Saying you understand that not all skeletons are created equal is not consistent with also saying, “vote for who would govern best, everyone has skeletons”

There is no magic line on when and when I would not vote for a pedophile, there are a ton of hypotheticals involved. Would I vote for one if I knew one hundred percent that it would save 10k people? Yes, I would. Is that close to this situation? No it’s not.

11/22/2017 4:33:29 PM

That is the case for voters who believe abortion is murder. They see it as someone who might have abused a child 40 years ago against someone who will proudly support the murders of thousands of babies if put in power.

I would do the same if I believed that way. We should focus our attention on fixing the education instead of trying to stop people from caring about politics.

Quote :

"Saying you understand that not all skeletons are created equal is not consistent with also saying, “vote for who would govern best, everyone has skeletons”"

Well it does if you aren't going to draw a line somewhere. How are people supposed to determine what is a deal breaker and what is not a dealbreaker? That is why I asked you the question.


[Edited on November 22, 2017 at 5:35 PM. Reason : more]

11/22/2017 5:33:26 PM

Explain to me how Roy Moore is going to prevent 10k abortions

We are talking about pedophila combined with sexual abuse. You want to compare skeletons, give me an example of someone else who has done the same thing and I’ll tell you if I would vote for them

11/22/2017 5:49:04 PM

Hillary enabled Bill clinton for years when he was being accused of rape, and used his power to take advantage of many young women. They worked together to demonize the accusers. Did you vote for Bill? Would you vote for Hillary?

ME personally, I don't care so much about the past. I didn't vote for Hillary because of her politics. I'd rather focus on voting for who will help/hurt the most people going forward.

Evangelicals feel they have a moral responsibility to do everything they can to end abortion everywhere. Electing another pro-choice senator would go against everything they believe. Roy moore is "pro life". They point to Jones' response to the question that was something like "would you restrict partial birth abortions. "

Quote :

"Jones: No, I’m not in favor of anything that is going to infringe on a woman’s right and her freedom to choose. That’s just the position that I’ve had for many years, it’s the position I continue to have."

Those are the numbers

Quote :

"n its “cost estimate” of the “Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act” released yesterday, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that about 10,000 unborn babies are killed each year in the United States in abortions that take place at 20 weeks or later in pregnancy. "

11/22/2017 5:59:38 PM

Enabled is a pretty aggressive word for someone who didn’t want her husband doing these things, and even if so, it is not the same thing as sexually abusing underage girls

Did I ask how many abortions there are after 20 weeks? No, I asked what exactly toy Moore is going to do to stop that

11/22/2017 6:15:10 PM

So you didn't vote for Bill Clinton?

The "pain capable unborn child protection act" just passed the house and is headed to the senate. The job of a senator is to vote on bills and this election is likely to literally mean a vote for or against that bill and other bills like it. If they see the election as a referendum on child protection, they will still vote moore.

Even if it was more than allegations, it was also so long ago that many would forgive him anyway.

Quote :

"Q: Can a convicted felon serve in elected office? A: The Constitution allows a convicted felon, such as Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens, to be a member of Congress, even if in prison. It’s up to the Senate or House to decide who may serve. As for state offices, different laws apply in different places."

Zooming out, Why do you think people should vote based on which candidate has the cleanest record dating back all the way to when they were young? Makes no sense to me.

I would vote for a former murderer if he had clearly changed and was going to fight for prison reform, universal healthcare, or some other progressive cause.

11/22/2017 6:44:24 PM

I was 15

What are the chances that Roy Moore will provide the deciding vote on that bill?

I don’t think people should vote solely depending on who has the cleanest record. How people handle what they’ve done in the past and what they did are major factors though. In this case Moore seems to not regret anything he’s done and the act was something that speaks very highly as to how vile of a person he is, specifically with abuse of power

[Edited on November 22, 2017 at 6:52 PM. Reason : Sf]

11/22/2017 6:48:58 PM

The only reason earl keeps going on with this age of consent and "what's a dealbreaker" nonsense is because he's on the spectrum and doesn't understand social norms or human interaction without someone explaining it to him in clinical terms

[Edited on November 22, 2017 at 7:05 PM. Reason : .]

11/22/2017 6:59:45 PM

Its terrible logic to assume someone doesn't recognize or understand a social norm just because they are questioning it. My MO is to question everything. There are so many things that we do a certain way for no good reason other than "its the way we've always done it"

This is how humans end up carrying on with horrible things so easily. If slavery or apartheid becomes a social norm, most people just live their life without questioning it because "thats just how things work". I'm of the different type.

I challenge people to explain the reasoning behind things they have always believed without even knowing the reasoning. It wouldn't be wise to have a population who thinks murder is wrong simply because it isn't socially acceptable.

I apply "5 whys technique" to everything I do and make innovations in efficiency because of it.

Quote :

" In this case Moore seems to not regret anything he’s done and the act was something that speaks very highly as to how vile of a person he is, specifically with abuse of power "

well he denies it and was never charged for anything so what should he regret. How does a good person deny serious allegations? He's saying he doesn't even know the women. I'm not saying he's telling the truth but innocent until proven guilty not the other way around.

11/22/2017 10:01:43 PM

http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/26/opinions/fake-news-and-disinformation-opinion-wardle-derakhshan/index.html
Elgimpy. Is that you?

11/26/2017 7:34:43 PM

***jaw hits floor***

My brain dead NC senator (republican) just shot out a post on Facebook telling everyone to call Senators to oppose the "tax cuts and jobs act" because it "threatens American homeownership by eliminating valuable deductions, but will also cost our children and grandchildren $1.5 trillion in new federal debt."

I'm blown away. It's also a good sign that this tax bill is absolute dogshit.

11/28/2017 3:06:29 PM

huh? both nc senators support the bill, who posted to oppose it?

11/28/2017 3:12:34 PM

Not that I'm for the bill, but I find it misleading that nobody is talking about the fine print with the mortgage interest deduction. This won't impact mortgages below 500k.

11/28/2017 3:13:33 PM

the most bonkers thing about lowering the mortgage deduction is how so many liberals are mad about that part

11/28/2017 3:14:58 PM

^^^Its my senator from the NC legislature saying to call Burr and Tillis to oppose it. I'm guessing his realtor/developer buddies got him to snap out of the partisan fog.

(Sorry wasn't clear)

[Edited on November 28, 2017 at 3:22 PM. Reason : NC senate, I'm fucking this all up]

11/28/2017 3:19:47 PM

I know there are sensible Republicans out there, REAL republicans who care about individual liberties, fiscal responsibility, and emphasizes local government over nationalism.

But that's not who gets elected anymore. Electable republicans are bible-toting, guns-a-blazing, war-mongering, fuck-your-superior-intelligence-at-least-I'm-folksy-you-fucking-elitist-libtard dummies who refuse to see the virtue of education, facts, and attention to social and historical nuances.

I don't think real Republicans are like this at all. But I blame the real Republicans for letting this happen to their party. I blame the real Republicans for not doing more to keep the tea party and the religious right out of their platform. I blame the real Republicans for thinking it's better to vote for an extremist conservative they hate than for a sane moderate who might actually do something productive.

11/28/2017 3:21:36 PM

Quote :

"the most bonkers thing about lowering the mortgage deduction is how so many liberals are mad about that part"

$500k for a mortgage in a large city would not mean a person/family was affluent in a place like NYC, LA, etc. Also, no coincidence that large cities typically are liberal bastions.

11/28/2017 3:38:12 PM

you think they are targeting liberals with the reduction, even though the reduction is something that is traditionally wanted by liberals?



[Edited on November 28, 2017 at 4:05 PM. Reason : bernie sanders hates liberals too]

11/28/2017 4:05:06 PM

Residential Construction also employs a crap load of people, and McMansion building (for better or worse) is a small but significant portion of that workload (like 10%-25% depending on location). Unfortunately, due to pure market inertia, new home construction is helped along significantly by the associated tax breaks of buying a home. You can't just rip the incentive right out from under that industry, at best it would need to be phased in over time to prevent significant labor disruptions.

For that reason, I think it's fair for liberals to question the cap on mortgage deductions.

11/28/2017 4:09:26 PM

The only thing you need to know about this bill is that they planned on passing it with only 51 votes (or 50 + Pence) from the jump. If this was truly some boon for middle class taxpayers, you would see at least 8 or 9 Democrats who are running for re-election in states that Trump won rushing to jump on board. Not to mention, the main features of this thing is a corporate tax cut, which Democrats of all stripes have supported to some degree in the past. The problem is it includes a number of provisions that only benefit the donor class, specifically the handful of billionaires who have bankrolled the GOP for the past couple decades, that are anathema to any Democrat. If they actually wanted to pass broad based tax reform targeted at the middle class, they wouldn't have to use reconciliation to pass it.

11/28/2017 4:16:43 PM

https://thinkprogress.org/a-breitbart-contributor-is-running-a-secret-far-right-facebook-group-1b68fc3ebfff/

Quote :

"Breitbart writer caught running secret, virulently racist Facebook group The Young Right Society mocks terror victims and is full of vile racist content. A Breitbart contributor has been revealed to be an administrator of a secret Facebook group where users regularly post virulently racist, sexist, and anti-Semitic content, as well as support for far-right groups."

11/28/2017 7:09:03 PM

http://thefederalist.com/2017/11/30/alabamians-vote-roy-moore/

11/30/2017 8:51:59 AM

So Roy Moore is the General Patton in the war against abortion?

11/30/2017 12:50:49 PM

he's against abortion because what if they grow up to be hot teenagers

11/30/2017 1:20:36 PM

lol

11/30/2017 1:23:29 PM

Quote :

"Sen. Lisa Murkowski ? @lisamurkowski Speaking now on the Senate floor about how The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act is a pro-economy, pro-growth, pro-jobs proposal that will reduce taxes and put dollars back in the pockets of hard-working Americans at every income level."

Quote :

"Manu Raju ? @mkraju McCain says he'll support tax reform bill 8:51 AM - Nov 30, 2017"

Quote :

" Will Drabold @WillDrabold COLLINS says she does not think the #JCT score is accurate. That’s a blow to anyone hoping she’d flip and vote no."

Just your daily reminder that even iffy Democrats like Manchin are still way better than any R.

11/30/2017 7:02:14 PM

I'm sure these politicians have the educational and professional background to justify their opinions of the report published by these guys: https://www.jct.gov/about-us/current-staff.html

Quote :

"Susan Margaret Collins (born December 7, 1952) is an American politician who currently serves as the senior United States Senator from Maine. A member of the Republican Party, Collins has served in the Senate since 1997, and has served as the Chairwoman of the Senate Special Committee on Aging since 2015 and previously chaired the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs from 2003 to 2007. She is considered a moderate Republican Senator.[1] She also is known for her long consecutive voting streak, which reached 6,000 votes in September 2015.[2] She is the current dean of Maine's congressional delegation. Born in Caribou, Maine, Collins is a graduate of St. Lawrence University. Beginning her career as a staff assistant for Senator William Cohen in 1975, Collins later became the staff director of the Oversight of Government Management Subcommittee of the Committee on Governmental Affairs (which later became the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs[3]) in 1981. She was then appointed as the Commissioner of the Maine Department of Professional and Financial Regulation by Governor John R. McKernan, Jr. in 1987. In 1992 she was appointed by President George H. W. Bush as the director of the Small Business Administration's regional office in Boston. Staying in Massachusetts, Collins became that state's Deputy State Treasurer in 1993. After moving back to Maine in 1994, Collins became the Republican nominee for governor in the 1994 general election. Becoming the first woman to become the nominee of a major party for Governor of Maine, Collins finished third in a four-way race with 23% of the vote. After her bid for governor in 1994, Collins became the founding director of the Center for Family Business at Husson University. Collins was first elected to the Senate in 1996. She has been re-elected three times, in 2002, 2008, and 2014. After former New Hampshire Senator Kelly Ayotte lost reelection in 2016, Collins became the only Republican in the U.S. Senate currently representing a state in New England."

Quote :

"Murkowski was born in Ketchikan, Alaska, the daughter of Nancy Rena (née Gore) and Frank Murkowski.[3] Her paternal great-grandfather was of Polish descent, and her mother's ancestry is Irish and French Canadian.[4] As a child, she and her family moved around the state with her father's job as a banker. She earned a B.A. degree in Economics from Georgetown University in 1980, the same year her father was elected to the U.S. Senate. She is a member of Pi Beta Phi sorority[5] and represented the state of Alaska as the 1980 Cherry Blossom Princess.[6] She received her J.D. degree in 1985 from Willamette University College of Law. She was employed as an attorney in the Anchorage District Court Clerk's office (1987–89).[7] From 1989 to 1998, she was an attorney in private practice in Anchorage, Alaska. She also served, from 1990 to 1991, on the Mayor's Task Force for the Homeless."

Oh - I was wrong. Just more uninformed politicians completely ignoring a scientific process because they want their donation money to continue pouring in.

Quote :

"COLLINS says she does not think the #JCT score is accurate."

Literally one of the dumbest statements ever.

Copy of the report: https://www.jct.gov/publications.html?func=download&id=5045&chk=5045&no_html=1

I'll say this though - it appears to cut half a trillion or so off the deficit from what's currently projected. If that was the only focus that's definitely a good thing.

[Edited on November 30, 2017 at 7:22 PM. Reason : a]

11/30/2017 7:14:33 PM

Nah, what the JCT is saying is that it will cut half a trillion off the $1.5 trillion deficit created by the bill, based on additional tax revenue from all that growth tax cuts are supposed to create. That still leaves $1 trillion in additional debt.

11/30/2017 7:44:44 PM

Negative. Projections through 2027, right now prior to considering this bill:

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/52370#section1

Quote :

"Growing Deficits Through 2027 Are Projected to Drive Up Federal Debt In CBO’s baseline projections, budget deficits remain below 3.0 percent of GDP through 2019. But subsequently, continued growth in spending—particularly for Social Security, Medicare, and net interest—would outstrip growth in revenues, resulting in larger deficits and increasing debt. By 2027, the deficit would reach 5.0 percent of GDP—$1.4 trillion."

The JCT analysis also states this on pages 6 and 7. It shows current projections through 2027 of negative $1.4 trillion. Then it accounts for changes to the tax code (described throughout the report) showing change in the deficit of positive $407.5 billion yielding a new projected deficit in 2027 of $1.0 trillion.

In other words, the current bill as proposed projects a 33% (approximately) decrease in the deficit through 2027. That's an improvement, irrespective of what people believe regarding the merits of the underlying changes. No clue what the effects are regarding income inequality and what not, I don't believe that analysis is included in this report.

[Edited on November 30, 2017 at 8:06 PM. Reason : a]

11/30/2017 8:00:25 PM

No, you're conflating the additional debt created by the bill and the CBO's baseline estimate of the budget deficit in 2027 (which was from January, before this bill existed) because the numbers look kind of similar. The JCT is specifically talking about static revenue loss caused by this tax bill vs. additional revenue from projected growth.

From the PDF you linked,

Quote :

". Specifically, the proposal analyzed here is the one summarized in JCX-59-17, “Estimated Revenue Effects of the ‘Tax Cuts and Jobs Act,’ As Ordered Reported by the Committee on Finance on November 16, 2017.” "

Quote :

" That increase in income would increase revenues, relative to the conventional estimate of a loss of $1,414 billion (provided in JCX-59-17) by $458 billion over that period. "

Quote :

" The growth generated by the proposal is projected to reduce the revenue loss from the proposal by about $458 billion over the 2018-2027 budget period."

$1.4 trillion lost, only $458 billion gained. The point is that this debunks talking points that tax cuts pay for themselves.

[Edited on November 30, 2017 at 8:25 PM. Reason : .]

11/30/2017 8:18:27 PM

You are absolutely misinterpreting this.

The "baseline" projection is literally what you would compare the result of any modified adjustment to.

That's the whole point of this analysis - to determine HOW it will affect our current projections (prior to consideration of this tax bill).

1) Earlier this year the CBO said "if we keep things the way they are, we're looking at a $1.4 trillion deficit.

Quote :

"Growing Deficits Through 2027 Are Projected to Drive Up Federal Debt In CBO’s baseline projections, budget deficits remain below 3.0 percent of GDP through 2019. But subsequently, continued growth in spending—particularly for Social Security, Medicare, and net interest—would outstrip growth in revenues, resulting in larger deficits and increasing debt. By 2027, the deficit would reach 5.0 percent of GDP—$1.4 trillion. Revenues If current laws generally remained unchanged, revenues would rise from 17.8 percent of GDP in 2017 to 18.4 percent by 2027. They have averaged 17.4 percent of GDP over the past 50 years."

2) Then, Congressional Republicans said, "Hey, we have a tax plan!"

3) The JCT analyzed that plan and produced the resulting projection of our deficit through the same time period: $1.0 trillion.

In other words, the Republican tax plan will increase our deficit by approximately $400 billion less than if we left everything exactly the way it is. That's why the report is called:

Quote :

"Macroeconomic Analysis Of The "Tax Cut And Jobs Act" As Ordered Reported By The Senate Committee On Finance On November 16, 2017"

[Edited on November 30, 2017 at 8:28 PM. Reason : a]

11/30/2017 8:25:49 PM

I don't know what to tell you other than Google "JCT score" and find that literally no other person on earth is interpreting this the way you are. $1.4 trillion is the baseline estimate of what the CBO said the budget deficit would be in 2027 under current law. It has literally nothing to do with this analysis, which is about how much revenue is generated by growth under this plan vs. revenue lost between enactment and 2027.

11/30/2017 8:30:57 PM

Not sure what you are talking about. In your own statements you are saying exactly what I'm saying and then immediately afterwards saying it's not what it means.

Baseline Deficit (which is the projection through 2027) = $1.4 trillion under current law
GOP Tax Plan = Changes the current law to new law
Projected Deficit (according to the JCT analysis of the IMPACT of the GOP Tax Plan's changes to current law, also projected through 2027) = $1.0 trillion under new law

Quote :

"It has literally nothing to do with this analysis, which is about how much revenue is generated by growth under this plan vs. revenue lost between enactment and 2027."

Yes, that is correct. By changing our current laws, we'll have different revenue and we'll have different expenses. Pretty much the case with every single budget in the history of earth. By changing our laws, instead of losing $1.4 trillion, we'll lose $1.0 trillion.

Or are you just trolling me now?

Does it fall short of "paying for itself?" Absolutely. Does it cost us less over the next decade than doing nothing? If projections are to be believed, absolutely.

[Edited on November 30, 2017 at 8:43 PM. Reason : a]

11/30/2017 8:33:46 PM

One more time, you're conflating the baseline CBO estimate of the budget deficit in 2027 and the static revenue loss from this bill over the next 10 years because they are both $1.4 trillion. The numbers have absolutely nothing to do with each other, it's just a coincidence that they are the same. What the JCT is saying,

$1.4 trillion (cost of plan) - $400 billion (additional tax revenue from projected growth due to plan) = $1 trillion total additional debt. It's not that complicated and it doesn't cost us less over the next decade, it costs us $1 trillion more.

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/30/senate-tax-bill-would-still-add-1-trillion-to-the-deficit-after-growth-congressional-analysis-says.html

Quote :

"The Senate tax plan would add more than $1 trillion to federal deficits over a decade even after economic growth is taken into account, a congressional analysis estimated Thursday."

http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-tax-plan-senate-bill-jct-dynamic-scoring-analysis-2017-11

Quote :

"The committee also said the bill would increase the deficit by $956 billion over 10 years, even when factoring increased tax revenue due to economic growth. With the cost of servicing the increased debt, the bill would add just over $1 trillion in debt compared with the current baseline, the analysis said."

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/30/us/politics/tax-overhaul-senate-debate.html

Quote :

"Congress’s bipartisan tax referee said that economic growth induced by the tax cut would only offset $407 billion of its $1.5 trillion cost over the next decade."

[Edited on November 30, 2017 at 8:53 PM. Reason : trillion]

11/30/2017 8:47:11 PM

I don't know what else to say.

If what you are saying was the case, then the NEW projected 10 year deficit would be $2.4 trillion, no?

[Edited on November 30, 2017 at 9:02 PM. Reason : a]

11/30/2017 8:53:08 PM

The projected 10 year deficit is a lot more than $2.4 trillion.

Quote :

"As deficits accumulate in CBO’s baseline, debt held by the public rises from 77 percent of GDP ($15 trillion) at the end of 2017 to 89 percent of GDP ($25 trillion) by 2027. "

$1.4 trillion is what the CBO says the federal budget deficit will be for the year 2027 alone. Over 10 years, the CBO is projecting federal debt will increase by $10 trillion ($15 to $25 trillion). This tax bill would make that $11 trillion.

[Edited on November 30, 2017 at 9:15 PM. Reason : .]

11/30/2017 9:12:59 PM

Okay I may be with you at this point. I'm trying to confirm whether CBO said "by 2027" as an inclusive stat for 2017-2027 or if it was literally just saying "by 2027, it'll be this much PER year."

Thanks for the patience. I think I pointed out in another thread I do not know shit about economics. Goddamned weird coincidence on the $1.4 trillion numbers.

[Edited on November 30, 2017 at 9:25 PM. Reason : a]

11/30/2017 9:23:09 PM

I can't handle this kind of constructive debate that results in understanding on TWW... where are you Earl?!

But seriously - for anyone thinking all the above is TL : DR - I'd advise giving it a skim at least because I wouldn't doubt this is how those in support of the bill will try to misconstrue it.

[Edited on December 1, 2017 at 8:49 AM. Reason : .]

[Edited on December 1, 2017 at 8:53 AM. Reason : Also thanks for going into all those details - I too am shit with economics]

12/1/2017 8:49:20 AM

Quote :

"I'd advise giving it a skim at least because I wouldn't doubt this is how those in support of the bill will try to misconstrue it."

Yep. Make sure to go with what Shrike says - he's 100% correct.

12/1/2017 9:38:50 AM

anyone in favor of this bill will just decide that the CBO scores aren't accurate, so it's kind of pointless because how do you argue with someone who just decides they know better than the CBO?

12/1/2017 10:01:14 AM

^That's what pissed me off about Collins' statement.

12/1/2017 10:18:33 AM

https://mobile.twitter.com/clairecmc/status/936678750577623041

List of tax requests from K street, looks lengthy lol. Whatever the final bill looks like I think it's safe to assume it's gonna be a festering turd.

12/1/2017 3:16:48 PM

The actual tax bill being voted on tonight,




"The founding fathers didn't need Microsoft Word, why do we?"

12/1/2017 7:06:52 PM

Cursive? ewwwwwwwww

#BoomersToGitmo

12/1/2017 7:36:10 PM

The Senate can't even provide its members with a legible copy of the bill. I'd hate to see irregular order.

12/1/2017 10:54:14 PM

If you criticized the ACA, which included GOP amendments and the final version was available for weeks, but are okay with this tax bill you're a special kind of hypocritical moron

12/2/2017 7:56:41 AM

What happened to the filibuster?

12/2/2017 8:35:15 AM

It was passed under budget reconciliation, which prohibits filibuster.

12/2/2017 10:57:51 AM

^^^ democrats are weak and soft. i dont like the tax bill but this is how you get shit done when its important to you and your voters. they should be taking notes. .

12/2/2017 11:06:46 AM

we need a constitutional amendment that a bill should have to be online publicly for at least 30 days before they can vote on it

https://www.conventionofstates.com/

12/2/2017 11:44:50 AM