Discussion:
Revenge vs. Punishment
(too old to reply)
islander
2021-01-09 15:45:05 UTC
Permalink
The news is full of possibilities for what to do about Trump while he
still has power - only 11 days left before inauguration of Biden. A
serious question should be asked, "To what end?"

Invocation of Amendment 25 of the Constitution to remove him from office
would eliminate the possibility of any overt act, but would have little
other effect than revenge. It is not an issue in any case because Pence
and the Cabinet would not do it. It is not a good idea IMV, even if
they were motivated to do it.

Impeachment could be done and Pelosi probably has the votes to do it,
but it is in effect only an act of revenge since the Senate is unlikely
to convict. It would send a strong message, but what would it
accomplish. I suspect that Trump would treat it as an accomplishment,
the only President to be impeached twice! It would only serve as an act
of revenge IMV with limited long term impact on his ability to act in
the future.

A third option may be a better way to punish Trump and serve to limit
his ability to influence politics in the future. This would be to
censure him under Amendment 14(3) of the US Constitution. Literally,
this is what it says:

"No Person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector
of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military,
under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously
taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United
States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or
judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United
States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the
same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may
by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."

This would essentially bar him from not only aspiring to any public
office in the future, but it would minimize his influence on anyone
seeking his assistance in their own aspirations. It would essentially
minimize his influence over Republican primaries. This could be done
with a simple majority vote in both houses of Congress and that could be
done quickly. Furthermore, it would take a 2/3 vote of both houses to
reverse, exactly the opposite of other possible Congressional options.
This would have a deterrent effect that is more useful than other
possible efforts at revenge or punishment.

Seems like a good idea to me! Do it, have it done, and move on!
Johnny
2021-01-09 15:57:32 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 9 Jan 2021 07:45:05 -0800
Post by islander
The news is full of possibilities for what to do about Trump while he
still has power - only 11 days left before inauguration of Biden. A
serious question should be asked, "To what end?"
Invocation of Amendment 25 of the Constitution to remove him from
office would eliminate the possibility of any overt act, but would
have little other effect than revenge. It is not an issue in any
case because Pence and the Cabinet would not do it. It is not a good
idea IMV, even if they were motivated to do it.
Impeachment could be done and Pelosi probably has the votes to do it,
but it is in effect only an act of revenge since the Senate is
unlikely to convict. It would send a strong message, but what would
it accomplish. I suspect that Trump would treat it as an
accomplishment, the only President to be impeached twice! It would
only serve as an act of revenge IMV with limited long term impact on
his ability to act in the future.
A third option may be a better way to punish Trump and serve to limit
his ability to influence politics in the future. This would be to
censure him under Amendment 14(3) of the US Constitution. Literally,
"No Person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or
elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or
military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having
previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer
of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as
an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the
Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection
or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies
thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House,
remove such disability."
This would essentially bar him from not only aspiring to any public
office in the future, but it would minimize his influence on anyone
seeking his assistance in their own aspirations. It would
essentially minimize his influence over Republican primaries. This
could be done with a simple majority vote in both houses of Congress
and that could be done quickly. Furthermore, it would take a 2/3
vote of both houses to reverse, exactly the opposite of other
possible Congressional options. This would have a deterrent effect
that is more useful than other possible efforts at revenge or
punishment.
Seems like a good idea to me! Do it, have it done, and move on!
Trump asked the people to go home. He did not tell them to break into
the Capitol. It could be classified as a spontaneous riot, but not
insurrection.
islander
2021-01-09 17:49:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Johnny
On Sat, 9 Jan 2021 07:45:05 -0800
Post by islander
The news is full of possibilities for what to do about Trump while he
still has power - only 11 days left before inauguration of Biden. A
serious question should be asked, "To what end?"
Invocation of Amendment 25 of the Constitution to remove him from
office would eliminate the possibility of any overt act, but would
have little other effect than revenge. It is not an issue in any
case because Pence and the Cabinet would not do it. It is not a good
idea IMV, even if they were motivated to do it.
Impeachment could be done and Pelosi probably has the votes to do it,
but it is in effect only an act of revenge since the Senate is
unlikely to convict. It would send a strong message, but what would
it accomplish. I suspect that Trump would treat it as an
accomplishment, the only President to be impeached twice! It would
only serve as an act of revenge IMV with limited long term impact on
his ability to act in the future.
A third option may be a better way to punish Trump and serve to limit
his ability to influence politics in the future. This would be to
censure him under Amendment 14(3) of the US Constitution. Literally,
"No Person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or
elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or
military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having
previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer
of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as
an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the
Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection
or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies
thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House,
remove such disability."
This would essentially bar him from not only aspiring to any public
office in the future, but it would minimize his influence on anyone
seeking his assistance in their own aspirations. It would
essentially minimize his influence over Republican primaries. This
could be done with a simple majority vote in both houses of Congress
and that could be done quickly. Furthermore, it would take a 2/3
vote of both houses to reverse, exactly the opposite of other
possible Congressional options. This would have a deterrent effect
that is more useful than other possible efforts at revenge or
punishment.
Seems like a good idea to me! Do it, have it done, and move on!
Trump asked the people to go home. He did not tell them to break into
the Capitol. It could be classified as a spontaneous riot, but not
insurrection.
It could be, but obviously not. This was an attempt to disrupt the
reading of the state certifications of the vote. Trump added the final
inspiration to go to the Capital at his speech to the demonstrators on
the morning of the 6th in the Ellipse. "We will never give up. We will
never concede. It doesn't happen. You don't concede when there is theft
involved. ... If you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a
country anymore. ... Go to the Capital. It will be fun!"

Arguably, Trump was angry at Pence for refusing to cooperate by simply
accepting alternative authority from several states and wanted to put
pressure on him to comply. This was even a bridge too far for Pence and
discouraged all but Cruz and Hawley to raise objections to the official
state certifications.

As to telling the rioters to go home, it doesn't count when the attack
on the Capital was well underway. In addition, there is some evidence
that Trump was involved in denying deployment of the National Guard.

Like much of what Trump has done, he probably cost himself more by his
speech than he accomplished. He just couldn't help himself!
Johnny
2021-01-09 18:05:06 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 9 Jan 2021 09:49:55 -0800
Post by islander
Post by Johnny
On Sat, 9 Jan 2021 07:45:05 -0800
Post by islander
The news is full of possibilities for what to do about Trump while
he still has power - only 11 days left before inauguration of
Biden. A serious question should be asked, "To what end?"
Invocation of Amendment 25 of the Constitution to remove him from
office would eliminate the possibility of any overt act, but would
have little other effect than revenge. It is not an issue in any
case because Pence and the Cabinet would not do it. It is not a
good idea IMV, even if they were motivated to do it.
Impeachment could be done and Pelosi probably has the votes to do
it, but it is in effect only an act of revenge since the Senate is
unlikely to convict. It would send a strong message, but what
would it accomplish. I suspect that Trump would treat it as an
accomplishment, the only President to be impeached twice! It would
only serve as an act of revenge IMV with limited long term impact
on his ability to act in the future.
A third option may be a better way to punish Trump and serve to
limit his ability to influence politics in the future. This would
be to censure him under Amendment 14(3) of the US Constitution.
"No Person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or
elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil
or military, under the United States, or under any State, who,
having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an
officer of the United States, or as a member of any State
legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State,
to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have
engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given
aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote
of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."
This would essentially bar him from not only aspiring to any public
office in the future, but it would minimize his influence on anyone
seeking his assistance in their own aspirations. It would
essentially minimize his influence over Republican primaries. This
could be done with a simple majority vote in both houses of
Congress and that could be done quickly. Furthermore, it would
take a 2/3 vote of both houses to reverse, exactly the opposite of
other possible Congressional options. This would have a deterrent
effect that is more useful than other possible efforts at revenge
or punishment.
Seems like a good idea to me! Do it, have it done, and move on!
Trump asked the people to go home. He did not tell them to break
into the Capitol. It could be classified as a spontaneous riot,
but not insurrection.
It could be, but obviously not. This was an attempt to disrupt the
reading of the state certifications of the vote. Trump added the
final inspiration to go to the Capital at his speech to the
demonstrators on the morning of the 6th in the Ellipse. "We will
never give up. We will never concede. It doesn't happen. You don't
concede when there is theft involved. ... If you don’t fight like
hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore. ... Go to the
Capital. It will be fun!"
Arguably, Trump was angry at Pence for refusing to cooperate by
simply accepting alternative authority from several states and wanted
to put pressure on him to comply. This was even a bridge too far for
Pence and discouraged all but Cruz and Hawley to raise objections to
the official state certifications.
As to telling the rioters to go home, it doesn't count when the
attack on the Capital was well underway. In addition, there is some
evidence that Trump was involved in denying deployment of the
National Guard.
Like much of what Trump has done, he probably cost himself more by
his speech than he accomplished. He just couldn't help himself!
Should people accept it when an election is stolen?

Under normal circumstances news stations would have been calling the
election for Trump on election night, and then the mail in votes
started coming in.
Josh Rosenbluth
2021-01-09 19:05:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Johnny
On Sat, 9 Jan 2021 09:49:55 -0800
Post by islander
Post by Johnny
On Sat, 9 Jan 2021 07:45:05 -0800
Post by islander
The news is full of possibilities for what to do about Trump while
he still has power - only 11 days left before inauguration of
Biden. A serious question should be asked, "To what end?"
Invocation of Amendment 25 of the Constitution to remove him from
office would eliminate the possibility of any overt act, but would
have little other effect than revenge. It is not an issue in any
case because Pence and the Cabinet would not do it. It is not a
good idea IMV, even if they were motivated to do it.
Impeachment could be done and Pelosi probably has the votes to do
it, but it is in effect only an act of revenge since the Senate is
unlikely to convict. It would send a strong message, but what
would it accomplish. I suspect that Trump would treat it as an
accomplishment, the only President to be impeached twice! It would
only serve as an act of revenge IMV with limited long term impact
on his ability to act in the future.
A third option may be a better way to punish Trump and serve to
limit his ability to influence politics in the future. This would
be to censure him under Amendment 14(3) of the US Constitution.
"No Person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or
elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil
or military, under the United States, or under any State, who,
having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an
officer of the United States, or as a member of any State
legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State,
to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have
engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given
aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote
of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."
This would essentially bar him from not only aspiring to any public
office in the future, but it would minimize his influence on anyone
seeking his assistance in their own aspirations. It would
essentially minimize his influence over Republican primaries. This
could be done with a simple majority vote in both houses of
Congress and that could be done quickly. Furthermore, it would
take a 2/3 vote of both houses to reverse, exactly the opposite of
other possible Congressional options. This would have a deterrent
effect that is more useful than other possible efforts at revenge
or punishment.
Seems like a good idea to me! Do it, have it done, and move on!
Trump asked the people to go home. He did not tell them to break
into the Capitol. It could be classified as a spontaneous riot,
but not insurrection.
It could be, but obviously not. This was an attempt to disrupt the
reading of the state certifications of the vote. Trump added the
final inspiration to go to the Capital at his speech to the
demonstrators on the morning of the 6th in the Ellipse. "We will
never give up. We will never concede. It doesn't happen. You don't
concede when there is theft involved. ... If you don’t fight like
hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore. ... Go to the
Capital. It will be fun!"
Arguably, Trump was angry at Pence for refusing to cooperate by
simply accepting alternative authority from several states and wanted
to put pressure on him to comply. This was even a bridge too far for
Pence and discouraged all but Cruz and Hawley to raise objections to
the official state certifications.
As to telling the rioters to go home, it doesn't count when the
attack on the Capital was well underway. In addition, there is some
evidence that Trump was involved in denying deployment of the
National Guard.
Like much of what Trump has done, he probably cost himself more by
his speech than he accomplished. He just couldn't help himself!
Should people accept it when an election is stolen?
Under normal circumstances news stations would have been calling the
election for Trump on election night, and then the mail in votes
started coming in.
Under normal circumstances, the winner is based on counting all the
ballots. Trump wanted to steal the election by not counting mail-in
ballots. Both you and he remain delusional that those ballots were
fraudulent.
Josh Rosenbluth
2021-01-09 19:07:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Johnny
On Sat, 9 Jan 2021 07:45:05 -0800
Post by islander
The news is full of possibilities for what to do about Trump while he
still has power - only 11 days left before inauguration of Biden.  A
serious question should be asked, "To what end?"
Invocation of Amendment 25 of the Constitution to remove him from
office would eliminate the possibility of any overt act, but would
have little other effect than revenge.  It is not an issue in any
case because Pence and the Cabinet would not do it.  It is not a good
idea IMV, even if they were motivated to do it.
Impeachment could be done and Pelosi probably has the votes to do it,
but it is in effect only an act of revenge since the Senate is
unlikely to convict.  It would send a strong message, but what would
it accomplish.  I suspect that Trump would treat it as an
accomplishment, the only President to be impeached twice!  It would
only serve as an act of revenge IMV with limited long term impact on
his ability to act in the future.
A third option may be a better way to punish Trump and serve to limit
his ability to influence politics in the future.  This would be to
censure him under Amendment 14(3) of the US Constitution.  Literally,
"No Person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or
elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or
military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having
previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer
of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as
an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the
Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection
or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies
thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House,
remove such disability."
This would essentially bar him from not only aspiring to any public
office in the future, but it would minimize his influence on anyone
seeking his assistance in their own aspirations.  It would
essentially minimize his influence over Republican primaries.  This
could be done with a simple majority vote in both houses of Congress
and that could be done quickly.  Furthermore, it would take a 2/3
vote of both houses to reverse, exactly the opposite of other
possible Congressional options. This would have a deterrent effect
that is more useful than other possible efforts at revenge or
punishment.
Seems like a good idea to me!  Do it, have it done, and move on!
Trump asked the people to go home.  He did not tell them to break into
the Capitol.  It could be classified as a spontaneous riot, but not
insurrection.
It could be, but obviously not.  This was an attempt to disrupt the
reading of the state certifications of the vote.  Trump added the final
inspiration to go to the Capital at his speech to the demonstrators on
the morning of the 6th in the Ellipse.  "We will never give up.  We will
never concede. It doesn't happen.  You don't concede when there is theft
involved. ... If you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a
country anymore. ... Go to the Capital.  It will be fun!"
Arguably, Trump was angry at Pence for refusing to cooperate by simply
accepting alternative authority from several states and wanted to put
pressure on him to comply.  This was even a bridge too far for Pence and
discouraged all but Cruz and Hawley to raise objections to the official
state certifications.
As to telling the rioters to go home, it doesn't count when the attack
on the Capital was well underway.  In addition, there is some evidence
that Trump was involved in denying deployment of the National Guard.
Like much of what Trump has done, he probably cost himself more by his
speech than he accomplished.  He just couldn't help himself!
True. However, that speech is protected by the First Amendment and can't
be used as the basis for a criminal conviction. It can be used to
impeach or remove him through the 25th Amendment.
islander
2021-01-11 01:19:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Johnny
On Sat, 9 Jan 2021 07:45:05 -0800
Post by islander
The news is full of possibilities for what to do about Trump while he
still has power - only 11 days left before inauguration of Biden.  A
serious question should be asked, "To what end?"
Invocation of Amendment 25 of the Constitution to remove him from
office would eliminate the possibility of any overt act, but would
have little other effect than revenge.  It is not an issue in any
case because Pence and the Cabinet would not do it.  It is not a good
idea IMV, even if they were motivated to do it.
Impeachment could be done and Pelosi probably has the votes to do it,
but it is in effect only an act of revenge since the Senate is
unlikely to convict.  It would send a strong message, but what would
it accomplish.  I suspect that Trump would treat it as an
accomplishment, the only President to be impeached twice!  It would
only serve as an act of revenge IMV with limited long term impact on
his ability to act in the future.
A third option may be a better way to punish Trump and serve to limit
his ability to influence politics in the future.  This would be to
censure him under Amendment 14(3) of the US Constitution.  Literally,
"No Person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or
elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or
military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having
previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer
of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as
an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the
Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection
or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies
thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House,
remove such disability."
This would essentially bar him from not only aspiring to any public
office in the future, but it would minimize his influence on anyone
seeking his assistance in their own aspirations.  It would
essentially minimize his influence over Republican primaries.  This
could be done with a simple majority vote in both houses of Congress
and that could be done quickly.  Furthermore, it would take a 2/3
vote of both houses to reverse, exactly the opposite of other
possible Congressional options. This would have a deterrent effect
that is more useful than other possible efforts at revenge or
punishment.
Seems like a good idea to me!  Do it, have it done, and move on!
Trump asked the people to go home.  He did not tell them to break into
the Capitol.  It could be classified as a spontaneous riot, but not
insurrection.
It could be, but obviously not.  This was an attempt to disrupt the
reading of the state certifications of the vote.  Trump added the final
inspiration to go to the Capital at his speech to the demonstrators on
the morning of the 6th in the Ellipse.  "We will never give up.  We will
never concede. It doesn't happen.  You don't concede when there is theft
involved. ... If you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a
country anymore. ... Go to the Capital.  It will be fun!"
Arguably, Trump was angry at Pence for refusing to cooperate by simply
accepting alternative authority from several states and wanted to put
pressure on him to comply.  This was even a bridge too far for Pence and
discouraged all but Cruz and Hawley to raise objections to the official
state certifications.
As to telling the rioters to go home, it doesn't count when the attack
on the Capital was well underway.  In addition, there is some evidence
that Trump was involved in denying deployment of the National Guard.
Like much of what Trump has done, he probably cost himself more by his
speech than he accomplished.  He just couldn't help himself!
To be clear, my Trump quote "Go to the Capital. It will be fun" was not
from his speech on the morning of the 6th. It was from his tweet of
that same morning.

But, here is another quote from that same speech:
“We’re going to walk down Pennsylvania Ave. ... and we’re going to the
Capitol. We’re going to try and give our Republicans — the weak ones
because the strong ones don’t need any of our help — we’re to try and
give them kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our
country.”

Yes, his intent was clear. It was an insurrection!
Josh Rosenbluth
2021-01-11 03:34:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Johnny
On Sat, 9 Jan 2021 07:45:05 -0800
Post by islander
The news is full of possibilities for what to do about Trump while he
still has power - only 11 days left before inauguration of Biden.  A
serious question should be asked, "To what end?"
Invocation of Amendment 25 of the Constitution to remove him from
office would eliminate the possibility of any overt act, but would
have little other effect than revenge.  It is not an issue in any
case because Pence and the Cabinet would not do it.  It is not a good
idea IMV, even if they were motivated to do it.
Impeachment could be done and Pelosi probably has the votes to do it,
but it is in effect only an act of revenge since the Senate is
unlikely to convict.  It would send a strong message, but what would
it accomplish.  I suspect that Trump would treat it as an
accomplishment, the only President to be impeached twice!  It would
only serve as an act of revenge IMV with limited long term impact on
his ability to act in the future.
A third option may be a better way to punish Trump and serve to limit
his ability to influence politics in the future.  This would be to
censure him under Amendment 14(3) of the US Constitution.  Literally,
"No Person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or
elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or
military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having
previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer
of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as
an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the
Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection
or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies
thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House,
remove such disability."
This would essentially bar him from not only aspiring to any public
office in the future, but it would minimize his influence on anyone
seeking his assistance in their own aspirations.  It would
essentially minimize his influence over Republican primaries.  This
could be done with a simple majority vote in both houses of Congress
and that could be done quickly.  Furthermore, it would take a 2/3
vote of both houses to reverse, exactly the opposite of other
possible Congressional options. This would have a deterrent effect
that is more useful than other possible efforts at revenge or
punishment.
Seems like a good idea to me!  Do it, have it done, and move on!
Trump asked the people to go home.  He did not tell them to break into
the Capitol.  It could be classified as a spontaneous riot, but not
insurrection.
It could be, but obviously not.  This was an attempt to disrupt the
reading of the state certifications of the vote.  Trump added the
final inspiration to go to the Capital at his speech to the
demonstrators on the morning of the 6th in the Ellipse.  "We will
never give up.  We will never concede. It doesn't happen.  You don't
concede when there is theft involved. ... If you don’t fight like
hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore. ... Go to the
Capital.  It will be fun!"
Arguably, Trump was angry at Pence for refusing to cooperate by simply
accepting alternative authority from several states and wanted to put
pressure on him to comply.  This was even a bridge too far for Pence
and discouraged all but Cruz and Hawley to raise objections to the
official state certifications.
As to telling the rioters to go home, it doesn't count when the attack
on the Capital was well underway.  In addition, there is some evidence
that Trump was involved in denying deployment of the National Guard.
Like much of what Trump has done, he probably cost himself more by his
speech than he accomplished.  He just couldn't help himself!
To be clear, my Trump quote "Go to the Capital.  It will be fun" was not
from his speech on the morning of the 6th.  It was from his tweet of
that same morning.
“We’re going to walk down Pennsylvania Ave. ... and we’re going to the
Capitol.  We’re going to try and give our Republicans — the weak ones
because the strong ones don’t need any of our help — we’re to try and
give them kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our
country.”
Yes, his intent was clear.  It was an insurrection!
The First Amendment would almost certainly preclude a criminal charge of
insurrection (but not impeachment) based on those statements.
Johnny
2021-01-11 14:17:37 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 10 Jan 2021 19:34:06 -0800
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Johnny
On Sat, 9 Jan 2021 07:45:05 -0800
Post by islander
The news is full of possibilities for what to do about Trump
while he still has power - only 11 days left before inauguration
of Biden.  A serious question should be asked, "To what end?"
Invocation of Amendment 25 of the Constitution to remove him from
office would eliminate the possibility of any overt act, but
would have little other effect than revenge.  It is not an issue
in any case because Pence and the Cabinet would not do it.  It
is not a good idea IMV, even if they were motivated to do it.
Impeachment could be done and Pelosi probably has the votes to
do it, but it is in effect only an act of revenge since the
Senate is unlikely to convict.  It would send a strong message,
but what would it accomplish.  I suspect that Trump would treat
it as an accomplishment, the only President to be impeached
twice!  It would only serve as an act of revenge IMV with
limited long term impact on his ability to act in the future.
A third option may be a better way to punish Trump and serve to
limit his ability to influence politics in the future.  This
would be to censure him under Amendment 14(3) of the US
"No Person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or
elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office,
civil or military, under the United States, or under any State,
who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress,
or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any
State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any
State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall
have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or
given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by
a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."
This would essentially bar him from not only aspiring to any
public office in the future, but it would minimize his influence
on anyone seeking his assistance in their own aspirations.  It
would essentially minimize his influence over Republican
primaries.  This could be done with a simple majority vote in
both houses of Congress and that could be done quickly.
Furthermore, it would take a 2/3 vote of both houses to reverse,
exactly the opposite of other possible Congressional options.
This would have a deterrent effect that is more useful than
other possible efforts at revenge or punishment.
Seems like a good idea to me!  Do it, have it done, and move on!
Trump asked the people to go home.  He did not tell them to break
into the Capitol.  It could be classified as a spontaneous riot,
but not insurrection.
It could be, but obviously not.  This was an attempt to disrupt
the reading of the state certifications of the vote.  Trump added
the final inspiration to go to the Capital at his speech to the
demonstrators on the morning of the 6th in the Ellipse.  "We will
never give up.  We will never concede. It doesn't happen.  You
don't concede when there is theft involved. ... If you don’t fight
like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore. ... Go to
the Capital.  It will be fun!"
Arguably, Trump was angry at Pence for refusing to cooperate by
simply accepting alternative authority from several states and
wanted to put pressure on him to comply.  This was even a bridge
too far for Pence and discouraged all but Cruz and Hawley to raise
objections to the official state certifications.
As to telling the rioters to go home, it doesn't count when the
attack on the Capital was well underway.  In addition, there is
some evidence that Trump was involved in denying deployment of the
National Guard.
Like much of what Trump has done, he probably cost himself more by
his speech than he accomplished.  He just couldn't help himself!
To be clear, my Trump quote "Go to the Capital.  It will be fun"
was not from his speech on the morning of the 6th.  It was from his
tweet of that same morning.
“We’re going to walk down Pennsylvania Ave. ... and we’re going to
the Capitol.  We’re going to try and give our Republicans — the
weak ones because the strong ones don’t need any of our help —
we’re to try and give them kind of pride and boldness that they
need to take back our country.”
Yes, his intent was clear.  It was an insurrection!
The First Amendment would almost certainly preclude a criminal charge
of insurrection (but not impeachment) based on those statements.
I think both of you are wrong. Islander interprets the speech the way
he wants it to be. Seventy four million Americans interpret it as we
will show the president still has our support, and will be the best
candidate to challenge Biden after he screws up.

Pelosi is going to try and impeach Trump because she doesn't like what
he said, not because he was telling people to physically take back the
government. If that happens, then any future president can face
impeachment for giving a speech the opposing party doesn't like.

That shouldn't happen, but you must think that constitutionally it
can happen.
El Castor
2021-01-11 20:11:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Johnny
On Sun, 10 Jan 2021 19:34:06 -0800
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Johnny
On Sat, 9 Jan 2021 07:45:05 -0800
Post by islander
The news is full of possibilities for what to do about Trump
while he still has power - only 11 days left before inauguration
of Biden.  A serious question should be asked, "To what end?"
Invocation of Amendment 25 of the Constitution to remove him from
office would eliminate the possibility of any overt act, but
would have little other effect than revenge.  It is not an issue
in any case because Pence and the Cabinet would not do it.  It
is not a good idea IMV, even if they were motivated to do it.
Impeachment could be done and Pelosi probably has the votes to
do it, but it is in effect only an act of revenge since the
Senate is unlikely to convict.  It would send a strong message,
but what would it accomplish.  I suspect that Trump would treat
it as an accomplishment, the only President to be impeached
twice!  It would only serve as an act of revenge IMV with
limited long term impact on his ability to act in the future.
A third option may be a better way to punish Trump and serve to
limit his ability to influence politics in the future.  This
would be to censure him under Amendment 14(3) of the US
"No Person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or
elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office,
civil or military, under the United States, or under any State,
who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress,
or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any
State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any
State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall
have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or
given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by
a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."
This would essentially bar him from not only aspiring to any
public office in the future, but it would minimize his influence
on anyone seeking his assistance in their own aspirations.  It
would essentially minimize his influence over Republican
primaries.  This could be done with a simple majority vote in
both houses of Congress and that could be done quickly.
Furthermore, it would take a 2/3 vote of both houses to reverse,
exactly the opposite of other possible Congressional options.
This would have a deterrent effect that is more useful than
other possible efforts at revenge or punishment.
Seems like a good idea to me!  Do it, have it done, and move on!
Trump asked the people to go home.  He did not tell them to break
into the Capitol.  It could be classified as a spontaneous riot,
but not insurrection.
It could be, but obviously not.  This was an attempt to disrupt
the reading of the state certifications of the vote.  Trump added
the final inspiration to go to the Capital at his speech to the
demonstrators on the morning of the 6th in the Ellipse.  "We will
never give up.  We will never concede. It doesn't happen.  You
don't concede when there is theft involved. ... If you don’t fight
like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore. ... Go to
the Capital.  It will be fun!"
Arguably, Trump was angry at Pence for refusing to cooperate by
simply accepting alternative authority from several states and
wanted to put pressure on him to comply.  This was even a bridge
too far for Pence and discouraged all but Cruz and Hawley to raise
objections to the official state certifications.
As to telling the rioters to go home, it doesn't count when the
attack on the Capital was well underway.  In addition, there is
some evidence that Trump was involved in denying deployment of the
National Guard.
Like much of what Trump has done, he probably cost himself more by
his speech than he accomplished.  He just couldn't help himself!
To be clear, my Trump quote "Go to the Capital.  It will be fun"
was not from his speech on the morning of the 6th.  It was from his
tweet of that same morning.
“We’re going to walk down Pennsylvania Ave. ... and we’re going to
the Capitol.  We’re going to try and give our Republicans — the
weak ones because the strong ones don’t need any of our help —
we’re to try and give them kind of pride and boldness that they
need to take back our country.”
Yes, his intent was clear.  It was an insurrection!
The First Amendment would almost certainly preclude a criminal charge
of insurrection (but not impeachment) based on those statements.
I think both of you are wrong. Islander interprets the speech the way
he wants it to be. Seventy four million Americans interpret it as we
will show the president still has our support, and will be the best
candidate to challenge Biden after he screws up.
I voted for Trump and very much like many of the things he has done,
but face facts, where was he when those A-Holes were storming the
capital? He is a good man in many ways, but also severely flawed in
others. I expect more from the President of the United States. If he
runs again I'd either vote for him, or maybe abstain, but I would hope
for a much better candidate.
Post by Johnny
Pelosi is going to try and impeach Trump because she doesn't like what
he said, not because he was telling people to physically take back the
government. If that happens, then any future president can face
impeachment for giving a speech the opposing party doesn't like.
That shouldn't happen, but you must think that constitutionally it
can happen.
islander
2021-01-11 16:22:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Johnny
On Sat, 9 Jan 2021 07:45:05 -0800
Post by islander
The news is full of possibilities for what to do about Trump while he
still has power - only 11 days left before inauguration of Biden.  A
serious question should be asked, "To what end?"
Invocation of Amendment 25 of the Constitution to remove him from
office would eliminate the possibility of any overt act, but would
have little other effect than revenge.  It is not an issue in any
case because Pence and the Cabinet would not do it.  It is not a good
idea IMV, even if they were motivated to do it.
Impeachment could be done and Pelosi probably has the votes to do it,
but it is in effect only an act of revenge since the Senate is
unlikely to convict.  It would send a strong message, but what would
it accomplish.  I suspect that Trump would treat it as an
accomplishment, the only President to be impeached twice!  It would
only serve as an act of revenge IMV with limited long term impact on
his ability to act in the future.
A third option may be a better way to punish Trump and serve to limit
his ability to influence politics in the future.  This would be to
censure him under Amendment 14(3) of the US Constitution.  Literally,
"No Person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or
elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or
military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having
previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer
of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as
an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the
Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection
or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies
thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House,
remove such disability."
This would essentially bar him from not only aspiring to any public
office in the future, but it would minimize his influence on anyone
seeking his assistance in their own aspirations.  It would
essentially minimize his influence over Republican primaries.  This
could be done with a simple majority vote in both houses of Congress
and that could be done quickly.  Furthermore, it would take a 2/3
vote of both houses to reverse, exactly the opposite of other
possible Congressional options. This would have a deterrent effect
that is more useful than other possible efforts at revenge or
punishment.
Seems like a good idea to me!  Do it, have it done, and move on!
Trump asked the people to go home.  He did not tell them to break into
the Capitol.  It could be classified as a spontaneous riot, but not
insurrection.
It could be, but obviously not.  This was an attempt to disrupt the
reading of the state certifications of the vote.  Trump added the
final inspiration to go to the Capital at his speech to the
demonstrators on the morning of the 6th in the Ellipse.  "We will
never give up.  We will never concede. It doesn't happen.  You don't
concede when there is theft involved. ... If you don’t fight like
hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore. ... Go to the
Capital.  It will be fun!"
Arguably, Trump was angry at Pence for refusing to cooperate by
simply accepting alternative authority from several states and wanted
to put pressure on him to comply.  This was even a bridge too far for
Pence and discouraged all but Cruz and Hawley to raise objections to
the official state certifications.
As to telling the rioters to go home, it doesn't count when the
attack on the Capital was well underway.  In addition, there is some
evidence that Trump was involved in denying deployment of the
National Guard.
Like much of what Trump has done, he probably cost himself more by
his speech than he accomplished.  He just couldn't help himself!
To be clear, my Trump quote "Go to the Capital.  It will be fun" was
not from his speech on the morning of the 6th.  It was from his tweet
of that same morning.
“We’re going to walk down Pennsylvania Ave. ... and we’re going to the
Capitol.  We’re going to try and give our Republicans — the weak ones
because the strong ones don’t need any of our help — we’re to try and
give them kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our
country.”
Yes, his intent was clear.  It was an insurrection!
The First Amendment would almost certainly preclude a criminal charge of
insurrection (but not impeachment) based on those statements.
Sorry, but inciting to riot is a class F felony.
https://www.ncleg.net/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/PDF/BySection/Chapter_14/GS_14-288.2.pdf
Josh Rosenbluth
2021-01-11 16:46:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by islander
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Johnny
On Sat, 9 Jan 2021 07:45:05 -0800
Post by islander
The news is full of possibilities for what to do about Trump while he
still has power - only 11 days left before inauguration of Biden.  A
serious question should be asked, "To what end?"
Invocation of Amendment 25 of the Constitution to remove him from
office would eliminate the possibility of any overt act, but would
have little other effect than revenge.  It is not an issue in any
case because Pence and the Cabinet would not do it.  It is not a good
idea IMV, even if they were motivated to do it.
Impeachment could be done and Pelosi probably has the votes to do it,
but it is in effect only an act of revenge since the Senate is
unlikely to convict.  It would send a strong message, but what would
it accomplish.  I suspect that Trump would treat it as an
accomplishment, the only President to be impeached twice!  It would
only serve as an act of revenge IMV with limited long term impact on
his ability to act in the future.
A third option may be a better way to punish Trump and serve to limit
his ability to influence politics in the future.  This would be to
censure him under Amendment 14(3) of the US Constitution.  Literally,
"No Person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or
elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or
military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having
previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer
of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as
an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the
Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection
or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies
thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House,
remove such disability."
This would essentially bar him from not only aspiring to any public
office in the future, but it would minimize his influence on anyone
seeking his assistance in their own aspirations.  It would
essentially minimize his influence over Republican primaries.  This
could be done with a simple majority vote in both houses of Congress
and that could be done quickly.  Furthermore, it would take a 2/3
vote of both houses to reverse, exactly the opposite of other
possible Congressional options. This would have a deterrent effect
that is more useful than other possible efforts at revenge or
punishment.
Seems like a good idea to me!  Do it, have it done, and move on!
Trump asked the people to go home.  He did not tell them to break into
the Capitol.  It could be classified as a spontaneous riot, but not
insurrection.
It could be, but obviously not.  This was an attempt to disrupt the
reading of the state certifications of the vote.  Trump added the
final inspiration to go to the Capital at his speech to the
demonstrators on the morning of the 6th in the Ellipse.  "We will
never give up.  We will never concede. It doesn't happen.  You don't
concede when there is theft involved. ... If you don’t fight like
hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore. ... Go to the
Capital.  It will be fun!"
Arguably, Trump was angry at Pence for refusing to cooperate by
simply accepting alternative authority from several states and
wanted to put pressure on him to comply.  This was even a bridge too
far for Pence and discouraged all but Cruz and Hawley to raise
objections to the official state certifications.
As to telling the rioters to go home, it doesn't count when the
attack on the Capital was well underway.  In addition, there is some
evidence that Trump was involved in denying deployment of the
National Guard.
Like much of what Trump has done, he probably cost himself more by
his speech than he accomplished.  He just couldn't help himself!
To be clear, my Trump quote "Go to the Capital.  It will be fun" was
not from his speech on the morning of the 6th.  It was from his tweet
of that same morning.
“We’re going to walk down Pennsylvania Ave. ... and we’re going to
the Capitol.  We’re going to try and give our Republicans — the weak
ones because the strong ones don’t need any of our help — we’re to
try and give them kind of pride and boldness that they need to take
back our country.”
Yes, his intent was clear.  It was an insurrection!
The First Amendment would almost certainly preclude a criminal charge
of insurrection (but not impeachment) based on those statements.
Sorry, but inciting to riot is a class F felony.
https://www.ncleg.net/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/PDF/BySection/Chapter_14/GS_14-288.2.pdf
Of course it is, but the application of the statute must comply with the
Constitution.

Under Brandenburg v. Ohio, even "advocacy of the use of force or of law
violation" can't be punished unless it "is directed to inciting or
producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce
such action." Saying things that foreseeably move some audience members
to act illegally isn't enough. Speaking recklessly isn't enough.

https://reason.com/volokh/2021/01/07/incitement-ordinary-speakers-duty-and-political-leaders/
islander
2021-01-12 01:51:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by islander
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Johnny
On Sat, 9 Jan 2021 07:45:05 -0800
Post by islander
The news is full of possibilities for what to do about Trump while he
still has power - only 11 days left before inauguration of Biden.  A
serious question should be asked, "To what end?"
Invocation of Amendment 25 of the Constitution to remove him from
office would eliminate the possibility of any overt act, but would
have little other effect than revenge.  It is not an issue in any
case because Pence and the Cabinet would not do it.  It is not a good
idea IMV, even if they were motivated to do it.
Impeachment could be done and Pelosi probably has the votes to do it,
but it is in effect only an act of revenge since the Senate is
unlikely to convict.  It would send a strong message, but what would
it accomplish.  I suspect that Trump would treat it as an
accomplishment, the only President to be impeached twice!  It would
only serve as an act of revenge IMV with limited long term impact on
his ability to act in the future.
A third option may be a better way to punish Trump and serve to limit
his ability to influence politics in the future.  This would be to
censure him under Amendment 14(3) of the US Constitution.
Literally,
"No Person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or
elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or
military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having
previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer
of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as
an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the
Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in
insurrection
or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies
thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House,
remove such disability."
This would essentially bar him from not only aspiring to any public
office in the future, but it would minimize his influence on anyone
seeking his assistance in their own aspirations.  It would
essentially minimize his influence over Republican primaries.  This
could be done with a simple majority vote in both houses of Congress
and that could be done quickly.  Furthermore, it would take a 2/3
vote of both houses to reverse, exactly the opposite of other
possible Congressional options. This would have a deterrent effect
that is more useful than other possible efforts at revenge or
punishment.
Seems like a good idea to me!  Do it, have it done, and move on!
Trump asked the people to go home.  He did not tell them to break into
the Capitol.  It could be classified as a spontaneous riot, but not
insurrection.
It could be, but obviously not.  This was an attempt to disrupt the
reading of the state certifications of the vote.  Trump added the
final inspiration to go to the Capital at his speech to the
demonstrators on the morning of the 6th in the Ellipse.  "We will
never give up.  We will never concede. It doesn't happen.  You
don't concede when there is theft involved. ... If you don’t fight
like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore. ... Go to
the Capital.  It will be fun!"
Arguably, Trump was angry at Pence for refusing to cooperate by
simply accepting alternative authority from several states and
wanted to put pressure on him to comply.  This was even a bridge
too far for Pence and discouraged all but Cruz and Hawley to raise
objections to the official state certifications.
As to telling the rioters to go home, it doesn't count when the
attack on the Capital was well underway.  In addition, there is
some evidence that Trump was involved in denying deployment of the
National Guard.
Like much of what Trump has done, he probably cost himself more by
his speech than he accomplished.  He just couldn't help himself!
To be clear, my Trump quote "Go to the Capital.  It will be fun" was
not from his speech on the morning of the 6th.  It was from his
tweet of that same morning.
“We’re going to walk down Pennsylvania Ave. ... and we’re going to
the Capitol.  We’re going to try and give our Republicans — the weak
ones because the strong ones don’t need any of our help — we’re to
try and give them kind of pride and boldness that they need to take
back our country.”
Yes, his intent was clear.  It was an insurrection!
The First Amendment would almost certainly preclude a criminal charge
of insurrection (but not impeachment) based on those statements.
Sorry, but inciting to riot is a class F felony.
https://www.ncleg.net/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/PDF/BySection/Chapter_14/GS_14-288.2.pdf
Of course it is, but the application of the statute must comply with the
Constitution.
Under Brandenburg v. Ohio, even "advocacy of the use of force or of law
violation" can't be punished unless it "is directed to inciting or
producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce
such action." Saying things that foreseeably move some audience members
to act illegally isn't enough. Speaking recklessly isn't enough.
https://reason.com/volokh/2021/01/07/incitement-ordinary-speakers-duty-and-political-leaders/
We shall see. Personally, I think that Trump has gone WAY over the line.
Not At All
2021-01-11 06:44:10 UTC
Permalink
Yes, his intent was clear.  It was an insurrection!
Worth reading, a thread of tweets that captures everything in detail.

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1347908845281095680.html
islander
2021-01-11 16:26:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Not At All
Yes, his intent was clear.  It was an insurrection!
Worth reading, a thread of tweets that captures everything in detail.
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1347908845281095680.html
Good summary and analysis. Thanks for posting it.
Josh Rosenbluth
2021-01-09 16:20:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by islander
The news is full of possibilities for what to do about Trump while he
still has power - only 11 days left before inauguration of Biden.  A
serious question should be asked, "To what end?"
Invocation of Amendment 25 of the Constitution to remove him from office
would eliminate the possibility of any overt act, but would have little
other effect than revenge.  It is not an issue in any case because Pence
and the Cabinet would not do it.  It is not a good idea IMV, even if
they were motivated to do it.
Impeachment could be done and Pelosi probably has the votes to do it,
but it is in effect only an act of revenge since the Senate is unlikely
to convict.  It would send a strong message, but what would it
accomplish.  I suspect that Trump would treat it as an accomplishment,
the only President to be impeached twice!  It would only serve as an act
of revenge IMV with limited long term impact on his ability to act in
the future.
A third option may be a better way to punish Trump and serve to limit
his ability to influence politics in the future.  This would be to
censure him under Amendment 14(3) of the US Constitution.  Literally,
"No Person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector
of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military,
under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously
taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United
States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or
judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United
States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the
same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may
by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."
This would essentially bar him from not only aspiring to any public
office in the future, but it would minimize his influence on anyone
seeking his assistance in their own aspirations.  It would essentially
minimize his influence over Republican primaries.  This could be done
with a simple majority vote in both houses of Congress and that could be
done quickly.  Furthermore, it would take a 2/3 vote of both houses to
reverse, exactly the opposite of other possible Congressional options.
This would have a deterrent effect that is more useful than other
possible efforts at revenge or punishment.
Seems like a good idea to me!  Do it, have it done, and move on!
I seriously doubt the courts would permit Congress to define when an
insurrection occurs. Instead, I strongly suspect it would take a guilty
verdict by a jury (or a guilty plea) to violating
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2383.
islander
2021-01-09 17:22:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by islander
The news is full of possibilities for what to do about Trump while he
still has power - only 11 days left before inauguration of Biden.  A
serious question should be asked, "To what end?"
Invocation of Amendment 25 of the Constitution to remove him from
office would eliminate the possibility of any overt act, but would
have little other effect than revenge.  It is not an issue in any case
because Pence and the Cabinet would not do it.  It is not a good idea
IMV, even if they were motivated to do it.
Impeachment could be done and Pelosi probably has the votes to do it,
but it is in effect only an act of revenge since the Senate is
unlikely to convict.  It would send a strong message, but what would
it accomplish.  I suspect that Trump would treat it as an
accomplishment, the only President to be impeached twice!  It would
only serve as an act of revenge IMV with limited long term impact on
his ability to act in the future.
A third option may be a better way to punish Trump and serve to limit
his ability to influence politics in the future.  This would be to
censure him under Amendment 14(3) of the US Constitution.  Literally,
"No Person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or
elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or
military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having
previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of
the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an
executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the
Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection
or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies
thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House,
remove such disability."
This would essentially bar him from not only aspiring to any public
office in the future, but it would minimize his influence on anyone
seeking his assistance in their own aspirations.  It would essentially
minimize his influence over Republican primaries.  This could be done
with a simple majority vote in both houses of Congress and that could
be done quickly.  Furthermore, it would take a 2/3 vote of both houses
to reverse, exactly the opposite of other possible Congressional
options. This would have a deterrent effect that is more useful than
other possible efforts at revenge or punishment.
Seems like a good idea to me!  Do it, have it done, and move on!
I seriously doubt the courts would permit Congress to define when an
insurrection occurs. Instead, I strongly suspect it would take a guilty
verdict by a jury (or a guilty plea) to violating
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2383.
This would be the case if anyone, including Congress, elected to use 18
USC 2383. A censure vote would not require that. Trump might use 18
USC 2383 to bring charges against Congress that insurrection can only be
proved in the courts, but that would be a heavy lift.
Josh Rosenbluth
2021-01-09 19:05:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by islander
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by islander
The news is full of possibilities for what to do about Trump while he
still has power - only 11 days left before inauguration of Biden.  A
serious question should be asked, "To what end?"
Invocation of Amendment 25 of the Constitution to remove him from
office would eliminate the possibility of any overt act, but would
have little other effect than revenge.  It is not an issue in any
case because Pence and the Cabinet would not do it.  It is not a good
idea IMV, even if they were motivated to do it.
Impeachment could be done and Pelosi probably has the votes to do it,
but it is in effect only an act of revenge since the Senate is
unlikely to convict.  It would send a strong message, but what would
it accomplish.  I suspect that Trump would treat it as an
accomplishment, the only President to be impeached twice!  It would
only serve as an act of revenge IMV with limited long term impact on
his ability to act in the future.
A third option may be a better way to punish Trump and serve to limit
his ability to influence politics in the future.  This would be to
censure him under Amendment 14(3) of the US Constitution.  Literally,
"No Person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or
elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or
military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having
previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer
of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as
an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the
Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection
or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies
thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House,
remove such disability."
This would essentially bar him from not only aspiring to any public
office in the future, but it would minimize his influence on anyone
seeking his assistance in their own aspirations.  It would
essentially minimize his influence over Republican primaries.  This
could be done with a simple majority vote in both houses of Congress
and that could be done quickly.  Furthermore, it would take a 2/3
vote of both houses to reverse, exactly the opposite of other
possible Congressional options. This would have a deterrent effect
that is more useful than other possible efforts at revenge or
punishment.
Seems like a good idea to me!  Do it, have it done, and move on!
I seriously doubt the courts would permit Congress to define when an
insurrection occurs. Instead, I strongly suspect it would take a
guilty verdict by a jury (or a guilty plea) to violating
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2383.
This would be the case if anyone, including Congress, elected to use 18
USC 2383.  A censure vote would not require that.  Trump might use 18
USC 2383 to bring charges against Congress that insurrection can only be
proved in the courts, but that would be a heavy lift.
Small point: "Charges" is not the right word. Trump would sue Congress
if they barred him from taking office after he won an election. He would
sue whoever kept him off the ballot if that were the case.

Large point: either way, I think you have the heavy lift in convincing
the courts that an extra-judicial process not found in the constitution
suffices to establish a 14th Amendment violation of insurrection.
islander
2021-01-09 22:38:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by islander
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by islander
The news is full of possibilities for what to do about Trump while
he still has power - only 11 days left before inauguration of
Biden.  A serious question should be asked, "To what end?"
Invocation of Amendment 25 of the Constitution to remove him from
office would eliminate the possibility of any overt act, but would
have little other effect than revenge.  It is not an issue in any
case because Pence and the Cabinet would not do it.  It is not a
good idea IMV, even if they were motivated to do it.
Impeachment could be done and Pelosi probably has the votes to do
it, but it is in effect only an act of revenge since the Senate is
unlikely to convict.  It would send a strong message, but what would
it accomplish.  I suspect that Trump would treat it as an
accomplishment, the only President to be impeached twice!  It would
only serve as an act of revenge IMV with limited long term impact on
his ability to act in the future.
A third option may be a better way to punish Trump and serve to
limit his ability to influence politics in the future.  This would
be to censure him under Amendment 14(3) of the US Constitution.
"No Person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or
elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil
or military, under the United States, or under any State, who,
having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an
officer of the United States, or as a member of any State
legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to
support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in
insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort
to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of
each House, remove such disability."
This would essentially bar him from not only aspiring to any public
office in the future, but it would minimize his influence on anyone
seeking his assistance in their own aspirations.  It would
essentially minimize his influence over Republican primaries.  This
could be done with a simple majority vote in both houses of Congress
and that could be done quickly.  Furthermore, it would take a 2/3
vote of both houses to reverse, exactly the opposite of other
possible Congressional options. This would have a deterrent effect
that is more useful than other possible efforts at revenge or
punishment.
Seems like a good idea to me!  Do it, have it done, and move on!
I seriously doubt the courts would permit Congress to define when an
insurrection occurs. Instead, I strongly suspect it would take a
guilty verdict by a jury (or a guilty plea) to violating
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2383.
This would be the case if anyone, including Congress, elected to use
18 USC 2383.  A censure vote would not require that.  Trump might use
18 USC 2383 to bring charges against Congress that insurrection can
only be proved in the courts, but that would be a heavy lift.
Small point: "Charges" is not the right word. Trump would sue Congress
if they barred him from taking office after he won an election. He would
sue whoever kept him off the ballot if that were the case.
Large point: either way, I think you have the heavy lift in convincing
the courts that an extra-judicial process not found in the constitution
suffices to establish a 14th Amendment violation of insurrection.
This is why the Congress does not need a judicial process to censure.
Josh Rosenbluth
2021-01-10 04:04:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by islander
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by islander
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by islander
The news is full of possibilities for what to do about Trump while
he still has power - only 11 days left before inauguration of
Biden.  A serious question should be asked, "To what end?"
Invocation of Amendment 25 of the Constitution to remove him from
office would eliminate the possibility of any overt act, but would
have little other effect than revenge.  It is not an issue in any
case because Pence and the Cabinet would not do it.  It is not a
good idea IMV, even if they were motivated to do it.
Impeachment could be done and Pelosi probably has the votes to do
it, but it is in effect only an act of revenge since the Senate is
unlikely to convict.  It would send a strong message, but what
would it accomplish.  I suspect that Trump would treat it as an
accomplishment, the only President to be impeached twice!  It would
only serve as an act of revenge IMV with limited long term impact
on his ability to act in the future.
A third option may be a better way to punish Trump and serve to
limit his ability to influence politics in the future.  This would
be to censure him under Amendment 14(3) of the US Constitution.
"No Person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or
elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil
or military, under the United States, or under any State, who,
having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an
officer of the United States, or as a member of any State
legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State,
to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have
engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid
or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of
two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."
This would essentially bar him from not only aspiring to any public
office in the future, but it would minimize his influence on anyone
seeking his assistance in their own aspirations.  It would
essentially minimize his influence over Republican primaries.  This
could be done with a simple majority vote in both houses of
Congress and that could be done quickly.  Furthermore, it would
take a 2/3 vote of both houses to reverse, exactly the opposite of
other possible Congressional options. This would have a deterrent
effect that is more useful than other possible efforts at revenge
or punishment.
Seems like a good idea to me!  Do it, have it done, and move on!
I seriously doubt the courts would permit Congress to define when an
insurrection occurs. Instead, I strongly suspect it would take a
guilty verdict by a jury (or a guilty plea) to violating
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2383.
This would be the case if anyone, including Congress, elected to use
18 USC 2383.  A censure vote would not require that.  Trump might use
18 USC 2383 to bring charges against Congress that insurrection can
only be proved in the courts, but that would be a heavy lift.
Small point: "Charges" is not the right word. Trump would sue Congress
if they barred him from taking office after he won an election. He
would sue whoever kept him off the ballot if that were the case.
Large point: either way, I think you have the heavy lift in convincing
the courts that an extra-judicial process not found in the
constitution suffices to establish a 14th Amendment violation of
insurrection.
This is why the Congress does not need a judicial process to censure.
Of course Congress does not need a judicial process to censure. But, the
punishment for insurrection provided by the 14th Amendment (ineligible
to hold office) is not specified as being within the power of Congress
by censure or any other action (only per Article 1, Section 3, does
Congress have the power to make Trump ineligible for office through
impeachment and conviction).
El Castor
2021-01-09 20:27:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by islander
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by islander
The news is full of possibilities for what to do about Trump while he
still has power - only 11 days left before inauguration of Biden.  A
serious question should be asked, "To what end?"
Invocation of Amendment 25 of the Constitution to remove him from
office would eliminate the possibility of any overt act, but would
have little other effect than revenge.  It is not an issue in any case
because Pence and the Cabinet would not do it.  It is not a good idea
IMV, even if they were motivated to do it.
Impeachment could be done and Pelosi probably has the votes to do it,
but it is in effect only an act of revenge since the Senate is
unlikely to convict.  It would send a strong message, but what would
it accomplish.  I suspect that Trump would treat it as an
accomplishment, the only President to be impeached twice!  It would
only serve as an act of revenge IMV with limited long term impact on
his ability to act in the future.
A third option may be a better way to punish Trump and serve to limit
his ability to influence politics in the future.  This would be to
censure him under Amendment 14(3) of the US Constitution.  Literally,
"No Person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or
elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or
military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having
previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of
the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an
executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the
Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection
or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies
thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House,
remove such disability."
This would essentially bar him from not only aspiring to any public
office in the future, but it would minimize his influence on anyone
seeking his assistance in their own aspirations.  It would essentially
minimize his influence over Republican primaries.  This could be done
with a simple majority vote in both houses of Congress and that could
be done quickly.  Furthermore, it would take a 2/3 vote of both houses
to reverse, exactly the opposite of other possible Congressional
options. This would have a deterrent effect that is more useful than
other possible efforts at revenge or punishment.
Seems like a good idea to me!  Do it, have it done, and move on!
I seriously doubt the courts would permit Congress to define when an
insurrection occurs. Instead, I strongly suspect it would take a guilty
verdict by a jury (or a guilty plea) to violating
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2383.
This would be the case if anyone, including Congress, elected to use 18
USC 2383. A censure vote would not require that. Trump might use 18
USC 2383 to bring charges against Congress that insurrection can only be
proved in the courts, but that would be a heavy lift.
You're not going to shut him up. Move on. A popular productive Biden
term would be a far better remedy than some legal nonsense.
islander
2021-01-09 22:40:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by islander
The news is full of possibilities for what to do about Trump while he
still has power - only 11 days left before inauguration of Biden.  A
serious question should be asked, "To what end?"
Invocation of Amendment 25 of the Constitution to remove him from
office would eliminate the possibility of any overt act, but would
have little other effect than revenge.  It is not an issue in any case
because Pence and the Cabinet would not do it.  It is not a good idea
IMV, even if they were motivated to do it.
Impeachment could be done and Pelosi probably has the votes to do it,
but it is in effect only an act of revenge since the Senate is
unlikely to convict.  It would send a strong message, but what would
it accomplish.  I suspect that Trump would treat it as an
accomplishment, the only President to be impeached twice!  It would
only serve as an act of revenge IMV with limited long term impact on
his ability to act in the future.
A third option may be a better way to punish Trump and serve to limit
his ability to influence politics in the future.  This would be to
censure him under Amendment 14(3) of the US Constitution.  Literally,
"No Person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or
elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or
military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having
previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of
the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an
executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the
Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection
or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies
thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House,
remove such disability."
This would essentially bar him from not only aspiring to any public
office in the future, but it would minimize his influence on anyone
seeking his assistance in their own aspirations.  It would essentially
minimize his influence over Republican primaries.  This could be done
with a simple majority vote in both houses of Congress and that could
be done quickly.  Furthermore, it would take a 2/3 vote of both houses
to reverse, exactly the opposite of other possible Congressional
options. This would have a deterrent effect that is more useful than
other possible efforts at revenge or punishment.
Seems like a good idea to me!  Do it, have it done, and move on!
I seriously doubt the courts would permit Congress to define when an
insurrection occurs. Instead, I strongly suspect it would take a guilty
verdict by a jury (or a guilty plea) to violating
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2383.
This would be the case if anyone, including Congress, elected to use 18
USC 2383. A censure vote would not require that. Trump might use 18
USC 2383 to bring charges against Congress that insurrection can only be
proved in the courts, but that would be a heavy lift.
You're not going to shut him up. Move on. A popular productive Biden
term would be a far better remedy than some legal nonsense.
Biden has said that he will leave this to Congress. He is concentrating
on the future by working with Congress to pass legislation.
El Castor
2021-01-10 06:04:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by islander
The news is full of possibilities for what to do about Trump while he
still has power - only 11 days left before inauguration of Biden.  A
serious question should be asked, "To what end?"
Invocation of Amendment 25 of the Constitution to remove him from
office would eliminate the possibility of any overt act, but would
have little other effect than revenge.  It is not an issue in any case
because Pence and the Cabinet would not do it.  It is not a good idea
IMV, even if they were motivated to do it.
Impeachment could be done and Pelosi probably has the votes to do it,
but it is in effect only an act of revenge since the Senate is
unlikely to convict.  It would send a strong message, but what would
it accomplish.  I suspect that Trump would treat it as an
accomplishment, the only President to be impeached twice!  It would
only serve as an act of revenge IMV with limited long term impact on
his ability to act in the future.
A third option may be a better way to punish Trump and serve to limit
his ability to influence politics in the future.  This would be to
censure him under Amendment 14(3) of the US Constitution.  Literally,
"No Person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or
elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or
military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having
previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of
the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an
executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the
Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection
or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies
thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House,
remove such disability."
This would essentially bar him from not only aspiring to any public
office in the future, but it would minimize his influence on anyone
seeking his assistance in their own aspirations.  It would essentially
minimize his influence over Republican primaries.  This could be done
with a simple majority vote in both houses of Congress and that could
be done quickly.  Furthermore, it would take a 2/3 vote of both houses
to reverse, exactly the opposite of other possible Congressional
options. This would have a deterrent effect that is more useful than
other possible efforts at revenge or punishment.
Seems like a good idea to me!  Do it, have it done, and move on!
I seriously doubt the courts would permit Congress to define when an
insurrection occurs. Instead, I strongly suspect it would take a guilty
verdict by a jury (or a guilty plea) to violating
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2383.
This would be the case if anyone, including Congress, elected to use 18
USC 2383. A censure vote would not require that. Trump might use 18
USC 2383 to bring charges against Congress that insurrection can only be
proved in the courts, but that would be a heavy lift.
You're not going to shut him up. Move on. A popular productive Biden
term would be a far better remedy than some legal nonsense.
Biden has said that he will leave this to Congress. He is concentrating
on the future by working with Congress to pass legislation.
He's already planning on raising taxes. The corporate rate is going to
28%, which is a little lower than under Obama. The Covid deficit will
have to be paid for somehow. I just hope we don't get a DC statehood
or packed court.
islander
2021-01-10 16:34:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by islander
The news is full of possibilities for what to do about Trump while he
still has power - only 11 days left before inauguration of Biden.  A
serious question should be asked, "To what end?"
Invocation of Amendment 25 of the Constitution to remove him from
office would eliminate the possibility of any overt act, but would
have little other effect than revenge.  It is not an issue in any case
because Pence and the Cabinet would not do it.  It is not a good idea
IMV, even if they were motivated to do it.
Impeachment could be done and Pelosi probably has the votes to do it,
but it is in effect only an act of revenge since the Senate is
unlikely to convict.  It would send a strong message, but what would
it accomplish.  I suspect that Trump would treat it as an
accomplishment, the only President to be impeached twice!  It would
only serve as an act of revenge IMV with limited long term impact on
his ability to act in the future.
A third option may be a better way to punish Trump and serve to limit
his ability to influence politics in the future.  This would be to
censure him under Amendment 14(3) of the US Constitution.  Literally,
"No Person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or
elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or
military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having
previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of
the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an
executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the
Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection
or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies
thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House,
remove such disability."
This would essentially bar him from not only aspiring to any public
office in the future, but it would minimize his influence on anyone
seeking his assistance in their own aspirations.  It would essentially
minimize his influence over Republican primaries.  This could be done
with a simple majority vote in both houses of Congress and that could
be done quickly.  Furthermore, it would take a 2/3 vote of both houses
to reverse, exactly the opposite of other possible Congressional
options. This would have a deterrent effect that is more useful than
other possible efforts at revenge or punishment.
Seems like a good idea to me!  Do it, have it done, and move on!
I seriously doubt the courts would permit Congress to define when an
insurrection occurs. Instead, I strongly suspect it would take a guilty
verdict by a jury (or a guilty plea) to violating
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2383.
This would be the case if anyone, including Congress, elected to use 18
USC 2383. A censure vote would not require that. Trump might use 18
USC 2383 to bring charges against Congress that insurrection can only be
proved in the courts, but that would be a heavy lift.
You're not going to shut him up. Move on. A popular productive Biden
term would be a far better remedy than some legal nonsense.
Biden has said that he will leave this to Congress. He is concentrating
on the future by working with Congress to pass legislation.
He's already planning on raising taxes. The corporate rate is going to
28%, which is a little lower than under Obama. The Covid deficit will
have to be paid for somehow. I just hope we don't get a DC statehood
or packed court.
I doubt that your "just" is not what will satisfy you. I'm glad that
you acknowledge that increasing corporate taxes is going to be necessary
to address the deficit. The Laffer curve demonstrates this very well,
something that a lot of conservatives choose to ignore. We have to
increase revenue. Time to pay attention to both sides of the ledger sheet.

Personally, I think that the one thing that was good about the Trump tax
cuts was the doubling of the standard deduction. I don't expect that I
will ever need to itemize deductions again. :)
El Castor
2021-01-10 20:51:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by islander
The news is full of possibilities for what to do about Trump while he
still has power - only 11 days left before inauguration of Biden.  A
serious question should be asked, "To what end?"
Invocation of Amendment 25 of the Constitution to remove him from
office would eliminate the possibility of any overt act, but would
have little other effect than revenge.  It is not an issue in any case
because Pence and the Cabinet would not do it.  It is not a good idea
IMV, even if they were motivated to do it.
Impeachment could be done and Pelosi probably has the votes to do it,
but it is in effect only an act of revenge since the Senate is
unlikely to convict.  It would send a strong message, but what would
it accomplish.  I suspect that Trump would treat it as an
accomplishment, the only President to be impeached twice!  It would
only serve as an act of revenge IMV with limited long term impact on
his ability to act in the future.
A third option may be a better way to punish Trump and serve to limit
his ability to influence politics in the future.  This would be to
censure him under Amendment 14(3) of the US Constitution.  Literally,
"No Person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or
elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or
military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having
previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of
the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an
executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the
Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection
or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies
thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House,
remove such disability."
This would essentially bar him from not only aspiring to any public
office in the future, but it would minimize his influence on anyone
seeking his assistance in their own aspirations.  It would essentially
minimize his influence over Republican primaries.  This could be done
with a simple majority vote in both houses of Congress and that could
be done quickly.  Furthermore, it would take a 2/3 vote of both houses
to reverse, exactly the opposite of other possible Congressional
options. This would have a deterrent effect that is more useful than
other possible efforts at revenge or punishment.
Seems like a good idea to me!  Do it, have it done, and move on!
I seriously doubt the courts would permit Congress to define when an
insurrection occurs. Instead, I strongly suspect it would take a guilty
verdict by a jury (or a guilty plea) to violating
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2383.
This would be the case if anyone, including Congress, elected to use 18
USC 2383. A censure vote would not require that. Trump might use 18
USC 2383 to bring charges against Congress that insurrection can only be
proved in the courts, but that would be a heavy lift.
You're not going to shut him up. Move on. A popular productive Biden
term would be a far better remedy than some legal nonsense.
Biden has said that he will leave this to Congress. He is concentrating
on the future by working with Congress to pass legislation.
He's already planning on raising taxes. The corporate rate is going to
28%, which is a little lower than under Obama. The Covid deficit will
have to be paid for somehow. I just hope we don't get a DC statehood
or packed court.
I doubt that your "just" is not what will satisfy you. I'm glad that
you acknowledge that increasing corporate taxes is going to be necessary
to address the deficit. The Laffer curve demonstrates this very well,
something that a lot of conservatives choose to ignore. We have to
increase revenue. Time to pay attention to both sides of the ledger sheet.
Actually I would prefer that corporate taxes be left where they are
and personal taxes raised -- preferably on the wealthy -- but only to
get us out of the COVID hole. There is a belief among most economists
that personal taxation is less harmful to the economy than corporate.
BTW -- who do you think pays corporate taxes -- we all do, poor and
wealthy alike.
Post by islander
Personally, I think that the one thing that was good about the Trump tax
cuts was the doubling of the standard deduction. I don't expect that I
will ever need to itemize deductions again. :)
islander
2021-01-10 23:43:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by islander
The news is full of possibilities for what to do about Trump while he
still has power - only 11 days left before inauguration of Biden.  A
serious question should be asked, "To what end?"
Invocation of Amendment 25 of the Constitution to remove him from
office would eliminate the possibility of any overt act, but would
have little other effect than revenge.  It is not an issue in any case
because Pence and the Cabinet would not do it.  It is not a good idea
IMV, even if they were motivated to do it.
Impeachment could be done and Pelosi probably has the votes to do it,
but it is in effect only an act of revenge since the Senate is
unlikely to convict.  It would send a strong message, but what would
it accomplish.  I suspect that Trump would treat it as an
accomplishment, the only President to be impeached twice!  It would
only serve as an act of revenge IMV with limited long term impact on
his ability to act in the future.
A third option may be a better way to punish Trump and serve to limit
his ability to influence politics in the future.  This would be to
censure him under Amendment 14(3) of the US Constitution.  Literally,
"No Person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or
elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or
military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having
previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of
the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an
executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the
Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection
or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies
thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House,
remove such disability."
This would essentially bar him from not only aspiring to any public
office in the future, but it would minimize his influence on anyone
seeking his assistance in their own aspirations.  It would essentially
minimize his influence over Republican primaries.  This could be done
with a simple majority vote in both houses of Congress and that could
be done quickly.  Furthermore, it would take a 2/3 vote of both houses
to reverse, exactly the opposite of other possible Congressional
options. This would have a deterrent effect that is more useful than
other possible efforts at revenge or punishment.
Seems like a good idea to me!  Do it, have it done, and move on!
I seriously doubt the courts would permit Congress to define when an
insurrection occurs. Instead, I strongly suspect it would take a guilty
verdict by a jury (or a guilty plea) to violating
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2383.
This would be the case if anyone, including Congress, elected to use 18
USC 2383. A censure vote would not require that. Trump might use 18
USC 2383 to bring charges against Congress that insurrection can only be
proved in the courts, but that would be a heavy lift.
You're not going to shut him up. Move on. A popular productive Biden
term would be a far better remedy than some legal nonsense.
Biden has said that he will leave this to Congress. He is concentrating
on the future by working with Congress to pass legislation.
He's already planning on raising taxes. The corporate rate is going to
28%, which is a little lower than under Obama. The Covid deficit will
have to be paid for somehow. I just hope we don't get a DC statehood
or packed court.
I doubt that your "just" is not what will satisfy you. I'm glad that
you acknowledge that increasing corporate taxes is going to be necessary
to address the deficit. The Laffer curve demonstrates this very well,
something that a lot of conservatives choose to ignore. We have to
increase revenue. Time to pay attention to both sides of the ledger sheet.
Actually I would prefer that corporate taxes be left where they are
and personal taxes raised -- preferably on the wealthy -- but only to
get us out of the COVID hole. There is a belief among most economists
that personal taxation is less harmful to the economy than corporate.
BTW -- who do you think pays corporate taxes -- we all do, poor and
wealthy alike.
I suspect that an increase in personal income taxation *is* less harmful
to the economy simply because there is less flexibility on the demand
side. For example, in the 2009 recession, personal consumption
expenditures took a small dip while GDP per capita took a much bigger
dip. Why? Because people were already living close to what they could
afford and had to go into larger debt to survive. By contrast,
businesses took a bigger hit in their profits. Hence, there is a more
reliable source of tax from the general population than there is from
businesses. Not a pretty picture, but it is what it is.
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Personally, I think that the one thing that was good about the Trump tax
cuts was the doubling of the standard deduction. I don't expect that I
will ever need to itemize deductions again. :)
El Castor
2021-01-11 08:02:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by islander
The news is full of possibilities for what to do about Trump while he
still has power - only 11 days left before inauguration of Biden.  A
serious question should be asked, "To what end?"
Invocation of Amendment 25 of the Constitution to remove him from
office would eliminate the possibility of any overt act, but would
have little other effect than revenge.  It is not an issue in any case
because Pence and the Cabinet would not do it.  It is not a good idea
IMV, even if they were motivated to do it.
Impeachment could be done and Pelosi probably has the votes to do it,
but it is in effect only an act of revenge since the Senate is
unlikely to convict.  It would send a strong message, but what would
it accomplish.  I suspect that Trump would treat it as an
accomplishment, the only President to be impeached twice!  It would
only serve as an act of revenge IMV with limited long term impact on
his ability to act in the future.
A third option may be a better way to punish Trump and serve to limit
his ability to influence politics in the future.  This would be to
censure him under Amendment 14(3) of the US Constitution.  Literally,
"No Person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or
elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or
military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having
previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of
the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an
executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the
Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection
or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies
thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House,
remove such disability."
This would essentially bar him from not only aspiring to any public
office in the future, but it would minimize his influence on anyone
seeking his assistance in their own aspirations.  It would essentially
minimize his influence over Republican primaries.  This could be done
with a simple majority vote in both houses of Congress and that could
be done quickly.  Furthermore, it would take a 2/3 vote of both houses
to reverse, exactly the opposite of other possible Congressional
options. This would have a deterrent effect that is more useful than
other possible efforts at revenge or punishment.
Seems like a good idea to me!  Do it, have it done, and move on!
I seriously doubt the courts would permit Congress to define when an
insurrection occurs. Instead, I strongly suspect it would take a guilty
verdict by a jury (or a guilty plea) to violating
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2383.
This would be the case if anyone, including Congress, elected to use 18
USC 2383. A censure vote would not require that. Trump might use 18
USC 2383 to bring charges against Congress that insurrection can only be
proved in the courts, but that would be a heavy lift.
You're not going to shut him up. Move on. A popular productive Biden
term would be a far better remedy than some legal nonsense.
Biden has said that he will leave this to Congress. He is concentrating
on the future by working with Congress to pass legislation.
He's already planning on raising taxes. The corporate rate is going to
28%, which is a little lower than under Obama. The Covid deficit will
have to be paid for somehow. I just hope we don't get a DC statehood
or packed court.
I doubt that your "just" is not what will satisfy you. I'm glad that
you acknowledge that increasing corporate taxes is going to be necessary
to address the deficit. The Laffer curve demonstrates this very well,
something that a lot of conservatives choose to ignore. We have to
increase revenue. Time to pay attention to both sides of the ledger sheet.
Actually I would prefer that corporate taxes be left where they are
and personal taxes raised -- preferably on the wealthy -- but only to
get us out of the COVID hole. There is a belief among most economists
that personal taxation is less harmful to the economy than corporate.
BTW -- who do you think pays corporate taxes -- we all do, poor and
wealthy alike.
I suspect that an increase in personal income taxation *is* less harmful
to the economy simply because there is less flexibility on the demand
side. For example, in the 2009 recession, personal consumption
expenditures took a small dip while GDP per capita took a much bigger
dip. Why? Because people were already living close to what they could
afford and had to go into larger debt to survive. By contrast,
businesses took a bigger hit in their profits. Hence, there is a more
reliable source of tax from the general population than there is from
businesses. Not a pretty picture, but it is what it is.
"Corporate taxes are found to be most harmful for growth, followed by
personal income taxes, and then consumption taxes."
https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/economics/taxation-and-economic-growth_241216205486
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Personally, I think that the one thing that was good about the Trump tax
cuts was the doubling of the standard deduction. I don't expect that I
will ever need to itemize deductions again. :)
islander
2021-01-11 16:32:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by islander
The news is full of possibilities for what to do about Trump while he
still has power - only 11 days left before inauguration of Biden.  A
serious question should be asked, "To what end?"
Invocation of Amendment 25 of the Constitution to remove him from
office would eliminate the possibility of any overt act, but would
have little other effect than revenge.  It is not an issue in any case
because Pence and the Cabinet would not do it.  It is not a good idea
IMV, even if they were motivated to do it.
Impeachment could be done and Pelosi probably has the votes to do it,
but it is in effect only an act of revenge since the Senate is
unlikely to convict.  It would send a strong message, but what would
it accomplish.  I suspect that Trump would treat it as an
accomplishment, the only President to be impeached twice!  It would
only serve as an act of revenge IMV with limited long term impact on
his ability to act in the future.
A third option may be a better way to punish Trump and serve to limit
his ability to influence politics in the future.  This would be to
censure him under Amendment 14(3) of the US Constitution.  Literally,
"No Person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or
elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or
military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having
previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of
the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an
executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the
Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection
or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies
thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House,
remove such disability."
This would essentially bar him from not only aspiring to any public
office in the future, but it would minimize his influence on anyone
seeking his assistance in their own aspirations.  It would essentially
minimize his influence over Republican primaries.  This could be done
with a simple majority vote in both houses of Congress and that could
be done quickly.  Furthermore, it would take a 2/3 vote of both houses
to reverse, exactly the opposite of other possible Congressional
options. This would have a deterrent effect that is more useful than
other possible efforts at revenge or punishment.
Seems like a good idea to me!  Do it, have it done, and move on!
I seriously doubt the courts would permit Congress to define when an
insurrection occurs. Instead, I strongly suspect it would take a guilty
verdict by a jury (or a guilty plea) to violating
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2383.
This would be the case if anyone, including Congress, elected to use 18
USC 2383. A censure vote would not require that. Trump might use 18
USC 2383 to bring charges against Congress that insurrection can only be
proved in the courts, but that would be a heavy lift.
You're not going to shut him up. Move on. A popular productive Biden
term would be a far better remedy than some legal nonsense.
Biden has said that he will leave this to Congress. He is concentrating
on the future by working with Congress to pass legislation.
He's already planning on raising taxes. The corporate rate is going to
28%, which is a little lower than under Obama. The Covid deficit will
have to be paid for somehow. I just hope we don't get a DC statehood
or packed court.
I doubt that your "just" is not what will satisfy you. I'm glad that
you acknowledge that increasing corporate taxes is going to be necessary
to address the deficit. The Laffer curve demonstrates this very well,
something that a lot of conservatives choose to ignore. We have to
increase revenue. Time to pay attention to both sides of the ledger sheet.
Actually I would prefer that corporate taxes be left where they are
and personal taxes raised -- preferably on the wealthy -- but only to
get us out of the COVID hole. There is a belief among most economists
that personal taxation is less harmful to the economy than corporate.
BTW -- who do you think pays corporate taxes -- we all do, poor and
wealthy alike.
I suspect that an increase in personal income taxation *is* less harmful
to the economy simply because there is less flexibility on the demand
side. For example, in the 2009 recession, personal consumption
expenditures took a small dip while GDP per capita took a much bigger
dip. Why? Because people were already living close to what they could
afford and had to go into larger debt to survive. By contrast,
businesses took a bigger hit in their profits. Hence, there is a more
reliable source of tax from the general population than there is from
businesses. Not a pretty picture, but it is what it is.
"Corporate taxes are found to be most harmful for growth, followed by
personal income taxes, and then consumption taxes."
https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/economics/taxation-and-economic-growth_241216205486
But, we are not talking about growth. I'm pointing out that when the
country is in a serious recession and people are struggling, consumption
hits a lower limit. People have to survive. This is part of the debate
over demand vs supply economics.
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Personally, I think that the one thing that was good about the Trump tax
cuts was the doubling of the standard deduction. I don't expect that I
will ever need to itemize deductions again. :)
El Castor
2021-01-11 19:04:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by islander
The news is full of possibilities for what to do about Trump while he
still has power - only 11 days left before inauguration of Biden.  A
serious question should be asked, "To what end?"
Invocation of Amendment 25 of the Constitution to remove him from
office would eliminate the possibility of any overt act, but would
have little other effect than revenge.  It is not an issue in any case
because Pence and the Cabinet would not do it.  It is not a good idea
IMV, even if they were motivated to do it.
Impeachment could be done and Pelosi probably has the votes to do it,
but it is in effect only an act of revenge since the Senate is
unlikely to convict.  It would send a strong message, but what would
it accomplish.  I suspect that Trump would treat it as an
accomplishment, the only President to be impeached twice!  It would
only serve as an act of revenge IMV with limited long term impact on
his ability to act in the future.
A third option may be a better way to punish Trump and serve to limit
his ability to influence politics in the future.  This would be to
censure him under Amendment 14(3) of the US Constitution.  Literally,
"No Person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or
elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or
military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having
previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of
the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an
executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the
Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection
or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies
thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House,
remove such disability."
This would essentially bar him from not only aspiring to any public
office in the future, but it would minimize his influence on anyone
seeking his assistance in their own aspirations.  It would essentially
minimize his influence over Republican primaries.  This could be done
with a simple majority vote in both houses of Congress and that could
be done quickly.  Furthermore, it would take a 2/3 vote of both houses
to reverse, exactly the opposite of other possible Congressional
options. This would have a deterrent effect that is more useful than
other possible efforts at revenge or punishment.
Seems like a good idea to me!  Do it, have it done, and move on!
I seriously doubt the courts would permit Congress to define when an
insurrection occurs. Instead, I strongly suspect it would take a guilty
verdict by a jury (or a guilty plea) to violating
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2383.
This would be the case if anyone, including Congress, elected to use 18
USC 2383. A censure vote would not require that. Trump might use 18
USC 2383 to bring charges against Congress that insurrection can only be
proved in the courts, but that would be a heavy lift.
You're not going to shut him up. Move on. A popular productive Biden
term would be a far better remedy than some legal nonsense.
Biden has said that he will leave this to Congress. He is concentrating
on the future by working with Congress to pass legislation.
He's already planning on raising taxes. The corporate rate is going to
28%, which is a little lower than under Obama. The Covid deficit will
have to be paid for somehow. I just hope we don't get a DC statehood
or packed court.
I doubt that your "just" is not what will satisfy you. I'm glad that
you acknowledge that increasing corporate taxes is going to be necessary
to address the deficit. The Laffer curve demonstrates this very well,
something that a lot of conservatives choose to ignore. We have to
increase revenue. Time to pay attention to both sides of the ledger sheet.
Actually I would prefer that corporate taxes be left where they are
and personal taxes raised -- preferably on the wealthy -- but only to
get us out of the COVID hole. There is a belief among most economists
that personal taxation is less harmful to the economy than corporate.
BTW -- who do you think pays corporate taxes -- we all do, poor and
wealthy alike.
I suspect that an increase in personal income taxation *is* less harmful
to the economy simply because there is less flexibility on the demand
side. For example, in the 2009 recession, personal consumption
expenditures took a small dip while GDP per capita took a much bigger
dip. Why? Because people were already living close to what they could
afford and had to go into larger debt to survive. By contrast,
businesses took a bigger hit in their profits. Hence, there is a more
reliable source of tax from the general population than there is from
businesses. Not a pretty picture, but it is what it is.
"Corporate taxes are found to be most harmful for growth, followed by
personal income taxes, and then consumption taxes."
https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/economics/taxation-and-economic-growth_241216205486
But, we are not talking about growth. I'm pointing out that when the
country is in a serious recession and people are struggling, consumption
hits a lower limit. People have to survive. This is part of the debate
over demand vs supply economics.
To be clear, when I talk about personal income taxation I'm speaking
of the personal income of upper echelon earners versus corporate
taxation, as in taxing the "rich". Politicians like corporate taxation
because corporations don't vote. Most frankly don't care about the
impact on the economy. Even taxing of the rich has to be handled
sensibly. There is the famous case of the Swedish actress, Astrid
Lindgren, who was being taxed at the rate of 103% of her annual
income.
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Personally, I think that the one thing that was good about the Trump tax
cuts was the doubling of the standard deduction. I don't expect that I
will ever need to itemize deductions again. :)
islander
2021-01-12 01:45:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by islander
The news is full of possibilities for what to do about Trump while he
still has power - only 11 days left before inauguration of Biden.  A
serious question should be asked, "To what end?"
Invocation of Amendment 25 of the Constitution to remove him from
office would eliminate the possibility of any overt act, but would
have little other effect than revenge.  It is not an issue in any case
because Pence and the Cabinet would not do it.  It is not a good idea
IMV, even if they were motivated to do it.
Impeachment could be done and Pelosi probably has the votes to do it,
but it is in effect only an act of revenge since the Senate is
unlikely to convict.  It would send a strong message, but what would
it accomplish.  I suspect that Trump would treat it as an
accomplishment, the only President to be impeached twice!  It would
only serve as an act of revenge IMV with limited long term impact on
his ability to act in the future.
A third option may be a better way to punish Trump and serve to limit
his ability to influence politics in the future.  This would be to
censure him under Amendment 14(3) of the US Constitution.  Literally,
"No Person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or
elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or
military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having
previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of
the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an
executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the
Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection
or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies
thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House,
remove such disability."
This would essentially bar him from not only aspiring to any public
office in the future, but it would minimize his influence on anyone
seeking his assistance in their own aspirations.  It would essentially
minimize his influence over Republican primaries.  This could be done
with a simple majority vote in both houses of Congress and that could
be done quickly.  Furthermore, it would take a 2/3 vote of both houses
to reverse, exactly the opposite of other possible Congressional
options. This would have a deterrent effect that is more useful than
other possible efforts at revenge or punishment.
Seems like a good idea to me!  Do it, have it done, and move on!
I seriously doubt the courts would permit Congress to define when an
insurrection occurs. Instead, I strongly suspect it would take a guilty
verdict by a jury (or a guilty plea) to violating
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2383.
This would be the case if anyone, including Congress, elected to use 18
USC 2383. A censure vote would not require that. Trump might use 18
USC 2383 to bring charges against Congress that insurrection can only be
proved in the courts, but that would be a heavy lift.
You're not going to shut him up. Move on. A popular productive Biden
term would be a far better remedy than some legal nonsense.
Biden has said that he will leave this to Congress. He is concentrating
on the future by working with Congress to pass legislation.
He's already planning on raising taxes. The corporate rate is going to
28%, which is a little lower than under Obama. The Covid deficit will
have to be paid for somehow. I just hope we don't get a DC statehood
or packed court.
I doubt that your "just" is not what will satisfy you. I'm glad that
you acknowledge that increasing corporate taxes is going to be necessary
to address the deficit. The Laffer curve demonstrates this very well,
something that a lot of conservatives choose to ignore. We have to
increase revenue. Time to pay attention to both sides of the ledger sheet.
Actually I would prefer that corporate taxes be left where they are
and personal taxes raised -- preferably on the wealthy -- but only to
get us out of the COVID hole. There is a belief among most economists
that personal taxation is less harmful to the economy than corporate.
BTW -- who do you think pays corporate taxes -- we all do, poor and
wealthy alike.
I suspect that an increase in personal income taxation *is* less harmful
to the economy simply because there is less flexibility on the demand
side. For example, in the 2009 recession, personal consumption
expenditures took a small dip while GDP per capita took a much bigger
dip. Why? Because people were already living close to what they could
afford and had to go into larger debt to survive. By contrast,
businesses took a bigger hit in their profits. Hence, there is a more
reliable source of tax from the general population than there is from
businesses. Not a pretty picture, but it is what it is.
"Corporate taxes are found to be most harmful for growth, followed by
personal income taxes, and then consumption taxes."
https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/economics/taxation-and-economic-growth_241216205486
But, we are not talking about growth. I'm pointing out that when the
country is in a serious recession and people are struggling, consumption
hits a lower limit. People have to survive. This is part of the debate
over demand vs supply economics.
To be clear, when I talk about personal income taxation I'm speaking
of the personal income of upper echelon earners versus corporate
taxation, as in taxing the "rich". Politicians like corporate taxation
because corporations don't vote. Most frankly don't care about the
impact on the economy. Even taxing of the rich has to be handled
sensibly. There is the famous case of the Swedish actress, Astrid
Lindgren, who was being taxed at the rate of 103% of her annual
income.
Ok, thanks for the clarification. I was only referring to the effects
of consumption on the lower 90% of taxpayers. Yes, the upper also pays
income tax, but the effects on consumption would be much less than the
rest of the population. In addition, the upper 10% probably exhibits
the same drop in income as corporations in a deep recession because much
of their income is not earned income (wages). Democratic politicians
argue to tax the rich, not just corporations, but that is another issue.
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Personally, I think that the one thing that was good about the Trump tax
cuts was the doubling of the standard deduction. I don't expect that I
will ever need to itemize deductions again. :)
El Castor
2021-01-12 06:25:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by islander
The news is full of possibilities for what to do about Trump while he
still has power - only 11 days left before inauguration of Biden.  A
serious question should be asked, "To what end?"
Invocation of Amendment 25 of the Constitution to remove him from
office would eliminate the possibility of any overt act, but would
have little other effect than revenge.  It is not an issue in any case
because Pence and the Cabinet would not do it.  It is not a good idea
IMV, even if they were motivated to do it.
Impeachment could be done and Pelosi probably has the votes to do it,
but it is in effect only an act of revenge since the Senate is
unlikely to convict.  It would send a strong message, but what would
it accomplish.  I suspect that Trump would treat it as an
accomplishment, the only President to be impeached twice!  It would
only serve as an act of revenge IMV with limited long term impact on
his ability to act in the future.
A third option may be a better way to punish Trump and serve to limit
his ability to influence politics in the future.  This would be to
censure him under Amendment 14(3) of the US Constitution.  Literally,
"No Person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or
elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or
military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having
previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of
the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an
executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the
Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection
or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies
thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House,
remove such disability."
This would essentially bar him from not only aspiring to any public
office in the future, but it would minimize his influence on anyone
seeking his assistance in their own aspirations.  It would essentially
minimize his influence over Republican primaries.  This could be done
with a simple majority vote in both houses of Congress and that could
be done quickly.  Furthermore, it would take a 2/3 vote of both houses
to reverse, exactly the opposite of other possible Congressional
options. This would have a deterrent effect that is more useful than
other possible efforts at revenge or punishment.
Seems like a good idea to me!  Do it, have it done, and move on!
I seriously doubt the courts would permit Congress to define when an
insurrection occurs. Instead, I strongly suspect it would take a guilty
verdict by a jury (or a guilty plea) to violating
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2383.
This would be the case if anyone, including Congress, elected to use 18
USC 2383. A censure vote would not require that. Trump might use 18
USC 2383 to bring charges against Congress that insurrection can only be
proved in the courts, but that would be a heavy lift.
You're not going to shut him up. Move on. A popular productive Biden
term would be a far better remedy than some legal nonsense.
Biden has said that he will leave this to Congress. He is concentrating
on the future by working with Congress to pass legislation.
He's already planning on raising taxes. The corporate rate is going to
28%, which is a little lower than under Obama. The Covid deficit will
have to be paid for somehow. I just hope we don't get a DC statehood
or packed court.
I doubt that your "just" is not what will satisfy you. I'm glad that
you acknowledge that increasing corporate taxes is going to be necessary
to address the deficit. The Laffer curve demonstrates this very well,
something that a lot of conservatives choose to ignore. We have to
increase revenue. Time to pay attention to both sides of the ledger sheet.
Actually I would prefer that corporate taxes be left where they are
and personal taxes raised -- preferably on the wealthy -- but only to
get us out of the COVID hole. There is a belief among most economists
that personal taxation is less harmful to the economy than corporate.
BTW -- who do you think pays corporate taxes -- we all do, poor and
wealthy alike.
I suspect that an increase in personal income taxation *is* less harmful
to the economy simply because there is less flexibility on the demand
side. For example, in the 2009 recession, personal consumption
expenditures took a small dip while GDP per capita took a much bigger
dip. Why? Because people were already living close to what they could
afford and had to go into larger debt to survive. By contrast,
businesses took a bigger hit in their profits. Hence, there is a more
reliable source of tax from the general population than there is from
businesses. Not a pretty picture, but it is what it is.
"Corporate taxes are found to be most harmful for growth, followed by
personal income taxes, and then consumption taxes."
https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/economics/taxation-and-economic-growth_241216205486
But, we are not talking about growth. I'm pointing out that when the
country is in a serious recession and people are struggling, consumption
hits a lower limit. People have to survive. This is part of the debate
over demand vs supply economics.
To be clear, when I talk about personal income taxation I'm speaking
of the personal income of upper echelon earners versus corporate
taxation, as in taxing the "rich". Politicians like corporate taxation
because corporations don't vote. Most frankly don't care about the
impact on the economy. Even taxing of the rich has to be handled
sensibly. There is the famous case of the Swedish actress, Astrid
Lindgren, who was being taxed at the rate of 103% of her annual
income.
Ok, thanks for the clarification. I was only referring to the effects
of consumption on the lower 90% of taxpayers. Yes, the upper also pays
income tax, but the effects on consumption would be much less than the
rest of the population. In addition, the upper 10% probably exhibits
the same drop in income as corporations in a deep recession because much
of their income is not earned income (wages). Democratic politicians
argue to tax the rich, not just corporations, but that is another issue.
My concern is economic, not social. A strong economy raises all boats,
small and large. (-8
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Personally, I think that the one thing that was good about the Trump tax
cuts was the doubling of the standard deduction. I don't expect that I
will ever need to itemize deductions again. :)
islander
2021-01-12 15:44:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by islander
The news is full of possibilities for what to do about Trump while he
still has power - only 11 days left before inauguration of Biden.  A
serious question should be asked, "To what end?"
Invocation of Amendment 25 of the Constitution to remove him from
office would eliminate the possibility of any overt act, but would
have little other effect than revenge.  It is not an issue in any case
because Pence and the Cabinet would not do it.  It is not a good idea
IMV, even if they were motivated to do it.
Impeachment could be done and Pelosi probably has the votes to do it,
but it is in effect only an act of revenge since the Senate is
unlikely to convict.  It would send a strong message, but what would
it accomplish.  I suspect that Trump would treat it as an
accomplishment, the only President to be impeached twice!  It would
only serve as an act of revenge IMV with limited long term impact on
his ability to act in the future.
A third option may be a better way to punish Trump and serve to limit
his ability to influence politics in the future.  This would be to
censure him under Amendment 14(3) of the US Constitution.  Literally,
"No Person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or
elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or
military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having
previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of
the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an
executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the
Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection
or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies
thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House,
remove such disability."
This would essentially bar him from not only aspiring to any public
office in the future, but it would minimize his influence on anyone
seeking his assistance in their own aspirations.  It would essentially
minimize his influence over Republican primaries.  This could be done
with a simple majority vote in both houses of Congress and that could
be done quickly.  Furthermore, it would take a 2/3 vote of both houses
to reverse, exactly the opposite of other possible Congressional
options. This would have a deterrent effect that is more useful than
other possible efforts at revenge or punishment.
Seems like a good idea to me!  Do it, have it done, and move on!
I seriously doubt the courts would permit Congress to define when an
insurrection occurs. Instead, I strongly suspect it would take a guilty
verdict by a jury (or a guilty plea) to violating
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2383.
This would be the case if anyone, including Congress, elected to use 18
USC 2383. A censure vote would not require that. Trump might use 18
USC 2383 to bring charges against Congress that insurrection can only be
proved in the courts, but that would be a heavy lift.
You're not going to shut him up. Move on. A popular productive Biden
term would be a far better remedy than some legal nonsense.
Biden has said that he will leave this to Congress. He is concentrating
on the future by working with Congress to pass legislation.
He's already planning on raising taxes. The corporate rate is going to
28%, which is a little lower than under Obama. The Covid deficit will
have to be paid for somehow. I just hope we don't get a DC statehood
or packed court.
I doubt that your "just" is not what will satisfy you. I'm glad that
you acknowledge that increasing corporate taxes is going to be necessary
to address the deficit. The Laffer curve demonstrates this very well,
something that a lot of conservatives choose to ignore. We have to
increase revenue. Time to pay attention to both sides of the ledger sheet.
Actually I would prefer that corporate taxes be left where they are
and personal taxes raised -- preferably on the wealthy -- but only to
get us out of the COVID hole. There is a belief among most economists
that personal taxation is less harmful to the economy than corporate.
BTW -- who do you think pays corporate taxes -- we all do, poor and
wealthy alike.
I suspect that an increase in personal income taxation *is* less harmful
to the economy simply because there is less flexibility on the demand
side. For example, in the 2009 recession, personal consumption
expenditures took a small dip while GDP per capita took a much bigger
dip. Why? Because people were already living close to what they could
afford and had to go into larger debt to survive. By contrast,
businesses took a bigger hit in their profits. Hence, there is a more
reliable source of tax from the general population than there is from
businesses. Not a pretty picture, but it is what it is.
"Corporate taxes are found to be most harmful for growth, followed by
personal income taxes, and then consumption taxes."
https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/economics/taxation-and-economic-growth_241216205486
But, we are not talking about growth. I'm pointing out that when the
country is in a serious recession and people are struggling, consumption
hits a lower limit. People have to survive. This is part of the debate
over demand vs supply economics.
To be clear, when I talk about personal income taxation I'm speaking
of the personal income of upper echelon earners versus corporate
taxation, as in taxing the "rich". Politicians like corporate taxation
because corporations don't vote. Most frankly don't care about the
impact on the economy. Even taxing of the rich has to be handled
sensibly. There is the famous case of the Swedish actress, Astrid
Lindgren, who was being taxed at the rate of 103% of her annual
income.
Ok, thanks for the clarification. I was only referring to the effects
of consumption on the lower 90% of taxpayers. Yes, the upper also pays
income tax, but the effects on consumption would be much less than the
rest of the population. In addition, the upper 10% probably exhibits
the same drop in income as corporations in a deep recession because much
of their income is not earned income (wages). Democratic politicians
argue to tax the rich, not just corporations, but that is another issue.
My concern is economic, not social. A strong economy raises all boats,
small and large. (-8
Trickle down? Really?
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Personally, I think that the one thing that was good about the Trump tax
cuts was the doubling of the standard deduction. I don't expect that I
will ever need to itemize deductions again. :)
El Castor
2021-01-12 19:05:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by islander
The news is full of possibilities for what to do about Trump while he
still has power - only 11 days left before inauguration of Biden.  A
serious question should be asked, "To what end?"
Invocation of Amendment 25 of the Constitution to remove him from
office would eliminate the possibility of any overt act, but would
have little other effect than revenge.  It is not an issue in any case
because Pence and the Cabinet would not do it.  It is not a good idea
IMV, even if they were motivated to do it.
Impeachment could be done and Pelosi probably has the votes to do it,
but it is in effect only an act of revenge since the Senate is
unlikely to convict.  It would send a strong message, but what would
it accomplish.  I suspect that Trump would treat it as an
accomplishment, the only President to be impeached twice!  It would
only serve as an act of revenge IMV with limited long term impact on
his ability to act in the future.
A third option may be a better way to punish Trump and serve to limit
his ability to influence politics in the future.  This would be to
censure him under Amendment 14(3) of the US Constitution.  Literally,
"No Person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or
elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or
military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having
previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of
the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an
executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the
Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection
or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies
thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House,
remove such disability."
This would essentially bar him from not only aspiring to any public
office in the future, but it would minimize his influence on anyone
seeking his assistance in their own aspirations.  It would essentially
minimize his influence over Republican primaries.  This could be done
with a simple majority vote in both houses of Congress and that could
be done quickly.  Furthermore, it would take a 2/3 vote of both houses
to reverse, exactly the opposite of other possible Congressional
options. This would have a deterrent effect that is more useful than
other possible efforts at revenge or punishment.
Seems like a good idea to me!  Do it, have it done, and move on!
I seriously doubt the courts would permit Congress to define when an
insurrection occurs. Instead, I strongly suspect it would take a guilty
verdict by a jury (or a guilty plea) to violating
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2383.
This would be the case if anyone, including Congress, elected to use 18
USC 2383. A censure vote would not require that. Trump might use 18
USC 2383 to bring charges against Congress that insurrection can only be
proved in the courts, but that would be a heavy lift.
You're not going to shut him up. Move on. A popular productive Biden
term would be a far better remedy than some legal nonsense.
Biden has said that he will leave this to Congress. He is concentrating
on the future by working with Congress to pass legislation.
He's already planning on raising taxes. The corporate rate is going to
28%, which is a little lower than under Obama. The Covid deficit will
have to be paid for somehow. I just hope we don't get a DC statehood
or packed court.
I doubt that your "just" is not what will satisfy you. I'm glad that
you acknowledge that increasing corporate taxes is going to be necessary
to address the deficit. The Laffer curve demonstrates this very well,
something that a lot of conservatives choose to ignore. We have to
increase revenue. Time to pay attention to both sides of the ledger sheet.
Actually I would prefer that corporate taxes be left where they are
and personal taxes raised -- preferably on the wealthy -- but only to
get us out of the COVID hole. There is a belief among most economists
that personal taxation is less harmful to the economy than corporate.
BTW -- who do you think pays corporate taxes -- we all do, poor and
wealthy alike.
I suspect that an increase in personal income taxation *is* less harmful
to the economy simply because there is less flexibility on the demand
side. For example, in the 2009 recession, personal consumption
expenditures took a small dip while GDP per capita took a much bigger
dip. Why? Because people were already living close to what they could
afford and had to go into larger debt to survive. By contrast,
businesses took a bigger hit in their profits. Hence, there is a more
reliable source of tax from the general population than there is from
businesses. Not a pretty picture, but it is what it is.
"Corporate taxes are found to be most harmful for growth, followed by
personal income taxes, and then consumption taxes."
https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/economics/taxation-and-economic-growth_241216205486
But, we are not talking about growth. I'm pointing out that when the
country is in a serious recession and people are struggling, consumption
hits a lower limit. People have to survive. This is part of the debate
over demand vs supply economics.
To be clear, when I talk about personal income taxation I'm speaking
of the personal income of upper echelon earners versus corporate
taxation, as in taxing the "rich". Politicians like corporate taxation
because corporations don't vote. Most frankly don't care about the
impact on the economy. Even taxing of the rich has to be handled
sensibly. There is the famous case of the Swedish actress, Astrid
Lindgren, who was being taxed at the rate of 103% of her annual
income.
Ok, thanks for the clarification. I was only referring to the effects
of consumption on the lower 90% of taxpayers. Yes, the upper also pays
income tax, but the effects on consumption would be much less than the
rest of the population. In addition, the upper 10% probably exhibits
the same drop in income as corporations in a deep recession because much
of their income is not earned income (wages). Democratic politicians
argue to tax the rich, not just corporations, but that is another issue.
My concern is economic, not social. A strong economy raises all boats,
small and large. (-8
Trickle down? Really?
Good jobs and a higher standard of living! The socialist shining stars
of Europe -- Sweden, Denmark, Norway, etc have all been cutting
corporate rates for years -- long before Trump came along. Add in
state rates on top of federal and a pre-Trump US had the highest rates
in the developed world. Why do you think US corporations were stashing
and investing trillions overseas? At 25%, even China had a much lower
rate than a pre-Trump US.

To be perfectly clear, tax the money after it flows to the wealthy. By
all means, tax the rich!! But out of some deranged desire to punish
the rich, do not cripple the US ability to compete in the world with
some of the highest corporate taxation in the world.
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Personally, I think that the one thing that was good about the Trump tax
cuts was the doubling of the standard deduction. I don't expect that I
will ever need to itemize deductions again. :)
islander
2021-01-12 20:41:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by islander
The news is full of possibilities for what to do about Trump while he
still has power - only 11 days left before inauguration of Biden.  A
serious question should be asked, "To what end?"
Invocation of Amendment 25 of the Constitution to remove him from
office would eliminate the possibility of any overt act, but would
have little other effect than revenge.  It is not an issue in any case
because Pence and the Cabinet would not do it.  It is not a good idea
IMV, even if they were motivated to do it.
Impeachment could be done and Pelosi probably has the votes to do it,
but it is in effect only an act of revenge since the Senate is
unlikely to convict.  It would send a strong message, but what would
it accomplish.  I suspect that Trump would treat it as an
accomplishment, the only President to be impeached twice!  It would
only serve as an act of revenge IMV with limited long term impact on
his ability to act in the future.
A third option may be a better way to punish Trump and serve to limit
his ability to influence politics in the future.  This would be to
censure him under Amendment 14(3) of the US Constitution.  Literally,
"No Person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or
elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or
military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having
previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of
the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an
executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the
Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection
or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies
thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House,
remove such disability."
This would essentially bar him from not only aspiring to any public
office in the future, but it would minimize his influence on anyone
seeking his assistance in their own aspirations.  It would essentially
minimize his influence over Republican primaries.  This could be done
with a simple majority vote in both houses of Congress and that could
be done quickly.  Furthermore, it would take a 2/3 vote of both houses
to reverse, exactly the opposite of other possible Congressional
options. This would have a deterrent effect that is more useful than
other possible efforts at revenge or punishment.
Seems like a good idea to me!  Do it, have it done, and move on!
I seriously doubt the courts would permit Congress to define when an
insurrection occurs. Instead, I strongly suspect it would take a guilty
verdict by a jury (or a guilty plea) to violating
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2383.
This would be the case if anyone, including Congress, elected to use 18
USC 2383. A censure vote would not require that. Trump might use 18
USC 2383 to bring charges against Congress that insurrection can only be
proved in the courts, but that would be a heavy lift.
You're not going to shut him up. Move on. A popular productive Biden
term would be a far better remedy than some legal nonsense.
Biden has said that he will leave this to Congress. He is concentrating
on the future by working with Congress to pass legislation.
He's already planning on raising taxes. The corporate rate is going to
28%, which is a little lower than under Obama. The Covid deficit will
have to be paid for somehow. I just hope we don't get a DC statehood
or packed court.
I doubt that your "just" is not what will satisfy you. I'm glad that
you acknowledge that increasing corporate taxes is going to be necessary
to address the deficit. The Laffer curve demonstrates this very well,
something that a lot of conservatives choose to ignore. We have to
increase revenue. Time to pay attention to both sides of the ledger sheet.
Actually I would prefer that corporate taxes be left where they are
and personal taxes raised -- preferably on the wealthy -- but only to
get us out of the COVID hole. There is a belief among most economists
that personal taxation is less harmful to the economy than corporate.
BTW -- who do you think pays corporate taxes -- we all do, poor and
wealthy alike.
I suspect that an increase in personal income taxation *is* less harmful
to the economy simply because there is less flexibility on the demand
side. For example, in the 2009 recession, personal consumption
expenditures took a small dip while GDP per capita took a much bigger
dip. Why? Because people were already living close to what they could
afford and had to go into larger debt to survive. By contrast,
businesses took a bigger hit in their profits. Hence, there is a more
reliable source of tax from the general population than there is from
businesses. Not a pretty picture, but it is what it is.
"Corporate taxes are found to be most harmful for growth, followed by
personal income taxes, and then consumption taxes."
https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/economics/taxation-and-economic-growth_241216205486
But, we are not talking about growth. I'm pointing out that when the
country is in a serious recession and people are struggling, consumption
hits a lower limit. People have to survive. This is part of the debate
over demand vs supply economics.
To be clear, when I talk about personal income taxation I'm speaking
of the personal income of upper echelon earners versus corporate
taxation, as in taxing the "rich". Politicians like corporate taxation
because corporations don't vote. Most frankly don't care about the
impact on the economy. Even taxing of the rich has to be handled
sensibly. There is the famous case of the Swedish actress, Astrid
Lindgren, who was being taxed at the rate of 103% of her annual
income.
Ok, thanks for the clarification. I was only referring to the effects
of consumption on the lower 90% of taxpayers. Yes, the upper also pays
income tax, but the effects on consumption would be much less than the
rest of the population. In addition, the upper 10% probably exhibits
the same drop in income as corporations in a deep recession because much
of their income is not earned income (wages). Democratic politicians
argue to tax the rich, not just corporations, but that is another issue.
My concern is economic, not social. A strong economy raises all boats,
small and large. (-8
Trickle down? Really?
Good jobs and a higher standard of living! The socialist shining stars
of Europe -- Sweden, Denmark, Norway, etc have all been cutting
corporate rates for years -- long before Trump came along. Add in
state rates on top of federal and a pre-Trump US had the highest rates
in the developed world. Why do you think US corporations were stashing
and investing trillions overseas? At 25%, even China had a much lower
rate than a pre-Trump US.
To be perfectly clear, tax the money after it flows to the wealthy. By
all means, tax the rich!! But out of some deranged desire to punish
the rich, do not cripple the US ability to compete in the world with
some of the highest corporate taxation in the world.
Well, I'm glad that you agree to tax the wealthy, so you would probably
agree to tax capital gains at the same rate as personal income? I
wouldn't be surprised if both of us have taken advantage of capital
gains to replace earned income. But, the major increase in wealth comes
from appreciation of the value of equity. Yes, you pay tax on it when
you pull it out, but if you are interested in accumulating wealth to
pass on to heirs, there are twenty ways from Sunday that you can pass it
along without paying taxes.

As to taxation of corporations, if you have ever formed corporations, I
have, you know that the corporate tax rate is not the deterrent that you
think it is. Any corporation tax lawyer can help you avoid paying
taxes. There are plenty of fairly recent articles illustrating that
even large corporations pay little or no corporate taxes.

As to how the Trump tax breaks were put to use? Most of the benefits,
if they were needed, went to buy back stock. This had two bad effects,
it did not go into hiring more employees or acquiring capital equipment
and it served to prop up stock value, benefiting only those who rely on
growth in stock value. The average person did not benefit from a
significant increase in jobs, salary, or standard of living. Yes, a few
companies gave bonuses the first year, but if the tax breaks were so
important to the economy, why did that not continue?

Frankly, I'm surprised that you still believe in trickle down economics.
It simply doesn't work.
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Personally, I think that the one thing that was good about the Trump tax
cuts was the doubling of the standard deduction. I don't expect that I
will ever need to itemize deductions again. :)
El Castor
2021-01-13 07:52:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by islander
The news is full of possibilities for what to do about Trump while he
still has power - only 11 days left before inauguration of Biden.  A
serious question should be asked, "To what end?"
Invocation of Amendment 25 of the Constitution to remove him from
office would eliminate the possibility of any overt act, but would
have little other effect than revenge.  It is not an issue in any case
because Pence and the Cabinet would not do it.  It is not a good idea
IMV, even if they were motivated to do it.
Impeachment could be done and Pelosi probably has the votes to do it,
but it is in effect only an act of revenge since the Senate is
unlikely to convict.  It would send a strong message, but what would
it accomplish.  I suspect that Trump would treat it as an
accomplishment, the only President to be impeached twice!  It would
only serve as an act of revenge IMV with limited long term impact on
his ability to act in the future.
A third option may be a better way to punish Trump and serve to limit
his ability to influence politics in the future.  This would be to
censure him under Amendment 14(3) of the US Constitution.  Literally,
"No Person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or
elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or
military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having
previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of
the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an
executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the
Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection
or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies
thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House,
remove such disability."
This would essentially bar him from not only aspiring to any public
office in the future, but it would minimize his influence on anyone
seeking his assistance in their own aspirations.  It would essentially
minimize his influence over Republican primaries.  This could be done
with a simple majority vote in both houses of Congress and that could
be done quickly.  Furthermore, it would take a 2/3 vote of both houses
to reverse, exactly the opposite of other possible Congressional
options. This would have a deterrent effect that is more useful than
other possible efforts at revenge or punishment.
Seems like a good idea to me!  Do it, have it done, and move on!
I seriously doubt the courts would permit Congress to define when an
insurrection occurs. Instead, I strongly suspect it would take a guilty
verdict by a jury (or a guilty plea) to violating
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2383.
This would be the case if anyone, including Congress, elected to use 18
USC 2383. A censure vote would not require that. Trump might use 18
USC 2383 to bring charges against Congress that insurrection can only be
proved in the courts, but that would be a heavy lift.
You're not going to shut him up. Move on. A popular productive Biden
term would be a far better remedy than some legal nonsense.
Biden has said that he will leave this to Congress. He is concentrating
on the future by working with Congress to pass legislation.
He's already planning on raising taxes. The corporate rate is going to
28%, which is a little lower than under Obama. The Covid deficit will
have to be paid for somehow. I just hope we don't get a DC statehood
or packed court.
I doubt that your "just" is not what will satisfy you. I'm glad that
you acknowledge that increasing corporate taxes is going to be necessary
to address the deficit. The Laffer curve demonstrates this very well,
something that a lot of conservatives choose to ignore. We have to
increase revenue. Time to pay attention to both sides of the ledger sheet.
Actually I would prefer that corporate taxes be left where they are
and personal taxes raised -- preferably on the wealthy -- but only to
get us out of the COVID hole. There is a belief among most economists
that personal taxation is less harmful to the economy than corporate.
BTW -- who do you think pays corporate taxes -- we all do, poor and
wealthy alike.
I suspect that an increase in personal income taxation *is* less harmful
to the economy simply because there is less flexibility on the demand
side. For example, in the 2009 recession, personal consumption
expenditures took a small dip while GDP per capita took a much bigger
dip. Why? Because people were already living close to what they could
afford and had to go into larger debt to survive. By contrast,
businesses took a bigger hit in their profits. Hence, there is a more
reliable source of tax from the general population than there is from
businesses. Not a pretty picture, but it is what it is.
"Corporate taxes are found to be most harmful for growth, followed by
personal income taxes, and then consumption taxes."
https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/economics/taxation-and-economic-growth_241216205486
But, we are not talking about growth. I'm pointing out that when the
country is in a serious recession and people are struggling, consumption
hits a lower limit. People have to survive. This is part of the debate
over demand vs supply economics.
To be clear, when I talk about personal income taxation I'm speaking
of the personal income of upper echelon earners versus corporate
taxation, as in taxing the "rich". Politicians like corporate taxation
because corporations don't vote. Most frankly don't care about the
impact on the economy. Even taxing of the rich has to be handled
sensibly. There is the famous case of the Swedish actress, Astrid
Lindgren, who was being taxed at the rate of 103% of her annual
income.
Ok, thanks for the clarification. I was only referring to the effects
of consumption on the lower 90% of taxpayers. Yes, the upper also pays
income tax, but the effects on consumption would be much less than the
rest of the population. In addition, the upper 10% probably exhibits
the same drop in income as corporations in a deep recession because much
of their income is not earned income (wages). Democratic politicians
argue to tax the rich, not just corporations, but that is another issue.
My concern is economic, not social. A strong economy raises all boats,
small and large. (-8
Trickle down? Really?
Good jobs and a higher standard of living! The socialist shining stars
of Europe -- Sweden, Denmark, Norway, etc have all been cutting
corporate rates for years -- long before Trump came along. Add in
state rates on top of federal and a pre-Trump US had the highest rates
in the developed world. Why do you think US corporations were stashing
and investing trillions overseas? At 25%, even China had a much lower
rate than a pre-Trump US.
To be perfectly clear, tax the money after it flows to the wealthy. By
all means, tax the rich!! But out of some deranged desire to punish
the rich, do not cripple the US ability to compete in the world with
some of the highest corporate taxation in the world.
Well, I'm glad that you agree to tax the wealthy, so you would probably
agree to tax capital gains at the same rate as personal income? I
wouldn't be surprised if both of us have taken advantage of capital
gains to replace earned income. But, the major increase in wealth comes
from appreciation of the value of equity. Yes, you pay tax on it when
you pull it out, but if you are interested in accumulating wealth to
pass on to heirs, there are twenty ways from Sunday that you can pass it
along without paying taxes.
As to taxation of corporations, if you have ever formed corporations, I
have, you know that the corporate tax rate is not the deterrent that you
think it is. Any corporation tax lawyer can help you avoid paying
taxes. There are plenty of fairly recent articles illustrating that
even large corporations pay little or no corporate taxes.
As to how the Trump tax breaks were put to use? Most of the benefits,
if they were needed, went to buy back stock. This had two bad effects,
it did not go into hiring more employees or acquiring capital equipment
and it served to prop up stock value, benefiting only those who rely on
growth in stock value. The average person did not benefit from a
significant increase in jobs, salary, or standard of living. Yes, a few
companies gave bonuses the first year, but if the tax breaks were so
important to the economy, why did that not continue?
Frankly, I'm surprised that you still believe in trickle down economics.
It simply doesn't work.
Huh? Did I mention trickle down economics? Sweden has been cutting
corporate taxes for years. Here is an interesting graph.
https://tradingeconomics.com/sweden/corporate-tax-rate

Why? Not because Republicans have wormed their way into the Swedish
government. Swedish corporations can't succeed and expand (creating
more jobs) if they literally tax themselves out of the European and
World market. Tax the money when it makes its way into someone's
pocket, and by all means tax the "rich" at a higher rate. Taxes on the
Swedish rich have no effect on the cost of manufacturing a Volvo, but
corporate taxes certainly do.
islander
2021-01-14 15:42:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by islander
The news is full of possibilities for what to do about Trump while he
still has power - only 11 days left before inauguration of Biden.  A
serious question should be asked, "To what end?"
Invocation of Amendment 25 of the Constitution to remove him from
office would eliminate the possibility of any overt act, but would
have little other effect than revenge.  It is not an issue in any case
because Pence and the Cabinet would not do it.  It is not a good idea
IMV, even if they were motivated to do it.
Impeachment could be done and Pelosi probably has the votes to do it,
but it is in effect only an act of revenge since the Senate is
unlikely to convict.  It would send a strong message, but what would
it accomplish.  I suspect that Trump would treat it as an
accomplishment, the only President to be impeached twice!  It would
only serve as an act of revenge IMV with limited long term impact on
his ability to act in the future.
A third option may be a better way to punish Trump and serve to limit
his ability to influence politics in the future.  This would be to
censure him under Amendment 14(3) of the US Constitution.  Literally,
"No Person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or
elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or
military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having
previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of
the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an
executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the
Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection
or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies
thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House,
remove such disability."
This would essentially bar him from not only aspiring to any public
office in the future, but it would minimize his influence on anyone
seeking his assistance in their own aspirations.  It would essentially
minimize his influence over Republican primaries.  This could be done
with a simple majority vote in both houses of Congress and that could
be done quickly.  Furthermore, it would take a 2/3 vote of both houses
to reverse, exactly the opposite of other possible Congressional
options. This would have a deterrent effect that is more useful than
other possible efforts at revenge or punishment.
Seems like a good idea to me!  Do it, have it done, and move on!
I seriously doubt the courts would permit Congress to define when an
insurrection occurs. Instead, I strongly suspect it would take a guilty
verdict by a jury (or a guilty plea) to violating
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2383.
This would be the case if anyone, including Congress, elected to use 18
USC 2383. A censure vote would not require that. Trump might use 18
USC 2383 to bring charges against Congress that insurrection can only be
proved in the courts, but that would be a heavy lift.
You're not going to shut him up. Move on. A popular productive Biden
term would be a far better remedy than some legal nonsense.
Biden has said that he will leave this to Congress. He is concentrating
on the future by working with Congress to pass legislation.
He's already planning on raising taxes. The corporate rate is going to
28%, which is a little lower than under Obama. The Covid deficit will
have to be paid for somehow. I just hope we don't get a DC statehood
or packed court.
I doubt that your "just" is not what will satisfy you. I'm glad that
you acknowledge that increasing corporate taxes is going to be necessary
to address the deficit. The Laffer curve demonstrates this very well,
something that a lot of conservatives choose to ignore. We have to
increase revenue. Time to pay attention to both sides of the ledger sheet.
Actually I would prefer that corporate taxes be left where they are
and personal taxes raised -- preferably on the wealthy -- but only to
get us out of the COVID hole. There is a belief among most economists
that personal taxation is less harmful to the economy than corporate.
BTW -- who do you think pays corporate taxes -- we all do, poor and
wealthy alike.
I suspect that an increase in personal income taxation *is* less harmful
to the economy simply because there is less flexibility on the demand
side. For example, in the 2009 recession, personal consumption
expenditures took a small dip while GDP per capita took a much bigger
dip. Why? Because people were already living close to what they could
afford and had to go into larger debt to survive. By contrast,
businesses took a bigger hit in their profits. Hence, there is a more
reliable source of tax from the general population than there is from
businesses. Not a pretty picture, but it is what it is.
"Corporate taxes are found to be most harmful for growth, followed by
personal income taxes, and then consumption taxes."
https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/economics/taxation-and-economic-growth_241216205486
But, we are not talking about growth. I'm pointing out that when the
country is in a serious recession and people are struggling, consumption
hits a lower limit. People have to survive. This is part of the debate
over demand vs supply economics.
To be clear, when I talk about personal income taxation I'm speaking
of the personal income of upper echelon earners versus corporate
taxation, as in taxing the "rich". Politicians like corporate taxation
because corporations don't vote. Most frankly don't care about the
impact on the economy. Even taxing of the rich has to be handled
sensibly. There is the famous case of the Swedish actress, Astrid
Lindgren, who was being taxed at the rate of 103% of her annual
income.
Ok, thanks for the clarification. I was only referring to the effects
of consumption on the lower 90% of taxpayers. Yes, the upper also pays
income tax, but the effects on consumption would be much less than the
rest of the population. In addition, the upper 10% probably exhibits
the same drop in income as corporations in a deep recession because much
of their income is not earned income (wages). Democratic politicians
argue to tax the rich, not just corporations, but that is another issue.
My concern is economic, not social. A strong economy raises all boats,
small and large. (-8
Trickle down? Really?
Good jobs and a higher standard of living! The socialist shining stars
of Europe -- Sweden, Denmark, Norway, etc have all been cutting
corporate rates for years -- long before Trump came along. Add in
state rates on top of federal and a pre-Trump US had the highest rates
in the developed world. Why do you think US corporations were stashing
and investing trillions overseas? At 25%, even China had a much lower
rate than a pre-Trump US.
To be perfectly clear, tax the money after it flows to the wealthy. By
all means, tax the rich!! But out of some deranged desire to punish
the rich, do not cripple the US ability to compete in the world with
some of the highest corporate taxation in the world.
Well, I'm glad that you agree to tax the wealthy, so you would probably
agree to tax capital gains at the same rate as personal income? I
wouldn't be surprised if both of us have taken advantage of capital
gains to replace earned income. But, the major increase in wealth comes
from appreciation of the value of equity. Yes, you pay tax on it when
you pull it out, but if you are interested in accumulating wealth to
pass on to heirs, there are twenty ways from Sunday that you can pass it
along without paying taxes.
As to taxation of corporations, if you have ever formed corporations, I
have, you know that the corporate tax rate is not the deterrent that you
think it is. Any corporation tax lawyer can help you avoid paying
taxes. There are plenty of fairly recent articles illustrating that
even large corporations pay little or no corporate taxes.
As to how the Trump tax breaks were put to use? Most of the benefits,
if they were needed, went to buy back stock. This had two bad effects,
it did not go into hiring more employees or acquiring capital equipment
and it served to prop up stock value, benefiting only those who rely on
growth in stock value. The average person did not benefit from a
significant increase in jobs, salary, or standard of living. Yes, a few
companies gave bonuses the first year, but if the tax breaks were so
important to the economy, why did that not continue?
Frankly, I'm surprised that you still believe in trickle down economics.
It simply doesn't work.
Huh? Did I mention trickle down economics? Sweden has been cutting
corporate taxes for years. Here is an interesting graph.
https://tradingeconomics.com/sweden/corporate-tax-rate
Why? Not because Republicans have wormed their way into the Swedish
government. Swedish corporations can't succeed and expand (creating
more jobs) if they literally tax themselves out of the European and
World market. Tax the money when it makes its way into someone's
pocket, and by all means tax the "rich" at a higher rate. Taxes on the
Swedish rich have no effect on the cost of manufacturing a Volvo, but
corporate taxes certainly do.
Yet, the social security rate for companies in Sweden is 32.42% while
the US charges companies only 6.2%. It appears that Sweden has other
ways of supporting their social programs. I'm OK with charging US
companies with a significantly higher tax off the top to support our
social programs rather than relying on a significantly lower tax on
profits that goes into the general fund to be spent on whatever the
Congress decides. Perhaps the controversy over corporate tax rates is a
tempest in a teapot. Can we agree on that?
El Castor
2021-01-14 19:20:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by islander
The news is full of possibilities for what to do about Trump while he
still has power - only 11 days left before inauguration of Biden.  A
serious question should be asked, "To what end?"
Invocation of Amendment 25 of the Constitution to remove him from
office would eliminate the possibility of any overt act, but would
have little other effect than revenge.  It is not an issue in any case
because Pence and the Cabinet would not do it.  It is not a good idea
IMV, even if they were motivated to do it.
Impeachment could be done and Pelosi probably has the votes to do it,
but it is in effect only an act of revenge since the Senate is
unlikely to convict.  It would send a strong message, but what would
it accomplish.  I suspect that Trump would treat it as an
accomplishment, the only President to be impeached twice!  It would
only serve as an act of revenge IMV with limited long term impact on
his ability to act in the future.
A third option may be a better way to punish Trump and serve to limit
his ability to influence politics in the future.  This would be to
censure him under Amendment 14(3) of the US Constitution.  Literally,
"No Person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or
elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or
military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having
previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of
the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an
executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the
Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection
or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies
thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House,
remove such disability."
This would essentially bar him from not only aspiring to any public
office in the future, but it would minimize his influence on anyone
seeking his assistance in their own aspirations.  It would essentially
minimize his influence over Republican primaries.  This could be done
with a simple majority vote in both houses of Congress and that could
be done quickly.  Furthermore, it would take a 2/3 vote of both houses
to reverse, exactly the opposite of other possible Congressional
options. This would have a deterrent effect that is more useful than
other possible efforts at revenge or punishment.
Seems like a good idea to me!  Do it, have it done, and move on!
I seriously doubt the courts would permit Congress to define when an
insurrection occurs. Instead, I strongly suspect it would take a guilty
verdict by a jury (or a guilty plea) to violating
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2383.
This would be the case if anyone, including Congress, elected to use 18
USC 2383. A censure vote would not require that. Trump might use 18
USC 2383 to bring charges against Congress that insurrection can only be
proved in the courts, but that would be a heavy lift.
You're not going to shut him up. Move on. A popular productive Biden
term would be a far better remedy than some legal nonsense.
Biden has said that he will leave this to Congress. He is concentrating
on the future by working with Congress to pass legislation.
He's already planning on raising taxes. The corporate rate is going to
28%, which is a little lower than under Obama. The Covid deficit will
have to be paid for somehow. I just hope we don't get a DC statehood
or packed court.
I doubt that your "just" is not what will satisfy you. I'm glad that
you acknowledge that increasing corporate taxes is going to be necessary
to address the deficit. The Laffer curve demonstrates this very well,
something that a lot of conservatives choose to ignore. We have to
increase revenue. Time to pay attention to both sides of the ledger sheet.
Actually I would prefer that corporate taxes be left where they are
and personal taxes raised -- preferably on the wealthy -- but only to
get us out of the COVID hole. There is a belief among most economists
that personal taxation is less harmful to the economy than corporate.
BTW -- who do you think pays corporate taxes -- we all do, poor and
wealthy alike.
I suspect that an increase in personal income taxation *is* less harmful
to the economy simply because there is less flexibility on the demand
side. For example, in the 2009 recession, personal consumption
expenditures took a small dip while GDP per capita took a much bigger
dip. Why? Because people were already living close to what they could
afford and had to go into larger debt to survive. By contrast,
businesses took a bigger hit in their profits. Hence, there is a more
reliable source of tax from the general population than there is from
businesses. Not a pretty picture, but it is what it is.
"Corporate taxes are found to be most harmful for growth, followed by
personal income taxes, and then consumption taxes."
https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/economics/taxation-and-economic-growth_241216205486
But, we are not talking about growth. I'm pointing out that when the
country is in a serious recession and people are struggling, consumption
hits a lower limit. People have to survive. This is part of the debate
over demand vs supply economics.
To be clear, when I talk about personal income taxation I'm speaking
of the personal income of upper echelon earners versus corporate
taxation, as in taxing the "rich". Politicians like corporate taxation
because corporations don't vote. Most frankly don't care about the
impact on the economy. Even taxing of the rich has to be handled
sensibly. There is the famous case of the Swedish actress, Astrid
Lindgren, who was being taxed at the rate of 103% of her annual
income.
Ok, thanks for the clarification. I was only referring to the effects
of consumption on the lower 90% of taxpayers. Yes, the upper also pays
income tax, but the effects on consumption would be much less than the
rest of the population. In addition, the upper 10% probably exhibits
the same drop in income as corporations in a deep recession because much
of their income is not earned income (wages). Democratic politicians
argue to tax the rich, not just corporations, but that is another issue.
My concern is economic, not social. A strong economy raises all boats,
small and large. (-8
Trickle down? Really?
Good jobs and a higher standard of living! The socialist shining stars
of Europe -- Sweden, Denmark, Norway, etc have all been cutting
corporate rates for years -- long before Trump came along. Add in
state rates on top of federal and a pre-Trump US had the highest rates
in the developed world. Why do you think US corporations were stashing
and investing trillions overseas? At 25%, even China had a much lower
rate than a pre-Trump US.
To be perfectly clear, tax the money after it flows to the wealthy. By
all means, tax the rich!! But out of some deranged desire to punish
the rich, do not cripple the US ability to compete in the world with
some of the highest corporate taxation in the world.
Well, I'm glad that you agree to tax the wealthy, so you would probably
agree to tax capital gains at the same rate as personal income? I
wouldn't be surprised if both of us have taken advantage of capital
gains to replace earned income. But, the major increase in wealth comes
from appreciation of the value of equity. Yes, you pay tax on it when
you pull it out, but if you are interested in accumulating wealth to
pass on to heirs, there are twenty ways from Sunday that you can pass it
along without paying taxes.
As to taxation of corporations, if you have ever formed corporations, I
have, you know that the corporate tax rate is not the deterrent that you
think it is. Any corporation tax lawyer can help you avoid paying
taxes. There are plenty of fairly recent articles illustrating that
even large corporations pay little or no corporate taxes.
As to how the Trump tax breaks were put to use? Most of the benefits,
if they were needed, went to buy back stock. This had two bad effects,
it did not go into hiring more employees or acquiring capital equipment
and it served to prop up stock value, benefiting only those who rely on
growth in stock value. The average person did not benefit from a
significant increase in jobs, salary, or standard of living. Yes, a few
companies gave bonuses the first year, but if the tax breaks were so
important to the economy, why did that not continue?
Frankly, I'm surprised that you still believe in trickle down economics.
It simply doesn't work.
Huh? Did I mention trickle down economics? Sweden has been cutting
corporate taxes for years. Here is an interesting graph.
https://tradingeconomics.com/sweden/corporate-tax-rate
Why? Not because Republicans have wormed their way into the Swedish
government. Swedish corporations can't succeed and expand (creating
more jobs) if they literally tax themselves out of the European and
World market. Tax the money when it makes its way into someone's
pocket, and by all means tax the "rich" at a higher rate. Taxes on the
Swedish rich have no effect on the cost of manufacturing a Volvo, but
corporate taxes certainly do.
Yet, the social security rate for companies in Sweden is 32.42% while
the US charges companies only 6.2%. It appears that Sweden has other
ways of supporting their social programs. I'm OK with charging US
companies with a significantly higher tax off the top to support our
social programs rather than relying on a significantly lower tax on
profits that goes into the general fund to be spent on whatever the
Congress decides. Perhaps the controversy over corporate tax rates is a
tempest in a teapot. Can we agree on that?
No.
islander
2021-01-14 23:06:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by islander
The news is full of possibilities for what to do about Trump while he
still has power - only 11 days left before inauguration of Biden.  A
serious question should be asked, "To what end?"
Invocation of Amendment 25 of the Constitution to remove him from
office would eliminate the possibility of any overt act, but would
have little other effect than revenge.  It is not an issue in any case
because Pence and the Cabinet would not do it.  It is not a good idea
IMV, even if they were motivated to do it.
Impeachment could be done and Pelosi probably has the votes to do it,
but it is in effect only an act of revenge since the Senate is
unlikely to convict.  It would send a strong message, but what would
it accomplish.  I suspect that Trump would treat it as an
accomplishment, the only President to be impeached twice!  It would
only serve as an act of revenge IMV with limited long term impact on
his ability to act in the future.
A third option may be a better way to punish Trump and serve to limit
his ability to influence politics in the future.  This would be to
censure him under Amendment 14(3) of the US Constitution.  Literally,
"No Person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or
elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or
military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having
previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of
the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an
executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the
Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection
or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies
thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House,
remove such disability."
This would essentially bar him from not only aspiring to any public
office in the future, but it would minimize his influence on anyone
seeking his assistance in their own aspirations.  It would essentially
minimize his influence over Republican primaries.  This could be done
with a simple majority vote in both houses of Congress and that could
be done quickly.  Furthermore, it would take a 2/3 vote of both houses
to reverse, exactly the opposite of other possible Congressional
options. This would have a deterrent effect that is more useful than
other possible efforts at revenge or punishment.
Seems like a good idea to me!  Do it, have it done, and move on!
I seriously doubt the courts would permit Congress to define when an
insurrection occurs. Instead, I strongly suspect it would take a guilty
verdict by a jury (or a guilty plea) to violating
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2383.
This would be the case if anyone, including Congress, elected to use 18
USC 2383. A censure vote would not require that. Trump might use 18
USC 2383 to bring charges against Congress that insurrection can only be
proved in the courts, but that would be a heavy lift.
You're not going to shut him up. Move on. A popular productive Biden
term would be a far better remedy than some legal nonsense.
Biden has said that he will leave this to Congress. He is concentrating
on the future by working with Congress to pass legislation.
He's already planning on raising taxes. The corporate rate is going to
28%, which is a little lower than under Obama. The Covid deficit will
have to be paid for somehow. I just hope we don't get a DC statehood
or packed court.
I doubt that your "just" is not what will satisfy you. I'm glad that
you acknowledge that increasing corporate taxes is going to be necessary
to address the deficit. The Laffer curve demonstrates this very well,
something that a lot of conservatives choose to ignore. We have to
increase revenue. Time to pay attention to both sides of the ledger sheet.
Actually I would prefer that corporate taxes be left where they are
and personal taxes raised -- preferably on the wealthy -- but only to
get us out of the COVID hole. There is a belief among most economists
that personal taxation is less harmful to the economy than corporate.
BTW -- who do you think pays corporate taxes -- we all do, poor and
wealthy alike.
I suspect that an increase in personal income taxation *is* less harmful
to the economy simply because there is less flexibility on the demand
side. For example, in the 2009 recession, personal consumption
expenditures took a small dip while GDP per capita took a much bigger
dip. Why? Because people were already living close to what they could
afford and had to go into larger debt to survive. By contrast,
businesses took a bigger hit in their profits. Hence, there is a more
reliable source of tax from the general population than there is from
businesses. Not a pretty picture, but it is what it is.
"Corporate taxes are found to be most harmful for growth, followed by
personal income taxes, and then consumption taxes."
https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/economics/taxation-and-economic-growth_241216205486
But, we are not talking about growth. I'm pointing out that when the
country is in a serious recession and people are struggling, consumption
hits a lower limit. People have to survive. This is part of the debate
over demand vs supply economics.
To be clear, when I talk about personal income taxation I'm speaking
of the personal income of upper echelon earners versus corporate
taxation, as in taxing the "rich". Politicians like corporate taxation
because corporations don't vote. Most frankly don't care about the
impact on the economy. Even taxing of the rich has to be handled
sensibly. There is the famous case of the Swedish actress, Astrid
Lindgren, who was being taxed at the rate of 103% of her annual
income.
Ok, thanks for the clarification. I was only referring to the effects
of consumption on the lower 90% of taxpayers. Yes, the upper also pays
income tax, but the effects on consumption would be much less than the
rest of the population. In addition, the upper 10% probably exhibits
the same drop in income as corporations in a deep recession because much
of their income is not earned income (wages). Democratic politicians
argue to tax the rich, not just corporations, but that is another issue.
My concern is economic, not social. A strong economy raises all boats,
small and large. (-8
Trickle down? Really?
Good jobs and a higher standard of living! The socialist shining stars
of Europe -- Sweden, Denmark, Norway, etc have all been cutting
corporate rates for years -- long before Trump came along. Add in
state rates on top of federal and a pre-Trump US had the highest rates
in the developed world. Why do you think US corporations were stashing
and investing trillions overseas? At 25%, even China had a much lower
rate than a pre-Trump US.
To be perfectly clear, tax the money after it flows to the wealthy. By
all means, tax the rich!! But out of some deranged desire to punish
the rich, do not cripple the US ability to compete in the world with
some of the highest corporate taxation in the world.
Well, I'm glad that you agree to tax the wealthy, so you would probably
agree to tax capital gains at the same rate as personal income? I
wouldn't be surprised if both of us have taken advantage of capital
gains to replace earned income. But, the major increase in wealth comes
from appreciation of the value of equity. Yes, you pay tax on it when
you pull it out, but if you are interested in accumulating wealth to
pass on to heirs, there are twenty ways from Sunday that you can pass it
along without paying taxes.
As to taxation of corporations, if you have ever formed corporations, I
have, you know that the corporate tax rate is not the deterrent that you
think it is. Any corporation tax lawyer can help you avoid paying
taxes. There are plenty of fairly recent articles illustrating that
even large corporations pay little or no corporate taxes.
As to how the Trump tax breaks were put to use? Most of the benefits,
if they were needed, went to buy back stock. This had two bad effects,
it did not go into hiring more employees or acquiring capital equipment
and it served to prop up stock value, benefiting only those who rely on
growth in stock value. The average person did not benefit from a
significant increase in jobs, salary, or standard of living. Yes, a few
companies gave bonuses the first year, but if the tax breaks were so
important to the economy, why did that not continue?
Frankly, I'm surprised that you still believe in trickle down economics.
It simply doesn't work.
Huh? Did I mention trickle down economics? Sweden has been cutting
corporate taxes for years. Here is an interesting graph.
https://tradingeconomics.com/sweden/corporate-tax-rate
Why? Not because Republicans have wormed their way into the Swedish
government. Swedish corporations can't succeed and expand (creating
more jobs) if they literally tax themselves out of the European and
World market. Tax the money when it makes its way into someone's
pocket, and by all means tax the "rich" at a higher rate. Taxes on the
Swedish rich have no effect on the cost of manufacturing a Volvo, but
corporate taxes certainly do.
Yet, the social security rate for companies in Sweden is 32.42% while
the US charges companies only 6.2%. It appears that Sweden has other
ways of supporting their social programs. I'm OK with charging US
companies with a significantly higher tax off the top to support our
social programs rather than relying on a significantly lower tax on
profits that goes into the general fund to be spent on whatever the
Congress decides. Perhaps the controversy over corporate tax rates is a
tempest in a teapot. Can we agree on that?
No.
Too bad. You argument that Sweden has reduced corporate taxes seems to
be moot.
El Castor
2021-01-15 06:39:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by islander
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by islander
The news is full of possibilities for what to do about Trump while he
still has power - only 11 days left before inauguration of Biden.  A
serious question should be asked, "To what end?"
Invocation of Amendment 25 of the Constitution to remove him from
office would eliminate the possibility of any overt act, but would
have little other effect than revenge.  It is not an issue in any case
because Pence and the Cabinet would not do it.  It is not a good idea
IMV, even if they were motivated to do it.
Impeachment could be done and Pelosi probably has the votes to do it,
but it is in effect only an act of revenge since the Senate is
unlikely to convict.  It would send a strong message, but what would
it accomplish.  I suspect that Trump would treat it as an
accomplishment, the only President to be impeached twice!  It would
only serve as an act of revenge IMV with limited long term impact on
his ability to act in the future.
A third option may be a better way to punish Trump and serve to limit
his ability to influence politics in the future.  This would be to
censure him under Amendment 14(3) of the US Constitution.  Literally,
"No Person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or
elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or
military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having
previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of
the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an
executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the
Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection
or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies
thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House,
remove such disability."
This would essentially bar him from not only aspiring to any public
office in the future, but it would minimize his influence on anyone
seeking his assistance in their own aspirations.  It would essentially
minimize his influence over Republican primaries.  This could be done
with a simple majority vote in both houses of Congress and that could
be done quickly.  Furthermore, it would take a 2/3 vote of both houses
to reverse, exactly the opposite of other possible Congressional
options. This would have a deterrent effect that is more useful than
other possible efforts at revenge or punishment.
Seems like a good idea to me!  Do it, have it done, and move on!
I seriously doubt the courts would permit Congress to define when an
insurrection occurs. Instead, I strongly suspect it would take a guilty
verdict by a jury (or a guilty plea) to violating
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2383.
This would be the case if anyone, including Congress, elected to use 18
USC 2383. A censure vote would not require that. Trump might use 18
USC 2383 to bring charges against Congress that insurrection can only be
proved in the courts, but that would be a heavy lift.
You're not going to shut him up. Move on. A popular productive Biden
term would be a far better remedy than some legal nonsense.
Biden has said that he will leave this to Congress. He is concentrating
on the future by working with Congress to pass legislation.
He's already planning on raising taxes. The corporate rate is going to
28%, which is a little lower than under Obama. The Covid deficit will
have to be paid for somehow. I just hope we don't get a DC statehood
or packed court.
I doubt that your "just" is not what will satisfy you. I'm glad that
you acknowledge that increasing corporate taxes is going to be necessary
to address the deficit. The Laffer curve demonstrates this very well,
something that a lot of conservatives choose to ignore. We have to
increase revenue. Time to pay attention to both sides of the ledger sheet.
Actually I would prefer that corporate taxes be left where they are
and personal taxes raised -- preferably on the wealthy -- but only to
get us out of the COVID hole. There is a belief among most economists
that personal taxation is less harmful to the economy than corporate.
BTW -- who do you think pays corporate taxes -- we all do, poor and
wealthy alike.
I suspect that an increase in personal income taxation *is* less harmful
to the economy simply because there is less flexibility on the demand
side. For example, in the 2009 recession, personal consumption
expenditures took a small dip while GDP per capita took a much bigger
dip. Why? Because people were already living close to what they could
afford and had to go into larger debt to survive. By contrast,
businesses took a bigger hit in their profits. Hence, there is a more
reliable source of tax from the general population than there is from
businesses. Not a pretty picture, but it is what it is.
"Corporate taxes are found to be most harmful for growth, followed by
personal income taxes, and then consumption taxes."
https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/economics/taxation-and-economic-growth_241216205486
But, we are not talking about growth. I'm pointing out that when the
country is in a serious recession and people are struggling, consumption
hits a lower limit. People have to survive. This is part of the debate
over demand vs supply economics.
To be clear, when I talk about personal income taxation I'm speaking
of the personal income of upper echelon earners versus corporate
taxation, as in taxing the "rich". Politicians like corporate taxation
because corporations don't vote. Most frankly don't care about the
impact on the economy. Even taxing of the rich has to be handled
sensibly. There is the famous case of the Swedish actress, Astrid
Lindgren, who was being taxed at the rate of 103% of her annual
income.
Ok, thanks for the clarification. I was only referring to the effects
of consumption on the lower 90% of taxpayers. Yes, the upper also pays
income tax, but the effects on consumption would be much less than the
rest of the population. In addition, the upper 10% probably exhibits
the same drop in income as corporations in a deep recession because much
of their income is not earned income (wages). Democratic politicians
argue to tax the rich, not just corporations, but that is another issue.
My concern is economic, not social. A strong economy raises all boats,
small and large. (-8
Trickle down? Really?
Good jobs and a higher standard of living! The socialist shining stars
of Europe -- Sweden, Denmark, Norway, etc have all been cutting
corporate rates for years -- long before Trump came along. Add in
state rates on top of federal and a pre-Trump US had the highest rates
in the developed world. Why do you think US corporations were stashing
and investing trillions overseas? At 25%, even China had a much lower
rate than a pre-Trump US.
To be perfectly clear, tax the money after it flows to the wealthy. By
all means, tax the rich!! But out of some deranged desire to punish
the rich, do not cripple the US ability to compete in the world with
some of the highest corporate taxation in the world.
Well, I'm glad that you agree to tax the wealthy, so you would probably
agree to tax capital gains at the same rate as personal income? I
wouldn't be surprised if both of us have taken advantage of capital
gains to replace earned income. But, the major increase in wealth comes
from appreciation of the value of equity. Yes, you pay tax on it when
you pull it out, but if you are interested in accumulating wealth to
pass on to heirs, there are twenty ways from Sunday that you can pass it
along without paying taxes.
As to taxation of corporations, if you have ever formed corporations, I
have, you know that the corporate tax rate is not the deterrent that you
think it is. Any corporation tax lawyer can help you avoid paying
taxes. There are plenty of fairly recent articles illustrating that
even large corporations pay little or no corporate taxes.
As to how the Trump tax breaks were put to use? Most of the benefits,
if they were needed, went to buy back stock. This had two bad effects,
it did not go into hiring more employees or acquiring capital equipment
and it served to prop up stock value, benefiting only those who rely on
growth in stock value. The average person did not benefit from a
significant increase in jobs, salary, or standard of living. Yes, a few
companies gave bonuses the first year, but if the tax breaks were so
important to the economy, why did that not continue?
Frankly, I'm surprised that you still believe in trickle down economics.
It simply doesn't work.
Huh? Did I mention trickle down economics? Sweden has been cutting
corporate taxes for years. Here is an interesting graph.
https://tradingeconomics.com/sweden/corporate-tax-rate
Why? Not because Republicans have wormed their way into the Swedish
government. Swedish corporations can't succeed and expand (creating
more jobs) if they literally tax themselves out of the European and
World market. Tax the money when it makes its way into someone's
pocket, and by all means tax the "rich" at a higher rate. Taxes on the
Swedish rich have no effect on the cost of manufacturing a Volvo, but
corporate taxes certainly do.
Yet, the social security rate for companies in Sweden is 32.42% while
the US charges companies only 6.2%. It appears that Sweden has other
ways of supporting their social programs. I'm OK with charging US
companies with a significantly higher tax off the top to support our
social programs rather than relying on a significantly lower tax on
profits that goes into the general fund to be spent on whatever the
Congress decides. Perhaps the controversy over corporate tax rates is a
tempest in a teapot. Can we agree on that?
No.
Too bad. You argument that Sweden has reduced corporate taxes seems to
be moot.
"World Economic Forum"
"Is corporation tax good or bad for growth?" ...
"Corporate tax rates have fallen from the high 40s-50% in the 1980s to
21.4% in 2018, according to the OECD, which studied 88 countries. This
is driven partly by the belief that lower rates encourage inward
investment and enterprise generally. Research, such as the IMF Working
Paper “Death and Taxes: Does Taxation Matter for Firm Survival”, also
shows that the higher the effective marginal tax rate, the greater the
chance of a company failing financially."
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/01/corporation-tax-good-or-bad-for-growth/

Convinced? Of course not. To Biden's credit he probably won't boost
the rate to where it was when Trump took over -- the highest in the
world.
islander
2021-01-15 16:21:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by islander
The news is full of possibilities for what to do about Trump while he
still has power - only 11 days left before inauguration of Biden.  A
serious question should be asked, "To what end?"
Invocation of Amendment 25 of the Constitution to remove him from
office would eliminate the possibility of any overt act, but would
have little other effect than revenge.  It is not an issue in any case
because Pence and the Cabinet would not do it.  It is not a good idea
IMV, even if they were motivated to do it.
Impeachment could be done and Pelosi probably has the votes to do it,
but it is in effect only an act of revenge since the Senate is
unlikely to convict.  It would send a strong message, but what would
it accomplish.  I suspect that Trump would treat it as an
accomplishment, the only President to be impeached twice!  It would
only serve as an act of revenge IMV with limited long term impact on
his ability to act in the future.
A third option may be a better way to punish Trump and serve to limit
his ability to influence politics in the future.  This would be to
censure him under Amendment 14(3) of the US Constitution.  Literally,
"No Person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or
elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or
military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having
previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of
the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an
executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the
Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection
or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies
thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House,
remove such disability."
This would essentially bar him from not only aspiring to any public
office in the future, but it would minimize his influence on anyone
seeking his assistance in their own aspirations.  It would essentially
minimize his influence over Republican primaries.  This could be done
with a simple majority vote in both houses of Congress and that could
be done quickly.  Furthermore, it would take a 2/3 vote of both houses
to reverse, exactly the opposite of other possible Congressional
options. This would have a deterrent effect that is more useful than
other possible efforts at revenge or punishment.
Seems like a good idea to me!  Do it, have it done, and move on!
I seriously doubt the courts would permit Congress to define when an
insurrection occurs. Instead, I strongly suspect it would take a guilty
verdict by a jury (or a guilty plea) to violating
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2383.
This would be the case if anyone, including Congress, elected to use 18
USC 2383. A censure vote would not require that. Trump might use 18
USC 2383 to bring charges against Congress that insurrection can only be
proved in the courts, but that would be a heavy lift.
You're not going to shut him up. Move on. A popular productive Biden
term would be a far better remedy than some legal nonsense.
Biden has said that he will leave this to Congress. He is concentrating
on the future by working with Congress to pass legislation.
He's already planning on raising taxes. The corporate rate is going to
28%, which is a little lower than under Obama. The Covid deficit will
have to be paid for somehow. I just hope we don't get a DC statehood
or packed court.
I doubt that your "just" is not what will satisfy you. I'm glad that
you acknowledge that increasing corporate taxes is going to be necessary
to address the deficit. The Laffer curve demonstrates this very well,
something that a lot of conservatives choose to ignore. We have to
increase revenue. Time to pay attention to both sides of the ledger sheet.
Actually I would prefer that corporate taxes be left where they are
and personal taxes raised -- preferably on the wealthy -- but only to
get us out of the COVID hole. There is a belief among most economists
that personal taxation is less harmful to the economy than corporate.
BTW -- who do you think pays corporate taxes -- we all do, poor and
wealthy alike.
I suspect that an increase in personal income taxation *is* less harmful
to the economy simply because there is less flexibility on the demand
side. For example, in the 2009 recession, personal consumption
expenditures took a small dip while GDP per capita took a much bigger
dip. Why? Because people were already living close to what they could
afford and had to go into larger debt to survive. By contrast,
businesses took a bigger hit in their profits. Hence, there is a more
reliable source of tax from the general population than there is from
businesses. Not a pretty picture, but it is what it is.
"Corporate taxes are found to be most harmful for growth, followed by
personal income taxes, and then consumption taxes."
https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/economics/taxation-and-economic-growth_241216205486
But, we are not talking about growth. I'm pointing out that when the
country is in a serious recession and people are struggling, consumption
hits a lower limit. People have to survive. This is part of the debate
over demand vs supply economics.
To be clear, when I talk about personal income taxation I'm speaking
of the personal income of upper echelon earners versus corporate
taxation, as in taxing the "rich". Politicians like corporate taxation
because corporations don't vote. Most frankly don't care about the
impact on the economy. Even taxing of the rich has to be handled
sensibly. There is the famous case of the Swedish actress, Astrid
Lindgren, who was being taxed at the rate of 103% of her annual
income.
Ok, thanks for the clarification. I was only referring to the effects
of consumption on the lower 90% of taxpayers. Yes, the upper also pays
income tax, but the effects on consumption would be much less than the
rest of the population. In addition, the upper 10% probably exhibits
the same drop in income as corporations in a deep recession because much
of their income is not earned income (wages). Democratic politicians
argue to tax the rich, not just corporations, but that is another issue.
My concern is economic, not social. A strong economy raises all boats,
small and large. (-8
Trickle down? Really?
Good jobs and a higher standard of living! The socialist shining stars
of Europe -- Sweden, Denmark, Norway, etc have all been cutting
corporate rates for years -- long before Trump came along. Add in
state rates on top of federal and a pre-Trump US had the highest rates
in the developed world. Why do you think US corporations were stashing
and investing trillions overseas? At 25%, even China had a much lower
rate than a pre-Trump US.
To be perfectly clear, tax the money after it flows to the wealthy. By
all means, tax the rich!! But out of some deranged desire to punish
the rich, do not cripple the US ability to compete in the world with
some of the highest corporate taxation in the world.
Well, I'm glad that you agree to tax the wealthy, so you would probably
agree to tax capital gains at the same rate as personal income? I
wouldn't be surprised if both of us have taken advantage of capital
gains to replace earned income. But, the major increase in wealth comes
from appreciation of the value of equity. Yes, you pay tax on it when
you pull it out, but if you are interested in accumulating wealth to
pass on to heirs, there are twenty ways from Sunday that you can pass it
along without paying taxes.
As to taxation of corporations, if you have ever formed corporations, I
have, you know that the corporate tax rate is not the deterrent that you
think it is. Any corporation tax lawyer can help you avoid paying
taxes. There are plenty of fairly recent articles illustrating that
even large corporations pay little or no corporate taxes.
As to how the Trump tax breaks were put to use? Most of the benefits,
if they were needed, went to buy back stock. This had two bad effects,
it did not go into hiring more employees or acquiring capital equipment
and it served to prop up stock value, benefiting only those who rely on
growth in stock value. The average person did not benefit from a
significant increase in jobs, salary, or standard of living. Yes, a few
companies gave bonuses the first year, but if the tax breaks were so
important to the economy, why did that not continue?
Frankly, I'm surprised that you still believe in trickle down economics.
It simply doesn't work.
Huh? Did I mention trickle down economics? Sweden has been cutting
corporate taxes for years. Here is an interesting graph.
https://tradingeconomics.com/sweden/corporate-tax-rate
Why? Not because Republicans have wormed their way into the Swedish
government. Swedish corporations can't succeed and expand (creating
more jobs) if they literally tax themselves out of the European and
World market. Tax the money when it makes its way into someone's
pocket, and by all means tax the "rich" at a higher rate. Taxes on the
Swedish rich have no effect on the cost of manufacturing a Volvo, but
corporate taxes certainly do.
Yet, the social security rate for companies in Sweden is 32.42% while
the US charges companies only 6.2%. It appears that Sweden has other
ways of supporting their social programs. I'm OK with charging US
companies with a significantly higher tax off the top to support our
social programs rather than relying on a significantly lower tax on
profits that goes into the general fund to be spent on whatever the
Congress decides. Perhaps the controversy over corporate tax rates is a
tempest in a teapot. Can we agree on that?
No.
Too bad. You argument that Sweden has reduced corporate taxes seems to
be moot.
"World Economic Forum"
"Is corporation tax good or bad for growth?" ...
"Corporate tax rates have fallen from the high 40s-50% in the 1980s to
21.4% in 2018, according to the OECD, which studied 88 countries. This
is driven partly by the belief that lower rates encourage inward
investment and enterprise generally. Research, such as the IMF Working
Paper “Death and Taxes: Does Taxation Matter for Firm Survival”, also
shows that the higher the effective marginal tax rate, the greater the
chance of a company failing financially."
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/01/corporation-tax-good-or-bad-for-growth/
Convinced? Of course not. To Biden's credit he probably won't boost
the rate to where it was when Trump took over -- the highest in the
world.
On the other hand, corporate America seems to be developing a social
conscience, perhaps even withdrawing from blindly funding Republican
PACs. Trump has left a bad taste in their mouths and a number of
notable companies are redirecting money into specific policy initiatives
rather than supporting politicians. Might corporations move away from
Citizens United? We shall see.
El Castor
2021-01-15 19:59:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by islander
The news is full of possibilities for what to do about Trump while he
still has power - only 11 days left before inauguration of Biden.  A
serious question should be asked, "To what end?"
Invocation of Amendment 25 of the Constitution to remove him from
office would eliminate the possibility of any overt act, but would
have little other effect than revenge.  It is not an issue in any case
because Pence and the Cabinet would not do it.  It is not a good idea
IMV, even if they were motivated to do it.
Impeachment could be done and Pelosi probably has the votes to do it,
but it is in effect only an act of revenge since the Senate is
unlikely to convict.  It would send a strong message, but what would
it accomplish.  I suspect that Trump would treat it as an
accomplishment, the only President to be impeached twice!  It would
only serve as an act of revenge IMV with limited long term impact on
his ability to act in the future.
A third option may be a better way to punish Trump and serve to limit
his ability to influence politics in the future.  This would be to
censure him under Amendment 14(3) of the US Constitution.  Literally,
"No Person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or
elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or
military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having
previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of
the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an
executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the
Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection
or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies
thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House,
remove such disability."
This would essentially bar him from not only aspiring to any public
office in the future, but it would minimize his influence on anyone
seeking his assistance in their own aspirations.  It would essentially
minimize his influence over Republican primaries.  This could be done
with a simple majority vote in both houses of Congress and that could
be done quickly.  Furthermore, it would take a 2/3 vote of both houses
to reverse, exactly the opposite of other possible Congressional
options. This would have a deterrent effect that is more useful than
other possible efforts at revenge or punishment.
Seems like a good idea to me!  Do it, have it done, and move on!
I seriously doubt the courts would permit Congress to define when an
insurrection occurs. Instead, I strongly suspect it would take a guilty
verdict by a jury (or a guilty plea) to violating
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2383.
This would be the case if anyone, including Congress, elected to use 18
USC 2383. A censure vote would not require that. Trump might use 18
USC 2383 to bring charges against Congress that insurrection can only be
proved in the courts, but that would be a heavy lift.
You're not going to shut him up. Move on. A popular productive Biden
term would be a far better remedy than some legal nonsense.
Biden has said that he will leave this to Congress. He is concentrating
on the future by working with Congress to pass legislation.
He's already planning on raising taxes. The corporate rate is going to
28%, which is a little lower than under Obama. The Covid deficit will
have to be paid for somehow. I just hope we don't get a DC statehood
or packed court.
I doubt that your "just" is not what will satisfy you. I'm glad that
you acknowledge that increasing corporate taxes is going to be necessary
to address the deficit. The Laffer curve demonstrates this very well,
something that a lot of conservatives choose to ignore. We have to
increase revenue. Time to pay attention to both sides of the ledger sheet.
Actually I would prefer that corporate taxes be left where they are
and personal taxes raised -- preferably on the wealthy -- but only to
get us out of the COVID hole. There is a belief among most economists
that personal taxation is less harmful to the economy than corporate.
BTW -- who do you think pays corporate taxes -- we all do, poor and
wealthy alike.
I suspect that an increase in personal income taxation *is* less harmful
to the economy simply because there is less flexibility on the demand
side. For example, in the 2009 recession, personal consumption
expenditures took a small dip while GDP per capita took a much bigger
dip. Why? Because people were already living close to what they could
afford and had to go into larger debt to survive. By contrast,
businesses took a bigger hit in their profits. Hence, there is a more
reliable source of tax from the general population than there is from
businesses. Not a pretty picture, but it is what it is.
"Corporate taxes are found to be most harmful for growth, followed by
personal income taxes, and then consumption taxes."
https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/economics/taxation-and-economic-growth_241216205486
But, we are not talking about growth. I'm pointing out that when the
country is in a serious recession and people are struggling, consumption
hits a lower limit. People have to survive. This is part of the debate
over demand vs supply economics.
To be clear, when I talk about personal income taxation I'm speaking
of the personal income of upper echelon earners versus corporate
taxation, as in taxing the "rich". Politicians like corporate taxation
because corporations don't vote. Most frankly don't care about the
impact on the economy. Even taxing of the rich has to be handled
sensibly. There is the famous case of the Swedish actress, Astrid
Lindgren, who was being taxed at the rate of 103% of her annual
income.
Ok, thanks for the clarification. I was only referring to the effects
of consumption on the lower 90% of taxpayers. Yes, the upper also pays
income tax, but the effects on consumption would be much less than the
rest of the population. In addition, the upper 10% probably exhibits
the same drop in income as corporations in a deep recession because much
of their income is not earned income (wages). Democratic politicians
argue to tax the rich, not just corporations, but that is another issue.
My concern is economic, not social. A strong economy raises all boats,
small and large. (-8
Trickle down? Really?
Good jobs and a higher standard of living! The socialist shining stars
of Europe -- Sweden, Denmark, Norway, etc have all been cutting
corporate rates for years -- long before Trump came along. Add in
state rates on top of federal and a pre-Trump US had the highest rates
in the developed world. Why do you think US corporations were stashing
and investing trillions overseas? At 25%, even China had a much lower
rate than a pre-Trump US.
To be perfectly clear, tax the money after it flows to the wealthy. By
all means, tax the rich!! But out of some deranged desire to punish
the rich, do not cripple the US ability to compete in the world with
some of the highest corporate taxation in the world.
Well, I'm glad that you agree to tax the wealthy, so you would probably
agree to tax capital gains at the same rate as personal income? I
wouldn't be surprised if both of us have taken advantage of capital
gains to replace earned income. But, the major increase in wealth comes
from appreciation of the value of equity. Yes, you pay tax on it when
you pull it out, but if you are interested in accumulating wealth to
pass on to heirs, there are twenty ways from Sunday that you can pass it
along without paying taxes.
As to taxation of corporations, if you have ever formed corporations, I
have, you know that the corporate tax rate is not the deterrent that you
think it is. Any corporation tax lawyer can help you avoid paying
taxes. There are plenty of fairly recent articles illustrating that
even large corporations pay little or no corporate taxes.
As to how the Trump tax breaks were put to use? Most of the benefits,
if they were needed, went to buy back stock. This had two bad effects,
it did not go into hiring more employees or acquiring capital equipment
and it served to prop up stock value, benefiting only those who rely on
growth in stock value. The average person did not benefit from a
significant increase in jobs, salary, or standard of living. Yes, a few
companies gave bonuses the first year, but if the tax breaks were so
important to the economy, why did that not continue?
Frankly, I'm surprised that you still believe in trickle down economics.
It simply doesn't work.
Huh? Did I mention trickle down economics? Sweden has been cutting
corporate taxes for years. Here is an interesting graph.
https://tradingeconomics.com/sweden/corporate-tax-rate
Why? Not because Republicans have wormed their way into the Swedish
government. Swedish corporations can't succeed and expand (creating
more jobs) if they literally tax themselves out of the European and
World market. Tax the money when it makes its way into someone's
pocket, and by all means tax the "rich" at a higher rate. Taxes on the
Swedish rich have no effect on the cost of manufacturing a Volvo, but
corporate taxes certainly do.
Yet, the social security rate for companies in Sweden is 32.42% while
the US charges companies only 6.2%. It appears that Sweden has other
ways of supporting their social programs. I'm OK with charging US
companies with a significantly higher tax off the top to support our
social programs rather than relying on a significantly lower tax on
profits that goes into the general fund to be spent on whatever the
Congress decides. Perhaps the controversy over corporate tax rates is a
tempest in a teapot. Can we agree on that?
No.
Too bad. You argument that Sweden has reduced corporate taxes seems to
be moot.
"World Economic Forum"
"Is corporation tax good or bad for growth?" ...
"Corporate tax rates have fallen from the high 40s-50% in the 1980s to
21.4% in 2018, according to the OECD, which studied 88 countries. This
is driven partly by the belief that lower rates encourage inward
investment and enterprise generally. Research, such as the IMF Working
Paper “Death and Taxes: Does Taxation Matter for Firm Survival”, also
shows that the higher the effective marginal tax rate, the greater the
chance of a company failing financially."
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/01/corporation-tax-good-or-bad-for-growth/
Convinced? Of course not. To Biden's credit he probably won't boost
the rate to where it was when Trump took over -- the highest in the
world.
On the other hand, corporate America seems to be developing a social
conscience, perhaps even withdrawing from blindly funding Republican
PACs. Trump has left a bad taste in their mouths and a number of
notable companies are redirecting money into specific policy initiatives
rather than supporting politicians. Might corporations move away from
Citizens United? We shall see.
Corporations are operating in their own self interest and going the
way the wind is blowing. It's blowing left. Makes sense to buy the
winners.
islander
2021-01-16 16:45:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by islander
The news is full of possibilities for what to do about Trump while he
still has power - only 11 days left before inauguration of Biden.  A
serious question should be asked, "To what end?"
Invocation of Amendment 25 of the Constitution to remove him from
office would eliminate the possibility of any overt act, but would
have little other effect than revenge.  It is not an issue in any case
because Pence and the Cabinet would not do it.  It is not a good idea
IMV, even if they were motivated to do it.
Impeachment could be done and Pelosi probably has the votes to do it,
but it is in effect only an act of revenge since the Senate is
unlikely to convict.  It would send a strong message, but what would
it accomplish.  I suspect that Trump would treat it as an
accomplishment, the only President to be impeached twice!  It would
only serve as an act of revenge IMV with limited long term impact on
his ability to act in the future.
A third option may be a better way to punish Trump and serve to limit
his ability to influence politics in the future.  This would be to
censure him under Amendment 14(3) of the US Constitution.  Literally,
"No Person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or
elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or
military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having
previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of
the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an
executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the
Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection
or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies
thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House,
remove such disability."
This would essentially bar him from not only aspiring to any public
office in the future, but it would minimize his influence on anyone
seeking his assistance in their own aspirations.  It would essentially
minimize his influence over Republican primaries.  This could be done
with a simple majority vote in both houses of Congress and that could
be done quickly.  Furthermore, it would take a 2/3 vote of both houses
to reverse, exactly the opposite of other possible Congressional
options. This would have a deterrent effect that is more useful than
other possible efforts at revenge or punishment.
Seems like a good idea to me!  Do it, have it done, and move on!
I seriously doubt the courts would permit Congress to define when an
insurrection occurs. Instead, I strongly suspect it would take a guilty
verdict by a jury (or a guilty plea) to violating
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2383.
This would be the case if anyone, including Congress, elected to use 18
USC 2383. A censure vote would not require that. Trump might use 18
USC 2383 to bring charges against Congress that insurrection can only be
proved in the courts, but that would be a heavy lift.
You're not going to shut him up. Move on. A popular productive Biden
term would be a far better remedy than some legal nonsense.
Biden has said that he will leave this to Congress. He is concentrating
on the future by working with Congress to pass legislation.
He's already planning on raising taxes. The corporate rate is going to
28%, which is a little lower than under Obama. The Covid deficit will
have to be paid for somehow. I just hope we don't get a DC statehood
or packed court.
I doubt that your "just" is not what will satisfy you. I'm glad that
you acknowledge that increasing corporate taxes is going to be necessary
to address the deficit. The Laffer curve demonstrates this very well,
something that a lot of conservatives choose to ignore. We have to
increase revenue. Time to pay attention to both sides of the ledger sheet.
Actually I would prefer that corporate taxes be left where they are
and personal taxes raised -- preferably on the wealthy -- but only to
get us out of the COVID hole. There is a belief among most economists
that personal taxation is less harmful to the economy than corporate.
BTW -- who do you think pays corporate taxes -- we all do, poor and
wealthy alike.
I suspect that an increase in personal income taxation *is* less harmful
to the economy simply because there is less flexibility on the demand
side. For example, in the 2009 recession, personal consumption
expenditures took a small dip while GDP per capita took a much bigger
dip. Why? Because people were already living close to what they could
afford and had to go into larger debt to survive. By contrast,
businesses took a bigger hit in their profits. Hence, there is a more
reliable source of tax from the general population than there is from
businesses. Not a pretty picture, but it is what it is.
"Corporate taxes are found to be most harmful for growth, followed by
personal income taxes, and then consumption taxes."
https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/economics/taxation-and-economic-growth_241216205486
But, we are not talking about growth. I'm pointing out that when the
country is in a serious recession and people are struggling, consumption
hits a lower limit. People have to survive. This is part of the debate
over demand vs supply economics.
To be clear, when I talk about personal income taxation I'm speaking
of the personal income of upper echelon earners versus corporate
taxation, as in taxing the "rich". Politicians like corporate taxation
because corporations don't vote. Most frankly don't care about the
impact on the economy. Even taxing of the rich has to be handled
sensibly. There is the famous case of the Swedish actress, Astrid
Lindgren, who was being taxed at the rate of 103% of her annual
income.
Ok, thanks for the clarification. I was only referring to the effects
of consumption on the lower 90% of taxpayers. Yes, the upper also pays
income tax, but the effects on consumption would be much less than the
rest of the population. In addition, the upper 10% probably exhibits
the same drop in income as corporations in a deep recession because much
of their income is not earned income (wages). Democratic politicians
argue to tax the rich, not just corporations, but that is another issue.
My concern is economic, not social. A strong economy raises all boats,
small and large. (-8
Trickle down? Really?
Good jobs and a higher standard of living! The socialist shining stars
of Europe -- Sweden, Denmark, Norway, etc have all been cutting
corporate rates for years -- long before Trump came along. Add in
state rates on top of federal and a pre-Trump US had the highest rates
in the developed world. Why do you think US corporations were stashing
and investing trillions overseas? At 25%, even China had a much lower
rate than a pre-Trump US.
To be perfectly clear, tax the money after it flows to the wealthy. By
all means, tax the rich!! But out of some deranged desire to punish
the rich, do not cripple the US ability to compete in the world with
some of the highest corporate taxation in the world.
Well, I'm glad that you agree to tax the wealthy, so you would probably
agree to tax capital gains at the same rate as personal income? I
wouldn't be surprised if both of us have taken advantage of capital
gains to replace earned income. But, the major increase in wealth comes
from appreciation of the value of equity. Yes, you pay tax on it when
you pull it out, but if you are interested in accumulating wealth to
pass on to heirs, there are twenty ways from Sunday that you can pass it
along without paying taxes.
As to taxation of corporations, if you have ever formed corporations, I
have, you know that the corporate tax rate is not the deterrent that you
think it is. Any corporation tax lawyer can help you avoid paying
taxes. There are plenty of fairly recent articles illustrating that
even large corporations pay little or no corporate taxes.
As to how the Trump tax breaks were put to use? Most of the benefits,
if they were needed, went to buy back stock. This had two bad effects,
it did not go into hiring more employees or acquiring capital equipment
and it served to prop up stock value, benefiting only those who rely on
growth in stock value. The average person did not benefit from a
significant increase in jobs, salary, or standard of living. Yes, a few
companies gave bonuses the first year, but if the tax breaks were so
important to the economy, why did that not continue?
Frankly, I'm surprised that you still believe in trickle down economics.
It simply doesn't work.
Huh? Did I mention trickle down economics? Sweden has been cutting
corporate taxes for years. Here is an interesting graph.
https://tradingeconomics.com/sweden/corporate-tax-rate
Why? Not because Republicans have wormed their way into the Swedish
government. Swedish corporations can't succeed and expand (creating
more jobs) if they literally tax themselves out of the European and
World market. Tax the money when it makes its way into someone's
pocket, and by all means tax the "rich" at a higher rate. Taxes on the
Swedish rich have no effect on the cost of manufacturing a Volvo, but
corporate taxes certainly do.
Yet, the social security rate for companies in Sweden is 32.42% while
the US charges companies only 6.2%. It appears that Sweden has other
ways of supporting their social programs. I'm OK with charging US
companies with a significantly higher tax off the top to support our
social programs rather than relying on a significantly lower tax on
profits that goes into the general fund to be spent on whatever the
Congress decides. Perhaps the controversy over corporate tax rates is a
tempest in a teapot. Can we agree on that?
No.
Too bad. You argument that Sweden has reduced corporate taxes seems to
be moot.
"World Economic Forum"
"Is corporation tax good or bad for growth?" ...
"Corporate tax rates have fallen from the high 40s-50% in the 1980s to
21.4% in 2018, according to the OECD, which studied 88 countries. This
is driven partly by the belief that lower rates encourage inward
investment and enterprise generally. Research, such as the IMF Working
Paper “Death and Taxes: Does Taxation Matter for Firm Survival”, also
shows that the higher the effective marginal tax rate, the greater the
chance of a company failing financially."
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/01/corporation-tax-good-or-bad-for-growth/
Convinced? Of course not. To Biden's credit he probably won't boost
the rate to where it was when Trump took over -- the highest in the
world.
On the other hand, corporate America seems to be developing a social
conscience, perhaps even withdrawing from blindly funding Republican
PACs. Trump has left a bad taste in their mouths and a number of
notable companies are redirecting money into specific policy initiatives
rather than supporting politicians. Might corporations move away from
Citizens United? We shall see.
Corporations are operating in their own self interest and going the
way the wind is blowing. It's blowing left. Makes sense to buy the
winners.
It will be interesting to see if the Republican PACs recover in time for
the 2022 midterms.
El Castor
2021-01-17 07:38:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by islander
The news is full of possibilities for what to do about Trump while he
still has power - only 11 days left before inauguration of Biden.  A
serious question should be asked, "To what end?"
Invocation of Amendment 25 of the Constitution to remove him from
office would eliminate the possibility of any overt act, but would
have little other effect than revenge.  It is not an issue in any case
because Pence and the Cabinet would not do it.  It is not a good idea
IMV, even if they were motivated to do it.
Impeachment could be done and Pelosi probably has the votes to do it,
but it is in effect only an act of revenge since the Senate is
unlikely to convict.  It would send a strong message, but what would
it accomplish.  I suspect that Trump would treat it as an
accomplishment, the only President to be impeached twice!  It would
only serve as an act of revenge IMV with limited long term impact on
his ability to act in the future.
A third option may be a better way to punish Trump and serve to limit
his ability to influence politics in the future.  This would be to
censure him under Amendment 14(3) of the US Constitution.  Literally,
"No Person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or
elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or
military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having
previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of
the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an
executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the
Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection
or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies
thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House,
remove such disability."
This would essentially bar him from not only aspiring to any public
office in the future, but it would minimize his influence on anyone
seeking his assistance in their own aspirations.  It would essentially
minimize his influence over Republican primaries.  This could be done
with a simple majority vote in both houses of Congress and that could
be done quickly.  Furthermore, it would take a 2/3 vote of both houses
to reverse, exactly the opposite of other possible Congressional
options. This would have a deterrent effect that is more useful than
other possible efforts at revenge or punishment.
Seems like a good idea to me!  Do it, have it done, and move on!
I seriously doubt the courts would permit Congress to define when an
insurrection occurs. Instead, I strongly suspect it would take a guilty
verdict by a jury (or a guilty plea) to violating
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2383.
This would be the case if anyone, including Congress, elected to use 18
USC 2383. A censure vote would not require that. Trump might use 18
USC 2383 to bring charges against Congress that insurrection can only be
proved in the courts, but that would be a heavy lift.
You're not going to shut him up. Move on. A popular productive Biden
term would be a far better remedy than some legal nonsense.
Biden has said that he will leave this to Congress. He is concentrating
on the future by working with Congress to pass legislation.
He's already planning on raising taxes. The corporate rate is going to
28%, which is a little lower than under Obama. The Covid deficit will
have to be paid for somehow. I just hope we don't get a DC statehood
or packed court.
I doubt that your "just" is not what will satisfy you. I'm glad that
you acknowledge that increasing corporate taxes is going to be necessary
to address the deficit. The Laffer curve demonstrates this very well,
something that a lot of conservatives choose to ignore. We have to
increase revenue. Time to pay attention to both sides of the ledger sheet.
Actually I would prefer that corporate taxes be left where they are
and personal taxes raised -- preferably on the wealthy -- but only to
get us out of the COVID hole. There is a belief among most economists
that personal taxation is less harmful to the economy than corporate.
BTW -- who do you think pays corporate taxes -- we all do, poor and
wealthy alike.
I suspect that an increase in personal income taxation *is* less harmful
to the economy simply because there is less flexibility on the demand
side. For example, in the 2009 recession, personal consumption
expenditures took a small dip while GDP per capita took a much bigger
dip. Why? Because people were already living close to what they could
afford and had to go into larger debt to survive. By contrast,
businesses took a bigger hit in their profits. Hence, there is a more
reliable source of tax from the general population than there is from
businesses. Not a pretty picture, but it is what it is.
"Corporate taxes are found to be most harmful for growth, followed by
personal income taxes, and then consumption taxes."
https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/economics/taxation-and-economic-growth_241216205486
But, we are not talking about growth. I'm pointing out that when the
country is in a serious recession and people are struggling, consumption
hits a lower limit. People have to survive. This is part of the debate
over demand vs supply economics.
To be clear, when I talk about personal income taxation I'm speaking
of the personal income of upper echelon earners versus corporate
taxation, as in taxing the "rich". Politicians like corporate taxation
because corporations don't vote. Most frankly don't care about the
impact on the economy. Even taxing of the rich has to be handled
sensibly. There is the famous case of the Swedish actress, Astrid
Lindgren, who was being taxed at the rate of 103% of her annual
income.
Ok, thanks for the clarification. I was only referring to the effects
of consumption on the lower 90% of taxpayers. Yes, the upper also pays
income tax, but the effects on consumption would be much less than the
rest of the population. In addition, the upper 10% probably exhibits
the same drop in income as corporations in a deep recession because much
of their income is not earned income (wages). Democratic politicians
argue to tax the rich, not just corporations, but that is another issue.
My concern is economic, not social. A strong economy raises all boats,
small and large. (-8
Trickle down? Really?
Good jobs and a higher standard of living! The socialist shining stars
of Europe -- Sweden, Denmark, Norway, etc have all been cutting
corporate rates for years -- long before Trump came along. Add in
state rates on top of federal and a pre-Trump US had the highest rates
in the developed world. Why do you think US corporations were stashing
and investing trillions overseas? At 25%, even China had a much lower
rate than a pre-Trump US.
To be perfectly clear, tax the money after it flows to the wealthy. By
all means, tax the rich!! But out of some deranged desire to punish
the rich, do not cripple the US ability to compete in the world with
some of the highest corporate taxation in the world.
Well, I'm glad that you agree to tax the wealthy, so you would probably
agree to tax capital gains at the same rate as personal income? I
wouldn't be surprised if both of us have taken advantage of capital
gains to replace earned income. But, the major increase in wealth comes
from appreciation of the value of equity. Yes, you pay tax on it when
you pull it out, but if you are interested in accumulating wealth to
pass on to heirs, there are twenty ways from Sunday that you can pass it
along without paying taxes.
As to taxation of corporations, if you have ever formed corporations, I
have, you know that the corporate tax rate is not the deterrent that you
think it is. Any corporation tax lawyer can help you avoid paying
taxes. There are plenty of fairly recent articles illustrating that
even large corporations pay little or no corporate taxes.
As to how the Trump tax breaks were put to use? Most of the benefits,
if they were needed, went to buy back stock. This had two bad effects,
it did not go into hiring more employees or acquiring capital equipment
and it served to prop up stock value, benefiting only those who rely on
growth in stock value. The average person did not benefit from a
significant increase in jobs, salary, or standard of living. Yes, a few
companies gave bonuses the first year, but if the tax breaks were so
important to the economy, why did that not continue?
Frankly, I'm surprised that you still believe in trickle down economics.
It simply doesn't work.
Huh? Did I mention trickle down economics? Sweden has been cutting
corporate taxes for years. Here is an interesting graph.
https://tradingeconomics.com/sweden/corporate-tax-rate
Why? Not because Republicans have wormed their way into the Swedish
government. Swedish corporations can't succeed and expand (creating
more jobs) if they literally tax themselves out of the European and
World market. Tax the money when it makes its way into someone's
pocket, and by all means tax the "rich" at a higher rate. Taxes on the
Swedish rich have no effect on the cost of manufacturing a Volvo, but
corporate taxes certainly do.
Yet, the social security rate for companies in Sweden is 32.42% while
the US charges companies only 6.2%. It appears that Sweden has other
ways of supporting their social programs. I'm OK with charging US
companies with a significantly higher tax off the top to support our
social programs rather than relying on a significantly lower tax on
profits that goes into the general fund to be spent on whatever the
Congress decides. Perhaps the controversy over corporate tax rates is a
tempest in a teapot. Can we agree on that?
No.
Too bad. You argument that Sweden has reduced corporate taxes seems to
be moot.
"World Economic Forum"
"Is corporation tax good or bad for growth?" ...
"Corporate tax rates have fallen from the high 40s-50% in the 1980s to
21.4% in 2018, according to the OECD, which studied 88 countries. This
is driven partly by the belief that lower rates encourage inward
investment and enterprise generally. Research, such as the IMF Working
Paper “Death and Taxes: Does Taxation Matter for Firm Survival”, also
shows that the higher the effective marginal tax rate, the greater the
chance of a company failing financially."
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/01/corporation-tax-good-or-bad-for-growth/
Convinced? Of course not. To Biden's credit he probably won't boost
the rate to where it was when Trump took over -- the highest in the
world.
On the other hand, corporate America seems to be developing a social
conscience, perhaps even withdrawing from blindly funding Republican
PACs. Trump has left a bad taste in their mouths and a number of
notable companies are redirecting money into specific policy initiatives
rather than supporting politicians. Might corporations move away from
Citizens United? We shall see.
Corporations are operating in their own self interest and going the
way the wind is blowing. It's blowing left. Makes sense to buy the
winners.
It will be interesting to see if the Republican PACs recover in time for
the 2022 midterms.
How that turns out probably depends more on Biden than Republicans.
Not At All
2021-01-13 00:52:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by El Castor
Good jobs and a higher standard of living! The socialist shining stars
of Europe -- Sweden, Denmark, Norway, etc
None of these countries are socialist. They do have strong social-
welfare benefits for their populations, but state-owned enterprises
aren't the norm, nor is government control of most primary sectors of
the economy. They are all free-market economies, although Norway does
impose some strong import tariffs on certain things, as part of its
odd status of not being in the EU, but being in the EFTA and also having
free trade and travel between Norway and Sweden, so it still enjoys
some of the benefits.

I realize precision of language isn't important to a lot of people,
but ... words mean things.

Loved Sweden when I went there three years ago, and brought home a
shiny new Volvo that is still being driven today. Good quality of
life and standard of living. Ditto Denmark, through which we drove
said shiny new Volvo. Copenhagen is a delight.
El Castor
2021-01-13 07:26:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Not At All
Post by El Castor
Good jobs and a higher standard of living! The socialist shining stars
of Europe -- Sweden, Denmark, Norway, etc
None of these countries are socialist.
They are what passes for socialist these days. Experiments in the
total government ownership of the means of production have failed
miserably. Even Russia and China have been forced to face reality and
widely accept limited free enterprise. North Korea may be the last
holdout in the practice.
Post by Not At All
They do have strong social-
welfare benefits for their populations, but state-owned enterprises
aren't the norm, nor is government control of most primary sectors of
the economy. They are all free-market economies, although Norway does
impose some strong import tariffs on certain things, as part of its
odd status of not being in the EU, but being in the EFTA and also having
free trade and travel between Norway and Sweden, so it still enjoys
some of the benefits.
I realize precision of language isn't important to a lot of people,
but ... words mean things.
Loved Sweden when I went there three years ago, and brought home a
shiny new Volvo that is still being driven today. Good quality of
life and standard of living. Ditto Denmark, through which we drove
said shiny new Volvo. Copenhagen is a delight.
I've never been to Sweden, but I have spent a few days in Norway.
Beautiful place.
Loading...