StrangeSox

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Feb 28, 2018 -> 04:42 PM) Corporate tax reform was needed, because the whole system is convoluted and we shouldn't have all this off-shoring that happens, but there are issues (like there are with any tax plan). The bigger question (and in many ways it is a philosphical one with multiple answers which depend somewhat on your own individual views) is where do you maximize the benefit on our economy (giving more back to Corporations or giving directly to people and who). My gut tells me the Corporate tax rate will be 2-3% higher in 5 years and the personal taxes will have shifted slightly as well (with more deductions at lower income brackets and increased rates at higher brackets). My understanding from talking to CPA/IRS relatives back around the holidays is that far from being a good "reform," the pass-through loopholes created a whole new exciting industry of tax arbitrage that big accounting firms are really, really eager to dig into for their well-heeled clients.

QUOTE (raBBit @ Feb 28, 2018 -> 04:34 PM) It disproportionately affects people who plan and save. Those people are disproportionately rich. You don't have to have billions of dollars to save. It was sold as a "middle class" tax plan and as a way to boost investment from companies to help the working and middle class. To the extent it does those things, it does them very inefficiently and rewards the wealthy much more. Maybe you agree with that from a policy perspective, but that's not how it was sold to the public.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Feb 28, 2018 -> 04:15 PM) It is what I said earlier...the way a company has to manage its book value and equity is you essentially invest in the growth of your business or you return to shareholders via buybacks / dividends. You clearly prioritize growth first, but when you can't grow, you need to leverage the other avenues. Additionally, if you can't grow and hit your target bogies, you than leverage buyback / dividends for the rest. One of the primary goals of a public Company CEO/CFO is to be as capital efficient as possible which is what this means. So for companies who had a day one impact resulting from tax reform (i.e., positive net income and thus book value growth as they remeasured their balance sheet), you really have one of two options...buyback or find additional growth. Finding additional growth isn't something you can just "magically" do. I will also point out...all of those numbers are day 1 impacts and are not actually forwarding looking impacts. For companies who had a big windfall or component, no one could possibly put that all back in the business and generate returns commensurate with shareholders expectations (so no one should be surprised this is happening). The real question is will future growth increase and thus the benefits of tax reform will mean less buybacks and more investments in future growth (meaning you than are ramping up employees, etc). Data isn't available on that because the trends are going to come out over time. In general, I anticipate that outside of those manufacturing specific areas that were very incentivized, you'll see a lot of the benefits competed away (which indirectly flow back to consumers via lower pricing). Right, which is pretty much what was expected here. The corporate tax cut was a giant windfall to shareholders which disproportionately benefits the wealthy and won't really do too much for everyone else (maybe we'll see lower prices in some areas down the road, but if your goal was "help people who aren't wealthy," there's a heck of a lot more efficient ways to do that that don't exacerbate wealth inequality). Companies weren't cash-starved with investment and expansion opportunities, so the idea that we needed a big tax cut stimulus to spur the economy never made much sense. e: You weren't making those arguments, but that's how it was being sold to the public.

Trump is extremely opinionated and also has no idea what he's talking about, ever.

It's a good idea to go through due process rather than giving police arbitrary powers imo But it's more that it illustrates Trump has zero understanding of the GOP's or his own White House's policy preferences because he doesn't know a damn thing about policy, and everyone in the room will treat the President like a toddler because they know they have to let him rant for a while but that ultimately it's meaningless words. Just look at DACA--"I'll sign whatever bipartisan bill you give me!" "I'll do a clean DACA bill!" quickly changed to a far right anti-immigrant demand list once Kelly and Miller got involved. e: he also blamed Obama 3-4 times, including first blaming him for not supporting Manchin-Toomey and then blaming Obama's support as the reason it failed. e2: to be fair, he also said the Republicans were scared of the NRA multiple times too and that's why they never do anyhting

"I like taking the guns early," President Trump says. "Take the guns first, go through due process second." Imagine the s***storm from conservatives if Obama had said that.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 28, 2018 -> 12:09 PM) Maybe the progressive base's motivations are a little more complex and nuanced than you're giving them credit for? It just seems like a meaningless argument over labels you're trying to have. The people primarying Feinstein are doing so for a variety of reasons that are better than "because establishment!," they like de Leon more and will be happy if he manages to push Feinstein out. I didn't push back on you calling de Leon "establishment" because it's not important. To circle back to your original question of "Why unfortunately," it's unfortunate from a progressive perspective if the more progressive candidate doesn't win. "But he backed Clinton! But he's establishment [whatever that means in this case]!" isn't particularly important or relevant to why they want Feinstein gone. Relating back to IL-3, I don't know or care if Marie Newman backed Clinton over Bernie. She's not "establishment," but that factors 0% into my support of her. Lipinski's been in Congress for a while, but I don't care that he's "establishment." I hope he gets primaried out because he holds crappy policy views and this district could do better, just like California can do better than Feinstein. e: QUOTE (GoSox05 @ Feb 28, 2018 -> 03:00 PM) Having de Leon in office is going to make it easier for Premier Sanders to get that single payer bill passed in the Senate. this is actually the correct answer

Roger Stone claimed throughout the campaign to have had a "backchannel" to Wikileaks. Wikileaks strongly denied that they ever had any contact with him. Some twitter DM's were recently published that showed they *technically* had contact with him during the campaign, but at least in the messages shown, it was to say "stop lying about being associated with us." So at the very least, Wikileaks lied about never having communicated with Stone, and Stone lied about all contacts being through an intermediary. However, Assange's tweet that Glenn links cuts off that early on 11/9/16, they sent Stone a DM saying "now we can talk more freely." It'd be easier to take their claims seriously if Wikileaks didn't falsely deny having communicated with Stone and Assange didn't misleadingly crop out things from screen shots.

Mueller asking if Trump knew about hacked Democratic emails before release

Marco Rubio: We need to keep AR-15's out of the hands of young people Also Marco Rubio: No I won't change my proposed DC gun bill allowing young people access to AR-15's

QUOTE (Reddy @ Feb 28, 2018 -> 11:18 AM) Everything's always about you, right? No? That was just rhetorical phrasing. Feinstein is one of the higher profile Democrats in the Senate. If the progressive movement were to successfully primary her from the left with de Leon, that would be a victory for them even if de Leon is also "establishment" in some form. Maybe the progressive base's motivations are a little more complex and nuanced than you're giving them credit for? QUOTE (Reddy @ Feb 28, 2018 -> 12:08 PM) If the woman wants to run, she can run. Why are you saying this? Are people trying to prevent her from running rather than trying to beat her in a race? Hey man, if they want to run, they can run. I'm glad my garbage dem rep Lipinski is facing a serious primary threat that's pulled him at least a little bit to the left from his anti-immigrant, anti-LGBT, anti-health care positions he's held ever since nepotism gave him his seat. Whoever emerges from IL-3 will crush the literal Nazi running on the Republican side, just like Democrats don't really have to worry about a Senate seat in California of all places. Because if they can't hold a Senate seat in California easily, lol 2018 will be a complete bloodbath.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Feb 28, 2018 -> 11:44 AM) link Yes! More teachers with guns. Brilliant idea! The only thing that can stop a Bad Teacher With a Gun is an Good Student With a Gun Arm the students!!

I don't know why I should care who he supported in the 2016 primary if I think he's better than her today. Why is that relevant at all? And of course she has a right to run. Nobody, anywhere, has said otherwise. He's also got a right to challenge her in the primaries, and people to the left of Feintstein can be hopeful that she gets successfully primaried from the left.

Florida's Republican-controlled appropriations committees have a solution: Establish a $67 million "school marshal" program to give 10 teachers per school 132 hours of training to carry guns, and give armed teachers a one-time bonus of $500.

National report shows inequity in Illinois’ education funding system deeper than previously known: Report updates widely circulated data on educational inequity

Another Tuesday, another big Dem shift in one blood-red district, and a Dem flip in another one. Dems have now flipped 41 seats since Trump's election. Greg Sargent looked at why last week (after a Dem flip in Kentucky) A blue wave? How Trump is helping Democrats win in unlikely places.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 27, 2018 -> 08:38 AM) More grifting Lawsuit: HUD Official ‘Demoted’ for Restricting Ben Carson’s Expensive Office Makeover Also got himself a 32k table for his office https://t.co/CAAkxnDFYp

Foreign officials discussed manipulating Kushner via his business arrangements, U.S. officials say Fun Kushner fact: he had “issues[d] more requests for information to the intelligence community than any White House employee” other than NSC staff

White House continues to pretend that Russian interference happened "under Obama" and is a "past problem" despite the entire national security community including multiple Trump appointees saying it's an ongoing problem, that we haven't done nearly enough to prevent it in 2018 and 2020, and that there's a lack of leadership or will to seriously address the problem. The President of the United States failing to protect the integrity of our electoral system because he personally benefits from that interference should probably be a bigger issue.

Kushner loses access to top-secret intelligence A memo sent Friday downgraded the presidential son-in-law and adviser and other White House aides who had been working on interim clearances.

Trump’s Tax Cuts in Hand, Companies Spend More on Themselves Than on Wages

More disgusting action by ICE. A woman and her 7 year old arrived from Congo and immediately requested asylum. ICE took the child from her mom and sent her to a detention center for unaccompanied children 2,000 miles away. She's spoken to her half a dozen times since. ACLU sues US over separation of mother, child seeking asylum

MAJOR SCOOP THIS MORNING FROM DRUDGE!!!!!1 Uh didn't Trump literally officially open his 2020 campaign on the day of his inauguration? "The sitting President, who has already established a legal campaign entity, will run for re-election" doesn't seem like it'd stun anyone.

Even if you talk with the administration and counselors, make sure you talk directly with his teachers as well. The appropriate information doesn't always get passed down to them even if legally it has to.

The Snake poem is ostensibly about immigrants/Muslims but it's really about Trump himself