US Politics: Let's Discuss US Politics

[Kalbear]

1 hour ago, aceluby said:

My question for this though, is that if they are pardoned, can they still legally take the 5th since they can't legally self-incriminate?

Unclear, but this is a definite possibility and they would be in contempt if they didn't answer. 

[OldGimletEye]

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/hillary-clinton-it-appears-they-dont-know-im-not-president

Quote

This struck a chord because it’s true in a rather literal sense. One former Trump aide appeared in conservative media over the weekend and called for increased scrutiny of Hillary Clinton’s administration, which, the last time I checked, does not exist.

Two days later, another Trump ally in conservative media referred to “President Clinton” – and he was referring to Hillary, not Bill.

She turned me into a newt!

I got better.

Basically the Republican Party’s argument against Hillary.

Actually, it’s probably more coherent than what conservatives are saying.

[Mlle. Zabzie]

24 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Hmm, I wonder if something changed since they passed the budget blueprint. Here’s the last thing I saw regarding the budget and potential tax cuts:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/26/us/politics/house-budget-blueprint-tax-cut.html

Perhaps more Republicans are getting cold feet. It’s easy to say from the back benches what you’d do if you had power, but it’s a lot harder to govern.

The budget resolution is different math than the actual vote for the tax plan itself.  That is, it was much easier to whip in folks for the budget vote (and my understanding is that the nay sayers were somewhat orchestrated) than it is for something that will actually implement specific provisions that could affect district voters.  Also, those that were flipped for the budget vote did so on the basis that they would get certain things in the bill - unclear if they actually get them or not.  All that is to say that the whip math is complicated here.  That's not to say that they won't pass something - I actually think they will - but the precise contours of what get passed are very much up in the air because of the fact that there isn't a clear consensus about what the plan should look like.

[Maithanet]

5 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

The budget resolution is different math than the actual vote for the tax plan itself.  That is, it was much easier to whip in folks for the budget vote (and my understanding is that the nay sayers were somewhat orchestrated) than it is for something that will actually implement specific provisions that could affect district voters.  Also, those that were flipped for the budget vote did so on the basis that they would get certain things in the bill - unclear if they actually get them or not.  All that is to say that the whip math is complicated here.  That's not to say that they won't pass something - I actually think they will - but the precise contours of what get passed are very much up in the air because of the fact that there isn't a clear consensus about what the plan should look like.

It would be honestly incredible to me if Republicans end up including a huge tax hike in their corporate handout tax bill.  It would be the ultimate example to the upper middle class that Republicans do not care about them. 

[Frog Eater]

I cant see the reduced 401(k) contributions passing through congress

most employees today depend on their 401(k) contributions to retire

I stress out now, fearing that I wont have enough to retire when I want to

if they reduce 401(k) contributions to 2400, no one will have enough, other than government employees receiving a defined benefit at retirement

the reduced contributions will force employers to start offering Roth 401(k)s, while that is definitely a valid option, you miss out on the time value of money on those tax deferred earnings. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

49 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Unclear, but this is a definite possibility and they would be in contempt if they didn't answer. 

The punishment for being in contempt of Congress is a lot lighter than what some of these people might be facing.

29 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

The budget resolution is different math than the actual vote for the tax plan itself.  That is, it was much easier to whip in folks for the budget vote (and my understanding is that the nay sayers were somewhat orchestrated) than it is for something that will actually implement specific provisions that could affect district voters.  Also, those that were flipped for the budget vote did so on the basis that they would get certain things in the bill - unclear if they actually get them or not.  All that is to say that the whip math is complicated here.  That's not to say that they won't pass something - I actually think they will - but the precise contours of what get passed are very much up in the air because of the fact that there isn't a clear consensus about what the plan should look like.

I agree. I was just working under the assumption that the coalition that passed the budget resolution would remain intact, even if some of the individual demands could not be met. As we all know, Republicans are desperate to pass something major so they can claim a victory even if the legislation is deeply flawed, because if they don’t there’s a decent chance they’ll lose the House.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

 

Try to spread the word on Social Media and whatnot, as it appears the current administration are purposefully making it hard to sign up. They have cut the window down and are understaffing offices and the like.

 http://money.cnn.com/2017/10/12/news/economy/trump-obamacare-enrollment/index.html

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

 

 

/SICK BURN

[OldGimletEye]

On 11/1/2017 at 1:43 PM, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

 

 

/SICK BURN

Says Mr. "I was born on third base, but thought I hit a triple."

[Morpheus]

3 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Says Mr. "I was born on third base, but thought I hit a triple."

I like this one

https://mobile.twitter.com/Mikel_Jollett/status/925498254451556352

[DireWolfSpirit]

5 hours ago, OldGimletEye said:

I concur. Also, I’ll add that I feel like the people that started warning about using monetary policy to tamp down asset bubbles, like Kevin Warsh or John Taylor, were not acting in good faith, once it became apparent that their inflation fear mongering was utter horseshit.

What do you think of Shiller, was he fear mongering with his bubble books as well, or are Warsh, Taylor just guilty of being disengenuous about the subject?

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

Herr Manafort Did Nazi This Coming

  http://time.com/5002606/foreign-agents-registration-act-paul-manafort/?xid=fark_time

 

 

 

 

[OldGimletEye]

On 11/1/2017 at 2:14 PM, DireWolfSpirit said:

What do you think of Shiller, was he fear mongering with his bubble books as well, or are Warsh, Taylor just guilty of being disengenuous about the subject?

No, I don't feel that way about Shiller. I respect Shiller a lot, actually. He's done a lot of empirical work showing that asset values don't hit their rational expectations rational valuation equilibrium often. I do believe that assets do get mispriced and it's a reason why we have to have a robust banking system when things go bad. But, Shiller isn't running around saying we should used monetary policy to control asset bubbles, as far as I know.

But, it seems to me guys like Taylor and Warsh and their ilk, at least before the financial crises, were the sorts of people that didn't think assets could get mispriced (the market always gets it right!). And they sort of switched their tune, when their inflation fear mongering didn't pan out, to justify tighter monetary policy. And they would be the sorts of people to warn about asset mispricing when it suits them, but then turn around and say we don't need any of this Dodd-Frank stuff.

 

[OldGimletEye]

File away for future reference when people like Jaime Dimon starting whining about equity capital requirements.

https://www.minneapolisfed.org/publications/the-region/the-case-for-more-capital-continued

Quote

Now a new staff report from the Minneapolis Fed—using different methods and data—strengthens the case for more capital. “Capital Requirements and Bailouts” (SR 554) by Fabrizio Perri, a monetary adviser at the Minneapolis Fed, and Georgios Stefanidis, a research analyst, uses historical data on major U.S. financial institutions to measure the losses suffered by these institutions during the crisis of 2008 and to assess how higher capital requirements might have helped. Their main conclusion is that losses suffered by these institutions during the crisis were very large and, as a consequence, a modest increase in capital levels would have done little to prevent widespread failures. They argue that raising capital levels to the 20 percent to 30 percent range is necessary to forestall future bailouts in the event of another severe financial crisis.

 

[OldGimletEye]

Today in: the dog ate our tax plan, just like he ate our health care plan.

Bad dog. Bad dog.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/11/1/16591312/tax-reform-delay

Quote

House Republicans unexpectedly announced Tuesday evening that the tax reform bill they’d been promising to unveil the next morning would have to wait until Thursday. This wasn’t a question of handling a few finishing touches that had to be delayed at the last minute, either. As Politico reports in an article on the delay, “at the center of the problem were questions about how to pay for the proposed $5.5 trillion in tax cuts.”

Despite months (or, from a certain point of view, years) of work on tax reform, Republicans still haven’t actually gotten anything done in terms of building consensus on contentious issues at the heart of their bill.

 

[Mexal]

4 hours ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

Yup - if I had to guess, it will stay, in toto, but with some sort of phase out.

Yup.  And, btw, the huge gift here is the pass through rate of 25%.  Now, they claim it won't apply to professionals (doctors, lawyers, etc.), but that's basically a gift to real estate and private equity.  The pass through rate, together with the repeal of the estate tax, is functionally appalling.

Can you explain to me a bit about the pass through rate and it's affect on real estate? My father in law owns valuable land in Brooklyn and is looking to turn that into something, potentially a real estate company or a building or something to do with real estate. I'm curious how that affects things tax wise if I have to get involved down the road.

[IheartIheartTesla]

Trump Jr should shove all the candy in his pocket so the little lady can hope a tiny piece will shake loose and fall on the ground for her to pick up - that will teach her trickle down theory.

Also, isnt people giving up their hard earned candy to total strangers begging for a HANDOUT already socialism? Looks like America has been ready for socialism! since its inception.

Finally, what kind of jumped up little sh*t drags their innocent children into a game of politics?

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

1 minute ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

Finally, what kind of jumped up little sh*t drags their innocent children into a game of politics?

Did you see any video of Trump handing out candy to children of the White House Press Corps? The apple didn't fall far from the tree.

 

[Week]

3 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Did you see any video of Trump handing out candy to children of the White House Press Corps? The apple didn't fall far from the tree.

"When a shit-apple falls from a tree and grows up in a field of shit, It doesn't have any choice. Just like [your daughter]. She's gonna grow up to be a shit-apple tree, just like her father."

/RIPJohnDunsworth

[Mlle. Zabzie]

55 minutes ago, Mexal said:

Can you explain to me a bit about the pass through rate and it's affect on real estate? My father in law owns valuable land in Brooklyn and is looking to turn that into something, potentially a real estate company or a building or something to do with real estate. I'm curious how that affects things tax wise if I have to get involved down the road.

I wish I could.  The details of how this would actually work are murky at absolute best.  But the touted idea is that "small businesses" (whatever the hell that means - but I'm sure it means the Trump organization) operated in flow-through (meaning S corps/partnerships/LLCs) would have a tax rate of only 25% (rather than the top individual income tax rate) on their operating profits. But it's unclear what the scope of this would be and how it would apply in different industries.