The Marco Rubio/Ivanka thing is their plan to have working parents take the ability to put their SS payments in abeyance to give them more $$ now to help pay for childcare.
This accomplishes two things: it starves SS of funds and it will eventually lead to these same people not having SS available to them when they’re ready to collect their benefits because their eligibility has been reduced for non-contribution and the fund has been depleted.
It’s a massive lose-lose for the people, but a huge win for the GOP because they’ve been trying to dismantle SS since nearly its beginning.
If the Chump administration imposes a tax on foreign nations, and takes that new revenue stream and uses it to provide child care to every American, wouldn't that be socialism?
Sanewashing. I’m glad there is finally a word for it. It’s been a huge problem for the media trying to cover this lunatic without alienating 40% of the country, which is what they seem to be afraid of. But we are living in an era with buzzwords like “woke,” “cancelled,” “CRT,” etc., and that’s about the extent of the current American attention span. “Sanewashing” is a good way to shame media for normalizing this buffoon.
His “answer” about solving the problem of high child care costs by raising tariffs, his idiotic and misguided go-to policy during his insane tenure, should be insulting to average parents and economic experts alike. The answer is more than just lazy, it’s gaslighting to camouflage Trump’s utter lack of interest or understanding of any real issue. How will raising tariffs create enough money to then divert that cash into childcare? Is Trump proposing a cash subsidy for every child? If so, how much? Childcare can cost hundreds of dollars A WEEK. Some parents spend a huge percentage of their wages on childcare, especially when family are unable to take on some of it. Trump’s answer is simply “we will raise money,” which is a non-answer surrounded by some incoherent nonsense about Marco Rubio and Ivanka. I hope America sees just how insane this fucker is tonight.
Trump actually wants us to believe that Republicans would use those imaginary tax windfalls to pay for something socialist like child care and not to offset upper class tax cuts.
Except that he doesn't even get that far in his rambling, he in no way proposes that any money collected on tariffs would be used in a government program for childcare (whether direct funding, tax credit, etc.) All he says is that tariffs will bring in a lot of money. If we're going to try to parse what this word salad actually meant, it seems more likely that he meant that the economy will be doing so well that people will be able to pay for childcare themselves. (this of course is nonsense). Even the assumption in the Times that Trump meant he would use tariff revenues to fund childcare in some unknown way is sanewashing.
The Hawley-Smoot Tariff Act? Which did what? Raised or lowered tariffs? Anyone? Raised. Did it work? Anyone? Anyone? It did not work and America sank deeper into The Great Depression.
The sanewashing has been happening for a decade - it's consumed the overwhelming majority* of the political media (conservative media was more than happy to do it of course), and there's no end in sight
Anytime people are talking about Trump's "policies" or "agenda" or "plans" or "strategy" - I'm just like, "What?!?!!"
What are you talking about?
A half minute of an hour and a half babble fest? The thing he said is coming out in two weeks in response to a question he clearly has no actual understanding of? Half of one tweet that he sent in the midst of sending a dozen other tweets and 30 retweets in a two hour period? The insult about an opponent that he managed to work into a babbling 15 second answer to a reporter on the tarmac?
I expect this nonsense from someone Jordan Kepler is interviewing, but these people know better and are actively trying to keep it more interesting and it's so disgusting.
Hopefully a reckoning is finally starting to manifest itself, but it won't help in this election.
(I do love that since the last debate #Lawrence is trending pretty much every morning when I fire up the Internet machine)
*One of the many reasons that I give a few wonkbucks on the monthly plan - the only online thing I chip into
I'm not sure what audience the NYT is trying to appeal to, it isn't the MAGAs they don't read (the NYT), it isn't the Dems they hate the NYT. Who is remaining? Alan Dershowitz and Bill Maher? Or is it just the people who write for NYT, is that their only audience? So a journalistic circle jerk?
It's amazing how effective the decades long railing against the times, and the msm in general, by wingnutters managed to turn them into something that we can't fucking stand. Ugh.
Media seems incapable of grasping that despite all the lying, Trump is very sincere in his belief that tariffs directly tax foreign governments. He’s been saying this for nine years!
He also is very sincere in his belief the U.S. should run NATO like a protection racket, wherein our European allies have to pay us or as he says “pay up” for us to keep Russia from invading.
He says the same things over and over again on some topics for nine straight years. There’s no hidden meaning. He really believes tariffs are a direct tax on a foreign country. He thinks of NATO as a U.S. run protection racket.
I wrote approvingly of the Peter Baker article in a non-comment to today’s Tabs. The physical copy of today’s Times also has four pages comparing where the candidates stand on climate (“He has repeatedly attacked and spread misinformation about renewable energy, including statements claiming falsely that wind turbines cause cancer and are ‘driving whales crazy’ and that relying on solar power would leave older Americans without air-conditioning.”), the economy, democracy, abortion, Israel and Gaza, and immigration. The editorial page includes an editorial by the editorial board entitled “A Clear Choice on the Issue Voters Care About Most” (the issue is the high cost of living and the clear choice is Harris), and Paul Krugman on “Trump Doesn’t Grasp Why the World Uses Dollars.” Even a mommy blog and dick-joke emporium can be more fair and balanced about the quality and comprehensiveness of the Times’s reporting — beyond the lip service to its recipes. (And Melissa Clark’s recipe today for sausages with potatoes and red cabbage looks like a keeper.) I was upset by the Times’s focus on Biden’s age, but in the end that may have had a beneficial result. Until something better comes along, U.S. democracy requires news sources like the Times, which we are still free to read with skepticism.
If you read “Trump suggests tariffs can help solve rising child care costs in a major economic speech” out loud with the proper tone of voice while rolling you eyes and making jerk-off gestures, AP’s headline is pretty good.
"reductions that I told you about on waste and fraud and all of the other things that are going on in our country [...] We’re going to make this into an incredible country that can afford to take care of its people"
`
You wanna pick a lane, there, Stinky?
The way it works is, you can either have the encoded threat to "kick the [racial slur] off Welfare", OR you can have the fake-ass promise to "take care of people" -- but not both.
He said the country could afford to take care of its people - not that it would. Just hoping everyone will overlook that last bit - and it seems like everyone did!
Actually a fairly accurate description of the country right now...
The good thing about these O'Donnell clips is that he gets to go ON RECORD calling out bad faith bullshit BEFORE IT'S EVEN HAPPENED....He's got his 'told ya so's' all in a row...The MSM can't pretend to have been caught unawares.
"I told you what you were GOING to do and then you DID it"...How does that make you FEEL?
WE
SEE
YOU!
Thanks again Lawrence! You re truly a real Mench and patriotic American!
Wouldn't it be fun to have an MSNBC weekly segment where they predict EXACTLY how their competitors are going to run with a story or event BEFORE the event even takes place? Being predictable is EMBARRASSING and it points out exactly how MUCH of this outrage is manufactured and prepared
The first part of the segment could be evaluating predictions from the week before, and the second half making predictions for the coming week
The Marco Rubio/Ivanka thing is their plan to have working parents take the ability to put their SS payments in abeyance to give them more $$ now to help pay for childcare.
This accomplishes two things: it starves SS of funds and it will eventually lead to these same people not having SS available to them when they’re ready to collect their benefits because their eligibility has been reduced for non-contribution and the fund has been depleted.
It’s a massive lose-lose for the people, but a huge win for the GOP because they’ve been trying to dismantle SS since nearly its beginning.
If the Chump administration imposes a tax on foreign nations, and takes that new revenue stream and uses it to provide child care to every American, wouldn't that be socialism?
Sanewashing. I’m glad there is finally a word for it. It’s been a huge problem for the media trying to cover this lunatic without alienating 40% of the country, which is what they seem to be afraid of. But we are living in an era with buzzwords like “woke,” “cancelled,” “CRT,” etc., and that’s about the extent of the current American attention span. “Sanewashing” is a good way to shame media for normalizing this buffoon.
His “answer” about solving the problem of high child care costs by raising tariffs, his idiotic and misguided go-to policy during his insane tenure, should be insulting to average parents and economic experts alike. The answer is more than just lazy, it’s gaslighting to camouflage Trump’s utter lack of interest or understanding of any real issue. How will raising tariffs create enough money to then divert that cash into childcare? Is Trump proposing a cash subsidy for every child? If so, how much? Childcare can cost hundreds of dollars A WEEK. Some parents spend a huge percentage of their wages on childcare, especially when family are unable to take on some of it. Trump’s answer is simply “we will raise money,” which is a non-answer surrounded by some incoherent nonsense about Marco Rubio and Ivanka. I hope America sees just how insane this fucker is tonight.
Ta, Evan. I watched Lawrence last night. It's a righteous rant.
Trump actually wants us to believe that Republicans would use those imaginary tax windfalls to pay for something socialist like child care and not to offset upper class tax cuts.
Except that he doesn't even get that far in his rambling, he in no way proposes that any money collected on tariffs would be used in a government program for childcare (whether direct funding, tax credit, etc.) All he says is that tariffs will bring in a lot of money. If we're going to try to parse what this word salad actually meant, it seems more likely that he meant that the economy will be doing so well that people will be able to pay for childcare themselves. (this of course is nonsense). Even the assumption in the Times that Trump meant he would use tariff revenues to fund childcare in some unknown way is sanewashing.
Even Ferris Bueller's bored classmates understood tariffs better than Trump. Anyone? Anyone?
The Hawley-Smoot Tariff Act? Which did what? Raised or lowered tariffs? Anyone? Raised. Did it work? Anyone? Anyone? It did not work and America sank deeper into The Great Depression.
𝘎𝘢𝘳𝘣𝘢𝘨𝘦, 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘶𝘴𝘦𝘭𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘪𝘥𝘪𝘰𝘵 𝘨𝘢𝘳𝘣𝘢𝘨𝘦.
Not to the fascist corporate billionaire class they’re whoring themselves for.
The sanewashing has been happening for a decade - it's consumed the overwhelming majority* of the political media (conservative media was more than happy to do it of course), and there's no end in sight
Anytime people are talking about Trump's "policies" or "agenda" or "plans" or "strategy" - I'm just like, "What?!?!!"
What are you talking about?
A half minute of an hour and a half babble fest? The thing he said is coming out in two weeks in response to a question he clearly has no actual understanding of? Half of one tweet that he sent in the midst of sending a dozen other tweets and 30 retweets in a two hour period? The insult about an opponent that he managed to work into a babbling 15 second answer to a reporter on the tarmac?
I expect this nonsense from someone Jordan Kepler is interviewing, but these people know better and are actively trying to keep it more interesting and it's so disgusting.
Hopefully a reckoning is finally starting to manifest itself, but it won't help in this election.
(I do love that since the last debate #Lawrence is trending pretty much every morning when I fire up the Internet machine)
*One of the many reasons that I give a few wonkbucks on the monthly plan - the only online thing I chip into
I'm not sure what audience the NYT is trying to appeal to, it isn't the MAGAs they don't read (the NYT), it isn't the Dems they hate the NYT. Who is remaining? Alan Dershowitz and Bill Maher? Or is it just the people who write for NYT, is that their only audience? So a journalistic circle jerk?
If Trump wins, the Times’ will carry a big part of the blame. It has become embarrassingly partisan.
If Trump wins every headline and news article will be rewritten or scrubbed from.history. And you had better agree with the new version.
They had a heavy hand on the scales the time he did win
They gave us The War and they gave us Uranium One. And wingnutters call it a “liberal” paper.
It's amazing how effective the decades long railing against the times, and the msm in general, by wingnutters managed to turn them into something that we can't fucking stand. Ugh.
Media seems incapable of grasping that despite all the lying, Trump is very sincere in his belief that tariffs directly tax foreign governments. He’s been saying this for nine years!
He also is very sincere in his belief the U.S. should run NATO like a protection racket, wherein our European allies have to pay us or as he says “pay up” for us to keep Russia from invading.
He says the same things over and over again on some topics for nine straight years. There’s no hidden meaning. He really believes tariffs are a direct tax on a foreign country. He thinks of NATO as a U.S. run protection racket.
I wrote approvingly of the Peter Baker article in a non-comment to today’s Tabs. The physical copy of today’s Times also has four pages comparing where the candidates stand on climate (“He has repeatedly attacked and spread misinformation about renewable energy, including statements claiming falsely that wind turbines cause cancer and are ‘driving whales crazy’ and that relying on solar power would leave older Americans without air-conditioning.”), the economy, democracy, abortion, Israel and Gaza, and immigration. The editorial page includes an editorial by the editorial board entitled “A Clear Choice on the Issue Voters Care About Most” (the issue is the high cost of living and the clear choice is Harris), and Paul Krugman on “Trump Doesn’t Grasp Why the World Uses Dollars.” Even a mommy blog and dick-joke emporium can be more fair and balanced about the quality and comprehensiveness of the Times’s reporting — beyond the lip service to its recipes. (And Melissa Clark’s recipe today for sausages with potatoes and red cabbage looks like a keeper.) I was upset by the Times’s focus on Biden’s age, but in the end that may have had a beneficial result. Until something better comes along, U.S. democracy requires news sources like the Times, which we are still free to read with skepticism.
There news coverage can be excellent.
It’s there political coverage that chafes our political junky asses.
If you read “Trump suggests tariffs can help solve rising child care costs in a major economic speech” out loud with the proper tone of voice while rolling you eyes and making jerk-off gestures, AP’s headline is pretty good.
"reductions that I told you about on waste and fraud and all of the other things that are going on in our country [...] We’re going to make this into an incredible country that can afford to take care of its people"
`
You wanna pick a lane, there, Stinky?
The way it works is, you can either have the encoded threat to "kick the [racial slur] off Welfare", OR you can have the fake-ass promise to "take care of people" -- but not both.
He said the country could afford to take care of its people - not that it would. Just hoping everyone will overlook that last bit - and it seems like everyone did!
Actually a fairly accurate description of the country right now...
THAT is the definition we need....
The good thing about these O'Donnell clips is that he gets to go ON RECORD calling out bad faith bullshit BEFORE IT'S EVEN HAPPENED....He's got his 'told ya so's' all in a row...The MSM can't pretend to have been caught unawares.
"I told you what you were GOING to do and then you DID it"...How does that make you FEEL?
WE
SEE
YOU!
Thanks again Lawrence! You re truly a real Mench and patriotic American!
Side note:
Wouldn't it be fun to have an MSNBC weekly segment where they predict EXACTLY how their competitors are going to run with a story or event BEFORE the event even takes place? Being predictable is EMBARRASSING and it points out exactly how MUCH of this outrage is manufactured and prepared
The first part of the segment could be evaluating predictions from the week before, and the second half making predictions for the coming week