Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 feeder wrote:
Speaking of which, how common is this Survivor: White House scenario that has been playing out? More than 50% of the staff that started this admin are now gone. Is this unprecedented (unpresidented? )

As for an exact number I don't know. However the White House has always had high turnover in staff throughout its history. Historically it definitely hasn't attracted this much media attention. The bigger story though I think is the abnormally public and embarrassing turnover of high level positions like in the State Department. That is not normal as far as I know.

 Wolfblade wrote:

 feeder wrote:
Speaking of which, how common is this Survivor: White House scenario that has been playing out? More than 50% of the staff that started this admin are now gone. Is this unprecedented (unpresidented? )

Pretty sure it's the highest turnover rate for the WH, and probably has more people kicked out than the last 20 presidents combined at least. (But it's ok, Trump only hires the BEST right?)

Trump just thinks he's on the Apprentice: White House Edition. Its not good tv if nobody gets kicked to the curb on a weekly basis.

To be fair, can most of those positions left unfulfilled actually be worse than the people he puts in? Some of them are just incredible

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Wolfblade wrote:

 feeder wrote:
Speaking of which, how common is this Survivor: White House scenario that has been playing out? More than 50% of the staff that started this admin are now gone. Is this unprecedented (unpresidented? )

Pretty sure it's the highest turnover rate for the WH, and probably has more people kicked out than the last 20 presidents combined at least. (But it's ok, Trump only hires the BEST right?)

Trump just thinks he's on the Apprentice: White House Edition. Its not good tv if nobody gets kicked to the curb on a weekly basis.

To be fair, can most of those positions left unfulfilled actually be worse than the people he puts in? Some of them are just incredible

Trump has unquestionably proven himself the best reality TV star in human history by an immense margin. I say this non-jokingly. He has turned the Presidency of the United States into reality TV for all intents and purposes. It's been really fun to watch.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Wolfblade wrote:

 feeder wrote:
Speaking of which, how common is this Survivor: White House scenario that has been playing out? More than 50% of the staff that started this admin are now gone. Is this unprecedented (unpresidented? )

Pretty sure it's the highest turnover rate for the WH, and probably has more people kicked out than the last 20 presidents combined at least. (But it's ok, Trump only hires the BEST right?)

Trump just thinks he's on the Apprentice: White House Edition. Its not good tv if nobody gets kicked to the curb on a weekly basis.

To be fair, can most of those positions left unfulfilled actually be worse than the people he puts in? Some of them are just incredible

Trump has unquestionably proven himself the best reality TV star in human history by an immense margin. I say this non-jokingly. He has turned the Presidency of the United States into reality TV for all intents and purposes. It's been really fun to watch.

Yeah that certainly isn't a joke! Although fun wouldn't be the word I'd pick. More horrified, but unable to look away.

Trump administration to impose fresh sanctions against russia.

This move is more interesting as economic sanctions seems to hurt the Russian people more than the oligarchs. Putin obviously relies on the political support of the oligarchs to keep power, and the oligarchs need free access to the security of Western banking and trade institutions to keep their fortunes. This is what we should've been doing all along as Putin can't really reciprocate this.

 whembly wrote:
Trump administration to impose fresh sanctions against russia.

This move is more interesting as economic sanctions seems to hurt the Russian people more than the oligarchs. Putin obviously relies on the political support of the oligarchs to keep power, and the oligarchs need free access to the security of Western banking and trade institutions to keep their fortunes. This is what we should've been doing all along as Putin can't really reciprocate this.

Well there was the Magnitsky Act in 2012 that took a step in that direction. Although what the US can do against Russian oligarchs is limited anyway, as they prefer to avoid the US in the first place. You need the EU and UK on board.

Also:

Moscow’s ambassador to the United States, Anatoly Antonov, said the “atmosphere in Washington is poison.”

Was he trying to be unintentionally ironic

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Wolfblade wrote:

 feeder wrote:
Speaking of which, how common is this Survivor: White House scenario that has been playing out? More than 50% of the staff that started this admin are now gone. Is this unprecedented (unpresidented? )

Pretty sure it's the highest turnover rate for the WH, and probably has more people kicked out than the last 20 presidents combined at least. (But it's ok, Trump only hires the BEST right?)

Trump just thinks he's on the Apprentice: White House Edition. Its not good tv if nobody gets kicked to the curb on a weekly basis.

To be fair, can most of those positions left unfulfilled actually be worse than the people he puts in? Some of them are just incredible

Trump has unquestionably proven himself the best reality TV star in human history by an immense margin. I say this non-jokingly. He has turned the Presidency of the United States into reality TV for all intents and purposes. It's been really fun to watch.

Yeah that certainly isn't a joke! Although fun wouldn't be the word I'd pick. More horrified, but unable to look away.

Tell me this isn't fun to watch. Because that is best metaphor I have for what the US has done.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Trump administration to impose fresh sanctions against russia.

This move is more interesting as economic sanctions seems to hurt the Russian people more than the oligarchs. Putin obviously relies on the political support of the oligarchs to keep power, and the oligarchs need free access to the security of Western banking and trade institutions to keep their fortunes. This is what we should've been doing all along as Putin can't really reciprocate this.

Well there was the Magnitsky Act in 2012 that took a step in that direction. Although what the US can do against Russian oligarchs is limited anyway, as they prefer to avoid the US in the first place. You need the EU and UK on board.

True... but, we gotta do something eh?

Also:

Moscow’s ambassador to the United States, Anatoly Antonov, said the “atmosphere in Washington is poison.”

Was he trying to be unintentionally ironic

He's not wrong... but, phrasing man... PHRASING!

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
And, in other political news: d-usa, I am so sorry for you, man.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/04/us/oklahoma-governor-mary-fallin-teacher-comment/index.html

I've been reading a bit about the problems the teachers in Oklahoma are going through. Seriously, this is one of the reasons why we need a federal government that can step in and provide the needed assistance when a state so totally fails like this.

Oklahoma’s problem can’t be solved by the Federal Dept of Ed regardless of which administration is in office or who’s running the department. The Dept of Ed can’t come in and nationalize Oklahoma public schools and the amount of Federal funding that can be sent, increased or decreased is determined by Federal law. The people of Oklahoma are the only ones that can fix this. The state government had a $6.9Billion dollar budget for FY2018 and they have $7Billion to spend in FY2019 for a state of 4 million residents and the state govt needs to figure out how to adequately fund the public school system with some of that $7Billion and their constituents need to hold their legislators accountable for getting it done.

Feth. That.
Right is right, and what's going on in Oklahoma now is. not. right. If the Federal government can throw a bunch of money at hurricane victims, then it damn well can do something to help out a failing school system.
But, hey, feth the kids, right?

When the Federal govt sends money to help victims of natural disasters it requires an act of Congress to authorize the spending. Remember the whole kerfluffle about Ted Cruz wanting flood relief money for Texas even though he was opposed to Superstorm Sandy relief money for the Northeastern states back when that happened? States already get Federal funding for education in compliance with Federal law, we had No Child Left Behind with Bush43 followed by Race to the Top and then Every Studen Succeeds Act under Obama. With the current state of things in Congress I wouldn’t want those 435 people being the ones trying to save my kids but who knows maybe they’ll suddenly become surprisingly competent. Nobody in this thread is saying that the children in Oklahoma shouldn’t get a quality education in their public schools but demanding the illegal federalizations of a state agency just for the sake of doing something isn’t a good answer. I mean really do you think Betsy Devi’s is even capable of improving public education in Oklahoma?

DO NOT put words in my mouth.

Fair enough. I apologize for inserting my own scenario into your argument.

The point remains that this isn't a problem for the Federal government to solve. This is an Oklahoma problem that Oklahoma has to solve. The Federal Dept of Ed can only help state public schools via the procedures established by Federal law. Congress could authorize additional Federal assistance but that's highly unlikely to happen. This isn't a natural disaster that couldn't be avoided this is a situation that was created by the state government and their constituency. All of the state legislators that wrote up the budget for the past decades had to be elected and run for re-election, same for the governors that signed off on the budgets, all of the school children have parents/relatives that can vote, the teachers can all vote, this situation didn't happen overnight.

Oklahoma has a $7Billion state budget. I don't know how much it would cost to make sure all the students in the public school system had decent textbooks but I'm confident it's a lot less than $7Billion. I'm also confident that if you or I went through the OK budget we'd be able to cut enough spending elsewhere to free up the money needed for textbooks. $7,000,000,000 is a lot of money. Of course you and I don't have to run for re-election to the Oklahoma state legislature so we aren't beholden to the constituency behind every dollar that helps create this budget problems. It's not OK (pun intended) for the Oklahoma govt to take the easy lazy way out and not spent money on public education and then ask Congress to bail them out by gifting them the additional revenue needed. There are plenty of school districts that need help, Newark, Camden and Atlantic City all had long suffering failing public schools throughout the 30 years I lived in NJ. Michigan has school systems that are struggling mightily as well. Congress isn't going to send state school systems bail out money every time one of them makes the news.

 Ustrello wrote:

Spoiler:

 reds8n wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
And, in other political news: d-usa, I am so sorry for you, man.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/04/us/oklahoma-governor-mary-fallin-teacher-comment/index.html

I've been reading a bit about the problems the teachers in Oklahoma are going through. Seriously, this is one of the reasons why we need a federal government that can step in and provide the needed assistance when a state so totally fails like this.

My wife has been out there every day this week. She's a therapist at one of the elementary schools here, so she's supporting the teachers.

The teachers union has been asking for a raise for teachers, support staff, and more importantly adequate funding for the schools themselves. The legislature passed a partial raise for teachers, and no additional funding for schools. And they also don't have the actual funding to pay for the raise, and after raising taxes for the first time in a couple decades to partially fund it, they are already scheduled to repeal some of those taxes before they ever come into effect. So teachers are on strike since Monday. Yesterday the House found out that most teachers only have shuttles available until 3pm, so they scheduled their session to start at 3pm thinking they would just wait for teachers to leave. My wife's school, and many others, simply moved the shuttles around and still ended up filling the capitol.

Yesterday Governor Fallin said that Teachers wanting more funding for schools are "acting like teenagers wanting a better car". So I made my wife a new sign for today:



So far our legislature has claimed that teachers have given death threats to them or their staff (Oklahoma City PD and the Oklahoma Highway Patrol did not receive any notification of any threats). The legislators then claimed "outside" agitators from Chicago and Antifa, which surprised no one.

It did result in "Antifa? No, AntiFallin!" signs though, so there's that.

.. if you wait she'll maybe get given a gun IIRC.


or a bucket of rocks :

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-guns-rocks/buckets-of-rocks-are-pennsylvania-schools-last-defense-against-shooters-idUSKBN1GZ2DC

Lets be honest if most of the Fox news reporters, staff, pundits were to disappear one day I am pretty sure the world would be a better place

thats close to my opinion, but you need to add cnn, msnbc and cbs to that mix.

 ulgurstasta wrote:
Not quite, the center has an ideological basis itself. It's the ideology of the status quo that we take for granted and dont see as an ideology because of that.

Fair point, I guess my explanation wasn't as tight as it should have been. The act of selecting all policy options from within the range of moderate left to moderate right is underpinned by an assumption that that's the only place where correct policies can be found. Which is a kind of ideology.

Instead of saying 'not based on ideology' I should have said something along the lines of 'instead of specific left wing or right ideology, instead there is an (often unstated, subconscious) ideology that the correct answer lies at some point between the moderate opinions of the left and right.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
Even as a non-teacher with a very small group, we spend over $1,000 out of pocket each school year for supplies, classroom equipment, and snacks for kids.

Did the Republican tax bill end up excluding those expenses as an allowable deduction for teachers?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DrGiggles wrote:
Before we go and act like Republicans were the only ones becoming more radical in their views pre-2016 lets at least look at a study from a 3rd party source, and i think that a PEW study is about as independent as it gets.

http://www.people-press.org/2014/06/12/political-polarization-in-the-american-public/

Based on the graph near the top of the page it seems like the median Democrat and median Republican were fairly close in their views, but between 4994 and 2004 the views between the medians were shifting with the democrats as a whole shifting farther left.

The graph near the top of the page is for the general population, it isn't the Democratic leadership, and isn't the people who vote for either party.

Go about a third of the page down the graph and you'll see the real dynamic at play, with this graph;


The group that always votes, in a number dwarfing any other group has been the consistently conservative. Because of their outsized impact on the ballot box, these voters dictate what Republican politicians must say and do if they want to stay in power. They are the reason Republican politics have shifted its centre of gravity in to the fringe.

 Vaktathi wrote:
To be fair, Trump has really liked other people that got the boot too. Pruitt's right hand person who has been with him through everything he's done for years resigned today unexpectedly, and he's facing multiple different scandals.

We shall see what happens I suppose

I'd give him 2 weeks at the absolute outside.

I know picking stupid crap off some random on twitter is kind of cheating, but I'm doing it anyway.




I did it because I don't think anyone could claim this kind of thing is a one off. Admittedly this one is funnier than most, but logic break at its centre is something I see daily, I assume its the same for others. This is the world we live in now. Faced with the challenge of trying to make some sense of conservative politics in the Trump era, a hell of a lot of conservatives have taken the rather interesting approach of just not caring one bit that they make no sense, that everything they say contradicts everything else.

 whembly wrote:
My read is that the Trump supporters do believe he did have sex with Daniels and simply choose to not care. (my grandpa laughs at this remembering the adoration JFK got for his philandering)That's different than denial.

44% of Republicans believe Daniel's allegations of an affair are not credible. That's 44% of the base that elected the president who are engaged in an act of pure denialism.

https://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/tabsHPStormyDaniels20180309.pdf

That would be very disturbing if the DOJ doesn't publish it.

Something will be released. It's a question of whether it will be redacted to conceal any substantiation of serious breaches.

Impeachment is a political process very dependent on the public mood, and the public mood is largely controlled by what the executive and congress choose to let the public know.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vaktathi wrote:
To be fair, Trump has really liked other people that got the boot too. Pruitt's right hand person who has been with him through everything he's done for years resigned today unexpectedly, and he's facing multiple different scandals.

True, Trump likes people until they start producing negative headlines. However, Mnuchin is still there and seems as safe as ever, and his travel was outrageous, but he loyally spouts the Trump line and doesn't get in the way of any Trump policies. Admittedly Pruitt has a lot more problems than just that, but he is dismantling EPA regs just as Trump wants.

And so while Pruitt has this list of high profile, extremely wasteful expenditures, that might not be enough by itself. And while a lot of people want Pruitt gone because he is so obviously in deep with industry, that's not a negative for Trump.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LordofHats wrote:
As for an exact number I don't know. However the White House has always had high turnover in staff throughout its history. Historically it definitely hasn't attracted this much media attention. The bigger story though I think is the abnormally public and embarrassing turnover of high level positions like in the State Department. That is not normal as far as I know.

You're right that the Whitehouse always has high turnover, but Trump is miles past the norm. In his first year Trump's turnover was 34%, the next highest in any presidency since records were kept was Reagan, with 17%. The next highest was Clinton with 11%.

But I agree the raw numbers of turnover aren't the real story, what's more remarkable is the turnover among key, non-partisan positions. These positions are being vacated at incredible rates, and not being filled. People credit Tillerson for opposing Trump on some important stuff, but at the same time Tillerson waged an incredible war on his own department, stripping out thousands of necessary positions.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
This move is more interesting as economic sanctions seems to hurt the Russian people more than the oligarchs. Putin obviously relies on the political support of the oligarchs to keep power, and the oligarchs need free access to the security of Western banking and trade institutions to keep their fortunes. This is what we should've been doing all along as Putin can't really reciprocate this.

I understand they're targeted sanctions, so more asset freezes and restrictions on trade with companies owned by specific Putin cronies. So it doesn't really impact the Russian people at all - very little wealth trickles down from these companies to the Russian people.

So Trump is accelerating trade war even more it seems.

US imposes tariffs to China.
China responds in kind.
US says China is playing unfair.
US imposes even more tariffs.
...

Guess China replies in kind followed again by US statement how China is being unfair with their tariffs

Where's my pop corn?

tneva82 wrote:
So Trump is accelerating trade war even more it seems.

US imposes tariffs to China.
China responds in kind.
US says China is playing unfair.
US imposes even more tariffs.
...

Guess China replies in kind followed again by US statement how China is being unfair with their tariffs

Where's my pop corn?

At this point the tariffs are only threats. Particularly this latest $100bn figure, just the day before Trump was claiming the tariffs weren't certain, it depended on negotiations with the Chinese. Then a day after Trump throws out a new set of tariffs that are exactly double the Chinese response.
Trump is throwing out big threats to try and intimidate people in to accepting a worse deal. It's a silly technique loved by people like Trump who think negotiations are all about big showy psychological tricks and not, you know, ensuring you understand the real value of things being negotiated, and making sure you never expose yourself to financial or political pressure to close the deal.

Trump is picking a fight with actual adults who know how trade actually works, and who value the trade negotiating teams they've built over decades. Did anyone notice the products in the Chinese list of tariffs - it was goods like pork, grains and steel products - all stuff produced in Trump country. The Chinese know what they're doing. Trump is walking in to a situation where he's politically committed to producing some kind of win, but is now facing a situation where if he doesn't make a deal the Chinese response he invited is going to slaughter him among his key voting areas.

Trump is walking in to a slaughter. Trump said winning a trade war is easy, and I didn't believe him, but he might have been right. The Chinese are making it look very easy.

If I remember correctly, Trump's 'Art Of The Deal' more or less summarised as promise whatever it takes to get the other side to agree, you can always screw them over and not deliver it later. Can only go well.

 sebster wrote:


Fair point, I guess my explanation wasn't as tight as it should have been. The act of selecting all policy options from within the range of moderate left to moderate right is underpinned by an assumption that that's the only place where correct policies can be found. Which is a kind of ideology.

Instead of saying 'not based on ideology' I should have said something along the lines of 'instead of specific left wing or right ideology, instead there is an (often unstated, subconscious) ideology that the correct answer lies at some point between the moderate opinions of the left and right.

Which is a vapid approach to politics.

First of all, socialism and fascism are objectively opposite ideologies with entirely incompatible world views. I don't mean that they just couldn't possible agree with what things should be like, I mean that they can't possibly agree with what things are like. Their understandings of what society is and how it works are incompatible. Attempting to triangulate something that is inbetween them is... a strange endevaour to say the least. What's the mid point between wanting the weak to die and holding every human to have a worth without needing to justify their existence? What is the "moderate" versions of those positions? That the weak shouldn't maybe die, exactly, but that they don't deserve the same freedom as the strong? That people might not have an innate worth, exactly, but that there's a cap on how cruelly you're allowed to treat them? And what's the midpoint between those?


This centrism contains nothing. It's the weakest possible ideology because it doesn't actually believe in anything. All they do is nervously follow Data and Trends. That's why Clinton failed. That's why the Democratic Party is in freefall. That's why the Republican Party has been able to bully them for decades and that's why they're so threatened by an actual left attempting to form. They have no beliefs and no desires other than to be paper pushers. Their ability to win votes by pointing at the Republicans and scream about how much worse they are hinges on their ability to quash any alternatives, and that is going to only get harder and harder from here on out.

 sebster wrote:



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
Even as a non-teacher with a very small group, we spend over $1,000 out of pocket each school year for supplies, classroom equipment, and snacks for kids.

Did the Republican tax bill end up excluding those expenses as an allowable deduction for teachers?

Yes but the tax bill also increased the standard deduction, child tax credit and created a $500 per person deduction for families without children. So a couple filing jointly will get a $24,000 standard deduction plus either a $2,000 deduction per child or a $500 per person deduction. One intent of the bill seems to be to make taking the standard deduction the best option for a large majority of the filers.
https://taxfoundation.org/conference-report-tax-cuts-and-jobs-act/

Prestor Jon wrote:

 sebster wrote:



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
Even as a non-teacher with a very small group, we spend over $1,000 out of pocket each school year for supplies, classroom equipment, and snacks for kids.

Did the Republican tax bill end up excluding those expenses as an allowable deduction for teachers?

Yes but the tax bill also increased the standard deduction, child tax credit and created a $500 per person deduction for families without children. So a couple filing jointly will get a $24,000 standard deduction plus either a $2,000 deduction per child or a $500 per person deduction. One intent of the bill seems to be to make taking the standard deduction the best option for a large majority of the filers.
https://taxfoundation.org/conference-report-tax-cuts-and-jobs-act/

It's also set up to phase out those tax breaks for non corporations, while removing itemization. Overall it's a massive loss for anyone who isn't a major business owner (like Trump, weird right?)

 Wolfblade wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 sebster wrote:



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
Even as a non-teacher with a very small group, we spend over $1,000 out of pocket each school year for supplies, classroom equipment, and snacks for kids.

Did the Republican tax bill end up excluding those expenses as an allowable deduction for teachers?

Yes but the tax bill also increased the standard deduction, child tax credit and created a $500 per person deduction for families without children. So a couple filing jointly will get a $24,000 standard deduction plus either a $2,000 deduction per child or a $500 per person deduction. One intent of the bill seems to be to make taking the standard deduction the best option for a large majority of the filers.
https://taxfoundation.org/conference-report-tax-cuts-and-jobs-act/

It's also set up to phase out those tax breaks for non corporations, while removing itemization. Overall it's a massive loss for anyone who isn't a major business owner (like Trump, weird right?)

It's a big improvement for me. $24k is a bigger deduction than we ever got from itemizing and with our kids added in we're getting a $30k deduction next year which will be the largest deduction we've ever had. The bulk of our itemized deductions were always mortgage interest and property taxes but those were never close to $24k. I suppose if we had a really expensive house and a much greater property tax rate the tax changes wouldn't benefit us but our family is unlikely to ever be in that situation.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Wolfblade wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 sebster wrote:



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
Even as a non-teacher with a very small group, we spend over $1,000 out of pocket each school year for supplies, classroom equipment, and snacks for kids.

Did the Republican tax bill end up excluding those expenses as an allowable deduction for teachers?

Yes but the tax bill also increased the standard deduction, child tax credit and created a $500 per person deduction for families without children. So a couple filing jointly will get a $24,000 standard deduction plus either a $2,000 deduction per child or a $500 per person deduction. One intent of the bill seems to be to make taking the standard deduction the best option for a large majority of the filers.
https://taxfoundation.org/conference-report-tax-cuts-and-jobs-act/

It's also set up to phase out those tax breaks for non corporations, while removing itemization. Overall it's a massive loss for anyone who isn't a major business owner (like Trump, weird right?)

It's a big improvement for me. $24k is a bigger deduction than we ever got from itemizing and with our kids added in we're getting a $30k deduction next year which will be the largest deduction we've ever had. The bulk of our itemized deductions were always mortgage interest and property taxes but those were never close to $24k. I suppose if we had a really expensive house and a much greater property tax rate the tax changes wouldn't benefit us but our family is unlikely to ever be in that situation.

And again, all of that is set to phase out/expire over the next 10 years. It might be good for you now, but a few years from now and it'll be much much worse.

 Wolfblade wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Wolfblade wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 sebster wrote:



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
Even as a non-teacher with a very small group, we spend over $1,000 out of pocket each school year for supplies, classroom equipment, and snacks for kids.

Did the Republican tax bill end up excluding those expenses as an allowable deduction for teachers?

Yes but the tax bill also increased the standard deduction, child tax credit and created a $500 per person deduction for families without children. So a couple filing jointly will get a $24,000 standard deduction plus either a $2,000 deduction per child or a $500 per person deduction. One intent of the bill seems to be to make taking the standard deduction the best option for a large majority of the filers.
https://taxfoundation.org/conference-report-tax-cuts-and-jobs-act/

It's also set up to phase out those tax breaks for non corporations, while removing itemization. Overall it's a massive loss for anyone who isn't a major business owner (like Trump, weird right?)

It's a big improvement for me. $24k is a bigger deduction than we ever got from itemizing and with our kids added in we're getting a $30k deduction next year which will be the largest deduction we've ever had. The bulk of our itemized deductions were always mortgage interest and property taxes but those were never close to $24k. I suppose if we had a really expensive house and a much greater property tax rate the tax changes wouldn't benefit us but our family is unlikely to ever be in that situation.

And again, all of that is set to phase out/expire over the next 10 years. It might be good for you now, but a few years from now and it'll be much much worse.

Well sure but that contingent on the next two presidential administrations and five sessions of Congress to not implement any new tax plans or changes. I don't think that's particularly likely.

Plus it *really* feths over those of us who live in high-tax states and aren't rich. But I'm sure that extra like $1500 or something that the US government can tax from my minimum wage job is really going to help the economy and fix the massive holes in our budget caused by cutting taxes on the wealthy. Oh wait, most economic growth is caused by people spending money not hording it, and the poorer you are the greater percentage of your money you spend. Well how about that...

Rosebuddy wrote:

 sebster wrote:


Fair point, I guess my explanation wasn't as tight as it should have been. The act of selecting all policy options from within the range of moderate left to moderate right is underpinned by an assumption that that's the only place where correct policies can be found. Which is a kind of ideology.

Instead of saying 'not based on ideology' I should have said something along the lines of 'instead of specific left wing or right ideology, instead there is an (often unstated, subconscious) ideology that the correct answer lies at some point between the moderate opinions of the left and right.

Which is a vapid approach to politics.

First of all, socialism and fascism are objectively opposite ideologies with entirely incompatible world views. I don't mean that they just couldn't possible agree with what things should be like, I mean that they can't possibly agree with what things are like. Their understandings of what society is and how it works are incompatible. Attempting to triangulate something that is inbetween them is... a strange endevaour to say the least. What's the mid point between wanting the weak to die and holding every human to have a worth without needing to justify their existence? What is the "moderate" versions of those positions? That the weak shouldn't maybe die, exactly, but that they don't deserve the same freedom as the strong? That people might not have an innate worth, exactly, but that there's a cap on how cruelly you're allowed to treat them? And what's the midpoint between those?


This centrism contains nothing. It's the weakest possible ideology because it doesn't actually believe in anything. All they do is nervously follow Data and Trends. That's why Clinton failed. That's why the Democratic Party is in freefall. That's why the Republican Party has been able to bully them for decades and that's why they're so threatened by an actual left attempting to form. They have no beliefs and no desires other than to be paper pushers. Their ability to win votes by pointing at the Republicans and scream about how much worse they are hinges on their ability to quash any alternatives, and that is going to only get harder and harder from here on out.

How do you figure that socialism and fascism are wholly diametrically opposed ideologies? Most of Europe and the US have forms of government and economies that include both fascist and socialist attributes. Socialism is an economic model where the State controls a larger share of manners of production than a free market wherein the State uses those resources to exert social and demographic control over the population. Fascism is an economic system in which the State apparatus has grown to such a size that it can dictate market outcomes through regulation and influence and allow the elites/oligarchs/1%ers/etc. who benefitted under capitalism to collude with the State to maintain their status and market control.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Plus it *really* feths over those of us who live in high-tax states and aren't rich. But I'm sure that extra like $1500 or something that the US government can tax from my minimum wage job is really going to help the economy and fix the massive holes in our budget caused by cutting taxes on the wealthy. Oh wait, most economic growth is caused by people spending money not hording it, and the poorer you are the greater percentage of your money you spend. Well how about that...

Shh. . . . we can't go burstin' the trickle-downers bubbles here.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Plus it *really* feths over those of us who live in high-tax states and aren't rich. But I'm sure that extra like $1500 or something that the US government can tax from my minimum wage job is really going to help the economy and fix the massive holes in our budget caused by cutting taxes on the wealthy. Oh wait, most economic growth is caused by people spending money not hording it, and the poorer you are the greater percentage of your money you spend. Well how about that...

If you're single and working a minimum wage job how are you claiming over $12,000 in itemized deductions? Back when I was working minimum wage I took the standard deduction because I didn't own property so I had no mortgage interest or property tax to deduct, I wasn't making a lot of charitable donations because I didn't have a lot of money to give, and my minimum wage job wasn't forcing me to spend business expenses. With a $12k standard deduction single filers working minimum wage jobs should be paying less Federal income tax not more.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Wolfblade wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Wolfblade wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 sebster wrote:



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
Even as a non-teacher with a very small group, we spend over $1,000 out of pocket each school year for supplies, classroom equipment, and snacks for kids.

Did the Republican tax bill end up excluding those expenses as an allowable deduction for teachers?

Yes but the tax bill also increased the standard deduction, child tax credit and created a $500 per person deduction for families without children. So a couple filing jointly will get a $24,000 standard deduction plus either a $2,000 deduction per child or a $500 per person deduction. One intent of the bill seems to be to make taking the standard deduction the best option for a large majority of the filers.
https://taxfoundation.org/conference-report-tax-cuts-and-jobs-act/

It's also set up to phase out those tax breaks for non corporations, while removing itemization. Overall it's a massive loss for anyone who isn't a major business owner (like Trump, weird right?)

It's a big improvement for me. $24k is a bigger deduction than we ever got from itemizing and with our kids added in we're getting a $30k deduction next year which will be the largest deduction we've ever had. The bulk of our itemized deductions were always mortgage interest and property taxes but those were never close to $24k. I suppose if we had a really expensive house and a much greater property tax rate the tax changes wouldn't benefit us but our family is unlikely to ever be in that situation.

And again, all of that is set to phase out/expire over the next 10 years. It might be good for you now, but a few years from now and it'll be much much worse.

Well sure but that contingent on the next two presidential administrations and five sessions of Congress to not implement any new tax plans or changes. I don't think that's particularly likely.

The last time they massively changed the tax system was 31 years ago.

Prestor Jon wrote:

Rosebuddy wrote:

 sebster wrote:


Fair point, I guess my explanation wasn't as tight as it should have been. The act of selecting all policy options from within the range of moderate left to moderate right is underpinned by an assumption that that's the only place where correct policies can be found. Which is a kind of ideology.

Instead of saying 'not based on ideology' I should have said something along the lines of 'instead of specific left wing or right ideology, instead there is an (often unstated, subconscious) ideology that the correct answer lies at some point between the moderate opinions of the left and right.

Which is a vapid approach to politics.

First of all, socialism and fascism are objectively opposite ideologies with entirely incompatible world views. I don't mean that they just couldn't possible agree with what things should be like, I mean that they can't possibly agree with what things are like. Their understandings of what society is and how it works are incompatible. Attempting to triangulate something that is inbetween them is... a strange endevaour to say the least. What's the mid point between wanting the weak to die and holding every human to have a worth without needing to justify their existence? What is the "moderate" versions of those positions? That the weak shouldn't maybe die, exactly, but that they don't deserve the same freedom as the strong? That people might not have an innate worth, exactly, but that there's a cap on how cruelly you're allowed to treat them? And what's the midpoint between those?


This centrism contains nothing. It's the weakest possible ideology because it doesn't actually believe in anything. All they do is nervously follow Data and Trends. That's why Clinton failed. That's why the Democratic Party is in freefall. That's why the Republican Party has been able to bully them for decades and that's why they're so threatened by an actual left attempting to form. They have no beliefs and no desires other than to be paper pushers. Their ability to win votes by pointing at the Republicans and scream about how much worse they are hinges on their ability to quash any alternatives, and that is going to only get harder and harder from here on out.

How do you figure that socialism and fascism are wholly diametrically opposed ideologies? Most of Europe and the US have forms of government and economies that include both fascist and socialist attributes. Socialism is an economic model where the State controls a larger share of manners of production than a free market wherein the State uses those resources to exert social and demographic control over the population. Fascism is an economic system in which the State apparatus has grown to such a size that it can dictate market outcomes through regulation and influence and allow the elites/oligarchs/1%ers/etc. who benefitted under capitalism to collude with the State to maintain their status and market control.

How did you even get to that idea of fascism as an economic system? Fascism is a political ideology in which economy is subservient to nationalism. Exploitation of the national population is not in the interest of fascism because it wants its own nationality/population to live as well as possible, with social welfare schemes (this is partly where the ridiculous notions come from that.. uhm.. certain 'extreme' parts of fascism were actually socialist if you catch my drift), not protect the 1% at all cost. Fascism as an ideology is actually opposed to capitalism because it breeds weakness. What a fascist economy wants is autarky, which if anything is not in the interest of the 1% in the US. If anything the American 1%is the type of rich people fascism absolutely loathed even though they had to put up with such people.

What your describing has been around far longer than fascism. What fascist attributes do we have?

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Plus it *really* feths over those of us who live in high-tax states and aren't rich. But I'm sure that extra like $1500 or something that the US government can tax from my minimum wage job is really going to help the economy and fix the massive holes in our budget caused by cutting taxes on the wealthy. Oh wait, most economic growth is caused by people spending money not hording it, and the poorer you are the greater percentage of your money you spend. Well how about that...

If you're single and working a minimum wage job how are you claiming over $12,000 in itemized deductions? Back when I was working minimum wage I took the standard deduction because I didn't own property so I had no mortgage interest or property tax to deduct, I wasn't making a lot of charitable donations because I didn't have a lot of money to give, and my minimum wage job wasn't forcing me to spend business expenses. With a $12k standard deduction single filers working minimum wage jobs should be paying less Federal income tax not more.

As I still live with my parents while I'm going to college, my taxes are filed with them (I don't make enough to have to do it indipendanty). Or my father doesn't know what he's doing, that could very well be the case.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Wolfblade wrote:

 feeder wrote:
Speaking of which, how common is this Survivor: White House scenario that has been playing out? More than 50% of the staff that started this admin are now gone. Is this unprecedented (unpresidented? )

Pretty sure it's the highest turnover rate for the WH, and probably has more people kicked out than the last 20 presidents combined at least. (But it's ok, Trump only hires the BEST right?)

Trump just thinks he's on the Apprentice: White House Edition. Its not good tv if nobody gets kicked to the curb on a weekly basis.

To be fair, can most of those positions left unfulfilled actually be worse than the people he puts in? Some of them are just incredible

Trump has unquestionably proven himself the best reality TV star in human history by an immense margin. I say this non-jokingly. He has turned the Presidency of the United States into reality TV for all intents and purposes. It's been really fun to watch.

Yeah that certainly isn't a joke! Although fun wouldn't be the word I'd pick. More horrified, but unable to look away.

Tell me this isn't fun to watch. Because that is best metaphor I have for what the US has done.

Hey now, that's funny because nobody else got hurt
Not when a single person gets to drag 300-1000 million of its own citizens and allies with it