2020 Presidential Election

[LaBombo]

 

I guess everything is swell, then.

 

No, not in the least. Like Lev and I both said, one bad thing about Trump being untrue doesn't make him a good guy, or anything close.

 

But it's unlikely that the Twitterati will make everything swell by ginning up bs like the "animals" deception. In fact, I would argue that stuff likes this makes things a bit worse, in a couple of ways:

 

First, this item is recycled, so it's not only not going to change the mind of anyone who heard it the first time, it's decreasing the signal to noise ratio of what people are taking in from the media in general, and from legit people pushing back against Trump in particular.

 

Second, it's handing Trump something akin to the "fake news" that he's so fond of playing up. The less ammo he has for a blanket discrediting of ALL negative coverage of him, the better off the country is.

 

Third, and probably most controversial... with each day that passes without the planet being reduced to a dead cinder on Trump's watch, it becomes a little more possible that there will be a future after he's out of office.

 

Until then, the less damage done to political discourse the better.  And yes, in playground parlance, 'Trump started it!' with some of his crazy talk dating back to the campaign, but I'm hoping the media won't follow him over the cliff. That way we'll have one less casualty of his administration whenever it's over.

[PseudoSABR]

We should probably stop saying that the Nazis were horrible, so as to avoid recycling that message, and demonstrating that Western Civilization survived in spite of them (i.e. maybe they weren't that bad). 

[LaBombo]

 

We should probably stop saying that the Nazis were horrible, so as to avoid recycling that message, and demonstrating that Western Civilization survived in spite of them (i.e. maybe they weren't that bad). 

 

My post offered the suggestion that factually incorrect messages regarding Trump should not be repeated, for multiple reasons.

 

In your haste to compare the Trump administration to the Nazis, you have ALSO managed to equate false anti-Trump messages to the statement "Nazis were horrible", which you are therefore inarguably asserting is a false statement as well.

 

To clarify, with this comparison you are claiming that "Nazis were horrible" is a false statement.

 

I disagree strongly with that trivialization, if not outright defense, of Nazi atrocities.

[PseudoSABR]

 

My post offered the suggestion that factually incorrect messages regarding Trump should not be repeated, for multiple reasons.

 

In your haste to suggest that the Trump administration has committed the moral equivalent of the Holocaust during its 26+ months in office, you have also managed to equate false anti-Trump messages to the statement "Nazis were horrible", which you are therefore inarguably asserting is a false statement as well.

 

To clarify, with this comparison you are stating that the Nazis were not horrible.

 

I disagree strongly with that minimization, if not outright defense, of Nazi atrocities.

Look, I think you, like anyone, picks up what they want to hear on twitter and the media.  For instance, your Glen Greenwald/Mueller report is a nothing burger rant just a week ago.  We're all guilty of it, and the righteous policing of the media/twitter when it suits you is disingenuous.  

 

Trump calling any humans animals is deplorable.  His policy at the border is deplorable.  It bears repeating ad naseum.   Trump is using the supposed M-13/animal threat to treat all refugees as, well, animals, what with the caging of children and all. 

 

That twitter got taken with a year old video clip now isn't as problematic as you suggest.  It's probably a year of Trump's BS that has put that clip in further context, and people are reasonably angry, knowing now what we know of child separation and his efforts to build the wall.  

 

The Nazi comment was an absurdity to demonstrate another absurdity.  You're clearly not minimizing Nazism.  Clearly.  But you are, either directly (in the past) or indirectly (here), minimizing Trump's indecency/moral corruptibility.  

 

(And, for the record, I think you're a good, thoughtful dude, but I think we can run afoul when we start policing rhetoric in regard to Trump, who is objectively awful.  Don't be that guy.)

[Vanimal46]

Neat. Anyone want to talk about how taxing the hell out of the rich people to make up a budget deficit is going in Illinois? They only keep losing people to surrounding states every year.

 

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/mcqueary/ct-perspec-mcqueary-illinois-exodus-taxing-the-rich-20190128-story.html

 

Don't worry though, the 1% will bail us all out!

[TheLeviathan]

 

The Nazi comment was an absurdity to demonstrate another absurdity.  You're clearly not minimizing Nazism.  Clearly.  But you are, either directly (in the past) or indirectly (here), minimizing Trump's indecency/moral corruptibility.  

 

 

Or he believes you can value truth and think Trump is a vile human being without having to invent reasons for it.

 

Not policing rhetoric on the right is what got us Trump.  Self-righteously sitting here, defending a blatant, deliberate mischaracterization is something you should be ashamed of.  Politics should come after truth and decency.

 

There once was a time I thought a statement so non-controversial might penetrate your adulation for your own politics.  I know I'm spitting in the wind...but sometimes the hopeless optimist in me wins out.  With that, I'm going to respond to Vanimal.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Neat. Anyone want to talk about how taxing the hell out of the rich people to make up a budget deficit is going in Illinois? They only keep losing people to surrounding states every year.

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/mcqueary/ct-perspec-mcqueary-illinois-exodus-taxing-the-rich-20190128-story.html

Don't worry though, the 1% will bail us all out!

 

I'm not sure that's the lesson to take.  I think the deeper lesson is about how punting budget decisions and hard choices down the line will eventually catch up....

 

But from my time in Chicago, they all accept this reality and grumble about it.  Try being an Illinois tax-payer outside of Chicago though....

[Vanimal46]

I'm not sure that's the lesson to take. I think the deeper lesson is about how punting budget decisions and hard choices down the line will eventually catch up....

 

But from my time in Chicago, they all accept this reality and grumble about it. Try being an Illinois tax-payer outside of Chicago though....

It's catching up now and they want the high earners to pay for it. The high earners are responding by moving to other states in the Midwest... This is just one example: My dad and I played golf with a former North Shore resident last week. He said it was a better financial decision to take a $50k loss selling his house than continuing to pay Illinois taxes. Now he lives in Minneapolis and flies to Chicago when he has to.

[TheLeviathan]

 

It's catching up now and they want the high earners to pay for it. The high earners are responding by moving to other states in the Midwest... This is just one example: My dad and I played golf with a former North Shore resident last week. He said it was a better financial decision to take a $50k loss selling his house than continuing to pay Illinois taxes. Now he lives in Minneapolis and flies to Chicago when he has to.

 

I lived there for 6 years and married a fine gal from those parts.  When we were making our decision to move we were choosing between Minneapolis, Chicago, and Phoenix.  The cost of living and taxes basically eliminated Chicago immediately from our list.  

[ashbury]

 

Neat. Anyone want to talk about how taxing the hell out of the rich people to make up a budget deficit is going in Illinois? They only keep losing people to surrounding states every year.

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/mcqueary/ct-perspec-mcqueary-illinois-exodus-taxing-the-rich-20190128-story.html

Don't worry though, the 1% will bail us all out!

We went within the course of a few posts from taxing the 1%, to talking about people nearer the middle making decisions. Doesn't this suggest the tax rate is currently too flat, and not too progressive?

 

Somehow the very rich have succeeded in convincing the vast middle that their problems are just like yours and mine.

[TheLeviathan]

I agree with your post ash, but I took Van's point not that we shouldn't tax the rich more, just that it's not a silver bullet.

 

Perhaps I'm wrong, that's sorta where I stand at least.

[Squirrel]

We went within the course of a few posts from taxing the 1%, to talking about people nearer the middle making decisions. Doesn't this suggest the tax rate is currently too flat, and not too progressive?

 

Somehow the very rich have succeeded in convincing the vast middle that their problems are just like yours and mine.

This is it exactly.

[Vanimal46]

I agree with your post ash, but I took Van's point not that we shouldn't tax the rich more, just that it's not a silver bullet.

 

Perhaps I'm wrong, that's sorta where I stand at least.

Bingo. If we push the boundaries too far, which is the feeling I get from Illinois, the high earners aren't going to play the game.

 

What's stopping them from leaving the US just like people on the North Shore if taxes are too extreme? They have the resources to live and work anywhere... The middle class will still be fronted the bill.

[Badsmerf]

Bingo. If we push the boundaries too far, which is the feeling I get from Illinois, the high earners aren't going to play the game.

 

What's stopping them from leaving the US just like people on the North Shore if taxes are too extreme? They have the resources to live and work anywhere... The middle class will still be fronted the bill.

That is a strawman argument. The top earners aren't going to leave.... because their taxes will go up even more at every first World country. They are not leaving. And if they do, it will open the door to someone else to earn a lot more money. The top 1% are replaceable. I refuse to believe they are better or more talented simply because they make more money. Some are and would be missed in our economy, but I'd wager most are not that valuable to the grand scheme of things outside of tax revenue. Somebody is always ready and waiting to step up.

[LaBombo]

 

Look, I think you, like anyone, picks up what they want to hear on twitter and the media.  For instance, your Glen Greenwald/Mueller report is a nothing burger rant just a week ago.  We're all guilty of it, and the righteous policing of the media/twitter when it suits you is disingenuous.  

 

Trump calling any humans animals is deplorable.  His policy at the border is deplorable.  It bears repeating ad naseum.   Trump is using the supposed M-13/animal threat to treat all refugees as, well, animals, what with the caging of children and all. 

 

That twitter got taken with a year old video clip now isn't as problematic as you suggest.  It's probably a year of Trump's BS that has put that clip in further context, and people are reasonably angry, knowing now what we know of child separation and his efforts to build the wall.  

 

The Nazi comment was an absurdity to demonstrate another absurdity.  You're clearly not minimizing Nazism.  Clearly.  But you are, either directly (in the past) or indirectly (here), minimizing Trump's indecency/moral corruptibility.  

 

(And, for the record, I think you're a good, thoughtful dude, but I think we can run afoul when we start policing rhetoric in regard to Trump, who is objectively awful.  Don't be that guy.)

 

Well, since you brought it up... you also missed my point about Greenwald, which was that he was ONE EXAMPLE, as I stated in that post, one of many on the left who faulted some in the media for their Manchurian Candidate conspiracy theories and overblown predictions of the Mueller report's contents and repercussions.

 

And Marshall (your chosen 'counter-anecdote') defaming Greenwald as a white supremacist in order to invalidate his media take was an embarrassment to himself and to TPM. Also, despite your protestations, Greenwald's work (yes, even recent) and his ties to the left (he's a big fan of Noam Chomsky, for example) absolutely place Glenn Greenwald squarely on the left end of the political spectrum.

 

This all ties together with my larger point: I firmly believe that false information is not made valid, relevant, or noble just because it is damaging to Trump (or any other bad person, ftm). At best, at its most defensible, it is just more collateral damage of the Trump presidency, as the media's DNA gradually corrupts from reporting and rational opinion to false reporting and hyperbole.

 

With regard to the policing of rhetoric, the left is opening itself up to its own standard in that regard. Specifically criticizing Trump's rhetoric dehumanizing only the murdering, beheading monsters of MS-13, for example, was not a great look for the normally savvy Pelosi.

 

Also, it would be good for everyone to be clear that my issue is not with Craig for posting what he did, in what I assume was good faith, but with the person who initially dug up an old, fabricated take and put it out there as a new Trump horror to coincide with current headlines about immigration.

 

tldr version of all this: Countering Trump's dishonesty with more dishonesty is bad, and will harm our nation in the long run.

 

(And for the record, I think you're a good dude as well, and very thoughtful but occasionally in inverse proportion to your sometimes visceral partisanship. And when I fired the phrase "out of your depth" without aiming it carefully in the Greenwald post, it was in reference to that inversion, not an attack on your intellect or ability to make arguments to support your views. You'll still take exception, I'm sure, but at least we'll be clear on what you're taking exception to.   PS Wish you well in your pursuit of the clerkship.

[Brock Beauchamp]

I'm pretty sure he was agreeing with you, but saying so with more disdain for the baby boomer's dislike of their own kids.

the Boomers spawned Gen X mostly, who they immediately labeled “the slacker generation”.

[Vanimal46]

That is a strawman argument. The top earners aren't going to leave.... because their taxes will go up even more at every first World country. They are not leaving. And if they do, it will open the door to someone else to earn a lot more money. The top 1% are replaceable. I refuse to believe they are better or more talented simply because they make more money. Some are and would be missed in our economy, but I'd wager most are not that valuable to the grand scheme of things outside of tax revenue. Somebody is always ready and waiting to step up.

I believe they will if Bernie's 99.8% Act, or AOC's 70% marginal tax hike for earners over $10 million are implemented.

 

Poor Bernie Bros are going to chase their tails trying to stop the 1% boogeyman.

[Vanimal46]

Looks like New York is having the same problem as Illinois.

 

[PseudoSABR]

 

I believe they will if Bernie's 99.8% Act, or AOC's 70% marginal tax hike for earners over $10 million are implemented.

Poor Bernie Bros are going to chase their tails trying to stop the 1% boogeyman.

You don't think the 1% has some culpability in the wealth disparity?  Do you think it's a good economic system to have half the wealth concentrated among such a few people? 

[Badsmerf]

Fleeing, or "fleeing." The problem with taxing the super rich per state, is they can claim residence in a house they own in Florida, or Texas, or Montana etc. How do you prove them fraudulent? Maybe the IRS has a way, but I bet it is challenging.

 

Nobody here is on board with a 98% tax on the rich. That is way out of the realm of reality. I'd be ok with 55%, maybe 60% on income over 5 million. You have to start the negotiation somewhere, until a bill is put forward who really cares what the proposed number is?

[TheLeviathan]

 

Fleeing, or "fleeing." The problem with taxing the super rich per state, is they can claim residence in a house they own in Florida, or Texas, or Montana etc. How do you prove them fraudulent? Maybe the IRS has a way, but I bet it is challenging.

Nobody here is on board with a 98% tax on the rich. That is way out of the realm of reality. I'd be ok with 55%, maybe 60% on income over 5 million. You have to start the negotiation somewhere, until a bill is put forward who really cares what the proposed number is?

 

Personally, I like the ideas floating around about taxing wealth more than income.  And taxing the hell out of income earned via the stock trading game or anything of that ilk.  

 

The simple truth is that the very wealthy have ways around taxes.  I'd love it if we taxed them more and started finding ways to kill those loopholes.  Perhaps wealth instead of income is the way to do that?

[PseudoSABR]

 

 

And Marshall (your chosen 'counter-anecdote') defaming Greenwald as a white supremacist in order to invalidate his media take was an embarrassment to himself and to TPM. Also, despite your protestations, Greenwald's work (yes, even recent) and his ties to the left (he's a big fan of Noam Chomsky, for example) absolutely place Glenn Greenwald squarely on the left end of the political spectrum.

I appreciate your post beyond this paragraph.  Marshall was being as glib as Greenwald; hence is twitter.  Greenwald has long been on the nothing burger that is the Mueller report, and we still don't know the truth of that, nor does Greenwald beyond his ties to Wikileaks which for better or worse is concerning.  Greenwald is one of the only anecdotes of the supposed left; it is not only Marshall that calls his current stance into question (see this article on his seemingly reversal, it is only at the end that author uses Greenwald's thoughts/words against his current stance). 

 

That Josh Marshall should feel shame is stupid. Stupid. Greenwald has doubted this investigation before there was evidence to actual doubt it (save for his wiki friends);  Marshall is a practical liberal who, if you read TPM, is unwilling to go too far, but still entertains that Trump was up to some awful ****.

 

And really, why minimize Trump's actions, why bring up Greenwald at all, why not focus again at children separated from parents, convenient deals with Russian oligarchs, a Trump tower here, a Trump tower there.  Do we need criminality to impeach?  Is this your president?  Do you not fear corruption? Even if legal? Why minimize Trump's involvement with Russia whether or criminal or not? I guess I need to know where your coming from to understand.  As much as you say you're merely policing rhetoric, I don't see a lot posts decrying the state of the executive. 

[PseudoSABR]

 

It's catching up now and they want the high earners to pay for it. The high earners are responding by moving to other states in the Midwest... This is just one example: My dad and I played golf with a former North Shore resident last week. He said it was a better financial decision to take a $50k loss selling his house than continuing to pay Illinois taxes. Now he lives in Minneapolis and flies to Chicago when he has to.

Oh your dad you and you played golf with someone who can sell his house and take a loss yet afford to fly into Chicago on a whim? Jesus.  Well, if you have inheritance coming, I hope we tax the f* out of it.  

 

This is the most bourgeoisie response to this conversation that I can imagine.  And I'm sure, you're "I'm only upper middle class."  

 

No wonder you hate Bernie. 

[stringer bell]

I find it interesting that someone would flee the high taxes of Chicago for that noted tax haven of Minnesota.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Personally, I like the ideas floating around about taxing wealth more than income. And taxing the hell out of income earned via the stock trading game or anything of that ilk.

 

The simple truth is that the very wealthy have ways around taxes. I'd love it if we taxed them more and started finding ways to kill those loopholes. Perhaps wealth instead of income is the way to do that?

A good start is taxing capital gains as income.

 

If you “make” millions of dollars every year by hoarding money in stocks and collecting dividends and cashing out gains, you’re not contributing to the economy and sure as hell shouldn’t pay a measly 15% on that money.

 

Money making more money doesn’t create jobs, doesn’t raise the GDP, and has no tangible impact beyond the individual. Tax the hell out of it.

[Mike Sixel]

 

Neat. Anyone want to talk about how taxing the hell out of the rich people to make up a budget deficit is going in Illinois? They only keep losing people to surrounding states every year.

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/mcqueary/ct-perspec-mcqueary-illinois-exodus-taxing-the-rich-20190128-story.html

Don't worry though, the 1% will bail us all out!

 

What state are they going to move to if it is done at the federal level?

 

And, the US has been MOST PROSPEROUS when tax rates were higher than now....

 

Or, I suppose we can let our roads, bridges, water supply, etc go to hell, we'll all be dead when it does.......Not to mention we have millions of people w/o healthcare, because money is more important than health.

[Vanimal46]

Oh your dad you and you played golf with someone who can sell his house and take a loss yet afford to fly into Chicago on a whim? Jesus. Well, if you have inheritance coming, I hope we tax the f* out of it.

 

This is the most bourgeoisie response to this conversation that I can imagine. And I'm sure, you're "I'm only upper middle class."

 

No wonder you hate Bernie.

Since you're making this a personal attack I'm out.

[Vanimal46]

What state are they going to move to if it is done at the federal level?

 

And, the US has been MOST PROSPEROUS when tax rates were higher than now....

 

Or, I suppose we can let our roads, bridges, water supply, etc go to hell, we'll all be dead when it does.......Not to mention we have millions of people w/o healthcare, because money is more important than health.

I don't know. I care about creating generational wealth for my future children and hopefully their children too. And I don't really want uncle Sam to take half of my hard earned income when it was me who made the sacrifices.

 

I would have put more thought into it before I was accused of being a trust fund coaster. Funny how there's several posts on here asking for different opinions, but the different opinions have been driven out by personal attacks. Oh well, see ya.

[LaBombo]

 

I find it interesting that someone would flee the high taxes of Chicago for that noted tax haven of Minnesota.

 

I have a good friend there. We talk about quite a few different things. Once in a while it's about government, including taxes. Our economic situations have more similarities than differences, and we've come to the conclusion that he's probably paying a significantly higher overall non-federal tax rate in Chicago than I am in the Twin Cities.

 

I'm not going to enter into the class warfare fray. Instead I'll just offer the fact that while his higher property tax rate plays a part in the overall rate difference, a significant chunk of that difference comes from Chicago's absurd (and yes, regressive) combined sales tax rate of 10.25%, which is the highest in the nation.

 

And for what it's worth, our discussions have focused less on whether we as individuals are paying the right amount than they have on whether the local taxpayers are seeing a reasonable return on what they're paying into the government. I suspect we're not the only taxpayers who are equally or more concerned with what we're paying for and whether it's working for everyone than we are with how much we're paying.

[LaBombo]

 

What state are they going to move to if it is done at the federal level?

 

 

 

I.o.M., baby!!!

 

 

Virtually tax-free, and a ripping annual bike race to boot. Suck it, pinkos!!!

 

Edit: Also, the official language of IoM English, which I've been told by British in-laws is much easier for most Americans to learn than pretty much any other foreign language.