[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Search] [Home]
Board
Settings Home
/news/ - Current News


Name
Options
Comment
Verification
4chan Pass users can bypass this verification. [Learn More] [Login]
  • Please read the Rules and FAQ before posting.
  • There are 95 posters in this thread.

05/04/17New trial board added: /bant/ - International/Random
10/04/16New board for 4chan Pass users: /vip/ - Very Important Posts
06/20/16New 4chan Banner Contest with a chance to win a 4chan Pass! See the contest page for details.
[Hide] [Show All]


All work safe boards are now on the 4channel.org domain. Make sure to update your script blockers and whitelist the new domain.

There's now a setting option under Navigation to display the full list of boards on 4channel.org

The 4chan Vtuber Competition is over. Click here to see the winning entry!




File: trump shutdown.jpg (13 KB, 310x162)
13 KB
13 KB JPG
At midnight on Saturday, the shutdown entered its 22nd day, which makes it the longest gap in American government funding ever.

That beats the previous record, under President Bill Clinton in 1995, of 21 days.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/01/09/us/politics/longest-government-shutdown.html
>>
And don't forget, Trump said he'd own the shut down.

Why are there retards who blame anyone but him for the shut down?
>>
Because they have been fed
By years of miss information and properganda and due to the US’s lack of funding for public schools the populace is left uneducated and looking for an easy scapegoat
>>
I hope he keeps doing this until the Democrats fold. Those pussies will do it we just gotta hold on.
>>
>>338620
>we
Democrats will not fold because there is no reason for them to fold. Folding now would be stategically bad in the long run. And most of the people blame Trump and Republicans so there's not even a political reason to fold.
>>
>>338620
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/01/10/republican-senators-government-shutdown-1096118

Except that Congressional Republicans are already looking for a way out.
>>
>>338625
>no reason for them to fold
How about their constituents, i.e. the SEIU and various other government dollar benefactors, screaming at them to turn the taps back on?
>>
>>338625
They will fold, it will be strategically bad for them, and while a lot of sheep blame Trump his core supporters and most Republicans support what he is doing. Over time pressure will build on individual Democratic congressmen and some of them will compromise. You are relying on every single Democratic house member remaining stubborn on the issue and not folding. Where as the right only has to count on one man not giving up and that’s Trump. The likelihood of a few Dems eventually cracking is extremely high and when they do it will be bad news for your party. Personally I cannnot wait to see it. #MAGA
>>
>>338626
>unironically citing politico
You must be from reddit.
>>
>>338632
Like I said, most people blame Trump and Republicans.
>>338635
No. That's your fantasy.
>>
>>338632
>>338635
Democrats are trying to reopen the government, it's republicans who are resisting and inflicting damage and suffering upon Americans.

Either Trump folds, or he goes full dictator in an attempt to get his ego project done.
>>
>>338638
>damage and suffering upon Americans
There aren't a lot of Americans suffering. And if those that are, they're benefits recipients who are majority Democrat. They know this can end immediately: give him the wall. Soon enough, they'll demand that of their Democrat House.
"Fuck it. Just give him the damn wall! I need my check!"
>>
>>338635
>Dems eventually cracking
>>338637
>No. That's your fantasy.
I know who I'm betting on.
>>
Oh wow 3 weeks is such a long time.
(It may seem that 3 weeks is a long time to dogs and children)
>>
>>338638
Why lie?
What purpose does it serve?
>>
>>338638
Real americans aren't impacted by this fake shutdown champ
>>
>>338635
Fold isn't happening. At this point both sides are wishing for Trump to declare an emergency so they can reopen the gov and have the courts deal with Trumps shit.

Otherwise numbers wise repubs are slowly siding with Dems 1 by 1. And there is probably even more in the backroom.

Only thing I don't get is what does Mitch get out of this. Instead of being an independent body, he has decided to turn the senate into the prez's bitch boy.
>>
>>338651
>What purpose does it serve?
Makes r/politics colonists feel good about themselves
>>
We once had this leftist party leader in the Netherlands who the prime minister made fun of by calling him "turn-butt" because he always came around on all issues. But then he put his foot down once which caused the gouvernment to collapse. Just something to think about.
>>
>>338668
<comparing the US to a 3rd world shithole
>>
>>338649
For most people, it's a long time to go without income.
>>
>>338678
Real americans don't ""work"" for the government.
Also l2 save you pleb
>>
>>338678
>For most people, it's a long time to go without income.
For most people, this would cause them to start searching for other jobs
>>
>>338683
>DMV
DMVs/RMVs are state funded and operated, you dunce
>>
>>338686
I was making a comparison of "talent".
>think of
Reading can be hard, especially for non whites
>>
>>338687
>I was making a comparison of "talent".
You were being a poor caricature of what you think a racist right winger sounds like.
>>
>>338689
You can deny reality all you want, but everyone knows the government is plumb full of worthless "diversity hires".
>>
>>338683
Do you have a single fact to back that up?
>>
>>338694
>non essential
Their entire existence is non essential, per the United States Federal Government.
>>
>>338695
Jesus ur dumb
>>
>>338699
Powerful
>>
Reminder that for the majority of the shutdown the Republicans held control of both the house and the senate.
>>
>>338704
Huh?
>>
>>338707
By control both the house and senate I mean they had a majority in the house and senate. Not really sure what else in my statement you could be confused about.
>>
>>338708
And this changes the fact dems care more about illegal trespassers than actual citizens how?
>>
people who treat politics like football shouldn't be allowed to vote
>>
>>338715
People that are dual citizens shouldnt be allowed to hold elected office or vote.
>>
>>338654
I am tho
>>
>>338735
You are not a real American then.
Sorry parasite.
>>
>>338736
>opinion discarded
>>
>>338738
..says the non American
>>
>>338750
Quit projecting.
>>
>>338599
https://www.cnbc.com/2013/09/28/senate-majority-leader-reid-says-senate-will-reject-house-bills-proposed-1-year-obamacare-delay.html
>The White House on Saturday said President Barack Obama would veto House Republican legislation that would delay much of the president's health-care overhaul for a year and cancel a tax on medical devices.
I guess since it was a staffer saying it and not Obama directly it's not the same.

The vote on restoring funding for the Veterans Affairs Department was 264-164, with 33 Democrats voting in support. A measure to fund the city of D.C. failed by a similar margin. And a bill to keep national parks and museums open also failed to get the two-thirds majority needed.

Even if passed, the piecemeal continuing resolutions -- dubbed "mini-CRs"-- would have faced a quick demise.

Democratic leaders immediately rejected the plan earlier Tuesday, holding to their demand that Republicans relent and pass the six-week extension of government spending sent to them by the Senate.

"These piecemeal efforts are not serious, and they are no way to run a government," White House spokeswoman Amy Brundage said, adding, "The President and the Senate have been clear that they won't accept this kind of game-playing, and if these bills were to come to the President's desk he would veto them."
>>
>>338751
Real Americans aren't impacted by this fake shutdown. I have a real career and savings. Feels good not to be a failure.
>>
Daily reminder real Americans aren't impacted by this fake shutdown. Only paraisites will perish.
>>
>>338683
Forget the dmvs, it's the TSA that's literally an inner city jobs program for poor people who have to live near airports.

>>338716
If this were law the world would be a much much better place all around, but unfortunately thinking that congressmen should actually want to help America and not foreign nations makes you a Nazi
>>
>>338651
Nothing there is a lie. It's the Republicans who are breaking rank and the Democrats who are holding all the cards still. And don't forget, the public still blames Trump for the shutdown so all his PR stunts and lies aren't working.
>>
>>338778
>my opinions are real to me
Enjoy watching the dems fold. It is gonna do wonders to your mental health.
>>
>>338778
Did the public blame Obama for the shutdown?
>The White House on Saturday said President Barack Obama would veto House Republican legislation that would delay much of the president's health-care overhaul for a year and cancel a tax on medical devices.
How is this any different than Trump saying he will veto any legislation that doesn't include funding for his wall?
In both cases it is the President saying he will not sign a budget that doesn't fund a campaign promise.
>>
>>338781
I don't see any dems balking about the shutdown. Meanwhile we've got Murkowski, Collins, Graham, and others whining on the republican side.

And if you think the public doesn't agree with Donald 'I own the shutdown' Trump, you've got to get out more.
>>
>>338754
this, if government employees are going bankrupt from a little shutdown you deserve it. Seriously if you haven't got minimum 3 months expenses in savings you deserve to be screwed, especially when you know your work can get shut down at a moments notice.
>>
>>338783
>i dont see
..a path to 270
Your prognostication skills are shit m8
Only clients of the left are being impacted by this fake shutdown. And there will be more come February 1st. Trump isn't beholden to leftist parasites, but Chuck and Nancy are.
When Cher sees the writing on the wall it is time for some self reflection.
>>
>>338782
>>338753
Whataboutism.

Both shutdowns happened because Republicans made demands. In the Cruz shutdown of 2013, Republicans demanded Obamacare be gutted after it was already funded. In the Trump shutdown of 2018, Trump demanded his wall be funded after a budget was passed where it wasn't done.

The blame lies on who is making demands and holding America hostage. Anything other than is an intellectually bankrupt argument.
>>
>>338781
The public voted him in to see Hillary lose, that's all. Only a tiny amount of Americans supported the wall in the first place, you think the public is going to like it when he halts government facilities over it?
>>
>>338789
The current shutdown is not the only one to happen in US history.
It does not exist in a vacuum.
You cannot act as though there is one set of standards when there's a republican president in office when it comes to a shutdown, and a second much lower set of standards when a democrat president is in office during a shutdown.
>>
>>338790
Lol, This cope.
You know the 5 billion is happening, move along and find a new hill to die on
*non essentials your opinion*
>>
>>338792
The shutdowns you're citing both have extremely similar variables where the Republicans took the government hostage in order to make demands. In 2013, it was to defund Obamacare, in 2018, it was to get Trump's wall (When Meixco was supposed to pay for it.)
That makes them extremely similar, and more pathetic, your lot brought up the Cruz shutdown.
>>
>>338787
>a path to 270
Uh, what?
http://time.com/5449607/midterm-elections-results-donald-trump-2020/
>>
>>338787
I mean this is less about the shutdown and more about the wall, the public is simply behind the Dems, otherwise they would have folded. Trump however, does not care about his image, just pleasing his fanbase, so he keeps pushing the wall when it's just not going to work.
>>
>>338795
It's the president making demands in both cases
"Fund Obamacare or I won't sign the budget"
"Fund the wall or I won't sign the budget"
You're switching the active verb in the 2013 shutdown case.
>>
>>338793
Less than half of Americans voted for Trump, this is reality.
>>
>>338797
Neat opinion kiddo. Enjoy the show.
>>
>>338799
Less than .01% of Americans voted for Chuck or Nancy
>>
>>338798
>DEfund Obamacare or I won't sign the budget
ftfy
>>
>>338799
Outside of California and New York, sure.
The country exists outside of those two states, and honestly, what reason is there for a republican to vote in either of those states?
>>
>>338798
>His entire premise is based off a giant lie.
Obamacare was already funded, Republicans wanted it defunded. That's the major difference between that and Trump's broken campaign promise.
>>
>>338802
Obama wouldn't sign the budget in 2013 unless Obamacare got its funding taken away?
>>
>>338781
https://theweek.com/speedreads/816595/poll-americans-increasingly-blame-trump-shutdown-25-percent-back-negotiating-position
And its only gotten worse for Trump and the Republicans after his little stunt speech to the country.
https://abc7.com/politics/poll-finds-people-believe-trump-is-to-blame-for-shutdown/5043202/

As for the Federal Workers, they're blaming Trump, not the Democrats. so Democrats have no reason to fold to Trump's economic terrorism or demands.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/angry-furloughed-federal-workers-protest-shutdown-white-house-around-country-n957356
http://time.com/5500897/federal-workers-protest-boston-government-shutdown/
>>
>>338804
>obamacare was funded
Yeah by illegally fining me
>>
>>338804
>Obamacare was already funded,
Not in the budget that was passed by the House in 2013.
>>
>>338808
Non sequitor
>>
>>338809
Thanks for proving my point that the shutdown is the fault of the party disrupting the status quo.
>>
>>338807
>check out my opinion pieces from a totally unbiased media
Meanwhile in real America, haven't heard a peep about the fake shutdown from actual people, I do live in a 95% white blue collar town so it might just be my "privilege".
Kys champ
>>
>>338803
You could use the same logic, what reason is there for a democrat to vote in a deep red state. I think if you balanced the non-voters between those two states and the rest of the red states it evens out.
>>
>>338810
Huh? That fine was basis of obamacare being "funded".
>>
>>338811
It is their job.
“All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills.”
— U.S. Constitution, Article I, section 7, clause 1

“No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.”
— U.S. Constitution, Article I, section 9, clause 7
The House of Representatives is invested with the “power of the purse,” the ability to tax and spend public money for the national government.
They choose what to spend money on.
They can choose to spend money on Obamacare, or not.
The House of Representatives in 2013 chose not to fund Obamacare.
The House of Representatives in 2019 chose not to fund the wall.
In both cases, the president refused to sign the budget unless their campaign promise had been funded.
>>
>>338812
>It doesn't affect me, so it doesn't matter
How conservative mindset
>>
>>338815
Sure.
But again, it's not relevant. Because the popular vote doesn't matter.
A majority of the country voted for the president, if not a majority of the people.
>>
>>338816
Wrong, it was funded mainly by taxes on the rich. the individual mandate was was a stick policy to make sure people signed up since the major way to reduce premiums is to increase the size of the insurance pool.
>>
>>338818
All you've done is proof it was the Republican's fault. Nice job.
>>
>>338822
Individualism is as American as apple pie.
Those aren't real people to me, I don't ask them for anything, I don't travel to their cities, money is taken from me and given to them and I am called names in the process by the media and people like you.
I want you to know I own lots of guns sepcifically because I am forced to live in a nation with people like you.
>>
>>338826
I'm not disputing that, what I'm saying is that public opinion does not agree with the border wall, therefore the dems have every right to stand their ground, they're justified.
>>
>>338829
How did I prove it was the republicans fault?
>In both cases, the president refused to sign the budget unless their campaign promise had been funded.
>>
>>338827
I wouldn't call $100,000/year rich
>>
>>338831
>Selfishness is an conservative value.
Fixed
>>
>>338832
>muh polls
>>
>>338833
In both cases, Republicans desired to disrupt the status quo to get their demands met. That makes them to blame for the shutdown.
>>
>>338835
>goalpost moving intensifies
>>
>>338838
Why is the status quo right?
>>
>>338831
You're the reason our country is failing, everybody and everything has a place in our country, whether you realize it or not, and yes, even illegals. You're saying that they are not Americans, that they do not deserve to exist in our country?
>>
>>338840
In the case of a budget, it means it's what is agreed upon. If you need to resort to strong arm tactics like shutting down the government, like the Republicans did in 2013 and right now, to get your demands met, you're in the wrong.
>>
>>338839
What's rich to you?
Also how old are you?
>>
>>338842
They're not americans.
They are not citizens of the United States of America.
That is my test of who is and isn't an American.
>>
>>338837
What about mum ratings? :3
https://thehill.com/homenews/media/424560-pelosi-schumer-response-tops-trump-speech-in-preliminary-ratings
>>
>>338845
Irrelevant to the conversation.
>>
>>338842
Our country is failing because of your "diversity". 1965 Hart seller act. The forced replacement of white America.
>>
>>338844
But in both cases, the strong arm tactics are being done by the president. Who is refusing to sign a budget that was passed by the House of Representatives.
Which is the part of the government which "agrees upon" what is and isn't in the budget.
If Trump shuts down the government because he doesn't like what the Supreme court ruled on a case, he is at fault, because it's not his job to rule on cases, it is the supreme court.
If Obama shuts down the government because he doesn't like what the house of representatives passed, he is at fault, because it's not his job to pass a budget, it is the job of the House.
>>
>>338846
Wait, you are talking about the federal workers right?
>>
>>338598
>That beats the previous record, under President Bill Clinton
WINNING
>>
>>338842
>even illegals. You're saying that they are not Americans,
By definition no they are not Americans
>>
>>338853
No, I was a different person who was responding to the line
>and yes, even illegals.
>>
>>338852
Wrong, the strong arm tactic in 2013 was done by the Republicans since they demanded an already agreed upon program be defunded. While in 2018, Trump demanded his broken campaign promise be funded by American tax payers. In both case it was the Republicans to blame. And the American people know it as well if you look at the current data where even more people are blaming Trump and it's why he's probably going to make a dictator power grab to get out of this mess by declaring a state of emergency.

Notice how Obama didn't need to do that.
>>
>>338847
Less than .01% of Americans voted for or support Chuck and Nancy
>>
>>338858
No, it's not true.
They didn't agree to fund Obamacare, that's why they didn't fund it.
Because they are in charge of passing a budget.
Because it is the job of the House of Representatives to decide what is and isn't in the budget. They have the power of the purse string.
https://www.npr.org/podcasts/512508710/civics-101
Perhaps a remedial civics class would help teach you who in the government does what.
>>
>>338855
Notice how I said "place", if immigrants want to come and do labor that other people are not willing to do, let them. The not American part was directed at the guy who was saying he did not care about the government workers affected by the shutdown.
>>
>>338859
And yet Pelosi is viewed less unfavorably than Trump. Which, fun fact, was the first time that ever happened.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/05/politics/pelosi-trump-favorability-poll-of-the-week/index.html

The magic of Republican shutdowns!
>>
>>338864
Did you really just link a CNN "poll"?
Dear diary...
>>
>>338864
Well, we could look at the Obama shutdown, and what it did for his poll numbers.
It wasn't too bad for him, but it resulted in a loss of democratic seats.
>>
>>338862
Yes it's true. Republicans made a demand in both cases, and in both cases they shut down the government over their demands. You should take remedial civics first before you try and start teaching others.
>>
>>338868
>poisoning the well

>>338869
That was because of the massive gerrymandering Republicans did in 2010.
>>
>>338871
No, it was Obama making a demand in 2013. That the House pass a bill that funded Obamacare
>>
>>338649
When you actually have to work for a living and you aren’t living in your mom’s basement maybe you’ll see that going 3 weeks without a paycheck doesn’t work for a lot of government workers
>>
>>338864
I wonder if this poll was conducted inside or outside the CNN headquarters?
>>
>>338876
>I can't save money cause I am a mindless consumer unit
Good goy
>>
>>338875
Wrong, Republicans made the demand by gutting Obamacare. Obama didn't give into their hostage taking. Cruz shutdown happened. Americans sided with Obama, Republicans folded. America won.
That's the 2013 shutdown in a nutshell.
>>
>>338683
It’s always funny when you anti-government fucks bring up the DMV, because that’s all state run. You idiots don’t even know how the government works.
>>
>>338879
Easy to save money when mom pays for all your tendies
>>
>>338881
They didn't make a demand. They passed a budget.
Which is their job, as the House of Representatives.
Obama demanded that they pass a new budget, that was more to his liking
>>
>>338882
Yeah cause that wasn't an example of a certian caricature of the worthless beuracrate.
Stay triggered faggot Trump is getting that $5billion
>>
>>338882
I bet they live in Republican states too, which explains why they think government is awfully run. Because Republicans can't run government.
>>
>>338883
Personal experience kiddo?
>>
>>338885
>Get called out
>I was just pretending to be retarded
Bahaha
>>
>>338888
>No u
Bahaha
>>
>>338884
>backpeddling
It was a demand that Obama defund Obamacare and leave hundreds of thousands to die. Obama didn't give into the Republican's terrorist like demands which would lead to the deaths of hundreds of thousands Americans.
Simple as that.
>>
>>338887
Yeah I bet the NY and CA DMVs are uber efficient and the """person""" """helping""" me can totally speak English
>>
>>338890
Powerful
>>
>>338889
To be fair to his point, most normal people dont deal with non essential federal employees on a regular basis. He was building an archetype, and a correct one I might add.
>>
>>338642
Actually most people who receive benefits are from the Mid-West and the Deep South "republican strongholds." Poor white people like yourself like to blame others for using benefits, but the population that uses the most are Poor White Trash that infest this country
>>
>>338891
I am not backpedalling. I have repeated myself consistently, saying the exact same thing.
The job of the House of Representatives is to pass the budget.
Both in 2013, and 2019, the sitting president has refused to sign a budget that was passed by the house, which didn't fund their campaign promise, and that resulted in a government shutdown
>>
>>338892
>damage control
>>
>>338897
That doesn't make sense
>>
>>338835
you make twice the national average and would have to be retarded not to thrive on that income. that is enough to qualify as rich
>>
>>338896
Wrong, you're clearly backpeddling. In both cases the Republicans made demands and tried to extort concessions out of the budget process. Obama called them on their demands which lead to the Cruz shutdown which Republicans lost. The current shutdown is also Republicans and Trump's fault, with Trump himself saying he owned the shutdown on camera.
>>
>>338905
You 12?
>>
>>338916
It's not them making demands. It's them doing their job.

If Trump shuts down the government because he doesn't like what the Supreme court ruled on a case, he is at fault, because it's not his job to rule on cases, it is the supreme court.
If Obama shuts down the government because he doesn't like what the house of representatives passed, he is at fault, because it's not his job to pass a budget, it is the job of the House.
If the courts say that Trump's travel ban is illegal, they're not making demands of trump, they are doing their job under the separation of powers.
If the courts say that Obamacare is illegal, they're not making demands of Obama, they're doing their job under the separation of powers.
It is not the job of the president to pass the budget. It is the job of the House of Representatives, as set out in the Constitution.
>>
>>338711
it would have passed then if repubs didnt agree that its a retarded idea
>>
>>338923
where do you live that youre having a difficult time managing with 100,000 per year? you realize thats a lot higher than most people make, correct?
>>
>>338930
I don't have a difficult time, but i don't consider myself rich. It may seem to be alot to an unemployed child, but for a family if 4 it isn't a ton.
>>
>>338925
They're making demands, all your examples are without merit since that wasn't what happened. In the case of Obamacare, it was Republicans making demand that Obama gut healthcare and leave hundreds of thousands of Americans to die. In the case of the Wall, it's to stiff Americans with a 5.8 billion dollar bill for a vanity project that will not make America more safe.
>>
>>338756
So basically all Americans.
>>
>>338936
families of 4 get by on half that, youre just a whiny cunt, you also get tax breaks for your goblinos
>>
>>338936
>for a family if 4 it isn't a ton.
you're either larping as a stupid richfag or are actually just a stupid richfag that spends too much on shit they don't need or living in a place you don't need to be.
>>
>>338937
No, they weren't making a demand, they were passing a budget, which is their job.
If I make cakes, and make you a cake, I am not demanding anything of you. I am doing what it is my job. Which in this example is making a cake.
>>
>>338939
>>338941
Bernout incels
Lol, go get a job you fucking failures
>>
>>338925
So if Trump shuts down the government because he said he'd sign a wall-less budget but then changes his mind, is he at fault?

https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/20/politics/donald-trump-shutdown-border-wall-funding/index.html
>>
>>338944
They were making a demand by demanding Obamacare be gutted.
>Food anaology
The cake was already made in the case of 2013, you were demanding the cake be taken away.
>>
>>338945
okay so you're a larper
thanks for clearing that up
>>
>>338945
im a longshoreman, ill make more than you in a few years, and i wont bitch about supporting those less fortunate than myself. commit sudoku
>>
>>338939
>>338941
If 100000 isn't enough to splurge a little, then it doesn't qualify you as rich. What kind of retarded conversation is this.
>>
>>338948
Keep thinking 100k/year is rich.
I am sure you will achieve greatness in your life kid.
>>
>>338949
>in a few year
In a few years you will still be playing vidya in mommies basement
>>
>>338950
>If 100000 isn't enough to splurge a little
how in the goddamn fuck is it not? and how can you have so little concern that you cany pay slightly higher tax for those making less than 20k?
>>
>>338950
You are right
Define splurge? all this shit subjective
>>
>>338954
he means he had to buy a land rover instead of a mercedes
>>
>>338955
Both those brands are trash.
I own 2 Toyotas
>>
>>338946
Either way Trump is at fault for this shutdown.
I never denied that Trump was at fault for this shutdown, merely that President Obama was also at fault for the 2013 shutdown.
Because it is the job of the House of Representatives to pass a budget, and by refusing to sign it, the president has shut down the government.
>>
>>338957
The Senate failed to sign the bill the house passed, that Trump agreed he would sign.
C span is archived you know?
>>
>>338892
that actually has been my experience at california dmvs
>>
>>338950
Do you just eat your money? God, is this what a brainlet looks like?
>>
>>338892
>I'ma talk about shit I don't know shit about
They can. Please stop dickeating at anytime
>>
>>338959
Okay. So you're telling me the senate is at fault for the shutdown?
>>
>>338950
how much is your mortgage/mo?
>>
>>338963
Yep, specifically the dems because 60 were/are needed
>>
>>338963
>>338971
Wrong, it's the Republicans fault because they passed a clean bill originally before Trump and the extremist in the House killed it.

Now McConnell, who is a coward, refuses to bring up that budget again even though it passed in the House under Democratic control.

The Shutdown is entirely on Trump, McConnell and Paul Ryan.
>>
>>338975
>clean bill
Haha, if it was clean it would have made it through the senate
>>
>>338980
The Republicans in the Senate drafted the bill. They simply refused to vote on it after being informed that Trump was going to veto it.
>>
>>338991
So it is the Senate's fault after all
>>
>>338993
aka the Republicans.
>>
>>338996
At some point some senate democrats will have to decide they want to open the government
>>
>>338997
They want to vote on the CR and budgets the house is passing, but McConnell is blocking everything.
It's the Republican's fault the shutdown is still happening.
>>
>>339000
Okay champ, enjoy the show
>>
I hope the government never opens again.
>>
Yesterday was the first missed paycheck, as the shutdown drags on federal workers are going to start quitting because working for free is simply impossible for some people. Trump is doing actual damage to the country with his stupid bullshit.
>>
For something that's suppose to be a big deal, there's little coverage of it. Or none.
Or just on 4chan it seems.
>>
>>339034
I think basically every news outlet is talking about it every other hour. Not sure what you mean by "little coverage".
>>
>>339035
He's gas lighting to try and make it seem like the Trump government shutdown is not a big deal when as you pointed out, every news outlet is reporting on it daily.
>>
>>339034
CNN is talking about it every chance they get
>>
>>339034
I didn't know that 24/7 on CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC, along with every local news hour, at least an article a day on every online news site, and every late night talk show counted as "little coverage."
>>
>>339025
>I don't want my food inspected
>>
>>339155
Why can't companies just inspect their own food?
Other countries have no government food inspectors, instead having the companies inspect their own food, and use the trust placed in their brand to hold the quality of food high, and if there are breaches in the quality of food that cause illness, they resolve that through lawsuits.
>>
>>338663
>Only thing I don't get is what does Mitch get out of this.
I think Mitch is also an agent for Putin. It makes too much sense.
>>
>>338663
Because he knows the party loves TRUMP, not him, and he can't be seen contradicting the president in any way.

If he were to put a bill to the floor now that didn't have the wall in it, it would pass, because the Republican party is simply not that unified - this is why he isn't doing that.

This bill would then go to the president, who would have to either sign it and admit the entire shutdown, which has cost people their livelihoods, was for nothing - a political disaster - or veto it, thus taking direct responsibility for the shutdown - which is also a political disaster, because it lays the lost paychecks and damaged parks and everything else directly at his feet.

And like it or not, McConnell HAS to support the president, because the President is the party right now.
>>
>>339158
Because Americans are idiots, they wouldn't know the words "quality product" if it hit them over the head. You do that and every meat, cheese, ect. would immediately get pumped full of fillers and additives.
>>
>>339171
And this is what pisses me off the most. It is turning an independent body into another arm of the president. As cliche as it is to say, its another step to becoming a banana republic that rubber stamps what the "fairly elected" leader wants.

I really didn't think there would come a point US gov process would start to become comparable to Africa/SA ones. But if this shit keeps up...

>>339158
>>339172
Hold up, you are telling me bureaucrat everything Europe and Aussie don't have food inspectors? That their governments ignore an easy way to squzze money out of companies and claim a safety high ground?
>>
>>339158
Because it's in the companies' best interest to sell as much as possible. Not sell as much as SAFELY possible.

Unregulated food industry is terrifying. Read Upton Sinclair's 'The Jungle' at some point.
>>
>>339158
>Why can't companies just inspect their own food?
Because they wont.

>if there are breaches in the quality of food that cause illness, they resolve that through lawsuits.
I guess the people that get sick or die should just deal with it then. They may have been severely harmed but at least the company made money.
>>
>>339174
>Hold up, you are telling me bureaucrat everything Europe and Aussie don't have food inspectors? That their governments ignore an easy way to squzze money out of companies and claim a safety high ground?
They have food inspectors.
That are hired by the company, not the government.
>>
Paul Ryan is the happiest man in the nation right now. The shutdown happened while he was Speaker of the House with a Republican majority and everyone is blaming Pelosi.
>>
>>339202
Reading the break down of how Germany handles it for example https://www.bmel.de/EN/Food/Safe-Food/_Texte/Lebensmittelueberwachung.html. It sounds government still plays a sizeable part and would be paralyzed if in the US situation as well.

Although EU seems to give some advantage as well since they have a body that is dedicated to handling meat inspections.
>>
>>339205
>everyone is blaming Pelosi
Maybe Republicans are, I think the consensus is that Trump is the one responsible for it. McConnell basically admitted Trump is responsible by saying he would not let a bill through if Trump wont sign it and Trump took personal responsibility for it in a televised meeting he personally set up. Democrats have also passed bills only to be blocked by McConnell and Trump.
>>
>>339155
I have a freezer full of beef and wild game, canned tomatoes from my garden and 200lbs of Jasmine rice. I will be okay, even if the spics keep shitting on the romaine. Ironic, we wouldn't need food inspection in a white, real, nation. Build wall!
>>
>>339034
Is this a new level of gas lighting? Every news cable channel as a shutdown clock on the screen.

>>339174
>>339202
>>339209
Republicans and corporate America would be fucked if America adopted the German system. Mainly because they require unions to not only have a seat at the table, but a seat on the board of directors to represent the workers. Could you imagine workers interests actually being represented fully and not beaten into the ground like they are in America?

>>339205
What backwards time universe are you living in? The longer the Trump shutdown continues, the more people are blaming him. The fact that Pelois is passing budget and CR after budget and CR and McConnell refuses to bring them up in the senate is only hurting the Republicans more.
Notice how it's the Republicans who are desperate to keep their rank and file in line while the democrats are an impenetrable phalanx right now when it comes to the Trump shutdown.
>>
>>339217
Have your shared your thoughts with your friends and family?
>>
>>338892
Works well in Minnesota, maybe you should get off your ass and hold your state government accountable
>>
Build a wall around what you want to stop

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EzbQSjn5tZ8

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Da%C4%9Fete%C4%9Fi+Mahallesi,+G%C3%B6bekli+Tepe,+63290+Haliliye%2F%C5%9Eanl%C4%B1urfa,+Turkey/@37.2174131,38.8546289,18.16z/data=!4m13!1m7!3m6!1s0x15346502fe912231:0x24d422700430381a!2zRGHEn2V0ZcSfaSBNYWhhbGxlc2ksIEfDtmJla2xpIFRlcGUsIDYzMjkwIEhhbGlsaXllL8WeYW5sxLF1cmZhLCBUdXJrZXk!3b1!8m2!3d37.2171641!4d38.854393!3m4!1s0x15346502fe912231:0x24d422700430381a!8m2!3d37.2171641!4d38.854393
>>
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uzOgCwigLBg
>>
At least in America blacks cant vote
>>
>>339224
I got a gut feeling he's never been to CA or NY
>>
Democracy works, shut it down
>>
Shut down the

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SfaY0KH76nU
>>
>>338676
><comparing the US to a 3rd world shithole

We've been a third world shithole since Reagan was in office.
>>
>>339196
>Because they wont.
Why won't they?
>I guess the people that get sick or die should just deal with it then. They may have been severely harmed but at least the company made money.
Don't we have a legal system to deal with this?
If you put some new chemical in your food that hurts or kills people, and has never been seen before so there's no regulation in regards to it, you can still be sued. And the reason we don't have situations like this continuing to happen, is because massive lawsuits and bad press are not good for business.
>>
Why is Trump trying to say the shutdown isn't his fault when he was the one who started it and continues it when he could stop it? I don't understand this narrative, is he trying to act like he's being bullied or something?
>>
>>338598
suck it bill!
Republicans go big or go home!
and they going big!
>>
>>339358
I think food additives are regulated by the government. If you add some kind of chemical to food without even testing if its safe you would be criminally negligent I think.

I get the feeling we're not going to see eye to eye on this issue. I will just say I have no faith that corporations will do the right thing when it gets in the way of profits. You believe profits will suffer in the long term as people avoid tainted food products and sue the company to try and make up for the injuries and deaths that result but corporations do not necessarily see long term losses. The executives behind these decisions could be self-serving narcissists who only want to make a few more dollars and then bail ahead of any fallout. They may even make money off of their company failing if they sell their stocks ahead of time and leave a bunch of investors holding the bag.

What I see happening if we let companies regulate themselves is they'll just gradually reallocate funds to other parts of the company that actually earn them profits and the inspection crew will be woefully understaffed and unqualified. They'll slip up and let tainted food get into the supply. The company will try to cover it up but then after it becomes impossible to deny they'll find some relative newbie on the inspection crew and pin the whole thing on him and fire him. The problem is there are known food-borne illnesses that are dangerous the public and even one mistake could be deadly for thousands of people. Mad cow disease is rare (right now) but it can spread if allowed to and is 100% fatal if a person is exposed to it. It also has a delayed onset that can take anywhere from a few years to a few decades to manifest. An outbreak of mad cow disease could be very difficult to trace to the source and the effects could last for decades.
>>
>>339368
He's trying to gaslight the public and deflect blame.
>>
>>339368

It's not his fault, it's the Democrats. Elections have consequences.
>>
>>339383
This whole thing is Trumps fault because he got bullied by Ann Coulter who called him weak for folding on the wall. He's so pathetic that some talking head can shut down the government.
>>
>>339385

He ran the wall, retard
>>
>>339386
He was going to sign the Homeland security bill as is until right wing commentators called him it out and hurt his fee-fees. Face it, dudes a wimp and a coward.
>>
>>339387

No, you dumb fucking shill. He would have been a coward to give in to the Democrats
>>
>>339385
I thought it was Rush that bodyslammed him at the end of Rustlemania 2018?
>>
>>339388
You say that as if Donald "I don't know! Maybe they did! Maybe they didn't!" Trump isn't a coward.
>>
>>339388
By "the Democrats," you mean "Senate Republicans?" Because they had the votes for the no-wall bill, and had to start from scratch because Trump pooped his pants.
>>
>>339158
>and if there are breaches in the quality of food that cause illness, they resolve that through lawsuits.
not all things you dont want in your food cause immediate and clear health problems that can be tied to that food easily. so how would you go about identifying those without a regulatory body? large companies will cut corners and fuck you over if it means increasing their profit margin by less than a cent per product sold
>>
>>339358
>Don't we have a legal system to deal with this?
the point of regulations is to deal with things befor they happen, so that people preemptively are protected, they dont have to go into bankruptcy for their medical costs and trying to fight a legal battle with a large corporation, and so that we dont spend the same money we weould on a regulatory body on the paying the costs of holding hearings and trials
>>
>>339216
you can thank the FDA for your jasmine rice being free of arsenic and similar substances
>>
>>339419
Why would the company I am buying food from start adding Arsenic without the FDA?
>>
>>339424
They wouldn't add the arsenic, they would simply use more cheaply-grown rice. You know rice acts as a biomagnifier for certain toxins and has to be grown on cleaner land than usual, right?
>>
>>338892
I live in San Bernardino, one of the stinkiest, dankest armpits of California.
I have never met a DMV rep who was anything less than helpful and competent.
>>
>>339388
Why didn't he sign a bill with the wall in the year Republicans controlled literally every arm of government?
>>
>>339436
He would have passed one in December, but Senate Democrats blocked it, which they can do because the Republicans need 60 votes to close debate.
>>
>>339441
Why didn't they force it through like they did the tax bill? Is building the wall less important than giving the .01% massive tax breaks?
>>
>>339443
The tax bill was engineered to expire and actually raise taxes in the far future (of course, they'll simply be extended then for political reasons, but on paper they go up) so that the Republicans could force it through using the Senate reconciliation process without going through sixty-vote approval.

The budget that funds the government on a yearly basis can't do that.
>>
>>339447
Ah, I see. Well, in that case I'll lay the shutdown on both their feet equally, but for political reasons continue to blame solely the president. Thanks for clearing that up!
>>
>>339448
>Blame both sides equally
Don't be an idiot, this shutdown is the fault of the Republicans.
Remember the budget the Democratically controlled congress passed was the one the Senate passed last december, but McConnell is now blocking it.
>>
>>338680
B O O T L I C K E R
>>
>>339449
>Don't be an idiot, this shutdown is the fault of the Republicans.
The Republicans would have, and could have, passed a bill with a wall funding in it in December, had Senate Democrats not blocked it.

It is a very simple fact that regardless of what anyone says, the government could have avoided shutting down, or be opened tomorrow, if either side were willing to back down on their demands (wall funding vs no wall funding).
>>
>>339454
Why didn't they do it when they held the senate?
>>
>>339457
Passing budgets in the Senate requires 60 votes unless the "nuclear option" is used and zero Congressional Republicans have come out in favor of that.
>>
>>339454
>Setting the precedent of hostage taking to get budget demands
Democrats had no choice but to block it unless you want every future budget neogiation to be 'Give me money for my pet project or I shut down the government'.
>>
>>339462
All budget negotiations are "fund this but not that or I won't pass and/or sign the thing." This particular round is just uglier and dumber.

>Democrats had no choice
There's always a choice. I'm not assigning blame right now (Trump is functionally retarded for shouting "I'm shutting down the government!!!") but the fact of the matter is that the reason the Republicans did not successfully pass a budget to fund government in December is because Democrats did not like the bill the Republicans were going to pass.

The situation is reversed now, but that's how it was in December.
>>
>>339454
they could have gotten a wall while they had every branch of the judiciary.
If it is such a pressing concern, why is it only being presented when Democrats have the House?
oh it's to hold the nation hostage in a smear campaign on democrats (as if they don't do a good job of that themselves).
>>
>>339480
>If it is such a pressing concern, why is it only being presented when Democrats have the House?
It wasn't
>>
>>339459
Unless you use budget reconciliation. But the Republicans blew their chance to do that on tax cuts.


>>
>>339464
You're assigning blame to both sides, and it's wrong. And if the Democrats caved to Trump it would have set one of the worst precedents even in politics where a government shutdown would become a common tool to extort demands.
Similar to how the Republicans in the senate refused to use the nuclear to pass Trump's wall because the long term implications would have buttfucked them.

As for the America people, Trump and the republican propoganda campaign is failing as more and more Americans are blaming them for the shutdown.

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/01/13/government-shutdown-republicans-trump-1098723
>Trump’s message on the shutdown — blaming Democrats for refusing to concede on his border wall — isn't convincing the American public. Instead, the majority of Americans think Trump and Republicans are at fault for the shutdown, according to two new polls. A Washington Post-ABC News found that 53 percent of respondents blamed Trump and Republicans in Congress for the shutdown, while 29 percent blamed Democrats. Thirteen percent of respondents said both sides were equally to blame.

>Another poll from CNN found that 55 percent of respondents blamed Trump, while 32 percent blamed Democrats. Nine percent blamed both sides.

>Trump's disapproval ratings are also rising, with the CNN poll showing his overall rating getting worse by 5 percentage points since the shutdown started.
>>
>>339489
What precedent. The exact same thing happened in 2013.
See the earlier exchange in the thread.
>>338925
>>
>>339492
Wrong, that was Republicans shutting down the government in order to have their demands met. It failed because they eventually surrendered. We're in the same situation where Republicans are holding the government hostage over demands.

And the democrats can't negotiate with terrorists.
>>
>>339492
Did you not read what the anon responded to that post? You're factually incorrect in regards to the sequence of events. In both instances, it was Republicans using shut downs as a way to demand unreasonable budget concessions.
>>
>>339483
>But the Republicans blew their chance to do that on tax cuts.

Revenue went up as a result of the tax cuts because the economy grew. The same thing happened under Reagan

>b-but the deficit

The deficit is just the difference between spending and revenue. You can increase the revenue, but still see a larger deficit if spending is also increased. The record setting deficit under Reagan was primarily the cause of increased military spending. In order to change this trend today and pay down debt, the American government has to make drastic budget cuts, and avoid raising taxes.
>>
>>339497
>Trickle down works
LOL, find me a non Republican/corporate run group that claims that.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/17/business/trump-tax-cuts-revenue.html
>>
>>339497
No, real revenue did not increase.

http://www.crfb.org/blogs/has-revenue-risen-2018
> Nominal increases below the rate of inflation mean that the value of revenue collection has actually declined in real terms. By our estimate, total revenue over the time period in question has actually fallen by 1.3 percent after accounting for inflation in the last year. Measured relative to GDP – a sensible way to measure since a steady tax system would be expected to capture the same share of the economy year-after-year – we estimate revenue has fallen 3.8 percent. Finally, relative to the increases that had been expected from population growth, inflation, wage growth, structural elements of the tax code, and other factors, tax revenue is down by roughly 5.5 percent.
>>
>>339497
Kansas and Louisiana cut taxes and it created a massive structural deficit.
California raised taxes on the top income brackets and now are running a yearly surplus.
The evidence shows that the Laffer curve's actual peak is at a much higher rate than the tax rates currently in place anywhere in the United States. In the United States tax cuts reduce revenue while tax increases increase revenue.
>>
>>339513
>Kansas and Louisiana cut taxes and it created a massive structural deficit.
>California raised taxes on the top income brackets and now are running a yearly surplus.
Kansas and Louisiana were both already heading for fiscal insolvency, and California has the largest state debt in the US. Like any good blue state, they regularly overspend themselves out of the surpluses within five years.

California also ranks among one of the top states for "highest cost of living" and "most people moving out out of state". States with much lower tax brackets like Texas and Utah do better in these categories, and they still somehow have enough money left over in the budget to actually manage the environment and prevent wildfires on the sale of what California is seeing.

> In the United States tax cuts reduce revenue while tax increases increase revenue.
Yes yes, war is peace, ignorance is strength, paying someone to dig a hole and paying someone else to fill the hole in is a net gain for the economy, etc.
>>
>>339237
I voted last election though
>>
>>339523
who did you vote for my negro
>>
>>339519
>and "most people moving out out of state"
I can't find any data showing California being in the top ten most moved-into or most moved-out-of.
>>
>>339519
> California has the largest state debt in the US.
Yes, they still have a lot of debt, but they are currently taking in more revenue than expenditures, which means they are running a surplus.
> Like any good blue state, they regularly overspend themselves out of the surpluses within five years.
Maybe they will, maybe they won't. But the fact of the matter is that it shows that increasing taxes does increase revenue. You may dislike their spending habits, but when it comes to taxation and the Laffer curve, even California has a tax rate below the peak of the curve. Raising taxes increases revenue, while lowering taxes decreases revenue.

> California also ranks among one of the top states for "highest cost of living" and "most people moving out out of state".
That is because of the housing market in California, not the fact that it has high taxes on the top income brackets. California has very low property tax compared to the national average. However, the entire Pacific rim uses California's housing market as a place to park their money to shield it from instability in other markets. That artificially drives up housing prices.

And besides, we're talking about the factual question of whether or not tax cuts increase revenue, not whether California is perfect or not. They are, however, one of several indicators that tax increases do increase revenue, while tax cuts reduce revenue.
>>
>>339519
So you can't provide any evidence other than a laughably ironic 1984 quote counter to the assertions of the post you're referring to? I mean, you're saying that we were to the right of the Laffer curve's maximum, but when presented with data showing the exact opposite you're seguing into shitting on California and exalting Utah and Texas. Is it your plan to draw your opponent into a fruitless my-state dick-waving contest to distract from the sandy foundations of your stance and of the tax cuts?
>>
>>339538
>which means they are running a surplus.
For now. Historically, how long have they maintained a straight surplus? Maybe a year or so?

They always spend themselves out of it. They always seem to need more money. It's never quite enough, for some reason.

>But the fact of the matter is that it shows that increasing taxes does increase revenue
Of course it does, especially government revenue and especially initially, you're literally taking money from people at gun point.
The problem is that those people then move out and you eventually run out of other people's money. Then you argue for more taxes, because "taxes increase revenue".

>That is because of the housing market in California, not the fact that it has high taxes on the top income brackets.
The taxes are literally driving up the cost of housing. This includes building and maintaining homes and rental units, especially as it pertains to the price of labor. This is how taxes work.
>California has very low property tax compared to the national average.
The have the 10th highest property tax burden in the nation.
https://www.ocregister.com/2017/03/13/californias-property-tax-burden-10th-worst-in-nation/

>They are, however, one of several indicators that tax increases do increase revenue, while tax cuts reduce revenue.
Meanwhile, people with money are increasingly moving out of states with this attitude, to states with lower tax burdens. Keep telling yourself they're wrong though, the 5 million people who fled CA between 2004-2013 alone are all probably just living false consciousnesses you have yet to correct.
>>
>>339545
>Hit dogs will holler!
>>
>>339558
> The have the 10th highest property tax burden in the nation.
California's state property is 0.79%. The national average is 1.19%
>>
>>339500
>Unironically uses the term trickle down

You have an NPC level of understanding on this issue.
>>
>>339558
> Meanwhile, people with money are increasingly moving out of states with this attitude, to states with lower tax burdens.
And yet revenue still increased. The United States is on the left side of the Laffer curve, meaning that tax cuts reduce revenue.
>>
>>339563
Trickle-down, supply-side, and voodoo economics are all the same thing. Reagan's own budget director admitted that "supply-side" was just a rebranding to make it easier to sell to the public.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1981/12/the-education-of-david-stockman/305760/
> Yes, Stockman conceded, when one stripped away the new rhetoric emphasizing across-the-board cuts, the supply-side theory was really new clothes for the unpopular doctrine of the old Republican orthodoxy. "It's kind of hard to sell 'trickle down,'" he explained, "so the supply-side formula was the only way to get a tax policy that was really 'trickle down.' Supply-side is 'trickle-down' theory."
>>
>>339564
Not so easy to calculate. The economy is influenced by more than just government tax policy.
>>
>>339531
flipped a coin since I didn't give shit and voted trump
>>
>>339571
> implying a fake quote from a leftist fraud in a leftist rag somehow disproves the most successful economic model in human history
>>
>>339576
>the most successful economic model in human history
Define "successful."
>>
>>339572
Sure, there are other factors. And according to you all those other factors, like people leaving the state, should be causing tax revenue to drop. And yet tax revenue rose. If anything, that just shows that increase taxes increases revenue even overriding other factors would push down revenue.
>>
>>339571
The term "trickle down" has ALWAYS been used as an ignorant criticism and it doesn't even capture the true intention of tax cuts.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VlWCnA7TbNU&t=8s

Don't worry, we all had to sit through hours of leftist documentaries by Micheal Moore back in school so maybe a short lesson won't hurt.
>>
>>339578
It produced the single largest increase in the creation of wealth in human history during the 1980s.
>>
Good. If only they weren't gonna start up again afterwards.
>>
>>339562
And it's still the 10th highest property tax burden in the nation.

The overall tax burden has them ranked at #10 right now comparatively. #1 is New York.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/10/us-states-with-the-highest-tax-burdens.html

>>339564
>And yet revenue still increased.
And so did the respective amount of people's paychecks that went to taxes
And so did the respective tax burden.
And so did the amount of people leaving California.

>>339572
>Not so easy to calculate. The economy is influenced by more than just government tax policy.
You're responding to neo-Paul Krugman, you may as well be speaking in gibberish to him.

>>339579
>And yet tax revenue rose
Yes anon, when you raise taxes, you can expect an initial raise in tax revenue.
>>
>>339574
i was 1 year under the voting age at the time so i couldn't vote. this was the only election i was interested in and i as going to vote Bernie.
>>
>>339580
This isn't Micheal Moore or some youtube video like you're posting. We're talking about Ronald Reagan's own budget director, the guy who was in charge of creating and implementing the tax cuts that were the centerpiece of what he called supply-side economics. And he admitted that it was just a rebranding of the very same trickle-down economics that everyone criticized.
>>
>>339581
>It produced the single largest increase in the creation of wealth in human history during the 1980s.
It absolutely did, too bad for everyone not part of the global elite we didn't get to see any of it!
>>
>>339589
>too bad for everyone not part of the global elite or the boomer generation we didn't get to see any of it!
FTFY
>>
>>339589
>meanwhile American standard of living is the highest in the world, also, coincidentally, the highest in human history
When you compare yourself to someone above you, you shouldn't be so surprised that they have more. Instead of being a hateful, resentful leftist, why not try and work for it?
>leftists
>working
Ohhhhhh yeah i briefly forgot. Silly me.
>>
>>339587
> he admitted that it was just a rebranding of the very same trickle-down economics that everyone criticized.
Prove it. Not with some fake quote made up by the MSM to try to discredit supply side economics. Show me actual video. Otherwise sit down and shut up about things you know nothing about.
>>
>>339587
Which credible economist showed up and said "I have a brand new theory, I call it, trickle down theory!"

As for Reagan's budget director, he's full of shit. The only year under Reagan's presidency where revenue dropped was 1983.
>>
>>339592
No, this is not cheap emotional resentment, this is a reasonable response to the utter gutting of national societies so that the hyper-rich can fuel their endless desire for finance.

The purchasing power of average citizens (i.e. the ability to actually accumulate things) across the developed world have stagnated since the 80s, yet economies continue to "boom" and we're apparently living in more abundance than ever, according to some magical twists of logic. And no, having some shiny device in your pocket that lets you jerk off to pornhub.com in your office bathroom doesn't mean we're now wealthier than before, it means we've invented new ways to distract ourselves from the shitshow we've created.
>>
>>339606
You realism global poverty has been in free fall for decades, right?
>>
>>339595
> Which credible economist showed up and said "I have a brand new theory, I call it, trickle down theory!"
None, they always invent a name to try to sell it to people. Names like "supply-side economics." But it's ultimately the same thing. It says that if you cut taxes, growth will be so great that it will not only pay for itself but actually increase revenue. Yet every time this has been tested, it fails. The state of Kansas declared that it would conduct a great experiment by massively cutting taxes in an attempt to prove that supply side economics works. In reality they created a huge structural deficit that they were unable to compensate for even as they drained their education and transportation budgets.

We have actual data on this, and the data shows that the United States is below the peak of the Laffer curve. Lowering taxes lowers revenue, while increasing taxes increases revenue.
>>
>>339610
In the developing world, yes, but nowhere in economic theory is it necessary for investment in one country to be fuelled by forcing the workers of another country to work longer hours for less pay.
>>
>>339611
>they always invent a name to try to sell it to people

Should they stick to the sophisticated names like "trickle pee pee" and "voodoo magic" economics that make way more sense and are totally more accurate then?

Here, you tell me. Follow the link below

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/omb/budget/Historicals

Then, refer to table 1.1

Under the first row labeled "receipts" between 1981-1989, tell me what kind of a trend you see, is it upward? Is it downward?
>>
>>339618
In the United States and other "developed" nations, working conditions, wages, and work hours followed the same pattern during the early years of the industrial revolution. While you are right to be concerned for the factory workers in poor countries, the demand for skilled labor and higher education needed to build, maintain and improve those facilities is what is uplifting those countries out of poverty. You can not build smart phones and computers using nothing but illiterate children with stone age tools. Someone must build the infrastructure and equipment necessary to make production possible and that means skilled tradesmen, engineers, managers and heavy equipment operators must be trained.
>>
>>339496
>The White House on Saturday said President Barack Obama would veto House Republican legislation that would delay much of the president's health-care overhaul for a year and cancel a tax on medical devices.
How is this any different than Trump saying he will veto any legislation that doesn't include funding for his wall?
That was Obama's government shutting down the government.
Vetoing means refusing to sign. There were budgets he refused to sign.
>>
>>339626
According to that same table, in inflation-adjusted dollars, receipts fell from 1981 onward and didn't rise back up to previous levels again until 1985 after taxes were increased in 1984.

Tax receipts in 2009 dollars:
1981: 1.364 trillion
1982: 1.308 trillion
1983: 1.211 trillion
1984: 1,285 trillion
1985: 1.366 trillion

The data shows that lowering taxes lowers revenue while increasing taxes increases revenue.
>>
>>339606
Your whole post is complete nonsense. Wages have stagnated for a long while, but the price of everything (with the exception of education and healthcare) has decreased, while the quality has steadily increased in the US.
>The utter gutting of national societies so the hyper rich can fuel their endless desire for finance
Is this socialist fanfiction?
>>
>>339649
Correction, not the same table. It's on table 1.3
>>
>>339650
>while, but the price of everything has decreased,
Like fucking what
>>
>>339648
It's different because in the delaying Obamacare, it was the House of Representatives that was attempting to extract a change through the shutdown. Obamacare was going to be implemented, and the Republicans tried to use the threat of a shutdown to delay it. This time around it's Trump who is attempting to extract a change using the shutdown as leverage, namely getting money for his wall.
>>
>>339653
https://www.cato.org/projects/humanprogress/cost-of-living
True, adjusted for inflation, average hourly earnings of production and nonsupervisory employees in the private sector (closest approximation for the quintessential blue-collar worker that I could find) have barely changed between 1979 and 2015. In October 1979, average hourly earnings stood at $6.51 or $21.20 in 2015 dollars. In October 2015, average hourly earnings stood at $21.18 – slightly below the inflation adjusted 1979 level.

Looking at the average hourly earnings, however, ignores at least three very important factors: expansion of non-wage benefits, fall in the price of consumer goods and rise in price of services, such as education and healthcare.
>>
>>339663
They were attempting to extract a change, in passing a budget which didn't fund Obamacare, which is their right as the house of representatives.
>>
>>339653
That happens to be the truth. As it turns out, there are several factors that simple wage statistics ignore. For example, as Marian L. Tupy points out at Reason.com, non-wage benefits have expanded dramatically since 1979—so dramatically that “they could amount to as much as 30 or even 40 percent of the workers’ earnings.” Those non-wage benefits include everything from paid vacation to health care coverage. Economist Edward Conard explains in his bookThe Upside of Inequality:

"Misleading income measures assume tax returns—including pass-through tax entities—represent households. They exclude faster-growing healthcare and other nontaxed benefits. They fail to account for shrinking family sizes, where an increasing number of taxpayers file individual tax returns. They don’t separate retirees from workers. They ignore large demographic shifts that affect the distribution of income. Nor do they acknowledge that consumption is much more evenly distributed than income. More accurate measures show faster income growth, especially for non-Hispanic workers, and wage growth that parallels productivity growth."

More to come ala ben shapiro at Newsweek
>>
>>339670
The most important factor wage statistics ignore is the decrease in prices relative to wages on consumer items. A dollar is worth more when it is exchangeable for more goods and services. And that’s precisely what’s happened in consumer goods—precisely the goods you’d suspect would be most impacted by free trade. According to a study conducted by Human Progress, the time spent to acquire key household goods has decreased massively since 1979: 52 percent for refrigerators; 95 percent for microwaves; 65 percent for gas ranges; 71 percent for gas grills; 94 percent for convection ovens; 61 percent for dishwashers. Trade did what it was supposed to do: lower prices. That means our dollar goes further than it used to, which is probably why, as of 2005, virtually all poor households in the United States had a refrigerator, television, stove and oven, and 8 in 10 had a microwave and air conditioning.
>>
>>339668
Sure, they CAN do it in the same way that someone CAN shoot themselves in the foot. They're still the one doing it and so they are still the ones responsible for it. Look at each case and ask which party is saying "I want you to give me something, and in exchange I will give you reopening the government." Which side is offering up reopening the government as the thing they will do in exchange for a concession from the other party.

In the case of Obamacare, it was Congress saying that they wanted a delay of Obamacare and in exchange they would reopen the government. Thus, the shutdown was their doing.
This time around it's Trump saying that he wants money for a wall and in exchange he will reopen the government. Thus, the shutdown is his doing.

An actual recent example of the Democrats shutting down the government is not the fight over Obamacare, but the one in early 2018 over DACA. The Democrats said that they wanted an extension of DACA and in exchange they would reopen the government, meaning that particular shutdown was their doing.
>>
>>339671
Now, we can look at the parts of the economy that are getting strangled the most.
https://www.citylab.com/equity/2015/05/the-urban-housing-crunch-costs-the-us-economy-about-16-trillion-a-year/393515/
The amount of antiquated zoning, building codes and NIMBYism restricts development and costs 1.6 trillion dollars.
Reason did a story on a classic example of this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExgxwKnH8y4
Bob Tillman has spent nearly 5 years and $1.4 million trying to convert his laundromat into new housing. Half of the housing would be below market rates and be for low income families, and he's still not been able to open it.
Healthcare has been more complicated. America is the only country in the world with the system in place for healthcare, which emerged as a result of price controls on labour during WW2, and the problems with it are harder to unpack.
Education, the problem is simple, the highschool system has been built to only send people to college, and there has been a guarantee on student loans, meaning you can't declare bankruptcy on them, and since someone else is footing the bill, colleges don't have an incentive to compete on price, instead they get chefs making dinners for students, lazy rivers and massive diversity bureaucracy.
>>
>>339594
>Moving the goal posts
It's up to you to prove he didn't say what you claim and hand waving it as 'fake news' doesn't work.
>>
>>339691
And yet, the solution is to inject more government controls into the parts of the economy which haven't been hideously hobbled by government mismanagement already. "If it doesn't work, double down" is the leftist motto at this point.
>>
>>339703
If you're stupid enough to still believe the WMeDia then there's no point in talking to you.
>>
>>339704
This is why I was a liberal as a teenager, because I assumed that the government would be more efficient and have better incentives. After all, if you're distributing food for 100 million people instead of a million, you would have economies of scale and so on.
Only by looking at the evidence, and the quality and cost of government work did I realize the error of my ways.
>>
>>339651
Wowee, sounds like inflation needs to be controlled! Better tax the rich!
>>
>>338649
A lot of people live paycheck to paycheck. If my job withheld pay for a month I'd be fucked.
>>
>>339708
>Damage control
>>
>>339703
Maybe it's because his claim is like saying "pro choice" is just a rebranding of "anti life". Or "tax and spend" is just a rebranding of "tax and waste".

The reverse is true. "Trickle down" has never been used by anyone but the critics of supply side economics. It's a straw man and it fails to even accurately portray the goal of supply side economics. Here's a hint: its goal is not to just make the wealth so concentrated in the hands of the rich that they just start dropping money everywhere. The goal is to increase investment into new businesses, research and development, and expand production. All of those things require someone to have money, and for that person to pay a bunch of people do do the work. The end result is increased output of consumer goods, lower prices, and new conveniences (like smart phones). It's the most proven approach to creating wealth as other methods either fail to compete, (voluntary communes), or don't work at all. (state socialism).
>>
>>339844
>It's the most proven approach to creating wealth as other methods either fail to compete, (voluntary communes), or don't work at all. (state socialism).
I don't dispute your definition of supply-side economics. I DO dispute this statement, because it's plainly obvious that this doesn't fucking work.

Implementation of supply-side theory has stagnated wages, choked local job growth, and in at least one case, resulted in a full-on recession! It's a terrible idea and it doesn't work.
>>
>>339868
This, Republicans attempted full on supply side economics in Kansas, and it was such a disaster, Democrats made gains in the state.
https://www.cbpp.org/research/state-budget-and-tax/kansas-provides-compelling-evidence-of-failure-of-supply-side-tax-cuts
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/unpacked/2017/07/11/the-kansas-tax-cut-experiment/

Meanwhile trickle down cultists are tripling down saying my true form of trickle down economics hasn't been tried yet to explain their destruction of Kansas.
>>
>>339832
Plebe.
You manage your money like shit then
>>
>>339872
Kansas' economy was terrible because of a crash in the price of commodities like oil which Kansas depends on, it had nothing to do with the tax cuts. Texas has also been aggressively cutting taxes and as a result they have one of the best economies of all the states.
>>
>>339844
>The end result is increased output of consumer goods, lower prices, and new conveniences (like smart phones)
in theory. and it does work to some extent, but mostly that money just gets pocketed by the rich, the deficit grows, and the middle class shrinks
>>
>>339883
>My true form of tickle down economic hasn't been tried!
Meanwhile California has been raising taxes and it's the 5th largest economy in the world, expanding services instead of gutting them and is projected to have a larger surplus than expected.

Balls in your court to justify trickle down now.
>>
>>339885
> is projected to have a larger surplus than expected.
Wrong. California has the largest debt of any state and people are fleeing the state in droves because California's economy is a complete mess.
>>
>>339892
And the highest homeless population.
State really is a shit show
>>
>>339893
dont forget all the fire

Mother Nature/God whoever is aggressively punishing Cali for some reason
>>
>>339884
>but mostly that money just gets pocketed by the rich
In banks, who lend it out. Business loans and student loans both help with income mobility and the economy as a whole. (As long as the government isn't guaranteeing the loans and giving banks no incentive to question whether or not you'll be able to pay them back)

>the deficit grows
Only because conservatives have a habit of increasing military spending and starting wars. Absent of that side of the Republican platform, supply side economics is solid.

>and the middle class shrinks
The middle class is shrinking due to immigration, debt (guaranteed loans), taxes and inflation.

>>339872
>hasn't been tried yet
It's been tried and it's worked.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-ab&q=companies+that+raised+wages+after+trump+tax+cuts
>>
>>339925
>student loans - - help with income mobility and the economy as a whole
No.
>supply side economics is solid.
No.
>It's been tried and it's worked.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-ab&q=companies+that+raised+wages+after+trump+tax+cuts
Cherry picking. What about the hundreds corporations that did NOT raise wages?.And that's just corporations. And the cost for other tax payers is very big (debt) for the benefit of handful of corporations raising wages a little.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-01-13/the-next-american-car-recession-has-already-started
https://americansfortaxfairness.org/key-facts-american-corporations-really-trump-tax-cuts/
>>
>>339872
>Meanwhile trickle down cultists are tripling down saying my true form of trickle down economics hasn't been tried yet to explain their destruction of Kansas.
TRUE COMMUNISM HASN'T BEEN et cetera.

It's the standard go-to when someone is trying to pitch an economic theory that doesn't work in practice.
>>
>>339955
Ask someone if they'd rather live in Kansas or Venezuela
>>
>>339984
Touche, I was not trying to put the two on the same level. Supply side capitalism is inherently dysfunctional, while communism is inherently unworkable.
>>
>>339955
There is literally nobody and no group of any consequence calling for trying to approach anything approximating true communism outside of North Korea.
There are no parties calling for a 99% income tax on everyone, at the most you have the socialists saying "let's have single payer healthcare and increase everyone's taxes by an average of 5% since you won't be paying insurance premiums". That isn't communism.
>>
>>340012
And so when AoC talks about a 70% tax rate?
I suppose that's fake news?
>>
>>340014
No, but the version a lot of right wingers parrot it as is quite ridiculous.

AOC's proposal, which actually exists in a few NATO member states, is that any money am individual makes over 10 million annually is to be taxed by 70% - NOT, as Town Hall would have you believe, a flat 70% rate. Under this plan if you made 10.2m a year you would only pay the 70% on $200,000 of your income.

I'm ambiguous on it, but I don't like smear, so I want to get the truth out.
>>
>>340014
a 70% top marginal tax rate on income over 10M$ isn't communism. We're talking about taking a portion of additional wealth acquired by the ultra-wealthy, who won't even notice it, and redistributing ownership to where it's desperately needed in our country, like modernizing infrastructure, education, healthcare, reducing the deficit, developing green energy. Income inequality is at record highs yet wage growth remains anemic. Executives are happy to give themselves massive bonuses and sit on the wealth, corporate tax cuts are being used for stock buybacks and consolidation that results in layoffs. We've far passed the point where allotting a greater share of wealth to the wealthiest is resulting in diminished returns
>>
>>340024
>AOC's proposal, which actually exists in a few NATO member states that don't pay for their own defense and financial receive aid from the US
FTFY

> so I want to get the truth out.
No you don't
>>
>>340025
>a 70% top marginal tax rate on income over 10M$ isn't communism
No, it's socialism, which was specifically designed and envisioned to bring about communism. Totally different!
>>
>>340026
>NATO member states that don't pay for their own defense and financial receive aid from the US
This is true, but isn't relevant. Higher taxes means more military budget, so ostensibly a higher tax rate would enable the US to better fund it's defense. What is your point?
>>
>>340029
>This is true, but isn't relevant
It's very relevant, it's in part why they're able to afford the social programs you love so much. Also in part why their citizens have lower purchasing powers compared to US citizens.

>What is your point?
We spend too much on defense and foreign aid, we don't need more taxes and more spending.
We need less taxes and less spending. Everything is bloated.
>>
>>340034
>It's very relevant, it's in part why they're able to afford the social programs you love so much.
That's not what you said. You said they don't have their own defense budget because they rely on NATO.

And I didn't mention any social programs.

What the hell are you taking about?
>>
Why would you work when you're keeping less than half of what you earn?
Why would a world class heart surgeon perform surgery when he's getting less than half the money for the same amount of work. He wouldn't, so the waiting list gets longer, or the price of the surgery gets even higher so that he can get adequately compensated, because the government is taking more than half. Meaning people die on waiting lists or can't afford surgery.
The Rock has a valuable skillset. Why would he star in another movie when he gets 30% of the money for the same amount of work. He wouldn't, so he stays at home, the movie doesn't get made, and all the other people who would have gotten a job if he signed on, the boom mic operator, the extras and so on don't get a job. You're wasting human potential.
>>
>>340036
>That's not what you said. You said they don't have their own defense budget because they rely on NATO
Yes, that's exactly what I said, these two concepts are not mutually exclusive.

>And I didn't mention any social programs.
Not directly. But why else would you advocate a 70% tax rate?

>What the hell are you taking about?
The logical conclusion of your own ideology? Economic realities you can't wish away with the help of the Pravda?
>>
big meltdown by trump he's finished
>>
>>340054
>these two concepts are not mutually exclusive.
More than that, they're totally unrelated.

We have country X, that has the AoC tax plan. According to you said country also doesn't pay a lot into it's military because it's a NATO member.

This is probably true, since most European NATO members benefit from the alliance - that is it's primary purpose.

Furthermore, according to you, Country X also has a large number of social programs that they pay for with their large taxes, because they don't pay into their military.

Again, that makes sense.

But somehow this translates to lower purchasing power on the part of the citizens? I fail to see how a tax on the upper portions ONLY of <1% of the population depresses the buying power of the entire nation more than would be counteracted by the paid-for welfare programs, unless they're spectacularly badly implemented. Studies show that accounting for the basic needs of underprivileged citizens frees up their income for other consumer goods, which is an overall boon to the economy.

Again I'm ambiguous on the AoC plan itself, but for reference I do support tax-supported welfare programs in general, for the reasons I just outlined.

Now, what's your problem with it?
>>
>>340064
>More than that, they're totally unrelated.
But they're not. Just because you don't

>But somehow this translates to lower purchasing power on the part of the citizens? like it doesn't make it so.
Higher taxes= lower purchasing power. Things are more expensive because of taxes, more taxes are taken out of income.

>Now, what's your problem with it?
Taxation is theft bruv
>>
>>340066
>Higher taxes= lower purchasing power.
Assuming taxation is a flat rate-
>>340066
>Taxation is theft bruv
Oh, okay then. I thought we were going to have a serious discussion on how to levy income for the government but apparently I ran into yet another sovcit nut job.

I know how this is going. I'm going to ask how the government is to support itself, and then you'll say it doesn't need to, and then I'll ask how you plan on living in a world with no government and you'll give an answer rooted firmly in fantasy that invokes either a critical misunderstanding of human nature or assumes you can defend your home with a moist nugget.

We're done here.
>>
>>340070
>Assuming taxation is a flat rate-
It doesn't have to be a flat rate. There are taxes at nearly every level of economic interaction. Countries/states with higher income tax rates also generally tend to have more of these said taxes at most levels of economic interaction. It adds up.

>I thought we were going to have a serious discussion
You can't have a serious discussion with someone honestly advocating a 70% income tax in support of someone like AOC. You can only trigger them.

>I know how this is going.
You propose a strawman and I ignore it? Correct.

>We're done here.
If you can bear it, sure.
>>
>>339925
>39 companies
Out of how many?
Also, the companies already admitted they weren't going to do it before the tax cut for the rich was passed.
https://twitter.com/nataliewsj/status/930477112808628226
>>
>>340080
Nope.

You don't get to throw anything approaching economic theory onto the table after equating taxation with theft. Either walk that shit back or get out.
>>
>>340140
I don't agree him with him but you need to debunk his point his point if you're going to be so adamant about it. The government requiring revenue does not make taxation not theft.
>>
https://www.newsmax.com/US/Tax-rates-wealthy-corporations/2012/02/27/id/430704/
here are the results of asking the public what tax rate the rich should pay:

21 percent of respondents recommend a rate below 20 percent;
17 percent recommend a rate of 20 percent;
23 percent recommend a 25 percent rate;
14 percent recommend a 30 percent rate;
13 percent recommend a 35 percent rate;
4 percent recommend a 40 percent rate;
no one recommends a 45 percent rate.
>>
>>340140
Different person
Why is it the job of government to redistribute wealth?
I get government paying for roads, garbage collection, lighthouses, tragedy of the commons, public goods, all that stuff.
But if Stacey has no husband and has a kid, why is it the job of the government to pay her bills and feed her kids?
And why do I have to pay for it through my taxes? And how is that not like theft? Robbing Peter to pay Paul
>>
>>340178
Alright, fair.

>>340190
>Why is it the job of government to redistribute wealth?
It's not. Governments job is to provide the services only it can provide while damaging the finances of the populace as little as possible.

The sensible way to do this is to touch the money that us used least, most. So ideally the money any given citizen receives that goes towards their livelihood should not be touched at all, while the money that is so voluminous it's actually difficult to spend on something genuinely useful can be taxed without fear of damaging that citizen's spending power.

So, the more money you make, the more above a certain amount that can be taxed. That's the basic idea.
>>
>>340194
>The sensible way to do this is to touch the money that us used least, most.
Wouldn't that be money under people's mattresses? If you put a million dollars in the bank, that money is being lent out to 3 or 4 different people in the form of mortgages or business loans through fractional reserve banking.
Government is no more efficient at providing goods or services than private industry. If historical track record is any evidence, private companies are more efficient as they have to compete and innovate. When was the last time you saw an innovation coming from the DMV? So presumably the argument is public goods, and preventing the tragedy of the commons, enforcing rules and property rights. That still doesn't have to do with what a majority of the budget is spent on
https://media.nationalpriorities.org/uploads/total_spending_pie%2C__2015_enacted.png
>>
We should bring the tax rates back up to 70% on the rich, if not higher.
It's a defacto maximum wage since there's a point where you take in so much money you're not going to use it. So a tax rate of 70% or more on millionaires will give them incentives to reinvest the money the company makes as opposed to just hoarding it.
>>
>>340204
>Government is no more efficient at providing goods or services than private industry
Fundamentally incorrect. Government can provide goods and services at a loss, and does so consistently. This allows it to fund inherentlynunprofitable ventures like public roads and highways.

Corporations must turn a profit eventually, or go under. The government, on thebotherbhand, is constitutionally obligated to spend every dollar it takes in; even if the national budget was less than the national revenue the remainder would go towards paying off the national debt. If the nation has no debt, it has to use every cent it takes in.

Corporations, on the other hand, save and conserve for bad quarters, because they are fiscally vulnerable in ways the government is not.

It is NOT the government's job to innovate. It is the government's job to be stable and secure.
>>
>>340218
Just because it losses money doing something, doesn't mean it's more efficient.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKRuhiMDOjo
https://globalnews.ca/news/3614167/tom-riley-park-stairs-removed-toronto/
>>
>>340211
i vote conservative and tbqh corporate taxes should be lower and personal income tax higher for higher earners.
instead of just a "you made x so you pay y%" scheme, personal income taxes should be an asymptotic formula f(x) where the limit of f(x) as x -> infinity = 100%
ex something like f(x)=1-1/x ... so that the more you make the more taxes you pay
>>
>>340282
It DOES mean that it takes a completely different approach to economics.

Saying corporations and governments operate similarly in economics is like saying particles and planets behave the same according to the laws of physics. They TECHNICALLY do, but in a practical sense it's idiotic to say so.
>>
>>340288
This, if Block Buster were a branch of the government, it would still be renting out DVDs and console games. It would still be chasing people down for late fees. It would also still be losing money every year and charging you, the tax payer to make up that difference. Their employees would also be paid more to do less, and would have better benefits. You would not be able to rent a movie from them on a Sunday.
>>
>>340317
Well done. Well done!
>>
>>340284
I mean holy shit you're retarded. That's called a progressive tax. We already have it, but reputations just keep lowering the top rate. It was over 90% in the mid 1900. People threw a fit when aoc suggested the top rate should be 70%. But republicans spin it by saying everyone will be paying 70% on all income.
>>
>>340317
Conversely, if we were being governed by Wal-Mart, we wouldn't have any roads or other large scale public utilities, because the investment to build them is gigantic and they never turn a profit. We also wouldn't be able to expand the economy nearly as fast or as well, because no defecit spending.

And that's not even getting into what civil rights would look like.

Government =/= business.
>>
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/01/15/democrats-refuse-trumps-meeting-shutdown-1101486
Moderate Democrats reject Trump talks because they realize e he was just trying to divide the party and he couldn't be negotiated with in good faith.

This shows you how strong Pelosi's hand is. Democrats are united in strength and resolve Republicans are held together by intimidation and fear.
>>
>>340317
If I wanted blockbuster to exist I would pay for it. Voting with your wallets allows minority rule. You don't need 51% of the population to want blockbuster. So long as 10% or 5% of the population really wants vegan food for their pets, they can stay in business
>>
>>340781
Pelosi had some contention with her fellow dems, especially the new class, about whether she had the party's best interests in mind. She won them over and got the votes she needed: a 95% majority.

There is a woman who has earned her place.
>>
>>338812
>if it doesn't gobble Dear Leader's cock then its biased!
Imagine being such a mindless NPC
>>
This just in McConnell blocks a budget bill...again.

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/425414-mcconnell-blocks-house-bill-to-reopen-government-for-second-time
>>
>>340781
>he couldn't be negotiated with in good faith

ding ding ding. Everything Trump has done up to this point shows he cannot be trusted to negotiate in good faith. The same goes for Mitch "I give you my word I'll bring DACA legislation to a vote if you vote for my budget" McConnell who so obsequiously wriggles at Trump's feet, too scared to oppose his almighty 90% GOP approval rating. He knows his own ratings are shit and people hate party traitors which is what he would be branded if he stood up to Trump.
>>
>>340784
Critically, however, their job is not to serve the entire populace, just their customer base.

Government must serve all citizens as efficably as it can. It's kinda the point.
>>
>>340939
It's not being efficient though.
That's the entire point.
>>340282
You have a goal, like to build a staircase, or a bathroom, or to deliver a volt of electricity, or to pick up garbage. And the cost of the government delivering that volt, or picking up that bag of trash is twice if not more than what it would cost for a private company to do that
>>
>>340789
Within the democratic party, she's a velvet hammer. She expertly played the hand she was given in regards to getting back the speaker ship, first placating those who might prove a creditable challenge and then just sat back and watched as no one else wanted to challenge her which caused the 'resistance' to panic. However she still didn't have enough votes to secure the speakership, while at the same time, she's going to be looking over legacy were she doesn't want to be seen as a hanger on. So she made that massive concession of saying she'd step down in 4 years, (but without having it written in stone so if the wind is entirely at the democrats back, she can renege on the promise.) and quelled the rebellion. Keep in mind the conservatively biased media was hyping this up as massive inter party revolt and it was just a matter of time before someone would challenge Pelosi.

Pelosi is a deal maker and technocrat, but lacks that charisma to inspire which I assume is why she never had presidential aspirations. Although I do enjoy how she has no problem striking low blows at Trump like calling the wall an allegory for his manhood and commenting that no wonder he has trouble getting it up.
>>
>>340951
>the cost of the government delivering that volt, or picking up that bag of trash is twice if not more than what it would cost for a private company to do that
That is not true. There's no physical law that says government is always more expensive to do something. The only reason you hear about ridiculous expenses and mismanaged money is because government is legally required to disclose spending. Private companies have no such obligation. A company can be hired to fix and road and use some of the money to buy a golden toilet for the owner and they have no obligation to tell anyone.
>>
>>341063
This. Furthermore, government CREATES the market in which businesses operate, via regulation and it's cancerous cousin regulatory capture. Asking government and business to measure to the same ruler is asinine.
>>
>>340964
>Pelosi is a deal maker and technocrat, but lacks that charisma to inspire which I assume is why she never had presidential aspirations
I think it's more because she recognizes that being president = peaking - once you leave the office you're essentially no longer a public official. No president has ever held a public office AFTER the office of president, to my knowlege.

So she sits in a middle office for twenty, thirty, forty years, making slow but steady policy.
>>
>>341063
>That is not true. There's no physical law that says government is always more expensive to do something.

Generally speaking, the government can not adapt to market forces and becomes more and more inefficient as time progresses. The only thing that the government truly excels at is war.
>>
>>341171
Again, this is not necessarily true. There is no reason why government couldn't operate like any business. Supply and demand is universal. Government is not bad at economics because it's government. That being said I don't advocate for government to produce things a market could easily do.

>The only thing that the government truly excels at is war.
This is also wrong. Governmentso excel at creating new markets. Only governments have the resources to invest in things with no clear return on investment. Most of modern tech depend on Satellites which came from government programs. Manufacturing of clothing came from the need for army uniforms in the civil war. As just a few examples.
Basically everything comes from government investment to get it off the ground, then it trickles into the market where market forces act and we see great improvement from compitition.
>>
>>341620
>There is no reason why government couldn't operate like any business.
Having cheats enabled is a pretty good fucking reason.
>>
>>341169
If you count the Supreme Court Taft went from President to Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

In general Presidents stay away from all politics after their terms are up to avoid undermining the current President though.
>>
It is a bit hyperbolic to compare to previous regimes (Nazi Germany) but it is getting ever closer.

An emergency declaration during a government shutdown? This is the stuff of conspiracy theorists and lunatics, right?

We seem closer than ever to that brink. And remember, as long ago as it was, Germany was seen as the world's leader in medicine, technology and sciences. Or at least among the top few.

They were cosmopolitan, educated, and respected people. Who still fell into the hands of a manipulative dictator who knew exactly what lever to pull and when to do so.

I am certain there are many Germans on this sub who can say much more on this topic than I ever could.

I am not suggesting Trump would revisit the Holocaust or even start a World War. I am suggesting that those tendencies exist in him.

A better, younger, more charismatic version of Trump might do some or all of that. Which is why Trump should be brought to justice for any crimes he has committed.

This cannot happen again. We are lucky, in a sense, that he is widely regarded as a stumbling buffoon. The damage from a real politician, with savvy and smarts? That could be devastating, more so than anything Trump is capable of.
>>
>>341645
I thought it's because they seen too damn much and can't be assed anymore.
>>
>>341654
>but it is getting ever closer.
>Germany was seen as the world's leader in medicine, technology and sciences.
They were in a hyper inflationary depression after the rest of the world butt fucked their economy because they lost WW1. They elected someone who was crazy knowing full well that they wanted crazy. The National Socialist party had people who were openly preaching Marxism and condemning the "injustices of capitalism" before the communists were purged from the party after the election.

>I am not suggesting Trump would revisit the Holocaust or even start a World War. I am suggesting that those tendencies exist in him.

>Im not saying that Trump is Hitler, I am saying that Trump is Hitler

You don't know the first thing about Hitler. You have been spoiled since the day you were born and you look at people in the past who had it infinitely worse than you and think "We're literally going through that right now". I can't wait for the day when all the debt nations have accumulated trying to buy votes from fragile people like you collapses and all the money becomes worthless. No more Internet, no more electricity, no more cable, no more conveniences, just reality. I'll then get to see all the spoiled pearl clutchers like you run faster than you've ever run straight into the hands of REAL nazis, and that would just be priceless.
>>
>>341739
Now, this is a prime example of a post that starts reasonable and then spirals into nuttery.

You START by pointing out that the Weimar Republic was in way worse condition than the US - which is true.

But then, on the basis of lousy hyperbole on anon's part, you spiral into this insane anti-civilization rant that hopes for the destruction of society so you can watch people like anon suffer.

This post actually advocates the destruction of western civilization...to own the Libs.
>>
>>341620
Okay. Then let's look at modern history.
The market for turning a spare room into your house.
Was that a market made by government?
No, it was made by Airbnb, a private company, that allowed people to earn money, by triangulating customers and sellers, building trust, and generally lowering transaction costs to having a stranger stay in your house for money.
Let's look at another market, turning space in the back of your car, that you weren't using, into money. Was this something that goverrnment excelled at creating?
No. It was made despite government.
The government made taxis. The free market made Uber. What do people think about taxis vs uber?
http://www.pewinternet.org/2016/05/19/on-demand-ride-hailing-apps/
It seems that people who have tried using an Uber use it more than taxis, and prefer it over taxis.
>>
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/trump-shutdown-we-are-getting-crushed

Trump Vents To Mulvaney: ‘We Are Getting Crushed!’ On Shutdown Coverage
>>
>>341769
Fine let's take Uber and air bnb. Without government funding there would be no satellites, no Internet and no computers. So no air bnb or uber.
There's no reason for the government to get into these markets but it doesn't mean some individual working for the government couldn't come up with the idea.
Also air bnb is terrible. It's terrible for just about everyone.
>>
>>341977
>Says he will take the blame if a shutdown happens
>People blame him when the shutdown happens
HOW COULD THIS HAVE HAPPENED?!

What happened to that retard who claimed Democrats would immediately cave to save the government workers?
>>
>>341977
>Why can't we get a deal?
I mean when you've dealt in bad faith in the past, do you really expect anyone to want to continue dealing with you? How does he not get that?
>>
>>342491
The big problem is that the whole political system has worked with consistent bad faith for decades now, so of course it's going to be a shutdown prone mess.
>>
>>342495
No it hasn't, it's only gotten bad in recent years because of the Republicans and them being hyper partisan. This is not a 'both sides' issue, it's Republicans refusing to compromise.
>>
>>342498
>compromise
>in this case, meaning dems get they want and repubs eat shit
lol, there's a reason they became stubborn partisans
>>
>>342500
>A terrorist takes hostages
>Thinking giving into the terrorists demand is ever A good idea.
Obama didn't do it during the Republican shutdown of 2013, Democrats have no reason to do it now because of the horrible precedent it sets where Trump will just shutdown the government to extort the American people the next time he wants something.
>>
>>342512
Then get ready for a lot of shutdowns, because there's no real reason for republicans to cave either. "Surrender and then we'll start negotiation" is not very persuasive.
>>
>>339574
>tfw black and also voted trump but deeply regret it now

If you were here in 2014 and early 2015 you could see the trump starting early on. I'd been seeing the memes for so long that I was just like "fuck I'll vote for him just to see what happens". My parents shamed the fuck out of me for voting for him. I live in a blue state so it's not like my vote even counted anyway.
>>
>>342498
>it's only gotten bad in recent years because of the Republicans and them being hyper partisan.


Partisanship isn't exclusive to the right. Both sides do that to an extreme degree because our system isn't designed to make both sides reach compromise. It's designed to create a loser and a winner. The divisiveness we see today is just the culmination of that.
>>
>>342517
>Partisanship isn't exclusive to the right.
>Using this fallacy.
Look up the term asymmetric politicization and you'll see how Republicans are not only worse, but they're dragging the country to the right and destroying it because of idiots like you that create a false dichotomy.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/06/yes-polarization-is-asymmetric-and-conservatives-are-worse/373044/

Because remember, people the right wing are branding as communists today had the same policy ideas as the New Dealers did during the great depression, and shock, they weren't communists. But asymmetrical politicization has made it seem like the New Dealers are some sort of extremists
>>
>>342500
How many republican congressmen explicitly called for a border wall to be built and at least $5 billion to be set aside for it, before Trump did it and started the shutdown?
>>
>>342520
Even if the Republicans are worse that doesn't mean the democrats aren't bad. Fuck outta here dude. There is no "false" dichotomy, there is only a dichotomy because our stupid political system means that our most revolutionary bills and programs often end up handicapped right out of the gate.

We have no central parties in this country, so if you wanna vote for universal healthcare or pro-green, you have to vote that trannies are normal well-adjusted people and in favor of gun regulation. If you wanna vote for more immigration restrictions, you then also have to vote against birth control, social welfare, and corporate taxes.


You're not gonna pin me to one side of this debate. I'm a registered indepedent. Fuck both parties, and fuck you.
>>
>>342524
>You're not gonna pin me to one side of this debate. I'm a registered indepedent. Fuck both parties, and fuck you.

I am going to use this quote for my write-in vote in 2020.
>>
>>342524
> You're not gonna pin me to one side of this debate. I'm a registered indepedent. Fuck both parties, and fuck you.
You do realize that in the United States that's really fucking stupid, right? As long as we have first past the post voting, we will have two dominant parties. And all you're doing by not joining one is leaving yourself at the mercy of a primary system that you have no influence over. On top of that, you're shrinking the number of people involved in the primary process, which means that the people who remain (who are usually the most extreme) have disproportionately more influence.

People who register as independents make the whole problem even worse, all so that they can feel smug and superior.
>>
>>342551

Nah fuck off. Not every state has closed primaries and no state should in the first place. You shouldn't have to lock yourself into one of two random parties just because the founding fathers were too dumb to devise a system that can handle more than two opinions.

>People who register as independents make the whole problem even worse, all so that they can feel smug and superior.

Fuck off retard. I don't have to participate in the system if I don't agree with it. I'm not required by law to vote. If the next round of candidates is as garbage as 2016 I'm just voting for the ayy lmaos because this "pick AIDS or Cancer" bullshit isn't working.
>>
>>342379
That's not true. The government version of the first touchscreen as an example, cost $180,000, weighed half a ton, and had little software capacity. The computer as understood by government would have no use. Like the field of aerodynamics before the Wright brothers, it would be an oddity, to be set aside with the jetpack and the gyrojet gun. Same with the internet. It's not as though without the government nobody in the private sector would be capable of thinking "we should connect these computers together"
>>
>>342512
I am still refusing the premise the 2013 shutdown was caused by anyone but Obama.
>>
>>342566
Republicans were trying to gut the ACA which millions of Americans rely on and Obama and the Democrats told them no. If we had a Constitutional Amendment that stated that a lack of agreement on the funding levels defaults to the previous year's funding level it wouldn't even be possible for stuff like that to happen.
>>
>>342574
It was their right to do. In the same way it's the right of the supreme Court to pass rulings that the president doesn't like, the house of representatives can pass laws that fund presidential pet projects like ACA or the wall, or not.
The fundamental disagreement I have is the default position. You think the default should be the government spending money. I think the default should be the taxpayers keeping their money. I would be against funding level defaulting to the previous years level, because the previous year is already too much
>>
>>342579
If you believe that strongly in your position then you should be able to convince people about it without relying on taking the entire government hostage. Keeping the status quo so nothing happens in the meantime is a fine solution.
>>
>>342520
That's not true.
Gay marriage, during the 90s there was no support for it, Clinton was at most for civil unions. Now to be against gay marriage being legal would get you tarred for being far right
Pot legalization, was a fringe issue. Back during Clinton's second election there was legal medical marijuana in California, but that was the extent of it. Now there's marijuana legalized in many states, and not just for medical purposes
Work requirements for welfare. Were passed by Clinton, mostly removed under Obama.
Clinton crime bill, passed dealing with super predators, and cracking down on urban crime. Now those same laws are considered racist and the extended sentences want to be repealed under the banner of criminal justice reform.
Look at transgender protection and bathroom laws. Where was the country back in the 90s and compared to now.
Again, how can you say the country is moving to the right? It's an ignorant statement
>>
>>342582
And if there was enough support, Congress could change the rules so what you proposed took place, instead of the government shutting down. But there's not and they haven't
>>
>>342564
It was government funding that made the computer and Internet in the first place. Once they actually come into existence then market competition produces things like the touch screen. Like almost all new technology, there is no clear benifets to its usage. A company will not invest huge sums of money inventing things with unquantifiable returns on investment. That's a fast way to bankruptcy.
Government is backed by tax revenue so they can afford to make the research and development to create new industries.
Yeah other companies do r&d but they are always backed by subsidies. Which means they are just working as a proxy of the government.
>>
https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/government-shutdown-affect-snap-food-stamps-wic-millions-could-face-severe-cuts-in-2019-funding-usda-2018-01-09/
Trump is now intent on letting Americans starve.

Reminder, letting your own people starve is something only dictators do. Or idiots who need to be removed from office because they're incompetent.
>>
>>342599
>A few minor social issues and issues where America moves to the center. (See welfare and the crime bill.)
>Compared to the fuck ton of economical issues where America have shifted to the far right because of Republican behavior (trickle down economic and the right's scorched earth war against the social safety net.)
Hmmm...
>>
>>338863
That's real cute and it works until you consider the fact that Dems literally bring them in and when the number gets big enough and they have a Dem as President, they just pretend it's ok they came here illegally, give them citizenship and have a few more million democratic voters who can't speak a lick of english and the courts protect that lack of ability to speak by forcing everyone else to figure out how to talk to them.

You can fuck right off with that. Only citizens have a place here.
>>
>>338925
>court saying travel ban is illegal

Neither the court nor your jewsih dems had any right at all in any shape or form to tell the President how to dictate foreign policy and national security. That right is squarely within the President's domain and no other branch has any ability to touch it in any way shape or form.

All the "courts" which attempted to block it were playing political games and making demands. There was never any question of the legality of his actions.
>>
>>339538
Clearly you've never actually paid much attention to California. We've had several tax increases that were intended to pay for one thing or another only for them to come back a few years later and ask for more taxes because the need to fund the same exact things because they used the previous taxes for something else no one had agreed to.

California is the closest thing to a communist state in the nation where they literally take from anyone doing ok and spread it out to everyone else and I'm convinced they will continue doing this until everyone is making the same amount of money regardless of effort put in.
>>
>>339648
Because a staffer said that, not the president.

In addition, Obamacare was already passed. The wall is not.
>>
>>342749
You can't pick and choose what is minor and what isn't. We are getting social left wing by the media and corporations as they rake in profits and tax cuts.
>>
>>342771
https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2011/0731/America-s-big-shift-right
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/09/america-not-moving-left-213095

Wrong, we're getting more right wing by economic policies.
>The destruction of the Labor movement in America
>The tripling down on trickle down economics after it has failed time and time again
>The fact that corporations unaccountable. (It's Republicans who have been strongly pushing this.)
>The Republican courts handing wins to the religious right allowing them oppress groups.
>Roll back of civil rights (See the Republican supreme court gutting the Civil Rights Acts or Republicans letting domestic abuse law lapse)
>The rise of monopolies again (AT&T existing.)
>The marginalization of organizations that have the public interest at heart over the corporation one like the EPA.
Part of this is because Republicans play the zero sum game now starting with Gingrich, but it's also the media and idiots like you that declare both sides are at fault, like a woman getting raped because of how she dresses is a factor.

Overall, the people in America tend to prefer liberal ideas, but because of the hyper polarization of the right in the past 30 years and the fact they embrace anti democratic ideals like gerrymandering and voter suppression to keep power, they have over influence based on their size.

We're already see new Data that Generation Z is even more liberal than the Millennials, but of course, as long as conservatives continue to rig the system and push their policies, while they have neutrals lie to themselves saying it's both sides fault when it's just one, we'll never solve anything.

Again, go back to the New Dealers, lay out what they did to save the country from Republican economic policy today and you'd be called a communist because of how Republicans have shifted the political spectrum and the media refuses to call them out on it.
>>
Trump and McConnell's government shutdown has official broken the shutdown clocks for cable news.
They're just using days now instead of day, hours minutes and seconds.
>>
>>342749
Those weren't REAL Scotsman, err policies.
http://www.truthfulpolitics.com/images/us-government-size-spending-by-president.jpg
Do you mind helping me point out when the government started cutting the social safety net, that's a large majority of the budget
https://media.nationalpriorities.org/uploads/total_spending_pie%2C__2015_enacted.png
>>
>>342777
check'd.
>>
>>342760
The Vietnam war was funded before, does that mean that Congress can't cut funding for it?
That because it was funded before it has to be funded indefinitely into the future?
>>
>>342776
>Wrong, we're getting more right wing by economic policies.


That what's I meant but I just fucked up my post.
>>
>>342778
>Social safety net.
Oh look Trump and the Republicans are still undermining it in their war against the poor and working class.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/11/27/trump-medicare-plan-cuts-prices-and-coverage-of-some-critical-drugs.html
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/1/17/18186676/government-shutdown-medicaid-block-grants

Also, the fact that republicans refuse to pay government workers proves that the 'dignity of work' is a myth.
>>
>>342782
So where in the chart are they cutting the social safety net?
>>
>>342782
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/11/27/trump-medicare-plan-cuts-prices-and-coverage-of-some-critical-drugs.html

This isn't too bad, considering the awful shit-show that's Medicare Part D. Can you believe that the government is specifically banned from negotiating with companies about prescription drug price?
>>
>>342781
Socially, we're moving to the center on lot of issues for the first world. But we're moving to the right because of the Republican courts ruling in favor of the religious right. (Right to oppress people, violating the 1st amendment by state sponsoring religion, making it easier for religious groups to be political, etc.)

>>342784
>Can you believe that the government is specifically banned from negotiating with companies about prescription drug price?
And who's to blame for that? On right Republicans and the right wing cow towing to pharmaceuticals and the insurance industry. I.E. conservative policy.
>>
>>342785
Don't say we are moving to the center, when every single one of those policies is moving to the left, gay marriage, transgender issues and so on. By saying we're moving to the center you're just moving the goal posts
>>
>>342789
We're moving to the right on economic policies.
>>
Gay and transgender rights are a drop in the bucket when compared to how we've moved to the right on religious issues and far right on the economy.
To claim it's a wash or we're moving leftward as a whole is a intellectual bankruptcy.
>>
>>342785
You're saying we're moving to the center, but when it comes to having the corporate tax rate lowered from the highest in the world, to moving more in line with other countries, you call that a move to far right policies.
Hello, do you see the contradiction here?
>>
>>342794
Why would decreasing taxes on corporations not be a move to the right?
>>
>>338835
That is fairly rich, actually
>>
>>342794
So we've moved from a left, to right wing policy on corporate tax rates by your logic. You just blew it.

Also if you need more prove of Republicans shoving the party rightward. Look no further than the healthcare debate on Obamacare. Obama decided to pussy out and only offered what was the Republican plan in the 1990's when Clinton tried to fix the system, and it was called Dolecare. But suddenly Republicans called bloody murder decying their old plan as socialism.

Let me say that again. Their old plan, less than 20 years old, was socialism to the conservatives.

If that's not a hard lurch rightward, you tell me what.
>>
>>342796
>>342798
By your definition it would be a move to the center. As it would be more in line with other countries. But you don't define it as a move to the center, but as a move to the far right. Exemplifying you defining every policy you like as centrist and reasonable, and everything you dislike being far right and radical.
The media does the same shit too all the time. I remember the American media describing french elections in the same way. Macron was the centrist opposition to LaPenn up until the streets of Paris were burning because he introduced a carbon tax, and he started cracking down through requiring protest licenses.
>>
>>340781
Pelosi is fighting a losing battle she literally cannot win because if this goes on long enough, he can just declare a state of emergency and build his wall anyway. She's posturing because she's a faggot and even her own daughter said she's slit anyone's throat without a second thought.

I don't know if Trump is good for the country but I know she's terrible for it. Her own father didn't want her to be the speaker of the house.
>>
>>342739
You aren't entitled to free food faggot. Get a job or move to a place you can afford.
>>
>>342803
First tell me if you're
>>342794
>>342789
If you are, you've just exposed your hypocrite and can't be talked with in good faith.

If not. You just explained how we're shifting to the right in France. LaPenn is a fascist, so by proxy, someone like Macron who's a centrist would look reasonable in any other light. Also you conviently forget the left leaning parties lost the original election and Macron and LaPenn was just the run off. So this idea that it was originally two choices is crap too.
The REAL problem is the media doesn't call out the Republican's fringe policies and plays this 'both sides' bullshit. The Trump government shutdown is a perfect example. Trump said he would shut down the government and claim credit for it. (Also this was after he said he wouldn't, and threw the senate under the bus because they already passed a clean spending bill, because some tranny right winger called Trump a sissy on twitter..) Now you have McConell refusing to bring up any spending bills the Democrats pass in the house to reopen the government. And YET, you have the media trying to say it's both sides fault for the shutdown when it's overwhelmingly clear it was Trump that started it and is the one continuing it. And based on his record, he can not be negotiated with in good faith, or hold his word on anything. (See House Republicans attempted to murder 20 million Americans by gutting its healthcare system, which Trump cheered on and how Trump fucked them over that by publically throwing them all under the bus the next day after public opinion turned on it.)
>>
https://www.apnews.com/e202cfbf409e4983a54d9fd5ac77b490
Trump has 'major' announcement tommorow.
Want to place your bets.

1. Same old lies like in his address to the nation.
2. Blame Democrats for everything and announces new ways to attack them.
3. Invokes emergency to in dictator power grab.
>>
>>342818
How am I a hypocrite.
I am saying you are using misleading language.
Lowering the tax rate could be considered a move to the right, or a move to the center. But you refuse to define it as a move to the center.
Lapenn is not a fascist, if you look at her policies, they are not far right.
https://youtu.be/BVbXYtrC0Fg?t=224
She's an ardent protectionist, a left wing policy
She doesn't believe in the privatization of government benefits, but the expansion of those benefits.
Marine La Penn doesn't want to privatize utilities, but rather wants the government to control them.
She believes in separating the deposit banks from investment banks, and even talked about nationalizing the banks. Far left policies.
She's pro-choice
She's pro secularism
She's anti death penalty
How the FUCK is she far right?
>>
>>342756
>forcing everyone else to figure out how to talk to them.
who is "everyone else"? i live in southern california, probably the immigrant capital of the world, and have never once had to speak spanish
>>
>>342757
the supreme court is mostly conservative, so take it up with them, nigger
>>
>>342824
If you look at her socially, She has pledged to abolish same-sex marriage, is against euthanasia, and anti contraceptive. She also waffled on Abortion by saying it's a 'moral' issue, and it's not like she hasn't flip flopped before (see death penalty.)

Economically she's been jumping around too granted her current position is more left leaning, but if you compare her to Trump, that could be something she's just promising voters only to stab them in the back like Trump did. Remember when Trump bad mouth corporations but when he became president he just gave them everything they wanted at expense of the people of America? Although to be fair, she has been right about certain things, like the gutting of France's pension plan, but then again, it's easy to say stuff when you don't have skin in the game.

Immigration and foreign policy is where she's extremely far right, just look at all her friends abroad, fascists and authoritarians and she want's france to become Putin's bitch, just like Trump.
My french is really rusty but I'm still looking up on her views on law enforcement. That would be a kill shot, so stay tuned.

But she did get herself arrested.
https://news.vice.com/en_us/article/59kaw3/marine-le-pen-charged-pictures-isis-james-foley
>>
>>342825
You're a lying sack of shit or live in the boonies then because so do I and I can't go anywhere without some assholes speaking spanish. Not to mention this state literally forces everyone to translate laws, rules, and legal documents to spanish for those assholes and even going so far as requiring translators for them in certain cases at your or the state's (people's) expense.
>>
>>342826
Literally no need. He had every right to tell the lower courts to go fuck themselves and arrest the judges for treason if he wanted to. They had no leg to stand on and he already won that battle you double nigger. SC told the lower courts to fuck off.
>>
YEAH BASED, me and guys from reddit were just saying how awesome it is that OUR president has been owning the libs with this one.
>>
>>342824
Fascism has never been about concrete policy positions on things like taxes, protectionism, or privatization versus nationalization. It's always been about the expression of an emotion, namely hatred of the other. It's explicitly anti-rationalism and rejects the ideas of the enlightenment, such as logical consistency. Fascism is not a set of policies, instead it is judged by the appeals that it makes to people. It's a method of control, a question of how and why rather than what. And on top of that, its policies can be whatever the leader wants, because obedience to the leader over is considered more important than the leader's policies being consistent.

If you read Umberto Eco's breakdown of what fascism is in practice, you'll notice that none of the points are really policy positions in and of themselves. They're all about cultivating and directing specific emotions within people in order to bend them to the leader's will.
>>
>>342845
Fascism is any political system which makes it legal to disagree with john oliver.
>>
>>342853
No.
One of the common elements of fascism is considering disagreement treason. Fascism scorns conversation and debate as barriers to action. Contemplation is considered the mark of the enemy, as life is seen permanent warfare in Fascism and contemplation might delay the fascist leader getting what he wants.
>>
>>342804
>he can just declare a state of emergency and build his wall anyway.
He cant though. The same way he couldnt just force the muslim ban. It will get stopped in the courts.
>>
>>342863
Oh, so fascists are all those people claiming the president is a traitor because he won't bomb the enemies of saudi arabia enough?
>>
>>342953
No, it's the people that deny climate change, and that if a man put's on a skirt he's a woman
>>
>>342840
i live in los angeles you fucking idiot. just because people speak spanish in some places doesnt mean everyone else is forced to speak spanish. do you have any figures on the cost of translators' cost to the taxpayers? those few employees are the only ones that need to know spanish
>>
It's funny how many of these same Democrats were in favor of a wall just 10 years ago. Not only that many of them ran with securing our borders as a campaign talking point.

This is BS theater. The Democrats just don't have a better solution and they know it.
>>
>>338905
In many areas of the country 100k get you jack and shit, and you likely can't leave for a place with a lower cost of living without taking an enormous pay cut. 100k is only 32k in 1980 money and 52k in 1990 money. The "six figures and you're set" meme hasn't been true for decades.
>>
>>343011
> It's funny how many of these same Democrats were in favor of a wall just 10 years ago.
When were democrats ever in favor of a two thousand mile long border wall?
>>
>>343029
When Trump said so, why would the god emperor EVER lie?
>>
>>343027
100k is plenty to live if you're single or just have no kids. The problem is that people with that kind of money always buy a huge house and a few cars. With a family of four 4 (assuming he means wife and two kids, not wife and three or four kids') it can start to run a little thin when you start paying for college. Also never marry a woman who doesn't earn at least half of your income.
>>
Why do I still have to pay income tax when the government isn't even running
>>
>>343032
Because the issue is how your taxes will be spent, not whether or not they should collect. Death and taxes will always be true.
>>
>>343031
>If you're single and have no kids
>Never marry a woman who doesn't work a full time job
Raising kids properly can't be done on a shoestring just by sending them to the abysmal public school system. Having at least one parent free for managing the kids when they're not in class is critical, and that parent should be getting them involved in extracurricular activities so they stay engaged. 100k is enough to raise one or two kids correctly, but only barely. You're not rich, you're middle class at best.
>>
>>343047
I'm well aware that it's not rich because my family was in that income range. I'm just saying it's still plenty to raise a family. The stanard for "rich" has always been 250k or above.
>>
>>338753
That was for a good cause. Not wall bullshit
>>
>>343029
They were in favor of fences.
Nancy Pelosi said walls are immoral and not who we are. Why hasn't she passed bill through the house that would destroy all the walls that currently exist along the southern border in California?
>>
>>343050
Look a little higher in the reply chain. Anon was claiming 100k is rich, but that only true in places where the cost of living is very low.
>>
>>343047
My parents were both fucking janitors who worked all day for shit pay and still found time to raise me and my sister properly. I'm wrapping up a electrical engineering degree. My older sister wasn't lucky enough to have the meager savings from my parents plus a scholarship to work with, but she went to community college to become an LPN for very little money, practiced for a year before signing up and becoming an MOS 86C, which after her stint put her through her BSN degree to become an RN; she's currently making excellent money and doing what she loves.

Mom left before we woke up. Dad would drop us off at school on his way to work, until we were old enough to walk there ourselves (only 2 miles in case of both middle and high school, luckily). When we got out of school there was usually another 3 or 4 hours before our parents would get home, but even in elementary school I had my house key in my backpack and would unlock the door myself, turn the outside lights on when it got dark, and would just ride my scooter around or play with the kids next door, or play vidya and do my homework when I got older. Same with sister. Mom would get a mid day break before her second shift and she would come back home JUST to cook dinner for that night, which we would reheat before they got home, alongside setting the table. Sometimes mom would leave a note telling us to make something for a side since she didn't have the time; my sister was roasting potatoes and making pilaf at 11. As we got older, we'd handle all of dinner ourselves. Dinner was ALWAYS a family affair. On either Saturday or Sunday we'd always do something between us like going to the park or going fishing, and the other day my parents would more often than not visit friends (read: their bosses) and there'd be a dinner party where we would behave ourselves.

What you need is to find someone who gives a shit and will put in the effort and sacrifice to raise kids properly, job or not.
>>
The US spends 38 billion dollars on a "defense aid package" to Israel and can't afford 5 billion for a wall.
>>
>>343208
Tragically, Trump can't take money from Republican aims because his base won't allow it.
>>
Nice.
>>
>>343150
There are fences on the border. On nearly every stretch of the border where it is feasible to do so there is a fence to deter people from entering outside of a legal port of entry. A "wall" wouldn't deter people any more than the current fencing already does. Trump only wants a wall because his stupid and openly racist base want it
>>
>>343250
https://cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/170119185124-25-us-mexico-border-views-super-169.jpg
What is this?
Slats?
A fence?
A wall?
>>
>>343261
I would call that a fence. Trump literally wanted a 30ft concrete wall. That was what he campaigned on and that's what he was asking for until just recently.

Irrelevant though because as long as the government is shut down no one can be do anything about the fencing.
>>
>>343262
He also insisted the wall would be impenetrable. So anyone who moves the goalposts and says "all walls can be penetrated" are people who are desperate to hide another one of Trump's lies.
>>
We already have our first woman president. Her name is ANN COULTER
>>
>>339519
530 here, california is a shithole. Highest taxes, most homeless, some of the worst schools and infrastructure, highest cost of living, we have the most criminals in prisons of any state, we have a housing crisis and yet every year there are more regulations to stifle growth, we have a huge meth and fentanyl problem, gang and cartel violence and corruption, sanctuary state, free Medicare for illegals but not citizens, and it goes on and on and on.

Yes, California has a big economy, it also has a fleeing middle class who are sick of being told how to live by SFO elites. Everyone I know wants to leave. No one wants to live in a state where you can get jail time for giving a customer a straw but not for purposefully giving someone aids.
>>
>>343262
Wall. Fence. What is the meaning of either of these things. What does it mean "to be"?
>>
>>343266
My fingers smell like fish.
>>
>>343266
The definitions may vary depending on who you ask but to me a wall is a much more permanent barrier explicitly intended to reinforce defenses while a fence is more intended to set the boundaries between different properties.

You'd have a fence between your house and your neighbor's house to show where your properties are separated. You wouldn't put a wall up between your houses unless you hated your neighbors and don't want to see them.
>>
>>343268
But if you look at the quantum level, what is a wall REALLY? It is just a lot of energy vibrating. And then when the universe ends it will just be gone. So why put up a wall in the first place? It's pointless.
>>
>>338598
Praise Trump, give the wall to Trump and this will end
5 Billion for a wall while illegal immigration costs 155 billion a year. I'd take this deal anytime to lower its annual cost
>>
>>343270
>illegal immigration costs 155 billion a year
source?
>>
>>343270
frankly, illegal immigration is upping our GDP all the time
it's just racist yokels who don't want to be around brown people who lie about it to get their way
>>
>>343270
>>343271
Right-wing people are just as lazy about providing sources for their crazy claims. That's pretty funny.
>>
>>343273
Still no /pol/tard has provided a source for that outlandish claim. I will wait.
>>
>>343274
Still no source. I will continue to wait.
>>
>>343275
WHAT IS THE SOURCE?
who knows?
WHO KNOWS???
nobody knows the source!
NOBODY KNOWS THE SOURCE!!!
Well, so long as the counterargument is unsupported
The initial argument has this as its source:
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/fact-check-how-much-does-illegal-immigration-cost-america-not-n950981
>>
>>343265
>and yet every year there are more regulations to stifle growth
But we also, on our own, vote against measures which would devolve housing regulation from the state to the city level. We also voted to let ambulance companies fucking steal from their employees. I love this state but I hate nearly everyone in it.
>>
>>343264
>Ann Coulter
>Woman
Pick one.
>>
>>339217
If America got proper unions that would be amazing. but any union that would form in this day and age would just get shit up by race politics and then simply just partizan itself to death.
>>
>>343206
You had great parents anon. If I had kids and that type of job I would absolutely not love my children like that. I'm waiting until I'm at least 30 to have kids because if I don't have my life where I want it to be by that point I'm clearly not cut out for success.
>>
So what did everyone think of Trump's latest 'deal' for the Democrats where he promises to only temporarily stop kidnapping children and locking them in cages in exchange for all his wall money.



Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.