Trump

[Kung Wu]

They are based around the same thing, that's the point of the nomenclature PRIVILEGE. It give the people who participated in a conversation under certain circumstances the right to not disclose it to those who weren't party to that conversation. Executive privilege is no different. I have no idea what you think executive privilege is supposed to mean.

By based around the same thing, I think you mean they serve the same purpose. If so, I agree. However the end results may be different and their actual "basis" is certainly different. I wouldn't think a sitting President has an expectation that when he claims executive privilege that it's a "permanent" thing. I think he knows that a future President can trump that privilege, so to speak.

[wufan]

It's similar because we are reaching a wealth inequality not seen since the 20's right now the top 1% owns over 40% of the wealth, and this issue isn't about people having more than other's, it about money getting slow. Money getting slow means that money is being made significantly faster than it's being spent at the highest levels, this tax bill further exacerbates this. We are also going through a bubble in the stock market(experts almost all agree), you can tell it's a bubble because growth in jobs and wages aren't matching stock indices. Another indicator of the bubble is that productivity is soaring but again hours worked isn't, automation is pushing this. What happens to our economy when automation entirely puts a large industry out of work in the next decade or so(commercial trucking)? I really suggest people look into the contributing factors of the Great Depression and what the 20's looked like headed in. Hint, it's veeeery similar: soaring economy, rich getting richer, artificial growth, and follow that up with a tax bill that lets those people keep more of their money. Now I'm not suggesting we are headed to a Great Depression because there are controls in place and theoretically we are smarter now, but the bubble will pop. And it will hurt a loooot of people. Oh and I never even mentioned skyrocketing consumer debt, mostly off the back of rising education costs, and that earners aren't going to be able to keep up with the debt if wages don't grow.

I challenge people to actually pay attention to how the tax bill really helps you. Yeah you'll see a marginal cut, but is that going to drastically change your life? Is it going to be entirely discretionary spending? If the answer is no to either of these questions, then that should show you that you aren't among the true beneficiaries. And people will talk about all these new jobs that are going to come around because of the corporate tax rate, but why exactly are we begging for number of jobs? Employment is at record lows as many Trump supports like to shout. What we need isn't increase in jobs, we need an increase in wages, and this does not fix that. Cutting taxes isn't going to convince whatever company or corporation you work for that you are suddenly worth more money.e

Without debating this point-by-point, I think you mention several things that we should be mindful of in order to keep the economy going. I would disagree that all of these things are established current trends and that producing discretionary spending is the goal of a growing economy. These are reasonable points of debate, and while I disagree with your conclusion, I don’t find the argument to be a bad one.

As as a side note, 50% of the population holds 95%+ of the wealth in this country. 50% of the population is also the % that is working. If we are mindful of not incentiving people to be unemployed, I believe that we would see a decrease in income inequality.

[ShockCrazy]

Without debating this point-by-point, I think you mention several things that we should be mindful of in order to keep the economy going. I would disagree that all of these things are established current trends and that producing discretionary spending is the goal of a growing economy. These are reasonable points of debate, and while I disagree with your conclusion, I don’t find the argument to be a bad one.

As as a side note, 50% of the population holds 95%+ of the wealth in this country. 50% of the population is also the % that is working. If we are mindful of not incentiving people to be unemployed, I believe that we would see a decrease in income inequality.

I think the premise that people are given incentive to be poor and out of work is silly, and I don't think there are many people on welfare who are content with their lot and life. Are there some? Absolutely, it's not 50% of the population, it significantly less.

If you want a sustained actual growing economy you absolutely need discretionary spending, people just scraping by isn't going to lead to growth. You quote 50% hold 95% which is accurate, but you aren't reflecting on the fact that the top 10% hold 75%+, it's getting worse and there's no disputing that. We are enacting policy at the wrong time and not learning from previous behavior. Cutting taxes isn't inherently bad, but cutting taxes in an artificially inflated economy is a bad idea.

[wufan]

I think the premise that people are given incentive to be poor and out of work is silly, and I don't think there are many people on welfare who are content with their lot and life. Are there some? Absolutely, it's not 50% of the population, it significantly less.

If you want a sustained actual growing economy you absolutely need discretionary spending, people just scraping by isn't going to lead to growth. You quote 50% hold 95% which is accurate, but you aren't reflecting on the fact that the top 10% hold 75%+, it's getting worse and there's no disputing that. We are enacting policy at the wrong time and not learning from previous behavior. Cutting taxes isn't inherently bad, but cutting taxes in an artificially inflated economy is a bad idea.

I don’t pretend to think that the 50% of people that aren’t working like what’s going on, but 1/3 of them aren’t able to work due to age or disability. Nearly 2/3 aren’t looking for work. Why not? They’ve decided that it is better for themselves to live off some sort of welfare than to try to find employment. That’s like 80 million people. 80 million people decided than someone else is responsible for their livelihood. Are they happy about it? Probably not. Are they trying to change it? Nope, but They’d feel a lot better if there were better social programs to make their unemployment more comfortable. I’m not really down with that.

I agree that a wealth gap has negative consequences. I don’t believe that additional social programs address this. I believe that if you are on the government doll then you have no opportunity to gain wealth. The only way to gain wealth is to EARN money. This also adds purpose to ones life and gets one out of the cycle of poverty. I’m not saying it’s easy or that no has tried and failed, but there is opportunity. The way to increase opportunity is by providing jobs. The way to provide jobs is to incentive those with money to invest in new markets. I’m s supply side economics guy. It’s certainly not the only economic theory, but it’s s reasonable one.

[jdshock]

I don’t pretend to think that the 50% of people that aren’t working like what’s going on, but 1/3 of them aren’t able to work due to age or disability. Nearly 2/3 aren’t looking for work. Why not? They’ve decided that it is better for themselves to live off some sort of welfare than to try to find employment. That’s like 80 million people. 80 million people decided than someone else is responsible for their livelihood. Are they happy about it? Probably not. Are they trying to change it? Nope, but They’d feel a lot better if there were better social programs to make their unemployment more comfortable. I’m not really down with that.

That number is way, way off. Most of the people in your 80 million number are retired, in high school, in college, in grad school, or disabled. The number is closer to 20 million.

I agree that a wealth gap has negative consequences. I don’t believe that additional social programs address this. I believe that if you are on the government doll then you have no opportunity to gain wealth. The only way to gain wealth is to EARN money. This also adds purpose to ones life and gets one out of the cycle of poverty. I’m not saying it’s easy or that no has tried and failed, but there is opportunity. The way to increase opportunity is by providing jobs. The way to provide jobs is to incentive those with money to invest in new markets. I’m s supply side economics guy. It’s certainly not the only economic theory, but it’s s reasonable one.

Universal basic income allows you to gain wealth by working but it also provides people income when they aren't working. No one would be receiving UBI and be WORSE OFF by joining the job market.

We have to find a permanent solution because the answer isn't more jobs anymore. Automation is going to result in widespread job loss. It's not like when typewriter repairmen went away. There isn't another sector of the economy that will add a proportionate number of jobs.

And if we're actually concerned with jobs, why do we support the new tax changes which massively support investment in capital? That's going to make things worse, not better.

Edit to add: wealth disparity does not come from the gap between non workers and the middle class. Wealth disparity comes from the middle class and the ultra wealthy. If you make 100k, that's pretty good money, but it's only five times what someone in poverty makes. It's not uncommon for billionaires to gain a billion dollars in wealth in a year (notably, none to very little of that is "income"), that's 10,000 times the person making 100,000.

We should absolutely incentivize hard work and skills. Surgeons should make more than McDonald's employees, but at some point, you aren't working that much harder. Moreover, we clearly have a broken system where the brain surgeon with a highly stressful job making $450k gets taxed at the maximum tax rate (because, for some reason, we apparently feel there's no difference between a person who makes 450k and 1,000,000,000 in a year) but most of the ultra wealthy are getting taxed at half that rate due to long term capital gains.

[Kung Wu]

But there most definitely IS another sector of the economy that could add a proportionate number of jobs ... This country already sorely needs embedded system programmers, web developers, database experts, artificial intelligence trainers, robotics assemblers, robotics mechanics, robotics repair techs (different than mechanics), robotics manufacturers, robotics engineers, materials scientists, biology experts, network installers, network repair techs, computer/phone repair techs, computer/phone assemblers. And the thing is when I say "robotics" there are complete subareas desperately needed -- we need auto mechanics to become robotic car mechanics. We need HVAC techs to become automated HVAC repair techs, etc. Much of those are trade type jobs, not requiring college education. Most of that could absolutely be taught in high school.

[jdshock]

Kung Wu, there will definitely be job growth in those areas, but it's not going to be 1:1. It can't be. It wouldn't make sense to invest as heavily in automation if it weren't going to displace jobs. Drivers of all kinds are going to be the next group to go. Every semi, taxi, delivery truck, whatever, needs an individual driver. Each programmer, mechanic, or whatever else will be responsible for 10s, 100s, or 1000s of vehicles.

More importantly, there's going to be massive unemployment, even if you're right that there is going to be massive demand for workers. First of all, the majority of the growth is going to be in skilled labor. The first portion of your list would all require college degrees. It's not reasonable to (a) expect to replace unskilled labor with skilled labor in the economy and/or (b) expect unskilled laborers deep into their careers to go back to school for four years. Second of all, even the trade jobs you listed are skilled labor. The economy needs to have jobs available for unskilled workers. It's a relatively small portion of the population, but there are definitely individuals that max out their capacity while being a grocery store shelver. And that's not meant to be an insult. Many people in those roles are very hard workers, and they contribute more than lots of people who have a higher capacity. But any skilled labor that requires years of technical training (even if done in high schools) might just be out of reach.

[Kung Wu]

If we do not create a business environment that allows us to start bringing manufacturing jobs back home, you are correct. Because:

future jobs lost due to automation > newly created automation jobs

However, bring those jobs back to the United States and we might very well have a 1:1 ratio. I would also add a massive future growth in health care to the right side of that equation. It's not out of the realm of possibility that:

future jobs lost due to automation = current number of offshore manufacturing jobs + current number of offshore computer technology jobs + newly created automation jobs + newly created health care jobs

On the other hand, maybe we just pay 50,000,000 government funded artists to paint masterpieces. Well, no, computers are even doing that better. Ah screw it.

[wufan]

That number is way, way off. Most of the people in your 80 million number are retired, in high school, in college, in grad school, or disabled. The number is closer to 20 million.



Universal basic income allows you to gain wealth by working but it also provides people income when they aren't working. No one would be receiving UBI and be WORSE OFF by joining the job market.

We have to find a permanent solution because the answer isn't more jobs anymore. Automation is going to result in widespread job loss. It's not like when typewriter repairmen went away. There isn't another sector of the economy that will add a proportionate number of jobs.

And if we're actually concerned with jobs, why do we support the new tax changes which massively support investment in capital? That's going to make things worse, not better.

Edit to add: wealth disparity does not come from the gap between non workers and the middle class. Wealth disparity comes from the middle class and the ultra wealthy. If you make 100k, that's pretty good money, but it's only five times what someone in poverty makes. It's not uncommon for billionaires to gain a billion dollars in wealth in a year (notably, none to very little of that is "income"), that's 10,000 times the person making 100,000.

We should absolutely incentivize hard work and skills. Surgeons should make more than McDonald's employees, but at some point, you aren't working that much harder. Moreover, we clearly have a broken system where the brain surgeon with a highly stressful job making $450k gets taxed at the maximum tax rate (because, for some reason, we apparently feel there's no difference between a person who makes 450k and 1,000,000,000 in a year) but most of the ultra wealthy are getting taxed at half that rate due to long term capital gains.

Automation should bring the price of goods down if done correctly, which should boost consumption and increase jobs. Certainly there is a tipping point, but we aren’t there. When we get closer, something will have to be done.

Tell me more about UBI.

Why is investment in capital a bad thing for the worker?

[jdshock]

Automation should bring the price of goods down if done correctly, which should boost consumption and increase jobs. Certainly there is a tipping point, but we aren’t there. When we get closer, something will have to be done.

It's a problem that won't be solved quickly. We can't keep kicking the can down the field. We're very nearly there. Since 2000, the vast majority of jobs lost in manufacturing are due to automation, not outsourcing: https://www.ft.com/content/dec677c0-...5-95d1533d9a62. It's irresponsible and deceptive for our policy makers to be constantly focused on "X company left the US and they're coming back!" That has an impact, but a much, much larger impact is technological increase.

It absolutely should decrease the price of goods. Even if 100% of the cost reduction goes to the consumer (unlikely), huge portions of the population are significantly worse off. A drop in price from $1,000 cell phone to $700 doesn't help a ton when your income went from $35,000 to $0.

Tell me more about UBI.

At a basic level, it's just cash every citizen of the US would get regardless of whether they work or not. Obviously, if it's $10,000 a year, many people will pay more than that in taxes to fund the program, so they'd certainly be worse off under the policy. I don't think you could feasibly have a UBI without also having socialized healthcare, though. If you have universal healthcare, all of a sudden $10,000 goes a lot further in a year.

Why is investment in capital a bad thing for the worker?

Because it is a zero sum game. Every dollar invested in capital is a dollar not invested in labor. Even if you get more efficiency and gains out of capital, you're not going to see a 1:1 increase in labor investment, right? Politicians pretend like jobs are the key policy making concern and then they decide to make the biggest cuts favoring investment in capital. There are already substantial incentives in place for capital investment. If we're worried about a manufacturing company like IBM laying off workers because of automation, we have to be concerned about their incentives. Prior to the recent changes, there were already massive tax advantages to capital investment. You don't have to pay employment taxes on a robot, you don't have to provide healthcare, and you could depreciate your investment. The new plan even expedites the depreciation process, which adds to the incentive.

If we truly want investment in jobs and want to postpone the inevitable shift to automation, our tax policies need to incentivize companies like IBM to invest in labor, not capital.

[ShockCrazy]

It's a problem that won't be solved quickly. We can't keep kicking the can down the field. We're very nearly there. Since 2000, the vast majority of jobs lost in manufacturing are due to automation, not outsourcing: https://www.ft.com/content/dec677c0-...5-95d1533d9a62. It's irresponsible and deceptive for our policy makers to be constantly focused on "X company left the US and they're coming back!" That has an impact, but a much, much larger impact is technological increase.

It absolutely should decrease the price of goods. Even if 100% of the cost reduction goes to the consumer (unlikely), huge portions of the population are significantly worse off. A drop in price from $1,000 cell phone to $700 doesn't help a ton when your income went from $35,000 to $0.



At a basic level, it's just cash every citizen of the US would get regardless of whether they work or not. Obviously, if it's $10,000 a year, many people will pay more than that in taxes to fund the program, so they'd certainly be worse off under the policy. I don't think you could feasibly have a UBI without also having socialized healthcare, though. If you have universal healthcare, all of a sudden $10,000 goes a lot further in a year.


Because it is a zero sum game. Every dollar invested in capital is a dollar not invested in labor. Even if you get more efficiency and gains out of capital, you're not going to see a 1:1 increase in labor investment, right? Politicians pretend like jobs are the key policy making concern and then they decide to make the biggest cuts favoring investment in capital. There are already substantial incentives in place for capital investment. If we're worried about a manufacturing company like IBM laying off workers because of automation, we have to be concerned about their incentives. Prior to the recent changes, there were already massive tax advantages to capital investment. You don't have to pay employment taxes on a robot, you don't have to provide healthcare, and you could depreciate your investment. The new plan even expedites the depreciation process, which adds to the incentive.

If we truly want investment in jobs and want to postpone the inevitable shift to automation, our tax policies need to incentivize companies like IBM to invest in labor, not capital.

Also some notes on UBI on it's biggest benefits(I've spent too much time reading UBI): With UBI you no longer have other welfare programs because we've ostensibly decided here is the amount of money everyone needs to live at a very basic level. This means all the administrative costs related to distributing the money goes away, no more wasted time trying to evaluate who gets what, everyone gets the same flat rate, no more abuse of the system. It's not about socialism as some would like to argue, it's about getting everyone to a basic fundamental level. Some might argue this would cost a lot, but the reality is not much, you only have to worry about those not working. For those working basically their UBI comes out of their salary or wages through taxes(zero sum).

[wufan]

Also some notes on UBI on it's biggest benefits(I've spent too much time reading UBI): With UBI you no longer have other welfare programs because we've ostensibly decided here is the amount of money everyone needs to live at a very basic level. This means all the administrative costs related to distributing the money goes away, no more wasted time trying to evaluate who gets what, everyone gets the same flat rate, no more abuse of the system. It's not about socialism as some would like to argue, it's about getting everyone to a basic fundamental level. Some might argue this would cost a lot, but the reality is not much, you only have to worry about those not working. For those working basically their UBI comes out of their salary or wages through taxes(zero sum).

So, if I work and I make $50k per year and my wife stays home with our two children, then I pay for my UBI and my wife’s UBI as a tax neutral activity. I’m taxed at a rate of $15K per UBI, so 60%, but I get all of that back through our UBI and pay zero taxes. Is that correct? Please correct the nuance for me, as in how much I would maybe be expected to pay if I make 50, 100, 500k, or 1 mill per year.

[jdshock]

I think that might be what ShockCrazy is proposing, but it's definitely not what I'd propose. Every person (probably limited to those over 18) would just get monthly payments so that they received a certain number of dollars over the course of a year. I'd probably make the payments non-taxable just for administrative ease. Then you'd see an increase in taxes across the board to fund the program. Without doing an in-depth calculation, you'd pick a number (let's say 75k) where you're better off under that number and worse off above it. Obviously, at $0 annual income you'd get the full benefit of 10k because you would pay no additional taxes. At 70k annual salary, you'd maybe have like a $500 net gain.

Personally, I'm passionate about the need for additional tax brackets, so you could fund a major project by this pretty easily by adding a couple of additional brackets at 1 million in annual income and 10 million in annual income.

[ShockCrazy]

The way I was explaining it was a simplified version of what jdshock explains. Basically below a certain level most people end up even on pay in and out, at the very bottom people get more out. I agree with you on tax brackets jdshock, I think the fact that we stop at 600k AND with such low marginal rates relative to the rest of the developed world is crazy.

[wufan]

I’m still not seeing how this is funded or who gets money that isn’t already on a social service.

[jdshock]

Tax increases fund the program. It just broadens the pool of people receiving social services. You don't have temporary assistance anymore, it's a permanent program. Everybody gets it regardless of income level (though, if you think about it in terms of the concurrent tax increase, obviously some people are worse off).

[ShockCrazy]

It's not about covering those who aren't eligible for benefits, it's about preemptively dealing with a number of issues we face(the certainty that eventually there will be more people than jobs), removing abuse from the system, and removing management expenses. The idea is that everyone gets a set amount of money regardless of any status. Right now if we wrapped social security into it(it represents the same idea), assuming current employed people would all effectively cover their own pay out(of course lower earners would pay less of that portion and higher earners more), we could give every non working person in this country 6,500 a year just from the federal social programs going away. That's even before looking at the state level or even slightly increases taxes to bump that up to the poverty level(families would already approach or pass the poverty level depending on size). I even took off about 300 per person for management of the system(which may be too high or low). Tack on KS welfare spending and we add another 500+ per person.

[jdshock]

Based on the new information that Trump attempted to fire Mueller last summer, and Mueller has known about this for months, I decided to put together my predictions of likely outcomes:

- Mueller recommends obstruction of justice charges be brought against Trump, but no direct tie between Trump and Russia - 40% chance
Republicans argue the investigation was completely corrupt (this has already started). They completely forget the background behind the Clinton investigation (i.e., starting in one spot and morphing to a completely separate topic years later) and cannot get behind an impeachment. They totally forget that Mueller was basically a bipartisan choice, and he has been highly commended for years and years as an incredibly professional individual. If 2018 results in a House shift (I'd say not that likely), you may get an impeachment, but no conviction.

- Mueller recommends everything ("collusion," Russia, obstruction of justice, etc.) - 10% chance
I think all but the most devout Trump supporters probably support impeachment. Some probably still say the investigation was corrupt, but if there's strong evidence, I'd be cautiously optimistic that many Republicans come around.

- Mueller recommends nothing for Trump/gets lots of accomplices - 25% chance
This is a bad situation for the country, I think. Liberals are going to go on and on about pointing to various evidence that Trump was involved. Conservatives are going to go on and on about how the corrupt investigation still couldn't get anything.

- Everything else - 25% chance
Who the heck knows what else could happen. Mueller attempts to charge him without an impeachment occurring, and we get a really crazy Supreme Court case about whether that can even happen. Maybe Mueller recommends charges for something other than obstruction of justice. Maybe Trump actually fires Mueller. Maybe Congress tries to end the investigation.

[shockfan89_]

If there is no collusion, and Trump knew there was no collusion, and Comey told Trump repeatedly he was not a target of the investigation, how can there be obstruction of justice? What was being obstructed? Trump has the right to fire Comey and the right to fire Mueller.

Trump supporters will say Trump was draining the swamp and trying to save us money by stopping the special counsel investigation. Factor in the obvious conflict of interest with Mueller's and Comey's highly publicized friendship, factor in the obvious bias by the investigators on the special counsel against Trump, factor in the FISA warrant likely obtained on false pretenses which would mean a lot of evidence was illegally obtained, and I don't think Mueller has a chance at getting any convictions for anything.

I have no idea how this will end, but this is a huge mess created by Mueller and Comey's (and other Obama officials and Sessions) lack of leadership at the FBI and DOJ. Can anyone, knowing what we know now, really dispute Comey being fired for cause?

I think the most likely outcome is that Trump, in his inflated sense of self worth, will agree to a meeting with Mueller, under oath, and contradict the facts of the case. At this point in time, with the current evidence that has been made public, I think Trump and his legal team should deny the meeting with Mueller based on zero evidence of collusion with Russia and prosecutorial misconduct by several members of the special counsel, FBI, and DOJ.

[ShockCrazy]

If there is no collusion, and Trump knew there was no collusion, and Comey told Trump repeatedly he was not a target of the investigation, how can there be obstruction of justice? What was being obstructed? Trump has the right to fire Comey and the right to fire Mueller.

Trump supporters will say Trump was draining the swamp and trying to save us money by stopping the special counsel investigation. Factor in the obvious conflict of interest with Mueller's and Comey's highly publicized friendship, factor in the obvious bias by the investigators on the special counsel against Trump, factor in the FISA warrant likely obtained on false pretenses which would mean a lot of evidence was illegally obtained, and I don't think Mueller has a chance at getting any convictions for anything.

I have no idea how this will end, but this is a huge mess created by Mueller and Comey's (and other Obama officials and Sessions) lack of leadership at the FBI and DOJ. Can anyone, knowing what we know now, really dispute Comey being fired for cause?

Why did Trump wait until the Russia investigation started to fire Comey? There was cause before but it wasn't until Trump's tree was being barked up, that Comey suddenly became an issue. Even if Trump wasn't personally being investigated, Donald Trump has said he fired Comey because of the Russia investigation. That's obstruction of justice by definition. It doesn't matter if it wasn't targeting him, if he fired Comey because he wanted the investigation stopped or slowed, it is obstruction of justice full stop. I can't go screw with a random police investigation even if it has nothing to do with me, that's the law.

[shockfan89_]

Why did Trump wait until the Russia investigation started to fire Comey? There was cause before but it wasn't until Trump's tree was being barked up, that Comey suddenly became an issue. Even if Trump wasn't personally being investigated, Donald Trump has said he fired Comey because of the Russia investigation. That's obstruction of justice by definition. It doesn't matter if it wasn't targeting him, if he fired Comey because he wanted the investigation stopped or slowed, it is obstruction of justice full stop. I can't go screw with a random police investigation even if it has nothing to do with me, that's the law.

An easy defense would be that Trump, after becoming President and seeing the facts of abuse of power, illegal spying, collusion against Trump by the FBI and DOJ, chose to fire the head of the FBI. He fired Comey because the Russian investigation was so poorly handled by the FBI and DOJ, not because of anything uncovered as part of the Russia investigation. That is his right, and duty as the President. That doesn't amount to obstruction of justice.

And, if you go back and look at Trump's tweets, he laid this out chronologically BEFORE firing Comey. Everyone thought he was crazy and making things up when he did it, but each one of those things has come to fruition and is documented evidence as to why Comey was fired for cause without any obstruction of justice.

[ShockCrazy]

Also let's stop acting like any investigators have done anything improper by having opinions of the subject of investigation. Unless it affects how evidence and testimony is treated and something illegal is done, there is no issue. Investigators are allowed to have opinions, it's impossible not to. So lets stop acting like these texts are some damning thing, ESPECIALLY when they include disparaging remarks related to Hilary as well.