Progressive Ideology

[Kismet]

Ask Paul Ryan why we didn't repeal it.

You know why. Because these health benefits keep hospitals open in Rural America. That's why. Rural America has collapsed, and this is all that's giving them access to a doctor within 100 miles of their homes.

Pull Obamacare? Turn off the lights in States like WV, AL, AK, WY, MT, ID, AL, AK.....etc., etc. Rural Colorado? It's been rough sledding out this way for years.

Don't believe me? Google "rural hospitals" and words like "closure" "failure"...etc.

FoxNews tries----desperately-----to convince their viewers that Federal bennies take money from working class Republicans, and sends it to lazy Dems in cities. It's the other way around.... It's literally why we're running a deficit.

Example? SNAP (Food Stamp) use is higher per capita in Rural vs. Urban America. Because: of course it is. And the only relief for these folks? Move to cities....which is precisely what they've been doing.

It's literally why every time your party gets into power, they EXPLODE spending. Every time. No exceptions. Last Republican POTUS to cut spending, as I keep saying, was Eisenhower. Your party is doing the EXACT OPPOSITE of what you think they're doing.

That welfare reform the Post piece mentioned, in 96, that ACTUALLY WORKED? Who signed that, get it to X? That's right. Slimy Bill Clinton, and that little D by his name.

I'm not championing the Dems, except Clinton for having the stones to sign that controversial bill. I'm telling you that..... on this issue? The Republicans are the problem. You can change my mind when a Republican POTUS cuts handouts and overall spending. My dad, who is 80, couldn't drive yet the last time that happened, FFS.

Here is a good article from 2016 on the 1996 reform bill. It wasn't perfect, and the only way it got done was to de-couple Medicaid reform from Welfare reform. Gingrich had to finally relent when a bunch of Republican representatives forced his hand.

Bills don't magically appear on a President's desk. He vetoed two previous reform bills, but I give Clinton credit as a politician for holding out for the revised bill, which BTW, is derided to this day by many progressives.

https://time.com/4446348/welfare-reform-20-years/

And after Bill did the deal, all it got him from Republicans was an IMPEACHMENT.

[MDlaxfan76]

New York Post
I was trying to understand whether the authors ever actually defined these "benefits"...they make some assertions about "some" families, but then never actually explain these "Obamacare subsidies"...how much value are these?...why not also say "benefits of a national defense" or "benefits of national highway system"...bet we could argue that these are valuable too.

And on unemployment, who here knows someone who has used unemployment?
When was that?
And what did they need to do to qualify for it each month?

Seriously, how many people do any of us know who is actually abusing the system?

I do know some people who realized they really didn't need both incomes, one or both decided to retire, but the one person I know who is chronically unemployed for serious stretches of time, and then employed again for stretches, earns $300k+ when he's working...and he's never tapped unemployment. Never considered it.

I'm not sure as well that I understand who all these reprobates are at home being paid to watch Netflix.

There are 2 million more people working in America than there were pre Covid.
Sure, there was a dip below that during the Covid downturn, but no more.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/269 ... ed-states/

The workforce participation rate is one percentage point lower compared to pre-pandemic levels, which were already low based on historical patterns. How do you square that up? It just points out anybody, you or me, can cherry pick your statistic.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CIVPART

I would note that it went down somewhere around 3% during the Obama administration. I could be wrong, but didn't they allow states to relax the work requirements for welfare benefits?

Yes, big tick down during Covid, big jump back, but not all the way; lots of residual, accelerated retirements plus some women still not back. 2nd income families deciding they do better with mom at home rather than kids in childcare. Childcare cost went through the roof, can't get enough workers, so many families discovered that net net, better for mom to stay home. Mostly mom...

But what you appear to miss from the chart you linked is the 20+ year trend downward...do you really think those people were taking advantage of welfare??? Or can you think of something else that was happening demographically?

But here we are, with 2 million more people working in the US than were doing so pre pandemic...and you think millions of people are sitting home being paid by the government 'to watch Netflix'...

[a fan]

Here is a good article from 2016 on the 1996 reform bill. It wasn't perfect, and the only way it got done was to de-couple Medicaid reform from Welfare reform. Gingrich had to finally relent when a bunch of Republican representatives forced his hand.

Bills don't magically appear on a President's desk. He vetoed two previous reform bills, but I give Clinton credit as a politician for holding out for the revised bill, which BTW, is derided to this day by many progressives.

https://time.com/4446348/welfare-reform-20-years/

Yes, progressives at the time hated the bill.

Funny what happens when D's and R's stop pretending to not want to work together to make America a better place, and actually govern.

Since the year that bill passed, btw? We have cut child poverty in America in half. In HALF. Bravo.

[get it to x]

New York Post
I was trying to understand whether the authors ever actually defined these "benefits"...they make some assertions about "some" families, but then never actually explain these "Obamacare subsidies"...how much value are these?...why not also say "benefits of a national defense" or "benefits of national highway system"...bet we could argue that these are valuable too.

And on unemployment, who here knows someone who has used unemployment?
When was that?
And what did they need to do to qualify for it each month?

Seriously, how many people do any of us know who is actually abusing the system?

I do know some people who realized they really didn't need both incomes, one or both decided to retire, but the one person I know who is chronically unemployed for serious stretches of time, and then employed again for stretches, earns $300k+ when he's working...and he's never tapped unemployment. Never considered it.

I'm not sure as well that I understand who all these reprobates are at home being paid to watch Netflix.

There are 2 million more people working in America than there were pre Covid.
Sure, there was a dip below that during the Covid downturn, but no more.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/269 ... ed-states/

The workforce participation rate is one percentage point lower compared to pre-pandemic levels, which were already low based on historical patterns. How do you square that up? It just points out anybody, you or me, can cherry pick your statistic.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CIVPART

I would note that it went down somewhere around 3% during the Obama administration. I could be wrong, but didn't they allow states to relax the work requirements for welfare benefits?

Yes, big tick down during Covid, big jump back, but not all the way; lots of residual, accelerated retirements plus some women still not back. 2nd income families deciding they do better with mom at home rather than kids in childcare. Childcare cost went through the roof, can't get enough workers, so many families discovered that net net, better for mom to stay home. Mostly mom...

But what you appear to miss from the chart you linked is the 20+ year trend downward...do you really think those people were taking advantage of welfare??? Or can you think of something else that was happening demographically?

But here we are, with 2 million more people working in the US than were doing so pre pandemic...and you think millions of people are sitting home being paid by the government 'to watch Netflix'...

So you keep sticking to your pre/post pandemic narrative. That tick down and back up was almost vertical. Why do you think there was a downward trend prior to around 2016? And no, I am not trying to bring Trump into this. I'm simply pointing out that when you make it easier to get benefits that people do the calculation. Especially those with low paying jobs. Remember, benefits include health insurance, food assistance, housing and some energy bill help in addition to direct cash payments. You're right, though, it could also be boomers retiring or any one of a number of other things. Or a combination of a lot of things. As a percentage of the total population, we still have less workers using your pre/post metric.

What really went up during the pandemic was the wealth gap. Amazon, Walmart, Publix etc did well. Small business was either closed or drastically curtailed. I don't recall anyone saying the Wegman's I shopped in at the time was a "super spreader". And I can't tell you how many shoppers I saw pick up an item, read the label and put it back.

[get it to x]

Here is a good article from 2016 on the 1996 reform bill. It wasn't perfect, and the only way it got done was to de-couple Medicaid reform from Welfare reform. Gingrich had to finally relent when a bunch of Republican representatives forced his hand.

Bills don't magically appear on a President's desk. He vetoed two previous reform bills, but I give Clinton credit as a politician for holding out for the revised bill, which BTW, is derided to this day by many progressives.

https://time.com/4446348/welfare-reform-20-years/

Yes, progressives at the time hated the bill.

Funny what happens when D's and R's stop pretending to not want to work together to make America a better place, and actually govern.

Since the year that bill passed, btw? We have cut child poverty in America in half. In HALF. Bravo.

Yes, too bad each side is so dug in. I'm interested to see how the cost cutting/debt ceiling debate shakes out. Hoping some moderate folks on both sides form a bloc that will insist on both cost cutting and a modest debt increase. Would like to see regular order for budgeting and then we can figure out if we need to borrow more money.

[cradleandshoot]

Ask Paul Ryan why we didn't repeal it.

You know why. Because these health benefits keep hospitals open in Rural America. That's why. Rural America has collapsed, and this is all that's giving them access to a doctor within 100 miles of their homes.

Pull Obamacare? Turn off the lights in States like WV, AL, AK, WY, MT, ID, AL, AK.....etc., etc. Rural Colorado? It's been rough sledding out this way for years.

Don't believe me? Google "rural hospitals" and words like "closure" "failure"...etc.

FoxNews tries----desperately-----to convince their viewers that Federal bennies take money from working class Republicans, and sends it to lazy Dems in cities. It's the other way around.... It's literally why we're running a deficit.

Example? SNAP (Food Stamp) use is higher per capita in Rural vs. Urban America. Because: of course it is. And the only relief for these folks? Move to cities....which is precisely what they've been doing.

It's literally why every time your party gets into power, they EXPLODE spending. Every time. No exceptions. Last Republican POTUS to cut spending, as I keep saying, was Eisenhower. Your party is doing the EXACT OPPOSITE of what you think they're doing.

That welfare reform the Post piece mentioned, in 96, that ACTUALLY WORKED? Who signed that, get it to X? That's right. Slimy Bill Clinton, and that little D by his name.

I'm not championing the Dems, except Clinton for having the stones to sign that controversial bill. I'm telling you that..... on this issue? The Republicans are the problem. You can change my mind when a Republican POTUS cuts handouts and overall spending. My dad, who is 80, couldn't drive yet the last time that happened, FFS.

Here is a good article from 2016 on the 1996 reform bill. It wasn't perfect, and the only way it got done was to de-couple Medicaid reform from Welfare reform. Gingrich had to finally relent when a bunch of Republican representatives forced his hand.

Bills don't magically appear on a President's desk. He vetoed two previous reform bills, but I give Clinton credit as a politician for holding out for the revised bill, which BTW, is derided to this day by many progressives.

https://time.com/4446348/welfare-reform-20-years/

And after Bill did the deal, all it got him from Republicans was an IMPEACHMENT.

There was a happy ending there thrown in for good measure.

[Kismet]

Here is a good article from 2016 on the 1996 reform bill. It wasn't perfect, and the only way it got done was to de-couple Medicaid reform from Welfare reform. Gingrich had to finally relent when a bunch of Republican representatives forced his hand.

Bills don't magically appear on a President's desk. He vetoed two previous reform bills, but I give Clinton credit as a politician for holding out for the revised bill, which BTW, is derided to this day by many progressives.

https://time.com/4446348/welfare-reform-20-years/

Yes, progressives at the time hated the bill.

Funny what happens when D's and R's stop pretending to not want to work together to make America a better place, and actually govern.

Since the year that bill passed, btw? We have cut child poverty in America in half. In HALF. Bravo.

Yes, too bad each side is so dug in. I'm interested to see how the cost cutting/debt ceiling debate shakes out. Hoping some moderate folks on both sides form a bloc that will insist on both cost cutting and a modest debt increase. Would like to see regular order for budgeting and then we can figure out if we need to borrow more money.

Where were you when the debt limit was raised THREE TIMES under Orange Cheato and the national debt rose by almost $7.8 trillion during his four years in office

Just askin'

[get it to x]

Here is a good article from 2016 on the 1996 reform bill. It wasn't perfect, and the only way it got done was to de-couple Medicaid reform from Welfare reform. Gingrich had to finally relent when a bunch of Republican representatives forced his hand.

Bills don't magically appear on a President's desk. He vetoed two previous reform bills, but I give Clinton credit as a politician for holding out for the revised bill, which BTW, is derided to this day by many progressives.

https://time.com/4446348/welfare-reform-20-years/

Yes, progressives at the time hated the bill.

Funny what happens when D's and R's stop pretending to not want to work together to make America a better place, and actually govern.

Since the year that bill passed, btw? We have cut child poverty in America in half. In HALF. Bravo.

Yes, too bad each side is so dug in. I'm interested to see how the cost cutting/debt ceiling debate shakes out. Hoping some moderate folks on both sides form a bloc that will insist on both cost cutting and a modest debt increase. Would like to see regular order for budgeting and then we can figure out if we need to borrow more money.

Where were you when the debt limit was raised THREE TIMES under Orange Cheato and the national debt rose by almost $7.8 trillion during his four years in office

Just askin'

It's what happens when congress doesn't do their job. What, you think I'm all for these cretins, in both parties, stealing my descendants future? I'd even be all in for these continuing resolutions, as long as they reduced the amount by somewhere between 5% and 10%. Make each department prioritize.

[cradleandshoot]

Here is a good article from 2016 on the 1996 reform bill. It wasn't perfect, and the only way it got done was to de-couple Medicaid reform from Welfare reform. Gingrich had to finally relent when a bunch of Republican representatives forced his hand.

Bills don't magically appear on a President's desk. He vetoed two previous reform bills, but I give Clinton credit as a politician for holding out for the revised bill, which BTW, is derided to this day by many progressives.

https://time.com/4446348/welfare-reform-20-years/

Yes, progressives at the time hated the bill.

Funny what happens when D's and R's stop pretending to not want to work together to make America a better place, and actually govern.

Since the year that bill passed, btw? We have cut child poverty in America in half. In HALF. Bravo.

Yes, too bad each side is so dug in. I'm interested to see how the cost cutting/debt ceiling debate shakes out. Hoping some moderate folks on both sides form a bloc that will insist on both cost cutting and a modest debt increase. Would like to see regular order for budgeting and then we can figure out if we need to borrow more money.

Where were you when the debt limit was raised THREE TIMES under Orange Cheato and the national debt rose by almost $7.8 trillion during his four years in office

Just askin'

Trump should have just said screw Covid im not spending a dime. How many trillions would that have saved??? I thought the biggest gripe liberals had about trump was he didn't spend ENOUGH taxpayer money. To coin a phrase liberals love very much... INVEST IN AMERICA!!! BTW there was an segment on the news yesterday where the GAO estimates that fraud and corruption in the Covid recovery effort could be as high as 500 billion dollars. That almost adds up to real money.

[get it to x]

On another note, I don't see much criticism from the left on the World Economic Forum. Even with the poor representation we have, and the power of the bureaucracy, we still get to vote for it. This article calling it a secular Tower of Babel is pretty funny.

https://tbecketadams.substack.com/p/babel-at-davos

[a fan]

It's what happens when congress doesn't do their job. What, you think I'm all for these cretins, in both parties, stealing my descendants future? I'd even be all in for these continuing resolutions, as long as they reduced the amount by somewhere between 5% and 10%. Make each department prioritize.

There's two sides to the equation: spending AND taxes. We're paying at HALF the effective Federal Income (and corporate) tax rate that we were paying under Bill Clinton. Half. THAT is why we are running a massive deficit.

On you on board with moving back to that responsible rate of taxation? I am. The budget was balanced, and we paid for what we got...and didn't hand it off to our kids and grandkids.

[a fan]

On another note, I don't see much criticism from the left on the World Economic Forum. Even with the poor representation we have, and the power of the bureaucracy, we still get to vote for it. This article calling it a secular Tower of Babel is pretty funny.

https://tbecketadams.substack.com/p/babel-at-davos

You're conflating Dems with the Left. The left HATES the WEF & the World Trade Organization...... and protests them whenever they show up in America.

[MDlaxfan76]

New York Post
I was trying to understand whether the authors ever actually defined these "benefits"...they make some assertions about "some" families, but then never actually explain these "Obamacare subsidies"...how much value are these?...why not also say "benefits of a national defense" or "benefits of national highway system"...bet we could argue that these are valuable too.

And on unemployment, who here knows someone who has used unemployment?
When was that?
And what did they need to do to qualify for it each month?

Seriously, how many people do any of us know who is actually abusing the system?

I do know some people who realized they really didn't need both incomes, one or both decided to retire, but the one person I know who is chronically unemployed for serious stretches of time, and then employed again for stretches, earns $300k+ when he's working...and he's never tapped unemployment. Never considered it.

I'm not sure as well that I understand who all these reprobates are at home being paid to watch Netflix.

There are 2 million more people working in America than there were pre Covid.
Sure, there was a dip below that during the Covid downturn, but no more.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/269 ... ed-states/

The workforce participation rate is one percentage point lower compared to pre-pandemic levels, which were already low based on historical patterns. How do you square that up? It just points out anybody, you or me, can cherry pick your statistic.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CIVPART

I would note that it went down somewhere around 3% during the Obama administration. I could be wrong, but didn't they allow states to relax the work requirements for welfare benefits?

Yes, big tick down during Covid, big jump back, but not all the way; lots of residual, accelerated retirements plus some women still not back. 2nd income families deciding they do better with mom at home rather than kids in childcare. Childcare cost went through the roof, can't get enough workers, so many families discovered that net net, better for mom to stay home. Mostly mom...

But what you appear to miss from the chart you linked is the 20+ year trend downward...do you really think those people were taking advantage of welfare??? Or can you think of something else that was happening demographically?

But here we are, with 2 million more people working in the US than were doing so pre pandemic...and you think millions of people are sitting home being paid by the government 'to watch Netflix'...

So you keep sticking to your pre/post pandemic narrative. That tick down and back up was almost vertical. Why do you think there was a downward trend prior to around 2016? And no, I am not trying to bring Trump into this. I'm simply pointing out that when you make it easier to get benefits that people do the calculation. Especially those with low paying jobs. Remember, benefits include health insurance, food assistance, housing and some energy bill help in addition to direct cash payments. You're right, though, it could also be boomers retiring or any one of a number of other things. Or a combination of a lot of things. As a percentage of the total population, we still have less workers using your pre/post metric.

What really went up during the pandemic was the wealth gap. Amazon, Walmart, Publix etc did well. Small business was either closed or drastically curtailed. I don't recall anyone saying the Wegman's I shopped in at the time was a "super spreader". And I can't tell you how many shoppers I saw pick up an item, read the label and put it back.

I think you should take another look at the chart...forget who was President when and just look at when the trajectory changed...2000, about 4 years after the welfare rules were tightened up, requiring an effort to find work. And down, down, down. Bush 8 years, Obama 8 years, same basic trajectory, though small blip up between 2005-2007, but then down due to crash pre Obama. Continued downward until, small blip up beginning in Oct 2015 (during Obama tenure) and continuing apace in Trump years until Covid crash. Huge easy money policies, huge deficit spending, for some it was a good time to keep working...

What was happening during those 20 years demographically? Yes, aging population, baby boomers approaching end of careers, which has continued since then as we've gone through that wave...I'm 65 now and the last of the baby boomer years.I 'm ready, but still 'at it'. Covid has definitely accelerated my appreciation for what retirement will be like... I have a bunch of friends my age who've been retired for 5-10 years...'retirement' means still involved in charities and managing their money, but they don't have day to day jobs. Lots of freedom to travel.

We're in a predominantly retirement community here in Florida for the winters and there was an enormous influx of retirees in their late 50's and 60's due to Covid...once they stepped away from their practice, whether a business, law, medicine, whatever, they realized they had the savings and it was great to be able to see the sun...post covid, travel...

Back to the non-demographic aspect of fewer people wanting to 'participate' in the work force...we're at 2 million more jobs being worked than before Covid. Very tight labor force, lots of increased wage pressure.

I just don't see the situation as a lot of people on the government dole (unless you mean Social Security and Medicare) who aren't working.

[MDlaxfan76]

It's what happens when congress doesn't do their job. What, you think I'm all for these cretins, in both parties, stealing my descendants future? I'd even be all in for these continuing resolutions, as long as they reduced the amount by somewhere between 5% and 10%. Make each department prioritize.

There's two sides to the equation: spending AND taxes. We're paying at HALF the effective Federal Income (and corporate) tax rate that we were paying under Bill Clinton. Half. THAT is why we are running a massive deficit.

On you on board with moving back to that responsible rate of taxation? I am. The budget was balanced, and we paid for what we got...and didn't hand it off to our kids and grandkids.

I think this is 'Major Point 1'...deficits are the result of mismatch in revenues and spending...and the more important problem right now is the revenue side. Agreed.

Major Point 2 is that there is a big difference between 'spending' and 'investment'; spending is the cost of services, while investment creates ROI, higher revenues over the long haul...the criticism many of us have, certainly me, for both parties, is that we don't allocate enough to 'investment' in the physical and human capital of the country.

As a 'conservative', I want more emphasis on investment.

And, so, I'm ok with 'deficits' that are due to real investments with forward 'cost' but longterm ROI. Not ok with deficits due to unwillingness to tax to pay for cost of services.

That's overly simplified, intentionally, but that's the construct I think we should be thinking more about, rather than the dumb, 'we're spending too much' BS.

[get it to x]

It's what happens when congress doesn't do their job. What, you think I'm all for these cretins, in both parties, stealing my descendants future? I'd even be all in for these continuing resolutions, as long as they reduced the amount by somewhere between 5% and 10%. Make each department prioritize.

There's two sides to the equation: spending AND taxes. We're paying at HALF the effective Federal Income (and corporate) tax rate that we were paying under Bill Clinton. Half. THAT is why we are running a massive deficit.

On you on board with moving back to that responsible rate of taxation? I am. The budget was balanced, and we paid for what we got...and didn't hand it off to our kids and grandkids.

Only 50% of people pay income taxes in the United States. The top ten percent pay 74% of the taxes. When you explain this to the average person they almost always change their opinion as to whether the well off are paying their “fair share”. I don’t necessarily favor a flat tax but everyone should have some skin in the game. They might be a little more focused on government spending.

[a fan]

Only 50% of people pay income taxes in the United States.

Yes! You got it! This is unsustainable.

The top ten percent pay 74% of the taxes.

Of the INCOME taxes, yes.

But this isn't a brag. That's bad. That tells you that the income of the bottom earners has fallen, and the top 10% is holding all the money, and the game is tilted in their favor. This needs to be fixed.

Simple example: tax labor at the same rate as investment. That alone has tilted the field. Then there's the inheritance tax, which I understand you want raised, right?

Then there's all the Corporations that pay nothing. Each year? Roughly half of corporations pay zero. That's insane, and needs to be fixed. Tax revenue instead of made up "profits" or cash flow.......that would fix that instantly.

When you explain this to the average person they almost always change their opinion as to whether the well off are paying their “fair share”. I don’t necessarily favor a flat tax but everyone should have some skin in the game. They might be a little more focused on government spending.

Couldn't agree more! Everyone should pay SOMETHING. Are you on the team, or not? The answer should be yes, and you should pay for it.

The BIGGEST problem is Medicare. They are now paying $3.50 out for every dollar the Boomers put in.

Make that pay in $1.10 for every $1.00 in. But ask: what would the average American say if you told them their withholding is now tripled?

[PizzaSnake]

Only 50% of people pay income taxes in the United States.

Yes! You got it! This is unsustainable.

The top ten percent pay 74% of the taxes.

Of the INCOME taxes, yes.

But this isn't a brag. That's bad. That tells you that the income of the bottom earners has fallen, and the top 10% is holding all the money, and the game is tilted in their favor. This needs to be fixed.

Simple example: tax labor at the same rate as investment. That alone has tilted the field. Then there's the inheritance tax, which I understand you want raised, right?

Then there's all the Corporations that pay nothing. Each year? Roughly half of corporations pay zero. That's insane, and needs to be fixed. Tax revenue instead of made up "profits" or cash flow.......that would fix that instantly.

When you explain this to the average person they almost always change their opinion as to whether the well off are paying their “fair share”. I don’t necessarily favor a flat tax but everyone should have some skin in the game. They might be a little more focused on government spending.

Couldn't agree more! Everyone should pay SOMETHING. Are you on the team, or not? The answer should be yes, and you should pay for it.

The BIGGEST problem is Medicare. They are now paying $3.50 out for every dollar the Boomers put in.

Make that pay in $1.10 for every $1.00 in. But ask: what would the average American say if you told them their withholding is now tripled?

They will say, “Fcuk that noise!!”

And why? Because the destruction of faith in the commonweal conducted over the past 43 years by the Republic party. At this point, and given demographic trends and the amusingly contradictory anti-immigration policies of a certain party, there is no way people will step up to play that at that Ponzi casino.

[get it to x]

On another note, I don't see much criticism from the left on the World Economic Forum. Even with the poor representation we have, and the power of the bureaucracy, we still get to vote for it. This article calling it a secular Tower of Babel is pretty funny.

https://tbecketadams.substack.com/p/babel-at-davos

You're conflating Dems with the Left. The left HATES the WEF & the World Trade Organization...... and protests them whenever they show up in America.

You're probably right. Should have said the "elite" establishment types, like Richard Haas and the rest of the "Morning Joe" guest list.

[cradleandshoot]

Didn't the Republicans just propose some sort of their own version of a consumption/flat tax? I have not read a lot about the response other than it went over like a fart in church with the Democrats. When you start jibber jabbering about seriously downsizing the IRS the rectums in DC pucker up like a snare drum. Why would that be? A true flat tax is fair for everyone. I guess when the gubmint has just hired 87 thousand new workers job security is now job #1. There is the possibility those 87 thousand could be used just to answer phone calls. The wait time could theoretically be cut down to 8 hours.

[old salt]

A future flight of the Jeff Bezos spaceship will have an all girl crew, led by his girlfriend

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sBK5OEiKqYU&t=9s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AlEWl3igd0c&t=12s