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
And if you look at Teddy Roosevelt's policies, you wouldn't recognize him as a Republican today. Trustbusting, regulations on clean food and drugs, regulation of railroads and promotion of labor unions. I don't think he made religion a public issue either. He was also a prolific author and intellectual. If he ran today, he'd be labeled an elitist socialist atheist.
edited 29th Jan '13 6:50:45 AM by Lawyerdude
What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly.Well, you ARE supposed to learn from history. Might as well focus on worked and how to improve it.
Of course, you also have to keep what didn't work in the back of your mind in order to not repeat it.
By the way... when has lowering taxes been proven to help the economy as a whole?
Yu hav nat sein bod speeling unntil know. (cacke four undersandig tis)the cake is a lie!On the other point, it's rather difficult for me to picture people on the left engaging in hero worship of their political icons, at least in the same way that people on the right appear to. Certainly I hold no religious reverence for JFK, FDR, etc.; I respect those policies of theirs that worked while acknowledging those that did not.
edited 29th Jan '13 7:38:17 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"JFK was probably the most likable president even if his foreign policy wasn't the best.
Also Roosevelt may domestically have been a modern Dem,but on foreign policy,the guy was a Bush style neo-con.
A better example of turn of the 20th politicians that fit the Democrat label would be William Jennings Bryan and the Populist party.
Sure Bryan would be a Republican by social standards,but economically him,Alton Parker, and the Populist party pretty much started the first regulation-based economy. And he was part of the Anti Imperialist league which is a league that definitely fits leftist foreign policy better than rightist.
Even if you don't know or care that Ayn Rand was an atheist, one of the most distinctive tenents of Objectivism is that it views charity as, at best, unimportant, and, at worst, a blight on society. That's virtually impossible to reconcile with the tenents of Christianity; the New Testament might as well be called "Why Charity Work Is Awesome".
Republicans wanna screw over Democrat-friendly executives
.
It's a lot less worse than I make it seem, trust me.
In RWBY, every girl is Best Girl.Um, what? That's not what the article says. That bill is pretty much 100% positive for people wanting to rein in excesses in the financial markets.
edited 29th Jan '13 11:35:24 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"![]()
Maybe. It seems like it's being expressed as a threat: stop demanding tax decreases and entitlement cuts and putting us in an awkward negotiating position, or we'll do what the Democrats want.
That is what they're doing. The GOP is throwing a hissy fit so they can intimidate Wall Street back under their umbrella.
One GOP operative said that the CEOs can kill that bill by having the Democrats insist that the taxes are higher, when in fact the taxes are lower.
edited 29th Jan '13 11:52:03 AM by Serocco
In RWBY, every girl is Best Girl.Dave Camp is the first white Republican male whose hand I've wanted to shake in a while.
Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.Well, from what I understand, Objectivism does have that as part of the metaphysical part of the philosophy. It's just that it's the political and moral part that gets wrapped up with the Libertarians and the Republicans and the things they do and say, so that part gets a LOT more attention since that's the part that's affecting us. The whole philosophy basically urges people to do what's best for you instead of the group. It's individualism in the extreme, and accounting for other people can be varying sorts of impractical, immoral, or whatever. (Remember, altruism had a slightly different meaning when she was alive, and she thought it was completely impossible to practice. Doesn't make her any less of a deluded, selfish bitch, though.)
OK, so if the value of their held derivatives goes down, would they be allowed to claim a deduction? And who determines the "fair market value" of derivatives? You could ascertain that from the listed prices of ordinary things like stock options, but is there a ready market for other forms of derivatives? Also would this apply to individuals holding stock or derivatives? Like if I own 500 shares of Apple, and their prices goes up $50 a share but I don't sell, do I get a tax bill for $2,500?
What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly.I doubt this would affect standard stockholders, as stocks sales are realized under existing capital gains laws.
edited 29th Jan '13 12:37:13 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"I tend to be ambivalent about taxing non-realized income, but I can see the argument for it. If all of your income is in the form of capital gains, then you're being paid stock dividends so while your net worth rose spectacularly, your actual realized income didn't. Consequentially, if you liquidate those stocks, if you paid taxes on the capital gains, you wouldn't pay taxes again for the realized earnings, which is good because that creates weird incentives to avoid trading.
In any event, a realized loss-that is, selling a security at a rate lower than the rate it was acquired at-is definitely a capital loss, and that should be tax deductible.
Ahh, yes. That. If you tax people not on the basis of realized income/cash flow but on wealth holdings, then whether they sell the security or not is irrelevant due to the ta effects. But, since we tax realized income, we have weird incentives to sell a security, claim it as a loss on your taxes, and purchase it again. Generally this is useful if you're in a higher tax bracket one year than another year.
edited 29th Jan '13 12:38:49 PM by TheyCallMeTomu

I never got the JFK thing. He was okay but he certainly wasn't the greatest president ever. I'd rank him at a 7/10 which is about what I give Obama.
FDR is one of my favorites though.