US Politics: Nancy's Knock on the Senate Door

[Martell Spy]

Quote

 

Bill Gates, who routinely ranks as one of the world’s wealthiest people, is echoing Democrats’ calls for higher taxes on the rich.

Pointing to growing income inequality as well as mounting government red ink, the Microsoft co-founder and philanthropist cites a litany of ways the rich ought to be paying more.

He endorsed a type of wealth tax, saying he favors “taxing large fortunes that have been held for a long time (say, ten years or more).”

“Very wealthy people often have large investments they’ve held for long periods, and if those investments aren’t sold or traded, that money is never taxed,” Gates wrote in a blog post. "That doesn’t make sense.”

Capital gains taxes should go up too, “probably to the same level as" ordinary income, he said. The estate tax should be hiked, and loopholes used to duck it ought to be shut down. People should also pay more on “carried interest,” Gates said.

 

Bill Gates calls for higher taxes on the rich

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/02/bill-gates-higher-taxes-rich-092783

[KingintheNorth4]

I'm guessing defense contractors must be licking their lips after today's news.

[karaddin]

1 hour ago, KingintheNorth4 said:

I'm guessing defense contractors must be licking their lips after today's news.

Yeah I think its safe to say they are, bunch of these below this first tweet.

 

 

[Darzin]

10 hours ago, Simon Steele said:

You can't say Bernie is part of an evil ideology because he's not. It can certainly be disagreed with as unrealistic, unelectable, etc. Pete's attached to a much more problematic system. The big one for Pete is his attachment to big donors who, as we saw with Obama, leverage quite a bit of control over their candidates. He is certainly not progressive in the traditional sense--he's not ideologically opposed to neo-liberalism. In Southbend, his policies as mayor are viewed as extraordinarily harmful to marginalized groups, particularly black people. I will give you, Pete is a good neo-liberal, as good as any before him, but this is exactly why there is a progressive divide. 

If the economy crashed like in 2008, I imagine Pete would do exactly as Obama. Bail out the rich, and let the poor scrape by. When I see Pete, I see a man who represents the Capitalists and continued growth in class disparity--that is an evil ideology. I give leeway to neo-liberals (which I don't do for Republicans) because I do believe they believe they're making a better world for everyone (regardless of race/class). But it's still fucked up.

I agree Bernie's not part of an evil ideology, but I don' think Pete is either. I think he's quite progressive in many ways and pragmatic in the right ones. Pete and Bernie both want to give people universal healthcare, but Pete is proposing the system which has a chance of passing and the system which is in use of much of continental Europe, not to mention the system which has a strong majority of people backing it, that to me seems a better approach. 

Pete wants to end the filibuster, Bernie doesn't, Pete wants to decriminalize all drugs Bernie doesn't, this next bit is taken from his website but it's his plan for labor/workers;

Quote

Raise the federal minimum wage to $15 per hour and indexing to wage growth

End “right-to-work” laws, which ban union security in collective bargaining

Deliver card-check rights

Guarantee workers access to paid sick leave and paid family leave, and the predictable hours and wages they deserve

Ensure that all workers can bargain with the companies that actually control the terms of their employment

Stop employers from permanently replacing workers who strike, enhancing workers’ rights to secondary boycotts 16

Take steps to prevent union election interference 

Create safe, equitable, accessible, and fair workplaces for women and all people that are free of harassment and discrimination

Include domestic workers, who have been historically excluded from many employment laws, in common workplace rights and protections

There are more details on his website but that seems pretty progressive and supporting of the working class. Which of Pete's proposed policies do you feel will harm the working class?

Finally Obama projected a progressive image but he always had moderate policies. He campaigned to the right of Hillary on healthcare. Pete to me seems the opposite he's  a  kind of crypto progressive, he speaks with a moderate accent but his polices are very progressive. 

[Lord of Rhinos]

Killing the Shadow Commander? Yikes, we're definitely going to see some major blow back from that.

[Werthead]

7 hours ago, Kalbear said:

Typically, assassinating a senior military official is an actual act of war. 

It is entirely up to Iran as to whether or not they think it gives them enough justification to escalate seriously, or if they must do so or risk losing major political and diplomatic face. 

It also very much depends on their allies in the region. Does Russia back their play? Does China? Hell, does Iraq? 

Whatever this was, the problem with it is an incoherent doctrine. Killing a leader is not typically a way to dissuade further escalation. I dont know that there was any thought other than him being a high value target along with others and that being it. 

The calculation - to what degree there was any calculation - seems to be that Iran does not have a strong roadmap to any kind of military victory. A straight-up military attack on US interests just results in a US escalation eventually leading to the bombing of Iran back into the stone age. Russia and Iran have a loose affiliation but they're also rivals for regional dominance, so Russia won't necessarily back Iran to the hilt and has to reckon on the problems of doing so elsewhere (does the USA go even more all-in in supporting Ukraine?).

What Iran can do is massively step up its support and interference in Yemen, Iraq and Syria even more than it is at the moment, and create situations that could make further US involvement untenable. There are problems with that as well, as Saudi Arabia seems to have recently been trying to de-escalate tensions with Iran over Yemen and there's been a lot of popular protest in Iraq in opposition to Iranian influence as well. What Iran can do is push things to risk all-out civil war (again) in Iraq.

At the same time, the US doesn't really have a lot of options either. A 2003-style invasion of Iran (a much larger, much more populous, much richer and much less previously-devastated country than Iraq) would be a total bloodbath and militarily occupying and "liberating" Iran would comfortably take a million US troops, minimum, which is not happening under any circumstances. All both sides can really do is just fuck up the situation and kill a whole lot of people to no real end.

[Darryk]

The chump even posted an American flag on his Twitter account in response to the strike.

All the people who voted for Trump because "Hillary is a hawk and Trump will stop all the unnecessary wars" should be hanging their heads in shame at being so easily take in by this conman. Except they won't, they'll just find some excuse to defend daddy Trump.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

1 hour ago, Darryk said:

The chump even posted an American flag on his Twitter account in response to the strike.

All the people who voted for Trump because "Hillary is a hawk and Trump will stop all the unnecessary wars" should be hanging their heads in shame at being so easily take in by this conman. Except they won't, they'll just find some excuse to defend daddy Trump.

They will not.  They will cheer like the good lemmings they are.  

:(

[Maithanet]

I'm sure if Hillary was President, we'd already be at war with Russia and Japan by now!  Or something like that...

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

What have we done? So much for proxies.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, Maithanet said:

I'm sure if Hillary was President, we'd already be at war with Russia and Japan by now!  Or something like that...

Killary would have had the balls to invade Venezuela.  

[Fez]

I'm no Iran expert so unlike damn near everyone on twitter I'm not going to share an opinion on all this. Instead, I have a simple question:

When the hell did the phrase "blood and treasure" become an accepted part of diplomatic vernacular again? I've even seen Democrats use it. Are we fucking 18th century pirates?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

3 minutes ago, Fez said:

I'm no Iran expert so unlike damn near everyone on twitter I'm not going to share an opinion on all this. Instead, I have a simple question:

When the hell did the phrase "blood and treasure" become an accepted part of diplomatic vernacular again? I've even seen Democrats use it. Are we fucking 18th century pirates?

Are Pompeo or Trump using that phrase?

[Centrist Simon Steele]

7 hours ago, Darzin said:

I agree Bernie's not part of an evil ideology, but I don' think Pete is either. I think he's quite progressive in many ways and pragmatic in the right ones. Pete and Bernie both want to give people universal healthcare, but Pete is proposing the system which has a chance of passing and the system which is in use of much of continental Europe, not to mention the system which has a strong majority of people backing it, that to me seems a better approach. 

Pete wants to end the filibuster, Bernie doesn't, Pete wants to decriminalize all drugs Bernie doesn't, this next bit is taken from his website but it's his plan for labor/workers;

There are more details on his website but that seems pretty progressive and supporting of the working class. Which of Pete's proposed policies do you feel will harm the working class?

Finally Obama projected a progressive image but he always had moderate policies. He campaigned to the right of Hillary on healthcare. Pete to me seems the opposite he's  a  kind of crypto progressive, he speaks with a moderate accent but his polices are very progressive. 

First, Bernie's got his reasons for the filibuster, whether you agree with them or not, and him not towing the party line is actually progressive in the sense he is opposed to their views on this subject. I can't find enough good reasons for or against it, so I let that one go. But the decriminalizing drugs thing seems like you're cheating with his views. He wants to treat drug abuse, not punish it and end the war on drugs while legalizing some drugs at the federal level like marijuana. Decriminalizing drugs is problematic. The use of drugs is considered a health issue (not a legal one), but selling and distribution is still considered a felony. So, that doesn't deal with a far deeper, systemic issue of police power used disproportionately against poor people of color. My guess is Bernie's stance is more of a legalization (with massive caveats about mandatory health care/rehab), but because most people aren't there, he isn't using those words.

Some of Pete's policies sound good on paper. I'm more concerned with his record. Consider decriminalization. In Burlington, the police arrested more black people than white at a disproportionate rate. His decriminalization plan wouldn't change those practices. We'll see. Pete is young and could be changing, but I am wary. 

I will agree: Bernie can be too rigid on his views. I understand why, but some of the things he proposes wouldn't pass. More than anything, I believe Bernie views himself as someone who is changing views (not policy), if that makes sense.

As I always say, it doesn't matter who gets the nom, they get my vote. This is the time to be critical.

[Spockydog]

14 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Are Pompeo or Trump using that phrase?

 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

16 minutes ago, Spockydog said:

 

Got it.  Thanks.

[Fez]

Her tweets set me off, but she's hardly the only one using the phrase. Here's just a small sample of articles and opinion pieces from today with the phrase:

https://www.rollcall.com/news/whitehouse/iranian-quds-commanders-assassination-follow-trump-back-washington

https://thehill.com/opinion/national-security/476650-on-the-precipice-unknown-unknowns-in-the-middle-east-again

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-50974609

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2020/01/03/next-president-needs-plan-afghanistan-5-000-troops-five-years-column/2658503001/

https://thefederalist.com/2020/01/03/dont-repeat-the-last-two-decades-of-foreign-policy-idiocies-with-iran/

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, Fez said:

I'm no Iran expert so unlike damn near everyone on twitter I'm not going to share an opinion on all this. Instead, I have a simple question:

When the hell did the phrase "blood and treasure" become an accepted part of diplomatic vernacular again? I've even seen Democrats use it. Are we fucking 18th century pirates?

To be fair, there are a handful of terms and slogans we use that feel eerily like what the Nazis used. And then it gets tricky with things like MAGA because Make (country X) Great Again has been used a lot, including by Hitler.

[dog-days]

Can someone recommend me a place to live with good amenities and civil administration, that's a long way from major centres of power, and with no serious strategic significance? Just thinking where to move in case President Trump has saved the best till last, and intends to start WW3 in his final year of office. 

[Paladin of Ice]

10 minutes ago, dog-days said:

Can someone recommend me a place to live with good amenities and civil administration, that's a long way from major centres of power, and with no serious strategic significance? Just thinking where to move in case President Trump has saved the best till last, and intends to start WW3 in his final year of office. 

New Zealand?