US Politics: Out in the Cold

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

2 hours ago, maarsen said:

Here in Canada, we went through years of handwringing about the deficit and how it spelled disaster for the Canadian economy. Then we elected a Liberal government. Jean Chretien as PM and Paul Martin as Finance Minister raised taxes cut spending and abolished the deficit in no time flat. A Conservative government was then elected in the years after, and guess who cut taxes and ran the deficit back up again? With the Liberals back in power. the conservatives are again bemoaning the deficit and want more tax cuts, but blame the Liberals for causing the problem.

Same thing happens here. It's like clockwork. I'd argue that the tipping point for us was the 1980 election, but I'm open to different points of view.

[Darzin]

3 hours ago, Zorral said:

Castro or Beto -- with Booker, maybe.  The others, forget it.  Warren apologized again. Whether or not she should have is neither here nor there. It's just a political football that can't be carried to goalpost.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2019/feb/01/trump-news-live-latest-updates-cory-booker-politics

 

 

Castro or Beto are my picks as well. Warren is solid on policy but stuff like that makes me not want to support her. The others are pretty much a wash for me, but I'll be happy to vote for whoever gets the nomination.

[DMC]

3 hours ago, larrytheimp said:

Isn't Castro further left than Biden and Booker on pretty much everything?

ETA and left of Harris for that matter?

That might be the impression, but isn't necessarily true.  There are plenty of issues in which Castro may be to the left [ETA: I meant to the right here.  Otherwise it doesn't make any sense.] of either.

3 hours ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

I LOATHE the EITC (for the reasons you suggest, and also, it's really hard to claim, because reasons).

What are these reasons?  I'm seriously asking.  The EITC should be expanded, in my view.  And renamed for marketing.  What's the case against it?

2 hours ago, Fez said:

Also, I think Booker's ability, along with Durbin and others, to work with Republicans to support criminal justice reform and get Trump to sign a major bill into law is extremely underrated. I'm not suggesting he'd be the next LBJ, cajoling a potentially hostile congress into supporting his policies, but I think that whole saga was an impressive display of foresight, patience, and negotiation skills.

If you think Booker has a better chance of doing this than Harris or anyone else, I think that's pretty naive.  At least for you, who I respect quite a bit.

2 hours ago, Simon Steele said:

She did an academic's work which isn't surprising. She has specific remedies for the issues of income inequality. 

I am an academic.  Elizabeth Warren is not an academic.  She was someone who supervised academics and then got an extremely politically compelling job thanks to Obama.

2 hours ago, lokisnow said:

If we’re ranking candidate I think my list is:

Can't believe you have Booker over Beto based on the last few months of conversations here.

[Guest]

36 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

First, I wouldn't necessarily do exactly what Simpson-Bowles proposed, but I do think they established the correct general framework. Their plan was too regressive iirc, but it was a good start. We inevitably need to freeze or cut spending (or tie it to a percentage based on increase revenues) while increasing the tax base. We need to get out of the red, and annoyingly enough, we're actually in a great situation to do so, but alas, greed continues to win the day.

That said, I'm not sure if you can ever move the Overton window towards the Democrats' stance on taxation in any meaningful way. Republicans have done an incredible job messaging on this front, and the argument Democrats push, one which I agree with, is too long winded and wonky to ever overcome "tax and spend liberals." In a better world this wouldn't be that hard to do, but I've long given up on the average American. They're lazy, dumb and greedy. 

I do agree with you on spending in the sense that I don't think we need to spend as much as we currently do, but under the current budget framework, I don't agree with the S-B plan to cut spending across the board. 

Right now, the federal budget is so convoluted and inefficient (probably by design in many cases), that if we could ever redesign federal departments and programs to operate more efficiently and effectively (say, direct cash payments for welfare instead of the hodgepodge of poverty programs we have now, a NHS instead of the patchwork in place of Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, the VA, etc., and vastly reducing our bloated and unnecessary military spending), then we'd probably save a ton of money just by making a better system. But too many industries rely on that sweet government spending for that to ever happen, most likely. 

And you may be right about moving the Overton window on taxation, but we have to at least try... and now is our best chance we've had in decades as inequality has gotten worse and is being talked about more and more. We have to at least try. 

[lokisnow]

I’ve always liked booker since he was on I think the daily show because he ran into a burning building. I posted several months ago about his anti Wall Street legislation he was introducing and pushing. Beto I like because he wildly over performed that Texas race. All of my top three about electibility, all three have the least downside risk in my opinion.

Not that it matters der Bernie Bros and der Russian accomplices  are going to launch vicious and sustained attacks to destroy all three of the other Candidates whose names start with B, And partly of a result of their temper tantrum, democrats will definitely be losing in 2020, but those three B boys have the best shot to actually and improbably win in 2020.

[DMC]

2 minutes ago, lokisnow said:

All of my top three about electibility, all three have the least downside risk in my opinion.

Yeah this is why I get paid money for my political opinions.  I agree that on its face they should be the top three.

5 minutes ago, lokisnow said:

Not that it matters der Bernie Bros and der Russian accomplices  are going to launch vicious and sustained attacks to destroy all three of the other Candidates whose names start with B, And partly of a result of their temper tantrum, democrats will definitely be losing in 2020, but those three B boys have the best shot to actually and improbably win in 2020.

There's no logic or evidence here.  Just what you feel.  I'm sorry you feel that way.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

3 hours ago, larrytheimp said:

Isn't Castro further left than Biden and Booker on pretty much everything?

ETA and left of Harris for that matter?

Does it really matter? Obviously everyone has their own standard, but personally all I care about is if they're left enough, not who is the most left of center. Once a candidate meets that benchmark, then all I'd care about is electability. There are some people nothing worth ranking, like say Bloomberg or Gabbard, but from perspective the order looks something like this (not my preferences per se, but from a practicality standpoint):

1. Harris

2. Booker

3. Brown

4. Biden

5. Amy

6. Beto

Everyone else is irrelevant imo. Harris and Booker risk cancelling each other out. Biden would be my top pick if he was 15 years younger. This leads me to believe that Brown has a good chance of getting through, and to a much lesser extent Klobuchar. Beto will hang around, but I think his ceiling right now is the trendy VP pick.

As of right now, I don't think any of the other candidates matter. Warren missed her chance in 2016. Sanders will probably struggle in a much more crowded field where he can't contrast himself against Clinton's perceived moderation. And besides, he's already won. He moved the party significantly to the left. Gillibrand might last longer than I personally think she will, but I don't see a legit path for her to win the nomination, and I don't know if she can actually beat Trump. Plus, on a personal level, I'd have a hard time voting for her, and she could quite possibly lose Minnesota, so you have to keep that in mind. 

At the end of the day what Democrats probably need more than anything is someone with star power. Harris, Booker, Biden and Beto all have that, and I'm not sure if anyone else so far does. One of the most frustrating aspects of 2016 was watching Clinton give a speech that's muted as a second screen was trained on an empty podium waiting for Trump to speak. This happened because Clinton was boring while Trump was a show. Democrats need to nominate someone that can draw the cameras away from Trump. 

@Fez,

I'm curious, does Booker not come across as completely fake to you? I have him ranked high because I think he can win, and I've met him before and he seems like a decent guy, but whenever I see him on T.V. I can't help but feel it's an act. What really lost me was when he behaved so over the top during the Kavanaugh hearings. He acted like he was risking his job to leak incredibly important information and made a huge scene about it all for it to turn out to be a nothing burger. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

20 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

And you may be right about moving the Overton window on taxation, but we have to at least try... and now is our best chance we've had in decades as inequality has gotten worse and is being talked about more and more. We have to at least try. 

If you want to move the window, I'd suggest doing it with specific polices rather than focusing directly on taxes. Once you can sell the policy, then you can justify asking for tax increases. You've got to link the two, otherwise people will continue to not understand where their taxes go which allows people to complain about waste, fraud and abuse.

[Darzin]

12 minutes ago, lokisnow said:

Not that it matters der Bernie Bros and der Russian accomplices  are going to launch vicious and sustained attacks to destroy all three of the other Candidates whose names start with B, And partly of a result of their temper tantrum, democrats will definitely be losing in 2020, but those three B boys have the best shot to actually and improbably win in 2020.

Lol I think it's a little early to be calling the election before the primaries are even over.  

[Guest]

16 minutes ago, DMC said:

What are these reasons?  I'm seriously asking.  The EITC should be expanded, in my view.  And renamed for marketing.  What's the case against it?

1. My complaint about how the EITC has the public subsidize low-paying private corporations. 

2. The EITC is for earned income (wages) only. But eligibility is based on total AGI, iirc. So someone receiving alimony, for example, can fall above the eligibility requirements. It also discourages savings and investment, as someone who receives greater than a certain amount of income from interest or dividend income is disqualified. The program is also structured so that you receive a very small credit at very low wages that rises as your income rises, and then phases out above a certain peak. So it really doesn't help the very poor at all. It is also almost exclusively geared toward filers with children. 

3. There are a TON of extra hoops schedule C filers have to jump through to ensure due diligence requirements to qualify for the EITC. Or there were at least under the old code.  I haven't been preparing returns for several years, but I can't imagine much changed with the new code. 

Those are my issues just off the top of my head. 

[Kalbear]

8 minutes ago, Darzin said:

Lol I think it's a little early to be calling the election before the primaries are even over.  

It's early, but the safer bet is that Trump wins. HOW Trump wins is another question, but incumbents have a very strong built in advantage, especially if the economy is going well. And at least right now the economy does not look like it's going to slide any time soon. 

There are a lot of things that could change this basic calculus - Trump having massive scandals actually somehow stick to him, the economy doing worse, Trump having another thing come out in a civic way, or the Republican party somehow doing even more bad press policy decisions (such as bigger attacks on medical coverage) - but Trump simply being really unpopular is not by itself enough, and he is not particularly more unpopular at this point in his presidency than a whole lot of other POTUS who did get re-elected.

It's also a very safe bet to say that Bernie's strategy will be to burn down everything except for himself, because, well, that's what he basically did before. Schultz is also doing it. There are going to be a lot of ads attacking Democrats, no matter who runs. 

Based on that, I think I'd favor the ones who are least attackable - Beto is probably safest, followed by Harris. Warren is entirely fucked. Booker might be okay, but he has a lot of wall street ties that will hurt him. Gillibrandt's pivot from conservative democrat to deeply liberal one hurts as well. Biden is super extra fucked. I don't think Sanders has done enough for coalition building, but perhaps in such a divided situation he'll be able to get a plurality and do well. 

I also think we might actually have a DNC that is going to decide the candidate. I can easily see that there aren't enough delegates given to anyone to get first ballot, especially if the early races don't shake out a ton of people, and realistically you only need about 4 or 5 candidates to stick around to make math hard for all of them given proportional delegate math. Everyone can survive for a while if they want to. Sanders showed that last time, and it'll be even worse now. 

[DMC]

11 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

This leads me to believe that Brown has a good chance of getting through, and to a much lesser extent Klobuchar.

Neither has any chance.  Stop being Butters hoarding cum in your room.

7 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

1. My complaint about how the EITC has the public subsidize low-paying private corporations. 

I don't understand why the EITC should be blamed for this.

8 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

So someone receiving alimony, for example, can fall above the eligibility requirements.

No fucking idea if this is true or not.  If it is, sure, I agree with you.

9 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

It also discourages savings and investment, as someone who receives greater than a certain amount of income from interest or dividend income is disqualified.

The EITC has nothing to do with investment, at least hopefully.  As for discouraging saving, no, the concept clearly encourages saving.

12 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

So it really doesn't help the very poor at all. It is also almost exclusively geared toward filers with children. 

Yes it does.  I've never had children and it's helped me.

13 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

3. There are a TON of extra hoops schedule C filers have to jump through to ensure due diligence requirements to qualify for the EITC.

I have many advantages in terms of knowledge in how to file, but I honestly don't think it's that hard.  They spell it out for you, and usually you'll get some unsolicited mail about it.

[Zorral]

41 minutes ago, lokisnow said:

I’ve always liked booker since he was on I think the daily show because he ran into a burning building. I posted several months ago about his anti Wall Street legislation he was introducing and pushing. Beto I like because he wildly over performed that Texas race. All of my top three about electibility, all three have the least downside risk in my opinion.

Not that it matters der Bernie Bros and der Russian accomplices  are going to launch vicious and sustained attacks to destroy all three of the other Candidates whose names start with B, And partly of a result of their temper tantrum, democrats will definitely be losing in 2020, but those three B boys have the best shot to actually and improbably win in 2020.

Also many will do on Castro, doubtless -- linking him somehow with Fidel and Raul, to whom he has no connection via either family or heritage.  Castro is a very common name in the multiple worlds of hispanic heritage people.

[Kalbear]

Howard Schultz is the one thing almost all Americans agree on

https://twitter.com/williamjordann/status/1091488430050160641

[DMC]

8 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

It's early, but the safer bet is that Trump wins. HOW Trump wins is another question, but incumbents have a very strong built in advantage, especially if the economy is going well. And at least right now the economy does not look like it's going to slide any time soon. 

Not incumbents that are at 40 percent.  Especially incumbents that are at 40 percent when the economy is helping them.  If I was on the other side, be worried about that every fucking day.

[Kalbear]

Just now, DMC said:

Not incumbents that are at 40 percent.  Especially incumbents that are at 40 percent when the economy is helping them.  If I was on the other side, be worried about that every fucking day.

Yes, incumbents at 40%. He is 4 points HIGHER than Reagan at the same point in their first term. And as of a couple weeks ago, he was at the same point as Obama and Clinton. 

Now, if he stays that way in two more years he'll probably have some problems. Maybe. It's honestly hard to say, because we've never had an unpopular POTUS with this much partisanship AND the economy doing well. In general, however, bet on the incumbent, because it's still really rare in the US for incumbents to lose - even with scandal (Clinton, Reagan), unpopular values (Obama), wave elections (Obama, Clinton), war (GWB, Nixon).

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, DMC said:

Neither has any chance.  Stop being Butters hoarding cum in your room.

I don't understand why the EITC should be blamed for this.

No fucking idea if this is true or not.  If it is, sure, I agree with you.

The EITC has nothing to do with investment, at least hopefully.  As for discouraging saving, no, the concept clearly encourages saving.

Yes it does.  I've never had children and it's helped me.

I have many advantages in terms of knowledge in how to file, but I honestly don't think it's that hard.  They spell it out for you, and usually you'll get some unsolicited mail about it.

Because the public shouldn't be subsidizing corporate profit to keep people poor.

It's true. The entire point of the credit is that it's earned income. Alimony is not classified as earned income, but is taxable. 

Dude, I'm sorry, but I worked in public accounting for years. The EITC absolutely discourages savings and investment, because one disqualifying aspect is reporting above a certain amount of investment income. 

I'm not saying it doesn't help single filers at all. Obviously some money is better than no money. But it's primarily geared towards people with children. 

Trust me, you're on the privileged end of the spectrum when it comes to filing your taxes. And I was specifically talking about self-employed people having to jump through extra hoops to ensure due diligence compliance to qualify for the credit. I'm not sure if you've ever been self-employed, but you asked how the credit was difficult to apply for. 

And don't get me started on all the grifter companies charging poor people $300-400 to file their simple tax returns (cough H&R Block cough) and then offering them loans with exorbitant APRs for a guaranteed ROI. When I first heard about that, my fucking head almost exploded. Full disclosure: my company would charge clients with simple W-2 returns and EITC filing $75 at that time. 

[Darzin]

Incumbents do have a huge advantage, what I'm hanging my  hopes on is Trump barely skated by before to get him to lose you need to change 70k votes. Now compare Obama's drop ins support from first to second term he got something like 2 million votes less. If Trump has a comparable drop in support he's toast.  Also I think there will be a lot less complacency on the democratic voters who didn't vote last time. 

[DMC]

5 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Now, if he stays that way in two more years he'll probably have some problems. Maybe.

No, definitely.  An incumbent cannot win with 40 percent approval.  He will gain at least five points as the election approaches, that's just the nature of the beast.  But, if his disapproval is still this high - say he's at 45/52 approval on election day - then he will undoubtedly lose.  Trump isn't magic.  He got lucky, that's it.

[Kalbear]

Just now, DMC said:

No, definitely.  An incumbent cannot win with 40 percent approval.  He will gain at least five points as the election approaches, that's just the nature of the beast.  But, if his disapproval is still this high - say he's at 45/52 approval on election day - then he will undoubtedly lose.  Trump isn't magic.  He got lucky, that's it.

GWB won with barely more than that. And he won handily. And GHWB had a 54% approval at election time, and he lost. 

Again, demographic profiles hurt Democrats here. My suspicion is that while it might be the case that 40% approve of him, the number is higher in the key states that matter. If you bump that up to 45%, it'll be much higher in those states that matter. It doesn't matter if Californians really hate his ass, after all. It matters if Wisconsin does, or Michigan, or Pennsylvania, and while the blue wave was awesome in some ways there, it also really was very close in others - and that was with Trump not actually on the ballot. (and Ohio was right the fuck out). In addition, as bizarre as it is, Trump's ratings are actually increasing with men compared to what he was. They're decreasing with women, so yay, but again a lot of it depends on what people turn out and when. 

In any case, it isn't remotely a 'definitely', and I don't think anyone should think that a 40% approval rate magically turns into an auto-loss.