Things we'd be talking about if the forum wasn't deadFollow

You shift sixteen tons, and what do you achieve?
Another day older, and a weekend's reprieve.

In stupid, overreacting, social media PC news:

In a crappy movie about Peter Rabbit full of slapstick comedy and people being electrocuted, apparently using food allergies to attack a person is crossing the line and the movie needs to be boycotted and/or edited to remove the scene.

Still not going to watch the movie, but not because of a misuse of berries to attack a person who is allergic.

Imagine if those parents discover Looney Tunes.

Though I guess certain politicos did spend too much time watching Speedy Gonzalez.

The Robopacalypse is nigh.

Only if there is no increase in economic activity (ie: taxable activity) along the way. While it's technically "fair" to do an 'everything else staying the same' calculation of deficits, and this is how we do this, this method always results in downplaying the positive tax effects of economic growth, while also downplaying the negative effects of economic loss over time. So tax increases seem to be more deficit friendly because we assume the same economic activity after the tax increases as before. But economic activity decreases as a result, meaning we get less deficit reduction than the straight math would predict. Similarly, tax cuts appear on paper to have direct corresponding increases in deficits, but we find that over time, they don't, specifically because people tend to take those extra dollars they have as a result of the lower tax rates and either spend them (which results in increased profits and thus taxable revenue by vendors), or invest them (which increases taxes by the businesses or whatnot that grow as a result).

This is not a "take money from peter to pay paul" kind of scenario. If the tax base itself expands (and every indicator shows that it is already), the effect on total deficit will be minimal if there is any at all.



Again, that's not really the way this works. If the entire system is zero sum? Sure. But it's not. We're already seeing gdp growth rates that are somewhere between double and triple what we saw during Obama's administration. Whether that rate is maintained or not is a matter of speculation, but the fact is that GDP growth means large tax base, which means you can generate similar amounts of revenue for the government even with lower tax rates across the board.



Again, that's not how it works. Purchasing power is your earnings relative to the cost of goods you purchase. If the only growth was inflation related, you'd have a point. But if the growth is due to more people actually working (which appears to be the case), and more businesses opening up shop in the US (which appears to be the case), and more businesses headquartering out of the US rather than a foreign country (which also appears to be the case), then the effect on cost of goods does not change in direct relation to that growth. Which means you get the increased tax base, while at a decreased tax rate, and everyone benefits.

It's quite possible to have a scenario where someone else benefits more than you do, but you're still better off than you were before. It's not always true that someone has to lose for someone else to gain. You're assuming that purchasing power will decrease in direct relation to the increase in take home pay, but there's no data to support that claim.

You weren't even here to discuss it. See, this is why things don't get done.

The whole dreamers thing didn't really seem like that great of a hill to die on anyway.

The apple never falls far from the tree.

Wait, wait, wait!! WAIT!

Are you trying to use facts to argue with gbaji?

Oh, man, that's precious!

Some poeple started singing it
Not knowing what it was ...
And they'll continue singing it
Forever just because ...

I'll be impressed if we get past the "failure by the FBI" narrative. Plenty of reason to want to discredit them right about now.

But maybe we'll get some better mental health care funding out of this as a silver lining.