US politics: Donny, you're out of your element

[LongRider]

20 hours ago, Kalbear said:

That's really not remotely what the case is. Half of undocumented immigrants in the US haven't  been 'home' in more than 10 years. They don't have a marginal life - they have good jobs, go to school, are part of the community, own houses, own cars, own businesses. The notion that undocumented immigrants are just living in near-poverty no matter what is one of the least educated, most prejudiced views that continue to exist - it is the 2010 version of the welfare queen talk of Reagan. And yes, there are absolutely some who are exploited and are as you describe - but it certainly isn't most. 

Thank you for saying this!  Immigrants, documented or not, work in every profession and job.  The idea that all they do are the jobs Americans won't is fundamentally flawed and as you mentioned, racist.  A concern of mine is with the new rules is, can a green card holder be caught up in Trump's net if they 'break the law' with a minor infraction?  For instance, lets say a truck driver has a minor violation at a routine hiway patrol inspection?  Could something like this trigger the law to take effect?  I've been worrying about that.

[OldGimletEye]

Oh dear, what is the Republican Party gonna do, when it’s fresh out of bullshit that people will buy into?

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/2/22/14700282/obamacare-death-panels-grassley

Quote

This week, eight years later, Grassley had another town hall, and “death panels” came up again. But this time, the term meant something very different — because Obamacare supporters, not critics, were the ones saying it.

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/2/22/14704812/tom-cotton-town-hall-angry-obamacare-insurance

Quote

Republican lawmakers around the country are facing angry backlash from their constituents over Obamacare and other issues at packed town halls. But an event for Arkansas Republican Sen. Tom Cotton on Wednesday night got especially heated.

One voter, her voice raw with emotion, told Cotton that her husband is dying and has Alzheimer’s and other conditions.

I guess even some Republicans are asking, “Dude, where is the supply side miracle?”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/02/22/republicans-real-live-experiment-with-kansass-economy-survives-a-revolt-from-their-own-party/

Quote

Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback’s ambitious tax overhaul — which slashed taxes for businesses and affluent households, leading to years of budget shortfalls — narrowly survived a mutiny Wednesday afternoon when about half of Republican lawmakers joined Democrats in an effort to overturn it.

 

https://blog-imfdirect.imf.org/2017/02/22/the-imfs-work-on-inequality-bridging-research-and-reality/

Quote

Over the past three decades, income inequality has gone up in most advanced economies and in many developing ones as well. Why? Much of the research on inequality has focused on advances in technology and liberalization of trade as the main drivers. While technology and trade are global trends that are difficult to resist, IMF studies have shown that the design of government policies matters and can help limit increases in inequality.

Another important conclusion of IMF research: rising inequality poses risks to durable economic growth. This puts addressing inequality squarely within the IMF’s mandate to help countries improve economic performance. So, the IMF is now building on years of research into inequality to offer its member countries policy solutions, particularly on equitable ways to tax and spend.

 

Quote

This result has attracted considerable attention because it shows that high inequality imposes a direct economic cost, in addition to the costs highlighted by other (non-IMF) authors such as capture of the political process by elites, and a decline in social cohesion. 

According to conservatives here is an example of an "elite".

Quote

The IMF’s latest review of the US economy showed that income polarization since 2000 has “had a negative impact on the economy, hampering the main engine of US growth: consumption.”

This can help to drag down the natural rate of interest, making ZLB episodes more likely.

[Dr. Pepper]

More Republican crackdowns on the first amendment.  Arizona senate votes to expand racketeering laws to include those who plan or participate in a protest that turns violent.  

Quote

Claiming people are being paid to riot, Republican state senators voted Wednesday to give police new power to arrest anyone who is involved in a peaceful demonstration that may turn bad — even before anything actually happened.

SB1142 expands the state’s racketeering laws, now aimed at organized crime, to also include rioting. And it redefines what constitutes rioting to include actions that result in damage to the property of others.

 

[LongRider]

5 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

More Republican crackdowns on the first amendment.  Arizona senate votes to expand racketeering laws to include those who plan or participate in a protest that turns violent.  

 

Good thing the ACLU hired more attorneys, as this sounds like a lawsuit in the making.

[OldGimletEye]

I can appreciate Will taking a stand and wanting nothing to do with Trump or Trumpism

But, I object to the idea that Trumpism is an exogenous event as Will claims.

Fact is that the conservative movement and the Republican Party has been on a crazy train to nutville for a while now.

Trump was very much an endogenous event.

http://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word/watch/the-gop-s-conversion-to-a-political-sociopath-882135107713

Quote

Conservative commentator George F. Will left Fox News and the Republican Party over his views of Trump – who he has called a "political sociopath" (and much more). Will joins Lawrence O'Donnell to discuss why intellectual conservatism and Trumpism are incompatible.

 

[Commodore]

Town hall protests are analogous to what Scott Walker endured passing his popular public sector union reforms; a vocal, organized minority

Tom Cotton and Trump won by 20+ points in Arkansas and are doing exactly what they campaigned on. The idea that their is some previously nonexistent political opposition to them now is dubious. 

[JGP]

11 minutes ago, Commodore said:

Town hall protests are analogous to what Scott Walker endured passing his popular public sector union reforms; a vocal, organized minority

Tom Cotton and Trump won by 20+ points in Arkansas and are doing exactly what they campaigned on. The idea that their is some previously nonexistent political opposition to them now is dubious. 

How so? There was a significant portion of the voting population who didn't cast. Apathy for a particular election is one thing, but start curtailing what they feel their rights are and that tends to go away.

[Mlle. Zabzie]

From The Hill.  Look, this could all just be a big pile of BS.  But honestly, there is just so much g-d smoke around the Russia stuff.  I don't see why there isn't WAY more of a proper investigation being done.  This is a both sides of the aisle thing as far as I am concerned.

[Fez]

3 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Of course the Obama admin DoJ/DoE edict was perhaps not a regulation in the strict sense. So maybe it's not subject to the same judicial examination as actual regulations.

Agency guidance is not the same thing as a regulation; and it does not go through the same rulemaking or public comment process. It also generally does not have much power or scope.

9 minutes ago, Commodore said:

Town hall protests are analogous to what Scott Walker endured passing his popular public sector union reforms; a vocal, organized minority

Tom Cotton and Trump won by 20+ points in Arkansas and are doing exactly what they campaigned on. The idea that their is some previously nonexistent political opposition to them now is dubious. 

I have no idea what the numbers are, but I wonder how many Democrats won big in 2008 and then lost in 2010. 

Opposition can materialize very quickly where it didn't used to exist, especially when it comes to health care. "Obamacare" is very unpopular in Arkansas, but the "private option" subsidy system the state set up using Federal Medicaid funding is very popular; and would go away if the ACA was simply repealed. If people are now realizing that the private option could go away, that could easily anger a lot of people who had voted Republican in Arkansas.

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, Commodore said:

Town hall protests are analogous to what Scott Walker endured passing his popular public sector union reforms; a vocal, organized minority.

Which seemingly failed to produce the growth he claimed. More supply side bullshit that went down in flames.

Just now, Commodore said:

Tom Cotton and Trump won by 20+ points in Arkansas and are doing exactly what they campaigned on. The idea that their is some previously nonexistent political opposition to them now is dubious. 

But it isn't only the Cotton incident. Public support for the ACA seems to have turned a corner.

This is a good fight for the Democrats, and they should inflict as much damage as possible on the Republican Party. It's payback time.

Also there is the fact that Trump claimed he'd replace it with something better. Which we know isn't going to happen.

And then of course, the Republican Party for years was able to talk trash for years without submitting their own plan. Now that they have to put their own plan on the table, it's much easier to attack the Republicans over healthcare, particularly since the Republican Plan is likely to be an utter mess.

[Rippounet]

1 hour ago, OldGimletEye said:

https://blog-imfdirect.imf.org/2017/02/22/the-imfs-work-on-inequality-bridging-research-and-reality/

So I guess we can officially say that cutting taxes for the rich is economically disastrous, right? I mean, there used to be some kind of debate (fueled by what I call "pseudo-economists") but we can consider this debate over for educated folks, can't we?

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, Rippounet said:

So I guess we can officially say that cutting taxes for the rich is economically disastrous, right? I mean, there used to be some kind of debate (fueled by what I call "pseudo-economists") but we can consider this debate over for educated folks, can't we?

Well, at the very least, we know it never produces the growth the conservatives claim. 

And we have known that probably since the late 1980s. Even Martin Feldstein, and that boy ain't no Democrat, concluded monetary policy was the main reason for the recovery under Reagan.

Didn't stop conservatives though from singing the praises of that old supply side magic though. They talked up about the "Bush Boom". And now Trump has embraced that nonsense too.

For a long time, researching the issues of wealth inequality was kind of considered a taboo in the economics profession, at least in the United States. So there wasn't a lot of research done on it. But, I think we have turned a corner and both research and the modelling of it are being done now, with the result that there is a growing body of literature that it can be a drag on growth.

[Mlle. Zabzie]

4 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

So I guess we can officially say that cutting taxes for the rich is economically disastrous, right? I mean, there used to be some kind of debate (fueled by what I call "pseudo-economists") but we can consider this debate over for educated folks, can't we?

On tax policy, I predict the following should happen in the next 20 years, and that we will not be able to have proper tax reform until we do.

1.  We need a VAT (with appropriate carveouts for necessities like they have in like pretty much the rest of the world).

Obstacles:  Democrats who see the tax as regressive (which, it is, but you carve out stuff to try to alleviate it).  Republicans who oppose any "new" tax as a bad thing.  States (as coordinating a VAT with state sales tax regimes will be nightmarish).

2.  Our corporate income tax rate should be decreased and we should go on a territorial system with appropriate anti-abuse rules(like they have in...wait for it...pretty much the rest of the world).

Obstacles:  Democrats who think that corporate tax rates should be increased and expanded and damn the consequences.  Republicans who distrust anything vaguely European feeling.  Members of both parties who take lots of money from special interests of all kinds (so basically, politicians in general).

3.  Our individual tax system should be vastly simplified.  I personally wouldn't do much more in terms of headline rates, but I'd get rid of some pretty substantial sacred cows, including the mortgage interest deduction, the capital gains rate preference and the automatic step up on inherited property

Obstacles:  Everybody.

[Zorral]

15 hours ago, WinterFox said:

Look, I know you guys see your tax dollars go out of state to support deadbeat states that despise you and the very programs that sustain them.

But you need to take one for the team here. And don't expect not to be called libtards and coastal elites either, I mean c'mon now. Let's not be greedy.

Massive protests will ensue, though, of course they shall be kettled far away so little hands won't see that this town still despises him, and now, even more! 

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, Mlle. Zabzie said:

On tax policy, I predict the following should happen in the next 20 years, and that we will not be able to have proper tax reform until we do.

1.  We need a VAT (with appropriate carveouts for necessities like they have in like pretty much the rest of the world).

Obstacles:  Democrats who see the tax as regressive (which, it is, but you carve out stuff to try to alleviate it).  Republicans who oppose any "new" tax as a bad thing.  States (as coordinating a VAT with state sales tax regimes will be nightmarish).

I personally don't oppose a VAT. And to the extent it's regressive, besides the the the other stuff mentioned, it seems income taxes for the middle class could be cut too making it more palatable.

Also, if you view the the US's long term export position as not being desirable, a VAT could help the situation. It's a better route to go than tarriffs.

Just now, Mlle. Zabzie said:

2.  Our corporate income tax rate should be decreased and we should go on a territorial system with appropriate anti-abuse rules(like they have in...wait for it...pretty much the rest of the world).

 

If we switch to the the current Republican Plan for corporate tax then the corporate tax rate should absolutely not be lowered. If all we are taxing is excess profits, we should tax those heavily. Certainly much more than 20%.

If we are talking about taxing capital, the case for lower corporate tax is stronger. I'm certainly aware of the Chamely-Judd results of zero capital taxation. But, those results are very questionable. Like say perfect foresight and no wealth in the utility function. Also, if growing wealth inequality is a concern then taxing capital becomes more desirable.

Just now, Mlle. Zabzie said:

3.  Our individual tax system should be vastly simplified.  I personally wouldn't do much more in terms of headline rates, but I'd get rid of some pretty substantial sacred cows, including the mortgage interest deduction, the capital gains rate preference and the automatic step up on inherited property

Absolutely agree that the mortgage interest deduction needs to go or be severely limited.

[Commodore]

people are dumb, you offer to reduce rates in exchange for eliminating deductions, and they can't comprehend that the net change in tax burden is zero or even negative

even Kevin Brady's postcard tax form keeps mortgage interest and charitable deductions in place, because there is no political will to eliminate them

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, Commodore said:

people are dumb, you offer to reduce rates in exchange for eliminating deductions, and they can't comprehend that the net change in tax burden is zero or even negative

Well, I'll add, that liberals shouldn't really like the current mortgage interest deduction set up because it's pretty regressive.

[Mlle. Zabzie]

23 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

If we switch to the the current Republican Plan for corporate tax then the corporate tax rate should absolutely not be lowered. If all we are taxing is excess profits, we should tax those heavily. Certainly much more than 20%.

 

I personally think that the Republican plan for the corporate tax is untenable.  It probably doesn't pass muster under the WTO to start (not sure if they care).  But beyond that, it is very complicated, it is only revenue neutral because of the transition period (where people basically get whammed a second time by this tax until they can realign their operations to be efficient and the currency adjusts), and the "losers" it creates are politically impossible to have as enemies.  I give it a 10% chance of going anywhere.  If I had to predict what will actually happen, it's Bush tax cuts round 2, complete with 10 year sunset (I put that at like 51%).  

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, Mlle. Zabzie said:

I personally think that the Republican plan for the corporate tax is untenable.  It probably doesn't pass muster under the WTO to start (not sure if they care).  But beyond that, it is very complicated, it is only revenue neutral because of the transition period (where people basically get whammed a second time by this tax until they can realign their operations to be efficient and the currency adjusts), and the "losers" it creates are politically impossible to have as enemies.  I give it a 10% chance of going anywhere.  If I had to predict what will actually happen, it's Bush tax cuts round 2, complete with 10 year sunset (I put that at like 51%).  

From what I understand, it doesn't pass WTO muster either. If, the proposed tax rate was higher, I might be able to live with it.

Interestingly enough, the biggest opposition to the bill seems to be from other Republicans and those in the import retail industry that aren't quite buying the idea that exchange rates will adjust sufficiently.

[Fez]

21 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

I personally think that the Republican plan for the corporate tax is untenable.  It probably doesn't pass muster under the WTO to start (not sure if they care).  But beyond that, it is very complicated, it is only revenue neutral because of the transition period (where people basically get whammed a second time by this tax until they can realign their operations to be efficient and the currency adjusts), and the "losers" it creates are politically impossible to have as enemies.  I give it a 10% chance of going anywhere.  If I had to predict what will actually happen, it's Bush tax cuts round 2, complete with 10 year sunset (I put that at like 51%).  

My best guess is that nothing happens, at least not this year. The Republican plan relied on repealing the ACA before doing tax reform, so that revenue baselines would already be lower. This would prevent any tax reform plan from being scored as exploding the deficit even within the 10 year period, and therefore unable to pass via reconciliation. And it looks like a full-scale repeal of the ACA is not happening (though it could; if Trump took the lead on pushing Congress to pass a specific bill). They could try to pass a tax reform bill without reconciliation, but that'd mean getting 8 Democratic senators on board; which would require a bill that looks a lot different from what is currently be proposed. They could also use reconciliation to pass a much more modest cut, but I suspect enough Republicans would see that as a wasted opportunity; and instead they'll argue with each other until its too late to do anything.

They could do something next year; but then its already an election year and Congress is usually skittish about doing anything at all in election years.