US Politics Mega-thread - Page 1019

On April 25 2014 16:57 IgnE wrote:


How would you characterize the suppression of rights under FDR's administration?

On April 25 2014 17:08 Crushinator wrote:
I have read only some of Piketty (and none of his empirical arguments), but I tend to dislike income taxes. I would support wealth distribution on the global scale he proposes though, but I'm afraid that is not a realistic goal. Here the super wealthy do not have quite the same influence as in US/Russia for example but that can change, and I do not want it.

Addtionally, I think the human species needs large scale investments in radical innovation and infrastructure and the markets are just not doing it for us. We need vast amounts of capital channeled into this, and incomes are overtaxed already. I see the distribution of wealth as the greatest barrier to human progress, and we need something to be done about it.

On April 25 2014 17:05 Introvert wrote:


You referring to the New Deal or internment camps?

hell, maybe we should discuss the Wilson Administration using propaganda and suppressing "anti-America" voices? Another big government type.

I suppose we could debate each of the numerous federal programs the New Deal brought into being...

Put broadly, the New Deal laid the groundwork for the massive social expenses we have today, that's how blame him. Massive amounts of $$$ to begin the modern American welfare state and massively increase federal control over the country in general (he had to essentially threaten the Supreme Court to get them to go along with him). It's one thing to help people in need, it's another to set up a program that was so obviously going to be plundered later (like SS). (And used as a powerful political chip.)

It's still impressive that after that first inaugural speech he gave people still loved him. We've been going down this road far too long.... but that's off topic.

I've said this before- the effect is not necessarily immediate loss of rights (at least a tangible loss of rights), but that it's just moving you closer to totalitarianism faster. Power tends to do that, and power tends to concentrate in fewer and fewer hands. Why would you encourage it? Do you think some human imagined institution can undo human nature?

Edit again: Can you show me where is history an expansion of power didn't lead to some degree of totalitarianism? EVERYTHING leads that way. Our own country is going that way. I'm not an anarchist of any sort, there is some sort of bell-shaped curve. I just accept that the fluctuations will continue, but I advocate dampening the oscillation as much as possible.

But here we go again. Me saying inequality is not evil, that your ideas are not realizable. Meanwhile you tell me that being rich IS evil, so it's perfectly moral to redistribute, because that's the the only way men are truly free. If you have something else to say besides that, then let's hear it. If not...

On April 25 2014 17:44 IgnE wrote:


"Some degree of totalitarianism" sounds a bit like an oxymoron. So I ask you for an example and you say social security. We say tax more. You say it's unfundable while ignoring what we just said. Explain to me how social security leads to suppression of rights. You can't just say, "well it's big and costs a lot." We are talking about taxes here. Are you talking about your right not to be taxed? That's not a right.

On April 25 2014 18:01 Introvert wrote:


There is the term "soft tyranny," which IIRC comes from Tocqueville.

Of course you don't have a right to not be taxed. Taxes should be as low as possible, however. That is also freddom- to do what you will with what is yours ( I know I know, it's not mine and I'm being oppressive). I am a subscriber to the idea that welfare programs create dependents (like the war on poverty, that turned out so well! "War on X" always seems to go so well!). Of course since we can't see what would have happened without it, certainty is impossible.

IF one is going to something like SS, let it be private or each individual have an account they can pull from later. Maybe even let states run it, where the citizens of that state can decide when enough is enough.

Furthermore, it seems that with your belief that the growth capitalism requires is not eternal, one could argue that one of the core requirements for SS must, under your view, be unsustainable as well (the expanding pool of people paying into it). Your view just seems very static.

I didn't ignore what you said. You wrote a single sentence- you asked for an example, I provided one.

I don't value a program if, even 80 years after it's implementation, it leads us to the brink again and again. Old people rely on it, and paid for it their entire lives- yet the system consists entirely of IOUs. The government acknowledges that once again it's unsustainable. I'm not against things like UE help, I am against things that say "here, you are old, so we are going to help you."Sounds like a perfect tool for the government to create an entire group that is dependent upon the growth of government. Social programs will never remain static- either they will be cut by necessity, or they will increase at the demands of the majority. Either one displays the inherent flaw.

But you still didn't answer any of questions. Does it not seem more likely than not that the government will in time violate any promises it made in the search for power?

On April 25 2014 18:12 IgnE wrote:


You "subscribe" to the view that welfare programs create dependents. I don't really care what pre-thought ideology you picked up from other conservatives.

You prefer a social security relegated to the states. This is some weird state fetishism that isn't apropos the discussion and that only libertarian Americans seem to fixate on. Government is government. Maybe we should break up the United States into smaller entities. We could have a grab bag of government sizes. The Northeastern United States of America. The Federal Republic of Hawaii.

"One could argue that one of the core requirements of SS must, under your view, be unsustainable as well." No one couldn't.

What brink are you talking about? Social security is not in danger of going belly up. The argument is to tax more anyway. Please stay on point here. We are talking about the suppression of rights under FDR that led to totalitarianism, not the slashed tax rates that are putting the government in debt.

What specifically are you talking about? The government threatening to give old people cookies? To tax more? The only thing you are saying here is that you don't want to pay taxes, and you don't think they are sustainable without taxes (which is obvious).

On April 25 2014 18:26 Introvert wrote:


I'm just matching the amount of citations so far presented- zero. Your have your own ideology (from what I gather) which has the convenient fact that it's never been tested.

It is, of course, a fact that SS is an untouchable program. That is a fact- it has created an entire group of people that essentially are bribed using social security. Same with every other program. I know you view it different, but it DOES create dependents. If it didn't, we wouldn't wait until the last minute to fix it every time. It's not in danger because of this dependence. This dependence is unhealthy for society IMO. I have just as much a right to think that as you do to believe that wealth is evil. Different values and all that.

I like states because they invite freedom. If you don't like what is going on, you can LEAVE. I know in your grand global experiment everyone would be the same- so why leave anywhere for somewhere else? But let's operate in the here and now.

Also, when one state fails, it doesn't take the entire country with it.

As for FDR, I said in my original post that big government eventually leads to totalitarianism. Not that it was immediate. So if we ignore the other unconstitutional programs that he implemented (the effects of which remain and are quite numerous), I am going to leave my statement exactly as I first presented it.

my point is these programs in particular create dependents that rely more and more on central authority, surrendering their own autonomy. This doesn't just stop at some random point. This is true from the NSA to social programs. Those in power work to increase that power. So for Heaven's sake don't GIVE it to them!

On April 25 2014 18:53 IgnE wrote:


Wait so I ask a question that you don't answer and I'm the one who is supposed to provide "citations"?

So you think that old people on social security are bribed to not work? Or bribed to not save money of their own accord? Or what? What are they bribed to be doing that is so horrible? Instead we should let old people die in poverty?

Please explain to me your theory of how old people rely more and more on central authority as they get their social security checks in the mail. Maybe your theory is that we should encourage everyone to save more money, stay out of debt, and live prosperously on their Walmart wages. What would jonny say if the savings rate suddenly went up because everyone's benefits stopped? How would the economy look?

Or maybe your theory is that everyone should be happy to take whatever job they can get at whatever the iron law of wages dictates their wages should be?

On April 25 2014 18:58 IgnE wrote:
Why is expanding government (by letting it distribute greater tax revenue), which is accountable to the people, necessarily bad, but expanding power to large corporations and vast capital holders (to the detriment and at the expense of everyone else), accountable only to themselves, a great good? If you accept Piketty's well-argued thesis that capital accumulation is a natural result of the current economic system, how does your view account for letting the better part of humanity live in relative squalor while a tiny majority concentrates capital and power in its hands?

What makes a person dependent? Need? How does alleviating a need make a person more dependent than they were before that need was eliminated? It's a ludicrous argument.

On April 25 2014 16:31 Danglars wrote:
It's hard to know where you agree with Piketty and where you might diverge. You on board with his characterization of the millions of petits rentiers? You also agree with a proposed fix to those earning more than 500k/1mil, to put an end to such incomes (book quote)? How about that middling (I laugh as I type this) 50-60% rate on 200k types, or the annual wealth tax up to 10%? The first thing that comes to mind when I read his fixes his analysis is that this is a man longing for utopia. In his rewriting of the Soviet experiment, I see some wishful thinking for throwing off the chains of the common man ... without somehow substituting more and/or worse.

On April 25 2014 10:13 Wolfstan wrote:
I think living off assets you own without having to work is admirable. I also think living off social programs without having to work because you are poor, lazy, sick or old is deplorable. Why is stealing from the rich and redistributing it to the poor an acceptable goal because "equality"?

On April 25 2014 19:29 Introvert wrote:


Hopefully I can answer this in one final post for the night.

I love how for some reason the left think that the right just wants old people dying everywhere, and that every program they propose will stop it. I reject the proposition that without social security and medicare old people would be dying left and right. Social Security costs more and more. It's the failure we are delaying, because for now, we can. Just like the massive debt. When you say tax more, I say that the government will just spend more, until one day they just take what they need.

I say let those people decide when they were younger what to do with their money, maybe they will save it themselves! If not, their choice. No reason someone making 50k needs to pay into the system when they can be responsible later for their own actions. Or leave it to the states, so the people decide to what extent they use and potentially break these programs. It would also remove power from the federal leviathan, creating less opportunity for government oppression (if you do feel oppressed in a state, leave!).

I had a longer post written out but I scrapped it. Suffice it to say that I do not believe that the only or best solution for poverty, etc is big government programs to be held over the heads of the people. I believe it ends in despotism. I accept that poverty and inequality will always exist, so I do not think it of upmost, imperative importance to do away with it at such cost. Never mind the fact that these programs really aren't horribly effective, if the War on Poverty and Great Society has taught us anything (though I suppose SS has had an effect). Moreover, people have rights that are first and foremost. But we've had that discussion. I view rights, generally speaking, as equal. You value some way more heavily because you think that the others are either antithetical to actual justice, or aren't rights at all. But that's a difference of perspective.

So my actual "solution"- leave it to the smallest entity possible. A state or private setup of some sort.





Because the expanding government becomes less and less accountable to the people, that's why.

For corporations- I think the power of the corporation would be greatly reduced if the government weren't so big that they could pass all these laws (written by said corporations) in the first place. I am not in favor of no laws over economics (I'm not a libertarian) but they should be as small as possible, for the greatest dampening effect possible. I think if we encourage the ability to move from one "class" to the one above it, then inequality is fine. What concerns me is static and/or artificial "inequality" of either corporate or governmental power when those two are intertwined or government by itself , where those in charge can't be removed by any force- market or otherwise. And yes, I do agree with the Citizen's United decision. I don't make corporations to be angels OR demons.

On April 25 2014 20:19 oneofthem wrote:
however, this law of the jungle mentality has not produced great results. it's a self destructive equilibrium throughout human society, as high concentration of power always destroys productive forces within society. in short, we cannot continue to follow a caveman level logic in relation to inequality, a logic that would paint the situation as successful and failed individuals and ignore the systemic forces.

On April 25 2014 21:50 Boblion wrote:

In the jungle there are no beggars and no social welfare.
Jungle this, jungle that, if you want to see the real jungle go to Africa. Now that i think about it they don't have social welfare. Coincidence ? I DONT THINK SO.

Just be an honest person and admit that you just want more redistribution.

Oregon intends to surrender its dysfunctional Obamacare exchange to the Obama administration, which is making plans to take over the state's insurance marketplace, sources familiar with the matter confirmed.

The state-based exchange, Cover Oregon, was such a disaster that -- despite spending millions of dollars trying to make it work -- not a single resident was able to sign up online during the first open-enrollment period from Oct. 1, 2013 to March 31, 2014. Instead, thousands signed up by paper or phone.

On Thursday, Oregon's top information-technology official recommended to a 16-member advisory board that the state relinquish its broken insurance exchange, according to The Oregonian. The Obama administration expects the full exchange panel to approve the recommendation.

Once the decision is final, the Center For Medicare and Medicaid Services will be tasked with signing up Oregonians -- along with residents of most states -- during the next enrollment period, which begins Nov. 15, 2014.

On April 25 2014 22:14 Boblion wrote:
I don't really get what you mean by "in form of wealth".

Things like food stamps, free schools etc... for poor people aren't redistribution "in form of wealth" already ?
What else do you want ?

On April 25 2014 22:37 oneofthem wrote:

taxing wealth is simply taxing hoarded assets. this is not complicated.

as for giving wealth to people, it'll probably be a combination of education and high amount of early childhood support, and a social stakes program to help young adults have long term investment goals that grow with the economy.