U.S. Politics

[villakram]

8 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

What does his tax plan do?

Big picture items.

Giant sin: Corporate 21% --> 28%

Large sin: Tax increases for people earning > $400k (That this is even an impactful thing says all you need to know about how imbalanced the US economy is.).

There are a number of other things floating around, in a trial balloon sort of way, including the usual CO2 tax talk or some form of fossil fuel tax, a go fook off and die federal property tax and VAT.

 

[fightoffyour]

43 minutes ago, villakram said:

Big picture items.

Giant sin: Corporate 21% --> 28%

Large sin: Tax increases for people earning > $400k (That this is even an impactful thing says all you need to know about how imbalanced the US economy is.).

There are a number of other things floating around, in a trial balloon sort of way, including the usual CO2 tax talk or some form of fossil fuel tax, a go fook off and die federal property tax and VAT.

 

Good plan

[villakram]

16 hours ago, fightoffyour said:

Good plan

A more progressive taxation system would be a good step. I do hope the $400k is for families and it'll be closer to $200k for single payers. The issue is that in many metropolitan jurisdictions $200k does not go very far at all, i.e., this is going to be a really tough political sell.

They need to directly tackle investment land and they won't touch that sacred cow, hence making the whole thing somewhat moot.

The corporate tax thing is bs too as the corps will park their profits overseas and wait the typical 10-15 yrs until the next repatriation amnesty. That and the enormous amount of loopholes in corporate tax law.

[villakram]

Coumo just keeps on giving. Top Democrat man.

"A New York Times examination of the development of Mr. Cuomo’s lucrative book deal revealed how it overlapped with the move by his most senior aides to reshape a report about nursing home deaths in a way that insulated the governor from criticism and burnished his image."

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/31/nyregion/cuomo-book-nursing-homes.html

[HanoiVillan]

Just now, villakram said:

Coumo just keeps on giving. Top Democrat man.

"A New York Times examination of the development of Mr. Cuomo’s lucrative book deal revealed how it overlapped with the move by his most senior aides to reshape a report about nursing home deaths in a way that insulated the governor from criticism and burnished his image."

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/31/nyregion/cuomo-book-nursing-homes.html

Is he just going to ride it out? I must admit I thought when both senators from NY called for him to resign that his days were numbered, but he's still there . . .

[villakram]

3 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

Is he just going to ride it out? I must admit I thought when both senators from NY called for him to resign that his days were numbered, but he's still there . . .

Apparently, Biden/WH is the deciding factor and he/they/it has not come out and explicitly stated that Coumo should resign. He has criticized Coumo but in a generic manner, and primarily in a, on the side of women way.

 

[nick76]

1 hour ago, HanoiVillan said:

Is he just going to ride it out? I must admit I thought when both senators from NY called for him to resign that his days were numbered, but he's still there . . .

I’ll be surprised if he doesn’t ride it out.  Given everything that American politicians ride out that in any other profession would be the nail in the coffin.  I mean they elected to be President in 2016 somebody with a worse alleged sexual background than what is being alleged about Cuomo.

[nick76]

1 hour ago, villakram said:

Apparently, Biden/WH is the deciding factor and he/they/it has not come out and explicitly stated that Coumo should resign. He has criticized Coumo but in a generic manner, and primarily in a, on the side of women way.

 

Typical of both sides of the political spectrum.....it’s either criticise and condemn for these kind of things or thoughts and prayers for tragedies but nobody actually does anything.  It’s just a show with no substance.

[nick76]

I see Majorie Taylor Greene has put a bill in to reduce Dr Fauci’s salary to zero.  Absolute crazy woman!

Thats disgusting by itself but there is a funny part that she has said that’s until Senate can confirm a replacement.  Senate doesn’t confirm his role.  You’d think she would’ve looked that up but just makes a fool of herself again.  Not that the bill will go anywhere anyway.

[villakram]

17 hours ago, nick76 said:

I see Majorie Taylor Greene has put a bill in to reduce Dr Fauci’s salary to zero.  Absolute crazy woman!

Thats disgusting by itself but there is a funny part that she has said that’s until Senate can confirm a replacement.  Senate doesn’t confirm his role.  You’d think she would’ve looked that up but just makes a fool of herself again.  Not that the bill will go anywhere anyway.

I'd prefer if she proposed to ban him from consulting on the side and look to recoup the money he has made that way. I'd love to see his trading accounts after all these years as an insider too. Not a Fauci specific thing, the more general this rule for government employees the better.

[nick76]

10 minutes ago, villakram said:

I'd prefer if she proposed to ban him from consulting on the side and look to recoup the money he has made that way. I'd love to see his trading accounts after all these years as an insider too. Not a Fauci specific thing, the more general this rule for government employees the better.

I’m conflicted on this one.

 I hate how incredibly rich some elected Congress people get during their term despite the limited government salary they get.  

Then generally I think for government employees, I think that if people like Dr Fauci who are at the top of their profession, if they weren’t able to make consulting cash on the side they wouldn’t do the government job in the first place and would stay private.  That means our policies would be done by inadequate people who can’t get the top private jobs and the pandemic would’ve been several times worse.

Overall, I think I’m ok with people earn extra cash if their decisions aren’t based on where they are getting their cash from.  So as long as they declare their earnings and from where and the ethics committees get to see that I wouldn’t have a problem because it would likely stop too much pay for play activity.  I also don’t think the public should see that it should just be seen by oversight.

Restricting top people to a government salary would be a bad idea because then you don’t get the top quality like the Dr Fauci and probably end up with idiots like Scott Atlas.

[villakram]

14 minutes ago, nick76 said:

I’m conflicted on this one.

 I hate how incredibly rich some elected Congress people get during their term despite the limited government salary they get.  

Then generally I think for government employees, I think that if people like Dr Fauci who are at the top of their profession, if they weren’t able to make consulting cash on the side they wouldn’t do the government job in the first place and would stay private.  That means our policies would be done by inadequate people who can’t get the top private jobs and the pandemic would’ve been several times worse.

Overall, I think I’m ok with people earn extra cash if their decisions aren’t based on where they are getting their cash from.  So as long as they declare their earnings and from where and the ethics committees get to see that I wouldn’t have a problem because it would likely stop too much pay for play activity.  I also don’t think the public should see that it should just be seen by oversight.

Restricting top people to a government salary would be a bad idea because then you don’t get the top quality like the Dr Fauci and probably end up with idiots like Scott Atlas.

There are plenty of avenues for congress to convene ad-hoc committees of the leading experts anytime they are needed, and there are lots of experts.

If there were proper term limits, then the limited earnings while in office would not be an issue. The length of Fauci's tenure is a disgrace. 

[Seat68]

I watched a documentary on Sky Arts on the 80s and this particular episode was on the AIDS epidemic. Obviously Fauci featured in this, my thoughts are if he was British he would be a Knight by now. 

[nick76]

4 minutes ago, villakram said:

There are plenty of avenues for congress to convene ad-hoc committees of the leading experts anytime they are needed, and there are lots of experts.

Not the best route to only have the leading experts when needed.  The problem with that is who decides when it is needed, I definitely wouldn’t leave that decision to politicians.

5 minutes ago, villakram said:

If there were proper term limits, then the limited earnings while in office would not be an issue. The length of Fauci's tenure is a disgrace. 

Term limits for politicians I completely agree with but government employees I don’t.  You need the top in the field or as close to the top and Dr Fauci has been one of the leading people in his field and respected all around the world.  I know over here how well he is respected years before the pandemic and still now as we in this crisis.  

Then changing policy potentially regularly on things like science is a disaster.  Studies, research aren’t terms, are generally considerably longer than terms and even decades.  It’s not something to fit in a four or six year box.  Plus losing all that valuable experience, contacts and continuity would be disastrous and keep changing could set back medical advancement incredibly.

So terms limits on politicians I’m all for but not government employees in general.

[bickster]

14 minutes ago, villakram said:

The length of Fauci's tenure is a disgrace.

He's only been in his current government position since 20th Jan 2021. He's the Cheif Medical Advisor to the President. Are you suggesting he shouldn't hold this position as long as the President sees fit?

This seems somewhat strange, sorry Mr Pres but your advisor has to go, he's been in post two years.... but he's the best at his job... doesn't matter, he's had his two years. Rules are rules

[nick76]

1 minute ago, Seat68 said:

I watched a documentary on Sky Arts on the 80s and this particular episode was on the AIDS epidemic. Obviously Fauci featured in this, my thoughts are if he was British he would be a Knight by now. 

Without doubt, he’s one of the foremost and respected leaders in his field worldwide for decades.  

American politics just doing what it usually does, finds an innocent victim outside of its sphere and one side makes him a hero and the other side tries to destroy him....Dr Fauci is just the latest person to get that attention.

[villakram]

3 minutes ago, nick76 said:

Not the best route to only have the leading experts when needed.  The problem with that is who decides when it is needed, I definitely wouldn’t leave that decision to politicians.

Term limits for politicians I completely agree with but government employees I don’t.  You need the top in the field or as close to the top and Dr Fauci has been one of the leading people in his field and respected all around the world.  I know over here how well he is respected years before the pandemic and still now as we in this crisis.  

Then changing policy potentially regularly on things like science is a disaster.  Studies, research aren’t terms, are generally considerably longer than terms and even decades.  It’s not something to fit in a four or six year box.  Plus losing all that valuable experience, contacts and continuity would be disastrous and keep changing could set back medical advancement incredibly.

So terms limits on politicians I’m all for but not government employees in general.

The only thing that happens with a tenure that long is the construction of a significant patronage network. Every time any human, essentially anywhere, gets in a position of power,  that's what happens.

... and the American Academy of Science is continuously convening groups of leading experts in all fields to the writing white papers on issues that are right at the bleeding edge. There is no lack of knowledge, nor need for the single genius leader. It's the political implementation of these things in a "democracy" that is the issue. Well, that and that many complex issues have no real "solution".  Then funding for anything strategic has to be protected from the vagaries of the 2/4 yrs election cycle, hence the enormous waste of resources that are directed into simply maintaining a stats-quo in the face of political machinations or the constructions of enormous machines such as the defense industry brings to the table to protect their interests.

[villakram]

9 minutes ago, bickster said:

He's only been in his current government position since 20th Jan 2021. He's the Cheif Medical Advisor to the President. Are you suggesting he shouldn't hold this position as long as the President sees fit?

This seems somewhat strange, sorry Mr Pres but your advisor has to go, he's been in post two years.... but he's the best at his job... doesn't matter, he's had his two years. Rules are rules

This is not some silly partizan political point. He has been at the top of the health industry political scene since the 80s. Fauci should be advising new leadership at this stage in his career, not maintaining his own position. Is is not a healthy thing for a democracy, but hardly surprising given the way the politicians from the same era are all still hanging on.

[nick76]

18 minutes ago, villakram said:

The only thing that happens with a tenure that long is the construction of a significant patronage network. Every time any human, essentially anywhere, gets in a position of power,  that's what happens.

... and the American Academy of Science is continuously convening groups of leading experts in all fields to the writing white papers on issues that are right at the bleeding edge. There is no lack of knowledge, nor need for the single genius leader. It's the political implementation of these things in a "democracy" that is the issue. Well, that and that many complex issues have no real "solution".  Then funding for anything strategic has to be protected from the vagaries of the 2/4 yrs election cycle, hence the enormous waste of resources that are directed into simply maintaining a stats-quo in the face of political machinations or the constructions of enormous machines such as the defense industry brings to the table to protect their interests.

I understand your point, don’t agree with everything but I understand your view but I’m still favouring the pros of not having terms limits on government employees like Dr Fauci, despite some of the downside.  Politicians as I said I’m keen on term limits.

[bickster]

14 minutes ago, villakram said:

This is not some silly partizan political point. He has been at the top of the health industry political scene since the 80s. Fauci should be advising new leadership at this stage in his career, not maintaining his own position. Is is not a healthy thing for a democracy, but hardly surprising given the way the politicians from the same era are all still hanging on.

As a general point, medical professinals and scientists etc generally learn more as time goes on, they don't have a shelf life

Are you suggesting there's a better person qualified for the role? In the middle of a pandemic in which he was advising on but being ignored by the previous encumbent?

Maybe you could nominate who you think would be better suited