The Rose Garden and White House happenings: Listening to voters’ concerns
Offered without any reasonable comment, as seems to be expected on this thread. Other than to say, this seems big!
https://www.cnn.com/2021/07/01/economy/global-minimum-tax-agreement/index.html
jimmurphy said:
Offered without any reasonable comment, as seems to be expected on this thread. Other than to say, this seems big!
https://www.cnn.com/2021/07/01/economy/global-minimum-tax-agreement/index.html
since our corporate tax is already above 15%, I wonder if we need to do anything?
drummerboy said:
since our corporate tax is already above 15%, I wonder if we need to do anything?
We may not, but it may change the calculus for many countries and stop the race to the bottom.
It establishes a floor.
More broadly, it's a step toward greater understanding that that particular race is self-defeating.
drummerboy said:
jimmurphy said:
Offered without any reasonable comment, as seems to be expected on this thread. Other than to say, this seems big!
https://www.cnn.com/2021/07/01/economy/global-minimum-tax-agreement/index.html
since our corporate tax is already above 15%, I wonder if we need to do anything?
The intent, unreasonable IMHO, is that even the mighty USA will impose a MINIMUN (meaning mandatory) 15% tax. Whatever loopholes exist will apply ONLY AFTER the 15% is paid. Secondarily, it will make it globally more difficult for USA companies to shift their tax burdens to other countries.
Dennis_Seelbach said:
drummerboy said:
jimmurphy said:
Offered without any reasonable comment, as seems to be expected on this thread. Other than to say, this seems big!
https://www.cnn.com/2021/07/01/economy/global-minimum-tax-agreement/index.html
since our corporate tax is already above 15%, I wonder if we need to do anything?
The intent, unreasonable IMHO, is that even the mighty USA will impose a MINIMUN (meaning mandatory) 15% tax. Whatever loopholes exist will apply ONLY AFTER the 15% is paid. Secondarily, it will make it globally more difficult for USA companies to shift their tax burdens to other countries.
do you mean unreasonable in the sense that a mandatory minimum tax would never get approved by Congress? or something else?
Dennis_Seelbach said:
The intent, unreasonable IMHO, is that even the mighty USA will impose a MINIMUN (meaning mandatory) 15% tax. Whatever loopholes exist will apply ONLY AFTER the 15% is paid. Secondarily, it will make it globally more difficult for USA companies to shift their tax burdens to other countries.
I’m curious about the “unreasonable” descriptor as well.
Guessing(?) that you don’t like the inflexibility?
Please expound.
jimmurphy said:
Dennis_Seelbach said:
The intent, unreasonable IMHO, is that even the mighty USA will impose a MINIMUN (meaning mandatory) 15% tax. Whatever loopholes exist will apply ONLY AFTER the 15% is paid. Secondarily, it will make it globally more difficult for USA companies to shift their tax burdens to other countries.
I’m curious about the “unreasonable” descriptor as well.
Guessing(?) that you don’t like the inflexibility?
Please expound.
I mean that the idea that our Congress would ever pass such a tax reform is unreasonable.
ETA: I'd love to see it happen... I just think it's an unreasonable wish.
Weird side-note to mtierney's convo about increasing violence, and that's mostly gun deaths... Here's a weird story.
So, in Austin, TX last summer there was a BLM protest. As part of that, people were crossing the street at crosswalks, where as a driver you are legally obliged to wait as people cross. It's annoying, but - you know - if you're in a hurry there are two rules you can break, either pull a u-turn in a no u-turn area and figure out another route, or hit the gas and try to murder a few people with your car.
1st Cav SGT Daniel Perry, now an Uber driver, decides he's all for the latter. But this is Texas.
One person, Garrett Foster, who is at the protest with his fiancee, walks over to stop Perry from murdering the people in the crosswalk. He's a white fellow, carrying an AK47 with the barrel pointed at the ground. His fiancee is black and a quadruple amputee.
So apparently, Foster is pushing his fiancee across the street in the crosswalk in her wheelchair. And Perry decides to move forward. A group of protestors, including Foster went up to the car to stop it, and according to Perry, Foster pointed his rifle at him. So Perry shot and killed Foster.
Perry was arrested and is being charged for Foster's murder. Perry is saying Foster pointed his rifle at him. Most evidence I'm seeing say he did not, but he did have a rifle. Remember, this is Texas, people have rifles on them.
What makes this interesting is that Foster was a Libertarian (yes I know, MOL) and was marching with his fiancee for what he believed in. And was senselessly murdered by another white dude because the first white dude was in the way of second white dude making money, and both had guns. Even weirder, someone else tried to shoot Perry, but didn't get him. Perry just drove off after murdering that guy, then called the cops and claimed he was the victim, probably because he wanted his insurance to pay for repairing the bullet holes that Foster definitely did not put in Perry's car.
Anyway, today Perry posted bond, so it'll be fun to see how the trial goes.
What was that about the BLM and the crime rate again?
https://www.kwtx.com/2021/07/01/fort-hood-sergeant-indicted-murder-2020-death-austin-protester/
not to mention how much of the violence at BLM protests was actually initiated by the police.
Nearly 1,000 instances of police brutality recorded in US anti-racism protests
ridski said:
What makes this interesting is that Foster was a Libertarian (yes I know, MOL)
The TX libertarians were apparently on the side of the protesters:
"Garrett Foster understood that libertarianism was about speaking on behalf of those who are the most acutely affected by the abuses perpetrated by an overly aggressive and unaccountable government," Cohen says.
So there's libertarian, and then there's "libertarian."
ml1 said:
ridski said:
What makes this interesting is that Foster was a Libertarian (yes I know, MOL)
The TX libertarians were apparently on the side of the protesters:
"Garrett Foster understood that libertarianism was about speaking on behalf of those who are the most acutely affected by the abuses perpetrated by an overly aggressive and unaccountable government," Cohen says.So there's libertarian, and then there's "libertarian."
which is which?
drummerboy said:
ml1 said:
ridski said:
What makes this interesting is that Foster was a Libertarian (yes I know, MOL)
The TX libertarians were apparently on the side of the protesters:
"Garrett Foster understood that libertarianism was about speaking on behalf of those who are the most acutely affected by the abuses perpetrated by an overly aggressive and unaccountable government," Cohen says.So there's libertarian, and then there's "libertarian."
which is which?
For myself, the ones not on the side of the protesters are the "libertarians", in quotes. They constitute the majority of self-described libertarians, who are basically free-market Republicans who favored legalizing pot.
nohero said:
drummerboy said:
ml1 said:
ridski said:
What makes this interesting is that Foster was a Libertarian (yes I know, MOL)
The TX libertarians were apparently on the side of the protesters:
"Garrett Foster understood that libertarianism was about speaking on behalf of those who are the most acutely affected by the abuses perpetrated by an overly aggressive and unaccountable government," Cohen says.So there's libertarian, and then there's "libertarian."
which is which?
For myself, the ones not on the side of the protesters are the "libertarians", in quotes. They constitute the majority of self-described libertarians, who are basically free-market Republicans who favored legalizing pot.
I actually follow the Texas LP on twitter. They get a lot of **** from "libertarians" for being libertarian.
ml1 said:
ridski said:
Favoring legal abortion isn't even an exclusively liberal thing. There are plenty of conservatives who favor legal abortion. There was a NPR/Marist poll in 2019 where only 64% of Republicans considered themselves as "pro-life." 32% of Trump supporters considered themselves "pro-choice." That's a 3rd of Trump supporters who are supposedly liberal, according to Pew.
or "far left" according to smedley.
I'll say one thing, this discussion is proof positive that we often disagree with someone's argument not just because it's in opposition to our POV, but because it's poorly reasoned and unsupported by sound evidence.
some opinions are just ignorant and dumb and don't deserve to be accepted as something validly arrived at.
I shouldn’t have posted on Tues night. I was hot, tired, and cranky on a delayed train. It’s fine to disagree but there’s no need to be surly, and I apologize for my surliness.
Anyway, further to the discussion. I think it’s an accepted fact that core beliefs of this board are in line with the core beliefs of the 19% ‘solid liberal’ part of the electorate as set out by Pew and highlighted by the NYT article I cited. I didn't see anyone disagree on that. So from that one can say that the consensus on the MOL politics board is in line with the left-most fifth of the electorate. Right?
How does it break down from there? A report cited here categorizes the leftmost 8% of the electorate as “progressive activists” (focused on equity, fairness, and the direction American is taking. Compared to those on the right, this group is more secular and urban, and rejects traditional authority while trying to rectify “historical injustices.”), and the next-most-left 11% as “traditional liberals”. Gun to my head, if I had to categorize MOL politics consensus beliefs as one of the two, I’d probably go with the latter category. But it’s a very close call that could go either way.
Which gets back to the notion of whether MOL is far left. I think it depends how you define far left. It’s true that socialism or anarchism isn’t a thing here. So if you take the narrow definition that the far left is just the tear-it-down crowd, then no, MOL isn’t far left. But when you consider that MOL beliefs are easily in-line with the left-most 19% of the electorate, quite possibly closing in on the left-most 8% of the electorate, how is it dumb, ignorant and poorly reasoned to say that MOL is far left?
The argument that MOL is not far left is a reasonable one. But in my opinion, based on data and the matching of consensus beliefs, so too is the argument that MOL is far left.
I think the visceral “you gotta be kidding me”, talk-to-the-hand reaction to the notion that MOL is far left shows that some people have blinders on wrt how left this board is.
Smedley said:
The argument that MOL is not far left is a reasonable one. But in my opinion, based on data and the matching of consensus beliefs, so too is the argument that MOL is far left.
I think the visceral “you gotta be kidding me”, talk-to-the-hand reaction to the notion that MOL is far left shows that some people have blinders on wrt how left this board is.
Two suggestions:
Follow up with support for the first paragraph's conclusion re: "far left".
Give up the "You strongly disagree so I must be right" second paragraph. It's a silly rationale.
Smedley said:
Which gets back to the notion of whether MOL is far left. I think it depends how you define far left.
It's easy to classify a group as anything you want if you're going to change the definition of that classification to fit that group.
America simply doesn't have a far left. America has a center-left, a center-right and far right. What you are doing here is taking a 12 inch ruler with the first 4 inches cut off, writing 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 on it with a magic marker, and then trying to tell us it's a 12 inch ruler. It's not.
ridski said:
Smedley said:
Which gets back to the notion of whether MOL is far left. I think it depends how you define far left.
It's easy to classify a group as anything you want if you're going to change the definition of that classification to fit that group.
America simply doesn't have a far left. America has a center-left, a center-right and far right. What you are doing here is taking a 12 inch ruler with the first 4 inches cut off, writing 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 on it with a magic marker, and then trying to tell us it's a 12 inch ruler. It's not.
to call anyone posting on this board "far left" requires pretending that communists, socialists and anarchists don't exist.
MOL is center left. It’s just that the people whose turkeys at thanksgiving have two right wings, are feeling overwhelmed by the science and logic …eventually they give up and just blind us with silly cartoons…
Jaytee said:
MOL is center left. It’s just that the people whose turkeys at thanksgiving have two right wings, are feeling overwhelmed by the science and logic …eventually they give up and just blind is with silly cartoons…
Translation?
nohero said:
Smedley said:
The argument that MOL is not far left is a reasonable one. But in my opinion, based on data and the matching of consensus beliefs, so too is the argument that MOL is far left.
I think the visceral “you gotta be kidding me”, talk-to-the-hand reaction to the notion that MOL is far left shows that some people have blinders on wrt how left this board is.
Two suggestions:
Follow up with support for the first paragraph's conclusion re: "far left".
I already did.
ridski said:
Smedley said:
Which gets back to the notion of whether MOL is far left. I think it depends how you define far left.
It's easy to classify a group as anything you want if you're going to change the definition of that classification to fit that group.
America simply doesn't have a far left. America has a center-left, a center-right and far right. What you are doing here is taking a 12 inch ruler with the first 4 inches cut off, writing 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 on it with a magic marker, and then trying to tell us it's a 12 inch ruler. It's not.
That is an interesting opinion. The absence of a far left is not commonly accepted as truth, and I'm not sure I follow the ruler analogy. But I acknowledge there is subjectivity in these categorizations, so your view is your view.
I would not call your belief dumb, ignorant, poorly reasoned, flawed, etc.
ml1 said:
ridski said:
Smedley said:
Which gets back to the notion of whether MOL is far left. I think it depends how you define far left.
It's easy to classify a group as anything you want if you're going to change the definition of that classification to fit that group.
America simply doesn't have a far left. America has a center-left, a center-right and far right. What you are doing here is taking a 12 inch ruler with the first 4 inches cut off, writing 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 on it with a magic marker, and then trying to tell us it's a 12 inch ruler. It's not.
to call anyone posting on this board "far left" requires pretending that communists, socialists and anarchists don't exist.
Would you accept "far left ex-radicals"?
Smedley said:
ridski said:
Smedley said:
Which gets back to the notion of whether MOL is far left. I think it depends how you define far left.
It's easy to classify a group as anything you want if you're going to change the definition of that classification to fit that group.
America simply doesn't have a far left. America has a center-left, a center-right and far right. What you are doing here is taking a 12 inch ruler with the first 4 inches cut off, writing 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 on it with a magic marker, and then trying to tell us it's a 12 inch ruler. It's not.
That is an interesting opinion. The absence of a far left is not commonly accepted as truth, and I'm not sure I follow the ruler analogy. But I acknowledge there is subjectivity in these categorizations, so your view is your view.
I would not call your belief dumb, ignorant, poorly reasoned, flawed, etc.
you just said you don't understand his analogy, so how could you possible even characterize it as poorly reasoned, etc?
Smedley said:
That is an interesting opinion. The absence of a far left is not commonly accepted as truth, and I'm not sure I follow the ruler analogy. But I acknowledge there is subjectivity in these categorizations, so your view is your view.
I would not call your belief dumb, ignorant, poorly reasoned, flawed, etc.
Nor have I said about your use of "far left." I have merely pointed out over and over to you that your use of this term is incorrect, and you can't just decide that it is. You can't just walk into a zoo and start calling pygmy marmosets chimpanzees just because the zoo has pygmy marmosets and no chimpanzees.
ridski said:
Nor have I said about your use of "far left." I have merely pointed out over and over to you that your use of this term is incorrect, and you can't just decide that it is. You can't just walk into a zoo and start calling pygmy marmosets chimpanzees just because the zoo has pygmy marmosets and no chimpanzees.
you must have been to the gibbons exhibit at Turtle Back Zoo. They're not monkeys!
Is there a splintering in the MOL Democratic tent? I have a good test: Democrats, who believe that AOL’s pronouncements reflect the goals for the DNC, say so. Those who think not, say so.
There you have the far left (progressives) in the first group; the second group would be center left. I think the two groups need some moderate democrats to stabilize the party. What say you?
1. Name one “AOC pronouncement”. Something she actually said, not something that someone else said that she said.
2. As mentioned earlier progressives are not far left.
3. How would you similarly categorize Republicans?
Smedley said:
Would you accept "far left ex-radicals"?
I have no idea what you think this means.
jfinnegan said:
you must have been to the gibbons exhibit at Turtle Back Zoo. They're not monkeys!
Gibbons are the Generation X of the primate world.
what am I afraid of? let me count the ways:
I sense a theme....