Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
You would think Fox News would be trying everything to make Trump's border speech look good. So why did they get Shepard Smith and Chris Wallace to cover it? Those two are the few people on the network who are critical of him and guess what? They fact checked his speech after it was over and called him out on his crap. Were they the only ones available on short notice? I just find it hilarious.
Edited by DS9guy on Jan 8th 2019 at 1:55:08 PM
Well, among Republicans there is not much support for a border wall because a) it's expensive and b) probably not very effective either. Perhaps the Fox folks think so as well.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard FeynmanWell, if some people can sell toilet seats to the government for $640 dollars apiece
, them scamming the government out of money for bedding is hardly far-fetched.
Still, eighty grand for one cot is ridiculous. Even if you're planning to line your pockets, you have to be slightly less brazen about it.
Unless you own the Police, the Judiciary and the Executive. Then by all means, go and be as brazen as you like while you steal everything.
NOTE - Please do not indulge in corruption.
I hold the secrets of the machine.I had an idea earlier today: should there be a 100% tax bracket over $100,000,000 for individuals? I can understand corporations making that much, but in my opinion, there is no reasonable justification or practical use for any person to have money in the range of the triple-digit millions, much less anything in the billions.
Edited by PushoverMediaCritic on Jan 9th 2019 at 4:09:10 AM
Thats the purpose of some taxes if I'm not mistaken, instead of a cap some taxes are based upon how much you earn so while there's no limit to how much you can earn your wealth will be adjusted after tax's are deducted
Edited by Ultimatum on Jan 9th 2019 at 12:19:17 PM
have a listen and have a link to my discord serverARIA: Congress Makes Its Mark on US Asia Policy
ARIA, approved by the Senate on December 4, 2018, and approved by a voice vote in the House of Representatives on December 12, after amendment, has now become law. The Senate approved the amendment on December 19, after which U.S. President Donald J. Trump signed the bill into law on December 31.
ARIA has the objective of requiring the Trump administration “to develop a long-term strategic vision and a comprehensive, multifaceted, and principled United States policy for the Indo-Pacific region…” It complements and, in many respects, advances the more general U.S. National Security Strategy released by the White House in late 2017 and the National Defense Strategy released by the Pentagon in early 2018. But it also includes new initiatives and priorities in the Indo-Pacific region.
"I had an idea earlier today: should there be a 100% tax bracket over $100,000,000 for individuals? I can understand corporations making that much, but in my opinion, there is no reasonable justification or practical use for any person to have money in the range of the triple-digit millions, much less anything in the billions."
You'd run into the issue of most people thinking that they have the potential to earn that much and therefore protest removing the incentive for those kinds of earnings. How many people actually make this much money as income? I doubt it's enough to contemplate a 100% marginal bracket, given the huge backlash it would create. EDIT: Just did a check, this would apply to like a few hundred households nationwide. Better to just create like a 90% bracket for them. The commons are less likely to support their grousing about tax when they keep something than if all of it is taken.
Edited by CrimsonZephyr on Jan 9th 2019 at 8:33:54 AM
"For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die."Really, I just want to take almost all their money away from billionaires. They have the wealth to literally change the world, and they do nothing with it. They don't deserve the exorbitant amounts of money they have.
The hundred-millionaires, too, but they're an afterthought compared to the billionaires.
Honestly, that's a grossly ignorant statement and basically ignores the fact billionaires are billionaires because they have a dollar investment attached to functional bases of infrastructure.
They don't have Money Bins.
I say that as someone who hates the 1% problem of society but John Q. Richman is a billionaire because he owns Google, not because he has a big pile of cash.
Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.Reuter's sources: Rosenstein set to leave after William Barr is confirmed as US Attorney General.
![]()
![]()
You have to remember that a big chunk of their fortunes is not actual cash. It includes things like investments. Stock shares.
Billionaires don't keep huge piles of cash that don't grow any interest lying around. They keep a bunch of stock certificates. The actual liquid assets they have (cash on hand) tends to be much lower (though still a fortune compared to most of us).
That's how Elizabeth Holmes went from the first female tech billionaire to practically nothing once she and her company were revealed as frauds. The value of her total shares went from $4.7 billion to zero.
Edited by M84 on Jan 9th 2019 at 10:06:23 PM
Disgusted, but not surprised

I'm hoping it was just a typo.