US Politics: Deep State Solution

[Rippounet]

16 minutes ago, JEORDHl said:

@Rippounet

Welp, so much for the talks in Munich, where the grains of salt were a'flying.

Thanks for the hint, so little happened there that I nearly missed the first articles about it.

It's pretty much what could be expected. Despite all the noises made by Trump, throwing NATO out of the window would be sheer madness. And of course, the EU certainly won't be the first to create a rift.

So far the Trump administration has backpedalled on a number of Trump's silly declarations/tweets on foreign policy. Which basically means that the president of the US is not the guy you want to be watching to know what the US's stance will be anymore, since Mr Orange doesn't know what he's talking about half of the time. Let's hope Tillerson will prove good at his job...

[Kalbear]

9 minutes ago, Altherion said:

There are undoubtedly better ways to handle it, but none of them were available as options -- it was Trump or the status quo. And yes, it would be funny if the tax cut people lost out.

Yeah, you keep framing it this way, but it keeps being more and more wrong. When you're voting for someone who wants to make America regressive in every single bit of press he ever puts out, the notion that you'd look at that and go 'yeah, he's going to change things' is incredibly idiotic and obviously wrong. 

I get that this is your justification for voting for him and supporting him as much as you have. You have to keep saying this, because you're personally invested in it being true, and much like climate change deniers you cannot possibly back down because it would mean that you were catastrophically wrong in your entire worldview. I get that, I do. At the same time, the idea that Trump represented some kind of actual change in neoliberalism (however you personally choose to define it) was completely wrong, continues to be wrong, was obviously not going to work, and at best would have been correct because he would replace it with an authoritarian kleptocracy.

Similarly, the idea that because the media is squealing that he's doing something right is obviously based on insanely faulty reasoning. How do you figure this is the case when bank stocks have gone up 25-35% since he took office - do you think that they were unduly oppressed before? Come on, man. Again, I get that you have to assume that the media is 100% controlled by corporations, but if that was the case how do you explain the media being as upset as they are but the stock market doing as well as it is doing?

[Kalbear]

6 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

Thanks for the hint, so little happened there that I nearly missed the first articles about it.

It's pretty much what could be expected. Despite all the noises made by Trump, throwing NATO out of the window would be sheer madness. And of course, the EU certainly won't be the first to create a rift.

So far the Trump administration has backpedalled on a number of Trump's silly declarations/tweets on foreign policy. Which basically means that the president of the US is not the guy you want to be watching to know what the US's stance will be anymore, since Mr Orange doesn't know what he's talking about half of the time. Let's hope Tillerson will prove good at his job...

I think that it's the opposite - that you have to basically ignore any of Trump's underlings when they say anything, because they have no power and no say in day-to-day governance. Only Trump will know what he's doing (and even then, apparently, not so much) and the only way you'll know policy is if it happens. 

So yeah, Mattis can say that he stands behind NATO, and so can Tillerson, and the next day Trump will completely contradict it with a stroke of a pen.

Note that this is also the position that Germany is taking - that they are assuming that they cannot rely on the US any more, and they need to take steps assuming that the US won't be there to protect them in the near to somewhat distant future.

[S John]

38 minutes ago, Mexal said:

This is fucking dangeorus. He called he free press the enemy of the people. This is the same rhetoric that Stalin, Lenin used. I cannot believe Republicans are quiet. 

It also means there is another big story going to break.

I remember when for 8 years conservatives had their panties in a bunch over Obama's presumed imminent gutting of the 2nd amendment that never came, now you've got a president who revels in undermining the press protections of the 1st amendment and nary a peep from all those constitutionalists.  Expected, but disappointing nonetheless.    I know that there are many who view it as Trump finally 'standing up' to the liberal media.  But I do wonder just how far he can take it before he starts damaging himself with his base. 

[The guy from the Vale]

Just now, S John said:

I remember when for 8 years conservatives had their panties in a bunch over Obama's presumed imminent gutting of the 2nd amendment that never came, now you've got a president who revels in undermining the press protections of the 1st amendment and nary a peep from all those constitutionalists.  Expected, but disappointing nonetheless.    I know that there are many who view it as Trump finally 'standing up' to the liberal media.  But I do wonder just how far he can take it before he starts damaging himself with his base. 

All the way, of course. Those evil librul media had it coming! They were mean to the orange god emperor, after all... (yes, I've seen Trump supporters refer to him that way. It's so wrong on so many levels I don't even know what to say.)

[Kalbear]

2 minutes ago, S John said:

I remember when for 8 years conservatives had their panties in a bunch over Obama's presumed imminent gutting of the 2nd amendment that never came, now you've got a president who revels in undermining the press protections of the 1st amendment and nary a peep from all those constitutionalists.  Expected, but disappointing nonetheless.    I know that there are many who view it as Trump finally 'standing up' to the liberal media.  But I do wonder just how far he can take it before he starts damaging himself with his base. 

Come on, man. Don't you remember the disastrous scandals early on with Obama?

 

[Rippounet]

10 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

I think that it's the opposite - that you have to basically ignore any of Trump's underlings when they say anything, because they have no power and no say in day-to-day governance. Only Trump will know what he's doing (and even then, apparently, not so much) and the only way you'll know policy is if it happens. 

So yeah, Mattis can say that he stands behind NATO, and so can Tillerson, and the next day Trump will completely contradict it with a stroke of a pen.

Note that this is also the position that Germany is taking - that they are assuming that they cannot rely on the US any more, and they need to take steps assuming that the US won't be there to protect them in the near to somewhat distant future.

I'd say it's a bit of both, and in the end it depends what the issue is. It's a known fact by now that Trump has a tendency to say whatever goes through his head and/or what he thinks may be popular with his voters, with little regard for the complexity of the issue he's talking about.
I assume this will mean that, quite often, he's going to find that reversing US policy is difficult or impossible either because of the reality, or because his advisers will manage to show him that a reversal is not in the US's (or his/their) best interests.
So sometimes he'll be able to stick to whatever stance he's adopted, and sometimes his advisers will prevail, because they'll be aware that his stance cannot become official US policy.
Of course, whatever he says will have an impact nonetheless since other nations/parties will still react to his declarations and assume the worst.

I think we've had a comparable -although far less serious- recent precedent with Reagan, who tended to be slightly disconnected from complex foreign policy issues and who could change his position depending on which adviser had his ear at a given moment. Reagan did have strong opinions on some issues and sometimes no adviser could make him bulge, but as far as day-to-day policy went, it was still up to his advisers to either adapt to them, or convince him that his personal perspective couldn't be implemented. The difference, of course, was that Reagan didn't have tweeter so his occasional hesitations or blunders were limited to speeches (and as I recall, Reagan's advisers could fight bitterly over the content of his speeches).

So I'd say we're going to see something similar to the Reagan way of doing foreign policy. Sometimes Trump will have a strong opinion on something and his subordinates will have to make do. Sometimes his subordinates will know better and either be able to convince him, or be able to work on their own -with the risk of being later contradicted by their boss. And of course, the various advisers orbiting around Trump (Tillerson, Mattis, and Bannon I would assume, for foreign policy) may find themselves fighting for his ear to get their way.
So while you're correct to point out that his "underlings" won't call the shots, I wouldn't say that they'll have no power and no say on day-to-day governance. Quite the contrary, on any issue that doesn't deeply interest Trump, I'd say they'll have something like a free rein. On any issue that does interest Trump, it will depend on what the reality looks like and on which adviser will prevail within his circle. But Trump's declarations will have to be taken with a lot of salt. As we've seen, they'll often be more about posturing than policy.
I think we can also predict that, just like in the Reagan administration, Trump and his cabinet won't shy away from anything shady. I would expect them to abuse executive power in some way or the other to implement whatever they can't get approved by Congress. I would also expect Tillerson and Mattis to clash on some issues, and one of them resigning in the next couple of years because he'll lose standing with the president (and/or Bannon).
 

[Altherion]

1 hour ago, Rippounet said:

Let's hope Tillerson will prove good at his job...

He is certainly off to an interesting start:

Quote

While Tillerson was on his first overseas trip at the G20 in Bonn, Germany, his aides told the entire staff in the offices of the deputy secretary of state for management and resources and the State Department counselor that their current assignments were prematurely coming to an end, according to senior aides.

...

The office of the deputy for management office handles long-term management and security issues as well as reviewing the budget, and was only created in 2011 by then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Various secretaries have decided to appoint a close confidante as counselor to advise the secretary on policy, but it is a not considered a permanent office.

"They are being shifted now to new assignments," the aide said, noting that currently the employees do not have a principal official to staff. "The difference now is they are actually doing work. We think the American taxpayer will appreciate that."

 

[Martell Spy]

What makes Trump adviser Stephen Miller so unlikeable?
Trump's messenger is like all the most unlikable know-it-alls you've ever met all rolled up into one 

http://www.salon.com/2017/02/15/what-makes-trump-advisor-stephen-miller-so-unlikeable_partner/

[OldGimletEye]

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/2/17/14648222/obamacare-wealthy-tax-credits

More on the Republican Healthcare Plan.

Quote

Republican leadership on Thursday released a 19-page outline of how the party would like to replace Obamacare — including one change that sounds wonky but is a really huge deal.

Both Obamacare and the Republican replacement plans provide tax credits to help make insurance more affordable. But while Obamacare’s credits are based on income, meaning poorer people get more help, the Republican plan would base them on age. The result would be regressive: Wealthy people would get more help buying insurance, while poor people would likely get less assistance.

 

Quote

“It’s not a huge principle issue with me,” says Jonathan Goodman, president of the Goodman Institute for Public Policy Research, who has worked with multiple Republican legislators on replacement plans. “It’s like Social Security: We should all be in this together. If there’s a social reason to encourage people to have health insurance, let’s not discriminate on the basis of income.”

I think we need to start a TV show and call it, "Conservatives Sure Do Say The Dumbest Things."

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

4 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

I think we need to start a TV show and call it, "Conservatives Sure Do Say The Dumbest Things."

If there's a social reason? You want to live in downtown Bombay? 

[butterbumps!]

34 minutes ago, Altherion said:

He is certainly off to an interesting start:

What part of what you quoted is of special note to you?   That he's "shaking things up", and in so doing, saving taxpayers money that was otherwise wasted with giving people "idle roles"? ("They are being shifted now to new assignments," the aide said, noting that currently the employees do not have a principal official to staff. "The difference now is they are actually doing work. We think the American taxpayer will appreciate that.")

[publius]

Funny gif about Trump from The Last Hearth

https://twitter.com/TheLastHearth/status/832663079322284032

[MerenthaClone]

30 minutes ago, butterbumps! said:

What part of what you quoted is of special note to you?   That he's "shaking things up", and in so doing, saving taxpayers money that was otherwise wasted with giving people "idle roles"? ("They are being shifted now to new assignments," the aide said, noting that currently the employees do not have a principal official to staff. "The difference now is they are actually doing work. We think the American taxpayer will appreciate that.")

Fundamentally Altherion is okay with "shaking things up" because he's well-off and insulated enough that he'll probably be able to weather whatever storm comes.  It also makes him an asshole. 

[Martell Spy]

Quote

 

President Donald Trump this week abruptly dropped the nation's commitment to a two-state solution for Middle East peace — without reviewing the specifics of his new strategy with Secretary of State Rex Tillerson.

State Department officials and Tillerson's top aides learned about the president's comments in real time, according to two sources with knowledge of the situation. Tillerson himself was in the air when Trump announced the change in the longstanding U.S. position on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. At the White House, there was little thought about notifying the nation's top diplomat because, as one senior staffer put it, "everyone knows Jared [Kushner] is running point on the Israel stuff."

 

WHITE HOUSE
Trump ignores 'the grown-ups' in his Cabinet
Foreign policy chiefs struggle to influence a wobbly White House.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/trump-ignoring-cabinet-235124

Quote

 

Since the tax cuts expired automatically, Democrats did not need to hold a vote to phase them out.

Republicans hope to avoid such a fate for the Trump tax cuts. Their hope is to design tax cuts that technically do not lose any revenue, which would allow them to be permanent, and force Democrats to gain control of the House, Senate, and presidency in order to overturn them.

The next source of money is repealing Obamacare. The connection between the two issues might seem obscure, but it matters technically. The Republican plan to repeal Obamacare would eliminate all the taxes that were raised to help pay for the benefits — about $1.2 trillion over the next decade. This would lower the baseline of tax revenue, meaning that Republicans would need to design a tax code that raises $1.2 trillion less in revenue in order to be “revenue-neutral.” That makes it crucial for them to repeal Obamacare before they cut taxes.

 

Paul Ryan’s Dream of Tax Cuts for the Rich Will Not Be Denied

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/02/paul-ryans-dream-of-tax-cuts-for-rich-will-not-be-denied.html

 

 

 

 

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, Martell Spy said:

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/02/paul-ryans-dream-of-tax-cuts-for-rich-will-not-be-denied.html

To the extent the Republicans are even to endorse the idea of universal coverage, the fact is they don't really have much of an issue with the basic concepts of the ACA. The real issue has always been about the distribution of resources.

Quote

Dynamic scoring means taking into account the effect on economic growth caused by cutting taxes. If tax cuts encourage permanently higher growth, it would increase revenue collections, offsetting some of the losses. Republicans believe, as a matter of theology, that the effect is huge. This belief caused them to predict the Clinton tax hikes on the rich would fail to increase revenue, that the Bush tax cuts would lose very little revenue, and that expiring the Bush tax cuts on the rich would cause growth to slow down. That none of these things happened has not diminished the fervor of the Republican faith in the transformative economic power of cutting taxes on the rich.

Just won't give up on that old Supply Side magic will they?

Quote

The third and final source of money was supposed to be a border-adjustment tax. This is a complicated idea that would essentially tax imported goods. The concept has a lot of support among tax experts, at least in theory. The idea has several attractions for the GOP. First, by increasing costs of imported goods and decreasing costs on exports, it would seem to fulfill Trump’s promise of an “America First” trade policy. Second, if designed properly, it would raise another trillion dollars a decade or so. And, because it would function as a kind of sales tax, it would be paid mostly by the middle class and the poor. Essentially, it would free up another trillion dollars for lower taxes to be paid by the rich.

This explains why Paul Ryan has evangelized so fervently on behalf of this idea of a border-adjustment tax. It holds the key to his dream of enacting a large, permanent tax cut for the rich.

And, again, based on how this new corporate tax is going to go down, taxes on the normal profits of the next marginal investment is exactly 0%. It's only taxing excess (monopoly) profits. Under this circumstance setting the corporate tax rate at only 20% is really bull.

Aside from the proposed tax rate, under this new plan,I think there is still a good case to tax capital, particularly given the growing wealth inequality. And yes conservative peoples I know about the Chamely-Judd zero capital tax result. Still that's a questionable result in my view (like the both models are based on perfect foresight. Sorry, conservatives, I still think there something to this "Animal Spirits" thing).

[Altherion]

6 hours ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

If we decided to use this logic regarding pretty much any sort of governmental or administrative action, nothing would ever get implemented. It is a law that is addressed and modified by all 3 branches of our government, so i suppose the answer to your question is our three branches of government.

Well, in that case, I guess there should be much less concern about it now that noted civil rights champion Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III is on the case!

More seriously, I hope you can see the problem with this mode of reasoning.

4 hours ago, Kalbear said:

Yeah, you keep framing it this way, but it keeps being more and more wrong. When you're voting for someone who wants to make America regressive in every single bit of press he ever puts out, the notion that you'd look at that and go 'yeah, he's going to change things' is incredibly idiotic and obviously wrong. 

I get that this is your justification for voting for him and supporting him as much as you have. You have to keep saying this, because you're personally invested in it being true, and much like climate change deniers you cannot possibly back down because it would mean that you were catastrophically wrong in your entire worldview. I get that, I do. At the same time, the idea that Trump represented some kind of actual change in neoliberalism (however you personally choose to define it) was completely wrong, continues to be wrong, was obviously not going to work, and at best would have been correct because he would replace it with an authoritarian kleptocracy.

How am I invested in it being true when I keep telling you that I didn't vote for him and that I think that people hoping for him to address inequality are gambling? My worldview would not change at all if Trump failed to address inequality -- it is the nature of gambling that sometimes one loses.

That said, Trump certainly does represent a challenge to neoliberalism: practically all definitions of the latter include a drive towards globalization whereas Trump is aiming for a variant of economic nationalism. It's not obvious that it will work, but it's certainly different from the administrations of the previous couple of decades.

[JGP]

5 hours ago, Kalbear said:

I think that it's the opposite - that you have to basically ignore any of Trump's underlings when they say anything, because they have no power and no say in day-to-day governance. Only Trump will know what he's doing (and even then, apparently, not so much) and the only way you'll know policy is if it happens. 

So yeah, Mattis can say that he stands behind NATO, and so can Tillerson, and the next day Trump will completely contradict it with a stroke of a pen.

Note that this is also the position that Germany is taking - that they are assuming that they cannot rely on the US any more, and they need to take steps assuming that the US won't be there to protect them in the near to somewhat distant future.

And that's the thing. I couldnt agree with you more. Mattis, McCain... they were trying really hard. And while the Allies were likewise responding with the appropriate noises, in the background it sounds like there was a lot of skepticism.

 

[felice]

6 hours ago, Martell Spy said:

Yep, and phase in a universal income. It's not that there aren't solutions, it's that Republicans repeatedly block them. Which is why there's been only minimal fighting of inequality out of Washington DC for 50 years.

That and the Democrats are basically the party of "let's not make things worse for a few years" rather than anything resembling an actual left wing force.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

49 minutes ago, Altherion said:

Well, in that case, I guess there should be much less concern about it now that noted civil rights champion Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III is on the case!

More seriously, I hope you can see the problem with this mode of reasoning.

 No, I don't see the problem. This idea is basically the foundation of any democratic system. Our society (or perhaps a segment of our society) identifies a problem or an inequality and our elected officials react to this perception by enacting legislation that seeks to correct it. What "mode of reasoning" would you suggest as a superior option?