Jump to content

US politics: calm blue waters


IheartIheartTesla
 Share

Recommended Posts

23 minutes ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

Really? No one was keeping track of the Inflation Reduction Act and its almost imminent passage in the Senate?

I barely registered it -- maybe that was the intent? Uncle Joe justified the price tag because its effect would actively reduce inflation. Seems strange to me, I'd think printing more money would only increase it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Wade1865 said:

Seems strange to me, I'd think printing more money would only increase it.

While it's true the bill will have a negligible impact on inflation, it's terribly misinformed and inaccurate to describe a bill that features ~ $300 billion in deficit reduction as "printing money."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, DMC said:

While it's true the bill will have a negligible impact on inflation, it's terribly misinformed and inaccurate to describe a bill that features ~ $300 billion in deficit reduction as "printing money."

Given the amount of money printed, I wouldn't be surprised that the additional billions would have a minimal impact. Actually, I'd be OK with Uncle Joe doubling or even tripling the price tag (again, probably with negligible effects to inflation...). After all, I don't hold cash.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Wade1865 said:

Given the amount of money printed, I wouldn't be surprised that the additional billions would have a minimal impact. Actually, I'd be OK with Uncle Joe doubling or even tripling the price tag (again, probably with negligible effects to inflation...). After all, I don't hold cash.

Point is the bill doesn't *print money*; the reason that the IRA is much smaller than the BBB is that its fully paid for. It reduces the deficit, not increase it.

As for the impact it'll actually have on inflation; likely not much. But the theory is that its energy investments will reduce energy costs and that will eventually have at least a bit of an impact reducing inflation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Fez said:

Point is the bill doesn't *print money*; the reason that the IRA is much smaller than the BBB is that its fully paid for. It reduces the deficit, not increase it.

As for the impact it'll actually have on inflation; likely not much. But the theory is that its energy investments will reduce energy costs and that will eventually have at least a bit of an impact reducing inflation.

Sounds like inflation is already built in! I'm OK with the Fed and USG using (or abusing) inlation as a tool, and I don't oppose BBB. But I doubt the true intent is to reduce inflation -- the USG needs as much of it as possible without going off the cliff. 

Uncle Joe and the Democrats may be facilitating the US decline, but they've facilitated my own success. I've got mixed feelings about it -- I can't influence the decline, but I can tap the benefit for my own self-interest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here are the seven GOP Senators that voted for the insulin cap on private insurance - it needed ten:  Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, Susan Collins of Maine, Josh Hawley of Missouri, Cindy Hyde-Smith of Mississippi, John Kennedy of Louisiana, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Dan Sullivan of Alaska.  Pretty eclectic group.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Damn, sounds like Democrats have lost Sinema on some of the taxes and they're trying to figure out how to chart a path forward. John Thune has apparently put together an extremely targeted amendment to exempt some private equity subsidiaries from the corporate minimum tax, and Sinema is currently expected to vote for it. 

I assume something will get worked out. But this yet more proof that, end of the day, she's far worse than Manchin. He's a throwback conservative Democrat, she's an unscrupulous toady for the Phoenix Chamber of Commerce.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bernie Sanders is in Colombia for the inauguration:

https://www.npr.org/2022/08/07/1116215977/ex-rebel-sworn-in-as-colombias-president-in-historic-shift

Among the many reasons people are excited about this, here's a description of the VP --

Teen Mother. Housekeeper. Activist. Vice President?
Francia Márquez could soon be Colombia’s first Black vice president, and she has cracked open a discussion about race and class in a manner rarely seen in national politics.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/06/world/americas/francia-marquez-colombia-vp.html?

An Afrocentric Fashion Boom in the Streets and Presidential Palace
The wardrobe of Francia Márquez, Colombia’s first Black vice president, is the creation of a young designer at the center of an Afro-Colombian fashion explosion.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/06/world/americas/francia-marquez-colombia-vp-style.html

Partner's going to Cali tomorrow.  (Alas, I have to postpone, due to a nasty accident last week, which was so caused by an idiot's utter self-involvement. If I'd been self-involved like that as well, I'd be dead.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Fez said:

Damn, sounds like Democrats have lost Sinema on some of the taxes and they're trying to figure out how to chart a path forward. John Thune has apparently put together an extremely targeted amendment to exempt some private equity subsidiaries from the corporate minimum tax, and Sinema is currently expected to vote for it. 

I assume something will get worked out. But this yet more proof that, end of the day, she's far worse than Manchin. He's a throwback conservative Democrat, she's an unscrupulous toady for the Phoenix Chamber of Commerce.

Paid for by extending SALT cap (which, btw, as painful as it is to me personally isn’t necessarily terrible policy).  If it is on the aggregation rule for portfolio companies, this is a GOOD amendment in terms of good tax policy and administration.  To fill in some of the missing back and forth.  The 15% Book AMT includes an aggregation rule that is based on basically aggregating trades or businesses under common control.  The BBB version included a rule that would treat a private equity fund as engaged in a “trade or business” (this is huge change in law - an investment business is NOT a trade or business as defined - goes to how deductions for losses can be used).  That would cause portfolio companies to be treated as a single entity for the book minimum tax, EVEN THOUGH THEY HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH ONE ANOTHER, AND THERE IS NO AGGREGATING FINANCIAL STATEMENT ANYWHERE.  It does not work.  It is literally unadministrable.  It basically means that congressional benefits that were passed to help businesses will be taken away from various PE owned businesses merely because they are owned by a large PE firm, not because anyhow is “profitable” somehow for book purposes but not tax, and there is no good way to figure it out/pay etc.  It also picks and chooses winners and losers in M&A in terms of who may end up with better after tax cash returns in terms of pricing based on a PE firm’s ownership and structure (and size), and that’s just dumb.  Anyhow, as originally proposed this round would NOT aggregate PE owned portfolio companies.  But, as the bill text came out last night, a version of this aggregation rule was included.  So, if it is taking away that aggregation rule, fine.  (I mean, I will make buckets of money either way, but honestly this amendment makes sense).  BTW, there are good aggregation rules they COULD have used that would actually function as anti-abuse levers here. 

BTW, the book minimum tax is horrific policy.  But, it’s political infeasible to pass either a “real” AMT, or to, you know, just repeal the particular gimmes that give rise to the book/tax differences everyone is upset with in the first place.  So, here we are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In case y’all care about the blow by blow, it looks like the Thune amendment will go through with the SALT cap extension (one year) as the pay for.  Then, Warner is expected to introduce a DIFFERENT amendment changing the pay for to extend the pass through loss limitation for two years.  That appears to be the resolution here….

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

In case y’all care about the blow by blow, it looks like the Thune amendment will go through with the SALT cap extension (one year) as the pay for.  Then, Warner is expected to introduce a DIFFERENT amendment changing the pay for to extend the pass through loss limitation for two years.  That appears to be the resolution here….

Also, with the Sinema defection other Democrats have jail-breaked for the Thune amendment as well. So far it's Ossoff, Warnock, Hasan, and Kelly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Fez said:

Also, with the Sinema defection other Democrats have jail-breaked for the Thune amendment as well. So far it's Ossoff, Warnock, Hasan, and Kelly.

TBH, it’s the correct answer.  The Section 52 aggregation amendment was going to cause all kinds of mischief.  Just because Sinema supported it doesn’t mean it is per se bad.  

And now Warner is offering his revised pay for, and that will pass, and then they will go to final vote.  At least, that’s what we are hearing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

And it’s through!

And the senate moves onto what really matters, a eulogy for Vin Scully!

But for real, exciting stuff; the climate provisions make this still a very important bill. Hopefully no fuckups with the House vote to come.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Fez said:

And the senate moves onto what really matters, a eulogy for Vin Scully!

But for real, exciting stuff; the climate provisions make this still a very important bill. Hopefully no fuckups with the House vote to come.

Scheduled for Friday.  And in the meantime, guess what I’ll be doing all week.  *Sigh*

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...