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.
MSNBC interviewed audience members after the taping to get a scoop before it airs. Such suckers.
In other words, it looks like Trump is trying to get away with "revealing" his "medical records" without really doing it at all. Unless he doesn't know what such a thing professionally and officially entails during a presidential election, but I have a feeling that he knows full well what is expected of him and he's just trying to dodge more by showing off two random sheets of paper at the last second on reality television and then whisk them away.
MSNBC interviewed audience members after the taping to get a scoop before it airs. Such suckers.
In other words, it looks like Trump is trying to get away with "revealing" his "medical records" without really doing it at all. Unless he doesn't know what such a thing professionally and officially entails during a presidential election, but I have a feeling that he knows full well what is expected of him and he's just trying to dodge more by showing off two random sheets of paper at the last second on reality television and then whisk them away.
There's some serious bizarreness happening with Trump's Dr. Oz idea.
On September 15 2016 03:04 LegalLord wrote: [quote] I'm a mix of somewhat far left and somewhat far right on a number of issues that people care about, and moderate on others. I guess on average I qualify as slightly left-of-center but I can't say that that's completely accurate either.
Wait, wait. What policies do you consider yourself being conservative/right on? You've been left on pretty much everything and reject Pence as an acceptable president out of hand.
Some forms of immigration, gun rights, Israel, some poorly conceived socialist programs (punitive taxation etc.), space and military funding, Brexit and issues of sovereignty, some of the cultural norms associated with "religious values" in the US. The issue with Pence is that the Republican Party itself is terrible and does not represent a party that genuinely seeks to improve things for people, so I can't support its representatives at all at present.
Ok, so looking at this in combination with your earlier post about why you're likely to support Hillary, I'd classify you as a "nationalist liberal." And I find it interesting that many of the areas where you agree with Trump are where he's to the left of Hillary.
EDIT: I missed this:
On September 15 2016 03:48 LegalLord wrote:
On September 15 2016 03:08 xDaunt wrote:
On September 15 2016 03:04 LegalLord wrote: [quote] I'm a mix of somewhat far left and somewhat far right on a number of issues that people care about, and moderate on others. I guess on average I qualify as slightly left-of-center but I can't say that that's completely accurate either.
Wait, wait. What policies do you consider yourself being conservative/right on? You've been left on pretty much everything and reject Pence as an acceptable president out of hand.
EDIT: And just to be clear, the post below is where I'm confused:
On September 14 2016 04:32 LegalLord wrote: [quote] So here's my political calculus for making voting decisions.
First consideration is obviously policy, as in whose platform is more in line with the one I support? On that end, it's split along specific issues - I like Trump's "America first" approach to trade, FP, and to a much milder extent immigration. On social issues, Hillary is nominally socially progressive rather than nominally ass-backwards on most social issues; Trump's willingness to call out the shittiness of the "regressive left" is absolutely a good thing. On domestic economic/public policy, Hillary's policy suggestions are flawed, but more sane, because the Republican platform for those issues is a blend of corporate shilling and denial. Hillary's has a fair bit of corporate shilling, but notably less. Hillary wins on this one. ....
And ultimately, this final reason - the anti-Republican vote - is why I think I'll end up voting for Hillary. Not lesser of two evils, not because pro-Hillary denialism has any validity, but because pushing for the reform (or replacement) of the Republican Party is the most effective way to lead to a better public policy in the future. It's an anti-Republican vote, pure and simple.
My last point that you quoted is perhaps worth expanding on.
The country - and most of the at least somewhat progressive world - has decided that we shouldn't be looking to create a Christian fundamentalist paradise. Women's rights, minority rights, and gay rights are a horrible hill to die on. But at the same time, conservative values are important and liberal progressives often have a dangerous lack of self-awareness on the long term consequences of their more stupid programs.By focusing on issues that are batshit insane, the Republican Party undermines more genuine conservative concerns (some of which are religiously motivated yet valid) by focusing on fundamentalism plus corporate shilling. We need a better Republican Party and that is the most pressing priority right now.
Like what?
That's an interesting grouping. Some grain of truth to it but also very hard to classify people into a group without generalizing to some extent.
Liberalism has some utterly foolish ideas that are better seen in Europe, where genuine conservatism is very suppressed, than in the US which is very conservative by Western standards. A few of those include punitive taxes on the wealthy, the "open the floodgates" approach to immigration, economic exploitation of weaker nations through neoliberal economic arrangements, the attitude of "United Europe at any cost, no matter who gets stepped on in the process", an unreasonable aggression against religion and religious values, concept creep of the terms racism/xenophobe/sexist/Islamophobe/etc., an arrogant and short-sighted view of the merits of American hegemony, and so on. Only a few of those issues have crept strongly into the mainstream public policy of the US but they are very much in the mind of many American short-sighted liberals. There needs to be a viable counterbalance to prevent them from implementing the stupid.
I thought you were a Bernie supporter for some reason, but I don't see any possible reconciliation between that and believing that progressive wealth tax is 'utterly foolish'
Some priorities trump others.
Also, I differentiate between progressive (40-60%) and punitive (70-100%) tax rates.
Why? The rate is only half the story, the other half being the relative income inequality. A 0% tax rate on most of the people and a 90% on the superrich is going to be more progressive than a 20% tax rate on the median income and a 40% tax rate on the superrich in a much more equitable society. Progressive taxes are built to correct antisocial (such as the creation of a permanent aristocracy/underclass) outcomes from the way the market allocates resources. The rate cannot be taken in isolation, whether it is too high or too low depends entirely upon how the market is allocating the resources.
Long story short, I see taxes as a tool that should be used to generate revenue for the government while minimizing the cost to society, and not as a tool to redistribute wealth for the sake of redistributing wealth.
Would this apply even in a society which started with an aristocracy? If one group owned all the means of production (land/factories/capital etc) would you conclude that the invisible hand will fix it so that those with merit will replace those without at the top? I would argue that even if that would happen over a long enough time frame it would still be a far less productive society than one would a more equitable foundation. Punitive estate taxes are what finally broke the English aristocracy, by forcing each generation increase the estate they were born with by 67% in order to pass on the same amount to their children after a 40% estate tax ((1*1.67)*.6=1) the capital was reallocated over multiple generations to those who could actually make good use of it.
Ultimately my answer is still no; the result is generally that individuals are discouraged from gathering wealth (which is, loosely speaking, bad for society). It's not "the invisible hand will solve wealth inequality" as much as it is "the nature of societies to develop class structures will lead to some individuals being wealthier than others." This is true even in "communist" countries with no private property and equal salaries.
MSNBC interviewed audience members after the taping to get a scoop before it airs. Such suckers.
In other words, it looks like Trump is trying to get away with "revealing" his "medical records" without really doing it at all. Unless he doesn't know what such a thing professionally and officially entails during a presidential election, but I have a feeling that he knows full well what is expected of him and he's just trying to dodge more by showing off two random sheets of paper at the last second on reality television and then whisk them away.
What do you expect from Trump and what do you want to see?
Nearly half of American adults are "very concerned" about two issues that have hounded Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign this year: her use of a private email server to conduct government business and donations to her family's charitable foundation, according to a Reuters/Ipsos opinion poll released on Wednesday.
[...]
The Sept. 2-11 online poll found that 46 percent of American adults said they were "very concerned" about Clinton's use of a personal email account, while 47 percent said the same about donations from foreign governments or corporations to the Clinton Foundation.
The public appears to have mostly responded to these issues along party lines, with nearly twice as many Republicans expressing concern as Democrats. However, a considerable portion of Democrats appear to be just as rattled by the reports.
Among Democrats, 21 percent were very concerned about Clinton's emails, and 22 percent were very concerned about the Clinton Foundation donations. Among Clinton supporters, 14 percent said they are very concerned about the emails, and the same proportion said they are concerned about donations.
The issues, which have drawn wide attention by the media and by her opponents, may have eroded Clinton's popularity, but it is not clear whether they have made a lasting impact on her level of support in the presidential race against Trump, where she holds a small lead.
Since the beginning of August, a growing portion of Americans have expressed a negative view of Clinton. Yet, when asked to pick between her and Trump for president, Americans have given a small, but consistent advantage to Clinton.
According to the poll, among the respondents who said they were concerned about the emails, 52 percent said the main reason was because the emails might contain classified information that was vulnerable to hackers. Another 40 percent were mostly concerned that Clinton had violated State Department policies.
Among those who said they were concerned about donations to the Clinton Foundation, 48 percent said they were generally concerned about foreign money being contributed to organizations run by high-ranking politicians, while 38 percent said they were specifically concerned that donors had more access to Clinton while she was serving in the Obama administration.
The United States will strive to take in 110,000 refugees from around the world in the coming year, the White House said Wednesday, in what would be a nearly 30 percent increase from the 85,000 allowed in over the previous year.
Look at that...hope they don't settle near me...I would feel as though my culture is dwindling. Very scary.
On September 15 2016 02:53 farvacola wrote: both of which are not liberal posters lol.
They are closer to center than most other people in this thread. If we need to put people into categories.
I'm a mix of somewhat far left and somewhat far right on a number of issues that people care about, and moderate on others. I guess on average I qualify as slightly left-of-center but I can't say that that's completely accurate either.
Wait, wait. What policies do you consider yourself being conservative/right on? You've been left on pretty much everything and reject Pence as an acceptable president out of hand.
Some forms of immigration, gun rights, Israel, some poorly conceived socialist programs (punitive taxation etc.), space and military funding, Brexit and issues of sovereignty, some of the cultural norms associated with "religious values" in the US. The issue with Pence is that the Republican Party itself is terrible and does not represent a party that genuinely seeks to improve things for people, so I can't support its representatives at all at present.
Ok, so looking at this in combination with your earlier post about why you're likely to support Hillary, I'd classify you as a "nationalist liberal." And I find it interesting that many of the areas where you agree with Trump are where he's to the left of Hillary.
EDIT: I missed this:
On September 15 2016 03:48 LegalLord wrote:
On September 15 2016 03:08 xDaunt wrote:
On September 15 2016 03:04 LegalLord wrote:
On September 15 2016 02:57 Plansix wrote:
On September 15 2016 02:53 farvacola wrote: both of which are not liberal posters lol.
They are closer to center than most other people in this thread. If we need to put people into categories.
I'm a mix of somewhat far left and somewhat far right on a number of issues that people care about, and moderate on others. I guess on average I qualify as slightly left-of-center but I can't say that that's completely accurate either.
Wait, wait. What policies do you consider yourself being conservative/right on? You've been left on pretty much everything and reject Pence as an acceptable president out of hand.
EDIT: And just to be clear, the post below is where I'm confused:
On September 14 2016 04:32 LegalLord wrote:
On September 14 2016 02:51 Mohdoo wrote:
On September 14 2016 02:43 LegalLord wrote:
On September 14 2016 02:42 Plansix wrote:
On September 14 2016 02:41 LegalLord wrote: Hillary supporters (rather than reluctant voters) are not really any better.
Well at least you found a way to feel superior to both of them.
It's not hard, it just requires a moderate amount of ability to acknowledge the flaws of each candidate.
As opposed to the denial is I highlighted a few pages back of course (Hillary flaws are fake -> Not actually fake -> "but trump so w/e).
As long as Trump is barrrrrrrrrrrrrrrely worse than Clinton, I will not hesitate for a moment to vote for Clinton. People focus way too much on having a good candidate. Maybe sometimes you don't get a good candidate. Oh fucking well. Not a whole lot I/we can do about it right now, so all that's left is a pros and cons list of what we have. I'm not in the habit of patting myself on the back for voting 3rd party, so I get what I get. I still firmly believe that a Trump presidency would be bad in ways we don't even think about because he is so grossly unqualified. Trump is no more qualified to be president than I am. That's terrifying. So I vote Clinton because I think she'll keep the lights on. I fully appreciate all the bad parts about her, but I only have 2 choices.
So here's my political calculus for making voting decisions.
First consideration is obviously policy, as in whose platform is more in line with the one I support? On that end, it's split along specific issues - I like Trump's "America first" approach to trade, FP, and to a much milder extent immigration. On social issues, Hillary is nominally socially progressive rather than nominally ass-backwards on most social issues; Trump's willingness to call out the shittiness of the "regressive left" is absolutely a good thing. On domestic economic/public policy, Hillary's policy suggestions are flawed, but more sane, because the Republican platform for those issues is a blend of corporate shilling and denial. Hillary's has a fair bit of corporate shilling, but notably less. Hillary wins on this one. ....
And ultimately, this final reason - the anti-Republican vote - is why I think I'll end up voting for Hillary. Not lesser of two evils, not because pro-Hillary denialism has any validity, but because pushing for the reform (or replacement) of the Republican Party is the most effective way to lead to a better public policy in the future. It's an anti-Republican vote, pure and simple.
My last point that you quoted is perhaps worth expanding on.
The country - and most of the at least somewhat progressive world - has decided that we shouldn't be looking to create a Christian fundamentalist paradise. Women's rights, minority rights, and gay rights are a horrible hill to die on. But at the same time, conservative values are important and liberal progressives often have a dangerous lack of self-awareness on the long term consequences of their more stupid programs.By focusing on issues that are batshit insane, the Republican Party undermines more genuine conservative concerns (some of which are religiously motivated yet valid) by focusing on fundamentalism plus corporate shilling. We need a better Republican Party and that is the most pressing priority right now.
Like what?
That's an interesting grouping. Some grain of truth to it but also very hard to classify people into a group without generalizing to some extent.
Liberalism has some utterly foolish ideas that are better seen in Europe, where genuine conservatism is very suppressed, than in the US which is very conservative by Western standards. A few of those include punitive taxes on the wealthy, the "open the floodgates" approach to immigration, economic exploitation of weaker nations through neoliberal economic arrangements, the attitude of "United Europe at any cost, no matter who gets stepped on in the process", an unreasonable aggression against religion and religious values, concept creep of the terms racism/xenophobe/sexist/Islamophobe/etc., an arrogant and short-sighted view of the merits of American hegemony, and so on. Only a few of those issues have crept strongly into the mainstream public policy of the US but they are very much in the mind of many American short-sighted liberals. There needs to be a viable counterbalance to prevent them from implementing the stupid.
Well, it's an interesting grouping in that there aren't many liberals with a nationalist bent (particularly when it comes to issues of cultural preservation). Long story short, it looks like you are more centrist than I gave you credit for.
Igne better not come in here and disagree with my description of him.
I think GH is a good example of a not-for-Hillary pure-blooded liberal, if that's what you're looking for.
On September 15 2016 02:53 farvacola wrote: both of which are not liberal posters lol.
They are closer to center than most other people in this thread. If we need to put people into categories.
I'm a mix of somewhat far left and somewhat far right on a number of issues that people care about, and moderate on others. I guess on average I qualify as slightly left-of-center but I can't say that that's completely accurate either.
Wait, wait. What policies do you consider yourself being conservative/right on? You've been left on pretty much everything and reject Pence as an acceptable president out of hand.
Some forms of immigration, gun rights, Israel, some poorly conceived socialist programs (punitive taxation etc.), space and military funding, Brexit and issues of sovereignty, some of the cultural norms associated with "religious values" in the US. The issue with Pence is that the Republican Party itself is terrible and does not represent a party that genuinely seeks to improve things for people, so I can't support its representatives at all at present.
Ok, so looking at this in combination with your earlier post about why you're likely to support Hillary, I'd classify you as a "nationalist liberal." And I find it interesting that many of the areas where you agree with Trump are where he's to the left of Hillary.
EDIT: I missed this:
On September 15 2016 03:48 LegalLord wrote:
On September 15 2016 03:08 xDaunt wrote:
On September 15 2016 03:04 LegalLord wrote:
On September 15 2016 02:57 Plansix wrote:
On September 15 2016 02:53 farvacola wrote: both of which are not liberal posters lol.
They are closer to center than most other people in this thread. If we need to put people into categories.
I'm a mix of somewhat far left and somewhat far right on a number of issues that people care about, and moderate on others. I guess on average I qualify as slightly left-of-center but I can't say that that's completely accurate either.
Wait, wait. What policies do you consider yourself being conservative/right on? You've been left on pretty much everything and reject Pence as an acceptable president out of hand.
EDIT: And just to be clear, the post below is where I'm confused:
On September 14 2016 04:32 LegalLord wrote:
On September 14 2016 02:51 Mohdoo wrote:
On September 14 2016 02:43 LegalLord wrote:
On September 14 2016 02:42 Plansix wrote: [quote] Well at least you found a way to feel superior to both of them.
It's not hard, it just requires a moderate amount of ability to acknowledge the flaws of each candidate.
As opposed to the denial is I highlighted a few pages back of course (Hillary flaws are fake -> Not actually fake -> "but trump so w/e).
As long as Trump is barrrrrrrrrrrrrrrely worse than Clinton, I will not hesitate for a moment to vote for Clinton. People focus way too much on having a good candidate. Maybe sometimes you don't get a good candidate. Oh fucking well. Not a whole lot I/we can do about it right now, so all that's left is a pros and cons list of what we have. I'm not in the habit of patting myself on the back for voting 3rd party, so I get what I get. I still firmly believe that a Trump presidency would be bad in ways we don't even think about because he is so grossly unqualified. Trump is no more qualified to be president than I am. That's terrifying. So I vote Clinton because I think she'll keep the lights on. I fully appreciate all the bad parts about her, but I only have 2 choices.
So here's my political calculus for making voting decisions.
First consideration is obviously policy, as in whose platform is more in line with the one I support? On that end, it's split along specific issues - I like Trump's "America first" approach to trade, FP, and to a much milder extent immigration. On social issues, Hillary is nominally socially progressive rather than nominally ass-backwards on most social issues; Trump's willingness to call out the shittiness of the "regressive left" is absolutely a good thing. On domestic economic/public policy, Hillary's policy suggestions are flawed, but more sane, because the Republican platform for those issues is a blend of corporate shilling and denial. Hillary's has a fair bit of corporate shilling, but notably less. Hillary wins on this one. ....
And ultimately, this final reason - the anti-Republican vote - is why I think I'll end up voting for Hillary. Not lesser of two evils, not because pro-Hillary denialism has any validity, but because pushing for the reform (or replacement) of the Republican Party is the most effective way to lead to a better public policy in the future. It's an anti-Republican vote, pure and simple.
My last point that you quoted is perhaps worth expanding on.
The country - and most of the at least somewhat progressive world - has decided that we shouldn't be looking to create a Christian fundamentalist paradise. Women's rights, minority rights, and gay rights are a horrible hill to die on. But at the same time, conservative values are important and liberal progressives often have a dangerous lack of self-awareness on the long term consequences of their more stupid programs.By focusing on issues that are batshit insane, the Republican Party undermines more genuine conservative concerns (some of which are religiously motivated yet valid) by focusing on fundamentalism plus corporate shilling. We need a better Republican Party and that is the most pressing priority right now.
Like what?
That's an interesting grouping. Some grain of truth to it but also very hard to classify people into a group without generalizing to some extent.
Liberalism has some utterly foolish ideas that are better seen in Europe, where genuine conservatism is very suppressed, than in the US which is very conservative by Western standards. A few of those include punitive taxes on the wealthy, the "open the floodgates" approach to immigration, economic exploitation of weaker nations through neoliberal economic arrangements, the attitude of "United Europe at any cost, no matter who gets stepped on in the process", an unreasonable aggression against religion and religious values, concept creep of the terms racism/xenophobe/sexist/Islamophobe/etc., an arrogant and short-sighted view of the merits of American hegemony, and so on. Only a few of those issues have crept strongly into the mainstream public policy of the US but they are very much in the mind of many American short-sighted liberals. There needs to be a viable counterbalance to prevent them from implementing the stupid.
Well, it's an interesting grouping in that there aren't many liberals with a nationalist bent (particularly when it comes to issues of cultural preservation). Long story short, it looks like you are more centrist than I gave you credit for.
Igne better not come in here and disagree with my description of him.
I think GH is a good example of a not-for-Hillary pure-blooded liberal, if that's what you're looking for.
Yes, he'd fit in there, too, but really what we're after are the liberal Hillary supporters who also aren't ridiculous shills for her. Mohdoo is a good example of one.
Farm workers in California are celebrating this week after governor Jerry Brown signed a new law on Monday entitling them to the same overtime pay as most other hourly workers in the state.
California, the largest producer of agricultural goods in the country, is the first state to introduce time-and-a-half pay for farm workers after eight hours of work a day, or 40 hours a week.
But while it’s a landmark decision in California, it’s unlikely that the rest of the country will rush to implement similar legislation since most other states don’t have any overtime laws in place pertaining to farm workers, said Ross Pifer, director of Pennsylvania State University’s agricultural law center.
“Agriculture will be watching this and will take note of it,” he said. “But if they didn’t follow California in implementing those overtime limits, I’m not sure they’re going to be following them now.”
However, it’s possible the new law could affect neighboring states that have similar agriculture to California, Pifer added.
“Arizona, for example, has extensive fruit and vegetable production and relies heavily on farm workers to produce these labor-intensive crops,” he said.
A few other states including Hawaii, Maryland and Minnesota do offer overtime protection to farm workers, but not after eight hours of work, said Veronica Wilson, partnerships director at the UCLA Labor Center. Most other states and federal law don’t cover overtime pay.
On September 15 2016 07:14 xDaunt wrote: Yes, he'd fit in there, too, but really what we're after are the liberal Hillary supporters who also aren't ridiculous shills for her. Mohdoo is a good example of one.
Mohdoo almost jumped off the Hillary train when the DNC leak stuff came out, before sleeping on it and changing his mind.
On September 15 2016 03:08 xDaunt wrote: [quote] Wait, wait. What policies do you consider yourself being conservative/right on? You've been left on pretty much everything and reject Pence as an acceptable president out of hand.
Some forms of immigration, gun rights, Israel, some poorly conceived socialist programs (punitive taxation etc.), space and military funding, Brexit and issues of sovereignty, some of the cultural norms associated with "religious values" in the US. The issue with Pence is that the Republican Party itself is terrible and does not represent a party that genuinely seeks to improve things for people, so I can't support its representatives at all at present.
Ok, so looking at this in combination with your earlier post about why you're likely to support Hillary, I'd classify you as a "nationalist liberal." And I find it interesting that many of the areas where you agree with Trump are where he's to the left of Hillary.
EDIT: I missed this:
On September 15 2016 03:48 LegalLord wrote:
On September 15 2016 03:08 xDaunt wrote: [quote] Wait, wait. What policies do you consider yourself being conservative/right on? You've been left on pretty much everything and reject Pence as an acceptable president out of hand.
EDIT: And just to be clear, the post below is where I'm confused:
[quote]
My last point that you quoted is perhaps worth expanding on.
The country - and most of the at least somewhat progressive world - has decided that we shouldn't be looking to create a Christian fundamentalist paradise. Women's rights, minority rights, and gay rights are a horrible hill to die on. But at the same time, conservative values are important and liberal progressives often have a dangerous lack of self-awareness on the long term consequences of their more stupid programs.By focusing on issues that are batshit insane, the Republican Party undermines more genuine conservative concerns (some of which are religiously motivated yet valid) by focusing on fundamentalism plus corporate shilling. We need a better Republican Party and that is the most pressing priority right now.
Like what?
That's an interesting grouping. Some grain of truth to it but also very hard to classify people into a group without generalizing to some extent.
Liberalism has some utterly foolish ideas that are better seen in Europe, where genuine conservatism is very suppressed, than in the US which is very conservative by Western standards. A few of those include punitive taxes on the wealthy, the "open the floodgates" approach to immigration, economic exploitation of weaker nations through neoliberal economic arrangements, the attitude of "United Europe at any cost, no matter who gets stepped on in the process", an unreasonable aggression against religion and religious values, concept creep of the terms racism/xenophobe/sexist/Islamophobe/etc., an arrogant and short-sighted view of the merits of American hegemony, and so on. Only a few of those issues have crept strongly into the mainstream public policy of the US but they are very much in the mind of many American short-sighted liberals. There needs to be a viable counterbalance to prevent them from implementing the stupid.
I thought you were a Bernie supporter for some reason, but I don't see any possible reconciliation between that and believing that progressive wealth tax is 'utterly foolish'
Some priorities trump others.
Also, I differentiate between progressive (40-60%) and punitive (70-100%) tax rates.
Why? The rate is only half the story, the other half being the relative income inequality. A 0% tax rate on most of the people and a 90% on the superrich is going to be more progressive than a 20% tax rate on the median income and a 40% tax rate on the superrich in a much more equitable society. Progressive taxes are built to correct antisocial (such as the creation of a permanent aristocracy/underclass) outcomes from the way the market allocates resources. The rate cannot be taken in isolation, whether it is too high or too low depends entirely upon how the market is allocating the resources.
Long story short, I see taxes as a tool that should be used to generate revenue for the government while minimizing the cost to society, and not as a tool to redistribute wealth for the sake of redistributing wealth.
Would this apply even in a society which started with an aristocracy? If one group owned all the means of production (land/factories/capital etc) would you conclude that the invisible hand will fix it so that those with merit will replace those without at the top? I would argue that even if that would happen over a long enough time frame it would still be a far less productive society than one would a more equitable foundation. Punitive estate taxes are what finally broke the English aristocracy, by forcing each generation increase the estate they were born with by 67% in order to pass on the same amount to their children after a 40% estate tax ((1*1.67)*.6=1) the capital was reallocated over multiple generations to those who could actually make good use of it.
Ultimately my answer is still no; the result is generally that individuals are discouraged from gathering wealth (which is, loosely speaking, bad for society). It's not "the invisible hand will solve wealth inequality" as much as it is "the nature of societies to develop class structures will lead to some individuals being wealthier than others." This is true even in "communist" countries with no private property and equal salaries.
I'm absolutely fine with inequality of outcome within a generation within reason (nobody starving etc) but I'm baffled that a permanent aristocracy is being defended in the name of encouraging wealth generation. A birth lottery suppresses wealth generation while equality of opportunity enhances it by allowing fair competition between the labour of individuals within society and the success of those who merit it. In such an environment taxation for the express purpose of increasing the opportunity of the poor (through state funded education etc) at the expense of the rich (less money to own the means of production) is both necessary and a boon to economic productivity, social cohesion and society as a whole.
MSNBC interviewed audience members after the taping to get a scoop before it airs. Such suckers.
In other words, it looks like Trump is trying to get away with "revealing" his "medical records" without really doing it at all. Unless he doesn't know what such a thing professionally and officially entails during a presidential election, but I have a feeling that he knows full well what is expected of him and he's just trying to dodge more by showing off two random sheets of paper at the last second on reality television and then whisk them away.
What do you expect from Trump and what do you want to see?
Unfortunately, I expect Trump to keep lying (and have his doctors keep lying) about his health, like how Trump's physician insisted that Trump would be the healthiest individual to ever become president. My eyes rolled so far that they almost got stuck.
I had zero reason to think that anything was wrong with his health (or his wealth, for that matter) until he started really going out of his way to dodge releasing his medical records (or his tax returns, respectively). For him not to do what is the norm for presidential candidates (nowadays, anyway) calls attention to himself. I hope that Trump is healthy (because god forbid he becomes president), but him being evasive only calls negative attention and suspicion. I can't think of any reason why he wouldn't release "easy" things like these, unless he's hiding something.
On September 15 2016 07:14 xDaunt wrote: Yes, he'd fit in there, too, but really what we're after are the liberal Hillary supporters who also aren't ridiculous shills for her. Mohdoo is a good example of one.
Mohdoo almost jumped off the Hillary train when the DNC leak stuff came out, before sleeping on it and changing his mind.
It baffles me that anyone could be genuinely surprised by what was in the DNC leaks rather than just see it as some degree of confirmation.
On September 15 2016 03:18 LegalLord wrote: [quote] Some forms of immigration, gun rights, Israel, some poorly conceived socialist programs (punitive taxation etc.), space and military funding, Brexit and issues of sovereignty, some of the cultural norms associated with "religious values" in the US. The issue with Pence is that the Republican Party itself is terrible and does not represent a party that genuinely seeks to improve things for people, so I can't support its representatives at all at present.
Ok, so looking at this in combination with your earlier post about why you're likely to support Hillary, I'd classify you as a "nationalist liberal." And I find it interesting that many of the areas where you agree with Trump are where he's to the left of Hillary.
EDIT: I missed this:
On September 15 2016 03:48 LegalLord wrote: [quote] My last point that you quoted is perhaps worth expanding on.
The country - and most of the at least somewhat progressive world - has decided that we shouldn't be looking to create a Christian fundamentalist paradise. Women's rights, minority rights, and gay rights are a horrible hill to die on. But at the same time, conservative values are important and liberal progressives often have a dangerous lack of self-awareness on the long term consequences of their more stupid programs.By focusing on issues that are batshit insane, the Republican Party undermines more genuine conservative concerns (some of which are religiously motivated yet valid) by focusing on fundamentalism plus corporate shilling. We need a better Republican Party and that is the most pressing priority right now.
Like what?
That's an interesting grouping. Some grain of truth to it but also very hard to classify people into a group without generalizing to some extent.
Liberalism has some utterly foolish ideas that are better seen in Europe, where genuine conservatism is very suppressed, than in the US which is very conservative by Western standards. A few of those include punitive taxes on the wealthy, the "open the floodgates" approach to immigration, economic exploitation of weaker nations through neoliberal economic arrangements, the attitude of "United Europe at any cost, no matter who gets stepped on in the process", an unreasonable aggression against religion and religious values, concept creep of the terms racism/xenophobe/sexist/Islamophobe/etc., an arrogant and short-sighted view of the merits of American hegemony, and so on. Only a few of those issues have crept strongly into the mainstream public policy of the US but they are very much in the mind of many American short-sighted liberals. There needs to be a viable counterbalance to prevent them from implementing the stupid.
I thought you were a Bernie supporter for some reason, but I don't see any possible reconciliation between that and believing that progressive wealth tax is 'utterly foolish'
Some priorities trump others.
Also, I differentiate between progressive (40-60%) and punitive (70-100%) tax rates.
Why? The rate is only half the story, the other half being the relative income inequality. A 0% tax rate on most of the people and a 90% on the superrich is going to be more progressive than a 20% tax rate on the median income and a 40% tax rate on the superrich in a much more equitable society. Progressive taxes are built to correct antisocial (such as the creation of a permanent aristocracy/underclass) outcomes from the way the market allocates resources. The rate cannot be taken in isolation, whether it is too high or too low depends entirely upon how the market is allocating the resources.
Long story short, I see taxes as a tool that should be used to generate revenue for the government while minimizing the cost to society, and not as a tool to redistribute wealth for the sake of redistributing wealth.
Would this apply even in a society which started with an aristocracy? If one group owned all the means of production (land/factories/capital etc) would you conclude that the invisible hand will fix it so that those with merit will replace those without at the top? I would argue that even if that would happen over a long enough time frame it would still be a far less productive society than one would a more equitable foundation. Punitive estate taxes are what finally broke the English aristocracy, by forcing each generation increase the estate they were born with by 67% in order to pass on the same amount to their children after a 40% estate tax ((1*1.67)*.6=1) the capital was reallocated over multiple generations to those who could actually make good use of it.
Ultimately my answer is still no; the result is generally that individuals are discouraged from gathering wealth (which is, loosely speaking, bad for society). It's not "the invisible hand will solve wealth inequality" as much as it is "the nature of societies to develop class structures will lead to some individuals being wealthier than others." This is true even in "communist" countries with no private property and equal salaries.
I'm absolutely fine with inequality of outcome within a generation within reason (nobody starving etc) but I'm baffled that a permanent aristocracy is being defended in the name of encouraging wealth generation. A birth lottery suppresses wealth generation while equality of opportunity enhances it by allowing fair competition between the labour of individuals within society and the success of those who merit it. In such an environment taxation for the express purpose of increasing the opportunity of the poor (through state funded education etc) at the expense of the rich (less money to own the means of production) is both necessary and a boon to economic productivity, social cohesion and society as a whole.
The problem is that you really can't get rid of the wealth at the top without destroying wealth. Taxes are distortionary and when you move beyond revenue generation into reallocation of resources, a lot of productive wealth is destroyed in the process. I don't see the "birth lottery" issue as something to be solved by wealth redistribution; as long as individuals have a reasonable chance of upward social mobility within the country, then that should be mostly good enough even if it doesn't quite reach equality. Besides, even in communist countries there was still a wealth inequality / birth lottery effect that was the result of an implicit upper class that exists in every human society ever.
This discussion could go on forever, but I'd also note that some of the least pleasant discussions I have ever seen or had on this site have to do with inheritance taxes, redistribution of wealth, neo-Marxist philosophizing, and the like. That's probably why I've talked about it so rarely that it might not be clear that that's my position on the issue.
EPT
