EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 3676
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24123 Posts
| ||
|
BallinWitStalin
1177 Posts
Welp, that dude is going to go to jail for while. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
Ted Cruz has no way to win the Republican nomination without a contested convention, but he's already busy scouting out his running mate. According to a report from the Weekly Standard, the Cruz campaign is vetting former Republican presidential candidate and Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina for vice president. Sarah Isgur Flores, who helped run Fiorina's presidential campaign, told the Weekly Standard that Fiorina has turned over financial records to the Cruz campaign as well as sat down to talk with them. Cruz is currently lagging behind Trump in the delegate count, but perhaps in a effort to project his viability the Cruz campaign told the Weekly Standard that it is "vetting prospecting VP nominees, but no selection has been made yet. When that decision has been made, we will share it." As the Weekly Standard points out, the word of Fiorina's vetting comes a few weeks before the California primary. Fiorina was the California GOP's nominee for U.S. Senate in 2010, but lost in the general election to Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA). Source | ||
|
Sermokala
United States14155 Posts
On April 26 2016 07:47 oBlade wrote: That's circular because the two party system is the very reason you can almost never get elected as a third party. It promotes gridlock, not moderation. It doesn't promote gridlock normaly otherwise we wouldn't have a nation for 250 odd years. it promotes moderation as 40 percent of the country will vote for either side with a 2 party system. that 20 percent in the middle decides who runs things. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
| ||
|
Livelovedie
United States492 Posts
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/universal-basic-income/ | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
ragz_gt
9172 Posts
| ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On April 26 2016 11:47 Livelovedie wrote: What do people think of basic incomes? I found this article interesting. http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/universal-basic-income/ Personally I'm not a huge fan. Even the Soviet Union didn't have a basic income (you either had to work, or qualify for medical leave, and employment was guaranteed) because it was well-understood that the least motivated people would sit on their ass and survive on the minimum livable wage if it were so possible. Maybe guaranteeing jobs would be a better initiative. | ||
|
Hdizz
Canada93 Posts
but why do people that work for the government still pay taxes isn't that redundant? in fact why does anyone work for the government aren't they just parasites on people actually contributing to the economy if we fired everyone working for government and eliminated all entitlements and then introduced basic income that would be brilliant | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On April 26 2016 11:57 LegalLord wrote: Personally I'm not a huge fan. Even the Soviet Union didn't have a basic income (you either had to work, or qualify for medical leave, and employment was guaranteed) because it was well-understood that the least motivated people would sit on their ass and survive on the minimum livable wage if it were so possible. Maybe guaranteeing jobs would be a better initiative. What do you think those least motivated people are doing now? Who cares if they sit on their ass and survive on the minimum livable wage? Do you think we need 100% employment or something? Where's the labor shortage? | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On April 26 2016 13:43 IgnE wrote: What do you think those least motivated people are doing now? Who cares if they sit on their ass and survive on the minimum livable wage? Do you think we need 100% employment or something? Where's the labor shortage? Some of them can manage to sit on their ass with the government benefits they get, most begrudgingly get a job and contribute to society in a way that matters (we do need people who do low-paying grunt work). More people would choose not to work if they could literally do nothing and still survive. That's bad for everyone because that money comes from somewhere and it's a free-rider problem that doesn't have to happen because people will work if they absolutely have to. And yes, 100% natural employment (i.e. 100% minus frictional/structural unemployment) is something we should strive for. If there are genuinely no jobs to be done in the country (which doesn't seem to be the case - there is always a need for some degree of manual blue collar unskilled/semiskilled labor) then perhaps the better option is to invest money into sending the unskilled to school to learn a trade, than to give them the money to just sit on their ass. | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
| ||
|
RvB
Netherlands6289 Posts
| ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
| ||
|
levelping
Singapore759 Posts
On April 26 2016 11:43 LegalLord wrote: To those in Europe who are familiar with a multiparty/coalition system: doesn't the fact that the winning party, which establishes a ruling coalition, can choose either Party A or Party B to incorporate into its coalition, mean that a good portion of the electorate can have its opinions shut out simply because the winning party would rather say "fuck you" to them than negotiate? That's one of the faults I see with multi-party systems, in that at least with the R and D national coalitions you are voting for the coalition as a whole, rather than for a party that may or may not get representation in the legislature. Well it's more similar than different tbh. Multiparty coalitions usually have broadly aligned political positions. So this is similar to how the Democratic and Republican parties have many interest groups under them. You could theoretically form an alliance with a party that your voters are not normally supportive of, but this will almost certainly screw you over in the next election. The lib dems got murdered in the last UK GE. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On April 26 2016 15:06 levelping wrote: Well it's more similar than different tbh. Multiparty coalitions usually have broadly aligned political positions. So this is similar to how the Democratic and Republican parties have many interest groups under them. You could theoretically form an alliance with a party that your voters are not normally supportive of, but this will almost certainly screw you over in the next election. The lib dems got murdered in the last UK GE. I am also wondering about the situation where, say, a coalition in progress has maybe 47% of the legislature and they have two viable choices A (4%) and B (6%), where it is politically feasible to choose either one but in the end the coalition-making party can choose arbitrarily to marginalize A or B. They could very well choose A when B is the bigger party, so a bigger portion of the electorate gets a "fuck you" for no democratically reasonable reason. In the American two coalition-party system, marginalizing 6% of the politically palatable electorate would get you slaughtered and both coalition-parties would be more willing to compromise and incorporate those positions into their party. And then you have Merkel's government willing to play coalition games as her party loses seats in order to marginalize the relatively small but quickly growing anti-immigration voter base, who would never have voted for more radical anti-immigration parties if the government had been more reasonable about their policy. In the US, it probably would not have gone that way - if for example the Dems decided to import millions of Syrian refugees against the popular will, they would get brutalized in the midterms and the Republicans and/or conservative Democrats would undermine or shut down that policy. | ||
|
RvB
Netherlands6289 Posts
On April 26 2016 14:58 LegalLord wrote: That's just going to make people work less and replace a social safety net with a disincentive to work. I'd say it's probably better to tie living support to labor for those who are capable of working. No it's not. With a negative income tax working more is always worth it. Sure the ones who are least motivated might not but they won't with any other system. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On April 26 2016 15:45 RvB wrote: No it's not. With a negative income tax working more is always worth it. Sure the ones who are least motivated might not but they won't with any other system. Do you have evidence for that? I'm pretty sure that what you're describing (a pure lump-sum income effect) would indeed lead to lower labor participation. If you could previously get $X by working Y hours, you can now get $X by working Y-Z hours, then you're probably going to work less than Y (and more than Y-Z) hours. So less labor, which is not a good thing if you want people to work more. A real wage rate boost would perhaps do what you want - is that what you're suggesting? Your second assertion is not true. People will work if they have to in order to survive. It's better to figure out the best way to motivate them than to just write them off as inevitable free riders. | ||
|
RvB
Netherlands6289 Posts
| ||
| ||
