|
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 |
On September 29 2020 05:57 Neneu wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2020 04:57 GreenHorizons wrote:@GH if you could Model the US after a existing country which would it be that you would think would solve or be best able to solve the issues you see? -snip- Energy is another big one where either dependence on geological features and/or colonized nations (as well as plenty of other factors) means we can't just imitate other Nordic countries or that it is necessarily desirable or sustainable. Sorry for the shortening the post a little, but had to just post a small note regarding this. The biggest reason why US couldn't imitate Nordic countries is because US citizens don't trust each other nor the state. Which is the most important part of why the Nordic countries are able to have the policies they have. Without trust, the system falls apart.
No problem and I don't necessarily disagree, but it's also uncomfortably close to a common trope for the right to lean on for nefarious reasons so I chose to focus on other aspects.
There are certainly several cultural components at play as well (including trust in the system/individualism). The US's cultural composition/history adds challenges most nations don't face (or have nuance that can be easily missed by people outside specific groups), but I don't see them as insurmountable.
|
|
|
|
|
On September 29 2020 06:28 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2020 04:57 GreenHorizons wrote:@GH if you could Model the US after a existing country which would it be that you would think would solve or be best able to solve the issues you see? The question is fundamentally flawed on many levels. - The US is uniquely positioned economically in the world so the implications of even more minor (but still significant) changes are dramatically different from something like the Mondragon Cooperative (which has many elements I think could/should be a guide in many ways, even if temporarily) which has orders of magnitude less global impact - The US is positioned uniquely geographically/access to natural resources which brings its own sets of advantages and challenges. - The US is positioned uniquely militarily. Both in our expansive global presence and general economic investment. Changing that requires considerations that aren't well reflected in any other place or time. That's just a quick summary of a few of them. The last one being a very important one, seeing as how critical anti-imperialism is and how alone the US is in scale and scope there. That's not American Exceptionalism, but recognition of the material conditions. As such, any coherent plan/strategy is going to incorporate ideas from many different countries, modified versions for conditions in the US, and aspects that simply don't/haven't existed elsewhere because we're building something new. Just as the founding/practice of US democracy is an experiment combining ideas of the ancient, contemporary, and modern world, not an imitation of a single country. Just to give a quick "for instance" what the US does about the military industrial complex isn't something we can simply copy paste from anywhere else in the world. Energy is another big one where either dependence on geological features and/or colonized nations (as well as plenty of other factors) means we can't just imitate other Nordic countries or that it is necessarily desirable or sustainable. Not saying that anywhere is exactly the same, but some of that is just really fancily worded American exceptionalism....
If you wanted to argue something in there was American Exceptionalism (as I explicitly said it wasn't) you should have done that.
If you want to enact change, or even hope for change you need a direction to move. If it is complaints and not solution based then there is really no purpose or value other then whatever self value you might obtain from venting. please keep this rudimentary paternalism to yourself though.
|
|
|
On September 29 2020 06:38 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2020 06:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 29 2020 06:28 JimmiC wrote:On September 29 2020 04:57 GreenHorizons wrote:@GH if you could Model the US after a existing country which would it be that you would think would solve or be best able to solve the issues you see? The question is fundamentally flawed on many levels. - The US is uniquely positioned economically in the world so the implications of even more minor (but still significant) changes are dramatically different from something like the Mondragon Cooperative (which has many elements I think could/should be a guide in many ways, even if temporarily) which has orders of magnitude less global impact - The US is positioned uniquely geographically/access to natural resources which brings its own sets of advantages and challenges. - The US is positioned uniquely militarily. Both in our expansive global presence and general economic investment. Changing that requires considerations that aren't well reflected in any other place or time. That's just a quick summary of a few of them. The last one being a very important one, seeing as how critical anti-imperialism is and how alone the US is in scale and scope there. That's not American Exceptionalism, but recognition of the material conditions. As such, any coherent plan/strategy is going to incorporate ideas from many different countries, modified versions for conditions in the US, and aspects that simply don't/haven't existed elsewhere because we're building something new. Just as the founding/practice of US democracy is an experiment combining ideas of the ancient, contemporary, and modern world, not an imitation of a single country. Just to give a quick "for instance" what the US does about the military industrial complex isn't something we can simply copy paste from anywhere else in the world. Energy is another big one where either dependence on geological features and/or colonized nations (as well as plenty of other factors) means we can't just imitate other Nordic countries or that it is necessarily desirable or sustainable. Not saying that anywhere is exactly the same, but some of that is just really fancily worded American exceptionalism. If you want to enact change, or even hope for change you need a direction to move. If it is complaints and not solution based then there is really no purpose or value other then whatever self value you might obtain from venting. That being said I appreciate that you expanded on your thoughts. If you wanted to argue something in there was American Exceptionalism (as I explicitly said it wasn't) you should have done that. If you want to enact change, or even hope for change you need a direction to move. If it is complaints and not solution based then there is really no purpose or value other then whatever self value you might obtain from venting. please keep this rudimentary paternalism to yourself though. You saying it isn't does not make it not. You are saying all the reasons systems that work elsewhere won't work for your country. That is more or less the definition. When they say exceptional they are not using it in the "better" way but in the so different it won't work way.
Nor does you claiming it make it so. That's why you were supposed to bring an argument about what specifically was American Exceptionalism and not a fair description of the conditions in your opinion.
I literally am not "saying all the reasons systems that work elsewhere won't work for your country." I have no hope that you can be convinced otherwise though, so I'll leave that there.
When they say exceptional they are not using it in the "better" way but in the so different it won't work way.
Either you genuinely think I didn't know that and/or you are doubling down on the infantile paternalism, either way I think we're done here.
|
On September 29 2020 01:48 Mohdoo wrote:
Does anyone with a better understanding of large number banking have any perspective on this 400M? From my ignorant view, this appears to be unbelievably risky debt for the lender, which makes me think it is intended to serve as a form of leverage/blackmail. I am but an ignorant chemist, so I won't pretend to know what this means. I'm assuming Trump could just sell his buildings if he ran out of money, right? I don't really understand.
Trump has hard assets worth billions,mostly real estate which he did buy decades ago.
You can look up his holdings,they are not exactly a secret.
Beeing in debt is not an issue,very few big business are run without any debt.
He is quiet smart with real estate,one of his buildings in new york which is now worth several hunderd million he bought for 1 million dollar from the city. You should look up how he build his empire,its quiet interesting. There is a few failures but there is also many successes.
If i remember correctly he was even considered to be the richest person in america somewhere in the late 80,s of the previous century.
|
Norway28875 Posts
He might have been considered that by people he lied to about how wealthy he was. He famously lied about his wealth to make the first Forbes top 400 list - meaning he lied about being worth $100 million in 1982. Even if he genuinely made some money after that, I don't think there's any point where he has more than 10% of the actual richest american's net worth.
|
One thing that's slightly unsettling is that there's a drive towards criminalising Trump for his (blatant) abuse of the tax system instead of immediately changing an obviously fucked tax system. There should be no possible way on earth someone with that sort of money can avoid paying taxes. If there are loopholes or rules that allow it, these rules must be changed.
|
On September 29 2020 07:48 iamthedave wrote:
One thing that's slightly unsettling is that there's a drive towards criminalising Trump for his (blatant) abuse of the tax system instead of immediately changing an obviously fucked tax system. There should be no possible way on earth someone with that sort of money can avoid paying taxes. If there are loopholes or rules that allow it, these rules must be changed.
Whenever we try to close loop holes, the oil industry pays for ad campaigns to convince Cletus and Darrel the government is trying to steal their money. It always works. You can't convince a trailer park to tax the wealthy.
|
Being in debt as a business isn't the issue, it's being in debt personally that is. A business associated with an individual can default on their loans without the people behind it being negatively financially impacted in the same way as if that individual were to default on all their loans.
It's crazy unusual to have loans to an individual for that much, and I suspect it's because he has shown a pattern of having his businesses declare bankruptcy to get out of paying debt - so any business he owns may not be able to get any credit on its own.
He is quiet smart with real estate,one of his buildings in new york which is now worth several hunderd million he bought for 1 million dollar from the city. You should look up how he build his empire,its quiet interesting. There is a few failures but there is also many successes.
If i remember correctly he was even considered to be the richest person in america somewhere in the late 80,s of the previous century.
Also, if that were true (I doubt it), it takes a goddamn moron to go from being wealthiest in the 80s to near the bottom of the top 100 list in 30 years, over periods of massive tax cuts and financial deregulations.
On September 29 2020 07:53 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2020 07:48 iamthedave wrote:
One thing that's slightly unsettling is that there's a drive towards criminalising Trump for his (blatant) abuse of the tax system instead of immediately changing an obviously fucked tax system. There should be no possible way on earth someone with that sort of money can avoid paying taxes. If there are loopholes or rules that allow it, these rules must be changed. Whenever we try to close loop holes, the oil industry pays for ad campaigns to convince Cletus and Darrel the government is trying to steal their money. It always works. You can't convince a trailer park to tax the wealthy.
Not even loopholes in this case. It's the IRS having been financially gutted by republicans and democrats over time, and kneecapped after the (mostly) fake IRS scandal of the Obama admin where the GOP played to the refs by crying bias when their orgs were audited for behaving badly financially.
The IRS doesn't have the means to go after the worst, most extravagant offenders because litigating that is expensive, so instead all they can do is go after mid level offenders. These aren't loopholes : many of these are blatant frauds, but they can't pay enough people to actually investigate them. That Trump has been so blatant about some of this is the main reason that the IRS is still bothering to try to reclaim the fraudulently cashed 82 million refund check.
Quadruple the IRS budget and we might find that much of our deficit problems vanish, tbh (it's the only govt office that returns more than it takes in). No one like being audited though, and it's hard to run on "raise the IRS' budget"..
|
Why are you acting like "Cletuses" are to blame for the malfunctioning tax system? Why weren't those issues fixed whenever their candidates lost elections?
The idea that people who don't support extremely high tax rates are responsible for billionaires paying no taxes at all makes no sense. If it was about tax rates Trump's numbers wouldn't be so low.
|
On September 29 2020 03:47 JimmiC wrote:
The problem with any political system is those in power are very unlikely to change it even for what they would agree is "better" because there will always be the self justification that they can do so many more important things if they retain power. It does not matter much left right, or center very few political parties give up that power willingly.
What has made the US so much worse is not just the FPTP but also that there is just two parties so there has never really been a time when concessions need to be made to get other things through of work together as a minority government.
@GH if you could Model the US after a existing country which would it be that you would think would solve or be best able to solve the issues you see?
The question is not aimed at me but its an interesting question.
The usa does have a lot of issues but it is also the most succesfull and powerfull country in the world despite the issues that are there. Maybe its a trade of that somehow is inevitable though that is hard to say.
Economic inequality is large but it is also the most innovative and competitive economy in the world.
The demographic makeup of the country is unique in the world,no other country has the diversity that the usa has. This does create issues but it also contributes to a very competitive economy and environment.
It is a very young country and its relatively short history is unique when compared to not only countries in europe but also countries like china,india,japan.
The only nation which maybe is somewhat similar in this aspect is australia,which shares a similar history when it comes to surpressing the native population during the colonization.
But the demographic makeup of australia besides the native population is much more homogeneous. When it comes to the diversity of its demographic makeup no country in the world can compare to the usa (china probably can to some extend,but on china i can not really comment because i dont have much knowledge about its history).
Maybe the issues could be seen as "growing pains" (a qualification without the intention to make the issues seem minor or insignificant) along the way to a full integration and mutual acceptence of all the different demohrapic groups. This integration is a rather slow process that might take a relativly long time to fully achieve.
Institutionally,when it comes to laws,everyone is equal. This was more or less achieved about 50 years ago. But socially and in every day practice this still is not the case.
Integration by law is one step but the real challenge is a cultural integration,where people accept and treat others as equal not because the law forces them to but because they do so by themselves.
This cultural change i do believe is an inherent slow process even though the usa has made leaps forward in this process. More forcing could probably be done but i do think has its limits. In the end it comes down to the people themselves who slowly have to change and come together.
I dont think there is an easy solution to the some of the issues in the usa,let alone a fast one.
It unfortunatly is a slow process but to end on a somewhat positive note,the usa is moving forward faster then any nation ever before.(even though i can fully understand that it is far from fast enough for the people who suffer the most from the lack of cultural integration).
|
|
|
On September 29 2020 07:48 iamthedave wrote:
One thing that's slightly unsettling is that there's a drive towards criminalising Trump for his (blatant) abuse of the tax system instead of immediately changing an obviously fucked tax system. There should be no possible way on earth someone with that sort of money can avoid paying taxes. If there are loopholes or rules that allow it, these rules must be changed.
Agreed. A lot of the things that Trump does are obviously egregiously bad, but he's only such a figure of outrage because he does it out in the open. You can be sure there are all kinds of folks in high place who would piss themselves if the system Trump exposed as obviously broken starts getting fixed. Obviously, I think the man himself is ridiculous and a lightning rod for everything this country should be trying to steer away from, but there's a lot more to it than just him. A lot of genuinely wealthy people would be very happy for nothing to change.
|
On September 29 2020 09:37 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2020 07:48 iamthedave wrote:
One thing that's slightly unsettling is that there's a drive towards criminalising Trump for his (blatant) abuse of the tax system instead of immediately changing an obviously fucked tax system. There should be no possible way on earth someone with that sort of money can avoid paying taxes. If there are loopholes or rules that allow it, these rules must be changed. Agreed. A lot of the things that Trump does are obviously egregiously bad, but he's only such a figure of outrage because he does it out in the open. You can be sure there are all kinds of folks in high place who would piss themselves if the system Trump exposed as obviously broken starts getting fixed. Obviously, I think the man himself is ridiculous and a lightning rod for everything this country should be trying to steer away from, but there's a lot more to it than just him . A lot of genuinely wealthy people would be very happy for nothing to change.
Lucky for them even if Trump loses they've been promised "nothing will fundamentally change"
|
On September 29 2020 09:45 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2020 09:37 NewSunshine wrote:On September 29 2020 07:48 iamthedave wrote:
One thing that's slightly unsettling is that there's a drive towards criminalising Trump for his (blatant) abuse of the tax system instead of immediately changing an obviously fucked tax system. There should be no possible way on earth someone with that sort of money can avoid paying taxes. If there are loopholes or rules that allow it, these rules must be changed. Agreed. A lot of the things that Trump does are obviously egregiously bad, but he's only such a figure of outrage because he does it out in the open. You can be sure there are all kinds of folks in high place who would piss themselves if the system Trump exposed as obviously broken starts getting fixed. Obviously, I think the man himself is ridiculous and a lightning rod for everything this country should be trying to steer away from, but there's a lot more to it than just him . A lot of genuinely wealthy people would be very happy for nothing to change. Lucky for them even if Trump loses they've been promised "nothing will fundamentally change"
In Biden's full quote it sounded like he was saying even if the rich paid their fair share, their quality of life would never change. They are at such a point of grotesque wealth that obsessing over how many extra millions of dollars they have is totally morally bankrupt.
I was super weirded out by the quote, so I looked it up and it did not feel nearly as bad as you are making it out to be.
|
|
|
On September 29 2020 09:55 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2020 09:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 29 2020 09:37 NewSunshine wrote:On September 29 2020 07:48 iamthedave wrote:
One thing that's slightly unsettling is that there's a drive towards criminalising Trump for his (blatant) abuse of the tax system instead of immediately changing an obviously fucked tax system. There should be no possible way on earth someone with that sort of money can avoid paying taxes. If there are loopholes or rules that allow it, these rules must be changed. Agreed. A lot of the things that Trump does are obviously egregiously bad, but he's only such a figure of outrage because he does it out in the open. You can be sure there are all kinds of folks in high place who would piss themselves if the system Trump exposed as obviously broken starts getting fixed. Obviously, I think the man himself is ridiculous and a lightning rod for everything this country should be trying to steer away from, but there's a lot more to it than just him . A lot of genuinely wealthy people would be very happy for nothing to change. Lucky for them even if Trump loses they've been promised "nothing will fundamentally change" In Biden's full quote it sounded like he was saying even if the rich paid their fair share, their quality of life would never change. They are at such a point of grotesque wealth that obsessing over how many extra millions of dollars they have is totally morally bankrupt. I was super weirded out by the quote, so I looked it up and it did not feel nearly as bad as you are making it out to be.
Conservatives tell everyone that you can't have things like free college, universal healthcare, and housing programs for the homeless, but if you got the 1% to actually pay their taxes it would all be paid for. And they wouldn't even notice.
|
On September 29 2020 10:24 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2020 09:55 Mohdoo wrote:On September 29 2020 09:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 29 2020 09:37 NewSunshine wrote:On September 29 2020 07:48 iamthedave wrote:
One thing that's slightly unsettling is that there's a drive towards criminalising Trump for his (blatant) abuse of the tax system instead of immediately changing an obviously fucked tax system. There should be no possible way on earth someone with that sort of money can avoid paying taxes. If there are loopholes or rules that allow it, these rules must be changed. Agreed. A lot of the things that Trump does are obviously egregiously bad, but he's only such a figure of outrage because he does it out in the open. You can be sure there are all kinds of folks in high place who would piss themselves if the system Trump exposed as obviously broken starts getting fixed. Obviously, I think the man himself is ridiculous and a lightning rod for everything this country should be trying to steer away from, but there's a lot more to it than just him . A lot of genuinely wealthy people would be very happy for nothing to change. Lucky for them even if Trump loses they've been promised "nothing will fundamentally change" In Biden's full quote it sounded like he was saying even if the rich paid their fair share, their quality of life would never change. They are at such a point of grotesque wealth that obsessing over how many extra millions of dollars they have is totally morally bankrupt. I was super weirded out by the quote, so I looked it up and it did not feel nearly as bad as you are making it out to be. Conservatives tell everyone that you can't have things like free college, universal healthcare, and housing programs for the homeless, but if you got the 1% to actually pay their taxes it would all be paid for. And they wouldn't even notice.
Which is why allowing for individuals to control that much power is nothing short of negligence. It is total madness to think someone can effectively use that. And psychology has already characterized what happens when you get rich. These people are essentially suffering from money-induced mental illness and taking the country down with them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
