Jump to content

u.s. politics: a cruel and unusual government


all swedes are racist

Recommended Posts

The Beginning of the End of the Debt Ceiling
With another deal with Democrats, President Trump could release the hostage that congressional Republicans took during their early fiscal battles with the Obama administration.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/09/trump-democrats-debt-ceiling/539148/

The debt ceiling deal is a template for how Trump can get things done
Ignore Ryan and McConnell and make deals with Dems.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/9/7/16263602/trump-deals-democrats

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, IamMe90 said:

Are sales and property taxes not taxes?

I think it's prudent to assume figures such as these are reached crunching all of the numbers available to help bolster the point of whoever is making them. I don't know if that's "misleading" or not in this instance, since the statement is not really incorrect, at least on a plain-text reading. Definitely a lines-blurred case to me. 

Property taxes are fine because presumably you can get that data across a certain aggregate population.  Using sales tax is problematic because it's classic ecological fallacy - there's no way to reliably extrapolate how dreamers at the individual level will lead to an aggregate estimate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, DanteGabriel said:

I can't help but feel like cooperating with Trump is going to backfire on the Democrats. If there's one skill Trump has, it's cutting deals that eventually fuck over his partners and leave him without consequences. No one ever profits from working with him, except other amoral monsters like Putin. I sure as fuck don't trust Pelosi and Schumer to maneuver this situation with any skill.

Exactly.  Seen it up close in the nabe already, so to speak, in years past.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, dmc515 said:

That's a very long question with very short answer:  No.  In the unlikely event he continues to work with Dems, doing so lays himself bare once Mueller concludes his investigation.  Dems aren't going to provide him the cover that the GOP will be less and less inclined to the more and more he sides with Dems against them.

But -- it's deal making!

I am the last one to suggest I know what the orange demon thinks he's up to.  Just rollin' along with how he has done biz here in town for years and years, that is. the biz we got to see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, dmc515 said:

Well, the tweet in question referred to 2016, when they should have been able to file.  I have some (legal) immigrant friends, and they're not eligible for certain credits, but not to such a degree.

Fair enough.  Just thinking out loud as to how that number might get calculated.  Getting to $14k in taxes on a ~30k salary isn't impossible, but there are a lot of unknowns and guesses that would have to go along with it, many of which are unfair and misleading.

Regardless, I think the overall point is pretty fair.... it's easy to guesstimate these people's tax (societal) contribution, yet the guy who wants to kick these people out of the country for having the gall go along w/ their parents has worked hard to hide his tax (societal) contribution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, IamMe90 said:

The figure is purportedly for 2016. DACA was enacted in 2012 and rescinded in September 2017. The filing deadline for 2016 tax returns was in April 2017. 

Sure, there are filing extensions that could be granted, but I'm not seeing how the repeal of the DACA could be that big of a factor here.

I think it should be pointed out that one does not NEED a "filing extension" for federal income tax if you do not OWE the government any money. It is perfectly legal to not file a return if you would be getting a refund if you filed one. Any DACA person who has had enough withheld from his or her paycheck so that they don't owe any income tax would not have to file at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, dmc515 said:

That's a very long question with very short answer:  No.  In the unlikely event he continues to work with Dems, doing so lays himself bare once Mueller concludes his investigation.  Dems aren't going to provide him the cover that the GOP will be less and less inclined to the more and more he sides with Dems against them.

But the question was does Trump think it will help him, not will it actually help him. I think it’s quite possible that he thinks making relationships with Democrats will help make the Russia issue go away. We are talking about a political neophyte after all. That said, your conclusion is 100% spot on.

On a separate but similar note, I think we might see Trump work with the Democrats a lot in the next few months. They have some similar goals, and unlike Republicans, they actually want to do something, which Trump will recognize and appreciate. Or maybe I’m dead wrong and Trump just wanted to stick to Ryan and McConnell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

But the question was does Trump think it will help him, not will it actually help him. I think it’s quite possible that he thinks making relationships with Democrats will help make the Russia issue go away. We are talking about a political neophyte after all. That said, your conclusion is 100% spot on.

On a separate but similar note, I think we might see Trump work with the Democrats a lot in the next few months. They have some similar goals, and unlike Republicans, they actually want to do something, which Trump will recognize and appreciate. Or maybe I’m dead wrong and Trump just wanted to stick to Ryan and McConnell.

Another potential calculation is that Schumer, the most powerful Dem on the Hill by some metrics, is from New York, where potential law suits can be brought against him and his family for violations of business practices in connection with the investigation into the ties between him, his family, the presidential campaign and election and the Russians, particularly financially.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

But the question was does Trump think it will help him, not will it actually help him.

Yeah I have an unwritten policy to not answer any question relating to what is actually going on in Trump's head.  That's a very scary speculative road, although your suspicions seem sound to me.

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

I think we might see Trump work with the Democrats a lot in the next few months.

I think they have a clear avenue to compromise between the debt ceiling and DACA/Dreamers.  However, on tax cuts the Dems should revert back to a hard line.  I do not want to give him nor the GOP Congress a victory there.  Infrastructure may be workable but who knows if he still actually cares about that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

I think they have a clear avenue to compromise between the debt ceiling and DACA/Dreamers.  However, on tax cuts the Dems should revert back to a hard line.  I do not want to give him nor the GOP Congress a victory there.  Infrastructure may be workable but who knows if he still actually cares about that.

There's going to be lots of needed infrastructure spending in the coming years, and I imagine he'll be eager to don his pristine work boots and a hard hat for the photos and the opportunity to remind everyone that he is a Builder of Mighty Works. Not to mention all the cranes and bulldozers he'll be able to ride at these photo ops.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, dmc515 said:

I think they have a clear avenue to compromise between the debt ceiling and DACA/Dreamers.  However, on tax cuts the Dems should revert back to a hard line.  I do not want to give him nor the GOP Congress a victory there.  Infrastructure may be workable but who knows if he still actually cares about that.

Trump can't exactly campaign on the achievement of a 3 month debt ceiling/govt funding bill.  The Democrats haven't given him any actual accomplishments, and they'll be very leery of giving him any.  If he wanted infrastructure, he should have done that back in February.  I doubt the democrats will work with him on infrastructure now, and if they do, I'm not sure Republican leadership would allow it to happen anyway. 

I don't know if Trump will continue to try out bipartisanship or not.  My suspicion is it can't last - Trump lacks the discipline not to lash out somehow and sabotage any sort of bipartisan deal. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

There's going to be lots of needed infrastructure spending in the coming years

There's been lots of infrastructure needed for well over a decade.  Hasn't stopped Congress from doing next to jack shit.

7 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

Trump can't exactly campaign on the achievement of a 3 month debt ceiling/govt funding bill.  The Democrats haven't given him any actual accomplishments, and they'll be very leery of giving him any.  If he wanted infrastructure, he should have done that back in February.  I doubt the democrats will work with him on infrastructure now, and if they do, I'm not sure Republican leadership would allow it to happen anyway. 

I don't know if Trump will continue to try out bipartisanship or not.  My suspicion is it can't last - Trump lacks the discipline not to lash out somehow and sabotage any sort of bipartisan deal. 

Totally agreed with everything here.  Trump isn't going to get any long-term gain from doing exactly what the Dems wanted on the fiscal cliff.  Nor would he by passing the Dream Act considering he's already announced a willingness to kill it.  That's why I think that may be workable - especially if it gives the added benefit of getting rid of the debt ceiling for good, which is solely used as a political hammer for spending cuts by the GOP at this point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/8/2017 at 1:15 PM, dmc515 said:

 Infrastructure may be workable but who knows if he still actually cares about that.

If Trump were remotely competent, he’d do an infrastructure bill.

The FED is still having trouble hitting it’s inflation target. Markets still seem thirsty for American Safe assets ie US Treasuries.. It would push up employment too and wage growth. (and yes, I know that the official employment numbers look low, but that is another story).

And here is the part where I’m conflicted. My old full employment Democratic heart thinks we could use a little infrastructure spending. But, on the other hand, it might help get Trump elected. But, Trump is incompetent, so I guess its a moot point.

I guess while bad men can be good kings, it’s also the case that bad man can also be incompetent idiots.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

And here is the part where I’m conflicted. My old full employment Democratic heart thinks we could use a little infrastructure spending. But, on the other hand, it might help get Trump elected. But, Trump is incompetent, so I guess its a moot point.

If a good infrastructure bill is put together, I say Dems should get on board.  As you imply, the way it would boost Trump's reelection chances is through increasing employment.  That's probably pretty damn marginal - and the benefits for the country outweigh a marginal increase in his reelection probability.  Further, in basically all competition I've always had a "give me the best you got" mindset.  If the Dems can't find a way to beat Trump in 2020 merely because they helped him pass an infrastructure bill, that's on the Dems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/8/2017 at 2:15 PM, Nasty LongRider said:

Some worry that a Trump infrastructure bill would look just like a privatization bill, and if so that is something the Dems should absolutely not support. 

Yes, the original Ross plan is junk. All it would to is just take public assets and put them on private balance sheets, merely shifting and hiding the cost (and probably making them more expensive really) and giving private firms basically monopoly power over those assets.

Also, if you kind of work in or believe that there that a shortage of safe assets is behind some of our macro economic issues, it makes sense at this time to issue a few more of them ie US Treasuries.

So you are right, they should not agree to any privatization scheme like the Ross plan proposed.

ETA:

Also many people have pointed out (like Blanchard) that a lot of the US' infrastructure needs are things that really can't be monetized anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Nasty LongRider said:

Some worry that a Trump infrastructure bill would look just like a privatization bill, and if so that is something the Dems should absolutely not support. 

Yeah, that's a given.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, DanteGabriel said:

I can't help but feel like cooperating with Trump is going to backfire on the Democrats. If there's one skill Trump has, it's cutting deals that eventually fuck over his partners and leave him without consequences. No one ever profits from working with him, except other amoral monsters like Putin. I sure as fuck don't trust Pelosi and Schumer to maneuver this situation with any skill.

I get what you are saying, but honestly, what do "Sid Chuck and Nancy" have to lose at this point that can possibly equal what they have gained?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...