***Official Political Discussion Thread***

[daddy style]

Dude.....full offense intended.
That was the least thought through post youve made yet.
Go have a coffee

Your white guilt is continuously on display, as that was your biggest dodge of a question yet. I've watched you claim that the moderator's responses to you on your pathetic attempt at a thread, that even his responses were not well thought out to you. You use that as a cover for your egregious and insipid character, one that is so flawed I now know why you are an complete embarrassment to your ancestors, if you have any to speak of, which would explain your cowardice. I hope that you do not like what I have stated.

 

[slighted]

It is baffling to me how populism has grown across the globe.

Why is it growing so rapidly? Is it a domino effect (Brexit --> Trump --> everyone else)?

 

[titanium tea]

Your white guilt is continuously on display, as that was your biggest dodge of a question yet. I've watched you claim that the moderator's responses to you on your pathetic attempt at a thread, that even his responses were not well thought out to you. You use that as a cover for your egregious and insipid character, one that is so flawed I now know why you are an complete embarrassment to your ancestors, if you have any to speak of, which would explain your cowardice. I hope that you do not like what I have stated.

Or

I think you are wrong... and you read into all that imaginary stuff. 

Seems like a real problem for ya

 

[everysingletime]

'Unmatched campaigning skill'

This guy probably faps to Trump posters

 

[rico x hood]

Look whose is singing a different tune today.

The nonsense you were spitting yesterday clearly makes you today criticism today hypocrisy.

What hypocrisy? I said it made no sense to continue to parrot the same attack lines on Trump post election because the election shows that they didn't work. Now any rational group of people would pivot and try something else but not you guys. It's like it's November 7th and Hillary can still win.

In addition, the critique of Obama at this point is very relevant now because of the election. His heir lost in a sweeping defeat thus leaving his legacy and "progress" in tatters.

History judges Presidents and this post Obama America. This is when the microscope is going to start being heavily trained on what he did and didn't do in 8 years.

But good job trying to spin my point.

 

[RustyShackleford]

About that infrastructure plan:

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/11/19/infrastructure-build-or-privatization-scam/?_r=1

Trumpists are touting the idea of a big infrastructure build, and some Democrats are making conciliatory noises about working with the new regime on that front. But remember who you’re dealing with: if you invest anything with this guy, be it money or reputation, you are at great risk of being scammed. So, what do we know about the Trump infrastructure plan, such as it is?

Crucially, it’s not a plan to borrow $1 trillion and spend it on much-needed projects — which would be the straightforward, obvious thing to do. It is, instead, supposed to involve having private investors do the work both of raising money and building the projects — with the aid of a huge tax credit that gives them back 82 percent of the equity they put in. To compensate for the small sliver of additional equity and the interest on their borrowing, the private investors then have to somehow make profits on the assets they end up owning.

You should immediately ask three questions about all of this.

First, why involve private investors at all? It’s not as if the federal government is having any trouble raising money — in fact, a large part of the justification for infrastructure investment is precisely that the government can borrow so cheaply. Why do we need private equity at all?

One answer might be that this way you avoid incurring additional public debt. But that’s just accounting confusion. Imagine that you’re building a toll road. If the government builds it, it ends up paying interest but gets the future revenue from the tolls. If it turns the project over to private investors, it avoids the interest cost — but also loses the future toll revenue. The government’s future cash flow is no better than it would have been if it borrowed directly, and worse if it strikes a bad deal, say because the investors have political connections.

Second, how is this kind of scheme supposed to finance investment that doesn’t produce a revenue stream? Toll roads are not the main thing we need right now; what about sewage systems, making up for deferred maintenance, and so on? You could bring in private investors by guaranteeing them future government money — say, paying rent in perpetuity for the use of a water system built by a private consortium. But this, even more than having someone else collect tolls, would simply be government borrowing through the back door — with much less transparency, and hence greater opportunities for giveaways to favored interests.

Third, how much of the investment thus financed would actually be investment that wouldn’t have taken place anyway? That is, how much “additionality” is there? Suppose that there’s a planned tunnel, which is clearly going to be built; but now it’s renamed the Trump Tunnel, the building and financing are carried out by private firms, and the future tolls and/or rent paid by the government go to those private interests. In that case we haven’t promoted investment at all, we’ve just in effect privatized a public asset — and given the buyers 82 percent of the purchase price in the form of a tax credit.

Again, all of these questions could be avoided by doing things the straightforward way: if you think we should build more infrastructure, then build more infrastructure, and never mind the complicated private equity/tax credits stuff. You could try to come up with some justification for the complexity of the scheme, but one simple answer would be that it’s not about investment, it’s about ripping off taxpayers. Is that implausible, given who we’re talking about?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...8e493f06fcd_story.html?utm_term=.abcd111c0390

Ronald A. Klain served as assistant to President Obama and oversaw the team implementing the American Recovery and Renewal Act from 2009-2011. He was an adviser to Hillary Clinton in the 2016 campaign. The views expressed here are solely his own.

As the White House official responsible for overseeing implementation of President Obama’s massive infrastructure initiative, the 2009 Recovery Act, I’ve got a simple message for Democrats who are embracing President-elect Donald Trump’s infrastructure plan: Don’t do it. It’s a trap. Backing Trump’s plan is a mistake in policy and political judgment they will regret, as did their Democratic predecessors who voted for Ronald Reagan’s tax cuts in 1981 and George W. Bush’s cuts in 2001.

First, Trump’s plan is not really an infrastructure plan. It’s a tax-cut plan for utility-industry and construction-sector investors, and a massive corporate welfare plan for contractors. The Trump plan doesn’t directly fund new roads, bridges, water systems or airports, as did Hillary Clinton’s 2016 infrastructure proposal. Instead, Trump’s plan provides tax breaks to private-sector investors who back profitable construction projects. These projects (such as electrical grid modernization or energy pipeline expansion) might already be planned or even underway. There’s no requirement that the tax breaks be used for incremental or otherwise expanded construction efforts; they could all go just to fatten the pockets of investors in previously planned projects.

Moreover, as others have noted, desperately needed infrastructure projects that are not attractive to private investors — municipal water-system overhauls, repairs of existing roads, replacement of bridges that do not charge tolls — get no help from Trump’s plan. And contractors? Well, they get a “10 percent pretax profit margin,” according to the plan. Combined with Trump’s sweeping business tax break, this would represent a stunning $85 billion after-tax profit for contractors — underwritten by the taxpayers.

Second, as a result of the above, Trump’s plan isn’t really a jobs plan, either. Because the plan subsidizes investors, not projects; because it funds tax breaks, not bridges; because there’s no requirement that the projects be otherwise unfunded, there is simply no guarantee that the plan will produce any net new hiring. Investors may simply shift capital from unsubsidized projects to subsidized ones and pocket the tax breaks on projects they would have funded anyway. Contractors have no obligation to hire new workers, or expand workers’ hours, to collect their $85 billion. To their credit, the plan’s authors don’t call it a jobs plan; ironically, it is Democrats looking to align with Trump who have given it that name. They should not fool themselves.


Third, because there is no proposed funding mechanism for Trump’s tax breaks, they will add to the deficit — perhaps as much as $137 billion. Yes, some economists think more deficit spending will boost growth. But you can be sure of this: In Trump’s hands, rising deficits will be weaponized to justify future cuts in health care, education and social programs. Just as David Stockman used deficits caused by the Reagan tax cuts as a rationale to slash social programs three decades ago (the “starve the beast” theory), the deficits caused by Trump’s infrastructure tax cuts will be used to justify cuts in programs. Thus, Democrats should know that every dollar spent on the Trump tax scheme to enrich construction investors and contractors is a dollar that will later be cut from schools, hospitals and seniors.

Fourth, if the Republican approach to the Recovery Act is any indication, the Trump plan will come chock-full of policy changes that undermine core Democratic principles. Buried inside the plan will be provisions to weaken prevailing wage protections on construction projects, undermining unions and ultimately eroding workers’ earnings. Environmental rules are almost certain to be gutted in the name of accelerating projects.

I understand why Democrats are searching for areas where they can make progress under a Trump presidency and why some Democrats say they won’t follow the Republican example of 2009 — when the GOP minority unanimously opposed the Recovery Act, even after intense negotiations with them diverted one-third of the plan to tax cuts. It is possible that Trump may modify the plan he released in October, and some Trump advisers are talking about sweetening the deal for Democrats by adding an “infrastructure bank.” But even with such an addition, the Trump plan would not be a reasonable compromise — acceptance of its huge tax breaks for construction investors and profits for contractors would be a wholesale concession. Democrats supporting such a deal in the moment will find that their votes will wear poorly in the future.

After the disappointing election results, Democrats are looking for ways to connect with working-class voters — and Trump’s plan appears to offer that. But when the plan is passed and those voters see that it fattens investors’ and contractors’ pockets (but not workers’), creates few jobs, depresses wages and damages our environment, they will sour on it and turn against its backers. Democrats may lack the votes to stop Trump’s plan, particularly if the GOP uses extraordinary legislative vehicles or processes to pass it. But Democrats should not add their votes and credibility to this poorly designed initiative.

Even his best policies are just ways to help corporate America finesse folk

 

[daddy style]

Or
I think you are wrong... and you read into all that imaginary stuff. 
Seems like a real problem for ya

Race war, what side are you on, black or white? Since white privilege does not exist to you, answer the question. Do not duck or dodge. Have courage, don't be a pathetic little turd hiding behind your whiteness, as if that is going to protect you in the overall scheme of things. Here's hint. It won't. Answer the question. If you consider yourself white, then BE white. Own it.

 

[RustyShackleford]

Look whose is singing a different tune today.

The nonsense you were spitting yesterday clearly makes you today criticism today hypocrisy.

What hypocrisy? I said it made no sense to continue to parrot the same attack lines on Trump post election because the election shows that they didn't work. Now any rational group of people would pivot and try something else but not you guys. It's like it's November 7th and Hillary can still win.

In addition, the critique of Obama at this point is very relevant now because of the election. His heir lost in a sweeping defeat thus leaving his legacy and "progress" in tatters.

History judges Presidents and this post Obama America. This is when the microscope is going to start being heavily trained on what he did and didn't do in 8 years.

But good job trying to spin my point.

The attacks on Trump are as still valid as anytime

He is still a racist, a xenophobe, and a sexist.

He is happens not to be president elect.

And trust me, he will provide me with plenty more things to attack him on.

 

[rico x hood]

About that infrastructure plan:

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/11/19/infrastructure-build-or-privatization-scam/?_r=1
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...8e493f06fcd_story.html?utm_term=.abcd111c0390
Even his best policies are just ways to help corporate America finesse folk

A whole bunch of "imagines" and "supposes" in that opinion piece.

And you know why the government should take on infrastructure projects?

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/signs-stimulus/story?id=11163180

$15 million to post signs for touting the stimulus projects. 17 jobs created.

And your guy Klain oversaw it. He's just partisan hypocrite talking out his ***.

 

[titanium tea]

Race war, what side are you on, black or white? Since white privilege does not exist to you, answer the question. Do not duck or dodge. Have courage, don't be a pathetic little turd hiding behind your whiteness, as if that is going to protect you in the overall scheme of things. Here's hint. It won't. Answer the question. If you consider yourself white, then BE white. Own it.

I completely own being white....

like that is challenging or something.

In the overall scheme of things,  I will never be asked to join the imaginary race war you fap to in your dreams.

Here's a hint for you....try educating someone that has actually read less than yourself for a change, if you can even find one.

 

[RustyShackleford]

About that infrastructure plan:

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/11/19/infrastructure-build-or-privatization-scam/?_r=1
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...8e493f06fcd_story.html?utm_term=.abcd111c0390
Even his best policies are just ways to help corporate America finesse folk

A whole bunch of "imagines" and "supposes" in that opinion piece.

And you know why the government should take on infrastructure projects?

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/signs-stimulus/story?id=11163180

$15 million to post signs for touting the stimulus projects. 17 jobs created.

And your guy Klain oversaw it. He's just partisan hypocrite talking out his ***.

-There is no denying some of the stimulus money was wasted, true. But overall it was a success that helped stabilize the economy.

And you're naive if you think private construction firms work in the most efficient way.

And those signs where put up by states, and they were voluntary not mandated. So the party of states rights, the one that had their hands out too when the money was being spent, need to take issue with the states. This is a red herring.

-Ok, then address the Krugman piece that clear breakdown of the economist behind the plan.

And before you want to shoot the messenger on Krugman, let us remember he is a Nobel Prize winning economist for exactly this area.

All you can be on this topic is is exactly what you call Klain Like which private company wants to improve the water infrastructure for a poor neighborhood. How the hell can you incentivize that with tax breaks. Trump way of doing things might cause his infrastructure plan to completely miss its public policy goal.

 

[daddy style]

I completely own being white.... like that is challenging or something.
In the overall scheme of things,  I will never be asked to join the imaginary race war you fap to in your dreams.
Here's a hint for you....try educating someone that has actually read less than yourself for a change, if you can even find one.

Even if I had never read one book, I still would have the courage to answer the question that was posed. Your cowardice is on full display. Look at how you respond, it is embarrassing and the whole forum seems to know it. Those who do not know, simply haven't encountered your skulduggery as of yet. I wish you luck on finding a spine to go with that "so called" magnificent brain of yours.

 

[rico x hood]

-There is no denying some of the stimulus money was wasted, true. But overall it was a success that helped stabilize the economy.

And you're naive if you think private construction firms work in the most efficient way.

And those signs where put up by states, and they were voluntary not mandated. So the party of states rights, the one that had their hands out too when the money was being spent, need to take issue with the states. This is a red herring.

-Ok, then address the Krugman piece that clear breakdown of the economist behind the plan.

And before you want to shoot the messenger on Krugman, let us remember he is a Nobel Prize winning economist for exactly this area.

All you can be on this topic is is exactly what you call Klain Like which private company wants to improve the water infrastructure for a poor neighborhood. How the hell can you incentivize that with tax breaks. Trump way of doing things might cause his infrastructure plan to completely miss its public policy goal.

Complete lack of oversight by the federal government on how the funds were used. And I being said private companies were most efficient just more efficient because they can't operate in the red.

And I know who Paul Krugman is. His name came on my radar some years back for some horrible controversy or prediction but what I do remember is I stopped taking him seriously. I just have to remember what it was. I'll be back.

 

[RustyShackleford]

-There is no denying some of the stimulus money was wasted, true. But overall it was a success that helped stabilize the economy.

And you're naive if you think private construction firms work in the most efficient way.

And those signs where put up by states, and they were voluntary not mandated. So the party of states rights, the one that had their hands out too when the money was being spent, need to take issue with the states. This is a red herring.

-Ok, then address the Krugman piece that clear breakdown of the economist behind the plan.

And before you want to shoot the messenger on Krugman, let us remember he is a Nobel Prize winning economist for exactly this area.

All you can be on this topic is is exactly what you call Klain Like which private company wants to improve the water infrastructure for a poor neighborhood. How the hell can you incentivize that with tax breaks. Trump way of doing things might cause his infrastructure plan to completely miss its public policy goal.

Complete lack of oversight by the federal government on how the funds were used. And I being said private companies were most efficient just more efficient because they can't operate in the red.

And I know who Paul Krugman is. His name came on my radar some years back for some horrible controversy or prediction but what I do remember is I stopped taking him seriously. I just have to remember what it was. I'll be back.

-So now you want the Federal Government to dictate to the states more on how they use funds. How convenient for you to take this position now.

And your comment on private businesses is straight up false. Private business are not always the most efficient, definitely not the most equitable, their interest rarely align with the public interest, and they do operate in the "red" is a practical sense because they use credit to fund their projects. And for this final reason that is why it is cheaper for the Federal government to raise the money for the projects.

Additionally, Trumps plan is to making project more attractive to them by decreasing the relative cost of them by lowering their taxes.

There are some programs that the private sector won't fund themselves, because they can't monetize them.

-And you have no idea who Krugman is, I'm not the biggest fan of his, and I have held back posting his stuff but you're gonna so the classic thing of using his political views to discredit his economics, because, you can't argue against his economics.

 

[iDon’tRead]

trump still hasn't released his taxes? why again not?

 

[whywesteppin]

trump still hasn't released his taxes? why again not?

or his birth certificate.

for all we know he is a tax-evading illegal sending all his money back home to his mom in the jungle.

 

[Master Zik]

He was a failed president. Many people were disappointed in his Presidency. A lot just won't say it. But the election said it. He put so much skin in the game trying to con us into electing Shillary, and his appeals were rejected.

How was he a failed president? You just typing for the sake of it now?

He typed the answer for you.
A resounding Hillary win would have been a vote of confidence and indicative that Obama's 2 terms were successful, i.e. people approved his policies. Yet H lost despite all the endorsements, money and establishment (and Obama's) support. That's the biggest political L i've seen in my lifetime.

So, let me turn it back. How was he a successful president?

Donald Trump needs to pack up and leave the white house already. US lost a lot of respect and allies as a result of this puppet. January 2020 can't come soon enough

Now it makes a lot more sense.

im disillusioned with Obama if you need any more hints, yea.

It is well known even by those with the most minimal of political insights, that elections are either an embrace or repudiation of the previous four years.

Clearly Trump's win is a sign that the country was tired of Obama's brand of "progress" that went so far as to elect someone who on the outside is his opposite in every single way.

So how does that make him a success when the standard bearer of the "third Obama term" couldn't win an election with his endorsement and unmatched campaigning skill?

This doesn't make sense. You don't judge a president's tenure as a success or failure based on who is elected next.

Obama is not Clinton.

If we go by your flawed logic, Bush was a failure, Clinton was a failure, and Bush Sr. Was a failure.

That doesn't make sense.

 

[whywesteppin]

Obama would've likely won if he ran for a 3rd term.

So the discussion has an absurd premise to begin with and reeks of oversimplification that many are prone to.

 

[rico x hood]

-So now you want the Federal Government to dictate to the states more on how they use funds. How convenient for you to take this position now.

And your comment on private businesses is straight up false. Private business are not always the most efficient, definitely not the most equitable, their interest rarely align with the public interest, and they do operate in the "red" is a practical sense because they use credit to fund their projects. And for this final reason that is why it is cheaper for the Federal government to raise the money for the projects.

Additionally, Trumps plan is to making project more attractive to them by decreasing the relative cost of them by lowering their taxes.

There are some programs that the private sector won't fund themselves, because they can't monetize them.

-And you have no idea who Krugman is, I'm not the biggest fan of his, and I have held back posting his stuff but you're gonna so the classic thing of using his political views to discredit his economics, because, you can't argue against his economics.

I'm all for funds not being wasted. And as I've stated many times, I'm not a republican so many of their usual talking points do not pertain to me.

The federal government is the only entity that can operate in the red far for longer than any private business. Sure they can borrow cheaply but they are also spendthrifts and poor managers due to the sprawling bureaucracy. Private businesses and investors are far more streamlined and thus making them more efficient. I know that Paul Krugman has been an Obama supporter for far too long and has made many predictions over the years that are in lock step with the Obama administration's projections. He's far too close to the Democrats to be an objective source. And when use words like "scheme" to describe the other sides plan, well that reeks of partisanship.

or his birth certificate.

for all we know he is a tax-evading illegal sending all his money back home to his mom in the jungle.

Such a poor taste. And you know full well if anyone had made a response like this about anyone in the first family, you would be screaming for his head. Shame on you.

This doesn't make sense. You don't judge a president's tenure as a success or failure based on who is elected next.

Obama is not Clinton.

If we go by your flawed logic, Bush was a failure, Clinton was a failure, and Bush Sr. Was a failure.

That doesn't make sense.

Oh? Then why on Earth would Obama tell people that his legacy and "progress" was on the line this election? Seems to me that he understands what you are either too blind or unwilling to see. Elections are most definitely referendums on the what went on in the previous years. Midterm elections are and so are presidential ones. Trump winning is a huge finger in the eye to what Obama did in the last four years. Just as Clinton winning was a repudiation of Bush Sr. 2000 was a cluster****.

 

[RustyShackleford]

-You not being a registered Republican means nothing, you are still a conservatives that parrots every right wing talking point. You only want that degree of separation to save your *** when dudes comes at you. "I didn't vote for Trump, I voted for Rubio...............but let me defend Trump to the bitter end"

No one believes the shtick dude. Let it go

-You don't understand economic efficiency nor do you seem able to comprehend that some of the most important infrastructure projects HAVE to be funded done by the government. Unless you want private companies to own our entire infrastructure. Which you don't, I doubt someone like you would be open to more toll roads, higher shipping cost, and much higher utility bills

And you're ignoring how these government contracts work. At the end of the day, it is private business doing the work, money gets wasted because incentives are out of wack,

-You have no idea who Paul Krugman is, and what his expertise is in. Dismissing the entire article that just makes a simple economic argument because he happens to be a liberal.

-And miss this thread about poor taste. You the one that was demanding I leave the country if I could not show love for it, and saying my family needed handouts (given what we know about your upbringing, this was even more insulting).

You only call for order and taste from others. You hardly show any yourself.

Jump off that high horse you love to ride around on.

 

[essential1]

I'm a registered Independent. So that shows you how much not being party registered means. (Zero)

 

[essential1]

Obama would've likely won if he ran for a 3rd term.

So the discussion has an absurd premise to begin with and reeks of oversimplification that many are prone to.

Not even up for discussion. A largely popular president. With good favorables against Trump wins.

Hell Biden would win as well.

 

[Master Zik]

This doesn't make sense. You don't judge a president's tenure as a success or failure based on who is elected next.

Obama is not Clinton.

If we go by your flawed logic, Bush was a failure, Clinton was a failure, and Bush Sr. Was a failure.

That doesn't make sense.

Oh? Then why on Earth would Obama tell people that his legacy and "progress" was on the line this election? Seems to me that he understands what you are either too blind or unwilling to see. Elections are most definitely referendums on the what went on in the previous years. Midterm elections are and so are presidential ones. Trump winning is a huge finger in the eye to what Obama did in the last four years. Just as Clinton winning was a repudiation of Bush Sr. 2000 was a cluster****.

I'm not gonna explain campaigning to you Rico so:

Obama would've likely won if he ran for a 3rd term.

So the discussion has an absurd premise to begin with and reeks of oversimplification that many rico x hood are is prone to.

That about sums you up on this topic.

I see you going from failure to "finger in the eye" though Sounding more and more like ninja.

 

[RustyShackleford]

I was a registered independent for a while.

It means nothing

 

[rico x hood]

I have never claimed that economics was my forte. I always put myself on the political side of things. Every now and then I can refute a claim with my own knowledge but more often than not I'll defer to someone more well versed than I. However, when a staunch liberal and member of Obama's economic inner circle drops an opinion piece filled with buzzwords and rhetoric meant to inspire fear and skepticism instead of objective thought. That's when I cry foul. It's academic partisanship.

The monkey picture was definitely in poor taste. And you and I both know that if anyone posted a pic like that about Obama. It'd probably be their last day on this board.