OpenEuphoria

2. Re: [OT] USA Elections

• Posted by jaygade Nov 02, 2012
• 2987 views

We have vote by mail here in Oregon. I filled out my ballot on Tuesday and it went into the mail on Thursday.

4. Re: [OT] USA Elections

• Posted by useless_ Nov 02, 2012
• 2964 views

I quit voting when i realised

1) i know of NO ONE here in real life who wants the same as me, so my vote is canceled anyhow
2) no one i vote for wins
3) this place is solidly republican because they are religious nuts
4) there's never a wheelchair accessable place to vote

Currently the building is, but getting TO the building isn't. I give up. I want out of the usa entirely.

useless

6. Re: [OT] USA Elections

• Posted by DerekParnell (admin) Nov 03, 2012
• 2934 views

The community I wish to belong to would be one that takes care of those that cannot care for themselves.

From this distant shore, the view appears to me to be that Obama is on the side of the downtrodden and wants to promote equality for all people, whereas the people who control Romney seem to care only for the rich and powerful.

Of course, both are politicians, so compromise is their natural frame of mind. Which means that no matter what they say, in the end its only what they can get away with that will actually be achieved.

Obama seems to be well informed, intelligent, genuine, and tolerant, whereas Romney appears to be ill informed, simple, insincere, and intolerant.

For example? And worse than what? Is it actually possible for a conservative government, with Romney as its front man, make the world a saner and safer place for all people? I'm not saying that a liberal regime headed by Obama will definitely achieve that, but I suspect it has a better chance.

Does that not apply to any U.S. President, regardless of which camp that are beholden to?

In Australia, we do not have fixed term lengths or a maximum number of consecutive terms. Mostly we have 10-15 years of a conservative government, until the people get compassionate again then we have 10-15 years of a liberal government, until people get greedy again. This cycle has been pretty consistent since we became independent from Great Britain in 1901. Which, by the way, was done peacefully, and we have yet to have a civil war.

8. Re: [OT] USA Elections

• Posted by EUWX Nov 03, 2012
• 2958 views

I am a Brit, but I cannot but sympathize with this American who has put in a nutshell all the reasons for Americans to vote for Obama. BTW, this was after the first debate.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/10/president-obama-re-energizes-supporters-with-aggressive-debate-performance/
Oct 17, 2012 7:58pm

President Obama Re-Energizes Supporters with Aggressive Debate Performance

TO Those Who SEEM TO BE SO MAD AT PRESIDENT OBAMA, FOR NO GOOD REASON, WOULD READ THIS AND REFLECT A MOMENT, THEY WOULD SAY:
“Hmmmmmmmmmm… YOU ARE RIGHTNow, since President Obama’s regime, all of a sudden, folks have gotten mad, and want to take America Back…BACK TO WHAT/BACK TO WHERE is my question?
I am voting for PRESIDENT OBAMA no matter what. He should get 8 years in term, because he IS CHANGING America and we all know why THEY don’t like it! If Obama wasn’t Black, they would be praising and thanking him.
After The 8 Years Of The President Bush/ Vice President Cheney Disaster, Now You Get Mad?
You didn’t get mad when the Supreme Court stopped a legal recount and appointed a President.
You didn’t get mad when Vice President Cheney allowed Energy company officials to dictate Energy policy and push us to invade Iraq .
You didn’t get mad when we illegally invaded a country that posed no threat to us.
You didn’t get mad when we spent over 800 billion (and counting) on said illegal war.
You didn’t get mad when President Bush borrowed more money from foreign sources than the previous 42 Presidents combined.
You didn’t get mad when over 10 billion dollars in cash just disappeared in Iraq .
You didn’t get mad when President Bush embraced trade and outsourcing policies that shipped 6 million American jobs out of the country.
You didn’t get mad when they didn’t catch Bin Laden.
You didn’t get mad when President Bush rang up 10 trillion dollars in combined budget and current account deficits.
You didn’t get mad when you saw the horrible conditions at Walter Reed.
You didn’t get mad when we let a major US city, New Orleans , drown.
You didn’t get mad when we gave people who had more money than they could spend, the 1%, over a trillion dollars in tax breaks.
You didn’t get mad with the worst 8 years of job creations in several decades.
You didn’t get mad when over 200,000 US Citizens lost their lives because they had no health insurance.
You didn’t get mad when lack of oversight and regulations from the President Bush Administration caused US Citizens to lose 12 trillion dollars in investments, retirement, and home values.
You finally got mad when a black man was elected President and decided that people in America deserved the right to see a doctor if they are sick. Yes, illegal wars, lies, corruption, torture, job losses by the millions, stealing your tax dollars to make the rich richer, and the worst economic disaster since 1929 are all okay with you, but helping fellow Americans who are sick… Oh, Hell No!
PLEEEASE—-circulate this everywhere—people need to be reminded! 2012 is a good year for them to remember!
Let’s get as passionate about re-electing our wonderful hard working President Obama as we were when we got him elected! Don’t get complacent and don’t take for granted he will easily be back in office. Let’s all get busy starting the work today!
Give this MAN credit where credit is due. Black folks stop thinking just because we have a Black President that you were entitled to something without working for it! (Did you think because we got a Black President 4 years ago, you were going to get a check in the mail for $100k or something, maybe the 40 acres and a mule…come on….get real!)

10. Re: [OT] USA Elections

• Posted by jimcbrown (admin) Nov 03, 2012
• 2973 views

Keep in mind that it is the electoral college, not the standard issue American citizen, who will make the final call.

I seem to recall that in the 2000 election, Al Gore won the popular vote but Bush won the most electoral votes.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/print/2012/11/the-electoral-vote-system-is-absurd-but-its-the-law/264467/

Right now, it looks like Obama has an advantage in the electoral college: http://www.clevelandjewishnews.com/news/national_world/article_d685665e-2445-11e2-9bb9-0019bb2963f4.html

12. Re: [OT] USA Elections

• Posted by mattlewis (admin) Nov 03, 2012
• 2899 views

Yes. We've all been suffering for the last 3+ years. I hope we can all do better this next time around.

Matt

14. Re: [OT] USA Elections

• Posted by EUWX Nov 03, 2012
• 2872 views

Just a helpful reminder.

If you are in North America. . . . .
On Sunday, set your clocks back 1 hour.

If you are in America, and a Republican. . . .
Set your clocks back sixty years.

16. Re: [OT] USA Elections

• Posted by kenneth Nov 03, 2012
• 2854 views

While there are valid reasons for being a classical republican, modern ones are known by the company they keep. In my state, republican campaigning is entirely pro-religious "mommy" (e.g., anti-gay marriage, anti-abortion) and not at all about business models or programming languages. Voting is a lousy way to define either government or compiler development. We don't want OpenEuphoria to be a democracy, we want a queen. Long lived the queen.

18. Re: [OT] USA Elections

• Posted by jimcbrown (admin) Nov 03, 2012
• 2857 views

I take it you are against voting in this general election?

20. Re: [OT] USA Elections

• Posted by mattlewis (admin) Nov 04, 2012
• 2799 views

There were some really dumb things that were done in that period. Off the top of my head:

• Sarbanes-Oxley
• Expanding Medicare without fixing it
• Expanding the Federal role in education (i.e., No Child Left Behind)
• Expanding the distortion of the mortgage market
• Unconstitutional restriction of free speech

Matt

22. Re: [OT] USA Elections

• Posted by mattlewis (admin) Nov 04, 2012
• 2802 views

You must live in a different world than I do. This is certainly how Democrats like to characterize Republicans, but then, the Democrats are the ones telling us to vote like our lady parts depend on it.

Matt

24. Re: [OT] USA Elections

• Posted by jimcbrown (admin) Nov 04, 2012
• 2779 views

Oh sure, let's jump back to the days before the President's mother was allowed to vote for that candidate.

26. Re: [OT] USA Elections

• Posted by mattlewis (admin) Nov 04, 2012
• 2791 views

Yeah, sure, all analogies suck , but I think we should all agree on the Orwellian nature of the American political labels of "liberal" and "progressive." Hey, I've made some Herculean effort to avoid silly attacks and keep my points substantive.

Matt

28. Re: [OT] USA Elections

• Posted by mattlewis (admin) Nov 04, 2012
• 2865 views

Exactly. I'm not saying that one side doesn't say the other likes killing babies and the other side says that their opponents want to deny health care. I'm just saying that it's a relatively minor point in this election, at least on the Republican side.

Democrats have tried to make it a main topic (look at their convention), but generally, Republicans haven't taken that bait.

I'm not sure what your deceptive editing of my quote is supposed to show. Or perhaps you missed the vote like your lady parts depend on it ridiculousness.

Of course, there's also the Putin campaign ad that they ripped off, likening voting to sex. Now there's a role model for a chief executive!

Matt

30. Re: [OT] USA Elections

• Posted by jimcbrown (admin) Nov 04, 2012
• 2833 views

My mistake. I didn't understand the reference.

It's impossible for me to argue with this.

32. Re: [OT] USA Elections

• Posted by jimcbrown (admin) Nov 04, 2012
• 2842 views

Technically true (increasing control is, by the definition of liberty (freedom from control) something that takes away liberty), but I quibble here: Doesn't this mean that having the DMV regulating drivers licenses is another form of having liberty taken away?

Very few people would support getting rid of the DMV as a way to restore liberty, because of the consequences of doing so: Unqualified drivers would be allowed to take to the road, in control of lethal weapons (automobiles), leading to a greater loss of human life.

I'm certainly no fan of governments that callously suppress liberties left and right for no good reason, but I don't see a liberal government as necessarily doing this (neither do I see a conservative government as necessarily doing this). More regulation may be called for, but like the DMV, there generally are good intentions behind it.

But of course, every government is suspectible to this - and in the US, we have all kinds of separation of powers and checks and balances to help deal with this.

34. Re: [OT] USA Elections

• Posted by mattlewis (admin) Nov 04, 2012
• 2784 views

Yes, it is. It's always a balancing act. I'd also note that DMVs are all at the state level. It's important to note how close to the people the government is.

Good intentions are dangerous things with government, because they often mask awful results. We often think we understand things better than we do, and that we can control them better than we can.

Yes, it was a very interestingly designed system (and has proven itself much better at checks and balances than any parliamentary system). Some of it has been dismantled (direct election of Senators, various Supreme Court rulings declaring unenumerated powers). But occasionally it works as designed. And then politicians complain about how the gridlocked system won't let them do whatever whim has taken them this year.

Matt

36. Re: [OT] USA Elections

• Posted by mattlewis (admin) Nov 04, 2012
• 2766 views

...should be the name of a store, not a government agency.

Matt

38. Re: [OT] USA Elections

• Posted by jimcbrown (admin) Nov 04, 2012
• 2763 views

Neither was gunpower.

40. Re: [OT] USA Elections

• Posted by useless_ Nov 04, 2012
• 2739 views

Proves my point, gunpowder is regulated!

The way i see automobiles, they are large enclosed wheelchairs. They have wheels, you sit in them, they carry you to places you are too feeble to get to otherwise. If the ATF starts regulating them as a weapon, they are going to go up in price by 100 times.

useless

42. Re: [OT] USA Elections

• Posted by K_D_R Nov 04, 2012
• 2742 views

The advent of capitalism was indeed a "liberal" event, bringing change and "liberation" from the economic and even social status quo. Centuries later, capitalism was the status quo, at least outside of Russia. By 1929, the United States and much of the world, had seen the ugly underbelly of laissez- faire capitalism. Capitalist exploitation of labor was so vicious that Slave holders in the antebellum South argued that their slaves were better off than the "wage slaves" in northern factories. Southern Slave holders were "conservatives" - most of their "capital" was invested in slaves.

The problem is that free market capitalism almost always ends up treating labor as a necessary commodity. If the price of that commodity can be reduced then the price of the goods can be reduced and the less expensive goods will prevail in the market place. The New Deal legislation supporting the right to collective bargaining, increased the freedom and power of labor vis a vis that of the capitalist factory owners. Now, if you were/are a capitalist, most likely this reeks of incipient communism and oppressive government intervention. But, if you were a coal miner, who got paid in company script which could only be used in company stores, I dare say you would view government support of the "right" of labor to collectively bargain for better wages and benefits very liberating.

Even though the term "liberal" has not always referred to an "active" government, that philosophy has been a part of the U.S. since the beginning of the republic. Indeed, the very reason the U.S. Constitution was conceived was in response to the need for a stronger central government which was more "energetic".

So much more needs to be said, but I haven't the time now.

Regards, Kenneth Rhodes

44. Re: [OT] USA Elections

• Posted by kenneth Nov 04, 2012
• 2736 views

We also guarantee each state a republic form of government (Article V). But my state has binding of delegates, initiative, referendum, recall, and election of prosecutors and judges. Someone has forgotten the difference between a republic and a democracy. We are going bankrupt because of democracy. If performance is to be measured, a republic will best a democracy, and a not-so-benevelent dictatorship will score even better than a republic. (I use the word dictator this time instead of king or queen to avoid the sexual innuendo.) Compiler development would benefit from the same. RDS had it right. We will eventually relearn it.

46. Re: [OT] dictator

• Posted by ArthurCrump Nov 04, 2012
• 2731 views

Winston Churchill once quoted that "Democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others that have been tried". But I am in England, so I don't even know which US politicians are Republican and which are Democrats.

Arthur

48. Re: [OT] USA Elections

• Posted by mattlewis (admin) Nov 05, 2012
• 2704 views

Yes, I saw this. I suppose I could respond by saying that he thinks his marriage means more than millions of childrens' lives.

And the question is why cannot the Democrats see how they work against the very thing that they claim to be for?

Matt

50. Re: [OT] USA Elections

• Posted by mattlewis (admin) Nov 05, 2012
• 2778 views

Yeah...I'm not really very interested in what former slave owners thought about things. In fact, the 1920s were incredibly prosperous, and not just for the upper classes.

That's a feature, not a bug! Ask the millions of Chinese who have recently moved out of the middle ages. Ask the people who shop at places like Walmart and have a better standard of living as the result of lower prices.

Yes, the 1930s (and really, it started with Hoover...FDR just built on what he started) should have been enough to prove that when the government gets active and tries to make things better, it fails. Not unlike the other 20th century experiments in statism.

Not very liberating to collectively bargain for nothing. I'm not arguing that people weren't taken advantage of. But the Wagner Act was and continues to be a disaster.

Whoa, there. Yes, more centralized than the Articles of Confederation, but that's not saying much. This is one of my favorite lines in the Declaration of Independenct, which seems ever more relevant today:

Matt

52. Re: [OT] USA Elections

• Posted by jimcbrown (admin) Nov 05, 2012
• 2686 views

Didn't the federalists lose? The Articles of Confederation were thrown out (metaphorically speaking).

This doesn't seem like a check against the federal government, but a check against the people. Why remove the ability for the people to directly choose their Senator - except to keep them farther away from the center of government by adding additional layers between them? After all, under the old system, it was members of state Congresses that elected the federal Senator, and those members were in turn elected democratically.

I do keep George Washington's famous warning against political parties in the back of my mind.

54. Re: [OT] USA Elections

• Posted by mattlewis (admin) Nov 05, 2012
• 2726 views

The Federalist Papers were the collective writings of Jay, Hamilton and Madison in support of the ratification of the Constitution. While much less decentralized than the Articles, the Constitution still kept a lot of power out at the states.

Yes, the Senate was also a check on the excess of direct democracy. It was also seen as a way that smaller states could prevent larger states from dominating the federal government. Again, of course, today Representatives are more aligned with their parties than their states in most things, in contrast to the 18th century.

But part of the genius of this is that the state governments view things differently than private citizens. Consider the source of "unfunded mandates." A Representative beholden directly to voters may look at this sort of law differently than a Senator who answers back to the state legislature that will be responsible for funding the mandates from the Federal government.

The original arrangement pits the natural and healthy interests of the various parties against each other, with the hope of coming to better solutions.

Yes, though I'd argure that they're simply an expression of human nature (we're social creatures), and wishing them away will never work.

Matt

56. Re: [OT] USA Elections

• Posted by jimcbrown (admin) Nov 05, 2012
• 2717 views

I don't see how any of this is currently true.

Agreed.

This is about compromise. A case can be made that since the Tea Party is unwilling to compromise, they are undermining their own goals. (E.g. the no-tax pledge leading to the fiscal cliff.)

I agree with this. Keep in mind that this is important to the central premise of Keynesian economics - that the market works best most of the time, but something a carefully limited helping hand is needed to prevent and limit damage.

58. Re: [OT] USA Elections

• Posted by mattlewis (admin) Nov 05, 2012
• 2697 views

Yeah, largely created by the crazy tarrifs, and then New Deal kept the depression going.

I've heard Red China's demographics described as a US worth of middle / upper class plus a billion peasants. Taiwan and Hong Kong have obviously done much better than the mainland.

Yes, but that was all before Mao. But I'll admit, Middle Ages was a bit of hyperbole.

Yes. Totally. Unfortunately, sustained increases in standards of living requires innovation and creative destruction, which means that people who don't or cannot adjust are hurt. Still, poor but feel good economics will always be with us.

Oh, yes, hugely successful politically. But a catastrophe economically.

When you don't have a job, and have no prospects of getting a job, with whom do you bargain?

Perhaps the most obvious example is our sclerotic unionized auto industry (note that the foreign owned, non-union plants have been doing just fine). Of course, even FDR could not support public sector unions. The market eventually sorts out private sector union excesses. It's much more difficult to get rid of the problems with public sector unions.

Matt

60. Re: [OT] USA Elections

• Posted by mattlewis (admin) Nov 05, 2012
• 2704 views

Recent changes in law have increased mandates about what health insurance must cover, which increases cost and reduces our ability to choose how we want to finance future health care. Downward pressures on payments to physicians (especially in Medicare) are already causing more doctors to not take Medicare. Many are considering early retirement. Fewer doctors means lowered supply.

No, I think poorly argued articles like that were completely expected. How I long for the days of deficits measured by the hundreds of billions.

Perhaps. But compromises where the taxes start immediately and the cuts come in future years are comically dishonest. And it's decades of such compromises that have created the fiscal cliff.

A key Austrian critique of Keynesian economics is that they consider all capital to be fungible (human or physical).

Matt

62. Re: [OT] USA Elections

• Posted by jimcbrown (admin) Nov 05, 2012
• 2720 views

I dispute that. http://iws.collin.edu/kwilkison/Online1302home/20th%20Century/DepressionNewDeal.html

Taiwan and Hong Kong have obviously done much better than the mainland. [/quote]

No disagreement there.

Probably, roughly, so.

In a way, that proves the point:

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/china/2012-08/21/c_131798564.htm

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_06/b4214013648109.htm

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/26/world/asia/26iht-letter26.html?pagewanted=all

Ok, I'll give you that. Even the CCP admits Mao was wrong.

I'm sure why you can see having hundreds of millions, or even tens of millions, of middle class people who "cannot adjust" get hurt (by losing their jobs and losing unemployment benefits and being forced to resort to any measure to stay alive) is something that should be avoided. It goes back to Keynesian economics - companies can fail, but there must be support for those who fall as a result. (Disclaimer: I am not an economist.)

I don't see the relevance of your link. I'm against the economic policy of protectionism and for free trade.

I know that I'm repeating myself here, but I dispute that. http://iws.collin.edu/kwilkison/Online1302home/20th%20Century/DepressionNewDeal.html

I don't follow. Coal miners don't have jobs?

I can understand how someone could see public sector unions as a problem. On the other hand, losing half the police force at once is hardly a solution. Unions didn't cause the market to crash down (which wiped out the securities that backed the pensions), nor did they force politicians into deficit spending.

64. Re: [OT] USA Elections

• Posted by jimcbrown (admin) Nov 05, 2012
• 2694 views

I thought that cost would go down in spite of this, thanks to the universal mandate (so the insurance companies have to spend more to cover more, but they get a larger pool of applicants (and thus more income) to make up for it).

Considering how much of the money that doctors had to charge was to cover their rising insurance premiums (in case of malpractice suits and the like), I don't see this as necessarily happening.

I admit what we have isn't quite the Australian system, but it's closer. The Australians seem to be doing just fine with what they have.

My argument is simple: As an example of what you are saying, the Bush tax cuts resulted in a concentration of wealth - instead of a trickle down effect that was expected to benefit the middle class.

Agreed, it'd be too easy to push back or even void the cuts later on once the extra in taxes has closed the deficit.

Uh, really? I thought it was the direct result of a narrowly avoided government shutdown.

A key Austrian critique of Keynesian economics is that they consider all capital to be fungible (human or physical).

Matt

[/quote]

Agreed. Stimulus spending should be avoided. No company should be too big to fail. I'm not too familiar with Austrian economics, but I'm not aware that it critiques the welfare state.

66. Re: [OT] USA Elections

• Posted by mattlewis (admin) Nov 05, 2012
• 2683 views

So the middle class didn't benefit from a recovered economy? What do you suppose wealthy people do with their money? They invest it. The Bush tax cuts also removed a lot of people at the lower end from paying any federal income tax. That a high earner who paid more in taxes than most people earn got a larger tax cut isn't an outrage, but simple arithmetic.

But why was there a possibility of a shutdown to begin with? Because people were starting to question the fiscal soundness of US sovereign debt (fortunately for us, with all of our problems, we still look a lot safer than the rest of the world). You can only kick the can down the road so many times before bad policies ripen.

Matt

68. Re: [OT] USA Elections

• Posted by jimcbrown (admin) Nov 05, 2012
• 2675 views

Or buy jet planes.

One of the good things about it.

I can see that. If a higher earner gets a 4% tax cut and a lower earner gets a 6% tax cut, the higher earner probably gets more money back in absolute dollar units.

Even so - a 30% tax on the middle class, when the top earners are taxed 15%?

No, there was a possibility of a shutdown because we hit the debt ceiling. The soundness of US sovereign debt had no effect on this debate - and the ease of sales that occured after the ceiling was raised is more proof on the pudding.

70. Re: [OT] USA Elections

• Posted by mattlewis (admin) Nov 05, 2012
• 2689 views

Jet planes which are generally made by very well paid workers. Win, win! Yes, they definitely consume things. And other people produce them and get paid for them.

I guess you're referring to capital gains taxes? These lower rates actually bring in more revenue, because there are more transactions at lower rates. My feeling on taxes is that they should be as low as possible such that they can fund the government and minimize additional friction / distortions of the economy.

Except that the main credit ratings agencies were talking about downgrading our credit rating due to the excessive amount of debt and the apparent policy of more of the same. Without that threat, I'm sure the ceiling would have been increased with just the normal amount of partisan approved posturing with which it has always been raised in the past.

Matt

72. Re: [OT] USA Elections

• Posted by jimcbrown (admin) Nov 05, 2012
• 2656 views

So the money .. stays at the top?

Not sure now. It was something Warren Buffet said.

Moody's was the one who did downgrade the debt - not because the US was unable to pay it but because the US was suffering a political crisis (at least, thats what they said).

74. Re: [OT] USA Elections

• Posted by euphoric (admin) Nov 05, 2012
• 2694 views

Republicans think charity at gunpoint isn't charity. I agree. So does Penn Jillette: "It's amazing to me how many people think that voting to have the government give poor people money is compassion. Helping poor and suffering people is compassion. Voting for our government to use guns to give money to help poor and suffering people is immoral self-righteous bullying laziness.

People need to be fed, medicated, educated, clothed, and sheltered, and if we're compassionate we'll help them, but you get no moral credit for forcing other people to do what you think is right. There is great joy in helping people, but no joy in doing it at gunpoint."

And who is going to be the arbiter of what is best for "society's wellbeing?" I prefer the free market, not Hitler.

So, let's refine:

Republicans - The focus is on individual liberty and the free market. <- the greatest plan for prosperity this world has ever known
Democrats - The focus is on self aggrandizement and spending other people's money. <- fails society every time

Liberals might have a good heart, but they're dumber than spit and end up destroying what they think they're helping.

Wealth Redistribution

76. Re: [OT] USA Elections

• Posted by mattlewis (admin) Nov 05, 2012
• 2625 views

Well, the rich people eat at restaurants, and hire people to clean their houses and offices. And the middle class people spend their money, too. Why not let all those people spend their money the way they want, rather than letting the government skim some off the top and then waste the money in ways that gets politicians reelected?

Matt

78. Re: [OT] USA Elections

• Posted by mattlewis (admin) Nov 05, 2012
• 2633 views

I think it's self evident that every dollar one pays in taxes is a dollar can't be spent on anything else. You seem to be implying otherwise. I'm not particularly concerned about what rich people spend their money on, but you were interested "more money for the poor." I think they do better when they don't have to pay the vig to the upper middle class guys who operate the government.

Matt

80. Re: [OT] USA Elections

• Posted by ghaberek (admin) Nov 05, 2012
• 2645 views

They're not the same scale, no. But you can see where the trends overlap from one graph to another; they are all representing the same set of data. Also, keep in mind that most graphs represent an 8+ year period (two Presidential terms) while Obama's graph only covers four.

-Greg

82. Re: [OT] USA Elections

• Posted by mattlewis (admin) Nov 05, 2012
• 2613 views

I would question any candidate in any country that prioritized another country over his own.

Matt

84. Re: [OT] USA Elections

• Posted by mattlewis (admin) Nov 05, 2012
• 2600 views

Yes, from what I've seen, I would agree with you! Why do people vote for them?

Matt

86. Re: [OT] USA Elections

• Posted by DerekParnell (admin) Nov 07, 2012
• 2579 views

Good sense prevailed.

88. Re: [OT] USA Elections

• Posted by jimcbrown (admin) Nov 07, 2012
• 2573 views

Sounds like a good reason to get rid of guns.

I do too. We should call it what it is - not charity (which should refer only to voluntary donations) but taxation.

As do I.

Now that I think of it, I'm not aware of any literal Robin Hood cases where the federal government sent in agents with guns to take an individual's money and then directly sent it to another person (or group of people) who were poorer for the specific purpose of feeding, medicating, educating, clothing, or sheltering them.

Also, the support networks should be there of course, but long-term I think ultimately it's better to teach a man to fish than to give a man a fish.

The people, who are the ones directly affected, with their will being implemented by the government.

Deciding what is best for society's wellbeing is a difficult task, one that is often only known in hindsight. I don't think there's a perfect answer here, but I feel that this is the best we can do.

This seems inconsistent with an emphasis on corporate and state's rights.

My Response: George W. Bush.

My Response: George W. Bush.

90. Re: [OT] USA Elections

• Posted by mattlewis (admin) Nov 07, 2012
• 2543 views

Of course, a literal Robin Hood case would be someone taking money away from the government and giving it back to the people from whom it was taken. You're probably talking about a Joe-Biden-literally case.

What is a corporation but an assembly of people? What are the individual states but a government that is closer to the people than the Federal government? How does taking away people's freedom to act when they (privately!) decide to act collectively enhance people's freedom to act? How does substituting a less responsive and more difficult to change form of government enhance people's chance at liberty?

In fact, you've got it backwards here.

Yes. It's really the Progressive nature of our government, and George W Bush had a lot of that. Of course, the Democrats have more. So, your response seems to say that a little (OK, maybe a bit more than just a little) is bad, but a lot is good.

Matt

92. Re: [OT] USA Elections

• Posted by jimcbrown (admin) Nov 07, 2012
• 2574 views

I don't think so.

I don't know about that. Sure, Robin Hood and the Nottingham sheriff didn't get along, but Robin Hood was still loyal to the King.

An oligarchy where a few rule the many.

True, but why should any government have inherent rights? Governments exist to serve the people.

It doesn't. I never said that it did. (Straw man?) I feel this is a good argument in support of unions, for example.

Again, I never said this. I believe all levels of government should be made more responsive and easier to change. Allowing people to pick their own Senator, for example...

Well, I'm complaining about tax breaks and rising debt and bailouts... Not too familiar with the Progressive movement of 1898 so I won't comment on that.

As did one of this year's vice presidental candidates.

http://www.dailypaul.com/248565/ryan-begging-for-tarp-great-time-to-run-it-on-tv

Things like TARP were quite bipartisan. Though I seem to recall it was a few democrats who decried it when TARP passed the second time around...

What I really mean is that the Democrats represent something else to me, beyond the money cost of (some of) their policies (some of which were quite bipartisan, mind you).

94. Re: [OT] USA Elections

• Posted by mattlewis (admin) Nov 07, 2012
• 2547 views

I...don't know how to respond to this. It makes no sense to me.

Yes, they do. In the US, we're supposed to honor the rule of law. Our foundation for that is the US Consitution. It grants certain powers to the Federal Government and reserves much to the States and the people. Over time, we've often ignored that fact when it was inconvenient.

So the correct question is really, why do should the Federal Government exercise powers for which it does not have Constitutional authority? Why do you question "inherent rights" for State governments but not the Federal Government?

It's not a straw man AFAICT. But it seems to describe your view on corporations.

Well, I would say that while you say that, by arguing for centralizing power at the Federal Government, you're actually doing the opposite. Obviously we disagree on this, but that's my point.

The Progressive movement of 1898 didn't die out. It grew in the first half of the 20th century, and became essentially the American version of European fascism (yes, they were big admirers of Mussolini). In many senses it was watered down. But in general, it was about exerting control from the top

Yes, there were a few on each side who had misgivings about it. It was a fairly panicked reaction. Of course, the implementation was not at all like how it was sold.

I fully agree. I guess we just disagree on the cost/benefit of those other things.

Matt

96. Re: [OT] USA Elections

• Posted by euphoric (admin) Nov 07, 2012
• 2548 views

I'm no fan of GWB, so let me appeal to the "No True Scotsman" fallacy: he's not a True Republican. Neo-con? RINO?

In fact, I'm not a fan of either major political party. My vote was for Ron Paul. I would probably classify myself now as Libertarian.

America was going to be screwed no matter which corporate puppet- Obama or Romney- they elected.

98. Re: [OT] USA Elections

• Posted by jimcbrown (admin) Nov 07, 2012
• 2535 views

EDIT: fix typo: plan -> plane

I've never heard of anyone dying (let alone getting shot) for refusal to pay taxes. Maybe one guy drove a plane into an IRS building, but ...

If you refuse to pay taxes at all, then the government will go to your employer and take more out of your paycheck. They will also place leins on your property and sell them. I guess if you attempt to use armed violence to retain your property after it has been sold, you could get into a shootout with the police ...

It's possible, and fairly easy, to legally avoid paying any taxes right now. Just make sure your income and net worth are so low that the IRS says you owe $0.00 in taxes before withholdings. Don't bother with owning any kind of property (like buying a house or a car) either. I don't recommend doing this, and I suspect most people would rather pay the tax than take this legal route to avoid paying taxes, but it's an option if you feel strongly enough about it.

Not literally with guns, though.

100. Re: [OT] USA Elections

• Posted by mattlewis (admin) Nov 07, 2012
• 2526 views

You have a funny way of saying, "I agree."

Matt

102. Re: [OT] USA Elections

• Posted by jimcbrown (admin) Jan 24, 2013
• 2399 views

After doing some further research, that "key critique" appears to be a widely accepted element of mainstream economics.

One assumption to labor being fungible would be that everyone is willing (or at least able) to do the same work at the same rate. However, this is not true.

Anyways, it appears to be well understood that labor is not fungible - that some areas have unfulfilled jobs despire also having high unemployment, due to a lack of workers trained in the correct skills and the expense involved in training an unskilled worker to the relevant level.

http://www.macon.com/2012/02/19/1909706/despite-high-unemployment-in-macon.html

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704895004575395491314812452.html

I don't see how this would have affected the premise I posited originally - that the market works best most of the time, but something a carefully limited helping hand is needed to prevent and limit damage.

I've done further research on this.

Hayek does appear to have supported the welfare state.

Hayek distinguished this from the concept of a planned economy, which he rightly considered doomed to failure.

Despite this, there seems to be a widespread belief that Hayek was against welfare. (For example, http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-social-welfare-state )