U.S. Politics: 5.7 Billion Problems But The House Ain't One

[OldGimletEye]

25 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Why not just take $5 billion from the insanely oversized defense budget and build a damn wall with it. Then take 10% of the troops stationed overseas and secure the damn border with them.

Why is logic and the law sometimes so far apart?

I think before any money is given to Trump for his wall at minimum he needs to agree to put the the DACA people on a permanent path to citizenship, and not just temporary protection, basically kicking the can down the road. This should be a done deal.

The so called immigration problem the United States' has is a bunch of made up bunk. Really no money should be spent on the wall. But, 5 billion dollars is relatively a small sum, and I would be inclined to give it to Trump for his piss ant wall, if something better was offered in return.

[OldGimletEye]

8 hours ago, Martell Spy said:

While I would definitely enjoy a purge of the Republican party, I don't think the point of this article is that impeachment will necessarily lead to that outcome. The main point of the article is that impeachment is akin to rolling a dice. No one can be sure of the outcome. And that is worth at least worth some consideration, especially since Trump can be removed via election.

I personally think if the Democrats or Mueller find something damning there is no choice but to impeach, and damn the consequences. But, I am not at all sure that there should be impeachment based on what is currently out there. It's risky, and despite not fully knowing all the outcomes, I think we can agree that the shit-eating Republican Senators will vote against removal if they have a shred of choice in the matter. We've all seen how they have behaved during this time of crisis.

The fact that it is so difficult to reign in a gleefully corrupt President shows us how broken our system really is. Far more broken than even the cynical of us believed a few years ago. 

I'm always thinking what is the best way to fuck over the Republican Party?

And I'm inclined to think let Trump continue to damage the Republican Party's reputation, and make the case that Trump was not a one off aberration, but instead he was created and nurtured by the Republican Party or Dr. Franken-Republican. When your enemy has wildly and blindly charged into a fire sac, the best thing to do might be patient for awhile, before going on the attack.

[OldGimletEye]

Saez and Zucman have worked on the problem of inequality for years (and plus Saez has some interesting papers on general equlibrium theory. For example here conservative sorts of people.)

Anyway they make the point that a 70% marginal tax rate isn't just about raising revenue.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/22/opinion/ocasio-cortez-taxes.html

Quote

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has kick-started a much-needed debate about taxes. But the debate, so far, has been misplaced. It’s obvious that the affluent — who’ve seen their earnings boom since 1980 while their taxes fell — can contribute more to the public coffers. And given the revenue needs of the country, it is necessary.

But that’s not the fundamental reason higher top marginal income tax rates are desirable. Their root justification is not about collecting revenue. It is about regulating inequality and the market economy. It is also about safeguarding democracy against oligarchy.

 

Quote

From the 1930s to the 1980s, the United States came as close as any democratic country ever did to imposing a legal maximum income. The inequality of pretax income shrank dramatically.

This is point, I think that is worth emphasizing. Pre tax income is not independent of tax rates. So when you hear conservatives arguing that the wealthy pay a disproportionate share of  taxes, their argument assumes, pre tax income isn't affected by the tax rates. That is a seemingly dubious assumption.

Quote

A common objection to elevated top marginal income tax rates is that they hurt economic growth. But let’s look at the empirical evidence. The United States grew more strongly — and much more equitably — from 1946 to 1980 than it has ever since. But maybe in those years the United States, as the hegemon of the post-World War II decades, could afford “bad” tax policy? Let’s look then at Japan in 1945, a poor and war-devastated country. The United States, which occupied Japan after the war, imposed democracy and a top marginal tax rate of 85 percent on it (almost the same rate as at home — 86 percent in 1947). The goal was obviously not to generate much revenue. It was to prevent, from that tabula rasa, the formation of a new oligarchy. This policy was applied for decades: In 1982, the top rate was still 75 percent. Yet between 1950 and 1982, Japan grew at one of the fastest rates ever recorded (5.1 percent a year per adult on average), one of the most striking economic success stories of all time.

Again, from about 1870 to 1912 or so, GDP per capita was about 2.2%. From about 1949 to the late 1990s it was about the same.

[mormont]

55 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

I think before any money is given to Trump for his wall at minimum he needs to agree to put the the DACA people on a permanent path to citizenship, and not just temporary protection, basically kicking the can down the road. This should be a done deal.

The so called immigration problem the United States' has is a bunch of made up bunk. Really no money should be spent on the wall. But, 5 billion dollars is relatively a small sum, and I would be inclined to give it to Trump for his piss ant wall, if something better was offered in return.

The issue, for me, is that Democrats agreeing to fund the wall in any way, shape or form represents them compromising on a principle to offer Trump a victory on his signature issue. It's a major capitulation, and the argument for it being necessary is weak and mostly consists of the neurotic concern that although the Dems aren't carrying the can for the shutdown now, they might hypothetically be damaged by it in future. 

So as I said in the last thread: if the Dems give on this principle, it has to be because they got something enormous out of Trump, because they will be letting him turn a damaging crisis into a tremendous victory. Even permanent path to citizenship might not be big enough to make it worthwhile. 

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, mormont said:

The issue, for me, is that Democrats agreeing to fund the wall in any way, shape or form represents them compromising on a principle to offer Trump a victory on his signature issue. It's a major capitulation, and the argument for it being necessary is weak and mostly consists of the neurotic concern that although the Dems aren't carrying the can for the shutdown now, they might hypothetically be damaged by it in future. 

So as I said in the last thread: if the Dems give on this principle, it has to be because they got something enormous out of Trump, because they will be letting him turn a damaging crisis into a tremendous victory. Even permanent path to citizenship might not be big enough to make it worthwhile. 

I think getting a permanent path to citizenship  for the DACA people would make it worthwhile, particularly for 5 billion dollars.

Sure Trump and his dumb ass followers will act like it's a big victory, but the reality based community will know, that in reality it isn't much. 5 billion bucks isn't going to be enough to stop the US's non-immigration problem.

[Morpheus]

It’s never been about the wall, an emergency at the border didn’t start just as the Dems were taking the House, he had two years to push this, but even Republicans didn’t want it then. This is attempted dick swinging, Trump trying to figure out how to manipulate a House that is no longer serving his every whim and conspiring to cover him from crimnal liability. If the lesson he learns is that hurting people gets him what he wants, he will be willing to do so often over the next two years.

[mormont]

 

27 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

I think getting a permanent path to citizenship  for the DACA people would make it worthwhile, particularly for 5 billion dollars.

 Sure Trump and his dumb ass followers will act like it's a big victory, but the reality based community will know, that in reality it isn't much. 5 billion bucks isn't going to be enough to stop the US's non-immigration problem.

You're missing the important point. It's not about the amount. It's about the principle of Dems agreeing to fund the Wall. Under any circumstances, for any amount, that's a big thing to trade away. To trade it away when you don't have to, would be shooting yourself in the foot. 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

7 minutes ago, Morpheus said:

It’s never been about the wall, an emergency at the border didn’t start just as the Dems were taking the House, he had two years to push this, but even Republicans didn’t want it then. This is attempted dick swinging, Trump trying to figure out how to manipulate a House that is no longer serving his every whim and conspiring to cover him from crimnal liability. If the lesson he learns is that hurting people gets him what he wants, he will be willing to do so often over the next two years.

Exactly.  This is Trump attempting to prove he still has power after losing the House.  It is Trump attempting to provide a “win” to solidify his base.  To prove “he’s their man”.

Giving Trump that win when he expressly took ownership of the shutdown is a mistake.  Forcing him to balk will hurt him more with his base than anything else.  

[OldGimletEye]

13 minutes ago, mormont said:

 

You're missing the important point. It's not about the amount. It's about the principle of Dems agreeing to fund the Wall. Under any circumstances, for any amount, that's a big thing to trade away. To trade it away when you don't have to, would be shooting yourself in the foot. 

No I don't think I'm missing the point at all. I understand the symbolism angle, even if the only people that think it would represent a big victory are being delusional.

But, what I think you are missing, is that it's a pretty big victory for the Dreamers to never have to worry again, ever, about being deported or removed from this country.

And of course, the Dems should be tough negotiators and get a lot out of any deal.

[Larry of the Lawn]

13 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

 

And of course, the Dems should be tough negotiators and get a lot out of any deal.

Actual DACA citizenship guarantee would be good, but whatever money is allocated to border security would also need provisions that they stop doing nefarious shit related to immigration: the locking up kids, deporting people who have lived here since they were children, none of this shit to limit where asylum seekers can begin the process, the racist rhetoric, etc.    

[Free Northman Reborn]

1 hour ago, OldGimletEye said:

I'm always thinking what is the best way to fuck over the Republican Party?

And I'm inclined to think let Trump continue to damage the Republican Party's reputation, and make the case that Trump was not a one off aberration, but instead he was created and nurtured by the Republican Party or Dr. Franken-Republican. When your enemy has wildly and blindly charged into a fire sac, the best thing to do might be patient for awhile, before going on the attack.

Understandable. For the same reason I’m excited about AOC’s arrival - expecting that her wild eyed radicalism will drive the Democrats to the extreme left and push moderate voters back to the Republican party.

[Larry of the Lawn]

3 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Understandable. For the same reason I’m excited about AOC’s arrival - expecting that her wild eyed radicalism will drive the Democrats to the extreme left and push moderate voters back to the Republican party.

Might be kind of hard when the policies proposed by her "wild eyed radicalism" are very popular with "moderates".

[Jace, Extat]

3 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

Might be kind of hard when the policies proposed by her "wild eyed radicalism" are very popular with "moderates".

Don't engage.

[Martell Spy]

'This is her prerogative': Trump gives in to Pelosi on State of the Union
Trump announced late on Wednesday that he would delay the address until after the shutdown is over.

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/01/23/trump-said-he-still-plans-to-deliver-state-of-the-union-address-on-jan-29-1121068

Quote

 

Ultimately, Trump said in a series of tweets shortly before midnight Thursday, an alternative location would not do and delaying the speech was simply the best option.

"As the Shutdown was going on, Nancy Pelosi asked me to give the State of the Union Address. I agreed. She then changed her mind because of the Shutdown, suggesting a later date. This is her prerogative - I will do the Address when the Shutdown is over," Trump said on Twitter.

He added that the White House declined to deliver the address at another location "because there is no venue that can compete with the history, tradition and importance of the House Chamber."

 

 

[OldGimletEye]

36 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Understandable. For the same reason I’m excited about AOC’s arrival - expecting that her wild eyed radicalism will drive the Democrats to the extreme left and push moderate voters back to the Republican party.

Explain to me her wild eyed radicalism again? On substantive policy questions, your objections are what exactly? They likely don't hold much water.

Your critique of MMT is what?

Your critique of a the New Green Deal is what?

Your critique of single payer is what?

Your critique of her comments about tax policy is what again?

Her so called radicalism is nothing compared to the radicalism of the current Republican Party or Trumpsters.

[OldGimletEye]

Let me get this straight:

The people that made a fuckin' mess in Iraq, made a series of bad judgements during the GFC, stand in the way of getting something sensible done like the Dream Act, believe in a fictitious immigration problem that the US doesn't have, that don't believe that climate change is real, and have elected two morons within the span of generation are now going to lecture the rest of us about the radicalism of AOC.

Now that is about the funniest thing I've heard this week.

[Morpheus]

Don’t treat him like people, just laugh at him and move on.

[A True Kaniggit]

32 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Trumpsters.

The agreed upon term is Trumpanistas. 

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, A True Kaniggit said:

The agreed upon term is Trumpanistas. 

Sorry.

I will make a mental note of that (or actually, I will write it down on a post-it note, and then pin it on my shirt like kindergarten style,  so I don't  forget).

[Fragile Bird]

27 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Sorry.

<snip>

I was watching some guy from the WH, purportedly with training in economics, explain that while the effects of the shutdown might mean a 0 GDP growth rate in the first quarter, all of the growth would be recovered after the shutdown ends.

This does not make sense to me, because surely there is spending that will never be recovered. To use an analogy, an unpaid worker who has stopped eating out because he has no money won’t turn into a hobbit after the shutdown and buy two lunches for three months.

Will lost GDP be recovered?