Political Roundtable Part XI

[DCZards]

[FAH1223]

Read on Twitter

[nate33]

Read on Twitter

I think this is a valid criticism. But at the same time, let's not be naive. States have consistently offered tax breaks and sweetheart deals to corporations because they understand that the loss in revenue due to tax incentives is more than offset by the gains in revenue by more employees getting (taxable) paychecks rather than welfare checks, plus there are significant multiplier effects for those manufacturing jobs in the service sector. If that logic is sound at the state level, why not the federal level?

I don't like the idea of a President picking and choosing which companies get tax breaks (and I'm assuming that's not the case here because Presidents don't have that authority). But it seems to me that this is evidence that our overall corporate tax rates are too high. If it's true that the benefits of keeping the jobs here outweigh the costs of those tax incentives in the case of Carrier, then that principle should apply across the board. Cut corporate tax rates everywhere, at least for sectors that could conceivably be exported. Cut them to zero as far as I'm concerned. If necessary, make up for the lost revenue with higher personal income taxes.

[Ruzious]

Still, even if we leave out the issue of it setting a bad precedent, at least make a better deal. That's Ernie Grunfeld level negotiating.

[FAH1223]

Read on Twitter

I think this is a valid criticism. But at the same time, let's not be naive. States have consistently offered tax breaks and sweetheart deals to corporations because they understand that the loss in revenue due to tax incentives is more than offset by the gains in revenue by more employees getting (taxable) paychecks rather than welfare checks, plus there are significant multiplier effects for those manufacturing jobs in the service sector. If that logic is sound at the state level, why not the federal level?

I don't like the idea of a President picking and choosing which companies get tax breaks (and I'm assuming that's not the case here because Presidents don't have that authority). But it seems to me that this is evidence that our overall corporate tax rates are too high. If it's true that the benefits of keeping the jobs here outweigh the costs of those tax incentives in the case of Carrier, then that principle should apply across the board. Cut corporate tax rates everywhere, at least for sectors that could conceivably be exported. Cut them to zero as far as I'm concerned. If necessary, make up for the lost revenue with higher personal income taxes.

Yeah you have a good point. It's also obvious this deal was Pence's as he's the Gov.

Most corporations don't pay corp taxes anyway. I don't mind it going down to 15-20% provided you can close the loopholes and what not.

I will say though with a company like United Technologies that has contracts with the government, I have no problem with the POTUS threatening to cut off those contracts if those corps will ship jobs overseas on a universal basis.

Also Trump apparently has the power to perform a few executive orders to close some loopholes. Sanders was trying to get Obama to do it earlier.

Still, even if we leave out the issue of it setting a bad precedent, at least make a better deal. That's Ernie Grunfeld level negotiating.

#SoWizards

[nate33]

Read on Twitter

I think this is a valid criticism. But at the same time, let's not be naive. States have consistently offered tax breaks and sweetheart deal to corporations because they understand that the loss in revenue due to tax incentives is more than offset by the gains in revenue by more employees getting (taxable) paychecks rather than welfare checks, plus there are significant multiplier effects for those manufacturing jobs in the service sector. If that logic is sound at the state level, why not the federal level?

I don't like the idea of a President picking and choosing which companies get tax breaks (and I'm assuming that's not the case here because Presidents don't have that authority). But it seems to me that this is evidence that our overall corporate tax rates are too high. If it's true that the benefits of keeping the jobs here outweigh the costs of those tax incentives in the case of Carrier, then that principle should apply across the board. Cut corporate tax rates everywhere, at least for sectors that conceivably be exported. Cut them to zero as far as I'm concerned. If necessary, make up for the lost revenue with higher personal income taxes.

Yeah you have a good point. It's also obvious this deal was Pence's as he's the Gov.

Most corporations don't pay corp taxes anyway. I don't mind it going down to 15-20% provided you can close the loopholes and what not.

I will say though with a company like United Technologies that has contracts with the government, I have no problem with the POTUS threatening to cut off those contracts if those corps will ship jobs overseas on a universal basis.

Also Trump apparently has the power to perform a few executive orders to close some loopholes. Sanders was trying to get Obama to do it earlier.

Good points. All of them.

I'm also open-minded to strong-arming corporations with large government contracts.

[popper]

I think many people are grossly underestimating the heft of Trump's selections so far. I personally observed Wilbur Ross' skills over hundreds of hours as he negotiated very large and complicated deals against some of the best business and govt. minds to arrive at win/win solutions that stood the test of time. I was in awe of the man and his talents. I know a few other people that have had similar experience with some of his other choices.

IMO, these are very serious and accomplished people and will serve the interests of the country well. I would even venture to say that so far, this is the strongest team I've seen an administration put together in my lifetime. Although I voted for Trump, I never really supported or trusted him but did so for reasons having to do with the Supreme Court. I've been pleasantly surprised by his outstanding selections of Pence and the others on his growing team.

I think something like this is beginning to happen.

HONG KONG – Since the end of World War II, the hierarchy of economic priorities has been relatively clear. At the top was creating an open, innovative, and dynamic market-driven global economy, in which all countries can (in principle) thrive and grow. Coming in second – one might even say a distant second – was generating vigorous, sustainable, and inclusive national growth patterns. No more.

In fact, a reversal seems to be underway. Achieving strong inclusive national-level growth to revive a declining middle class, kick-start stagnant incomes, and curtail high youth unemployment is now taking precedence. Mutually beneficial international arrangements governing flows of goods, capital, technology, and people (the four key flows in the global economy) are appropriate only when they reinforce – or, at least, don’t undermine – progress on meeting the highest priority..........

http://blogs.cfr.org/renewing-america/2016/11/29/donald-trump-and-the-new-economic-order/

[AFM]

ZH is reporting that he's settled on Mad Dog Mattis

[closg00]

One of the consequences of watching a bully become President is an explosion of bullying in the schools.
http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2016/12/trump-effect-schools-bullying-racism

[AFM]

Malik "GOAT Obama" Obama has the funniest tweeter feed

Read on Twitter

[AFM]

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

[AFM]

Read on Twitter

I think this is a valid criticism. But at the same time, let's not be naive. States have consistently offered tax breaks and sweetheart deals to corporations because they understand that the loss in revenue due to tax incentives is more than offset by the gains in revenue by more employees getting (taxable) paychecks rather than welfare checks, plus there are significant multiplier effects for those manufacturing jobs in the service sector. If that logic is sound at the state level, why not the federal level?

I don't like the idea of a President picking and choosing which companies get tax breaks (and I'm assuming that's not the case here because Presidents don't have that authority). But it seems to me that this is evidence that our overall corporate tax rates are too high. If it's true that the benefits of keeping the jobs here outweigh the costs of those tax incentives in the case of Carrier, then that principle should apply across the board. Cut corporate tax rates everywhere, at least for sectors that could conceivably be exported. Cut them to zero as far as I'm concerned. If necessary, make up for the lost revenue with higher personal income taxes.

ZH did the math today. It costs about $600 per job to keep these jobs here. Seems like a net positive to me, since these workers will be paying income and sales tax.

[nate33]

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

Malik Obama has been an elite troll throughout this election cycle.

[AFM]

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

Malik Obama has been an elite troll throughout this election cycle.

Malik Obama for Press Secretary!

[nate33]

ZH is reporting that he's settled on Mad Dog Mattis

Among the candidates, I liked him the most. The guy has fought wars first hand and knows exactly what kind of hell it is. He has a long history of showing great leadership and respect for his troops and I'm sure that will lead him to seek peaceful negotiation rather than be bellicose. My only concerns is that he's a bit more reflexively anti-Russia than I would prefer. He seems willing to go to the wall for Ukraine, which I think is a mistake.

[nate33]

Some quotes from Mattis in a piece he wrote in 2015 called A New American Grand Strategy

We know that the “foreseeable future” is not foreseeable; our review must incorporate unpredictability, recognizing risk while avoiding gambling with our nation’s security.Incorporating the broadest issues in its assessments, Congress should consider what we must do if the national debt is assessed to be the biggest national security threat we face.

As President Eisenhower noted, the foundation of military strength is our economic strength. In a few short years paying interest on our debt will be a bigger bill than what we pay for defense. Much of that interest money is destined to leave America for overseas. If we refuse to reduce our debt or pay down our deficit, what is the impact on national security for future generations who will inherit this irresponsible debt and the taxes to service it? No nation in history has maintained its military power while failing to keep its fiscal house in order.

The nuclear stockpile must be tended to and fundamental questions must be asked and answered: We must clearly establish the role of our nuclear weapons: do they serve solely to deter nuclear war? If so, we should say so, and the resulting clarity will help to determine the number we need. Is it time to reduce the Triad to a Diad, removing the land-based missiles? This would reduce the false alarm danger. Could we reenergize the arms control effort by only counting warheads vice launchers?

Strategy connects ends, ways and means. With less military available, we must reduce our appetite for using it. Absent growing our military, there must come a time when moral outrage, serious humanitarian plight, or lesser threats cannot be militarily addressed. Prioritization is needed if we are to remain capable of the most critical mission for which we have a military: to fight on short notice and defend the country. In this regard we must recognize we should not and need not carry this military burden solely on our own.

When the decision is made to employ our forces in combat, Congress should ask if the military is being employed with the proper authority. I believe it should examine answers to fundamental questions like the following:

Are the political objectives clearly defined and achievable? Murky or quixotic political end states can condemn us to entering wars we don’t know how to end. Notifying the enemy in advance of our withdrawal dates or reassuring the enemy that we will not use certain capabilities like our ground forces should be avoided. Such announcements do not take the place of mature, well‐defined end‐states, nor do they contribute to ending wars as rapidly as possible on favorable terms.

Is the theater of war itself sufficient for effective prosecution? We have witnessed safe havens prolonging war. If the defined theater of war is insufficient, the plan itself needs to be challenged to determine feasibility of its success or the need for its modification.

Is the authority for detaining prisoners of war appropriate for the enemy and type war that we are fighting? We have observed the perplexing lack of detainee policy that has resulted in the return of released prisoners to the battlefield. We should not engage in another fight without resolving this issue up front, treating hostile forces, in fact, as hostile.

Are America’s diplomatic, economic, and other assets aligned to the war aims, with the intent of ending the conflict as rapidly as possible? We have experienced the military alone trying achieve tasks outside its expertise. When we take the serious decision to fight, we must bring to bear all our nation’s resources. You should question how the diplomatic and development efforts will be employed to build momentum for victory and our nation’s strategy demands that integration.

[Induveca]

Why post an image taken at a protest at Boston City Hall on April 5, 1976?

Honestly curious. That's a famous image, but how is that relevant today? Is this the anticipatory violence vibe again?

[AFM]

Indu the history knowledge dropper!

[dckingsfan]

Thinking the Ds are mourning their 2013 decision to blow up the filibuster for most presidential nominees.

[TGW]

I think many people are grossly underestimating the heft of Trump's selections so far. I personally observed Wilbur Ross' skills over hundreds of hours as he negotiated very large and complicated deals against some of the best business and govt. minds to arrive at win/win solutions that stood the test of time. I was in awe of the man and his talents. I know a few other people that have had similar experience with some of his other choices.

IMO, these are very serious and accomplished people and will serve the interests of the country well. I would even venture to say that so far, this is the strongest team I've seen an administration put together in my lifetime. Although I voted for Trump, I never really supported or trusted him but did so for reasons having to do with the Supreme Court. I've been pleasantly surprised by his outstanding selections of Pence and the others on his growing team.

I think something like this is beginning to happen.

HONG KONG – Since the end of World War II, the hierarchy of economic priorities has been relatively clear. At the top was creating an open, innovative, and dynamic market-driven global economy, in which all countries can (in principle) thrive and grow. Coming in second – one might even say a distant second – was generating vigorous, sustainable, and inclusive national growth patterns. No more.

In fact, a reversal seems to be underway. Achieving strong inclusive national-level growth to revive a declining middle class, kick-start stagnant incomes, and curtail high youth unemployment is now taking precedence. Mutually beneficial international arrangements governing flows of goods, capital, technology, and people (the four key flows in the global economy) are appropriate only when they reinforce – or, at least, don’t undermine – progress on meeting the highest priority..........

http://blogs.cfr.org/renewing-america/2016/11/29/donald-trump-and-the-new-economic-order/

Any administration with Sarah Palin as a part of it automatically is disqualified from being strong.

I personally think his picks are HORRIBLE but of course we're on two sides of the spectrum. I see this administration dismantling core government programs and giving the rich/corporations huge tax cuts. Hell, it's already happened with Carrier....a clear loss from a negotiations standpoint. And all to save a mere 1,000 jobs. Pathetic so far.