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
@Cronosonic: That's kind of how I see it. Mostly, I view the taxation as simply the most efficient way to fund what I call "Vapor Assets" (there might be a better term for this).
Leviticus 19:34TPP and TTIP are largely about two things: unrestricted capital flows and intellectual property. The former allows corporations to stash their income in any country they want, shopping around for the lowest tax rates. The latter allows corporations to shut down competition with international IP lawsuits. Neither has any trade advantage that would benefit consumers.
edited 30th Jan '16 7:47:55 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"![]()
No, I mean to say non-excludable assets. Like, for example, a fire department or a police force. You can't have a police force protect one house without it protecting the whole neighborhood, for example.
I'm reminded of at least one incident where firemen let a house burn down because the family hadn't paid into it. Eeeugh, some weird local thing where it was... I don't know if it was privatized or just some weird local thing? But yeah, taxes should pay for that.
And it should also be made illegal for firemen to just stand by and let things burn down. Jesus that incident still makes me mad.
It's not the firemen's fault on that one; they were legally prevented from saving the house. But it does illustrate the problem with Libertarian-style privatization of public services.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"The remaining WalMartyrs want pardons for all involved before they'll leave the Wildlife compound
edited 30th Jan '16 8:10:53 AM by sgamer82
![]()
Because it's the same effect as health insurance - if you're covered for pre-existing conditions, and have 0 incentive to sign up before getting sick, why bother with it when you can just wait for a major illness before signing up? That strategy would quickly cause insurers to go bankrupt due to having no influx of cash.
It sucks, no question, but it was on both the town for voting to do an individual payment (rather than having it folded into existing taxes), and allowing people to opt whether or not they wanted to pay for coverage.
"Why would I inflict myself on somebody else?"210 economists support Sanders' plan to raise the minimum wage to at least $15 by 2020:
170 economists and financial experts support Sanders' plan for Wall Street reform:
https://berniesanders.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Wall-St-Letter-1.pdf
Robert Reich, President Bill Clinton's Secretary of Labor, is a signer of both lists.
edited 30th Jan '16 8:17:03 AM by SolipsistOwl
I may be revealing my ignorance here (not that I've ever denied being ignorant on these matters, especially economics as I tested my way out of high school without taking any classes on the subject) but my immediate thought when I saw the post was "210 economists out of how many?"
edited 30th Jan '16 8:17:41 AM by sgamer82
![]()
![]()
If I'm thinking of the same story it goes a bit further than that. The firemen actually went to the scene to prevent the fire from spreading to other houses but did nothing to stop the house from burning. I'm pretty sure the man even begged them to save his house and offered to pay them on the spot if they'd do it. The fact that something like that is even legal is stupid and borders on dystopia.
edited 30th Jan '16 8:19:38 AM by Kostya
![]()
I'm not sure of the divide on economic reform, but the point should be that Sanders isn't just pulling his economic theories out of nowhere, as implied here and elsewhere. There are experts that support him.
It just depends on which group of experts you prefer to trust.
edited 30th Jan '16 8:23:53 AM by SolipsistOwl
All right then, what does Economist Thomas Piketty
think of Sanders' ideas?
edited 30th Jan '16 8:26:05 AM by Greenmantle
Keep Rolling On![]()
![]()
not directly related to the issue being discussed, but that's kind of the issue all around really, if you think about it. All these people tell us such wildly different things, sometimes on the same subject, it becomes hard to determine who to believe.
I wonder now if that's why so many political discussions have an "I'm right and if you disagree you're automatically wrong and/or an Enemy of the State" mentality to my mind. You go in trusting one side and it eventually turns into you distrusting the other sides automatically regardless of merit.
edited 30th Jan '16 8:27:30 AM by sgamer82
A random Googling of names on that $15/hour list found a Spanish anarchist trade unionist, an English professor, and several professors of industrial relations, a field generally concerned with labour standards and not economics per se. 'Top economists' is stretching it a bit; and also dishonest.
Schild und Schwert der Partei![]()
![]()
![]()
Piketty hasn't written about Sanders' proposals, from what I can see.
![]()
![]()
How hasn't Sanders stated how he'll pay for his proposals? He's a senator, you know—you can just look up his legislative record. His Medicare-for-All bill has been submitted numerous times.
edited 30th Jan '16 8:34:51 AM by SolipsistOwl
![]()
The Sanders campaign published both his tax reform and spending proposals to his site prior to the last debate, over a week ago. They're not much higher than currently—and in some cases are *lower.*
https://berniesanders.com/issues/how-bernie-pays-for-his-proposals/
https://berniesanders.com/issues/real-tax-reform-policies-that-sen-sanders-has-proposed/
edited 30th Jan '16 8:46:40 AM by SolipsistOwl
@ Kostya: Indeed, that's been mentioned ages ago. In fact, I remember posting an article that Krugman linked to on Sanders' Healthcare plans back on...post #109237, on page 4370.
Oh, well. Then again, Piketty is an economist that has proposed a global Wealth Tax, in an attempt to tackle inequality.
edited 30th Jan '16 8:48:56 AM by Greenmantle
Keep Rolling OnLiz Cheney, Dick Cheney's daughter, is running for Wyoming's only House seat as a Republican.
For the first time during his administration, President Obama will visit a mosque and speak with Muslim Americans.

Well, we're not gonna see much benefit from the TPP, at least. Recent credible studies imply that the US will only gain a mere 0.5% growth from its ratification to 2030.
And even this study might be an overstatement. Australia's predicted TPP growth boost is only marginally better.
In other words, not only is it a shitty agreement, the countries that ratify it will have little to actually gain from it.