US Politics Mega-thread - Page 1020

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!).

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.

On April 26 2014 01:18 Falling wrote:

I don't particularly understand this point. I don't know how it was in the US, but in Canada, that's how things were prior to the Canadian Pension Plan, and it wasn't sufficient. People already were saving and doing what they wanted with their money and there was systematic poverty. Particularly as society moved from connected communities to transient populations that were far more isolated. But I don't see how going back to that would solve the problem if that was situation that led to social insurance and the like to begin with.

Furthermore, most of the time that provinces ran their own programs, the federal government had to step in and take over anyways once the provinces ran up huge debts. (Granted Quebec continues to run their QPP.)

On April 26 2014 01:32 Boblion wrote:

Yayaya not complicated. Then what are you waiting to invade all those shitty tax heavens ?
If they really cared about tax evasion and "hoarded assets" they would have bombed all those tiny islands instead of Iraq. And please don't tell me that FATCA will solve the problem plz.

Meanwhile Kerry & Obama are giving free TOWs to the Syrian insurgents lol.

Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy claimed during a Friday interview on CNN that he didn’t understand the bipartisan outrage over his recent comments suggesting the "Negro people" were “better off” as slaves, and blamed the perception that he's racist on Martin Luther King Jr. for not finishing “his job.”

"I took this boot off so I wouldn’t put my foot in my mouth with the boot on," Bundy said. "Let me see if I can say something. Maybe I sinned, and maybe I need to ask forgiveness, and maybe I don't know what I actually said, but when you talk about prejudice, we're talking about not being able to exercise what we think.

“If I say 'Negro' or 'black boy' or 'slave,' if those people cannot take those kind of words and not be [offended], then Martin Luther King hasn't got his job done yet," he added. "We need to get over this prejudice stuff."

On April 26 2014 03:15 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Yeehaw!



Source

North Dakota this week confirmed the discovery of a new radioactive dump of waste from oil drilling. And separately, a company hired to clean up similar waste found in February at another location said it had removed more than double the amount of radioactive material originally estimated to be there.

The twin disclosures highlight a growing problem from North Dakota's booming Bakken oil development, and for other oil and gas operations across the country: the illegal disposal of radioactive material from drilling sites.

Rocks deep in the earth contain naturally radioactive material, and when those rocks are drilled for oil and gas the drilling equipment and water can become slightly irradiated. As more drilling occurs across the nation, experts warn of a brewing crisis of leftover radioactive materials.

Health officials have said that radioactive filter socks — tubular nets that strain liquids during the oil production process — and other waste are increasingly being found along roadsides, in abandoned buildings or in commercial trash bins, sometimes those of competing oil companies.

The Bakken shale formation, one of the United States’ most productive oil fields, is not the only area experiencing the problem. Environmentalists say that anywhere deep oil or gas drilling is taking place — especially in new hydraulic fracturing or "fracking" boomtowns in places such as Pennsylvania and East Texas — communities are struggling to deal with an ever-increasing amount of low-level radioactive waste.

In North Dakota, state Environmental Health Chief Dave Glatt said investigators are examining the new waste site north of Crosby, a town about 5 miles from the Canadian border. The site was discovered late last week by Divide County Emergency Manager Jody Gunlock and confirmed by the state on Thursday.

On April 26 2014 03:15 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Yeehaw!



Source

On April 25 2014 18:01 Introvert wrote:


There is the term "soft tyranny," which IIRC comes from Tocqueville. But strictly speaking you are right.

Of course you don't have a right to not be taxed. Taxes should be as low as possible, however. That is also freedom- 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 more cash 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 my questions. Does it not seem more likely than otherwise that the government will in time violate any promises it made in the search for power?

For the first time since Duke Energy’s defunct Eden, N.C., coal plant leaked thousands of gallons of coal ash into the Dan River nearly three months ago, the public is getting a look at how the nation’s largest electric utility company may change its containment of coal ash, a substance environmentalists say is one of the biggest threats to rivers and groundwater across the country.

This week Duke Energy’s North Carolina President Paul Newton gave a detailed presentation to state officials at a public meeting, saying that Duke was committed to reassessing how it manages coal ash at its 33 storage ponds in North Carolina. But Newton warned that any changes to its current management practices would come with a lengthy timeline and a hefty price tag of up to $10 billion.

Coal ash, a waste product of coal-fired power plants, is essentially unregulated at the federal level despite containing several compounds that can be harmful to human health if ingested in sufficient quantities. North Carolina has allowed Duke to keep the ash in large, unlined earthen pits, many of which sit next to rivers. Coal ash has leaked into rivers and groundwater several times in the last few years. And environmentalists say even if the ponds don’t leak, they still seep toxic fluids into surrounding land.

Duke’s spill into the Dan River in February — which left 70 miles of the waterway a “toxic soup”, according to Amy Adams of environmental group Appalachian Voices — struck a chord with area residents and environmental activists, who took the opportunity to push North Carolina for tighter regulation.

But it’s unclear how far the state will go to require Duke to change its ways. North Carolina’s Department of Natural Resources is under investigation by the U.S. Justice Department for its close ties with Duke, and the state’s Environmental Management Commission sided with Duke in a court case earlier this month by appealing a judge’s decision that would have let the commission better regulate coal ash.

The feds have been after Rep. Michael Grimm (R-NY) for a long time. Now they're ready to pounce.

Grimm's attorney confirmed to TPM on Friday that federal prosecutors are preparing to bring criminal charges against the Staten Island Congressman. According to CNN, the charges could come as soon as next week.

Grimm, a former FBI agent, has been under federal investigation for more than two years, during which time several of his associates have been snared by prosecutors. In the summer of 2012, an Israeli citizen who helped Grimm raise money for his 2010 congressional campaign was arrested by the FBI for lying on immigration documents. In January, a Texas woman accused of using straw donors to illegally funnel $10,000 to Grimm's campaign was reportedly in plea deal negotiations with federal prosecutors.

Grimm, who has a reputation for hot-headed outbursts, asserted "his innocence of any wrongdoing" in a statement issued by his lawyer.

“After more than two years of investigation plagued by malicious leaks, violations of grand jury secrecy, and strong-arm tactics, the U.S. Attorney’s Office has disclosed its intent to file criminal charges against Congressman Grimm," attorney William McGinley said in a statement obtained by TPM. "We are disappointed by the government's decision, but hardly surprised. From the beginning, the government has pursued a politically driven vendetta against Congressman Grimm and not an independent search for the truth. Congressman Grimm asserts his innocence of any wrongdoing. When the dust settles, he will be vindicated."

McGinley said Grimm will continue to serve in Congress "with the same dedication and tenacity that has characterized his lifetime of public service as a Member of Congress, Marine Corps combat veteran, and decorated FBI Special Agent.”

On April 25 2014 20:44 IgnE wrote:


You don't recognize rights, "generally speaking," as being equal. You recognize the right for people to do whatever they want with the money they happen to be in possession of foremost. That is the point you keep returning to. You don't recognize people's rights to adequate food, shelter, medical care, information, and work on anything approaching the level of people's right to their money; you've said as much when you want to scrap all federal redistribution plans.

I find it amusing that you focus on this largely arbitrary distinction between "government" and "civilian" when talking about expansion of "government" power, but then make a reference to some kind of artificial inequality "that can't be removed by any force - market or otherwise." You don't seem to have read or understood Piketty's argument, and seem to hold the belief that the problems of inequality will resolve themselves if we just remove "government." But there is no singular entity, no government monster that accrues power to itself. Who do you think is determining government policy? Who do you think is pushing through bills? "Government?" The senators and congressmen are trying to pass laws that increase their own wealth and power? Corporations, driven by the logic of capital, are the ones who are driving these things. Capital is the thing accumulating power, not government. Radically free markets with minimal government tend toward monopoly, not some prosperous American Dream utopia where everyone works hard and earns according to their individual merit. Your talk of the government boogeyman sounds right out of some Red Scare pamphlet. I know you think you are harkening back to our blessed founding fathers, but just because you can twist the words of some rich dead white dudes, writing in a time of labor scarcity with unlimited resources and land that were free for the taking (after some totally justified "Indian Removal" of course) into a libertarian screed doesn't mean that you aren't championing a sure-fire way to usher in oligarchy.

You want to talk about government growth leading to totalitarianism? Let's focus on the subsidies and tax breaks given to the telecomms industry to update their networks, while they laugh all the way to the bank, fall further and further behind in actually updating any infrastructure, and convince consumers that they need to pay more than the outrageous monopoly rates they are already charging for faster speeds. Let's focus on the massive spending of the military-industrial complex, the commercial empire that has grown fat off of contracts paid for with tax payer money. Let's focus on the subsidies to the energy industry. Let's focus on the greatest social ecological disaster of this century, the destruction of privacy through the collusion of Facebook, Google, and the NSA.

But instead, you'd rather focus on social security and SNAP benefits. The heads of those agencies are really growing into fat cats aren't they? Raising taxes to provide for redistribution to those in our population who have dropped out of the workforce, are unemployed, or are working multiple part time jobs just to scrape by with groceries from Walmart is just too much for you to handle. Serious suppression of our rights and liberties with that right? Raising taxes on corporations is a step too far. Your serious misjudgment of how the economy operates, how power is accumulated, and how the bottom 50% of our society get by has led you to demonize the wrong things in the name of some misconceived liberties. You would tear down the greater part of society in the name of freedom, only to replace it with the tyranny of oligarchs, who run their own security, know everything about you anyway, and make all the decisions for you because they are the only ones who can and will pay you.

my 2 minute diagnosis of introvert's problem.

having identified government social program as not addressing the disease and merely gesturing towards the symptom, the following solution is offered up.
"So my actual "solution"- leave it to the smallest entity possible. A state or private setup of some sort. "

we know this merely shows the same, a starting position based on the american libertarian "state of nature" scenario in which small, midwestern property owners are set up against monolithic federal government. this is a historically pregnant narrative/ideology and whatever, no need to address it now.

the point is this solution introvert offered up runs counter to the actual problem with big government social programs. it's not that they are big that they fail. it is that they are way way not radical enough. the problem is not really some people have less money, it's that they have less means of making money. now this is in a way what the right says, but the right also says this is because people are lazy/incapable etc. we can recognize culture playing a great role in the downfall of certain communities, but too often those communities are characterized by what the culture is like now, not when they were actually destroyed fifty years ago. in short, bad culture is generated from actual bad policy and injustice decades ago and a continued and festering problem. you think people who first moved into housing projects are immediately hoodlums? no. they were actual hard working people who were not allowed to have families live together because of policy restrictions designed as punitive. people can watch youtube and laugh at detroit videos all they want, but those videos also do not show how environment and history shape culture. again, this is not an individual level problem unless you think certain groups of people are radically worse than others, the only way for this kind of individual level theory to explain the current observation.

anyway, the problem with a minimalist solution is that it does not recognize the source of the problem, whcih is basically radically different level of social resources ranging from wealth to knowledge/upbringing from parents to social connections. now this is obviously recognized by elites otherwise they would not be so keen to associate with each other to reinforce these advantages that are so important. in a way yes, we need more people to actually live like the rich, not in the consumption department but in terms of productivity and competitiveness with respect to getting the right resources. google for something like the Capabilities Approach. This is the most up to date version of the Left's official social doctrine. you can also read rawls and come to the same conclusion but why start out for home from left field when you can start from 3rd base?

now whether a solution that empowers people rather than give handouts is more minimalist can be taken both ways. in terms of what kind of policy is required to achieve the result, then no it's not more minimalist. however, the former solution is minimalist in the sense of ultimately trying to restore capabilities currently disabled.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


then we have this Holy Trinity level of metaphysics with the citizen's united creation of corporation political rights. let's just say if you are more afraid of big government than big corporation, the government must be a lot more industrious and capable than we thought. you can't have it both ways. either government is grossly incompetent or they are ruthlessly efficient at this domination business that apparently is their secret agenda.

Furthermore, most of the time that provinces ran their own programs, the federal government had to step in and take over anyways once the provinces ran up huge debts. (Granted Quebec continues to run their QPP.)

Well you can imagine what people who think like that say about what to do with those elderly/disabled folks who for one reason or another don't have any/enough money to get by in their retirement years... Or people who lose their savings in his imaginary state-ran SS when a state goes bankrupt (which is generally born of indescribable ignorance)

On April 26 2014 09:28 IgnE wrote:
the conservatives' repeated assertions that everyone else is gunning for utopia by advocating for distribution is just farcical at this point. trying to make people's lives better in small measure through reasonable taxation and redistribution is a far cry from utopia

@introvert
you keep saying that redistribution isn't feasible, that perhaps nothing is feasible. I don't know what planet you are living on but it would serve you if you stopped repeating this old conservatives' tale. there is nothing preventing redistribution from working as intended, in fact it is working as intended throughout the US, europe, and elsewhere.

On April 26 2014 05:54 Danglars wrote:

Over [the citizens] stands an immense, protective power which is alone responsible for securing their enjoyment and watching over their fate. That power is

absolute, thoughtful of detail, orderly, provident, and gentle.

It would resemble parental authority if, father like, it tried to prepare its charges for a man's life

but on the contrary, it only tries to keep them in perpetual childhood ...

Why should it not entirely relieve them from the trouble of thinking and all the cares of living? Thus it daily makes the exercise of free choices less useful and rarer, restricts the activity of free will within a narrower compass, and little by little robs each citizen of the proper use of his own faculties.

Equality has prepared men for all this, predisposing them to endure it and often even regard it as beneficial

de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, formatting and emphasis mine. That's what we're referring to with soft tyranny, which on its face might seem oxymoronic.

On April 26 2014 12:26 IgnE wrote:


It's ironic that you turn to de Tocqueville for your defense of inequality when his introductory chapter says "Amongst the novel objects that attracted my attention during my stay in the United States, nothing struck me more forcibly than the general equality of conditions." The point being that what you think he's talking about and what he is actually talking about are based in two vastly different subjective contextual experiences. Do I need to root through his classic work for two or three example passages that would seemingly be opposed to the one you selectively quoted?

But it’s unclear how far the state will go to require Duke to change its ways. North Carolina’s Department of Natural Resources is under investigation by the U.S. Justice Department for its close ties with Duke, and the state’s Environmental Management Commission sided with Duke in a court case earlier this month by appealing a judge’s decision that would have let the commission better regulate coal ash.