Trump picks Elon and Vivek to run new government efficiency dept.

[BeaverFever]

2 hours ago, Black Dog said:

Can't believe that doofus Elon is spending millions to put chips in people's brains when dipshits like you will just do what he tells you for free.

 

Edited November 14, 2024 by BeaverFever

[Hodad]

1 hour ago, BeaverFever said:

Another unqualified scumbag gets his snout in the trough   Future headline: New AG says trafficking underage girls across state lines is perfectly legal 

Right? Gaetz as AG is a sick joke and just another slap in the face of the American People. --Though the date-raping frat boy constituency is thrilled to finally get the respect have representation they deserve.

[Hodad]

4 hours ago, gatomontes99 said:

I would love for our government to be 80% less than it is now.

Incredibly stupid. Like, no functional adult should have been able to type that out and hit submit. 

20% doesn't even cover our military and debt service. 

Want to think for a moment and try again with something remotely rational?

[gatomontes99]

12 minutes ago, Hodad said:

Incredibly stupid. Like, no functional adult should have been able to type that out and hit submit. 

20% doesn't even cover our military and debt service. 

Want to think for a moment and try again with something remotely rational?

Sarcasm.

[CdnFox]

3 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

1) the mythical “hidden efficiencies” conservatives promise never materialize, instead they end up gutting and defunding services, many of which people need whether they are aware of it or not  

Okay, example? Harper was able to find lots of efficiencies when he was in power and yet increased most of the social spending we care about such as transfers to the provinces, Healthcare funding and so on. But maybe you had another example in mind

Quote

2) the tax cuts mostly go to corporations and the ultra rich, the small amount of money if any that working class people save from task cuts is immaterial- the extra $10 per paycheque isn’t changing anyone’s lives 

That's been pretty seriously debunked already. The tax cuts for middle income earners are actually fairly substantial. But let's tackle this issue of the rich don't deserve tax cuts. The rich currently pay the vast vast majority of the taxes in the united states. And who do you get jobs from? Not poor people. When rich people have money they invest it. It's not like Scrooge McDuck with a giant money pit that they go swimming about it. And when they invested it it creates jobs and employment opportunities for all kinds of people.

I don't know if you noticed this but the country with the highest number of millionaires and the highest number of ultra rich also have by far the highest average wage and standard of living.

So even if you were right, which you are not, how would this be a bad thing?

 

Quote

3) EVERY Republican administration, including Trump’s first term, massively drove up public debt because their cuts to spending are always outpaced by tax cuts.

That's simply not true. It's not even true for this century. Bush rant surpluses. And no democrat has run surpluses since 2000.

I feel like Trump Ryan significantly larger ones than he should have but Biden is worse. Democrats have nothing to brag about when it comes to deficit spending

 

Quote

4) One of the biggest efficiencies would be cutting off all the  Republican Red States that suckle at the federal tit because they refuse to have adequate state taxes  The worst state mooches of federal funds are almost all historically Republican states. Meanwhile of the states that contribute more federal tax dollars than they receive, allmost all are historically Democrat  

that's taxes, not government efficiency.   And most of that has to do with where the richest people live. So swing and a miss  

Quote

Letting drug companies approve their own drugs and polluters monitor their own pollution or whatever mad max no regulation no government craziness they have in store is not going to make America a paradise in earth.

Excessive regulation that makes everything more expensive and prevents Prosperity isn't helping either

Quote

 What has made America such a polarized dysfunctional country is decades of extreme wealth inequality where an increasingly wealthy and powerful billionaire class has ruled over an ever-shrinking middle class and ever-growing population of serfs. 

Most of the rich people are democrats.

And no, the powerful billionaire class hasn't ruled over anybody. If that were true Kamala Harris would be president. She raised and spent vastly more money than trump did.

What is made America polarized and dysfunctional is that special interest groups along with the democrats and their intersectional coalition have taught Americans how to hate other Americans very efficiently. That's how they one votes. Even right now we see democrats supporters have been taught to ostracize their families if they voted differently. That's not the wealthy lording over the poor, that's just exploiting the dumb.

[WestCanMan]

13 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

1) Federal government employees shouldn’t be making federal government regulations? That doesn’t even make sense 

It would make sense if they were ratified in congress or by another elected body, but unelected people are making regulations with powers that are excessive, all things considered.

Theoretically there are 3-letter agencies which are unnecessary or redundant, and feel the need to justify their existence by just "doing stuff". 

Do you remember when there was a 'pandemic', and businesses had to come up with BS rules and restrictions made to "combat covid", and if you promised to uphold those sacred rules then business could resume? I was coaching my son's baseball at the time, and one of the rules that we were supposed to follow was "We will keep hand sanitizer with us, and if a parent leans on the fence we will go wipe it down with hand sanitizer right away." 

Honestly, who the F thought of that? It's stupid on so many levels that I can't even imagine how uneducated and paranoid one would have to be to think that made any sense at all. "Kids will flip the ball to each other from 7 feet away or go in and out of the dugouts together and they won't pass covid, and people will use the bathrooms, but if an adult leans on the fence in right field you have to rush over there and spray hand sanitizer on that spot!"

Quote

2) Most federal employees are not in Washington DC, Feds have offices all over the country. 

Do you think that Musk and Vivek have to stay in DC for 4 years? Or that they can't oversee some of these agencies remotely with those Apple things that sit on their desks? 

Quote

3) Running a business and running a government are 2 different things. Musk and Vivek might know how to make themselves rich running a business you don’t want them to make themselves rich running government.   These men are used to being dictators of their own enterprises. They probably don’t have the slightest interest or knowledge when it comes to providing public services for no other purpose than serving the public good or being accountable to the public.

At the end of the day, they think that they can trim $2Trillion of fat from the gov't, while simultaneously opening up the economy. 

If they trim 5% of that off and increase the economy by 1% that's $100B a year less in gov't spending and another $300B on the economy. Imagine how many bombs they can send to one of their proxies with an extra $100B/yr... That would keep Ukraine going until the end of next month.

Musk and Vivek have enough money. There's nothing that Musk wants that he can't buy 100 of. The same can't be said for people like Pelosi, Obama and AOC, who showed up with normal amounts of money and became very wealthy with only normal incomes. 

[Black Dog]

16 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

Why would I be on Twitter, dumb dog? 

It was always a shit-hole, and the improvements that Musk made didn't really change the overall format.

So when you were arguing that Elon took care of the bot problem, that was based on zero personal experience? lmao get your red nose and floppy shoes out you f*cking clown.

Quote

In case you forgot, you said "The shadowban thing is absolutely fake", and the title above says "Shadowbanning is real".

We both know that you've got a WashPo subscription because you're a brainless rat, so why don't you open up that article and find the part where it says: "Just kidding, the shadowban thing is absolutely fake", to prove that you're not as retarded as we all thought. 

 

Again: your entire argument here is based on a headline of an article you did not read so you actually don't know what the argument is. Again: you're a f*cking clown.

[WestCanMan]

Just now, Black Dog said:

So when you were arguing that Elon took care of the bot problem, that was based on zero personal experience? lmao get your red nose and floppy shoes out you f*cking clown.

No, it means that I tried Twitter and I hate the format, dummy. 

I wasn't there long enough to notice a bot issue. I've just read about it, and I don't read m0r0nic sources like you, Black Dummy.

Quote

Again: your entire argument here is based on a headline of an article you did not read so you actually don't know what the argument is. Again: you're a f*cking clown.

Try to make the case that the article with the bolded headline "Shadowbanning Is Real" doesn't end up saying "Shadowbanning Is Real" in the body, dumb doggy.

I used your fake news source because you have no choice but accept their words as gospel truth.

I could post that info from legitimate sources where I could read the article, but you wouldn't accept them, Black Dummy. You'd just say "Them's wiars!!! 😭 "

[Black Dog]

9 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

No, it means that I tried Twitter and I hate the format, dummy. 

I wasn't there long enough to notice a bot issue. I've just read about it, and I don't read m0r0nic sources like you, Black Dummy.

LOL are you sure you didn't just see a picture?

Quote

Try to make the case that the article with the bolded headline "Shadowbanning Is Real" doesn't end up saying "Shadowbanning Is Real" in the body, dumb doggy.

Good thing i didn't say anything of the sort. I'm saying arguing that "shadowbanning is real" based on a picture of a headline of an article you did not read is clown shit, clown.

Quote

I used your fake news source because you have no choice but accept their words as gospel truth.

I do have a choice actually that's how having free will and critical thinking skills works, not that you would know the first thing about it.

Quote

I could post that info from legitimate sources where I could read the article, but you wouldn't accept them, Black Dummy. You'd just say "Them's wiars!!! 😭 "

I don't believe you could, no.

 

[WestCanMan]

38 minutes ago, Black Dog said:

LOL are you sure you didn't just see a picture?

Good thing i didn't say anything of the sort. I'm saying arguing that "shadowbanning is real" based on a picture of a headline of an article you did not read is clown shit, clown.

 

 

Go read your quote, dumb dog.

FYI shadowbanning is real, and Twitter absolutely did it to conservatives, and especially to downplay the known truth about certain topics that were important to the DNC. Twitter and other members of TNI defined the truth as "What the other members of TNI say is true" and applied that circular reasoning broadly to advance alt-left talking points.

Eg, the reason that WaahPo can say "Twumpy wied firty-sowsand tyms" is because he kept saying "I never colluded with Russia" and they can just keep calling it a lie every time he says it, by their own dishonest definition of what the truth is. 

Quote

I do have a choice actually that's how having free will and critical thinking skills works, not that you would know the first thing about it.

Ok, Mr critical thinker, can you name me a fake-news narrative that you didn't get sucked in by from the following list:

1. Gentle Giant 1
2. Gentle Giant v2.0
3. Russian collusion
4. Jussie Smollett's self-lynching episode
5. Nick Sandman
6. Brionna was "shot for sleeping black"
7. Rayshard was a victim of police racism
8. Mostly peaceful protests
9. No inflation
10. Trump never called for and end to the rioting on Jan 6th
11. The laptop is Russian disinformation

Those were all pretty transparent falsehoods, and the narratives went on for ridiculously long times. People were still denying that Jussie did it himself even after the Nigerian bros confessed ffs. 

Can you tell me, to what extent did you get sucked in by those stories? Was all that sh1t approximately 10% real? 30%? 0%? 50%?

To what extent were you sucked in at the beginning, and then at the end? 

[Black Dog]

18 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Go read your quote, dumb dog.

FYI shadowbanning is real, and Twitter absolutely did it to conservatives, and especially to downplay the known truth about certain topics that were important to the DNC. Twitter and other members of TNI defined the truth as "What the other members of TNI say is true" and applied that circular reasoning broadly to advance alt-left talking points.

I have no idea what TNI means or why you keep using it like it's a commonly known thing and not some crazy shitbird inside baseball.

Quote

Ok, Mr critical thinker, can you name me a fake-news narrative that you didn't get sucked in by from the following list:

1. Gentle Giant 1
2. Gentle Giant v2.0
3. Russian collusion
4. Jussie Smollett's self-lynching episode
5. Nick Sandman
6. Brionna was "shot for sleeping black"
7. Rayshard was a victim of police racism
8. Mostly peaceful protests
9. No inflation
10. Trump never called for and end to the rioting on Jan 6th
11. The laptop is Russian disinformation

Can you tell me, to what extent did you get sucked in by those stories? Was all that sh1t approximately 10% real? 30%? 0%? 50%?

To what extent were you sucked in at the beginning, and then at the end? 

LOL get a life you old loser.

Edited November 14, 2024 by Black Dog

[WestCanMan]

21 minutes ago, Black Dog said:

I have no idea what TNI means or why you keep using it like it's a commonly known thing and not some crazy shitbird inside baseball.

Trusted News Initiative, right from the horse's mouth.

• CBC/Radio-Canada is joining an industry collaboration of major media and technology organizations to rapidly identify and stop the spread of harmful coronavirus disinformation.🤣

• The Trusted News Initiative partners are: BBC, CBC/Radio-Canada, Facebook, Google/YouTube, Twitter, Microsoft, AFP, Reuters, Financial Times, The Wall Street Journal, European Broadcasting Union (EBU), The Hindu, First Draft, and Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism.

  CBC/Radio-Canada announced its participation in the Trusted News Initiative in September 2019.

When was the last time that you saw a bunch of people huddle together to get their stories straight when they were telling the truth?

Those guys were all as thick as thieves at blocking information about the BSL4 lab and the Hunter laptop. Social media didn't just shadow-ban people for talking about them, they kicked them right off of their platforms entirely, and they were always known to be correct. They even kicked the NYPost off of Twitter for telling the truth. 

That doesn't concern you, no, you're just mad that there might be a few bots on Twitter now... 🤣

"2024 Twitter/X is outrageous!!!! I want the good ol' days of shadow-bans and truth-blocking back!!!" - Black Dummy

Quote

LOL get a life you old loser.

So you're going with: "All of those narratives were grounded in facts and reality" then? 🤣

LMAO, grab a brain you childish loser. 

Edited November 14, 2024 by WestCanMan

[impartialobserver]

Yawn... this is probably more fluff than actual substance. If you really want efficiency, there are better ways than hiring two bureaucrats. The first step IMHO would be to do away with "use or lose it" grant funding. Doing away with this would cut down on paperwork, time, money, and staffing. 

Edited November 14, 2024 by impartialobserver

[CdnFox]

4 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

Yawn... this is probably more fluff than actual substance. If you really want efficiency, there are better ways than hiring two bureaucrats. The first step IMHO would be to do away with "use or lose it" grant funding. Doing away with this would cut down on paperwork, time, money, and staffing. 

That has been tried in many places and hasn't actually resulted in significant savings. I mean we have the same sort of thing in Canada. They keep coming back to it because of the problems when you don't have it.

I'm more effective way might be requiring specific grant proposals every year with dollar figures attached for review but then you were back up to having more staff to do the applications and the reviews.

I would suggest that a couple of expert businessmen with long histories of making their businesses more efficient would probably not be a horrible pair to look over how you're doing things to see if you can find efficiencies. To write people like elon musk off as a  "bureaucrat"  iS pretty dishonest

[impartialobserver]

1 minute ago, CdnFox said:

That has been tried in many places and hasn't actually resulted in significant savings. I mean we have the same sort of thing in Canada. They keep coming back to it because of the problems when you don't have it.

I'm more effective way might be requiring specific grant proposals every year with dollar figures attached for review but then you were back up to having more staff to do the applications and the reviews.

I would suggest that a couple of expert businessmen with long histories of making their businesses more efficient would probably not be a horrible pair to look over how you're doing things to see if you can find efficiencies. To write people like elon musk off as a  "bureaucrat"  iS pretty dishonest

Musk has other irons in the proverbial fire and so any government work that he does will largely be ceremonial or for show. Any work that he does actually do.. he will want to be paid and if you want efficiency err.... lower costs of operating, the last thing you need is more expenditures on staff. 

For example, at our office we have folks that are primarily paid through federal grants. The reason that we never downsize them (even when they prove themselves to be nonessential) is that it is known that once we lose the positions.. they never come back. It is written in the fine print so no speculation. It would seem that if we had less staffing on our end and therefore less grant funding (and less paperwork), you could have less staffing on their end. 

Another issue is the mandatory contracts. We have to pay these overly expensive software contracts due to legality. Even after it has been shown that we do not need software x.. we are the government and can't back out. The contract says 10 years and so we pay the contract for all 10 years even if no one uses software X. 

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, impartialobserver said:

Musk has other irons in the proverbial fire and so any government work that he does will largely be ceremonial or for show. Any work that he does actually do.. he will want to be paid and if you want efficiency err.... lower costs of operating, the last thing you need is more expenditures on staff. 

Possibly true but I think we'd have to wait and see before we pass the judgment like that right? they might well come up with some solid solutions. 

 

Quote

For example, at our office we have folks that are primarily paid through federal grants. The reason that we never downsize them (even when they prove themselves to be nonessential) is that it is known that once we lose the positions.. they never come back. It is written in the fine print so no speculation. It would seem that if we had less staffing on our end and therefore less grant funding (and less paperwork), you could have less staffing on their end. 

I know, like i said it's the same in canada in many places. 

But if you eliminate the grants altogether (cheap solution) then you don't get the workers at all and maybe you needed them.  And if you make people apply for the grants and prove need instead of automatically renewing then you add more complexity and cost. 

And if you just say 'keep them money you don't spend you encourage people to use the funds for other things and not what it was intended for.  And if you say send the unused money back you run into the same problem as originally mentioned, people hate giving money back so they'll find a way to spend it. 

No matter which way you go there's a problem. 

 

Quote

Another issue is the mandatory contracts. We have to pay these overly expensive software contracts due to legality. Even after it has been shown that we do not need software x.. we are the government and can't back out. The contract says 10 years and so we pay the contract for all 10 years even if no one uses software X. 

Well that sounds like a problem for sure but i think thats' probably a bit of a different kind of problem. The people in charge of provisioning and supplies need a talking to 

[impartialobserver]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

Possibly true but I think we'd have to wait and see before we pass the judgment like that right? they might well come up with some solid solutions. 

 

I know, like i said it's the same in canada in many places. 

But if you eliminate the grants altogether (cheap solution) then you don't get the workers at all and maybe you needed them.  And if you make people apply for the grants and prove need instead of automatically renewing then you add more complexity and cost. 

And if you just say 'keep them money you don't spend you encourage people to use the funds for other things and not what it was intended for.  And if you say send the unused money back you run into the same problem as originally mentioned, people hate giving money back so they'll find a way to spend it. 

No matter which way you go there's a problem. 

 

Well that sounds like a problem for sure but i think thats' probably a bit of a different kind of problem. The people in charge of provisioning and supplies need a talking to 

How about if we allowed for you to renew your grants but with less funding? No need to scrap it altogether and start from square one each year. Year 1 = grant funding of $15 million. Year 2 we only need 10 million so in theory.. we write in 10 million and some other items and call it good. But as it stands, some folks can't be fired unless they bomb the building (joking but almost true). We could easily replace them with no one. Their jobs are not that difficult and could be automated away. 

as for the contracts, we have tried to back out and then they sue and win. That would save a ton of cash and free up funds for things that really matter such as building improvements, database improvements, etc or we could simply have less expenditures.. i know.. what a grand idea. 

[CouchPotato]

On 11/13/2024 at 8:55 PM, eyeball said:

I'm wondering what Tucker Carlson will be appointed to? Some sort of Truth and Free Speech Czarship would be my guess.

Pretty ironic considering it was the Dems who tried to create a Ministry of Truth.

[CdnFox]

26 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

How about if we allowed for you to renew your grants but with less funding? No need to scrap it altogether and start from square one each year. 

But isn't renewing it with less every year Just scrapping it over time?

 

Quote

as for the contracts, we have tried to back out and then they sue and win. That would save a ton of cash and free up funds for things that really matter such as building improvements, database improvements, etc or we could simply have less expenditures.. i know.. what a grand idea. 

Well obviously whoever is making arrangements for the contracts need to talk into. Nothing should be locked in for 10 years in this day and age except maybe mortgages

[eyeball]

27 minutes ago, CouchPotato said:

Pretty ironic considering it was the Dems who tried to create a Ministry of Truth.

I'm figuring Trump's saving the best for last and he'll put Marjorie Taylor Greene in charge of the Chemtrail Program along with Area 54.

[BeaverFever]

23 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Okay, example? Harper was able to find lots of efficiencies when he was in power and yet increased most of the social spending we care about such as transfers to the provinces, Healthcare funding and so on. But maybe you had another example in mind

Harper ran deficits for almost hi entire time in office and gutted environmental and pollution control programs.  Cutting programs you personally disagree with for ideological reasons like isn’t “efficiency”. Efficiency is when you run the same programs with less waste is pretty hard to do at scale. 
 

Regarding health and social transfers to provinces he actually REDUCED the amount of budgeted year-over year increases. It’s like when the Trudeau government cut $1Bn from the military budget and then claimed they were increasing military spending it’s like yeah but now you’re increasing it by $1Bn per year LESS than what was already in the last budget. Anyway Harper’s government was more similar to  Chretien-Martin Liberals than it was different, he’s not the worst of the bunch. Examples of disastrous slash and burn tax and budget  cuts are Mike Harris, Sam Brownback, Liz Truss, George W Bush (more on him below)

 

23 hours ago, CdnFox said:

That's been pretty seriously debunked already. The tax cuts for middle income earners are actually fairly substantial

Where has that been debunked?  80% of Trump’s 2017 tax cut went to the wealthiest 10%. 
https://equitablegrowth.org/six-years-later-more-evidence-shows-the-tax-cuts-and-jobs-act-benefits-u-s-business-owners-and-executives-not-average-workers/

In October 2017, the Council of Economic Advisers estimated that the corporate tax cut contained within the TCJA would increase real median household income by $3,000 to $7,000 annually.^[128]However, during the first year following enactment of the TCJA, real median household income increased by $553; the Census Bureau characterized this increase as statistically insignificant.^[12
 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Cuts_and_Jobs_Act
 

23 hours ago, CdnFox said:

And who do you get jobs from? Not poor people. When rich people have money they invest it. It's not like Scrooge McDuck with a giant money pit that they go swimming about it. And when they invested it it creates jobs and employment opportunities for all kinds of people

More trickle-down nonsense that’s been debunked over and over. You think the reason Elon  Musk isn’t hiring more people or starting more businesses is because he’s too broke from paying too much taxes?  When rich people want to invest they don’t empty their piggybanks or only invest what they have to spare from their current income. When they want to invest they borrow the funds using their almost unlimited credit . Borrowing is economic growth, economic growth is borrowing. You can’t have one without the other. New wealth is only created when one party lends money to another and receives a greater amount in return over time.
 

Secondly rich people and investors don’t always create jobs. Sometimes they buy up companies just to fire everyone and liquidate its assets. Look at Sears as but one example, a storied successful company sucked dry by a predatory hedge fund that just funnelled all corporate profits and assets to itself for years until there was nothing of value left and the business was no longer visible. Or they buy up a company with a reputation for making a quality product then they transform it into a company that makes cheap low quality products and/or outsource production to some overseas contractors in someplace like China. 
 

23 hours ago, CdnFox said:

I don't know if you noticed this but the country with the highest number of millionaires and the highest number of ultra rich also have by far the highest average wage and standard of living.

So even if you were right, which you are not, how would this be a bad thing?

Because if you understand how averages work you’ll understand how USA also has one of the highest levels of wealth inequality and also one of the highest poverty rates in the G7. Imagine 2 desert islands:  on one desert island, all ten inhabitants have between $50,000 and $250,000 with an average wealth of $100,000 per capita. On the second island the average wealth is higher at $150,000 per capita but on closer inspection 1 man has $1.5 million and the other 9 have nothing.   You’re celebrating island 2 because it has a millionaire and higher average wealth per capita but in reality unless you’re that one millionaire your life is probably pretty miserable and you have nothing, that millionaire probably rules your life. 
 

Thats how it’s a bad thing. 
 

23 hours ago, CdnFox said:

That's simply not true. It's not even true for this century. Bush rant surpluses.

LMAO FALSE. Have we started the second Trump era false history gaslighting already? Sorry your statement above is so opposite-of-reality false I can’t help but roast you for it, it’s like saying “nobody hires more black leaders than the KKK” that’s how false it is 

Not only wee there no surpluses inder Bush there were MASSIVE deficits due to his tax cuts, his disastrous and criminally fraudulent unjustified invasion of Iraq and the unprecedented economic collapse that occurred under his regime. The Gross national debt almost doubled under George W Bush from $5.7 trillion to nearly $11 trillion and there were deficits in Every. Single. Year. 

 

23 hours ago, CdnFox said:

And no democrat has run surpluses since 2000.

No republican has run a balanced budget since 1960, and it wasn’t even consecutive balanced budgets back then, bucko.  Clinton’s 4 back to back balanced budgets have been among the few in the post-war era, Eisenhower had 2 in ‘56 and ‘60 and Johnson had 1 in ‘69.  So to recap:  that’s 5 under 2 different  Democrats (including 4 in a row) and 2 non-consecutive under the last honourable Republican president, who left office almost 65 years ago. 

 

23 hours ago, CdnFox said:

I feel like Trump Ryan significantly larger ones than he should have but Biden is worse. Democrats have nothing to brag about when it comes to deficit spending

 

Trump accumulated more debt in a single term than any president in US history, adding $7.8 trillion during his first term. So far Biden has not surpassed his record (although some think he might once the final numbers are in). 
 

23 hours ago, CdnFox said:

that's taxes, not government efficiency.   And most of that has to do with where the richest people live. So swing and a miss

No not taxes.  When the federal government decides to give handouts to the free-riding red states that’s  their spending decision. If your definition of efficiency is cutting wasteful programs then the Red state subsidy program should be ended. What are the feds getting for it anyway? Red staters hat the federal government   You’re right it does large have to do with the fact that Democrat states are more prosperous where the standard of living is higher there are more successful businesses and people are generally wealthier but that just disproves everything you believe about conservatives being good for business and the economy and liberals being bad. It also disproves nonsense about we need to coddle the rich or they’ll all move to shithole countries like Somalia  Haiti where there are no laws or Taxes. Hell they won’t even move to shithole states like Mississippi or Oklahoma or Alabama!

 

Your also right in that you did have a swing and a miss. 

 

23 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Excessive regulation that makes everything more expensive and prevents Prosperity isn't helping either

Conservatives use that an excuse to deregulate everything that stands in the way of their crony capitalists making money at other people’s expense. 
 

23 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Most of the rich people are democrats.

I call BS, the numbers slightly favour Republicans.  Case in point: billionaire Trump and his 2 billionaire appointees. In every society the right has always been the party of the wealthiest elite because political conservatism by definition means “preserving the existing social order” whatever that may be, so naturally those who benefit most from the existing social order are more likely to want it preserved 

 

On 11/14/2024 at 12:08 AM, CdnFox said:

And no, the powerful billionaire class hasn't ruled over anybody. If that were true Kamala Harris would be president. She raised and spent vastly more money than trump did.

They can’t control election results but they have enormous influence over whoever is in power at every level of government no matter what party they belong to and they play both sides.  They can make any politician dance on a string. 
 

On 11/14/2024 at 12:08 AM, CdnFox said:

What is made America polarized and dysfunctional is that special interest groups along with the democrats and their intersectional coalition have taught Americans how to hate other Americans very efficiently.

Sorry the only hate mongering have been republicans. They don’t even have a single policy or vision foe the country that doesn’t involve going after the people they hate. They can’t complete a single sentence or convey am single idea that doesn’t involve ranting about immigrants and liberals and gays and trans and so on.  All the different groups of people they’re going go after and get their “retribution” on. That’s all they talk about. Always calling everyone a communist and a Marxist. Even when they tey to talk about something else they can’t finish their thought without adding in a rant about the evil radical leftists. Happy prosperous people don’t get some venomous over abstract concepts like intersectional identities etc, they only get upset when more practical problems like economic insecurity -their own or the country in general- have them on edge 

[BeaverFever]

RKD Je as health secretary. LOL Yet another preposterously unqualified hack out of the Konservative Klown Kar. Up next: Alex Jones as Secretary of School Safety 

 

Hey Speaking of the sleazy conservative AJ, the Onion bought up his Infowars business at a bankruptcy auction today with the support of the Sandy Hook Parents  That was unexpected 

[BeaverFever]

On 11/13/2024 at 8:06 PM, BeaverFever said:

Another unqualified scumbag gets his snout in the trough   Future headline: New AG says trafficking underage girls across state lines is perfectly legal 

Gaetz Resigns From House Before Ethics Report Can Be Released

 

Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., resigned from Congress on Wednesday “effective immediately,” according to House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., just hours after President-elect Donald Trump tapped him as the next attorney general—and reportedly days before the House Ethics Committee was preparing to release a report on sexual misconduct and drug allegations against him.

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/antoniopequenoiv/2024/11/14/gaetz-resigns-from-house-before-ethics-report-could-be-released/

 

The Attorney General, ladies and gentlemen. 

[CdnFox]

54 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

Harper ran deficits for almost hi entire time in office and gutted environmental and pollution control programs.  Cutting programs you personally disagree with for ideological reasons like isn’t “efficiency”. Efficiency is when you run the same programs with less waste is pretty hard to do at scale. 
 

Regarding health and social transfers to provinces he actually REDUCED the amount of budgeted year-over year increases. It’s like when the Trudeau government cut $1Bn from the military budget and then claimed they were increasing military spending it’s like yeah but now you’re increasing it by $1Bn per year LESS than what was already in the last budget. Anyway Harper’s government was more similar to  Chretien-Martin Liberals than it was different, he’s not the worst of the bunch. Examples of disastrous slash and burn tax and budget  cuts are Mike Harris, Sam Brownback, Liz Truss, George W Bush (more on him below)

 

Where has that been debunked?  80% of Trump’s 2017 tax cut went to the wealthiest 10%. 
https://equitablegrowth.org/six-years-later-more-evidence-shows-the-tax-cuts-and-jobs-act-benefits-u-s-business-owners-and-executives-not-average-workers/

In October 2017, the Council of Economic Advisers estimated that the corporate tax cut contained within the TCJA would increase real median household income by $3,000 to $7,000 annually.^[128]However, during the first year following enactment of the TCJA, real median household income increased by $553; the Census Bureau characterized this increase as statistically insignificant.^[12
 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Cuts_and_Jobs_Act
 

More trickle-down nonsense that’s been debunked over and over. You think the reason Elon  Musk isn’t hiring more people or starting more businesses is because he’s too broke from paying too much taxes?  When rich people want to invest they don’t empty their piggybanks or only invest what they have to spare from their current income. When they want to invest they borrow the funds using their almost unlimited credit . Borrowing is economic growth, economic growth is borrowing. You can’t have one without the other. New wealth is only created when one party lends money to another and receives a greater amount in return over time.
 

Secondly rich people and investors don’t always create jobs. Sometimes they buy up companies just to fire everyone and liquidate its assets. Look at Sears as but one example, a storied successful company sucked dry by a predatory hedge fund that just funnelled all corporate profits and assets to itself for years until there was nothing of value left and the business was no longer visible. Or they buy up a company with a reputation for making a quality product then they transform it into a company that makes cheap low quality products and/or outsource production to some overseas contractors in someplace like China. 
 

Because if you understand how averages work you’ll understand how USA also has one of the highest levels of wealth inequality and also one of the highest poverty rates in the G7. Imagine 2 desert islands:  on one desert island, all ten inhabitants have between $50,000 and $250,000 with an average wealth of $100,000 per capita. On the second island the average wealth is higher at $150,000 per capita but on closer inspection 1 man has $1.5 million and the other 9 have nothing.   You’re celebrating island 2 because it has a millionaire and higher average wealth per capita but in reality unless you’re that one millionaire your life is probably pretty miserable and you have nothing, that millionaire probably rules your life. 
 

Thats how it’s a bad thing. 
 

LMAO FALSE. Have we started the second Trump era false history gaslighting already? Sorry your statement above is so opposite-of-reality false I can’t help but roast you for it, it’s like saying “nobody hires more black leaders than the KKK” that’s how false it is 

Not only wee there no surpluses inder Bush there were MASSIVE deficits due to his tax cuts, his disastrous and criminally fraudulent unjustified invasion of Iraq and the unprecedented economic collapse that occurred under his regime. The Gross national debt almost doubled under George W Bush from $5.7 trillion to nearly $11 trillion and there were deficits in Every. Single. Year. 

 

No republican has run a balanced budget since 1960, and it wasn’t even consecutive balanced budgets back then, bucko.  Clinton’s 4 back to back balanced budgets have been among the few in the post-war era, Eisenhower had 2 in ‘56 and ‘60 and Johnson had 1 in ‘69.  So to recap:  that’s 5 under 2 different  Democrats (including 4 in a row) and 2 non-consecutive under the last honourable Republican president, who left office almost 65 years ago. 

 

 

Trump accumulated more debt in a single term than any president in US history, adding $7.8 trillion during his first term. So far Biden has not surpassed his record (although some think he might once the final numbers are in). 
 

No not taxes.  When the federal government decides to give handouts to the free-riding red states that’s  their spending decision. If your definition of efficiency is cutting wasteful programs then the Red state subsidy program should be ended. What are the feds getting for it anyway? Red staters hat the federal government   You’re right it does large have to do with the fact that Democrat states are more prosperous where the standard of living is higher there are more successful businesses and people are generally wealthier but that just disproves everything you believe about conservatives being good for business and the economy and liberals being bad. It also disproves nonsense about we need to coddle the rich or they’ll all move to shithole countries like Somalia  Haiti where there are no laws or Taxes. Hell they won’t even move to shithole states like Mississippi or Oklahoma or Alabama!

 

Your also right in that you did have a swing and a miss. 

 

Conservatives use that an excuse to deregulate everything that stands in the way of their crony capitalists making money at other people’s expense. 
 

I call BS, the numbers slightly favour Republicans.  Case in point: billionaire Trump and his 2 billionaire appointees. In every society the right has always been the party of the wealthiest elite because political conservatism by definition means “preserving the existing social order” whatever that may be, so naturally those who benefit most from the existing social order are more likely to want it preserved 

 

They can’t control election results but they have enormous influence over whoever is in power at every level of government no matter what party they belong to and they play both sides.  They can make any politician dance on a string. 
 

Sorry the only hate mongering have been republicans. They don’t even have a single policy or vision foe the country that doesn’t involve going after the people they hate. They can’t complete a single sentence or convey am single idea that doesn’t involve ranting about immigrants and liberals and gays and trans and so on.  All the different groups of people they’re going go after and get their “retribution” on. That’s all they talk about. Always calling everyone a communist and a Marxist. Even when they tey to talk about something else they can’t finish their thought without adding in a rant about the evil radical leftists. Happy prosperous people don’t get some venomous over abstract concepts like intersectional identities etc, they only get upset when more practical problems like economic insecurity -their own or the country in general- have them on edge 

Harper and deficits during the worst economic downturn we've had since the great depression. And he ran half of the size of deficits but the liberals and the NDP were pressuring him to. Further he laid out a 5-year plan and said this is when I will be back to balance and that's exactly when he hit balance.

So cut the bullshit

Quote

Regarding health and social transfers to provinces he actually REDUCED the amount of budgeted year-over year increases

Nonsense. Just before harper took over the feds agreed to 6 percent increases for a number of years, and harper kept those very same increases and extended it to 2017. 

Both the liberal and later conservative gov'ts called that a high number needed to catch up from the liberal cuts in the past. 

 He said  after that the increases would be based on gdp growth  with a floor of 3 percent  

That is NOT a cut. Nor was there ANY plan to keep the 6 percent forever and in fact harper EXTENDED it BEYOND the intended deadline. 

The myth of federal health care "cuts"

You are such a liar.   And  you obviously can't find even ONE example of what you claimed, so you were making that up too. 

Seeing as you're in a dishonest mood i'll just whip through the rest 

Trump's tax cuts benefitted the middle class and that's been shown numerous times: IRS data proves Trump tax cuts benefited middle, working-class Americans most

Sorry  - you're a complete re tard if you think jobs dont' come from rich people, trickle down economics isn't a thing it's just a cheezy phrase losers on the left use and don't understand 

Including trump's covid spending in his 'deficits' is beyond dishonest and no, bidens was STILL HIGHER 

Again you have to be dishonest to make your point, 

"Conservatives use the truth as an excuse to fix problems".  Wow. Ok kid, ya got us. 

Nope, most of the wealthy are dems. Sorry.

Tonnes of things influence an election.  The wealthy exert some power in some cases but only a little.  Kamala had the wealthy behind her, she had the media behind her, she had all the popular stars behind her she had the money behind her - still failed.  So nope, they are not "RULING" over anyone 

 

And no  the hate comes from the democrats. And has for years now.  Ever since obama decided the 'intersectional coalition' was  a  way to win elections it's been bad.  

Democrats forced the culture war. Democrats used the courts to target opponents along with using the fbi.  Democrats spread hatred like butter on bread. 

That's the simple fact 

 

 

Now  -  either start making real arguments or prepare to be mocked and humiliated.  You can think when you try.  The above was one lie after another and most EASILY proven false if you'd taken 2 seconds to look 

 

[BeaverFever]

On 11/15/2024 at 1:41 AM, CdnFox said:

Harper and deficits during the worst economic downturn we've had since the great depression. And he ran half of the size of deficits but the liberals and the NDP were pressuring him to. Further he laid out a 5-year plan and said this is when I will be back to balance and that's exactly when he hit balance.

So cut the bullshit

1) So you admit that deficit spending during economic downturn is good for the economy? Whatever happened to  your nonsense about “ FDR’s deficit spending prolonged the Great Depression” amd your criticism of liberal/ democrat deficit spending during economic downturns? You suddenly seem to reverse your opinion  when it’s politically convenient

2) Harper ran 7 straight deficits , the recession didn’t last 7 years, it lasted less than 1 year. 

3) Don’t take your eyes off the ball :  I’m not criticizing his deficit but challenging your assertion that he massively cut spending without cutting services   He cut cut services and still ran deficits   Harper might be the closest thing to any Republican or conservative ever cutting federal budgets without absolutely gutting core services, all other cases they either ran huge deficits or destroyed public services 

 

On 11/15/2024 at 1:41 AM, CdnFox said:

Nonsense. Just before harper took over the feds agreed to 6 percent increases for a number of years, and harper kept those very same increases and extended it to 2017. 

Both the liberal and later conservative gov'ts called that a high number needed to catch up from the liberal cuts in the past. 

 He said  after that the increases would be based on gdp growth  with a floor of 3 percent  

That is NOT a cut.

Sure it is, he changed it from a guarantee of 6% to a guarantee of only 3% with the rest being variable. His formula also didn’t allow for adjustments due to inflation or demographic changes meaning that funding it declined on a per capita basis 

 

On 11/15/2024 at 1:41 AM, CdnFox said:

Trump's tax cuts benefitted the middle class and that's been shown numerous times: IRS data proves Trump tax cuts benefited middle, working-class Americans most

 

That’s an opinion piece written by a Republican think tank the Heartland Institute   What the author of that article is trying to give Trump credit for is child tax credit, which was also part of that tax reform bill but most republicans opposed it but it was pushed through in congress as a compromise. The amount that middle class taxpayers received as a result of Trump’s reduced tax rates was minimal 

 

On 11/15/2024 at 1:41 AM, CdnFox said:

Sorry  - you're a complete re tard if you think jobs dont' come from rich people, trickle down economics isn't a thing it's just a cheezy phrase losers on the left use and don't understand

Jobs come from employers, which are companies with various ownership structures not necessarily from “rich people “ directly. Most companies are not owned by some plutocrat who rules by decree. Furthermore those companies already have tax breaks and loopholes and offshore accounts up ying-yang anyway. When a “rich person” “creates jobs” they do it via a business the taxes are paid by the company at the corporate tax rate. You’re a complete ****** of you think jobs are created because some “rich person” got a reduction to his personal tax return and pays employees out of his personal finances . 
 

On 11/15/2024 at 1:41 AM, CdnFox said:

Including trump's covid spending in his 'deficits' is beyond dishonest and no, bidens was STILL HIGHER

It’s not dishonest but of course you’re including Biden’s covid spending and  Biden had to deal with covid-related issues longer than Trump did. Also AFAIK Biden’s isn’t yet confirmed to he higher if you have proof, link it. 

 

 

On 11/15/2024 at 1:41 AM, CdnFox said:

Again you have to be dishonest to make your point, 

"Conservatives use the truth as an excuse to fix problems".  Wow. Ok kid, ya got us. 

Huh?  Allowing polluters to poison drinking water and the air we breathe isn’t fixing problems. Allowing financial institutions to treat financial markets like a casino and gamble with citizens’ money isn’t fixing problems. When Trump killed an Obama era law prohibiting financial advisors from misleading clients isn’t fixing problems. Those create problems. And it’s hilarious that you would even utter the word “truth” because Trump is the last human being on earth to know or care about the truth,  the Republican party and its ecosystem of fake news propagandists across traditional and social media have followed him into an entire alternate reality universe of fake news. 
 

On 11/15/2024 at 1:41 AM, CdnFox said:

Nope, most of the wealthy are dems. Sorry.

LOL that’s never been true and you’re just bullshitting again as you often do .  That’s why you can’t even muster a link or more than one sentence to support your claim.  I know you like to b1txh and moan it when I bury your bullshit zero-evidence made up claims with a mountain of reality so Ill keep it to just 3 links this time 

Billionaires lean towards republicans at every level of government but they lean away from Trump specifically. For example in the 2024 election, 83 billionaires openly supported Biden/Harris vs 52 for Trump, because of Republican billionaires who just have problems with Trump specifically due to his chaotic and incoherent platform and the clown car of random kooks and grifters in his orbit.  And that’s been true of all Trump’s elections since 2016 but it doesn’t translate to congress or state level elections where billionaires continue to lean right as they did at every level prior to 2016  For example Musk supported mostly republicans in 2020 but supported Biden for president  Ken Griffin is another prominent billionaire who supported mostly republicans but Biden and Harris for presidential races  

 

Of the total $1.9 billion spent by America’s richest families on all federal campaigns, $1.36 billion (72%) went to support Republicans while Democrats were buoyed by about $413 million (22%). (The remaining 6% backed Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s presidential bid and other causes). 

https://americansfortaxfairness.org/billionaire-clans-spend-nearly-2-billion-2024-elections/?doing_wp_cron=1731767504.2176749706268310546875

A recent Gallup poll shows that 28% of Americans identify as Republicans, 27% identify as Democrats and 42% identify as independents. Our billionaire cohort skewed farther right: 43% Republicans, 24% Democrats and 33% independents

https://www.forbes.com/sites/chasewithorn/2020/10/20/even-americas-billionaires-are-tilting-toward-biden-in-the-2020-presidential-race/

 

American billionaires’ political spending overwhelmingly leans Republican

https://qz.com/american-billionaires-political-spending-overwhelmingl-1849751449

 

 

On 11/15/2024 at 1:41 AM, CdnFox said:

Tonnes of things influence an election.  The wealthy exert some power in some cases but only a little.  Kamala had the wealthy behind her, she had the media behind her, she had all the popular stars behind her she had the money behind her - still failed.  So nope, they are not "RULING" over anyone 

The wealthy can’t control the outcome of elections (yet) but they have ENORMOUS influence over whoever wins the election and the people making the day-to-day decisions  at all levels of government.  They also  control who gets on the ballot in the first place   In the USA where everyone down to the proverbial town dogcatcher is elected that also includes countless judges, prosecutors, sheriffs, public utilities officials, and so on of every sort and at every level.

 

On 11/15/2024 at 1:41 AM, CdnFox said:

And no  the hate comes from the democrats. And has for years now.  Ever since obama decided the 'intersectional coalition' was  a  way to win elections it's been bad.  

Democrats forced the culture war. Democrats used the courts to target opponents along with using the fbi.  Democrats spread hatred like butter on bread. 

That's the simple fact 

That’s your alternative reality where you and your select live memory purposely ignore inconvenient facts   The culture war started ling before Obama, more than a decade before actually. Right around the time Fox News came on the air. Fox News propagandist and sexual predator Bill O’Reilly even came out with a book back then called “Culture Warrior”. Back then it was all this nonsense about “the war on Christmas” and gay marriage and evil marijuana and praying in schools  Back in the Bill Clinton era of the late 90s there was a general sense of prosperity and optimism and the economy was doing well so Republicans had nothing else to go on except culture war garbage and of course climate denialism  After 9/11 Republicans made the culture war about evil Muslims and claiming democrats support terrorism, then there was Obama Birtherism lies of which Trump became a promoter, as well as lies about Obamacare being a secret plot to set up “government death panels”  and then of course you have Alex Jones. And Im just talking about when Republican hate became mainstream in the party. As Ive told you repeatedly, Republicans have a long history hate-mongers like Rush Limbaugh, John Birch Society, Joe McCarthy’s communist witch hunts, and the Nazi-admiring republicans who conspired to stage a coup against FDR. 
 

Obama and Dems rightly denouncing overt acts of racism isn’t hateful, and its not hateful when the justice system enforces the laws without giving special treatment to republican crooks.  

On 11/15/2024 at 1:41 AM, CdnFox said:

Now  -  either start making real arguments or prepare to be mocked and humiliated.  You can think when you try.  The above was one lie after another and most EASILY proven false if you'd taken 2 seconds to look 

You didn’t prove anything false you just spewed more your bullshit without providing any support. You’re the one easily proven false when you state massive lies like Bush delivered balanced budgets. The pattern with you is:   you make up some bullshit amd don’t even try to offer any evidence to support it, I prove you false with evidence, then you don’t even acknowledge it and pretend it didn’t happen, then you falsely claim that you proved me false. That’s typical for how republicans operate these days. .