US Politics Mega-thread - Page 267

On May 30 2013 21:13 coverpunch wrote:

I would add to this point that subsidizing higher education is a direct transfer of wealth to the future rich. The irony is that living in a high-tax system where we all agree higher education is a necessary (but not sufficient) condition for future wealth means that you are entrenching wealth even further by allowing the rich to transfer wealth to future generations of wealthy individuals, who the current rich and powerful are likely to ensure are their own children.

EDIT: I will conclude that education is a symptom but not a cause for why the United States is so much more unequal than the rest of the OECD.

On May 30 2013 21:29 coverpunch wrote:

You want to be very careful making statements like this. In fact, stifling potential is the norm for our species and unleashing our productive capacities through ambitious economic activity is the exception. You look at any period of history before the advent of free markets and at countries that deviate away from economic freedoms and you see stifled potential and economies grinding to a halt all the time. (EDIT: Although economic freedom is a necessary but not sufficient condition for a prosperous, free country. You can have capitalist countries that are not prosperous. But you cannot have a country with no capitalism that is prosperous.)

Will economic activity grind to a halt in the United States because the capital gains tax rate rises from 15% to 35%? No. But the operative question is whether increased tax revenue will exceed the discouragement to potential investors. Democrats insist yes, it will bring in a lot of tax revenue and more. Republicans say it won't bring in as much tax revenue and it will discourage markets more than projections are showing.

I think Republicans severely exaggerate the problems such policies will cause although they're not entirely incorrect, and it's fine to point that out. But you've been led to a line that is not defensible.

On May 30 2013 23:31 coverpunch wrote:

I'm saying that a high-tax system with a premium on degrees leads to a system where access to elite degrees gets limited to the people who are currently paying most of the taxes.

IMO this has less to do with de facto education. The simple fact is that technology has enabled access to elite educations for anyone who is motivated enough to look. Schools like MIT and Stanford present all the lectures in podcast form with homeworks and tests that actual students do. If you want it, it's out there.

But we live in a society that increasingly cares less about education and more about degrees. Everyone who works in an office has stories of knowing someone who has tremendous academic pedigree who is, in reality, a blithering idiot. But we still operate mostly under the assumption that a person who graduated from Harvard is smarter and more capable than a person who graduated from Arizona State (sorry). Hell, we're having this entire discussion because we operate under the assumption that a college educated person has more skills and knowledge than a person who did not.

In conclusion, I'm not implying at all that government should not subsidize anyone's education. But it needs to be subsidized only to support people who have an appropriate need to go to university but may not have the means. I think to blindly support a blanket subsidy for anyone to go to college whether they plan to study or spend four years drinking is ridiculous.

On May 30 2013 10:42 Wegandi wrote:


My argument is an axiomatic one. He is going to have to show through reason and logic where I've made a mistake. It is the same thing with minimum wage laws, or price controls when it comes to rent. These are economic laws. Never mind the fact he is wrong and Mass. does not have the highest unemployment bene's (that would be Hawaii). There are a lot of factors that play into unemployment and simply going - X state has this bene's and X unemployment rate is entirely farcical. How you can exclude the thousands of other factors, or simply isolate one factor is quite frankly impossible. We know by logic that unemployment benefits sustains unemployment levels until such time as it runs out (if you haven't noticed, most people on unemployment bene's don't start looking for a job until a few weeks out from when UI ends), just as minimum wage laws create unemployment by raising wage rates above market levels.

Now you can argue whether that is good or bad, but the fact is these things do cause and sustain unemployment. Arguing the opposite...well, is like arguing gravity does not exist.

On May 31 2013 00:51 Sermokala wrote:
Libertarians lost all their credibility when they left the republican party. They have zero relevance in us politics and anyone telling you different is lieing to you. Ron paul has less elect-ability then if bush was able to run again for president. Rand paul should be happy if hes ever even considered for the vice presidency. The two party system isn't going away for better or for worse and anyone not in one of those 2 parties should.

Does someone know a good book discussing the pros and cons of a 2 party system and the multi party system found in other countries?

On May 31 2013 00:51 Sermokala wrote:
Libertarians lost all their credibility when they left the republican party. They have zero relevance in us politics and anyone telling you different is lieing to you. Ron paul has less elect-ability then if bush was able to run again for president. Rand paul should be happy if hes ever even considered for the vice presidency. The two party system isn't going away for better or for worse and anyone not in one of those 2 parties should.

Does someone know a good book discussing the pros and cons of a 2 party system and the multi party system found in other countries?

A third letter similar to the ricin-laced letters that were sent to New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and his pro-gun control outfit Mayors Against Illegal Guns was also addressed to President Barack Obama, NBC4 New York reported Thursday.

The report cited "law enforcement sources," who said the letter to Obama did not reach the White House and is currently being tested for ricin. It arrived Thursday at an off-site facility, according to NBC4.

The content of the letter mirrored the message in the Bloomberg letters, which warned "what's in this letter is nothing compared to what I've got planned for you."

Does someone know a good book discussing the pros and cons of a 2 party system and the multi party system found in other countries?

On May 30 2013 22:08 TheTenthDoc wrote:


I'm curious, what do you think of Bennett's cost/benefit analysis? According to him only ~150 colleges are actually a net benefit for a student in the current market (ignoring major selections).but I don't really want to buy his book. His logic seemed fairly sound.

It seems like the benefits of "higher" higher education in the United States are keeping pace with costs, but "lower" higher education hasn't been keeping up.

On May 31 2013 02:26 JonnyBNoHo wrote:

Haven't read it myself so I don't know why he places the cutoff ~150 colleges. From poking around he uses the Payscale rankings which show a net benefit quite far down the list (800 something).

On May 31 2013 02:43 TheTenthDoc wrote:


I think he does a opportunity cost analysis alongside the payscale ratings. At least that's what it sounded like from the interviews I saw popping up.

On May 31 2013 02:43 TheTenthDoc wrote:


I think he does a opportunity cost analysis alongside the payscale ratings. At least that's what it sounded like from the interviews I saw popping up.

On May 31 2013 03:12 aksfjh wrote:

Could be possible he's using the current economy as the (new) norm, so that would skew the benefit down a LOT. Debt burden has grown while job prospects have diminished, so there's a double whammy against ROI.

Then, of course, there is always the claim that colleges boost their employment and pay claims by lumping in graduates that are working outside their field.

On Tuesday, Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper signed several historic measures to implement marijuana legalization in the state, establishing Colorado as the world's first legal, regulated and taxed marijuana market for adults.

Hickenlooper, a vocal opponent of marijuana legalization who said that "Colorado is known for many great things, marijuana should not be one of them," signed the first bills in history to establish a legal marijuana market as well as starting the development of a regulatory framework for the cultivation, distribution, and processing of industrial hemp.

"Recreational marijuana really is new territory," Hickenlooper said at Tuesday's signing. And although the governor has expressed opposition to marijuana legalization in the past, he called today's pot bills "common sense," the AP's Kristen Wyatt reported.

Jack Finlaw, Hickenlooper's chief legal counsel, said although they were opposed to marijuana legalization, "the will of the voters needed to be implemented."

"We applaud Gov. Hickenlooper for the initiative he has taken to ensure the world's first legal marijuana market for adults will entail a robust and comprehensive regulatory system" said Mason Tvert, director of communications for the Marijuana Policy Project, who served as an official proponent of Amendment 64 and co-director of the campaign in Colorado. "This marks another major milestone in the process of making the much-needed transition from a failed policy of marijuana prohibition to a more sensible system of regulation."

Even as the Boy Scouts of America moves to allow gay youths to join its troops, the California Senate on Wednesday passed a bill that would revoke the organization's nonprofit status because it does not permit the participation of openly gay adults.

"They are out of line with the values of California and should be ineligible for a tax benefit paid for by all Californians," Sen. Ricardo Lara, D-Bell Gardens, said as he introduced his bill. "SB 323 brings our laws into line with our values."

The measure calls for revoking the tax-exempt status of youth groups that discriminate against participants on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identification.

While the text of the bill does not specifically mention the Boy Scouts, analyses of the legislation and discussion among senators Wednesday made clear that it targets the organization.

"We've given the Boy Scouts ample time to solve their discrimination problem. And they've chosen a path that still leads to discrimination," Lara said of the organization's recent vote to allow participation by gay youths.

On May 31 2013 03:28 JonnyBNoHo wrote:

Depends how he uses the numbers. It's really easy for something like that to not be apples to apples.

The new norm might not change things much. Unemployment hits harder on those without degrees.

On May 31 2013 03:53 aksfjh wrote:

Depressed wages hit everybody though. As long as there are a lot of unemployed, those college degrees will only allow them to bargain for a job, and not increased compensation.

On May 31 2013 01:36 BioNova wrote:


What credibility do the Republicans have? You can stand with Rand, or Graham/McCains. The entire point of my rant is you cannot blame just about any of 'our' problems as a country on Libs. Try hard.

On May 31 2013 05:45 koreasilver wrote:
I haven't been paying attention to US politics for a while but can someone explain to me what happened and why/how the libertarians left the Republicans? What in the world are they doing then?

On May 31 2013 05:45 koreasilver wrote:
I haven't been paying attention to US politics for a while but can someone explain to me what happened and why/how the libertarians left the Republicans? What in the world are they doing then?

The Libertarian Party is an American third party that reflects the ideas of libertarianism. The Libertarian Party was formed in Westminster, Colorado, in the home of David Nolan on December 11, 1971.[7] The founding of the party was prompted in part due to concerns about the Vietnam War, conscription, and the end of the Gold Standard.[8] Although there is not an explicitly-labeled "left" or "right" designation of the party, many members, such as Libertarian Party presidential candidate Gary Johnson, say they are more socially liberal than the Democrats, but more fiscally conservative than the Republicans.[9]

But probably the most important reason for the collapse of the Old Right was not external blows, but the loss of its own soul and principles. As the older intellectual and political leaders died or retired, a powerful new force arose in 1955 to fill that vacuum. This new force – people grouped around National Review – set out to transform the nature of the American Right, and they succeeded brilliantly. Headed by a brace of shrewd ex-Communists, steeped in Marxist-Leninist cadre organizing tactics, allied to youthful Eastern seaboard Catholics, the New Right determined to crush isolationism, and to remold the right-wing into a crusade to crush Communism all over the world, and particularly in the Soviet Union.

At first, NR had a patina of individualism, in order to capture the considerable amount of Old Right libertarian sentiment and wed it to a policy of global war. The Buckley machine founded Young Americans for Freedom as its youthful political arm. The Intercollegiate Society of Individualists for libertarian-minded student intellectuals, and headed by NR publisher Bill Rusher, moved to capture the College Young Republicans, then the YRs nationally, and finally moved to dominate the Republican Party with the Goldwater movement.

Early in this process, moreover, National Review, in the late 1950s and early 1960s, moved quickly to read out of the New Right, or "conservative" movement, all "extremists" who would prove an embarrassment in its march to power. And so, in a series of purges, the Birch Society, the Randians, and the libertarians (those who remained isolationists) were ousted from the right wing. NR and the New Right were ready to achieve power, which they eventually would attain with the Reagan administration. But the point is that the ideological transformation – into a warmongering and vaguely theocratic movement – was achieved by the early 1960s. The Old Right was dead, and those libertarians who still remembered and cleaved to their principles, were out in the cold.