Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[iam416]

I think we see more eye to eye on this than either cares to admit. But so long as we both keep characterizing people who disagree with us in the most extreme ways possible we'll keep talking past each other. Anyone who questions a reopening plan will be accused by you or Jeff of wanting to stay in total lockdown until all disease is wiped from the earth even if it means total economic devastation. Anyone who questions the lockdowns in any way will be accused by me as being a conspiracy-loving anti-vaxxer who wants to lick door knobs to prove he's not 'scared' of the coronavirus.

Yeah, I was using the royal "you" -- the folks who have invested a lot of time railing Georgia and Florida aren't just going to acknowledge they're wrong (if they're wrong).

[iam416]

Buchanan:

Two things. First, pre-Corona, I think the US policy on China was having a significant effect. It's too bad it got fucked up by corona (though, of course, that's pretty damn far down on the list of corona horribles).

Second, LMMFAO at moderate Ds. Hahahahahahaha.

Joe Biden just appointed AOC to head up his Climate Change Task Force (as part of a larger "unity" operation with BERNIE SANDERS). LMMFAO at moderate.

[Jeff Buchanan]

I think we see more eye to eye on this than either cares to admit. But so long as we both keep characterizing people who disagree with us in the most extreme ways possible we'll keep talking past each other. Anyone who questions a reopening plan will be accused by you or Jeff of wanting to stay in total lockdown until all disease is wiped from the earth even if it means total economic devastation. Anyone who questions the lockdowns in any way will be accused by me as being a conspiracy-loving anti-vaxxer who wants to lick door knobs to prove he's not 'scared' of the coronavirus.

Probably - we do see things eye to eye but what fun would that be if we all posted like that?

Here's the one area that, as far as I can tell, the re-opening nay-sayers have a legitimate beef: testing and contact tracing. What I here in GA and S. FL are sweeping generalizations that the capacity to test "is expanding" along with self congratulatory statements on how well these states are dong with testing; i'm not hearing much about contract tracing in the detail to make me think either of those states undermanned and pre-COVID understaffed district Public Health facilities can do the tracing required to manage the hot-spots that will undoubtedly pop up.

Earlier, I held the position that we can't let the lack of testing capability (I didn't have a position on contact tracing) shouldn't hold back re-opening ..... we could build to improved testing over time. I'm not sure that's a tenable position. One, testing capacity is resource/raw material limited and the competition is stiff. That impairs plans to expand testing. Two, I had supported targeted testing as a means to move forward. Well, if you really want to re-open schools, have a return to in-class college classes or remove most travel, leisure and restaurant mitigation measures, for example, you have to be able to have wide-spread testing and contact tracing to safely do that.

Moving forward otherwise, e.g., UGA's system and public schools will open this fall with limited restrictions - not sure what the FL schools will do yet, is a risky proposition given the knowledge about the virus we have to date.

[Dr. Strangelove]

I'll quickly repeat the less popular view about the markets being divorced from reality: they weren't as much as people think. Pouring money into huge, index stock corporations is a conservative investment strategy. You have to move the money SOMEwhere and with bond yields being pitiful and not willing to put it all in gold, the mega-corporations are good place to ride out a storm. Now it may be starting to get bad enough to drag them down too but the market's response over the month of April might not have been as optimistic as it's been portrayed.

[Jeff Buchanan]

talent ..... do you think there is the political will on the right to increase taxes to off-set the trillions being spent to prop up the US economy? I'd like the Senate to remain an R enclave - don't care what happens in the House and I think it will come January, 2021. But what that will do is create an extension of the on-going stalemate that will spill over into important post-COVID legislation - most importantly tax policy - that is going to need to be developed and passed.

I don't think recovering GDP is going to come close to paying the US's huge bills in the years to come. That leaves less liberal tax policy and concurrent reduction in the administrative state to include all social welfare programs, that is becoming, all by itself, really expensive, as a means of managing debt and the ongoing bills on interest going forward.

If Trump gets re-elected and the Senate stays mostly red, I don't think that combination will take on tax policy and reductions in social welfare programs to the extent it is needed. Even if they do, while an R plus up in the House might help solve the "epic conundrum" I spoke of up thread, Pelosi and her band of lunatics will block anything the President might offer up. Any compromises on such bills between the House and Senate will produce milk-toast law and accomplish little of substance in paying the bills going forward.

[iam416]

First, I think the Ds are going to get to 50/50 in the Senate. Maybe 51/49.

Second, tax policy is on the margins. You can tinker with taxes, but it's not going to make up a real dent. Well, I suppose you could try 85% or Elizabeth Warren's preposterously stupid wealth tax or some other shit, but politically feasible taxes aren't going to matter. To answer your question, I don't think Rs will raise taxes. I don't think it matters that much.

Third, I don't think spending cuts will do much, either. The reality is that entitlement programs eat up the budget. And there's no addressing entitlement programs unless the Ds are on board. LOL.

[Dr. Strangelove]

The problem for Republicans is that they're on the populism wagon now. What do you think the average small-town Trump voter will say when you tell him his social security payments are going to be cut in half and he'll need to find a way to pay for more of his healthcare? He'll tell you to go find a way to get the money by cutting welfare instead. All that Tea Party stuff was really more about fighting the endless Culture War and fighting Obama. It was never really about imposing a very limited form of government like the Koch Brothers wanted. Trump's instincts on that were right.

[iam416]

Well, it's not as if the Rs could actually cut SS anyway. I mean, there's no political path to cutting entitlements unless Ds are on board. Never has been.

[iam416]

It was never really about imposing a very limited form of government like the Koch Brothers wanted.

Unfortunately, the Ds far left wing positions REALLY ARE about imposing socialist-esque and other massive government initiatives. If only it were a facade.

Can't wait for Biden to pimp the Green New Deal.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Well, it's not as if the Rs could actually cut SS anyway. I mean, there's no political path to cutting entitlements unless Ds are on board. Never has been.

Before Republicans convince Dems that SS needs to be cut, they should convince their own base first. Because I do not believe it's at all a popular idea in small-town America. It's popular among wealthy conservatives and the thinktank crowd, sure. I. e. "Never Trumpers"

74% of Americans say Social Security is untouchable. 60% in another polls said they would rather completely reverse the Trump tax bill than make any cuts to social security. In 2014 77% said they would rather see taxes go up than see SS benefits cut.

https://news.gallup.com/opinion/polling-matters/258335/social-security-american-public-opinion.aspx

Now it's probably true that at least half the population doesn't even give a damn if there's a budget deficit or that we're deep in debt. But even among people who think the deficit matters, probably a majority still thinks you need to make the cuts elsewhere. Or raise taxes.

[iam416]

You're not really saying anything different. You suggested that the problem for the Rs when it comes to cutting SS is that they've gone the way of populism. That implies that there was a path forward for them on that issue. There wasn't, isn't and never has been. That's why, in part, Rs fight ginormous welfare state programs in the first instance -- there's no undoing them.

The only way SS will get cut is with the Ds and the only way the Ds will cut it is to affect the hated "rich." It'll get means-tested at some point.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Who on earth convinced Trump that his chances of winning would go UP if he made the election about a choice between him and Obama?

[Jeff Buchanan]

I'd like to think that aside from the enormous negative impact COVID will have on the US and global economies other impacts will occur that involve a paradigm shift in how government is viewed. At least opportunities for change will present themselves.

Watching how Americans have reacted to COVID related over-reach by all levels of government, esp. at the state and local level, how the courts have reacted to challenges to that over-reach, might just couple populism - as it is understood in today's definition of it - with an increased anti-administrative state movement. I don't know if that will spur politicians to action but it could. It might also force the idiot fringe of the D party to recognize how fucking much all the free shit they keep calling for is not affordable in the post-COVID realty.....

..... or I could be just whistling in the wind.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Today Trump demanded that the Senate haul Obama in to testify. No more Mr. Nice Guy, no more talk, he tells Lindsey Graham, DO IT NOW!!

In response Graham said there's no chance of that happening and he doubted he even had the legal authority. He also told Trump "be careful what you wish for".

As some may recall (but not the President), the crux of his case blocking Don McGahn from testifying before Congress was that no former President or senior advisor to a President can ever be compelled to testify before Congress.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Regarding Burr, if he were to resign RIGHT NOW, there would be a special election in Nov. If he waits till after Labor Day the Governor would appoint his replacement and North Carolina law requires Cooper (a Dem) to appoint someone from the same party. So even if the R's were inclined to push Burr out, they would prefer to wait to do it.

Dianne Feinstein says she got questions from the FBI too and sent them documents. Kelly Loeffler refused to answer reporters' questions about whether the FBI has contacted her at all.