Backintheday544

The SALT cap doesn’t hurt the wealthy. Under the prior law, SALT was an add back for AMT (still is but now that it’s capped it doesn’t matter). So anyone subject to AMT anyways never received a deduction for SALT since it was an AMT add back. The people it hurt we’re more the middle class who used the SALT deduction but didn’t make enough to pay AMT prior to TCJA. As for rising revenues, the nominal change from what I’ve seen is increased but the real change and the projected non-TCJA revenues are both deficits.

It think this pie chart really highlights the differences between the Democrats and the Republicans. Each party had a chance at a reconciliation bill right after the Presidential election. Per yours, we can see lower and middle class people are getting benefits from the bill. We can contrast that to the reckless tax cut bill by the Republicans: Their law was for the richest 20 percent and foreign investors. This law is for the American people.

They all have Biden derangement syndrome (BDS). You can see it with how angry and constipated their posts are sounding. None of them cared about all the pet projects Republicans tossed in the TCJA. Dems get 2 guaranteed chances at reconciliation. Let them pass their stuff. This is what Americans voted for.

The only group I really see this apply to are Republicans. They’re using their free speech to moan about business decisions. When businesses tell them F off, it’s our business we will do what we want to do, they get all mad about free speech. As a minority, Republicans really need to kick and scream as much as possible to feel like they’re in the majority. “Further, an optical illusion comes with the dominance of the minority: a naive observer would be under the impression that the choices and preferences are those of the majority”

Hmmm quoting a former UK Prime Minister trying to make a point about the US constitution.

Republicans: A bipartisan impeachment of a president who attempted a coup is a waste of time. Also Republicans: Now today America, instead of helping Americans I’m going to read you Green Eggs and Ham. Great to see Rep. Ryan give the kids a talking to: Really, Republicans just hate capitalism. They’re mad about a private company’s decision. Typically a private company makes a decision because it thinks it’ll be profitable for the company (more Seuss books have probably been bought due to this). Same thing with Mr. Potato head. Republicans needs to stop trying to dictate how private companies operate. As another poster quoted “Further, an optical illusion comes with the dominance of the minority: a naive observer would be under the impression that the choices and preferences are those of the majority.”

You do know HR1 for these voting protections is a bill that has been through the House since the Republicans lost the house in 2018? All prior to COVID right? Or was that not on your right wing talking points list?

The boldest text reminds me a lot of last year when so many Trumpers believed they were the majority. They themselves were the naive observer believing themselves as the majority.

Like CAA of 2021 was over 5000 pages so at least you’re lucky this one is shorter! Howard University is in DC so it needs appropriations that states normally grant universities through acts of Congress instead of a state legislature. Similar provisions were in the bipartisan CARES Act. Plus they used to use the Bills logo. COVID has impacted the food supply and farmers can always use money.

The bills here: https://www.budget.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/American Rescue Plan Act SENATE.pdf Costs going to keeping the Employee Retention Credit going, a new Restaurant Recovery Grant program that allows restaurants to recoup COVID losses, more money to targeted EIDL, expansion of the PPP program to more non-for-profits, making around $10k of unemployment non-taxable, continuing FFCRA credits to help businesses pay for sick and family leave. Really not hard to read it and see.

Democrats are pro-Social safety net. Republicans are against that. People who are homeless and not well off would see appeal to a party that supports a social safety net vs a party that wants to cut things like food stamps in favor of tax cuts of wealthy individuals. So if they vote for their own best interest, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. They’re just as American as you and have a single vote just as you do. Republicans “adding friction” is known as disenfranchisement. The greatest responsibility an American has is to vote. Our laws should make that as easy as possible for every American. The disenfranchisement Republicans have done also targets a political party. For example allowing gun IDs to vote but not student IDs in Texas or allowing military IDs but not VA IDs in Wisconsin. If Republicans were serious about voter ID laws they wouldn’t do things that favor one party over the other. Imagine the outrage is in Kansas democrats passed a law that said you could only vote Sunday’s from 8-10 (or whenever church time was). That law would make friction on Republican voters and should be equally as illegal as any other law that’s sole purpose is to make it harder for a group of people to vote.

so you’re basically admitting you want voter ID laws so legal voters can’t vote? if you want a law where you can’t trade booze for a ballot or can’t have pre-filled in ballots then have that and enforce that. You’re saying yes, there’s legal Americans at homeless shelters who don’t have IDs. We should have an ID law them so they can’t vote.

critical? From 2000 to 2014, there was 31 cases of voter impersonation in the US (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2014/10/13/the-disconnect-between-voter-id-laws-and-voter-fraud/) How is stopping 31 cases out of billions of ballots critical? Indiana ran a program to get everyone free IDs and cost $10,000,000. That $10 million stopped probably 1 person? let’s not forget Dems are the hard workers they can’t just take off their jobs to get IDs like Republicans can to storm the US capitol

Reasons against voter ID cause: 1. 11 percent of Americans don’t have an ID. It seems odd to a lot of people but living in a city where you have public transportation and you don’t drink, no reason to have an ID. If you’re a senior citizen who can’t drive, no reason to have an ID. 2. The cost is a poll tax. Even if offered for free, people have costs of getting their birth certificates and probably would need to take time off of work to get it. 3. The ID laws enacted so far have been to target minorities. Republicans like them because they disproportionately harm minorities. Per ACLU 25 percent of African Americans do not have an ID compared to 8 percent of whites. 4. Republicans enacting the ID laws do so in ways that favor themselves. For example, in Texas they made gun IDs as valid ID but not college IDs. 5. the cost implementing voter ID is huge compared to the barely any voter impersonations that would be solved with voter ID.

The people wanting to ban the books are the religious right. But it doesn’t matter which side they’re on, it’s an outcry to ban books and you hear nothing from the right about protecting those books. as you said “Of course there is no link for "no outcry from the right" because it is completely false, made up out of the whole-cloth of your bias.” 1. It’s not made up as the link shows. Books with left leaning ideas are being censored or attempted to be censored by the religious right. 2. there is no outcry from the right because why? You say they care about freedoms, but they sure are complaining a ton about Dr. Suess but they complain zero about the other boos the religious right has sought to ban. Why is that?

Lol. Yes because the left is the one asking for books about LGBTQIA+ book to be banned or want Harry Potter books banned due to witchcraft. come on, don’t be dumb. here’s the list of top 10 most challenged books, find 1 on here that the left would challenge and match it to the left ideology: George by Alex Gino Reasons: challenged, banned, restricted, and hidden to avoid controversy; for LGBTQIA+ content and a transgender character; because schools and libraries should not “put books in a child’s hand that require discussion”; for sexual references; and for conflicting with a religious viewpoint and “traditional family structure” Beyond Magenta: Transgender Teens Speak Out by Susan Kuklin Reasons: challenged for LGBTQIA+ content, for “its effect on any young people who would read it,” and for concerns that it was sexually explicit and biased A Day in the Life of Marlon Bundo by Jill Twiss, illustrated by EG Keller Reasons: Challenged and vandalized for LGBTQIA+ content and political viewpoints, for concerns that it is “designed to pollute the morals of its readers,” and for not including a content warning Sex is a Funny Word by Cory Silverberg, illustrated by Fiona Smyth Reasons: Challenged, banned, and relocated for LGBTQIA+ content; for discussing gender identity and sex education; and for concerns that the title and illustrations were “inappropriate” Prince & Knight by Daniel Haack, illustrated by Stevie Lewis Reasons: Challenged and restricted for featuring a gay marriage and LGBTQIA+ content; for being “a deliberate attempt to indoctrinate young children” with the potential to cause confusion, curiosity, and gender dysphoria; and for conflicting with a religious viewpoint I Am Jazz by Jessica Herthel and Jazz Jennings, illustrated by Shelagh McNicholas Reasons: Challenged and relocated for LGBTQIA+ content, for a transgender character, and for confronting a topic that is “sensitive, controversial, and politically charged” The Handmaid’s Tale by Margaret Atwood Reasons: Banned and challenged for profanity and for “vulgarity and sexual overtones” Drama written and illustrated by Raina Telgemeier Reasons: Challenged for LGBTQIA+ content and for concerns that it goes against “family values/morals” Harry Potter series by J. K. Rowling Reasons: Banned and forbidden from discussion for referring to magic and witchcraft, for containing actual curses and spells, and for characters that use “nefarious means” to attain goals And Tango Makes Three by Peter Parnell and Justin Richardson illustrated by Henry Cole Reason: Challenged and relocated for LGBTQIA+ content

They already made Lois black:

It’s really hilarious seeing the right complain about banned books. The American Library Association puts together lists of the most challenged that people are trying to ban. They’re basically all things the right hates: http://www.ala.org/advocacy/bbooks/frequentlychallengedbooks/top10 There was no outcry from the right when this happens. There is outcry now with Dr. Suess. Basically, they’re being hypocrites yet again.

You make me wonder often what world you live in as your basic understanding of facts is often not from this timeline. Pelosi screeched at Trump asking for $2,000? Pelosi replied to Trumps tweet saying Let’s Do It!! Right after, the Dems drafted a bill with only the $2,000 stimulus in it and passed in the House mainly along partisan lines. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/12/28/house-stimulus-checks/?_gl=1*95v6mf*_ga*d1JzMzFIcEpUY2UxaWRHUjFKXzV0YUs1c0ZUV05KQW1Uc253ME00VzByZzU0RF9idlp4bnNma0N5alVUSXpGQg.. Maybe if you actually understood what happens, you may like the Dems. If you don’t believe me that is was a clean bill, you can read it yourself here: https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/9051/text The bill died in the Senate when Mitch wouldn’t bring it up.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/investigations/2018/09/20/brett-kavanaugh-alleged-actions-17-relevant-court-nominee/1356690002/ "I do not understand why the loutish, drunken behavior of a 17 year old high school boy has anything to tell us about the character of a 53 year old judge," The American Conservative editor Rod Dreher tweeted. Fox News commentator Stephen Miller likened the allegations to "drunk teenagers playing seven minutes of heaven."

Sounds like Trumps first year. No state of the union, but a joint session on 2/28/17, which would be today! The only difference isn’t your weren’t questioning if Trump was really running the country. I guess another big difference is Congress is in the middle of passing one of the largest bills ever but they weren’t at that time in 2017.

Except there were people who also verified incidents of Kavanaugh sexually assaulting women: https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2019-09-16/fbi-investigation-brett-kavanaugh-confirmation One of the accounts, reported by Deborah Ramirez, was made public at the time of Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearings. The other, not publicly known until this weekend, was reported by a male classmate who said he witnessed the incident. He unsuccessfully sought to get the FBI to investigate with help from a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee who asked FBI Director Christopher A. Wray to look into the allegation. Ramirez alleged that Kavanaugh exposed his penis and caused her to touch it while they were both inebriated during a drinking game in a dormitory suite in late 1983 or early 1984. Kavanaugh denied her allegation. The other allegation, previously unreported, came from Washington lawyer Max Stier, who told Sen. Chris ***** (D-Del.) that he witnessed Kavanaugh exposing himself to a different female classmate during their freshman year. There were several moves. Republicans didn’t want to investigate at all until their was political pressure. Once there was enough political pressure, a handful of Republican senators that needed cover like Collins, requested Trump open an FBI investigation. Then the investigation was limited and needed to be concluded in a week. Should we have the same thing apply here? How would Republicans feel if Democrats said yes let’s investigate but it’s a limited investigation into Cuomo and can only last 1 week?

This is funny how it does bring out hypocrisy. Remember in Kavanaugh, the right was like let it be, it’s old allegations. We believe him. This is a non-story. Now they jump all over Cuomo to resign. Its not new. The same thing happened with Democrat Senator Franken. The Dems did put pressure on him to resign and he did. We’re already seeing Dems call for investigation. AOC being the most prominent one. That is what should happen. I don’t think you’d find any Dem say otherwise. It would be interesting if the Republicans took a consistent approach with this and applied their Kavanaugh standard to Cuomo but we know that will not happen.

That’s not at all what I’m saying. In your situation the owners are taking a calculated risk and investment in the company. They’re taking the risks of starting up the company for the reward that the company can grow. A person they hire off the street at a wage below living wages, doesn’t share in that risk/reward calculation. If in year 10 when they were able to grow off their work and now have plenty of net income to increase pay people a livable wage, then they should. If they don’t they’re subsidizing their own wealth by paying a wage that is morally disingenuous. The company not paying a livable wage takes money from taxpayers because now taxpayers need to fund things like SNAP. I think you’re confused on what a living wage is. Per Wikipedia: A living wage is defined as the minimum income necessary for a worker to meet his or her basic needs.[3] This is not the same as a subsistence wage, which refers to a biological minimum. Needs are defined to include food, housing, and other essential needs such as clothing. The goal of a living wage is to allow a worker to afford a basic but decent standard of living through employment without government subsidies. Were not talking about paying a wage that allows people to take even a vacation a year, but a wage that allows people to meet their basic needs without government subsidies.

Apply that to any cost. Say you’re in a business of selling soap for $1. The costs of goods to make soap increase and selling soap for a $1 now generates a loss. Due to an outside influence your current business structure is no longer sustainable. What do you? Like you said, you either adjust your business or go out of business. Now circling it back to wages. Instead of a shortage of goods increasing the price of goods, we’ve had cost of living increase. As such, we have an external pressure to raise wages. Unlike a good that goes into our product, we’re now talking about people and there is now a moral issue that comes into play as well.