|
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 January 05 2013 03:43 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2013 03:33 oneofthem wrote:
problem per se is not the filibuster but the lack of engagement with concrete policy solutions. particularly when it comes to medical cost and income inequality. And the way to fix this is to arbitrarily change the rules so that you don't have to listen to the poor fools that didn't win a majority of the senate and make them ilrelevant in governance?
What do you suggest? Filibustering is not being used for its original purpose. It is being used inappropriately and not how it was intended to be used.
|
On January 05 2013 03:51 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2013 03:43 Sermokala wrote:On January 05 2013 03:33 oneofthem wrote:
problem per se is not the filibuster but the lack of engagement with concrete policy solutions. particularly when it comes to medical cost and income inequality. And the way to fix this is to arbitrarily change the rules so that you don't have to listen to the poor fools that didn't win a majority of the senate and make them ilrelevant in governance? What do you suggest? Filibustering is not being used for its original purpose. It is being used inappropriately and not how it was intended to be used.
Isn't it relevalt to choose a middle ground where filibustering has a downside? The problem as I see it from the outside is party-line nazies having taken over, on both sides. If the parties said to hell with the extremists in my party and cooperated it would make filibustering very hard to do. Given that none of the parties has any reason to break the deadlock, the only way is to create incentives to cooperate or make a minority far less powerfull. By weakening the power of the minority you are strenghtening the internal split in the majority party since the more fringe elements want more constantly and start to act up which should give the moderates from the minority a possibility to provide an alternative to the majority empire.
|
On January 05 2013 04:07 radiatoren wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2013 03:51 Mohdoo wrote:On January 05 2013 03:43 Sermokala wrote:On January 05 2013 03:33 oneofthem wrote:
problem per se is not the filibuster but the lack of engagement with concrete policy solutions. particularly when it comes to medical cost and income inequality. And the way to fix this is to arbitrarily change the rules so that you don't have to listen to the poor fools that didn't win a majority of the senate and make them ilrelevant in governance? What do you suggest? Filibustering is not being used for its original purpose. It is being used inappropriately and not how it was intended to be used. Isn't it relevalt to choose a middle ground where filibustering has a downside? The problem as I see it from the outside is party-line nazies having taken over, on both sides. If the parties said to hell with the extremists in my party and cooperated it would make filibustering very hard to do. Given that none of the parties has any reason to break the deadlock, the only way is to create incentives to cooperate or make a minority far less powerfull. By weakening the power of the minority you are strenghtening the internal split in the majority party since the more fringe elements want more constantly and start to act up which should give the moderates from the minority a possibility to provide an alternative to the majority empire.
I understand that you are not from the US, but it appears that you don't seem to understand how the electorate works in the US.
There are going to be some states in the US that are heavy left or right leaning. No common sense talk will sway them to the middle ground compromise, let alone breaking the deadlock.
You only have to look at the chaos that is the current republican party for a living example.
|
On January 05 2013 04:07 radiatoren wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2013 03:51 Mohdoo wrote:On January 05 2013 03:43 Sermokala wrote:On January 05 2013 03:33 oneofthem wrote:
problem per se is not the filibuster but the lack of engagement with concrete policy solutions. particularly when it comes to medical cost and income inequality. And the way to fix this is to arbitrarily change the rules so that you don't have to listen to the poor fools that didn't win a majority of the senate and make them ilrelevant in governance? What do you suggest? Filibustering is not being used for its original purpose. It is being used inappropriately and not how it was intended to be used. Isn't it relevalt to choose a middle ground where filibustering has a downside? The problem as I see it from the outside is party-line nazies having taken over, on both sides. If the parties said to hell with the extremists in my party and cooperated it would make filibustering very hard to do. Given that none of the parties has any reason to break the deadlock, the only way is to create incentives to cooperate or make a minority far less powerfull. By weakening the power of the minority you are strenghtening the internal split in the majority party since the more fringe elements want more constantly and start to act up which should give the moderates from the minority a possibility to provide an alternative to the majority empire.
Primaries make it really hard to elect moderates.
For example, I've been wanting to run for state assembly. I KNOW I would win a general election over the guy currently holding my local seat (the only thing he does is insert anti-abortion clauses into everything). However, the problem is that I would likely not win a primary against him for two reason. 1. As an incumbent, he will have 5x the money I will and I'm not rich, and 2. He'll likely win a primary over me because that's the crowd that votes anti-abortion.
The system essentially neuters the opinion of 60% of the otherwise voting population and ensures you get individuals with more radical opinions. Even though I'm the more palatable candidate to a plurality of voters, I won't even be IN the general election.
|
On January 05 2013 03:43 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2013 03:33 oneofthem wrote:
problem per se is not the filibuster but the lack of engagement with concrete policy solutions. particularly when it comes to medical cost and income inequality. And the way to fix this is to arbitrarily change the rules so that you don't have to listen to the poor fools that didn't win a majority of the senate and make them ilrelevant in governance?
The filibuster reform in question doesn't actually remove the power of the minority to filibuster but instead accelerates procedures around cloture. It's not really the nuclear option of just going to majority rule.
|
On January 05 2013 04:17 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2013 04:07 radiatoren wrote:On January 05 2013 03:51 Mohdoo wrote:On January 05 2013 03:43 Sermokala wrote:On January 05 2013 03:33 oneofthem wrote:
problem per se is not the filibuster but the lack of engagement with concrete policy solutions. particularly when it comes to medical cost and income inequality. And the way to fix this is to arbitrarily change the rules so that you don't have to listen to the poor fools that didn't win a majority of the senate and make them ilrelevant in governance? What do you suggest? Filibustering is not being used for its original purpose. It is being used inappropriately and not how it was intended to be used. Isn't it relevalt to choose a middle ground where filibustering has a downside? The problem as I see it from the outside is party-line nazies having taken over, on both sides. If the parties said to hell with the extremists in my party and cooperated it would make filibustering very hard to do. Given that none of the parties has any reason to break the deadlock, the only way is to create incentives to cooperate or make a minority far less powerfull. By weakening the power of the minority you are strenghtening the internal split in the majority party since the more fringe elements want more constantly and start to act up which should give the moderates from the minority a possibility to provide an alternative to the majority empire. Primaries make it really hard to elect moderates. For example, I've been wanting to run for state assembly. I KNOW I would win a general election over the guy currently holding my local seat (the only thing he does is insert anti-abortion clauses into everything). However, the problem is that I would likely not win a primary against him for two reason. 1. As an incumbent, he will have 5x the money I will and I'm not rich, and 2. He'll likely win a primary over me because that's the crowd that votes anti-abortion. The system essentially neuters the opinion of 60% of the otherwise voting population and ensures you get individuals with more radical opinions. Even though I'm the more palatable candidate to a plurality of voters, I won't even be IN the general election.
This is actually something I've been wondering about. 100 years ago, there were no primary elections. Each party would convene to put forward a candidate. There was a certain amount of corruption involved, but it seemed like a decent system. The party would choose someone they thought would win a general election then put them up.
I wonder if that was better than what we have now. Looking at the last presidential election makes me think that it was. Romney had to go so far to the right to compete with Santorum that I think he seriously hurt his chances in a general election. What would have happened if there was no mud slinging primary, and he'd been able to run on his record as Governor?
Hmm, guess I have some reading to do. I'm not sure where primary elections came from, and now I'm curious. To the wikipediamobile!
|
On January 05 2013 04:31 TrickyGilligan wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2013 04:17 BluePanther wrote:On January 05 2013 04:07 radiatoren wrote:On January 05 2013 03:51 Mohdoo wrote:On January 05 2013 03:43 Sermokala wrote:On January 05 2013 03:33 oneofthem wrote:
problem per se is not the filibuster but the lack of engagement with concrete policy solutions. particularly when it comes to medical cost and income inequality. And the way to fix this is to arbitrarily change the rules so that you don't have to listen to the poor fools that didn't win a majority of the senate and make them ilrelevant in governance? What do you suggest? Filibustering is not being used for its original purpose. It is being used inappropriately and not how it was intended to be used. Isn't it relevalt to choose a middle ground where filibustering has a downside? The problem as I see it from the outside is party-line nazies having taken over, on both sides. If the parties said to hell with the extremists in my party and cooperated it would make filibustering very hard to do. Given that none of the parties has any reason to break the deadlock, the only way is to create incentives to cooperate or make a minority far less powerfull. By weakening the power of the minority you are strenghtening the internal split in the majority party since the more fringe elements want more constantly and start to act up which should give the moderates from the minority a possibility to provide an alternative to the majority empire. Primaries make it really hard to elect moderates. For example, I've been wanting to run for state assembly. I KNOW I would win a general election over the guy currently holding my local seat (the only thing he does is insert anti-abortion clauses into everything). However, the problem is that I would likely not win a primary against him for two reason. 1. As an incumbent, he will have 5x the money I will and I'm not rich, and 2. He'll likely win a primary over me because that's the crowd that votes anti-abortion. The system essentially neuters the opinion of 60% of the otherwise voting population and ensures you get individuals with more radical opinions. Even though I'm the more palatable candidate to a plurality of voters, I won't even be IN the general election. This is actually something I've been wondering about. 100 years ago, there were no primary elections. Each party would convene to put forward a candidate. There was a certain amount of corruption involved, but it seemed like a decent system. The party would choose someone they thought would win a general election then put them up. I wonder if that was better than what we have now. Looking at the last presidential election makes me think that it was. Romney had to go so far to the right to compete with Santorum that I think he seriously hurt his chances in a general election. What would have happened if there was no mud slinging primary, and he'd been able to run on his record as Governor? Hmm, guess I have some reading to do. I'm not sure where primary elections came from, and now I'm curious. To the wikipediamobile!
they need to remove partisanship from the actual format of voting. Do runoffs and alternate voting.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
yea curious as well. i would think that the original idea of the primary fits the conception of the political party as a kind of voluntary gathering of likeminded people, rather than a fixture of the political system with 2 stable parties that hold all power.
|
On January 05 2013 03:43 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2013 03:33 oneofthem wrote:
problem per se is not the filibuster but the lack of engagement with concrete policy solutions. particularly when it comes to medical cost and income inequality. And the way to fix this is to arbitrarily change the rules so that you don't have to listen to the poor fools that didn't win a majority of the senate and make them ilrelevant in governance?
There's still committees to go through. It's not like they don't have a say at all, just that their say doesn't automatically stop the Senate from working.
|
On January 05 2013 03:26 Shady Sands wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2013 20:41 aksfjh wrote:On January 04 2013 14:00 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:WASHINGTON -- The Senate postponed debate on reforming the filibuster Thursday, as advocates cited the support of 48 senators for eliminating the silent filibuster using the so-called constitutional option, a measure that requires 50 votes plus that of the vice president.
During a briefing on Capitol Hill, Sens. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) and Tom Udall (D-N.M.) updated reporters on their joint effort, which is also being shepherded by Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa).
The remaining seven within the Democratic caucus who have yet to sign on are Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), Sen. Mark Pryor (D-Ark.), Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.). Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.), Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.), Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), a source familiar with the whip count told The Huffington Post.
A coalition of progressive groups is also keeping up the pressure for reform, such as advocacy group CREDO Action, which targeted wavering senators Wednesday.
Despite some opposition, Udall was confident about the proposal’s prospects, telling reporters it has “Big Mo," referencing his uncle, Mo Udall, a former, longtime Arizona congressman. Udall said he anticipates having enough Democratic votes to pass reform using what advocates call the constitutional option, but what opponents refer to as the “nuclear option.”
“I believe we have 51 votes to utilize the constitution and go forward with rules change,” Udall said, implying that enough of the remaining seven would swing their way to push them over the top. If the chamber was deadlocked at 50-50, Vice President Joe Biden, who supports filibuster reform, would break the tie. Source We can only hope that it passes. It's rather ridiculous that normal governance requires more than a majority right now. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_optionShow nested quote +The maneuver was brought to prominence in 2005 when Majority Leader Bill Frist (Republican of Tennessee) threatened its use to end Democratic-led filibusters of judicial nominees submitted by President George W. Bush. In response to this threat, Democrats threatened to shut down the Senate and prevent consideration of all routine and legislative Senate business. The ultimate confrontation was prevented by the Gang of 14, a group of seven Democratic and seven Republican Senators, all of whom agreed to oppose the nuclear option and oppose filibusters of judicial nominees, except in extraordinary circumstances. So it's okay when the Democrats do it but not the Republicans? The filibuster is vital to giving a voice to the minority party in American politics.
If filibuster is so vital how come for about 150 years it was almost never used and then for the rest of the countries history up until now it was sparingly used. It is only in modern times that it has become used on every single thing and thats just ludicrous. We governed just fine for over 200 years without having every single measure get filibustered and we goverened just fine when filing a filibuster actually meant you had to filibuster.
|
Because when it is not used that is the sign that it is powerful, when it is used that is precisely the indication that it is impotent!
When you father does not have to beat you, he is powerful. When he has to beat you, precisely then you know that he is powerless!
(finally, a question for samizdat in the politics thread  )
|
On January 05 2013 04:15 jellyjello wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2013 04:07 radiatoren wrote:On January 05 2013 03:51 Mohdoo wrote:On January 05 2013 03:43 Sermokala wrote:On January 05 2013 03:33 oneofthem wrote:
problem per se is not the filibuster but the lack of engagement with concrete policy solutions. particularly when it comes to medical cost and income inequality. And the way to fix this is to arbitrarily change the rules so that you don't have to listen to the poor fools that didn't win a majority of the senate and make them ilrelevant in governance? What do you suggest? Filibustering is not being used for its original purpose. It is being used inappropriately and not how it was intended to be used. Isn't it relevalt to choose a middle ground where filibustering has a downside? The problem as I see it from the outside is party-line nazies having taken over, on both sides. If the parties said to hell with the extremists in my party and cooperated it would make filibustering very hard to do. Given that none of the parties has any reason to break the deadlock, the only way is to create incentives to cooperate or make a minority far less powerfull. By weakening the power of the minority you are strenghtening the internal split in the majority party since the more fringe elements want more constantly and start to act up which should give the moderates from the minority a possibility to provide an alternative to the majority empire. I understand that you are not from the US, but it appears that you don't seem to understand how the electorate works in the US. There are going to be some states in the US that are heavy left or right leaning. No common sense talk will sway them to the middle ground compromise, let alone breaking the deadlock. You only have to look at the chaos that is the current republican party for a living example.
I do have some understanding of the american system. What you are mentioning is not what I am going at. I am saying that there has to be sufficient "moderates" (cooperation-minded not necessarily real moderates) in the minority to create a real alternative to the extremes of the majority party. What I am attacking is the partisanship in the house and therefore the power given to the extreme parts of the parties.
On January 05 2013 04:38 BluePanther wrote:
they need to remove partisanship from the actual format of voting. Do runoffs and alternate voting.
Not going to say that the danish system is much better than what you have, since no real primaries are held. There are some very local semi-corrupt caucuses.
The best system would seem to be a listing order primary where only a limited number are allowed into the real election and the order on the partys ballot will be determined (most people vote for the first person on the party list on the ballot regardless). In the real election you would have list-voting. The party with most combined votes will give the winner and the candidate on that list with the highest number of personal votes will win the election.
|
Tax Code May Be the Most Progressive Since 1979
(The fiscal cliff deal) raises the tax rate to 39.6 percent from 35 percent on income above $400,000 for individuals, and $450,000 for couples. The rate on dividends and capital gains for those same taxpayers was bumped up 5 percentage points, to 20 percent. Congress also reinstated limits on the amount households with more than $300,000 in income can deduct. On top of that, two new surcharges — a 3.8 percent tax on investment income and a 0.9 percent tax on regular income — hit those same wealthy households.
As a result of the taxes added in both the deal and the 2010 health care law, which came into effect this year, taxpayers with $1 million in income and up will pay on average $168,000 more in taxes. Millionaires' share of the overall federal tax burden will climb to 23 percent from 20 percent.
Full article
My expectation is that going forward any new tax hikes will be much more broad based in nature (ex. a consumption tax). Something to keep in mind going forward as we talk about spending cuts. If we don't cut it we need to be prepared to pay for it (at some point in the near term).
|
Record high comparative tax share burden for a record high share of income. Seems fair to me.
|
What is a consumption tax? How does that work?
|
"Beginning in the 1970s, economic growth slowed and the income gap widened.
Income growth for households in the middle and lower parts of the distribution slowed sharply, while incomes at the top continued to grow strongly.
The concentration of income at the very top of the distribution rose to levels last seen more than 80 years ago (during the “Roaring Twenties”)."
![[image loading]](http://www.cbpp.org/images/cms/11-28-11pov-f1.jpg)
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3629
Glad to see a more progressive tax code. Most people haven't been seeing the same gains as the 90+ percentiles since the mid 70s. There are a variety of reasons for this apart from taxes but, the more unequal income is the more progressive the tax code should be IMO.
|
![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/45/Productivity_and_Real_Median_Family_Income_Growth_1947-2009.png)
Where did the productivity go?
|
On January 06 2013 03:31 sam!zdat wrote:
What is a consumption tax? How does that work?
Sales tax or a VAT. Basically, it's a tax you can "choose" to pay by the price and quality of products you buy, and when you buy them.
|
On January 06 2013 03:41 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:Where did the productivity go?
if that graph is accurate and means what i think it does it's like the saddest thing ever... omg :p
|
On January 06 2013 03:41 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:Where did the productivity go?
Does this graph take into account technological advances? I mean, wouldn't there be an increase in productivity if one went from chopping down trees with an axe to using a chainsaw? Does it take into account just the employees productivity, or the company's?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
