« what i learned from drumming, so far | Main | Enough »

May 18, 2018

Comments

“Tax cuts”.

Despite a total lack of evidence that they’ll do anything but raise corporate profits and explode the deficit, Marty praised them.

It’s a religion.

Tax cuys - There is plenty of evidence that they will keep the economy growing over 3%, pay for themselves, reduce the deficit and allow the Fed to raise rates and clean up its balance sheet.

Even if all other things stay the same, it is fiscal stimulus in the range of what we should have done 10 years ago to limit the need for Fed impact.

plenty of evidence

Plenty.

Marty, what sweetypies you support:

schools can decide whether to report undocumented students and their families to immigration authorities.

Hope you have a lot of tax cuys!

Whats wrong with that exactly? I mean exactly.

Schools can call the cops to report someone breaking the law. What is even news about that?

so many reasons for why things happen. we all focus on the ones that make sense to us.

the US and the soviets were both in a position to fncking obliterate each other. once it got lit, it would have basically been automatic. we'd all be ashes.

when you're talking nukes, 10 feet or 10 miles, same/same.

i always figured the soviets decided to deal because they were going broke.

NK's, which is to say Kim's, goal is to not be tossed out. having the US national security advisor and the VPOTUS rattle on about the "Libya option" was arrant stupidity. NK responded with a great big FU. I would have done the same.

Iran is going to make their own deal wih everybody othr than us, and if that doesn't work out, they're going to build themselves a bomb.

NATO is figuring out that they're responsible for their own security. the EU has resources, they'll figure it out. they are no going to rely on us. that will not be to our advantage.

to my eye, Trump is the easiest freaking guy in the world to play. give him a cookie, throw him a parade, let him fondle the orb. let his kids build a hotel, and suddenly you're our best friend.

that's "making a deal", in his mind.

the man is an embarrassment, and as far as I can see is a freaking clown. i'm sure he has some competencies in commercial real estate and golf courses, those do not apply to the world he's in now. he has no understanding of the responsibilities of his office, or the consequences of his actions.

if he gets good ratings and lots of twitter followers, he thinks he's winning the day.

enjoy your tax break.

Schools can call the cops to report someone breaking the law

may shit like this never rain down on your head.

schools should call the cops if they think their students are smoking weed.

or if they think their students' parents are smoking weed.

or if their parents' car registrations are expired.

or if their parents are delinquent in paying their federal taxes.

why not?

Whats wrong with that exactly? I mean exactly.

Schools can call the cops to report someone breaking the law. What is even news about that?

So, Marty, the compassionate, music aficionado, who sometimes seems to care about other people, thinks it's totally fine for ICE agents to go to a school and grab innocent kids, whose parents are undocumented.

Of course you like marijuana which is illegal under federal law. I'm sure you'd totally in favor of the feds yanking your family members away from whatever they're doing to be incarcerated indefinitely, because what's wrong with that, exactly?

It would be wrong to wish that Marty's family would be treated that way, so I keep fighting the temptation to really, really wish for that.

russel, I don't plan on illegally entering any countries.

But there was a time when I was younger I lived in fear of going to jail, even got turned in twice.

Oddly if I hadn't been breaking the law turning me in wouldn't have been an option. Or mattered.

Empathy for their predicament doesn't change the facts. They are criminals subject to deportation.

Would I call ICE? Not unless they gave me a reason, nor would most other people. But, recognizing it is an option some will exercise, doesn't make them bad people. It means the illegal immigrants got caught.

Sucks for them.

i know people who have had other people ask them to take their kids if they get picked up while their kids are at school.

let's do that for everything. break the law, we're gonna come and grab you off the street, out of your home, out of your place of work. round you up, put you on a bus, take you to a place of detention 100 miles away. don't tell your family, nobody knows where you are or what happened to you.

let's do that. let's start with the fucking bankers. let's start with manafort, and cohen, and the rest of those creeps. let's start with trump's sleazebag kids.

you smoke a little weed now and then marty? or maybe one of your kids does?

get on the bus.

round 'em up. the schools can call it in.

it's the law, right?

its all good as long as its not someone like you.

They are criminals subject to deportation.

No, entering the country illegally is not a "crime". Get your facts straight.

He offered Dreamers for reform and funding the wall. They just said no. The wall is a irrelevancy so Dreamers for two reforms. They should have just said yes. But, no.

I admit that I'm not a great wheeler-dealer. But to my mind, if you make an offer, and it is declined, you have not achieved a compromise. Rather, you have FAILED to achieve a compromise.

"schools should call the cops if they think their students are smoking weed."

They do this, in Fl. as a matter of policy, parents too. But not if they "think" they are smoking pot. They assume all of them are. They call the cops when they have evidence of a crime.

So, I've pie filtered Marty, but I look sometimes. It was a bad idea.

There are some seriously cruel people in this country.

Not unless they gave me a reason

why not? you're a nice guy?

do you want the schools policing students and calling the cops when they know, or even suspct, that their parents might be involved in breaking the law?

any law?

if not, why not? why would it be a problem?

betsy devos has no business being within 100 miles of the education system.

Schools police students every day, we have given them that job for decades.

I wouldn't call because my level of sympathy for those who don't cause any problems is pretty high. My level of understanding for those who feel that the rule of law outweighs that sympathy is pretty high too.

So I apply the idea that either reasonable individual choice is inderstandable.

betsy devos has no business being within 100 miles of the education system.

That's certainly true if she's included along with the Department of Education.

Trump's argument that it's fair for NATO members each to spend about the same proportion of GDP on our collective defence makes sense. It's also Obama's argument and Bush's.

However, much of US defence spending doesn't go on collective defence, it's spend on stupid wars instead. That's Bush's fault.

I think the effect of Trump's flakiness will be that defence spending does increase in the rest of NATO. Defence spending will increase in the US too, because Trump wants more military power and more parades, to boost his vile ego.

More of the world's resources being spend on arms is a bad thing. The US starting more wars, which the child Trump could do at any time just to see the firework display, would be a very bad thing.

It's kind of Marty to come on here and point out that it's all the D's fault for declining to fund Trump's idiotic wall.

why don't we want schools turning kids who might be undocumented over to the cops?

because it's not their job. it's not even the cops' job.

and making them play immigration officer interferes with their ability to do what their actual job is.

it's appropriate for schools to call cops if someone is behaving in a way that presents a danger to themselves or someone else.

short of that, its not appropriate. it's not their job to enforce the law.

why stop with schools? maybe doctors, and mail delivery people, and gas station attendants, and the guy at the dry cleaners, should all be dropping a dime any time they think someone is breaking the law. any law.

do you want to live in a freaking police state? I dont.

They do this, in Fl. as a matter of policy

just another reason i'm glad I don't live there.

There is plenty of evidence

Citation required

do you want to live in a freaking police state? I dont.

i'm so old that i remember when "paper's please" was a morbid joke among right wingers who were afraid of intrusive government.

i'm so old that i remember when "paper's please" was a morbid joke among right wingers who were afraid of intrusive government.

They still don't want government intruding on them in any way.

Confident as they are that they're encased inside the right skin color and speak the right language, they're sure that this kind of thing can't possibly happen to them.

And the level of outrage if it does happen to them (as it sometimes does) is off the charts. Actually, even if it's entirely warranted -- see Trump's reaction to an utterly routine counterespionage investigation coming near him.

IOW, you still don't have to carry papers if you're the right skin color and you're speaking English without an accent.

"First they came for........"

*****

Funny accent story to end the day on a lighter note.

On a long layover in Heathrow some years ago, I got into a conversation with an Englishwoman who had married an American and was living in Dallas. She had been in England visiting her aging mother and was now on her way back to the States.

After we talked for a while, she said to me in a kind of bemused way, "You don't have a very strong American accent, do you."

Well yeah, I guess, if by "American" you mean "Texan." ;-)

Marty: Tax cuts - There is plenty of evidence that they will keep the economy growing over 3%, pay for themselves, reduce the deficit and allow the Fed to raise rates and clean up its balance sheet.

Ah, the Credo in unum Deum of the Supply-Side-Jesus cult. A hardy perennial.

Like cleek says: religion. You see, wj, what Republican propaganda can lead to?

Not that it will do any good, but imagine that "3% growth" is possible indefinitely; imagine further that it is achievable by raising the incomes of all Americans who make more money than Marty, while keeping Marty and everyone below him making the same. That's one perfectly good and entirely possible form of "3% growth".

"All else being equal", would Marty still sing Hosannas to He, Trump (sorry, He Trump's "(Republican)" policies) if that's what the "3% growth" resulting from Ryan and McConnell's wet dream of a tax cut turns out to actually deliver? I mean, 3% is 3%, right?

This question will do no good, as I say, because the Supply-Side Faith is as immune to argument as Bible stories are to archaeology.

--TP

Tony, just so you differentiate between Republican propaganda, which this nonsense is, and conservative propaganda, which may have some illusions but this isn't one of them.

wj,

You and I agree on so much that I'm beginning to think I may be "conservative"
:)

--TP

It can be hard to recognize if you let yourself get taken in by the radical reactionaries and ultra-libertarians who have misappropriated the label. ;-)

Sorry for being late on the topic but I consider it highly unlikely that Germany will increase real defense spending significantly, and going nuclear is for the time being out of the question. It would be a purely suicidal political move. Any governing coalition would break up in an instant and the partner proposing it would face electoral disaster.
I assume there will be an increase in defense spending in the not too distant future but not to expand our nominal military capacities but to simply get them to where they are supposed to be right now. Recent reports indicate that the armed forces look like US infrastructure: close to collapse due to lack of maintenance for many years. There has to be significant investment to get them back in shape but there is no real willingness to go beyond that. We could not successfully invade and occupy Liechtenstein (which has no army) right now. It's totally ironic that our Eastern neighbour (Poland) is run by guys who constantly scare the population with horrror stories that we will soon try to overturn the results of WW2 by taking back the (now Polish) lost territories by force (after secretly buying up all the land in advance, so the panzers will roll over already German owned ground).
We could as well claim that there is a secret Polish plan to kill us all because every year they try to sell us fireworks that contain military explosives (in some cases more than a standard NATO hand grenade, just lacking the fragmentation casing).

"Tony, just so you differentiate between Republican propaganda, which this nonsense is, and conservative propaganda, which may have some illusions but this isn't one of them"

This is pretty standard conservative policy that's worked over the 30 years prior to the last ten, and before. Numbers being different, policy being consistent.

I'm unclear what conservative policy you would support in its place? In fact there is nothing reactionary or neoliberal from a policy perspective on the list of policies I support.

One person familiar with the summit preparations said it was Bolton who drove the decision to cancel and that he had convinced Trump to make the move. Trump then relayed his decision to Pompeo, who felt blindsided, according to multiple officials.

A driving factor for the president was the belief that Kim was heading toward a similar conclusion.

"you can't cancel it because i already cancelled it!"

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/inside-summit-collapse-trump-wanted-cancel-n-korean-leader-could-n877291

Not nearly as blindsided as the South Korean leader.

The net effect of Trump's policies will be to strengthen Chinese commercial and strategic influence.

let's do that for everything.

In fact, it is illegal to hire an illegal immigrant. But, you see, the GOP never brings this up....all those illegal "job creators" breaking the law.

I wonder why that is?

The net effect of Trump's policies will be to strengthen Chinese commercial and strategic influence.

between the crazy China trade negotiations, the abandonment of TPP, the fumbling with SK and NK ... definitely.

see also: Europe, NATO, Iran.

maybe The Trump Doctrine is simply passive-aggressive isolationism. screw up all the relationships enough so that everybody else decides it's best to just go on without you.

Look according to this Pompeo was told before it happened, so this is just same old same old crap journalism. "According to multiple officials" whatever that means these days, probably officials of the Democratic Party.

Surprising South Korea is unimaginable. So there's why I don't like Trump. In the midst of what was otherwise a pretty good overall stretch of diplomatic progress, including pulling out, he does something completely stupid.

But, on balance, it seems China was concerned too much progress was being made and sabotaged the talks. So
"strengthen Chinese commercial and strategic influence."is probably backwards. The talks and the prospect of a reunified, denuclearized Korea without China at the table was a loss of influence they couldn't live with.

Read this carefully, Marty.

This is your guy.

A top official with the Department of Health and Human Services told members of Congress on Thursday that the agency had lost track of nearly 1,500 migrant children it placed with sponsors in the United States, raising concerns they could end up in the hands of human traffickers or be used as laborers by people posing as relatives.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/26/us/politics/migrant-children-missing.html

heckofajob, Trump et al

Hmmm. Looks like some of these (from today's NYT) could be your people, wj:

Concerned by Trump, Some Republicans Quietly Align With Democrats

No sapient, those are the things that make him not my guy.

But, I can, and have to, separate who he is from specific things he does and evaluate them individually. In those cases where his policy aligns with mine I support his efforts.

"on balance, it seems .."

As of the middle of March, 44 of 188 countries have not been assigned Ambassadors from this loose confederation of assholes called the United States.

Patriots, conservative ones, treated like pig shit by vermin conservative republicans and this lout you lower yourself on occasion to call "stupid".

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/05/28/the-diplomat-who-quit-the-trump-administration

"pretty good overall stretch of diplomatic progress"

According to two thumbs on a tweet machine, the latter of which has more intelligence, silicone-based or otherwise, than the ignoramus operating it.

Giving mp any kind of computing power to extend his filthy "values" beyond his fingertips is like putting a third tit on Morgana, the top-heavy blonde baseball game crasher from decades past ... a triumph for limp-dicked shitheads.

What it seems is that the rest of the world needs to add exponentially to their nuclear arsenals to counter the American conservative threat.

Panama needs nukes. Take out the mp Towers in Panama City and clean up that skyline.

Ignoramuses are the new elite. Contempt for expertise of any kind is the new manifest destiny.

The new Ignoranati. They will be goddamned destroyed from within and without.

Ignoramus is the title of a farce by George Ruggle (1575-1622) that was first produced in 1615. The title character, whose name in Latin literally means "we do not know," is a lawyer who fancies himself to be quite shrewd but is actually foolish and ignorant.

At least he earned a law degree first.

"But, I can, and have to, separate who he is from specific things he does and evaluate them individually. In those cases where his policy aligns with mine I support his efforts."

On balance, therefore, it seems the Autobahn was a stroke of Nazi Party genius.

But as with everything mp, even that decent idea that was stolen, repackaged and re-presented as just another way to mobilize hatred and extend it from one end of the country to the other.

http://www.dw.com/en/the-myth-of-hitlers-role-in-building-the-autobahn/a-16144981

Hartmut, feel free to clean that up if it's wrong, or merely add more rueful hilarity to it.


Open thread.

I just want to say how moving it is to see the Irish women (and men) flooding home to vote to repeal the 8th Amendment to their constitution, which if successful would make abortion legal up to 12 weeks in Ireland. They're arriving on the planes, and the ferries, just as they did to make same sex marriage legal in 2015, when that amendment was approved by 67% of the voters.

The No campaign has used all the sneaky, illegal tricks we are now so used to from Brexit etc, partly funded by American (presumably Catholic and Evangelical) money and helped by American expertise, but even so the flood keeps coming and is said to be even bigger than the 2015 one.

It's inspiring.

"would make abortion legal up to 12 weeks"

Isn't that a bit short? Or did you mean "fortnights"?

see also: Europe, NATO, Iran.
Indeed, cleek.
Note that China accounts for close to half of both Iran's exports and imports.

While Trump has been blundering around, China have quietly annexed the South China Sea:
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/05/the-us-china-confrontation-takes-on-a-new-dimension/561062/

where his policy aligns with mine...
It would be possible to say the same about Putin - which makes it a rather meaningless statement.

I would add to this conversation as an aside that the press reports of Trump swearing create this kind of cognitive dissonance for me.

In most of my internet interaction bloggers and others have casually slipped into cursing to a level that I constantly question if their children actually hear them talk this way, much less read what they write online.

When I question this to some of them they mock me for being old fashioned and that they are just being authentic as this is how they really talk among themselves and with their friends.

I don't have a single friend outside OBWi, and that's an assumption about having one or two here, that I would use the f word with in just casual conversation. I have a few that we would throw it around in certain circumstances, I would never use it in anger with someone.

But in private I know many people who swear like sailors.

So I'm confused. by the seeming inconsistency in the desire for authenticity and the shock, shock I say that someone curses in the Oval office

So I'm confused. by the seeming inconsistency in the desire for authenticity and the shock, shock I say that someone curses in the Oval office

oh my.

https://newrepublic.com/article/122129/how-many-times-has-obama-been-beneath-dignity-his-office

Isn't that a bit short?

Yes it is. But given that it is now illegal even in cases of rape, incest or fatal foetal abnormality, and the 12 weeks is proposed to be "on demand" i.e. the woman has to give no reason, unlike in the UK where although she has a longer period a woman has to get approval from 2 doctors, it seems well worth it if they can pull it off.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/hometovote-stunning-heat-maps-reveal-huge-numbers-travelling-home-for-ireland-abortion-referendum-a3848211.html

This is pretty standard conservative policy that's worked over the 30 years

Reagan proved that deficits don't matter.

That's the standard conservative policy for the last 38 years.

So I'm confused. by the seeming inconsistency in the desire for authenticity and the shock, shock I say that someone curses in the Oval office

I may be mistaken, but I think what is shocking is not that Trump uses bad words, but that he treats his people like crap. At least that's what I find disturbing in the piece.

As an aside, I personally use profanity a lot. Probably more than I ought to. IRL, more than I do here on ObWi.

To some degree it's socialization. I travel in some communities where profanity is an art form, and it rubs off.

It's actually against the posting rules here, and I abuse that. If it's something that presents a problem to you, let me know. I will be perfectly happy to dial it back.

Well yeah, I guess, if by "American" you mean "Texan."

My wife lived for a couple of years in Austin TX. This is ca. early 80's.

She went grocery shopping, and asked a store employee where she could find pasta.

"Pasta..?"
"You know, like spaghetti."
"Well, speak American, lady!"

It's kind of a family joke.

And no, I'm not hating on TX, it's just a funny story.

As an aside, I personally use profanity a lot. Probably more than I ought to. IRL, more than I do here on ObWi.

To some degree it's socialization. I travel in some communities where profanity is an art form, and it rubs off.

Me too. And yet I would certainly wish to be considered a friend, Marty, if that's on offer, no matter how often or how vehemently I disagree with you on politics or social issues. I have a feeling that swearing (and most particularly the F-word) has almost entirely lost its charge in an awful lot of what, funnily enough, used to be called "polite society" in the UK.

No, russell is, as usual, right. I think the contempt for Trump swearing is because he clearly does it to harangue and bully subordinates who can't answer back, and that is an entirely different and horrible matter.

On the subject of swearing as an art form, I don't know if any of you saw an English TV series called The Thick Of It, satirising the Blair years, and then a movie called In the Loop, ditto. There was a character in it called Malcolm Tucker (apparently based on Blair's spin doctor Alastair Campbell) who swore brilliantly. One of my favourite examples (and I hope you will forgive the transgression of the posting rules for quotation purposes) was, when he was frantically busy containing some crisis and someone came and was sort of hovering by his door, he looked up and said:

"Come the fuck in, or fuck the fuck off."

Pure poetry.

russell, I don't find myself impacted much here, I do get taken aback at the casualness sometimes in person, or in a Mommy/Daddy blog. But the press seems to want to quote every f bomb uttered in the Oval office at this point like there is something surprising about Trump cursing regularly. I have been to NY.

The way he treats people has little to do with the actual words. He is an ass no doubt.

But, then, I was much more likely to curse when I first moved from Texas to Mass than the natives, so socialization is the answer I am sure.

I couldn't resist, I just looked up Malcolm Tucker quotes, and (I never thought I'd say such a thing) the Count has much to learn:

“You breathe a word of this to anyone, you mincing f***ing c**t, and I will tear your f***ing skin off, I will wear it to your mother’s birthday party and I will rub your nuts up and down her leg whilst whistling Bohemian f***ing Rhapsody, right?”

This is pretty standard conservative policy that's worked over the 30 years prior to the last ten, and before. Numbers being different, policy being consistent.

I'm unclear what conservative policy you would support in its place?

Marty, the obvious answer is this. When the economy is booming and unemployment is near record lows, you don't worry about stimulating the economy. You seize the moment to reduce the deficit.

If you can, you do what we did in the late 1990s and reduce it down to zero. What you do NOT do is cut taxes,** raise spending, and drastically INCREASE the deficit.

You can argue for what was done on populist grounds, I suppose. Liberals might be fine with the spending increases (although probably would prefer a somewhat different distribution). But I see no way you can claim it was the action of conservatives!

** Cutting taxes for all occasions, in an effort (supposedly although obviously not in this case) to reduce government, isn't a conservative mantra. It's a libertarian one. See the original comment about the label being misappropriated.

The (additional) deficit spending will mostly go into private savings - that of the already wealthy. It's doubtful that it will stimulate much of anything. It's going into the wrong hands, meaning that, no, the tax cuts won't pay for themselves. They'll just create bigger piles of mostly idle money, which will eventually find its way into the purchase of the bonds that will be sold dollar for dollar with the additional debt that accumulates. Savings will simply be that much greater than investment. It won't stimulate enough demand to spur the investment that would be needed create the same tax revenue at lower tax rates.

"Savings will simply be that much greater than investment."

So it will just slosh around the economy, looking for high-yield opportunities, inflating bubbles, and storing up trouble for later.

This is "why richy-rich greedheads should be launched into the Sun", part the infinity.

"When the economy is booming and unemployment is near record lows, you don't worry about stimulating the economy. You seize the moment to reduce the deficit. "

The problem with this answer is the notion that the economy is booming without extraordinary support, in this case through unsustainable monetary policy.


The conservative answer would be in times of economic stability with minimal monetary or fiscal support to take the opportunity to reduce the debt. That is what should be expected over the next few years as the benefits of the tax cuts are realized and the deficit goes away.

But to define these tax cuts as less than a long term solution on the business tax side to a long term problem is to deny the conservative policy of creating an even playing field both in the US and across the globe.

Free trade does not include punitive tax rates versus international competition. Over time that limited our growth and over time the cuts will support it. (apply this answer to all tariffs discussions, we are having all kinds of trade discussions, that needed to be had, because China and others aren't sure we will avoid trade conflict at all costs)

Free trade does not include punitive tax rates versus international competition. Over time that limited our growth and over time the cuts will support it.

US taxes as a % of GDP are lower than all but about 3 other OECD countries.

The problem with this answer is the notion that the economy is booming without extraordinary support, in this case through unsustainable monetary policy.

No disagreement on the need to get interest rates back to some kind of sensible level. (Which for me, quite possibly for personal experience reasons, means 2-4%.)

But how will enormous budget deficits speed that happening?** Eventually, if not corrected, they will have to be dealt with by massively debasing the currency. Which produces the kind of inflation that has to be tamed with enormous interest rates. But surely you don't see that as the only way to get interest rates up!

** Now if all the deficit increase were going to infrastructure, or something else which would help the non-government economy to function better? Then you might have something. But no, most of the increase is going to share buy-backs and other revenue to folks who are (or their companies are) already sitting on piles of cash for which they cannot seem to find good investment opportunities.

Cutting taxes for all occasions, in an effort...to reduce government, isn't a conservative mantra. It's a libertarian one.

While libertarians tend toward any tax cut is better than no tax cut, what with monetarism and central banks, tax cuts don't seem to have much impact on what governments are willing to spend. So reducing spending is becoming the focus, not tax cuts.

"most of the increase is going to share buy-backs and other revenue to folks who are (or their companies are)"

First, there is no evidence of this, second share buybacks put money in all kinds of investment vehicles which are the underlying capital structure of the country, much of which generates jobs.

Its a cute trick that in this thread there is an article criticizing Republicans for not caring about e-verify and then a discussion about money isn't getting spent on jobs.

Money goes somewhere, even savings goes somewhere unless it is in a matress.

Marty, you left out the rest of the sentence: "already sitting on piles of cash for which they cannot seem to find good investment opportunities." And that part is critical.

That is what should be expected over the next few years as the benefits of the tax cuts are realized and the deficit goes away.

It's May 25, 2018.

What does anyone want to wager that the deficit will have "gone away" by, say, May 25, 2021?

We've all seen this movie before.

hairshirt: ...no, the tax cuts won't pay for themselves. They'll just create bigger piles of mostly idle money, which will eventually find its way into the purchase of the bonds that will be sold dollar for dollar with the additional debt that accumulates.

Absolutely.

Anybody with any sense would rather LEND money to The Government than PAY TAXES to The Government. The very rich have plenty of sense. So they loves them some high-end tax cuts AND the resulting deficits.

Note that bondholders collect interest from taxpayers -- all taxpayers, including the very rich themselves. But their tax cuts make them taxpayers to a smaller degree, so the burden of paying the interest falls more heavily on the not-very-rich. And since bonds can be bequeathed, the heirs of the very rich will be collecting interest from the children of the not-very-rich for a long time.

Someday, Marty's grandkids will figure out that they are paying interest to Barron Trump because their grandpa supported the "(Republican)" policies of Barron's daddy. They may well decide that Barron had a smarter daddy than they had a grandpa.

I see that Marty has weighed in with: Money goes somewhere, even savings goes somewhere unless it is in a matress.

True. The very rich using their tax cuts to buy bonds The Government has to issue because of its tax-cut-induced debt is the ultimate "stock buy-back". And yes: The Government can use the borrowed money, just as it could use tax money, to increase "the underlying capital structure of the country, much of which generates jobs". The difference is in who collects the interest. Marty's grandkids will need those jobs -- to pay the taxes that pay the interest to the very rich son of the champion of the very rich whose "(Republican)" policies grandpa supported.

--TP

This "the very rich use their money to buy bonds" is belied by the very wealthy using their money for charity and investing in businesses (see everyone from Gates and Buffett to Elon Musk and Mark Cuban).

I know some pretty wealthy people and outside having enough in bonds and dividend vehicles to pay for their day to day life, none of them buy bonds.

This is just the mantra of the left to demonize wealth.

"First, there is no evidence of this, ..."

Take your pick:

https://www.google.com/search?q=what+percentage+of+the+tax+cut+to+corporationsis+going+into+stock+buybacks&rlz=1C1GCEA_enUS774US774&oq=what+percentage+of+the+tax+cut+to+corporationsis+going+into+stock+buybacks&aqs=chrome..69i57.44722j1j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

If, first, there is no evidence of this, then there was no need for the "and second" half of the statement about the blah-blah of the capital structure of the country.

Larry Kudlow, Steve Munchin, Maria Bartiromo, and even Sarah Huckabee Sanders are much better at keeping a straight face about denying evidence.

Leave that job to them.

Corporate CEOs are all over the media and their shareholder meetings cackling about the in-our-faces evidence about where the corporate tax cuts are going.

“I know some pretty wealthy people and outside having enough in bonds and dividend vehicles to pay for their day to day life, none of them buy bonds.”

I just can’t even...

First, there is no evidence of this...

Yes. There is.

second share buybacks put money in all kinds of investment vehicles which are the underlying capital structure of the country, much of which generates jobs.

Shareholders selling or receiving bigger dividends do not necessarily put the funds into a vehicle generating greater NET investment. If they just plow it back into the market to buy different stocks, this does not generate new jobs. They could also spend it on anything. Or they could just light it on fire...

Point being...there is no direct mechanism in econ 101 macro theory that mandates these funds being plowed back into greater NET investment.

Its a cute trick...

Well, you tell us schools should snitch on illegals, but the folk hiring them should just blithely ignore the LAW? I am shocked! There is nothing cute about this...it merely demonstrates that firms seek cheap labor, and don't appear to be too picky about national origins.

As Drum points out...if you want to "end" illegal immigration, end the ability to obtain illegal employment...Much like if you want to "end" abortions, make sex ed and contraceptives universally available at no cost and no need for a prescription.

Who owns the national debt?

https://www.thebalance.com/who-owns-the-u-s-national-debt-3306124

I know some pretty wealthy people

Me, too. They do all kinds of stuff with their money. Charity, start businesses. Buy big boats that they never sail in, wear really snappy clothes. All kinds of things.

I think wealth is fine. I don't think it deserves special, beneficial treatment.

The reward for having a lot of money is... you have a lot of money. Fly first class, have really nice house(s), don't have to drink cheap wine.

Sounds great!! Sign me up!

Adam Smith says the marginal utility of money as income increases means that tax rates should increase as income increases. I agree with Adam Smith. That is not a statement that "demonizes wealth".

Most of the tax rebates are going to end up in the hands of people who already have a lot of money. They don't need it, they already have a lot of money. That is not a statement that "demonizes wealth".

You say it's going to result in lots and lots of new businesses being created, and lots and lots of new jobs being created. What kind of businesses? What kind of jobs?

The pattern for the last 40 years has been that people who don't have a lot of money live increasingly precarious lives. This is just more of the same.

"This is just the mantra of the left to demonize wealth."

"Gates and Buffett to Elon Musk and Mark Cuban" are the left, though Musk, like mp, has 28 sides to his mouth.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/21/bill-gates-has-paid-10-billion-in-taxes-and-says-he-should-pay-more.html

https://twitter.com/mcuban/status/934132414644973568?lang=en

I own Berkshire Hathaway and Microsoft stock.

That's not demonizing.


Dammit, bobbyp, you're going to get me started on who OWES the national debt.

And if I end up expounding my proposal to Privatize the National Debt again, god help us all.

--TP

Who owns the national debt?

That $2.8 trillion that is owed the SS trust fund?

The (R)'s don't want to pay it back. They spent it on W's excellent adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan, and on tax cuts.

Oopsie!

All you people who have been paying into SS at a rate greater than outlays since 1983?

Sucks to be you.

Lawrence Fink of Blackwater, some time ago, on the waste of stock buybacks to produce short-term advantage:

https://democracyjournal.org/magazine/38/against-short-termism/

I just turned down a chance to have my (all or some) Abbvie stock bought back by the company.

I'd prefer as a shareholder, that they invest that cash, made available by the tax cuts, in the research and development of new products to cut their 58% (percentage of revenues) dependence on one drug ... Humira ... because at some point a bio-similar is coming along for that product.

But they'd rather juke quarterly earnings in a pointless exercise on re-arranging their co-called capital structure.

In which case, just pay the taxes and fuck off.

If I sell my shares, it won't be to them.

Eventually, if not corrected, they will have to be dealt with by massively debasing the currency.

This could happen, but is not necessarily so.... absent a host of assumptions that, for some reason have gone unstated.

Why are they so shy?

I'd also like Marty to explain how our current monetary policy is "unsustainable".

"..if you want to "end" illegal immigration, end the ability to obtain illegal employment.."

I agree with this, but if actually implemented it would increase the current deportation rate, I suspect, by a few 100%. Then no one on the left would be cavalierly bashing Republicans for not doing it. They would just bash Republicans for implementing it.

if you want to "end" illegal immigration

If you want to end illegal immigration, issue more visas.

There's deportation and there's Mitt Romney's "self-deportation".

If you can't get hired by any "job creator" because the Nationalist-Capitalist wing of the Republican Party, led by their immigrant-bashing orange fuhrer, prevails over the Moneyed-Capitalist wing, and makes it impossible in practice to employ "illegal immigrants", you will probably return to your country of birth (Ireland, Slovenia, whatever) voluntarily.

This is likely to be less wrenching than ICE grabbing you on its terms, and result in less outrage among us bleeding-heart libruls. The people who would be really pissed off would be the farmers, chicken magnates, and country-club managers who suddenly have to pay maternity-ward immigrants (aka Real Murkins) real money to consume a lot of those hard, dirty jobs.

He, Trump (who not only employs immigrants, but marries them) knows all this. He will continue to fire up his voter base with anti-immigrant posturing so that He can keep His donor base adequately supplied with cheap labor and tax cuts.

--TP

He, Trump (who not only employs illegal immigrants, but marries them)

Fixed that for you.

Its a cute trick that in this thread there is an article criticizing Republicans for not caring about e-verify and then a discussion about money isn't getting spent on jobs.

I went back through this thread and I don't see any mention of e-verify. Can you tell me where this is?

In one of the links

So, one person posts an article that has something that isn't even discussed by anyone else, in a thread that an open thread that started with stained glass and has ranged from abortion in Ireland to questions of wealth and you suggest that this undermines the argument that money is not spent on jobs, made by other people who may not have even noticed the article?

I am certain that you are going to take this as me attacking you, but I would honestly like to see better arguments. While I've always been pretty liberal/left, as I get older, I do see some wisdom in actual conservatism (where you don't make massive changes without considering the impact) and this kind of argumentation doesn't help convince anyone, assuming that is what you want to do.

I went back through this thread and I don't see any mention of e-verify. Can you tell me where this is?

bobbyp 5-25; 08:08 AM

If you want to end illegal immigration, issue more visas.

Yep.

But the GOP donor class needs those dusky hued Spanish speaking illegals to rile their base and provide a supply of cheap exploitable labor for the "job creator" class.
An immigration reform bill would pass the Congress in a bipartisan heartbeat, but the GOP leadership will never allow such legislation to reach the floor.

lj: ... actual conservatism (where you don't make massive changes without considering the impact) ...

Let's not buy too much into this meme, lj. The "conservative" attack on liberals often amounts to "you have not considered the impact", when in fact two things are true:
1) Liberals have "considered the impact" and assessed that it will be beneficial; and
2) Liberals have considered the impact of NOT making the "massive changes" and assessed that it is pernicious.
"Beneficial" and "pernicious" are subjective assessments based on values that even conservatives, and not just liberals, can be suspected of imbibing with their mother's milk.

Don't believe me? Ask which is preferable:
1) A policy which raises GDP growth a magnificent 3% by doubling the incomes of the top 10% while holding the bottom 90% incomes constant; or
2) A policy which raises GDP growth a measly 2% by raising the incomes of the bottom 90% by 3% while holding the top 10% incomes constant.
Tally the responses by "liberal" and "conservative" and ask yourself which tribe is motivated by a sober preference for the status quo and which is heedless of the potential consequences.

--TP

On the Irish referendum result, to quote Fintan O'Toole, an Irish columnist:

Another reason to be cheerful is that Ireland is the first Anglophone country to face the full panoply of Trump/Brexit/Bannon tactics and withstand that onslaught.

Tony, fair point, but (and maybe this is just me getting old) but it seems like the pace of change is a lot faster than it used to be. I'm sure I'll be told that things are changing as fast as they ever had and I'm looking forward to talking about it.

"Tax cuts - There is plenty of evidence that they will keep the economy growing over 3%, pay for themselves..."

Having an enquiring mind, I went looking for evidence to support this proposition. I found an article by an economics professor in support of the tax cuts. He estimates that the cuts will increase growth by 0.3% (which he describes as "slightly optimistic") and calculates that the cuts will therefore pay for themselves if we wait 26 years.

That's insanity.

It's quite plausible that any sort of increase in deficit spending will increase growth in the short term. Even if it's to pay for tax cuts for the rich, which is demonstrably the least effective way to increase growth. If you say by 0.3% that's just a guess but it's not ridiculous.

But it's madness to assume that the increase in growth will continue for 26 years. The increased deficit translates to cumulatively increasing debt, which has to be serviced. If the resulting bond holders are domestic, that just ties the capital up again, so it produces no growth. If they're overseas, the interest payments will flow into their economies not the USA's. And the effect of increasing the debt is that interest rates when you roll the existing debt will go up as well.

When did the Rs advocate increasing the deficit to spend the money on helping poor people? Given that more money for the poor, who spend it in the local economy, is much better for US growth than more money for the rich, who import French wine. Never. That's because they don't actually believe that increasing the deficit is good for the economy. What they believe in is tax cuts for the rich. Especially for rich donors to the Republican party.

Marty, please tell us you haven't fallen for this transparent deception.

Hidden worlds in plain sight:

https://washingtonmonthly.com/2018/05/26/trump-is-openly-looting-the-country-and-theres-no-one-to-stop-him/

The death penalty will reach deep into the republican party and then we'll get started on the republican electorate.

Trump's got nothing to worry about. Good Republicans everywhere have his back at every turn. even if they grumble about certain specifics when pressed, they're all-in when it matters.

now let's let them lecture us on who the Real True Patriotic Americans are!

oh, and religion and charity are so very important to Real True Patriotic Christian Americans and we should let them write all our laws so that we will all follow the rules that the Bible lays out.

http://katu.com/news/local/woman-shamed-for-wic-card-usage-in-grocery-store-they-keep-getting-handouts

Been off doing other things for a bit, so I’m surprised to find out that suggesting that someone would buy bonds is a form of demonization. I don’t know if I’ll ever be able to comprehend this new political correctness.

'That’s why they have babies, so they can keep on getting all of the free stuff.'"

This stuff never goes away. I remember people talking like that about the Other when I was a kid.

I'll bet that racist republican c*nt of a cashier has aborted at least two babies.

Yeah, plain English, Marty, just like mp spews.

"that someone would buy bonds is a form of demonization."

The Right use to call people who purchased bonds "vigilantes", and they meant it in a nice way.

..... just as they approve of the Bundy vigilantes.

Here's a product invented and developed by private ingenuity and capital, undeterred by the high marginal tax rates .... 91% .... prevailing at the time, the late 1950s.

https://www.npr.org/2018/02/28/588861820/a-brief-history-of-the-ar-15

Federal government subsidization, via military contracts, in the tens of millions or more dollars, supplied the capital structure to make the product a top seller.

I'm going to do some research on the role of Medicare and Medicaid tax dollars in growing the market for and sparking and sustaining the explosion of private capital now devoted to the development of miraculous medical technology and pharmaceuticals in America.

Tang, the beverage, was developed private sector geniuses at General Foods in 1957.

Sales were poor.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tang_(drink)

Then the federal government, via NASA, got involved and the market exploded, ruining it for everyone.

America will never recover.

I'm taking bets on whether that Albertson's cashier proudly calls herself a Christian.

No bets on whether she calls herself "conservative".

She may not call herself either one, mind you. "Conservatives" often claim that private charity, motivated by "Christian" values, is better than guvmint support. This cashier seems to have been determined to forbid an act of private charity, possibly because she suspected the customer offering it of liberalism.

--TP

A preview of the soundtrack for the 2018 midterms:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zVxAnY_mp6g&t=136s

dial it back to the beginning.

Why, exactly, a "christian country" has to behave in an amoral pagan fashion when helping the least of JC's brothers, is left unsaid.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad