US Politics Mega-thread - Page 9377

On December 01 2017 16:20 mozoku wrote:
The argument in favor of pro-growth tax policy, rather, is that's it's based on rather fundamental principles of economics, finance, and human nature that have been shown to be true in every successful economy ever known to man. Whereas the competing theory, redistribution, has literally no theoretical foundation--despite the incredible academic demand for it. Unless you want to count Marxism.... Which is a redistribution based economic theory that you actually can defeat with a statistical argument.

On December 01 2017 16:53 mozoku wrote:
I struggle to believe that you guys are as convinced as you are that it doesn't work based on indisputably shitty evidence.

It's like you guys have never taken a statistics course.

On December 01 2017 16:20 mozoku wrote:

This, Nevuk's post, and Nyxisto's paper speaks more to statistical ignorance than it does to any substantive economic argument.

The proposed changes to the tax code are relatively small, and the effect of tax policy within the range America has historically varied tax policy is relatively small compared to factors outside of the government's control. Nobody is saying that small shifts in the tax burden is going to double GDP growth. The estimated effect of the tax plan that I've seen is somewhere around ~0.5% As I noted before, that's probably ~10% of the variance in quarterly GDP growth.

Contrary to what you guys apparently believe, 20th century tax policy didn't occur in a vacuum. To start, the word "inequality" isn't even mentioned in the (long) Wikipedia article about "Causes of the Great Depression." That's how widely accepted your explanation of the Great Depression is. Next, it's a widely held view that stimulus (i.e. WW2 and the New Deal) is an effective way to manage a crisis of consumer confidence. Notice that has nothing to do with your post-hoc correlations of one country's tax policy and it's economic history. We'll come back to that later.

Let's go past WW2 now. Weird that that "historian" seemed to have forgotten that America was literally the only major industrial economy that came out of WW2 with it's infrastructure intact. What else happened? Oh yeah, a baby boom.

When circumstances line up like that, how do you expect it affects economic growth? I can assure you, the universal view of anyone reasonably informed about economics is that they'd trade a pro-growth tax code for those circumstances 10/10 times.

Going forward some more, we have the post-Reagan economic boom, which you conveniently left out. However, I'm statistically literate enough to know that there's no argument to be made about an effect as small ~10% of the variance of the response based on observational data in a sample size of one. Which is the crux of any reasonable discussion on tax policy.

The ignoramuses in Nyxisto's paper are frankly just sort of stupid. They're bright enough to realize that structural economic shifts distort any analysis of tax policy, then somehow try to fix that issue by looking three ~7 year time periods and looking at growth vs marginal tax rate. The approach makes no sense, and marginal tax rate is a questionable way to assess tax policy, but let's ignore that for a moment. We're talking about a sample size of 3. Not only that, but nobody argues moderate changes in tax policy causes recessions, but the two low-tax eras they included both contain a recession in a 4 year period, and the high tax era is a 9 year stretch of fucking growth. Whaddaya know guys!? Growth is higher outside of recessions!

There really isn't a statistical argument to be made on tax policy, at least based on US history alone. It's possible somebody could do something worldwide, but I'm not knowledgeable enough on non-US economic history to confirm it so it's a moot point to be regardless of which way it points.

The argument in favor of pro-growth tax policy, rather, is that's it's based on rather fundamental principles of economics, finance, and human nature that have been shown to be true in every successful economy ever known to man. Whereas the competing theory, redistribution, has literally no theoretical foundation--despite the incredible academic demand for it. Unless you want to count Marxism.... Which is a redistribution based economic theory that you actually can defeat with a statistical argument.

On December 01 2017 16:58 Velr wrote:
As contrary to no evidence for it to work at all?


And.. Kansas?

On December 01 2017 16:53 mozoku wrote:
I struggle to believe that you guys are as convinced as you are that it doesn't work based on indisputably shitty evidence.

It's like you guys have never taken a statistics course.

On December 01 2017 17:19 mozoku wrote:

A sample size of one means there's no evidence on either side Einstein.

On December 01 2017 17:24 Introvert wrote:
Kansas has more problems anyways, it's not a great example. Although it should prove that you must also reduce spending, not just cut taxes. The legislature hates that idea, and that conflict with the governor has a lot to do with the issues there are. it's been a while since I've looked into it but that is my recollection.

On December 01 2017 19:18 biology]major wrote:
This Kate steinle situation is just another's example of reverse bigotry in action

On December 01 2017 19:18 biology]major wrote:
This Kate steinle situation is just another's example of reverse bigotry in action

On December 01 2017 14:47 Kyadytim wrote:

Well, Nevuk literally posted this an hour before you posted. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=26843395
There's also how Bush's tax plan made didn't do great things for the country, while the New Deal led to a really prosperous era with top marginal tax rates above 60%. It was above 80% for a while, and even in the 90s from around 1945 to 1965. It didn't drop below 70% until after Reagan was elected in 1980. I'd argue that the period from the New Deal to Reagan's election was a pretty good period for the US economy.

Also, Kansas, which should really speak for itself. I'm appalled that they brought Brownback in to talk about how his tax cuts in Kansas were a success, and therefore this bill would be good. At least he was correct that we can look at Kansas to see what this tax bill will do to the country as a whole.

So yeah, that's how I figure. The economy grew just fine without funneling money to the rich so that they can be entitled to part of other people's profits by virtue of already being extremely wealthy. Trickle down economics doesn't work.

WASHINGTON — President Trump over the summer repeatedly urged senior Senate Republicans, including the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, to end the panel’s investigation into Russia’s interference in the 2016 election, according to a half dozen lawmakers and aides. Mr. Trump’s requests were a highly unusual intervention from a president into a legislative inquiry involving his family and close aides.

Senator Richard Burr of North Carolina, the intelligence committee chairman, said in an interview this week that Mr. Trump told him that he was eager to see an investigation that has overshadowed much of the first year of his presidency come to an end.

“It was something along the lines of, ‘I hope you can conclude this as quickly as possible,’” Mr. Burr said. He said he replied to Mr. Trump that “when we have exhausted everybody we need to talk to, we will finish.”

In addition, according to lawmakers and aides, Mr. Trump told Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, and Senator Roy Blunt, Republican of Missouri and a member of the intelligence committee, to end the investigation swiftly.

Senator Dianne Feinstein, a California Democrat who is a former chairwoman of the intelligence committee, said in an interview this week that Mr. Trump’s requests were “inappropriate” and represented a breach of the separation of powers.

“It is pressure that should never be brought to bear by an official when the legislative branch is in the process of an investigation,” Ms. Feinstein said.

Raj Shah, a White House spokesman, said on Thursday that the president had not acted improperly. Mr. Trump, he said, “at no point has attempted to apply undue influence on committee members’’ and believes “there is no evidence of collusion and these investigations must come to a fair and appropriate completion.’’

Mr. Trump’s requests of lawmakers to end the Senate investigation came during a period in the summer when the president was particularly consumed with Russia and openly raging at his own attorney general, Jeff Sessions, for recusing himself from any inquiries into Russian meddling in the election. Mr. Trump often vented to his own aides and even declared his innocence to virtual strangers he came across on his New Jersey golf course.

In this same period, the president complained frequently to Mr. McConnell about not doing enough to bring the investigation to an end, a Republican official close to the leader said.

Republicans played down Mr. Trump’s appeals, describing them as the actions of a political newcomer unfamiliar with what is appropriate presidential conduct.

Mr. Burr said he did not feel pressured by the president’s appeal, portraying it as the action of someone who has “never been in government.” But he acknowledged other members of his committee have had similar discussions with Mr. Trump. “Everybody has promptly shared any conversations that they’ve had,” Mr. Burr said.

One of them was Mr. Blunt, who was flying on Air Force One with Mr. Trump to Springfield, Mo., in August when he found himself being lobbied by the president “to wrap up this investigation,” according to a Republican official familiar with the conversation.

Mr. Blunt was not bothered by Mr. Trump’s comments, the official said, because he did not see them bearing a “sinister motive.’’

But Mr. Burr and Mr. Blunt have both taken steps to limit their interaction with Mr. Trump this year, not wanting to create the perception of coziness as they conduct a highly sensitive investigation into contacts between the president’s campaign and Moscow last year.

Robert S. Mueller III, the Justice Department’s special counsel who is leading a separate investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 election, is also examining whether Mr. Trump tried to obstruct justice when he fired James B. Comey, the F.B.I. director who was running a federal inquiry into the matter.

Mr. Trump also called other lawmakers over the summer with requests that they push Mr. Burr to finish the inquiry, according to a Republican senator who requested anonymity to discuss his contact with the president.

This senator, who was alarmed upon hearing word of the president’s pleas, said Mr. Trump’s request to the other senators was clear: They should urge Mr. Burr to bring the Russia investigation to a close. The senator declined to reveal which colleagues Mr. Trump had contacted with the request.

Some of Mr. Trump’s advisers feared he would move to fire Mr. Mueller, an option that the president pointedly left open in an Oval Office interview with The New York Times in July.

During this time, Mr. Trump made several calls to senators without senior staff present, according to one West Wing official. According to senators and other Republicans familiar with the conversations, Mr. Trump would begin the talks on a different topic but eventually drift toward the Russia investigation.

In conversations with Mr. McConnell and Senator Bob Corker, the Tennessee Republican who is chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Mr. Trump voiced sharp anger that congressional Republicans were not helping lift the cloud of suspicion over Russia, the senators told political allies. The Times reported in August that the president had complained to Mr. McConnell that he was failing to shield Mr. Trump from an ongoing Senate inquiry.

The earlier call with Mr. Burr, however, was perhaps the most invasive, given Mr. Burr’s role directly supervising the Senate’s investigation of Mr. Trump.

Mr. Burr told other senators that Mr. Trump had stressed that it was time to “move on” from the Russia issue, using that language repeatedly, according to people who spoke with Mr. Burr over the summer. One Republican close to Mr. Burr, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said that Mr. Trump had been “very forceful.”

Asked why Mr. Trump is so irritated with the investigation, Mr. Burr said: “In his world it hampers his ability to project the strength he needs to convey on foreign policy.”

Mr. Burr said Mr. Trump was not fully aware of the impropriety of his request because the president still has the mind-set of a businessman rather than a politician. “Businessmen are paid to skip things that they think they can skip and get away with,” he said.

This past summer, Mr. Trump also contacted Senator Thom Tillis, a North Carolina Republican who in August introduced a bipartisan bill limiting the president’s power to dismiss special prosecutors — a measure widely seen as aimed at protecting Mr. Mueller from Mr. Trump. In an interview this week, Mr. Tillis said the president “just asked me where my head was” on the legislation and described the exchange as “pleasant.” Mr. Trump did not press him on the Senate investigation, said Mr. Tillis, who is not on the intelligence committee.

Republicans said Mr. Trump’s ire often went beyond the intelligence committee investigation and spilled over a range of issues that touched on Russia and his relationship with Congress.

Another Republican senator said Mr. Trump had not urged him to help bring the Russia inquiry to a halt. Instead, the senator said, the president nudged him to begin an investigation into Hillary Clinton’s connection with the intelligence-gathering firm Fusion GPS, which produced a dossier of allegations about Mr. Trump’s ties to Moscow.

Mr. McConnell — who over the summer was quickly notified of Mr. Trump’s calls to his Senate colleagues — told multiple associates that Mr. Trump appeared unable to distinguish traditional policy concerns about Russia from more specific questions about Russian interference in the presidential race.

The Senate leader told associates that Mr. Trump did not seem to recognize that the Republican Party traditionally took a suspicious view of Russia, or that lawmakers could favor punishing Russia without questioning Mr. Trump’s victory in 2016. The president had reluctantly signed a bill imposing sanctions on Moscow on Aug. 2, using an extraordinary written statement to lash out against what he viewed as a usurping of executive authority from a Congress that “could not even negotiate a health care bill after seven years of talking.”

Mr. Trump, Mr. McConnell told associates, appeared inclined to treat criticism of Russian meddling in the United States as giving credence to unproven allegations that his campaign colluded with foreign actors.

In that respect, Mr. Trump’s private consternation mirrored some of his public complaints about the Russia issue. He has continued to seethe regularly, and openly, about the scrutiny of Russia’s political activities, tweeting just last weekend: “Since the first day I took office, all you hear is the phony Democrat excuse for losing the election, Russia, Russia, Russia.”

On December 01 2017 19:26 GreenHorizons wrote:


I know you've been making progress so I'll try to put this the best I can. There's no such thing as "reverse bigotry" it would just be "bigotry".

They never had a chance at murder with a ricocheting bullet.