It's some weak shit. Still too many brackets, still too many deductions, upper income rates are still too high, corporate rate is still too high. But it's an improvement over the status quo. Better than nothing. Trump isn't much of a negotiator, apparently. He should read The Art of The Deal. I'm told it's pretty good.
Just a truly awful bill. All the non-partisan studies show it will blow at least a $1T hole in the debt. Tax-cuts on the middle-class expire whereas cuts on large corporations are permanent. Senate version eliminates the Obamacare mandate which will throw the individual marketplace in chaos. Details were hand-written into the margins of the bill at the last minute to push it through.
I think it's outrageous that the Senate is keeping the AMT, the Estate Tax, the Earned Income Tax Credit, the mortgage interest deduction, and the property tax deduction. They're also increasing the child tax credit. And there's still more than half a dozen brackets and the top rate is still almost 40%! Seriously, this is what tax reform looks like with a Republican House, a Republican Senate, and an allegedly "Republican" President. This is the best that we can get. Like I said, weak shit.
Great for the upper 1%. Doing away with the estate tax is the biggest gift you could give billionaire donors.
It appears that many households under $75,000 will experience a tax increase. Median household income is about $59,000.
As Clubber points out, we don't have a final bill yet. I don't know what to expect on my own taxes. Taking away the state property tax deduction would hurt.
@mark94,
It started back when Trump threw the House Republicans under the bus by saying that he wanted a healthcare bill with "heart." Do you remember that? This was after they all put themselves on record as supporting an unpopular bill that Trump said he wanted in the first place. It threw everything into chaos because now no one can predict whether The Donald will turn on legislation that he used to support. Shortly thereafter, the Senate failed to pass healthcare reform. So each side distrusts the other and rightfully so. Why would Trump stick his neck out again for the Republicans and why would they stick theirs out again for him? What a mess.
Also, I'm especially disappointed in Ron Johnson, Marco Rubio, and Mike Lee. Johnson was the one who wanted to litter the tax code with this special pass-through rate for some reason. And Rubio and Lee are the ones who wanted to increase the child tax credit. I mean, if you need the government to encourage you to have a kid by buying you off with a few thousand dollars a year, then we're fucked as a society and a species.
I'm in no way surprised that Susan Collins wanted to keep the SALT deductions. But I would just point out that Jeff Flake lined up and voted for the bill just as I thought he would. He literally hasn't opposed Trump on a single piece of legislation so far, and yet the Trumpkins hate him anyway.
Donors have made it clear that if it doesn't pass, they will no longer cut the GOP any checks- the oligarchy has spoken (Random and Ho have a good read on it).
@jackslash said "Doing away with the estate tax is the biggest gift you could give billionaire donors."
They're not getting rid of it. Just slightly raising the exemption level.
"It appears that many households under $75,000 will experience a tax increase."
They're the ones who use most of the government services, so I think they're the ones who should pay for it. Just my opinion.
"Taking away the state property tax deduction would hurt."
They're not taking that away yet either. Just capping it off at $10k per year.
As Clubber pointed out, we do not have a final bill yet and it's hard to say what the final impacts will be.
My understanding is that the House bill eliminates the estate tax, while the Senate bill doubles the exemption level. Either way, it is a huge gift to the upper 0.2% who pay estate tax. This was done, of course, because the upper 0.2% are struggling to survive, not because they are the big political donors.
The tax package has been sold as tax cut for all Americans, especially for the struggling middle class. When many Americans with household income under $75,000 will experience tax increases, the bill does not seem to deliver the promised aid to the struggling Americans.
The original Senate bill eliminated the state property tax deduction. But you're right. The Senate bill now agrees with the House bill at capping the deduction at $10,000.
I still don't know what all this will mean to me. Probably not much. I was once in the upper 10%, but my income has gone down since retirement. However, my expenses have also gone down. I'm not struggling. But I have sympathy for the many Americans who are.
Why not exempt the first 100k of personal income (ordinary), and increase tax on capital gains ?
Direct /Income tax is very harsh on the average family or person.
Decreasing the corporate taxes is plain dumb. They could be given rebates for various policies and research rebate and other incomes. Especially because the pricing for goods and services is dangerously high, in the name of R&D and Intellectual Property. Why cant they just provide an exemption for R&D under 15% limit (adding up to 35) and enforce a stricter pricing profit margin range. Drug pricing is an extreme case.
I disagree with the premise that those who earn less than $75k will
Experience tax increases. When the standard deduction is doubled to $11k single/$20k for jointly, then that takes about $1000-$2000 away from the government into these middle
Class earning pockets.
The main thing I am against is the same issue as Senator Corker from TN, seeing as he was the only Tepublican voting "no". There is no stop gate for loss of revenue. Knowing debt will increase, the older generation continues to kick the can down the road and borrowing from the future generations. This bill increases the average obligation from each person from $65k to possibly over $100k! Can u imagine a young successful college student graduating with $100k in school debt, and then having his future earnings needing to generate revenue for the govt? Taxes will eventually be increased again In the future, so his $100k college debt plus the $100k the govt needs to collect from each person's income taxes will create a huge problem!
The bill never addresses the national debt, and that is a travesty and fiscal fuck yo beyond reproach. You can't grow yourself out of debt, and inflation will hit us so hard that any wage increase will be absorbed through higher costs. This bill makes MERICA THE SAME AGAIN!
No reputable economist agrees that there will be a big increase in GDP. That is just a talking point to justify a giveaway to billionaires.
The doubling of the standard deduction will help many people. But the personal exemptions are being repealed. Parents will large families may be hurt.
Again, nobody knows what the final version of this bill will read. Any assumptions to plan the effects of this the way it is presented is just fodder.
25, which winner did you vote for?
Has anyone looked at the demographics of our population? Remember the baby boomers are just beginning to hit their 70's. It won't be long before the numbers of people needing "skilled nursing facilities" ( nursing homes) will be skyrocketing. There's no way Medicare can be cut ( a planned next step) without thousands of demented seniors drooling in our neighborhoods.
My wife has long term care insurance which is anticipated to cover 3 years of her residence ($305,000) at a modestly priced facility. Our house is in an irrevocable trust and after the insurance runs out Medicare will be paying.
I'm personally going to be hit hard by the loss of the medical deduction.
The whole bill confuses me in that the state of Kansas changed their tax structure in a similar manner. Their economic growth has tanked and most attribute it to a belief that trickle down economics works. It never has.
Any gains in economic activity or stock market growth can unanimously be dedicated to a Republican House and Senate, with a residing Republican presidency. That's the certainty needed for growth.
Trump gets credit for a job well done by winning the election and becoming a figure head/sock puppet. I find it funny people make it personal, much like they did to Obama. Business likes Pence as a backup, not sure any business could say the same about Clinton's running mate(I forget his name).
As a side note, Inflation may be overstated by all pundits, if technology keeps improving. But if history has any say the likelihood of that is questionable.
"The whole bill confuses me in that the state of Kansas changed their tax structure in a similar manner. Their economic growth has tanked and most attribute it to a belief that trickle down economics works. It never has."
---------------------
+1
Kansas is a perfect example showing that trickle-down doesn't work. Trickle-down is Reagan era fluff propaganda.
@mark94 said
"Flake voted yes because they gave him a seat on the Dreamer act panel."
Not quite, all he asked for was that the Whitehouse and Senate leadership would give him some vague promise to negotiate DACA. And he also wanted business expensing to be phased out. This all sounds very reasonable to me. And besides, Trump already wanted to pass DACA legislation. So take it up with him, I guess. I don't see how wanting to legalize immigrants who were brought here as children is such a bad thing. And apparently Trump feels the same way.
The thing is, Bob Corker, John McCain, AND Donald Trump are all kind of cut from the same cloth, if you think about it. To them, politics is a game of spite: you're supposed to vote against whatever your enemy proposes, no matter what. Remember when McCain voted against the Bush tax cuts just to screw Bush? Or when he dramatically voted against Healthcare reform just to screw with Trump? Or how about how Corker was the only Republican to vote against tax reform now? And Trump always plays these same games of spite, too. He's all about not giving his enemies any quarter, that's his thing. So you guys thought you were getting something different when you voted for Trump, but at least in this regard, it's just more of the same political bullshit... a pissing contest. But Flake is somewhat different. He keeps voting for Trump bills because it's the right thing to do. And he sometimes supported things that Obama wanted, also, like the stuff about Cuba. He believes in something, but Corker, McCain, and Trump do not believe in anything. But ok, whatever. We have the president that we have. It could have been worse.
@jackslash said:
"Either way, it is a huge gift to the upper 0.2% who pay estate tax."
I don't see how it's a gift to let people keep their own money. Just saying "ok, we're going to stop fucking you over" is not such a gift, it's just common sense and common decency.
This tax reform is absolutely horrible. This is the first major step backwards since Ronald Reagan.
G. W. Bush tried to privatize Social Security ( 2/3 of the $ ), but he failed.
This is going to really hurt every elected Republican all across the entire nation.
Capitalism used to work by raising all boats, technological and productivity advances used to translate to higher wages and a higher standard of living. And capitalism used to support a progressive tax structure which kept it all in bounds.
Now capitalism is eating itself.
This crisis has been predicted for a long time. As things start to explode, I will not be on the side lines. Even if it goes out to I'm so old that I am in a wheel chair, I'll still be the one who is passing out the assault rifles and grenade launchers.
The people who do the innovations are usually not the people who get lots of money out of it. Their motivations are more personal than financial. The last thing they would ever want would be people like Margaret Thatcher, or Rick Perry of Texas, or any Libertarians pitching for them.
Our society now is running by pitting the working class against the jobless, by demonizing those at the bottom.
Libertarianism is nothing more than the bogus science of Social Darwinism and Eugenics.
[view link][view link]
Casino Capitalism
[view link]
Killing the Host: How Financial Parasites and Debt Bondage Destroy the Global Economy
[view link][view link]
SJG
Yardbirds
[view link]
@ThereAndBackAgain said:
"Direct /Income tax is very harsh on the average family or person."
You're right. But then I guess the average person should stop asking for government sponsored health insurance, government sponsored retirement programs, government sponsored mail carriers, government sponsored education, government sponsored every fucking thing imaginable. I think everyone should pay less in taxes, but if anyone deserves to be taxed more rather than less, it's the average person or family, not the rich. I seldom hear the Koch brothers or Exxon Mobil asking for more government spending. So can somebody please tell me why they somehow deserve to pay for it all, while the rest of us deserve a tax cut?
Most every society which has ever existed has degenerated into the very rich and those working for starvation wages. The reason this has not happened yet in the US is simply progressive income tax and govt spending. So for people in the middle wage realm, it is the re-circulation of tax money which props up their present salaries. And as far as the amount of tax they have to pay, their wages are always being renegotiated, and in light of the then operative tax code. They pay, but the money they get depends upon the fact that other people are paying far more.
This used to work, giving working people the best deal somewhere between 1969 and 1972. Since capitalism has been eating itself, and each tax and social programs cut is just another step towards total collapse and anarchy.
SJG
@BHF that’s kind of idiotic why would ExxonMobil or the Koch Bros. ask for more government they’re are chauffeured around in limos and aircraft with private security and all kinds of buffers and barriers between them and any thing they could need protection from the have private physicians and nurses to attend to their every want and/or need cooks and butlers to attend to them. please more services are actually needed in the places where the majority of Americans live don’t be so stupid as to make that analogy.
Exxon Mobile receives huge tax subsidies. Large companies receive many tax advantages and often pay no tax at all. I know. I worked for a large company for many years. Billionaires have had special laws enacted for them to pay lower tax rates than ordinary Americans. Warren Buffet famously said that his secretary paid a higher tax rate than he did.
Hedge fund managers have the carried interest gimmick. Trump promised to get rid of it when he was on the campaign trail, but of course he has now forgotten all about it.
Corporations and billionaires do not pay for it all. Ordinary Americans are the ones who pay, and as income inequality increases ordinary Americans will have less and less influence on policy. Our republic is headed for an oligopoly.
BurlingtonHo, you have a right to your opinion about who should pay for government services (which include not only social services but also the military and FBI and defense in general). Perhaps the poor and middle class should pay more and the billionaires should pay less. But that is not how the tax bill in question has been sold. It has been sold as a tax cut for all classes of Americans, especially the struggling middle class. Why haven't the politicians campaigned to raise taxes on the poor and middle to give tax breaks to the upper 1%?
@twentyfive,
Right, they pay for what they want and the rest of us should pay for what we want. If we wanted to be chaufferured around, too, then we should be prepared to pay for the privilege. Sounds reasonable to me. But just saying that the government will step in and provide whatever's lacking and the rich will pay for it all, that's just a bunch of magical happy talk. Voodoo economics in reverse.
@jackslash said:
"Exxon Mobile receives huge tax subsidies."
No, it doesn't. It receives the same writeoffs for business expenses and losses that any other business would receive. And if it is receiving some special carve-out, then we should just get rid of it. We shouldn't be silly and say, well, they got this thing so let's take away something else. That would be counterproductive.
"Billionaires have had special laws enacted for them to pay lower tax rates than ordinary Americans."
That's not true. They pay a much higher rate than we do. The top 1 percent pays 40 percent of all tax revenue. The top 20 percent pays about 80 percent of taxes. How much exactly would be fair?
"Warren Buffet famously said that his secretary paid a higher tax rate than he did."
He lied when he said it. It's been debunked.
"Hedge fund managers have the carried interest gimmick."
Right. Let's get rid of that.
"Why haven't the politicians campaigned to raise taxes on the poor and middle to give tax breaks to the upper 1%?"
Because democracy is stupid. We are more likely to get what's popular than what's right.
Most all of these decades of stock market increases is via gov't subsidies, in the form of low upper income taxation and deficit spending.
This is the 'Crisis of Capitalism' which has been long predicted.
SJG
Here's my main take on it and what I like best.
The high taxed liberal states are going nuts because they may no longer be able to push their excessive tax burden onto those of us that live in responsible states and jurisdictions.
THAT I LOVE!
jack,
You asked, "Why haven't the politicians campaigned to raise taxes on the poor and middle to give tax breaks to the upper 1%?"
As for the poor, you could times 1,000,000 the taxes of the poor and still get $0.00!
California's state income tax is actually quite progressive, it pays for things like clean air and water, and the UC and CSU system.
What has been irresponsible in California is when the voters passed prop 13, separating real estate inflation from property tax.
What is also irresponsible are those asking the federal gov't to lower taxes on the rich, shutting of the very conduit which has kept our economy and our society going.
What Santa Clara County Supervisor Joe Simitian learned while touring Trump’s America
[view link]
SJG
@gawker “Has anyone looked at the demographics of our population? Remember the baby boomers are just beginning to hit their 70's. It won't be long before the numbers of people needing "skilled nursing facilities" ( nursing homes) will be skyrocketing. There's no way Medicare can be cut ( a planned next step) without thousands of demented seniors drooling in our neighborhoods.
My wife has long term care insurance which is anticipated to cover 3 years of her residence ($305,000) at a modestly priced facility. Our house is in an irrevocable trust and after the insurance runs out Medicare will be paying.””
i feel really sorry for your wife. really i do. after all she is stuck with your dumb ass. MEDICARE does not cover long term care excepting for a partial benefit limited to the first 100 days. but since your insurance already covered those 100 days MEDICARE won't pay shit. when your wife’s insurance runs out you will be on the hook to pay your own debts until you’ve spent everything you have above $2000. then after your STATE GOVERNMENT has confirmed that you don’t have anything of value with a 5 year look back at your finances to make sure you didn’t hide or give away your assets then and only then your STATE’S MEDICAID will start paying the bills in a MEDICAID approved facility. yes they will exempt your house from that $2000 until you die or move out of it at which time they will claw back the money they spent on your wife as required by federal law. that’s right, your house in an irrevocable trust is going to have a lien placed by the state which as you know, lol at that, being the government they will be first in line over all others to collect on the debt. oh btw that fat pension you’re soaking the taxpayers for, it will be going toward your wife’s care to offset the MEDICAID payments instead of to your heroin addicted whore.
i pity your wife more than ever. i’m sure she deserves much better than you
Doesn't influence me, I'm not rich enough to get a benefit from it and I'm not poor enough or dumb enough to get screwed over by it.
There's little mention in the thread above, on subject of heavy heavy tax increases to higher education. Not that I agree or disagree with that idea -- I think a lot of our currently supposed "non-profit" institutions should be more heavily taxed, including churches and hoity-toity private schools, since half or 9/10ths of those institutions might as well be corporations as anything else. They're run FOR profit, their executive salaries are as high as major corporations, but the orgs just stick a trick in the books by which they pretend to be non-profit. Sure, some of them do great things; others of them are nefarious shits that should be relegated to the ninth level of Hades but they get away with "free" rides because they're doing something "of service" to the "needy." Whichever ones you think are nefarious shits or doing great things, depends on which side of the political spectrum you're on.
But, aside from that idea, there's a down-side. I see a major potential for disrupting our general social assumptions with that kind of in-the-back-door rearrangement of longer-term institutional financing. Places like Harvard and Yale are going to be able to figure out how to find tax shelters, of course; but if the mere EXISTENCE of their endowment turns into a liability, we could start to see institutions look more and more to the "training rather than education" line of donations. Rich people these days like to give "unrestricted gifts" which make the donors look to be fancy altruistic benefactors; it may change, to a preference for "goal-oriented gifts" such as "we get to have forty percent of your pharmacology department's graduates for the next decade, hired automatically for one year of 'internships' at slave-labor wages, if we give you enough money for a new pharmacology building" says Glaxo-Wellcome-Pharma's corporate chief.
Thus, we stop thinking of "college education" as a period of independent time between High School and adulthood. It grows away from that get-drunk-or-read-books period, to another era of indentured servitude, just like the non-college-bound kids already have going on in their lives of going to work the McDonald's late-night-shift after High School.
Good for society? Dunno, just making the point, we're moving in that direction. Bad for the Humanities, definitely, since they aren't very marketable. Good for certain sectors that have an "industry" behind them -- pharma, engineering, aerospace -- and maybe that's what our government ought to be encouraging. Too many damn American Studies and Art History Majors out there anyway.
The House version of the bill wants to tax grad students on their tuition wavers. It would really screw over students when they can least afford it. But the GOP hates academia. What else is new?
For all who are debating whether or not the middle class pays it share of taxes or not, let this thought sink in. If you tax all personal income at 100%, it would pay to run the government for 9 months.
Hmmmmm.....
I’ve never been a fan of the Estate tax it feels like government confiscation of property and double taxation on monies and property that was already taxed.
@Book Guy, @RandomMember,
College is supposed to be for the gifted, the intellectuals, not just for every slob who wants a job as a management trainee. Anyone who's stupid enough to be tricked into believing that college is a trade-school that will train you for a career... well, they've failed the first test of whether they belong in college to begin with. I'm sorry that the government and every opinion-maker on earth has lied to our impressionable youth. Too bad, so sad. As I've said before, college used to be a place where the rich and the gifted went to study. The rich kids paid tuition, the gifted kids got a free ride and discovered plutonium or whatever. It was a good system. We shouldn't have messed with it. But now half the country goes to college, catches an STD, binge drinks, and drops out. I'm sorry but I'm having a hard time feeling badly that they have to pay taxes on their free ride.
@PoolyD said:
"The only way I could support repealing the estate tax is if the beneficiaries can prove within a certain amount of time that they are reinvesting a good portion of that into actually creating jobs (like they are supposed to anyway) and the future of the country (paid training and education for their workforce)."
Really? Well, how about you? Can YOU prove that you're reinvesting your money into creating jobs like you're "supposed to?" And exactly what kind of private spending *doesn't* create jobs anyway? Is this seriously where the public policy conversation is heading in the Land of The Free? Now we should have to prove that we deserve to keep our own money?
@PoolyD,
You're right. They've totally bought into the class warfare and Keynesian rhetoric of the Left. Even some people here who support tax reform keep talking about economic growth, which is a mistake. Tax reform should happen because it's moral to let people keep and make decisions with their own money, not because of some vague promise of economic growth.
Who knew that we would be more interested in taxes than in tits and ass?
This is actually the best discussion I've seen on TUSCL involving a politically sensitive subject. People have been making reasoned arguments instead of calling each other morons and faggots.
@PoolyD,
Listen, I'm glad you did that. But whenever someone spends, invests, or saves money in the private sector, techically, they're creating jobs. If you buy a bag of chips, you've helped to create a job. If you buy a lapdance, you're a job-creator. If you buy a yacht, you're a job-creator. If you put money into a savings account, the bank will either make direct loans or they will buy bonds with your money - either way, they're either directly creating jobs or they're incrementally helping to bring down interest rates which eventually leads to more job creation. You're always supporting the economy in some way unless you're literally putting your money under a mattress. So I think the rich heirs are in the clear and they would get to keep their money based on your rules.
@jackslash,
It's true, it's been remarkably civil. Even SJG has only made one half-hearted threat of implied Marxist revolutionary violence. We really can disagree without being disagreeable.
Personally, I save most of my conversations about pussy for the reviews and private messages. When I first got here, I quickly absorbed a bunch of wisdom about SCs, but since then I've gotten involved in one OT thread after another. I guess there's only so much pussy that a guy can talk about.
I know it’s Keynesian creed that the New Deal brought us out of the Depression. Among the Austrian school, it’s creed that the Depression would have ended in 1935, instead of 1945, if FDR hadn’t tried to pull so many economic levers.
Yes, it's amazing, isn't it to have a civil discussion about political matters. Guys and gals, I apologize for the never ending tirade that is heaped on me. I respond in kind because I am a warrior. I will never surrender, my buddies know the real story and why I won't submit to the assholes here. I am waiting to see the final outcome on this tax situation, there will always be inequities.
I'm thinking if this becomes law it might help me short term. However I heard individual tax cuts were temporary. It would be nice if I could think of a way to become CEO and write off strip clubs as an entertainment expense. Did corporations and businesses keep their entertainment expenses or is that a no go possibility? I have no idea if entertainment can be considered valid if you go solo. Maybe valid if I attempt to sell at least one share in the company? That would be funny. I hear wanna buy a dance? I say wanna buy stock in my company? Bingo, business expense.
@PoolyD,
No, I don't stand to inherit that much money, but it doesn't matter to me. I'm against the Estate Tax regardless of whether it affects me. Do you really believe that you have to be rich to be against the Estate Tax? Do you have to be gay to be in favor of gay marriage? Do you have to be a pot head to be in favor of legalizing marijuana? Do you have to own a gun to be in favor of gun rights? No, of course not. But somehow when it comes to money, people will always insist that some people are "voting against their own best interest." I don't like the estate tax because it is arbitrary and confiscatory and immoral, not because it affects me personally. I'm not rich and I probably never will be.
Also, the Estate Tax is at least a few decades older than the New Deal. What New Deal programs do you know of that have ever ended?
@PoolyD,
Where is this happening? We have more domestic spending now than ever before, and each year they spend more than the last. Not adding new programs isn't the same as repealing old ones. I don't know of any New Deal programs that have ended. In fact, Obama once proposed ending the TVA... and Republican congressmen prevented him from doing it! You make it sound like the New Deal is just a state of mind. What kind of services would you like to invest in here at home?
^^ Sorry, I should have clarified, I meant that I don't know of any New Deal programs that ended after FDR and Truman left office. Some of the New Deal programs were apparently meant to be temporary and they did in fact end during Roosevelt's term. But I don't know any that ended later on.
The conditions that led to the depression were a global increase in tarriffs that started in the US. Seeing as how Trump actually does want to increase tarriffs, who knows what will happen if and when the stock market and our trading partners begin to take our protectionist president's threats seriously. You say Obama was a Republican? Well, I won't go as far as to call Trump a Democrat... he tried that already and got bored with it (it's so 2006).
The Great Depression was caused largely because there was no regulation on people borrowing to buy stock. There was massive borrowing under the assumption that stock prices could only go up. When the market turned down, and investors couldn’t pay their loans, the whole thing collapsed like a house of cards. This market collapse affected the real economy, crushing demand, leading to company failure and unemployment.
There are now regulations in place to assure this doesn’t happen again.
BHG: I posted my explanation before I saw yours. While tariffs played a role in worsening the economic crisis in 1930 ( most economists now think it played a fairly minor part ), the initial trigger was the earlier stock market collapse.
@mark94,
That is not accurate. There isn't much difference between being able to borrow 50% of the value of a stock and being able to borrow 100% of the value of a stock. If people aren't smart enough to know how to gamble responsibly then they're not responsible enough to know how to cross the street properly, and no amount of regulation would matter. I'm sure the Austrian School would agree with me. It's depressing to hear people on "our side" using the silly left-wing argument that deregulation caused the Depression and that financial regulations can prevent another one. All evidence suggests that the Left didn't just win the culture war, they seem to have won the battle over economics as well. But here's a passage from the Mises Institute regarding the Smoot- Hawley Tarriff which Hoover announced that he would sign in October 1929. Judge for yourself:
"The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of June 1930, raised American tariffs to unprecedented levels, which practically closed our borders to foreign goods. According to most economic historians, this was the crowning folly of the whole period from 1920 to 1933 and the beginning of the real depression. "Once we raised our tariffs," wrote Benjamin Anderson, "an irresistible movement all over the world to raise tariffs and to erect other trade barriers, including quotas, began. Protectionism ran wild over the world. Markets were cut off. Trade lines were narrowed. Unemployment in the export industries all over the world grew with great rapidity. Farm prices in the United States dropped sharply through the whole of 1930, but the most rapid rate of decline came following the passage of the tariff bill."
When President Hoover announced he would sign the bill into law [in October 1929], industrial stocks broke 20 points in one day. The stock market correctly anticipated the depression.
The protectionists have never learned that curtailment of imports inevitably hampers exports. Even if foreign countries do not immediately retaliate for trade restrictions injuring them, their foreign purchases are circumscribed by their ability to sell abroad. This is why the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act which closed our borders to foreign products also closed foreign markets to our products. American exports fell from $5.5 billion in 1929 to $1.7 billion in 1932. American agriculture customarily had exported over 20 percent of its wheat, 55 percent of its cotton, 40 percent of its tobacco and lard, and many other products. When international trade and commerce were disrupted, American farming collapsed. In fact, the rapidly growing trade restrictions, including tariffs, quotas, foreign-exchange controls, and other devices were generating a worldwide depression.
Agricultural commodity prices, which had been well above the 1926 base before the crisis, dropped to a low of 47 in the summer of 1932. Such prices as $2.50 a hundredweight for hogs, $3.28 for beef cattle, and 32¢ a bushel for wheat plunged hundreds of thousands of farmers into bankruptcy. Farm mortgages were foreclosed until various states passed moratoria laws, thus shifting the bankruptcy to countless creditors."
Source: [view link]
Right now, corporate tax is 39%. As a result, tax policy plays a big part in any corporate decision, including whether to repatriate an estimated $3 Trillion ( no one knows for sure ) from overseas. With rates at 20%, and a special repatriation rate of 10%, companies will make decisions on their pure economic merit, not some tax policy crafted by bureaucrats. They will inject $3 Trillion into the US economy. No matter whether it’s used to expand their business, but back stock, or repay debt, it will be a huge stimulus.
Maybe. I hope so. Remember, the corporate tax rate was only around 10-15% in 1929 and we still had a depression. Honestly, it wouldn't matter to me whether the economy grows or not, I would still support a corporate tax cut. But I'm not sure what that had to do with free trade and protectionism. If the Austrians at the Mises Institute can't convince you then I guess no one can.
Some economists argue that the Smoot-Hawley tariff act may have been a very bad idea but that it did not cause the Great Depression. They point out that exports only accounted for some seven percent of the U.S. gross national product in 1929 and the decline in U.S. exports in the ensuing years may have been caused by the depression itself and not solely by tariff retaliation. Some note that the U.S. had also enormously raised tariffs in 1922 and that this did not cause a depression.
Hoover supported increased tariffs as part of his campaign in 1928. That didn’t trigger a stock market collapse or the Depression. It was the market collapse in October 1929 that triggered all future events. Yes, Smoot Hawley in 1930 made things worse, but it wasn’t the cause.
Hoover reluctantly agreed to higher tariffs for agricultural products during the 1928 campaign as a political measure to shore up the Republican base in the rural western States. He seemed to see it as the only way to maintain large GOP majorities. Tariffs had been stable for 5 or 6 years at that point despite huge Republican majorities (the GOP was a protectionist party at the time). But no one really thought he would agree to Smoot-Hawley. They thought it was just campaign talk. It's some coincidence that the crash happened the day after he surprised everyone in a newspaper interview in October 1929 by saying that he would sign the bill. I'm not an expert, but I'd say that's pretty damning evidence, wouldn't you?
I read your Mises article, and here is what it said
“When President Hoover announced he would sign the bill into law, industrial stocks broke 20 points in one day. The stock market correctly anticipated the depression.”
I don’t see a reference that this announcement was the day before the crash.
However, I did find this reference suggesting that margin calls played a major role
“On October 28, "Black Monday", more investors facing margin calls decided to get out of the market, and the slide continued with a record loss in the Dow for the day of 38.33 points, or 13%.”
First, yes, it's not mentioned in this article. I just happen to remember that part from school. One of my teachers had an original article from 1929 which he photocopied and made us read. It was an interview with Hoover, I believe in the Wall Street journal but I'm not positive, from early October 1929 in which Hoover says that he will sign the Tariff if the Senate approves it at the House's rates. The House had already voted to approve the bill. The Senate was still debating it at the time of his interview. When the Mises Institute article says that the stock market correctly anticipated the depression it is referring specifically to the crash of 1929. After all, the Depression itself didn't begin until after the crash. Stock markets are forward-looking.
Second, yes, there were margin calls. They existed then and they continue to exist now. They are requirements imposed by the exchanges, brokerages, and Federal regulators that investors must sell or put up additional capital when they face losses below a certain threshold. They have nothing to do with deregulation; when they are imposed by the government, margin calls are a form of regulation. I think they make things worse but there isn't an alternative that I can think of.
Third, I've heard libertarian and conservative economists blame tariffs and the Federal Reserve for the depression, but I've never heard of one who blamed deregulation. That usually comes from Paul Krugman. Like I said, apparently the Left won this debate, too.
My simple creed:
I'm not going to try and figure out history (which can't be changed anyway), or economics which are very fluid and are not carved in stone, rather just invest in strip club activities and enjoy the rest of my life as best as health will allow.
Sam Adams biggest beneficiary of tax reform.
According to the Senate Republicans’ tax reform passed early Saturday, the federal excise tax of craft beer will be cut in half to $3.50 from $7.00 for the first 60,000 barrels for domestic brewers that produce less than 2 million barrels per year.
Any tax reform that benefits quality beer is okay in my book.
LOL The next headline should be "Women and minorities will be hardest hit..."
Do you notice that somehow women and minorities are always affected the most by everything? Doesn't matter what it is. A hurricane. A Republican tax bill. Anything.
Oh, for fuck sake. I can't even imagine the level of hysteria that would occur if I could somehow get the kind of tax bill and spending cuts that I *really* want. They would probably literally light their own hair on fire.
3 Republicans voted against Trump's earlier stuff, attempts to repeal the affordable care act. Then there was this Rand Paul or Ron Paul, and then maybe this Jeff Flake. I would have thought then it would be 5 voting against.
Have these senators said why they voted for it? Was it just because they are afraid to vote against things which say, "tax cut"?
Any chance of this being tripped up for good in trying to reconcile the House and Senate versions?
SJG
^^
Ron Paul was in the House, not the Senate, and he retired after 2012. Rand Paul (and Ted Cruz, I believe) disappointed me greatly by saying something like "the tax bill is weighted too heavily towards corporations and not enough towards middle class families" or some such bullshit. Rand Paul said that he wouldn't vote for any bill if anyone's taxes could ever theoretically go up, which is a ridiculous thing to say, really, but he was never a serious threat to vote against the bill.
Flake did a little half-assed horse-trading, but it's not really his style (see my above post). He votes for what he believes in, as does Paul. Flake, Paul, and Cruz were always going to vote Yes to a tax cut no matter what; they're pretty solid on taxes and spending. We'll see what happens when they go to reconciliation.
McCain might have wanted to make up for his long-ago vote against the Bush tax cuts. That's my theory anyway. No one wants to go down in history as the "pro-tax Republican."
Collins and Murkowski probably voted for the bill because it's just fucked up enough to appeal to their liberal sensibilities. After all, it's still a very progressive and complicated tax bill, and that seems to appeal to a certain kind of person. Also, they probably don't want to take the blame for killing the ONLY bill with a chance of success so far (something that McCain would probably be perfectly comfortable with if he were in a different sort of mood).
Bob Corker was the only No vote. He claims it was because of the deficit. That's a load of shit. I'm sure the deficit didn't bother him as much when Bush was President. (Or, at least, not enough for him to be the lone No vote.) He voted No to give the Whitehouse some heartburn. That's the real reason. Typical spitework. There's some of that in every bill that gets debated in DC. Just human nature. He may also want to ingratiate himself with the pundit class to prepare for a job after he leaves the Senate shortly. I would imagine that they would welcome him as a "man of conscience" for opposing Trump, regardless of his motives.
Well, if there is a way to stop it now, its in the conferencing to reconcile with the house. I guess too many are afraid to vote against anything labeled as 'tax cut'.
Hey, if you have a basic job, you get pay checks. The name on those pay checks is the same as the name on the checks that go to the government and pay the personal income tax. If you want to say someone pays taxes, its the employer, as that money has to come out of their till.
Employers are liable for gross pay. But people of course are negotiating their pay with their eyes on net pay.
Democracy cannot ever work if our society runs by shaming poor people.
What causes poverty is social marginalization.
Libertarianism is just a cover for Social Darwinim. And all that amounts to is a bogus science invented in the recession of the 1880's to blame poor people for being poor.
SJG
Extreme Bikini's
[view link]
click on picture to see all of them
Jeff Beck ft/ Rosie Oddie
[view link]
In the United States, to be middle-class does not mean to be middle-income. To be middle-class means to think in middle-class ways, it means to subscribe to a reactionary identification system.
And also know, that the costs of living for the middle-class are really just the costs of keeping up with the Jones. How often do you need to buy a new mini-van? How much does housing cost? Its all relative to how much money other people have, and to how conspicuously other people live.
And what keeps the middle level of wages propped up? More than anything else, its the government. When the government collects tax money, it does not go put them into Isle of Man investments. When the government collects tax money, it spends it! Salaries, procurement, pensions, and direct payouts. This is the money which recirculates and keeps like about the lower 2/3's of our economy moving.
SJG
How much difference is there between the house and senate versions? Are there things would would cause some Republicans to vote no?
Being pushed through so quickly, maybe the differences are minimal?
This is a horrible time for our nation.
SJG
Both bills are weak and timid, but the House bill is better. The House version is superior (by my standards) and more conservative in every way except for the treatment of capital equipment. The Senate bill phases out the expensing of capital equipment thanks to a last-minute deal made with Jeff Flake, and I think this is a good thing. I've never understood the logic of expensing and depreciation to begin with. Other than that, the House bill is far more conservative than the Senate bill in every single way. Here's a quick rundown of the differences between the two bills:
[view link]
There have already been some surprise "No" votes in the House, namely Tom McClintock, Dana Rohrabacher, and Elise Stefanik. I'm deeply disappointed in all three of them, but I'm also aware that they're all facing potentially difficult reelections in 2018 (Rohrabacher in particular is almost certain to lose) and so they're doing whatever they feel they have to do to save their seats. The issue for all three of them (and the 10 other House Republicans who voted 'No') is the loss of the ability to deduct State and Local Taxes (aka SALT). Since the deductibility of State and Local Taxes seems to be the biggest issue, naturally the Republican leadership is already starting to cave on it:
[view link]
And, naturally, Trump is now saying that he would be happy with a 22% corporate tax (even after insisting that the rate should be no higher than 20%... which, of course, was after he insisted that the rate should be no higher than 15%...):
[view link]
Like I said, this is some weak shit. And it seems to be getting weaker and weaker. Meanwhile, the bill is unpopular with the vast majority of the morons who vote. I think this is the first time in American history that a tax decrease was this unpopular. Trump is a serious screw-up if he can't even sell lower taxes. Bigly. Check it out:
[view link]
In other news, Marco Rubio has apparently been rummaging through his attic and has found his missing balls:
[view link]
To paraphrase Churchill, this is the worst tax bill, except when compared to all the rest. Lowering the corporate rate to 20% ( or 22% ) and small business to 25% ( which will turn out to affect lots of self employed people ) will spur economic growth. The rest of the stuff on the individual side is crap, although doubling the standard deduction will simplify taxes for many millions of people.
This is not a libertarian purist bill. It will, however, punch the economy into growth for the next decade while reducing the power the federal government has by micro managing deductions. It’s the most pro growth tax bill since 1986, which isn’t nothing.
Yeah, I agree, even the Senate bill would be a vast improvement over the status quo. The list of people who have disappointed me so far is long and will probably get longer before this is over, but hopefully this motley crew can just pass something and get it over with already.
I'm not sure if the tax bill is so unpopular because of its association with Trump and the GOP, or because people have simply come to hate the wealthy so much that *any* tax cut would be viewed with skepticism. My guess is it's a bit of both. Based on the way this country is going, we may never get another opportunity to enact any free-market stuff ever again in our lifetimes, so we had better get all we can from this administration.
Throughout this whole public tax debate, I notice that no one ever proposed ending the double taxation of dividends. This was something that even Democrats used to talk about. But now we can't even get Republicans to do it!
I'm not personally thrilled with doubling the standard deduction. I think it will just result in more and more lower-income people owing zero tax. That's how future tax cuts become unpopular in the first place: people eventually realize that income tax is something that only high-income folks pay, and so they can't get excited about tax cuts anymore because it won't affect them personally. But politically, I totally understand why they need to do it. There was no alternative. On the other hand, I completely agree that a larger standard deduction will be a good thing if it means that fewer people will itemize. The more write-offs there are, the more control Washington has. Every good thing comes with a cost, it seems.
The bill is unpopular in large part because the media has repeated the lie that normal people will be screwed by the reform. That will change after the first April 15 when the law is in effect. For most people, they won’t need to itemize and their tax bill will go down slightly. Alternatively, they will see an increase in their take home pay when the increased standard deduction is built into the tax tables determining their withholding.
You’ll be pleased to hear that Paul Ryan, and others, are saying that welfare and entitlement reform may be the next thing addressed by congress. Leadership is meeting soon to chart a legislative course for next year.
I’ll believe it when I see it. I’m skeptical that 52 Republicans could get this done in the Senate.
I suspect they’ve done polling showing that welfare reform is a winning issue politically and they want to get democrats on the record opposing it.
"Does either one of the bills require Trump to release his tax returns to us, the voters ?"
-------------
No, but I bet Mueller was able to subpoena Trump's tax records.
Speaking of broken records, @Mark93 keeps stating that the corporate tax cuts will pay for themselves -- which they will not according to nearly all economists:
[view link]
I'm sure @Mark gets all of his information from the Larry Kudlow show.
Trump is pushing policies that are popular with, and benefit, about 90% of the voters. Lowering taxes, shrinking government, ending illegal immigration, reforming welfare.
The Democrats have no policies or programs to improve the lives of regular people. They spend all their time accusing Trump of wild conspiracies and accusing people who oppose them of racism, sexism, and stupidity. Just like RandomMember does. No ideas, just snark and name calling. It’s called Groupthink. Virtue signaling their membership in a group that believes themselves superior to others.
We’ll see which approach voters support in 2018.
@mark94,
I'm not sure it's entirely the media's doing. After all, Bush was about as popular with the media as a kick in the nuts; they demonized his tax cuts, too, and yet the cuts were popular at the time, from what I remember.
As for people's perceptions changing in April, I don't know. Thanks to withholding, most people get a refund in April and they don't seem to put it all together that they've been paying throughout the year. Maybe I'm being too pessimistic, but I've met several people who don't seem to equate withholding with their refunds. Tax witholding has been a disaster for the anti-tax movement. (Just a quick side note, Milton Friedman ironically helped to create the first tax withholding in this country back when he was working for the treasury during the War. He said he regrets still having it during peacetime, and wishes it would be repealed, but that he helped to create it to fight runaway inflation on the home front during wartime.)
Anyway, since Random keeps mentioning Larry Kudlow, I'll just say that I remember in 2006 when the stock market was going up and Kudlow kept saying that this was a good sign for Republicans in the upcoming midterms. He predicted that people would reward Republicans on election day when they see their quarterly 401K statements. Obviously, it didn't happen. 2006 turned out to be a big wave year for Democrats. Yes, I know, other things were going on at the time (Iraq, the aftermath of Katrina, a jobless recovery, etc), but it just proves that the balance sheets of the middle class may not be enough to save us. I'm just saying.
Also, yes, I have heard about Ryan and Mark Meadows agreeing to do welfare reform. I am excited about that. Even Trump mentioned something about it in a recent speech in Missouri. They're also talking about finally tackling the deficit, according to Politico, which would be equally great.
@RandomMember,
Generally, when taxes get cut, within reason, revenue goes up eventually. It is a well known phenomenon. Here's a chart of US tax revenue:
[view link]
The Bush tax cuts went into effect starting in tax years 2002 and 2004. They were for individual income tax only. You'll see that there was a dip in revenue at first, followed by increased revenue within a few years. After a couple of years, revenue was higher than it was before the cuts were enacted. Obviously, you can't jack up spending massively as Bush did and expect the cuts to be a miracle, but the numbers don't lie, the cuts do indeed seem to pay for themselves.
@Burlington & @Mark-
I do have a full-time job and, while I'm pretty good at math, I leave it to non-partisan groups like the Joint Committee on Taxation to run through the numbers and decide whether a tax bill will pay for itself. The JCT is supposed to be a group of experts with assigned role to help Congress with it's decisions. The only thing the JCT cares about is making credible predictions. I don't know of a single credible economist who thinks this tax plan will pay for itself. I mention Larry Kudlow because he's a fake TV economist who doesn't know what he's talking about.
I guess we can each live in our own information bubbles -- but at some point the results will be plainly obvious. As an example, just look at what happened in Kansas.
So, you are critical and snarky about anything Trump does. You don’t believe in tax cuts. You don’t believe any economist with an “R” after his or her name.
Just what policies or programs would you recommend ?
@Mark I just explained to you that the JCT is non-partisan. The article above from U Chicago has an assortment of conservative economists. This is just math. Just reality.
The JCT refuses to believe in dynamic scoring. It doesn’t acknowledge that lower marginal rates cause economic growth. That’s not reality or nonpartisan.
Mark, the JCT's latest estimates includes dynamic scoring, and still predicts $1T added to the debt. Maybe you should stop digging yourself into a bigger hole.
Anyway, @Mark ol' buddy, I think you should just take your prozac and chill out before coming to our wonderful forum. I'm thrilled that Trump bypassed Larry Kudlow and chose someone pretty good for the new Fed chair. At least we can agree on that.
@RandomMember,
If you look at the following link, you will see that the overall state revenue collection per capita in Kansas in 2016 was actually higher than in any of the surrounding states (Oklahoma, Nebraska, and Missouri) and close to the average for the entire country. So really all Kansas did was to shift revenue collection from the income tax to other sources:
[view link]
But I agree, if you don't cut spending, then no amount of tax cuts will ever save you. The deficit will still be there. And of course, not literally ALL tax cuts pay for themselves. For example, if we're all paying, let's say 15%, and then the rate suddenly gets cut to 0%, you'll definitely see less revenue. In fact, you'll see exactly zero revenue. I'm sure we can agree on this.
The Laffer Curve is a real phenomenon. It's not really being debated by economists. The Laffer Curve says that there is some optimal point along the curve at which tax revenue will be at its highest. And at tax rates of 0% and 100% you will get a similar amount of revenue, which is approximately zero. So if you have a rate of 35%, for example, and you cut that rate to 30%, then you'll probably get more revenue within a few years. And if you raise it to 50% then you'll probably get less revenue. But if you cut it all the way down to 1%, then it won't work out. It would probably take a hundred years before you ever get the same amount of revenue at 1% that you used to get when the rate was 35%, if ever.
So that's basically what the Laffer Curve says. If you're denying that it's real, well, that's exactly like when a conservative denies evolution. You're putting yourself on the wrong side of a fairly settled science. Anyone who argues that the Laffer Curve isn't real is simply misunderstanding what it is.
The reason why the corporate tax cuts *might* pay for themselves is because our nominal rate is so much higher than the average rate throughout the developed world. Yes, I know the actual effective rate is lower. But they're getting rid of corporate loopholes which should balance it out, which means that American corporations may be able to shrink their accounting departments and put resources to more productive uses for a change.
Regardless, the Tax Foundation is non-partisan, too. You may not like what it has to say, but that doesn't mean that it's a hack organization. And it does show that tax revenue eventually went up after the Bush tax cuts were enacted.
But you see, this is why I don't like making predictions about policy outcomes. We always end up arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, and each side has its preferred "experts" who say contradictory things and shout over each other. Plus, nothing ever happens Ceteris Paribus, in a vacuum: other things are happening in the background that may render one's predictions moot.
That's why I prefer to argue from a moral position rather than a consequentialist position: it is more moral for the government to steal less from its people than for it to steal more. Period. That's my view.
Also I would just point out that, somehow, Democrats are always concerned about the deficit when we talk about tax cuts, but never when we talk about spending increases. The direction of tax revenues can only ever seem to go one way: up. And each person becomes nothing more than another unit whose purpose it is to feed the federal government. That doesn't sound very sustainable. Or moral.
@Burlington, cutting taxes according to supply-siders should create massive amounts of new jobs. After Brownback (is that his name?) cut taxes, the opposite happened; job growth in Kansas lagged all the neighboring states and by quite a bit.
Couldn't really follow your paragraph on the Laffer Curve either. You described the endpoints but didn't say anything about what the curve looks like in the middle. Is it a simple U-shape like the one Laffer scribbled on a napkin? The staff of PhD economist on the JCT spend their lives figuring out that type of detail. What is the shape of the curve and what amount of taxation maximizes revenue? The Laffer Curve is well outside the mainstream in economics -- but Laffer makes a great guest on the Larry Kudlow show.
As far as morality, I don't consider taxation as "stealing." This is hard-core Libertarian rhetoric. What's immoral, is giving tax cuts to people to CEOs and stockholders, while cutting support for elderly ladies and disabled people who depend on the safety net for a meager existence. This morality aspect is worthless to argue with a hard-core Libertarian.
Supply siding is a myth. The economy has for well over 100 years been consumption limited. And this is good. Anyone who can pay, gets what they want. But as you must be able to see, there are also problems when a large portion of the population will be without paying employment.
As far as technical innovation, the people who do that are not usually the ones who get the financial benefits anyway. Technical innovation is improved when you have more tekkies working for academia and government, and when you have things like CERN and the Apollo program.
Of marketing and more general business innovations, these are generally desirable, but they destroy more jobs than they create. The new company's edge is that it employs less people.
Keynesianism was always pitched at full employment, and as well as anything could, it worked. It did not fail, it was just rejected by the voters, though far more in the US than anywhere else.
Today I say there are other considerations, so we should no longer be fighting for full employment, and instead planning on large portions of the population forever living on Universal Basic Income. It will be like this until we do some even further restructurings which better draw upon the talents of our entire population.
Working people are hurting, and they are being fed lies. So as Obama did not make many structural improvements beyond the Affordable Care Act, and Bill Clinton did not either, instead of listening to reason they look for people to blame:
1. Racial Minorities
2. Religious Minorities
3. Immigrants
4. Overseas Religious Minorities and Nationalists
5. Liberals, because we do not go along with the lies
6. Government
7. Professionals Like Lawyers
8. And Our Own Domestic Poor
As long as this remains true, our democracy will never endure.
SJG
Beyonce, better live than in music videos. Hear her unprocessed real voice, better see what she looks like.
[view link]
Feb 18, 2010 · 11 posts · 8 authors
I think the Neo Laffer Curve is being hosted on Wikipedia to add credence to something most economists reject. The Laffer Curve represents the concept that the more you tax someone the less likely they are to pay.
@RandomMember,
That's my point about Kansas. It wasn't much of a tax cut. Brownback's reforms really just shifted revenue from the income tax over to sales and property taxes instead. In other words, he collected less from income tax and more from other sources to make up the shortfall. Overall revenue went down at first but not dramatically. It eventually recovered, and Kansas continued to collect more revenue per capita than any of its neighbors. How much revenue does it need? Why should the average Kansan need more government services than the average Oklahoman or Missourian? Also, if you look at my link, you'll see that spending in Kansas did indeed continue to go up, both overall and per capita. So what more do you want?
Unfortunately for Kansas, its economy relies heavily on energy and natural resources, and the Brownback reforms coincided with a global collapse in energy and resource prices. Still, remarkably, Kansas has managed to maintain an unemployment rate virtually identical to its neighbors, and consistently below that of the nation as a whole. I wouldn't necessarily ascribe this to fiscal policy, just randomness really. Anyway, the Kansas state legislature reversed some of the income tax cuts this year, so there's no need for any more hysteria.
As for the Laffer Curve, it looks like a C-Cup breast. Seriously, Google it, that's what it looks like. It's not overly pointy. It's slightly flattish In the middle. Yes, you can probably get the same amount of revenue at 33% as you can at 35% or 37%. But wouldn't you want the lower rates? I mean hypothetically if revenue is going to be the same, wouldn't you want to have lower rates rather than higher, all things being equal?
The Laffer Curve is based on exactly what @twentyfive said: the more you tax someone, the less likely they are to pay. There will be some evasion and avoidance at almost any tax level. It should fluctuate inversely with the nominal rate, up to a point.
As for the corporate tax cut, yes, if they didn't get rid of any corporate deductions, but still reduced it from 35 to 20, then I'm sure revenue would indeed go down dramatically, at least at first. That would be a huge cut. But to go from 35 to 20 and simultaneously eliminate deductions, that probably means just a small net cut.
Lastly, check out your own link again. You'll see that they're talking about tax revenue "as a share of GDP." Kind of a weasel word, isn't it? Tax revenue as a share of GDP may indeed go down. That's the goal. That's what a tax cut means. But NOMINAL revenue doesn't have to go down. If nominal revenue remains the same, but tax revenue shrinks as a percentage of GDP, then that would basically prove the Supply Siders' point. My guess is that most of the revenue increase would be more due to an increase in tax compliance and less off-shoring rather than a super-charged economy.
Good post, and I love the C-cup reference. I guess you're not so bad for a Libertarian. Anyway why waste precious tax dollars on worthless old ladies and disabled people when you can buy weed and stuff dollar bills into stripper G-strings.
vm,
RE: Tax Returns
Like all other citizens, U.S. presidents enjoy this protection of their privacy. Because recent ones have released, that requires NO ONE to follow suit.
I would suggest that if some wish it required, instead of just giving it lip service, that they should put their energy's behind an effort to make it a requirement for ALL government officials.
All though I do enjoy lip service from some ladies. :)
@RandomMember,
Yeah, that's basically my entire political platform. Titties, weed, entitlement reform, and tax cuts. Now if only Kansas had adopted THAT policy... ;)
^^^^^^^^^^ Libertarian = Republican who wants to smoke weed and get laid, and those latter two exceptions are really just hypotheticals.
SJG
[view link]
TLDR but ...
@Burl "College is supposed to be for the gifted, the intellectuals, not just for every slob who wants a job as a management trainee. Anyone who's stupid enough to be tricked into believing that college is a trade-school that will train you for a career... well, they've failed the first test of whether they belong in college to begin with..."
Totally agree with your point of view. Our government should be investing (time, effort, tax kickbacks, whatever other resources) in trade-colleges (trade schools? junior colleges? call it whatever you want) for non-bachelor's level adult (post-high-school age) training in marketable skills. College of the "intellectual" variety (which you and I and a lot of other people went to) is better for people of the "intellectual" variety, and it's a waste to send every future County Sherrif's Deputy off to learn about Jane Austen and Vincent Van Gogh, especially since he doesn't usually like that kind of stuff anyway. What we teach in prisons -- small engine repair; air conditioner mechanic; tool and die maker -- would be useful to teach (better) to our non-incarcerated less intellectual citizens. It would help our industrial and manufacturing foundations, would put us back on par to compete with the likes of Germany (which does exactly this -- many different types of job-supported, on-the-job, and pre-job TRAINING programs at all the engineering and manufacturing firms and in all those sectors).
I'm an "intellectual" in the sense that I went to an "intellectual" college, that I like Jane Austen and Vincent Van Gogh, and in the sense that I wanted (back when I was getting educated) to be involved in (as you put it) discovering Plutonium (or some similar shit). Then I found out I was pretty much unmarketable in the general national sense, useless to nine out of ten businesses, not only because (a) I didn't have any skills (never ran a fax machine!) but also because (b) I had assumptions and interests that made the working life into living hell for me. "Why do we do this? Is it good for mankind? Would Shakespeare have approved? Because if it's just for profit, I don't think I'm going to be on board this particular project ..." yeah like THAT will cut it in the workplace. "How come I have to keep reading stuff that's NOT by Jane Austen all day long?" Had to learn that nobody WANTED me to be "intellectual" (as we're using the term in this thread, advisedly) in a pay-for-job sort of way. Sure, if I invented Plutonium (or some similar shit) then maybe my patent would pay for my life of dilettantish pursuits. But if I didn't? Nobody was asking me to just hang out and know more about Jane Austen and Vincent Van Gogh. Though that is what college taught me to expect, to want, and to believe I had a right to.
Why would we put our non-straight-A students through the same come-uppance and misleading rigamarole. It's hard enough for the ones of us who DID get straight-As, and now with grade inflation, you can't even distinguish among the morons and geniuses by means of the straight-A calibration! LOL ...
Just agreeing. And commiserating. Wouldn't it be nice if I were valued JUST LIKE I AM by doing things that I personally value, rather than, gosh, having to DO SOMETHING THAT OTHER PEOPLE VALUE. Doh! College. Doh.
@Book Guy,
I totally agree with everything you said except for this one part:
"Our government should be investing (time, effort, tax kickbacks, whatever other resources) in trade-colleges"
Well, I don't feel comfortable with the government training people to get jobs. I don't want the government helping anyone to find a job or start a business or anything. Feeding yourself and paying your bills is a private personal matter and the government should have nothing to do with it whatsoever. Employers should be paying to train their own employees, or the employees should just be paying for it themselves. When the taxpayers foot the bill, all we're doing is subsidizing the businesses that hire the graduates.
But my opinion is clearly in the very very small minority, and it's basically taken for granted now that the government should play a leading role in training employees. During the last three presidential elections every major party nominee basically endorsed more community college trade schools paid for by the taxpayers.
No matter what kind of a school you send people to, how long they stay there, or what they are learning, it does not mean that there will be jobs available for them upon graduation.
Our economy is consumption limited. The number of jobs continues to contract each year. So Capitalism is in its dying days.
And we can look forward to a future with a smaller and smaller paid labor force. Likely there will be shorter work weeks and a shorter working life time. And people will be spending more time in school. Education is best when it is lifelong. And we should be celebrating this.
But if people are not going to be exploited, they need a real education, critical thinking, philosophy, and politics. They need to be able to organize and defend themselves.
Otherwise the denigration and dehumanizing of the poor and workers will continue, because people will believe that they deserve it, and so they won't be willing to pick up a weapon and fight back.
SJG
How Capitalism is Destroying Itself
[view link][view link]
^^^^^^^ In the organization I am building the women who go with us, via ongoing education and work experience, will be building up a long term professional career. We will be able to do this, even as the unemployment rate continues to grow because our people will be smarter, and they will become better educated, than the vast bulk of the population.
We will run some companies ourselves, and we will exert an expertise based dominance over many others.
SJG
How Capitalism is Destroying Itself
[view link][view link]
Gimme Shelter
[view link]
@Burl-Ho yeah I can see yer point there, too, about not putting government in any job-training. Much of the example state Germany has company-run job training programs anyway. I didn't so much mean the govt SHOULD do that (what I suggested) as much as, IF the govt is going to insist on meddling with education and training THEN it would be if they did that. So we're on the same page.
Anyhoo, I like mark94's foundation. I'll be Director of Development.
Industry already has a large surplus of productive capacity. So it doesn't need more plant and equipment, or more workers.
You can educate people anyway you want, and this doesn't change.
So yes, the better educated our people are, the better. And schools are another source of employment, and keeping people as full time students means we don't need to find jobs for them right away. This is always good.
So yes, let people get all the job relevant education they want. They will find their own ways to apply it, ways no one else ever anticipated. Schools never can really be current. Only the work place has the money to stay current.
But what is more important is giving people a philosophical and political education, so they know how to organize and prevent themselves from being turned into educated wage slaves, or from simply becoming more idiots who live by denigrating the poor.
SJG
For those who want to view:
[view link]
Use password: 28chavelas10
What Is Marxism?
[view link]
"Just hope that the government doesn't F$%# Up job training education as they have general education!"
Yeah, that would be a big concern for me, too, and it would have real-world consequences. The sectors of the economy with the most government involvement seem to be the most screwed up (education, housing, mass transit, insurance, medicine, etc.). In the ideal "crazy libertarian world," education would be a purely private matter, paid for by families and charities, and the price would be relatively cheap due to lack of State involvement. Under this system, employers would no longer be able to use taxpayer-funded education as a crude filtering mechanism; we could go back to the days of on-the-job training and apprenticeships. But of course this is never going to happen. "The children" are the go-to excuse for virtually every government intervention imaginable, so naturally the State will always be balls-deep in education.
So the next best option would be charters, vouchers, and school-choice. School-choice seems to work pretty well in the allegedly "socialist" countries of Western Europe that Bernie Sanders is always saying we should imitate. (Public sector unions hate school-choice, though, so Bernie probably hates it too. Naturally.)
But if we can't have privatization, and we can't have vouchers, charters, or choice, I would say the next best step is to just curtail the mission: emphasize reading, writing, math, the basics of American history, and nothing else. As it stands, they're trying to teach second languages, art-history, economics, physical education, and chemistry to entire populations that totally lack basic reading and math skills. That's insane.
On the other hand, I'd make an exception for strippers: if the government wants to set up taxpayer funded schools to train strippers to enter the trades, then I'm all in! It's a much better excuse than "the children," and I might get a little side-action every time I have my HVAC repaired. I might even take out one of those long-term service contracts ;)
FWIW, in the organization I am building, most of our early women will be coming out of strip clubs. But with us, besides draining our guys dry on a daily basis, they will also be getting an education and building themselves a long term professional career. On top of this we will also be providing them with an exit parachute, so that they don't have to feel that they are trapped with us. The parachute is not to put them out to pasture, rather it is to make them feel safer going our way. If they stay in, then that $ gets used to build more women's residence halls.
I am firmly convinced that beyond a certain age and level of learning, people learn better in supervised independent study mode. And all the more so in this age of better access to books, and electronic communications.
For the general population we need progressive taxation, Keynesian spending levels, and also now a Universal Basic Income.
SJG
Bonobo or Chimpanzee?
[view link]
It will be a tragedy if this tax reform plan actually passes:
1. Nothing for those forced to the very bottom, they don't have enough income to need increased exemption credits.
2. For the low middle, all the exemption credits so is fatten landlords. Frank Lloyd Wright wrote about this back in the 1930's. To make such stuff work, you must have public participation in the housing market, to keep worker benefits from just being soaked right back up.
3. Shifting more money upwards will contract our economy. It recirculates fastest when it starts at the bottom.
4. People who do good new things, so called innovation, are never motivated primarily by the prospect of vast wealth. This reform will reward some of America's worst, like Trump himself.
5. As it is now, the labor market is used to enforce social conformity and to decide who is an who is not legitimate. No good ever comes from this.
6. This seems designed to feed the stock market bubble. No good will ever comes from that either.
SJG
There is one guy who would always play it differently:
[view link]
More:
[view link]
I laughing my ass of those bumbling motherfuckers screwed up the house version of their tax reform act it has to be revoted, what a bunch of incompetent dumb asses.
Yes, it is curious. But I am more concerned if there is still some way to stop it.
Our country does better when we have public investment in advanced technology. Some of this had been done through DARPA, and some through NBS. And then of course all the spin offs from the space program.
And then sending more people to college, and for longer, pays off with a multitude of benefits.
Public investment in advanced technology infrastructure is also very important, like public transportation and clean energy.
And then as it stands now the poor are being used as scapegoats in order to keep the entire workforce docile and to poison our politics. No good ever comes from this.
The benefits of industrialization have to be made to apply to EVERYONE!
But public investment a stock market bubble? That's really what this is.
Libertarian is simply a return of the bogus science of Social Darwinism.
SJG
Dizzy Gillespie United Nations Orchestra
[view link]
@san_jose_guy,
It's not going to be "stopped" unless the Senate votes against it. Even without John McCain's vote, I feel pretty confident that it will pass. They have a margin of one vote, so they can still afford to lose Bob Corker if necessary.
Anyway, I don't understand what you mean about public investment. Taxes might go down, but spending isn't being touched.
Scott Adams predicted there would be 3 phases of Trump in his first year, as viewed by his opponents
1. He’s Hitler
2. He’s incompetent
3. He’s accomplishing things we don’t like
With Tax Reform, we are entering the third, and final, phase.
4. He's doing good things for the country and not worrying about those that wish to lag behind and bitch. Let me go look at my retirement account again.
@Analvone, the individual mandate is needed to keep healthy people in the exchanges; without the mandate it's estimated by the CBO that 13M will lose their insurance. Thanks for your usual dose of hysterical stupidity.
healthy people aren't staying in the exchanges, which is why they are all in death spirals.
and feel free to estimate the number of Americans who either had their insurance policies cancelled outright, or who saw their premiums skyrocket to unsustainable levels.
"the individual mandate is needed to keep healthy people in the exchanges..." funny, I thought we had a democratic government and a capitalist economy,
you can shill for communism if you wish, but real americans have resisted the Obamacare mandate since the day it became law, and we won't stop until it's been repealed.
Actually it's Romneycare, and an attempt to get everyone covered while retaining the best features of capitalism. Moderate Dems (like myself) prefer something like Obamacare to single payer.
Not to worry, democrats will fix things by raising taxes as soon as they get back in office. When I first heard tax cuts, I wanted an across the board tax cut paid by expected increases in economic GDP, not all this crap I've been hearing about.
@Clubber,
With approval numbers this bad, I somehow doubt that we'll ever get to Step 4. Something seems to have changed in the American political system recently. It used to be that whenever the stock market was doing well, the Party in power in the White House could generally count on winning elections, both midterms and presidential. But ever since the bursting of the Dot-Com Bubble and 9/11, things are different and the old rules got thrown out the window.
In 2002 the stock market was doing poorly but Republicans still won during the Midterms that year. In 2006 the market was doing very well but Republicans still lost badly in the Midterms that year. Both elections happened during a Republican presidency.
Then in 2014 and 2016, Democrats were soundly rejected at the polls despite the fact that we were in the middle of an historic equities bull market that coincided with a Democratic presidency.
You can argue that there were other factors going on that explain these election results, but this is just happening far too often lately for it to be completely discounted. It's clear that something has changed.
You should be careful of a thing called "Pundit's Fallacy": that's a phenomenon where the individual tricks himself into believing that the entire electorate agrees with him. Just because you like Trump, for example, doesn't mean that the voters do. I'm sure his "real" approval rating is slightly higher than what's being reported in the news, but it's still extremely low for a president in his first year.
@anonlvone,
The Employer Mandate does much more harm than the Individual Mandate does. Unfortunately, the Employer Mandate is popular, so there's little chance of ever repealing it on it's own.
Anyway, I would urge you to look at Switzerland's health insurance system. They have an Individual Mandate but they have no Employer Mandate. Everyone in Switzerland shops for their own insurance policy and virtually no one gets their insurance from an employer or directly from the government. There are penalties for not having insurance and there are some subsidies for those who can't afford it, but overall it's a much less socialist system than what they have in most of Europe, Canada, or even here in the USA. Is it perfect? No. But it's better than the shit show that we have now.
We are eventually going to have to compromise with the commies. I think the Swiss system is a decent compromise.
@RandomMember,
Have you ever stopped to consider why Obamacare was even needed in the first place? Everyone agrees that there were major problems with the American healthcare system before the ACA, but those problems were cost, transparency, portability, and predictability, not access. Obamacare costs a fortune to do things that we could have done for free. And it addresses the wrong set of problems.
Doesn’t really matter this tax bill seems to a forgone conclusion but with all of the planning and advance time these idiots had you’d of thought they might get it right. Guess Paul Ryan is just as much of an idiot as the rest of these incompetent dumbasses populating our halls of government. ROFLMAO.
@twentyfive,
Paul Ryan is an "ideas" guy, not a "process" guy. Unfortunately he's probably better suited to be the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee rather than the Speaker of the House. Boehner was more of a process guy, but you saw how unpopular he was with the rank and file; he was run out of town on a rail. And good riddance. I think Ryan is doing pretty well considering that he was thrown into a job that he was ill-suited for and didn't even want to begin with. Up until now, most of the chaos has been coming from the Senate, not the House.
^^^ My take on them from the White House down the line they just keep shooting themselves in the foot trying to pull the gun out of their holster.
Just so fucking incompetent every last one of them. If I made the same mistakes over and over in my business I’d be broke.
I wonder how much money the recite is going to cost ? I know it’ll be paid for by the taxpayers not the incompetent idiots that rushed it without due diligence.
Who are the “incompetent idiots” ?
Trump in 2017
Cut corporate and individual taxes.
Repeal the Obamacare individual mandate.
Appoint a highly-respected conservative to the Supreme Court.
Appoint a one-year record number of judges to the circuit courts.
Get rid of reams of unnecessary regulations.
Destroy ISIS.
Approve pipeline projects and new oil drilling.
Democrats in 2017
Defeat a pedophile in Alabama
"Paul Ryan is an "ideas" guy, not a "process" guy. "
-------------------
Actually, he's a Randoid and a phony policy wonk. Not a bright guy, at all. He'll probably retire soon to get away from the Donald Trump stench so that he can run for president.
Insurance only works if lots of somebodys buy it and don't collect. If only sick people buy health insurance, any system is unsustainable. It's math.
It is why auto insurance works. Everyone has it but few have accidents and make claims.
Same with life insurance. Many have it but few die while covered.
Clubber & Mark you guys drink too much Kool-Aid your folks are so busy congratulating them selves you refuse to actually see the truth.
Because they are such greedy pigs they keep spilling turds all over themselves. If they would have actually done the work that they should have , they wouldn’t have messed up procedure and they might have saved a few bucks at the same time.
Sheesh you guys don’t care if they get it right you just want to stick it to the other side, that is what is wrong in Washington and I agree it’s the same for both parties.
The republicans didn’t mess up procedure. The democrat obstructionists in the Senate made a futile attack on the bill, appealing to the Byrd rule. The republicans nimbly and quickly pulled 2 minor provisions, gaining victory.
I heard Trump may hold off signing the bill so that Medicare spending cuts don't go into effect until 2019 by holding off signing bill until January 1st or later. Republicans could lose seats and votes if people find out Medicare is getting cut in 2018.
I'm not even sure why they included cuts. Maybe it's fake news and the cuts are not really cuts but curbs in spending growth. Different people word things different. Might be going to spend a record amount but curb the growth in spending increases a little bit but someone says they are cutting spending.
I'm happy they will be eliminating the mandate and fines for Obamacare.
^^^^Every time you guys get something wrong, its always someone else's fault, what a bunch of whiny crybabies. I understand whining when you lose, but fuck it man, whining when you win, grow up for Pete's sake.
I believe the only Medicare provision in the tax reform bill is the need to cut back if the deficit is larger than projected. By signing in 2018, that would push the POSSIBLE need to cut back an extra year. If economic growth is in the 3%-4% range, no Medicare cuts will take place.
@pensionking,
That's right. What you're talking about is the definition of an "insurable event." We've been redefining what an insurable event is in this country since the 1930s. Insurable events are supposed to be things that are rare; unforeseen; beyond the control of the insured party; and expensive. Catching a cold, having an elective surgical procedure, having some calluses removed from your feet, getting a flu shot, having a baby... none of these would meet the original definition of an insurable event! An insurance company isn't supposed to pay for any of these things. These are all predictable, preventable, or voluntary occurences. If health insurance is forced to pay for them then we don't really have a system of health insurance, we just have prepaid healthcare. And that's part of the reason why healthcare prices keep on going up. Because everyone who has health insurance uses it too frequently. Even healthy people catch a cold from time to time.
Health insurance is supposed to pay for strokes, congenital heart defects, cancer, broken bones, etc., not acne and toenail fungus. If auto insurance were forced to pay for tiny scratches on your car door and for oil changes, believe me, auto insurance would cost so much money that people would be clamoring for single-payer auto insurance!
We did this to ourselves because we can't bear the thought of having to pay for things ourselves. Someone else always has to be responsible. And now look at this fucking mess we have!
@twentyfive said "you guys don’t care if they get it right you just want to stick it to the other side, that is what is wrong in Washington and I agree it’s the same for both parties."
Yeah, that's the impression I get from these people, too. They just want to win so badly. Anything. Just to put a scalp on the wall.
On the other hand, it's rich hearing you complain about the miniscule cost of rewriting a bill. Kind of a drop in the bucket compared to the old-age entitlements you defend, isn't it? Now who's being greedy?
Actually @BHF insurance companies themselves are the real reason costs keep rising, not only are they the ones who created the definition of what is an insurable event, they market their wares to both sides the patients as well the caretakers. Making matters even worse is they write the contracts that you purchase, then refuse to provide coverage even after you have used their definitions. Don't blame the ratepayers for the behavior of these greedy bastards.
Back when most people had a high deductible major med, going to a doctor was inexpensive. The fact people were paying directly and making medical decisions directly with the doc kept costs down. Once the insurers ( and government) got involved, medical inflation kept going up. I think quality of care is also better when patients work directly with the doctor.
twentyfive,
Insurance companies write policies that conform to State And Federal insurance rules which govern what they must cover. Before the 1930s, employer-sponsored health insurance was rare. People paid cash at the doctor's office or they went to a charity hospital. And healthcare was affordable.
Alarmists,
All I've heard from the left is this trickle down will never work. Well, sorry my ignorant friends, but check the results of JFK and Reagan's trickle down plans! The left fear that other will decide how to use their money instead of turning it over to them to decide.
Unless you can refute that history, best you keep your fingers off the k/b and appear ignorant, rather than using the k/b and removing all doubt! I fear some of the ignorant will not heed this warning.
@RandomMember,
Just so you know, Paul Ryan supported the auto bailout, the TARP bailouts, No Child Left Behind, the creation of Medicare Part D, the Patriot Act, the War on Drugs, the War in Iraq, increased defense spending, all kinds of restrictions on immigration, and a "border adjustment tax" (which was really just a tariff that even Donald Trump thought was too high and unworkable!). Ryan also opposes gay marriage, just for good measure, and he wants to preserve and protect Medicare and Social Security. Oh, and he frequently proposes budgets that basically never balance. (This is, admittedly, an improvement over most congressmen, who run from the room in terror whenever the subject of the budget comes up.)
He seems like a good guy and all, but he definitely isn't a libertarian. So what makes you call him a "Randoid?" Because he once said that he read and enjoyed Ayn Rand's novels? Then I guess you had better start calling Barack Obama a Randoid, too, because he also said he read Ayn Rand's books in an interview 5 years ago.
@BHF why is it rich hearing me complain about having to pay to fix their mistakes, if I ran my business that way I’d nickel and dime myself straight to a bankruptcy.
These incompetent fools have no respect for my money, let it come out of their paycheck not my taxes. If it cost them out of pocket I guarantee you they’d not be so cavalier about stupid shit that the do over and over.
For @Burlington:
"Paul Ryan to Go Out in a Blaze of Randian Glory:"
[view link]
"Paul Ryan Trying to Talk Trump Into Cutting Medicare:"
[view link]
You win the argument about Ryan opposing gay marriage, but I have no idea where you get the idea he wants to protect Medicare. I think of Ryan as light-weight with no real policy credentials.
You think the left is going nuts about tax reform ? Just wait until 2018. Paul Ryan says his first priority will be welfare reform. Nazis ! Incompetent ! Hitler ! Fucking greedy bastards !
@BHF Regarding insurance company policies from the 1930s how can you even try to compare them with now. Let’s get real neither you nor I were alive then, the quality of life was completely different and the insurance companies did pretty much whatever they liked at that time.
If you want to talk about insurers damn I guarantee you you haven’t a clue to how much they have insinuated themselves into our life.
Let’s just use one simple example that is replayed across the board for all types of coverages.
A hurricane hits your home most people are covered above the 5% threshold
You have a contract to have your home insured in order to have the money to make the repairs assuming you have purchased replacement cost you will get shorted by the company unless you hire either a skilled PA or a knowledgeable attorney to rep your claim. What other industry do you know of where your contract needs to be renegotiated in order to enforce that document.
Same holds true for fire or theft or a business liability or an earthquake or any other policy you might hold. I will not keep debating this subject but you really have no idea of how badly we are treated by these greedy bastards
@RandomMember,
Ryan isn't even questioning the underlying assumption that the government should be paying for people's retirement and healthcare. As Ron Paul once said, this isn't an accounting problem, it's not a math problem, it's a philosophical problem. Ryan is proposing that we voucherize Medicare... in other words, make it exactly like Obamacare. This would save lots of taxpayer money, but it would also have the unfortunate effect of saving the program, too. I happen to think this would be a huge step in the right direction, but only in fantasyland at New York Magazine does this make him a libertarian.
@twentyfive,
My point is that almost no one even had health insurance until the government allowed it as a tax write-off for employers during the 30s. Before that, maybe CEOs has health insurance. Or perhaps Babe Ruth had health insurance. But almost no one else did. Most people paid cash or bartered and they were fine.
And as for the complicated and ridiculous nature of homeowners insurance, the insurers simply conform to the rules that Florida hands down to them. Every couple of years, the legislature in Tallahassee goes ape-shit and applies tons of new restrictions to insurance companies. Insurers respond by fleeing the high risk areas, leaving only Citizens Insurance (owned and controlled by the State government) to write new policies. The insurers are simply trying to stay afloat. If they go out of business, no one benefits: no claims can be made against a bankrupt insurance company.
@BHF there is one other point that you made a claim that I have no right to complain about my old age entitlement
I paid into social security and Medicare for well over 50 years you’d best not start with me unless you are prepared to return my money to me with the market returns and interest that I would have before you start fucking with my money. That money is and always was mine if you really don’t think I’m “entitled” to my own money you need to go join SJG in some Vietnamese massage parlor and smoke what ever shit he smokes because that is delusional.
@twenty-five,
I hate to break it to you, but all you paid were 50 years worth of taxes, pal. Just because the government segregates a certain amount and says it's for FICA, that doesn't mean it's not a tax. Trust me, those weren't insurance premiums that you were paying. The government simply takes people's money in various amounts and redistributes it back to favored blocks of voters. Read the fine print: Congress can suspend or modify these payments at any time. That doesn't sound like any annuity contract I know of.
But whatever, if you want your money back, then so do I! I didn't ask for a military base in Saudi Arabia, or a subsidy for corn ethanol, or a bailout of auto companies, or a War in Iraq, or a War on Drugs, or a border fence, or a National Public Radio. But I got all these things anyway. I also didn't ask for every old-timer in Dade County to get free boner pills from Uncle Sam. But dammit if I didn't get that, too! I mean, if I didn't know any better, I would swear that someone else has been deciding what our money should be spent on all these years. This is a rip-off! I want my money back! LOL
^^^ The only reply I’ll offer to that statement above if you want an Elizabeth Warren or a Bernie Sanders to be the next president and I really don’t, go ahead try fucking with SS or Medicare.
Republicans have been trying to fuck with SS ( New Deal ) and with Meidcare ( Great Society ) for a long time. I for one would be very happy with Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders as President. Both on the ticket would be even better.
SJG
The reason Medicare has not restructured our society in quite the same way that SS has is that it was compromised. Crazy really, but the AMA was opposed to Medicare. That was because it had cost controls. Once LBJ agreed to pull the cost controls and go with "customary fees", the AMA switched sides. This capitulation to middle-class values can be found throughout LBJ's initiatives. FDR never engaged in these sorts of capitulation.
SJG
It didn't go far enough in simplifying the tax code. But otherwise today is a great day for taxpayers, a great day for millions who have been choking on criminally bad Obamacare insurance and overall a great day for the forces of freedom. The good guys got a big win today.
Bad day for people who want to earn a living in our economy, as it will be getting strangled by collapse. We are moving now a big step closer to 1929 all over again.
The Hillary Clinton Health Care plan of '93, was better than Obama Care. But the Clinton's could not get their plan passed.
Today we see more proof that Capitalism is collapsing and now feeding off of itself.
SJG
@san_jose_guy said "...the AMA was opposed to Medicare. That was because it had cost controls. Once LBJ agreed to pull the cost controls and go with "customary fees", the AMA switched sides."
This is absolutely 100% correct and thank you for pointing it out. Business groups want three things from the government: 1) more regulations to keep their competition out, 2) predictable regulations on themselves, and 3) a guaranteed flow of payments. Medicare accomplished much of what the AMA and the medical community wanted.
And thanks also for pointing out that Hillary Clinton was, historically, to the left of Obama on healthcare. This fact seems to have been forgotten by all the Sandersnistas who call her a "moderate."
@twentyfive,
You're totally right. No arguments from me. I want to end entitlement programs but it just isn't going to happen. I would never argue that entitlement reform is politically easy. Or even politically feasible. I hope that Ryan is able to do some welfare reform next year, but I would be amazed if he is able to go beyond that to actual legitimate Medicare reform. The voters would absolutely murder the GOP at the polls in November, and Trump would probably leave the party and become a left-leaning independent during his final two years. Seriously. It would be that bad.
Anyway, I definitely don't want Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren to become president, and voters would probably embrace one or both of them if the GOP so much as breathed the wrong way in Social Security's general direction. Sad but true.
I especially can't stand Bernie Sanders. Interestingly, my dad is also a 75-year-old secular Jewish man from Brooklyn, just like Sanders. They went to high school about a mile away from each other, and I think they actually ran track against each other a few times (although my dad doesn't really remember Sanders well). Regardless, I can't stand him, personally or politically. I don't think he'll ever be president, but if we live long enough we'll probably eventually get something even worse.
But we should never try to run a country as if it were a business. When setting up publicly funded health care or housing, there need to be cost controls.
Hillary Clinton was visionary. Everyone says we already pay more than enough to give health care to everyone. True. She sought to prove it by making it so there were no new costs. She did this. But this made the plan complex, and it opened the door to Thelma and Louise type attack adds.
We lost, Democracy lost.
SJG
Donald Trump is clearly not a libertarian. I don’t know what he is. Maybe populist.
However, in the first year of his presidency he has done more to control the power of the federal government than the Paul’s or Flake did in their lifetime. That’s why I’m so gung ho about him. It’s not because I like him as a person. It’s because he has delivered on his promises, so far.
Imagine 8 years of Trump at the same pace as his first year. Conservative Justices. Fewer regs. Shrunken federal workforce. Decentralizing government. I can put up with any number of wild Tweets and wacky statements if he continues to deliver on policy.
He has already reversed 8 years of Obama’s programs. Pretty good for an “ incompetent idiot”.
@mark94,
Donald Trump is... whatever works at the moment. He's said and done a few great things, I won't deny that. But I know that any post-Tea Party Republican president would do most of these same things. He's accomplished more than Jeff Flake and Paul Ryan and Ron Paul and whoever, because he's the president whereas these other people will never get the chance to be president. So it's kind of an unfair comparison. (But anyway, I really like the offensive tweets. They're funny and it allows us to know what the president is thinking. I hope he keeps tweeting. That's real transparency.)
I feel like a kid on Christmas morning. The Obamacare individual mandate is going the way of the dodo bird. Paul "the RINO" Ryan is leaving the Senate. Now if Jeff Sessions would only appoint a special prosecutor to put Hillary in prison.
And Trump is not and never has been alone. The stupidity of the average person is unbelievable to think he won the presidency alone against so many illegal and unfair tactics used against him.
@anonlvone,
Paul Ryan is a House Member, not a Senator. And for all we know, the reports about him leaving might be "fake news" LOL. On the other hand, his seat could still be in jeopardy in November if he doesn't leave congress - there's a big wave building and his seat has never been truly safe. But I'm just curious about a few things:
- What makes you call Paul Ryan a RINO? Is Donald Trump a RINO, too? In what way is Trump more conservative than Ryan?
- What do you mean when you say that Trump "isn't alone?"
- And what illegal things do you believe were done to Trump?
I find that when libs spout off, just have them present facts to back up their contention. They almost never can, rather they use speculation or some "experts" opinion.
EXPERT...
X: is an unknown quantity. Spurt: is a drip under pressure. An "expert" is therefore an unknown drip under pressure.
Several recent reports paint a clear picture of Trump and Ryan’s priorities for 2018.
Ryan wants to focus on welfare reform, making it a coordinated transitional program that lifts people out of poverty. There would be work requirements, drug testing, and control shifted to the States. No Democrat will support this and they will need to thread the needle to get this passed.
Trump wants an infrastructure bill. If handled properly, this should get much Democrat support.
An article by Roger L Simon calls this Trump 2.0. Trump will reach out to Blacks and (legal) Hispanics to explain how these efforts will improve their economic situation. He hopes Trump will become somewhat less confrontational in his style, showing he cares about all citizens, not just whites. Simon believes Trump’s natural showmanship will allow him to pull this off.
One of the goals would be to raise Trump’s favorables, giving him more political power.
Finally, some sort of Dreamer bill will be passed that gives Trump the ability to halt most future illegal immigration through powers like work verification and an end to chain migration. This will free up entry level jobs for Americans.
These three efforts— Welfare, Infrastructure, and Immigration — will work together to improve the economy.
John Boehner was forced out b/c he was a RINO. Speaker of the House Paul Ryan was his hand chosen successor. While Trump was running for office, Paul Ryan was one of the faggot traitors who refused to support him, citing the fake Access Hollywood controversy. He's been fighting Trump's agenda since he took office, and rumors are he is leaving now b/c he knows he's going to be implicated in the fake Russian Collusion narrative.
A RINO is self-explanatory. Republican in Name Only. What part of that do you not understand? Same thing with Democrats. There are tons of Democrats in Name Only.
I suspect Trump is actually pretty liberal in a lot of ways. He was very close to John F Kennedy Jr, who conveniently died just before Hillary Clinton chose to run for the New York Senate seat. Regardless of whether he is liberal or conservative, one thing I can say for certain is that he's an American, which is more than I can say for all the traitors in office who are pretending to be Republicans, Democrats, conservatives or liberals, but in actuality are trying to destroy this country from within.
The US Gov't under Obamination protected Hillary Clinton during her presidential campaign. She was under investigation by the FBI and Comey lied about this while he sabotaged the investigation. She should be rotting in prison for deliberately transmitting classified info on non-secure servers which resulted in several nations states and at least one private hacker breaching her server. Comey went on television and actually documented the numerous ways in which she lied about this issue and broke the law just before announcing that he was declining to prosecute, which was contrary to all law and not his decision to make. This is just the tip of the iceberg of all the crimes she's committed which make her unfit to be President.
She corrupted the DNC and illegally took control of its activities during the presidential election, stealing the Democratic nomination from Bernie Sanders.
During the presidential campaign, the entire mainstream media continuously covered up not only her crimes, but also her ill health, while endlessly declaring that Trump could never be elected and attacking him 24/7, which they continued to do through his inauguration and every day of his presidency since.
Wikileaks has documented numerous contacts and endless collusion between the Clinton campaign and the mainstream media. She was given campaign questions in advance of debates, while her staff issued talking points to the media and coordinated with them on press releases. The mainstream media also covered up the lack of support for Clinton, which Donna Brazile wrote about in her book, while endlessly producing fake polls such as the one claiming that she had a 98.9% chance of winning the presidency on the eve of the election.
Hillary Clinton, in coordination with the DNC, paid for and produced the fake dirty dossier which was later used as justification by the Obama government to illegally surveille the Trump campaign, after the FISA court rejected their first request. After Trump's election, this became the basis for the entire fake Russian Collusion narrative which has been advanced by traitors within the DOJ and the FBI and the State Dept and of course the Democratic party, who have been working relentlessly and illegally to overthrow the duly elected representative of the American people while simultaneously ignoring and covering up the very real and very treasonous crimes of Hillary Clinton, such as selling one fifth of America's Uranium supply to Russia, (the Uranium One scandal).
My own feeling is that Trump was asked to run for the presidency after JFK Jr was murdered. Had he lived he would have become president instead of Trump. Trump was opposed by the DNC, the RNC, both the Bush and Clinton crime families, as well as multiple intelligence and federal agencies under the very corrupt government of Obamination (CIA, DOJ, FBI, State, etc). Not bad for an incompetent buffoon who's never held political office previously and is acting completely alone.
@anonlvone,
Alright. You seem to be into conspiracy theories, so how do you feel about this one: did you know that Bill Clinton called Donald Trump just before Trump announced that he was running for President? They were old friends, the Clintons and the Trumps. Trump donated to Hillary's campaigns; Ivanka Trump and Chelsea Clinton are long-time slumber buddies; the Clintons came to Trump's wedding; they played golf together; and Trump frequently praised Hillary in public as a "terrific woman" and a "great Secretary of State." Hell, Bill Clinton even appointed Trump's sister to a higher Federal Court during his presidency! So, my questions: do you think the Clintons were just using Trump to sabotage the GOP field? Or do you think Trump was in on it and then it just got out of hand (when he won the nomination)? Is Trump a sleeper-cell Manchurian candidate for the Clintons? ;)
[view link][view link]
@mark94,
I like how you inserted the word 'legal' in front of the word 'Hispanics.' That's a nice touch LOL. Here's one thing I can promise you: no bill in Washington will ever stop illegal immigration on it's own. It's no different than drugs and prostitution: people will keep coming as long as there's demand for what they're selling, regardless of the law.
Employers keep hiring illegal immigrants because of all the impediments to hiring *legal* residents: withholding taxes, minimum wages, Equal Employment Opportunity laws, unions, wrongful termination lawsuits, etc. Trump would have to undo all of this stuff to make a dent in the demand for illegal labor, and then his base would hate him for it. Americans love all these things because they want to live in fsntasy-land where policies have no unintended consequences. So trust me, no law is going to squash the demand for illegal labor.
And besides, our proximity to a border with a country filled with low-skilled laborers is one of our natural resources. It's a competitive advantage for the US. Trump acknowledged as much himself when he repeatedly hired illegal immigrants through the years. Shutting that down would be like killing the goose that lays golden eggs.
As for infrastructure projects... I don't know. I want to oppose it. It feels very anti-libertarian to me. But it just doesn't bother me as much as it should. It actually sounds like a pretty good idea. I guess I'm not as hardcore as I thought I was LOL. But one way or another, I guarantee the infrastructure bill will be full of public sector union giveaways and will cost much more than anticipated while delivering much less. I hope I'm wrong about that one, too.
The Clintons planned to build up Trump as a poison pill candidate, thinking he could never win in a general election. Unfortunately for them Trump was one step ahead. My explanation is that he created a certain public image and cultivated certain relationships so that he wouldn't have an untimely accident like JFK Jr and live long enough to run for the presidency with the initial blessings of the Clintons and the powers that be.
I think the infrastructure idea is to do as many public/private projects as possible. That is, provide some sort of public incentive ( like bonding ) but have the project managed and owned by a private company. Things like toll roads, airports, and so on. Yes, the “ prevailing wage” clause will be a major hurdle to getting democrats on board.
Requiring e-verify for all employees, doing a major scrub of the SSN database, and imposing civil and criminal penalties would go a long way to reducing illegal immigration among medium and large employers.
There would still be a cash-based underground economy but the IRS could go after that as well.
@mark94 said:
"Requiring e-verify for all employees, doing a major scrub of the SSN database, and imposing civil and criminal penalties would go a long way to reducing illegal immigration among medium and large employers."
It would go a long way towards the creation of a police state. And it would turn every business owner into a defacto law enforcement officer, too. Wouldn't it be less destructive to just let people work? And just out of curiosity, should we impose these penalties retroactively on the Trump Organization, too? LOL
But I totally agree about the public- private partnership thing. That's what we've always wanted to do with infrastructure.
No 25, you're fucking ignorant. The Clinton's plan to run Trump as a poison pill candidate was publicly revealed by WikiLeaks. It was part of the DNC email release that got Seth Rich murdered.
I also saw Trump as a joke candidate. But I would still never had suggested doing anything to help him, as the consequences of him getting in, and with the far Right of his party, would be too severe.
SJG
Funny have an idiot that was abducted by aliens calls me ignorant, you have to be the stupidest motherfucker ever your mother has been on national television apologizing for having you. LOL
A Scott Adams quiz ( for twentyfive and randomnember )
Did you once believe…
Trump will never win the GOP nomination.
Trump will never win the presidency.
Stocks will drop if Trump is elected.
President Trump will deport ten million illegal immigrants.
Trump will be gone (impeached, jailed, or quit) by end of 2017.
Trump’s immigration ban on several Muslim countries will be found unconstitutional.
Trump colluded with Russia, and that’s a crime.
Trump obstructed justice (a crime) by firing Comey.
Trump’s skills as a “con man” might get him elected but it won’t transfer into doing the job of president.
Trump’s decision to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel will cause huge problems.
Trump’s tweeting will cause huge problems.
GOP will never embrace Trump.
Trump will get nothing important done.
Trump will not work effectively with leaders of other countries.
GOP senators will vote against GOP priorities because of President Trump’s mean tweets.
Trump will not nominate qualified judges to the Supreme Court.
Trump is incompetent.
Presidential approval polls are a good predictor of how a president will perform.
The military won’t follow Trump’s orders.
GDP will never stay above 3%.
— end —
If you got 15 or more wrong, you might want to consider never saying anything about politics out loud again for the rest of your life. Just a suggestion.
This wasn't directed at me, but I was definitely a NeverTrump guy last year. The candidates I supported, in order of preference, were: Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio/Scott Walker (those two had identical policy positions), Bobby Jindal, and Carly Fiorina. After that, I stopped ranking them entirely because the rest seemed pretty bad. Trump was close to the bottom for me, along with Rick Santorum, Mike Huckabee, and all the Democrats. But he won. I definitely didn't predict it. It's probably the biggest upset in American political history. And he hasn't been bad so far. I think he's been better than Obama and Bush, at least. Here are my answers to the "quiz":
Trump will never win the GOP nomination (I definitely didn't think he could win)
Trump will never win the presidency (barring some crazy October surprise, I was convinced that Hillary Clinton would beat him, although I always thought it would be somewhat closer than Obama's margin over Romney in the Electoral College)
Stocks will drop if Trump is elected. (I believed this, too. Not because Trump was thought of as bad for business, but because he represented uncertainty, which I always thought the business community hates. And also because everyone on Wall Street was predicting a Clinton victory and they had already positioned themselves accordingly. Usually they sell everything when the uncertainty level gets too high).
President Trump will deport ten million illegal immigrants (I never really believed he would do anything like this. He has a long hypocritical history of making pro-immigration statements, both before and after he rejoined the GOP. Plus he's already married half the immigrants and hired the other half. But then again, if you didn't think he would deport the immigrants, then why did you guys vote for him anyway?).
Trump will be gone (impeached, jailed, or quit) by end of 2017 (no, this is silly. He hasn't committed any crimes that we know of.)
Trump’s immigration ban on several Muslim countries will be found unconstitutional (I assumed that the Supreme Court would decline to hear the case and leave it up to a lower court ruling. I don't like it, but I believe it's fully constitutional).
Trump colluded with Russia, and that’s a crime (I don't think he colluded, I don't know or care whether it's a crime because I think it should be fully legal for foreigners and foreign governments to buy ads, to communicate with people on Facebook, and to circulate fake news stories. I believe in free speech. And at any rate, I doubt that the Russian "interference" was the deciding factor in the election. Regardless, if it was the deciding factor, then that's a damning case against DEMOCRACY, not against Donald Trump or against Russia).
Trump obstructed justice (a crime) by firing Comey (nope. A few months earlier all the Democrats were asking Obama, and then Trump, to fire Comey anyway).
Trump’s skills as a “con man” might get him elected but it won’t transfer into doing the job of president (yes, I believed this, more or less. Luckily Pence is the real president anyway).
Trump’s decision to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel will cause huge problems (oh please. Give me a break. The people of the Middle East are looking for any excuse for trouble at this point. This isn't something that I think much about, but if Israel says its capital is Jerusalem then I guess we should act accordingly. That's probably where the embassy belongs, regardless of threats of violence).
Trump’s tweeting will cause huge problems (sure, why not? The tweets are disruptive of the staid, boring Washington culture, and that's one of the things I really like about Trump, even when he tweets things that I disagree with. I wish the tweets caused more trouble, to be honest).
GOP will never embrace Trump (parties tend to get behind their leader no matter who he or she is. Privately they don't trust him. Neither do I. But publicly they follow him around like a whipped little puppy).
Trump will get nothing important done (it was never really up to him. Pence, the Study Committee, the Heritage Foundation, etc., they think of things and then it's up to congress to vote on the package of priorities. So far, it's been a mixed bag. But Trump's lack of ideological consistency and clarity has probably been partly responsible for ruining Obamacare repeal, and for watering down the tax bill. After all, no one would want to pass a tax bill only to find out that Trump doesn't think it has enough "heart," whatever that meant).
Trump will not work effectively with leaders of other countries (I never cared about this, one way or the other. I would love for him to kick the UN the hell out of America and withdraw from it completely).
GOP senators will vote against GOP priorities because of President Trump’s mean tweets (some already have, although I doubt the tweets had much to do with it, per se. And besides, it was Trump himself who tweeted his prediction that Jeff Flake would vote against the tax bill, which of course, he didn't. Some people apparently went to Washington to express their ideological opinions by voting for bills. I know, sounds crazy, right?).
Trump will not nominate qualified judges to the Supreme Court (we're fine as long as Pence or whoever provides him with a list from which to choose. This seems to be what they've done. I'm happy with the results).
Trump is incompetent (well, he did manage to get himself elected. Beyond that, the jury is still out. I'm sure the strategies are not entirely his own, but then again, he did say he would hire the best people).
Presidential approval polls are a good predictor of how a president will perform (to some degree they predict presidential behavior and how congress will respond to his priorities. Most congress-critters want to get re-elected, after all).
The military won’t follow Trump’s orders (I could be wrong, but I think Trump won the military vote last year. The military probably won't follow illegal orders, but he hasn't given any of those. The military breaks down into two groups: officers who want war so that they can get promotions and medals, and soldiers who want peace so that they can come home alive. The jury is still out on what Trump will do in this arena, as well).
GDP will never stay above 3% (eventually it will go above that. And then below it again. And then above it. And on and on it goes. Some of Trump's policies give the economy at least a fighting chance to go above 3% growth. On the other hand, if Pence and the GOP are unable to control him - or if they bow to the demands of Steve Bannon and the base - and he really does find a way to restrict trade, then we're all in for some bad shit. Opposing free trade is the one thing that Trump has been completely consistent about for the last 30-plus years, other than supporting eminent domain. If a trade war ensues, or if other countries apply retaliatory tariffs, there is no way we can maintain 3% GDP growth - in fact, the economy would quickly contract. And if other countries do not retaliate, at best, we would get much much higher inflation. So let's all hope he doesn't do this).
A space program, advanced aviation and computer research, decades of technological leadership world wide, virtually no homelessness and responses to poverty, and something which approximates long term stable full employment. That's what 70% to 90% top tax rates get you.
But oh I forgot, stock market bubbles are minimized.
SJG
@san_jose_guy,
They did speak against it. In fairly hysterical terms.
Anyway, 70 to 90 percent top marginal tax rates may sound good to you, but they're meaningless if almost no one ever pays them. Back in the 1950s we had a very high top marginal tax rate but we also had deductions out the ying yang, not to mention that tax evasion/avoidance was rampant. Historically we've also seen similar rates of tax evasion and avoidance in countries like Greece and Italy, so it seems to be a recognizable phenomenon: at some point, when rates are very high, people stop paying.
This "good old days" nostalgia seems to have gripped the Left and the Right in equal measure. Oddly, it sounds almost like you want to Make America Great Again LOL. Personally, I don't think the good old days were really all that good.
Regardless, if you think the new tax rates are bad, then what kind of tax rates/code would you like to see instead?
Tax evasion gets harder and harder as the money gets to be more and more. People who get investment and real estate based income, or corporate salaries beyond the low six figures, they really cannot evade.
So in the social democracies of western Europe, the top personal income tax rates run about 10 to 15% higher than pre-Trump levels.
But bear in mind that these governments were not installed by the gun barrel, they were installed by the ballot box, and policy specifics continue to be debated back and forth. But I say that about 10 to 15% more for top rates seems to work.
Here in the US, we have been running for some time on the bogus science of social darwinism. We use this to justify a society of haves and have nots. As such, our country is dangerous, and huge amounts of money to into the criminal justice and incarceration systems.
Much of this is because of Richard Nixon and his Southern Strategy. Prior to that, up through the mid-60's, we were were generally on track with Canada and Western Europe. But when Nixon unveiled his strategy, pandering to our horrible history of race relations, we started moving to the Right, as Western Europe continued moving to the Left.
I say that it is time that we start catching up with them. We need a world that works for everyone, not stupid justifications as to why the rich deserve to be rich while the poor deserve to be poor, as we move towards a two tier society.
And for corporate tax rates, as I know, smaller firms don't really show profits or pay taxes anyway. It will be your larger public firms, the ones who pay shareholder dividends, who pay corporate tax. No reason whatsoever to reduce their tax rates one iota.
Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Carter, and Ford tax rates gave us a huge technological edge in electronics, computers, polymer chemistry, and aerospace, and we are still reaping the benefits of this today. It also gave us an infrastructure and university system which were the envy of the world and are still the envy of much of it. We got this as we were making progress in eliminating poverty.
The idea that we need to cut top tax rates or corporate tax rates to keep Capitalism going is preposterous. We did far better when taxes were much higher.
Libertarianism is a bogus doctrine, just Social Darwinism. We have been under the attack of Right Wing think tanks for some time now. So people don't vote, or they vote for nonsense. We need to re-educate our populace, and do so by example. The Democrats said very little to oppose the Trump tax scam.
We need stronger leadership, we need to make people understand that it is our nation and our democracy itself which are at stake.
And we should pass a federal law to shut down all these state lotteries.
SJG
The World Is A Ghetto
[view link]
Malo-Suavecito
[view link]
Carlos Santana - Samba Pa Ti
[view link]
Say a guy last night had this Rolls-Royce in a parking lot. Not sure the model. May have been a phantom.
Like this, but not the extended wheelbase:
[view link]
Do these cars really have wheel covers over steel rims?
They have retractable hood ornaments. Not sure if it works by and electric motor or by vacuum. This one was parked, but still retracted. Not sure the guy turned a switch for that, or if something was broken.
[view link]
the thing that's making tax evasion more difficult is hackers. once again i will refer you to wikileaks. make sure you check out apple for starters.
and the problem with the democrats, is that for the past two years every single thing Trump has done has been treated like the the sky is falling, it's the end of the world hysteria. including the recent tax changes. people are not paying attention anymore. they've cried wolf too many times.
same thing with the mainstream media. you would think after the recent election, where they literally got every single thing wrong they could possibly get wrong, that they would finally shut up and think, hey, maybe we need to re-evaluate things? but no, instead they launched even further into collective insanity with this whole fake Russian collusion narrative that is doing nothing except brainwashing libtards into believing in some insane alternate reality that doesn't exist. which is why when they try to label something as fake news, it just motivates people to read it even more. people are finally catching on that fake news is like conspiracy theory, both are terms invented by the CIA to act as kill switches for the brains of the less intelligent
Responding to BHF and anonlvone, I think the Democratic Party has been without effective voice in countering the Trump and Republican arguments. So what you get then is this histrionic sky is falling message. And yes it does wear out. It is not that effective.
What they need instead is to be able to put out a positive and constructive vision, which counters Trump and the Republicans.
Both Clinton and Sanders did try to do this. But their effectiveness was limited. Since the election, the effectiveness of the Democratic message has been even less.
A counter message would have to be based on inclusiveness in our society and our economics.
Sanders promoted free college. Clinton promoted debt free college and an extra 2% on upper incomes. They both in vague terms promoted improvements to Obama Care.
These are all good. Remember the boom, though short, gained from Bill Clinton's same extra %2 tax. The financial markets love it when they see that we are no longer racing towards a debt cliff. They want to think longer term.
But these things were still not enough to get working people to out vote the angry and disenfranchised, and the super rich. If more was on the table, like Euro style social democracy, like LBJ was trying to do, then a Democrat could have won.
Remember, the biggest category of voters is those who did not vote.
I also take note of Alabama, never seen an election which was so racial, even though neither candidate ever said anything overt about race.
It was former NAACP President Ben Jealous, who called for massive voter registration drives. Speaking of SoCar and GA, he showed that the number of eligible but unregistered blacks was enough to exceed the margins in any state wide contests by many times over, like 4x or 6x.
SJG
@san_jose_guy,
You're wrong about almost everything in this post.
First, people who earn a salary and receive a W-2 or a 1099 can't do much to evade their taxes, but business owners and landlords evade all the time. Also, the richer you are the more mobile you are: rich people can flee the state or even the country if taxes become too high.
Second, yes, taxes in the "social democracies," as you call them, are higher than they are in the US. I think Denmark's highest tax rate is about 55% for example... but it kicks in at a very low level of income. That means that relatively poor people are paying 55% income taxes. They also have a high VAT tax and a 25% sales tax, which I'm sure seems very regressive to you. Oh, and their corporate tax rate is 22% - only one point higher than Trump's rate. So are you sure that this is the socialist utopia that you're looking for? Having said that, I would also point out that most countries in Europe have consistently higher unemployment rates and consistently lower GDP growth rates than we do in the US.
Third, you're right, none of these governments are installed "at gunpoint," but they aren't very democratic, either. Most of these countries have heads of government that are appointed or chosen by legislative bodies rather than direct election. Some also have monarchs that appoint government officials. Few have direct elections for unitary chief executives, like the US has.
@ san_jose_guy - The Democratic Party can't respond effectively to Trump because it's mental map bears little resemblance to reality. The cognitive dissonance is so great, it's as if the Democrats are trying to plan a road trip in the United States by referring to a map from China. Probably not gonna turn out so well. The Democratic Party will not be able to counter Trump until it gets back to dealing with reality again, and I don't see that happening anytime soon.
You guys don't understand tax evasion really (I'm referencing BHF, ANAL,SJG) first of all tax evasion is a crime that is only committed by people that actually pay taxes, I know you are going to tell me about exceptions but that is a hard fact, secondly it has been increasingly difficult since we have pretty much gotten cash out of our marketplace and all transactions are tracked as a result it is difficult at best to have undeclared income as there is much you cannot do with it.
Actually the rise of Bitcoin and the Crypto non sovereign currencies has the potential to disrupt the orderly collection of taxes by sovereign governments so that is actually a big part of what is fueling that market.
There is a lot more to this subject.
@twentyfive,
You're right. But a landlord who receives personal checks, or a guy who owns a chain of laundromats, or perhaps a strip club owner, would all find it easier to underreport and evade their taxes than a person who receives a W-2 or a 1099 at the end of the year. And certainly tax evasion and underreporting was much more common back when we had 70 and 90% top marginal tax rates, which is the time period that SJG is talking about. I think most tax evasion nowadays is just people underreporting the sources of income that they know they can "get away with." Certain types of business owners tend to have more of these cash-based sources of income than the average taxpayer. But it is by no means the rule.
^^^It really doesn't work that way any more. The smart guys know it's cheaper to pay your taxes and invest in the markets, for the most part the gains way outperform the cost of taxes, and it's damn near impossible to put untaxed cash into a bundle in such a way to be able to purchase ant type of legitimate securities, bearer bonds have dissapeared, you could possibly buy precious metal or stones, but then you have a liquidity problem, hell it's cheaper and simpler to pay taxes and invest in liquid markets, any smart business person knows this,and the majority of W-9 and 1099 wage earners aren't really making enough money to make much of a difference in the collection of taxes as to be cost effective enough to cover the cost of prosecuting, and collecting the small amounts that they are stealing.
@twentyfive,
Read my original post. I'm sure large-scale tax evasion is not a common thing today. But it was much more common in the 1950s when we had confiscatory tax rates and a cash-based economy. If America ever went back to top rates of 70, 80, or 90 percent, which we had during the period that SJG is talking about, then I am convinced that we would see far more tax evasion than we do today. And if modern technology somehow makes it impossible or impractical to evade one's taxes then we would simply have a shrinking economy instead. People don't seem to mind paying 4 or 5 percent more, but they would definitely notice if rates doubled overnight.
Beyond that, I don't know what else to tell you. This is a very byzantine argument and it's beside my original point. His claim is that we would have a better country if we had much higher taxes. His so-called "proof" is that we once had much higher taxes and that we had all kinds of good things at that time. That's his reasoning anyway. The rest you can read for yourself.
Anonlvon, The Democratic Party has served working people well from FDR forward. What is true is that the Republican Party has been able to steer things so far to the Right that working people are really hurting, and so they become responsive to scapegoating of the poor, minorities, and immigrants, and they start to fall to anti-government arguments. Not much different from the environment which brought Hitler to power.
BHF,
That we would need about 10 to 15% extra tax, in the form of some upper income brackets on top of the pre-Trump bracket,s is coming to me from either Paul Krugman, Robert Reich, Joseph Stiglitz, and also David Kay Johnson.
Perhaps here:
[view link]
Serious progressive taxation is an American invention, Krugman quoting Picktty.
More Krugman
[view link]
According to Thom Hartman, if you want a middle-class then there has to be something to subsidize it. Most all societies have gone to the very rich and the very poor, when they don't have this. So pre-civil war it was free and low cost land.
After that things started to get bad, the Gilded Age. So the one who restored the middle-class was Franklin Roosevelt, via progressive taxation.
SJG
TJ Steet
[view link]
ELO
[view link]
Pink Floyd Live The Reunion Full Concert
[view link]
I know my ATF had a difficult time living a "poor life". She wanted to buy her new truck with cash, but not sure how she worked that out in the long run. Also, she kept safe deposit boxes with cash in them. Wasn't until she got out of the SC scene did she go legitimate. How, I don't know, but possibly through real estate as she became a broker. I had already cut it off between us.
@SJG - I don't have time to provide a history lesson right now. I will say your facts are in error. You might want to rethink your position while you have the chance.
I read about a teacher who said he hadn't flunked anyone in years but flunked an entire economics class recently.
After the first economics test, he said he would allow the class to practice socialism on the next 3 tests and everyone would get the same score. The class was full of young students, the type that are Bernie supporters. They thought it would be great. Anyway after the first test the students who studied hard were upset because they got a B instead of an A. Those who didn't study much were happy. When the next test came, the former A students thought, why should I work and study hard so that everyone else can get the results of my work so they didn't put in as much effort. The whole class got a D. Then the last test everyone flunked. An experiment in socialism. Those who risk more, need to reap more reward to justify all the work and effort or everyone will suffer with a smaller economic pie.
@san_jose_guy,
If the middle class really needs to be subsidized by the government then it wouldn't be worth having a middle class to begin with. And besides, I thought you disdained the middle class. Why would you want to subsidize something that you don't approve of?
I'll also just briefly note that you made absolutely no attempt to refute my points about democracy and taxation in Western Europe. You did however acknowledge that progressive taxation is a mostly American thing. This doesn't really jibe with your contention that the US is a right-wing "libertarian" country, does it? And just so you know, the Trump tax plan, if anything, makes the tax code MORE progressive, because it reduces the number of lower income people who will owe any income tax at all. That's one thing I strongly disapprove of. If we're going to have an income tax, everyone should pay something.
anonlvone, Thanks to the Democratic party and labor unions we have the 5 day 40 hour work week, sick leave and mandatory overtime. Unions help their members and all other working people as well. Here the unions picket when non-union shops do not pay "generally agreed to wages".
Rick999, we have lots of alternative types of schools which have no grades or examinations. Have had this for a long time.
BHF, remember that our entire economic system is controlled by the government, otherwise it would just be bullets and robber barons.
If we want to have a middle-class, then the government has to set the stage for it in every imaginable way. That it might be better not to have a middle class, well there is much to be said for this argument. The middle class is too consumptive and it depends upon having children to exploit. In my view, the middle-class is something we have to dump. But this is not what Democrats running for office are going to say.
"US is a right-wing "libertarian" country, does it?"
Well, lots and lots of people think that way. Always has been a strong strain. Started to take over, trying to roll back the New Deal, with R. M. Nixon's Southern Strategy, using covert racism to shift the South to the Republican column and start moving things to the right, and then with the rise of these Right-Wing / Libertarian think tanks.
Problem about the bottom end of the Trump plan is that those at the bottom will get zilch. Their extra money will just go to rent extraction.
And for those a leg higher up, it will just go to placating the wife in keeping up with the Joneses. Such is middle-class life.
If you want to help those at the bottom there have to be price controls of one sort or another on all the essentials, especially housing costs.
SJG
Rick999 wrote, "Those who risk more, need to reap more reward to justify all the work and effort or everyone will suffer with a smaller economic pie."
Our low income working people risk more each day than the rich do in a decade.
SJG
Talk about expanding the pie that way, supply side logic, is nonsense.
Our economy is consumption limited. If we want to expand the pie, then progressive taxation and downwards wealth transfer expands it.
But in this day of environmental awareness, I would not be trying to expand consumption, just to solve social inequality issues.
SJG
@san_jose_guy,
Haven't you ever noticed that the places that have rent control tend to be the most expensive cities to live in? NYC and San Francisco come immediately to mind. It just leads to housing shortages. If we apply price controls to housing, how are we supposed to incentivize developers to build more houses? And have you ever seen what it looks like when the government builds its own housing? Take a trip to NYC and check out the public housing projects built by Robert Moses. They're just lovely this time of year. I grew up near one of them. Such a garden spot it was. On some days there wasn't even one single murder, rape, or assault. Gee, where do I sign up?
And I'll note once again that you still haven't refuted my points about taxation and democracy in western Europe. Is it just possible that the US is a more "progressive" place than western Europe?
Rent control does have serious problems. But also, where things are the most expensive, that is where you are most likely to find people willing to vote for rent control.
Today it would be better if we don't build too much more in terms of housing, at least not low density or free market driven. If find the Democratic Party, as it is on most things, way too far to the Right.
If the idea is to let people with modest incomes live well, then probably the best way is public housing projects, public owned, and built in the largest scale possible in order to get economic efficiency.
Otherwise things like low income tax cuts, min wage, disability money, or Universal Basic Income will not have their intended effect. Frank Lloyd Wright was explaining about this during the 1930's.
Well, we will have to look at the nature of such projects historically. The recently deceased SF Mayor Ed Lee might have had a different view of such projects.
As I know in much of Western Europe and Scandanavia the upper income tax rates are much higher.
[view link]
This is complex because in the US, state taxes vary. Also, David Kay Johnson talks about brackets going up very high, like in the millions and millions per year.
But what I have heard is that it is about 10 to 15% more to get it the way it is in Western Europe.
Here for example, you can see the countries which are higher than the US
[view link]
34% for US, versus 40% to 45% for a group of other advanced industrial nations.
Seems to be Europe is higher
[view link]
SJG
Thomas Piketty, Paul Krugman and Joseph Stiglitz: The Genius of Economics
[view link]
@san_jose_guy,
You're right, they vote for rent control. That doesn't make it right, only popular. Bad things are often popular with the voters.
And you seem to have missed my point entirely about taxation in Western Europe. Obviously their top tax rates are higher than ours. No shit. But that's not what progressive taxation means. Progressive taxation means that the rich pay a much higher rate than the rest of us. And in much of Western Europe the high tax rates kick in at very low levels. As a refresher, this is what I said about taxation and democracy in Western Europe:
"... yes, taxes in the "social democracies," as you call them, are higher than they are in the US. I think Denmark's highest tax rate is about 55% for example... but it kicks in at a very low level of income. That means that relatively poor people are paying 55% income taxes. They also have a high VAT tax and a 25% sales tax, which I'm sure seems very regressive to you. Oh, and their corporate tax rate is 22% - only one point higher than Trump's rate. So are you sure that this is the socialist utopia that you're looking for? Having said that, I would also point out that most countries in Europe have consistently higher unemployment rates and consistently lower GDP growth rates than we do in the US.
Third, you're right, none of these governments are installed "at gunpoint," but they aren't very democratic, either. Most of these countries have heads of government that are appointed or chosen by legislative bodies rather than direct election. Some also have monarchs that appoint government officials. Few have direct elections for unitary chief executives, like the US has."
More on healthcare and the individual mandate repeal that was part of the tax bill:
Trump stated that repealing the individual mandate was essentially a repeal of Obamacare -- which isn't true. The fact that Trump is clueless is no surprise, but it's amusing that almost half of Republicans think that Obamacare has been repealed.
Only one leg of Obamacare was repealed. Premiums will definitely rise even more now that healthy people don't need to buy into the exchanges. But Medicaid expansion is still in effect and the poor get government subsides on the exchanges no matter how much premiums rise. People like myself with good employer-sponsored plans won't see much of a change. The small group of people that makes too much for government subsides, but who buy their own insurance, will really get screwed under repeal of the individual mandate. LOL! I think we have at least one guy here on TUSCL in that situation.
It is kind of ironic that repealing the individual mandate will likely only negatively impact those people who supported Trump the most (a guy who makes $65k and owns a sole proprietorship, etc.). It seems designed to increase premiums for unsubsidized enrolees just enough to cause public outrage and encourage red-state Democrats to come to the table and renegotiate a repeal and replacement. I'm not against it at all, but it isn't much of a solution in isolation.
"Who let this thread out of the cemetery?"
---------------
Oh...that would be me, @25. More interesting than discussing whether @Vince is a child molester.
Good post @Burlington, except that I doubt it will have any bearing on whether red-state Dems come to the table. In any case, what would the replacement look like? You either have something like Obamacare or single-payer. I would argue that repealing the individual mandate just allows Trump to push his own fake news and to say that he won. This is where things will stand until the 2018 elections. If anything, it pushes the country farther to the left and makes single-payer more likely.
I stopped debating SJG when I realized we have entirely different views on economic reality. If you can’t agree on at least a few foundations, there is no way to have a productive discussion. The sky is blue. No, it’s red !
@RandomMember,
I hear you. Trump relies on the imperfect knowledge of voters (just like all other politicians do, to some extent). But as I've already said, the solution is to A) take away the Employer Mandate, B) take away the employer tax deduction for providing health insurance to employees, and C) voucherize Medicare. I don't like to make predictions about how policies would impact the country, but I *guarantee* 100% that these three things would make prices for health insurance and general healthcare stop increasing and eventually go down. No question about it. I would think, as a liberal, you would be on board with this. Isn't it kind of creepy and paternalistic to have women asking their male employers to pay for their pap smears? The privacy concerns alone are enough to convince me. There are other things that would help, of course, like eliminating Certificates of Need for healthcare facilities, and drastically reforming patent laws for generic drugs, but that's the solution in a nutshell.
And it will never ever happen.
So, as I've said, a compromise that actually has a snowballs chance in hell of passing would be to imitate the Swiss healthcare system.
@mark94,
You're right, of course. On some level, I just don't think he's real. It's almost like an elaborate satire skit. But arguing with almost anyone can help sharpen one's mind.
@Burlington, I did a quick Google search on the Swiss system. If I've got it right,
(1) Buying insurance is compulsory
(2) Insurance carriers are not allowed to make a profit.
(3) Bias against pre-existing conditions is not allowed
(4) The poor receive subsidies
Except for (2), that sounds a lot like Obamacare. Surprised a Libertarian would consider that the "ideal" solution?
@RandomMember,
To respond to your bullet-points:
1) That's correct. Individuals buy their own policies. There's no Medicare, no Medicaid, no employer-sponsored coverage.
2) Carriers aren't allowed to make a profit on the "basic" policies, but they can make a profit on policies that offer more benefits.
3) That's correct.
4) That's correct but they're small. Subsidies are only for premiums that exceed 8% of a person's income. Below that, you pay your own way.
I would never say that this is ideal, but it's better than our confusing patchwork system, and it's better than the socialist models that are found in the UK, Canada, etc. That's why it's called a compromise: no one gets everything they want. But Switzerland has one of the most free-market healthcare systems in the world. That should tell you something about just how much socialism there is out there in the medical industry. Unfortunately, we are never going to have a free market in healthcare ever again. So I would offer this as a compromise:
[view link]
Most Americans are happy with their employer-sponsered plan. Covering the remainder with Obamacare (which looks very Swiss-like) looks like a practical solution. There's some redistribution of wealth and some drag on GDP, but worth it IMO.
@RandomMember,
You're moving the goalpost. Of course they like it. What does that have to do with it? The problem with employer-sponsored coverage is that it leads to over-use of the system, which leads to higher costs, and so on. As medical costs increase, premiums also increase. And when employers pay more for insurance premiums, they inevitably pay less for wages. You know all those liberal complaints about how middle-income wages have been stagnant for decades? Well this is exactly why it happened: total compensation, including health benefits, increased, but paychecks remained the same because a greater and greater share of total compensation was consumed by healthcare costs paid by the employer.
But people like it because they like the idea of being taken care of, and they hate being forced to make choices, and they are mostly economically illiterate. They also like Medicare and Medicaid, which cause damage to the system as well.
Yes, ObamaCare is based on RomneyCare which is based on a plan from the Heritage Foundation which is based in part on the Swiss healthcare system. Personally, I find ObamaCare to be somewhat less objectionable than Medicare, Medicaid, or employer-sponsored healthcare. I still think it's bad. But it has a few good aspects. For one thing, under ObamaCare, at least SOME people will choose and pay for their own plans. That's a good thing. The rest of it is mostly bad. But if we ended the Employer Mandate, rolled back the Medicaid expansion, and essentially shifted everyone into an ObamaCare plan, then it would look more like the Swiss system. And it would be a small step in the right direction. Again, I doubt this would ever happen, and it would still be light-years away from the purely free market healthcare system that I would want, but it would still be an improvement. Let's say this system has a 5% odds of ever becoming law. A free market healthcare system has approximately 0% odds, sadly.
As a moderate Dem, the Swiss system sounds wonderful to me. However, maybe you can explain carefully why the Swiss system does not, also, lead to over-use?
Seems to me a totally free-market system could not possibly provide affordable insurance to everyone. Too many people would suffer. You can correct me if I'm wrong. I would reject a free-market system just on moral grounds.
In a practical sense, it would take an act of God to make the insurance layer profit-free in America. And the idea of making insurance compulsory is just way more radical than the Obamacare individual mandate (which is just a penalty). So the Swiss model is just not going to happen here. Adding something like Obamacare is a way to save a lot of suffering and human life with minimal changes to the present system. Yes, it's a patchwork quilt and yes it requires taxing the wealthy.
@Random, downwards wealth transfer helps with the GDP, as that gets more money into hands further down, and it recirculates, like in the form of consuming health care services. The more money going further down, the more the consumption, and this is what defines the size of our economy. Supply Side Economics has always been a scam pulled on the electorate. It goes back to 1930's efforts to roll back the New Deal.
@BHF, economists say that to get a system like they have in Western Europe, we need about 10 to 15% higher top tax brackets. Whether it is completely focused at the top, or if it also reaches down lower, would be a subject for debate.
Serious progressive taxation is an American invention, but other countries took it up, and today they have higher taxation than the US currently has.
The traditional objective behind all of this, Keynesianism, has been full employment. And to this end, it worked.
We moved away from that, not because it failed, but because the electorate rejected it, mostly with Ronald Reagan. A big factor in this was Richard Nixon's Southern Strategy, playing off of our nations horrible history of race relations, and being able to break up the New Deal coalition by shifting the South to Republicans. Another factor was the Religious Right getting into politics, and dumping their Southern Baptist Sunday School Teacher, because he was trying to enforce the 1964 Civil Rights Act on Bob Jones University. Another factor was the Iranian Hostage Crisis.
Today though I would add a caveat. I don't think that we could return to the historical goal of Keynesianism, even though this goal is the stated goal of both parties. And that goal is full employment. I don't think the Republicans really care about this, but they say they do. I believe that the Democrats really do.
Because of further technical progress and because of environmental concerns, and because there is starting to be an awareness that the middle-class family is designed to exploit children, we now need to move much further to the Left. The middle-class family has to be held in check. And we need to plan on a future with a much smaller workforce, shorter work weeks, shorter working lives, and where many people may never really be part of the work force. These should be seen as good things, not as social problems.
**************************
Some news:
Official, voter fraud claim dismissed, Doug Jones is winner
[view link]
Teen called out for violating high school dress code by not wearing bra.
[view link]
Kylie Jenner Cosmetics Truck
[view link]
This is really disturbing because this woman really believes in the fallacy of ~~mental illness~~ and in there being efficacy in the drugs. Convincing her of this is a serious form of abuse:
Lithium, Love and Losing My Mind: Jaime Lowe on Her Life with Bipolar Disorder & Drugs to Manage It, promoting the fallacy of mental illness, and the self abuse of psychiatric medication:
[view link]
Homeless People Being Given 1 way bus ticked out of town
[view link]
Just as a quick example, my wife needed an orthopedic surgeon earlier this year. I was able to shop for a surgeon across the entire country, and we flew out to California. The surgeon took us immediately. We would never get the same treatment in the UK or Canada.
@RandomMember,
Under the Swiss system, many things aren't covered by the so-called basic plans. People who don't choose a more comprehensive plan would be forced to pay cash for certain treatments, which would reduce over-use of the system. In other words, you pay a higher premium if you want more coverage, and vice versa. But let's be clear: there would still be *some* over-use of any system that relies on health insurance or the government to pay for care, including in Switzerland. If you want to eliminate all over-use from the system, you would have to switch to a system in which people pay cash for all but the most serious of medical procedures. That's how things used to be. But don't worry, this will never happen again in our country.
Under our system in the US, the over-use comes from people not being responsible for their own premiums and from insurance companies being unable to set prices based on prior claims history. This last problem is called community rating, and Obamacare basically made that the rule nationwide, compounding the problem. In other words, an overweight woman with cancer must pay the same premium as a man who is in excellent health.
Also, a system of co-pays results in over-use of the system. You have the sniffles? That'll cost you $20. You have some acne? $20. You need an echocardiogram? $20. When prices are so low across the board, there's very little to discourage over-use. Under the Swiss system, people pay higher premiums if they choose a plan that uses co-pays instead of "co-insurance."
In addition, everything is covered under the US system, even petty predictable conditions like toenail fungus and the common cold. Not so under the basic plans in Switzerland.
So, taken together, under the American Employer-sponsored system, somebody else is responsible for the premiums, the premiums are the same for everyone regardless of their unique claims history, every copay costs a similar amount regardless of the quality of the doctor and the kind of condition that's being treated, and everything is covered (even things that you know you don't need). Hence, over-use.
Compare that with homeowners insurance in America: you are responsible for your own premiums, premiums vary depending on your claims history, deductibles tend to be high, and basic maintenance is not covered. You may not like the way it works, but we don't have an eternal crisis in the homeowners insurance market, unlike in healthcare.
@san_jose_guy,
No offense, but it's getting a bit tedious having to refute the same points over and over again. Progressive taxation is not the same as simply higher taxes: it means a system in which the wealthy pay much higher rates than everyone else, which is clearly not the case in most of Western Europe, but which is the case here in America. And Keynesianism definitely does not mean higher taxes AND higher government spending at the same time. I don't know where you're getting this stuff from. You can have opinions without tarring other philosophies with your own idiosyncratic views.
Burl,
Best thing is the high tax state people whining that now someone else (ME and others) won't be paying for their incompetent local governments! Love it!
And Burlington, while you are obviously a smart guy, you're views are influenced by Right Wing media sources, like this Reason Magazine, and these are worthless.
I believe that Europe has higher taxes, though I don't know how progressive they are. This would be something to look at, along with the history of it.
Keynesianism usually does mean higher taxes and higher spending. Seems usually to support modest deficit spending, though not always.
And Clubber what money you might be expected to pay in taxes is just money you got off of other people, and in a society which is completely unfair. Your claim to it is just provisional, it can indeed be revoked.
SJG
The Growing Economic Divide in America: Paul Krugman on Wealth, Income, Education
[view link]
Paul Krugman - We Need to Raise Taxes
[view link]
Munk Debate on Taxing the Rich - Paul Krugman
[view link]
SJG
Bitcoin 'Ought to Be Outlawed,' Says Joseph Stiglitz
[view link]
on Taxes
[view link]
David Cay Johnston, 2/19/15, "Taxing the many to give to the few"
[view link]
In Conversation: Robert Reich and Joseph Stiglitz
[view link]
SJG
@Clubber,
I totally agree. I actually live in one of those high tax states, but I have nonetheless been advocating that they completely get rid of state and local tax deductions. No one living in Phoenix should be paying for a police station in Fresno. Besides, deductions are supposed to be for valid *business* expenses, so that you are only taxed on your earnings rather than on gross revenue. It's egregious that they allow deductions for silly things like mortgage interest and sales tax. Unfortunately they failed to completely remove the State and Local Tax Deduction from the Code, which means that people will still have to add up their receipts every April to find out if they are entitled to a deduction. They should just completely get rid of it!
@san_jose_guy,
If you think that Reason is a right-wing magazine, then you clearly haven't read their coverage of gay marriage, immigration, prostitution, drugs, police brutality, the death penalty, criminal justice reform, or Donald Trump. But feel free to believe whatever you want.
As for Keynesianism, honestly, it's easier to just quote myself at this point. I wrote the following on December 20 in another thread, but you did not respond:
"Listen, you keep talking about Keynesianism when you really mean something else. Standard Keynesian dogma says to CUT taxes and increase government spending when the economy is weak; and to increase taxes and CUT spending when the economy is "overheated." They believe that this would "prime the pump" and smooth out the peaks and valleys of the business cycle. At no point that I'm aware of would John Maynard Keynes advocate simultaneously raising taxes and increasing government spending. He would have thought this was counterproductive. What you're advocating is just welfarism or redistributionism, not Keynesianism."
Unless they've changed the definition since I graduated, that's my understanding of what Keynesianism is. Keynes believed we should concentrate on the demand side, rather than the supply side which had been emphasized by classical liberal economics. His policy prescriptions were counter-cyclical, while those of the classical liberals were pro-cyclical:
[view link]
I personally think the democrats are doing a great job of making it seem like republicans fucked up tax cuts but if people have more money than before, the people might think they like tax cuts. If charity suffers or if others suffer because of it, some will want to make changes. I just need to make a million dollars in 2018 and then I will be happy with paying lots of taxes. Starting off with no income. Saw a video tonight on how to turn a $5000 account into $60000 in 6 months without taking big risks. I'd be happy turning a 5000 account into 30000 in 6 months. It will take some work finding good set ups.
I think I'm going to make it a 2018 goal or challenge. If I succeed, then 30000 into 180000 in another 6 months. I think 5000 into 60000 is not realistic without getting too risky. If I become a millionaire in the next 2 years, I will make it rain at least once in a strip club. My 2018 and 2019 goals. Not sure how long these will last.
Burlington-
Your contention that employer-sponsored health plans encourage over-use is not at all convincing. My company provides something like 25 choices depending on what deductible and co-insurance rate you choose (and if you want a PPO rather than HMO). If you insist on a low deductible, you pay for it through the nose. It's simply not true that employer-sponsored plans have a single co-pay for everything.
So in the Swiss system you pay more if you have a pre-existing condition like cancer. But your premiums are limited to 8% of your salary. So healthy people still subsidize the sick and affordable insurance is available to everyone. And in any case, what does this have to do with over-use?
Your post misses the most obvious driver of healthcare cost: single-payer systems are able to dictate the price that doctors can charge much better than an assortment of insurance companies.
You still didn't mention whether your Libertarian free-market utopia would provide affordable insurance to everyone? I think I know the answer.
Back to the original topic, repealing the individual mandate only effects less than 5% of the population that buys their own insurance without subsidies. Many of these fools voted for Trump and dug their own hole. Right @Dugan?
From the WSJ on the assumption that Trump voters are fools
This time one year ago, the assumption dominating political coverage was that the only people more stupid than Donald Trump were the deplorables who elected him.
Since then, of course, President-elect Trump has become President Trump. Over his 11 months in office, he has put Neil Gorsuch on the Supreme Court and four times as many judges on the appellate courts as Barack Obama did his first year; recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel; withdrawn from the Paris climate accord; adopted a more resolute policy on Afghanistan than the one he’d campaigned on; rolled back the mandate forcing Catholic nuns, among others, to provide employees with contraception and abortifacients; signed legislation to open up drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge; initiated a bold, deregulatory assault on the administrative state—and topped it all off with the first major overhaul of the tax code in more than 30 years.
And yet that Mr. Trump is a very stupid man remains the assumption dominating his press coverage.
I love tax cuts IF they are couple with spending reductions. I would have hoped that politicians would have learned that after the Bush 43 administration (instead of cutting taxes and increasing spending). Unfortunately, that does not seem to be the case again.
Rick,
"If charity suffers or if others suffer because of it, some will want to make changes."
Taxes have little to do with charitable giving. So many variables, but let's look at one from the philanthropy round table organization. Now I picked this stat for a single reason, Seems the tax cuts got a total of ZERO democratic votes in the Congress, yet about 98% of the republican vote. So what follows is from the above organization:
"Among Democrats, Independents, and Republicans alike, almost exactly half of the group averaged $100-$999 in annual charitable donations at the time of this 2005 poll. There was virtually no difference among the parties in the size of that moderate-giving group, so those results were not included in the graph to the left.
If, however, you zero in on giving that is heavier or lighter than the middle range (the bars pictured here), you find that the parties differ a lot. Democrats and Independents both had many zero-to-very-light givers (less than $100 for the year), and modest numbers of heavier givers. Republicans, in comparison, had comparatively few skinflints, and numerous serious donors—31 percent sharing at least $1,000 with charity, versus 17 percent among Democrats, and 20 percent among Independents."
BTW, they have pictures if you need them. :)
That’s why Trump, and the American people, are going to keep winning in 2018 and 2020. He has already reversed much of the damage that Obama, Clinton, and the Bushes did to our economy and foreign policy. Next up are LBJ’s Great Society welfare entitlements.
What is the response from the left ? Alternative policies ? No, it’s name calling and an empty Russia witch hunt.
Progressive smugness is not a winning platform.
@RandomMember,
Without a doubt, as I acknowledged, the Swiss system does not eliminate over-use. Only a cash-based system would do that, as I also said. But of course, a system in which we all pay cash for whatever we need would be attacked as "heartless," and it wouldn't survive the voters. A system like the one we have for homeowners insurance in the USA would be a big improvement, too; in other words, we would have to make the health insurance system look more like the homeowners insurance system, but even then there would still be *some* over-use.
Regardless, you are absolutely correct that healthy Swiss policyholders and taxpayers continue to subsidize the sick and the poor under their system. I floated it as a compromise between the left's desire for universal healthcare and the right's desire to maintain a private market infrastructure. It only limits over-use of the system because most people are forced to take ownership of their own policies and they will see their out-of-pocket expenses rise and fall somewhat based on their own actions from year to year. This imposes at least some discipline on the marketplace. I like the way the Swiss system tackles the problems of portability and consumer choice, too, but because it still relies on the government and insurance companies to finance healthcare, it still has some over-use built into it. I would never dispute this.
As for Employer-sponsored plans, I can tell you that my current company offers me three choices of health plan. My previous employer offered two choices, a PPO and an HMO. My father, who worked for a State government, also had two health plan choices before he retired, both offered by the same insurance company with nearly identical networks and co-pays. There's not a lot of choice for most employees. The employer makes the most critical decisions for the employee by choosing the packages and the carriers. And if you change jobs you can't take your plan with you.
Regardless, at the end of the day, all of these systems will encourage over-use of the healthcare system because they create the dynamic whereby people pay a flat monthly fee and receive an unlimited amount of care. The closer we get to universal single-payer coverage, the more over-use we'll see, which I believe leads to inevitable rationing, by private HMOs or governments alike. But a single-payer system without competition that imposes terms on doctors is just a form of price-control. According to economics, price controls lead to shortages. And, of course, if they don't ration care, and if they don't impose price controls, then the excessive demand would break the Treasury over time. It's inevitable. Thinking otherwise is like claiming that water isn't wet because it doesn't fit with your political platform.
Anyway, it should be noted that Switzerland is no libertarian paradise LOL. But I would say that many of the small German states that were excluded from Bismarck's unification are some of the most free countries on earth today, including Luxembourg, Switzerland, and Lichtenstein (in fact, Prince Hans-Adam von Lichtenstein is actually a libertarian of sorts, and I think he occasionally speaks at liberty conferences here in the States).
In a genuine "libertarian utopia," we wouldn't be worried about providing affordable health insurance to everyone. We would leave that to charities. I would never make the claim that everyone would be better off under a libertarian system. Who knows? Only governments and politicians make the claim that everyone will be happy and healthy and taken care of. It's not possible, but they make the claim nonetheless.
Good post, @Burlington. Thanks for forcing me to take a careful look at the Swiss system. I'm really not all that liberal, and I think the Swiss system could be a favorite for me. It's not single-payer and therefore expensive (second only to the US in terms of per-capita spending). But it allows wealthier people to choose their doctor and there's not the rationing that you get with single-payer. Good discussion.
25,
Didn't say you said "deplorable". It was your "commander in chief" that used it, pissing off most of the people that occupy the vast majority of these United States.
I simply combined it with your use of "dummies". I'll certainly accept your apology for your inaccuracies. BTW, Have a Safe and Happy New Year!
How did you get my commander in chief from that. You assume that everyone that doesn’t like Trump is a Democrat, don’t you remember the first three letters in that word(ass u me)
Feel free to apologize to me at your leisure.
mark,
"Progressive smugness is not a winning platform." Interestingly, the left thinks it is what with their "certain" landslide in the midterms. Also interesting is that one of the VERY FEW pundits that actually picked President Trump to win say they will be slaughtered in 2018.
Still a lot of time between now and November 2018 for things to change!
"gay marriage, immigration, prostitution, drugs, police brutality, the death penalty, criminal justice reform"
That these might be written about in Reason Magazine is just smoke screen, cover, a feel good. What it is really about is Social Darwinism.
SJG
Bitcoin 'Ought to Be Outlawed,' Says Joseph Stiglitz
[view link]
In Conversation: Robert Reich and Joseph Stiglitz
[view link]
Bernie Sanders & Robert Reich discuss how we defeat Republicans' horrid 'health care' proposal
[view link]
Joseph Stiglitz on Taxes
[view link]
David Cay Johnston, 2/19/15, "Taxing the many to give to the few"
[view link]
Why can't we have 100 Senators as good as Bernie Sanders and Robert Reich?
Bernie Sanders & Robert Reich discuss how we defeat Republicans' horrid 'health care' proposal
[view link]
SJG
The democrats seem to think that opposition to tax reform will be a winning issue in 2018. By October, the majority of workers will have seen an increase in their take home pay because of lower withholding. Many will see a pay increase as a result of a tightening labor market. I just don’t understand how anti-reform will result in a blue wave.
Additionally, the IG’s report on all the dirty business among Obama’s people will be fully reported, and indictments made, by mid 2018.
25,
"your" goes with "deplorable". A simple joining of the two. That and the similarities in rhetoric make the equation easily understandable. Well, at least to some that can logically evaluate. Don't take it so hard that you are in that group, as many are. Things will continue to improve over the next 7 years.
I don't take very hard as a matter of fact I learned a long time ago that if a person has a learning deficiency, the proper thing to do is not humiliate them and quietly take them on the side and see if there is some way you could possibly help them.
All the morons say the same thing, use the same terms, same buzz words, so effectively they were indoctrinated the same way.
As an explanation when a person says i'm not politically correct if my mother was alive she would say that's just an excuse for being rude.
Our president being the short fingered vulgarian that he is, is just plain rude.
“Short fingered vulgarian”
As I said, progressive smugness is not a winning platform. We have a booming economy. Trump has a long list of accomplishments in 2017. The only argument that Democrats have is that Trump is stupid and incompetent, which has been disproved time and again by the way Trump has won against Democrat obstruction.
Here is a list of the top 10 accomplishments by Trump in 2017 ( from Real Clear Politics ). The claims that Trump is stupid and incompetent collapse when confronted by this historic list.
The Economy. Trump triumphed in 2016 primarily because he spoke to the angst of the average American worker who felt – correctly – forgotten and exploited by a crony globalist system that benefited only the connected few. In 2017, the real economy accelerated, as opposed to just asset prices. Worker productivity ramped up to 3 percent in the third quarter, far above the scant 1.2 percent average of the Obama years. Truck orders surged this fall and manufacturing jobs jumped higher, as November recorded the highest gains in 15 years, according to the payroll firm ADP. Reflecting this growth, small business confidence soared as National Federation of Independent Business CEO Juanita Duggan declared, “We haven’t seen this kind of optimism in 34 years.”
ISIS. Just months into the Trump presidency, their so-called caliphate has been crushed by a coalition organized and supported by the U.S. military. What a joy to see some of the world’s oldest Christian communities in the Mideast again worship freely at Christmas.
The Border. Illegal crossings have plunged as much as 60 percent vs. pre-Trump levels. Clear-eyed rhetoric and an invigorated ICE show immediate results as we reclaim control from human and drug smugglers. ICE Director Thomas Homan recently said that “the president has done more for border security and public safety than any of the six presidents I’ve worked for.”
Judges. Perhaps the longest legacy of Trump will be in the judiciary. In 2017, he fulfilled a campaign promise by getting conservative judges seated, including Neil Gorsuch on the Supreme Court and a record pace of 12 Circuit Court confirmations.
Taxes. Trump did what hasn’t been done in Washington since the top movie was “Top Gun”: He signed comprehensive tax reform. I believe that immediate business expensing will become the most potent of these improvements as companies large and small will finally invest aggressively in capital expenditures – new software, plants, equipment.
Regulation. The administrative state empowered the bureaucratic swamp at the expense of American entrepreneurs. By one key measure of regulatory growth -- the page count of the Federal Register, which lists all new rules -- Trump reduced regulation by almost 50 percent in 2017.
Religious liberty. Trump ended the government war on groups like the Little Sisters of the Poor, and ordered exemptions for religious groups that cannot, by conscience, pay for practices they reject such as abortion-inducing medications.
Trade agreements. Trump’s put the world on notice that America will no longer be exploited at the bargaining table with pacts that may benefit U.S. corporate chieftains but not American workers. Exiting TPP and demanding a re-negotiation of NAFTA represent important achievements for economic nationalism.
Military buildup. Trump just signed a 2018 defense budget that features -- pending congressional rollback of the 2011 budget sequester -- large increases overall, including for troop salaries and missile defense. The president also finally demanded that our wealthy NATO allies pay their fair share for defense of the West.
Russia. Contrary to the unceasing mainstream media narrative, Trump pursued tough policies against Vladimir Putin and Russia. He armed the Ukraine, denounced Russian aggression in his historic Warsaw speech, and slapped serious new sanctions on Moscow. So much for being Putin’s “puppet.”
^^^That’s your list, there are plenty of folks that disagree with your assessment. Problem with your thinking is it’s all in the echo chamber, need to realize that there are elections all of the time and opinions change if you don’t adapt eventually you get left behind.
If you don’t adapt eventually you get left behind.
My point exactly. The Democrats are acting like it is still October 2016. They still have no policy alternatives. No positive agenda. No clear idea of what they stand for or who their leader is ( Bernie ? Hillary ? Warren ?).
The Democrats think an anti-Trump message is all they need to win. That’s already been tried and failed. They need to stand for something, and explain how that’s better than the booming economy we now have.
Are you better off than you were 1 year ago ? Hells yes!
I really am tired of debating with you about everything under the sun you can keep it up all day but it doesn't make you right. Truthfully you are not a Republican, you are a right wing ideologue, no matter what I think you will never respect the facts, the facts are that this country is just as much mine as it it yours, and as loud as you get, you will have to compromise like it or not, that is a fact. I guarantee you that the pendulum will swing the other way at some point and the more abusive the folks at the apex of the swing in in one direction the quicker the return will be.
Facts ? You never present facts. You smugly insult others intelligence and call people names. That’s the depth of your debate skills.
I present 10 positive accomplishments by Trump. Do you rationally refute them ? No, you call me an ideologue, as though that wins the day for you.
I’d call you a bully, but you are so ineffective at that, it doesn’t really apply.
Scott Adams has described how Cognitive Dissonance has led to Trump Derangement Syndrome among the progressive elite. Before the election, they literally thought it was laughable that Trump might win. They believed Trump was a vulgar buffoon that no one would want as President. After the election, they either could admit they were wrong ( a psychological impossibility ) or come up with an explanation.
- The American people are racist rednecks, or
- Russia
So convinced were they that one of these was the explanation, that they forced a Special Counsel to investigate collusion. So far, they’ve found some Facebook ads purchased by some Russians. That’s it.
They take it as evident that anyone who supports Trump is a fool, even if that’s half the country. They feel no need to prove this belief.
Even so, TDS continues. People like twentyfive refuse to accept that they were wrong about Trump. This cognitive dissonance is making them act in ever increasing irrational ways.
25 & mark,
Interesting conversation. The two F's. Feelings and Facts. Facts and Feelings. Bottom line we each look at the world through our own eyes and often our wallets. For me, facts give great feelings! Even a COLA this coming year, not that it makes much of a difference.
I've gone through Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, 41, Clinton, 43, Obama, and now Trump. There have been ups and downs with them and my life. There is a correlation between the two.
Without getting into boring specifics, I can say that the first two, to young to remember much, but I know I had a mother AT HOME and a father that provided for was well enough that we wanted for nothing. For myself, the best of times in my family have been under Republican administrations and Kennedy. !00% accurate, of course not, but obvious enough to see the correlation.
I was a democrat in the time when the democratic party is much like the establishment Republicans of today, but left them. Kennedy and Johnson were mostly responsible for my enlightenment.
^^^ I would say that my experience mirrors yours except I was born during the Eisenhower administration my belief is that much of this polarization, stems from the belief that by having a different opinion than our own you are a bad guy and most of this could be worked out by reasonable folks, but the problem is that many here think that they hold the key to the truth.
We understand and respect the opinion of each other, unfortunately many don’t find a way to separate their opinion from their like and dislike.
@mark94,
I like a lot of the things on your list, too. Perhaps enough for me to vote for Trump in 2020... we'll see how he behaves after the midterms before I make a decision. But some of the stuff on the list is very bad, too. I'm not sure how someone can call himself a libertarian and still support Trump's views on: globalization, the war with ISIS/Syria, the border, trade agreements, the military buildup, arming the Ukraine, and "slapping serious new sanctions on Moscow," just to take a few things from your list. What enemies are we really preparing to fight with all those missiles anyway? We already have enough nukes to destroy the whole world several times over! And why exactly should we arm the Ukraine? And what did Russia do that justifies sanctions in your opinion? Also, I don't know how you can square "economic nationalism" with libertarianism. Economic nationalists ultimately believe that businesses exist to serve the good of the nation; libertarians believe that businesses exist because their owners say so.
Listen, people can call themselves whatever they want, but are you sure that "libertarian" is the right word? I would have said maybe "constitutionalist," but there are actually some things on your list that even the Constitution Party wouldn't approve of. Maybe a "Pat Buchananite?" Or how about just a regular plain old "conservative?" What's wrong with calling yourself a "Trump Conservative?" How do your views differ from standard conservatism? I'm just curious
I’m a pro-America fiscal conservative and a social libertarian, with a little bit of Kissinger Realpolitic thrown in. That’s not Republican, Democrat, conservative, or liberal. I choose to call that libertarian. You can call me Ralph.
@mark94,
Well, there's a lot of room for disagreement in the libertarian movement, that's for sure. Of course it's possible that you may be just a socially liberal Republican, not that there's anything wrong with that either. But then even that label would not be 100% accurate because I'm assuming that you're also pro-life and pro-Second Amendment, unlike a typical social liberal.
I guess you are what you are, and everyone is entitled to their views. It used to make me cringe to hear people describe Rupert Murdoch, Bill Maher, and Glenn Beck as libertarians, because that's not what they are, but it is what it is. Also, I should apologize for bringing Pat Buchanan into this; he is the opposite of a social libertarian, and he's mostly against war... plus I'm sure that Pat Buchanan absolutely hates Henry Kissinger, as do most populists. I don't like Buchanan (or Kissinger for that matter), but that's no reason for me to misrepresent his views.
Anyway, most people are not very ideological and neither is Trump. I wish Trump were *more* ideological, to be honest.
Oh, and you're absolutely right about the Trump Derangement Syndrome, but I think it cuts both ways. There are people out there who would hate Trump no matter what he does... but there are also people for whom Trump can do no wrong. And they're deranged, too! Do you remember when Trump defended Putin by criticizing American foreign policy and saying that we have "a lot of killers" and that we're "not so innocent?" (It was during an interview with Bill O'Reilly.) Just try to imagine the shit storm from the Right if Obama or Hillary Clinton had said the exact same thing.
I agree with you about what the ideal federal government should look like. And I don't want the State governments to do much beyond than that either. But it seems that many things on the list that you posted from Real Clear Politics are in contradiction to that ideal. And how strong would you like our military to be anyway? I personally think we have more than enough already.
"It is urgent for Americans to think and speak clearly about President Trump’s inability to do either. This seems to be not a mere disinclination but a disability. It is not merely the result of intellectual sloth but of an untrained mind bereft of information and married to stratospheric self-confidence."
@RandomMember,
Honestly, I think you may be right. I've seen interviews with him from his younger days and he spoke with clarity. Not the usual Trump Word Salad. He wasn't an intellectual, but he sounded polished and confident. Something has changed. Not that it matters much to me really. Reagan allegedly had dementia during the later years of his presidency and I still would have voted for him.
Reagan did not have dementia while President. That has been vehemently denied by those who worked with him in the latter years of his presidency.
As far as Trump, there were claims of dementia and/or late stage syphilis during the campaign. Just more false oppo research.
What a load of horse manure. Conservative thinkers have known about the Democratic gameplan from the beginning, and have been speaking about it for at least a year now. First they were gonna try the fake Russian Collusion narrative. If that didn't work they were going to try to accuse him of sex assault. And if that failed they were going to argue mental instability. All you dullards who think Trump has dementia need to shut off CNN and step away from the boob tube.
@mark94,
Who knows, man? You're probably right. Like I said, it wouldn't affect my vote, regardless. Ideology is all that matters to me. Literally. Nothing else matters at all. I don't care about Russia. I don't care about dementia. I don't care about sexual harassment. I don't care about mean tweets. I don't care about his stupid hair and constant bragging and difficulty with complete sentences. All I care about is ideology. I want to know exactly what I'm getting before I pay for it. That's all that matters to me. That's why I didn't vote for Trump last time, but I *might* next time, if he proves himself.
Bill O'Reilly claimed that Reagan was demented in the latter years of his presidency and he fought it out with George Will about this. I listened to their argument on satellite radio during my commute home from work last year (because I'm a strange lonely fuck who listens to political shit when other people are talking on the phone or playing music) and I have to admit, O'Reilly's argument was more persuasive than George Will's. I never in a million years thought I would ever say that. But who even knows? There is so much partisan back-and-forth about the Gipper and his record, that the truth has seemingly been lost to history. I will reserve all judgement about Reagan's mental condition, and I'll only say that I think he said a lot of great things, and he did a few good things, and I would have happily voted for him.
25,
"...most of this could be worked out by reasonable folks..."
Couldn't agree more, but seems these days those not in power won't even come to the table. Let's see what happens next year on the DACA/Wall "debate". My guess, it will be the same as the rest, the democrats won't sit and debate, rather just "resist". They don't have the votes, they take their toys and go home. THAT is sad!
Pretty impressive for a big government, incompetent barbarian with dementia. From WaPo, after noting that nearly every federal agency shrunk in size in 2017:
“The White House is warning agencies to brace for even deeper cuts in the 2019 budget it will announce early next year, part of an effort to lower the federal deficit to pay for the new tax law, according to officials briefed on the budgets for their agencies. One possible casualty: a raise that federal employees historically have received when the economy is humming.
The administration’s effort to reshape the workforce of nearly 2 million civil servants that serves as the backbone of the government has provoked a contentious culture shift.
Federal workers fret their jobs could be zeroed out amid buyouts and early retirement offers that have prompted hundreds of their colleagues to leave, according to interviews with three-dozen employees across the government. Many have chafed as supervisors lay down new rules they say are aimed at holding poor performers and problem workers to account.
A hiring freeze technically lifted in the spring has been kept in practice at most agencies, hollowing out many offices. And the slow pace of political appointments has left a number of departments with a leadership vacuum in their upper ranks.”
mark,
Some, well, many have yet to grasp that President Trump wasn't a politician or in anyway a "government" guy. But I bet he learned a lot about dealing with politicians and government in his business endeavors and is now putting that knowledge to work for this country.
Putting that knowledge to work, making a mess on a much larger scale.
Trump may not have dementia, but he certainly has some kind of tunnel vision in his thinking. He could mark the last of our electoral democracy.
SJG
Edwyn Collins
[view link]
Black Keys
[view link]
Miles Kane
[view link]
White Stripes
[view link]
“He could mark the last of our electoral democracy.”
We now know that Obama and Clinton allies in the FBI and DOJ were working first to prevent Trump from becoming President, then to facilitate his impeachment. They did this by using the Hillary funded dossier to get wiretapping warrants on 200 Trump campaign officials. When that failed, they used the dossier to force a Special Counsel to dig up dirt on Trump ( including illegally seizing emails AFTER the election ).
So, with this actual anti-Trump conspiracy to overturn an election using Russian sources, explain why you think Trump marks the last of our electoral democracy.
“Trump has some kind of tunnel vision”
Yes, that type of tunnel vision is called focus. Drain the swamp. Shrink the size of government. Defend American interests. Things that have been missing for 25 years.
The government is only our collective expression of the desire to build a workable society. Sure we do have interests, but they are not what Trump and the Right thinks they are. So I say again, Trump and the Right are living with a kind of tunnel vision.
The swamp is that which is created by Trump and others like him dodging taxes and using bully tactics to obtain obscene levels of wealth, and at the expense of other people.
Things started going seriously in the wrong direction with Reagan, in terms of policy. But before that with Nixon working to undermine our electoral democracy via appeals to racism and using divisive wedge issues which play to religion.
SJG
Edwyn Collins
[view link]
Black Keys
[view link]
Miles Kane
[view link]
White Stripes
[view link]
Jolene
[view link]
Jefferson Airplane - White Rabbit and Somebody To Love, American Bandstand, 1967
[view link]
Please Don´t Let Me Be Misunderstood- The Animals
[view link]
Sarah Connor - Son Of Preacher Man
[view link]
Will You Still Love Me Tomorrow - Amy Winehouse
[view link]
judy henske - high flying bird - 1963 from HOOTENANNY
[view link]
Jefferson Airplane
[view link]
Jefferson Airplane "The Other Side of this Life"
[view link]
So, according to you, if someone is elected whose policies you disagree with, that undermines democracy. You may want to research the meaning of democracy. It allows everyone to vote, not just you.
That people get to vote does not by itself mean that we have a working democracy. Such requires an informed electorate. In this country, most of the eligible people don't even vote, and their views are based on scapegoating minorities, immigrants, and the poor. I say that that is not a democracy which is working very well.
I am most encouraged by the recent election in Alabama, unseating Roy Moore, and by an extremely racial vote. It had been Ben Jealous who had called for a massive voter registration, showing that in GA and SC, the number of eligible but not registered blacks exceeds the margins of any state wide contests by factors of 4 or more. So this shows hope. Maybe say blacks East of about San Antonio, and Hispanics to the West. Things can be changed.
An entire generation came of age by supporting FDR, and then his Democratic successors. The likes of Nixon, Paul Weyrich, and Lee Atwater were able to dismantle this. But now we see that we can build it back.
Lee Atwater, Nigger Nigger Nigger
[view link]
Paul Weyrich - "I don't want everybody to vote"
[view link]
SJG
In the fiction of Andrew Vachss, his protagonist Burke sometimes does jobs for Mossad. Though they make it look narcotics related, they execute ped*ph*les.
[view link]
The End of Public Education, 12/27 show
[view link]
Edwyn Collins
[view link]
Black Keys
[view link]
Miles Kane
[view link]
White Stripes
[view link]
Jolene
[view link]
Jefferson Airplane - White Rabbit and Somebody To Love, American Bandstand, 1967
[view link]
Please Don´t Let Me Be Misunderstood- The Animals
[view link]
Sarah Connor - Son Of Preacher Man
[view link]
Will You Still Love Me Tomorrow - Amy Winehouse
[view link]
judy henske - high flying bird - 1963 from HOOTENANNY
[view link]
Jefferson Airplane
[view link]
Jefferson Airplane "The Other Side of this Life"
[view link]
Jefferson Airplane - Eskimo Blue Day (1970)
[view link]
Jefferson Airplane - Wooden Ships
[view link]
Have You Seen The Saucers?
[view link]
Jefferson Airplane with Signe Toly Anderson ( first album, Takes Off, Grace Slick was obtained later from The Great Society)
[view link][view link][view link]
House At Pooneil Corners, before the Beatles Roof Top Concert
[view link]
315 comments