BBO Discussion Forums: Has U.S. Democracy Been Trumped? - BBO Discussion Forums

The article states that Former Attorney General Janet Reno asked for the prompt resignation of all U.S. attorneys thus disrupting the graduated replacements one would have expected. She wanted ALL Republican US attorneys gone promptly as in resignation effective in a matter of days; there was no graduated replacement schedule. Plus, she asked for all 93 resignations while Sessions wanted 46 to resign.

Curiouser and curiouser....

Please double check the NY Times article and my assertion and tell me where you see a "graduated firing". Thanks.

On taxes: Just a suggestion, but...

Each citizen or resident alien (or illegal alien?) pays 2% (pick a different number if you like, but keep it low) of gross income (defined as all income - no exceptions) to his or her local government (I suggest county or equivalent). The local government pays 2% of its gross revenue to the state. The state pays 2% of its gross revenue to the federal government. If at any governmental level there remains an excess after reasonable expenses (including, possibly, some kind of "rainy day" fund) the excess is distributed back down to the next lower level (iteratively if that results in an excess at the lower level). Governments at all levels should be limited in what they can do with this revenue (no "Social Security" schemes, for example).

The devil is in the details of course, and if I can come up with a simple scheme like this no doubt some politician can come up with a way to use it to further his political power — if we let him.

Try this: http://www.cbsnews.c...edented-or-not/

On taxes: Just a suggestion, but...

Each citizen or resident alien (or illegal alien?) pays 2% (pick a different number if you like, but keep it low) of gross income (defined as all income - no exceptions) to his or her local government (I suggest county or equivalent). The local government pays 2% of its gross revenue to the state. The state pays 2% of its gross revenue to the federal government. If at any governmental level there remains an excess after reasonable expenses (including, possibly, some kind of "rainy day" fund) the excess is distributed back down to the next lower level (iteratively if that results in an excess at the lower level). Governments at all levels should be limited in what they can do with this revenue (no "Social Security" schemes, for example).

The devil is in the details of course, and if I can come up with a simple scheme like this no doubt some politician can come up with a way to use it to further his political power — if we let him.

How is this really different from each individual paying:
1.96   % city tax
0.0392 % state tax
0.0008 % federal tax

And how do you propose the USA would fulfill its NATO requirement of spending 2 % of its GDP on defense if it rakes in only 0.0008 % of the GDP?

The point of devising a tax system is not how much each individual is willing to donate to the authorities. The point is that the authorities get the revenue they need to carry out their jobs.

So:

• You determine what all the government needs to do. This is called politics.
  
• Then you determine how much money is needed for that and you add it up. This is called making a budget.
  
• Then you make sure that you get the needed money by deposing taxes. It seems generally accepted that the stronger shoulders should carry the heavy load, first of all because they can afford it and second because they profit most from the government (rich people use the roads and airports more than poor people). This is called progressive taxation.

So, your proposal is leading to a structural major budget deficit, because your number of 2% is about a factor of 15-40 too low (depending on what all the government needs to do, but defending the nation, maintaining roads and other infrastructure, policing, providing education and a legal system seem absolute minimum requirements). And then in addition you propose linear taxation which is unrealistic and unfair.

I would have expected a larger willingness to contribute to the government from somebody who has been paid by the government during his professional life.

Rik

I asked about this on politics.stackexchange.com. Someone answered that 3 U.S.C. § 105(a) provides an exception for the President appointing White House staff, and the DOJ OK'ed the appointments based on this law.

OK. So we were comparing Trump to Clinton. Clinton removed all 93 of his US Attorneys at the beginning of his term in 1993. Trump is removing 46 of his attorneys at the beginning of his term in 2017. The article states that the removal of US attorneys at the beginning of Presidential terms is quite standard and customary so this is not exceptional or newsworthy unless the media wants to paint Trump in a negative light for no solid reason.

What did Trump/Sessions do that is different than Clinton/Reno? And is this another example of confirmation bias?

In any case, the nation-state belongs in the past, to a family, job, religion and way of life stay put in a single place and are insulated against global developments. Our world is no longer like that, and we must change in step with it if we wish to belong.

This is somewhat interesting:


From You’re Not Going to Change Your Mind

Thread over.

I am suggesting that Trump is neither virtuous nor malevolent, but somewhere in between. I am not exactly sure where on that spectrum he is. But as this political melodrama plays out, I might have a better assessment. Trump may be a piece of slime and a liar. He may not be.

Question: Is Former President Bill Clinton a piece of slime and/or liar? When a sitting President can point a sanctimonious finger at the nation and say to the camera, “I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky.” That's bold. His wife and sitting Vice President was in that press conference, and maybe, just maybe he forgot the truth in that moment, but he sold us a false bill of goods. He sold that lie with such swagger and unabashed confidence that most initially believed his narrative. But that is what successful politicians do! They double down on lies when they think they can get away with it.

My contention is all politicians lie when it matters (and some do it when it doesn't even matter). They're human beings, of flesh and blood, and will fall short of the glory. I think we have to be careful when we take our Puritan history and sensibilities and apply them to the dirty politics of the D.C. establishment. Let he that is without sin, cast the 1st stone. Almost all of our politicians are sinful in one way or another; it's a matter of choosing among the lesser evils.

OK. So we were comparing Trump to Clinton. Clinton removed all 93 of his US Attorneys at the beginning of his term in 1993. Trump is removing 46 of his attorneys at the beginning of his term in 2017. The article states that the removal of US attorneys at the beginning of Presidential terms is quite standard and customary so this is not exceptional or newsworthy unless the media wants to paint Trump in a negative light for no solid reason.

What did Trump/Sessions do that is different than Clinton/Reno? And is this another example of confirmation bias?

OK. So we were comparing Trump to Clinton. Clinton removed all 93 of his US Attorneys at the beginning of his term in 1993. Trump is removing 46 of his attorneys at the beginning of his term in 2017. The article states that the removal of US attorneys at the beginning of Presidential terms is quite standard and customary so this is not exceptional or newsworthy unless the media wants to paint Trump in a negative light for no solid reason.

What did Trump/Sessions do that is different than Clinton/Reno? And is this another example of confirmation bias?

??? Our GDP is $18,569,000,000,000. Our annual military/defense is about $850,000,000,000. We more than satisfy the 2% of GDP requirement for Defense spending as outlined by NATO.

Does anyone understand what's happening in the Gulf? Why Qatar? Why isn't anyone interfering - should they?

“It’s unlikely (to say the least) that Donald Trump realised we are running the entire air war out of Qatar prior to his tweet,” said Andrew Exum, a deputy assistant secretary of defence for Middle East policy in the Obama administration

Hours after Trump’s tweets, Vladimr Putin telephoned the Qatari emir, stressing “Russia’s principled position in favour of settling crises by political and diplomatic means, through dialogue”. CNN reported on Tuesday that Russian hackers had planted a fake news story on the Qatari state agency attributing reconciliatory remarks on Iran and Israel to the emir. The news story helped precipitate the current crisis with Riyadh.

“The Saudis, Emiratis, and President Trump are certainly correct that Qatar has been playing both sides of the street ... but we’re probably underestimating the possibility of Qatar breaking with the Sunni states and aligning itself with Iran,” said Kori Schake, a senior defence official in the last Bush administration. She added: “[I]hope we have a back up for operations at al-Udeid.”

Ilan Goldenberg, a former senior state department official now at the Centre for a New American Security said: “At the end of the day, we have a lot of leverage on the Qataris and they are not going to walk away. But the President has thrown fuel on the fire. If we are going to build a coalition to fight extremism you have smooth over differences and this is going to inflame them.”

“He has pretty much undercut any diplomatic efforts by US officials to try to calm things down.”

Kelly Magsamen, a former senior Pentagon official now an adjunct lecturer at the School for Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University, said: “It’s interesting that Donald Trump is choosing to pile on pressure just as we are beginning Raqqa operations.”

Magsamen pointed out that al-Udeid is not just a base for US air operations but also for US allies taking part in the counter-Isis coalition.

“It’s not clear whether there was a deliberate American decision before the president leaned in, and whether the national security council ran any sort of process on the risks of encouraging the Saudis and Emiratis to put pressure on the Qataris,” she said.

Does anyone understand what's happening in the Gulf? Why Qatar? Why isn't anyone interfering - should they?

Mr. Trump's intervention aligned the United States against a country that is currently hosting at least 10,000 U.S. military personnel at a base where operations against the Islamic State are being directed — a facility that was needed after Saudi Arabia ordered U.S. forces to leave its territory.

The Wichita Eagle reported overnight on GOP officials in Kansas embracing the one policy contemporary Republicans almost never even consider.

Lawmakers rolled back Gov. Sam Brownback's signature tax policy over his objections Tuesday night, forcing into law tax increases to fix a budget shortfall and provide more money for schools.

The legislation ends the "march to zero" income tax cuts that Brownback heralded for much of his time as governor.... The increases are expected to generate more than $1.2 billion for the state over the next two years.

In the Republican-led state Senate, the veto-override vote was 27 to 13, and in the Republican-led state House, the vote was 88 to 31.

Brownback, who may soon join Donald Trump's administration and skip the remainder of his second term in Kansas, denounced the proposal as "the largest [tax hike] in state history."

Bipartisan majorities in both chambers of Kansas' legislature ignored him.

How is this really different from each individual paying:
1.96   % city tax
0.0392 % state tax
0.0008 % federal tax

And how do you propose the USA would fulfill its NATO requirement of spending 2 % of its GDP on defense if it rakes in only 0.0008 % of the GDP?

The point of devising a tax system is not how much each individual is willing to donate to the authorities. The point is that the authorities get the revenue they need to carry out their jobs.

So, your proposal is leading to a structural major budget deficit, because your number of 2% is about a factor of 15-40 too low (depending on what all the government needs to do, but defending the nation, maintaining roads and other infrastructure, policing, providing education and a legal system seem absolute minimum requirements). And then in addition you propose linear taxation which is unrealistic and unfair.

I would have expected a larger willingness to contribute to the government from somebody who has been paid by the government during his professional life.

Rik

My contention is all politicians lie when it matters (and some do it when it doesn't even matter). They're human beings, of flesh and blood, and will fall short of the glory. I think we have to be careful when we take our Puritan history and sensibilities and apply them to the dirty politics of the D.C. establishment. Let he that is without sin, cast the 1st stone. Almost all of our politicians are sinful in one way or another; it's a matter of choosing among the lesser evils.