A Deeply Fractured US

[KevinB]

Don't know how moderate they are. But, there's already a few on the 2024 menu for eligible voters to choose from.

Third-party and independent candidates for the 2024 United States presidential election - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Doesn't do much good if they are not viable enough to get in, though.

Most of the 3rd party folks running currently are funded by MAGA donors. Trying to split Democratic voters for a Trump win.

 

[FJAG]

Both parties are corrupt, and frankly disgust me, I’d gladly vote for a moderate independent party that wasn’t beholden to anyone but their constituents

Citizens United v FEC put paid to that idea didn't it?

 

[Brad Sallows]

Tax Breaks for the 1% Richest Americans.

Which tax break are you referring to? You can't mean the TCJA; it has been chewed over by analysts from all over the political spectrum and they concluded/conceded that everyone benefited; and, that while high-income people benefited by larger gross amounts (because they earn more and pay at higher rates), their net share of total tax contributions actually increased (the total tax take decreased).

Most Americans don't seem to believe that Biden's economic policies are benefiting all Americans, and Democratic strategists have been frantic to stop Biden from claiming that "Bidenomics" is working. Actual numbers tell different stories than pundits.

 

[KevinB]

Which tax break are you referring to? You can't mean the TCJA; it has been chewed over by analysts from all over the political spectrum and they concluded/conceded that everyone benefited; and, that while high-income people benefited by larger gross amounts (because they earn more and pay at higher rates), their net share of total tax contributions actually increased (the total tax take decreased).

Brad, the whole US Tax code is designed to bend over those who can’t spend on tax shelters.
The fact is our Tax system sucks. It’s less blood thirsty than Canada’s but it’s burden is gross disproportionately shared by those making under 450k a year -

Most Americans don't seem to believe that Biden's economic policies are benefiting all Americans, and Democratic strategists have been frantic to stop Biden from claiming that "Bidenomics" is working. Actual numbers tell different stories than pundits.

Actual numbers are that in certain things inflation is hurting. But jobs are up - and even more importantly crumbling bridges and other infrastructure is getting rebuilt.

You can run a country if you have no roads, no ports, and no transportation of any sort.

 

[kkwd]

The Biden administration will be building a section of border wall in Texas. There are environmental concerns about blocking migration of certain species. According to the article there have been 245,000 illegal entries in the past year. Imagine the trash and human waste left by the people traversing this area. I know, walls don't work, but the Biden administration think they would be beneficial in this instance. I guess the administration are paying attention to the many complaints from New York and Chicago and such and they are trying to appear to be doing something. So much for the promise to not a "Not another foot" from Joe in 2020. But when reality hits you square in the nuts action needs to be taken.
Story Link

Biden administration waives 26 federal laws to allow border wall construction in South Texas​

“There is presently an acute and immediate need to construct physical barriers and roads in the vicinity of the border of the United States in order to prevent unlawful entries into the United States in the project areas,” Alejandro Mayorkas, the DHS secretary, stated in the notice.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Brad, the whole US Tax code is designed to bend over those who can’t spend on tax shelters.
The fact is our Tax system sucks. It’s less blood thirsty than Canada’s but it’s burden is gross disproportionately shared by those making under 450k a year

I can't see how that is true.

Here:

• first chart doesn't show much, just rates, which is not very revealing (eg. does not account for tax avoidance)
• second chart, "...By Income And Source" shows how it is actually payroll taxes which are putting the most pressure on lower income filers, so if you want to fix that, you'll have to look (mostly) at Social Security, not income tax rates
• third chart "...Redistributes Income..." shows that transfers to people more than compensate for taxes on lowest three income quintiles

Here:

• first chart again just rates
• second chart, "Percentage of Federal Income Tax..." shows who is bearing the burden of paying federal income taxes. Just a hair over 70% of federal income tax is collected from the top 10%
• third chart shows how the people bearing the burden are not, in fact, earning the greatest share of total earnings

I see no way to characterize that as anything but "burden is disproportionately on top 10% of earners. Nor, when net of taxes and transfers is considered, do I see any way to characterize the system as a whole as unfair to low income earners.

[Add: checked, and noticed that second source is 2013. But de Rugy is one of the authors whose work I come across at least a few times a month, and she still adheres to the same overall theme. The exact numbers may be a bit different in 2023 but the substance is the same. Also, the US has one of - if not the most - progressive tax systems going.]

 

[KevinB]

Theory not reality.
Also first chart is 2015 data.
Highest Quintile is again misleading.
Look at the cap for that. That’s not the top 10%, and not the top 1% by far.

2022 and 2023 have 7 brackets, and the top bracket isn’t even close to being the top 1%

2022-2023 Tax Brackets and Federal Income Tax Rates | Bankrate

Taxes can be made simple. Bankrate will answer all of your questions on your filing status, taxable income and 2022 tax bracket information.

www.bankrate.com

The issue is that the more disposable income one has, the more one can put into tax shelters reducing one’s income and thus tax rate.
Very few websites offer insights into that.

 

[Navy_Pete]

A good example was where Warren Buffett realized he was paying the lowest tax rate in the office because of the low rate applied to capital gains. I think that was even before all the various tax shelters that he could have done, which is something normal people can't even take advantage of because the buy in is in the millions.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Theory not reality.
Also first chart is 2015 data.
Highest Quintile is again misleading.
Look at the cap for that. That’s not the top 10%, and not the top 1% by far.

2022 and 2023 have 7 brackets, and the top bracket isn’t even close to being the top 1%

The issue is that the more disposable income one has, the more one can put into tax shelters reducing one’s income and thus tax rate.
Very few websites offer insights into that.

The Tax Foundation articles are based on IRS data (statistics) - reality, not theory; taxes actually paid, so tax avoidance (eg. tax shelters) has already been accounted in the key points - and is therefore irrelevant to my conclusions - and high earners are still paying most of the US federal income tax collections. As I wrote above, just the plain nominal tax rates are not very revealing (regardless whether they are the statutory rates or calculated marginal rates) so we should ignore them; I prefer to look at the actual aggregate tax liabilities and see how they compare to the actual aggregate reported incomes. Also, it's instructive to look at incomes net of taxes AND benefits. Anti-poverty activists and other opinion writers with an axe to grind about (Republican) tax cuts and other tax reforms tend to avoid acknowledging the latter because it weakens their cases. They aren't ignorant; they're deceitful. The plain tax rates just don't tell a complete story, and thus neither an interesting nor useful one.

Here is the Tax Foundation's most recent article (2023, for 2020 tax year - it takes the IRS time to produce the data; there is a similar lag in the similar data published by CRA here). There is no refuting the general situation and trends by fretting over which exact year is being analyzed; the US tax system has been substantially progressive for decades and recently became more so.

The same picture emerges: recent changes have delivered tax relief; top income earners continue to disproportionately bear most of the federal income tax burden; the situation has improved for lower income earners.

There are, perhaps, criticisms to be made about tax changes pushed by Republicans - whether the country can afford them is probably top of the list - but they ought not be based on vague qualitative assertions that are contradicted by IRS data.

 

[KevinB]

Brad, they key is income.
If you can shunt a significant percentage into shelters that isn’t reported as taxable income.

I know several folks who make high 6 figure and low seven figure salaries. They are able to stick several 6 figures in non taxable accounts. Sure they may eventually pay tax on it, but it’s acruing tax free till then.

So as example if you make 750k but only have 500 as taxable income. Your tax rate is relatively lower as you’re not paying on the entire 750k.

Those in the lower brackets don’t have the disposable income to invest outside of the tax man.

 

[Navy_Pete]

Brad, they key is income.
If you can shunt a significant percentage into shelters that isn’t reported as taxable income.

I know several folks who make high 6 figure and low seven figure salaries. They are able to stick several 6 figures in non taxable accounts. Sure they may eventually pay tax on it, but it’s acruing tax free till then.

So as example if you make 750k but only have 500 as taxable income. Your tax rate is relatively lower as you’re not paying on the entire 750k.

Those in the lower brackets don’t have the disposable income to invest outside of the tax man.

There was that meme running around about the 'give a poor person a dollar, and they'll spend it, but give a millionaire a dollar and they'll invest it', with the obvious rebutal that it's a stupid premise, as you can't afford to invest something until your basic needs are met, so you don't have the same options as someone who isn't worrying about how they are going to buy groceries.

Taxes seems similar, where the more money you have the more options you have to shelter income, as well as basics like hiring specialists who will do that all for you. Very few people have the income required to do either, especially some of those options that require a lot of capitol to establish. It's interesting how few people exposed in the Panama papers have actually gotten pinged for tax evasion to the tune of millions, while the CRA is actively going after restaurant owners, COVID overpayments and other small fish with a vengeance. I'm sure it's totally coincidental with the big donors lists for the politicians not being held accountable.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Brad, they key is income.
If you can shunt a significant percentage into shelters that isn’t reported as taxable income.

I know several folks who make high 6 figure and low seven figure salaries. They are able to stick several 6 figures in non taxable accounts. Sure they may eventually pay tax on it, but it’s acruing tax free till then.

So as example if you make 750k but only have 500 as taxable income. Your tax rate is relatively lower as you’re not paying on the entire 750k.

Those in the lower brackets don’t have the disposable income to invest outside of the tax man.

Those provisions - I assume you refer to everything that is used to reduce gross income to adjusted gross income - result from policy choices that are pretty much independent of tax rates. I don't know to what extent the TCJA fiddled with those provisions, if at all. From the most recent link I posted:

"AGI is an essential part of determining tax liability. First, the taxpayer calculates their total income, which includes wages and compensation, interest, dividends, capital gains (or loss), business income (or loss), pensions, farm income (or loss), rents, royalties, Social Security benefits, retirement account distributions, etc. Next, the taxpayer subtracts certain expenses, such as: up to $250 of educator expenses, certain business expenses, health savings account and flexible savings account contributions, moving expenses for Armed Forces members, the deductible portion of self-employment tax, tax-deferred retirement contributions, self-employed health insurance premium payments, penalty for early withdrawal of savings, alimony payments for divorces that occurred prior to Dec. 31, 2018, up to $2,500 of student loan interest, and up to $4,000 of tuition and fees."

Here is more detail.

So the question is, which of those you would remove; more importantly, if politicians open up the can, which of those will other people want to remove, forcing people to pay for them with after-tax dollars? Health-related deductions? Moving expenses for Armed Forces? Retirement income shelters? Expenses and losses? Educational amounts?

Looking at the list, which has a lot of sacred cows - and has a lot of provisions similar to what we have in Canada - all I can say is "good luck". There is pretty much nothing there that could not be removed without some ill consequences.

 

[Kirkhill]

The Gaping Hole in the Center of the Electorate​

What does American politics look like? There is a widespread view among political scientists and political consultants that the electorate has become inextricably polarized between Democrats and Republicans and there is a very small group of swing voters that decide national and some state...

www.liberalpatriot.com

I do think it seriously understates the situation though. Typically only 55% of the Voting Age Population actually vote.

So now you are looking at

45% don't vote
50% of the 55% are Independent
25% of the 55% are Democrats
25% of the 55% are Republicans

=

45% don't vote
28% Independents
14% Democrats
14% Republicans

Or

14% Left Wing Loonies
14% Right Wing Loonies
72% DILLIGAS (Pass the beer)

The US, like Canada, isn't fractured. The population just doesn't GAF about the people yelling at each other in the swamp.

 

[Blackadder1916]

‘It’s on Wikipedia’: Debate flares over Trump’s submarine disclosures to Anthony Pratt

Joe Hockey, who served as Australia’s ambassador to the US while Trump was in office, downplayed the seriousness of the alleged disclosures.

www.smh.com.au

Trump allegedly disclosed US submarine secrets to Anthony Pratt: US media​

Former US president Donald Trump allegedly disclosed classified information on US submarines to Australian packaging mogul Anthony Pratt in April 2021, according to a report published by America’s ABC News.

It’s alleged that Pratt relayed the information to “scores of others” including “more than a dozen foreign officials, several of his own employees, and a handful of journalists”, ABC News reported.

Pratt, who runs packaging firm Pratt Industries, allegedly spoke to Trump during an April 2021 meeting, five months before the US, Australia and UK announced the formation of AUKUS, an extensive defence alliance under which Australia will buy US built nuclear-powered submarines.

The alleged disclosure was said to be reported to special counsel Jack Smith’s team as it investigates Trump’s storing of classified documents at his Florida home Mar-a-Lago, ABC US reported, citing “sources familiar with the matter”.

ABC US reported that prosecutors and FBI agents have interviewed Pratt, who is a member of Trump’s Mar-a-Lago club, at least twice.

“Pratt told Trump he believed Australia should start buying its submarines from the United States, to which an excited Trump – “leaning” toward Pratt as if to be discreet – then told Pratt two pieces of information about US submarines: the supposed exact number of nuclear warheads they routinely carry, and exactly how close they supposedly can get to a Russian submarine without being detected,” sources told ABC US.

Pratt then allegedly described Trump’s comments to “at least 45 others, including six journalists, 11 of his company’s employees, 10 Australian officials, and three former Australian prime ministers”, sources allegedly told ABC US News.

The alleged disclosure, if confirmed, sheds new light on the impact of Trump’s decision to remove classified documents from the White House after he left the presidency in 2021.

Comment has been sought from Pratt Industries.

A spokesperson for the special counsel’s office declined to comment on the report or confirm whether Pratt had been interviewed over the alleged disclosures.

Trump’s Mar-a-Lago home was raided by the FBI in August 2022, as they searched for documents the former president removed from the White House.

In June, the former president was charged on 37 criminal counts for mishandling classified documents – from secret information relating to nuclear programs to intelligence that should have only been shared with the “Five Eyes” countries, including Australia.

At least Mr. Pratt was more circumspect in discussing US submarines. He only told “at least 45 others, including six journalists, 11 of his company’s employees, 10 Australian officials, and three former Australian prime ministers”.

In the original ABC News piece they reference, two quotes caught my attention. One sums up the relationship (and opinion?) that Pratt had with Trump.

"Standing beside Trump, Pratt then said he "would not have invested in this plant if it wasn't for President Trump's election, [which] has given us an incredible faith in investing in America."

But in recent months, according to sources, Pratt told investigators that he now supports the current U.S. government, describing himself as someone who tends to just "side with the king."

And the other, a response from a Trump spokesperson left me quizzically wondering, what's the context of giving up national defence secrets.

"A Trump spokesperson said that what ABC News was told -- through what the spokesperson called "leaks" -- lacks "proper context and relevant information."

Trump allegedly discussed US nuclear subs with foreign national after leaving White House: Sources

Months after leaving office, former President Trump allegedly discussed potentially sensitive info about U.S. nuclear subs with an Australian billionaire, say sources.

abcnews.go.com

Trump allegedly discussed US nuclear subs with foreign national after leaving White House: Sources​

Trump allegedly discussed the information with an Australian billionaire.

Months after leaving the White House, former President Donald Trump allegedly discussed potentially sensitive information about U.S. nuclear submarines with a member of his Mar-a-Lago Club -- an Australian billionaire who then allegedly shared the information with scores of others, including more than a dozen foreign officials, several of his own employees, and a handful of journalists, according to sources familiar with the matter.

The potential disclosure was reported to special counsel Jack Smith's team as they investigated Trump's alleged hoarding of classified documents at Mar-a-Lago, the sources told ABC News. The information could shed further light on Trump's handling of sensitive government secrets.

Prosecutors and FBI agents have at least twice this year interviewed the Mar-a-Lago member, Anthony Pratt, who runs U.S.-based Pratt Industries, one of the world's largest packaging companies.

In those interviews, Pratt described how -- looking to make conversation with Trump during a meeting at Mar-a-Lago in April 2021 -- he brought up the American submarine fleet, which the two had discussed before, the sources told ABC News.

According to Pratt's account, as described by the sources, Pratt told Trump he believed Australia should start buying its submarines from the United States, to which an excited Trump -- "leaning" toward Pratt as if to be discreet -- then told Pratt two pieces of information about U.S. submarines: the supposed exact number of nuclear warheads they routinely carry, and exactly how close they supposedly can get to a Russian submarine without being detected.

In emails and conversations after meeting with Trump, Pratt described Trump's remarks to at least 45 others, including six journalists, 11 of his company's employees, 10 Australian officials, and three former Australian prime ministers, the sources told ABC News.

While Pratt told investigators he couldn’t tell if what Trump said about U.S. submarines was real or just bluster, investigators nevertheless asked Pratt not to repeat the numbers that Trump allegedly told him, suggesting the information could be too sensitive to relay further, ABC News was told.

It's unclear if the information was accurate, but the episode was investigated by Smith's team.

Sources said another witness, one of Trump's former employees at Mar-a-Lago, told investigators that, within minutes of Pratt's meeting with Trump, he heard Pratt relaying to someone else some of what Trump had just said.

According to the sources, the former Mar-a-Lago employee also told investigators he was "bothered" and "shocked" to hear that the former president had provided such seemingly sensitive information to a non-U.S. citizen.

Pratt told investigators Trump didn't show him any government documents during their April 2021 meeting, nor at any other time they crossed paths at Mar-a-Lago, sources said.

According to the sources, Pratt insisted to investigators that he told others about his meeting with Trump to show them how he was advocating for Australia with the United States. Some of the Australian officials that sources said he told were, as reflected in news reports at the time, involved in then-ongoing negotiations with the Biden administration over a deal for Australia to purchase a number of nuclear-powered attack submarines from the United States.

The deal was ultimately secured earlier this year, with Australia agreeing to purchase at least three Virginia-class nuclear-powered submarines, though President Joe Biden has said that none of the submarines sold to Australia will be armed with nuclear weapons.

Special counsel Smith did not include any information about Trump's alleged April 2021 conversation with Pratt in his June indictment against Trump which charged the former president with 40 counts of unlawful retention of national defense information and obstruction-related offenses.

Last year, while needling the Biden administration for what he said was a weak response to Russia's war on Ukraine, Trump said that if he were still president, he would make sure Russia understood that the United States is "a greater nuclear power" with "the greatest submarines in the world."

[They are] the most powerful machines ever built, and nobody knows where they are," Trump said on the Fox Business network.

Shortly after Trump became president in 2017, Pratt joined Mar-a-Lago as a member and publicly pledged to invest another $2 billion in American manufacturing jobs.

Over the next few years, Pratt visited Mar-a-Lago about 10 times, interacting with Trump on several occasions, once even having dinner with Trump and a U.S. senator at another Trump-owned property nearby, Pratt told investigators, according to sources. Pratt also visited the White House in 2018, when Trump was meeting with Australia's then-prime minister, according to online records.

In 2019, speaking at the opening of a Pratt Industries plant in Wapakoneta, Ohio, Trump called Pratt a "friend" and praised him for funding the plant.

"We're here to celebrate a great opening and a great gentleman," Trump said. "Anthony is one of the most successful men in the world -- perhaps Australia's most successful man."

Standing beside Trump, Pratt then said he "would not have invested in this plant if it wasn't for President Trump's election, [which] has given us an incredible faith in investing in America."

But in recent months, according to sources, Pratt told investigators that he now supports the current U.S. government, describing himself as someone who tends to just "side with the king."

Representatives for Pratt did not respond to messages seeking comment from ABC News.

A Trump spokesperson said that what ABC News was told -- through what the spokesperson called "leaks" -- lacks "proper context and relevant information."

"President Trump did nothing wrong, has always insisted on truth and transparency, and acted in a proper manner, according to the law," the spokesperson said.

 

[KevinB]

‘It’s on Wikipedia’: Debate flares over Trump’s submarine disclosures to Anthony Pratt

Joe Hockey, who served as Australia’s ambassador to the US while Trump was in office, downplayed the seriousness of the alleged disclosures.

www.smh.com.au

At least Mr. Pratt was more circumspect in discussing US submarines. He only told “at least 45 others, including six journalists, 11 of his company’s employees, 10 Australian officials, and three former Australian prime ministers”.

In the original ABC News piece they reference, two quotes caught my attention. One sums up the relationship (and opinion?) that Pratt had with Trump.


And the other, a response from a Trump spokesperson left me quizzically wondering, what's the context of giving up national defence secrets.

Trump allegedly discussed US nuclear subs with foreign national after leaving White House: Sources

Months after leaving office, former President Trump allegedly discussed potentially sensitive info about U.S. nuclear subs with an Australian billionaire, say sources.

abcnews.go.com

The worst parts haven’t even come out yet.
Trump has recklessly endangered US and Allies in multiple ways.

 

[Kirkhill]

The Gaping Hole in the Center of the Electorate​

What does American politics look like? There is a widespread view among political scientists and political consultants that the electorate has become inextricably polarized between Democrats and Republicans and there is a very small group of swing voters that decide national and some state...

www.liberalpatriot.com

I do think it seriously understates the situation though. Typically only 55% of the Voting Age Population actually vote.

So now you are looking at

45% don't vote
50% of the 55% are Independent
25% of the 55% are Democrats
25% of the 55% are Republicans

=

45% don't vote
28% Independents
14% Democrats
14% Republicans

Or

14% Left Wing Loonies
14% Right Wing Loonies
72% DILLIGAS (Pass the beer)

The US, like Canada, isn't fractured. The population just doesn't GAF about the people yelling at each other in the swamp.

Here is the Bell Curve with 14% on the left and 14% on the right with 72% in the middle.

 

[Kirkhill]

Cult of 70,000,000 deplorables need deprogramming....

Doesn't feel like a winning strategy to bring people over to your side.

But....

Have They Gone Mad?

Hillary Clinton suggests "formal deprogramming" for seventy million

www.racket.news

And....

a month ago, on September 8th, Joe Biden renewed the original State of Emergency issued three days after 9/11 by George W. Bush. We spent the last 22 years giving presidents the ability to surveil, isolate, and detain even American citizens. Fortunately we’ll never regret those decisions!

 

[Kirkhill]

Protesters clash over Hamas attacks in Times Square​

Demonstrators march in support of the Palestinian people in New York CREDIT: Adam Gray/Getty Images

Pro and anti-Palestine protestors clashed in Manhattan as tempers flared in New York in the aftermath of the terrorist Hamas attacks on Israel, David Millward writes.
The rally was organised by New York City’s chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America.
An estimated 1.1 million Jews live in New York, accounting for around nine per cent of the population.
Pro-Palestinian demonstrators brandished yellow signs reading “Resistance against occupation is a human right “and “End all US aid to apartheid Israel’ as they gathered in Times Square.
Supporters of Israel also gathered waving flags.
Police, however, managed to keep the groups apart, intercepting one man who charged at the Palestinian supports.

Israel-Palestine latest news: UK ready to offer military support to Israel, says Rishi Sunak

At least 250 people were killed by Hamas terrorists at a rave party in Israel’s Negev Desert, according to a volunteer group for disaster victims.

www.telegraph.co.uk

Democratic Socialists of America currently sitting in the US House of Representatives as Democrats
Often identified as "The Squad"

Name	State	District	Tenure
Rashida Tlaib[6]	Michigan	MI-13, MI-12	since 2019
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez[6]	New York	NY-14	since 2019
Cori Bush[6][7]	Missouri	MO-1	since 2021
Jamaal Bowman[6][8][a]	New York	NY-16	since 2021
Shri Thanedar[11][12]	Michigan	MI-13	since 2023
Greg Casar[13][a]	Texas	TX-35	since 2023

‘Repulsive’: Fellow Democrat Shreds Squad Members Tlaib, Bush ‘Glorifying’ The ‘Largest Single-Day Mass Murder Of Jews Since The Holocaust’

Ritchie Torres slammed fellow Democrats Cori Bush and Rashida Tlaib over "reprehensible and repulsive" comments they made on the current conflict in Israel.

www.mediaite.com

I wonder how this will figure into the electoral calculus.

Most members support Ukraine and support Israel.
Republicans bleed support on the Ukrainian front.
Democrats bleed support on the Israeli front.

 

[Kirkhill]

Crisis = Opportunity

Joe Biden could combine US support for Israel and Ukraine to break congressional deadlock​

President hopes an integrated funding package could overcome Republican resistance to spending more on Kyiv's resistance against Russia

Biden could combine US military aid for Israel and Ukraine to break congressional deadlock

President has given $44bn in aid to Ukraine since start of invasion and hopes to unlock more support for Kyiv with joint funding package

www.telegraph.co.uk

 

[Navy_Pete]

Crisis = Opportunity

Biden could combine US military aid for Israel and Ukraine to break congressional deadlock

President has given $44bn in aid to Ukraine since start of invasion and hopes to unlock more support for Kyiv with joint funding package

www.telegraph.co.uk

With how much random, totally unrelated stuff both sides routinely pack onto every single bill have a hard time with any US politician saying they need a single issue bill. Also passing budget bills that run a deficit then shutting down the government by not raising the debt ceiling is political showmanship taken to destructive limits.