US Politics V - now with 20% more echo chamber

[kiwilad]

Hope it does fail.

There does seem to more chatter against the Trump/Bannon side of things.

Losing a seat in AL has to hurt

It has to, right?
This is an unprecedented presidency so it's impossible to draw parallels, but it seems like history will look back on a moment when the weight of bullshit becomes too much and everything crumbles. The snowflake that breaks the branch.
Is Moore the snowflake?
Will it be some development with the Russia stuff.
It could yet be the GOP itself (or a senior figure from the party) who breaks away from Trump in an act of defiance and leadership in an attempt to set themselves apart from the Trump legacy. I can kinda see Ryan doing this.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Predictions now that the tax plan may fail due to Rubio, Collins, and others having problems.

I wonder if the Moore defeat is the turning point, and the GOP starts to turn on Trump.

Let the blood fly!

Well it's Moore, Strange and Gillespie; and in quick succession.

The only reason to fear Trump was the fear of losing your seat if you didn't kiss the ring.

That fear is now gone.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

So lots of stories out about Paul Ryan getting out of politics. Fatigue listed as main reason.

Could it be he’s got some part of the Russia meddling and he’s getting out now before it looks worse for him?

I’m thinking Trump AND Pence will be removed so that means whoever is Speaker takes over.

And if Ryan doesn’t run for re election, and Dems some how pull off 2018 (unlikely) what a crazy turn of events.

But realistically I’d think GOP would want someone very clean and establishment to take Ryan’s spot

You mean like the rumors that Ryan's comments about Trump being on Putin's payroll clearly weren't said in a joking matter, and that Evan McMullen recorded it?

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

I think he's tired of having to dance a line as his party's decency dwindles and turns into the party of Trump. I wouldn't get so conspiratorial about it.

I take everything with a grain of salt... but if you made a tin foil checklist last year, more items would have check marks next to them today than X's.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

The bots are extra active this morning. Could we have incoming?

 

[Irvine511]

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Fake News!

 

[Nick66]

What exactly is contradictory? I'd be happy to have a more specific discussion.

There have been a number of polls on this subject the past several years, given that approval for "socialism" in the US is at its highest levels since the 1930's. This is driven primarily by renewed interest among millienials, but I like I said I'm not convinced they understand what socialism really is. At best, it's an affinity for what Bernie Sanders calls "democratic socialism" but it really seems to be about stuff like getting free college. Again, this is reflected in millennial's lack of understanding of what socialism is, or even basis economics, which as I said have shown to often be contractictory.

On spending:
- 65 percent of Millennials would like to cut spending.
- 62 percent would like to spend more on infrastructure and jobs.
On taxes:
- 58 percent of Millennials want to cut taxes overall.
- 66 percent want to raise taxes on the wealthy.
On government's role in our lives:
- 66 percent of Millennials say that "when something is funded by the government, it is usually inefficient and wasteful."
- More than two-thirds think the government should guarantee food, shelter, and a living wage.
On government size:
- 57 percent want smaller government with fewer services (if you mention the magic word "taxes").
- 54 percent want larger government with more services (if you don't mention "taxes").

42% of Millenials say socialism is preferable to capitalism...
....but 64% say a free market economy is preferable to a government managed economy.

55% say they'd like to start their own business one day…
…but a plurality (48%) say that businesses mostly get rich at someone else's expense.

61% cite "hard work" as a major reason for determining wealth and success in life…
…but only 31% cite "lack of work ethic" as a major reason for why people are poor.

73% agree that "people should be allowed to keep what they produce, even if there are others with greater needs"…
…but 58% agree that government should "spend more on financial assistance to the poor, even if it leads to higher taxes."

69% think the government should guarantee health insurance…
…but 55% are "unwilling to pay more for health insurance in order to help provide coverage to the uninsured."

Also, polling has shown that Millennials, like most people, also tend to get more conservative economically (and their support for socialism drops) as their income rises.

Sources:

Study: Millennials Deeply Confused About Their Politics, Finances, and Culture
Millennials' Political Views Don't Make Any Sense

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Must be all the avocados

 

[iron yuppie]

There have been a number of polls on this subject the past several years, given that approval for "socialism" in the US is at its highest levels since the 1930's. This is driven primarily by renewed interest among millienials, but I like I said I'm not convinced they understand what socialism really is. At best, it's an affinity for what Bernie Sanders calls "democratic socialism" but it really seems to be about stuff like getting free college.

It seems like whenever the term "socialism" is mentioned, someone makes this objection about it not being properly understood or something. I don't think it is at all helpful to default toward an academic view of socialism as a pure socio-economic theory. As theory it will never be directly implemented, just as pure capitalism will never be implemented - but no one ever seems to object to the latter term when it is used casually.

I think we all understand what a loose socialism would look like, which at the very least would involve direct government involvement in large-scale, high-stakes market failures like mortgages and higher education. And I don't think it's "free" college that people are clamoring for, but rather affordable college, which is a perfectly reasonable expectation given that real higher ed costs are outpacing real wages by some ungodly amount.

 

[Nick66]

I think we all understand what a loose socialism would look like, which at the very least would involve direct government involvement in large-scale, high-stakes market failures like mortgages and higher education.

Well this already happens in the US....in fact it happened in pretty dramatic fashion of the last big economic crisis.

And in any event, a Government taking this kind of action isn't socialism, "loose" or otherwise. The Government engaging in regulation of a capitalistic economy isn't socialism. Even the vaunted economies in Scandinavia, often cited as examples of socialism, really aren't socialist. Those economies are fuelled by capitalism, albeit under increased Government regulation.

And while I agree that we shouldn't get too caught up on the "academic" definitions of things, words still have meaning. If it's more regulation of capitalism you're after, then say that, but that doesn't make you (and I'm using "you" rhetorically) a socialist, or mean you want socialism. And if you are going to call for "socialism", you should probably at least have some sort of consistency and coherence to your economic views.

 

[iron yuppie]

And while I agree that we shouldn't get too caught up on the "academic" definitions of things, words still have meaning. If it's more regulation of capitalism you're after, then say that, but that doesn't make you (and I'm using "you" rhetorically) a socialist, or mean you want socialism. And if you are going to call for "socialism", you should probably at least have some sort of consistency and coherence to your economic views.

For me that regulated capitalism is as close to theoretical socialism as any state is going to get, in the simple sense that redistribution is taking place through non-market forces on a significant scale. I get that it doesn't amount to true public ownership, but I'm not aware of any state on the planet that really has a large-scale public ownership economy.

Seems to me one of the fundamental maxims of economics is that people will find a way to compete no matter how much institutions try to prevent it (see the large-scale presence of black markets in the Soviet Union), so sensible regulation and redistribution measures are what we should aim for.

 

[BEAL]

Lots of talk from the tin foil crowd about The Kush being the next domino to fall.

My only hesitation is that this seems to happen every Friday, and then there's nothing. But if you literally say the same thing every week, it'll eventually happen. They're not going out on a limb, as we all know further indictments are coming...

I can't help to take peaks throughout the day though, just cause it is a bit fascinating to follow

 

[anitram]

Seems to me one of the fundamental maxims of economics is that people will find a way to compete no matter how much institutions try to prevent it (see the large-scale presence of black markets in the Soviet Union), so sensible regulation and redistribution measures are what we should aim for.

Combined with inherent competition driven by a difference in competence, ability and ambition levels between people all those former Eastern bloc countries were defined by significant corruption. In other words, people will find a way not to be equal to their neighbour any way they can.

 

[Irvine511]

For me that regulated capitalism is as close to theoretical socialism as any state is going to get, in the simple sense that redistribution is taking place through non-market forces on a significant scale. I get that it doesn't amount to true public ownership, but I'm not aware of any state on the planet that really has a large-scale public ownership economy.

Seems to me one of the fundamental maxims of economics is that people will find a way to compete no matter how much institutions try to prevent it (see the large-scale presence of black markets in the Soviet Union), so sensible regulation and redistribution measures are what we should aim for.

This is one of the most cogent posts I’ve read in here in a long time. Thank you for writing it.

 

[Nick66]

For me that regulated capitalism is as close to theoretical socialism as any state is going to get, in the simple sense that redistribution is taking place through non-market forces on a significant scale. I get that it doesn't amount to true public ownership, but I'm not aware of any state on the planet that really has a large-scale public ownership economy.

Seems to me one of the fundamental maxims of economics is that people will find a way to compete no matter how much institutions try to prevent it (see the large-scale presence of black markets in the Soviet Union), so sensible regulation and redistribution measures are what we should aim for.

I think all of that is true enough, and certainly as you point out that even in the most totalitarian of regimes where the state does literally own the means of production, there are still black marked economies. Even North Korea has one.

It's worth noting, however, that in order for a highly regulated economy to work effectively it must be well regulated, and part of this means that the government doing the regulating should be mostly free from corruption. This is part of the reason the "Scandinavian model" seems to work so well...those countries, at least in terms of perception, are among the least corrupt. Conversely, the government managed economy in the Soviet Union (and almost every genuinely Socialist country) was highly corrupt, to disastrous results.

Then there's the reality that in a country where large corporations and private interests wield great influence with legislators, via lobbyists, financial support, etc., economic regulations themselves can be compromised and tailored to favour certain businesses and industries. This creates a defacto partnership between companies subject to regulation and those doing the regulating. If that relationship is compromised, or corrupt, then the system itself is compromised.

So how does a highly regulated economy work in the United States (and let's remember, the US in many ways does have a very regulated economy already), where large special interests yield outsized power with regulators? Would you be OK with state run economy if Republicans were the ones running it?

You only have to look no further than the recent vote on Net Neutrality to get at least part of your answer.

 

[iron yuppie]

Then there's the reality that in a country where large corporations and private interests wield great influence with legislators, via lobbyists, financial support, etc., economic regulations themselves can be compromised and tailored to favour certain businesses and industries. This creates a defacto partnership between companies subject to regulation and those doing the regulating. If that relationship is compromised, or corrupt, then the system itself is compromised.

So how does a highly regulated economy work in the United States (and let's remember, the US in many ways does have a very regulated economy already), where large special interests yield outsized power with regulators? Would you be OK with state run economy if Republicans were the ones running it?

You only have to look no further than the recent vote on Net Neutrality to get at least part of your answer.

I think a big factor in mitigating pernicious corporate-gov alliances is significant campaign finance reform, especially getting rid of that citizens united decision, however unlikely that might be. I see your point there, as an example (if I recall correctly) mortgage ratings agencies were under direct employment of mortgage firms before the housing crash, which is obviously a horrible conflict of interest.

I'm not in favor of a "state-run" economy, if that's what you were suggesting. I don't think government should be regulating the strand count in my sweater or anything like that. I am in favor of state regulations on high-stakes markets where the consumer can easily be taken advantage of through information asymmetries, like (again) healthcare and housing, or where corporations have senselessly run amok to everyone's disadvantage (again, housing).

 

[BEAL]

So how likely is it that Trump starts firing everyone at the FBI in order to get to Mueller?

Adam Schiff had a big Twitter rant about how the GOP will most likely end the senate investigation this month , despite the fact that They haven’t interviewed everyone yet. They don’t even have anyone lined up for rest of the year.

And the replies i see is that if this happens, apparently the only thing we can do is “march”

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

So how likely is it that Trump starts firing everyone at the FBI in order to get to Mueller?

Adam Schiff had a big Twitter rant about how the GOP will most likely end the senate investigation this month , despite the fact that They haven’t interviewed everyone yet. They don’t even have anyone lined up for rest of the year.

And the replies i see is that if this happens, apparently the only thing we can do is “march”

They're absolutely laying the groundwork to fire Mueller.

The only question is whether or not he's damaged himself enough politically with Gillespie, Strange and Moore that the Republicans will actually stop him from doing it.

Regardless - he has a year tops. Once the Democrats retake Congress in 2018, which at this rather they will easily, it's all over.

 

[BVS]

This seems to be one of the only conservative groups that get it:

http://www.cc.org/fast_facts_conservatives_net_neutrality

For a group that whines about liberal media so much, you’d think they would fear this, but they don’t bother to understand the regulations. They just hear “regulations” and get a hard-on for the repealing of them.

I saw our friend cheer on Trump’s cutting of regulations to big banks. So what if my grandchildren get screwed on their loans, so what if my media outlets will be the ones most effected, so what if this opens a floodgate a swampy lobbyists; Trump got rid of regulations.

None of them seem to understand they shot themselves in the foot. SOME conservatives get it, and are upset, will it be enough to turn on Trump?

 

[BEAL]

They're absolutely laying the groundwork to fire Mueller.

The only question is whether or not he's damaged himself enough politically with Gillespie, Strange and Moore that the Republicans will actually stop him from doing it.

Regardless - he has a year tops. Once the Democrats retake Congress in 2018, which at this rather they will easily, it's all over.

Who on the GOP will stand up to him? Lindsey Graham talks tough but then golfs with the Don

They are going to fire him, and we’re going to take it

All this time the GOP complained how Obama was turning us away from a democracy and as soon as they get into power and our structure has never looked so weak.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Who on the GOP will stand up to him? Lindsey Graham talks tough but then golfs with the Don

They are going to fire him, and we’re going to take it

All this time the GOP complained how Obama was turning us away from a democracy and as soon as they get into power and our structure has never looked so weak.

Welp... If they don't fear him politically anymore, which, let's be honest, they shouldn't... then there's a lot of upside to the more establishment Republicans in a president Pence.

They also may be desperate, as the winds are blowing so far to the Democrats for 2018 that some may see standing up to Trump and helping remove him as their only hope for survival.

If you're a republican congressperson in even the slightest of purple districts/states, you have to know that you've got not shot at staying in office.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

I still can't believe Robin Roberts said that. Totally unprofessional and playing right into Trump's playbook. But it was hilarious all the same, even better than Anderson's eyeroll. Bye Felicia

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

CDC gets list of forbidden words: Fetus, transgender, diversity
http://wapo.st/2j7DbdS

The Trump administration is prohibiting officials at the nation’s top public health agency from using a list of seven words or phrases — including “fetus” and “transgender” — in official documents being prepared for next year’s budget.

Policy analysts at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta were told of the list of forbidden words at a meeting Thursday with senior CDC officials who oversee the budget, according to an analyst who took part in the 90-minute briefing. The forbidden words are “vulnerable,” “entitlement,” “diversity,” “transgender,” “fetus,” “evidence-based” and “science-based.”

 

[PhilsFan]

The inherent problem with all of this economic discussion is that with automation, there simply are not as many jobs. And with so many parts of the government and economic system designed so that it only works when everyone is steadily employed, it's impossible to reconcile.

There is no economic system in history yet that has ever worked. You can't pretend there are good old days in this country where everything was fine. It's never been the case. Poverty has always existed in significant numbers, and it's always impacted minorities more.

We have the resources to give everyone on the planet a respectable and comfortable life. We can feed, clothe, house, and take medical care of everyone if we, as a society, build towards it. That needs to be the defining motivation behind every action going forward. If it's not, what the hell are we even doing here?

We know free markets aren't going to get it done, so we have to start thinking in other ways.

 

[anitram]

CDC gets list of forbidden words: Fetus, transgender, diversity
http://wapo.st/2j7DbdS

Wait, what are they going to call a fetus? That's a medical evolutionary term (comes after embryo), so it's just really weird. Is it "baby" now?

 

[BEAL]

Baby Jesus

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

The rumor is that if Mueller doesn't tell Trump's lawyers this week that the investigation is over and Trump is clear that he will fire Mueller at week's end.

 

[BEAL]

Which there’s a few ways he can try

Have AG fire Mueller which he said no reason to.

So fire everyone in DOJ until someone does

Proclaim to have the rule of law on his side and do it, which would open a fucking shit storm

How ironic that the White House is freaking out over EMAILS!!!

Mueller has them and Trump has no option but to go after him

 

[LuckyNumber7]

The rumor is that if Mueller doesn't tell Trump's lawyers this week that the investigation is over and Trump is clear that he will fire Mueller at week's end.

Rumor in what regard? That sounds like textbook extortion. If that rumor even exists with substantial evidence that it is true, he'd be in trouble.

I doubt it.