread lean conservative, and they most definitely do not want to hurt people--nor should it be necessary to point this out. Belonging to a "side," or even voting for a given candidate, does not make an ordinary citizen into a villain.
Political leaders and public figures are acceptable targets on this forum, but ordinary folks--whether it's a specific person, or demographic groups like liberal or conservative--are not.
I could probably just riposte with my argument that folks on the left live in 'La la Kumbaya Land' naivety where everything is fair, everybody gets along and nobody wants for anything, but I really don't believe that all liberal pegs fit in that slot. Likewise I'd like to see a little less paladin-like morality preaching on your side as well.
This is one of the serious problems with US politics in that people seem to genuinely think that centrist neoliberals and liberals are leftists. The Overton Window is a hell of a drug.
Actual leftists (as in various flavors of socialists, communists, and anarchists, excluding ancaps who are neither leftist nor anarchist) are perfectly aware of what the world is like, which is why many would love to overthrow the current order. I don't know a single leftist who believes the nonsense you just spouted. This is why they want a world where things are as fair as possible, where people can at least try to get along, and where no one wants for anything. These are good goals.
As far as "paladin-like morality preaching" from anyone to the left of Hillary Clinton? Conservatives want to destroy people's lives with their policies, let the infrastructure break down, and do this while funneling as much money as possible into the wealthiest one percent's bank accounts. I'm hard-pressed to see the modern GOP as anything but profoundly immoral and unethical to the point of openly advocating genocide, and the people who vote them in are culpable as well.
If paladin-like morality preaching is "You know, maybe it's actually good to let people live their lives, insure they have good health care, shelter, and enough food, and aren't persecuted just for who they are" then I can only imagine where the typical Republican wants everything to be, and it really does make them look like genuinely awful people
There's a way for people to have good healthcare, shelter, and enough food. It's called working. As far as letting people live their lives and not persecuting them? Fine by me...
And once anagin, leaving the disabled, elderly, and their caretakers out of the lurch. Don't even give me the "I didn't mean the disabled" line either. If you had remotely considered them at all, you would have mentioned them. Nevermind that "working" in the US just means you starve slower for a lot of people.
Don't put words in my mouth or try to divine my meaning by what I don't mention. We already have Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security for the disabled and elderly. I clearly said in my response to @GundanRTO that I could get on board with expanding our safety net, but I guess that doesn't fit your 'heartless conservative' template so it must have been in your blind spot.
Oh yeah, I must have misread this, "There's a way for people to have good healthcare, shelter, and enough food. It's called working. As far as letting people live their lives and not persecuting them? Fine by me..."
Yup, clearly this means you want expand saftey nets.
Disagreeing or agreeing with anything makes one a villain these days. I'm a villain to both 'sides' since I don't wholeheartedly agree with either of them.
BWA HA HA HAAAA!!!
Edit: Incidentally, the further down the ladder of power, the more likely I am to vote Democrat. Ponder that one...
Disagreeing or agreeing with anything makes one a villain these days. I'm a villain to both 'sides' since I don't wholeheartedly agree with either of them.
BWA HA HA HAAAA!!!
Edit: Incidentally, the further down the ladder of power, the more likely I am to vote Democrat. Ponder that one...
Not much to ponder. Generally speaking since Reagan, Democrats believe in government and Republicans don't. The lower down the ladder the candidates are, the more local they are to you. And since it's local, it directly effects your quality of life, and you'd prefer to have things funded and functioning. Even a conservative will take a tax hike if it's for their kid's school.
Disagreeing or agreeing with anything makes one a villain these days. I'm a villain to both 'sides' since I don't wholeheartedly agree with either of them.
BWA HA HA HAAAA!!!
Edit: Incidentally, the further down the ladder of power, the more likely I am to vote Democrat. Ponder that one...
Not much to ponder. Generally speaking since Reagan, Democrats believe in government and Republicans don't. The lower down the ladder the candidates are, the more local they are to you. And since it's local, it directly effects your quality of life, and you'd prefer to have things funded and functioning. Even a conservative will take a tax hike if it's for their kid's school.
I'd say conservatives in general don't believe in an overly strong 'federal' government for sure. That's the main problem I have with today's Republicans. They're basically for a marginally less powerful central government than the Democrats. They're also more and more forcing their religion on people...
Disagreeing or agreeing with anything makes one a villain these days. I'm a villain to both 'sides' since I don't wholeheartedly agree with either of them.
BWA HA HA HAAAA!!!
Edit: Incidentally, the further down the ladder of power, the more likely I am to vote Democrat. Ponder that one...
Not much to ponder. Generally speaking since Reagan, Democrats believe in government and Republicans don't. The lower down the ladder the candidates are, the more local they are to you. And since it's local, it directly effects your quality of life, and you'd prefer to have things funded and functioning. Even a conservative will take a tax hike if it's for their kid's school.
I'd say conservatives in general don't believe in an overly strong 'federal' government for sure. That's the main problem I have with today's Republicans. They're basically for a marginally less powerful central government than the Democrats. They're also more and more forcing their religion on people...
Local conservative politicians are also going to find it significantly harder to do the whole "we're not paying for that" schtick when a water main breaks or if everyone's suspension in their vehicle is having to get repaired because of the potholes on Lincoln Ave. It's easy to talk about not footing the bill when they're talking about people who are far away. That shit doesn't fly when the soccer mom whose van is in the shop is someone you're going to see in line at the market or at the concession stand at a basketball game.
I'm no fan of Jon Bel Edwards, but his re-election tonight in Louisiana continues the exact same trend we have seen on election nights for the last 3 years, which is the total abandonment of the GOP by suburban voters. Edward's vote totals in those areas tonight was up over 12 points compared to 2015. And another race in which Trump flew down to stage a rally for the Republican in the deep South that couldn't pull them over the finish line.
Disagreeing or agreeing with anything makes one a villain these days. I'm a villain to both 'sides' since I don't wholeheartedly agree with either of them.
BWA HA HA HAAAA!!!
Edit: Incidentally, the further down the ladder of power, the more likely I am to vote Democrat. Ponder that one...
FWIW I did not have you specifically in mind. I was trying to make a point, but I made it badly.
Disagreeing or agreeing with anything makes one a villain these days. I'm a villain to both 'sides' since I don't wholeheartedly agree with either of them.
BWA HA HA HAAAA!!!
Edit: Incidentally, the further down the ladder of power, the more likely I am to vote Democrat. Ponder that one...
FWIW I did not have you specifically in mind. I was trying to make a point, but I made it badly.
Not to worry. I wasn't specifically responding to you either. I wouldn't spend so much time in this thread if everybody agreed with me!
Disagreeing or agreeing with anything makes one a villain these days. I'm a villain to both 'sides' since I don't wholeheartedly agree with either of them.
BWA HA HA HAAAA!!!
Edit: Incidentally, the further down the ladder of power, the more likely I am to vote Democrat. Ponder that one...
Not much to ponder. Generally speaking since Reagan, Democrats believe in government and Republicans don't. The lower down the ladder the candidates are, the more local they are to you. And since it's local, it directly effects your quality of life, and you'd prefer to have things funded and functioning. Even a conservative will take a tax hike if it's for their kid's school.
I'd say conservatives in general don't believe in an overly strong 'federal' government for sure. That's the main problem I have with today's Republicans. They're basically for a marginally less powerful central government than the Democrats. They're also more and more forcing their religion on people...
Local conservative politicians are also going to find it significantly harder to do the whole "we're not paying for that" schtick when a water main breaks or if everyone's suspension in their vehicle is having to get repaired because of the potholes on Lincoln Ave. It's easy to talk about not footing the bill when they're talking about people who are far away. That shit doesn't fly when the soccer mom whose van is in the shop is someone you're going to see in line at the market or at the concession stand at a basketball game.
That's why power concentration at the top is scary to me. The more power we give the Feds, the more we allow people who don't give a shit about us to control our lives.
FedEx apparently paid less than zero dollars in taxes in 2018 due to the Trump administration's tax bill. FedEx spent $10 million (with an "m") in lobbying, and reaped $1.6 billion (with a "b") in tax cuts.
The logic was that companies would spend more on investments if their taxes were lowered. Instead, that money appears to have just gone into stock buybacks, enriching corporate leaders and doing essentially nothing else.
As for capital investments, the company spent less in the 2018 fiscal year than it had projected in December 2017, before the tax law passed. It spent even less in 2019. Much of its savings have gone to reward shareholders: FedEx spent more than $2 billion on stock buybacks and dividend increases in the 2019 fiscal year, up from $1.6 billion in 2018, and more than double the amount the company spent on buybacks and dividends in fiscal year 2017.
...
From the first quarter of 2018, when the law fully took effect, companies have spent nearly three times as much on additional dividends and stock buybacks, which boost a company’s stock price and market value, than on increased investment.
FedEx apparently paid less than zero dollars in taxes in 2018 due to the Trump administration's tax bill. FedEx spent $10 million (with an "m") in lobbying, and reaped $1.6 billion (with a "b") in tax cuts.
The logic was that companies would spend more on investments if their taxes were lowered. Instead, that money appears to have just gone into stock buybacks, enriching corporate leaders and doing essentially nothing else.
As for capital investments, the company spent less in the 2018 fiscal year than it had projected in December 2017, before the tax law passed. It spent even less in 2019. Much of its savings have gone to reward shareholders: FedEx spent more than $2 billion on stock buybacks and dividend increases in the 2019 fiscal year, up from $1.6 billion in 2018, and more than double the amount the company spent on buybacks and dividends in fiscal year 2017.
...
From the first quarter of 2018, when the law fully took effect, companies have spent nearly three times as much on additional dividends and stock buybacks, which boost a company’s stock price and market value, than on increased investment.
With the added benefit of Republicans, once again, calling for cuts to entitlements to make up for the lost revenue, which, when you boil everything down, is the whole plan. Cut taxes, which forces a loss in revenue (even though they insist EVERY time it will increase revenue, even though it never does) which then means they get to call for cuts in social spending. Take out all the culture war bullshit they use as the rallying flag. THIS is the Republican agenda boiled down to a paragraph. Has been this way for 35+ years. And this is why Sanders and Warren are essentially basing their campaigns on running against billionaires.
Polls have shown that people overwhelmingly have seen no change because of these cuts, and we are still in the high-end years before all the deductions get phased out over time. This is Trump's only real legislative accomplishment (everything else has been either an inherent power of the office or total Executive overreach), and it's been nothing but a boondoggle for the 1%.
This is on the heels of a report recently that 40% of all farm income in 2019 came from direct federal aide payments. 40%. Nearly half. Socialism for those who "deserve" it, and a pull yourself up by your bootstraps go screw yourself to everyone else.
Disagreeing or agreeing with anything makes one a villain these days. I'm a villain to both 'sides' since I don't wholeheartedly agree with either of them.
BWA HA HA HAAAA!!!
Edit: Incidentally, the further down the ladder of power, the more likely I am to vote Democrat. Ponder that one...
Not much to ponder. Generally speaking since Reagan, Democrats believe in government and Republicans don't. The lower down the ladder the candidates are, the more local they are to you. And since it's local, it directly effects your quality of life, and you'd prefer to have things funded and functioning. Even a conservative will take a tax hike if it's for their kid's school.
I'd say conservatives in general don't believe in an overly strong 'federal' government for sure. That's the main problem I have with today's Republicans. They're basically for a marginally less powerful central government than the Democrats. They're also more and more forcing their religion on people...
Local conservative politicians are also going to find it significantly harder to do the whole "we're not paying for that" schtick when a water main breaks or if everyone's suspension in their vehicle is having to get repaired because of the potholes on Lincoln Ave. It's easy to talk about not footing the bill when they're talking about people who are far away. That shit doesn't fly when the soccer mom whose van is in the shop is someone you're going to see in line at the market or at the concession stand at a basketball game.
That's why power concentration at the top is scary to me. The more power we give the Feds, the more we allow people who don't give a shit about us to control our lives.
You mean like we have right now with corporations?
FedEx apparently paid less than zero dollars in taxes in 2018 due to the Trump administration's tax bill. FedEx spent $10 million (with an "m") in lobbying, and reaped $1.6 billion (with a "b") in tax cuts.
The logic was that companies would spend more on investments if their taxes were lowered. Instead, that money appears to have just gone into stock buybacks, enriching corporate leaders and doing essentially nothing else.
I'm old enough to remember when Wal-mart handed out bonuses immediately after the Trump tax cut, and conservatives everywhere (include some in this thread) were rejoicing at the validation of their economic world view.
Turns out it was just a PR stunt to make sure they werent blamed for taking 99% of their tax savings and running with it.
Elizabeth Warren has released some plans for how she'd reform health care even if the GOP held control of the Senate. Notably, she plans to lower drug prices by rescinding patents on medications that were developed with taxpayer money, and also allow the government itself to manufacture drugs during emergencies, including insulin, EpiPens, antibiotics and medications for hepatitis C, H.I.V. and opioid overdoses.
I especially like the latter idea. A publicly-funded manufacturer wouldn't need (or have any reason to) jack up drug prices to increase profits. Medicine is usually hard to develop but very cheap to manufacture.
Meanwhile, Biden refuses to come out for national marijuana legalization because he believes it might still be a "gateway drug". Is it still 1994?? I feel like I'm back in middle-school. How long as we going to continue this nonsense about such a benign substance?? I don't smoke, I guess on balance it's probably better if one doesn't do so. But you know what?? I also probably shouldn't order Double Whoppers or buy 12 oz. Red Bulls. But sometimes I do. And with the literal carnage that cigarettes and alcohol cause, this just gets more ridiculous by the year. Joe Biden is running a successful campaign for 20 years ago.
If people would like an example of how even the most mundane of tasks most of us take for granted being able to do everyday can turn into humiliating nighmares for others, I present this story of a transgender women being forced to remove her make-up with hand sanitizer to get her driver's license photo taken:
If people would like an example of how even the most mundane of tasks most of us take for granted being able to do everyday can turn into humiliating nighmares for others, I present this story of a transgender women being forced to remove her make-up with hand sanitizer to get her driver's license photo taken:
Comments
Up to 25 percent of homeless individuals have jobs, so employment doesn't always work as a solution for that problem. Having been in the position of being "working homeless" at one point several years ago, I can honestly say that having a job and working as hard as you can at it isn't necessarily a guarantee that you'll secure the goods and services needed to maintain a roof over your head, let alone be able to prosper.
Services that can assist with that are certainly welcome.
In today's society hard work doesn't guarantee anything.
I could get on board with that idea. I feel bad for people who live on the coasts. It's rather ironic that some of the most liberal cities are the least friendly to the poor and lower middle classes...
"Shame if something were to happen to your country, you'd better pay up, four times what you've been paying."
It looks like he's trying to destroy America's reputation on the way out in order to create a different story apart from his blatant corruption.
Oh and this move benefits Putin of course who stands to gain from a reduced US presence in the region.
Trump hikes price tag for US forces in Korea and Japan almost 400% as Seoul questions alliance
https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/14/politics/trump-south-korea-troops-price-hike/index.html
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-japan-usa-idUSKBN1XQ06F
Trump is using his usual ham-fisted methods but clearly when the GDP of South Korea is $1.7 trillion, paying an extra $4 billion won't break their banks. $Billions sound like a lot, but it's really a rounding error for the 11th largest world economy. Ditto for Japan. I say these types of agreements need to be addressed. It's funny how liberals and conservatives are almost flipped in regards to foreign policy. Trump seems to be willing to shake things up, while the left (and a sizable minority of the right) are unwilling to change the status-quo...
And once anagin, leaving the disabled, elderly, and their caretakers out of the lurch. Don't even give me the "I didn't mean the disabled" line either. If you had remotely considered them at all, you would have mentioned them. Nevermind that "working" in the US just means you starve slower for a lot of people.
Don't put words in my mouth or try to divine my meaning by what I don't mention. We already have Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security for the disabled and elderly. I clearly said in my response to @GundanRTO that I could get on board with expanding our safety net, but I guess that doesn't fit your 'heartless conservative' template so it must have been in your blind spot.
I don't have a problem in principle with changing the basis of the agreement to be a more equal partnership - in fact I would encourage it. I would note though that this sort of negotiation tactic he loves (sort of a combination of chaos theory and bullying) is dreadful if you want to build a lasting partnership (equal or otherwise). That doesn't worry Trump of course as he doesn't believe in such things - any deal has to be seen as beneficial right now, rather than of long term benefit.
However, this still seems to me like muddled thinking. I suspect if you asked Trump if he wanted the US to have less influence in the world he would say no, but almost all his foreign policy actions seem to be having that effect, e.g.:
- trying to move military agreements to a basis of equal partnership (rather than the current position of effectively purchasing influence);
- withdrawing from some international agreements such as climate change and Iran (leaving the US isolated while other countries take decisions that effect it);
- undermining other international bodies such as UN and WTO (reducing the tools the US can use to project power);
- disparaging historic allies and praising historic enemies (potentially ending up in a position where no country wishes to ally with the US);
- using naked power tactics to try and get specific policies adopted (like in Ukraine and Mexico / South America - reducing popularity and making it harder to achieve consensus in the future).
I agree that although I may not object much to any 'individual' action on Trump's part, the overall picture is really foggy. I'm not sure if he has any clear strategy. It sure doesn't look like it to me. His foreign policy is all over the place...
His foreign policy is dictated by whoever buys out floors at his hotels. He isn't psychologically capable of caring about anyone but himself, much less the country as a whole. He believes winning the Presidency means he owns the United States.
Political leaders and public figures are acceptable targets on this forum, but ordinary folks--whether it's a specific person, or demographic groups like liberal or conservative--are not.
Oh yeah, I must have misread this, "There's a way for people to have good healthcare, shelter, and enough food. It's called working. As far as letting people live their lives and not persecuting them? Fine by me..."
Yup, clearly this means you want expand saftey nets.
BWA HA HA HAAAA!!!
Edit: Incidentally, the further down the ladder of power, the more likely I am to vote Democrat. Ponder that one...
https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/11/14/opinions/perception-gap-republican-democrat-yudkin/index.html?r=https://www.cnn.com/
Not much to ponder. Generally speaking since Reagan, Democrats believe in government and Republicans don't. The lower down the ladder the candidates are, the more local they are to you. And since it's local, it directly effects your quality of life, and you'd prefer to have things funded and functioning. Even a conservative will take a tax hike if it's for their kid's school.
I'd say conservatives in general don't believe in an overly strong 'federal' government for sure. That's the main problem I have with today's Republicans. They're basically for a marginally less powerful central government than the Democrats. They're also more and more forcing their religion on people...
Local conservative politicians are also going to find it significantly harder to do the whole "we're not paying for that" schtick when a water main breaks or if everyone's suspension in their vehicle is having to get repaired because of the potholes on Lincoln Ave. It's easy to talk about not footing the bill when they're talking about people who are far away. That shit doesn't fly when the soccer mom whose van is in the shop is someone you're going to see in line at the market or at the concession stand at a basketball game.
FWIW I did not have you specifically in mind. I was trying to make a point, but I made it badly.
Not to worry. I wasn't specifically responding to you either. I wouldn't spend so much time in this thread if everybody agreed with me!
That's why power concentration at the top is scary to me. The more power we give the Feds, the more we allow people who don't give a shit about us to control our lives.
The logic was that companies would spend more on investments if their taxes were lowered. Instead, that money appears to have just gone into stock buybacks, enriching corporate leaders and doing essentially nothing else.
With the added benefit of Republicans, once again, calling for cuts to entitlements to make up for the lost revenue, which, when you boil everything down, is the whole plan. Cut taxes, which forces a loss in revenue (even though they insist EVERY time it will increase revenue, even though it never does) which then means they get to call for cuts in social spending. Take out all the culture war bullshit they use as the rallying flag. THIS is the Republican agenda boiled down to a paragraph. Has been this way for 35+ years. And this is why Sanders and Warren are essentially basing their campaigns on running against billionaires.
Polls have shown that people overwhelmingly have seen no change because of these cuts, and we are still in the high-end years before all the deductions get phased out over time. This is Trump's only real legislative accomplishment (everything else has been either an inherent power of the office or total Executive overreach), and it's been nothing but a boondoggle for the 1%.
This is on the heels of a report recently that 40% of all farm income in 2019 came from direct federal aide payments. 40%. Nearly half. Socialism for those who "deserve" it, and a pull yourself up by your bootstraps go screw yourself to everyone else.
You mean like we have right now with corporations?
I'm old enough to remember when Wal-mart handed out bonuses immediately after the Trump tax cut, and conservatives everywhere (include some in this thread) were rejoicing at the validation of their economic world view.
Turns out it was just a PR stunt to make sure they werent blamed for taking 99% of their tax savings and running with it.
Guess we'll file that one down as an "Oops".
I especially like the latter idea. A publicly-funded manufacturer wouldn't need (or have any reason to) jack up drug prices to increase profits. Medicine is usually hard to develop but very cheap to manufacture.
https://fox13now.com/2019/11/15/transgender-woman-forced-to-remove-makeup-for-drivers-license-photo/amp/?__twitter_impression=true
OMG. The things that traumatize people these days I swear. She'll probably be scarred for life now.
These kids wouldn't survive two minutes in my old High School locker room...