How Does Morality Change?

[highfigh]

They probably can't rely on the extra revenue from renting out space for security in their other homes/golf clubs....

But it was OK for the Clintons to do this?

 

[highfigh]

The average Congressman isn't all that rich. Yeah, these articles try to make a big deal out of it:

https://qz.com/1190595/the-typical-us-congress-member-is-12-times-richer-than-the-typical-american-household/

But $1.1M net worth is not impressive for people of a caliber to be national leaders, especially considering the proportion of old white men we're talking about. Some Congressmen are quite wealthy, but many aren't, and couldn't afford to keep a residence in DC without their Congressional salaries.

And we want them making decisions about the economy, business regulation, taxation and foreign policy, why? If they can't manage on what they made in the private sector (if they ever worked there), what the hell do they offer us, aside from empty promises?

 

[highfigh]

That felt pretty good. Rant over? Maybe, stay tuned. It's fun being this fired up.

All this over Roger Stone who is only someone's future prison bitch.

I Asked a friend if he listened to Rush Limbaugh and he said "Only when I'm on a long drive. It's hard to fall asleep when my eyes are bouncing off of the windshield".

I have to wonder if the raid, as carried out, was appropriate, in light of his being released on his own recognizance. Seemed like it would have been if he were a violent criminal or terrorist.

 

[Hetfield]

That'snot proof, it's supposition- if you want to post negative comments about someone, at least do some research.

No, it's fact, he's a greedy prick. Do what you want with the evidence.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

 

[highfigh]

I saw an interview with AOC recently, she seems to have a decent handle on things. She's got a lot more going for her than the drumpf ever did in his whole spoiled life

I don't see her ideas being accepted very easily.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2018/jul/18/alexandria-ocasio-cortez/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-wrong-several-counts-abou/

She's a believer in deficit spending-

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ocasio-cortez-calls-question-about-how-to-pay-for-medicare-for-all-puzzling

and Modern Monetary Theory-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_Monetary_Theory

 

[highfigh]

No, it's fact, he's a greedy prick. Do what you want with the evidence.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

There are many other greedy pricks in government- what makes you think they don't play the market?

 

[highfigh]

She wants a 70% top marginal tax rate on earned income, yet she doesn't understand that the people she's targeting make most of their money on capital gains and dividends (which are taxed at different rates).

On income over $10 million.

 

[lovinthehd]

I don't see her ideas being accepted very easily.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2018/jul/18/alexandria-ocasio-cortez/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-wrong-several-counts-abou/

She's a believer in deficit spending-

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ocasio-cortez-calls-question-about-how-to-pay-for-medicare-for-all-puzzling

and Modern Monetary Theory-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_Monetary_Theory

Congress and presidents both have supported deficit spending my whole life, wow what a shocker that someone elected to Congress might vote for such.

 

[lovinthehd]

But it was OK for the Clintons to do this?

What on earth are you talking about now? What have the Clintons to do with this conversation?

 

[highfigh]

I certainly have not read any Ayn Rand, nor do I plan on doing so. So I'll have to respond to your near-fascination of this economic fetishism some other time, when I'm not so fired up. Right now, my view of her so-called economic philosophy is that it's about as relevant as Marxism.

Reading her stuff won't make you less of a person but it will make your opinions of it more valid.

I urge anyone who thinks that Communism or extreme Socialism is a good way to operate, to tell that to someone who lived under those systems before leaving.

 

[lovinthehd]

Are you and shady kidding me? Maybe I should have said "Democrat leader" instead of "Democrat". So easy to see videos of Democrat leaders supporting a wall. Bill, Hillary, Barack Hussein, Chuck, Nancy. Please tell me which Democrat leader has consistently opposed a wall.

If "morality" hasn't changed, surely there are Dem leaders who disputed Bill, or BHO. And surely there were protests and demonstrations against their immoral proposals. Surely the media attacked them. Right?

I'm seeing the normal emotional response to my question. I am not seeing an answer. OK, let's not say "almost every". Instead, let's say "majority". It doesn't change the premise or the question. How did a wall that the majority of Democrats supported become bad and immoral? The conditions and dangers cited by the Dem leaders above have increased significantly. The numbers are rising. If it was a problem for Bill, it's worse now.

I think opposition to a wall today is pure politics. Somebody show me the logic. A wall has been supported by Dems for the last 25 years. The reasons they cited are worse now than then. Yet the same solution has become immoral. Can anybody explain the logic?

Strategic fences are not the same as the drumpf wall concept.

 

[highfigh]

That's why it's so confusing that the same kinds of politicians are elected and re-elected, rather than finding someone who wants to reduce the massive deficit that we have.

Wisconsin had a ~$3.5B deficit and roughly 8% unemployment after Jim Doyle left the Governor's position and Scott Walker went in, changed a lot of spending habits and when he was beaten in the last election, the state has a $585M surplus. Walker also put a lot of money into the schools after fixing the deficit (part of the plan- cut costs, fix the problem and address the needs). The new dogcatcher (former state School Superintendent) ran on a platform of spending more on schools, reducing the state prison population by about half, raising taxes and eliminating the manufacturing and farm tax credits to pay for this stuff. The week before the election, he said he wouldn't raise taxes.

While I like the idea that he wants to fix the roads, he wants to attempt to fix the school problems by throwing money at them and the two largest systems in the state, which are also two of the worst, are incredibly costly as it is with Madison ($331M budget) spending over $11K and Milwaukee ($1.21B budget) spending more than $15K/student. My property tax bill is too high now and Walker reduced that by a good amount while he was in office.

 

[Irvrobinson]

On income over $10 million.

Only wage income is taxed with the progressiveness she's looking for. Capital gains income at the federal level tops out at 23.8%. Or perhaps she's proposing a new tax altogether, like "The Buffett Tax", though that's not how she explains it. Of course, WB was only proposing 30%, but on incomes over $1M, because he knows that the number of people reporting incomes over $10M is so small that it would make a joke of the proposal.

 

[Swerd]

I Asked a friend if he listened to Rush Limbaugh and he said "Only when I'm on a long drive. It's hard to fall asleep when my eyes are bouncing off of the windshield".

LOL . Rush Limbaugh, and all the other Limbaugh wanna-bes, are nothing more than the carnival barkers of the right wing. I wouldn't listen to him if he paid me six figures.

I have to wonder if the raid, as carried out, was appropriate, in light of his being released on his own recognizance. Seemed like it would have been if he were a violent criminal or terrorist.

The prosecutors & FBI acted that way because a good case can be made that Stone might flee or destroy evidence. I wouldn't put myself in a position where I might have any sympathy at all for that lying scumbag.

 

[Irvrobinson]

I certainly have not read any Ayn Rand, nor do I plan on doing so. So I'll have to respond to your near-fascination of this economic fetishism some other time, when I'm not so fired up. Right now, my view of her so-called economic philosophy is that it's about as relevant as Marxism.

"near-fascination"?, no, I was just citing a position on the scale. Very un-Swerd-like to be commenting on something you haven't read.

 

[Irvrobinson]

And we want them making decisions about the economy, business regulation, taxation and foreign policy, why? If they can't manage on what they made in the private sector (if they ever worked there), what the hell do they offer us, aside from empty promises?

Now you're lost. I was defending paying most Congressmen, and having them accepting the payment. I was implying that the implication that we should only elect people who don't need the money is dumb, and the implication that all Congressmen are as rich as, say, Darrell Issa, is incorrect.

 

[Swerd]

Reading her stuff won't make you less of a person but it will make your opinions of it more valid.

Not never! Not no how! (See below)

I urge anyone who thinks that Communism or extreme Socialism is a good way to operate, to tell that to someone who lived under those systems before leaving.

Instead of reading Rand, people would do a lot better if they read the disastrous history of the Russian Revolution, the Bolshevik takeover, and the rise & fall of the Soviet Union. That is by far the best argument against Marxism, Communism, or Socialism. I remind all the readers who ape the republican party-line, that no one, including present members of Congress come anywhere close to advocating those for the US.

 

[Irvrobinson]

Only wage income is taxed with progressively she's looking for. Capital gains income at the federal level tops out at 23.8%. Or perhaps she's proposing a new tax altogether, like "The Buffett Tax", though that's not how she explains it. Of course, WB was only proposing 30%, but on incomes over $1M, because he knows that the number of people reporting incomes over $10M is so small that it would make a joke of the proposal.

Edit - It's called The Buffett Rule, not The Buffett Tax.

 

[highfigh]

This thread largely supports my statement that smart, and I think good people have lost the inclination to logically debate political issues. Why? Whether you admit it or not, Dems supported a barrier, (whether you call it a wall or fence... geez),until Trump was elected. Yet in 5 pages of responses, nobody has even attempted to explain the reversal. Why?

They hate Trump so much they want to oppose everything he wants.

Did you see the video from The View, where Whoopie admitted that they and the media jumped on the Covington kids in MAGA hats who supposedly 'confronted' Nathan Phillips? Listen to Joy Behar's comments- she said "the media are desperate to get Trump out of office" and "there's so much circumstantial evidence..."- when did circumstantial evidence become 'proof'?

 

[highfigh]

Now you're lost. I was defending paying most Congressmen, and having them accepting the payment. I was implying that the implication that we should only elect people who don't need the money is dumb, and the implication that all Congressmen are as rich as, say, Darrell Issa, is incorrect.

I don't mind paying them, but I think they need to justify their existence by NOT putting the country in terrible financial crisis. I never meant to imply that we only need financially independent people- that's the last thing we need, or that they're all extremely wealthy. I am, however, questioning their decisions on finance and the economy.