Expel Wayward Republicans from the Senate? (1 Viewer)

[Isaac]

Are you saying that the laws on illegal weapons possession are too severe or do you mean that shouldn't be applied to certain people?

In general I've found my self to be quite disturbed by a lot of 'minimum sentences' statutes. Sentencing guidelines sound like a really good thing, Oh, it will bring fairness, but actually it can do the opposite, too. Ultimately a judge does need some discretion - and many minimum sentences ride a temporary wave of public awareness/obsession, resulting in overly harsh outcome.

Example, Arizona just passed a voter-initiated law that mandates life in prison for anyone convicted of sex trafficking.
Now, you might think that's fine - why would I be against it - Well, because I know that not all 'sex trafficking' charges will be the same.
You're going to have a group of homeless druggies, where the women ***** and you might just by chance have some guy collecting the money and all of a sudden that's 'sex trafficking', even though everyone was consensual and nobody was really being trafficked - bam, life in prison.

If I could be guaranteed that everyone sentenced under that law was an actual, like you know, kidnap someone and bring them somewhere and sell them for sex and refuse to let them leave - that'd be different, but because of what society has done in seeing women as "always victims, never guilty", this means that prostitutes are very unlikely to be prosecuted now in most jurisdictions, because they say "Trafficked!" as soon as the handcuffs come out and that gives the one person a totally free pass and puts another in prison for life. You can see the problems here. And by the way that is a reasonably good example of when discrimination against men is clear cut.

What we need is to stop worrying so much about judges negating a law and start to focus on prosecutors, who negate laws by refusing to prosecute and who punish people by prosecuting just some but not others. Prosecutors have 10x the power in discretion than judges ever did, and something needs to reign it in and cause outcomes to be more uniform.

You seem to be in favor of reigning in judges' discretion, yet you have no such equal application of the principle when it comes to prosecution.

Why?

 

[RogerCooper]

A lot better. It's called learning. Right now he is making history doing exactly what he promissed to do. I kind like that.

I recall him promising lower prices not higher prices. But he is already backed off from that.

 

[Isaac]

Politicians need to stop promising lower prices and free stuff and higher services and instead offer people a real chance to contribute to society: Being OK with temporary pain, so that we can get our budget/deficit situation back on track. They need to educate citizens on how dire things are so that it becomes as popular to vote for Cuts as it is to buy Forever 21 shirts with "Made Sustainably" written on the tag.

 

[Mike Krailo]

I recall him promising lower prices not higher prices. But he is already backed off from that.

We'll get there, that's not reasonable to expect this early on unless he say's there is no more federal income taxes. He did not promise that though.

 

[RogerCooper]

We'll get there, that's not reasonable to expect this early on unless he say's there is no more federal income taxes. He did not promise that though.

Trump has already said that we are not going to get lower prices. Another politician breaking a campaign promise.

J D Vance says it doesn't matter if prices go by 5% as long as wages go up by 5% (that is to say inflation). But no one seriously think wages will match price increases.

Too bad voters didn't elect a Republican.

 

[Isaac]

If you really took that as a promise, thinking he had the power to bring prices down, I'm not sure the fault is his.
That kind of statement is more accurately considered an optimistic confession. He doesn't have the power, so he couldn't have promised it.

 

[RogerCooper]

If you really took that as a promise, thinking he had the power to bring prices down, I'm not sure the fault is his.
That kind of statement is more accurately considered an optimistic confession. He doesn't have the power, so he couldn't have promised it.

He is pushing pro-inflation policies

* Higher tariffs raise prices directly
* Tax cuts increase the deficit, which drives inflation. (Note that tariffs are inefficient source of revenue, so the net effect of tariffs is still inflationary)
* Deporting illegal aliens (and cutting legal immigration) will increase costs in many industries. (The wages of a few may raise, but prices will increase more overall)
* He wants the Fed to lower interest rates, which will increase the money supply

Companies are already raising prices in anticipation.

 

[AccessBlaster]

* Higher tariffs raise prices directly
* (Note that tariffs are inefficient source of revenue, so the net effect of tariffs is still inflationary)

You mean reciprocal tariffs, right?

 

[Isaac]

He is pushing pro-inflation policies

* Higher tariffs raise prices directly
* Tax cuts increase the deficit, which drives inflation. (Note that tariffs are inefficient source of revenue, so the net effect of tariffs is still inflationary)
* Deporting illegal aliens (and cutting legal immigration) will increase costs in many industries. (The wages of a few may raise, but prices will increase more overall)
* He wants the Fed to lower interest rates, which will increase the money supply

Companies are already raising prices in anticipation.

I was talking about your assertion that he "broke his promise". Campaign promises are things we wish and hope for, or will push for. They're not to be taken literally. Politicans often promise they'll have the 'best administration ever', now how would you measure that

 

[Isaac]

Higher tariffs raise prices directly

Not really, not if the importer-distributor chooses to absorb the higher price into themselves, thus leaving the supply chain unaffected.
It's also caused - already - several companies to suddenly decide to stop importing and start making American made. That's a good thing as it re-creates American jobs.

If we get so much money from tariffs that we can cut taxes, isn't that a wash? Where's the pain?

 

[Isaac]

Tax cuts increase the deficit

Not if they are offset by cutting the fat

 

[Isaac]

Deporting illegal aliens (and cutting legal immigration) will increase costs in many industries

So be it. What your statement really means is, "There are employers out there who I know are illegally bypassing the employment verification system and illegally hiring unauthorized workers, and I'm fine with that - and would rather let it continue".

 

[Isaac]

Defund NPR! We should not be funding this left-leaning propaganda machine

 

[RogerCooper]

Not really, not if the importer-distributor chooses to absorb the higher price into themselves, thus leaving the supply chain unaffected.
It's also caused - already - several companies to suddenly decide to stop importing and start making American made. That's a good thing as it re-creates American jobs.

If we get so much money from tariffs that we can cut taxes, isn't that a wash? Where's the pain?

It is not a wash. It is unlikely that cost are going to be absorbed (that is to say the corporations will cut their profits). If production is brought back to the US, that means that those workers are not producing something else. And foreigners will have less money to buy from the US.

In the 70's, textile production in the United States moved from New England to the Southeast where the labor costs were lower. New England's standard of living went up overall as the tech sector expanded, often literally in the same buildings. Former factory workers became the service workers the new economy wanted. A few, whose skills were in the textile sector did worse, but most people were better off. Economics does not work differently because an international border. Does anyone think that a tax on imports from the Southeast would have made New England better off?

All taxes have a distorting effect on the economy, reducing productivity. The higher the tax rate, the greater the distortion. As foreign trade is only 12% of the economy, a tariff raises revenue from only 12% of the economy resulting in higher rates than taxes on the entire economy.

As for the question of reciprocal tariffs, I don't understand we should import bad policies from other countries.

Always remember Exports are the price we pay for imports. If we are running a trade deficit, that means we have higher a standard of living. Our standard of living comes from the goods & services we consume.

As for your contention that Trump's promises were just that of a politician without meaning, you certainly have a point. However it is reasonable for voters to want a politician not to do the opposite of what they said.

 

[moke123]

In general I've found my self to be quite disturbed by a lot of 'minimum sentences' statutes. Sentencing guidelines sound like a really good thing, Oh, it will bring fairness, but actually it can do the opposite, too. Ultimately a judge does need some discretion - and many minimum sentences ride a temporary wave of public awareness/obsession, resulting in overly harsh outcome.

Example, Arizona just passed a voter-initiated law that mandates life in prison for anyone convicted of sex trafficking.
Now, you might think that's fine - why would I be against it - Well, because I know that not all 'sex trafficking' charges will be the same.
You're going to have a group of homeless druggies, where the women ***** and you might just by chance have some guy collecting the money and all of a sudden that's 'sex trafficking', even though everyone was consensual and nobody was really being trafficked - bam, life in prison.

If I could be guaranteed that everyone sentenced under that law was an actual, like you know, kidnap someone and bring them somewhere and sell them for sex and refuse to let them leave - that'd be different, but because of what society has done in seeing women as "always victims, never guilty", this means that prostitutes are very unlikely to be prosecuted now in most jurisdictions, because they say "Trafficked!" as soon as the handcuffs come out and that gives the one person a totally free pass and puts another in prison for life. You can see the problems here. And by the way that is a reasonably good example of when discrimination against men is clear cut.

What we need is to stop worrying so much about judges negating a law and start to focus on prosecutors, who negate laws by refusing to prosecute and who punish people by prosecuting just some but not others. Prosecutors have 10x the power in discretion than judges ever did, and something needs to reign it in and cause outcomes to be more uniform.

You seem to be in favor of reigning in judges' discretion, yet you have no such equal application of the principle when it comes to prosecution.

Why?

You sound a little woke for a republican.

Now do home invasion, a 20 year mando.

If you break into someone's home and pick up a knife in the kitchen and stab someone it's not home invasion.

if you walk through an open door with a knife and stab someone it is.

 

[RogerCooper]

It is not a wash. It is unlikely that cost are going to be absorbed (that is to say the corporations will cut their profits). If production is brought back to the US, that means that those workers are not producing something else. And foreigners will have less money to buy from the US.

In the 70's, textile production in the United States moved from New England to the Southeast where the labor costs were lower. New England's standard of living went up overall as the tech sector expanded, often literally in the same buildings. Former factory workers became the service workers the new economy wanted. A few, whose skills were in the textile sector did worse, but most people were better off. Economics does not work differently because an international border. Does anyone think that a tax on imports from the Southeast would have made New England better off?

All taxes have a distorting effect on the economy, reducing productivity. The higher the tax rate, the greater the distortion. As foreign trade is only 12% of the economy, a tariff raises revenue from only 12% of the economy resulting in higher rates than taxes on the entire economy.

As for the question of reciprocal tariffs, I don't understand we should import bad policies from other countries.

Always remember Exports are the price we pay for imports. If we are running a trade deficit, that means we have higher a standard of living. Our standard of living comes from the goods & services we consume.

As for your contention that Trump's promises were just that of a politician without meaning, you certainly have a point. However it is reasonable for voters to want a politician not to do the opposite of what they said.

Isaac, you can look at more extensive discussions of the economic benefits of free trade, for example the right-wing Mercatus center has https://www.mercatus.org/research/policy-briefs/benefits-free-trade-addressing-key-myths.

 

[Steve R.]

Always remember Exports are the price we pay for imports. If we are running a trade deficit, that means we have higher a standard of living. Our standard of living comes from the goods & services we consume.

On the surface that is correct. A trade deficit "buys" you a higher standard of living for a short (however you want to define "short") term. A trade deficit means that you are exporting our country's accumulated wealth to other countries. One could say that we are spending more (by importing) than we are earning (by exporting). Eventually we run out of that accumulated wealth.

 

[AccessBlaster]

Long before Trump, we had trade imbalances. The U.S. has been running trade deficits since 1976, mostly due to high imports of oil and consumer goods. Trade imbalances have been around for decades, driven by bigger economic forces not just the policies of one president.

 

[Steve R.]

Long before Trump, we had trade imbalances. The U.S. has been running trade deficits since 1976, mostly due to high imports of oil and consumer goods. Trade imbalances have been around for decades, driven by bigger economic forces not just the policies of one president.

U.S. workers are expensive (paid too much). Foreign workers not as expensive, so the products they produce are cheaper.

 

[RogerCooper]

U.S. workers are expensive (paid too much). Foreign workers not as expensive, so the products they produce are cheaper.

A trade deficit means other countries are investing in your country. The US has run deficits since 1976, with massive economic growth over the past 50 years. In the 1970's the US dollar became the dominant currency of international trade. This allows the US to live beyond its means.

However, massive budget deficits and Trump's erratic policies are undermining confidence in the US$. If foreigners lose confidence in the US$ and use other currencies for trade, our standard of living will fall.

US workers are not too expensive. They are highly productive which is why US products are competitive in many industries. In some industries they are not more productive, so those industries move to low-wage countries.

Trade surpluses do not guarantee prosperity. Germany has a trade surplus and a stagnant economy.