The (Post-Recession/Obama) Non-Batshit Politics Thread of 2015 & Beyond

[MasterOLightning]

YOU GET TO PUSH POINTLESS PAPER! AND YOU GET TO PUSH POINTLESS PAPER! EVERYBODY GETS TO PUSH POINTLESS PAPER!

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$




You can't manufacture growth out of redistribution, whether people have it straight handed to them or you make them join a bureaucracy to "earn it" or not. I'd rather see people get a BI than have a big government bureaucracy.

Hire people to build new infrastructure. Hire people to treat the mentally ill. Hire people to replace antiquated government computer systems and retrain employees. Subsidize training for underserved sectors. It's not all redundant bureaucracy, and it's not necessarily all about being directly on the government payroll.

And if you don't agree that there are levels of personal wealth that inhibit growth and hurt a society, we can't go any further with that.

 

[Dak]

Hire people to build new infrastructure. Hire people to treat the mentally ill. Hire people to replace antiquated government computer systems and retrain employees. Subsidize training for underserved sectors. It's not all redundant bureaucracy, and it's not necessarily all about being directly on the government payroll.

Well I can agree that there are better and worse ways to spend money. Infrastructure is clearly better than desk jockeys, but government is naturally incentivized towards desk jockeys.

And if you don't agree that there are levels of personal wealth that inhibit growth and hurt a society, we can't go any further with that.

Well it depends on the nature of the measure of wealth. Socialistic measures of wealth (which is the case in basically every country on the planet) inhibit *real* growth.

 

[Draehl]

Do you really think the rapidly escalating inequality is a good thing for anyone other than the hyper rich? They can't make their wealth liquid in way that's valuable to society. Wealth that's redistributed to the lower and middle classes is spent on goods and services that keep people employed. The huge majority of the hyper wealthy's money is essentially in invisible assets.

I'm for a big government too. A big government employs a lot of people at good wages, and the government tends to be one of the few employers that hires minorities and generally educated people at high rates. The massive defense budget is absurd, but spent properly, it leads to amazing technological accomplishments that are as "disruptive" as Silicon Valley would like to be.

You miss the point. This scenario is purely spite. If we were talking about taking from the rich to benefit the poor in some way, okay. He's not.

Scenario 1: Benefit everyone- the rich, poor, and government. The rich might benefit the most, but everyone benefits.

Scenario 2: Fuck the rich. The poor gain no benefit. The government actually gains lower tax revenue. But hey, we get to fuck the rich.

Again, you can debate whether lower tax rates actually result in higher tax revenue or not, but he didn't contest it. The "fairness" of bringing one group down is more important than the betterment of everyone. That's neither conservatism nor liberalism. It's pure destructive spite, especially given the fact that economics isn't always a zero sum game. Everyone can, in fact benefit. Are we not, as a group, better off than we were 100 years ago?

 

[MasterOLightning]

You miss the point. This scenario is purely spite. If we were talking about taking from the rich to benefit the poor in some way, okay. He's not.

Scenario 1: Benefit everyone- the rich, poor, and government. The rich might benefit the most, but everyone benefits.

Scenario 2: Fuck the rich. The poor gain no benefit. The government actually gains lower tax revenue. But hey, we get to fuck the rich.

Again, you can debate whether lower tax rates actually result in higher tax revenue or not, but he didn't contest it. The "fairness" of bringing one group down is more important than the betterment of everyone. That's neither conservatism nor liberalism. It's pure destructive spite, especially given the fact that economics isn't always a zero sum game. Everyone can, in fact benefit. Are we not, as a group, better off than we were 100 years ago?

When people talk about income inequality, they are talking about the .01-.001%. Not the 1-.1%. That tiny fraction of people has a dangerous amount of money, and they really need to be held in check. Their influence on politics is obvious and potentially dangerous. (Koch Bros.) If the Koch Bros were Elon Musk and a great example of capitalism, that's cool, but I don't consider pumping billions into politics to be all that capitalistic.

You must not understand the ways that the truly rich make their money. They have a completely different tax code than Joe Wageslave does. Taxes on wages should probably be lower on the upper-middle and middle classes. Those who make between $100-250k have a comparatively steep burden, and they probably should pay lower taxes. The fact that things like capital gains and inheritances don't have progressive taxation rates is bullshit to me. I pay about 20% of my rather modest wages to taxes, but many millionaires and billionaires are paying lower percentages of their earnings.

Obama, by any measure, is rich himself. Either he's spiting himself too, or sincerely believes that trickle down economics have failed. SPOILER ALERT: They have. When middle and working class people do have more money, (instead of countless immobile billions tied up in Wall St.,) they spend more, and local municipalities collect more in sales tax and property taxes, which they can spend how they wish, rather than that evil big gubm't. Imagine that.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

I see I'm behind in the money debate, but I'll start with Jimmy's post:

A system where elected representatives represent their contributors instead of their constituents is logical?

I notice you use the exaggeration "instead of" rather than "more than".

The way I see it, our very frustration over the issue of money in politics is symptomatic of the difficulty we "have-nots" have in accepting that money has *always* been in politics, that inequality and "class warfare" are inherent to our current system, that it's not the end of the world, and that we simply have to confront the power struggle on its own terms if "the 99%" are going to remain relevant and keep our relationship with the 1% from becoming more abusive. Even if you just pick one pet issue you feel strongly about -- net neutrality, derivatives regulation, whatever -- you're setting a good boundary.

That's why I dislike the apathetic's point of view that politics isn't worth paying attention to. Human nature is human nature, regardless of the shape or scale. It's not supposed to be pretty. Drug addiction and shitty parenting are just as timeless and contagious as political corruption, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't put each new generation of the contagion under the Petri dish to analyze its weaknesses.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

What's the difference between left moderate and liberal here?

For me it's that despite being mostly liberal I agree with conservatives on some issues, I'm willing to compromise on other issues for a greater good, and for cultural reasons I consider the right wing a legitimate fixture on the national stage.

The fact that things like capital gains and inheritances don't have progressive taxation rates is bullshit to me.

Agreed.

 

[Dak]

I was going to take MoL to task but I figure there's probably no point. The Kochtopus or alternately Soros are such ridiculous shibboleths, and one was invoked.

To look at the positive, at least people may be starting to recognize that breaking six-figures is no longer "rich". There is a huge dropoff between the .1 to the 1 to everyone else. But progressive taxation is a hamfisted approach that does not deal with underlying causes.

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

The way I see it, our very frustration over the issue of money in politics is symptomatic of the difficulty we "have-nots" have in accepting that money has *always* been in politics, that inequality and "class warfare" are inherent to our current system, that it's not the end of the world, and that we simply have to confront the power struggle on its own terms if "the 99%" are going to remain relevant and keep our relationship with the 1% from becoming more abusive. Even if you just pick one pet issue you feel strongly about -- net neutrality, derivatives regulation, whatever -- you're setting a good boundary.

That's why I dislike the apathetic's point of view that politics isn't worth paying attention to. Human nature is human nature, regardless of the shape or scale. It's not supposed to be pretty. Drug addiction and shitty parenting are just as timeless and contagious as political corruption, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't put each new generation of the contagion under the Petri dish to analyze its weaknesses.

This still doesn't explain your claim that "the system is very logical."

It's not that politics isn't worth paying attention to. Most things are worth paying attention to if you want to be critical. The voter has no control and is duped into picking one of these "positions/views" but do these positions even exist? or is it an illusion? a hoax? Like you said, human nature is human nature - this all works out one way or another whether we think we have influence or not, but the condition isn't about whether it's pretty or ugly, It just is/there is no pretty or ugly. Our nature will always dominate and exploit its own. And the condition is that we are virtually our own prey

 

[Carpe Mortem]

I really dug Plato's 'if you're old and useless fuck off out of here' thing. We should all be dying a lot younger.

 

[arg]

fuck obamacare, i don't want MY MONEY going to fucking bums and addicts and homeless and poor fucks who get sick and can't pay their medical bills. they can all fuck off and die for all i care.

fuck taxes and welfare too. no job and can't support your family? BOO HOO please just kill yourselves.

the poor should not even be allowed to procreate and bring more shitstain spawn into this world. but they keep doing it because the Obama government gives them more money for each one. god damn leeches. LET THEM STARVE AND DIE

 

[Matt]

fuck obamacare, i don't want MY MONEY going to fucking bums and addicts and homeless and poor fucks who get sick and can't pay their medical bills. they can all fuck off and die for all i care.

fuck taxes and welfare too. no job and can't support your family? BOO HOO please just kill yourselves.

the poor should not even be allowed to procreate and bring more shitstain spawn into this world. but they keep doing it because the Obama government gives them more money for each one. god damn leeches. LET THEM STARVE AND DIE

Trolling? Or are you just a fucking idiot?

Libertarian.


Obama is manipulative and deceptive.

I'd love to hear you reasoning behind this. Also, the phrase "there are no libertarians in a crisis" is fucking true. I've never met one that doesn't contradict themselves on a constant basis.

Not sure that's how I'd describe Obama's faults. I see inaction and compromise as his real failings.

Inaction how? He has had a large bloc in congress completely unwilling to do anything aside from make him and his party look bad. I agree on the compromise part though - despite it being a valiant effort, he should've known from the beginning that the retarded teabagger side of the Republican Party would refuse to work with him on everything.

 

[waif]

He was dealt a crap hand, but he's still been pretty disappointing. Better than Bush, and I don't see him as disastrous, but we really needed a much stronger leader in 2008.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

How do you square "ownership of self" with a system that a) punishes people for being disabled or unhealthy, and b) takes measures to exclude such people from participating in the economic engine of society?

You advocate ownership of self, but you seem to have a very limited perspective on what a "self" is.

Not necessarily punishment. When poor, unworking, and uneducated families produce poor, unworking, and uneducated babies at a higher rate than the rest of the population, they're taking space that could be occupied by more productive members of society. If we made sure that those people had easy access to birth control and abortion, and as long as there were no incentives in place rewarding reproduction, the problem would fix itself. I think removing the stigma of suicide and even supporting a culture of self-deprecation where those unable to live happy and/or net-productive lives would be a beautifully efficient system.

 

[divine_torture]

fuck obamacare, i don't want MY MONEY going to fucking bums and addicts and homeless and poor fucks who get sick and can't pay their medical bills. they can all fuck off and die for all i care.

fuck taxes and welfare too. no job and can't support your family? BOO HOO please just kill yourselves.

the poor should not even be allowed to procreate and bring more shitstain spawn into this world. but they keep doing it because the Obama government gives them more money for each one. god damn leeches. LET THEM STARVE AND DIE

Fuck you too, pal.

 

[Manic Ferocity]

I haven't felt compelled to declare a personal political platform for some years now, but I suppose I "caucus with the Democrats" as the new Independent senator of Maine, Angus King, said he'd do.

If I were to declare for a realistic ideology, I'd say I'm a Democratic Socialist, in the belief that a democracy is functional insofar as the electorate is educated and healthy. Free, universal college education and healthcare are a must in my view, and it's not hard to see the economic benefits of a populace with greater skills and who don't burden the healthcare system as much because of the focus on preventative care. Also, a highly educated populace would be more psychologically happy since it would seek out higher pleasures produced by the arts and humanities and not just the base pleasures provided by current materialism and consumerism. Such a diversified demand for intellectual goods will have economic benefits by keeping intellectuals and artists employed. I'd set up a tax code such that there is a reasonable level of socioeconomic equality between all citizens, thereby eliminating class warfare.

If I could change the world by means of some divine power, I'd set up a monarchy to enforce and regulate the above system. That monarch would be somewhat like Plato's philosopher-king.

The problem with state regulated education and healthcare is that the quality of both suffers dramatically from lowered incentive. The private sector is perfectly capable of handling this and businesses subsequently benefit as a result of higher quality. It is not unreasonable to expect parents to take it upon themselves to put their kids through school and a free market can provide opportunities for education at a lower cost. The same economic principles apply to healthcare.

The class system is a myth surrounding an arbitrary concept like inequality. There's nothing demonstrably wrong with wealth and it's immoral to curve or limit the amount of revenue a business can make. Wealth does not come freely.

I'm going to go ahead and assume your last paragraph is sarcasm.

Huge libertarian right here, if it wasn't already obvious.

 

[The Ozzman]

6 people consider themselves straight liberal? Fuck that shit.

Wait, Manic Ferocity and I agree on something? What the fuck?

 

[Manic Ferocity]

Hell just froze over.

 

[Mort Divine]

Inequality is an arbitrary concept? lmao

And no, wealth isn't free. It is made solely on the exploitation of the working class who have the products of their work stolen from them.

 

[Dak]

Inequality is an arbitrary concept? lmao

And no, wealth isn't free. It is made solely on the exploitation of the working class who have the products of their work stolen from them.

I think he might have meant arbitrary in that there are umpteen different ways any given two people are unequal, and to focus on any particular one can be construed as arbitrary.

Wealth can be obtained in a few different ways, but it most certainly not solely on the "exploitation" of the "working class".

Edit: @Mathias I haven't met many socialists with anything to lose from the policy either so.... what?

 

[Manic Ferocity]

Inequality is an arbitrary concept? lmao

And no, wealth isn't free. It is made solely on the exploitation of the working class who have the products of their work stolen from them.

Inequality is not only an arbitrary concept, but an unacheivable goal. There is always going to be some asshole who treats people unfairly. You cannot change that without using excessive force, which is far worse.

Last time I checked, the working class gets paid. Last time I checked, they themselves took the job and last time I checked, they are free to leave at any time to look for other opportunities. How is that exploitation, exactly? You're applying a serious and inaccurate accusation to describe people who work in rough and dangerous environments for low pay. That was their choice.