Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

A Bidentastic week and Trump's very bad one

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
    The current crew in the WH would be the ones to figure out how to do it.
    Well, you won't be able to use ANY medicare services unless you meet their medical requirements, regardless of whether that service is related to their requirements.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by CivilDiscourse View Post

      Well, you won't be able to use ANY medicare services unless you meet their medical requirements, regardless of whether that service is related to their requirements.
      "We're sorry, but your social credit score is not sufficient for you to receive Medicare service. Please report to your nearest social compliance center to take advantage of our reeducation services."
      Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
      But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
      Than a fool in the eyes of God


      From "Fools Gold" by Petra

      Comment


      • Last edited by rogue06; 08-14-2022, 08:13 AM.

        I'm always still in trouble again

        "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
        "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
        "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

        Comment


        • Don't worry, it's just transitory.
          Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
          But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
          Than a fool in the eyes of God


          From "Fools Gold" by Petra

          Comment


          • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
            The current crew in the WH would be the ones to figure out how to do it.
            No figuring out necessary. Just continuing to do their jobs as they are supposed to should be enough to elicit Republican cries of "weaponization", as we've seen with the FBI and DOJ.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Stoic View Post

              No figuring out necessary. Just continuing to do their jobs as they are supposed to should be enough to elicit Republican cries of "weaponization", as we've seen with the FBI and DOJ.
              It's not like we've seen a pattern of it over the past 15 years. Learner's IRS targeting conservative groups before an election to the FBI doctoring an email and using it as the basis for a sworn statement to spy on Trump campaign adviser Carter Page and on and on.

              Yeah. No reason to be suspicious.

              I'm always still in trouble again

              "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
              "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
              "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

              Comment


              • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                Learner's IRS targeting conservative groups before an election
                Holy guacamole, your post caused me to go and read up again on that fake-scandal, and indeed as I'd already known the investigations had cleared the IRS people of wrongdoing, found they're used reasonable methods to target both conservative and liberal groups that might be problematic for further investigation, and generally found the conservatives who were whining were a pack of self-aggrieved pretend-victim whiners, BUT the bit that had somehow escaped my notice at the time was that when Trump got into government he took the opportunity to pay out a huge amount of government money to these fake-victims in a settlement. Talk about self-dealing! Republicans in government paying huge amounts of tax-payer money to republican groups as pretend reparations for a fake-scandal!

                Maybe the Dem party should sue the government for something made up and Biden should direct the government to settle with them for a trillion dollars?!?

                I must have somehow missed that piece of vomit-inducing behavior from Trump among the daily deluge of fecal matter that was coming from his administration.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                  Holy guacamole, your post caused me to go and read up again on that fake-scandal, and indeed as I'd already known the investigations had cleared the IRS people of wrongdoing, found they're used reasonable methods to target both conservative and liberal groups that might be problematic for further investigation, and generally found the conservatives who were whining were a pack of self-aggrieved pretend-victim whiners, BUT the bit that had somehow escaped my notice at the time was that when Trump got into government he took the opportunity to pay out a huge amount of government money to these fake-victims in a settlement. Talk about self-dealing! Republicans in government paying huge amounts of tax-payer money to republican groups as pretend reparations for a fake-scandal!

                  Maybe the Dem party should sue the government for something made up and Biden should direct the government to settle with them for a trillion dollars?!?

                  I must have somehow missed that piece of vomit-inducing behavior from Trump among the daily deluge of fecal matter that was coming from his administration.
                  As they say, timing is everything.

                  It wasn't until when the curtain was starting to get pulled back on what the IRS was doing that they quickly included a few liberal groups into the mix so that folks like you could say they targeted both sides.

                  I'm always still in trouble again

                  "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                  "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                  "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                    Holy guacamole, your post caused me to go and read up again on that fake-scandal, and indeed as I'd already known the investigations had cleared the IRS people of wrongdoing, found they're used reasonable methods to target both conservative and liberal groups that might be problematic for further investigation, and generally found the conservatives who were whining were a pack of self-aggrieved pretend-victim whiners, BUT the bit that had somehow escaped my notice at the time was that when Trump got into government he took the opportunity to pay out a huge amount of government money to these fake-victims in a settlement. Talk about self-dealing! Republicans in government paying huge amounts of tax-payer money to republican groups as pretend reparations for a fake-scandal!

                    Maybe the Dem party should sue the government for something made up and Biden should direct the government to settle with them for a trillion dollars?!?

                    I must have somehow missed that piece of vomit-inducing behavior from Trump among the daily deluge of fecal matter that was coming from his administration.
                    Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRS_targeting_controversy

                    On June 27, 2013, responding to letters from Rep. Sander Levin, the ranking member on the Ways and Means Committee, Inspector General J. Russell George's office released a letter to Levin about the scrutiny of groups with "progressive" in their names.[82][83][84][85] Contradicting earlier claims of George's office, the letter acknowledged that he knew that the word "progressive" had appeared in IRS screening documents.[82][85] However, he said that the "Progressives" criteria were on a part of the "Be On the Look Out" (BOLO) spreadsheet labeled "Historical", and, unlike other BOLO entries, did not say how to refer flagged cases. While he had many sources confirming the use of "Tea Party" and related criteria described in the report, including employee interviews and e-mails, he found no indication in any of those other materials that "Progressives" was a term used to refer cases for scrutiny for political campaign intervention.[83]The letter further stated that out of the 20 groups applying for tax-exempt status whose names contained "progress" or "progressive", 6 had been chosen for more scrutiny as compared to all of the 292 groups applying for tax-exempt status whose names contained "tea party", "patriot", or "9/12".[82][86][87][88]

                    © Copyright Original Source

                    Comment


                    • It reduces inflation by raising taxes so high on everyone that nobody can afford to buy anything. As demand drops, so do prices and inflation! Voila!

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                        It reduces inflation by raising taxes so high on everyone that nobody can afford to buy anything. As demand drops, so do prices and inflation! Voila!
                        Even Huffington Post recognizes the name is misleading, and all the talk about inflation and deficit is weak at best:

                        Source: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/inflation-reduction-act-analysis_n_62f5bdcbe4b0288b61a325d0



                        Democrats’ Inflation Reduction Act Expected To Do Little To Reduce Inflation


                        The bill was also touted as lowering the deficit, but by how much is uncertain.
                        By
                        Jonathan Nicholson
                        Aug 11, 2022, 11:23 PM EDT

                        Democrats pulled off a fairly brilliant bit of marketing recently, rebranding their big domestic legislation (“Build Back Better”) into the smaller Inflation Reduction Act of 2022. The new name is easier to understand, addresses voters’ driving economic worries and satisfied the needs of Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), whose support was crucial.

                        The legislation is substantial. It’s the biggest federal investment in fighting climate change ever and the biggest change in Medicare since 2003. But when it comes to actually reducing inflation, as its name promises, budget experts say it leaves much to be desired.

                        ...

                        The Penn Wharton Budget Model, a project of the University of Pennsylvania that aims to give Congressional Budget Office-type independent analyses of legislation, kicked off the criticism of the Inflation Reduction Act on July 29.

                        It projected that the bill would actually boost inflation by 0.05 percentage point in 2024 and reduce it by 0.25 percentage point in “the late 2020s.”

                        “These point estimates, however, are not statistically different than zero, thereby indicating a very low level of confidence that the legislation will have any impact on inflation,” according to the project’s analysis.

                        The nonpartisan CBO came to a similar conclusion. In a preliminary analysis released Aug. 4, CBO Director Phillip Swagel wrote, “In calendar year 2022, enacting the bill would have a negligible effect on inflation, in CBO’s assessment,” and in 2023 inflation would probably be 0.1 percentage point lower or higher than if the law was unchanged.

                        The key, Swagel said, would be how the bill would affect various economic factors that determine inflation, including demand, the supply of workers, supply chain disruptions and the reaction by the Federal Reserve.

                        And though the head of the Penn Wharton Budget Model, Kent Smetters, and Swagel both served in the George W. Bush administration (and in Swagel’s case, also at the conservative American Enterprise Institute), their analyses have been seen as middle of the road.

                        Marc Goldwein, senior vice president and senior policy director at the bipartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, told HuffPost in an email that the inflation effects “are likely to be small.”

                        However, Goldwein said a side deal to loosen permitting restrictions on energy projects, such as pipelines and energy export facilities, would also help cut inflation.

                        “But still, the effects are likely to be modest. And smaller in the final version of the bill than the original one,” he said.

                        ...

                        The CBO initially scored the package as cutting more than $100 billion from the budget deficit over 10 years. For perspective, the last CBO baseline estimate projected $15.7 trillion in deficits over the next decade. CBO later revised down its estimate of the bill’s effect to about $90.5 billion before the Senate began its debating.

                        CRFB’s Goldwein said the post-Senate version probably saw its deficit reduction cut even more, to somewhere around $70 billion.

                        On Thursday, though, the CBO released a letter from Swagel saying the changes made since the bill’s unveiling, which would include a narrowing of the prescription drug negotiation provision and a swapping out of tax provisions to preserve the carried interest loophole, meant they could not give it a final score for “a few weeks.”

                        Even if one includes the extra $200 billion in tax revenue the CBO says can be expected from stepped up enforcement ― which is prohibited from being in the formal score ― the effect on the deficit would be relatively small.

                        © Copyright Original Source


                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                          As they say, timing is everything.

                          It wasn't until when the curtain was starting to get pulled back on what the IRS was doing that they quickly included a few liberal groups into the mix so that folks like you could say they targeted both sides.
                          I've learned that any post by SL stating something as fact, especially if there's no source cited, by default should be considered fake news and misinformation.
                          "What am I doing here?" -- Joe Biden 2021

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by CivilDiscourse View Post

                            Even Huffington Post recognizes the name is misleading, and all the talk about inflation and deficit is weak at best:

                            Source: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/inflation-reduction-act-analysis_n_62f5bdcbe4b0288b61a325d0



                            Democrats’ Inflation Reduction Act Expected To Do Little To Reduce Inflation


                            The bill was also touted as lowering the deficit, but by how much is uncertain.
                            By
                            Jonathan Nicholson
                            Aug 11, 2022, 11:23 PM EDT

                            Democrats pulled off a fairly brilliant bit of marketing recently, rebranding their big domestic legislation (“Build Back Better”) into the smaller Inflation Reduction Act of 2022. The new name is easier to understand, addresses voters’ driving economic worries and satisfied the needs of Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), whose support was crucial.

                            The legislation is substantial. It’s the biggest federal investment in fighting climate change ever and the biggest change in Medicare since 2003. But when it comes to actually reducing inflation, as its name promises, budget experts say it leaves much to be desired.

                            ...

                            The Penn Wharton Budget Model, a project of the University of Pennsylvania that aims to give Congressional Budget Office-type independent analyses of legislation, kicked off the criticism of the Inflation Reduction Act on July 29.

                            It projected that the bill would actually boost inflation by 0.05 percentage point in 2024 and reduce it by 0.25 percentage point in “the late 2020s.”

                            “These point estimates, however, are not statistically different than zero, thereby indicating a very low level of confidence that the legislation will have any impact on inflation,” according to the project’s analysis.

                            The nonpartisan CBO came to a similar conclusion. In a preliminary analysis released Aug. 4, CBO Director Phillip Swagel wrote, “In calendar year 2022, enacting the bill would have a negligible effect on inflation, in CBO’s assessment,” and in 2023 inflation would probably be 0.1 percentage point lower or higher than if the law was unchanged.

                            The key, Swagel said, would be how the bill would affect various economic factors that determine inflation, including demand, the supply of workers, supply chain disruptions and the reaction by the Federal Reserve.

                            And though the head of the Penn Wharton Budget Model, Kent Smetters, and Swagel both served in the George W. Bush administration (and in Swagel’s case, also at the conservative American Enterprise Institute), their analyses have been seen as middle of the road.

                            Marc Goldwein, senior vice president and senior policy director at the bipartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, told HuffPost in an email that the inflation effects “are likely to be small.”

                            However, Goldwein said a side deal to loosen permitting restrictions on energy projects, such as pipelines and energy export facilities, would also help cut inflation.

                            “But still, the effects are likely to be modest. And smaller in the final version of the bill than the original one,” he said.

                            ...

                            The CBO initially scored the package as cutting more than $100 billion from the budget deficit over 10 years. For perspective, the last CBO baseline estimate projected $15.7 trillion in deficits over the next decade. CBO later revised down its estimate of the bill’s effect to about $90.5 billion before the Senate began its debating.

                            CRFB’s Goldwein said the post-Senate version probably saw its deficit reduction cut even more, to somewhere around $70 billion.

                            On Thursday, though, the CBO released a letter from Swagel saying the changes made since the bill’s unveiling, which would include a narrowing of the prescription drug negotiation provision and a swapping out of tax provisions to preserve the carried interest loophole, meant they could not give it a final score for “a few weeks.”

                            Even if one includes the extra $200 billion in tax revenue the CBO says can be expected from stepped up enforcement ― which is prohibited from being in the formal score ― the effect on the deficit would be relatively small.

                            © Copyright Original Source

                            I'll see your Huff and raise you a Bernie.

                            Bernie Sanders criticizes Inflation Reduction Act, says it will have 'minimal impact'

                            Sen. Bernie Sanders criticized his party’s Inflation Reduction Act, saying it does not do enough to fight inflation.

                            "The so-called Inflation Reduction Act that we are debating this evening, and I say so-called by the way, because according to the CBO and other economic organizations that have studied this bill, it will, in fact, have a minimal impact on inflation," Sanders said on the Senate floor Saturday.



                            I'm always still in trouble again

                            "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                            "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                            "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                              I'll see your Huff and raise you a Bernie.

                              Bernie Sanders criticizes Inflation Reduction Act, says it will have 'minimal impact'

                              Sen. Bernie Sanders criticized his party’s Inflation Reduction Act, saying it does not do enough to fight inflation.

                              "The so-called Inflation Reduction Act that we are debating this evening, and I say so-called by the way, because according to the CBO and other economic organizations that have studied this bill, it will, in fact, have a minimal impact on inflation," Sanders said on the Senate floor Saturday.

                              Well to be fair, Bernie thinks if they spent and taxed even MORE then it might work.

                              He is just made they didn't go even further.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                                I'll see your Huff and raise you a Bernie.

                                Bernie Sanders criticizes Inflation Reduction Act, says it will have 'minimal impact'

                                Sen. Bernie Sanders criticized his party’s Inflation Reduction Act, saying it does not do enough to fight inflation.

                                "The so-called Inflation Reduction Act that we are debating this evening, and I say so-called by the way, because according to the CBO and other economic organizations that have studied this bill, it will, in fact, have a minimal impact on inflation," Sanders said on the Senate floor Saturday.

                                His comment, I believe, is in the article I quoted....I just trimmed it down to what the economists were saying.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Gondwanaland, Yesterday, 10:04 AM
                                40 responses
                                216 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Juvenal
                                by Juvenal
                                 
                                Started by NorrinRadd, Yesterday, 01:38 AM
                                31 responses
                                155 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post NorrinRadd  
                                Started by seer, 09-23-2022, 01:02 PM
                                26 responses
                                158 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Bill the Cat  
                                Started by shunyadragon, 09-23-2022, 10:15 AM
                                22 responses
                                126 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by Cow Poke, 09-23-2022, 07:26 AM
                                8 responses
                                50 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Working...
                                X