EPThttps://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2019/04/25/politics/joe-biden-2020-president/index.html
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 1385
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread | ||
|
iPlaY.NettleS
Australia4356 Posts
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2019/04/25/politics/joe-biden-2020-president/index.html | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland26036 Posts
| ||
|
Ryzel
United States535 Posts
On April 25 2019 14:34 GreenHorizons wrote: This is why education (not indoctrination) is so important. That the US government systematically imprisoned and assassinated anyone trying to teach may have damned us all. A proper education assures them the whole of the lot has drawn the short straw and it's time we turn our clubs from each other to our oppressors. While the analogy is both apt and evocative, it breaks down upon closer scrutiny. Not only do more people get clubbed, but remaining individuals get the stuff of the killed individuals distributed randomly in increasing concentrations, and it gets distributed by a third power (“the game”) so it appears to absolve the remainers of moral responsibility for their actions. In addition, those that get the most stuff become less and less likely to be chosen to die (and in fact become the choosers), so they are heavily incentivized to play. GH is right in that historically revolutions have been sparked not by assurances of how life will be afterwards, but by how unacceptable life is now. A big part of what contributed to the “unacceptable” nature of many revolutions are that the masses felt they had no control over their situations (e.g. due to a monarchy/oligarchy). That is NOT the case in the US and most capitalist countries. Capitalism as it’s preached in the US does a great job making individuals feel responsible for their own situations and that people are actually worth the value they bring in (as opposed to believing that the value they bring in is impacted by biased powers outside of themselves), so individuals are less likely to believe that their issues have a systemic cause. Education is necessary for this to change, and specifically education about how meritocracy is a lie and that your value is more influenced by those with more wealth than you (fortunately, examples of this are becoming more and more prevalent in recent times so this will become easier to teach and harder to hide). However, that’s only half the battle. You’d now need to convince the masses (70% of the population? 80%? I’d be curious to know your take on that GH) that their lives are unacceptable to the point where they should throw it all away and incite armed rebellion against the other 20-30%, and that will be a tough sell. Granted a lot of the bottom quartile may be willing, and a few in the 25-50%, but the 50-75% have jobs and stable income and families while having comforts that were unheard of even 30 years ago. Even if they’re educated on their powerlessness to affect society, they might not even care. I think we need like a million or so deaths directly linked to climate change over the span of like a year to get the point across that current living trends are unacceptable, and by then it’ll definitely be too late. | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France7917 Posts
On April 25 2019 16:33 Wombat_NI wrote: Of which I can imagine the UK bending over for even harder than we do now, we need a selling point when we’re out of the EU after all. Or ‘need’ to do that kind of thing. Not totally sure about that. The case of Switzerland has shown that actually, countries outside the EU were sometimes almost easier to regulate than those inside, because they can’t vote and don’t really have a voice but are still totally held by the balls by the EU regulator. The way the EU has forced Switzerland to get their shit together when it comes to its banking and financial system has been nothing short of awesome. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France7917 Posts
On April 25 2019 10:08 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: Everything in this thread reeks of nihilism. To not be able to take tainted altruism in the benefit of society at large, just makes no sense. The only meaning anything has in the world, is the one we ascribe to it. So Carnegie was a robber baron. His symphony and university and library are well appreciated. Gates may have stole Microsoft and robbed the public for access, but his help in Africa and elsewhere is appreciated. You see a blemish and you throw the whole lot away. Wombat, I agree. The cultural mindset of American Exceptionalism is the brain rot that 85 % of the country falls under, or to. If we can't see that success wasn't made alone, but by a group of people acting in concert for the betterment of each, then we will continue to have this division and polarization of ideals. The thing is that it’s for the same reasons Carnegie got so rich that we needed him to build a symphony hall and whatnot in the first place. In a better society you wouldn’t need to rely on the generosity of ridiculously rich people to make great things happen. I remember a republican debate for the 2012 primaries where Ron Paul got asked who would take care of a poor person really ill in his idea of america, and basically his answer was, philanthropy : rich folks will be even richer - because they won’t pay taxes that would make sure the poor get taken care of - so they will be able to be more generous. You can always count on libertarians to show you how fucked up unregulated capitalism is - even though they don’t realize how awful their ideas are. Same goes with the arts: america has that great tradition of patrons and private sponsorship. The other side of the coin in that the public support for the arts in inexistant. Which means as an art institution you are the absolute bitch of the people giving you funding. So while in isolation, it’s nice of Gates to give money for good causes, I would rather have had him pay his effing taxes to fund all those things that shouldn’t be lacking in the first place. | ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
| ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
ZerOCoolSC2
9005 Posts
| ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15725 Posts
On April 25 2019 20:59 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: Biden announced he is running in 2020 https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2019/04/25/politics/joe-biden-2020-president/index.html Good. Can't wait to watch his campaign crash and burn. Kind of like how barbaric tribes would proudly display the dead bodies of their enemies, I want the 90s democrat ideology to fail miserably in the 2020 primary. Biden has every institutional advantage and he's still gonna get body slammed. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On April 25 2019 23:31 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: This is why you tax accumulated wealth and not just capital or income on everyone worth 10+mil. That way they pay 40% of everything and it gets put back into the system. It is very hard to tax accumulated wealth, mechanically. There is a reason we tax transactions. It is because it is reliable. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
ZerOCoolSC2
9005 Posts
On April 26 2019 00:09 Plansix wrote: It is very hard to tax accumulated wealth, mechanically. There is a reason we tax transactions. It is because it is reliable. If they hold a lot of stock, tax that. If we knownwhat their homes and cars and other possession cost, tax that. Add up the worth of literally everything and tax it. One time, fkat tax. 40%. Tell me how much we'd get from bezos, buffett, and gates. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
Liquid`Drone
Norway28709 Posts
*in quotation because I don't really think the super-rich themselves did so. | ||
|
Liquid`Drone
Norway28709 Posts
 ) government spends even close to a similar % of their budged on equally worthwhile causes imo.I mean I still agree that ideally there would be no need for philanthropy, but when most western countries either fail to give 1% or proudly pat themselves on the back for giving 1% to humanitarian aid, we're very far away from that being the case, and I think it would have been a big net negative if the bill and melinda gates foundation had instead been taxes. That's not at all a defense of the super-rich though. Just one of bill gates, melinda gates, and warren buffett. | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11630 Posts
On April 26 2019 00:36 Liquid`Drone wrote: Taxing some very high percentage of a high cutoff of inheritance seems best to me. It only targets the heirs of the super-rich - so a very small percentage of people, and ones that didn't even 'make their own money'* in the first place. If it discourages people from accumulating more than x million during their lifetimes as it won't be going towards their children then that's an added positive. *in quotation because I don't really think the super-rich themselves did so. I totally agree with this. You tax stuff that is completely unearned, people get to keep or spend the money that they themselves earned, and it combats the accumulation of wealth in the hands of a small hereditary aristocracy, thus providing more social equality. There really seems to not be any negative with a massive inheritance tax. And yet it is incredibly disliked for some reason. | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
| ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10809 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On April 26 2019 01:01 Velr wrote: What I don't get is why for example Bezos rather takes shit for treating and paying his employes horrible instead of just taking 10% less for himself. Well first off, if he took 10% less, the share holders would demand it for themselves. Second, its because he is so far removed from the problem he can't be bothered to care. Third, he likely doesn't care because the bad press will never impact Amazon's bottom line. They are to massive for that. | ||
| ||
