U.S. Politics: From Russia, With Love

[Maithanet]

15 minutes ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

“The tax plan will pay for itself with economic growth”

Even without significant knowledge of economics, it is clear that slashing a tax rate from 35% to 15% requires some significant economic growth to offset the costs. Especially since saturated markets like the US don't have a whole lot of room for growth compared to say more developing countries.

But even Trump has admitted that they won't.  He has never been a deficit hawk, I'm sure the thought of running up the national credit card for a short term gain sounds great to him. 

[Real Heir of Bear Island]

8 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

But even Trump has admitted that they won't.  He has never been a deficit hawk, I'm sure the thought of running up the national credit card for a short term gain sounds great to him. 

That is how, after all, Trump made his money. He would run up debt in a limited liability entity and just declare bankruptcy. 

[IheartIheartTesla]

Right, I was just responding to what Mnunchin told reporters. I wonder if he and Trump have actually had a conversation about this at all.

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

It'll make rich people, Trump in particular, more wealthy.

 

I wonder if I can convince my company to contract my LLC instead of hiring me if this passes. I doubt it. There'll probably be something to prvent obvious loopholes for the not-super rich like that. I guess I can at least invest in REITs.

[mormont]

1 hour ago, Maithanet said:

It would just be dropping cash out of helicopters onto corporate headquarters.

I'm 100% sure Trump sees no problem there.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

1 hour ago, TerraPrime said:

"Stronger Together" is a code message for her supporters, that this is going to be an inclusive campaign and administration, to contrast itself with the GOP campaign and party ideology. It's within-group signalling while not coming out to say "We're for the minorities." Just like "Make America Great Again" is an implicit message of "Make American Great Again like when them darkies weren't so uppity." 

Except it totally wasn't inclusive to anyone outside of her campaign. The DNC totally botched the handling of the primaries and any meaningful attempt to include Sander's supporters. Clinton's campaign exacerbated this issue with the whole Nevada debacle and the hiring of Wasserman-Schultz right after her resignation.

 As much as I hate to admit it, MAGA, as insipid and nefarious as it may have been, was a better slogan than anything the Clinton campaign came up with. 

[Fez]

Apparently these are the principles for the White House tax reform plan (as of yesterday at least):

https://twitter.com/Acosta/status/857267639563034624/photo/1

The corporate side has been talked about already, and is clearly a deficit-explosion. 

I don't know enough about the individual side, but on its face its not as laugh-inducing. They apparently want to eliminate every itemized deduction except for mortgage interest and charitable contributions, and collapse the 7 tax brackets into 3 (which I've seen elsewhere would be 10%, 25%, and 35%). That doesn't really sound like give-away to the rich. They'd eliminate the AMT, but with other all the itemizations gone, I'm not sure it'd be that relevant anymore.

Repealing the ACA's 3.8% tax on certain investment income and eliminating the estate tax are clearly giveaways to the rich though.

On the other hand, I've also seen reported that what that 3rd bullet refers to would be an expansion of the standard deduction.

Thoughts, tax lawyers?

[Fez]

In other news, there's now a drafted EO floating around that'd withdraw the US from NAFTA. It could be disappear into the ether, like a lot of other EOs drafted by this White House, or it could easily get signed. There really is no telling.

It was apparently written by Peter Navarro and Bannon; so he's still got influence it'd seem.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, Maithanet said:

But even Trump has admitted that they won't.  He has never been a deficit hawk, I'm sure the thought of running up the national credit card for a short term gain sounds great to him. 

Not only is he not a deficit hawk, I don't think he even understands how it works. Don't forget that he said this:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/may/16/closer-look-donald-trumps-comments-about-refinanci/

[TerraPrime]

1 hour ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Except it totally wasn't inclusive to anyone outside of her campaign. The DNC totally botched the handling of the primaries and any meaningful attempt to include Sander's supporters. Clinton's campaign exacerbated this issue with the whole Nevada debacle and the hiring of Wasserman-Schultz right after her resignation.

 As much as I hate to admit it, MAGA, as insipid and nefarious as it may have been, was a better slogan than anything the Clinton campaign came up with. 

Clinton campaign did mishandle the Sanders campaign - they should have squashed them mercilessly much earlier on. Co-opt the message and kill his campaign before he gained traction would have been the better solution. 

 

Playing nice doesn't pay, in politics. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

10 minutes ago, TerraPrime said:

Clinton campaign did mishandle the Sanders campaign - they should have squashed them mercilessly much earlier on. Co-opt the message and kill his campaign before he gained traction would have been the better solution. 

 

Playing nice doesn't pay, in politics. 

Inversely it's fair to argue that Sanders was selfish and should have dropped out a lot earlier. I was calling for him to drop out in March because I could see exactly what was coming. By staying in the race he hurt Clinton by attacking her from the left and made it harder for his supporters to back her. 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

9 minutes ago, TerraPrime said:

Clinton campaign did mishandle the Sanders campaign - they should have squashed them mercilessly much earlier on. Co-opt the message and kill his campaign before he gained traction would have been the better solution. 

 

Playing nice doesn't pay, in politics. 

Yeah, that would've be fine without the collusion of the DNC, which had no business actively aiding one primary candidate over another.

Honestly I think that the Clinton campaign would've been much better served in attempting to co-opt some of the Sander's juice. He would've provided a much needed shot in the arm for the Clinton campaign. There's some doubt as to whether or not Sanders would've played that game, but it was clear Clinton had no interest in it, which i believe cost her.

[aceluby]

Why are we beating this dead horse again when there are much more important things to discuss?  We have newly proposed tax plans, multiple EO lawsuits, the first Ivanka outing as a WH ambassador, Kushner put in charge of everything, what looks like another pass on HC reform.... and we're discussing Clinton because Swordfish linked an article about a book geared for the RW talk radio crowd?

[Mexal]

8 minutes ago, aceluby said:

Why are we beating this dead horse again when there are much more important things to discuss?  We have newly proposed tax plans, multiple EO lawsuits, the first Ivanka outing as a WH ambassador, Kushner put in charge of everything, what looks like another pass on HC reform.... and we're discussing Clinton because Swordfish linked an article about a book geared for the RW talk radio crowd?

Don't forget Ivanka's slush fund or a potential EO to remove the US from NAFTA.

[Fez]

9 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

Just because there is other stuff going on doesn't make the battle for the soul of the Democratic Party a non-issue, especially as long as the party keeps trying to be Republican-lite.

If you think anyone in the Democratic party is trying to be Republican-lite, you haven't paid attention to what the Republican party actually is.

[Maithanet]

5 minutes ago, Fez said:

If you think anyone in the Democratic party is trying to be Republican-lite, you haven't paid attention to what the Republican party actually is.

Some liberals are angry that the Democratic Party represents what they wish the Republican party would be.  Sadly, that is not the country we live in. 

[Mlle. Zabzie]

4 hours ago, Maithanet said:

Good news is that according to Paul Ryan's Senior Tax Counsel George Callas, passing the tax plan outlined now is virtually impossible, because reconciliation won't allow for it. Here are his words (links to Slate, but this is a direct quote of Callas):

So unless they are willing to nuke the filibuster (doubtful) or can get 8 democrats to sign on (impossible), even 100% Republican support cannot get this tax plan passed for more than 2 years. 

The magical unicorn quote is my favorite.

3 hours ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

“The tax plan will pay for itself with economic growth”

Even without significant knowledge of economics, it is clear that slashing a tax rate from 35% to 15% requires some significant economic growth to offset the costs. Especially since saturated markets like the US don't have a whole lot of room for growth compared to say more developing countries.

It is utterly laughable.

1 hour ago, Fez said:

Apparently these are the principles for the White House tax reform plan (as of yesterday at least):

https://twitter.com/Acosta/status/857267639563034624/photo/1

The corporate side has been talked about already, and is clearly a deficit-explosion. 

I don't know enough about the individual side, but on its face its not as laugh-inducing. They apparently want to eliminate every itemized deduction except for mortgage interest and charitable contributions, and collapse the 7 tax brackets into 3 (which I've seen elsewhere would be 10%, 25%, and 35%). That doesn't really sound like give-away to the rich. They'd eliminate the AMT, but with other all the itemizations gone, I'm not sure it'd be that relevant anymore.

Repealing the ACA's 3.8% tax on certain investment income and eliminating the estate tax are clearly giveaways to the rich though.

On the other hand, I've also seen reported that what that 3rd bullet refers to would be an expansion of the standard deduction.

Thoughts, tax lawyers?

The repeal of the deduction for state taxes disproportionately hurts blue states, so color me unsurprised.  The AMT should go.  It's a gawd awful trap that became necessary because of all the other junk.  NAR and NAREIT oppose the increase in the standard deduction because, though the mortgage interest deduction remains, it becomes less valuable.  The pass through income thing is HUGE. Also, you will really need a robust accumulated earnings tax to keep people from sheltering income in corporations.

[aceluby]

26 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

Just because there is other stuff going on doesn't make the battle for the soul of the Democratic Party a non-issue, especially as long as the party keeps trying to be Republican-lite.

As others have said, if you think the Democrats are just Republican-lite (see also "the parties are the same"), then you really aren't paying attention to the other stuff that's going on.  I also don't think rehashing an election from 6 months ago has anything to do with 'the battle of the soul of the Democratic Party'.  If we actually wanted to discuss that we should have been discussing the rallies being held by Sanders w/ the DNC; which showed a pretty accurate microcosm of that fight.  Clinton should have nothing to do with that conversation at all.

[Ice Queen]

42 minutes ago, Mexal said:

Don't forget Ivanka's slush fund or a potential EO to remove the US from NAFTA.

He just signed the EO...is that even legal? I'm pretty sure the border states are going to be utterly devastated economically by this. 

[Maithanet]

6 minutes ago, Crazy Cat Lady in Training said:

He just signed the EO...is that even legal? I'm pretty sure the border states are going to be utterly devastated economically by this. 

Well according to this WaPo article, he wouldn't be signing an EO that withdrew from NAFTA, so much as announced our intention to withdraw within six months. 

Quote

 

President Trump is seriously considering signing a document within days that would signal his intent to withdraw the United States from the North American Free Trade Agreement within six months, three people familiar with the matter said.

The process is still fluid and White House officials could change course, but if signed the letter would begin a formal process that could see the United States exit from the 23-year-old trade pact with Canada and Mexico.

Signing the document does not require Trump to withdraw from NAFTA after six months, but it is a required step if he plans to eventually do so. The White House is expected to soon take a separate step by signing a letter to Congress that would notify lawmakers of the administration's intention to renegotiate NAFTA. By signing an intent to renegotiate and an intent to withdraw, the White House would give itself more flexibility to choose a different outcome in several months.

 

We'll see if Trump is actually the negotiator he imagines he is?  Early indications have not looked good.