Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
We already have those things, Maxima. The Republicans have, largely, drowned them out.
What did you think the Buffet bill was named after?
But now people are agreeing more and more with Obama and Buffet and the like, thanks to Obama's populist strategy of going out and talking to people. Republicans are criticizing this "populism" now, because it's turning the tide of public opinion against them and their goals.
![]()
Yeah, that sounds right. I'm terrible at remembering economist jargon.
But we don't have it, again, because of Republicans slowly chipping away at taxes over the years, and because of de-regulation and the attacks on unions that fight for fair salaries.
edited 10th Dec '12 2:39:11 PM by AceofSpades
You're being hopelessly idealistic, Starship. You always try to see the best in people, Starship. It's nice, but it often blinds you to really horrible things. You have a tendency to not believe that people are capable of the depravities that they fall to. It's why it seems to hit you so badly when the reality of the situation gets pointed out to you.
You walk through the world with rose coloured glasses.
edited 10th Dec '12 2:39:01 PM by shimaspawn
Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. Dick![]()
The destruction of the dream that makes it American. (beat)
I don't know how to feel about this. This is a revelation to me, and yet this white man who couldn't be more different than I am, is speaking things that make sense to me and he's been dead nearly a hundred years.
edited 10th Dec '12 2:43:12 PM by TheStarshipMaxima
It was an honorI feel I should note that that unskilled manual labor job also pays more than the software job I needed six years of college for.
edited 10th Dec '12 2:41:56 PM by Pykrete
My notion of discouraging excessive executive pay is not to put in mandatory compensation caps, but rather to cap the ability to deduct business compensation in excess of a certain ratio of employee compensation.
Let's say you decide on a 10:1 ratio for the sake of an example. If your lowest-paid worker earns $50K gross and your highest paid executive (counting all forms of compensation) earns $500K gross, then all of your company's payroll goes in as a liability and offsets earnings.
However, if you pay your CEO $1M, then the excess amount ($500K) is exempt from that offset, so you must pay corporate taxes on it as well.
This penalizes excessive compensation without forbidding it.
edited 10th Dec '12 2:45:02 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"I...wish I could say that's not completely true. It's just...the idea that my life wasn't written, that I could make it awesome beyond imagination, limited only by my guile and guts.
It seemed to make life worth living. I haven't lost that hope. It's just that I feel like I knew I had to walk 100 miles to achieve it. Upon reaching mile 30, you realize someone couldn't add and it was really 1000 to go.
It was an honorStarship, that's a great dream, but please realize that Republicans aren't interested in you succeeding in that dream, despite all their rhetoric. You've bought into it for much of your life, but it just ain't so.
What they actually want is for you to believe that they want you to succeed in that dream, so that you continue to vote for policies that benefit the rich at your expense.
edited 10th Dec '12 2:47:52 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"@ Starship: The thing is, the Republicans like to forget that they didn't walk that road all on their own. Their parents helped them walk at first. Maybe gave them a ride. Their teachers helped them get farther. Their employees carried them. The government made it so that the road was smooth, well marked and they didn't have to wander around the wilderness without a map.
And then, when they get there, they forget about all those people and decide that all the credit is theirs, and that none of those other people deserve any success.
The Democrat point of view is that working together we can all go longer and farther and bigger and grander. If you help the people at the end of the road, they'll all push you farther even if you need to give up a little of your resources to get them there.
We all succeed or fail together. No man is an island.
Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. DickThe hangup in that reasoning is that the super-rich have no incentive to buy into that idea, because they're making so disproportionately much that they wouldn't see a better return for playing nice.
edited 10th Dec '12 2:57:50 PM by Pykrete
![]()
![]()
Not strictly true.
At one point, the majority of Republicans realised that society was rather important... and was part of what you endeavoured to conserve and improve along accepted, moral lines (for a conservative set of morals).
And, then "Greed is Good" landed with a thud.
edited 10th Dec '12 3:01:40 PM by Euodiachloris
![]()
![]()
![]()
Similarly, there are liberals who don't believe in climate change. There are liberals who are pro-globalization (hi!). There are liberals who are pro-war. Liberals and conservatives aren't defined by an arbitrary set of things that people support or are against. They are defined by an outlook on life. For example, I'm a radical. Not because of any issue in which I support one side over another. I'm a radical because I believe that it is often best to just flip the table, and start from scratch with something wholly new. That affects my views on a lot of things, but it isn't defined by my views on any issue.
Similarly, conservatism isn't about what issues a person supports. It's about an outlook on life. A conservative is someone who distrusts change, and wishes to be careful when moving forward. That's an outlook I can respect. Carefulness is needed to temper the ideas of people like me, just as people like me are needed to move us forward.
edited 10th Dec '12 3:21:53 PM by deathpigeon
I just feel that America has forgotten that. It's probably one of the reasons for the divisions in American Politics today.
Keep Rolling OnThe Republican Party in American represents the radical reactionaries who seek to turn back the clock on social and economic issues, rather than a genuine conservative platform of caution.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Even reactionaries have their place, though not one of as much prominence as they have in modern America. Without them, we might just forget the great ideas of the past that we've since abandoned, but they need to be more on the side lines, just as people like me are probably not the best to be put in charge of a country, since we'd go too wild and probably mess a lot up. Radicals are there to find wholly new solutions. Liberals push us relentlessly forward. Conservatives temper the first two with caution. Reactionaries remind us not to forget the successes of the past.
I shall have to follow Maddow more closely, even though Walker ended up not being recalled.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

Well, I'm actually reading Gospel of Wealth right now in between posts (Again, why the holy fuck don't we read things like this in school. I mean, no offense to Jane Austen, but this shit right here explains so much).
Anyhoo, he made an important point about the "new rich". The next generation of rich. I really thought the whole point of America was that you and I can become THE new rich.
And maybe that's all this situation needs. Instead of crackhead rich kids who wouldn't recognize a mop if one walked up and kicked them in the balls, we have some ordinary people who know what wealth is supposed to be for. And use it to make a difference.
(Beat) I'm being hopelessly naive again, aren't I?
Wait Ace, are you saying something like...a variable salary. If your company is doing well, then you make a ton, along with your employees. But if not, then your pay dips with your employees.
That sounds like the purest form of capitalism I've ever heard of. Why don't we do that again?
edited 10th Dec '12 2:36:08 PM by TheStarshipMaxima
It was an honor