1 1st? I'll get the others.

2 Corgis called

3 >>>As they say: Speak softly and carry a big stick.

Tranny?

4 One of my countless accomplishments: staying in the close. You're welcome.

5 Let me power through the post and then I'll come back and comment.

6 Does Ace have some device that automatically converts human thought into typed text?

Because how in the heck can he uncork these looong but still cogent and meaningful essays so rapidly and numerously?

The man is a writin' machine.

7 Yeah, he'll be the biggest RINO of all time if he's elected, and still not as awful as Hillary. This is my basis for distaste for the man, beyond his disgusting personal life. That's the joyful place we are now in this country: awful vs unthinkable.

8 Reforma"con" as in "not conservative at all" fiscally at least.

9 Trump is trying to peel some of the women's votes from hillary.

10 I got my daughter $9 million. What have you done for your kids? I thought so.

11 Trivia: Trump was actually one of the early supporters of the Reform Party until it went the way most 3rd parties go.

12 This is also Ivanka's influence, which might or might not be a good thing.

13 Yeah, he'll be the biggest RINO of all time if he's elected, and still not as awful as Hillary.




Trump is not a rino. He's a dem. SADLY, he's farther to the right than Republicans.

That's not his fault though.

14 We can call a tax increase a "deferred refund."

15 Wait, a discussion about policy?

That's not allowed here.

Let's talk about Hillary's stumbles or Trump's latest word salad.

16 Trump is not a rino. He's a dem.

He's been registered Republican more years than democrat as I understand it.

I always use RINO with a wink; its a false title. Ronald Reagan was a RINO, he didn't represent mainstream Republican thought. George Bush did.

17 Meh.

#NeverHillary

18 The negative tax rate is ridiculous. People decry welfare, then approve of a tax policy that pays people merely for existing.

The child tax credit is nearly as bad. Currently at two grand per child, it means that about eight thousand in income is not taxed for each child you have.

19 I could get behind a NIT if it meant destroying most - if not all - of the rest of the welfare state and its bureaucracy.

The Finns are embarking on an experiment with this. It will be worth watching their results.

20 >>>Not Speak loudly and then try to payoff people with US Treasury funds
after you've shot your mouth off so much you've pissed off voters.<<<



Speak loudly and power through.

21 Any tax discussion is meaningless unless it includes FICA, state/local sales taxes, etc.

22 Ace:

"The point is, we can disfavor these things, but we cannot pretend that what Trump is proposing is so far out of the TrueCon mainstream as to be heretical."

Here's the real truth:

Trump is a totally middle-of-the-road candidate with middle-of-the-road policies on most issues and is NOT the extremist portrayed by Democrats and NeverTrumpers.

He's endlessly painted as some kind of Hitlerian madman, but if you actually remove the hysteria, he's sort of a cross between Gerald Ford and George HW Bush I -- a guy with middling average-ish policies platforms. The only "extreme" positions are regarding immigration -- positions which aren;t actually extreme but which are also held by about 70% of the population.

I believe this is another reason for Trump's popularity -- he doesn't insist on a bunch of Litmus Test ideological positions, which please the few, but grate on the many.

He's popular BECAUSE he's middle-of-the-road on most issues. That's 2016's big secret.

23 He's been registered Republican more years than democrat as I understand it.

I always use RINO with a wink; its a false title. Ronald Reagan was a RINO, he didn't represent mainstream Republican thought. George Bush did.



Wait one minute. I was told by almost every one here that he is a flaming Dem. He votes dem. He donated dem. He's a dem.


Now people are trying to claim he's republican? Almost like Rick Perry.

24 I could get behind a NIT if it meant destroying most - if not all - of the rest of the welfare state and its bureaucracy.


Posted by: TheBlackBaron

--

Currently we have both. Welfare and the EITC.

25 The NRO will find this deplorable even though they agree with it.

26 >>>8 Reforma"con" as in "not conservative at all" fiscally at least.
Posted by: Christopher R Taylor a

you can say that. but they've identified a real problem that needs addressing of SOME kind.

You can't expect lower-income workers to keep voting GOP *just because* they're social cons.

In fact, this election is largely proving Charles Murray's "Fishtown v. Bellevue" thesis: Lower-income people tend to be LESS religious and socially conservative than higher-earning ones.

27 "I would strongly prefer to let their wages rise naturally and organically
by removing the constant downward pressure of ever-increasing numbers
of low-skilled workers coming into the country to compete with Americans
for an ever-shrinking pool of low-skilled jobs. But again, that's Racist or something."

If you were to propose to deliberately displace black Americans from the labor market and replace them with white Americans, that would instantly be declared RAYCISS ELEVENTY. And you would become _persona non grata_ in all decent society.

But if you propose to deliberately displace black Americans from the labor market and replace them with Latino foreigners, that's perfectly okay. In fact, it's RAYCISS ELEVENTY to critique this arrangement.

It's Calvinball, again. The score is Q to 12!

28 I do not like childcare tax credits are even deductions for children. I have long said what we need is elimination of regulations, not so much tax "reductions". I am for a flat tax with NO deductions or offsets and applicable to all forms of income. The purpose of taxes is to raise money for needed expenses, not social engineering. And we should also tie the ability to vote to paying taxes.



As for monkeying with unemployment insurance that should not be the purview of the feds anyway. So what I see here is just being another big government liberal on the non-immigration issues. But I have known that since the begining anyway.

29 Color me shocked, shocked I say that a candidate is tacking to the center before the election.

30 That's what Trump is doing. Having compromised himself so badly and made himself so unappealing to the women whose votes he absolutely needs, he now has to throw them sops, and by sops, read "your tax money."

++++

That is one way of looking at it. An alternative take would be that if we clamp down on immigration, it makes more sense to encourage the natives to have more kids. And although supportive words can be encouraging, there is nothing quite so encouraging as cold, hard cash.

31 The last thing the tax code needs is another layer of complexity. There already is the "earned income tax credit" which essentially pays people for being poor. We don't need more.

32 Not Speak loudly and then try to payoff people with US Treasury funds after you've shot your mouth off so much you've pissed off voters.

True enough, though to be fair that works both ways. After all, it's why we have to deal with Trump as the GOP nominee in the first place...

33 Ace: "The Reformacons suggest what they call a "refundable tax credit." Let's cut to the chase: What they mean is a negative income tax rate, that is, you straight-up get paid by the federal government."


This is why when the Uniparty talks about making the illegals pay back taxes as a condition to amnesty, it is such an insulting fraud on the American people.

WE would end up paying THEM for accumulated refundable tax credits like the EITC.

34 I have decided I am not so much a conservative as I am a Traditional Patriotic Nationalist American.

Any candidate that appeals to that gets my attention.

35 I would support increasing the tax deduction for supporting children but I am totally against tax credits of every way, shape or form. Tax credits are a bunch of BS and, quite frankly, illegal.

As to unemployment insurance ... that's a state thing. The feral government has no right to be mucking around in the unemployment situation, to begin with.

These aren't deal-breakers but I would fight against these proposals all the way. They're stupid and wrong.

36 Trump right now is in a biding war

He's biding his time til HRC croaks.

37 Heh. Among the line up of "deplorables" Trump brought on stage last night was a geriatric gentleman who stepped to the mic and said "I'm just here because he gave me a hat."

38 you can say that. but they've identified a real problem that needs addressing of SOME kind.

Doesn't make them conservative. In any case, if we're at such a place in America the only way to get votes is to bribe people, let's just fold the whole thing and give up.

39 This is one of the reasons I am not only skeptical about Trump but unwilling to support him. I see him as just a big government liberal. I hope people can understand that. Just as I can understand the position that he really isn't different from many other so-called conservative politicians who quite often support big government programs.

40 A TV anchor started his broadcast Sunday with a startling statement.

"Good evening," said WABC weekend anchor Joe Torres. "We begin with Hillary Clinton's death."

41 So these guys say that Trump won't do any of the other stuff he's promised (build a wall, appoint solid judges), but they're totally sure he's coming through on this one if elected?

42 But in all seriousness, yeah this is not a terribly wonderful idea, both from the fiscal point of view and from the incentives point of view - this program would just incentivize families to dump their kids off at daycare even more than they are incentivized to do so now. If we really believe kids are best served when they are raised in a two-parent household, we shouldn't propose that the government undermine this belief through perverse incentives.

43 I guess I'm just disheartened that we took de Toqueville's statement about government officials bribing people with their own money and decided that the it's the conservative's job to do so in a "conservative manner" whatever that means.

Reformicon ideas are how republican presidents bloat the federal bureaucracy rather than shrinking it. If I wanted the government to redistribute wealth in the "right way" I'd be a democrat, but I don't want that. If the 47% need more incentive for their votes than the prosperity that comes living this country as is, then I'm out. Galt's Gulch, here I come. That's not the deal I signed up for. Those 47% can find out what it's like having a much greater percentage of a much smaller total wealth when all these stupid social engineering attempts inevitably fail.

44
Offering free crap to people is not conservative.* Although I get the political reality of the times. Which is basically why there has to be a collapse for this idea to change.


*then again neither is the repub congress.

45 You can't expect lower-income workers to keep voting GOP *just because* they're social cons.

-----------

Honest question.

What if the GOP delivered results for the social cons?

Seems like it would be easier to rely on those votes if the voter knew they were getting something in return.

46 >>>This is one of the reasons I am not only skeptical about Trump but unwilling to support him. I see him as just a big government liberal. I hope people can understand that.

do you similarly oppose Mike Lee and Marco Rubio or is your objection specific to a single heretic (Trump)?

lee's been pushing this stuff for years; are you #NeverLee as well?

47 One of the top goggle searches is "Clinton dead" ... oh man ... here we go with the tin foil hats

48 "Good evening," said WABC weekend anchor Joe Torres. "We begin with Hillary Clinton's death."

So that's what that noise was. I thought the Yankees had won the World Series.

49 We already have a NIT in the Earned Income Tax Credit. So without specifics I don't have any idea how much his proposal changes the status quo.

50 Ace: "Trump right now is in a biding war to try to buy some support from women voters -- something he wouldn't have had to do if he hadn't alienated them so much by shooting his mouth off so often."


Romney lost women to Obama 55% to 44%. The "women vote" problem has more to do with cultural indoctrination and the fact that the Dems are running a woman than with Trump supposedly "shooting his mouth off" at Rosie O'Donnell or Carly's face.

I saw a recent poll somewhere that had Trump leading among married women. There is a big difference in political outlook between married women voters and single women voters.

51
Shocker! men have to bribe women to get anything out of them.

52 >>>Doesn't make them conservative. In any case, if we're at such a place in America the only way to get votes is to bribe people, let's just fold the whole thing and give up.

well, hate to break this to you, but bribing voters by promising tangible policy changes that benefit them has sort of been the main style of politics for both parties for 240 years

53 There is an argument to be made on both sides, but in this day and age, the reformacons have a point.

It's to the benefit of the U.S. as a whole to have a certain level of resupply and growth in the population. Not everyone will have children, so it can be argued that everyone should contribute to those that do.

However, it only makes sense if these noisy little investments get educated enough (a minimum of a real high school diploma) to become assets instead of expenses in their productive years.

Subsidizing unemployable ghetto dwellers is a bad idea. Subsidizing future taxpaying productive workers is essential.

Trump is on the right track by laying the groundwork to re-take education as a fundamental right wing platform.

54 OK--2 things. Purely anecdotal:

1. Back in the 90s when I was a struggling single mom, I worked full-time and nearly went broke paying for child care. I would have welcomed a proposal such as this one. Yes--I see Ace's point and its not a policy that's considered "Conservative". However, it is something we have to consider, since so many women are working. I think this is good outreach for Trump and again, sets him apart from the GOPe.

2. I live in the Blue State of NJ and my [millennial] daughter lives in the semi-Blue state of PA. ALL the women we know are voting for Trump. So the meme that "Women hate Trump"? Sorry, I don't see it.

55 Honest question.

What if the GOP delivered results for the social cons?






We wouldn't be where we are now.

56 All of this social policy through the tax system is why I have consistently been in favor of a consumption tax.

Tax people by what they buy, not what they earn or save. It not only removes the IRS from peering at your W2 and bank accounts, but people who work for cash will pay taxes, which they aren't currently doing.

57
But if you propose to deliberately displace black Americans from the labor market and replace them with Latino foreigners, that's perfectly okay. In fact, it's RAYCISS ELEVENTY to critique this arrangement.

It's Calvinball, again. The score is Q to 12!


Posted by: torquewrench at September 13, 2016 03:09 PM (noWW6)


Not just Black Americans...

The same week as the Feds killed ITT, so tech education is harder to get here in the US...

The University of Calif. system OUTSOURCED their entire IT infrastructure to companies who do overseas Helpdesk, and bring in H1B Workers...

We are flat out being replaced.

58 Breitbart said that "Politics is downstream of culture," but left off the second half of the equation:

Culture is downstream of fiscal policy.

Problem is, the Marxists have been pissing in the stream for so long that we think water just naturally tastes like pee. We've have been so utterly accustomed to Marxist thought in American fiscal policy that we forget what normalcy is even like -- i.e. pre 1917 America.

59 This doesn't move my #NeverHillary meter one bit.

60
lee's been pushing this stuff for years; are you #NeverLee as well?

Posted by: ace at September 13, 2016 03:14 PM (dciA+)

++++

Is your take on Lee equally cynical as your take on Trump? That is, do you think Lee has been pushing the policy in a desperate attempt to ingratiate himself with women voters, or are there alternative explanations for his policy preference?

61 Shocker! men have to bribe women to get anything out of them.




Or in them.

62 For those of you who might have missed the link posted by V the K in the the Morning Dump comments, about Rob Portman opening up ground in his re-elect bid, it's worth a look.

http://tinyurl.com/goepny4

Warning: the piece is at NRO, so wear your RINO-protective clothing.

Executive summary: Portman is succeeding even though he was on everyone's short list to be 86ed from the Senate. In part because he is deliberately targeting and reaching out to... the rank and file of blue-collar labor unions in the Rust Belt. Predominantly white unions.

That bloc who the GOP have sniffishly ignored since 1984 when Reagan worked hard to get the Teamsters endorsement. (He had to climb into bed with Jackie Presser to do it. Dirty politics, to be sure, but what isn't?)

White Midwestern blue-collar workers are the same bloc whom the GOP last presented with, as a Presidential choice, Mitt Romney the Ivy League and Wall Street lawyer/MBA. Who looked like, to this social class, "the guy who laid them off". They responded accordingly at the polls.

63

I actually think this is brilliant on so many levels.

And, this parallels with growing jobs and helping the middle class, etc.

From what I understand, with not enough reading on it myself yet (just reading a Breitbart post earlier today about it), this is to help with childcare costs for working and single parents, right? Child care costs so that they can contribute in the work force. Offset for companies that do not offer the flex-plans or child care coverage in company supplied insurance. Many companies do, the larger ones anyway.

My only concern is the response from companies that DO cover this already with flexible plans, etc. They could drop these immediately in place of another (which actually could help more or less for some).

This is Ivanka's push, and I assume she'll help with the rollout of the policy plan. She's good, and young and vibrant. She can play to the Meggy Mac crowd too, among others.

Women will perk up to this. Mothers will perk up to this. This is a major expense if you want to work, or if you have to work.

This will grow the child care industry too.

And Hillary will have to respond.

64 And here is an article discussing the impact of immigration on the employment and wages of natives.

http://www.cato.org/blog/immigrations-real-impact-wages-employment

Yes it is from Cato, which is pro-immigration generally. But they link to many academic studies which demonstrate that the effect of immigration on employment and wages is rather small. The most pessimistic estimate is that immigration depresses wages of the native-born by... 2%. Not a huge drop.

65 do you similarly oppose Mike Lee and Marco Rubio or is your objection specific to a single heretic (Trump)?

lee's been pushing this stuff for years; are you #NeverLee as well?

------------

Fair question. I am actually quite a fan of Mike Lee, though I will say I am against the type of reform agenda you described above. Mike Lee has not run for President and has never asked for my vote, so I have not considered it as much as I have for Trump.

But if Lee were running, I would likely have no trouble voting for him.

It is not my only objection to Trump - but it is an objection. There would be other things about Lee that I would find appealing - such as his views on the Constitution - that Trump does not share.

66 >>>It's to the benefit of the U.S. as a whole to have a certain level of resupply and growth in the population. Not everyone will have children, so it can be argued that everyone should contribute to those that do.

yeah this sort of demographic point is hard to refute; I'm just not super-in-love with bribing people to have children.

that said, I... have no real counter-proposals to offer.

67 On Thursday he will unveil a more comprehensive picture of his economic policies. So I'll wait for that before judging simply this portion. I am not necessarily opposed to providing "credits" on child care with the right stipulations. If people are working and contributing to the economy, this makes economic sense. It makes even more sense of it helps more people get back to work.

I am waiting for the real tax relief that Republicans have been promising voters got a long time. I'm tired of getting hosed and paying for layabouts.

By the way, we waste more money on stupid shit and fraud than on something like this. Trump has promised to slash a good portion of that.

68 Will return for substance later. For the moment I am worn out by all this alt/right , reformacons, etc. .....stuff. If you are one, can you be another? Really. It's just getting ridiculous. As many types of political thought out there now as there are "sexes". 2 cents.

69 I'm a Neo-Objectivist Patriotic American Nationalist- Traditionalist

The NO PANTS Party!

70 Tax credits can be much better than other subsidies though: example: ACA website with subsidies, or tax credit for buying insurance.

Earned income tax credit is better than sending out a welfare check.

We should also be clear: offering paid maternity leave paid for by employers = same as increasing minimum wage. Its paying a bennie from other people's money. Taxes are at least "all of us" vs. "employers."

But overall, I agree with Ace that reformacons don't have a leg to stand on.

71 Trump Proposes Child Care Tax Credits and Changing Rules of Unemployment Insurance to Cover Paid Maternity Leave for Six Weeks

JUST LIKE HITLER!!!!

72 Happy Fun Daycare

73 chemjeff, i'll post an article on that same subject, published in politico today, later.

CATO's numbers are wrong -- or, at least, subject to seriosus dispute by serious scholars.

74
What if the GOP delivered results for the social cons?

Well, on the issue of abortion, the general trend is in the social cons' favor.

75 "Doesn't make them conservative. In any case, if we're at such a place in America the only way to get votes is to bribe people, let's just fold the whole thing and give up."


Did you know that the original six frigates of the USN were built in six different states in order to get the navy bill through Congress?

76 Reformacons? Don't you mean Decepticons?

Can't wait for the action figures! Hope they get the Hanjin ships unloaded in time for Christmas.

77 It's to the benefit of the U.S. as a whole to have a certain level of resupply and growth in the population. Not everyone will have children, so it can be argued that everyone should contribute to those that do.

Posted by: jwest at September 13, 2016 03:16 PM (Zs4uk)

If the feral government wants to give money to people with children then they have to authorize it specifically for that purpose and cut the checks directly. Using the IRS as a funneling mechanism is un-Constitutional.

I know that tax credits have been operative for quite a while, already, but they have been, are and will always be (until such time as an amendment is passed) un-Constitutional.

78 42 But in all seriousness, yeah this is not a terribly wonderful idea, both from the fiscal point of view and from the incentives point of view - this program would just incentivize families to dump their kids off at daycare even more than they are incentivized to do so now. If we really believe kids are best served when they are raised in a two-parent household, we shouldn't propose that the government undermine this belief through perverse incentives.
Posted by: chemjeff at September 13, 2016 03:12 PM (gXKl3)


I'll be sure to let my mom know how awful she was for sending me and my siblings to a babysitter while we were growing up so her and my dad could both work to provide for us.

79 Shocker! men have to bribe women to get anything out of them.
Posted by: Flawless Male Logic at September 13, 2016 03:15 PM (lKyWE)

Ivanka proposed and pushed it. Trump listened and responded to it.

80 I thought Charles Murray was that dance lessons guy?

81 73
chemjeff, i'll post an article on that same subject, published in politico today, later.



CATO's numbers are wrong -- or, at least, subject to seriosus dispute by serious scholars.





Posted by: ace at September 13, 2016 03:19 PM (dciA+)
Okay, they might be wrong. I didn't do an in-depth search on the matter. I look forward to your posting on the subject.

82 It's also pretty obvious Trump's not trying to woo conservatives here either, not just the NeverTrump brand. Which is not too reassuring when it comes to Court appointments.

83 p.s. Ivanka is a liberal democrat.

If she can influence Trump on this, she will influence him on SCOTUS picks.

Everyone buckle up.

Luckily, I have made peace with the fact that I have no party, and the American people want European Fabian socialism.

84 If women didn't have the right to vote Dole would have beat Clinton in '96.

85 well, hate to break this to you, but bribing voters by promising tangible policy changes that benefit them has sort of been the main style of politics for both parties for 240 years
Posted by: ace

The best part of Scorcese's "Gangs of New York" showed Boss Tweed sending minions to the docks to literally bribe immigrants getting off the boats with free food and money -- and signing them up for the Democratic Party as they first set foot on American soil.

It was dead-on accurate. And we now live in a Boss Tweed nation.

86 yeah this sort of demographic point is hard to refute; I'm just not super-in-love with bribing people to have children.

that said, I... have no real counter-proposals to offer.

-----------

The country should be encouraging more children. So I think providing incentives may make sense. But better than that, I am in favor of ridding our country of the disincentives. There are a lot of little things that make it more difficult in this country to have children - small things like requiring children to ride in booster seats.

87 I'm having trouble keeping up, but can someone just let me know when I get to quit my job and get paid to sit at home? Because I want some of that action.

88 77 It's to the benefit of the U.S. as a whole to have a certain level of resupply and growth in the population. Not everyone will have children, so it can be argued that everyone should contribute to those that do.

Posted by: jwest at September 13, 2016 03:16 PM (Zs4uk)

If the feral government wants to give money to people with children then they have to authorize it specifically for that purpose and cut the checks directly. Using the IRS as a funneling mechanism is un-Constitutional.

I know that tax credits have been operative for quite a while, already, but they have been, are and will always be (until such time as an amendment is passed) un-Constitutional.

Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at September 13, 2016 03:20 PM (zc3Db)

++++

What about the standard tax deduction for dependents (children)? Do you believe that they too are unconstitutional?

89 I'll be sure to let my mom know how awful she was
for sending me and my siblings to a babysitter while we were growing up
so her and my dad could both work to provide for us.

Posted by: buzzion at September 13, 2016 03:20 PM (z/Ubi)
It's not a moral judgment against anyone if kids are sent to day care or if they are raised at home by mom. I am simply discussing the concept of incentives, not judgment.

90 Trump is in this position of having to bribe women to vote for him.

So now the Trump 'ettes are being blown.

91 62 For those of you who might have missed the link posted by V the K in the the Morning Dump comments, about Rob Portman opening up ground in his re-elect bid, it's worth a look.

http://tinyurl.com/goepny4

Warning: the piece is at NRO, so wear your RINO-protective clothing.

Executive summary: Portman is succeeding even though he was on everyone's short list to be 86ed from the Senate. In part because he is deliberately targeting and reaching out to... the rank and file of blue-collar labor unions in the Rust Belt. Predominantly white unions.

That bloc who the GOP have sniffishly ignored since 1984 when Reagan worked hard to get the Teamsters endorsement. (He had to climb into bed with Jackie Presser to do it. Dirty politics, to be sure, but what isn't?)

White Midwestern blue-collar workers are the same bloc whom the GOP last presented with, as a Presidential choice, Mitt Romney the Ivy League and Wall Street lawyer/MBA. Who looked like, to this social class, "the guy who laid them off". They responded accordingly at the polls.
Posted by: torquewrench at September 13, 2016 03:17 PM (noWW6)


The main thing in Portman's favor: He's running against Ted Strickland. The failed democrat governor that won because Taft was a complete fuck up, and did such a bad job that he lost to Kasich.

92 #78 I'll be sure to let my mom know how awful she was for sending me and my siblings to a babysitter while we were growing up so her and my dad could both work to provide for us.

My story too, except I had to be the babysitter. The perils of being the oldest sibling.

But for a passel of perennial latchkey kids, we turned out fine. My sis is a top level exec with a major healthcare provider, one bro is an engineer, the other a bank exec.

93 Will all the kidlets get little brown onesies?

94 yeah this sort of demographic point is hard to refute; I'm just not super-in-love with bribing people to have children.

Posted by: ace at September 13, 2016 03:18 PM (dciA+)

I have no problems with that. I only have problems with the mechanism proposed.

95 Politics is the art of the possible. And it's not possible to escape the power of Free Shit.

96 However, the Reformacons do have a practical point: What can you offer lower-income voters when you've already cut their taxes to zero

++++

How about actually fighting for something, for once? Something tangible. Tax cuts mean nothing to anyone.

97 As a woman, a mother, working and living in Cali, we already get maternity leave 8-12 weeks through the unemployment program the state runs and we pay into and my company does have a program to help with offsetting child care and it is very helpful. And it does allow more women to get back into the workforce and not have to make the decision to be a stay at home mom just because they cannot afford child care.

98 How about actually fighting for something, for once?

What specifically should they fight for?

99 It's also pretty obvious Trump's not trying to woo conservatives here either, not just the NeverTrump brand. Which is not too reassuring when it comes to Court appointments.
Posted by: spongeworthy at September 13, 2016 03:21 PM (mrfTe)

nope, he wants to win
that is it in a nutshell
no one knows what he'll actually do when he does, and I think he will now, unless he blows it in 56 or whatever days

100 yeah this sort of demographic point is hard to refute; I'm just not super-in-love with bribing people to have children.

that said, I... have no real counter-proposals to offer.

Posted by: ace at September 13, 2016 03:18 PM (dciA+)


Until the internment camps are established and I get to chose the prime breeding stock personally, incentives will have to do.

101 Posted by: ace at September 13, 2016 03:14 PM (dciA+)

I don't call for Lee pushing universal child care or mandatory paid time off, as much much as an expansion of the child tax credit.
Now I'm generally opposed to using the tax code to influence behavior, so I'm not a fan of using it to encourage (or reduce discouragement of) people to have kids. But I would also suggest that these are two different things.
For at least one thing, the child tax credit treats everyone who has kids the same, but targeted daycare credits only benefit those who use daycare as opposed to, say a stay at home parent.
And mandatory maternity leave is just going to make businesses find ways to avoid hiring women.
(Yes I know people who don't have kids are not benefiting from a child tax credit. Set that aside for just a moment)

102 Trump is in this position of having to bribe women to vote for him.

So now the Trump 'ettes are being blown.




Golf clap.

103 I deplore our overall tax regime, but acknowledge that absent revolution it's not going away and the best that can be done is nibbling at the margins. That said, I'm only in favor of tax credits to the extent they can reduce an individual's or family's tax burden, not to the extent of a net payment.

104 What about the standard tax deduction for dependents (children)? Do you believe that they too are unconstitutional?

Posted by: Anon Y. Mous at September 13, 2016 03:22 PM (R+30W)

No. I mentioned in my earlier post that tax deductions for children are perfectly fine - and I am very much in favor of raising the those tax deductions. Tax credits are the problem.

105 "Tax cuts mean nothing to anyone."

Oh, I'd like to see some tax cuts.

But the reality is were spending so much, we shuldn't do that.,

Tax refrom, OTOH.

106 When I was a kid I had all 5 Reformacon toys. They'd unite and form the super robot RINO-sor.

107 yeah this sort of demographic point is hard to refute; I'm just not super-in-love with bribing people to have children.

that said, I... have no real counter-proposals to offer.

Welcome to my brainspace. The part of me that wants to find a way to salvage, reinforce, and reinvigorate the West has been deadlocked with the "government that governs least" part of me for some time. I know generally what must be done, but I have no idea how to do it in a way that won't inevitably turn into a shitshow over time.

108 My question becomes how can you have a Negative Tax rate?

n. a governmental assessment (charge) upon property value, transactions (transfers and sales), licenses granting a right, and/or income. These include Federal and state income taxes, county and city taxes on real property, state and/or local sales tax based on a percentage of each retail transaction, duties on imports from foreign countries, business licenses, Federal tax (and some states' taxes) on the estates of persons who have died, taxes on large gifts, and a state "use" tax in lieu of sales tax imposed on certain goods bought outside of the state.


A Tax it PAID to a government... it is not a source of Income to a person.

109 I call Trump's refundable tax credit and raise him one beautiful pony for every voter.

*hic*

110 I'm having trouble keeping up, but can someone just let me know when I get to quit my job and get paid to sit at home? Because I want some of that action.

Posted by: Scott at September 13, 2016 03:22 PM (Bo7uZ)
..................

Depends. Are you Muslim, Hispanic or African American?

111 well, hate to break this to you, but bribing voters

That's why I said ONLY in plain English. As in, there is no other way, cannot get votes through any system, exclusively by bribery. ONLY.

112 As a woman, a mother, working and living in Cali, we already get maternity leave 8-12 weeks through the unemployment program the state runs and we pay into and my company does have a program to help with offsetting child care and it is very helpful. And it does allow more women to get back into the workforce and not have to make the decision to be a stay at home mom just because they cannot afford child care.
Posted by: IC at September 13, 2016 03:23 PM (a0IVu)

exactly

Child care costs are ridiculous and this current administration is hell bent on stopping your neighbors or your community in helping out by trying to unionize them.

Make no mistake, Hillary will destroy this "takes a village" crap that she pretends to spew.

113 If only wed elected Romney, banned contraceptives, and instituted the Barefoot and Pregnant Omnibus Act, all this could have been avoided.

114 What specifically should they fight for?

+++(

Start with the privacy of a bathroom. Small stuff.

115 "This is why when the Uniparty talks about making the illegals pay back
taxes as a condition to amnesty, it is such an insulting fraud on the
American people. WE would end up paying THEM for accumulated refundable tax credits like the EITC."

Bingo, bravo, bullseye.

I suspect the reason this "pay the back taxes" business keeps coming up over and over again is because the establishment have learned that the phrase focus-groups well.

If the economically illiterate Joe and Jane Citizens in the focus groups were clued in to the fact that the illegals wouldn't actually be paying anything, and might actually *get paid*, the response would probably be quite different.

116 "Until the internment camps are established and I get to chose the prime breeding stock personally, incentives will have to do."

I see you're from the school of "if you want something done right, do it yourself."

117
109
I call Trump's refundable tax credit and raise him one beautiful pony for every voter.



*hic*

Posted by: Hillary! 2016: Brain Damaged? Yes, But Not Too Brain Damaged
To Still Be A Scheming, Lying Witch at September 13, 2016 03:26 PM
(8ZskC)

See, and this is ALSO the problem with Republicans offering goodies to the public. The Democrats will always outbid the Republicans.

118 If we adopted my voucher plan, not only would it give the proper incentives for children, it would make it profitable to have and raise educated children.

Parents of uneducated kids would lose money.

119 110 I'm having trouble keeping up, but can someone just let me know when I get to quit my job and get paid to sit at home? Because I want some of that action.

Posted by: Scott at September 13, 2016 03:22 PM (Bo7uZ)
..................

Depends. Are you Muslim, Hispanic or African American?
Posted by: wth at September 13, 2016 03:26 PM (HgMAr)

Also female, unmarried, and lots of bastard children.

120 I'm having trouble keeping up, but can someone just let me know when I get to quit my job and get paid to sit at home? Because I want some of that action.

Posted by: Scott at September 13, 2016 03:22 PM (Bo7uZ)

paternity leave exists too

121 (Hand up)
Ummm... Why should I work my ass off for my family while these dumb lazy cunts get a free ride?

122 Since the pool you're swimming in is absolutely immune to Trump's bait, why wouldn't he go fishing in another pool?


Yup.

Take, for example, me. There are no circumstances under which I will vote for Hillary. I am not persuadable on this point. There is nothing that can be said or done by Hillary or her supporters to change my mind. So why waste time and money going after my vote?


As far as the actual proposal, I will say this. As the childless woman in the office who is the person who has to pick up the slack because hey you don't have any responsibilities, I have rather vehement opinions on this. Oh, yes. Yes, I do.

Though that's nothing compared to the fact that given the ads and counter ads and counter counter ads here in the NC gubernatorial contest I now actively loathe children and want NC public school teachers to be beset by poisonous clown spiders as they are falling into a volcano.

Because The Children.

123 See, the concept of getting people to vote for you because you'll fight for them, against evil, and protect them seems to be a valuable way to get votes too. Not "vote for me and you get goodies" but "vote for me and I'll stop the madness, protect you, and bring back prosperity and hope."

But I guess if you think conservatism is finding ways to bribe interest groups we're not ever gonna be on the same page.

124 104 What about the standard tax deduction for dependents (children)? Do you believe that they too are unconstitutional?

Posted by: Anon Y. Mous at September 13, 2016 03:22 PM (R+30W)

No. I mentioned in my earlier post that tax deductions for children are perfectly fine - and I am very much in favor of raising the those tax deductions. Tax credits are the problem.

Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at September 13, 2016 03:25 PM (zc3Db)

++++

I'm curious about why you think that tax deductions for having kids is constitutional, but tax credits for kids are not. What part of the constitution do you have in mind?

125 Also--we've all agreed we don't see a good way to do this with state power. How lovely if people could look at that and say, gee, state power really sucks for keeping a civilization going, I wonder if there's another solution, like finding guidance by other means and living righteous and responsible lives?

I know, I know, I ask too much, as always.

126 What specifically should they fight for?
Posted by: chemjeff
-----------------
Their right. To paaaaaaarty.

127
Hillary already offered "summer camp for adults" so comme ci com ca.

128 The man is a writin' machine.

---

he outsource to us for cheap so he can do more squats

129 6 Does Ace have some device that automatically converts human thought into typed text?

Because how in the heck can he uncork these looong but still cogent and meaningful essays so rapidly and numerously?

The man is a writin' machine.
Posted by: zombie at September 13, 2016 03:03 PM (jBuUi)

I've wondered for a while if he uses some speech-to-text program, if only because of the occasional weird issue with homonyms.

130 OT/ but I see all Hillary's IT guys who did her personal server either plead the fifth today or didn't show up at all.... Nothing to see here move along...

131 I suspect this will simply push more people at the margins OFF the tax rolls, won't it?

132 Well, we could be like Italy, and create a "Fertility Day".

http://tinyurl.com/hyjqrf2

133 126 What specifically should they fight for?
Posted by: chemjeff
-----------------
Their right. To paaaaaaarty.


Your Ma threw away your best porno mag!

134 "Depends. Are you Muslim, Hispanic or African American?
Posted by: wth at September 13, 2016 03:26 PM (HgMAr)"

Maybe you live somewhere else, but where I live we have plenty of white people on welfare who sit around and do nothing.

or who are disability cheats.

135 I've wondered for a while if he uses some speech-to-text program, if only because of the occasional weird issue with homonyms.

His issues with homonyms stem from being molested as a child with a thesaurus.

136 Trump's latest word salad.

--

that word TACO salad amigo

137 I've wondered for a while if he uses some speech-to-text program, if only because of the occasional weird issue with homonyms.


Now take that back. Ace has never said a bad word about homonyms.

H8ter.

138 I'm not happy about it either, but:

1) This does help him, a lot. It's a small loss in the movement but a big short term win, as opposed to the usual losing the battle but losing the war.
2) If congress is half as conservative as the #NeverTrump thinks they'd be in a Clinton presidency, they'll be able to make this disappear quickly after he wins.
3) If they can't, it further proves the need for a Clinton loss, and this brings us closer to that.
4) I am overcome with joy over the idea that Hillary is going to have to run against paid maternity leave.

Yeah but no, fuck reformicons. That obviously can't be the entire platform of the party, because the democrats will always just promise more.

139 If you can't see why we ought to encourage people to have lots of children, that may explain why so many of you want to limit immigration.

Not all growth can come through gains in productivity. And if you don't think we need growth, and loads of it, you haven't looked at our books.

140 Interesting post, but the day after Trump is elected, I believe the Fed will push interest rates sky high. And a week later, even higher. After that, no one is going remember what the Republican nominee said today.

141 "vote for me and I'll stop the madness, protect you, and bring back prosperity and hope."

If the people believe prosperity comes from government largesse...

142
I'm not sure I'm going to throw the heretic flag at Trump, just yet. I'm former hard core business person who always tried to think through every action and reaction, two, three, four steps into the future.

One action, removing a group of people from the workplace who don't belong, will necessitate another group eager to take their place. Removing the penalties from group number two which now exists makes perfectly good sense, especially if the US treasury receives a net gain in revenue. Which is impossible to not have happen.

I will not be responding to this post, by the way. There are some people here -- of the jefficlemistry type -- who piss me off to no end on this topic.

143 I am overcome with joy over the idea that Hillary is going to have to run against paid maternity leave.

------------

I'm guessing she is going to run on wanting twice what Trump wants when it comes to paid maternity leave.

144 Problem is, the Marxists have been pissing in the stream for so long that we think water just naturally tastes like pee. We've have been so utterly accustomed to Marxist thought in American fiscal policy that we forget what normalcy is even like -- i.e. pre 1917 America.
Posted by: zombie

This is why I'm dehydrated *hic*.

145 4) I am overcome with joy over the idea that Hillary is going to have to run against paid maternity leave.

She won't. Instead, she will outbid Trump.

146 That is one way of looking at it. An alternative take would be that if we clamp down on immigration, it makes more sense to encourage the natives to have more kids. And although supportive words can be encouraging, there is nothing quite so encouraging as cold, hard cash.

Posted by: Anon Y. Mous at September 13, 2016 03:10 PM (R+30W)




Bingo. All of you who don't like the Child Tax credit, think about how many government programs expect the young and the unborn to pay for the old and the living.

147 I'm curious about why you think that tax deductions for having kids is constitutional, but tax credits for kids are not. What part of the constitution do you have in mind?

Posted by: Anon Y. Mous at September 13, 2016 03:27 PM (R+30W)

The tax system is a method of COLLECTING money. You cannot disburse funds through the tax system. The Constitution states that all money disbursed by the feral government must be authorized, specifically, by Congress. That does not mean that Congress can authorize some mealy-mouthed method for cutting checks out of money that wasn't authorized for that purpose. Tax credits are a way of trying to get around this. Tax deductions involve no feral government disbursements.

I don't see why this is difficult to understand.

148 "How lovely if people could look at that and say, gee, state power
really sucks for keeping a civilization going, I wonder if there's
another solution, like finding guidance by other means and living
righteous and responsible lives?"

TL;DR

149 "4) I am overcome with joy over the idea that Hillary is going to have to run against paid maternity leave."

LOL...she's going to up the ante if at all.

150 You tax that which you want to reduce.

You subsidize that which you want more of.

151 I am overcome with joy over the idea that Hillary is going to have to run against paid maternity leave.

Catered *hic* abortions.

Top that.

152 Here is how I see it:

I am willing to trade those things, if it restores American sovereignty. Internationalism is prime problem number one, for it has created a class of internationally wealthy and power people who wish to rule us as a servile class. The constitution, elections, rule of law are all being destroyed by these people.

The problem is Mike Lee, Marco Rubio, etc. don't seem to get that. They still live in a fantasy world that is either Randian or Wilsonian depending on the Republican involved.

Let me ask you a simple question: Who is a greater threat to American liberty and sovereignty: Putin or Soros? If you said Soros you get the danger, and if you said Putin you are not facing reality.

Putin is a danger of course, but in a way that we can stop if we can get our act together at home. Soros is a bigger threat because he and his fellow internationalists are corrupting and destroying the country from within. It is a battle we are losing now...and will lose unless we change course and fast.

Mike Lee, Marco Rubio, or even Ted Cruz seem not to understand this threat. Hence why Trump won the nomination, because those irredeemable "red necks" and "basket of deplorables", who certain "conservatives" think are part of a "alt-right conspiracy" actually realize the danger.

153 I suspect this will simply push more people at the margins OFF the tax rolls, won't it?

Posted by: Mr. Peebles

--

For a long time, I have posited that the GOP and the dems are playing chicken. The GOP keeps chopping away at the tax base, and the dems keep adding spending programs, until the lack of revenue or the lack of liquidity means they can't finance the entire scheme anymore. Neither side plans to give up their strategy.

154 Hillary already promises 12 weeks:

As president, Hillary will:

Guarantee up to 12 weeks of paid family and medical leave to care for a new child or a seriously ill family member, and up to 12 weeks of medical leave to recover from a serious illness or injury of their own.

155
I'm curious about why you think that tax deductions for having kids is constitutional, but tax credits for kids are not. What part of the constitution do you have in mind?
Posted by: Anon Y. Mous

The Santa clause.

156 Posted by: free range 'sorta' conservative but not 'true' conservative
but 100% deplorable at September 13, 2016 03:31 PM (ZFUt7)

Enjoy your safe space.

157 Not all growth can come through gains in productivity. And if you don't think we need growth, and loads of it, you haven't looked at our books.

Who knew rampant abortion and non-procreative sex could screw us in the long run? Oh wait...

/yeah, I went there, you knew that was coming

158 There already is the "earned income tax credit" which essentially pays people for being poor. We don't need more.

--

bad incentives. how about a credit that pays them for being rich!

159 I am overcome with joy over the idea that Hillary is going to have to run against paid maternity leave."

LOL...she's going to up the ante if at all.
Posted by: sexypig

I won't stand *hic* for it......Help me up.

160 As far as the actual proposal, I will say this. As the childless woman in the office who is the person who has to pick up the slack because hey you don't have any responsibilities,



It's not just women. Guys who don't have to rush home to juniors ball game or sally's recital..... Yet has paid obscene school property taxes for 25 years......taxation without representation....

161 What are the element necessary to prove defamation?

I'm sure this is a nuisance suit, except well, maybe not...

http://tinyurl.com/zwmdxuo

162 if only because of the occasional weird issue with homonyms.

Posted by: Hal at September 13, 2016 03:28 PM (9+Yad)


He's Anti GAY?????

163 It's not tough talk that got him in trouble with women, it was stupid talk. Why did he have to make a reference to menstruation and Megyn Kelly? He could have attacked her in some other way, it didn't need to be such a female specific manner. It's water under the bridge now, but there is truth to what you say, in this regard.

164 150
You tax that which you want to reduce.



You subsidize that which you want more of.



Posted by: Village Idiot's Apprentice at September 13, 2016 03:32 PM (J+eG2)
EXACTLY. If you subsidize day care, you will have more parents dumping kids into day care.

165 And we should also tie the ability to vote to paying taxes.



As for monkeying with unemployment insurance that should not be the purview of the feds anyway. So what I see here is just being another big government liberal on the non-immigration issues. But I have known that since the begining anyway.


Posted by: Vic We Have No Party at September 13, 2016 03:09 PM (mpXpK)

Would paying property tax be sufficient?

166 I don't buy the conservative purity argument. It's a pro-family initiative, and pro-work. Is deducting child care expenses as an employment cost that far off the reservation? I didn't see his proposal yet so it may be worse.

If it helps Trump to do the SCOTUS picks, it's a small pill to swallow.

167 Cue sudden growth of McDayCare Centers across the US. Which the Left will then nationalize, regulate, and indoctrinate.

168 According to inside sources, after the town hall with Matt, Hillary went ballistic, throwing a huge tantrum, with personal calls to Comcast executives, the parent company of NBC Universal. I guess they got the message with all of the ridiculous headlines to follow over the next couple of days.

"Matt Lauer was heavily criticized After Moderating Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump's Commander-in-Chief Forum by the Clinton camp. Matt Lauer is now facing major backlash following his moderation of Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump's Commander-in-Chief Forum.

As viewers witnessed during Wednesday night's broadcast, Lauer, 58 -- who was granted only 30 minutes with each presidential candidate -- devoted a good portion of his time with Clinton, 68, to questioning her about sending confidential information over a private email server while she was serving as Secretary of State from 2009 to 2013.

Hillary's meltdown included throwing a water glass at a staffer- narrowly missing her head, and demanding Matt Lauer be fired! She was overheard threatening executives at NBC saying "If I lose, we all go down and that Fascist Fuck will have us swinging from nooses! What the fuck is wrong with you idiots?"

169 >>> I've wondered for a while if he uses some speech-to-text program, if only because of the occasional weird issue with homonyms.

i bought Dragon Text or whatever it's called but I could not get it to work and gave up on it in three days.

So no, I don't use speech-to-text.

The homonym thing is something I'm surprised any other writer doesn't understand. When I write I my brain is several words ahead of my fingers. I put the coming words into some kind of mechanical memory, not a real active, full-brain-power area of my brain. That part of my brain is busy writing the next several words, in my head.

However, when my fingers type out the words that are in this Dumb Memory System of my brain, this dumb part of my brain, being, you know, kind of dumb, is not super-well-briefed on the differences between similar words, and will frequently shit out "here" when my Smart Brain specifically told it to write "hear."

Happens all the time -- really cannot be avoided when you're thinking several words ahead of the words you're writing.

You can only catch that in editing, which, for religious reasons, I refuse to do, as it's the work of the Devil.

170 When you don't know who the mark is ...

171 147 I'm curious about why you think that tax deductions for having kids is constitutional, but tax credits for kids are not. What part of the constitution do you have in mind?

Posted by: Anon Y. Mous at September 13, 2016 03:27 PM (R+30W)

The tax system is a method of COLLECTING money. You cannot disburse funds through the tax system. The Constitution states that all money disbursed by the feral government must be authorized, specifically, by Congress. That does not mean that Congress can authorize some mealy-mouthed method for cutting checks out of money that wasn't authorized for that purpose. Tax credits are a way of trying to get around this. Tax deductions involve no feral government disbursements.

I don't see why this is difficult to understand.

Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at September 13, 2016 03:32 PM (zc3Db)

++++

The constitution says that congress can't be mealy mouthed when executing its powers? Now you really have my interest. Again, which part of the constitution are you referring to?

172 "Yet has paid obscene school property taxes for 25 years......taxation without representation"

You have a vote.

And you're going to get SS paid out of those kids social security taxes.

And you will use products they invent and produce.

If anything we should tax the childless at higher rates so they can pay their unfair share of leisure time.

173 I saw a recent poll somewhere that had Trump leading among married women. There is a big difference in political outlook between married women voters and single women voters.
Posted by: Scalia's Ghost at September 13, 2016 03:15 PM (fgOnp)



Bingo again. Which is why the Left attacks marriage and family as much as it does. The "gender gap" is really a *marriage* gap.

174 @ chemjeff.

A 2% drop in wages is absolutely huge, when the unreported inflation is running into double digits.

Seen any rents go down in price lately? Food prices in any meaningful way? (as in, not on sale, but ordinary, on-the-shelf prices.) Nope.

A fairly, no frills F-150 Ford Supercab has gone up about $10,000 in price in the last eight years.

And nationally, wages and salaries, have simply not kept pace with the increases of the cost of everyday living.

If not for Fracking, many would be hard pressed to simply afford to drive to work. Or be able to pay a utility bill.

Cut 2% off of the income, in the face of all that? It's not minor to some mom making only $24k per year.

America should be the land of prosperity and growth, the achievement of dreams. Not of sustained 2% losses, while others keep flooding in and further depressing the job market for Americans.

Cato can FOAD.


Jim
Sunk New Dawn
Galveston, TX

175 The stolen hazmat semi is now almost to Palm Springs, if he had a full tank he could go all the way to Texas before running out of fuel. The signal from LA has now dropped, so the choppers are just giving a play by play with no live video.

176
There is a thing that changed in society basically caused by inflation caused by the Fed. And that is that 2 parent families have found it tough to maintain a middle class lifestyle without 2 incomes.

Now if taxes, bureaucracy and inflation were not so ridiculous, child care might not be such a problem.

177 As far as the actual proposal, I will say this. As the childless woman in the office who is the person who has to pick up the slack because hey you don't have any responsibilities,

Posted by: alexthechick - fagette at September 13, 2016 03:27 PM (mf5HN)

this is another good example

so many people complain about how moms and dads get the special exception of having to leave for this or that, for their kids, or not coming in because the kid is sick and all of that, while others in the office carry the burden of this

this may alleviate that (maybe not the sick kid had to stay home dilemma, but the "had to do this or that" because they couldn't afford child care while they were at work) - of course, then they have to leave at a certain time to go pick their kids up...

The next argument is whether one parent can afford to stay home anymore. It can be done, but it depends on what you are willing to give up, where you live, and what your spouse does for a living. It's pretty tough, especially the educational cost demands.

178 98
What specifically should they fight for?

Fight for your right to party!

179
Posted by: Anon Y. Mous at September 13, 2016 03:27 PM (R+30W)


Taxes are government income...

These Tax credits lead to unauthorized Government payments... governed by the IRS, not the Congress.

180 Oh, I'm carrying a 'big stick!' Just look at my hands.

181 "Is deducting child care expenses as an employment cost that far off the reservation?"

Especially if companies can deduct those.

182 The SEIU would like to thank Mr. trump for endorsing one of its key policy goals.

183 This stuff is pennies on the dollars, if it can help win elections, I'm all for it.

Honestly, the last 15 or so years, all I've heard from conservatives is "we need to lower taxes!" and everything magically works out and voters will swoon.

Trump is the first candidate not obsessed with spreadsheets and he fills arenas with excited voters.

184 Posted by: undocumented Proctologist at September 13, 2016 03:35 PM (e8kgV)

Yep; Hillary's everybody's sweet abuela/s.

185 I don't see why this is difficult to understand.

At best it's unclear.

Congress gets its taxing authority from Article I Section 8. Implicit in that clause is the power to spend as well.

We then have the language of Article 1, Section 9, Clause 7:

No money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.

Well, the Constitution is silent on what form the "appropriation" must take, but given that a tax credit does have the force of law, there's at least an argument that this has been satisfied...if you take the argument that a tax credit is "money...drawn from the Treasury" which is a technical point in and of itself.

Personally, given the scope of the taxing power of Congress, I have a hard time seeing how a tax credit could be unconstitutional.

186 The one big thing that Trump brings to discussions like this is the basic negotiation rule of getting something for giving something.

I don't mind subsidizing mothers to have a growing, educated future workforce. However, if they are going to get the money, I don't want them to turn out like Trayvon Martin or his girlfriend, who had a bit of trouble on the witness stand reading.

Properly structured, I believe most conservatives would support common sense help for raising kids if they felt they were getting fair value from their investment.

187 How lovely if people could look at that and say, gee, state power really sucks for keeping a civilization going, I wonder if there's another solution, like finding guidance by other means and living righteous and responsible lives?

Its just odd to me that we're in a culture that simultaneously believes

1) Each person is a winner who should believe in themselves and stand up strong
2) Only government can solve our problems and we need to rely on it for everything

188
Posted by: Jim at September 13, 2016 03:36 PM (v5iqM)
I agree that 2% is big in absolute monetary terms.
However, according to Cato, that is the most pessimistic estimate, and the actual effect is likely to be less.
But Ace says that Cato is wrong, so I will wait for him to weigh in on the matter.

189 "Bingo again. Which is why the Left attacks marriage and family as much as it does. The "gender gap" is really a *marriage* gap."

Married me also have high work force participation rates.

190 OK. Taxes pay for state and local government - they do not pay for the federal government. The feds print the money - if you could print money would you need somebody else to give you money?

When you pay federal taxes the money is destroyed. If it is in cash it is literally burned. If it comes in by check the check amount is subtracted from your account but it doesn't go into some sort of treasury checking account - the 'money' simply vanishes.

The purpose of federal taxes are two fold: 1. It creates the impression that the money has value - since the feds seem to want it so badly. 2. It allows the government to directly control the rate of inflation of the currency.

The progressives created the federal income tax so that they could punish productive people (You didn't create that thinking).

191 I stand corrected on Hillary's maternity leave, but that makes my follow up point about reformicons stronger. You can't really win with that as your entire platform. It is good for short term victory. Trump's 6 weeks is a lot better for him than Hillary's 12 weeks for her.

Regardless, i'm still holding out for a flex time bill. A man can dream...

192 For a long time, I have posited that the GOP and the
dems are playing chicken. The GOP keeps chopping away at the tax base,
and the dems keep adding spending programs, until the lack of
revenue or the lack of liquidity means they can't finance the entire
scheme anymore. Neither side plans to give up their strategy.

Posted by: Vashta Nerada at September 13, 2016 03:33 PM (7ZVPa)

I am constantly amazed by the things that come of our peoples mouths. If you haven't noticed Vashta it's been a while since we've had a balanced budget. We haven't been able to finance the entire scheme anymore for a very, very long time. The question is when, not if, but when does reality come to pay us a visit.

193 This stuff is pennies on the dollars, if it can help win elections, I'm all for it.

I totally agree!

194 If anything we should tax the childless at higher rates so they can pay their unfair share of leisure time.



I say this with all due respect.

FUCK YOU.

195 "s far as the actual proposal, I will say this. As the childless woman in the office who is the person who has to pick up the slack because hey you don't have any responsibilities,

Posted by: alexthechick - fagette at September 13, 2016 03:27 PM (mf5HN) "


Returning from deployments, or figuring out Christmas Duty Sections, I always heard "Give it to the single guys"



Sorry, that's not how I rolled.

196 One tax deduction I have never understood Republicans not pursuing is a full deduction on all medical expenses for small business owners.

Why is that not front and center? It's such an easy sell and large c-corp, s-corp corporations are already allowed that deduction.

197 103 I deplore our overall tax regime, but acknowledge that absent revolution it's not going away and the best that can be done is nibbling at the margins. That said, I'm only in favor of tax credits to the extent they can reduce an individual's or family's tax burden, not to the extent of a net payment.
Posted by: Insomniac - Irredeemably Deplorable at September 13, 2016 03:24 PM (0mRoj)


Ever heard of Earned Income Tax Credit? It's not a credit at all, i.e., something to be applied against tax liability to lower it. It is a net payment, because the people who get EITC don't pay any taxes at all anyway, so lowering their tax burden is nonsense.

But it's called a "tax credit" instead of "Federal welfare" so as not to piss off people who haven't figured exactly what it is.

198 People complain about Trump that they don't like peanuts, and Hillary is offering a dumptruck filled with sh!t with peanuts peaking out all over and let's focus on Trump's unlikeable peanuts.

199 Its just odd to me that we're in a culture that simultaneously believes

1) Each person is a winner who should believe in themselves and stand up strong
2) Only government can solve our problems and we need to rely on it for everything

----------

Seems normal to me. #1 is wrong, but can maybe look right if we do #2.

200 Hillary's meltdown included throwing a water glass at a staffer- narrowly missing her head, and demanding Matt Lauer be fired! She was overheard threatening executives at NBC saying "If I lose, we all go down and that Fascist Fuck will have us swinging from nooses! What the fuck is wrong with you idiots?"
Posted by: undocumented Proctologist at September 13, 2016 03:35 PM (e8kgV)

maybe that is what Newt was alluding to yesterday

he said he thought she would have a full blown 100% meltdown

must be this

201 For a long time, I have posited that the GOP and the dems are playing chicken. The GOP keeps chopping away at the tax base, and the dems keep adding spending programs, until the lack of revenue or the lack of liquidity means they can't finance the entire scheme anymore. Neither side plans to give up their strategy.

Posted by: Vashta Nerada at September 13, 2016 03:33 PM (7ZVPa)

++++

Starve the beast. That was supposed to work back when Reagan was ramping up military spending and cutting taxes. The government would run out of money and programs would have to be cut.

But, money was borrowed to make up the difference. And then some.

202 Fight for your right to party!
Posted by: Headless Body of Agnew
----------------
Your Ma threw away your best porno mag!

203 This stuff is pennies on the dollars, if it can help win elections, I'm all for it.

To what end? So you can be in power to... do what, increase government spending and dependence on the government? What is your goal, if you abandon every principle and conservative ideal to get there?

Is the idea that if only we out-leftist the left we can then begin to implement conservatism once in power? This is like winning a war by giving up ground. Come on boys, retreat another mile, then we've got them!!!

In any case, pretending conservatism is reduced to "cut taxes" is so ignorant and asinine its barely worth having a conversation with anyone who thinks this.

204 The constitution says that congress can't be mealy mouthed when executing its powers? Now you really have my interest. Again, which part of the constitution are you referring to?

Posted by: Anon Y. Mous at September 13, 2016 03:35 PM (R+30W)

Tax credits are not moneys specifically authorized by Congress for disbursal. They are moneys taken from the collection of others to be redistributed. That is un-Constitutional.

Come on ...

By your "argument" there is no difference in law between "collection" and "disbursal" of funds. One is just the "negative" other. So why even bother using both words? If you follow this "negative X" stuff far enough you will find that nothing makes sense. Think of all the things in society that you can turn upside down by introducing "negative X" as a reasonable exercise of "X".

205 Secede. The Union needs Texas much more than Texas needs the Union.

206 1) This does help him, a lot. It's a small loss in the movement but a
big short term win, as opposed to the usual losing the battle but losing
the war.

I have been advised by some here that one never considers any kind of tactical retreat in order to achieve a larger strategic gain or avoid a trap. Clearly you are a deplorable RINO.

207 "Ever heard of Earned Income Tax Credit? It's not a credit at all, i.e., something to be applied against tax liability to lower it. It is a net payment, because the people who get EITC don't pay any taxes at all anyway, so lowering their tax burden is nonsense.

But it's called a "tax credit" instead of "Federal welfare" so as not to piss off people who haven't figured exactly what it is."

Tax credit is okay, because a credit is just that.

But I agree that its confusing to average people.

We should pass a law that all such credits be renamed "subsidy" and do a search + replace function on the tax code.

208 Well, let's just elect Kim Jong-mom and get it over with.

209 Mmm. Peanuts.

210 Some years back I wrote a book on childcare (which is what the providers call daycare). I concluded that the closer the childcare was to home--nursery school in a church basement, mother down the street babysitting three wee ones, etc.--the better it worked for the parents, because they had more control over their choices. I like this proposal because it seems to work with parental choice and control. The alternative isn't nothing--it's Obama and Hillary imposing federal childcare and parents having no control.

211 School vouchers are arguably a similar payout, which is why I'm not entirely happy with them. But despite that, I'm willing to support vouchers for that purpose only.

Speaking of which, apparently California has a vouchers initiative on the ballot this time around. I wasn't aware of it, as I haven't yet looked at the list of Propositions on the ballot in the coming election. But I heard a radio ad against it the other day, painting it as a way for "billionaires" who supposedly run the schools that would be getting voucher students to make a lot of money.

Unsurprisingly, the ad was paid for by a group that is essentially a front for the California Teachers Association.

212 She won't. Instead, she will outbid Trump.
Posted by: chemjeff at September 13, 2016 03:32 PM (gXKl3)

----------------------------------------------------------------

Fine, but it make Trump look caring. BTW - SHould you not be obsessing on why the Libertarian candidate sucks so much. May be Trump can buy your vote with a bag of free weed.

213 "This stuff is pennies on the dollars, if it can help win elections, I'm all for it."

Yes, its cheap to force businesses to carry one more societal burden.

214 Posted by: Deplorable Jay Guevara at September 13, 2016 03:39 PM (SRKgf)


Yes, of course I've heard of it. And if you'll read what I wrote more closely, you'll see that I support credits only to the extent of reducing tax burden, not in the form of a net payment, so I'm not sure what you're het up about.

215 But Trump hates working people ... Obama said that today in Phillie while doing Hillary's campaigning for Her... Says she's all in for working people and trump avoided them all His life... I wonder how a Man with such a big Business enterprise managed to avoid working people ,while Hillary was always at the Governments teat and she's for them....

216 This is just more fodder for the Free Shit Army. We're 20 trillion in debt and these dumb fucks are playing with matches.

217 Secede. The Union needs Texas much more than Texas needs the Union.



Amen.

218 Hillary's meltdown included throwing a water glass at a staffer- narrowly missing her head, and demanding Matt Lauer be fired!

Sounds very non-pneumonic.

219 I was in client support helping our clients in several U.S. states keep track of child care payments and get checks out to child care providers.



The clients looking for child care would go into the child care agencies, would have all of their information put into the system and if they were eligible for subsidized child care, a significant portion of the cost was picked up by the government. The parents were responsible for a parent's fee to the providers.



My understanding was that the federal government gave the child care money to the states which would then fund the agencies which would then pay the providers.



I guess what I'm wondering is how much more money can go towards childcare? The people being subsidized made so little income anyways, it wasn't like they needed an income tax credit to claw back money they were paying to government because they were already part of that 47%.



Granted, I only knew about childcare in 3 states. Maybe things are different all across the country.

220 "School vouchers are arguably a similar payout, which is why I'm not entirely happy with them. But despite that, I'm willing to support vouchers for that purpose only."

You can fund schools directly, or use a voucher system to create a quasi-market with consumer choice.

Its not a payout.

221 However, the Reformacons do have a practical point: What can you offer lower-income voters when you've already cut their taxes to zero

----

a rising standard of living.

222 So now the Trump 'ettes are being blown.
Posted by: Duncanthrax at September 13, 2016 03:22 PM (i7/wm)

---

How am I being blown?

I have no dog in this fight.

223 Its confusing how we keep losing as conservatives, I mean we keep compromising and giving in and buying to the left's ideals while they push harder every single day to the left and never give in. Its inconceivable that this tactic is not winning for us!

Maybe if we just compromised a bit more...

224 Posted by: artisanal 'ette at September 13, 2016 03:36 PM (qCMvj

What makes kids special sources of anger? Long before the wife and I had the kiddo, my wife was having to bolt (and use sick or vacation) to deal with mom-in-law and her chronic illness (of multiple types) problems. (In fact solving that was something we worked on as the lead up to having a kid.)
This isn't the government's job and frankly not everyone is going to get benefits at the same level across all jobs. But you have to figure your choices and make them give what you have using the same benefits as your coworkers l.

225 And let's not forget.

Who decides which day care is a "qualified" day care in order for the parents to claim the credit? What licensure rules will the day care have to follow? Will the church ladies in the church basement count? Will your neighbor watching the kids count? Probably not.

226 I have a laundry basket full of dependents!!! My children will be keeping my tootsies warm long after your brats have abandoned you!! Winona and I make pancakes not descendants!

227 "And you're going to get SS paid out of those kids social security taxes. And you will use products they invent and produce."

Around here, the typical public school graduate couldn't re-invent the toothpick.

They can't read, they can't write, and they can't do basic arithmetic. They have been provided with no economically useful skills. They've got huge chips on their shoulders but are simultaneously very psychologically brittle.

If your retirement plan is for these net noncontributors to be paying your Social Security, and helping you in other ways, you are in for the very rudest sort of rude awakening. They're a generation of sinkholes.

228
How am I being blown?

Pun.

229 As far as the actual proposal, I will say this. As the childless woman
in the office who is the person who has to pick up the slack because hey
you don't have any responsibilities, I have rather vehement opinions on
this. Oh, yes. Yes, I do.

=====

But isn't the alternative to that is that women with children will leave the workforce because they can't afford childcare. You'd have to pick up that slack too until either another single woman without children or a woman who can afford childcare replaces them. Are there enough in the latter two categories to replace those in the first?


I don't know the answer to that...it's a serious question. My guess is no, there are not enough.

230 "I guess what I'm wondering is how much more money can go towards childcare? The people being subsidized made so little income anyways, it wasn't like they needed an income tax credit to claw back money they were paying to government because they were already part of that 47%."

I have this suspicion that we already have a generous European safety net, but no one realizes it yet.

There are tons of programs the poor, but our progressives keep saying we're like somalia.

231 But Ace says that Cato is wrong, so I will wait for him to weigh in on the matter.


Posted by: chemjeff at September 13, 2016 03:38 PM (gXKl3)

Cato probably isn't wrong, but the data that comes from the government is. If you are relying upon CPI numbers for inflation calculations then that's your problem right there.

232 179
Posted by: Anon Y. Mous at September 13, 2016 03:27 PM (R+30W)


Taxes are government income...

These Tax credits lead to unauthorized Government payments... governed by the IRS, not the Congress.

Posted by: Don Deplorable at September 13, 2016 03:37 PM (qf6WZ)

++++

The EITC is a law, passed by Congress.

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

Yeah, they delegate a lot to the IRS, but they do that will all government agencies.

233 What makes kids special sources of anger? Long before the wife and I had the kiddo, my wife was having to bolt (and use sick or vacation) to deal with mom-in-law and her chronic illness (of multiple types) problems. (In fact solving that was something we worked on as the lead up to having a kid.)
This isn't the government's job and frankly not everyone is going to get benefits at the same level across all jobs. But you have to figure your choices and make them give what you have using the same benefits as your coworkers l.
Posted by: Tsrblke at September 13, 2016 03:43 PM (dzmBR)


They're punishments and we should be killing them in the womb anyway. (The TFG and PP perspective.)

234
If my druthers were had, I would just like to see the govt get out of all of this stuff, but since that won't happen, I would just rather have them give all new births to 2 married American citizen parents $20,000 and just be done with it.

incentive to be married and incentive for child care. And even if it becomes littered with fraud, guess what, it'll still be cheaper than these proposals and things already on the books.

235 Trump can get the majority of the libertarian vote with two policy changes:

1. Free Prostitution
2. Free Weed

236 >>> Hillary's meltdown included throwing a water glass at a staffer- narrowly missing her head, and demanding Matt Lauer be fired!

If only she had drank that sweet, sweet water, she wouldn't have had a seizure.

237 You know, McGovern had an idea to bribe voters by paying everyone X amount of dollars every year (IIRC $5000). That was a bad idea then and a bad idea now. Why is it that people who are allegedly appalled at the growing power of the government are supportive of the idea of the government giving out allowance money?

238 Taxes are government income...

----------

My definition of income must differ from yours.

239 Ok, here's a question: Let's say we accept this and say that we need these people's votes, so we're going to offer this bribe. And it works, and we get elected, and do that.

What happens next election time and we have this exact same question? You can't offer them the same thing, they already got it. We have to go through the same thing all over again.

"Just this once" is not sustainable policy, because it's not based on sound principles. When do we actually get around to rolling back the government and lowering the debt?

240 Posted by: Mr. Peebles at September 13, 2016 03:44 PM (OkKDg)

---

Yeah I know, couldn't resist the snark.

241 Trump isnt doing makeup policy... he is a strategist roaming freely in territory that Democrats traditionally take for granted. He's doing a lot of talk about "tolerance" and "justice", too. And he can get away with it because most voters don't see him as tarred with the "Evil Republican" brush Democrats have painstakingly washed the masses with for 50 years.

In short, the Democrats never accounted for a Trump in their plan for world domination. They were supposed to be running against a sop who could be crushed or bought. Oops.

242 School vouchers are arguably a similar payout, which is why I'm not entirely happy with them.

Not in any remotest sense. Vouchers are allowing you to take the money you're already paying in taxes to pay instead for schooling you choose.

Ah, but you argue those poor people aren't paying taxes, so they get free money! Yes... but they're getting free "money" in terms of education they didn't pay for already. This just shifts that money to where they choose, not adding anything new.

See if Sally no-taxes sends her kids to Indoctrination Grade School, she's getting her childrens' education (such as it is) paid for by other people. Getting vouchers to send them to Better Grade School is not a gain for her, its the same expense, shifted to another target.

243 If anything we should tax the childless at higher rates so they can pay their unfair share of leisure time.
Posted by: sexypig at September 13, 2016 03:35 PM (UBBWX)


Because, after all, there is no point to your existence unless you are a parent.

Because, after all, those of you with children have the right to reach into my life and my pocket and take from me to subsidize your life choices.

Because, after all, those without children cannot possibly have any other responsibilities in life.

Because, after all, all that each and every one of is is a unit of economic measure and not a full human being with their own valuations and determinations as to priorities and desires.

At least I admit that I can be an utterly vile and unfair cunt when dealing with these issues. So, hey, I win there.

244 236 >>> Hillary's meltdown included throwing a water glass at a staffer- narrowly missing her head, and demanding Matt Lauer be fired!

Where did you hear this?

245

In any case, pretending conservatism is reduced to "cut taxes" is so ignorant and asinine its barely worth having a conversation with anyone who thinks this.
Posted by: Christopher R Taylor



If you didn't closely follow politics, that's the only solution conservatives seem to propose to fixing all economic problems.

And now we have a situation where 1 out of 2 workers doesn't even pay a federal income tax anymore. We've painted ourselves into a corner.

if I had my way, it would be one tax rates for the person making one dollar or a billion dollars, but I'm not willing to go down with the ship to make that point.

246 "They can't read, they can't write, and they can't do basic arithmetic. They have been provided with no economically useful skills. They've got huge chips on their shoulders but are simultaneously very psychologically brittle."

I'm sure they can wipe your butt and swap out your bedpan.

"If your retirement plan is for these net noncontributors to be paying your Social Security, and helping you in other ways, you are in for the very rudest sort of rude awakening. They're a generation of sinkholes."

My kid will be pulling her weight plus more. If the kids you know suck, that' not my fault.

If you want to privatize SS I'd love it, but most voters won't like that.

247 Why is that not front and center? It's such an easy sell and large c-corp, s-corp corporations are already allowed that deduction.

Posted by: Maritime at September 13, 2016 03:39 PM (RbF5Z)
==========================

I own two S-Corps and, for state income tax purposes, not only are my medical costs not deductible I have to pay taxes on the company paid portion (as income). So, just the opposite is true (when it comes to state taxes).

248 When do we actually get around to rolling back the government and lowering the debt?

Posted by: joe, living deplorably at September 13, 2016 03:45 PM (KUaJL)
2020, at the earliest

249 But isn't the alternative to that is that women with children will leave the workforce because they can't afford childcare. You'd have to pick up that slack too until either another single woman without children or a woman who can afford childcare replaces them.



Kinda sexist no? What's wrong with a guy replacing them?

250 Posted by: artisanal 'ette at September 13, 2016 03:40 PM (qCMvj)

Good; I hope she does-on national TV during a debate. Either Hillary was always nasty or her brain problems just exacerbated it.

And I'll repeat again what my friend said who knew someone who worked under her in the State Department, She is mean. Not just sometimes having a bad day but pathologically mean and nobody wants to say anything because they'll either lose their job or get the Clinton Crime Syndicate after them. So great; We may have a completely corrupt, serial liar who's very, very sick as President and who's verbally and physically violent. Not exactly composed "Silent Cal Ccoolidge" eh?

Pray.

251 "Because, after all, there is no point to your existence unless you are a parent.

Because, after all, those of you with children have the right to reach into my life and my pocket and take from me to subsidize your life choices.

Because, after all, those without children cannot possibly have any other responsibilities in life.

Because, after all, all that each and every one of is is a unit of economic measure and not a full human being with their own valuations and determinations as to priorities and desires."

Because I was being satirical about the progressives who demand the rich pay their fair share and demand progressive income taxes.

Maybe the sarcasm didn't come through.

252 Posted by: joe, living deplorably at September 13, 2016 03:45 PM (KUaJL)

This is the playoffs. One and done. Win now, worry later. Democrats get away with this strategy because literally every single thing they say is a lie. You can't play a different game against them or you will lose.

253 "Obama said that today in Phillie while doing Hillary's campaigning for Her"

He hasn't done much public campaigning for Clinton yet.

Hopefully it'll work out as well as his big push to secure the Olympics for Chicago did. Shit Midas powers, activate!

254 When do we actually get around to rolling back the government and lowering the debt?

Posted by: joe, living deplorably at September 13, 2016 03:45 PM (KUaJL)
2020, at the earliest

------------

I'd settle for just one of those things. Frankly, I'd settle for just keeping the status quo and not growing either.

255 "Just this once" is not sustainable policy, because it's not based on sound principles. When do we actually get around to rolling back the government and lowering the debt?

Apparently the goal is just to win, not accomplish any of our alleged goals, just to win. Its Underpants Gnome politics.

256 I own two S-Corps and, for state income tax purposes, not only are my medical costs not deductible I have to pay taxes on the company paid portion (as income). So, just the opposite is true (when it comes to state taxes).
Posted by: MTF


For my state, they are 100% deductible.

Why not propose this on the federal level? Seems an easy sell to me.

257 I'm not "shocked and scandalized", I don't "hate".


I just recognize stupid, destructive policy "ideas" when I see them. Pretty simple, really.


And all forms of welfare not limited to a rigorously defined "safety net" version are destructive, and stupid. Besides being wrong (funny how pernicious stuff, and disapproved stuff, kinda turns out to be mostly the same stuff, almost like there's an underlying logic there).


So on substance there's not any serious discussion to even have here. Oh - and on mass immigration (legal, or illegal), also no discussion, for the economically literate. Which excludes at least a few whose nics I see above.


Politically, I don't even begin to get the basis for this stupid idea. Show me the demos that illustrate the GOP 1) relies on the now almost-untaxed for its margins, and in which states, and 2) that this demo is in fact "gettable" with any of these sort of stupid ideas.


"Ideology" - almost always a misapplied and vastly over-used word, in these discussions - has nothing to do with it. But it's a stark reminder that "conservatives", even some considered "thoughtful" etc., are now reduced to the level of Beltway statist think tank interns, noodling over various new govt. schemes to "fix" problems mostly based on the entire panoply of extant pernicious govt. schemes.

258 If Donald wants my vote, he'd better start proposing tax credits for Botox, and now!

259 "Just this once" is not sustainable policy, because it's not based on sound principles. When do we actually get around to rolling back the government and lowering the debt?

Heh. Ha ha ha!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

260 BTW, here's the Left's reaction to Trump's proposal that I'm sure you've all read fully:

So, employers will give women paid maternity, then fire them, all the while having paid out less in UI. Win-win.

261 Somewhat agree, however before Trump, the idea of building a wall and deporting illegal aliens was taboo unless you were out looking for the left to breathlessly call you a racist at the top of their lungs. It took a guy who DGAF to not only espouse the idea but do so with such fearlessness that it gave supporters of the idea the courage to step forward.

He may have shot himself in the foot with his bravado in some ways, but he also double-tapped one of the left's biggest political speech codes - the one that happens to be the underpinnings of their Third World, One Party Rule Project.

262 When do we actually get around to rolling back the government and lowering the debt?


When hell freezes over...

263 In any case, pretending conservatism is reduced to "cut taxes" is so
ignorant and asinine its barely worth having a conversation with anyone
who thinks this.

Posted by: Christopher R Taylor


Conservatism isn't about just that. It's also endless, pointless war, open borders, and outsourcing.

264 for those of you who, like me, greeted Bush's tax cuts warmly even while you were thinking, "Um, removing so many people from the tax rolls entirelly is going to create some big problems down the line..."

welcome to being down the line.

265 Alex ... I really wish you'd lighten up on yourself. You really should learn to give you a break.

I find you neither vile nor unfair.

266 Kinda sexist no? What's wrong with a guy replacing them?

Posted by: Deplorable rickb223 at September 13, 2016 03:47 PM (Bd6VC)


Then what's wrong with a guy picking up the slack that AtC was referring to?

267 204 The constitution says that congress can't be mealy mouthed when executing its powers? Now you really have my interest. Again, which part of the constitution are you referring to?

Posted by: Anon Y. Mous at September 13, 2016 03:35 PM (R+30W)

Tax credits are not moneys specifically authorized by Congress for disbursal. They are moneys taken from the collection of others to be redistributed. That is un-Constitutional.

Come on ...

By your "argument" there is no difference in law between "collection" and "disbursal" of funds. One is just the "negative" other. So why even bother using both words? If you follow this "negative X" stuff far enough you will find that nothing makes sense. Think of all the things in society that you can turn upside down by introducing "negative X" as a reasonable exercise of "X".

Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at September 13, 2016 03:40 PM (zc3Db)

++++

"Argument" is right, since I haven't actually made that argument. You say that the EITC is unconstitutional. I ask you to show your work. I might have a specific argument against you if you did that, but you don't. Again: which part of the constitution do you believe is violated by the EITC?

268 If Trump suggests health insurance must cover all plastic surgery procedures, he will win Cali in a landslide. LOL.

269 200
Hillary's meltdown included throwing a water glass at a staffer-
narrowly missing her head, and demanding Matt Lauer be fired! She was
overheard threatening executives at NBC saying "If I lose, we all go
down and that Fascist Fuck will have us swinging from nooses! What the
fuck is wrong with you idiots?"

Posted by: undocumented Proctologist at September 13, 2016 03:35 PM (e8kgV)


I'm not numb yet. I find this behavior frightful and disturbing. More so over the fact that everyone expects it and accepts it. The sphere that she controls is enormous, encompassing big business, big govt., big media. Horrifying.

270 Maybe we'll be treated to seeing "negative criminal sentences" soon, too. That would be cool. It would be a credit to allow you to commit a crime and have your "negative sentence" applied to your sentence for the crime, thereby reducing and maybe eliminating it. Yay!!

Anyone who thinks that negative taxes are fine would have to be okay with negative sentences, too. And criminal sentencing is but one of the myriad of opportunities to apply "negative" aspects to and pretend "It's all cool; it's just 'negative X'".

This is how you make a total mockery of civilization.

271 "You can fund schools directly, or use a voucher system to create a quasi-market with consumer choice. "


Most times people discuss vouchers, it's a bastardized system that tries to maintain the traditional schools.

In my voucher plan, I bulldoze schools.

Literally.

Although this is designed strictly for the inner-city school districts that have incredibly high costs and terrible results, it may have applications elsewhere.

But for immediate results in Baltimore, D.C., Detroit, Cleveland and a half dozen other cities, I would physically destroy all the schools and administration buildings in the city, so there is no way to reconstruct the failed system.

Pure vouchers are given the parent to spend any way they want. It can be spent totally on crack cocaine if that's their thing. Only problem is that their kid needs to pass the test for their grade level at the end of each year. If not, a paid "child advocate" gets a piece of the voucher to spend it on behalf of the kid.

In Baltimore, a single mother of 4 kids in school could take in $120,000 per year. If she successfully home schooled, it would be a pretty nice income. Of course, she would need to pay taxes on that income.

272 >>>I don't like loud politicians who say deeply alienating things.


I agree completely. Such behavior is depl...uh, injudicious.

273 Apparently the goal is just to win, not accomplish any of our alleged goals, just to win. Its Underpants Gnome politics.
Posted by: Christopher R Taylor



Apparently, some people want to ignore that you actually have to win elections.

I also would like to see the Social Security ponzi scheme smashed up, but I understand the political reality that it would simply mean Democrats keep winning if anyone got near such a solution.

Was any Republican running for President talking about ending Social Security?

274 If you didn't closely follow politics, that's the only solution conservatives seem to propose to fixing all economic problems.

More like "if you don't actually know or talk to any actual conservatives."

That's what pissed me off about reducing the tea party to "Taxed Enough Already." Its stupid. The tea party movement was rage against government bailing out super rich corporations and banks while throwing ordinary people on the street because of moron policy that they forced upon everyone causing a crash. It was fury at a government that wasn't listening to us.

And brainless tools tried to reduce it to opposing tax increases which nobody was proposing. Gee I wonder why it didn't do better?

275 Because I was being satirical about the progressives who demand the rich pay their fair share and demand progressive income taxes.

Maybe the sarcasm didn't come through.
Posted by: sexypig




No. It didn't.
And I deeply apologize for my reply at #194.

276 "I have been advised by some here that one never considers any kind of tactical retreat in order to achieve a larger strategic gain or avoid a trap. Clearly you are a deplorable RINO."

No, this time it's okay because we'll be getting a wall.

277 I wouldn't get so hyped up about this. It's an election Trump needs to attract women voters. He's trailing with them. This will help, especially with Melania alongside announcing this plan. She said at the convention she would champion causes like this, and reach out to female voters. Well here it is. LIVs love stuff like this.

Does he mean to really implement this when he's elected? Who knows.

I don't mean to sound cynical, but politics is an ugly business and this is an ugly election against some very ugly people who don't play fair. Why should our side? We need the people this stuff appeals to to pull that lever for Trump.

I'm not accusing Trump of being insincere either. I can't speak to that. I have to believe it's a sincere thing.

But any way you look at it, it's a shrewd election move.

278 I hope this information got back to Matt Lauer and if was planning on voting for her he re-evaluated that.

279 For my state, they are 100% deductible.

Why not propose this on the federal level? Seems an easy sell to me.
Posted by: Maritime at September 13, 2016 03:48 PM (RbF5Z)

Gotta offset ACA costs.

280 268 If Trump suggests health insurance must cover all plastic surgery procedures, he will win Cali in a landslide. LOL.
Posted by: IC at September 13, 2016 03:50 PM (a0IVu)

------------------------------------------------------------------

The best part about that is when the big one hits most of the plastic people won't be around to run up the health care insurance for anyone else. Win-win...

281 What makes kids special sources of anger? Long before the wife and I had the kiddo, my wife was having to bolt (and use sick or vacation) to deal with mom-in-law and her chronic illness (of multiple types) problems. (In fact solving that was something we worked on as the lead up to having a kid.)
This isn't the government's job and frankly not everyone is going to get benefits at the same level across all jobs. But you have to figure your choices and make them give what you have using the same benefits as your coworkers l.
Posted by: Tsrblke at September 13, 2016 03:43 PM (dzmBR)

that's why the flexible plans were so great

it was a pool of your money that went into your insurance choices

you could use some to offset childcare costs, some to use for a spouse's dental, for example, some for chiropractor or masseuse care...

it was perfect, leaving the choice to the employee

as far as your situation, everyone's is different, and you probably would have gladly accepted the help since it was a source of contention and planning - if not, that would be your choice

this plan is proposed for those that cannot afford care while in the work force (are they buying too many flat screen tv's and ipads or not budgeting correctly to afford the care is a good question)

I have no idea what your first sentence meant. But I have seen a lot of angry people like alex mentions that do not want to pick up the slack for the people who use the excuse "I have a kid." Kids are great, miracles, yes, but not others responsibility (co-workers) in the same way you say it is not the governments.

282 280 268 If Trump suggests health insurance must cover all plastic surgery procedures, he will win Cali in a landslide. LOL.
Posted by: IC at September 13, 2016 03:50 PM (a0IVu)

------------------------------------------------------------------

The best part about that is when the big one hits most of the plastic people won't be around to run up the health care insurance for anyone else. Win-win...
Posted by: William Eaton at September 13, 2016 03:52 PM (KhJh

Learn to swim, see you down in Arizona Bay

283 Conservatism isn't about just that. It's also endless, pointless war, open borders, and outsourcing.

Hillary needs to hire better trolls.

284
Reality is what it is. Nevertheless, it seems a silly argument because we all know that treating people equally under the law is the correct moral stance.

Married with children, single, single with children, etc should not make a difference in govt policy.

285 If I lose, none of us will power through!

286 All women love Uncle Sugar and this is Trump throwing them a bone.

287 200
Hillary's meltdown included throwing a water glass at a staffer-
narrowly missing her head, and demanding Matt Lauer be fired! She was
overheard threatening executives at NBC saying "If I lose, we all go
down and that Fascist Fuck will have us swinging from nooses! What the
fuck is wrong with you idiots?"

--

Some people say that mood swings and temper outbursts can be part of a seizure disorder

288 "I wouldn't get so hyped up about this. It's an election Trump needs to
attract women voters. He's trailing with them. This will help,
especially with Melania alongside announcing this plan. She said at the
convention she would champion causes like this, and reach out to female
voters. Well here it is. LIVs love stuff like this."


I believe you mean Ivanka, not Melania.

289 If you haven't noticed Vashta it's been a while since we've had a balanced budget. We haven't been able to finance the entire scheme anymore for a very, very long time. The question is when, not if, but when does reality come to pay us a visit.


Posted by: DFCtomm

---


We're still able to finance the scheme, that's what the bond sales are for. Agreed, I have no idea why they are still selling, 20 trillion later.

290 I know it's not acceptable to all you finger-on-the-pulse types, but I don't care about all this. Politicians gotta politic, yo. That includes Trump.

Whatever he's got to say now, to get elected, whatever it is, I don't care.

Is he Typhoid Hillory?

No. That's all, we're done. Next topic.

291 237 CatchThirtyThr

Sorry to depress everyone even more, but it wasnt McGovern who first proposed it. Henry Hazlett and Milton Friedman had each earlier advocated a guaranteed income for everyone. Hazlett backed off, but Friedman continued to push for it as a negative income tax.

292 Learn to swim, see you down in Arizona Bay
Posted by: Insomniac - Irredeemably Deplorable at September 13, 2016 03:53 PM (0mRoj)

------------------------------------------------------------

One problem with my plan...the augmented females (and now males) might float!

293 Then what's wrong with a guy picking up the slack that AtC was referring to?



That was my point. What's wrong with a guy picking up the slack? Why does it have to be a childless female or a female that can afford childcare.

294 "I'm sure they can wipe your butt and swap out your bedpan."

Beware the unvoiced implicit premise.

To wit, that such scut labor will always require a supply of slow-witted, cheap, and malleable human workers. It won't. Domo arigato, Mr. Roboto.

Also, the "workers" turned out by the current U.S. educational system are certainly slow-witted, but they're not necessarily cheap, nor malleable.

They want to be compensated at far above what their skills would normally clear in an open marketplace for labor. Their diligence is horribly lacking. They'll sue you at the drop of a hat. (And have high odds of success in that endeavor.) They're frequently high as kites on drugs. They bring their sex lives into the workplace, damagingly so, when they're not abruptly disappearing from it due to STDs, pregnancies, and mandated family leave.

295 I have no choice mind you but as I wrote when this started Trump is a big goverment guy.

296 Very well put, Ace and I'm with you on nearly the whole thing. I disagree with much of what the Reformacons say but, hell, at least they are honest about it.

That is my main bitch with the GOPe...the constant, constant lying. And yet they STILL will look around for boogie men (racists, stupid, we've been fooled by pacs etc etc) rather than look in the f'ng mirror and realize that they have destroyed all credibility with the failure to deliver on ANY of their campaign promises (even when they controlled all three branches of govt in the first years of Bush).

Its just amazing to me to hear people bitching about Trump "ruining" the Republican brand.....that ship has long since sailed.

297 I wouldn't get so hyped up about this. It's an election Trump needs to attract women voters. He's trailing with them. This will help, especially with Melania alongside announcing this plan. She said at the convention she would champion causes like this, and reach out to female voters. Well here it is. LIVs love stuff like this.

Does he mean to really implement this when he's elected? Who knows.

That's my take as well. I don't know if even Trump knows what he wants to fight for or try when elected. But this is just a sop to get voters so ignorant they think the President passes legislation or somehow mind controls congress.

298 But any way you look at it, it's a shrewd election move.
Posted by: Agent Cooper at September 13, 2016 03:52 PM (1zARK)

you can promise the world until reality strikes you in the face

he would have to have a majority congress and they would have to be on his side with this

299 One nice thing about discussing ideas here is that I can state my opinion freely.

And then sometimes I am introduced to a completely different, yet more factually correct viewpoint then mine.

Those are the times when I silently say "I didn't think that one through as well as I should have".

And I end the day smarter then I was when I woke up.


All in all, the definition of a successful day.

300 Just so everyone knows, these things that Trump is proposing are things that Feminist swearsies promised womyn over 45 plus years ago, but, then abandoned once Roe v Wade became law because all their energy had to be devoted to preserving

infanticide by tortuous dismemberment

rather than actually helping families with infants and children.

So, I, for one, find Trump/Ivanka actually taking these Feminists lost abandoned dust covered issues and using them against Uber Feminist Hillz kinda sorta cool.

301 The Hillary meltdown, while somewhat believable, strikes me as being made up.

302 Data breaches are common. This rape-y data breach, though, is unreal. the worst thing is it isn't even a data breach.

Instead, a woman recently discovered her vibrator, which is a smart device tied to a phone app, is reporting all sorts of data back to the company without her knowledge.

She will probably never be able to fap again without worrying! Talk about your psychological damage!

http://tinyurl.com/zycpkm9

303 287,
Some people say that mood swings and temper outbursts can be part of a seizure disorder

Posted by: Deplorable @votermom, keeper of lists at September 13, 2016 03:54 PM (Om16U)
Bi-polar perhaps?

304 @266 Then what's wrong with a guy picking up the slack that AtC was referring to?
----------------

I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess that all of the people in the office who hold positions similar to AtC's are women.

305 "Married with children, single, single with children, etc should not make a difference in govt policy."

cough Equal protection clause cough

306 Its just amazing to me to hear people bitching about Trump "ruining" the Republican brand.....that ship has long since sailed.


Posted by: FITP at September 13, 2016 03:56 PM (phXnK)

hehe, I know. It's laughable.

307 More like "if you don't actually know or talk to any actual conservatives."

That's what pissed me off about reducing the tea party to "Taxed Enough Already." Its stupid. The tea party movement was rage against government bailing out super rich corporations and banks while throwing ordinary people on the street because of moron policy that they forced upon everyone causing a crash. It was fury at a government that wasn't listening to us.

And brainless tools tried to reduce it to opposing tax increases which nobody was proposing. Gee I wonder why it didn't do better?
Posted by: Christopher R Taylor




The Tea Party was a pretty confused movement all around.

I was against TARP, but almost every penny of TARP was paid back except from the auto companies.

So once the loans were paid back, I guess the TEA Party no longer needed to exist since there were no longer any bank bailouts?

Who knows, I just know figures like Christine O'Donnell and Michelle Bachmann took the label and started running on weird SoCon issues.

308 But you have to figure your choices and make them give what you have using the same benefits as your coworkers l.

Posted by: Tsrblke at September 13, 2016 03:43 PM (dzmBR)


1999 in Denver I was teaching technical education...

I was on a non teaching week, during which we could work from home, and one of my Kids was sick.

Now, it was well known that I was a full time single parent, with twins.

My Female Boss called, and told me I needed to come and teach a class for a female co worker whose was out, because she had a sick kid.

I promptly told her, sorry, I have a sick kid too ( it was flu season)...

She then tried to tell me I HAD to come in... and to get someone else to watch my sick Son...

The double standard in action astounded me... and she only backed down when I told her I wanted the whole thing in writing, and would be forwarding it to Corporate, AND my Lawyer...

309 290
I know it's not acceptable to all you finger-on-the-pulse types, but I
don't care about all this. Politicians gotta politic, yo. That
includes Trump.



Whatever he's got to say now, to get elected, whatever it is, I don't care.



Is he Typhoid Hillory?



No. That's all, we're done. Next topic.

Posted by: BurtTC at September 13, 2016 03:55 PM (TOk1P)

You said that so much better and more concisely than I did. Thanks!Tami--I stand corrected. My bad!

310 Henry Hazlett and Milton Friedman had each earlier advocated a guaranteed income for everyone.

------------

I can see the appeal - once you accept the fact that we are already paying people anyway. If we are going to do it, shouldn't we eliminate the controlling bureaucracy. Of course, I'd rather we simply not pay any in the first place.

311 I'd be happy to let Trump lie to all those dumb fucks to get their votes to get elected then say after the Inauguration, "Whoops, all your previous free shit already spent all the money!"

312 But isn't the alternative to that is that women with children will leave the workforce because they can't afford childcare. You'd have to pick up that slack too until either another single woman without children or a woman who can afford childcare replaces them. Are there enough in the latter two categories to replace those in the first?

I don't know the answer to that...it's a serious question. My guess is no, there are not enough.
Posted by: Tami - Powering through being a Deplorable at September 13, 2016 03:44 PM (Enq6K)


Here's my nasty answer to that: not my problem and I don't care and get your damn hand out of my damn pocket.

Here's my less nasty answer to that: Life is about making trade offs. I don't have kids because I have never once in my life wanted a child. Hell, I didn't even play with dolls. That means that I accept that I am fully responsible for my life and my future and for taking care of me and that, frankly, I will have no one upon which to rely. My life. My decisions. My choices. My trade offs. I do not pretend otherwise.

The problem with most of these discussions is that there seems to be some kind of underlying acceptance of the premise that women with kids (and I'm not even going to get into the misandry of assuming that fathers don't give a shit if they spend time with their kids) should not have to bear any negative externalities for having children and wanting to work. It's the you can have it all mindset that drives me batty.

I will freely, nay, gleefully admit that parents (note I didn't say mothers) who work have to face choices that I do not about time at work vs time at home with the ensuing implications on economic benefits vs personal life. But those choices are theirs, not mine. The choices are theirs and the consequences should also be theirs. A woman who works and has a child has to do some very brutal calculations about the costs of working vs the costs of staying home. Those are *her* choices. Not mine. It's this pretense that the consequences of having a child are not being shifted onto others that gets sand in my um gears. Gears is totally what I mean there.

Look. I'm all for people having kids. I'm anti-kid for me not others. You want to have 12 kids? Mazel tov! But stop expecting that you can do so without consequence and stop putting those consequences off on others.

Annnd gah. Here I am hurling naplam in to the fire to drive us into yet more warring camps.

Bad alex! Bad!

313 We're still able to finance the scheme, that's what
the bond sales are for. Agreed, I have no idea why they are still
selling, 20 trillion later.

Posted by: Vashta Nerada at September 13, 2016 03:54 PM (7ZVPa)

China is only up to what 1.4 Trillion, but we sell bonds every single day. Who is buying? You know there is this large financial entity that isn't required by law to reveal what's on it's balance sheets.

314 Let's try and Buy some Votes -

It'll be Yuge!!

315 Here's my policy proposal for Trump: unbundle cable channels.

Cost-free to the government (I think), and probably immensely popular.

I give it to you, The Donald. Take it and run with it!

316 If bribery from the public treasury is the price to be paid for ending limitless immigration, it's a price we ought to gladly pay.

Otherwise, the Dems are just going to continue using our money to bribe their voters.

We are past the point as to _whether_ we ought to be bribing voters from the public treasury--the question is: Who's voters get bribed?

Do we bribe the unproductive or the productive?

317 "Married with children, single, single with children, etc should not make a difference in govt policy."

cough Equal protection clause cough

Posted by: torquewrench



That's the biggest reason why they had to pass a constitutional Amendment to allow Congress to institute an income tax.

The Supreme Court kept striking it down.

318 Who decides which day care is a "qualified" day
care in order for the parents to claim the credit? What licensure rules
will the day care have to follow? Will the church ladies in the church
basement count? Will your neighbor watching the kids count? Probably
not.


Posted by: chemjeff at September 13, 2016 03:43 PM (gXKl3)

The states each had a system to classify what counted as a childcare provider.

Each system had a Provider Type letter which was determined by the services that were offered, whether the program was operating out of a school or someone's home, etc.. I believe the rules were determined at the state level. Each agency would check out the providers for them to be eligible for payment.

As I recall, informal providers, people out of their homes, were compensated as well.

The money that went into childcare was relatively substantial in that it covered agencies in many cities, in many counties, in several states, 'employing' a lot of people to intake the clients, intake and investigate the providers, make sure payments went out on time etc..

Childcare dollars were relatively big business. HOWEVER, there are plenty of other government programs that get substantially much more money. Education money is just pissed on the 'educators', with more money going to the worst performers!! Ahhh government....genius!!

319 If I lose, we all go down and that Fascist Fuck will have us swinging from nooses!

The sad thing is, I bet she really does believe this. That he really is fascist and will put them in camps. I think she's really that demented and out of touch with reality.

And frustrated he'd be the one picking the targets instead of her.

320 I have more kids than you can count on one hand. I abhor the child tax credit in principle, but in effect I use it as my own personal school voucher.

321
The instant reflexive screaming from the #NeverTrumpers to anything La Donald says.

Delicious.

322 What makes kids special sources of anger?




Possibly because of abuse of kindness and or the system.

Kinda like those that abuse "that time of the month" as a medical issue. And yes. I worked with women you could set your calendar by.

323 I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess that all of the people in the office who hold positions similar to AtC's are women.
Posted by: junior at September 13, 2016 03:57 PM (MSpR+)

are you kidding?
The only ones I heard complain were men...
Because they did not have to deal with coordinating their schedules to go pick up the kid. The schools called the mom, the child care called the moms, ...

324 217
Secede. The Union needs Texas much more than Texas needs the Union.

I heard that when Texas does leave the Disunited States that it will be necessary to join a free militia in an adjoining state and defend the Texas border for a one year before being eligible for entry to serve a three year probationary period ending in citizenship.
Where can I sign up? Think I would like to serve in New Mexico.

325 The problem with bribing the voters: We don't have the money.

326 Here's my policy proposal for Trump: unbundle cable channels.

And something he could conceivably do through FCC regs and monopoly rules, without congress. It would make millions of people very happy.

327 I'm already more Catholic than this pope and I'm not even a Catholic.

328 You know there is this large financial entity that isn't required by law to reveal what's on it's balance sheets.


Posted by: DFCtomm at September 13, 2016 03:58 PM (5bT86)
===========================

Who?

329 "We don't have the money."

Oh....You'll take a check?

Why didn't you say so.

Let me just pay that whole thing off right now.


*Rip*


Here ya go.

330 Posted by: artisanal 'ette at September 13, 2016 03:53 PM (qCMvj)

I'm saying do y'all get upset at people doing similar things caring for sick family members? (Not "I have the flu" sick chronically or terminally so.)

I'm about like being treated the same as like.

Demographics show we've got a coming storm with regards to elder care, if we're pushing forward sans massive government mandates there we should be able to here too.

(Though there will always be self entitled assholes)

331 Here's my policy proposal for Trump: unbundle cable channels.

Cost-free to the government (I think), and probably immensely popular.

I give it to you, The Donald. Take it and run with it!
Posted by: Deplorable Jay Guevara at September 13, 2016 03:58 PM (SRKgf)

hehe, nice
ESPN crashes and burns.

332 he would have to have a majority congress and they would have to be on his side with this

Posted by: artisanal 'ette

You really think he wouldn't?

I agree that this is just a gesture that Trump cares little about in reality, but I thing the GOP would be on this like white on rice.....NEVER forget what the years of "Compassionate Conservatism" got us or WHO gave it to us.

333 Here's the reality of the tax situation.

People that make over a half million dollars a year are getting fleeced when they pay taxes on their salary. In some places it exceeds 50% after state taxes.

The middle and lower classes pay way too little.

We need to raise taxes on the poor and lower them for the rich.

Good luck with that message.

334 maybe that is what Newt was alluding to yesterday

he said he thought she would have a full blown 100% meltdown

must be this
Posted by: artisanal 'ette at September 13, 2016 03:40 PM (qCMvj)

Remember, dear Santa, this is all that the McEvil heart wants for Christmas: for Hillary to have a full blown rage attack on national TV, spitting, screaming, swearing and shouting names. Sure some of the cameras will be cut, but, not all...

Yours truly,
Sherry' wizened little heart

335 298
But any way you look at it, it's a shrewd election move.

Posted by: Agent Cooper at September 13, 2016 03:52 PM (1zARK)



you can promise the world until reality strikes you in the face



he would have to have a majority congress and they would have to be on his side with this

Posted by: artisanal 'ette at September 13, 2016 03:56 PM (qCMvj)

And you are exactly right. You and I and alot of the folks here know that. But read BURTTCs post above. Trump is doing what you have to do when you're running for president. You gotta play to win. Don't hate the player, hate the game.:-)

336 Because I was being satirical about the progressives who demand the rich pay their fair share and demand progressive income taxes.

Maybe the sarcasm didn't come through.
Posted by: sexypig at September 13, 2016 03:47 PM (UBBWX)

It should have and I apologize for not realizing that. That's on me, not you.

337 This is also Ivanka's influence, which might or might not be a good thing.

Posted by: Beth M at September 13, 2016 03:05 PM (kiy9d)




Seen and not heard

338 I was against TARP, but almost every penny of TARP was paid back except from the auto companies.


Posted by: Maritime at September 13, 2016 03:57 PM (RbF5Z)


the TARP money went to Big Banks, and was used to consolidate the Banking industry.

The Banking industry OWNS (literally) the Fed Reserve Bank. Thus, each now bigger bank owned a larger piece of the Fed Res Bank.

Those same banks then used Zero Interest Loan Money from the Feds 'Quantitative Easing' to pay back the Government TARP money.

All this, stemming from a Financial Crises, created by that same banking industry, and their pet Government overseers.

339 325
Hell, we'll just print more!

340 It's the you can have it all mindset that drives me batty.

Posted by: alexthechick - fagette at September 13, 2016 03:58 PM (mf5HN)


Same here. It's the product of childish feminist thinking, if you'll pardon the exaggeration. Almost every young boy wants to be a cowboy, a fireman, a baseball player, and an astronaut, but figures out that to pursue any one of those means shutting the door on the others.

Realistically, most people trying to "have it all" will do a half-assed job in all their endeavors. The people who excel in something do so because they FOCUSED on it.

341
I was against TARP, but almost every penny of TARP was paid back except from the auto companies.






Posted by: Maritime at September 13, 2016 03:57 PM (RbF5Z)
Give me zero interest rates, access to an unlimited credit line, and a stock market and I'll make money too. BTFD, a monkey could do it. Which kind of makes you wonder what happened to MF Global. How exactly does one fly a primary broker into the ground under these circumstances.

342 That was my point. What's wrong with a guy picking
up the slack? Why does it have to be a childless female or a female that
can afford childcare.

Posted by: Deplorable rickb223 at September 13, 2016 03:55 PM (Bd6VC)

Yeah, sorry. My bad. In my mind I was just swapping out Woman with Children for Woman without Children. Which may not have been what she meant. I guess it was Employees with children vs Employees without.

343 Is his where the "True Conservatives", who have already exposed themselves as frauds, sweep in and say, "Toldja he was a LIBERAL"? They prefer a route where they surrender to somebody on this sort of thing.

Well, this sort of thing may simply be the cost of saving the Republican party and the Republic, so suck it up! Better for the smart-asses in the House to be surrendering to THIS (if they do!) than to whatever "Baskets" comes up with.

344 305 "Married with children, single, single with children, etc should not make a difference in govt policy."

cough Equal protection clause cough

Posted by: torquewrench at September 13, 2016 03:57 PM (noWW6)



Sorry, but:
1. Disparate impacts happen all the time anyway.
2. The future matters. And the future belongs to those who show up for it. Why not encourage middle and upper class people to breed, rather than underclass people?

345 319 If I lose, we all go down and that Fascist Fuck will have us swinging from nooses!

The sad thing is, I bet she really does believe this. That he really is fascist and will put them in camps. I think she's really that demented and out of touch with reality.

And frustrated he'd be the one picking the targets instead of her.
Posted by: Christopher R Taylor at September 13, 2016 03:58 PM (39g3+)


She says this like its a bad thing. I'm thinking it more projectional than fear.

346 Here's my policy proposal for Trump: unbundle cable channels.

Cost-free to the government (I think), and probably immensely popular.

I give it to you, The Donald. Take it and run with it!

Posted by: Deplorable Jay Guevara at September 13, 2016 03:58 PM (SRKgf)





But how else am I going to get 20 Spanish language stations that I never watch? The first cable company that offers 50, 75, 100 channel packages that you can pick the channels wins.

347 318 "Who decides which day care is a "qualified" day
care in order for the parents to claim the credit?"


It should be like my voucher plan. Absolutely no qualifications. Anyone who can convince a buyer that they can provide the service gets the money.

If the buyer is satisfied with the results, they will continue buying. If not, they will go elsewhere.

348 And you are exactly right. You and I and alot of the folks here know that. But read BURTTCs post above. Trump is doing what you have to do when you're running for president. You gotta play to win. Don't hate the player, hate the game.:-)

Posted by: Agent Cooper at September 13, 2016 04:02 PM (1zARK)


That's my take, too. Running on a strict laissez faire capitalist first-come-first-served-devil-take the hindmost race-is-to-the-swift platform is a recipe for electoral disaster.

Unfortunately.

349 "We don't have the money."

Oh....You'll take a check?

Why didn't you say so.

Let me just pay that whole thing off right now.


*Rip*


Here ya go.
Posted by: Village Idiot's Apprentice at September 13, 2016 04:00 PM (J+eG2)


"You'll take a check, I thought you wanted money!"

That's one of my all time favorite bits.

350 China is only up to what 1.4 Trillion, but we sell bonds every single day. Who is buying? You know there is this large financial entity that isn't required by law to reveal what's on it's balance sheets.


Posted by: DFCtomm
--

My understanding is that only 2.5 trillion is held by the fed. China, Japan, and Saudi hold around a trillion apiece, Euro countries hold about a trillion. Someday, someone is going to wake up and start dumping.

351 >>All this, stemming from a Financial Crises, created by that same banking industry, and their pet Government overseers.

No, the financial crises was primarily created by the feds, the guys on the left side of the aisle to be specific. The banks certainly weren't pure but it was the feds who forced banks to make loans that were unsustainable and then to make the medicine go down more smoothly allowed them to bundle them loans and sell them off in a way that was totally non-transparent.

352 Those same banks then used Zero Interest Loan Money from the Feds 'Quantitative Easing' to pay back the Government TARP money.
---------------------------------------

They were required to use it to buy Treasuries. You could say the income from the Treasuries was used to pay back Tarp, but not the created reserves.

353 I'm saying do y'all get upset at people doing similar things caring for sick family members? (Not "I have the flu" sick chronically or terminally so.)

I'm about like being treated the same as like.

Demographics show we've got a coming storm with regards to elder care, if we're pushing forward sans massive government mandates there we should be able to here too.

(Though there will always be self entitled assholes)
Posted by: Tsrblke at September 13, 2016 04:00 PM (dzmBR)

I never got upset when people had to leave to care for their children. I got it. I had no issues taking up the slack, and often told them to go (I was managing some single moms - I got it). So, I'm not in that group, but have heard it loud and clear, mostly by men.

And, no, for the sick. For example, I sent one home to work who contracted HIV. My decision, so that he could get through the first months of meds and throwing up, while he worked at home. He grabbed his corporate pc and left for a couple months, while I stayed in contact with him and his work.

As far as the elderly. Same thing. People are people. If you put your time in, work hard, I'm okay with working around the schedules. As long as they do their job, and do not take advantage of it. I didn't work for the government however. My perspective is from within private institutions, because we see the how gov workers get away with just about anything.

We are all human, and all need help now and again.

354 Just wondering - is this the "plan" from back in late July/August or did Ace bite on the bit from Tepid Fume/The WashingtonCompost?

Hmm.

355 >>>Here's my policy proposal for Trump: unbundle cable channels.

And something he could conceivably do through FCC regs and monopoly rules, without congress. It would make millions of people very happy.

Posted by: Christopher R Taylor at September 13, 2016 04:00 PM (39g3+)

That promise, alone, would probably garner more real votes than just about anything else. And it has the benefit of being legal, reasonable and right.

356 My daughter has special needs and when she was younger, I went part time in order to take her to her therapies, etc. and I had a frank talk with my employers, offering to resign instead of going part time with no concrete promise of being able to come back to work full time in the near future. I offered to resign for the very reason Atc mentioned above - I knew I would be a burden to my co-workers who would have to pick up the slack for me sometimes. My employers declined my offer and said, 'if all we had were unmarried and or childless employees, we miss out on all the intangibles that you bring to the workforce - the compassion, patience, understanding and multi talking abilities. So take your time and come back full time when you are ready'.

357 The Tea Party was "killed" by two things:

1. TP Trojan Horses getting elected and screwing them good
2. Most people mysteriously believe that a Tea Partier tried to mass murder a legislator

358 Posted by: Don Deplorable at September 13, 2016 04:02 PM (qf6WZ)

Yep. This is Why the ebil Wells Fargo paid $195 million to the gubmint of which only $5 million went to the public.

Not even a whimper.

359 But how else am I going to get 20 Spanish language stations that I never watch? The first cable company that offers 50, 75, 100 channel packages that you can pick the channels wins.

Posted by: TheQuietMan at September 13, 2016 04:04 PM (493sH)


Yep, but unbundling is a prerequisite to that. Adios MSNBC, Oxygen, Lifetime, QVC ...

360 326
Here's my policy proposal for Trump: unbundle cable channels.



That's brilliant. Canadian Conservative Harper did that before he lost the election. Many Canadians were unhappy with the basic packages their cable companies were offering.



Our provider Cogeco though is great. Basic package and for a fee you can add 10, 20, 30, 40 or more channels. On their website, you can login, change your channel selection. If you add a channel, you have to keep it 30 days.



It's fantastic.



However Time Warner, my provider in Ohio - I hated those bastards - would find some way to make it horrible - they'll follow the model of the companies pissing off other Canadians.

361 The point being: We either win this election or we don't win another one.

We are not in 1980 anymore.

It's not morning in America, it's three minutes to midnight. And the carriage is already turning orange.

362 ""You'll take a check, I thought you wanted money!"

That's one of my all time favorite bits. "

*Fistbump*

363
Ivanka Trump

Ivanka* is joining @realDonaldTrump to outline an innovative new child care policy to support American families. Tune in to watch live at 7pm

*mother of three



Nice.

364 Who decides which day care is a "qualified" day
care in order for the parents to claim the credit? What licensure rules
will the day care have to follow? Will the church ladies in the church
basement count? Will your neighbor watching the kids count? Probably
not.

++++

My job entails visiting houses throughout the city. I've seen the neighbors watching the kids thing and it's often horrible conditions. Maybe you want that.

365 then to make the medicine go down more smoothly allowed them to bundle "

No offense, but the "bundle" was designed by Fannie's directors, who took that solution to the bank.

Literally. Mega bonuses.

366 Look. I'm all for people having kids. I'm anti-kid for me not others. You want to have 12 kids? Mazel tov! But stop expecting that you can do so without consequence and stop putting those consequences off on others.


As much as I love you Alex, we DO need to encourage people like us to do the breeding that we won't. And not just for payroll tax reasons. The future belongs to those who show up for it. How will we fare in an increasingly Muslim world abroad, and SJW ghetto world at home?

367 I don't know. But the key line in Ace's post is , paraphrasing, you gotta offer SOMETHING to people in order to get their vote.
I can live with this, but my fear is that once the Democrats get a hold of this, they'll just expand it....

368
Once you accept that govt should do these things, there are millions of ways to do them.

The problem is accepting that it is a govt responsibility.

369 The point being: We either win this election or we don't win another one.

We are not in 1980 anymore.

It's not morning in America, it's three minutes to midnight. And the carriage is already turning orange.
Posted by: RoyalOil at September 13, 2016 04:07 PM (e2Rx3)

Exactly, because if Hillz gets elected then we continue having a woman batshit crazy over Muslim causes as shadow POTUS. Bobo and ValJar have done enough damage, we can't survive FAB and Hummer.

370 I'm thinking it more projectional than fear.

Every single thing the left accuses everyone else of being, is what they want to do, or already are doing. EVERY SINGLE THING. They aren't mad at or scared of these things. They're frustrated someone else might do them.

That promise, alone, would probably garner more real votes than just about anything else. And it has the benefit of being legal, reasonable and right.

Plus, Trump has as far as I know no connection at all to entertainment businesses who are the only ones that hate it. With the bundles, they can prop up their boutique channels and speciality ones that cannot survive on their own, or have annoyed viewers so much they've lost their customer base (ESPN, for example).

The only people that want cable bundling are companies that own channels. Everyone else wants to pick and choose. And cable providers would probably end up making more money in the process. I'd be willing to pay a bit more to pick what I wanted rather than skim through 870 channels I don't care about.

371 The cable unbundling was actually one of McCain's pet issues.

Supposedly a coalition of right and left killed it.

The Right wanted to keep religious broadcasting and the Left wanted to keep Black Entertainment Television.

I'm sure Big Cable arranged for the whole thing.

But there are TruCons that think forced bundling is a good, free market thing that regulators should not be involved with.

372 How will we fare in an increasingly Muslim world abroad, and SJW ghetto world at home?

THIS


And don't forget an "increasingly Muslim world" AT HOME.

373 Yep. This is Why the ebil Wells Fargo paid $195 million to the gubmint of which only $5 million went to the public.

Not even a whimper.

Posted by: Golfman at September 13, 2016 04:06 PM (48QDY)


Yup... and the Lady in charge of the program they got fined for???

Walked out with $145 Million... no fine... no jail time...

374 >>The point being: We either win this election or we don't win another one.

My question is why the sudden change now? Are there really people who thought that a second Obama term was going to be awesome so letting him get re-elected was no big deal? Yet Romney got 100 times more scrutiny than Trump is getting. Hell, most Trump supporters don't even know what he supports.

It's a very strange, non-fact based election cycle.

375
No, the financial crises was primarily created
by the feds, the guys on the left side of the aisle to be specific. The
banks certainly weren't pure but it was the feds who forced banks to
make loans that were unsustainable and then to make the medicine go down
more smoothly allowed them to bundle them loans and sell them off in a
way that was totally non-transparent.

Posted by: JackStraw at September 13, 2016 04:05 PM (/tuJf)

Damn, sometimes I hate conservatives. The Fed was holding those banks down and stuffing those fees down their throats, and then they were able to sell the risk as a securities instrument. They didn't want to make all that money without any risk, to themselves personally. No, no, it was the Fed that forced them to do it. Money was in no way a motivation.....to a banker.....no that's just impossible. It had to be the evil Fed. Look what you made me do. You made me defend the Fed.

376 We should definitely make it harder for parents. After all, it's their own fault. This is a winning conservative message. Also, punish the employers.

377 By the way, the Fed discloses its balance sheet every month. You can go look at it any time you want. You might not believe the numbers (I personally think it impossibly complicated to defraud at that scale, so I believe them.

also, if you want to know what Treasury debt is owned by which foreign government, here you go.

http://tinyurl.com/jhndznk

378 "If I lose, we all go down and that Fascist Fuck will have us swinging from nooses!"

No, just swinging hammers. Big ones.

379 But isn't the alternative to that is that women with children will leave the workforce because they can't afford childcare. You'd have to pick up that slack too...

Deplorable at September 13, 2016 03:44 PM (Enq6K)

with tax increases, because the nonworking non taxpayer is increasing and who's going to pay for it?

offer them a chance to work, I don't know if it will pan out - the devil is in the details, and who knows what other problems may be an offshoot of this? I would say the next time the "other party" gets in office, they will abuse it

380 I disagree with Ace' characterization that giving a Child Care Tax Credit is "paying people out of the Treasury".

No, it's actually a proposal to not take AS MUCH money out of someone's paycheck and putting it into the treasury. It is money that the person can then decide how they will spend on child care.

That money belongs to the individual taxpayer, not the government.

My understanding is not only will "working women" get this deduction/credit, stay at home mothers will too. It will cap at 4 children.

The maternity leave will be paid for through unemployment insurance. It's possible that both employer and employee will help pay into this fund.

I also understand that there is not a definitive requirement that it be simply for births, I believe adoptions will also count.

There is zero downside to this proposal. It is light years better than the Dem. proposal, which is not easy to understand, but as typical, subsidizes women to put their kids in day care. Period.

381 However Time Warner, my provider in Ohio - I hated those bastards - would find some way to make it horrible - they'll follow the model of the companies pissing off other Canadians.

Posted by: Stateless Infidel at September 13, 2016 04:07 PM (+/4UG)


Time Warner has been bought out by another cable company. And it wasn't Comcast.

382 Walked out with $145 Million... no fine... no jail time...
Posted by: Don Deplorable at September 13, 2016 04:11 PM (qf6WZ)


Did not know that. Hell, let her pay the fine.

383 The problem is accepting that it is a govt responsibility

++++

Start with reality not ideology.

Reality is for most cases nobody is home anywhere in the neighborhood. Nobody you'd want a child around anyway.

384 Holy crap Jason Chaffetz grew a backbone and dropped the mic.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qct5BBRjC8Y

385 (Reuters) - The U.S. economy could be $1 trillion smaller than otherwise expected in 2021 if Republican candidate Donald Trump wins the presidential election in November, economics research firm Oxford Economics said on Tuesday.

"Should Mr. Trump prove more successful in achieving adoption of his policies, the consequences could be far-reaching - knocking 5 percent off the level of U.S. GDP relative to baseline and undermining the anticipated recovery in global growth," it said.





So we'd go from that robust 1% (massaged number) GDP to negative 4. Really? He must be really worrying them now that they're pulling numbers out of the air for the dire consequences.

386 369
The point being: We either win this election or we don't win another one.



We are not in 1980 anymore.



It's not morning in America, it's three minutes to midnight. And the carriage is already turning orange.

Posted by: RoyalOil at September 13, 2016 04:07 PM (e2Rx3)



Exactly, because if Hillz gets elected then we continue having a
woman batshit crazy over Muslim causes as shadow POTUS. Bobo and ValJar
have done enough damage, we can't survive FAB and Hummer.

Posted by: Sherry McEvil, Stiletto Corsettes now with tiny wizened
charcoal grey lump that is the McEvil heart at September 13, 2016 04:10
PM (kXoT0)

+1000. The time for playing fair is over. We tried that. And got our azzes whooped. These are not nice people we're playing this game with. Now we finally seem to have somebody who can play this crooked game along with them, tit for tat.

387 >>Damn, sometimes I hate conservatives. The Fed was holding those banks down and stuffing those fees down their throats, and then they were able to sell the risk as a securities instrument. They didn't want to make all that money without any risk, to themselves personally. No, no, it was the Fed that forced them to do it. Money was in no way a motivation.....to a banker.....no that's just impossible. It had to be the evil Fed. Look what you made me do. You made me defend the Fed.

Hate all you want. Facts are facts. And yes, the feds most certainly did force banks to make loans to people that never should have received them.

I don't care if you don't understand the issue. Not my problem.

388 "I was against TARP, but almost every penny of TARP was paid back except from the auto companies."

Consider also, in addition to outright TARP loans, the metric buttload of bad debt that the Fed obligingly soaked up.

The expansion in the Fed's balance sheet since 2008 has been wild.

389 Ivanka Trump

Ivanka* is joining @realDonaldTrump to outline an innovative new child care policy to support American families. Tune in to watch live at 7pm

*mother of three



Nice.

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at September 13, 2016 04:08 PM (kdS6q)

yup, I'm telling you, this is brilliant if he doesn't mess it up.

he's on a roll

390 Damn, sometimes I hate conservatives. The Fed was holding those banks down and stuffing those fees down their throats, and then they were able to sell the risk as a securities instrument. They didn't want to make all that money without any risk, to themselves personally. No, no, it was the Fed that forced them to do it. Money was in no way a motivation.....to a banker.....no that's just impossible. It had to be the evil Fed. Look what you made me do. You made me defend the Fed.

Posted by: DFCtomm at September 13, 2016 04:11 PM (5bT86)


Hey, you and your ilk played "Affirmative Action" with the housing markets. But financial issues aren't like Bogus Ethnic Studies Departments.

391 I was against TARP, but almost every penny of TARP was paid back except from the auto companies. "

Really? TARP and Fannie "bailouts" roughly equalled 620B, while some 400B came back.
Hell of a return when you only have to count part of it...

392 And, no, for the sick. For example, I sent one home to work who contracted HIV. My decision, so that he could get through the first months of meds and throwing up, while he worked at home.

He grabbed his corporate pc and left for a couple months, while I stayed in contact with him and his work.



THERE'S the disconnect. He took his pc home and did his work.
When people talk about picking up the slack, it's because those leaving treat it like vacation days.

"How dare you expect me to work from home! I'm going home to take care of a sick kid!"

Srsly? You might want to take them to the hospital then. They should be on death's door by now.

393 I never got upset when people had to leave to care for their children. I got it. I had no issues taking up the slack, and often told them to go (I was managing some single moms - I got it). So, I'm not in that group, but have heard it loud and clear, mostly by men.

And, no, for the sick. For example, I sent one home to work who contracted HIV. My decision, so that he could get through the first months of meds and throwing up, while he worked at home. He grabbed his corporate pc and left for a couple months, while I stayed in contact with him and his work.

As far as the elderly. Same thing. People are people. If you put your time in, work hard, I'm okay with working around the schedules. As long as they do their job, and do not take advantage of it. I didn't work for the government however. My perspective is from within private institutions, because we see the how gov workers get away with just about anything.

We are all human, and all need help now and again.


Posted by: artisanal 'ette at September 13, 2016 04:06 PM (qCMvj)


At the Old Firm, I was the only single, childless person in the entire place. Oh and I was also the only one whose family lived out of the area. It was also 80% female with several working mothers, all of whom were married btw. I was told by the office manager, to my face, that I had to stay and do the work for everyone else when they had to leave for their kids because I didn't have any responsibilities and it was unfair of me not to help out. I finally lost my ever loving shit at the Big Boss and pointed out that I had no one to help me. No one to do the shopping. No one to get the dry cleaning. No one whose car I could borrow if mine were in the shop. No one to shovel the ice and snow. No one to cook me dinner when I worked late. I had no one else in any kind of proximity to help in any way but somehow I had to help everyone else? Thankfully, that broke through to him and people backed down somewhat.

Here's the thing. When people (me) discuss this issue, we're not talking about the 85-90% of people who are doing their damn best to keep all the balls in the air while completely and totally exhausted and trying to work out how to pay for the mortgage and the braces and how are we going to get Dad to realize he can't drive any longer.

We're talking about the 10-15% of people, sadly mainly women, who really think that they can demand that the childless woman or the guy who is a single dad come in because Mommy Card. That's who people (me) think of when discussing this and it taints the discussion.

394 Yet Romney got 100 times more scrutiny than Trump is getting. Hell, most Trump supporters don't even know what he supports.

It's a very strange, non-fact based election cycle.
Posted by: JackStraw at September 13, 2016 04:11 PM (/tuJf)

I voted for Romney and sent him money twice. My gripe with him was that he refused to fight against Bobo. I voted for Cruz in the primary, and I will vote for Trump. I have sent him money once. What I like about him is the fact that he is exploding the PC narrative and refusing to let the press beat him. He may not win, but, damn it, no one can say he didn't get out there and fight for it.

Same deal with McCain--voted for him and sent him money and watched him fold.

395 By the way, the Fed discloses its balance sheet
every month. You can go look at it any time you want. You might not
believe the numbers (I personally think it impossibly complicated to
defraud at that scale, so I believe them.



also, if you want to know what Treasury debt is owned by which foreign government, here you go.



http://tinyurl.com/jhndznk

Posted by: MTF at September 13, 2016 04:11 PM (/m8T6)

So they make honest disclosures every month, but vigorously oppose an audit?

396 Posted by: Jen the original at September 13, 2016 04:12 PM (PcpNP)

When you are already paying a Net Zero Income tax...

An income Tax Credit, becomes a subsidy.

Math.

397 Ivanka Trump

Ivanka* is joining @realDonaldTrump to outline an innovative new child care policy to support American families. Tune in to watch live at 7pm
*mother of three
Nice.

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at September 13, 2016 04:08 PM (kdS6q)

do you notice how many "check boxes" he's been checking off? Used to be only Dems played that game.

blacks, check
religious, check
women, check
military, check
police, check

398 "The Right wanted to keep religious broadcasting and the Left wanted to keep Black Entertainment Television."

None of which is or was of interest to me, so I eventually just cut the cord completely and now I'm not on the hook to pay for any of it. Whew!

399 Posted by: artisanal 'ette at September 13, 2016 04:06 PM (qCMvj)

Ah well that's good because it seems like every time we do this thread the childless people say their tired of picking up the slack and the childed say "can't you call care more, we're raising the next generation."

And I say "seriously? We can find some common ground."

But then I'm also bitter, because as a primary care giving man I get screwed on both ends. I am responsible (as my kid sits eating while I type) but I get none of the latitude similarly situated women get in my field Life is wierd.

400 >>I'm telling you, this is brilliant if he doesn't mess it up.


He'll lose as many votes as he gains doing this.

401 I totally approve of this plan. Everyone knows bribing voters with tax money is the key to lasting prosperity.

402
The problem for cablers is the forced bundling is a losing proposition. Millions have already cut the cord. They aren't coming back. There are too many other entertainment options, not to mention you can watch anything you want pirated on the internet.

403 Posted by: DFCtomm at September 13, 2016 04:11 PM (5bT86)
------------------------------------------------

JackStraw is entirely right, and your confused mess of an argument doesn't change his being right. If the Feds required banks to create mortgages, as was required, the banks needed a credit backstop in order to do it without risk to shareholders. So the government issued a defacto guarantee in the form of agreeing to buy any conforming mortgage at par whenever the banks wanted to sell it.

So the Feds ordered the mortgages created and agreed to backstop the credit of the mortgagees.

The bankers, very reasonably, realized that credit guarantee made those mortgages saleable at essentially treasury rates (or a tick above), so they stripped out the various interest rate time periods and sold them.

JackStraw is correct.

404 I voted for Romney and sent him money twice. My gripe with him was that he refused to fight against Bobo. I voted for Cruz in the primary, and I will vote for Trump. I have sent him money once. What I like about him is the fact that he is exploding the PC narrative and refusing to let the press beat him. He may not win, but, damn it, no one can say he didn't get out there and fight for it.

Same deal with McCain--voted for him and sent him money and watched him fold.
Posted by: Sherry McEvil, Stiletto Corsettes now with tiny wizened charcoal grey lump that is the McEvil heart at September 13, 2016 04:15 PM (kXoT0)

same here, except sent Romney money only once and nothing for McCain, but still voted for the tool

405 Now, that said, let's not overlook the first point, which is that Trump is in this position of having to bribe women to vote for him precisely because his Strong, Tough mouth has landed him in a Weak, Yielding position.

Yeah, no. All Republican candidates face the "gender gap" which is the result of largely single women being big government Democrats. As the proportion of single women increases, so does that gap. R-Money was winning with married women! Yeah, how many are there any more?

So I don't think that Trump saying Miss Universe who gained 60 pounds ought to lay off the cookies is causing women to dislike him, and then he has to buy them off.

The point is, as voters, they are buyable.

406 Time Warner has been bought out by another cable company. And it wasn't Comcast.

Posted by: buzzion at September 13, 2016 04:13 PM (z/Ubi)

Good. I hope they are better for everyone.

407 Consider also, in addition to outright TARP loans, the metric buttload of bad debt that the Fed obligingly soaked up.

The expansion in the Fed's balance sheet since 2008 has been wild.
Posted by: torquewrench




Oh, I most certainly am not going to defend the Fed's actions, and actually think conservatives have some sort of blind spot for the Federal Reserve that makes no sense.

Except that the GOP has been taken over by the Chamber of Commerce, Big Business wing that is not all that conservative and is all for the printing press running over time.

408 Did someone say Big Swinging Hammers?

409 This ... like just about every other issue where I can think of where social, political, and economic concerns all collide into that great big stew of How Should Our Community Work ... would be better handled at the State level rather than Federal.

Of course, it would probably take some concerned New York Republican about fifteen minutes before they started worrying that those Alabama Rednecks weren't educating their children correctly. And we'd start right back down the road that got us here.

410 Mike Lee, Marco Rubio, or even Ted Cruz seem not to understand this threat. Hence why Trump won the nomination, because those irredeemable "red necks" and "basket of deplorables", who certain "conservatives" think are part of a "alt-right conspiracy" actually realize the danger.

Posted by: William Eaton at September 13, 2016 03:33 PM (KhJh

Ted Cruz is currently running advertisements against Obama's plan to give away the internet to the UN; I think he understands the danger just fine.

411 He'll lose as many votes as he gains doing this.
Posted by: garrett at September 13, 2016 04:16 PM (IWo60)

no way

412 Hey, you and your ilk played "Affirmative Action"
with the housing markets. But financial issues aren't like Bogus Ethnic
Studies Departments.



Posted by: Curmudgeon at September 13, 2016 04:14 PM (ujg0T)

I hate to break it to you old timer, but there are more than two sides now.

413 JackStraw is entirely right, and your confused mess of an argument doesn't change his being right. If the Feds required banks to create mortgages, as was required, the banks needed a credit backstop in order to do it without risk to shareholders. So the government issued a defacto guarantee in the form of agreeing to buy any conforming mortgage at par whenever the banks wanted to sell it.

So the Feds ordered the mortgages created and agreed to backstop the credit of the mortgagees.

The bankers, very reasonably, realized that credit guarantee made those mortgages saleable at essentially treasury rates (or a tick above), so they stripped out the various interest rate time periods and sold them.

JackStraw is correct.
Posted by: MTF at September 13, 2016 04:17 PM (/m8T6)


Like I said, it was the Ultimate Affirmative Action scam.

414 Looks like we have a working pot breathalyzer:
http://bit.ly/2cjSW1j

As someone who occasionally "partakes", I welcome this, and look forward to its wide adoption. Impaired drivers are a scourge, no matter the substance.

415 >>No one to cook me dinner when I worked late.


I'll cook you dinner, Empress.

Dessert, too. Because I'm well rounded like that.

416 And yes, the feds most certainly did force banks to make loans to people that never should have received them"

What a silly statement. I mean, seriously - you expect us to believe that "bankers" want to actually profit from loans or sump'n? Why it was only bc of the heroic "consumers protection" group that kept bankers honest.
Or something.

Heh.

417 also, if you want to know what Treasury debt is owned by which foreign government, here you go.



http://tinyurl.com/jhndznk

Posted by: MTF at September 13, 2016 04:11 PM (/m8T6)

So they make honest disclosures every month, but vigorously oppose an audit?


Posted by: DFCtomm at September 13, 2016 04:15 PM (5bT86)




Note, only $6281 Billion..... or less than 6.3 Trillion is held by foreign countries.

Fed Res itself holds over 1 Trillion... other US banks hold more...

418
The U.S. economy could be $1 trillion smaller than otherwise expected in 2021 if Republican candidate Donald Trump wins the presidential election in November, economics research firm Oxford Economics said on Tuesday.
Posted by: TheQuietMan



Shocked faces, everyone:

April 6, 2010

Billionaire financier George Soros has committed $5 million to help create a new economics institute at the University of Oxford, the London Times reports.

'Oxford Economics" being their commercialized arm.

419 But then I'm also bitter, because as a primary care giving man I get screwed on both ends. I am responsible (as my kid sits eating while I type) but I get none of the latitude similarly situated women get in my field Life is wierd.
Posted by: Tsrblke at September 13, 2016 04:16 PM (dzmBR)

we have one life
we need to help each other

(with the exception of Hillary!)

420 The problem for cablers is the forced bundling is a losing proposition. Millions have already cut the cord. They aren't coming back.

Yeah, by the time they actually get around to doing it, it may be too late. There's still a lot of content only available on cable, but that becomes less every year. Baseball got wise and is offering all their games directly to customers without the networks at all. More and more people are doing this. More are putting shows on alternate networks like Netflix and Amazon Prime.

421 We're talking about the 10-15% of people, sadly mainly women, who really think that they can demand that the childless woman or the guy who is a single dad come in because Mommy Card. That's who people (me) think of when discussing this and it taints the discussion.

Posted by: alexthechick - fagette at September 13, 2016 04:15 PM (mf5HN)

Agreed. I could not have children and by the time we figured it out, adoption just 10-15 years after Roe v Wade was impossible because there were no available infants and it was becoming fashionable and feasible to keep your baby. We actually tried to adopt an older child, but, that did not take. I was told time after time that I had to take up the slack because I could. Eventually, I had to push back on that because of my husband's long battle with Agent Orange Poisoning. But, just like AtC, I am here to tell you that being a childless woman in the workforce SUCKS.

422 I have a question...when was the last time a movement conservative in the model that #nevertrump insists upon been elected to president?

I would posit that there never has been one. Further, I think that the nevertrump folkes have for decades been outflanked and encircled and probably don't even know it. Ace, I think, makes a point of saying that he is not a conservative and is certainly not a republican.

Well I think he's right for saying so, I think that the time a movement conservative could win the Whitehouse is long past, if you assume that there ever was such a time.

In an effort to *NOT* make this TLR I would like to just say the the nevertrumpers are dinosaurs that are extinct but just don't know it yet.

423 That whole Medicare Part D is starting to look better and better, ain't it, Republicans?

After all it was enough to drag me over the finish line in 2000.

424 I hate to break it to you old timer, but there are more than two sides now.

Posted by: DFCtomm at September 13, 2016 04:18 PM (5bT86)


Like I don't know that already? The qwhole immigration mess is a product of an unholy alliance of convenience, between the Treason Ethnic Studies Marxist Left and the Greedhead Wall Street Journal Right.

425 #406

Was it Charter? Hope so. We have Charter at our family vacation home. They're the only cable company in the history of EVER that I actually like dealing with. Nice people, good PQ, fast internet.

426 Posted by: alexthechick - fagette at September 13, 2016 04:15 PM (mf5HN

One thing I do take for granted is how nice my wife's coworkers are. For example the Chinese atheist with no family in town volunteers to work Christmas so the rest of us can see our families.

427 Posted by: DFCtomm at September 13, 2016 04:15 PM (5bT86)
=======================

Yes.

By the way the Fed's balance sheet is audited. What you are referring to is a refusal to allow Congress to audit their open market operations and their guarantees of third arty debts. The Fed resists this political attack because it does a lot of stuff that wouldn't look good politically but is critical to bank stability, and to persuade banks to do things they don't want to do. Like buy other (failing) banks.

428 that deranged bitch

429 Who knows, I just know figures like Christine O'Donnell and Michelle Bachmann took the label and started running on weird SoCon issues.

Posted by: Maritime

Would those "weird SoCon issues" be the ones where abandoning the playing field means we now have SJWs roaming freely getting people fired, jeopardizing children in restrooms, destroying free speech...?

430 Hate all you want. Facts are facts. And yes, the feds most certainly did force banks to make loans to people that never should have received them.

Posted by: JackStraw at September 13, 2016 04:14 PM (/tuJf)

Absolutely! The CRA was the main mechanism. But when the feral government found that the local banks were making their CRA loans and then stopping when they reached their quota (because it was bad paper) the feds decided that they had to do something to force the creation of more bad paper. So they charged Fannie and Freddie with buying up all the bad paper from the banks, thereby putting them back under their CRA quotas and requiring the creation of more CRA loans. Fannie and Freddie were then able to bundle and sell the bad paper - there was no problem with the bundling, itself, but it was the "implied" federal guarantee on anything that Fannie or Freddie touched that helped sell it for more than it was worth - and turn around and buy up the new bad paper created by the lenders.

After a while, the lenders realized that they didn't have to keep much of the bad paper on their books, and that they were just brokers, now, rather than creditors, so they raced out and created as much crap loans as Fannie and Freddie would buy ... which was, basically, limitless. ANd, thus, the deformation of a small segment of the debt market grew and grew to infect everything (as these things must), with all the bad paper ending up in the reservoir of credit default swaps ... which is what eventually came crashing down.

431 The point is, as voters, they are buyable."

That's sexist, so report to the camp, comrade.

432 >>I voted for Romney and sent him money twice. My gripe with him was that he refused to fight against Bobo. I voted for Cruz in the primary, and I will vote for Trump. I have sent him money once. What I like about him is the fact that he is exploding the PC narrative and refusing to let the press beat him. He may not win, but, damn it, no one can say he didn't get out there and fight for it.

Completely different situation. Obama was an incumbent, a relatively popular one, and Romney basically ran a 2 month general election campaign because the primary when so long.

Trump has the floor to himself for months against a person who is unpopular as he is and who absolutely sucks as a campaigner.

But that's not the point. The point is for the most people either don't know or worse do not care what Trump's positions are. The fact that he isn't Hillary is enough. I'm somewhat sympathetic to that as that's pretty much the only reason I am voting for Trump but I am under no illusion as to what he will do in office. He will make deals. It's what he does.

He won't be the train wreck Hillary would have been but he won't be great either.

433 Except that the GOP has been taken over by the Chamber of Commerce, Big Business wing that is not all that conservative and is all for the printing press running over time.



Posted by: Maritime at September 13, 2016 04:18 PM (RbF5Z)


Yep, the US had the best Government Money can buy....

434 >>we have one life
we need to help each other


No.
We Don't.

We should be free to choose who receives the benefit of our sweat equity.

I'm tired of paying other people's bills.

Fuck them.

435 For many, this would be a deduction. And, I'm sorry, it is sorely needed. For those in the middle class who get hammered in the tax department right when they are trying to build their careers and their families, this would help out a LOT. I would've loved to have had a bigger child care tax deduction. Not all of the middle class workers can afford to have mom stay home and live on one income.

Secondly, poor women deserve paid maternity leave. Yes, I said deserve. You know why? Having a baby is hard on your body. Many poor women are forced back to work only a week or so after giving birth. Unhealthy for mom and child. Or, worse, they lose their jobs and end up on welfare or other forms of government assistance. And as we all know, once you have a gap in your employment, it is very hard to get a good job and move ahead.

I am totally fine with both proposals. I don't see anything wrong with either of them. Doesn't make me a leftie or a socialist.

No one should be paying income tax. The closer we can get to that standard, the better.

436 'Oxford Economics" being their commercialized arm.
Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at September 13, 2016 04:20 PM (kdS6q)

Laura I. mentioned yesterday that the "bidders in London" (and I have no idea who that is - bidding houses that bid against/for politics), but, they were starting to bid for Trump winning. She said 5:4 Trump at the moment.

I had not heard of this.

437 Posted by: garrett at September 13, 2016 04:16 PM (IWo60)

No; I don't think so. Who are they going too vote for-Gary Johnson.? Hillary is evil and she is sick and she's crazy. i understand people have legitimate reasons for voting for Johnson-although as the guy as Infowars says, "Johnson is a complete idiot", but if you7 were going to vote for Trump before I doubt this will change your mind.

438 that was hillary related btw

439 Posted by: garrett at September 13, 2016 04:22 PM (IWo60)

I think she means that ashe a virtue imperative not a government one

440 weird SoCon issues.

Protecting babies, so weird. Not wanting men to use the locker room with your daughter, how bizarre, this sicko twisted freaks!

441 If the Feds required banks to create mortgages, as
was required, the banks needed a credit backstop in order to do it
without risk to shareholders. So the government issued a defacto
guarantee in the form of agreeing to buy any conforming mortgage at par
whenever the banks wanted to sell it.



So the Feds ordered the mortgages created and agreed to backstop the credit of the mortgagees.



The bankers, very reasonably, realized that credit guarantee made
those mortgages saleable at essentially treasury rates (or a tick
above), so they stripped out the various interest rate time periods and
sold them.



JackStraw is correct.

Posted by: MTF at September 13, 2016 04:17 PM (/m8T6)

I'll stipulate that the government created affirmative action lending to counter imagined red lining. However the banks violated law and their own lending policies with the liar loans. Did the Fed force them to do that? So if I lay a gun on the table, and you pick it up and shoot yourself, then it's my fault?

442 We have Charter at our family vacation home. They're the only cable company in the history of EVER that I actually like dealing with. Nice people, good PQ, fast internet.

Those outfits vary with local offices and subcontractors. We gave Charter the heave-ho because their tech people were dishonest and/or incompetent, went to Knology which sold out to WOW and we've been happy since.

As always, individual results will vary.

443 Live feed of a police chase of a stolen semi:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VrcqRks_zZc

444 If anyone is watching the cable networks right now, especially MSNBC or CNN, they'll hear how pissed off liberals are that Trump is talking about a child care benefit.

They had a monopoly on this type of thing for decades and they're worried sick that with Trump playing the same game they'll lose.

Sucks to be them.

445 we have one life
we need to help each other

I agree, but it should be individuals helping each other, not compulsion by government. Charity is from the heart, not from the tax base.

446 do you notice how many "check boxes" he's been checking off? Used to be only Dems played that game.

blacks, check
religious, check
women, check
military, check
police, check
Posted by: artisanal 'ette at September 13, 2016 04:16 PM (qCMvj)

Hot damn, it's almost like he's in it to win it?

After my many years in business, it is obvious to that he has put together one helluva a project plan and he is working it LIKE A BOSS.

Who the hell does he think he is, a leader?

447 Like I said, it was the Ultimate Affirmative Action scam.

Posted by: Curmudgeon at September 13, 2016 04:18 PM (ujg0T)
===========================

That's exactly what it was, and the world crashed only when the Feds reneged on their guarantees. Fannie and Freddie tanked, and the Treasury itself refused to honor the guarantees it ha ordered Fannie and Freddie to extend, because the government didn't have the money and the Congress hadn't authorized the program to that level of detail.

The scam was Bill Clinton's and Andrew Cuomo's legacy to America.

448 One other point, though, is about the TrueCons: Having stated that their absolute number one priority is to make sure Trump doesn't win (so as to protect the party from being "Corrupted" by him), they must know -- mustn't they? -- that their actual influence on Trump is now diminished.

Why would Trump chase your vote? You've already said you'd never, ever vote for him, and you either say -- or imply, without admitting -- that Hillary Clinton would be preferable as president.

Since the pool you're swimming in is absolutely immune to Trump's bait, why wouldn't he go fishing in another pool?

Politicians need voters, period. If you've declared yourself absolutely Ungettable, they will naturally try to get others.



Thank you.

I've been saying this for months.

The shy but demanding virgin act of true con #NeverTrumps like Mark Levin et al have blown up in their faces-

Trump isn't courting you anymore he's gone to get his nookie elsewhere.

Oh, but now you're telling Trump you're really going to give him your voting cherry-

Tough luck, you prissy little sweet cakes. Your YUUGE chance to be significantly influential in a Trump administration have diminished if not disappeared.

Can nobody in the Conservative movement or GOP play this friggin' game?

You have to win to win.

You don't win by losing and letting everything burn to the ground.

Great job, geniuses.

449 I just love this head line ...


The Only Conspiracy Theory About Hillary Clinton's Health Is That There's Nothing Wrong With It

450 At the Old Firm, I was the only single, childless
person in the entire place. Oh and I was also the only one whose family
lived out of the area. It was also 80% female with several working
mothers, all of whom were married btw. I was told by the office
manager, to my face, that I had to stay and do the work for everyone
else when they had to leave for their kids because I didn't have any
responsibilities and it was unfair of me not to help out. I finally
lost my ever loving shit at the Big Boss and pointed out that I had no
one to help me. No one to do the shopping. No one to get the dry
cleaning. No one whose car I could borrow if mine were in the shop. No
one to shovel the ice and snow. No one to cook me dinner when I worked
late. I had no one else in any kind of proximity to help in any way
but somehow I had to help everyone else? Thankfully, that broke
through to him and people backed down somewhat.



Here's the thing. When people (me) discuss this issue, we're not
talking about the 85-90% of people who are doing their damn best to keep
all the balls in the air while completely and totally exhausted and
trying to work out how to pay for the mortgage and the braces and how
are we going to get Dad to realize he can't drive any longer.



We're talking about the 10-15% of people, sadly mainly women, who
really think that they can demand that the childless woman or the guy
who is a single dad come in because Mommy Card. That's who people (me)
think of when discussing this and it taints the discussion.





Posted by: alexthechick - fagette at September 13, 2016 04:15 PM (mf5HN)

Ok, THAT'S wrong. Out and out wrong. The employees were wrong and more importantly the company/office manager was wrong. And I understand now why this is a hot button issue for you.

451 Alex said taint.

452 Thank God Trump doesn't listen to the commenters here.

453 That whole Medicare Part D is starting to look better and better, ain't it, Republicans?

After all it was enough to drag me over the finish line in 2000.
Posted by: George W. Bush



Truthfully, it probably did considering Florida was the state in question.

Do I think Medicare Part D was "worth it" in exchange for likely 8 years of Al Gore?

Yes, I do.

454 When you are already paying a Net Zero Income tax...

An income Tax Credit, becomes a subsidy.

Math.
Posted by: Don Deplorable at September 13, 2016 04:16 PM (qf6WZ)

You're talking about Earned Income Credit which is a totally different issue.
The reality is that we have, as has been pointed out, redesigned tax brackets to the point where almost 50% of the population pays no tax. Until the congress can vote through a flat tax or differing brackets(yeah right) , we will continue to have half the population paying no taxes. And getting earned income credits. Or....they can sit home and live on welfare, EBT cards, the gamut, while their six kids to four different men are being subsidized by cities, states and the Fed. gov. And then the cycle continues for the next generation because they don't know anything different.

You can use to tax code to incentivize work or incentivize doing nothing. This is a step toward incentivizing work.

What is frustrating about the right is that they NEVER want to take a small step. They insist on giant leaps of purity to the point that nothing gets done.

The left took many small steps to get us where we are today, and brought the blind and deaf compassionate conservatives with them. It's got to stop before we all go off the cliff, although I'm sure the left will push the conservatives off first with glee.

455 384
Holy crap Jason Chaffetz grew a backbone and dropped the mic.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qct5BBRjC8Y

Posted by: Emile Antoon Khadaji at September 13, 2016 04:13 PM (rvzMR)

That's gold Jerry...Gold!

456 We're talking about the 10-15% of people, sadly mainly women, who really think that they can demand that the childless woman or the guy who is a single dad come in because Mommy Card. That's who people (me) think of when discussing this and it taints the discussion.

Posted by: alexthechick - fagette at September 13, 2016 04:15 PM (mf5HN)

got it

457 Did the Fed force them to do that?"

If by "Fed" you mean regulators, then yes.

FWIW, Fannie's leadership created the "bundles" and made bundles in bonuses. The cash flying around the campus and that part of N. DC and MD was insane...

and never made the papers. No one was interested in "why".

Go figure.

458 That's exactly what it was, and the world crashed only when the Feds reneged on their guarantees. Fannie and Freddie tanked, and the Treasury itself refused to honor the guarantees it ha ordered Fannie and Freddie to extend, because the government didn't have the money and the Congress hadn't authorized the program to that level of detail.

Posted by: MTF at September 13, 2016 04:26 PM (/m8T6)

No. There never were any federal guarantees. People just assumed that the federal government would guarantee the fannie/freddie crap but that was it. That was where the free money came in that drove the whole thing - the IMPLIED/ASSUMED guarantee.

459 >> but if you7 were going to vote for Trump before I doubt this will change your mind.


Changed mine.

460 He won't be the train wreck Hillary would have been but he won't be great either.
Posted by: JackStraw at September 13, 2016 04:22 PM (/tuJf)

All I want is for him to deny her the win in this her last shot. If it turns out that he does a good job, that's just gravy baby.

461 452 Thank God Trump doesn't listen to the commenters here.

Posted by: Chris M at September 13, 2016 04:27 PM (k3w9p)


Trump doesn't make a move without checking comments.

462 Though that's nothing compared to the fact that
given the ads and counter ads and counter counter ads here in the NC
gubernatorial contest I now actively loathe children and want NC public
school teachers to be beset by poisonous clown spiders as they are
falling into a volcano.



Posted by: alexthechick - fagette at September 13, 2016 03:27 PM (mf5HN)

You don't say: goo.gl/BL1tkD

463 Yo Ace...read your piece and it rang a bell for me. Fact is, as in so many things, this sort of thing has been proposed before. As I recall, back in the late 1990s the Repubs in Congress had proposed an income tax cut, including a refund, to taxpayers (this was in fact eventually done, by Bush and company in 2001).

Note that I said a refund to TAXPAYERS. And ONLY taxpayers. Naturally, the Commiecrats in Congress jumped up and demanded that everyone, including those who paid no taxes (that 47% Romney mentioned, and who in fact have been around not paying any taxes for a very long time now) should also get a refund, even though they had done nothing to earn one.

There was quite a row about this at the time, as I recall. When the Bush tax cut/refund did come along a year or so later, I honestly don't remember if the the feeders at the public trough got a refund as well or not.

But in any case, this is certainly nothing new, nor did it originate with the "reformacons" or what have you.

464 "No. It didn't.
And I deeply apologize for my reply at #194. "

No worries.

I was kinda asking for that even with sarcasm.

465 I hate this proposal. I hate it.

466 However the banks violated law and their own lending policies with the liar loans. Did the Fed force them to do that?

Yes, by pressuring them. Banks can only exist and run if allowed by the Federal Government. That gives the government a very powerful weapon. They can be downgraded in status which limits their services as well (loans, etc), which is what also was threatened, unless banks went along.

Then the US government guaranteed banks that no matter what happened, they'd be protected and would not face negative consequences of being forced to do stupid crap.

Then the US government changed laws so that clearly valueless or flailing loans ("toxic") could be traded as if they had value.

And banks went along.

467 As much as I love you Alex, we DO need to encourage people like us to do the breeding that we won't. And not just for payroll tax reasons. The future belongs to those who show up for it. How will we fare in an increasingly Muslim world abroad, and SJW ghetto world at home?
Posted by: Curmudgeon at September 13, 2016 04:09 PM (ujg0T)


This is a very fair counterargument to my objections. Hell, I not so jokingly yell at Boy BFF that he and his wife need to get cracking on pumping out the babies because they need to have their share and my share too.

Obviously, I would counter that we should work on reducing government so that those who wish to have a ton of kids can do so while still making decent money and those who do not can do so and tra la la la la. I would also like a manatee and a billion dollars please.

Since we do not live in that world, then what should we do to make sure that we don't turn into Japan? What's Japan's contraction year on population, 2050? Something like that. That's a straight up look since we aren't going to reduce the governmental and regulatory burden, we have to bribe people into breeding argument that while I may not like the underlying reality, well, it's a valid riposte.

Oh and to the unfair and cruel thingy? Yeah. All y'all are seeing what I type. Not what I delete. Pity poor Bander because he gets the deleted stuff shrieked at him. And then he laughs and laughs but whatever.

468 All Republican candidates face the "gender gap" which is the result of largely single women being big government Democrats. As the proportion of single women increases, so does that gap. R-Money was winning with married women! Yeah, how many are there any more?

This. Subsidizing single motherhood is a terrible mistake if you care about the health of society or the treasury. The more you subsidize, the more you will get, and the more single mothers, the greater the political pressure for subsidy.

Trying to out-welfare state the Democrats is a bad idea. If the Republicans promise six weeks paid maternity leave, the Democrats will promise eight. Or ten, or fifty two. It's not their money, and they certainly showed in the time leading up to the ACA that they don't care if the budget columns add up.

469
That's exactly what it was, and the world
crashed only when the Feds reneged on their guarantees. Fannie and
Freddie tanked, and the Treasury itself refused to honor the guarantees
it ha ordered Fannie and Freddie to extend, because the government
didn't have the money and the Congress hadn't authorized the program to
that level of detail.



The scam was Bill Clinton's and Andrew Cuomo's legacy to America.

Posted by: MTF at September 13, 2016 04:26 PM (/m8T6)

None of which would have happened if the banks hadn't violated law and their own policies regarding loan applications. That's called fraud.

470 everyone should have to deal with the IRS. so we can work on repealing the 16th and thereby get the IRS out of small business peoples lives.

471 I'll stipulate that the government created affirmative action lending to counter imagined red lining. However the banks violated law and their own lending policies with the liar loans. Did the Fed force them to do that? So if I lay a gun on the table, and you pick it up and shoot yourself, then it's my fault?

Posted by: DFCtomm at September 13, 2016 04:23 PM (5bT86)


If they didn't make enough Affirmative Action loans, the banks would get legally reamed. The Stick.

Meanwhile, the would-be reamers promised the banks that Fannie and Freddie would underwrite the bad loans. The Carrot.

472 All I want is for him to deny her the win in this her last shot.

Yeah. For me, that's a win. For her to fail, to be denied, to not win despite her evil, corruption, and lawbreaking. I want her to not be rewarded for all she's done with ultimate earthly power.

473 Jason Chaffetz will be public enemy #1 by 3....2....1....

474 >>>I don't like loud politicians who say deeply alienating things.


Now that Hillary graciously levelled the playing field, that's less of a worry. Here's hoping to more cankle-in-mouth gaffes from her.

475 >>I'll stipulate that the government created affirmative action lending to counter imagined red lining. However the banks violated law and their own lending policies with the liar loans. Did the Fed force them to do that? So if I lay a gun on the table, and you pick it up and shoot yourself, then it's my fault?

Do you have any examples of the banks violating the law? Don't forget, it was the CRA and other federal regulations that "forced" in the form of threatened government lawsuits, the banks to change their income verification, savings history, credit history, pretty much all standard lending practices in order to meet the lending levels they demanded.

One of the people in charge of monitoring (and suing) banks in the Clinton administration when this first was ramping up was none other Obama clone and Axelrod client Deval Patrick who parlayed his federal service into the governorship of MA.

You're analogy of a gun just sitting on the table is flawed. It would be more accurate to say that the gun was sitting there with a fed sitting across the table with a loaded gun ordering you to shoot yourself in the foot or he would shoot you in the head.

476 However the banks violated law and their own lending policies with the liar loans. Did the Fed force them to do that?
==========================

1. No, they didn't. Banks were required to create these loans and the programs were administered by Fannie and Freddie. Let me put it this way: for the guarantee to exist, banks HAD to comply with government mandated policies. So the loans you refer to were required to be made. It was not optional. The banks were audited every year for compliance.

2. No. HUD did, via the Community Reinvestment Act, and banks weren't allowed to buy other banks or expand into new markets unless they had a passing audit. It was a big deal. It is becoming a big deal again, as the law still exists, and the Obama administration just announced the return of required low down payment lending again.

So get mad at the Obama administration, because the next crash is already being scheduled.

477 I guess this means Lee will be voting for Trump? You know instead of Hillary.

478 >>If they didn't make enough Affirmative Action loans, the banks would get legally reamed. The Stick.


It is still going on, and likely it is worse than ever.

479 osted by: alexthechick - fagette at September 13, 2016 04:29 PM (mf5HN)

It's good to have someone to shriek to-as long as you're not Hillary throwing water glasses at people. I wrote to a friend the other day (the only one I think is not voting for Hillary) and said "My husband hears my rants all the time. This time you get to "hear" it.

480 Posted by: Jen the original at September 13, 2016 04:27 PM (PcpNP)

Sorry Jen. Read the title of the post. Tax "credit".

Those do-nothing's will just get another check while they're mooching college grants etc.

Hell, at least you have to work to get EITC.

481 Pretty goddamn generous with my fucking money.

482 It is still going on, and likely it is worse than ever.

This people don't get. This hasn't stopped, its doubled down.

483 471 Posted by: Curmudgeon at September 13, 2016 04:30 PM (ujg0T)
===================

what he said

484 It's good to have someone to shriek to-as long as you're not Hillary throwing water glasses at people. I wrote to a friend the other day (the only one I think is not voting for Hillary) and said "My husband hears my rants all the time. This time you get to "hear" it.
Posted by: FenelonSpoke at September 13, 2016 04:32 PM (EnGQE)

just don't let this stuff get you that mad
it's politics

485 And banks went along.

Posted by: Christopher R Taylor at September 13, 2016 04:29 PM (39g3+)

They embraced it, and ran with it so much so that they were willing to violate the law and their own policies. You can say the government created a honey pot, and that I'll agree with, but I won't justify the actions of the banks just because it's a private entity.

486 Since we do not live in that world, then what should we do to make sure that we don't turn into Japan?


We are doing it now, Alex. Importing lots of 3rd worlders, mostly Latino. Thank God they are mostly Catholic and not Muslim.

487 444
If anyone is watching the cable networks right now, especially MSNBC or
CNN, they'll hear how pissed off liberals are that Trump is talking
about a child care benefit.



They had a monopoly on this type of thing for decades and they're
worried sick that with Trump playing the same game they'll lose.



Sucks to be them.

Posted by: jwest at September 13, 2016 04:25 PM (Zs4uk)

Exactly. This kind of thing just sucks all the air out of the dem claims the Repubs are racists who don't care about women and families, etc. It completely changes the game and it drives the opposition batty. They don't know how to react.
Keep checking off those boxes, Donald!

488 Yo!

489 >>This people don't get. This hasn't stopped, its doubled down.


If you own commercial properties and hold any kind of mortgage(s) on said properties, you know how bad it is.

490 If anyone is watching the cable networks right now, especially MSNBC or
CNN, they'll hear how pissed off liberals are that Trump is talking
about a child care benefit.



They had a monopoly on this type of thing for decades and they're
worried sick that with Trump playing the same game they'll lose.



Sucks to be them.

Posted by: jwest at September 13, 2016 04:25 PM (Zs4uk)

oh yummy
I must go look!

491 Did that bastard Bill actually say that I "work like a demon?!!

492 You can say the government created a honey pot, and that I'll agree with, but I won't justify the actions of the banks just because it's a private entity.

I don't know if you're deliberately doing so or just in a hurry, but you keep skipping the part where the government was forcing them to go along. I hate banks as much as Mojo Nixon, but they weren't given any choice but to go along.

493
If you follow it through to all its conclusions you can see how the CRA just created expensive ghettos.

494 No. There never were any federal guarantees.
Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at September 13, 2016 04:28 PM (zc3Db)
===========================

I never said there was a Federal guarantee. What I said is that Fannie and Freddie guaranteed they would buy any conforming loan at par, whenever presented. And that is the guarantee that wasn't honored.

495 >>They embraced it, and ran with it so much so that they were willing to violate the law and their own policies.


No.
They fought it, had it forced upon them.

And they then found a work-around within the law and exploited it.

Big difference.

496 Very long piece, Ace, but I powered through it.

497 Don't care about this. In the grand scheme of things this is minor compared to what will happen if Hillary or Bernie or Biden or Kaine or Kerry or...are elected.

498
BTW, the Fed Reserve is a private bank.

499 All this "policy" talk is nice, but has anyone asked Hillary! if her totally understandable stumble/dehydration/pneumonia has affected her choice of a favorite color?

500 I was single until later in lift and I second pretty much everything the Empress ranted about above. Many times, I was told "Well, you can work this weekend because you don't have any kids." Eventually I responded that I would like to get married and have kids one day and this working every f*cking day was kind of getting in the way. Boss man finally backed off then.

It is funny how childless people get shat on every day. I did not enjoy being on the receiving end and I damn well will never be on the giving end.

501 If you really wanted to put the country in good shape, you would encourage child birth and develop a new strain of pneumonia that would take out about 3/4 of the over 80 population.

The excess in healthcare assets would drive the cost down to an insignificant level while the shift in assets from the "greatest generation" to the baby boomers would stoke the economy.

And as long as you're creating new viruses, get one that runs through our prison system too.

502 >>Very long piece, Ace, but I powered through it.



Nicely done.

503 I just powered through some squats--

on the toilet.

504 BTW, the Fed Reserve is a private bank.

------------

Sure it is.

505 There was quite a row about this at the time, as I recall. When the Bush tax cut/refund did come along a year or so later, I honestly don't remember if the the feeders at the public trough got a refund as well or not.

But in any case, this is certainly nothing new, nor did it originate with the "reformacons" or what have you.
Posted by: The Oort Cloud - Deplorable Source of all SMODs at September 13, 2016

I believe it did. I can remember family members arguing about the "earned income tax credit" which was renewed and expanded in 2001.
According to Wiki, it was created and passed in 1975. It's been fiddled with and reauthorized almost a dozen times, the last time in 2009 when it was expanded to include married couples and families with three or more children.

506 Shock: Politicians Bribe Voters




Film at eleven

507 By the way, I'm with Christopher Taylor on this: I'm no fan of huge banks at all and I would break any banks described as "systemically important" up so fast it would make your head spin.

508
What's Japan's contraction year on population, 2050? Something like that.
Posted by: alexthechick



Sometime between 2010 and 2015. They already have an absolute population loss:

http://tinyurl.com/jlbkyfu

509 JackStraw is entirely right, and your confused mess of an argument doesn't change his being right


Seconded.....and I KNOW because i was one of the bankers doing these loans.....people who should NEVER qualified were getting thumbs up all day, every day

510 Posted by: artisanal 'ette at September 13, 2016 04:34 PM (qCMvj)

It doesn't get me mad for very long and since my friend is a priest I can't really say, "What f'ing c-p is this? ;^) Although he worked in the military. for 25 years I expect he's hears some bad words in his life. It's just helpful for me-since all my closest friends vote Democratic to have a real person to occasionally talk about politics with who doesn't think I'm deplorable.

511 It is funny how childless people get shat on every day. I did not enjoy being on the receiving end and I damn well will never be on the giving end.

------------

Did you ever ask to be compensated for this extra work? Or ever tell the person you wouldn't do it because you had other things to do?

512 488 Yo!

Posted by: Yo! at September 13, 2016 04:34 PM (uPt3V)

++++

Thank you for that reminder of what half a yo-yo looks like.

513 Before we start bribing the middle class, I'd like to see these things first as it would make life in the middle class easier and boost job creation:

1) Nuclear power plant multistate building project.

Get a modern design, give immunity to lawsuits and put 1-5 power plants in each state.

States can refuse the nukes. But, then smart states can sell their extra power to the dumb ones.

Cheap power means lots of jobs and lower monthly expenses

2) Eliminate or pare to the bare minimum corporate taxes and taxes for small businesses-

that gets costs way down. We don't need cheap foreign labor and cheap foreign payrolls to compete with cheap foreign labor. We just need the money to go to the right people, i.e.. not gov't.

3) Almost all states have redundant departments analogous to US Dept of Education, Environment, Labor, Energy. Axe all of these and let states live by their own laws.

4) Repeal Obamacare. Replace with competitive market solution.

5) Build the wall. Kick out all illegals. Use the wall building as a work project to ease the FSA out of welfare.

6) Restrict welfare benefits in time and have strong verification system to eliminate fraud.

Just a start but do these things and stand back as jobs boom.

514 Actually, my friends don't think I'm deplorable either-probably just insane. ;^)

515 Secondly, poor women deserve paid maternity leave. Yes, I said deserve.

No. Nobody "deserves" a cut of my income. Pregnancy isn't something that falls out of the sky, and if you can't afford to take two weeks off of work to recover from a pregnancy you damn sure can't afford to raise a child.

516 We're talking about the 10-15% of people, sadly mainly women, who
really think that they can demand that the childless woman or the guy
who is a single dad come in because Mommy Card.
=========================
The problem with these (10% or so) people is not that they have children. It is that they are a --holes.

I have it on good authority that you can find a lot of them in the legal profession. Females and males. Strange but true.

517 Who wants to bet that Hillary is going to feel (and look--as far as the Hollywood make-up types can make her) great for the first debate, after *beating* her health issues and will be declared the winner--no matter what happens.
She's back! Tanned, rested and ready!!!

518 (this was in fact eventually done, by Bush and company in 2001).

Ah yes, the "muffler for a Lexus" controversy. Ace must've forgotten about that...

519 If you look at the lottery stats, the majority of lottery winners lose their money back into the general economy anyway.

I would rather give them money than loan it.

520 Sure it is. <<<

not sure if that is snark or not, are you saying it is not privately owned and is a govt entity?

521 Did you ever ask to be compensated for this extra
work? Or ever tell the person you wouldn't do it because you had other
things to do?

Posted by: SH at September 13, 2016 04:39 PM (gmeXX)
I was salaried, so monetary compensation was not in the cards. I did get him to reward me with comp time. When I took a 2 week vacation using only comp time, leaving my vacation time untouched, he started to rethink having me work so much overtime.

522 and develop a new strain of pneumonia that would take out about 3/4 of the over 80 population.

You cannot be serious. Have fun with that, Dr. Mengele.

523 I never said there was a Federal guarantee. What I said is that Fannie and Freddie guaranteed they would buy any conforming loan at par, whenever presented. And that is the guarantee that wasn't honored.

Posted by: MTF at September 13, 2016 04:36 PM (/m8T6)

Okay. I was talking about the implied federal guarantee on any paper that passed through Fannie/Freddie's hands, on the other side, to the buyers on Wall Street, which was a large part of what got the whole scam really going and kept it building.

524 Sure it is.

not sure if that is snark or not, are you saying it is not privately owned and is a govt entity?

----------

I am saying in no sense is the federal reserve a private bank.

525 They embraced it,"

Really? Source?

526 I don't know what the bank/federal reserve argument is about, but bad public policy gave banks some bad incentives.


And honestly, had banks been forced to hold onto bank loans they wrote and only lend what they had in deposits, much of this would have never happened. that used to be true


I'm not one of these TruCons that thinks all deregulation is a good thing, particularly when it comes to Wall Street.

But I do agree we need to get government out of the housing business, but good luck selling voters on getting rid of thing like VA Loans.

527 "Childcare Industry"


Two words that should never ever be linked, ever.

528 I was single until later in lift and I second pretty much everything the Empress ranted about above. Many times, I was told "Well, you can work this weekend because you don't have any kids." Eventually I responded that I would like to get married and have kids one day and this working every f*cking day was kind of getting in the way. Boss man finally backed off then.



Be married but childless and get volunteered to work Christmas morning because you don't have kids.

529 It is funny how childless people get shat on every day. I did not enjoy being on the receiving end and I damn well will never be on the giving end.

***********

This is actually a load of shit.

Future tax payers, future Social Security supporters and future young men and women for defense--you benefit from breeders whether or not.

530 Do you have any examples of the banks violating the
law? Don't forget, it was the CRA and other federal regulations that
"forced" in the form of threatened government lawsuits, the banks to
change their income verification, savings history, credit history,
pretty much all standard lending practices in order to meet the lending
levels they demanded.



Posted by: JackStraw at September 13, 2016 04:31 PM (/tuJf)


So you can produce a document where an official representative of the government or one of it's quasi entities directed banks to change their income verification, savings history, credit history, pretty much all standard lending practices? If you do that then I'll be more than happy to say the banks are free from all blame.

There is actually a story from my life that applies to this. My father was once in a private business where he collected safety data used to govern a private industry. This data was submitted to a federal agency. It was common to fake that safety test, but my father refused, and his business failed because of that failure. Later when the government finally got around to looking at that fraud and issued arrest warrants, my father had nothing to worry about but most of his former competitors were convicted. Sometimes a situation has no happy ending.

531 The fantastic thing about Trump. He is job based down to his soul. He makes no bones about it.
When half of the people in the nation do not have jobs and have been out of work for a rather long period of time this is a carrot for those struggling families to help them get back into the workforce. The hand up for "working people".

Nobody is going to get everything that they want from Trump but everyone is gong to get something. This is really not a bad plan in trying to jump start people to get back to work. Our slow death alternative is no alternative IMHO.

532 "I'm no fan of huge banks at all and I would break any banks described as 'systemically important' up so fast it would make your head spin."

Yes. The engineering corollary of things being deemed "too big to fail" has to be, well, okay then, we'll cut things down to a size where failure is no longer a catastrophic outcome.

533 I wish they would do much more maternity/paternity leave and less tax credits. I think we under estimate the effect of sending our kids to daycare right off the bat on our culture. I'm not saying everyone that does this is a bad parent, but I really think that bonding time is important. This seems like a family friendly, culture friendly reform. Notice how Hillary is focusing much more on subsidized daycare rather than maternity leave?

Tax credits on the other hand are supposed to be encouraging Americans to have children or something? But I'm not convinced that it actually affects culture in a positive way...

534 You've got amnesty for some 30 - 50 million illegals within the first 100 days and an 800% increase (an underestimated lie -as usual) in muslim importations if Ill-liar-y is elected.

It's over if she wins. O-V-E-R. F-O-R-E-V-E-R. One party, lawless rule.

No laws have stopped Obama and they haven't stopped Hillary and Bill either.

And Fuck You to everyone who ever voted for Obama, Bill or Hillary.

Fuck You.

535 I am saying in no sense is the federal reserve a private bank. <<<<

Who owns it?

536 527 "Childcare Industry"


Two words that should never ever be linked, ever.

Posted by: grammie winger's deplorable basket at September 13, 2016 04:42 PM (dFi94)

Reminds me too much of "baby farms" from the bad old days of yesteryear.

537 I was single until later in lift and I second pretty much everything the Empress ranted about above. Many times, I was told "Well, you can work this weekend because you don't have any kids." Eventually I responded that I would like to get married and have kids one day and this working every f*cking day was kind of getting in the way. Boss man finally backed off then.

It is funny how childless people get shat on every day. I did not enjoy being on the receiving end and I damn well will never be on the giving end.
Posted by: physics geek

I've seen this work both ways. married people are often eager to pick up that O/T, while younger single types bomb out the door.

But yes, it isn't fair to bone people because they have no kids.

538 Be married but childless and get volunteered to work Christmas morning because you don't have kids.

*******

Or just be Jewish.

539 1) Nuclear power plant multistate building project.

Get a modern design, give immunity to lawsuits and put 1-5 power plants in each state.

States can refuse the nukes. But, then smart states can sell their extra power to the dumb ones.

Cheap power means lots of jobs and lower monthly expenses

Posted by: naturalfake at September 13, 2016 04:40 PM (0cMkb)


I'm a big booster of the 500 identical nuke plant idea, spread across the country, supplying power for free to local grids.

If Trump floated this idea, which would only cost 1 trillion (same as Obama's stimulus), he would win a 50 state sweep.

540 Did you ever ask to be compensated for this extra work?


Or ever tell the person you wouldn't do it because you had other things to do?




Like what? Look for a new job? Because for some of us, that's what we would have had to do.

541
I was salaried, so monetary compensation was not in the cards. I did get him to reward me with...
Posted by: physics geek



Backrubs and one of those choclate-dipped Edible Arrangements.

542 I am saying in no sense is the federal reserve a private bank.

Who owns it?

----------

Don't know. Doesn't really matter.

543 "Childcare Industry"





Two words that should never ever be linked, ever.



-------

Indeed!

544 with a fed sitting across the table with a loaded
gun ordering you to shoot yourself in the foot or he would shoot you in
the head.

Posted by: JackStraw

Absolutely correct.

545 Guess what--life isn't fair?

If you want fair--who decides that for--everyone?

Kim Jong Il?

546 >>Future tax payers, future Social Security supporters and future young men and women for defense--you benefit from breeders whether or not.


Bullshit.

A lifetime of over-taxation.

That is are our reward.

547
ok then, but you know its not private.

548 ok then, but you know its not private.

-----------

Yes. Didn't you say it was private?

549 But I do agree we need to get government out of the housing business, but good luck selling voters on getting rid of thing like VA Loans.
Posted by: Maritime

These actually require appraisals and credit. The CRA? Not so much.

550 You have to win to win.
Posted by: naturalfake at September 13, 2016 04:26 PM (0cMkb)

Sounds familiar....what's the difference between the Trump wing and the Establishment wing, again?

551 most pessimistic estimate is that immigration depresses wages of the native-born by... 2%. Not a huge drop.
Posted by: chemjeff at September 13, 2016 03:18 PM (gXKl3)

Conveniently ignoring the fact that every native born person replaced by an illegal alien criminal has their wages reduced by 100 percent.

552 Future tax payers, future Social Security supporters and future young men and women for defense--you benefit from breeders whether or not.

Bullshit. I'll never benefit as much as I pay. If that's your argument you can stop having kids and we'll throw open the border.

553 "Fair" is how you get commies deciding everything for you.

554 BTW, the Fed Reserve is a private bank.
_____________

And it's crooked. And never gets audited.

That's even more important.

555
Yes it is private, but you said it was not but don't know the ownership. How do you know?

556 And Fuck You to everyone who ever voted for Obama, Bill or Hillary.

Fuck You.

Posted by: #NeverHillary2 at September 13, 2016 04:44 PM (C+Q5F)
................

My sentiments exactly. Sure makes Thanksgiving dinners a hoot.

557 It is funny how childless people get shat on every day. I did not enjoy being on the receiving end and I damn well will never be on the giving end.

***********

This is actually a load of shit.

Future tax payers, future Social Security supporters and future young men and women for defense



Which ones? The 52% that don't pay taxes, the 93 million not in the workforce or those we can't draft and won't join on their own?

558 Trump is not a politician which may be a good thing if he is elected. Why does it have to be some politician (Senator, Governor, etc..) that has to be elected? Past history yields that most political animal types are worthless anyway.....

559 Sounds familiar....what's the difference between the Trump wing and the Establishment wing, again?
Posted by: lowtech redneck


he hasn't called us racists and hobbits and demanded our vote?

560 Then the US government changed laws so that clearly valueless or flailing loans ("toxic") could be traded as if they had value.

And banks went along.
Posted by: Christopher R Taylor at September 13, 2016 04:29 PM (39g3+)

Not exactly. The problem was that the bad loans had been pooled with about 95% good loans and then re-sold as investment blocks with AAA status. This was possible because the banks at that point were essentially regulating themselves, and they were using a new valuation model (developed, interestingly enough, by a Chinese economist) that said this would be OK.

Then when the crisis hit not only did the bad loans themselves become non-performing, the larger pools of which they were a part became suspect and temporarily had no real market value, because the valuation model had clearly failed and nobody knew what to do with them. That had liquidity/reserve implications for the banks, which is why the economy was in danger of "vapor lock". Normal day-to-day loans could no longer be extended (the kind most businesses use on a regular basis to smooth out cash flow), because the banks were no longer in compliance. That is where TARP stepped in, bought the loan packages (at a discount), and then eventually re-sold them when things calmed down and they could be properly valued by the market again. Most of the losses were absorbed by the banks in the initial purchase discount, but that was preferable to them (and to the economy) to having to stop making loans entirely, which would have caused businesses to stop making payroll, tax and loan payments, etc., and quickly shut down the entire economic life of the country.

561 And for the record, anyone under the age of 36 as of 1996 will likely never see a dime from SS.

562 But I do agree we need to get government out of the housing business, but good luck selling voters on getting rid of thing like VA Loans.
Posted by: Maritime

These actually require appraisals and credit. The CRA? Not so much.
Posted by: Blue Hen



Still, it's a form of a subsidized loan.

That is the problem though is everyone wants smaller government, except for them.

Vets should obviously be honored, but the idea the government helps them buy a house is stupid.

563 Yes it is private, but you said it was not but don't know the ownership. How do you know?

----------

I said in no way is the federal reserve a private bank. I stand by that. It was created by Congress, the President appoints the board, it backs are currency. That is not a private bank.

564 Bullshit. I'll never benefit as much as I pay. If that's your argument you can stop having kids and we'll throw open the border.

Posted by: Ace's deplorable liver, powering through

*********

Guess what---I *care*.

Melanka is on the pill.

565 522 and develop a new strain of pneumonia that would take out about 3/4 of the over 80 population.

You cannot be serious. Have fun with that, Dr. Mengele.
Posted by: no good deed at September 13, 2016 04:42 PM (9nt94)


We've tampered with the Primal Force of Nature and we shall atone...

566 The other thing people are missing is that the Banks and Government were complicit in all the rule making.

Bank Lobbyists helped write those bills... they were not forced upon them.

If you look at the incestuous relationship between the Big Investment and Banking Firms, and the Treasury Dept.... you suddenly see a lot of cross over (cough... cough.. tim cough... Giethner...)...

Same with the Insurance and Health Care Industries.... they help WRITE legislation...

Just like Google had hand in writing the latest Net Neutrality Bill...

567

@531

Exactly.

568 And for the record, anyone under the age of 36 as of 1996 will likely never see a dime from SS.

------------

Its just a welfare program after all.

569 It is funny how childless people get shat on every day.
-----


Oh please.

You were a child at one point in the US, no?


You received benefit.

570 Now back to what really matters: Hillary's Health. From the Jake Tapper interview we find out that not only did they not take Hillary to an ER after she collapsed, that no Doctor saw her at the apartment where they did take her! It wasn't until hours later in Chappaqua that a doctor saw her.

Does this sound like the way you would treat a 69 year old woman with a diagnosed case of pneumonia? Of course you probably wouldn't toss her in your van like a bag of Kibbles and Bits either so no telling what Democrats would do.

I call "standard Clinton lie" on the pneumonia story.

571 Vets should obviously be honored, but the idea the government helps them buy a house is stupid. <<<<<

I actually don't have a problem with any employer having that as part of their compensation if it is upfront. But willy nilly to all Americans despite their credit is stupid.

572 Still better than Hillary.

573 Sorry Jen. Read the title of the post. Tax "credit".

Those do-nothing's will just get another check while they're mooching college grants etc.

Hell, at least you have to work to get EITC.
Posted by: Golfman at September 13, 2016 04:33 PM (48QDY)

A tax credit per IRS definition, is a reduction in the tax you owe. A tax deduction is a reduction in the amount of income on which your tax is calculated.

So for every working person in the USA who has kids, they will receive a tax credit against what they owe. Those who DO NOT FILE INCOME TAX will not get a credit. So if you are living off of the government, and do not file a tax form or your income is from the government that you pay no tax and have no other income, you will not get a tax credit.

Earned income requires that you earn income. Not have it gifted to you or be on public assistance. The Earned Income tax program was intended to encourage those on welfare to go back to work because they suffered less penalty in taxes that they now would have to pay. Earned income phases out at a certain level of income.

If you are sitting at home, on public assistance, you will not get a child tax care credit. Because you have zero income subject to taxes.

574 Just like Bill Ayers, jwest is perfectly comfortable culling a few tens of millions to bring about his utopia.

575 I said in no way is the federal reserve a private bank. I stand by that. It was created by Congress, the President appoints the board, it backs are currency. That is not a private bank.

Posted by: SH at September 13, 2016 04:49 PM (gmeXX)


Sorry, the President only appoints the Chair of the Board... from the Board itself.

The members are selected by the Stock Holders, who are BANKS, who are run by... their Boards.

The Fed Res Bank even pays dividends to its stockholders.... who are the 'member' banks...

576 And for the record, anyone under the age of 36 as of 1996 will likely never see a dime from SS.
===================

Don't worry. Mr. Soros has a plan to take care of that imbalance.

577 >>You were a child at one point in the US, no?
You received benefit.


Again, bullshit.

578 And for the record, anyone under the age of 36 as of 1996 will likely never see a dime from SS.
Posted by: garrett




I think the reason nothing has ever been done about SS is that the people have cried wolf about it for so long, we are numb to it.

It will hit a wall no doubt, but the idea that someone who is 56 today is not going to get ANYTHING for SS is just not the reality I see.

less that they were promised, sure

579 Still, it's a form of a subsidized loan.

That is the problem though is everyone wants smaller government, except for them.

Vets should obviously be honored, but the idea the government helps them buy a house is stupid.



Then change the employment contract upfront. No VA anything.
No schooling loans. No housing loans. No land loans. $20k a year to get shot at.

And then wonder why no one joins.

580 And for the record, anyone under the age of 36 as of 1996 will likely never see a dime from SS.>>>

I was so close dammit.

581

Which ones? The 52% that don't pay taxes, the 93 million not in the workforce or those we can't draft and won't join on their own?

Posted by: Deplorable rickb223

******

Look Obama's stimulus packager probably cost you more than the breeders...

I'm actually into that because I want to build airports that are better than CHINA'S!!

582 2nd look at an Emergency PetThread?

583 I said in no way is the federal reserve a private bank. I stand by that. It was created by Congress, the President appoints the board, it backs are currency. That is not a private bank.

Posted by: SH at September 13, 2016 04:49 PM (gmeXX)


Sorry, the President only appoints the Chair of the Board... from the Board itself.

The members are selected by the Stock Holders, who are BANKS, who are run by... their Boards.

The Fed Res Bank even pays dividends to its stockholders.... who are the 'member' banks...

----------

Fair enough, I would still not classify it as a private bank.

584 Sometime between 2010 and 2015. They already have an absolute population loss:

http://tinyurl.com/jlbkyfu
Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at September 13, 2016 04:38 PM (kdS6q)

That's right, Japan's past the point of no return and given the Japanese love of immigration, well, I guess at some point Tokyo real estate will become affordable.

Maybe I'm thinking Germany. Isn't Italy also in absolute decline?

585 This is NOT conservative... this is just inviting different hogs to the public trough paid for by OPM.

586 Here is how I see it:

I am willing to trade those things, if it restores American sovereignty. Internationalism is prime problem number one, for it has created a class of internationally wealthy and power people who wish to rule us as a servile class. The constitution, elections, rule of law are all being destroyed by these people.

The problem is Mike Lee, Marco Rubio, etc. don't seem to get that. They still live in a fantasy world that is either Randian or Wilsonian depending on the Republican involved.

Let me ask you a simple question: Who is a greater threat to American liberty and sovereignty: Putin or Soros? If you said Soros you get the danger, and if you said Putin you are not facing reality.

Putin is a danger of course, but in a way that we can stop if we can get our act together at home. Soros is a bigger threat because he and his fellow internationalists are corrupting and destroying the country from within. It is a battle we are losing now...and will lose unless we change course and fast.

Mike Lee, Marco Rubio, or even Ted Cruz seem not to understand this threat. Hence why Trump won the nomination, because those irredeemable "red necks" and "basket of deplorables", who certain "conservatives" think are part of a "alt-right conspiracy" actually realize the danger.



My feelings exactly. If they can implement globalism fully there is no future for anything conservative. No future for a Bill of Rights. Just a useless vote for a hand picked set of candidates all on the same page and all your betters. These are the stakes. In fact, it is a miracle, flawed as he is, that Trump came along when he did. Look to Europe for future america under with the Dems or GOPe. That is the goal. All of that "failure theater" was not a bug, it was was a necessary feature.

587 >>It will hit a wall no doubt, but the idea that someone who is 56 today is not going to get ANYTHING for SS is just not the reality I see.


The Clinton Administration made us that promise in 1996.

I think it was the one time they actually told the truth.

588 So you can produce a document where an official representative of the government or one of it's quasi entities directed banks to change their income verification, savings history, credit history, pretty much all standard lending practices?"

Bing up Washington Mutual, your 2003 CRA "Community Impact" award winner for pledging mortgages to those "outside standards".
Four years later it was taken over by the Office of Thrift Supervision.

In 08, BoA had less than 10 percent CRA loans in it's portfolio, but that accounted for almost 1/3 of its entire losses...

Need more?

589 I actually don't have a problem with any employer having that as part of their compensation if it is upfront. But willy nilly to all Americans despite their credit is stupid.
Posted by: Guy Mohawk




But would you say the same to state workers that were promised a six figure a year lifetime pension at age 45?

590 Here's my thought, paultry as it is. Reduce taxes on any working adult. Drastically. So that the mother can afford to raise their OWN DARN KIDS, instead of paying someone else to educate them the first four years of their lives, then off to the government-hive of Pre-K beyond. LIVE OFF ONE INCOME. It can be done, you know. Drop your smart phone, your cable, your gym membership and your second car. Live in a smaller house. Don't eat out. Stay at home on vacations.


Don't tell me you can't do it because I did it and my husband was making $166 a week at the time.


I realize there are single moms, and this does not apply. Of course there should be supportive care for those kids.


But can you imagine the impact on children and teens if they always had adult supervision and guidance from their own dang parents?


And yes I said Moms. Take a swing.

591 It will hit a wall no doubt, but the idea that someone who is 56 today is not going to get ANYTHING for SS is just not the reality I see.

less that they were promised, sure




Problem is, if it's not enough to live on, you could be fucked.
If you have to work to make ends meet, you could lose your SS.

592 577
>>You were a child at one point in the US, no?

You received benefit.


========
Again, bullshit.
Posted by: garrett
=====


You received some benefit. Your parent(s) got a break which was used to increase your standard of living.

Do I like taxes ? Hell no.

But them's the facts.

593 Also, for the record, I'm not the one tossing breeder about.

I know ace rolls his eyes that it's supposed to be an insult but, trust me, it's the nastiest term I can use. Which is why I make a point of not using it here.

594

I have two boys and a one-eyed snake dependent on me, IYKWIM... I'd take a tax credit...

595 I said in no way is the federal reserve a private
bank. I stand by that. It was created by Congress, the President
appoints the board, it backs are currency. That is not a private bank.



Posted by: SH at September 13, 2016 04:49 PM (gmeXX)





Sorry, the President only appoints the Chair of the Board... from the Board itself.



The members are selected by the Stock Holders, who are BANKS, who are run by... their Boards.



The Fed Res Bank even pays dividends to its stockholders.... who are the 'member' banks...



----------



Fair enough, I would still not classify it as a private bank.

Posted by: SH at September 13, 2016 04:54 PM (gmeXX)

The Fed is as private as Fannie and Freddie.

596 he hasn't called us racists and hobbits and demanded our vote?
Posted by: Blue Hen at September 13, 2016 04:49 PM (326rv)

No, the Trump wing just calls us autistic Constitution worshipers and/or Jesus freaks who masturbate to Hayek and demand our vote. Both the Trump and Establishment wings champion perceived electability (unless its one of THEIR unpopular priorities that is 'sacrificed' for other goals) over campaigning and governing as conservatives who won't screw over the constituencies they expect to vote for them. And both use the Supreme Court as a hostage.

Like I said, no difference.

597 >>So you can produce a document where an official representative of the government or one of it's quasi entities directed banks to change their income verification, savings history, credit history, pretty much all standard lending practices? If you do that then I'll be more than happy to say the banks are free from all blame.

Sure.

It's kind of dry but here you go. There are many, many, many documents like this on the interwebs because it happens to be true. A better source might be people who have participated in this government mandated farce and have been responding to you on this thread like MTF and FITP.

The entire point of the CRA and similar legislation over the last couple decades was to force banks to change their lending policies to accommodate people who would not qualify under normal bank lending procedures. The banks could have modified their policies and taken on these risky loans at any time yet they didn't do it until the government threatened them with legal action if they didn't. So why didn't the banks make these modifications to their loan procedures decades ago?

It really isn't that tough a question.

http://tinyurl.com/jjhcel5

598 Fair enough, I would still not classify it as a private bank.
Posted by: SH at September 13, 2016 04:54 PM (gmeXX)

It's a weird amalgam of private and public, just like the GSEs. Like the GSEs, when things are going well private interests are getting rich, and when things stop going well the taxpayer is left holding the bag.

599 Problem is, if it's not enough to live on, you could be fucked.
If you have to work to make ends meet, you could lose your SS.
Posted by: Deplorable rickb223


That hasn't been true for a long time, you can work and still get your SS benefits.

600 less that they were promised, sure
==============

No. No. No.

You see we put it into a "LOCK BOX"!!

Its all there - ready for you.

601 >>You received some benefit. Your parent(s) got a break which was used to increase your standard of living.


Those same parents were paying property taxes in their respective states that nullified ANY benefit received from Federal Taxation.

602 Sometime between 2010 and 2015. They already have an absolute population loss:

http://tinyurl.com/jlbkyfu


Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at September 13, 2016 04:38 PM (kdS6q)

Whaddaya expect...They're schtooping robots.

603 I'm a little fizzy on why so many people seem to want a candidate who campaigns between shifts at the Jiffy Lube and gets his cable turned off while he's away at the convention.

604 OT, but I've been wondering why there haven't been any pod casts in a while ?

605
It was created by Congress to benefit a bank amalgamation and be free of govt interference, with board appointments that are not audited, and creates currency but does not in any way whatsoever back currency. What backs the currency is the assets of the USA via taxation through govt bonds that the Fed creates and the govt uses to finance its never ending supply of ridiculous spending that it pays interest on through your tax dollars.

This creates inflation and people wonder why it continues to happen. Inflation through financing is what the govt uses instead of asking for tax increases which they won't do upon losing their cushy elitist jobs.

606 There's fewer and fewer conservatives the more the government makes laws ensuring people get free shit.

607 2nd look at an Emergency PetThread?

Godo idea , or perhaps it's just time for me to log off till the next thread.

608 MediCare is actually much harder to fix and worse off than SS.

You raise the age of retirement 2-3 years on SS and maybe something like chain CPI, you've probably secured it for most everyone posting on this board.

medicare though is the big mess.

609 601
>>You received some benefit. Your parent(s) got a break which was used to increase your standard of living.





Those same parents were paying property taxes in their respective
states that nullified ANY benefit received from Federal Taxation.

Posted by: garrett
-----


Property taxes which to some degree, paid for roads, courts, schools, fire/police, graft, corruption and pork.

But as I said. "Some benefit"

610 Oh, and arguing about the Fed? Really?

Let's go to the tape:

"The Federal Reserve, like many other central banks, is an independent government agency, but also one that is ultimately accountable to the public and Congress..."

611 The Federal Reserve banks are organized in some respects as private corporations, which gives them a sort of intermediate status -- somewhere between private corporation and federal agency.

In Lewis v. US, the 9th Circuit said: "The Reserve Banks are not federal instrumentalities for purposes of the FTCA [Federal Tort Claims Act], but are independent, privately owned and locally-controlled corporations."

Also, Scott v. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City makes a distinction between Federal Reserve banks, which the 8th Circuit says are federally-created instrumentalities, and the Board of Governors, which is a federal agency.

So basically, it's one of those questions where the answer depends on who you're asking.

612 DEPLOYABLE/DEPLORABLE T-SHIRT
based on Don Quixote's idea this morning

http://preview.tinyurl.com/hzazfef

I swear I also made one without the box but zazzle is hiding it from me

please send it to whoever might like it

613 Now back to what really matters: Hillary's Health. From the Jake Tapper
interview we find out that not only did they not take Hillary to an ER
after she collapsed, that no Doctor saw her at the apartment where they
did take her! It wasn't until hours later in Chappaqua that a doctor saw
her.

Does this sound like the way you would treat a 69 year old
woman with a diagnosed case of pneumonia? Of course you probably
wouldn't toss her in your van like a bag of Kibbles and Bits either so
no telling what Democrats would do.

I call "standard Clinton lie" on the pneumonia story.
========
That's still the most bizarre part about all this: Not one damned one of the people there acted like this was unusual--every damned one of them acted like they've seen this before.
And that the most important thing is to get her out of public view.

614
No, the Trump wing just calls us autistic
Constitution worshipers and/or Jesus freaks who masturbate to Hayek and
demand our vote. Both the Trump and Establishment wings champion
perceived electability (unless its one of THEIR unpopular priorities
that is 'sacrificed' for other goals) over campaigning and governing as
conservatives who won't screw over the constituencies they expect to
vote for them. And both use the Supreme Court as a hostage.



Like I said, no difference.

Posted by: lowtech redneck at September 13, 2016 04:56 PM (egK2C)

Amen.

615 604 OT, but I've been wondering why there haven't been any pod casts in a while ?
Posted by: Noah Bawdy at September 13, 2016 04:58 PM (1aDmL)

Sadly no one is left. I think the past six months have been too contentious.

616 Godo idea , or perhaps it's just time for me to log off till the next thread.
Posted by: FenelonSpoke
--------------
I just got back in the house, and was surprised to see this one still up.
Even more surprised that it hasn't been taken over by puns.

617 Also, for the record, I'm not the one tossing breeder about.

I know ace rolls his eyes that it's supposed to be an insult but, trust me, it's the nastiest term I can use. Which is why I make a point of not using it here.

Posted by: alexthechick - fagette at September 13, 2016 04:56 PM (mf5HN)


Is "breeder" really a big insult?

I mean it may be intended as one, but....meh.

Yup, I'm a breeder. I breed. I'm showing up for the future.

I guess that makes me a stud.



But, insult? Hardly.









I'm sure in some way, shape, or form that I should denounce myself, so...

I denounce myself.

618 If you are sitting at home, on public assistance, you will not get a child tax care credit. Because you have zero income subject to taxes.

Posted by: Jen the original at September 13, 2016 04:52 PM (PcpNP)


Sorry.... but even if you have no net income, you CAN put in a Tax form... and gain credits, if it is a credit.

If it is a deduction, then it would only count against Taxes you would owe...

With a Credit, you can get more back from the Government than you paid in....

619 So basically, it's one of those questions where the answer depends on who you're asking.
++++++++++++++++++

So stop asking questions peon.

620 I guess that makes me a stud"

Neigh!

621 Sometimes, I really dislike typing on a phone.

622 615 604 OT, but I've been wondering why there haven't been any pod casts in a while ?
Posted by: Noah Bawdy at September 13, 2016 04:58 PM (1aDmL)

Sadly no one is left. I think the past six months have been too contentious.
Posted by: Golfman at September 13, 2016 05:02 PM (48QDY)


I'll come on the podcast with Ace.

I'm not saying I'll do it for free, but I'm available.

623 It's kind of dry but here you go. There are many,
many, many documents like this on the interwebs because it happens to be
true. A better source might be people who have participated in this
government mandated farce and have been responding to you on this thread
like MTF and FITP.





Posted by: JackStraw at September 13, 2016 04:57 PM (/tuJf)

You missed the point I was making with my anecdotal story about my father's failed business. Sometimes the only honest thing to do is to fail, and exit the market. I do not dispute the fact that the government created an environment where business could not be done honestly. That simply means that business cannot be done. You don't play the game and make shit loads of cash and then point the finger when it all goes bad. The fact that the banks were forced to violate law and their own policy by the government isn't an excuse.

624 This stuff would sound better if my kids weren't all grown. But it does help the,ones with kids of their own (except they are stay-at-home parents. But the youngest ones can't find jobs, and the ones that do end up paying higher taxes. And the cumulative effect of rent, student loans, taxes, food, and transportation makes it very tough to get ahead. We have the room, so we can at least help on rent if they need it.

625 Also, for the record, I'm not the one tossing breeder about.


**********

Well this post sure as hell brought out the resentment,-- the attitude that results in that term is in full display.

626 That hasn't been true for a long time, you can work and still get your SS benefits.



Doom on you if you do.

http://cbsn.ws/2cpsS1D

627 Sometimes, I really dislike typing on a phone."

Hmm. Beats phoning on a typewriter, I guess.

628 off elitist sock

629 Is "breeder" really a big insult?

That's the go-to pejorative by gay people about straight people. Has been for decades.

630 620 I guess that makes me a stud"

Neigh!
Posted by: Anon a mouse
---------------
Y'all stop horsing around.

631 Juan says there is a lot of media bias against Hillary.

632 Let to the thread so shoot me if it's already been discussed:

One of these other ideas is the guaranteed income. It's actually supported by some of the Austrian school guys and I'm warming up to it. The idea is that a guaranteed income replaces all other government subsidies and provides some freedom of choice and empowerment while also making sure we provide for the poorest.

I know it needs work, but I think it is an idea that had merit and is worthy of serious consideration even on the libertarian right.

633 Were other Republican candidates calling for things like the elimination of the Child Tax Credit?

I'm not for these types of programs, but the idea that Trump is the only non-conservative that is getting in the way of the perfect tax code is silly.

Hell, Ted Cruz wanted to add a new VAT tax, far worse than this window dressing.

634 MisHum: Bevin sidebar link broken.

635 I hate taxes.

Flat Tax, Consumption Tax, Fair Tax, I am for all of them.

But the reason that so many (D)s have ground to argue FOR the current system is that so many little tykes get fed into their "free" educational/government daycare system.

Wanna fix taxes?

Start by making education 100% private.

636 If you are sitting at home, on public assistance,
you will not get a child tax care credit. Because you have zero income
subject to taxes.



Posted by: Jen the original at September 13, 2016 04:52 PM (PcpNP)





Sorry.... but even if you have no net income, you CAN put in a Tax form... and gain credits, if it is a credit.



If it is a deduction, then it would only count against Taxes you would owe...



With a Credit, you can get more back from the Government than you paid in....





Posted by: Don Deplorable at September 13, 2016 05:02 PM (qf6WZ)

The child tax credit is a refundable credit if you have three or more children.

637
So stop asking questions peon.
Posted by: The Rothschilds at September 13, 2016 05:02 PM (C6xeQ)
_________________

LOL. That's basically the attitude. We deplorables are just supposed to STFU and not question our "betters" or their scams, er, I mean schemes.

638 Sadly no one is left. I think the past six months have been too contentious.
Posted by: Golfman at September 13, 2016 05:02 PM (48QDY)

Yeah, I'm hoping Ace's role as sort of a semi-neutral moderator between people who hate and love Trump will bring them back after the election.

639 No, the Trump wing just calls us autistic

Constitution worshipers and/or Jesus freaks who masturbate to Hayek and

demand our vote.

-------



Lunacy.

640 Since NAFTA, and legal and illegal immigration, the uniparty has screwed the middle class. TARP - remember that? Sub-prime market crash - remember that?

94 million were pushed out of low and high paying jobs. Not by their own choice.

The middle class takes the brunt of these hits while the top gets bailed out and made richer. They don't go to jail, they get rewarded.

So what do 'conservatives' do? They tell the middle class to fuck off.

We are going to shut down more factories and the white collar jobs management jobs that go with them. Send jobs overseas. Fly in cheap labor from Bangladesh and India. Open the borders for even cheaper labor with taxpayer funded benefits.

It's a triple whammy.

Can't imagine why 'conservatives' can't get more votes.

It's not about freebies to the bulk of the middle class, it's about survival.

Trump is doing it correctly. He's got to start with what he's been handed.

641 I work in the oilfield. Zero pregnancies out here.

642 Here's the deal.

The first thing that government owes its citizens is--continuation of the state.

"Breeders" that are resented in this post and thread--insure that.

A government can use incentives to insure that a state essentially--survives.

You'd be hard pressed to find a country where as a non-breeder you can pay less for that choice--luxury.

643
Hell, Ted Cruz wanted to add a new VAT tax, far worse than this window dressing.

Posted by: Maritime at September 13, 2016 05:05 PM (RbF5Z)

NO... Ted Cruz proposed a consumption like tax instead of, not in addition to, the current tax system.

644 How stupid am I to have been a homeowner for the last 45 years, never had kids, and always had a job? This means I've paid for everybody's schools, police protection, fire protection, and Obamaphones.

I feel quit abused...guess I will vote for Hillary to complete my abuse, at this point what difference does it make?

645 I know this is going to get willowed....

MSNBC has an online poll on whether Clinton should drop out of the race. Almost 17,00 votes, 89% say she should drop out. MSNBC...

646 Posted by: Deplorable @votermom, keeper of lists at September 13, 2016 05:00 PM (Om16U)
===============================================


I like your shirt Votermom. Very timely. If I might make a suggestion, I've ordered shirts from Zazzle before, and if the image or text is placed automatically in the center of the field (the default position), it will look low when worn on a live person. Try arrowing up each line or each image, at least one position. Sometimes it takes two notches up. I ordered some shirts when my son was first deployed and I put his unit number on the shirt. It was way too low on me. About on my abdomen.

647 Whats worrying me are the rumbles I just heard about Trump's changing position on Global Warming.

I hope thats not true.

He better not touch that shit.

648 Sometimes the only honest thing to do is to fail, and exit the market."

Sure thing there bunky. You first. Oh, wait, you want a suicide pact? Not playing that game.

649 Reagan: "The scariest words in the English Language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'"

Trump: "I'm from the government and I'm here to help"

650 Posted by: Czar Peter at September 13, 2016 05:05 PM (/+afh)

What happens to the childrenz when the adults spend all the check on rims?

651 Now if you want to get into "population control" you can try Sweden or--Hitler.

652 Train to 666 barrelling down the track...

653 I would also like a manatee
Posted by: alexthechick - fagette at September 13, 2016 04:29 PM

Yoo hoo!

654 >> NO... Ted Cruz proposed a consumption like tax
>> instead of, not in addition to, the current tax
>> system.

I have a fundamental mistrust of any system of taxation like sales taxes, VAT, FICA etc that is taken out of your money 'silently'.

If you want to fix taxation, you make everyone pay every cent of it out of their own pocket directly.

655 645 I know this is going to get willowed....

MSNBC has an online poll on whether Clinton should drop out of the race. Almost 17,00 votes, 89% say she should drop out. MSNBC...


Probably the Bernie contingent, with their fantasy that the Bern will be called up from the minors to take her place.

656
Is "breeder" really a big insult?



That's the go-to pejorative by gay people about straight people. Has been for decades.

Posted by: Ace's deplorable liver, powering through at September 13, 2016 05:04 PM (Xuv2G)

Is it really an insult though to people who actually like their children and are glad they had them (and would even gladly have more)?

657 Fair enough, I would still not classify it as a private bank.
Posted by: SH at September 13, 2016 04:54 PM (gmeXX)

It's a weird amalgam of private and public, just like the GSEs. Like the GSEs, when things are going well private interests are getting rich, and when things stop going well the taxpayer is left holding the bag.

------------

If it is quasi-public, its public.

658 632 Let to the thread so shoot me if it's already been discussed:

One of these other ideas is the guaranteed income. It's actually supported by some of the Austrian school guys and I'm warming up to it. The idea is that a guaranteed income replaces all other government subsidies and provides some freedom of choice and empowerment while also making sure we provide for the poorest.

I know it needs work, but I think it is an idea that had merit and is worthy of serious consideration even on the libertarian right.
Posted by: Czar Peter at September 13, 2016 05:05 PM (/+afh)

The big benefit of that Universal Basic Income is everyone gets it, no matter what their circumstances. So you don't need a gaggle of bureaucrats to administer the program - you just need a list of citizens. You can fire about 3/4 of government employees.

The problem is those government employees have greatly outsized political power, and you'd have to compromise to get the program through. What you'd end up with is a bunch of still-employed civil servants with not much to do.

659 I know this is going to get willowed....

MSNBC has an online poll on whether Clinton should drop out of the race. Almost 17,00 votes, 89% say she should drop out. MSNBC...

Posted by: Brian in New Orleans at September 13, 2016 05:08 PM (UBzPO)





Wouldn't it be loverly if there was a big fight within the DNC over getting rid of the Beast.

660 >> MSNBC has an online poll on whether Clinton
>> should drop out of the race. Almost 17,00 votes,
>> 89% say she should drop out. MSNBC...

It's MSNBC, so I assume the proposed alternatives range from Bernie to Pol Pot.

661 Is it really an insult though to people who actually like their children and are glad they had them (and would even gladly have more)?

Somehow I don't think they'd like being called "dead-enders".

662 MSNBC has an online poll on whether Clinton should
drop out of the race. Almost 17,00 votes, 89% say she should drop out.
MSNBC...


Posted by: Brian in New Orleans

I was hoping she'd drop out. She stank like shit.

663 meh daycare is stupid, should only be used when every other option has failed. why institutionalize?

664 Train to 666 barrelling down the track...
Posted by: Brother Cavil, deplorably GABing @brothercavil at September 13, 2016 05:09 PM (9krrF)

That sounded better in my head than you probably intended: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tI43afGZU94

665 666?

666 ALmost!

667 >>You missed the point I was making with my anecdotal story about my father's failed business. Sometimes the only honest thing to do is to fail, and exit the market. I do not dispute the fact that the government created an environment where business could not be done honestly. That simply means that business cannot be done. You don't play the game and make shit loads of cash and then point the finger when it all goes bad. The fact that the banks were forced to violate law and their own policy by the government isn't an excuse.

And you are missing the point that they did not violate the law. What part of this is confusing? Bank lending policies weren't written on Mt Olympus. They were written by bankers based on assumed risk and years of experience.

What the CRA did was effectively say, we don't give a shit about your policies, we are going to mandate that you make X percent of your loans in low income neighborhoods or we are going to sue you. They did this because they cooked up bogus studies like the one done in Boston that "proved" the bankers HAD been acting illegally to deny loans based on color or even location (neighborhood) of the loan applicants, a practice known as red lining.

Get this. The report was fraudulent. But as so often happens, that did not matter to the people who did the study, your federal government.

I'm sorry about your dad's business but it has nothing to do with this. The only people acting in bad faith, potentially illegally, were the feds. What they forced the banks to do wasn't it illegal, it was just bad banking practice.

And if you think that every lending institution in this country was just going to get out of the home loan business because of this I don't know what to tell you other than no chance in hell.

668 And there! OK, we can end the thread now, I'm happy.

669 whether Clinton should drop out of the race. Almost 17,00 votes, 89% say she should drop out. MSNBC...

Posted by Brian


Knew this was coming.

But she powered through as long as she could.

670 The first thing that government owes its citizens is--continuation of the state.

The government owes this citizen a big helping of GTFO of my life.

671 With a Credit, you can get more back from the Government than you paid in....





Posted by: Don Deplorable at September 13, 2016 05:02 PM (qf6WZ)

The child tax credit is a refundable credit if you have three or more children.


Posted by: redbanzai at September 13, 2016 05:05 PM (geAkB)


Yup... its like the College Education credits... you can be unemployed, but going to school full time, and get that credit... thus getting a check from the US Government.

672 I have a fundamental mistrust of any system of
taxation like sales taxes, VAT, FICA etc that is taken out of your money
'silently'.



If you want to fix taxation, you make everyone pay every cent of it out of their own pocket directly.

Posted by: JEM at September 13, 2016 05:09 PM (TppKb)

You do pay consumption taxes directly and when it is incurred. Having it hidden would be if the price of the items purchased already included the tax... which it doesn't in the US.

673 Wouldn't it be loverly if there was a big fight within the DNC over getting rid of the Beast.



Yeah, Bernie does complicate things. I CANNOT imagine they would roll over for Slo Joe or even Liawatha.

674 Oh God, the Reagan card.

Has ANYONE been awake the last 30 years or so?

Have you NOTICED a SLIGHT leftward shift in the US?

Ronald Reagan, King Kong and Godzilla on Viagra couldn't put the pieces of the US Humpty Dumpty back together again.

You turn the damn ship one degree at a time...unless you're a Progressive in which case you just sink it on a sandbarge.

675 663
meh daycare is stupid, should only be used when every other option has failed. why institutionalize?

Posted by: yankeefifth at September 13, 2016 05:10 PM (cPsPa)
Because Trump is using the Dem playbook of pandering to individual constituencies and their parochial concerns.

676
Ted Cruz proposed a consumption like tax instead of, not in addition to, the current tax system.
Posted by: redbanzai

You will always have the income tax unless you repeal the 16th amendment.

677 NO... Ted Cruz proposed a consumption like tax instead of, not in addition to, the current tax system.
Posted by: redbanzai




Just like when the income tax was introduced, it was sold as just effecting a few rich families and no one else.

Any conservative with a bit of common sense knows you don't give the government a new revenue stream as it will only expand.

It would eventually mean some sort of consumption tax for everyone plus income taxes.


Even Forbes said Ted Cruz's plan was a VAT similar to what is in Europe.

http://tinyurl.com/hep9nh2

678 No, the Trump wing just calls us autistic
Constitution worshipers and/or Jesus freaks who masturbate to Hayek and
demand our vote


There is no" Trump wing." There are people who will vote for Trump who are obnoxious and rude just as there have been people who supported other candidates who were obnoxious and rude. Sometimes we all get a little testy here. There are people who would have preferred six other people before Trump who are Christians and who also have due regard and respect for the Constitution who won't vote for Hillary-ever. C'est moi! :^)

679 MSNBC has an online poll on whether Clinton should
drop out of the race. Almost 17,00 votes, 89% say she should drop out.
MSNBC...


Posted by: Brian in New Orleans

Yes. The republicans are in a shambles. *starts fapping and laughing - at the same time!*

680 "The fact that the banks were forced to violate law and their own policy by the government isn't an excuse.

Posted by: DFCtomm"

That makes no sense. The govt was more than willing to sue the hell out of banks, fine them, regulate them into submission or out of business. The only options were to make bad loans or get out of the lending business.. The govt was not just incentivizing bad decisions, it was forcing them. It most certainly is an excuse.

681 Yes. The republicans are in a shambles.

----------

I've always scoffed at the notion that the GOP was the party in trouble - seems an odd thing to say about a party holding more elective offices than at any time in its history.

682 Sure thing there bunky. You first. Oh, wait, you want a suicide pact? Not playing that game.

Posted by: Anon a mouse... at September 13, 2016 05:08 PM (C9pBZ)

My father did just that. His business failed, because he refused to violate the law. It later served him well since he avoided indictment and conviction. In an ideal world, the Tea Party would have taken care of the politicians that set up the rigged game, and the bankers would have been indicted for violating the law, it doesn't matter that the pressure to violate the law was coming from the actual federal government.

683 Juan says there is a lot of media bias against Hillary.

Yes, the MSM is all in the pocket of Big Hitler.

684 >> I was hoping she'd drop out. She stank like shit.

Anyone looked on autotrader for a slightly used black van that smells like a Febreze Superfund site?

Slightly used, suitable for bulk cannabis transport and the occasional kidnapping?

685 It was a usual occurrance, Royaloil, it was a seizure because NO ONE would act like they did for someone with a history of blot clots and concussions unless they knew it wasn't that but something that "happens frequently" (as her husband said.

Secondly, the I was sick and got overheated doesn't work since she kept on her coat and didn't even loosen the tie on her Brooks Brother's blouse which is part rayon. They also didn't have water with them, so the "I get dehydrated thing" is a myth.

My mother when she was in her 70s got dehydrated a couple of times--always from working outside gardening or some other nutty house project. She never passed out, but at the tiniest sign of any disequilibrium, she drank water. She ended up becoming such an aquaholic that she almost seized and died because she was hyponeutremic--ie her sodium was too low.

If you've ever been dehydrated, you don't do it again. Besides, people don't usually get dehydrated unless they're doing something strenuous in a not climate controlled place for a long time or they are sick. If you do, you're an idiot.

Hillary keeps trying to tell us she's an idiot. No one seems to notice, at least not the media.

686 You missed the point I was making with my anecdotal
story about my father's failed business. Sometimes the only honest thing
to do is to fail, and exit the market. I do not dispute the fact that
the government created an environment where business could not be done
honestly. That simply means that business cannot be done. You don't play
the game and make shit loads of cash and then point the finger when it
all goes bad. The fact that the banks were forced to violate law and
their own policy by the government isn't an excuse.



And you are missing the point that they did not violate the law.
What part of this is confusing? Bank lending policies weren't written on
Mt Olympus. They were written by bankers based on assumed risk and
years of experience.



What the CRA did was effectively say, we don't give a shit about
your policies, we are going to mandate that you make X percent of your
loans in low income neighborhoods or we are going to sue you. They did
this because they cooked up bogus studies like the one done in Boston
that "proved" the bankers HAD been acting illegally to deny loans based
on color or even location (neighborhood) of the loan applicants, a
practice known as red lining.



Get this. The report was fraudulent. But as so often happens, that
did not matter to the people who did the study, your federal government.



I'm sorry about your dad's business but it has nothing to do with
this. The only people acting in bad faith, potentially illegally, were
the feds. What they forced the banks to do wasn't it illegal, it was
just bad banking practice.



And if you think that every lending institution in this country was
just going to get out of the home loan business because of this I don't
know what to tell you other than no chance in hell.

Posted by: JackStraw at September 13, 2016 05:11 PM (/tuJf)

This. What the banks did was legal and required. It was the laws and federal regulations that were insane not the bankers.

687 No, the Trump wing...

gets physically attacked and beat up at political rallies, have their signs stolen and their property vandalized.

688 "f, but it was the "implied" federal guarantee on anything that Fannie or
Freddie touched that helped sell it for more than it was worth - and
turn around and buy up the new bad paper created by the lenders." primordial

YES ... I'm trying to follow along here, and sometimes people are saying "feds", and I can't tell if they mean fed reserve banks.

IMPLIED and they did bail them out ... but fannie/freddie lied a lot, Raines and Gorelick. Raines testified they'd be safe at 50:1 while they were leveraged 25:1, normal banks do 10:1. But Fannie/Freddie are publicly traded, right?

And "The Big Short" shows how Goldman Sachs ( Morgan?) didn't seem to realize how leveraged and how far behind on payments so many of those underlying mortgages were. Till the star of that movie did the math. They "bribed" SP into keeping them AAA rated, while GS sold the crap to their own clients, telling them it was fine. They paid a fine for that $2B or something, not near enough.

Yes .. those were the liar loans ... not forced by "the feds", afaik.

689 ...that smells like a Febreze Superfund site?


LOL

690 Is "breeder" really a big insult?

That's the go-to pejorative by gay people about straight people. Has been for decades.
+++++++++++++++++

Odd. Normally the point of an insult is to insult the target and cause offense. Is it an insult if it does not cause offense even though intended to do so? Mean spirited perhaps. I suppose its still marginally an insult based upon intent.

Like otherizing a group of people based upon a trait their are supposed to be proud of . . . . (wait a minute) . . .

going to go with not quite an insult more like a thing I don't think there is a word for . . . ironic - ish rebound thingy

691 Juan says there is a lot of media bias against Hillary.

Posted by: Bertram Cabot Jr. at September 13, 2016 05:05 PM (IqV8l)




Yeah, it's just as bad as it is against Barry

692 656
Is "breeder" really a big insult?



That's the go-to pejorative by gay people about straight people. Has been for decades.

Posted by: Ace's deplorable liver, powering through at September 13, 2016 05:04 PM (Xuv2G)

Is it really an insult though to people who actually like their children and are glad they had them (and would even gladly have more)?
Posted by: redbanzai at September 13, 2016 05:09 PM (geAkB)

I guess the idea is to compare people who have children to farm animals. IMO it's pretty mild as insults go.

693 If it is quasi-public, its public.

Posted by: SH at September 13, 2016 05:09 PM (gmeXX)


Baloney.... the President can't tell it what to do.

The Congress can make laws, but not directly tell it what to do.

The only people who control the Fed Res Bank, are its stockholders, the BANKS, through the Board they select.

It is not owned by the Government, it has stockholders... those same banks.

YOU cannot buy stock in it... I can't buy stock in it...

Its a Private Corporation...

694 Posted by: lowtech redneck at September 13, 2016 04:56 PM (egK2C)


President Tonic/Clonic thanks you for your support.

695 We'll get our guy across the finish line and spend four years beating him up. over everything

696 I am sure it has been mentioned but Simon Peres has had a serious Stroke and is in an induced coma at an Hospital in Tel Aviv

697 Posted by: grammie winger's deplorable basket at September 13, 2016 05:08 PM (dFi94)

Thanks grammie, let me do that!

698 Watt is this 'powering through' about?

699 Rush, if it hasn't been pointed out, today was saying they didn't take her to a hospital even with a potential serious condition just tokeep the wraps on her health status.

700 Because if you're saying there's a "Trump wing" you're saying the millions of people who support him support him for the same reasons and with the same type of abrasive personality. That's kind of like saying all Trump voters are "deplorable", (not in the sense of being racist, sexist, homophobic, but just nasty) yes-?just from the other side of the spectrum

701 Peres just has a slight pnemonia

702 Juan says there is a lot of media bias against Hillary.

Speaking of creatures of the Beltway.

I'd pay about fifty grand to see that dolt appear on celebrity Jeopardy.

703 That makes no sense."

Yeah, but dude is riding around on a white horse claiming some sort of righteous mantle. Guess he expected the entire commercial banking sector to shut down or something.

Bizarre.

704 We'll get our guy across the finish line and spend four years beating him up. over everything

Posted by: torabora at September 13, 2016 05:16 PM (DqfPQ)
==========================================

I certainly hope so.

705






Trump Proposes Child Care Tax Credits and Changing Rules of Unemployment Insurance to Cover Paid Maternity Leave for Six Weeks


Before getting into this, let's talk about the Reformacons.

Who are the Reformacons? Well, they're "reform conservatives."

Among their number are many legislators favored by the Twitterati #SmartSet.

Like Mike Lee, like even -- Marco Rubio.

The Reformacons make this point: Republicans have been so successful on cutting taxes on the lower middle class -- as Mitt Romney infamously observed, 47% of the population now pays no federal income tax at all -- that the traditional Republican platform of cutting taxes cannot directly help a large swath of GOP voters.

You can argue an indirect benefit -- supply side, trickle down -- but simply cutting taxes now has no direct tangible benefit to large numbers of GOP voters.

And people don't seem to be wowed by arguments about indirect benefits. One can believe they should be -- but they're much more impressed by direct, tangible, cash-in-pocket arguments.

If you assume that elections largely turn on a party's offering of financial betterment to voters -- well, what can you do when you've already reduced the tax rate to 0% for almost half the country?

The Reformacons suggest what they call a "refundable tax credit." Let's cut to the chase: What they mean is a negative income tax rate, that is, you straight-up get paid by the federal government.

Is this idea worthy? Well, I don't like it, and I've said so. I don't like simply replacing the Democrats' system of bribery of voters with a Republican scheme to do the same.

However, the Reformacons do have a practical point: What can you offer lower-income voters when you've already cut their taxes to zero, except a "refundable tax credit," also known as a straight up subsidy to voters from the American Treasury Department?

The Reformacons' idea is contrary to ideology -- but its saving grace is that it is in accordance with political reality, which is a nice thing too.

By the way, another one of the Reformacons' ideas to boost the incomes of lower-income Americans -- apart from the straight-up welfare payment -- is to, get this, sharply reduce the number of low-skilled immigrants permitted to enter the country.

Such immigrants necessarily exert downward pressure on wages paid for low-skilled jobs, which causes the incomes of lower-income Americans to stagnate, as they have been stagnating now for 30 years.

Given the choice of the two, it seems to me that the latter is the less ideologically heretical one, but the GOP Capital Class seems to very much disagree.

Now, I don't like this idea of paying voters. I would strongly prefer to let their wages rise naturally and organically by removing the constant downward pressure of ever-increasing numbers of low-skilled workers coming into the country to compete with Americans for an ever-shrinking pool of low-skilled jobs.

But again, that's Racist or something.

My point, however, is that those who are now Shocked and Scandalized by Trump's similar "let's bribe lower-income Americans" plan have apparently not been paying careful attention to the actual policy changes offered up by some of their favorite TrueCon politicians, like Mike Lee and Marco Rubio.

Expanding the refundable child tax credit -- that is, simply paying people for their children out of the US Treasury funds -- is a longstanding centerpiece of the Reformacon agenda.

Here's an NPR piece explaining some of this Exciting New Thinking from GOP wonks.



LIASSON: Political necessity is forcing Republicans to play on what's traditionally been Democratic turf. On Election Day in 2012, a whopping 80 percent of voters told pollsters that Romney could not relate to the problems of people like them.
PONNURU: That is symptomatic of a middle-class problem that Republicans have had.

LIASSON: Republicans are acknowledging that the next election will be about why it's become so hard to move up the economic ladder. It's no accident that Republican presidential hopeful Marco Rubio's new book is called "American Dreams: Restoring Economic Opportunity For Everyone." Jeb Bush's new PAC is called the Right to Rise. Last week in Detroit, Bush gave his first big policy speech and said that the opportunity gap was the defining issue of our time.

(SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING)

BUSH: Today, Americans across the country are frustrated. They see only a small portion of the population riding the economy's up escalator.

LIASSON: Bush didn't offer many specific solutions to this problem. He said he'll be doing that over the next several months. So far Republicans seem to have learned the music, but they still need the lyrics. A group of conservative thinkers known as Reformacons have floated a bunch of ideas, including expanding the child tax credit and streamlining the system of education tax credits.

So am I shocked and scandalized by Trump's proposal?

No, because I've actually bothered to keep up with policy proposals offered up by GOP thinkers and Senators, which include this sort of idea.

Has the #SmartSet bothered to inquire as to what the actual policy recommendations of their TrueCon All-Star Favorites are?

Do they have to hear what their (squee!) GOP Favorites are actually proposing from a non-conservative hack like me?

Now, I do oppose Trump's idea. I didn't like this idea when the Reformacons proposed it, and I've said so before. I can't find my piece on this, but you can read Drew's skeptical piece on it.

I don't hate the Reformacons for this -- I don't think they're "RINOs." They are dealing with a tough political fact -- you just can't offer more tax cuts to people already entirely removed from the tax rolls.

But still, I do not like the idea.

That's why I strongly prefer limiting immigration. So that these people see a financial improvement without it costing me any money.

The point is, we can disfavor these things, but we cannot pretend that what Trump is proposing is so far out of the TrueCon mainstream as to be heretical.

If you didn't know the Reformacons -- Mike Lee, Marco Rubio, etc. -- were proposing this sort of "family friendly" child subsidy policy, well, that's your bad for being ignorant about a political philosophy you claim to care deeply about.

It cannot be the case that Mike Lee and Marco Rubio are Forward-Thinking Reform-Minded Conservative Idea Wizards for proposing this sort of thing, and yet Trump is a Liberal Sell-Out Liar Who Doesn't Speak Conservatism for proposing the same thing.

I'll make two further points:

I don't like loud politicians who say deeply alienating things. Many people seem to think this makes a candidate "Tough and strong."

In fact, it makes him weak. When your tone is offensive, you must then compromise on actual policy to woo back those you've offended.

Trump right now is in a biding war to try to buy some support from women voters -- something he wouldn't have had to do if he hadn't alienated them so much by shooting his mouth off so often.

Soft words permit you to enact hard policy; hard words require you to push soft policy.

When Al Gore and John McCain were caught taking Chinese money and doing favors for donors (respectively), what did they do? They immediately began pushing the idea of Campaign Reform. Having compromised themselves on the issue, they had to become more Catholic than the Pope to make up for their own personal weakness on campaign donation issues.

That's what Trump is doing. Having compromised himself so badly and made himself so unappealing to the women whose votes he absolutely needs, he now has to throw them sops, and by sops, read "your tax money."

One other point, though, is about the TrueCons: Having stated that their absolute number one priority is to make sure Trump doesn't win (so as to protect the party from being "Corrupted" by him), they must know -- mustn't they? -- that their actual influence on Trump is now diminished.

Why would Trump chase your vote? You've already said you'd never, ever vote for him, and you either say -- or imply, without admitting -- that Hillary Clinton would be preferable as president.

Since the pool you're swimming in is absolutely immune to Trump's bait, why wouldn't he go fishing in another pool?

Politicians need voters, period. If you've declared yourself absolutely Ungettable, they will naturally try to get others.

Now, that said, let's not overlook the first point, which is that Trump is in this position of having to bribe women to vote for him precisely because his Strong, Tough mouth has landed him in a Weak, Yielding position.

As they say: Speak softly and carry a big stick.

Not Speak loudly and then try to payoff people with US Treasury funds after you've shot your mouth off so much you've pissed off voters.





Posted by: Ace at 02:59 PM










Comments

(Jump to bottom of page)


1 1st? I'll get the others.

Posted by: Deplorable rickb223 at September 13, 2016 03:01 PM (Bd6VC)

2 Corgis called

Posted by: Deplorable rickb223 at September 13, 2016 03:01 PM (Bd6VC)

3 >>>As they say: Speak softly and carry a big stick.

Tranny?

Posted by: wooga at September 13, 2016 03:02 PM (9D09U)

4 One of my countless accomplishments: staying in the close. You're welcome.

Posted by: POTUS at September 13, 2016 03:02 PM (FXW24)

5 Let me power through the post and then I'll come back and comment.

Posted by: joe, living deplorably at September 13, 2016 03:03 PM (KUaJL)

6 Does Ace have some device that automatically converts human thought into typed text?

Because how in the heck can he uncork these looong but still cogent and meaningful essays so rapidly and numerously?

The man is a writin' machine.

Posted by: zombie at September 13, 2016 03:03 PM (jBuUi)

7 Yeah, he'll be the biggest RINO of all time if he's elected, and still not as awful as Hillary. This is my basis for distaste for the man, beyond his disgusting personal life. That's the joyful place we are now in this country: awful vs unthinkable.

Posted by: Christopher R Taylor at September 13, 2016 03:03 PM (39g3+)

8 Reforma"con" as in "not conservative at all" fiscally at least.

Posted by: Christopher R Taylor at September 13, 2016 03:04 PM (39g3+)

9 Trump is trying to peel some of the women's votes from hillary.


Posted by: The Great White Scotsman at September 13, 2016 03:05 PM (iONHu)

10 I got my daughter $9 million. What have you done for your kids? I thought so.

Posted by: John Heinz Kerry at September 13, 2016 03:05 PM (FXW24)

11 Trivia: Trump was actually one of the early supporters of the Reform Party until it went the way most 3rd parties go.

Posted by: Deplorable @votermom, keeper of lists at September 13, 2016 03:05 PM (Om16U)

12 This is also Ivanka's influence, which might or might not be a good thing.


Posted by: Beth M at September 13, 2016 03:05 PM (kiy9d)

13 Yeah, he'll be the biggest RINO of all time if he's elected, and still not as awful as Hillary.




Trump is not a rino. He's a dem. SADLY, he's farther to the right than Republicans.

That's not his fault though.

Posted by: Deplorable rickb223 at September 13, 2016 03:06 PM (Bd6VC)

14 We can call a tax increase a "deferred refund."

Posted by: josephistan at September 13, 2016 03:06 PM (7HtZB)

15 Wait, a discussion about policy?

That's not allowed here.

Let's talk about Hillary's stumbles or Trump's latest word salad.


Posted by: chemjeff at September 13, 2016 03:06 PM (gXKl3)

16 Trump is not a rino. He's a dem.

He's been registered Republican more years than democrat as I understand it.

I always use RINO with a wink; its a false title. Ronald Reagan was a RINO, he didn't represent mainstream Republican thought. George Bush did.

Posted by: Christopher R Taylor at September 13, 2016 03:07 PM (39g3+)

17 Meh.

#NeverHillary

Posted by: deplorable_sock_rat_eez at September 13, 2016 03:07 PM (Z8DIA)

18 The negative tax rate is ridiculous. People decry welfare, then approve of a tax policy that pays people merely for existing.

The child tax credit is nearly as bad. Currently at two grand per child, it means that about eight thousand in income is not taxed for each child you have.

Posted by: Vashta Nerada at September 13, 2016 03:07 PM (7ZVPa)

19 I could get behind a NIT if it meant destroying most - if not all - of the rest of the welfare state and its bureaucracy.

The Finns are embarking on an experiment with this. It will be worth watching their results.

Posted by: TheBlackBaron at September 13, 2016 03:07 PM (tfNvq)

20 >>>Not Speak loudly and then try to payoff people with US Treasury funds
after you've shot your mouth off so much you've pissed off voters.



Speak loudly and power through.


Posted by: Trumpy Roosevelt at September 13, 2016 03:07 PM (H9MG5)

21 Any tax discussion is meaningless unless it includes FICA, state/local sales taxes, etc.




Posted by: JEM at September 13, 2016 03:08 PM (TppKb)

22 Ace:

"The point is, we can disfavor these things, but we cannot pretend that what Trump is proposing is so far out of the TrueCon mainstream as to be heretical."

Here's the real truth:

Trump is a totally middle-of-the-road candidate with middle-of-the-road policies on most issues and is NOT the extremist portrayed by Democrats and NeverTrumpers.

He's endlessly painted as some kind of Hitlerian madman, but if you actually remove the hysteria, he's sort of a cross between Gerald Ford and George HW Bush I -- a guy with middling average-ish policies platforms. The only "extreme" positions are regarding immigration -- positions which aren;t actually extreme but which are also held by about 70% of the population.

I believe this is another reason for Trump's popularity -- he doesn't insist on a bunch of Litmus Test ideological positions, which please the few, but grate on the many.

He's popular BECAUSE he's middle-of-the-road on most issues. That's 2016's big secret.

Posted by: zombie at September 13, 2016 03:09 PM (jBuUi)

23 He's been registered Republican more years than democrat as I understand it.

I always use RINO with a wink; its a false title. Ronald Reagan was a RINO, he didn't represent mainstream Republican thought. George Bush did.



Wait one minute. I was told by almost every one here that he is a flaming Dem. He votes dem. He donated dem. He's a dem.


Now people are trying to claim he's republican? Almost like Rick Perry.


Posted by: Deplorable rickb223 at September 13, 2016 03:09 PM (Bd6VC)

24 I could get behind a NIT if it meant destroying most - if not all - of the rest of the welfare state and its bureaucracy.


Posted by: TheBlackBaron

--

Currently we have both. Welfare and the EITC.


Posted by: Vashta Nerada at September 13, 2016 03:09 PM (7ZVPa)

25 The NRO will find this deplorable even though they agree with it.

Posted by: Hillary's Body Double at September 13, 2016 03:09 PM (WlGX+)

26 >>>8 Reforma"con" as in "not conservative at all" fiscally at least.
Posted by: Christopher R Taylor a

you can say that. but they've identified a real problem that needs addressing of SOME kind.

You can't expect lower-income workers to keep voting GOP *just because* they're social cons.

In fact, this election is largely proving Charles Murray's "Fishtown v. Bellevue" thesis: Lower-income people tend to be LESS religious and socially conservative than higher-earning ones.



Posted by: ace at September 13, 2016 03:09 PM (dciA+)

27 "I would strongly prefer to let their wages rise naturally and organically
by removing the constant downward pressure of ever-increasing numbers
of low-skilled workers coming into the country to compete with Americans
for an ever-shrinking pool of low-skilled jobs. But again, that's Racist or something."

If you were to propose to deliberately displace black Americans from the labor market and replace them with white Americans, that would instantly be declared RAYCISS ELEVENTY. And you would become _persona non grata_ in all decent society.

But if you propose to deliberately displace black Americans from the labor market and replace them with Latino foreigners, that's perfectly okay. In fact, it's RAYCISS ELEVENTY to critique this arrangement.

It's Calvinball, again. The score is Q to 12!


Posted by: torquewrench at September 13, 2016 03:09 PM (noWW6)

28 I do not like childcare tax credits are even deductions for children. I have long said what we need is elimination of regulations, not so much tax "reductions". I am for a flat tax with NO deductions or offsets and applicable to all forms of income. The purpose of taxes is to raise money for needed expenses, not social engineering. And we should also tie the ability to vote to paying taxes.



As for monkeying with unemployment insurance that should not be the purview of the feds anyway. So what I see here is just being another big government liberal on the non-immigration issues. But I have known that since the begining anyway.


Posted by: Vic We Have No Party at September 13, 2016 03:09 PM (mpXpK)

29 Color me shocked, shocked I say that a candidate is tacking to the center before the election.

Posted by: Tinfoilbaby at September 13, 2016 03:10 PM (6Ll1u)

30 That's what Trump is doing. Having compromised himself so badly and made himself so unappealing to the women whose votes he absolutely needs, he now has to throw them sops, and by sops, read "your tax money."

++++

That is one way of looking at it. An alternative take would be that if we clamp down on immigration, it makes more sense to encourage the natives to have more kids. And although supportive words can be encouraging, there is nothing quite so encouraging as cold, hard cash.



Posted by: Anon Y. Mous at September 13, 2016 03:10 PM (R+30W)

31 The last thing the tax code needs is another layer of complexity. There already is the "earned income tax credit" which essentially pays people for being poor. We don't need more.

Posted by: Christopher R Taylor at September 13, 2016 03:10 PM (39g3+)

32 Not Speak loudly and then try to payoff people with US Treasury funds after you've shot your mouth off so much you've pissed off voters.

True enough, though to be fair that works both ways. After all, it's why we have to deal with Trump as the GOP nominee in the first place...

Posted by: Brother Cavil, deplorably GABing @brothercavil at September 13, 2016 03:10 PM (9krrF)

33 Ace: "The Reformacons suggest what they call a "refundable tax credit." Let's cut to the chase: What they mean is a negative income tax rate, that is, you straight-up get paid by the federal government."


This is why when the Uniparty talks about making the illegals pay back taxes as a condition to amnesty, it is such an insulting fraud on the American people.

WE would end up paying THEM for accumulated refundable tax credits like the EITC.

Posted by: Scalia's Ghost at September 13, 2016 03:10 PM (fgOnp)

34 I have decided I am not so much a conservative as I am a Traditional Patriotic Nationalist American.

Any candidate that appeals to that gets my attention.

Posted by: *Mikey NTH - Fall Special! All Deplorables and Irredeemables 50% off at the Outrage Outlet! at September 13, 2016 03:10 PM (hLRSq)

35 I would support increasing the tax deduction for supporting children but I am totally against tax credits of every way, shape or form. Tax credits are a bunch of BS and, quite frankly, illegal.

As to unemployment insurance ... that's a state thing. The feral government has no right to be mucking around in the unemployment situation, to begin with.

These aren't deal-breakers but I would fight against these proposals all the way. They're stupid and wrong.

Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at September 13, 2016 03:11 PM (zc3Db)

36 Trump right now is in a biding war

He's biding his time til HRC croaks.

Posted by: DaveA at September 13, 2016 03:11 PM (8J/Te)

37 Heh. Among the line up of "deplorables" Trump brought on stage last night was a geriatric gentleman who stepped to the mic and said "I'm just here because he gave me a hat."



Posted by: WhatWhatWhat? - I speak of the Pompatous of Love at September 13, 2016 03:11 PM (WlGX+)

38 you can say that. but they've identified a real problem that needs addressing of SOME kind.

Doesn't make them conservative. In any case, if we're at such a place in America the only way to get votes is to bribe people, let's just fold the whole thing and give up.

Posted by: Christopher R Taylor at September 13, 2016 03:11 PM (39g3+)

39 This is one of the reasons I am not only skeptical about Trump but unwilling to support him. I see him as just a big government liberal. I hope people can understand that. Just as I can understand the position that he really isn't different from many other so-called conservative politicians who quite often support big government programs.

Posted by: SH at September 13, 2016 03:12 PM (gmeXX)

40 A TV anchor started his broadcast Sunday with a startling statement.

"Good evening," said WABC weekend anchor Joe Torres. "We begin with Hillary Clinton's death."



Posted by: Islamic Rage Boy at September 13, 2016 03:12 PM (e8kgV)

41 So these guys say that Trump won't do any of the other stuff he's promised (build a wall, appoint solid judges), but they're totally sure he's coming through on this one if elected?

Posted by: Lymond at September 13, 2016 03:12 PM (wH6vD)

42 But in all seriousness, yeah this is not a terribly wonderful idea, both from the fiscal point of view and from the incentives point of view - this program would just incentivize families to dump their kids off at daycare even more than they are incentivized to do so now. If we really believe kids are best served when they are raised in a two-parent household, we shouldn't propose that the government undermine this belief through perverse incentives.


Posted by: chemjeff at September 13, 2016 03:12 PM (gXKl3)

43 I guess I'm just disheartened that we took de Toqueville's statement about government officials bribing people with their own money and decided that the it's the conservative's job to do so in a "conservative manner" whatever that means.

Reformicon ideas are how republican presidents bloat the federal bureaucracy rather than shrinking it. If I wanted the government to redistribute wealth in the "right way" I'd be a democrat, but I don't want that. If the 47% need more incentive for their votes than the prosperity that comes living this country as is, then I'm out. Galt's Gulch, here I come. That's not the deal I signed up for. Those 47% can find out what it's like having a much greater percentage of a much smaller total wealth when all these stupid social engineering attempts inevitably fail.

Posted by: joe, living deplorably at September 13, 2016 03:13 PM (KUaJL)

44
Offering free crap to people is not conservative.* Although I get the political reality of the times. Which is basically why there has to be a collapse for this idea to change.


*then again neither is the repub congress.


Posted by: Guy Mohawk at September 13, 2016 03:13 PM (ODxAs)

45 You can't expect lower-income workers to keep voting GOP *just because* they're social cons.

-----------

Honest question.

What if the GOP delivered results for the social cons?

Seems like it would be easier to rely on those votes if the voter knew they were getting something in return.

Posted by: SH at September 13, 2016 03:13 PM (gmeXX)

46 >>>This is one of the reasons I am not only skeptical about Trump but unwilling to support him. I see him as just a big government liberal. I hope people can understand that.

do you similarly oppose Mike Lee and Marco Rubio or is your objection specific to a single heretic (Trump)?

lee's been pushing this stuff for years; are you #NeverLee as well?



Posted by: ace at September 13, 2016 03:14 PM (dciA+)

47 One of the top goggle searches is "Clinton dead" ... oh man ... here we go with the tin foil hats

Posted by: E.T. at September 13, 2016 03:15 PM (c+7Ko)

48 "Good evening," said WABC weekend anchor Joe Torres. "We begin with Hillary Clinton's death."

So that's what that noise was. I thought the Yankees had won the World Series.


Posted by: t-bird at September 13, 2016 03:15 PM (F1ndw)

49 We already have a NIT in the Earned Income Tax Credit. So without specifics I don't have any idea how much his proposal changes the status quo.


Posted by: Buzzsaw at September 13, 2016 03:15 PM (Mxs5H)

50 Ace: "Trump right now is in a biding war to try to buy some support from women voters -- something he wouldn't have had to do if he hadn't alienated them so much by shooting his mouth off so often."


Romney lost women to Obama 55% to 44%. The "women vote" problem has more to do with cultural indoctrination and the fact that the Dems are running a woman than with Trump supposedly "shooting his mouth off" at Rosie O'Donnell or Carly's face.

I saw a recent poll somewhere that had Trump leading among married women. There is a big difference in political outlook between married women voters and single women voters.

Posted by: Scalia's Ghost at September 13, 2016 03:15 PM (fgOnp)

51
Shocker! men have to bribe women to get anything out of them.

Posted by: Flawless Male Logic at September 13, 2016 03:15 PM (lKyWE)

52 >>>Doesn't make them conservative. In any case, if we're at such a place in America the only way to get votes is to bribe people, let's just fold the whole thing and give up.

well, hate to break this to you, but bribing voters by promising tangible policy changes that benefit them has sort of been the main style of politics for both parties for 240 years

Posted by: ace at September 13, 2016 03:16 PM (dciA+)

53 There is an argument to be made on both sides, but in this day and age, the reformacons have a point.

It's to the benefit of the U.S. as a whole to have a certain level of resupply and growth in the population. Not everyone will have children, so it can be argued that everyone should contribute to those that do.

However, it only makes sense if these noisy little investments get educated enough (a minimum of a real high school diploma) to become assets instead of expenses in their productive years.

Subsidizing unemployable ghetto dwellers is a bad idea. Subsidizing future taxpaying productive workers is essential.

Trump is on the right track by laying the groundwork to re-take education as a fundamental right wing platform.

Posted by: jwest at September 13, 2016 03:16 PM (Zs4uk)

54 OK--2 things. Purely anecdotal:

1. Back in the 90s when I was a struggling single mom, I worked full-time and nearly went broke paying for child care. I would have welcomed a proposal such as this one. Yes--I see Ace's point and its not a policy that's considered "Conservative". However, it is something we have to consider, since so many women are working. I think this is good outreach for Trump and again, sets him apart from the GOPe.

2. I live in the Blue State of NJ and my [millennial] daughter lives in the semi-Blue state of PA. ALL the women we know are voting for Trump. So the meme that "Women hate Trump"? Sorry, I don't see it.


Posted by: RoxyDoxy at September 13, 2016 03:16 PM (E88Sp)

55 Honest question.

What if the GOP delivered results for the social cons?






We wouldn't be where we are now.

Posted by: Deplorable rickb223 at September 13, 2016 03:16 PM (Bd6VC)

56 All of this social policy through the tax system is why I have consistently been in favor of a consumption tax.

Tax people by what they buy, not what they earn or save. It not only removes the IRS from peering at your W2 and bank accounts, but people who work for cash will pay taxes, which they aren't currently doing.

Posted by: Vashta Nerada at September 13, 2016 03:16 PM (7ZVPa)

57
But if you propose to deliberately displace black Americans from the labor market and replace them with Latino foreigners, that's perfectly okay. In fact, it's RAYCISS ELEVENTY to critique this arrangement.

It's Calvinball, again. The score is Q to 12!


Posted by: torquewrench at September 13, 2016 03:09 PM (noWW6)


Not just Black Americans...

The same week as the Feds killed ITT, so tech education is harder to get here in the US...

The University of Calif. system OUTSOURCED their entire IT infrastructure to companies who do overseas Helpdesk, and bring in H1B Workers...

We are flat out being replaced.

Posted by: Don Q. at September 13, 2016 03:16 PM (qf6WZ)

58 Breitbart said that "Politics is downstream of culture," but left off the second half of the equation:

Culture is downstream of fiscal policy.

Problem is, the Marxists have been pissing in the stream for so long that we think water just naturally tastes like pee. We've have been so utterly accustomed to Marxist thought in American fiscal policy that we forget what normalcy is even like -- i.e. pre 1917 America.

Posted by: zombie at September 13, 2016 03:17 PM (jBuUi)

59 This doesn't move my #NeverHillary meter one bit.


Posted by: Dirty Randy at September 13, 2016 03:17 PM (jjaLl)

60
lee's been pushing this stuff for years; are you #NeverLee as well?

Posted by: ace at September 13, 2016 03:14 PM (dciA+)

++++

Is your take on Lee equally cynical as your take on Trump? That is, do you think Lee has been pushing the policy in a desperate attempt to ingratiate himself with women voters, or are there alternative explanations for his policy preference?



Posted by: Anon Y. Mous at September 13, 2016 03:17 PM (R+30W)

61 Shocker! men have to bribe women to get anything out of them.




Or in them.

Posted by: Deplorable rickb223 at September 13, 2016 03:17 PM (Bd6VC)

62 For those of you who might have missed the link posted by V the K in the the Morning Dump comments, about Rob Portman opening up ground in his re-elect bid, it's worth a look.

http://tinyurl.com/goepny4

Warning: the piece is at NRO, so wear your RINO-protective clothing.

Executive summary: Portman is succeeding even though he was on everyone's short list to be 86ed from the Senate. In part because he is deliberately targeting and reaching out to... the rank and file of blue-collar labor unions in the Rust Belt. Predominantly white unions.

That bloc who the GOP have sniffishly ignored since 1984 when Reagan worked hard to get the Teamsters endorsement. (He had to climb into bed with Jackie Presser to do it. Dirty politics, to be sure, but what isn't?)

White Midwestern blue-collar workers are the same bloc whom the GOP last presented with, as a Presidential choice, Mitt Romney the Ivy League and Wall Street lawyer/MBA. Who looked like, to this social class, "the guy who laid them off". They responded accordingly at the polls.


Posted by: torquewrench at September 13, 2016 03:17 PM (noWW6)

63

I actually think this is brilliant on so many levels.

And, this parallels with growing jobs and helping the middle class, etc.

From what I understand, with not enough reading on it myself yet (just reading a Breitbart post earlier today about it), this is to help with childcare costs for working and single parents, right? Child care costs so that they can contribute in the work force. Offset for companies that do not offer the flex-plans or child care coverage in company supplied insurance. Many companies do, the larger ones anyway.

My only concern is the response from companies that DO cover this already with flexible plans, etc. They could drop these immediately in place of another (which actually could help more or less for some).

This is Ivanka's push, and I assume she'll help with the rollout of the policy plan. She's good, and young and vibrant. She can play to the Meggy Mac crowd too, among others.

Women will perk up to this. Mothers will perk up to this. This is a major expense if you want to work, or if you have to work.

This will grow the child care industry too.

And Hillary will have to respond.

Posted by: artisanal 'ette at September 13, 2016 03:18 PM (qCMvj)

64 And here is an article discussing the impact of immigration on the employment and wages of natives.

http://www.cato.org/blog/immigrations-real-impact-wages-employment

Yes it is from Cato, which is pro-immigration generally. But they link to many academic studies which demonstrate that the effect of immigration on employment and wages is rather small. The most pessimistic estimate is that immigration depresses wages of the native-born by... 2%. Not a huge drop.


Posted by: chemjeff at September 13, 2016 03:18 PM (gXKl3)

65 do you similarly oppose Mike Lee and Marco Rubio or is your objection specific to a single heretic (Trump)?

lee's been pushing this stuff for years; are you #NeverLee as well?

------------

Fair question. I am actually quite a fan of Mike Lee, though I will say I am against the type of reform agenda you described above. Mike Lee has not run for President and has never asked for my vote, so I have not considered it as much as I have for Trump.

But if Lee were running, I would likely have no trouble voting for him.

It is not my only objection to Trump - but it is an objection. There would be other things about Lee that I would find appealing - such as his views on the Constitution - that Trump does not share.



Posted by: SH at September 13, 2016 03:18 PM (gmeXX)

66 >>>It's to the benefit of the U.S. as a whole to have a certain level of resupply and growth in the population. Not everyone will have children, so it can be argued that everyone should contribute to those that do.

yeah this sort of demographic point is hard to refute; I'm just not super-in-love with bribing people to have children.

that said, I... have no real counter-proposals to offer.



Posted by: ace at September 13, 2016 03:18 PM (dciA+)

67 On Thursday he will unveil a more comprehensive picture of his economic policies. So I'll wait for that before judging simply this portion. I am not necessarily opposed to providing "credits" on child care with the right stipulations. If people are working and contributing to the economy, this makes economic sense. It makes even more sense of it helps more people get back to work.

I am waiting for the real tax relief that Republicans have been promising voters got a long time. I'm tired of getting hosed and paying for layabouts.

By the way, we waste more money on stupid shit and fraud than on something like this. Trump has promised to slash a good portion of that.

Posted by: The Deplorable Marcus T at September 13, 2016 03:18 PM (+YTl9)

68 Will return for substance later. For the moment I am worn out by all this alt/right , reformacons, etc. .....stuff. If you are one, can you be another? Really. It's just getting ridiculous. As many types of political thought out there now as there are "sexes". 2 cents.


Posted by: gracepc at September 13, 2016 03:18 PM (OU4q6)

69 I'm a Neo-Objectivist Patriotic American Nationalist- Traditionalist

The NO PANTS Party!



Posted by: WhatWhatWhat? - I speak of the Pompatous of Love at September 13, 2016 03:18 PM (WlGX+)

70 Tax credits can be much better than other subsidies though: example: ACA website with subsidies, or tax credit for buying insurance.

Earned income tax credit is better than sending out a welfare check.

We should also be clear: offering paid maternity leave paid for by employers = same as increasing minimum wage. Its paying a bennie from other people's money. Taxes are at least "all of us" vs. "employers."

But overall, I agree with Ace that reformacons don't have a leg to stand on.

Posted by: sexypig at September 13, 2016 03:19 PM (UBBWX)

71 Trump Proposes Child Care Tax Credits and Changing Rules of Unemployment Insurance to Cover Paid Maternity Leave for Six Weeks

JUST LIKE HITLER!!!!

Posted by: WaPo at September 13, 2016 03:19 PM (OkKDg)

72 Happy Fun Daycare

Posted by: wth at September 13, 2016 03:19 PM (HgMAr)

73 chemjeff, i'll post an article on that same subject, published in politico today, later.

CATO's numbers are wrong -- or, at least, subject to seriosus dispute by serious scholars.



Posted by: ace at September 13, 2016 03:19 PM (dciA+)

74
What if the GOP delivered results for the social cons?

Well, on the issue of abortion, the general trend is in the social cons' favor.


Posted by: chemjeff at September 13, 2016 03:19 PM (gXKl3)

75 "Doesn't make them conservative. In any case, if we're at such a place in America the only way to get votes is to bribe people, let's just fold the whole thing and give up."


Did you know that the original six frigates of the USN were built in six different states in order to get the navy bill through Congress?

Posted by: *Mikey NTH - Fall Special! All Deplorables and Irredeemables 50% off at the Outrage Outlet! at September 13, 2016 03:19 PM (hLRSq)

76 Reformacons? Don't you mean Decepticons?

Can't wait for the action figures! Hope they get the Hanjin ships unloaded in time for Christmas.


Posted by: Headless Body of Agnew at September 13, 2016 03:19 PM (FtrY1)

77 It's to the benefit of the U.S. as a whole to have a certain level of resupply and growth in the population. Not everyone will have children, so it can be argued that everyone should contribute to those that do.

Posted by: jwest at September 13, 2016 03:16 PM (Zs4uk)

If the feral government wants to give money to people with children then they have to authorize it specifically for that purpose and cut the checks directly. Using the IRS as a funneling mechanism is un-Constitutional.

I know that tax credits have been operative for quite a while, already, but they have been, are and will always be (until such time as an amendment is passed) un-Constitutional.

Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at September 13, 2016 03:20 PM (zc3Db)

78 42 But in all seriousness, yeah this is not a terribly wonderful idea, both from the fiscal point of view and from the incentives point of view - this program would just incentivize families to dump their kids off at daycare even more than they are incentivized to do so now. If we really believe kids are best served when they are raised in a two-parent household, we shouldn't propose that the government undermine this belief through perverse incentives.
Posted by: chemjeff at September 13, 2016 03:12 PM (gXKl3)


I'll be sure to let my mom know how awful she was for sending me and my siblings to a babysitter while we were growing up so her and my dad could both work to provide for us.

Posted by: buzzion at September 13, 2016 03:20 PM (z/Ubi)

79 Shocker! men have to bribe women to get anything out of them.
Posted by: Flawless Male Logic at September 13, 2016 03:15 PM (lKyWE)

Ivanka proposed and pushed it. Trump listened and responded to it.

Posted by: artisanal 'ette at September 13, 2016 03:20 PM (qCMvj)

80 I thought Charles Murray was that dance lessons guy?

Posted by: joey biden at September 13, 2016 03:21 PM (LdMbv)

81 73
chemjeff, i'll post an article on that same subject, published in politico today, later.



CATO's numbers are wrong -- or, at least, subject to seriosus dispute by serious scholars.





Posted by: ace at September 13, 2016 03:19 PM (dciA+)
Okay, they might be wrong. I didn't do an in-depth search on the matter. I look forward to your posting on the subject.


Posted by: chemjeff at September 13, 2016 03:21 PM (gXKl3)

82 It's also pretty obvious Trump's not trying to woo conservatives here either, not just the NeverTrump brand. Which is not too reassuring when it comes to Court appointments.

Posted by: spongeworthy at September 13, 2016 03:21 PM (mrfTe)

83 p.s. Ivanka is a liberal democrat.

If she can influence Trump on this, she will influence him on SCOTUS picks.

Everyone buckle up.

Luckily, I have made peace with the fact that I have no party, and the American people want European Fabian socialism.



Posted by: sexypig at September 13, 2016 03:21 PM (UBBWX)

84 If women didn't have the right to vote Dole would have beat Clinton in '96.

Posted by: Scalia's Ghost at September 13, 2016 03:21 PM (fgOnp)

85 well, hate to break this to you, but bribing voters by promising tangible policy changes that benefit them has sort of been the main style of politics for both parties for 240 years
Posted by: ace

The best part of Scorcese's "Gangs of New York" showed Boss Tweed sending minions to the docks to literally bribe immigrants getting off the boats with free food and money -- and signing them up for the Democratic Party as they first set foot on American soil.

It was dead-on accurate. And we now live in a Boss Tweed nation.

Posted by: zombie at September 13, 2016 03:21 PM (jBuUi)

86 yeah this sort of demographic point is hard to refute; I'm just not super-in-love with bribing people to have children.

that said, I... have no real counter-proposals to offer.

-----------

The country should be encouraging more children. So I think providing incentives may make sense. But better than that, I am in favor of ridding our country of the disincentives. There are a lot of little things that make it more difficult in this country to have children - small things like requiring children to ride in booster seats.

Posted by: SH at September 13, 2016 03:22 PM (gmeXX)

87 I'm having trouble keeping up, but can someone just let me know when I get to quit my job and get paid to sit at home? Because I want some of that action.


Posted by: Scott at September 13, 2016 03:22 PM (Bo7uZ)

88 77 It's to the benefit of the U.S. as a whole to have a certain level of resupply and growth in the population. Not everyone will have children, so it can be argued that everyone should contribute to those that do.

Posted by: jwest at September 13, 2016 03:16 PM (Zs4uk)

If the feral government wants to give money to people with children then they have to authorize it specifically for that purpose and cut the checks directly. Using the IRS as a funneling mechanism is un-Constitutional.

I know that tax credits have been operative for quite a while, already, but they have been, are and will always be (until such time as an amendment is passed) un-Constitutional.

Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at September 13, 2016 03:20 PM (zc3Db)

++++

What about the standard tax deduction for dependents (children)? Do you believe that they too are unconstitutional?



Posted by: Anon Y. Mous at September 13, 2016 03:22 PM (R+30W)

89 I'll be sure to let my mom know how awful she was
for sending me and my siblings to a babysitter while we were growing up
so her and my dad could both work to provide for us.

Posted by: buzzion at September 13, 2016 03:20 PM (z/Ubi)
It's not a moral judgment against anyone if kids are sent to day care or if they are raised at home by mom. I am simply discussing the concept of incentives, not judgment.


Posted by: chemjeff at September 13, 2016 03:22 PM (gXKl3)

90 Trump is in this position of having to bribe women to vote for him.

So now the Trump 'ettes are being blown.

Posted by: Duncanthrax at September 13, 2016 03:22 PM (i7/wm)

91 62 For those of you who might have missed the link posted by V the K in the the Morning Dump comments, about Rob Portman opening up ground in his re-elect bid, it's worth a look.

http://tinyurl.com/goepny4

Warning: the piece is at NRO, so wear your RINO-protective clothing.

Executive summary: Portman is succeeding even though he was on everyone's short list to be 86ed from the Senate. In part because he is deliberately targeting and reaching out to... the rank and file of blue-collar labor unions in the Rust Belt. Predominantly white unions.

That bloc who the GOP have sniffishly ignored since 1984 when Reagan worked hard to get the Teamsters endorsement. (He had to climb into bed with Jackie Presser to do it. Dirty politics, to be sure, but what isn't?)

White Midwestern blue-collar workers are the same bloc whom the GOP last presented with, as a Presidential choice, Mitt Romney the Ivy League and Wall Street lawyer/MBA. Who looked like, to this social class, "the guy who laid them off". They responded accordingly at the polls.
Posted by: torquewrench at September 13, 2016 03:17 PM (noWW6)


The main thing in Portman's favor: He's running against Ted Strickland. The failed democrat governor that won because Taft was a complete fuck up, and did such a bad job that he lost to Kasich.

Posted by: buzzion at September 13, 2016 03:23 PM (z/Ubi)

92 #78 I'll be sure to let my mom know how awful she was for sending me and my siblings to a babysitter while we were growing up so her and my dad could both work to provide for us.

My story too, except I had to be the babysitter. The perils of being the oldest sibling.

But for a passel of perennial latchkey kids, we turned out fine. My sis is a top level exec with a major healthcare provider, one bro is an engineer, the other a bank exec.

Posted by: WhatWhatWhat? - I speak of the Pompatous of Love at September 13, 2016 03:23 PM (WlGX+)

93 Will all the kidlets get little brown onesies?

Posted by: wth at September 13, 2016 03:23 PM (HgMAr)

94 yeah this sort of demographic point is hard to refute; I'm just not super-in-love with bribing people to have children.

Posted by: ace at September 13, 2016 03:18 PM (dciA+)

I have no problems with that. I only have problems with the mechanism proposed.

Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at September 13, 2016 03:23 PM (zc3Db)

95 Politics is the art of the possible. And it's not possible to escape the power of Free Shit.

Posted by: josephistan at September 13, 2016 03:23 PM (7HtZB)

96 However, the Reformacons do have a practical point: What can you offer lower-income voters when you've already cut their taxes to zero

++++

How about actually fighting for something, for once? Something tangible. Tax cuts mean nothing to anyone.

Posted by: Bigbys Olive Fingers at September 13, 2016 03:23 PM (6BRKY)

97 As a woman, a mother, working and living in Cali, we already get maternity leave 8-12 weeks through the unemployment program the state runs and we pay into and my company does have a program to help with offsetting child care and it is very helpful. And it does allow more women to get back into the workforce and not have to make the decision to be a stay at home mom just because they cannot afford child care.


Posted by: IC at September 13, 2016 03:23 PM (a0IVu)

98 How about actually fighting for something, for once?

What specifically should they fight for?


Posted by: chemjeff at September 13, 2016 03:24 PM (gXKl3)

99 It's also pretty obvious Trump's not trying to woo conservatives here either, not just the NeverTrump brand. Which is not too reassuring when it comes to Court appointments.
Posted by: spongeworthy at September 13, 2016 03:21 PM (mrfTe)

nope, he wants to win
that is it in a nutshell
no one knows what he'll actually do when he does, and I think he will now, unless he blows it in 56 or whatever days

Posted by: artisanal 'ette at September 13, 2016 03:24 PM (qCMvj)

100 yeah this sort of demographic point is hard to refute; I'm just not super-in-love with bribing people to have children.

that said, I... have no real counter-proposals to offer.

Posted by: ace at September 13, 2016 03:18 PM (dciA+)


Until the internment camps are established and I get to chose the prime breeding stock personally, incentives will have to do.

Posted by: jwest at September 13, 2016 03:24 PM (Zs4uk)

101 Posted by: ace at September 13, 2016 03:14 PM (dciA+)

I don't call for Lee pushing universal child care or mandatory paid time off, as much much as an expansion of the child tax credit.
Now I'm generally opposed to using the tax code to influence behavior, so I'm not a fan of using it to encourage (or reduce discouragement of) people to have kids. But I would also suggest that these are two different things.
For at least one thing, the child tax credit treats everyone who has kids the same, but targeted daycare credits only benefit those who use daycare as opposed to, say a stay at home parent.
And mandatory maternity leave is just going to make businesses find ways to avoid hiring women.
(Yes I know people who don't have kids are not benefiting from a child tax credit. Set that aside for just a moment)

Posted by: Tsrblke at September 13, 2016 03:24 PM (dzmBR)

102 Trump is in this position of having to bribe women to vote for him.

So now the Trump 'ettes are being blown.




Golf clap.

Posted by: Deplorable rickb223 at September 13, 2016 03:24 PM (Bd6VC)

103 I deplore our overall tax regime, but acknowledge that absent revolution it's not going away and the best that can be done is nibbling at the margins. That said, I'm only in favor of tax credits to the extent they can reduce an individual's or family's tax burden, not to the extent of a net payment.

Posted by: Insomniac - Irredeemably Deplorable at September 13, 2016 03:24 PM (0mRoj)

104 What about the standard tax deduction for dependents (children)? Do you believe that they too are unconstitutional?

Posted by: Anon Y. Mous at September 13, 2016 03:22 PM (R+30W)

No. I mentioned in my earlier post that tax deductions for children are perfectly fine - and I am very much in favor of raising the those tax deductions. Tax credits are the problem.

Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at September 13, 2016 03:25 PM (zc3Db)

105 "Tax cuts mean nothing to anyone."

Oh, I'd like to see some tax cuts.

But the reality is were spending so much, we shuldn't do that.,

Tax refrom, OTOH.

Posted by: sexypig at September 13, 2016 03:25 PM (UBBWX)

106 When I was a kid I had all 5 Reformacon toys. They'd unite and form the super robot RINO-sor.

Posted by: Nonapod at September 13, 2016 03:25 PM (CLP9I)

107 yeah this sort of demographic point is hard to refute; I'm just not super-in-love with bribing people to have children.

that said, I... have no real counter-proposals to offer.

Welcome to my brainspace. The part of me that wants to find a way to salvage, reinforce, and reinvigorate the West has been deadlocked with the "government that governs least" part of me for some time. I know generally what must be done, but I have no idea how to do it in a way that won't inevitably turn into a shitshow over time.

Posted by: Brother Cavil, deplorably GABing @brothercavil at September 13, 2016 03:25 PM (9krrF)

108 My question becomes how can you have a Negative Tax rate?

n. a governmental assessment (charge) upon property value, transactions (transfers and sales), licenses granting a right, and/or income. These include Federal and state income taxes, county and city taxes on real property, state and/or local sales tax based on a percentage of each retail transaction, duties on imports from foreign countries, business licenses, Federal tax (and some states' taxes) on the estates of persons who have died, taxes on large gifts, and a state "use" tax in lieu of sales tax imposed on certain goods bought outside of the state.


A Tax it PAID to a government... it is not a source of Income to a person.

Posted by: Don Q. at September 13, 2016 03:25 PM (qf6WZ)

109 I call Trump's refundable tax credit and raise him one beautiful pony for every voter.

*hic*

Posted by: Hillary! 2016: Brain Damaged? Yes, But Not Too Brain Damaged To Still Be A Scheming, Lying Witch at September 13, 2016 03:26 PM (8ZskC)

110 I'm having trouble keeping up, but can someone just let me know when I get to quit my job and get paid to sit at home? Because I want some of that action.

Posted by: Scott at September 13, 2016 03:22 PM (Bo7uZ)
..................

Depends. Are you Muslim, Hispanic or African American?

Posted by: wth at September 13, 2016 03:26 PM (HgMAr)

111 well, hate to break this to you, but bribing voters

That's why I said ONLY in plain English. As in, there is no other way, cannot get votes through any system, exclusively by bribery. ONLY.

Posted by: Christopher R Taylor at September 13, 2016 03:26 PM (39g3+)

112 As a woman, a mother, working and living in Cali, we already get maternity leave 8-12 weeks through the unemployment program the state runs and we pay into and my company does have a program to help with offsetting child care and it is very helpful. And it does allow more women to get back into the workforce and not have to make the decision to be a stay at home mom just because they cannot afford child care.
Posted by: IC at September 13, 2016 03:23 PM (a0IVu)

exactly

Child care costs are ridiculous and this current administration is hell bent on stopping your neighbors or your community in helping out by trying to unionize them.

Make no mistake, Hillary will destroy this "takes a village" crap that she pretends to spew.



Posted by: artisanal 'ette at September 13, 2016 03:26 PM (qCMvj)

113 If only wed elected Romney, banned contraceptives, and instituted the Barefoot and Pregnant Omnibus Act, all this could have been avoided.

Posted by: Mr. Peebles at September 13, 2016 03:26 PM (OkKDg)

114 What specifically should they fight for?

+++(

Start with the privacy of a bathroom. Small stuff.

Posted by: Bigbys Olive Fingers at September 13, 2016 03:26 PM (6BRKY)

115 "This is why when the Uniparty talks about making the illegals pay back
taxes as a condition to amnesty, it is such an insulting fraud on the
American people. WE would end up paying THEM for accumulated refundable tax credits like the EITC."

Bingo, bravo, bullseye.

I suspect the reason this "pay the back taxes" business keeps coming up over and over again is because the establishment have learned that the phrase focus-groups well.

If the economically illiterate Joe and Jane Citizens in the focus groups were clued in to the fact that the illegals wouldn't actually be paying anything, and might actually *get paid*, the response would probably be quite different.


Posted by: torquewrench at September 13, 2016 03:26 PM (noWW6)

116 "Until the internment camps are established and I get to chose the prime breeding stock personally, incentives will have to do."

I see you're from the school of "if you want something done right, do it yourself."

Posted by: sexypig at September 13, 2016 03:26 PM (UBBWX)

117
109
I call Trump's refundable tax credit and raise him one beautiful pony for every voter.



*hic*

Posted by: Hillary! 2016: Brain Damaged? Yes, But Not Too Brain Damaged
To Still Be A Scheming, Lying Witch at September 13, 2016 03:26 PM
(8ZskC)

See, and this is ALSO the problem with Republicans offering goodies to the public. The Democrats will always outbid the Republicans.


Posted by: chemjeff at September 13, 2016 03:27 PM (gXKl3)

118 If we adopted my voucher plan, not only would it give the proper incentives for children, it would make it profitable to have and raise educated children.

Parents of uneducated kids would lose money.



Posted by: jwest at September 13, 2016 03:27 PM (Zs4uk)

119 110 I'm having trouble keeping up, but can someone just let me know when I get to quit my job and get paid to sit at home? Because I want some of that action.

Posted by: Scott at September 13, 2016 03:22 PM (Bo7uZ)
..................

Depends. Are you Muslim, Hispanic or African American?
Posted by: wth at September 13, 2016 03:26 PM (HgMAr)

Also female, unmarried, and lots of bastard children.

Posted by: Insomniac - Irredeemably Deplorable at September 13, 2016 03:27 PM (0mRoj)

120 I'm having trouble keeping up, but can someone just let me know when I get to quit my job and get paid to sit at home? Because I want some of that action.

Posted by: Scott at September 13, 2016 03:22 PM (Bo7uZ)

paternity leave exists too

Posted by: artisanal 'ette at September 13, 2016 03:27 PM (qCMvj)

121 (Hand up)
Ummm... Why should I work my ass off for my family while these dumb lazy cunts get a free ride?

Posted by: TexasJew at September 13, 2016 03:27 PM (R4fan)

122 Since the pool you're swimming in is absolutely immune to Trump's bait, why wouldn't he go fishing in another pool?


Yup.

Take, for example, me. There are no circumstances under which I will vote for Hillary. I am not persuadable on this point. There is nothing that can be said or done by Hillary or her supporters to change my mind. So why waste time and money going after my vote?


As far as the actual proposal, I will say this. As the childless woman in the office who is the person who has to pick up the slack because hey you don't have any responsibilities, I have rather vehement opinions on this. Oh, yes. Yes, I do.

Though that's nothing compared to the fact that given the ads and counter ads and counter counter ads here in the NC gubernatorial contest I now actively loathe children and want NC public school teachers to be beset by poisonous clown spiders as they are falling into a volcano.

Because The Children.

Posted by: alexthechick - fagette at September 13, 2016 03:27 PM (mf5HN)

123 See, the concept of getting people to vote for you because you'll fight for them, against evil, and protect them seems to be a valuable way to get votes too. Not "vote for me and you get goodies" but "vote for me and I'll stop the madness, protect you, and bring back prosperity and hope."

But I guess if you think conservatism is finding ways to bribe interest groups we're not ever gonna be on the same page.

Posted by: Christopher R Taylor at September 13, 2016 03:27 PM (39g3+)

124 104 What about the standard tax deduction for dependents (children)? Do you believe that they too are unconstitutional?

Posted by: Anon Y. Mous at September 13, 2016 03:22 PM (R+30W)

No. I mentioned in my earlier post that tax deductions for children are perfectly fine - and I am very much in favor of raising the those tax deductions. Tax credits are the problem.

Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at September 13, 2016 03:25 PM (zc3Db)

++++

I'm curious about why you think that tax deductions for having kids is constitutional, but tax credits for kids are not. What part of the constitution do you have in mind?



Posted by: Anon Y. Mous at September 13, 2016 03:27 PM (R+30W)

125 Also--we've all agreed we don't see a good way to do this with state power. How lovely if people could look at that and say, gee, state power really sucks for keeping a civilization going, I wonder if there's another solution, like finding guidance by other means and living righteous and responsible lives?

I know, I know, I ask too much, as always.

Posted by: Brother Cavil, deplorably GABing @brothercavil at September 13, 2016 03:28 PM (9krrF)

126 What specifically should they fight for?
Posted by: chemjeff
-----------------
Their right. To paaaaaaarty.

Posted by: Chi at September 13, 2016 03:28 PM (fNcEQ)

127
Hillary already offered "summer camp for adults" so comme ci com ca.


Posted by: Guy Mohawk at September 13, 2016 03:28 PM (ODxAs)

128 The man is a writin' machine.

---

he outsource to us for cheap so he can do more squats

Posted by: Illegal Mexican scribe pundits at September 13, 2016 03:28 PM (oGRue)

129 6 Does Ace have some device that automatically converts human thought into typed text?

Because how in the heck can he uncork these looong but still cogent and meaningful essays so rapidly and numerously?

The man is a writin' machine.
Posted by: zombie at September 13, 2016 03:03 PM (jBuUi)

I've wondered for a while if he uses some speech-to-text program, if only because of the occasional weird issue with homonyms.

Posted by: Hal at September 13, 2016 03:28 PM (9+Yad)

130 OT/ but I see all Hillary's IT guys who did her personal server either plead the fifth today or didn't show up at all.... Nothing to see here move along...

Posted by: deplorable donna at September 13, 2016 03:28 PM (O2RFr)

131 I suspect this will simply push more people at the margins OFF the tax rolls, won't it?

Posted by: Mr. Peebles at September 13, 2016 03:29 PM (OkKDg)

132 Well, we could be like Italy, and create a "Fertility Day".

http://tinyurl.com/hyjqrf2


Posted by: chemjeff at September 13, 2016 03:29 PM (gXKl3)

133 126 What specifically should they fight for?
Posted by: chemjeff
-----------------
Their right. To paaaaaaarty.


Your Ma threw away your best porno mag!

Posted by: Insomniac - Irredeemably Deplorable at September 13, 2016 03:29 PM (0mRoj)

134 "Depends. Are you Muslim, Hispanic or African American?
Posted by: wth at September 13, 2016 03:26 PM (HgMAr)"

Maybe you live somewhere else, but where I live we have plenty of white people on welfare who sit around and do nothing.

or who are disability cheats.

Posted by: sexypig at September 13, 2016 03:30 PM (UBBWX)

135 I've wondered for a while if he uses some speech-to-text program, if only because of the occasional weird issue with homonyms.

His issues with homonyms stem from being molested as a child with a thesaurus.

Posted by: Mr. Peebles at September 13, 2016 03:30 PM (OkKDg)

136 Trump's latest word salad.

--

that word TACO salad amigo

Posted by: Donaldo El Trumpo at September 13, 2016 03:30 PM (oGRue)

137 I've wondered for a while if he uses some speech-to-text program, if only because of the occasional weird issue with homonyms.


Now take that back. Ace has never said a bad word about homonyms.

H8ter.

Posted by: Cicero -- Profoundly Deplorable But Pretty Dependable at September 13, 2016 03:30 PM (8ZskC)

138 I'm not happy about it either, but:

1) This does help him, a lot. It's a small loss in the movement but a big short term win, as opposed to the usual losing the battle but losing the war.
2) If congress is half as conservative as the #NeverTrump thinks they'd be in a Clinton presidency, they'll be able to make this disappear quickly after he wins.
3) If they can't, it further proves the need for a Clinton loss, and this brings us closer to that.
4) I am overcome with joy over the idea that Hillary is going to have to run against paid maternity leave.

Yeah but no, fuck reformicons. That obviously can't be the entire platform of the party, because the democrats will always just promise more.

Posted by: GrapeDrink at September 13, 2016 03:30 PM (jAzoi)

139 If you can't see why we ought to encourage people to have lots of children, that may explain why so many of you want to limit immigration.

Not all growth can come through gains in productivity. And if you don't think we need growth, and loads of it, you haven't looked at our books.

Posted by: spongeworthy at September 13, 2016 03:31 PM (mrfTe)

140 Interesting post, but the day after Trump is elected, I believe the Fed will push interest rates sky high. And a week later, even higher. After that, no one is going remember what the Republican nominee said today.


Posted by: mrp at September 13, 2016 03:31 PM (JBggj)

141 "vote for me and I'll stop the madness, protect you, and bring back prosperity and hope."

If the people believe prosperity comes from government largesse...

Posted by: sexypig at September 13, 2016 03:31 PM (UBBWX)

142
I'm not sure I'm going to throw the heretic flag at Trump, just yet. I'm former hard core business person who always tried to think through every action and reaction, two, three, four steps into the future.

One action, removing a group of people from the workplace who don't belong, will necessitate another group eager to take their place. Removing the penalties from group number two which now exists makes perfectly good sense, especially if the US treasury receives a net gain in revenue. Which is impossible to not have happen.

I will not be responding to this post, by the way. There are some people here -- of the jefficlemistry type -- who piss me off to no end on this topic.

Posted by: free range 'sorta' conservative but not 'true' conservative but 100% deplorable at September 13, 20