U.S. Politics: Alabama Jones and the Template of Doom

[drawkcabi]

I just wanted to make a title. 

Would "Alabama Jones and the Tax Crusade" have been better?

Please continue.  

[Bonnot OG]

It's cute that there are people that don't think internet companies will block sites or fuck with bandwith speeds. I mean it's not like we don't have an industry that denies people the right to live because they want to make a profit off someone dying by denying them coverage on procedures that could save them or help them live a more comfortable life until they die.

[Spockydog]

1 minute ago, Sword of Doom said:

It's cute that there are people that don't think internet companies will block sites or fuck with bandwith speeds. I mean it's not like we don't have an industry that denies people the right to live because they want to make a profit off someone dying by denying them coverage on procedures that could save them or help them live a more comfortable life until they die.

One suspects the real motivation for this shit-show is censorship. Your internet will soon be as free and open as China's. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

"Alabama Jones and The Raiders of the Lost Revenue" has a nice ring to it too.

[Maltaran]

Alabama Jones and the Kingdom of the Orange Skull?

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

21 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Without getting in the rest of this debate, the whole concept has often been present in various guises during many of our policy debates over the years. It started with people saying trying to say back in 2008 that everything was just a structural problem and the market would right itself.

And then you had people like Casey Mulligan running around (and well Robert Lucas too) trying to blame Obama for “growth killing policies” because heaven forbid there be a general demand side failure. And then you had people like Jaime Dimon and the CEO Business Clowntable trying to say there was a “skills gap” because heaven forbid a demand side failure was the actual issue (or the most important one at the time).

But, anyway, aside from all this, I think it takes a lot of nerve on the part of the Republican Party or Trump to start talking about infrastructure now. I mean how do they intend to pay for it? We know they ain’t going to tax the rich to pay for it.  Do they intend to cut Social Security, Medicare etc. to pay for it?

They’re already hoping to do that to balance the burden of the tax cuts:

Quote

Politico has a detailed report on Paul Ryan’s plans, which involve probable retirement at the end of the congressional term, unless the House Freedom Caucus manages to purge him first. (An aide, asked about retirement, offersa non-denial denial.) A major part of Ryan’s motivation is that, as Matt Fuller reported last night, he has achieved his life’s ambition by passing a gigantic tax cut for the affluent. But Politico also explains that Ryan hopes to end his tenure in a blaze of Randian glory.

“Ryan, should he secure his final year in office, will use it to pursue the type of dramatic, politically risky entitlement reforms that Trump explicitly ruled out while running for president,” the article reports. This would certainly give some context to Ryan’s persistent efforts to talk President Trump into going along with huge cuts to popular social-insurance programs. Nobody has explained how Ryan is going to get the Senate to pass cuts to Medicare, which is even more popular than Obamacare, which he tried and failed to cut. The cuts may focus on more vulnerable programs targeted to the very poor, like nutrition and housing assistance. It would be a final, fittingly Ryan-esque blow against the takers after having returned to the makers a large chunk of their hard-earned, or hard-inherited, wealth. But even that will be a difficult task in a chamber that will soon have just 51 Republicans.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/12/paul-ryan-to-go-out-in-a-blaze-of-randian-glory.html

So yeah, they’ll go after the big three and find a way to implement a significantly regressive tax system. They also might do a public-private partnership and let the corporations put up toll booths.

Never forget folks, the Reagan tax cuts, and all the ones since, have less to do about helping the economy, and even helping the rich get richer, than it does to do with dismantling the welfare state. That’s always been the goal.

#StarveTheBeast

[Kalbear]

7 minutes ago, Spockydog said:

One suspects the real motivation for this shit-show is censorship. Your internet will soon be as free and open as China's. 

Some might be censorship, but my suspicion is simply charging other companies - and therefore, you - with expense. Comcast being able to promote Time-Warner things and their own catalog while making Disney pay through the nose, as an example. It's possible in the future that some internet providers will censor, especially in places where there exists basically one provider - but it's not likely going to happen simply because there isn't the profit it in that charging, say, Netflix 10 billion dollars for fast internet speeds has.

[drawkcabi]

3 minutes ago, Maltaran said:

Alabama Jones and the Kingdom of the Orange Skull?

 

11 minutes ago, Sword of Doom said:

It's cute that there are people that don't think internet companies will block sites or fuck with bandwith speeds. I mean it's not like we don't have an industry that denies people the right to live because they want to make a profit off someone dying by denying them coverage on procedures that could save them or help them live a more comfortable life until they die.

This seriously scares the shit out of me. I've written to my Congressman but I have 0% faith asshole Harris will do anything that is actually good for people.

[DanteGabriel]

7 minutes ago, Spockydog said:

One suspects the real motivation for this shit-show is censorship. Your internet will soon be as free and open as China's. 

This is pretty ominous with the buying up of local TV stations by conservative Sinclair and the demise of local newspapers. I feel pretty hard hit by the shadowy consortium of libertarian fucks who bought out the LA Weekly.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

11 minutes ago, Maltaran said:

Alabama Jones and the Kingdom of the Orange Empty Skull

FTFY

[Martell Spy]

As @Nasty LongRider mentioned, Paul Ryan Going Galt? He denies it, but then he has to. Of course this means he is no longer accountable to the American people as he tries to slash the safety net next year.

Paul Ryan Sees His Wild Washington Journey Coming to An End
He felt he was ‘made for this moment.’ But now, on the verge of achieving his long-sought legislative dream, he’s got his eyes on the exits.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/12/14/paul-ryan-retire-speaker-ready-leave-washington-216103

 

 

[Fragile Bird]

Interesting. Adam Schiff just said Nunes said "he never stopped running the Russia investigation".

So much for stepping aside.

[Rippounet]

51 minutes ago, Sword of Doom said:

It's cute that there are people that don't think internet companies will block sites or fuck with bandwith speeds. I mean it's not like we don't have an industry that denies people the right to live because they want to make a profit off someone dying by denying them coverage on procedures that could save them or help them live a more comfortable life until they die.

What's even cuter is all the conservatives arguing this is a move in favor of free spech.

Not to mention all those who basically say they are against anything that came from Obama.

The few decent arguments I've seen against NN is that the market can -and will- self-regulate through customers choosing the ISP that best fits their needs (i.e. that doesn't charge them more to watch netflix or that doesn't make some specific websites sluggish).
Of course, that's optimistic to say the least.

For a eurocommie like myself it's fascinating to see how conservatism can lead people to be completely blind to their own self-interest. What I woner is whether it's sheer stupidity, FOXNews brainwashing, or both.

[OldGimletEye]

23 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

They’re already hoping to do that to balance the burden of the tax cuts:

Oh yes, certainly. I thought they would at least wait a while, until they believed everyone had forgot about the tax cuts and then say something like, "oh dear, time to do something about the deficit. I guess we'll just have to cut Social Security, SNAP, etc, etc." But, ink isn't even dry yet on the tax bill and they are already going for it.

Quote

So yeah, they’ll go after the big three and find a way to implement a significantly regressive tax system. They also might do a public-private partnership and let the corporations put up toll booths.

They must be insane to think the Democratic Party should cut those programs in order to finance one nickel for an infrastructure bill that will be heavily favored towards the rich. Of course they will try to blow smoke up everyone's else asses, by saying "but, were going to save on the public debt by doing a public/private partnership!!" when he truth is it would be a better deal just to publicly finance this stuff.(and a lot of worthy projects can't be monetized anyway).

There is simply nothing really to be negotiated with the Republican Party these days. It's just a better strategy to grind that party into dust. Somebody badly needs to open up a six pack of whoop ass on it.

23 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

Never forget folks, the Reagan tax cuts, and all the ones since, have less to do about helping the economy, and even helping the rich get richer, than it does to do with dismantling the welfare state. That’s always been the goal.

Deep down this what a lot of them believe. That the concept of the welfare state is immoral and wrong. But, they never come out and say it directly or honestly, because they know they'd get creamed in the elections. So they spin it as "pro growth policies" and "fiscal responsibility". Why anyone continues to buy their bullshit is beyond me.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

13 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

Interesting. Adam Schiff just said Nunes said "he never stopped running the Russia investigation".

So much for stepping aside.

Did you ever really think he did? Same goes double for Sessions. If that were the case, Trump would have canned him and brought in some flunky to clean house. 

[Martell Spy]

Did Alabama Just Violate Federal Voting Law?
Assessing the state’s “inactive” voter scheme.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2017/12/it_looks_like_alabama_violated_federal_law_with_its_inactive_voter_scheme.html

[S John]

4 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

The few decent arguments I've seen against NN is that the market can -and will- self-regulate through customers choosing the ISP that best fits their needs (i.e. that doesn't charge them more to watch netflix or that doesn't make some specific websites sluggish).
Of course, that's optimistic to say the least.

That would be all well and good if everywhere had multiple options, but many (rural) areas have just one option.  On top of that these companies collude when they do coexist in certain markets.  If they all do it, and there's only a handful of them anyway, there's nothing to be done.  What really baffles me about this is that almost everyone hates the cable/internet providers.  They are overpriced, they face no real competition, and their customer service is notoriously shitty.  I am actually a little shocked that all it takes is someone saying anti-net neutrality is the conservative position (and specifically the anti-Obama position) for hordes of people to become giddy at the fleecing they are about to be on the receiving end of.  Honestly, the debates I have encountered on this elsewhere on the internet, I don't think many of the conservatives actually understand the issue.  Likely older folks, who discovered the issue and their stance on on it on a foxnews or breitbart perusal.  

[Rippounet]

On the economic front, the Trump facebook feed is celebrating what they call the "Trump economic miracle."

It almost makes me wish for the next economic crisis to hit sooner than later. In fact, quite a few serious economists say that there are many things indicating that it is imminent, and that it's going to be pretty bad. Apparently the Schiller CAPE is very worrying right now. I'm not sure I really understand it ; I believe what it means is that the valuation of shares is artifically high right now, meaning that there is at least one bubble somewhere that is about to burst.

https://www.cnbc.com/2016/12/08/market-indicator-hits-levels-last-seen-before-plunges.html

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

5 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Oh yes, certainly. I thought they would at least wait a while, until they believed everyone had forgot about the tax cuts and then say something like, "oh dear, time to do something about the deficit. I guess we'll just have to cut Social Security, SNAP, etc, etc." But, ink isn't even dry yet on the tax bill and they are already going for it.

Nah, it's full steam ahead while they still can. And they'll have Trump covering them by constantly distracting everyone. My only question is how would they get any real cuts through the Senate, and would that lead to the death of the filibuster? And then after that, how many Senators are wiling to kill their careers to do a highly unpopular and deeply hurtful thing? And then, would it even matter, because Democrats could just undo everything after the 2020 elections?

8 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

They must be insane to think the Democratic Party should cut those programs in order to finance one nickel for an infrastructure bill that will be heavily favored towards the rich. Of course they will try to blow smoke up everyone's else asses, by saying "but, were going to save on the public debt by doing a public/private partnership!!" when he truth is it would be a better deal just to publicly finance this stuff.(and a lot of worthy projects can't be monetized anyway).

There is simply nothing really to be negotiated with the Republican Party these days. It's just a better strategy to grind that party into dust. Somebody badly needs to open up a six pack of whoop ass on it.

I don't think they'd try to get the Dems on board. And really, it's a shame we didn't act on infrastructure earlier when it would have been cheaper. Isn't the Fed about to raise interest rates, thus causing the projects to cost a lot more?

10 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Deep down this what a lot of them believe. That the concept of the welfare state is immoral and wrong. But, they never come out and say it directly or honestly, because they know they'd get creamed in the elections. So they spin it as "pro growth policies" and "fiscal responsibility". Why anyone continues to buy their bullshit is beyond me.

Yep, and I don't know if they believe it. It's just that it's not the top issue for their voters. The social issues are. That's why Moore almost still won the election. I've heard a lot of Alabama politicos say that Jones would have won >+10 if he was anti-choice. 

As far as hiding one's true beliefs goes, the one I've always laughed at is Paul Ryan professing his religiosity while also saying that Ayn Rand is was his favorite political philosopher (for those who don't know, she always said she thought religious people are the dumbest people alive). And I can confirm that he used to make his staffers read Atlas Shrugged. My buddy had to. He said it was one of the worst books he's ever read.  

[Bonnot OG]

Republicans are okay with censorship, especially if they can outsource the job of censorship to the private sector and make a profit from it.