Printable View
1) Mitt Romney will win the Republican nomination by a wide margin.
2) The Democratic National Convention will follow the RNC. Almost nobody, except for the speakers, will attend.
3) Mitt Romney will be elected President. Maybe he will get at least the same amount of electoral votes Obama got this year.
2 and 3 are based on the assumption that America will be fed up at how quickly the economy has been worsening.
One has to wonder how much better a state the US economy would be in without the expense of the war started, under false pretences, by the last Republican president.
Ya gotta love sour grapes.
I think if you follow the discussions going on in the crazy right-wing media that the rich use to keep you in line you'll find are laying a ton of the loss on Willard himself. I can't see them running him again. More likely some token hispanic character, and they'll be so dense as to choose one that most hispanic voters can't relate to.
I disagree with the assertion that the U.S. economy will worsen over the next four years.
Name the last losing candidate in a presidential election who even RAN again. I can't do it. Let's see here:
McCain lost in 2008...and never ran again.
Kerry lost in 2004...and never ran again.
Gore lost in 2000...and never ran again.
Dole lost in 1996...and never ran again.
G.H.W. Bush lost in 1992...and never ran again.
Dukakis lost in 1988...and never ran again.
Mondale lost in 1984...and never ran again.
Carter lost in 1980...and never ran again.
Ford lost in 1976...and never ran again.
McGovern lost in 1972...and never ran again.
Oh wait, perhaps I can think of the last one. Nixon lost to Kennedy in 1960, didn't run in 1964, then did run again and win in 1968. So, there actually has been a losing nominee who ran again. Though Humphrey, who lost in 1968, also never ran again. The trend can keep going back. Nixon is the only example since WW I where the losing nominee ran a second time. Romney is no Nixon. For one thing, he's already 65, so he'd be 69 if he ran in 2016.
So, you have to go back 42 years to find another example. There's a reason for that. Romney will never run for another office.
As for a prediction, I was saying that no matter who won this election, the White House would change parties in 2016. I'm not so pessimistic anymore. My belief was based on the EU breaking up and driving the US into a total depression. I now think that the EU will find a way to stagger through. That may mean that Europe has slow or negative growth for years to come, but we can survive that. A breakup....well, not so much. I also think that the right wing didn't learn a darn thing. Romney won among older white men, and little else. The right wing will probably conclude that they weren't conservative enough, and will spend the next four years angrily asserting that they had the right ideas all along. If they do that, they will go down in flames in 2016, and will either fall apart in 2020, or change strategy to appeal to the growing Latino population. Both results have historic precedent in this country. It all depends on whether loss causes the party to circle the wagons or reach out. There are elements of both strategies showing up, already, so it will be interesting to see which one comes out on top.
Ok, I'll bite, I'm curious to where you're getting the "assumption that America will be fed up at how quickly the economy has been worsening" phrase from.Quote:
Originally Posted by moonman239
Last I checked, Obama's done a fantastic job at turning the economy around and overall helping better our nation, despite Congress & The House (both of which are mostly Republican) holding him back as much as they could the whole time. If we were to have had a Republican president after George W. I wonder how much worse off we would be as a nation right now & given Romney's pathetic campaign and the Republican's outrageous policies given today's times, while I didn't vote this year I am glad Obama won the election.
I agree with ya jmcilhinney, I think that whole Iraq and Afghanistan ordeal was completely unnecessary.
I believe almost all people are fed up with how the economy is going: and yet Obama was still voted in by a fairly reasonable number of electoral votes. What makes anyone think that a 'bad economy' is going to prevent the portrayed nice guy from winning?
Honestly, I don't think that Republicans, Conservatives or Libertarians can now win a general election in such a connected society. There's a reason that CEOs, Chiefs and leaders in areas where the fate of individuals is not left to that populace to decide.
Tyhe past 4 years have demonstrated, and this latest election, reinforced the notion that 'the people' really are not very smart and are selfishly inclined to not only take what they want, but also ensure that they take what they want from minorities. The majority have decided (or been guilted) into determining what is a 'deserving' minority and which is not defined as such.
As far as comments regarding 'the wars' go, selective amnesia doesn't bode well for the future.
The fact that one makes a comment about A doesn't reflect in any way what one may or may not think or know about B.Quote:
Originally Posted by SJWhiteley
!Quote:
Originally Posted by JuggaloBrotha
What is Congress?
What is The Senate?
What is the House of Representatives?
What role does the Executive and Judicial branch of government play in the above three items?
How many seats are there in each?
What parties hold which seats?
How does voting play out in all these branches of government?
What is the role of each: Senate, House, Judicial and Executive?
As a non-native this really 'chaps my ass' something chronic, and reinforces the notion that most voters are pretty ignorant. They have really no idea how government works. [I'm not picking on you, directly, JB, it is far too common occurrence].
Because of this ignorance, both the Democrats and the media have used it to great effect to blame Republicans for why things are not getting done - or, more succinctly, why they are not getting done the way the Democrats want them done. The ACA was one such notion - the 'you have to vote for it to see what's in it' bill. Now the Republicans (who only have majority in the House, by the way for the past 2 years, and we have had 4 years of a Democrat controlled Congress prior to that) are using every tool at their disposal to prevent bills passing due to this lackadaisical ignorance at large.
This is how the government is designed to work; while filibusters can be tiresome, when you have complete morons - yes, those who vote for a bill without thoroughly reading it have failed their duty to represent the people who voted them into office - it behooves responsible parties to lay out the facts on record (every congressional session is recorded) so that we can see that our representatives were present and heard the bills entirety and yet went ahead and voted one way or another.
But we come back to our modern society - the majority care very little for our historical proceedings which set precedent. We are overflowing with information that the average person makes their decisions on sound bites; detailed understanding is 'boring' and irrelevant when you are voting for a nice guy - or *not* voting for an evil hatemongerer. To coin a phrase, however, most people can't handle the truth - the cold decisions that need to be made, are not going to be made.
Because of how our government works, the 'blame game' is very shallow: as noted here, 'the wars' being fought are on the head of GWB; yet the reason things are not getting done today is because of the Republican filibustering. And yet continuous appointments (and acts of war against sovereign nations, while not technically illegal, were none-the-less acts of aggression directed solely by the Executive branch, bypassing the authority of congress) by the current president have resulted in what we have today.
That's a totally partisan reading of the situation. Do you remember that the speaker of the house, the person who controls which legislation even comes up for a vote, stated early on that the primary goal of the Republicans was seeing that Obama was going to be a one term president. Are you saying that he was lying, or did you just choose to ignore the point?
You can dress up what is happening all you want, but it's just crap. I spent years listening closely to those debates from the audience chamber and behind the scenes, though only in a state house, not in Congress. My mother first worked in the house, then served three terms, and I found it pretty interesting (and often kind of boring, even if you knew some of the crap that was behind the spoken words). What really happens is that statement by Boehner. At all levels, its about jockeying for position. There is always a way to spin your actions to appear noble and spin your opponents to appear evil. It doesn't really matter whether you are on the left or the right, neither side can escape that tar if applied with any skill. So, when you imply that all we have seen in the last four years was a noble minority fighting valiantly for intelligent legislation, that's just the spin, and it's a particularly egregious lie, at that.
In this case, it may well be that personality did win the election. Romney was nearly as stiff as Gore when it came to public speeches (and, like Gore, was not so stiff when he wasn't on the stump). That may well have made up for the weakness in the economy. However, it may also be the case that Romney was a cipher to pretty much everyone. The Economist, which is not particularly liberal, spoke out against his vague and anit-mathematical deficit reduction plans. The Republicans, as a group, were mostly anti-immigrant for the primary, with Romney tacking to the right of the group on that issue. Perhaps that's why he lost the Latino vote so heavily. The drumbeat of stupid statements about women made by leading Republicans during the race (the two senate candidates that got the most headlines were far from the only ones in this camp) alienated every woman I know, which might be why the party lost pretty handily with that group.
And when it comes to stupidity, it's hard to top the average Republican, considering the percentages of people who self-identify with that camp and who don't believe in evolution, moon landings, and other exotica. There's certainly plenty of stupidity to go around, but no single party has a lock on it, nor can you really blame the election on ignorance or greed, cause the elctorate isn't all that much different from what it was in 2000 and 2004 when W got elected. It's easy to say that the other side "just isn't paying attention", but you had best be careful, because it rather looks like you might be wrong.
As for the wars, you've mentioned them twice. I have no idea what you are getting at with either statement. What are you even refering to with the phrase "continuous appointments", and what are you referring to when you talk about "resulted in what we have today"? Do you mean that those actions have resulted in steady, though anemic, growth for a couple years when Europe is circling the drain while the BRIC are all sliding downwards? I guess you might argue that the attacks in Pakistan have had some positive effect, but I rather think we couldn't measure that even if they were.
I believe Romney will be different. He lost the Republican nomination to Sen. McCain in 2008, but that didn't stop him from running for - and winning - the nomination in 2012. I'm sure his campaign team knows what they should have done this year, and will make sure that next election year, they do what they should do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
That's not really the same thing. Losing the nominations is far less damaging to your political reputation than losing the election itself, because it's far less public. I don't know my American history well enough but I'm willing to bet you can find plenty of examples of people who've lost the nomination and yet ran again, but you'll find none who lost the election and did so.Quote:
I believe Romney will be different. He lost the Republican nomination to Sen. McCain in 2008, but that didn't stop him from running for - and winning - the nomination in 2012. I'm sure his campaign team knows what they should have done this year, and will make sure that next election year, they do what they should do.
We have a similar phenomenon over here. People who run lose a general election are inevitably removed from their position as party leader as well. The problem is that once you've lost such a high profile competition you're no longer seen as a potential winner so out you go. Whether that's right or sensible I don't know, but it's wholly human.
You also believed the Romney would be president so you dont have great form here moonman.Quote:
I believe Romney will be different
Romney will not run again, there will be new faces for the next election and the Republican Party will not pick a candidate again who lost an election that they thought they should have won.
What on earth does that mean!!!! "in a connected society" why does that make any difference as to who can and cant win an election? and where/who was it that was not left for the populace to decide??Quote:
Honestly, I don't think that Republicans, Conservatives or Libertarians can now win a general election in such a connected society. There's a reason that CEOs, Chiefs and leaders in areas where the fate of individuals is not left to that populace to decide.
In what way has it shown the populace are not very smart and selfish? and what are they taking from Minorities?? finally who has "guilted" the Majority and what exactly have they Guilted them into!Quote:
The past 4 years have demonstrated, and this latest election, reinforced the notion that 'the people' really are not very smart and are selfishly inclined to not only take what they want, but also ensure that they take what they want from minorities. The majority have decided (or been guilted) into determining what is a 'deserving' minority and which is not defined as such.
You post seems to me to be almost deliberately lacking in any specifics at all and comes across as sour grapes as the outcome didn't go in the direction you would have liked!
I don't think SJW has a desired outcome from this election. He's basically anti-government whether it be Republican or Democratic (or democratic, apparently).
I do agree with him that the general populace isn't particularly smart and is most certainly selfish. It's one of the weaknesses of democracy and is the reason we vote for someone to govern rather than voting on each individual issue. Democracy isn't perfect. I haven't heard a better suggestion yet though so I think we're best sticking with it for the time being.
I'm going to keep this off topic, Moonman, sorry...
While that's true [stupidity abounds] we aren't having votes and decreeing that the moon landing isn't real. While the evolution/creationist battle [sic] is out of hand, this is more of a reflection on the incompetence in the education system, than the ideals themselves.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
I would contend that I'm rather right. Bottom line [I believe] is that Obama and the Democrats policies are incompatible with a healthy management of a first world country. The electorate is different today than it was a decade ago: they are no more intelligent or enlightened today than they were then, but they are more ignorant. Be stupid on your own land: have at it, more power to you. But when you [not 'you' specifically] desire to impose your 'ideals' on me then you can rest assured that you will get some push back.
Wars? as the left continues to press, these wars are 'Bush wars'. Yet A president cannot legally go to war. Democrats have has a significant amount of responsibility for this country for 6 years, now, yet it is republicans to blame; rich people are not only hoarding all the money, they are taking it from the poor people; republicans want to go to war because it makes them money; war for BS; and so on. That kind of crap gets very old: so you want to talk about Partisan? Damned straight, and much more intolerant today than I was 4 years ago.
as we all know 'politicians lie', that's one thing that is bi-partisan: but we examine the flip-floppery, lies and distortions of our appointee's opponent, yet completely ignore the lies on our own appointee. As you have pointed out, politics is, well, politics. Isn't this a good reason to keep government out of the lives of individuals? You have a tiny minority of people jockeying for position; a small minority leverages that to impose their way on everyone. Ban this, ban that, control this, control that, everyone must do this, everyone must do that, for the good and fairness of all. Most of our current 'single issues' today are based on moral standpoints and are very subjective, yet we are trying to legislate them. These issues have a large grey area, but when it comes to laws, there cannot be grey areas. People are forced to take an extreme position; to painfully coin a phrase, if you aren't for it, you are against it.
SJ, I agree with quite alot of what you've said. In my younger days I was a political anarchist. I grew out of it because I inreasingly realised that alot of the arguments I was hearing from my peers were complete tripe. I'm not sure it's the same elsewhere but here the anarchist movement has become tied up with a "levelling" paradigm. The anarchists here believe that the removal of controls and laws will somehow result in large corproations losing out to little corner shops and a generally fairer society. I find that view to be completely flawed and, while I do think a certain amount of levelling would be a good thing, I suspect it's more likely to be brought about by more legislation rather than less.
None the less, I do still value personal freedom and responsibility (which is really where the anarchist movement started) and I do believe that governments have a general tendancy to subsume those principles. The reason why is obvious really: governmenets want to be seen to be actively doing good. "We're not going to do anything" is a pretty hard political sell.
Where I'd disagree with you is that I think you're being too simplistic. It's all very well to say government should not be involved in our personal lives but there's a rather obvious need for them to be there. To take a rather flippant example, making poedaphilia illegal is an infringement of my personal freedom by the governement but it's certainly not one any of us would object to. That's a silly example, of course, but does serve to illustrate a point: Governments do have a role to play in dictating what we can or can't do. The debate, really, is about how big a part you believe they should have and in what areas? At the moment you're mostly just making firebrand statements that don't explore where those lie for you, which means your really just engaging in the same over-simplified hyperbole you were previously railing at the media for and which your accusing the public of being ignorant for focusing on.
Really, I don't disagree, and you can come up with a variety of examples where government should be involved. It's the 'either you are for it or against it' trap we all fall into at some time or the other. There is a difference between 'getting government out of it' and 'get rid of government completely'.Quote:
Originally Posted by FunkyDexter
Here's an example of that: in SC where I live, a year (or two? time flies) ago it was put to the ballot that school operating expenses should be removed from property taxes and put onto an increased sales tax. The ballot passed, but if you think about it, that's completely the wrong thing to do. Operating funding is now completely at the mercy of the economy, yet has no correlation (it *has* a correlation to the number of taxable houses). I voted for it because we are spending ever increasing amounts of money on our school day-to-day operations and getting less and less for our money.
At some point, we get fed up. As the declaration of independence states
' ...accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.'
The 'threshold of despotism' obviously varies from person to person, and community to community, but the net result is that once that threshold is reached, we often perceived as overreacting to the straw that breaks the camels back.
[crap...lost my train of diatribe. Anyway...]
...at which point do you see my point (if any) as simplistic?
I believe he has already stated that he won't run again. Or maybe that was just his wife. Still, he won't run.Quote:
Originally Posted by moonman239
@SJWhiteley: Let me start off by saying that I was really impressed by your response to this. I certainly don't agree with you on every point, but that response is what makes this place a step well above the typical internet debate. There's a whole lot more intelligence around this place than the average.
You could make this case. There's a whole lot to be disappointed about in education. I got to teach for a couple years, and I wouldn't care to do so anymore. For one thing, I think kids deserve better teachers. While I was getting better, I don't think I was ever able to really communicate all that well in that environment. However, I was also shocked at how ill-prepared lots of students were, and this was at the college level (though only introductory classes) at a very good university. How did we get to this point? There are lots of answers, most of them too simplistic, but we do need to change some things around.Quote:
Originally Posted by SJWhiteley
The one point that I would make, though I'm not sure that it is true, is that: A region gets the schools that it deserves. In areas where the parents are highly involved with getting a top education, you tend to get a top education. In places where the parents are highly involved with getting an education slanted to one particular view, then you get an education slanted in that way. Sometimes you get both a good and a slanted education, but it seems to be that whatever the community demands does get accomplished, for better or worse.
Okay, so what would you prefer? For me, I don't believe in trickle down economics in all cases, and I really don't believe in it for the last few years. In my view, with so many countries in recession, or economic decline (temporary, not permanent), I'd say that we've done better than I would have expected for the last couple years, mediocre though it has been. In times of economic uncertainty, people will stop buying useless crap. That means that there will be less need for people to create useless crap, and fewer people will be needed to sell the useless crap to the non-consumers who aren't visiting the stores to not spend their money. That reduces hiring across the board, which further increases economic uncertainty, and so forth.Quote:
I would contend that I'm rather right. Bottom line [I believe] is that Obama and the Democrats policies are incompatible with a healthy management of a first world country.
Ultimately, we can ride that out. If everybody puts off buying a new car for several years, then there will come a time when a LOT of people all have to buy new cars at the same time. Furthermore, people will eventually forget about being worried as long as there isn't a fundamental underlying issue such as a zombie invasion. So, eventually, the ship will right itself, given time, but that's not very appealing, and it can take a generation (as Japan is showing us).
To stoke a rapid response, you can give money to the bottom quarter of the economy. If you give money to me (the absolute median of the economy), it's wasted. Give me a thousand dollars, and that will be a thousand more in savings, because I have nothing to buy. But give that thousand to somebody who has been chonically poor, and many economic and behavioral studies agree: They will spend it immediately. That would trigger a burst of economic activity, kind of like adding nitrous to a car engine. Also like adding nitrous, it will have no legs. A couple months of gain is all you can hope for from such a move. Those few months may boost confidence, though, which might boost consumption for longer than the few months, so it might kickstart a longer recovery....or not.
So, what would you do?
I think I understand you better, now, maybe. There's plenty of dirt to spread to both parties on this one, especially the way we ended up in Iraq and what we did once we were there. On the other hand, I think the responsibility on the president who goes to war differs in many ways from one who inherits a war. W started Iraq, and left Iraq. Obama was around for the final pullout, but had nothing significant to do with it other than not opposing what was already agreed to. The same cannot be said for Afghanistan, but I feel that that conflict was lost in 2003, if not on 9/10/2001 with the assasination of Massoud, and it just took us a long time to re-learn why that place is the graveyard of empires.Quote:
Wars? as the left continues to press, these wars are 'Bush wars'. Yet A president cannot legally go to war. Democrats have has a significant amount of responsibility for this country for 6 years, now, yet it is republicans to blame; rich people are not only hoarding all the money, they are taking it from the poor people; republicans want to go to war because it makes them money; war for BS; and so on. That kind of crap gets very old: so you want to talk about Partisan? Damned straight, and much more intolerant today than I was 4 years ago.
Yeah, that one keeps me up at night, at times. Having seen the sausage being made, I'm often impressed at how well people enjoy it. And people do tend to enjoy it, or at least consume it without complaint.Quote:
as we all know 'politicians lie', that's one thing that is bi-partisan: but we examine the flip-floppery, lies and distortions of our appointee's opponent, yet completely ignore the lies on our own appointee. As you have pointed out, politics is, well, politics. Isn't this a good reason to keep government out of the lives of individuals? You have a tiny minority of people jockeying for position; a small minority leverages that to impose their way on everyone. Ban this, ban that, control this, control that, everyone must do this, everyone must do that, for the good and fairness of all. Most of our current 'single issues' today are based on moral standpoints and are very subjective, yet we are trying to legislate them. These issues have a large grey area, but when it comes to laws, there cannot be grey areas. People are forced to take an extreme position; to painfully coin a phrase, if you aren't for it, you are against it.
Thank you, and I certainly don't expect to have people agree with, well, anything. As long as someone can put forward reasoned arguments for their standpoint, and reasonably argues holes in my standpoint, I'm actually quite happy for several reasons - one, you are doing something for a reason and two, I am able to better understand that my premises may be flawed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
I had a short stint as a teacher; it was short for a reason. Initially, I thought that it was my 'attitude' and I wasn't suited to it. Subsequently I taught in another field and found I was reasonably good at imparting knowledge onto the students. The former was an academic style, the latter was an outdoor sport (kayaking).
Here's my philosophy on teaching:
there is a top 10% who will always succeed. Environment, nurturing and formal education are irrelevant. They will be the 'winners' in society - they will not necessarily be 'rich', but they are societies winners. Then there are the bottom 10% who are 'losers' (for want of a better word). They will fail at what they do, they may have learning disabilities, just no skills, or just not really very smart. They may even be physically disabled. Bottom line, like it or not, they are a net receiver from society. They are not necessarily 'bad' - it is just the way it is; they are handicapped in society in some way. Then there is the 80% in the middle. They are average. Just like most people. Some are above average, some below, but they are all capable. They are mediocre gems in the rough: opals, malachite (and a whole host of other stones which are pretty and attractive in their own way when assembled, nurtured polished and mounted). The 80% is what the school system needs to work on. Quickly identify the 10% at the top and bottom, get them out of the way (the bottom need extra care, and resources; the top need resources as available, but the ability to stretch and simply 'do stuff'). That middle 80% need to be able to by the time they are adults to provide for themselves, and for a family of some kind. That's it. That is the only job a school has.
Yes, yes, simplistic. But the details are for the school teachers to sort out: that's why they are paid (hmm, not getting paid? Well, look to yourself, the school system, before grabbing for a handout). Really; we have had 100's of years of teaching children to be adults, to care for themselves, their families and their communities. With far, far, fewer resources than we have today.Will more resources really make a difference? If so, how many more resources? I don't think teachers themselves are bad, it's the system that they are being controlled by.Unfortunately, we now have teachers who have been taught by the very same flawed system.
Economics:
I do believe in trickledown economics: I think it is generally seen as flawed because 'rich' people are portrayed as greedy evil capitalists - if so, by definition, their money doesn't filter down to those who deserve (sic) it. I like to use the yacht example. A staunch democrat argued that 'cutting taxes on the rich would mean they would be able to buy one less yacht; boo-hoo for them'. I retorted that this is exactly right; before their smug grin became a gargoyle staring down at me, i stated that rich people don't actually make yachts, but someone else does. Shipbuilders do. Shipbuilders emply skilled craftsmen, architects and designers. They subcontract to small businesses employing semi-skilled workers and unskilled labor. If the rich person doesn't have that money to buy the yacht, what happens to those people? In general, we have a pyramid scheme of wealth. Those at the top consume things that those on the level below make, but generally don't buy. And so on down the line. Again, this is a simplistic view, and there will always be an outlier or two (Ford Motor Company is often brought up in contention of this point - who have very nice trucks, by the way; the Raptor is pretty sweet if you like that sort of thing) but my experience is that it is a truism. Rich people don't make mattresses out of 100 dollar bills.
I used to be a poor person. I spent money on food and rent, and shared my pennies with a friend to see if we had enough cash for a pack of 10 smokes. Today; well, I'm not so poor. Ironic, since a few opportunities opened up under the Obama administration (but you didn't hear that from me!). I like to spend money - one reason it took a while to get out of the poor house - but have a very good money manager. Simply, there's more money to go around when the finances are managed correctly.
This is where the government economics are flawed. We are borrowing money to pay for monthly expenditures - aka. welfare payments. Whatever that means; it means a lot of things to different people - there's a flawed definition, one which politicians and the media like to keep quite muddy. Then we have war (the defense budget). While many may complain about the 'cost of war', the thing about that is from a financial standpoint, we can simply, stop. While there's a maintenance cost of a standing army, if the cost of war is so high, if we bring our troops home (circle the wagons, or whatever) we can save a significant amount of dosh. But how much? If we cut the military spending by a gross 50%, that gains us around $25B a month, with an average $100B deficit, that's oh, umm....what was that about education, again?
So, how would I solve it? Honestly, I'm not sure. I've looked at the federal budget, on and off, for a few years, now, and it is hard to come up with any line items that can simply be scrapped (as much as I'd like to draw a big black line through a lot of them). But then, I think about my own budget - or a budget of someone close or at the poverty line: if your outgoings are more than your incomings, and you don't have a plan to increase the 'in' box, what do you do? I think there are far too many things we have grown accustomed to, being serviced by the feds, that we really don't need. Big bird? You are outa' here! There are kids starving in the street, and you want to pay for a grown man to dance around in a yellow costume?
Which brings up the political mud slinging; it behooves all politicians to hide the facts from the public. Again, we come back to education. Too many times I have heard people complain about 'lawyer speak'; I have educated myself in that language, and have found that it is just like any other language. It just takes time and and a bit of effort (let's talk about the ACA, shall we? aka. Obamacare. Quit echoing the lies and read the damned thing - that'll make you better than at least 535 people in DC). This requires both education and motivation. Both of which, I believe are being denied mostly due to government.
[Yet again, another diatribe, but meh. It gives me practice, if nothing else].
Read the ACA? You mean well, but that's a length I don't want to go to, even for a good argument. I'm sure I would learn a whole lot, but I've read plenty of bills, and they are painful reading. Reading the ACA should square that pain, if not cube it. I realize that it may leave me somewhat ignorant, but that's just not something I am willing to subject myself to.
I agree with your philosophy on teaching. I think the percentages are where you may be a bit simplistic, and I think there is at least one other category in the middle-top range, but those are quibbles too minor to talk about.
Let me give you a different perspective on trickle down economics, as I sit in an 8-figure house, which most certainly is not mine. When I am on my own, I feel rich. That's because I have all of my needs met. Perhaps my perspective is skewed by the extensive time I have voluntarily spent being cold, wet, tired, and quite sore (two toenails have regrown, one other is marginal, and the fourth will take a few more months, yet, and that is just the lingering damage from the shorter hike back in July). The rain is falling outside the window, I'm not out in it, and that makes me feel quite wealthy. I'm also very fiscally prudent, so I am generally in better economic shape than most of my friends, despite making less than many of them. However, when I am where I currently am, sitting in a house that is worth more than I will gross in my lifetime, which was bought with cash, I realize that I'm not wealthy in comparison to those who really are.
However, since I do rub elbows with those who really are wealthy, I know that they won't buy an extra boat. If you give a tax break to the poor, they will spend the money. Saving for a rainy day just doesn't factor into life for most of those people who live in perpetual rain. There are books on the subject, which just means that they are summarizing the weight of studies. If you give a tax break to the middle, exactly what happens depends on too many factors for there to be one answer. Some will save, some will spend, so a portion of that money will end up in savings, and a portion will end up in circulation.
When you give a tax break to the rich, though, some odd things happen. The very wealthy people I know are highly underemployed. They don't work full time jobs for pay for the obvious reason. By our age, they simply don't need the money. That's not to say that they don't work, but they often don't get paid, or get paid very little. They also contribute considerable sums to philanthropic organizations. So, if they got some extra cash, these people will not be going out to create jobs for anyone. They aren't really engaged in the workforce in that way, and their actions are not constrained by a lack of cash, so an infusion of cash won't make a difference. I realize that there are business people who DO fall into that category that will create jobs with extra cash, but what percentage of the wealthy fall into each category, I couldn't say.
Now, if the wealthy that I know were to take that extra cash and contribute it to their already substantial philanthropic activities, what then? That money would trickle down, but it wouldn't necessarily trickle down in the US. One guy I know pushes for education improvements, and contributes heavily to one organization that is working on that, but it's education in Africa, not the US. As far as domestic economics are concerned, a tax break to that guy would probably amount to a foreign subsidy. That may not be the aim.
If the rich would buy one more yacht, then that would be great. As it stands, 100% of the cash given to the poor ends up back in the economy. Of the cash given to wealthy, what percentage ends up back in the economy? For the wealthy folks that I know, I think the percentage would be 0%, quite honestly. That may be too harsh, but without specifically quizzing them on the subject, I don't think that people who are not constrained by money will suddenly become extravagant just because the constraint has dropped from 0 to 0.0. Of course, I only know a handful of the wealthy, but that certainly holds true for them. At best, it might mean more philanthropic giving, but for the group I know, that would be global, so only a fraction would end up back in the US economy (unless you take the long view that we are the greatest exporting nation in the world).
And, just for grins, one of the people I mention did build a mighty fine yacht, though that's highly facetious, since even if a person builds a boat, they didn't build all the parts that went into it, so your point is essentially correct.
I will vote for and support the guy who has the best economic policies, even if it's not Romney. Considering the Democrats chose Obama to be their nominee, that person will probably not be a Democrat.
I will be interested to see who the Rs put forward as a nominee in 2016. One thing that will be particularly interesting about the race is that it will be unusually wide open, much as the race was in 2008. Obama won't be running, and it is fairly certain that Biden won't run, either. Therefore, neither the P nor VP will be on the ticket on the D side. I'm not sure that Hillary would run, as she will be nearly 70 by then, but if she does, she'd be a pretty strong candidate, especially since Bill was such a positive draw in this last election...which kind of surprised me, but it may be a nostalgia thing.
As for the Rs, going into this election cycle, many people thought that Perry would be the instant front runner. He was, too, though only until he opened his mouth. I would say that Christie would be popular, but I'm pretty sure he won't run. He took a solid look this year and decided that he likes his family too much to put them through the stress of a race. That isn't likely to change in four years. So who does that leave? Rubio might run, but I'm thinking that he might not, too, though I'm not sure why. Jeb Bush is also a possibility, but he's probably not all that viable due to W, despite being a better governor than W was.
The interesting thing about the R candidate is how the fight for the nomination works out. If it's a race to the right, as it was this year, I doubt that the R candidate will win the general election. They simply alienate the center, and no candidate can win without the center.
Personally I don't believe in trickle down or trickle up. I believe in "gradually diffuse". I agree with alot of what shaggy said but with one major ammendment: statistically the poor give a higher percentage of their income to charity than the rich do. So pushing money in at the bottom doesn't guarentee it won't go abroard any more than pushing it in at the top does. To be honest, wherever you push the money in you simply can't perdict where it's going to go.
I think I give the trophic fountain a bit more credence than the trophic waterfall based on the natural human drive to acquire and hoard. We all want more than we've got and we want to hang on to what we've got. The rich are better able and equipped to hang onto what they've got as well as to acquire more because they've got the resources to do so. If you removed every factor from the equation that would make wealth flow upwards. Of course this is only a tendancy, not an imperitive, and it's only one factor amongst many, which is why I think talk of wealth tricking in any direction is a little pointless.
If you want wealth to reach a certain part of your economy, that's where you should inject it.
@Me@FDQuote:
You post seems to me to be almost deliberately lacking in any specifics at all and comes across as sour grapes as the outcome didn't go in the direction you would have liked!
ok i withdraw the sour grapes comment, but your post was incredible unspecific about anything, which is strange as your posts that follow (SJW) arent at all and make a lot of sense and are fairly reasoned (even when i dont agree with them :0) )Quote:
I don't think SJW has a desired outcome from this election. He's basically anti-government whether it be Republican or Democratic (or democratic, apparently).
I found your take quite interesting SJW and in many cases it seems much how the system works now, the top 10% will generally be privately educated so you can ignore them for now, the next 80% are focused upon in schools up and down the country, i just dont think we actually dospend much effort on the bottom 10%, we dismiss them as to difficult a problem to solve.Quote:
Here's my philosophy on teaching:
I actually believe that we would improve everyone's lives be improving the lot of that bottom 10%, if you could improve the basic attainment level for that bottom block you would make them more employable and less likely to need state handouts which surely is a good thing, and i generally dont agree that the majority of these types of kids are unreachable or unteachable they just often have other problems which have a knock-on effect on there education and they are more difficult to teach and many teachers just dont have the skills currently to reach them.
this is one area were we fundamentally disagree. I see no evidence that the trickle down actually trickles down very much.Quote:
I do believe in trickledown economics: I think it is generally seen as flawed because 'rich' people are portrayed as greedy evil capitalists
Firstly the Rich are called the rich because they have lots of money not because they spend it. Most of the very rich accumulate far more than they spend so the much more of the money stays with them in savings and assets then actually trickles down.
Take an extreme example and one recently in the news a lot Mitt Romney he makes millions a year from investments BUT he does not spend
anywhere near what he earns and much of the money he earns sticks with him. Yes as he is rich he will spend a lot of money but as a percentage of his income it is actually quite low.
(And here is i think what Shaggy was getting at earlier IF you were to give that same amount of money Romney earns in one year and gave it to a bunch of poor people they will probably spend the lot which means that you get growth.
Now i am not saying you should take money of Mitt Romney and just give it to some poor people, that clearly is not the answer but it does illustrate that if you want to get your economy moving concentrating more of the money at the top with the rich is not necessarily the way to do it or certainly not the only thing you should be doing.
Next i want to talk about Business and the trickle down affect there.
For instance if a Company is performing well currently the CEO gets rewarded and in recent times CEO's have been getting rewards far far greater than ever before. In that same time the average worker doesn't see the same raise in there rewards.
So in Business the wealthier a company becomes in recent times the average worker just doesn't seem to share in that. If trickle down economics worked as well as you say then surely when a company does well Yes the CEO should get rewarded and probably should get a bigger reward, but why are they average workers not also sharing in those rewards? Trickle down economics should ensure that as the business does better and better than the staff that help it succeed should also benefit.
Trickle down economics worked... once. Problem is that it was 30 years ago and things have changed... I don't think it can work again, at least as long as things remain the way they are.
Here's my theory on why:
OK, let's say that Shaggy's friend does buy a new yacht... unless that yacht was actually built from start to finish here in the US, and to include all individual parts (from the rivets, to the fiberglass to the rope cleats) that went into building it were also manufactured in the US, it's money out and there is nothing to trickle down. The globalization of companies and their workforce works against the trickle down philosophy.
There may actually be a reason for that - another theory and also ties into the trickle down doesn't work theory... - when you hit a certain level of income... you will have effectively achieved all the toys you want... and in the process you end up stop the general spending... and I think that's what's happened in Romney's case... they've hit a level where they've essentially looked around and realized that the dozen cars, 4 houses and who knows what else, is enough... the spending stops and the currency accumulation begins in earnest. Some people, like the Gates's and Branson and Kamen know how to funnel the excess off into other areas, foundations, programs, sponsorships, scollarships, etc, where it does some good... but as some one else pointed out, some times those expenditures go out of country and as a result do not necessarily have a direct impact on the local economy.Quote:
Take an extreme example and one recently in the news a lot Mitt Romney he makes millions a year from investments BUT he does not spend
anywhere near what he earns and much of the money he earns sticks with him. Yes as he is rich he will spend a lot of money but as a percentage of his income it is actually quite low.
Then there's the subject of cash injections... I think these last couple of "rebates" (which despite the government's claims) did impact some people's tax returns, and also proved that monetary injections like that simply don't work... if the economy is like a stream, then the injection is like a momentary rise in the flow... it passes through rather quickly and doesn't provide any long-lasting impact. Especially when stuff like that gets used to pay off bills or gets stuffed into savings. Problem is, the times when something like that is done, are exactly the times when people are struggling to pay off their debts and put more into savings for the time when things will get worse.
-tg
Both parties will probably run gay hispanic women if you believe all of the Monday Morning Quarterbacking going on in the media lately.
Could Carly Fiorina be half-Cuban or something?
In keeping with the original theme of this thread, here's my predictions:
1) the economy will begin to show life in the last 18 months of Obama's term
2) there will be a nominee from both the D & R camps
3) there will be 2-3 others, but they won't get any notice because the mainstream media will ignore them
4) one of the two from #2 will win
5) Half the country will still be pissed off
6) the run for 2020 will begin
-tg
Not sure if your talking to me or SJ there but I'll answer just in case. I had two points in my post and you're right, I wasn't particularly specific about either:-Quote:
but your post was incredible unspecific about anything,
1. SJ is anti-government. He's been quite open about this in the past and believes the government is involved in way too many personal choices. He also doesn't seem to be particularly partisan about this. He's just as scathing about the right as he is the left. I think I detect a slight lean to the right but mostly he just seem to lean... away. (Sorry for speaking for you SJ, this is my "read" of your position.
2. The populace at large aren't smart and are selfish. That's a bit more confrontational I gues but all I mean by that is that the population is made up of individuals and individuals are generally self interested. They will tend to vote for the party that will give the tax break to them before the other guy, or increase the benefit they're enititled to. This isn't surprising and is, in many ways, a function of democracy. It means that the party that serves most peoples interests will tend to get elected. But, left unchecked, it also leads to short term thinking. It's easier to sell a tax break now than it to sell a healthy economy in 30 years time. Basically, democracy isn't perfect and we shouldn't fool ourselves that it is... but it's still alot better than the alternatives.
Don't you be going there! None of this fountain/waterfall nonsense, not until Witis shows his cheetah face again.Quote:
Originally Posted by FunkyDexter
Baloney. I can hold onto just as much crap as any rich person. My garage is proof of this. The difference is in the quality, not the quantity. Their crap would bring good money at a secondhand store. My crap....has been on fire, pulled from the sea, functioned best back in the 50s when it was new, and so forth (I'm thinking of actual examples from my garage, unfortunately).Quote:
We all want more than we've got and we want to hang on to what we've got. The rich are better able and equipped to hang onto what they've got as well as to acquire more because they've got the resources to do so.
@NSA: I don't think you have what SJW was saying about the teaching quite right. He'll have to say which reading was more correct, but my reading was that the top 10% are not those who are so economically priviledged that they go to elite schools. I believe he meant that in any average school (not the special schools that are not average), there will be a segment of people who are so naturally gifted with one thing or another that success will come easy for them regardless of the circumstance in the school. Similarly, the bottom 10% are not the economic bottom 10%, but are the segment that will invariably shoot themselves in the foot for one reason or another.
Wait. Am I back in the "cowering in fear in my home" thread again?Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
Fountains are better than waterfalls because you can fit more sharks in them.Quote:
None of this fountain/waterfall nonsense, not until Witis shows his cheetah face again
:lol:Fair enough but that's not really what I meant. I wasn't referring to physical "stuff" but rather wealth. The rich are better placed to make investments that are likely to grow, they can hire lawyers to protect their assets, they can hire accountants to help them pay less tax. I don't mean to imply that they're in some way cheating or evil, they're just following the same imperatives which we all have, they're just better placed to follow them. Neither are they like Scrooge McDuck with a big room full of gold coins they swim in, they do spend money and that does feed into various bits of the economy (both global and domestic). But it's a natural human instinct to aquire wealth and to pass that on to subsequent generations.Quote:
Baloney. I can hold onto just as much crap as any rich person. My garage is proof of this.
There's plenty of historical evidence for wealth tricking upwards. It's only fairly recently (the last century) when we started using taxation to try and redress the balance. Prior to that the poor would usually pay more in tax than the rich, who often paid nothing at all (mainly because it was the rich who set the rules) and the effect was massive disparity in income and almost no middle class.
It's worth re-stating, though, that I think the effects in either direction are minor and slow. If you want to get money to a particular part of your economy, that's where you should put it. Putting it somewhere else and arguing that it will "trickle" to where you want it to be seems a bit daft to me.
This is correct.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
Because most people are distinctly average, and as such, there are those that above average and those below average, it is categorically impossible to make everyone a phenomenal success by how society measures it. That means putting more money into schools and have everyone have a degree does not change the fundamental that most people are average.
Further, there are losers and winners: but 'losing' in society doesn't mean that you don't have everything you need, or even everything you want. While a captialist society may measure a lowly man who paints landscapes for a living 'poor', the yard stick is, of course, inappropriate. But at the same time, if no-one buys his paintings, he truly will be economically poor. This is where economics comes in to play - financially sound people don't only decide to buy a better quality of butter, or a higher end SUV, but then start to increase their philosophical/holistic/environmental wealth. The 'wealth' of the poor artist trickles down to the 'poor' rich man.
This is correct.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
Because most people are distinctly average, and as such, there are those that above average and those below average, it is categorically impossible to make everyone a phenomenal success by how society measures it. That means putting more money into schools and have everyone have a degree does not change the fundamental that most people are average.
Further, there are losers and winners: but 'losing' in society doesn't mean that you don't have everything you need, or even everything you want. While a captialist society may measure a lowly man who paints landscapes for a living 'poor', the yard stick is, of course, inappropriate. But at the same time, if no-one buys his paintings, he truly will be economically poor. This is where economics comes in to play - financially sound people don't only decide to buy a better quality of butter, or a higher end SUV, but then start to increase their philosophical/holistic/environmental wealth. The 'wealth' of the poor artist trickles down to the 'poor' rich man.
Okay, so many people believe the trickle effect works and some don't: I don't think we can come to a conclusion, then regarding the effect.Quote:
Originally Posted by FunkyDexter
Lets say, the trickle down effect does not work, or doesn't exist. How do we redress this issue? Will increasing taxes on those who have wealth effectively mimic the trickle down effect - give to those without the resources to improve their standard of living? Put simply, if you give two people in the same desperate financial situation $25,000, what do you believe the outcome will be? Lets reverse that: 1000 people in a desperate financial situation; there is $25,000,000 dollars injected into the lives of these people. What is the expected outcome?
What problems do we have that can be directly solved by more taxation? In addition, you are assuming that money is being 'put' into the hands of certain people: who is doing the 'putting' and by what mechanism are they 'putting' the money there? Are you advocating that after some people put (give?) their money to others via this mechanism, that we then take back the money via another mechanism? Wouldn't the case be that those doing the 'putting' should stop, or should the mechanism be changed rather than creating an inefficient cycle creating another mechanism?
All very socratic, of course, but I have a theory ( I have a theory about everything...) which would probably bore the teats of a flying cow ;)
It would redistribute wealth from the rich to the poor, yes, and isn't that the same outcome people typically evoke the trickle down effect to describe. It's that outcome that is the reason people use the trickle down effect to justify tax breaks for the rich. But that's not really the point. The point is this:-Quote:
Will increasing taxes on those who have wealth effectively mimic the trickle down effect - give to those without the resources to improve their standard of living?
What issue are we trying to redress here. Are we trying to help people at the bottom financially? Are we saying the most diligent should have the wealth? Are we judging that those who work in caring professions deserve to be rewarded beyond what the unfettered market will offer? Do we want to richly reward artists for their creative endeavours? Do we want to prevent our banks from collapsing or keep our motor industry running?Quote:
How do we redress this issue?
I'm not really asking for answers to those questions, they'll be different for every individual that reads them. I'm just saying that, if you answer yes to any of those questions, then that's where you should inject the capital. Don't argue that, if you inject it somewhere else, it will somehow wend it's way to your desired target, it almost certainly won't.
The question of who should be taxed for that and how much is the exact corollary (I suddenly realise I have absolutely no idea how to spell coroloerloy, oh well). If you think the banks should contribute more because we've already bailed them out and they owe us, tax them. If you feel the rich should contribute more because they're better able to pay, tax them. If you feel that artists have got it good because they're reaping a spiritual benefit the rest of us are missing out on and should therefore be made to contribute more, tax them.
You may, of course, feel that wealth should not be redistributed at all (except via the market) in which case get rid of all benefits and taxes. I personally believe that the market will naturally tend to redistribute wealth upwards for the reason I stated previously, but that may be your desired outcome.
Of course, the mechanism you use to do all this is largely irrelevent. Taking away a benefit is exactly the same as applying a tax so a tax break is a benefit.
My argument starts and ends with this: using trickle downs and trickle ups to morally justify a redistribution or lack of redistribution is fatuous. The direct recipient of your redistribution is the only person you can say will benefit by it. So start by defining who in your society you consider to be "deserving" and redistribute money directly to them.
Oh, I believe Trickle down works... but not all the time... same for trickle up (bubble up?) ... and so does infusion in the middle... but they only work under certain conditions and under certain situations... and I think that's what some people are now jut realizing... the trickle down that we saw in the early 80's with Regan just doesn't work any more... neither do rebates (which was an attempt at middle injection and bubble up) ... so a new model needs to be developed... and that's where people are struggling. The previous models that worked, don't, and no one just knows what to do. I certainly don't. But I'm pretty sure taxation and handouts aren't the answer.
-tg
No one... seriously... no one is "deserving" of extra money... what people deserve is to keep their money they've earned. The only way to do that is to stop virtually all federal spending... all of it. Drop all taxes, reorganize the IRS, create a new tax code that is simple, has no deductions and doesn't allow for loopholes. Set the percent rates at a reasonable low level, like 2% and step it up in bands... establish a minimal threshold, obviously 2% of someone who works part time and only brings in 400/wk or so is going to be "hurt" more than someone bringing in 4-5k/month... then revamp all spending, the federal goernment should only be paying for the military to ensure our defense (and not playing world cop), shouldn't be subsidizing schools (which should be done locally anyways), or PBS (If you've seen the numbers after Romney made a similar remark, you'd know that federal funding is only a small portion of their overall funding... PBS will survive w/o it) .. I'd make the argument that NASA would need continued funding... and then pay for the federal law enforcement and judicial system. Congress should be a part time gig... 4-8 months of the year... none of this year round crap... in session for 2-3 months, then 2-3 months out of session - at least one month of off session should be IN THEIR RESPECTIVE districts, in an office, meeting with their constituents, or at least be accessible. but jsut about everything else should be tossed. Maybe keep the EPA as well... they do some good. Give the control back to the states, the local governments, as it was intended to be. It's radical, it might work, it might not. But if I'm going to let someone else waste my hard earned money on junk, I'd rather it be here where I can see it.Quote:
So start by defining who in your society you consider to be "deserving" and redistribute money directly to them.
Another radical idea: get rid of income tax all together... abolish the IRS as we know it and go to a Sales Tax or a VAT... this country did just fine before permanently instituting the income tax (16th Amendment, 1909; rat.1913) so why can't we do that now?
-tg
I am not going to limit myself to YOUR narrow meaning when a different meaning provides the opportunity for greater humor.Quote:
Originally Posted by FunkyDexter
TEST: This is a test of the posting system. I tried to post a serious reply, and got an error that I have never seen before. It had to do with a missing security token. Therefore, I have tried it twice with that serious post. If you see this post, then it means that my serious post is insecure. In that case, we probably are in the "hiding under the bed" thread.
Ok, that worked, so let me try the serious post again:
We did just fine before permanently instituting the income tax and we had a military that numbered a few tens of thousands of men total. We ramped up to a war footing over the course of months, but after a war, military expenditures dropped down to a tiny amount. That isn't entirely possible anymore. Some of the high-tech systems that we use require a fairly steady stream of trained personnel to keep them functioning, and ramping up that knowledge base for a war footing may not work. Still, we have never seriously tried it. We have military spending that is larger than the next twelve countries combined. Better yet, even though Iraq is over and Afghanistan is winding down, Romney was promising to increase military spending as a percentage of GDP, so there isn't even the intention of reducing.Quote:
Originally Posted by techgnome
I wouldn't suggest a plan of tax the rich and give to the poor under any circumstances....except one, but leave that for now. The issue I would be looking at is that in our particular situation, we have a MASSIVE deficit which concerns me. The solution that the R have come up with is simply belt-tightening. The problem is that the government budget doesn't work like an individuals budget. The amount of income is a percentage of the economy, so if the economy shrinks, so does the income. The expenditures don't shrink when the economy shrinks though. Instead, they may grow or remain the same. So, belt-tightening can have the opposite of the desired effect, because it could cause the deficit to increase if the austerity decreases the economy. If the deficit is the problem we are trying to solve, then that is where taxing at a higher rate would be justified. Furthermore, greater outlays for the poor could also be justified. That does effectively amount to a wealth transfer, but the goal isn't a wealth transfer for the sake of a wealth transfer, the goal is reduction of the deficit using the two pronged approach of increasing revenue on some that can afford it, and increasing spending on those that will do it, together combining to grow the economy, which will increase the revenue and doubly drive down the deficit.
However, that would have to stop once the deficit was driven down to where we want it (no government debt wouldn't be good, but no deficit and a smaller debt would be). Unfortunately, politicians don't take the long view. They don't have the lifespan to take the long view, so anything implemented as a fix to a specific problem will tend to perpetuate even once the problem has been solved (see military expenditures).
The one place I feel that a true wealth transfer is going to be necessary is in health care. I've said it before, and it's totally pessimistic, but I believe that the advance of technology will, on its own, result in a neeed for a single-payer universal health system, or will result in the collapse of our civil society. Since I've ranted about that before, I won't again, I only mention this because it is the exception where I see wealth transfer as being eventually essential.
@SJW: We can never have too many udder jokes, so leave that flying cow alone.
I guess it's just going to be one of those days.
I'm going for a walk.
I have a freind who's really a bit weird on the hoarding front. He's actually kept every bit of fat he's ever used for cooking. He's got hundreds of jars of the stuff filling every cupboard in his kitchen. He's a rich man indeed.Quote:
I am not going to limit myself to YOUR narrow meaning when a different meaning provides the opportunity for greater humor
That's fine as long as you understand that you have still defined a class of people as "deserving". In this case that is the class of people who will produce the goods and services that the market is willing to pay most for; the very essence of capitalism. Wealth is still being redistributed to them, it's just being done so via the mechanism of the market rather than a government run or philanthropic mechanism. If that's your definition of "deserving" then I see absolutely nothing wrong with the position you've taken. You're setting the system up so that the money goes directly to where you feel it's "deserved".Quote:
No one... seriously... no one is "deserving" of extra money... what people deserve is to keep their money they've earned.
I personally disagree somewhat with that definition of "deserving" for a number of reasons but that's a different debate. My point is this, don't argue (and I don't think you are) that we should, for example, prop up national industries in the hope that the wealth of that will feed back to the class you defined. To take a more "grey area" example, don't call for government investment in transport infrastructure on the basis that it will help companies sell the goods and services that they produce. If the market is your only yardstick to judge "deserving" then it's also your only mechanism of restribution.
I think we crossed paths here... when I was thinking of wealth redistribution, I'm thinking specifically governmental redistributions, ala the "tax rebates" or tax hikes, etc... all the things government does in the name of spurring on the economy... market and societal redistribution is a different matter, and if Romney wants to infuse $25M somewhere where he thinks it will do something (hopefully) good, well, then that's just fine and dandy, I won't hold that against him. I have issues with the government, specifically the federal government, doing that. And I completely agree that we shouldn't propup national industries... This was something I learned in my last life, where the company I worked for despite being a national company - it was a major construction company with job sites all over the place, coast to coast and then some - HQ was merely an umbrella... comprised of a bout a dozen or so smaller regional companies. The organization was decentralized enabling each company to bit and manage jobs as they see fit. The philosophy was that how one might bid a job in Colorado is going to be different from how you're going to bid in Hawaii... and yes, it sometimes meant that we'd compete against ourselves... in a way it's good because it ensures each regional company is running as efficiently as it can.
I personally believe that we'd be better off if Congress would tighten its belt, cut out all the crap spending and lowered taxes. But that's never going to happen...mostly because I know that it's not that simple... it never is. That's why I hate people who sometimes bad mouth their legislatures (not jsut Congress but at the state level too) for being "Career" politicians and call for term limits... I've seen what term limits can do... sure, it had its intended effect (which was to get a couple of specific somebodies out of the state house) ... but the unintended consequence is that over a 4 year period the entire state legislature was then replaced by new blood... and then the find out that the salary is a paltry 12,000/yr (which is why I never ran, I can't be away from my regular job for the amount of time that would require on that amount)... so they write up a bill to increase the salary, bumping it to something liked 30k/yr... but it has to go before the voters, which all they see is the 150% salary increase... 10 years later and they're STILL trying to get the bill past the voters. Just another example of how things are never simple.
-tg
Yeah, I was aware of that. That's why I found myself saying things like "Don't Argue (I know you're not)". I was trying to get across that my point wasn't necessarily in conflict with yours.Quote:
I think we crossed paths here
I've been trying to avoid nailing my political colours to the mast up till now because I didn't want to muddy the waters around the whole trickling issue but since that's the way the thread's heading:-
I personally think the capitalist model is a good place to start. If I work hard, am talented and diligent, and produce things that people actually want then I do good for society and should be rewarded for that. That behaviour would define me as deserving.
However, I do think it's also a simplistic view that overlooks all sorts of things:-
1. I have a freind who is self employed teaching climbing to severely autistic kids as a form of therapy. She earns a pittance. The market will never pay her much because her customers have generally had to make big sacrifices for their kids (including giving up dual incomes). But does that make her less deserving than me, a well paid computer programmer. I think I'd actually take the view that she's more deserving than me but the market alone will never recognise that. I'd like to see her get subsidies for what she does and would be happy to be taxed to pay for it. The caring professions are, on the whole, grossly undervalued by all of us until we really need them... at which point we usually can't afford to pay what they're really worth.
2. The market tends to demand not what it needs but what it desires, and those with great resources can manipulate what the market wants. Marketting is called marketting for a reason, it's about manipulating the market. I'm not conviced there's anything particularly worth about selling mp3 players or designer trainers but the market believes they're a "must have" (which is a pretty odd concept when you think about it) so will reward it in spades.
3. There are a great many things (transport infrastructure is a pretty good example) that should be a collective responsibility. I don't believe individuals will spontaneously club together to fund those things unless they are made to. They might do a bit, but I doubt they'd do enough.
4. I think that we're all better off if everyone has a quality of life that is at least decent, even they're lazy and don't really deserve it.
Those are a few exceptions, I'm sure I could up with plenty more if I could be bothered. You could argue that those things would be handled by philanthropy but I don't buy it. One of the things I most admire about you Americans is your philanthropic tradition which is far stronger than our own but I'm not sure you'd really want to rely on it when the proverbial hit the fan. People often talk about the charitable traditions of Victorian Britain but I'm not sure you'd want to live there if you were an ethnic minority or disabled... and there wasn't alot of social mobility back then either. I think there is a role for governments to redistribute wealth to some extent. For me the debate is really about how much.
I think you pretty much hit it all on the head there... my concern is with the definition of "deserving" -not necessarily yours or mine... but in general... you think your friend is deserving because of the work she does... and I see that, I value that... meanwhile I know of someone else who I think is deserving because of something else they do... and that's where the problem comes in... it is highly subjective... who is to say who is more deserving? Someone else may decide that neither of our friends are deserving at all because they aren't doing cancer research. Where we part ways is I don't think I should be taxed to subsidize things that are the subject of someone else's whims, desires and own definition of deserving. *I* want to be able to control my money in where it goes... if I think a cause worthy enough, I'll donate. Yes, that does mean that I'm creating a deserving class... but that's *MY* choice... clearly the government's method of choosing isn't all that great *koff*Solyndra*koff**koff*
Also... I'm not saying that taxation in general goes away... I jsut think that at the federal level it needs to be re-evaluated... yes, thigns like infrastructure need to be maintained... but for the most part that's all done at the state level now... the federal DOT doesn't do that any more... and yet we're still paying into that... for what reason?
That's all I'm saying... things that are currently at the federal level needs to be re-evaluated and perhaps passed off back to the state.. it's the federal government I have issues with... not government in general.
-tg
Well, does he keep it all in his lard-er? Can he live off the fat of the land?Quote:
Originally Posted by FunkyDexter
@TG: When my mother was in the state legislature in NH, the annual salary was $100. Seriously! She ended up making a couple thousands a year out of travel expense reimbursement, but it was clearly chicken feed. Obviously, anybody who served in that house had a separate source of income. At one point, my mother introduced a bill requiring legislators to reveal their primary source of income, since knowing that was usually pretty telling. Openness didn't win that day.
The government, they're elected after all. I'm sorry because that's a frankly flippant answer to what's actually a very good question but it's the best one I've got. While I like the idea that we should decide as individuals the answer, too often, would be: "me". I think it has to be some body that can step back and be a bit more objective and I can't think of a better one than the government - even if they're not actually a particularly good one.Quote:
who is to say who is more deserving?
I'm guessing we've got different definitions of government though. You seem to be using it to refer to centralised national government wheras I'm using it to include local councils as well. I think you're arguing for as much decentralisation as possible an I'd line right up alongside you there. Decisions should be taken at the most local level possible. Inevitably there are some decisions which belong at a national level but national governments to tend to want to centralise everything and I don't think that's healthy.
There no use trying to butter me up with cheap puns at this late stage. Oh alright, yours were clever while mine was more "I can't believe it's not funny". I was on something about it being margeinally funny but I just couldn't get the wording right.Quote:
Well, does he keep it all in his lard-er? Can he live off the fat of the land?
I think issues around MP pay are really quite interesting. I like to think that low pay would mean only the committed would serve but I suspect it would mean only the indepentently wealthy would.Quote:
@TG: When my mother was in the state legislature in NH, the annual salary was $100. Seriously! She ended up making a couple thousands a year out of travel expense reimbursement, but it was clearly chicken feed. Obviously, anybody who served in that house had a separate source of income. At one point, my mother introduced a bill requiring legislators to reveal their primary source of income, since knowing that was usually pretty telling. Openness didn't win that day.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
What it ends up meaning (at least it did in Nebraska where I used to live) is that business owners and people who have income regardless if they show up or not (because they either own the business or the ranch, or have some other kind of automatic income some how) end up being the ones that run... because they are the only ones who can afford to do it.Quote:
Originally Posted by FunkyDexter
I haven't had the chance to figure out how it works here in SC yet...
-tg
I don't think so: this issue in the US is a federal issue - that they are taking far too much responsibility (sic) for things that are not required to regulate. The needs of individuals, families, neighborhoods, communities, and so on up become extremely divergent across the country. Many of the 'big issues' exist directly because of federal government. We pay taxes to fund the Federal Governments obligation to regulate (i.e. make regular/uniform), provide for the defense of the country and provide mechanisms to prevent the infringements of rights. However, there are more and more fees associated with regulations - which we are already paying for. With all these additional fees, and taxes, and the threat of taxes going up, we still don't have enough money in the federal coffers.Quote:
Originally Posted by FunkyDexter