Imagine this nonsensical shell game: Haley starts to rise to the top, as people come to their senses.
But, she has the potential to beat Biden. Now what to do?
Biden bows out, and someone younger, hipper, and electable steps to the forefront. And then it becomes a real race, worthy of attention (instead of gawking).
Republicans have been chirping now and then that this is Biden's plan. Get Trump to the nomination, and then bow out.
I wish it was...but I just don't think Joe sees the risks of his running. He doesn't believe he's too old. Old people rarely do.
FWIW - Is the Beakers dyslexia on the link intentional? The article is about Haley stopping Trump (based on the link)...not the other way around.
Imagine this nonsensical shell game: Haley starts to rise to the top, as people come to their senses.
But, she has the potential to beat Biden. Now what to do?
Biden bows out, and someone younger, hipper, and electable steps to the forefront. And then it becomes a real race, worthy of attention (instead of gawking).
There is no clear winner in either tax policy, without an effort to control spending. Keeping corporate taxes low and raising taxes on capital gains for the wealthy are a step in the right direction...encourages reinvestment of capital rather than distributions to shareholders. Also, raisie the estate taxes above a reasonable value.
WASHINGTONâThere isnât a dimeâs worth of a difference between the political parties. The chasm is more like $6 trillion.
The winners of Novemberâs presidential and congressional elections will quickly face decisions on extending tax cuts scheduled to expire after 2025. President Biden and Republicans support starkly different tax plans.
Republicans generally want to extend all expiring tax cuts from the 2017 law former President Donald Trump signed. The price tag: $4 trillion over a decade.
Biden proposed extending Trumpâs tax cuts for households making under $400,000 annually but said the rest should expire. Beyond that, he would raise taxes further on top earners and corporations. That plan, including tax increases the president hasnât fully detailed, would generate more than $2 trillion beyond current forecasts.
That $6 trillion gap is on the ballot, and the ultimate resolution will affect family budgets, corporate profits and the federal governmentâs fiscal health amid rising debt.
With the White House, Senate and House up for grabs, one party could sweep into office and impose much of its fiscal vision. More likely, however, they will be limited by intraparty fights. If neither party wins full control, a divided government would likely force compromise.
Tax battle looms
Here is why the tax fight looms in 2025.
In 2017, Republicans cut corporate and individual tax rates and curtailed tax breaks. They made the corporate cut permanent but scheduled most individual tax changes to lapse, a common strategy to lower the headline cost of legislation and pass partisan fiscal bills.
If Congress does nothing and those changes expire, the standard deduction would shrink, marginal rates would climb and a deduction for closely held businesses would vanish.
That is considered the baseline scenario by nonpartisan budget forecasters. The Congressional Budget Office projects that the U.S. will collect $60 trillion in revenue from 2024 through 2033. Biden would aim above that target; Republicans would go below.
Republicans push to keep cuts
Republicans see the 2017 law as a rousing success that boosted the prepandemic economy. The party consensus remains that the cuts should continue beyond 2025.
GOP presidential candidates havenât fully specified tax plans. Trump, who leads in polls, hasnât articulated a second-term tax policy besides a new 10% across-the-board tariff.
People with nothing move to where they can get something/anything. Republicans pretend to support self-reliance, and so provide little if possible. This is, of course, Christian⢠- to deny those in need.
And, because we allow the super rich people (remember that corporations are now people, too) to suck up wealth and dodge taxes, the others are left with little. Little food. Little safety. Little hope. Tell them to poo somewhere else all you want; they canât. Living on the streets eating out of trash is their version of keeping alive. Some are drug addled; some are crazy; some are just screwed over. Since theyâre so different thereâs no good expedient solution - but the GOP thinks that hurting them or shoving them elsewhere is good policy. Again, itâs Christianâ¢.
A sanctuary city doesnât mean it has adequate resources, but it means they donât hate/fear/torment the people coming from somewhere else. So, of course the GOP mocks that intended kindness and tries to scuttle it when possible. It embarrasses them to be so parsimonious, hateful, and seen.
Then why are many major stores in San Fran closing in droves and leaving the city ?
Years ago you spoke of food / retail deserts. Behold the rebirth and for the same reasons as before. History is repeating itself.
One of the wealthiest cities that probably spends more per capita for the homeless than almost any other US city. And gets very little (if anything) in progress for solving the problem.
And you mention police protection ... who again is the party of defund the police ? Sure ain't the repubs.
And one more thing ... isn't San Fran the original Sanctuary City here in these United States ? Who again was the Mayor who declared it so ?
People with nothing move to where they can get something/anything. Republicans pretend to support self-reliance, and so provide little if possible. This is, of course, Christian⢠- to deny those in need.
And, because we allow the super rich people (remember that corporations are now people, too) to suck up wealth and dodge taxes, the others are left with little. Little food. Little safety. Little hope. Tell them to poo somewhere else all you want; they canât. Living on the streets eating out of trash is their version of keeping alive. Some are drug addled; some are crazy; some are just screwed over. Since theyâre so different thereâs no good expedient solution - but the GOP thinks that hurting them or shoving them elsewhere is good policy. Again, itâs Christianâ¢.
A sanctuary city doesnât mean it has adequate resources, but it means they donât hate/fear/torment the people coming from somewhere else. So, of course the GOP mocks that intended kindness and tries to scuttle it when possible. It embarrasses them to be so parsimonious, hateful, and seen.
All the poo map means is that our nation is concentrating money into the hands of billionaires and giant corporations (hello, capitalism), and that the problem of fentanyl is as bad as it seems. Take away money, jobs, affordable housing, access to health care, and even police protection - and folks move to places where the weather suits their clothes.
Then why are many major stores in San Fran closing in droves and leaving the city ?
Years ago you spoke of food / retail deserts. Behold the rebirth and for the same reasons as before. History is repeating itself.
One of the wealthiest cities that probably spends more per capita for the homeless than almost any other US city. And gets very little (if anything) in progress for solving the problem.
And you mention police protection ... who again is the party of defund the police ? Sure ain't the repubs.
And one more thing ... isn't San Fran the first real Sanctuary City here in these United States (Berkeley in 1971 not withstanding) ?
Newsome was Lt Gov when California declared itself a Sanctuary State in 2017.
All the poo map means is that our nation is concentrating money into the hands of billionaires and giant corporations (hello, capitalism), and that the problem of fentanyl is as bad as it seems. Take away money, jobs, affordable housing, access to health care, and even police protection - and folks move to places where the weather suits their clothes.
@Beaker: the clips I saw of the debate tell a different story. Newsom wiped the floor with De Santis.
Poor Sean Hannity tried to throw it for Ron but that was too much for him...
All the poo map means is that our nation is concentrating money into the hands of billionaires and giant corporations (hello, capitalism), and that the problem of fentanyl is as bad as it seems. Take away money, jobs, affordable housing, access to health care, and even police protection - and folks move to places where the weather suits their clothes.
Not endorsing anyone here, except Dimon's more articulate and rational approach urging people to listen more:
JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon joins moderator Andrew Ross Sorkin at The New York Times DealBook Summit to discuss the 2024 presidential election, whether the business community should be speaking out on politics, why heâs eager to help the U.S. president regardless of whoâs in the White House, and more.
