On October 28 2012 12:50 TheRabidDeer wrote: I am going to go ahead and pose a question for everybody.
Is nationalism actually hurting the country? I have seen things like, "I like some of his policies, but I dont think he would be good for the country" or "I like this other guy, but because of these two guys I have to vote for one of them for the sake of the country". Or even something like a particular person not representing Americans... and I see them a bit more frequently now.
To me, the President isnt really supposed to represent Americans. The President is supposed to represent me. And, as long as everybody votes for the person that best represents themselves, we should have a President that most accurately reflects the country. This extends to every part of the people we elect. Yet, we dont see that and many claim it is for the good of the country. I think that maybe we are reaching a point where that does more harm than good. What do you think?
There is a thing, when you elect to senate/house, you should look a little abouve just the candidate, but would he actually work within the current parliament setup.
A 2011 study by the CBO[16] found that the top earning 1 percent of households gained about 275% after federal taxes and income transfers over a period between 1979 and 2007, compared to a gain of just under 40% for the 60 percent in the middle of America's income distribution.[16] Other sources finding the trend continuing since then.[17] However, only 42% of Americans think inequality has increased in the past ten years.[18]
If anything, Americans are too optimistic and are ignorant of the growing income inequalities. Stating that the income gaps are growing in this country is not "class warfare", especially when the people earning the most and benefiting the most are likewise complaining that society demands too much from them.
The "problem" is not the income of 1%, the problem is that instead of spending it for good stuff, that people will make and recive wages, they mostly just hoard cash and reivest it to get more money.
That, is why their income is growing exponentially.
The people that are hired, on the other hand, have to face foreign labour competition, and thus their income doesn`t grow much.
Then, while the 1% have a lot of money, they are exactly 1%, taxing them will not bring as much as taxing the other 99%, at modest tax rate, anyway, and US budget has aboutn 40% deficit.
A 2011 study by the CBO[16] found that the top earning 1 percent of households gained about 275% after federal taxes and income transfers over a period between 1979 and 2007, compared to a gain of just under 40% for the 60 percent in the middle of America's income distribution.[16] Other sources finding the trend continuing since then.[17] However, only 42% of Americans think inequality has increased in the past ten years.[18]
If anything, Americans are too optimistic and are ignorant of the growing income inequalities. Stating that the income gaps are growing in this country is not "class warfare", especially when the people earning the most and benefiting the most are likewise complaining that society demands too much from them.
The "problem" is not the income of 1%, the problem is that instead of spending it for good stuff, that people will make and recive wages, they mostly just hoard cash and reivest it to get more money.
That, is why their income is growing exponentially.
The people that are hired, on the other hand, have to face foreign labour competition, and thus their income doesn`t grow much.
Then, while the 1% have a lot of money, they are exactly 1%, taxing them will not bring as much as taxing the other 99%, at modest tax rate, anyway, and US budget has aboutn 40% deficit.
So...your solution is to take away the money that the 1% invest so we don't have any growth at all?
This brings up an interesting question though. What do conservatives think of the current wealth inequality and what measures, if any, do you propose should be taken to solve the issue?
On October 28 2012 16:50 Souma wrote: This brings up an interesting question though. What do conservatives think of the current wealth inequality and what measures, if any, do you propose should be taken to solve the issue?
Recently The Economist had a good series on inequality. I'm too lazy to summarize at the moment.
A 2011 study by the CBO[16] found that the top earning 1 percent of households gained about 275% after federal taxes and income transfers over a period between 1979 and 2007, compared to a gain of just under 40% for the 60 percent in the middle of America's income distribution.[16] Other sources finding the trend continuing since then.[17] However, only 42% of Americans think inequality has increased in the past ten years.[18]
If anything, Americans are too optimistic and are ignorant of the growing income inequalities. Stating that the income gaps are growing in this country is not "class warfare", especially when the people earning the most and benefiting the most are likewise complaining that society demands too much from them.
The "problem" is not the income of 1%, the problem is that instead of spending it for good stuff, that people will make and recive wages, they mostly just hoard cash and reivest it to get more money.
That, is why their income is growing exponentially.
The people that are hired, on the other hand, have to face foreign labour competition, and thus their income doesn`t grow much.
Then, while the 1% have a lot of money, they are exactly 1%, taxing them will not bring as much as taxing the other 99%, at modest tax rate, anyway, and US budget has aboutn 40% deficit.
So...your solution is to take away the money that the 1% invest so we don't have any growth at all?
Nothing is done at all to the principal that's invested. Any profits made off the investments are taxed. Their money is still making money for them, just not as much as it used to. I fail to see anything wrong with that. As long as it's a reasonable amount (highest tax bracket @35% vs capital gains currently at 15%), I don't see any problem with raising taxes. Just because of the way the tax system works, those with good jobs earning 150k/year in skill jobs pay more taxes as a percentage than those earning millions.
A 2011 study by the CBO[16] found that the top earning 1 percent of households gained about 275% after federal taxes and income transfers over a period between 1979 and 2007, compared to a gain of just under 40% for the 60 percent in the middle of America's income distribution.[16] Other sources finding the trend continuing since then.[17] However, only 42% of Americans think inequality has increased in the past ten years.[18]
If anything, Americans are too optimistic and are ignorant of the growing income inequalities. Stating that the income gaps are growing in this country is not "class warfare", especially when the people earning the most and benefiting the most are likewise complaining that society demands too much from them.
The "problem" is not the income of 1%, the problem is that instead of spending it for good stuff, that people will make and recive wages, they mostly just hoard cash and reivest it to get more money.
That, is why their income is growing exponentially.
The people that are hired, on the other hand, have to face foreign labour competition, and thus their income doesn`t grow much.
Then, while the 1% have a lot of money, they are exactly 1%, taxing them will not bring as much as taxing the other 99%, at modest tax rate, anyway, and US budget has aboutn 40% deficit.
So...your solution is to take away the money that the 1% invest so we don't have any growth at all?
Nope, I`m against taxing the rich significantly heavier than the rest. the 30-40% rate seems reasonable. We better encourage them spending money for consumption.
Then, the cuts are needed. The Education, in US is ridiculously overpriced and ineffective. States need way stronger technical cirriculum in schools, and better controll of price of higher education. Finishing college with 20-40k of debt, when most industrialised world would have you way, way less, if not Goverment payed at all. That handicaps US hiring, since the the employer have to pay down the education bill effectivly.
The healthcare reform similar to Swizerland, Singapure or Germany would curb healthcare bills, since US spents way more per client.
Ger the intelectual property laws strainght, so that they actually encourage innovation, not stall it, due to ridiculous overprotection and pattent barriers. The companies should try to improve dellivery of content and reduce cost, not lobby the goverment to keep their buisness model. The ridiculous part is, the awfull IP laws are compensated, to an extend with Piracy, that eventually forces companies to innovate.
Then, get the entitlements steight. Working the minimal wage, should be significantly better than be unemployed.
Give some tax credit to married, coresiding people, to encourage nuclear families, and remarriage, even after divourses, so that the goverment doesn`t have to hang out as much to single mothers.
Cut the freaking military. US surely doesn`t need the fleet, bigger than the rest of the world combined, and outspend next 10 or 17 countries combined.
On October 28 2012 16:50 Souma wrote: This brings up an interesting question though. What do conservatives think of the current wealth inequality and what measures, if any, do you propose should be taken to solve the issue?
Recently The Economist had a good series on inequality. I'm too lazy to summarize at the moment.
On October 28 2012 14:11 jdseemoreglass wrote: So odd.... It's like things have gone full circle. You can hear progressives arguing for individualized self-interest. When someone believes in principles and supporting policies which benefit the whole of society instead of just themselves, it gets called "nationalism," like a reverse of the "communism" fear mongering. Progressives used to be the champions of altruism, now they are criticizing it as irrational, just like Ayn Rand used to do.
I understand progressives believe in a specific vision, and not in principles, which is why they are frustrated with the people who would benefit from that vision rejecting it. But at least they used to argue in principled terms instead of advocating more selfishness, so long as your selfishness is "justified."
Progressive ideology should be a positive ideology, it should focus on positive principles and attitudes, it should have a positive vision. Telling poor people to get more angry and more selfish and engage in more class warfare is a divisive, negative approach. Improving society doesn't come 100% from economic reform, it also comes from reforming the attitudes and beliefs of the citizens themselves. Selfishness and conflict may help your economic vision, but it won't create the ideal society that anyone would like to live in.
Liberalism and Marxism make for very strange bedfellows indeed.
Ah yes, all those poor people being driven to divisiveness and engaging in class warfare.
Seriously, how does a poor person engage in class warfare, I'm dying to know?
A 2011 study by the CBO[16] found that the top earning 1 percent of households gained about 275% after federal taxes and income transfers over a period between 1979 and 2007, compared to a gain of just under 40% for the 60 percent in the middle of America's income distribution.[16] Other sources finding the trend continuing since then.[17] However, only 42% of Americans think inequality has increased in the past ten years.[18]
If anything, Americans are too optimistic and are ignorant of the growing income inequalities. Stating that the income gaps are growing in this country is not "class warfare", especially when the people earning the most and benefiting the most are likewise complaining that society demands too much from them.
And likewise, in 1979 the average poor household did not have air conditioning, indeed that number was about 35%. Now 80% of poor households do. And the vast majority have a microwave, a car, cable or satellite tv on either a standard set or high-def (1/3 the latter), but at least 2 color tvs. More than half own a console, like xbox or playstation. So, at the same time we see the rich getting richer, the poor become richer too, and consider what was only a luxury for the rich to be a necessity.
And it's the intellectuals that engage in class warfare on behalf of the poor. The goal of course is to make it widely believed that the rich have gotten richer at the expense of the poor.
On October 28 2012 14:11 jdseemoreglass wrote: So odd.... It's like things have gone full circle. You can hear progressives arguing for individualized self-interest. When someone believes in principles and supporting policies which benefit the whole of society instead of just themselves, it gets called "nationalism," like a reverse of the "communism" fear mongering. Progressives used to be the champions of altruism, now they are criticizing it as irrational, just like Ayn Rand used to do.
I understand progressives believe in a specific vision, and not in principles, which is why they are frustrated with the people who would benefit from that vision rejecting it. But at least they used to argue in principled terms instead of advocating more selfishness, so long as your selfishness is "justified."
Progressive ideology should be a positive ideology, it should focus on positive principles and attitudes, it should have a positive vision. Telling poor people to get more angry and more selfish and engage in more class warfare is a divisive, negative approach. Improving society doesn't come 100% from economic reform, it also comes from reforming the attitudes and beliefs of the citizens themselves. Selfishness and conflict may help your economic vision, but it won't create the ideal society that anyone would like to live in.
Liberalism and Marxism make for very strange bedfellows indeed.
Ah yes, all those poor people being driven to divisiveness and engaging in class warfare.
Seriously, how does a poor person engage in class warfare, I'm dying to know?
A 2011 study by the CBO[16] found that the top earning 1 percent of households gained about 275% after federal taxes and income transfers over a period between 1979 and 2007, compared to a gain of just under 40% for the 60 percent in the middle of America's income distribution.[16] Other sources finding the trend continuing since then.[17] However, only 42% of Americans think inequality has increased in the past ten years.[18]
If anything, Americans are too optimistic and are ignorant of the growing income inequalities. Stating that the income gaps are growing in this country is not "class warfare", especially when the people earning the most and benefiting the most are likewise complaining that society demands too much from them.
And likewise, in 1979 the average poor household did not have air conditioning, indeed that number was about 35%. Now 80% of poor households do. And the vast majority have a microwave, a car, cable or satellite tv on either a standard set or high-def (1/3 the latter), but at least 2 color tvs. More than half own a console, like xbox or playstation. So, at the same time we see the rich getting richer, the poor become richer too, and consider what was only a luxury for the rich to be a necessity.
And it's the intellectuals that engage in class warfare on behalf of the poor. The goal of course is to make it widely believed that the rich have gotten richer at the expense of the poor.
Inequality isn't measured by the number of color televisions and Xboxes. It's mostly measured by income and consumption.
The graphs in that wikipedia article shows inequality has clearly gotten worse over time.
On October 28 2012 14:11 jdseemoreglass wrote: So odd.... It's like things have gone full circle. You can hear progressives arguing for individualized self-interest. When someone believes in principles and supporting policies which benefit the whole of society instead of just themselves, it gets called "nationalism," like a reverse of the "communism" fear mongering. Progressives used to be the champions of altruism, now they are criticizing it as irrational, just like Ayn Rand used to do.
I understand progressives believe in a specific vision, and not in principles, which is why they are frustrated with the people who would benefit from that vision rejecting it. But at least they used to argue in principled terms instead of advocating more selfishness, so long as your selfishness is "justified."
Progressive ideology should be a positive ideology, it should focus on positive principles and attitudes, it should have a positive vision. Telling poor people to get more angry and more selfish and engage in more class warfare is a divisive, negative approach. Improving society doesn't come 100% from economic reform, it also comes from reforming the attitudes and beliefs of the citizens themselves. Selfishness and conflict may help your economic vision, but it won't create the ideal society that anyone would like to live in.
Liberalism and Marxism make for very strange bedfellows indeed.
Ah yes, all those poor people being driven to divisiveness and engaging in class warfare.
Seriously, how does a poor person engage in class warfare, I'm dying to know?
A 2011 study by the CBO[16] found that the top earning 1 percent of households gained about 275% after federal taxes and income transfers over a period between 1979 and 2007, compared to a gain of just under 40% for the 60 percent in the middle of America's income distribution.[16] Other sources finding the trend continuing since then.[17] However, only 42% of Americans think inequality has increased in the past ten years.[18]
If anything, Americans are too optimistic and are ignorant of the growing income inequalities. Stating that the income gaps are growing in this country is not "class warfare", especially when the people earning the most and benefiting the most are likewise complaining that society demands too much from them.
And likewise, in 1979 the average poor household did not have air conditioning, indeed that number was about 35%. Now 80% of poor households do. And the vast majority have a microwave, a car, cable or satellite tv on either a standard set or high-def (1/3 the latter), but at least 2 color tvs. More than half own a console, like xbox or playstation. So, at the same time we see the rich getting richer, the poor become richer too, and consider what was only a luxury for the rich to be a necessity.
And it's the intellectuals that engage in class warfare on behalf of the poor. The goal of course is to make it widely believed that the rich have gotten richer at the expense of the poor.
Technology has been made more affordable. That's the worst measure of "income equality" I've ever seen.
Voting on a bill to allow the sealing of rape testimony from the victim from public view if a conviction is obtained. Every senator voted to pass it (it eventually became law) ... except one. That one was Barack Obama. He voted present. Later, he discussed its constitutionality. Much later, he made women's issues a focus in his campaign for re-election.
The point of the goverment is to advance the falt value not attempt to make everyone at same level.
Not everyone is as disciplined, determined and focused, the near-to-perfect equality is impossible to achive in realistic world, and generally attempts to achive equality only made life worse for everyone involved.
The reason we are the cociety we are, is that we are striving to get better ourselves, and compete with eachother.
There are harder jobs, that require time, effort and means of sustaining yourself to master, If you will only get same, as the unqualified labour, why waste time and efforts getting into harder field?
Why innovate, when everyone has more or less the same things, and other people will not like that you got ahead of others?
The inequality is absolutely nececery for progress, and increase in quality of life for everyone.
On October 28 2012 18:09 naastyOne wrote: I do not get the "inequality" thing.
The point of the goverment is to advance the falt value not attempt to make everyone at same level.
Not everyone is as disciplined, determined and focused, the near-to-perfect equality is impossible to achive in realistic world, and generally attempts to achive equality only made life worse for everyone involved.
The reason we are the cociety we are, is that we are striving to get better ourselves, and compete with eachother.
There are harder jobs, that require time, effort and means of sustaining yourself to master, If you will only get same, as the unqualified labour, why waste time and efforts getting into harder field?
Why innovate, when everyone has more or less the same things, and other people will not like that you got ahead of others?
The inequality is absolutely nececery for progress, and increase in quality of life for everyone.
Who says anything about making "everyone at same level"? We're not asking for communism here.
The fact is the current level of inequality in terms of income, consumption and opportunity in the US is unprecedented, compared to both other advanced countries, and compared to the US in the past. Inequality has exploded.
While some small amount of inequality is good, a large amount of inequality is bad. For example, it's a waste of human capital when poor, smart kids don't get the opportunity to fulfill their potential (yes, social mobility is extremely low in the US compared to other countries), it allows the rich to more easily buy the political process, and it reduces aggregate demand because rich people save a greater proportion of their money whereas poor people must spend a greater proportion.
You can read about the stats that back this up in that wikipedia article linked earlier.
On October 28 2012 17:43 BlueBird. wrote: This is actually the second time that I've seen this air conditioning argument in this thread, last time there were graphs though.
Too bad the graphs about the income equality don't say the same thing.
On October 28 2012 18:09 naastyOne wrote: I do not get the "inequality" thing.
The point of the goverment is to advance the falt value not attempt to make everyone at same level.
Not everyone is as disciplined, determined and focused, the near-to-perfect equality is impossible to achive in realistic world, and generally attempts to achive equality only made life worse for everyone involved.
The reason we are the cociety we are, is that we are striving to get better ourselves, and compete with eachother.
There are harder jobs, that require time, effort and means of sustaining yourself to master, If you will only get same, as the unqualified labour, why waste time and efforts getting into harder field?
Why innovate, when everyone has more or less the same things, and other people will not like that you got ahead of others?
The inequality is absolutely nececery for progress, and increase in quality of life for everyone.
Who says anything about making "everyone at same level"? We're not asking for communism here.
The fact is the current level of inequality in terms of income, consumption and opportunity in the US is unprecedented, compared to both other advanced countries, and compared to the US in the past. Inequality has exploded.
While some small amount of inequality is good, a large amount of inequality is bad. For example, it's a waste of human capital when poor, smart kids don't get the opportunity to fulfill their potential (yes, social mobility is extremely low in the US compared to other countries), it allows the rich to more easily buy the political process, and it reduces aggregate demand because rich people save a greater proportion of their money whereas poor people must spend a greater proportion.
You can read about the stats that back this up in that wikipedia article linked earlier.
Again, I`m argunig that having inequality reasonbly large is a good thing. Not a small amout, but a very noticable, but not extreeme amount.
US is nowhere near to poorest country in the world. In fact with (probable) exeption of Northern Europe and Canada, US have the best opportunities for poor.
The immobility is an obvious problem brought by expencive and low quality education.
In most of the countries in the world, you can hire college graduates for less than 1k US dollars per month, that will have similar education quality as US universities. Try that in US.
US just got ahead, in post-WW2 world, and now the third world is catching back.
Untill US reaches the similar cost efficency as most of the world, it`s poor`s quality of live would only increase due to life becoming cheaper.
And if you think that in US money influence politics too much, try looking at most of the world where there is no fundrasing from the base similar to US, and political parties are on 100% payroll of the very rich people, with public not taking the idea of funding political campaings good.
Did i mention the billion of virtually unacountable parties, politicans that come to steal as much as they can and often not even seek reelection, and huge, corrupt goverments.
On October 28 2012 17:57 Danglars wrote: Select Democratic Viewpoint on rape.
Barack Obama.
Voting on a bill to allow the sealing of rape testimony from the victim from public view if a conviction is obtained. Every senator voted to pass it (it eventually became law) ... except one. That one was Barack Obama. He voted present. Later, he discussed its constitutionality. Much later, he made women's issues a focus in his campaign for re-election.
This would have been a lot easier to debunk if the article had actually mentioned which bill they were talking about but they probably didn't want that.
An excerpt from the oldest nespaper in illinois "Obama voted present on a bill to amend the Criminal Identification Act by allowing certain assault victims to petition to have their court records sealed..." "But the Illinois Press Association argued that the measure violates the First Amendment. The U.S. Constitution does not allow judges to seal the records of trials that have been held in open court, said association attorney Don Craven. ... And there's no indication what would happen to the case files if the verdict were appealed. Sen. Barack Obama, D-Chicago, agreed that the bill probably wouldn't pass constitutional muster, although he said it's not unusual for his colleagues to pass such measures to show political resolve." [91st GA, HB 0854, 5/11/99, 3R P; 58-0-1; State Journal-Register, 4/28/99]
3 Of The 4 Democrats On The Judiciary Committee Voted Present On This Bill"
the best part, conserning the "grow of inequality":
First, I think the process of globalisation, which has moved billions of people out of dire poverty, is worth defending loudly and proudly, even if it came along with a costly side order of dysfunctional American politics and policymaking. We have a moral responsibility to be very clear about what aspects of globalisation we think should change and why, because the cost of encouraging a broader backlash against the process of liberalisation, with all the great good it generates, is simply too high.
And second, it seems to me that an effort to restore the bargaining power of labour by having a showdown over outsourcing or by trying to reinvigorate the labour movement is destined for failure. The rise in worker bargaining power that occurred in the first half of the last century was a product of social movements, but those movements were enabled by the production technologies of the time, and it is the dissolution of those production technologies that has been most responsible for the weakening of labour's position. As Mr Krugman understands very well (his work on the topic helped earn him a Nobel Prize) the transportation technologies of the industrial revolution dictated in favour of large, industrial agglomerations. Geographic concentration enabled worker solidarity, and the benefits of the agglomeration meant that employers couldn't credibly threaten to move elsewhere. But the days of the large, urban industrial agglomeration are gone.
If labour is to capture more of the producer surplus—or have more of a say in Washington, for that matter—it will be as a result of a social evolution that matches the production technologies of today. That's a much, much harder process to think about and talk about than a call for the return of the glory days of labour. It's certainly not the sort of thing that lends itself to deployment in the binary dialogue of a presidential campaign. The truth is that Bain didn't really do anything wrong by outsourcing. It could have not done it, but that would primarily have created a profit opportunity for someone else. It may say something about Mitt Romney that he was the man who opted to take the profits. But the nature and distribution of economic activity is about the interaction between technology and institutions, and not about whether an individual capitalist tries to be fair or not. It's not Mitt Romney's fault that the median worker hasn't gotten a real pay increase in over 30 years. And Mr Romney's Bain experience might cost him the election, but that's not going to bring real pay increases back, either.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://brainwrap.com/various/gop_rape_advisory_single_column.gif)
