Licensing for the 2nd Amendment is bad, but for the 1st?

[Kutnupe14]

My point was more in line with this thread. He shares in the blame for the failures. So he blames the media (and they certainly have been tireless in giving him bad press), and used that as an excuse to take action against them. Not only is that an overreach, it is Obama-level petty.

Your description of a lack of opportunity for compromise lacks nuance. You don't have to compromise on the repeal, compromise on something else. Promise to back off on the wall, for example. Come on, where is the Art of the Deal? Johnson would have figured it out. Obama figured out how to enact it, a much more daunting undertaking. Congressional Republicans bear more blame than Trump, but Trump could help himself. What doesn't bear any blame is freedom of the press. And he deserves every word of scorn he gets on this.

Oh, and good for Trump. He got a highly qualified SCOTUS nominee through a friendly Senate. A truly earth shattering accomplishment for a President. The fact that this is the example of Trump's greatest co-operative achievement with the Legislative branch speaks volumes.

Bingo! He's either too lazy to do the legwork himself to support the stuff he says he wants passed, or he's looking for a scapegoat to blame if something doesn't pass. If we are to take a running list of things that he's blamed: The Media, Obama, John McCain, Democrats, Puerto Ricans, Iranians, McConnell, North Koreans, Clinton, Mexicans, Cuba, NAFTA, China, Corker, the Mayor of London, ESPN, Schwarzenegger, military generals..... etc, etc, etc

Two things he's NEVER blamed of anything, himself..... and Russia, Rosja, Rusko

 

[jamil]

The point you may be missing is rooted in that diversity of opinion you mention. What to you are reasonable things you are willing to compromise on (and by extension that you think I should be, too) might just be my "Not one inch" issue. I gather you use the left's definition of compromise?

It is Unfettered 2nd Amendment and Border Control and Tax Reform and Drain the Swamp. Not a single conditional conjunction in the bunch

40% of the electorate is only enough to guarantee negative outcomes. But if we can hold together we can make a convincing case that any republican who isn't with us will have to find a real job in 2018 and again in 2020

If the only thing that gets through to them is concerns about being pushed away from the trough, we can arrange that

We're talking about Trump and getting what he promised passed, and what the president's roll traditionally plays in getting his agenda accomplished. He's not going to get everything he wants, but he's not going to get anything if he's not putting the due diligence to get it done. And maybe you've discovered the thing that's not so great about voting for a president who's not a politician. He'll be ineffective because he has no idea how things get done in the political realm.

George Bush talked Ted Kennedy into agreeing with his No Child Left Behind bill. We can argue about how good or bad that bill was, I'm not a fan, but to get it, he had to give up some things to get some things.

So he's failed on healthcare, and the administration was pretty absent on that. Now onto taxes, if Trump really wants tax reform, he has to play. the White House has to be involved in that. So maybe instead of getting down to 4 tax brackets from 7, he gets 5. Maybe instead of a 25% top tax rate, he has to settle for 35%. Maybe to get the whole deal, he has to keep the death tax. Or, maybe to get the death tax too he has to give up the wall.

When other people have a say too, all or nothing gives you nothing. And that's fine if you're on the nothing side because if you're on the nothing side, and you get nothing, you win.

 

[Kutnupe14]

We're talking about Trump and getting what he promised passed, and what the president's roll traditionally plays in getting his agenda accomplished. He's not going to get everything he wants, but he's not going to get anything if he's not putting the due diligence to get it done. And maybe you've discovered the thing that's not so great about voting for a president who's not a politician. He'll be ineffective because he has no idea how things get done in the political realm.

George Bush talked Ted Kennedy into agreeing with his No Child Left Behind bill. We can argue about how good or bad that bill was, I'm not a fan, but to get it, he had to give up some things to get some things.

So he's failed on healthcare, and the administration was pretty absent on that. Now onto taxes, if Trump really wants tax reform, he has to play. the White House has to be involved in that. So maybe instead of getting down to 4 tax brackets from 7, he gets 5. Maybe instead of a 25% top tax rate, he has to settle for 35%. Maybe to get the whole deal, he has to keep the death tax. Or, maybe to get the death tax too he has to give up the wall.

When other people have a say too, all or nothing gives you nothing. And that's fine if you're on the nothing side because if you're on the nothing side, and you get nothing, you win.

And when president runs into that issue, the Chief of Staff is supposed to pick up the slack. Reince tried, but he was pulling double-duty as babysitter, and failed. Kelly, apparently babysits, full time, and is unable to make inroads with Washington politicians. He simply doesn't have the time.
So now we have this ridiculous tax cut coming up, which is going to add trillions to the debt, in which the top 1% benefit from 80% of the cuts. The poorest Americans won't see a change, but this who aren't rich, and aren't poor? Pony up, not tax cut for you. Anyone care to guess if the President, and ALL of his cabinet will, or won't benefit, from this tax plan?

 

[BugI02]

We're talking about Trump and getting what he promised passed, and what the president's roll traditionally plays in getting his agenda accomplished. He's not going to get everything he wants, but he's not going to get anything if he's not putting the due diligence to get it done. And maybe you've discovered the thing that's not so great about voting for a president who's not a politician. He'll be ineffective because he has no idea how things get done in the political realm.

George Bush talked Ted Kennedy into agreeing with his No Child Left Behind bill. We can argue about how good or bad that bill was, I'm not a fan, but to get it, he had to give up some things to get some things.

So he's failed on healthcare, and the administration was pretty absent on that. Now onto taxes, if Trump really wants tax reform, he has to play. the White House has to be involved in that. So maybe instead of getting down to 4 tax brackets from 7, he gets 5. Maybe instead of a 25% top tax rate, he has to settle for 35%. Maybe to get the whole deal, he has to keep the death tax. Or, maybe to get the death tax too he has to give up the wall.

When other people have a say too, all or nothing gives you nothing. And that's fine if you're on the nothing side because if you're on the nothing side, and you get nothing, you win.

I can agree with almost all of that. The only part I cant countenance is the suggestion of compromise on the wall in relation to tax reform for reasons I've already stated. Compromise within the parameters of the legislation at hand is OK, quid pro quo is not. We didn't send him to Pennsylvania avenue with a particular set of numbers in mind, so there is room to maneuver on tax reform. We did send him to the white house with a level of illegal immigration in mind, and that level was zero. We did send him with a plan for the ACA, kill it. There is very little room to maneuver on those

And I don't think you should write off killing the ACA as a failure just yet, it seems it will just be death of a thousand cuts instead of clean and fast. Alas congress leaves him no choice but to work with the tools he has. At least he has the balls to do what needs to be done

 

[2A_Tom]

GWB did not get TK to give him NCLB. GWB gave TK a freehand to write education legislation in order to show the democrats he was willing to work with him. GWB gets credit for crappy liberal legislation.

 

[BugI02]

And when president runs into that issue, the Chief of Staff is supposed to pick up the slack. Reince tried, but he was pulling double-duty as babysitter, and failed. Kelly, apparently babysits, full time, and is unable to make inroads with Washington politicians. He simply doesn't have the time.
So now we have this ridiculous tax cut coming up, which is going to add trillions to the debt, in which the top 1% benefit from 80% of the cuts. The poorest Americans won't see a change, but this who aren't rich, and aren't poor? Pony up, not tax cut for you. Anyone care to guess if the President, and ALL of his cabinet will, or won't benefit, from this tax plan?

The 'poorest Americans' already pay little or no taxes and in many cases get paid for paying no taxes (EITC), so it should come as no surprise that tax reform will change their status little.

From: https://taxfoundation.org/summary-latest-federal-income-tax-data-2016-update/

In 2014, the top 50 percent of all taxpayers paid 97.3 percent of all individual income taxes while the bottom 50 percent paid the remaining 2.7 percent.

The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid a 27.1 percent individual income tax rate, which is more than seven times higher than taxpayers in the bottom 50 percent (3.5 percent).

Given the reality of current taxation, I don't see how you can lower tax rates and simplify brackets without some benefit accruing to the people who actually pay far and away the largest share. And if you want to talk loop-holes; some of the biggest, in terms of total dollars, are mortgage interest deductibility and deductibility of state and local taxes. So be careful what you wish for. If you want to reign in loop-holes somebody's ox is gonna' get gored. I would trade having to figure interest as part of the cost of home ownership for ending the forced subsidy of quite wealthy people in high tax high home price areas. If you can afford to live there, you should be able to shoulder all the costs

View attachment 59986

 

[jamil]

And when president runs into that issue, the Chief of Staff is supposed to pick up the slack. Reince tried, but he was pulling double-duty as babysitter, and failed. Kelly, apparently babysits, full time, and is unable to make inroads with Washington politicians. He simply doesn't have the time.
So now we have this ridiculous tax cut coming up, which is going to add trillions to the debt, in which the top 1% benefit from 80% of the cuts. The poorest Americans won't see a change, but this who aren't rich, and aren't poor? Pony up, not tax cut for you. Anyone care to guess if the President, and ALL of his cabinet will, or won't benefit, from this tax plan?

If this happens, and my tax bill as a result of this is higher than before, and rich people get a huge tax cut, I'm going to be very pissed. But if everyone gets a tax break I won't complain that people who earn much more and pay much more, get a much bigger tax break than me.

As far as putting us much more in debt, we'll see what expenses get cut. Our taxes and spending are way too high. No one should have to pay more than 10% of their income in taxes. And if the government can't operate on that, its trying to do way too much.

 

[Kutnupe14]

If this happens, and my tax bill as a result of this is higher than before, and rich people get a huge tax cut, I'm going to be very pissed. But if everyone gets a tax break I won't complain that people who earn much more and pay much more, get a much bigger tax break than me.

As far as putting us much more in debt, we'll see what expenses get cut. Our taxes and spending are way too high. No one should have to pay more than 10% of their income in taxes. And if the government can't operate on that, its trying to do way too much.

There shouldn't be an income tax AT ALL. Tax consumption. The fairest tax of them all. No worries though. There's no way this tax cut, as it stands currently, is getting anywhere near the president's desk. He'll have to work some EO magic.

 

[jamil]

There shouldn't be an income tax AT ALL. Tax consumption. The fairest tax of them all.

I am unconvinced on that. It's not that I can't be convinced, but I haven't been so far after hearing the arguments. Now if there's a slam dunk tax that should go away everywhere, it's property tax.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I am unconvinced on that. It's not that I can't be convinced, but I haven't been so far after hearing the arguments. Now if there's a slam dunk tax that should go away everywhere, it's property tax.

Would it surprise you, that at one point in our history, taxes on alcohol, alone, made up 30-40% of the federal budget? The implementation of the income tax, allowed for prohibition.

 

[jamil]

Would it surprise you, that at one point in our history, taxes on alcohol, alone, made up 30-40% of the federal budget? The implementation of the income tax, allowed for prohibition.

I hadn't put the timing together, but yeah. I could see that.

 

[BugI02]

Would it surprise you, that at one point in our history, taxes on alcohol, alone, made up 30-40% of the federal budget? The implementation of the income tax, allowed for prohibition.

Ken Burns fan?

 

[Kutnupe14]

Ken Burns fan?

(exception post)

Yes

 

[BugI02]

With a hat tip to Leadeye

Follow the money

 

[Woobie]

It seems he should be able to get his agenda through that same friendly Senate.

But he can't. Because he fails at politics. And apparently it is the Constitution's fault.

As to your other comments in no particular order:

1. I didn't say it was hard to write the legislation, I said it was hard to enact it. It was politically more difficult for Obama to pass it than Trump to repeal it.

2. I don't want to pay for the wall, so no, is rather Trump not keep that promise. It will do little to make us safer.

3. Johnson was one of the most successful Parliamentarians in our history. You can't dispute that with a petty anecdote.

4. This isn't the first time Trump has opined on the 1A. I firmly believe if he could restrict it, he would. And as I said, this is an excuse to do something. Not that he can, he obviously is having trouble accomplishing much of anything these days.

 

[Woobie]

What if Trump made that sleazy compromise on the suppressor bill, you know "back off" on that? I assume you would be all over his ass.

What I see time and again is people (not necessarily you, Woobie) failing to give credence to the idea that there will be some folks, republican and conservative both, for whom the wall and border control or tax reform will be more important than restoring your right to put cans on your firearms. These people would feel just as betrayed by your posited little dirty deal as you would feel with the one I used as an example

I for one don't approve of government via betrayal

The wall was an example. There could be any number of things he could compromise. I would certainly give up the suppressor bill for a really good ACA repeal and replace. Because it is good for America, not just me.

Compromise is how politics works. Ever since Ug and Thak sat down in a cave and tried to figure out who had rights to hunt the Wooly Mammoth herd north of the river, people have been compromising. Because the other options are to impose your will through force, or convince the other party it is on their self interest. Now that last one is do-able, if it is the truth and the other party is reasonable.

The point is, nobody wants a government where the democrats and republicans shoot it out to decide what passes. And reasoning often fails. So we are left with compromise. Politics is a giant negotiation, and frankly, it is why I thought Trump could get things done. But he can't even get his own party on board with him.

Yes, the Republicans are weak and self serving. And Trump is one of them.

 

[Woobie]

I am unconvinced on that. It's not that I can't be convinced, but I haven't been so far after hearing the arguments. Now if there's a slam dunk tax that should go away everywhere, it's property tax.

My objection to income tax is moral. In effect the government owns my income, and I get to keep some of it. Just like a property tax. They own my land, and I get to stay on it as long as I pay my rent.

We are, in many ways, a feudal system. You can say we have a say in the matter, but when neither party wants to change it, do we really have a choice?

Consumption taxes tend to hav a cooling effect, which is why many economists prefer a flat income tax, but I'll take consumption 7 days a week and twice on Sunday.

 

[Woobie]

Would it surprise you, that at one point in our history, taxes on alcohol, alone, made up 30-40% of the federal budget? The implementation of the income tax, allowed for prohibition.

It is also concurrent with the emancipation of slaves. The federal government outlawed ownership of people and their labor by citizens, and then obtained ownership of all the labor in the country. Now granted, it isn't nearly as morally repugnant as slavery, but it's a pretty slick power play.

 

[hoosierdoc]

Would it surprise you, that at one point in our history, taxes on alcohol, alone, made up 30-40% of the federal budget? The implementation of the income tax, allowed for prohibition.

You mean before welfare and modern military technology?

 

[jamil]

My objection to income tax is moral. In effect the government owns my income, and I get to keep some of it. Just like a property tax. They own my land, and I get to stay on it as long as I pay my rent.

We are, in many ways, a feudal system. You can say we have a say in the matter, but when neither party wants to change it, do we really have a choice?

Consumption taxes tend to hav a cooling effect, which is why many economists prefer a flat income tax, but I'll take consumption 7 days a week and twice on Sunday.

If you can say the government owns your income if they can tax it, you could really say that about anything they tax. But I will say, at least with a consumption tax, once they tax you, it's pretty much yours. And I concede that's a fair moral argument if you want to make that argument. But as a fiscal argument, I just don't think it is the best way to fund government.