Bannon's Ideas

Green Mt BoyGreen Mt Boy Senior MemberPosts: 1,037 Senior Member
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/top-wh-strategist-vows-a-daily-fight-for-deconstruction-of-the-administrative-state/2017/02/23/03f6b8da-f9ea-11e6-bf01-d47f8cf9b643_story.html?utm_term=.6d1637a646f6

It seems to me his ideas are more about pride (as he sees it) and resentment than things that will actually make most peoples' lives better. Maybe protectionism will slow the decline in rust belt old industry manufacturing for a little while, but that will be at the expense of consumers' purchasing power. Sure, industry will like it when the EPA is rendered toothless, and maybe do a little better, but people will suffer from the resulting environmental degradation.

What is in his ideas that will actually improve most peoples' lives?

Replies

  • George KGeorge K Super Moderator Posts: 9,959 Senior Member

    What is in his ideas that will actually improve most peoples' lives?

    Nothing at all.

    The Washpost link wouldn't open for me, but here's an interesting one that might open for others.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/10/world/europe/bannon-vatican-julius-evola-fascism.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=b-lede-package-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=1
    Keep your stinkin' government hands off my Medicare.
  • Shawn C.Shawn C. Senior Member Posts: 6,947 Senior Member

    What is in his ideas that will actually improve most peoples' lives?

    One possible example: I guess a lot of people are going to feel good about things such as the reversal of the transgender bathroom rules for two reasons. 1) Small government types like Sherb and Steven (but not necessarily them) will like it because they felt it was an egregious overreach. 2) Bigots who are afraid of 'chicks with ****' will feel, I don't know, safe I guess?
    But yeah, none of the adherents to the second position above are seeing the forest for the trees. They are the ones who, when polled, think Trump is awesome and they are taking back the country, whatever the hell that means.
  • BufordBuford Senior Member Posts: 2,970 Senior Member
    Shawn C. wrote: »
    it was an egregious overreach.

    Yes it was.
    Just look at the flowers Lizzie just look at the flowers.
  • Green Mt BoyGreen Mt Boy Senior Member Posts: 1,037 Senior Member
    George K wrote: »

    The WaPo article was about his remarks at CPAC, the recent big pow pow of conservatives. Basically he talked about economic nationalism, which sounds pretty much to just be protectionism, and deconstructing the administrative state, which sounds like getting rid of regulatory bureaucracies and a general anti media attitude. He is also big on ethno nationalism, i.e., America is just for white people. Not seeing how any of that will actually make peoples' lives better.
  • NZ IndicatorNZ Indicator Senior Member Posts: 10,105 Senior Member
    Shawn C. wrote: »
    One possible example: I guess a lot of people are going to feel good about things such as the reversal of the transgender bathroom rules for two reasons. 1) Small government types like Sherb and Steven (but not necessarily them) will like it because they felt it was an egregious overreach. 2) Bigots who are afraid of 'chicks with ****' will feel, I don't know, safe I guess?
    But yeah, none of the adherents to the second position above are seeing the forest for the trees. They are the ones who, when polled, think Trump is awesome and they are taking back the country, whatever the hell that means.
    Why do you hate America? :p

    Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
  • StevenSteven Senior Member Posts: 3,508 Senior Member
    Maybe protectionism will slow the decline in rust belt old industry manufacturing for a little while, but that will be at the expense of consumers' purchasing power.


    I remember when it was OK to damage consumers' purchasing power to support manufacturing jobs...that was like in 2005 when a Republican administration was pro-free trade.

    Trump gets elected and suddenly, the laws of economics matter.
  • StevenSteven Senior Member Posts: 3,508 Senior Member
    By the way, I'm a big fan of the theory behind the border adjustability tax, although it should probably be phased in to ensure that theory meets reality.
  • Green Mt BoyGreen Mt Boy Senior Member Posts: 1,037 Senior Member
    Steven wrote: »
    I remember when it was OK to damage consumers' purchasing power to support manufacturing jobs...that was like in 2005 when a Republican administration was pro-free trade.

    Trump gets elected and suddenly, the laws of economics matter.

    I've always supported free trade, in principle. Devil is in the details.

    Bill Clinton did NAFTA, so it isn't like Ds are just discovering the benefits of free trade.
  • StevenSteven Senior Member Posts: 3,508 Senior Member
    C'mon, Man....

    From the LA Times: "The strongest support in the House came from Republicans, who cast 132 votes for the trade plan and 43 against it. Among Democrats, 102 voted for the agreement and 156 opposed it. The one independent in Congress voted against the plan."
  • George KGeorge K Super Moderator Posts: 9,959 Senior Member
    Steven wrote: »
    By the way, I'm a big fan of the theory behind the border adjustability tax, although it should probably be phased in to ensure that theory meets reality.

    The theory is ok in principle, but how would you apply it under GATT? I do not think we are ready to abolish state sales taxes in favor of a national VAT, because it is VATs that such a tax would, in theory, balance. Adding sales tax on top of a border adjustment tax would invite retaliation.

    BTW - Ford might welcome such a tax. I read that all its pick-ups are made here while all the others sold here are sourced about 25% and upwards from Mexico.
    Keep your stinkin' government hands off my Medicare.
  • StevenSteven Senior Member Posts: 3,508 Senior Member
    I don't really get where you're going with state sales taxes or why this matters.

    First, the BAT isn't a VAT, it's an income based tax. Business still pay tax on income (as would individuals). However, under BAT, businesses can deduct export sales revenue from income but not the cost of imports.

    Second, destination based adjustability is allowed under the WTO.

    The problem with the BAT in the House Plan as developed by Alan Auerbach of the University of California (an admittedly gratuitous reference to my alma mater...Roll on you Bears!) is that it allows for the deduction of wages paid to American workers. This is a no-no.

    The answer is to institute a negative payroll tax. Payroll tax is not addressed under WTO agreements.
  • tim_stim_s Senior Member Posts: 1,961 Senior Member
    I've always supported free trade, in principle. Devil is in the details.

    Bill Clinton did NAFTA, so it isn't like Ds are just discovering the benefits of free trade.


    NAFTA was the brainchild of the Reagan admin......finished by George the first.......Clinton just got lucky and signed it
    Fly Fishing in Maine - www.flyfishinginmaine.com
  • George KGeorge K Super Moderator Posts: 9,959 Senior Member
    Steven wrote: »
    I don't really get where you're going with state sales taxes or why this matters.

    First, the BAT isn't a VAT, it's an income based tax. Business still pay tax on income (as would individuals). However, under BAT, businesses can deduct export sales revenue from income but not the cost of imports.

    Second, destination based adjustability is allowed under the WTO.

    The problem with the BAT in the House Plan as developed by Alan Auerbach of the University of California (an admittedly gratuitous reference to my alma mater...Roll on you Bears!) is that it allows for the deduction of wages paid to American workers. This is a no-no.

    The answer is to institute a negative payroll tax. Payroll tax is not addressed under WTO agreements.

    The "unfairness" complaints I have heard included adding VAT to U.S. imports, the BAT would counter that. Not the only thing, of course, and I have not read the actual proposal you referenced (didn't even realize it existed), only the Trumpeted 25%. I'll try to look it up.
    Keep your stinkin' government hands off my Medicare.
  • StevenSteven Senior Member Posts: 3,508 Senior Member
    Importers like Walmart, Dollar General, oil companies, and plenty of others argue that it's protectionist or picking winners and losers (which, as you can imagine, I have a lot of sympathy).

    The theoretical argument is that the dollar would appreciate so much that the tax would be offset by the stronger dollar - leaving both importers and exporters in unchanged positions. However, the lower corporate tax on income would make our companies better off. The effect on oil companies, and, other importers of commodities priced in dollars, is to say the least, complicated.

    The assumption about a rising dollar is just theory though, that's why a transition period should be included.
  • ricinusricinus Senior Member Posts: 6,214 Senior Member
    Would not the losers be consumers as most products are imported? Especially if the dollar did not rise as would be required..

    Mike
    My new goal in life is to become an Alter Kaker...
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 24,072 Senior Member
    Steven wrote: »
    I remember when it was OK to damage consumers' purchasing power to support manufacturing jobs...that was like in 2005 when a Republican administration was pro-free trade.

    Trump gets elected and suddenly, the laws of economics matter.

    Funny I don't remember that time. Especially when you consider the last two free trade agreements were advocated by Democratic Presidents. I would say that we should not give tax incentives to companies that move jobs overseas however.

    Anybody that thinks that taxes and regulations are the reason why jobs are going to countries where the labor force gets paid $2 a day however, is being very foolish. You could put a 35% tax on those imported goods and there would be plenty of profit without raising prices even one penny.
    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 24,072 Senior Member
    tim_s wrote: »
    NAFTA was the brainchild of the Reagan admin......finished by George the first.......Clinton just got lucky and signed it

    But he didn't veto it.
    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • StevenSteven Senior Member Posts: 3,508 Senior Member
    Funny I don't remember that time. Especially when you consider the last two free trade agreements were advocated by Democratic Presidents. I would say that we should not give tax incentives to companies that move jobs overseas however.

    Funny. I'm pretty sure that I was told the laws of economics aren't real laws because economics isn't a real science...

    And Hillary turned on TPP.
  • StevenSteven Senior Member Posts: 3,508 Senior Member
    But he didn't veto it.

    The DLC weren't Democrats
  • StevenSteven Senior Member Posts: 3,508 Senior Member
    ricinus wrote: »
    Would not the losers be consumers as most products are imported? Especially if the dollar did not rise as would be required..
    Possibly. That's why it should be phased in. Make sure reality matches theory.

    There are a couple of other interesting wrinkles in the plan. For non-financial firms, interest expense would no longer be deductible. However, equipment purchases would be immediately deductible for tax purposes. That really gets at this idea that companies should be expanding rather than levering to buy back stock since there would be no tax arbitrage from borrowing.
  • ricinusricinus Senior Member Posts: 6,214 Senior Member
    So this is a case of just putting the tip in.. ;)

    Mike
    My new goal in life is to become an Alter Kaker...
  • StevenSteven Senior Member Posts: 3,508 Senior Member
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 24,072 Senior Member
    Steven wrote: »
    The DLC weren't Democrats

    So the Democratic Leadership Council were not Democrats? Interesting.
    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 24,072 Senior Member
    Steven wrote: »
    Funny. I'm pretty sure that I was told the laws of economics aren't real laws because economics isn't a real science...

    And Hillary turned on TPP.

    As did Trump.

    It is your side that is stating that if we eliminate taxes and regulations that these jobs will magically return. So who is saying the laws of economics are not real?

    Tax breaks have not lead to job increases in the last 20 years or more.
    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • StevenSteven Senior Member Posts: 3,508 Senior Member
    As did Trump.

    This is my point of course. Trump says one thing, Dems have to argue another, despite the fact that everything he says about trade is music to the labor union PACs.
    It is your side that is stating that if we eliminate taxes and regulations that these jobs will magically return. So who is saying the laws of economics are not real?

    Tax breaks have not lead to job increases in the last 20 years or more.

    The only change in the corporate tax rate since Reagan was an increase under GB1
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 24,072 Senior Member
    We were told by Bush that his tax breaks would bring us jobs, they brought us deficits and calamity.

    Your's is the party that has been blocking infrastructure spending and investment in new technologies for the new century. We are never again going to lead the world in the production of televisions and air conditioners, despite Trump's promises and the gullibility of the people of Kansas.

    Abandoning TPP will not save a single American job.
    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • creekguycreekguy Senior Member Posts: 3,905 Senior Member
    Not understanding a BAT from a GATT, I would like to ask if the major problem is that the U.S. taxpayer pays for the military force that contains international wars and protects international trade. Foreign countries get the benefit of our military without paying their share. And not just NATO but all around the world. I have always thought that the world generally lets the U.S. be the Cop. And I wonder if Trumps comment about "all the Iraq oil be ours" was a rejection of this, saying that the guy with the gun gets whatever he wants.
  • sherbsherb Senior Member Posts: 3,963 Senior Member
    The free rider problem. Yes, it's real.
  • George KGeorge K Super Moderator Posts: 9,959 Senior Member
    From FDR through Obama our Presidents have more or less said "American interests are best served by a peaceful, stable and, one hopes, democratic world order". Trump has repudiated this, ignoring history. It was nationalism and (Fill-in-the-blank) First policies in the 1930s that helped create and then prolonged the Great Depression.
    Keep your stinkin' government hands off my Medicare.

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Emoji
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Temporary Price Reduction.

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Fly Fisherman stories delivered right to your inbox.