Slashdot Mirror

" thanks to the prevalence of qualified programmers which carmakers are struggling to hire elsewhere" is the key phrase.

This shortage is thanks to a long sequence of governments in the US .. who have put in tireless work over several decades to disassemble their education systems and stultify their populations by replacing mathematics with LBGTQ indoctrination, replacing writing with cultural Marxism, and replacing history with an intersectional contest to claim biggest victim status, and otherwise replacing achievement with FEELZ.

And then blaming whitey.

FTFY.

How the hell else do we wind up with new-face-of-the-Democratic-Party Marxist bae, donkey-chompereed, bug-eyed Chiquita Kruschev graduate cum laude from Boston University with a degree in economics coupled with a demonstrated inability to understand unemployment?

Trump had teams of angry people trying to pin him with something/anything. And?

Well, for a concrete item, there's the felony campaign finance violation that Cohen got convicted of where the court documents essentially said they would have indicted Trump but won't while he's president.

Cohen pleaded guilty to avoid more serious unrelated charges. It's very unlikely the payment to Stormy Daniels constituted a campaign finance violation but Mueller wanted Cohen to plead guilty to it to advance the narrative. See https://www.politifact.com/tru... for some discussion on the nuances of this law. Even if it is ultimately determined to be a violation, for something that small the penalty would just be a fine.

obstruction, which, by the way, REQUIRES that there be an actual crime for which the investigation was obstructed...

Well hold on. That's just AG William Barr's view. And he has even more generous views on whether the POTUS can obstruct justice at all. Which is to say, he think the POTUS can't. And to that point, he wrote what was practically an audition letter to be AG.

As for whether there has to be an underlying crime for there to be obstruction ... I give you Martha Stweart.

How you like being fact-checked, Trumptards? See you in prison either way lol.

Twelve years to Climageddon. You just pay for it. Just illegally shuffle money between PACs and LLCs. Unemployment is low because everyone is working two jobs. Need I go on?

It's pretty plain why Kamala Harris wants to send your money through Washington and keep a portion of it. Why YOU would agree with that I have no idea. Unless you're just a superfan of politicians that play for team D. Superfans do non-sensical things.

The irony here is that "red" states generally take more money from the federal government than they pay into it. Which is to say, people like you complaining about taxes are more likely to be from a "taker state".

A majority of the wealth in this nation is generated by a few states (ironically "blue" ones). The remaining states don't have the resources they need to maintain a modern population. It's not a good idea to abandon them. It's immoral and just plain bad juju to abandon folks to their fate.

And besides, A demagogue will rise up to take advantage of them. If you're lucky you get one that's mostly harmless. If you're not, you get one of these

https://www.politifact.com/tex...

Yeah, DUI. Burglary, was a charge and was dropped. Sounds like it should have been trespass per the article.

Actually, it is pretty well spread across Texas. That is why a number of of us are like wtf. The opinion here is he is corrupt:

Abused eminent domain against the hispanic community for his father in law's profit
Has a record of DWI and Burglary

Grain of salt, I know nothing about him at all. I look forward to learning though, and it takes time to type this much.

#1 - Son of a judge, he was born into that. Not his fault.

#2-Went to boarding school, not his fault. The well-to-do prep their children as they see fit and are financially able to do so (great reason for Euro medical care and college education systems actually). Even if you starred in Full House.

#3 - Are you an angel?

I wasn't in my younger days, I won't speak to current days.

He openly admits this, and it was 20 years ago:
https://www.politifact.com/tex...

Did you ever scratch a car? Skip a class? Have a drink and then drive?

#4 - This is tougher. Rich and powerful ally with the same. Since the Middle Ages and before (Egypt, and before, single family affairs though).

Party affiliation is irrelevant to me. Actually it isn't, I want anybody not in the mainstream to be successful.

Any citizen of the US should have at least the services provided the three million people we keep in prisons or jails.
  Prison is socialism, and we are good at it (best in the world, better than China!). Think about that for a minute..

Regarding his upbringing, FATE is where, when, and to whom you are born into the world. It limits or expands possibilities.

So it goes.

You want non-Snopes sources then?

Q: Did House passage of H.R. 1 allow noncitizens to vote?

A: No. That bill would enact a host of changes to election laws, but it does not permit noncitizens to vote.

Misinformation Follows House Approval of H.R. 1

The confusion regarding noncitizens stems from the use of a legislative maneuver, known as a motion to recommit, that represented the last opportunity for the Republicans to amend the bill before it was passed.

On March 8, the same day the House cast its final vote on the bill, Texas Republican Rep. Dan Crenshaw introduced a Motion to Recommit H.R. 1 to the Judiciary Committee with instructions to add language condemning voting by “illegal immigrants.”

But “sense of Congress” provisions, such as the one offered by Crenshaw, have “no force of law,” as explained in a Congressional Research Service report.

“A ‘sense of’ resolution is not legally binding because it is not presented to the President for his signature,” the CRS report said. “Even if a ‘sense of’ provision is incorporated into a bill that becomes law, such provisions merely express the opinion of Congress or the relevant chamber. They have no formal effect on public policy and have no force of law.”

Federal law explicitly prohibits noncitizens from voting in federal elections, and no state has allowed it since the 1920s.

That was very generous of them to call it "confusion". I'm beginning to suspect Crenshaw isn't very honest:

Crenshaw falsely says HR1 would legalize the type of election fraud found in NC

And it seems Republicans don't want people to vote:

Republicans freak out over HR1: They don't want America to have fair elections

But going forward, more and more politicians will have the same thing apply - people will judge them based on what they have actually said and done instead of what the media claims about them. You can even see that with newer politicians like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez - she gets a lot of flak from the right, but you can watch a lot of video from her that is fairly reasonable, so the calls that she is crazy do not really stick.

Not sure who's calling her crazy, but from what I've seen, she's pretty dumb. I think she gets a pass because she's fairly attractive, and a useful idiot for their agenda. For instance, there's this gem: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez wrong on several counts about unemployment

There are dozens of similar claims she's made like this. As Murray Rothbard said "It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a 'dismal science.' But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance."

Wow.

It's as if magically saying, "you must pay workers $X/hour" doesn't make those workers worth $X/hour to their employer.

Whoda thunk!

Maybe now they can get another job and drive the unemployment rate even lower!

(Calling AOC "dumb as a post" is an insult to wood. When Politifact slams a "progressive" with their "Liar! Liar! Pants on FIRE!" response, there's some serious stupidity in the statement....)

I take your point, but shouldn't that same standard apply to Trump, given how frequent and well documented his lying is? How do you dismiss liars while believing whole heartedly their king?

(I'm using the impersonal you of course, it doesn't seem like you are defending him.)

> Obama, Hillary, Pelosi, Schumer... All voted for the wall. I

Nope, they voted for fencing--not for a "wall" anything like Trump's. Difference.

Politifact rates your claim as half-true

I believe the Politifact article you are referring to is: here. If this is not your article, please provide a link. This link shows your post to either be confused or full of carefully constructed half truths.

Your list of net givers appears to be taken from the figure from the California Legislative Analyst's Office, January 2017 (original). If so, you are reading that figure wrong. That is the per capita federal spending in the state - what the feds send back, not the net transfer.

Much of the original discussion around this started with a study from The Tax Foundation. Characterizations of this group range from neutral/non-partisan to fiscal conservative/business friendly. That study listed the top ten givers as:

Colorado: $0.81
New York: $0.79
California: $0.78
Delaware: $0.77
Illinois: $0.75
Minnesota: $0.72
New Hampshire: $0.71
Connecticut: $0.69
Nevada: $0.65
New Jersey: $0.61

and takers as

New Mexico: $2.03
Mississippi: $2.02
Alaska: $1.84
Louisiana: $1.78
West Virginia: $1.76
North Dakota: $1.68
Alabama: $1.66
South Dakota: $1.53
Kentucky: $1.51
Virginia: $1.51

But that's from 2005, and the California report I linked to above said they had questions about its methodology around estimating taxes paid by Californians.

WalletHub put out an analysis last year on "2018’s Most & Least Federally Dependent States." That list is largely similar, but with California buried at (gasp!) #39.

I have better things to do on a Saturday than correct people on the Internet, but if you'd actually like to have an informed discussion, we can pull data from the IRS and understand why PolitiFact's conclusion was there isn't a simple answer.

That's the problem; we're number 3 in the world in spending per student, and we're 17th out of 22 in the OECD in high school graduation rates.

We should pay more attention to Eisenhower's warning about the Government-Education complex, and how it's feeding off of the US taxpayer as much as the military-industrial complex. For example, the DOD budget in 2016 was $585 billion; Federal and State spending on K-12 education in 2016 was $620 billion. How many people would guess we spend more on education of K-12 than we do on the military?

When DOD cost overruns are found, there is much howling about cutting back to the DOD, increasing oversight, etc. When the educational system fails (as it does), there is handwringing and demand to spend even more. Somehow society has been conditioned to accept failure of the Government-Education complex and reward that failure with even more dollars and apologies.

I have mixed feelings about this.
First, the idea that algorithms alone can 'predict' something as subjective, human, and impulse-based as crime is ridiculous, and (I believe) born of a Utopian idea that taking people out of the equation can somehow remove bias, racism, and subjectivity from the process leaving some sort of idealistically mechanical, sterile system. For anyone who's worked in policing, crime prevention, or law enforcement fields, this should be a staggeringly stupid idea. Who's writing such algorithms but other people? On top of that, I expect there are now encrusted layers of ideology, in which results that don't conform to some utopian ideal of demographics are claimed to be 'racist' and formulaically 'corrected' to suit political goals, regardless of the facts of reality.

OTOH there is ABUNDANT work that shows that recidivism, particularly in the worst crimes, is concentrated in a surprisingly small number of individuals. I worked for a police dept where the longest serving officers maintained that 80%+ of the crimes were committed by a handful of families in the 50,000+ person city.

https://www.politifact.com/tex... lists some examples:

University of Pennsylvania criminologist Marvin Wolfgang tracked nearly 10,000 boys born in 1945 and living in Philadelphia from age 10 through 17; they ultimately gauged how often each boy came in contact with police for an offense. One upshot: 627 boys, 6 percent of the group, each accounted for five or more offenses, according to police reports. Those boys, Wolfgang wrote, were collectively identified as responsible for 52 percent of all the offenses recorded in the study and, he said, about two-thirds of all violent crimes believed to have been committed by the juveniles. In Patrick-speak, Wolfgang found that 6 percent of juvenile boys accounted for about half of alleged juvenile crimes.

The follow-up study, presented in progress in 1982, tracked more than 28,000 boys and girls born in 1958 who lived in Philadelphia from age 10 through 17. Among males, the study found, 61 percent of reported offenses were committed by 1,030 "chronic recidivists," comprising 7 percent of males in the study. That is, 7 percent of the boys accounted for 61 percent of the juvenile offenses.

In 2014, Swedish researchers drawing on records accounting for the experiences of 2.5 million people born in that country from 1958 to 1980 reported that from 1973 to 2004, some 1 percent of the population accounted for 63 percent of all violent crime convictions.

So it's clear that if we could identify this small percent and aggressively police them, we could make a sizable impact on crime.

Since you did not provide a source, I found an article on Politifact's site which contained a few of these numbers here. It seems to ramble, and appears to be an opinion piece.

There are some better statistics that you can examine from the Associated Press, The Atlantic, and WalletHub, and The Tax Foundation

The Tax Foundation tracks the numbers back to 1981.

https://people.howstuffworks.com/which-states-give-the-most-the-federal-government-which-get-the-most.htm

After reading all of these, I am inclined to believe that you were fishing for something that would reinforce your opinion.

You can't fool all the people, all the time.

CA really isn't a donor State; it gets back $0.99 for every $1.00 it sends to Washington, DC. California about breaks even...

That study ranked California 42nd among the fifty states and the District of Columbia for the amount of federal per capita expenditure ($9,172).

...

The LAO also cites figures from a March 2016 report by the Pew Charitable Trusts. It found the federal government spent nearly $356 billion in California in fiscal year 2014, for salaries and wages, grants, contracts, retirement benefits and other benefits. That same year, California paid about $369 billion in total federal tax -- or about $13 billion more than it received -- according to the Internal Revenue Service Data Book, 2014.

https://www.politifact.com/cal...

Actually the statistics demonstrate that people with higher educations tend to favor Democratic policies and ideals. ....

In other words, people who grew up sheltered, never had to work for a living, and had mommy and daddy around to pay for college?

Education != intelligence

Just look and the current Marxist bae of the left - Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. She's so "educated" that she had to 404 her "New Green Deal" off her web site in less than 24 hours, because it was bog-standard election-losing leftist STUPID drivel like "everyone is entitled to economic security whether they want to work or not."

AOC is so fucking "educated" with her economics degree paid for by her parents from Boston University that she's TOO FUCKING STUPID to know how unemployment works:

Ocasio-Cortez said, "Unemployment is low because everyone has two jobs. Unemployment is low because people are working 60, 70, 80 hours a week and can barely feed their family."

So you wanna spout crap about "education"? That STUPID shit is from someone who graduated summa cum laude with a degree in economics.

In other words, "education" today is fucking worthless.

You watch - after dragging Democrats down with her Marxist/Communist/Socialist FWEEEE STUFFFZZ!!!, AOC is gonna get primaried and shitcanned in 2020.

It helps to notice that nearly all the articles that show up in that search are hosted by conservative or conservative-leaning organizations. Or hype factories.

This one at Politifact describes how people paint all these defeats as Obama's failures.

TL;DR: 8 of the cases were started by the Bush administration and the Obama administration continued to defend them, which is apparently common. Only one case could be considered Obama "overstepping executive authority".

Great Point.. This is how we are being so played. One batch pits Red vs Blue with Social media. the other boasts that it wants to ascend to world leadership. US has its own leader running (ruining?) his country pushing his Wall (ego .. a personal tribute to his presidency) instead of jobs and middle class. Coal Miners? Lets look at that . https://www.politifact.com/tru... ... Here is what we hear internationally: https://asia.nikkei.com/Politi... ,.. How to get US back on track?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/ne...

Or from 2008

https://www.politifact.com/fac...

Or last year

https://www.11alive.com/articl...

Or just in general

https://www.globalresearch.ca/...

I mean, c'mon...you've got democrats on record like Shumer, Obama...big time democrats that only a few short years ago were openly supporting wall construction and re-enforcement.

They are in support of a very different kind of wall than what Trump wants. To Obama, a bunch of fence here or there is "basically done"

https://www.politifact.com/tru...

Even politifact and in all its bias can only say Obama is being "barely true".

It's interesting how often those on the right would rage about Obama and Democrats being liars ("you can keep your doctor"), or how the MSM spreads fake news, but here they're hanging on to every word the Dems said. ...and then they get even more pissed when the Dems pull the same thing and hold Trump to his word about "making Mexico pay for it (the wall)"

Too bad the current President lies even more than his toupee.

Turns out there was no contract for him to perform the State of the Union. Apparently he thinks he is a celebrity, not a servant of the people. Not that he doesn't have a history of broken contracts and retracted promises.

So you can keep whining about Obama, and Hillary, and Bill, and even Jimmy Carter and Buchanan. Of course, you have cited so many false offenses that you lack credibility. Kinda your own fault for wasting all your effort screaming Birther nonsense.

It's why you deny Trump is a problem, when he can't even figure out a shut down is bad for the country. He even preemptively took responsibility for it, and promised not to blame anybody else.

Except he did.

Funny that.

Guess his Russian handler messed up.

Oh well, go put on your little red MAGA hat and scream at a Native American to go home.

Good thing the previous President never lied! Oh, wait...

Are you saying it's democrats that are responsible for not just agreeing to whatever the hell trump wants? They would get nothing in return. That's not how congress works.

Except it is. Obama threatened to shut down the govt no fewer than 3 times (one of which actually took place) to get "whatever the hell" he wanted.
The first time was in 2011 when he pretty much wouldn't reduce spending: https://abcnews.go.com/Politic...
The second time was in 2013 on ACA: https://www.politifact.com/fac...
The third time was in 2015 on spending again: http://www.freedomworks.org/co...

So it is how Congress works, in these days of no-compromise.

They always go to this. But California paying in more than they get back is not a BUG, it's a FEATURE of California being the home of many of millionaires and billionaires who are the targets of the high tax rates demanded by the progressives.

"In January 2017, the California Legislative Analyst’s Office said by several measures California is, indeed, a donor state, but just barely. It receives $0.99 in federal expenditures per dollar of taxes paid."

"The LAO also cites figures from a March 2016 report by the Pew Charitable Trusts. It found the federal government spent nearly $356 billion in California in fiscal year 2014, for salaries and wages, grants, contracts, retirement benefits and other benefits. That same year, California paid about $369 billion in total federal tax -- or about $13 billion more than it received -- according to the Internal Revenue Service Data Book, 2014.

https://www.politifact.com/cal...

Note that the averages are wildly skewed by the federal spending in Virginia and Maryland, which is basically the paychecks of all the federal employees in D.C.

Border fence in Israel cut illegal immigration by 99 percent, GOP senator says - Politifact says it's true. I'd say a 99% cut in illegal immigration is rather good, wouldn't you?

Funny, all the Border patrol agents say a wall would help. Politifact confirms that walls work, and they're hardly a pro-Trump site. Walls can work when combined with everything else; not using a wall with everything else makes it harder to control illegal immigration. The border patrol agents want it, Politifact confirms they can work - but some lawyers in DC want to play politics and claim they know better...

Would you be supportive of immigration controls that are effective, such as random ID checks and fines for employers of illegal immigrants?

Besides, even if it's not perfect, a one-time $5 billion is peanuts compared to the cost of hosting illegal immigrants. Even the liberal politifact says the costs is between $43 to $279 billion per year. Over the lifetime of the wall, which is probably 20 years or more, that's 0.0008% to 0.005%.

So the wall only has to be 0.005% effective to save us money, which it certainly will be. Heck, even Trump's rhetoric about building the wall is more than 0.005% effective.

The argument is that Democrats, once in favor of border barriers, are now only opposing the wall in an attempt to embarrass the president.

If Trump had the slightest sense of humility his earlier embarrassments - indeed his self-inflicted wounds on the world stage - would have likely driven him to resign. There is no point in trying to embarrass him, and no need to make him look like a total idiot on the world stage. The former has no effect and the latter has been done many many times already.

"We still don't understand why the Democrats are so wholeheartedly against [the wall]. They voted for it in 2006. Then-Senator Obama voted for it. Senator Schumer voted for it. Senator Clinton voted for it. So we don't understand why Democrats are now playing politics just because Donald Trump is in office," White House Budget Director Mick Mulvaney said in 2017.

And Mulvaney's statement was rated half-true at politifact . Notably, the bill he is referring to - which George W Bush signed into law - was called The Secure Fence Act of 2006. It was built, and then Trump himself trashed it by calling it "such a little wall, it was such a nothing wall". So if the administration wants to claim that the democrats are opposed to the wall simply because Trump is pushing it so desperately, they need better evidence than a very different bill that produced something that even Trump himself sees as very different from a wall.

Lie of the year was claims by Obama on the ACA. All news outlets agreed.
Yet, here we have someone 5 years later still telling us it was the truth.

Liberals are currently encouraging the death of 300 US citizens a DAY due to drugs coming from Mexico because US citizens dying by the hundreds isn't a concern to them. They are willing to let thousands die for a political attempt to make sure Trump loses reelection, there is no other reason for what they are doing. Remember, your life is meaningless to them if they can get a minor political advantage from you dying.

Liberals = total shit.

Walls work. And the folks who are responsible for protecting the border say it will help. When I design a product, and the line workers during EVT builds say that a design is hard to build or needs to be rethought - I actually listen to the workers, see what can be changed to make it easier for them (the people actually doing the work) and follow through. Your attitude is Marie Antoinette - let them eat cake!

It was lie of the year. Hardly a right wing source.

Whether you agree with it or not you should have at least known about this particular gaffe/lie to understand my comment. My guess is you did know about it and understood what I was saying but wanted to be purposefully flippant.

Your entire model of hypocrisy leaves out of the possibility that the previous response was a proportional response, and the proposed response is a disproportionate response. There's no two ways about this: Americans want to buy Californian fruit at a price you can only have if the fruit is picked by undocumented immigrants, without actually having the immigrants.

Citation needed, because we are already paying billions per year in costs associated with those functional slaves anyway.

They are not guaranteed, meaning you have no entitlement to them.

Except walls work to control borders. For those overstaying their VISAs, that's what ICE is for. But there's a group who wants to disband ICE because they do exactly what their charter and the law requires of them - identify, arrest, and deport illegal immigrants.

Walls work, cutting illegal immigration by 99%. Provided it's done right, and you actually extend the length of the border (which the Great Wall in China does not).

The fuck? Here is one of many that he used to justify splitting up families. You think that isn't important?

Here is one of many that he used to try and subvert the democratic process. This is what our country is based on. I will just tell you if you can't understand this: this is important.

Here is one that he used to justify cutting taxes even further for the 5,000 richest people in the country. I think that's important, because *someone* still needs to pay those taxes. These tax cuts have not come with matching budget cuts. I think that's really important.

Those are just a few. Trump's list is 33 pages long, and he's only been president for two years. And you're waving all that away because you don't know what primary elections are? Fine: primary elections are a means that private organizations (political parties) use to determine their candidates. Primaries can be conducted in any way and in any order that the parties choose, and in the United States they're primarily organized at the state level. (Remember in 2008, when the Florida Democrats held their primary out of order and the results were disqualified by the DNC? The Democratic party can do that, because primaries are an internal decision-making process of a private organization.)

The fuck? Here is one of many that he used to justify splitting up families. You think that isn't important?

Here is one of many that he used to try and subvert the democratic process. This is what our country is based on. I will just tell you if you can't understand this: this is important.

Here is one that he used to justify cutting taxes even further for the 5,000 richest people in the country. I think that's important, because *someone* still needs to pay those taxes. These tax cuts have not come with matching budget cuts. I think that's really important.

Those are just a few. Trump's list is 33 pages long, and he's only been president for two years. And you're waving all that away because you don't know what primary elections are? Fine: primary elections are a means that private organizations (political parties) use to determine their candidates. Primaries can be conducted in any way and in any order that the parties choose, and in the United States they're primarily organized at the state level. (Remember in 2008, when the Florida Democrats held their primary out of order and the results were disqualified by the DNC? The Democratic party can do that, because primaries are an internal decision-making process of a private organization.)

The fuck? Here is one of many that he used to justify splitting up families. You think that isn't important?

Here is one of many that he used to try and subvert the democratic process. This is what our country is based on. I will just tell you if you can't understand this: this is important.

Here is one that he used to justify cutting taxes even further for the 5,000 richest people in the country. I think that's important, because *someone* still needs to pay those taxes. These tax cuts have not come with matching budget cuts. I think that's really important.

Those are just a few. Trump's list is 33 pages long, and he's only been president for two years. And you're waving all that away because you don't know what primary elections are? Fine: primary elections are a means that private organizations (political parties) use to determine their candidates. Primaries can be conducted in any way and in any order that the parties choose, and in the United States they're primarily organized at the state level. (Remember in 2008, when the Florida Democrats held their primary out of order and the results were disqualified by the DNC? The Democratic party can do that, because primaries are an internal decision-making process of a private organization.)

The fuck? Here is one of many that he used to justify splitting up families. You think that isn't important?

Here is one of many that he used to try and subvert the democratic process. This is what our country is based on. I will just tell you if you can't understand this: this is important.

Here is one that he used to justify cutting taxes even further for the 5,000 richest people in the country. I think that's important, because *someone* still needs to pay those taxes. These tax cuts have not come with matching budget cuts. I think that's really important.

Those are just a few. Trump's list is 33 pages long, and he's only been president for two years. And you're waving all that away because you don't know what primary elections are? Fine: primary elections are a means that private organizations (political parties) use to determine their candidates. Primaries can be conducted in any way and in any order that the parties choose, and in the United States they're primarily organized at the state level. (Remember in 2008, when the Florida Democrats held their primary out of order and the results were disqualified by the DNC? The Democratic party can do that, because primaries are an internal decision-making process of a private organization.)

No, actually, we are not OK with the six criminal gangs you name. We are also not OK with having government by the idiots, for the idiots.

...

Then quit voting for Democrats.

For example:

California: Ruled by Democrats, highest poverty rate in the US. (And you know that had to HURT Politifact to admit a "progressive" failure...)
Chicago: Ruled by Democrats, violent and going broke
Baltimore: Ruled by Democrats, violent and going broke

The problem is that with the recent tax cut, the revenues didn't increase nearly enough to offset it. It's nowhere near the levels the Republicans claimed it would rise to when they passed the tax cuts, it's not even to the level that the CBO estimated it would be so this tax cut is likely going to add to the debt even more than the 1.5 TRILLION dollars the Republicans claimed it would. The GDP has grown at similar levels as during the Obama administration and tax revenues have actually gone down on an inflation-adjusted basis. Studies that have looked at the economic impact of the corporate tax cut mostly went to share buybacks, companies didn't use the money to expand or invest, they gave it to their owners. It doesn't seem to have spurred any growth in the economy at all. The result of this tax bill seems to be that the rich got richer and the middle class (and the future middle class) will be paying the price.

Do you disagree with the relevant studies? Or are you just unable to read them?

Free speech should not include fraud and misrepresentation, which is what Fox delivers under the rubric of "News." We are cutting our own throats as a society by allowing them to do that.

Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy added, "[T]he Free World depends on a free Internet. “. Too bad in practice they gleefully watched Ajit Pai crush that notion while they lined their pockets with $101M Big Telco Payola ( https://www.theverge.com/2017/... ).
Further, Republican Rep. Lamar Smith cited a debunked study ( https://www.politifact.com/tru... ) to claim Google provides biased results for searches about President Donald Trump. Smith accused Google of having a liberal bias "programmed into the company's culture."

You are correct that Millenials are not the only ones to "benefit". However, I believe they bear the brunt of the cost consequences and corresponding drag on growth.

New government agencies? Take a look here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... . If you start in 1973, the same age as your house, you will note the massive success called the Drug Enforcement Administration. There are many others, and we all look forward to Millenials funding the Space Force.

Higher spending in schools? A contentious subject, but the best info I have found is here: https://www.politifact.com/vir... . As of 2015, adjusted for inflation, a 117 percent increase in federal spending per student over 30 years ago. Average NAEP scores for 17-year-olds have barely budged during the last 30 years of testing. So, more than double and you call it miserly?

My point is that people want these things, but they have to understand that there are unintended consequences, like poor Millenials.