Jump to content

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


Jace, Extat

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

What the fuck is this shit? The article is remarkably light on details, but if Dems are just giving $5 billion in non-wall border security to Trump just to open the government and without any asks, then any fucking Dem involved in writing that bill and/or voting for it needs to be fucking pilloried.

We'll see.  Depends on what the funding is allocated for.  I agree that giving more money for more border agents is, under this administration, going to have a more adverse effect on immigrants and refugees than what Trump wants in wall funding - just like Trump's request of funding for more immigration court judges.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, DMC said:

We'll see.  Depends on what the funding is allocated for.  I agree that giving more money for more border agents is, under this administration, going to have a more adverse effect on immigrants and refugees than what Trump wants in wall funding - just like Trump's request of funding for more immigration court judges.

I'm not even talking about where the additional funding will be allocated. The way the story is written, it sounds like Dems are offering $5 billion in border security funding, period. Nothing in return, not even opening up the government.  Now I may still be high on meds from my surgery, but that's how I'm reading the story, which if that's correct, then every Dem involved in even thinking about voting for such a travesty of a bill needs to be primaried into the fucking dirt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

Nothing in return, not even opening up the government.

According to WaPo (quoting Vox in case you get paywalled), it would be in exchange for opening the government:

Quote

As the Washington Post points out, Democrats would only consider negotiations on this legislation after the government is opened, a stance they’ve maintained throughout the shutdown fight. The offering does, however, signal an openness to an ultimate compromise on border spending figures.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I just listened to a podcast that ended with stories from callers affected by the shutdown. Lots of reasons to get pissed off, but one story hit me hard. It was a worker at a Children's Hospital that said they had two very sick infants that they were treating with experimental drugs. So far they've been able to get them, but it's been jumping through hoops and taking extraordinary measures all the way because the department that approves this is shut down. She said her senator (Grassley, asshole) was supremely unhelpful in this process.

I do not want to give Trump the win on this by giving any funding for the wall, but I really do want to see more out of the box problem solving happening. I'm ok with generic border security funding that excludes a wall. Do I want more - hell yes. But I don't want these boys to die. That's only one story.

And meanwhile we have Wilbur fucking Ross talking about how he doesn't understand why workers are hitting up food banks and then Trump thinking grocery stores will work with you til this is over. Those fucking assholes have zero empathy and need to die in the fires of hell, but this really needs to come to an end.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

And here we go with the inevitable Democratic cave. 

It sometimes gets difficult to bear being in alignment with a bunch of people who had experimental surgery to have their spines replaced with jello.

I've noticed Democrats love to whine and talk about fighting back when they have no power, but fall over each other attempting to avoid exercising any.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

It sometimes gets difficult to bear being in alignment with a bunch of people who had experimental surgery to have their spines replaced with jello.

I've noticed Democrats love to whine and talk about fighting back when they have no power, but fall over each other attempting to avoid exercising any.

Hell, Jello would be preferable because it at least has some consistency.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Elizabeth Warren's campaign might be testing the waters for a Wealth Tax of 2% on wealth over $50 million, and 3% of wealth over $1 billion. 

I kind of think that's a bad idea. A wealth tax taxes wealth, but unless your wealth is all cash then you can't pay the tax in wealth - you have to pay it in cash (not literally cash, but currency).  That means what it really is taxing is the returns on wealth, and it disproportionately punishes wealth held in long-term, not-so-easy-to-convert-into-cash assets and US Treasury Bonds. The former because the owner of a business can easily be asset-rich and cash-poor (meaning they'd have to borrow money or sell assets to pay the tax), and the latter because anyone with net worth over $50 million (or a share in a company worth more than that) would be essentially burning money by buying them (since the returns would be lower than the annual tax). 

It's not really a surprise that most wealth taxes have been repealed over the years, and those that still have them have a ton of loopholes to mitigate the effects (which not coincidentally also mean it tends not to collect a lot of revenue). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

And here we go with the inevitable Democratic cave. 

I'm not so sure.

If they have a hand shake deal to negotiate $5 b in spending after the govt is opened they can always reneg on it.  Shit we've seen Trump fall for this before - like in NK.  Proclaim victory while getting nothing.  

But yeah, if they fold on this I think it's time for the left wing of the Dems needs to primary anyone in a safe district that that would support this shit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

It sometimes gets difficult to bear being in alignment with a bunch of people who had experimental surgery to have their spines replaced with jello.

I've noticed Democrats love to whine and talk about fighting back when they have no power, but fall over each other attempting to avoid exercising any.

We don't even know for sure what the funding proposal is yet.  And I doubt right wing crazies will be for it, meaning it's probably not gonna end anything.  Although I do enjoy that your kneejerk reaction to any political maneuver the Dems may make is instantly:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, DMC said:

We don't even know for sure what the funding proposal is yet.  And I doubt right wing crazies will be for it, meaning it's probably not gonna end anything.  Although I do enjoy that your kneejerk reaction to any political maneuver the Dems may make is instantly:

 

Is that a furry in the top left corner? I find those folks absolutely fascinating!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Winter Bass said:

Elizabeth Warren's campaign might be testing the waters for a Wealth Tax of 2% on wealth over $50 million, and 3% of wealth over $1 billion. 

I have hard time believing that somebody worth 50 million dollars would have a hard time raising about 1 million dollars in cash.

9 minutes ago, Winter Bass said:

That means what it really is taxing is the returns on wealth,

I have no idea what you mean here. Isn't all capital taxation taxing the returns on wealth? 

11 minutes ago, Winter Bass said:

The former because the owner of a business can easily be asset-rich and cash-poor (meaning they'd have to borrow money or sell assets to pay the tax), and the latter because anyone with net worth over $50 million

Maybe somebody worth 50 million dollars has all their wealth tied up in land or real physical assets. But I'd imagine the vast majority hold substantial parts of their wealth in equity securities.

 

13 minutes ago, Winter Bass said:

It's not really a surprise that most wealth taxes have been repealed over the years, and those that still have them have a ton of loopholes to mitigate the effects (which not coincidentally also mean it tends not to collect a lot of revenue). 

I don't think this is an entirely convincing conclusion. One could say the reason income taxes got lowered was because it was really awesome policy. But more likely, it had more to do with the policies preferences of the well to do, more than anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

I have no idea what you mean here. Isn't all capital taxation taxing the returns on wealth? 

But with very different impacts. Capital Gains only affects when the assets are sold, inheritance tax when they are passed on. This would tax them while they were held, which means that they disproportionately punish people with their wealth in illiquid assets (imagine a stock portfolio where you have to liquidate part of it every year to pay your share of the tax, or a single-owner company that is asset-rich and cash-poor because they're new or in a really competitive industry).  Jeff Bezos, for example, would be on the hook for $4.1 billion, and since his wealth is almost all Amazon stock that means he'd have to sell some of it to . . . someone (probably foreign buyers, since other US potential buyers would be hit by the same tax unless they're a pension fund). 

The Intercept has a more detailed break-down of the plan, and it looks like they kind of address some of that:

Quote

Those with high net worth but liquidity constraints — such as folks whose money is tied up in financial instruments or business ventures with long-term timelines — could defer payment for up to five years, but they would have to pay interest on what they owe.

This does open one interesting possibility, namely that of a big Sovereign Wealth Fund. If the government wanted to build one up quick, they could allow asset owners to pay with ownership instead "in-kind", or make the proceeds from selling the asset to the government tax-exempt. 

. . . But I suspect will happen will be a lot of tax evasion. Companies are pretty insanely creative at figuring out tax-evasion schemes, and even a better funded IRS can't afford to fight all of them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, OldGimletEye said:

I have hard time believing that somebody worth 50 million dollars would have a hard time raising about 1 million dollars in cash.

I have no idea what you mean here. Isn't all capital taxation taxing the returns on wealth? 

Maybe somebody worth 50 million dollars has all their wealth tied up in land or real physical assets. But I'd imagine the vast majority hold substantial parts of their wealth in equity securities.

 

I don't think this is an entirely convincing conclusion. One could say the reason income taxes got lowered was because it was really awesome policy. But more likely, it had more to do with the policies preferences of the well to do, more than anything.

Well, according to Wilbur Ross, they could just get a loan.

Looks like the Kush's plan to sex up the Democrats failed.

Quote

The White House's new appetite for a negotiated resolution came after the administration managed to peel off just one Democratic vote — that of Sen. Joe Manchin (D, W.V.) — a fact that came as a particular surprise to Trump’s son-in-law and adviser Jared Kushner, who has touted his relationships with Democratic lawmakers but lacks deep experience on Capitol Hill.

Trump White House grows eager to escape losing shutdown fight
After a day of failed Senate action, Trump and his advisers realize they may never win over Democrats in a battle that is costing them dearly.

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/01/24/trump-white-house-losing-shutdown-fight-1125033

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...