MESO-Rx
Anabolic Steroids
Trump Timeline ... Trumpocalypse
- Thread starter CdnGuy
- Start date
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has kick-started a much-needed debate about taxes. But the debate, so far, has been misplaced. It’s obvious that the affluent — who’ve seen their earnings boom since 1980 while their taxes fell — can contribute more to the public coffers. And given the revenue needs of the country, it is necessary.
But that’s not the fundamental reason higher top marginal income tax rates are desirable. Their root justification is not about collecting revenue. It is about regulating inequality and the market economy. It is also about safeguarding democracy against oligarchy.
It has always been about that. Look at the history of the United States. From 1930 to 1980, the top marginal income tax rate averaged 78 percent; it exceeded 90 percent from 1951 to 1963. What’s important to realize is that these rates applied to extraordinarily high incomes only, the equivalent of more than several million dollars today. Only the ultrarich were subjected to them. In 1960, for example, the top marginal tax rate of 91 percent started biting above a threshold that was nearly 100 times the average national income per adult, the equivalent of $6.7 million in annual income today. The merely rich — the high-earning professionals, the medium-size company executives, people with incomes in the hundreds of thousands in today’s dollars — were taxed at marginal rates in a range of 25 percent to 50 percent, in line with what’s typical nowadays (for instance, in states like California and New York, including state income taxes).
That few people faced the 90 percent top tax rates was not a bug; it was the feature that caused sky-high incomes to largely disappear. The point of high top marginal income tax rates is to constrain the immoderate, and especially unmerited, accumulation of riches. From the 1930s to the 1980s, the United States came as close as any democratic country ever did to imposing a legal maximum income. The inequality of pretax income shrank dramatically.
European objections have forced the United States to backtrack on plans to stage a two-day conference in Poland focused on building a global coalition against Iran.
The conference is now being described as a wider brainstorming session about the Middle East.
In announcing the summit earlier this month, the US secretary of state, Mike Pompeo, had explicitly said the summit’s purpose was to focus on Iran’s influence and terrorism in the region.
But the joint official announcement of the summit did not mention Iran, instead highlighting issues connected with Iran – “terrorism and extremism, missile development and proliferation, maritime trade and security, and threats posed by proxy groups across the region”.
The change of emphasis follows signs that many European countries, including the EU foreign affairs chief, Federica Mogherini, will avoid the two-day event on 12 and 13 February, and instead head to the Munich security forum later in the week.
[OA] Donald Trump, Populism, and the Age of Extremes: Comparing the Personality Traits and Campaigning Styles of Trump and Other Leaders Worldwide
A common narrative portrays Donald Trump as impetuous and quick to anger, thin skinned, constantly lying, brazen, vulgar, and boasting a grandiose sense of self and his accomplishments. Little systematic evidence exists that this is the case, however.
With a novel data set based on expert ratings, we
(1) provide systematic empirical evidence about Trump’s personality profile,
(2) contrast his profile with 21 other populist leaders and 82 mainstream candidates having competed in recent elections worldwide, and
(3) discuss the implications of such an extreme profile in terms of campaigning style and the use of negative and emotional campaigns.
Our results illustrate Trump’s off‐the‐charts personality and campaigning style and suggest that even when compared with other abrasive, narcissistic, and confrontational political figures, he stands out as an outlier among the outliers. We conclude by discussing the implications and potential outcomes of such an extreme personality profile for Trump’s policy style and achievements while in office.
Nai A, Martínez i Coma F, Maier J. Donald Trump, Populism, and the Age of Extremes: Comparing the Personality Traits and Campaigning Styles of Trump and Other Leaders Worldwide. Presidential Studies Quarterly 2019;0. https://doi.org/10.1111/psq.12511
A common narrative portrays Donald Trump as impetuous and quick to anger, thin skinned, constantly lying, brazen, vulgar, and boasting a grandiose sense of self and his accomplishments. Little systematic evidence exists that this is the case, however.
With a novel data set based on expert ratings, we
(1) provide systematic empirical evidence about Trump’s personality profile,
(2) contrast his profile with 21 other populist leaders and 82 mainstream candidates having competed in recent elections worldwide, and
(3) discuss the implications of such an extreme profile in terms of campaigning style and the use of negative and emotional campaigns.
Our results illustrate Trump’s off‐the‐charts personality and campaigning style and suggest that even when compared with other abrasive, narcissistic, and confrontational political figures, he stands out as an outlier among the outliers. We conclude by discussing the implications and potential outcomes of such an extreme personality profile for Trump’s policy style and achievements while in office.
Nai A, Martínez i Coma F, Maier J. Donald Trump, Populism, and the Age of Extremes: Comparing the Personality Traits and Campaigning Styles of Trump and Other Leaders Worldwide. Presidential Studies Quarterly 2019;0. https://doi.org/10.1111/psq.12511
President Trump continues to take a beating in the shutdown polls. Most recently, “In the latest The Hill-HarrisX survey, 46 percent of registered voters who identify as political independents said that Trump and the congressional GOP are primarily responsible for the government closure, a 7-point jump from a Dec. 30-31 survey.” Only 17 percent of independents blame Democrats primarily.
Even Republicans don’t seem thrilled with the shutdown. (“Even as GOP voters' willingness to blame Democrats has increased, only 56 percent of Republican voters say that congressional Democrats are responsible. By comparison, 81 percent of Democratic voters say that Trump or the congressional GOP are at fault.”) When Trump cannot snow even the entire Fox News-saturated GOP base, maybe it is time to rethink what he’s doing.
The domestic politics plus international fear that Trump’s shutdown could be pushing us closer to a recession may have prompted Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) to blink — or to blink on behalf of a bleary-eyed White House. McConnell will take a vote on Trump’s disingenuous proposal for $5.7 billion for the wall in exchange for temporary relief for “dreamers.” For the first time, however, he’ll also allow a vote to reopen the government at least through Feb. 8.
Maybe the Supreme Court’s decision not to disturb lower-court rulings keeping Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals in place for the foreseeable future made clear even to the most obtuse Republican senators that Trump is offering nothing. It didn’t help that Trump (or President Stephen Miller) slipped in harsh measures to cut off many asylum claims.
Last edited:
