U.S. Politics: Phantom of the Emergency

[ThinkerX]

Ok, I'm starting to wonder if just maybe this shutdown might not result in a shakeup in the republican senate leadership.  Yes, it's highly unlikely, but worth tossing out there... 

[mormont]

8 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Didn't Hillary have some problematic historical statements and policy positions on LGBT issues?

I don't want to draw too direct a comparison. But I do think that 'historical' needs to be put in context. Clinton said similar things about gay marriage, but ten years earlier, and without the 'homosexual extremists' remark. 

[OldGimletEye]

10 hours ago, Rippounet said:

Can you oppose something like a Green New Deal and be a centrist?

I'd say at a minimum you really can't be a centrist and then consider something like the Green New Deal as being something that is crazy, given what we know about climate change. If you do, then you are just putting on airs of being the "reasonable centrist" but not really.
 

10 hours ago, Rippounet said:

It's a genuine question, but one of semantics. Because US politics have moved so far to the right, it's become difficult to know what a "centrist" is supposed to be. Not that this hasn't been a recurrent question on these threads, but I think it's an important one: when we use a label like "centrist" should we be talking of centrists in the current sense, i.e. left of the Republicans, or centrists in the absolute sense, i.e. to the right of socialists?

Yes it is a genuine question. And of course, when one speaks of being a "centrist", they probably ought to state in reference to what. In an absolute sense or the American sense.

I consider myself to be relatively centrist, if not in the American context, at least on economic matters as I'm not a full blown Marxist or anything. But the problem I have with many other centrist is they often take positions that are nonsense in order to look "reasonable". They are just doing "middle splitting" and I think it's pretty lazy intellectually. Think of the people that gushed over Paul Ryan's allegedly being a "serious conservative" or the people that think something like a New Green Deal is just a complete wacko notion. Or those that gushed over the Bowles/ Simpson, when we had bigger fish to fry at the time.

I'd say the thing that needs to be pulled off in American politics is nudging centrist opinion to the left, while getting enough of their votes to actually win elections. There is an underlying tension there, and where the appropriate balance is, I'm not really sure, though it's something I think about often.

10 hours ago, Rippounet said:

So a centrist should not be opposing a "Green New Deal" but simply refusing "extreme" socialist solutions to curb corporate power. A reasonable centrist however should accept that there's simply no way to deal with climate change without at least hurting the industries primarily responsible for it. A reasonable centrist might even have to accept the fact that eternal economic growth is quite simply not fully compatible with the survival of our species.

`The irony of this situation, I think, is the longer we delay in dealing with something like Climate Change, the more heavy handed government involvement will likely have to be. The people that will complain the most about government interference in the "free market" will have only themselves to blame because of their foot dragging and sandbagging.

Quote

 A reasonable centrist might even have to accept the fact that eternal economic growth is quite simply not fully compatible with the survival of our species.

Interestingly enough, there is a debate on the left whether growth is possible, while combating climate change. I tend to come down on the side, that yes it is. But, of course, the sooner we get started, the less drastic government actions will have to be.

Procrastination is like masturbation. At the time you are doing it, it feels good, but in the end, you're just fucking yourself.
 

10 hours ago, Rippounet said:

So how do you guys make sense of all this mess? Doesn't accepting climate change mean becoming a leftist or even worse? Aren't all reasonable people forced to contemplate becoming radical activists of sorts? Again, not a rhetorical question. My GF is constantly asking me what we should do. As in, what kind of political activism we should engage in. But is there anything centrist at this point? Doesn't climate change mean that there are really two possibilities: denying it and sticking our heads in the sand or becoming radical eco-activists of sorts?

As Krugman often says, reality often has a left of center bias.

 

[mormont]

24 minutes ago, mormont said:

I don't want to draw too direct a comparison. But I do think that 'historical' needs to be put in context. Clinton said similar things about gay marriage, but ten years earlier, and without the 'homosexual extremists' remark. 

Having read a little further, I'm off on the timing: Clinton's remarks were earlier and Gabbard's later than I initially believed. But still, there's a significant difference in context and approach. Read the article here:

https://splinternews.com/tulsi-gabbards-homophobic-past-is-coming-back-to-haunt-1831722271#lagjys3elc0yq4jbqogccjw5.jg423pep5tyl

[OldGimletEye]

Misguided "Centrist / Washington Beltway" opinion: Skills Gap Edition

Okay, I know I've ranted about the skills gap before. But, this was something that truly drove me nuts.
Not saying that investing in job training is not a good idea. It is.
But the whole skills gap meme, promoted by the likes of Jaime Dimon and other "reasonable centrist", missed the bigger issue about the job market. It was a case of "reasonable centrist" being just completely out to lunch, but thinking they were something else.

To the extent that a skills gap was the main issue, most likely it was the case of people like Jaime Dimon not having the right skills.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/01/14/skills-gap-is-fixed-because-there-was-no-skills-gap/

Quote

There is nothing Washington loves more than an imaginary problem that gives it an excuse for not solving an actual one.
Especially when that hypothetical is some kind of long-term issue that lets pundits and politicians flatter themselves for having the wisdom to look past what’s happening today toward what is really going to matter tomorrow. All of which is to say that it should be no surprise that the — entirely wrong! — idea that unemployment couldn’t come down because workers simply did not have the skills needed was able to take over the policy conversation the way it did the past decade.

 

Quote

Well, it certainly seemed that way to, among many others, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, JP Morgan CEO Jamie Dimon and economist Tyler Cowen, who, back in 2011, had speculated that unemployment might stay around 10 percent forever because the people who had lost their jobs during the crash allegedly lacked the skills to add any value in the marketplace.

 

Quote

What made this story so seductive to Washington was that it depoliticized the economy. It said that unemployment was high not because we did not have enough stimulus — which, of course, really was the case — but rather because workers did not have enough education

 

Quote

None of this is hindsight bias. All of it was clear enough as it was going on. But in case it wasn’t, the fact that unemployment has now fallen to 3.9 percent is a pretty good sign that workers had enough skills all along. Unless, that is, you think it’s more likely that they mysteriously gained and lost them as economic growth went up and down.

Or maybe it was the case of everyone just deciding to take a long vacation at once.

[Mexal]

Tulsi Gabbard is the new Rohrabacher. She better get nowhere near the presidency. Immediately after her announcement, the Russian Twitter trolls with fake pictures were out in full force supporting and amplifying her. There is an  reason for this.

On the back of the news this weekend of the FBI opening a CI investigation on Trump, Clint Watts, in the below thread, lays down pretty much everything in the public sphere about this case. Nice reminder of what we know and how screws up it all is.

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

20 hours ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

Hey now, if I was looking for mindless I'd be recruiting @Tywin et al.

You have a good brain.

Sucker! I’ve been sabotaging the Pony Queen Party from the inside, and I’m about ready to leak the pictures!

#kompromat

#sekrets

[Ice Queen]

19 hours ago, larrytheimp said:

This goes both ways - I'm definitely in the rabid left camp and my moderate relatives tell me im crazyand rabid and pushing for a Green New Deal and higher marginal taxes are going to push people to the GOP.  

I suck it up and accept that Joe Manchin exists and is better than an R, you guys can accept that AOC and the younger more socialist leftists are part of your coalition.  

I have absolutely no problem accepting that AOC and those like her are part of the party. We need the youthful energy and ideas for sure. But my issue with them as a whole is their inability to play the long game or think strategically. They want stuff right now, right this minute, and it simply doesn't work that way. Threatening to primary someone like Manchin (as an example) just demonstrates that. It's better to have someone who votes with us 60% of the time than someone who votes Republican 100% of the time. The left wing needs to learn that and accept it. 

I'm not saying "get in line" or anything like that, but if they want broad support among the rest of the Democrats (especially the old ones), there's only one way to do that: win some more seats. Only then will your agenda move forward. 

And attacking the moderates is NOT the way to go. Most people of both parties ARE moderate and do you know why? Because the center is where policy is made and shit gets done. 

[Mlle. Zabzie]

19 hours ago, Gertrude said:

Dude, I love AOC because she's bringing it. We need more real people like her with ideas that start conversations. I don't agree or disagree with her tax policy. I'm more for it than against, but I think it still is a band-aid to tax policy. It needs to be razed to the ground and rebuilt so we can close the gap between the stated tax rates and effective tax rates to see what we actually have to work with. It's only then that conversations about specific tax brackets becomes relevant, IMO.

 

OMG yes this so hard.  F8ck futzing with the marginal rates.  Can I climb up on my soap box again?  We really need to focus on getting rid of the capital gains preference.  It is super stupid that we have it.  There are also so many taxpayer and industry-specific gimmes in the form of various credits and deductions that should be DESTROYED.  After that, I wouldn't necessarily have super high brackets at the top end (think combined with state somewhere in the 40s would do), but we MUST have a real and effective estate tax.  You can't and shouldn't be able to take it with you, and the lack of an effective estate tax (and to be clear, what was there before the "repeals" was not real or effective) is a huge contributor to wealth concentration.  I honestly have no sympathy for the non-existent family farm example.  Also, I would be willing to discuss a corporate gross receipts tax.  Also, we should have a discussion about pass-through businesses and where tax should be measured and collected.  

24 minutes ago, Ice Queen said:

I have absolutely no problem accepting that AOC and those like her are part of the party. We need the youthful energy and ideas for sure. But my issue with them as a whole is their inability to play the long game or think strategically. They want stuff right now, right this minute, and it simply doesn't work that way. Threatening to primary someone like Manchin (as an example) just demonstrates that. It's better to have someone who votes with us 60% of the time than someone who votes Republican 100% of the time. The left wing needs to learn that and accept it. 

I'm not saying "get in line" or anything like that, but if they want broad support among the rest of the Democrats (especially the old ones), there's only one way to do that: win some more seats. Only then will your agenda move forward. 

And attacking the moderates is NOT the way to go. Most people of both parties ARE moderate and do you know why? Because the center is where policy is made and shit gets done. 

I think the problem is knowing what the center is anymore.  I am significantly to the right of a lot of the people on this board, and to the left of the GOP by a long shot, but these days objectively that makes me a leftist, not a centrist.  

[IheartIheartTesla]

The truth of the matter is, for a lot of governance being centrist is fine. As people have pointed out, a lot of work gets done in the center, However, the flip side of this is that it also tends to be incremental. Some things are so broken in the US system that they do require a 'radical' approach. For me personally climate change and health care fall in this bucket.

There I'd like to see bold action. Unfortunately in this current crop of candidates I don't see a perfect blend of someone I'd like to support. Still, we've only had 4 official candidates so far.....

[Guest]

58 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

OMG yes this so hard.  F8ck futzing with the marginal rates.  Can I climb up on my soap box again?  We really need to focus on getting rid of the capital gains preference.  It is super stupid that we have it.  There are also so many taxpayer and industry-specific gimmes in the form of various credits and deductions that should be DESTROYED.  After that, I wouldn't necessarily have super high brackets at the top end (think combined with state somewhere in the 40s would do), but we MUST have a real and effective estate tax.  You can't and shouldn't be able to take it with you, and the lack of an effective estate tax (and to be clear, what was there before the "repeals" was not real or effective) is a huge contributor to wealth concentration.  I honestly have no sympathy for the non-existent family farm example.  Also, I would be willing to discuss a corporate gross receipts tax.  Also, we should have a discussion about pass-through businesses and where tax should be measured and collected.  

I just want to 3rd the revolution proposed by @Gertrude. 

Discussing all tax policies in terms of the top statutory tax rate is stupid, counterproductive and falls right into the trap Republicans have set when it comes to messaging, as shown by Scalise's stupid tweet about how Democrats want to take away 70% of your income.

If anyone actually watched AOC's interview where she proposed the 70% top marginal rate, she was much more nuanced in her discussion of it, but all any of the headlines mentioned were AOC proposes 70% tax rate.

Democrats should be discussing tax policy in terms of average or effective tax rates, to avoid falling into the Republicans' trap. This would allow them to even propose lower statutory rates, while still ensuring a higher effective rate is paid by the wealthy. And why the hell haven't Dems propsed an expansion of the existing number of tax brackets? Lumping a couple making $500k/year in with someone making $10m/year ensures that couple will side with the multi-millionaires when it comes to tax policy, even though the sources of their income are likely vastly different.

ETA: Forgot to include this excellent Forbes article discussing this exact problem. It mentions that in 1979, when the top marginal rate was 70%, those in the top bracket only paid an average tax rate of 22.6%.

[lokisnow]

We definitely need about thirty new tax brackets. All taxes are calculated by computers so it doesn’t really matter how many brackets you have, no one is looking up a table on a printout anymore to figure out what they owe.

keeping the multimillionaire and billionaires in the same bracket as upper middle class people is crazy.

also so much yes to radically attacking the estate tax bullshit that Biden gave us. (Biden’s last minute “heroic” compromise  to save the bush tax cuts raised the estate tax exemption to like eleven million dollars plus indexed it to inflation— while getting absolutely nothing from republicans for this fucking insanity of a giveaway).

and none of the above is remotely as important as getting rid of the preferential capital gains rate. Hell with brexit about to permanently destroy the British economy and wipe out the London financial sector, there isn’t even any danger of losing Wall Street to London or some such bullshit whiny excuse they usually make if we try to go after their candy.

[Kalbear]

34 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

Democrats should be discussing tax policy in terms of average or effective tax rates, to avoid falling into the Republicans' trap.

There is no "republican's trap". Every single thing that a Democrat says will be spun to be maximally negative, no matter what it is. If Democrats don't want a wall, they want 'open borders'. If they want better health care, they want socialism like Venezuela. If they want oversight, it's a witch hunt. If they want moderate judges, they want liberal activists. If they want basic gun regulation, they want to take away your guns. 

And lets' not forget all the times Republicans are against things until they're for them, like the current Syria policy, the current tax breaks, the current moral crises, the oversight, etc.

No, fuck all that noise. There are better ways to say it than 'marginal effective tax rates', I'll grant you (like "Tax the rich") but Democrats cannot live in fear that their policies are going to be spun by Republicans into something that Republicans don't like.

[Mlle. Zabzie]

51 minutes ago, lokisnow said:

We definitely need about thirty new tax brackets. All taxes are calculated by computers so it doesn’t really matter how many brackets you have, no one is looking up a table on a printout anymore to figure out what they owe.

keeping the multimillionaire and billionaires in the same bracket as upper middle class people is crazy.

also so much yes to radically attacking the estate tax bullshit that Biden gave us. (Biden’s last minute “heroic” compromise  to save the bush tax cuts raised the estate tax exemption to like eleven million dollars plus indexed it to inflation— while getting absolutely nothing from republicans for this fucking insanity of a giveaway).

and none of the above is remotely as important as getting rid of the preferential capital gains rate. Hell with brexit about to permanently destroy the British economy and wipe out the London financial sector, there isn’t even any danger of losing Wall Street to London or some such bullshit whiny excuse they usually make if we try to go after their candy.

Brackets make great headlines because people just don't understand them.  And the problem, politically, with getting rid of the preferences, is the number of entrenched interests that benefit (or think they benefit) from the preferences.  The Code was vastly overhauled in 1939, 1954 and 1986.  We are LONG overdue for another overhaul.  One might hope that the TJCA is really the 1984 to a later 1986, but I don't think so.  (Also, btw, despite the headline grabbing corporate rate decrease, there's a lot to like in the TJCA's implementation of BEPS, but that's another story altogether).  Part of the problem is that so many people have become accustomed to using the Tax Code to implement social policy, that dismantling what is there will have collateral consequences far beyond what it should.  And any regime that is put into place needs to take into account the fact that commercial reality is much more complicated than it was in 1986, but a long margin.  All that said, there is a lot of low hanging fruit that does not even need to touch tax brackets and would be huge revenue raisers.

 

[felice]

2 hours ago, The Great Unwashed said:

Discussing all tax policies in terms of the top statutory tax rate is stupid, counterproductive and falls right into the trap Republicans have set when it comes to messaging, as shown by Scalise's stupid tweet about how Democrats want to take away 70% of your income.

Anyone who doesn't know she's only suggesting that for income over $10 million is so far inside the right wing bubble that there's no point trying to reach them. And even if you ignore the "marginal" aspect, I can't see many Americans being too concerned about how anyone's going to get by on "only" three million a year after tax!

2 hours ago, The Great Unwashed said:

Democrats should be discussing tax policy in terms of average or effective tax rates, to avoid falling into the Republicans' trap. This would allow them to even propose lower statutory rates, while still ensuring a higher effective rate is paid by the wealthy.

Reducing tax on the lowest brackets would be great, but they can't campaign on absolutely no detail, and if they provide any detail, Republicans will just cherry pick whatever can be misrepresented most effectively. It's not worth worrying about.

2 hours ago, The Great Unwashed said:

And why the hell haven't Dems propsed an expansion of the existing number of tax brackets? Lumping a couple making $500k/year in with someone making $10m/year ensures that couple will side with the multi-millionaires when it comes to tax policy, even though the sources of their income are likely vastly different.

Someone earning $500,001 will only pay the same rate as someone earning $10m on one dollar of their income, with the current brackets; they shouldn't be siding with the multi-millionaires. And households with $500k incomes are in the top 1% anyway; it's not a huge demographic to be overly concerned about.

[ThinkerX]

Based on this and similar articles, I am wondering more and more if there might not be some sort of mass strike at the Federal level as a result of this shutdown fiasco.  I don't consider it likely, but it seems to be getting closer to that point.  And if this mess is still unresolved this time next month....

...anyhow, a list of five options to end the shutdown, and reasons why none of them will happen.

 

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/five-ways-the-government-shutdown-could-end-–-and-why-they-probably-wont-happen/ar-BBSdXhI?ocid=msnclassic

[Fez]

13 minutes ago, ThinkerX said:

Based on this and similar articles, I am wondering more and more if there might not be some sort of mass strike at the Federal level as a result of this shutdown fiasco.  I don't consider it likely, but it seems to be getting closer to that point.  And if this mess is still unresolved this time next month....

...anyhow, a list of five options to end the shutdown, and reasons why none of them will happen.

 

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/five-ways-the-government-shutdown-could-end-–-and-why-they-probably-wont-happen/ar-BBSdXhI?ocid=msnclassic

Considering how many Americans live paycheck-to-paycheck, and Federal workers have already missed one paycheck, I wouldn't be surprised at all if something happens if the shutdown is still going by next payday.

[Rippounet]

18 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

There are people who accept anthropogenic climate change, but who have faith that Elon Musk, or someone like him, will come up with a technical solution to prevent major catastrophes that mean we don't need to do anything about emissions.

But as Mohammad once famously said: "Trust in Musk, but tie your camel."

11 hours ago, OldGimletEye said:

`The irony of this situation, I think, is the longer we delay in dealing with something like Climate Change, the more heavy handed government involvement will likely have to be. The people that will complain the most about government interference in the "free market" will have only themselves to blame because of their foot dragging and sandbagging.

Interestingly enough, there is a debate on the left whether growth is possible, while combating climate change. I tend to come down on the side, that yes it is. But, of course, the sooner we get started, the less drastic government actions will have to be.

There's something interesting here. Funnily enough, I'm something of an optimist, though it doesn't necessarily show. I do think there are technical solutions to climate change. The thing is, they should have been implemented yesterday. As we procrastinate and lose so much energy because of the resurgent nationalisms of our time, we're only making it increasingly likely that technical solutions alone will not suffice and that we will have to endure some form of "eco-fascism" - as the right would put it. I just can't see who will profit from that...
Perhaps in the grand scheme of things it's all for the best: an eco-führer might turn out to be a good ruler, who knows. Not sure veganism as a state religion will be fun though.

11 hours ago, OldGimletEye said:

As Krugman often says, reality often has a left of center bias.

 

[Zorral]

57 minutes ago, Fez said:

Considering how many Americans live paycheck-to-paycheck, and Federal workers have already missed one paycheck, I wouldn't be surprised at all if something happens if the shutdown is still going by next payday.

TSA is doing strike by sicking out.  LA public school teachers have gone out on strike and that is the word.  The whole damned country should be striking at this point.

[The Anti-Targ]

2 hours ago, felice said:

Anyone who doesn't know she's only suggesting that for income over $10 million is so far inside the right wing bubble that there's no point trying to reach them. And even if you ignore the "marginal" aspect, I can't see many Americans being too concerned about how anyone's going to get by on "only" three million a year after tax!

Reducing tax on the lowest brackets would be great, but they can't campaign on absolutely no detail, and if they provide any detail, Republicans will just cherry pick whatever can be misrepresented most effectively. It's not worth worrying about.

Someone earning $500,001 will only pay the same rate as someone earning $10m on one dollar of their income, with the current brackets; they shouldn't be siding with the multi-millionaires. And households with $500k incomes are in the top 1% anyway; it's not a huge demographic to be overly concerned about.

It's an aspiration that 50% of the population think they can achieve. So they vote according to their (mostly) unrealistic fantasies of future riches. If you tax $500,001 at the top rate then even people earning under $100,000 will be unhappy that they will one day be taxed at that high rate.