US Politics

Pexbo said:
I think this was always his intention. The GOP's agenda for this Presidency was to roll back as many regulations as they could from the Obama era and fix taxes in favour of corporations.

He will move back into the private sector now, no doubt making absolutely huge money from one of the lobbyists he's worked so hard to please.

Then no doubt look to run in 24'/28' when he's re-branded himself as a successful politician who made a fortune in the private sector as a successful businessman.
Click to expand...
Exactly this. He's achieved what he aimed to do: setup a ticking time-bomb to blow up the 'welfare state' he believes so strongly in.
 
Fergies Gum said:
That may well be his intention, but he's going to remain a toxic figure for a long time to come and people wont forget about his actions.
Click to expand...
I expect him to be back but this is the party of Trump now, not Ryan and McConnell. Trump has too much support from what used to be fringe party figures, as well as a stranglehold on the conservative media. The only question is will Trumpism still be strongly supported in 5-10 years or will Ryan have a chance to be the white knight and "save" the GOP? By then you have to think the demographics will continue to shift unfavorably for Republicans and the Trumpist rhetoric won't be enough to keep them in power.
 
Grinner said:
Christ! I thought we could all agree on that one. He should ask her about UC Regents vs. Bakke.
Click to expand...

It was 9-0 too. Also I hope she knows that every one of those 9 are dead, they aren't going to be "her bosses" if she's confirmed.
 
Nikhil said:
Booker is a homosexual according to some rumours? Will that affect his campaign?

Even though it shouldn't. It remains to be seen how much people care about private lives of politicians in this day and age.
Click to expand...

Apparently so. He would have a hard time get elected, especially since he isn’t particularly impressive in the way Obama was.
 
https://www.rawstory.com/2016/05/ch...roject-teaches-sacrificing-lives-for-profits/
The 2008 Koch agreement also funded professorships, postdoctoral fellowships, an undergraduate program and administrative costs for the “Program for the Study of Political Economy and Free Enterprise,” part of the Stavros Center as well.

The Stavros Center promotes “Common Sense Economics,” a free-market-focused book coauthored by the director of the Stavros Center, James Gwartney, and accompanying course materials for economics teachers all the way down to the kindergarten level. The center, along with programs at other colleges and universities, hosts workshops for teachers who want to offer Common Sense Economics courses at their schools; one such workshop occurred on February 4-5 of this year, hosted by the Excellence in Economic Education program.

Under “Readings Reflective of Common Sense” on the “Fun Readings” page of the Common Sense Economics website, one probably not-so-fun selection sticks out. “Sacrificing Lives for Profits,” written by Common Sense Economics coauthor Dwight Lee, actually argues that we’d all be better off if companies cut corners, even risking customers’ lives, in the name of profit:


“The charge that sways juries and offends public sensitivities … is that greedy corporations sacrifice human lives to increase their profits. Is this charge true? Of course it is. But this isn’t a criticism of corporations; rather it is a reflection of the proper functioning of a market economy. Corporations routinely sacrifice the lives of some of their customers to increase profits, and we are all better off because they do. That’s right, we are lucky to live in an economy that allows corporations to increase profits by intentionally selling products less safe than could be produced. The desirability of sacrificing lives for profits may not be as comforting as milk, cookies and a bedtime story, but it follows directly from a reality we cannot wish away.”
Click to expand...


I've been waiting for campus free-speech types to say something about the fact that the Kochs fund a large number of economics departments and many of them seem to produce research which just so happens to coincide with the Kochs' political approach...But I guess that is a less important free-speech issue than some screaming kids.
 
berbatrick said:
https://www.rawstory.com/2016/05/ch...roject-teaches-sacrificing-lives-for-profits/

I've been waiting for campus free-speech types to say something about the fact that the Kochs fund a large number of economics departments and many of them seem to produce research which just so happens to coincide with the Kochs' political approach...But I guess that is a less important free-speech issue than some screaming kids.
Click to expand...

Its crazy how widespread the Koch web of influence truly is:
http://polluterwatch.org/charles-koch-university-funding-database
 
Raoul said:
I think McCarthy will get it. Although whoever gets it won't really matter too much since the Pelosi will likely be speaker after Nov.
Click to expand...

I’m not familiar with McCarthy. My gut tells me it’s going to be a Trumpite because thats where the Republican Party is right now, it’s infected.
 
Pexbo said:
I’m not familiar with McCarthy. My gut tells me it’s going to be a Trumpite because thats where the Republican Party is right now, it’s infected.
Click to expand...

McCarthy and Scalise are both liked by Trump, so either could get it.

McCarthy actually had an inside track to get it in 2015 when he inadvertently admitted that the Benghazi probe against Hillary was done only to take her down. He then abruptly pulled out of speaker contention.

https://www.cnn.com/2015/09/30/politics/kevin-mccarthy-benghazi-committee-speaker/index.html
 
Raoul said:
McCarthy and Scalise are both liked by Trump, so either could get it.

McCarthy actually had an inside track to get it in 2015 when he inadvertently admitted that the Benghazi probe against Hillary was done only to take her down. He then abruptly pulled out of speaker contention.

https://www.cnn.com/2015/09/30/politics/kevin-mccarthy-benghazi-committee-speaker/index.html
Click to expand...
Entertainingly, wasn't he also the one who said Rohrabacher and Trump were in Putin's pocket at that GOP meeting (as a joke, supposedly)?
 
I like him, let’s get some good old McCarthyism back.
 
Left wing activist Cynthia Nixon getting a bit of press despite being 40-50 points behind Cuomo in the polls.

 
I'm paying a slightly higher rate for my 2017 return. 5.5% increase in income and 9% increase in taxes (only a 0.3% increase in tax rate though). I was wondering because this was supposed to be a cut and I'm actually paying more whichever way I measure it.

edit - I know the cut was concentrated at the middle and top, but Paul Ryan's nice tweet about $2/week so that poor people can now afford Costco seemed to be aimed at my income bracket.

Also I can't tell about a difference this year since my status changed (I'm now teaching and doing research) and my salary decreased quite substantially :mad:
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.