U.S. Politics: Oh Donnie Boy, the Feds are calling...

[Fragile Bird]

Trump and his surrogates have been boasting that US tariffs are really hurting the Chinese, like how their factories are operating at 70% capacity or less.

Last night Tim Cook announced Apple was  going to have a big miss when they report in 3 or 4 weeks because sales are down sharply in China. The Dow is down 350 points because of the news, 100 points for Apple’s 10% drop alone.

Even if a trade deal is hammered out over the demanded 90 days, I wonder how many Chinese are going to buy iPhones afterwards. Just like the fact I think many Canadians have permanently changed some of their buying habits as well.

[Cas Stark]

3 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

I believe that the law is pretty clear that the House can request an individual's tax returns.  However, the administration insists that this is unconstitutional, and who knows how long it will take to work it's way through the courts.  Probably a long time.

As for how bad that would be, it really depends on what is in there.  If it's nothing much, then yes, Democrats would benefit more from being able to use the secrecy and possible shady dealings of the tax returns as part of the larger corruption argument.  However, it might be that there really is some bad stuff in those returns, like large debts to international banks or organizations.  And I would much rather know than not know.  For me this isn't really a tactical decision, I want this to be sure that the President isn't vulnerable to blackmail or coercion due to outstanding debts. 

Like they did with Romney, you mean?  LOL. I guess I have a longer memory than most, I remember when he was a tax cheat he who either didn't pay any tax or he was under some kind of IRS judgement/agreement, I also remember when Mitt Romney was a racist, a sexist, a dummy, an animal abuser, and a pathological liar, I"m sure I'm missing some of his circa 2012 bad qualities...  Funny, it's almost like nothing means anything outside of the expediency of the moment.

 

[Fragile Bird]

I’d like to see the Democrats tell Trump he can have his $5B for the wall if he releases his last 10 years of tax returns.

[Fragile Bird]

The WH today has said a two week shutdown will only cost the US 1/10 of 1% of GDP, as will every two weeks. So don’t expect a quick resolution (though that could still happen).

[Fez]

7 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

The WH today has said a two week shutdown will only cost the US 1/10 of 1% of GDP, as will every two weeks. So don’t expect a quick resolution (though that could still happen).

If the shutdown goes on long enough, it'll end as soon as either:

a) Enough wealthy Republicans realize they won't be getting any tax refunds until it ends

b) Employees at one or more of the "essential" government agencies go on strike (whether its legal for them to do so or not) after working so long without pay; e.g. the FDA, the TSA, etc. and it starts causing major, immediate disruptions.

[IheartIheartTesla]

Oh...taxes are still due, but refunds wont be issued in a shutdown.

I thought the tax bill was supposed to give money back to hard working Americans, so why arent more GoP members of Congress concerned about it enough? If it keeps dragging on they may have to marshal enough votes to override any veto.

[DMC]

Kyrsten Sinema looked awesome at her swearing-in today.  I'd just paste a tweet, but here's a whole link of tweets.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

3 hours ago, DMC said:

Kyrsten Sinema looked awesome at her swearing-in today.  I'd just paste a tweet, but here's a whole link of tweets.

Well we did know that this Congress would have a new look....

[Altherion]

On 1/2/2019 at 12:27 PM, Rippounet said:

Economic inequalities are really easy to prove. So much so that they are largely undisputed, save for a few extremists like Peterson. It's all about how to view them. The left views such inequalities as fundamentally unfair and undesirable, generally the product of past arbitrary social hierarchies or divisions, and thus seeks to eliminate them. The right views inequalities as fundamentally natural or even desirable as an incentive for work and progress, and emphasizes individual responsibility over historical or deterministic perspectives.

Both approaches have some merit, at least today. But the reason the right seeks to dismiss historical or deterministic perspectives is because exploitation is difficult to  grasp over a small time period ; some forms of exploitation or oppression become truly obvious when considering several generations over the course of decades or centuries. Hence the right has always been the default position of the rich and the powerful, who can always use individual responsibility to blame the poor and powerless for their own condition. It becomes tricky when they convince others to look at the world through that lens.

The set of groups with ancestors who were exploited, persecuted, starved and/or just plain slaughtered is much larger than the set of groups demanding special treatment today. This is especially true in the US since few people decide to go live across the ocean without a good reason. Similarly, while economic inequality is easy to prove, the groups are not aligned along economic lines. The gains of the past few decades have gone predominantly to the top 1% or even 0.1% and these are by definition outnumbered 99 to 1 in the first case and 999 to 1 in the second one. If everyone else was on the same side, they'd win easily; it's the division into non-economic groups which allows the rich to rule.

[ants]

So, my (brief) understanding is that the Democrats (or rather, at least one Democrat) have introduced impeachment articles, and are proposing a bill to restrict new expenditure to new revenue for the next two years.

Therefore, my question is: Are the Democrats total fucking idiots and when will they stop shooting themselves in the foot?????

[Altherion]

10 minutes ago, ants said:

So, my (brief) understanding is that the Democrats (or rather, at least one Democrat) have introduced impeachment articles, and are proposing a bill to restrict new expenditure to new revenue for the next two years.

Therefore, my question is: Are the Democrats total fucking idiots and when will they stop shooting themselves in the foot?????

They are neither idiots nor shooting themselves in the foot. Individual Congresspeople will often introduce initiatives which are favored by their specific constituents, but go against the policy of the party and have no chance of going anywhere. As long as the leadership is not trying to force a vote on any of these initiatives, they're merely the usual legislative background noise.

[Rippounet]

12 minutes ago, Altherion said:

The set of groups with ancestors who were exploited, persecuted, starved and/or just plain slaughtered is much larger than the set of groups demanding special treatment today. This is especially true in the US since few people decide to go live across the ocean without a good reason. Similarly, while economic inequality is easy to prove, the groups are not aligned along economic lines. The gains of the past few decades have gone predominantly to the top 1% or even 0.1% and these are by definition outnumbered 99 to 1 in the first case and 999 to 1 in the second one. If everyone else was on the same side, they'd win easily; it's the division into non-economic groups which allows the rich to rule.

I agree with almost everything you wrote. Yes, the 99%-1% divide is by far the one with the most merit.

Two things though:
- Special treatment: in the overall picture, there are few people demanding "special treatment" and many many more who would be content not to face discrimination.
Another way to put it is that "special treatments" are often (though not always) extreme means to fight discrimination.
Of course, the more limited the resources and the more contentious any means to fight discrimination will become - as you've pretty much pointed out several times I believe. If everyone is struggling, it's much harder to convince people that fighting discrimination is important.
- It would be better to write "not all groups are aligned among economic lines." Most of those that come to my mind are.
And to be clear, I don't think discrimination is the only cause. Contrary to popular perception there isn's that much  social mobility in the US to begin with, which make historical and deterministic perspectives all the more important.

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/05/us/harder-for-americans-to-rise-from-lower-rungs.html?sq=mobility&st=cse&scp=1&pagewanted=all

One of the national myths of the US (land of opportunity) is very useful for the top 1%. You're unlikely to want to address income inequality if you think everyone has a chance. But the groups that seem hit the hardest by the lack of social mobility are those at the bottom.

That's why I reach a slightly different conclusion in the end: it's not that people are divided into non-economic groups. It's just that many of these groups actually have very similar interests, but tend not to see it that way.

[Kalbear]

So...why is Trump specifically parroting Putin propaganda points? And where is he getting these points? Who told him that Poland might invade Belarus? Who told him not to care about Montenegro? Who told him that terrorists were the reason soviets invaded Afghanistan? 

 

[lokisnow]

1 hour ago, Altherion said:

They are neither idiots nor shooting themselves in the foot. Individual Congresspeople will often introduce initiatives which are favored by their specific constituents, but go against the policy of the party and have no chance of going anywhere. As long as the leadership is not trying to force a vote on any of these initiatives, they're merely the usual legislative background noise.

For example, this most excellent representative from Tennessee introduced the following two constitutional amendments today.

The direct election of president and Vice President (aka abolish the electoral college)

and

eliminating the presidential pardon for the president, members of the presidents family, the presidents cabinet and staff, and the presidents presidential campaign staff.

https://cohen.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/congressman-cohen-introduces-constitutional-amendments

boy I would love to have them both included in any bill ending the government shutdown.

[ants]

Ok, so the one-off guy starting impeachment is just floss.

But the budget one is actually a party push, isn't it?  Or have I been told wrong? 

[Jeor]

3 hours ago, ants said:

Ok, so the one-off guy starting impeachment is just floss.

But the budget one is actually a party push, isn't it?  Or have I been told wrong? 

Krugman just wrote an interesting article for the NY Times that argues any attempt at fiscal responsibility by the Democrats is shooting themselves in the foot. Essentially he's saying the Republicans got away with their tax cuts and it didn't hurt them, so Democrats ought to take their turn to push some of their spending through. When it comes down to it, the broader electorate really doesn't care about fiscal responsibility. It could all lead to financial armageddon later on, but you can't really fault his attitude.

[DMC]

1 hour ago, Jeor said:

Krugman just wrote an interesting article for the NY Times that argues any attempt at fiscal responsibility by the Democrats is shooting themselves in the foot. Essentially he's saying the Republicans got away with their tax cuts and it didn't hurt them, so Democrats ought to take their turn to push some of their spending through. 

Krugman is great as an economic advisor, competent as a policy advisor, and a train wreck as a political advisor.

[OldGimletEye]

2 hours ago, Jeor said:

Krugman just wrote an interesting article for the NY Times that argues any attempt at fiscal responsibility by the Democrats is shooting themselves in the foot. Essentially he's saying the Republicans got away with their tax cuts and it didn't hurt them, so Democrats ought to take their turn to push some of their spending through. When it comes down to it, the broader electorate really doesn't care about fiscal responsibility. It could all lead to financial armageddon later on, but you can't really fault his attitude.

I think its hilarious that voters actually think the Republican Party is better at controlling the deficit, when historically the Debt/GDP ratio during the 20th Century has fallen under Democratic Presidents. Same can't be said for Republican ones.
Kind of like how the electorate thinks the Republican Party is better at promoting economic growth, when that too has about zero basis in reality.
I guess it goes to show that if you promote yourself enough at being good at something, people will believe it, even if it has about zero basis in reality.
Paygo is about as dumb as the Republican Party's balanced budget amendment idea. Perhaps it's great political optics, but it's bad policy.

[Guest]

3 hours ago, DMC said:

Krugman is great as an economic advisor, competent as a policy advisor, and a train wreck as a political advisor.

Is there a particularly compelling reason for House Democrats to adopt PAYGO when none of the bills they pass will end up going anywhere? I could understand the argument for PAYGO if they held both chambers of Congress and the Presidency, but since they will mostly pass messaging bills and bills designed to put political pressure on Republicans, I don't understand the need for it now.

[Jace, Extat]

38 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

Is there a particularly compelling reason for House Democrats to adopt PAYGO when none of the bills they pass will end up going anywhere? I could understand the argument for PAYGO if they held both chambers of Congress and the Presidency, but since they will mostly pass messaging bills and bills designed to put political pressure on Republicans, I don't understand the need for it now.

The need for PAYGO is self evident. You can't just wait for something to happen that will make Democrats collapse like a Kevin Spacey career. You go out and make that shit happen on your own terms.