goemaw.com
General Discussion => The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit => Topic started by: steve dave on September 21, 2020, 10:16:16 AM
-
Good listen from my boy Down Town Josh Brown and guests. Goes over the economic and tax impacts and what you should do now if you believe Trump, Biden, or Trump refusing to leave occurs. Also Biden's tax and economic plan and the overall impact. Also ends with laughing at NKLA and some other stuff.
https://open.spotify.com/episode/3fwvJR095XcLXsG6ZB1FWp?si=I54SIl5mRN6vi-z49So3Yg
Also Goldman's take on a Biden tax plan which talks big sense imo
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Eibi-BkWAAAOC8Y?format=jpg&name=medium)
-
Trump not leaving isn’t really a thing right? I assume that would be a one way ticket to the gulag. He is dumb but not that dumb.
-
Trump not leaving isn’t really a thing right? I assume that would be a one way ticket to the gulag. He is dumb but not that dumb.
well DTJB believes it's the most likely outcome. but that's not the point of this thread.
-
sd
great post. I love DTJB and it is a great podcast.
-
There is now way trade tensions and tariffs are going to stay because Biden Family Inc's major investors are the Chinese.
-
will listen
-
There is now way trade tensions and tariffs are going to stay because Biden Family Inc's major investors are the Chinese.
You are swinging my vote Biden’s way
-
Tesla one of 3,300 companies filing in coordination on tariffs.
https://twitter.com/CNBC/status/1308808973823496193
-
https://twitter.com/FinancialTimes/status/1310574535310299136
-
https://twitter.com/jstein_wapo/status/1313469741651177472
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
this tingles all my bear tingles.
what do you think sd?
-
this tingles all my bear tingles.
what do you think sd?
I think Pelosi is going to slam something home because of this very thing. Maybe I'm too optimistic. Trump will definitely burn down the place on his way out though which will be grizzley bad. Markets went gangbusters on the Biden widening his lead news based on just not wanting a contested election and at some point even Trump will have to accept defeat (maybe). I don't think this is considered in that though.
-
I agree that Pelosi wants to get something done despite her public facing statements playing hardball, I also think Mnuchin and Trump would like to send out some checks, I don't think Meadows or McConnell/Senate R's want to get anything done though so that seems like a pretty big set of road blocks.
Trump did tweet out something about getting the deal done, but I don't think he has that strong a commitment to it, while McConnell/Meadows/Senate R's all have a pretty strong commitment to not doing anything.
-
it is almost like Trump not actually being a conservative is causing frictions within his party...
-
it is almost like Trump not actually being a conservative is causing frictions within his party...
You guys keep saying this... But it's not true at all. He is the definition of conservative now.
-
In fact Trump has advanced conservative causes further than any other president in my lifetime (or likely any other poster's lifetime). He's been incredibly successful.
-
In fact Trump has advanced conservative causes further than any other president in my lifetime (or likely any other poster's lifetime). He's been incredibly successful.
tax cuts may be temporary, but judges are for a generation.
-
Reagan's tax cuts are responsible for the continually growing economic inequality we have now. And that won't be ending anytime soon.
-
it is almost like Trump not actually being a conservative is causing frictions within his party...
You guys keep saying this... But it's not true at all. He is the definition of conservative now.
I find it hard to understand what conservatism is now.
it's suddenly very fluid for a lot of "conservatives"
-
WELP
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
he’s started burning the place down even prior to losing
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
it is almost like Drumpf not actually being a conservative is causing frictions within his party...
You guys keep saying this... But it's not true at all. He is the definition of conservative now.
I find it hard to understand what conservatism is now.
it's suddenly very fluid for a lot of "conservatives"
It's because it is. All the "norms" Reagan established are either bastardized or taken to non logical conclusions.
It all boils down to pissing off the libs. That is it. When your entire goal is to do that, that makes you a conservative.
Even if it means dropping free economic policies, trying to establish protectionist trade, undercutting your religious beliefs by basically putting into power a guy who is the antithesis of everything you stand for (which I am fine with in the sense of I forever will get to laugh at evangelicals for this), and treating the poor and immigrants like doormats. Just like Jesus told them to *insert nonexistent Bible verse*
-
he’s started burning the place down even prior to losing
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
he is definitely taking hostages, but I do kind of wonder if he thinks he will win.
-
he’s started burning the place down even prior to losing
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
He may be a dumbass but the democrats are also dumbasses with their dumbass “stimulus” plan
-
4-D chess
-
https://twitter.com/libbycwatson/status/1313555861453910017
-
he’s started burning the place down even prior to losing
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
When you posted this I put on CNBC to see what you were talking about. An hour or two later I was back in that room and the story they were talking about was something like Arsenal player pays for team mascot or something. :surprised:
-
I for sure know what that’s all about
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
agree with "what?"
https://twitter.com/jbarro/status/1313620183701958658
-
Can't hide pork if they do that.
Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk
-
lol of course
-
We fully support Nancy Pelosi politicizing the stimulus process (again) and attempting to load up (yet another) stimulus package with social agenda and virtue signaling expenditures wholly unrelated to helping average Americans (BidenVoter Nation)
-
We fully support Nancy Pelosi politicizing the stimulus process (again) and attempting to load up (yet another) stimulus package with social agenda and virtue signaling expenditures wholly unrelated to helping average Americans (BidenVoter Nation)
bailing out states and local governments is not unrelated to helping average Americans.
-
Yeah, Nancy is just trying to fund the police.
-
We fully support Nancy Pelosi politicizing the stimulus process (again) and attempting to load up (yet another) stimulus package with social agenda and virtue signaling expenditures wholly unrelated to helping average Americans (BidenVoter Nation)
bailing out states and local governments is not unrelated to helping average Americans.
You need to re-read what I said.
-
We fully support Nancy Pelosi politicizing the stimulus process (again) and attempting to load up (yet another) stimulus package with social agenda and virtue signaling expenditures wholly unrelated to helping average Americans (BidenVoter Nation)
bailing out states and local governments is not unrelated to helping average Americans.
Hardly any of the money is going to average americans but that’s what both stimulus packages have been sold as.
-
the average american had more money as a result of the expanded UI and the stimulus checks. not sure what you mean.
-
the average american had more money as a result of the expanded UI and the stimulus checks. not sure what you mean.
Those things are in literally everyone’s proposal (Trump, senate, congress). The problem is those things makeup a small fraction of what is being proposed by congress.
-
We fully support Nancy Pelosi politicizing the stimulus process (again) and attempting to load up (yet another) stimulus package with social agenda and virtue signaling expenditures wholly unrelated to helping average Americans (BidenVoter Nation)
bailing out states and local governments is not unrelated to helping average Americans.
Hardly any of the money is going to average americans but that’s what both stimulus packages have been sold as.
it will trickle down, just watch!
-
https://news.google.com/articles/CAIiELEgg3rJQZ8SY-zcMvgIDPoqFQgEKg0IACoGCAowrqkBMKBFMLKAAg?hl=en-US&gl=US&ceid=US%3Aen (https://news.google.com/articles/CAIiELEgg3rJQZ8SY-zcMvgIDPoqFQgEKg0IACoGCAowrqkBMKBFMLKAAg?hl=en-US&gl=US&ceid=US%3Aen)
-
sd = best mod
-
Lmao
https://twitter.com/JenniferJJacobs/status/1314622651370012673
-
Mr. Dealmaker squandered leverage with the Supreme Court nomination. Additional stupidity is that, according to traditional thinking, not filling that vacancy is better for him and other pubs electorally.
-
the average american had more money as a result of the expanded UI and the stimulus checks. not sure what you mean.
Those things are in literally everyone’s proposal (Trump, senate, congress). The problem is those things makeup a small fraction of what is being proposed by congress.
Where is the latest proposal details?
-
I don't think they really matter because it isn't happening.
-
$100B difference in state/local help and $200 difference in weekly UI additional benefits. Although Nancy calls out the republican plan saying it doesn't have enough for COVID testing, tax credits (assuming this is forgiving the UI additional benefits), rental assistance, worker protection, child care, and election and census financial support.
-
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1316031426618327040
That's MY president
-
Bless his heart. He'll be a full blown progressive by election day in a desperate bid to win the election.
-
Bless his heart. He'll be a full blown progressive by election day in a desperate bid to win the election.
He already is. Being a huge proponent of fetal stem cell research was a pretty big step...
-
https://twitter.com/LemieuxLGM/status/1316477024735621120
-
Thanks China!
https://twitter.com/JStein_WaPo/status/1316759116187078656
-
The same way Mexico paid for the wall, except China already has a wall. You see?
-
they'll vote for it.
-
I don't think they will. Mitch wants to blame the debt hit on the next senate/biden so they can use it at the '22 midterms.
-
they'll do what trump tells them to do
-
It was all set up for a late October surprise. Trump will sign it on Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday of next week and spend the rest of the time bragging about how he saved America. What we should all worry about is Nancy and the rest of the dems shooting themselves in the foot, again, and convince themselves that they don't want to give trump a "win" a week before election day.
-
they'll do what trump tells them to do
not anymore.
-
Yeah, I’m turning that direction. I’d really like the stimulus, state funds, and immunity but it’s getting less and less likely because I don’t think either are budging on that last one.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Wolfers is possibly not the best economist on the planet but he's the best at explaining economics on the plant. Everyone should follow if they want to know about economics.
https://twitter.com/JustinWolfers/status/1319454096856928259
-
also I apologize for not remembering but which one of you was the death opportunity cost strong econ guy out of the gates on Covid? would like to revisit all that again (your takes could have possibly owned, I don't remember) but those were good talks.
-
Justwin, they were still bad takes. Opening the economy is absolutely the right thing to do now, but if we didn't shut down then, a lot more people would have gotten sick and we wouldn't be any closer to a vaccine.
That initial shutdown showed us we could live responsibly with this virus among us, allowing schools and the marketplace to be open now. We did what he eventually said we needed to do without killing tens if not hundreds of other people. Justwin thought (thinks?) these additional deaths would have been nothing more than a necessary opportunity cost.
-
Wolfers is possibly not the best economist on the planet but he's the best at explaining economics on the plant. Everyone should follow if they want to know about economics.
https://twitter.com/JustinWolfers/status/1319454096856928259
That has been regurgitated like 10000x in articles over the last two years. If implemented long term they will have a large effect on their economy and help boost investment in other countries they compete with.
-
makes sense kim carnes
-
Bro you’re the one acting like that guy is an economic wizard tweeting that dumb crap.
-
seems like you're on this one
-
You’re not wrong
-
also I apologize for not remembering but which one of you was the death opportunity cost strong econ guy out of the gates on Covid? would like to revisit all that again (your takes could have possibly owned, I don't remember) but those were good talks.
An article I saw recently said COVID was responsible for 2.5 million years of life lost. That's the equivalent of $250-$350 billion.
If you think all of the shutdowns prevented some multiple of that in years of lives lost, then you might think all of the shutdowns were worth it. There's almost no way you can convince me all of Kansas should have been shut down in March-May. Everything regarding COVID-19 is much worse in Kansas now than it was in April, yet we aren't shutting anything down now.
-
also I apologize for not remembering but which one of you was the death opportunity cost strong econ guy out of the gates on Covid? would like to revisit all that again (your takes could have possibly owned, I don't remember) but those were good talks.
An article I saw recently said COVID was responsible for 2.5 million years of life lost. That's the equivalent of $250-$350 billion.
If you think all of the shutdowns prevented some multiple of that in years of lives lost, then you might think all of the shutdowns were worth it. There's almost no way you can convince me all of Kansas should have been shut down in March-May. Everything regarding COVID-19 is much worse in Kansas now than it was in April, yet we aren't shutting anything down now.
hopefully you don't think I was calling you out in a negative way. I'm honestly curious in where we are at now by your measurements.
-
So, how are we doing vs. how you thought we would be doing?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
also I apologize for not remembering but which one of you was the death opportunity cost strong econ guy out of the gates on Covid? would like to revisit all that again (your takes could have possibly owned, I don't remember) but those were good talks.
An article I saw recently said COVID was responsible for 2.5 million years of life lost. That's the equivalent of $250-$350 billion.
If you think all of the shutdowns prevented some multiple of that in years of lives lost, then you might think all of the shutdowns were worth it. There's almost no way you can convince me all of Kansas should have been shut down in March-May. Everything regarding COVID-19 is much worse in Kansas now than it was in April, yet we aren't shutting anything down now.
Probably should be some targeted shutdown but we aren't shutting down large scale now because we did it already, developed good habits.
-
also I apologize for not remembering but which one of you was the death opportunity cost strong econ guy out of the gates on Covid? would like to revisit all that again (your takes could have possibly owned, I don't remember) but those were good talks.
An article I saw recently said COVID was responsible for 2.5 million years of life lost. That's the equivalent of $250-$350 billion.
If you think all of the shutdowns prevented some multiple of that in years of lives lost, then you might think all of the shutdowns were worth it. There's almost no way you can convince me all of Kansas should have been shut down in March-May. Everything regarding COVID-19 is much worse in Kansas now than it was in April, yet we aren't shutting anything down now.
The death rate is not nearly as bad as it was in April.
-
https://twitter.com/carlquintanilla/status/1320545338374213633
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Interesting, sounds like filibuster may stick around.
POLITICO: Pelosi eyes reconciliation to boost Obamacare, pandemic aid.
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/11/02/pelosi-reconciliation-obamacare-pandemic-aid-433873
:flush: I hope she has a challenger for the speaker
-
She really needs to retire
-
Interesting, sounds like filibuster may stick around.
i'd assume so.
-
https://twitter.com/Birdyword/status/1323931506390167552
-
:surprised:
https://twitter.com/seungminkim/status/1324024261447720962
-
Better get that done before his buddy Nancy gets replaced by Sheila Jackson Lee or Debbie Dingell.
-
He probably should have got that done before Trump lost his election. Good luck getting his fat ass to sign anything now.
-
Biden already making waves :Woot:
https://twitter.com/SquawkCNBC/status/1324706313369255937
-
Good job, president Biden!
-
Rock Hard
https://twitter.com/carlquintanilla/status/1325856023563919360
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Well, for starters, she’s a crazy person
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
https://twitter.com/ct_bergstrom/status/1329724739305148417
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
This have to do with the Tyson lawsuit? Keep hearing this concern, over shielding companies from lawsuits, but I haven't seen a more detailed explanation.
Ernst told reporter she would be willing to accept some form of aid for state and local governments, albeit with guardrails to ensure funding is target for covid-related needs. She also expressed concern about language in the measure related to insulating firms and other entities from covid-related lawsuits.
The Washington Post: Momentum builds for bipartisan $908 billion stimulus package as more GOP senators express support.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2020/12/03/congress-economic-stimulus-coronavirus/
If it is related tip the Tyson lawsuit, it's too late as that's been filed. They also have bigger problems than this lawsuit as it seems that amongst the other bullshit those ghouls did at Tyson Waterloo, they lied to federal inspectors.
-
ONE GIANT LOOPHOLE IN COVID BILL? — Brookings’ senior fellow Adam Looney: “Congress is on the verge of giving a $120 billion windfall to the top 1 percent in its pending COVID relief bill. It shouldn’t do that. Tucked into the bill is a provision to allow businesses to deduct expenses that were paid for by the government’s Paycheck Protection Program (PPP).
“Normally, a business owner may deduct only expenses they actually paid for. … Passing legislation to allow businesses to pay their expenses with taxpayer-provided PPP funds and then to deduct those expenses against their own taxes would be a windfall to high-income business owners—a windfall that would exceed the amounts that Congress is considering in unemployment insurance, rental assistance, food aid, or healthcare.”
https://www.politico.com/newsletters/morning-money/2020/12/17/dont-celebrate-the-covid-deal-too-much-792374
Joel Osteen wins again
-
ONE GIANT LOOPHOLE IN COVID BILL? — Brookings’ senior fellow Adam Looney: “Congress is on the verge of giving a $120 billion windfall to the top 1 percent in its pending COVID relief bill. It shouldn’t do that. Tucked into the bill is a provision to allow businesses to deduct expenses that were paid for by the government’s Paycheck Protection Program (PPP).
“Normally, a business owner may deduct only expenses they actually paid for. … Passing legislation to allow businesses to pay their expenses with taxpayer-provided PPP funds and then to deduct those expenses against their own taxes would be a windfall to high-income business owners—a windfall that would exceed the amounts that Congress is considering in unemployment insurance, rental assistance, food aid, or healthcare.”
https://www.politico.com/newsletters/morning-money/2020/12/17/dont-celebrate-the-covid-deal-too-much-792374
Joel Osteen wins again
lmao, church's don't pay taxes. imagine what we could do with that tax money if we would just make them.
-
ONE GIANT LOOPHOLE IN COVID BILL? — Brookings’ senior fellow Adam Looney: “Congress is on the verge of giving a $120 billion windfall to the top 1 percent in its pending COVID relief bill. It shouldn’t do that. Tucked into the bill is a provision to allow businesses to deduct expenses that were paid for by the government’s Paycheck Protection Program (PPP).
“Normally, a business owner may deduct only expenses they actually paid for. … Passing legislation to allow businesses to pay their expenses with taxpayer-provided PPP funds and then to deduct those expenses against their own taxes would be a windfall to high-income business owners—a windfall that would exceed the amounts that Congress is considering in unemployment insurance, rental assistance, food aid, or healthcare.”
https://www.politico.com/newsletters/morning-money/2020/12/17/dont-celebrate-the-covid-deal-too-much-792374
:love:
-
ONE GIANT LOOPHOLE IN COVID BILL? — Brookings’ senior fellow Adam Looney: “Congress is on the verge of giving a $120 billion windfall to the top 1 percent in its pending COVID relief bill. It shouldn’t do that. Tucked into the bill is a provision to allow businesses to deduct expenses that were paid for by the government’s Paycheck Protection Program (PPP).
“Normally, a business owner may deduct only expenses they actually paid for. … Passing legislation to allow businesses to pay their expenses with taxpayer-provided PPP funds and then to deduct those expenses against their own taxes would be a windfall to high-income business owners—a windfall that would exceed the amounts that Congress is considering in unemployment insurance, rental assistance, food aid, or healthcare.”
https://www.politico.com/newsletters/morning-money/2020/12/17/dont-celebrate-the-covid-deal-too-much-792374
This isn't a loophole.. If Congress intended for the PPP loans to be forgiven tax-free, you need to be able to deduct these expenses. Whether that forgiveness should be tax-free is another matter but this is just matching the intent within the CARES Act.
-
The article you linked explains that the IRS has taken the position that these expenses are not deductible. The Revenue Rulings just "help" in determining when they aren't deductible. Congress intended for the forgiveness to be tax exempt. There is a section of the Internal Revenue Code that states that expenses are not deductible to the extent they are paid with tax exempt funds. The IRS took this section and applied it to PPP loan forgiveness and decided that these expenses are nondeductible.
If you have tax exempt forgiveness but the expenses paid with the loans are nondeductible, you have taxable forgiveness. Again, I'm not arguing that these loans should be forgiven tax-free for all - there are absolutely people who abused them, just look at some Sedgwick County Commissioners - but Congress clearly meant for these loans to be "free." Employers would not have retained workers with these loans when business was down if they knew they would be paying 40% of their wages in taxes. Congress didn't think things through with their bill, per usual, and the IRS overstepped.
They are idiots but it's not a loophole in the new relief. Dealing with these stupid PPP loans is part of my job.
-
and hjfklmor explodes into my awareness as possibly being my mom
-
very good additions here hjfklmor. we need more experts in irl stuff on this blog.
-
and hjfklmor explodes into my awareness as possibly being my mom
Well if your mother is a CPA then mods please change my name to mom of steve dave.
-
I can see hjfklmor becoming the Andy Dufresne of this here shawshank prison
-
https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2020/12/17/trump-2000-stimulus-checks/ (https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2020/12/17/trump-2000-stimulus-checks/)
White House aides intervened Thursday to prevent President Trump from issuing a statement calling for substantially larger stimulus payments for millions of Americans, according to two people who spoke on the condition of anonymity to share details of the private exchange.
On a phone call Thursday afternoon, Trump told allies that he believes stimulus payments in the next relief package should be “at least” $1,200 per person and possibly as big as $2,000 per person, the officials said. Congressional leadership is preparing a stimulus package that would provide checks of $600 per person.
Really incredible incompetent leadership from the dems that they could not appeal to Trump wanting to "go big" on stimulus to leverage him to approve a bigger bill earlier. Pelosi really went all in on not only winning the Senate, but having 52+. The problem with her thinking was that if the dems truly had all 3 branches and 52+ then they could've always done more stimulus later.
Just awful leadership.
-
Mark Meadows was undoubtedly a huge impediment, but the dems could've done a deal with 2x the price tag with more of everything they wanted. Why didn't they? Nancy and to a much lesser extent Chuck.
-
The article you linked explains that the IRS has taken the position that these expenses are not deductible. The Revenue Rulings just "help" in determining when they aren't deductible. Congress intended for the forgiveness to be tax exempt. There is a section of the Internal Revenue Code that states that expenses are not deductible to the extent they are paid with tax exempt funds. The IRS took this section and applied it to PPP loan forgiveness and decided that these expenses are nondeductible.
If you have tax exempt forgiveness but the expenses paid with the loans are nondeductible, you have taxable forgiveness. Again, I'm not arguing that these loans should be forgiven tax-free for all - there are absolutely people who abused them, just look at some Sedgwick County Commissioners - but Congress clearly meant for these loans to be "free." Employers would not have retained workers with these loans when business was down if they knew they would be paying 40% of their wages in taxes. Congress didn't think things through with their bill, per usual, and the IRS overstepped.
They are idiots but it's not a loophole in the new relief. Dealing with these stupid PPP loans is part of my job.
Is there anything clear on how PPP loan distributions to partners in a partnership should be treated and be reported on a partner's K-1?
-
and hjfklmor explodes into my awareness as possibly being my mom
Well if your mother is a CPA then mods please change my name to mom of steve dave.
Hell yeah!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Interesting, so how are the loans being treated right now then, is it baked into the Revenue Rulings?
Are they deductible to decrease tax burden for employers and without discretion on the personal income of the owner/employer and some party is telling the IRS to kick rocks?
Technically speaking very few people have filed a tax return with PPP forgiveness on it. Several trade groups are telling the IRS to kick rocks and it would appear that Congress is as well.
-
The article you linked explains that the IRS has taken the position that these expenses are not deductible. The Revenue Rulings just "help" in determining when they aren't deductible. Congress intended for the forgiveness to be tax exempt. There is a section of the Internal Revenue Code that states that expenses are not deductible to the extent they are paid with tax exempt funds. The IRS took this section and applied it to PPP loan forgiveness and decided that these expenses are nondeductible.
If you have tax exempt forgiveness but the expenses paid with the loans are nondeductible, you have taxable forgiveness. Again, I'm not arguing that these loans should be forgiven tax-free for all - there are absolutely people who abused them, just look at some Sedgwick County Commissioners - but Congress clearly meant for these loans to be "free." Employers would not have retained workers with these loans when business was down if they knew they would be paying 40% of their wages in taxes. Congress didn't think things through with their bill, per usual, and the IRS overstepped.
They are idiots but it's not a loophole in the new relief. Dealing with these stupid PPP loans is part of my job.
Is there anything clear on how PPP loan distributions to partners in a partnership should be treated and be reported on a partner's K-1?
You got a PPP loan and distributed the funds to yourself instead of paying rent, payroll, etc.? That is beyond the scope of this here blog.
-
and hjfklmor explodes into my awareness as possibly being my mom
Well if your mother is a CPA then mods please change my name to mom of steve dave.
Hell yeah!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
TIA on the new name
-
I can see hjfklmor becoming the Andy Dufresne of this here shawshank prison
Much like the real mom of steve dave, I would have a witty retort if I could figure out how to embed a rough ridin' gif
-
I can see hjfklmor becoming the Andy Dufresne of this here shawshank prison
Much like the real mom of steve dave, I would have a witty retort if I could figure out how to embed a rough ridin' gif
When my eyes see "hjfklmor" my mind converts it to hydroxychloroquine for some reason.
-
Interesting, so how are the loans being treated right now then, is it baked into the Revenue Rulings?
Are they deductible to decrease tax burden for employers and without discretion on the personal income of the owner/employer and some party is telling the IRS to kick rocks?
Technically speaking very few people have filed a tax return with PPP forgiveness on it. Several trade groups are telling the IRS to kick rocks and it would appear that Congress is as well.
Not that this will happen, but I assume this is in the spirit of the opinion on the deduction topic that kicked this off, wonder what the reaction would be if the median income of a US worker is deemed to be allowed to be deducted (~36k USD), or some multiple like 2x. I don't know for certain, but I think the overall point being made in that article was that the loans were to keep employees with a paycheck, but not necessarily to ensure an owner's wage was fully secure (ie the 1%er comment).
I think we may be talking past each other here on the mechanics of how this all works. The employee's wage is only being deducted once.
Business received the PPP funds as cash and paid their fixed costs (or were supposed to) as normal - payroll or rent is still being only deducted once hopefully as if it were a normal year. The idea being that instead of sending that cash back to the bank in the form of repayments the loan is forgiven. Not to get any further in the weeds than I already have but this is normally called forgiveness of debt income. This income, if taxable, would offset payroll costs so if this was a typical year you would have business owners having a higher taxable income than normal.
The idea for not making the forgiveness taxable is that we are not punishing business owners for accepting the loans and keeping their workers hired. If the forgiveness is taxable they would have been wiser to lay off those workers (from a practical standpoint.. not a moral one).
Again this is all great in theory but there was no real means testing on PPP loans and they were abused all over the place, but they also helped millions of businesses! The opinion of the article you linked seemed to be that high net worth individuals used it to pay themselves, which is absolutely possible and probable, but like the stimulus checks sometimes you have to open yourself up to that risk in the spirit of urgency and just hope you helped more small businesses than abusers of the system. Making it taxable punishes the abusers, but also the small businesses.
-
The article you linked explains that the IRS has taken the position that these expenses are not deductible. The Revenue Rulings just "help" in determining when they aren't deductible. Congress intended for the forgiveness to be tax exempt. There is a section of the Internal Revenue Code that states that expenses are not deductible to the extent they are paid with tax exempt funds. The IRS took this section and applied it to PPP loan forgiveness and decided that these expenses are nondeductible.
If you have tax exempt forgiveness but the expenses paid with the loans are nondeductible, you have taxable forgiveness. Again, I'm not arguing that these loans should be forgiven tax-free for all - there are absolutely people who abused them, just look at some Sedgwick County Commissioners - but Congress clearly meant for these loans to be "free." Employers would not have retained workers with these loans when business was down if they knew they would be paying 40% of their wages in taxes. Congress didn't think things through with their bill, per usual, and the IRS overstepped.
They are idiots but it's not a loophole in the new relief. Dealing with these stupid PPP loans is part of my job.
Is there anything clear on how PPP loan distributions to partners in a partnership should be treated and be reported on a partner's K-1?
You got a PPP loan and distributed the funds to yourself instead of paying rent, payroll, etc.? That is beyond the scope of this here blog.
Not sure why it's beyond the scope of this blog, but owners were allowed to get PPP loans based on their self-employment income in a pass-through entity. It is equivalent to distributing it as payroll.
-
https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2020/12/17/trump-2000-stimulus-checks/ (https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2020/12/17/trump-2000-stimulus-checks/)
White House aides intervened Thursday to prevent President Trump from issuing a statement calling for substantially larger stimulus payments for millions of Americans, according to two people who spoke on the condition of anonymity to share details of the private exchange.
On a phone call Thursday afternoon, Trump told allies that he believes stimulus payments in the next relief package should be “at least” $1,200 per person and possibly as big as $2,000 per person, the officials said. Congressional leadership is preparing a stimulus package that would provide checks of $600 per person.
Really incredible incompetent leadership from the dems that they could not appeal to Trump wanting to "go big" on stimulus to leverage him to approve a bigger bill earlier. Pelosi really went all in on not only winning the Senate, but having 52+. The problem with her thinking was that if the dems truly had all 3 branches and 52+ then they could've always done more stimulus later.
Just awful leadership.
meanwhile, in the real world, republican senators are offering no state and local money, to fund $600 checks by cutting unemployment insurance down to nothing and it's all conditional on getting dems to agree to hamstring the economy as soon as biden takes over (and also it's not clear that they even have majority support for that shitshow of a deal).
https://twitter.com/mkraju/status/1339975741539295232
-
Imagine if MPOS Nancy Pelosi hadn't played politics with the 2nd stimulus because she didn't want to give Trump a "victory" before the election.
Now useful idiots like the sysbot and others want to blame Republicans. We could have already had a larger 2nd stimulus and be talking about a 3rd at this juncture. POS Pelosi stood up in front of the world and openly admitted she played politics because of the election. BidenVoter just chose not to listen.
-
https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2020/12/17/trump-2000-stimulus-checks/ (https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2020/12/17/trump-2000-stimulus-checks/)
White House aides intervened Thursday to prevent President Trump from issuing a statement calling for substantially larger stimulus payments for millions of Americans, according to two people who spoke on the condition of anonymity to share details of the private exchange.
On a phone call Thursday afternoon, Trump told allies that he believes stimulus payments in the next relief package should be “at least” $1,200 per person and possibly as big as $2,000 per person, the officials said. Congressional leadership is preparing a stimulus package that would provide checks of $600 per person.
Really incredible incompetent leadership from the dems that they could not appeal to Trump wanting to "go big" on stimulus to leverage him to approve a bigger bill earlier. Pelosi really went all in on not only winning the Senate, but having 52+. The problem with her thinking was that if the dems truly had all 3 branches and 52+ then they could've always done more stimulus later.
Just awful leadership.
meanwhile, in the real world, republican senators are offering no state and local money, to fund $600 checks by cutting unemployment insurance down to nothing and it's all conditional on getting dems to agree to hamstring the economy as soon as biden takes over (and also it's not clear that they even have majority support for that shitshow of a deal).
https://twitter.com/mkraju/status/1339975741539295232
Yes, those are the terrible terms being offered now after Pelosi completely mumped up the negotiation.
-
trump was gonna buy greenland for a weekend too, but you can believe there was a genuine offer on the table if you really need to.
-
Josh Hawley and Bernie Sanders :surprised:
Also eff Ron Johnson, he's worth $38,000,000 and blocking direct aid to working Americans.
https://twitter.com/DailyCaller/status/1339989080667516929
-
https://twitter.com/burgessev/status/1340375043457605632
-
We got a deal
-
https://twitter.com/jakesherman/status/1340743273741168642?s=21
Sounds like no deductibility.
-
https://twitter.com/jakesherman/status/1340743273741168642?s=21
Sounds like no deductibility.
Good, greedy fucks.
-
You are right. They really covered a lot of ground in the last 24 hours.
-
idiot
https://twitter.com/JordanUhl/status/1341587611283054592
-
idiot
https://twitter.com/JordanUhl/status/1341587611283054592
I think most of what she said may be right? I don’t think Trump is threatening to veto this with the hope of actually getting the stimulus checks to be $2000, he’s just trying to throw a wrench in at the last second.
If he’s overridden, Congress will be blamed for taking $1400 out of people’s pockets. If they don’t override, it’s back to square one because no rough ridin' way Mitch is putting $2k on the table.
-
(https://media3.giphy.com/media/mvD5KI8k6TfUc/giphy.gif)
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
https://twitter.com/LPDonovan/status/1341890216362127362
-
idiot
https://twitter.com/JordanUhl/status/1341587611283054592
I think most of what she said may be right? I don’t think Trump is threatening to veto this with the hope of actually getting the stimulus checks to be $2000, he’s just trying to throw a wrench in at the last second.
If he’s overridden, Congress will be blamed for taking $1400 out of people’s pockets. If they don’t override, it’s back to square one because no rough ridin' way Mitch is putting $2k on the table.
He better tell that to his congress men and women openly advocating for it. The $2000 has bipartisan support, and now that the president has publicly ridiculed the $600, I don't know how Mitch and Nancy, don't forget her, have much of a choice. Double this with all of the pork and foreign dollars that have also been batted around the media. That is resonating too, there are people not at all involved with following politics that are rightfully pissed.
Mitch is risking the dems getting momentum in Georgia off of this, if they lose those two races the $2000 will be passed on January 20th.
-
I hope you’re right!
-
1) the republicans may well just ignore this and muddle through the holidays with a government shutdown and say eff it.
2) sounds like the democrats will send a clean $2,000 only bill amendment to the senate after the unanimous consent failed (which, of course).
3) all of the bitching and whining about the omnibus govt spending which was attached to the stimulus is both very relevant and not relevant at all
A) very relevant because trump saw people on Twitter getting mad about it so it might be part of the reason why he started talking $2,000 checks. also relevant because we have debt ceilings and fiscal cliffs and sunsets to game the CBO because they are the only thing that can prompt our failed government to act on anything. We have a near permanent stasis where nothing can happen and the only thing that can undo that is a genuine crisis and even then, only to a certain extent as the Fed really saved our ass.
B) not very relevant because trumps budget requested these “foreign aid” and “Kennedy center” and “Smithsonian” budget line items because it is just the federal budget, we are so used to crisis mode that it was not clearly reported that oh by the way our government will also shutdown and our UI week extensions will shut off for millions of people and all of that is a separate and distinct crisis that was used by both sides as leverage for themselves to get off their ass and come up with a stimulus deal.
But it is not “pork” or the stimulus deal itself unless you think the government should not exist.
-
1) the republicans may well just ignore this and muddle through the holidays with a government shutdown and say eff it.
2) sounds like the democrats will send a clean $2,000 only bill amendment to the senate after the unanimous consent failed (which, of course).
3) all of the bitching and whining about the omnibus govt spending which was attached to the stimulus is both very relevant and not relevant at all
A) very relevant because trump saw people on Twitter getting mad about it so it might be part of the reason why he started talking $2,000 checks. also relevant because we have debt ceilings and fiscal cliffs and sunsets to game the CBO because they are the only thing that can prompt our failed government to act on anything. We have a near permanent stasis where nothing can happen and the only thing that can undo that is a genuine crisis and even then, only to a certain extent as the Fed really saved our ass.
B) not very relevant because trumps budget requested these “foreign aid” and “Kennedy center” and “Smithsonian” budget line items because it is just the federal budget, we are so used to crisis mode that it was not clearly reported that oh by the way our government will also shutdown and our UI week extensions will shut off for millions of people and all of that is a separate and distinct crisis that was used by both sides as leverage for themselves to get off their ass and come up with a stimulus deal.
But it is not “pork” or the stimulus deal itself unless you think the government should not exist.
agree with most of that (i fall a little more into a read of trump's communications on the relief/omnibus bill as farce than as precipitating a crisis).
-
https://twitter.com/LPDonovan/status/1341890216362127362
Give me $5 to really show Congress you care.
-
1) the republicans may well just ignore this and muddle through the holidays with a government shutdown and say eff it.
2) sounds like the democrats will send a clean $2,000 only bill amendment to the senate after the unanimous consent failed (which, of course).
3) all of the bitching and whining about the omnibus govt spending which was attached to the stimulus is both very relevant and not relevant at all
A) very relevant because trump saw people on Twitter getting mad about it so it might be part of the reason why he started talking $2,000 checks. also relevant because we have debt ceilings and fiscal cliffs and sunsets to game the CBO because they are the only thing that can prompt our failed government to act on anything. We have a near permanent stasis where nothing can happen and the only thing that can undo that is a genuine crisis and even then, only to a certain extent as the Fed really saved our ass.
B) not very relevant because trumps budget requested these “foreign aid” and “Kennedy center” and “Smithsonian” budget line items because it is just the federal budget, we are so used to crisis mode that it was not clearly reported that oh by the way our government will also shutdown and our UI week extensions will shut off for millions of people and all of that is a separate and distinct crisis that was used by both sides as leverage for themselves to get off their ass and come up with a stimulus deal.
But it is not “pork” or the stimulus deal itself unless you think the government should not exist.
agree with most of that (i fall a little more into a read of trump's communications on the relief/omnibus bill as farce than as precipitating a crisis).
Yeah, me too.
The funding issues that have the general public up in arms are governmental budget related and shouldn't be discussed in the same vein as the stimulus. Those discussions still definitely should be happening and still have their place, just not in the context they are presently happening. It's all modus operandi though and as angry as people are now about the Kennedy Center getting funded and research money going to Zimbabwe, people really don't have the stomach to hold our elected officials feet to the fire about how our government allocates money.
-
https://twitter.com/burgessev/status/1343714209566257153
-
So what’s the likely outcome here? Mitch says eff it and rolls with $2000?
-
I think it depends on what loeffler and perdue want tbh, they are holding the cards as preserving the Senate is the goal right now. I think Bernie is doing a fine move here, but I don't think it amounts to much.
the NDAA is awful and will hamstring Biden from being able to withdraw from Afghanistan (not that he wants to) and is full of other dumb/bad stuff so it is a useful political football for Bernie. The path to the $2000 checks is pretty tough in my mind though.
-
I think the $2000 checks are pretty likely. Trump is on board, making them part of the official Republican Party platform.
-
Why are we yeeting out a bunch of 2k checks instead of further increasing unemployment?
-
So is anyone joining Bernie on the filibuster...one person can only talk so long. Will be interesting, pretty good move to force the Senate to at least vote and say where they stand instead of playing hide the football during an election with huge implications.
So do people see the checks as stimulus or relief, if they're stimulus wouldn't it make more sense to break some of it out and send it out Q2 next year (once vaccinations have more penetration)? If it's relief then this winter makes more sense (but then you get the argument of shouldn't the relief be more focused on UI, SNAP, housing ect).
not how this works
-
I think it depends on what loeffler and perdue want tbh, they are holding the cards as preserving the Senate is the goal right now. I think Bernie is doing a fine move here, but I don't think it amounts to much.
hard for me to imagine mcconnell scheduling a vote. i don't think perdue and loeffler have that much pull.
-
I think it depends on what loeffler and perdue want tbh, they are holding the cards as preserving the Senate is the goal right now. I think Bernie is doing a fine move here, but I don't think it amounts to much.
hard for me to imagine mcconnell scheduling a vote. i don't think perdue and loeffler have that much pull.
the only reason the current bill got moving was because mcconnell was worried about perdue and loeffler.
-
not how this works
How so? Are you speaking towards cloture?
yeah Bernie isn't going to be up there bloviating.
-
the only reason the current bill got moving was because mcconnell was worried about perdue and loeffler.
i don't think that's true.
-
I have trouble believing Perdue or Loeffler can win their election without the $2000 checks. It helps that they have come out in support of them, but I think most voters will see a failure to take action here as the republicans turning on Trump.
-
I have trouble believing Perdue or Loeffler can win their election without the $2000 checks. It helps that they have come out in support of them, but I think most voters will see a failure to take action here as the republicans turning on Trump.
i think the republicans are more likely to lose in ga than win, but i don't think holding a vote or not will change things.
-
the only reason the current bill got moving was because mcconnell was worried about perdue and loeffler.
i don't think that's true.
Senator Mitch McConnell, the majority leader, privately made the case to Republicans on Wednesday for a stimulus deal that includes another round of direct payments to struggling Americans, suggesting that delivering such help could boost the party’s hopes of hanging onto their majority in the Senate.
In a call on Wednesday afternoon, Mr. McConnell said that Senators Kelly Loeffler and David Perdue, who are both facing January runoffs that will determine which party controls the Senate, were “getting hammered” for Congress’s failure to deliver more pandemic aid to struggling Americans — particularly the direct payments — and that enacting the measure could help them. The Kentucky Republican also emphasized that the package could be signed by President Trump, who has pushed for another round of stimulus checks, and would help those devastated by the pandemic.
Loeffler and Perdue both came out in favor of the $2,000 checks as well, not clear McConnell will go for that, but the chances are getting better and better with Rubio and other Republicans on the record.
-
I have trouble believing Perdue or Loeffler can win their election without the $2000 checks. It helps that they have come out in support of them, but I think most voters will see a failure to take action here as the republicans turning on Trump.
i think the republicans are more likely to lose in ga than win, but i don't think holding a vote or not will change things.
I will take the other side for $100 a senate seat for even odds.
-
I have trouble believing Perdue or Loeffler can win their election without the $2000 checks. It helps that they have come out in support of them, but I think most voters will see a failure to take action here as the republicans turning on Trump.
i think the republicans are more likely to lose in ga than win, but i don't think holding a vote or not will change things.
I feel like a large chunk of my facebook newsfeed represents the MAGA news, and they basically think that Pelosi gave them an insult of a $600 stimulus and that it's up to Trump to singlehandedly deliver them the $2000 they deserve. It's possible that they will be able to spin a failure to hold a vote as Pelosi's fault, but I think Mitch is going to have to at the very least draft a new bill that includes $2000 payments, but has some sort of poison pill that the house democrats will reject.
-
They will lump the $2k with repealing Section 230.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Senator Mitch McConnell, the majority leader, privately made the case to Republicans on Wednesday for a stimulus deal
i think it added a little additional impetus, but senate republicans had been on record as accepting of a sub 1 trillion, limited state/local, pro-immunity relief bill for a long time before that. i think mcconnell is pretty responsive to his caucus and he isn't likely to force a vote that the majority of his caucus don't want to take.
the move may be to insert a poison pill or two on a 2k vote to force dems to vote against it.
-
I will take the other side for $100 a senate seat for even odds.
i can get 40:60 for warnock and 35:65 for ossoff on predictit
-
I feel like a large chunk of my facebook newsfeed represents the MAGA news, and they basically think that Pelosi gave them an insult of a $600 stimulus and that it's up to Trump to singlehandedly deliver them the $2000 they deserve. It's possible that they will be able to spin a failure to hold a vote as Pelosi's fault, but I think Mitch is going to have to at the very least draft a new bill that includes $2000 payments, but has some sort of poison pill that the house democrats will reject.
if we lived in ga, would anyone on goEMAW change their vote based on perdue and loeffler voting for a 2k stimulus check vs just agreeing that one should be sent and advocating for it?
i suppose the question is really more whether anyone who already preferred perdue/loeffler but wasn't planning on voting for them change their minds and vote, but either way, i don't think it's many people.
-
worth pointing out on that subject that probably a minimum of 65% of the votes in the upcoming ga election have already been cast and likely a minimum of 75% will have been cast before the earliest possible senate vote.
-
Basically, the MAGA people trust nobody except for Donald Trump. The republicans don't really need to convince them that the democrats are blocking their money. They need to convince Trump.
-
congrats to all the mcconnell watchers in this thread who placed their bets on "poison pill".
https://twitter.com/hugolowell/status/1344028082399817729
-
actually not sure that report is accurate - may be jumping the gun a bit.
-
Section 230 basically kills all social media, right? Any other consequences?
-
ok, here's a trustworthy reporter reporting the same (plus more).
https://twitter.com/sahilkapur/status/1344043661080862721
-
https://twitter.com/mikedebonis/status/1344045362022141953
-
ffs guys. just give the people the money.
-
ffs guys. just give the people the money.
Holla at your boy.
-
ffs guys. just give the people the money.
No
-
I will take the other side for $100 a senate seat for even odds.
i can get 40:60 for warnock and 35:65 for ossoff on predictit
With the fees I’m basically giving you fair value for warnock, especially if you are already maxed out on there.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
What even is sec 230? Can I get a bubbles take on it? Then someone else that thinks it is bad?
-
With the fees I’m basically giving you fair value for warnock, especially if you are already maxed out on there.
i already have money in the system so just the 10% of profit applies.
i haven't placed any new money on either dem yet, but still have some money from before the general election in a couple of senate control marketplaces.
-
With the fees I’m basically giving you fair value for warnock, especially if you are already maxed out on there.
i already have money in the system so just the 10% of profit applies.
i haven't placed any new money on either dem yet, but still have some money from before the general election in a couple of senate control marketplaces.
K
-
What even is sec 230? Can I get a bubbles take on it? Then someone else that thinks it is bad?
My understanding is that repealing it would allow social media sites to be sued for content users post. So sites like Facebook, Twitter, Parler, Reddit, maybe even smaller sites like goEMAW, would have to ban a whole lot of members and possibly shut down.
I think it's mostly overblown and the Dems should call the bluff.
-
What even is sec 230? Can I get a bubbles take on it? Then someone else that thinks it is bad?
My understanding is that repealing it would allow social media sites to be sued for content users post. So sites like Facebook, Twitter, Parler, Reddit, maybe even smaller sites like goEMAW, would have to ban a whole lot of members and possibly shut down.
I think it's mostly overblown and the Dems should call the bluff.
Honestly, I wouldn't be that upset. Social media is the worst. However, think about about what those companies contribute to our economy? Would they up and leave for Europe?
-
What even is sec 230? Can I get a bubbles take on it? Then someone else that thinks it is bad?
My understanding is that repealing it would allow social media sites to be sued for content users post. So sites like Facebook, Twitter, Parler, Reddit, maybe even smaller sites like goEMAW, would have to ban a whole lot of members and possibly shut down.
I think it's mostly overblown and the Dems should call the bluff.
Honestly, I wouldn't be that upset. Social media is the worst. However, think about about what those companies contribute to our economy? Would they up and leave for Europe?
It would honestly be worth it just to watch Trump realize that no website will let him post on it.
-
What even is sec 230? Can I get a bubbles take on it? Then someone else that thinks it is bad?
My understanding is that repealing it would allow social media sites to be sued for content users post. So sites like Facebook, Twitter, Parler, Reddit, maybe even smaller sites like goEMAW, would have to ban a whole lot of members and possibly shut down.
I think it's mostly overblown and the Dems should call the bluff.
Honestly, I wouldn't be that upset. Social media is the worst. However, think about about what those companies contribute to our economy? Would they up and leave for Europe?
It would honestly be worth it just to watch Trump realize that no website will let him post on it.
I'm pretty sure Silicon Valley would vanish in an instant. Not sure if that's a good or bad thing. Probably bad.
-
I'm about 100% sure that the protections would be put back in place during the first week of Biden's presidency, anyway.
-
I was gonna stay away from this but Section 230 needs to be modified. It should in no way shape or form be repealed and removed.
-
I was gonna stay away from this but Section 230 needs to be modified. It should in no way shape or form be repealed and removed.
Nobody but Donald Trump actually thinks it should be removed.
-
What even is sec 230? Can I get a bubbles take on it? Then someone else that thinks it is bad?
My understanding is that repealing it would allow social media sites to be sued for content users post. So sites like Facebook, Twitter, Parler, Reddit, maybe even smaller sites like goEMAW, would have to ban a whole lot of members and possibly shut down.
I think it's mostly overblown and the Dems should call the bluff.
Well, crap they could just try owning ol' goEMAW.com for awhile.
-
What even is sec 230? Can I get a bubbles take on it? Then someone else that thinks it is bad?
My understanding is that repealing it would allow social media sites to be sued for content users post. So sites like Facebook, Twitter, Parler, Reddit, maybe even smaller sites like goEMAW, would have to ban a whole lot of members and possibly shut down.
I think it's mostly overblown and the Dems should call the bluff.
Honestly, I wouldn't be that upset. Social media is the worst. However, think about about what those companies contribute to our economy? Would they up and leave for Europe?
Would prob kill youtube, bbs's, all sites that don't immediately take down comment sections, etc. It would kill interaction with the internet that is open to public uploads.
-
What even is sec 230? Can I get a bubbles take on it? Then someone else that thinks it is bad?
My understanding is that repealing it would allow social media sites to be sued for content users post. So sites like Facebook, Twitter, Parler, Reddit, maybe even smaller sites like goEMAW, would have to ban a whole lot of members and possibly shut down.
I think it's mostly overblown and the Dems should call the bluff.
Honestly, I wouldn't be that upset. Social media is the worst. However, think about about what those companies contribute to our economy? Would they up and leave for Europe?
Would prob kill youtube, bbs's, all sites that don't immediately take down comment sections, etc. It would kill interaction with the internet that is open to public uploads.
Nobody actually supports doing that, though. The protections would be put back in place in a couple of weeks after Trump and the GOP are completely humiliated.
-
K
-
What even is sec 230? Can I get a bubbles take on it? Then someone else that thinks it is bad?
My understanding is that repealing it would allow social media sites to be sued for content users post. So sites like Facebook, Twitter, Parler, Reddit, maybe even smaller sites like goEMAW, would have to ban a whole lot of members and possibly shut down.
I think it's mostly overblown and the Dems should call the bluff.
Honestly, I wouldn't be that upset. Social media is the worst. However, think about about what those companies contribute to our economy? Would they up and leave for Europe?
Would prob kill youtube, bbs's, all sites that don't immediately take down comment sections, etc. It would kill interaction with the internet that is open to public uploads.
Nobody actually supports doing that, though. The protections would be put back in place in a couple of weeks after Trump and the GOP are completely humiliated.
When was the last time govt took power from citizens then gave it back?
-
What even is sec 230? Can I get a bubbles take on it? Then someone else that thinks it is bad?
My understanding is that repealing it would allow social media sites to be sued for content users post. So sites like Facebook, Twitter, Parler, Reddit, maybe even smaller sites like goEMAW, would have to ban a whole lot of members and possibly shut down.
I think it's mostly overblown and the Dems should call the bluff.
Honestly, I wouldn't be that upset. Social media is the worst. However, think about about what those companies contribute to our economy? Would they up and leave for Europe?
Would prob kill youtube, bbs's, all sites that don't immediately take down comment sections, etc. It would kill interaction with the internet that is open to public uploads.
Nobody actually supports doing that, though. The protections would be put back in place in a couple of weeks after Trump and the GOP are completely humiliated.
When was the last time govt took power from citizens then gave it back?
I don't know. When was the last time the government took power from citizens and didn't give it back?
-
man a world effectively without social media sounds pretty sweet. would take.
-
man a world effectively without social media sounds pretty sweet. would take.
Wut
-
man a world effectively without social media sounds pretty sweet. would take.
Wut
I think it would be good if social media sites and any internet commenting outlet went away. I think it's been bad for us.
-
man a world effectively without social media sounds pretty sweet. would take.
Wut
I think it would be good if social media sites and any internet commenting outlet went away. I think it's been bad for us.
What do you mean it’s been bad for us?
-
The world would be a much better place without Facebook and Twitter. It would be a shame to lose YouTube, though.
-
man a world effectively without social media sounds pretty sweet. would take.
Wut
I think it would be good if social media sites and any internet commenting outlet went away. I think it's been bad for us.
What do you mean it’s been bad for us?
I mean I think twitter/fb has been bad for us, for humans. i think it's been horrible for people's mental states and our politics.
i'm not going to write a dissertation on it, and I know there are some genuinely good things it has done, but suffice to say, i think the world would be better off without twitter/fb.
-
I disagree strongly but to each their own
-
There is actually some academics that have looked into this a bit and they agree that it is really bad for humans. Check out Jonathan Haidt. He has been on Rogan and Sam Harris and has a book out on it. Depression, suicide, anxiety, etc have all skyrocketed with the invention of the iPhone.
-
Still think the net benefit outweighs the downsides but it’s certainly not all positive. Twitter has given a voice to the people and the transparency it provides as crowd sourced news is amazing.
-
Still think the net benefit outweighs the downsides but it’s certainly not all positive. Twitter has given a voice to the people and the transparency it provides as crowd sourced news is amazing.
It also gives people like Jaden McNeil a large following instead of being a social outcast.
-
Still think the net benefit outweighs the downsides but it’s certainly not all positive. Twitter has given a voice to the people and the transparency it provides as crowd sourced news is amazing.
It also gives people like Jaden McNeil a large following instead of being a social outcast.
Yeah, and let's people who hate jaden stew and hate read and get really angry. And it let's people who would otherwise be on the fence about becoming "radicalized" (for lack of a better term) be subject to his influence. I don't think any of that is constructive.
I think we were better off when you had to go way out of your way to find really horrible stuff.
Like I said, there's a lot of good things social media has done (i.e. bring all of us together here!), but humanity hasn't ever had this phenomenon where everyone can read/watch everything happening everywhere. Maybe it turns out to be a good thing, but in my view it's a thing our brains/emotions aren't really equipped to handle in a positive way, on the whole.
-
have any of you gone an extended period of time without a smart phone(after already having one)?
-
I've gone a week. Never really missed it.
-
I've gone a week. Never really missed it.
went a year without one.. became a pain in the ass after a while though. its almost now in order to keep in contact with people that you must have one.
-
have any of you gone an extended period of time without a smart phone(after already having one)?
I gave up twitter for lent this year and honestly was good for me. May give it up for 2021.
-
What kind of jobs do you guys have? That's a nonstarter for me. And don't get me wrong. I wish that weren't so.
-
I'm an engineer. I need it for work, but I don't need it when I go on vacation.
-
I don’t need social media for work but I do need a smart phone.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
What kind of jobs do you guys have? That's a nonstarter for me. And don't get me wrong. I wish that weren't so.
Crossfit
-
What kind of jobs do you guys have? That's a nonstarter for me. And don't get me wrong. I wish that weren't so.
being on twitter or having a smart phone?
-
man a world effectively without social media sounds pretty sweet. would take.
Wut
I think it would be good if social media sites and any internet commenting outlet went away. I think it's been bad for us.
My best friend isn't on social media, not a single account, not even facebook, and has never, ever, not even in college had one. He doesn't think social media should be gone, it's like a non entity for him. It's like me calling for a ban on Florentine Football, it means nothing to me so I don't care about it. If everyone who thought social media was toxic would just leave social media wouldn't that just solve the problem?
-
Still think the net benefit outweighs the downsides but it’s certainly not all positive. Twitter has given a voice to the people and the transparency it provides as crowd sourced news is amazing.
It also gives people like Jaden McNeil a large following instead of being a social outcast.
Yeah, and let's people who hate jaden stew and hate read and get really angry. And it let's people who would otherwise be on the fence about becoming "radicalized" (for lack of a better term) be subject to his influence. I don't think any of that is constructive.
I think we were better off when you had to go way out of your way to find really horrible stuff.
Like I said, there's a lot of good things social media has done (i.e. bring all of us together here!), but humanity hasn't ever had this phenomenon where everyone can read/watch everything happening everywhere. Maybe it turns out to be a good thing, but in my view it's a thing our brains/emotions aren't really equipped to handle in a positive way, on the whole.
So true. I first had experience with twitter when I had gone back to Boston to see Royals @ Red Sox at Fenway with some bros. It was the day after the marathon bombing and there was a twitter account that had a police scanner and reported the lock down and bomber pursuit in real time. I was reading tweets from this account (outloud to my friends as we sheltered in place) about the MIT shooting/carjacking, pursuit into Watertown and the final standoff much, much faster than the news was reporting it. I was blown away.
After that, the experience to read while I watched sporting events or major world events via twitter was transformative. I still follow Ari Fleischer who on the anniversary of 9/11 he real time tweets what he went through with Bush in Florida and beyond that day. Quotes like "Mr. President, we are at war" while Bush is reading the goat book are amazing and a real benefit to those of us who care
And now, it is still great for those things. Tweeting during a cats game is fun and you can vent and complain and cheer and lots of people you've never met are liking and sharing your feelings.
But, the dark side of it is real, it's lame and at it's worst very bad.
Would be fine giving it up. but Dlew is nails, it is approaching a net negative for the general mental ramifications on a lot of its users.
-
man a world effectively without social media sounds pretty sweet. would take.
Wut
I think it would be good if social media sites and any internet commenting outlet went away. I think it's been bad for us.
If everyone who thought social media was toxic would just leave social media wouldn't that just solve the problem?
I don't think so because I think there are a number of different problems related to social media, and I don't think your proposed solution solves any of them. Even if everyone who thought social media was net bad left it, Qaren would still be going balls out #wwg1wga'ing, for example.
-
man a world effectively without social media sounds pretty sweet. would take.
Wut
I think it would be good if social media sites and any internet commenting outlet went away. I think it's been bad for us.
If everyone who thought social media was toxic would just leave social media wouldn't that just solve the problem?
I don't think so because I think there are a number of different problems related to social media, and I don't think your proposed solution solves any of them. Even if everyone who thought social media was net bad left it, Qaren would still be going balls out #wwg1wga'ing, for example.
The existence of wackos and conspiracy theories have nothing to do with the internet or social media. There have been some awful atrocities committed in the history of this planet that happened without the need of social media. Jim Jones was able to attract and kill people who believed in his crackpot theories without a computer or cell phone.
Are you guys actually being serious about this? You really think the bad of social media outweighs the good, like y'all think it's even close? If you think societies ills can be solved by getting rid of social media or if you think the world has been negatively affected by it, you either have no concept of what happened in the world before 2005, or you really do need to take a social media break, likely both. Because for every shitty interaction I've had or seen on social media, I have hundreds of laughing at a funny video, chatting with my buds about the cleat yeet, video chatting with my kids and their grandparents, seeing someone finding a kidney on Facebook, etc.
-
Keep social media. Ban cell phones
- sent from my iPhone
-
Yeah nobody said getting rid of social media would “cure society’s ills.”
I just think overall we were better off without it.
-
It’s too late anyway, we can ever go back. We will adapt to it over time like people did with other mediums that people thought would cause long term societal ills.
-
Trump thinks social media companies are mean to him so burn it all down is his answer. It’ll go away in a month.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
It’s too late anyway, we can ever go back. We will adapt to it over time like people did with other mediums that people thought would cause long term societal ills.
I think what we are seeing is how people have already adapted to it. President Trump, half the population refusing vaccines, everyone knowing at least a couple of Q people, etc. These things are not going away and will only get worse.
-
These TV’s and Video Games will rot people’s brains and it will only get worse!
-
These TV’s and Video Games will rot people’s brains and it will only get worse!
Diff is that there are studies(huge one just came out this week) that show that is not true. On the social media side, there are a lot of data that seem to show it is true with social media. I mean, parents should parent and all, but kids especially are seemingly being hit hard by it. On top of that there are studies showing that it is neg effecting our attention spans, how we absorb info, how much we can absorb, etc. Its not good.
I am not in the burn it all down camp, but we def need regulation put together by people who understand the issue and it's challenges as well as the nuance involved and the cascading effects they could have on non-social media internet. The problem is that, some likely due to the above info problems, nuance is not our thing.
-
The Social Dilemma, not even once
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
These TV’s and Video Games will rot people’s brains and it will only get worse!
Diff is that there are studies(huge one just came out this week) that show that is not true. On the social media side, there are a lot of data that seem to show it is true with social media. I mean, parents should parent and all, but kids especially are seemingly being hit hard by it. On top of that there are studies showing that it is neg effecting our attention spans, how we absorb info, how much we can absorb, etc. Its not good.
I am not in the burn it all down camp, but we def need regulation put together by people who understand the issue and it's challenges as well as the nuance involved and the cascading effects they could have on non-social media internet. The problem is that, some likely due to the above info problems, nuance is not our thing.
Another problem is asking people born in the 40s to regulate technology
-
I will take the other side for $100 a senate seat for even odds.
i'll accept your bet now, if you still want to make it.
-
It’s a murderers row of downgrades
https://twitter.com/ritholtz/status/1353897747330588672
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
kinda surprised there were that many nos.
-
also kinda interesting to look back and see that mnuchin was barely confirmed.
-
Imagine going to the mat for Janet Yellen.
I mean :lol:
-
Obvi how risk averse you are definitely correlates to the policy you want to borrow for. Still interesting how much public opinion shifted since 2010ish, wish they had 2020 on there too.
https://www.politico.com/amp/news/2021/01/26/wall-street-national-debt-462453?
yeah, there's been just a sea change in views of econ/policy people and business people seem only a little behind that. the general public still lags a fair bit, but it's still dropped off the radar.
-
Saw this and frankly couldn't believe the statistic.
Stuck it here so it didn't get swallowed up by a potentially Tay Tay bomb in the election thread.
There have been six presidents since 1989, three from each party, Under the three Democrats — Clinton, Barack Obama and Joe Biden — there was a cumulative increase of 50 million more people working between the starts of their terms and the ends. Under the three Republicans — George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush and Donald Trump — the cumulative total was, in fact, only 1 million
-
Link please as I look at articles about the worst housing affordability index in US history.
And by “working” are we talking full time or part time jobs. Because you derps really struggle with that as you attempt to gaslight TF out of the populace.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Link please as I look at articles about the worst housing affordability index in US history.
And by “working” are we talking full time or part time jobs. Because you derps really struggle with that as you attempt to gaslight TF out of the populace.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
ask and you shall, etc.
https://x.com/pbump/status/1826605868227383683
-
wanna go back further? you got it brother
https://x.com/pbump/status/1826606191746691368
-
obviously there are a lot more factors involved than who is president but if you want the data there you go my man
-
Doesn’t differentiate between full or part time and yeah, no crap, factors.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
oh, I'm sure it's much different if you differentiate between full and part time
-
What defines a “created” job?
How much of that was in government, healthcare and education to serve a growing populace?
Private vs public sector?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
I guess the bureau of labor statistics will never know. unknowable questions.
-
Don’t ask the commerce secretary , she thinks it’s all Trump conspiracy
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Probably just haven't trickled down yet
any way you slice it those numbers are wild af
-
Don’t ask the commerce secretary , she thinks it’s all Trump conspiracy
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
dax, can you check these stats for me real quick? lmao
https://x.com/Acyn/status/1826827590352654601
-
probably full time v. part time and he's directionally correct you think?
-
Don’t ask the commerce secretary , she thinks it’s all Trump conspiracy
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
dax, can you check these stats for me real quick? lmao
https://x.com/Acyn/status/1826827590352654601
Politician campaigning and likely misspeaking vs sitting high ranking executive branch seat holder who thinks statistics affirming that the administration she works for cooked the job numbers in a blast furnace is Trumpian propaganda . . . and then signals that she was completely unaware of either the numbers, or even worse, the entity that put them out even existed.
Yep-exactly the same thing
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Job growth? Or the #blueanon wonk state?
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20240823/5148636e302c9e5f4b41fd3a08419302.jpg)
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Job growth? Or the #blueanon wonk state?
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20240823/5148636e302c9e5f4b41fd3a08419302.jpg)
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
1. If I have 1000 students and add 100, and 2 administrative staff and add 2 more, which grew at a higher percentage?
2. Are schools now hiring multiple principles and vice principles to see 39% growth? Or, are we adding more schools?
-
probably full time v. part time and he's directionally correct you think?
That's exactly what it is. 12% of the population is on full time poverty, but 70% has days where their job sends them to some podunk town for a meeting and the Holiday Inn is full so they end up staying in some motel in poverty for the night.
-
Job growth? Or the #blueanon wonk state?
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20240823/5148636e302c9e5f4b41fd3a08419302.jpg)
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
1. If I have 1000 students and add 100, and 2 administrative staff and add 2 more, which grew at a higher percentage?
2. Are schools now hiring multiple principles and vice principles to see 39% growth? Or, are we adding more schools?
I don't know, it wasn't a rhetorical question.
During the current crap show administration, GDP growth is entirely fueled by all time record government spending and job growth sectors are exclusively government or highly government subsidized sectors.
-
there seem to be around 1 million Administrative jobs in the US at present
if you were to attribute every one of those jobs to the democratic job growth it would represent 2% of job growth under Democratic presidents
however that same number would equal 100% of job growth under the last three pubs...
-
That's a typical Lick hyper partisan response and absolutely expected.
No where did I mention or state any differences between Republican or Democratic POTUS administrations.
I attributed it purely to the #blueanon wonk state. I think even you can admit that the majority of education is dominated by #blueanon
The numbers during the current presidency don't lie. Job "growth" is government, subsidized sectors and part time. GDP growth almost wholly attributed to government spending.
-
that makes perfect sense
-
Tapout accepted
Lick, you can't take credit for job growth in an hyper administrative government subsidized environment aka the administrative state, which rarely if ever stops expanding.
It's makes absolutely perfect sense, which is why you tapped out.
You'll find similar charts all across related sectors.
-
So you are arguing that Dems have added around 48 million government jobs?
-
I didn't specify a party, Lick. Why is this so hard for you?
-
party aside
There are roughly 24 million people employed by government entities from municipal through federal government.
-
Job growth? Or the #blueanon wonk state?
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20240823/5148636e302c9e5f4b41fd3a08419302.jpg)
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Do people know what Administrative jobs are? The breakdown in the graph should give you a clue to figuring it out.
-
So if we deduct every government job in the US and every administrative position within education from the democratic job creation totals they are still outpacing Pub growth 25-1...
-
So if we deduct every government job in the US and every administrative position within education from the democratic job creation totals they are still outpacing Pub growth 25-1...
You're fighting a battle against someone that doesn't care about math. math is fake, first of all. and the people doing the math are political plants, secondly.
-
I know.
I just wanted to see where he tries to take this next.
Gone are the days where he would get embarrassed and take a break.
-
I know.
I just wanted to see where he tries to take this next.
Gone are the days where he would get embarrassed and take a break.
his stamina is more than yours
-
Job growth? Or the #blueanon wonk state?
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20240823/5148636e302c9e5f4b41fd3a08419302.jpg)
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Do people know what Administrative jobs are? The breakdown in the graph should give you a clue to figuring it out.
I believe administrative jobs are administrative jobs.
-
I’m talking to people who only care about political parties, when I’m not even breaking his down by party.
You guys are terrified to talk about job creation when it comes to breaking it down by public sector, highly government subsidized entities and part time jobs.
The “doesn’t care about math” narrative from a dude who tries to explain away every cooking of the books by the government (applies to Dem administrations only) is just rough ridin' classic.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
I’m talking to people who only care about political parties, when I’m not even breaking his down by party.
You guys are terrified to talk about job creation when it comes to breaking it down by public sector, highly government subsidized entities and part time jobs.
The “doesn’t care about math” narrative from a dude who tries to explain away every cooking of the books by the government (applies to Dem administrations only) is just rough ridin' classic.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
makes sense
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Tap outs at every turn
Imagine trying to explain away the overstatement of nearly a million jobs that never actually existed.
(Not to mention near all time record high part time job holders and the loss of nearly a million full time jobs in the last year)
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
I’m talking to people who only care about political parties, when I’m not even breaking his down by party.
You guys are terrified to talk about job creation when it comes to breaking it down by public sector, highly government subsidized entities and part time jobs.
The “doesn’t care about math” narrative from a dude who tries to explain away every cooking of the books by the government (applies to Dem administrations only) is just rough ridin' classic.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
:billdance:
-
I’m talking to people who only care about political parties, when I’m not even breaking his down by party.
You guys are terrified to talk about job creation when it comes to breaking it down by public sector, highly government subsidized entities and part time jobs.
The “doesn’t care about math” narrative from a dude who tries to explain away every cooking of the books by the government (applies to Dem administrations only) is just rough ridin' classic.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
:billdance:
Wasn't he stating he wasn't talking about political parties previously?
-
when your party baloons the national debt and can't grow jobs you gotta do something to detract from the facts
-
Job growth? Or the #blueanon wonk state?
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20240823/5148636e302c9e5f4b41fd3a08419302.jpg)
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Do people know what Administrative jobs are? The breakdown in the graph should give you a clue to figuring it out.
I believe administrative jobs are administrative jobs.
Does that include paraprofessionals? Not clear to me what would be included in administrative staff. It isn’t administrators- there is a separate category for principals and assistant principals. Is the claim here that is all superintendents and central office types? I’d be interested to know.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
-
I believe that this is a reflection of administration support staff such as teaching and learning, curriculum development, and technology integration type roles.
-
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GWJzWEuW8AAl2v_?format=jpg&name=900x900)
-
I believe that this is a reflection of administration support staff such as teaching and learning, curriculum development, and technology integration type roles.
It’s certainly possible, but there are definitely also way more paraprofessionals and it would be odd if they were not included anywhere in that graph.
-
para's are considered classified staff in the same way as lunch, custodial, and maintenance staff
i don't believe any of those are reflected in this graph
-
para's are considered classified staff in the same way as lunch, custodial, and maintenance staff
i don't believe any of those are reflected in this graph
Well we were both wrong. I went to the link and paras are called “instructional aides” and are a sub-category in a category called “school administrative and instructional staff”
https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d20/tables/dt20_213.10.asp
-
noted libs and communists at $GS smdh
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-09-03/goldman-sees-us-gdp-hit-from-trump-win-boost-if-democrats-sweep?embedded-checkout=true
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GWpLwYaWUAAEo-r?format=jpg&name=large)
-
What's the quick and dirty on US gdp hit for pubs? Assume it's the tariffs stuff?
-
I mean, the tariff stuff is huge.
-
What's the quick and dirty on US gdp hit for pubs? Assume it's the tariffs stuff?
Mass deportations are also bad for the economy.