-
Friendly reminder: The politics section is a place where a lot of differing opinions are raised. You may not like what you read here but it is someone's opinion. As long as the debate is respectful you are free to debate freely. Also, the views and opinions expressed by forum members may not necessarily reflect those of GBAtemp. Messages that the staff consider offensive or inflammatory may be removed in line with existing forum terms and conditions.
Donald Trump impeachment investigation over Ukranian phone call...
- Thread starter Taleweaver
- Start date
- Views 50,021
- Replies 734
- Likes 5
If the rebuttal is "what about people who want to stay in school and party all the time," I'm not going to have much of a comment.I think that's the most roundabout way of saying "no comment" I've ever seen.
Good night, Lacius. Just so you know, I enjoy discussing issues with you. I don't agree with you on much, and I know the feeling is mutual. But you know your position and advocate very well for it. :thumbsup:
Regardless, I didn't mean to derail the thread.
Oh, I thought you were talking about politicians that kill. That's why what you said didn't make since when you were talking about republicans. As far as mass shootings, there were far many more left leaning shooters than right leaning ones. I'm not sure what "right-wing terrorist" you're talking about.
Ok, name one impeachable offense that Trump committed. You were obviously joking about that emoluments clause so that doesn't count.
So your credible source is Steve Scalise's opinion? LMAO! Okay. But, let's go there. Do you mean like how Trump orders people not to testify? Hypocrite. HYPOCRITE!!!!
And obviously EXTREMELY ignorant.
Last edited by D34DL1N3R,
I knew you were a Qanon moron. Anybody with an ounce of sense will just put you on ignore which is what I'm now doing.
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2013
- Messages
- 17,815
- Trophies
- 3
- Location
- The Lands Between
- Website
- gbatemp.net
- XP
- 8,771
- Country
Politicians do their killing indirectly, like all the Kurds who were killed as a result of Trump's dangerously incompetent foreign policy decisions. Obviously that's not the type of thing I was referring to, I was referring to all the brainwashed morons who would gladly kill somebody Trump doesn't like at his behest. That's why anonymity is important for the whistleblower. Not to mention their testimony has already been corroborated by several other people, so it completely invalidates the need to unmask a protected witness.
I was not kidding, and the fact that you're happy to ignore parts of the constitution out of convenience already put you on the losing side of this argument.
Last edited by Xzi,
Scalise's opinions are better than anything Schiff and pelosi have said so far. Did you hear Schiff read off his own version of the Ukraine call and pelosi said those were Trump exact words? Hypocrisy!!! Also, what part of what scalise said can be misconstrued as false? You can argue it's his opinion based on fact, but you can't say the facts they are based on are not true.
How do you know Trump himself ordered people not to talk? Even if he did, why go along with a secret process where people are convicting him of crimes when none were committed to push him out of office just because they aren't happy with the results of the 2016 election?
and yet you didn't offer one impeachable crime he committed? How ignorant.
Thank you!!!
. Better them than our service men/women. I guess it's ok to you for our people to be killed to protect foreigners that hate us and refuse to protect themselves. Ok.
. You seem to be confusing Republicans with Democrats again. Was there another party switch that happened the past couple of weeks I didn't hear about like the one you believe happened after the civil war? Maybe that monkeydude was right, Obama was a Republican?
yes, and yet, the Dems are still trying to impeach Trump for that perfect call.
Also, we have had the transcript for the call for weeks now. Why do the Dems need anybody, including the whistle blowing coward, to testify about the call when we know exactly what was said in that call? What can anybody else say about that call that we can't read for ourselves? Do you and the house Dems need others to interpret the call for you to see things that aren't there? You Dems make my head spin.
Again with the confusion. You should read up on what the Constitution says about impeachment and what is an impeachable offense.
I'm always on the winning side of arguments because I look up stuff for myself instead of only going by what Don Lemon and Rachel Maddow tells me.
Last edited by morvoran,
He's technically correct though. Maybe you should do some research into the political affiliation of the mass shooters since Trump has taken office. You might learn something and then put yourself on ignore.
That's just the typical response of a liberal moron who has nothing to back up their argument and resorts to name calling. It's nice that some of these ridiculous liberals deal with themselves by adding me to their ignore list, so I don't have to ignore them. There are several other liberal trolls on here that I wish would add me to their ignore list.
This is why Schiff is trying to impeach Trump in secret. He has no case for impeachment, so he questions as many witnesses as he can then leaks the parts that suits his agenda to make Trump look bad. Can't defend his actions in public, so he has to hide like the Demonrat troll he is in the basement.
Last edited by morvoran,
Well, Liberals live in a subjective reality. I personally would like the Democrats to actually do something they say they're going to do and impeach him in the house already. That way it can make its way into the Senate and get stomped. I have a feeling it's more for show then anything else, especially considering it's been the plan all along. The reason doesn't really matter because they were simply looking for any reason to begin with. It's not fair, but hey, it'll backfire and burn down just like the Liberal policies are doing in (and to) California.
I always suspected it was to waste Trump's first four years in the hopes he won't be elected for a second term, but there is no way the Dems will hold onto the house after 2020 since they haven't done anything other than try to impeach Trump (which they must know isn't going to happen).
On top of that, Trump is going to get a second term with a republican majority house and senate, so they aren't doing anything but wasting time and making the Democrat party look worse than they already do
D
Deleted User
Guest
When people say they can't find a reason to impeach Trump...
Me: HELLO, BRIBERY? You know just telling the foreign country to reccive aid they have to look into one of their rivial political candiadates and cough up dirt, IS totally not a impeachable. NOT AT ALL. Sigh... feel like humanity is growing more hopeless by the day.
Me: HELLO, BRIBERY? You know just telling the foreign country to reccive aid they have to look into one of their rivial political candiadates and cough up dirt, IS totally not a impeachable. NOT AT ALL. Sigh... feel like humanity is growing more hopeless by the day.
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2013
- Messages
- 17,815
- Trophies
- 3
- Location
- The Lands Between
- Website
- gbatemp.net
- XP
- 8,771
- Country
Fuckin' neocons will do the craziest mental gymnastics to justify the unjustifiable rofl. Guess Republicans are anti-constitution, anti-law, and anti-military now. Maybe behind their thin masks they always were though. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Last edited by Xzi,
Because I need to explain or justify ANYthing to YOU? HAHAHAA!!!! Go cry about it.
You just continue to make yourself look more stupid by the second. Very, very, VERY few people here would believe you even for a split second. I'm seen a LOT of the shit you post, and there's just not a chance in hell you "look up stuff for myself", and you've not "won" anything around here from what I've seen. In fact, you're on the losing side. Try to keep shit straight, yeah? Buh bye now.
It is just for show in yet another attempt to keep tainting Trump's image. Watch this shit get dragged on until election day and beyond once Trump is reelected.
This is a fallacy. If this ultimately drives all your concerns then a genuine discussion is unobtainable. There are some workers who have a set of skills who have more negotiating power than others. There are some who work in industries due to either civil service or jobs whose corporations ban any union formation. Your argument is equivalent to saying this is the status quo, accept it and don't ask for change. At the time of hire most upperclass workers do have options to ensure proper wage growth. Lowerclass and middleclass do not, unions are one of the major pressures available to address this. Let's avoid blaming less affluent people for systemic economic issues and focus on solutions.
You state the status quo but ignore what would happen if unions were present in ever industry. It should be standard that each worker receives quarterly and yearly bonuses just as the Managers, Directors, VPs, and CEOs do in any large corporation. The lack of negotiation is what is at fault.
Your article is behind a paywall, if it's not able to be viewed by all I won't discuss it, that's my policy. Even if the top 5% incomes fell by 50%, it is confirmation that the importance of lowerclass and middleclass wage growth should be prioritized much more than it is currently. Over 80% of Americans fall within those brackets. Their discretionary income is the lifeblood of any small business and impacts the bottom line for virtually all other industries directly or indirectly.
So I've seen compensation being used instead of wages but it's not a universally defined criteria. I can find multiple authors than use different evaluations for compensation. This one above is just one of the examples. While SS is constantly applied, the compensation for healthcare has been another variable that is being interpreted differently by different authors. I have to point out something else. The amount the employer pays vs the employee - that rate has been pushing more on the employee over time. I would expect higher wages to compensate this but they aren't.
Forgive me for yet another shameless plug for the need of medicare for all. If the projection of tax increase on average is less than the 6k for family coverage then it is a direct savings for families and will again increase discretionary income. As far as business expenses would the % they pay for medicare for all be cheaper than what they are paying as well? The projections I saw say yes, a huge weight off of small businesses that can't afford to supply group benefits and allows them to more effectively compete in the market. I know this isn't the discussion so I'll stop. I've been invested in this since the 90s when a long brutal discussion w/ an economics professor I met while skiing and changed my mind to support it.
While I trust that you can do the math, to drive home a point I'll go ahead and supply the delta.
26% Employee paying 26% in 1999 but now is paying 29% in 2019
That was family, what about single coverage?
the employee paying 17% or $1,242 (up from 14% in 1999)
A quick conclusion statement to insure the point is made: If the % of the share of costs of these benefits are increasing for employees and decreasing for employers, where is the wage growth to offset that change? Again, take away unions that negotiate for workers and what you are left with are employers will continue to shift the cost (a huge and growing cost) of healthcare benefits on to the employees.
Other figures are below. This graphic is 2008-2017
A quick question how are you looking at SS as a benefit. Are you looking at the consumption or the amount each worker is paying per paycheck in payroll taxes? The former is not something drawn out until retirement and is not the focus of this discussion. The later is noteworthy. This is something that you may find interesting. We have been paying the same % base of SS for 30 years. Employee and Employer splits this 6.2% each. The same is done for 2.9% medicare tax - 1.45% for each. So if these are constant %'s how can they attribute to wage stagnation? In the .com boom no less? The answer is this is a farce to suggest it has any culpability. Let's move on to the next point now shall we.
You still appear to have such a limited perspective on the actual issue. Even so, I appreciate you bringing sources instead of just questions. How does the housing industry effect the wages of employees unless they are being zoned out of the districts that they work and are forced to relocate due to commute? I'm not sure. I'm really overreaching to understand what you mean. I agree it can affect discretionary income and I want it addressed through regulations (the free market purists are dying inside when they read this). But just remember we are talking about wages and income not living costs. Don't confuse the two.
"But when the numbers are measured more comprehensively—when wages are broadly defined as compensation to include benefits, comparable price indexes are used to calculate differences in wage and output growth in constant dollars, and the output is measured net of depreciation—the puzzle of lagging wages disappears, at least for 1970–2000."
Do you understand that only a small minority of workers get healthcare benefits without it deducting their pay? Most will pay a share with their employer, this impacts each worker to a various degree. Have you actually read the entire article of what you posted from piie.com
"The explanation for the sluggish rise in real wages over the long run—1970 through 2000—may lie not with something that weakened labor's bargaining power but instead in changes in the relative prices of the goods and services that workers consume and those that they produce. In particular, in thinking about policies to raise middle-class incomes, we should be concerned about (a) the rising relative prices of goods and services that workers consume such as housing and education; (b) the rising costs of benefits, especially health care, and (c) the slow productivity growth in services as compared with the rapid productivity growth in investment goods. In the period after 2000, the declining share of labor (and rising share of profits) does warrant further explanation (in a recent working paper, I argue this growing gap reflects a particular type of technical change), but prior to that, simplistic comparisons of "real" output per worker and "real" wages are likely to lead analysts to draw the wrong conclusions."
While I appreciate his view as he validates a few significant issues, he has some questionable conclusions. I concede there isn't one sole contributor to this crisis and perhaps I could be more clear. The issue we face is the amount of depth of economic policy required to discuss vs the amount of effort we are willing to provide to discuss. You've shown willingness to bring sources and analysis as requested so I will continue in good faith. So let's start here and move forward.
(a) The rising relative prices of goods/services that workers consume - does this impact wages that workers receive? take home pay? housing impacts the remaining discretionary income, education is a mixed bag. It can influence pay if you were talking about the level of education/training, however, if you are talking about the payment of education well then student loan debt would be a factor worth examining and I bring it up to show how it hurts discretionary income but to get back on topic... The author is disingenuously confusing shrinking discretionary income w/ stagnant wages. The problems compound each-other sure but stating that one is the cause of the other is... well laughable and absurd. Even if I was being the most generous and he is alluding to job training, that's not a real factor, HR weeds out unqualified workers and qualified vs over qualified workers that don't require training are abundant in the workforce yet their wage growth is not observable. This would fall into another snapshot argument and not something that would actually impact generational growth. So I'll throw that out as well. Yea, I'm sorry no ground here.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/11/your-money/student-loan-debt-parents.html
So we identified that student debt is out of control. I've seen CPI vs student loan and its rough. I made a previous post within the past day or two about my presumptions on addressing student loan debt in a fiscal manner through student loan forgiveness. I don't write policy so take it with a grain of salt. Just a off the cuff suggestion of a potential compromise to the proposal for tuition-free higher education. Both a loan forgiveness route and tuition free would probably be funded through the proposed taxation methods if this ever was taken up in congress. But this is off topic again so I'm going to move on.
(b) the rising costs of benefits, especially health care,
See chart above. I want to reiterate that only a small, very small minority of workers get healthcare benefits without it deducting their take-home pay. Most will pay a share of the premiums with their employer, this impacts each worker to a various degree. I concede to his point this both affects the real wages of workers and impacts discretionary income. All the more reason to pass medicare for all.
(c) the slow productivity growth in services as compared with the rapid productivity growth in investment goods. In the period after 2000, the declining share of labor (and rising share of profits) does warrant further explanation (in a recent working paper, I argue this growing gap reflects a particular type of technical change), but prior to that, simplistic comparisons of "real" output per worker and "real" wages are likely to lead analysts to draw the wrong conclusions."
Or people would realize sometimes simplistic comparisons give correct conclusions. He concedes that there is a gap. I read his recent working paper, a line struck out that seemed pertinent to mention, I encourage you to read it as well:
"Several papers have explained the recent decline in labor's share in income by claiming that capital has been substituted for labor."
This is another instance of observing an effect and incorrectly conflating it with the cause. The cause is the removal of union pressure that fought for an adequate labor share. The effect is when that pressure is removed, a decrease in labor share is replaced by capital investments. It merely filled the void and has a higher yield of profits to the status quo, ie CEOs and share holders. This best explains the growth of the investors and CEOs as well as the stagnation of the labor force's wages.
--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
Except you need a foundation to ensure you are learning accurate information. We do live in an information age, but the last thing we need to deal with are people who read web MD and tell doctors who went through accredited institutions how to practice medicine. I know what you are saying and to a large degree I agree with you, just giving a bit of devil's advocate that not everyone is willing to multi source information to ensure it has validity. We need accreditation and standards so we can expect quality goods/services. Things that I'm referring to are licenses, degrees, or certifications and they need to be provisioned by accredited institutions to have worth/credibility.
There might be other examples that would suite better but it's the first one that came to mind. There are some things that formal institutions can't teach or keep up with. Those would benefit from self-learning and given a proper foundation, the internet can be a good source of information.
This shouldn't be closed, but I do think all this off-topic stuff should be moved to a new thread.
Oh, wow, with your superb intellect showing by resorting to insults without anything to back up what you say, how could I have ever thought I could reach the same level as you? Maybe I should sniff industrial strength glue to lower my IQ level to match folks like you.
I like how "fuckin' liberalcons" always try to attack the right by saying the republicans are exactly what the demonrats are. Oh, wait, I don't like that and is why I chose to #walkaway from the shithead democrat party.
Anti-constitution = Dems - takes away guns from law abiding citizens and change the 2nd amendment
Anti-law = Dems create laws against illegal aliens then create sanctuary cities and protect them over legal immigrants/citizens. The DNC colluded with Ukraine to spy on a US citizen running for president in 2016.
anti-military = remember when the Washington Post called al-baghdadi an "austere religious scholar"? What was that about? Key Senate Democrats signaled Monday their caucus is likely to filibuster a proposed 2020 defense spending bill, which Senate Republican leaders plan to offer for a vote this week.
I wish you liberal democrats would use actual facts and evidence instead of just spewing insults and hate. It would make conversations a lot better here. I know it's hard to find truths and facts to back up the bullshit your party spreads, but at least put some effort into it. You folks just mirror your leaders in the House that are trying to impeach Trump on nothing but the fact they don't like the results of the 2016 election. You just spew your own insults and hate and then say people like me don't bring anything to the conversation when the right wingers here are the only ones that actually provide real information in these conversations.
Last edited by morvoran,
I agree, and apologize, any further economic discussion will be pursued in another thread.
Similar threads
- No one is chatting at the moment.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
@
BigOnYa:
Caller -"Everytime I start a Pc game on my S24, playing on a external monitor, someone calls or texts me, n it kicks me out of the game." Customer Support - Click (hangs up) -
-
-
-
-
-
-
@
BigOnYa:
I found it funny cause many many years ago, had a roommate in college that did this same dumbass branding of the school logo, but it didn't look anything like it after it healed. Just looked like a birthmark.
-
