It's not a zero sum game? But CFR is NOT an issue you lead on. It doesn't motivate people to vote, and Hillary proved that money isn't really all that important.

CFR cannot be accomplished before the 2019 Congress. That's literally the soonest it's going to be dealt with in a real form, so I don't really get the question about "why do we have to wait until 2019"

I agree that small-funded candidates can succeed, but that's far different than making CFR your leading issue.

And when you start talking about Tea Party, you're talking about what, primarying incumbent Democrats for taking campaign contributions? How is that working out exactly? Oh right, the moderates are completely gone.

CFR just is not something that can be solved quickly, or simply, and it's just not a topic that actually motivates people. It should be a goal, but pretty far down the list on campaign priorities. All you should do is prioritize small donors, not take SuperPAC money, and then quietly mention that from time to time.

Honestly, it's not campaign donations that are the leverages of power anyway. It's connections, it's a lifestyle, it's the promise of board positions on powerful companies that pay millions a year for doing nothing.

These things cannot be legislated away easily, nor can you campaign on them.

Oh, I just noticed that you're shilling for something, talking like I have any idea what you're talking about.

There is absolutely no way you're going to get nationwide small-donor funded candidates in every, most, or even a great many races in less than a year.

Lots of districts are already past or nearly past their registration times.

Changing the political system takes a few years. It's a mighty big boat.

I'm just offering strategic advice. And the lesson of 2016 is not that strategy doesn't work.

It's that you need to understand what the people care about in the moment, and harness that energy. Hillary ran on what people SHOULD care about. Trump ran on what people DID care about. Bernie ran on what they DID care about. That's why both did well with independents.

That's exactly what I'm suggesting. You look at what the electorate cares about, you pick things you have achievable solutions to, and you run on those.

That's an issue the Dems should tackle in the 2019 Congress. Or, reform will have to come from a grassroots organization. But the DNC cannot effectively run on CFR. To suggest they do so is political suicide.

We have a good dozen major issues that need to be dealt with. Why not run on the ones that are winners with the voters?

If GE charges Boeing more for aircraft engines, Boeing charges us more for plane tickets, right?

Your response is mostly not in at least egregious error, but it's basically "non sequitur" to my point, which is that taxing producers (corporations, etc)in order to deceive the public about the true magnitude of their tax burden actually benefits those voters not in the slightest, but DOES handicap the domestic producers who have to compete with foreign corporations from places where the government is not dumb enough to do things that make it hard for their domestic corporations to compete in the world markets, the result of which is fewer American jobs and more foreign jobs.

And yet, Republicans proved in the text of the Graham-Cassidy bill that they either don't care, or don't understand that pushing the costs of programs like medicare and medicaid off onto the states would eventually raise state and local taxes.

When the states fail to provide adequate administration of these programs, the feds will swoop in and provide guidance, and finally regulation, which the states will then decry as 'unfunded mandates'. Lather, rinse, repeat.

Ironically, it seems the congress is planning to pay for this by imagining that they live in a world in which tax cuts stimulate the economy far beyond the expectations of many economists, a world in which deficits don't matter anyway unless Democrats are in charge.

Besides, none of this tax cut will affect payroll deductions by one red cent. By some estimates, 80% of it will only matter to 1% of all taxpayers.

As for Corporations passing on taxes through higher prices, that's a whole lot more progressive than letting corporations pay no taxes at all. If GE wants to charge Boeing more for aircraft engines, I say have at it. Tell you what - how about removing all taxes on all items worth under $1000? That would offset, surely, the increase that Corporations could reasonably tack onto their products to cover taxes, and furthers that kitchen renovation far more than Mnuchin's plan.

Welcome to the site!

Your first comment was held for moderation, but from now on you should be able to post comments instantly. Just don't post more than one link per comment, as multilink comments are automatically held for moderation. And (my apologies for the delay), as you can see, this sometimes takes a while for me to get to.

As for your point, the percentage of taxes the government takes in from businesses used to be a lot higher than it is now. The slice they pay for has been shrinking for decades. Income taxes from workers, on the other hand, have grown in the percentage of tax receipts taken in. We pay more, so they don't have to anymore.

-CW

Sorry Liz, I didn't mean to sound like I was criticizing anyone, just expressing surprise that it hadn't been mentioned yet, since, like John M, I hadn't gotten the news myself until that moment.

(One thing about Michale: every once in a while he'd pop up in the morning ranting about something I hadn't even heard of yet!)

Speaking of John [35]: This now happens in America on a regular basis. Not in other nations.

My 2nd all-time favorite headline on The Onion:

‘No Way To Prevent This,’ Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens

Aside from the fact that he believed he should be allowed to own an arsenal of military weapons.

Gerrymandering would be an easier issue, but I think the issue the Dems should be pushing are smart police reform (having other law enforcement agencies do investigations of police killings, civil asset forfeiture reform which is already in Congress and very popular, reforming laws that give police special rights;) these are all things that you can find lots of retired officers to support, and that the average voter sees as obvious things that should already be in place. It shouldn't be about racial injustice in the justice system (though it's there) it should be about across the board checks and balances on all police departments. I think you could sell state police investigating local and county deaths by police, and having an FBI task force maybe that investigates deaths by state police. I think you could also sell bail reform, which has already been passed in NJ, a classic purple state.

Other than that, healthcare isn't going away any time soon, and if the Dems make that one of their big pushes, it has the secondary benefit of forcing the internal conflicts in the GOP to the forefront as they figure out which response to give to Dem challengers.

We don't know anything about it, so there's nothing relevant to say.

Just because there are no comments on an issue or incident, regardless of how horrific it is, does not mean what you conclude it to mean.

That should go without saying, actually.

"Waitaminute: a gun nut shoots up a country music festival in Vegas and Trump dedicates a trophy to Puerto Rico and nobody even mentions it here?

This is Trump's America: tone deaf, dodging bullets, or dying of neglect."

Since this happened late last night Pacific time in Nevada, this is the first chance I have had to comment on it, being on the East Coast here.

My heart goes out to everyone in this terrible tragedy.

I don't know what the solution is.

This now happens in America on a regular basis. Not in other nations.

Only in America do we allow anyone to buy any type of weapon, even military ones, at any time for any reason.

As for Trump, he has been skewered on social media already for his faux pas. I could be charitable towards and give him the benefit of the doubt of his wanting to make a nice gesture for the victims in Puerto Rico, if it were not for his callous earlier statements and the ineptitude of his response that has not been fast enough or done nearly enough yet in the wake of the ongoing tragedy in Puerto Rico.

Politicians love to tax producers (corporations) because they know their voters think that taxing businesses reduces their own tax burden - dead wrong!! Consumers ultimately pay ALL taxes, whether those taxes be included in the prices of the things they buy, or whether they be on their paycheck withholding stub or on their 1040 forms.

2017: "I dedicate this trophy to the people of Puerto Rico."

This is Trump's America: tone deaf, dodging bullets, or dying of neglect.

Nobody thought that the moderate Whigs would do anything when the Know Nothings took their party from them, and they went off and founded the GOP.

The KN's faded away after proving that their policies led to bad governance. It turned out then that competence was the limiter switch.

John M [27] there are too few genuine moderates and too many die hard Trumpers.

See my answer to Liz above. Moderates seemed hard to find in the 1850's-1860's too, but eventually prevailed. In the end, any political movement that achieves power has to prove that it can govern, and moderates are demonstrably better at that than anyone else. Once again, Kansas is the canary in the coal mine, only this time it's not Bloody Kansas but rather Broke Kansas that portends the future.

Good idea, Don. Team it up with the problem of gerrymandering which could take it right through FTP.

You would agree, though, that it's not enough for a candidate to take only small contributions but, he or she would also have to be an up-wing leader with progressive ideas and vision and the prerequisite courage to carry out that vision, right?

"Or, maybe the moderate wing will form a New Republican Party and the right-wing wackos will fade into oblivion ... if we can do something with the 30-40 percenters, that is. Trump could help with that ..."

More than likely, as with Governor John Kasich of Ohio, if they left the Republican party, they would more than likely just run and vote as Independents. But I don't see a lot of them being elected that way. Just only isolated instances. As Balthasar implies, there are too few genuine moderates and too many die hard Trumpers.

the moderate wing of the GOP seems to have gerrymandered themselves out of existence.

Or, maybe the moderate wing will form a New Republican Party and the right-wing wackos will fade into oblivion ... if we can do something with the 30-40 percenters, that is. Trump could help with that ...

Well, good luck with that. :)

We Canadians haven't had much luck with amending the constitution but, it hasn't been from a lack of trying.

Of course, you are right - that is probably what it would take. So, seriously, best of luck with that!

"I think it's substantially more than 30 percent."

I gave 30 percent as the floor. I think the ceiling is about 40 percent. So somewhere between 30 and 40 percent.

"I think the redistricting effort is also about campaign finance reform ... or, at least, it should be."

I agree, but I think that needs to be explicitly stated and made clear that the two go hand in hand. Also, as shown on the state level, like here in Florida, and because of the Supreme Court's decisions like Citizen's United and their upcoming ruling on gerrymandering in Wisconsin, it made need to be done through an amendment to the Constitution, which will make any kind of progress or reform that much more difficult.

1.) Both Mnuchin and Paul Ryan insisted that their tax plan was going to be revenue neutral and target the middle class.

2.) Paul Ryan also basically said he WAS going to do it through reconciliation without ANY Democratic votes AND get it done by Thanksgiving.

I really don't see ANY of that happening.

Elizabeth Miller wrote:

"What do you think about Arnold Schwartzenegger's focus on redistricting. Is he on the right track?"

The consensus among the panelists was also:

1.) Now that Republicans have unleashed this angry beast, they can't ride the tiger anymore and not even Donald Trump can control it either, as evidenced by the nomination of Roy Moore in Alabama. That establishment Republicans like Senator Corker of Tennessee, have basically capitulated to the crazy right wing of the party and thrown in the towel.

2.) That the Trump base of the party really doesn't care if anything actually gets done or not. That all they want is someone like Trump in office to sympathize, represent, support, their anger, and piss off Liberals and Democrats.

3.) That the Democratic party itself should give up on trying to win back the Trump voter, that that is unrealistic and is never going to happen, and that they should realize their base is going to be young people, women, people of color, etc. and that is where their future lies.

4.) That the Republican party is no longer what it once was. It is not the party of Mitch McConnell or Paul Ryan but is now and will remain mostly the party of white identity politics, not traditional business, free trader, etc. what we used to know as "traditional conservatives."

So to your point Elizabeth, I think focusing on redistricting reform would help level the playing field for Democrats as far as general elections go, but it won't do anything about the insurgency going on within the Republican party where people like Bannon and conspiracy theorists like Moore are challenging the establishment from the right and winning Republican primaries.

There is a base out there, about 30 percent of the electorate, lily white, full of anger, that has been fed a steady diet the past several years of Talk Radio, Tea Party rhetoric, Trump birtherism, fake news diatribe, that is simply not going to change its beliefs or support of Trump no matter what, any reality to the contrary notwithstanding. And they have held the rest of the party hostage, which has and is working for them

The sad thing for them is, America is NEVER going to get whiter. Even if they could throw out all 11 million illegals, just with the people already here, going forward America is going to get browner and browner. I know we keep saying it, but demographics are against them. Trump's election may indeed have been one of their last gasps. If not in their lifetime, then in their grandchildren's.

Redistricting reform is great and very important, but without campaign finance reform as a partner to that, like Don Harris also keeps bringing up, it won't be enough just by itself.

Well, I've never been a fan of the concept of talking points, per se. Probably because I'm a longtime Biden fan and he was never, ever somebody who relied much on talking points, shall we say.

I have, however, become a grudging fan of FTP. And, I think Chris would laugh at the notion that he may be viewed as advocating the Democratic establishment's talking points. That's just not a great plan of action for you to take, Don, especially given the fact that Chris has always taken great exception to the perceived insults thrown at the "professional left" by the Obama administration even though I keep telling him he's not the professional left the last administration was talking about!

However, I do think there is something to your observation that we, as commenters, have moved beyond the usual political topics and are looking for something different and more fundamental about what is wrong with American politics and how precisely to deal with and get beyond Trumpism.

What do you think about Arnold Schwartzenegger's focus on redistricting. Is he on the right track?

It's a(n) FTP column for crissakes!

Speaking of Geithner, no one debunked the Republican cult of economic failure better than he did. Well, with the notable exception of David Fiderer who actually coined the phrase ...

I may be wrong, but I believe that in order to pass tax cut legislation through reconciliation, which would require only 51 ( all Republican ) votes in the Senate, the Republicans have to pass a budget resolution ( a simple statement by Congress of a tax and spending plan ) through Congress FIRST.

Does anyone know if the continuing spending resolution that takes us to December that passed under the deal with Pelosi, Schumer and Trump qualifies as just such a budget resolution?

If Geithner had an ethical bone in his body, AIG would have been liquidated, our economy would be at less risk, and the world would be a much better place

Extremely false.

But, I would love to read your explanation as to how AIG could have been liquidated.

12

Ah, I see. Just hadn't seen Michale lately. So maybe he's not around at the moment because he can't defend Trump for what he refuses to do for Puerto Rico? No, that would be asking too much, wouldn't it. ::sigh::

As for Liz, looks like you're starting to see what she's really like.

Don't miss the last part of Real Time tonight.

She's right. Maher nails it too.

New Rule: You can't demand that everyone stand for the flag if you've colluded with a foreign government to subvert the very democracy that flag represents.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xze1DtXUQeU

Nope. His little tantrum thankfully continues.

Can't understand why Liz is pining for both the fraudster bailout king and the trumpling.
Seems like a disturbing pattern to me.

If Geithner had an ethical bone in his body, AIG would have been liquidated, our economy would be at less risk, and the world would be a much better place

A

Where's Michale?

Been wondering the same thing. My guess would be that they were flooded out when Irma hit Florida - I think it was around that time that he stopped commenting.

If for no other reason than that an image of Steve Mnuchin and Pepe the Frog sitting on adjacent lily pads would be the perfect metaphor for this administration.

see [7]

Where is Timothy Geithner when you need him? Oh, never mind.

Don't miss the last part of Real Time tonight.

Nothing else to add except that Huma's former dachshund is deservedly getting 21 months, but torturing war criminals and economy devastating fraudsters walked... just for a little perspective.

Oh, there was also a report that Trump's spawn had a little ski trip that cost tax payers $3,000,000.

A

Trust me... Price was actually fired; you know he was. It wasn't that Trump took issue with his extensive use of taxpayer-funded military/charter flights to the tune of $1 million; Tom paid the Price for getting caught. The news broke as Trump flew to another one of his golf courses for the umpteenth time.

Remember all the right-wing outrage and whining about the taxpayers' money whenever Obama would occasionally go on vacation? Where is all that outrage for the $3 million a pop for BLOTUS' frequent trips to Trump properties, including $60,000 in golf cart rentals by the Secret Service? Can you imagine the howling by the righties if Obama was raking in taxpayers' money to jet off to his own properties... more than one dozen trips already... and probably closer to 20 trips before the year is over?

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/08/21/secret-service-cant-pay-agents-because-trumps-frequent-travel-large-family/529075001/

Since his inauguration, Trump has taken seven trips to his estate in Mar-a-Lago, Fla., traveled to his Bedminster, N.J., golf club five times and returned to Trump Tower in Manhattan once.

Always costly in manpower and equipment, the president's jaunts to Mar-a-Lago are estimated to cost at least $3 million each, based on a General Accountability Office estimate for similar travel by former President Obama. The Secret Service has spent some $60,000 on golf cart rentals alone this year to protect Trump at both Mar-a-Lago and Bedminster.

Blotus off to golf again while Mayor of Puerto Rico begs for help.

Blotus off to another golf course for the weekend.

Scum.Of.The.Earth.

Typo alert-

"This led to a chain of events which culminated in the head of the F.B.I. announcing mere days before the 2018 presidential election that he had some more Hillary Clinton emails to dig through"

I'm not ready for another presidential election next year.

A