|
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 November 03 2018 03:33 chocorush wrote:
No amount of tax changes has affected my income more than actually affordable healthcare would.
I would also like cheaper healthcare and frankly, cheaper cars. But I am happy pre-existing conditions are covered. The only party that is going to address healthcare costs is the Democrats. The Republicans have shown they are not interested in any form of governance on that issue. They just want repeal the ACA and let everyone fend for themselves.
|
|
|
In the US, there are not enough small, economy priced commuter cars that are below 20K new. And not a lot of focus on making cheaper cars for moderate incomes.
|
I am curious if there has been research about the relation between mid terms and the presidential election cycle.
My idea or hypothesis would be something like this.
If the president is in his first term and his party also holds the house,then if his party loses the house durubg mid term he will also lose the next election. The idea behind it would be that it would make little sense to re-elect a president that is already handicapped by the lack of support from the house.
If the president is in his first term and his party also holds the house,then if his party keeps the house during mid term he will likely be re-elected. Though this is maybe slightly less likely then not being re-elected when losing the house (which I think is very likely). The idea behind it would be that the support during mid terms will cary over for the next 2 years towards the presidential election.
There are more variations but they are not relevant for the current situation,
My theory would be that if the republicans hold the house then trump will likely get re-elected,say 70% to make a guess. If the republicans lose the house then trump will most likely not get re-elected,say 85% to make a guess.
|
|
|
On November 03 2018 04:08 Plansix wrote:
In the US, there are not enough small, economy priced commuter cars that are below 20K new. And not a lot of focus on making cheaper cars for moderate incomes.
You don't really need a new car I think,not even people who need one to be presentable for their job. Most 3 year old cars would be perfectly fine and then you already cut of like 50% of the price?
|
On November 03 2018 04:08 Plansix wrote:
In the US, there are not enough small, economy priced commuter cars that are below 20K new. And not a lot of focus on making cheaper cars for moderate incomes.
You can blame that on the consumer shifting towards crossovers and 7 year financing . Ford pretty much dissolved their entire sedan and compact lineup in reaction to this shift.
For under 20k, one of of the mazda 3, civic, impreza will serve your needs. Also the used car market in the US has pretty great value.
|
On November 03 2018 04:08 Plansix wrote:
In the US, there are not enough small, economy priced commuter cars that are below 20K new. And not a lot of focus on making cheaper cars for moderate incomes.
I'm not sure if there's a hidden surcharge somewhere, but a brief research revealed dozens of cars under 20k new. That's on manufacturers websites, not including deals/offers/haggling.
As an example, the list price on fords website is 14k for a spanking new base model Ford Fiesta (car of the year multiple times in europe, so not a stinker).
What do i have to add to get the "real price"?
edit: if that's "too small" (which i don't see why, but lets go with it) - the Hyundai Elantra sedan starts at $16k, where does that price end up?
edit: just checked a californian ford dealership (god knows where, random google) - Ford Focus SE, 18k after rebate. I mean, i'm pretty fluent in "car", if there isn't a hidden value i'm missing (possibly, never bought a car in the USA), i don't think there's a problem finding decent cars for 20k?
|
On November 03 2018 04:38 pmh wrote:
I am curious if there has been research about the relation between mid terms and the presidential election cycle.
My idea or hypothesis would be something like this.
If the president is in his first term and his party also holds the house,then if his party loses the house durubg mid term he will also lose the next election. The idea behind it would be that it would make little sense to re-elect a president that is already handicapped by the lack of support from the house.
If the president is in his first term and his party also holds the house,then if his party keeps the house during mid term he will likely be re-elected. Though this is maybe slightly less likely then not being re-elected when losing the house (which I think is very likely). The idea behind it would be that the support during mid terms will cary over for the next 2 years towards the presidential election.
There are more variations but they are not relevant for the current situation,
My theory would be that if the republicans hold the house then trump will likely get re-elected,say 70% to make a guess. If the republicans lose the house then trump will most likely not get re-elected,say 85% to make a guess.
The general trend is that that the party in power loses seats in the mid terms(this is post WW2, which is considered “modern” politics). The senate does not often change hands as a result of the president election. The house has generally be stable with a few exceptions. Democrat controlled the house for 40 years up until 1995, which the Republicans took it. That lasted until 2006, in Bush’s second term, when the democrats took the House back, only to lose it in 2010. As politics have become more focus on party dominance, rather than bipartisan groups within each chamber, the Senate and House leadership have gained power.
One part to understand about US politics is that the current status quo of party dominance over the chamber is a recent thing. Pre-1995, the House and Senate were much more fractured and contained small power bases within each chamber. Farm state Republican and Democrats would work together. Senators with cities that needed federal support for public transit would band together to push for funding. The chambers were governed more by regional politics, rather than national needs.
After Republicans took the House in 1995, Newt Gingrich worked to break up those groups, force more party control over the business of the House and limit the power of the Republicans who wanted to work with the Democrats. This style of politics was rewarded at the House level, but never made its way to the Senate during Newt Gingrich’s time as speaker. It took another 15 years for people senators like McConnell, students of Newt Gingrich’s grievance and culture based politics to rise up through the ranks and take a leadership position. At the same time, Democrats, frustrated with the tactics of the Republicans also left behind bipartisan efforts and folks like Harry Reid began to hit back by changing the rules of the senate(which the republicans would have done anyways). The trends of the modern political era were set in motion back in the 1990s and we are just playing out what I hope is the final stage before a new style of politics takes hold of the chambers.
|
On November 03 2018 04:52 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2018 04:08 Plansix wrote:
In the US, there are not enough small, economy priced commuter cars that are below 20K new. And not a lot of focus on making cheaper cars for moderate incomes. I'm not sure if there's a hidden surcharge somewhere, but a brief research revealed dozens of cars under 20k new. That's on manufacturers websites, not including deals/offers/haggling. As an example, the list price on fords website is 14k for a spanking new base model Ford Fiesta (car of the year multiple times in europe, so not a stinker). What do i have to add to get the "real price"? edit: if that's "too small" (which i don't see why, but lets go with it) - the Hyundai Elantra sedan starts at $16k, where does that price end up? edit: just checked a californian ford dealership (god knows where, random google) - Ford Focus SE, 18k after rebate. I mean, i'm pretty fluent in "car", if there isn't a hidden value i'm missing (possibly, never bought a car in the USA), i don't think there's a problem finding decent cars for 20k?
Beyond taxes, not really. I might have overstated the price a bit. I think the main complaint is that price is something that is easy to for me to imagine affording. But someone who is less well off than me having a 20K debt with their 30K student loan debt just isn’t viable. Of course there is the used car market, which is viable.
The entire market is dependent on cars designed to be sold to upper middle class and higher people, which sort of troubles me. It is something that doesn’t feel like it should be seen as a luxury. I would like to see the industry challenge itself to make a 9K new car. The same applies to housing, which is no longer building starter homes. Entry level purchases seem to be disappearing from new market of this high price goods.
|
On November 03 2018 04:40 pmh wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2018 04:08 Plansix wrote:
In the US, there are not enough small, economy priced commuter cars that are below 20K new. And not a lot of focus on making cheaper cars for moderate incomes. You don't really need a new car I think,not even people who need one to be presentable for their job. Most 3 year old cars would be perfectly fine and then you already cut of like 50% of the price?
Buying a 3 year old car doesn't really reduce it 50% unless it has a ton of miles on it. 20-30% is more realistic, and it will still cost you like 12k+ unless you get a really barebones car. Not that there's anything wrong with a barebones car.
The reality is though, that even that much is unrealistic for many people, and they're forced to buy used cars in the 2-5k range, which are absolutely a money sink into something you'll have to replace every couple years or spend a ton of money fixing things.
Edit: on the note of the ford fiesta, I would note that the european model and the american model aren't the same. The cheap American model is a sedan, which is kind of stupid.
|
Edit: on the note of the ford fiesta, I would note that the european model and the american model aren't the same. The cheap American model is a sedan, which is kind of stupid.
I stand corrected, i didn't go that far into the car config to see that. That being said, the hatchback is still way under 20k, that was my point.
As a commuter, the sedan would still do tho. Probably not the greatest looking car ever made (clearly) - but as a commuter it'd do. And that was just the first sniff, there's plenty of cars out there in that price range, even a few one size above golf (here, hatchbacks like focus, astra etc are called "golf class", the one above would be 3 series etc).
edit: astra doesn't actually exist in the US, was sold slightly altered as Buick Verano apparently.
|
Americans elected Trump because their political system is completely dysfunctional and now it is making the society as a whole toxic. Why? Usually, extreme leaders and a moral decline happen during times of economic crisis. But Trump happened during an economic boom.
The news media must have played a role in the election of Trump. Trump became a reality star because of the media. CNN, MSNBC, they helped create the Trump monster they now are slowly becoming to fear.
Is Trump the most obvious symptom of the failure of capitalism? With the main factor being the unequal distribution of the huge net benefits of globalization (because it left many off way worse with no solution offered?).
In the past I would say that capitalism had many flaws and that there was no reason to accept them. And people would counter that capitalism is the best thing we have because 'look at how far our civilization has advanced with capitalism'. But if capitalism leads to Trump and Trump leads to a dictatorship, is capitalism literally starting to fail (rather than just being sub-optimal)?
|
On November 03 2018 06:02 Panthous wrote:
Americans elected Trump because their political system is completely dysfunctional and now it is making the society as a whole toxic. Why? Usually, extreme leaders and a moral decline happen during times of economic crisis. But Trump happened during an economic boom.
The news media must have played a role in the election of Trump. Trump became a reality star because of the media. CNN, MSNBC, they helped create the Trump monster they now are slowly becoming to fear.
And Economic boom for whom? The economy is good and unemployment is low, but what do wages look like?
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/05/my-secret-shame/476415/
Since 2013, the federal reserve board has conducted a survey to “monitor the financial and economic status of American consumers.” Most of the data in the latest survey, frankly, are less than earth-shattering: 49 percent of part-time workers would prefer to work more hours at their current wage; 29 percent of Americans expect to earn a higher income in the coming year; 43 percent of homeowners who have owned their home for at least a year believe its value has increased. But the answer to one question was astonishing. The Fed asked respondents how they would pay for a $400 emergency. The answer: 47 percent of respondents said that either they would cover the expense by borrowing or selling something, or they would not be able to come up with the $400 at all. Four hundred dollars! Who knew?
At some point the government is going to need to update how it measures the economy and the finances of its citizens. There is no looking at the wage growth, the price of house and student debt and believing the economy is “good” for Americans. Its great for the wealthy though. Furthermore, Trump also tapped into demographic anxiety due to the unstoppable trend of whites becoming a minority in the US.
You are right that Trump is the result of rot in the US. Rot that we refuse to accept exist.
|
On November 03 2018 05:43 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +Edit: on the note of the ford fiesta, I would note that the european model and the american model aren't the same. The cheap American model is a sedan, which is kind of stupid. I stand corrected, i didn't go that far into the car config to see that. That being said, the hatchback is still way under 20k, that was my point. As a commuter, the sedan would still do tho. Probably not the greatest looking car ever made (clearly) - but as a commuter it'd do. And that was just the first sniff, there's plenty of cars out there in that price range, even a few one size above golf (here, hatchbacks like focus, astra etc are called "golf class", the one above would be 3 series etc). edit: astra doesn't actually exist in the US, was sold slightly altered as Buick Verano apparently.
Since we are on the mobility discussion, how is the situation with bike paths in the US?
I find that the existence of those makes a huge difference. From my personal experience, i bike between 20 and 40 km a day to get to stuff here in Munich. This is not a problem, because there are good bike paths and i don't have to bike on the street, and there are often long stretches i can bike without too many intersections forcing me to constantly stop. I can relax, put on earphones, listen to a podcast, let my mind wander and just ride my bike.
When i was in Belfast for a month, i noticed that there simply was no such infrastructure. I found even biking 5 km really tiring and annoying, because you had to constantly ride on a road, be really careful about cars all the time, stop every 200m because of a (really badly setup) traffic light, and still fear some asshole running you over because he thinks that you can totally overtake a bike without changing lanes while driving a tour bus.
I think that it might be a catch 22 situation, where there are no bike paths because no one rides a bike, and no one rides a bike because there are no bike paths.
I can only recommend having nice bike paths, and i am pretty sure that once there are bike paths, people will notice relatively soon that riding your bike to places is actually really nice. It takes a lot of traffic of the roads and makes people more healthy. If you have good bike infrastructure, anything up to 10km is easily bikeable for most people, and stuff of up to 30km is bikeable for some people.
So how are your setups? Because all this car talk makes me think that figuring out a setup where people don't feel the need to own a car is really important.
|
On November 03 2018 05:08 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2018 04:52 m4ini wrote:On November 03 2018 04:08 Plansix wrote:
In the US, there are not enough small, economy priced commuter cars that are below 20K new. And not a lot of focus on making cheaper cars for moderate incomes. I'm not sure if there's a hidden surcharge somewhere, but a brief research revealed dozens of cars under 20k new. That's on manufacturers websites, not including deals/offers/haggling. As an example, the list price on fords website is 14k for a spanking new base model Ford Fiesta (car of the year multiple times in europe, so not a stinker). What do i have to add to get the "real price"? edit: if that's "too small" (which i don't see why, but lets go with it) - the Hyundai Elantra sedan starts at $16k, where does that price end up? edit: just checked a californian ford dealership (god knows where, random google) - Ford Focus SE, 18k after rebate. I mean, i'm pretty fluent in "car", if there isn't a hidden value i'm missing (possibly, never bought a car in the USA), i don't think there's a problem finding decent cars for 20k? Beyond taxes, not really. I might have overstated the price a bit. I think the main complaint is that price is something that is easy to for me to imagine affording. But someone who is less well off than me having a 20K debt with their 30K student loan debt just isn’t viable. Of course there is the used car market, which is viable. The entire market is dependent on cars designed to be sold to upper middle class and higher people, which sort of troubles me. It is something that doesn’t feel like it should be seen as a luxury. I would like to see the industry challenge itself to make a 9K new car. The same applies to housing, which is no longer building starter homes. Entry level purchases seem to be disappearing from new market of this high price goods.
The "entry level" option disappearing from the housing and car markets kind of makes sense when you consider that millenials just don't have the income necessary to support it. To go with the student debt thing, the median annual income for millenials is probably something like $35,000.
These sites have it broken down state by state. I basically just eyeballed it by looking at the most populous states and the outliers, so if anything, 35k is probably high.
https://www.businessinsider.com/typical-income-millennial-gen-x-baby-boomers-every-state-us-2018-7
https://howmuch.net/articles/median-income-among-generations-by-state
|
United States42716 Posts
On November 03 2018 03:45 IgnE wrote:
where is kwark? hes our resident tax expert
Doing it for money. Sup?
|
United States42716 Posts
Tax cuts really happened and they were not inconsiderable for those at high incomes. They were much less significant for the average American. They were also coupled with spending increases. Anyone can cut taxes without cutting spending, if you’re going to do that you might as well go a step further and go for 0%, or even negative. No conservative should view it as anything other than more government welfare.
Large parts of the proposed tax platform also never made it into the law. Head of household stayed, AMT stayed, most of the deductions stayed, it was mostly just lower rates on the rich and an end on wealth transfer taxes.
|
On November 03 2018 07:02 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2018 05:43 m4ini wrote:Edit: on the note of the ford fiesta, I would note that the european model and the american model aren't the same. The cheap American model is a sedan, which is kind of stupid. I stand corrected, i didn't go that far into the car config to see that. That being said, the hatchback is still way under 20k, that was my point. As a commuter, the sedan would still do tho. Probably not the greatest looking car ever made (clearly) - but as a commuter it'd do. And that was just the first sniff, there's plenty of cars out there in that price range, even a few one size above golf (here, hatchbacks like focus, astra etc are called "golf class", the one above would be 3 series etc). edit: astra doesn't actually exist in the US, was sold slightly altered as Buick Verano apparently. Since we are on the mobility discussion, how is the situation with bike paths in the US? I find that the existence of those makes a huge difference. From my personal experience, i bike between 20 and 40 km a day to get to stuff here in Munich. This is not a problem, because there are good bike paths and i don't have to bike on the street, and there are often long stretches i can bike without too many intersections forcing me to constantly stop. I can relax, put on earphones, listen to a podcast, let my mind wander and just ride my bike. When i was in Belfast for a month, i noticed that there simply was no such infrastructure. I found even biking 5 km really tiring and annoying, because you had to constantly ride on a road, be really careful about cars all the time, stop every 200m because of a (really badly setup) traffic light, and still fear some asshole running you over because he thinks that you can totally overtake a bike without changing lanes while driving a tour bus. I think that it might be a catch 22 situation, where there are no bike paths because no one rides a bike, and no one rides a bike because there are no bike paths. I can only recommend having nice bike paths, and i am pretty sure that once there are bike paths, people will notice relatively soon that riding your bike to places is actually really nice. It takes a lot of traffic of the roads and makes people more healthy. If you have good bike infrastructure, anything up to 10km is easily bikeable for most people, and stuff of up to 30km is bikeable for some people. So how are your setups? Because all this car talk makes me think that figuring out a setup where people don't feel the need to own a car is really important.
Bike paths are for recreation, rarely travel. America is to big to effectively use bike paths. My home town is 20 minutes by car to buy milk. One way.
|
United States24686 Posts
Some cities have nice, efficient bike paths if you also live in the city. It varies greatly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
