|
This blog is moderated by Admin
-
Senior Member
Posts: 5385
Tiny12:
Wrong. First, there's nothing "lingering" about 7. 7% YoY CPI inflation. Secondly, as I said previously, through the latest quarter for which data is available, the annual increase in corporate profits, 7.7%, was less than the YoY CPI inflation, 9.1%. Furthermore, the annual increase in corporate profits was only 0.95% of GDP.
"lingering" only means lasting for a long time or slow to end. It has nothing to do with being smaller.
Those corporate profits, and I am sure they would be pleased to capture 0. 95% of total USA GDP most years, do not apply to every corporation because not every corporation is price gouging. But obviously the gas and oil companies are price gouging as are some drug manufactureres, as addressed in Biden's Inflation Reduction Act. Products for which most consumers of them have no competitive option.
And those corporate profits are garnered from fewer unit sales due to inhibited supply-chain flow, right?
Welcome to price gouging.
-
Senior Member
Posts: 5385
Serious question; Are you serious?
Originally Posted by Tiny12
[View Original Post]
Wrong. First, there's nothing "lingering" about 7. 7% YoY CPI inflation. Secondly, as I said previously, through the latest quarter for which data is available, the annual increase in corporate profits, 7.7%, was less than the YoY CPI inflation, 9.1%. Furthermore, the annual increase in corporate profits was only 0.95% of GDP.
Wow, you've really lightened up your criteria. For about a month you've been asking me and others to come up with a list of bills "revered" by the American public passed when a Republican was president, and Republicans controlled the House and the Senate. You came up with your own list going back to the Roosevelt era. Now there are two problems replying to your challenge. The first is, what you really want is a list of bills revered by Democrats passed when Republicans controlled all the levers of government. The second is that over the period in question Democrats controlled the presidency, senate and house for 36 years, compared to only 8 years for Republicans.
This new challenge is a lot easier, because you don't limit it to the few years when Republicans controlled everything.
I lied by the way, I don't really give diddly squat about that participation certificate, so I'm not going to look up the names of the bills like you asked. But these measures are what I revere that were passed during the first two years of the aforementioned presidents' terms.
The cut in the federal income tax rate from 70% to 50% during the Reagan administration.
The cut in the federal capital gains and dividends tax rates to 15% during the George W. Bush adminstration.
The cut in the corporate income tax rate from 35% to 21% during the Trump administration.
Now if you wanted to expand that from the first two years, then I also revere the cut in the tax rate to 28% and the cut in the capital gains rate to 20% during the later parts of the Reagan and Clinton administrations respectively.
Onto your broader question. Again, I'm a neoliberal, anarcho capitalist, libertarian, small government Republican, so I tend to revere bills that cut the size and power of federal government. However, here's a list Roll Call put out on their 50th anniversary. These are their "ten bills that really mattered" from 1955 to 2005, according to a blue ribbon panel of Congressional scholars. I believe we should kick out the Tonkin Gulf Resolution which most of us here probably agree sucked. Of the nine left, five were passed during Democrat presidential administrations and four during Republican administrations. And furthermore, of the five Democrat bills, at least three, the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, and the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act passed with a higher percentage of Republicans voting in favor than Democrats.
https://rollcall.com/2005/05/02/ten-...ally-mattered/
Civil Rights Act (1964) Democrat.
Voting Rights Act (1965) Democrat.
Medicare and Medicaid acts (1965) Democrat.
Federal-Aid Highway Act (1956) Republican.
Economic Recovery Tax Act (1981) Republican.
National Defense Education Act (1958) Republican.
Amendments to Immigration and Nationality Act (1965) Democrat.
Clean Air Act Amendments (1970) Republican.
Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (1996) Democrat.
Your answer:
The cut in the federal income tax rate from 70% to 50% during the Reagan administration.
The cut in the federal capital gains and dividends tax rates to 15% during the George W. Bush adminstration.
The cut in the corporate income tax rate from 35% to 21% during the Trump administration.
You do know that those bits of legislation passed by Reagan, Bush2 and Trump in their first year or so added huge numbers to the deficit ($2. 5 Trillion in Trump's case), produced zero positive results vs negative results and did zero to lesson but plenty to exacerbate the Great Repub Crashes, Great Repub Recessions and Great Repub Massive Jobs Losses that followed, right?
And only ONE each? And that one, at best, mostly produced nothing in exchange for the huge amounts they added to the deficit while, at worst, contributed to the three worst Great Repub Crashes, Great Repub Recessions and Great Repub Massive Job Losses in history?
LOL. Uh. Ok.
Sure, that is much better than the multiple historic, positive accomplishments of Biden so far, which is still racking up record job and wage gains, no discernible "recession" anyone can find or even artificially induce yet, saved millions of American lives and oh by the way are also cutting Trump's deficits by hundreds of billions annually.
All in a time frame when by now Reagan's accomplishments had plunged us into a whopping ten consecutive months of 10%+ Unemployment Rates in what was then the deepest economic decline since The Great Repub Depression, GW Bush had already delivered his first Recession, ignored his critical August PDB to usher in 9/11 and then lie us into at least three quagmire, economy-crippling wars and Trump's $2. 5 Trillion turd was producing a million fewer jobs with it than without it and he had just laid the CDC defunding and staff elimination groundwork for producing his fabulously positive Trump's Pandemic.
Good choices.
I've got some blank participation certificates for sale if anybody wants them. Cheap.
-
Senior Member
Posts: 1807
Originally Posted by Xpartan
[View Original Post]
But why? Why does a transparent drifter who's always lying through his teeth has such a grip on the Republican Party? Does it say nothing about the party?
Hey, Edwin Edwards, a populist Democrat, did the same thing in Louisiana.
I'd throw out a quote of Edwards from 1983 that's remarkably similar to Trump's "I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn't lose any voters, OK? It's, like, incredible." But Edwards' statement may violate forum policies.
-
Senior Member
Posts: 1807
Originally Posted by Elvis2008
[View Original Post]
Tooms needs a copy of 1984 signed by Orwell as a prize.
Tooms can crank out as many of those prized participation certificates as he wants with a $60 printer. And we're going to dig up and pay for an autographed copy of Orwell's 1984? Respectfully Elvis, NO F*CKING WAY.
Originally Posted by Elvis2008
[View Original Post]
Easy. It makes total sense when you drink a bottle of mezcal, eat the worm, and bang your head against the wall a few times. Of course, now I do not know where I am.
You forgot the hallucinogenic mushrooms. It won't work without those. Sounds like it's time for a Oaxaca road trip!
-
Senior Member
Posts: 1925
Originally Posted by Tiny12
[View Original Post]
There's more truth in your post, as it relates to a large segment of the Republican Party, than I like to admit. A lot of it is because of Trump's influence on the party.
But why? Why does a transparent drifter who's always lying through his teeth has such a grip on the Republican Party? Does it say nothing about the party?
-
Senior Member
Posts: 3160
Originally Posted by Tiny12
[View Original Post]
Damn it Elvis, I don't think we're going to get Tooms to award us that special participation trophy or certificate or whatever it is.
Tooms needs a copy of 1984 signed by Orwell as a prize.
Originally Posted by Tiny12
[View Original Post]
So maybe you could explain how you come up with the Democrats' definition of gridlock?.
Easy. It makes total sense when you drink a bottle of mezcal, eat the worm, and bang your head against the wall a few times. Of course, now I do not know where I am.
-
Senior Member
Posts: 1807
Originally Posted by EihTooms
[View Original Post]
...we now know a sizable percentage of the lingering Inflation is nothing more than corporate price gouging, addressed that issue on a couple of important factors brilliantly.
Wrong. First, there's nothing "lingering" about 7. 7% YoY CPI inflation. Secondly, as I said previously, through the latest quarter for which data is available, the annual increase in corporate profits, 7.7%, was less than the YoY CPI inflation, 9.1%. Furthermore, the annual increase in corporate profits was only 0.95% of GDP.
Originally Posted by EihTooms
[View Original Post]
Easy to confuse a historic legislation or two passed by Biden when there have been so many.
However, I am wondering which POTUS of the past 80 years or so you think passed more positive legislation for America in his first two years than Biden, since that was my point.
I mean, I get that you don't think all of it was positive because you read some negative comments about some of it somewhere.
But in order to refute my point shouldn't you at least name another POTUS who passed more, ok, potentially positive legislation in his first two years than Biden has?
Trump?
Clinton?
Reagan?
Bush 1 or 2?
And do tell us what those Acts or Bills were.
Wow, you've really lightened up your criteria. For about a month you've been asking me and others to come up with a list of bills "revered" by the American public passed when a Republican was president, and Republicans controlled the House and the Senate. You came up with your own list going back to the Roosevelt era. Now there are two problems replying to your challenge. The first is, what you really want is a list of bills revered by Democrats passed when Republicans controlled all the levers of government. The second is that over the period in question Democrats controlled the presidency, senate and house for 36 years, compared to only 8 years for Republicans.
This new challenge is a lot easier, because you don't limit it to the few years when Republicans controlled everything.
I lied by the way, I don't really give diddly squat about that participation certificate, so I'm not going to look up the names of the bills like you asked. But these measures are what I revere that were passed during the first two years of the aforementioned presidents' terms.
The cut in the federal income tax rate from 70% to 50% during the Reagan administration.
The cut in the federal capital gains and dividends tax rates to 15% during the George W. Bush adminstration.
The cut in the corporate income tax rate from 35% to 21% during the Trump administration.
Now if you wanted to expand that from the first two years, then I also revere the cut in the tax rate to 28% and the cut in the capital gains rate to 20% during the later parts of the Reagan and Clinton administrations respectively.
Onto your broader question. Again, I'm a neoliberal, anarcho capitalist, libertarian, small government Republican, so I tend to revere bills that cut the size and power of federal government. However, here's a list Roll Call put out on their 50th anniversary. These are their "ten bills that really mattered" from 1955 to 2005, according to a blue ribbon panel of Congressional scholars. I believe we should kick out the Tonkin Gulf Resolution which most of us here probably agree sucked. Of the nine left, five were passed during Democrat presidential administrations and four during Republican administrations. And furthermore, of the five Democrat bills, at least three, the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, and the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act passed with a higher percentage of Republicans voting in favor than Democrats.
https://rollcall.com/2005/05/02/ten-...ally-mattered/
Civil Rights Act (1964) Democrat.
Voting Rights Act (1965) Democrat.
Medicare and Medicaid acts (1965) Democrat.
Federal-Aid Highway Act (1956) Republican.
Economic Recovery Tax Act (1981) Republican.
National Defense Education Act (1958) Republican.
Amendments to Immigration and Nationality Act (1965) Democrat.
Clean Air Act Amendments (1970) Republican.
Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (1996) Democrat.
-
Senior Member
Posts: 5385
Ah yes, you are right about that one thing
Originally Posted by Tiny12
[View Original Post]
OK, I'm going to try a different tack. Maybe "we'll just have to disagree" will be sufficient to get a highly prized participation certificate. I'll try that. I guess poking fun at you for confusing the American Rescue Plan with the Build Back Better Bill was not going to get me a certificate. That was stupid on my part. You don't make fun of the Judge and come away with an award.
I strongly disagree with your statement that Biden accomplished more positive legislation than any POTUS for the past 80 years. I don't think any of his headline legislation was positive. The $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan blew our national debt out by 8.5% and supercharged inflation. The infrastructure bill, chip bill, and green "Inflation Reduction Act" bill may have had some good points, but they were mostly corporate welfare, i.e. pork. Biden did get a lot of negative legislation passed, but I can't say it was the worst of any POTUS for the past 80 years.
Yes, you are right that I confused the American Rescue Plan with the Build Back Better Act that was trapped in so much Sinema + Manchin + 50 Repubs in the Senate Gridlock that it had to be abandoned and brought back in a smaller form later as the Inflation Reduction Act, which, since we now know a sizable percentage of the lingering Inflation is nothing more than corporate price gouging, addressed that issue on a couple of important factors brilliantly.
Easy to confuse a historic legislation or two passed by Biden when there have been so many.
However, I am wondering which POTUS of the past 80 years or so you think passed more positive legislation for America in his first two years than Biden, since that was my point.
I mean, I get that you don't think all of it was positive because you read some negative comments about some of it somewhere.
But in order to refute my point shouldn't you at least name another POTUS who passed more, ok, potentially positive legislation in his first two years than Biden has?
Trump?
Clinton?
Reagan?
Bush 1 or 2?
And do tell us what those Acts or Bills were.
-
Senior Member
Posts: 1807
Originally Posted by PVMonger
[View Original Post]
But not to worry. Repubs will double-down on their idiocy. They will impeach every Democrat politician whose name they can spell. They'll investigate Hunter Biden for the next 2 years while ignoring the fact that Jaren received 2 billion dollars from the Saudis. They will shut down the government at least once and blame it on the Dems. They will continue to claim that every election that they don't win is fraudulent.
And yes, you are correct. Sabotage is the name of their game. It is the only thing they have in their playbook. Except for grievance politics and backing every cockamamie conspiracy theory that Q comes up with.
There's more truth in your post, as it relates to a large segment of the Republican Party, than I like to admit. A lot of it is because of Trump's influence on the party.
-
Senior Member
Posts: 1807
Originally Posted by EihTooms
[View Original Post]
Gridlock can be achieved regardless of political party. It can result from Consevative vs Liberal, pro Universal Healthcare vs pro For Profit Only Heathcare, whatever.
Biden was hoping for a gain of at least 2 Dems in the Senate, numbering 52, in order to thwart the Gridlock posed by Sinema and Manchin in his own Party. He will have to settle for 51 this time around, at best.
If merely squeaking out a 2-3 House seat advantage by one Party "achieved Gridlock" as Elvis hilariously twisted himself into a pretzel trying to prove in another failed attempt to coax one of those highly prized Participation Certificates out of me, well, that would mean many administrations of various Parties got nothing signed and passed throughout their term / s.
Which, although this might come as a shock to history-challeged Repubs like Elvis, didn't happen.
Originally Posted by EihTooms
[View Original Post]
No president in modern history faced more potential Gridlock in his first two years in office than Sleepy Joe Brandon....Biden had a mere 5 Dem seat advantage in the House. The rest were America-hating, Dem-hating QAnon Repub loons. He had 47 Dems and 1 Independent on his side in the Senate. The rest were Sinema, Manchin and 50 America-hating, Dem-hating QAnon Repub loons.
Yet he still managed to accomplish more positive legislation, many bipartisan, and positive results for America in these first two years than ANY POTUS of the past 80 years minimum including this current historic first midterm election result.
Biden is a razor sharp, calm, reasoned and seasoned professional who knows WTF he is doing and how to do it. Not a deeply in debt, failed former reality game show host.
OK, I'm going to try a different tack. Maybe "we'll just have to disagree" will be sufficient to get a highly prized participation certificate. I'll try that. I guess poking fun at you for confusing the American Rescue Plan with the Build Back Better Bill was not going to get me a certificate. That was stupid on my part. You don't make fun of the Judge and come away with an award.
I strongly disagree with your statement that Biden accomplished more positive legislation than any POTUS for the past 80 years. I don't think any of his headline legislation was positive. The $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan blew our national debt out by 8.5% and supercharged inflation. The infrastructure bill, chip bill, and green "Inflation Reduction Act" bill may have had some good points, but they were mostly corporate welfare, i.e. pork. Biden did get a lot of negative legislation passed, but I can't say it was the worst of any POTUS for the past 80 years.
And thank goodness for Sinema and Manchin! You should be thanking your lucky stars too. I don't know whether you're still a California resident, in the top couple of tax brackets, but if so you'd be paying over 50% tax on your rental income, capital gains and dividend income if not for those two. You should have been praying for Kyrsten's and Joe's good health every night for the last two years, like Mitch McConnell and I did.
-
Senior Member
Posts: 1604
It seems
Originally Posted by Xpartan
[View Original Post]
You didn't just say " we would have gridlock. " What you said was this:
There are no alternative meanings to your words. Alternative meanings come later when you attempt to qualify the pure and unadulterated joy derived from the fact that the Reps might once again be able to do what they always do best: sabotage.
https://www.vox.com/2015/3/9/8177815...olicy-sabotage
What a party!
It seems like every Repub on the planet ([Deleted by Admin]) forgets that the Turtle said that his one goal was to make Obama a one-term President. The forget as well that when gasoline was over $4 per gallon in 2008 under W, how Repub politicians were falling all over themselves trying to explain how the President wasn't responsible for gasoline prices.
Now we have stupid Repubs calling for Biden's head because evidently President's do control the price of gasoline. Dumber-than-dogshit Repubs can't spell hypocrisy but they sure think that every voter is as stupid as they are.
But not to worry. Repubs will double-down on their idiocy. They will impeach every Democrat politician whose name they can spell. They'll investigate Hunter Biden for the next 2 years while ignoring the fact that Jaren received 2 billion dollars from the Saudis. They will shut down the government at least once and blame it on the Dems. They will continue to claim that every election that they don't win is fraudulent.
And yes, you are correct. Sabotage is the name of their game. It is the only thing they have in their playbook. Except for grievance politics and backing every cockamamie conspiracy theory that Q comes up with.
-
Senior Member
Posts: 5385
Why Biden wanted to win 2 more Dem seats in the Senate
Originally Posted by Tiny12
[View Original Post]
Damn it Elvis, I don't think we're going to get Tooms to award us that special participation trophy or certificate or whatever it is. We're going to have to learn to think like Democrats if we're going to get that award.
So maybe you could explain how you come up with the Democrats' definition of gridlock? Apparently you can be a Democratic Senator, and go along 100% with what President Biden and Party leaders propose, and you're still responsible for gridlock. That's what Manchin and Sinema did with the $1. 9 trillion, budget-busting, inflation-supercharging American Rescue Plan. One of the revered pieces of legislation that the Democratic Party passed when it controlled the House, the Senate and the Presidency. That just seems like an awfully low barrier for "gridlock."
Gridlock can be achieved regardless of political party. It can result from Consevative vs Liberal, pro Universal Healthcare vs pro For Profit Only Heathcare, whatever.
Biden was hoping for a gain of at least 2 Dems in the Senate, numbering 52, in order to thwart the Gridlock posed by Sinema and Manchin in his own Party. He will have to settle for 51 this time around, at best.
If merely squeaking out a 2-3 House seat advantage by one Party "achieved Gridlock" as Elvis hilariously twisted himself into a pretzel trying to prove in another failed attempt to coax one of those highly prized Participation Certificates out of me, well, that would mean many administrations of various Parties got nothing signed and passed throughout their term / s.
Which, although this might come as a shock to history-challeged Repubs like Elvis, didn't happen.
-
Senior Member
Posts: 1925
No, no, my dear sir.
Originally Posted by Elvis2008
[View Original Post]
One of the many reasons I call you a Democratic douche Tooms is because Democrats assign alternate meanings to words. With the Republicans on the verge of taking the house, I said we would have gridlock. I am not sure what your point is with this dumb semantic douchery about gridlock. Are you so brain dead that with the Republicans on the verge of taking the House, there will be less gridlock?
You didn't just say " we would have gridlock. " What you said was this:
I am happy with the results. Gridlock has been achieved.
There are no alternative meanings to your words. Alternative meanings come later when you attempt to qualify the pure and unadulterated joy derived from the fact that the Reps might once again be able to do what they always do best: sabotage.
Throughout Barack Obama's presidency, Republicans in Congress have deployed a strategy that has worked remarkably well for them: oppose, obstruct, and sabotage the Obama administration at every turn.
"The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president," Republican Sen. Mitch McConnell, then the Senate minority leader, said in 2010.
A few months later, McConnell acknowledged that Republicans had decided to deny President Obama any bipartisan support, not because they necessarily opposed each and every initiative, but to hurt Obama politically. "We worked very hard to keep our fingerprints off of these proposals," he said. "Because we thought correctly, I think that the only way the American people would know that a great debate was going on was if the measures were not bipartisan."
https://www.vox.com/2015/3/9/8177815...olicy-sabotage
What a party!
-
Senior Member
Posts: 1807
Originally Posted by Elvis2008
[View Original Post]
Are you so brain dead that with the Republicans on the verge of taking the House, there will be less gridlock?
Damn it Elvis, I don't think we're going to get Tooms to award us that special participation trophy or certificate or whatever it is. We're going to have to learn to think like Democrats if we're going to get that award.
So maybe you could explain how you come up with the Democrats' definition of gridlock? Apparently you can be a Democratic Senator, and go along 100% with what President Biden and Party leaders propose, and you're still responsible for gridlock. That's what Manchin and Sinema did with the $1. 9 trillion, budget-busting, inflation-supercharging American Rescue Plan. One of the revered pieces of legislation that the Democratic Party passed when it controlled the House, the Senate and the Presidency. That just seems like an awfully low barrier for "gridlock."
Originally Posted by EihTooms
[View Original Post]
No, that isn't what Gridlock means:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gridlock
Actually, didn't you use to call what you described "split government"? Now you think it's "Gridlock"?
Good lord.
Joe Manchin and Krysten Sinema are both members of the Democratic Party. They would not budge on a couple of important aspects of Democrat Joe Biden's brilliant American Rescue Plan.
Guess what they created on those aspects?
Yep. Gridlock.
No, it isn't Split Government either.
Now, if I gave you a participation trophy for that one I would be insulting every clumsy kid who ever got a participation trophy. Which is not my style. So I hope you understand why I can't give you one.
-
Senior Member
Posts: 3160
Originally Posted by EihTooms
[View Original Post]
The first sentence in my previous post re Gridlock: No president in modern history faced more potential Gridlock in his first two years in office than Sleepy Joe Brandon.
One of the many reasons I call you a Democratic douche Tooms is because Democrats assign alternate meanings to words. With the Republicans on the verge of taking the house, I said we would have gridlock. I am not sure what your point is with this dumb semantic douchery about gridlock. Are you so brain dead that with the Republicans on the verge of taking the House, there will be less gridlock?
Yes, that was terrible. The guns, the violence, the deaths, the destruction. It was horrible. Wait, those were the BLM riots. Yes, it is a good thing those second amendment loving whack job insurrectionists left their guns at home wasn't it?
Violent, cop killing, and insurrection are more words where you make up meanings to fit your agenda. Orwell had a name for such slurring of words: doublespeak. You must have read 1984 like it was an instruction manual.
Originally Posted by EihTooms
[View Original Post]
lwhose slavishly devoted members in his Party spent every waking hour of his first two years repeating that lie to cheers from their voting constituents?
To a Democratic douche, the 2016 election being rigged was truth, and the 2020 election being rigged was a lie. The charges of the 2016 election being rigged were definitively put down. That was literally a conspiracy. There was not one person deposed about the accusations that the election of 2020 being rigged and because of that, I think saying that election was definitively not rigged given the circumstantial evidence is a huge stretch.
Tooms, you should be the one getting a certificate. You have mastered doublespeak. The only part you missed is Republicans making up the word inflation.
Posting Limitations
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
Forum Rules
|
|