Is This The New Normal?

[Hans Blaster]

Because that is what was happening under the Biden shadow government.

This statement makes no sense. Biden was the actual president. He didn't need a "shadow government".

 

[A New Dawn]

This statement makes no sense. Biden was the actual president. He didn't need a "shadow government".

He obviously did since Jill and Hunter sat in on cabinet meetings and made decisions in his stead. Biden was nothing but a figurehead for most of his presidency.

 

[Gene2memE]

It isn’t the people that collect the taxes from the vast majority of the people, it is the employers who take it directly out of our paychecks.

If I can parse your language correctly, this is wrong.

Individual income taxes are about 50% of total federal tax collections (49.3% of total revenue in FY2024, and 50.7% in FY2025). Those aren't taken out of paychecks by employers though, unless you're on a Pay As You Go witholding scheme.

Payroll taxes (which are taken out of paychecks) are about 25-30% of total US tax revenue.

Corporate tax is about 9-11% of total revenue and excises and other taxes are about 8-12%.

 

[A New Dawn]

If I can parse your language correctly, this is wrong.

Individual income taxes are about 50% of total federal tax collections (49.3% of total revenue in FY2024, and 50.7% in FY2025). Those aren't taken out of paychecks by employers though, unless you're on a Pay As You Go witholding scheme.

Payroll taxes (which are taken out of paychecks) are about 25-30% of total US tax revenue.

Corporate tax is about 9-11% of total revenue and excises and other taxes are about 8-12%.

True. I was focusing on payroll taxes. And I assumed that most employees paid in that manner, which is a good percentage of the workforce.

 

[Gene2memE]

This statement makes no sense. Biden was the actual president. He didn't need a "shadow government".

Conspiracy theories never do. They only reflect what the theorist wants the world to be. Any relation to the truth is purely incidental.

 

[Hans Blaster]

He obviously did since Jill and Hunter sat in on cabinet meetings and made decisions in his stead. Biden was nothing but a figurehead for most of his presidency.

Dozens of people sit-in or participate in cabinet meetings. It doesn't make any president a "figurehead". Not Biden, not Trump, Not Obama, none of them. This "made decisions in his stead" is unsupported nonsense.

 

[A New Dawn]

Dozens of people sit-in or participate in cabinet meetings. It doesn't make any president a "figurehead". Not Biden, not Trump, Not Obama, none of them. This "made decisions in his stead" is unsupported nonsense.

And yet the left was all bent out of shape and let everyone know it when Donald Trump had Elon Musk sit in on a cabinet meeting to give his report on DOGE just a couple months ago. And sitting in on a cabinet meeting isn’t the same as making decisions for the country or administration. And it’s “only nonsense” to those who refuse to listen to interviews with Biden’s cabinet members who stated as much.

Can’t have it both ways.

 

[FAITH-IN-HIM]

Then you aren’t paying attention to the discussion.

Each state has the right to set it at whatever limit they want to impose. It’s when it isn’t working that it needs to be re-evaluated. And at a time it wasn’t working, California re-evaluated and went in the wrong direction. Instead of clamping down on crime and bringing it under control, they changed the law to make it easier to get away with looting and violence by raising the level it takes for the criminal action to become a felony.

Texas doesn’t have the same crime problem because they are hard on crime, in general.

There is a significant challenge in current political discourse: the desire for one side to prevail often overshadows the importance of reasoning and factual evidence. Your argument lacks factual support and appears subjective and biased.

Instead of considering the rationale behind updates to laws, the discussion is frequently reduced to partisan criticism, such as negative generalizations about liberal states.

Below are some AI-generated explanations regarding why petty theft thresholds change periodically across various states. Typically, these changes are influenced by factors other than crime rates.


Petty theft thresholds are updated often to adjust for inflation, manage prison resources, and ensure punishments are fair and proportionate to the crime. By raising the value at which a theft becomes a felony, states address the following key issues:
Inflation
The value of money changes over time, meaning a fixed-dollar threshold from decades ago becomes less significant with each passing year.

• Decades-old laws: Some states, such as New Jersey, had felony theft thresholds that remained unchanged for decades. A $200 threshold set in 1978 does not have the same purchasing power today.
• Overcriminalization: Without regular adjustments for inflation, an increasing number of minor theft offenses can be charged as felonies. This results in harsher penalties for crimes that were originally considered less serious.

Prison overcrowding and cost management
Felony theft charges often lead to costly prison sentences, straining state budgets and resources.

• Prioritizing resources: Raising the threshold helps to reserve expensive prison space for more violent and serious offenders.
• Reducing costs: By decreasing the number of people sent to prison for low-level property crimes, states can reduce the financial burden on taxpayers.

Fair and proportionate punishment
The legal system aims to match the severity of the punishment to the severity of the crime. When inflation erodes the value of money, the punishment can become disproportionately harsh for less serious offenses.

• Avoiding felony consequences: Misdemeanor charges have less severe, and often less permanent, consequences for an individual's life than a felony conviction. Felonies can permanently impact a person's ability to find jobs, secure housing, or vote.
• No link to higher crime rates: Studies by the Pew Charitable Trusts have found that raising felony theft thresholds does not lead to an increase in property crime or larceny rates. This evidence allows policymakers to safely enact these reforms without compromising public safety.

 

[A New Dawn]

There is a significant challenge in current political discourse: the desire for one side to prevail often overshadows the importance of reasoning and factual evidence. Your argument lacks factual support and appears subjective and biased.

Instead of considering the rationale behind updates to laws, the discussion is frequently reduced to partisan criticism, such as negative generalizations about liberal states.

Below are some AI-generated explanations regarding why petty theft thresholds change periodically across various states. Typically, these changes are influenced by factors other than crime rates.


Petty theft thresholds are updated often to adjust for inflation, manage prison resources, and ensure punishments are fair and proportionate to the crime. By raising the value at which a theft becomes a felony, states address the following key issues:
Inflation
The value of money changes over time, meaning a fixed-dollar threshold from decades ago becomes less significant with each passing year.

• Decades-old laws: Some states, such as New Jersey, had felony theft thresholds that remained unchanged for decades. A $200 threshold set in 1978 does not have the same purchasing power today.
• Overcriminalization: Without regular adjustments for inflation, an increasing number of minor theft offenses can be charged as felonies. This results in harsher penalties for crimes that were originally considered less serious.

Prison overcrowding and cost management
Felony theft charges often lead to costly prison sentences, straining state budgets and resources.

• Prioritizing resources: Raising the threshold helps to reserve expensive prison space for more violent and serious offenders.
• Reducing costs: By decreasing the number of people sent to prison for low-level property crimes, states can reduce the financial burden on taxpayers.

Fair and proportionate punishment
The legal system aims to match the severity of the punishment to the severity of the crime. When inflation erodes the value of money, the punishment can become disproportionately harsh for less serious offenses.

• Avoiding felony consequences: Misdemeanor charges have less severe, and often less permanent, consequences for an individual's life than a felony conviction. Felonies can permanently impact a person's ability to find jobs, secure housing, or vote.
• No link to higher crime rates: Studies by the Pew Charitable Trusts have found that raising felony theft thresholds does not lead to an increase in property crime or larceny rates. This evidence allows policymakers to safely enact these reforms without compromising public safety.

The reason petty crimes increase is because of the left’s desire to keep the (mostly) black population enslaved. They keep them enslaved by keeping them in poverty by giving them just enough money to barely survive without giving them enough to escape poverty. They threaten to cut govt. funds if they get a job to help pay the bills and refuse to create programs to teach people needed job skills so they can get a job that pays a living salary. And all of that will lead to situations where people need to join gangs or take matters into their own hands (illegally) to find a way to live in this current society.

 

[Hans Blaster]

And yet the left was all bent out of shape and let everyone know it when Donald Trump had Elon Musk sit in on a cabinet meeting to give his report on DOGE just a couple months ago. And sitting in on a cabinet meeting isn’t the same as making decisions for the country or administration. And it’s “only nonsense” to those who refuse to listen to interviews with Biden’s cabinet members who stated as much.

Can’t have it both ways.

Musk acted like he was in charge in those meetings far, far more than anyone else in any such meeting with Trump, or Biden, or Obama. There was a reason people referred to him occasionally as the "co-President".

 

[GoldenBoy89]

He obviously did since Jill and Hunter sat in on cabinet meetings and made decisions in his stead. Biden was nothing but a figurehead for most of his presidency.

What decisions did Jill and Hunter make for Joe? What would the decision have been if it were left to Biden alone?

 

[A New Dawn]

Musk acted like he was in charge in those meetings far, far more than anyone else in any such meeting with Trump, or Biden, or Obama. There was a reason people referred to him occasionally as the "co-President".

No he didn’t. He acted like he was in charge of DOGE, but in the meeting he just gave his report.

LOL. Nobody but the far left called him “co-president.

 

[A New Dawn]

What decisions did Jill and Hunter make for Joe? What would the decision have been if it were left to Biden alone?

Probably chocolate.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

Probably chocolate.

What decisions did Jill and Hunter make for Joe?

 

[Hans Blaster]

No he didn’t. He acted like he was in charge of DOGE, but in the meeting he just gave his report.

High-Larry-Owse.

Musk's whole attitude in several of those meetings (and the ones in the Oval) were very much of the "I'm driving this boat" sort.

LOL. Nobody but the far left called him “co-president.

Your narrow view of the political spectrum underestimates the range of Trump critics.

 

[A New Dawn]

High-Larry-Owse.

Musk's whole attitude in several of those meetings (and the ones in the Oval) were very much of the "I'm driving this boat" sort.

Your narrow view of the political spectrum underestimates the range of Trump critics.

I know that millions of centrist Democrats left the Democrat party and joined up with the Republicans, leaving mostly very-left-of-center and far left persons in the Democrat party.

 

[A New Dawn]

What decisions did Jill and Hunter make for Joe?

I wasn’t sitting in on the meeting to know that.

But Jake Tapper (a very far left political pundit on CNN) surprisingly wrote a book about it and interviewed lots of people, including cabinet members, about it. Perhaps you should get the book and read it to see how bad it really was.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I know that millions of centrist Democrats left the Democrat party and joined up with the Republicans, leaving mostly very-left-of-center and far left persons in the Democrat party.

I've seen plenty of ex-Republicans refer to Musk (or Miller) as co-President, or something similar.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

I wasn’t sitting in on the meeting to know that.

Then you don’t actually know if any decisions were made by anyone other than the president?

But Jake Tapper (a very far left political pundit on CNN) surprisingly wrote a book about it and interviewed lots of people, including cabinet members, about it. Perhaps you should get the book and read it to see how bad it really was.

Ah, now I see the problem. Maybe don’t take gossip spread by a professional propagandist trying to sell a sensationalist book as gospel truth.

If you’ve read the book, could you tell me how bad it really was? I don’t feel like adding to Jake Tapper’s already overinflated wealth.

 

[A New Dawn]

Then you don’t actually know if any decisions were made by anyone other than the president?

Ah, now I see the problem. Maybe don’t take gossip spread by a professional propagandist trying to sell a sensationalist book as gospel truth.

If you’ve read the book, could you tell me how bad it really was? I don’t feel like adding to Jake Tapper’s already overinflated wealth.

I dont need to rely on anyone else. I, personally, was able to see and hear him with my own eyes and ears during the whole time from as early as his campaign and on through the whole four years of his term and know exactly how bad he was. By the time the debates rolled around, he had all the classic signs of late dementia.