2020 Presidential Election

[CameronBornAndBred]

I don't know if they are his best defenders, but they are certainly his most ardent.

Serious question: I know almost nothing about procedure, but can the R House leadership stack the committee? In the short term? Say replace the moderate Rs with Jordan, Meadows, Gohmert, etc.?

I am sure the Republican reps who are about to get a moment in the sun unlike any time in their career will not mind at all being asked to shy from the spotlight so the party's firebrands can take center stage.

Ha!

While there may be a way to move representatives around, it is typically done as each congress is seated (January following an election year) and it would be highly extraordinary for a committee assignment to change minus some extraordinary factor like someone leaving office early (and his/her replacement not being suited for the previous office-holder's committees).

Dudog84 is prescient.

As the enters its public phase, top Republicans in the House are weighing whether to temporarily assign Representative Jim Jordan of Ohio to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, the panel that will conduct the initial public hearings. Discussions about adding Jordan to the committee are "active and serious," a senior Republican involved in the process told CBS News.
If Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy were to temporarily assign Jordan to the Intelligence Committee, he would have to make room for him by removing a current member. The move would also undermine Devin Nunes, the committee's top Republican.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/republica...040945272.html

[dudog84]

Dudog84 is prescient.



https://www.yahoo.com/news/republica...040945272.html

"temporarily assign Representative Jim Jordan of Ohio to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence"

Gives new meaning to the word Permanent. No surprise, this is politics.

[OldPhiKap]

Jim Jordan is a much more effective questioner and serious presenter than Nunes IMO. This would be a smart move by the House GOP even if it ruffled Nunes' feathers.

[snowdenscold]

"temporarily assign Representative Jim Jordan of Ohio to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence"

Gives new meaning to the word Permanent. No surprise, this is politics.

Well I believe it’s the committee that’s permanent, not a reference to individual members during a given term. So similar to a standing committee, but more investigatory and oversight in nature than legislative. The HPSCI got made permanent in the 70’s.

[CrazyNotCrazie]

Well I believe it’s the committee that’s permanent, not a reference to individual members during a given term. So similar to a standing committee, but more investigatory and oversight in nature than legislative. The HPSCI got made permanent in the 70’s.

So much as the members of the permanent committee aren't on it permanently, I assume the members of the standing committee are allowed to sit?

[Jeffrey]

As more well-known financial professionals share similar opinions, will it make Warren less electable?

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/05/tudo...-on-trump.html

[OldPhiKap]

As more well-known financial professionals share similar opinions, will it make Warren less electable?

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/05/tudo...-on-trump.html

Warren certainly threatens to shake the financial markets. I don't think her ardent followers care, and in fact I think they see that as a feature not a bug.

If there is the threat of a massive tax hike in the future, I sell a bunch while there is a lower capital gains tax and sit on cash or swap it to tax-deferred investments. I don't see how there would not be a massive sell-off this time next year if she won the election.

How long term that downturn would be, of course, is an open question.

[CrazyNotCrazie]

Warren certainly threatens to shake the financial markets. I don't think her ardent followers care, and in fact I think they see that as a feature not a bug.

If there is the threat of a massive tax hike in the future, I sell a bunch while there is a lower capital gains tax and sit on cash or swap it to tax-deferred investments. I don't see how there would not be a massive sell-off this time next year if she won the election.

How long term that downturn would be, of course, is an open question.

I agree that it seems likely that there would be a big decline in the markets if Warren (or Sanders was elected). I wonder if the potential immediate market shock from her election is factored into her revenue projections, i.e. if wealthy people's portfolios drop a lot (one would hope that people that rich are not 100% in equities, but I'm sure they would still feel some pain), then taxing them will generate less money.

[Jeffrey]

I agree that it seems likely that there would be a big decline in the markets if Warren (or Sanders was elected). I wonder if the potential immediate market shock from her election is factored into her revenue projections, i.e. if wealthy people's portfolios drop a lot (one would hope that people that rich are not 100% in equities, but I'm sure they would still feel some pain), then taxing them will generate less money.

Warren may be expecting a lot more revenue, from the wealthy, than is realistically possible...

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/05/davi...-problems.html

“If you tax the upper income, there aren’t enough of those people to really make a wealth distribution effect that’s going to be significant. There just aren’t enough highly wealthy people,” he added.

[Jeffrey]

How long term that downturn would be, of course, is an open question.

This, my friend, is the problem with market timing. It's much easier to determine when to exit markets than when to re-enter.

[OldPhiKap]

Warren may be expecting a lot more revenue, from the wealthy, than is realistically possible...

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/05/davi...-problems.html

“If you tax the upper income, there aren’t enough of those people to really make a wealth distribution effect that’s going to be significant. There just aren’t enough highly wealthy people,” he added.

From the article:

The progressive Warren — running second in the Real Clear Politics national polling average — is proposing a 2% tax on household net worth above $50 million and a 6% tax on net worth over $1 billion. That, along with changing how investment gains are taxed for the top 1 percent of households, would generate more than $3 trillion over 10 years according to analysis from the New York Times.

Part of the difficulty in taxing”net worth” is that much of it is illiquid. “Land rich, cash poor” is real, and if your wealth derived from the value a small or private business you cannot easily monetize it to pay tax on it. Because under current thinking, there is no taxable event until sale.

Whatever one may think of the merits of the proposal, it presents real practical implementation challenges.

[Jeffrey]

Whatever one may think of the merits of the proposal, it presents real practical implementation challenges.

Strongly agree! I know many poor people living in mansions and rich people living in shacks. The IRS would waste massive time with mansion residents and miss many wealthy shack owners.

[PackMan97]

Whatever one may think of the merits of the proposal, it presents real practical implementation challenges.

That is in addition to the constitutional question of whether or not a wealth tax would be permitted. There are various arguments as to weather such a wealth tax would be legal or not. I do not seek to discuss those here only point out a very real risk to getting a wealth tax implemented.

[Jeffrey]

That is in addition to the constitutional question of whether or not a wealth tax would be permitted. There are various arguments as to weather such a wealth tax would be legal or not. I do not seek to discuss those here only point out a very real risk to getting a wealth tax implemented.

Strongly agree, there are many reasons why Warren's revenue plan may not be possible. Given most of her supporters will expect her expense plan to be quickly implemented, then where will the actual revenue be created?

[OldPhiKap]

Strongly agree, there are many reasons why Warren's revenue plan may not be possible. Given most of her supporters will expect her expense plan to be quickly implemented, then where will the actual revenue be created?

She could never get the plan through Congress -- which makes one wonder the political reason for pushing it in the first place.

I do not want my posts to be seen as piling on Warren, though, so I'll show myself out at this point. My comments are not intended to be a statement of the merits of fantastic free healthcare for all at the total expense and inconvenience of someone other than me, which actually sounds groovy. Just not really practical and that's not how it would really work in the economy.

[throatybeard]

As more well-known financial professionals share similar opinions, will it make Warren less electable?

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/05/tudo...-on-trump.html

No. She's neither more nor less electable than she already is. Selfish plutocrats sharing their opinions about her doesn't really change that. They will do that, and already have done it, and will do it some more. She'll keep on being who she's been the whole campaign, basically.

[howardlander]

She could never get the plan through Congress -- which makes one wonder the political reason for pushing it in the first place.

Bingo. There is a reason why successful primary candidates normally move towards the center for the general election. She can say what she wants now: very few will hold her to it if and when she gets to the general election.

[Highlander]

She could never get the plan through Congress -- which makes one wonder the political reason for pushing it in the first place.

I do not want my posts to be seen as piling on Warren, though, so I'll show myself out at this point. My comments are not intended to be a statement of the merits of fantastic free healthcare for all at the total expense and inconvenience of someone other than me, which actually sounds groovy. Just not really practical and that's not how it would really work in the economy.

One rationale is by swinging for the fences, Warren can backpedal towards the center and compromise on something like opt-in Medicare. If she starts with opt-in, she probably has to compromise further towards the center/status quo.

That being said, I agree that if a Democrat wins next November, they are looking at (best case) a slightly left of center House and a closely divided Senate (much like Trump's first two years). And a Republican controlled Senate is still likely. Now, there's a lot you can accomplish through executive orders and judicial appointments. But it's nearly impossible to achieve substantial legislative victories in that scenario if the minority party is united and unflinching in its opposition. Therefore, Democrats (and Republicans for that matter) will have to temper their expectations a good bit for any future candidate in the WH if this hyper-partisanship continues.

[dudog84]

Well I believe it’s the committee that’s permanent, not a reference to individual members during a given term. So similar to a standing committee, but more investigatory and oversight in nature than legislative. The HPSCI got made permanent in the 70’s.

We need a tongue-in-cheek emoji.

She could never get the plan through Congress -- which makes one wonder the political reason for pushing it in the first place.

I do not want my posts to be seen as piling on Warren, though, so I'll show myself out at this point. My comments are not intended to be a statement of the merits of fantastic free healthcare for all at the total expense and inconvenience of someone other than me, which actually sounds groovy. Just not really practical and that's not how it would really work in the economy.

You're not fooling anyone OPK, we all know you're a one-percenter!

[PackMan97]

We need a tongue-in-cheek emoji.



You're not fooling anyone OPK, we all know you're a one-percenter!

Technically, quite a lot in the US are 1%ers. $32k for a single person. Multiply that by the number of people in your household. That's the threshold for being in the 1% worldwide.

It really puts it into perspective how poor the rest of the world actually is...and how fortunate folks are in the United States.