[Winstonm]

From PRRI/Atlantic study: https://www.theatlan...versity/583123/

Quote

21 percent of Republicans said they seldom or never interact with people who don’t share their race, versus 13 percent of Democrats. Similarly, more than a quarter of white evangelicals said they rarely encounter people of a different race, slightly more than any other major religious group included in the survey. Thirty percent of people over 65 said they seldom or never encounter someone of a different race, compared with 20 percent or less of people under 65.

Quote

People living in rural areas were significantly less likely than those in cities to encounter racial, religious, or political difference. And among white people, education level made a huge difference: Those without a college degree were more than twice as likely as their college-educated peers to say they rarely encounter people of a different race, and more than four times as likely to say they seldom or never encounter people from a different religion or political party.

These people more than likely represent Individual-1's hardcore base: isolated isolationists.

[y66]

Warren Buffett has an interesting way of looking at the effect of the Trump tax cut on corporate taxes which he explains in his annual letter to shareholders:

Quote

Begin with an economic reality: Like it or not, the U.S. Government “owns” an interest in Berkshire’s earnings of a size determined by Congress. In effect, our country’s Treasury Department holds a special class of our stock – call this holding the AA shares – that receives large “dividends” (that is, tax payments) from Berkshire. In 2017, as in many years before, the corporate tax rate was 35%, which meant that the Treasury was doing very well with its AA shares. Indeed, the Treasury’s “stock,” which was paying nothing when we took over in 1965, had evolved into a holding that delivered billions of dollars annually to the federal government.

Last year, however, 40% of the government’s “ownership” (14/35ths) was returned to Berkshire – free of charge – when the corporate tax rate was reduced to 21%. Consequently, our “A” and “B” shareholders received a major boost in the earnings attributable to their shares.

This happening materially increased the intrinsic value of the Berkshire shares you and I own. The same dynamic, moreover, enhanced the intrinsic value of almost all of the stocks Berkshire holds.

Peter Coy at Bloomberg writes (December 2018):

Quote

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act that President Trump signed a year ago seems to have boosted economic growth in 2018. But there’s little evidence yet that it’s setting up the U.S. economy for faster growth over the longer term, which is what the White House and the legislation’s backers in Congress promised.

There’s a lot we still don’t know about the impact of the TCJA, given that the tax code is just one of many variables influencing the economy. “There will never be the smoking-gun study that says, ‘This was the effect,’ ” says Joseph Rosenberg, a senior research associate at the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center.

The early results were impressive. Growth, which has averaged 2.2 percent a year since the end of the recession in 2009, accelerated to 4.2 percent in the second quarter, on an annualized basis, and a still strong 3.5 percent in the third. The robust expansion helped drive down unemployment in September to a 49-year low of 3.7 percent, where it remains.

The tax cuts gave a Keynesian boost to demand for goods and services, so its effects are quickly wearing off as the fresh demand is sated: Economists surveyed by Bloomberg expect annualized growth to decline to 2.6 percent in the current quarter, then continue to slow to reach 2 percent by the end of 2019.

Consumer spending, for example, jumped this year because most households got tax cuts. Households have been spending some of the money no longer being withheld from their paychecks. The impact won’t fully be known until we see how consumers react after receiving refunds for the 2018 tax year next spring, says Constance Hunter, chief economist at KPMG LLP. In any case, the cut is causing a one-time step up to a higher level of spending, not continuing growth.

While the TCJA got most of the attention, spending increases approved after most of the tax changes took effect probably had an even bigger impact on growth. The Bipartisan Budget Act that Trump signed in February lifted caps on defense and nondefense spending. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that tax cuts added 0.3 percentage point to the fiscal 2018 growth rate; the easing of the spending caps added another 0.3 percentage point. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimates that various other spending increases, including disaster assistance for victims of hurricanes Florence and Michael and the California wildfires, added an additional 0.2 percentage point.

Economists tend to agree that the fiscal stimulus would have done the economy and workers more good if it had been passed in, say, 2013, when the unemployment rate was more than 7 percent. Nevertheless, it was still useful in creating jobs for the chronically unemployed, including people in parts of the country where the recovery arrived late, says Michael Englund, chief economist of Action Economics LLC, a forecasting company in Boulder, Colo.

One of the most easily disproved claims Trump made about his tax cut plan is that it wouldn’t swell the budget deficit: As a share of gross domestic product, the deficit rose to 4 percent in October, up from 3.4 percent in October 2017 and 2.6 percent in October 2016.

A temporary growth bump is nice, but what of the transformative effects that Trump and others campaigned on? Nine top conservative economists wrote an open letter in November 2017 arguing that the tax bill, by encouraging more business investment in equipment, software, and buildings, could increase the size of the economy by 3 percent over a decade. Yet there’s scant evidence of a sustained pickup in investment.

The tax law removed the disincentive in the tax code for U.S. companies to bring home their foreign profits. Trump predicted a $4 trillion windfall. Data compiled by the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis show that $295 billion was repatriated in the first quarter of 2018. That dropped to $170 billion in the second quarter and is on track to fall below $100 billion in the third quarter, not far above the $40 billion post-crisis quarterly average, Morgan Stanley economists estimated in early December.

Perhaps U.S. multinationals don’t see enough good opportunities to put their money to work at home, says Tim Mahedy, an economist for Bloomberg Economics in New York. That would be consistent with an October survey of 116 U.S. companies by the National Association for Business Economics, which found that 81 percent hadn’t dialed up their planned investment—or hiring—because of the tax law.

Business investment did jump in the first quarter of 2018, presumably in response to the tax cuts, but then quickly sagged toward its normal range. For it to raise the economy’s growth rate over a longer term, it would have to climb to a much higher level and stay there, according to a recent report from Barclays Plc.

Optimists might argue that companies take a long time to plan and execute major new investments so a boom will show up soon, but that appears less likely with each passing quarter. “The fact that we still have the argument, in our view, is prima-facie evidence that the hoped-for improvement in potential growth is not happening,” write Barclays economists Jonathan Millar and Michael Gapen.

BOTTOM LINE - Trump and his backers in Congress promised tax cuts would boost the long-term growth potential of the U.S. economy. The data so far don’t support that claim.

[kenberg]

Winstonm, on 2019-February-23, 09:41, said:

From PRRI/Atlantic study: https://www.theatlan...versity/583123/





These people more than likely represent Individual-1's hardcore base: isolated isolationists.

I found much of the data interesting. From the article:

Quote

When asked how they would feel about their child marrying someone from the opposite political party, 45 percent of Democrats said they would be unhappy, compared with 35 percent of Republicans. This is a sharp increase from how Americans responded to similar surveys a half century ago, according to research by the Stanford professor Shanto Iyengar.

In 1960 when 21 year old me brought my 20 year old future wife home to meet my parents my direct but not so tactful mother did ask if she was pregnant. (She wasn't.) Whether she was a Democrat or a Republican never came up for discussion. Times change.

[barmar]

awm, on 2019-February-22, 13:27, said:

This is somewhat misleading, since the “top 1%” for the most part isn’t making $2M/year and so wouldn’t be eligible for the 91% rate. In the 1950s people typically weren’t paid over 2M a year in salary regardless — there would be no point since they would lose it in tax! There were sometimes (then) non-taxable perks like a company car or gold plated pension plan, but in general income inequality was at much lower levels! Another point is that the current top rate *on income* isn’t what the really rich pay — their money mostly comes as capital gains.

I think capital gains taxes were also much higher back then. And while they might not have been getting huge salaries, they were probably making lots of income in dividends.

Anyway, that chart is what the top 1% were actually paying as their effective rate, so these factors were already taken into account.

[barmar]

kenberg, on 2019-February-23, 16:19, said:

I found much of the data interesting. From the article:

In 1960 when 21 year old me brought my 20 year old future wife home to meet my parents my direct but not so tactful mother did ask if she was pregnant. (She wasn't.) Whether she was a Democrat or a Republican never came up for discussion. Times change.

Who knows if it comes up much now, either. Just because you answer a poll question some way doesn't mean you're going to think about that issue in your normal daily life.

Also, while the parents might not explicitly ask what party their child's future spouse is, it will often factor into how they feel about them after they've gotten to know them. If they're of the opposite party, dinner conversations might frequently devolve into arguments about Trump.

And 50 years ago they would have been arguments about whether the Vietnam War was a good idea.

[kenberg]

barmar, on 2019-February-23, 22:53, said:

Who knows if it comes up much now, either. Just because you answer a poll question some way doesn't mean you're going to think about that issue in your normal daily life.

Also, while the parents might not explicitly ask what party their child's future spouse is, it will often factor into how they feel about them after they've gotten to know them. If they're of the opposite party, dinner conversations might frequently devolve into arguments about Trump.

And 50 years ago they would have been arguments about whether the Vietnam War was a good idea.

Yes, and just in general I am skeptical of reading a great deal into polls. To the extent a poll can be trusted, it seems to show a change in attitude. And my experience is just one experience, although I think it was pretty typical. Whether the intended spouse was pregnant was of interest, whether she was a Democrat was not. It wasn't. Other things were. Has she been Jewish or Catholic that would have raised eyebrows. At that time it was thought, agreed upon by most Jews, Catholics and Protestants that I knew, that Jews should marry Jews, Catholics should marry Catholics, Protestants should marry Protestants. The concern was not over fights over religion at the dinner table, the concern was hiow to raise the kids if each parent took his/her religion seriously. Perhaps some people somewhere wondered how the kids would be raised if one parent was a Democrat and one a Republican but I never heard anyone say that and I don't think anyone I knew believed that. This agreement across religions about marrying within your own religion was very strong.

There really seems to be a greater level of concern now over political differences withing family and friends. I mentioned before that the political landscape was varied at my recent birthday party. At one extreme a friend once explained to me that he is not a liberal he is a radical. And there were a a few people who surely voted for Trump. I lie somewhere between these two extremes and enjoyed the company of all of them. The age range was from 8 year old Tyler (no known political affiliation) to 88 (Joe the radical) but it leaned heavily in the older direction and that kept things calm. Some years back, Al, a young radical, got very upset with me. Joe explained that he, Joe, has been a radical all of his life and os not surprised when people disagree with him but Al was new at radical politics so I should take that into account. Similar to the advice I have been getting about my view of Krugman, I'm easy.

Anyway, times have changed.


Added: No doubt I have too much time on my hands. I have been thinking about what makes us the way we are. or at least what made me the way I am. It's not an easy question, imo.

[y66]

From Pew Research Center:

Quote

Measuring public opinion on evolution has never been an easy task for survey researchers. With Americans’ views on the topic tapping into the highly charged realms of religious conviction and scientific knowledge, question wording becomes extremely important. For this reason, in recent years, Pew Research Center has experimented with different ways of asking about evolution and studied whether these variations affect the public’s responses. And because they do, the Center is moving toward a revised wording.

First, a bit of survey history: For a decade and a half, the Center asked Americans what they believe about the origins of humankind, most often in a two-step process. An initial question asked respondents whether they think humans and other living things have evolved over time – in line with Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution – or whether they believe humans have existed in their present form since the beginning of time, as in the Book of Genesis’ creation story. Those who said they accept the idea of evolution then have been asked a second question: whether they think evolution has occurred due to natural processes such as natural selection, or due to processes that were guided or allowed by God.

Recently, however, the Center conducted a survey in which respondents were randomly assigned to be asked about evolution in one of two different ways. Half of the respondents were asked about evolution in a two-step process much like the one described above. The other half of respondents were asked a single question about their views on evolution and given three response options: “Humans have evolved over time due to processes such as natural selection; God or a higher power had no role in this process”; “Humans have evolved over time due to processes that were guided or allowed by God or a higher power”; or “Humans have existed in their present form since the beginning of time.”

The data show that respondents in the latter group (those who receive a single question with three options) are more likely than those in the former group to say evolution has occurred. Overall, eight-in-ten in the single-question group say humans have evolved over time (and just 18% say humans have always existed in their present form), while only two-thirds of those who receive the older, two-step approach say humans have evolved (and 31% express the creationist view).

Put more simply, our estimate of the share of Americans who reject evolution and express a creationist view drops considerably (from 31% to 18% of U.S. adults) when respondents are immediately given the opportunity to say God played a role in human evolution. The effect of the different question wording is especially pronounced among white evangelical Protestants and black Protestants.

[Winstonm]

y66, on 2019-February-24, 09:53, said:

From Pew Research Center:


[/b]

In other words, 13% of the religious-minded jumped at the chance to hedge their bets.

[johnu]

The stable genius displays his acumen once again

Trade Chief Dumbs Down Contract Term After Donald Trump Doesn’t Get It

Quote

Trump shot back: “I don’t like MOUs because they don’t mean anything.”

Lighthizer calmly corrected the president, and turned to explain to reporters: “An MOU is a contract. It’s the way trade agreements are generally [established]. It’s an actual contract between the two parties. A memo of understanding is a binding agreement.”

Quote

“I disagree,” said a scowling Trump, causing top Chinese negotiator Vice Premier Liu He to laugh. “A memorandum of understanding is exactly that: It’s a memorandum of what our understanding is,” he said, circling his hands in the air. “How long will that take to put into a ... contract?”

In a flash, Lighthizer switched gears without breaking a sweat: “From now on we’re not using ‘memorandum of understanding’ anymore (sparking laughter from several people in the room). We’re going to use the term ‘trade agreement.’ We’ll have the same document; it’s going to be called a trade agreement. We’re never going to have an MOU again.”

“Good,” said Trump.

This exchange should make every American proud that America is great again

[barmar]

kenberg, on 2019-February-24, 07:13, said:

There really seems to be a greater level of concern now over political differences withing family and friends.

Maybe it's simply because we've become more tolerant of race and religious differences (or if you're not more tolerant, it's less acceptable to express it), so we need something else to find wrong with our children's significant others.

Also, during the Trump era America has become much more divisive over political issues, and politics has been front and center in the news and American discourse.

[Winstonm]

A little off topic but a good read about FDR and supposed court-packing:

[Winstonm]

This one is even better about the Fox News snowflake Tucker Carlson.

[johnu]

I'll bet most of you didn't know that America has a big celebration on July 4 with picnics and fireworks

Quote

HOLD THE DATE! We will be having one of the biggest gatherings in the history of Washington, D.C., on July 4th. It will be called “A Salute To America” and will be held at the Lincoln Memorial. Major fireworks display, entertainment and an address by your favorite President, me!

Trump Mercilessly Mocked Over ‘Salute To America’ Announcement

Will there be apple pie

The only logistical question is whether Putin is sending tanks and missile launchers to participate in the military takeover parade.

[Winstonm]

johnu, on 2019-February-24, 21:36, said:

I'll bet most of you didn't know that America has a big celebration on July 4 with picnics and fireworks


Trump Mercilessly Mocked Over ‘Salute To America’ Announcement

Will there be apple pie

The only logistical question is whether Putin is sending tanks and missile launchers to participate in the military takeover parade.

History doesn't repeat but it's fixin' to rhyme with Nixon and I'm not shitt-in". https://timeline.com...70-74931625e339

Quote

They called it Honor America Day: a massive, entertainment-filled ceremony, to be held in Washington DC on the Fourth of July. For a day, Americans could swap their discontent for waving flags, live music, and old-fashioned pride.

[Al_U_Card]

johnu, on 2019-February-24, 19:42, said:

The stable genius displays his acumen once again

Trade Chief Dumbs Down Contract Term After Donald Trump Doesn’t Get It




This exchange should make every American proud that America is great again

While there were only a couple during my career with overseas "partners" (India, Pakistan, China and Korea) the MoUs were a kind of expression of intent concerning envisaged endeavors and were not legally binding. Contracts were then drawn up with specifics (dates, quantities, prices etc.) and once signed were expected to be honored with legal recourse because jurisdictions were mentioned). MoUs, were used as a reference and then sent to file. That was over a decade ago so perhaps things have changed...

[johnu]

Al_U_Card, on 2019-February-25, 10:17, said:

While there were only a couple during my career with overseas "partners" (India, Pakistan, China and Korea) the MoUs were a kind of expression of intent concerning envisaged endeavors and were not legally binding. Contracts were them drawn up with specifics (dates, quantities, prices etc.) and once signed were expected to be honored with legal recourse because jurisdictions were mentioned). MoUs, were used as a reference and then sent to file. That was over a decade ago so perhaps things have changed...

The expression "we're not in Kansas anymore" comes to mind.

Description of Memorandum of Understanding

Quote

In international relations, MoUs fall under the broad category of treaties and should be registered in the United Nations treaty collection.

Dennison has been president for over 2 years. It's unbelievable that he hasn't come across this term in his thousands of hours of "Executive Time".

[johnu]

2020 poll: 77 percent of Democrats back socialism, but most voters don’t

Quote

While 77 percent of Democrats believe that the country would be “better off” if it were more socialist, overall a majority of voters don’t, by a margin of 51 percent to 45 percent, according to the latest Public Opinion Strategies survey.

Dennison and Republican politicians and propaganda mouthpieces are gearing up for a war against "Socialism". If something's got "socialism" in its name, it must be part of a Democratic conspiracy.

For example:
Forgive John Cornyn: Quoting Mussolini to Own the Libs Is Just What the Right Does

Cornyn quotes Mussolini in a tweet:

Quote

“We were the first to assert that the more complicated the forms assumed by civilization, the more restricted the freedom of the individual must become.” Benito Mussolini

Quote

A few hours later, after a well-known Texas journalist kindly demanded to know exactly what the senator meant by posting pearls from a fascist dictator out of context, Cornyn clarified that he did in fact mean that fascism is socialism, or whatever.

IMHO, Democrats need to educate the general public that America has many socialist programs and that in fact, people love those programs without knowing that they are socialist programs.

Among them are:

Social Security - Even has "social" in the the name.
Medicare - The biggest medical plan in the US but only covers 65+ with some exceptions
"Free" public schools - I went to public schools through high school. What about you?

If the poll questions were framed along the lines of "Do you want more programs like Social Security, Medicare, and public schools", I think the results would be very different.

One observation. People love socialist programs when they are on the receiving end of the benefits. The love is lost when the benefits go to other people who are deemed unworthy.

[johnu]

Comrade Manchurian Candidate President has meetings scheduled with North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un.

This brings up an interesting question. Why is the USA spending millions of dollars by intelligence agencies when Russian Puppet Dennison refuses to believe them, instead trusting Putin for his information about North Korea.

“I DON’T CARE. I BELIEVE PUTIN”: TRUMP REJECTED U.S. INTEL AND LISTENED TO MOSCOW, SAYS MCCABE

Quote

Discussing his time at leading the agency after James Comey was fired, McCabe told 60 Minutes that Trump had been at a July 2017 briefing about Pyongyang’s strike capability, when he said he didn’t believe that North Korea had the technology to hit the U.S. with missiles — because the Russian president had told him so.

An honest mistake by Putin and I'm sure his ears were burning after North Korea launched a number of long range missiles.

And there was this:

TRUMP ADMINISTRATION ASKED RUSSIA FOR ADVICE ON NORTH KOREA SUMMIT BETWEEN DONALD TRUMP AND KIM JONG UN, KREMLIN CLAIMS

and this:

Did Putin give Trump the idea to stop “war games” with South Korea?

And if anybody is confused whether these stories hold water, there's this:

Putin says Trump is listening to Russia's views on North Korea crisis

There's not enough time today to get into the Manchurian President's deference to Putin on other matters.

[kenberg]

johnu, on 2019-February-25, 16:34, said:

2020 poll: 77 percent of Democrats back socialism, but most voters don't


Dennison and Republican politicians and propaganda mouthpieces are gearing up for a war against "Socialism". If something's got "socialism" in its name, it must be part of a Democratic conspiracy.

For example:
Forgive John Cornyn: Quoting Mussolini to Own the Libs Is Just What the Right Does

Cornyn quotes Mussolini in a tweet:



IMHO, Democrats need to educate the general public that America has many socialist programs and that in fact, people love those programs without knowing that they are socialist programs.

Among them are:

Social Security - Even has "social" in the the name.
Medicare - The biggest medical plan in the US but only covers 65+ with some exceptions
"Free" public schools - I went to public schools through high school. What about you?

If the poll questions were framed along the lines of "Do you want more programs like Social Security, Medicare, and public schools", I think the results would be very different.

One observation. People love socialist programs when they are on the receiving end of the benefits. The love is lost when the benefits go to other people who are deemed unworthy.

I am often in favor of caution, and so it is here. If the plan is to educate people, there will be both questions and resistance. I can be wary of any "ist" or "ism". In the 1950s, when I was young, liberal policies might be, well, were, described as communist. Explaining the advantages of communism and noting linguistic features such as "communist" and "community" have the same root would not have been a successful approach. That was then, this is now, but I recommend going easy on trying to sell socialism by noting that "social security" has the word "social" in it. More generally, if you are going to try to sell socialism you have to be prepared to answer questions such as "Just which private enterprise should be replaced by government run programs?" When Bernie Sanders was making his try for the nomination, it was explained here and elsewhere that he was a "Democratic Socialist". Ok, but now you are requiring that the voter study the difference between Socialism and Democratic Socialism and then determine whether a candidate is one or the other of these or is of some other form. By this point he has ordered anther beer and is discussing football.

There certainly are issues, I recommend discussing issues while keeping as far away from any sort of ism as possible.

And yes, I went to a public school, after which I went to a state supported university (University of Minnesota) where the tuition was, in 1956, about $225 a year. I was and am very grateful for this opportunity and I regard it as very important that others have similar opportunity. Now that can be said and understood without saying a word about Socialism whether Democratic or otherwise.

Medicare is very good, it is also a pain in the butt to deal with them. There was an instance when the doctor's office insisted that a certain treatment would not be covered bu Medicare, I called Medicare and found them completely useless in providing information, so I said give me what I need and I'll pay for it. I got what I needed and Medicare paid for it. There are many variants of this story. Still, it's very nice to have it. Just don't expect them to be helpful when you have a question.

[Winstonm]

kenberg, on 2019-February-26, 08:22, said:

I am often in favor of caution, and so it is here. If the plan is to educate people, there will be both questions and resistance. I can be wary of any "ist" or "ism". In the 1950s, when I was young, liberal policies might be, well, were, described as communist. Explaining the advantages of communism and noting linguistic features such as "communist" and "community" have the same root would not have been a successful approach. That was then, this is now, but I recommend going easy on trying to sell socialism by noting that "social security" has the word "social" in it. More generally, if you are going to try to sell socialism you have to be prepared to answer questions such as "Just which private enterprise should be replaced by government run programs?" When Bernie Sanders was making his try for the nomination, it was explained here and elsewhere that he was a "Democratic Socialist". Ok, but now you are requiring that the voter study the difference between Socialism and Democratic Socialism and then determine whether a candidate is one or the other of these or is of some other form. By this point he has ordered anther beer and is discussing football.

There certainly are issues, I recommend discussing issues while keeping as far away from any sort of ism as possible.

And yes, I went to a public school, after which I went to a state supported university (University of Minnesota) where the tuition was, in 1956, about $225 a year. I was and am very grateful for this opportunity and I regard it as very important that others have similar opportunity. Now that can be said and understood without saying a word about Socialism whether Democratic or otherwise.

Medicare is very good, it is also a pain in the butt to deal with them. There was an instance when the doctor's office insisted that a certain treatment would not be covered bu Medicare, I called Medicare and found them completely useless in providing information, so I said give me what I need and I'll pay for it. I got what I needed and Medicare paid for it. There are many variants of this story. Still, it's very nice to have it. Just don't expect them to be helpful when you have a question.

Ken, you make good points. The question I have is how does one combat the Republican onslaught of demonizing every progressive idea as "socialism". Although I get what you are saying, that the attention span of most voters is so short that a bumper sticker is all they will take it, it seems long-term the better solution is to educate the public. Unfortunately, there is no time for that prior to 2020 so it's back to he said/she said argument instead of genuine debate.