U.S. Politics 2017: Yes Virginia, There Is a Santa Claus

[Mlle. Zabzie]

2 hours ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

I don't know what this means for tax reform, because I could see a) The GOP ramming something through (or try to) just to show they have done something with their supermajority and b ) The GOP being gun-shy on pushing anything that will anger the populace further. Of course, Trump isn't helping much by being hands off, and their proposed bill was above healthcare bill in popularity but still not high enough. 

 

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

 

There’s an option c). too. They could decide that they need to do something, but not want to risk passing an unpopular bill, so they could either pass a much more limited bill or, heaven forbid, work with Democrats to come up with something that would actually be a positive piece of legislation.

We aren't sure how it will play.  Definitely is some discussion here.  The fact that they aren't trying to do this in a bipartisan manner is definitely hurting them.  I'm not sure bipartisanship is possible in today's Congress though.

1 hour ago, Fez said:

I really hope they actually do; it's the kind of thing that'll lead the Washington Post to doing snarky articles about the forgotten voters of Staten Island.

 

I would totally read that article.  That whole series would be amazing.

50 minutes ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

I was hoping bringing offshore money back to the US could have bipartisan support (especially in light of the Papers); but lowering the corporate tax isn't the way to go.

One thing if people ever start talking about how our tax rate is the highest in the world (the corporate income tax rate is - and the noise around the effective tax rate is basically noise) - the rebuttal is that we don't have a VAT or national sales tax.  Territorial tax countries with low corporate income tax rates have meaningful, and relatively high, VATs.  Economists are divided on who bears the cost of the VATs (and they tend to be regressive, but there are exceptions meant to fix that, more or less), but VAT/GST/whatever needs to be factored in when comparing systems.  If we go territorial (or even territorial lite, as proposed) with a low rate, we end up, almost inevitably, with a VAT, and btw, not sure how that intersects with the state and local sales taxes.  

[denstorebog]

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

Looking at the results from last night, was there anything that went against Democrats? Kind feels like they dropped a Big Gin hand.

I seem to remember seeing that Northam got only 51% of college educated whites. This is less than I would have hoped and somewhat worrying given Gillespie's racist douchebaggery. And it indicates a need for a really hefty GTVO efforts directed towards minorities if it's a general trend. That could be a challenge in some states.

[all swedes are racist]

5 hours ago, dmc515 said:

Um, not sure you framed that question correctly.  The incredibly easy answer would be:  because he won.

I'm really not convinced Northam "catered" to bigots.  Not saying he didn't - been busy and haven't seen it beyond what's been said here.  Anyway, even if he did, this type of shit is exactly what will convince him to continue doing so.

northam: i am alt right now

 

3 hours ago, DanteGabriel said:

I look forward to the coming NYTimes think pieces about going on safari to locate and understand the forgotten voters of Loudon and Fairfax counties in VA.

Nice turn-up for the Democrats. I hope they don't think they've figured everything out yet.

lol

[Mexal]

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

I don’t think I’ve tried that one before. Been trying to branch out lately and try some of the better stuff. And by a glass you better have meant 10.

Nah, I'm an easy drinker when it comes to scotch. I had 2

[aceluby]

22 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

 I provided the links.  It isn't rude to provide links that supports one's position.  

Your position was that many 'blue areas' were a few rich people and lots of poor people because the middle class couldn't afford taxes. 

You provided links about income inequality in blue states.

So no, you didn't provide links that support your position.

[OldGimletEye]

23 hours ago, Cas Stark said:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/personalfinance/2015/10/10/24-7-wall-st-states-rich-poor/73618858/

http://theweek.com/articles/449591/income-inequality-greatest-blue-states

https://www.cbsnews.com/media/9-u-s-states-with-the-highest-income-inequality/10/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/11/11/rand-paul-is-right-the-most-economically-unequal-states-are-democratic/?utm_term=.50225c700fe0

http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/stateline/2015/3/19/the-shrinking-middle-class-mapped-state-by-state

http://247wallst.com/special-report/2015/01/22/states-where-the-middle-class-is-dying/5/

 

You know it's not exactly surprising to me, that some of the places where you'd find the biggest wealth inequality would be in "liberal cities" like New York and San Francisco, to a large extent because of external economies of scale (because we are really good at finance and certain technology), these places have benefited enormously because of international trade.

It seems to me though you are trying to play a game of three card monte here. While it may be true that there is more wealth inequality in blue states, it would seem that red states generally still lead the nation in poverty and Republican "low tax pro growth policies" certainly haven't solved the problem. I'm mean it doesn't seem like the Brownback Boom panned out, nor did Scott Walker's policies work that well either. In fact the reason why some Red States might in fact be the poorest is because they didn't tax and invest enough in public goods, a trend that resulted shortly after the Civil War, and still seems to haunt them.

And in fact, it would seem, to the extent we are talking about the issue of wealth inequality, one of the very articles you cited, undercuts your claims, to the extent we're saying "Democratically controlled state" serves as a proxy for tax rates. The specific article in question:

Quote

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/11/11/rand-paul-is-right-the-most-economically-unequal-states-are-democratic/

It would seem that the correlations between the Gini coefficient and Democratic states are not that strong, nor are the correlations between the top 1% and Democratic states.

[all swedes are racist]

ok, so what are some of the greater take always from last nights election? let's turn to josh barro:

cripes, what a doofus

[Guest]

19 minutes ago, denstorebog said:

I seem to remember seeing that Northam got only 51% of college educated whites. This is less than I would have hoped and somewhat worrying given Gillespie's racist douchebaggery. And it indicates a need for a really hefty GTVO efforts directed towards minorities if it's a general trend. That could be a challenge in some states.

I'm not finding it now, but I swear I saw exit polling showing that Northam overperformed both Clinton and McAuliffe with college educated whites. 538 reported that Northam outperformed Clinton with white females 49%-41%.

[TheKitttenGuard]

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

Hard to imagine that anyone could be worse than Christie. Statistically speaking, he’s the most unpopular governor in the history of polling.

Maine's Paul LePage is saying "Hold my Beer".

http://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/359387-lepage-refuses-medicaid-expansion-despite-ok-from-maine-voters

Quote

Maine Gov. Paul LePage (R) said Wednesday his administration will not expand Medicaid until the state finds a way to pay for it, a day after voters approved a ballot measure to broaden the program.

Measure approved 59% to 41%

[Cas Stark]

1 hour ago, aceluby said:

Your position was that many 'blue areas' were a few rich people and lots of poor people because the middle class couldn't afford taxes. 

You provided links about income inequality in blue states.

So no, you didn't provide links that support your position.

We will  have to agree to disagree.  If there is huge income inequality, e.g. that means a few rich people, lots of poor and fewer middle class, taxes are high, and the middle class is losing it's share, then to me that supports my statement.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

30 minutes ago, Mexal said:

Nah, I'm an easy drinker when it comes to scotch. I had 2

Really? I thought being a lifelong Bengals fan would have better prepared you for long term chronic alcoholism.

[aceluby]

2 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

We will  have to agree to disagree.  If there is huge income equality, e.g. that means a few rich people, lots of poor and fewer middle class, taxes are high, and the middle class is losing it's share, then to me that supports my statement.

No, it doesn't.  Income inequality does not mean that.  You're just making stuff up now.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

 

/Et tu, sis? Brutal.

[Zorral]

 

In the NY Times it's all about the white middle-class now is neglected, disregarded and understood. The 'poor white rural hinterland' nan again relegated to eastern elite disregard and contempt? 

I hope the DNC and other party "leadership" understands that they had nothing to do yesterday's results.  This was a bottom up effort, of people working in their towns and cities to take back their school boards, the mayorship, their representation in the state houses, etc.  Damn right Hillary and Cuomo and Biden, all those names, had absolutely nothing to do with this at all.  But now people are talking as if the Dems are reborn and all is just fine and it's biz as the past decades' usual.  Ha!

[aceluby]

4 minutes ago, Zorral said:

 

In the NY Times it's all about the white middle-class now is neglected, disregarded and understood. The 'poor white rural hinterland' nan again relegated to eastern elite disregard and contempt? 

I hope the DNC and other party "leadership" understands that they had nothing to do yesterday's results.  This was a bottom up effort, of people working in their towns and cities to take back their school boards, the mayorship, their representation in the state houses, etc.  Damn right Hillary and Cuomo and Biden, all those names, had absolutely nothing to do with this at all.  But now people are talking as if the Dems are reborn and all is just fine and it's biz as the past decades' usual.  Ha!

This is what I saw as well.  People proud to go and vote for the local races and getting out there in droves.  This is how the bigger elections will be won, and they'd be idiotic not to realize this and figure out a way to capitalize next year.  

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

/Almost

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

54 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

 

We aren't sure how it will play.  Definitely is some discussion here.  The fact that they aren't trying to do this in a bipartisan manner is definitely hurting them.  I'm not sure bipartisanship is possible in today's Congress though.

Bipartisan legislation is still achievable, but probably not on anything major. And while both sides are to blame for this, Republicans are clearly more responsible.

Also, the root cause of this is gerrymandering and the preponderance of safe districts. If we want to go back to a time where bipartisan action was the norm, we need to completely reform how we elect our officials.

[Fez]

15 minutes ago, Zorral said:

I hope the DNC and other party "leadership" understands that they had nothing to do yesterday's results.  This was a bottom up effort, of people working in their towns and cities to take back their school boards, the mayorship, their representation in the state houses, etc.  Damn right Hillary and Cuomo and Biden, all those names, had absolutely nothing to do with this at all.  But now people are talking as if the Dems are reborn and all is just fine and it's biz as the past decades' usual.  Ha!

I wouldn't got that far. Some of the party leadership you mentioned, especially Biden, did a lot of fundraising efforts which helped fuel the advertising and GOTV efforts that led to last nights results. Yes, it would've been worthless without the local energy, but to say it added no value seems pretty excessive to me.

[Mlle. Zabzie]

14 minutes ago, Zorral said:

 

In the NY Times it's all about the white middle-class now is neglected, disregarded and understood. The 'poor white rural hinterland' nan again relegated to eastern elite disregard and contempt? 

I hope the DNC and other party "leadership" understands that they had nothing to do yesterday's results.  This was a bottom up effort, of people working in their towns and cities to take back their school boards, the mayorship, their representation in the state houses, etc.  Damn right Hillary and Cuomo and Biden, all those names, had absolutely nothing to do with this at all.  But now people are talking as if the Dems are reborn and all is just fine and it's biz as the past decades' usual.  Ha!

As best I can tell, the NY Times views parts of the US that aren't NY/LA/SF/CHI (sometimes)/Miami (During Art Basel only) as worthy of anthropological study in the best 19th Century manner.

[Rippounet]

1 hour ago, Cas Stark said:

We will  have to agree to disagree.  If there is huge income equality, e.g. that means a few rich people, lots of poor and fewer middle class, taxes are high, and the middle class is losing it's share, then to me that supports my statement.

Causality is a tricky thing. Saying that blue states have more income inequality is one thing (which is already debatable, according to one of the links you provided), saying that they have more income equality because they are blue is something else.

If we want to look at the impact of political parties, I guess the Pew map of the middle-class since 2000 would be the best source:
http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/stateline/2015/3/19/the-shrinking-middle-class-mapped-state-by-state
Now, looking at the states with the worst evolutions you have Wisconsin, Ohio, Vermont, North Carolina, Georgia, New Mexico, Nevada and North Dakota.
It's hard to argue that all these are "blue states."

All that being said, It's not certain that the Democratic Party is much better than the Republican Party as far as preserving the middle-class goes.