General US Politics

[Duff Ostrich]

Self interest is precisely one of more important reasons why free market capitalism is directly responsible for the prosperity and ease of living that we all enjoy in virtually every aspect of our lives.

[Yojinbo]

Who is "we all"?

Does "we all" include the de-facto slave from South Korea who has to work ~12 hours shifts at a pathetic wage with no employee's rights or union .... just so "we all" can afford our Samsung TV for a cheap prize?

[-Cynthia-]

That's what friends are for. : )

Seriously, though, if most people asked a person with a car, "Hey, I need a ride to the grocery store, can you take me? I got gas money.", most people would be like "Yeah, sure! When are you free? We can work together and maybe I can get some groceries myself."

That's what being a community is about. Only reason someone wouldn't get help was if they weren't liked in the community, honestly. I have a car, and I'd help people who needed a ride. My girlfriend's even worse in helping random strangers who ask for rides and giving them a ride somewhere. The "location" thing is really a moot argument, unless the WHOLE town/city is like that. In which case, why are you even living there in the first place?

Some people don't have enough money for gas in addition to groceries or friends with cars nearby. Many people also do not have the means to simply move if local businesses begin discriminating against them.

It's nice that people in your community are willing to give rides to others, but not everywhere is like that. You might want to try thinking how discrimination might affect people in very different circumstances from yours.

[Duff Ostrich]

Who is "we all"?

Does "we all" include the de-facto slave from South Korea who has to work ~12 hours shifts at a pathetic wage with no employee's rights or union .... just so "we all" can afford our Samsung TV for a cheap prize?

The use of the term "de facto" does not give you the ability to rewrite the meaning of a word. A "slave", for instance, is someone whose is considered property under the law. You can potentially stretch that to include someone who has had their rights suppressed more generally, but it nevertheless does not reasonably apply to the people of South Korea, who by and large enjoy the same freedoms (and indeed prosperity) that the rest of us do. Pluralism? Suffrage? Representative government? Freedom of expression, organization, commerce and so on? They've got most of the bases covered. As to what South Korea's perceived failings (or relative lack thereof, as is the case) have to do with the undeniable benefits of free market capitalism is not something I was able to glean from your post. It was actually a very silly example on your part because there is another half of Korea that decided to adopt a model where the means of production are in the hands of the state. Which side do you think is better off?

[Yojinbo]

Answer my question and I'll answer yours.

Who do you mean by "we all". You've dodged that one.

[kirby9612]

I'm back. Thanks for letting me mods back into Serenes Forest.

We are 2 days away from the caucuses. Now is the time to be anxious.

Check it out people.

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-swing-the-election/

Edited January 30, 2016 by kirby9612

[Phoenix Wright]

My bad. I automatically assumed that since this was a serious discussion and the topic was tax codes that people would have know at least the basic, rudimentary aspects of the tax code. Here, I'll share some links to support my argument.

the topic is actually the 2016 election. actual tax codes found its way into discussion because you brought it in. my very simple argument, "a progressive tax is better than a flat tax, generally," has yet to be engaged with in any significant way.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_bracket#Tax_brackets_in_the_United_States (American Tax Brackets)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_deduction#Basic_standard_deduction (Standard Deduction in recent years)

(Yes, I am aware the above links are Wikipedia, but the numbers are taken straight from the government sources and I figured Wikipedia's interface was more familiar to move around and read.)

https://www.randpaul.com/issue/taxes (Rand Paul's tax plan)

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/aug/18/warren-buffett/warren-buffett-says-super-rich-pay-lower-taxes-oth/ (Fact-checking that the rich do indeed pay less taxes than most of the lower classes)

thanks

I also included my financial situation because you had stated that only the super-rich would support or care for a flat tax, which is simply not true at all. In fact, most people who work as freelancers and contractors in America are taxed a lot more than people who make a lot more and work regular jobs, due to having to pay the payroll tax out of their own pockets.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payroll_tax (Source of what the Payroll Tax is, since you'll probably ask for it.)

thanks.

i never had any problems with you providing a personal example. you claimed "statistically, yadda yadda yadda," and provided one example (particular to you) to express the point.

to be clear, i never stated i was happy with the current united states tax situation (in any form), my argument,

mathematically, a flat tax hurts the middle and lower income levels more than upper income levels... flat taxes are unfair and bad.

as far as i can tell, has yet to be challenged. again, a poor implementation of a good idea doesn't mean the good idea is bad. (also goes to you duff ostrich--since n. korea's version of communism isn't necessarily an ideal model lol. i'm sure the nordic nations don't sway your opinions towards their versions of education, economic and political infrastructure, etc.)

15% of a $50k earner hurts much more than 15% of $250k earner. especially so if one lives in a more expensive, urban area. (a non-negligible portion of the us population.)

i claim that a progressive tax is better on principle because people pay according to their ability, far more than what a flat tax allows. why do you claim a flat tax is better on principle?

If you really think that non-discrimination laws are going to prevent issues from happening, you really should take a look at how inefficient our judicial system is. Supposing that your theoretical laws were in place to protect the minorities from being discriminated against, a person should have it resolved in civil court, yes. However, do you know how long that process takes? It takes many years. In that time period, while waiting for an attorney to be hired, the case to be built, and an eventual court date down the road that spans multiple court days, a person could really ruin a business and potentially put it out of business through word of mouth, yelp, newspaper editorials, getting a news station to report on it and other forms of media. By the time the court date arrives, if a person really puts in the effort, they could really damage the business long before legal action can even be taken.

they aren't theoretical, they're very real and are currently in effect. what you want is to repeal the work that took nearly 300 years due to the idea that unfair businesses may hurt because people may decide to go to more accepting businesses. even in california, one of the most progressive states in the union, for a long time did not want gays to marry. what if we repealed laws that protect this minority group from discrimination, and so businesses across the united states refuse gay people?

these laws are in effect to protect the minority groups in the united states. without them, minority groups would be treated unfairly. free market capitalism doesn't fix societal problems. at best, its ability to drive innovation is unrivaled. but even then, without supervision, monopolies come about.

Again, anything the public sector can do, the private sector can do better. : )

there's plenty of things the govt does better. like prisons. unless more people in jail is taken to be a "successful prison system."

Seriously, though, if most people asked a person with a car, "Hey, I need a ride to the grocery store, can you take me? I got gas money.", most people would be like "Yeah, sure! When are you free? We can work together and maybe I can get some groceries myself."

That's what being a community is about. Only reason someone wouldn't get help was if they weren't liked in the community, honestly. I have a car, and I'd help people who needed a ride. My girlfriend's even worse in helping random strangers who ask for rides and giving them a ride somewhere. The "location" thing is really a moot argument, unless the WHOLE town/city is like that. In which case, why are you even living there in the first place?

what the hell are you talking about

Edited January 30, 2016 by Phoenix Wright

[kirby9612]

It would be funny if Bernie Sanders used yet another Garfunkel song in his ads:

This song perfectly suits the election

Edited January 30, 2016 by kirby9612

[Duff Ostrich]

Answer my question and I'll answer yours.

Who do you mean by "we all". You've dodged that one.

My question was rhetorical. The answer is irrelevant because North Korea is not a valid choice, or at least it certainly wasn't intended to be!

"We all" includes everyone on serenesforest.net, which makes the mostly justified assumption that our lifestyle is such that we can afford to invest time and money into playing Fire Emblem video games and posting on message boards from our computers and smart phones. I was trying to appeal to our shared experiences as people who have the opportunity and the means to live our lives as we see fit and enjoy the fruits of our labor by spending money on things we want. This is the result of free enterprise.

[kirby9612]

My question was rhetorical. The answer is irrelevant because North Korea is not a valid choice, or at least it certainly wasn't intended to be!

"We all" includes everyone on serenesforest.net, which makes the mostly justified assumption that our lifestyle is such that we can afford to invest time and money into playing Fire Emblem video games and posting on message boards from our computers and smart phones. I was trying to appeal to our shared experiences as people who have the opportunity and the means to live our lives as we see fit and enjoy the fruits of our labor by spending money on things we want. This is the result of free enterprise.

North Korea is not a communist country. It is a totalitarian dictactorship run by Kim Jong Un, something similar but very different overall from communism. In the most unbiased way possible, Bernie Sanders wants to bring America's politics up to speed with most of Europe.

[Nobody]

Who is "we all"?

Does "we all" include the de-facto slave from South Korea who has to work ~12 hours shifts at a pathetic wage with no employee's rights or union .... just so "we all" can afford our Samsung TV for a cheap prize?

I was just reading the thread and saw this... Do you have any evidence South Korea has de-facto slave labor? As far as I know, South Korea has really high HDI and is a developed country (it also has low inequality which means this is even less likely to be true). Basically it and Japan are ahead of everyone else in Asia when it comes to standard of living. I had never heard anywhere else people saying anything like this you just posted.

Edited January 30, 2016 by Perfect Nobody

[Phoenix Wright]

My question was rhetorical. The answer is irrelevant because North Korea is not a valid choice, or at least it certainly wasn't intended to be!

"We all" includes everyone on serenesforest.net, which makes the mostly justified assumption that our lifestyle is such that we can afford to invest time and money into playing Fire Emblem video games and posting on message boards from our computers and smart phones. I was trying to appeal to our shared experiences as people who have the opportunity and the means to live our lives as we see fit and enjoy the fruits of our labor by spending money on things we want. This is the result of free enterprise.

that's cool. suddenly, extend this to bigger domains (a city, a state, a nation, the world) and completely free market capitalism becomes a system wherein very few are able to win relative to the majority that fail. capitalism needs checks, or control.

[blah the Prussian]

"Tyranny of the majority" comes from Madison, and it has nothing to do with free markets. Specifically it references the potential failings of the democratic process insofar as the public may at any given time decide to support a tyrannical policy. Therefore Madison thought it wise that some of our inalienable rights were codified in such a way that they were insulated from the whims of popular opinion.

Free markets rather do not rely on the good will or political wisdom of the public. Instead it relies on our vested self interest, which is far easier to predict. Of course there have been times when other powerful motivators like bigotry, fundamentalism or fear seem to take precedence over the self interest of an individual or a group, and that tends to be dangerous.

I could go into an essay on why the Constitution doesn't actually protect us from the will of the people, but I won't. The fact is that self interest is a terrible way to find out what is best. Theodore Roosevelt rescued America from the Free Market because it as a system was tearing the nation apart. Also, North Korea is a Communist country, which is fine because none of us want Communism. The farthest left any of us get is social democracy, or in my case social monarchy. Edited January 30, 2016 by blah the Prussian

[Yojinbo]

"We all" includes everyone on serenesforest.net, which makes the mostly justified assumption that our lifestyle is such that we can afford to invest time and money into playing Fire Emblem video games and posting on message boards from our computers and smart phones.

1.) So "we all" does not include the south african goldmine worker, or the chinese factory worker earning his "pay" for Foxconn in Shenzen, right? That's a very selective definition of "we all" then because last time I checked these people are all involved with what you call free market. Your definition of "we all" ignores the 90%+ that aren't as fortunate as we to be on the receiving end of the free market.

2.) I admit that the term "de-facto slave" isn't quite accurate. It's not quite as far off as you make it seem though: somebody who, for example, works in one of the textile factories in Bangladesh that supplies clothes for the western world is pretty much the modern equivalent to a slave. Terrible working conditions, disproportionately long working shifts, corrupt and completely dysfunctional unions [if they aren't outright banned in some of these countries, iirc Bangladesh isn't one of them though] and no inserunance whatsoever. If they're injured in an accident or they get sick they're fucked. If they die in an accident nobody gives a shit. They get a wage yeah, but that doesn't change the fact that they're being used as if they were a mere product. It's not slavery but it's only like half a step above that.

3.) In no way am I suggesting that socialism, communism or whatever else you may have been alluding to as a viable option. Nor did I actually voice my own opinion on capitalism or the so-called "free market". I'm merely questioning your glorifying stance on it.

[kirby9612]

Attention. We only have one full day until Caucus night in Iowa. On the CNN political prediciton market, Hillary currently has a 55% chance of winning the Hawkeye State.

[kirby9612]

Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders are similiar - in a lot of ways. First, they are running populist anti-estabishment campaigns without the funding of big donors/ super PACs. However, the populist slant of the Trump campaign is much more pronounced than that of the Sanders campaign. Second, most of their supporters are made up of a single demographic - white males. Bernie Sanders' supporters are mostly male white millennials in college while Donald Trump's supporters are older white males without college degrees. Trump has somehow alienated women and minorities and Clinton pretty much owns the women and minority vote by a huge margin. Both of them - in a way, are demagogues. Contrary to popular belief - demagogue does not mean "someone who insults and denounces groups" but "someone who appeals to the prejudices and desires of the people". Trump targets Mexicans and Muslims while Bernie targets the upper class. Their supporters also have disdain for such said groups. They tap into anger of their respective bases, and represent them fairly well, unlike Hillary and the other GOP candidates sans Cruz, who are accused as not being "liberal or conservative enough" or "RINO'S or DINO's" by the base. The average Donald Trump supporter believes that immigrants will destroy America if left unchecked. The average Bernie supporter believes America will be left robbed and pillaged if the upper class and big banks are not taxed and regulated properly. They are also, for the most part, single issue candidates. Trump focuses heavily on immigration while Sanders focuses heavily on income inequality in his speeches. Both are opposed to free trade - they want to end NAFTA completely and bring jobs back to the US; they are both anti-globalization. On a lighter note, both are technically from New York despite Bernie Sanders representing Vermont, and pronounce "huge" as "yuge"

Edited January 31, 2016 by kirby9612

[tuvarkz]

You seem to be mixing up legal and illegal immigration, however. Donald Trump hasn't mentioned anything about deporting legal immigrants, only illegal ones. And honestly, this is a thing every country should have the right to do.

[CyborgZeta]

I'm of the opinion that even our legal immigration needs to be curbed. We take in way too many people each year, predominately from poor countries (just look at our waiting list). It puts stress on local education systems to teach English, social services, and increases job competition.

I think we should restrict immigration to highly skilled, educated workers with necessary skills. That would allow us to focus more on making sure our own citizens are employed, and taken of.

Edited January 31, 2016 by CyborgZeta

[solrocknroll]

I'm of the opinion that even our legal immigration needs to be curbed. We take in way too many people each year, predominately from poor countries (just look at our waiting list). It puts stress on local education systems to teach English, social services, and increases job competition.

I think we should restrict immigration to highly skilled, educated workers with necessary skills. That would allow us to focus more on making sure our own citizens are employed, and taken of.

This is an absolutely awful idea, and if you've ever played Xenoblade X, you'd know how something similar to your immigration idea would cause nothing but trouble.

It's pretty much discrimination to not allow people just because they aren't "highly skilled." Who decides what that means? The rich and powerful? Yeah, no thanks.

If people in the US are too lazy to compete with people who are immigrating and end up being surpassed by them, it's their own fault. They need to try just a teensy bit harder than to blame the foreign boogeyman.

[CyborgZeta]

It's pretty much discrimination to not allow people just because they aren't "highly skilled." Who decides what that means? The rich and powerful? Yeah, no thanks.

I'm not sure where you're going with this, since the rich and powerful would want cheap labor. They'd absolutely love more immigrants.

Also, if you're dismissing job competition with "try harder", then could you go into your thoughts on the stress immigration puts on education and social services? Here's an example from Northern Virginia.

[eclipse]

This is an absolutely awful idea, and if you've ever played Xenoblade X, you'd know how something similar to your immigration idea would cause nothing but trouble.

Please don't bring video game stories into a topic like this. They're great for what-ifs, but in the end, they're just that - what-ifs.

[kirby9612]

I was expecting some very, very harsh criticism of my reply, but anyways, we are less than 20 hours away from the caucuses. It's time to start making up our minds.

[Ansem]

not all of us live in iowa

[Ansem]

It's really not even a race at this point, even if bernie or ted cruz wins in iowa, hillary and trump still have most of the other states anyways.

citation needed

assumptions like these are just as dangerous as they are wrong

[Radiant head]

bernie should have new hampshire. not sure about iowa, but if he can secure both of those, it would really help his momentum going into the others.