Politics

sameoldlama
Posts: 840
Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2017 7:43 am

Re: Politics

Postby sameoldlama » Sun Feb 10, 2019 12:40 pm

I didn't read a quote - I saw a video of him being interviewed. So unless the same guy who impersonated him that yearbook photo did again at the radio interview he talked about a mother / doctor "having a discussion" about euthanizing post birth.
Wendall : That's very linear Sheriff
Ed Tom : Age will flatten a man Wendall

LioninVa
Posts: 837
Joined: Tue Aug 15, 2017 11:49 am

Re: Politics

Postby LioninVa » Sun Feb 10, 2019 12:56 pm

Understood. Did you hear the question he was asked, or just his reply?

Blue&White
Posts: 3817
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2017 10:01 am

Re: Politics

Postby Blue&White » Sun Feb 10, 2019 1:01 pm

tempe wrote:Well stated BW. But I think grower is right - many people and youth (if not most) have little idea of the sad origin.


I agree. And, I wasn't taking a shot at Grower, I was just answering the question. The story about the Steve Harvey impersonation was, I suspect, an innocent mistake. A member of Generation X can maybe be excused for not knowing the origins, and racial overtones, of dressing in blackface. But, the Baby Boomers can't really make that argument. The guys in VA who did this back in the early 80s absolutely had to have known the implications of what they were doing. I just don't agree with judging them in 2019 over events that happened in 1980 and 1984 only.

Regarding the lt. governor, there are now 2 seemingly credible allegations against him. I am all for due process but that is a standard for criminal law. I'm somewhat indifferent to if he steps down or not as, unlike with a lifetime appointment to the federal judiciary, he's subject to the approval or removal by the voters of his state. So, one way or another, the voters will have their say. But, he has to realize that, at this point, staying in office is going to kill his party's chances at the polls next election. It doesn't help him that the two women are saying they are more than happy to testify to what happened in public and under oath.
Is it football season yet?

sameoldlama
Posts: 840
Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2017 7:43 am

Re: Politics

Postby sameoldlama » Sun Feb 10, 2019 1:08 pm

Both - as I said abortion is not a hot button issue for me so I hadn't followed NY's new late term law. I did happen to see this clip - basically they want to allow abortion when mother is dilating and if the abortion procedure wasn't successful or if a child was born with a deformity the doctor and patient have a discussion while they "make the baby as comfortable as possible" and if Mom gives a thumbs down - bye, bye baby.

Abortion is low on my list of deciding who to vote for - but I think it's reasonable to say the decision to abort should occur within the first three months (unless mothers health is at risk) - not up until point baby is making it's way through the birth canal. I couldn't support a candidate who supported that.
Wendall : That's very linear Sheriff
Ed Tom : Age will flatten a man Wendall

LioninVa
Posts: 837
Joined: Tue Aug 15, 2017 11:49 am

Re: Politics

Postby LioninVa » Sun Feb 10, 2019 1:20 pm

Ok. As I understood it, he was commenting on after the baby is born and in distress as your quote states. Once the baby is born, it is not abortion. It is more along the lines of a do not resuscitate situation but the decision is made by the parents I presume. I realize there is late term abortion legislation out there, but the reality is that they rarely take place and, when they do, it is because the mother is in danger and/or the child is unlikely to survive.

A more telling portion of his answer was basically that this is something that should be decided by the parents with their doctors rather than by elected officials.

Blue&White
Posts: 3817
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2017 10:01 am

Re: Politics

Postby Blue&White » Sun Feb 10, 2019 1:23 pm

Abortion is low on my issues list, too, and I'm not interested enough to debate it. The only point I'll make is I think your view on the late term abortion laws are based more on hysteria (not your hysteria necessarily but the hysteria in how it's being portrayed) vs. actual facts. Modern medicine is at a point where women are not finding out what is going on with their kid as that kid is about to slide down the birth canal. They know weeks in advance. Unfortunately, there are some issues that manifest after the 1st trimester and some of those have real consequences. It's not a big issue for me, but I did read a few things about what drove these laws when they were first past and the situation is not what you are describing.

It's ok to disagree with the law. Reasonable people can look at the same set of facts and draw different conclusions as to what the right answer is. But, I'd suggest digging a little deeper into it as you may find your expectation of the situation doesn't line up with much of the reality. You may still decide you're against it, and that's ok. You are allowed to have an informed (or even an uninformed if you think about it) opinion that differs from the NY voting majority. But, I'd just suggest you take a few minutes to do a little reading on what drove that law. It's not really what you are describing.
Is it football season yet?

Crowbar
Posts: 879
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 12:54 pm

Re: Politics

Postby Crowbar » Sat Feb 16, 2019 6:08 am

sameoldlama wrote:
I know this board leans left but you guys need to reel in the insanity a little - between this and the sheer stupidity constantly coming out of AOC and Omar and the absolute horror show that the D POTUS primary line up is turning into (seriously - the Orioles are going into this spring with a more talented roster) - I mean - you did it - you're making DT look like a reasonable guy.


I think the board is more anti-extremism than left leaning. It just so happens we have a bit of a kook in the White House right now. Before DJT I remember people on here chiding Obama over various things.

I fully agree with you on AOC. She is absolutely batshit crazy. Never in my lifetime did I think I would see a politician CELEBRATE 25,000 jobs leaving his or her district like she did when Amazon pulled HQ2 from Queens. This has to be unprecedented.

Unfortunately DJT has a secret weapon in 2020. It's called the Dumborats. Between the Amazon fiasco, the abolish ICE nonsense, the new green deal lunacy, 90% tax rate on "the rich" (I would love to know what constitutes being "rich" means to them), among other crazy, insane socialist ideas it's not impossible to think the Dumborats may signing their own death warrant.
National Champions 1911, 1912, 1969, 1981, 1982, 1986, 1994

Blue&White
Posts: 3817
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2017 10:01 am

Re: Politics

Postby Blue&White » Sat Feb 16, 2019 9:03 am

Unemployment in NYC metro is ~4%, which is a number that I think any politician would be happy with. Amazon was bringing in 25,000 jobs - half of which were tech jobs and the vast majority of the other half were jobs in legal, finance, HR, etc. Forget what you hear about janitors. There were going to be 100 janitors, tops. Most of those jobs would go to highly educated and experienced people. So, of that 4% of unemployment, Amazon was barely going to make a dent in it. What they were going to do instead was drive more people working outside NYC into NY, which was going to create more congestion. Some of those people were going to live in NYC, which is going to further drive up rents. The people AOC represents were not benefiting from Amazon.

Then factor in that New York City was giving Amazon 3 BILLION dollars of tax incentives for that facility. I get that she characterized this as if New York was just handing that money to Amazon and it could be used on other things, and I get that is not what is happening. They are not handing Amazon money, they are just not collecting any money. But, NYC was going to spend money on this facility. They weren't building it in midtown, they were building it in Long Island City in Queens. It's not a low rent area but it's also not a rich area. And, it's also not easy to get to. So, NYC was going to have to spend money - loads of money - to increase the accessibility to LIC. I'm not sure what the plan was to do that, to be honest. I don't know if they were going to simply throw more trains on the 7 line during commuting hours to make it work or if they were going to add transportation. My guess is both. They would probably add a ferry from the east side to LIC and then provide a shuttle and increase the trains. And, that costs the city money.

So, the objection here is that the city was giving one of the richest companies on the planet $3,000,000,000.00 in tax breaks and spending money on making their new facility accessible - at the expense of other projects - and in return that company was going to attract more people to the city who would drive up rents, add congestion, and do absolutely nothing to help the people she represents. You can look at those facts and conclude she's still wrong and make a reasoned argument about that, but I think you have to concede that her objection is not really all that batshit crazy.

I'm not going to tackle all your other comments because this is already too long, but I did want to point out that she's advocating a 70% marginal tax rate and her definition of "rich" is money over $10,000,000.00. If you don't think making more than $10,000,000 a year makes you rich, then if we ever all get together again to watch a PSU game you are picking up the tab.
Is it football season yet?

sameoldlama
Posts: 840
Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2017 7:43 am

Re: Politics

Postby sameoldlama » Sat Feb 16, 2019 9:57 am

You'd have to see an actuarial study but the politicians who brokered the NY Amazon deal claim the ROI is there and given the direct and indirect economic activity the project would bring I would tend to believe it - it's also possible Virginia negotiated a better deal with a quicker payback and NYC could have brokered a better deal - but losing the project can in no way be seen as a positive outcome.

On the tax matter - other than realizing none of us will likely make $10MM (that MM means million for those that don't understand that connotation) not recognizing that the 70% tax rate proposed by AOC or the 90% proposed by Omar is simply class warfare and I can't see any ethical or moral basis for it - unless of course you feel communism is an ethical and moral ideology. Consider you still pay Medicare and state taxes (unless there is some exemption for those income levels I've never had to concern myself with) and those earners under AOC plan in NY or California will pay over 80% of their earnings in taxes and under Omar's you would owe over 100%. How does that make sense to anyone?

If someone came about their earnings fairly why should they face punitive tax penalties? I don't like the Kardashians and how Kylie Jenner became a billionaire baffles me - but to my knowledge she didn't steal the money or rig the system - she put something out to the market that she was able to monetize - so why should the government confiscate her money so they can bribe voters with free this and free that? If you want to penalize people who came about their riches unfairly (Wall Street corruption, crony corporate boards) than prosecute those people and fine them appropriately.

The government is supposed to be a fair ref that ensures a fair game - if some plays the game great and makes a ton of money so be it. They shouldn't be a corrupt commissioner that picks winners and losers and fixes games or takes prizes from winners to give it to their chosen supporters.
Wendall : That's very linear Sheriff
Ed Tom : Age will flatten a man Wendall

Blue&White
Posts: 3817
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2017 10:01 am

Re: Politics

Postby Blue&White » Sat Feb 16, 2019 12:00 pm

You'd have to see an actuarial study but the politicians who brokered the NY Amazon deal claim the ROI is there and given the direct and indirect economic activity the project would bring I would tend to believe it - it's also possible Virginia negotiated a better deal with a quicker payback and NYC could have brokered a better deal - but losing the project can in no way be seen as a positive outcome.

I don't know the numbers for the project, but I am dubious that NYC will make back 3 billion dollars. And, more to the point, I was providing facts about what the objection to the project was. You can disagree with the argument against the project and you would not be alone. Reasonable people can disagree on the best way to proceed given a certain set of facts. I'm ok with that. What bugs me is when we based arguments on bullshit and hyperbole. AOC's objection was based on the massive tax breaks, the pulling of money and resources from other projects that would support people and institutions that are cash starved, and that the project wasn't going to help the people in her district and instead would bring in a new influx of highly paid white collar workers, of which NYC has plenty already and low enough unemployment that this may not have been a priority. Again, you can look at those circumstances and argue against her position, but most of the arguments against her have been based on hysteria and hyperbole. Yes, she looked foolish when she implied that NYC was handing 3 billion dollars to Amazon and that is clearly not true.

I don't know if AOC's comment was an outright lie, a gaffe, or she just really didn't know. But, the same politicians and political pundits screaming about her comment are the first to defend or ignore the constant flow of lies that comes from Trump.

Regarding your ROI comment, the past few years there have been a number of studies that evaluated the impacts of giving incentives to businesses to move operations to given location. And, the overwhelming evidence is that it does not pay off. The states and cities that offer these things do not get the promised benefits. Similar to the bullshit promises that get made every time the local sports franchise asks for a new stadium or arena, the end result is always a very one sided benefit. That local and state governments continue to fall for this is really shocking. So, while I agree that losing 25,000 jobs isn't a great thing, the reality is that NYC doesn't need to pay to bring jobs in. There are plenty of employers in New York right now and most educated white collar people are gainfully employed. The people who need the boost are the people who live in districts like the ones AOC represents. And, they are getting nothing from this deal.

As for your last point, government picks winnes and losers all the time. No one bats an eye at the corporate socialism that goes on every single day. This entire country has subsidized oil exploration, drug research, automotive research, etc. Our entire foreign policy is built around the price of a barrel of oil and our obscene defense budget enforces that policy at the point of a gun. This entire narrative about Venezuela is entirely about seizing their oil for US companies. That is not a crazy internet conspiracy theory. That is what National Security Adviser John Bolton said on national TV. He admitted, for all to see, that our potential involvement in Venezuela was about taking their oil. How much is that going to cost? How many American lives are going to be put at risk for that policy if it is carried out?

We have, for at least 30 years, rigged the game in favor of the rich and corporate interests. And, when we ask them to start chipping in to clean up the massive mess they made it's suddenly socialism and the path to communism? I disagree. I'm perfectly fine with a 70% tax rate on income over $10,000,000. I'm fine if you put it up to 90% too. Let the polluters pay to clean up the pollution. Let Wall Street pay to clean up the credit and liquidity mess they helped create. Real wages in this country have been flat since the 80s but wealth has grown immensely. It's concentrated in a handful of people and entities and that is not an accident. So, let's have those people start chipping in. I am all for it. If it makes me a socialist, then I'm a socialist.
Is it football season yet?