Political Roundtable Part XXI

[verbal8]

Not good news for Trump.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/22/politics/impeach-trump-nixon-support-bill-clinton-poll/index.html

I find this to be click bait. News to excite. This just takes us down the us vs. them rabbit hole.

How did you feel when they wanted to impeach Clinton?

I am actually against impeachment(of Trump) at this point. I think the conclusion of the Mueller probe should give Congress the information it needs. What I think Trump has revealed at this point is a number of overreaches(e.g. corrupt pardons, the current immigration disaster) where Congress should respond with a censure. I think Democrats should be running on that.

I think Pruitt should definitely be fired or impeached if Trump won't do it. I don't say this because I hate his politics(which I do) or even general incompetence. I say it because of his clear level of corruption and lack of ethics.

[dckingsfan]

Not good news for Trump.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/22/politics/impeach-trump-nixon-support-bill-clinton-poll/index.html

I find this to be click bait. News to excite. This just takes us down the us vs. them rabbit hole.

How did you feel when they wanted to impeach Clinton?

I am actually against impeachment(of Trump) at this point. I think the conclusion of the Mueller probe should give Congress the information it needs. What I think Trump has revealed at this point is a number of overreaches(e.g. corrupt pardons, the current immigration disaster) where Congress should respond with a censure. I think Democrats should be running on that.

I think Pruitt should definitely be fired or impeached if Trump won't do it. I don't say this because I hate his politics(which I do) or even general incompetence. I say it because of his clear level of corruption and lack of ethics.

I am with you on the impeachment process - it just isn't a good route.

[Zonkerbl]

I find this to be click bait. News to excite. This just takes us down the us vs. them rabbit hole.

How did you feel when they wanted to impeach Clinton?

I am actually against impeachment(of Trump) at this point. I think the conclusion of the Mueller probe should give Congress the information it needs. What I think Trump has revealed at this point is a number of overreaches(e.g. corrupt pardons, the current immigration disaster) where Congress should respond with a censure. I think Democrats should be running on that.

I think Pruitt should definitely be fired or impeached if Trump won't do it. I don't say this because I hate his politics(which I do) or even general incompetence. I say it because of his clear level of corruption and lack of ethics.

I am with you on the impeachment process - it just isn't a good route.

If Mueller confirms that everything we suspect about Trump and his minions is true I don't see how you avoid impeachment, especially if the Dems win the house. Let's cut this cancer out as soon as possible. Worry about the recovery process later, first we have to make sure the patient survives.

[nate33]

Watch how fast the wealthy and their corporations move overseas. A 20% wealth tax is a communist's dream, but there's a reason why it has never been successfully implemented. C'mon, you're an economist. You know better. Perhaps a 1% of 2% wealth tax is theoretically possible because the advantages of living in America outweigh the costs, but higher rates like that will drive capital flight.

Here's the thing, yes, they will fly. I think Zonk clearly realizes there needs to be more nuance to what he's proposing. But there also needs to be to what you're proposing, too, because if we don't come up with creative, and potentially harsh solutions now, we're going to pay for it later. When automation starts really destroying jobs, and that automation is owned by those who have ultimately paid a smaller % in taxes than lower income earners, then what? Suddenly capital flight because an end-game where countries are just taking what scraps they can get from anywhere.

Ultimately, the best I can come up with is just flat taxing them and denying them the American market if they refuse to pay it. If they don't pay it, somebody will. You've argued for isolationism in the past, but I think you've got the ideas backwards for a modern world. This isn't about isolating against the poor everywhere in the world, it's about isolating corporate expansion and monopolistic/anti-competitive behavior. You only have to look at oil-producing countries as examples. Norway taxed (or de facto taxed - they have a 27% corporation tax, and a 51% resource extraction tax for a combined 78% tax thereupon) oil production to the hilt. Oil companies still went there anyway because there were still profits to be made, and the result was that Norway was absolutely swimming in money and as they looked for was to move out of oil once the world started showing signs of doing the same. Now look at Canada. Canada got into the oil game at about the same time, didn't tax nearly so heavily, and they wound up with a LOT less to show for it in the end. If there are profits to be made, someone will do it. It doesn't mean go wild and tax everything at outrageous amounts, or that we shouldn't cut taxes in certain places and only increase them, but it does mean that allowing fear to cloud reason is a dangerous game, and one that has been exploited by corporate giants for some time. Amazon holds competitions amongst cities to see who's going to get the privilege of having them move there? That kind of BS is going to destroy cities in the long run.

I don't think we are that far apart on some of these issues. Taxing oil production at high rates, for example, makes a great deal of sense. The fact is, it is the strength of the U.S. military that provides the assurances that our oil companies can safely obtain the oil in potentially hostile areas and the military should be compensated. Likewise, when the oil is located on U.S. soil it's a national resource owned by all of us and we deserve a share of the profits.

And with respect to "isolationism" I am proposing tariffs to match the tariffs and trade restrictions imposed on us, not total isolation. I can understand why there's a trade deficit with China or Mexico given their low labor costs and minimal environmental regulation, but it makes no sense that we have such massive trade deficits with Germany and Canada. Those are a result of bad trade negotiations, not intrinsic economic disparities. They tax our exports more than we tax theirs. We can fix that. And fixing that is likely to provide more manufacturing jobs and good wages.

In general, I recognize that automation is going to constantly drive greater wealth disparity and that more measures are needed to try and promote a healthy middle class. It's not going to just happen through laissez-faire. I just disagree with the Left's policies of high tax and high wealth redistribution. Paying people not to work is deeply damaging to the their long term character, emotional health and sense of self worth. We need more high paying jobs, and we need fewer people who are incapable of working in high paying jobs. That means we need to limit low skill immigration and enact policies that promote a tight labor market. I think Trump's formula is working.

In the future, we may need to impose things like a negative income tax rate, to help those at lower income levels, but I really think we should do our best to avoid outright cradle-to-grave welfare.

[nate33]

I find this to be click bait. News to excite. This just takes us down the us vs. them rabbit hole.

How did you feel when they wanted to impeach Clinton?

I am actually against impeachment(of Trump) at this point. I think the conclusion of the Mueller probe should give Congress the information it needs. What I think Trump has revealed at this point is a number of overreaches(e.g. corrupt pardons, the current immigration disaster) where Congress should respond with a censure. I think Democrats should be running on that.

I think Pruitt should definitely be fired or impeached if Trump won't do it. I don't say this because I hate his politics(which I do) or even general incompetence. I say it because of his clear level of corruption and lack of ethics.

I am with you on the impeachment process - it just isn't a good route.

Yes. The Mueller investigation is essentially government-funded opposition research. You won't get an impeachment out of it, but if there really is dirt there, you can use it to win the next election.

[verbal8]

I am actually against impeachment(of Trump) at this point. I think the conclusion of the Mueller probe should give Congress the information it needs. What I think Trump has revealed at this point is a number of overreaches(e.g. corrupt pardons, the current immigration disaster) where Congress should respond with a censure. I think Democrats should be running on that.

I think Pruitt should definitely be fired or impeached if Trump won't do it. I don't say this because I hate his politics(which I do) or even general incompetence. I say it because of his clear level of corruption and lack of ethics.

I am with you on the impeachment process - it just isn't a good route.

If Mueller confirms that everything we suspect about Trump and his minions is true I don't see how you avoid impeachment, especially if the Dems win the house. Let's cut this cancer out as soon as possible. Worry about the recovery process later, first we have to make sure the patient survives.

I think it depends on what is Trump and what is Minions. I think there is a scenario where half his family ends up in jail during his term.

If there is a case for treason or election rigging against Trump, it is worth the downside of impeachment.

Even if Trump isn't impeached, a post presidential indictment would not surprise me at all.

[verbal8]

I am actually against impeachment(of Trump) at this point. I think the conclusion of the Mueller probe should give Congress the information it needs. What I think Trump has revealed at this point is a number of overreaches(e.g. corrupt pardons, the current immigration disaster) where Congress should respond with a censure. I think Democrats should be running on that.

I think Pruitt should definitely be fired or impeached if Trump won't do it. I don't say this because I hate his politics(which I do) or even general incompetence. I say it because of his clear level of corruption and lack of ethics.

I am with you on the impeachment process - it just isn't a good route.

Yes. The Mueller investigation is essentially government-funded opposition research. You won't get an impeachment out of it, but if there really is dirt there, you can use it to win the next election.

That is a terrible way to look at a government investigation. An investigation should be done to find the truth and protect the country. The steps to protect the country may have negative political consequences for the subject(s) of the investigation, but that should not be the goal of an investigation.

[gtn130]

Yes. The Mueller investigation is essentially government-funded opposition research.

Initiated, facilitated, staffed, run and protected by Republicans. But yeah otherwise it's definitely 'opposition research' for Democrats to win future elections.

[I_Like_Dirt]

In general, I recognize that automation is going to constantly drive greater wealth disparity and that more measures are needed to try and promote a healthy middle class. It's not going to just happen through laissez-faire. I just disagree with the Left's policies of high tax and high wealth redistribution. Paying people not to work is deeply damaging to the their long term character, emotional health and sense of self worth. We need more high paying jobs, and we need fewer people who are incapable of working in high paying jobs. That means we need to limit low skill immigration and enact policies that promote a tight labor market. I think Trump's formula is working.

It isn't just a healthy middle class that needs promoting, it's the lower classes, too. More high paying jobs? Absolutely, but not just on a middle class scale. Fighting for middle class jobs is basically like fighting to fight for market share in fossil fuels right now. It's a fight over a dying reality. That isn't to say that the middle class is gone forever, but it's evolving, and if we fail to understand how and why it's evolving, it absolutely will die. The middle class needs to grow. It needs to start incorporating more people than it traditionally has, not less. It needs to be more about a zero sum game and leaving others to die in the streets (I know you aren't saying that, but it's basically the end game of ignoring low skill anything).

The middle class needs to be punching up, not down. The middle class absolutely can successfully step on the lower classes to their own benefit right now. And when they've done that, what next? Who are the truly wealthiest going to step on next? We saw what happened to the middle class when the wealthy exploited the lower classes to destroy the middle class. Partially rebuilding the middle class, just weaker, at the expense of the lower games is a great game of spite, but a terrible game of foresight.

I don't know if I love the idea of taxing high, either. I actually think, for better or worse, government needs to get into the game. I think there is going to NEED to be a balance of government competition to private industries in some of the major sectors out there. I don't like the idea of government taxing and then trying to use those tax monies to compensate for the terrible practices of the private sector that offload social and environmental costs onto everyone else. I want to see competitive government and competitive regulation that prevents offloading of those social and environmental costs. Yes, governments have proven inefficient, so I don't want them as monopolies any more than I want private sector monopolies, but there needs to be something there, because it's patently obvious where this leads, given what has happened already. Destroying government, rather than fixing it (and fixing it is a monumental task), is a path to ruin at this stage.

[nate33]

Yes. The Mueller investigation is essentially government-funded opposition research.

Initiated, facilitated, staffed, run and protected by Republicans. But yeah otherwise it's definitely 'opposition research' for Democrats to win future elections.

You can't be serious. The Mueller investigation is composed of a team of Democrat lawyers who have contributed almost exclusively to Democrats. And the Trump Russia investigation was spearheaded by McCabe and Strozk, two guys with demonstrable anti-Trump bias and one with very strong financial ties to the Clintons.

[stilldropin20]

I think we should charge the wealthiest 1% a 20% wealth tax and redistribute it to the lowest 40% and then white trash won't have to fight with immigrants over the scraps the 1% leaves them.

Watch how fast the wealthy and their corporations move overseas. A 20% wealth tax is a communist's dream, but there's a reason why it has never been successfully implemented. C'mon, you're an economist. You know better. Perhaps a 1% of 2% wealth tax is theoretically possible because the advantages of living in America outweigh the costs, but higher rates like that will drive capital flight.

I agree with you, it's why we should only do it once. Should've been clearer. But it needs to be done. Maybe we'll have to consider doing it again in a few decades but yeah, you don't want to make it a habit or it becomes an incentive problem.

You're confusing communism and socialism. There's lots of socialism going on in Europe and Europe is arguably doing much better than we are at the moment, except for their stupid experiment trying to have a unified currency. Ugh.

Martin Ravallion gave a talk at MCC the other day and showed that the poorest of the poor in the US are getting poorer over time. We are the only country in the world where that happens.

It’s about damn time you guys stop whining like children. Maybe we can begin to tone down the name-calling to?

As you all should know, I’ve been calling for a heavy tax on the wealthy since my very first post.

So words can’t Expressed how happy I am that at least one person is now finally addressing the Real source of “our problems. “wealth inequality!!!

Nate is correct in that the wealthy and elite will simply move their money back overseas if you tax them too much. I’ve been addressing that for over 1 1/2 years. First you must repatriate the wealth and Trump just did that by lowering the corporate taxes. Now we must create mechanisms that if the wealthy remove their wealth from our banking systems here in the United States they will face severe penalties.

Now that we got the money here, Congress must hold secret sessions and Covertly change our banking and tax laws that force the wealthy Americans to keep their wealth here. Hold a secret session and allow no leaks to get out. then we need to start hitting them with some progressive taxes. The more you make, the more you pay. I would be fine with people that make 5 million or more per year paying 60% income taxes? Why not? Especially entertainers. those with estates worth more than (say?)5 million need to pay higher real estate taxes, not less like they usually do with creative structuring. remove all the Carveouts and loopholes in foundations and trusts.

And/or implement at least a 30% death tax(including trust some foundations a non-for profit after the original or current founder dies.)

Something along these lines must begin to occur or it will never ever be fair and equal.






Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

[dckingsfan]

paraphrasing Clinton, "it's the tax code stupid".

Get rid of all the carveouts and we accomplish most of what we need to do... All we do is continue to make the tax code more unreadable with more carve outs.

Lower the corporate tax code. Keep the current tax rate or a lower one and get rid of every deduction.

[stilldropin20]

paraphrasing Clinton, "it's the tax code stupid".

Get rid of all the carveouts and we accomplish most of what we need to do... All we do is continue to make the tax code more unreadable with more carve outs.

Lower the corporate tax code. Keep the current tax rate or a lower one and get rid of every deduction.

How is this or how significantly is this going to recapture and redistribute wealth ll?


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

[gtn130]

Yes. The Mueller investigation is essentially government-funded opposition research.

Initiated, facilitated, staffed, run and protected by Republicans. But yeah otherwise it's definitely 'opposition research' for Democrats to win future elections.

You can't be serious. The Mueller investigation is composed of a team of Democrat lawyers who have contributed almost exclusively to Democrats. And the Trump Russia investigation was spearheaded by McCabe and Strozk, two guys with demonstrable anti-Trump bias and one with very strong financial ties to the Clintons.

First of all, disliking Trump isn't a disqualifier. The majority of Americans dislike him. FBI agents are allowed to have political opinions, just like journalists or anyone in any profession. You're legitimately saying that only Trump loyalists can investigate Trump. This is nonsense.

That said, McCabe is a Republican. Comey is a Republican. Mueller is a Republican. Rosenstein is a Republican. Sessions is a Republican. The FBI has 35,000 employees. Some are Republicans, some are Democrats. Some like Trump, some don't.

If you want to say Peter Strzok was too politically motivated, that's fine, but he was removed from the Special Counsel. He doesn't invalidate the entire operation despite how badly you want him to.

[Zonkerbl]

Yes. The Mueller investigation is essentially government-funded opposition research.

Initiated, facilitated, staffed, run and protected by Republicans. But yeah otherwise it's definitely 'opposition research' for Democrats to win future elections.

You can't be serious. The Mueller investigation is composed of a team of Democrat lawyers who have contributed almost exclusively to Democrats. And the Trump Russia investigation was spearheaded by McCabe and Strozk, two guys with demonstrable anti-Trump bias and one with very strong financial ties to the Clintons.

See this is what I'm talking about. You want credibility? Don't spread lies.

[Doug_Blew]

Yes. The Mueller investigation is essentially government-funded opposition research.

Initiated, facilitated, staffed, run and protected by Republicans. But yeah otherwise it's definitely 'opposition research' for Democrats to win future elections.

You can't be serious. The Mueller investigation is composed of a team of Democrat lawyers who have contributed almost exclusively to Democrats. And the Trump Russia investigation was spearheaded by McCabe and Strozk, two guys with demonstrable anti-Trump bias and one with very strong financial ties to the Clintons.

It's amazing how biased you are. You have zero ability to not see things in a manner that you want them to be.

[nate33]

Initiated, facilitated, staffed, run and protected by Republicans. But yeah otherwise it's definitely 'opposition research' for Democrats to win future elections.

You can't be serious. The Mueller investigation is composed of a team of Democrat lawyers who have contributed almost exclusively to Democrats. And the Trump Russia investigation was spearheaded by McCabe and Strozk, two guys with demonstrable anti-Trump bias and one with very strong financial ties to the Clintons.

It's amazing how biased you are. You have zero ability to not see things in a manner that you want them to be.

What part of my statement was biased?

Is it not the case that the Mueller team is composed almost exclusively of Democrats?

* None of the 16 lawyers known to work for special counsel Robert Mueller are registered Republicans
* There are 13 registered Democrats on the investigation and three lawyers with no party affiliation
* Campaign finance records reveal that 11 lawyers are Democratic donors

Is it not the case that McCabe has close financial ties to Clinton and the Democrats? McCauliff gave $650,000 to his wife's campaign. McCabe himself helped campaign for his Democrat wife. And there is no evidence that McCabe is a registered Republican despite people constantly saying so.

And is it not the case that Strozk is obviously biased against Trump? He had multiple texts saying that Trump must be stopped and that he would make sure that he was, and these texts were made within the first day or two of the start of the counter-intelligence investigation. Clearly pre-judging without completing his investigation.

[nate33]

Read on Twitter

The conservatives on the court got this one wrong. Fortunately, John Roberts joined the liberals to come to the right decision. Government power is intrusive enough already. We don't need them having knowledge of our exact whereabouts at all times. If the information is truly necessary to solve a crime, they can get a warrant.

[Zonkerbl]

You can't be serious. The Mueller investigation is composed of a team of Democrat lawyers who have contributed almost exclusively to Democrats. And the Trump Russia investigation was spearheaded by McCabe and Strozk, two guys with demonstrable anti-Trump bias and one with very strong financial ties to the Clintons.

It's amazing how biased you are. You have zero ability to not see things in a manner that you want them to be.

What part of my statement was biased?

Is it not the case that the Mueller team is composed almost exclusively of Democrats?

* None of the 16 lawyers known to work for special counsel Robert Mueller are registered Republicans
* There are 13 registered Democrats on the investigation and three lawyers with no party affiliation
* Campaign finance records reveal that 11 lawyers are Democratic donors

Is it not the case that McCabe has close financial ties to Clinton and the Democrats? McCauliff gave $650,000 to his wife's campaign. McCabe himself helped campaign for his Democrat wife. And there is no evidence that McCabe is a registered Republican despite people constantly saying so.

And is it not the case that Strozk is obviously biased against Trump? He had multiple texts saying that Trump must be stopped and that he would make sure that he was, and these texts were made within the first day or two of the start of the counter-intelligence investigation. Clearly pre-judging without completing his investigation.

That must be why they threw the election to Trump.

I refuse to accept a loyalty test for being an FBI investigator. This isn't the KGB.

[Doug_Blew]

You can't be serious. The Mueller investigation is composed of a team of Democrat lawyers who have contributed almost exclusively to Democrats. And the Trump Russia investigation was spearheaded by McCabe and Strozk, two guys with demonstrable anti-Trump bias and one with very strong financial ties to the Clintons.

It's amazing how biased you are. You have zero ability to not see things in a manner that you want them to be.

What part of my statement was biased?

Is it not the case that the Mueller team is composed almost exclusively of Democrats?

* None of the 16 lawyers known to work for special counsel Robert Mueller are registered Republicans
* There are 13 registered Democrats on the investigation and three lawyers with no party affiliation
* Campaign finance records reveal that 11 lawyers are Democratic donors

Is it not the case that McCabe has close financial ties to Clinton and the Democrats? McCauliff gave $650,000 to his wife's campaign. McCabe himself helped campaign for his Democrat wife. And there is no evidence that McCabe is a registered Republican despite people constantly saying so.

And is it not the case that Strozk is obviously biased against Trump? He had multiple texts saying that Trump must be stopped and that he would make sure that he was, and these texts were made within the first day or two of the start of the counter-intelligence investigation. Clearly pre-judging without completing his investigation.

To me it seems like the Mueller investigation was spearheaded by Rosenstein for the firing of Comey. It is not good that Strozk was involved. I believe he's been kicked out of the investigation. But he's not the only FBI investigator on the case. I personally assume that the majority of FBI agents are Republican. You can assume otherwise.

Others have outlined that the people in charge of the Mueller investigation are Republicans and Rosenstein seems to have the full support of Jeff Sessions who was / is? a major Trump Supporter. These are the people that make the final decision on the reports that come out of the investigation.

This is the system that we have and Trump isn't the first President to be investigated. You don't seem to have any doubts of Nunes' reports regarding FISA warrants but you believe the Mueller investigation has no credibility before we've seen anything from it regarding Trump.

I obviously don't read as much political information as you and I am biased also. I've never liked Trump from way before he became President and I think he's a con-artist. I don't read a lot of the posts from users that do not like Trump. I come to this page to see opinions that differ from mine.

I really don't think there's any way i can answer your question on how is your statement biased. As with most people, you will believe what you believe.