Here’s how Stoermer describes Liberal Nationalism and the role it plays in american politics:
There’s a belief system that combines two things — first, that change must happen through official channels (voting, courts, proper debate), and second, that this procedural faith is wrapped in American exceptionalism. The system isn’t just legitimate. It is sacred because America itself is exceptional.
Now here’s where it gets complicated. Klein says the project is “the American experiment.” Newsom builds on that. Kirk said the same things, but meant something completely different. Kirk’s American experiment would destroy Klein’s and Newsom’s — he wanted to dismantle multiracial democracy, restrict voting, and return to what he called the real Founders’ vision. That would end everything Klein and Newsom claim to value.
Yet Klein’s nationalism enables Kirk’s. By treating Kirk’s anti-democratic project as legitimate discourse within the American experiment, by claiming they share common ground, Klein validates extremism as just another voice in the great American conversation.
And I keep wondering: Does the white Christian nationalist movement understand something about liberal nationalism that we don’t? Do they realize that as long as they frame their goals in terms of the Constitution, the Founders, and the American experiment, individuals like Klein will always find common ground with them?
I found other notable liberal figures saying similar things while perusing twitter. Notably senator John Fetterman recently insisted that americans (sorry, I refuse to capitalize demonyms. Sue me) should stop calling Trump an autocrat and pleaded for toning down the anti-Trump rhetoric. To me this attitude plays right into MAGA’s hands. This is the kind of stuff that whitewashes bigotry and helps reactionaries move the Overton window further right.
I would venture that in a similar situation, on this side of the pond we would be out on the streets, striking the economy to a screeching halt. But in the US, there seems to be this nationalist bootlicking mentality that prevents people from even considering direct action, simply because they believe the system will somehow fix itself and everything will be honky dory in the end.
I can’t help but think the US of A was never truly the haven of freedom we were told it was. And as much as I appreciate the comparably stronger fighting spirit of the working class here, I’m not sure it will be enough to resist the rise of the far right here in Europe either, propped up by the ever influential american politics. I’m a pessimist, so please give me hope, or don’t. Thoughts, please?
colewd:
I’m asking exactly the right question: is the OBBBA good policy? That’s the question that Trump and the members of Congress faced. Trump had a choice: push the bill, or not. Representatives and senators had a choice: vote for the bill, or not.
Imagine you are a member of Congress. You are faced with that question. How do you decide? If you are actually serving your constituents and the country at large, you ask: Will Americans be better off if this bill passes, or not? How will the provisions of this bill affect them? Who benefits, and who loses? Would this bill leave the country in a better place?
The question isn’t “Am I worried about the national debt?” It isn’t “What is my vision for healthcare reform?” The question is “Should I vote for this bill?”
Did Congress do the right thing? Let’s test it against your concerns:
1. You’re concerned about the large national debt. The OBBBA adds $4 trillion to it. Is more debt good, or bad? Does the OBBBA align with your debt concerns? Is it good to increase the national debt in order to make the rich richer?
2. You’d like to see healthcare reform. You’re concerned about life expectancy vs expenditures. The OBBBA will kick 17 million people off health insurance. It will double, on average, the health insurance premiums of 24 million people. It will slash $1 trillion from the Medicaid program. All of those will cause people to be less healthy because they will have to forego healthcare except in emergencies. That will result in more cost-ineffective ER visits. Will those policies increase life expectancy and make healthcare more efficient?
3. You say that the main goal of policy should be to improve the quality of life for everyone. I’ve shown you that the OBBBA transfers a huge amount of money from the poor, who are struggling and desperately need it, to the rich, who are doing fine and don’t need it at all. I’ve also shown you that across the entire income spectrum, money is flowing from poorer groups to wealthier ones, and that the top 1% are gaining more from the tax cuts than the bottom 60% combined. Do those policies improve the quality of life for everyone?
The OBBBA is antithetical to all three of the things you (supposedly) care about. You support it anyway. Why? Because your Dear Leader wanted it to pass, and his desires take precedence over everything else, including your own (former) values.
keiths,
This is closer to the right question.
Given the question let’s review all the OBBBA policies and weigh them against the debt problem and the overall quality of life issues for all Americans.
Like all policy related bills we will most likely see strengths and weaknesses to the bill.
keith:
colewd:
Closer to the right question? What is the right question, if not “is the OBBBA good policy?”
That’s what I’ve been doing for the entirety of the discussion. I presented a chart showing the differential effects of the tax cuts. I presented a chart showing the overall impact of the bill on various income groups. I explained that health care premiums will double for Obamacare enrollees, and that 17 million people are going to become uninsured as a result of the OBBBA. I informed you that the bill increases the national debt by $4 trillion.
What have I left out that can turn this frog of a bill into a prince? I’m all ears.
Also, keep in mind that it was Trump’s and the Republicans’ choice what to include and exclude from the bill. It wasn’t all or nothing. The final vote was up or down, but amendments were possible the entire time the bill was being considered.
keiths,
All you want to do is through money at the problem and not fix it. Here is a benchmark discussion with comparing US and Japan. Health care cost per person Government contribution and living expediency. Japan is doing a lot more than we are with dramatically less money. Why?
https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtNQ%3D%3D_88fed348-afc5-4027-9ace-d753e0caf4c8
colewd:
You’re changing the subject again. Why? I thought we agreed that the question is “is the OBBBA good policy?” You yourself said we should examine the provisions of the bill and “weigh them against the debt problem and the overall quality of life issues for all Americans.” I’m all for it, and that’s exactly what I’ve been doing for this entire discussion. Why are you bailing out now?
You say you’re concerned about the debt. Why then do you support a bill that adds $4 trillion to the debt in order to throw money at the rich? Please explain. How does that address the debt problem?
You say you want healthcare reform. Why then do you support a bill that worsens the health of Americans, decreases life expectancy, and makes healthcare less efficient? Does worsening the healthcare system count as reform in your view?
You say you’re concerned about “the overall quality of life issues for all Americans. Why then do you support a bill that worsens the quality of life of struggling Americans in order to benefit wealthier people who aren’t struggling at all? That gives more in tax cuts to the top 1% than to the bottom 60% combined? How does that improve the quality of life of all Americans?
Why do you support the OBBBA, Bill?
Literally every country in the world (maybe except some countries in the Third World) does a lot more in healthcare with less money. As atrocious as American healthcare system is, OBBBA manages to provide even less healthcare with *more* money, yet you still defend OBBBA.
Well, I think I just got your point – you have no investment stakes in healthcare, so you do not care whether it works or not. You have no recommendation how it should work and you feel nothing if everybody dies when it doesn’t. You just spew random words, the lazy label Grok man that you are.
Setting aside Bill’s doubletalk, you raise an important issue. How does the US manage to spend more with worse results than nearly every other country? I’ve seen claims that Big Pharma and the insurance industry are defending the system because it is so profitable. Are these industries in other nations going broke? I’ve seen claims that US doctors are inferior (doubtful), that US medical technology is inferior (doubtful). That US doctors aren’t working as hard (absurd – doctors wear tennis shoes to race from room to room giving every patient a few seconds of distracted attention). Maybe the whole system is so complicated and lawyered up that it leaks money at all the many seams?
You would think US legislators and medical leaders and the like would simply pick some nation like Japan or Sweden or somewhere and simply copy what they are doing. Why doesn’t this happen?
I blame insurance. A whole layer of bureaucracy and heartache that adds little of value. Big buildings, staff, admin, creams off a huge chunk of the overall spend, because Americans particularly hate paying tax.. Of course there are admin efficiencies in taxpayer systems too. Our NHS is by no means perfect. But I’ll take the tax over the enormous financial worry some are under, and the vast inflation that insurance brings.
Of course our MAGA-lites over here are looking to ape the US system, and the billionaire media is sowing the seed that it needs replacing. There is a real danger here: many people place immigration above all else (our system, of course, relies heavily on immigrants, creating a nice dilemma).
keiths,
Because you continually cherry pick issues and ask the wrong questions.
The health care system in the US is not competitive with other countries which most here seem to agree with. This is the real policy issue. It is true that the OBBBA does not solve this, howeverr either does extending subsidies to a broken system.
Allan Miller,
This may be an issue but I think it is tied to an overall corrupt system that along with insurance includes hospitals, big Pharma, and the US government. Sickness in the US is big business and the pouring of money into this corrupt system started with George Bush and has been a major contributor to the national debt getting out of control.
Prevention is a big opportunity however it is hard to insert for a system that is a government supported group of monopolies that are financially rewarded for increased sickness in our country.
colewd,
If the corruption includes hospitals, the church is in on the act. I had occasion to visit the ER at the Adventist hospital in Tehachapi. Scalped $781 for very little. When ringing later, to chase my prescription the hold message was some religious nonsense.
Allan Miller,
Hospital billing systems are a nightmare as they can never justify their fees when their insurance collections fall short.
Medical billing is a nightmare. I cannot point a finger at any single entity, because the system has evolved to be maximally dysfunctional.
It is, of course, easy to see the mote in the other guy’s eye.
colewd,
Let’s roll the tape:
keiths:
colewd:
keiths:
colewd:
We can add “you’re cherry-picking!” to the list of false accusations you trot out when you’re losing an argument, along with “ad hominem”, “burden of proof”, “propaganda”, “the liberal media”, and “Trump Derangement Syndrome”.
The OBBBA is diametrically opposed to what you claim to care about: it increases the national debt, makes the healthcare system worse, and reduces the overall quality of life for Americans. You support it anyway, because the Dear Leader wants you to. You toss your values out the window, leaving only one: abject subservience to a perennial toddler whose response to a massive protest is to fantasize about dropping shit on his fellow Americans.
Your taste in cult leaders leaves something to be desired.
colewd,
Well, we spend more money for worse outcomes. It isn’t really a competition.
I think it is the most important policy issue, but there are others.
Wow.
Actually, extending subsidies is a step in the right direction. A small step, I grant you. The ACA has been very successful in improving public health in the USA. The brainchild of a Republican Governor, it has been resisted at every step by MAGA. The OBBBA is explicitly a step in the WRONG direction; it will make the US healthcare system worse and cost a lot of money.
Below is a comment that I typed up nearly two weeks ago, but did not post out of a misplaced sense of charity:
Jock:
And the Republicans are screwing their own. There are more Republicans than Democrats enrolled in the ACA (45% to 35%), and 57% of enrollees live in Republican congressional districts.
keiths,
The condition we are in is shared by both parties. Spending money the government does not have is screwing all of us.
colewd:
The condition we are in is shared by all Americans, whether we like it or not. We live here. Responsibility for the debt is shared between Republicans and Democrats who have both increased it.
Trump and the Republicans are 100% to blame for the OBBBA, however. Not a single Democrat voted for it. Which makes sense. It’s an abomination.
Yet you support a bill that is spending $4 trillion that we don’t have. Why?
I’m pretty sure I’ve seen comments from Bill that say or imply that he is at least not opposed to the OBBBA. I’m also pretty sure I have NOT seen him comment on a single one of its many provisions specifically. When asked for a specific provision that benefits the public, he starts talking about “open boarders”.
Ask rather: what is the justification for NOT giving non-citizens the healthcare subsidies available to citizens?
Yikes.
To answer your blatantly nativist, potentially racist, question:
At least three reasons:
1. Equity: Non-citizens come in two flavors: documented and undocumented. Both groups contribute to the economy, and both pay more in taxes than they receive in benefits. Both groups are subsidizing native-born Americans, just as the blue states are subsidizing the red states. They commit less crime too!
2. Medical ethics: doctors are required to treat the patient in front of them. They, or their employer, are in effect financially punished for treating patients who cannot pay. Mainly this is the indigenous poor, but sometimes it’s the non-citizen poor. You want to punish providers MORE for treating the non-citizens, in the hopes that they will discourage these people from presenting for treatment. Niiice. By the way, preventative medicine saves more money than it costs.
3. Practicality: there’s a very simple reason why there is no “wallet biopsy” in the ER, why federal law requires ERs to stabilize patients without regard to their immigration status or their ability to pay. Given your laser-like focus on how economic policy affects your personal stock portfolio, I expect that you don’t care about the two reasons outlined above – they only affect people who are not Bill Cole – I suspect that you might care about this third reason. Imagine this:
Simply put: there is a downside for US citizens to policies that deny emergency assistance to non-citizens. Likewise, you may not have noticed it, but ICE has kidnapped a lot of US citizens, and deported a handful. So, denying due process has its downside for citizens, too.
Please find a news source other than Republican tweets and OAN and Fox in order to educate yourself about healthcare funding.
ROFL. Except when they cannot. What on earth did you think the ACA was about? And your platitude applies to citizens even more so than non-citizens. Are you proposing that we abolish all healthcare subsidies? Medicare? Medicaid?
Flint,
Hi Flint
There is nothing new here as the government remains highly dysfunctional. Less dysfunctional than the last four years but little progress fixing the mess that has been accumulated over the last 25 years.
Name one thing that is less dysfunctional now. After Elon’s chainsaw, Sieg Heils, firings and rehirings, and in the government shutdown how is anything better? Also, tell how much fraud has DOGE uncovered.
Yes, I also see insurance as the worst drain on healthcare. I’d even go as far as that it’s a matter of principle: Inject “insurance” into the system and you have ruined healthcare. If the goal is healthcare, the government should deal with healthcare and forget insurance. Physicians should examine patients, not handle billing. And no insurance agent is ever a healthcare provider in any shape or form. There are some countries in mainland Europe who provide healthcare (listed services of course, not e.g. beauty surgeries) as basically a matter of birthright, not subject to any insurance subscription. And it is naturally a cheaper system than in USA.
Erik,
Control of our southern border. Movement toward peace in Ukraine and the Middle East. Reduce regulation especially in the financial area. Fighting to reduce drugs coming into our country.
What’s not functional is our budget.
This chart was no longer on the current comment page, so I thought it was worth reposting here. The poorer you are, the more you get screwed by the OBBBA. The richer you are, the more you get rewarded by it:
Flint:
He’s never been brave enough to say outright that he supports it, because that would be embarrassing and shameful, but he’s also afraid to criticize it, because it’s his Dear Leader’s signature legislative “achievement” and the Dear Leader Must Not Be Criticized. The only mild criticism I’ve heard him make is that it isn’t aggressive enough in cutting spending, as if that were the problem with it.
It mirrors his handling of all things Trump. We confront him with fact-based criticisms against which he can’t defend his Dear Leader. He runs away, completely ignoring our criticisms, or tries to change the subject, or tries to impugn us as an excuse for not responding. (“Cherry picking!” being his latest lame attempt at the latter.)
The one time I recall him trying to comment on a provision was when he brought up the increase in the standard deduction as a way of saying “See? The OBBBA helps poor people!” The only problem? It was the TCJA that increased the deduction, not the OBBBA. (Bill blindly repeated what Grok told him, not realizing that Grok, in its very first sentence, made it clear that it was talking about the TCJA, not the OBBBA.) The OBBBA merely made the change permanent. That doesn’t help the poor; it merely means they’re being screwed less than they would have had the deduction expired. The OBBBA punishes them badly enough, as the chart above illustrates.
Bill hasn’t commented directly on the cuts to Medicaid and the Obamacare subsidies, but he did say this:
As if opposing massive cuts to healthcare amounted to “throwing money at the problem”, and as if the OBBBA in any way contributed toward fixing it. If Bill were truly worried about money-throwing, he’d condemn the OBBBA for throwing money at the rich and increasing the national debt by $4 trillion.
Now that I think about it, there was one other occasion upon which Bill attempted to defend a provision in the OBBBA. It was the Medicaid cuts, and his defense was that Republicans were simply eliminating “waste, fraud and abuse”. I pointed out that waste, fraud and abuse accounted for only 3.2% of the cuts. As you’d expect, Bill fell silent.
96.8% of the almost $1 trillion in Medicaid cuts is coming out of the pockets of legitimate, eligible beneficiaries.
Are you still on topic of BBB? That is, are you now confirming that you support BBB? Or are you just reiterating that you are a racist and fascist?
Unfortunately, this does not appear to be on the topic of BBB. This is on the topic of how many peace deals Trump has made – it’s something you know nothing about. Hint: There is no movement toward peace either in Ukraine or in the Middle East.
As everybody knows, reducing financial regulations makes financial business more dysfunctional.
By fighting drugs you mean shooting small boats from warships with missiles? Don’t you see that this is budget-wise an insanely disproportionate action? You’re worried about budget, but also cheering expensive warcrimes against small boats, which is a huge sign of a dysfunctional government, a waste of resources against an imaginary enemy.
Erik,
I think I am simply reiterating that my country is in trouble financially and only marginal fixes are being proposed. I am not sure how this position makes me either a racist or a fascist 🙂
Erik, to colewd:
Three days ago he said:
How many provisions has he discussed since then? Zero. He just keeps running away from my questions.
He clearly supports it, but he’s afraid to say so, because he’d look ridiculous trying to defend it. He’s also afraid to say that he doesn’t support it, because that would mean criticizing his Dear Leader, who can do no wrong. So he tries to change the subject.
He’s a real profile in courage.
colewd:
Yet you support a bill that worsens the problem by adding $4 trillion to the national debt. You’re afraid to stand up for the very things you claim to believe in.
Are you still pretending to believe in democracy? I threw you a softball question a while ago:
It’s the ultimate softball question for an American. I asked you twice. You wouldn’t answer. That says it all.
Bill’s characterization of the Biden administration is a close match for Fox News, but pretty much the opposite of reality. I recall (and Bill might also) that Democrats during the presidential campaign were pointing out that under Bide, the economy was amazingly healthy. It was consistently called the envy of the world. Pundits were amazed at how well Biden managed the “soft landing” after the pandemic, how the US had low unemployment, sizeable job increases, near-zero inflation, solid positive GDP growth. Even the number of truly illegal immigrants was down, because the Biden administration didn’t count “encounters” as immigrations, and because there was an effort to grant asylum where warranted. All in all, the US thrived under Biden.
Yet I noticed that Fox News repeated, several times a night, that the US economy was “in the toilet”, that immigrants were “an invasion”, and that this was all Biden’s fault! Fox News never mentioned job numbers, GDP numbers, inflation numbers, etc. And people like Bill swallowed Fox News’s alternate reality so completely that other news sources could not penetrate. Even now, with jobless claims so bad Trump refuses to publish them anymore (and fired the head of the bureau of labor statistics), with rising inflation, etc. The Bills of the world STILL can’t help blaming Biden for all Trump is doing.
keiths,
None of us had any influence on the content to this Bill. I agree it does not fix the debt problem. What does stand up mean? Constantly complain about something we cannot change. What have you ever changed in Washington?
For you, anyway, stand up means at least admit that this bill makes plenty of things a lot worse for a great many people, and benefits only billionaires. The first step in correcting any problem is admitting you have one! You can’t even do that.
Flint,
I have repeatably claimed the bill falls short as we have major systematic problems in our government.
In what way do you think the Biden administration moved the country forward?
It means you saying, “I was wrong when I said that the government is less dysfunctional now compared to last four years.” Not going to happen, I know.
Erik,
Those who don’t agree with you are not standing up for their convictions 🙂
colewd:
Therefore we can’t criticize it? Are you serious? Someone says “this bill hurts the poor” and your response is “Shut up. You didn’t have any influence on the content of the bill”? Does that actually make sense to you? If it does, why?
Such withering criticism, lol. The most you can manage to say is that “it does not fix the debt problem”? This bill adds $4 trillion to the debt. That’s over 10% of the existing $38 trillion debt. This bill absolutely trashes something you claim to care about. It doesn’t just fail to fix the debt problem, it makes it dramatically worse. So that rich people can get richer.
In your case, it would mean having the guts to criticize policy that runs counter to your values instead of meekly asking “Is this allowed under cult rules? Would our benevolent and wise Dear Leader approve?”
Are you familiar with the term “self-aware”? Are you telling us that you’ve been an idiot for criticizing Biden all this time, since you’ve never changed anything in Washington? And that you won’t mention Biden again, unless it’s to praise him?
Jesus, Bill, don’t you ever stop to think “Does this apply to me, too?” when you launch one of your criticisms at us?
This is a democracy (or maybe ‘was’ is the right word). People are allowed to criticize their leaders, and they should do so when their leaders do something as unconscionable as passing the OBBBA.
colewd:
It’s a really good bill. It just falls a little short. Right?
This is just an extension of your notcriticism of Trump, in which the worst things you’ve said about him are that he can be a bit caustic at times, that he uses hyperbolic language, and that his “I ended six/seven/ten wars” lie was “not well supported”.
If you had been living in Germany during WWII, would you have said “Hitler is doing a great job, much better than that Hindenburg guy. But this concentration camp policy falls short. It doesn’t go far enough in improving the quality of life of Jews”?
keiths,
The increase in debt over the last 25 years has been 7% per year which is well above the inflation rate. The 4 trillion reduces this increase to under 2% per year.
All this being said the fact we have any debt at all to deal with shows how fiscally incompetent or government has been.
colewd:
I’m laughing at the thought of you frantically Grokking and Googling for something positive to say about the OBBBA. Unfortunately (but not unexpectedly), you’ve fallen for propaganda yet again. Here’s a chart showing the actual impact of the OBBBA on the debt, according to Congressional Budget Office numbers:
The lower blue line is the projected debt increase without the OBBBA. The upper green line takes the OBBBA into account. By your own standards, this bill is a disaster. It makes the debt problem worse.
The logical conclusion is that Trump and the Republicans are fiscally incompetent for enacting the OBBBA. Can you bring yourself to say that? Will you actually stand up for your principles for once, or are you too slavishly devoted to the Dear Leader to do that?
I hope you’ll surprise me, but I suspect you’ll cave in once again. After all, you still haven’t acknowledged a single lie that Trump has spoken — not even the trivial ones. You can’t even bring yourself to acknowledge his obvious golf cheating, fercrissakes.
keiths,
I made a simple calculation of the 4 trillion over 10 years. I am not sure the basis of the chart you are talking about but if it includes reverting to higher taxes I think there are all kinds of problems that go with this.
Are you for increasing taxes on all Americans?
colewd:
There’s your mistake. The debt was already increasing before the OBBBA passed, and the OBBBA is exacerbating it. The $4 trillion isn’t the projected debt increase over the next ten years — it’s the additional debt increase versus if it hadn’t been passed. Look at the graph.
I told you. It’s based on numbers from the Congressional Budget Office.
Does the following sentence make sense to you?
colewd:
I believe in progressive taxation. Wealthy Americans aren’t paying their fair share, so the last thing we should do is extend their tax cuts, which they don’t need. Yes, taxes should increase for wealthy Americans. Absolutely.
keiths,
What is their fair share of taxes? Do you think the government is being run efficiently? Do you realise the middle class would lose 50% of their standard deduction if we reverted to tax law prior to Trumps first term?
The additional debt add is estimated between 3 to 5 trillion. This rate is substantially less than the 13 billion added over the last 10 years.
https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtNQ%3D%3D_50621812-3d81-4c05-b6c4-9f8506b39bfa
Yes, but with some precautions. First, understand that the morbidly rich don’t have all that much taxable income. Even progressive tax structures tend to tax income and not wealth. I read that Jeff Bezos didn’t need any actual taxable income to buy his megayacht – he simply put up Amazon stock as collateral. Most of these rich people use their wealth to borrow enormous sums to live extravagantly, and borrowed money isn’t taxable. There’s a reason why progressive politicians have been arguing for a wealth tax not an income tax.
Second, you’re talking about income taxes, and politicians have been learning to tax in other was that don’t get paid by their donors. Like sales taxes, excise taxes, tariffs, and such. These revenue sources probably need to be eliminated, yet poor states still tax food purchases. Again, these are consumption taxes and not wealth taxes.
Third, as the UK learned a few decades back, there’s an effective limit to the marginal income tax rate before it has unanticipated side effects. When George Harrison sang “that’s one for you, nineteen for me” he wasn’t kidding – the marginal tax rate he was paying was 95%. The Beatles, and thousands of other extremely high income earners, moved to Monaco.
And fourth, very high marginal tax rates generally don’t get paid because the very rich don’t get or stay rich by giving the government money. Then tend to own the politicians who write the tax laws, kind of out of self defense. Warren Buffet noted that he paid less in tax than his office workers, because the very rich have paid the politicians to insert loopholes so they can keep their money – otherwise they’d lose donors and might lose elections.
Still, I think if it’s done carefully, a tax structure can be crafted to reverse the trend in wealth disparity.
Golly, just two posts above yours, I went into some detail on this. I notice that keiths has been pointing out that you simply do not respond when challenged, and here you go, pretending you can’t read.
Flint,
Fair enough sorry I missed your explanation but it seems like extreme rose coloured glasses were required to make the claims you did.
We added 8 million undocumented immigrants the most ever. We also added 8 trillion to the deficit and ran the highest level of inflation in the last 25 years.
Have you always voted strictly Democratic?
I don’t care about agreement. I care whether you ever get a fact right.
Fascist lie.
Flint:
No, I’m talking about taxes generally, since Bill’s question was:
My answer is no. We need to tax the wealthy, not the poor. The wealthy aren’t paying their fair share, so their taxes should be increased. The OBBBA lowers them instead, exacerbating the unfairness. It’s the last thing we need in a system that is already unfair.
Flint:
Those are all regressive taxes which worsen the problem. Like the OBBBA tax cuts, they burden the poor far more than the rich. We need a tax system that is progressive, not regressive.
I’m not arguing for Beatlesque marginal tax rates. Just that the rich should carry their fair share of the tax burden.
That’s an argument against unfair tax laws and a broken campaign finance system. Donors will try to buy their way out of increased taxes in any form, high marginal rates being just one. The enormous estate tax exemption is an egregious example: $14 million for an individual and $28 million for a married couple.
Yes, and I think a wealth tax will be a key part of that.
Erik,
I have no evidence this is close to the truth.
A combination of a lazy label followed ty an unsupported assertion.
colewd:
More than they’re paying now, which is why I say the OBBBA took us in the wrong direction.
How is that relevant to the question of whether the OBBBA is good policy? Do you think that hurting the poor and throwing money at the rich makes government more efficient?
The topic is whether the OBBBA is good policy, not whether the standard deduction should be decreased. The standard deduction could have been maintained at its current level without screwing the poor, worsening the debt problem, and damaging the healthcare system.
Yes. The $4 trillion figure I’ve been quoting is between $3 trillion and $5 trillion.
I explained this already, but maybe an analogy will help.
Imagine you’re filling a bathtub. The water is pouring out of the faucet at a certain rate and the bathtub is partly filled. You think there’s too much water, and it’s a problem. You’re holding a jug of water and you have a choice: either pour it into the bathtub, or don’t. Given that you think there’s too much water in the bathtub already, you should refrain from pouring the jug in, right? It’s common sense.
The bathtub is the national debt. The water pouring out of the faucet is the budget deficit, which is steadily adding to the national debt. The water jug is the $4 trillion that the OBBBA will add to the national debt over the next ten years. If you pour the jug of water in, you’ll have more water in the bathtub than if you don’t. If you add $4 trillion to the national debt, you’ll have more debt than if you don’t. Trump and the Republicans poured the jug into the tub. If you think there’s too much water in the tub, why are you applauding the Dear Leader and his minions for pouring more in?
Here’s what’s confusing you. You’re assuming, by analogy, that the jug of water is the only water that is being added to the tub, but that would only be true if we shut off the faucet first. The OBBBA doesn’t turn off the faucet. It just pours more water into the tub.