Jump to content
Navv

General US Politics

Poll  

313 members have voted

  1. 1. Would you vote a third party?

    • Yes
      100
    • No
      130
    • Maybe
      83
  2. 2. Are you content with the results of the election?

    • Yes
      59
    • No
      133
    • Indifferent
      50


Recommended Posts

DAE socialism = everyone gets everything free ???????

It works on the same principles.

Bernie wanted a rebalance of the wealth through taxes. His goal is equity, not equality. And that money would go towards funding free education and health care even though it would have come nowhere near feasible in the economic sense. Tryhard, Bernie's education plan would have cost trillions that don't exist. Economists broke this down multiple times in Forbes.

Everyone got on board with the idea of "1% of the population should not own 90% of the wealth" and "free shit like post secondary education and health care".

So... socialism.

Edited by Right Wing Nut Job

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm aware socialism isn't a new idea, but such a brazen and serious campaign for it was. I think V Debs was the last?

He was definitely going to be portrayed as a Radical leftist Zionist globalist and a danger to sensible society. Old people are not usually associated with such thinking.

And my bad jokes are better than Life's. Especially when they're serious retorts and not actually jokes.

Edited by Crysta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think most 'young people' (and really, I consider myself to be still young; I'm thinking about the under 35 crowd here) are aware that things aren't 'free' and of how taxes work. They're certainly getting far fewer 'free' things than their parents generation did. My youngest siblings will graduate with at least 3x the student debt I did. My parents not only graduated with zero debt, they were actually paid (through grants) to attend college in the 70s UK.

Socialized healthcare and secondary education are not exactly radical ideas and could be easily funded with just a fraction of the taxes that currently go to fund wars. US healthcare is a shambles as it is and they already spend more taxpayer money per person on healthcare than most other countries do.

Anyway, there were many reasons given for supporting Bernie, but they were actually fairly rarely economic reasons. There was definitely a religious divide, and a civil rights divide, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think most 'young people' (and really, I consider myself to be still young; I'm thinking about the under 35 crowd here) are aware that things aren't 'free' and of how taxes work. They're certainly getting far fewer 'free' things than their parents generation did. My youngest siblings will graduate with at least 3x the student debt I did. My parents not only graduated with zero debt, they were actually paid (through grants) to attend college in the 70s UK.

Socialized healthcare and secondary education are not exactly radical ideas and could be easily funded with just a fraction of the taxes that currently go to fund wars. US healthcare is a shambles as it is and they already spend more taxpayer money per person on healthcare than most other countries do.

Anyway, there were many reasons given for supporting Bernie, but they were actually fairly rarely economic reasons. There was definitely a religious divide, and a civil rights divide, though.

I disagree. I am a millenium myself. I happen to understand how taxes work because I have looked into it but that isn't the case.

The average 25 year old says "shit, I'm up to my neck in student loans, I don't want to be". Bernie promises them free things and says, "Look at that 1% living high and mighty! They should help us!".

Realistically, how would that 1% fork over hard earned money? By wealth redistrubution at the end of a gun. And that is a policy of equity, not equality.

That is Bernie's platform. Socialism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Socialism isn't wealth redistribution. Socialism leads to higher taxes, but this is not wealth redistribution.

Paying 10k for university per year in the US (this is not counting room and board or the cost of transportation) - for in-state, so cheapest available, for an 18-year-old - is awful. Sure, they can work part time or full time during school, but then they don't tend to do as well in college itself and all that money they spent on college goes down the drain. Bernie is not going to give "free" college, anyone with half a brain could figure that out, but making it affordable without having to take up loans out your asshole is a selling point, especially since even restricting yourself sets you back 40 grand and you won't even necessarily have a good job coming out of college. It's the same idea for law school, grad school, and med school - it's a grueling process that fills you to the brim with loans upon loans upon loans and you have to work your ass off to pay it off, and you almost have to do it these days to get a decent paying job. Hell, you're going to have at least 20k in debt if you go to community college first - that's the cost of my car.

Of course, I'm not the best person to ask for perspective on this, since I got paid to go to college and my PhD program gives me a yearly stipend so I've never had to take out loans. But it's a beacon of hope for young people who are in actuality screwed by the fact that college in America is costing a fortune in increasing amounts, and worthwhile scholarships are competitive and sometimes denied to people with credentials that are too good.

Edited by Lord Raven

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the average 25 yo, who's already graduated from college, and is probably working and paying taxes, and has to have self-funded healthcare (or chose to pay the fine), thought, what? I doubt anyone thought their current debt was about to be eliminated, so what was the self-interest there? Also, they all don't understand taxes, but you do? Anyway, my point was I saw a lot more nuanced discussions on the issue than 'woo, free stuff', and there was certainly more interest in non-economic issues (not to say that that wasn't also a focus at times).

The socialism = evil rhetoric in the US confounds me at times, especially coming from the poorest classes. The number of anti-welfare memes always seem to be posted by people I know to be receiving WIC & Medicare. You may say the left doesn't understand taxation, but I haven't seen much evidence from the right that they do, either (although pretty much the entirety of US politics leans more to the right of many other governments).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if socialism is wealth redistribution, which I don't think it strictly is, the gap between the wealthy and the poor has been at the highest it has been in the US for 30 years and potentially more. Evidently, this means that trickle-down economics does not work in any meaningful way. Higher taxes for the rich isn't exactly a ludicrous proposal.

It's worth noting that every nation has a combination of capitalism and socialism, just that the question is how much socialist policies are we willing to have. That's why social security is hugely popular, even for Republicans that wish to only keep the popular socialist policies they have now, and don't want to expand into new ones.

Bernie wanted a rebalance of the wealth through taxes. His goal is equity, not equality. And that money would go towards funding free education and health care even though it would have come nowhere near feasible in the economic sense. Tryhard, Bernie's education plan would have cost trillions that don't exist. Economists broke this down multiple times in Forbes.

How exactly?

Admitedly, when the nation healthcare service was first instituted in my country, there was an over payment opposed to the initial estimated cost. Many years on from that we've reaped the rewards and while higher taxes are just a part of the system now, it is comforting knowing that should I ever get sick, that there is healthcare waiting. In America if I don't have health insurance then I am one major illness or injury away from being under a mountain of debt. I would be fully willing to pay higher taxes for things not only limited to healthcare (for example I got my university tuition free from the government with no external grants or such, I'm lucky in that regard but I would have even really appreciated a downsize in tuition fees). I'm willing to pay for others, and people have paid for me. Systems like these seem perfectly fair to me.

As for cost effectiveness now, the NHS is actually more cost effective than the weak bloated system that the US has. And our NHS has problems, in fact, austerity cuts to it have been a major concern in recent years, and I wouldn't say that it was currently among the top of Europe, but even despite that it is more cost effective than the US. "Among the 17 countries considered, the United States healthcare system was among the least efficient and effective."

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2011/aug/07/nhs-among-most-efficient-health-services

Despite that, the system in the US still is a pretty huge portion of the GDP%. So the US system is terrible economically and it is (obviously) worse at actually treating people too.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_health_expenditure_per_capita

I mean, aside from the US spending huge quantities of money (trillions) in fighting wars internationally and in defense budget, and then complaining that they have no money. Money seems not to be an object when it involves going to kill people in a foreign country.

By the way, you said this in this topic back in March, including that welfare "is in line with being a moral human being". Do you not believe that anymore? Some of the other things you said were interesting as well.

http://serenesforest.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=56082&p=4266900

Edited by Tryhard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean, aside from the US spending huge quantities of money (trillions) in fighting wars internationally and in defense budget, and then complaining that they have no money. Money seems not to be an object when it involves going to kill people in a foreign country.

Sure, the US spends a lot in terms of amount, but as a percentage of GDP the US military expenditure is only about 3~%. Above average by a fair amount last time I checked, but their are countries that spend more in terms of GDP%. Israel, Russia and North Korea come to mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure, the US spends a lot in terms of amount, but as a percentage of GDP the US military expenditure is only about 3~%. Above average by a fair amount last time I checked, but their are countries that spend more in terms of GDP%. Israel, Russia and North Korea come to mind.

Yeah, I'm aware. It was more about the wars that have been fought.

"The U.S. wars in Afghanistan and Iraq will cost taxpayers $4 trillion to $6 trillion, taking into account the medical care of wounded veterans and expensive repairs to a force depleted by more than a decade of fighting, according to a new study by a Harvard researcher." (2013, I believe it may be even higher now)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/study-iraq-afghan-war-costs-to-top-4-trillion/2013/03/28/b82a5dce-97ed-11e2-814b-063623d80a60_story.html

Edited by Tryhard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I'm aware. It was more about the wars that have been fought.

"The U.S. wars in Afghanistan and Iraq will cost taxpayers $4 trillion to $6 trillion, taking into account the medical care of wounded veterans and expensive repairs to a force depleted by more than a decade of fighting, according to a new study by a Harvard researcher." (2013, I believe it may be even higher now)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/study-iraq-afghan-war-costs-to-top-4-trillion/2013/03/28/b82a5dce-97ed-11e2-814b-063623d80a60_story.html

Ah, I read your post wrong. My bad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I don't think you necessarily read it wrong, what you said is true, just that the economic severity of these wars was probably not considered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I don't think you necessarily read it wrong, what you said is true, just that the economic severity of these wars was probably not considered.

There isn't a single person who will deny the economic severity of the Iraq War. But it's over in a financial sense.

The goal is to create a surplus in order to pay off even the interest. Bernie's plan was to create a system where the top 1% get heavily taxed and by putting that money into government, the government can help elevate the rest of the people. Equity in a financial sense.

That is one of the tenents of socialism. I'm not going to claim that socialism is an evil entity. I'm evaluating it for what it is.

First of all, I believe in equality, not equity. That should be obvious by my positions especially when we have spoken about the black community. Because of that, I do not like socialism. In addition, Lenin famously said, "the goal of socialism is communism". And communism isn't a failed idea. It succeeded exactly how it was supposed to. It just happens that what's left out in the teaching is that a gun is required to enforce equity.

Now going back to Bernie, his plan was not feasible financially. Forbes broke down his plan multiple times and economists always found major flaws.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/democratic-economists-say-bernie-sanders-math-doesnt-add-up-1455726507

Even slashing the military budget in its entirety and taxing the top 10% (any household making about $140,000 annually if I recall correctly) at a 100% rate cannot pay for his plan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When you talk about economists exactly who do you mean?

The same experts that failed to foresee and warn us about the markets crashing? If I cited Piketty as an economist to support my claimst would you accept that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More taxes on the upper class is equity and equality lol they still make way more money than people below them despite higher taxes it just keeps the burden off the lower class who need their money to afford basic things like insurance and food and transportation. It's not inherently equal to tax someone who makes 20k the same rate as someone who makes 2m, because they are inherently unequal in circumstance.

So what do you mean by equality then?

Edited by Lord Raven

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The aim of the welfare state is not equity. It is respecting the human rights of people without enough money to survive; it is not punishing people for failure. Essentially, even if you're still stuck at a dead end job at McDonald's, you still deserve to live even if you can't afford to not live. Now, I do disagree with Sander's university program.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More taxes on the upper class is equity and equality lol they still make way more money than people below them despite higher taxes it just keeps the burden off the lower class who need their money to afford basic things like insurance and food and transportation. It's not inherently equal to tax someone who makes 20k the same rate as someone who makes 2m, because they are inherently unequal in circumstance.

So what do you mean by equality then?

Equality is equality of opportunity. Everyone has the same starting point and past that, they succeed on merit.

Equity is equality of outcome. Leveling the playing field to account for those who lag behind.

Life isn't fair. That's important. But we should be raising the standard of those with less opportunity, not rebalancing the system.

Search up equity vs. equality on Google and you get the ladder picture. It's a great argument for equity but it fails to hold up when you change the standard from height to merit. Those who work harder and are smarter deserve more than those who do not and are not. Arguing for equity in that situation means that you don't care about merit and it is society's obligation to prop up the weaker performers.

I blame Ayn Rand for giving me this opinion.

Edited by Right Wing Nut Job

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Equality is equality of opportunity. Everyone has the same starting point and past that, they succeed on merit.

Equity is equality of outcome. Leveling the playing field to account for those who lag behind.

Life isn't fair. That's important. But we should be raising the standard of those with less opportunity, not rebalancing the system.

Search up equity vs. equality on Google and you get the ladder picture. It's a great argument for equity but it fails to hold up when you change the standard from height to merit. Those who work harder and are smarter deserve more than those who do not and are not. Arguing for equity in that situation means that you don't care about merit and it is society's obligation to prop up the weaker performers.

I blame Ayn Rand for giving me this opinion.

So, okay, you have the belief that more able people deserve to rise higher. That I can potentially agree with. Here, though, is my question: do you believe that people who are less competant deserve to be poor?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So even if you were magically able to attain equality of opportunity, at some point you're still going to require a majority of people to work the menial jobs, and not everyone is going to be able rise to the top (and sheesh, the politicking and corruption I've seen in corporate America - you have really rather stupid people at the top through a combination of connections and luck). So: The rich/poor divide gap has exponentially widened the past decade. Does a CEO work 240 x as hard as their average employee? Do they have 240 x the merit?

Does a teacher (to take one example) not work hard? They're tasked with imparting knowledge to future generations, so their work is important. They dedicate hours of their time after school to grading papers and planning lessons. No one disputes that they work hard. Do they deserve less? A teacher's salary wouldn't even be enough to pay the rent on an apartment in my city.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, okay, you have the belief that more able people deserve to rise higher. That I can potentially agree with. Here, though, is my question: do you believe that people who are less competant deserve to be poor?

This is also going to answer the question after this one.

If you are less competant, you will be more poor than those who are more competant overall. Obviously there are the cases of bad luck but those are more outliers.

Careful with the word "deserve". Nobody deserves anything in this world. Nothing should be handed out on a silver platter.

The American Dream is about the idea that your children can always have lives that are more successful than yours (providing that they work for it). Hard work is the cornerstone to American society.

Now the amount of success doesn't need to be proportional to the amount of merit. But generally, CEOs have companies worth billions of dollars to worry about. A mistake at the CEO level with worth much more in losses than at middle management.

Look at Carly Fiorina. She pushed HP through a recession, helped the company expand and was still shit-canned because she didn't make enough for the company. And that's important to note. CEOs might make more money but they also sit on a bigger hot seat. Middle-management doesn't have a worry in the world if the company is strong. CEOs actually get fired if profits dip.

This isn't an argument for why CEOs deserves hundreds of millions of dollars. But what I'm pointing out is the CEOs usually understand business and economics better than the average worker, are usually more hard working on their path to the corporate top (because capitalism does not believe in nepotism) and once there, shoulder more responsibility than Steve on Floor 9. And all of that stems from the base of equal opportunity.

Edited by Right Wing Nut Job

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, okay, you have the belief that more able people deserve to rise higher. That I can potentially agree with. Here, though, is my question: do you believe that people who are less competant deserve to be poor?

Yes. More often than not being poor is a spending problem rather than an income problem anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me rephrase my question: do they deserve poverty? I accept that there will always be poor and rich people. All I argue is that the state has the obligation to provide for its poorer citizens; you still have the right to life, for example, even if you cannot afford life saving medical treatment. Another thing: if you work hard that is no guarentee of success. Why? Because, simply put, there are not enough high paying jobs to go around. There are plenty of smart, competant people who were just less smart and competant than the competition, at every level, be it university applications, the job search, or businesses. Do these people not deserve protection from the ill effects of poverty?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   1 member

×
×
  • Create New...