THE BEAUTIFUL BUDGET
I don't think it's very beautiful, from what I've heard about it.
No need to increase the military budget, let alone a la
AOC is one of the rare cases on the American left of a politician with both idealism and savvy. I suspect if she seeks the nomination at some point in the future elections, it would be because there is a decent chance she could get it, and a decent chance she could win. There is a reason the conservative eco-system has been in overdrive for the last decade to paint her as as bo
I have serious concerns about AOC's ideological viability in a national election and the economic viability of a lot of the policies that she promotes.
That said, I think she is a much, much more interesting and capable politician than a lot of the people to whom she is often compared. And her moment to test her viability on a larger stage may be now rather than later. She does extremely well with young voters, and part of that appeal is of course because she is young herself. The older she gets, the less aspirational a figure she is for 20-year old college students. Her base might age with her, but there are never any guarantees on that front.
She has a lot of real positives as a political candidate. She is extremely savvy about how to use social media to run a modern campaign. She has a good horse sense for which issues will play well in the modern media environment. (I wish that some of the dinosaurs in the Democratic party would take her up on her offer to coach them how to run more modern campaigns.) She is smart -- not smart like Obama or Bill Clinton, but easily smart enough to hold up against other smart candidates. I suspect that she would be an excellent debater on a national stage, especially against male opponents who are prone to bullying and condescension. She is naturally pugnacious and very hard to run over in any format. But she can flip from pugnacious to warm and engaging very quickly by flashing a big smile. Obama had the same talent, and it is immensely valuable for a politician. And like Trump, she has natural intuition for how to whip her strongest supporters into a frenzy and seemingly boundless energy for rallies, etc. And even silly things like going by her initials (which lagtight mentioned) are non-trivial positives. AOC fits a hell of lot more easily on signs, bumper stickers, etc. than Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez does.
I understood AOC (and/or her team) was really smart when she started joining streams of the game "among us" (at peak popularity of that game) during the pandemic.
The day after the elections in 2024 on Twitter she started asking *genuinely*, berating her supporters when they interjected angrily, people who voted for Trump who hadn't previously voted or had voted democrats in their past, why they did.
I understood AOC (and/or her team) was really smart when she started joining streams of the game "among us" (at peak popularity of that game) during the pandemic.The day after the elections in 2024 on Twitter she started asking *genuinely*, berating her supporters when they interjected angrily, people who voted for Trump who hadn't previously voted or had voted democrats in the
This is a perfect example of her good instincts. Worst case scenario for AOC was she wouldn't change a single mind or learn a single thing, but she would still send a bunch of "Among Us" fans running off to various platforms to talk about how they had played with her and that she seemed laid back and fun.
The gambling stuff in the bill seems almost inconsequential compared to all the other bad stuff.
Only because most people in this particular subforum are all washed up. I bet this is getting some spicy responses in other parts of 2p2.
My mother has a crippling gambling addiction that I've been unable to get her away from, but her vice is slots. Even if she does break even, she funnels a LOT of money through those machines every year and is going to get rekt at tax time.
People like me who only play occasional cash games and don't report any of it won't be affected. Professional gamblers are turbo-****ed, because there's no way most of them have a better than 10% ROI.
Only because most people in this particular subforum are all washed up. I bet this is getting some spicy responses in other parts of 2p2.My mother has a crippling gambling addiction that I've been unable to get her away from, but her vice is slots. Even if she does break even, she funnels a LOT of money through those machines every year and is going to get rekt at tax time.Pe
(its not)
Professional gamblers are a fraction of a fraction of a % of the population
So you're saying we're all washed up posers?
Harsh, but probably fair.
I still owe Pokerstars $150 for a bank error in my favor from almost 20 years ago.
So you're saying we're all washed up posers?
Harsh, but probably fair.
I still owe Pokerstars $150 for a bank error in my favor from almost 20 years ago.
Probably because the pro gamblers that are a fraction of a fraction, are also going to be a fraction of a fraction of who are actually affected with how a lot of those poeple report.
If i play a 2-5NL cash game in Vegas to grind out 50k a year so i can stay unemployed, which is what many do, will still be able to do this under the new law without getting really affected at all - even if they reported correctly.
That type of player should never have a losing year if they are a winner, for starters and those guys aren't deducting 50 straight tourney loses or million dollar cash game swings. It will be mostly the same situation for those people.
shame on yall, i'm still ridin' with biden. he's the only person who can beat trump, and he's basically fdr
society is interesting
you can't say the n word, or ******, but apparently it's ok to say the nazi verbal salute as much as desired.
No one said minimum wage jobs are worthless, but creating more of them lowers living standards. When creating new jobs we benefit far more from higher paying jobs that create far more economic output and can pay much more in taxes.
.
In other words what I mean is this :
AI Overview
CEO compensation grew faster than the wages of the top 0.1 ...
From 1980 to 2021, CEO pay, particularly among S&P 500 companies, has dramatically increased compared to the S&P 500 stock market growth and the compensation of the typical worker. Specifically, CEO compensation based on realized compensation grew by 1, 460%, while the S&P 500 stock market grew by 1, 063%. The typical worker's compensation grew by only 18.1% during the same period. This disparity is further highlighted by the fact that in 2021, CEOs were paid 399 times more than a typical worker.
That just doesn’t make any sense to me to call this a “successful economy “ having number like this..
AI output is being used as an excuse to avoid thinking now.
Who typically gets paid more, a CEO if a $10B company, or a CEO of a $100B company? Which typically has more employees?
The answer is obvious, on average the larger the company the higher the pay and the more employees they have. In 1981 only one company in the world had $100B in revenues (Exxon Mobil), today 300 companies have over $100B on revenues. Which means the average SP 500 CEO today should make more than the highest paid in 1981.
Meaning CEO pay at the top 500 companies is mathematically certain to increase faster than workers wages. There are fewer CEOs proportionately, S&P 500 companies probably have close to 10x the employees they had in 1981, but still only 500 CEOs.
And now the US will borrow even more money to pay even more tax cuts lol…
France 1789 says hi.
AI Overview
The Three Estates of Pre-Revolutionary France - World ...
Yes, France in the 1780s was borrowing substantial amounts of money, partly to finance the privileges of the aristocracy and clergy. The monarchy's financial problems were exacerbated by costly wars and an inefficient tax system that largely exempted the privileged classes.
Here's a more detailed explanation:
Mounting Debt:
France's financial situation was dire in the 1780s, with the monarchy accumulating significant debt due to expensive wars, including the American Revolution.
Inefficient Tax System:
The existing tax system was complex, unfair, and inconsistently applied, with the nobility and clergy largely exempt from paying their fair share.
Privileges of the First and Second Estates:
The First Estate (clergy) and Second Estate (nobility) enjoyed numerous privileges, including tax exemptions and feudal dues, which placed a heavy burden on the Third Estate (commoners).
Attempts at Reform:
Various finance ministers tried to address the financial crisis by proposing reforms, but these were often blocked by the privileged classes who resisted any changes that would impact their status.
Growing Resentment:
The disparity between the privileged and the commoners fueled resentment and contributed to the growing discontent that ultimately led to the French Revolution.
Pre revolutionary France is nothing like the US in many ways. Almost all of the property was owned by the Catholic Church and the Aristocrats. Most of the rest was owned by the population were serfs tied to estates with very limited rights. The bourgeoisie (shopkeepers, business owners ie capitalists) were a tiny proportion of the population. There were massive tariffs and regional internal taxes on goods moving across France. The king even taxed salt, one of the most basic commodities needed by all people.
Things in the US are nearing a crisis, but we are nowhere near as bad a state as France was at that time. Our poor live better than the richest french nobility lived in that era, with freedoms their poor couldn’t imagine.
shame on yall, i'm still ridin' with biden. he's the only person who can beat trump, and he's basically fdr
He ran a $2 trillion deficit after COVID was give and unemployment near record lows.
Even FDR understood how bad that was based on the Keynesian economics FDR followed.
Biden has forfeit any legitimacy as a candidate now. Governing is about tough decisions, not making the money printer rain for your supporters.
Having a great rack can’t make up for economic policies that have repeatedly failed ever since Marx put them to paper.
A lot of the cuts have been reduced so for what you guys consider good, things are improving.
For people who care about the deficit, it's going worse and worse yes (because they are removing cuts)
NOBODY cares about the deficit.*
Republican's PRETEND to care about the deficit once in a while.
*Except maybe Rand Paul
Interest costs will be over $2 trillion a year by end of Trumps term. More than all military and social security spending combined.
It’s an apocalypse that will devastate both parties. MAGA will take the a lot of blame but progressives are going to become persona non grata in the Democratic Party, both will be fighting to avoid supplantation by new third party alternatives.
society is interesting
you can't say the n word, or ******, but apparently it's ok to say the nazi verbal salute as much as desired.
Filters are silly imo.
Folks can literally tell lies on this Forum until the cows come home, but if they use the 'wrong' word doing it they could get banned.
It's one of many examples of 'nonsense on stilts' imo.
Having a great rack can't make up for economic policies that have repeatedly failed ever since Marx put them to paper.
sure but we were talking about her being very cunning and smart politically.
and mamdani is possibly even more insidious.
they run on disastrous platforms policy wise but they do so with charisma and great communication techniques.
basically they are the actual populists the left always had when it catered to the worst collectivist instincts
Interest costs will be over $2 trillion a year by end of Trumps term. More than all military and social security spending combined.
It's an apocalypse that will devastate both parties. MAGA will take the a lot of blame but progressives are going to become persona non grata in the Democratic Party, both will be fighting to avoid supplantation by new third party alternatives.
I prefer to go with % of GDP.
this was GS research end of 2023
https://www.gspublishing.com/content/res...
this was the path democrats had the country on, for interest expenses.
it has always been a fully bipartisan effort.
and at it's core it's actually American voters.
they simply refuse to reduce the deficit.
beneficiaries of entitlements refuse to accept any reduction.
voters of all stripes want ever growing defense expenses.
people with high income and/or wealth use their considerable political clout to avoid being bled out of existence by the suffocating taxes that would be required to cover the deficit with the current ongoing largesse in entitlements and defense expenditures.
but not all is lost, we have plenty of examples of countries that were on that path before with voters behaving very similarly (refusing cuts to entitlements or tax increases), at some point the politics change because of the brute force of reality.
in the USA case it's hard to believe any exogenous event can deviate the trajectory so it will be domestic.
either like you say exploding interest expenses even higher than the high end estimates or some other kind of domestic economic crisis allowing to hit the reset button on the nonsense of ever growing entitlements without ever growing payroll taxes
He ran a $2 trillion deficit after COVID was give and unemployment near record lows.
Even FDR understood how bad that was based on the Keynesian economics FDR followed.
Biden has forfeit any legitimacy as a candidate now. Governing is about tough decisions, not making the money printer rain for your supporters.
people in this forum adamantly refuse to admit that the second COVID relief package passed after the vaccine was already available and all states could have reopened in full with no difference at all vs 2019 was a monumental mistake and the cause of the following devastating inflation.
people in this forum adamantly refuse to admit that the second COVID relief package passed after the vaccine was already available and all states could have reopened in full with no difference at all vs 2019 was a monumental mistake and the cause of the following devastating inflation.
Would you agree that 8.8 is a bigger number than 4.3?
yes and? would you agree that post-volcker and after we proved we can control inflation and we anchored it at 2%, every 1% above that is an insanely huge deal, and 8.8 is a number we should never have seen at any cost and even 5% would have been an utter disaster?
This is a perfect example of her good instincts. Worst case scenario for AOC was she wouldn't change a single mind or learn a single thing, but she would still send a bunch of "Among Us" fans running off to various platforms to talk about how they had played with her and that she seemed laid back and fun.
Reminds me of the 2000 election between George W. Bush and Al Gore.
GWB did exceptionally well with the "He seems like a cool guy to have a beer with" crowd.
