The Trump Presidency
- Thread starter joepistole
- Start date
- Status
[#NowMoreThanEver | #WhatTheyVotedFor]
So, like, wow. Ezra Klein, circa 2011↱:
there's nothing in this plan that hasn't been in a thousand other plans. When I asked David Autor, an economist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a specialist on labor markets, to take a look at the substance, he pronounced it a classic case of "what Larry Summers would call 'now-more-than-everism.'"
"Here's how it works," Autor wrote in an e-mail. "1. You have a set of policies that you favor at all times and under all circumstances, e.g., cut taxes, remove regulations, drill-baby-drill, etc. 2. You see a problem that needs fixing (e.g., the economy stinks). 3. You say, 'We need to enact my favored policies now more than ever.' I believe that every item in the GOP list that you sent derives from this three-step procedure.
"That's not to say that there are no reasonable ideas on this list. But there is certainly no original thinking here directed at addressing the employment problem. Or, to put it differently, is there any set of economic circumstances under which the GOP would not actually want to enact every item on this agenda? If the answer is no, then this is clearly now-more-than-everism."
If you read Autor's answer and then guessed at what's included in the plan, you'd probably get it about right. The GOP wants a separate congressional vote on every significant regulation. It wants to cut taxes for corporations and small businesses led by individuals. It wants a tax break on profit that corporations earn overseas ....
.... But it's not just that you could read this jobs plan without knowing the financial crisis ever happened. You could read it without knowing the past decade ever happened. As Mishel says, "If lower taxes and less regulation was such good policy, then George W. Bush's economy would have been a lot better. But under Bush, Republicans cut taxes on business and on investors and high-income people, and they didn't add many regulations, and that business cycle was the first one in the postwar period where the income for a typical working-class family was lower at the end than at the beginning."
That, however, is the agenda the House GOP thinks we need. And now more than ever.
"Here's how it works," Autor wrote in an e-mail. "1. You have a set of policies that you favor at all times and under all circumstances, e.g., cut taxes, remove regulations, drill-baby-drill, etc. 2. You see a problem that needs fixing (e.g., the economy stinks). 3. You say, 'We need to enact my favored policies now more than ever.' I believe that every item in the GOP list that you sent derives from this three-step procedure.
"That's not to say that there are no reasonable ideas on this list. But there is certainly no original thinking here directed at addressing the employment problem. Or, to put it differently, is there any set of economic circumstances under which the GOP would not actually want to enact every item on this agenda? If the answer is no, then this is clearly now-more-than-everism."
If you read Autor's answer and then guessed at what's included in the plan, you'd probably get it about right. The GOP wants a separate congressional vote on every significant regulation. It wants to cut taxes for corporations and small businesses led by individuals. It wants a tax break on profit that corporations earn overseas ....
.... But it's not just that you could read this jobs plan without knowing the financial crisis ever happened. You could read it without knowing the past decade ever happened. As Mishel says, "If lower taxes and less regulation was such good policy, then George W. Bush's economy would have been a lot better. But under Bush, Republicans cut taxes on business and on investors and high-income people, and they didn't add many regulations, and that business cycle was the first one in the postwar period where the income for a typical working-class family was lower at the end than at the beginning."
That, however, is the agenda the House GOP thinks we need. And now more than ever.
It wasn't a new idea, even then. When we discussed it, here↗, we could look back to a political cartoon from the previous year, and so on. And it's never really been something right-wingers↗ deal with very well.
To the other, what do we care? I mean, shit, that was then, right? This is how many years later?
BREAKING: Trump officials discuss tax cuts, other emergency measures in hopes of tackling coronavirus fallout ....
(@damianpaletta↱)
(@damianpaletta↱)
Oh.
Well, then.
Or, rather, the lede from Stein and Parker↱, for the Washington Post:
Trump administration officials are holding preliminary conversations about economic responses to the coronavirus, as the stock market fell sharply again on Friday amid international fears about the outbreak, according to five people with knowledge of the planning.
Among the options being considered are pursuing a targeted tax cut package, these people said. They have also discussed whether the White House should lean even harder on the Federal Reserve to cut interest rates, though the central bank on Friday afternoon said it would step in if necessary.
Among the options being considered are pursuing a targeted tax cut package, these people said. They have also discussed whether the White House should lean even harder on the Federal Reserve to cut interest rates, though the central bank on Friday afternoon said it would step in if necessary.
Yeah, y'know, we couldn't possibly see that one coming.
____________________
Notes:
@damianpaletta. "BREAKING: Trump officials discuss tax cuts, other emergency measures in hopes of tackling coronavirus fallout, by @JStein_Wapo and @AshleyRParker". Twitter. 28 February 2020. Twitter.com. 28 February 2020. http://bit.ly/2VIaoBd
Klein, Ezra. "GOP jobs plan: Old ideas, fancy new clip art". The Washington Post. 26 May 2011. WashingtonPost.com. 28 February 2020. https://wapo.st/2ToBAlF
Stein, Jeff and Ashley Parker. "Trump officials discuss tax cuts, other emergency measures in hopes of tackling coronavirus fallout". The Washington Post. 28 February 2020. WashingtonPost.com. 28 February 2020. https://wapo.st/3aisihV
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Yes. Let's institute Medicare and Social Security for our poor sick multi-billion dollar businesses, by all means! We need to provide emergency services right away.
After all, businesses are "persons". It just won't not do to neglect their health care.
Now think this through as to the ramifications of this concept.
After all, businesses are "persons". It just won't not do to neglect their health care.
Now think this through as to the ramifications of this concept.
Last edited:
Why in hell would you think that any of that fantasy would have happened?
There is no reason to think the Republican Senate would have acted any differently or made any different claims than it did, no reason to think a Trump packed Court would have behaved any differently in some imaginary post-election future than Chief Justice Roberts did during the trial, and no reason to think the procedure followed was not "lawful" in the first place.
The reason the impeachment was a bungled failure is that the Republican Party and its pet media successfully made it so - they won.
Had the Republican House and Senate behaved honorably and according to their oaths of office Trump would have been impeached, tried, and removed. That he was not is the fault of the Republicans in Congress, and nobody else. They were and are cowards in the face of threat - Representatives and Senators without principle, honor, or sound judgment; they bent the knee to a fascist demagogue, and that will be their legacy.
Meanwhile, on the Fifth Risk front (https://qz.com/1407454/book-review-michael-lewiss-the-fifth-risk-an-ode-to-big-government/
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2018/sep/22/michael-lewis-trump-gambling-america )
we note that a society whose medical care system features high-deductible and limited service private insurance policies among the working poor is vulnerable to a pandemic even under reasonable governance; under fascist mismanagement it's more of an open invitation, a sitting duck.
Last edited:
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
I agree, but the Dems did not even put up a good fight, against a guy who thrives on a street fight. We gave the Repubs an open door with a sign "This way out" and Trump is their guy!
Last edited:
Trump hits a new low in the intelligence arena:
https://www.propublica.org/article/...reign-politician-the-us-accused-of-corruption
There's no way to parody it. This guy would fail the security clearance for driving the intelligence director's car in any Democratic administration.
btw: Using temp appointments to dodge the Senate confirmation process and avoid staffing agencies with competent management is probably impeachable. It's the Republican's turn to start the process.
https://www.propublica.org/article/...reign-politician-the-us-accused-of-corruption
By "used to" they mean in 2016, maybe even more recently.
There's no way to parody it. This guy would fail the security clearance for driving the intelligence director's car in any Democratic administration.
btw: Using temp appointments to dodge the Senate confirmation process and avoid staffing agencies with competent management is probably impeachable. It's the Republican's turn to start the process.
This particular Australian organization is just one of many that present points of view that would appear to be intended to sway public opinion not just in their own country, but in the rest of the world as well. The difference between what the Russian government did in the 2016 US elections, and the distorted characterization of Trump in theYoutube fluff video, is that the makers of that video didn’t misrepresent who they were. If the Russian government, Australian government, or any other national entity feel that subjectively promoting the image of a foreign leader is in their best interest, it’s obviously their right and duty to do so. But given that so much unchecked disinformation is being peddled on the various media platforms, for the sake of a better informed populace, maybe there should be a mandatory coupling of such information with a fact checked analysis of it before allowing it to be presented.Because this outfit meddles in everybody's affairs. They're just a bunch of radicals that take themselves a little too seriously.
At least he doesn't look like one of Putin's sock puppets. Ooops, did I just meddle in Russian afairs?...
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
This is not a foreign political anlysis platform, but it appears to be a serious effort to present true political fact checking.
https://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/
https://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/
To be fair, it is worth commending the USA on closing off to China and Europe when they did. A huge step and very risky politically. It was a step that may be a saving grace later when this shit storm is over..
It is also worth noting that many nations have been caught completely unprepared and the USA is one of them.
However what is not really acceptable is that when Trump took the incredible step of closing borders to China he did it will out supporting his action, by preparing the nation for the outbreak that he was attempting to slow down. He closed the borders in ignorance of what exactly he was doing and what the motivation behind doing so was.
He was naive enough to think that , that was all he had to do as the situation in China and around the globe deteriorated.
Bottom line:
The Trump administration bought some time but failed to make use of the time he bought.
The question is "Why?"
The makers of that video did misrepresent who they were. They pretended to be Luca Rossi, for starters. They pretended to not be "the media" - they even presented the video as being a response to "the media" from some kind of outside position. If you check them out you will find that they also deny being "rightwing", and habitually conceal their corporate-funded big-money agenda.
Also: Misrepresenting oneself as the Russians did is bad. Criminal, even. Right?
Also, tangentially, the makers of that dishonest video were presenting an actual point of view - it's an ignorant and injurious pov, of course, packed with Republican (via Murdoch) talking points of a particularly idiotic kind (some guy claiming he "wasn't told" by "the media" that Trump cut taxes? On what planet - - - ). The Russians were attempting to wreck the elections altogether, with the goal of injuring the country rather than this or that political cause, and used whatever points of view would do the most damage - including taking all sides of any given issue, corrupting and undermining all US politics rather than advancing a given political agenda. So there's that.
But even so, there's no reason that kind of bs should be allowed in an American election. It's an effect of letting money talk - which used to be known as corruption and bribery and so forth, rather than "free speech".
cause he is a fucking moron and a narcissist.
Like all Youtube videos, the name of the author is listed under the title, Luca Rossi is merely the presenter of their propaganda.
I guess it depends on their desired goal. If Russian operatives were now engaged in an underhanded effort to remove Trump from office, that would be a good thing. Right?
Many governments around the world, the US included, engage in disseminating propaganda to further their foreign policy goals. Why would you expect any less from the Russians?
That kind of bs is the meat and potatoes of political speech from all sides to one degree or another. The remedy to limit its acceptance isn’t to necessarily ban it, but to expose its flaws and the motives of the messengers behind it.
- Status