*Sigh*

Status
Not open for further replies.

rugcat

Lost in the Fog
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 27, 2005
Messages
16,339
Reaction score
4,110
Location
East O' The Sun & West O' The Moon
Website
www.jlevitt.com
There are also studies that show the United States ranks low in social mobility compared to other western nations.

The idea of America as a unique place where the poorest can work their way up to wealth, starting from nothing, is so
firmly embedded in our national consciousness as to pretty much go unchallenged and unexamined. It's one of the things that makes our country great.

But in reality, studies have shown that if you're born in poverty it's a lot easier to get out of poverty in many other places than in the US.

Here's one of those studies:

http://www.epi.org/publication/usa-lags-peer-countries-mobility/
 

blacbird

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
36,987
Reaction score
6,158
Location
The right earlobe of North America
The answer is simple, make it that they can't directly take any donations at all and they're given a budget to use for their campaign from the government. It's a lot harder to hide bribery when they can't use the term campaign donation.

You have entirely missed the point. Campaign contributions aren't the real issue, and the Supremes have decided that $ = free speech anyway, along with Corporation = Person. The problem isn't campaign contributions so much as it is tacit unexpressed assurance that your support, Congressperson, for what my company wants will be rewarded down the road in some useful manner. Nothing explicitly said, no trail of either contact or money. How you gonna stop that?

caw
 

poetinahat

say it loud
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 12, 2005
Messages
21,851
Reaction score
10,441
I really try to avoid discussions here, because my skin's too thin. But Mac's original post moved me. I have not much to say, except that I have an irrational faith that everything will be all right - eventually. Not as soon as it ought to be, but eventually. That's pretty much how I look at life overall, and it's what I stick to now.

Like I said, irrational.

And this. I like Bernie in that he's honest and I think believes what he says. I don't buy a word Trump says and I don't think Trump does either. It's like their opposites of the same coin in many ways. I think the total dysfunction in government on both sides is why why have both.

I get the idea that truth doesn't even come into the equation for Trump; he's playing a game, and he's doing very well at it so far. But he's not the only one playing; he's just the most conspicuous. And that, maybe, is what sets him apart: the hell with the sheep's clothing. He's the wolf, and he's coming in the front door.

When he alluded to riots coming if he had the most votes and didn't get the nomination, the point he makes is reasonable. What explanation is there for the National Committee selecting a candidate that hasn't won (ceteris paribus) fair and square? To me, the same principle applies for superdelegates. What?... Why?

I'm not a political sage at all, and I wish I had more of a stomach for discussing and keeping informed. I'd be a better citizen. Oh well.
 

blacbird

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
36,987
Reaction score
6,158
Location
The right earlobe of North America
When he alluded to riots coming if he had the most votes and didn't get the nomination, the point he makes is reasonable. What explanation is there for the National Committee selecting a candidate that hasn't won (ceteris paribus) fair and square?

I made this point earlier, but it's worth reiterating. The "most" votes might not equal a "majority", and that's what the rules require. In that sense, it's really no different from a parliamentary election: To form a government you have to have a "majority", not just a plurality. That means 50%+ votes. If Trump winds up with, say, 46% on the first ballot, he is not nominated, by party rules, and then, by party rules, it goes to a second ballot and all delegate commitments are erased. In a parliamentary election (as in your nation), a party getting only 46% of the vote will need to secure another 4+% from somewhere else, from a minority party, by means of some manner of negotiation. The same thing will happen if the GOP doesn't settle things on the first convention ballot; there will be negotiation, and probably pretty fierce, too.

As for "superdelegates", that's something the other party (Democrats) have to answer for, and I agree with you that it's a travesty of fair electoral process.

caw
 
Last edited:

rugcat

Lost in the Fog
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 27, 2005
Messages
16,339
Reaction score
4,110
Location
East O' The Sun & West O' The Moon
Website
www.jlevitt.com
When he alluded to riots coming if he had the most votes and didn't get the nomination, the point he makes is reasonable. What explanation is there for the National Committee selecting a candidate that hasn't won (ceteris paribus) fair and square? To me, the same principle applies for superdelegates. What?... Why?
That would be true if he wins a majority of the delegates. But the way the rules are set up, you have to get a majority of delegates to vote for you. Simply having more than anyone else doesn't count. As I said in a previous post, if one candidate gets 40% and two others get 30% each, you then have 60% of the delegates who don't want the first candidate. And in fact, may I absolutely despise the front runner. If he or she wants the nomination, they have to convince some of those other delegates to vote for them.

There have been underhanded dealings at conventions for years. It wouldn't be exclusive to Donald Trump. Last time around, for example, Ron Paul got 6% of the vote in the Nevada Caucus but somehow ended up with 20 or 22 of the 27 delegates available.

The leaders of the GOP believe that Trump cannot win the general. Therefore, they would like to see somebody as their nominee who could, instead. So unless he wins that the clear majority, it's going to be difficult for him to convince them that he should be their man.
 

poetinahat

say it loud
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 12, 2005
Messages
21,851
Reaction score
10,441
Thanks, bb. Yeah, I know how the plurality thing plays out - and if the lead vote-getter (by a long way) is, say, 40%, and the other 60% would rather direct their votes to someone else, that's how it might go. But it would surely raise some eyebrows and hackles, particularly if that someone else hadn't even run in the primaries. (Can that happen?)

Australia has a preferential voting system, and it resulted in at least one MP being elected with about 0.5% of the vote!
 

poetinahat

say it loud
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 12, 2005
Messages
21,851
Reaction score
10,441
The leaders of the GOP believe that Trump cannot win the general. Therefore, they would like to see somebody as their nominee who could, instead. So unless he wins that the clear majority, it's going to be difficult for him to convince them that he should be their man.

That's kind of my point -- it doesn't really make for good reading. If it isn't Trump, it's someone the Powers That Be are happy with. Doesn't really pass the sniff test...
 

rugcat

Lost in the Fog
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 27, 2005
Messages
16,339
Reaction score
4,110
Location
East O' The Sun & West O' The Moon
Website
www.jlevitt.com
Australia has a preferential voting system, and it resulted in at least one MP being elected with about 0.5% of the vote!
San Francisco has instituted ranked choice voting for the last few years as well.

It seems like a great idea – but in Oakland four years ago it resulted in the third place vote getter ending up being mayor. And she turned out to be someone that was a terrible and incompetent mayor and as unpopular as any mayor in recent city history.

So although it seems perfectly logical, and seems like it would produce the best candidate, in practice that does not always seem to be the case.
That's kind of my point -- it doesn't really make for good reading. If it isn't Trump, it's someone the Powers That Be are happy with. Doesn't really pass the sniff test...
I'm not sure I totally agree. We have a two-party system, for better or worse. Each party decides who they are going to put up as their candidate for president. Not so long ago, most states didn't even have primaries.

It's not like they're telling anyone that they can't run for president, or Senate, or Congress, or whatever. But if they wish to have the financial and machinery of the party backing them, then perhaps the party should have some say on who that person is. The voters express their preferences, and if the voters express that preference strongly about, that person will become the nominee.

But superdelegates are a check on the possibility of an unelectable crazy person squeaking by and getting the nomination. I'm not saying it's the right way to do things, but it's not completely irrational either.
 

poetinahat

say it loud
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 12, 2005
Messages
21,851
Reaction score
10,441
I see your point - but one has to ask: who chooses the party top brass?
 

Xelebes

Delerium ex Ennui
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 8, 2009
Messages
14,205
Reaction score
884
Location
Edmonton, Canada
Thanks, bb. Yeah, I know how the plurality thing plays out - and if the lead vote-getter (by a long way) is, say, 40%, and the other 60% would rather direct their votes to someone else, that's how it might go. But it would surely raise some eyebrows and hackles, particularly if that someone else hadn't even run in the primaries. (Can that happen?)

Australia has a preferential voting system, and it resulted in at least one MP being elected with about 0.5% of the vote!

Delegate issues with partisan delegates are not unseen in Westminster either. I am reminded of Brian Mulroney's nomination over John Turner in. . . 1983? Something like that. Mulroney had to win by the count of party delegates, here the Tories.
 

nighttimer

No Gods No Masters
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 4, 2006
Messages
11,629
Reaction score
4,103
Location
CBUS
You Get What You Give

The night Barack Obama won the presidency, my wife came home from work and we hugged and kissed. She called her mother who was crying with happiness. I wished my mother and father had lived to see when a Black man became President of the United States.

It's a subjective argument as to how good, bad or mediocre a president Obama turned out to be. That's for the historians to figure out. For me, casting my ballot for him was one of those rare times I really believed in the promise of America. I didn't believe in "hope and change." I knew that was a campaign slogan, not something tangible or solid to build upon.

What I believed in was the possibility there was hope that there could be some meaningful change. Even now, I remind those disappointed in the president that his other slogan wasn't "Yes, I Can" but "Yes, WE Can." Yet, I have no buyer's remorse in backing Obama. It was the right call.

I get why Mac is frustrated and feels the political discourse here and outside Absolute Write has become shrill, coarse, and polarized. When your choices are likely to come down between a blowhard billionaire reality TV star who embodies the dark side of our worst selves and a morally sketchy, ethically challenged professional pol with seemingly no core beliefs, you're not casting for one as much as against the other.

The way I see it if you can say you've been able to vote for someone and not feel embarrassed, pissed off and apologetic for it four or eight years later, you're ahead of the curve. I've voted against plenty of candidates and I've voted for only a few. This year I'm probably voting against, but that's okay. One or two times beats no time at all.
 

Zoombie

Dragon of the Multiverse
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Dec 24, 2006
Messages
40,775
Reaction score
5,947
Location
Some personalized demiplane
You know, thinking about the 1%...really...all I feel is utter and complete bafflement.

I can imagine what I'd do with, say, a million dollars.

I can imagine what I'd do with five million dollars.

But what the flying FUCK would I do with more than 50% of the wealth of America?

All I need is a room with a lock, a high end gaming rig, enough money to buy food, medical bills, pay for gas, and give to charities!
 

Roxxsmom

Beastly Fido
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 24, 2011
Messages
23,122
Reaction score
10,882
Location
Where faults collide
Website
doggedlywriting.blogspot.com
You know, thinking about the 1%...really...all I feel is utter and complete bafflement.

I can imagine what I'd do with, say, a million dollars.

I can imagine what I'd do with five million dollars.

But what the flying FUCK would I do with more than 50% of the wealth of America?

All I need is a room with a lock, a high end gaming rig, enough money to buy food, medical bills, pay for gas, and give to charities!

I've wondered the same thing, but one's lifestyle and expectations will expand to fill the available space, I'm guessing. If you're a billionaire, you won't need to play video games anymore. Think of all the video games that are simulations of things that cost too much money in real life or all about having lots of money to build an empire with. As a billionaire, you get to screw around with the real world as if it were a virtual reality. You play for real.

First you'd want a nice, new house with lots of room and a view. Then you might want some houses in other settings or countries. Then you'd want your own plane to get there so you don't have to deal with airport security anymore. Then you'd want a pony. Then you'll want a racehorse. Then you'll want a whole stable of them. Then you'll want your own wildlife park. Then you'll want your own politician (please, I'll name him Fred, and never forget to feed him or walk him).

And so on.

Seriously, for some, I think the having more money than anyone else thing becomes a matter of principle.
 
Last edited:

Zoombie

Dragon of the Multiverse
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Dec 24, 2006
Messages
40,775
Reaction score
5,947
Location
Some personalized demiplane
I don't care HOW much money I have, I cannot command a fleet of 5-6 kilometer long flying battlechurches.

Though, I could buy the models to make a fleet in Battlefleet Gothic's tabletop game.

But even Games Workshop's hideously overpriced figurines would't make a dent in the billions of dollars I'd hypothetically own.

Still, I think we should test my hypothesis by giving me all the money.

EDIT: But, no, seriously, what would I do with a bigger house? The house I'm in is already too big for me to possibly use all of it. It's just right for the number of people in it. And why would I want to go to other countries? Other countries have weird food that I don't like!

AM I IMMUNE TO MONEY!?

As I said, we must test this.
 
Last edited:

Roxxsmom

Beastly Fido
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 24, 2011
Messages
23,122
Reaction score
10,882
Location
Where faults collide
Website
doggedlywriting.blogspot.com
I don't care HOW much money I have, I cannot command a fleet of 5-6 kilometer long flying battlechurches.

Though, I could buy the models to make a fleet in Battlefleet Gothic's tabletop game.

But even Games Workshop's hideously overpriced figurines would't make a dent in the billions of dollars I'd hypothetically own.

Still, I think we should test my hypothesis by giving me all the money.

*scratches chin and contemplates what the religious figure who is most revered by many on the right said about the burden wealth places on one's immortal soul*

That's something that blows my mind about modern US conservatism, actually: the alliance between people who think greed is good and (some of) the followers of a religion that says it's easier to get a camel through the eye of a needle than a rich man through the gates of Heaven.

I wonder if we're starting to see the breakdown of this alliance? But defectors from either side of the alliance are unlikely to join up with the Democrats (actually, some of my conservative friends say they'll hold their noses and vote for Clinton if Trump gets the nomination, but that's hardly a ringing endorsement).
 
Last edited:

Albedo

Alex
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Dec 17, 2007
Messages
7,376
Reaction score
2,955
Location
A dimension of pure BEES
I don't have a horse in the US race: not a citizen, care mostly about the winner's relative propensity to start stupid wars or press the big red button. (Okay, or ruin my American friends' lives, etc. And it's hard to avoid on TV, but that's because our media prefers news that's loud, outrageous and in English, and so that ranks the US presidential race above other things equally important to our national security that are totally opaque to the average Aussie citizen, e.g. Chinese internal Party politics.) What you guys do in your electoral season is your business only.

But man, can I empathise with the disillusionment. Our politicians are no better: the're just as craven, captive to vested interests, and cruel (probably worse, show me any American politicians actively imprisoning refugee children?). Our media industry is a toxic, anti-democratic sludge factory (thanks, Murdoch). And the discourse here is just as terrible. I wonder if the internet is to blame for that: when we used to discuss important political issues over a barbecue it was harder to call your opponent names. Take away human contact, add anonymity into the mix and you get a whole lotta froth-faced shouty text amounting to nothing but hurt feelings, enmity and division after division after division.


I think I'm saying the grass isn't greener on the other side. In fact there is no grass, just a mushy sort of swamp over a leaking septic tank.
 

Once!

Still confused by shoelaces
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 22, 2012
Messages
2,965
Reaction score
433
Location
Godalming, England
Website
www.will-once.com
It's so easy to blame someone else, isn't it? Take your pick from corrupt politicians, big business, the media, foreigners, the legal system, the cops, the establishment ...

We are most certainly living in an age of disillusionment. We don't like the status quo. Everything is rotten. When we go the polling booths we feel like voting for "none of the above". They are all as bad as each other. And that is leading us, all round the world, to reach for more radical candidates and more radical religions. There is a strong sense of "we must do something different", which pushes us into the arms of Trump, Corbyn, Syriza, ISIS et al.

But stop for a second and ask why we are disillusioned. What exactly is wrong with the world? At the risk of heroic over-generalisation, there are two main things going on which are making us all feel less happy about our lot. The first is that our world is changing and whether we like it or not we need to change with it. As we are living longer, we are facing an increasing problem about how we pay for the retired. Improvements in automation change the profile of the jobs that we can do or need to do. We need to look after an increasing fragile environment. All of that means that our politicians cannot offer us a land of milk and honey. There are difficult times coming which will mean that we will have to rein in our quality of life. And that's not an easy message for any political candidate to give.

The second problem is that the science of manipulation is getting stronger and stronger. Advertisers and policymakers are finding ever more powerful ways of influencing the way that we think. Big business is getting better at selling us stuff that we really don't need. Politicians are finding increasingly slippery ways of pushing their agendas. The problem is that all of this erodes our trust in the people using these techniques. We are getting to the point where we don't believe anything that the establishment tells us, simply because it is the establishment.

At the same time, the media and opposition politicians are very good at picking fault. No opposition ever got voted in by agreeing with the Government. Good news is no news. So even when the Government does something reasonable, the opposition still finds something to complain about. The overall sense that the public gets is that it is all rotten.

There is a solution, but it's not easy. We have to recognise that we, the voting public, are a part of the problem and the solution. The only reason that Trump is popular is because people are voting for him. But what most people seem to forget is that politicians don't have a free ride. They can't say whatever they want. They can only nudge us into a direction that we already want to go. So if the public all started asking for something the politicians would soon have to follow.

But we have to start by getting rid of this blame culture. We have to recognise that sometimes the establishment gets something wrong and sometimes it gets something right. We the public probably have to be prepared for a reduction in our quality of life in the interests of the greater good. We need to look for consensus rather than trying to bash the other guy. And sometimes protecting the rights of one group of citizens can disadvantage another group. That's how policy goes - it's a little bit of give and take.
 

Don

All Living is Local
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 28, 2008
Messages
24,567
Reaction score
4,007
Location
Agorism FTW!
b5bbca90-b650-401a-a308-97e34804aee7_zpswnaddhqz.jpg


and...

ec6a773b-bbcf-4cb1-9e44-25f62e99b8e6_zpsyxl4k8vn.jpg
 
Last edited:

robeiae

Touch and go
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 18, 2005
Messages
46,262
Reaction score
9,912
Location
on the Seven Bridges Road
Website
thepondsofhappenstance.com
You are aware that the "already-taxed earnings" involved don't get taxed again, aren't you? Capital gains taxes only apply to the new income generated. I once did have to pay a small amount of capital gains on a home sale, so I know how this works. Why isn't "income" . . . "income", when it comes to things like capital gains? It used to be that way, pre-Ronald Reagan. So why is "earned income" taxed at a much higher percentage than are "capital gains", income you get basically for having a lot of money in the right place while you play 18 holes at the country club?
Short term--investments held less than a year--capital gains are taxed as ordinary income. And you know, not everyone with money in the stock market is playing eighteen holes at the country club.


If I recall correctly it was to encourage investment, so that companies would have the capital to improve, expand, create jobs, and that sort of thing.

Well, we've had 3 1/2 decades of that now, and how well has it worked out?

caw
All in all, pretty well. There's a lot of money in the stock market, a lot of money that has gone into companies for R&D and other things. Encouraging more investment is part of the "why" behind the huge economic growth of the nineties.

There are, I think, lots of poorly conceived moves by the government (repealing Glass-Steagall comes to mind), lots of loopholes for corporations in the tax code, and the like that have caused problems, big problems. Having a lower capital gains rate for long term investments isn't one of them, imo. Politicians fixate on it because it seems like an easy way to increase government coffers with minimal effort. The problem with that view is this: http://taxfoundation.org/article/federal-capital-gains-tax-collections-1954-2009
 

Vince524

Are you gonna finish that bacon?
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 8, 2010
Messages
15,903
Reaction score
4,652
Location
In a house
Website
vincentmorrone.com
You know, thinking about the 1%...really...all I feel is utter and complete bafflement.

I can imagine what I'd do with, say, a million dollars.

I can imagine what I'd do with five million dollars.

But what the flying FUCK would I do with more than 50% of the wealth of America?

All I need is a room with a lock, a high end gaming rig, enough money to buy food, medical bills, pay for gas, and give to charities!

People with that much money use it for their business and other investments.

In addition, the point is, who gets to say what amount of $ is too much for someone to have? Why does the gov't get to decide, you have earned too much, we'll take the rest.
 

raburrell

Treguna Makoidees Trecorum SadisDee
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 24, 2009
Messages
6,902
Reaction score
3,781
Age
50
Location
MA
Website
www.rebeccaburrell.com
Last edited:

Shadow Dragon

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 7, 2008
Messages
4,773
Reaction score
261
Location
In the land of dragons
I've wondered the same thing, but one's lifestyle and expectations will expand to fill the available space, I'm guessing. If you're a billionaire, you won't need to play video games anymore. Think of all the video games that are simulations of things that cost too much money in real life or all about having lots of money to build an empire with. As a billionaire, you get to screw around with the real world as if it were a virtual reality. You play for real.

First you'd want a nice, new house with lots of room and a view. Then you might want some houses in other settings or countries. Then you'd want your own plane to get there so you don't have to deal with airport security anymore. Then you'd want a pony. Then you'll want a racehorse. Then you'll want a whole stable of them. Then you'll want your own wildlife park. Then you'll want your own politician (please, I'll name him Fred, and never forget to feed him or walk him).

And so on.

Seriously, for some, I think the having more money than anyone else thing becomes a matter of principle.
At this point money isn't even money anymore. It's just points in an arcade machine and people want to see their initials among the top ten.

@Zoombie, while money is power there are ways to use it beyond just buying whatever you want. You can invest it in ways to help people. I could see you in particular using it to invest in Native American communities to improve the poverty rate of them. Could also donate to causes. With that level of money you could just pick an area that's been hit by outsourcing or whatever, figure out what's needed to rebuild that area's local economy (hire experts if need be), and simply make it happen. Or invest in certain types of technology.
 

robeiae

Touch and go
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 18, 2005
Messages
46,262
Reaction score
9,912
Location
on the Seven Bridges Road
Website
thepondsofhappenstance.com
Rob, can you check that link? I'm not sure it goes where you intended (i.e. doesn't explain, it's mostly a table of numbers).
No, it goes where I want it to. Look at the numbers. The revenues from capital gains taxes jump after the rate is lowered. And the effective rate--in the idealized past--was never that high, regardless. The point is, increasing the capital gains rate isn't an automatic ticket to increasing revenues from the same. And again, we're only talking long term here. Short term is taxed as ordinary income.

eta: For the sake of balance, here's one which takes the opposite view, that capital gains should be taxed as ordinary income: http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2013/06/05/why-capital-gains-should-be-taxed-as-income/
From the opening paragraph:
Normalizing the capital-gains tax rate so that it’s the same as the income-tax rate is an easy way to bring a lot of money into the public fisc — some $161 billion per year, according to the CBO.
See? That assumption informs everything else. And the numbers don't bear it out.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.