by wj
I think it more likely than not that Hilary Clinton’s candidacy will survive this latest contremps over her using a private e-mail account during her tenure as Secretary of State. (Unless evidence turns up of a significant security breach. At that point, all bets are off.) There’s just too much history of the Clinton campaign team being able to work around things that would have sunk most politician’s candidacy.
But suppose, for the sake of discussion, that her campaign did implode. Who would be the alternatives for the Democrats? I keep reading about how the Democrats lack a “bench” of up and coming politicians, who would be possibilities. But that seems like simple failure to look around. So who’s looking possible?
If the Democratic voters want to emulate the Republicans’ quest for ideological purity, Elizabeth Warren is the obvious choice. Except for the little detail that she doesn’t seem interested at this point. So mayne the far left could go with Bernie Sanders. He’s almost certainly not electable (unless the Republicans go even more extreme than I expect), but ….
If they just want a safe, dull, choice, I suppose they could go with Joe Biden. I can’t really see that happening. But it might be an option, to the extent that the Democrats have an “establishment wing.” Although, for those wanting that kind of candidate, Martin O’Malley (until recently Governor of Maryland) would seem like a better option.
But if the Democratic voters’ priority is to maximize their chances of hanging on to the Presidency, the obvious choice is Jim Webb. The fact that he was a marine officer, not to mention Asst. Secretary of Defense under Ronald Reagan, makes is hard to characterize him as a flaming liberal. Not that it wouldn’t be tried, of course. But it wouldn’t be likely to convince independent voters of it. Simply put, it seems like he would be more electable than the alternatives.
So who else could be plausible?** And what else are the pluses and minuses of these possibilities?
** The Democrats have the usual run of fringe candidates, who nobody besides themselves takes seriously. No need to bother with them, even if some have announced.
Clearly a burst of initial enthusiasm. I doubt it will last, at least at this level.
I’m honestly unsure Webb could get the Democratic nomination for 2016. I think the more liberal wing of the party would revolt.
But yes, I think he would capture a lot of independent vote if nominated.
Overall, I agree with your assessment that Hillary is not going to be sunk by the email thing. I think it shows secrecy and, as previously discussed, I think have have a legal component. But as scandals go, this is pretty small.
At worst, congress will conduct an obviously partisan investigation that will nothing to hurt her chances.
If the Democratic voters want to emulate the Republicans’ quest for ideological purity, Elizabeth Warren is the obvious choice.
I am a fan of Elizabeth Warren, but not for President this time. I’d like to know, though, why she qualifies for “ideological purity”.
But if the Democratic voters’ priority is to maximize their chances of hanging on to the Presidency, the obvious choice is Jim Webb.
No, actually not. He was a great candidate for the Virginia Senate when he ran, and I’m happy that he did, and I voted for him with all my heart. He’s got some great “bipartisan” creds, for sure, but mostly he’s a cantankerous white guy. I’d vote for him if he were the party’s nominee, but … why? In what way would he be better than Hillary?
I think a detailed discussion of what’s wrong with Hillary is even more important than who would be better than her. My biggest worry about her is that she’s too old. She’s a bit more hawkish than (even) me. I’d vote for her though!
As for Biden, I love the man. He’s too old.
I doubt the email scandal will sink her. Not because it isn’t seriously scandalous, but because it fundamentally tells us nothing new about her. We already knew she was corrupt, criminally so. Democrats basically don’t care if their leaders are criminals, so further proof is meaningless.
A Republican Justice department might prosecute her, a Democratic one, never. And, by election time the press will refuse to further report on ‘old news’; She may have leaked it herself for just that reason.
Brett, the question is: if not Hillary, who?
Who do you support, Brett? I bet you’re not willing to put your money on the table there.
Brett, this particular item may well not sink her. Or even the next one or the one after that.
On the other hand, if you had been betting in early 2007, the odds would have been heavily on her winning the nomination that time. So it makes the question interesting, at least to me. Who is out there who might be an alternative?
That’s like saying that Republicans don’t care if their leaders are criminals because Bush’s White House was not taken to task for doing essentially the same thing. Or have we already forgotten that?
Honestly, neither of those incidents say a damned thing about whether either party’s members turn a blind eye to criminality and corruption. It just shows that they don’t view archiving requirements and transparency in the Executive as important and/or interesting.
(That @Brett’s 8:24, obvs.)
Senate:
Sherrod Brown
Al Franken
Amy Klobuchar
Patty Murray
Governors:
Jay Inslee
Criminals all, and I don’t care.
Governor Moonbeam
New York’s junior senator, Kirsten Gillibrand. If not for Hillary, I think she could very well have been 2016’s Obama—someone who seemed to come from almost nowhere to beat more established figures, win the nomination and then the presidency.
N.V.: Have I ever expressed any liking of George Bush? Either one? I think the best I’ve had to say was that I thought he was impeachable, but that Democrats had the wrong list of charges, and their desire to impeach him was too obviously political, having been expressed before he’d done anything to merit it.
Yes, Bush violated that law. At least he did it after being elected, why go to the trouble of electing somebody you already know is a criminal, instead of somebody who stands a chance of not being one?
Well, looking at this objectively, if there’s one thing Obama has demonstrated, it’s the necessity of prior executive branch experience before assuming the highest executive branch position in the entire country. So, I would say you need a candidate who has, ideally, experience as a state governor, or possibly the governor of a large city.
From a standpoint of practical politics, all the large cities with Democratic governors are far to the left of the nation as a whole in their politics, which, while it might not make them unattractive to Democrats, limits their national appeal. So, a current or former state governor.
Again, from a standpoint of practical politics, ideally a Democratic state governor who has demonstrated their ability to deal with a Republican legislature. Since the next President is virtually certain to face a Republican House, and stands a decent chance of facing a Republican Senate, too. And the ability to be elected in a state dominated by the opposing party is an asset in running for President.
The list of potential candidates who meet these criteria isn’t long, given that most of the state governors are Republicans, and most of the Democratic governors are from liberal states.
John Hickenlooper, Governor or Colorado, faces a split legislature.
So does Steve Beshear of Kentucky.
Likewise Mark Dayton of Minnesota.
Jay Nixon, (Of Missouri) and Steve Bullock, (Of Montana) both have learned to deal with Republican legislatures, and managed to get elected in majority Republican states.
So did Maggie Hassan, out of New Hampshire.
Can’t say I’m fond of Andrew Cuomo, but he does manage a large state with mixed legislative control.
Tom Wolf, out of Pennsylvania, deals every day with a Republican legislature.
Terry McAuliffe of Virginia got elected in a Republican state, but I can’t see him running in the primaries against Hillary. Maybe replacing her if her campaign implodes, but barring some dead bodies, it won’t.
Finally, Earl Ray Tomblin, West Virginia. Republican controlled state.
That’s my short list. I haven’t yet gone over the list to see which of them have already been caught at crimes.
Some people have floated Biden as a possibility, to which I can only say, don’t even joke about it.
For Republican, I’d prefer Scott Walker/Rand Paul. That’s my dream ticket.
Democrats basically don’t care if their leaders are criminals
Dude, go piss up a rope. Up your nose with a rubber hose.
Since you recently expressed deep concern about neglect of posting rules enforcement, consider this russell’s version of enforcing the posting rules.
I say that based on the responses to the IRS scandal, Hillary’s email, basically the entire Clinton administration. Sure, you don’t express it as “He’s a crook, so what?”, but instead just blow off all the evidence he’s a crook, and then fall back to the position that whatever the offense is was trivial.
But you don’t care. That’s pretty clear, and it’s the only reason Hillary is a remotely viable candidate.
@brett bellmore
even the legal analysts for fox news said that hillary clinton committed no crime by using her personal email account. i try to stay civil with you but this is shit. in general you take an idiosyncratic and tendentious stand about reality but no matter how hard you huff and puff about it reality stands athwart your worldview. it wasn’t a crime for her to do that and no matter how many times you claim it was reality stands. get a grip and move on.
Brett, see, the thing isn’t that you’re a hypocrite ’cause you go after lawless Clintons to denounce all Democrats as having no problem with lawless leaders. It’s that you make it sound like it’s a unique failing of the Democrats and not the American electorate writ large, because Bush was re-elected after wanton lawlessness and saw no meaningful censure for that or the later lawlessness. Americans view executive lawbreaking as scandalous as or more often than they view it as criminal, and they really don’t find transparency and archiving requirements interesting enough to hold – let alone sway – their opinions. So there’s absolutely no basis for drawing the sweeping conclusions you drew from Clinton’s email imbroglio – and that’s all you cited, mind; you’d not made reference to the IRS “scandal” or the Clinton administration until you were called on it.
but, but, but…Scott Walker is a crook.
I guess all Republicans don’t care if they elect a crook.
But you don’t care.
John Boehner handed out checks, on the House floor, before a vote on a tobacco bill, specifically to influence voting on that bill.
He’s the Speaker of the House.
So talk to the hand.
And yes, I know, *you personally* don’t care either way, because Boehner is not a true conservative. You live in libertarian cloud cuckoo land, where the invisible hand of enlightened self interest makes every day a sunny day. We are therefore not entitled to hold you to account, in any way, for the manifold and profound corruption of the (R) party and the conservative movement.
You’re a true Scotsman, it ain’t your circus and it ain’t your monkeys. You just want to hang out on the sidelines and slander other people.
Piss up a rope.
Well, looking at this objectively, if there’s one thing Obama has demonstrated, it’s the necessity of prior executive branch experience before assuming the highest executive branch position in the entire country.
the wingnut mythology is rich and complex, but it’s also mythological.
you only embarrass yourself when you claim it to be objective fact.
What NV said. Twice.
they really don’t find transparency and archiving requirements interesting enough to hold – let alone sway – their opinions.
Personally, I’d like to see Clinton stand down. Enough with the dynasties, already.
Plus, speaking purely for myself, I don’t really see her as being a strong advocate for things that are important to me. I’m sure she’ll check whatever liberal checkboxes are necessary to get the nomination, but I don’t believe in her as a real advocate for things that are important to me.
She’s a tremendously talented and shrewd political operator (and that is not intended as a negative comment), she knows how to deal, she has an astoundingly thick skin. All good.
She just strikes me as more invested in the process and mechanics of politics and power, and less in the actual outcomes that I would like to see from a (D) POTUS.
IMO her strongest qualification as a candidate is that she knows what to bring to a knife fight.
It’s important to win, because if you don’t win your agenda has zero chance of actually being implemented, but it’s also important to be committed to the actual agenda.
I’m delighted to have Elizabeth Warren as my Senator, and I hope she doesn’t run. IMO she is getting, and will continue to get, more done as a Senator than she could as POTUS.
Plus, IMO she would have zero chance at the national level.
Same with Sanders, although I would look forward to him running, just to see what he would stir up.
I love Biden, but not only is he too old, he’s too wacky. IMO.
I haven’t really been paying much attention to whoever else is around, so I can’t comment on the other suggestions.
they really don’t find transparency and archiving requirements interesting enough to hold – let alone sway – their opinions.
Yes, I also agree with this.
The issue with the email business, for me, is that Clinton doesn’t appear to have had much interest in complying with whatever laws, standards, or procedures applied to her as Secretary of State.
I think her “never explain never apologize” response will likely result in it blowing over in pretty short order, but it also (to me) demonstrates a sense on her part that rules are for other people.
What russell just said.
Especially about dynasties.
Brett said, above: “Yes, Bush violated that law. At least he did it after being elected, why go to the trouble of electing somebody you already know is a criminal, instead of somebody who stands a chance of not being one?”
Bush/Cheney managed to violate the 12th Amendment prior to taking office, a feat that no other previous candidate had managed to accomplish or even attempt.
That takes talent.
wow, 2nd post by wj and Brett’s already played threadjack clownboy. Obviously doing something right (wj, not Brett)
t also (to me) demonstrates a sense on her part that rules are for other people.
yep.
and for that reason, i think Clinton would be a disaster as President. Obama is lawless in ways that only matter if you’re a Democrat. but Clinton seems like she’d be chopping through rules with a machete, if she thought she could make a shortcut to a result.
but who else?
impossible to say since she’s effectively cleared the field already. the best won’t oppose her.
cleek, Clinton won’t be a disaster as President. She just won’t be great. I think the “chopping through rules” bit is way overblown. And Obama isn’t lawless.
And Obama isn’t lawless.
i guess i was too subtle.
Some random points:
Joe Biden deserves more respect than he gets. He’d be a much better president than he has ever been a candidate. (Which is the opposite of most Republicans, but let that pass.)
The notion that “executive experience” is a major desideratum for a president is fishy at best. LBJ had no executive experience before he presided over passage of Medicare and the Civil Rights Acts. JFK had no executive experience before he presided over the Cuban Missile Crisis. Truman had no executive experience before he presided over the Marshall Plan. Lincoln had no executive experience before he presided over the War to Put Down the Slave-States Insurrection.
The American presidency is so different from any other job that what I really worry about is any candidate who says (or worse, believes) that running the US government is a lot like running a State House or a corporation.
I also worry about any candidate who talks as if “real Americans” don’t live mainly in cities. Even global warming deniers are not as demonstrably wrong as that.
If you want an alternative to Hillary, Claire McCaskill is not out of the question. She’s not my cup of tea, but when Rachel Maddow of all people endorses her, I am willing to listen.
On the “dynasty” thing: talk to me when Chelsea Clinton’s daughter starts running for office. It takes more than a single generation to make a dynasty. Ask the Bushes, ask the Kennedys, ask the Adamses.
There is something attractive in the notion of a government composed of fresh faces all the time, but the flip side is that you get a government of amateurs that way.
–TP
“On the “dynasty” thing: talk to me when Chelsea Clinton’s daughter starts running for office. It takes more than a single generation to make a dynasty. Ask the Bushes, ask the Kennedys, ask the Adamses.”
Wait, there’s a possibility of one of the Addamses running? That changes EVERYTHING! Oh, sure, Fester changed his name to be Gov. of Florida, but I didn’t think he was in the presidential running. Sure, he’s GOP, but I do like his energy plan, once we figure out how to get the electricity from his mouth to the grid. And he has a good heart. He keeps it in a jar on his desk.
But that’s old generation. I’d vote for Wednesday in a heartbeat.
There is an ‘Adult Wednesday Addams’ channel on YouTube, so everyone can check on her development
https://www.youtube.com/user/heymelissahunter/featured
But for a campaign she would need to get back her lovely smile https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buZZyUBwymA
I would not mind Danae Pyle running either but she is probably still below the age limit.
What are Webb’s positions that lefties would dislike? I’ m asking out of genuine ignorance and not taking a rhetorical stance. I have the impression that he is a lot more anti war than HRC ( which isn’t a high bar to clear) and have the vague impression that he is an economic populist–some years ago I used to hear.people claim that someone like this would be one way you might be able to pull some southern white working class types who’d gone Republican back into the D camp. Sounds plausible to me, but I admit I could be wrong on nearly all of this. I think I’m right about the anti war part.
Not up on who’s wno, but I did see Cory Booker on the Nightly Show get Larry Wilmore’s weak tea award when he said he didn’t want to be president, and wonder what would happen to the public discourse if we had two African American presidents in a row. Not that I would want him as president, the defense of private equity was crap and I don’t think I could handle a 2nd Democratic president who has to avoid at all costs appearing angry
of course if being a crotchety white guy translates into lack of interest in civil rights or other issues then setting aside the moral failings and only looking at the electoral math, what you might gain in attracting white votes you might lose in depressing turnout among traditional D supporters. But if that is not the case, then it seems like Webb could be a real challenge to the Republican lock on the South.
Again,though, I could be totally wrong.
What are Webb’s positions that lefties would dislike?
I must admit I really haven’t delved too much in Webb, beyond what I’ve caught on the news, briefly. My recollection is he’s a staunch supporter of gun rights, had some anti-women in the military writings way back in the day, probably is less interested in civil rights than, say, Sanders or Warren.
I think what the left wing of the party would like is that he’s anti-war and the establishment would be happy he’s pro-military.
In terms of general election, I think he’d be a lock…mostly because he would be viable in some red states. I just don’t think he’d get through the primaries.
IMO, Webb sounds like he is maybe a little too white-centric for the current left.
IMO, Webb sounds like he is maybe a little too white-centric for the current left.
When someone bases his argument on white resentment, I would say that he’s too white-centric, period. Maybe if the argument could be finessed into a “one America” theme, it would work, but I’m not sure how the voter demographics would play out in Webb’s case. Mind, I’d vote for him if he got nominated. LGM had a good discussion about Jim Webb.
I love Joe Biden too, Tony P., and would support him if nominated. But it’s not going to happen because of his age. Not that there’s, to my mind, that much wrong with his age, but young people don’t want to move back to a previous generation. Hillary is also in this category, but if she stays in the race her nomination will be a force of nature and then Democrats will have to deal with it.
Maybe if Webb teamed up with Julian Castro, it would look better.
Random thoughts…
A Warren/Webb ticket would be something to behold.
(I like them both, but neither on their own quite have what it takes.)
Biden missed his chance when he plagiarised, kind of accidentally (and of all people!!) the ridiculous Neil Kinnock.
I believe he would have been a fine president, but he’s just on electoral cycle too far down the road now.
And as for Brett, and his new respect for the rule of law, might I just remind him of the Republican position on the admissability of torture….
Or, indeed, a Webb/Warren ticket.
Not that I get a say, but I liked Obama over Clinton because she ran as very much a fightin’ candidate, and I fooled myself that maybe we could skip over the endless fighting, and work on getting stuff done. This was before the Republicans declared getting stuff done was unAmerican, even when it just means passing their own bills, and my non-fighting candidate just kept giving and giving in the futile hope they’d wake up.
Well, given the opposition I think that was the wrong call. Knowing what to bring to a knife fight is what’s called for. And keeping liberal and progressive supporters fired up for that knife fight. The Republicans won’t pull back from their America hating path unless they’re beaten back, soundly and repeatedly.
Unless of course they finally go for ‘if not by ballot then by bullet’ (as one Tea Party Congresscritter’s chief of staff unwisely cried, losing her job when the video came out).
[With Webb], what you might gain in attracting white votes you might lose in depressing turnout among traditional D supporters
Maybe. But I suspect that Obama would campaign for him in the general. Which might keep turnout up in those groups.
And of course it also depends on whether the Republicans field a candidate who overtly attacks some of those groups. Most likely this would not happen; just dog whistle on the subject. But considering some of the things candidates say, it can’t really be ruled out either.
Biden, no question in my mind. He’s not always the most fluent speaker, but he can project great compassion, and he really understands working-class people. Also I assume the moneybags like him well enough.
through no fault of his own, Biden has that VP stink on him: 8 years of being an acceptable butt of the joke.
“through no fault of his own, Biden has that VP stink on him: 8 years of being an acceptable butt of the joke.”
Actually, I think it very much was his own fault. And didn’t we have enough “Groper in Chief” during the Clinton administration?
“This was before the Republicans declared getting stuff done was unAmerican,”
Strangely, the Republicans actually care what gets done, not just that SOMETHING, anything, gets done. Sometimes the best you can do is to prevent the wrong thing from getting done. Not that the GOP majority is proving very effective at that…
Webb/Warren vs Walker/Paul. It’s on!
Totally OT, but it is the weekend…
A very, very good article on the Islamic State:
http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2015/02/what-isis-really-wants/384980/
This from the vaults about Jim Webb, page 2 has the point that I remember, where he exchanged words with Bush.
http://www.gq.com/news-politics/newsmakers/200705/senator-jim-webb-virginia-george-bush-democrat
From your link, LJ: Jim Webb declaims, “To me, government is a cage.”
The man is not fit to be President of the US of A.
He hates being chained to the floor schedule. “I’ve done all this stuff all over the world as a writer,” Webb told me. “Going places where nobody knows who you are, and nobody cares, and you can go into the back alleys, go into the bad areas, you know? Really see things. To me, government is a cage.”
Provides a little more context for those of you wondering why that makes him ‘not fit to be President’.
But quoting out of context makes for such great misapprehensions! Besides, it’s traditional.
The ‘context’ only reinforces his disdain for the realities of governance and the grit of politics. So yes, context matters. Thanks for fleshing it out.
His rather inept “campaign” only reinforces this view. You might even try reading the post and the thread linked by sapient at LGM, but it’s much easier to buy into the hagiography I guess. It, too, is traditional.
Of all the ridiculous things that have been said by politicians over the years, a relatively innocuous remark about how power necessarily isolates you from common experience is disqualificatory ?
I’m sure there are plenty of reasonable arguments as to why Webb should not be president. That is not one.
Yeah, I’m not likely to vote for Webb, unless the Republicans barf up a really, really bad candidate, (Supposedly pro-gun Democrats have a nasty track record of turning on you the moment you rely on them.) but you really want a President who enjoys being in government?
FDR and Reagan both gave every appearance of enjoyment at being in government.
If you want something done well, from politics to proctology, you really need somebody who is not disgusted by the day-to-day work involved.
–TP
Yeah, I’m sure Biden would make a great honest broker in the Middle East with his fair and even-handed approach:
There is this inextricable tie between culture, religion, ethnicity that most people don’t fully understand, that is unique and um, how can i say it? Um, so, uh strong, uh, with Jews worldwide. There is a, there is a, I mean you know i used to say – early on when I was kid I’d say when I was a young senator I’d say if I were a jew I’d be a Zionist. I am a zionist. You don’t have to be a Jew to be a Zionist.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAZmO80dLfE
Note how he embraces the microphone and the reporter with his deep love for Israel towards the end – the guy is a nutter.
novakant, that was when Biden was the VP candidate and was out on the stump for Obama. Given the way US-Israel relations have been, it is going to be exceedingly difficult to find anyone in the US political system other than an complete newbie who hasn’t said things that could be taken in a similar way. Unfortunately, this is the problem with our election system is that it gets piled so deep that it is impossible to tell how a person really thinks about Israel. We tend to project our own beliefs on politics and I desperately want to think that Obama is realistic about what is happening, when the gulf is that wide, there is no possibility of taking any middle ground.
but you really want a President who enjoys being in government?
i assume this would disqualify all career politicians?
buh bye, Scott Walker!
Plenty of people work at jobs they don’t regard as a laugh a minute, just work. I’d assume this is true of politics, too. I’m worried that politicans who actually *enjoy* government might want to spread the joy…
/falls over laughing
Let me add this “horses for courses”…there’s definitely differences of personality and inclination that make people better or worse suited for a particular job. It’s not that they *can’t*, or that it makes them better or worse as people, but fitting square pegs in round holes is unlikely to work very well for either the pegs or the holes.
So if Webb thinks he’s better suited to be a writer than a Senator or President, good for him. Pursuit of Happiness, and all that.
/falls over laughing
yes, pop goes the weasel.
I’d like to amend my comments about Clinton.
I’d say what makes her a really strong candidate is not so much that she knows what to bring to a knife fight, but that she has demonstrated, repeatedly, an ability to survive knife fights without losing her effectiveness as a political player.
It’s hard to think of what she hasn’t been accused of. In no particular order, financial fraud, manipulating the IRS and the travel office into punishing political opponents, murder, steamy lesbian affairs with members of her staff. It’s a really long list.
And, here she is, still.
On basic points of policy, she’s not my favorite (D) candidate. But she has proven herself willing and able to deal with whatever crap is thrown at her. Which, in 2016, I expect to be a really valuable asset.
The ‘context’ only reinforces his disdain for the realities of governance and the grit of politics.
The context demonstrates that he was referring to:
Today is what’s known in the Senate as “vote-a-rama,” a daylong marathon of budget votes that requires members to be within a ten-minute walk of the Senate floor at all times. It’s not Jim Webb’s kind of day. He hates being chained to the floor schedule.
Which is a single aspect of governance. Other important aspects are things like drafting laws, communicating with fellow legislators, talking to constituents, talking to experts, etc.
All of those things are key parts of governing. Cramming a lot of votes into a single day without a schedule? I don’t necessarily view that as a good way to legislate, so I guess I don’t mind his disdain for it too much.
So, I’ll agree with Nigel:
I’m sure there are plenty of reasonable arguments as to why Webb should not be president. That is not one.
“But she has proven herself willing and able to deal with whatever crap is thrown at her. Which, in 2016, I expect to be a really valuable asset.”
I would say it’s more a case of being able to swim in crap, and pass it off as crap being thrown at her. I don’t much like Obama, but I’d prefer 3rd and 4th Obama terms to Hilary being President. She’s our opportunity to achieve 3rd world levels of official corruption.
Seriously, her husband was venial, but she’s like a real life Disney villian.
Seriously, her husband was venial, but she’s like a real life Disney villian.
I probably shouldn’t engage, but…
Seriously? I think you could make some very valid points about Clinton’s lack of transparency, etc, but you’re not helping that by engaging in bluntly ridiculous hyperbole.
A real life Disney villain? Do you think she is trying to skin dalmatians or trying to steal mermaid’s voices? Is trying to kill the rightful heir of Pride Rock?
She’s a politician, certainly, and not one I particularly like. But ‘Disney villain’? Any valid points you might have get lost in cartoonish comparison.
I was thinking more of Jafar in Aladdin. Seeking power not so much as a means to an end, as the end itself, and with no scruples at all about the means she uses to achieve it. But her most terrifying trait is her capacity to get away with things that would destroy anybody else.
They used to say Reagan was teflon, because you couldn’t make things stick. Hilary? Everything sticks, and it just doesn’t matter, she keeps shambling on anyway. It’s terrifying.
I would say it’s more a case of being able to swim in crap, and pass it off as crap being thrown at her
Hillary murdered Vince Foster : true or false?
She’s not my favorite political person, but I also recognize that she’s put up with more than the average amount of BS, and been effective in her job in spite of it.
That’s actually not such an easy thing to do.
I had Jafar, the evil vizir in Aladdin, in mind: The ruthless pursuit of power, not as a means to an end, but as an end in itself. She’s tired of being the power behind the throne, wants to sit in it herself. But not to achieve some commendable goal, just for the sake of the power itself, and what it brings.
What frightens me about her is that she ISN’T teflon. Charges don’t slide off her, they stick, and it doesn’t matter. She’s like some terrifying monster that just keeps slogging on, no matter how much damage it takes.
She routinely gets away with things that would end anybody else’s political career. Not because they’re shown to be untrue, but because her supporters just. don’t. care.
“Hillary murdered Vince Foster : true or false?”
Don’t know that she murdered him, but I find the torn up suicide note with the piece that would have had the signature missing kind of dubious.
I had more in mind documents showing up in the map room two days after the statute of limitations expires, mad day trading skills, things like that.
I had Jafar, the evil vizir in Aladdin
Yeah, depicting Clinton as an evil sorcerer who tries to claim the throne by murder, magic, and forced marriage is pretty much what I was getting at when I said hyperbole.
Well, for that matter she isn’t two dimensional and drawn in primary colors…
What I’m trying to figure out is how can the same guy post something as thoughtful as your 7:43 on March 8, and also the rest of the troll-o-rama comments you’ve dumped on the thread.
Are there two Bellmores?
Troll Bellmore, please go away. Thoughtful Bellmore, carry on.
Well, for that matter she isn’t two dimensional and drawn in primary colors…
My point is this. You compared Clinton to Jafar for reasons such as: The ruthless pursuit of power, not as a means to an end, but as an end in itself.
Examples of this manifest in Jafar are attempts to murder, using magic to hypnotize someone, and trying to force someone to marry him.
Examples of this manifest in Clinton are…what? And assuming you can rattle off a list of anywhere as dire as Jafar’s, I’m left wondering why those terrible deeds can’t make the argument in their own right.
Clinton is not Jafar. She is not, really, in any way comparable to a disney villain. Any point you make about Clinton’s shortcomings is going to colored by those ridiculous comparisons.
Or, shorter, what russell said.
you really want a President who enjoys being in government?
[later]
Plenty of people work at jobs they don’t regard as a laugh a minute, just work. I’d assume this is true of politics, too.
Actually, I’d probably prefer a President who enjoys being in government. My sense is that what most politicians actually enjoy is campaigning. Meeting and greeting. Being on stage and gertting all that applause.
If they enjoyed being in government, I’d expect more of them to put in time doing the actual work involved. Instead, for most of them, that’s something delegated to their staffs . . . so they can spend time on the never-ending campaigning.
Just FYI, it appears that the e-mail problem will get worse for Hilary.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/03/09/heres-why-hillary-clinton-will-have-to-say-more-on-the-e-mail-controversy/
When the Democrats start demanding answers, it ceases to be something that can be simply ignored as partisan sniping. She may still manage to ride it out. But it is becoming harder.
I have a hard time seeing it get much worse, for a very basic reason:
Too many people in power would be implicated.
Understand that, for her entire time as Secretary of State, she did all her official business using her private email, on a server set up to be completely under her control. And encouraged her lieutenants to do the same.
So that everybody on the receiving end of those emails, unavoidably, knew she was not using a government email account.
The administration can not permit this scandal to go anywhere, because they are as implicated as she is. They knew all along what she was doing. Unavoidably, undeniably, they knew.
They’re implicated, they can’t permit it to amount to anything, and with the Justice department under their control, and media in the tank, it won’t amount to anything.
So that everybody on the receiving end of those emails, unavoidably, knew she was not using a government email account.
Oh please. Do you pay any attention to the e-mail address of the people who e-mail you? I sure don’t when it is a name I recognize. (With one I don’t, I glance at it to judge if it is spam.) And the folks she would have been e-mailing as Secretary of State would have recognized the name, don’t you think?
She was Secretary of State for four freaking years. Thousands, tens of thousands of emails. She was subject to FOIA requests.
Please, spare yourself this embarassing effort at generating excuses. She wasn’t the only person who knew she was using a private email account.
In fact, the new party line is, “Old news, everybody knew.”
I’m not arguing that nobody knew. I’m just saying that your argument that “everybody” knew is unrealistic.
Sure, some people knew. And should have done something about it at the time, no question. But I would bet that a far larger number simply weren’t paying attention.
They’re implicated, they can’t permit it to amount to anything, and with the Justice department under their control, and media in the tank, it won’t amount to anything.
Even if other officials were implicated (and I’d assume, as wj does, that other administration members quite possibly didn’t notice or think about it), the administration doesn’t control what get’s reported, who will run and how people vote.
I think some pundits will avoid talking about it to minimize exposure, but overall this story isn’t exactly being buried. It shows up daily in my McClatchy and CSM feeds (both pretty mainstream).
I think it feeds a narrative that people already have of her (secretive, etc). It’s not going to sink her by any means, but it is a crack that a primary contender could exploit.
I do hope all of the Congressional Committees run by Republicans and which will be “investigating” this thing subpoena the emails their own Republican members, then and now, received from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s private email account over the years.
The NSA knew.
Senator Lindsay Graham claimed the other day he has never, not once, written and sent an email.
I’ve got $100 Confederate dollars that say Hilary Clinton’s email cache will reveal numerous emails from the Confederate mountebank, expressing his Southern belle-like vapors over Benghazi and his own imminent beheading by 9-year old Mexican ISIL immigrants.
Besides, Graham would have to be the only human being in America holding down a job who has not used email at least once during the last 15 years.
He’s never responded to his bank’s email queries?
His gummint healthcare’s email queries?
John McCain’s email missives coordinating their lies?
I guess he has ghost email writers like Obama has speech writers.
On the other hand, twits tend toward tweeting and delivering their spam bullsh*t via Republican mass marketing emailers, so it could be true.
The administration can not permit this scandal to go anywhere, because they are as implicated as she is
Is this going to turn into one of those things where the CIA put radio transmitters in your dental fillings?
A guy I went to university with had that issue. Conspiracies everywhere, and any evidence that something wasn’t a conspiracy was just proof that it was a really good conspiracy, and/or that even more people were in on it than he originally realized.
He went as far as putting up great big banners made of bed sheets in the student union, trying to warn everyone about What Was Really Going On.
We didn’t have the internet then, bed sheet banners were the best he could do.
He eventually had to quit school and spend some time in a nice calm residential facility, getting his nervous system smoothed out.
It’s a shame, he was a nice guy, but crazy as hell.
No, this is going to turn into one of those things where the MSM very rapidly gets tired of reporting on the scandal, because they’re mostly Democrats, and don’t have a lot of interest in reporting on Democratic scandals, and so only Republicans hear very much about it, and only when they’re listening to conservative media.
Like the IRS targeting scandal. Which is still out there, but the MSM stopped covering it, even though there are new developments almost every day.
If a scandal falls in the forest, and the MSM decide it isn’t worth covering, do the electorate hear it? Not much…
Well so far, at any rate, the MSM seem to be still covering it. Indeed, it is growing there. (Contrary to your original assertion that it wouldn’t go anywhere, just be dropped in short order.)
the MSM very rapidly gets tired of reporting on the scandal, because they’re mostly Democrats, and don’t have a lot of interest in reporting on Democratic scandals, and so only Republicans hear very much about it, and only when they’re listening to conservative media.
So, I’m penciling you in under “proof that it was a really good conspiracy, and/or that even more people were in on it than he originally realized”.
Look, seriously, every day I hear something about the very bad no good horrible email scandal, not only in the dreaded MSM, but even on such liberal house organs as NPR.
So, there is no partisan looking the other way going on. Because there’s no looking the other way going on, at all.
Dude, *the story broke in the NY Times*.
That’s an interesting conspiracy theory you have going there, but it bears no relation to reality.
Clinton should not have conducted State Department business on personal email account, and in particular not on one run from servers under her or her family’s direct ownership and control.
The “should not” part here is defined by executive or State Department policy, or by law, depending on what applied, which may or may not be 100% clear depending on who you ask.
What should happen now? The possibilities range from disclose the emails and quit using the homebrew mail server, to some kind of Strongly Worded Statement from the executive, all the way up to criminal charges.
I have no idea which will end up happening. If I was going to bet on it, I would bet on “nothing”, because Clinton doesn’t appear to be willing to freak out about it, which makes it kind of a non-interesting scandal as far as public interest goes.
On the scale of executive malfeasance over, say, the last 45 years or so, it frankly barely registers. Unless you’re thinking The Real Truth About Benghazi is lurking in there somewhere, in which case I have a bridge to sell you.
If Clinton wasn’t (a) the likely (D) nominee in 2016 and (b) named Clinton, I don’t think it would even have made the news.
“Well so far, at any rate, the MSM seem to be still covering it. Indeed, it is growing there.”
For a value of “still” that seems large in comparison to a day. For a value of “still” that is comparable to the time until the 2016 general election? I rather doubt it.
In fact, Hillary may have engineered this coming out now, for just exactly the purpose of making it “old news” by the time it would matter.
In fact, Hillary may have engineered this coming out now, for just exactly the purpose of making it “old news” by the time it would matter.
She’s a crafty one!
nothing ever is. it’s always a conspiracy.
For those of you (I’m looking at you, wj) enamoured with a magical white knight who can bring the “Reagan Democrats” and/or “independents” back into the Democratic fold, you might find this”>http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/03/dan-pfeiffer-exit-interview.html?mid=nymag_press”>this story of interest.
A nominee who plumps for larger defense expenditures, more guns, so-so on standard bread and butter issues, and rabidly opposed to affirmative action simply won’t cut it. Importantly, the “merit” solution to racial inequality may well chase off large numbers of the most loyal of Dem voting blocks.
I suggest the article is correct insofar as there are bigger forces, trends, etc., in play, influences that the scenario of the magic White Knight allegedly able to woo “the middle” believers simply seem unwilling to acknowledge.
bobby, thanks for the interesting read. (incidently, the link is hosed up. Should be:
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/03/dan-pfeiffer-exit-interview.html?mid=nymag_press“ )
It’s not that I’m enamoured with “a magical white knight who can bring the “Reagan Democrats” and/or “independents” back into the Democratic fold“. It’s that I am looking at options.
Would someone like Webb “work” in that sense? Maybe not. But he does have several advantages which might at least get him a hearing from moderately conservative independents and even Republicans. Which, I think you will agree, someone like Warren or Sanders would not.
The other question, of course, is would someone like that discourage as many Democratic voters as he would gain Republican voters? In particular, would he lose enough of them to tip a few states against him? Losing a couple tens of thousands of Democrats in California, for example, would not change the outcome of California’s electoral votes. But if at the same time a thousand votes in a swing state shifted towards him? Might be important.
liberal japonicus:
I know, I know, but I am getting really tired of people telling me that actually the Democrats want the best for everyone, they just have to sell it to the unwashed masses. This is, at best, disingenuous of them, but I think they have actually come to believe their own rhetoric over the years or they just don’t give a damn about anything anymore: just look at Hillary “obliterate Iran” Clinton – anyone making such statements is a sociopath and yet she is hailed as the most important woman in the US and might, god forbid, actually win the presidency.
You asked in a previous thread why I don’t post much here anymore and this is one of the reasons: the US mainstream has gone too far down the rabbit hole for me to be able to rationalize it in a constructive manner anymore.
I have moved a little bit to the left since the Iraq war, but not much – the large majority of the US public however has gone, pardon me, batshit crazy and the differences between Dems, Repubs and Libertarians are just degrees of craziness.
Meanwhile I, who used to see himself as a moderate social democrat, find myself increasingly isolated with a few last men and women standing (e.g. Fisk, Pilger, Hersh, Jane Mayer, Greenwald, Buruma, Monbiot, Hedges, Naomi Klein) who still have the guts to stand by actual ethical principles.
Meanwhile I, who used to see himself as a moderate social democrat, find myself increasingly isolated with a few last men and women standing (e.g. Fisk, Pilger, Hersh, Jane Mayer, Greenwald, Buruma, Monbiot, Hedges, Naomi Klein) who still have the guts to stand by actual ethical principles.
Oh, the high moral exceptionalists!
oh, the Pavlovian dog
Ready to bite a couple of those still standing.
For context on novakant’s morsel concerning Hillary Clinton:
“Clinton made the comments in an interview on ABC last week. “I want the Iranians to know that if I’m the president, we will attack Iran,” she said when she was asked what she would do if Iran attacked Israel with nuclear weapons. “In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them,” she added.
I believe that strategy has been called deterrence.
Forgot link.
You asked in a previous thread why I don’t post much here anymore and this is one of the reasons: the US mainstream has gone too far down the rabbit hole for me to be able to rationalize it in a constructive manner anymore.
Yeah, that was me, not LJ. I don’t know if I exactly share your dilemma, but I can certainly relate to it.
What I find, for lack of a better word, not fruitful about the whole blue collar white man vs the blacks vs the immigrants thing is that it seems to assume some kind of zero sum situation.
The pie is only so big, Uncle Sam is giving a slice to that guy over there for free, but none for me!! Blue collar white dudes feel that, for sure, but they sure as hell are not alone.
The United States economy generates an unbelievable amount of wealth. IMO the focus should be on organizing our common public life – laws, institutions, infrastructure, ultimately our culture – so that the bottom 80% of the population aren’t competing for 50% of the income and 7% of the wealth.
If you’ve got enough, you care a whole lot less about what the other guy’s got, and whether it’s more or less than what you have. At that point, resentment is a lot less useful as a lever.
Oh, the high moral exceptionalists!
Yeah. all of those folks have interesting things to say, and none of them are in the position of actually having to govern.
Yeah. all of those folks have interesting things to say, and none of them are in the position of actually having to govern.
And some of them serve a constructive purpose by bringing problems to the forefront. It’s admirable to mobilize support for issues. But ignoring the obstacles faced by those who do have the job of governing is disingenuous and unhelpful to the ultimate cause.
Also, novakant’s failure to put Clinton’s comment in context makes me think certain negative thoughts about his orientation.
I know, I know, but I am getting really tired of people telling me that actually the Democrats want the best for everyone, they just have to sell it to the unwashed masses.
I think that is true about a lot (most?) issues, but I feel that Israel is a particular problematic point on this in the way it ties into the Holocaust, our dependence on ME oil, and basically everything else that has happened over there for the past century. This is not a slam on you, and it isn’t possible to lay out all the evidence in one of these comment boxes, but if we want more meaningful discussion, I think we have to be careful about the way we identify evidence. It is relatively simple to drop into google and find a quote or a video or a tweet that we can say ‘hah, I told you so’, so resisting that is part of the game, though it is probably futile in the long run.
Sorry, I should also say that this isn’t suggesting that you found this video in that way, just that this is an overall tendency that I think we have to resist.
If you’ve got enough, you care a whole lot less about what the other guy’s got, and whether it’s more or less than what you have.
Let me direct your attention to a counter-example of your thesis.
We here may be familiar with the concept of “enough.” But I have the distinct impression that the very wealthy got there, in part, because they do not. That or they are just so hyper-competitive that they want more than everybody else. In fact, a populist could make a case that the root of the problem is that the wealthy are unwilling to settle for a mere several (tens of) million dollars.
And yes, I will be unsurprised if the Democratic candidate doesn’t make exactly that case during the general election.
We here may be familiar with the concept of “enough.” But I have the distinct impression that the very wealthy got there, in part, because they do not.
Yes, I think that’s so.
I don’t really have a problem with that. If somebody wants to devote themselves to bootstrapping themselves into fabulous, incredible wealth, beyond anything they will ever want or need in their lifetime or their descendants’ lifetimes down to five generations or more, fine with me.
It’s actually not that easy a scheme to pull off, most folks that do it (not talking about inherited wealth here) do it by basically being on the job 24/7.
It’s not a life I would really wish on anyone.
What’s not good, IMO, is the way in which our public laws, institutions, etc are skewed in favor of those folks.
If what you really want in life is to be filthy stinking rich, your reward, should you be successful, is to be filthy stinking rich, full stop.
Buy five houses, own a stable of fabulous automobiles, travel all around the world in first class luxury.
Yay you!!
The law and each and every public institution should view you in exactly the same way that it views someone who lays bricks.
But he does have several advantages which might at least get him a hearing from moderately conservative independents and even Republicans.
The attribute “member of the Democratic Part” argues against this. Most “moderates” hold a conflicting array of rather partisan views on a host of issues. To think that this somehow “evens out” to moderate their voting behavior flies in the face of evidence. The overwhelming majority of those who call themselves “independents” generally and reliably lean either GOP or Dem when it comes time to actually mark the ballot.
Obama, rightly or wrongly, was perceived as a lefty reformer (despite his “red states-blue states” rhetoric). He won the presidency not once but twice. Overwhelmingly.
Given this history and these trends, I would argue that going forward it is all about mobilizing the base, and if you shit on the base too much or too often, you will lose.
But I have the distinct impression that the very wealthy got there, in part, because they do not. That or they are just so hyper-competitive that they want more than everybody else.
I doubt that. For example, the table was set for Bill Gates in the 70’s and 80’s. That he reaped vast wealth as a result is, in his particular and individual case, a matter of mostly luck. That he (and his billionaire cohort) is loath to give up this vast wealth is understandable. I don’t blame him.
But we, as a society, have consistently and assiduously worked to shape social policies to ensure that those who are “owners” reap outsized economic rewards ever since the passage of the Taft-Hartley Act back in the 40’s.
As you sow, so shall ye reap.
That he (and his billionaire cohort) is loath to give up this vast wealth is understandable. I don’t blame him.
He’s given huge amounts away. Need to give credit where it is due. Obviously, he’s not St. Francis, but so what.
He’s given huge amounts away. Need to give credit where it is due. Obviously, he’s not St. Francis, but so what.
Really?
I disagree heartily. If we construct a society that funnels outsized financial rewards to a tiny slice of the population we should be grateful for whatever largess they deem fit to bestow? That is crap. It is anti-democratic in the extreme.
another one for wj:
http://www.salon.com/2015/03/02/attack_of_radical_moderates_how_tea_party_liberals_are_both_being_swindled/
enjoy!
If we construct a society that funnels outsized financial rewards to a tiny slice of the population we should be grateful for whatever largess they deem fit to bestow?
I didn’t construct our society, and neither did Bill Gates. If we want our society to play by different rules (which I do, and some of the rules you’ve suggested, I agree with), we have to change the rules.
In the meantime, who knows what else Bill Gates will decide (or feel obligated) to do with his fortune? I think he should do more, and hope he does, but disparaging him is not something I’m inclined to do. If I had his wealth, I would want to give vast sums away, but it would be difficult to decide to whom and how. (I actually am friends with a person (yes, only one) who has wealth beyond my capacity to comprehend. This person lives very modestly, gives generously, but still has huge anxiety regarding what to do with it all. Seems like a great problem to have, but many people who have it are extremely burdened by it.)
sapient,
No worries. I guess my statement that “I don’t blame him” referring explicitly to Bill Gates went right in one of your f*cking drones-are-great infested ears and out the other with nary a collision with any solid matter in between.
/sarcasm
It can happen to anybody. Carry on, sir!
one of your f*cking drones-are-great infested ears and out the other with nary a collision with any solid matter in between
you’re such a sweetie-pie, bobbyp!
I’m posting this on multiple threads, so please forgive the redundancy.
Over on Crooked Timber, we had a nice discussion thread (as of when I left it), in which a certain troll kept trolling, but nobody answered him.
100% troll ignoring, and it helped – the conversation was productive an informative, and not threadjacked.
I strongly recommend it here – ignore him – whomever that troll is 🙂
For those of you that missed Clinton’s press conference:
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2015/0310/Hillary-Clinton-private-e-mail-was-for-convenience
In short: she did it because it was convenient. She turned over work related emails to State and deleted ‘private’ ones.
IMO, the response was pretty weak beer for waiting this long to address it.
Her direction was to “err on the side of providing anything that could possibly be viewed as work-related” to the State Department, she said. But that statement – essentially telling the American public to trust her – may be hard for some of her critics to swallow.
It won’t sink her, but I don’t think she’s managed to make this a non-issue.
Four years ago, I was predicting that Gillibrand would be the ’16 nominee. But she seems to be sitting this one out so far. She’s young and she has a lot of time.
a few last men and women standing (e.g. Fisk, Pilger, Hersh, Jane Mayer, Greenwald, Buruma, Monbiot, Hedges, Naomi Klein) who still have the guts to stand by actual ethical principles.
Greenwald just more or less endorsed the Congressional attempt to torpedo the administration’s peace talks with Iran. Why, I’m not sure, unless by this point nothing matters for him except opposing Obama.
I don’t think she’s managed to make this a non-issue.
To be perfectly honest, I don’t think there’s anything Clinton could possibly do to make it a non-issue.
She’s Hillary Clinton, ergo it’s an issue.
IMO it’s plausible that it was just a lot more convenient to use the existing personal account, and IMO it was really stupid to do so.
Also, possibly in conflict with federal and State Department best practice, possibly also policy, possibly also law.
All of that said, it is completely and unambiguously obvious to me why somebody with the last name “Clinton” would prefer to keep their communications private.
Look how much they spent on Chelsea’s wedding!
She had a State Department driver take her to get her hair done!
She thinks Mitch McConnell is an asshole!
Any scrap of her emails that fall into the public record are going to be dumpster-diving fodder for the Drudges of the world, for ever.
IMO it’s plausible that it was just a lot more convenient to use the existing personal account, and IMO it was really stupid to do so.
Except it wasn’t a pre-existing email account being used for convenience (or from habit). It was a brand new account, set up special, just as she was starting thru the appointment process. For, it would appear, just this position.
If it had been a personal account that she had been using for years, months even, I would agree with you completely. But this wasn’t that.
Greenwald just more or less endorsed the Congressional attempt to torpedo the administration’s peace talks with Iran.
Actually he did not do that, he was trying to make a more general point about presidential power. Anyway, my laundry list of names wasn’t supposed to indicate that I agree with each and every argument these writers have made and will make in the future.
“Except it wasn’t a pre-existing email account being used for convenience (or from habit). It was a brand new account, set up special, just as she was starting thru the appointment process. For, it would appear, just this position.”
AND, she encouraged her lieutenants to use her private email server, too. How did that advance her convenience? Because it’s obvious how it obstructed transparency, it kept work related emails entirely on a server she controlled.
Beautiful. She didn’t just not turn over 32K emails from that private server. She deleted them, to make sure nobody could ever reverse her decisions about them.
This is why what she did IS a big deal. She’s made sure that she had the capacity to fail to comply with the FOIA, and to destroy any work related emails she didn’t want seen, and that the power to make these decisions could never be second-guessed, because the relevant emails would never have been recorded anywhere but on a hard drive she should destroy any time she felt like it.
always a conspiracy. and always right in the middle of whatever bugaboo is troubling Brett the most. the world sure goes to a lot of trouble to keep his life interesting, doesn’t it?
such a mind-reader.
Um, no, Greenwald didn’t endorse the Republican letter. I endorse the Greenwald column. GG has this trick sometimes of sounding both shrill and nuanced simultaneously, which can encourage misreading by people who hate his guts. Here is his conclusion–
“The numerous members of both parties who are trying to subvert a peace agreement with Iran – out of some warped allegiance to Israeli interests and/or a commitment to endless militarism – are acting in destructive and dangerous ways. That substantive issue is the ground on which they merit great criticism. That they have disrespected and undermined our Glorious Commander-in-Chief, or breached precious inter-court protocols for who gets to exercise power, are, at best, ancillary positions, and as expressed, are quite misguided ones.”
Brett, don’t ever agree to meet Hillary in a park at odd hours for a confab.
You might end up like Vince Foster, given the ruthless Lady Macbethness you have deduced.
Obama can’t act like a white guy for fear of being called the angry black man and neither can Clinton, for fear of being called a right bastard.
Brett, don’t ever agree to meet Hillary in a park at odd hours for a confab.
You might end up like Vince Foster, given the ruthless Lady Macbethness you have deduced.
Obama can’t act like a white guy for fear of being called the angry black man and neither can Clinton, for fear of being called a right bastard.
Brett, don’t ever agree to meet Hillary in a park at odd hours for a confab.
You might end up like Vince Foster, given the ruthless Lady Macbethness you have deduced.
Obama can’t act like a white guy for fear of being called the angry black man and neither can Clinton, for fear of being called a right bastard.
No mind reading there. We know she directed subordinants to use her server, and that they did. We know that she deleted the emails she didn’t hand over, because she has said she did. She’s also said she will NOT turn over the server, it’s her personal property.
The consequences of these things she did are not speculative, they are objective consequences: The people in charge of FOIA searches did not have access to her or her subordinants’ email. Her decisions about what to hand over can never be reviewed by a third party, because the ones she didn’t chose to hand over are deleted.
That’s not mind reading, that’s the facts, and it’s why what she did is such a huge freaking deal. She went out of her way to do things that had these consequences.
No mind reading there.
except for all the mind-reading and insinuation and motive-guessing.
it’s always a conspiracy in Brett-world. and he always knows exactly what all the conspirators are thinking. always.
The problem with Clinton’s “obliterate Iran” remark is that she sounded like a typical crude politician using blustery language to express a policy when she didn’t have to. She accepted the premise of the question–that Iran is trying to obtain nuclear weapons and for the possible purpose of launching a suicidal attack on Israel. People commonly make that assumption in the US. in part because Ahmadinejad was an idiot and in part because some of our politicians tend to lump all Muslims into the same category of “scary people who would destroy the world given half a chance”. If we want to worry about that, Pakistan has the Bomb, and nobody goes around saying that if the Taliban take over and use it, we will obliterate Pakistan. Which segues into my second objection–you can allude to the fact that Israel is under our nuclear umbrella without being quite so crude.
But that in turn goes to my third objection–if Iran’s leaders did nuke Israel, it would still be an act of genocide to respond with the obliteration of Iran. One could destroy their military capacity and target the leaders, invade, etc, but the way Americans have accepted that collective punishment on a scale of tens of millions of innocent dead is appropriate in such situations is probably part of why we accept much lesser, but still draconian policies. I think even with the Soviet Union it would have been wrong to target cities, and I’ve read that some strategies would have had us using our smaller more precise nukes to go after only strategic targets, but once you use thousands of nukes it’s probably academic anyway.
OTOH, maybe nobody really believes it would ever happen, which is why people are so casual in talking about it. And accepting it. And then accepting any policy that is supposedly meant to avert it.
Point out the mind reading, then. You’re not pointing out mind reading, you’re using it as some kind of mindless refrain.
Put in a nutshell–nuclear deterrence, if meant as a policy we would actually carry out and not just as a vast bluff, is sociopathic, and the fact that we thought we had no choice during the Cold War might have poisoned our moral thinking in real ways on less drastic but still murderous policies.
What Clinton should have said–“A nuclear attack on israel from any party will be treated as a nuclear attack on the US.”
Point out the mind reading, then
every bit of that is an assumption about her intentions, goals and plans. things which you have absolutely no knowledge of.
GG has this trick sometimes of sounding both shrill and nuanced simultaneously
I wouldn’t call it a trick. 😛 It’s one of the hardest things about reading Greenwald. But, in the end, even when I disagree with his positions he generally has done a respectable job explaining and supporting them with copious links and research. And he has been one of the most consistent voices for transparency and executive restraint over the years. I would also recommend the specific article under discussion, linked again for those that don’t want to dig through the comments to find it:
https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/03/10/gop-2007-attacks-pelosi-interfering-bushs-syria-policy-v-todays-similar-dem-attacks-iran/
That’s not assuming intentions, that’s pointing out objective consequences of what she did.
What she did, even if internally she thought she was doing something else, had exactly those consequences. Had those consequences no matter why she did it.
And she went out of her way, actually had an email server set up in her home. How may people do that? Is it convenient to do that? No, of course it isn’t convenient, which is why hardly anybody does that.
Of course, she could have had some stupid reason for doing it, and it just coincidentally accomplished all those disreputable things. But I don’t think she’s a moron.
If you do, why would you vote for her?
I should probably say that IMO there’s a difference between the morality of deterrence between two equally powerful nations and a situation where there are more choice possible, but I’m going to let it go at that.
On Clinton, something I heard on Chris Hayes rang true-the frustrating thing about the Clintons is that there are real things to criticize about them, but the press and the Republicans always seem to fixate on the trivial. Someone wake me up if this email thing turns into something real.
What Donald said needs to be resaid:
if Iran’s leaders did nuke Israel, it would still be an act of genocide to respond with the obliteration of Iran. One could destroy their military capacity and target the leaders, invade
“Obliterate Iran” is about as stupid a policy as I can think of. First off, it’s reprehensible to talk about obliterating a country of over 70 million civilians. Second, actually engaging in total war using nuclear means would be perhaps *the most destabilizing* strategy. And not just destabilizing the region, but the world.
I think that is one of the few good things about having a conventional military on the scale of the US. We are capable of relatively quickly degrading the military C&C of Iran and invading without resorting to nukes.
But I don’t think she’s a moron.
If you do, why would you vote for her?
Are talking primary or general election? Depending on which, she could be running against someone even worse, given the GOPs track record.
Mutually assured destruction, or deterrence, is thought to have been why the Cold War never resulted in a nuclear war. I’m thinking that it’s the reason why:
“… maybe nobody really believes it would ever happen, which is why people are so casual in talking about it.”
Donald, I think you should put this too on the list of media hyped criticisms of Clinton. But if people would like to have a discussion of what I have no interest in imagining it, or any other nuclear war, other than to say that any country that does such a thing needs to have its military capability taken out right away.
I think that is one of the few good things about having a conventional military on the scale of the US. We are capable of relatively quickly degrading the military C&C of Iran and invading without resorting to nukes.
Sure, we can always “invade”.
Oops. Should have reviewed my comment. Should have read, in part:
But if people would like to have a discussion of what would happen if Iran nuked Israel, I have no interest in imagining it, or any other nuclear war, other than to say that any country that does such a thing needs to have its military capability taken out right away.
Several points:
1) We didn’t construct a society at all. It grew, organically, as an offshoot of prior societies that also grew organically.
2) Society doesn’t funnel anything to Bill Gates. Bill Gates has amassed great wealth from a combination of will, some ability with the computer, a willingness to swipe the ideas of others, a certain inclination to push the letter of the law up to (and perhaps occasionally past) the point of violation, and (last but not either most or least) a wealthy upbringing. Society hasn’t given Bill Gates squat. I personally have given him something, given that I have Windows and Office on all of my computers. Multiply me by tens of millions (or more) people and there you go.
3) We aren’t grateful for Gates’ largesse, because we aren’t its recipients. In general. I personally don’t want a dime of his money, to tell the truth, but covetousness pervades.
Anything we are doing, we can stop doing. If you’re doing something you don’t like, stop doing it. Urge others to stop, too. That’s pretty much all you can do, outside of attempting to crowbar government into interceding. That wouldn’t be my personal favorite approach, but preferences vary.
EOR
other than to say that any country that does such a thing needs to have its military capability taken out right away.
and, if Iran thinks sanctions are bad now, they’d be a hundred times worse after any kind of nuclear aggression.
My thoughts on Clinton, if anyone is interested, are:
1) Unless she does something illegal that someone chooses to prosecute, this will all blow over.
2) A Republican having done this would inspire the same outrage and defensive measures, only from opposite quarters.
3) Democrats will overlook this as inconsequential to approximately the same degree as would Republicans, if it were their person doing it.
In short: if Clinton doesn’t get prosecuted, she’ll probably run for office, get the nomination and if she wins the primaries will lose approximately 0% of the Democratic voters, and perhaps low single-digit percentage of the in-betweeners.
russell:
Mostly what wj said upthread regarding convienence, but:
To be perfectly honest, I don’t think there’s anything Clinton could possibly do to make it a non-issue.
I think that’s true to the extent that right-wing pundits aren’t going to let it go. I think it now is now potentially a factor in primaries, should someone want to challenge her.
All of that said, it is completely and unambiguously obvious to me why somebody with the last name “Clinton” would prefer to keep their communications private.
I think that’s very true, and I for one am perfectly happy letting her have her privacy. But setting up a server use for State Dept business…that’s not privacy, that’s lack of transparency.
…outside of attempting to crowbar government into interceding. That wouldn’t be my personal favorite approach, but preferences vary.
Without getting into whatever (non-)opinion I might have about Bill Gates, we’d probably be talking as much about un-crowbarring government out of interceding as much as crowbarring it into interceding. There’s been plenty of crowbarring already, to the benefit of some number of crowbarrers.
Or shorted, what Slart said at 10:33AM.
I am a-ok with discussing undoing some of government’s protections on business that might have gotten Gates where he was. I am less ok with any ex post facto measures, or other enforced wealth divestiture.
He’s got his pile. What the government can or should do to liberate him of more of it is, I think, something that bobbyp and I are likely to disagree on.
But setting up a server use for State Dept business…that’s not privacy, that’s lack of transparency.
Yes, I agree with you.
For the record, if I’m not mistaken the server and the email domain she used was one that already existed, and which was set up originally for Bill Clinton’s use.
So, yes, a new account, but no, not a whole new infrastructure built out specifically for her use as Sec of State.
Assuming my understanding is correct, which is not guaranteed.
All in, I think slarti has it right at 10:33.
I am a-ok with discussing undoing some of government’s protections on business that might have gotten Gates where he was. I am less ok with any ex post facto measures, or other enforced wealth divestiture.
Me, too. [Though, as I typed that, it did occur to me that implementing some kind of wealth tax, which I’m not categorically opposed to, would pretty much be an after-the-fact taking from his pile. (Not that I’m suggesting Bill Gates would be personally targeted.)]
Society hasn’t given Bill Gates squat.
Other than the culture which educated him… the economy which enabled his business… the legal system which enforced his IP, software licenses etc…
Yeah, squat, really.
Same culture educated me, and everyone else in this country.
So, we’re all on even footing. Right? Why aren’t we all billionaires?
It’s one of those rare occasions when I take little joy at the prospect of having it right, russell.
Mutually assured destruction probably did prevent a nuclear war, and it could also have caused one. I think arguing that nuclear deterrence was a good policy because we survived is an argument that probably suffers from contamination by an observational selection effect link
Bostrom (one of the authors of that paper) is an interesting guy, sort of brilliant borderline kook. Or not a kook. Hard to say. Has a webpage with a lot of papers, mostly about the anthropic principle, transhumanism (that’s the kooky part) and so forth. Anyway, I’m sure others have pointed out that the fact that we survived the Cold War doesn’t mean that nuclear deterrence was a good policy. You’d have to have some sort of statistical ensemble of parallel universes to examine the percentages and those are hard to come by. I toss it in there because it’s sort of interesting.
I still think casual talk about obliteration is dumb, even in response to a press question.
So, we’re all on even footing. Right? Why aren’t we all billionaires?
I don’t think anyone is making the argument that Bill Gates’ efforts were not a very large factor in his success. The conditions under which he managed that success were necessary, but not sufficient, for him to do what he did.
Not everyone has the same talent, drive or luck. And our society doesn’t yield exactly the same conditions for everyone in every stratum or segment therein (to point out the obvious).
also, setting up an email server isn’t really a huge technical endeavor.
12 steps, two of them are clicking “I agree” to legal agreement.
“Sure, we can always “invade”.”
Thompson’s comment was regarding the scenario that people seem to think we should be concerned about–Iran obtaining a nuke and then, cuz they think it would be fun and they’re all crazy and so forth, promptly nuking Israel. It would be nice if this country’s politicians actually had sane discussions about just what they think would happen if Iran had the Bomb, rather than just casually assuming that everyone will immediately start nuking each other. The sane speculation I’ve seen is that Iran would feel more comfortable engaging in local attempts at hegemony, but they’re already supporting Syria and Hezbollah. Maybe they’d do more of that. This however, belongs in the other thread. Except it came up here because of Clinton’s remark. But then that fits into my earlier complaint–our press and politicians insist on making trivial things like this email scandal into important subjects, rather than talking about something serious.
I am now going to do something in the real world, rather than continue to mix threads.
Thompson’s comment was regarding the scenario that people seem to think we should be concerned about–Iran obtaining a nuke and then, cuz they think it would be fun and they’re all crazy and so forth, promptly nuking Israel. It would be nice if this country’s politicians actually had sane discussions about just what they think would happen if Iran had the Bomb, rather than just casually assuming that everyone will immediately start nuking each other.
Yes, that’s what I was getting at. Thanks Donald.
Agreed on the pointing-out, and agreed that it’s obvious.
Obviously Bill Gates didn’t start out at the same point as, say, Warren Buffett. Or Larry Ellison.
Or, not to point too fine a point on it, Oprah Winfrey.
That wasn’t the scenario I was thinking about. I was thinking more that a covert Iranian nuclear weapons program could provide one of Israel’s many non-state-actor enemies with a nuclear device, which they could then attempt to use against Israel.
talking about bill gates…
I have a few issues with Gates, but his being personally very wealthy is not among them.
I think that, over the years, his business practices have been monopolistic and anti-competitive.
I think that his company has a bad habit of making his customers act as beta testers for new products and releases of products.
That’s pretty much my list of beefs with him. Maybe those, and the fact that the man has no fashion sense at all.
Seriously, all of that money, and the man can’t get a better haircut? It has to be button downs and crewneck sweaters all the time?
But I digress.
I doubt that I would even consider myself a capitalist in the “ism” sense, but it also doesn’t bug me if somebody somewhere gets really rich.
In Gates’ case, his company made technology accessible to a really important set of users, i.e. businesses who were not primarily technology businesses.
By “made accessible” I mean he packaged things in ways that made them a sufficiently low risk investment that people who were not technical, but who were responsible for budgets, would actually buy them.
That created a lot of tangible value, for a lot of people, and a lot of the wealth that flowed from that, flowed to Gates.
A lot of that wealth also flowed to the many many thousands of people who worked for Gates’ company. I wish all industries had the kind of distribution and compensation models that are common in the software industry.
And, Gates has given away a hell of lot of money, and encouraged others to do the same.
He can’t help it if he’s lucky.
Compare and contrast, if you will, to folks like the Waltons.
IMO extraordinarily wealthy people like Gates et al are unfairly advantaged by things like the tax code, and I’d be delighted to see that corrected.
But I’m not sure there’s a lot of point in being upset about the fact that he’s stupendously wealthy.
Some people are ridiculously beautiful, some ridiculously smart, some can hit a ball farther than any human really ought to be able to, and some are just amazingly fortunate.
Life’s unfair that way.
We could take every cent Bill Gates has and it wouldn’t make that big of a dent in our overall collective financial issues.
There are only about a million things we could do to make life better for all of us, without taking away Bill Gates money, or Warren Buffett’s, or even the Waltons.
To me it makes sense to focus on that stuff.
russell, sometimes you’re just too damn reasonable.
As is frequently the case: WRS.
And now I have to run off for the afternoon. Had to stick around home while the furnace guy fixed our heat, again. Second time in two weeks.
Fortunately it was quick, and (for good or ill) because it was a QC issue with the last replacement part, it was also free of immediate charge.
I have absolutely no problem with Bill Gates, nor his achievements (Microsoft hooking up with Grover Norquist in the 1990s or whenever that happened, and some other lobbying efforts I have a problem with), nor his wealth.
I do have a problem with penalizing those who tried to be billionaires and failed or didn’t lift a finger to become even hundredaires by depriving them of affordable, comprehensive health care coverage on a par with Bill Gates’ health care coverage.
No success, well, your children can rot then seems so unexceptional of us.
Like maybe that would be instructional justice. Seems like something a radical, conservative Iranian Mullah would come up with, when they weren’t working with Republicans to scuttle nuclear weapons treaties.
That this insurance would be very heavily subsidized by the government is not something I think Gates would disagree with, nor do I believe that he, at any time in his life, but especially early on, would look at tens of millions of people receiving heavily subsidized gold-plated healthcare coverage, not this cheap, but high-deductible stuff Marty buys through Obamacare, and calculate the ridiculous incentive/disincentive calculus so many use in this country and maybe decide to spend his youth in his garage smoking weed instead of coming up with cutting edge computer software (Steve Jobs didn’t think so; we’re not alone in condemning Gates)
People like I describe here don’t produce like Gates, they write sh*tty novels like Ayn Rand and make money from dumb rubes.
Maybe we need a higher tax rate on Gates/Microsoft, but he’ll be OK, and he knows it.
I have absolutely no problem with Bill Gates, nor his achievements (Microsoft hooking up with Grover Norquist in the 1990s or whenever that happened, and some other lobbying efforts I have a problem with), nor his wealth.
I do have a problem with penalizing those who tried to be billionaires and failed or didn’t lift a finger to become even hundredaires by depriving them of affordable, comprehensive health care coverage on a par with Bill Gates’ health care coverage.
No success, well, your children can rot then seems so unexceptional of us.
Like maybe that would be instructional justice. Seems like something a radical, conservative Iranian Mullah would come up with, when they weren’t working with Republicans to scuttle nuclear weapons treaties.
That this insurance would be very heavily subsidized by the government is not something I think Gates would disagree with, nor do I believe that he, at any time in his life, but especially early on, would look at tens of millions of people receiving heavily subsidized gold-plated healthcare coverage, not this cheap, but high-deductible stuff Marty buys through Obamacare, and calculate the ridiculous incentive/disincentive calculus so many use in this country and maybe decide to spend his youth in his garage smoking weed instead of coming up with cutting edge computer software (Steve Jobs didn’t think so; we’re not alone in condemning Gates)
People like I describe here don’t produce like Gates, they write sh*tty novels like Ayn Rand and make money from dumb rubes.
Maybe we need a higher tax rate on Gates/Microsoft, but he’ll be OK, and he knows it.
For some reason, my mouse is clicking more than once.
Sorry for the multiple posts.
Also, sorry for the initial post for those who would like my mouse to stop clicking altogether.
slarti (10:33):
3) Democrats will overlook this as inconsequential to approximately the same degree as would Republicans, if it were their person doing it.
For the moment, there seem to be a number of Democrats who are not sounding too willing to ignore it. Which is not to say that it will not blow over for them in the next year. But it also might shift the ground sufficiently for a plausible challenger for the nomination to emerge.
That, after all, is Clinton’s greatest challenge: the Democrats stepping back and asking themselves, “Is this really what we want?” Not just “Can she beat the Republicans?” but “Is this what we want?” Because if they ask that question seriously, I suspect they might well decide the answer is No.
Once upon a time, America rejected Hillarycare. Since then, Obamacare has claimed the day.
I am at this point in time unsure of how America will choose, WRT HRC.
Bushes had two in the White House (and one behind the wheel in Florida). Clintons only have one. The aversion to dynasties may not arise until parity has been achieved.
I suspect they might well decide the answer is No.
there might be some of those. and in the primaries, that’s how i’ll be thinking. assuming there’s a primary.
but if people see the choice as being between HRC for President or giving the ridiculous GOP a chance to actually pass laws, the decision becomes a lot easier to make.
So, we’re all on even footing. Right?
Correct me if I am wrong, but this seems to be a rhetorical question. Obviously, we are all not on the same footing. Even a cursory review of his life would show you that he was born on 3rd base, or maybe somewhere around shortstop.
Why aren’t we all billionaires?
Another rhetorical question? Let’s ask another one: Why do we have a society that allows such outsized wealth accumulation and the deleterious social and political effects that result?
What the government can or should do to liberate him of more of it is, I think, something that bobbyp and I are likely to disagree on.
You have that wrong. I am dismayed at our social/political/economic rules that enabled him to get such a pile, and I try to promote and work for changes to those rules so that we do not have such inequality going forward. There’s not much we can (lawfully) do now to reduce his current wealth except at the margins.
His heirs? Perhaps not so much. Time will tell.
As for the “we” stuff. Nigel has answered that. “We” stand on the shoulders of our forebearers. “We” benefit from the wealth they built for us. From some poor sod who died constructing Hoover Dam to Bill f*cking Walton himself. They should all be honored equally.
And what HSH, Russell, and the Count said.
“Another rhetorical question? Let’s ask another one: Why do we have a society that allows such outsized wealth accumulation and the deleterious social and political effects that result?”
Because “not allowing” requires huge and detailed interventions in everybody’s lives. It requires enforcement. And you have to weigh outsized wealth accumulation against the deleterious social and political effects that result from a government that can “not allow” people to get wealthy.
I’d be content if the government stopped doing things to help encourage increased income inequality, like “too big to fail” policies, or waiving criminal charges for bank executive cronies. If people get wealthy without the government deliberately helping them, let them be.
cleek, agreed that Clinton’s biggest challenge is getting thru the primaries.
Unless the Republicans do something seriously unexpected in their primaries. That means not only refraining from nominating one of the nut cases, but also (this time) not forcing a less extreme candidate to run as hard as possible to the right in order to get the nomination.
I’d be content if the government stopped doing things to help encourage increased income inequality, like “too big to fail” policies, or waiving criminal charges for bank executive cronies.
There is at least some common ground.
I’d say on the grand scale of wealth accumulation, he was born on 2nd. But that all depends on whether you treat it as a log scale or not. Most people never make it to first base.
Meant with all possible other interpretations 🙂
Still, he’s arguably worth three orders of magnitude or more than his father was.
Oprah, on the other hand, is easily worth five or six orders of magnitude more than her mother was. Possibly more. It’s a matter of will, and also a matter of not letting the can’ts stop you.
But, also: yes, it matters whether you’re born into a mindset that considers that extraordinary wealth accumulation is achievable.
For me, it’s more a question of what am I willing to do to amass huge amounts of wealth/power. And the answer to that is usually: not as much as it takes. It’s just not that important to me. Life is too short.
Overall, the percentage of African-Americans in the Forbes 400 is dismayingly small. So I have some amount of agreement with your overall point. But I contend that the shoulders of William Gates, Sr. are much lower in altitude than those of Sam Walton.
And of course much discussion & disagreement will ensue. But I think that I am not completely wrong, here.
“There is at least some common ground.”
Maybe not.
After all, getting rid of most government regulation altogether, as most Libertarians cum Republicans desire, wouldn’t leave any laws with which to prosecute bank executive cronies.
Further, they would be free then also to become as big as it takes to cause a catastrophic failure, which the government, again under Libertarian rules, would be powerless to either prevent or ameliorate, since the Federal Reserve for example, would no longer exist, but the “cronies” would be free to abscond with their bonuses and probably some depositor money that was somehow collateralized through some phony but again unregulated “financial instrument”, probably a puke funnel, to the Barbados and shade themselves in the towering shadow cast by Mitt Romney’s offshore money.
There is no common ground.
The Commons are finito despite desperate sentimentalism to the contrary.
There is at least some common ground.
Agreed, what Brett said at 1:20.
For me, it’s more a question of what am I willing to do to amass huge amounts of wealth/power. And the answer to that is usually: not as much as it takes
My wife worked for many years as a partner in a marketing consultancy. Their client list included a lot of very very successful retail companies. The consultancy itself also numbered among its partners a number of quite successful serial entrepreneurs.
Net/net, through my wife I’ve met and known a smallish but still generous handful of people who bootstrapped personal net worths of 7 to 9 figures.
Sadly, my wife is not in that club, but then again, maybe not so sadly.
What all of those folks had, and have, in common is that they are basically never not working. If they’re awake, they’re on the job.
Dinner, family vacations, weekends, kids plays and ballgames. Always either not there, or on or accessible to the mobile device, or else those private occasions are just an extension of work, i.e. co-workers and clients are included and the discussion is mostly about work.
I’ll never be any kind of illionaire, whether you prefix that with an m or a b, because I would rather hang out with my wife family and friends, play music, or take a nap on the weekend.
I’ve worked really hard at times, but not that hard. And I don’t want to work that hard.
My thing is basically what Brett gets at – if folks want to go to fanatic lengths to make money, fine with me. I just don’t want the public sphere tilted in their favor.
That includes stuff like tax code, “too big to fail” BS, public contract gravy trains (I’m looking at you, military industrial intelligence complex), etc etc etc.
There are some things that just don’t happen without extraordinary effort. Playing pro level ball, really being able to play good lines over jazz changes, making a perfect creme brulee.
And, ending up with orders of magnitude more money than you started out with.
Guys like Gates, and Jobs, and Ellison benefited enormously by being at the right place at the right time. They also recognized what a lucky penny they had stumbled across, and they also worked like obsessive zombie freak animals.
The only other folks I know who work that hard are artists. Musicians, painters, writers, dancers. The folks who are really doing it never rest. Ever.
In any case, I don’t do that, and I ain’t doing that, so no millions or billions for me.
I’m OK with it.
I’d be content if the government stopped doing things to help encourage increased income inequality, like “too big to fail” policies, or waiving criminal charges for bank executive cronies. If people get wealthy without the government deliberately helping them, let them be.
Agreed.
Luck plays a significant part in getting ahead as well.
I worked my way thru college. Then, unable to get into my chosen field, blundered into computers . . . just as they took off.
It also helped to be in the Bay Area, where wage inflation was way higher than in cheaper, and less IT-intensive, parts of the country.
Which is to say, I managed by the end of my career to squeeze past a nominal 7 figure net worth. Which doesn’t go as far as 6 figures elsewhere in the country (outside NYC) — the key word was “nominal”.
Side question, economists use “purchasing power parity” to figure out what some amount of money is really worth in different countries. Has anyone tried doing something similar for various locations in the US? And published it?
Folks,
Patents in perpetuity are “regulations”.
Lower tax rates for certain types of income is “social engineering”.
Subsidies for not growing stuff is “market intervention”.
I could go on with quite a lengthy list of other policies. Apparently some consider the above and others I might come up with to have been decreed by God or otherwise just part of the “natural order of things”.
I respectfully disagree. We did it.
Because “not allowing” requires huge and detailed interventions in everybody’s lives. It requires enforcement.
Not exactly true. “Allowing” also requires huge and detailed interventions and enforcement. Try reading our tax code, or even your local land use regulations for a small taste of such interventions.
They are ubiquitous. They tend to favor certain classes of people. They promote winners and losers.
One could argue that they act to promote the public good, but that is not the same as asserting they are a priori “self evident”.
bobby, patents at all are regulation. (I’m not arguing that patents are not a good thing. Just that they are regulations.) Likewise, any deductions available on taxes are social engineering — we are saying that some kinds of spending should be treated differently.
Taken seriously, libertarianism is minimally different from anarchy. I know the libertarians here will object. And certainly a libertarian inclination is not. (And I lean that way myself.) But if you take the underlying philosophy to its logical conclusion, that is where you end up.
as a clear sign of how all-in the media in on the HRC email thing, AP is suing the State Dept over it.
it’s all a big conspiracy!
Patents in perpetuity are “regulations”.
Lower tax rates for certain types of income is “social engineering”.
Subsidies for not growing stuff is “market intervention”.
I would agree with all of those descriptions, and also think they contribute to wealth inequality and protecting incumbent companies.
Apparently some consider the above and others I might come up with to have been decreed by God
They would be wrong.
libertarians here will object
Consider it objected. 🙂
They are ubiquitous. They tend to favor certain classes of people. They promote winners and losers.
So would you be comfortable with a simplified tax code, for example, all income being treated equally, progressive tax rates, no loopholes/exceptions/deductions?
“Taken seriously”
That would be the first mistake.
wj, I don’t think your comment here is in disagreement with bobbyp’s post.
And to add to bobbyp’s list:
The doctrine that capital investment confers ownership, but time and labor do not, is a choice.
The doctrine that the primary or even sole responsibility of corporate managers is to shareholders, rather than to stakeholders construed more broadly, is a choice.
All choices.
And for that matter, having no regulation at all is also a choice. Deciding to do nothing is an action.
All of these things influence outcomes, and all of them are chosen, by us.
If we want different outcomes, we need to make different choices.
No matter what choices we make, I’m pretty sure that some folks are going to end up with more of something valuable than others. So, I’m not sure that total eradication of inequalities is a feasible goal.
Making it possible for folks to secure a livelihood without 47% of us being on the dole seems, to me, both feasible and worthwhile.
And I personally am not looking for more welfare.
Distribution, not redistribution.
“Taken seriously, libertarianism is minimally different from anarchy. I know the libertarians here will object.”
I certainly wouldn’t object to that. That’s exactly right.
“all income being treated equally, progressive tax rates”
Make up your mind, which is it?
Make up your mind, which is it?
I think that means all types of income treated the same, subject to the same rates, which may be progressive.
I reverse my 3:06 PM.
They’re either progressive, or they’re the same rates. The two contradict each other.
That’s exactly right.
That describes a only narrow subset of libertarianism, so no, it is not right.
Make up your mind, which is it?
Those aren’t contradictory concepts. Income from all sources could be taxed the same way, and that could be flat, regressive, or progressively scaled. Alternatively, you could have, say, a progressively scaled rate for one type of income and a flat rate for a different type of income.
I think that means all types of income treated the same, subject to the same rates, which may be progressive.
Yes, thank you, although I’m guessing Brett understood my meaning perfectly well.
Taken seriously
Insofar as you are referring to the garden variety American “libertarianism” with its “watchman state” and extreme concept of property rights, no, it cannot be taken seriously. Left wing “minarchism” or “communalism” is better, but not by much.
Both tend to construct a social vision that is not inhabited by human beings.
As to Thompson’s query above, the answer is, “It depends.” If he is alluding to the scheme promoted by M. Forbes The Younger, the answer is a resounding NO.
“Distribution, not redistribution.”
YUP.
As to Thompson’s query above, the answer is, “It depends.” If he is alluding to the scheme promoted by M. Forbes The Younger, the answer is a resounding NO.
If you mean Steve Forbes ’96 and ’00 flat tax proposals that exempt unearned income, they aren’t really the same thing. Because, you know, Forbes’ suggestions were *flat* and they treated *different income sources differently.*
As opposed to what I said:
“all income being treated equally, progressive tax rates”
We’re not talking specifically about “in perpetuity” so much as talking about timespans that are relevant to e.g. Microsoft’s fortunes. Or so I thought.
We could replace “patents” in this conversation with “copyrights”, and see perhaps a different set of opinions.
Patents are, or are not, important. If you want them not to be important, argue against their abolition. For consistency’s sake, too, argue against copyrights. Because those things are, in some sense, part of a whole.
That’s a conversation I can have. Not that I would agree with such arguments, but it’s a game. It’s ALL a game. We (as a race; even if in no conscious way) made it up. We can un-make it. Realizing, however, that the lives of some non-trivial number of people might be affected in various, nontrivial ways.
In other words: changing the rules of the game isn’t out of bounds, because we decide what the bounds are. Changing the rules, however, does itself result in some side-effects. Much as the French Revolution had side-effects; some of which were a decrease in the average height at death of French citizens.
In early June 2014, Steve Forbes predicted the collapse of the U.S. Dollar.
Here is a chart of the U.S. Dollar vis avis other currencies since then, by which I mean, since the moment he uttered his words:
http://bigcharts.marketwatch.com/quickchart/quickchart.asp?symb=US%20DOLLAR%20INDEX%20FUTURES&insttype=Future
If you had shorted the dollar at that time, you would now be approximately the height of the average French citizen after their haircut during the French Revolution.
Steve Forbes nevertheless made money on the prediction because it was in a book he was hawking.
Regarding patents and copyrights (and much else), this is great essay, which I saved to favorites some time ago (probably linked by someone here previously) and read just this morning.
http://bigcharts.marketwatch.com/quickchart/quickchart.asp?symb=US%20DOLLAR%20INDEX%20FUTURES&insttype=Future
Try that second link again:
http://harpers.org/archive/2007/02/the-ecstasy-of-influence/
Um…both your links go to the same place, Count.
Favorite quote:
“If you take away our right to steal ideas, where are they going to come from?”
Or, as Paul McCartney, owner of infinite copyrights, said about composing music, tongue in cheek: “When in doubt, steal.”
Stay with me. I won’t back down.
Yes, music is much stealing. The trick is not to steal too closely; in other words: the cribbing must be sufficiently high.
Which may be roughly translated as: don’t get caught. Or so I suppose.
Think of how much different music would be without such protections, or with more stringent protections. Spider Robinson did, once upon a time, in Melancholy Elephants.
did it work?
My apologies, russell.
I was actually in the process of editing my own comment when you posted that, which is something I still do because I can.
Much as a dog…ok, I need go no further.
Paul McCartney, owner of infinite copyrights
“Sing me a song everybody knows / I’ll bet you it belongs to Acuff-Rose”.
EMI and Apple Records owns most of the mechanical rights for the Beatles catalog.
Michael Jackson’s estate and Sony own most of the Beatles’ publishing.
Last I checked, anyway.
McCartney does, however, own most of the stuff he’s written solo, as well as everything from “Ac-cen-tu-ate The Positive” to “Guys And Dolls”.
In our new digital nirvana, many music publishing rights are virtually impossible to enforce. They endure for 70 years after the artist’s death, so we have the twin spectacles of rights lasting for an absurdly long time, and from which most artists derive bupkis.
Work hard, young songwriter, and maybe your great-grandkids will be cashing those checks for 11 cents.
Software patents these days are basically a strategic business strategy more than protection for original inventions. Patent everything, and let the lawyers sort it out. If you can’t afford enough legal firepower, you go out of business.
I’m waiting the for patent headlined “an original invention for using a computing device to do things, or not”. It’s probably out there, somewhere.
Under current law as I understand it, all Lennon and McCartney (Harrison and Starr too) copyrights will revert back to the original composers in 2018, though I have to admit the wording of the law is confusing.
Russell, you are right about the bupkis, but it is amusing to hear McCartney complain about paying royalties to play his own songs in public, which sounds insane.
I don’t understand how this affects the copyright catalogues McCartney owns from other artists, but the fact they are dead may have something to do with a difference.
Buddy Holly and such.
Paul is in good health so he should be singing his own Macca/Lennon stuff for free at the age of 77 and in the same key they were originally performed and written, amazingly, for a guy pop singer.
Correction, I think:
The Lennon/Mccartney BEGINS to revert back to the composers in 2018 (56 years after 1962 when the first songs were copyrighted, I think) meaning he won’t own the complete Beatles catalogue until 2026, so by then he might be talking own lyrics with a cigar in his hand like George Burns on stage.
I could have this bolloxed up, but ….
Think of how much different music would be without such protections
Why yes. Think of a world without Sammartini or other Baroque composers. What, you say? They didn’t have copyright protection? And one recoils in horror at the thought of copyright attorneys inhibiting the playing of folk music.
Why, it’s a wonder they had music at all back in those days. Or books!
Actually, if you look into it more, the debate about copyright and patent rights is a rather lively one.
I have applied for copyright protection on all of Hillary’s missing emails. After all, she threw them away, no?
the wikki on copyright….a longer history than I allude to above.
Note the perceived need for it grows as the cost of dissemination goes down, beginning with the invention of the printing press.
liberals are not immune to wrong thought.
Hey, speaking of public policy, what about that old idea popularized by Henry George for a land tax?
I’d bet money that most here would not even deign consider that our current monopoly on violence state sanctioned property deed system is “inefficient” (in the economic sense).
It is. And it it is deeply enshrined public policy.
Here’s a more “>http://mattbruenig.com/2015/03/06/why-the-big-government-land-deed-program-creates-growth-destroying-distortions/”> recent take on this conundrum.
Enjoy!!!
Think of a world without Sammartini or other Baroque composers.
Last time we got into the music copyright thing it went on, like. forever, and to no particular useful purpose.
So, I’m not really interested in revisiting all of that.
I’ll just say that if somebody is making money off of a musician’s work product, that “somebody” should include the musician.
‘Nuff said, I hope.
As usual, WRS.
If Sammartini has any objections to folks scamming his music for free, I’d be interested in hearing them.
“Hey, speaking of public policy, what about that old idea popularized by Henry George for a land tax?”
The idea rather violently conflicts with environmentalism, as the whole point of it was to force land to be used for it’s most renumerative purpose, regardless of what owners might have wanted to do with it.
It’s pretty rare that undisturbed natural space is the most renumerative use of land, and George WAS, after all, concerned with preventing people from just leaving their land ‘unused’.
Of course, you can make exceptions for land that’s subject to covenants. But there are all sorts of pitfalls.
Gotta agree with Brett on the “land tax”; it may have made sense for 19th century England, not so much for other places and times.
Much like applying English-based riparian law to the US southwest: what makes sense in a land where walking across a field leaves a set of new ponds in your footsteps is simply insane in a land where water is rare and precious.
There are land taxes, they’re just imposed by local governments, no? With exceptions for non-profits and perhaps land set aside for preservation (as Brett notes).
Anyway, back on Hillary, I think it probably is a good idea for Democrats to come up with a plan B. She appears to have really stepped in it this time. I doubt that she’s going to see any jail time, (Though anybody else would.) but this probably IS going to impact her electablity.
Higher land tax will accomplish a number of things, among which is minimizing the amount of land one owns. Another of which is that some small number of fabulously wealthy people will simply locate their getaway homes outside US borders.
Investment bankers will be hit least hard, as their business mostly takes up server space. In the meantime, the price of food and manufactured goods will go way up.
But, hey, it’s worth a try.
On the plus side, though: there would probably be a boom in skyscraper construction.
BTW, thompson’s tax proposal @3/11/15 at 03:04 PM has much to recommend it; if it was fleshed out with non-evil details, it would be worth supporting. The devil, as aways, hides in the details.
Two thoughts:
foreign earned income. It’s a mess, no matter how it’s handled. You can make it ‘fair’, you can make it ‘simple’. Pick one.
charities would whine and scream that they funding would crater. So how about change the model completely? No ‘deduction’ for charitable giving, but instead, on one’s tax form, you get a small pot of money to donate to charity (the same charities that have registered so that donations are ‘deductable’), much like the “give $3 to pres. campaign” checkbox, but with more cash and more choices. Say, $1K per person. You can give more if you want, and give ‘stuff’, but you can’t deduct it.
Sure, it makes handling tax forms more work for the IRS, but they have computers, they can figure it out. It certainly would make it simpler for citizens (no record-keeping!) which should be a more important consideration.
Might actually result in larger total donations to charity, as more people contribute.
Okay, I’ll stop there…if I continue on the subject of taxation and regulation I’ll make Count look like a reasonable, sane, moderate, and we can’t have that.
Brett:”Anyway, back on Hillary, I think it probably is a good idea for Democrats to come up with a plan B. ”
Absolutely. More choice is better, and competition results in better choices.
“She appears to have really stepped in it this time.”
I’d say it was ‘paranoia’, but it seems that there really are people out to ‘get’ her.
“I doubt that she’s going to see any jail time, (Though anybody else would.) ”
Yeah, I do wonder when Karl Rove and Alberto Gonzales will be getting out of prison for their shenanigans with email hosted on GOPHQ servers with mysteriously faulty backups. Hey, did the GOP employ Lois Lerner back then? Just asking.
“…but this probably IS going to impact her electablity.”
Among people who would never vote for her under any circumstances, yes. Otherwise? Doubtful.
Snarki:
foreign earned income.
I think that is a sticky problem, but I think its a relatively rare problem, so I’m not overwhelming concerned. I would say, once the money reaches our shores (a US bank account), it gets taxed, otherwise, it doesn’t. I’d be open to other mechanisms, though, if you had thoughts.
Re: charities, honestly I was planning on just having them deal with it, but I like your idea as well. You’re taxed at rate X% into the general fund, and you can divert up to Y% to charities of your choice.
Sure, it makes handling tax forms more work for the IRS
Compared to the current system? Honestly, we use tax law for far too much in this country, I think the IRS is probably one of the most overworked agencies. I think removing current tax law complexity, even if there is a little more confusion with charities, would still be far simpler.
Mostly, the more complex tax law is, the more advantage the wealthy have in finding creative ways to funnel money around, and of course tax law is going to be influenced by monied lobbyists. A simple system prevents a lot of that.
Overall, base rates could be decreased and taxes would be easier for the average citizen to fill out and comply with. Less work for the IRS to investigate and enforce. Less social engineering, fewer creative loopholes.
FYI, I think we should do the same thing with corporate taxes. A low rate on income, no deductions/exemptions/credits.
thompson,
foreign income: no, all systems are ‘bad’, in different ways. Better to just ring-fence the complexity so that the fewest number of people have to deal with it. I’ve had to deal with it, twice, years apart. It was a PITA.
The larger ‘gaming’ of the tax code was on display in the 80’s: lots of special interest loopholes closed, so congressmen were able to ‘monetize’ opening them up again, one by one, over the next few years. I’d like to hear how that could be prevented. Fix THAT, and lots of other problems become much simpler, but just saying ‘a simple system would prevent it’ doesn’t actually prevent it.
BTW, I considered that “Y% of income”, but thought it was too complicated and that a fixed per-capita amount would be both simpler and ‘more (small d) democratic’. It’s not so much ‘how do I give *MY* money’ (which you could do anyway), but ‘what should our nation support?’
I’d like to hear how that could be prevented.
Honestly? Not readily in our system. Any future congress can roll back any progress made by the current one. But I don’t think that’s an excuse to not try to make progress.
fixed per-capita amount would be both simpler
Either way. I honestly think charities would probably get by without exemptions. The people I know that donate to charity are generally driven by something other than their 1040.
“…but this probably IS going to impact her electablity.”
Among people who would never vote for her under any circumstances, yes. Otherwise? Doubtful.
Sorry, Snarki, but it is going to make a difference. Personally, whether I would vote for her would depend on just how bad the Republican candidate was. But that threshold has now shifted a little further. Maybe I am unique in that, but I sure wouldn’t count on it if I were the Democrats.
thompson:
” Any future congress can roll back any progress made by the current one. But I don’t think that’s an excuse to not try to make progress.”
Certainly, but doing the same thing over and over and hoping for a different result? I *think* there’s a term for that. Really, the “end point” that you originally outlined in taxes is attractive, but you’ve got some work to do to convince people that it actually is the “end point”, and not just a way station to a looting of the public treasury by the usual suspects.
====
“charities would probably get by” Probably. But with as much “private charity” is pushed as the alternative to “government welfare”, it seems that one should want an outcome rather more robust than “get by”.
Unless you’re advocating a large expansion of government largess in things that are normally labeled “welfare”…in which case, carry on.
Certainly, but doing the same thing over and over and hoping for a different result? I *think* there’s a term for that.
Sure. It’s called voting. But I do it anyway.
and not just a way station to a looting of the public treasury by the usual suspects.
The looting is ongoing. Stopping it, even temporarily, is a win in my mind. Maybe someday it will stick.
it seems that one should want an outcome rather more robust than “get by”.
Eh. Fixed amount then. I don’t think it would be that hard to administer. List of ID numbers for the charities and percentages, IRS mails out a couple of checks.
thompson: Overall, base rates could be decreased and taxes would be easier for the average citizen to fill out and comply with.
Decreased compared to what?
We’ve all heard the term “revenue-neutral tax reform”. Unless it’s a term of art or a dog-whistle, what it means in plain English is this:
After the reform, the IRS collects the same total number of dollars as before the reform. And, after the reform, some people pay fewer dollars while some people pay more dollars, in taxes.
If everybody pays less than before, it’s not revenue-neutral. If everybody pays the same as before, it’s hardly tax reform.
Reducing base rates, by itself, means everybody pays less. Closing loopholes (aka simplification), by itself, means some people pay more. Put the two together, add the revenue-neutrality constraint, and you have explicitly redistributed the tax “burden”.
The only question then becomes: do you want to shift the burden upwards or downwards on the income spectrum?
–TP
Tony:
what it means in plain English is this:
Yes, that is what I’m talking about. Collecting the same amount of revenue as before, just in a different way.
As a separate issue, I’d also like to collect less revenue. But that goal is far, far secondary to making a sane tax system.
Closing loopholes (aka simplification), by itself, means some people pay more. Put the two together, add the revenue-neutrality constraint, and you have explicitly redistributed the tax “burden”.
I’m glad I’ve made myself clear, that is exactly what I’m talking about doing. Although I’m a little hurt you thought basic algebra was beyond my reach. 🙂
The only question then becomes: do you want to shift the burden upwards or downwards on the income spectrum?
As I’m talking about reducing base rates, closing exemptions/loopholes, and bringing all income under one progressive tax rate…well, it’s likely this is going to force people who take advantage of the most exemptions/deductions/loopholes and gain significant parts of their income from non-earned sources to pay more taxes. I would speculate that these are typically the higher income earners.
Tony,
I think there’s some benefit in simplification, in both the “tax administration” side and the “tax compliance” side, even if everyone is paying the exact same amount as before.
It’s when that “simplification” is used as a sneaky way for SOME people to shift their burden that is a problem. Unfortunately, the people in question are sneaky, and powerful, and entitled and dishonest. In short, Republicans.
To return, hopefully very briefly, to Henry George –
The point of the land tax, if I understand it all correctly was:
1. Land per se should be considered a commons. People are entitled to own improvements they make to land, but not land itself.
2. Starting from that assumption, people who derived income purely from owning land are basically rentiers, receiving income from their ownership of an asset that properly belongs to everyone.
So, the land tax was proposed as a way for the at-large public to recover income that was created by a private resource that more properly should have been considered a common one.
I’m not sure that a land tax, specifically, would accomplish that goal nowadays (maybe if ever), and I doubt it would be a particularly useful or even renumerative thing to do.
Just wanted to unpack the point of it a bit more.
But what makes for a “Georgist” land tax, as I understand it, is that, instead of being based on the actual market value, or the value of the land as it is being used, it is instead based on what the taxing authority supposed the highest revenue producing use of the land to be. So that the owner of the land is under a powerful financial incentive to either use it for that most productive purpose, or sell it to somebody who will.
Back before I had to leave Michigan, I lived on 16 acres in the country. I actually used about 2, and let the rest return to nature. Under a Georgist system of land taxes, I would have either had to start farming the land, or sell it to somebody who would. Just letting wild animals live on it would have been precluded. Or maybe I would have had to subdivide.
As I say, Georgist land taxes conflict pretty strongly with environmentalism.
If I’m not mistaken, George’s land tax was intended to be based on the value of the land in it’s unimproved state.
Basically, it’s market value as raw land.
The portion of the value of the land that was due to improvements or other productive use George apparently saw as rightfully belonging to you, the improver, and so he did not consider it to be unearned value.
And yes, it would seem like a Georgeist land tax would be a disincentive to own land, and not make productive use of it.
As noted above, I’m not advocating for a land tax, or for Georgeism in general.
Just trying to expand the discussion of what he was on about a bit, to the degree that I can.
Just wanted to unpack the point of it a bit more.
I really don’t know much about George’s land tax idea. It was brought up to expand the range of possibilities. I find that Joseph Stiglitz has advocated some modified form of a Georgist tax. He has some other good ideas about changes to our tax scheme:
http://www.nextnewdeal.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/principles-and-guidelines-for-deficit-reduction.pdf
A good read.
since this has become an open thread…
the data has something to say about “black culture”.
If everybody pays the same as before, it’s hardly tax reform.
To continue what Snarki said, you can have very real tax reform even if everybody is still paying the same amount. For one thing, I would consider it a major reform if I didn’t have to hire a professional to do my taxes. Or else be able to count on it that either I had made an error (subject to penalties) or I had ended up paying more than required.
Obviously that has negatives for
a) IRS agents
b) tax preparers (and accountants generally)
c) legislators (who would otherwise get meals and other gifts from those hoping to get special tax treatment written into the law)
Tough.
I would consider it a major reform if I didn’t have to hire a professional to do my taxes.
Good point, that.
Of course, the counter is that there is no way to simplify the tax code and have each tax payer owe exactly the same amount, only without all the messy arithmetic.
I would say it could be done in such a way that most people will end up owing roughly the same amount.
Just to head that one off before it gets started…
I would consider it a major reform if I didn’t have to hire a professional to do my taxes.
I can’t say that didn’t inform my suggestion. But also, I know people who make a good deal more than me (and, no, there’s nothing wrong with that) and whose effective tax rate is lower than mine. Because exemptions, deductions, having enough money that it makes sense to hire a financial/tax adviser, etc.
I don’t think that necessarily makes a lot of sense.
I’ve always wondered why we lean so heavily on income as a tax base.
The good old founders employed tariffs and luxury taxes. Tariffs are a bad word now, because of free trade, but the luxury goods business is huge.
Private jets (personal, corporate, and fractional share ownership), very expensive cars, second third fourth and fifth homes, art work above a certain price, and bling in general.
We had a 10% luxury tax on stuff like this as recently as the early 90’s, I think most of it’s gone now.
It’s inherently progressive, you can avoid it by just not buying stuff. I’m sure it would depress sales of luxury goods to some degree, but I’m not sure folks who buy in those markets are really that price sensitive.
“I’ve always wondered why we lean so heavily on income as a tax base.”
Because it’s clearly related to the capacity to pay.
It’s inherently progressive, you can avoid it by just not buying stuff. I’m sure it would depress sales of luxury goods to some degree, but I’m not sure folks who buy in those markets are really that price sensitive.
russell, it’s not that they are price sensitive. It’s that they are tax sensitive. Which is to say, they would cheerfully spend far more than they would ever pay in tax, just to lobby to avoid having to pay the tax. Religion does that to people.
We had a 10% luxury tax on stuff like this as recently as the early 90’s, I think most of it’s gone now.
So, to preface this, I have no direct knowledge on the subject and the Wikipedia section is uncited…but according to it, they didn’t work:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luxury_tax#Luxury_tax_in_the_United_States
In November 1991, The United States Congress enacted a luxury tax and was signed by the former President George H.W. Bush. The goal of the tax was to generate additional revenues to reduce the federal budget deficit. This tax was levied on material goods such as watches, expensive furs, boats, yachts, private jet planes, jewelry and expensive cars. Congress enacted a 10 percent luxury surcharge tax on boats over $100,000, cars over $30,000, aircraft over $250,000, and furs and jewelry over $10,000. The federal government estimated that it would raise $9 billion in excess revenues over the following five-year period. However, only two years after its imposition, in August 1993, the Congress decided to eliminate the “luxury tax” since it did not achieve its main objective. The tax revenues generated were disappointing and unsatisfactory for the Congress and it also negatively impacted the incomes of the sellers of the luxury items. Although the luxury automobiles tax was still active for the next 13 years.
I suspect that most of the old-time use of property, excise, and capitation taxes (plus tariffs) was simply a matter of “what can you handle, with the technology available at the time”.
The French used to do property taxes based on the outside dimensions of houses, measuring height from the ground to the roof eaves. And thus the ‘mansard’ roof was born. The English used to tax window glass, and thus tiny windows (and reflecting telescopes).
Real-estate taxes are especially primitive. The ancient egyptians would be completely at home in your local county assessor’s office.
The tax revenues generated were disappointing and unsatisfactory for the Congress and it also negatively impacted the incomes of the sellers of the luxury items.
Oh well, back to the drawing board.
Although, regarding the negative impact on the incomes of the sellers, there ain’t no way to raise public revenue without bugging somebody, somewhere.
Income tax just seems, administratively, to be among the greatest possible PITA’s.
My wife is self-employed, and is more or less semi-retired so she also gets income from investments of various kinds.
She basically spends about a week a year assembling and organizing the necessary materials. No joke. And my wife is *highly* organized, so she’s not starting from a pile of paper slips in a shoebox.
She then sends all of that off to an accountant, who then spends many additional (and billable) hours to boil it all down to a number.
It seems like there really must be a simpler way to go about it.
[…]
In England taxes made housing worse for people for a very long time. Politicians wanted to tax income but they weren’t sure how to do it back in the late 1600s. People felt that government knowledge of one’s income was an intrusive violation of their privacy. So the politicians decided to tax windows instead.
The assumption was that wealthy people had bigger houses with more windows. And since glass at the time was not cheap they also assumed this indicated wealth. This tax was in effect from 1696 until 1851. One result was that even as glass dropped in price English housing often remained dark and dingy and lacked fresh air. In some of the older buildings you can see where windows that once existed were bricked up in order to lower the taxes.
[…]
Funny houses and the taxman.
“It seems like there really must be a simpler way to go about it.”
Oh, it’s dead easy.
Just eliminate all taxes. The government just prints whatever money it needs.
You might not like the result long-term, but it probably would have really helped the economy since 2008.
wj: To continue what Snarki said, you can have very real tax reform even if everybody is still paying the same amount.
Maybe. And maybe not. It’s an empirical question.
My own tax returns are probably on the more-complicated side of the median. (Russell’s wife sounds to be similarly situated.) I report my income on Schedule C, where I get to deduct business-related expenses that take some record-keeping and arithmetic to figure out. I file Schedule A and Schedule D — more record-keeping and arithmetic. I file Schedule SE — fairly straightforward, but it’s yet another form to fill out. I’d LOVE a “reform” that allowed me to pay roughly the same total tax with much less paperwork. I can tell you exactly the “base rate” that would accomplish that for me — THIS year.
But the same reform could easily cost me an arm and a leg, NEXT year, compared to the current tax code. Let me repeat that: compared to the current tax code. You’ll never hear me bellyaching that “my tax bill doubled this year” when the reason is that my income doubled this year.
The 2014 tax year Tony P. is not exactly the same taxpayer as the 2015 tax year Tony P. because their (reportable) revenues and their (deductible) expenses are quite likely to be very different. Same goes for 2014 Tony P. and 2014 Russell’s wife. The same “reform” could affect each of them VERY differently.
So, with apologies for harping on the subject, I have a hard time taking wj’s assertion for granted.
–TP
Tony, just to be clear, I ewas by no means suggesting that such a tax reform would be preferable. Just making the point that it would be possible — and would still be reform.
And, generally, it would better than no reform at all. It wpouldn’t be as good as a complete overhaul. But it would at least reduce some of the additional costs of the current system.
Land is not the only “commons”. The atmosphere — as a dump for CO2 — is another obvious one.
How much use any person or “person” makes of the atmosphere as a CO2 dump is pretty easy to figure: every atom of fossil carbon you (or You, Inc.) buy turns into a molecule of CO2 in the air, to a fair approximation. So, a tax on the carbon content of any fossil fuel introduced into The Economy (whether by extraction or importation) would be a Georgist tax that, AFAICT, would NOT “conflict pretty strongly with environmentalism”.
It would also be dead easy to administer: it could be levied at source. Yes, the extractors and the importers who would directly pay the tax can be counted on to pass it on to their customers. The price increases would ripple through The Economy, to be allocated by The Invisible Hand. The incidence of the tax would be felt by everybody, to one extent or another. But (if we stick to revenue neutrality) everybody would get an income tax refund. It would be a per-capita refund, if I had my way — on the grounds that every person who breathes (as opposed to “persons”, who don’t) has an equal stake in The Environment.
But I’m sure this sort of tax-and-refund scheme would be denounced as un-American by the usual suspects.
–TP
wj: Tony, just to be clear, I was by no means suggesting that such a tax reform would be preferable.
Sorry, wj, I thought you were saying it was possible.
And my point is: not necessarily.
–TP
Yeah, I think Democrats need a backup plan.
She’s plus ten on favorablity/unfavorability, with a 90% plus name recognition. This essentially means she has nobody who doesn’t know her to favorably impress. And that drop in the ratio that exactly coincides with an increase in people not expressing an opinion?
Democrats who don’t want to say they dislike the presumptive nominee, I’m guessing.