Pinball1970
Valued Senior Member
I really hope not.
Trump 2.0
- Thread starter James R
- Start date
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
The Trumpies’ actions in the last 2 months are evidence of a good deal of planning, ruthless contempt for the separation of powers and considerable determination in execution. It is a textbook soft, constitutional coup, carried out with great speed and deliberation. Trump only took office in January and already has installed incompetent loyalists with no prior experience, who thus owe everything to him and have no independence of thought, in all the “power” departments of state. He has removed all the supervisory authorities that audit government, has neutered Congress and is on the way to muzzling the press.
It would be really very surprising to me if they inexplicably fail to follow through in ensuring that any future elections return a result in their favour. They have two whole years to do it.
I suspect they are waiting for some of the current legal challenges to make their way to the Supreme Court, where Trump has previously installed two more incompetents who owe him their position. This will determine whether they need to ride roughshod over the courts, or can rely on having turned them into a compliant patsy. And then we will see how they plan to ensure permanent success in elections, or whether they will simply suspend them.
I think a lot of people are in denial about this--somewhat understandably. I regularly come across articles wherein the writer points out that, say, Roberts or Barrett aren't total Trump loyalists with respect to this decision or that decision, and that sort of thing. So what? People who are ass-kissers 100 percent of the time are exceptionally rare, if they even exist (everyone says bad things about their Fuhrer in private); moreover, they've still gotta maintain the pretense of being somewhat impartial some of the time. Not that that really matters if you're a Supreme Court judge, as it's an unconditional lifetime appointment.
You asked for any evidence that a "wealth tax would put a significant dent in the deficit." It could not just dent it - it could eliminate it.
Or did you not want an answer to your question?
He said "educating and creating wealth." Those are two different issues - one is education, the other is creating wealth.
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
That - denial - is also my impression. General Milley was about the last person to call this phenomenon by its name and stand up against it in public.
But in his attempted clarification a few posts later, he said that he was talking about financial education. (Something something about backtracking and moving the goal posts goes here.) That sort of ties the two verbs--"educating" and "creating"--together. Also, the idea that "the left" does not focus upon education generally is absurd, even for Seattle, so it seemed reasonable to conclude that the educating bit had something to do with finance (or wealth). Hence, my postulation.
Yes, I'm nitpicking here, but it was rather awkward phrasing regardless--especially coming from a known grammar nazi.
Right. Financial education is part of education. It was awkward, but it was pretty clear what he meant.
Agreed. Though one could also reasonably conclude that he was talking about education generally.
Regardless, the underlying point here is that Seattle makes no effort to engage in good faith--what with all the straw men and goal post shifting and suchlike. Claiming to want "conversation" and then pulling that sort of shit, with staggering regularity, is just... well, bad faith.
Seattle
Valued Senior Member
It won't do that for the reasons that you mentioned. It's not sustainable and it's not a good idea. If you took all the wealth (killing the goose that laid the golden egg) it would run the country for less than a year and there would be no more wealth to take after that and it would kill the economy of course.
It will literally do that.
Like I said.
Well, it would end the deficit for three and a half years; the math is simple.
But you want a real plan that's practical. So here's one:
Anyone with a net worth of $100 million or over (including foundations and trusts they control) has a progressive wealth tax levied. It starts at 1% * X at $100 million and goes up to 50% * X at $500 billion. X is a number calculated to zero out the deficit.
X is determined a year ahead of time. So they don't have to pay anything this year, but after X is determined for this year, it results in that wealth tax a year later.
What would this do? The Elon Musks, Jeff Bezoses and Warren Buffetts of the US would put their huge financial clout behind balancing the budget, and it would happen within a year.
That's the thing about middle-roading. There's always someone to help out bad faith, because it just wouldn't be fair if they didn't.
And people like that should not wonder how we got here; the empowerment of the right wing doesn't happen without them.
Warren Buffett gave a very good way of eliminating deficits, back in 2011:
“You just pass a law that says that any time there's a deficit of more than 3% of GDP, all sitting members of Congress are ineligible for re-election.”
I'm assuming the 3% is to allow for an inflationary increase in debt, but the principle seems sensible enough.
“You just pass a law that says that any time there's a deficit of more than 3% of GDP, all sitting members of Congress are ineligible for re-election.”
I'm assuming the 3% is to allow for an inflationary increase in debt, but the principle seems sensible enough.
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
No that would be stupid - like the famous "Growth and Stability Pact" in the EU, known by insiders as the "Stupidity Pact", which is almost never observed. There are times when it is necessary to run a bigger deficit: war and pandemics spring to mind.Warren Buffett gave a very good way of eliminating deficits, back in 2011:
“You just pass a law that says that any time there's a deficit of more than 3% of GDP, all sitting members of Congress are ineligible for re-election.”
I'm assuming the 3% is to allow for an inflationary increase in debt, but the principle seems sensible enough.
Businessmen love tough, simple, easy-sounding solutions to political problems but they are usually specious.
Those aren't the people with the real power, though.
Imagine, for example, a SpaceX contract that needs to happen or Musk will lose everything. He goes to his congressmen. "Listen guys, I know you'll lose your job over this, but I will give you $100 million a piece to let us run a bigger deficit."
sculptor
Valued Senior Member
Nan-in, a Japanese ZEN master during the Meiji era (1868-1912), received a university professor who came to inquire about Zen.
Nan-in served tea. He poured his visitor’s cup full, and then kept on pouring.
The professor watched the overflow until he no longer could restrain himself. “It is overfull. No more will go in!”
“Like this cup,” Nan-in said, “you are full of your own opinions and speculations. How can I show you Zen unless you first empty your cup?”
Nan-in served tea. He poured his visitor’s cup full, and then kept on pouring.
The professor watched the overflow until he no longer could restrain himself. “It is overfull. No more will go in!”
“Like this cup,” Nan-in said, “you are full of your own opinions and speculations. How can I show you Zen unless you first empty your cup?”
Hey I didn't say it wouldn't have problems, but it would stop there being a deficit.
. And that was the question, wasn't it?