We really need to make it easier for people to cheat on their taxes. You go America, leader of the free world. No wonder we've become a joke to the rest of the world.
From Salon, from NBR working paper,"Researchers at the University of Syracuse last year found that the number of audits of taxpayers earning over $1 million has dropped 72% over the past eight years, even though audits of millionaires in 2012 found $4.8 billion in unreported taxes. And while the IRS audited 93% of large corporations in 2012, finding $10 billion in unreported taxes, just one in three of the biggest 755 corporations in the U.S. were audited in 2020."
And audits had dropped quite a bit by 2012, one of the moves by the GWB administration was to cut the number of auditors capable of auditing high net worth individuals and corporations. If somehow found out all they have to do is pay a fine. Backed up by tax lawyers and accountants the risk/reward is well worth the risk.
Would be interesting to see some projection on the national debt if the tax rates had stayed the same as they were at the end of the Clinton administration - all else being the same.
Democrats really let themselves get rolled on the GWB tax cuts. And even on the Ryan-Trump "Tax Cuts for the Rich and Deficits Act of 2017," they did not cry bloody murder over the deficits. They've basically lost the fiscal plot since Clinton.
The unused covid funds were to go to an intranasal covid vaccine (would prevent infection where is enters the body), a pan coronavirus vaccine, treatment for long covid, etc. Just my opinion, but I think these were important for preparedness. Pandemics crush the economy, if that's all one cares about.
Plus, this pandemic isn't actually "over," only the declared "emergency" phase.
I have a doctorate in microbiology and immunology and did extensive immunology research for 17 years. The pandemic is absolutely NOT over. The amount of circulating virus fairly screams that. The purpose of the funding was in part to create a vaccine that actually WORKS long term and prevents TRANSMISSION of the virus.
For about 25% of the population, SARS-CoV-2 is still a major threat. They have pre-existing conditions that make it so. These are not all lifestyle choices. In my case, it's a lung issue I've had since early childhood. That situation makes it impossible for me to live a normal life and it requires me to find work from home. The same is true for millions of others.
If all you care about is the economy, that's a LOT of people out of the workforce that will create supply chain issues and inflation as employees become more scarce. It also is a LOT more people demanding social services that they would no otherwise need because they would be WORKING.
Due to the rapid mutation rate, there are almost NO working therapeutics. Resistance to Paxlovid, the only main stay remaining, is inevitable. And if virus continues to circulate at elevated levels, it is only a matter of time before another variant of strain escapes the fragile immunity that many people have. So we could be right back where we started.
When will people learn that having a robust public health system is ESSENTIAL. Everyone was complaining that no one was working in research or public health. Why? STUFF LIKE THIS. Necessary research and discovery keeps getting shelved and scientists remain underemployed. Then a pandemic comes along and suddenly they want everyone to start training in these fields. Then they rank out the rug before the situation has been resolved. This is stupid beyond belief.
How does this contradict the comment you are responding to? I believe they are merely claiming that the disease has reached steady state rather than being a brief intense outbreak.
Dunno why they think that's important but not sure it's false.
Concluding that a virus this new and this talented at mutation has reached “steady state,” is absolutely unwarranted. Indeed, it is magical thinking. We can only hope That will prove true.
The other champion at mutation is the flu, which kills 15,000 to 100,000 Americans every year, depending upon what mood it's in.
And no one would claim flu is a pandemic. Steady state may have been the wrong term since it's going to depend alot on how you define that but the point is that the disease is now generally present everywhere and while, just like flu, there are mutations which spread that's usually not sufficient to call something a pandemic.
I still don't think it matters but at the very least to show the comment you are replying to is wrong you need to explain how this disease is properly called a pandemic when we don't use that term to refer to diseases like the flu (and the distinction isn't one about the risk/deadliness).
I think you need to read in to the dialogue. Saying the pandemic is over implies it's not a priority to reduce spread and otherwise spend money on it. The reply argues, correctly in my uninformed opinion, that there is still a lot we should be doing to reduce the ongoing impact of Covid. The definition of pandemic is not the point.
I don't know that there is an official definition of pandemic, I think it connotes a sudden increase in incidence, worldwide distribution, and a serious threat to health or life.
Did you even read what I wrote. In no way is this a stable situation. Alsok if things are so stable, then why do major infectious disease professionals believe that we have up to a 40% chance of having another surge like Omicron in the next 18 months or so (I believe that was the timeline I found in the literature). That is very, very far from stable.
Do people still die in the hospital and "test positive"? Of course. They always will. That's a typical endemic disease. But from the beginning, we've differentiated very poorly between "dying WITH covid" and "dying FROM covid". That's why so many people took to watching CDC excess death numbers; we had no confidence in any other stats.
The combination of low vaccination rates and a lack of excess deaths makes me question your claim that "for about 25% of the population, SARS-CoV-2 is still a major threat."
Is it possible we're just in a lull and the next couple of months will see COVID come roaring back and kill hundreds of thousands of elderly and immunosuppressed people who got lazy with their vaccinations? Sure. I suppose so. But it seems unlikely. And it's downright foolish to be making policy on such a flight of fancy.
Your lack of compassion or respect for the lives of the elderly and immunosuppressed is literally takes my breath away.
My 25% was actually on the low side. What you are looking at is everyone who has an autoimmune disorder. That's about 6-8% of the US population. Their inflammatory responses put them at risk for cytokine storms. At any given time the immunocompromised are about 6%. These people have a hard time launching an effective immune response, putting them at high risk. So you are at 12-14 % right there. Anyone over 65 is also high risk due to biochemical change and changes in T cell immunity which, in the case of COVID is largely responsible for the modest longer term immunity that people have. (B cell immunity has be shockingly transient) That's 17% of the population. So you looking at 29-31% although there may be overlap with older age groups. However, autoimmune disorders trend towards the young. I haven't even included people with lung issues and heart conditions who are also at risk.
Btw, the immunosuppressed and elderly will have a problem with vaccine efficacy. So just jabbing people over and over again is not strong protection in these groups. The group with autoimmune disorders would tend to have flares of their conditions that could potentially be quite dangerous. Repeated jabs are not risk-free in this group. The WHO has acknowledged a potential link between vaccination and the onset of MS. Previous data also suggest a significant link with type 1 diabetes. This is why we need new and better vaccines for the future. Mucosal immunity would offer better protection and would act to impact transmission which has been the biggest issue given how contagious SARS-CoV-2 is.
Muddying the waters are issues with vaccines and class-switching. There is a massive increase in class switching to IgG4 which generally comprises about 0.04% of the antibody response. Following the 3rd dose, that concentration increased to a whopping 13.9% and rose to over 19% 180 days later. IgG 4 is the one immunoglobulin that will not stimulate effector functions that help clear the virus by destroying infected cells.
One of the problems with the vaccines that I have had is that we don't understand their long-term efficacy or even safety. That's something you can only learn over the course of time. The association of COVID and the vaccines with autoimmune disorders is not trivial.
Honestly, I think what's muddying the waters here is your jargon. Your science background is hurting you in this case; the leaves of scientific details are preventing you from seeing the forest. I have friends who are medical professors who have the same problem -- they were a great source for how to behave early on, but they've failed to adapt to the changing reality of the disease.
I agree with you: contagious respiratory diseases are a big deal for those who have limited immune systems. But that not the question. What matters is: Does COVID today represent such a serious threat to, as you say, 25% of the population that we still need to make significant adjustments to our society in response to it?
When a disease is not causing any detectable deaths beyond those which would occur normally, despite low vaccination rates for that disease, the answer to that question is "no". That's the forest that you're missing. Might that change? Absolutely. And God help us if it does, since right now, our public health people do not have enough credibility left to respond to it effectively.
You accuse me of a lack of compassion. Where is your compassion for: the kids who have speech impediments from masks, the near-deaf who were unable to read lips for 2 years, the mental health of teens (I have 3 teen girls), the elderly who died alone... your much cherished COVID restrictions and rules are not (and were not) cost free.
COVID is now the 4th leading cause of death in the nation. This is being kept very quiet and is deliberately under-reported. Just because the majority of those deaths are people who have pre-existing conditions doesn't make them trivial.
A serious effort has to be made to protect that large a portion of the population. Mucosal vaccines, more therapeutics, better ventilation and mandates to allow work-from-home for those at risk and have jobs that can be effectively done remotely. Ventilation systems may sound expensive, but they are effective beyond COVID.
Doing this will also protect the general population from new variants that could defeat the rather fragile immunity we have built up. It's the volume of virus that makes a new strain more likely. In a very real sense, it's a numbers game. Leaving it the way it is just gives SARS-CoV-2 more opportunity to reinvent itself! So doing these things reduces overall risk for another major surge event.
As far as the public health system goes - it's a hot mess. It was from the get-go a complete disaster. Unfortunately, the politicians were in charge not public health. Or - which I think is more likely - our CDC and FDA were overrun by political and corporate interests. I maintained before and continue to maintain that no vaccine could be considered "safe and effective" without a much longer period of vetting. Saying they were safe and effective to force people into line is lying to the public and a very bad idea. Claiming they would prevent transmission when it was obvious that they weren't designed for only made a bad idea worse. I get that we had to have SOMETHING. But throwing every single egg in the vaccine basket and vilifying everyone who offered honest arguments against the messaging campaign was political theater, not sound public health.
They would have been better off if they had a multi-pronged approach which included more emphasis on therapeutics. After all, there was never any guarantee that an effective long-term vaccine could be produced. So ignoring therapeutics was insane. If we lose the one remaining therapeutic we've got and there is another surge, we're in a lot of trouble.
Still time to get a free COVID booster at almost any drugstore. They're absolutely free as long as supplies last. They probably will always be free if you have insurance.
Insurance is not free. I'm on Medicare and what Medicare doesn't cover costs me $25K/yr. But I'm going for my 'free' booster because it's free and the medical/industrial complex needs the money.
Because so many Covid tests are administered at home and the results are not reported, there is no way to know how many cases there are. The best indication of prevalence now is hospitalizations.
@Kathleen weber - Wastewater testing is somewhat effective for determining trends. It is obviously not the same as getting actual case load numbers. Hospitalizations due to COVID as well as COVID deaths are another indicator. They are also indicators of virulence.
@Liam Scott - What credentials do you to support that "bet"? There is no way to know that at all. COVID is still the 4th highest cause of death in the US today. You don't mess with that.
If you die from our country's fourth leading cause of death, it seems a bit irrelevant whether it's pandemic or endemic. Like saying I was run over by a Buick not by a Ford.
In 2022, the most recent year for which data is available, COVID ranked as the 4th most prevalent cause of death, registering 244,986 kills. The top ten are below:
To eliminate the influence of the Omicron surge of winter 2022/2023, I have taken the CDC figures for March 4, April 1, and May 6, and projected a yearly figure from them, which turns out to be 22,000 deaths. I hope this estimate turns out to be accurate. It depends on no COVID surges whatsoever.
To leave out the March figure would be to assume that there won't be any seasonal surge or other kind type of surge for COVID for the rest of 2023-- a factor that is completely beyond our power to predict. If any kind of surge emerges, deaths will go up rapidly.
Note that the Institute for Health Metrics, which has been involved in COVID reporting and predicting since the beginning of the pandemic, is making no attempt to project the number of American deaths for the rest of 2023.
Perhaps you're right, but according to CDC, US death rates have been below expected rates based on normal projected human life expectancy since Jan 21, 2023. That doesn't mean COVID is gone. But it does mean that for the last 6 months, COVID itself hasn't killed any significant number beyond those who were already expected to die.
In functional terms, that means it's time to stop worrying about it.
No, government responses to them crush the economy. Given that uptake of the existing vaccines is now very low and many countries are having to destroy stocks, it makes sense to try and claw back money very unwisely spent on unwanted vaccines.
But we're not in an emergency and haven't been for a long time (in fact, MANY people like me think there never was an emergency, but let's not get into that). In the current environment it makes no sense to spend lots of money on nasal vaccines and stuff like that. That'd be like manufacturing thousands of military jeeps a day years after the war ended.
Okay. Let's play nice. Which level of deadliness would you find alarming? Was the Spanish Flu of 1918 an emergency? Do you think they'd have enjoyed having a vaccine for that?
Assuming you're going to say 'yes' to "the Spanish Flu was an emergency" with a lethality of 10%, and COVID, with a lethality of 2% is not worth bothering about, what's the lethality a disease has to reach for you to consider it a problem?
COVID does not have a lethality of 2%, jesus fucking Christ what is wrong with you people? Try somewhere between 0.05% and 0.3% depending on variant and with an infection rate at the higher IFR end at far, far less than the 100% assumed by modellers.
Let's put it like this. If it had not been for the media and government psycho-meltdown, I wouldn't have ever realized there was supposedly a global pandemic going on and this is also true for everyone else I know.
- We don't know anyone who died
- People who got sick weren't seriously so. They didn't have to go to the hospital. They stayed in bed for a few days. There is nothing notable about that.
- The only disruptions were the ones forced by government
Something that's barely noticeable is not an emergency by any definition of the term.
Sorry but, while the lethality did drop considerably post vaccine and was very variable depending on locales and age groups, an overall lethality of 2% (i.e. 2% of the people who got COVID died) is the agreed upon number. If you don't like it, take it up with the experts.
I do know people who died. And even if you don't, you did notice the TV reports about morgues overflowing with corpses? That's not a normal thing. I do know people who got seriously sick too (a work colleague notably was intubated and I personally didn't think he would make it), though, again, post vaccines, you're correct that the people I know and who got it worse were basically bed ridden for a week, which isn't the end of the world.
So yeah - the vaccines really changed things. But prior vaccines, it wasn't a good idea to catch COVID esp. if you were old and overweight (though the 2 people I know who died were in the mid 30s and weren't overweight).
Actually, a nasal vaccine is the only type that has a fair chance of preventing a SARS infection as well as mitigating it. My guess is that novel respiratory viruses will be with us on a regular basis, as long as millions of people engage in international travel every year. If we could get good at creating a nasal vaccine for SARS, maybe we'll be able to greatly reduce the damage caused by the next novel respiratory virus.
Do you dispute that 1.1 million Americans died of COVID? You dispute that life expectancy has decreased in the United States over the last three years? Or do you think that old and fat people just don't count for that much.?
There are going to be some people who can never give up COVID. Some are expert microbiology / virology hammers who see everything as a nail (one of those commented below.) Some are greedy businessmen and politicians who are trying to use fear to sell things. Some are just phobic in general -- I have a relatives who agonize over "the latest variant" monthly.
I am not a virology expert (nor do I play one on TV) but I do know something about government and politics. We have CDC, NIH, NSF, WHO and others that all fund medical research. If this research is important, let the existing agencies prioritize it as part of their budgets. If Congress believes more money needs to be spent on a COVID vaccine, let them explicitly allocate it. But rolling pandemic emergency spending into some kind of slush fund for vaccine research is a recipe for graft and corruption.
The whole point was to show how powerful some Republicans are and how they can manipulate the President. Mr. Biden said he wouldn't negotiate, but he did. Once again the poor get the ax, while the wealthy get the bonus. Cutting funding to the IRS and not raising any taxes is precisely what the Republicans wanted. I can appreciate the need to compromise, but giving your opposition precisely what they wanted is not a successful negotiation but a capitulation.
Not to mention, this is a long way from a done deal. Many on both sides of the aisle are unhappy with the compromise, and it remains to be seen if enough votes can be garnered to pass this legislation.
I like the point about negotiating. I wish they had tried that earlier. Republicans can engage in some nutty theater at times but part of the job of the president is to roll with that kind of thing and lead. Earlier negotiations would have had the potential to extract a deal that actually helped the country.
That said, I know it weakened his position but I appreciated the president’s restraint in avoiding things like a Trillin dollar coin or invoking the 14th amendment. I am a little sick of “constitutionally creative” methods aimed at empowering the executive branch. Never know who the next president might be.
It is incredibly unfortunate that the cost of the uncalled for Iraq War and unnecessary years after bin Laden was killed now cost American taxpayers so much.
We actually spend $378 billion annually on Veteran income pensions and Healthcare. Veterans including probably 75% of whom never saw live combat, retire comfortably after 20 years of work with better than Medicare.
This is the Bush-Cheney legacy. Create an entire generation of dependents beholding mostly to conservatives.
We won't touch it of course. But we should apply work rules. Eliminate the 20 year requirement and push it to standard Social Security.
I gather you have not read? there's a huge homeless VET population on the streets who live well? No, I didn't serve in combat, but there has to be MANY to ensure the materials necessary for the soldier that IS THERE on thr front and covers their real needs. so, those who worked behind the front were USELESS? Did you bother to do a tour of patriotic service?
These days, when trying to explain something, it pays to look low. Both sides fight because they can't afford not to look tough. This was the first time the two parties have actually had a chance for a real-world confrontation since the 2022 election, rather than the endless rounds of inconsequential trash talk.
And whom were they fighting in front of? How quaint of Noah to suggest that the most important audience is the rest of the world— of course not!
Try to get the average American to care about the what the rest of the world thinks. Most regard it as their patriotic duty to dismiss all that.
Come to think of it, this may have deep historic roots: For decades after the American Revolution,, Europe was the first elite that Americans rejected.
Yeah, but a lot has changed over the last 300 years and that might not work out well in a globalized 21st century world economy. No argument that America is rapidly dumbing down but any vacuum left likely will be filled by smart, eager Asians.
We've been fortunate that Trump was the first isolationist president in almost 100 years. Almost all of our real leaders have known that we need to keep a sharp eye on what's going on in the real world— however, that doesn't mean they will prosper by discussing these topics in public.
Another blessing is that the populace wants to support the military, whose only reason for existence is to protect us from foreign enemies. I guess a strong military means the rest of us don't need to think.
You lost me. "America First!" is not "isolationist" but narcissistic. There was nothing "fortunate" about Trump's dark and divisive four years in office and the insurrection following. A country being isolationist while the world economy is becoming globalist is economic suicide.
"If all you have is a hammer, everything becomes a nail." Following the destruction of WWII and the rise of Soviet Communism, the U.S. filled the role of the world's policeman. If the only reason for the U.S. military was to protect this nation against foreign enemies we would not need a military of this gargantuan size patrolling the rest of the world. Wasn't it Eisenhower who warned us about an unbridled military industrial complex? As a Vietnam Era veteran, I have seen the chaos reaped when the American public refuses to pay attention and to think of the consequences of self-serving politicians and their special interest sponsors indiscriminately using military force and squandering tax payers' dollars. If the general public decides they no longer need to think, then democracy dies.
Isolationism gained its lasting meaning during the 30s. It had two foundational ideas: all the other countries of the world are predatory and just trying to put their hands in our pockets, therefore we shouldn't listen to anything they say. We should stay on our own soil where we cannot be attacked. That sounds pretty much the way Trump thought to me.
"the net effect seems to have been to make the U.S. look like a dysfunctional clown show in front of our allies"
Between the Jan 6th riot, arresting the leading opposition political candidate, and our leaders denying basic mammalian biology... we've been looking like a clown show for several years now.
"the debt ceiling deal has a little bit of positive, a little bit of negative, and a whole lot of disappointing"
That the best definition of "bipartisan compromise" I've ever read.
The problem with the IRS is not necessarily that they don’t collect enough but they need more education. Accountants tell me they end up educating the IRS accountants for free because the IRS doesn’t know it’s own laws. I actually don’t mind the dysfunction. If it weren’t for these so called negotiations few people other than the elite neoliberal opportunists would know anything about the budget. The electorate has to have some idea of the budget and what gets paid for. Some day we’ll end up like Europe with higher tax rates for all and a valued added tax. Try living in Europe where 50% starts at 70k. They don’t have billionaires as in America because the Uber wealthy can’t donate to the political parties and the taxes are too high to accumulate billionaire wealth.
True, but the middle and lower classes have much more economic security.
If you're 50th percentile or lower, you'd live a better life in Europe than the US. If you're 90th percentile or higher, you'd live a better life in the US than in Europe.
I am bit skeptical. If that were true, I would expect to see many U.S. citizens under the 50th percentile moving to Europe, and far fewer poor from around the world seeking immigration to the U.S. The truth is these income stratifications are fluid, not static. Thus, for example, many younger people will spend a portion of their lives in the lower percentiles until they move to higher percentiles as they improve their skills and careers over time.
I mean, people don't generally leave the country they grew up in, culture they are familiar with, and family to go somewhere strange and foreign unless they are desperate/desperately poor, and would Europe provide their expansive social welfare system to foreigners? I didn't say it was orders of magnitude worse for Americans under the 50th percentile than Europeans under 50th percentile, just a bit worse.
Also, in many places in the world, even under the 50th percentile in the US is a far better life than they have in their home countries. But for instance, how many Western Europeans under the 50th percentile are immigrating to the US?
The fact we are not spending enough to shore up US manufacturing and innovation is as short-sighted as it gets. Alas, it is impossible to explain that to Marjorie Taylor Green and Paul Gosar voters.
No, I'm sorry, this was a terrible deal. If I'd been Biden I would have started with, "We don't negotiate with terrorists." Then I would have had McCarthy carted off to Guantanamo and refused to bring him back until the Republicans capitulated. There's just no way this doesn't play out again sometime in the future as it's now a proven Republican attack. And before anyone says the Democrats play games too. No, just no. Sure they play games, but they do not go to brink of default. Not EVER. Next time any Republicans claim good stewardship of the economy the ONLY acceptable response is sustained laughter until they leave the room.
It absolutely is fascist, started by the Republicans. I was just fantasizing about karma and comeuppance. I don't think Biden is the type to actually do that.
I agree, but also, no one should be able to play that card at all. First, there is already a legal process outlined in the Constitution. It's called the budget, and you could bring your grievances and plans there and they used to do it that way until "the new math" /s changed everything with gerrymandering. Second, it just makes the US look petty and stupid. I'm pretty sure we have that general perception in the world already, so why not work to change it instead of doubling-down?
"Should not" is different from "Can not". Sure, the GOP hostage-taking is terrible, but there's no magic wand you can wave to make Republicans behave responsibly.
And you're going to cart McCarthy to Guantanamo under what statue? Do you think Biden has dictatorial powers or something? Be serious here.
Obviously carting people off to Guantanamo is facetious. However, if you need "statute" I'd remind you that the GOP isn't following most of them, nor even it's Constitutional responsibilities. I think Biden could take a page from Andrew Jackson here and just do a bunch of stuff to lock people up or follow a course of action regardless of legality and it wouldn't substantially be any different than what we're seeing from the GOP. Of course, I hope he doesn't take that tack. It was a slippery slope then, it'd be more of one now, particularly after the insurrection Trump nearly pulled off. Still, the GOP has given clear sign that it's not only incapable of reigning-in any of its members, it's also unwilling to do so. They want illegal and unethical to become the norm. Perhaps force, even illegal force, IS the only option. I sincerely hope we haven't gotten that far but I'm not sure, and I weep to write those words.
Yes, many the GOP want to engage in illegality because they are authoritarians at heart, but for Dems to do the same basically allows the GOP to win. Dems get votes now in part because some people can see that the GOP is the party of illegality, authoritarianism, and overreach. Yes, sadly, it's not the overwhelming majority of the population, but no, I don't believe the Dems would actually be more likely to preserve their power (or the USA) vs. the GOP by also becoming an authoritarian party.
The other point I would make is that it was George Bush who created Guantanamo (the prison, not the marine base itself) also illegally and maintained that the Supreme Court didn't have jurisdiction. Now it's been there long enough that we've become inured to it's existence but it was one of the first "straws" built from fear and loathing that has shaped the GOP into what they are today. Guantanamo should be dismantled (both the prison and the base). But we don't because an effectively extra-judicial space is useful for both sides and because if we dismantle the base the Russians or the Chinese or hell, maybe India will move right on in!
I tend to agree with this assessment. This is only proving that taking hostages works. Amoral people will respond to that by trying the same tactic over and over again. Biden should invoke the 14th amendment and stop the hostage-taking.
Who was taken hostage? Nate claims that Biden should have taken McCarthy hostage to Guantanamo because apparently negotiating is terrorism. Both sides falsely used the default smokescreen (as the treasury department has ability to prioritize what money goes out, if it chose to stop paying interest on existing debt instead of for example suspending electric vehicle rebates, causing a recession with millions loosing their jobs, that would have been an economic war crime by Yellen). Biden, McCarthy and anyone else using default as a threat should all have been locked up together.
I think perhaps you missed the sarcasm entirely. But your way off base regarding Biden, this is entirely a Republican-made debacle. They have a majority, they could have negotiated in good faith during the budget hearings. Nobody should ever be able to hold the country hostage and that's exactly what the Republicans and ONLY the Republicans did.
If you want to limit Medicare costs, nuke the Medicare Advantage private plans, which are a mix of outright scams, and clever price-discrimination / skimming of healthy patients.
Good over all analysis. The government was never going to default. The default move was to shut down the government, salaries to be exchanged for IOU's, and a stop of government expenditures for any else but the debt. Neither side threatened this, so it was never on the table, which meant it was not going to default.
individuals think, for the first time, the IRS might come after them. If you go with the idea of not being able to prosecute obvious tax fraud, your failure is a foreigner conclusion. A few perps walks focuses the attention of malefactors. Ask SVB principals how things are shaping up for them these days. SVB is an extremely complicated case, but a willingness to prosecute is the key.
I heartily share Mr. Smith's frustration with our inability to build. Somehow, even regulation-ridden social-democratic places such as Germany or Holland can get this stuff done while we're paralyzed with minutiae. Waiting anxiously for the first local political project championing a relinquishing of some local control..
The most outlandish cut: IRS budget.
We really need to make it easier for people to cheat on their taxes. You go America, leader of the free world. No wonder we've become a joke to the rest of the world.
Just as good, maybe even better, than a tax cut.
Only for people who cheat on their taxes (or at least are willing to do dodgy things to avoid taxes and dare the IRS to come at them).
From Salon, from NBR working paper,"Researchers at the University of Syracuse last year found that the number of audits of taxpayers earning over $1 million has dropped 72% over the past eight years, even though audits of millionaires in 2012 found $4.8 billion in unreported taxes. And while the IRS audited 93% of large corporations in 2012, finding $10 billion in unreported taxes, just one in three of the biggest 755 corporations in the U.S. were audited in 2020."
And audits had dropped quite a bit by 2012, one of the moves by the GWB administration was to cut the number of auditors capable of auditing high net worth individuals and corporations. If somehow found out all they have to do is pay a fine. Backed up by tax lawyers and accountants the risk/reward is well worth the risk.
Would be interesting to see some projection on the national debt if the tax rates had stayed the same as they were at the end of the Clinton administration - all else being the same.
Democrats really let themselves get rolled on the GWB tax cuts. And even on the Ryan-Trump "Tax Cuts for the Rich and Deficits Act of 2017," they did not cry bloody murder over the deficits. They've basically lost the fiscal plot since Clinton.
Yeah, I feel that's a big peppermint as far as the GOP is concerned, well worth throwing bombs...
The unused covid funds were to go to an intranasal covid vaccine (would prevent infection where is enters the body), a pan coronavirus vaccine, treatment for long covid, etc. Just my opinion, but I think these were important for preparedness. Pandemics crush the economy, if that's all one cares about.
Plus, this pandemic isn't actually "over," only the declared "emergency" phase.
The pandemic is over. Covid is endemic now.
I have a doctorate in microbiology and immunology and did extensive immunology research for 17 years. The pandemic is absolutely NOT over. The amount of circulating virus fairly screams that. The purpose of the funding was in part to create a vaccine that actually WORKS long term and prevents TRANSMISSION of the virus.
For about 25% of the population, SARS-CoV-2 is still a major threat. They have pre-existing conditions that make it so. These are not all lifestyle choices. In my case, it's a lung issue I've had since early childhood. That situation makes it impossible for me to live a normal life and it requires me to find work from home. The same is true for millions of others.
If all you care about is the economy, that's a LOT of people out of the workforce that will create supply chain issues and inflation as employees become more scarce. It also is a LOT more people demanding social services that they would no otherwise need because they would be WORKING.
Due to the rapid mutation rate, there are almost NO working therapeutics. Resistance to Paxlovid, the only main stay remaining, is inevitable. And if virus continues to circulate at elevated levels, it is only a matter of time before another variant of strain escapes the fragile immunity that many people have. So we could be right back where we started.
When will people learn that having a robust public health system is ESSENTIAL. Everyone was complaining that no one was working in research or public health. Why? STUFF LIKE THIS. Necessary research and discovery keeps getting shelved and scientists remain underemployed. Then a pandemic comes along and suddenly they want everyone to start training in these fields. Then they rank out the rug before the situation has been resolved. This is stupid beyond belief.
How does this contradict the comment you are responding to? I believe they are merely claiming that the disease has reached steady state rather than being a brief intense outbreak.
Dunno why they think that's important but not sure it's false.
Concluding that a virus this new and this talented at mutation has reached “steady state,” is absolutely unwarranted. Indeed, it is magical thinking. We can only hope That will prove true.
The other champion at mutation is the flu, which kills 15,000 to 100,000 Americans every year, depending upon what mood it's in.
And no one would claim flu is a pandemic. Steady state may have been the wrong term since it's going to depend alot on how you define that but the point is that the disease is now generally present everywhere and while, just like flu, there are mutations which spread that's usually not sufficient to call something a pandemic.
I still don't think it matters but at the very least to show the comment you are replying to is wrong you need to explain how this disease is properly called a pandemic when we don't use that term to refer to diseases like the flu (and the distinction isn't one about the risk/deadliness).
I think you need to read in to the dialogue. Saying the pandemic is over implies it's not a priority to reduce spread and otherwise spend money on it. The reply argues, correctly in my uninformed opinion, that there is still a lot we should be doing to reduce the ongoing impact of Covid. The definition of pandemic is not the point.
I don't know that there is an official definition of pandemic, I think it connotes a sudden increase in incidence, worldwide distribution, and a serious threat to health or life.
That's why flu was pandemic in 1917-1920.
PS Flu was a pandemic in 1917-1920. During those years, the number of infections died down and then came roaring back several times.
Did you even read what I wrote. In no way is this a stable situation. Alsok if things are so stable, then why do major infectious disease professionals believe that we have up to a 40% chance of having another surge like Omicron in the next 18 months or so (I believe that was the timeline I found in the literature). That is very, very far from stable.
"For about 25% of the population, SARS-CoV-2 is still a major threat."
Vaccination rates have cratered. Less than 20% take-up for the latest booster - https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#vaccinations_vacc-people-booster-percent-total
Since Jan 1, CDC reports no appreciable "excess deaths" in America - https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/excess_deaths.htm
Do people still die in the hospital and "test positive"? Of course. They always will. That's a typical endemic disease. But from the beginning, we've differentiated very poorly between "dying WITH covid" and "dying FROM covid". That's why so many people took to watching CDC excess death numbers; we had no confidence in any other stats.
The combination of low vaccination rates and a lack of excess deaths makes me question your claim that "for about 25% of the population, SARS-CoV-2 is still a major threat."
Is it possible we're just in a lull and the next couple of months will see COVID come roaring back and kill hundreds of thousands of elderly and immunosuppressed people who got lazy with their vaccinations? Sure. I suppose so. But it seems unlikely. And it's downright foolish to be making policy on such a flight of fancy.
Your lack of compassion or respect for the lives of the elderly and immunosuppressed is literally takes my breath away.
My 25% was actually on the low side. What you are looking at is everyone who has an autoimmune disorder. That's about 6-8% of the US population. Their inflammatory responses put them at risk for cytokine storms. At any given time the immunocompromised are about 6%. These people have a hard time launching an effective immune response, putting them at high risk. So you are at 12-14 % right there. Anyone over 65 is also high risk due to biochemical change and changes in T cell immunity which, in the case of COVID is largely responsible for the modest longer term immunity that people have. (B cell immunity has be shockingly transient) That's 17% of the population. So you looking at 29-31% although there may be overlap with older age groups. However, autoimmune disorders trend towards the young. I haven't even included people with lung issues and heart conditions who are also at risk.
Btw, the immunosuppressed and elderly will have a problem with vaccine efficacy. So just jabbing people over and over again is not strong protection in these groups. The group with autoimmune disorders would tend to have flares of their conditions that could potentially be quite dangerous. Repeated jabs are not risk-free in this group. The WHO has acknowledged a potential link between vaccination and the onset of MS. Previous data also suggest a significant link with type 1 diabetes. This is why we need new and better vaccines for the future. Mucosal immunity would offer better protection and would act to impact transmission which has been the biggest issue given how contagious SARS-CoV-2 is.
Muddying the waters are issues with vaccines and class-switching. There is a massive increase in class switching to IgG4 which generally comprises about 0.04% of the antibody response. Following the 3rd dose, that concentration increased to a whopping 13.9% and rose to over 19% 180 days later. IgG 4 is the one immunoglobulin that will not stimulate effector functions that help clear the virus by destroying infected cells.
One of the problems with the vaccines that I have had is that we don't understand their long-term efficacy or even safety. That's something you can only learn over the course of time. The association of COVID and the vaccines with autoimmune disorders is not trivial.
Honestly, I think what's muddying the waters here is your jargon. Your science background is hurting you in this case; the leaves of scientific details are preventing you from seeing the forest. I have friends who are medical professors who have the same problem -- they were a great source for how to behave early on, but they've failed to adapt to the changing reality of the disease.
I agree with you: contagious respiratory diseases are a big deal for those who have limited immune systems. But that not the question. What matters is: Does COVID today represent such a serious threat to, as you say, 25% of the population that we still need to make significant adjustments to our society in response to it?
When a disease is not causing any detectable deaths beyond those which would occur normally, despite low vaccination rates for that disease, the answer to that question is "no". That's the forest that you're missing. Might that change? Absolutely. And God help us if it does, since right now, our public health people do not have enough credibility left to respond to it effectively.
You accuse me of a lack of compassion. Where is your compassion for: the kids who have speech impediments from masks, the near-deaf who were unable to read lips for 2 years, the mental health of teens (I have 3 teen girls), the elderly who died alone... your much cherished COVID restrictions and rules are not (and were not) cost free.
COVID is now the 4th leading cause of death in the nation. This is being kept very quiet and is deliberately under-reported. Just because the majority of those deaths are people who have pre-existing conditions doesn't make them trivial.
A serious effort has to be made to protect that large a portion of the population. Mucosal vaccines, more therapeutics, better ventilation and mandates to allow work-from-home for those at risk and have jobs that can be effectively done remotely. Ventilation systems may sound expensive, but they are effective beyond COVID.
Doing this will also protect the general population from new variants that could defeat the rather fragile immunity we have built up. It's the volume of virus that makes a new strain more likely. In a very real sense, it's a numbers game. Leaving it the way it is just gives SARS-CoV-2 more opportunity to reinvent itself! So doing these things reduces overall risk for another major surge event.
As far as the public health system goes - it's a hot mess. It was from the get-go a complete disaster. Unfortunately, the politicians were in charge not public health. Or - which I think is more likely - our CDC and FDA were overrun by political and corporate interests. I maintained before and continue to maintain that no vaccine could be considered "safe and effective" without a much longer period of vetting. Saying they were safe and effective to force people into line is lying to the public and a very bad idea. Claiming they would prevent transmission when it was obvious that they weren't designed for only made a bad idea worse. I get that we had to have SOMETHING. But throwing every single egg in the vaccine basket and vilifying everyone who offered honest arguments against the messaging campaign was political theater, not sound public health.
They would have been better off if they had a multi-pronged approach which included more emphasis on therapeutics. After all, there was never any guarantee that an effective long-term vaccine could be produced. So ignoring therapeutics was insane. If we lose the one remaining therapeutic we've got and there is another surge, we're in a lot of trouble.
Still time to get a free COVID booster at almost any drugstore. They're absolutely free as long as supplies last. They probably will always be free if you have insurance.
Insurance is not free. I'm on Medicare and what Medicare doesn't cover costs me $25K/yr. But I'm going for my 'free' booster because it's free and the medical/industrial complex needs the money.
I bet that daily cases will not pass 100k in the next 2 years.
Because so many Covid tests are administered at home and the results are not reported, there is no way to know how many cases there are. The best indication of prevalence now is hospitalizations.
@Kathleen weber - Wastewater testing is somewhat effective for determining trends. It is obviously not the same as getting actual case load numbers. Hospitalizations due to COVID as well as COVID deaths are another indicator. They are also indicators of virulence.
@Liam Scott - What credentials do you to support that "bet"? There is no way to know that at all. COVID is still the 4th highest cause of death in the US today. You don't mess with that.
If you die from our country's fourth leading cause of death, it seems a bit irrelevant whether it's pandemic or endemic. Like saying I was run over by a Buick not by a Ford.
In 2022, the most recent year for which data is available, COVID ranked as the 4th most prevalent cause of death, registering 244,986 kills. The top ten are below:
Heart disease, cancer, accidental injury, COVID, stroke, Chronic respiratory disease, Alzheimer's, diabetes, kidney disease, chronic liver disease.
COVID remains way ahead of seasonal flu, the only other common deadly infectious which kills between 15,000 and 50,000 people each year.
It is also far ahead of suicide, homicide, and drug overdoses, but the 120,000 drug overdoses appear to be included in the accidental deaths.
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/72/wr/mm7218a3.htm
2022 had a massive Omicron death wave early in the year. 2023 does not. Apples to oranges.
Actually, January and February of 2023 also saw quite a surge in COVID deaths.
The CDC comes out with COVID figures on a weekly basis.
https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#trends_weeklyhospitaladmissions_weeklypctdeaths_00
To eliminate the influence of the Omicron surge of winter 2022/2023, I have taken the CDC figures for March 4, April 1, and May 6, and projected a yearly figure from them, which turns out to be 22,000 deaths. I hope this estimate turns out to be accurate. It depends on no COVID surges whatsoever.
To leave out the March figure would be to assume that there won't be any seasonal surge or other kind type of surge for COVID for the rest of 2023-- a factor that is completely beyond our power to predict. If any kind of surge emerges, deaths will go up rapidly.
Note that the Institute for Health Metrics, which has been involved in COVID reporting and predicting since the beginning of the pandemic, is making no attempt to project the number of American deaths for the rest of 2023.
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/excess_deaths.htm
Perhaps you're right, but according to CDC, US death rates have been below expected rates based on normal projected human life expectancy since Jan 21, 2023. That doesn't mean COVID is gone. But it does mean that for the last 6 months, COVID itself hasn't killed any significant number beyond those who were already expected to die.
In functional terms, that means it's time to stop worrying about it.
> Pandemics crush the economy
No, government responses to them crush the economy. Given that uptake of the existing vaccines is now very low and many countries are having to destroy stocks, it makes sense to try and claw back money very unwisely spent on unwanted vaccines.
Oh yeah. It's so easy to tell exactly how much you'll need of anything in an emergency.
At the end of World War II the United States had a vast surplus of Jeeps, Ammo, tanks, ships, etc., etc.
In fact, this lack of foresight created a whole new line of retail store: army surplus.
But we're not in an emergency and haven't been for a long time (in fact, MANY people like me think there never was an emergency, but let's not get into that). In the current environment it makes no sense to spend lots of money on nasal vaccines and stuff like that. That'd be like manufacturing thousands of military jeeps a day years after the war ended.
People like you are morons...
Okay. Let's play nice. Which level of deadliness would you find alarming? Was the Spanish Flu of 1918 an emergency? Do you think they'd have enjoyed having a vaccine for that?
Assuming you're going to say 'yes' to "the Spanish Flu was an emergency" with a lethality of 10%, and COVID, with a lethality of 2% is not worth bothering about, what's the lethality a disease has to reach for you to consider it a problem?
COVID does not have a lethality of 2%, jesus fucking Christ what is wrong with you people? Try somewhere between 0.05% and 0.3% depending on variant and with an infection rate at the higher IFR end at far, far less than the 100% assumed by modellers.
Let's put it like this. If it had not been for the media and government psycho-meltdown, I wouldn't have ever realized there was supposedly a global pandemic going on and this is also true for everyone else I know.
- We don't know anyone who died
- People who got sick weren't seriously so. They didn't have to go to the hospital. They stayed in bed for a few days. There is nothing notable about that.
- The only disruptions were the ones forced by government
Something that's barely noticeable is not an emergency by any definition of the term.
Sorry but, while the lethality did drop considerably post vaccine and was very variable depending on locales and age groups, an overall lethality of 2% (i.e. 2% of the people who got COVID died) is the agreed upon number. If you don't like it, take it up with the experts.
I do know people who died. And even if you don't, you did notice the TV reports about morgues overflowing with corpses? That's not a normal thing. I do know people who got seriously sick too (a work colleague notably was intubated and I personally didn't think he would make it), though, again, post vaccines, you're correct that the people I know and who got it worse were basically bed ridden for a week, which isn't the end of the world.
So yeah - the vaccines really changed things. But prior vaccines, it wasn't a good idea to catch COVID esp. if you were old and overweight (though the 2 people I know who died were in the mid 30s and weren't overweight).
Actually, a nasal vaccine is the only type that has a fair chance of preventing a SARS infection as well as mitigating it. My guess is that novel respiratory viruses will be with us on a regular basis, as long as millions of people engage in international travel every year. If we could get good at creating a nasal vaccine for SARS, maybe we'll be able to greatly reduce the damage caused by the next novel respiratory virus.
Do you dispute that 1.1 million Americans died of COVID? You dispute that life expectancy has decreased in the United States over the last three years? Or do you think that old and fat people just don't count for that much.?
There are going to be some people who can never give up COVID. Some are expert microbiology / virology hammers who see everything as a nail (one of those commented below.) Some are greedy businessmen and politicians who are trying to use fear to sell things. Some are just phobic in general -- I have a relatives who agonize over "the latest variant" monthly.
I am not a virology expert (nor do I play one on TV) but I do know something about government and politics. We have CDC, NIH, NSF, WHO and others that all fund medical research. If this research is important, let the existing agencies prioritize it as part of their budgets. If Congress believes more money needs to be spent on a COVID vaccine, let them explicitly allocate it. But rolling pandemic emergency spending into some kind of slush fund for vaccine research is a recipe for graft and corruption.
See my critique of Wenigo's reply to your comment.
According to the NYT, Project NextGen is aafe in the debt deal.
Hope they are correct, and this stays true
> Hopefully science and technology funding will get carved out of the spending restraint in the final deal
As a government-funded scientist, I have very little hope for this. It's like Charlie Brown and the football with these authorization bills.
The bigger problem is that our national "strategy" for competing with China is largely incoherent.
The whole point was to show how powerful some Republicans are and how they can manipulate the President. Mr. Biden said he wouldn't negotiate, but he did. Once again the poor get the ax, while the wealthy get the bonus. Cutting funding to the IRS and not raising any taxes is precisely what the Republicans wanted. I can appreciate the need to compromise, but giving your opposition precisely what they wanted is not a successful negotiation but a capitulation.
Not to mention, this is a long way from a done deal. Many on both sides of the aisle are unhappy with the compromise, and it remains to be seen if enough votes can be garnered to pass this legislation.
I like the point about negotiating. I wish they had tried that earlier. Republicans can engage in some nutty theater at times but part of the job of the president is to roll with that kind of thing and lead. Earlier negotiations would have had the potential to extract a deal that actually helped the country.
That said, I know it weakened his position but I appreciated the president’s restraint in avoiding things like a Trillin dollar coin or invoking the 14th amendment. I am a little sick of “constitutionally creative” methods aimed at empowering the executive branch. Never know who the next president might be.
Hopefully it wont pass and Biden will mint the coin after all. TINA :)
How will they transport the coin? An armored car seems inadequate. Maybe an Abrams tank?
It is incredibly unfortunate that the cost of the uncalled for Iraq War and unnecessary years after bin Laden was killed now cost American taxpayers so much.
We actually spend $378 billion annually on Veteran income pensions and Healthcare. Veterans including probably 75% of whom never saw live combat, retire comfortably after 20 years of work with better than Medicare.
This is the Bush-Cheney legacy. Create an entire generation of dependents beholding mostly to conservatives.
We won't touch it of course. But we should apply work rules. Eliminate the 20 year requirement and push it to standard Social Security.
https://www.usaspending.gov/agency/department-of-veterans-affairs?fy=2023
I gather you have not read? there's a huge homeless VET population on the streets who live well? No, I didn't serve in combat, but there has to be MANY to ensure the materials necessary for the soldier that IS THERE on thr front and covers their real needs. so, those who worked behind the front were USELESS? Did you bother to do a tour of patriotic service?
These days, when trying to explain something, it pays to look low. Both sides fight because they can't afford not to look tough. This was the first time the two parties have actually had a chance for a real-world confrontation since the 2022 election, rather than the endless rounds of inconsequential trash talk.
And whom were they fighting in front of? How quaint of Noah to suggest that the most important audience is the rest of the world— of course not!
It's the base in both parties.
True, but the rest of the world is looking at the little man behind the curtain...
Try to get the average American to care about the what the rest of the world thinks. Most regard it as their patriotic duty to dismiss all that.
Come to think of it, this may have deep historic roots: For decades after the American Revolution,, Europe was the first elite that Americans rejected.
Yeah, but a lot has changed over the last 300 years and that might not work out well in a globalized 21st century world economy. No argument that America is rapidly dumbing down but any vacuum left likely will be filled by smart, eager Asians.
Kathleen Weber
just now
We've been fortunate that Trump was the first isolationist president in almost 100 years. Almost all of our real leaders have known that we need to keep a sharp eye on what's going on in the real world— however, that doesn't mean they will prosper by discussing these topics in public.
Another blessing is that the populace wants to support the military, whose only reason for existence is to protect us from foreign enemies. I guess a strong military means the rest of us don't need to think.
You lost me. "America First!" is not "isolationist" but narcissistic. There was nothing "fortunate" about Trump's dark and divisive four years in office and the insurrection following. A country being isolationist while the world economy is becoming globalist is economic suicide.
"If all you have is a hammer, everything becomes a nail." Following the destruction of WWII and the rise of Soviet Communism, the U.S. filled the role of the world's policeman. If the only reason for the U.S. military was to protect this nation against foreign enemies we would not need a military of this gargantuan size patrolling the rest of the world. Wasn't it Eisenhower who warned us about an unbridled military industrial complex? As a Vietnam Era veteran, I have seen the chaos reaped when the American public refuses to pay attention and to think of the consequences of self-serving politicians and their special interest sponsors indiscriminately using military force and squandering tax payers' dollars. If the general public decides they no longer need to think, then democracy dies.
Isolationism gained its lasting meaning during the 30s. It had two foundational ideas: all the other countries of the world are predatory and just trying to put their hands in our pockets, therefore we shouldn't listen to anything they say. We should stay on our own soil where we cannot be attacked. That sounds pretty much the way Trump thought to me.
"the net effect seems to have been to make the U.S. look like a dysfunctional clown show in front of our allies"
Between the Jan 6th riot, arresting the leading opposition political candidate, and our leaders denying basic mammalian biology... we've been looking like a clown show for several years now.
"the debt ceiling deal has a little bit of positive, a little bit of negative, and a whole lot of disappointing"
That the best definition of "bipartisan compromise" I've ever read.
The problem with the IRS is not necessarily that they don’t collect enough but they need more education. Accountants tell me they end up educating the IRS accountants for free because the IRS doesn’t know it’s own laws. I actually don’t mind the dysfunction. If it weren’t for these so called negotiations few people other than the elite neoliberal opportunists would know anything about the budget. The electorate has to have some idea of the budget and what gets paid for. Some day we’ll end up like Europe with higher tax rates for all and a valued added tax. Try living in Europe where 50% starts at 70k. They don’t have billionaires as in America because the Uber wealthy can’t donate to the political parties and the taxes are too high to accumulate billionaire wealth.
True, but the middle and lower classes have much more economic security.
If you're 50th percentile or lower, you'd live a better life in Europe than the US. If you're 90th percentile or higher, you'd live a better life in the US than in Europe.
I am bit skeptical. If that were true, I would expect to see many U.S. citizens under the 50th percentile moving to Europe, and far fewer poor from around the world seeking immigration to the U.S. The truth is these income stratifications are fluid, not static. Thus, for example, many younger people will spend a portion of their lives in the lower percentiles until they move to higher percentiles as they improve their skills and careers over time.
I mean, people don't generally leave the country they grew up in, culture they are familiar with, and family to go somewhere strange and foreign unless they are desperate/desperately poor, and would Europe provide their expansive social welfare system to foreigners? I didn't say it was orders of magnitude worse for Americans under the 50th percentile than Europeans under 50th percentile, just a bit worse.
Also, in many places in the world, even under the 50th percentile in the US is a far better life than they have in their home countries. But for instance, how many Western Europeans under the 50th percentile are immigrating to the US?
The fact we are not spending enough to shore up US manufacturing and innovation is as short-sighted as it gets. Alas, it is impossible to explain that to Marjorie Taylor Green and Paul Gosar voters.
No, I'm sorry, this was a terrible deal. If I'd been Biden I would have started with, "We don't negotiate with terrorists." Then I would have had McCarthy carted off to Guantanamo and refused to bring him back until the Republicans capitulated. There's just no way this doesn't play out again sometime in the future as it's now a proven Republican attack. And before anyone says the Democrats play games too. No, just no. Sure they play games, but they do not go to brink of default. Not EVER. Next time any Republicans claim good stewardship of the economy the ONLY acceptable response is sustained laughter until they leave the room.
Carting people off to Guantanamo without due process of law. Doesn't that sound a tad authoritarian, even fascist?
I bet MTG has a list of people she'd like to do that to.
It absolutely is fascist, started by the Republicans. I was just fantasizing about karma and comeuppance. I don't think Biden is the type to actually do that.
I've been known to let my fantasies run wild also. Cheers.
The key is that the GOP can't play it again before the 2024 elections.
And yes, this is why voting Dem is key.
I agree, but also, no one should be able to play that card at all. First, there is already a legal process outlined in the Constitution. It's called the budget, and you could bring your grievances and plans there and they used to do it that way until "the new math" /s changed everything with gerrymandering. Second, it just makes the US look petty and stupid. I'm pretty sure we have that general perception in the world already, so why not work to change it instead of doubling-down?
"Should not" is different from "Can not". Sure, the GOP hostage-taking is terrible, but there's no magic wand you can wave to make Republicans behave responsibly.
And you're going to cart McCarthy to Guantanamo under what statue? Do you think Biden has dictatorial powers or something? Be serious here.
Obviously carting people off to Guantanamo is facetious. However, if you need "statute" I'd remind you that the GOP isn't following most of them, nor even it's Constitutional responsibilities. I think Biden could take a page from Andrew Jackson here and just do a bunch of stuff to lock people up or follow a course of action regardless of legality and it wouldn't substantially be any different than what we're seeing from the GOP. Of course, I hope he doesn't take that tack. It was a slippery slope then, it'd be more of one now, particularly after the insurrection Trump nearly pulled off. Still, the GOP has given clear sign that it's not only incapable of reigning-in any of its members, it's also unwilling to do so. They want illegal and unethical to become the norm. Perhaps force, even illegal force, IS the only option. I sincerely hope we haven't gotten that far but I'm not sure, and I weep to write those words.
Yes, many the GOP want to engage in illegality because they are authoritarians at heart, but for Dems to do the same basically allows the GOP to win. Dems get votes now in part because some people can see that the GOP is the party of illegality, authoritarianism, and overreach. Yes, sadly, it's not the overwhelming majority of the population, but no, I don't believe the Dems would actually be more likely to preserve their power (or the USA) vs. the GOP by also becoming an authoritarian party.
The other point I would make is that it was George Bush who created Guantanamo (the prison, not the marine base itself) also illegally and maintained that the Supreme Court didn't have jurisdiction. Now it's been there long enough that we've become inured to it's existence but it was one of the first "straws" built from fear and loathing that has shaped the GOP into what they are today. Guantanamo should be dismantled (both the prison and the base). But we don't because an effectively extra-judicial space is useful for both sides and because if we dismantle the base the Russians or the Chinese or hell, maybe India will move right on in!
I tend to agree with this assessment. This is only proving that taking hostages works. Amoral people will respond to that by trying the same tactic over and over again. Biden should invoke the 14th amendment and stop the hostage-taking.
Who was taken hostage? Nate claims that Biden should have taken McCarthy hostage to Guantanamo because apparently negotiating is terrorism. Both sides falsely used the default smokescreen (as the treasury department has ability to prioritize what money goes out, if it chose to stop paying interest on existing debt instead of for example suspending electric vehicle rebates, causing a recession with millions loosing their jobs, that would have been an economic war crime by Yellen). Biden, McCarthy and anyone else using default as a threat should all have been locked up together.
I think perhaps you missed the sarcasm entirely. But your way off base regarding Biden, this is entirely a Republican-made debacle. They have a majority, they could have negotiated in good faith during the budget hearings. Nobody should ever be able to hold the country hostage and that's exactly what the Republicans and ONLY the Republicans did.
If you want to limit Medicare costs, nuke the Medicare Advantage private plans, which are a mix of outright scams, and clever price-discrimination / skimming of healthy patients.
And negotiate drug prices…..
Unfortunately, I must disagree, but for the wrong reasons.
Black cows cannot be seen on a dark night.
Clowns cannot be seen as clowns, if we all are.
Politics nowadays are a clown show, everywhere.
That’s also why nobody believed a deal would not be reached, and why nobody, therefore, cared.
Good over all analysis. The government was never going to default. The default move was to shut down the government, salaries to be exchanged for IOU's, and a stop of government expenditures for any else but the debt. Neither side threatened this, so it was never on the table, which meant it was not going to default.
individuals think, for the first time, the IRS might come after them. If you go with the idea of not being able to prosecute obvious tax fraud, your failure is a foreigner conclusion. A few perps walks focuses the attention of malefactors. Ask SVB principals how things are shaping up for them these days. SVB is an extremely complicated case, but a willingness to prosecute is the key.
There is no point. Are you not entertained?
I heartily share Mr. Smith's frustration with our inability to build. Somehow, even regulation-ridden social-democratic places such as Germany or Holland can get this stuff done while we're paralyzed with minutiae. Waiting anxiously for the first local political project championing a relinquishing of some local control..