1. [OT] USA Elections
- Posted by DerekParnell (admin) Nov 02, 2012
- 3233 views
Please take note that I'm not an American and cannot vote in the USA. However, I want to encourage all my American friends to do so.
The beginning of this youtube video is not actually about the USA elections but it does get around to the point. Don't Forget To Vote
If I could, I'd be voting for Obama.
Also, the VlogBrothers are awesome.
2. Re: [OT] USA Elections
- Posted by jaygade Nov 02, 2012
- 3162 views
We have vote by mail here in Oregon. I filled out my ballot on Tuesday and it went into the mail on Thursday.
3. Re: [OT] USA Elections
- Posted by Lnettnay Nov 02, 2012
- 3139 views
Hi Derek,
Just curious why you would vote for Obama? It seems to me that most of the things he has done have made things worse here. Plus in a second term, not having to worry about re-election he could attempt to pass legislation to really screw things up!
Lonny
4. Re: [OT] USA Elections
- Posted by useless_ Nov 02, 2012
- 3145 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
5. Re: [OT] USA Elections
- Posted by mattlewis (admin) Nov 03, 2012
- 3151 views
3) this place is solidly republican because they are religious nuts
I used to live in a district that was solidly Democratic because they all thought they knew better how I should live my life. I moved to a saner district (for other reasons), but now I've been redistricted to a "swing" district, so we'll see how that goes.
I'm also looking forward to casting my third vote against Obama.
Matt
6. Re: [OT] USA Elections
- Posted by DerekParnell (admin) Nov 03, 2012
- 3113 views
Just curious why you would vote for Obama?
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.
It seems to me that most of the things he has done have made things worse here.
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.
Plus in a second term, not having to worry about re-election he could attempt to pass legislation to really screw things up!
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.
7. Re: [OT] USA Elections
- Posted by mattlewis (admin) Nov 03, 2012
- 3095 views
Just curious why you would vote for Obama?
The community I wish to belong to would be one that takes care of those that cannot care for themselves.
This sounds very much like how Romney has lived his life. With respect to "my brother's keeper," Romney has been much more generous towards people with whom he isn't related than Obama has been with his actual siblings. Also, interestingly, Republicans generally give much more to charity than Democrats.
So this seems like a reason to vote for Romney, not Obama.
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.
I have a nearly opposite view of the two sides.
Obama seems to be well informed, intelligent, genuine, and tolerant, whereas Romney appears to be ill informed, simple, insincere, and intolerant.
Again, I think you have their names mixed up.
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.
I guess this makes sense if you measure compassion by how much of other people's money you spend on other people. Of course, here in the states, both parties like to do a lot of that, which is a big part of our problem. Sadly, many don't figure out that the periods of "greed" create more prosperity than the times of "compassion."
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.
You're not completely independent, of course. And 1776 was a very different time than 1901. Fortunately, you didn't have the old baggage of slavery to take care of like we did. Fortunately, we did take care of it.
Matt
Forked into: OT: Australia
8. Re: [OT] USA Elections
- Posted by EUWX Nov 03, 2012
- 3146 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!)
9. Re: [OT] USA Elections
- Posted by DerekParnell (admin) Nov 03, 2012
- 3115 views
So this seems like a reason to vote for Romney, not Obama.
I sincerely wish you the best of luck with that. If the U.S. gets this election wrong, the rest of the world will also suffer.
10. Re: [OT] USA Elections
- Posted by jimcbrown (admin) Nov 03, 2012
- 3148 views
So this seems like a reason to vote for Romney, not Obama.
I sincerely wish you the best of luck with that. If the U.S. gets this election wrong, the rest of the world will also suffer.
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.
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
11. Re: [OT] USA Elections
- Posted by DerekParnell (admin) Nov 03, 2012
- 3105 views
Just curious why you would vote for Obama?
Actually, it boils down to ... 'because it's not Romney'
12. Re: [OT] USA Elections
- Posted by mattlewis (admin) Nov 03, 2012
- 3078 views
So this seems like a reason to vote for Romney, not Obama.
I sincerely wish you the best of luck with that. If the U.S. gets this election wrong, the rest of the world will also suffer.
Yes. We've all been suffering for the last 3+ years. I hope we can all do better this next time around.
Matt
13. Re: [OT] USA Elections
- Posted by jimcbrown (admin) Nov 03, 2012
- 3057 views
So this seems like a reason to vote for Romney, not Obama.
I sincerely wish you the best of luck with that. If the U.S. gets this election wrong, the rest of the world will also suffer.
Yes. We've all been suffering for the last 3+ years. I hope we can all do better this next time around.
Matt
Just out of curiosity: How did you feel about the 8 years prior to that?
But I agree: the most important thing to do is to get as many people voting as possible. Bipartisan or not, just vote!
14. Re: [OT] USA Elections
- Posted by EUWX Nov 03, 2012
- 3046 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.
15. Re: [OT] USA Elections
- Posted by Lone_EverGreen_Ranger Nov 03, 2012
- 3031 views
I thought the Euform was only for euporia related posts? Keeping this on topic, I was really hoping for Ron Paul, really the only one who would have restored America, I guess Gary Johnson would be a good second. Both Romney and Obama are both disasters in my eyes.
16. Re: [OT] USA Elections
- Posted by kenneth Nov 03, 2012
- 3031 views
this place is solidly republican because they are religious nuts
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.
17. Re: [OT] USA Elections
- Posted by ryanj Nov 03, 2012
- 3027 views
My opinion is: Republican, democrat. It doesn't matter. As Alex Jones says, They are just "two heads of the same ogre". Obama is a liar. But he has told one truth: he has brought change- that's for sure. More expenses, less income. More taxes, less freedom. But Bush was no better. Our freedom and our economy are being taken away gradually by the powers that are behind the curtain while most people are arguing about which puppet is better.
18. Re: [OT] USA Elections
- Posted by jimcbrown (admin) Nov 03, 2012
- 3033 views
My opinion is: Republican, democrat. It doesn't matter. As Alex Jones says, They are just "two heads of the same ogre". Obama is a liar. But he has told one truth: he has brought change- that's for sure. More expenses, less income. More taxes, less freedom. But Bush was no better. Our freedom and our economy are being taken away gradually by the powers that are behind the curtain while most people are arguing about which puppet is better.
I take it you are against voting in this general election?
19. Re: [OT] USA Elections
- Posted by useless_ Nov 03, 2012
- 3016 views
this place is solidly republican because they are religious nuts
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.
Um, ok, i'll ask it, which one of you guys is a queen?
useless
20. Re: [OT] USA Elections
- Posted by mattlewis (admin) Nov 04, 2012
- 2974 views
Just out of curiosity: How did you feel about the 8 years prior to that?
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
21. Re: [OT] USA Elections
- Posted by mattlewis (admin) Nov 04, 2012
- 2983 views
If you are in America, and a Republican. . . .
Set your clocks back sixty years.
Sixty years is not enough. 90 would be much better, though there were still "Progressives" around, so maybe that's not enough, either.
Matt
Forked into: Sanity prevails
22. Re: [OT] USA Elections
- Posted by mattlewis (admin) Nov 04, 2012
- 2977 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. V
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
23. Re: [OT] USA Elections
- Posted by mattlewis (admin) Nov 04, 2012
- 2953 views
I thought the Euform was only for euporia related posts?
Every so often, I think a little off topicness is OK. Just try not to let it affect your on topic interaction.
Matt
24. Re: [OT] USA Elections
- Posted by jimcbrown (admin) Nov 04, 2012
- 2951 views
Sixty years is not enough. 90 would be much better, though there were still "Progressives" around, so maybe that's not enough, either.
Matt
Oh sure, let's jump back to the days before the President's mother was allowed to vote for that candidate.
25. Re: [OT] USA Elections
- Posted by jimcbrown (admin) Nov 04, 2012
- 2971 views
Just out of curiosity: How did you feel about the 8 years prior to that?
There were some really dumb things that were done in that period. Off the top of my head:
- 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
Agreed in full.
26. Re: [OT] USA Elections
- Posted by mattlewis (admin) Nov 04, 2012
- 2975 views
Sixty years is not enough. 90 would be much better, though there were still "Progressives" around, so maybe that's not enough, either.
Oh sure, let's jump back to the days before the President's mother was allowed to vote for that candidate.
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
27. Re: [OT] USA Elections
- Posted by jimcbrown (admin) Nov 04, 2012
- 2979 views
You must live in a different world than I do. This is certainly how Democrats like to characterize Republicans
Well, I live in the same area as you do, and there is some campaigning in those areas going on. Certainly, those are naturally very emotional topics that are more likely to stick out in a persons mind (regardless of whether a person agrees or disagrees), as long as that person has a strong opinion on it.
But right now, the campaign is quite heavily - almost exclusively - focused on the economy. At least on TV.
but then, the Democrats are the ones telling us to vote
And the GOP isn't? http://www.c-span.org/Events/Sen-Portman-R-OH-Urges-Early-Voting/10737435464/
You mean to tell me that you oppose getting people out to vote?
28. Re: [OT] USA Elections
- Posted by mattlewis (admin) Nov 04, 2012
- 3045 views
You must live in a different world than I do. This is certainly how Democrats like to characterize Republicans
Well, I live in the same area as you do, and there is some campaigning in those areas going on. Certainly, those are naturally very emotional topics that are more likely to stick out in a persons mind (regardless of whether a person agrees or disagrees), as long as that person has a strong opinion on it.
But right now, the campaign is quite heavily - almost exclusively - focused on the economy. At least on TV.
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.
but then, the Democrats are the ones telling us to vote
And the GOP isn't? http://www.c-span.org/Events/Sen-Portman-R-OH-Urges-Early-Voting/10737435464/
You mean to tell me that you oppose getting people out to vote?
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
29. Re: [OT] USA Elections
- Posted by jimcbrown (admin) Nov 04, 2012
- 2976 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."
I'm not sure that I could agree on that. (Not saying that the ACLU is liberal, just that there exist nonliberals who believe that the obviously anti-Orwellian stance and activities of the ACLU appear to be liberal.)
Hey, I've made some Herculean effort to avoid silly attacks and keep my points substantive.
Agreed.
30. Re: [OT] USA Elections
- Posted by jimcbrown (admin) Nov 04, 2012
- 3012 views
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.
My mistake. I didn't understand the reference.
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!
It's impossible for me to argue with this.
31. Re: [OT] USA Elections
- Posted by mattlewis (admin) Nov 04, 2012
- 3024 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."
I'm not sure that I could agree on that. (Not saying that the ACLU is liberal, just that there exist nonliberals who believe that the obviously anti-Orwellian stance and activities of the ACLU appear to be liberal.)
I'm just referring to how the word changed back around the 1920's and 1930's. Around then, liberal changed its meaning to refer to a philosophy of government that favored an active government that was much more interested in directing things, which by definition takes away liberty.
Matt
32. Re: [OT] USA Elections
- Posted by jimcbrown (admin) Nov 04, 2012
- 3025 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."
I'm not sure that I could agree on that. (Not saying that the ACLU is liberal, just that there exist nonliberals who believe that the obviously anti-Orwellian stance and activities of the ACLU appear to be liberal.)
I'm just referring to how the word changed back around the 1920's and 1930's. Around then, liberal changed its meaning to refer to a philosophy of government that favored an active government that was much more interested in directing things, which by definition takes away liberty.
Matt
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.
33. Re: [OT] USA Elections
- Posted by ghaberek (admin) Nov 04, 2012
- 2984 views
- Last edited Nov 07, 2012
I'm just going to leave this right here. Make of it what you will. (I did not make this, I am simply re-posting it here.) One specific thing I'd like to point out though: note the severe drop in gas prices mid-2008. This correlates exactly with the complete and utter demise of the US economy. Interesting, no? That is all. And remember kids: the three things you should never discuss in polite company are religion, politics, and money.
-Greg
Here is the chart ... (Note, some anti-virus software regard this as a malicious site, so enter on your own discretion. )
34. Re: [OT] USA Elections
- Posted by mattlewis (admin) Nov 04, 2012
- 2962 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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
35. Re: [OT] USA Elections
- Posted by useless_ Nov 04, 2012
- 2953 views
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.
Wait a sec, the auto wasn't designed as a lethal weapon. You go suggesting this and the conservatives will start regulating them via the ATF (Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms). Along with hammers, ice picks, rocks, and those little bottles of water you can't take onto planes.
useless
36. Re: [OT] USA Elections
- Posted by mattlewis (admin) Nov 04, 2012
- 2944 views
ATF (Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms).
...should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
Matt
37. Re: [OT] USA Elections
- Posted by useless_ Nov 04, 2012
- 2929 views
all the charts
Beware the charts are not to the same scale, a low of high point on one chart doesn't correlate to the same level on another chart.
useless
38. Re: [OT] USA Elections
- Posted by jimcbrown (admin) Nov 04, 2012
- 2938 views
Wait a sec, the auto wasn't designed as a lethal weapon.
Neither was gunpower.
39. Re: [OT] USA Elections
- Posted by jimcbrown (admin) Nov 04, 2012
- 2993 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?
Yes, it is. It's always a balancing act.
Agreed.
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.
Agreed. The division of power between federal, state, and local is another important check in this system.
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.
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.
Agreed. Naturally, too much deregulation (even done under the best of intentions) can be just as dangerous:
http://voices.yahoo.com/greenspan-flawed-ideology-deregulation-cause-collapse-2100872.html
http://politicalcorrection.org/factcheck/201110140001
Like you said, it's always a balancing act.
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.
Some of it has been dismantled (direct election of Senators,
What's the problem with this?
40. Re: [OT] USA Elections
- Posted by useless_ Nov 04, 2012
- 2916 views
Wait a sec, the auto wasn't designed as a lethal weapon.
Neither was gunpower.
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
41. Re: [OT] USA Elections
- Posted by jimcbrown (admin) Nov 04, 2012
- 2955 views
Wait a sec, the auto wasn't designed as a lethal weapon.
Neither was gunpower.
Proves my point, gunpowder is regulated!
No argument there.
If the ATF starts regulating them as a weapon
I feel that this is unlikely. Admittedly, I'm not an expert and don't know what I'm talking about here.
they are going to go up in price by 100 times.
I feel that this is highly plausible.
42. Re: [OT] USA Elections
- Posted by K_D_R Nov 04, 2012
- 2916 views
I'm just referring to how the word changed back around the 1920's and 1930's. Around then, liberal changed its meaning to refer to a philosophy of government that favored an active government that was much more interested in directing things, which by definition takes away liberty.
Matt
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
43. Re: [OT] USA Elections
- Posted by DerekParnell (admin) Nov 04, 2012
- 2970 views
Republicans - The focus is on individuals wealth
Democrats - The focus is on society's wellbeing
44. Re: [OT] USA Elections
- Posted by kenneth Nov 04, 2012
- 2908 views
...and in the US, we have all kinds of separation of powers and checks and balances...
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.
45. [OT] dictator
- Posted by jimcbrown (admin) Nov 04, 2012
- 2955 views
...and in the US, we have all kinds of separation of powers and checks and balances...
We also guarantee each state a republic form of government (Article V).
Agreed.
Someone has forgotten the difference between a republic and a democracy.
Who, and how?
We are going bankrupt because of democracy.
The values of US Treasury securities seem to suggest otherwise, at least for the time being.
But my state has binding of delegates, initiative, referendum, recall, and election of prosecutors and judges.
Just so we're clear, this is Washington State?
If performance is to be measured, a republic will best a democracy,
The US is a democratic republic. We also have democratic monarchies (such as the United Kingdom) and nondemocratic republics (e.g. a country ruled by something other than a monarchy or a religious leader but in which the rulers are not elected).
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.)
I can only think of two territories - only one of which is a country - in which this has been the case: Hong Kong and Singapore. But Singapore (which calls itself a republic, mind you) has more-or-less been ruled by a small circle of people, with Lew Kuan Yew at the top. He's still around, even though he's officially taken a back seat, so we haven't had to deal with a transition of leaders yet.
As for Hong Kong - which is not a country and has no expenses for things like defence spending, the fact that for a significant amount of its history it was controlled by a group of officials from a democratic country played a huge part in its well-being.
Compiler development would benefit from the same. RDS had it right. We will eventually relearn it.
This is a topic in and of itself. Compiler development is so far apart from the way to run a country that it's not possible to compare the two, except maybe to make a really bad analogy from one to the other.
In the FOSS world, the benevolent dictatorship works because dissenters can always fork a project if necessary, and then the best group wins. This applies even to "democratic" FOSS projects, such as Euphoria (case in point: BRyan's fork of 3.1.1 and Pete Lomax's Phix). You can't do this with an entire country though.
(It'd be pretty neat if you could though. Let the Republicans take over one version, the Democratics the others, and see which version of the USA does better. Heck, we could also create Libertarian and other versions of the USA as well - even a benevolent dictatorship version, and have them compete to be the best of the best.)
46. Re: [OT] dictator
- Posted by ArthurCrump Nov 04, 2012
- 2912 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
47. Re: [OT] dictator
- Posted by useless_ Nov 04, 2012
- 2945 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
In a way, it doesn't matter. There's been presidential promises for actions only congress could do, and promises for action that the president will veto anyhow. There's been actions passed with no money to put into practice, and idiot stuff done behind everyone's back with way more money spent than needed. There's a candidate here running for office on the basis of "jobs", even tho that position has zero job creation powers. The ads for judges here features a checklist, one item is "be a servant of god". I want out of the usa.
I would like to know what the usa candidates will do about the financial cliff at the end of the year. No matter who wins the presidency, Obama will still be in power when the crunch hits.
useless
48. Re: [OT] USA Elections
- Posted by mattlewis (admin) Nov 05, 2012
- 2882 views
Yes, I saw this. I suppose I could respond by saying that he thinks his marriage means more than millions of childrens' lives.
Republicans - The focus is on individuals wealth
Democrats - The focus is on society's wellbeing
And the question is why cannot the Democrats see how they work against the very thing that they claim to be for?
Matt
49. Re: [OT] USA Elections
- Posted by mattlewis (admin) Nov 05, 2012
- 2881 views
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.
Some of it has been dismantled (direct election of Senators,
What's the problem with this?
It was a key part of our original federalism. I recently reread the Federalist Papers. Many of their arguments hinged on the states keeping an eye on the Federal government and preventing excesses. One key to this was the fact that half of Congress would be appointed by state legislatures.
At this point, national parties have overwhelmed almost every state or regional influence (largely due to things like improved communication and a more cohesive national culture, I would argue). The different term lengths and election cycles are still good as a balance to the House, but we've lost an important check and balance with the direct election of Senators.
Matt
50. Re: [OT] USA Elections
- Posted by mattlewis (admin) Nov 05, 2012
- 2962 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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".
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:
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our People, and eat out their substance.
Matt
51. Re: [OT] USA Elections
- Posted by jimcbrown (admin) Nov 05, 2012
- 2907 views
Yes, I saw this. I suppose I could respond by saying that he thinks his marriage means more than millions of childrens' lives.
Those types of arguments work much better against the GOP (you think my taxes mean more than the health of my kids and millions of other children).
(Naturally, this is an election that is primarily about the economy.)
Republicans - The focus is on individuals wealth
Democrats - The focus is on society's wellbeing
And the question is why cannot the Democrats see how they work against the very thing that they claim to be for?
The assumption is:
... Democrats .. work against the very thing that they claim to be for...
I do not see how this is the case. The opposite appears to be true.
How would one expect a Republican to react and respond to this:
And the question is why cannot the Republicans see how they work against the very thing that they claim to be for?
52. Re: [OT] USA Elections
- Posted by jimcbrown (admin) Nov 05, 2012
- 2870 views
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.
Some of it has been dismantled (direct election of Senators,
What's the problem with this?
It was a key part of our original federalism. I recently reread the Federalist Papers. Many of their arguments hinged on the states keeping an eye on the Federal government and preventing excesses.
Didn't the federalists lose? The Articles of Confederation were thrown out (metaphorically speaking).
One key to this was the fact that half of Congress would be appointed by state legislatures.
The different term lengths and election cycles are still good as a balance to the House, but we've lost an important check and balance with the direct election of Senators.
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.
At this point, national parties have overwhelmed almost every state or regional influence (largely due to things like improved communication and a more cohesive national culture, I would argue).
I do keep George Washington's famous warning against political parties in the back of my mind.
53. Re: [OT] USA Elections
- Posted by mattlewis (admin) Nov 05, 2012
- 2924 views
Yes, I saw this. I suppose I could respond by saying that he thinks his marriage means more than millions of childrens' lives.
Those types of arguments work much better against the GOP (you think my taxes mean more than the health of my kids and millions of other children).
(Naturally, this is an election that is primarily about the economy.)
If you think reduced choice in health care, increased cost, lowered supply are going to help all of that, then yes, those arguments work against the GOP (at least to the extent that the Progressive tendencies of the GOP are suppressed).
The assumption is:
... Democrats .. work against the very thing that they claim to be for...
I do not see how this is the case. The opposite appears to be true.
Yes, but appearances can be deceiving. Laws that are nominally aimed at a particular purpose always have unintended consequences. Often those consequences work to opposite purposes of the intention of the law.
How would one expect a Republican to react and respond to this:
And the question is why cannot the Republicans see how they work against the very thing that they claim to be for?
I would firstly agree that sometimes they do work against their self proclaimed principles. This is largely the Tea Party critique of the Republican party. And in those cases, they tend to do things that are in agreement with the stated principles of the Democratic party (and Progressives in general).
And I think Hayek nailed it with the knowledge problem in describing why central planning is inferior to a market guided by prices.
Matt
54. Re: [OT] USA Elections
- Posted by mattlewis (admin) Nov 05, 2012
- 2916 views
It was a key part of our original federalism. I recently reread the Federalist Papers. Many of their arguments hinged on the states keeping an eye on the Federal government and preventing excesses.
Didn't the federalists lose? The Articles of Confederation were thrown out (metaphorically speaking).
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.
One key to this was the fact that half of Congress would be appointed by state legislatures.
The different term lengths and election cycles are still good as a balance to the House, but we've lost an important check and balance with the direct election of Senators.
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.
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.
At this point, national parties have overwhelmed almost every state or regional influence (largely due to things like improved communication and a more cohesive national culture, I would argue).
I do keep George Washington's famous warning against political parties in the back of my mind.
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
If men were angels, no government would be necessary.
55. Re: [OT] USA Elections
- Posted by jimcbrown (admin) Nov 05, 2012
- 2928 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.
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.
Until we hit the Great Depression, sure.
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.
That's a feature, not a bug! Ask the millions of Chinese
Only millions? Perhaps you're thinking about Taiwan. I certainly agree that Taiwan has done things right.
Or perhaps Hong Kong. Again, I agree.
who have recently moved out of the middle ages.
Middle ages? China was technologically superior to almost everywhere else until the 19th century.
Ask the people who shop at places like Walmart and have a better standard of living as the result of lower prices.
Better standard of living?
http://www.dailyfinance.com/2012/08/10/how-everyday-low-prices-are-costing-americans-their-jobs/
Okay.
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.
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.
Failed enough to get him in the White House four times in a row.
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.
Not very liberating to collectively bargain for nothing.
That's the point - they were collectively bargainning to get something.
I'm not arguing that people weren't taken advantage of. But the Wagner Act was and continues to be a disaster.
How?
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".
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:
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our People, and eat out their substance.
Agreed.
56. Re: [OT] USA Elections
- Posted by jimcbrown (admin) Nov 05, 2012
- 2898 views
If you think reduced choice in health care, increased cost, lowered supply are going to help all of that
I don't see how any of this is currently true.
Yes, but appearances can be deceiving. Laws that are nominally aimed at a particular purpose always have unintended consequences. Often those consequences work to opposite purposes of the intention of the law.
I would firstly agree that sometimes they do work against their self proclaimed principles. This is largely the Tea Party critique of the Republican party. And in those cases, they tend to do things that are in agreement with the stated principles of the Democratic party (and Progressives in general).
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.)
And I think Hayek nailed it with the knowledge problem in describing why central planning is inferior to a market guided by prices.
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.
57. Re: [OT] USA Elections
- Posted by jimcbrown (admin) Nov 05, 2012
- 2877 views
It was a key part of our original federalism. I recently reread the Federalist Papers. Many of their arguments hinged on the states keeping an eye on the Federal government and preventing excesses.
Didn't the federalists lose? The Articles of Confederation were thrown out (metaphorically speaking).
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.
So the founders got it wrong the first time, admitted it, and the second time around reduced the power of the states?
I guess history does repeat itself. :)
One key to this was the fact that half of Congress would be appointed by state legislatures.
The different term lengths and election cycles are still good as a balance to the House, but we've lost an important check and balance with the direct election of Senators.
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.
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.
Agreed.
But part of the genius of this is that the state governments view things differently than private citizens.
Should they? Where else do they get their mandate from? The only time I see the politicians doing something differently from the wishes of the electorate is when special interest groups come over with lots of campaign money.
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.
I don't see this making a difference. If anything, a Senator who answers back to the state legislature should have an easier time securing re-election after doing this than the Representative - it's a lot easier to convince career politicians that such-and-such was a necessary evil and a required tradeoff for something-or-other than it is to make that same case to the public.
At this point, national parties have overwhelmed almost every state or regional influence (largely due to things like improved communication and a more cohesive national culture, I would argue).
I do keep George Washington's famous warning against political parties in the back of my mind.
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
If men were angels, no government would be necessary.
Agreed.
58. Re: [OT] USA Elections
- Posted by mattlewis (admin) Nov 05, 2012
- 2874 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.
Until we hit the Great Depression, sure.
Yeah, largely created by the crazy tarrifs, and then New Deal kept the depression going. 
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.
That's a feature, not a bug! Ask the millions of Chinese
Only millions? Perhaps you're thinking about Taiwan. I certainly agree that Taiwan has done things right.
Or perhaps Hong Kong. Again, I agree.
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.
who have recently moved out of the middle ages.
Middle ages? China was technologically superior to almost everywhere else until the 19th century.
Yes, but that was all before Mao. But I'll admit, Middle Ages was a bit of hyperbole.
Ask the people who shop at places like Walmart and have a better standard of living as the result of lower prices.
Better standard of living?
http://www.dailyfinance.com/2012/08/10/how-everyday-low-prices-are-costing-americans-their-jobs/
Okay.
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.
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.
Failed enough to get him in the White House four times in a row.
Oh, yes, hugely successful politically. But a catastrophe economically.
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.
Not very liberating to collectively bargain for nothing.
That's the point - they were collectively bargainning to get something.
When you don't have a job, and have no prospects of getting a job, with whom do you bargain?
I'm not arguing that people weren't taken advantage of. But the Wagner Act was and continues to be a disaster.
How?
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
59. Re: [OT] USA Elections
- Posted by EUWX Nov 05, 2012
- 2883 views
Ask the people who shop at places like Walmart and have a better standard of living as the result of lower prices.
Matt
Better standard of living? http://www.dailyfinance.com/2012/08/10/how-everyday-low-prices-are-costing-americans-their-jobs/
In a business trip round the world in the 90's, I was shocked to see the enormous progress the Japanese were making in their wine production - not their established "Saki" but imitation of the German and French wines. In Germany, I mentioned this to a senior German executive at a dinner where he ordered an expensive German wine. When I pointed out to him what the Japanese were doing, and that very soon the Japanese are going to put the German wineries out of business, he simple said: "So what! We will get cheaper wine of our taste, and with the money saved we will go and buy up their wineries!" Obviously, he was not concerned about loss of German jobs.
On a different note, the advent of very cheap and very accurate digital watches made in China, has not stopped the sales of exorbitantly priced Swiss watches, nor has the Swiss standard of living gone done in any way.
60. Re: [OT] USA Elections
- Posted by mattlewis (admin) Nov 05, 2012
- 2886 views
If you think reduced choice in health care, increased cost, lowered supply are going to help all of that
I don't see how any of this is currently true.
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.
Yes, but appearances can be deceiving. Laws that are nominally aimed at a particular purpose always have unintended consequences. Often those consequences work to opposite purposes of the intention of the law.
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.
I would firstly agree that sometimes they do work against their self proclaimed principles. This is largely the Tea Party critique of the Republican party. And in those cases, they tend to do things that are in agreement with the stated principles of the Democratic party (and Progressives in general).
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.)
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.
And I think Hayek nailed it with the knowledge problem in describing why central planning is inferior to a market guided by prices.
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.
A key Austrian critique of Keynesian economics is that they consider all capital to be fungible (human or physical).
Matt
61. Re: [OT] USA Elections
- Posted by mattlewis (admin) Nov 05, 2012
- 2847 views
But part of the genius of this is that the state governments view things differently than private citizens.
Should they? Where else do they get their mandate from? The only time I see the politicians doing something differently from the wishes of the electorate is when special interest groups come over with lots of campaign money.
State legislatures have their own budgetary stuff to worry about. Of course, they be interested in going along with some new way for the Feds to usurp their power, but one thing I think will never be in short supply is politicians trying to increase their power at the expense of other politicians. I'd rather set them up to be working against each other rather than against me.
It's frankly not totally different than using the different motives of suppliers and consumers to reach a mutually beneficial price.
Matt
62. Re: [OT] USA Elections
- Posted by jimcbrown (admin) Nov 05, 2012
- 2906 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.
Until we hit the Great Depression, sure.
Yeah, largely created by the crazy tarrifs, and then New Deal kept the depression going.
I dispute that. http://iws.collin.edu/kwilkison/Online1302home/20th%20Century/DepressionNewDeal.html
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.
That's a feature, not a bug! Ask the millions of Chinese
Only millions? Perhaps you're thinking about Taiwan. I certainly agree that Taiwan has done things right.
Or perhaps Hong Kong. Again, I agree.
Taiwan and Hong Kong have obviously done much better than the mainland. [/quote]
No disagreement there.
I've heard Red China's demographics described as a US worth of middle / upper class plus a billion peasants.
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
who have recently moved out of the middle ages.
Middle ages? China was technologically superior to almost everywhere else until the 19th century.
Yes, but that was all before Mao. But I'll admit, Middle Ages was a bit of hyperbole.
Ok, I'll give you that. Even the CCP admits Mao was wrong.
Ask the people who shop at places like Walmart and have a better standard of living as the result of lower prices.
Better standard of living?
http://www.dailyfinance.com/2012/08/10/how-everyday-low-prices-are-costing-americans-their-jobs/
Okay.
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.
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.
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.
Failed enough to get him in the White House four times in a row.
Oh, yes, hugely successful politically. But a catastrophe economically.
I know that I'm repeating myself here, but I dispute that. http://iws.collin.edu/kwilkison/Online1302home/20th%20Century/DepressionNewDeal.html
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.
Not very liberating to collectively bargain for nothing.
That's the point - they were collectively bargainning to get something.
When you don't have a job, and have no prospects of getting a job, with whom do you bargain?
I don't follow. Coal miners don't have jobs?
I'm not arguing that people weren't taken advantage of. But the Wagner Act was and continues to be a disaster.
How?
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
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.
63. Re: [OT] USA Elections
- Posted by jimcbrown (admin) Nov 05, 2012
- 2875 views
But part of the genius of this is that the state governments view things differently than private citizens.
Should they? Where else do they get their mandate from? The only time I see the politicians doing something differently from the wishes of the electorate is when special interest groups come over with lots of campaign money.
State legislatures have their own budgetary stuff to worry about. Of course, they be interested in going along with some new way for the Feds to usurp their power, but one thing I think will never be in short supply is politicians trying to increase their power at the expense of other politicians. I'd rather set them up to be working against each other rather than against me.
It's frankly not totally different than using the different motives of suppliers and consumers to reach a mutually beneficial price.
Matt
Hmm. I can see the merits of this line of thinking. Of course, I can see drawbacks as well (higher risk of corruption, deadlocked elections: http://web.mit.edu/cstewart/www/papers/ ).
64. Re: [OT] USA Elections
- Posted by jimcbrown (admin) Nov 05, 2012
- 2872 views
If you think reduced choice in health care, increased cost, lowered supply are going to help all of that
I don't see how any of this is currently true.
Recent changes in law have increased mandates about what health insurance must cover, which increases cost
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).
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.
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.
Yes, but appearances can be deceiving. Laws that are nominally aimed at a particular purpose always have unintended consequences. Often those consequences work to opposite purposes of the intention of the law.
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.
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.
I would firstly agree that sometimes they do work against their self proclaimed principles. This is largely the Tea Party critique of the Republican party. And in those cases, they tend to do things that are in agreement with the stated principles of the Democratic party (and Progressives in general).
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.)
Perhaps. But compromises where the taxes start immediately and the cuts come in future years are comically dishonest.
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.
And it's decades of such compromises that have created the fiscal cliff.
Uh, really? I thought it was the direct result of a narrowly avoided government shutdown.
And I think Hayek nailed it with the knowledge problem in describing why central planning is inferior to a market guided by prices.
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.
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.
65. Re: [OT] USA Elections
- Posted by mattlewis (admin) Nov 05, 2012
- 2847 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.
Until we hit the Great Depression, sure.
Yeah, largely created by the crazy tarrifs, and then New Deal kept the depression going.
I dispute that. http://iws.collin.edu/kwilkison/Online1302home/20th%20Century/DepressionNewDeal.html
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'm not saying that it shouldn't be avoided. I'm saying that it's better to have a growing, innovating economy where those people can find new things to do than to make them wards of the state. That's not to say that things like unemployment insurance are unmitigated evil. I'm just pointing out that most things meant to soften the blows end up making recovery more difficult.
I don't see the relevance of your link. I'm against the economic policy of protectionism and for free trade.
OK. You linked some stuff that was saying how it was bad that Americans were taking advantage of free trade to improve their standard of living. It's not much different than the old cliche about buggy whip makers.
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.
Failed enough to get him in the White House four times in a row.
Oh, yes, hugely successful politically. But a catastrophe economically.
I know that I'm repeating myself here, but I dispute that. http://iws.collin.edu/kwilkison/Online1302home/20th%20Century/DepressionNewDeal.html [/quote]
That link does not argue that the New Deal ended the Depression. It does argue the questionable conclusion that WWII ended it. He also says that Hoover decreased spending, which is wrong, so I'm not sure this is such a good page to link.
I don't follow. Coal miners don't have jobs?
Many didn't. My point is that no collective bargaining will fix underlying problems with the economy.
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.
Yes, the problem is that the problem with the unions aren't apparent (or dealt with) until they reach a crisis point. Furthermore, public unions are often largely responsible with funding the elections of the very people with whom they negotiate. It's true that unions didn't cause a lot of other problems, but that doesn't mean that they aren't a problem.
Matt
66. Re: [OT] USA Elections
- Posted by mattlewis (admin) Nov 05, 2012
- 2865 views
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.
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.
And it's decades of such compromises that have created the fiscal cliff.
Uh, really? I thought it was the direct result of a narrowly avoided government shutdown.
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
67. Re: [OT] USA Elections
- Posted by jimcbrown (admin) Nov 05, 2012
- 2903 views
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'm not saying that it shouldn't be avoided. I'm saying that it's better to have a growing, innovating economy where those people can find new things to do than to make them wards of the state. That's not to say that things like unemployment insurance are unmitigated evil. I'm just pointing out that most things meant to soften the blows end up making recovery more difficult.
Agreed in full.
I don't see the relevance of your link. I'm against the economic policy of protectionism and for free trade.
OK. You linked some stuff that was saying how it was bad that Americans were taking advantage of free trade to improve their standard of living. It's not much different than the old cliche about buggy whip makers.
My apologies. I can see how that was confusing. I'm for free trade, but against Walmrt keeping the wages of its employees low and bullying other companies into behaving the same way.
That link does not argue that the New Deal ended the Depression.
Agreed. From the way I read it, it suggests that if the New Deal had gone on alone for long enough, then it might have, but of course there's no way to know for sure.
It does argue the questionable conclusion that WWII ended it.
If not WWII, then what? There was a noticable boom after WWII - or are you disputing this?
He also says that Hoover decreased spending, which is wrong, so I'm not sure this is such a good page to link.
I'm certainly no expert about Hoover.
Many didn't. My point is that no collective bargaining will fix underlying problems with the economy.
Point taken.
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.
Yes, the problem is that the problem with the unions aren't apparent (or dealt with) until they reach a crisis point.
Sadly, this is true for a lot of things.
Furthermore, public unions are often largely responsible with funding the elections of the very people with whom they negotiate. It's true that unions didn't cause a lot of other problems, but that doesn't mean that they aren't a problem.
Matt
I can see the concerns here, esp. in regard to election funding. I guess I just wanted to point out that getting rid of public sector unions completely was not the right answer either. There must be a middle ground here.
68. Re: [OT] USA Elections
- Posted by jimcbrown (admin) Nov 05, 2012
- 2849 views
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.
So the middle class didn't benefit from a recovered economy? What do you suppose wealthy people do with their money? They invest it.
Or buy jet planes.
The Bush tax cuts also removed a lot of people at the lower end from paying any federal income tax.
One of the good things about it.
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.
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%?
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.
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.
69. Re: [OT] USA Elections
- Posted by mattlewis (admin) Nov 05, 2012
- 2915 views
It does argue the questionable conclusion that WWII ended it.
If not WWII, then what? There was a noticable boom after WWII - or are you disputing this?
This is a decent article. Sure, the economic statistics improved (drafting millions of men sure helps unemployment figures). But that's not the same a healthy private economy that creates wealth (war, of course, does the opposite).
Much of the worst of the New Deal went away by the time we entered the war. Of course, afterwards, we were about the only ones whose industrial capital wasn't blown up, which gave a huge advantage. But many thought that we'd have lots of economic problems without lots of additional government spending. The recovery began in earnest before any of that happened.
Furthermore, public unions are often largely responsible with funding the elections of the very people with whom they negotiate. It's true that unions didn't cause a lot of other problems, but that doesn't mean that they aren't a problem.
I can see the concerns here, esp. in regard to election funding. I guess I just wanted to point out that getting rid of public sector unions completely was not the right answer either. There must be a middle ground here.
I think a good first step is to not allow them to force members to pay dues to support more than bargaining activities. That makes sense for private unions, too.
Matt
70. Re: [OT] USA Elections
- Posted by mattlewis (admin) Nov 05, 2012
- 2870 views
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.
So the middle class didn't benefit from a recovered economy? What do you suppose wealthy people do with their money? They invest it.
Or buy jet planes.
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.
Even so - a 30% tax on the middle class, when the top earners are taxed 15%?
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.
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.
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.
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
71. Re: [OT] USA Elections
- Posted by jimcbrown (admin) Nov 05, 2012
- 2844 views
It does argue the questionable conclusion that WWII ended it.
If not WWII, then what? There was a noticable boom after WWII - or are you disputing this?
This is a decent article. Sure, the economic statistics improved (drafting millions of men sure helps unemployment figures). But that's not the same a healthy private economy that creates wealth (war, of course, does the opposite).
When the battleground is your country, sure. No battles were fought on American soil. Neutral areas (like Macau) were able to make money during the war by selling lots of weaponry, sometimes to both sides. The US didn't sell to the enemy, of course, but they did hire factories to build tanks and then bought them all.
Much of the worst of the New Deal went away by the time we entered the war. Of course, afterwards, we were about the only ones whose industrial capital wasn't blown up, which gave a huge advantage. But many thought that we'd have lots of economic problems without lots of additional government spending. The recovery began in earnest before any of that happened.
Well, it was recovering during the war effort itself. And there certainly was a lot of government spending during and after the war.
Furthermore, public unions are often largely responsible with funding the elections of the very people with whom they negotiate. It's true that unions didn't cause a lot of other problems, but that doesn't mean that they aren't a problem.
I can see the concerns here, esp. in regard to election funding. I guess I just wanted to point out that getting rid of public sector unions completely was not the right answer either. There must be a middle ground here.
I think a good first step is to not allow them to force members to pay dues to support more than bargaining activities. That makes sense for private unions, too.
Matt
I think I can live with that.
72. Re: [OT] USA Elections
- Posted by jimcbrown (admin) Nov 05, 2012
- 2833 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.
So the money .. stays at the top?
Even so - a 30% tax on the middle class, when the top earners are taxed 15%?
I guess you're referring to capital gains taxes?
Not sure now. It was something Warren Buffet said.
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
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).
73. Re: [OT] USA Elections
- Posted by mattlewis (admin) Nov 05, 2012
- 2833 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.
So the money .. stays at the top?
Sorry, I'm not following you here.
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.
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).
Yes, the political crisis was that we were spending way more than we were taking in, and were making no signs of changing course. Reasonable people can disagree about proposed changes. But sovereign debt default has a long and current history.
Matt
74. Re: [OT] USA Elections
- Posted by euphoric (admin) Nov 05, 2012
- 2875 views
Yes, I saw this. I suppose I could respond by saying that he thinks his marriage means more than millions of childrens' lives.
Republicans - The focus is on individuals wealth
Democrats - The focus is on society's wellbeing
And the question is why cannot the Democrats see how they work against the very thing that they claim to be for?
Matt
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.
75. Re: [OT] USA Elections
- Posted by jimcbrown (admin) Nov 05, 2012
- 2835 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.
So the money .. stays at the top?
Sorry, I'm not following you here.
Some of the money goes to the upper middle class workers who design and build the jet. I'd expect though that after labor and raw materials, etc, the profit ends up in the pockets of the company itself, which gets spent on other things (e.g. more jet planes, or giant fish tanks).
Tax breaks for high earners does not translate to more money for the poor.
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.
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).
Yes, the political crisis was that we were spending way more than we were taking in
No, the political crisis was that the US was, in spite of being able to pay its debt, at risk of choosing to default on that debt for political reasons.
76. Re: [OT] USA Elections
- Posted by mattlewis (admin) Nov 05, 2012
- 2806 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.
So the money .. stays at the top?
Sorry, I'm not following you here.
Some of the money goes to the upper middle class workers who design and build the jet. I'd expect though that after labor and raw materials, etc, the profit ends up in the pockets of the company itself, which gets spent on other things (e.g. more jet planes, or giant fish tanks).
Tax breaks for high earners does not translate to more money for the poor.
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
77. Re: [OT] USA Elections
- Posted by jimcbrown (admin) Nov 05, 2012
- 2829 views
Tax breaks for high earners does not translate to more money for the poor.
Well, the rich people eat at restaurants, and hire people to clean their houses and offices.
So tax breaks increases the amount of money that is spent on maid services?
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
Heh, looks like we're back to the Articles of Confederation (under which the government asked the individual states for donations but did not tax).
78. Re: [OT] USA Elections
- Posted by mattlewis (admin) Nov 05, 2012
- 2805 views
Tax breaks for high earners does not translate to more money for the poor.
Well, the rich people eat at restaurants, and hire people to clean their houses and offices.
So tax breaks increases the amount of money that is spent on maid services?
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
79. Re: [OT] USA Elections
- Posted by jimcbrown (admin) Nov 05, 2012
- 2821 views
Tax breaks for high earners does not translate to more money for the poor.
Well, the rich people eat at restaurants, and hire people to clean their houses and offices.
So tax breaks increases the amount of money that is spent on maid services?
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.
No, I agree.
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.
Agreed. The poor shouldn't be taxed.
80. Re: [OT] USA Elections
- Posted by ghaberek (admin) Nov 05, 2012
- 2817 views
all the charts
Beware the charts are not to the same scale, a low of high point on one chart doesn't correlate to the same level on another chart.
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
81. Re: [OT] USA Elections
- Posted by andi49 Nov 05, 2012
- 2861 views
Hallo
Republicans - The focus is on individuals wealth
Democrats - The focus is on society's wellbeing
I really liked to read this thread :) unfortunately my English is not good enough to say in (hopefully Google did it's best ;)
Derek, that's what it looks from the German side also.
But i live here near Ramstein Airbase (a few thousand American people are my neighbours, including some relatives)
Both canditates have one thing in common "America First".
So i think we, outside the USA, do not really have to care ...
That's just my opinion
Andreas
But i really like this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ltCIEbLMaQg
82. Re: [OT] USA Elections
- Posted by mattlewis (admin) Nov 05, 2012
- 2789 views
Both canditates have one thing in common "America First".
I would question any candidate in any country that prioritized another country over his own.
Matt
83. Re: [OT] USA Elections
- Posted by andi49 Nov 05, 2012
- 2777 views
Both canditates have one thing in common "America First".
I would question any candidate in any country that prioritized another country over his own.
Matt
Hahaha, I'am not really sure about this with some European leaders ;) ....
84. Re: [OT] USA Elections
- Posted by mattlewis (admin) Nov 05, 2012
- 2775 views
Both canditates have one thing in common "America First".
I would question any candidate in any country that prioritized another country over his own.
Hahaha, I'am not really sure about this with some European leaders ;) ....
Yes, from what I've seen, I would agree with you! Why do people vote for them?
Matt
85. Re: [OT] USA Elections
- Posted by andi49 Nov 05, 2012
- 2817 views
Both canditates have one thing in common "America First".
I would question any candidate in any country that prioritized another country over his own.
Hahaha, I'am not really sure about this with some European leaders ;) ....
Yes, from what I've seen, I would agree with you! Why do people vote for them?
Matt
That's easy;) Our little blue Planet is to small for this kind of thinking...
Just my opinion... Andreas
86. Re: [OT] USA Elections
- Posted by DerekParnell (admin) Nov 07, 2012
- 2756 views
That's easy;) Our little blue Planet is to small for this kind of thinking...
Just my opinion...
Good sense prevailed.
87. Re: [OT] USA Elections
- Posted by mattlewis (admin) Nov 07, 2012
- 2734 views
That's easy;) Our little blue Planet is to small for this kind of thinking...
Just my opinion...
Good sense prevailed.
Where?
88. Re: [OT] USA Elections
- Posted by jimcbrown (admin) Nov 07, 2012
- 2745 views
Republicans think charity at gunpoint isn't charity.
Sounds like a good reason to get rid of guns.
I agree.
I do too. We should call it what it is - not charity (which should refer only to voluntary donations) but taxation.
I prefer the free market, not Hitler.
As do I.
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."
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.
And who is going to be the arbiter of what is best for "society's wellbeing?"
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.
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
This seems inconsistent with an emphasis on corporate and state's rights.
Democrats - The focus is on self aggrandizement and spending other people's money. <- fails society every time
My Response: George W. Bush.
Liberals might have a good heart, but they're dumber than spit and end up destroying what they think they're helping.
My Response: George W. Bush.
89. Re: [OT] USA Elections
- Posted by jimcbrown (admin) Nov 07, 2012
- 2723 views
That's easy;) Our little blue Planet is to small for this kind of thinking...
Just my opinion...
Good sense prevailed.
Where?
In the USA. Today.
The nation, as you know, is at a critical point. At a time like this, we cant risk partisan bickering and political posturing. ... And we citizens also have to rise to the occasion.
90. Re: [OT] USA Elections
- Posted by mattlewis (admin) Nov 07, 2012
- 2715 views
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.
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.
Republicans - The focus is on individual liberty and the free market. <- the greatest plan for prosperity this world has ever known
This seems inconsistent with an emphasis on corporate and state's rights.
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.
Democrats - The focus is on self aggrandizement and spending other people's money. <- fails society every time
My Response: George W. Bush.
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
91. Re: [OT] USA Elections
- Posted by mattlewis (admin) Nov 07, 2012
- 2725 views
That's easy;) Our little blue Planet is to small for this kind of thinking...
Just my opinion...
Good sense prevailed.
Where?
In the USA. Today.
Oh! I hadn't noticed, but it looks like Jeff Flake won his Senate seat in Arizona. So there's one place, at least.
The nation, as you know, is at a critical point. At a time like this, we cant risk partisan bickering and political posturing. ... And we citizens also have to rise to the occasion.
What? Over? Did you say "over"? Nothing is over until we decide it is! Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no!
But yes. Silly political posturing is silly. Standing up for what you believe in is something else entirely.
Matt
92. Re: [OT] USA Elections
- Posted by jimcbrown (admin) Nov 07, 2012
- 2749 views
In fact, you've got it backwards here.
I don't think so.
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.
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.
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.
Republicans - The focus is on individual liberty and the free market. <- the greatest plan for prosperity this world has ever known
This seems inconsistent with an emphasis on corporate and state's rights.
What is a corporation but an assembly of people?
An oligarchy where a few rule the many.
What are the individual states but a government that is closer to the people than the Federal government?
True, but why should any government have inherent rights? Governments exist to serve the people.
How does taking away people's freedom to act when they (privately!) decide to act collectively enhance people's freedom to act?
It doesn't. I never said that it did. (Straw man?) I feel this is a good argument in support of unions, for example.
How does substituting a less responsive and more difficult to change form of government enhance people's chance at liberty?
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...
Democrats - The focus is on self aggrandizement and spending other people's money. <- fails society every time
My Response: George W. Bush.
Yes. It's really the Progressive nature of our government
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.
and George W Bush had a lot of 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
Of course, the Democrats have more.
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...
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.
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).
93. Re: [OT] USA Elections
- Posted by jimcbrown (admin) Nov 07, 2012
- 2733 views
But yes. Silly political posturing is silly.
Agreed.
Standing up for what you believe in is something else entirely.
Agreed. I'm certainly the last person to tell another to stop standing up for what they believe.
94. Re: [OT] USA Elections
- Posted by mattlewis (admin) Nov 07, 2012
- 2723 views
What is a corporation but an assembly of people?
An oligarchy where a few rule the many.
I...don't know how to respond to this. It makes no sense to me.
What are the individual states but a government that is closer to the people than the Federal government?
True, but why should any government have inherent rights? Governments exist to serve the people.
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?
How does taking away people's freedom to act when they (privately!) decide to act collectively enhance people's freedom to act?
It doesn't. I never said that it did. (Straw man?) I feel this is a good argument in support of unions, for example.
It's not a straw man AFAICT. But it seems to describe your view on corporations.
How does substituting a less responsive and more difficult to change form of government enhance people's chance at liberty?
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 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.
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.
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
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...
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.
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.
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).
I fully agree. I guess we just disagree on the cost/benefit of those other things. 
Matt
95. Re: [OT] USA Elections
- Posted by jimcbrown (admin) Nov 07, 2012
- 2718 views
What is a corporation but an assembly of people?
An oligarchy where a few rule the many.
I...don't know how to respond to this. It makes no sense to me.
Now we're getting somewhere.
What are the individual states but a government that is closer to the people than the Federal government?
True, but why should any government have inherent rights? Governments exist to serve the people.
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.
Agreed.
Over time, we've often ignored that fact when it was inconvenient.
It's often been ignored throughout history. This is not new.
So the correct question is really, why do should the Federal Government exercise powers for which it does not have Constitutional authority?
I think both questions are important to ask.
Why do you question "inherent rights" for State governments but not the Federal Government?
I'd question both.
How does taking away people's freedom to act when they (privately!) decide to act collectively enhance people's freedom to act?
It doesn't. I never said that it did. (Straw man?) I feel this is a good argument in support of unions, for example.
It's not a straw man AFAICT. But it seems to describe your view on corporations.
You understood this point as well as you did my point on oligarchies.
Corporations are either owned by a small group of people (the controlling shareholders) or, in cases where no single interest holds a controlling majority, the top level management (headed by the CEO) effectively controls the corporation.
(Exceptions to the rule, such as cooperatives or collectives, and mom-and-pop shops, do exist, but I'm referring to the Corporation here. Also, in management-led corporations, the shareholders can act together and vote in a new Board of Directors with the mandate to replace the management - like a democracy - but the employees can't.)
Corporations do not literally rule over their employees in the way that absolute monarchies rule over their subjects. However, they have enormous power to dictate the lives of their employees. If labor was completely fungible, this would not be the case - but it isn't.
Of course, we have organized labor to serve as balance against that. And corporations are subject to the checks of regulatory agencies of various levels of the government - from the local to the international level.
Then again, I'd like to live in a world where everyone could be absolute monarch of their own soverign state. Sealand is taken, but maybe I can have Moonland?
How does substituting a less responsive and more difficult to change form of government enhance people's chance at liberty?
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 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.
I have not argued for centralization of power. Simply, (in addition to being suspicious of attempts to grant the Federal government more power) one should be suspicious of attempts to grant state and local governments more power.
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.
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
I see similiarties here with the replacement of the Articles of Confederation with the Constitution. In both cases, an attempt to grant more control to the top was made.
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...
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.
Agreed. At first it was suppose to be a flat-out bailout, give money to the companies so they'd stay afloat. Later on, it became something that had to be paid back (so the money would return to the federal government, reducing the burden on future taxpayers). I won't say that I like TARP, but TARP is in the black.
And it was certainly done in panic - as the markets went down after the first attempt to pass TARP failed.
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.
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).
I fully agree. I guess we just disagree on the cost/benefit of those other things.
Yup.
96. Re: [OT] USA Elections
- Posted by euphoric (admin) Nov 07, 2012
- 2725 views
My Response: George W. Bush.
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.
97. Re: [OT] USA Elections
- Posted by euphoric (admin) Nov 07, 2012
- 2730 views
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.
The federal government takes your money at gunpoint all the time. They're called "taxes." Try not paying them and see what happens. (They pull the trigger if you don't pay.)
Part of the taxes the government takes from me go to entitlements = "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)..."
98. Re: [OT] USA Elections
- Posted by jimcbrown (admin) Nov 07, 2012
- 2713 views
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.
The federal government takes your money at gunpoint all the time. They're called "taxes." Try not paying them and see what happens. (They pull the trigger if you don't pay.)
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.
Part of the taxes the government takes from me go to entitlements = "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)..."
Not literally with guns, though.
99. Re: [OT] USA Elections
- Posted by mattlewis (admin) Nov 07, 2012
- 2700 views
My Response: George W. Bush.
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?
No, the real problem with him is that he is a True Republican. It's just that we don't have a True Non-Progressive major party.
Matt
100. Re: [OT] USA Elections
- Posted by mattlewis (admin) Nov 07, 2012
- 2703 views
The federal government takes your money at gunpoint all the time. They're called "taxes." Try not paying them and see what happens. (They pull the trigger if you don't pay.) ... 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 ...
You have a funny way of saying, "I agree."
Matt
101. Re: [OT] USA Elections
- Posted by jimcbrown (admin) Nov 07, 2012
- 2711 views
The federal government takes your money at gunpoint all the time. They're called "taxes." Try not paying them and see what happens. (They pull the trigger if you don't pay.) ... 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 ...
You have a funny way of saying, "I agree."
Matt
I ... agree.
102. Re: [OT] USA Elections
- Posted by jimcbrown (admin) Jan 24, 2013
- 2581 views
And I think Hayek nailed it with the knowledge problem in describing why central planning is inferior to a market guided by prices.
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.
A key Austrian critique of Keynesian economics is that they consider all capital to be fungible (human or physical).
Matt
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.
In 1963, Rothbard noted that "Sophisticated Keynesians now admit that the theory of 'underemployment equilibrium' does not really apply to the free and unhampered market: that it assumes, in fact, that wages rates are rigid downward."[38] Indeed, Keynes himself quietly said this, and his contemporary Pigou wrote an entire treatise on unemployment explaining its inextricable connection with the real wage. What many Austrians barely realize is that by 1997, even quite unsophisticated economists essentially agree with Propositions 1 and 2. Milton Friedman said as much in his 1969 AEA Presidential address. Robert Lucas' work along these lines were one of the main reasons he recently received a Nobel prize. Subtleties aside, the Mises-Rothbard view of unemployment now prevails among academic economists.[39]
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'm not too familiar with Austrian economics, but I'm not aware that it critiques the welfare state.
I've done further research on this.
Hayek does appear to have supported the welfare state.
I pointed out that even the later Hayek defended a universal basic income, a policy considered solidly welfare statist. And he even supported the UBI as a condition of democratic legitimacy, not merely as a pragmatic measure. Thus, Hayek supported what we typically call a welfare state throughout his career.
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 )
103. Re: [OT] USA Elections
- Posted by jimcbrown (admin) May 28, 2016
- 2091 views
Sorry for the very late reply, but it took me a lot longer to get up to speed on several of these topics.
If you think reduced choice in health care, increased cost, lowered supply are going to help all of that, then yes, those arguments work against the GOP (at least to the extent that the Progressive tendencies of the GOP are suppressed).
Hmm. Perhaps you are right. See from wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_insurance_mandate#Affordable_Care_Act
Romney himself said of the individual mandate: "I'm proud of what we've done. If Massachusetts succeeds in implementing it, then that will be the model for the nation."
Even the current Republican candidate for the 2016 US Presidental election supports this: http://www.weeklystandard.com/trump-i-like-obamacares-individual-mandate/article/2001172
But Trump went further even than that. He implied that those who oppose Obamacare's liberty-sapping mandate do "want people dying in the streets."
Of course, the original hopeful idea was that costs would not go up. Again, from wikipedia:
Insurance lobbyists (AHIP) in the United States advocate that the mandate is necessary to support guaranteed issue and community rating, which limit underwriting by insurers; insurers propose that the mandate is intended to prevent adverse selection by ensuring healthy individuals purchase insurance and thus broaden the risk pool.
As I understood this, the idea was that if only sickly individuals needing healthcare signed up for insurance, then to pay for all of them the premiums would become prohibitedly expensive. Meanwhile, healthy individuals would have no reason to sign up for health insurance and would not contribute payments.
However, if everyone had to sign up, then the extra costs born for insurance for the very ill would be covered from premiums by the very healthy.
Alas, this did not pan out: http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2015/07/obamacare-rates-may-be-going-significantly-2016-or-maybe-not
I'm still not exactly sure of the reasons for this, but part of the problem may be that many people still would rather pay the fine (or tax penalty) instead of getting insurance: http://www.cnbc.com/2015/07/20/irs-more-paid-obamacare-fine-than-expected.html
Still, a major play point is that the old, pre-ACA system was widely acknowledged as being broken. Some individuals with serious pre-existing conditions simply could not get health coverage. After ACA, they could. Thus any system to replace ACA would have to keep this component.
But replace it with what?
With the exception of Jeb Bush, no current Republican presidential candidate has yet advanced an Obamacare alternative. As a result, the GOP candidates have failed to elevate the most important domestic issue of the Obama presidency or demonstrate that they know how to lead the way to full repeal.
Yes, I really do think that these arguments work against the GOP.
For example, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/ted-cruz-obamacare-iowa_us_56ad66a1e4b077d4fe8e6396
Republicans have spent nearly six years promising to repeal Obamacare and, for most of that time, they have refused to acknowledge what that would mean for the millions who would lose their health insurance.
Valde, apparently less amused, kept at it. My question is, what are you going to replace it with? he said.
Eventually Cruz suggested that if Valdes brother-in-law couldnt afford health insurance premiums previously, it was probably because government regulation had driven up the price and that the best solution, at this point, was to wipe the slate clean and build a new health care system, one in which people could purchase coverage across state lines.
While Cruz never responded to Valde, ... [Clinton] noted that millions would lose their insurance if Cruz and the other Republicans have their way.
Of course, no system is perfect. If nothing else, the system has been scammed before: http://www.cnbc.com/2015/07/17/the-odd-way-hundreds-of-homeless-signed-up-for-obamacare-.html
its investigators had submitted Obamacare applications for 12 fictitious people, 11 of whom were approved for subsidized covered by HealthCare.gov
Yes, the Senate was also a check on the excess of direct democracy.
As someone who generally supports direct democracy, I'd be against this as a matter of principle.
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.
So much for having the States' government being closer to the people....
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.
Hmm. I can see the merits of this line of thinking. Of course, I can see drawbacks as well (higher risk of corruption, deadlocked elections: http://web.mit.edu/cstewart/www/papers/ ).
This was rather humoruously demonstrated in the movie Abraham Lincoln ( http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0443272/ ), in a scene where the senator Thaddeus Stevens is bribed into supporting the 13th Amendment (as the Republicans had recently won the state government there and were now in a position to replace him with one of their own - but they'll let him stay on as senator if he votes for the amendment).
Alas, not a perfect example, since that scene was fictional and never actually happened: http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2012/11/fact-checking-lincoln-lincolns-mostly-realistic-his-advisers-arent/265073/
That's a feature, not a bug! Ask the millions of Chinese
I've heard Red China's demographics described as a US worth of middle / upper class plus a billion peasants.
I think your numbers are off a bit.
Looking at http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-03-09/here-s-what-china-s-middle-class-really-earn-and-spend we have just under 16 million mainland Chinese workers who actually make enough to pay income tax (2% of 770.6 million total workers). I don't know if it makes sense to count those too poor to pay income taxes as members of the upper middle class.
China does have a lot more workers than the US, but keep in mind the average annual wage there is only $8,655 USD.
In any case, China's economic system has a lot more government interference than the US's. In fact, it's become a common refrain now: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guo_jin_min_tui
http://www.forbes.com/sites/china/2010/08/31/guo-jin-min-tui/
In any case, it can be hard to find meaningful numbers from China's economy:
http://web.archive.org/web/20110503012941/httphttp://seeingredinchina.com/2011/02/22/chinas-gdp-doesnt-mean-what-you-think-it-does/
http://web.archive.org/web/20110503013305/httphttp://seeingredinchina.com/2011/02/23/does-chinas-growth-mean-communism-works/
Communism still leads to wasteful production
One of the major problems now facing China is that govt positions are based on growing GDP, which has led to some incredibly wasteful practices.
A common trick for creating GDP is (note: each step is GDP): 1. Buy land from farmers 2. Sell land to developers 3.Tear down old houses 4. Build new condos 5. Sell condos to investors.
The issue here is nobody even has to need a condo for it to create impressive statistics for the local bureaucrats.
For these reasons, I don't think it makes sense to point to China and say, "hey, this means that America's capitalism works!"
That link does not argue that the New Deal ended the Depression. It does argue the questionable conclusion that WWII ended it. He also says that Hoover decreased spending, which is wrong, so I'm not sure this is such a good page to link.
So I've read up a little bit on this.
I would agree that President Hoover was not a supporter of austerity. He was totally fine with increasing government spending on other things. However, it appears that for most of his presidency, he supported a largely hands off policy regarding the general economy.
http://www.dhahranbritish.com/history/A9_Hoover.htm
http://www.storyboardthat.com/storyboards/richard-cleggett/hoover-vs--fdr--the-election-of-1932
Hoover believed the economy would right itself, and that government influence contradicted the capitalist economic policies in place.
He did reverse course and raised taxes and approved spending to help the poor (after realizing that such policies is what made FDR so popular), but the poltically motivated about-face was too late to save his presidency.
Tax breaks for high earners does not translate to more money for the poor.
Well, the rich people eat at restaurants, and hire people to clean their houses and offices.
So tax breaks increases the amount of money that is spent on maid services?
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.
No, I agree.
I think my point was not made very clearly here. A few years later, however, the IMF would make it much better:
http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/cat/longres.aspx?sk=42986.0
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics
A 2015 report by the International Monetary Fund argues that there is no trickle-down effect as the rich get richer:
If the income share of the top 20 percent (the rich) increases, then GDP growth actually declines over the medium term, suggesting that the benefits do not trickle down. In contrast, an increase in the income share of the bottom 20 percent (the poor) is associated with higher GDP growth.
Basically, you are advocating for trickle down economics, when the statistics we have strongly show that tricke down economics simply does not work: http://www.faireconomy.org/trickle_down_economics_four_reasons
(Yes, I know, lies, damn lies, and statistics.)
Of course, if you want to slow down or stop growth, then it seems like trickle down economics is just the way to go!
