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
@ SolipsistOwl:
I'm fairly certain the majority of Sanders' support is already aware of his socialist tendencies and don't care.
Sanders may a self-described "socialist" by US standards, but by European standards he's nothing of the sort.
Keep Rolling OnWhich is exactly what we've been doing for the past 20 years. It's worked very well and definitely has "flown", because people like cheaper products.
Bernie would rather throw all that progress away, decreasing the purchasing power of all Americans, weakening the US economy, and making an already dirt poor population incredibly dirt poor, all for the sake of slightly boosting the lot of a small segment of the middle class, and absolutely nobody else. Sanders' policies are equivalent to instituting a tax that makes all citizens pay 5% of their income to GM, except with the suffering of a billion foreigners added on top of it. The problem is, for most Sanders supporters I've met IRL, the latter is a bonus, not a con, because of fear mongering about China (see, for example, the concerns that China will surpass the US economically ITT, and the absolute terror with which people regard the idea that the average Chinese person should have even 1/4 the income of the average American).
Again, this is the same thing as smashing machines because they put laborers out of work, even though said machines are the future and result in a net benefit for humanity.
1. He's running on a platform focused on economics; his complete ignorance in these matters will screw the country.
2. That's not his policy. He explicitly states that his policy is to stop the flood of "unskilled labor", as well as guest worker programs and H1-B visas, because he thinks that foreigners are taking a limited number of jobs that should go to Americans. I guess I should get ready to pick tomatoes and unload trucks; I could've already gotten one those jobs if the damn foreigners weren't taking them.
edited 27th Jan '16 10:14:36 AM by Nihlus1
So. To our U.S tropers.
What does it feel like to live in a HORRIBLY REPRESSIVE system that murders PATRIOTS in cold blood like a DICTATORIAL SYSTEM under the hands of Barack HUSSEIN Obama the ANTICHRIST? How is the BLOODY CIVIL WAR going? I was promised a brutal civil war.
THANKS OBAMA. Now Sanders is going to get elected and the last heterosexual marriage is going to be made in the back of a pick up monster truck, where TRUE PATRIOTS will be relegated to live in, roaming like men dispossesed.
Just a true patriot on the road. And his sister. And nothing between them.
It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothesThen you're worse-off than a starving peasant in India who owns a farm, according to the same logic people use to disparage the "1%" in the USA
Okay, that is a bridge too far, because most of the "1%" in the US aren't in debt. Otherwise, you wouldn't have business-owners
saying that 6.3 Million translates to "only" $400,000 after everything's said and done (business expenses, taxes, personal expenses, etc.) That's miles away from being "poor".
![]()
I'm not saying American millionaires are poor, I'm saying judging income inequality by net worth [including stocks, etc.] gets you weird results out of tune with reality. Again, by the same system which people use to disparage the wealthy (2/3 of whom are
self-made,
btw; though most of the "1%" don't have a million dollars or more in annual income), Fighteer is poorer than an Indian farmer with no debt.
edited 27th Jan '16 10:23:51 AM by Nihlus1
@Nihlus1: The distinction between middle-class and wealthy in the United States is far more a matter of net assets than it is income, especially given that, the higher you go on the scale, the larger your percentage of income derives from interest and rents of various sorts: capital gains, if you will. I'll freely admit that I don't suffer food insecurity, worry about whether my family will be able to afford clothes, or sweat being gunned down by a corrupt police officer. But I am in the class of people who are two paychecks away from being in serious financial trouble.
The people who would be taxed to support universal healthcare or programs of international economy-building would be the ones who are at least an order of magnitude richer than I am by measures of both net worth and income.
Edited to add: Also, I don't count "self-made" as including the folks who built a mutual fund portfolio or a venture capital firm up from a "mere million dollars" in seed loan money. CNBC is not an impartial source.
I'm still not quite sure why we are so determined to compare Sanders with a hard-socialist, would-be dictator. Sanders has called for a democratic, populist revolution against the excessive political influence of wealth in the United States. That is a laudable goal in and of itself and hardly a reason to compare him to Perón or whomever.
I have posted here and elsewhere links to various econoblogs pointing out holes in Sanders' economic policies, and those continue to be of grave concern to me. I have based my tentative support for his candidacy on the idea that he knows what he's talking about — that he's done the research and will apply that knowledge to running the country.
I am becoming increasingly concerned that this is not the case, but the position you're taking in your arguments is one that I cannot be sympathetic with. I am concerned first about the standard of living of myself and my family; second with the overall standard of living of Americans; and third with the standard of living of those in other countries. Sorry if that rubs you the wrong way.
Globalism is a luxury of those who are not concerned about their domestic economic policy being taken over by people the likes of Ted Cruz or Donald Trump. When you put either Clinton or Sanders up against that, the choice is really freaking clear.
edited 27th Jan '16 10:27:52 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"If I compare someone's economic plan to the failed plan of, say, Mao, I'm not saying that they also want to have political dissidents shot. I'm just saying that their plan sucks.
Okay, that's fair. But using your logic, most Americans should be against you, because outsourcing directly benefits them through higher purchasing power. I know I am. That's not even getting into the long term, where the US benefits via reinvestment and new jobs that don't rely on manual labor.
Modern protectionism reminds me of Luddites.
edited 27th Jan '16 10:37:06 AM by Nihlus1
I am sorry but do you read your own articles?
You know.
Healthcare.
AKA the reason why 62% of the people in the U.S go bankrupt
. And higher education. You know. That life endebting thing in the U.S?
Look, free trade may help in terms of access to markets and possibly cheaper manufactured goods, but you are making a fundamental mistake if you believe that it is necessary to domestic economic growth in a fiat currency system. The United States has a net negative trade balance, so more dollars are leaving us than are coming back. This is mathematically inarguable.
Now, I'm also not saying this is bad per se, but it does lead to an imbalance that needs to be remedied by net deficit spending by government and/or the private domestic market, or by the gradual devaluation of the dollar against world markets which will eventually nullify the trade deficit.
The problem with the U.S. system is that, politically, we are very much still mired in a supply-side, wealth-worshiping model where any attempt to systematically introduce socialist, redistributive programs is met with fanatical resistance. We can have free trade without tariffs, but we must have a domestic economic policy that supports a minimum standard of living for all of our citizens, not just those fortunate enough to be in the middle class or higher.
I'm also really not seeing where you're getting the idea that outsourcing jobs to other countries benefits our own poor, considering that it forces them into downwards competition for wages that is not matched by a general reduction in prices for goods and services. Real wages (and especially wage-productivity ratios) for the entire bottom 90th percentile of the nation have been in steady decline since at least 1970 and quite probably much longer. This is not sustainable; sooner or later there will be a populist revolution.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Not to mention Sanders wants to stack free healthcare on top of that absurdly huge minimum wage.
EDIT Fuck, Canada and the USA have pretty much the same average student debt.
edited 27th Jan '16 10:46:59 AM by Nihlus1
And every other developed nation has nationalized healthcare without going bankrupt. Pull the other one. The flaw with Sanders' plan is that he is discounting the need for rationing to control costs, leaving what Paul Krugman calls "magic asterisks" to be filled in later. That's tacky if not deliberately disingenuous.
edited 27th Jan '16 10:47:58 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"On Argantinna being in the third world, that's an incredibly mailable term, often the entire of South and Central America are counted as third world/developing world even today, despite the massive differences in economic size and power between many countries that are being lumped together.
UK minimum wage is equivalent to $10 an hour just by the by.
edited 27th Jan '16 10:49:20 AM by Silasw
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranIt's way too low, as I said. Canada can get away with it because of its strong social safety net, but MBI would supplant that. You have to holistically count all the various forms of transfers and social payments in the standard of living calculation.
edited 27th Jan '16 10:51:59 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Bah was editing, UK minimum wage converted to dollars is $10 a hour, but we don't have to pay for healthcare with it and don't have to size of student debt that you guys tend to have.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranHigher taxes doesnt mean it is a bad thing, if it is properly administrated. If you are telling me you would not accept a tax rate of 70% in exchange for a home, healthcare for all emergencies, free education and safety in both infraestructure and communication, you would be incredibly foolish.
And yes, the Healthcare in the U.S is still expensive, hence why there is an entire industry all over the world dedicated to bringing U.S patients elsewhere. Look up medical tourism.
Good now tell me how long is it going to take you out to pay USD $20.000
Take your yearly salary. Reduce taxes from it. Mortgage. Gas. Food. Clothing. How much is left? with that, you now need to pay the college stuff. Don't have a job?
That is too bad because the U.S politicans are fighting over giving people the unskilled jobs that them durn mexicans are stealing, instead of trying to create better opportunities for education and jobs that require skills.
P.S: Add family costs if you have one.
edited 27th Jan '16 10:54:40 AM by Aszur
It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes@ Fighteer:
It's been that since, at least, the 19th Century.
So would you like to see much greater (as it already occurs with the "Buy America Act"), import taxes and regulations, and a push for greater US content in any imported products?
Keep Rolling On
College being crushingly expensive in the USA is a myth. If you're middle class, you get away with a $20,000 debt spaced out over fifteen years including loans for your food and rent (increase by 10% or less for interest, don't scale for inflation). If you're actually poor, you can practically go for free, as the majority of UC students do.
So who's paying for them? Surprise, it's upper middle class families that make more than 90k/ a year
.
Increasing the minimum wage increases unemployment
. This is why, despite said lack of hit and a booming economy due to trade with China, Australia has higher youth unemployment than the United States.
This is why we have welfare, people.
Sanders' $15 minimum wage is insane and unprecedented.
edited 27th Jan '16 11:35:32 AM by Nihlus1
I'd actually like to see our own internal subsidies for things like agriculture and energy dropped so those firms are forced to compete at world market rates. But we also need much higher top tax rates to prevent excessive wealth accumulation.
Increasing minimum wage does not increase unemployment measurably, except possibly among entry-level workers (i.e., youth), and that's not an important statistic if we are saying these folks should be in college instead of flipping burgers.
edited 27th Jan '16 11:18:32 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Vast majority of people flipping burgers are mothers and fathers in 30s to 50s, not teenagers/20 somethings.
There's also the issue that businesses like Mc Donalds and the like use Franchise system as a cheat loophole to avoid paying decent wages.
Increasing the minimum wage increases unemployment and inflation, just ask Australia. This is why even Australia's PPP-adjusted $10 an hour minimum wage is considered extremely high; the proposed $15 is just totally out of touch with reality. Literally the only benefit it has over giving poor people welfare aid is that it lets them keep their pride. It reminds me of that quote about the USA's poor not seeing themselves as poor, but rather as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.
edited 27th Jan '16 11:41:04 AM by Nihlus1

Going back a bit...
No, and yes. My income is way over that; my net assets are negative thanks to mortgage and credit card debt. So it's kind of a mixed bag. A substantial increase in net taxation or a substantial decline in my income would throw my family into bankruptcy. I realize that, to other nations, the American middle class looks unimaginably wealthy, but it's all relative.
Seriously, if your political agenda involves direct redistribution of wealth from the First World to the Third World, it's not gonna fly with said First World. I have no beef with Sanders for promoting the interests of his constituency. I do think that our ultimate goal is to move beyond nationalism and nativism and become a truly global economy, but that cannot be successful if you're going to have a vast, struggling underclass ruled over by a fantastically wealthy plutocracy. You must dismantle the power structures that allow wealth to dominate politics before you can have any hope of curing global inequality.
Now, it may turn out that we're all too stupid to govern ourselves without some kind of autocratic overlord telling us what to do, but I'm going to choose to believe otherwise until it's conclusively proven.
edited 27th Jan '16 8:58:17 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"