Trump's Russian Collusion

[a fan]

I have never once heard a rational debate on Hannity or Rush, and I tune in to both weekly. Not once. And both of those anchors call Dems/Libs. an enemy to democracy.

I don't watch nor listen to either. But I guess I was thinking more of Tucker Carlson, who has liberal guests on often.

And to the extent that the debate is about something serious, those debates are civil. The Rutger Bregman interview dissolved because (among other things) Rutger is in essence an adherent of hardcore communism:

And Tucker is a multimillionaire who is fooling his viewers into thinking he speaks for them. Tucker is a benefactor to our gamed economic system.

Rutger wants listeners to conflate a Netflix, which didn't pay "income taxes" (but which did pay tens of millions in payroll and use taxes), with every business owner who does pay high income tax rates.

All corporations are getting a deal. If you don't turn a "profit", you don't pay a tax. "Profit" being a wholly gamed concept.

You think it makes sense for a corporation, whether profitable or not, to go untaxed? Meanwhile, my LLC pays full freight, plus excise taxes? Our economy is so skewed to the 1%, it's no wonder guys like Bregman is getting attention. It's laughable how unfair my business is treated when compared to my corporate competitors.

And both Dems and R's are facilitating the unfairness of the 1%ers. The libs are catching on, fake conservatives aren't. It's criminal, for instance, to give Amazon a free ride in Long Island City...while handing the tax tab for all the other businesses and citizens in the area. I'm overjoyed AOC killed that asinine "plan". In what free market world does it make sense to not tax a huge company, and stick that company's tax bills to smaller companies in the area?

Rutger is purposely deceptive, as most are, when calling for high taxes because since the 1950's, we have eliminated many tax deductions; raising taxes to pay for even more government, seems a good way to 'venezuelize' our economy and social fabric.

How is that deceptive? He's right? You can look up the numbers from the IRS yourself...we're taxed at 1/2 the effective income tax rate we were under Clinton. We're grossly undertaxed. It's why our deficit is so high. That, coupled with the cost of Medicare/Aid because we have intentionally selected the most expensive possible way to "provide" health care to our poor and elderly.

[Peter Brown]

You can look up the numbers from the IRS yourself...we're taxed at 1/2 the effective income tax rate we were under Clinton. We're grossly undertaxed. It's why our deficit is so high. That, coupled with the cost of Medicare/Aid because we have intentionally selected the most expensive possible way to "provide" health care to our poor and elderly.

You are a fountain of information, I will give you that!

As to tax rates, with all due respect of course, speak for yourself; I feel fully taxed at every conceivable rate and absolute figure.

We are not running deficits because we are not taxed enough; we are running deficits because we spend too much. I am no macro-economist, nor Fed watcher, but my sense is that the deficits and debt will be solved believe it or not. My hunch tells me that eventually there will need to be some massive global deal to settle debts. Don't ask me how or when...all of it is unsustainable at some level. A smart politician would gather every country together and figure out a global settlement.

As to health care, here is where I am 100% a Democrat. I like Medicare for All, with private insurance as a supplemental right. Drug prices are asinine...we can all agree on that. We can all agree that this issue, which if ever a politician were to solve it, would result in a President for Life. I suspect smarter minds know how to do it...and I hope they do. It is unconscionable what we are doing in this regard. Let's solve it.

[ggait]

To the extent I blame any one news outlet, MSNBC seems like a cauldron of hypocrisy and hatred, a horrible combo. And before you say Fox, Fox at

least invites the Left onto its programs and has rational debates (not to mention some anchors who are frankly Democrats...'both sides' doesn't even happen any more at MSNBC).

People tend to forget that Tucker became famous through his first show...on CNN. Then he became more famous when he got a newer show...on MSNBC. So Tucker has the libs to thank for getting him his current gig on Fox.

And where did current MSNBC star Joe Scarborough come from? Elected as a GOP congressman in 1994 (Newt Gingrich, Contract with America, etc.).

Morning Joe has plenty of conservatives on their show. Elise Jordan (worked for Bush 2). Rick Tyler (worked for Ted Cruz). Michael Steele (former RNC chair). Mike Murphy (McCain). Peggy Noonan (Reagan). Tom Nichols (Naval War College). David Jolly (former FL GOP congressman). Charlie Dent (former PA GOP congressman). Noah Rothman. Tucker used to be a frequent guest before moving over to Fox.

MJ does lean more to the George Will, David Brooks types more than Trump true believers.

[HooDat]

Not really equivalent imho.

Impeachment wasn't intended to be primarily about the president doing criminal stuff. That pesky DOJ OLC opinion (i.e., sitting president can't be prosecuted for federal crimes) is a very recent phenomenon. The assumption, until recently, was that a president would be prosecuted for any crime he committed while in office.

Impeachment was really intended for misuse/abuse of the public office/public trust. Trump's misdeeds seem obviously that -- using the public levers for personal political advantage. Which is in the same zone as bribery (specifically called out in the impeachment clause), right?

Clinton's misdeeds probably were much more clearly crimes (i.e. perjury) than Trump's Uke shake-down, but much less clearly impeachable as abuse of the powers of the office.

So you think it is a worse abuse the power of the White House to shake down a foreign leader than it is to use the power of the White House to coerce a 20-something girl into a blowie and cigar games?

[Peter Brown]

Morning Joe has plenty of conservatives on their show. Elise Jordan (worked for Bush 2). Rick Tyler (worked for Ted Cruz). Michael Steele (former RNC chair). Mike Murphy (McCain). Peggy Noonan (Reagan). Tom Nichols (Naval War College). David Jolly (former FL GOP congressman). Charlie Dent (former PA GOP congressman). Noah Rothman. Tucker used to be a frequent guest before moving over to Fox.

MJ does lean more to the George Will, David Brooks types more than Trump true believers.

I'd argue that none of the names you listed are conservatives in any real sense. Noah Rothman is the closest. Jolly, Tyler, Murphy, and Nichols are whatever the wind of government power is and I happen to know one (and fwiw, it is amazing who they put on television...).

[ggait]

We are not running deficits because we are not taxed enough; we are running deficits because we spend too much.

There's 35 developed countries in the OECD. Total tax burden (federal, state, local, payroll tax, property tax, income tax, corporate tax -- so everything tax) for the U.S. (as a per cent of GDP) was 26% in 2015. That ranked 30th out of the 35 countries. The OECD average was 33%.

With the Trump tax cuts, the burden is presumably now lower than it was in 2015.

By any measure, our overall taxes are too low. Especially by the most important stat. Which is that we spend more than we take in.

Cut spending a bit. Raise taxes more than you cut spending. Problem solved. Cheers, Simpson and Bowles (2010).

https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefin ... nationally

[ggait]

So you think it is a worse abuse the power of the White House to shake down a foreign leader than it is to use the power of the White House to coerce a 20-something girl into a blowie and cigar games?

You are incorrect on that imho.

Clinton was impeached for perjury and obstruction, which arguably (though I think weakly) related to his public office. The GOP did not even try to impeach him for the sex. No one thought that by itself was impeachable. No one.

The sex was sleazy and arguably could have have been criminal (as sexual harassment). But not impeachable.

In contrast, I really see no logical argument that Trump's conduct (if proven) is not exactly the kind of thing you should get impeached for. Which is why lame excuse #4 (Trump did it but it isn't impeachable) makes no sense to me.

[a fan]

As to tax rates, with all due respect of course, speak for yourself; I feel fully taxed at every conceivable rate and absolute figure.

I'm sure you do. That doesn't mean you're getting taxed at the correct rate. You're not. None of us are.

Does it sound sustainable that roughly half of Americans don't pay Federal income taxes? It's obviously unsustainable. Clearly. Half the nation doesn't muck in to keep the lights on?

We are not running deficits because we are not taxed enough; we are running deficits because we spend too much.

What makes you say that, outside of wishful thinking?

Here's the real answer: no, we are not spending too much. Federal spending as a percentage of GDP as of 2018 was 19.96%. Lower than it was under Reagan. And seeing as how we're paying a demographic price for Boomers collecting Medicare, and we've been at war for 20 straight years....all other domestic spending is down. Which explains why both our infrastructure and our educational system are in shambles.

It's taxes. No one is paying anywhere close to enough. Netflix and the 1%ers in particular. And, of course, the bottom 50% of workers who don't pay Federal Income tax isn't helping.

Fix that? We're in good shape. If you cut spending in any meaningful way, as you seem to be suggesting, rural America will disappear. Federal spending is the only thing keeping the lights on for much of America.

Other posters have heard this quote before.....did you know that the last time Federal spending went down from one year to the next, outside of Obama's sequester, was 1953? Our Nation is growing in population. The government must rise to meet the needs of these people.

[a fan]

I'd argue that none of the names you listed are conservatives in any real sense.

George will isn't a conservative? Are you serious?

Maybe I should ask you this: do you think Trump is a conservative?

[Peter Brown]

We are not running deficits because we are not taxed enough; we are running deficits because we spend too much.

There's 35 developed countries in the OECD. Total tax burden (federal, state, local, payroll tax, property tax, income tax, corporate tax -- so everything tax) for the U.S. (as a per cent of GDP) was 26% in 2015. That ranked 30th out of the 35 countries. The OECD average was 33%.

With the Trump tax cuts, the burden is presumably now lower than it was in 2015.

By any measure, our overall taxes are too low. Especially by the most important stat. Which is that we spend more than we take in.

Cut spending a bit. Raise taxes more than you cut spending. Problem solved. Cheers, Simpson and Bowles (2010).

https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefin ... nationally

So will reply with two general themes, then one specific and I appreciate the link.

The OECD statistics however have never impressed me that much. If we want to be like other countries, then sure, let's be like them. But when I look around the world, it always amazes me how much wealth is created in America versus elsewhere. Just look at the growth of Amazon, Google, Apple, Tesla, Netflix, Berkshire Hathaway, Salesforce, Wegmans, Stryker, Quicken, Cheesecake Factory, REI...I could go on for hours. Our economy is gangbusters and we actually create incredible wealth for all sorts of stockholders and stakeholders. We did not get like that by being like others.

Governments are the worst spenders of your money possible, and yet they actually are your largest line item expense. That is a serious problem. Fight taxation with every ounce you have. A government doesn't exist to give you back your money or expand your rights...it takes.

The specific is this. We have California operations. Our head in that state has an effective personal income tax bite of 50.3%...I see his pay every two weeks. As a result, we supplement that by adding to his gross income (our head in Tennessee does not pay the 13.3% state tax that CA does). We are not adding property taxes, use fees, and so forth. When someone tells me the average tax bite is 26%, I know too many people who's earned income rates are significantly more, so I tend to discount that figure.

[Peter Brown]

I'd argue that none of the names you listed are conservatives in any real sense.

George will isn't a conservative? Are you serious?

Maybe I should ask you this: do you think Trump is a conservative?

I do not. You should have asked me who I think is a conservative! And you will hate me for my answer because so few people seem to like the guy. But I like Rand Paul quite a deal (I also like Joe Biden so there's that!). I like Rand Paul's anti-war and pro-civil rights stances. He is very consistent about it.

[HooDat]

So you think it is a worse abuse the power of the White House to shake down a foreign leader than it is to use the power of the White House to coerce a 20-something girl into a blowie and cigar games?

You are incorrect on that imho.

Clinton was impeached for perjury and obstruction, which arguably (though I think weakly) related to his public office. The GOP did not even try to impeach him for the sex. No one thought that by itself was impeachable. No one.

The sex was sleazy and arguably could have have been criminal (as sexual harassment). But not impeachable.

In contrast, I really see no logical argument that Trump's conduct (if proven) is not exactly the kind of thing you should get impeached for. Which is why lame excuse #4 (Trump did it but it isn't impeachable) makes no sense to me.

isn't the question what IS or SHOULD BE an impeachable offense? Is is breaking the law? Is is abuse of power? What was the impeachment process intended to cover?

I hear a lot of folks claiming that POTUS can't break laws !?!? Nope. That should be impeachable.

But more importantly, I think abuse of power is the most important aspect of impeachment.

For Trump - If the house determines that Trump was being self-serving, then it is an abuse of power, if they don't then it is a hard case to make.

In the case of Clinton - I am not sure how worked up I (personally) can get about him telling lies to Congress about his sex life. He totally got set up to perjure himself. What I actually do think was an abuse of power was his preying upon Lewinski. That abuse of power should rise to the level of impeachment, but none of the scumbags in congress would impeach for that,for fear that they get caught up in their own shenanigans.....

But dirty tricksters will do dirty tricks, and the rest of the dirty tricksters will look the other way.....

[a fan]

I do not. You should have asked me who I think is a conservative! And you will hate me for my answer because so few people seem to like the guy. But I like Rand Paul quite a deal (I also like Joe Biden so there's that!). I like Rand Paul's anti-war and pro-civil rights stances. He is very consistent about it.

I don't hate you for that answer! It clarifies your views, and helps me understand your thoughts, so thank you for answering that question.

Rand Paul certainly counts in my book as a conservative. And yes, he's certainly more consistent about it than the vast majority of his Republican colleagues.

[Peter Brown]

I do not. You should have asked me who I think is a conservative! And you will hate me for my answer because so few people seem to like the guy. But I like Rand Paul quite a deal (I also like Joe Biden so there's that!). I like Rand Paul's anti-war and pro-civil rights stances. He is very consistent about it.

I don't hate you for that answer! It clarifies your views, and helps me understand your thoughts, so thank you for answering that question.

Rand Paul certainly counts in my book as a conservative. And yes, he's certainly more consistent about it than the vast majority of his Republican colleagues.

Admitting you like Rand Paul is dangerous business; I just like the guy's consistency on the two issues that mean a lot to me outside of taxation.

[a fan]

The OECD statistics however have never impressed me that much. If we want to be like other countries, then sure, let's be like them. But when I look around the world, it always amazes me how much wealth is created in America versus elsewhere. Just look at the growth of Amazon, Google, Apple, Tesla, Netflix, Berkshire Hathaway, Salesforce, Wegmans, Stryker, Quicken, Cheesecake Factory, REI...I could go on for hours. Our economy is gangbusters and we actually create incredible wealth for all sorts of stockholders and stakeholders. We did not get like that by being like others.

We got where we are when we increased the size and footprint of our Federal government in the 1950's. Without that? We'd be just another country. We would have lost the Cold War, never had a Federal highway system, never had a Dept. of Agriculture to explain to farmers how to farm properly without creating the Dust Bowl. We'd never have landed on the moon....or invented the internet. The .gov did that.

I asked this years ago: why is Silicon Valley where it is, instead of in NYC? Simple. Federal research dollars being pumped into our Universities.

Get rid of that Federal money? I doubt we'd see innovation like this anymore....

Governments are the worst spenders of your money possible, and yet they actually are your largest line item expense. That is a serious problem. Fight taxation with every ounce you have. A government doesn't exist to give you back your money or expand your rights...it takes.

You have it backwards. Name a large city that doesn't have a college or University that sucks up Federal dollars. What is the largest employer in every small town in America? Post office. Schools. In other words, the government. And where do these small towns get their money from? That's right, the Federal government. Take that Federal money away, what happens? The Federal government is an OUTSTANDING spender of your money... it gets pumped to every single city in America.

As for our Nation's corporations? Where does their money go? The Caymans. Or how about Apple. How much cash are they sitting on today? How does that help the economy, exactly?

The specific is this. We have California operations. Our head in that state has an effective personal income tax bite of 50.3%...I see his pay every two weeks. As a result, we supplement that by adding to his gross income

Obvious question is: why is he there?

[a fan]

Admitting you like Rand Paul is dangerous business; I just like the guy's consistency on the two issues that mean a lot to me outside of taxation.

He just went on record as supporting our pull out from Syria.

I support that, too.

We just need to protect the Kurds via pressure on Erdogan. It doesn't sound like Trump is doing that.

[HooDat]

Admitting you like Rand Paul is dangerous business; I just like the guy's consistency on the two issues that mean a lot to me outside of taxation.

He just went on record as supporting our pull out from Syria.

I support that, too.

We just need to protect the Kurds via pressure on Erdogan. It doesn't sound like Trump is doing that.

this has been one of the better conversations on the WC in quite a awhile...!

Now don't forget, Trump did say that if he thought Turkey was up to no good in a way that only the supreme leader could, that he would wage a yuuuge economic war on Turkey. I make fun, but it is probably a far more realistic threat than any of the others we typically make, and you know what else - it doesn't get our 19 year old kids killed for no dang reason....

[Typical Lax Dad]

Not really equivalent imho.

Impeachment wasn't intended to be primarily about the president doing criminal stuff. That pesky DOJ OLC opinion (i.e., sitting president can't be prosecuted for federal crimes) is a very recent phenomenon. The assumption, until recently, was that a president would be prosecuted for any crime he committed while in office.

Impeachment was really intended for misuse/abuse of the public office/public trust. Trump's misdeeds seem obviously that -- using the public levers for personal political advantage. Which is in the same zone as bribery (specifically called out in the impeachment clause), right?

Clinton's misdeeds probably were much more clearly crimes (i.e. perjury) than Trump's Uke shake-down, but much less clearly impeachable as abuse of the powers of the office.

So you think it is a worse abuse the power of the White House to shake down a foreign leader than it is to use the power of the White House to coerce a 20-something girl into a blowie and cigar games?

Coerced? He had poor judgement because he should have turned it down despite the offer. I have nothing against Lewinsky, but she wasn’t coerced. The state trooper finding bimbos was worse. Lewinsky threw herself at the guy. He should have had more will power. He got what he deserved but coerced? Come on. He should have said, she gave me a BJ. It’s between my wife and I. The guy would not have been impeached. His punishment had nothing to do with coercion.

[foreverlax]

We are not running deficits because we are not taxed enough; we are running deficits because we spend too much.

There's 35 developed countries in the OECD. Total tax burden (federal, state, local, payroll tax, property tax, income tax, corporate tax -- so everything tax) for the U.S. (as a per cent of GDP) was 26% in 2015. That ranked 30th out of the 35 countries. The OECD average was 33%.

With the Trump tax cuts, the burden is presumably now lower than it was in 2015.

By any measure, our overall taxes are too low. Especially by the most important stat. Which is that we spend more than we take in.

Cut spending a bit. Raise taxes more than you cut spending. Problem solved. Cheers, Simpson and Bowles (2010).

https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefin ... nationally

So will reply with two general themes, then one specific and I appreciate the link.

The OECD statistics however have never impressed me that much. If we want to be like other countries, then sure, let's be like them. But when I look around the world, it always amazes me how much wealth is created in America versus elsewhere. Just look at the growth of Amazon, Google, Apple, Tesla, Netflix, Berkshire Hathaway, Salesforce, Wegmans, Stryker, Quicken, Cheesecake Factory, REI...I could go on for hours. Our economy is gangbusters and we actually create incredible wealth for all sorts of stockholders and stakeholders. So great for those who have been able to create wealth by being an owner. You do know that 80% of Americans aren't getting that benefit. We did not get like that by being like others.

Governments are the worst spenders of your money possible, and yet they actually are your largest line item expense. That is a serious problem. Fight taxation with every ounce you have. A government doesn't exist to give you back your money or expand your rights...it takes.

The specific is this. We have California operations. Our head in that state has an effective personal income tax bite of 50.3%...I see his pay every two weeks. As a result, we supplement that by adding to his gross income (our head in Tennessee does not pay the 13.3% state tax that CA does). We are not adding property taxes, use fees, and so forth. When someone tells me the average tax bite is 26%, I know too many people who's earned income rates are significantly more, so I tend to discount that figure.

[ggait]

isn't the question what IS or SHOULD BE an impeachable offense? Is is breaking the law? Is is abuse of power? What was the impeachment process intended to cover? I hear a lot of folks claiming that POTUS can't break laws !?!? Nope. That should be impeachable.

Agree.

"High" crimes was a very specific legal term of art in 1789. It wasn't a synonym for felony crimes. "High" did not refer to the seriousness of the offense. It referred to status of the offender.

A "High" crime could only be committed by someone in a public position of authority and who thus had special duties/powers that common (i.e. low) people don't have. If Trump shoots someone on 5th Avenue, that is a serious crime, but not necessarily a High crime. If Trump shuts down the investigation/prosecution of that murder, that definitely is a High crime and impeachable.

High crimes clearly do not have to be prosecute-able beyond a reasonable doubt and don't have to be criminal offenses at all. Once you understand that, then you should be able to understand what Bob Mueller was saying in his report: (i) no criminal conspiracy prove-able beyond a reasonable doubt and (ii) no obstruction that I could charge/prosecute (due to the DOJ OLC opinion). But (i) and certainly (ii) could be impeachable High crimes.