Has U.S. Democracy Been Trumped?

[Winstonm]

“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the convinced Communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction and the distinction between true and false no longer exist.” — Hannah Arendt, “The Origins of Totalitarianism”

 

The Justice Department is reviving an inquiry into former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the government’s controversial approval of the Uranium One deal, NBC News reported on Thursday.

 

A now-dormant FBI investigation into whether Clinton had ties to the deal has not found evidence of wrongdoing. But NBC, citing “multiple law enforcement officials,” reported that Attorney General Jeff Sessions has in recent weeks directed Justice Department prosecutors to ask FBI agents to explain evidence uncovered in the probe

Donald Trump Jr. on Tuesday said the federal criminal investigation into his father’s presidential campaign is an example of a “rigged system” with top government officials conspiring to take down the president.

 

“There is, and there are, people at the highest levels of government that don’t want to let America be America,” Trump Jr. said at the Turning Point USA Student Action Summit, a meeting of young conservatives, in West Palm Beach, Florida

[RedSpawn]

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/12/20/tax-reform-reaction-att-is-giving-bonuses-to-200000-employees.html

 

AT&T, Comcast giving $1,000 bonuses to hundreds of thousands of workers after tax bill

• AT&T is paying bonuses of $1,000 to more than 200,000 U.S. employees.
  
• AT&T's CEO said it was in response to tax reform.
  
• The House of Representatives on Wednesday sent tax reform legislation to President Donald Trump, who is expected to sign it soon.
  

So let me get the logic correct, because we, the citizens of the United States provided corporate socialism in the form of unnecessary tax breaks to corporations who already have a cash-flush balance sheet, they are now going to compensate their employees appropriately?

 

U.S. Taxpayers are essentially paying merit increases and bonuses for employees of certain companies because these companies didn't want to use their own money to compensate their employees for a job well done. That's what John Q. Taxpayer is for.

 

We are well beyond the "moral hazard" zone. We are allowing corporations to play hardball politics to control Congress' purse strings.

 

And this is what we call winning?

 

Just wow!

 

http://www.ips-dc.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/thanksgiving-on-wall-street.jpg

[ldrews]

 

U.S. Taxpayers are essentially paying merit increases and bonuses for employees of certain companies because these companies didn't want to use their own money to compensate their employees for a job well done. That's what John Q. Taxpayer is for.

 

 

Let me understand. You think that because corporations get to keep more of their profits instead of paying it in taxes, that the US Taxpayers are paying for the bonuses? What makes you think that the corporations' tax savings belong to the US Taxpayers?

 

Then you must also think that any reduction in taxes for families comes at the expense of the US Taxpayers. Families don't own their earnings, US Taxpayers do and families receive money only through the largesse of the US Taxpayer. Is that right?

[jjbrr]

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/12/20/tax-reform-reaction-att-is-giving-bonuses-to-200000-employees.html

 

 

So let me get the logic correct, because we, the citizens of the United States provided corporate socialism in the form of unnecessary tax breaks to corporations who already have a cash-flush balance sheet, they are now going to compensate their employees appropriately?

 

U.S. Taxpayers are essentially paying merit increases and bonuses for employees of certain companies because these companies didn't want to use their own money to compensate their employees for a job well done. That's what John Q. Taxpayer is for.

 

We are well beyond the "moral hazard" zone. We are allowing corporations to play hardball politics to control Congress' purse strings.

 

And this is what we call winning?

 

Just wow!

 

KANSAS CITY, Mo. -- AT&T has announced layoff’s affecting people in five states, including Missouri.

 

Just days before Christmas, hundreds of people in the metro found out they will be out of jobs come Jan. 4.

 

On Dec. 16, the company announced a surplus affecting an estimated 600 employees in Illinois, Wisconsin, Missouri, Michigan, Indiana and Ohio. The workers affected are both indoor and outdoor technicians.

here

[jjbrr]

Let me understand. You think that because corporations get to keep more of their profits instead of paying it in taxes, that the US Taxpayers are paying for the bonuses? What makes you think that the corporations' tax savings belong to the US Taxpayers?

 

Then you must also think that any reduction in taxes for families comes at the expense of the US Taxpayers. Families don't own their earnings, US Taxpayers do and families receive money only through the largesse of the US Taxpayer. Is that right?

 

What are you blithering about?

[hrothgar]

Let me understand. You think that because corporations get to keep more of their profits instead of paying it in taxes, that the US Taxpayers are paying for the bonuses? What makes you think that the corporations' tax savings belong to the US Taxpayers?

 

Then you must also think that any reduction in taxes for families comes at the expense of the US Taxpayers. Families don't own their earnings, US Taxpayers do and families receive money only through the largesse of the US Taxpayer. Is that right?

 

You're both idiots

 

That $1,000 bonus that Comcast paid?

The one that Trump and co are crowing about?

 

It's part of the union contract.

it has absolutely nothing to with the tax changes.

 

You're both too busy stroking yourselves over your own specific idiotic conspiracy theories that you didn't bother looking the actual facts.

 

Sadly, its par for the course for both of you...

[RedSpawn]

Let me understand. You think that because corporations get to keep more of their profits instead of paying it in taxes, that the US Taxpayers are paying for the bonuses? What makes you think that the corporations' tax savings belong to the US Taxpayers?

 

Then you must also think that any reduction in taxes for families comes at the expense of the US Taxpayers. Families don't own their earnings, US Taxpayers do and families receive money only through the largesse of the US Taxpayer. Is that right?

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/12/21/congress-close-passing-short-term-funding-bill-avert-shutdown-provide-temporary-funding-childrens/973351001/

 

House votes to avert shutdown, provide money for children's health insurance

MICHAEL COLLINS | USA TODAY

 

The collateral damage from Congress’ struggle to repeal the Affordable Care Act could include a program that covers over 8 million low-income children. States are running out of money to fund the Children’s Health Insurance Program. (Dec. 1)

 

AP WASHINGTON – Congress is yet again putting off a government shutdown — with a short-term funding measure through mid-January — and temporarily extending funding for health insurance for children of low-income families.

 

The House voted 231-188 Thursday to approve a short-term spending bill that would fund most government programs at current levels through Jan. 19.

 

Congress is close to passing a short-term funding bill to keep the government open through mid-January.

What I am saying is that based on our current public debt of $20 trillion which was just $5.5 trillion in 2000 (LESS THAN A GENERATION AGO), we did not need to give $1.5 trillion dollars to rich, cash-flush corporations. . . .

 

ESPECIALLY WHEN THERE IS A LOOMING GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN because we:

(1) Have no financial discipline;

(2) Refuse to EVER balance our federal budget on an annual basis;

(3) Refuse to make any REAL budget cuts in any federal agencies because we have to protect all of the federal fiefdoms and federal headcounts; and

(4) Want to wallpaper the world with our Treasury Notes and Treasury Securities so we can continue to justify this seemingly endless carousel of irrationally exuberant deficit spending.

 

IT'S INSANE AND UNCONSCIONABLE!

 

How do we give away $1.5 trillion to well-to-do, faceless corporations when we can't even balance the DAMN FEDERAL BUDGET EVER and have almost quadrupled our federal debt in less than a generation? What the hell?

 

Walk me through this logic because my arithmetic says we are selling out our children's future to keep some whiny, politically connected legal fictions happy.

[Winstonm]

NYT:

 

....The Republican Party is no longer just obfuscating the truth or defending the president when he is accused of wrongdoing. Rather, Mr. Trump, Fox News and Republicans in Congress seem to be actively using falsehoods to prepare an assault on the institutions that allow American democracy to function.

 

In all democracies, politicians occasionally lie to cover up scandals or exaggerate their legislative accomplishments. In the United States, the rise of the right-wing news media in recent decades has tempted politicians to play to their own supporters without worrying whether their rhetoric is inflammatory or fair. But the construction of an alternate reality that obviates the very possibility of conducting politics on the basis of truth is a novelty in this country. And it is increasingly becoming obvious that it will serve a clear purpose: to prepare the ground for egregious violations of basic democratic norms.

[Zelandakh]

Trump finally says something true...about his $15m tax cut bill.

[RedSpawn]

You're both idiots

 

That $1,000 bonus that Comcast paid?

The one that Trump and co are crowing about?

 

It's part of the union contract.

it has absolutely nothing to with the tax changes.

 

You're both too busy stroking yourselves over your own specific idiotic conspiracy theories that you didn't bother looking the actual facts.

 

Sadly, its par for the course for both of you...

Nice for you to call me idiot. You would need to run to an ad hominem attack when your ammunition is running low.

 

Please explain AT&T's position on the bonuses to their employees and its issuance relative to Trump's tax cut. You attack Comcast but leave AT&T out of the discussion. Is there a reason that you left AT&T's public messaging about the EXTRA bonus to their employees relative to the Trump tax cut?

 

Ummm, I want you to review how our public debt has gone from $5.5 trillion in 2000 to $11 trillion in 2008 to $20 trillion in 2017.

 

We have almost quadrupled our federal debt in less than a generation and can't even balance a federal budget annually and have potential government shutdowns because we refuse to balance the budget.

 

We give away $1.5 trillion in tax cuts to cash flush corporations and act like it is some kind of necessity that has to be passed before Christmas but we can't get other REAL pressing issues passed with the same sense of urgency.

 

There is no conspiracy theory, sir. You are sipping the government propaganda and Kool-Aid.

 

No reasonable government would quadruple its debt in less than a generation, fail to balance its federal budget annually during that same time, have looming government shutdowns about the budget almost annually, and give away sweetheart trillion dollar tax cut deals to corporations and then then marvel at its greatness.

 

BOTTOM LINE: This country has no financial discipline and thinks it can deficit spend it way to wealth and prosperity with no dire repercussions. All we do is create asset bubbles approximately every 7-8 years with the false disguise of wealth creation. The way this $1.5 trillion tax cut was ramrodded through Congress (especially before Christmas) is laughable.

 

Corporate America can get politicians to work on their behalf this close to Christmas but not John Q. Taxpayer. If this bill was about the American people, Congress would have delayed the bill to after January and they would have taken flights to their respective home states for the holidays.

 

The graffiti is all on the wall on this one. And notice I didn't name call you in my discussion because I respect the fact that we can agree to disagree without devaluing our humanity.

 

Happy Holidays!

[andrei]

You're both idiots

 

.....

 

You're both too busy stroking yourselves over your own specific idiotic conspiracy theories that you didn't bother looking the actual facts.

 

They have good company ...

 

And, from what I am hearing the Kushner indictments are going out today

 

(Some chance still that it will be next week, but today is quite probable)

[RedSpawn]

They have good company ...

None of the 'idiot' hecklers have rationalized mathematically a $1.5 trillion giveaway to Corporate America when all indicators show Corporate America is NOT hemorrhaging at all and doesn't need instant relief before Christmas.

 

I don't play Blue/Red talking points. That's too easy and rarely involves any research. I play math.

 

We have extremely low interest rates courtesy of our Federal Reserve Bank and enough quantitative easing to ensure robust liquidity in the capital markets. Corporate America didn't need the tax cut on top of the other interventionist strategies at play. That was icing on top of a cake they already had and owned outright.

 

Hrothgar, answer the AT&T question and present some evidence that Corporate America needed this tax relief when we all know the Average tax rates corporations pay is already lower.

 

https://americansfortaxfairness.org/tax-fairness-briefing-booklet/fact-sheet-corporate-tax-rates/

 

Please review this website and list which bullet points are patently false? Thanks

[awm]

None of the 'idiot' hecklers have rationalized mathematically a $1.5 trillion giveaway to Corporate America when all indicators show Corporate America is NOT hemorrhaging at all and doesn't need instant relief before Christmas.

 

I don't play Blue/Red talking points. That's too easy and rarely involves any research. I play math.

 

We have extremely low interest rates courtesy of our Federal Reserve Bank and enough quantitative easing to ensure robust liquidity in the capital markets. Corporate America didn't need the tax cut on top of the other interventionist strategies at play. That was icing on top of a cake they already had and owned outright.

 

Hrothgar, answer the AT&T question and present some evidence that Corporate America needed this tax relief when we all know the Average tax rates corporations pay is already lower.

 

https://americansfortaxfairness.org/tax-fairness-briefing-booklet/fact-sheet-corporate-tax-rates/

 

Please review this website and list which bullet points are patently false? Thanks

 

This website is a very biased left-wing source. Such sources usually do not resort to outright falsehoods (unlike right-wing sources; I think the difference is that liberals are more likely to investigate claims) but they still do a lot of cherry-picking of facts. To address some of the main points:

 

"Corporate share of federal tax revenue has dropped by two-thirds in 60 years" -- while this is literally true, a lot of it is due to changes in the individual tax code. Many businesses now report income as pass-throughs on their owners' tax forms. In the 1960s, the top individual rate was super-high (75%-90% I think) so there would be no incentive to report income in this way. This change in reporting makes it appear that a higher share of federal tax revenue is from individuals (some of whom own businesses) and a lower percentage is from corporations.

 

"General Electric, Boeing, Verizon and 23 other profitable Fortune 500 firms paid no federal income taxes from 2008 to 2012" -- again, this is literally true. But note the cherry-picking of dates. A lot of companies had enormous losses in 2007-2008 because of the economic crash. They were able to amortize these losses against their profits in subsequent years, so effectively they were still "writing off the 2007-2008 loss" up to five years later. It's common for companies (especially small companies, but even big ones) to have good and bad years and the ability to amortize losses against gains is critical to the tax code.

 

"Profitable corporations paid U.S. income taxes amounting to just 12.6% of worldwide income in 2010." -- why would you expect more? International companies have to pay taxes to non-US countries too. If half of profits are earned overseas, you'd expect approximately half of taxes to be paid overseas, and the US income tax rate would look like half what it would be if all the taxes were paid to the US. If we directly taxed companies on their worldwide profits (or even worse, income) then no company could operate internationally because of the duplicate taxation.

 

"Twenty-two of the 30 profitable Fortune 500 companies that paid the highest tax rates (30% or more) from 2008 to 2010 created almost 200,000 jobs between 2008 and 2012" -- what does this even mean? What did the other 8 companies do? Maybe they cut enough jobs to zero out the whole thing? This just seems like obvious cherry-picking.

[RedSpawn]

This website is a very biased left-wing source. Such sources usually do not resort to outright falsehoods (unlike right-wing sources; I think the difference is that liberals are more likely to investigate claims) but they still do a lot of cherry-picking of facts. To address some of the main points:

 

"Corporate share of federal tax revenue has dropped by two-thirds in 60 years" -- while this is literally true, a lot of it is due to changes in the individual tax code. Many businesses now report income as pass-throughs on their owners' tax forms. In the 1960s, the top individual rate was super-high (75%-90% I think) so there would be no incentive to report income in this way. This change in reporting makes it appear that a higher share of federal tax revenue is from individuals (some of whom own businesses) and a lower percentage is from corporations.

 

"General Electric, Boeing, Verizon and 23 other profitable Fortune 500 firms paid no federal income taxes from 2008 to 2012" -- again, this is literally true. But note the cherry-picking of dates. A lot of companies had enormous losses in 2007-2008 because of the economic crash. They were able to amortize these losses against their profits in subsequent years, so effectively they were still "writing off the 2007-2008 loss" up to five years later. It's common for companies (especially small companies, but even big ones) to have good and bad years and the ability to amortize losses against gains is critical to the tax code.

 

"Profitable corporations paid U.S. income taxes amounting to just 12.6% of worldwide income in 2010." -- why would you expect more? International companies have to pay taxes to non-US countries too. If half of profits are earned overseas, you'd expect approximately half of taxes to be paid overseas, and the US income tax rate would look like half what it would be if all the taxes were paid to the US. If we directly taxed companies on their worldwide profits (or even worse, income) then no company could operate internationally because of the duplicate taxation.

 

"Twenty-two of the 30 profitable Fortune 500 companies that paid the highest tax rates (30% or more) from 2008 to 2010 created almost 200,000 jobs between 2008 and 2012" -- what does this even mean? What did the other 8 companies do? Maybe they cut enough jobs to zero out the whole thing? This just seems like obvious cherry-picking.

Thank you for your responses. They are fair and I see your point.

 

Companies who have tax losses are said to have Deferred Tax Assets in their loss years and they can offset their taxes on the profitable years using this Deferred Tax Asset.

 

I still haven't seen the case made that Corporate America needed a $1.5 trillion tax cut to be competitive in the global economy. Do you have any suggested websites that presents the case that this was a necessary tax cut for Corporate America? Please provide.

 

WE HAVE ALREADY PLAYED WITH THE ECONOMIC LEVERS WITH VERY LOW INTEREST RATES AND QUANTITATIVE EASING. That has already helped plenty of corporations to buy back their stock, prop up their stock price, and engineer their way to an impressive cash flow statement through investment and financing activites. A lot of corporations are generating handsome profits on investment activities alone since the cost of capital is artificially cheap and the DJIA has been bullish during the Obama and Trump presidencies.

 

So, I am still waiting to hear the case that Corporate America needed this $1.5 trillion tax cut BEFORE Christmas and before we can balance the 2018 budget and with $20+ trillion in federal public debt.

[hrothgar]

 

Hrothgar, answer the AT&T question and present some evidence that Corporate America needed this tax relief when we all know the Average tax rates corporations pay is already lower.

 

 

I'm sorry. You seem to have confused me with someone who cares about your thoughts and opinions.

 

I don't.

 

Nor do I feel any requirement to engage with you on an intellectual level or pay attention to any of your claims.

 

You aren't worth the ink necessary to write a reply...

 

regards,

 

Hrothgar

[barmar]

I still haven't seen the case made that Corporate America needed a $1.5 trillion tax cut to be competitive in the global economy. Do you have any suggested websites that presents the case that this was a necessary tax cut for Corporate America? Please provide.

It clearly wasn't. The "evidence" is a small number of multinational corporations, like Apple, who have off-shored some of their international revenue for tax reasons.

 

Because these companies are household names their activities made the news, and it's easy for them to be used as examples. The public doesn't realize that they're really just outliers, not the norm.

 

And remember, they were just using this mechanism to shelter their international revenue. Lowering US taxes isn't going to make them reduce their international business. If they bring the money back to the US because of the lower tax rate, it doesn't mean there will be more jobs in the US. Apple still wants to sell lots of iPhones in Europe. They're not going to sell more US iPhones as a result of this. And either way, it will still be factories in China putting the phones together.

 

It's all a sham.

[awm]

So, I am still waiting to hear the case that Corporate America needed this $1.5 trillion tax cut BEFORE Christmas and before we can balance the 2018 budget and with $20+ trillion in federal public debt.

 

There is a reason that this bill was passed relatively quickly, without any hearings, and with a number of Congresspeople saying that they didn't have time to read the bill (even as they voted for it). Many of the details are inexcusable!

 

There is significant support among economists for lowering the corporate tax rate, but they normally want to do it in a revenue-neutral way. The issue isn't that US corporations pay "too much tax" on average (the average rate was one of the few indisputable things about the left wing source you posted earlier). The issue is that the current system favors large multi-nationals which can spend a lot on tax attorneys and allocate profits to off-shore divisions in Ireland (or other tax havens), while disadvantaging smaller companies that end up paying close to the high statutory rate. By eliminating deductions (making the tax attorneys less useful) and lowering the rate (making off-shoring less useful and helping out the small domestic firms), we can level the playing field and reduce the "wasted" resources spent on tax optimization. Here's an article about the cost of tax avoidance and an article suggesting eliminating the corporate tax altogether.

 

Summary: the idea of lowering the corporate rate makes sense and has some support from economists. However, economists want this to be done in a revenue-neutral way (by eliminating deductions). By doing one without the other (and adding this ridiculously easy-to-game "pass through business tax cut") Republicans basically turned a reasonable idea into a huge giveaway to rich "business owners" like Trump.

[Zelandakh]

It clearly wasn't. The "evidence" is a small number of multinational corporations, like Apple, who have off-shored some of their international revenue for tax reasons.

 

Because these companies are household names their activities made the news, and it's easy for them to be used as examples. The public doesn't realize that they're really just outliers, not the norm.

It is not only household names of course. My company recently got taken over, more or less, by an American PE company. Their company structure is eye-opening, consisting of around 20 levels directed through such places as the Cayman Islands. Perhaps they do that only because of the specific skill set of the Cayman Island workforce; on the other hand...

 

The truth is that it probably is sensible for the American tax system to remove all of the tax loopholes and instead use a lower basic rate of corporation tax. It would simplify the system and make it easier for start-ups, which are the lifeblood of an economy. The problem here is that it seems the bill reduces the rate without clawing back the exceptions, meaning that the tax rake is significantly reduced for little benefit. Well, little benefit to ordinary Americans - for DT and his family the benefits are absolutely massive!

[y66]

From The Republican Grovelling at the White House Was an Alarm Call for 2018 by John Cassidy at the New Yorker:

 

A lot of unusual and disturbing things have happened in Washington this year. Yet for sheer bizarreness, it’s hard to think of anything that matched the scene on Wednesday afternoon on the South Lawn of the White House, where Republican leaders, celebrating the passage of their terrible tax bill, lavished praise on Donald Trump in the manner of Communist functionaries addressing Mao or Stalin.

 

“This has been a year of extraordinary accomplishment for the Trump Administration,” Mitch McConnell, the Senate Majority Leader, said. “Thank you, Mr. President, for all you are doing.” Paul Ryan, the House Speaker, added that passing the tax bill “could not have been done without exquisite Presidential leadership.” Senator Orrin Hatch, of Utah, spoke directly to Trump, saying, “You are one heckuva leader, and we’re all benefitting from it.” And Congresswoman Diane Black, of Tennessee, put it even more bluntly. “Thank you, President Trump, for allowing us to have you as our President,” she said.

 

It is well known that Trump, his ego as fragile as an eggshell, demands constant flattery. But this was cravenness of a level rare even for Washington. Perhaps the Republican senators and representatives were taking their cue from Mike Pence. At an end-of-year Cabinet meeting that was held shortly before the celebration on the South Lawn, the Vice-President praised his boss fourteen times in three minutes—once every 12.5 seconds, the Washington Post’s Aaron Blake pointed out—and after Pence had finished his obsequious speech, other Cabinet members chimed in with their own gushing tributes.

 

I’d wager that many Democrats, independents, and Never Trump Republicans felt queasy after watching, or reading about, these events. I hope, though, that the sight of the G.O.P. celebrating its first big legislative success of the Trump era in such a degrading fashion will also remind everybody who opposes Trump and the Republicans about what’s at stake going into the critical election year of 2018. It’s the same thing that’s been at stake since November 6, 2016: the future of democracy in this country.

No pressure.

[RedSpawn]

I'm sorry. You seem to have confused me with someone who cares about your thoughts and opinions.

 

I don't.

 

Nor do I feel any requirement to engage with you on an intellectual level or pay attention to any of your claims.

 

You aren't worth the ink necessary to write a reply...

 

regards,

 

Hrothgar

Actually,

 

I assumed you were a person who enjoyed discussion of arguments based on intellectual merit.

 

I assumed you were a person who was above throwing poisoned "ad hominem" air darts at others when out of ammunition.

 

I assumed you were a person who would at least provide supporting evidence of your viewpoint when challenged.

 

I was wrong on all counts.

 

I stand corrected. Thank you for showing me who you are.

 

Wishing You Happy Holidays!

[RedSpawn]

There is a reason that this bill was passed relatively quickly, without any hearings, and with a number of Congresspeople saying that they didn't have time to read the bill (even as they voted for it). Many of the details are inexcusable!

 

There is significant support among economists for lowering the corporate tax rate, but they normally want to do it in a revenue-neutral way. The issue isn't that US corporations pay "too much tax" on average (the average rate was one of the few indisputable things about the left wing source you posted earlier). The issue is that the current system favors large multi-nationals which can spend a lot on tax attorneys and allocate profits to off-shore divisions in Ireland (or other tax havens), while disadvantaging smaller companies that end up paying close to the high statutory rate. By eliminating deductions (making the tax attorneys less useful) and lowering the rate (making off-shoring less useful and helping out the small domestic firms), we can level the playing field and reduce the "wasted" resources spent on tax optimization. Here's an article about the cost of tax avoidance and an article suggesting eliminating the corporate tax altogether.

 

Summary: the idea of lowering the corporate rate makes sense and has some support from economists. However, economists want this to be done in a revenue-neutral way (by eliminating deductions). By doing one without the other (and adding this ridiculously easy-to-game "pass through business tax cut") Republicans basically turned a reasonable idea into a huge giveaway to rich "business owners" like Trump.

AWM,

 

Congress passed this bill around Christmas to reduce the backlash and political fallout and the need for a healthy discussion about this.

 

Most of America is traveling across the country or finalizing Christmas shopping and don't have time to trifle with the machinations of Washington D.C.

 

This bill was ramrodded around Christmas and the timing of doing this was not coincidental. Our politicians are not that dimwitted.

[hrothgar]

 

I assumed you were a person who enjoyed discussion of arguments based on intellectual merit.

 

I assumed you were a person who was above throwing poisoned "ad hominem" air darts at others when out of ammunition.

 

I assumed you were a person who would at least provide supporting evidence of your viewpoint when challenged.

 

 

I do, but not with you.

[RedSpawn]

here

True,

 

So we are talking about 600 AT&T union people losing jobs out a total population of 256,000 AT&T employees, and 200,000 of that is union, correct?

 

That's a loss of 0.3% of the AT&T union workforce.

 

Is that material given AT&T's employee turnover rate?

 

Source: https://www.att.com/Common/about_us/pdf/att_btn.pdf

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/12/20/tax-reform-reaction-att-is-giving-bonuses-to-200000-employees.html

[RedSpawn]

I do, but not with you.

I recognize the humanity in you and have treated you with more dignity and respect than you have afforded me.

 

That's because I have learned that we can disagree without being disagreeable.

 

We don't have to have a race to the bottom and begin tearing each other down because we don't share the same beliefs or arguments or viewpoints or life experiences.

 

We are both better than that, and you know it.

 

Issues that are personally important usually produce an emotional response. Once we become emotional about an issue, we tend towards behaviors that escalate the conflict rather than resolve it. We attack the other person's character or intelligence. We dismiss their perspective as irrational or stupid. In short, we make it about their personhood. We become disagreeable.

Source: https://recoveringengineer.com/resolving-conflict/learn-to-disagree-without-being-disagreeable/

 

I think this is what occurred when you resorted to the "idiot" ad hominem attack.

[jjbrr]

True,

 

So we are talking about 600 AT&T union people losing jobs out a total population of 256,000 AT&T employees, and 200,000 of that is union, correct?

 

That's a loss of 0.3% of the AT&T union workforce.

 

Is that material given AT&T's employee turnover rate?

 

Source: https://www.att.com/Common/about_us/pdf/att_btn.pdf

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/12/20/tax-reform-reaction-att-is-giving-bonuses-to-200000-employees.html

 

Of course it's not material. I'm often just here to rustle jimmies.