The inevitable end result of our last 56 years

[Paul Brancato]

Kirk - they’ve been doing exactly that for our entire lifetimes. What were the 1960’s Assassinations about? What is Citizens United? Why don’t rich crooks go to jail? How does the hero of the people candidate sweep into power without the media? There are so many ways to control politicians. If Trump was a lefty humanist he’d be dead.

[Kirk Gallaway]

1 hour ago, Paul Brancato said:

Kirk - they’ve been doing exactly that for our entire lifetimes. What were the 1960’s Assassinations about? What is Citizens United? Why don’t rich crooks go to jail? How does the hero of the people candidate sweep into power without the media? There are so many ways to control politicians. If Trump was a lefty humanist he’d be dead.

Honestly Paul, no offense, but to assert it's useless because such a candidate would surely be assassinated plays well here but is just a cop out, a cry of helplessness. Let's take your points  one by one.

Citizen's United is the result of the Republicans by hook or crook taking over the Supreme Court. Which they did legally because Democrats were simply not vigilant. For some idiot here, (not you) to jump forward and say that's the work of both parties  and the "system: is completely wrong and you have only to look at the vote to see it was completely down party lines.

About "crooks going to jail", with the political climate I'm talking about, that is a vigilant confiscation of taxes. Tax cheats would be more likely eventually be exposed.

"The media" Always the media. Didn't Trump overcome the fact that in 3/4 of the instances the media was against him? Paul, you might be into the MSM, but most people aren't getting their information from the MSM anymore anyway. There are much fewer people reading in depth anything than there was when we grew up and Dulles said then, "People don't read anyway."'

"There are many ways to control politicians" There are, but in the climate I'm talking about, people would also would be fed up with money in politics. It is the route of the whole problem.

Because he wasn't on your side, you seem to blind to the fact that Donald Trump turned the political world on it's head. This isn't at all impossible.

So did FDR, in a similar time period of a great economic depression and an era of a dangerous rise in nationalism and fascism. JFK was always very conventional in his i Ivy League picks for cabinets, and it ended up to be in part his undoing. FDR picked few of his cabinet from Ivy Leaguers. People here mention Henry Wallace. Wallace was the head of a farm paper!  

Paul: "and elites clearly have the power to prevent it. "

I'm just saying Paul, it's not clear at all. If these legislations were passed, what recourse would "the elites", that I take as you saying  as "old money" and the corporate state really have? Outside of, of course the old standby "assassination" which hasn't happened to such a figure here in 55 years.

If you think the possibility  of a party or group gaining political power in the U.S. and enacting such legislation is impossible , then blame the people, who the unkind would say are stupid and the more temperate would say. "Simply don't vote in their interests".

 

Edited June 14, 2022 by Kirk Gallaway

[Douglas Caddy]

A must read about the reactionaries on the Supreme Court

Avengers: Supreme Court - PREVAIL by Greg Olear (substack.com)

[Pat Speer]

3 hours ago, Matt Allison said:

There's no need for the J6 Committee to make a formal criminal referral; their report is completely sufficient.

There will be more 1/6 indictments filed as soon as Garland has them ready; Trump will be indicted in Georgia by the end of the month.

My understanding is that the Justice Dept. is following the hearings and will follow up on leads.

[Paul Brancato]

1 hour ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

Honestly Paul, no offense, but to assert it's useless because such a candidate would surely be assassinated plays well here but is just a cop out, a cry of helplessness. Let's take your points  one by one.

Citizen's United is the result of the Republicans by hook or crook taking over the Supreme Court. Which they did legally because Democrats were simply not vigilant. For some idiot here, (not you) to jump forward and say that's the work of both parties  and the "system: is completely wrong and you have only to look at the vote to see it was completely down party lines.

About "crooks going to jail", with the political climate I'm talking about, that is a vigilant confiscation of taxes. Tax cheats would be more likely eventually be exposed.

"The media" Always the media. Didn't Trump overcome the fact that in 3/4 of the instances the media was against him? Paul, you might be into the MSM, but most people aren't getting their information from the MSM anymore anyway. There are much fewer people reading in depth anything than there was when we grew up and Dulles said then, "People don't read anyway."'

"There are many ways to control politicians" There are, but in the climate I'm talking about, people would also would be fed up with money in politics. It is the route of the whole problem.

Because he wasn't on your side, you seem to blind to the fact that Donald Trump turned the political world on it's head. This isn't at all impossible.

So did FDR, in a similar time period of a great economic depression and an era of a dangerous rise in nationalism and fascism. JFK was always very conventional in his i Ivy League picks for cabinets, and it ended up to be in part his undoing. FDR picked few of his cabinet from Ivy Leaguers. People here mention Henry Wallace. Wallace was the head of a farm paper!  

Paul: "and elites clearly have the power to prevent it. "

I'm just saying Paul, it's not clear at all. If these legislations were passed, what recourse would "the elites", that I take as you saying  as "old money" and the corporate state really have? Outside of, of course the old standby "assassination" which hasn't happened to such a figure here in 55 years.

If you think the possibility  of a party or group gaining political power in the U.S. and enacting such legislation is impossible , then blame the people, who the unkind would say are stupid and the more temperate would say. "Simply don't vote in their interests".

 

We can hope. The odds are very stacked. The people don’t control anything. Is there one instance in human history you can think of that proves your thesis?

[Kirk Gallaway]

25 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:

We can hope. The odds are very stacked. The people don’t control anything. Is there one instance in human history you can think of that proves your thesis?

What are you saying  my thesis is?  I've given you a couple of examples, that nobody could have predicted in either 2104 or 1928. So I guess it's something else? 

[Matt Allison]

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

My understanding is that the Justice Dept. is following the hearings and will follow up on leads.

Yes, and Merrick Garland and his DOJ are already conducting an investigation of their own, as multiple court filings have already shown.

[Matt Allison]

35 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:

We can hope. The odds are very stacked. The people don’t control anything.

Well, they do, they just don't exercise that power.

A 60% voter turnout rate is absolutely pathetic and embarrassing.

It's why a major part of the election interference op is composed of discouraging people from voting, as the vast majority of those that currently don't vote would not vote for Kremlin/MAGA candidates.

[Paul Brancato]

2 hours ago, Douglas Caddy said:

A must read about the reactionaries on the Supreme Court

Avengers: Supreme Court - PREVAIL by Greg Olear (substack.com)

That is how the Dems should deal with it. In fact it’s so obviously the best strategy that if they fail I may lose all trust forever in Pelosi - and Schumer. 

[Paul Brancato]

24 minutes ago, Matt Allison said:

Well, they do, they just don't exercise that power.

A 60% voter turnout rate is absolutely pathetic and embarrassing.

It's why a major part of the election interference op is composed of discouraging people from voting, as the vast majority of those that currently don't vote would not vote for Kremlin/MAGA candidates.

Low voter turnout is pathetic. There are reasons for it that even mail in ballots don’t cure. I agree with you that non voters are mainly on the liberal side. This is where things get fuzzy, and where I find myself often agreeing with a more conspiratorial view, which is that forces behind the scenes determine who gets on the ballot for one of the main parties and whether they get funded. Tweetle D and tweetle Dumb describes the choices in many races, and that term goes back over 100 years. I agree with your post pretty much completely but just think it leaves out this issue of lack of good choices. In recent elections this has improved a bit, but - and I hate to say this - not through the efforts of the corporate DNC but through grass roots efforts to run candidates which in many cases the DNC has not supported. So the first step in my mind is to radicalize the Democratic Party. It’s way to centrist to excite the non voters you refer to. Of course there are other theories on low voter turnout - that’s mine. 

[Kirk Gallaway]

Paul, As inconceivable as this seems to be to you. To make my case that this isn't just theoretical, polyannish talk.

The world is considering a world taxation plan that is nothing short of revolutionary and the first signs of the breaking up of the multi nationals. If this was to go in effect, no longer could the corporations  hide their businesses in tax havens. They would be taxed a flat minimum 15% tax on profits made in foreign countries.  This is the moment of truth. It's passing would be given a great boost withe endorsement of the U.S. But that support is in jeopardy.

As it says in this NYT's article. It all gets down to the Democrats and their narrow majority in the Senate, because the Republicans, to a man will oppose it. Because they have to agree on the provisions of an attached spending bill. And those Republicans  include,the borderline Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski.  I'm afraid this like the Paris accords,  could be jettisoned because of the same old Democrat nemesis. Joe Mancin and Christine Senema.

To those fools who'll maintain there isn't a difference between the Republicans and the Democrats and  spew some phony allegiance to the working man, or the downtrodden,  this is the litmus test. The place where the rubber meets the road!

*****

Good morning. A global agreement to increase taxes on corporations is in jeopardy.

Stuck in the Senate What economists hailed as the most ambitious tax overhaul in a century is now mired in a toxic mix of fine print and political paralysis. It was only last fall that more than 130 nations signed on to an agreement to eliminate the world’s tax havens and enact a global minimum tax. The agreement was designed to increase taxes substantially on many large corporations and to end an international fight over how technology companies are taxed. Its architects said it would end the global “race to the bottom” for corporate tax rates. But legislators in both the U.S. and Europe are now struggling to pass the laws needed to make good on the promises embedded in the deal. And no tax changes are likely to pass on their own, without the more politically popular spending programs also passing. In the U.S., the central problem is that Senate Democrats cannot agree on the spending proposals — on energy, drug prices and other issues — that would accompany the tax changes. Republicans are not opposed to all of the tax provisions, but they show little sign of voting for any bill. As a result, every Senate Democrat needs to agree to the bill in order to get it passed. In Europe, after years in which Ireland resisted tax agreements to protect its status as a haven, Irish leaders have come around. But a different obstacle has now emerged: Poland. Polish officials have expressed technical concerns, but officials elsewhere in Europe and in the U.S. believe that Poland is actually seeking leverage in a dispute with the E.U. over pandemic aid money. If both the United States and Europe cannot manage to comply with the agreement, the global deal is likely to unravel. That would mean a continuation of a hodgepodge of tax rates and related tariff fights around the world. Policymakers who have been hashing out the deal want to avoid that outcome. “Going back and starting all over again would pose policy risks for countries and even greater competitiveness risks for companies, and I think it’s in all of our interests to avoid that,” Paschal Donohoe, Ireland’s finance minister, said in an interview in Washington. Two pillars The agreement had two prongs, or “pillars,” as the negotiators say. First, countries are supposed to enact a 15 percent minimum tax so that companies pay a rate of at least that much on their global profits no matter where they set up shop. With that minimum in place, there would be less reason for companies to flee to countries with rock-bottom rates and less pressure on nations to slash their tax rates to attract foreign investment. As it stands, this race to the bottom has deprived governments of tax revenue that they need to invest in infrastructure and social safety nets. Second, the deal would allow governments to tax the world’s largest and most profitable firms by where their goods and services are sold instead of by where they are based. The current system of taxing companies based on the location of their operations has created multiple problems. It has led companies to claim that a large share of their operations is in low-tax places like Ireland and Bermuda. And it has led to a fight between the U.S. and European countries that have imposed special taxes on American technology giants such as Google and Facebook, which operate all over the world even if they don’t have a physical presence in every country. The global tax pact includes a compromise that would put that fight to rest. The deal would also allow countries to impose additional taxes on about 100 of the world’s largest companies, based on where they make their sales. But before any of that happens, there is more persuasion to be done. On a weeklong trip to Europe in May, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen made Warsaw her first stop in hopes that she could convince Poland not to scupper the entire agreement. At the end of the trip, her optimism was cautious. “I think it is not hopeless,” Yellen said of getting Poland on board. “It is certainly possible that will happen.” The bigger hurdle may be the U.S. itself. Today, Yellen will testify before the Senate Finance Committee about the president’s latest budget, and she is expected to be peppered with questions about the fate of the tax deal. Senate Democrats say they are still hoping to pass a bill by September that includes a mix of spending programs and tax changes. ****

[Matt Allison]

A bombshell from the Wapo today. Reads like something from a movie but it actually happened.

Free to read, thanks to my sub:

https://wapo.st/3NUzkNQ

[Paul Brancato]

Kirk - there is a global movement for a 15% minimum tax, a good idea, depending on what that money is used for, and to tax stock transactions. As Jung said, paraphrased, it’s not what you say it’s what you do that counts. The fact that this remains an uphill battle speaks volumes, and from a citizen’s point of view it is a no brainer.

[Benjamin Cole]

6 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

That is how the Dems should deal with it. In fact it’s so obviously the best strategy that if they fail I may lose all trust forever in Pelosi - and Schumer. 

"And that’s a (sic) opportunity Democrats can, and must, use to exact compromise: Any bill about expanded protection for Supreme Court Justices must also include common sense gun reform legislation. Schumer missed the opportunity to do this, as Schumer always seems to do. Pelosi hasn’t. Make the Republicans make hard choices: to better safeguard the SCOTUS Infinity Stones, will they consent to a ban on AR-15-style weapons? In other words, will they agree to better protect the lives of America’s children in order to better protect the six Radical Right Justices on the Court?"---Greg Olear

Oh, dear. The Donks, if they want to represent the middle class, need to drop the gun stuff. It is a horribly divisive issue, magnified at every turn by the M$M. 

Yes, some of your neighbors, middle-class people like yourselves, feel unsafe and want to own guns. 

My take is that single-shot, six-shot revolvers are all the self-protection anyone needs.

But others feel I should not have even have a revolver, and then others think I should have assault rifles, if I wish.

So...let's feud about this, and divide ourselves. Let's feel morally superior to others with different views. 

They say the left-wing, the wokes, devour themselves at first chance. Maybe so. The gun issue is a loser. 

 

[Benjamin Cole]

6 hours ago, Matt Allison said:

A bombshell from the Wapo today. Reads like something from a movie but it actually happened.

Free to read, thanks to my sub:

https://wapo.st/3NUzkNQ

What is the bombshell?

The middling-upper level Justice Dep't lawyer named Jeffrey Clark, evidently bereft of his senses, told Trump he should be elevated Attorney General to pursue the voter fraud cause. 

Trump heard him out, considered consequences, and did not promote Clark. 

I guess you could say Trump doing the right thing is a bombshell story. 

BTW, Clark has credentials up the wazoo, including a degree from Harvard and a law degree from Georgetown (considered a top-flight law school). He was employed at Kirkland & Ellis, a very prestigious law firm before joining Justice.

You wonder what happens to people once they get inside that DC bubble. Clark strikes me as nutty, but then inside the Beltway, ambitions and partisanship are the norm. 

On another matter---

The second public hearing of the House select committee investigating last year’s Capitol riot drew around 10 million total viewers Monday, less than half the audience that watched the committee’s primetime opening presentation last week.

Strictly discussing tactics not merits: The Donk plan for six primetime J6 hearings, even though slickly produced, always struck me as over-ambitious. 

One and done, or possibly two J6 sessions over a weekend strikes me as a better plan.

Inside DC, they think life is partisan one-upmanship. 

Outside DC...well, people have lives to live. 

Edited June 15, 2022 by Benjamin Cole