1/ The one thing gratifying about the publicity around Rep. Collins insider trading & the massive fraud/corruption of Trump and his Cabinet members, is that the insane levels of unprosecuted white collar crime we found while writing LEVERAGE are entering public consciousness— John Rogers (@jonrog1) August 11, 2018 Interesting tweet thread from John Rogers, the creator of the TV show Leverage, and also the man who created the Crazification Factor.
https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/20...-ice-dea-immigration-drug-war-failed-policies Article arguing in favor of abolishing ICE...AND the DEA. Her argument is that sometimes an institution is so far gone the best course of action is to destroy it and find a new entity to fulfil the same basic functions, albeit not the exact same functions (because that's how the institution got ********ed up in the first place.) "Left unchecked, the egregious harms imposed by ICE — deportations that do more to disrupt than protect American communities; the ill-conceived preference for immigration detention executed via a system that is a human rights disgrace — will resolve into a “new normal.”" As a matter of policy, I find this an incredibly powerful argument. I get the political problem. But, ******** it. It's all about the base now anyway. The writer wrote a book on federal drug policy 5 years ago and advocated abolishing the DEA. This is interesting. "But conservative state-building is never judged on the basis of results — a simple point that bears closer inspection. Take, for example, the remarkably similar history and trajectory of ICE and the DEA. Like ICE, the DEA was formed by combining two offices — one from the White House, and one from the Treasury Department. Typically, executive departments are organized around a particular policy portfolio (like education), and they focus on overarching goals, weighing various tools and approaches to meet those goals. Whether those tools work to advance an agency’s valued objective is a question that the officials in and out of the organization attempt to answer. If found wanting, tools can be modified or abandoned — unless they happen to belong to units dedicated overwhelmingly to enforcement, tucked into executive departments that dramatically misconceptualize the target of their intentions. In that case, no meaningful evaluation takes place at all. The US government once construed drugs as a trade. The Bureau of Narcotics (the main predecessor agency to the DEA), seated in the Department of Treasury, was armed with sanctions that could diminish the flow of illicit drugs. The formation of the DEA crystallized a very different notion —namely, that illicit drugs were a crime." The analogies are obvious.
If we were to judge a policy for its results, we would have ended the drug war 20 years ago and we would be granting residence/citizenship to 3-5 million immigrants every year...
https://www.vox.com/2018/8/15/17683022/elizabeth-warren-accountable-capitalism-corporations Elizabeth Warren is proposing a cute bill. The underlying conceit is that if corporations are people, then they should accept some of the responsibilities of personhood. The idea is to regulate corporations with revenues over $1B and incentivize corporations to govern with the interests of more than just the shareholders in mind. They will have to consider employees and their communities when making corporate decisions. In general, to me, this seems like the ultimate "devil is in the details" proposal, except for one specific thing. Workers would elect 40% of the corporate board. There are few other items discussed in the article. It would curb corporate political contributions by requiring consent from 75% of shareholders and board members...a daunting task if 40% of the board is picked by workers.
Just like Venezuela... The funny thing is that the demonizing of socialism seems to be losing their effect and a lot of the policies that Bernie, Ocasio-Cortes, Warren et al have proposed have been slowly incorporated into the mainstream Democratic party. True, sometimes there's a lack of coherence and, like in Warren's bill, candid idealism. Nonetheless there seems to be a general awakening to the problems that rampant capitalism has created and/or has failed to address, and how the GOP agenda has actually thwarted democracy and the social safety net.
In Germany do the unions own half of a corporation stock? Usually the board is supposed to represent the owners of the company, the 40% rule would up end that. I wonder how the market would react to a company that is valued at 990 million, would the stock start selling at a discount since it would be in danger of triggering this law. It would be a nice experiment.
That is even weirder, well perhaps not, what fluctuates more revenues or valuations? Probably valuation. Ok, I can see that, still what would stock prices do if a company revenues increase but your ownership representation is diluted. Who would you sue if there is a revenue crash after the rule kicks in, would you be allowed recourse against the government? I guess lawsuits would sort all that out.
@The Jitty Slitter should know better that we do, but IIRC in Germany there's a requirement for corporations to include their workers in the Board or give them some kind of representation. Here it is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codetermination_in_Germany So, @ceezmad what's your point?
How does it work, do the workers also have some type of ownership of the company, this would be the easiest way, if the Union also owned stock in the company they could appoint members to the board of directors? I do like how the law in Germany is depending on the number of workers over revenues. Over 2K it is 50%, over 500 it is 33%.
It’s not really a policy proposal, but the left needs to constantly, consistently, relentlessly attack the conservative bias in the media.
Strong welfare states are crucial for capitalism https://t.co/GGG3h5MWI5— The Economist (@TheEconomist) August 21, 2018 What most Democrats try to do, but the right screams communist and the left screams sellout.
Will facts work against Trump? maybe not, but is what needs to be done. Some thoughts on how House Democrats should and shouldn't hold Trump to account - in my profile-column on Adam Schiff: https://t.co/kboNCo675a via @TheEconomist— James Astill (@JamesMAstill) November 15, 2018
That gets its funding from congress. Your point? http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/10/irs-the-gop-propublica-budget-cuts-enforcement-billions.html For much of the last decade, the Republican Party has branded itself as a champion of fiscal responsibility and the rule of law — while doing everything in its power to help rich people steal from the Treasury. Since taking Congress in 2011, the GOP has forced through a series of aggressive cuts to the Internal Revenue Service budget. Between 2010 and 2016, the number of individual tax returns filed in the U.S. increased by 7 percent, while IRS funding fell by 18 percent. That funding cut was exorbitantly expensive. Every $1 the government spends on enforcing tax compliance, it gets $6 back in recovered revenue, according to Treasury Department estimates. And the spending cuts that Republicans imposed on the IRS fell disproportionately on tax-enforcement operations. Today, the IRS audits tax returns at a 42 percent lower rate than it did before Republicans took Congress in November 2010. Meanwhile, criminal referrals for tax evasion are becoming an endangered species: In 2012, the IRS referred 589 tax violations for criminal prosecution; in 2016, it referred just 328.
Cool. By 2021 when I'm a millionaire I can expect absolutely zero govt. pushback on my financial shenanigans.
Playing by the rulez is so lame. I want that gold toilet bowl just like every red-blooded 'Merican does.