Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


About Cyrus

  • Rank
    Stands to Reason

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. This is where I think some progressives/liberals have a major blindspot, and are a bit tonedeaf themselves. The Green New Deal is a political trap in many ways, born of what Democrats inherently think are good intentions (they are), but is essentially unfeasible in every practical way (including politically). There's a reason why calculating party leaders are either trying to put it to vote (McConnell) or distance themselves from it (Pelosi). The Green New Deal is in many ways not real, but it "feels good". It's like virtue signaling at a Congressional/Federal level. Of course, the Republicans are jumping all over and needlessly distorting it, but it is relatively easy fodder. I'll remind Democrats or lean-left individuals that it's not about the values of what the Green New Deal represents, but that it's not possible to really implement - especially in the "10 year mobilization" that is mentioned in the resolution. It also greatly exaggerates the tech we have now, and our ability to manufacture said technology. (specifically for net-zero emissions which would require battery technology we don't have, or mineral extraction at rates that are not currently possible). Much of the Green New Deal is dependent on MMT (Modern Monetary Theory) insofar as it's dependent on further, limitless deficit spending. If true (MMT), we have access to limitless investment through the Fed printing cash - or we have runaway inflation that crushes the poor and middle class and is economically devastating. Some, who think we are near a catastrophic climate threshold might go along with it, but it's an incredibly risky proposition. For centrists like myself, this is a huge problem. More moderate candidates like Clinton (LNG as a bridge technology) and McCain (LNG + Nuclear) might have brought along more incremental change that would have tangibly reduced CO2 emissions over the last decade (from 2008). But political purity and it's orthodoxy makes any type of incremental, modest change extremely difficult. Making changes ten or more years ago would be far better than revolution ten years in the future when we might be more desperate for reform. So my suggestion is this: Don't take the bait. Be more persuasive. Be an advocate for change, but realize that accomplishing something better is better than doing nothing. Don't let be perfection be the enemy of the good.
  2. I don't know if you've been a government employee all your life, but small businesses and even smaller corporations screw up payroll all the time.
  3. Of course the IRS changed the tables. That's not up for debate. I'm guessing thousands and thousands of businesses didn't properly modify withholdings, or did so incorrectly after they were released. Saying that your taxes went up and that your withholdings were off can both be true.
  4. These types of issues happened before the tax change with two income families. It's likely the new tax law exacerbated it. I suspect that someone who is managing payroll made a mistake at one of the places you work. You can compare your W-2 to the IRS tables to figure out which employer is screwing up.
  5. Well the tax bill was rushed through, so I don't believe they had much time. I think revised tables went out in February/March? There's a few layers here. You can think the bill was a total sham, but that doesn't mean the IRS is playing politics and it also doesn't mean that whoever is running payroll is competent. I can't find any reports of inaccurate tables (later in the year) that you speak of. Just numerous articles that employers may be withholding too little.
  6. The revised withholding table should never leave you paying at the end of the year unless you have other incomes or whoever is running payroll is setting it up improperly. (Likely one of the major problems). The elimination of the personal exemption is what’s likely hurting a lot of people.
  7. Should be $2,000, $1,200 of which is fully refundable even if your tax basis is $0. I think net-net were receiving more back this year due to the increase in the child tax credit. ($2000 vs $4000 with two children). We also had more HSA deductible expenses as well. The cost of our sons birth was fully deductible because we passed all the expenses, $3,500 worth, through our HSA. (Which comes off the top line of your income before any standard deduction - so not impacted by the new law). We’ve got some other tax favorable set ups too. @ChesterCopperpot1 if you’re only seeing $500 you’ve inputted it improperly. This deduction is for a limited category of adult dependents.
  8. First half looks like really standard builder / land developer stuff. Second half gets really interesting. No idea what to make it. Was the whole Trump Tower thing just a foil for some type of other arrangement? I don't know.
  9. More relevant to Democratic primary decisions (activist vs reassurance) but apropos: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/01/how-howard-schultz-may-save-democratic-party/581443/
  10. This article would be a lot more interesting if it were more academic, rather than stating that "this is how 2016 was therefore 2020 will be..." Yes - it's very well known that independents does not mean "true independents" which seems like a weird distinction, but this is why we often frame centrists as "center-right, center-left". This is a lexicon we've used for decades, and it does not seem unusual. My opinion is that the partisan divide is so distinct that it's difficult to crossover for most voters. However the option of a 3rd party breaks that divide, assuming it's a quality candidate (which Mr. Starbucks may not be). It's here I think that lean-Republican or even some partisan conservatives would consider a 3rd party as an option if some of the social commentary and existing framework struggles to stick. Certainly partisans on both sides will claim that the independent is really a wolf in sheeps clothing, but I think we're in more uncertain territory given the exceptional circumstances. Parties and their coalitions have changed over time, the question is when. We may or may not be in that moment. It's already changed greatly, and I think that there will be a breaking point within the Republican party sooner or later.
  11. My personal hope is that the Republican party dies and a more moderate, centrist party takes its place. So if the Democratic party goes with an activist nominee and the Republican party does everything they do to prevent Trump from being primaried, then an "En Marche" party becomes really viable. Someone like Bloomberg would probably be a better option. Then that party could potentially permanently displace the Republican party, along with the know-nothings holding it hostage.
  12. I think it's more likely that a 3rd party candidate would split the Republican party vote, not the Democratic. So I think it's pretty easy to challenge that assumption right off the bat. I think it's fairly lazy thinking to believe that if a 3rd party candidate is running against Trump (the incumbent) then all they do is split the opposing party. I don't know Schultz platform, but if it's anything like Bloomberg, then it would primarily appeal to more moderate Republicans (socially "liberal"). And as a tangent, it would be better/wiser for a number of centrist to come together and basically run a new 3rd party, not just a candidate. (like Macron and Marche). That could easily peel off a good number of former/current Republicans depending on the platform, independents and some Democrats depending on whether they go activist (Beto/Harris/Sanders) in their primary or reassurance (Biden).
  13. I’ve been familiar with Yglesias since he was a writer for Slate a decade ago. I’m guessing he’s still in the industry because he can put out articles on time. His takes tend to be uniquely inaccurate and often uninformed. Kind of here nor there, but I’m just really surprised to continue to see him around.
  14. Cyrus

    Eric Weddle

    Sounds like a guy who could play as a 3rd safety/dime and then transition into a defensive assistant after he's done playing.
  • Create New...