leh-nerd skin-erd

I watched the clip, and thought he did a decent job outlining the challenges. I'm not sure what's particularly powerful about it, or what's particularly nuanced here.

Good perspective, the door knocking part, but that's not the way the law in civilized society works. There's all sorts of people telling all sorts of other people what to do. Tax law. Gun ownership. DMV. Payroll tax. Work comp insurance requirements. Building permits. Variances. Environmental rules. Parking laws. In fact, yesterday, Ohio voters decided abortion into the 6th month was a constitutional right, with additional rights to terminate a pregnancy through the duration of the pregnancy if there is a threat to the life or health of the person carrying the child. The flip side of that argument, of course, is that, assuming no threat to the life/health of the pregnant person, and beyond the early part of the 6th month--the right to choose is taken off the table and the path decided has been decided on the behalf of the pregnant person. That's some straight up door knocking. My assumption, too, is that in the case of a full term pregnancy and childbirth, there are guidelines dictating responsibilities of the sperm merchant involved, when in fact, that person might not want anything to do with the child or formerly pregnant person, especially financially. Yet, doors get knock on, people get told how they need to live and what they need to do, like it or not. You may believe abortion to the point of conception is fair game if you're not involved in the decision, or maybe especially when you're involved in the decision. Maybe you don't. We share our thoughts by casting our votes.

I see. Makes me wonder about all that poverty, violence and being budget deficits, $34b light on obligations to pensioners, challenges with infrastructure management, but I guess if you don’t include all thay and focus on the wealthy, everything is rosy. The high class folk did ok on the Titanic too, what with lifeboats and such.

Different argument and Tibs has already hijacked the thread.

Remember that Rasputin was a man of science and decorum of the day. The science was mysticism, of course, but still.

Oh God yes. The streets are paved with gold. I really thought everything we ever needed to know we already did. Friggin cholera!

Ah, you may be including the unfunded pension liabilities of the city in Tibsy’s Other Factors that Go Into It. Those stand at $34 billion. All you really have to do is move the number from one side of the page to the other. https://www.civicfed.org/blog/how-the-chicago-pension-funds-fared-in-2022#:~:text=Over the past ten years,FY2021%2C or by 2.1%. Over the past ten years, the unfunded liabilities of the four pension funds combined have grown by $13.8 billion, or 68.6%, from $20.1 billion in FY2013. The total unfunded liabilities of the four funds increased to nearly $34.0 billion in FY2022 from $33.3 billion in FY2021, or by 2.1%.

I’m confident in my ability, but I don’t believe I could dumb things down enough to put words in your mouth and make it sound authentic. Question for you on one of the richest cities in the world….when the budget shortfall went from $122 million to $558 million, was Chicago more rich or less rich? Tibs math it for me.

And prohibition.

Corruption and grift are always profitable for some, not so much for the many. But, if your contention is that Chicago’s past is squeaky clean, you’re beyond help. Btw Chicago is rich in the $538 million budget shortfall in 2024 sorta way.

Yes, the history of the city of Chicago was free of corruption, poor decision making, bureaucratic incompetence, organized crime and before 2015. A true shiny beacon on the hill, reverting to the norm post-2020. 😂

Yes, you’re right. Abortion is a mainstream issue, and large numbers of the population seem to feel that abortion on demand is the right choice. Finding some balance there was important, and that hasn’t happened. The far right offers no reasonable solution. If I’m understanding it correctly, the people of Ohio decided abortion into the 6th month of pregnancy represents the freedom people desire. Is that a reasonable solution? With notable exceptions, it’s grotesque imo…but mainstream. I have these moments in my life where I realize I was wrong thinking reasonable people could agree on certain issues. I always thought most reasonable people became ‘pro life’ on behalf of the child at some point. 10 weeks. 12 weeks. 14 weeks. I was wrong.

“Gig jobs”. 🤦🏼‍♂️ People who do not meet the threshold for taxation are not the people I was referring to, but at this point we’re going in circles. I’ll end it where I started—I understand your feelings, I just don’t share them.

I know I’m repeating myself, but the amount of revenue going through the system in 2023 exceeds $4,300,000,000,000. How come we can’t do all is good, important stuff at the $4.3 trillion mark? I also want to be clear—I don’t care about the cash side hustle, people working hard and trying to pocket some cash. That’s all good as far as I’m concerned, I just was responding to Fergies noble, but naive, quote.

But they are, some people get a better deal than others. Stepping back from the über-wealthy, for ordinary folks, many get their income directly from an employer and it’s recorded on a W2. Many folks get cash—hairdressers, electricians, painters teachers working after hours—and don’t report the side hustle income. Is that fair to all concerned? Some things…just are.

I don’t see the point of pretending that something that was, wasn’t. In this case, I simply offered what people have said, and they have. On the tax issue, tax revenue for 2023 is projected to exceed $4.3 trillion. I understand your point—putting aside for a moment the questions of unrealized gain, differing tax rates for different types of income etc—-but whether or not Elon Musk, Bill Gates or Joe Biden get dinged for additional $$$$ has no impact on my life, nor do I think will it ultimately impact the lives of people not as fortunate to be in the 35% federal tax bracket. I think the 35% is too high, btw, but would bet a large segment of the population would favor bumping you to 45%, if it meant dropping their rate by 6, 7, 8% in return. I’m all about trying stay positive and be grateful these days, and the fact is most of the good things in my life have very little to do with +/- tax rate. Why get upset about it?

As I said, impressive coordination by any account.

That type of coordination would be impressive on just about any level.

No, I didn't read any comments. You could be 100% correct, at least based on what they say, but think what we really have the usual mix of obstructionism, special interestism, whatsinitformeism, and more than a fair bit of anti-semitism reflected in the nays. The yays, I suspect, follow a similar pattern except we swap out those distrustful of Palestinians and Islamaphobia or anti-semitism. Whatever barnyard explosion being pitched as **** being unfair doesn't bother me in the least. It never has, and as I have said previously, I believe paying a fair and reasonable tax is part of the cost of patriotism. I think tax rates, generally, are too high but that is what it is. Not much I can do about it beyond vote, and even then, some folks claim elections are illegitimate and others say they can be stolen. So, I keep my head down, pay my taxes, contribute where I can to charity and try to be a good citizen. Some most definitely have it better than I do, financially anyways. As a retired doctor, I'd bet you're loaded and are probably top 2% or better. I don't begrudge you that, though you're rates are too high, the waiting room is cold, and %$#@ you for making me have to wait so long!! Anyway--I'd think this subject--aid approved to an ally after a vicious attack, would be widely seen as positive, yet here we are.

Hmm...trial delay imminent? Maybe the walls are closing, but they're running with an open floor plan?

You're asking me to spare you after you reached out to me? What a strange duck. Billionaires pay taxes. Multi-millionaires pay taxes. They pay them based on the tax laws, rules and regulations put in place by the people we elect to hold office. Those folks--BushBidenRomneyObamaPelosiSchumerMcConnelletc--do exactly the same, using the law to hold on to every bit of wealth that they can. It takes 30 seconds and a google search to find some of the most vocal proponents of grievance politics living amazingly high on the hog, while you're down here spewing the company line about "billionaires". Look, politicians sell grievance politics because gullible people lap it up. The theory that somehow, someway in our 247th year as a nation the very economic fate of our nation comes down to whether or not aid to Israel is stand-alone or chunked into this bill is silly. Let's get the aid and move on. Maybe a guy like you has to pretend it's not for Israel. Write your congressperson!

You are welcome.

The party prioritizing politics over aid to Israel is yours, BillSy. Don't get distracted by the shiny objects that they point to--virtually everyone you support is a 1% and it's no coincidence that suddenly (as if by magic) this is a problem. I should have inquired--do you support the aid for Israel as outlined? It would not surprise me to see any number of dems preferring to decline aid to Israel entirely.

Well, big picture, it seems to me one political party (and it's supporters) only cares about the national debt when the other party is in charge of the spending. It's a political talking point, sadly, nothing more or less. On supporting Israel, there were 12 democrats who supported the bill, so while I'd likely disagree with many positions there, you have to admire the guys it takes to take a stand when anti-Israeli sentiment is building amongst the left. I understand the desire to position an aid bill for a nation in need as somehow not about the needs of that nation, it's a cold and cynical world. It just seems the best course of action for all stakeholders involved to address the critical need now, and work out the other details as time permits.

I would assume because they were against the bill, looking to provide financial aid and support to Israel? Maybe they are positioning to squeeze Israel into a cease-fire? Why do you think these people voted against supporting our ally in that region?