Trump & Taiwan

[Wayward Son]

This is why I find your alarmism on Trump so unpersuasive.  I'm not sure I've heard a politician get forced to answer a question that they don't want to answer, yet because Trump does so in a slightly different manner its a problem?  Honestly, how many times have we heard a debate answer that answers the prior question, or a completely different question, or a strawman?  Pretty much every time a politician answers a question.

I tend to think we can rely on Trump to act when his self interest doesn't demand he acts, not sure we can rely on him to act against his self interest.  But there was no choice in the general election if that was the standard you were pursuing, maybe not even in the primary.

It's not so much that Trump avoided answering the question (an annoying habit, but one that all politicians do at one time or another, if not constantly).  It's the first part of the oxymoron--that people perceive that he did answer it, and in the way they interpret it to mean.

For Trump's opponents, he answered it in a way they disagree with.  For his supporters, he answered it in a way they agree with.

But no one knows how he really answered it until he actually does something.

Which is why I firmly predict that those who voted for Trump will regret it.  Even you, if you did vote for him.  Partly because Republicans already have regretted the Bush presidencies.  (How many times did the Republicans mention their last two Presidents in their last convention? )  And partly because, since no one knows what Trump really meant, they are bound to find out that they misinterpreted him on important issues.

And if those don't do it, then his inevitable mistakes from being inexperienced in politics will do it.

Which is why his phone call with Taiwan is so scary.  Not because China will necessarily do something horrible because of it.  But because China might.  Because Taiwan's sovereignty is an extremely sensitive issue with China, one they have stated they are willing to go to war over.  And simply talking to Taiwan's president steps on China's toes.  And Trump does not have the experience to know how sensitive China is and what their reaction will be.

So far, it looks like China is not making a big deal out of it, blaming the Taiwanese president more than him.  (And since he called Trump, that is quite reasonable.   But I really wonder if Trump even considered the possibilities before answering that call.

Trump is like a 10-year-old getting to drive a Mac truck.  You hope he is mature, cautious and responsible enough to get the truck to where he's going, but he hasn't shown any of those things yet, so you are pretty certain that something is going to happen before you get there.  You just don't know if it will be a fender-bender to a head-on collision with another truck.

And we all passengers for the trip. 

[TheDeamon]

I had never looked at the VAT that way. It actually is a valid argument.

Problem is we can't just slap a Federal VAT on everything without an amendment to the constitution more likely than not.

Based on what case-law?  Wickard makes the CC more than broad enough to cover a VAT.

Let's see if Seriat, out most conservative attorney, agrees

I was more going off the battles over the income tax. I hadn't considered the Commerce Clause, although that interpretation would likely run afoul of intra-state commerce, despite any other case law, such as the ACA may have established.

[Pete at Home]

Wickard makes intra state commerce and read together with Raich, makes even production and consumption without commerce activities which "affect interstate commerce and therefore subject to regulation. 

[Pete at Home]

What Obama has done to stand against China, which trump promises to subvert:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-38060980

[Seriati]

I had never looked at the VAT that way. It actually is a valid argument.

Problem is we can't just slap a Federal VAT on everything without an amendment to the constitution more likely than not.

Based on what case-law?  Wickard makes the CC more than broad enough to cover a VAT.

Let's see if Seriat, out most conservative attorney, agrees

 

Know very little about VAT and how it works in detail.  I think the commerce clause has not been understood to permit such taxes.  There are direct references to the tax authority of the federal government in the Constitution, which if applicable would control.  As far as I can tell, at least historically, it has not been believed that the feds could impose those kinds of taxes without going through the states.  But your guess is as good as mine on how it would be considered these days.

[Pete at Home]

Wrap it into a law that pays for roads, infrastructure and national defense.  Argument being that all trade relies on these interstate channels and security. Any question now?

[Seriati]

Honestly, yes.  Not an expert on this though.  You may want to take a look at it, it does seem to have been considered overtime.

[Pete at Home]

As far as I can tell, at least historically, it has not been believed that the feds could impose those kinds of taxes without going through the states

What state wouldn't go along if its road funds, military basesand freeway access were at stake?

[Seriati]

The states have the most to lose from ceding control over sales taxes to the Feds.  Honestly, I'd be shocked if more than a handful didn't fight that, it'd be the absolute deathknell of state independence to give up their biggest source of direct revenue to the feds.

[Pete at Home]

I suspect they'd prefer it to having things run as the constitution describes, with states paying a per head tax...

[TheDeamon]

The states have the most to lose from ceding control over sales taxes to the Feds.  Honestly, I'd be shocked if more than a handful didn't fight that, it'd be the absolute deathknell of state independence to give up their biggest source of direct revenue to the feds.

How would they lose control over the sales tax? They have their own fuel taxes, on top of the federal tax. Many states have their own income tax, again on top of the federal tax.

No reason to suppose the Sales Tax /VAT would be different.

[Pete at Home]

Seriati is right that this would be a big fight, but like some other big fights (like the hilarious ROTC in law schools controversy) I think it would resolve with a big 9-zero "duh" ruling from SCOTUS.