Saturday, September 28, 2019

They Wouldn't Leave

givemewanderlust asked:
"Hi! Question! I was talking to my boyfriend about taxing billionaires and Warren’s tax plan, etc. and his question was “why would they stay here if they’re going to lose that much money?” I’m wondering what you’d say to that argument? Because I was kinda stuck. Thank you in advance!"
odinsblog answered
"They wouldn’t leave. It’s a bluff that no one has called, iMho. Think about it: America is where a shit ton of money is because we have so many markets that are integral to the world market. The US dollar is still the defacto currency of the world. If congress did it right, with no loopholes—I know, that’s a big if—but if they did it right, and threatened to take away access to the US markets, and denied said billionaires the ability to conduct business in the US, they couldn’t leave. 
What kind of greedy snot avoids paying their fair share of taxes just because they’re going to lose such an infinitesimally small portion of their wealth that even their grandchildren’s great-grandchildren would still be millionaires?
America built the interstate highway and other crucial infrastructure when the tax rate was a whopping 91 percent. I’m not saying we need to go that high again, but we aren’t going to be able to repair our infrastructure by making poor people and middle class people pay higher taxes. And someone has got to pay, so it might as well be the privileged 1%. 
Remember: if the tax laws were written to say, “we are going to tax millionaires and billionaires,” the tax is on every dollar AFTER a certain amount. For example, a 51 percent tax on $500,000 means that the 51 percent rate doesn’t kick in until that person makes $500,001. Every dollar AFTER $500,000 would be taxed at the 51 percent tax rate. If someone made “only” $499,000 a year, then they wouldn’t get hit with a 51 percent tax rate. If they made $500,000 they still wouldn’t get hit with the 51 percent tax rate. It’s not until they exceeded $500,000 that the tax rate kicks in – and then it only kicks in on the dollars that go OVER $500,000.
I think that’s the part everyone misses, right? So if I made $500,002 (that’s five hundred thousand + two dollars), then only that extra two dollars is taxed at the rate of 51 percent.
Anyway, it’s a bluff. And we need to call it. But we gotta do it the right way and make it painful for them." 

Friday, September 20, 2019

Dear Republicans: You Didn't Object...

Dear Republicans:
.
You didn’t object when you heard Donald Trump say he likes to grab women “by the pussy.”
.
You didn’t object when he kicked the American media out of the Oval Office and handed two Russian spies classified data entrusted to him by one of our allies.
.
You didn’t object when he likened our intelligence community to “Nazis.”
.
You didn’t object when he stood before the Memorial Wall of Stars at Langley and told lie after lie about himself and the election.
.
You didn’t object while at the Helsinki Summit, he met behind closed doors with the Russian President.
.
You didn’t object to him banning the American Press from covering that meeting.
.
You didn’t object when he emerged from that meeting and sided with the Russian President over the findings of our own intelligence community.
.
You didn’t object when the Trump campaign admitted to accepting Russian offers to help him defeat SecState Clinton.
.
You didn’t object when he stood before the cameras and said; “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find 30k e-mails that are missing.”
.
You didn’t object when the Russians responded that VERY DAY with stolen emails.
.
You didn’t object when it was confirmed that the basis for the Trump Tower meeting was a total fabrication. That it had nothing to do with adopting Russian children, and everything to do with swinging the election.
.
You didn’t object when it was revealed that Trump himself floated the cover story of adoptions from Russia.
.
You didn’t object when it was confirmed that his campaign staff had met with Russian agents over 150 times, after claiming they had never met with them at all.
.
You didn’t object when the Trump campaign declined to inform the FBI about the Russian advances.
.
You didn’t object when Trump’s campaign manager gave internal data on four key battleground states to agents working for Putin.
.
You sure as hell didn’t object when those very same four battleground states miraculously shifted towards trump on Election Day.
.
You didn’t object when Trump kicked his Attorney General out of the room and asked the FBI Director to let his National Security Advisor off the hook for lying about his contacts with Russian agents.
.
You didn’t object when Trump fired that FBI Director for declining to let Flynn off the hook.
.
You didn’t object when Special Counsel Robert Mueller said he couldn’t establish a conspiracy, largely because so many of Trump’s staffers lied during their interviews, and because Trump himself refused to submit to a live interview.
.
You didn’t object when Special Counsel Mueller cited no fewer than ten instances of the president himself obstructing justice in his report: an impeachable offense.
.
You didn’t object when it was revealed he cheated on his wife with a porn star.
.
You didn’t object when it was revealed that he paid off that porn star to the tune of $130,000.00 to buy her silence just prior to the election, an illegal attempt to hide relevant facts from the electorate.
.
You didn’t object when he withdrew the U.S. from the JCPOA, which was the first and ONLY treaty that’s successfully kept Iranian nuclear ambitions in check.
.
You didn’t object when he pulled us out of the Paris Climate Accords.
.
You didn’t object when he scuttled the Obama administration’s clean air and water standards.
.
You didn’t object when he opened up vast tracts of protected wilderness to his friends in the oil and mining industries.
.
You didn’t object to the myriad of cases of violations of the emoluments clause.
.
You didn’t object to the recently-discovered military stopovers at Trump properties in Scotland.
.
You didn’t object when after mass shooting after mass shooting, he wouldn’t lift a finger to protect even little school children from gun violence.
.
You didn’t object when he started putting tariffs on everyone from China to Turkey, which have undeniably hurt millions of people around the world and shaken the stock markets.
.
You didn’t object when he gave the corporate farming industry $26B in compensation for their losses due to his tariffs.
.
You didn’t object when he channeled $3.6B in Pentagon appropriations to his wall on the Mexican border.
.
You didn’t object when Trump called out against “Islamic terrorism” on multiple occasions, but never once for terrorism by white nationalists.
.
You didn’t object when he forcibly separated little children from their parents.
.
You didn’t object when he confined those children to chain-link paddocks.
.
You didn’t object when a whistleblower revealed the president had on multiple occasions said things that potentially undermined our nation’s safety and security.
.
You didn’t object when his personal lawyer, his personal consultant, and his army of sycophants at Fox News have repeatedly and consistently lied about ALL of the above for three excruciatingly long years.
.
So here’s my question for you: What about any of the above do you believe entitles you to the right to call yourselves “patriots?”
-Bruce Lindner

Saturday, August 3, 2019

Robert Reich: America’s Biggest Economic Problem Isn’t China

Xi Jinping might possibly agree this weekend when he meets Donald Trump on further steps to bring down China’s trade imbalance with the US, giving Trump a face-saving way of ending his trade war.
But Xi won’t agree to change China’s economic system. Why should he?
The American economic system is focused on maximizing shareholder returns. And it’s achieving that goal. Last Friday, the S&P 500 notched a new all-time high.
But average Americans have seen no significant gains in their incomes for four decades, adjusted for inflation.
China’s economic system, by contrast, is focused on maximizing China. And it’s achieving that goal. 
Forty years ago China was still backward and agrarian. Today it’s the world’s second-largest economy, home to the world’s biggest auto industry and some of the world’s most powerful technology companies. Over the last four decades, hundreds of millions of Chinese people have been lifted out of poverty.
The two systems are fundamentally different.
At the core of the American system are 500 giant companies headquartered in the US but making, buying and selling things all over the world. Half of their employees are non-American, located outside the US. A third of their shareholders are non-American.
These giant corporations have no particular allegiance to America. Their only allegiance and responsibility is to their shareholders.
They’ll do whatever is necessary to get their share prices as high as possible – including keeping wages down, fighting unions, reclassifying employees as independent contractors, outsourcing anywhere around world where parts are cheapest, shifting their profits around the world wherever taxes are lowest, and paying their top CEOs ludicrous sums.
At the core of China’s economy, by contrast, are state-owned companies that borrow from state banks at artificially low rates. These state firms balance the ups and downs of the economy, spending more when private companies are reluctant to do so.
China’s core planners and state-owned companies will do whatever is necessary both to improve the wellbeing of the Chinese people and become the world’s largest and most powerful economy.
Trump thinks that’s unfair. But it works. Since 1978, the Chinese economy has grown by an average of more than 9% per year. Growth has slowed recently, and American tariffs could bring it down to 6% or 7%, but that’s still faster than almost any other economy in the world, including the US.
The American system relies on taxes, subsidies and regulations to coax corporations to act in the interest of the American public. But these levers have proven weak relative to the overriding corporate goal of maximizing shareholder returns.
Last week, for example, Walmart, American’s largest employer, announced it would lay off 570 employees despite taking home more than $2bn courtesy of Trump and the Republican corporate tax cuts. Last year, the company closed dozens of Sam’s Club stores, leaving thousands of Americans out of work.
At the same time, Walmart has plowed more than $20 billion into buying back shares of its own stock, which boosts the pay of Walmart executives and enriches wealthy investors but does nothing for the economy.
It should be noted that Walmart is a global company, not adverse to bribing foreign officials to get its way. Last Thursday it agreed to pay $282m to settle federal allegations of overseas corruption, including channeling more than $500,000 to an intermediary in Brazil known as a “sorceress” for her ability to make construction permit problems disappear.
The Trump tax cut did squat for jobs and wages but did nicely for corporate executives and big investors. Instead of reinvesting the savings into their businesses, the International Monetary Fund reports that companies used it to buy back stock.
But wait. America is a democracy and China is a dictatorship, right?
True, but most Americans have little or no influence on public policy – which is why the Trump tax cut did so little for them.
That’s the conclusion of professors Martin Gilens of Princeton and Benjamin Page of Northwestern, who analyzed 1,799 policy issues before Congress and found that “the preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy”.
Instead, American lawmakers respond to the demands of wealthy individuals (typically corporate executives and Wall Street moguls) and of big corporations, those with the most lobbying prowess and deepest pockets to bankroll campaigns.

Don’t blame American corporations. They’re in business to make profits and maximize their share prices, not to serve America.
But because of their dominance in American politics and their commitment to share prices instead of the wellbeing of Americans, it’s folly to count on them to create good American jobs or improve American competitiveness.
I’m not suggesting we emulate the Chinese economic system. I am suggesting that we not be smug about the American economic system.
Instead of trying to get China to change, we should lessen the dominance of big American corporations over American policy.
China isn’t the reason half of America hasn’t had a raise in four decades. The simple fact is Americans cannot thrive within a system run largely by big American corporations, organized to boost their share prices but not boost Americans.

Tuesday, May 21, 2019

Fascist Things My Friends Post On Facebook: North Carolina Edition

Image may contain: text


First of all, there has been no legislation passed in North Carolina this year regarding Sharia Law or any other foreign laws.
There is, however, a law from 2013 which bans state courts from applying “foreign law.”
The ban doesn’t make it illegal for individuals to personally practice any such law. Instead, it bars state courts and agencies from applying foreign law in divorce, child custody and family law disputes.
Essentially the law made it so only American and North Carolina laws would carry weight in the North Carolina judicial system.
Nowhere in the law does it explicitly mention Sharia Law, either, although “foreign law” would include Sharia Law and other religious and foreign laws.
Since the law doesn’t state practicing foreign laws is a criminal offense, nor does it explicitly single out Sharia Law, the law can’t have banned Sharia Law or made it a criminal offense.
As long as they don’t break any existing laws in doing so, a person could theoretically practice Sharia Law in North Carolina outside of the courts.
Therefore, this claim is FALSE.

Friday, May 10, 2019

An Incomplete Thought

Last month, the Council on Foreign Relations hosted The Future of Democracy Symposium, the transcript of which is online. I was reading the transcript of the second session, Economics, Identity, and the Democratic Recession, and although there were several topics to ponder, a particular one caught my interest. An audience member, Matthias Matthijs, who had been on the previous panel, asked the following question:
"If we can believe demographers, by 2040 they predict about 70 percent of Americans are going to live in fifteen states and the other 30 (percent) are going to live in thirty-five states. So that’s—is that a problem for American democracy, going forward?" 
The question was answered by Brad DeLong, an economist whose blog I follow.
"You might well say that the thirty-five states that will elect seventy senators and yet have a decreasing share of the population, that these are overwhelming communities in states that are being left behind by the economic engine of American world globalizing value chain whatsit and that for a political logic to over represent those people to offset the fact that the economic logic is grossly under representing them might be something that is not totally unfair... 
"But this requires—this requires that the senator from Nebraska, say, actually be interested in policies that tend to bring money and wealth into the state of Nebraska rather than the senator from Nebraska cheering the nominations of Herman Cain and Steve Moore to the Federal Reserve Board on the grounds that it owns the establishment...
"It could well be a problem. If we had normal politics, if we had normal interest group Theodore Lowi polyarchy politics, it could be fine. But if it, indeed, becomes some kind of identity politics in which Ben Sasse wins reelection by owning the libs, in which whoever the current governor of Kentucky is—I forget—wins reelection by taking Medicaid away from his own voters, then it will be a serious problem.
This caught my interest because Oklahoma would be one of those 35 states, and the 2018 elections, in which we reelected our economically ignorant Senators (James Lankford actually gave credence to the idea that the Trump Tax cuts would pay for themselves,) also included the race for the Governor of Oklahoma.
Our two Republican candidates in the primary runoff were the Mayor of Oklahoma City, Mick Cornett, who had a strong economic record, having shared responsibility for changing Oklahoma City from a near ghost town to a thriving community, and Kevin Stitt, whose ads before the runoff were primarily about Mr Cornett not being fascist enough.
Naturally, Stitt won both the runoff and the general election because that's what Oklahomans care about.
I don't know what conclusions to draw from this (hence the title.) I wonder often when candidates run on populist positions whether they are true believers or just cynical.  During the general election, Stitt did not accept Mary Fallin's endorsement because he said his approach to solving the state's problems was going to be different than hers. (She, along with much of our legislature, believed that tax cuts create growth, which is why our schools and hospitals are are closing or struggling.)  Stitt's "different" approach was not to raise revenue, but to make government more efficient -- because, after all, if you're starving, the problem is not that you don't have enough food; it's that your pantry is badly organized. This appeals to the populists in our state, because taxes are worse than illness or ignorance.  Also, we gotta stick it to the libs.

Now, I don't have a real reason to doubt that Governor Stitt has Oklahoma's economic interests at heart, though I disagree with his stated philosophy.  The history is still unwritten, so we'll just have to see how it goes. But that one hyper-partsan moment of his campaign really bugs me.

Sunday, March 17, 2019

First Reaction: Cuba

Image may contain: text

The caption on Facebook reads, "Communist Cuba sure looks a lot like Democrats in 2019!"

...unlike the Republicans, who are actively opposed to all of that.