|
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. |
On September 01 2013 12:51 HunterX11 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2013 12:28 Danglars wrote:
The conduct of the government can be analyzed and understood as a bad idea for encouraging/forcing savings and investment. The argument here is if it can be trusted more, equally, or less to act as the manager of a savings account compared to a private company. Both schemes have the risk of default. What matters is the input of the investor into the risk and what risks have arisen in the past that continue today. I say both of these speak against any Federal legislation to save money on behalf of the middle class.
The structure of the SSA and it's ignored warnings today is a case study in this. I ask the abstract analysis of what the government made and how it was sold to those who thought they understood it. Any rube can see the faults today, eighty years later, just as omnibus bills crafted today will be seen in another eighty years. The American people of that year were persuaded that the government was saving money they paid in to pay back out, holding it in an account with their name and their SSN on it. What actually happened and how the legislation was crafted was far different. In the US realization of political philosophy, the Federal government simply cannot save and invest on the citizen's behalf in an act of Congress. Social Security is a welfare program set up during the Depression that started paying out to retirees who had never paid any SS tax in the first place. While it is a part of people's financial security for retirement in the U.S., it isn't a retirement plan: it's a welfare program. It's wholly orthogonal to retirement savings, and any intellectual musings and pondering and rumination and hemming and hawing are no more relevant than saying that a savings program would fail because the Mars Surveyor Orbiter crashed so the government is bad at math.
If you want to make an intellectual argument in here, take the time to look at what this was in response to. If you have problems with Jonny's comparison, take it up with him. My last two posts illustrate the framing of this, and I'm not discussing whether or not it's welfare program and always was or wasn't.
On August 31 2013 09:15 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2013 08:45 Sbrubbles wrote:On August 31 2013 08:16 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 31 2013 06:35 Sbrubbles wrote:On August 31 2013 03:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 31 2013 03:12 farvacola wrote:I found this really interesting. Definitely check the whole thing out.
One candidate that may be equal to that task is a homely sounding economic noun that separates the wealthy from the rest of us. "Assets" are a seemingly magical set of resources that work for anyone who owns them. In conversations about economic fairness, "assets" are a resource that has largely remained outside the policy tent. President Obama has recently raised expectations about how economic policy might attack the problem of inequality. But he likely won't get that far unless he too is ready to step outside that tent.
Accounting textbooks teach us that there are different categories of assets, both tangible (e.g., land, buildings, housing, corporate stock, minerals) and intangible (e.g., patents, goodwill, copyrights). Wealthy people own lots of these assets. So many that they often forgo that more pedestrian instrument that makes possible the accumulation of income, the paycheck.
Unwealthy people own few, if any, assets. Theirs is wage-dependent, income based universe. They live from paycheck to paycheck. If assets are the key discriminant that sustains the wealthy, why is it that the most commonly invoked solutions to economic inequality tend to focus on income enhancing measures such as minimum wage campaigns, payroll tax credits and job training? That's not where the real money is. One could be forgiven for suspecting a plot. If the general problem of economic inequality could be likened to an overly deep bowl of soup that should be more fairly consumed, income-based solutions attack the challenge with forks. We need spoons, asset spoons. Let's examine a few.
Broad-Based Asset Sharing Strategies
Since 1982 every citizen of the state of Alaska has enjoyed an annual dividend as a return on their share of oil revenues through the Alaska Permanent Fund. Bipartisan support, including from former Republican Gov. Sarah Palin, has protected this asset sharing program for over 30 years. When legislators sought access to a share of Permanent Fund revenue to fund state deficits in 1999, they were rejected by 84 percent of voters. Annual dividend payments have ranged from $331 to $2,069 per Alaskan.
Similar natural resource-based ideas have been proposed but not yet implemented. One would provide all citizens an annual clean air dividend derived from taxing polluters. The "Sky Trust" concept developed by West coast entrepreneur Peter Barnes has also attracted bipartisan support in part because, like the Alaska Permanent Fund, it circumvents government capture and directs revenue immediately to citizens. Sky Trust dividends would be an asset shared by all. Natural resource-based asset sharing concepts have decided advantages: They can help address complex problems such as pollution, and they're easily shared through the common status of citizenship........
The Alternative American Dream: Inclusive Capitalism And lo did Jonny repeat: "we need the middle class to save and invest moar." I know there's more to the article than that, but that's really what the suggestions boil down to (admittedly I only skimmed it, but it's a familiar topic). I've found two political problems with advocating it. Some people, often on the left, don't trust it (finance is icky and frightening). Others, often on the right, are indifferent towards it (who cares so long as someone is investing). Did we read the same article? I read the author saying how "inclusive capitalism" (aka good-old employee ownership) isn't a dead concept and should be more or less set as a goal for society, but it said nothing of how to get there (though middle class saving would be a means to do it, as would be straight-up redistributive policies). Yeah it sure sounds like we read the same article. "good old employee ownership" is when employees own a large undiversified equity stake in a corporation. My frequent advocacy for the not rich to save more spend less is essentially a simplified version of the same core concept. I've advocated other policies that move towards the same goal, to mixed reception on this thread. Just saying there is more than one way to achieve what the author was reaching at, not just middle class saving more. Anyway, what policies do you think can actually affect saving rate for low/middle class? The way I see it, it's more of a cultural issue than anything. Short of what would be highly unpopular restrictions on consumer credit, I can't envision anything that would significantly affect saving rates, plus the timing for it wouldn't exactly be good (given the current state of the american economy). Here in Brazil we also have problems with low household saving rate (even though it's an issue that sadly rarely makes the news). I know there's a lot of ways to go about it. In my brain something like the government saving and investing on behalf of the middle class is essentially the same thing as the middle class saving and investing more. Ex. The Smith family can save more for retirement. Or, the social security system can save more for the Smith family's retirement on their behalf. There's a difference there, but it's essentially the same thing - the the Smith family owns more assets. I think changing the saving rate is a long term issue. The tax code can be made to more favor saving over consumption in a number of ways. Financial literacy can play a huge role as well. A lack of financial literacy is a big obstacle for a lot of green investing at the moment, for example.
|
Russian Federation16 Posts
Americans can not come up with new excuses to start their their military expansion. they still use prepositions 20-30 years old. discussion is pointless, unnecessarily is just watching as the world Zionism enslave another country on the way to Moscow. I hope Obama will think again and everything will be resolved peacefully
|
WASHINGTON - Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) on Sunday portrayed the current conflict in Syria as one between the government of President Bashar Al Assad, who Paul said "has protected Christians for a number of decades," and "Islamic rebels," who Paul said "have been attacking Christians" and are aligned with Al Qaeda.
"I think the Islamic rebels winning is a bad idea for the Christians, and all of a sudden we'll have another Islamic state where Christians are persecuted," Paul said on NBC's "Meet the Press."
Paul was likely referring to a string of incidents in Egypt in recent weeks, where supporters of the deposed government of former president Mohamed Morsi have burned Coptic Christian churches to protest what they see as Christian backing for the military overthrow of Morsi's government.
Earlier on Sunday, Secretary of State John Kerry said that tissue samples from Syria showed evidence that sarin gas was used to kill at least 1,400 civilians outside Damascus on August 21 -- an attack the White House says Assad's government carried out.
Paul, a first-term senator and vocal opponent of U.S. intervention overseas, including U.S. foreign aid, said the U.S. should pursue a negotiated settlement where "Assad is gone, but some of the same people [from Assad's regime] remain stable," because, he said, "that would also be good for the Christians."
Paul urged the U.S. to engage more fully with Russia and China, the two permanent members of the UN Security Council which support Assad. Both countries have thus far promised to veto any UN-led intervention in Syria. Paul acknowledged, however, that Assad is not a U.S. ally, either.
Source
WASHINGTON -- Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) on Sunday slammed the "isolationist wing" of the Republican party, calling it "damaging to the party and to our nation."
Speaking on "Fox News Sunday," King predicted that if a vote were to be held today in the House to authorize the use of U.S military force in Syria, "it would be no vote." King's comments, and his disdain for those who would vote "no" on military action, offered a window into what is likely to be a bitter debate in Congress over the coming weeks.
A growing chorus of House and Senate Republicans in recent years have shied away from U.S. intervention overseas. Earlier this year, 13 Republicans voted on a bill introduced by former Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) to cut off U.S. foreign aid to Egypt. Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah), Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) all sided with Paul, but the bill ultimately failed to pass.
President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry plan to continue making a forceful case that the U.S. should strike key Syrian government targets, following President Bashar Al Assad's alleged use of chemical weapons to kill more than 1,400 people outside Damascus on August 21.
Opposition to U.S. intervention is led in Congress by Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), who said Friday on Fox that Obama calling the Syrian regime's use of chemical weapons a "red line" was not a good enough reason to go to war.
Source
|
Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) said Sunday that Democratic aides in the Senate are drafting new language for an authorization of military force in Syria, Politico reports.
Speaking after some members of Congress returned early from recess to attend closed-door briefings on the situation in Syria, Leahy said the draft legislation offered by President Barack Obama on Saturday was too broad.
“I know it’s going to be amended in the Senate,” Leahy said, according to Politico.
On Saturday, Obama submitted to Congress a draft resolution authorizing the use of military force in response to Syrian President Bashar Assad's suspected use of chemical weapons on innocent civilians. The measure would allow the president to use force in a “necessary and appropriate” way.
"While I believe I have the authority to carry out this military action without specific congressional authorization, I know that the country will be stronger if we take this course, and our actions will be even more effective," Obama said during a Saturday statement.
According to the Washington Post, Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) also expressed hesitation over the draft's language.
Source
|
WASHINGTON, Sept 1 (Reuters) - President Barack Obama and his top aides launched a full-scale political offensive on Sunday to persuade a skeptical Congress to approve a military strike against Syria, but faced an uphill struggle to win over many lawmakers and a war-weary American public.
Obama made a series of calls to members of the House of Representatives and Senate, with more scheduled for Monday, underscoring the task confronting the administration before it can go ahead with using force in response to a deadly chemical attack blamed on the Syrian government.
Dozens of lawmakers, some in tennis shirts or shirtsleeves, cut short their vacations and streamed into the corridors of the Capitol building for a Sunday afternoon intelligence briefing on Syria with Obama's national security team.
When they emerged nearly three hours later, there was no immediate sign that the many skeptics in Congress had changed their minds.
Source
|
I guess we can take heart that they actually showed up.
|
I really doubt he can convince enough congressmen to support an attack. For some on the right, there isn't enough US interests at stake and perhaps not enough proof that it was Assad and not his enemies. We don't have access to all our intelligence on the matter, so it may be the reverse, who knows. Additionally, there is the question if this aids our old terrorist enemy Al Qaeda, the group that not only shows hostility but has also attacked us. There are al-Qaeda affiliated groups within the Syrian rebellion. Even beyond that, it might just be the end result of a regime change from one heavily corrupt regime to another, with just a little more islamist control.
From the left, we have no consensus or multilateral force at this moment. Their base is even more war-weary than the right, and skeptical of American imperialism. Cameron already flubbed or was rebuked, depending on who you ask. I don't see a ton of support even if France goes in with us. Edit: Even beyond that, where's the international backlash beyond strongly worded statements? Maybe more left support if the Security Council or other UN body sends out a couple resolutions.
|
That and the Senate is already planning to rewrite the proposal(s) on the suggested mission.
|
I dislike John Kerry, so seeing this put a smile on my face 
|
Its a good move either way politicaly. He can make republicans look weak on the war on terror and give democrats a chance to distance themselves away from the president and be against war. there is no way he'd call for the vote if he didn't have the votes he needed but if it fails it may be one of the last things he does before becoming a lame duck.
|
|
|
A single night can make a world of difference, and the current projections certainly allow for approval to go through given expected shakeups. This one is going to be really tough to call, despite what a lot of news pundits are going to say.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On September 03 2013 05:40 ziggurat wrote:I dislike John Kerry, so seeing this put a smile on my face
eh, smooching is not necessarily sincere
|
On September 03 2013 05:40 ziggurat wrote:I dislike John Kerry, so seeing this put a smile on my face
oh my god, the main diplomat of a great power is having dinner with someone!
|
I remember when FDR and Churchill had a picture with Stalin... oh wait. Wrong war...
|
I think a lot of foreign policy and diplomacy is like that though. Having dinner with genocidal maniacs, being congenial to horrible dictators, etc. etc. That's kind of what the job is. I think it's always been disturbing and bizarre...
|
Good. I want to see this entire thing go up in flames and be a huge political embarrassment.
|
On September 03 2013 09:47 DoubleReed wrote:
I think a lot of foreign policy and diplomacy is like that though. Having dinner with genocidal maniacs, being congenial to horrible dictators, etc. etc. That's kind of what the job is. I think it's always been disturbing and bizarre...
I'm sure that's true, but please take note that (1) Kerry was not the secretary of state at the time the picture was taken; and (2) it's a little bit unusual to take your civilian wife to have dinner with a homicidal maniac and his wife. That's going above and beyond the necessities of diplomacy.
I seem to remember in the leadup to the invasion of Iraq, liberals were making a big deal of a photo of Dick Cheney and Saddam Hussein taken in the early 80s when Cheney was a Halliburton exec. I wonder if liberals will react the same way to this pic? Maybe they will, since even liberals don't seem to like Kerry very much.
I don't really care about this since it's obvious (to everyone I think) that Kerry is a weasel who will make friends with anybody when he thinks it's politically expedient, and then turn around compare them to Hitler if he thinks it will help his star rise. Nothing about this is surprising. But I am feeling schadenfreude at how embarrassing the whole thing is.
Edit: spelling. Turns out I rely on spell check a lot.
|
On September 03 2013 10:17 ziggurat wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2013 09:47 DoubleReed wrote:
I think a lot of foreign policy and diplomacy is like that though. Having dinner with genocidal maniacs, being congenial to horrible dictators, etc. etc. That's kind of what the job is. I think it's always been disturbing and bizarre... I'm sure that's true, but please take note that (1) Kerry was not the secretary of state at the time the picture was taken; and (2) it's a little bit unusual to take your civilian wife to have dinner with a homicidal maniac and his wife. That's going above and beyond the necessities of diplomacy. I seem to remember in the leadup to the invasion of Iraq, liberals were making a big deal of a photo of Dick Cheney and Saddam Hussein taken in the early 80s when Cheney was a Halliburton exec. I wonder if liberals will react the same way to this pic? Maybe they will, since even liberals don't seem to like Kerry very much. I don't really care about this since it's obvious (to everyone I think) that Kerry is a weasel who will make friends with anybody when he thinks it's politically expedient, and then turn around compare them to Hitler if he thinks it will help his star rise. Nothing about this is surprising. But I am feeling shadenfreude at how embarrassing this whole thing is.
Schadenfreude you mean :>
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
what political expedience can be derived from smooching with assad, i'll never know. it's not like the guy's brutality wasn't known already at the time.
also, kerry was still a high ranking senator with foreign policy committee duties. it's not out of the ordinary course of his duties to smooch with a foreign dignitary.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
