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

[Dr. Pepper]

In bizarro news, CPAC organizer denounces neo-nazis as "left wing fascist group"

Quote

One of the first speeches at this year’s Conservative Political Action Conference challenged the media to stop referring to the “alt-right,” a small, far-right movement that seeks a whites-only state and that strongly backed Donald Trump for president, as conservative.

“There is a sinister organization that is trying to warp its way into our ranks,” said Dan Schneider, the executive director of the American Conservative Union, which runs CPAC. “We must not be deceived by [a] hateful, left-wing fascist group.”

Over a few confusing minutes, Schneider argued that the “alt-right,” a term coined then popularized by the National Policy Institute’s Richard Spencer, was philosophically left-wing because it departed from his definition of conservatism, in which “the individual” is sovereign.

“They hate the Constitution. They hate free markets. They hate pluralism,” Schneider said. “Fascists tend to want big government control.”

Umm.... 

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, Dr. Pepper said:

In bizarro news, CPAC organizer denounces neo-nazis as "left wing fascist group"

Umm.... 

You know where they got this from?

1. From Rush Limbaugh.

2. From Jonah Shitbird's "Liberal Facism".

If Hitler was such a god damned commie, you'd wonder how he got such early support from people like the Becksteins who were wealthy piano manufacturers.

And then of course, they have the little ol' problem of who people like Richard Spencer actually voted for.

Accordingly to consevatives, people like Lloyd George were Nazi's because he rejected libertarian economic theories.

More conservative horseshit.

[OldGimletEye]

If libertarian types want to accuse liberals of really being like Nazi's, then I'll go ahead and accuse libertarians of being a bunch of Lincoln haters that sit around pissed off that the South lost the Civil War.

[Mlle. Zabzie]

1 hour ago, OldGimletEye said:

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.

It's functionally a bass ackwards VAT that allows deductions for wages.  Rates won't adjust sufficiently fast enough.  They are correct.  Global services providers hate it too.  It's clever, and it does reign in some abuses, but we'd be better off with a traditional VAT + territorial income tax.  

1 hour ago, Fez said:

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.

I think 2018 is possible, even it it's just a headline rate cut because that makes good copy with the base.

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, Mlle. Zabzie said:

It's functionally a bass ackwards VAT that allows deductions for wages.  Rates won't adjust sufficiently fast enough.  They are correct.  Global services providers hate it too.  It's clever, and it does reign in some abuses, but we'd be better off with a traditional VAT + territorial income tax.  

When I first starting reading about it, I saw it being described as a "VAT". I always thought that was extremely fishy because a VAT does not treat foreign input factors differently from domestic ones.

So, I always had trouble with being described as a "VAT". And in fact, it would seem the Republican Plan makes clear it's not a VAT.

Also, yeah, exchange rates are notoriously hard to predict.

I agree that a true VAT with some kind of combination of corporate tax would be better, though we'd probably disagree about what the rate of corporate tax should be set at.

[Mlle. Zabzie]

Just now, OldGimletEye said:

When I first starting reading about it, I saw it being described as a "VAT". I always thought that was extremely fishy because a VAT does not treat foreign input factors differently from domestic ones.

So, I always had trouble with being described as a "VAT". And in fact, it would seem the Republican Plan makes clear it's not a VAT.

Also, yeah, exchange rates are notoriously hard to predict.

I agree that a true VAT with some kind of combination of corporate tax would be better, though we'd probably disagree about what the rate of corporate tax should be set at.

We would, but debate about rate is different than a debate about system   

The thing about exchange rates that are so hard for us to predict is that we are a reserve currency and between our monetary policy and the monetary policy of other nations, there are too many externalities to let there be a clear cause and effect.  I think the whole thing is kinda bogus, but I do appreciate the effort to try to end the deferral of "overseas" profits.

[Fragile Bird]

On the topic of Russians and hacking, the newspapers here are front paging a story about the confidential records, including health records, of Canadian Olympic athletes being hacked.

The person who was tapped by the Olympic committee a few years ago to investigate drug usage by the Russians was a Canadian. While athletes' records around the world are being hacked by the Russians, apparently our athletes have been attacked with greater ferocity.

The Russians are going after everything they can, credit cards, athletes, political parties, industrial secrets.

[Altherion]

3 hours ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

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).

But isn't it proportional along the whole spectrum? Carve outs would just make it yet another tax on the middle class that benefits the rich and the poor. I guess you can tack on a middle class tax cut as OldGimletEye mentions above, but I'm not sure people would trust you not to screw them over by either making the cut and carve outs too small or by decreasing them after a certain period.

3 hours ago, 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

Obstacles:  Everybody.

In principle, it is an interesting idea, but I don't see this as politically feasible even on the scale of 20 years. At the very least, it would require not only a President more radical than the current one, but also an equally radical Congress

[Darryk]

Bannon is real scum of the earth. And a coward, too.

He clearly avoids public appearances, except at places like CPAC where he's preaching to the converted anyway, because he doesn't want to put himself in a position where he'd have to defend his warped ideology with logical arguments.

 

[S John]

2 hours ago, Dr. Pepper said:

In bizarro news, CPAC organizer denounces neo-nazis as "left wing fascist group"

Umm.... 

 

2 hours ago, OldGimletEye said:

You know where they got this from?

1. From Rush Limbaugh.

2. From Jonah Shitbird's "Liberal Facism".

If Hitler was such a god damned commie, you'd wonder how he got such early support from people like the Becksteins who were wealthy piano manufacturers.

And then of course, they have the little ol' problem of who people like Richard Spencer actually voted for.

Accordingly to consevatives, people like Lloyd George were Nazi's because he rejected libertarian economic theories.

More conservative horseshit.

Oh yea.  This line of thinking from the right has been on the rise for a while now.  I've seen it a lot over the last year or so.  Honestly, of all the political arguments I have (on a different board) this one is one of the few that legitimately infuriates me because of:

a. how widely believed it is (thanks Rush)

b. how wrong it is

c. how inherently biased and/or blind one must be to believe it.   

A lot of right wing people sincerely preach that Nazi's are creatures of the left.  Partly because of the word 'socialist' in national socialism (ignoring the nationalism part), but mainly because they sincerely believe that nothing evil can came from right wing ideology - only good.  In addition, the KKK, because of their association with the pre-civil rights era Democratic party are also considered leftists by many conservatives.  

So, if you're keeping score, in addition to the Mao's and Stalin's of the world, that's neo-Nazi's, the original German Nazi's, and the KKK all 'leftists'.  And, like you say, never mind that neo-nazi's and the KKK weren't waiting in election day lines to cast their vote for Hillary god-damn Clinton.  I'd like to see Limbaugh put his money where his mouth is and roll into a Klan meeting and hold an informal poll of who those guys voted for but we all know that he knows he'd be proven full of shit so don't count on it.  

Anyway, this new whopper is incredibly dishonest and is one of the few arguments that will cause me to dismiss someone out of hand as either a liar or a legitimate idiot.  The lie serves as confirmation bias for the right that they are not and never have been the bad guys, that they inherently can't be the bad guys, and that is honestly pretty scary.   It removes the self-consciousness barrier required to stop short of all-out extremism.  

[Mlle. Zabzie]

56 minutes ago, Altherion said:

But isn't it proportional along the whole spectrum? Carve outs would just make it yet another tax on the middle class that benefits the rich and the poor. I guess you can tack on a middle class tax cut as OldGimletEye mentions above, but I'm not sure people would trust you not to screw them over by either making the cut and carve outs too small or by decreasing them after a certain period.

In principle, it is an interesting idea, but I don't see this as politically feasible even on the scale of 20 years. At the very least, it would require not only a President more radical than the current one, but also an equally radical Congress

I think a VAT should not replace the income tax, in part for the reasons that you mention.  Look, we're going to need a substantial amount of revenue from somewhere in the mid-term.  And that is just to maintain or replace things that there is pretty broad consensus are public goods (like roads/infrastructure and defense).  Right now, lots of people have their heads in the sand and are wandering around with a "don't tax me, don't tax thee, go tax the guy behind that tree" attitude (current guy behind the tree is someone who gets carried interest, but that's a tiny, tiny revenue raise).  And our current tax system is set up with a jumble of incentives and very little coherent policy.  All that said, there are too many people too deeply invested in the current system.  E.g., getting rid of the mortgage interest deduction would frankly tank the housing market - how could you do it to minimize the pain, particularly for parts of the middle class the substantial part of the savings of which are tied up in home equity.  Anyhow, I think we are going to see radical reform in the next 20 years, but it will be from necessity.

[Dr. Pepper]

43 minutes ago, S John said:

 

Oh yea.  This line of thinking from the right has been on the rise for a while now.  I've seen it a lot over the last year or so.  Honestly, of all the political arguments I have (on a different board) this one is one of the few that legitimately infuriates me because of:

a. how widely believed it is (thanks Rush)

b. how wrong it is

c. how inherently biased and/or blind one must be to believe it.   

A lot of right wing people sincerely preach that Nazi's are creatures of the left.  Partly because of the word 'socialist' in national socialism (ignoring the nationalism part), but mainly because they sincerely believe that nothing evil can came from right wing ideology - only good.  In addition, the KKK, because of their association with the pre-civil rights era Democratic party are also considered leftists by many conservatives.  

So, if you're keeping score, in addition to the Mao's and Stalin's of the world, that's neo-Nazi's, the original German Nazi's, and the KKK all 'leftists'.  And, like you say, never mind that neo-nazi's and the KKK weren't waiting in election day lines to cast their vote for Hillary god-damn Clinton.  I'd like to see Limbaugh put his money where his mouth is and roll into a Klan meeting and hold an informal poll of who those guys voted for but we all know that he knows he'd be proven full of shit so don't count on it.  

Anyway, this new whopper is incredibly dishonest and is one of the few arguments that will cause me to dismiss someone out of hand as either a liar or a legitimate idiot.  The lie serves as confirmation bias for the right that they are not and never have been the bad guys, that they inherently can't be the bad guys, and that is honestly pretty scary.   It removes the self-consciousness barrier required to stop short of all-out extremism.  

It's honestly really scary and I can't believe I've missed so much of this.  

Recently I made a comment about Trump's admin admiration for Andrew Jackson and how horrifying it is and several fb people jumped on me and were all "but he was a Democrat so if he was bad then you're bad."  They completely missed the point and didn't seem at all aware what it meant that they were also celebrating a genocidal maniac.  

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, Dr. Pepper said:

It's honestly really scary and I can't believe I've missed so much of this.  

Recently I made a comment about Trump's admin admiration for Andrew Jackson and how horrifying it is and several fb people jumped on me and were all "but he was a Democrat so if he was bad then you're bad."  They completely missed the point and didn't seem at all aware what it meant that they were also celebrating a genocidal maniac.  

Libertarian (along with Conservatives) sorts having been making this argument for awhile. It's been around for a long time.

The reasoning process is Nazi's didn't follow unfettered capitalism. Liberals don't believe in unfettered capitalism. Ergo, Nazi's and liberals are a like.

It's kind of like: I like dogs(I really do). You know who else liked dogs? Hitler. So I guess I'm like Hitler.

Or if you are vegetarian, you must be like Hitler cause he was a vegetarian.

Got a bit of a sweet tooth? So did Hitler. Oh noes, if you have sweet tooth, you must be like Hitler!!!

The people who have been making this sort of argument have been making it on very bad analogies and selective facts.

Also, usually, lots of Republicans seemingly don't find out that the Democratic Party was the party of the Confederacy and Jim Crow, until they are right around 45 or so. At which point, they get all giddy and say, "Gotcha, you mean old Democrat".  Though, accordingly, to their logic the Democratic Party must be advocating for the Gold Standard now, as Democrat Grover Cleveland liked the Gold Standard. And the Republican Party must like Marxism, since old Abe appointed or allowed a marxist (from the revolutions of 48 I believe) to be a Union General. Some people, just have never heard of a re-aligning election I guess.

[The Anti-Targ]

10 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

 

Also, usually, lots of Republicans seemingly don't find out that the Democratic Party was the party of the Confederacy and Jim Crow, until they are right around 45 or so. At which point, they get all giddy and say, "Gotcha, you mean old Democrat".  Though, accordingly, to their logic the Democratic Party must be advocating for the Gold Standard now, as Democrat Grover Cleveland liked the Gold Standard. And the Republican Party must like Marxism, since old Abe appointed or allowed a marxist (from the revolutions of 48 I believe) to be a Union General. Some people, just have never heard of a re-aligning election I guess.

One wonders then why it is mostly Republicans who proudly fly that flag all over the place and call it a symbol of freedom.

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, The Anti-Targ said:

One wonders then why it is mostly Republicans who proudly fly that flag all over the place and call it a symbol of freedom.

Maybe it's because the Democratic Party took care of its Dixiecrat problem and now it's the Republican Party's Dixiecrat problem

That would be my guess.

[Mlle. Zabzie]

Look the South was solid (Democrat) within living memory, and within living memory, the Democratic party didn't have 100% the best record on these issues, so let's all be a little bit fair here.  It's not ANCIENT history by any stretch of the imagination.  That said, it is HISTORY post 1960s.  So, you know, we should all be reacting to what the political realities are today.

[Mexal]

I guess they didn't care about Mother Jones' report about private prisons. These places are horrible.

Also, these people are fucking stupid. They're going to go after states who legalized marijuana.

 

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, Mlle. Zabzie said:

Look the South was solid (Democrat) within living memory, and within living memory, the Democratic party didn't have 100% the best record on these issues, so let's all be a little bit fair here.  It's not ANCIENT history by any stretch of the imagination.  That said, it is HISTORY post 1960s.  So, you know, we should all be reacting to what the political realities are today.

Actually, the Democratic Party often had a terrible record.

But, saying what the Democratic Party was in the 19th Century or even the fact it had people like Strom Thurmond in the 1950s or Democrats opposed to LBJ in the 1960s, really isn't a good argument made by some Republicans. I do hear that argument a lot, from Republicans, because I know lots of them.

Also, whenever I Republicans making this argument, they tend to forget that the Democratic Party had it's northern and southern wings. And there was obviously tension between those two wings. And they tend to forget things like Truman ordering the integration of the military (in part, evidently because of the maltreatment of Isaac Woodard) after being advised not to and the issuance of the "To Secure These Rights" by the Truman.

I am more than willing to acknowledge the Democratic Party's complicated history (and often outright sorry one) with regard to Civil Rights.

The problem here is that many Republican simply don't know the whole story or don't care.

[Swordfish]

5 hours ago, 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

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

Well, slow your roll for a second here.

I don't think ti's that people are dumb, necessarily, or that they don't understand that another tax cut could offset.

i think the concern for a lot of people is that:

1 - As someone else mentioned, it would tank the housing market and adversely affect property value, so it's not as simple as 'net tax impact is zero or negative'.

2 - They don't trust that reduced rates will be lasting.  

I think both of these are completely legitimate concerns.  Certainly there are ways to mitigate both these issues, but there's little reason to expect the current governmental structures to act in the best interest of middle class home owners.

[The Anti-Targ]

10 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Maybe it's because the Democratic Party took care of its Dixiecrat problem and now it's the Republican Party's Dixiecrat problem

That would be my guess.

So all you need do is point out  to these people that all the racist Democrats defected to the Republican party because, y'know the southern strategy sought to actually do exactly that in order to permanently hold the South for Republicans. The consequence of this political move being that the scum (or deplorables if you will) of the USA mostly now call themselves Republican. It was a deal made with the devil in order to hold on to power, which is typically why people make a deal with the devil.