|
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 April 28 2017 00:08 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2017 23:52 JinDesu wrote:On April 27 2017 23:38 Danglars wrote:On April 27 2017 21:15 Acrofales wrote:On April 27 2017 21:12 Danglars wrote:On April 27 2017 18:23 Biff The Understudy wrote:
So this tax reform is a textbook reverse Robin Hood apparently. Steal to the poor, give to the rich. I guess those transfer of wealth upward are deep down the raison d'être of the GOP. Bake it with a sauce of white resentment and you pull the perfect con by getting blue collars to vote to get robbed.
People who know their Washington, is it going to pass? Because at a time where inequalities are one of our biggest problems, this is simply horrifying. Inasmuch as you can admit the current progressive tax system is Robin Hood and a focus on inequality is pure societal envy, you can be right. If Robin Hood slows his robbery or quits the trade and things return more to keeping the money you make, it will always be criticized by progressives/progressive-leaders as tax cuts for the rich, trickle-down, etc. It's pretty passé at this point and about as surprising as claiming Republicans don't care about minorities. Lets put that aside for a minute. Do you agree that wealth inequality is one of our biggest problems at the moment? E: and so as not to get a long chain of questions: do you also agree that government ought to work at solving society's biggest problems? As long as inequality can be increased by rich people very adept at growing their money, it's an improper term to use to describe the biggest problem. Joe Plumber doesn't or shouldn't care that there's this one guy on Wall St making an absolute killing that dwarfs his modest business growth this year. He affords a better house, gets off food stamps, gets his kids something nice ... whatever. To steal the way another put it, I know some that couldn't care less if the poor were more poor so long as the rich really bit it. And I know a lot of absolutely miserable countries with low levels of absolute economic inequality. So, no, it isn't a good description of a pressing issue whatsoever, and it isn't the governments job to punish the most successful on behalf of the mob. If I am understanding your position correctly, you are saying - if society gains in total, and the bottom portion (whatever percent that is) still grows and can afford to have a family, disposable income, and live a life that allows for moving up the ladder without hard restrictions - then it doesn't matter how much more gain the top percent makes (and it is irrelevant how much more they make). Is that a correct interpretation of your position? If so, I am somewhat in agreement with that ideal, but I don't think our current society matches up with that. You may understand that to be my greatest critique of looking at the problem through an inequality lens. Low social mobility/economic mobility is a problem worthy of deep consideration, even including government involvement. If the SNAP program and other assistance programs were cut to the degree that someone with credit card debt loses his job and the average outcome is starvation and death, that too is bad. You're right that current society doesn't match up all that well, there's plenty of blame to be spread around on that issue, but we can keep talking about the incremental measures that will help.
Understood. I may not have the knowledge of step solutions and I may not agree with some of your (or perhaps my preconceived thoughts of your) solutions on solving for this - but I do agree that calling wealth inequality bad as a standalone statement is incorrect. A society where the rich is able to get richer but push for the entire country to move in the same direction would have inequality, but would be acceptable in my view.
|
On April 28 2017 00:13 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2017 00:07 Mercy13 wrote:On April 27 2017 23:58 Danglars wrote:On April 27 2017 23:52 Acrofales wrote:On April 27 2017 23:38 Danglars wrote:On April 27 2017 21:15 Acrofales wrote:On April 27 2017 21:12 Danglars wrote:On April 27 2017 18:23 Biff The Understudy wrote:
So this tax reform is a textbook reverse Robin Hood apparently. Steal to the poor, give to the rich. I guess those transfer of wealth upward are deep down the raison d'être of the GOP. Bake it with a sauce of white resentment and you pull the perfect con by getting blue collars to vote to get robbed.
People who know their Washington, is it going to pass? Because at a time where inequalities are one of our biggest problems, this is simply horrifying. Inasmuch as you can admit the current progressive tax system is Robin Hood and a focus on inequality is pure societal envy, you can be right. If Robin Hood slows his robbery or quits the trade and things return more to keeping the money you make, it will always be criticized by progressives/progressive-leaders as tax cuts for the rich, trickle-down, etc. It's pretty passé at this point and about as surprising as claiming Republicans don't care about minorities. Lets put that aside for a minute. Do you agree that wealth inequality is one of our biggest problems at the moment? E: and so as not to get a long chain of questions: do you also agree that government ought to work at solving society's biggest problems? As long as inequality can be increased by rich people very adept at growing their money, it's an improper term to use to describe the biggest problem. Joe Plumber doesn't or shouldn't care that there's this one guy on Wall St making an absolute killing that dwarfs his modest business growth this year. He affords a better house, gets off food stamps, gets his kids something nice ... whatever. To steal the way another put it, I know some that couldn't care less if the poor were more poor so long as the rich really bit it. And I know a lot of absolutely miserable countries with low levels of absolute economic inequality. So, no, it isn't a good description of a pressing issue whatsoever, and it isn't the governments job to punish the most successful on behalf of the mob. Pretty sure Joe Plumber is doing just fine. It's Joe Coalminer you should worry about. And José Campesino. And by all accounts, the programs that the current government wants to scrap are directly affecting the money available to these poorest groups of people. So it's not a case of everybody getting richer, but the rich getting richer a bit faster than the rest (which is a long-term problem, because eventually inflation will catch up to the poorest and they will stop getting richer in comparison to inflation even if overall wealth continues to increase). It seems far nearer to a case of the poor actually getting poorer. Joe Coalminer isn't getting off foodstamps. His foodstamp program is getting nixed, so now he'll just go hungry instead. And to add insult to injury, while nixing Joe Coalminer's foodstamp program, there's an incoming tax break for the richest segment of the population. Then don't use inequality to describe the plight of the poor. It makes no distinction. I assume you're not concerned with lax campaign finance laws which allow rich people to buy disproportionate political influence. More inequality = more political influence concentrated with a smaller group. If I'm right that you support this approach to campaign finance can you explain why? Why are you depriving the right to free speech based on income? Why even have a republic if you don't trust the population to not be duped? I've seen enough bias on here towards corporations that happen to produce print and television media and against corporations that produce other goods and services to not trust a single person here to write one. It just doesn't exist and in every case you're better off just letting a free country be free.
If I owned a business that had sufficient dollars to lobby, and or buy politicians into power through campaign donations. I absolutely would as that would net me greater profits. Consider the following situation:
I produce a good that is mildly toxic.
A watchdog group discovers said toxicity
I (using my large marketing budget) distribute misinformation about the product.
Through my campaign donations and dealings with politicians I have secured deals for my business where the politicians will vouch for my product and research and back me up with legislation.
Public is now confused and doesn't know what is right and i successful defend my company from being destroyed.
the above situation is obviously simplified, but take for example the tobacco companies, soft drink companies, etc. who have done this exact thing. it is not the american people i have a problem trusting, it is the greed of the companies. I cant discover that i am being duped if i cant get all the information, and accurate information these days is getting harder and harder to come by.
Folks on all sides are poisoning the well of journalism with sensationalist babble, again, because of the greed of their parent companies.
First I would propose legislation that any business that has the words news in it should be a non for profit org, and that any for profit, organization have the words entertainment in the name this way the public could more easily separate the chaff from the whey. (just spitballing I havent completely thought this out).
Ultimately it all comes down to who the public can trust not so much as can we trust the public, and these days there are scant few organizations that truly have the trust of the public, and even fewer that actually deserve it.
|
United States42864 Posts
On April 28 2017 00:31 Norm3 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2017 00:20 KwarK wrote:Self quoting re the Trump tax plan On March 09 2017 11:13 KwarK wrote:
I feel like reminding people of Trump's tax proposals during the election for whatever reason.
So right now there is effectively a 0% bracket below all the tax brackets composed of deductions and exemptions. This is calculated as follows
# of adults (1 for single, 2 for married) * $6,350 + # of family members (adults, children, dependents, whatever) * $4050
So a single mother with 2 kids and her aged mother would be 1*$6,350+4*$4050 in the 0% bracket, or $22,550
The Trump plan disposes of exemptions entirely and does a flat $15,000 deduction per adult (1 single, 2 married). Great for single childless people with nobody to support, their 0% goes from $10,400 ($6,350 + $4,050) to $15,000, about the same for married couples with two kids, absolutely shitty for anyone single supporting people. Kids, parents, grandkids, extended family, disabled folks, whatever, you get nothing for them unless you marry them.
In the current system above that variable 0% bracket is a 10% bracket. In the Trump plan that's a 12%. So if you're our single mother mentioned above in the current system and making $30k then your 0% bracket is $0-$22,550 and you're paying 10% on the $7,450 above that. In the Trump plan you're paying 12% on the $15,000 above your $0-$15,000 bracket. $1,800 under Trump vs $745 right now.
The lowest tax rate is actually planned to go up, while simultaneously reducing the variable 0% bracket for the people who need it most.
Additionally our single mother described above would currently get a status called Head of Household that entitles her to larger brackets, increasing the amount of money she can have taxed at 10%. The Trump plan calls for a simplification of the tax system by removing HoH. HoH is a generous bracket for single adults with dependents because the tax code thinks that if you've got dependents then your discretionary income at every tax bracket will be lower due to those additional expenses. Without HoH a widow whose husband died 3 years ago leaving her with 3 kids gets taxed as single, for example.
I'd say that these tax increases that seem to almost deliberately target the most vulnerable in society are built to offset the huge tax decreases on the rich but they won't even begin to tackle that because an extra thousand dollars from the single mothers won't offset a 7% tax cut on incomes over a quarter mil. Raising taxes specifically on single earner families and families with dependents isn't about to balance the budget, it's just a "fuck you".
Worth pointing that out every now and then. The Trump tax plan isn't about tax cuts, although it certainly features a number of those for the 1%, it's about class warfare. We can play a game with this. You describe a family (single parent, two parent, widow (with # of years since death), whatever, with # of kids, # of those kids <18 and gross income) and I'll tell you how much their taxes will change under the Trump tax plan. I'll write a script to calculate it today. Show nested quote +Currently, households do not pay taxes on a certain minimum amount of income, depending on size and family status. During the campaign, Trump proposed exempting households from paying taxes on their first $15,000 in income, regardless of the type or size of the household. He also proposed bringing the minimum marginal rate that ordinary households pay on their income up from 10 percent to 12 percent.
According to the new document, there would be no increase in that minimum rate. Households would be able to avoid taxes on their first $25,200 in income for a married couple (the figure for individual taxpayers would be half that), but on top of that, there could be additional exemptions depending on the size of the household, as in the current system. Source
That doesn't change the problem. It confirms he's planning to increase the standard deduction (currently $6,350) to $12,600 and doesn't change the standing Trump policy from the campaign of removing exemptions. Head of Household is probably also on the chopping block.
Right now you get a $10,400 deduction for you, another $10,400 for your wife, $4,050 for every dependent and wider brackets if you're head of household. The information we have is that Trump wants to make it $12,600 for you, $12,600 for your wife, $0 for every dependent and the same brackets regardless of kids.
|
On April 28 2017 00:42 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2017 00:31 Norm3 wrote:On April 28 2017 00:20 KwarK wrote:Self quoting re the Trump tax plan On March 09 2017 11:13 KwarK wrote:
I feel like reminding people of Trump's tax proposals during the election for whatever reason.
So right now there is effectively a 0% bracket below all the tax brackets composed of deductions and exemptions. This is calculated as follows
# of adults (1 for single, 2 for married) * $6,350 + # of family members (adults, children, dependents, whatever) * $4050
So a single mother with 2 kids and her aged mother would be 1*$6,350+4*$4050 in the 0% bracket, or $22,550
The Trump plan disposes of exemptions entirely and does a flat $15,000 deduction per adult (1 single, 2 married). Great for single childless people with nobody to support, their 0% goes from $10,400 ($6,350 + $4,050) to $15,000, about the same for married couples with two kids, absolutely shitty for anyone single supporting people. Kids, parents, grandkids, extended family, disabled folks, whatever, you get nothing for them unless you marry them.
In the current system above that variable 0% bracket is a 10% bracket. In the Trump plan that's a 12%. So if you're our single mother mentioned above in the current system and making $30k then your 0% bracket is $0-$22,550 and you're paying 10% on the $7,450 above that. In the Trump plan you're paying 12% on the $15,000 above your $0-$15,000 bracket. $1,800 under Trump vs $745 right now.
The lowest tax rate is actually planned to go up, while simultaneously reducing the variable 0% bracket for the people who need it most.
Additionally our single mother described above would currently get a status called Head of Household that entitles her to larger brackets, increasing the amount of money she can have taxed at 10%. The Trump plan calls for a simplification of the tax system by removing HoH. HoH is a generous bracket for single adults with dependents because the tax code thinks that if you've got dependents then your discretionary income at every tax bracket will be lower due to those additional expenses. Without HoH a widow whose husband died 3 years ago leaving her with 3 kids gets taxed as single, for example.
I'd say that these tax increases that seem to almost deliberately target the most vulnerable in society are built to offset the huge tax decreases on the rich but they won't even begin to tackle that because an extra thousand dollars from the single mothers won't offset a 7% tax cut on incomes over a quarter mil. Raising taxes specifically on single earner families and families with dependents isn't about to balance the budget, it's just a "fuck you".
Worth pointing that out every now and then. The Trump tax plan isn't about tax cuts, although it certainly features a number of those for the 1%, it's about class warfare. We can play a game with this. You describe a family (single parent, two parent, widow (with # of years since death), whatever, with # of kids, # of those kids <18 and gross income) and I'll tell you how much their taxes will change under the Trump tax plan. I'll write a script to calculate it today. Currently, households do not pay taxes on a certain minimum amount of income, depending on size and family status. During the campaign, Trump proposed exempting households from paying taxes on their first $15,000 in income, regardless of the type or size of the household. He also proposed bringing the minimum marginal rate that ordinary households pay on their income up from 10 percent to 12 percent.
According to the new document, there would be no increase in that minimum rate. Households would be able to avoid taxes on their first $25,200 in income for a married couple (the figure for individual taxpayers would be half that), but on top of that, there could be additional exemptions depending on the size of the household, as in the current system. Source That doesn't change the problem. It confirms he's planning to increase the standard deduction (currently $6,350) to $12,600 and doesn't change the standing Trump policy from the campaign of removing exemptions. Head of Household is probably also on the chopping block. Right now you get a $10,400 deduction for you, another $10,400 for your wife, $4,050 for every dependent and wider brackets if you're head of household. The information we have is that Trump wants to make it $12,600 for you, $12,600 for your wife, $0 for every dependent and the same brackets regardless of kids.
That seems like an amazing way to encourage people not to have children.
Edit: The argument for election finance reform isn’t in “money =/= Free speech”. It is that unlimited money into elections makes them terrible, filled with disinformation and there is no accountability for Super PACs. The voters should not be burdened with having to wade through endless ads from effectively unregulated non-profits.
|
Hence the reason for Trump's tweetstorm:
|
United States42864 Posts
On April 28 2017 00:45 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2017 00:42 KwarK wrote:On April 28 2017 00:31 Norm3 wrote:On April 28 2017 00:20 KwarK wrote:Self quoting re the Trump tax plan On March 09 2017 11:13 KwarK wrote:
I feel like reminding people of Trump's tax proposals during the election for whatever reason.
So right now there is effectively a 0% bracket below all the tax brackets composed of deductions and exemptions. This is calculated as follows
# of adults (1 for single, 2 for married) * $6,350 + # of family members (adults, children, dependents, whatever) * $4050
So a single mother with 2 kids and her aged mother would be 1*$6,350+4*$4050 in the 0% bracket, or $22,550
The Trump plan disposes of exemptions entirely and does a flat $15,000 deduction per adult (1 single, 2 married). Great for single childless people with nobody to support, their 0% goes from $10,400 ($6,350 + $4,050) to $15,000, about the same for married couples with two kids, absolutely shitty for anyone single supporting people. Kids, parents, grandkids, extended family, disabled folks, whatever, you get nothing for them unless you marry them.
In the current system above that variable 0% bracket is a 10% bracket. In the Trump plan that's a 12%. So if you're our single mother mentioned above in the current system and making $30k then your 0% bracket is $0-$22,550 and you're paying 10% on the $7,450 above that. In the Trump plan you're paying 12% on the $15,000 above your $0-$15,000 bracket. $1,800 under Trump vs $745 right now.
The lowest tax rate is actually planned to go up, while simultaneously reducing the variable 0% bracket for the people who need it most.
Additionally our single mother described above would currently get a status called Head of Household that entitles her to larger brackets, increasing the amount of money she can have taxed at 10%. The Trump plan calls for a simplification of the tax system by removing HoH. HoH is a generous bracket for single adults with dependents because the tax code thinks that if you've got dependents then your discretionary income at every tax bracket will be lower due to those additional expenses. Without HoH a widow whose husband died 3 years ago leaving her with 3 kids gets taxed as single, for example.
I'd say that these tax increases that seem to almost deliberately target the most vulnerable in society are built to offset the huge tax decreases on the rich but they won't even begin to tackle that because an extra thousand dollars from the single mothers won't offset a 7% tax cut on incomes over a quarter mil. Raising taxes specifically on single earner families and families with dependents isn't about to balance the budget, it's just a "fuck you".
Worth pointing that out every now and then. The Trump tax plan isn't about tax cuts, although it certainly features a number of those for the 1%, it's about class warfare. We can play a game with this. You describe a family (single parent, two parent, widow (with # of years since death), whatever, with # of kids, # of those kids <18 and gross income) and I'll tell you how much their taxes will change under the Trump tax plan. I'll write a script to calculate it today. Currently, households do not pay taxes on a certain minimum amount of income, depending on size and family status. During the campaign, Trump proposed exempting households from paying taxes on their first $15,000 in income, regardless of the type or size of the household. He also proposed bringing the minimum marginal rate that ordinary households pay on their income up from 10 percent to 12 percent.
According to the new document, there would be no increase in that minimum rate. Households would be able to avoid taxes on their first $25,200 in income for a married couple (the figure for individual taxpayers would be half that), but on top of that, there could be additional exemptions depending on the size of the household, as in the current system. Source That doesn't change the problem. It confirms he's planning to increase the standard deduction (currently $6,350) to $12,600 and doesn't change the standing Trump policy from the campaign of removing exemptions. Head of Household is probably also on the chopping block. Right now you get a $10,400 deduction for you, another $10,400 for your wife, $4,050 for every dependent and wider brackets if you're head of household. The information we have is that Trump wants to make it $12,600 for you, $12,600 for your wife, $0 for every dependent and the same brackets regardless of kids. That seems like an amazing way to encourage people not to have children.
Historically there has been a bit of an attempt to only tax discretionary income. They give you a certain amount of your income tax free to cover necessities and obviously necessities change depending upon family circumstances. That's why the US tax code has the variable size 0% bracket, unlike the UK tax system for example. Trump's policy is basically to scrap all that and establish a one size fits all 0% bracket.
|
On April 28 2017 00:51 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2017 00:45 Plansix wrote:On April 28 2017 00:42 KwarK wrote:On April 28 2017 00:31 Norm3 wrote:On April 28 2017 00:20 KwarK wrote:Self quoting re the Trump tax plan On March 09 2017 11:13 KwarK wrote:
I feel like reminding people of Trump's tax proposals during the election for whatever reason.
So right now there is effectively a 0% bracket below all the tax brackets composed of deductions and exemptions. This is calculated as follows
# of adults (1 for single, 2 for married) * $6,350 + # of family members (adults, children, dependents, whatever) * $4050
So a single mother with 2 kids and her aged mother would be 1*$6,350+4*$4050 in the 0% bracket, or $22,550
The Trump plan disposes of exemptions entirely and does a flat $15,000 deduction per adult (1 single, 2 married). Great for single childless people with nobody to support, their 0% goes from $10,400 ($6,350 + $4,050) to $15,000, about the same for married couples with two kids, absolutely shitty for anyone single supporting people. Kids, parents, grandkids, extended family, disabled folks, whatever, you get nothing for them unless you marry them.
In the current system above that variable 0% bracket is a 10% bracket. In the Trump plan that's a 12%. So if you're our single mother mentioned above in the current system and making $30k then your 0% bracket is $0-$22,550 and you're paying 10% on the $7,450 above that. In the Trump plan you're paying 12% on the $15,000 above your $0-$15,000 bracket. $1,800 under Trump vs $745 right now.
The lowest tax rate is actually planned to go up, while simultaneously reducing the variable 0% bracket for the people who need it most.
Additionally our single mother described above would currently get a status called Head of Household that entitles her to larger brackets, increasing the amount of money she can have taxed at 10%. The Trump plan calls for a simplification of the tax system by removing HoH. HoH is a generous bracket for single adults with dependents because the tax code thinks that if you've got dependents then your discretionary income at every tax bracket will be lower due to those additional expenses. Without HoH a widow whose husband died 3 years ago leaving her with 3 kids gets taxed as single, for example.
I'd say that these tax increases that seem to almost deliberately target the most vulnerable in society are built to offset the huge tax decreases on the rich but they won't even begin to tackle that because an extra thousand dollars from the single mothers won't offset a 7% tax cut on incomes over a quarter mil. Raising taxes specifically on single earner families and families with dependents isn't about to balance the budget, it's just a "fuck you".
Worth pointing that out every now and then. The Trump tax plan isn't about tax cuts, although it certainly features a number of those for the 1%, it's about class warfare. We can play a game with this. You describe a family (single parent, two parent, widow (with # of years since death), whatever, with # of kids, # of those kids <18 and gross income) and I'll tell you how much their taxes will change under the Trump tax plan. I'll write a script to calculate it today. Currently, households do not pay taxes on a certain minimum amount of income, depending on size and family status. During the campaign, Trump proposed exempting households from paying taxes on their first $15,000 in income, regardless of the type or size of the household. He also proposed bringing the minimum marginal rate that ordinary households pay on their income up from 10 percent to 12 percent.
According to the new document, there would be no increase in that minimum rate. Households would be able to avoid taxes on their first $25,200 in income for a married couple (the figure for individual taxpayers would be half that), but on top of that, there could be additional exemptions depending on the size of the household, as in the current system. Source That doesn't change the problem. It confirms he's planning to increase the standard deduction (currently $6,350) to $12,600 and doesn't change the standing Trump policy from the campaign of removing exemptions. Head of Household is probably also on the chopping block. Right now you get a $10,400 deduction for you, another $10,400 for your wife, $4,050 for every dependent and wider brackets if you're head of household. The information we have is that Trump wants to make it $12,600 for you, $12,600 for your wife, $0 for every dependent and the same brackets regardless of kids. That seems like an amazing way to encourage people not to have children. Historically there has been a bit of an attempt to only tax discretionary income. They give you a certain amount of your income tax free to cover necessities and obviously necessities change depending upon family circumstances. That's why the US tax code has the variable size 0% bracket, unlike the UK tax system for example. Trump's policy is basically to scrap all that and establish a one size fits all 0% bracket.
And the Republicans say they hate one size fits all government. But they love that flat tax.
|
On April 28 2017 00:39 Trainrunnef wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2017 00:13 Danglars wrote:On April 28 2017 00:07 Mercy13 wrote:On April 27 2017 23:58 Danglars wrote:On April 27 2017 23:52 Acrofales wrote:On April 27 2017 23:38 Danglars wrote:On April 27 2017 21:15 Acrofales wrote:On April 27 2017 21:12 Danglars wrote:On April 27 2017 18:23 Biff The Understudy wrote:
So this tax reform is a textbook reverse Robin Hood apparently. Steal to the poor, give to the rich. I guess those transfer of wealth upward are deep down the raison d'être of the GOP. Bake it with a sauce of white resentment and you pull the perfect con by getting blue collars to vote to get robbed.
People who know their Washington, is it going to pass? Because at a time where inequalities are one of our biggest problems, this is simply horrifying. Inasmuch as you can admit the current progressive tax system is Robin Hood and a focus on inequality is pure societal envy, you can be right. If Robin Hood slows his robbery or quits the trade and things return more to keeping the money you make, it will always be criticized by progressives/progressive-leaders as tax cuts for the rich, trickle-down, etc. It's pretty passé at this point and about as surprising as claiming Republicans don't care about minorities. Lets put that aside for a minute. Do you agree that wealth inequality is one of our biggest problems at the moment? E: and so as not to get a long chain of questions: do you also agree that government ought to work at solving society's biggest problems? As long as inequality can be increased by rich people very adept at growing their money, it's an improper term to use to describe the biggest problem. Joe Plumber doesn't or shouldn't care that there's this one guy on Wall St making an absolute killing that dwarfs his modest business growth this year. He affords a better house, gets off food stamps, gets his kids something nice ... whatever. To steal the way another put it, I know some that couldn't care less if the poor were more poor so long as the rich really bit it. And I know a lot of absolutely miserable countries with low levels of absolute economic inequality. So, no, it isn't a good description of a pressing issue whatsoever, and it isn't the governments job to punish the most successful on behalf of the mob. Pretty sure Joe Plumber is doing just fine. It's Joe Coalminer you should worry about. And José Campesino. And by all accounts, the programs that the current government wants to scrap are directly affecting the money available to these poorest groups of people. So it's not a case of everybody getting richer, but the rich getting richer a bit faster than the rest (which is a long-term problem, because eventually inflation will catch up to the poorest and they will stop getting richer in comparison to inflation even if overall wealth continues to increase). It seems far nearer to a case of the poor actually getting poorer. Joe Coalminer isn't getting off foodstamps. His foodstamp program is getting nixed, so now he'll just go hungry instead. And to add insult to injury, while nixing Joe Coalminer's foodstamp program, there's an incoming tax break for the richest segment of the population. Then don't use inequality to describe the plight of the poor. It makes no distinction. I assume you're not concerned with lax campaign finance laws which allow rich people to buy disproportionate political influence. More inequality = more political influence concentrated with a smaller group. If I'm right that you support this approach to campaign finance can you explain why? Why are you depriving the right to free speech based on income? Why even have a republic if you don't trust the population to not be duped? I've seen enough bias on here towards corporations that happen to produce print and television media and against corporations that produce other goods and services to not trust a single person here to write one. It just doesn't exist and in every case you're better off just letting a free country be free. If I owned a business that had sufficient dollars to lobby, and or buy politicians into power through campaign donations. I absolutely would as that would net me greater profits. Consider the following situation: I produce a good that is mildly toxic. A watchdog group discovers said toxicity I (using my large marketing budget) distribute misinformation about the product. Through my campaign donations and dealings with politicians I have secured deals for my business where the politicians will vouch for my product and research and back me up with legislation. Public is now confused and doesn't know what is right and i successful defend my company from being destroyed. the above situation is obviously simplified, but take for example the tobacco companies, soft drink companies, etc. who have done this exact thing. it is not the american people i have a problem trusting, it is the greed of the companies. I cant discover that i am being duped if i cant get all the information, and accurate information these days is getting harder and harder to come by. Folks on all sides are poisoning the well of journalism with sensationalist babble, again, because of the greed of their parent companies. First I would propose legislation that any business that has the words news in it should be a non for profit org, and that any for profit, organization have the words entertainment in the name this way the public could more easily separate the chaff from the whey. (just spitballing I havent completely thought this out). Ultimately it all comes down to who the public can trust not so much as can we trust the public, and these days there are scant few organizations that truly have the trust of the public, and even fewer that actually deserve it.
And the politicians that made backroom deals to negate the FDA and kill Americans get voted out of office. I'm not going to stand here saying evil, corrupt people in business and government are always limited in the scope of their harm and the checks and balances will always get there in the *tada* nick of time. I am however looking at ways to decrease the overall impact without infringing on real civil rights and producing a net increase in the kinds of corruption.
Simplified further, humans are needlessly greedy, and power hungry, and corrupt. So how do you make humans out other humans in check? Any system will be imperfect unless you find angels to run things. Watchdog groups will be run by humans, the justice system run by humans, everything. So the same public that is responsible for voting out corrupt politicians who funnel billions to influence their vote is the public that can band together in their own corporations to spend money on ads to expose scandals and influence their fellow man. And publish books and stage protests and start websites and lobby their politicians. Eventually, you get to where the cabal has to include nearly every institution in society to do their nefarious deeds, and that's (briefly) the closest we can get.
Hopefully you can also see the problem where a very big and powerful government can kill disliked industries and do other harms. For example, agency action apart operating in broad laws whose civil servants use their volition to favor and punish as they see fit. That one terminus is indeed a big problem. A government big enough to give you everything you want, is a government big enough to take away everything that you have
|
The problem with the current campaign money issue is that it makes a small group of people's speech far stronger and worth more then millions of people. We shouldn't be a society that values the worth of your vote or speech by the dollars in your bank account.
|
This is very believable
House Oversight Chairman Jason Chaffetz announced Wednesday that he will take a leave of absence from Congress to undergo surgery on his foot, with an estimated return in mid-May.
The Utah Republican posted a picture of an X-ray on Instagram and wrote that a foot injury he sustained 12 years ago is now prompting him to undergo "immediate" surgery.
Story Continued Below
The estimated recovery time is three to four weeks. Chaffetz said avoiding the procedure could put him "at risk for serious infection."
Chaffetz's absence comes amid a crucial stretch for House Republicans and the Trump administration. There are looming votes on a spending bill to avoid a government shutdown and, potentially, a close vote on legislation to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act.
"I’m sorry to miss the important work we are doing in Washington," Chaffetz wrote. "This is not an opportune time to be away but medical emergencies are never convenient. I appreciate my constituent’s patience and understanding as I take time to recover."
Chaffetz told POLITICO he plans to fly back to his home state early on Thursday. He said he expects to resume his place in Congress and his panel chairmanship in three weeks, likely after the May recess.
Chaffetz announced last week that he would not be seeking reelection to his House seat in 2018.
“After long consultation with my family and prayerful consideration, I have decided I will not be a candidate for any office in 2018,” he wrote in a Facebook post.
Chaffetz said later in the week he has not ruled out the possibility that he might vacate his seat prior to the end of his current term.
“In the meantime, I still have a job to do and I have no plans to take my foot off the gas," Chaffetz said.
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/04/26/chaffetz-leave-congress-237667
|
On April 28 2017 00:13 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2017 00:07 Mercy13 wrote:On April 27 2017 23:58 Danglars wrote:On April 27 2017 23:52 Acrofales wrote:On April 27 2017 23:38 Danglars wrote:On April 27 2017 21:15 Acrofales wrote:On April 27 2017 21:12 Danglars wrote:On April 27 2017 18:23 Biff The Understudy wrote:
So this tax reform is a textbook reverse Robin Hood apparently. Steal to the poor, give to the rich. I guess those transfer of wealth upward are deep down the raison d'être of the GOP. Bake it with a sauce of white resentment and you pull the perfect con by getting blue collars to vote to get robbed.
People who know their Washington, is it going to pass? Because at a time where inequalities are one of our biggest problems, this is simply horrifying. Inasmuch as you can admit the current progressive tax system is Robin Hood and a focus on inequality is pure societal envy, you can be right. If Robin Hood slows his robbery or quits the trade and things return more to keeping the money you make, it will always be criticized by progressives/progressive-leaders as tax cuts for the rich, trickle-down, etc. It's pretty passé at this point and about as surprising as claiming Republicans don't care about minorities. Lets put that aside for a minute. Do you agree that wealth inequality is one of our biggest problems at the moment? E: and so as not to get a long chain of questions: do you also agree that government ought to work at solving society's biggest problems? As long as inequality can be increased by rich people very adept at growing their money, it's an improper term to use to describe the biggest problem. Joe Plumber doesn't or shouldn't care that there's this one guy on Wall St making an absolute killing that dwarfs his modest business growth this year. He affords a better house, gets off food stamps, gets his kids something nice ... whatever. To steal the way another put it, I know some that couldn't care less if the poor were more poor so long as the rich really bit it. And I know a lot of absolutely miserable countries with low levels of absolute economic inequality. So, no, it isn't a good description of a pressing issue whatsoever, and it isn't the governments job to punish the most successful on behalf of the mob. Pretty sure Joe Plumber is doing just fine. It's Joe Coalminer you should worry about. And José Campesino. And by all accounts, the programs that the current government wants to scrap are directly affecting the money available to these poorest groups of people. So it's not a case of everybody getting richer, but the rich getting richer a bit faster than the rest (which is a long-term problem, because eventually inflation will catch up to the poorest and they will stop getting richer in comparison to inflation even if overall wealth continues to increase). It seems far nearer to a case of the poor actually getting poorer. Joe Coalminer isn't getting off foodstamps. His foodstamp program is getting nixed, so now he'll just go hungry instead. And to add insult to injury, while nixing Joe Coalminer's foodstamp program, there's an incoming tax break for the richest segment of the population. Then don't use inequality to describe the plight of the poor. It makes no distinction. I assume you're not concerned with lax campaign finance laws which allow rich people to buy disproportionate political influence. More inequality = more political influence concentrated with a smaller group. If I'm right that you support this approach to campaign finance can you explain why? Why are you depriving the right to free speech based on income? Why even have a republic if you don't trust the population to not be duped? I've seen enough bias on here towards corporations that happen to produce print and television media and against corporations that produce other goods and services to not trust a single person here to write one. It just doesn't exist and in every case you're better off just letting a free country be free.
Surely you don't think that more freedom is always better? Even fundamental rights such as freedom of speech are often limited if there is a compelling reason to do so. Without conceding that all types of political spending should count as speech, there are lots of reasons why limiting private spending on elections should be limited.
I've seen you complain many times in this forum about how GOP politicians ignore the concerns of the base, and instead focus on the concerns of wealthy donors.
In addition, there was this study from a few years ago:
The U.S. government does not represent the interests of the majority of the country's citizens, but is instead ruled by those of the rich and powerful, a new study from Princeton and Northwestern universities has concluded.
...
Researchers concluded that U.S. government policies rarely align with the preferences of the majority of Americans, but do favour special interests and lobbying organizations: 'When a majority of citizens disagrees with economic elites and/or with organized interests, they generally lose. Moreover, because of the strong status quo bias built into the US political system, even when fairly large majorities of Americans favour policy change, they generally do not get it.'
The positions of powerful interest groups are 'not substantially correlated with the preferences of average citizens,' but the politics of average Americans and affluent Americans sometimes does overlap. This is merely a coincidence, the report says, with the interests of the average American being served almost exclusively when it also serves those of the richest 10%.
Source
Are you content with this state of affairs?
|
Nothing says plausible deniability like a 12 year postponed foot surgery.
|
Ted Kennedy was dying from a brain tumor, but returned to the senate to push for votes on the ACA. But I guess foot surgery can really slow you down.
|
On April 28 2017 01:15 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2017 00:39 Trainrunnef wrote:On April 28 2017 00:13 Danglars wrote:On April 28 2017 00:07 Mercy13 wrote:On April 27 2017 23:58 Danglars wrote:On April 27 2017 23:52 Acrofales wrote:On April 27 2017 23:38 Danglars wrote:On April 27 2017 21:15 Acrofales wrote:On April 27 2017 21:12 Danglars wrote:On April 27 2017 18:23 Biff The Understudy wrote:
So this tax reform is a textbook reverse Robin Hood apparently. Steal to the poor, give to the rich. I guess those transfer of wealth upward are deep down the raison d'être of the GOP. Bake it with a sauce of white resentment and you pull the perfect con by getting blue collars to vote to get robbed.
People who know their Washington, is it going to pass? Because at a time where inequalities are one of our biggest problems, this is simply horrifying. Inasmuch as you can admit the current progressive tax system is Robin Hood and a focus on inequality is pure societal envy, you can be right. If Robin Hood slows his robbery or quits the trade and things return more to keeping the money you make, it will always be criticized by progressives/progressive-leaders as tax cuts for the rich, trickle-down, etc. It's pretty passé at this point and about as surprising as claiming Republicans don't care about minorities. Lets put that aside for a minute. Do you agree that wealth inequality is one of our biggest problems at the moment? E: and so as not to get a long chain of questions: do you also agree that government ought to work at solving society's biggest problems? As long as inequality can be increased by rich people very adept at growing their money, it's an improper term to use to describe the biggest problem. Joe Plumber doesn't or shouldn't care that there's this one guy on Wall St making an absolute killing that dwarfs his modest business growth this year. He affords a better house, gets off food stamps, gets his kids something nice ... whatever. To steal the way another put it, I know some that couldn't care less if the poor were more poor so long as the rich really bit it. And I know a lot of absolutely miserable countries with low levels of absolute economic inequality. So, no, it isn't a good description of a pressing issue whatsoever, and it isn't the governments job to punish the most successful on behalf of the mob. Pretty sure Joe Plumber is doing just fine. It's Joe Coalminer you should worry about. And José Campesino. And by all accounts, the programs that the current government wants to scrap are directly affecting the money available to these poorest groups of people. So it's not a case of everybody getting richer, but the rich getting richer a bit faster than the rest (which is a long-term problem, because eventually inflation will catch up to the poorest and they will stop getting richer in comparison to inflation even if overall wealth continues to increase). It seems far nearer to a case of the poor actually getting poorer. Joe Coalminer isn't getting off foodstamps. His foodstamp program is getting nixed, so now he'll just go hungry instead. And to add insult to injury, while nixing Joe Coalminer's foodstamp program, there's an incoming tax break for the richest segment of the population. Then don't use inequality to describe the plight of the poor. It makes no distinction. I assume you're not concerned with lax campaign finance laws which allow rich people to buy disproportionate political influence. More inequality = more political influence concentrated with a smaller group. If I'm right that you support this approach to campaign finance can you explain why? Why are you depriving the right to free speech based on income? Why even have a republic if you don't trust the population to not be duped? I've seen enough bias on here towards corporations that happen to produce print and television media and against corporations that produce other goods and services to not trust a single person here to write one. It just doesn't exist and in every case you're better off just letting a free country be free. If I owned a business that had sufficient dollars to lobby, and or buy politicians into power through campaign donations. I absolutely would as that would net me greater profits. Consider the following situation: I produce a good that is mildly toxic. A watchdog group discovers said toxicity I (using my large marketing budget) distribute misinformation about the product. Through my campaign donations and dealings with politicians I have secured deals for my business where the politicians will vouch for my product and research and back me up with legislation. Public is now confused and doesn't know what is right and i successful defend my company from being destroyed. the above situation is obviously simplified, but take for example the tobacco companies, soft drink companies, etc. who have done this exact thing. it is not the american people i have a problem trusting, it is the greed of the companies. I cant discover that i am being duped if i cant get all the information, and accurate information these days is getting harder and harder to come by. Folks on all sides are poisoning the well of journalism with sensationalist babble, again, because of the greed of their parent companies. First I would propose legislation that any business that has the words news in it should be a non for profit org, and that any for profit, organization have the words entertainment in the name this way the public could more easily separate the chaff from the whey. (just spitballing I havent completely thought this out). Ultimately it all comes down to who the public can trust not so much as can we trust the public, and these days there are scant few organizations that truly have the trust of the public, and even fewer that actually deserve it. And the politicians that made backroom deals to negate the FDA and kill Americans get voted out of office. I'm not going to stand here saying evil, corrupt people in business and government are always limited in the scope of their harm and the checks and balances will always get there in the *tada* nick of time. I am however looking at ways to decrease the overall impact without infringing on real civil rights and producing a net increase in the kinds of corruption. Simplified further, humans are needlessly greedy, and power hungry, and corrupt. So how do you make humans out other humans in check? Any system will be imperfect unless you find angels to run things. Watchdog groups will be run by humans, the justice system run by humans, everything. So the same public that is responsible for voting out corrupt politicians who funnel billions to influence their vote is the public that can band together in their own corporations to spend money on ads to expose scandals and influence their fellow man. And publish books and stage protests and start websites and lobby their politicians. Eventually, you get to where the cabal has to include nearly every institution in society to do their nefarious deeds, and that's (briefly) the closest we can get. Hopefully you can also see the problem where a very big and powerful government can kill disliked industries and do other harms. For example, agency action apart operating in broad laws whose civil servants use their volition to favor and punish as they see fit. That one terminus is indeed a big problem. A government big enough to give you everything you want, is a government big enough to take away everything that you have
Totally agree.
But as P6 mentioned before do you agree that allowing nearly unlimited sums of money to be funneled into politics is a net negative?
Do you believe that fundamentally more money=more free speech, and that therefore the ultra wealthy (and politically involved) have and unequal amount of free speech that is both unfair and unsustainable?
There's actually an interesting interview going on now on WNYC radio that is discussing inequality.
|
sometimes old injuries act up or acquire an issue that needs to be dealt with.
especially sometimes they end up in a state that's good enough that you can just leave them be, but if it acts up you gotta do something about it.
does a leave of absence mean he can't do votes? or does it just mean he's not going to be going into the office regularly?
I mean, it'd make sense to just stay off the foot for awhile, and only come in if really necessary. what're the rules on voting via telepresence or making a note of how you vote and have someone else put it in for you?
|
On April 28 2017 01:25 Mercy13 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2017 00:13 Danglars wrote:On April 28 2017 00:07 Mercy13 wrote:On April 27 2017 23:58 Danglars wrote:On April 27 2017 23:52 Acrofales wrote:On April 27 2017 23:38 Danglars wrote:On April 27 2017 21:15 Acrofales wrote:On April 27 2017 21:12 Danglars wrote:On April 27 2017 18:23 Biff The Understudy wrote:
So this tax reform is a textbook reverse Robin Hood apparently. Steal to the poor, give to the rich. I guess those transfer of wealth upward are deep down the raison d'être of the GOP. Bake it with a sauce of white resentment and you pull the perfect con by getting blue collars to vote to get robbed.
People who know their Washington, is it going to pass? Because at a time where inequalities are one of our biggest problems, this is simply horrifying. Inasmuch as you can admit the current progressive tax system is Robin Hood and a focus on inequality is pure societal envy, you can be right. If Robin Hood slows his robbery or quits the trade and things return more to keeping the money you make, it will always be criticized by progressives/progressive-leaders as tax cuts for the rich, trickle-down, etc. It's pretty passé at this point and about as surprising as claiming Republicans don't care about minorities. Lets put that aside for a minute. Do you agree that wealth inequality is one of our biggest problems at the moment? E: and so as not to get a long chain of questions: do you also agree that government ought to work at solving society's biggest problems? As long as inequality can be increased by rich people very adept at growing their money, it's an improper term to use to describe the biggest problem. Joe Plumber doesn't or shouldn't care that there's this one guy on Wall St making an absolute killing that dwarfs his modest business growth this year. He affords a better house, gets off food stamps, gets his kids something nice ... whatever. To steal the way another put it, I know some that couldn't care less if the poor were more poor so long as the rich really bit it. And I know a lot of absolutely miserable countries with low levels of absolute economic inequality. So, no, it isn't a good description of a pressing issue whatsoever, and it isn't the governments job to punish the most successful on behalf of the mob. Pretty sure Joe Plumber is doing just fine. It's Joe Coalminer you should worry about. And José Campesino. And by all accounts, the programs that the current government wants to scrap are directly affecting the money available to these poorest groups of people. So it's not a case of everybody getting richer, but the rich getting richer a bit faster than the rest (which is a long-term problem, because eventually inflation will catch up to the poorest and they will stop getting richer in comparison to inflation even if overall wealth continues to increase). It seems far nearer to a case of the poor actually getting poorer. Joe Coalminer isn't getting off foodstamps. His foodstamp program is getting nixed, so now he'll just go hungry instead. And to add insult to injury, while nixing Joe Coalminer's foodstamp program, there's an incoming tax break for the richest segment of the population. Then don't use inequality to describe the plight of the poor. It makes no distinction. I assume you're not concerned with lax campaign finance laws which allow rich people to buy disproportionate political influence. More inequality = more political influence concentrated with a smaller group. If I'm right that you support this approach to campaign finance can you explain why? Why are you depriving the right to free speech based on income? Why even have a republic if you don't trust the population to not be duped? I've seen enough bias on here towards corporations that happen to produce print and television media and against corporations that produce other goods and services to not trust a single person here to write one. It just doesn't exist and in every case you're better off just letting a free country be free. Surely you don't think that more freedom is always better? Even fundamental rights such as freedom of speech are often limited if there is a compelling reason to do so. Without conceding that all types of political spending should count as speech, there are lots of reasons why limiting private spending on elections should be limited. I've seen you complain many times in this forum about how GOP politicians ignore the concerns of the base, and instead focus on the concerns of wealthy donors. In addition, there was this study from a few years ago: Show nested quote +The U.S. government does not represent the interests of the majority of the country's citizens, but is instead ruled by those of the rich and powerful, a new study from Princeton and Northwestern universities has concluded.
...
Researchers concluded that U.S. government policies rarely align with the preferences of the majority of Americans, but do favour special interests and lobbying organizations: 'When a majority of citizens disagrees with economic elites and/or with organized interests, they generally lose. Moreover, because of the strong status quo bias built into the US political system, even when fairly large majorities of Americans favour policy change, they generally do not get it.'
The positions of powerful interest groups are 'not substantially correlated with the preferences of average citizens,' but the politics of average Americans and affluent Americans sometimes does overlap. This is merely a coincidence, the report says, with the interests of the average American being served almost exclusively when it also serves those of the richest 10%. SourceAre you content with this state of affairs?
You first. Why do you want to deprive free speech from people based on income? Or how the hell are citizens supposed to band together and raise the insane capital to get their candidate name recognition and attachment to policy issues if nobody is legally permitted to raise it and his opponent gets the free publicity of the press and maybe favor from aligned media corporations? It's always been the trouble with campaign finance laws; you're drawing distinctions for political advantage and each time I've seen it envisioned, it's just creating a worse situation.
|
On April 28 2017 01:15 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2017 00:39 Trainrunnef wrote:On April 28 2017 00:13 Danglars wrote:On April 28 2017 00:07 Mercy13 wrote:On April 27 2017 23:58 Danglars wrote:On April 27 2017 23:52 Acrofales wrote:On April 27 2017 23:38 Danglars wrote:On April 27 2017 21:15 Acrofales wrote:On April 27 2017 21:12 Danglars wrote:On April 27 2017 18:23 Biff The Understudy wrote:
So this tax reform is a textbook reverse Robin Hood apparently. Steal to the poor, give to the rich. I guess those transfer of wealth upward are deep down the raison d'être of the GOP. Bake it with a sauce of white resentment and you pull the perfect con by getting blue collars to vote to get robbed.
People who know their Washington, is it going to pass? Because at a time where inequalities are one of our biggest problems, this is simply horrifying. Inasmuch as you can admit the current progressive tax system is Robin Hood and a focus on inequality is pure societal envy, you can be right. If Robin Hood slows his robbery or quits the trade and things return more to keeping the money you make, it will always be criticized by progressives/progressive-leaders as tax cuts for the rich, trickle-down, etc. It's pretty passé at this point and about as surprising as claiming Republicans don't care about minorities. Lets put that aside for a minute. Do you agree that wealth inequality is one of our biggest problems at the moment? E: and so as not to get a long chain of questions: do you also agree that government ought to work at solving society's biggest problems? As long as inequality can be increased by rich people very adept at growing their money, it's an improper term to use to describe the biggest problem. Joe Plumber doesn't or shouldn't care that there's this one guy on Wall St making an absolute killing that dwarfs his modest business growth this year. He affords a better house, gets off food stamps, gets his kids something nice ... whatever. To steal the way another put it, I know some that couldn't care less if the poor were more poor so long as the rich really bit it. And I know a lot of absolutely miserable countries with low levels of absolute economic inequality. So, no, it isn't a good description of a pressing issue whatsoever, and it isn't the governments job to punish the most successful on behalf of the mob. Pretty sure Joe Plumber is doing just fine. It's Joe Coalminer you should worry about. And José Campesino. And by all accounts, the programs that the current government wants to scrap are directly affecting the money available to these poorest groups of people. So it's not a case of everybody getting richer, but the rich getting richer a bit faster than the rest (which is a long-term problem, because eventually inflation will catch up to the poorest and they will stop getting richer in comparison to inflation even if overall wealth continues to increase). It seems far nearer to a case of the poor actually getting poorer. Joe Coalminer isn't getting off foodstamps. His foodstamp program is getting nixed, so now he'll just go hungry instead. And to add insult to injury, while nixing Joe Coalminer's foodstamp program, there's an incoming tax break for the richest segment of the population. Then don't use inequality to describe the plight of the poor. It makes no distinction. I assume you're not concerned with lax campaign finance laws which allow rich people to buy disproportionate political influence. More inequality = more political influence concentrated with a smaller group. If I'm right that you support this approach to campaign finance can you explain why? Why are you depriving the right to free speech based on income? Why even have a republic if you don't trust the population to not be duped? I've seen enough bias on here towards corporations that happen to produce print and television media and against corporations that produce other goods and services to not trust a single person here to write one. It just doesn't exist and in every case you're better off just letting a free country be free. If I owned a business that had sufficient dollars to lobby, and or buy politicians into power through campaign donations. I absolutely would as that would net me greater profits. Consider the following situation: I produce a good that is mildly toxic. A watchdog group discovers said toxicity I (using my large marketing budget) distribute misinformation about the product. Through my campaign donations and dealings with politicians I have secured deals for my business where the politicians will vouch for my product and research and back me up with legislation. Public is now confused and doesn't know what is right and i successful defend my company from being destroyed. the above situation is obviously simplified, but take for example the tobacco companies, soft drink companies, etc. who have done this exact thing. it is not the american people i have a problem trusting, it is the greed of the companies. I cant discover that i am being duped if i cant get all the information, and accurate information these days is getting harder and harder to come by. Folks on all sides are poisoning the well of journalism with sensationalist babble, again, because of the greed of their parent companies. First I would propose legislation that any business that has the words news in it should be a non for profit org, and that any for profit, organization have the words entertainment in the name this way the public could more easily separate the chaff from the whey. (just spitballing I havent completely thought this out). Ultimately it all comes down to who the public can trust not so much as can we trust the public, and these days there are scant few organizations that truly have the trust of the public, and even fewer that actually deserve it. And the politicians that made backroom deals to negate the FDA and kill Americans get voted out of office. I'm not going to stand here saying evil, corrupt people in business and government are always limited in the scope of their harm and the checks and balances will always get there in the *tada* nick of time. I am however looking at ways to decrease the overall impact without infringing on real civil rights and producing a net increase in the kinds of corruption. Simplified further, humans are needlessly greedy, and power hungry, and corrupt. So how do you make humans out other humans in check? Any system will be imperfect unless you find angels to run things. Watchdog groups will be run by humans, the justice system run by humans, everything. So the same public that is responsible for voting out corrupt politicians who funnel billions to influence their vote is the public that can band together in their own corporations to spend money on ads to expose scandals and influence their fellow man. And publish books and stage protests and start websites and lobby their politicians. Eventually, you get to where the cabal has to include nearly every institution in society to do their nefarious deeds, and that's (briefly) the closest we can get. Hopefully you can also see the problem where a very big and powerful government can kill disliked industries and do other harms. For example, agency action apart operating in broad laws whose civil servants use their volition to favor and punish as they see fit. That one terminus is indeed a big problem. A government big enough to give you everything you want, is a government big enough to take away everything that you have
Sorry, freedom of speech does not mean freedom to buy campaigns. This is a problem of your voting system, not with freedom of speech. In other countries, individuals are not running for head of government, but parties do. The parties get money from the state proportional to their election results and on top of that can get donations and member fees. They will then support their candidate with that money and after a few weeks of campaigning, the fucking thing is over. Same for the representatives in the legislatory congress, they are part of a list of people the party wants to see in office, they get money from their party and when they win their district with that money or do well, the party puts them in legislation. YOu can still lobby this and corruption is not magically gone but the politicians do not exactly ow millions of dollars to few rich people. You are saying, there will never be a perfect system, so let's not try to improve it at all. Do you want to become a politician yourself sometime? A lot of the American society seems to build on the idea that some time in the future, what holds you down now might help you when you made it.
|
On April 28 2017 01:15 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2017 00:39 Trainrunnef wrote:On April 28 2017 00:13 Danglars wrote:On April 28 2017 00:07 Mercy13 wrote:On April 27 2017 23:58 Danglars wrote:On April 27 2017 23:52 Acrofales wrote:On April 27 2017 23:38 Danglars wrote:On April 27 2017 21:15 Acrofales wrote:On April 27 2017 21:12 Danglars wrote:On April 27 2017 18:23 Biff The Understudy wrote:
So this tax reform is a textbook reverse Robin Hood apparently. Steal to the poor, give to the rich. I guess those transfer of wealth upward are deep down the raison d'être of the GOP. Bake it with a sauce of white resentment and you pull the perfect con by getting blue collars to vote to get robbed.
People who know their Washington, is it going to pass? Because at a time where inequalities are one of our biggest problems, this is simply horrifying. Inasmuch as you can admit the current progressive tax system is Robin Hood and a focus on inequality is pure societal envy, you can be right. If Robin Hood slows his robbery or quits the trade and things return more to keeping the money you make, it will always be criticized by progressives/progressive-leaders as tax cuts for the rich, trickle-down, etc. It's pretty passé at this point and about as surprising as claiming Republicans don't care about minorities. Lets put that aside for a minute. Do you agree that wealth inequality is one of our biggest problems at the moment? E: and so as not to get a long chain of questions: do you also agree that government ought to work at solving society's biggest problems? As long as inequality can be increased by rich people very adept at growing their money, it's an improper term to use to describe the biggest problem. Joe Plumber doesn't or shouldn't care that there's this one guy on Wall St making an absolute killing that dwarfs his modest business growth this year. He affords a better house, gets off food stamps, gets his kids something nice ... whatever. To steal the way another put it, I know some that couldn't care less if the poor were more poor so long as the rich really bit it. And I know a lot of absolutely miserable countries with low levels of absolute economic inequality. So, no, it isn't a good description of a pressing issue whatsoever, and it isn't the governments job to punish the most successful on behalf of the mob. Pretty sure Joe Plumber is doing just fine. It's Joe Coalminer you should worry about. And José Campesino. And by all accounts, the programs that the current government wants to scrap are directly affecting the money available to these poorest groups of people. So it's not a case of everybody getting richer, but the rich getting richer a bit faster than the rest (which is a long-term problem, because eventually inflation will catch up to the poorest and they will stop getting richer in comparison to inflation even if overall wealth continues to increase). It seems far nearer to a case of the poor actually getting poorer. Joe Coalminer isn't getting off foodstamps. His foodstamp program is getting nixed, so now he'll just go hungry instead. And to add insult to injury, while nixing Joe Coalminer's foodstamp program, there's an incoming tax break for the richest segment of the population. Then don't use inequality to describe the plight of the poor. It makes no distinction. I assume you're not concerned with lax campaign finance laws which allow rich people to buy disproportionate political influence. More inequality = more political influence concentrated with a smaller group. If I'm right that you support this approach to campaign finance can you explain why? Why are you depriving the right to free speech based on income? Why even have a republic if you don't trust the population to not be duped? I've seen enough bias on here towards corporations that happen to produce print and television media and against corporations that produce other goods and services to not trust a single person here to write one. It just doesn't exist and in every case you're better off just letting a free country be free. If I owned a business that had sufficient dollars to lobby, and or buy politicians into power through campaign donations. I absolutely would as that would net me greater profits. Consider the following situation: I produce a good that is mildly toxic. A watchdog group discovers said toxicity I (using my large marketing budget) distribute misinformation about the product. Through my campaign donations and dealings with politicians I have secured deals for my business where the politicians will vouch for my product and research and back me up with legislation. Public is now confused and doesn't know what is right and i successful defend my company from being destroyed. the above situation is obviously simplified, but take for example the tobacco companies, soft drink companies, etc. who have done this exact thing. it is not the american people i have a problem trusting, it is the greed of the companies. I cant discover that i am being duped if i cant get all the information, and accurate information these days is getting harder and harder to come by. Folks on all sides are poisoning the well of journalism with sensationalist babble, again, because of the greed of their parent companies. First I would propose legislation that any business that has the words news in it should be a non for profit org, and that any for profit, organization have the words entertainment in the name this way the public could more easily separate the chaff from the whey. (just spitballing I havent completely thought this out). Ultimately it all comes down to who the public can trust not so much as can we trust the public, and these days there are scant few organizations that truly have the trust of the public, and even fewer that actually deserve it. And the politicians that made backroom deals to negate the FDA and kill Americans get voted out of office. I'm not going to stand here saying evil, corrupt people in business and government are always limited in the scope of their harm and the checks and balances will always get there in the *tada* nick of time. I am however looking at ways to decrease the overall impact without infringing on real civil rights and producing a net increase in the kinds of corruption. Simplified further, humans are needlessly greedy, and power hungry, and corrupt. So how do you make humans out other humans in check? Any system will be imperfect unless you find angels to run things. Watchdog groups will be run by humans, the justice system run by humans, everything. So the same public that is responsible for voting out corrupt politicians who funnel billions to influence their vote is the public that can band together in their own corporations to spend money on ads to expose scandals and influence their fellow man. And publish books and stage protests and start websites and lobby their politicians. Eventually, you get to where the cabal has to include nearly every institution in society to do their nefarious deeds, and that's (briefly) the closest we can get. Hopefully you can also see the problem where a very big and powerful government can kill disliked industries and do other harms. For example, agency action apart operating in broad laws whose civil servants use their volition to favor and punish as they see fit. That one terminus is indeed a big problem. A government big enough to give you everything you want, is a government big enough to take away everything that you have
You seem to hearken back to the days where pretty much everything was local. However, we live in a world with multinational corporations and globalized trade. While you can sentimentally wish for that to go away, it won't really happen, so trying to limit the government to local action is simply ceding power to other organizations that you have even less control over.
"A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take away everything you have". Agreed. But a government small enough that it cannot do that is a powerless government in the face of other organizations. And I trust the Googles and Goldman Sachses less than the government. So I'd rather have a government that the population is able to change (through election) that is in theory capable of taking everything away, than have other organizations, equally capable of filling that power vacuum and taking everything away, that you have virtually no control over at all.
|
On April 28 2017 01:44 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2017 01:25 Mercy13 wrote:On April 28 2017 00:13 Danglars wrote:On April 28 2017 00:07 Mercy13 wrote:On April 27 2017 23:58 Danglars wrote:On April 27 2017 23:52 Acrofales wrote:On April 27 2017 23:38 Danglars wrote:On April 27 2017 21:15 Acrofales wrote:On April 27 2017 21:12 Danglars wrote:On April 27 2017 18:23 Biff The Understudy wrote:
So this tax reform is a textbook reverse Robin Hood apparently. Steal to the poor, give to the rich. I guess those transfer of wealth upward are deep down the raison d'être of the GOP. Bake it with a sauce of white resentment and you pull the perfect con by getting blue collars to vote to get robbed.
People who know their Washington, is it going to pass? Because at a time where inequalities are one of our biggest problems, this is simply horrifying. Inasmuch as you can admit the current progressive tax system is Robin Hood and a focus on inequality is pure societal envy, you can be right. If Robin Hood slows his robbery or quits the trade and things return more to keeping the money you make, it will always be criticized by progressives/progressive-leaders as tax cuts for the rich, trickle-down, etc. It's pretty passé at this point and about as surprising as claiming Republicans don't care about minorities. Lets put that aside for a minute. Do you agree that wealth inequality is one of our biggest problems at the moment? E: and so as not to get a long chain of questions: do you also agree that government ought to work at solving society's biggest problems? As long as inequality can be increased by rich people very adept at growing their money, it's an improper term to use to describe the biggest problem. Joe Plumber doesn't or shouldn't care that there's this one guy on Wall St making an absolute killing that dwarfs his modest business growth this year. He affords a better house, gets off food stamps, gets his kids something nice ... whatever. To steal the way another put it, I know some that couldn't care less if the poor were more poor so long as the rich really bit it. And I know a lot of absolutely miserable countries with low levels of absolute economic inequality. So, no, it isn't a good description of a pressing issue whatsoever, and it isn't the governments job to punish the most successful on behalf of the mob. Pretty sure Joe Plumber is doing just fine. It's Joe Coalminer you should worry about. And José Campesino. And by all accounts, the programs that the current government wants to scrap are directly affecting the money available to these poorest groups of people. So it's not a case of everybody getting richer, but the rich getting richer a bit faster than the rest (which is a long-term problem, because eventually inflation will catch up to the poorest and they will stop getting richer in comparison to inflation even if overall wealth continues to increase). It seems far nearer to a case of the poor actually getting poorer. Joe Coalminer isn't getting off foodstamps. His foodstamp program is getting nixed, so now he'll just go hungry instead. And to add insult to injury, while nixing Joe Coalminer's foodstamp program, there's an incoming tax break for the richest segment of the population. Then don't use inequality to describe the plight of the poor. It makes no distinction. I assume you're not concerned with lax campaign finance laws which allow rich people to buy disproportionate political influence. More inequality = more political influence concentrated with a smaller group. If I'm right that you support this approach to campaign finance can you explain why? Why are you depriving the right to free speech based on income? Why even have a republic if you don't trust the population to not be duped? I've seen enough bias on here towards corporations that happen to produce print and television media and against corporations that produce other goods and services to not trust a single person here to write one. It just doesn't exist and in every case you're better off just letting a free country be free. Surely you don't think that more freedom is always better? Even fundamental rights such as freedom of speech are often limited if there is a compelling reason to do so. Without conceding that all types of political spending should count as speech, there are lots of reasons why limiting private spending on elections should be limited. I've seen you complain many times in this forum about how GOP politicians ignore the concerns of the base, and instead focus on the concerns of wealthy donors. In addition, there was this study from a few years ago: The U.S. government does not represent the interests of the majority of the country's citizens, but is instead ruled by those of the rich and powerful, a new study from Princeton and Northwestern universities has concluded.
...
Researchers concluded that U.S. government policies rarely align with the preferences of the majority of Americans, but do favour special interests and lobbying organizations: 'When a majority of citizens disagrees with economic elites and/or with organized interests, they generally lose. Moreover, because of the strong status quo bias built into the US political system, even when fairly large majorities of Americans favour policy change, they generally do not get it.'
The positions of powerful interest groups are 'not substantially correlated with the preferences of average citizens,' but the politics of average Americans and affluent Americans sometimes does overlap. This is merely a coincidence, the report says, with the interests of the average American being served almost exclusively when it also serves those of the richest 10%. SourceAre you content with this state of affairs? You first. Why do you want to deprive free speech from people based on income? Or how the hell are citizens supposed to band together and raise the insane capital to get their candidate name recognition and attachment to policy issues if nobody is legally permitted to raise it and his opponent gets the free publicity of the press and maybe favor from aligned media corporations? It's always been the trouble with campaign finance laws; you're drawing distinctions for political advantage and each time I've seen it envisioned, it's just creating a worse situation.
Because when everyone is screaming at once I just stop listening and leave the room. Elections are about candidates and their ideas and elections should be focused bring those two things to the voters. Not encouraging unlimited third parties to blanket the airwaves noise. Our election regulations are not set up for that, we do not have the money committed to regulate that and the it has caused elections to balloon to billion dollar cash cows for media companies. There is nothing healthy about the current system.
|
On April 28 2017 01:44 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2017 01:25 Mercy13 wrote:On April 28 2017 00:13 Danglars wrote:On April 28 2017 00:07 Mercy13 wrote:On April 27 2017 23:58 Danglars wrote:On April 27 2017 23:52 Acrofales wrote:On April 27 2017 23:38 Danglars wrote:On April 27 2017 21:15 Acrofales wrote:On April 27 2017 21:12 Danglars wrote:On April 27 2017 18:23 Biff The Understudy wrote:
So this tax reform is a textbook reverse Robin Hood apparently. Steal to the poor, give to the rich. I guess those transfer of wealth upward are deep down the raison d'être of the GOP. Bake it with a sauce of white resentment and you pull the perfect con by getting blue collars to vote to get robbed.
People who know their Washington, is it going to pass? Because at a time where inequalities are one of our biggest problems, this is simply horrifying. Inasmuch as you can admit the current progressive tax system is Robin Hood and a focus on inequality is pure societal envy, you can be right. If Robin Hood slows his robbery or quits the trade and things return more to keeping the money you make, it will always be criticized by progressives/progressive-leaders as tax cuts for the rich, trickle-down, etc. It's pretty passé at this point and about as surprising as claiming Republicans don't care about minorities. Lets put that aside for a minute. Do you agree that wealth inequality is one of our biggest problems at the moment? E: and so as not to get a long chain of questions: do you also agree that government ought to work at solving society's biggest problems? As long as inequality can be increased by rich people very adept at growing their money, it's an improper term to use to describe the biggest problem. Joe Plumber doesn't or shouldn't care that there's this one guy on Wall St making an absolute killing that dwarfs his modest business growth this year. He affords a better house, gets off food stamps, gets his kids something nice ... whatever. To steal the way another put it, I know some that couldn't care less if the poor were more poor so long as the rich really bit it. And I know a lot of absolutely miserable countries with low levels of absolute economic inequality. So, no, it isn't a good description of a pressing issue whatsoever, and it isn't the governments job to punish the most successful on behalf of the mob. Pretty sure Joe Plumber is doing just fine. It's Joe Coalminer you should worry about. And José Campesino. And by all accounts, the programs that the current government wants to scrap are directly affecting the money available to these poorest groups of people. So it's not a case of everybody getting richer, but the rich getting richer a bit faster than the rest (which is a long-term problem, because eventually inflation will catch up to the poorest and they will stop getting richer in comparison to inflation even if overall wealth continues to increase). It seems far nearer to a case of the poor actually getting poorer. Joe Coalminer isn't getting off foodstamps. His foodstamp program is getting nixed, so now he'll just go hungry instead. And to add insult to injury, while nixing Joe Coalminer's foodstamp program, there's an incoming tax break for the richest segment of the population. Then don't use inequality to describe the plight of the poor. It makes no distinction. I assume you're not concerned with lax campaign finance laws which allow rich people to buy disproportionate political influence. More inequality = more political influence concentrated with a smaller group. If I'm right that you support this approach to campaign finance can you explain why? Why are you depriving the right to free speech based on income? Why even have a republic if you don't trust the population to not be duped? I've seen enough bias on here towards corporations that happen to produce print and television media and against corporations that produce other goods and services to not trust a single person here to write one. It just doesn't exist and in every case you're better off just letting a free country be free. Surely you don't think that more freedom is always better? Even fundamental rights such as freedom of speech are often limited if there is a compelling reason to do so. Without conceding that all types of political spending should count as speech, there are lots of reasons why limiting private spending on elections should be limited. I've seen you complain many times in this forum about how GOP politicians ignore the concerns of the base, and instead focus on the concerns of wealthy donors. In addition, there was this study from a few years ago: The U.S. government does not represent the interests of the majority of the country's citizens, but is instead ruled by those of the rich and powerful, a new study from Princeton and Northwestern universities has concluded.
...
Researchers concluded that U.S. government policies rarely align with the preferences of the majority of Americans, but do favour special interests and lobbying organizations: 'When a majority of citizens disagrees with economic elites and/or with organized interests, they generally lose. Moreover, because of the strong status quo bias built into the US political system, even when fairly large majorities of Americans favour policy change, they generally do not get it.'
The positions of powerful interest groups are 'not substantially correlated with the preferences of average citizens,' but the politics of average Americans and affluent Americans sometimes does overlap. This is merely a coincidence, the report says, with the interests of the average American being served almost exclusively when it also serves those of the richest 10%. SourceAre you content with this state of affairs? You first. Why do you want to deprive free speech from people based on income? Or how the hell are citizens supposed to band together and raise the insane capital to get their candidate name recognition and attachment to policy issues if nobody is legally permitted to raise it and his opponent gets the free publicity of the press and maybe favor from aligned media corporations? It's always been the trouble with campaign finance laws; you're drawing distinctions for political advantage and each time I've seen it envisioned, it's just creating a worse situation.
but isnt that whats already happening? with the current funding mechanisms out of state money, and corporate funding can pour in and support candidate A while candidate B cant raise the support unless its free, so now he and his constituents, because they have less capital, have a smaller voice. At least with caps on financing you can limit the extent to which this will happen.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
