US Politics: Don't Manchin the war...

[Centrist Simon Steele]

5 hours ago, ants said:

I've already said I'm fine with what the progressives have done, and are doing. My issue was with your statement that the progressives should let it go for nothing and the Dems should cut Manchina out of the party. Which I think would be a ridiculous strategy. 

..

The one thing I do think the progressives should have done is said that they should have decided on certain programs/parts, and said, we're drawing the red-line on these. These are fully funded. Manchin won't pass more than 1.5T, fine. But then the 1.5T goes to these programs and they're done properly. And the bits which aren't are a wasteland, but at least what is done is done right. 

But at the end of the day, if one or both of Manchema are willing to tank the bill if they don't get what they want, fundamentally nobody else has any true bargaining power. 

It was posted earlier but she was (is?) underperformed a generic Democrat in AZ. So you could replace her with a generic Democrat and they'd be expected to do better.

Of course, other than as a threat to try and bring her into line, primarying her doesn't do anything to help with the current situation. 

That's what they did when they negotiated from 5.5 trillion down to 3.5 trillion. They drew lines in red. What you and other moderate minded people seem to want is for them to do this again.

[Centrist Simon Steele]

16 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

Before I fully respond, I just want to make sure we're on the same page. You do realize the solution I advocated for is likely more progressive than the one progressives will ultimately have to vote for, right? And if so, given your language, what does that make them?

This kind of logic is impossible to follow. It's like saying if the Republicans put up Neil Gorsuch for Supreme Court, and the Dems somehow got this tanked. Then they put up Brett Kavanaugh, and someone like you says, "I had a more progressive judge in mind with Gorsuch than the one you ended up voting for." 

[Centrist Simon Steele]

16 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

What I want is for both bills to pass and to have a functioning Democratic party. If you want the opposite, this thread is your friend. 

ALSO, you seem to look at the progressives as the reason the Democratic party may not be functioning, as opposed to just two single senators. 

[Mindwalker]

Do the progs really refuse to negotiate in person? I mean, both Sinema and Manchin have contradicted each other so many times that I might refuse, too... From what it looks like, they might not even have read the bill. (To be fair, Sinema is very busy with vineries, vacatioing and her donors.)

And didn't Biden literally run on most, if not all of this stuff that's now in the reconsciliation bill? How is it that some make of "Democratic leadership/ president/progressives vs. 2 senators (and most of their constituents)" something like "both sides", "Democrats divided" etc.?

And how is, even if we assume that both sides are equal, the compromise (or rather, compromise of compromise) between 1.5 and 3.5 something like

...1.9? I mean, I'm not the best of math, but still...

[Larry of the Lawn]

Would be interesting to offer Manchin and Sinema a $2T bill but fully funding all of the stuff for five years.  Basically the same thing but over a shorter period of time.  

[Mindwalker]

2.9 was a typo, sorry. I mean, I think even 2.9 is ridiculous... For 5 years sounds interesting, though.

[Centrist Simon Steele]

4 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

Would be interesting to offer Manchin and Sinema a $2T bill but fully funding all of the stuff for five years.  Basically the same thing but over a shorter period of time.  

I've heard of this idea too, and I think it's the best approach. Five years or ten years--a lot of the stuff in the bill will be difficult to take away from people once it is enacted. I think the five year approach (without cutting anything) is the best approach, but what we'll see happen, I'm certain, is that Manchin and Sinema's financial backers want a lot of stuff actually cut from the bill (carbon neutral and climate action is at risk along with lots of important additions to medicare).

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, Centrist Simon Steele said:

This kind of logic is impossible to follow. It's like saying if the Republicans put up Neil Gorsuch for Supreme Court, and the Dems somehow got this tanked. Then they put up Brett Kavanaugh, and someone like you says, "I had a more progressive judge in mind with Gorsuch than the one you ended up voting for." 

No it's not. My point has always been get something done that's progressive. Getting nothing done is in no way progressive, yet you think that's fine if it means sticking it to people you don't like.

1 hour ago, Centrist Simon Steele said:

ALSO, you seem to look at the progressives as the reason the Democratic party may not be functioning, as opposed to just two single senators. 

No, I've clearly said it's both the progressives and the moderates, or whatever you want to call them. And to be clear, I side with the progressives philosophically though I think their tactics are not wise. 

What's clear is there's a very unhappy marriage in the party right now. So in light of that we need to cool down the rhetoric. That's the best way to actually get anything done. 

[Larry of the Lawn]

1 minute ago, Centrist Simon Steele said:

I've heard of this idea too, and I think it's the best approach. Five years or ten years--a lot of the stuff in the bill will be difficult to take away from people once it is enacted. I think the five year approach (without cutting anything) is the best approach, but what we'll see happen, I'm certain, is that Manchin and Sinema's financial backers want a lot of stuff actually cut from the bill (carbon neutral and climate action is at risk along with lots of important additions to medicare).

I'm sure that a lot of things might not fit that easily into a "just cut the time in half" approach, but who knows.  

re: bolded: Yeah, I think you're right, I don't think the pricetag itself, or the timeline is really the hang up. 

[Zorral]

Holy shyte!  This is REALLY HUGE EFFIN' DEAL!

Just up on the WaPo -- "PANDORA PAPERS | A GLOBAL INVESTIGATION
BILLIONS HIDDEN BEYOND REACH
How the global elite hide their wealth in a secretive system"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/interactive/2021/pandora-papers-offshore-finance/?itid=hp-top-table-high

Quote

...The files provide substantial new evidence, for example, that South Dakota now rivals notoriously opaque jurisdictions in Europe and the Caribbean in financial secrecy. Tens of millions of dollars from outside the United States are now sheltered by trust companies in Sioux Falls, some of it tied to people and companies accused of human rights abuses and other wrongdoing....

Ya, why should Switzerland and Barbados get all the tax-evading, hidden fula?

[DMC]

5 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

Nah, if they followed my advice they would have been where they are today back in August.

Here's what we know has happened over the past two months.  First, Manchin - very oddly - draws up a document for Schumer to sign that explicitly states negotiations on the reconciliation bill should start "no earlier" than October 1.  Meanwhile, House moderates extract a promise for Pelosi to hold a vote on the BIF on September 27 - right before the surface transportation funding in the bill expires on October 1.  Then, Manchin publishes an op-ed in the WSJ advocating a "strategic pause" on reconciliation negotiations.  Finally, only on September 30 when progressives continue to hold the line on the BIF vote does Manchin distribute said document to both the public and the rest of his colleagues.

It seems quite apparent that Manchin was hoping to get the BIF passed - and thus deprive the rest of the party of their only leverage - BEFORE even starting negotiations on the reconciliation bill.  Even you said you "cynically" believed this to be the case the other day.  The notion that the progressives negotiating against themselves over the past two months would do anything but weaken their position is entirely baseless beyond self-aggrandizing magical thinking that is very much laughable.

[Mlle. Zabzie]

1 hour ago, Centrist Simon Steele said:

I've heard of this idea too, and I think it's the best approach. Five years or ten years--a lot of the stuff in the bill will be difficult to take away from people once it is enacted. I think the five year approach (without cutting anything) is the best approach, but what we'll see happen, I'm certain, is that Manchin and Sinema's financial backers want a lot of stuff actually cut from the bill (carbon neutral and climate action is at risk along with lots of important additions to medicare).

I actually don’t think this is a viable alternative through reconciliation.  They need the 10 years to come up with enough “pay fors” so that they can use the tools.  I will be the first to admit that it is funny money, but if you look at the revenue provisions, a lot of them kick in during later years/or they take into account the full impact of the provisions over a full 10 years.  Maybe it will be possible to spend over 5 and pay over 10 - not entirely sure, but the reality that this is a reconciliation process must be accounted for (notwithstanding whatever dreams everyone may have of whatever outcome - reality has a nasty way of biting everyone in the peach).

1 hour ago, Zorral said:

Holy shyte!  This is REALLY HUGE EFFIN' DEAL!

Just up on the WaPo -- "PANDORA PAPERS | A GLOBAL INVESTIGATION
BILLIONS HIDDEN BEYOND REACH
How the global elite hide their wealth in a secretive system"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/interactive/2021/pandora-papers-offshore-finance/?itid=hp-top-table-high

Ya, why should Switzerland and Barbados get all the tax-evading, hidden fula?

Honestly not sure why any of this is a surprise (other than South Dakota being more opaque than the notoriously opaque Delaware).  I mean, what do you think those luxury towers are on Central Park South? 

There are plenty of non-nefarious reasons to hold real estate through entities (e.g., property records are public, and not everyone is super comfortable with the public knowing their address - I for instance am good friends with a guy whose wife is an AUSA.  They do not own property that has her name on it.  This is not for any sort of tax dodge but because they are (rightly, given her portfolio) concerned about safety).  There are also plenty of non-nefarious reasons to use chains of holding entities (usually financing related - lenders often want a “single point of enforcement”, and it is easier to foreclose on a pledge of stock than on real estate or assets of any kind).  The problem is that KYC provisions in the US are frankly a joke. 

I don’t like a world where people’s privacy is continually hacked and violated in the service of “disclosure.”  I actually think that is bad on a number of different levels.  The better answer is to have better KYC/information and registration policies that are enforced.  This “leak” culture is, frankly, alarming to me.

[Kalbear]

11 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

There are plenty of non-nefarious reasons to hold real estate through entities (e.g., property records are public, and not everyone is super comfortable with the public knowing their address - I for instance am good friends with a guy whose wife is an AUSA.  They do not own property that has her name on it.  This is not for any sort of tax dodge but because they are (rightly, given her portfolio) concerned about safety).  

I think there's a massive difference between property you actually reside in and property you're owning for business reasons. I agree that the former should likely have more privacy protections. The latter I think should be significantly less protected. 

11 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

There are also plenty of non-nefarious reasons to use chains of holding entities (usually financing related - lenders often want a “single point of enforcement”, and it is easier to foreclose on a pledge of stock than on real estate or assets of any kind).  The problem is that KYC provisions in the US are frankly a joke. 

That does seem reasonable to me. I think it's also problematic in that it is international, so even if one country has good KYC (which as far as I can tell almost none actually do) it's very hard to enforce when you get to those boundaries. 

11 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

I don’t like a world where people’s privacy is continually hacked and violated in the service of “disclosure.”  I actually think that is bad on a number of different levels.  The better answer is to have better KYC/information and registration policies that are enforced.  This “leak” culture is, frankly, alarming to me.

That's fine, but until you get those KYC rules in place - which are heavily opposed by the rich and the people who make the laws - the hacking is really the only viable alternative. Until you have the laws that are just, you have to make your own justice. You can't just wait for the laws to get better on their own. 

[Mlle. Zabzie]

55 minutes ago, Kaligator said:

I think there's a massive difference between property you actually reside in and property you're owning for business reasons. I agree that the former should likely have more privacy protections. The latter I think should be significantly less protected. 

That does seem reasonable to me. I think it's also problematic in that it is international, so even if one country has good KYC (which as far as I can tell almost none actually do) it's very hard to enforce when you get to those boundaries. 

That's fine, but until you get those KYC rules in place - which are heavily opposed by the rich and the people who make the laws - the hacking is really the only viable alternative. Until you have the laws that are just, you have to make your own justice. You can't just wait for the laws to get better on their own. 

Actually most EU jurisdictions have rigorous KYC.  Luxembourg is a great example (whatever you may think of the use of Luxembourg as a tax haven - it sort of is, sort of isn’t).  You need to provide basically information you would provide for a full background check is my understanding (this is mainly through my clients grumbling about the level of information they are required to provide - down to their primary schools).  Even Cayman has real KYC - more rigorous, I believe, than Delaware.  Frankly between FATCA and because they needed to get off the EU blacklist, Cayman is pretty transparent these days.  Switzerland still be Switzerland (sort of, but modified) is my understanding.  And there are definitely “red flag” jurisdictions that if I saw them in diligence I would immediately want to understand it better (e.g., Isle of Man (outside of insurance), Lichtenstein, Malta, Cyprus (there are some legacy reasons to use as a holding company jurisdiction - would need to understand), etc.).  But there is definitely an “American exceptionalism” to this sort of thing.  We impose all kinds of requirements for “offshore” outbound structures that we don’t for “onshore” inbound structure.  And that is a problem.

[Zorral]

2 hours ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

).

Honestly not sure why any of this is a surprise (other than South Dakota being more opaque than the notoriously opaque Delaware).  I mean, what do you think those luxury towers are on Central Park South? 

There are plenty of non-nefarious reasons to hold real estate through entities (e.g., property records are public, and not everyone is super comfortable with the public knowing their address ...

Not real estate -- they are holding funds, hiding them from governments, including this one , tax avoidance.  South Dakota has become a tax haven state WITHIN THE USA., to deprive the US -- while the rest of us are paying taxes.

You should go back to the story again.

 

 

[Mlle. Zabzie]

2 minutes ago, Zorral said:

Not real estate -- they are holding funds, hiding them from governments, including this one , tax avoidance.  South Dakota has become a tax haven state WITHIN THE USA., to deprive the US -- while the rest of us are paying taxes.

You should go back to the story again.

 

 

I read the story.  And my point wholly stands.  The issue is that we do not impose the same amount of KYC requirements and scrutiny on inbound investment than we do for outbound.  (And trusts don’t necessarily lead to tax avoidance - but that is a different set of discussions).  You should re read my posts.

[Zorral]

The financial and legal reporters don't agree with you, according to the just-now NPR segment on it.  How in the world is advertising oneself as a safe and secret haven for hiding funds NOT about not paying taxes, and hiding from people in your country -- people who are politicians, governors etc. -- not about hiding from their vaunted transparency?

 

 

[Mlle. Zabzie]

34 minutes ago, Zorral said:

The financial and legal reporters don't agree with you, according to the just-now NPR segment on it.  How in the world is advertising oneself as a safe and secret haven for hiding funds NOT about not paying taxes, and hiding from people in your country -- people who are politicians, governors etc. -- not about hiding from their vaunted transparency?

 

 

Your response to mine literally makes no sense.  The point I was making is that our state by state legal system allows a great deal of secrecy within the US because the various states do not require more than the most minimal level of KYC.  It is an open secret that it is easy to launder money through Delaware holding companies.  South Dakota is a new-ish wrinkle (certainly not a state I see with any frequency whatsoever, but I don’t deal with trusts).  What you and others really should be pushing for is the bank reporting requirements pushed by the Biden administration, plus funding for building a workable AI to comb through the data (I don’t see how you get much more given federalism).  And no, it’s not “all about” paying taxes.  Maybe that is part of it for some of these people, but a lot of it is simply looting and hiding the loot - pure crime.  

Tax reporting is frankly abysmal.  Like most of it is truly terrible and flat out wrong.  Tax Notes does a good job (you’d like Lee Sheppard, if you can get through the first page of either fashion or soccer commentary).  Bloomberg has some decent reporters.  Most of the rest are really actively bad.  

[ants]

9 hours ago, Centrist Simon Steele said:

That's what they did when they negotiated from 5.5 trillion down to 3.5 trillion. They drew lines in red. What you and other moderate minded people seem to want is for them to do this again.

No, what I was saying is they should have negotiated that if the total figure came down, that they got more say in what the remaining figure was spent on.

But at the end of the day, if Manchema are willing to walk away with no deal, they're the ones with all the power. Insulting me by calling me a moderate when I just see reality doesn't change that stark reality. For progressives to get anything they need 50 votes. If Manchema want something they also need 50 votes. But it doesn't really seem that those two do want anything, in which case they don't need 50 votes.

Interesting that you seem to have quietly crept away from your previous stance. Was that just you trolling again? 

[Kalbear]

I'm pretty sure no one negotiated down to 3.5T. That higher number was always a random pipe dream from Sanders.