Has U.S. Democracy Been Trumped?

[y66]

From David Leonhardt at NYT:

 

While Nancy Pelosi was meeting with a group of columnists yesterday, she pointed to a portrait of Abraham Lincoln hanging on a wall of her conference room and paraphrased a famous line of his that has long been a favorite of hers.

 

“Public sentiment is everything,” she told us. “With it, you can accomplish almost anything. Without it, you can accomplish virtually nothing.”

 

Pelosi was meeting with us columnists, from several publications, to explain her thinking on impeachment. I asked her how she planned to make the case that this Trump scandal was different from all of the others that have failed to move public opinion; she said she would have an answer when the inquiry was complete. She promised that it would revolve around “simple and repetitive clarity about the Constitution of the United States.”

 

That will be a good way to judge the upcoming hearing: Are the Democrats giving the country a clear, succinct message about why Trump is unfit to be president — and are they hammering home that message every single day?

[Winstonm]

Speaking of media bias: Krugman from NYT

 

When progressives propose new or expanded social programs, they face intense media scrutiny bordering on harassment over how they intend to pay for these programs. Republicans proposing tax cuts don’t face anything like the same scrutiny; they are seemingly able to get away with blithe assertions that tax cuts will pay for themselves by boosting economic growth, even though every single piece of evidence we have says that this is nonsense.

 

We’re talking about big numbers here. As I said, the Trump budget blowout, overwhelmingly driven by tax cuts, seems to have raised the deficit by around $300 billion, or around 1½ percent of G.D.P. Over the course of the next decade, that would amount to something like $3.8 trillion — substantially more than, for example, the combined cost of all of Elizabeth Warren’s proposals other than Medicare for All, which we’re still waiting to hear about.

 

Yes, all we seen to hear or read about is the numbers involved with no consideration for the benefits received and what the value of those unseen benefits would be.

[kenberg]

What is the evidence for thinking most middle-class taxpayers oppose a wealth tax?

 

According to Morning Consult, 63% of voters think upper-income people currently pay too little in taxes and 61% support an annual tax of 2% on household wealth above $50 million and 3% on wealth above $1 billion.

 

According to Pew Research, 60% of Americans are bothered "a lot" by the feeling that some wealthy people don't pay their fair share of taxes.

 

My error! I listened to the video again and this one panelist was ridiculing people of modest means that are opposed to the wealth tax and I had erroneously thought that he was saying they were in a majority of the middle class. So I listened again and he did not make such a claim. He was definitely ridiculing such people but he did not claim that they were a majority.

 

 

As to why some might be opposed, he regarded it as impossible to understand. I don't, not at all, and I think the explanation that I provide is reasonable. They don't like the idea that the government could not only take part of a person's earnings, but also part of a person's savings. They do not trust any assurances that of course the government would only take this from the rich, but never from you and me. Uh huh. I regard such skepticism as very understandable.

[barmar]

My error! I listened to the video again and this one panelist was ridiculing people of modest means that are opposed to the wealth tax and I had erroneously thought that he was saying they were in a majority of the middle class. So I listened again and he did not make such a claim. He was definitely ridiculing such people but he did not claim that they were a majority.

And I simply assumed that you knew what you were talking about, and ran with it. The same thing we accuse Trump supporters of doing. OTOH, you don't have a history of telling an average of a dozen lies/day, AFAIK.

 

During recent elections a frequent question in the forum was why so many people seem to vote against their own interests. I've said it before, most people vote with their emotions and guts, not by doing careful financial analysis. Often it's based on policies that have little direct impact on themselves -- right-to-lifers presumably tend to vote Republican.

[kenberg]

And I simply assumed that you knew what you were talking about, and ran with it. The same thing we accuse Trump supporters of doing. OTOH, you don't have a history of telling an average of a dozen lies/day, AFAIK.

 

During recent elections a frequent question in the forum was why so many people seem to vote against their own interests. I've said it before, most people vote with their emotions and guts, not by doing careful financial analysis. Often it's based on policies that have little direct impact on themselves -- right-to-lifers presumably tend to vote Republican.

 

 

 

I try to be straight!

 

Dwelling on this just a little more, there is a downside to polls. Often reasons are not asked for, and often there are subtleties. 23andme asks me to take various surveys and I cooperate. But maybe I should cooperate more carefully. The other day I took one on lifestyle. How many hours a day do I sit? Oh, maybe 8. How many hours a day do I stand? Oh, maybe 4. Wait! I don't sleep 12 hours a day! I don't run or dance 4 hours a day.

 

 

In the case at hand, I can imagine that many many people think the rich are getting away without paying their reasonable share of the country's needs. So they support a wealth tax or any tax that targets the rich. And then some people, not a majority, think that they themselves are already paying too much in taxes and so they reflexively oppose anything that has the word tax in it. Only a small number, definitely not including me, are prepared to give a learned analysis of the pluses and minuses of putting in a wealth tax.

 

One of my favorite answers to a question was from when I was 21. I had worked at NASA over the summer before starting grad school and I was perhaps coming back the next summer so they did a background check on me. An instructor that I had become casual friends with told me that they asked him if I was loyal. He responded "How the hell should I know if he is loyal?"

 

Pollsters ask us questions about matters that we have not given two seconds of thought to, and then take our quick responses as meaningful.

 

On the broader question of whether the rich should contribute more to the needs of the country, that I find obvious. Of course they should. If I can be grateful for the opportunities that I have had and not avoid contributing a decent share to keep things going, a guy with 50 million should be able to do so also. But then maybe that's why he has 50 million and I don't.

[Zelandakh]

23andme asks me to take various surveys and I cooperate. But maybe I should cooperate more carefully.

You should. "Surveys" of this type are precisely how marketing firms build up data about you and sell it around to various companies. If you spend almost all of your time sitting you might, for example, be in the market for a stair lift. The point of a survey might even be nothing more than to obtain active email addresses. Generally it is a good idea to be wise before going ahead. Does a genetic testing company really need the information they are asking for? If not, why are they going to the trouble and expense of trying to extract a response? If you treat every question, click and "free" offer on the internet with suspicion you will not be too far from the truth. There should be laws governing what companies can do with our data without giving prior warning. My understanding is that the limits of that are somewhat different in the USA than in Europe.

[Winstonm]

During recent elections a frequent question in the forum was why so many people seem to vote against their own interests. I've said it before, most people vote with their emotions and guts, not by doing careful financial analysis. Often it's based on policies that have little direct impact on themselves -- right-to-lifers presumably tend to vote Republican.

 

Yahoo! news had an article today of a new poll that shows Trump still has support of 30-40% who seem unshakable regardless of what he does, which then leads to a near tie 47-46 on whether or not he should be impeached.

 

I find that kind of news both depressing and distressing. The gaslighting appears to be working as these people live in an alternative imaginary reality.

[Chas_P]

An outsider's view on Warren's wealth tax:

 

 

 

The argument, of course, is whether rich and super rich would move their capital to avoid these taxes. Perhaps a solution to that would be a double taxation penalty for capital gains earned outside the US by an US citizen?

 

“A tax of 2% on the wealth above $50 million and 3% above $1 billion."

 

This would substantially impact quite a few members (and ex-members) of Congress...both Democrat and Republican. I wonder how supportive they might be.

[Zelandakh]

-

Any of our resident Reds want to suggest a defence they could get behind and believe in?

A week passed already and still no defence has been offered. Could it be that the actions are simply indefensible?

[kenberg]

A week passed already and still no defence has been offered. Could it be that the actions are simply indefensible?

 

I believe the current defense is that Vindman came to the US when he was three and a half. He should go back to where he came from. I find this defense not only insulting but also some bizarre combination of idiocy and desperation. They truly embarrass themselves by offering it.

[barmar]

Pollsters ask us questions about matters that we have not given two seconds of thought to, and then take our quick responses as meaningful.

Fuzzy data is better than no data. Good pollsters know how to adjust for this kind of thing. And if you have enough responses, the fuzziness fades into the noise. And poll results always come with a margin of error.

[barmar]

 

I believe the current defense is that Vindman came to the US when he was three and a half. He should go back to where he came from. I find this defense not only insulting but also some bizarre combination of idiocy and desperation. They truly embarrass themselves by offering it.

One of the pundits supported this by mentioning that he has Irish heritage, and still has an "affinity" for Ireland. So maybe we should send him back there, or at least discount anything he says on the topic of Ireland (which is a big issue in Brexit).

[y66]

Here's an update from Greg Ip at WSJ on the still yet-to-materialize boost to growth from the Trump tax cut:

 

The cornerstone of President Trump’s domestic economic agenda is the tax cut he signed into law in late 2017. It would, he said, lift U.S. sustained annual economic growth to 3%, or even as high as 6%. His advisers said it would boost average household incomes by at least $4,000 a year. His Treasury secretary said it would pay for itself.

 

Nearly two years later, none of those things have happened, and there is scant sign they will. The U.S. economy did enjoy a burst of 3% annualized growth after the tax cut first took effect at the start of 2018. But it has since slipped. It grew at a 1.9% annual rate in the third quarter. In the past 12 months, the economy grew 2%, about the same as it averaged from 2011 through 2017.

 

This should not come as a surprise. The administration’s claims rested on the belief that cutting the corporate tax rate to 21% from 35% and allowing companies to immediately write off the cost of new equipment would boost business investment and thus worker productivity and wages. Yet numerous other advanced countries had already cut their corporate rates in the prior two decades without experiencing anywhere near the growth boost the Trump administration promised. Many experienced no boost at all.

[Winstonm]

The supply-side cultists are still drinking the Laffer Kool-aid, or more likely, pretending to sip some in order to get the masses to taste it.

[barmar]

Don't forget that they also promised that businesses would use the tax savings to increase hiring and wages. A handful gave one-time bonuses, but most of the savings was used to simply buy back stock, which only helps the rich investors, increasing the economic divide that has been growing for decades.

[hrothgar]

So... Impeachment has formally begun

 

Looks like the Republicans are now decrying the lack of Regular Order

[y66]

It's their party and they can decry if they want to.

[PassedOut]

‘He is right on all counts’: Obama finds rare bipartisan support by bashing ‘woke’ shaming

 

On Tuesday, Obama was roughly 50 minutes into a discussion with young leaders about their activism when he mentioned that he had started to notice a worrisome trend “among young people, particularly on college campuses.”

 

“There is this sense sometimes of, ‘The way of me making change is to be as judgmental as possible about other people,’ and that’s enough,” he said, noting that the mind-set was only “accelerated by social media.”

 

Obama went on to describe an example of the behavior he was cautioning against.

 

“If I tweet or hashtag about how you didn’t do something right or used the wrong verb, then I can sit back and feel pretty good about myself, because, man, you see how woke I was?” he said, drawing laughter from the audience. “I called you out.”

 

But the act of public shaming on social media, Obama said, is “not activism.”

 

“That’s not bringing about change,” he said. “If all you’re doing is casting stones, you’re probably not going to get that far. That’s easy to do.”

And the accompanying video of an excerpt from Obama's talk offers a stark reminder of how much the presidency has been diminished with the current occupant.

[Winstonm]

It's their party and they can decry if they want to.

 

:lol: :lol: :lol:

[johnu]

Eff'n trumped again :rolleyes:

 

Giuliani needed Apple genius to help unlock iPhone after being named Trump cybersecurity adviser

 

Less than a month after he was named President Donald Trump’s cybersecurity adviser in 2017, Rudy Giuliani walked into an Apple store looking for help. He forgot his passcode, entered the wrong one at least 10 times, and was locked out of his phone.

It's a good thing that the Felon in Chief only hires the best. This country would be in terrible trouble if the Manchurian President hires less than the best. B-)

[y66]

From Elizabeth Warren Releases $20.5 Trillion Plan to Pay for ‘Medicare for All’ by Thomas Kaplan, Abby Goodnough and Margot Sanger-Katz at NYT:

 

WASHINGTON — Senator Elizabeth Warren on Friday proposed $20.5 trillion in new spending through huge tax increases on businesses and wealthy Americans to pay for “Medicare for all,” laying out details for a landmark government expansion that will pose political risks for her presidential candidacy while also allowing her to say she is not raising taxes on the middle class to pay for her health care plan.

 

Ms. Warren, who has risen steadily in the polls with strong support from liberals excited about her ambitious policy plans, has been under pressure from top rivals like former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. to release details about paying for her biggest plan, “Medicare for all.” Her new proposal marks a turning point for her campaign, in which she will have to sell voters on a tax-and-spending plan that rivals the ambitions of the New Deal and the Great Society while also defending it against both Democratic and Republican criticism.

 

Under Ms. Warren’s plan, employer-sponsored health insurance — which more than half of Americans now receive — would be eliminated and replaced by free government health coverage for all Americans, a fundamental shift from a market-driven system that has defined health care in the United States for decades but produced vast inequities in quality, service and cost.

 

Ms. Warren would use a mix of sources to pay for the $20.5 trillion in new spending over a decade, including by requiring employers to pay trillions of dollars to the government, replacing much of what they currently spend to provide health coverage to workers. She would create a tax on financial transactions like stock trades, change how investment gains are taxed for the top 1 percent of households and ramp up her signature wealth tax proposal to be steeper on billionaires. She also wants to cut $800 billion in military spending.

 

Ms. Warren’s estimate for the cost of Medicare for all relies on an aggressive set of assumptions about how to lower national health care costs while providing comprehensive coverage to all Americans. Like Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, she would essentially eliminate medical costs for individuals, including premiums, deductibles and other out-of-pocket expenses.

 

Critically, her new plan would not raise taxes on middle-class Americans, a question she has been asked over and over but has not answered directly until now. When confronted on the campaign trail and debate stage, she emphasized instead that her plan would result in higher overall costs for wealthy people and big corporations but lower costs for middle-class families.

 

More..

[Winstonm]

NEW: Pres. Trump's approval rating is 38% in the new @ABC News/WaPo poll.

 

Among Republicans, he's at a career low of 74%

 

The 74% does not bode well for 2020, even if he's not removed through impeachment and conviction; however, the Republican party has tied itself to the Russian-influenced theocratic-oligarchy model of government so it's either win or "Da" trying..

[y66]

Ezra Klein at Vox explains how Warren's team came up with their cost estimate and how their plan pays for M4A.

[Winstonm]

According to reports from this Friday morning, US employers added 128,000 jobs.

 

“Wow, a blowout JOBS number just out, adjusted for revisions and the General Motors strike, 303,000,” Trump tweeted Friday morning

.

 

Which number does the frothy right accept, I wonder?

[y66]

Paul Krugman's take on Warren's M4A plan:

 

Last week I worried that Elizabeth Warren had painted herself into a corner by endorsing the Sanders Medicare-for-all plan. It was becoming obvious that she couldn’t stay vague about the details, especially how to pay for it; and some studies, even by center-left think tanks, suggested that any plan along these lines would require large tax hikes on the middle class. So what would she come up with?

 

Well, the Warren plan is now out. And I’d say that she passed the test. Experts will argue for months whether she’s being too optimistic — whether her cost estimates are too low and her revenue estimates too high, whether we can really do this without middle-class tax hikes. You might say that time will tell, but it probably won’t: Even if Warren becomes president, and Dems take the Senate too, it’s very unlikely that Medicare for all will happen any time soon.

 

Nonetheless, Warren needed to show that she was working the problem. And she did. She brought in real experts like Donald Berwick, who ran Medicare during the Obama years, and Betsey Stevenson, former chief economist at the Labor Department. And they have produced a serious plan. As I said, experts will argue with the numbers, but this is the real thing — not some left-leaning version of voodoo economics.

 

How does the Warren plan expand Medicare to cover everyone without raising taxes on the middle class? There are four main components.

 

First, the Warren team argues that a single-payer system would provide significant savings in overall medical costs — more than other studies are assuming. Some of these would come from bargaining down prices, especially on drugs. Others would come from a reduction in administrative costs.

 

Are these savings plausible? Well, America does pay incredibly high prices for drugs compared with other countries, and the complexity of our system imposes a huge administrative burden — not just the overhead of insurance companies, but the sheer number of people doctors and hospitals have to employ to deal with multiple insurers. I’ve been puzzled at the reluctance of other studies to credit Medicare for all with big savings on these fronts.

 

And we should note that even with these assumed cost savings, U.S. health spending per capita would remain far above that of other advanced countries. So there’s a case — not an open-and-shut case, but a reasonable one — for optimism here.

 

Second — and the cleverest item in the plan — the Warren team would basically require employers who are now offering health insurance to their employees to pay the cost of that insurance to the government instead. Bear in mind that large employers are already required by law (specifically, the Affordable Care Act) to provide insurance. So this would just redirect those funds.

 

Third, state and local governments currently spend a lot on health care, mainly but not only through their share of Medicaid spending. The Warren plan would require “maintenance of effort,” basically requiring that states continue to spend that money, but on supporting a national plan.

 

Am I enthusiastically endorsing this plan? No. I still think that a public-option-type plan, which lets people buy into Medicare, would have a better chance of actually becoming reality — and may well be where a President Warren actually ends up if she gets to the White House. And the plan’s optimism on costs and revenues could be wrong.

 

But this is a serious plan that reflects hard thinking. In particular, it’s nothing like the snake oil that passes for policy analysis on the right, whether it’s the continual insistence that tax cuts pay for themselves or Paul Ryan budgets that assumed that discretionary spending could be cut to Calvin Coolidge levels.

 

So what has Warren achieved here? Realistically, her health care plan is more aspirational than her other plans. Enhanced financial regulation and universal child care are things she might well be able to accomplish if she not only wins, but wins big, next year. Medicare for All, not so much. And may I say, it would serve the public well if these topics — plus climate change! — got more attention in future debates, and health care a bit less.

 

Warren’s task was, instead, to counter criticism that she was being evasive on a big issue. I think she has met that challenge.