Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[misko27]

So two policy things.

First, the Trump budget. The first and most important practical thing worth mentioning is that the President's budgets almost never become law, it's more of a presidential suggestion or even indication of preference. That said, bad opps are bad opps, and damn these are some bad opps. The plan is hopelessly optimistic about future growth, retains most of its impressive cuts to the people who form the Trump base, and perhaps worst of all (politically at least), taking that whole "infrastructure" thing which was built up to be this really big bipartisan issue, and instead rolling out with a subdued whisper.

Also I hear that Paul Ryan isn't compromising his, border adjustment tax or whatever the hell it's called, and serious internal divisions are forming in the GOP over it.. It's engendered significant opposition, even from the Trump Administration; the fact that Ryan is holding onto it is bad news for the big Tax Reform the GOP has been promising/planning/plotting for some months now (it was originally delayed due to Obamacare; bad news, since Tax Reform is arguably even more complicated than Healthcare).

[Reelya]

Meanwhile, some shonky accounting in Trump's budget apparently added $2 trillion in error.
http://time.com/4791113/trump-budget-math-mistake/

Trump had tax cuts that were supposed to be paid for by increased growth/revenue, except they've gone "oh look at this increased revenue, he's some more money we can spend", so they basically spent the same money twice, once on the tax cuts and once on whatever else. Then declared the whole thing "revenue neutral".

And meanwhile, economists are saying they don't even have that money once let alone twice. They based it on the idea that the US economy will grow at an average rate of 4.5% for the next 10 years as a result of the tax cuts. Then they spent the same money twice on top of that.

Trump's budget says you might see a small surplus in 2027, but don't count on that since it's based on unrealistically optimistic forecasts. Economists in the time article state that there's a gap of something like $3-$7 trillion dollars between what they're proposing and reality.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

This started for me with 538's article saying the budget needed either 10 years without a recession or an extra 1% growth from nowhere, and the discrepancies have just been getting worse as the day goes on. I'm not sure if people are just exaggerating more or if they actually discovered new problems with the budget.

[EnigmaticHat]

It sounds like a border adjusted tax is just a way to increase taxes without saying you're increasing taxes.  US companies pay more to import, they charge more for products to compensate.  Money flows from US citizens to US government, effect is basically the same as an actual tax (but with more side effects).

The way I look at it, this would increase the burden on low income consumers that typically aren't taxed at the federal level, so I don't like it.  It also seems two-faced, like if you're going to tax people just tax people.  Hilariously part of the criticism of it seems to be that it doesn't create an "even playing field" since it effects different types of corporations equally.  I agree this is a problem but I also find it hilarious that when corporations are involved suddenly Republicans want an even playing field.

Edit:

Spoiler: also, obligatory (click to show/hide)

This is why no one wanted to be speaker of the house you doofus

[alway]

Protests, comments, and calls are a good response to this. People trash these things because they do not directly force the desired response, this is short-sighted. It's true that, as we've seen with the open comment bank, these folks will put themselves in denial to do what they want.

However, it is equally true that the members of government are more or less aware of people power. Everybody in the government is constantly maneuvering on one another all the time. They are the boats on the ocean of constituents. They mostly have power to move as they wish, but the constituency is more powerful than them when it takes unified action. Politicians want to take advantage of those currents when they can and avoid them when it looks like they're about to get sunk.

Visible signs of "DO NOT WANT" are what are needed because they can be persuasive.

Very much this entire post. Pai is merely the symptom of the Republican disease. So make it entirely clear who put a jerkoff like him in the position to do this. Pai is unelected and serves no one but the Republican party that appointed him. Direct protest in that direction specifically for maximum results, because merely singling out Pai will do nothing. Unless that party is forced to change its policy or is killed off entirely, they will simply continue this with some new mook. They did this, so tie them to it.

[Reelya]

Letter writing is one of the under-utilized methods by left-wing groups. It has an extremely good track record. Politicians care what registered voters in their district think. Also, hand written submissions have in the past been seen as more effective than boilerplate letters or emails. The trick is to convince the politician of the authenticity of the sentiment.

Petitions are basically worthless from what I've heard. Signing a petition is probably the least useful thing you can do.

Public protests have mixed results, but can be easily manipulated to turn public opinion against the protestors. A public protest isn't going to get your message out to the public unless the media is already sympathetic to that message. YMMV but disruptive protests by groups who aren't in favor by mainstream media aren't going to achieve your goal.

A lot of the "Socialist revolutionary" (SR) type groups who hand out lefty papers - who achieve fuck all basically - focus on the least effective methods, e.g. disruptive protests. My theory is that those sort of efforts thrive not because they're effective at causing political change, but because they're effective in perpetuating the group infrastructure that organizes the protests. And the us/them dichotomy created by the backlash to protests perpetuates an "in-group" mentality which maintains the group identity.

Weirdly, the SR types agree that incremental law changes can make things worse but they'll argue till they're blue in the face that no incremental law change can make things better. Which is a contradictory worldview for obvious reason.

Notably, the PR firms behind mega-corporations co-opted the tactics of left-wing activists in the 1960s, to create "astro-turf" organizations, and I'd suggest the Tea Party is an extension of that. If you want to know what works, go look at what Astro Turf groups do and steal the tactics back. Basically the astro-turf PR firms have distilled down how to influence politicians for you, go learn from them

[Neonivek]

YMMV but disruptive protests by groups who aren't in favor by mainstream media aren't going to achieve your goal.

This is OOOOOHHH soo sadly true.

A Business could have been whipping its employees basically forcing them to strike... But if they mildly inconvenience anyone then those employees must be the most greedy mother fockas that have ever graced the earth as far as public opinion is often concerned.

---

*checks out Trumps Budget*

Well you guys are screwed!

[scriver]

Maybe we should all go back to tribalism. That worked well for tens of thousands of years.

I'm pretty sure that's exactly what is happening in the US right now. Here we are the birthing days of the Great Elephant and Great Donkey Tribes.

Except the reality is that the power hungry just eliminate the competition through murder in such arrangements.

That's why tribalism. People almost never murder their friends and family, and you tend to think twice about a murder that will start a blood feud. Of course, a little bit of that is okay. We need more checks on human population growth anyway. There is only a problem if the murder excessively removes necessary personelle. I don't have a perfect solution to that but it's to some degree a self-rectifying problem because the most competent can avoid murder through political acumen, which is necessary for diplomatic purposes anyway, and the least competent wouldn't rise to an important position in the first place when voting is done by the wise and educated, rather than the masses. A procedure for impeachment should allow alternate avenues of removal which don't necessitate murder for those of a more middling proficiency at the art of rule.

There are so many things wrong with this that I can't not think you're just fucking with us.

Assuming you aren't though, I'll pick one: Do you realize just *how many* monarchs in history got into power by killing their brother or father? Or were a close friend of the king, were appointed the general of a large army, and then coup'd the hell out of his close friend to sieze power?

In an elective monarchy with a procedure for impeachment? I've honestly never heard of it happening. Please go ahead and share what examples you know of.

Basically the entire period in Swedish history between the end of "viking age" and 14th century-ish is one civil war after one civil war as one brother, cousin, or other relative kills another and seizes power, up until Margareta I, "King Pantsless", is elected queen of Sweden (and forms the Kalmar Union).

Almost all of them started as elective, technically speaking; it's simply that it's far enough back that it tends to be a touch difficult to piece together all the fine details.  For instance, there's the Saxon (and English) Witan, Nordic Things, or Bohemian Estates.  Even the Kings of France were elected in the days of Pepin and Charles the Great.

So much this. In addition to the ones already brought up, there was also the Basque thingies (although I am not 100% if them being democratic was a thing I read or something I memory-edited in as a hang-on idea to them being a free people), and the other Slavic system, the polish being one, but also the Russian city states to the east (sort of).

All in all it would appear from what little we know of their pre-history that both Germanic and Slavic tribals had fairly strong democratic traditions, which over time grew into the more and less democratic systems we see during the middle ages.

Tribes become irrelevant once you have agriculture (because too many people)

This is just plain wrong. Tribalism has very little to do with the tribes' source of sustenance, and amount of people in a tribe likewise isn't particularly relevant.

[Sheb]

In a defeat for women's rights, Melania Trump covers up to meet religious leaders.

[Antioch]

In a defeat for women's rights, Melania Trump covers up to meet religious leaders.

Uh, pope Fransis is the most chill pope there ever was...

[smjjames]

In a defeat for women's rights, Melania Trump covers up to meet religious leaders.

Michelle Obama did the same thing btw, so, it seems more like Melania is just doing what the previous FLOTUS did, which is understandable. Though I do get the hypocrisy between what she did in Saudi Arabia vs what she did in the Vatican.

Trump has decided to reset the FBI chief search in order to cast a wider net. Seems to have been prompted in part by several candidates dropping out, so, I can see how he'd want to cast a wider net.

Going to have to do the vetting properly this time obviously.

edit: And he should have done this BEFORE he fired Comey, though it would be tough to keep that under wraps and it'd telegraph Comeys imminent firing.

[Reelya]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-05-24/trump-budget/8553850

Federal aid to states would shrink by 3 per cent, though the cuts would fall most heavily on states that backed Mr Trump's Democratic rival Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election.

States that voted for Clinton would collectively face a drop of 4.8 per cent, while those that backed Mr Trump would see assistance cut by 1.2 per cent.

Trump's not one to forgive and forget.

[Sheb]

He, must be pretty hard to find a candidate which look honest but is willing to drop the investigation.

[sluissa]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-05-24/trump-budget/8553850

Federal aid to states would shrink by 3 per cent, though the cuts would fall most heavily on states that backed Mr Trump's Democratic rival Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election.

States that voted for Clinton would collectively face a drop of 4.8 per cent, while those that backed Mr Trump would see assistance cut by 1.2 per cent.

Trump's not one to forgive and forget.

Some of that's likely due to the fact that states with conservative bases often elect conservative governors who sometimes have habit of outright refusing federal money to help their own people out just to spite democrats and then later say, "look what their welfare bucks are doing for you, the working people, nothing."

[Neonivek]

Besides while Trump does help Conservative States more...

He also hurts his own voter base with his other choices. So he might not be playing favorites here, or if he is it might be towards the people who give him money.