US Politics: Celebrating and despairing too early;No poll bump for Trump yet.

[DMC]

14 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

Assange anyone?!?  Surprised to see no discussion

It's in the international thread, which I think is appropriate.  Not sure it has much of any effect on US politics.  

16 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

That said, it's not a bad time to discuss how the safety net will continue to be funded. IMO, the income cap is silly-low, but that said, I would love to see more creative ideas floated.  It is high time we stop pretending that you get out what you put in.

I'm not too worried about SS.  That's one of those under the radar things that Congress actually always figures out a way to fix.  Mostly because the GOP doesn't want it becoming an actual issue, since they know they'll lose.  Medicare and Medicaid, OTOH, yeah that's always a long-term worry.

[Mlle. Zabzie]

Just now, DMC said:

It's in the international thread, which I think is appropriate.  Not sure it has much of any effect on US politics.  

 

Will look in the International thread, but given the extradition potential, the sealed indictment that was previously leaked, the request for additional testimony recently from Chelsea Manning, which she declined to give, and our general fascination with the Russian angle think there is a there there.

[OldGimletEye]

16 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

1.  Assange anyone?!?  Surprised to see no discussion, but thought it was interesting that the arrest is not just for UK bail jumping but also extradition to the US.  Curious how this all plays out.

2.  Maisie Hirono has introduced a bill to remove the cap on Social Security contributions.  It will NEVER pass.  That said, it's not a bad time to discuss how the safety net will continue to be funded. IMO, the income cap is silly-low, but that said, I would love to see more creative ideas floated.  It is high time we stop pretending that you get out what you put in.

I know I have said this before. With the risk of sounding like the old guy who repeats the same story about a million times, I'll repeat it again, because I think it is an important point. One of the things that drives me crazy is when certain sorts of people in the name fiscal responsibility say something like "Social Security and Medicare". That is extremely misleading. Because the funding issues regarding Medicare is a much more difficult problem than Social Security, which is a relatively easy fix. One fix would to be raise the income cap. Another would to be extend the age for eligibility, something I'd be amenable to for certain classes of works ie those who haven't spent most of their working life in physically demanding careers. For those who are in physically challenging jobs, I'd keep the age of eligibility the same. Lastly, you could raise the tax rate to fund social security, something that seemingly does have broad public support.

Now the issue with Medicare, which is a much harder problem to solve, mainly has to do with the exorbitant cost of the American Medical system for which we pay a lot, but don't get a lot in return. Fix that, and a lot of those problems go away. Of course fixing our messed up healthcare system won't be easy thing to do because there are a number of people whose pockets who are getting lined under the current system and they won't likely give up that gravy train without a fight.

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

our general fascination with the Russian angle think there is a there there.

Ah.  Sure if you wanna go down that rabbit hole have at it.  But stop saying there!

[Larry of the Lawn]

3 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

Will look in the International thread, but given the extradition potential, the sealed indictment that was previously leaked, the request for additional testimony recently from Chelsea Manning, which she declined to give, and our general fascination with the Russian angle think there is a there there.

Would be sweet if Assange ends up confessing that Trump reached out to him.

[Mlle. Zabzie]

2 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

I know I have said this before. With the risk of sounding like the old guy who repeats the same story about a million times, I'll repeat it again, because I think it is an important point. One of the things that drives me crazy is when certain sorts of people in the name fiscal responsibility say something like "Social Security and Medicare". That is extremely misleading. Because the funding issues regarding Medicare is a much more difficult problem than Social Security, which is a relatively easy fix. One fix would to be raise the income cap. Another would to be extend the age for eligibility, something I'd be amenable to for certain classes of works ie those who haven't spent most of their working life in physically demanding careers. For those who are in physically challenging jobs, I'd keep the age of eligibility the same. Lastly, you could raise the tax rate to fund social security, something that seemingly does have broad public support.

Now the issue with Medicare, which is a much harder problem to solve, mainly has to do with the exorbitant cost of the American Medical system for which we pay a lot, but don't get a lot in return. Fix that, and a lot of those problems go away. Of course fixing our messed up healthcare system won't be easy thing to do because there are a number of people whose pockets who are getting lined under the current system and they won't likely give up that gravy train without a fight.

Oh, well, for sure, Medicare is its own issue, and the unearned income tax certainly helps but doesn't fix the problem.  I was decidedly not in favor of single payer until I started sitting on our benefits committee here.  We really, really, really try to do right by our employees, but there's a limit as to what we can do, and the costs...wow...I mean...wow.......  I have had my eyes opened (including to the fact that most big employers self-insure for most stuff with some stop-loss policies to guard against huge liabilities, using the insurance companies more as administrators).  Anyhow, at this point we need to burn what we have to the ground and start again.

1 minute ago, DMC said:

Ah.  Sure if you wanna go down that rabbit hole have at it.  But stop saying there!

LOL.  Can't won't stop.  So there.

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, Mlle. Zabzie said:

Oh, well, for sure, Medicare is its own issue, and the unearned income tax certainly helps but doesn't fix the problem.  I was decidedly not in favor of single payer until I started sitting on our benefits committee here.  We really, really, really try to do right by our employees, but there's a limit as to what we can do, and the costs...wow...I mean...wow.......  I have had my eyes opened (including to the fact that most big employers self-insure for most stuff with some stop-loss policies to guard against huge liabilities, using the insurance companies more as administrators).  Anyhow, at this point we need to burn what we have to the ground and start again.

I pretty much loath employer sponsored healthcare and would not shed any tears if it were to disappear.

As a purely technocratic solution, I like single payer. I think that it is likely the simplest and cheapest way to provide universal coverage. But, as a political matter, there a lot risk, if you try to implement it overnight. People may know the current system sucks, but have a lot of fear if they feel like they are jumping off into the great unknown and might get something worse. The Democratic Party will need to think carefully about this,  I think.

[OldGimletEye]

Conservative Numbskull of The Week: Larry Lindsay

I think about the only notable thing Lindsay has done in his career is be the most realistic about the cost of Iraq war during his time in the Bush administration. Notice I didn't say completely realistic, just the most realistic, which I know is a pretty low bar. He didn't get listened to.
Other than that he pretty much has been a supply side loser.

You know ultimately I don't care where Moore or Cain went to school. And I don't care what degrees they have. What I care about is whether their analysis have been correct and well thought out. Which they haven't been. And neither is Lindsay's analysis.

Anyway here is some real nonsensical drivel from Lindsay.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/09/economist-larry-lindsey-defends-trumps-likely-fed-nominees.html

Quote

President Donald Trump has said he will nominate Steve Moore and Herman Cain to be members of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve. Both have been criticized as being unqualified for not having Ph.D.s in economics.

The truth of the matter is that former Chairman Paul Volcker also did not have a Ph.D., and neither did William McChesney Martin nor Marriner Eccles.

The latter two chairmen of the board are ones for whom the Fed’s two big buildings in Washington are named.

 

[Ice Queen]

32 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

I pretty much loath employer sponsored healthcare and would not shed any tears if it were to disappear.

As a purely technocratic solution, I like single payer. I think that it is likely the simplest and cheapest way to provide universal coverage. But, as a political matter, there a lot risk, if you try to implement it overnight. People may know the current system sucks, but have a lot of fear if they feel like they are jumping off into the great unknown and might get something worse. The Democratic Party will need to think carefully about this,  I think.

Give us a choice for now. If you insist on having private insurance, go for it. Those that don't can enroll in the UHC plan. Everyone gets a certain amount of coverage, but if you want more you can buy it. As much as I hate insurance companies, it would be better and far less chaotic to do this gradually. I think as more and more people opt for a government-sponsored or subsidized UHC/single payer/Medicare for All/whatever we end up with, the insurance companies will suffer from that pesky free market capitalism thing and go the way of the dinosaur. 

[Guy Kilmore]

10 hours ago, DMC said:

Nah, grew up in Brighton (from 0-18), which is literally down the road from Rochester.  Live around Pittsburgh now.

Small world.  I spent a large chunk of my youth around Fairport, NY and my dad's side of the family has roots in Hilton, NY.

I miss my Abbot's Custard.

[Mlle. Zabzie]

28 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

I pretty much loath employer sponsored healthcare and would not shed any tears if it were to disappear.

As a purely technocratic solution, I like single payer. I think that it is likely the simplest and cheapest way to provide universal coverage. But, as a political matter, there a lot risk, if you try to implement it overnight. People may know the current system sucks, but have a lot of fear if they feel like they are jumping off into the great unknown and might get something worse. The Democratic Party will need to think carefully about this,  I think.

Completely agree with you in terms of the practical realities.  And look, I wouldn't want to work at a place that in the current system doesn't provide comprehensive benefits.  It's irresponsible not to.  But it is so dang inefficient.  

[Guy Kilmore]

9 hours ago, Darth Richard II said:

Oh I’m in Penfield. Brighton is pretty much down the street.

Sorry for the Double Post, I missed this.  I spent my youth in Fairport, NY

(And Sorry for being Off Topic.)

[Mlle. Zabzie]

10 minutes ago, Ice Queen said:

Give us a choice for now. If you insist on having private insurance, go for it. Those that don't can enroll in the UHC plan. Everyone gets a certain amount of coverage, but if you want more you can buy it. As much as I hate insurance companies, it would be better and far less chaotic to do this gradually. I think as more and more people opt for a government-sponsored or subsidized UHC/single payer/Medicare for All/whatever we end up with, the insurance companies will suffer from that pesky free market capitalism thing and go the way of the dinosaur. 

I actually think we would end up with a UK type system and so there would be private insurance that still exists but less of it.  I'm perfectly ok with it being allowed, but the current system we have now is just crazy. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

8 minutes ago, Guy Kilmore said:

Small world.  I spent a large chunk of my youth around Fairport, NY and my dad's side of the family has roots in Hilton, NY.

I miss my Abbot's Custard.

So what you’re saying is that you’re not a REAL Minnesotan!!!

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

I’m shocked. Shocked!!! Well, not that shocked:  

Quote

A new report, citing data from a left-leaning think tank, reveals that at least 60 companies avoided paying taxes this year as a result of the new tax law — a total that is about twice as many as previous years.

NBC News, in partnership with nonprofit investigative news outlet The Center for Public Integrity (CPI), reported Thursday that under the GOP-backed Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, more top companies were able to “zero out their federal income taxes.” 

https://thehill.com/policy/finance/438376-report-finds-twice-as-many-companies-will-avoid-paying-taxes-this-year-as-in

[Guy Kilmore]

2 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

So what you’re saying is that you’re not a REAL Minnesotan!!!

I can further blow your mind, I was born in Greenbay, WI.

[Guy Kilmore]

13 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I’m shocked. Shocked!!! Well, not that shocked:  

https://thehill.com/policy/finance/438376-report-finds-twice-as-many-companies-will-avoid-paying-taxes-this-year-as-in

I kind of hope voters remember how they felt about the surprise tax bill.  I even planned for it this year and we still got burned.

[Mlle. Zabzie]

4 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I’m shocked. Shocked!!! Well, not that shocked:  

https://thehill.com/policy/finance/438376-report-finds-twice-as-many-companies-will-avoid-paying-taxes-this-year-as-in

Ok, I'm not sure you "avoid" paying taxes if you are given the gift by Congress of full expensing and a lower tax rate.  (Put differently, avoid as compared to what - pre change in law?  DUH).  (Also, at least based on the news article, the report doesn't take into account the DTLs that have to be booked as a result of expensing and the 2026 cliff, but I digress).

Why is this a news story? Based on this Hill article, a left leaning think tank concluded that the tax cuts were an expensive waste. This is like Mr. Obvious went to Apparenttown.  The rate cut to 21% was horrible policy.  The foreign provisions are probably GOOD policy, but mis-priced.  Section 163(j) interest deductibility limitations could have been good policy, but they whiffed in the execution basically to push this through in reconciliation.  Section 199A pass through deduction is horrendous policy (should have just gotten rid of capital gains preference if they were trying to fix the problem 199A purports by some accounts to be about, but I'm a broken record on that point).  And expensing is a mindless giveaway.  A discussion of what is good and bad would be a real analysis rather than what was done.   

[Ice Queen]

24 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

I actually think we would end up with a UK type system and so there would be private insurance that still exists but less of it.  I'm perfectly ok with it being allowed, but the current system we have now is just crazy. 

I'm okay with it too for the time being. The goal would be to make it a supplemental insurance. Or, if people decide in great numbers to not use it and go with whatever UHC is implemented, it can die a natural death as an entity. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

25 minutes ago, Guy Kilmore said:

I can further blow your mind, I was born in Greenbay, WI.

So in other words, you’re a dirty F’ing CHEESEHEAD!!!!

You were raised on cheap beer and bad sausages!!!!!!!!!!!!