Political Roundtable Part XXVI

[I_Like_Dirt]

What do you think she could get through congress (assuming the Rs keep the senate)?

It depends a little bit. I don't actually know. I don't actually think things will necessarily be as divisive with a white president (I could be wrong, but color me cynical). I think there will be some of what Warren is preaching that will also appeal to a certain section of Trump's supporters in particular and maintaining a lock for, say 8 years, isn't something a lot of incumbent senators are going to be interested in because they'll all have to defend their positions to voters. We haven't seen an administration that has got nothing done at all yet. It could happen, but I'm not betting on Warren being the first. Something would get through. I'm just not sure what.

And that's part of the deal here with candidates. Nobody realistically is going to agree with everything any particular candidate says. It isn't realistic. The idea would be to hopefully have a candidate with the broadest set of general policies a person could get behind on the macro level so that if/when something does get through, it's more likely to further a desirable goal over the longer view, whatever that is. If I had to guess, though, I'm thinking eliminating tax subsidies to fossil fuels would be the most likely she'd be able to push through. It doesn't matter how much money Republican senators get from the industry; the political will there is building rather incredibly right now and Warren seems likely to press the issue.

[dckingsfan]

We also need to keep the economy out of government to a point.

And then you have candidates wanting to take more control of the economy with a series of even more convoluted legislation. That isn't going to work - it is just going to make things worse. Please see the sets of proposals from the current batch of candidates.

And yet, I am voting for a D even if it is just a curbstone with a D stamped on it. Trump has risen to power on the ineffectiveness of our governmental system. I fear that this will just become cyclical as the next ineffective (but better intentioned) group comes to power.

Government has it's flaws and requires checks on the economy just as the reverse, but government does need to be more involved in the economy right now because the checks and balances are basically all gone on the economy side - that's where I see neoliberalism having failed.

It was the government intervention that caused the issues in the first place. See the tax code (I will come back to that). See the lack of intervention on monopolistic behaviors (recent).

Don't equate regulation with trying to manage the economy.

Regulation, especially continued improvement of regulation is a good thing. Think environmental regulations where you keep up with changing times (not this current knucklehead of an administration); Think food regulation; This research; Etc..

Our convoluted tax code came out of the government trying to regulate and pick winners and losers. It has been an abject disaster. With respect to Warren - she just wants to make it more convoluted with a wealth tax - instead of the obvious - fixing the broken code.

We have no problem if we continually work on our regulations and try not to manage the economy with the tax code and giveaways (see the farm bill).

[I_Like_Dirt]

It was the government intervention that caused the issues in the first place.

It really wasn't, though. The problem was already there. Government just didn't resolve it. Sometimes government intervention has made things worse, sometimes it has made things better but left them still bad. Eliminate government and things don't get better, though. They get much, much worse. I'm all for better regulation and improvement of government. The idea that eliminating government outright is somehow going to result in a better world is just flat wrong, though. There are so many examples throughout history of failed governments, lawless states, etc. and it's never a positive.

And yes, managing the economy matters. You need government intervention at times to save people from themselves. Doing a poor job of it can be a big problem but that still doesn't make it a better alternative than not managing the economy at all. Without managing the economy, the ozone layer wouldn't exist anymore, for example. It doesn't matter what you want to call it. Government needs to be there. We just need more astute and effective government and less ineffective bloated government - and to that end we also need checks and balances against government as well.

[Zonkerbl]

I'm not assuming that Rs are keeping the Senate. If Trump loses he takes the Senate with him. Unless he loses by a very slim margin, which I think is not going to happen. I think he gets crushed by overwhelming Dem turnout, which will affect the Senate races also.

[closg00]

In 2 minutes you'll be able to see what is going-on behind the scenes, all that is needed is Volker's testimony. Once-again, the right person needs to flip.

Watch on YouTube

[Kanyewest]

Trump now asking China to investigate the Bidens in public.

[dckingsfan]

I'm not assuming that Rs are keeping the Senate. If Trump loses he takes the Senate with him. Unless he loses by a very slim margin, which I think is not going to happen. I think he gets crushed by overwhelming Dem turnout, which will affect the Senate races also.

Not many R seats are up for reelection.

[pancakes3]

i object to the rallying cry of "fixing the tax code"

The rich aren't so much abusing the tax code to get rich but rather they have so much money that the tax laws are insignificant.

There's no "fixing" the tax code that would magically result in a more egalitarian distribution of wealth. The government didn't pick winners and losers, capitalism by design allocates resources in a way where there are winners and losers by definition*. This is just what late stage capitalism looks like.

Are there opportunities for abuse within the tax system? Absolutely. However, getting rid of those abuses (sheltering money) isn't going to reverse the trend of growing wealth inequality.

Also, I agree that Warren doesn't have the answers but I question if anyone has the answers. I'm ambivalent to a wealth tax, but I think that as a nation, the U.S. needs to edge towards embracing certain socialism policies to counteract the effects of growing wealth inequality. I also caution against having too harsh a stance against Warren because she proposed a flawed policy (much like taking a harsh stance against AOC). Perfect is the enemy of good.

[Ruzious]

Trump now asking China to investigate the Bidens in public.

This is ultimate chutzpa... I don't think it can be blamed on stupidity. See, this is why several high powered law firms turned down Trump a while back - their concern was the chance he wouldn't use their advice. And here, no sane... attorney would approve his actions.

The problem here isn't just Trump. It's the people that aren't standing up to him - which is far too much of Congress. At this point, anyone who's still vocally on his side is an absolute disgrace. Any lawyers in the WH and Justice Department who stand up for him should be disbarr'd. All of these people are enablers at best and really traitors to the US. Rudy should be the first.

[Wizardspride]

Read on Twitter

?s=19

[gtn130]

Read on Twitter

?s=19

Weird cause TGW was telling us how Joe Biden did lots of really bad stuff

[Wizardspride]

Read on Twitter

?s=19

Read on Twitter

?s=19

[closg00]

Read on Twitter

?s=19

Weird cause TGW was telling us how Joe Biden did lots of really bad stuff

So the Trump election 2020 plan was to spring this fake Ukraine stuff on Biden during the campaign, but the plan's bottom fell out because of the whistleblower complaint, the entire thing has blown-up in their faces.

[dckingsfan]

i object to the rallying cry of "fixing the tax code"

The rich aren't so much abusing the tax code to get rich but rather they have so much money that the tax laws are insignificant.

There's no "fixing" the tax code that would magically result in a more egalitarian distribution of wealth. The government didn't pick winners and losers, capitalism by design allocates resources in a way where there are winners and losers by definition*. This is just what late stage capitalism looks like.

Are there opportunities for abuse within the tax system? Absolutely. However, getting rid of those abuses (sheltering money) isn't going to reverse the trend of growing wealth inequality.

Also, I agree that Warren doesn't have the answers but I question if anyone has the answers. I'm ambivalent to a wealth tax, but I think that as a nation, the U.S. needs to edge towards embracing certain socialism policies to counteract the effects of growing wealth inequality. I also caution against having too harsh a stance against Warren because she proposed a flawed policy (much like taking a harsh stance against AOC). Perfect is the enemy of good.

First - if Warren is the nominee - I will be out walking for her. And that looks like it will be the case with Biden tied up in the Ukraine and folks wondering if Bernie will even make it to the election.

Second, of course fixing the tax code would take care of much of the problem. Tax receipts would go up and our social programs would be sustainable - that should be the #1 A++ issue. If earned income was taxed the same as investment income you wouldn't see near the disparity. If you fixed the loopholes with non-profits they couldn't move their money there and still maintain control without paying taxes on that income. If you took off the cap on payroll taxes that would also insure a fair tax rate. We got in this mess in the first place because of the tax code.

Fixing the tax code and getting tax receipts back to where they belong reduces (after transfers) income disparities.

When you talk about reducing wealth inequality then you have to force people to save money and invest in real estate, etc. But none of the proposals are advocating that. They are advocating funding of new programs not using the receipts of the new taxes to reduce wealth disparity directly. Another way to say it... 0/1,000,000,000 is still 0 or 1,000,000,000/0 is still infinity regardless of the number.

And define socialist policy. We are a democracy (political system) with social programs funded by capitalism. The only thing out of whack here is that congress bailed a long-time ago on their duties to manage receipts, outlays and continual streamlining and optimization of our social programs.

But maybe that is the key. Warren has been in the senate long enough to know that change isn't coming quickly. So she is proposing a quick fix vs. doing it the right way.

My 1/2 cent

[Wizardspride]

Read on Twitter

?s=19

[FAH1223]

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

Watch on YouTube

Yang Gang!

[Pointgod]

Trump now asking China to investigate the Bidens in public.

This is ultimate chutzpa... I don't think it can be blamed on stupidity. See, this is why several high powered law firms turned down Trump a while back - their concern was the chance he wouldn't use their advice. And here, no sane... attorney would approve his actions.

The problem here isn't just Trump. It's the people that aren't standing up to him - which is far too much of Congress. At this point, anyone who's still vocally on his side is an absolute disgrace. Any lawyers in the WH and Justice Department who stand up for him should be disbarr'd. All of these people are enablers at best and really traitors to the US. Rudy should be the first.

Amen this is what happens when you elect a dictator. Why would Trump fear any repercussions when he has the State Department, Department of Justice and the whole Republican Party behind him? Ultimately the American people have to look in the mirror and ask themselves if they’re going to stop this.

[FAH1223]

Read on Twitter

[dobrojim]

Trump now asking China to investigate the Bidens in public.

This is ultimate chutzpa... I don't think it can be blamed on stupidity. See, this is why several high powered law firms turned down Trump a while back - their concern was the chance he wouldn't use their advice. And here, no sane... attorney would approve his actions.

The problem here isn't just Trump. It's the people that aren't standing up to him - which is far too much of Congress. At this point, anyone who's still vocally on his side is an absolute disgrace. Any lawyers in the WH and Justice Department who stand up for him should be disbarr'd. All of these people are enablers at best and really traitors to the US. Rudy should be the first.

Amen this is what happens when you elect a dictator. Why would Trump fear any repercussions when he has the State Department, Department of Justice and the whole Republican Party behind him? Ultimately the American people have to look in the mirror and ask themselves if they’re going to stop this.

sociopaths consistently transgress social mores, break laws and exploit others, but typically also are convincing liars, sometimes charming ones, who consistently deny wrongdoing. Thus, some who have been victimized by sociopaths may doubt their own perceptions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaslighting?fbclid=IwAR1SMafCM31WjCelVguLhkcVywWmKT9Sn1rb3TSskBF8E5NcH1z9oc8gUUw

[Wizardspride]

Its all falling apart...

Read on Twitter

?s=19

Read on Twitter

?s=19