|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On January 27 2021 01:20 BisuDagger wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2021 01:08 Erasme wrote:
Oh the good old "it will destroy the market!". A timeless classic, used when child labor laws were instaured for example. We voted to gradually get there in Florida. It's not a "destroy the market argument". It's a, "we already created a plan to do this based on what's best for our state, but then the President decided that didn't matter". Show nested quote +On January 27 2021 01:20 JimmiC wrote:
I'm not sure why so many people think that taking wealth away from the super rich is going to hurt anyone other than the super rich. And even them it won't really impact. Companies like Amazon not paying taxes and Bezos on his way to trillions is not helping even the middle or upper class. I just don't get it. The argument holds for the small businesses that have to take on the challenge of $15 an hour from $7.50. It's doubling the pay for ALL of their employees within a year instead of having several years to plan for that payment change like we are doing in Florida.
Would you say that is a party political or legal problem, though? To me that sounds like a legal or constitutional issue, if there can be state and federal legislation on the same issue.
I have to say I don't really understand the structure of the legislation regarding domestic matters, but is there no limits on what is left for states to legislate and what is left for federal government? Like as an outsider it would be easy to think that area such as labour laws is either federal or state level issue, but it sounds like both at the same time?
|
|
|
If the working poor suddenly starting making enough to eke out a modest living, they would suddenly be able to manage their debts better, and/or take on less debt, which definitely seems to me to be one of the genuine reasons why it hasn't happened. If there's one group that gets its lobbying done to ensure its own interest, it's the banks.
|
On January 27 2021 01:20 JimmiC wrote:
I'm not sure why so many people think that taking wealth away from the super rich is going to hurt anyone other than the super rich. And even them it won't really impact. Companies like Amazon not paying taxes and Bezos on his way to trillions is not helping even the middle or upper class. I just don't get it.
That depends on how you do it. A wealth tax for example is largely ineffective and you're taxing capital which is used for economic investment. Investment drives long term gains and taxing that is counterproductive. Much better ways would be things like a property tax, land value tax or high VAT for luxury products.
On January 27 2021 02:32 NewSunshine wrote:
If the working poor suddenly starting making enough to eke out a modest living, they would suddenly be able to manage their debts better, and/or take on less debt, which definitely seems to me to be one of the genuine reasons why it hasn't happened. If there's one group that gets its lobbying done to ensure its own interest, it's the banks.
Not really. Banks want you to pay your debts back. Bad debts are very expensive for banks. People with higher wages taking loans reduces the risk and increases the value of the assets in case they sell it to someone else.
|
Not all banks are created equal, nor are all bad debts equally bad, that's why there are vibrant markets for the sale of stale debts and thin margin fintechs that make a profit on lending to folks right at the edge (or just over it) of creditworthiness. Credit is expensive for the same reason that being poor is; the US is full of people and entities that make money off of what appear to be bad credit bets that exist solely by virtue of poor people having very little choice but to engage in objectively terrible transactions of all kinds.
|
On January 27 2021 02:47 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2021 01:20 JimmiC wrote:
I'm not sure why so many people think that taking wealth away from the super rich is going to hurt anyone other than the super rich. And even them it won't really impact. Companies like Amazon not paying taxes and Bezos on his way to trillions is not helping even the middle or upper class. I just don't get it. That depends on how you do it. A wealth tax for example is largely ineffective and you're taxing capital which is used for economic investment. Investment drives long term gains and taxing that is counterproductive. Much better ways would be things like a property tax, land value tax or high VAT for luxury products.
You can use pretty much any kind of value for investment, including loans on land, property and products. And people buying luxury products put their value into the producer, so that's basically the same argument as with companies with the difference that you aren't supporting bubbles like the Tesla stock.
Let's face it, if Bezos was forced to sell Amazon stocks to pay for taxes on his absurd wealth others would buy these and Amazon wouldn't loose much.
Naturally Bezos loyalty lies a bit with these shares, so you don't want to force him to sell all of these, but not significantly taxing the richest people of the planet because the majority of their wealth is in the stock market is beyond absurd when the real result would just be that this wealth gets distributed more and others with the necessary royalties would buy these stocks. You'd just get some money out of the top and a more evenish distribution among the top earners.
|
On January 27 2021 02:47 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2021 01:20 JimmiC wrote:
I'm not sure why so many people think that taking wealth away from the super rich is going to hurt anyone other than the super rich. And even them it won't really impact. Companies like Amazon not paying taxes and Bezos on his way to trillions is not helping even the middle or upper class. I just don't get it. That depends on how you do it. A wealth tax for example is largely ineffective and you're taxing capital which is used for economic investment. Investment drives long term gains and taxing that is counterproductive. Much better ways would be things like a property tax, land value tax or high VAT for luxury products. Show nested quote +On January 27 2021 02:32 NewSunshine wrote:
If the working poor suddenly starting making enough to eke out a modest living, they would suddenly be able to manage their debts better, and/or take on less debt, which definitely seems to me to be one of the genuine reasons why it hasn't happened. If there's one group that gets its lobbying done to ensure its own interest, it's the banks. Not really. Banks want you to pay your debts back. Bad debts are very expensive for banks. People with higher wages taking loans reduces the risk and increases the value of the assets in case they sell it to someone else.
Hmm.
You're not going to convince me that taxing more Bezos and Amazon will destroy their business or limit their investments. The guy's basically a dragon hoarding gold at this point.
Also banks don't want you to pay your debts back, they want you to pay the interest as long as possible, so they make more money. And if you suddenly can't pay it anymore, they'll sell it to other players in the market who will try to pressure the debt holder.
|
On January 27 2021 04:10 Erasme wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2021 02:47 RvB wrote:On January 27 2021 01:20 JimmiC wrote:
I'm not sure why so many people think that taking wealth away from the super rich is going to hurt anyone other than the super rich. And even them it won't really impact. Companies like Amazon not paying taxes and Bezos on his way to trillions is not helping even the middle or upper class. I just don't get it. That depends on how you do it. A wealth tax for example is largely ineffective and you're taxing capital which is used for economic investment. Investment drives long term gains and taxing that is counterproductive. Much better ways would be things like a property tax, land value tax or high VAT for luxury products. On January 27 2021 02:32 NewSunshine wrote:
If the working poor suddenly starting making enough to eke out a modest living, they would suddenly be able to manage their debts better, and/or take on less debt, which definitely seems to me to be one of the genuine reasons why it hasn't happened. If there's one group that gets its lobbying done to ensure its own interest, it's the banks. Not really. Banks want you to pay your debts back. Bad debts are very expensive for banks. People with higher wages taking loans reduces the risk and increases the value of the assets in case they sell it to someone else. Hmm. You're not going to convince me that taxing more Bezos and Amazon will destroy their business or limit their investments. The guy's basically a dragon hoarding gold at this point. Also banks don't want you to pay your debts back, they want you to pay the interest as long as possible, so they make more money. And if you suddenly can't pay it anymore, they'll sell it to other players in the market who will try to pressure the debt holder.
Indeed, this is why things as ridiculous as prepayment penalties exist, the prolonged existence of a debt has value independent of its payment.
|
This is a nice start to the administration. Biden must be doing some hand exercises with all of the signing he's been doing, but I think these four are really important. Now about those 1400 Biden Bucks...
Biden will sign four executive actions that will:
direct the Department of Housing and Urban Development "to take steps necessary to redress racially discriminatory federal housing policies";
direct the Department of Justice to end its use of private prisons;
reaffirm the federal government's "commitment to tribal sovereignty and consultation":
and combat xenophobia against Asian American and Pacific Islanders.
Domestic policy adviser Susan Rice told reporters that "advancing equity is a critical part of healing and of restoring unity in our nation."
Rice cited a 2016 Department of Justice inspector general's report that she said found private prisons are "less safe, less secure and arguably less humane." She said Biden is committed to reducing incarceration levels "while making communities safer," which she said starts with not issuing any new federal contracts for private prisons. But Rice said the order does not apply to private prisons used by Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
The White House said the presidential memorandum on housing directs HUD to "examine the effects of the Trump administration's regulatory actions that undermined fair housing policies and laws," and the measure also "recognizes the central role the federal government has played implementing housing policies across the United States, from redlining to mortgage discrimination to destructive federal highway construction, that have had racially discriminatory impacts.
Source
|
Bisutopia19387 Posts
On January 27 2021 05:02 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:This is a nice start to the administration. Biden must be doing some hand exercises with all of the signing he's been doing, but I think these four are really important. Now about those 1400 Biden Bucks... Show nested quote +Biden will sign four executive actions that will:
direct the Department of Housing and Urban Development "to take steps necessary to redress racially discriminatory federal housing policies";
direct the Department of Justice to end its use of private prisons;
reaffirm the federal government's "commitment to tribal sovereignty and consultation":
and combat xenophobia against Asian American and Pacific Islanders.
Domestic policy adviser Susan Rice told reporters that "advancing equity is a critical part of healing and of restoring unity in our nation."
Rice cited a 2016 Department of Justice inspector general's report that she said found private prisons are "less safe, less secure and arguably less humane." She said Biden is committed to reducing incarceration levels "while making communities safer," which she said starts with not issuing any new federal contracts for private prisons. But Rice said the order does not apply to private prisons used by Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
The White House said the presidential memorandum on housing directs HUD to "examine the effects of the Trump administration's regulatory actions that undermined fair housing policies and laws," and the measure also "recognizes the central role the federal government has played implementing housing policies across the United States, from redlining to mortgage discrimination to destructive federal highway construction, that have had racially discriminatory impacts. Source
Sadly, he just signing back in things that Obama had in place. My views aside, I hate to see an administration come in and wipe out new policies of the previous administration before they've had a chance to show whether they really work. This is a good example of how Trump came in and said "nope, let's get rid of this because it might not work" and that interruption prevents us from have a 12-16 year stretch where a policy (that makes sense) has a chance to play out.
|
Saying you want to end private prisons is all well and good but google tells me some 8% or ~130k people are in private prisons. Does the DoJ have the money to build prisons for 130k people? Or are they going to pay excessive prices to buy out private prisons?
|
On January 27 2021 05:08 BisuDagger wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2021 05:02 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:This is a nice start to the administration. Biden must be doing some hand exercises with all of the signing he's been doing, but I think these four are really important. Now about those 1400 Biden Bucks... Biden will sign four executive actions that will:
direct the Department of Housing and Urban Development "to take steps necessary to redress racially discriminatory federal housing policies";
direct the Department of Justice to end its use of private prisons;
reaffirm the federal government's "commitment to tribal sovereignty and consultation":
and combat xenophobia against Asian American and Pacific Islanders.
Domestic policy adviser Susan Rice told reporters that "advancing equity is a critical part of healing and of restoring unity in our nation."
Rice cited a 2016 Department of Justice inspector general's report that she said found private prisons are "less safe, less secure and arguably less humane." She said Biden is committed to reducing incarceration levels "while making communities safer," which she said starts with not issuing any new federal contracts for private prisons. But Rice said the order does not apply to private prisons used by Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
The White House said the presidential memorandum on housing directs HUD to "examine the effects of the Trump administration's regulatory actions that undermined fair housing policies and laws," and the measure also "recognizes the central role the federal government has played implementing housing policies across the United States, from redlining to mortgage discrimination to destructive federal highway construction, that have had racially discriminatory impacts. Source Sadly, he just signing back in things that Obama had in place. My views aside, I hate to see an administration come in and wipe out new policies of the previous administration before they've had a chance to show whether they really work. This is a good example of how Trump came in and said "nope, let's get rid of this because it might not work" and that interruption prevents us from have a 12-16 year stretch where a policy (that makes sense) has a chance to play out. Are you saying we don't know if racism might be a positive or that private prisons might work?
Yes alternating administrations contradicting eachother is not good (thanks 2 party system) but these are not the examples to use.
|
On January 27 2021 05:11 Gorsameth wrote:
Saying you want to end private prisons is all well and good but google tells me some 8% of ~130k people are in private prisons. Does the DoJ have the money to build prisons for 130k people? Or are they going to pay excessive prices to buy out private prisons?
Probably more of a "how serious is the offense and can they be released and put into rehabilitation if needed" type deal. There's a lot of people getting sentences reduced or thrown out for minor marijuana offenses all over the place, so probably transfers are going to take place? I don't know for sure, just speculating.
|
Good executive orders so far. Hoping Congress passes out the free money checks with the quickness.
|
On January 27 2021 05:11 Gorsameth wrote:
Saying you want to end private prisons is all well and good but google tells me some 8% of ~130k people are in private prisons. Does the DoJ have the money to build prisons for 130k people? Or are they going to pay excessive prices to buy out private prisons?
That 130k is state and federal prisons combined. Federal is a lot smaller. 2013 it was 19.1% of federal prisoners were in private (I doubt it's gone massively up or down since then).
So ~25k prisoners need moved from private to public as a result of this. The main federal agency to use private prisons is ICE.
On January 27 2021 05:08 BisuDagger wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2021 05:02 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:This is a nice start to the administration. Biden must be doing some hand exercises with all of the signing he's been doing, but I think these four are really important. Now about those 1400 Biden Bucks... Biden will sign four executive actions that will:
direct the Department of Housing and Urban Development "to take steps necessary to redress racially discriminatory federal housing policies";
direct the Department of Justice to end its use of private prisons;
reaffirm the federal government's "commitment to tribal sovereignty and consultation":
and combat xenophobia against Asian American and Pacific Islanders.
Domestic policy adviser Susan Rice told reporters that "advancing equity is a critical part of healing and of restoring unity in our nation."
Rice cited a 2016 Department of Justice inspector general's report that she said found private prisons are "less safe, less secure and arguably less humane." She said Biden is committed to reducing incarceration levels "while making communities safer," which she said starts with not issuing any new federal contracts for private prisons. But Rice said the order does not apply to private prisons used by Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
The White House said the presidential memorandum on housing directs HUD to "examine the effects of the Trump administration's regulatory actions that undermined fair housing policies and laws," and the measure also "recognizes the central role the federal government has played implementing housing policies across the United States, from redlining to mortgage discrimination to destructive federal highway construction, that have had racially discriminatory impacts. Source Sadly, he just signing back in things that Obama had in place. My views aside, I hate to see an administration come in and wipe out new policies of the previous administration before they've had a chance to show whether they really work. This is a good example of how Trump came in and said "nope, let's get rid of this because it might not work" and that interruption prevents us from have a 12-16 year stretch where a policy (that makes sense) has a chance to play out.
Main cause of this is the filibuster, and why politicians pretending like it is good are lying. It takes a lot more to repeal a bill than it does to pass an EO, and the senate setup to pass things slowly is due to the exact logic you cite here.
|
Bisutopia19387 Posts
On January 27 2021 05:38 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2021 05:11 Gorsameth wrote:
Saying you want to end private prisons is all well and good but google tells me some 8% of ~130k people are in private prisons. Does the DoJ have the money to build prisons for 130k people? Or are they going to pay excessive prices to buy out private prisons? That 130k is state and federal prisons combined. Federal is a lot smaller. 2013 it was 19.1% of federal prisoners were in private (I doubt it's gone massively up or down since then). So ~25k prisoners need moved from private to public as a result of this. The main federal agency to use private prisons is ICE. Show nested quote +On January 27 2021 05:08 BisuDagger wrote:On January 27 2021 05:02 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:This is a nice start to the administration. Biden must be doing some hand exercises with all of the signing he's been doing, but I think these four are really important. Now about those 1400 Biden Bucks... Biden will sign four executive actions that will:
direct the Department of Housing and Urban Development "to take steps necessary to redress racially discriminatory federal housing policies";
direct the Department of Justice to end its use of private prisons;
reaffirm the federal government's "commitment to tribal sovereignty and consultation":
and combat xenophobia against Asian American and Pacific Islanders.
Domestic policy adviser Susan Rice told reporters that "advancing equity is a critical part of healing and of restoring unity in our nation."
Rice cited a 2016 Department of Justice inspector general's report that she said found private prisons are "less safe, less secure and arguably less humane." She said Biden is committed to reducing incarceration levels "while making communities safer," which she said starts with not issuing any new federal contracts for private prisons. But Rice said the order does not apply to private prisons used by Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
The White House said the presidential memorandum on housing directs HUD to "examine the effects of the Trump administration's regulatory actions that undermined fair housing policies and laws," and the measure also "recognizes the central role the federal government has played implementing housing policies across the United States, from redlining to mortgage discrimination to destructive federal highway construction, that have had racially discriminatory impacts. Source Sadly, he just signing back in things that Obama had in place. My views aside, I hate to see an administration come in and wipe out new policies of the previous administration before they've had a chance to show whether they really work. This is a good example of how Trump came in and said "nope, let's get rid of this because it might not work" and that interruption prevents us from have a 12-16 year stretch where a policy (that makes sense) has a chance to play out. Main cause of this is the filibuster, and why politicians pretending like it is good are lying. It takes a lot more to repeal a bill than it does to pass an EO, and the senate setup to pass things slowly is due to the exact logic you cite here.
I think we can parole 25-130k non-violent criminals. Just a suggestion.
|
Biden ending federal use of private prisons is wonderful. Man this has been so good so far. Biden is doing really well
|
United Kingdom10000 Posts
I saw something today that said that Trump's pardons of Bannon and Manafort are completely ineffective because they weren't charged with all the crimes they committed, so they can just be charged with the remaining crimes (they already pled guilty to related but distinct crimes) whenever and they will be found guilty.
Is that how it works?
source for better explanation:
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On January 27 2021 05:58 Jockmcplop wrote:I saw something today that said that Trump's pardons of Bannon and Manafort are completely ineffective because they weren't charged with all the crimes they committed, so they can just be charged with the remaining crimes (they already pled guilty to related but distinct crimes) whenever and they will be found guilty. Is that how it works? source for better explanation: + Show Spoiler +https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PCWxknzIg0o
Yes if anything the pardons can be used to imply that Trump thought that they needed to be parded for the crimes they committed.
|
United Kingdom10000 Posts
On January 27 2021 06:09 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2021 05:58 Jockmcplop wrote:I saw something today that said that Trump's pardons of Bannon and Manafort are completely ineffective because they weren't charged with all the crimes they committed, so they can just be charged with the remaining crimes (they already pled guilty to related but distinct crimes) whenever and they will be found guilty. Is that how it works? source for better explanation: + Show Spoiler +https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PCWxknzIg0o Yes if anything the pardons can be used to imply that Trump thought that they needed to be parded for the crimes they committed.
Imagine if one of them cut a deal to incriminate Trump haha. Bannon totally would.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
