POLITICS SCHMALITICS

[Motown Bombers]

 

[chasfh]

11 hours ago, Motown Bombers said:

 

Mostly changes to reduce taxes in the bill on manufacturers and the super rich. We’ll get the law and it’s better than nothing, but that’s a devil of a detail.

[Motown Bombers]

6 minutes ago, chasfh said:

Mostly changes to reduce taxes in the bill on manufacturers and the super rich. We’ll get the law and it’s better than nothing, but that’s a devil of a detail.

Looks like Sinema replaced it with a tax on stock buybacks. Still projected to reduce the deficit by $300 billion. Eliminating the carried interest makes no sense for her constituency but this is the best we can do given the circumstances. 

[gehringer_2]

25 minutes ago, Motown Bombers said:

Eliminating the carried interest makes no sense for her constituency but this is the best we can do given the circumstances. 

Pretty clearly she was bought off on that on by donors. Odd too because Manchin said getting rid of the carried interested exemption was a big deal for him.

[pfife]

I'm hearing that change might actually be more awesome

[gehringer_2]

528K new jobs, gas prices down, mortgage rates falling. It's a conspiracy! (to get Dems elected....)

[Motown Bombers]

Don't worry, the media will find something wrong with Biden and the progressives will help them. For instances, Cori Bush is whining that Biden isn't canceling student like he promised when in fact Biden never promised to cancel all student debt, just 10k which he has done. Apparently, Bush can't introduce legislation and whip up the votes and get it to Biden's desk. 

[CMRivdogs]

 

[gehringer_2]

23 minutes ago, CMRivdogs said:

 

They don't really have a whole lot more scope on rate increases, the yield curve is already flat from 6mo out to 30yr and that number is only 50 basis point about the Fed funds rate. If they go another fifty they get a completely flat yield curve, or worse long term rates may fall because of the anti-inflationary psychology that additional rate increases drive.  The sliver lining for consumers is that investor psychology is holding long term rates down, which protects mortgage rates, which are the big impact on the middle class. Mortgage rates have actually come down a bit since the last FFR increase. If the yield curve continues to invert they may continue to be unaffected even if the Fed does go for another hike. If the Fed wants more money supply contraction in this environment they may look to working the bond market harder than the discount window and that could raise longer term rates.

Edited August 5, 2022 by gehringer_2

[Motown Bombers]

 

[Motown Bombers]

 

[Mr.TaterSalad]

16 hours ago, Motown Bombers said:

 

Fuck her for taking out the Carried Interest loophole. This is better than nothing, but still fuck her for opposing it. The woman is the definition of bought and paid for.

[Motown Bombers]

1 hour ago, Mr.TaterSalad said:

Fuck her for taking out the Carried Interest loophole. This is better than nothing, but still fuck her for opposing it. The woman is the definition of bought and paid for.

Don't worry, Bernie Sanders will blow it up and we'll get nothing.

 

[Mr.TaterSalad]

12 hours ago, gehringer_2 said:

Pretty clearly she was bought off on that on by donors. Odd too because Manchin said getting rid of the carried interested exemption was a big deal for him.

This. Her decision was made for her by mega donors and corporate-affiliated Super PACs. Sad that she used to be a radical leftist and now she exemplifies everything wrong with DC politics.

[ewsieg]

13 hours ago, Motown Bombers said:

Looks like Sinema replaced it with a tax on stock buybacks. Still projected to reduce the deficit by $300 billion. Eliminating the carried interest makes no sense for her constituency but this is the best we can do given the circumstances. 

I heard some discussion that the carried interest was thrown in specifically because 1) it didn't account for much revenue and 2) allowed for Sinema to step in and nix it, with still having the bulk of the bill to pass.

[gehringer_2]

54 minutes ago, ewsieg said:

I heard some discussion that the carried interest was thrown in specifically because 1) it didn't account for much revenue and 2) allowed for Sinema to step in and nix it, with still having the bulk of the bill to pass.

Taxing buy backs is fine with me. IDK if I'd rank it that far below carried interest on my list of abuses. Buy backs benefit primarily big holders, but the effect does also percolate out as gain to every holder of that stock which does include a lot of people. Carried interest benefits very few and probably harms more by making outfits like Bain Capital more profitable. So on the grounds that carried interest encourages outright destructive activity whereas buy backs are basically just one of many ways for the rich to get richer, I'd have preferred carried interest to have remained in the bill. 

[chasfh]

11 hours ago, Mr.TaterSalad said:

This. Her decision was made for her by mega donors and corporate-affiliated Super PACs. Sad that she used to be a radical leftist and now she exemplifies everything wrong with DC politics.

Extreme people like extremes, no matter what side it’s on. At least they feel something.

Edited August 6, 2022 by chasfh

[Motown Bombers]

 

[Mr.TaterSalad]

31 minutes ago, Motown Bombers said:

 

That's a bullshit argument and not one people should be making. Sanders helped author the biggest climate and social welfare legislation since LBJ and the Great Society but because Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema care more about protecting the coal industry, mega donors, and the filibuster we couldn't get it passed. So a rotten and corrupted individual does the right thing once in a while, we're supposed to ignore their sins and give them credit. Tony Soprano liked ducks, that doesn't make him a good person or worthy of being exalted with high praise.

Edited August 6, 2022 by Mr.TaterSalad

[Motown Bombers]

14 minutes ago, Mr.TaterSalad said:

That's a bullshit argument and not one people should be making. Sanders helped author the biggest climate and social welfare legislation since LBJ and the Great Society but because Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema care more about protecting the coal industry, mega donors, and the filibuster we couldn't get it passed. So a rotten and corrupted individual does the right thing once in a while, we're supposed to ignore their sins and give them credit. Tony Soprano liked ducks, that doesn't make him a good person or worthy of being exalted with high praise.

This is correct. Bernie Sanders authored a bill that was never going to pass and DOA. Sanders accomplished nothing but he can tell his cult how pure he is.

[Mr.TaterSalad]

10 minutes ago, Motown Bombers said:

This is correct. Bernie Sanders authored a bill that was never going to pass and DOA. Sanders accomplished nothing but he can tell his cult how pure he is.

All I'm saying is that I don't think we should be holding up Manchin and Sinema for doing the right thing on this when it's clear they had nefarious motives for killing and doing the wrong thing on prior, much more impactful legislation. If I have a loaves of bread and can feed 100 people and prevent them from starving to death, but I selfishly choose to feed only 20 and let the other 80 die, I'm not a good person for having fed the 20 that I did, I'm still a bad person for letting the other 80 perish. Sure, I fed 20 people, but you can't hold me up as a beacon of good by forgetting about the other 80 who starved and died.

That's what Manchin and Sinema did here. They watered down and killed the most impactful climate and social welfare legislation since the Great Society all to protect the coal industry, mega donors to their campaigns, and the filthy rich. There isn't nobility in what they did and they should still be criticized. Furthermore, saying this is "the biggest climate bill ever" completely negates the argument as to whether or not it actually goes far enough in addressing the immediate climate emergency that we are in. A bad politician can't be let off the hook for their sins just for doing the right thing once in a while.

Edited August 6, 2022 by Mr.TaterSalad

[Motown Bombers]

16 minutes ago, Mr.TaterSalad said:

All I'm saying is that I don't think we should be holding up Manchin and Sinema for doing the right thing on this when it's clear they had nefarious motives for killing and doing the wrong thing on prior, much more impactful legislation. If I have a loaves of bread and can feed 100 people and prevent them from starving to death, but I selfishly choose to feed only 20 and let the other 80 die, I'm not a good person for having fed the 20 that I did, I'm still a bad person for letting the other 80 perish. Sure, I fed 20 people, but you can't hold me up as a beacon of good by forgetting about the other 80 who starved and died.

That's what Manchin and Sinema did here. They watered down and killed the most impactful climate and social welfare legislation since the Great Society all to protect the coal industry, mega donors to their campaigns, and the filthy rich. There isn't nobility in what they did and they should still be criticized. Furthermore, saying this is "the biggest climate bill ever" completely negates the argument as to whether or not it actually goes far enough in addressing the immediate climate emergency that we are in. A bad politician can't be let off the hook for their sins just for doing the right thing once in a while.

All I'm saying is that Bernie Sanders would look at the loaf of bread, say it wasn't fresh enough, and no one would eat. Sure Bernie Sanders had great intentions because he wanted everybody to have the freshest loaf of bread, but all 100 people died in his pursuit for that fresh loaf of bread.

[gehringer_2]

hadn't seen this until this AM. Now the automakers are upset because the EV credit contains domestic sourcing requirements.

https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/us-auto-trade-group-warns-ev-tax-proposal-would-make-70-ineligible-2022-08-05/

[Deleterious]

3 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

hadn't seen this until this AM. Now the automakers are upset because the EV credit contains domestic sourcing requirements.

https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/us-auto-trade-group-warns-ev-tax-proposal-would-make-70-ineligible-2022-08-05/

Seems like an odd requirement.  They had no problem allowing money from the CHIPS Act to flow into companies like TSMC.

Of course Intel is about our only serious chip maker in the US and they are a horribly run company.  So maybe it was smart letting TSMC get a bite of the pie.

[gehringer_2]

9 minutes ago, Deleterious said:

Seems like an odd requirement.  They had no problem allowing money from the CHIPS Act to flow into companies like TSMC.

Of course Intel is about our only serious chip maker in the US and they are a horribly run company.  So maybe it was smart letting TSMC get a bite of the pie.

Usually the idea to force domestic battery production so, these things are not aimed at the nationality of the corporate entity as much as whether they are producing here. If Samsung builds battery plants in the US I'd guess they would qualify, but yeah - that's a guess.