by Ugh
Two weeks from today (or maybe yesterday, depending), The Last Jedi opens, yay!
Is there anything else in the news today? Twitter seems to think so.
The tax bill is horrible.
Flynn is prepared to testify against Trump, Trump's family members, and other WH officials. Some say Trump ordered Flynn to contact, some say Kushner did. Sources close to Ivanka say she barely knows Trump or Kushner.
Anyway, open thread. Go Cardinal!
James Comey’s tweet. Bet he’s been waiting a while to be able to do that.
James Comey’s tweet. Bet he’s been waiting a while to be able to do that.
Jake, why didn’t you include the text?
“‘But let justice roll down like waters and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream,’ Amos 5:24”
Jake, why didn’t you include the text?
“‘But let justice roll down like waters and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream,’ Amos 5:24”
As someone tweeted in response “you realize this is all your fault, right?”
Also, too, “if the pee tape is real, this is the best subtweet of all time”
As someone tweeted in response “you realize this is all your fault, right?”
Also, too, “if the pee tape is real, this is the best subtweet of all time”
–wj–
I figured it was like a christmas present people could open for themselves
–wj–
I figured it was like a christmas present people could open for themselves
one of my FB friends just swore off FB until after the movie comes out because he can’t take all the speculation and possible spoilers.
he reeeeeeaallly likes SW.
one of my FB friends just swore off FB until after the movie comes out because he can’t take all the speculation and possible spoilers.
he reeeeeeaallly likes SW.
Some say Trump ordered Flynn to contact, some say Kushner did. Sources close to Ivanka say she barely knows Trump or Kushner.
This made me cackle at a time when I needed a good laugh.
Some say Trump ordered Flynn to contact, some say Kushner did. Sources close to Ivanka say she barely knows Trump or Kushner.
This made me cackle at a time when I needed a good laugh.
Ivanka’s probably safe. Personally.
Flynn would take orders from Kushner, or from Trump himself. But other than those two, neither she nor anyone else in the campaign had the standing (place in his chain of command) to tell him what to do.
Also, to get as minor a charge as he has (apparently) bargained for, he has to be providing the goods on someone at the top of the chain. Solid, verifiable, evidence to nail someone. And there just aren’t a lot of “someone”s to nail.
Ivanka’s probably safe. Personally.
Flynn would take orders from Kushner, or from Trump himself. But other than those two, neither she nor anyone else in the campaign had the standing (place in his chain of command) to tell him what to do.
Also, to get as minor a charge as he has (apparently) bargained for, he has to be providing the goods on someone at the top of the chain. Solid, verifiable, evidence to nail someone. And there just aren’t a lot of “someone”s to nail.
i must be missing something.
the “contact Russia” thing is about contacting them to do some premature, but fairly standard, diplomacy. it wasn’t about the election since the dates cited in Flynn’s charge documents were post-election.
and if Kushner or Trump asked Flynn to do that … so what?
can someone essplain it to me?
i must be missing something.
the “contact Russia” thing is about contacting them to do some premature, but fairly standard, diplomacy. it wasn’t about the election since the dates cited in Flynn’s charge documents were post-election.
and if Kushner or Trump asked Flynn to do that … so what?
can someone essplain it to me?
the “contact Russia” thing is about contacting them to do some premature, but fairly standard, diplomacy.
Seems reasonable. But raises the obvious question: If it’s routine diplomacy, why lie about it? Just say (this is to the FBI, after all, not a press conference): “Yeah, so?”, shrug, and that’s the end of it. But he didn’t.
As so often, the questions are far more interesting than the actual facts in evidence so far. Not just why did Flynn feel compelled to lie, but why has Trump been so hysterical about shutting down any investigation into why Flynn did . . . whatever he did? What did Trump and the rest of them do, that Flynn can testify to, which has their knickers in a twist?
the “contact Russia” thing is about contacting them to do some premature, but fairly standard, diplomacy.
Seems reasonable. But raises the obvious question: If it’s routine diplomacy, why lie about it? Just say (this is to the FBI, after all, not a press conference): “Yeah, so?”, shrug, and that’s the end of it. But he didn’t.
As so often, the questions are far more interesting than the actual facts in evidence so far. Not just why did Flynn feel compelled to lie, but why has Trump been so hysterical about shutting down any investigation into why Flynn did . . . whatever he did? What did Trump and the rest of them do, that Flynn can testify to, which has their knickers in a twist?
(i get that they all lied about it to the FBI and that’s a crime. but.. meh?)
(i get that they all lied about it to the FBI and that’s a crime. but.. meh?)
Not exactly meh – they knew they were committing a crime when lying to the FBI; this isn’t some inadvertent mistake. Why would they do that ?
… certainly not just for the lulz.
And Flynn got a very generous deal, one which exempts him from any other prosecution related to any of the more serious activities he might have engaged in.
It seems highly unlikely that a prosecutor of Mueller’s experience would have agreed to this without some pretty compelling evidence offered in return.
Kushner is likely next in line for some close attention.
Not exactly meh – they knew they were committing a crime when lying to the FBI; this isn’t some inadvertent mistake. Why would they do that ?
… certainly not just for the lulz.
And Flynn got a very generous deal, one which exempts him from any other prosecution related to any of the more serious activities he might have engaged in.
It seems highly unlikely that a prosecutor of Mueller’s experience would have agreed to this without some pretty compelling evidence offered in return.
Kushner is likely next in line for some close attention.
sorry, wj. that parenthetical was posted before i refreshed.
Trump et al lie about everything, for no reason. maybe it’s just another one of those things.
still, i’d hate to see the Russian interference in the election get settled – in the public’s mind – by a couple of trivial pointless lies about something that isn’t actually a huge deal in the grand scheme of things.
sorry, wj. that parenthetical was posted before i refreshed.
Trump et al lie about everything, for no reason. maybe it’s just another one of those things.
still, i’d hate to see the Russian interference in the election get settled – in the public’s mind – by a couple of trivial pointless lies about something that isn’t actually a huge deal in the grand scheme of things.
I agree with cleek. But I don’t think that he had to provide anything info in his guilty plea beyond what applied to it.
I suspect he didn’t get charged for some otheries because they didn’t want them public yet.
I agree with cleek. But I don’t think that he had to provide anything info in his guilty plea beyond what applied to it.
I suspect he didn’t get charged for some otheries because they didn’t want them public yet.
Why the hell do y’all trust Mueller? Don’t you know his history? I can remember way back when Comey was considered an honorable man.
They’re Republicans, specifically experienced establishment bureaucratic Republicans. They are smarter than you, and evil. They will do what it takes to protect the system, power, and wealth, and do it a way that is hard to attack. If that means taking down Trump, or Kushner, or whomever.
But what it probably means is that Mueller will find and charge just enough to wreck Trump’s independence, move the Wild Cards away from the White House, and move the Deep State in in time for the War.
Never ever say or think anything nice or complimentary about Republicans.
Why the hell do y’all trust Mueller? Don’t you know his history? I can remember way back when Comey was considered an honorable man.
They’re Republicans, specifically experienced establishment bureaucratic Republicans. They are smarter than you, and evil. They will do what it takes to protect the system, power, and wealth, and do it a way that is hard to attack. If that means taking down Trump, or Kushner, or whomever.
But what it probably means is that Mueller will find and charge just enough to wreck Trump’s independence, move the Wild Cards away from the White House, and move the Deep State in in time for the War.
Never ever say or think anything nice or complimentary about Republicans.
They will do what it takes to protect the system, power, and wealth, and do it a way that is hard to attack. If that means taking down Trump, or Kushner, or whomever.
this seems… unfalsifiable.
They will do what it takes to protect the system, power, and wealth, and do it a way that is hard to attack. If that means taking down Trump, or Kushner, or whomever.
this seems… unfalsifiable.
PS: The idjuts at LGM are comparing Trump to Napoleon I when a minimal amount of literacy would supply the obvious parallel with Napoleon III, including his brain-damaged foreign policy in Mexico and the humiliation of Sedan. But they don’t read Marx, or apparently history.
PS: The idjuts at LGM are comparing Trump to Napoleon I when a minimal amount of literacy would supply the obvious parallel with Napoleon III, including his brain-damaged foreign policy in Mexico and the humiliation of Sedan. But they don’t read Marx, or apparently history.
I don’t think that he had to provide anything info in his guilty plea beyond what applied to it.
I suspect he didn’t get charged for some otheries because they didn’t want them public yet.
But the stuff he was charged with (and pleaded guilty to) is stuff the everyone has known about for almost a year. Which doesn’t suggest any particular reason to have it happen now, if there is nothing more.
Three other details to consider:
– It was barely a week ago that Flynn’s attorney told Trump’s attorneys that he had to stop working with them,
– Part of the plea deal involved an explicit statement that he was cooperating,
– The deal also explicitly mentions other offenses, for which he isn’t being charged.
Taken together, that says that he has something threatening, legally threatening, to say. And is now prepared to say it, which he previously was not.
It doesn’t tell us exactly what testimony, or evidence, he is providing or about what. Hence all the speculation. But while we don’t know if it’s grass, newspapers, or buildings burning, it isn’t a huge leap from smoke to thinking something is burning.
I don’t think that he had to provide anything info in his guilty plea beyond what applied to it.
I suspect he didn’t get charged for some otheries because they didn’t want them public yet.
But the stuff he was charged with (and pleaded guilty to) is stuff the everyone has known about for almost a year. Which doesn’t suggest any particular reason to have it happen now, if there is nothing more.
Three other details to consider:
– It was barely a week ago that Flynn’s attorney told Trump’s attorneys that he had to stop working with them,
– Part of the plea deal involved an explicit statement that he was cooperating,
– The deal also explicitly mentions other offenses, for which he isn’t being charged.
Taken together, that says that he has something threatening, legally threatening, to say. And is now prepared to say it, which he previously was not.
It doesn’t tell us exactly what testimony, or evidence, he is providing or about what. Hence all the speculation. But while we don’t know if it’s grass, newspapers, or buildings burning, it isn’t a huge leap from smoke to thinking something is burning.
“it isn’t a huge leap from smoke to thinking something is burning.”
There’s always something burning in the dumpster fire.
“it isn’t a huge leap from smoke to thinking something is burning.”
There’s always something burning in the dumpster fire.
“Sources close to Ivanka say she barely knows Trump or Kushner.”
I read a lot of coverage of this and that is the money comment of the day.
Watch out, Andy Borowitz, Ugh is coming for your job.
“Sources close to Ivanka say she barely knows Trump or Kushner.”
I read a lot of coverage of this and that is the money comment of the day.
Watch out, Andy Borowitz, Ugh is coming for your job.
ugh: As someone tweeted in response “you realize this is all your fault, right?”
Actually, it’s all the fault of Sandra Day O’Connor. When she yielded to tribal loyalty and gave the White House to Dick and Dubya, she set America’s course for the 21st century.
I find bob mcmanus sometimes opaque, sometimes bonkers. But this …
… is neither of those. Comey did his Republican duty in July 2016, and the rest was inevitable. Mueller may yet redeem the last shred of pretense to honor for “principled Republicans”, but bob’s admonition is not to be dismissed lightly.
Just for curiosity, does anybody know whether Mueller plays golf? I ask because He, Trump has tipped me over the edge: I now have the same prejudice against golfers as He has against Muslims, Mexicans, and blacks — though some, I admit, may be good people.
–TP
ugh: As someone tweeted in response “you realize this is all your fault, right?”
Actually, it’s all the fault of Sandra Day O’Connor. When she yielded to tribal loyalty and gave the White House to Dick and Dubya, she set America’s course for the 21st century.
I find bob mcmanus sometimes opaque, sometimes bonkers. But this …
… is neither of those. Comey did his Republican duty in July 2016, and the rest was inevitable. Mueller may yet redeem the last shred of pretense to honor for “principled Republicans”, but bob’s admonition is not to be dismissed lightly.
Just for curiosity, does anybody know whether Mueller plays golf? I ask because He, Trump has tipped me over the edge: I now have the same prejudice against golfers as He has against Muslims, Mexicans, and blacks — though some, I admit, may be good people.
–TP
Tony, perhaps you could just take that negative view of people who play at Trump facilities. That way you avoid painting with too broad a brush.
Tony, perhaps you could just take that negative view of people who play at Trump facilities. That way you avoid painting with too broad a brush.
No, I’m with Tony – golfers are just not to be trusted.
🙂
Btw, this is rather a good article which goes some way to explaining our current politics (or at least puts it in a clear context):
https://medium.com/basic-income/the-real-story-of-automation-beginning-with-one-simple-chart-8b95f9bad71b
No, I’m with Tony – golfers are just not to be trusted.
🙂
Btw, this is rather a good article which goes some way to explaining our current politics (or at least puts it in a clear context):
https://medium.com/basic-income/the-real-story-of-automation-beginning-with-one-simple-chart-8b95f9bad71b
I’m not completely anti-golfer, but there does seem to be something wrong with people who are obsessed with “putting a small ball into a small hole with tools unsuited to the purpose”.
I’m not completely anti-golfer, but there does seem to be something wrong with people who are obsessed with “putting a small ball into a small hole with tools unsuited to the purpose”.
Nigel, the thing is, we’ve been thru this before. Weavers were extremely highly skilled workers. The folks who ran automated looms needed far less skill, and could turn out vastly more cloth. Automation destroyed jobs left and right through out 19th century.
Which probably suggests where the politics will (eventually) go: our current Gilded Age will generate the same Trust Buster politicians that the last one did. I don’t know enough about the politics of the late 1800s to know if it saw a conman set himself up as the champion of the working man, only to trash them even worse. But if it happened, I wouldn’t be surprised if it ended up badly for him.
Nigel, the thing is, we’ve been thru this before. Weavers were extremely highly skilled workers. The folks who ran automated looms needed far less skill, and could turn out vastly more cloth. Automation destroyed jobs left and right through out 19th century.
Which probably suggests where the politics will (eventually) go: our current Gilded Age will generate the same Trust Buster politicians that the last one did. I don’t know enough about the politics of the late 1800s to know if it saw a conman set himself up as the champion of the working man, only to trash them even worse. But if it happened, I wouldn’t be surprised if it ended up badly for him.
Never ever say or think anything nice or complimentary about Republicans.
I couldn’t agree more, and I liked the Napoleon III comparison…very apt.
I now have the same prejudice against golfers as He has against Muslims, Mexicans, and blacks — though some, I admit, may be good people.
As somebody who grew up with the game, and tries to play often, I can only say I understand, and let this pass.
Never ever say or think anything nice or complimentary about Republicans.
I couldn’t agree more, and I liked the Napoleon III comparison…very apt.
I now have the same prejudice against golfers as He has against Muslims, Mexicans, and blacks — though some, I admit, may be good people.
As somebody who grew up with the game, and tries to play often, I can only say I understand, and let this pass.
I’m not sure we have been through this before, wj.
The scale and rate at which well paid skilled jobs are being destroyed and replaced only by poorly paid ones is unprecedented.
One must also consider if this means that China and India will never escape the middle income trap.
The implication s for societal stability are global – and at the moment our societies are debating other issues. Brexit is a good example of looking for a solution in completely the wrong place.
I’m not sure we have been through this before, wj.
The scale and rate at which well paid skilled jobs are being destroyed and replaced only by poorly paid ones is unprecedented.
One must also consider if this means that China and India will never escape the middle income trap.
The implication s for societal stability are global – and at the moment our societies are debating other issues. Brexit is a good example of looking for a solution in completely the wrong place.
So it passed the Senate. I give the bill as is a 70% chance of being passed by the House, with 30% getting changed in reconciliation, passed by Senate, and moving to Trump’s desk. Then they will move on to Medicare and SS.
If and when Democrats regain enough power, which in itself is unlikely, it will not be completely or even mostly reversed or repealed, just as the Reagan tax cuts were not reversed, or the Bush I tax cuts were not reversed. We have two completely plutocratic parties, the “left” one wanting a more diverse and multicultural plutocracy.
Great Recession is Still With Us …Annie Lowrey in Atlantic, 12/01
“[It is] a tale of two recoveries: among families that owned homes, white households have started to rebound from the worst effects of the Great Recession while black households are still struggling to make up lost ground. The divergent recoveries are important in the immediate term, but they are also an especially ominous sign for the future.”
The Obama administration was also about channeling wealth upwards (and toward the coasts) at the expense of the bottom 60+%.
Should Dems get the trifecta, something will get passed, maybe clawing half of the Trump tax cuts back, maybe a VAT. But the rich will get richer, albeit a slightly different rich. I see not enough reason to vote to make Silicon Valley and Hollywood richer and myself poorer.
3) The Russia stuff is real simple: #notClintonsfault, #notherfault, #notDemocratsfault. They will run on pussy-grabbing, Putin, and immigration, because the Democratic Party is opposed to economic justice and redistribution, save moving money toward the black, women, LGBTQ etc UMC.
Sanders, the only man with a chance, will get accused by women in the primaries. Forget him. Gillibrand vs Harris is a little interesting, Wall Street vs Silicon Valley, but Michele O would steamroll them both.
So it passed the Senate. I give the bill as is a 70% chance of being passed by the House, with 30% getting changed in reconciliation, passed by Senate, and moving to Trump’s desk. Then they will move on to Medicare and SS.
If and when Democrats regain enough power, which in itself is unlikely, it will not be completely or even mostly reversed or repealed, just as the Reagan tax cuts were not reversed, or the Bush I tax cuts were not reversed. We have two completely plutocratic parties, the “left” one wanting a more diverse and multicultural plutocracy.
Great Recession is Still With Us …Annie Lowrey in Atlantic, 12/01
“[It is] a tale of two recoveries: among families that owned homes, white households have started to rebound from the worst effects of the Great Recession while black households are still struggling to make up lost ground. The divergent recoveries are important in the immediate term, but they are also an especially ominous sign for the future.”
The Obama administration was also about channeling wealth upwards (and toward the coasts) at the expense of the bottom 60+%.
Should Dems get the trifecta, something will get passed, maybe clawing half of the Trump tax cuts back, maybe a VAT. But the rich will get richer, albeit a slightly different rich. I see not enough reason to vote to make Silicon Valley and Hollywood richer and myself poorer.
3) The Russia stuff is real simple: #notClintonsfault, #notherfault, #notDemocratsfault. They will run on pussy-grabbing, Putin, and immigration, because the Democratic Party is opposed to economic justice and redistribution, save moving money toward the black, women, LGBTQ etc UMC.
Sanders, the only man with a chance, will get accused by women in the primaries. Forget him. Gillibrand vs Harris is a little interesting, Wall Street vs Silicon Valley, but Michele O would steamroll them both.
golf
a good walk, spoiled
golf
a good walk, spoiled
The Obama administration was also about channeling wealth upwards
the united states, as a political, legal, and institutional entity, is basically about channeling wealth upwards. not much point in singling out one administration or another on that count.
i share your opinion that Obama was entirely too friendly to the banks, but to a fairly large degree presidents are epiphenomena. a reflection, and not a driver, of a larger reality.
we have the presidents, and more broadly the government, that we ask for.
as a people, we are willing to let a lot of people suffer so that a relatively small number can become absurdly wealthy. other folks don’t put up with that. we do.
this crap is not something that has been imposed on us by force. we have chosen it.
The Obama administration was also about channeling wealth upwards
the united states, as a political, legal, and institutional entity, is basically about channeling wealth upwards. not much point in singling out one administration or another on that count.
i share your opinion that Obama was entirely too friendly to the banks, but to a fairly large degree presidents are epiphenomena. a reflection, and not a driver, of a larger reality.
we have the presidents, and more broadly the government, that we ask for.
as a people, we are willing to let a lot of people suffer so that a relatively small number can become absurdly wealthy. other folks don’t put up with that. we do.
this crap is not something that has been imposed on us by force. we have chosen it.
“this crap is not something that has been imposed on us by force. we have chosen it.”
I can’t decide if I agree with this or not. It’s a yes and no.
Look at net neutrality, the tax billl, our environmental policies, our health care system, civil rights and yes, our frequently murderous and barbaric foreign policy. There are always things to be outraged by and sometimes, like now, they come too quick and fast and all at once. The average person has no desire and little time to be a political activist and if he or she did you have to pick your issues. Energy gets spread out. And the people on the wrong side usually have very rich people pushing them in that direction.
And then there is the lesser evil choice that always confronts us. Republicans, with a few stray exceptions on particular issues, tend to be awful on everything, so a Democrat just has to be better on some to win liberal support while still raking in big donor dollars. Third party voting doesn’t work for various reasons and all you get from it are people on the left screaming at each other, one side imagining that their third party voting is doing some good somehow and the other side whitewashing the record of the Democrats and sometimes defending the indefensible.
The system depends on having politicians who are honorable even if they disagree and we have a shortage of those. I think it used to be less bad. We were never good on foreign policy. Democracy fails miserably because people in a superpower have the luxury of ignoring the people in small powerless countries if we kill them. But I think it used to work a little better on domestic issues where our own lives were affected.
“this crap is not something that has been imposed on us by force. we have chosen it.”
I can’t decide if I agree with this or not. It’s a yes and no.
Look at net neutrality, the tax billl, our environmental policies, our health care system, civil rights and yes, our frequently murderous and barbaric foreign policy. There are always things to be outraged by and sometimes, like now, they come too quick and fast and all at once. The average person has no desire and little time to be a political activist and if he or she did you have to pick your issues. Energy gets spread out. And the people on the wrong side usually have very rich people pushing them in that direction.
And then there is the lesser evil choice that always confronts us. Republicans, with a few stray exceptions on particular issues, tend to be awful on everything, so a Democrat just has to be better on some to win liberal support while still raking in big donor dollars. Third party voting doesn’t work for various reasons and all you get from it are people on the left screaming at each other, one side imagining that their third party voting is doing some good somehow and the other side whitewashing the record of the Democrats and sometimes defending the indefensible.
The system depends on having politicians who are honorable even if they disagree and we have a shortage of those. I think it used to be less bad. We were never good on foreign policy. Democracy fails miserably because people in a superpower have the luxury of ignoring the people in small powerless countries if we kill them. But I think it used to work a little better on domestic issues where our own lives were affected.
This is too long and I didn’t read ( all of) it, but it seems relevant and yes, I should question my own views.
http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/11/30/book-review-inadequate-equilibria/
This is too long and I didn’t read ( all of) it, but it seems relevant and yes, I should question my own views.
http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/11/30/book-review-inadequate-equilibria/
i think the system depends on people giving a crap.
make a basic effort to be informed. actually show up and vote. have at least a rudimentary interest in the world beyond your personal daily life.
there are always going to be greedy venal opportunistic power-seeking bastards. when nobody else really gives a crap about what happens, they win.
i think the system depends on people giving a crap.
make a basic effort to be informed. actually show up and vote. have at least a rudimentary interest in the world beyond your personal daily life.
there are always going to be greedy venal opportunistic power-seeking bastards. when nobody else really gives a crap about what happens, they win.
I still expect Kushner’s story will go something like this:
“Fluctuating collateral values hit one of the trigger conditions and the Russian banks could have called their loans. All their loans. And if that happened, the Trump Organization was bankrupt. The whole house of cards would have come tumbling down. So we talked to the Russians, to every Russian in power that we could, using every channel that we could, and the banks didn’t call the loans. All that nonsense about Clinton’s e-mails was just a cover story — it was all about the loans.
“So we’ve been running around the world, jiggering this, restructuring that. You think we took the Trump name off things just for fun? Borrowed a bit more from China, and a couple of the Saudis, and today the loans aren’t callable. None of it illegal because we were private citizens — Ivanka and I never took actual government positions. We didn’t tell the old man any of it — you’ve noticed he’s about half senile, and would have made a bigger mess of it.
“You can’t stick money laundering, or emoluments, or anything else on the old man — we didn’t tell him. Trying to put Ivanka and I in jail doesn’t do anything about your real problem — how are you going to get the Donald out of the Oval Office?”
I still expect Kushner’s story will go something like this:
“Fluctuating collateral values hit one of the trigger conditions and the Russian banks could have called their loans. All their loans. And if that happened, the Trump Organization was bankrupt. The whole house of cards would have come tumbling down. So we talked to the Russians, to every Russian in power that we could, using every channel that we could, and the banks didn’t call the loans. All that nonsense about Clinton’s e-mails was just a cover story — it was all about the loans.
“So we’ve been running around the world, jiggering this, restructuring that. You think we took the Trump name off things just for fun? Borrowed a bit more from China, and a couple of the Saudis, and today the loans aren’t callable. None of it illegal because we were private citizens — Ivanka and I never took actual government positions. We didn’t tell the old man any of it — you’ve noticed he’s about half senile, and would have made a bigger mess of it.
“You can’t stick money laundering, or emoluments, or anything else on the old man — we didn’t tell him. Trying to put Ivanka and I in jail doesn’t do anything about your real problem — how are you going to get the Donald out of the Oval Office?”
I suspect Kushner is every bit of fond of his own liberty as is Flynn.
I expect nothing quite so self sacrificing from him – though people do surprise you from time to time.
I suspect Kushner is every bit of fond of his own liberty as is Flynn.
I expect nothing quite so self sacrificing from him – though people do surprise you from time to time.
Michael Cain,
even if your take on Kushner’s defense were true, it would still be politically extremely troublig. The point is: Russian private money ain’t private. The main feature of Putin’s regime is that all Russian oligarchs àre also Putin’s made men. There are no “independent” Russian plutocrats. All Russian money ìs – ultimately – controlled by FSB or GRU. For example, Sperbank has a relationship with Putin that is almost as close as the one between Trump Organisation and the POTUS.
So, confessing you were engaging is shady business deals with Russian oligarchs means confessing cooperation with Russian intelligence.
Michael Cain,
even if your take on Kushner’s defense were true, it would still be politically extremely troublig. The point is: Russian private money ain’t private. The main feature of Putin’s regime is that all Russian oligarchs àre also Putin’s made men. There are no “independent” Russian plutocrats. All Russian money ìs – ultimately – controlled by FSB or GRU. For example, Sperbank has a relationship with Putin that is almost as close as the one between Trump Organisation and the POTUS.
So, confessing you were engaging is shady business deals with Russian oligarchs means confessing cooperation with Russian intelligence.
Lots of people can give a crap,but be misled. They can show up and vote and only have lousy choices. They can think they are informed and not be. I think the elites in America have become steadily and gradually more venal and we have been subjected to about 40 years of “ the market does everything right” propaganda and it has its effect. I remember the beginnings of this, when Milton Friedman had an entire series on PBS before Reagan. And then we have had decades of constant drumbeat about the deficit with the subtext that we had to bring entitlement programs under control and nearly every Serious Person echoing it. The elites in politics, business and the media bear the brunt of the blame for the situation where our choices are between the freakish Dickensian caricature the Republicans represent and the “ you have to vote for us “ lesser evil of the Democrats.
Propaganda works. I think it works on all of us, especially if we think we are immune to it.
Lots of people can give a crap,but be misled. They can show up and vote and only have lousy choices. They can think they are informed and not be. I think the elites in America have become steadily and gradually more venal and we have been subjected to about 40 years of “ the market does everything right” propaganda and it has its effect. I remember the beginnings of this, when Milton Friedman had an entire series on PBS before Reagan. And then we have had decades of constant drumbeat about the deficit with the subtext that we had to bring entitlement programs under control and nearly every Serious Person echoing it. The elites in politics, business and the media bear the brunt of the blame for the situation where our choices are between the freakish Dickensian caricature the Republicans represent and the “ you have to vote for us “ lesser evil of the Democrats.
Propaganda works. I think it works on all of us, especially if we think we are immune to it.
Kushner has enough experience with Trump’s loyalty and support for others (nonexistent) that he is unlikely to volunteer to fall under the bus like that, Michael.
Look for his flipping to be limited only by the evidence he can actually manage to produce. Which may be a serious constraint for him, but that doesn’t mean he won’t do everything he can to save his own skin.
At this point, I’d say the likeliest straw for Trump to grasp is a nice war. If we’re lucky, he picks Iran. Not because it won’t be a disaster. But just because, if he attacks North Korea, we’re looking at some nukes landing here. Few enough to be survivable, probably, but enough to do enormous damage.
Kushner has enough experience with Trump’s loyalty and support for others (nonexistent) that he is unlikely to volunteer to fall under the bus like that, Michael.
Look for his flipping to be limited only by the evidence he can actually manage to produce. Which may be a serious constraint for him, but that doesn’t mean he won’t do everything he can to save his own skin.
At this point, I’d say the likeliest straw for Trump to grasp is a nice war. If we’re lucky, he picks Iran. Not because it won’t be a disaster. But just because, if he attacks North Korea, we’re looking at some nukes landing here. Few enough to be survivable, probably, but enough to do enormous damage.
I suspect Kushner did not lie to the FBI, which may have been a problem for Flynn. Which leaves the prosecutor a more difficult case.
I suspect Kushner did not lie to the FBI, which may have been a problem for Flynn. Which leaves the prosecutor a more difficult case.
More difficult only in that it removes a potential low-penalty charge to use in a deal. After all, in a plea deal, you have to plead guilty to something.
More difficult only in that it removes a potential low-penalty charge to use in a deal. After all, in a plea deal, you have to plead guilty to something.
Meanwhile, on another topic, anyone have speculation on whether the House tries to do reconciliation with the Senate tax bill? Or just passes what the Senate did, in order to guarantee that they have a win to celebrate?
Meanwhile, on another topic, anyone have speculation on whether the House tries to do reconciliation with the Senate tax bill? Or just passes what the Senate did, in order to guarantee that they have a win to celebrate?
More difficult in that it isn’t clear he broke a law…….
More difficult in that it isn’t clear he broke a law…….
we have been subjected to about 40 years of “ the market does everything right” propaganda and it has its effect
See also the first paragraph of my 5:19.
Voter turnout, even for presidential elections, hovers around 60%. Voter turnout in the 2014 mid-term was around 36%. Barely above one third of eligible voters even showed up.
IMO we’re at an inflection point. Things could go really, really wrong. Or, they could get better.
If people don’t take responsibility for their own governance, and the basic ground conditions of their own public lives, then things won’t get better.
It’s true that lots of folks consider themselves to be well informed. Lots of those folks get their “well informed” status from Facebook, or Breitbart, or similar. Those folks aren’t well informed. If their participating in public life based on what is, frankly, propagandistic bullshit, things will not get better.
So, we’ll see what happens.
What I will say is that the United States is a fairly consequential actor. If things go really badly here, it’s going to make a really big mess.
As far as Kushner, Trump, et al, any damned thing is possible. Everybody might skate, or everybody might either go to jail or be tossed out of office.
Nobody knows what Mueller knows except Mueller and a pretty close-knit set of colleagues.
Trump is a crook, has been a crook, ditto Kushner. If the investigation gets into money laundering and other business malfeasance, there is plenty to find. If it gets into emoluments-clause-ish acts of self-dealing and plain old abuse of office, there’s plenty to find.
It all depends on what Mueller wants to go after, and on how careful the principals have been about not stepping over any really egregious bright lines.
I have no idea how it will come out. However it comes out, the approximately 1/3 of the nation who love Trump will be utterly unchanged in their opinion of him.
we have been subjected to about 40 years of “ the market does everything right” propaganda and it has its effect
See also the first paragraph of my 5:19.
Voter turnout, even for presidential elections, hovers around 60%. Voter turnout in the 2014 mid-term was around 36%. Barely above one third of eligible voters even showed up.
IMO we’re at an inflection point. Things could go really, really wrong. Or, they could get better.
If people don’t take responsibility for their own governance, and the basic ground conditions of their own public lives, then things won’t get better.
It’s true that lots of folks consider themselves to be well informed. Lots of those folks get their “well informed” status from Facebook, or Breitbart, or similar. Those folks aren’t well informed. If their participating in public life based on what is, frankly, propagandistic bullshit, things will not get better.
So, we’ll see what happens.
What I will say is that the United States is a fairly consequential actor. If things go really badly here, it’s going to make a really big mess.
As far as Kushner, Trump, et al, any damned thing is possible. Everybody might skate, or everybody might either go to jail or be tossed out of office.
Nobody knows what Mueller knows except Mueller and a pretty close-knit set of colleagues.
Trump is a crook, has been a crook, ditto Kushner. If the investigation gets into money laundering and other business malfeasance, there is plenty to find. If it gets into emoluments-clause-ish acts of self-dealing and plain old abuse of office, there’s plenty to find.
It all depends on what Mueller wants to go after, and on how careful the principals have been about not stepping over any really egregious bright lines.
I have no idea how it will come out. However it comes out, the approximately 1/3 of the nation who love Trump will be utterly unchanged in their opinion of him.
I am less concerned about North Korean nuclear missiles hitting the US. Until now they have not managed to have re-entry without breaking apart and I assume that their nukes are not yet minituarized enough to fit on the missiles they have. That will still take some time.
That does not mean a war with North Korea would not be a disaster of epic proportions with likely hundreds of thousands dead on the first day (when the North fires everything available on Seoul in one go maybe including a nuke on a short range vehicle). And putting a nuke into a shipping container and blowing it off near a harbour of choice is of course a possibility too.
We better hope that Trump has big assets in Korea and Japan, so he is disincentivized from going that way.
I am less concerned about North Korean nuclear missiles hitting the US. Until now they have not managed to have re-entry without breaking apart and I assume that their nukes are not yet minituarized enough to fit on the missiles they have. That will still take some time.
That does not mean a war with North Korea would not be a disaster of epic proportions with likely hundreds of thousands dead on the first day (when the North fires everything available on Seoul in one go maybe including a nuke on a short range vehicle). And putting a nuke into a shipping container and blowing it off near a harbour of choice is of course a possibility too.
We better hope that Trump has big assets in Korea and Japan, so he is disincentivized from going that way.
I should have also said that I expect that to be Kushner’s story because I think it’s likely to be true. Certainly as likely as a bunch of political dilettantes deciding to play espionage games with the Russians without getting a competent legal opinion first.
I spent years in the cable and telecom business, and people who have built themselves into an arrangement where a single loan getting called will bring the whole billion-dollar empire down do weird stuff.
And it is, unfortunately, a more and more common thing. In 2007, the biggest banks in the world had put themselves in the situation of owing so much to each other, and no one knew which collateral was good and which wasn’t, that the whole finance industry was on the verge of at least locking up and perhaps crashing down. The various QEs were the Fed replacing what might (or might not) have been valueless paper with cash to avoid that.
I should have also said that I expect that to be Kushner’s story because I think it’s likely to be true. Certainly as likely as a bunch of political dilettantes deciding to play espionage games with the Russians without getting a competent legal opinion first.
I spent years in the cable and telecom business, and people who have built themselves into an arrangement where a single loan getting called will bring the whole billion-dollar empire down do weird stuff.
And it is, unfortunately, a more and more common thing. In 2007, the biggest banks in the world had put themselves in the situation of owing so much to each other, and no one knew which collateral was good and which wasn’t, that the whole finance industry was on the verge of at least locking up and perhaps crashing down. The various QEs were the Fed replacing what might (or might not) have been valueless paper with cash to avoid that.
I am less concerned about North Korean nuclear missiles hitting the US.
Here is my opinion about NK.
They have little to no interest in attacking the US or anyone else. They, or at least Kim, are *extremely* interested in not being invaded or being subject to forcible regime change.
They can now claim to hold a gun to the head of the party most likely to attempt regime change.
It sort of doesn’t matter if their stuff works perfectly, or even really well. It just has to appear to work well enough that we can’t say for sure that it doesn’t.
Goal achieved.
Also my opinion: the most logical next step for us is to accept them as a likely nuclear power, stand down from threats of invading or trying to overthrow Kim, and begin talking to them about how to rejoin the community of nations.
With all of the responsibilities that that incurs.
Life surely sucks in NK, and Kim is surely a tyrant. There’s only so much we’re going to be able to do about that, and even less that we’re going to be able to by force or threat of force.
I am less concerned about North Korean nuclear missiles hitting the US.
Here is my opinion about NK.
They have little to no interest in attacking the US or anyone else. They, or at least Kim, are *extremely* interested in not being invaded or being subject to forcible regime change.
They can now claim to hold a gun to the head of the party most likely to attempt regime change.
It sort of doesn’t matter if their stuff works perfectly, or even really well. It just has to appear to work well enough that we can’t say for sure that it doesn’t.
Goal achieved.
Also my opinion: the most logical next step for us is to accept them as a likely nuclear power, stand down from threats of invading or trying to overthrow Kim, and begin talking to them about how to rejoin the community of nations.
With all of the responsibilities that that incurs.
Life surely sucks in NK, and Kim is surely a tyrant. There’s only so much we’re going to be able to do about that, and even less that we’re going to be able to by force or threat of force.
I would put much of the blame for low turnout on elites as well. Poor people often don’t vote because it is hard ( here one could get into what Republicans have been up to) or because they see no reason to.
However, I think I have had my say on this and will shut up or switch to different topics later.
I would put much of the blame for low turnout on elites as well. Poor people often don’t vote because it is hard ( here one could get into what Republicans have been up to) or because they see no reason to.
However, I think I have had my say on this and will shut up or switch to different topics later.
The various QEs were the Fed replacing what might (or might not) have been valueless paper with cash to avoid that.
For “the Fed”, read “us”. Directly, or otherwise.
I would put much of the blame for low turnout on elites as well.
I don’t disagree with this. I don’t actually disagree with any of the points you are making here.
The only point I’m making is that “the elites” aren’t likely to fix things, either. Not on their own initiative, anyway. We’re going to have to make them.
The various QEs were the Fed replacing what might (or might not) have been valueless paper with cash to avoid that.
For “the Fed”, read “us”. Directly, or otherwise.
I would put much of the blame for low turnout on elites as well.
I don’t disagree with this. I don’t actually disagree with any of the points you are making here.
The only point I’m making is that “the elites” aren’t likely to fix things, either. Not on their own initiative, anyway. We’re going to have to make them.
I guess I’d also like to point out that Michael Cain’s hypothetical Kushner defense is not at all unlikely. And, he may not have broken any law, or violated any governmental standard of ethics.
His hands, Trump’s hands, may be completely clean, at least as regards legal liability.
All of that could be so, and it would nonetheless be utterly corrupt. Because the financial entanglements of the POTUS and his family will have made them vulnerable to manipulation by foreign actors. Not only vulnerable, but in actual fact manipulated.
That is why we have the standard practice of folks holding the office of POTUS setting up a stout wall between their personal finances and the responsibilities of their office.
None of this registers in any way with Trump personally or with his family members. Other than as an annoying but legally non-binding request, agreed to while he was running for office and then promptly and thoroughly ignored thereafter.
Trump is a corrupt, venal, lying SOB. Whether he stays or goes, that is who he is and has always been.
It will be good for us to not forget that, whatever the outcome of Mueller’s investigations.
I guess I’d also like to point out that Michael Cain’s hypothetical Kushner defense is not at all unlikely. And, he may not have broken any law, or violated any governmental standard of ethics.
His hands, Trump’s hands, may be completely clean, at least as regards legal liability.
All of that could be so, and it would nonetheless be utterly corrupt. Because the financial entanglements of the POTUS and his family will have made them vulnerable to manipulation by foreign actors. Not only vulnerable, but in actual fact manipulated.
That is why we have the standard practice of folks holding the office of POTUS setting up a stout wall between their personal finances and the responsibilities of their office.
None of this registers in any way with Trump personally or with his family members. Other than as an annoying but legally non-binding request, agreed to while he was running for office and then promptly and thoroughly ignored thereafter.
Trump is a corrupt, venal, lying SOB. Whether he stays or goes, that is who he is and has always been.
It will be good for us to not forget that, whatever the outcome of Mueller’s investigations.
russell, I think you are right about the NK regime but I believe that in case they get attacked (or believe such an attack to be imminent) they will try to exit with as much destruction as they can manage. Their top goal is survival but if that is not an option it will be ‘I’ll take you with me’.
And Trump is one who could persuade NK to believe that the latter is the case (and is one who would care about the lives of South Koreans only insofar as it could hurt himself). Earlier presidents were ‘wise’ enough to ignore the bluster of certain leaders because they know it was for domestic consumption. Trump lacks that wisdom and is thinskinned, just the guy to get into a bluster arms race with such an opponent and being the first to go from angry words to deeds.
russell, I think you are right about the NK regime but I believe that in case they get attacked (or believe such an attack to be imminent) they will try to exit with as much destruction as they can manage. Their top goal is survival but if that is not an option it will be ‘I’ll take you with me’.
And Trump is one who could persuade NK to believe that the latter is the case (and is one who would care about the lives of South Koreans only insofar as it could hurt himself). Earlier presidents were ‘wise’ enough to ignore the bluster of certain leaders because they know it was for domestic consumption. Trump lacks that wisdom and is thinskinned, just the guy to get into a bluster arms race with such an opponent and being the first to go from angry words to deeds.
And, he may not have broken any law, or violated any governmental standard of ethics.
He lied on federal forms when applying for a security clearance, forms that informed him of the crime as he was doing it.
His hands, Trump’s hands, may be completely clean, at least as regards legal liability.
Not plausible. He just tweeted a confession to obstruction of justice. I’m sure there’s more. Not sure what smoking gun people are waiting for, although it’s fun to watch people being indicted.
You’re right, though, that the Republicans don’t care. They’re mobsters too, and are happy as long as they get their money.
And, he may not have broken any law, or violated any governmental standard of ethics.
He lied on federal forms when applying for a security clearance, forms that informed him of the crime as he was doing it.
His hands, Trump’s hands, may be completely clean, at least as regards legal liability.
Not plausible. He just tweeted a confession to obstruction of justice. I’m sure there’s more. Not sure what smoking gun people are waiting for, although it’s fun to watch people being indicted.
You’re right, though, that the Republicans don’t care. They’re mobsters too, and are happy as long as they get their money.
Until now they have not managed to have re-entry without breaking apart and I assume that their nukes are not yet minituarized enough to fit on the missiles they have.
From what I’ve read, they do have warheads that will fit on the missiles that they have.
Until now they have not managed to have re-entry without breaking apart and I assume that their nukes are not yet minituarized enough to fit on the missiles they have.
From what I’ve read, they do have warheads that will fit on the missiles that they have.
they will try to exit with as much destruction as they can manage
Yes. That is how this particular game is played.
Trump is one who could persuade NK to believe that the latter is the case
Yes. Trump appears to see all human interactions as pissing matches with him as the necessary victor. And, he does not appear to recognize an inch of daylight between himself, personally, and his office. L’etat, c’est moi, at least as far as he can get away with it.
So, yes.
they will try to exit with as much destruction as they can manage
Yes. That is how this particular game is played.
Trump is one who could persuade NK to believe that the latter is the case
Yes. Trump appears to see all human interactions as pissing matches with him as the necessary victor. And, he does not appear to recognize an inch of daylight between himself, personally, and his office. L’etat, c’est moi, at least as far as he can get away with it.
So, yes.
Here is my opinion about NK.
They have little to no interest in attacking the US or anyone else. They, or at least Kim, are *extremely* interested in not being invaded or being subject to forcible regime change.
Russell, I agree, Kim has not the least desire to attack us. But if Trump attacks them, that’s an entirely different deal.
Here is my opinion about NK.
They have little to no interest in attacking the US or anyone else. They, or at least Kim, are *extremely* interested in not being invaded or being subject to forcible regime change.
Russell, I agree, Kim has not the least desire to attack us. But if Trump attacks them, that’s an entirely different deal.
Yes, obviously. And in that case a lot of people will die, and depending on what NK’s actual capabilities are, nations (including ours) could be thrown into utter chaos and calamity.
Certainly South Korea will be more or less toast. Seoul, certainly. Maybe Japan, at least some cities in Japan.
If there’s an upside, I’m not seeing it.
So, yes. Let’s hope he doesn’t go there.
Yes, obviously. And in that case a lot of people will die, and depending on what NK’s actual capabilities are, nations (including ours) could be thrown into utter chaos and calamity.
Certainly South Korea will be more or less toast. Seoul, certainly. Maybe Japan, at least some cities in Japan.
If there’s an upside, I’m not seeing it.
So, yes. Let’s hope he doesn’t go there.
He lied on federal forms when applying for a security clearance, forms that informed him of the crime as he was doing it.
Then I hope Mueller squeezes him until he pops.
He lied on federal forms when applying for a security clearance, forms that informed him of the crime as he was doing it.
Then I hope Mueller squeezes him until he pops.
“More difficult in that it isn’t clear he broke a law…….”
Well, as conservative principles spread throughout government at all levels and the view that we have too many laws and rules and regulations, except those laws that enable arms-carrying republican gummints to harass and intimidate anyone deemed the OTHER, and that those laws should be radically pared, pruned …. why take half-measures …. eradicated root and branch at all costs, the sociopaths running the show, personified by the rump family and their enabling coterie of republican and corporate Tommy Devitos, Rasputins, Iagos, Bill Sikeses, Lady Macbeths, Gollums, Nurse Ratcheds, Annie Wilkeses, Hans Grubers, Adam Goeths, Ernst Blofelds, Keyser Sozes, Begbies, and Sexy Beasts, by simple legal alchemy, become ever more innocent by the minute, by the day.
No Rule of Law. The Law of Rule.
It’s no accident that we are observing conservative criminals released from prison and immediately viewing elective office at the highest levels as the halfway house where instead of peeing into a cup they can shit on the American people.
The Republican Party will kill more human beings than North Korea and ISIS combined, but the murders will be more aesthetically pleasing and gradual, like death by lead paint poisoning, (if the leader of North Korea launches nuclear warheads while suffering from a brain tumor, he inspires no sympathy, nor should he, but if a republican with a brain tumor and top of the line taxpayer medical insurance murders the poor suffering from brain tumors via so-called tax legislation, his obituary will cite his noble use of the word “welfare”) even to those in the process of being murdered.
I am not in any way defending Democrats or even the complicated Rubik’s Cube of Obamacare here.
Haplessness will be punished later.
Once the lowest burning rungs of Hell on Earth are chock full of the truly Evil, we can assign the cheap seats in the other rungs in good time.
“More difficult in that it isn’t clear he broke a law…….”
Well, as conservative principles spread throughout government at all levels and the view that we have too many laws and rules and regulations, except those laws that enable arms-carrying republican gummints to harass and intimidate anyone deemed the OTHER, and that those laws should be radically pared, pruned …. why take half-measures …. eradicated root and branch at all costs, the sociopaths running the show, personified by the rump family and their enabling coterie of republican and corporate Tommy Devitos, Rasputins, Iagos, Bill Sikeses, Lady Macbeths, Gollums, Nurse Ratcheds, Annie Wilkeses, Hans Grubers, Adam Goeths, Ernst Blofelds, Keyser Sozes, Begbies, and Sexy Beasts, by simple legal alchemy, become ever more innocent by the minute, by the day.
No Rule of Law. The Law of Rule.
It’s no accident that we are observing conservative criminals released from prison and immediately viewing elective office at the highest levels as the halfway house where instead of peeing into a cup they can shit on the American people.
The Republican Party will kill more human beings than North Korea and ISIS combined, but the murders will be more aesthetically pleasing and gradual, like death by lead paint poisoning, (if the leader of North Korea launches nuclear warheads while suffering from a brain tumor, he inspires no sympathy, nor should he, but if a republican with a brain tumor and top of the line taxpayer medical insurance murders the poor suffering from brain tumors via so-called tax legislation, his obituary will cite his noble use of the word “welfare”) even to those in the process of being murdered.
I am not in any way defending Democrats or even the complicated Rubik’s Cube of Obamacare here.
Haplessness will be punished later.
Once the lowest burning rungs of Hell on Earth are chock full of the truly Evil, we can assign the cheap seats in the other rungs in good time.
Both Nigel’s and Donald’s links are important reads.
Thought-provoking, which is unfortunate because MY thoughts are now provoked.
Both Nigel’s and Donald’s links are important reads.
Thought-provoking, which is unfortunate because MY thoughts are now provoked.
http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a14000041/cia-private-armies/
If a North Korean nuke could reach the town of Whitefish Montana, I’m having more trouble than I rightly should seeing the downside.
OK, Glacier National Park would be impacted. But more than republican bugs are impacting it?
Maybe the grizzlies in the area would undergo genetic mutations and lope, glowing and zombie-like, down the streets of Whitefish, dragging republicans out of their beds at night, and making a meal of them.
Either way, the glaciers will melt, so that’s a toss-up.
Tree-hugger that I am, I demand an environmental impact statement to weigh the relative impacts of both catastrophes.
http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a14000041/cia-private-armies/
If a North Korean nuke could reach the town of Whitefish Montana, I’m having more trouble than I rightly should seeing the downside.
OK, Glacier National Park would be impacted. But more than republican bugs are impacting it?
Maybe the grizzlies in the area would undergo genetic mutations and lope, glowing and zombie-like, down the streets of Whitefish, dragging republicans out of their beds at night, and making a meal of them.
Either way, the glaciers will melt, so that’s a toss-up.
Tree-hugger that I am, I demand an environmental impact statement to weigh the relative impacts of both catastrophes.
More on automation:
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/automation-could-impact-375-million-jobs-by-2030-new-study-suggests-2017-11-29?siteid=bigcharts&dist=bigcharts
More on automation:
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/automation-could-impact-375-million-jobs-by-2030-new-study-suggests-2017-11-29?siteid=bigcharts&dist=bigcharts
I don’t golf much anymore. Russell pretty much summed up my attitude regarding that game up thread.
But if I did, I would automate my putting game. Hit a drive or two, chip the little ball on to the green, and then loose my robot, ironically referred to as Yip, from the golf cart to finish with one in to alleviate my aggravation with that part of the game.
However, even with flawless automated putting, I would retain the part of my game wherein I fling the expensive putter, once the robot is done with it, twirling over a stand a trees into a body of water on the other side and then stalk off in the direction of the drink caddy.
The most fun I ever experienced golfing was with some dozen baseball teammates years ago and one of my fellow outfielders shanked a drive that took three quick bounces and dropped dead about 30 feet into the weeds near the tee and he, all in one movement from his follow-through, spun around three times and hammer-threw, like a Scotsman, his driver high into the air and it sailed over a fence about a hundred feet farther away than his ball traveled and landed with a splash in a kids backyard free-standing swimming pool, somehow missing the two little kids IN the pool at that moment, and one of the kids got out of the pool and carried the wicked implement into his house, probably to show his mother, whose reaction we didn’t stick around to witness.
We skipped the rest of that hole and skedaddled to the next tee, and when it came time for the guilty party to borrow a driver from one or the other of his fellows, I was prepared and drew my Hillerich Bradsby baseball bat, since shattered by a fastball in on the hands, out of my golf bag, which I was carrying in case my game deteriorated to a certain level and handed it to him, which he then used for the rest of the day, tossing the golf ball in the air and knocking it straight and true the center of the fairway.
I used it to putt the last couple of holes.
I don’t golf much anymore. Russell pretty much summed up my attitude regarding that game up thread.
But if I did, I would automate my putting game. Hit a drive or two, chip the little ball on to the green, and then loose my robot, ironically referred to as Yip, from the golf cart to finish with one in to alleviate my aggravation with that part of the game.
However, even with flawless automated putting, I would retain the part of my game wherein I fling the expensive putter, once the robot is done with it, twirling over a stand a trees into a body of water on the other side and then stalk off in the direction of the drink caddy.
The most fun I ever experienced golfing was with some dozen baseball teammates years ago and one of my fellow outfielders shanked a drive that took three quick bounces and dropped dead about 30 feet into the weeds near the tee and he, all in one movement from his follow-through, spun around three times and hammer-threw, like a Scotsman, his driver high into the air and it sailed over a fence about a hundred feet farther away than his ball traveled and landed with a splash in a kids backyard free-standing swimming pool, somehow missing the two little kids IN the pool at that moment, and one of the kids got out of the pool and carried the wicked implement into his house, probably to show his mother, whose reaction we didn’t stick around to witness.
We skipped the rest of that hole and skedaddled to the next tee, and when it came time for the guilty party to borrow a driver from one or the other of his fellows, I was prepared and drew my Hillerich Bradsby baseball bat, since shattered by a fastball in on the hands, out of my golf bag, which I was carrying in case my game deteriorated to a certain level and handed it to him, which he then used for the rest of the day, tossing the golf ball in the air and knocking it straight and true the center of the fairway.
I used it to putt the last couple of holes.
In short:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMM_LNcNV-E
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUZ_rGMygL0
In short:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMM_LNcNV-E
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUZ_rGMygL0
Forbes hates America.
Forbes hates America.
Forbes ? Notorious bunch of lefties.
The estimable Dahlia Lithwick has some cheery thoughts, too…
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2017/12/is_it_too_late_for_robert_mueller_to_save_us.html
Forbes ? Notorious bunch of lefties.
The estimable Dahlia Lithwick has some cheery thoughts, too…
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2017/12/is_it_too_late_for_robert_mueller_to_save_us.html
The estimable Dahlia Lithwick has some cheery thoughts, too
I love Dahlia Lithwick, and follow her every article. This time, no. We need to keep up our spirits, and have a plan. Dahlia is a Canadian, not that there’s anything wrong with that, but she can’t vote here. All of us who can need to figure out a strategy. No naysayers or purity ponies on this bus either.
The estimable Dahlia Lithwick has some cheery thoughts, too
I love Dahlia Lithwick, and follow her every article. This time, no. We need to keep up our spirits, and have a plan. Dahlia is a Canadian, not that there’s anything wrong with that, but she can’t vote here. All of us who can need to figure out a strategy. No naysayers or purity ponies on this bus either.
…and drew my Hillerich Bradsby baseball bat… out of my golf bag, which I was carrying in case my game deteriorated to a certain level…
Lee Trevino used to tell the story of playing with a tape-wrapped Dr. Pepper bottle for money. I always loved his answer to the question about the pressure of leading the US Open: “If I win I get $100K; if I lose I get $50K; real pressure is playing for $20 against a guy who has people’s knees broken for bad debts, and you’ve got $10 in your pocket.”
When I was young, the starter at the local course let me play in ratty clothes and beat-up gear on Wednesday afternoons with the doctors and dentists because I was unfailingly polite to them. Hustling golf — an ongoing small con — kept me in beer money for a couple of summers when I was in college.
Generally, I’m inclined to the Oldest Member in Wodehouse’s golf stories, who says that everything you need to know about a person’s character is revealed when you play golf with them.
…and drew my Hillerich Bradsby baseball bat… out of my golf bag, which I was carrying in case my game deteriorated to a certain level…
Lee Trevino used to tell the story of playing with a tape-wrapped Dr. Pepper bottle for money. I always loved his answer to the question about the pressure of leading the US Open: “If I win I get $100K; if I lose I get $50K; real pressure is playing for $20 against a guy who has people’s knees broken for bad debts, and you’ve got $10 in your pocket.”
When I was young, the starter at the local course let me play in ratty clothes and beat-up gear on Wednesday afternoons with the doctors and dentists because I was unfailingly polite to them. Hustling golf — an ongoing small con — kept me in beer money for a couple of summers when I was in college.
Generally, I’m inclined to the Oldest Member in Wodehouse’s golf stories, who says that everything you need to know about a person’s character is revealed when you play golf with them.
Generally, I’m inclined to the Oldest Member in Wodehouse’s golf stories, who says that everything you need to know about a person’s character is revealed when you play golf with them.
Golf seems like a lovely sport. I played only once with some very close friends on an empty golf course. I’m already old, but it seems like even now it’s something I could get into if I had time.
The trouble is, time. Which is one of many reasons why it’s a wealthy person’s sport. Not that I resent wealthy people – I’ve made it very clear that I don’t! But do I want to spend my late years meeting wealthy, predominantly white people? No, I’ll exercise quickly, and if my free time involves meeting people, I’m going to try to step outside. Hard to find a plan to do that, but golf probably isn’t it.
Generally, I’m inclined to the Oldest Member in Wodehouse’s golf stories, who says that everything you need to know about a person’s character is revealed when you play golf with them.
Golf seems like a lovely sport. I played only once with some very close friends on an empty golf course. I’m already old, but it seems like even now it’s something I could get into if I had time.
The trouble is, time. Which is one of many reasons why it’s a wealthy person’s sport. Not that I resent wealthy people – I’ve made it very clear that I don’t! But do I want to spend my late years meeting wealthy, predominantly white people? No, I’ll exercise quickly, and if my free time involves meeting people, I’m going to try to step outside. Hard to find a plan to do that, but golf probably isn’t it.
But do I want to spend my late years meeting wealthy, predominantly white people?
Public courses in urban areas, or in small towns. Stay the hell away from the spiffy courses in the suburbs. Get there around 8:30, 7:30 in late June or early July, tell the people in charge that you’re a single and will be happy to play with anyone. Occasionally you’ll get stuck with assholes, but not for the most part. Being the fourth with a group of three grandmothers was almost always fun. In my experience, they were the epitome of “there are more important things than winning or losing”.
I gave up the sport because I couldn’t deal with an aging body that simply couldn’t do the job. Interestingly, I wasn’t ever so… engaged with fencing, and am perfectly happy to go out and do that badly.
But do I want to spend my late years meeting wealthy, predominantly white people?
Public courses in urban areas, or in small towns. Stay the hell away from the spiffy courses in the suburbs. Get there around 8:30, 7:30 in late June or early July, tell the people in charge that you’re a single and will be happy to play with anyone. Occasionally you’ll get stuck with assholes, but not for the most part. Being the fourth with a group of three grandmothers was almost always fun. In my experience, they were the epitome of “there are more important things than winning or losing”.
I gave up the sport because I couldn’t deal with an aging body that simply couldn’t do the job. Interestingly, I wasn’t ever so… engaged with fencing, and am perfectly happy to go out and do that badly.
Interestingly, I wasn’t ever so… engaged with fencing, and am perfectly happy to go out and do that badly
That’s so funny, Michael Cain! I would have thought that fencing is way more exhausting. I row (in a single) for an hour during the warmer months (there are about 7 of those months where I live). That seems like plenty of exercise until various classes in the off months.
Many of my dear friends play golf, and what you’re saying makes a great deal of sense. Maybe in my next life. I don’t hate golfers because I love too many of them.
Interestingly, I wasn’t ever so… engaged with fencing, and am perfectly happy to go out and do that badly
That’s so funny, Michael Cain! I would have thought that fencing is way more exhausting. I row (in a single) for an hour during the warmer months (there are about 7 of those months where I live). That seems like plenty of exercise until various classes in the off months.
Many of my dear friends play golf, and what you’re saying makes a great deal of sense. Maybe in my next life. I don’t hate golfers because I love too many of them.
Sanders, the only man with a chance,
After I finish singing Messiah tomorrow – the third of this season, the 39th with this choir – I would appreciate some of whatever bob mcmanus is smoking.
Sanders, the only man with a chance,
After I finish singing Messiah tomorrow – the third of this season, the 39th with this choir – I would appreciate some of whatever bob mcmanus is smoking.
Been away for the weekend at 2 different conferences, small one day affairs. Of possible interest (and by way of opening) one of the talks was about the buraku community in Fukushima cho, Hiroshima, which was discriminated against even after the destruction of wrought by the first atomic bomb: even after the virtual elimination of societal networks, the prejudice against the buraku remained.
Anyway, bob mcmanus wrote
Why the hell do y’all trust Mueller? Don’t you know his history? I can remember way back when Comey was considered an honorable man.
I dunno, I think that if conscience kicks in at some point, we can’t really say ‘well, you were a Republican’. What if we had done that with John Dean?
Russell
They have little to no interest in attacking the US or anyone else. They, or at least Kim, are *extremely* interested in not being invaded or being subject to forcible regime change.
Yes, yes and yes.
On the discussion about golf, I have come to learn that there are people for whom pain is something that they believe is pleasurable and actually seek it out. I think this explains a lot.
Sapient and Dalia Lithwick
I love Dahlia Lithwick, and follow her every article. This time, no. We need to keep up our spirits, and have a plan. Dahlia is a Canadian, not that there’s anything wrong with that, but she can’t vote here.
[cringe] That’s not really an argument I think you want to make. While her Wikipedia page doesn’t give her age, it does note that she came to the US and graduated from Yale, studied law at Stanford University, where she received her J.D. in 1996, clerked for Judge Procter Hug on the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. I have a feeling that perhaps someone could confirm that law degrees are among the least portable between countries, and I’m sure her J.D. and a few loonies would buy her a cup of coffee at Tim Hortons.
It also seems that this sort of reasoning is not as far removed from Trump supporters explanations for deporting Dreamers. They too can’t vote, so why should we listen to their arguments? While you can make whatever argument you want, if I were you, I wouldn’t be making that one. I admit, this strikes a bit close to home for me, I’m taking Japanese citizenship, so I’d prefer that you not dismiss what I have to say based on the fact that I have decamped, but I also don’t see it as a way forward, though ymmv.
Been away for the weekend at 2 different conferences, small one day affairs. Of possible interest (and by way of opening) one of the talks was about the buraku community in Fukushima cho, Hiroshima, which was discriminated against even after the destruction of wrought by the first atomic bomb: even after the virtual elimination of societal networks, the prejudice against the buraku remained.
Anyway, bob mcmanus wrote
Why the hell do y’all trust Mueller? Don’t you know his history? I can remember way back when Comey was considered an honorable man.
I dunno, I think that if conscience kicks in at some point, we can’t really say ‘well, you were a Republican’. What if we had done that with John Dean?
Russell
They have little to no interest in attacking the US or anyone else. They, or at least Kim, are *extremely* interested in not being invaded or being subject to forcible regime change.
Yes, yes and yes.
On the discussion about golf, I have come to learn that there are people for whom pain is something that they believe is pleasurable and actually seek it out. I think this explains a lot.
Sapient and Dalia Lithwick
I love Dahlia Lithwick, and follow her every article. This time, no. We need to keep up our spirits, and have a plan. Dahlia is a Canadian, not that there’s anything wrong with that, but she can’t vote here.
[cringe] That’s not really an argument I think you want to make. While her Wikipedia page doesn’t give her age, it does note that she came to the US and graduated from Yale, studied law at Stanford University, where she received her J.D. in 1996, clerked for Judge Procter Hug on the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. I have a feeling that perhaps someone could confirm that law degrees are among the least portable between countries, and I’m sure her J.D. and a few loonies would buy her a cup of coffee at Tim Hortons.
It also seems that this sort of reasoning is not as far removed from Trump supporters explanations for deporting Dreamers. They too can’t vote, so why should we listen to their arguments? While you can make whatever argument you want, if I were you, I wouldn’t be making that one. I admit, this strikes a bit close to home for me, I’m taking Japanese citizenship, so I’d prefer that you not dismiss what I have to say based on the fact that I have decamped, but I also don’t see it as a way forward, though ymmv.
I didn’t agree with Lithwick. I don’t expect Russiagate to change that many minds. What might change some minds at least outside the hardcore supporters are policies that hurt some Trump voters, such as this tax bill and the next step, which will be attempts to cut Social Security and Medicare.
Personally I don’t care much about Russiagate either. You can guess why. It is a basic unwritten rule of American politics that our truly terrible crimes, the type we associate with international trials for deposed dictators, are never investigated or treated as crimes, but as policy mistakes at worst. We save all our apocalyptic political talk about impeachment and so forth for the equivalent of getting Al Capone on tax evasion.
I didn’t agree with Lithwick. I don’t expect Russiagate to change that many minds. What might change some minds at least outside the hardcore supporters are policies that hurt some Trump voters, such as this tax bill and the next step, which will be attempts to cut Social Security and Medicare.
Personally I don’t care much about Russiagate either. You can guess why. It is a basic unwritten rule of American politics that our truly terrible crimes, the type we associate with international trials for deposed dictators, are never investigated or treated as crimes, but as policy mistakes at worst. We save all our apocalyptic political talk about impeachment and so forth for the equivalent of getting Al Capone on tax evasion.
I have no idea how you keep saying the tax bill will hurt Trump voters. The bill lowers taxes for almost every American. With the 10k crumble to let whiny homeowners deduct up to 10k of mortgage interest I can’t find a loser.
They keep making a big deal out of taxing student loans, which isn’t happening. Taxing forgiven loans is pretty reasonable. In fact, every objection is some twisted almost untrue misconstruing of the actual bill.
Nattering around the edges isn’t going to hurt Republicans, padding landmark legislation helps.
I have no idea how you keep saying the tax bill will hurt Trump voters. The bill lowers taxes for almost every American. With the 10k crumble to let whiny homeowners deduct up to 10k of mortgage interest I can’t find a loser.
They keep making a big deal out of taxing student loans, which isn’t happening. Taxing forgiven loans is pretty reasonable. In fact, every objection is some twisted almost untrue misconstruing of the actual bill.
Nattering around the edges isn’t going to hurt Republicans, padding landmark legislation helps.
They too can’t vote, so why should we listen to their arguments?
That’s not what I said. I had assumed that the preface to my comment would have conveyed my admiration for her. I read everything she writes. She lived in my town, and I gratefully attended her public speaking events. I thoroughly trust her opinion on legal matters.
Her point was that Mueller will not save us, therefore we will descend into chaos. Nowhere does she mention the Virginia elections. That’s because “taking to the streets” seems more useful to her than organizing a strategy to take back the country through votes. (I’m not against taking to the streets, by the way.)
I’m not saying that I think she’s wrong in how she evaluates the impact of Mueller’s work. I’m sad that she may be correct. I mean, we already know that Trump committed crimes, and he is still in office because Rs don’t care. Mueller isn’t going to “save” us – in that she is probably correct (although his work is essential anyway).
I think she ignores the prospect of an electoral strategy, possibly because she isn’t involved in that aspect of our civic life. For her to have recently lived in Virginia, but not mentioned the overwhelming rejection of Trumpism there at the polls says to me that elections aren’t her focus. I attribute that to the fact that she doesn’t vote. That’s a far cry from dismissing her altogether.
My comment rejecting her article was more about her pessimism. We can’t afford to be pessimistic. Mueller’s investigation is one of the essential things that needs to happen. There are many more.
They too can’t vote, so why should we listen to their arguments?
That’s not what I said. I had assumed that the preface to my comment would have conveyed my admiration for her. I read everything she writes. She lived in my town, and I gratefully attended her public speaking events. I thoroughly trust her opinion on legal matters.
Her point was that Mueller will not save us, therefore we will descend into chaos. Nowhere does she mention the Virginia elections. That’s because “taking to the streets” seems more useful to her than organizing a strategy to take back the country through votes. (I’m not against taking to the streets, by the way.)
I’m not saying that I think she’s wrong in how she evaluates the impact of Mueller’s work. I’m sad that she may be correct. I mean, we already know that Trump committed crimes, and he is still in office because Rs don’t care. Mueller isn’t going to “save” us – in that she is probably correct (although his work is essential anyway).
I think she ignores the prospect of an electoral strategy, possibly because she isn’t involved in that aspect of our civic life. For her to have recently lived in Virginia, but not mentioned the overwhelming rejection of Trumpism there at the polls says to me that elections aren’t her focus. I attribute that to the fact that she doesn’t vote. That’s a far cry from dismissing her altogether.
My comment rejecting her article was more about her pessimism. We can’t afford to be pessimistic. Mueller’s investigation is one of the essential things that needs to happen. There are many more.
note that the reporter who came up with the “made contact with Russians” line in his bombshell tweet has been suspended because it was so misleading.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/brian-ross-abc-news-suspends-reporter-four-weeks-without-pay-for-botched-flynn-report/
note that the reporter who came up with the “made contact with Russians” line in his bombshell tweet has been suspended because it was so misleading.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/brian-ross-abc-news-suspends-reporter-four-weeks-without-pay-for-botched-flynn-report/
I have no idea how you keep saying the tax bill will hurt Trump voters.
The things that are likely to help them are intended to go away in a couple of years. So that the bill can be passed via reconciliation.
If it doesn’t result in the claimed levels of economic growth, we can expect cuts to entitlements.
All of that assumes what actually gets passed is more or less what the CBO scored. Which is unclear, because nobody has really seen the freaking bill in its final form.
Lithwick
Two thoughts about Lithwick.
First, she seems to see the reliance on the special prosecutor as some kind of weird Hail Mary pass appeal to the rule of law. It’s not. It’s a matter of following correct procedure, whether Trump et al do or not.
For good or ill, Trump is the duly elected POTUS. We don’t have votes of confidence here, the president once elected will hold that office for four years, barring impeachment. And impeachment is a fairly large step, requiring quite strong justification.
Thus, Mueller.
It’s not a matter of hoping that Superman Mueller will come and save us all. It’s a matter of wanting to respect and preserve proper and legal form.
Which was kind of part of her point, but she seemed to see this as some kind of weakness. I disagree.
The alternative is burning it all down. There’s enough of that going on already, we don’t need more.
My other thought is about her questions about “where we are now as a nation”. Have we really gotten ourselves to some irretrievable place?
We elected Donald J Trump as POTUS. I’m sure most folks will respond by saying “Not me!”, but electing a president is a collective national action. We did it.
So hell yeah, we are in a really weird freaking place. Q.E.D.
In my opinion, the things we already know about what went on merit, at a minimum, censure of the president. The most charitable reading of Flynn’s excellent adventure is that, on the day that sanctions were put into place as a response to Russian interference in a US national election, Flynn called the Russian ambassador to tell him not to react, the sanctions would go away. Flynn did this at the direction of the president’s son-in-law and others in his closest circle of advisors.
That is *the most* charitable reading. The fact that this has been seized upon as some kind of “no harm no foul” scenario – which it has – is FUBAR.
Mueller’s investigation will proceed, one way or another, to a conclusion. He will discover whatever he discovers. Presumably we will all find out whatever part of what he discovers is disclosable, which will probably not be all of what he finds out.
It’s possible that whatever is discovered will clear Trump of all wrong-doing. I find that unlikely. We’ll see.
And then we will see who, if anyone, gives a shit. We’ll see if Lithwick is right, or wrong.
I have no idea how you keep saying the tax bill will hurt Trump voters.
The things that are likely to help them are intended to go away in a couple of years. So that the bill can be passed via reconciliation.
If it doesn’t result in the claimed levels of economic growth, we can expect cuts to entitlements.
All of that assumes what actually gets passed is more or less what the CBO scored. Which is unclear, because nobody has really seen the freaking bill in its final form.
Lithwick
Two thoughts about Lithwick.
First, she seems to see the reliance on the special prosecutor as some kind of weird Hail Mary pass appeal to the rule of law. It’s not. It’s a matter of following correct procedure, whether Trump et al do or not.
For good or ill, Trump is the duly elected POTUS. We don’t have votes of confidence here, the president once elected will hold that office for four years, barring impeachment. And impeachment is a fairly large step, requiring quite strong justification.
Thus, Mueller.
It’s not a matter of hoping that Superman Mueller will come and save us all. It’s a matter of wanting to respect and preserve proper and legal form.
Which was kind of part of her point, but she seemed to see this as some kind of weakness. I disagree.
The alternative is burning it all down. There’s enough of that going on already, we don’t need more.
My other thought is about her questions about “where we are now as a nation”. Have we really gotten ourselves to some irretrievable place?
We elected Donald J Trump as POTUS. I’m sure most folks will respond by saying “Not me!”, but electing a president is a collective national action. We did it.
So hell yeah, we are in a really weird freaking place. Q.E.D.
In my opinion, the things we already know about what went on merit, at a minimum, censure of the president. The most charitable reading of Flynn’s excellent adventure is that, on the day that sanctions were put into place as a response to Russian interference in a US national election, Flynn called the Russian ambassador to tell him not to react, the sanctions would go away. Flynn did this at the direction of the president’s son-in-law and others in his closest circle of advisors.
That is *the most* charitable reading. The fact that this has been seized upon as some kind of “no harm no foul” scenario – which it has – is FUBAR.
Mueller’s investigation will proceed, one way or another, to a conclusion. He will discover whatever he discovers. Presumably we will all find out whatever part of what he discovers is disclosable, which will probably not be all of what he finds out.
It’s possible that whatever is discovered will clear Trump of all wrong-doing. I find that unlikely. We’ll see.
And then we will see who, if anyone, gives a shit. We’ll see if Lithwick is right, or wrong.
Winners: The rich.
Losers: The poor.
same old, same old…..
https://www.forbes.com/sites/anthonynitti/2017/12/02/winners-and-losers-of-the-senate-tax-bill/#4f28b68e254d
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/who-wins-and-who-loses-in-the-gop-senate-tax-plan
Winners: The rich.
Losers: The poor.
same old, same old…..
https://www.forbes.com/sites/anthonynitti/2017/12/02/winners-and-losers-of-the-senate-tax-bill/#4f28b68e254d
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/who-wins-and-who-loses-in-the-gop-senate-tax-plan
note that the reporter who came up with the “made contact with Russians” line in his bombshell tweet has been suspended because it was so misleading.
Ross stated that Flynn had contacted the Russians at the direction of Trump, personally. Which is not in evidence. And, which is an error about an issue of extreme consequence.
Four weeks no pay seems like an OK response, to me.
Ditto Mueller’s canning of the agent who was making anti-Trump comments on social media.
This is fairly important stuff. Whatever happens, it has to be clean and above board.
note that the reporter who came up with the “made contact with Russians” line in his bombshell tweet has been suspended because it was so misleading.
Ross stated that Flynn had contacted the Russians at the direction of Trump, personally. Which is not in evidence. And, which is an error about an issue of extreme consequence.
Four weeks no pay seems like an OK response, to me.
Ditto Mueller’s canning of the agent who was making anti-Trump comments on social media.
This is fairly important stuff. Whatever happens, it has to be clean and above board.
With the 10k crumble to let whiny homeowners deduct up to 10k of mortgage interest I can’t find a loser.
As an aside:
Whether it’s fair, unfair, or just plain stupid to let people deduct mortgage interest, it’s a policy that has been around a long long time. And plays a significant part in many folks’ financial planning, and a significant part of how many folks build a modest pile of personal wealth over a lifetime.
Drop the mortgage deduction, and lots of folks would find it hard to keep their homes. And, the market value of their homes would drop. So, they’d get screwed both ways.
It’s similar to proposals to do things like remove the tax-deferred status of 401K’s. You can do it or not do it, but getting rid of it is going to screw over a lot of folks who have used it as the basis of their saving and wealth-building strategies.
It’s not cool to f*** people over. It’s probably a pretty damned good idea they put the deduction back in.
With the 10k crumble to let whiny homeowners deduct up to 10k of mortgage interest I can’t find a loser.
As an aside:
Whether it’s fair, unfair, or just plain stupid to let people deduct mortgage interest, it’s a policy that has been around a long long time. And plays a significant part in many folks’ financial planning, and a significant part of how many folks build a modest pile of personal wealth over a lifetime.
Drop the mortgage deduction, and lots of folks would find it hard to keep their homes. And, the market value of their homes would drop. So, they’d get screwed both ways.
It’s similar to proposals to do things like remove the tax-deferred status of 401K’s. You can do it or not do it, but getting rid of it is going to screw over a lot of folks who have used it as the basis of their saving and wealth-building strategies.
It’s not cool to f*** people over. It’s probably a pretty damned good idea they put the deduction back in.
Ditto Mueller’s canning of the agent who was making anti-Trump comments on social media.
The comments were made in private texts, not social media. It’s fine with me that the guy was taken off the team though. Not sure how the texts were discovered. Has that been reported?
Ditto Mueller’s canning of the agent who was making anti-Trump comments on social media.
The comments were made in private texts, not social media. It’s fine with me that the guy was taken off the team though. Not sure how the texts were discovered. Has that been reported?
The private texts were found during the inquiry into why Clinton wasn’t locked up because of the email server.
The private texts were found during the inquiry into why Clinton wasn’t locked up because of the email server.
I happen to know how Mueller found those “private texts”; transcript follows:
rm@specinv$ ssh Universe.nsa.gov
passord: *********************************
rm@Universe$ grep /* -r -e Trump
....
presto!
I happen to know how Mueller found those “private texts”; transcript follows:
rm@specinv$ ssh Universe.nsa.gov
passord: *********************************
rm@Universe$ grep /* -r -e Trump
....
presto!
It will be interesting to see how the GOP tax bill will pan out politically. It is unpopular now, but to the extent it provides an up front tax cut and deferred tax increase for most individuals, and those individuals will suddenly see a decrease in withholding starting on Jan 1 2018 (assuming it passes), they are going to wonder what the Democrats were complaining about.
And of course those cuts won’t expire until after the 2020 POTUS election.
So, we’ll see about the short-medium term popularity of the bill, even if it’s terrible from a medium-to long term, and of course horrid on the repeal of the individual mandate penalty (although that is not in the House bill – so will see what happens).
It will be interesting to see how the GOP tax bill will pan out politically. It is unpopular now, but to the extent it provides an up front tax cut and deferred tax increase for most individuals, and those individuals will suddenly see a decrease in withholding starting on Jan 1 2018 (assuming it passes), they are going to wonder what the Democrats were complaining about.
And of course those cuts won’t expire until after the 2020 POTUS election.
So, we’ll see about the short-medium term popularity of the bill, even if it’s terrible from a medium-to long term, and of course horrid on the repeal of the individual mandate penalty (although that is not in the House bill – so will see what happens).
Marty— I was going to link to that Forbes piece that bobbyp already linked. The ending of the mandate will be the worst thing about this bill, or one of the worst. But it is also part of a bigger strategy— give massive amounts of money to the rich, cry and moan about the deficit, and then impose pain on the poor and middle class with cuts to Social Security and Medicare. They aren’t even bothering to conceal it.
The question is whether some Trump voters will see this. I think some will.
Marty— I was going to link to that Forbes piece that bobbyp already linked. The ending of the mandate will be the worst thing about this bill, or one of the worst. But it is also part of a bigger strategy— give massive amounts of money to the rich, cry and moan about the deficit, and then impose pain on the poor and middle class with cuts to Social Security and Medicare. They aren’t even bothering to conceal it.
The question is whether some Trump voters will see this. I think some will.
some will see it. but it won’t matter.
being a “Trump voter” is a good sign that what really matters to you is not wanting to give any liberal an inch anywhere.
some will see it. but it won’t matter.
being a “Trump voter” is a good sign that what really matters to you is not wanting to give any liberal an inch anywhere.
I have no idea how you keep saying the tax bill will hurt Trump voters. The bill lowers taxes for almost every American.
Marty, suppose we enter into a business arrangement. It pays you $10 per year for the first two years, and pays me $100. Then, starting the third year, you have to start paying in $20 per year, but I still get my $100. Can anyone say, with a straight face, that the conditions the first two years are sufficient to make this a good deal for you?
Because that’s the deal most of the country is looking at. Which may account for why over 2/3 of the country opposes it.
I have no idea how you keep saying the tax bill will hurt Trump voters. The bill lowers taxes for almost every American.
Marty, suppose we enter into a business arrangement. It pays you $10 per year for the first two years, and pays me $100. Then, starting the third year, you have to start paying in $20 per year, but I still get my $100. Can anyone say, with a straight face, that the conditions the first two years are sufficient to make this a good deal for you?
Because that’s the deal most of the country is looking at. Which may account for why over 2/3 of the country opposes it.
The comments were made in private texts, not social media
my error! thank you for the correction.
some will see it. but it won’t matter.
correct.
The comments were made in private texts, not social media
my error! thank you for the correction.
some will see it. but it won’t matter.
correct.
Cleek’s Law is like the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics: it perfectly explains how the world works on the macro scale, despite the fact that unbelievers can always narrowly focus on some microscopic phenomenon to “prove” that the Law is merely librul whining.
In the Republican worldview, when dollars flow into the coffers of the rich like scent molecules “diffusing” back into the bottle, there is no vacuum pump hidden in the apparatus. Tax policy doesn’t affect how dollars flow back and forth — just look through a microscope!
And now for a completely different metaphor:
When you go shopping for a used car, you understand (even if you are “conservative”) that the cheaper car the salesman is offering you comes with fewer features: it won’t serve you as well, but the salesman will carefully avoid saying so. When a nation goes shopping for a government, the sales pitch is the same: “Look how much cheaper this one is!”
Whether the car, or the government, that you choose is more likely to leave you, personally, in a ditch precisely because it is cheaper … well, you can’t expect the salesman — or his acolytes — to bother you with concerns like that.
–TP
Cleek’s Law is like the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics: it perfectly explains how the world works on the macro scale, despite the fact that unbelievers can always narrowly focus on some microscopic phenomenon to “prove” that the Law is merely librul whining.
In the Republican worldview, when dollars flow into the coffers of the rich like scent molecules “diffusing” back into the bottle, there is no vacuum pump hidden in the apparatus. Tax policy doesn’t affect how dollars flow back and forth — just look through a microscope!
And now for a completely different metaphor:
When you go shopping for a used car, you understand (even if you are “conservative”) that the cheaper car the salesman is offering you comes with fewer features: it won’t serve you as well, but the salesman will carefully avoid saying so. When a nation goes shopping for a government, the sales pitch is the same: “Look how much cheaper this one is!”
Whether the car, or the government, that you choose is more likely to leave you, personally, in a ditch precisely because it is cheaper … well, you can’t expect the salesman — or his acolytes — to bother you with concerns like that.
–TP
Since Trump won by narrow margins in a few states, it actually does matter if a small fraction of Trump voters regret their votes.
https://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/06/trump-obama-voters-poll-242334
Since Trump won by narrow margins in a few states, it actually does matter if a small fraction of Trump voters regret their votes.
https://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/06/trump-obama-voters-poll-242334
Literarily Hitler
This is pretty smart and not too heady or long;about the style and intended audience of Mein Kampf; probably pertinent to some of Trump’s style and following; remember Trump had MK by his bedside; maybe he does have a high IQ.
Sample:
“As a matter of calculation, even drifting off into seeming absurdity may prove advisable insofar as the “base” puts a premium on flights of enthusiasm, which signal initiation to insiders and confirm that the consensus of others does not matter … the leader need not believe all that he says. Nor does his audience have to either. All that is necessary is for both sides to come to an understanding that they will base their community on ostentatious adherence to extreme pronouncements, embrace the transports of self-intoxication, and trouble outsiders with their triumphal displays.”
Literarily Hitler
This is pretty smart and not too heady or long;about the style and intended audience of Mein Kampf; probably pertinent to some of Trump’s style and following; remember Trump had MK by his bedside; maybe he does have a high IQ.
Sample:
“As a matter of calculation, even drifting off into seeming absurdity may prove advisable insofar as the “base” puts a premium on flights of enthusiasm, which signal initiation to insiders and confirm that the consensus of others does not matter … the leader need not believe all that he says. Nor does his audience have to either. All that is necessary is for both sides to come to an understanding that they will base their community on ostentatious adherence to extreme pronouncements, embrace the transports of self-intoxication, and trouble outsiders with their triumphal displays.”
Naw, 2/3 of the country opposes anything called the Trump plan. The tax plan is we thought out, the I individual tax cuts expire in ten years, not a few, and either party so not let that happen. So if you have to make one expire to stay inside the numbers for 50 votes that’s the right one to do.
Individual taxe cuts aren’t going to expire Dems could throw in ten votes and make them permanent now.
But then they couldn’t do the normal omg crap.
Naw, 2/3 of the country opposes anything called the Trump plan. The tax plan is we thought out, the I individual tax cuts expire in ten years, not a few, and either party so not let that happen. So if you have to make one expire to stay inside the numbers for 50 votes that’s the right one to do.
Individual taxe cuts aren’t going to expire Dems could throw in ten votes and make them permanent now.
But then they couldn’t do the normal omg crap.
IOW, f the deficit.
IOW, f the deficit.
Making the already large deficit larger in order to cut already low taxes for rich people is about the stupidest thing the US government could do. So no surprise that it’s the one thing Republicans can agree on.
Making the already large deficit larger in order to cut already low taxes for rich people is about the stupidest thing the US government could do. So no surprise that it’s the one thing Republicans can agree on.
individual tax cuts expire in ten years
eight
Individual taxe cuts aren’t going to expire
EGTRRA
individual tax cuts expire in ten years
eight
Individual taxe cuts aren’t going to expire
EGTRRA
Marty: Naw, 2/3 of the country opposes anything called the Trump plan. The tax plan is we thought out, the I individual tax cuts expire in ten years, not a few, and either party so not let that happen.
I assume the grammar and typos will be corrected in conference committee. Until then, all I can figure out is that Marty thinks the tax “reform” will not cost him, personally, money.
–TP
Marty: Naw, 2/3 of the country opposes anything called the Trump plan. The tax plan is we thought out, the I individual tax cuts expire in ten years, not a few, and either party so not let that happen.
I assume the grammar and typos will be corrected in conference committee. Until then, all I can figure out is that Marty thinks the tax “reform” will not cost him, personally, money.
–TP
Pro Bono: increasing the deficit with tax cuts for the super-wealthy may be stupid, but it is FAR from the stupidest thing that could be done.
Such as: destroying graduate STEM education, encouraging speculative asset bubbles, pulling the rug out from under people who have made (personal) long-term retirement arrangements in the expectation of stability, penalizing via extra taxation the people who are actually doing the work of a productive economy (e.g., not the banksters and similar parasites).
But Trump’s term of office is still young, so there’s still time to immanetize the escaton.
Pro Bono: increasing the deficit with tax cuts for the super-wealthy may be stupid, but it is FAR from the stupidest thing that could be done.
Such as: destroying graduate STEM education, encouraging speculative asset bubbles, pulling the rug out from under people who have made (personal) long-term retirement arrangements in the expectation of stability, penalizing via extra taxation the people who are actually doing the work of a productive economy (e.g., not the banksters and similar parasites).
But Trump’s term of office is still young, so there’s still time to immanetize the escaton.
I assume the grammar and typos will be corrected in conference committee. Until then, all I can figure out is that Marty thinks the tax “reform” will not cost him, personally, money.
So many reasons for the pie filter.
I honestly think we’ll get through this. I have to think that way, because the alternative really sucks.
I am revisiting the situation with the fired FBI investigator. I’m sure that Mueller did the right thing – he can’t afford any controversy whatsoever. Snarki’s comment about the NSA is right on, although maybe they didn’t need to resort to those methods if the texts were on an FBI issued phone.
In any case, the witch hunt involving the Clinton email investigation (let’s remember, lock her up, that she isn’t President now) is looking pretty ugly with this revelation.
What’s been reported is that the FBI investigator made fun of then candidate Trump in a text to an intimate partner. I don’t know what kind of automatons we expect to be working in the government. Lots of people here used to be all about privacy.
I assume the grammar and typos will be corrected in conference committee. Until then, all I can figure out is that Marty thinks the tax “reform” will not cost him, personally, money.
So many reasons for the pie filter.
I honestly think we’ll get through this. I have to think that way, because the alternative really sucks.
I am revisiting the situation with the fired FBI investigator. I’m sure that Mueller did the right thing – he can’t afford any controversy whatsoever. Snarki’s comment about the NSA is right on, although maybe they didn’t need to resort to those methods if the texts were on an FBI issued phone.
In any case, the witch hunt involving the Clinton email investigation (let’s remember, lock her up, that she isn’t President now) is looking pretty ugly with this revelation.
What’s been reported is that the FBI investigator made fun of then candidate Trump in a text to an intimate partner. I don’t know what kind of automatons we expect to be working in the government. Lots of people here used to be all about privacy.
these CBO scores for the bill measure the total net effects of the tax bill, for different income groups, including both loss or increase in tax revenue and decreases in federal spending.
so, in my comments here, ‘better off’ means the feds are getting less of your money and/or spending more on you, ‘worse off’ means the opposite.
as scored by the CBO, individuals making less than $30K a year will, as a group, be no better off at any time under this bill, and will in general be worse off.
beginning in 2021, everyone making less than $40k will be, as a group, worse off.
by 2027, everyone making less than $75K will, as a group, be worse off than they are now.
for all income groups, the benefits of the bill will go down, not all at once in 2027, but incrementally over the entire period.
if you’re a C-corp, big big upsides. if you’re an S-corp, big upside.
if you are not incorporated, but deduct work-related expenses, you lose.
and, of course, the individual changes are scheduled to go away, although the existing deductions and exemptions that they replace will not return.
but, marty tells us that will never happen.
as an aside, I’ll add that a tax reform that is net negative for poor people but good=ish to very good for everyone else is bizarrely cruel.
these CBO scores for the bill measure the total net effects of the tax bill, for different income groups, including both loss or increase in tax revenue and decreases in federal spending.
so, in my comments here, ‘better off’ means the feds are getting less of your money and/or spending more on you, ‘worse off’ means the opposite.
as scored by the CBO, individuals making less than $30K a year will, as a group, be no better off at any time under this bill, and will in general be worse off.
beginning in 2021, everyone making less than $40k will be, as a group, worse off.
by 2027, everyone making less than $75K will, as a group, be worse off than they are now.
for all income groups, the benefits of the bill will go down, not all at once in 2027, but incrementally over the entire period.
if you’re a C-corp, big big upsides. if you’re an S-corp, big upside.
if you are not incorporated, but deduct work-related expenses, you lose.
and, of course, the individual changes are scheduled to go away, although the existing deductions and exemptions that they replace will not return.
but, marty tells us that will never happen.
as an aside, I’ll add that a tax reform that is net negative for poor people but good=ish to very good for everyone else is bizarrely cruel.
TP, you are right I should not comment while watching football, I simply don’t pay enough attention.
Simply, all the tax cuts will be permanent. Not really much to complain about.
I have not tried to do the math to decide if it helps me. I assume based on its construction it diesnt hurt me petsonally.
TP, you are right I should not comment while watching football, I simply don’t pay enough attention.
Simply, all the tax cuts will be permanent. Not really much to complain about.
I have not tried to do the math to decide if it helps me. I assume based on its construction it diesnt hurt me petsonally.
All of the tax cuts that are scheduled to expire were written that way because, even with the dynamic scoring that Republican Congressmen have been calling for for years, if they don’t expire the deficit explodes. To the point that they couldn’t ram through the cuts under reconciliation.
So if you believe that the cuts won’t expire, you necessarily believe that big deficits into the future are good for the country.
All of the tax cuts that are scheduled to expire were written that way because, even with the dynamic scoring that Republican Congressmen have been calling for for years, if they don’t expire the deficit explodes. To the point that they couldn’t ram through the cuts under reconciliation.
So if you believe that the cuts won’t expire, you necessarily believe that big deficits into the future are good for the country.
No wj, they don’t explode the deficit with dynamic scoring. Only by the CBO scoring which is used for reconciliation.
The whole discussion is moot, the economy is likely to run North of 3% without the stimulation, so the growth assumptions are very conservative.
So no, I don’t have to believe big deficits are good.
No wj, they don’t explode the deficit with dynamic scoring. Only by the CBO scoring which is used for reconciliation.
The whole discussion is moot, the economy is likely to run North of 3% without the stimulation, so the growth assumptions are very conservative.
So no, I don’t have to believe big deficits are good.
On the scoring that the CBO always used to use, the deficits are substantially worse. But that methodology, used on behalf of both parties over the course of decades, simply wouldn’t give the answers needed. So the CBO was instructed to use a different method this time. It did give much more favorable answers . . . just still not favorable enough to support the bill without expirations on all the cuts for individuals.
On the scoring that the CBO always used to use, the deficits are substantially worse. But that methodology, used on behalf of both parties over the course of decades, simply wouldn’t give the answers needed. So the CBO was instructed to use a different method this time. It did give much more favorable answers . . . just still not favorable enough to support the bill without expirations on all the cuts for individuals.
Last year, when the US had a sane president, Republicans were telling us what a terrible thing the budget deficit was.
This year we learn that they misspoke, and that increasing the deficit is a good idea because increasing it doesn’t increase it, because dynamic scoring.
It’s true of course that any sort of static increase in government deficit will be smaller dynamically, because of (Keynesian) multiplier effects, so long as the resulting government debt is not too scary. It’s also true that cutting taxes on the rich has the lowest multiplier, and so the smallest difference between dynamic and static effects, because rich people are the least likely to recycle additional income in the domestic economy.
But economic theory is irrelevant. The only explanation that makes sense of what Republican politicians do is that their primary motive is to make rich people richer.
Last year, when the US had a sane president, Republicans were telling us what a terrible thing the budget deficit was.
This year we learn that they misspoke, and that increasing the deficit is a good idea because increasing it doesn’t increase it, because dynamic scoring.
It’s true of course that any sort of static increase in government deficit will be smaller dynamically, because of (Keynesian) multiplier effects, so long as the resulting government debt is not too scary. It’s also true that cutting taxes on the rich has the lowest multiplier, and so the smallest difference between dynamic and static effects, because rich people are the least likely to recycle additional income in the domestic economy.
But economic theory is irrelevant. The only explanation that makes sense of what Republican politicians do is that their primary motive is to make rich people richer.
No wj, they don’t explode the deficit with dynamic scoring. Only by the CBO scoring which is used for reconciliation.
The Joint Committee on Taxation — ie, the tame experts of the House and Senate Republicans — says that with dynamic scoring the cuts add $1T to the deficit over ten years. The only folks claiming no increase in the deficit assume growth rates that haven’t been seen since the years following WWII, when manufacturing outside of the US had all been bombed out of existence. Most of them also assume that productivity gains will show up in wages below the SS cap, which hasn’t happened since the mid-1980s.
I’m a numbers guy. I also understand that the vast majority of voters are not numbers folks. When McConnell goes out in public and says that the tax cuts won’t increase the deficit, I want an asterisk that points to the assumptions.
No wj, they don’t explode the deficit with dynamic scoring. Only by the CBO scoring which is used for reconciliation.
The Joint Committee on Taxation — ie, the tame experts of the House and Senate Republicans — says that with dynamic scoring the cuts add $1T to the deficit over ten years. The only folks claiming no increase in the deficit assume growth rates that haven’t been seen since the years following WWII, when manufacturing outside of the US had all been bombed out of existence. Most of them also assume that productivity gains will show up in wages below the SS cap, which hasn’t happened since the mid-1980s.
I’m a numbers guy. I also understand that the vast majority of voters are not numbers folks. When McConnell goes out in public and says that the tax cuts won’t increase the deficit, I want an asterisk that points to the assumptions.
The only explanation that makes sense of what Republican politicians do is that their primary motive is to make rich people richer.
No, Pro Bono, I don’t think that’s quite it. They don’t mind if their actions make rich people richer, mind. But their motivation is to make rich Republican donors richer. One or two have been so clumsy as to actually say so explicitly.
The only explanation that makes sense of what Republican politicians do is that their primary motive is to make rich people richer.
No, Pro Bono, I don’t think that’s quite it. They don’t mind if their actions make rich people richer, mind. But their motivation is to make rich Republican donors richer. One or two have been so clumsy as to actually say so explicitly.
https://washingtonmonthly.com/2017/12/02/the-gop-tax-bill-reparations-for-the-rich/
One move Marty needs to report to us is his dropping out of his Obamacare health care plan and going with an individual plan in the private marketplace, since he will no longer be required to pony up the abomination of the individual mandate penalty for going without.
I”m interested in hearing the rates and coverage available given whatever pre-existing conditions may unfortunately persist.
Also, my preferred method of cutting the first $25 billion tranch of Medicare expenditures, more to follow annually into perpetuity, to enable the return of Orrin Hatch’s tax dollars, after he has made a career of stealing income and medical care from the taxpayer by virtue of his chosen profession, is to name specific conservatives of al walks of life and in me level who reach age 65 and deny them entry into the Medicare program, no exceptions, thus relieving them of the stress of living out their lives as leeches on Ayn Rand’s and Grover Norquist’s ample backsides.
Maybe there could be a special insurance pool established for these folks, which would, for exorbitant fees and deductibles, make any life-saving medical procedures beyond financial reach but provide them tickets to the annual Republican Pigfuckers Ball at Mar-a-Lago, but they would have to enter through the freight service entrance, services to be specified later.
https://washingtonmonthly.com/2017/12/02/the-gop-tax-bill-reparations-for-the-rich/
One move Marty needs to report to us is his dropping out of his Obamacare health care plan and going with an individual plan in the private marketplace, since he will no longer be required to pony up the abomination of the individual mandate penalty for going without.
I”m interested in hearing the rates and coverage available given whatever pre-existing conditions may unfortunately persist.
Also, my preferred method of cutting the first $25 billion tranch of Medicare expenditures, more to follow annually into perpetuity, to enable the return of Orrin Hatch’s tax dollars, after he has made a career of stealing income and medical care from the taxpayer by virtue of his chosen profession, is to name specific conservatives of al walks of life and in me level who reach age 65 and deny them entry into the Medicare program, no exceptions, thus relieving them of the stress of living out their lives as leeches on Ayn Rand’s and Grover Norquist’s ample backsides.
Maybe there could be a special insurance pool established for these folks, which would, for exorbitant fees and deductibles, make any life-saving medical procedures beyond financial reach but provide them tickets to the annual Republican Pigfuckers Ball at Mar-a-Lago, but they would have to enter through the freight service entrance, services to be specified later.
iPad auto correct errancies.. Make up whatever terrible insults you wish as replacements.
iPad auto correct errancies.. Make up whatever terrible insults you wish as replacements.
Simply, all the tax cuts will be permanent.
nice crystal ball ya got there.
Simply, all the tax cuts will be permanent.
nice crystal ball ya got there.
Do Roy Moore and Donald Ump frequent the basements of any pizza joints, that you guys know of.
I’m thinking of paying a visit to investigate.
There are reports that Chuck Grassley and Orrin Hatch know of kids on the CHIP program who are sneaking a slice at pizza joints in their areas and have dispatched armed conservatives to investigate this alleged sodomy of the 1%.
Do Roy Moore and Donald Ump frequent the basements of any pizza joints, that you guys know of.
I’m thinking of paying a visit to investigate.
There are reports that Chuck Grassley and Orrin Hatch know of kids on the CHIP program who are sneaking a slice at pizza joints in their areas and have dispatched armed conservatives to investigate this alleged sodomy of the 1%.
The whole discussion is moot, the economy is likely to run North of 3% without the stimulation, so the growth assumptions are very conservative.
This is gibberish. If the economy will run “north of 3% growth without the stimulation” then why are we undertaking this exercise?
I don’t have to believe big deficits are good.
You spilled a good deal of internet electrons trying to convince us not that long ago that deficits were “bad” under Obama, but now with a new (GOP) administration, they are no big deal. So….essentially more gibberish.
This is incoherence.
PS: Democrats who claim their hair is on fire about federal deficit increases due to this bill should be taken out and horsewhipped.
THE MESSAGE IS SIMPLE, FOLKS: MORE FOR THE RICH, LESS FOR THE REST OF YOU SUCKERS.
Burn it down. All if it.
The whole discussion is moot, the economy is likely to run North of 3% without the stimulation, so the growth assumptions are very conservative.
This is gibberish. If the economy will run “north of 3% growth without the stimulation” then why are we undertaking this exercise?
I don’t have to believe big deficits are good.
You spilled a good deal of internet electrons trying to convince us not that long ago that deficits were “bad” under Obama, but now with a new (GOP) administration, they are no big deal. So….essentially more gibberish.
This is incoherence.
PS: Democrats who claim their hair is on fire about federal deficit increases due to this bill should be taken out and horsewhipped.
THE MESSAGE IS SIMPLE, FOLKS: MORE FOR THE RICH, LESS FOR THE REST OF YOU SUCKERS.
Burn it down. All if it.
wj’s plaintive dreams of GOP “moderation” notwithstanding, this is the heart of the GOP message since the 19th century.
It is ugly. It is morally reprehensible. It needs to be utterly excised from our political discourse.
wj’s plaintive dreams of GOP “moderation” notwithstanding, this is the heart of the GOP message since the 19th century.
It is ugly. It is morally reprehensible. It needs to be utterly excised from our political discourse.
Grassley:
I think not having the estate tax recognizes the people that are investing, as opposed to those that are just spending every darn penny they have, whether it’s on booze or women or movies
i’m at a loss
Grassley:
I think not having the estate tax recognizes the people that are investing, as opposed to those that are just spending every darn penny they have, whether it’s on booze or women or movies
i’m at a loss
wj’s plaintive dreams of GOP “moderation” notwithstanding, this is the heart of the GOP message since the 19th century.
Certainly that “plutocrats forever!” strand has afflicted the GOP for a long time. Sometimes it has indeed been the predominant strand . . . and today is definitely one of those times. But I don’t agree that it is the only part of the message, nor that it is necessarily the core.
wj’s plaintive dreams of GOP “moderation” notwithstanding, this is the heart of the GOP message since the 19th century.
Certainly that “plutocrats forever!” strand has afflicted the GOP for a long time. Sometimes it has indeed been the predominant strand . . . and today is definitely one of those times. But I don’t agree that it is the only part of the message, nor that it is necessarily the core.
“I think not having the estate tax recognizes the people who are investing, as opposed to those that are just spending every darned penny they have, whether it’s on booze or women or movies.”
Harvey Weinstein is a happy camper hearing that formulation, given his estate plan. However, unlike Grassley, who has done his sexy face fucking of little black boys via Luciane Goldberg’s pimp service in D.C. all these decades, Weinstein apparently got the women for free and wrote the bubble baths off on his taxes.
“I think not having the estate tax recognizes the people who are investing, as opposed to those that are just spending every darned penny they have, whether it’s on booze or women or movies.”
Harvey Weinstein is a happy camper hearing that formulation, given his estate plan. However, unlike Grassley, who has done his sexy face fucking of little black boys via Luciane Goldberg’s pimp service in D.C. all these decades, Weinstein apparently got the women for free and wrote the bubble baths off on his taxes.
Ump is claiming to close friends .. who, is another question, I mean what does the term close friend mean in the context of Ump, is it like Charles Manson referring to Squeaky Fromme as his close friend ,.. that Billy Bush is not a real person.
This according to Daniel Drezner.
The National Enquirer may buy Time Magazine.
Mad Magazine may reissue the Encyclopdia Britannica.
Professor Irwin Corey may purchase the National Science Foundation.
Pat Robertson is thinking about a version of Al Goldstein’s Screw Magazine with centerfolds of Roy Moore (there is never too much Moore) revealing his
the labia folds of his all-female teenaged Bible study class.
Korean nukes look better all the time.
Ump is claiming to close friends .. who, is another question, I mean what does the term close friend mean in the context of Ump, is it like Charles Manson referring to Squeaky Fromme as his close friend ,.. that Billy Bush is not a real person.
This according to Daniel Drezner.
The National Enquirer may buy Time Magazine.
Mad Magazine may reissue the Encyclopdia Britannica.
Professor Irwin Corey may purchase the National Science Foundation.
Pat Robertson is thinking about a version of Al Goldstein’s Screw Magazine with centerfolds of Roy Moore (there is never too much Moore) revealing his
the labia folds of his all-female teenaged Bible study class.
Korean nukes look better all the time.
Nigel skrev :
rather a good article
Rather.
The world is getting strange very quickly.
But it was not completely unforeseen.
In Harlan Ellison’s Dangerous Visions anthology, Philip Jose Farmer’s novelette Riders of the Purple Wage takes place a long time after automation has eliminated the need for human labor, in a world in which most proles live contentedly on the more-than-adequate universal base income, the “Purple Wage”.
Nigel skrev :
rather a good article
Rather.
The world is getting strange very quickly.
But it was not completely unforeseen.
In Harlan Ellison’s Dangerous Visions anthology, Philip Jose Farmer’s novelette Riders of the Purple Wage takes place a long time after automation has eliminated the need for human labor, in a world in which most proles live contentedly on the more-than-adequate universal base income, the “Purple Wage”.
Democrats and the Tax Plan …Clintons, Obamas, and Pelosi are still rich and free
leader Chuck Schumer seemed less concerned that millions would be booted off their insurance than with the fact that Democrats weren’t able to reach an agreement on how best to carry out Republicans’ massive overhaul of the American economy.
“Tonight,” he tweeted, “I feel mostly regret at what could have been. Tax reform is an issue that is ripe for bipartisan compromise. There is a sincere desire on this side of the aisle to work with the GOP, particularly on tax reform, but we have been rebuffed, time and time again.”
…
Like I say, watch not what they say, watch not what Democrats do, watch what happens.
I am not going to compete with the Count to get the Feebles attention, but Hatch and Grassley were able to vote for their tax cuts.
Could they have been stopped? Of course they could have been stopped. They’re still alive.
Democrats and the Tax Plan …Clintons, Obamas, and Pelosi are still rich and free
leader Chuck Schumer seemed less concerned that millions would be booted off their insurance than with the fact that Democrats weren’t able to reach an agreement on how best to carry out Republicans’ massive overhaul of the American economy.
“Tonight,” he tweeted, “I feel mostly regret at what could have been. Tax reform is an issue that is ripe for bipartisan compromise. There is a sincere desire on this side of the aisle to work with the GOP, particularly on tax reform, but we have been rebuffed, time and time again.”
…
Like I say, watch not what they say, watch not what Democrats do, watch what happens.
I am not going to compete with the Count to get the Feebles attention, but Hatch and Grassley were able to vote for their tax cuts.
Could they have been stopped? Of course they could have been stopped. They’re still alive.
Should have omitted the last sentence. There are many steps before that, but Grassley and Hatch could have been stopped. Fact.
Like I say, watch not what they say, watch not what Democrats do, watch what happens.
Current reading among others, Hayden White, Metahistory
“For however much these individuals discover their aims in their own resources, it is for all that not the freedom or lack of it in their souls and intelligence, but the accomplished end, and its result as operative upon the actual world already there, and essentially independent of such individuality which constitutes the object [of study] of history.” …Hegel
Huh. And from Hegel to Marx.
History is Drama, the accomplished end independent of individuality,
the thing done.
Should have omitted the last sentence. There are many steps before that, but Grassley and Hatch could have been stopped. Fact.
Like I say, watch not what they say, watch not what Democrats do, watch what happens.
Current reading among others, Hayden White, Metahistory
“For however much these individuals discover their aims in their own resources, it is for all that not the freedom or lack of it in their souls and intelligence, but the accomplished end, and its result as operative upon the actual world already there, and essentially independent of such individuality which constitutes the object [of study] of history.” …Hegel
Huh. And from Hegel to Marx.
History is Drama, the accomplished end independent of individuality,
the thing done.
Could they have been stopped? Of course they could have been stopped. They’re still alive.
i’m not sure murder is permitted under Senate rules.
Could they have been stopped? Of course they could have been stopped. They’re still alive.
i’m not sure murder is permitted under Senate rules.
It’s also true that cutting taxes on the rich has the lowest multiplier, and so the smallest difference between dynamic and static effects, because rich people are the least likely to recycle additional income in the domestic economy.
I’d like to ask Grassley to explain what the term “velocity of money” means. And how are the liquor-store owners, movie-theater owners, and women (???!!!) supposed to get their $11M?
It’s also true that cutting taxes on the rich has the lowest multiplier, and so the smallest difference between dynamic and static effects, because rich people are the least likely to recycle additional income in the domestic economy.
I’d like to ask Grassley to explain what the term “velocity of money” means. And how are the liquor-store owners, movie-theater owners, and women (???!!!) supposed to get their $11M?
Should have omitted the last sentence.
yes, please.
i’m not sure murder is permitted under Senate rules.
what we need is an app that combines an auction capability with a crowdsource funding model.
you and a few hundred thousand of your closest friends can bid for your senator’s or house rep’s vote. direct democracy and market dynamics all wrapped up in one!
at least it would give us a fighting chance against plutocratic money.
rake 20% off the top and the federal budget problems go away.
if we’re gonna be the united states of money, at least give everyone a place at the table.
Should have omitted the last sentence.
yes, please.
i’m not sure murder is permitted under Senate rules.
what we need is an app that combines an auction capability with a crowdsource funding model.
you and a few hundred thousand of your closest friends can bid for your senator’s or house rep’s vote. direct democracy and market dynamics all wrapped up in one!
at least it would give us a fighting chance against plutocratic money.
rake 20% off the top and the federal budget problems go away.
if we’re gonna be the united states of money, at least give everyone a place at the table.
Here come the lawyers…
John Dowd, attorney for Donald J Trump. Also, self-described author of the “I fired him because he lied to the FBI” tweet.
Get out yer bullshit shovels, here we go.
The funny thing is that I could completely believe that Trump had clean hands, or at least sufficiently clean-ish hands, but ends up implicating himself because he simply cannot shut the hell up.
Character is fate, said Herodotus. We’ll see how it turns out.
Here come the lawyers…
John Dowd, attorney for Donald J Trump. Also, self-described author of the “I fired him because he lied to the FBI” tweet.
Get out yer bullshit shovels, here we go.
The funny thing is that I could completely believe that Trump had clean hands, or at least sufficiently clean-ish hands, but ends up implicating himself because he simply cannot shut the hell up.
Character is fate, said Herodotus. We’ll see how it turns out.
The president cannot obstruct justice because he is the chief law enforcement officer under
la loi est moi
The president cannot obstruct justice because he is the chief law enforcement officer under
la loi est moi
I look forward to reading the explanation of why Bill Clinton (and perhaps Richard Nixon) could properly be charged with obstruction of justice, but Trump cannot.
I look forward to reading the explanation of why Bill Clinton (and perhaps Richard Nixon) could properly be charged with obstruction of justice, but Trump cannot.
look forward to reading the explanation of why Bill Clinton (and perhaps Richard Nixon) could properly be charged with obstruction of justice, but Trump cannot.
Duh. IOKIYAR. The Democratic-majority House didn’t know that in 1974.
look forward to reading the explanation of why Bill Clinton (and perhaps Richard Nixon) could properly be charged with obstruction of justice, but Trump cannot.
Duh. IOKIYAR. The Democratic-majority House didn’t know that in 1974.
Democrats and the Tax Plan …Clintons, Obamas, and Pelosi are still rich and free
Yeah, but they didn’t write it. And show no signs of supporting it, regardless of whether they stand to benefit from it.
Or are you arguing that anyone who stands to benefit from something financially must necessarily be a supporter? Because I, for one, am not. Just like I benefit from capital gains being taxed at a substantially lower rate, but feel rather strongly (and have argued here, as I recall) that there is no reason to tax them any different than any other income.
As for Grassey saying that he thought some agreement could have been reached on tax reform, nobody (except tax accountants and advisors) disagrees with the idea that our tax system needs serious reform and simplification. Grassey may be wildly optimistic about what might have come out of it. But nobody, including you and I, know what might have. We can be pessimistic about what could have managed to get bipartisan agreement, but that’s pure speculation at this point.
Democrats and the Tax Plan …Clintons, Obamas, and Pelosi are still rich and free
Yeah, but they didn’t write it. And show no signs of supporting it, regardless of whether they stand to benefit from it.
Or are you arguing that anyone who stands to benefit from something financially must necessarily be a supporter? Because I, for one, am not. Just like I benefit from capital gains being taxed at a substantially lower rate, but feel rather strongly (and have argued here, as I recall) that there is no reason to tax them any different than any other income.
As for Grassey saying that he thought some agreement could have been reached on tax reform, nobody (except tax accountants and advisors) disagrees with the idea that our tax system needs serious reform and simplification. Grassey may be wildly optimistic about what might have come out of it. But nobody, including you and I, know what might have. We can be pessimistic about what could have managed to get bipartisan agreement, but that’s pure speculation at this point.
The chief law enforcement officer comes out in favour of molesting teens:
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2017/12/president-trump-endorses-roy-moore-finally.html
You are officially now a banana republic.
The chief law enforcement officer comes out in favour of molesting teens:
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2017/12/president-trump-endorses-roy-moore-finally.html
You are officially now a banana republic.
OF COURSE Trump is in favour of molesting teens.
Hasn’t he said as much, about his own daughter, in her younger days?
Whatever you say about Moore, he hasn’t been accused of wanting incest.
Baby steps, Republicans, baby steps!
Oh wait, maybe that’s the wrong thing to say…
OF COURSE Trump is in favour of molesting teens.
Hasn’t he said as much, about his own daughter, in her younger days?
Whatever you say about Moore, he hasn’t been accused of wanting incest.
Baby steps, Republicans, baby steps!
Oh wait, maybe that’s the wrong thing to say…
remember when “conservatives” cared deeply about the morality of politicians?
2015 was such a strange and baffling time.
remember when “conservatives” cared deeply about the morality of politicians?
2015 was such a strange and baffling time.
I’d like to ask Grassley to explain what the term “velocity of money” means.
That is the speed at which the money goes from Grassley to the prostitute to the pimp to the liquor store.
if we’re gonna be the united states of money, at least give everyone a place at the table.
I’d like to ask Grassley to explain what the term “velocity of money” means.
That is the speed at which the money goes from Grassley to the prostitute to the pimp to the liquor store.
if we’re gonna be the united states of money, at least give everyone a place at the table.
the stupid party excels at stupidity:
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/12/senate-gop-accidentally-killed-all-corporate-tax-deductions.html
the stupid party excels at stupidity:
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/12/senate-gop-accidentally-killed-all-corporate-tax-deductions.html
Well, at least that reduces to zero the chance that the House will just pass the Senate version. 😉
Well, at least that reduces to zero the chance that the House will just pass the Senate version. 😉
I do wonder what they will do to fix the AMT thing.
But it’s not a hard fix, only $40B over 10 years, which could be plugged by making the final corporate rate 20.5%, or only increasing the estate tax exemption by 50% rather than 100%.
but yes, perfect example of a sh1tty process producing a sh1tty bill and an abundance of unintended and “unintended” consequences.
I do wonder what they will do to fix the AMT thing.
But it’s not a hard fix, only $40B over 10 years, which could be plugged by making the final corporate rate 20.5%, or only increasing the estate tax exemption by 50% rather than 100%.
but yes, perfect example of a sh1tty process producing a sh1tty bill and an abundance of unintended and “unintended” consequences.
It also makes one ask, what else is lurking in the hand-written scribbles? You just know that this won’t turn out to be the only thing, even if it is the biggest.
It also makes one ask, what else is lurking in the hand-written scribbles? You just know that this won’t turn out to be the only thing, even if it is the biggest.
now that they’ve passed it, they can finally sit down and read it.
it’s really the best way to handle the law that governs ~$4,000,000,000,000/yr of federal tax receipts.
now that they’ve passed it, they can finally sit down and read it.
it’s really the best way to handle the law that governs ~$4,000,000,000,000/yr of federal tax receipts.
and I have to note the headline of that article is false; corporate AMT applies to certain credits and preference items, not all deductions a corporation might take.
and I have to note the headline of that article is false; corporate AMT applies to certain credits and preference items, not all deductions a corporation might take.
It also makes one ask, what else is lurking in the hand-written scribbles?
I like Murkowski’s exemption for cruise ships that dock in Alaska. Only the ones that dock in Alaska.
This reminds me of the big fun back when the Department of Homeland Security was first set up. Remember the “potential terror target” designation for Old MacDonald’s Petting Zoo in Woodville AL? Or the Amish Country Popcorn Factory in Berne IN?
They hated us for our popcorn.
It’s gonna be good for a few laughs, anyway.
It also makes one ask, what else is lurking in the hand-written scribbles?
I like Murkowski’s exemption for cruise ships that dock in Alaska. Only the ones that dock in Alaska.
This reminds me of the big fun back when the Department of Homeland Security was first set up. Remember the “potential terror target” designation for Old MacDonald’s Petting Zoo in Woodville AL? Or the Amish Country Popcorn Factory in Berne IN?
They hated us for our popcorn.
It’s gonna be good for a few laughs, anyway.
I forgot Mule Day and “Beach At The End Of A Street”.
Let pork roll down like waters, and boondoggles like an ever-flowing stream.
I forgot Mule Day and “Beach At The End Of A Street”.
Let pork roll down like waters, and boondoggles like an ever-flowing stream.
I, for one, look forward to a bright technological future, in which a massive tax bill, passed with little examination in the middle of the night, can be turned over to an AI for analysis and explanation; taking into account all the weird last-minute corrections and punctuation anomalies.
“HAL-9000, please analyze this tax bill”
“You must be shitting me, Dave”
I, for one, look forward to a bright technological future, in which a massive tax bill, passed with little examination in the middle of the night, can be turned over to an AI for analysis and explanation; taking into account all the weird last-minute corrections and punctuation anomalies.
“HAL-9000, please analyze this tax bill”
“You must be shitting me, Dave”
It’s hard to know what the worst feature of the bill is. They are all terrible.
And Marty, I believe the $1 trillion figure is after some dynamic scoring. You know, that doesn’t just mean you get to make up whatever numbers you want.
The deficit is going to grow dramatically, and economic growth is not going to be north of 3% – no way nohow.
The bill is an abomination. It is an unforgivable giveaway to the GOP donor class, and anyone who voted for it or supported it ought to be shamed. That includes, I suppose about 90+% of republicans, including the allegedly “respectable, sensible” ones.
It’s hard to know what the worst feature of the bill is. They are all terrible.
And Marty, I believe the $1 trillion figure is after some dynamic scoring. You know, that doesn’t just mean you get to make up whatever numbers you want.
The deficit is going to grow dramatically, and economic growth is not going to be north of 3% – no way nohow.
The bill is an abomination. It is an unforgivable giveaway to the GOP donor class, and anyone who voted for it or supported it ought to be shamed. That includes, I suppose about 90+% of republicans, including the allegedly “respectable, sensible” ones.
I suspect all of us. Much closer to 99% but since it feels like being on the other side of the ACA passage I completely understand how some of you feel. Things that are fundamental to our beliefs, that this will make everyone better off, you hate.
I suspect all of us. Much closer to 99% but since it feels like being on the other side of the ACA passage I completely understand how some of you feel. Things that are fundamental to our beliefs, that this will make everyone better off, you hate.
Marty,
If paying fewer dollars in taxes is the one and only thing that makes “everyone” better off, then you Republicans are wusses. Why not raise the standard deduction to $50K? Why not cut the corporate rate to 10%? Why not really CUT taxes?
–TP
Marty,
If paying fewer dollars in taxes is the one and only thing that makes “everyone” better off, then you Republicans are wusses. Why not raise the standard deduction to $50K? Why not cut the corporate rate to 10%? Why not really CUT taxes?
–TP
If it was the only thing that will make everyone better off this would have passed in January.
The arguments just get less rational every day.
If it was the only thing that will make everyone better off this would have passed in January.
The arguments just get less rational every day.
Okay, Marty, you rational person, you:
What else makes anyone better off? Does any kind of government spending figure into it, for instance?
–TP
Okay, Marty, you rational person, you:
What else makes anyone better off? Does any kind of government spending figure into it, for instance?
–TP
Things that are fundamental to our beliefs, that this will make everyone better off, you hate.
Marty.
This makes me froth at the mouth. No. it will not make everyone better off. And that is not a question of “belief,” or faith, or whatever. It is a matter of cold arithmetic, logic, and economics. It will make more people worse off than better of, and those who are made worse off will be those who can least stand it. It is an economically idiotic, mean-spirited piece of legislation that will go down as one of the worst tax laws ever passed in the US.
I know I’m being offensive, but anyone who truly believes this bill will “make everyone better off” is a fool. A complete fool who swallows whole the uncounted lies told to advance the “reform.”
Things that are fundamental to our beliefs, that this will make everyone better off, you hate.
Marty.
This makes me froth at the mouth. No. it will not make everyone better off. And that is not a question of “belief,” or faith, or whatever. It is a matter of cold arithmetic, logic, and economics. It will make more people worse off than better of, and those who are made worse off will be those who can least stand it. It is an economically idiotic, mean-spirited piece of legislation that will go down as one of the worst tax laws ever passed in the US.
I know I’m being offensive, but anyone who truly believes this bill will “make everyone better off” is a fool. A complete fool who swallows whole the uncounted lies told to advance the “reform.”
since it feels like being on the other side of the ACA passage
I’m sorry I missed the town meeting my Senators and Reps held about the tax bill. I would have liked to have participated in the discussion.
since it feels like being on the other side of the ACA passage
I’m sorry I missed the town meeting my Senators and Reps held about the tax bill. I would have liked to have participated in the discussion.
anyone who truly believes this bill will “make everyone better off” is a fool.
Marty has repeatedly said that he was looking for a tax cut from the (R) majority.
Fool or no fool, he got his tax cut. It’ll probably put some $$$$ in his pocket.
anyone who truly believes this bill will “make everyone better off” is a fool.
Marty has repeatedly said that he was looking for a tax cut from the (R) majority.
Fool or no fool, he got his tax cut. It’ll probably put some $$$$ in his pocket.
LOL
Now this, my friends, is a man with serious chutzpah.
Maybe he just figures he’ll be safer in jail.
LOL
Now this, my friends, is a man with serious chutzpah.
Maybe he just figures he’ll be safer in jail.
It’ll probably put some $$$$ in his pocket.
A bigger tax cut would have put even more dollars in his pocket. But the Republican wusses stopped short of raising the standard deduction to $50K, presumably because that would make “everyone” too much better off.
–TP
It’ll probably put some $$$$ in his pocket.
A bigger tax cut would have put even more dollars in his pocket. But the Republican wusses stopped short of raising the standard deduction to $50K, presumably because that would make “everyone” too much better off.
–TP
Chutzpah? Or just an inability (apparently not unique in those circles) to wrap his head around the idea that someone else might have two brain cells to rub together?
Considering the paper trails that these guys have scattered (widely!), they just can’t grasp that their actions might have consequences — even after everything that’s happened.
Chutzpah? Or just an inability (apparently not unique in those circles) to wrap his head around the idea that someone else might have two brain cells to rub together?
Considering the paper trails that these guys have scattered (widely!), they just can’t grasp that their actions might have consequences — even after everything that’s happened.
This makes me froth at the mouth.
Hey, byomtov. Thanks for frothing aloud on many of our behalf. You do it much more gracefully than I do.
This makes me froth at the mouth.
Hey, byomtov. Thanks for frothing aloud on many of our behalf. You do it much more gracefully than I do.
“Things that are fundamental to our beliefs, that this will make everyone better off, you hate.”
When Lincoln had the presumption to utter those words in his First Inaugural Address, the Confederacy seceded and declared war.
“Things that are fundamental to our beliefs, that this will make everyone better off, you hate.”
When Lincoln had the presumption to utter those words in his First Inaugural Address, the Confederacy seceded and declared war.
sapient,
Glad to be of service.
I have to say I am long past the point of feeling the need to have civil discussions on these matters, as though we were talking about some issue where there are reasonable grounds for disagreement.
There are none. More important, my contempt for those who support GOP policies despite apparently having the brains to know better is ballooning by the day. I don’t get it.
And it has little or nothing to do specifically with Trump. This bill is not Trumpist, it is bog-standard Republicanism. And it is awful.
Daniel Davies once pointed out that a policy that is sold with a bunch of lies is unlikely to be a good policy. That perfectly describes this bill. Self-financing! Huge growth! Wage increases! No more family farms sold off to pay estate tax!. More corporate investment!
Lie after lie after lie.
And then the attacks on the educational system. “Hey, you can’t deduct those taxes you pay to support local schools.” “Tuition waivers? taxable! We don’t need no stinking graduate students. We want trust fund babies.” Oh, and pass-through entities. Don’t get me started.
I am as angry as I have ever been about a political issue. And I don’t want to pretend that gee, “reasonable people may differ.” No.
sapient,
Glad to be of service.
I have to say I am long past the point of feeling the need to have civil discussions on these matters, as though we were talking about some issue where there are reasonable grounds for disagreement.
There are none. More important, my contempt for those who support GOP policies despite apparently having the brains to know better is ballooning by the day. I don’t get it.
And it has little or nothing to do specifically with Trump. This bill is not Trumpist, it is bog-standard Republicanism. And it is awful.
Daniel Davies once pointed out that a policy that is sold with a bunch of lies is unlikely to be a good policy. That perfectly describes this bill. Self-financing! Huge growth! Wage increases! No more family farms sold off to pay estate tax!. More corporate investment!
Lie after lie after lie.
And then the attacks on the educational system. “Hey, you can’t deduct those taxes you pay to support local schools.” “Tuition waivers? taxable! We don’t need no stinking graduate students. We want trust fund babies.” Oh, and pass-through entities. Don’t get me started.
I am as angry as I have ever been about a political issue. And I don’t want to pretend that gee, “reasonable people may differ.” No.
I am as angry as I have ever been about a political issue. And I don’t want to pretend that gee, “reasonable people may differ.” No.
Thanks. The monuments too. It’s just a daily sick stomach, and it’s taking a toll on my actual sanity, much less civility. I just hope that we can do something about it before everything is destroyed. I have to believe that we can, but I’ve pie filtered Marty – just can’t talk to people with his take on things.
I feel like we need a baseline optimism to function. This weekend was really detrimental to that.
I am as angry as I have ever been about a political issue. And I don’t want to pretend that gee, “reasonable people may differ.” No.
Thanks. The monuments too. It’s just a daily sick stomach, and it’s taking a toll on my actual sanity, much less civility. I just hope that we can do something about it before everything is destroyed. I have to believe that we can, but I’ve pie filtered Marty – just can’t talk to people with his take on things.
I feel like we need a baseline optimism to function. This weekend was really detrimental to that.
Things that are fundamental to our beliefs, that this will make everyone better off, you hate.
How will “your beliefs” as, say, opposed to mine, “make everybody better off?”
That seems to be kinda’ the nub here.
And do I hate your beliefs? To put it charitably, the answer is, “Yes, pretty much.”
Things that are fundamental to our beliefs, that this will make everyone better off, you hate.
How will “your beliefs” as, say, opposed to mine, “make everybody better off?”
That seems to be kinda’ the nub here.
And do I hate your beliefs? To put it charitably, the answer is, “Yes, pretty much.”
But Bernard, the vast .majority of people end up with more deductions overall, so why is the specific property tax deduction a sacred cow? Or mortgage I retest, although it’s in both bills? It doesn’t purport huge growth, 1% more than the last ten years, the same as the last 30 before that. The assumptions in this legislation are pretty balanced to achieve multiple goals.
Lies? I don’t see a one. And I have little patience for the name calling and insults at this point. But yes, it’s bog standard Republican policy, debated in committee, in both houses, brought to the floor and appended pretty significantly.
Like it’s supposed to happen.
But Bernard, the vast .majority of people end up with more deductions overall, so why is the specific property tax deduction a sacred cow? Or mortgage I retest, although it’s in both bills? It doesn’t purport huge growth, 1% more than the last ten years, the same as the last 30 before that. The assumptions in this legislation are pretty balanced to achieve multiple goals.
Lies? I don’t see a one. And I have little patience for the name calling and insults at this point. But yes, it’s bog standard Republican policy, debated in committee, in both houses, brought to the floor and appended pretty significantly.
Like it’s supposed to happen.
You know, one could argue that the feds could simply confiscate all private property, split it up into 350m equal pieces, repeal all federal laws and regulations, give everybody a couple of free guns, and let the good times roll.
Only a very tiny minority would be “worse off” as a result.
The question is: Who would those folks be?
But what the hell, Why not give it a try?
You know, one could argue that the feds could simply confiscate all private property, split it up into 350m equal pieces, repeal all federal laws and regulations, give everybody a couple of free guns, and let the good times roll.
Only a very tiny minority would be “worse off” as a result.
The question is: Who would those folks be?
But what the hell, Why not give it a try?
“make EVERYBODY better off”?
Not even remotely true.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/11/30/republicans-are-selling-the-senate-tax-bill-with-two-big-pieces-of-misinformation/?utm_term=.b84d62a773f8
“make EVERYBODY better off”?
Not even remotely true.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/11/30/republicans-are-selling-the-senate-tax-bill-with-two-big-pieces-of-misinformation/?utm_term=.b84d62a773f8
debated in committee, in both houses
provide dates of this so-called debate.
brought to the floor
well, you got me there!
and appended pretty significantly.
Not even remotely true. Handwritten lobbyist markups? You can’t be serious.
debated in committee, in both houses
provide dates of this so-called debate.
brought to the floor
well, you got me there!
and appended pretty significantly.
Not even remotely true. Handwritten lobbyist markups? You can’t be serious.
But Bernard, the vast .majority of people end up with more deductions overall, so why is the specific property tax deduction a sacred cow?
go ahead and prove that this will do one fucking thing to “grow the economy”. show your work.
But Bernard, the vast .majority of people end up with more deductions overall, so why is the specific property tax deduction a sacred cow?
go ahead and prove that this will do one fucking thing to “grow the economy”. show your work.
I notice Marty is ignoring my question:
why did the wussy Republicans settle for such small tax cuts?
–TP
I notice Marty is ignoring my question:
why did the wussy Republicans settle for such small tax cuts?
–TP
“And I have little patience with the name calling and insults at this point.”
No one here brought up your or anyone else’s wastrel drinking habits, expensive tastes in cheap women, or your out-of-control Netflix viewing expenses, all of which have prevented each of us from saving up an estate worth $5 million dollars, nor the trillions of dollars in tonsillitis surgery our children are costing Orrin Hatch and his sugar-Daddies.
“And I have little patience with the name calling and insults at this point.”
No one here brought up your or anyone else’s wastrel drinking habits, expensive tastes in cheap women, or your out-of-control Netflix viewing expenses, all of which have prevented each of us from saving up an estate worth $5 million dollars, nor the trillions of dollars in tonsillitis surgery our children are costing Orrin Hatch and his sugar-Daddies.
No one here brought up your or anyone else’s wastrel drinking habits, expensive tastes in cheap women, or your out-of-control Netflix viewing expenses
Here, well, ok. But Grassley did. He is an asshole.
As for insults…what is the rational response to an argument that is based on a string of unsubstantiated assertions?
No one here brought up your or anyone else’s wastrel drinking habits, expensive tastes in cheap women, or your out-of-control Netflix viewing expenses
Here, well, ok. But Grassley did. He is an asshole.
As for insults…what is the rational response to an argument that is based on a string of unsubstantiated assertions?
Fundamental beliefs? Are we talking religion here? I must have my head up my fundament.
Fundamental beliefs? Are we talking religion here? I must have my head up my fundament.
bobbyp: … what is the rational response to an argument that is based on a string of unsubstantiated assertions?
Reductio ad absurdum. Which is to be distinguished from ridicule and contempt.
Ridicule and contempt are reserved for cases in which Socrates himself would throw up his hands and admit that you can’t lead men to truth by asking them questions when they refuse to answer questions.
–TP
bobbyp: … what is the rational response to an argument that is based on a string of unsubstantiated assertions?
Reductio ad absurdum. Which is to be distinguished from ridicule and contempt.
Ridicule and contempt are reserved for cases in which Socrates himself would throw up his hands and admit that you can’t lead men to truth by asking them questions when they refuse to answer questions.
–TP
“As for insults…what is the rational response to an argument that is based on a string of unsubstantiated assertions?”
There are lots of those in this thread, I don’t throw any out claiming if you don’t believe them you’re a fool and a dupe, no matter how I feel about them.
I would like you, cleek, to show me one shred of evidence they won’t grow the economy. And don’t give me the JTC, because they assume it will, just not by as much. Reasonable people disagreeing.
And Tony, really? I’m ignoring you? I was pretty sure the question was rhetorical. Because unlimited tax cuts WOULD explode the deficit. Do you have an actual argument?
“As for insults…what is the rational response to an argument that is based on a string of unsubstantiated assertions?”
There are lots of those in this thread, I don’t throw any out claiming if you don’t believe them you’re a fool and a dupe, no matter how I feel about them.
I would like you, cleek, to show me one shred of evidence they won’t grow the economy. And don’t give me the JTC, because they assume it will, just not by as much. Reasonable people disagreeing.
And Tony, really? I’m ignoring you? I was pretty sure the question was rhetorical. Because unlimited tax cuts WOULD explode the deficit. Do you have an actual argument?
bobbyp,
Four days of Senate committee debate
from https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/16/us/politics/house-tax-overhaul-bill.html
And some back and forth on the House process http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/nov/22/john-larson/did-house-committee-bar-democratic-witnesses-gop-t/
bobbyp,
Four days of Senate committee debate
from https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/16/us/politics/house-tax-overhaul-bill.html
And some back and forth on the House process http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/nov/22/john-larson/did-house-committee-bar-democratic-witnesses-gop-t/
I would like you, cleek, to show me one shred of evidence they won’t grow the economy.
I’m not cleek.
But the answer is obvious: Kansas
Kansas under true-believer Brownback tried the ideological tax cuts and shrinking government, and when it didn’t work, doubled down. Result: economic contraction, decay of essential services, chronic budget crises, out-migration of college graduates.
Now, a sovereign nation with fiat currency does not have the balanced-budget problem that a state has, but c’mon, Marty — tax cuts are not an effective economic stimulus. Never have been. Supply-side economics is just wrong.
One can’t even claim we haven’t given it a good try: we have, in several US states and by several nations since 1980. It has never ever delivered the promised benefits. Not once. It’s snake oil, a pack of lies promulgated by people who stand to gain from the policies themselves.
I would like you, cleek, to show me one shred of evidence they won’t grow the economy.
I’m not cleek.
But the answer is obvious: Kansas
Kansas under true-believer Brownback tried the ideological tax cuts and shrinking government, and when it didn’t work, doubled down. Result: economic contraction, decay of essential services, chronic budget crises, out-migration of college graduates.
Now, a sovereign nation with fiat currency does not have the balanced-budget problem that a state has, but c’mon, Marty — tax cuts are not an effective economic stimulus. Never have been. Supply-side economics is just wrong.
One can’t even claim we haven’t given it a good try: we have, in several US states and by several nations since 1980. It has never ever delivered the promised benefits. Not once. It’s snake oil, a pack of lies promulgated by people who stand to gain from the policies themselves.
Kansas isn’t even close to the same thing. And between 1980 and 2008 it delivered consistent and stable growth, rapid comeback from downturns, almost 100% growth in hourly compensation. All good things for America.
There is no evidence a different set of economic policies could have provided better results.
Kansas isn’t even close to the same thing. And between 1980 and 2008 it delivered consistent and stable growth, rapid comeback from downturns, almost 100% growth in hourly compensation. All good things for America.
There is no evidence a different set of economic policies could have provided better results.
One more note. This:
Is simply propaganda. A mantra repeated over and over with no supporting facts. Mostly because, all things considered, there is almost no way to prove that any other policy would have created better results. So it becomes an attempt to get people to accept as an article of faith that it is bad.
One more note. This:
Is simply propaganda. A mantra repeated over and over with no supporting facts. Mostly because, all things considered, there is almost no way to prove that any other policy would have created better results. So it becomes an attempt to get people to accept as an article of faith that it is bad.
“There is no evidence a different set of economic policies could have provided better results.”
“It’s snake oil, a pack of lies promulgated by people who stand to gain from the policies themselves.”
These are nearly identical formulations.
In fact, snake oil salesmen who stand to gain from selling mystery elixirs have for ages whimpered the first statement as a defense to the charges contained in the second as they are transported out of town hog tied upside down to a plank and covered in tar and chicken feathers.
Why 76 trombones in the jamboree? Why not 311 trombones? Or twelve?
If nothing can be proven to be better than any number of alternatives, then why bother with the 50 laboratories of democracy, except for the opportunity to see how far whattayatalk can get you into the librarian’s pants.
Maybe one state has prettier librarians than the other 49.
“There is no evidence a different set of economic policies could have provided better results.”
“It’s snake oil, a pack of lies promulgated by people who stand to gain from the policies themselves.”
These are nearly identical formulations.
In fact, snake oil salesmen who stand to gain from selling mystery elixirs have for ages whimpered the first statement as a defense to the charges contained in the second as they are transported out of town hog tied upside down to a plank and covered in tar and chicken feathers.
Why 76 trombones in the jamboree? Why not 311 trombones? Or twelve?
If nothing can be proven to be better than any number of alternatives, then why bother with the 50 laboratories of democracy, except for the opportunity to see how far whattayatalk can get you into the librarian’s pants.
Maybe one state has prettier librarians than the other 49.
Yes, increasing the deficit will provide a modest boost to growth*. No, it won’t pay for itself, nor anywhere near it. No, it’s not a good idea to stimulate the economy by increasing the deficit at a time when growth is already comfortably positive – this is one thing Keynesians and Austrians can agree on.
Oh, and simplifying the tax code is a good idea. You could get Democrats to agree to that if you didn’t insist on doing so much damage at the same time.
Marty, will you not be adversely affected in future by the Medicare cuts which will result from the increased deficit?
Yes, increasing the deficit will provide a modest boost to growth*. No, it won’t pay for itself, nor anywhere near it. No, it’s not a good idea to stimulate the economy by increasing the deficit at a time when growth is already comfortably positive – this is one thing Keynesians and Austrians can agree on.
Oh, and simplifying the tax code is a good idea. You could get Democrats to agree to that if you didn’t insist on doing so much damage at the same time.
Marty, will you not be adversely affected in future by the Medicare cuts which will result from the increased deficit?
I would like you, cleek, to show me one shred of evidence they won’t grow the economy
lol. you crack me up.
the economy is already growing at a very healthy rate; we’re essentially at full employment; companies have been turning record profits year after year and they’re pocketing the money because they don’t see where they can make big investments with that money.
what is more money in the system going to do? well, it could raise inflation (which “conservatives” used to be deathly afraid of). it could pay dividends and stock buy-backs (which won’t do anything for the overall economy, but will greatly please Wall St).
meanwhile, you’re growing the deficit (which “conservatives” used to be deathly afraid of).
to increase corporate profits? why? what is that going to accomplish?
show your work.
I would like you, cleek, to show me one shred of evidence they won’t grow the economy
lol. you crack me up.
the economy is already growing at a very healthy rate; we’re essentially at full employment; companies have been turning record profits year after year and they’re pocketing the money because they don’t see where they can make big investments with that money.
what is more money in the system going to do? well, it could raise inflation (which “conservatives” used to be deathly afraid of). it could pay dividends and stock buy-backs (which won’t do anything for the overall economy, but will greatly please Wall St).
meanwhile, you’re growing the deficit (which “conservatives” used to be deathly afraid of).
to increase corporate profits? why? what is that going to accomplish?
show your work.
Part of the problem is that we’re discussing the tax cuts without explicitly using the word “distributional” when describing the nature of this particular tax overhaul. Yes, people have brought up supply-side and Wall Street and such. People have mentioned how tax cuts for people at the bottom of the economic ladder will phase out over time, eventually becoming a tax increase.
No, there is no compelling economic need to lower taxes in the aggregate right now, given how the economy is doing overall, and the tax cuts being proposed will not likely result in any benefit to those left behind by the recovery.
But, for a given aggregate-dollar tax cut, there are innumerable ways of distributing it. Under current conditions, certainly, tax cuts for the investor class or businesses working internationally will not provide the sort of stimulus that is supposedly needed.
What I want Marty to explain is why the tax cuts weren’t very straightforwardly targeted to the people at the lower-income end. Why wouldn’t simply raising the standard deduction or the personal exemption or lowering the rates on the lower brackets provide a greater economic stimulus than what is being proposed? Why is whatever increase in the deficit not going to the people who would most benefit from that additional money in their pockets and who would most increase economic demand with that money?
Part of the problem is that we’re discussing the tax cuts without explicitly using the word “distributional” when describing the nature of this particular tax overhaul. Yes, people have brought up supply-side and Wall Street and such. People have mentioned how tax cuts for people at the bottom of the economic ladder will phase out over time, eventually becoming a tax increase.
No, there is no compelling economic need to lower taxes in the aggregate right now, given how the economy is doing overall, and the tax cuts being proposed will not likely result in any benefit to those left behind by the recovery.
But, for a given aggregate-dollar tax cut, there are innumerable ways of distributing it. Under current conditions, certainly, tax cuts for the investor class or businesses working internationally will not provide the sort of stimulus that is supposedly needed.
What I want Marty to explain is why the tax cuts weren’t very straightforwardly targeted to the people at the lower-income end. Why wouldn’t simply raising the standard deduction or the personal exemption or lowering the rates on the lower brackets provide a greater economic stimulus than what is being proposed? Why is whatever increase in the deficit not going to the people who would most benefit from that additional money in their pockets and who would most increase economic demand with that money?
Lol indeed. Stimulus to ensure a reasonable growth rate that creates wage inflation and a broader based jobs recovery are things conservatives have always believed in. The pay for aspects of this are very conservative estimates, to borrow a word, and at that there would be increases triggered if it didnt, except no Dems, so can’t do.
I love the consternation of the left that the growth might not pay for the stimulus to the tune of 1 trillion over 10 years, after adding 20 the last 8.
The goals are to enhance the competitiveness of our multinational corporations, reduce taxes on the middle class broadly, and simplify the tax code.
Check, check and check.
I am personally pleased at the last
minute add of addressing pass through income. It’s about the only thing that impacts me directly, and I am not counting on it surviving.
Lol indeed. Stimulus to ensure a reasonable growth rate that creates wage inflation and a broader based jobs recovery are things conservatives have always believed in. The pay for aspects of this are very conservative estimates, to borrow a word, and at that there would be increases triggered if it didnt, except no Dems, so can’t do.
I love the consternation of the left that the growth might not pay for the stimulus to the tune of 1 trillion over 10 years, after adding 20 the last 8.
The goals are to enhance the competitiveness of our multinational corporations, reduce taxes on the middle class broadly, and simplify the tax code.
Check, check and check.
I am personally pleased at the last
minute add of addressing pass through income. It’s about the only thing that impacts me directly, and I am not counting on it surviving.
The goals are to enhance the competitiveness of our multinational corporations, reduce taxes on the middle class broadly, and simplify the tax code.
Check, check and check.
work not shown, F.
The goals are to enhance the competitiveness of our multinational corporations, reduce taxes on the middle class broadly, and simplify the tax code.
Check, check and check.
work not shown, F.
I love the consternation of the left that the growth might not pay for the stimulus to the tune of 1 trillion over 10 years, after adding 20 the last 8.
You do recall what happened to the economy in 2009, right? And you do realize that the dollar figures aren’t absolute, right? They are relative to what otherwise would happen in the absence of the tax cut. It doesn’t mean that the debt will grow by only $1T or $1.5T, depending on who you ask. It means it will grow that much more than it would have.
I love the consternation of the left that the growth might not pay for the stimulus to the tune of 1 trillion over 10 years, after adding 20 the last 8.
You do recall what happened to the economy in 2009, right? And you do realize that the dollar figures aren’t absolute, right? They are relative to what otherwise would happen in the absence of the tax cut. It doesn’t mean that the debt will grow by only $1T or $1.5T, depending on who you ask. It means it will grow that much more than it would have.
That first sentence was Marty’s and should have been italicized.
And, frankly, I’m not all that concerned about the debt, myself. But I would like to know why making it larger than it otherwise would be is so desperately needed and why those dollars are going where they are.
There’s also the matter of hypocrisy on the part of erstwhile deficit hawks.
That first sentence was Marty’s and should have been italicized.
And, frankly, I’m not all that concerned about the debt, myself. But I would like to know why making it larger than it otherwise would be is so desperately needed and why those dollars are going where they are.
There’s also the matter of hypocrisy on the part of erstwhile deficit hawks.
And between 1980 and 2008 it delivered…almost 100% growth in hourly compensation.
Cite?
And some corresponding information about the rise in the price of goods and services in that time period? Real estate? Cars? Gas? Bread and milk? A college education? Health care and insurance?
And between 1980 and 2008 it delivered…almost 100% growth in hourly compensation.
Cite?
And some corresponding information about the rise in the price of goods and services in that time period? Real estate? Cars? Gas? Bread and milk? A college education? Health care and insurance?
Kansas isn’t even close to the same thing. And between 1980 and 2008 it delivered consistent and stable growth, rapid comeback from downturns, almost 100% growth in hourly compensation.
Bolds mine. 1980 – 2008 is an interesting choice of sample set.
Sam Brownback was elected governor of Kansas in 2011.
Also, on a personal note, a little over a year ago you informed me that my friends suck, they were terrible parents, filling their kids with hate. Because their kid was disturbed by Trump as POTUS.
Also, I was unhinged because I was disturbed by the acts of vandalism and harassment that followed Trump’s election, in my community.
Conversely, my statement that Randian objectivism, in its political and social expression, was toxic, was pronounced, by you, to be “insulting”.
Your sense of what is and is not offensive seems, to me, selective.
The tax bill will be good for some folks, not so good for others. It will be *consistently and unequivocally* good for US corporations, and for people who derive their income from pass-through entities.
Whether the benefits to corporations result in benefits to the population, broadly, remains to be seen. It might, but it’s equally if not more likely that it will not.
The benefits to individuals mostly depend on whether folks itemize or not, and on what they itemize. And, those benefits may go away, and folks will end up worse off than they are now.
You insist that they will not go away, but we already have experience with bullshit workarounds introduced so that tax changes can be passed via reconcilation. Sometimes the workarounds go away, sometimes they don’t.
The economy may grow at 3%. Or it may grow at 1%. Or it may not grow at all.
Or, it may grow, and the lion’s share of the growth may go to a very small sector of the population.
Personally, I find the last the most likely. Growth per se doesn’t equal a broadly distributed benefit.
Net/net, you have no freaking idea if the tax bill will be beneficial to “the middle class” or not. Claims that you do know, or can predict, are just you pulling stuff out of your butt. It depends.
What is not in question is that it will be extremely beneficial for corporations and the people who own them.
Kansas isn’t even close to the same thing. And between 1980 and 2008 it delivered consistent and stable growth, rapid comeback from downturns, almost 100% growth in hourly compensation.
Bolds mine. 1980 – 2008 is an interesting choice of sample set.
Sam Brownback was elected governor of Kansas in 2011.
Also, on a personal note, a little over a year ago you informed me that my friends suck, they were terrible parents, filling their kids with hate. Because their kid was disturbed by Trump as POTUS.
Also, I was unhinged because I was disturbed by the acts of vandalism and harassment that followed Trump’s election, in my community.
Conversely, my statement that Randian objectivism, in its political and social expression, was toxic, was pronounced, by you, to be “insulting”.
Your sense of what is and is not offensive seems, to me, selective.
The tax bill will be good for some folks, not so good for others. It will be *consistently and unequivocally* good for US corporations, and for people who derive their income from pass-through entities.
Whether the benefits to corporations result in benefits to the population, broadly, remains to be seen. It might, but it’s equally if not more likely that it will not.
The benefits to individuals mostly depend on whether folks itemize or not, and on what they itemize. And, those benefits may go away, and folks will end up worse off than they are now.
You insist that they will not go away, but we already have experience with bullshit workarounds introduced so that tax changes can be passed via reconcilation. Sometimes the workarounds go away, sometimes they don’t.
The economy may grow at 3%. Or it may grow at 1%. Or it may not grow at all.
Or, it may grow, and the lion’s share of the growth may go to a very small sector of the population.
Personally, I find the last the most likely. Growth per se doesn’t equal a broadly distributed benefit.
Net/net, you have no freaking idea if the tax bill will be beneficial to “the middle class” or not. Claims that you do know, or can predict, are just you pulling stuff out of your butt. It depends.
What is not in question is that it will be extremely beneficial for corporations and the people who own them.
Is there an reputable economist anywhere who thinks a deficit-funded stimulus as a good idea at this stage of the economic cycle? Because it’s contrary to all economic theory I’ve ever encountered.
Marty, you must be able to show me the economists I’ve overlooked, thanks.
Is there an reputable economist anywhere who thinks a deficit-funded stimulus as a good idea at this stage of the economic cycle? Because it’s contrary to all economic theory I’ve ever encountered.
Marty, you must be able to show me the economists I’ve overlooked, thanks.
and it should never be forgotten that the GOP is counting on the election of a despicable, deranged, theocratic, alleged child molester, Roy Moore, in order to guarantee that corporations make even more in profits and that churches can preach the religion of Republicanism.
the party of family values never fails to disgust.
and it should never be forgotten that the GOP is counting on the election of a despicable, deranged, theocratic, alleged child molester, Roy Moore, in order to guarantee that corporations make even more in profits and that churches can preach the religion of Republicanism.
the party of family values never fails to disgust.
Lies? I don’t see a one.
I do.
The cuts will create so much growth there will be no deficit increase.
The US has the highest rate of corporate tax in the world.
The corporate rate cut will be a huge stimulus to investment. (Ask Gary Cohn about that one.)
The benefits will go to employees, not shareholders. (looked at the stock market lately?)
Estate taxes force the sale of family farms and small businesses.
The reform will cost Trump a fortune.
Oh, and as to GDP. Growth comes from two things : labor force growth and productivity growth. Labor force growth is not today what it was from the 60’s through the 80’s. That matters.
Lies? I don’t see a one.
I do.
The cuts will create so much growth there will be no deficit increase.
The US has the highest rate of corporate tax in the world.
The corporate rate cut will be a huge stimulus to investment. (Ask Gary Cohn about that one.)
The benefits will go to employees, not shareholders. (looked at the stock market lately?)
Estate taxes force the sale of family farms and small businesses.
The reform will cost Trump a fortune.
Oh, and as to GDP. Growth comes from two things : labor force growth and productivity growth. Labor force growth is not today what it was from the 60’s through the 80’s. That matters.
“Also, on a personal note, a little over a year ago you informed me that my friends suck, they were terrible parents, filling their kids with hate. Because their kid was disturbed by Trump as POTUS.
Also, I was unhinged because I was disturbed by the acts of vandalism and harassment that followed Trump’s election, in my community.”
Personally, I have been subjected to being called names here that make anything I said about you or your neighbors pale in comparison.
I suspect if you go back and read the end of the world comments from last year you could understand the reaction from people like me. Or not.
Net/net I agree, it depends, so all the name calling of people who support it is based on pulling things out of the name callers butt.
So I have no tolerance for being told I cant prove it will so I am some kind of evil monster for thinking it will, and it has.
Show my work? Thirty years of stable economic impact from supply side economics shows my work. The last ten of painfully slow growth based on whatever economic theory Obama might have embraced, which to me was neither beast nor fowl, certainly hasn’t done the trick.
I am ok with trying something that worked before.
It is supposed to be good for corporations, that employ people and pay taxes and contribute to the overall economic health of the country.
“Also, on a personal note, a little over a year ago you informed me that my friends suck, they were terrible parents, filling their kids with hate. Because their kid was disturbed by Trump as POTUS.
Also, I was unhinged because I was disturbed by the acts of vandalism and harassment that followed Trump’s election, in my community.”
Personally, I have been subjected to being called names here that make anything I said about you or your neighbors pale in comparison.
I suspect if you go back and read the end of the world comments from last year you could understand the reaction from people like me. Or not.
Net/net I agree, it depends, so all the name calling of people who support it is based on pulling things out of the name callers butt.
So I have no tolerance for being told I cant prove it will so I am some kind of evil monster for thinking it will, and it has.
Show my work? Thirty years of stable economic impact from supply side economics shows my work. The last ten of painfully slow growth based on whatever economic theory Obama might have embraced, which to me was neither beast nor fowl, certainly hasn’t done the trick.
I am ok with trying something that worked before.
It is supposed to be good for corporations, that employ people and pay taxes and contribute to the overall economic health of the country.
Since the discussion has touched on the Kansas experiment, I offer the following bit of analysis to conservative cut-taxes-at-all-costs state legislators. This is based on my time on a state budget staff. It applies to a “typical” state, which most are.
Your state budget is about half general fund spending, half single-purpose spending. An example of single-purpose spending is your state’s unemployment insurance program, which is a significant chunk of money [1]. Your general fund spending is, since you’re typical, about 40% for K-12 education, about 25% for traditional Medicaid, then smaller chunks for human services, safety (mostly prisons), transportation, and higher ed. Speaking broadly, the spending cuts to balance your tax cuts will have to come from those “big six” programs.
If yours is a conservative enough state to allow cut-taxes-at-all-cost legislators to win the trifecta (both chambers of the legislature plus the governor), your Medicaid program is probably already operating very close to the federal minimums. Because of that, your choices don’t include squeezing Medicaid just a little; it’s leave it alone or drop it altogether. Dropping it altogether will get you killed because half of the money is going to support people’s elderly relatives in old-folks homes.
If your goal is to reduce state government 20%, you can’t do it even if you wipe out the “little four” entirely (35% of 50% is only 17.5% of your state budget). Additionally, some parts of human services are almost untouchable because of political blowback: services for the elderly and child welfare, for example [2]. If the roads fall apart too far, you’re toast. If you release the prison population, you’re toast. Higher ed? Well, there’s a reason that higher ed funding fell dramatically after the 2007-8 recession, and has not recovered. OTOH, look at what happened when LSU suggested they might have to close their doors if Bobby Jindal’s proposed higher ed cuts were passed. YMMV.
Yes, K-12 is heavily funded at the state level. Back in the 1960s everyone discovered that property (wealth) taxes high enough to support a uniform state-wide school system were a Bad Idea. Income or sales taxes were better, as was having rich districts prop up the poor ones. (A simple progressive consumption tax is probably best, but no one’s tried that.) If yours is a lucky state, you have some way to tax people from other states for significant amounts of revenue: severance taxes on oil/gas/coal a la Texas and Alaska, hotel room taxes a la Florida and Nevada. Still, the Kansas lesson on K-12 spending has at least three parts: (a) the districts where you are strongest (ie, rural) are most vulnerable to state K-12 spending cuts, (b) even in rural states you need suburban votes to retain control and (c) when K-12 is cut far enough, suburban voters will abandon you. Oklahoma is currently running a repeat of the experiment and looks to be getting the same results. What I read suggests that NC is about two years from the point where we’ll know about their suburban voters.
[1] Your UI is a joint state/federal program. Your UI taxes have to spent on UI benefits and administration. You don’t have to have a conforming state UI program, but if you don’t, federal taxes cut in and they’re almost certainly a lot higher than your state tax, and employers in your state will spend what it takes to remove you from office and put in someone who will restore the UI program [3].
[2] Note also that nutrition assistance (SNAP, formerly food stamps) is a mandatory program. The feds fund it, but your state will have to staff it and maintain the computer system the staff uses to administer it. A minimal system costs at least $200M, plus annual maintenance fees.
[3] We had a legislator in my state who decided that abandoning the state UI program was a winning re-election plank and started pushing the idea in his stump speech. Two weeks later, the opening to the stump speech became, “I have heard from the employers in my district. I didn’t understand how UI financing worked. What I was saying was dumb. The state UI program must be maintained.”
Since the discussion has touched on the Kansas experiment, I offer the following bit of analysis to conservative cut-taxes-at-all-costs state legislators. This is based on my time on a state budget staff. It applies to a “typical” state, which most are.
Your state budget is about half general fund spending, half single-purpose spending. An example of single-purpose spending is your state’s unemployment insurance program, which is a significant chunk of money [1]. Your general fund spending is, since you’re typical, about 40% for K-12 education, about 25% for traditional Medicaid, then smaller chunks for human services, safety (mostly prisons), transportation, and higher ed. Speaking broadly, the spending cuts to balance your tax cuts will have to come from those “big six” programs.
If yours is a conservative enough state to allow cut-taxes-at-all-cost legislators to win the trifecta (both chambers of the legislature plus the governor), your Medicaid program is probably already operating very close to the federal minimums. Because of that, your choices don’t include squeezing Medicaid just a little; it’s leave it alone or drop it altogether. Dropping it altogether will get you killed because half of the money is going to support people’s elderly relatives in old-folks homes.
If your goal is to reduce state government 20%, you can’t do it even if you wipe out the “little four” entirely (35% of 50% is only 17.5% of your state budget). Additionally, some parts of human services are almost untouchable because of political blowback: services for the elderly and child welfare, for example [2]. If the roads fall apart too far, you’re toast. If you release the prison population, you’re toast. Higher ed? Well, there’s a reason that higher ed funding fell dramatically after the 2007-8 recession, and has not recovered. OTOH, look at what happened when LSU suggested they might have to close their doors if Bobby Jindal’s proposed higher ed cuts were passed. YMMV.
Yes, K-12 is heavily funded at the state level. Back in the 1960s everyone discovered that property (wealth) taxes high enough to support a uniform state-wide school system were a Bad Idea. Income or sales taxes were better, as was having rich districts prop up the poor ones. (A simple progressive consumption tax is probably best, but no one’s tried that.) If yours is a lucky state, you have some way to tax people from other states for significant amounts of revenue: severance taxes on oil/gas/coal a la Texas and Alaska, hotel room taxes a la Florida and Nevada. Still, the Kansas lesson on K-12 spending has at least three parts: (a) the districts where you are strongest (ie, rural) are most vulnerable to state K-12 spending cuts, (b) even in rural states you need suburban votes to retain control and (c) when K-12 is cut far enough, suburban voters will abandon you. Oklahoma is currently running a repeat of the experiment and looks to be getting the same results. What I read suggests that NC is about two years from the point where we’ll know about their suburban voters.
[1] Your UI is a joint state/federal program. Your UI taxes have to spent on UI benefits and administration. You don’t have to have a conforming state UI program, but if you don’t, federal taxes cut in and they’re almost certainly a lot higher than your state tax, and employers in your state will spend what it takes to remove you from office and put in someone who will restore the UI program [3].
[2] Note also that nutrition assistance (SNAP, formerly food stamps) is a mandatory program. The feds fund it, but your state will have to staff it and maintain the computer system the staff uses to administer it. A minimal system costs at least $200M, plus annual maintenance fees.
[3] We had a legislator in my state who decided that abandoning the state UI program was a winning re-election plank and started pushing the idea in his stump speech. Two weeks later, the opening to the stump speech became, “I have heard from the employers in my district. I didn’t understand how UI financing worked. What I was saying was dumb. The state UI program must be maintained.”
Marty: And Tony, really? I’m ignoring you? I was pretty sure the question was rhetorical. Because unlimited tax cuts WOULD explode the deficit. Do you have an actual argument?
My question was socratic, not rhetorical:
” Why not raise the standard deduction to $50K? Why not cut the corporate rate to 10%?” I did not ask you about “unlimited” tax cuts; that’s your straw man.
Your claim was that the GOP tax cut would “make everyone better off”. You said that was your “fundamental belief”, so I want to know how fundamentally you hold it.
Evidently, you oppose tax cuts that “WOULD explode the deficit”. I ask, socratically again: how does “the deficit” make some or all people not-better-off?
Rhetorically, I ask:
I would like you,
cleekMarty, to show me one shred of evidencethey won’t grow the economySanta Claus doesn’t exist.And quite sincerely, I ask:
How will preferential treatment of “pass-through” income actually work in your case?
I’m not asking for personal info here. Just curious whether Sched C income counts as “pass-through”, for instance.
–TP
Marty: And Tony, really? I’m ignoring you? I was pretty sure the question was rhetorical. Because unlimited tax cuts WOULD explode the deficit. Do you have an actual argument?
My question was socratic, not rhetorical:
” Why not raise the standard deduction to $50K? Why not cut the corporate rate to 10%?” I did not ask you about “unlimited” tax cuts; that’s your straw man.
Your claim was that the GOP tax cut would “make everyone better off”. You said that was your “fundamental belief”, so I want to know how fundamentally you hold it.
Evidently, you oppose tax cuts that “WOULD explode the deficit”. I ask, socratically again: how does “the deficit” make some or all people not-better-off?
Rhetorically, I ask:
I would like you,
cleekMarty, to show me one shred of evidencethey won’t grow the economySanta Claus doesn’t exist.And quite sincerely, I ask:
How will preferential treatment of “pass-through” income actually work in your case?
I’m not asking for personal info here. Just curious whether Sched C income counts as “pass-through”, for instance.
–TP
Again, did you forget what happened to the economy before Obama took office? Is that your idea of stable economic growth? What universe are you living in?
Again, did you forget what happened to the economy before Obama took office? Is that your idea of stable economic growth? What universe are you living in?
Also, too, this:
https://www.cbpp.org/income-gains-widely-shared-in-early-postwar-decades-but-not-since-then-0
Also, too, this:
https://www.cbpp.org/income-gains-widely-shared-in-early-postwar-decades-but-not-since-then-0
It is supposed to be good for corporations, that employ people and pay taxes and contribute to the overall economic health of the country.
The company I work for is doing everything it can to jack up profits, mostly at the expense of workers, in particular piling ever more projects onto people who are already overworked, and refusing to hire more help to get the projects done. Also refusing to spend a dime on other needed things, never mind the list.
And as far as I can tell, my company is one of the more humane ones. I am at the point where I start to gag when I hear about corporations and job creation.
It is supposed to be good for corporations, that employ people and pay taxes and contribute to the overall economic health of the country.
The company I work for is doing everything it can to jack up profits, mostly at the expense of workers, in particular piling ever more projects onto people who are already overworked, and refusing to hire more help to get the projects done. Also refusing to spend a dime on other needed things, never mind the list.
And as far as I can tell, my company is one of the more humane ones. I am at the point where I start to gag when I hear about corporations and job creation.
I suspect if you go back and read the end of the world comments from last year you could understand the reaction from people like me. Or not.
Whatever, man. I can dish it, and I can take it.
I just find the sniffy complaints about the insulting tone here kind of… selective.
As far as end of the world, some kids in my community go to school and wonder if their parents will still be there when they get home.
End of the world? No biggie? All a matter of perspective.
Thirty years of stable economic impact from supply side economics shows my work.
As with the offense-o-meter, the definition of what economic impact is beneficial and which is not is highly selective.
I suspect if you go back and read the end of the world comments from last year you could understand the reaction from people like me. Or not.
Whatever, man. I can dish it, and I can take it.
I just find the sniffy complaints about the insulting tone here kind of… selective.
As far as end of the world, some kids in my community go to school and wonder if their parents will still be there when they get home.
End of the world? No biggie? All a matter of perspective.
Thirty years of stable economic impact from supply side economics shows my work.
As with the offense-o-meter, the definition of what economic impact is beneficial and which is not is highly selective.
Roy Moore, all that, plus a liar!
the GOP is a cult.
Roy Moore, all that, plus a liar!
the GOP is a cult.
the GOP is a cult.
indeed
https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/trump-science-job-nominees-missing-150639114.html
the GOP is a cult.
indeed
https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/trump-science-job-nominees-missing-150639114.html
Show my work? Thirty years of stable economic impact from supply side economics shows my work.
WTF is “stable economic impact” ?
The last ten of painfully slow growth based on whatever economic theory Obama might have embraced,
do you seriously think we’re this stupid here? do you think nobody here is capable of figuring out that 2017 – 10 = 2007? do you think nobody here recalls that there was a severe economic shock in 2007, when Bush was President? and that that shock took years to climb out of ?
do you think nobody has ever seen this chart?
https://cdn.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/07064306/LaborMarket_jan16_fig1.png
Show my work? Thirty years of stable economic impact from supply side economics shows my work.
WTF is “stable economic impact” ?
The last ten of painfully slow growth based on whatever economic theory Obama might have embraced,
do you seriously think we’re this stupid here? do you think nobody here is capable of figuring out that 2017 – 10 = 2007? do you think nobody here recalls that there was a severe economic shock in 2007, when Bush was President? and that that shock took years to climb out of ?
do you think nobody has ever seen this chart?
https://cdn.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/07064306/LaborMarket_jan16_fig1.png
The last ten of painfully slow growth based on whatever economic theory Obama might have embraced…
Ten years ago, Bush was asleep at the wheel while Wall Street blew itself up. That was the effect of the economic theory that we should help rich rent-seekers get richer.
Obama managed to get the ARRA stimulus package passed in 2009 when it was most needed, to good effect. Since then the executive and legislature have been unable to agree on anything much, so no one has been responsible (or if you prefer, everyone has been irresponsible).
Again, can you please point me to the economic theory which says that a deficit-funded stimulus is a good idea at this point in the cycle?
Amusingly, the Heritage Foundation published a report in 2001 predicting that the Bush tax cuts would eliminate the national debt by 2010. If we’re learn anything from that history, it’s that:
– deficit-funded tax cuts or spending increases do not in normal circumstances pay for themselves, as elementary economics would tell you. (They may be justified in exceptional circumstances, see 2008-9.)
– supposedly temporary tax cuts or spending increases are politically difficult to reverse when the time comes. Marty is right that the cuts may well not reverse as planned. Which means that future deficits are likely to be larger than projected.
The last ten of painfully slow growth based on whatever economic theory Obama might have embraced…
Ten years ago, Bush was asleep at the wheel while Wall Street blew itself up. That was the effect of the economic theory that we should help rich rent-seekers get richer.
Obama managed to get the ARRA stimulus package passed in 2009 when it was most needed, to good effect. Since then the executive and legislature have been unable to agree on anything much, so no one has been responsible (or if you prefer, everyone has been irresponsible).
Again, can you please point me to the economic theory which says that a deficit-funded stimulus is a good idea at this point in the cycle?
Amusingly, the Heritage Foundation published a report in 2001 predicting that the Bush tax cuts would eliminate the national debt by 2010. If we’re learn anything from that history, it’s that:
– deficit-funded tax cuts or spending increases do not in normal circumstances pay for themselves, as elementary economics would tell you. (They may be justified in exceptional circumstances, see 2008-9.)
– supposedly temporary tax cuts or spending increases are politically difficult to reverse when the time comes. Marty is right that the cuts may well not reverse as planned. Which means that future deficits are likely to be larger than projected.
Thirty years of stable economic impact from supply side economics shows my work.
I seem to recall predictions from supply siders that Clinton’s tax increases would result in economic disaster. And yet they were followed by a boom big enough that the Federal government ran its first surplus in half a century.
So maybe, just maybe, that economic view isn’t quite as clearly accurate as you suggest.
Thirty years of stable economic impact from supply side economics shows my work.
I seem to recall predictions from supply siders that Clinton’s tax increases would result in economic disaster. And yet they were followed by a boom big enough that the Federal government ran its first surplus in half a century.
So maybe, just maybe, that economic view isn’t quite as clearly accurate as you suggest.
Which means that future deficits are likely to be larger than projected.
which is why the proper response to any Republican who says the word “deficit” should be to point and laugh.
Which means that future deficits are likely to be larger than projected.
which is why the proper response to any Republican who says the word “deficit” should be to point and laugh.
Marty,
Here is a nice summary of some of the smaller scummy provisions of the bill.
Oh, and if you are tired of being insulted don’t say insult-worthy things, and don’t support blatantly destructive policies.
Marty,
Here is a nice summary of some of the smaller scummy provisions of the bill.
Oh, and if you are tired of being insulted don’t say insult-worthy things, and don’t support blatantly destructive policies.
The 1950s, with alleged backbreaking individual marginal tax rates, even for earners at the low end, unthinkably higher before JFK lowered the highest bracket to 70% were a long period of stable economic impact with stellar GNP growth by all measures.
John Boehner wept in rememberance, though that may have included remembering racial segregation in Cincinnati as well.
I’d post the charts and graphs for the 15th time in the last ten years, but fuck it.
There is no evidence that a different set of economic policies could have provided better results, so I’ll follow Donald ump’s best business practice of “you just tell them anything, and they’ll be believe it”.
The world is just one big pussy to the Republican Party.
The 1950s, with alleged backbreaking individual marginal tax rates, even for earners at the low end, unthinkably higher before JFK lowered the highest bracket to 70% were a long period of stable economic impact with stellar GNP growth by all measures.
John Boehner wept in rememberance, though that may have included remembering racial segregation in Cincinnati as well.
I’d post the charts and graphs for the 15th time in the last ten years, but fuck it.
There is no evidence that a different set of economic policies could have provided better results, so I’ll follow Donald ump’s best business practice of “you just tell them anything, and they’ll be believe it”.
The world is just one big pussy to the Republican Party.
hsh: the GOP is a cult.
indeed
“>https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/trump-science-job-nominees-missing-150639114.html (an article on the lack of credentials of Trump administration appointees to science jobs)
How could it be otherwise? If you insist that your people agree with views that conflict with well established science, you aren’t going to find much in the way of credentialed experts.
hsh: the GOP is a cult.
indeed
“>https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/trump-science-job-nominees-missing-150639114.html (an article on the lack of credentials of Trump administration appointees to science jobs)
How could it be otherwise? If you insist that your people agree with views that conflict with well established science, you aren’t going to find much in the way of credentialed experts.
Conyers resigns, while the RNC jumps in to spend money to support Roy Moore.
the GOP is a cult.
Conyers resigns, while the RNC jumps in to spend money to support Roy Moore.
the GOP is a cult.
A Roy Moore spokespussy told someone or other today that we must take into consideration the women who HAVEN’T been molested by their candidate.
That seems a likely explanation for republican tax policy as well.
Or anything.
A Roy Moore spokespussy told someone or other today that we must take into consideration the women who HAVEN’T been molested by their candidate.
That seems a likely explanation for republican tax policy as well.
Or anything.
Sometimes it makes sense to lower taxes, even if that results in taking on more debt.
Sometimes it makes sense to do the opposite.
US corporate tax rates are pretty high. Effective rates vary by sector, but still average out around 20 percent-ish. More.
So, there is a reasonable argument to be made that US corporate rates are, relative to other places, high.
Arguing about whether a particular tax regime change is virtuous or not depends on what the current situation is, and how the tax changes are targeted.
The Senate and House bills will be a tremendous benefit to corporations. They will be a mixed bag for individuals, and as written will in fact be net negative for most individuals long term.
They will also add $1.5 trillion bucks of debt to the federal budget over ten years. Which is a lot. It could “pay for itself” by creating overall growth sufficient to offset that amount. That assumes that the additional growth will also result in enhanced revenues to the federal bottom line. Which is not a given.
Whether all of that will be beneficial to the “middle class” – for purposes of this discussion, that appears to be defined as households earning $40K to $120K – depends not only on the direct change to their federal income tax liability, but also on whether other goods and services that they receive that are currently funded by the feds go away due to budget shortfalls. It also depends on whether whatever increased economic growth is created ends up as money in their pockets.
It’s likely that some of what they get from the feds now will go away.
It’s unlikely given our national history of the last 35 or so years that increased growth in corporate profits and productivity will find its way to their pockets as wage income.
To the degree that they hold equity in businesses, they may some benefit there.
Net/net, really good for corps, of mixed benefit and possible net negative for individuals in general.
Sometimes it makes sense to lower taxes, even if that results in taking on more debt.
Sometimes it makes sense to do the opposite.
US corporate tax rates are pretty high. Effective rates vary by sector, but still average out around 20 percent-ish. More.
So, there is a reasonable argument to be made that US corporate rates are, relative to other places, high.
Arguing about whether a particular tax regime change is virtuous or not depends on what the current situation is, and how the tax changes are targeted.
The Senate and House bills will be a tremendous benefit to corporations. They will be a mixed bag for individuals, and as written will in fact be net negative for most individuals long term.
They will also add $1.5 trillion bucks of debt to the federal budget over ten years. Which is a lot. It could “pay for itself” by creating overall growth sufficient to offset that amount. That assumes that the additional growth will also result in enhanced revenues to the federal bottom line. Which is not a given.
Whether all of that will be beneficial to the “middle class” – for purposes of this discussion, that appears to be defined as households earning $40K to $120K – depends not only on the direct change to their federal income tax liability, but also on whether other goods and services that they receive that are currently funded by the feds go away due to budget shortfalls. It also depends on whether whatever increased economic growth is created ends up as money in their pockets.
It’s likely that some of what they get from the feds now will go away.
It’s unlikely given our national history of the last 35 or so years that increased growth in corporate profits and productivity will find its way to their pockets as wage income.
To the degree that they hold equity in businesses, they may some benefit there.
Net/net, really good for corps, of mixed benefit and possible net negative for individuals in general.
and it’s completely unnecessary.
and it’s completely unnecessary.
I don’t have a huge problem with lowering the corporate tax rate.
I’d like to see people who work for a living get a bigger slice of the upside. Tax overhaul or not.
I don’t have a huge problem with lowering the corporate tax rate.
I’d like to see people who work for a living get a bigger slice of the upside. Tax overhaul or not.
and it’s completely unnecessary.
That depends entirely, of course, on how you define “necessary.”
If you mean “necessary for the good of the economy,” there is lots of room to doubt it. There is some faint possibility that it will do good, but “necessity” is a hard case to make.
But if you mean “necessary to keep our donors sweet and giving us money,” as at least one Republican member of Congress has said, then yes it may well be necessary. Although whether those donors would all really walk away seems dubious to me, I may well be wrong on that.
and it’s completely unnecessary.
That depends entirely, of course, on how you define “necessary.”
If you mean “necessary for the good of the economy,” there is lots of room to doubt it. There is some faint possibility that it will do good, but “necessity” is a hard case to make.
But if you mean “necessary to keep our donors sweet and giving us money,” as at least one Republican member of Congress has said, then yes it may well be necessary. Although whether those donors would all really walk away seems dubious to me, I may well be wrong on that.
I don’t have a huge problem with lowering the corporate tax rate.
Me neither. But, if simplifying the tax code is one of the big goals, lower the rate and get rid of most of the avoidance measures that are now available – especially the ones that account for the big variations among different industries.
Then take another look at subsidies (you know, if we’re pretending sensible options are actually realistic).
I don’t have a huge problem with lowering the corporate tax rate.
Me neither. But, if simplifying the tax code is one of the big goals, lower the rate and get rid of most of the avoidance measures that are now available – especially the ones that account for the big variations among different industries.
Then take another look at subsidies (you know, if we’re pretending sensible options are actually realistic).
russell: I don’t have a huge problem with lowering the corporate tax rate.
I don’t give a damn about the rate, and I bet corporate chieftains don’t either. Corporations, like meat people, pay dollars in taxes.
Corporations pay some fraction of the dollars the US Treasury takes in, and meat people pay the rest. Tax “reform” which reduces that fraction (by cutting the rate but leaving “loopholes” in place) simply means that meat people (whose rates don’t drop much but whose own “loopholes” get eliminated) end up paying a bigger share of aggregate tax dollars than before.
Incidentally, our heroic corporations (who need help to “compete” in the world) are not multinational merely in terms of their customer base or their work force; they are also multinational in terms of their equity ownership. To the extent corporate after-tax income flows to meat people, Real Murkins should remember that many of those meat people are NOT.
–TP
russell: I don’t have a huge problem with lowering the corporate tax rate.
I don’t give a damn about the rate, and I bet corporate chieftains don’t either. Corporations, like meat people, pay dollars in taxes.
Corporations pay some fraction of the dollars the US Treasury takes in, and meat people pay the rest. Tax “reform” which reduces that fraction (by cutting the rate but leaving “loopholes” in place) simply means that meat people (whose rates don’t drop much but whose own “loopholes” get eliminated) end up paying a bigger share of aggregate tax dollars than before.
Incidentally, our heroic corporations (who need help to “compete” in the world) are not multinational merely in terms of their customer base or their work force; they are also multinational in terms of their equity ownership. To the extent corporate after-tax income flows to meat people, Real Murkins should remember that many of those meat people are NOT.
–TP
Absent nuclear war, this is the single thing which worries me most about Trump – that he will maim for decades the US legal system:
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/would-trump-consider-a-court-packing-scheme
Not content with channeling Nixon, he’s incorporating the worst bits of FDR….
Absent nuclear war, this is the single thing which worries me most about Trump – that he will maim for decades the US legal system:
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/would-trump-consider-a-court-packing-scheme
Not content with channeling Nixon, he’s incorporating the worst bits of FDR….
More on the Careful analysis the Republicans gave to the tax plan.
More on the Careful analysis the Republicans gave to the tax plan.
Nigel,
It’s terrible, I agree. And yet the proposal comes from one of the founders of the Federalist Society, that bastion of so-called responsible conservatism.
Apparently he thinks having Donald Trump appoint the bulk of the nation’s federal judges is just wonderful.
Nigel,
It’s terrible, I agree. And yet the proposal comes from one of the founders of the Federalist Society, that bastion of so-called responsible conservatism.
Apparently he thinks having Donald Trump appoint the bulk of the nation’s federal judges is just wonderful.
Get Thee To Hell, demands the GOP’s latest beloved representative of all that is Republican.
the GOP is a cult.
Get Thee To Hell, demands the GOP’s latest beloved representative of all that is Republican.
the GOP is a cult.
What’s a little anti-Semitism among evangelical right-wing pussy-grabbing murderers setting up Jerusulam and the World for the End Days?
We … America …. are fucking insane.
Fuck elections.
What’s a little anti-Semitism among evangelical right-wing pussy-grabbing murderers setting up Jerusulam and the World for the End Days?
We … America …. are fucking insane.
Fuck elections.
here’s what I find unutterably FUBAR about the tax bill.
Per the CBO scores, folks who make less than $30K a year are, as a group, worse off. Worse off initially, worse off five years out, worse off ten years out, worse off if the individual provisions expire, worse off if they don’t.
Just worse off. No upside, no relief, no consideration, nobody looking out for their interests whatsoever. Nothing. Our offer to them is nothing.
It takes a special kind of malice to give a big upside to the wealthiest freaking people in the country, and kick the poorest in the freaking nuts.
If “malice” just seems too strong a word then I’m happy to go with callous indifference.
here’s what I find unutterably FUBAR about the tax bill.
Per the CBO scores, folks who make less than $30K a year are, as a group, worse off. Worse off initially, worse off five years out, worse off ten years out, worse off if the individual provisions expire, worse off if they don’t.
Just worse off. No upside, no relief, no consideration, nobody looking out for their interests whatsoever. Nothing. Our offer to them is nothing.
It takes a special kind of malice to give a big upside to the wealthiest freaking people in the country, and kick the poorest in the freaking nuts.
If “malice” just seems too strong a word then I’m happy to go with callous indifference.
If “malice” just seems too strong a word then I’m happy to go with callous indifference.
Kind of randomly, but related: I’ve been reminded from a couple of directions lately of the death of Fred Hampton, and also of the various phases of violence that attended the long road toward organized labor in the U.S.
Also (related to the other thread) of the deliberate provocation of racial hatred in the early colonies as a way to ward off class conflict. (See Jefferson’s Pillow, by Roger Wilkins.)
I think “malice” is a perfectly apt word.
Without going back to find the exact numbers, I’ll repeat for the umpteenth time that in the US in 1979, the ratio between the average after-tax household income of the top 1% of 1% to the bottom quintile was roughly 300 to 1. In 2005 it was more than 1500 to 1. russell has reiterated the same thing without the actual numbers: that in roughly that time period, most of the wealth has gone to the top, while the bottom 80% or so has been stagnant. When I get time I’ll dig out the details yet again, and the graph.
In my own daily life I know, and know of, very well off people who can’t stop talking about all the lazy poor people who can’t get up off their asses and get a job. They drip malice.
If “malice” just seems too strong a word then I’m happy to go with callous indifference.
Kind of randomly, but related: I’ve been reminded from a couple of directions lately of the death of Fred Hampton, and also of the various phases of violence that attended the long road toward organized labor in the U.S.
Also (related to the other thread) of the deliberate provocation of racial hatred in the early colonies as a way to ward off class conflict. (See Jefferson’s Pillow, by Roger Wilkins.)
I think “malice” is a perfectly apt word.
Without going back to find the exact numbers, I’ll repeat for the umpteenth time that in the US in 1979, the ratio between the average after-tax household income of the top 1% of 1% to the bottom quintile was roughly 300 to 1. In 2005 it was more than 1500 to 1. russell has reiterated the same thing without the actual numbers: that in roughly that time period, most of the wealth has gone to the top, while the bottom 80% or so has been stagnant. When I get time I’ll dig out the details yet again, and the graph.
In my own daily life I know, and know of, very well off people who can’t stop talking about all the lazy poor people who can’t get up off their asses and get a job. They drip malice.
If “malice” just seems too strong a word then I’m happy to go with callous indifference.
Actually, “malice” seems like pale beer. Are you sure you can’t work “viscious” in somewhere?
If “malice” just seems too strong a word then I’m happy to go with callous indifference.
Actually, “malice” seems like pale beer. Are you sure you can’t work “viscious” in somewhere?
Or even “vicious”?
Or even “vicious”?
I hate auto correct!
I hate auto correct!
Whee!
https://www.politico.com/story/2017/12/06/tax-plan-glitches-mistakes-republicans-208049
Whee!
https://www.politico.com/story/2017/12/06/tax-plan-glitches-mistakes-republicans-208049
in the US in 1979, the ratio between the average after-tax household income of the top 1% of 1% to the bottom quintile was roughly 300 to 1. In 2005 it was more than 1500 to 1. russell has reiterated the same thing without the actual numbers: that in roughly that time period, most of the wealth has gone to the top, while the bottom 80% or so has been stagnant. When I get time I’ll dig out the details yet again, and the graph.
This started to turn around under Obama. I’ve posted links numerous times. Republicans just couldn’t bear it.
in the US in 1979, the ratio between the average after-tax household income of the top 1% of 1% to the bottom quintile was roughly 300 to 1. In 2005 it was more than 1500 to 1. russell has reiterated the same thing without the actual numbers: that in roughly that time period, most of the wealth has gone to the top, while the bottom 80% or so has been stagnant. When I get time I’ll dig out the details yet again, and the graph.
This started to turn around under Obama. I’ve posted links numerous times. Republicans just couldn’t bear it.
I quote myself.
I’m going to dig for something a little more comprehensive.
I quote myself.
I’m going to dig for something a little more comprehensive.
Lots of tables (1979-2013):
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/statistics/historical-income-distribution-all-households
Lots of tables (1979-2013):
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/statistics/historical-income-distribution-all-households
Well, five… Is that a lot?
Well, five… Is that a lot?
Okay, hsh, here’s an article to add to your stats:
Thanks, Obama!
Okay, hsh, here’s an article to add to your stats:
Thanks, Obama!
Well, now we know how to address the problem of excessively high morale among Federal employees
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-12-05/fema-tells-staffers-they-might-get-billed-for-working-too-much
Well, now we know how to address the problem of excessively high morale among Federal employees
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-12-05/fema-tells-staffers-they-might-get-billed-for-working-too-much
I’m going to dig for something a little more comprehensive.
See Krugman re The Great Compression: https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/09/18/introducing-this-blog/
I’m going to dig for something a little more comprehensive.
See Krugman re The Great Compression: https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/09/18/introducing-this-blog/
When did the tax bill pass the Senate, four days ago?
This will, of course, be good for America.
When did the tax bill pass the Senate, four days ago?
This will, of course, be good for America.
You just don’t know how to compartmentalize, russell.
You just don’t know how to compartmentalize, russell.
Only think about how much harder it would be (has been, actually) to sell in the other order. Getting entitlements like Medicare and Social Security slashed first has been impossible while deficits just weren’t (really) that big — Ryan knows because he’s tried. Even though it would have allowed tax cuts after.
But now, the tax cuts will drive up deficits and force the desired entitlement cuts.
Only think about how much harder it would be (has been, actually) to sell in the other order. Getting entitlements like Medicare and Social Security slashed first has been impossible while deficits just weren’t (really) that big — Ryan knows because he’s tried. Even though it would have allowed tax cuts after.
But now, the tax cuts will drive up deficits and force the desired entitlement cuts.
he could at least have waited a week.
he could at least have waited a week.
Ha!
Ryan, as far as I can see, still doesn’t really get that his whacky ideology isn’t broadly embraced. He knows that the Democrats don’t buy it, and that some Republicans are reluctant. But that the vast, overwhelming majority of Americans want no part of it simply hasn’t penetrated — let alone that, given only these two alternatives, they would lynch him in an instant rather than give up Social Security and Medicare. Harsh, perhaps, but true.
Ha!
Ryan, as far as I can see, still doesn’t really get that his whacky ideology isn’t broadly embraced. He knows that the Democrats don’t buy it, and that some Republicans are reluctant. But that the vast, overwhelming majority of Americans want no part of it simply hasn’t penetrated — let alone that, given only these two alternatives, they would lynch him in an instant rather than give up Social Security and Medicare. Harsh, perhaps, but true.
Shifting gears slightly.
When the announcement about moving the US embassy in Israel to Jerusalem came out, my wife turned to me and asked “What is that supposed to accomplish?” She’s generally not all that interested in politics nor foreign policy, but even to her it was instantly apparent that this was idiocy.
Still, it seems like a good question, and I think I have maybe come up with an answer. It is NOT a matter of keeping a campaign promise — Trump’s interest in keeping promises, per se, is nil. And nobody with two brain cells to rub together thinks it will improve the prospects for peace in the Middle East.
But it does have one huge plus for him politically: It was pretty much guaranteed to set off protests. Big, possibly violent ones. And Muslims protesting the US, especially if some violence can be generated, plays into his demonization of the religion. Which is one of the few things that could be called a policy constant in his administration.
Shifting gears slightly.
When the announcement about moving the US embassy in Israel to Jerusalem came out, my wife turned to me and asked “What is that supposed to accomplish?” She’s generally not all that interested in politics nor foreign policy, but even to her it was instantly apparent that this was idiocy.
Still, it seems like a good question, and I think I have maybe come up with an answer. It is NOT a matter of keeping a campaign promise — Trump’s interest in keeping promises, per se, is nil. And nobody with two brain cells to rub together thinks it will improve the prospects for peace in the Middle East.
But it does have one huge plus for him politically: It was pretty much guaranteed to set off protests. Big, possibly violent ones. And Muslims protesting the US, especially if some violence can be generated, plays into his demonization of the religion. Which is one of the few things that could be called a policy constant in his administration.
Or, maybe, it is an actual recognition that somehow every other country in the world gets to pick their capital and it’s stupid to deny reality.
Israel is never giving up Jerusalem. Never. So why pretend it’s on the negotiating table anyway?
Or, maybe, it is an actual recognition that somehow every other country in the world gets to pick their capital and it’s stupid to deny reality.
Israel is never giving up Jerusalem. Never. So why pretend it’s on the negotiating table anyway?
there’s your answer, wj. Republicans love it.
there’s your answer, wj. Republicans love it.
Since every other country in the world has its Israeli embassy in Tel Aviv, why move ours? And get nothing in return. Nobody doubts that part of an eventual peace settlement will be recognition of West Jerusalem as the Israeli capital. But you don’t get anywhere in a negotiation by unilateral concessions. Which is what this was.
Since every other country in the world has its Israeli embassy in Tel Aviv, why move ours? And get nothing in return. Nobody doubts that part of an eventual peace settlement will be recognition of West Jerusalem as the Israeli capital. But you don’t get anywhere in a negotiation by unilateral concessions. Which is what this was.
But you don’t get anywhere in a negotiation by unilateral concessions.
Trump got the Palestinians to abandon the idea of the US as an impartial broker. that’s something. plus, violence, more anti-US rhetoric, and cheering from the “if the left hates it, it must be a good idea” crowd.
But you don’t get anywhere in a negotiation by unilateral concessions.
Trump got the Palestinians to abandon the idea of the US as an impartial broker. that’s something. plus, violence, more anti-US rhetoric, and cheering from the “if the left hates it, it must be a good idea” crowd.
We aren’t negotiating with Israel, and their position, which is valid, is why should they give up anything to keep Jerusalem? Why should it ever come up in negotiations?
That makes negotiating harder, because the other side assumes it is on the table to get something for it.
We aren’t negotiating with Israel, and their position, which is valid, is why should they give up anything to keep Jerusalem? Why should it ever come up in negotiations?
That makes negotiating harder, because the other side assumes it is on the table to get something for it.
It all depends on whether you think it’s a good idea to kick hornet’s nests or not.
It all depends on whether you think it’s a good idea to kick hornet’s nests or not.
At the Washington Monthly Nancy LeTourneau points out the appeal this action has to the End Timers.
At the Washington Monthly Nancy LeTourneau points out the appeal this action has to the End Timers.
We are, or at least we were, attempting to broker negotiations. And sometimes, to broker a settlement, the broker gives something as well.
On top of which, we have skin in the game in that we have an interest in a more peaceful Middle East. Which, among other things, requires changes in the way its governments deal with their people. Changes which they currently avoid by pointing to boogie man Israel. Something which would start changing with a peace settlement.
We are, or at least we were, attempting to broker negotiations. And sometimes, to broker a settlement, the broker gives something as well.
On top of which, we have skin in the game in that we have an interest in a more peaceful Middle East. Which, among other things, requires changes in the way its governments deal with their people. Changes which they currently avoid by pointing to boogie man Israel. Something which would start changing with a peace settlement.
Fort Sumter.
ump wants violence so he can kill.
He’s a goddamned, cold-blooded vermin killer, as is the Republican Party, the most dangerous entity on the face of the Earth, whose pussy ump now has well in hand.
His closest confidants, who ump would kill in an instant if they were disloyal to him, brag that he is a killer.
We need many more killer hornets.
Fort Sumter.
ump wants violence so he can kill.
He’s a goddamned, cold-blooded vermin killer, as is the Republican Party, the most dangerous entity on the face of the Earth, whose pussy ump now has well in hand.
His closest confidants, who ump would kill in an instant if they were disloyal to him, brag that he is a killer.
We need many more killer hornets.
Is it going to make the situation better, or worse?
What benefit do we derive from officially recognizing Jerusalem as the Israeli capital, and/or moving our embassy there?
What benefit does anyone derive from it? What harm flows from it?
It’s true, nations can decide on where their own capitals are. Other nations can choose to recognize those choices, or not.
Nation states are sovereigns. They can more or less do what they want. And, whatever they do or don’t do will have real effects, in the real world. And, they will be obliged to deal with and live with those effects.
So, not really such a simple or straightforward decision. It certainly “recognizes a reality”, but it ignores others. The others, however, don’t go away.
Is it going to make the situation better, or worse?
What benefit do we derive from officially recognizing Jerusalem as the Israeli capital, and/or moving our embassy there?
What benefit does anyone derive from it? What harm flows from it?
It’s true, nations can decide on where their own capitals are. Other nations can choose to recognize those choices, or not.
Nation states are sovereigns. They can more or less do what they want. And, whatever they do or don’t do will have real effects, in the real world. And, they will be obliged to deal with and live with those effects.
So, not really such a simple or straightforward decision. It certainly “recognizes a reality”, but it ignores others. The others, however, don’t go away.
I’m really not up on the history of the I-P conflict, but is Marty ignoring some of it in saying they get to pick “their” capital? I don’t think it’s quite like the US deciding that its new capital should be Montreal, but I also don’t think it’s quite as simple as the US deciding its new capital should be St. Louis, either. Anyone?
I’m really not up on the history of the I-P conflict, but is Marty ignoring some of it in saying they get to pick “their” capital? I don’t think it’s quite like the US deciding that its new capital should be Montreal, but I also don’t think it’s quite as simple as the US deciding its new capital should be St. Louis, either. Anyone?
Jerusalem is literally on the border between Israel and the West Bank. More than on the border, it straddles the border – part of Jerusalem is physically in territory that Israel claims, but which is not universally acknowledged as being legitimately theirs.
Whatever claim Israel makes to Jerusalem – historically or otherwise – can be matched by equally credible claims from other folks.
It is, basically, a bone of contention.
It’s not clear to me what this statement from Trump will accomplish other than stirring up an already difficult and complicated situation.
I am completely supportive of Israel’s right to exist, I am also completely supportive of Palestine’s right to exist. They both have a claim to the city. This is not going to help sort it out.
Jerusalem is literally on the border between Israel and the West Bank. More than on the border, it straddles the border – part of Jerusalem is physically in territory that Israel claims, but which is not universally acknowledged as being legitimately theirs.
Whatever claim Israel makes to Jerusalem – historically or otherwise – can be matched by equally credible claims from other folks.
It is, basically, a bone of contention.
It’s not clear to me what this statement from Trump will accomplish other than stirring up an already difficult and complicated situation.
I am completely supportive of Israel’s right to exist, I am also completely supportive of Palestine’s right to exist. They both have a claim to the city. This is not going to help sort it out.
Well if I recall correctly (too lazy to look it up while using my phone) the UN, as part of the resolution creating Israel, had something to say on the subject.
But one of the critical nuances in the discussion is between Jerusalem and West Jerusalem. Unfortunately, the current administration doesn’t do nuance.
Well if I recall correctly (too lazy to look it up while using my phone) the UN, as part of the resolution creating Israel, had something to say on the subject.
But one of the critical nuances in the discussion is between Jerusalem and West Jerusalem. Unfortunately, the current administration doesn’t do nuance.
I repeat my Salomonic plan: Move Israel to Cyprus, Cypriotes to Greece and Turkey, and Palestine to Eastern Germany/Western Poland.
Then have a neutral power (China or maybe North Korea as a part of solving another problem) nuke the Temple mount with the dirtiest stuff in their arsenal, creating a mile deep crater and a landscape so toxic that no one sane would come near it (free tickets for milleniarist Kristians(TM) will be provided).
I repeat my Salomonic plan: Move Israel to Cyprus, Cypriotes to Greece and Turkey, and Palestine to Eastern Germany/Western Poland.
Then have a neutral power (China or maybe North Korea as a part of solving another problem) nuke the Temple mount with the dirtiest stuff in their arsenal, creating a mile deep crater and a landscape so toxic that no one sane would come near it (free tickets for milleniarist Kristians(TM) will be provided).
the current administration doesn’t do nuance.
nope. they do knee-jerk. with heavy emphasis on the jerk.
the current administration doesn’t do nuance.
nope. they do knee-jerk. with heavy emphasis on the jerk.
The status of Jerusalem has been in dispute since the Partition in 1947. It was aggravated further by Israel’s conquest of the entire city in 1967 and their proclamation in 1980 that a ‘complete and united Jerusalem’ to be the capital of Israel.
Insofar as ‘might makes right’ I guess you could say that Marty is correct….but you know, two way streets and all that.
The status of Jerusalem has been in dispute since the Partition in 1947. It was aggravated further by Israel’s conquest of the entire city in 1967 and their proclamation in 1980 that a ‘complete and united Jerusalem’ to be the capital of Israel.
Insofar as ‘might makes right’ I guess you could say that Marty is correct….but you know, two way streets and all that.
Thanks, all. Pronoun trouble strikes again!
Thanks, all. Pronoun trouble strikes again!
The various claims and counter-claims on East Jerusalem, specifically, are a freaking hot mess.
We’ve just placed ourselves firmly, and uniquely, on one side of that pissing match.
Most likely, there will be blood.
Good times.
The various claims and counter-claims on East Jerusalem, specifically, are a freaking hot mess.
We’ve just placed ourselves firmly, and uniquely, on one side of that pissing match.
Most likely, there will be blood.
Good times.
I try not to bother with the Obamabots, just as fanatical as Moore supporters, but here is Matt Bruenig today with numbers and charts
How Obama Destroyed Black Wealth
“However, the total homeownership rate can be misleading in that it includes people with negative equity, which is worse than owning no home at all — it is merely “a rental with debt.” After the crisis, the percentage of black homeowners with negative equity exploded by twenty-fold, from 0.7 percent to 14.2 percent — and unlike white families, did not reach its peak until 2013.”
“Between 2007 and 2016, the wealthiest 10 percent of white families saw their wealth expand by an average of $1.2 million (21.6 percent), the next wealthiest 10 percent of white families increased their net worth by an average of $141,000 (15.5 percent), and the top 10 percent of black families grew their wealth by $78,000 (8 percent). Everyone else experienced wealth declines as high as 40 percent.”
Thanks Obama!
I try not to bother with the Obamabots, just as fanatical as Moore supporters, but here is Matt Bruenig today with numbers and charts
How Obama Destroyed Black Wealth
“However, the total homeownership rate can be misleading in that it includes people with negative equity, which is worse than owning no home at all — it is merely “a rental with debt.” After the crisis, the percentage of black homeowners with negative equity exploded by twenty-fold, from 0.7 percent to 14.2 percent — and unlike white families, did not reach its peak until 2013.”
“Between 2007 and 2016, the wealthiest 10 percent of white families saw their wealth expand by an average of $1.2 million (21.6 percent), the next wealthiest 10 percent of white families increased their net worth by an average of $141,000 (15.5 percent), and the top 10 percent of black families grew their wealth by $78,000 (8 percent). Everyone else experienced wealth declines as high as 40 percent.”
Thanks Obama!
And more emotionally, here’s a Vicious Rant by a black leftist I have been holding. Or maybe a righteous cry.
“Yet, given this shell game that is our politics in DC, what Obama accomplished in 2008 and throughout his administration stands out for its sheer malignant brilliance. Barack conned me and countless millions of Americans into voting for an empty suit who talked a good game while enriching his corporate benefactors. Obama was nothing but a grifter who sold dreams to his followers and manipulated the hopes of the downtrodden and dejected in order to gain the White House. One of the very first meetings Obama had at the White House was with an array of banking executives where he hosted the thieves of Wall Street for a state dinner instead of locking them up in the gulags. Obama conspired to protect the very same criminal enterprise that committed the biggest heist in the history of humanity.”
It gets worse. Or better.
And more emotionally, here’s a Vicious Rant by a black leftist I have been holding. Or maybe a righteous cry.
“Yet, given this shell game that is our politics in DC, what Obama accomplished in 2008 and throughout his administration stands out for its sheer malignant brilliance. Barack conned me and countless millions of Americans into voting for an empty suit who talked a good game while enriching his corporate benefactors. Obama was nothing but a grifter who sold dreams to his followers and manipulated the hopes of the downtrodden and dejected in order to gain the White House. One of the very first meetings Obama had at the White House was with an array of banking executives where he hosted the thieves of Wall Street for a state dinner instead of locking them up in the gulags. Obama conspired to protect the very same criminal enterprise that committed the biggest heist in the history of humanity.”
It gets worse. Or better.
How Obama Destroyed Black Wealth
it’s not often i come across an article that refutes its headline in the first paragraph.
which means the author has deliberately picked a starting point that’s happened before Obama took office and before the 2007 collapse. and, of course that collapse, not Obama, is the reason for the ‘disaster’.
Jacobin, as always, sucks.
How Obama Destroyed Black Wealth
it’s not often i come across an article that refutes its headline in the first paragraph.
which means the author has deliberately picked a starting point that’s happened before Obama took office and before the 2007 collapse. and, of course that collapse, not Obama, is the reason for the ‘disaster’.
Jacobin, as always, sucks.
Like I said, Obamabots.
The collapse may have happened on Bush’s watch (although Obama and the Democratic Congress hold much responsibility at the least for summer and October 2008).
The failure to provide for recovery, and in fact assisting the bankers at the expense of homeowners is on Obama.
“homeowners with negative equity exploded by twenty-fold, from 0.7 percent to 14.2 percent — and unlike white families, did not reach its peak until 2013.”
This is like saying FDR & Dems would have had absolutely no responsibility 1933-1938. Contemptible, and this obsession with symbolic anti-racism and elite tribal politics is exactly what provided the means to the immiseration of black families.
Like I said, Obamabots.
The collapse may have happened on Bush’s watch (although Obama and the Democratic Congress hold much responsibility at the least for summer and October 2008).
The failure to provide for recovery, and in fact assisting the bankers at the expense of homeowners is on Obama.
“homeowners with negative equity exploded by twenty-fold, from 0.7 percent to 14.2 percent — and unlike white families, did not reach its peak until 2013.”
This is like saying FDR & Dems would have had absolutely no responsibility 1933-1938. Contemptible, and this obsession with symbolic anti-racism and elite tribal politics is exactly what provided the means to the immiseration of black families.
yes the 2007 collapse was enormous. Obama didn’t cause it. it took a long time to fix. because it was enormous.
here’s another completely unsurprising fact: the words “Congress”, “Senate” and “Republican” appear nowhere in it. not once. ~2000 words, no mention of the single most important obstacle Obama faced in his tenure. does the author not understand how our government works? does he not care? more importantly, why does he mislead his readers?
well, it’s Jacobin. and they exist to complain about Democrats, not to analyze reality.
yes the 2007 collapse was enormous. Obama didn’t cause it. it took a long time to fix. because it was enormous.
here’s another completely unsurprising fact: the words “Congress”, “Senate” and “Republican” appear nowhere in it. not once. ~2000 words, no mention of the single most important obstacle Obama faced in his tenure. does the author not understand how our government works? does he not care? more importantly, why does he mislead his readers?
well, it’s Jacobin. and they exist to complain about Democrats, not to analyze reality.
Hell, people can read the article, although cleek obviously doesn’t want you to, and see for themselves whether the failure to implement HAMP, pursue vigorous regulation of the mortgage markets and financiers, and use the Justice Dept in 2008-2011 was entirely the fault of Republicans in Congress in 2012-2016.
Sample:”However, largely due to foot-dragging at the Department of Justice, the settlement ended up being toothless. Much of the cash went to “short sales” (simply selling an underwater home) instead of principal reductions, or to other weak relief. Servicers even received roughly $12 billion in credit for waiving outstanding debts from short sales in states where such a waiver is already legally mandatory. JPMorgan Chase allegedly claimed credit for forgiving loans that it had already sold.”
Hell, people can read the article, although cleek obviously doesn’t want you to, and see for themselves whether the failure to implement HAMP, pursue vigorous regulation of the mortgage markets and financiers, and use the Justice Dept in 2008-2011 was entirely the fault of Republicans in Congress in 2012-2016.
Sample:”However, largely due to foot-dragging at the Department of Justice, the settlement ended up being toothless. Much of the cash went to “short sales” (simply selling an underwater home) instead of principal reductions, or to other weak relief. Servicers even received roughly $12 billion in credit for waiving outstanding debts from short sales in states where such a waiver is already legally mandatory. JPMorgan Chase allegedly claimed credit for forgiving loans that it had already sold.”
it takes a special kind of blinders to look at hundreds of years of history and conclude that obama was the cause of a decline in black wealth.
i would have loved to see the FIRE sector get a massive ass-kicking from the feds. instead they got buckets of free money. i think that sucks.
obama was part of that. i have criticized, and will probably continue to criticize, him for that.
here is the thing. obama was probably the least ideological POTUS we’ve had in a long time. which angers people who wanted him to be an avenging liberal hero. he was and is a pragmatic technocrat.
and that was and is his virtue. it’s why he was a really good, maybe great, president. he had an agenda and a point of view, but advancing them was not his primary goal.
i found that frustrating, but it’s why we made whatever progress we made under his administration.
he wasn’t there to make people like me feel all happy and victorious. he was there to get stuff done. that’s a good goal for a POTUS.
it takes a special kind of blinders to look at hundreds of years of history and conclude that obama was the cause of a decline in black wealth.
i would have loved to see the FIRE sector get a massive ass-kicking from the feds. instead they got buckets of free money. i think that sucks.
obama was part of that. i have criticized, and will probably continue to criticize, him for that.
here is the thing. obama was probably the least ideological POTUS we’ve had in a long time. which angers people who wanted him to be an avenging liberal hero. he was and is a pragmatic technocrat.
and that was and is his virtue. it’s why he was a really good, maybe great, president. he had an agenda and a point of view, but advancing them was not his primary goal.
i found that frustrating, but it’s why we made whatever progress we made under his administration.
he wasn’t there to make people like me feel all happy and victorious. he was there to get stuff done. that’s a good goal for a POTUS.
obama was probably the least ideological POTUS
Cause he was there to serve the banksters and set himself up for the payoff after he left. I agree there wasn’t much ideology, just cynicism, cruelty and greed.
“it takes a special kind of blinders to look at hundreds of years of history and conclude that obama was the cause of a decline in black wealth.”
Well, as Bruenig says, the black upper class did very well. 200 years of racism has little to do with the systematic transfer of mortgage equity from the black working class to the banksters, this time under black leadership. Although Coates does show in his study of redlining in Chicago, where Obama could have learned the practice.
obama was probably the least ideological POTUS
Cause he was there to serve the banksters and set himself up for the payoff after he left. I agree there wasn’t much ideology, just cynicism, cruelty and greed.
“it takes a special kind of blinders to look at hundreds of years of history and conclude that obama was the cause of a decline in black wealth.”
Well, as Bruenig says, the black upper class did very well. 200 years of racism has little to do with the systematic transfer of mortgage equity from the black working class to the banksters, this time under black leadership. Although Coates does show in his study of redlining in Chicago, where Obama could have learned the practice.
“Cause he was there to serve the banksters and set himself up for the payoff after he left”
Somebody tell Marty that bob swiped his mind-reading tinfoil hat, m’kay?
“Cause he was there to serve the banksters and set himself up for the payoff after he left”
Somebody tell Marty that bob swiped his mind-reading tinfoil hat, m’kay?
Don’t need to read his mind, in Obama’s own words to Wall Street, quoted in the great article linked at 6:11:
“My administration,” Obama noted, “is the only thing between you and the pitchforks.”
He was proud of whose interests he served, and made sure it was public knowledge.
Don’t need to read his mind, in Obama’s own words to Wall Street, quoted in the great article linked at 6:11:
“My administration,” Obama noted, “is the only thing between you and the pitchforks.”
He was proud of whose interests he served, and made sure it was public knowledge.
lol
lol
“My administration,” Obama noted, “is the only thing between you and the pitchforks.”
Which was, quite simply, true. And, if you were paying attention, was him explaining to them why he was NOT serving their interests in the way to which they were accustomed.
But hey, if it doesn’t fit the ideological narrative, ignore it. It works for the far right, after all, why not for a Marxist, too.
“My administration,” Obama noted, “is the only thing between you and the pitchforks.”
Which was, quite simply, true. And, if you were paying attention, was him explaining to them why he was NOT serving their interests in the way to which they were accustomed.
But hey, if it doesn’t fit the ideological narrative, ignore it. It works for the far right, after all, why not for a Marxist, too.
Cause he was there to serve the banksters
The plain fact of the matter is that the federal government is, at this point, extraordinarily beholden to the interests of capital. That’s not something Obama created, it’s not something he had any possibility of solving. It was the water he swam in, happily or not.
The force of institutional and structural inertia is something I would think you, of all folks here, would grok.
There are things we could do to change that. We don’t seem to be highly interested in doing so. I don’t know why, it is frankly a mystery to me.
But at this point in time, you don’t pass go without accommodating the banksters. Maybe you could achieve House Rep. Maybe Senator, although I think the available Senatorial slots for folks who want to school the banksters is probably full. You’re not going to achieve POTUS.
That’s all FUBAR and may end up corroding the public institutions and functions of this country beyond repair. But it’s hard for me to single out Obama as being especially responsible for it.
Work with the banksters and be POTUS, or go after them hammer and tongs and be… not POTUS.
I guess we could just burn it all down, but I don’t think there’s a big constituency for that.
Cause he was there to serve the banksters
The plain fact of the matter is that the federal government is, at this point, extraordinarily beholden to the interests of capital. That’s not something Obama created, it’s not something he had any possibility of solving. It was the water he swam in, happily or not.
The force of institutional and structural inertia is something I would think you, of all folks here, would grok.
There are things we could do to change that. We don’t seem to be highly interested in doing so. I don’t know why, it is frankly a mystery to me.
But at this point in time, you don’t pass go without accommodating the banksters. Maybe you could achieve House Rep. Maybe Senator, although I think the available Senatorial slots for folks who want to school the banksters is probably full. You’re not going to achieve POTUS.
That’s all FUBAR and may end up corroding the public institutions and functions of this country beyond repair. But it’s hard for me to single out Obama as being especially responsible for it.
Work with the banksters and be POTUS, or go after them hammer and tongs and be… not POTUS.
I guess we could just burn it all down, but I don’t think there’s a big constituency for that.
Since the French Revolution, there has always been an issue on the Left regarding effectuating our goals in light of actually existing political reality. It’s not every day you have revolutionary circumstances like 1917 Petrograd, or 1930’s China.
cf “propaganda by the deed” back in the 19th century, Stalin’s decree during Weimar that the Social Democrats were the main enemy-not the nazis, and the rather disappointing outbreaks of political narcissism we have witnessed lately with our rather embarrassing Green Party headed by somebody who cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be called a Leftist (Sir Ralph) or an un-elected anti-vaxer.
(They don’t have this problem so much on the right, because as a rule, they are already running things) 🙂
Certainly the Dems, as currently constituted, are too beholden to corporate/elite constituencies.
But that sick gaggle of tens of millions of voters is the best tool we have. It is a tool that has been moving consistently more to the left since the days when the conservative segregationists were forced out.
So use it already.
The time for the shiny object of social revolution is not yet apparent to this observer.
Since the French Revolution, there has always been an issue on the Left regarding effectuating our goals in light of actually existing political reality. It’s not every day you have revolutionary circumstances like 1917 Petrograd, or 1930’s China.
cf “propaganda by the deed” back in the 19th century, Stalin’s decree during Weimar that the Social Democrats were the main enemy-not the nazis, and the rather disappointing outbreaks of political narcissism we have witnessed lately with our rather embarrassing Green Party headed by somebody who cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be called a Leftist (Sir Ralph) or an un-elected anti-vaxer.
(They don’t have this problem so much on the right, because as a rule, they are already running things) 🙂
Certainly the Dems, as currently constituted, are too beholden to corporate/elite constituencies.
But that sick gaggle of tens of millions of voters is the best tool we have. It is a tool that has been moving consistently more to the left since the days when the conservative segregationists were forced out.
So use it already.
The time for the shiny object of social revolution is not yet apparent to this observer.
But that sick gaggle of tens of millions of voters is the best tool we have.
yep.
But that sick gaggle of tens of millions of voters is the best tool we have.
yep.
One of those pieces that points out something obvious that everyone ignores
https://www.jacobinmag.com/2017/11/trump-russia-bush-saudi-arabia
One of those pieces that points out something obvious that everyone ignores
https://www.jacobinmag.com/2017/11/trump-russia-bush-saudi-arabia
Here is an argument that Obama should have gone after the banksters.
http://www.ianwelsh.net/could-obama-have-fixed-the-economy/
This makes sense to me. If you ever had a chance to do it, 2009 was it. If you fail, you fail. But people will see someone trying to prosecute the scum who nearly wrecked the global economy.
This doesn’t mean I endorse everything said in the link. I don’t know enough. But trying to prosecute the banksters and breaking up the too big to fail banks seems like something worth risking a one term Presidency to do.
Here is an argument that Obama should have gone after the banksters.
http://www.ianwelsh.net/could-obama-have-fixed-the-economy/
This makes sense to me. If you ever had a chance to do it, 2009 was it. If you fail, you fail. But people will see someone trying to prosecute the scum who nearly wrecked the global economy.
This doesn’t mean I endorse everything said in the link. I don’t know enough. But trying to prosecute the banksters and breaking up the too big to fail banks seems like something worth risking a one term Presidency to do.
There are powers above and beyond what we can comprehend. We have no idea what we are up against, the sheer killing ruthlessness of it.
No one survives taking them on. If it happens to be a nigger, even if he hosts them at the White House, which is even more of an affront to their fucked up, self-righteous, purely American sensibilities, all the more reason to fuck America up its ass.
Fuck you, republicans.
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/12/5/1721381/-House-Republicans-want-to-end-student-loan-forgiveness-for-people-in-public-service
Do you see the deadly catastrophe coming to the filth in the conservative movement?
Have you watched the flames in California?
That’s a preview for America.
There are powers above and beyond what we can comprehend. We have no idea what we are up against, the sheer killing ruthlessness of it.
No one survives taking them on. If it happens to be a nigger, even if he hosts them at the White House, which is even more of an affront to their fucked up, self-righteous, purely American sensibilities, all the more reason to fuck America up its ass.
Fuck you, republicans.
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/12/5/1721381/-House-Republicans-want-to-end-student-loan-forgiveness-for-people-in-public-service
Do you see the deadly catastrophe coming to the filth in the conservative movement?
Have you watched the flames in California?
That’s a preview for America.
A couple of contrarian observations about Donald’s links
To explain the Jacobin article, it’s just like Tessio in the Godfather ‘It was never personal’. The Saudis are paying extremists not because it is personal (I wouldn’t be surprised that we know a lot about this because we used the Saudis as cut outs), but because they are looking to find ways to extend their interest. I don’t say this to dismiss the article, but when you think of the system of national governments as a mafia that may want to have an accident happen at various times to various heads of states, you can see why Saudi Arabia is still a member of the family.
As for the second link, If Obama had been willing to be a one-term president, he could have done that, but he had no intention of being a one term president. It would have been better if Obama had been in his second term and he just said ‘screw it’, but still going into his first term, he’s not going to go out in a blaze of glory. At least that is my take on this. People don’t run for president to become one-term presidents, so you’ve already selected for people who are more willing to go along to get along. I’m also of the opinion that Obama had a lot less wiggle room, certainly than FDR or Reagan, which I’ve said any number of times before.
A couple of contrarian observations about Donald’s links
To explain the Jacobin article, it’s just like Tessio in the Godfather ‘It was never personal’. The Saudis are paying extremists not because it is personal (I wouldn’t be surprised that we know a lot about this because we used the Saudis as cut outs), but because they are looking to find ways to extend their interest. I don’t say this to dismiss the article, but when you think of the system of national governments as a mafia that may want to have an accident happen at various times to various heads of states, you can see why Saudi Arabia is still a member of the family.
As for the second link, If Obama had been willing to be a one-term president, he could have done that, but he had no intention of being a one term president. It would have been better if Obama had been in his second term and he just said ‘screw it’, but still going into his first term, he’s not going to go out in a blaze of glory. At least that is my take on this. People don’t run for president to become one-term presidents, so you’ve already selected for people who are more willing to go along to get along. I’m also of the opinion that Obama had a lot less wiggle room, certainly than FDR or Reagan, which I’ve said any number of times before.
If you ever had a chance to do it, 2009 was it.
yep.
There are powers above and beyond what we can comprehend.
agreed.
I’m also of the opinion that Obama had a lot less wiggle room, certainly than FDR or Reagan
the fundamental fact of the Obama presidency.
If you ever had a chance to do it, 2009 was it.
yep.
There are powers above and beyond what we can comprehend.
agreed.
I’m also of the opinion that Obama had a lot less wiggle room, certainly than FDR or Reagan
the fundamental fact of the Obama presidency.
Bank bailout: The first $700b of bailout money was handed out to the banks by Bush. The Fed’s holding of billions of bad paper at par on their balance sheet continues the bailout to this day.
The housing crash was a deep systemic shock to the FIRE sector, but nothing like the total collapse of the first couple years of the Great Depression.
Bank bailout: The first $700b of bailout money was handed out to the banks by Bush. The Fed’s holding of billions of bad paper at par on their balance sheet continues the bailout to this day.
The housing crash was a deep systemic shock to the FIRE sector, but nothing like the total collapse of the first couple years of the Great Depression.
The Saudis are paying extremists not because it is personal (I wouldn’t be surprised that we know a lot about this because we used the Saudis as cut outs), but because they are looking to find ways to extend their interest.
For anyone who isn’t already aware, the background here is that, a century ago, Abdulaziz Al Saud made a deal with the devil. In exchange for clerical support in his taking over the Arabian Peninsula (founding Saudi Arabia), he would support them in pushing their ultra-fundamentalist version of Islam (Wahhabism). With lots of money from oil, they have been able fund massive proselytizing efforts around the world.
But today, the Saudi royal family find that they can’t get off the tiger. Most of the ibn Saud family, and educated Saudis generally, have Western educations and can function just fine in the modern world. But that is not at all true of the Wahhabist clerics. And the Saudi royal family doesn’t see that they can maintain their legitimacy without the clerics’ support.
THAT’s where their interests lie. Not in pushing fundamentalist Islam. Not in funding terrorism. Not even in being the biggest regional power (although they certainly don’t mind that). But in staying in power at home.
The Saudis are paying extremists not because it is personal (I wouldn’t be surprised that we know a lot about this because we used the Saudis as cut outs), but because they are looking to find ways to extend their interest.
For anyone who isn’t already aware, the background here is that, a century ago, Abdulaziz Al Saud made a deal with the devil. In exchange for clerical support in his taking over the Arabian Peninsula (founding Saudi Arabia), he would support them in pushing their ultra-fundamentalist version of Islam (Wahhabism). With lots of money from oil, they have been able fund massive proselytizing efforts around the world.
But today, the Saudi royal family find that they can’t get off the tiger. Most of the ibn Saud family, and educated Saudis generally, have Western educations and can function just fine in the modern world. But that is not at all true of the Wahhabist clerics. And the Saudi royal family doesn’t see that they can maintain their legitimacy without the clerics’ support.
THAT’s where their interests lie. Not in pushing fundamentalist Islam. Not in funding terrorism. Not even in being the biggest regional power (although they certainly don’t mind that). But in staying in power at home.
Here is an argument that Obama should have gone after the banksters.
…
This makes sense to me. If you ever had a chance to do it, 2009 was it
It seems to me that Obama had a choice. He didn’t have unlimited political capital. He could either go after the banks or vastly expand health care. He could NOT successfully do both — in fact trying to do both would probably result in achieving neither.
So he made a choice. You can argue that he should have made a different one. You cannot plausibly argue that he should be faulted for not doing both.
Here is an argument that Obama should have gone after the banksters.
…
This makes sense to me. If you ever had a chance to do it, 2009 was it
It seems to me that Obama had a choice. He didn’t have unlimited political capital. He could either go after the banks or vastly expand health care. He could NOT successfully do both — in fact trying to do both would probably result in achieving neither.
So he made a choice. You can argue that he should have made a different one. You cannot plausibly argue that he should be faulted for not doing both.
over at LGM, there’s a ‘law’ known as Murc’s Law: only Democrats have agency. it’s a good law.
you can see it in action when people complain that the Dems should have been able to stop the GOP’s tax bill. the GOP is just a dumb animal, the Dems can choose to let it piss on the rug or they can stop it from pissing on the rug.
there’s a similar (but unnamed) law with respect to Presidents: everything that happens on a President’s watch happened because he wanted it to happen. only Presidents have agency.
over at LGM, there’s a ‘law’ known as Murc’s Law: only Democrats have agency. it’s a good law.
you can see it in action when people complain that the Dems should have been able to stop the GOP’s tax bill. the GOP is just a dumb animal, the Dems can choose to let it piss on the rug or they can stop it from pissing on the rug.
there’s a similar (but unnamed) law with respect to Presidents: everything that happens on a President’s watch happened because he wanted it to happen. only Presidents have agency.