Trump 2.0

Also noted that the GOP haveanaged to get their budget through, meaning $4.5tn in tax cuts, $800bn cut to Medicaid, and a raising of the debt ceiling by a mere $4tn for 2 years, at which point they'll ask for another one, and another. The report below suggests that the new debt ceiling of $40tn will be reached before the end of 2026, and that as a result of these tax cuts it will reach $55tn within 10 years.

That's assuming not only that the government can save the $1.5-2tn in the plan (doubtful) but also that there's a $2.6tn boost to the economy as a result (also doubtful), especially with tariffs.


During the debate over this budget, a democrat asked for an amendment that would mean those earning over $1m a year would get no tax cut, to show that the republicans really were "for the people". Every republican voted against that amendment.
So another amendment was tabled to say no tax cuts if you earn over $10m a year. Again rejected by the republicans.
So yet another was tabled with the figure at $100m a year. Rejected.


Only one republican didn't vote for this budget.

Sarkus said:

Also noted that the GOP haveanaged to get their budget through, meaning $4.5tn in tax cuts, $800bn cut to Medicaid, and a raising of the debt ceiling by a mere $4tn for 2 years, at which point they'll ask for another one, and another. The report below suggests that the new debt ceiling of $40tn will be reached before the end of 2026, and that as a result of these tax cuts it will reach $55tn within 10 years.

That's assuming not only that the government can save the $1.5-2tn in the plan (doubtful) but also that there's a $2.6tn boost to the economy as a result (also doubtful), especially with tariffs.

https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-budget/under-house-budget-plan-debt-limit-would-likely-be-reached-by-fall-202

During the debate over this budget, a democrat asked for an amendment that would mean those earning over $1m a year would get no tax cut, to show that the republicans really were "for the people". Every republican voted against that amendment.
So another amendment was tabled to say no tax cuts if you earn over $10m a year. Again rejected by the republicans.
So yet another was tabled with the figure at $100m a year. Rejected.


Only one republican didn't vote for this budget.

Click to expand...

My take on this subject is that they should just do away with the budget cap that no one follows and that causes these artificial disruptions every few years.

That's not to say that I don't care about the debt, I do. I just don't like the artificial disruptions that are meaningless.

The corporate tax cuts were permanent (as they should be IMO for competitive reason) so it's the personal rates that we are talking about. The upper rate was about 39% and dropped to about 37%. All the rates were effected on down the line.

You can see that if this was allowed to expire (my preference) that would cut another $2.2 trillion over 10 year. That's because it affects all tax payers and that's what you have to do to do anything meaningful.

If you did that we would still be looking at about $600 billion including the recent budget cuts, per year. That's a start but the deficit is $2 trillion a year. Still, it would be a start and those tax cuts weren't really needed, IMO.

If Trump did that, it would quit the "tax the rich" calls and then we would have to get serious with the real problem of addressing Social Security and Medicare reform and with reducing the military budget.

That's why we have the debt problem. You can't tax your way out of that. The numbers are too big. You cut what you can and grow your way out but not if you don't have meaningful cuts in the first place.

IMO you also let the tax cuts expire so that you get that political advantage and also so that you don't encourage the next Democrat admin to start in with "tax the wealth".

It's not much of a campaign "brag" to say that you cut government jobs and raised $200 billion is saving a year but the deficit is $2 trillion a year. The debt is still going to go up and up. You can't grow your way out of that. At least let those tax cuts expire and cut $600 billion instead of $200 billion.

The tariff nonsense is a train wreck of course. Even the Bitcoin positive polices (or promises) are hurt when as soon as you take office you put out the Trump and Melania meme coins, thus making a mockery out of the whole thing.

It's entertainment I guess. It's not Biden and Harris at least.

For the most part though, government is just something to try to avoid as far as letting it intrude into your own lives.

This idea of sending everyone a "check" is silly as well. The whole point was to reduce the debt.

I have a theory that anarcho-libertarians are, in fact, a form of the energy vampire--albeit more in the What We Do in the Shadows sense, and less in the pop psychology sense. Laughter and amusement is probably the most effective antidote to being bored to death.

Laughter and amusement is probably the most effective antidote to "Debbie Downer" of SNL fame.

James R said:

Moderator note: parmalee has been warned for advocating the violent murder of certain public figures to satisfy his own political or ideological aims.

This is dangerous and it will not be tolerated on sciforums.

Click to expand...

Just a quick note on this: I've always found it weird that the "offending text" gets flagged, but then remains, as written, for all to read. I don't really know how this would be rectified in most circumstances, but it does seem kind of odd.

That said, were I to revise what I had written, what I should have stated more unambiguously is that that is what I believe; however, I recognize and acknowledge that such is practically problematic. Hence, I am opposed to the death penalty, etc. for such reasons.

Trek said:

Despite our political differences, I’m sure we’re all very happy that the racist Joy Reid has been fired from MSNBC…

Hooray!!!!

Click to expand...

Don't know her over here, I assume she is a horrible lefty or gay? EDIT: Just checked, shes black so your post makes sense now.

Sarkus said:

The slow but seemingly incessant removal of any dissenting voice in the US media is sad to witness.

Click to expand...

Especially as it is coming not directly from Musk/Trump, but from the heads of ostensibly independent news organizations.

In fairness, I've never actually watched MSNBC, CNN or any of that legacy media tv crap. I guess I've seen some in airports, but even in hotels--where I watch a lot of tv--there's far better crap to waste my time on. But newspapers? Damn, the Washington Post and NYT have become truly awful--they can't even reference an AP piece without first scrubbing it for all "questionable" material.

Even just a couple of years back, one could still reasonably claim that most pertinent details were relatively easy to come by, even within the lamest of mainstream resources. That's changing fast.

parmalee said:

Especially as it is coming not directly from Musk/Trump, but from the multi-billionaire heads of ostensibly independent news organizations.

Click to expand...

There, corrected it for you, just to give it some context as to the indirect link.

Sarkus said:

There, corrected it for you, just to give it some context as to the indirect link.

Click to expand...

Yeah. One of my favorite old-timey journalists is George Seldes. He was an early 20th century anti-fascist muckraker, who arguably perfected the alleged "one-sided" perspective--albeit more in the Howard Zinn sense, in that he consistently attempted to report from the perspective of the underdog and the oppressed parties. His journalist writing is great, but his best work imho is the massive collection of quotations, The Great Thoughts. As far as collections of quotations go, that book is probably the most thorough and comprehensive with respect to collating anarchic and Marxian thought throughout the ages. It's definitely got a slant, but it is by no means wholly one-sided--it's even got some quotes from Newt Gingrich.

As far as I know, no one ever got into journalism because there was "good money" in it.

parmalee said:

His journalist writing is great, but his best work imho is the massive collection of quotations, The Great Thoughts.

Click to expand...

I'll look out for it.

parmalee said:

As far as I know, no one ever got into journalism because there was "good money" in it.

Click to expand...

I didn't realise he bought it back in 2013, otherwise I'd have thought he had gotten into it simply because he was the only one at the "Techbro Pointless Money Club" that didn't have a social media platform: Musk has XXX, Zuckerberg has Faceplant, and poor old Jeffrey was feeling left out. Even Trump has one.
But seems he bought it to push Amazon products and services. Ah, well. There goes my chance at joking at his expense.

Besides, I have a bit of a soft spot for TWP because of "All The Presidents Men" and "The Post". Good films.

Sarkus said:

"All The Presidents Men"

Click to expand...

One of my favourite films.

Sarkus said:

I'll look out for it.

I didn't realise he bought it back in 2013, otherwise I'd have thought he had gotten into it simply because he was the only one at the "Techbro Pointless Money Club" that didn't have a social media platform: Musk has XXX, Zuckerberg has Faceplant, and poor old Jeffrey was feeling left out. Even Trump has one.
But seems he bought it to push Amazon products and services. Ah, well. There goes my chance at joking at his expense.

Besides, I have a bit of a soft spot for TWP because of "All The Presidents Men" and "The Post". Good films.

Click to expand...

I actually worked very briefly for Amazon at the very beginning, when they were operating out of a large warehouse somewhere in Georgetown or south Seattle. As I recall, there was an office somewhere too, but for some reason I'm drawing a blank on that.

The best thing about Bezos was that he allowed people to bring their dogs to work. But even then, there's was something very apparently "off" about him--like, he was a stickler for the time clock! Seriously. And it didn't seem to be about making for neat record-keeping and the like, it was all about control.

The Value of What Remains

parmalee said:

Just a quick note on this: I've always found it weird that the "offending text" gets flagged, but then remains, as written, for all to read. I don't really know how this would be rectified in most circumstances, but it does seem kind of odd.

Click to expand...

We should observe the result of what has happened.

In #867↑, Parmalee makes a conditional statement: "If that question is coming from a presumably semi-intelligent adult (Trump, Musk, the GOP, certain posters here), that person doesn't need a sincere response, i.e., 'conversation', that person needs a bullet in their skull ...."

This statement is interpreted as a raw threat.

To accept the statement as a raw threat, we must at the very least recognize the conditional statement is true; that is to say, we acknowledge that presumably semi-intelligent adults such as Trump, Musk, GOP officials, and others, are behaving in such bad faith and causing harm.

Now, this does not necessarily justify the conditional consequence, as such, but it does establish as recognized within this community that certain arguments and behavior are put forth in bad faith: If those arguments were not in bad faith, as such, then there is no threat.

At the very least, we have recognized the bad faith of Trump, Musk, the GOP, and certain posters, here. That is to say, we recognize these people are in bad faith and intend harm. As such, the occasion isn't an utter loss.

Going forward, we can do away with what is recognized as bad faith. Because it would be disqualifyingly stupid to recognize bad faith intending harm, and then do nothing. It would be an act of willful wrongdoing to knowingly protect or facilitate bad faith.

It's one thing that we aren't to decide who gets a bullet, but choosing to legitimize fraudulent behavior is its own intention of harm and deception. The captains of ignorance must find a new method, and those who facilitate them need a new excuse. While some some↑ people↑ most certainly delight in bad faith, seeking not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert, we can only wonder who else would perceive a stake in advancing that intimidation in order to disconcert.

Should we presume the answer is that nobody around here would be so indecent, we can at least take from this occasion that certain bad faith is now recognized as bad faith.

And that is not without value.

Tiassa said:

Should we presume the answer is that nobody around here would be so indecent, we can at least take from this occasion that certain bad faith is now recognized as bad faith.

And that is not without value.

Click to expand...

I was going to add to post #886 that, as an alternative to having to explain myself more precisely, for whatever reasons, I could always just throw in some weasel words--like the fascists do. But I find that both ethically and aesthetically objectionable.

That said, I think the inconsistencies here are both to do with both substance, i.e., the political v the religious, as well as form. But with respect to the latter, I might just be confusing that with incoherence or a variety of inarticulateness which ought to be considered a form of aphasia, imho. (Again, I might actually be confusing that with disingenuousness--how am I to know? I can't read peoples' minds.)

I feel like I've at least tried to draw attention to the fact that the resident racist rape advocate has posted overtly racist content (which, to my understanding, is a clear violation of the forum's rules), for instance, albeit in a slightly coded* or slightly incoherent form, and not really gotten anywhere with it. It's almost as though weasel words, inept "subtlety" or even just the seeming inability to express oneself clearly somehow renders it acceptable, or something.

There is some sort of threshold, I suppose, but if some idiot takes the vague conditional "threat" of a random guy on the internet as incitement to action, am I any more responsible for that than Paul McCartney is for what someone chooses to take from "Helter Skelter"?

* Dog whistles are still overt insofar as they are readily comprehended by a significant portion of the audience, even as they may appear meaningless to, say, non-American readers.

parmalee said:

I actually worked very briefly for Amazon at the very beginning, when they were operating out of a large warehouse somewhere in Georgetown or south Seattle. As I recall, there was an office somewhere too, but for some reason I'm drawing a blank on that.

The best thing about Bezos was that he allowed people to bring their dogs to work. But even then, there's was something very apparently "off" about him--like, he was a stickler for the time clock! Seriously. And it didn't seem to be about making for neat record-keeping and the like, it was all about control.

Click to expand...

I worked briefly in the headquarter building which was the old VA hospital building on Beacon Hill. This was in the chubby Bezos days. There were dogs in the offices, everyone had the same desk made out of a door and the cafeteria was great. Bezos was in line with everyone else.

It did have a weird vibe in that there were very few older people there and even though parts of the website were high tech, other parts were very low tech. The suggestions of other products that you might want were just 3 suggestions made up at random by someone for every product.

Seattle said:

I worked briefly in the headquarter building which was the old VA hospital building on Beacon Hill. This was in the chubby Bezos days. There were dogs in the offices, everyone had the same desk made out of a door and the cafeteria was great. Bezos was in line with everyone else.

It did have a weird vibe in that there were very few older people there and even though parts of the website were high tech, other parts were very low tech. The suggestions of other products that you might want we just 3 suggestions made up at random by someone.

Click to expand...

There was another office space besides that one on Beacon Hill, too, unless I'm confusing it for something else. The other space in South Seattle, where the books were shipped from was crazy. At the time, it struck me as massive, almost beyond comprehension--especially as, at the time, it was only books--and now there are hundreds of those and they are all much, much larger than that Seattle space. (I've never actually been inside one, they just appear much larger from the images and videos I've seen.)

But, yeah, the tech all seemed seriously primitive, comparatively.

Seattle said:

My take on this subject is that they should just do away with the budget cap that no one follows and that causes these artificial disruptions every few years.

That's not to say that I don't care about the debt, I do. I just don't like the artificial disruptions that are meaningless.

The corporate tax cuts were permanent (as they should be IMO for competitive reason) so it's the personal rates that we are talking about. The upper rate was about 39% and dropped to about 37%. All the rates were effected on down the line.

You can see that if this was allowed to expire (my preference) that would cut another $2.2 trillion over 10 year. That's because it affects all tax payers and that's what you have to do to do anything meaningful.

If you did that we would still be looking at about $600 billion including the recent budget cuts, per year. That's a start but the deficit is $2 trillion a year. Still, it would be a start and those tax cuts weren't really needed, IMO.

If Trump did that, it would quit the "tax the rich" calls and then we would have to get serious with the real problem of addressing Social Security and Medicare reform and with reducing the military budget.

That's why we have the debt problem. You can't tax your way out of that. The numbers are too big. You cut what you can and grow your way out but not if you don't have meaningful cuts in the first place.

IMO you also let the tax cuts expire so that you get that political advantage and also so that you don't encourage the next Democrat admin to start in with "tax the wealth".

It's not much of a campaign "brag" to say that you cut government jobs and raised $200 billion is saving a year but the deficit is $2 trillion a year. The debt is still going to go up and up. You can't grow your way out of that. At least let those tax cuts expire and cut $600 billion instead of $200 billion.

The tariff nonsense is a train wreck of course. Even the Bitcoin positive polices (or promises) are hurt when as soon as you take office you put out the Trump and Melania meme coins, thus making a mockery out of the whole thing.

Click to expand...

It's obvious you're either a maga shill or incredibly ignorant and blind to reality. Which is it?

Seattle said:

It's entertainment I guess. It's not Biden and Harris at least.

Click to expand...

Entertainment? Is that a fucking joke? Open your fucking eyes to what's going on dipshit.

Latest stuff from the Dumpster administration:

Yay! They finally released the Epstein files!!
... or did they?
Yep - a highly redacted version was held aloft by "MAGA influencers" outside the White House, declaring Trump's administration "the most transparent ever!" - which seemed to contain nothing more than a redacted version of what was already released unredacted as part of the Ghislaine Maxwell case. It's a shit-show, for sure, to the extent that even once-favoured MAGA Lora Loomer says that Americans can't trust the release. It's unclear whether the folder/release actually contained any information that was previously classified.

Sarkus said:

Latest stuff from the Dumpster administration:

Yay! They finally released the Epstein files!!
... or did they?
Yep - a highly redacted version was held aloft by "MAGA influencers" outside the White House, declaring Trump's administration "the most transparent ever!" - which seemed to contain nothing more than a redacted version of what was already released unredacted as part of the Ghislaine Maxwell case. It's a shit-show, for sure, to the extent that even once-favoured MAGA Lora Loomer says that Americans can't trust the release. It's unclear whether the folder/release actually contained any information that was previously classified.

Laura Loomer: Americans "can't trust" Epstein files released by Trump's DOJ

Conservative influencers were photographed holding "Epstein Files" binders outside the White House on Thursday.

www.newsweek.com

Click to expand...

Faux News made a rather curious cut when interviewing Trump about releasing JFK files, Epstein files, et al. Trump's unedited comments on the Epstein files appear at 2.20 in this clip:


On the matter of the FBI allegedly "disappearing" some of these documents, Matt remarks, "The dogs are eating the homework." Heh.