US Politics Mega-thread - Page 3578

On April 09 2016 07:29 Gorsameth wrote:

Yeah no I cant agree with that at all. No one is being force fed Bernie, esp with the media blackout around him at the start.

The Panama Papers prove Mr. Sanders was wrong about a trade pact with Panama

“I predicted that the passage of this disastrous trade deal would make it easier, not harder, for the wealthy and large corporations to evade taxes by sheltering billions of dollars offshore,” Mr. Sanders said in a news release. “I wish I had been proven wrong about this, but it has now come to light that the extent of Panama’s tax avoidance scams is even worse than I had feared.” Quite a contrast, he says, with Hillary Clinton, who helped push the deal through Congress as Mr. Obama’s secretary of state.

The evidence, however, suggests that the truth is pretty nearly the opposite of what Mr. Sanders claims — and our source for that is the Panama Papers themselves.

Data culled from the documents by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists, and presented in several charts on the group’s website, show that the Panama-based law firm Mossack Fonseca, which specialized in setting up offshore accounts and shell companies for wealthy people, has been steadily reducing its activity in Panama for about a decade. As it happens, the decline began about the time the Bush administration and Panama began discussing a free-trade pact — and accelerated after the deal took effect during Mr. Obama’s first term. [...]

Even before the free-trade deal, Panama was under pressure from both the United States and Europe to clean up its tax-haven act; the pressure intensified after the financial crisis of 2008. The Obama administration, backed by members of Congress, made it clear the free-trade deal — which Panama badly wanted, to match a deal between its Central American neighbors and the United States — hinged on a separate agreement granting U.S. tax authorities more access to Panama’s financial system. The United States particularly insisted on plugging the “bearer shares” loophole. Panama agreed and changed its laws accordingly — before the free-trade agreement reached the Senate and Mr. Sanders nevertheless voted “no,” claiming, wrongly, that it would make the tax haven “worse.”

In response to our questions, the Sanders campaign didn’t address the data, but said the administration had missed an opportunity to completely “eradicate” the Panama tax haven. To us, it looks like the Obama administration’s diplomacy resulted in real progress, and that if anyone’s entitled to say “I told you so” about that, it would be Ms. Clinton.

A long-awaited Senate Intelligence Committee encryption bill would force companies to provide “technical assistance” to government investigators seeking locked data, according to a discussion draft obtained by The Hill.

The measure, from Committee Chairman Richard Burr (R-N.C.) and ranking member Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), is a response to concerns that criminals are increasingly using encrypted devices to hide from authorities.

While law enforcement has long pressed Congress for such legislation, the tech community and privacy advocates warn that it would undermine security and endanger online privacy.

Philadelphia's new mayor wants to do something few American cities have done: pass a tax on soda and other sugary drinks.

So far, Berkeley, Calif., has been the only U.S. city to approve such a tax. That measure was aimed at reducing soda consumption (and the negative health effects that go along with drinking too much of it).

But in Philly, the tax isn't being promoted as a scheme to bring down the city's high rates of obesity or diabetes. Mayor Jim Kenney says he wants to use the revenue for projects that benefit residents in a city with a 26 percent poverty rate, the highest of America's largest cities. He argues soda companies make big money and often market their products to low-income people.

"What we're looking to do is to take some of that profit, to put it back into the neighborhoods that have been their biggest customers, to improve the lives and opportunities for the people who live there," he said at a rally promoting the tax last month.

Kenney claims a tax of 3 cents per ounce of soda, iced-tea and other sugary drinks — levied on beverage distributors — would generate more than $400 million over the next five years. The money would help fund a plan for universal pre-K and community schools that offer services like health care, as well as major renovations to parks, recreation centers and libraries.

So far, no one is complaining about Kenney's intentions, but Daniel Grace, who heads up the local Teamsters Union, says there has to be a better way to raise money. The union represents about 2,000 people who work in bottling plants and drive delivery trucks.

On April 09 2016 11:47 kwizach wrote:
The Washington Post's editorial board just published a piece on the Panama Papers & the Panama FTA:


Source

On April 09 2016 13:20 oneofthem wrote:
as i've tried to explain to you, without the trade deal we would not have any leverage to get anything

The Obama administration, backed by members of Congress, made it clear the free-trade deal — which Panama badly wanted, to match a deal between its Central American neighbors and the United States — hinged on a separate agreement granting U.S. tax authorities more access to Panama’s financial system. The United States particularly insisted on plugging the “bearer shares” loophole.

On April 09 2016 13:49 kwizach wrote:
The point is precisely that the leverage was used. From my previous quote:

On April 09 2016 14:16 GreenHorizons wrote:


See my post before last.

Is the suggestion that the US got all it asked for, or all it could get, in concessions regarding tax sheltering?

On April 09 2016 14:36 kwizach wrote:

No, see my reply to you. The people in charge of the negotiations made the deal that they could make in their pursuit of getting more access to Panama's financial system. You have absolutely nothing of substance whatsoever to back up an assertion that the U.S. could have gotten more out of its leverage in this specific case. You simply have nothing to show to support that idea.

In any case, Sanders' statement that the Panama FTA made the situation worse was apparently clearly wrong -- the FTA itself did not contain anything that worsened the situation, and it was in reality used to further crack down on those tax avoidance practices.

Panama Tax Haven Status Continues:

To counter criticism that the Panama FTA would assist corporations seeking to dodge U.S. taxes via secretive Panama-based subsidiaries and bank accounts, the Obama administration announced implementation of a Tax Information Exchange Agreement with Panama. However, a large loophole in that agreement allows Panama to sidestep new tax transparency provisions if they are “contrary to the public policy” of Panama, a country that earns much of its revenue by providing strict banking secrecy and tax-free status for foreign firms incorporated there. In June 2012, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, which tracks countries’ tax haven statuses, reported that Panama remains one of a handful of countries in the world that has not passed a first-stage review of its tax transparency measures, due to nearly unparalleled nonconformity on six of nine regulatory checks against tax evasion. Even the Cayman Islands did not earn that dubious distinction. Despite the lack of progress, the Obama administration has indicated its desire to implement the Panama FTA “very soon.”

On April 09 2016 15:07 GreenHorizons wrote:


I'm saying I don't buy that it was best possible deal for tax shelter reforms the US could have gotten on the premises laid out.

What’s more, I like Bernie Sanders. I like irascible New York Jewish liberals, and I would be one if one could choose such a thing. He’s the only candidate running for President this cycle that I would want to have a beer with.

But, I won’t be voting for him in the New York Democratic Primary. Bernie Sanders has failed according to the terms he established for himself. His stated plan for enacting the lofty goals and principles he talks about on the campaign trail is that he will usher in a “political revolution” that will sweep away the entrenched opposition of Republican officials and established Democrats.

...

Hillary Clinton is not a secret Republican. She’s not a witch. She’s not going to jail. She’s a hawkish left-of-center policy wonk. She believes in incremental change and compromise. She’d rather pass a crappy law that has some positive outcomes than watch a great law die in committee. She believes in government, she thinks it does work and can work.

That’s not particularly inspiring. Bernie is sitting there telling us that if we clap really hard, Tinkerbell will live. Hillary is like, “That bitch is dead, I shot her. It’s time to grow up.”

One of the reasons our politics is broken right now is that we have completely lost the ability to compromise. We have let the perfect become the enemy of the good. And I think it’s telling that the frontrunners in both parties are the ones who seem most likely to make a deal (with the devil, no doubt), while the challengers are the “true believers” who want the center of the country to submit because they know what’s best. A majority of Americans are telling us that obstinance is not a political virtue. The ideologues are losing on both sides of the aisle. Liberals need to accept that just as much as conservatives.

Hillary Clinton is not why we progressives can’t have nice things. The entrenched views of conservatives, racists, homophobes, xenophobes, climate deniers, zealots from all religions, and the gun lobby are why we can’t have nice things. Hillary Clinton is the only candidate with a reasonable plan for dealing with those forces.

And that uninspiring, incremental, realist “plan” is why I’ll be voting for her. I guess. Until something practically better comes along.

On April 09 2016 15:07 GreenHorizons wrote:

I'm saying I don't buy that it was best possible deal for tax shelter reforms the US could have gotten on the premises laid out.

Policy arguments about gun control will not change the votes of the “neo-anarchist” Republican party, a Democratic senator said on Friday.

Speaking at a New York University Law School conference on the second amendment, Connecticut senator Chris Murphy argued that the stalemate over guns will only end when conservatives find a new way of proving their anti-government credentials to voters.

“Democrats and Republicans – we aren’t just having different conversations about guns, we are on different planets,” Murphy said.

Murphy said he was shocked when Congress failed to pass moderate gun control legislation after the 2012 school shooting at Sandy Hook elementary school in his state, even though polls show that “80% to 90% of Americans will tell you they wanted expanded background checks for people trying to buy guns”.

“Democracy is not supposed to allow for that to happen,” he said.

Murphy said that having been voted into office the month before the shooting, he had gone to Newtown and was with the family members of victims when they were told that 20 first-graders had been shot to death. Six adults also died.

Nearly four years later, Murphy said, Congress is still at an “irreconcilable impasse” when it comes to new gun laws.