Will Hunter Biden Walk?

[ajax18]

He wasn't a closet New York liberal as many claimed in the primary.

I was thinking about this comment, and it struck me just how comical it is that Trump's persona is basically him just pretending to be a New York liberal's caricature of what a right-wing Republican is. He just pretends to be his own shallow negative caricature of a conservative... and MAGA types eat it up.

Is it really pretending if he governs as a conservative?

[Doctor Steuss]

I was thinking about this comment, and it struck me just how comical it is that Trump's persona is basically him just pretending to be a New York liberal's caricature of what a right-wing Republican is. He just pretends to be his own shallow negative caricature of a conservative... and MAGA types eat it up.

Is it really pretending if he governs as a conservative?

He wasn't fiscally conservative.
He wasn't conservative in regards to the 2nd Amendment.
He wasn't conservative on immigration.
He wasn't conservative in the exercise of executive powers.
He wasn't a conservative when it came to supporting the military and veterans.
While he gave a tax break to himself, and his friends, he unilaterally implemented new taxes and an economic burden of billions of dollars for everyone else.

The only conservative governing he did was put a few right-wing judges on the bench, because Republicans are incapable of getting anything done through legislation.

A New York liberal's caricature of what a conservative is. Just a lot of blustering, and MAGA eats it up.

[ajax18]

Is it really pretending if he governs as a conservative?

He wasn't fiscally conservative.
He wasn't conservative in regards to the 2nd Amendment.
He wasn't conservative on immigration.
He wasn't conservative in the exercise of executive powers.
He wasn't a conservative when it came to supporting the military and veterans.
While he gave a tax break to himself, and his friends, he unilaterally implemented new taxes and an economic burden of billions of dollars for everyone else.

The only conservative governing he did was put a few right-wing judges on the bench, because Republicans are incapable of getting anything done through legislation.

A New York liberal's caricature of what a conservative is. Just a lot of blustering, and MAGA eats it up.

Well for what it's worth, I was listening to Ben Shapiro and he seems to agree with you on some of these points. He said Trump was a lot closer to the middle than Biden. And as I've state before, I'm closer to DeSantis on social security and abortion. Trump understands that radical positions are not going to win elections. I read a moderate Democrat article yesterday that claimed that Trump's policies were a lot closer to Bill Clinton when it comes to the border, crime, welfare, etc. Unlike Biden who is beholden to far left Hamas, transing the kids, Bernie Sanders, Cornell West, and big business that relies on cheap illegal immigrant labor, Clinton was beholden to moderate Democrats, independents, and even working class whites.

I see where you're coming from on your point that Trump wasn't fiscally conservative. I'm not sure what you mean by Trump not being conservative on the 2nd amendment. But I acknowledge that Trump's rhetoric is further right than his policy. I really haven't seen a more conservative presidential candidate than Trump on the border. To me, the fact that illegal immigration didn't go to zero under Trump had more to do with RINOs Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnel, the mainstream media and their kids in cages narrative, the deep state, etc. I'm not sure what you mean about the military and veterans. I don't really buy the whole, "This graveyard is full of losers," quote. And even if Trump had said this, I don't see how it reflected his policy. Trump again isn't willing to cut funding to the V.A., even though some veterans in my far right opinion need to suck it up, get back to work, and off the teat. I don't see Trump governing as an isolationist, even though his rhetoric rejects long foreign occupations and costly, futile, nation building practiced by GWB and Dick Cheney. Trump's foreign policy was more one of instilling fear in our enemies such that they didn't dare attack us, not trying to set up democracies in backward breeding grounds of radical Islamic terrorism where young children are trained to hate the US and Israel from a young age.

We've talked about the tax breaks before. Did you see that liberal Jeff Bezos is moving his company down to Florida? It turns out that liberal oligarchs don't really feel a need to stay in blue states or even any of the United States and do their patriotic duty in paying higher taxes. If another country offers lower tax rates and cheaper labor, what do you think they're going to do? Stay in America and keep working longer and harder to pay more taxes? In spite of his billionaire status, Trump has connected with the poor and middle class forgotten workers far better than Mitt Romney ever could. In spite of the leftwing caricature, poor working class people of all races can look back four years and see whose tax policies were really in their best interests.

This article expresses better than I can the real results of taxing the rich:

The latest IRS data on who bears the income-tax burden demonstrate yet again the benefits of lower tax rates over higher rates.

Bernie Sanders should pay attention.

When President Donald Trump entered office, the richest 1% of tax filers ($675,000 of income and above) paid a little more than 40% of the income taxes collected.

The 2017 Trump tax cut reduced the effective highest federal tax rate to 37% from 42%.

Both Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders then as now condemned this as a giveaway to the rich.

But the most recent IRS tax return data (for 2021) confirm that even as these rates were lowered — not to mention the corporate tax rate cut from 35% to 21% — the share of the tax burden shouldered by the 1% rose to almost 46%.
Why is everyone always caught by surprise when this happens?

High-income earners shelter less and earn more when top tax rates fall.

That shouldn’t astonish anyone.

The chart below shows the inverse relationship between the highest tax rate applied and the share of taxes paid by the rich.

When Ronald Reagan was elected president, for example, the top income tax rate in the United States stood at 70%.

The wealthiest 1% of tax filers paid roughly 19% of the income tax.

When Reagan cut that rate to 50% and then all the way down to 28% in 1987 (a tax reform nearly every senator — including Al Gore, Ted Kennedy and Joe Biden — voted for) the share of taxes paid by the rich rose to 25%.

Think about that: When the highest tax rate was 70%, the rich paid less than 20% of the tax burden.

With today’s tax rate of 37%, the top 1% pay almost half of all income taxes.

And our data show that when the top tax rate stood at 91% in the early 1960s, before the Kennedy tax cuts, the top 1% paid only 15% of the taxes.

This inverse relationship between tax rates and taxes paid seems counterintuitive and almost mathematically impossible, but there are several explanations why high tax rates don’t raise much revenue from the rich.

First, when tax rates are high, deductions to avoid paying those high rates become far more attractive to high-income earners, and they creep into the system as sure as crumbs on the kitchen floor attract mice.

We find it highly ironic the same Democrats who want to raise the federal tax rate to 50% or 60% and even 70% to force the rich to “pay their fair share” are also the loudest voices in Congress for bringing back the biggest tax favor for the super-rich ever devised: the deductibility of state and local taxes.

Green-energy tax write-offs provide massive shelters for the rich too.

High tax rates also send economic activity and taxable income offshore to lower-tax nations.

This is how Ireland has become one of Europe’s highest-performing economies.

And finally, high tax rates act as a financial penalty on economic activity and investment, which slows growth.

When that happens, there are fewer rich people with smaller income gains to siphon off.

This election is almost a referendum on whether America should keep our lower tax rates in place (the Trump plan) or raise rates on investment to 50% or more, as President Biden has endorsed.

It’s a pretty solid bet if the latter happens the economy will underperform.

And if history is any guide, Bill Gates, Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos and Taylor Swift will end up paying less, not more, in taxes.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/taxes/d ... 78ef&ei=23

[Doctor Steuss]

I'm not sure what you mean by Trump not being conservative on the 2nd amendment.

He wanted to confiscate people's guns without any type of judicial or other procedural oversight. He also passed more restrictive gun control measures during his 4-year administration than Obama passed during his 8 years, even when he had a Democratic legislative majority.

In spite of his billionaire status, Trump has connected with the poor and middle class forgotten workers far better than MItt Romney ever could.

I'd go further, and say he's connected with some segments of the poor and middle class far better than any politician in recent memory -- Democrat or Republican. He's an exceptionally talented game show grifter. There's a reason he loves the uneducated. They make easy marks.

Interesting article by MSN, trying to justify why continuing to fuel the wealth gap, and catering specifically to the wealthy at the expense of everyone else, is a good thing. I notice they didn't want to talk about what happened to wealth distribution during that time. Who would've thought that doing things that benefit the rich would... well... benefit the rich. Thank you Satya Nadella for that hard-hitting take.

Here in Vegas there was a recent article along the same vein trying to talk about how awesome the Raider stadium is, and all of the temporary seasonal jobs it brings. Cool... a bunch of temporary low income jobs, at the expense of tax payers, so that billionaires didn't have to pay for their own stadium. I'm sure it'll all trickle down though, any minute now. Any minute.

Obviously, the reason the poverty rate is growing, the middle class is shrinking, and the wealth gap is become more pronounced, is because the wealthy need even more help from the government. Then, it'll finally trickle down.

[ajax18]

Here in Vegas there was a recent article along the same vein trying to talk about how awesome the Raider stadium is, and all of the temporary seasonal jobs it brings. Cool... a bunch of temporary low income jobs, at the expense of tax payers, so that billionaires didn't have to pay for their own stadium. I'm sure it'll all trickle down though, any minute now. Any minute.

Well you do have a point on that. I'm not saying that the status quo is perfect. I'm just saying I would prefer it to becoming equally poor as is the case in any socialist country.

Is my healthcare expensive? Sure, but at least I have the option to work and try to pay for it, rather than paying for everyone else's healthcare and being denied the care I now purchase because some bureaucrat has decided that it's not medically necessary.

[Res Ipsa]

Hunter Biden Transcrpt: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents ... 1/a2431982

Quick turnaround. Enjoy.

[Res Ipsa]

Ajax quoted an op-ed in the Murdoch Post by Arthur Laffer. He was the father of what George Bush called "voodoo economics." He was wrong about the effect of tax cuts on the rich then and he's wrong about the effect of tax increases on the rich today.

[Doctor Steuss]

Here in Vegas there was a recent article along the same vein trying to talk about how awesome the Raider stadium is, and all of the temporary seasonal jobs it brings. Cool... a bunch of temporary low income jobs, at the expense of tax payers, so that billionaires didn't have to pay for their own stadium. I'm sure it'll all trickle down though, any minute now. Any minute.

Well you do have a point on that. I'm not saying that the status quo is perfect. I'm just saying I would prefer it to becoming equally poor as is the case in any socialist country.

I think there's a wide divide between full-on socialism, and what we currently have. Somewhere in the divide is a rising tide that will lift all ships. I don't know how it would work, or what it would look like (which is why I'm not in politics), but I think at some point we need to look at our current methods and what they are achieving and rethink them. Do I want to get a ration box of food, and live in a cookie-cutter apartment complex with a rationed square footage based on the number of people in my family, and head out to my government assigned job every day? Hell no. Do I want to leave a world to my son, where poverty and all of its ills (crime, lack of education, low life expectancy, etc.) isn't such a large looming component of society? Absolutely.

Is my healthcare expensive? Sure, but at least I have the option to work and try to pay for it, rather than paying for everyone else's healthcare and being denied the care I now purchase because some bureaucrat has decided that it's not medically necessary.

I think a common misconception about health insurance in America (I assume you have health insurance) vs. a single payer system is that you aren't already paying for other people's healthcare. It's just a much smaller pool, which makes the cost distribution potentially more expensive, and there's a nice layer of capitalism in there t'boot. If you end up in a 20-person pool, where 3 are diabetic, you're going to see year-over-year premium increases that are debilitating. Or if someone in your small pool gets cancer (which, in America about 50% of men end up getting cancer in their lives right now). Or if someone has a baby. Incidentally, if you had health insurance for any of your kids' deliveries, then it was everyone else paying for your healthcare (you definitely didn't pay enough in premiums to cover it).

With private health insurance, I've also had a crap ton of stuff denied. I have remnants of permanent nerve damage in one of my legs, that will likely be there for life, because someone that didn't even have a medical background at a private health insurance company denied coverage of a procedure. Fortunately, my orthopedic surgeon is incredible, and went above and beyond to do a peer-to-peer review to force the hand of the insurance company.

One of the things that always blows my mind is that prescription drugs using my health insurance, which costs me about $800/month, are almost always higher than if I use the free discount prescription card (GoldRX). In America, if you have health insurance, when you buy a drug you aren't just paying the cost of the drug plus a profit to the pharmacy, you are also paying an additional profit... just because... to your insurance company through a claw back.

I don't know if a single payer system is the best option in the world. But our current system is kind of garbage. Last year, I paid about $9,300 in premiums, plus about $8,000 in co-pays, all to have procedures delayed and denied. The only difference between here and places like Canada, is we end up paying out the butt for a lower level of care, and a decreased life expectancy.

I will never be able to run again. Ever. Because a private health insurance company put profits over care. My story is far from unique in America. The year of my surgery, my healthcare costs were probably close to $28K, because some stuff was out of network, and some stuff I did without waiting for the re-review process because they denied care in their rubber-stamp money-making denial process. $28K spent, and never able to run again. This is American healthcare.

I play on a Minecraft server (my son got me hooked) with a bunch of people that live in the UK. Talking to them about their healthcare experiences has been nothing short of mind-blowing. Is it perfect? Far from it. But, it's also so much more superior to the US that they aren't even in the same league. We've been sold a load of horse puckey by health insurance and venture capitalist lobbyists who only want to protect their own interests.

[Doctor Steuss]

Hunter Biden Transcrpt: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents ... 1/a2431982

Quick turnaround. Enjoy.

Kind of weird redactions. Wonder why they removed who was asking questions in some portions?

I notice that there isn't the regular post-deposition media parade by Republicans. I guess when what was said doesn't support your long-running narrative, and you can't lie about what was said, it kind of takes the fun out of it.

[Res Ipsa]

Hunter Biden Transcrpt: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents ... 1/a2431982

Quick turnaround. Enjoy.

Kind of weird redactions. Wonder why they removed who was asking questions in some portions?

I notice that there isn't the regular post-deposition media parade by Republicans. I guess when what was said doesn't support your long-running narrative, and you can't lie about what was said, it kind of takes the fun out of it.

The redactions are of the names of the staffers conducting the deposition. I think it's to protect them from harassment. When a Congresscritter asks a question, their name is not redacted.

I read through the deposition. It's clear that they've discovered no grounds whatsoever for impeaching Joe Biden. The mendacity of some of the Rs in their questioning of Hunter is unreal.

Here's what's really interesting. There's one e-mail where someone not named Biden refers to "the big guy." Given the volume of e-mails and texts in the possession of the committee, if Hunter had a practice of calling Joe "the big guy," we'd be seeing dozens of other examples.

But you know who knew that there was an e-mail on the laptop that referred to Joe as the "Big Guy" before the laptop's contents were made public?

Russian Intelligence. Smirnov used the term in his 2020 story about Joe and Hunter taking bribes before the laptop was made public.

Maybe someone should investigate how that happened?