u.s. politics: now guaranteed to contain no less than 35% u.s. political content

[TerraPrime]

5 minutes ago, Sword of Doom said:

A fake Boston Antifa twitter forgot to turn it's location off before posting. The location is in Russia. 

Eh. Did you read the Twitter thread? It's shown that the location tag could very well be a troll bit. 

[all swedes are racist]

19 minutes ago, Sword of Doom said:

A fake Boston Antifa twitter forgot to turn it's location off before posting. The location is in Russia. 

no, that was part of the 'joke'. you can add a geotag from any location you want

[HoodedCrow]

That's the new Trump base angle. More concussion in sports. No more sissy bike helmets. No more seat belts. Increase levels of CO2 in the atmosphere, mercury and lead in the water, acid in rain, cancer causing particulate in air, more children's cigarettes, incarcerate as many non white people as possible, don't do anything constructive about opioid use( like boring old harm reduction), deregulate financial and food industries, teach sub critical thinking skills and cult behavior, go after non fundamentalist scientists and teachers. Threaten dictators with nukes. Teach young people to dive, by using their gut and patriot instincts to jump head first into the shallow end in swimming pools. MAGA!

[Larry of the Lawn]

36 minutes ago, good chill praxis guy said:

no, that was part of the 'joke'. you can add a geotag from any location you want

I often tag myself lunar-bathing nude in the White House Rose Garden just for kicks

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

10 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

I often tag myself lunar-bathing nude in the White House Rose Garden just for kicks

 

[Bonnot OG]

1 hour ago, TerraPrime said:

Eh. Did you read the Twitter thread? It's shown that the location tag could very well be a troll bit. 

 

52 minutes ago, good chill praxis guy said:

no, that was part of the 'joke'. you can add a geotag from any location you want

It actually was a fake account. 

 

https://twitter.com/AntifaChecker/status/913152226176258049

This antifa checker feed has them in a thread of other closed down fake accounts. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

37 minutes ago, HoodedCrow said:

That's the new Trump base angle. More concussion in sports. No more sissy bike helmets. No more seat belts.

You're misreading Trump's attacks on the NFL. It's basically two fold. He's attacking an old foe of his while at the same time playing to his base. And the latter is blatantly racist. He's attacking the protests and the fact that a primarily black league has a bunch of millionaire athletes who are ungrateful (unsaid but implied to the white man) while also encouraging them to bash their skulls in for his entertainment. That plays well to a racist base. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

Also, it's pretty funny, in a sadistic way, to watch Trump say that the tax reform that he's pushing won't help him at all even though it will repeal the estate tax (and don't let anybody you know call it the death tax, that's a euphemism used to trick middle class rubes), which could lead to a multi-billion dollar tax cut for the Trump family. And sadly, his entire base will believe him or not care at all that he's lying right to their face. Just like always.....

[Martell Spy]

Quote

I often tag myself lunar-bathing nude in the White House Rose Garden just for kicks

Enjoying your male privilege I see Larry. You wouldn't try this if there was a dick grabber in the White House.

https://www.thecut.com/2017/09/elizabeth-warren-hillary-clinton-sexism.html

Elizabeth Warren Is Getting Hillary-ed

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/27/trump-executive-order-health-care-state-lines-243213

Health plans, regulators pan Trump's plan to allow purchase of insurance across state lines
The idea has failed in several states where it's been tried.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/09/the-trump-tax-cuts-are-going-to-hurt-the-republican-party.html

The Trump Tax Cuts Are Going to Hurt the Republican Party
 

 

 

[Martell Spy]

Quote

Also, it's pretty funny, in a sadistic way, to watch Trump say that the tax reform that he's pushing won't help him at all even though it will repeal the estate tax (and don't let anybody you know call it the death tax, that's a euphemism used to trick middle class rubes), which could lead to a multi-billion dollar tax cut for the Trump family. And sadly, his entire base will believe him or not care at all that he's lying right to their face. Just like always..

...

I think some of them will notice, but only after the tax bill hits them right in the face. It looks like part of the plan is to smack the middle class in states like New York hard. Plenty of up state New York Republicans will be directly funding this lavish gift to Wall Street.. But worry not, Bannon has assured us the Economic Nationalism is coming any minute now.

 

[all swedes are racist]

49 minutes ago, Sword of Doom said:

 

It actually was a fake account. 

 

https://twitter.com/AntifaChecker/status/913152226176258049

This antifa checker feed has them in a thread of other closed down fake accounts. 

yeah, i get that. it's been known for a while now. the point is they are based out of oregon, not some russian troll farm or whatever

[lokisnow]

9 hours ago, Fez said:

the deduction for state/local taxes would be eliminated.  that really screws over a lot of people, especially in high tax states. And there are enough House Republicans left in California...

If I were the california democrats, I would start branding the republican tax attack on rich, white blue state dwelling republicans as:

The Orange County Tax Hike

Snark aside, what is so fascinating about DC Republicans viciously attacking blue states with tax policy is that the deduction in question primarily benefits rich white people, and doesn't much affect democrats base of poor non-whites.

Which is to say, while eliminating this deduction does in fact hurt the people of those states, the people in those blue states hurt by the deduction are more likely than not to be the republican voters in the blue state.

Granted, california has a lot of rich white democrats, but a huge amount of the rich, white people in california are republicans, this demographic of rich white people even have their own county in california (orange county) that was created only so rich white republican baby boomers wouldn't have to share neighborhoods with less rich, less white less republican people.

***

Anyway, additional snark aside, this seems like an excellent way to dry up the fund raising for republicans in california, and an even better way to discourage republicans from voting (or flip them to voting for democrats if democrats promise to restore the deduction), so it is definitely an interesting tactic to deploy!

Since democrats are targeting orange county HoR seats (and other CA republican seats) so obviously and so heavily his tax policy could make flipping those CA red seats to blue seats much much easier.

 

(although the democrats trying so hard to flip CA seats means they will inevitably fail because democrats have stupidly declared CA as the only place they will play offense so republicans know there is only one place in the country they have to play defense, meaning the GA outcome will be repeated in every race in CA in 2018 because democrats are strategic and tactical morons incapable of wanting to win) 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

8 minutes ago, lokisnow said:

Granted, california has a lot of rich white democrats, but a huge amount of the rich, white people in california are republicans, this demographic of rich white people even have their own county in california (orange county) that was created only so rich white republican baby boomers wouldn't have to share neighborhoods with less rich, less white less republican people.

To be fair, rich white people in California that are largely liberal pretty much have their own county as well. (Marin county) You can live there if you're not white, but you need a fuckton of money to do so.

[horangi]

5 hours ago, Fez said:

They probably can't. There isn't an agreed set of reconciliation instructions for FY2018 yet, but the Byrd rules will limit the extent to how much tax cuts can grow the deficit. The only way cuts this large happen is if they end up eliminating nearly every tax break; and even then the numbers might not add up. This is more a wish list that lacks any of the important details needed to pass it.

There's also going to end up being a lot more political opposition once it becomes there are some very clear, very large losers in this proposal (unlike the Bush tax cuts, where everyone benefited at least a little bit).

See Fez,

You lack imagination- I am sure it will all balance out.

Here is the actual quote from the policy memo: " Under current law, taxable income is subject to seven tax brackets. The framework aims to consolidate the current seven tax brackets into three brackets of 12%, 25% and 35%." 

They just didn't tell you the order of them.  What they mean is earnings over $1,000,000 have a tax rate of 12%, earnings of $1,000,000 -$100,000 have a tax rate of 25%. and earnings under $100,000 have a tax rate of 35%.

By making sure that the top tax rate hits all citizens who earn over 12k, I am sure you will be able to make the ends meet! 

 

[OldGimletEye]

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/9/27/16368612/trump-tax-cut-principles

Quote

Republicans want to pass a large tax cut for high-income households. We know that because the House GOP’s tax reform blueprint features large tax cuts for high-income households, all the various iterations of Donald Trump’s campaign tax plans featured large tax cuts for high-income households, and all throughout Barack Obama’s first term, Republicans fought relentlessly to prevent the expiration of George W. Bush’s temporary tax cuts for high-income households.

The big problem with this agenda is that it’s hideously unpopular.

Well, it seems the Republican Party just is going to keep clingin’ to supply side horsehit.

I just read the other day that Senator Toomey is running around saying these tax cuts will cause so much growth that it will “pay for itself” essentially. Yeah, right.

At this point, I think it’s just way way too charitable to call Toomey a “Conservative Idiot”. Surely, he can’t be that dumb. 

Accordingly, since, I’ll assume Toomey isn’t that stupid, calling people like Toomey a fuckin’ liar is appropriate at this juncture.

......................................................................................
To file away for my future book, "Why Do Republicans Have To Fuck Up Everything?"

It would seem that hysteresis effects are a thing. Who knew?

http://www.nber.org/papers/w23844

Quote

This paper uses U.S. local areas as a laboratory to test whether the Great Recession depressed 2015 employment. In full-population longitudinal data, I find that exposure to a 1-percentage-point-larger 2007-2009 local unemployment shock caused working-age individuals to be 0.4 percentage points less likely to be employed at all in 2015, likely via labor force exit. These shocks also increased 2015 income inequality. General human capital decay and persistently low labor demand each rationalize the findings better than lost job-specific rents, lost firm-specific human capital, or reduced migration. Simple extrapolation suggests the recession caused most of the 2007-2015 age-adjusted employment decline.

.........................

https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/faster-monetary-policy-normalization-by-stephen-s--roach-2017-09

Quote

Yet this massive balance-sheet expansion has had little to show for it. Over the same nine-year period, nominal GDP in these economies increased by just $2.1 trillion. That implies a $6.2 trillion injection of excess liquidity – the difference between the growth in central bank assets and nominal GDP – that was not absorbed by the real economy and has, instead been sloshing around in global financial markets, distorting asset prices across the risk spectrum.

The reason it has little to show for it is because of a liquidity trap. Like duh.

Anyway, going forward.

My question today for conservative sorts of people.

Lets start with the basic asset pricing equation:

p(t) = E(t)[m(t+1) d(t+1)]

which says the price of an asset today equals the conditional expectation (E(t)) of the stochastic discount factor m(t+1) in the next period times the payoff d(t+1) in the next period.

If you say E(t) is rational expectations ie its the expectations the market holds and you impose a  transversality condition ruling out bubbles, then you have a description of all asset prices in equilibrium. I’ll call it the “ efficient market fundamental value equilibrium”. This what I believe what conservative sorts of people mean (or maybe this isn’t what they really mean or they don’t even know what they mean and they are just talking out of their asses) when they say that financial markets are “efficient” and you really don’t need, according to them, that Dodd Frank stuff.

And if you believe that is how financial markets actually work, ie they rapidly hit their fundamental value equilibrium, then how do you exactly claim that low Federal Funds rates will create asset bubbles. I mean if you are working under the assumption of rational expectations and the efficient market hypothesis, wouldn’t economic actors have a pretty good idea of the path of inflation and hence the path of the Federal Funds Rate and interest rates, in general, and not misprice assets?

So why is it, the same people that believe the above describes how financial markets work, are also the same people that then turn around and claim that low interest rates are a problem?

I’m confused. I don’t get it.

Any conservative sorts of people want to field this one?

Bueller?

Bueller?

For me, the answer is: At best the rational expectations fundamental value equilibrium is something the system may tend to. And it may take a very long while for the system to arrive at this equilibrium, as actors learn about the environment they are in. In short the system can be in disequilibrium for awhile. And when actors wake up one day and realize that their assets are not at their fundamental value equilibrium, things can turn very nasty. Very nasty indeed.

I just wanted to point out the hypocrisy here of the same people who say, “oh, we don’t need any of this Dodd-Frank regulation stuff”, but then turn around say,”The Fed should raise it’s rates cause, cause, cause, assets might get mispriced!!!!”.

I accept assets can get and do get mispriced (at least compared to the benchmark of efficient market hypothesis and Rational Valuation). But, I’d say, using the Federal Funds rate to pop asset bubbles is a horrible way to go. For one it’s extremely difficult to always know when we are in a bubble or how that bubble will play out. Slamming on the brakes prematurely can cause a lot of damage. It can cause unnecessary output losses and unemployment. The FED rate should be used to maintain employment and to hit a desired inflation target, or maybe just the desired inflation target, and that’s it. It would be better to use other instruments to handle asset mispricing.

And I do believe that assets can get mispriced. I’m influenced by Hyman Minsky after all, unlike conservative sorts of people that say, “the market it’s efficient, but wait low interest rates make it inefficient”. Huh? Wuuuut?
 

[OldGimletEye]

On 9/27/2017 at 6:00 PM, Martell Spy said:

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/27/trump-executive-order-health-care-state-lines-243213

Health plans, regulators pan Trump's plan to allow purchase of insurance across state lines
The idea has failed in several states where it's been tried.

Even without the real world practical problems that have developed with the "across state lines thing", I have no clue how Republicans think that it will solve the issue of adverse selection. It simply doesn't solve the growing price gap between the healthy and the sick, if no sort of mandate or incentive to buy insurance is not in place.

If Republicans simply don't give a fuck about universal health coverage, then they should at least be honest about it, rather than selling pie in the sky horseshit.

[Martell Spy]

Quote

 

Even without the real world practical problems that have developed with the "across state lines thing", I have no clue how Republicans think that it will solve the issue of adverse selection. It simply doesn't solve the growing price gap between the healthy and the sick, if no sort of mandate or incentive to buy insurance is not in place.

If Republicans simply don't give a fuck about universal health coverage, then they should at least be honest about it, rather than selling pie in the sky horseshit.

 

Trump is obsessed with it. It was literally his only healthcare idea during debates. I think he's very proud to have memorized this.

The new Republican tax plan, explained
Congress and the administration have put together a joint “framework.” Here’s what it does.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/9/27/16363954/trump-ryan-tax-plan-framework-big-six

 

 

[The Anti-Targ]

5 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

You're misreading Trump's attacks on the NFL. It's basically two fold. He's attacking an old foe of his while at the same time playing to his base. And the latter is blatantly racist. He's attacking the protests and the fact that a primarily black league has a bunch of millionaire athletes who are ungrateful (unsaid but implied to the white man) while also encouraging them to bash their skulls in for his entertainment. That plays well to a racist base. 

Keep 'em rich and dumb. What better way to keep the blacks under control?

[The Anti-Targ]

4 hours ago, Martell Spy said:

...

I think some of them will notice, but only after the tax bill hits them right in the face. It looks like part of the plan is to smack the middle class in states like New York hard. Plenty of up state New York Republicans will be directly funding this lavish gift to Wall Street.. But worry not, Bannon has assured us the Economic Nationalism is coming any minute now.

 

Meh, people's wages will increase so much with all the massive economic growth that's unleashed with the low taxes on business and rich people that the middle and lower classes will still be better off. Don't you know, the rich are job creators? Therefore if you give them all the money they will create a whole lot of new, well paying jobs for the grateful masses. There is no way the rich will just choose to keep all of their extra money, they will invest it into the productive economy. We should be kissing their rings in praise of the sacrifices they will make on our behalf.

[LongRider]

8 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Meh, people's wages will increase so much with all the massive economic growth that's unleashed with the low taxes on business and rich people that the middle and lower classes will still be better off. Don't you know, the rich are job creators? Therefore if you give them all the money they will create a whole lot of new, well paying jobs for the grateful masses. There is no way the rich will just choose to keep all of their extra money, they will invest it into the productive economy. We should be kissing their rings in praise of the sacrifices they will make on our behalf.

Yesterday on the Marketplace radio program on NPR, they had a few comments from folks about the 'tax reform' and person said exactly what is quoted, to paraphrase 'We have the highest taxes int eh world and if they were lowered we have an economic boom.'  Neither assertion being true.