Muda69 Posted July 26, 2024 Posted July 26, 2024 15 hours ago, BTF said: Enlighten me Einstein. Well, for starters the current yearly salary for the POTUS is $400,000. And the POTUS has virtually no living expenses. Room, board, insurance, etc. are 100% covered. I don't know about you but I would think earning $1.6 million dollars over four years would earn one the title of "rich". And of course that doesn't count the under handed schemes, advances for book deals once the POTUS leaves office, future speaking engagements, etc. A number of possible revenue streams open up once one sits in the Oval Office.
BTF Posted July 26, 2024 Posted July 26, 2024 17 minutes ago, Muda69 said: Well, for starters the current yearly salary for the POTUS is $400,000. And the POTUS has virtually no living expenses. Room, board, insurance, etc. are 100% covered. I don't know about you but I would think earning $1.6 million dollars over four years would earn one the title of "rich". And of course that doesn't count the under handed schemes, advances for book deals once the POTUS leaves office, future speaking engagements, etc. A number of possible revenue streams open up once one sits in the Oval Office. Are you serious right now? That's not near enough money to buy and maintain the kind of homes they live in, let alone the property taxes. That's chump change if you look at their current lifestyle. Hell, Obama had a personal cook. Is that a perk of past presidents as well? Lol, maybe it is.
temptation Posted July 26, 2024 Posted July 26, 2024 44 minutes ago, Muda69 said: Well, for starters the current yearly salary for the POTUS is $400,000. And the POTUS has virtually no living expenses. Room, board, insurance, etc. are 100% covered. I don't know about you but I would think earning $1.6 million dollars over four years would earn one the title of "rich". And of course that doesn't count the under handed schemes, advances for book deals once the POTUS leaves office, future speaking engagements, etc. A number of possible revenue streams open up once one sits in the Oval Office. Will Biden’s book deal be a picture book? 2
Muda69 Posted July 26, 2024 Posted July 26, 2024 (edited) 30 minutes ago, BTF said: Are you serious right now? That's not near enough money to buy and maintain the kind of homes they live in, let alone the property taxes. That's chump change if you look at their current lifestyle. Hell, Obama had a personal cook. Is that a perk of past presidents as well? Lol, maybe it is. You and I must live in different financial worlds. Edited July 26, 2024 by Muda69
BTF Posted July 26, 2024 Posted July 26, 2024 3 hours ago, Muda69 said: You and I must live in different financial worlds. Seriously Muda, look at that kind of homes both Biden and Obama live in. You can't sustain that kind of lifestyle with 1.6 million dollars in the bank. Someone with that kind of money lives in a $750,000 dollar home. The Obama's paid 11.5 million back in 2020 for their home in Martha's Vineyard. The property taxes alone are over 6 figures a year. Any idea what it takes to maintain an estate like that? He even had a private cook. Then there's his 8 million dollar home in DC that he purchased when he left the White House. To my knowledge, he still owns both. This man owns roughly 20 million in real estate. It wasn't until last year that he sold his 1.5 million dollar apartment in NY. Before he became president, he resided in the Hyde Park area of Chicago. So maybe he lived in a Townhome valued between $750,000 and 1.5 million? Connect the damn dots. 1.6 million = chump change (to guys like Obama and Biden). They roll with the elites. Elites are shady as f***. And as the president or vice president of America, you're privy to a lot of cash from other countries when you give them what you want. I doubt the Bush's are innocent. I have a lot of respect for you Muda being the 3rd party guy that you are. I'm a Trump supporter because he didn't use his power as the president to become "rich."
Muda69 Posted July 26, 2024 Posted July 26, 2024 Just now, BTF said: Seriously Muda, look at that kind of homes both Biden and Obama live in. You can't sustain that kind of lifestyle with 1.6 million dollars in the bank. Which Is why I also made this statement: Quote And of course that doesn't count the under handed schemes, advances for book deals once the POTUS leaves office, future speaking engagements, etc. 1 minute ago, BTF said: Any idea what it takes to maintain an estate like that? No, I don't. Do you? 2 minutes ago, BTF said: I have a lot of respect for you Muda being the 3rd party guy that you are. I'm a Trump supporter because he didn't use his power as the president to become "rich." No, he just used his Dad.
BTF Posted July 26, 2024 Posted July 26, 2024 3 hours ago, Muda69 said: No, he just used his Dad. Which begs the question. Did he inherit 1 million or 10 million from his dad? Doesn't matter. He took it and turned it into an billion dollar empire. I'm starting to believe that you struggle with understanding money. Hopefully you're not one of those people who tout, "but, but he bankrupted three companies." NO ONE can own as many businesses as Trump does without having a few failures along the way. If you know someone, help me out. It would be a pleasure to meet God in person. 3 hours ago, Muda69 said: No, I don't. Do you? Lol, 1.6 million won't do it. I must have a better idea than you. And I'm sorry, but speaking engagements and book deals don't qualify you for 20 million dollars in real estate and the money it takes to maintain it. Obama and Biden are shady and they became rich at the expense of American tax payers. You're naive if you don't believe that.
Muda69 Posted July 28, 2024 Posted July 28, 2024 On 7/26/2024 at 4:13 PM, BTF said: Which begs the question. Did he inherit 1 million or 10 million from his dad? Doesn't matter. He took it and turned it into an billion dollar empire. You and other members of MAGA like to claim that Trump isn't an "elite". Well, he was born an elite. I know you will probably not click on the below link because it is from the New York Times, but if you have the courage please try and point out to me the "fake news" in what they have reported: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/10/02/us/politics/trump-family-wealth.html Quote In Donald J. Trump’s version of how he got rich, he was the master dealmaker who parlayed an initial $1 million loan from his father into a $10 billion empire. It was his guts and gumption that overcame setbacks, and his father, Fred C. Trump, was simply a cheerleader. But an investigation by The New York Times shows that by age 3, Donald Trump was earning $200,000 a year in today’s dollars from his father’s empire. He was a millionaire by age 8. By the time he was 17, his father had given him part ownership of a 52-unit apartment building. Soon after he graduated from college, he was receiving the equivalent of $1 million a year from his father. The money increased with the years, to more than $5 million annually in his 40s and 50s. In all, financial records reveal, Mr. Trump received the equivalent today of at least $413 million from his father’s real estate empire. Here are four ways that Fred Trump made his children rich. .... If you want to become a real estate mogul in New York you have become a political "elite", aka know how to play the game. Fred Trump learned that and passed it on to his son. Donald Trump was born with a silver spoon in his mouth and he has never take it out. Like many of the others in Washington D.C.
Muda69 Posted July 28, 2024 Posted July 28, 2024 Trump Calls for Jailing Flag Burners https://reason.com/2024/07/26/trump-calls-for-jailing-flag-burners/ Quote In reaction to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's speech before Congress on Wednesday, raucous anti-Israel protests erupted across Washington, D.C. Protesters vandalized statues outside D.C.'s Union Station with phrases like "Hamas is comin" and "long live the resistance." At one point, protesters replaced the American flag with a Palestinian flag and then burned the American flag. In response to the flag burning, former President Donald Trump told Fox and Friends on Wednesday that he believed those who burn or damage the American flag should face jail time. Trump also brushed off those who would point out that flag desecration is First Amendment-protected speech. "You should get a one-year jail sentence if you do anything to desecrate the American flag," said Trump. "Now, people will say, 'Oh, it's unconstitutional.' Those are stupid people. Those are stupid people that say that." "We have to work in Congress to get a one-year jail sentence," Trump continued. "When they're allowed to stomp on the flag and put lighter fluid on the flag and set it afire, when you're allowed to do that—you get a one-year jail sentence, and you'll never see it again." This isn't the first time Trump has called for imprisoning flag burners. "We ought to come up with legislation that if you burn the American flag you go to jail for one year," Trump said during a 2020 rally in Tulsa, Oklahoma. "We oughta do it. We talk about freedom of speech…but that's desecration," he added. However, Trump is simply wrong. In 1989, the Supreme Court ruled in Texas v. Johnson that flag burning is protected speech. While you can still face property destruction-related charges for burning someone else's flag (as occurred Wednesday), burning a flag you own is protected political expression. "If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable," wrote Chief Justice William Brennan in the court's majority opinion. "We have not recognized an exception to this principle even where our flag has been involved." While D.C.'s anti-Israel protestors can still face vandalism charges for their actions on Wednesday, every American has the right to burn their own American flag—no matter how offensive some presidential candidates think their actions are. Trump's hatred of the 1st Amendment is yet another reason not to vote for him.
BTF Posted July 28, 2024 Posted July 28, 2024 13 minutes ago, Muda69 said: Trump Calls for Jailing Flag Burners https://reason.com/2024/07/26/trump-calls-for-jailing-flag-burners/ Trump's hatred of the 1st Amendment is yet another reason not to vote for him. I've got a better idea. If you burn the flag, then you lose your American citizenship and get dropped off in Mexico. Trumps being nice.
BTF Posted July 28, 2024 Posted July 28, 2024 20 minutes ago, Muda69 said: Donald Trump was born with a silver spoon in his mouth Agree, but so was Hunter Biden. Big difference. Trump took his "mini" empire and grew it. He created jobs. It's more about what you do with it than how you got it. I don't know whether anything cited in your article is true or not. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter if it was 1 million, 10 million, or 400 million. He didn't abuse it. He put the money to work and made it better. Thousands of people benefited as did the economy. People can downplay Trump all they want, it doesn't take away from the fact that his policies are better for this country than what anyone else out there has to offer.
Muda69 Posted July 28, 2024 Posted July 28, 2024 14 hours ago, BTF said: People can downplay Trump all they want, it doesn't take away from the fact that his policies are better for this country than what anyone else out there has to offer. Like the Flag proposed burning "policy" that was posted above or this other recent gem: Trump urges Christians to vote, says they won't have to again if he wins 2024 election: https://www.indystar.com/story/news/politics/elections/2024/07/27/trump-christians-wont-have-to-vote-again/74570307007/ Quote WASHINGTON – Former President Donald Trump implored Christians attending a summit hosted by the conservative group Turning Point Action to vote in November, saying they wouldn’t have to cast a ballot again if he wins the presidency because “it’ll be fixed.” “I don't care how, but you have to get out and vote,” Trump told the crowd at Turning Point Action’s Believer’s Summit. “Christians get out and vote. Just this time. You won't have to do it anymore.” “In four more years, you know what? It’ll be fixed. It’ll be fine. You won't have to vote anymore, my beautiful Christians,” Trump added during his 70-minute long speech. “We'll have it fixed so good. You're not going to have to vote.” He delivered the comments during a keynote speech at Turning Point Action’s Believers’ Summit in West Palm Beach, Fla. The event was aimed at “empowering attendees with practical knowledge and strategies to live out their faith boldly and counteract the prevailing 'woke' narratives with grace, truth, and conviction, rooted in the Gospel,” according to the group’s website. Politically conservative Christian voters are a key segment of Trump’s base that he must turnout in order to prevail in November’s election. Recent polls published since President Joe Biden exited the 2024 race show Trump’s lead in the race slipping. He is now neck-and-neck with likely Democratic nominee Vice President Kamala Harris. In the aftermath of the assassination attempt against him, Trump has also emerged as an unlikely spiritual figurehead. During a speech at the Republican National Convention in mid-July, Trump said he felt like he had God on his side as bullets whizzed by, coming within inches of killing him. If he wins the 2024 election, Trump won’t be able to run for the presidency again. The 22nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prevents presidents from serving more than twice. But the GOP presidential nominee also has a history of using authoritarian rhetoric on the campaign trail. In December, he suggested that he would be a dictator for “one day” if elected again. At a rally in Michigan last weekend, Trump hailed Xi Jinping of China as a “brilliant man” for ruling “with an iron fist” over the countries 1.4 billion people. He also praised Hungary’s Viktor Orbán and Russia’s Vladimir Putin as “tough” and “smart” leaders. Trump is facing multiple felony charges for allegedly conspiring to overturn the results of the 2020 election. The ex-president has spread false claims that widespread voter fraud led him to lose the race to President Joe Biden. There is no evidence to back the claims. You apparently know Mr. Trump's mind, BTF. What exactly does he mean by "We'll have it fixed so good. You're not going to have to vote." in regards to Christians, and possibly everyone else?
BTF Posted July 28, 2024 Posted July 28, 2024 2 hours ago, Muda69 said: Like the Flag proposed burning "policy" that was posted above or this other recent gem: Trump urges Christians to vote, says they won't have to again if he wins 2024 election: https://www.indystar.com/story/news/politics/elections/2024/07/27/trump-christians-wont-have-to-vote-again/74570307007/ You apparently know Mr. Trump's mind, BTF. What exactly does he mean by "We'll have it fixed so good. You're not going to have to vote." in regards to Christians, and possibly everyone else? I would have to watch the speech myself. You know that the media takes everything he says out of context. Remember "dictator?" Remember "bloodbath?"
Muda69 Posted July 29, 2024 Posted July 29, 2024 18 hours ago, BTF said: I would have to watch the speech myself. Then by all means please do so and get back with us with your thoughts. On 7/27/2024 at 9:16 PM, BTF said: I've got a better idea. If you burn the flag, then you lose your American citizenship and get dropped off in Mexico. Trumps being nice. Nice to know you hate the 1st Amendment. Should there be a difference between burning an American flag you own and one you do not own?
BTF Posted July 30, 2024 Posted July 30, 2024 12 hours ago, Muda69 said: Should there be a difference between burning an American flag you own and one you do not own? You bring up a good point. Burning a flag is the proper way to dispose of it. It's also proper to do it in respectful way. I'm all for law enforcement determining what's respectful and what is not. Example of a respectful way: Your own yard, preferably the back yard in privacy. Example of a "one year in jail" way. Burning a flag in a public setting..........a public street for instance. Anyone who believes that an American burning an American flag is OK, probably shouldn't be living in America. Shame on you Muda. 12 hours ago, Muda69 said: Then by all means please do so and get back with us with your thoughts. Provide me the link of the video. I don't trust the Indy Star any more than I do the FW Journal Gazette.
Muda69 Posted July 30, 2024 Posted July 30, 2024 10 hours ago, BTF said: You bring up a good point. Burning a flag is the proper way to dispose of it. It's also proper to do it in respectful way. I'm all for law enforcement determining what's respectful and what is not. Example of a respectful way: Your own yard, preferably the back yard in privacy. Example of a "one year in jail" way. Burning a flag in a public setting..........a public street for instance. Anyone who believes that an American burning an American flag is OK, probably shouldn't be living in America. Shame on you Muda. But LEO's just enforce the existing laws, correct? So are you really saying there should be legislation, either at the state or federal level, that describes what is "respectful" and what is not? I believe that has been tried before, it's what Texas vs. Johnson was primarily about: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._Johnson# Quote Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989), is a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held, 5–4, that burning the Flag of the United States was protected speech under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as doing so counts as symbolic speech and political speech. In the case, activist Gregory Lee Johnson was convicted for burning an American flag during a protest outside the 1984 Republican National Convention in Dallas, Texas, and was fined $2,000 and sentenced to one year in jail in accordance with Texas law. Justice William Brennan wrote for the five-justice majority that Johnson's flag burning was protected under the freedom of speech, and therefore the state could not censor Johnson nor punish him for his actions. The ruling invalidated prohibitions on desecrating the American flag, which at the time were enforced in 48 of the 50 states. The ruling was unpopular with the general public and lawmakers, with President George H. W. Bush calling flag burning "dead wrong". The ruling was challenged by Congress, which passed the Flag Protection Act later that year, making flag desecration a federal crime. The law's constitutionality was contested before the Supreme Court, which again affirmed in United States v. Eichman (1990) that flag burning was a protected form of free speech and struck down the Flag Protection Act as violating the First Amendment. In the years following the ruling, Congress several times considered the Flag Desecration Amendment, which would have amended the Constitution to make flag burning illegal, but never passed it. The issue of flag burning remained controversial decades later, and it is still used as a form of protest. And I never said burning the American flag as a form of protest was OK. I personally find the act alarming and distasteful. There are types of free speech/expression that I find alarming, but I'm adult enough to know why the 1st Amendment exists, and what would be the repercussions for all Americans if it did not. In fact I believe that an American who doesn't fully support the 1st Amendment probably shouldn't be living in America. 10 hours ago, BTF said: Provide me the link of the video. I don't trust the Indy Star any more than I do the FW Journal Gazette.
swordfish Posted July 30, 2024 Author Posted July 30, 2024 Maybe because he won't be on the ticket in 4 years......Come on Muda - your better than that.
BTF Posted July 30, 2024 Posted July 30, 2024 3 hours ago, Muda69 said: But LEO's just enforce the existing laws, correct? So are you really saying there should be legislation, either at the state or federal level, that describes what is "respectful" and what is not? I believe that has been tried before, it's what Texas vs. Johnson was primarily about: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._Johnson# And I never said burning the American flag as a form of protest was OK. I personally find the act alarming and distasteful. There are types of free speech/expression that I find alarming, but I'm adult enough to know why the 1st Amendment exists, and what would be the repercussions for all Americans if it did not. In fact I believe that an American who doesn't fully support the 1st Amendment probably shouldn't be living in America. I'd like to see the full video, that one is edited to show the viewers what they want them to hear. Presuming the ET stands for Entertainment Tonight? This is a waste of time.
Muda69 Posted July 30, 2024 Posted July 30, 2024 3 hours ago, swordfish said: Maybe because he won't be on the ticket in 4 years......Come on Muda - your better than that. So Trump is saying if Christians can't vote for him then they don't need to vote at all?
Muda69 Posted July 30, 2024 Posted July 30, 2024 1 hour ago, BTF said: I'd like to see the full video, that one is edited to show the viewers what they want them to hear. Presuming the ET stands for Entertainment Tonight? This is a waste of time. ET in this case = The Economic Times. You really are lazy, or just choose to be clueless. But here you are:
BTF Posted July 30, 2024 Posted July 30, 2024 (edited) 6 minutes ago, Muda69 said: ET in this case = The Economic Times. You really are lazy, or just choose to be clueless. But here you are: I work Muda, have other life obligations. I have to pick and choose what I'm going to spend my time on. The media has been taking what Trump says out of context for the last 9 years. I take it with a grain of salt. But thank you, I'll watch it tonight when I have more time. Edited July 30, 2024 by BTF
Muda69 Posted July 30, 2024 Posted July 30, 2024 (edited) Trump's Favorite Justice Was One of Those 'Stupid People' Who Think Flag Burning Is Protected Speech: https://reason.com/2024/07/29/trumps-favorite-justice-was-one-of-those-stupid-people-who-thinks-flag-burning-is-protected-speech/ Quote During a presidential debate in 2016, Donald Trump described the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia as a "great judge" and promised to "appoint judges very much in the mold of Justice Scalia." Trump may not have realized that Scalia was one of those "stupid people" who think flag burning is protected by the First Amendment. Last week, as Reason's Emma Camp noted, the former president said people who burn U.S. flags (even ones they own) should go to jail. He was reiterating a position that he took in November 2016, a month after the debate in which he praised Scalia. "Nobody should be allowed to burn the American flag," Trump tweeted back then. "If they do, there must be consequences—perhaps loss of citizenship or [a] year in jail!" Asked about the comment on CNN, Trump spokesman Jason Miller denied that such a policy would be unconstitutional. Flag burning "is terrible and it's despicable," Miller said. "It absolutely should be illegal." In an interview with Fox and Friends last Wednesday, Trump likewise dismissed the argument that flag burning is a form of constitutionally protected expression. "You should get a one-year jail sentence if you do anything to desecrate the American flag," Trump said. "Now, people will say, 'Oh, it's unconstitutional.' Those are stupid people. Those are stupid people that say that." Those "stupid people" include Justice William Brennan, who wrote the majority opinion in the 1989 case Texas v. Johnson, which rejected the prosecution of Gregory Lee Johnson for burning a U.S. flag during the 1984 Republican National Convention in Dallas. They also include Scalia, who joined that opinion along with Justices Anthony Kennedy, Thurgood Marshall, and Harry Blackmun. Scalia took the same position in the 1990 case U.S. v. Eichman. That decision overturned the Flag Protection Act of 1989, which Congress passed in response to Johnson. "We are aware that desecration of the flag is deeply offensive to many," Brennan said, again writing for the majority. "But the same might be said, for example, of virulent ethnic and religious epithets, vulgar repudiations of the draft, and scurrilous caricatures [all of which the Court had deemed protected by the First Amendment]. 'If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the Government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.' Punishing desecration of the flag dilutes the very freedom that makes this emblem so revered, and worth revering." Scalia later cited the flag-burning cases to illustrate how his textualist approach to constitutional interpretation sometimes led him to rule against his personal inclinations. "If it were up to me, I would put in jail every sandal-wearing, scruffy-bearded weirdo who burns the American flag," he said in a 2015 speech. "But I am not king." Scalia's distinction between what the Constitution requires and what he might otherwise prefer probably would be lost on Trump, who seems to value freedom of speech only to the extent that it protects him and his allies. 2 minutes ago, BTF said: I work Muda, have other life obligations. I have to pick and choose what I'm going to spend my time on. The media has been taking what Trump says out of context for the last 9 years. I take it with a grain of salt. As do most of use BTF. Telling that you choose to ignore, eerrr "pick and choose" anything that may paint your MAGA King in a less than 100% positive light. Edited July 30, 2024 by Muda69
BTF Posted July 30, 2024 Posted July 30, 2024 3 hours ago, Muda69 said: Trump's Favorite Justice Was One of Those 'Stupid People' Who Think Flag Burning Is Protected Speech: https://reason.com/2024/07/29/trumps-favorite-justice-was-one-of-those-stupid-people-who-thinks-flag-burning-is-protected-speech/ As do most of use BTF. Telling that you choose to ignore, eerrr "pick and choose" anything that may paint your MAGA King in a less than 100% positive light. Ok.
Muda69 Posted August 1, 2024 Posted August 1, 2024 Trump and Harris Are Just Making It Up as They Go: https://reason.com/2024/08/01/trump-and-harris-are-just-making-it-up-as-they-go/ Quote A few minutes before 10 a.m. on Wednesday, former President Donald Trump dropped a plan to completely overhaul the relationship between millions of older Americans and the federal government. "SENIORS SHOULD NOT PAY TAX ON SOCIAL SECURITY," Trump shouted from his Truth Social account. If implemented, that would be a hugely expensive policy change. According to one quick estimate by a former White House chief economist, it would reduce federal revenue by $1.5 trillion over 10 years and would add $1.8 trillion to the national debt. (The extra cost is the result of interest on the new debt that would be racked up in the absence of that revenue.) It would also accelerate Social Security's slide into insolvency. And, obviously, it would be a big tax break for Americans who collect Social Security checks—but not a tax break that would be particularly good at fostering economic growth. Despite all that, the most notable thing about Trump's announcement was what it didn't include. There was no attempt to reckon with those figures, for example. No surrogates were dispatched to explain why this change is necessary or good for the economy or country. No press releases went out. There was, of course, no attempt to explain what government programs would be cut to offset the drop in revenue. For that matter, there had been no discussion of this idea at the Republican National Convention. It was not mentioned in Trump's (long) acceptance speech and was not included in the party's platform. Like so much else in the Trump era, this looks like an idea that went from the former president's head to his social media account with very few stops in between. There is something to be said for that degree of—let's say—transparency. If nothing else, it is quintessentially Trumpian: hastily conceived and not deeply considered, more of a marketing slogan than substance. Let's just call this what it is: a nakedly political play to win the votes of Social Security–collecting Americans. Coming as it did on Wednesday morning, the "no taxes on Social Security" plan stood in stark contrast to the news the Trump campaign had made just one day earlier. On Tuesday, Trump's campaign had officially (and gleefully) sunk the Heritage Foundation's "Project 2025"—a 900-page document in which the conservative think tank had outlined an extensive policy plan for Trump's prospective second term. The project had been headed by Paul Dans, who had served in the Trump administration, and was central to the institutional-wide pivot toward populism that Kevin Roberts, Heritage's president, had executed in recent years. In a statement, two of Trump's top campaign officials didn't merely bury Project 2025 but also issued a threat. "Reports of Project 2025's demise would be greatly welcomed and should serve as notice to anyone or any group trying to misrepresent their influence with President Trump and his campaign—it will not end well for you," said Susie Wiles and Chris LaCivita. Translation: How dare anyone try to substitute actual policy substance for whatever random thought might fall out of the former president's head on a Wednesday morning? Roberts' mistake "was thinking that Mr. Trump cares about anyone's ideas other than his own. He governs on feral instinct, tactical opportunism, and what seems popular at a given moment," wrote the Wall Street Journal's editorial board in a scathing response to the news of Project 2025 being scuttled and that Dans had resigned from Heritage. "The lesson for Heritage, and other think tanks, is that it's better to stick to your principles rather than court the political flavor of the day." Amen to that. Meanwhile, Vice President Kamala Harris has launched her campaign by veering hard into an almost Trump-like policy nihilism of her own. Having already tried to memory-hole her track record as the Biden administration's so-called "border czar"—read Reason's Liz Wolfe if you need to catch up on that controversy—Harris is now seemingly rewriting her positions on a bunch of other things too. For example, Harris was a co-sponsor of the Green New Deal when she was a member of the U.S. Senate in 2019. She voiced her support for the progressive environmental package while campaigning for president that same year. Now, she's backing away from it. This week, a spokesperson for the Harris campaign told the Washington Examiner that Harris no longer supports the federal job guarantee—a promise that the federal government would provide jobs with "family-sustaining wages" to anyone who wanted one—that was a key feature of the Green New Deal. As the Examiner notes, Harris has also "backed away from her endorsement of eliminating private healthcare plans as part of a Medicare for All proposal. Her campaign also told The Hill that she will not seek to ban fracking if she is elected. That was after previously telling CNN while running for president 'There's no question I'm in favor of banning fracking.'" Maybe this is Harris embracing her philosophy of being "unburdened by what has been." Maybe she's simply taking a page from Trump's book—after all, the former president has never paid much of a price for making it up as he goes along. For both Trump and Harris, simply telling voters what you think they want to hear is possibly the most direct route to winning an election. But such a cynical approach to campaigning sidelines any discussion of policy—and means the election is likely to be decided on far stupider grounds. Amen to that. Neither uni-party candidate deserves my vote.
Muda69 Posted August 2, 2024 Posted August 2, 2024 J.D. Vance Wants To Control You With Taxes: https://reason.com/2024/08/01/j-d-vance-wants-to-control-you-with-taxes/ Quote Republican vice presidential nominee J.D. Vance has been in the news for an old clip of him talking about how the tax code should punish adults without kids. While Vance's proposal probably aims to address demographic concerns, it represents a misguided approach that contradicts fundamental principles of economic freedom and fairness. And you know what? That's precisely what our tax code already does, in this case and many others. Using the tax code to "reward" parents and "punish" nonparents is at odds with the idea of a neutral, efficient tax system. In an ideal and fair world, the tax base would be broad but taxed at a low rate. People making the same income should be paying the same level of taxes no matter how they choose to live their lives. Unfortunately, the tax code is neither fair nor neutral. It punishes and rewards all sorts of behaviors based on what government officials decide is good or bad. For instance, the tax code does, in fact, treat people with kids more favorably than it treats those who do not have kids.* There's the child tax credit, of course. Then there's the earned income tax credit, which is more generous for families with children than those without. And there is no shortage of other provisions, such as a very significant deduction for heads of households and another for dependent care, which do the same thing. It's hard to know what Vance's proposal really entails. Does he want another surtax on childless parents? Does he want to expand the child tax credit and make it a universal basic income like many conservatives and progressives want? It's also unclear whether he is simply failing to see that our tax code already delivers on his wishes and punishes childless adults. Either way, I assume he is well intentioned and that he is rightfully concerned about the decline in fertility we are witnessing not just in this country but across the world. Unfortunately, punishing childless parents with additional taxes wouldn't boost fertility. For one thing, we've had a child tax credit since the 1990s, and the tax break has been regularly extended. That hasn't encouraged people to have more kids. That's not unique to the child tax credit. Lots of evidence exists showing that government programs of all sorts meant to encourage, reward, or stimulate the supply of babies usually fail. One of the most dramatic examples is South Korea. The country has spent over $200 billion on such policies over the past 16 years, and fertility rates are still falling. There isn't any doubt that more people, and hence more babies, are a boon for our lives and our economy. But that alone isn't a good reason for government subsidies. And while raising kids is expensive, that's no justification for a government tax break, either. Besides, careful studies have shown the cost of raising a child in America has been decreasing for six decades. In the end, rather than rewarding families with lesser taxes at the expense of childless adults, I would encourage advocates to focus on removing existing government barriers—like overzealous policies that make child care more expensive without making kids measurably safer—that make life more complicated for families. Ultimately, these are only secondary aspects of a much bigger debate. Our tax code is incredibly unfair. It's not just childless adults that face a surcharge compared to parents. Tax breaks for homeowners mean that renters pay more money for the same amount of housing. Households which include a college student pay less in taxes. People who can afford an electric vehicle can secure a tax break that others cannot. These tax breaks for some are not just unfair to the taxpayers who don't get them—they also turn our tax code into a complicated mess that requires many millions of collective hours to comply with. Instead of adding more complexity and bias, we should be moving in the opposite direction—toward a simpler, flatter, and more neutral code that treats all taxpayers equally. Using the tax code as a tool for social engineering is misguided. It leads to economic inefficiencies and infringes on individual liberty. Rather than doubling down on the problematic aspects of our current system, we should be working toward comprehensive reform. Only then can we hope to see taxes as something that truly serves the interests of all Americans, regardless of their personal choices. Agreed.
Recommended Posts