US PoliEra 2020 |OT 2| Dershowitz says "Quid Pro Quo on the Go?" [See Staff Post]

ascii42

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,409
Fact: Stoneman Douglas' (the Parkland school) math program has one of the best competitive math teams in the nation, and has had so for decades.

also fact: I wanted to throw my graphic calculator on my desk at my computer screen reading that tweet.
Yeah, when the story broke I remembered the name from Mu Alpha Theta competitions in high school.
 

adam387

Member
Nov 27, 2017
3,594
I also fully expect that if Bernie gets a healthy plurality and Bloomberg tries to be a shit at the convention, Obama would just come out prior to that and put his support behind Bernie. That would squash it immediately.
 

fragamemnon

Member
Nov 30, 2017
413
I guess you can do this 10 before your 401k or IRA to retain that availability.
Yeah, this would be the thing you'd do.

Maxing out a 401k is great if you can afford to do so! But if you need to get to that money before you retire, it's actually not easy at all-actually, it's quite difficult, because you essentially have to qualify for a loan against yourself! Then there is a 10% penalty and payments you have to make back into the 401k to repay the "loan" you took out even though you took it out because you need money (and are less likely to be able to make timely payments).

It wouldn't be deficit neutral. As you're aware, those on higher incomes who are likely already investing in the market will be able to take full advantage of this tax shelter, which means they'll end up paying less taxes than they do now. It's also regressive, in that those on lower incomes won't be able to use it much or at all.
You make it deficit neutral by raising taxes on other activities of high-income earners/companies that serve high-end owners that aren't really all that positive to our economy, such as fin transaction taxes to go after arbitrage seekers/fintech leeches and short-term capital gains taxes to discourage fast return on investments vs. actual research and development and longer-term capital investment.

Lower incomes right now don't have great access to 401ks either, and don't benefit all that much from pre-tax savings (where as wealth savers benefit a LOT from hiding income by maxing out their 401ks). Shifting some of the 401k cap to something like this would be another way to pay for this in a way that mostly impacts higher earners.

Please don't discount how messy it is to pull money out of a 401k or IRA and how often people actually have to do it. I'm not saying that this idea is perfect, and any GOP-driven version of it will probably have some ridiculous giveaways and try to pay for it with kids' lunch money. But if you look back at the last 30 years the current bank-provided savings mechanism have abysmal returns, and encouraging long-term savings through tax advntages into assets with better returns over the long haul is probably a good idea for savings above and beyond emergency funds or your month to month checking account.
 

Gotchaye

Member
Oct 27, 2017
388
I think a contested convention is reasonably likely, but I have a hard time seeing how Bloomberg would come out of it. Like, if Sanders has a plurality and Bloomberg is close behind him, Bloomberg still doesn't have a strong claim to the rest of the delegates and I feel like it'd be pretty natural for them to go for not-Bloomberg if they're willing to reject Sanders in the first place.
 

Sheepinator

Member
Jul 25, 2018
8,564
You make it deficit neutral by raising taxes on other activities of high-income earners/companies that serve high-end owners that aren't really all that positive to our economy, such as fin transaction taxes to go after arbitrage seekers/fintech leeches and short-term capital gains taxes to discourage fast return on investments vs. actual research and development and longer-term capital investment.

Lower incomes right now don't have great access to 401ks either, and don't benefit all that much from pre-tax savings (where as wealth savers benefit a LOT from hiding income by maxing out their 401ks). Shifting some of the 401k cap to something like this would be another way to pay for this in a way that mostly impacts higher earners.

Please don't discount how messy it is to pull money out of a 401k or IRA and how often people actually have to do it. I'm not saying that this idea is perfect, and any GOP-driven version of it will probably have some ridiculous giveaways and try to pay for it with kids' lunch money. But if you look back at the last 30 years the current bank-provided savings mechanism have abysmal returns, and encouraging long-term savings through tax advntages into assets with better returns over the long haul is probably a good idea for savings above and beyond emergency funds or your month to month checking account.
We don't know yet what sort of withdrawal restrictions this would have, and I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for the GOP to impose taxes on higher earners for any reason. The main motivation for this plan is not to help the middle class and certainly not those near min wage, its goal is to help win the election and make the rich richer (including Trump himself). The timing of it is all the evidence needed, plus he tried something similar in the midterms, promising middle class tax cuts around that time which never materialized.

Transaction and short term taxes would hit some hedge fund places and the algos, but most of the wealthiest would just sit on their assets and enjoy the price appreciation fueled by retail investors buying in at near all-time highs.

I realize you're talking about the benefits for some of the middle class. I'm focused more on this blatant attempt to manipulate the election and probably ever higher deficits, plus the wealth inequality angle.
 

Crocodile

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,708
I mean she got the most votes from the NYT editorial board and they denied her a sole endorsement. I know they aren’t part of the party establishment but they’re one of the key liberal institutions and they absolutely failed to place their bets correctly.
Moderate Dems "leaders": Sanders would be a disaster in the GE!
Moderate Dem voters: I agree (even if I might like Sanders as a person)! So who should we vote for?
Moderate Dems "leaders":


Moderate Dem voters: ...
 

XMonkey

Member
Oct 26, 2017
3,048
This dual endorsement trend is so stupid. Makes the endorsement even more useless than it already was going to be. Pick one person, cowards.
 

devSin

Member
Oct 27, 2017
4,254
I think that Bernie loses the general.

But it's stupid to say that he's a non-starter because he can't be elected and then you go on and endorse a nobody like Klobuchar.

"We think Sanders is trash" is justification enough for your endorsement. You don't have to try to dress it up with bullshit.
 

Kaitos

Member
Oct 25, 2017
11,131
I keep seeing this idea floating around here too when there's a mountain of data showing Sanders beating Trump and winning independents by the widest margins of any other candidate.

But sure, Bernie is a non-starter.
You can be skeptical of Bernie's numbers.

You can think that the socialism label may hurt him in the GE.

You cannot say, right now, that Sanders "guarantees" a second term for Trump. There is no data to support your point. You are simply substituting your own assumptions as data.

Just say you don't like his policies. At least that's in good faith.
 

danm999

Member
Oct 29, 2017
7,269
Sydney
The most effective way for a newspaper that doesn’t want Sanders to conduct themselves is a single endorsement of the candidate most likely to beat him.
 
Oct 28, 2017
2,008
dual endorsement is dumb.

I wonder if it would be less dumb if it was like “progressive lane endorsement x, centrist lane y”
That’s essentially what the endorsement is, telling people to jump on the moderate lane. Only difference is that they’re kicking Pete in the balls because he has like 5% minority support.

It’s still just as dumb because it’s the same vote splitting situation since you’re still in essence endorsing two (or even three) candidates. That leads to a split where some choose Klobb because her mental faculties are still sharp and some choose Biden because they still remember him being Obama’s VP.
 

Pooh

Member
Oct 25, 2017
8,346
The Hundred Acre Wood
If it was just "not Bernie" that moderate people wanted, the smart play would be to rally behind Warren because she can draw from his pool of support by being the more "reasonable/pragmatic" progressive candidate. Going as far right as possible with Bloomberg and such is not going to weaken him in any significant way.
 

Kaitos

Member
Oct 25, 2017
11,131
If it was just "not Bernie" that moderate people wanted, the smart play would be to rally behind Warren because she can draw from his pool of support by being the more "reasonable/pragmatic" progressive candidate. Going as far right as possible with Bloomberg and such is not going to weaken him in any significant way.
This is the right answer but they're too stupid to realize this.
 
Oct 28, 2017
2,008
If it was just "not Bernie" that moderate people wanted, the smart play would be to rally behind Warren because she can draw from his pool of support by being the more "reasonable/pragmatic" progressive candidate. Going as far right as possible with Bloomberg and such is not going to weaken him in any significant way.
Pretty much, when there’s such a contrast in political stances such endorsements aren’t going to do much. If you like Bernie for what he’s saying/proposing, these endorsements aren’t going to change shit really.

If anything, it’s producing a “us vs. them” mentality. And I sort of can’t blame them, some of the content on MSNBC and CNN has just been embarrassing.
 

Gotchaye

Member
Oct 27, 2017
388
Are people who are primarily concerned with not nominating Sanders really flocking to Bloomberg? Maybe I'm reading the wrong people but my sense has been that very few mainstream Democrats are enthusiastic about him.