U.S. Politics: Gar Nicht Trump's Traumschiff!

[Mlle. Zabzie]

21 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Are you and I in “fake jobs” under the new regime?

Y'all less than I am

But more seriously, as much as I am all for the democratization of the legal system, as long as we have laws we (should) have lawyers.  Again, if we are blowing everything up, maybe lawyers become irrelevant...but I doubt it.

[sologdin]

a corps of NSDAP lawyers followed the wehrmacht in every axis-occupied state to re-write the statutes and draft the regulations for exim banking plunder and administer the blood-letting as a sophisticated, literate process.  even if everything is getting blown up, they still need us. 

[Mlle. Zabzie]

10 minutes ago, sologdin said:

a corps of NSDAP lawyers followed the wehrmacht in every axis-occupied state to re-write the statutes and draft the regulations for exim banking plunder and administer the blood-letting as a sophisticated, literate process.  even if everything is getting blown up, they still need us. 

Those of us that survive dekulakization.

[sologdin]

i'd advise the nascent revolution to hire all of the attorneys it can. 

[Mlle. Zabzie]

7 minutes ago, sologdin said:

i'd advise the nascent revolution to hire all of the attorneys it can. 

Oh me too.  Attorneys seem to be the delineating factor between success and terror.  But I'm biased, and if a boundary is passed, we will end up in the world of Henry VI, Part II, act IV, Scene II, with predictable results.

[DireWolfSpirit]

I am not a fan of the wealth tax. I prefer a simple flat tax on all income that has everyone paying at the same rate and largely getting rid of as many exemptions and deductions as possible. 

[IheartIheartTesla]

I would have billionaire/millionaire CEOs not pay the same health care premiums as the minimum wage grunts. I think a case could be made that the higher paid individuals (that there are much fewer of) are getting subsidized by the pool of healthier, but lower paid individuals, so why not use this as a bargaining tool to make health care premiums progressive as well?

This has the advantage of a) Ensuring the Gates/Bloombergs of the world will want health care in the US fixed once and for all and b) As a consequence, improve wage conditions by ensuring that incomes dont flatline anymore.

It may be the case that they dont use health insurance like the rest of us and just pay for everything a la carte. Still, I think progressive health care premiums make sense.

[Kalbear]

36 minutes ago, DireWolfSpirit said:

I am not a fan of the wealth tax. I prefer a simple flat tax on all income that has everyone paying at the same rate and largely getting rid of as many exemptions and deductions as possible. 

I'm surprised you're going with the Forbes and other billionaire plan. This would put most of the tax burden on the poor and middle class and reduce the tax even further on the rich, who do not get a large amount of income. 

But Steve Forbes LOVES it, so you're well aligned with the billionaires. Good work! That'll serve you well in the oncoming revolution.

[Paladin of Ice]

34 minutes ago, DireWolfSpirit said:

I am not a fan of the wealth tax. I prefer a simple flat tax on all income that has everyone paying at the same rate and largely getting rid of as many exemptions and deductions as possible. 

There are incredibly serious problems with someone who makes 20,000 in a year and someone who makes 20,000,000 both paying the same percentage. A percentage that’s pocket change for the millionaire is the literal difference between life and death for the working class.

It’s also likely to starve local governments of badly needed tax revenue leading to major service cuts or outright being eliminated. (What, you want the city to have a professional fire department and a working water treatment plant? Maybe if we hadn’t lost all that funding due to tax cuts.) It likely would do the same to the federal government, leaving them ever more beholden to private companies to pick up the slack. And anyone who knows anything about private prisons can tell you that’s a horror show and then some.

[sologdin]

nonono, privatization is a wave that we can all ride into prosperity.  for instance, private roads, subject to competitive imperatives, will revolutionize travel--we can freely choose which route to drive from point A to point B. 

enterprising road construction & toll collecting cartels might persuade the state to condemn and seize all property along the proposed alternate route between new york and DC, say, and grant it to the private road-owners as a support for competition.

to make the new competing road viable, we'd give subsidies to suburban assault vehicle producers and gas companies and tire manufacturers so as to encourage more drivers in unwieldy individuated vehicles.  the state will need to shut down public transit as anti-competitive along the NY/DC corridor. 

involuntary laborer associates from the private prisons (owned by a member of the cartel) can provide toll-collection, aesthetic management, and maintenance services along the route. this would allow road firms to compete on the basis of offering the most aesthetically pleasing commute experience from their customers' micropolitan communities three hours away from their respective places of urban employment.

the road can also compete with regard to regulation--pay a fee, for instance, to waive speed limits and seatbelts and carbon emissions and substance abuse bans and so on. this would allow us to eliminate taxation entirely.  

johnny galt ain't got nothing on the utopic possibilities that the free market can dream up.

[Ran]

Some thoughts on the Quinnipac Poll from Nate Silver, which notes the precipitous drop for Warren among Democratic or Democratic leaner respondents when asked about who has the best policy ideas (from 40% in October to 23% this month after the latest debate, and also the release of her health care plan and so on).

On the one hand, maybe this validates everyone who says it's silly for candidates to lay out detailed proposals -- after all, when she did lay out a detailed plan, it seems to have shot her momentum in the foot. On the other hand, maybe it's the specific proposal itself that led to the sharp fall. 

Flat tax is worthless, by the by, but others have said that.

[Maithanet]

2 minutes ago, Ran said:

Some thoughts on the Quinnipac Poll from Nate Silver, which notes the precipitous drop for Warren among Democratic or Democratic leaner respondents when asked about who has the best policy ideas (from 40% in October to 23% this month after the latest debate, and also the release of her health care plan and so on).

On the one hand, maybe this validates everyone who says it's silly for candidates to lay out detailed proposals -- after all, when she did lay out a detailed plan, it seems to have shot her momentum in the foot. On the other hand, maybe it's the specific proposal itself that led to the sharp fall. 

Flat tax is worthless, by the by, but others have said that.

Medicare for all is a lot easier to sell in theory than in practice.  Not to say that I don't want go to there eventually, but getting there is going to be very painful and messy, and will result in people dying.  The current system also results in people dying, but blame for that is diffused throughout the entire system, and thus is much more bearable to voters.  I think that if Warren were elected and MFA were passed by a narrow senate and House majority, Democrats would probably be looking at another Obamacare 2010 wipeout. 

So yes, I think that Medicare for all is an example of a policy where the more details you provide, the more rope they have to hang you with. 

[The Anti-Targ]

5 hours ago, sologdin said:

My brother pays all his staff a minimum of the living wage, and I'm pretty sure he doesn't pay himself 10x minimum wage.

totally. small cappies would thus be pressed in a manner that large ones are not--this sort of regulation may accordingly be interpreted as an obstacle to competition and therefore run afoul of the sherman act.  some regulation in the US has exceptions for small capitals--no title VII liability if less than 15 employees, say.  a wage cap statute that permits this sort of exception will likely eat the rule, however, when large concerns generate byzantine corporate groups for every enterprise, limited each entity to 14 employees to evade the cap. 

so long as the execs' bonuses are then summed and multiplied by x and this is distributed to non-exec employees as a profit share

that's the old lincoln electric model, no?

You'll have to explain. Particularly in light of my example. My brother is a small business and pays above minimum wage and draws a salary a lot less than 10x his lowest paid worker, however his business has grown since he bought it and bumped up his staff's salary, and included profit sharing. So if anything, being better to his workers and not scrooging away all the profits for himself has been good for business. Also there is the small matter of he and his wife are the only shareholder to whom they're answerable, so they can choose to distribute their revenue however they want and be generous to workers in a way that publicly listed companies cannot without a legal mandate to siphon profits away from shareholders and towards workers.

I don't think violating an existing statue should necessarily be regarded as an argument against the concept. I'd rather entertain discussion on the basis of fundamental principles underpinning economic justice than any specific piece of legislation.

[DMC]

2 hours ago, Ran said:

On the one hand, maybe this validates everyone who says it's silly for candidates to lay out detailed proposals -- after all, when she did lay out a detailed plan, it seems to have shot her momentum in the foot. On the other hand, maybe it's the specific proposal itself that led to the sharp fall. 

Yeah as much as I'd like to say "see, it's the former," to me the evidence clearly suggests it's more the latter.  I was wondering whether the reaction to her hedging on MFA recently would hurt her, but that doesn't seem to be the case at all.  After all, intuitively that would mean her losses were coming from more progressive voters, as it's a tack to the right; and/or hurt her via the perception of her "authenticity," which seemed to be how it hurt Harris when she tried to straddle that divide.  But as Silver points out, it seems her drop is coming from more "moderate" voters, and this jives with her support on the electability question ("who has the best chance...") being cut in half from 20 to 10%.  (Plus, if you look at the trends page, her numbers on the "most honest" question haven't changed - from 15 to 14 - so it doesn't look like authenticity is her problem.)

Coupled together, the results strongly indicate Warren's problem and Buttigieg's surge is being generated from the "somewhat liberal" middle lane - the white educated voters that may be personally cool with MFA but are very worried how it will play in the general (myself included).  And this reflects what we've seen recently in terms of Bloomberg/Patrick jumping in and Obama more explicitly speaking out about his concerns.  He doesn't have a shot, but Bloomberg is well-known for being intensely data driven, so I don't doubt his private researchers found there were a lot of non-progressives that are very antsy about any candidate with a MFA-led progressive agenda - again not really because of the policy specifics, but because of electability concerns.

Another factor/alternative explanation could be these voters are just trying out different candidates.  Remember the 2012 Republican primary?  Romney was the clear front-runner from the get-go, but c'mon, nobody really gets excited about Romney (so in this case Biden would be his analog).  So from September up to (and including) the Iowa caucuses, there was a carousel of anti-Romney candidates:  From Bachmann to Perry to Herman friggen Cain to Gingrich to Santorum, all the while Ron Paul hanging in there as the Bernie analog.  This race certainly hasn't been nearly as volatile as that one, at least so far, but my gut tells me Buttigieg's surge/Warren's drop could just be (at least in large part) certain voters being un-enthralled with all the candidates and, well, bored.

Overall, it's just one poll, and I'm immediately skeptical that Warren really has lost half her support in the past month.  While the other most recent poll has Warren at a similar level of support, Buttigieg is still only at 9 percent there.  Plus, as 538's own polling shows, even after last week's debate, Buttigieg still is getting bupkis from minority voters.  Until that starts moving considerably, it's hard to really imagine him winning the nomination.

[sologdin]

Quote

Flakey Voters: I want a hamburger. No, a cheeseburger. I want a hot dog. I want a milkshake.

Trump: You'll get nothing, and like it.

 

[ThinkerX]

oh, what the heck.

 

At least as far as the business licence people are concerned, I am a small business - that is what the accountant recommended I do when I hired a gal to run the route three days a week.  Legally, by the terms of the contract, I'm required to pay her $15 an hour + $4 an hour 'health and welfare' (or get her insurance - too much hassle.)  Factor in the other costs, and she is making more than I am.  Now, the one gal went on maternity leave, so I hired a second one to fill in for the first.  Now, I'm forking over both a regular paycheck and a maternity check for about $500.  (want to pay more, but well, things are tight. )  Only reason I can do this is because most of my life is paid for - no mortgage, good deal on the ACA, just one (business) vehicle left to pay off.  I'm probably atypical 

[Martell Spy]

5 hours ago, Maithanet said:

Medicare for all is a lot easier to sell in theory than in practice.  Not to say that I don't want go to there eventually, but getting there is going to be very painful and messy, and will result in people dying.  The current system also results in people dying, but blame for that is diffused throughout the entire system, and thus is much more bearable to voters.  I think that if Warren were elected and MFA were passed by a narrow senate and House majority, Democrats would probably be looking at another Obamacare 2010 wipeout. 

So yes, I think that Medicare for all is an example of a policy where the more details you provide, the more rope they have to hang you with. 

I don't disagree about them having more rope to hang you with. Should we not have done Obamacare though at that particular time, if we had known it would lead to a wipe-out? I mean, it is still in place and improving lives, despite everything. Maybe a bad election was the price of progress. And are we sure Obamacare was the primary reason for the big 2010 loss? Elections tend to swing back and forth. It was going to be the Republicans turn at some point and the Dems were coming off 2 enormous wins in a row.

[mcbigski]

On 11/24/2019 at 10:11 PM, DireWolfSpirit said:

If all the Florida votes were counted in 2000 a different person would have had the advantage of incumbency. In other words an illegitimate candidate gained that advantage, started a war against a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 and then rode the Fox news bus down patriot lane. Knowing no southern state would vote out an incumbent during war time. Even though it was a "boogey man" war he had no business getting us into.

Ha plenty was wrong with the 04 election and besides after 2000 do you think I was ready to accept whether the results were legitimate?

Anyways it's been 15 years so im a little less pissed, a little, teeeeny bit.

Has there been a war in US history more subject to the electoral process than the invasion of Iraq?  Circa 2002 the Dems all got cranky because POTUS wanted to go into Iraq.  Said he should wait until after the election.  Incumbent's party then increased their congressional holdings in the midterms.  I can't think of another war the US got into where hawkishness ahead of time gave electoral results.  I mean there was probably one or two, but I'm drawing a blank.

On 11/25/2019 at 10:37 AM, Rorshach said:

Meh.

mcbigski is currently actively trolling. His troll-fu is utterly weak, trumpian-level stupid and generally wasteful with regards to internet ink.

He probably also has bad hygiene and a receding hairline. 

There. The answer he wants.

My avatar pic is 7 or 8 years old.  Holding the line, but a bit more salt.  Dentist tells me to floss more so you got me there.  Sick burn.f  In truth, I'm a fairly witty, casually handsome but still approachable guy who is able to also laugh at himself.  I can admit despite the rumors, I'm only proportional there.

What you think is trolling is really just my attempt to puncture the bubble.  Saw that in two different polls, Trump was over 30% with African Americans.  If true, you might as well nominate Mondale.  This expectation adjustment has been a public service by McBigski Inc.  I say, welcome back to the Republican party.  Uncle Abe was right, you can't fool all of the people all of the time.

On 11/25/2019 at 10:52 AM, Fragile Bird said:

In real life he’s an ok guy with an incredible capacity for drinking beer, as I saw at Worldcon. We did not talk politics, though. When he does that he raises hackles, for sure.

You think I was only drinking beer?  Sweet summer child.

As I've said before, I'm just an intelligent caring guy that you'd probably quite like if you met socially.

On 11/25/2019 at 10:23 PM, Zorral said:

Hillary didn't bother at all with the very large communities of latin voters in swing states like PA.  They didn't even bother doing a voter registration -- and there are large numbers of Puerto Ricans living in PA, who are legally US citizens, and when living in the US, legitimately entitled to vote and have their votes counted.

Biden, like all those old estabishment, donor funders Dem candidates -- is determined to do things the way they used to do them.  That world is over.

 

Latinx.  Get with the times.

8 hours ago, DireWolfSpirit said:

I am not a fan of the wealth tax. I prefer a simple flat tax on all income that has everyone paying at the same rate and largely getting rid of as many exemptions and deductions as possible. 

Flat tax doesn't allow for congress folk to get lobbied for carve outs.  About as realistic as the Easter Bunny or True Marxist Communism.

50 minutes ago, Martell Spy said:

I don't disagree about them having more rope to hang you with. Should we not have done Obamacare though at that particular time, if we had known it would lead to a wipe-out? I mean, it is still in place and improving lives, despite everything. Maybe a bad election was the price of progress. And are we sure Obamacare was the primary reason for the big 2010 loss? Elections tend to swing back and forth. It was going to be the Republicans turn at some point and the Dems were coming off 2 enormous wins in a row.

Well, I've had a high deductible individual policy since 2001 or so.  Haven't had ever gotten more back than my deductible but my premium has shot through the roof.  So someone's life must improving somewhere.

Best thing for more health coverage is a stronger economy.  Black Jobs Matter!

[DMC]

10 minutes ago, mcbigski said:

Has there been a war in US history more subject to the electoral process than the invasion of Iraq?

Well, I'm not sure using widespread nationalist sentiment as a cudgel should be accurately described as the Iraq War "being subject" to the electoral process, but sure it definitely scared the shit out of Dems in 2002 (and still didn't help them) and contributed to the 2004 reelection (along with the fact the economic atmosphere suggested reelection and the SSM wedge).  For an early version of "patriotic" war sentiment guiding electoral politics, see the Spanish-American War.

15 minutes ago, mcbigski said:

Saw that in two different polls, Trump was over 30% with African Americans.

Please cite.

[Altherion]

17 minutes ago, DMC said:

Please cite. 

A bit of Googling leads to a Rasmussen tweet which points out that an Emerson poll found the same 34% African-American voter approval for Trump as Rasmussen itself. That said, first this is approval and not how they'd vote (there's no way Trump gets more than 20% of that demographic in even the wildest 2020 scenario) and second, I wouldn't bet money on any given poll (or even pair of polls) being too accurate.