US Politics: Kill (the) Bill

[Rippounet]

Did anyone mention this? I may have missed it it's a few days old...

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/us-senate-internet-privacy-bill-vote-sell-consumer-data-browsing-history-a7646981.html

[butterbumps!]

14 hours ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

I'm actually good with giving Trump positive press for doing something even vaguely competent (like his State of the Union speech). Discourse has become so damaged in this country that I feel we need to at least acknowledge it when he gets something right.

 

14 hours ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

I realize that it is a fairly ridiculous idea that we should have to coddle the leader of our country, but at the end of the day I think it probably does more good than harm. Hammer him on the incompetent bullshit. Ridicule him for the obvious, indefensible lies. But why not praise him just a little bit when he manages to get something right? I think we need a little less outrage and a little more measure right about now.

 

13 hours ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Was it the most coherent speech he ever gave? (I think it probably was) On the curve, I think you have to give him some credit. Did I see it as being a glimmer of hope or something? No. All I'm saying is it costs us nothing to give him some small measure of credit when he earns it. If anything I think it makes us appear more reasonable when we are criticizing him for one of his massive failures.

While I agree with the principle that we should give credit where it's due, I strenuously disagree with your belief that the SotU address was his "doing something right."   We should absolutely NOT be giving praise for that speech.   That speech was the same xenophobic, hateful messaging, dressed in less outrageous words, delivered with the minimum level of "competency," with "competency" defined by someone who can read off a teleprompter without going on a tangent against Rosie O Donnell.   

Was it his best speech in terms of style?  Yes, probably, but that is not in itself much praise, and it does not mean it was a good speech worthy of praise.   I think as much as we should be "measured" as you put it, we shouldn't crave it so much that we ignore substance to rave over style, which is the mistake that all of those pundits made immediately afterwards.   It was a terrible, exploitative speech, and that shouldn't be lost in the critique "praising" how he managed to say it without his normal pants-shitting routine.  I think it's especially bad to praise these types of displays as "doing something right," because the more honeyed, slightly more disciplined delivery of hateful, exploitative messaging makes it easier to be seduced by.  Even when on "good behavior" his message is still wildly problematic, and we need to be clear about that.

that speech was maybe "good for Trump standards," because they are abysmal, but utterly mediocre for anyone else.  And I don't think we should lose sight of that kind of measured perspective either.

[Inigima]

Dmc, I'm interested to know why you would think Trump isn't immune from prosecution. He isn't getting smacked down by the Republicans in Congress for any of the shit he's doing, including his conflicts of interest. He's barely getting hit over the Russia stuff, even.

[Fez]

10 hours ago, Kalbear said:

Tax reform may die for other reasons, namely that they have much less runway to work with thanks to the AHCA dying and corporations are very much against many things in it, but it'll be a lot more popular.

Cutting taxes, especially corporate taxes, is going to be really interesting to watch. If Republicans decide to just explode the deficit, I think they'll come to an agreement. There aren't many of them that care about the deficit when it comes to their priorities; and, while there will be some heartburn over how that'll mean the cuts are only temporary, 10 years is a long time to have an impact. Also, they'll probably convince themselves they can extend the cuts when the time comes, at least some of them.

If they try make the cuts permanent by keeping things revenue neutral though (or they don't do that, but do try to come up with cuts to keep the deficit in line), I think they will dramatically fail. Taxes are just as complicated an issue as health care, and most Republicans don't have any policy thoughts beyond "make the taxes lower." There is this border adjustment idea, which is already wildly unpopular even though most people have been focused more on health care recently, and that's about it.  No matter what Republicans do they are going to upset a lot of people, and a lot of corporations, that benefit from the current tax system and will fight back against seeing their taxes go up to pay for cuts elsewhere.

After seeing the AHCA debacle prove that regular political gravity still mostly holds true in Washington, I once again believe in the awesome power of inertia. I don't think tax cuts happen. I'm not even sure the April government shutdown will be avoided.

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, Rippounet said:

Did anyone mention this? I may have missed it it's a few days old...

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/us-senate-internet-privacy-bill-vote-sell-consumer-data-browsing-history-a7646981.html

Yeah, I read about that. And it truly shows how shallow the Republican "get government out of our lives" rhetoric often is. In many cases, I want government in my life. To protect me from big corporations who think they can do whatever in the hell they want.

[aceluby]

1 hour ago, OldGimletEye said:

Yeah, I read about that. And it truly shows how shallow the Republican "get government out of our lives" rhetoric often is. In many cases, I want government in my life. To protect me from big corporations who think they can do whatever in the hell they want.

This is something I never understood about the 'Big Govt' people.  They seem to have zero issues with massive corporations with little to no competition providing necessary services like the internet.  Somehow it's better when some rich guy behind the scenes is screwing you over with zero accountability.  "Vote with your dollar" which is literally impossible as my area has exactly one option for broadband service.

[OldGimletEye]

At least a little bit of a silver lining in the dark cloud of Trump's presidency and the Republican Party's control of government:

"Numbers guy" Paul Ryan's status as a "A legendary wonk" maybe getting downgraded to that of  "A legendary bullshit artist".

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/following-failure-paul-ryans-reputation-may-never-be-the-same

Quote

A month ago today, CNN ran a report on House Speaker Paul Ryan’s (R-Wis.) efforts to prepare his party to advance an ambitious far-right agenda. The piece described the Wisconsin congressman as a “legendary wonk.”

Not just a wonk, mind you, but a legendary wonk.

 

[S John]

I really hate the word 'wonk'.  

[Mlle. Zabzie]

2 hours ago, Fez said:

Cutting taxes, especially corporate taxes, is going to be really interesting to watch. If Republicans decide to just explode the deficit, I think they'll come to an agreement. There aren't many of them that care about the deficit when it comes to their priorities; and, while there will be some heartburn over how that'll mean the cuts are only temporary, 10 years is a long time to have an impact. Also, they'll probably convince themselves they can extend the cuts when the time comes, at least some of them.

If they try make the cuts permanent by keeping things revenue neutral though (or they don't do that, but do try to come up with cuts to keep the deficit in line), I think they will dramatically fail. Taxes are just as complicated an issue as health care, and most Republicans don't have any policy thoughts beyond "make the taxes lower." There is this border adjustment idea, which is already wildly unpopular even though most people have been focused more on health care recently, and that's about it.  No matter what Republicans do they are going to upset a lot of people, and a lot of corporations, that benefit from the current tax system and will fight back against seeing their taxes go up to pay for cuts elsewhere.

After seeing the AHCA debacle prove that regular political gravity still mostly holds true in Washington, I once again believe in the awesome power of inertia. I don't think tax cuts happen. I'm not even sure the April government shutdown will be avoided.

I think what we will get is Bush tax cuts part deux (Dubya'ing down!) on the individual side, which (1) expire at the end of 10 years, (2) eliminate the estate tax again (tiresomely again putting a premium on dying in exactly the correct year), (3) cut headline rates, but (4) do some different things at the margins (e.g., I could see them eliminating the deduction for state and local taxes - it's an easy take away and basically punishes high earners in blue states).  On the corporate side, I think getting the border adjustment through will be nearly impossible.  Basically I cynically see little path toward real reform - too many people too entrenched in existing goodies.

[IheartIheartTesla]

I'm not sure what it means for a legislator to be a 'wonk'. I think perhaps that they love details about the bills they propose and whatnot. However, that I think is what a staffer is better suited for. What legislators need to do better is to understand the big-picture consequences of the bills and laws they propose and champion. At least get the fundamentals right, you know what I mean?

No one in the GOP (that I can think of) is good at that.

[Kalbear]

9 hours ago, dmc515 said:

And my point was he also doesn't really care about education reform.  No point in bothering if he's going to have to drive throw a bunch of bitchy teachers.

He gets paid. He gets friends paid.

Quote

Colorado is much more than a "liberal" state.  And Trump most certainly does have such a calculus like political cost - arguably that's his only calculus.  If he didn't, why didn't he hold true on his ultimatum and let the House vote on the AHCA bill on Friday?

Because he wanted it done with one way or another so that he could move to things he cares about and makes him money.

His calculus is 'does this benefit me and my family'. If you frame things in this theory of mind a lot more of the decisions make sense.

Quote

Um, the muslim ban was what I was referring to.

The muslim ban isn't the only thing he worked on.

Quote

You mean if there's stated policy cracking down on specifically on religious communities?  The courts will undoubtedly enforce against such actions, after the ACLU brings forth a plethora of lawsuits and there's a shitstorm in the media.

The courts can decide, possibly, but they cannot enforce.

9 hours ago, dmc515 said:

Also, so if you're conceding that premise doesn't that mean Trump - or any other president for that matter - must work towards consensus building in order enact major policy change beyond warmaking and immigration rules?  Which in turn means there are still competing factions working in their own interest that constrain presidential powers even under unified government?  Which means this is hardly the "end of functional democracy" but rather the extension of the Madisonian paradigm.

No, I don't concede that. I am stating quite plainly that policy changes are not the same thing as legislative changes, and all legislative changes are not the same thing as healthcare reform. Again, to be really specific, AHCA failed because it was done by a POTUS who didn't care about that specifically with a faction of congress that didn't care about that specifically in a way that was wildly unpopular - and it still didn't fail by large margins. Things that are not the AHCA will have a much higher success rate. 

Also, 'other than immigration and warmaking' is a pretty awesome 'other than that, how was the play Mrs Lincoln' stage. You can also add 'environmental issues, education, policing and enforcement, civil rights enforcement, corporation enforcement and regulation, DEA laws, privacy laws, rights of consumers for their information' to that list.

9 hours ago, dmc515 said:

There's a huge difference between the unresolved issue of how to prosecute a sitting president for crimes and the ability to investigate and pursue impeachment towards a president that has demonstrated misconduct.  The latter has clearly been settled over the past forty years - your concern has little basis beyond freaking out over the cult of personality way in which Trump was elected.  The GOP thought the same thing about Obama.

I'm not freaking out about the cult of personality whatsoever. Point of fact, that's sort of the problem. Trump can be a very unpopular president but that unpopularity does not specifically result in actual pressure against people doing the right thing, because as far as their 'right thing' goes it is a death knell for them if he gets impeached, and it isn't if he isn't. That is another way the end of functional democracy is done - a POTUS with a net positive disapproval rate is not removed from office after committing a crime because a congress with no fear on being unelected views that as more costly than going the other way. 

[Fragile Bird]

Surely tax reform is, at the very least, just as complicated as the health care issue? The last time a tax reform bill passed was in 1985.

The fact this administration couldn't pass a health act bill doesn't seem to bode well for tax reform. Unless 45's idea of tax reform is simply to lower some taxes (for the rich) and increase others and slap the words "Tax Reform done!" down on the table.

[Kalbear]

Alternately, here's my take in one tweet.

 

[Fez]

9 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

I think what we will get is Bush tax cuts part deux (Dubya'ing down!) on the individual side, which (1) expire at the end of 10 years, (2) eliminate the estate tax again (tiresomely again putting a premium on dying in exactly the correct year), (3) cut headline rates, but (4) do some different things at the margins (e.g., I could see them eliminating the deduction for state and local taxes - it's an easy take away and basically punishes high earners in blue states).  On the corporate side, I think getting the border adjustment through will be nearly impossible.  Basically I cynically see little path toward real reform - too many people too entrenched in existing goodies.

That sounds about right to me. But I could see the HFC, or any group really, blocking that because it doesn't do enough. Also, I don't see them getting rid of that deduction; high earners in blue states make up a large portion of the GOP donor pool. Same reason they won't get rid of, or at least reform, the mortgage interest deduction.

 

3 minutes ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

I'm not sure what it means for a legislator to be a 'wonk'. I think perhaps that they love details about the bills they propose and whatnot. However, that I think is what a staffer is better suited for. What legislators need to do better is to understand the big-picture consequences of the bills and laws they propose and champion. At least get the fundamentals right, you know what I mean?

No one in the GOP (that I can think of) is good at that.

I think of it as meaning a legislator who is very knowledgeable and passionate about all facets of a complex issue, and can explain the details and impacts without help. Its really not a necessary skill for most legislators; as you say, that's what staffers are for.

I think there are a few GOP foreign policy wonks and defense wonks in Congress, but they're pretty rare these days; and mostly overshadowed by those who are just reflexively hawks.

 

[Mlle. Zabzie]

Just now, Fez said:

That sounds about right to me. But I could see the HFC, or any group really, blocking that because it doesn't do enough. Also, I don't see them getting rid of that deduction; high earners in blue states make up a large portion of the GOP donor pool. Same reason they won't get rid of, or at least reform, the mortgage interest deduction.

 

I think of it as meaning a legislator who is very knowledgeable and passionate about all facets of a complex issue, and can explain the details and impacts without help. Its really not a necessary skill for most legislators; as you say, that's what staffers are for.

I think there are a few GOP foreign policy wonks and defense wonks in Congress, but they're pretty rare these days; and mostly overshadowed by those who are just reflexively hawks.

 

Oh totally.  I think it's completely possible that nothing gets done on the tax front.  But I think more likely is that to save face, even the HFC puts on their big kid underoos and votes for something.  Mortgage interest is pretty much sacrosanct - removing it would level a huge hit at upper middle class savings in wealthy suburbs, which is pretty much a no no. Also, don't mess with the real estate lobby, full stop.  I think state tax stuff is more likely to go through.  Of course, even more likely is that there's just a headline rate cut and someone decides that it's time to get rid of the EITC.  Or something.

[Maithanet]

11 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

The fact this administration couldn't pass a health act bill doesn't seem to bode well for tax reform. Unless 45's idea of tax reform is simply to lower some taxes (for the rich) and increase others and slap the words "Tax Reform done!" down on the table.

I think that is exactly what we're looking at.  They won't be able to get by the filibuster (unless they nuke it, which I don't expect for this issue), so the path is one big bill in reconciliation.  That will be mostly tax cuts, with a few little items to claim it is "comprehensive tax reform".  Anything beyond that is going to be really hard and that isn't how Trump operates. 

[Fez]

14 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

Oh totally.  I think it's completely possible that nothing gets done on the tax front.  But I think more likely is that to save face, even the HFC puts on their big kid underoos and votes for something.  Mortgage interest is pretty much sacrosanct - removing it would level a huge hit at upper middle class savings in wealthy suburbs, which is pretty much a no no. Also, don't mess with the real estate lobby, full stop.  I think state tax stuff is more likely to go through.  Of course, even more likely is that there's just a headline rate cut and someone decides that it's time to get rid of the EITC.  Or something.

They could remove the deduction for second homes, that'd have a much smaller effect. And if you did it to finance a middle class tax cut, it'd even be progressive! 

Of course then you're pissing off vacation and resort towns, plus the real estate and construction industries will still be mad. So yeah, not happening.

[Mlle. Zabzie]

3 minutes ago, Fez said:

They could remove the deduction for second homes, that'd have a much smaller effect. And if you did it to finance a middle class tax cut, it'd even be progressive! 

Of course then you're pissing off vacation and resort towns, plus the real estate and construction industries will still be mad. So yeah, not happening.

Yup, not a chance

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

6 hours ago, butterbumps! said:

While I agree with the principle that we should give credit where it's due, I strenuously disagree with your belief that the SotU address was his "doing something right."   We should absolutely NOT be giving praise for that speech.   That speech was the same xenophobic, hateful messaging, dressed in less outrageous words, delivered with the minimum level of "competency," with "competency" defined by someone who can read off a teleprompter without going on a tangent against Rosie O Donnell.   

Was it his best speech in terms of style?  Yes, probably, but that is not in itself much praise, and it does not mean it was a good speech worthy of praise.   I think as much as we should be "measured" as you put it, we shouldn't crave it so much that we ignore substance to rave over style, which is the mistake that all of those pundits made immediately afterwards.   It was a terrible, exploitative speech, and that shouldn't be lost in the critique "praising" how he managed to say it without his normal pants-shitting routine.  I think it's especially bad to praise these types of displays as "doing something right," because the more honeyed, slightly more disciplined delivery of hateful, exploitative messaging makes it easier to be seduced by.  Even when on "good behavior" his message is still wildly problematic, and we need to be clear about that.

that speech was maybe "good for Trump standards," because they are abysmal, but utterly mediocre for anyone else.  And I don't think we should lose sight of that kind of measured perspective either.

 Yeah, I see your point. Perhaps "doing something right" is giving him too much credit. How about "not embarrassing the nation"? I don't know. I've been listening to a lot of intelligent folks express their dismay about how damaged political discourse in this country is at the moment. Perhaps I'm taking the wrong angle here. I suppose Trump could be seen and treated as the sort of anamalous figure that could potentially unite Left and Right against him. That's most likely a pipe dream, but one can hope. 

[Commodore]

so this entire thread bought the NATO invoice fake news