US Politics: Speak Into the Microwave

[Martell Spy]

Quote

 

As George W. Bush–era Republicans learned, if you use the budget rules to pass a large deficit-financed tax cut, the tax cut will eventually expire.

Repealing Obamacare offers Republicans a way out of that trap, because it pairs eliminating (or indefinitely delaying) all of the ACA’s progressive tax increases with gutting the financial assistance the law provides to help millions of people afford care. It’s spoken of as “Obamacare repeal,” but it’s equivalently a large tax cut for the rich paid for by taking insurance away from the working class and poor. This filibuster-proof tax cut, in other words, would be permanent. And by reducing the revenue baseline, Republicans could make separate, deficit-neutral reforms to the tax code without having to sacrifice their goal of reducing the top marginal rate: all of the iniquity of the Bush tax cuts, without the automatic sunset.

 

The Incredible Cruelty of Trumpcare
Republicans are willing to cause a humanitarian crisis just to give permanent tax cuts to millionaires.

https://newrepublic.com/article/141303/incredible-cruelty-trumpcare

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

45 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

What do you mean? I would think congress (or rather the party in the majority, or rather a significant and influential faction within the party of the majority) wants what Trump is selling.

It's not like in the primaries the candidates were particularly divergent on the evilness of Islam. They all thought Obama was weak, they all wanted a president who would openly say Islamic terrorism, and they all wanted to cause the Islamic world in general (with the exception of Saudi Arabia and a few other Gulf states) a whole lot of hurt.

The difference between them and Trump is that they mostly knew a travel ban probably would not fly, constitutionally speaking. But if they could make it fly constitutionally they would probably go for it. So they are more than happy for Trump to try to make it fly, constitutionally. Republicans win either way. Either Trump fails, again, and is weakened and further embarrassed, which means the rise of establishment Republicans. Or Trump succeeds and the dirty Muslims get punished by a Republican hero with the heroic Republican supporters basking in the reflected glory. In the case of the former outcome they might have to swallow an electoral defeat in 2018 as a consequence of this and other failings. But that will mostly be RINOs who exit stage left anyway

I don't have a problem with them having an issue with the way Obama (and by default Hillary) handled the glad-handing of Radical Islam. Not even mentioning the issue in light of the San Bernadino and Orlando shootings probably being the primary examples. To leap from that to supporting this ridiculous EO that offends an entire religion and has likely no real effect on curtailing terrorism is significant, methinks. One doesn't violate a foundational American belief.

What I mean is Congress (and I mean as a whole, not just (R) or (D) has put party above country for far too long. They have forgotten what their primary role is. That is to provide a block or counter to Executive power. That should be job one, but it's not even on the to do list these days.

 

 

[The Anti-Targ]

3 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

I don't have a problem with them having an issue with the way Obama (and by default Hillary) handled the glad-handing of Radical Islam. Not even mentioning the issue in light of the San Bernadino and Orlando shootings probably being the primary examples. To leap from that to supporting this ridiculous EO that offends an entire religion and has likely no real effect on curtailing terrorism is significant, methinks. One doesn't violate a foundational American belief.

What I mean is Congress (and I mean as a whole, not just (R) or (D) has put party above country for far too long. They have forgotten what their primary role is. That is too provide a block or counter to Executive power. That should be job one, but it's not even on the to do list these days.

 

 

Listen to the rhetoric of the primary candidates. They almost all don't care about offending an entire religion, which most of them regard as not a religion anyway.

How can there possibly be checks and balances when one tribal faction in society can hold power in all elected arms of govt? tribal faction politics creates the primary motive of staying in power. The secondary motive of doing govt might be the primary purpose of govt, but it is not the primary motive for those in govt. The one way to ensure you lose power is to publicly argue among yourselves.

If you want checks and balances outside the judiciary with tribal factional politics then you have to guarantee some actual power by at least 2 of the tribes, and preferably more. Easiest would be reconstructing the House to a PR system, that way ALL legislation has to be negotiated between at least two tribes. It also means crazy wingnuts can go form their own parties and even get seats, and not have to contaminate the mainstream parties in order to get a seat at the table.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

2 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Listen to the rhetoric of the primary candidates. They almost all don't care about offending an entire religion, which most of them regard as not a religion anyway.

How can there possibly be checks and balances when one tribal faction in society can hold power in all elected arms of govt? tribal faction politics creates the primary motive of staying in power. The secondary motive of doing govt might be the primary purpose of govt, but it is not the primary motive for those in govt. The one way to ensure you lose power is to publicly argue among yourselves.

If you want checks and balances outside the judiciary with tribal factional politics then you have to guarantee some actual power by at least 2 of the tribes, and preferably more. Easiest would be reconstructing the House to a PR system, that way ALL legislation has to be negotiated between at least two tribes. It also means crazy wingnuts can go form their own parties and even get seats, and not have to contaminate the mainstream parties in order to get a seat at the table.

 Which is why I say Thank Dog for the judiciary.

 I agree with your points here. Our system is broke. Not sure what the fix is. 

[The Anti-Targ]

5 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

 Which is why I say Thank Dog for the judiciary.

 I agree with your points here. Our system is broke. Not sure what the fix is. 

I know what the fix is, but no one likes it.

But no one likes the taste of the medicine that the doctor prescribes, and they sure as hell don't like the chemo or radiation that the doctor blasts you with to kill off cancers. So just because people don't like the fix to the current cancerous political system doesn't make it wrong.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

2 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

I know what the fix is, but no one likes it.

But no one likes the taste of the medicine that the doctor prescribes, and they sure as hell don't like the chemo or radiation that the doctor blasts you with to kill off cancers. So just because people don't like the fix to the current cancerous political system doesn't make it wrong.

Serious reform, for sure. What medicine do you prescribe?

[The Anti-Targ]

5 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Serious reform, for sure. What medicine do you prescribe?

You're not going to like it.

1) The nation state can no longer be the peak legislative body in the world with coercive enforcement capability. (Most sci-fi authors seem to get this.)

2) Elimination of political parties in democracy, prohibition on campaigning, limited or no nomination systems.

3) Smaller legislative bodies. A body of 50 competent people elected through non-partisan mechanisms should be able to legislate nationally in a large nation, 20 - 30 people for the national legislature for smaller countries. Sub-national bodies down to a minimum of 7-10 people for regional/state and local elected institutions.

4) Community engagement is essential.

Will it happen in my lifetime? I don't think so. But I think it will happen eventually. I just wonder if there will be 20 billion, or 9 billion, or 3 billion, or 300 million people left alive in the world when it does happen.

[ThinkerX]

1 hour ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

What I mean is Congress (and I mean as a whole, not just (R) or (D) has put party above country for far too long. They have forgotten what their primary role is. That is to provide a block or counter to Executive power. That should be job one, but it's not even on the to do list these days.

I submit it is not so much 'party above country' anymore as it is 'caste comes first.'  One does not become a national level politician in the country without either being a member of the 1%, or being deeply beholden to them.  We are entering into an age of literal oligarchy, with a few hundred or few thousand oligarchs either occupying or directly controlling the political positions that matter, and a 'change of party' means nothing more than a 'change of oligarch.'  Hence, Oprah or Zuckerberg or somebody like them being the next democratic party candidate for POTUS.

 

At least some of the apparent differences between the parties (though not all) are 'red meat' issues, never meant to be truly resolved, trotted out to divide the masses and garner votes.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

13 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

You're not going to like it.

1) The nation state can no longer be the peak legislative body in the world with coercive enforcement capability. (Most sci-fi authors seem to get this.)

2) Elimination of political parties in democracy, prohibition on campaigning, limited or no nomination systems.

3) Smaller legislative bodies. A body of 50 competent people elected through non-partisan mechanisms should be able to legislate nationally in a large nation, 20 - 30 people for the national legislature for smaller countries. Sub-national bodies down to a minimum of 7-10 people for regional/state and local elected institutions.

4) Community engagement is essential.

Will it happen in my lifetime? I don't think so. But I think it will happen eventually. I just wonder if there will be 20 billion, or 9 billion, or 3 billion, or 300 million people left alive in the world when it does happen.

Not sure I follow. Who has coercive enforcement policy if not the state?

[ThinkerX]

55 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Not sure I follow. Who has coercive enforcement policy if not the state?

Corporations - aka the 'one percent.'

[Mexal]

9 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

I also see Madow is blaming the audience for having too high expectations for her Trump tax return piece. Well, it was her that tried to create some hype pre-show, for the viewers. You have totally lost the PR battle when you start talking shit about your viewers. She should just shut up and move on to something more substantial. Like Trump's false accusation of a serious crime against Obama.

Was it really her? I mean, MSBC and Maddow put out a tweet less than an hour from the show saying "We have Trump tax returns at 9pm est (seriously)". That's about it. The rest of the hype came from the politics community who retweeted it everywhere and then hyped it up. Not really sure that's on her other then letting people know she had something and doing her normal schtick which people didn't come to watch. She does that for a lot of her stories that are "exclusive".

[denstorebog]

4 minutes ago, Mexal said:

Was it really her? I mean, MSBC and Maddow put out a tweet less than an hour from the show saying "We have Trump tax returns at 9pm est (seriously)". That's about it. The rest of the hype came from the politics community who retweeted it everywhere and then hyped it up. Not really sure that's on her other then letting people know she had something and doing her normal schtick which people didn't come to watch. She does that for a lot of her stories that are "exclusive".

Even that one tweet was careless bordering on either stupidity or opportunism. Trump's tax returns are, for half the country, synonymous with "first step towards impeachment". Whether that's realistic or not isn't the point. Along with the FBI investigations and the hypothetical golden shower tapes, the tax returns have come to represent a hail mary for millions of people that might help bring about an end to the current madness they face every day. Maddow and MSNBC can't be unaware of this.

As such, tweeting vaguely about the tax returns without hinting at whether they have found actual evidence of something, or just two pieces of paper with numbers on them that check out, is irresponsible.

 

[Mexal]

19 minutes ago, denstorebog said:

Even that one tweet was careless bordering on either stupidity or opportunism. Trump's tax returns are, for half the country, synonymous with "first step towards impeachment". Whether that's realistic or not isn't the point. Along with the FBI investigations and the hypothetical golden shower tapes, the tax returns have come to represent a hail mary for millions of people that might help bring about an end to the current madness they face every day. Maddow and MSNBC can't be unaware of this.

As such, tweeting vaguely about the tax returns without hinting at whether they have found actual evidence of something, or just two pieces of paper with numbers on them that check out, is irresponsible.

 

Maybe but it's not like this was anything new. That's how they always promote her show when she has something that no one else has. They did it with the DHS report she got her hands on that said there is no national security reason to block people from the 7 countries. Maybe it was a mistake because "tax returns = first step to impeachment" as you said but it was nothing different then what we've seen before. 

As for being irresponsible, that's a harsh word for what happened and for what the fall out ended up being, which was basically nothing. Lots of shit talking for a day about how Maddow''s show is terrible, irresponsible and hyped and then people moved on to the next thing. That's why it doesn't really matter. In today's climate, where every day has something new, outrage only lasts for a few hours.

In other news that will be discussed all day, two judges blocked Trump's second travel ban and then he starts saying at his Nashville rally that he prefers the original. That's really going to help with his legal case which seems to hinge on the stupid things him and his advisers have said. He's not very smart.

Also, Trump's budget finally releases, with cuts to pretty much everything that makes our country good (arts, humanities, clean air, clean water, climate change, all types of science, diplomacy, education, public tv/radio, meals on wheels, etc) to pay for a huge hike in Defense spending. This will never pass Congress but it goes to show what type of people are in the White House (not that we didn't already know).

And finally, Dina Powell is added to the National Security Council, yet another Goldman Sachs alum. I think we're up to 8 or so now. They are part of the NSC, National Economic Council and Treasury. 

[Fez]

14 hours ago, Paladin of Ice said:

Largely unnoticed on Monday, Trump signed an Executive Order telling every head of an Executive Agency to see which parts of their agency should be cut, or if their agency should be cut altogether and its functions left to the state or the private sector. The reports are due in 6 months

Direct link to Executive Order text.

Key parts of the order.

It's worth remembering that just about every agency under the Executive Branch (Justice, State, Treasury Education, EPA, etc.) has been put under the "care" of people with idealogical or financial reasons to want to shut them down, reduce their scope, or reduce their ability to function. Get ready to say goodbye to every program offered by any of these departments that don't directly benefit anyone who's not a conservative rich white American male and/or a Trump family member or crony.

I don't know if Steve Bannon is going to be able to live out his fantasy of burning down the country, but he's certainly going to give it his best shot, especially when it comes to the Executive Branch.

 

This where Trump gets hurt by not putting in the legwork to actually nominate/appoint various executive staff beyond the Cabinet Secretaries themselves. Because Trump hasn't put his people in place to run these agencies beyond those at the very top, these reports are going to be written by career civil servants who are mostly going to say that their agencies should remain as is; or maybe even get a funding increase. If Trump/OMB wants to cut Federal agencies, and their proposed budget blueprint shows they do, then that's what they're going to try to do. But they won't have reports from the agencies themselves to support the decision.

Except maybe from the EPA, where Pruitt came prepared and has already done the legwork to cut the agency. Although even there, he never wanted to eliminate the agency. He wanted to eliminate the climate change pieces, but he's been pretty consistent about wanting to keep most of the environmental clean-up programs like the brownfields.

[DunderMifflin]

Maddow trolled the fuck out of me for a rating, I wasnt mad. It was the 2nd time I'd ever watched her show. 

Well done Rache, well done.

[Mexal]

25 minutes ago, Fez said:

This where Trump gets hurt by not putting in the legwork to actually nominate/appoint various executive staff beyond the Cabinet Secretaries themselves. Because Trump hasn't put his people in place to run these agencies beyond those at the very top, these reports are going to be written by career civil servants who are mostly going to say that their agencies should remain as is; or maybe even get a funding increase. If Trump/OMB wants to cut Federal agencies, and their proposed budget blueprint shows they do, then that's what they're going to try to do. But they won't have reports from the agencies themselves to support the decision.

Except maybe from the EPA, where Pruitt came prepared and has already done the legwork to cut the agency. Although even there, he never wanted to eliminate the agency. He wanted to eliminate the climate change pieces, but he's been pretty consistent about wanting to keep most of the environmental clean-up programs like the brownfields.

Is that true? I thought the transition beachhead teams are still there because they haven't been replaced with appointees and as such, they'd likely be the ones writing those reports.

[aceluby]

15 hours ago, DunderMifflin said:

Apparently every Republican since the Southern strategy has had success changing the name of their nazi brand, shouldn't be anything new. Calling every person that runs agains a Democrat a nazi probably takes a lot more bite out of the Nazi term than rebranding it ever could though.

crying wolf gets old and eventually "no this time it's a nazi for real" falls on deaf ears

This has nothing to do with what I posted.

[OldGimletEye]

Now here is the part where I raise my “Socialist” banner high by pointing out that conservative idiot, and new Trump nominee, David Malpass, is in fact an idiot and that WSJ has seemingly had a quality control problem for awhile.

http://www.vox.com/2017/3/15/14596938/david-malpass-treasury

Quote

David Malpass, a veteran of two previous Republican Party administrations as well as a former chief economist for the now-defunct investment bank Bear Stearns, has been nominated to serve as undersecretary of Treasury for international affairs. It’s a critical crisis management role in the federal government, and one that Malpass certainly has the broad résumé for.

 

Quote

But despite decent paper credentials, Malpass has a striking track record of poor judgment about major economic issues over the past decade — cheerleading the economy on the verge of the Great Recession while warning of a collapse just as recovery was getting underway.

In August 2007, for example, the housing market had been cooling for a year or more, and it was becoming clear that economic problems were going to spread to some of the financial institutions that had invested heavily in mortgage-backed bonds. Stocks were sliding, and overall credit was drying up in some markets. Into the breach stepped Malpass, then of Bear Stearns, with a reassuring Wall Street Journal op-ed titled “Don’t Panic About the Credit Market,” urging the Federal Reserve and other policymakers not to overreact.

Evidently, another one that was "Bullish on Bush".

Quote

The fact that he was utterly wrong didn’t stop him from trying again. In 2011, he popped back up with another Wall Street Journal op-ed urging the government to implement a policy of higher interest rates. Malpass said higher rates would lead to a stronger dollar and bigger economic growth. This is, to say the least, not how the majority of economists think this works. In 2012, Malpass warned that rejecting his advice was going to lead to a recession in 2013.

Malpass was one of those conservative idiots that that signed the 2010 letter to Beranke warning that “inflation was just around the corner”. When that didn’t happen, Malpass didn’t bother to change his views.

Malpass had written lots of stuff encouraging both the United States and Europe to tighten monetary policy while promoting the usual Republican nonsense of “growth enhancing supply side reforms”. Well, it seems to me Dubya did that and we still ended up with a massive demand side slump. But, that didn’t stop Malpass along with the Party O’ Bidness to just keep talkin nonsense.

Just an except from Malpass’s nonsensical 2011 WSJ article:

Quote

he U.S. is practically alone in the world in pursuing a near-zero interest rate and letting its central bank leverage to the hilt to buy up the national debt. By choosing to pay savers nearly nothing, the Fed’s policy discourages thrift and is directly connected to the weakness in personal income.

Well for one it wasn’t true that the United States was alone.

But, the real problem here is Malpass said by raising the interest rate, you’d encourage more consumption spending. In what fucking world? In what fucking world would a person spend more now if the cost of present consumption relative to future consumption was higher? Also, Malpass suggestion here would have just driven the wedge between interest on money and the return to capital even higher. And the only way that would be able to adjust, making people indifferent between holding interest bearing financial assets or money and investing in new capital would be a long and slow process of deflation or low inflation which would have been quite destructive.

You know, I'm getting a sneaking suspicion here that Trump just isn't getting the "best people" like he promised.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

15 hours ago, denstorebog said:

This is anecdotal, but funny: For reasons I'm having a hard time understanding myself, I went to Breitbart yesterday and checked out a couple of articles, mainly to gauge the commenters' reaction to healthcare and other things. There were a lot of comments expressing apathy and disillusionment with Trump along the lines of "it seems like everyone who goes to Washington changes overnight" and "why the fuck did I expect that this time would be different?"

I'll probably head back into the hellhole in the near future to see if this is a trend, because if that's the case ... interesting times ahead for the shit-gibbon.

I actually did the same thing recently. That comment section made Mos Eisley look like an egalitarian place, though I thought it was hilarious that so many people were calling Paul Ryan a secret Democrat. 

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, Tywin et al. said:

I actually did the same thing recently. That comment section made Mos Eisley look like an egalitarian place, though I thought it was hilarious that so many people were calling Paul Ryan a secret Democrat. 

Not conservative enough!!!!!!