US Politics Mega-thread - Page 37

On December 12 2012 12:56 farvacola wrote:

Wisconsin and Michigan are not similar enough to warrant that sort of comparison in my opinion; Michigan's union culture is far more engrained, the economy there is far worse, and higher ed is practically the states greatest resource. Wisconsin (and Minnesota for that matter) has a far more divergent political history insofar as grassroots issue support is concerned.

On December 12 2012 13:04 Souma wrote:
Speaking of right-to-work, I'm assuming it's unconstitutional or something to not allow non-union members to gain whatever perks are obtained through collective bargaining? Seems silly to me that people who aren't paying for these services can still benefit from them.

On December 12 2012 13:04 Souma wrote:
Speaking of right-to-work, I'm assuming it's unconstitutional or something to not allow non-union members to gain whatever perks are obtained through collective bargaining? Seems silly to me that people who aren't paying for these services can still benefit from them.

On December 12 2012 13:37 Romantic wrote:

What is the big deal with benefiting from something you aren't paying for?

Can I got advocate for gay rights and then demand gay people give me all kinds of money because I am entitled to it because I advocated for them? Nobody accepts this logic outside of unions.

On December 12 2012 13:39 JonnyBNoHo wrote:

Is that a legislative issue or because of the union's rules?

On December 13 2012 01:26 Startyr wrote:
I have to recommend watching this to anyone with an interest in politics.

http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_wilkinson.html

The main points from it are that the greater the inequality in incomes within a society the worse the social and health problems. That is not just for the poor but for everyone within it.

If you watch the whole thing it seems that you can either have large differences in income and large taxes and welfare or a low difference in incomes with low taxes and low welfare.It does not matter how you actually get to a more equal society simply that it is what countries should be aiming for.

For somewhere like the US what would be the better path? which is more likely, that the government can reduce the gap between rich and poor and therefore have lower taxes or does it not really have any control over the difference between rich and poor so the only way to reach a more equal and therefore better society is through taxes and welfare?

This is problematic for a democracy where parties in different parts of the political spectrum essentially 'swap' who is in power every so often. So whatever progress one government makes towards a better society is undone when the opposition takes over. however in general terms it seems that parties on the right want to lower taxes without doing anything to narrow the gap between the largest and lowest incomes where as parties on the left accept that they can not control the actual incomes of the rich and poor and so head to a better society through taxation.

If nothing else politicians from the most unequal countries should pay much closer attention to the systems of Scandinavian countries and/or Japan if they actually want to head towards a better society. Which way do you think is better?

On December 13 2012 03:07 sam!zdat wrote:
Yes, the illusion that one can get rich from hard work and no advantages is the point de capiton of American ideology. If you took that away, the entire society would collapse because the only reason people put up with their exploitation and inequality of society is because they believe it. It's sort of like the opposite of Rawl's veil of ignorance. You think the system is just becuase someday you'll be on top. cf joe the plumber

On December 13 2012 02:54 BluePanther wrote:


It's called the American Dream and not the Scandinavian Dream for a reason. It's ingrained in our society that hard work and effort can get you anywhere. And for the most part, that's true (although it may take more work for some given birth status). Any system has to be built around this principle for it to gain any sort of traction in the USA. I know it might shock you, but if you took away the ability to aim high you would guarantee the failure of any such plan here. Self-determination is a critical part of American economic culture.

On December 13 2012 01:26 Startyr wrote:

For somewhere like the US what would be the better path? which is more likely, that the government can reduce the gap between rich and poor and therefore have lower taxes or does it not really have any control over the difference between rich and poor so the only way to reach a more equal and therefore better society is through taxes and welfare?

If nothing else politicians from the most unequal countries should pay much closer attention to the systems of Scandinavian countries and/or Japan if they actually want to head towards a better society. Which way do you think is better?

On December 13 2012 04:06 renoB wrote:


It's an interesting idea to say the least but I think what it touches upon most is the differences between positive and negative liberty. Much of europe embraces positive liberty, in the sense that society should provide tools (government programs) to people to put them on equal footing with those born more fortunate. Negative liberty however; is the idea of removing those barriers instead (keeping government from impeding with our lives), while people do start at different levels, they can all achieve the same goal, there is just disparities in the effort they will have to put in based upon if they were born in a fortunate family or not. But which one seems more realistic? Economical? Equal? Fair?

American culture, at least originally, embraced the idea of negative liberty, which is why our constitution is so limiting and based upon competing powers, and the bill of rights keeps the government from touching specific rights of individuals. Over the years, especially through Hoover and FDR's presidencies we've seen huge strives to become more like european nations, by embracing positive liberty. I think we're seeing the negative effects of positive liberty throughout the world right now with the Euro crisis, and even countries like sweden who are sending their citizens to other countries (like norway) because they can't provide jobs for them. This altruistic idea of positive liberty has overwhelmed the idea of having a sustainable economy. We've got government dipping their hands into everything to "protect" citizens, but when government gets involved its easily corrupted and used for someones advantage. Hence the housing and credit crises (as far as I've read most economists agree moral hazard was a significant part of this).

From reading everything on this post and basically everywhere on the internet, I see that the choice to embrace positive or negative liberty is based upon the persons societal upbringing and life experiences. I do not think its possible to have a successful society with these two ideas mixed, as you can see with the muddled mess that is American Politics.

On December 13 2012 04:13 TheFrankOne wrote:


The Euro Crisis has nothing to do with what your talking about. That's all about divorcing fiscal and monetary policy and using creative accounting to join the Euro in the first place.