US Politics - Page 36 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 06-08-2017, 12:10 PM   #701
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Danny Boy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Harvard Supermodel Activist of the Decade Runner-Up
Posts: 9,562
Local Time: 01:54 PM
Hey, let's bomb Syria again the same day Comey testifies.
__________________

Danny Boy is offline  
Old 06-08-2017, 12:14 PM   #702
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
BEAL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: San Diego
Posts: 6,516
Local Time: 09:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by iron yuppie View Post
It's not just the rich, though. If a lot of these social goals that people on the "left" profess to care about are going to be met, it will mean higher taxes on middle and upper middle-class people as well. IMO that is the real thing that scared people away from Bernie, whether they want to admit it or not: people say they want a left-leaning state so long as someone else pays for it, usually everyone just above their pay grade. It can't just be the rich, because in practice they have every incentive and resource in the world to disguise, launder, or shield their income. It will need to be a group financial effort. This is how European states do it, and there is really no way around it economically.

And I really don't believe as BVS keeps saying that lack of "specifics" was Sanders' problem. Him coming out with a detailed deadweight loss analysis or something like that was not going to win him a significant amount of voters.
Agree with this. I am by no means a 1%, but I am upper middle class, and single. Under Bernie's tax proposal, I was looking at a huge loss of income. If I still lived in Iowa, I would have been just fine as cost of living is dirt cheap, and I could easily cut back on certain expenses.

I live in San Diego. To lose the amount of income under Bernie plan, I probably would have needed to get at least one roommate to survive, even with cutting expenses. So naturally I would fee like why am I being punished? The uber rich would lose a lot too, but they're still rich.

All this being said, I would have voted for him over Trump. Even with the potential of financial loss.
__________________

BEAL is offline  
Old 06-08-2017, 12:16 PM   #703
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
BEAL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: San Diego
Posts: 6,516
Local Time: 09:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
Robert Reich has a pretty good assessment of what's happening today, as no one in town is getting any work done:


I like Robert, but he is a bit of a fear monger with Trump. It's not that his points aren't valid, but it's that he makes them 500x a day which starts to come across as chicken little.

Trump is not getting impeached. He could walk into this hearing and shoot Comey, and the GOP would still support him.

Our best hope is Trump's world class stamina gives out, and he just cannot do the job anymore.
BEAL is offline  
Old 06-08-2017, 12:21 PM   #704
Blue Crack Distributor
 
bono_212's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 83,672
Local Time: 01:54 PM
I didn't vote for Bernie, but I did vote for several CA props that increased my taxes. I do actually want more social evening of burdens. I don't want someone who isn't going to tell me how it's going to happen or who is going to move to far, too fast.

I'm just one person, though. I'm not going to make sweeping generalizations about everyone based on how I feel. I can only speak for me.
__________________
bono_212 is offline  
Old 06-08-2017, 12:25 PM   #705
Blue Crack Addict
 
PhilsFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: South Philadelphia
Posts: 19,218
Local Time: 05:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by iron yuppie View Post
It's not just the rich, though. If a lot of these social goals that people on the "left" profess to care about are going to be met, it will mean higher taxes on middle and upper middle-class people as well. IMO that is the real thing that scared people away from Bernie, whether they want to admit it or not: people say they want a left-leaning state so long as someone else pays for it, usually everyone just above their pay grade. It can't just be the rich, because in practice they have every incentive and resource in the world to disguise, launder, or shield their income. It will need to be a group financial effort. This is how European states do it, and there is really no way around it economically.

And I really don't believe as BVS keeps saying that lack of "specifics" was Sanders' problem. Him coming out with a detailed deadweight loss analysis or something like that was not going to win him a significant amount of voters.
I think it's partially true but also underexplained. For example, yes, taxes would go up under single-payer for everyone in order to finance it, but think of what you were already paying for health insurance.
PhilsFan is offline  
Old 06-08-2017, 12:25 PM   #706
War Child
 
TheFox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 763
Local Time: 09:54 PM
So whilst this shit show goes on in Washington, Syria is escalating rapidly today and NK are firing off missiles every week. What an absolute mess. Third WW stuff.
TheFox is offline  
Old 06-08-2017, 12:33 PM   #707
ONE
love, blood, life
 
iron yuppie's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Chicago
Posts: 10,576
Local Time: 03:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
why do you think this is?


Loss aversion, basically. I think it's pretty well established in psychology and behavioral econ that people will see a loss of income as disproportionately large in comparison to a similar gain. In the context of an individual loss vs a societal gain, loss aversion is even further magnified.
iron yuppie is online now  
Old 06-08-2017, 12:36 PM   #708
Blue Crack Distributor
 
bono_212's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 83,672
Local Time: 01:54 PM
Maybe this is the first time I've heard John McCain talk in a while, has he been this incoherent a lot recently?
__________________
bono_212 is offline  
Old 06-08-2017, 12:41 PM   #709
Self-righteous bullshitter
 
BoMac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Soviet Canuckistan — Socialist paradise
Posts: 16,900
Local Time: 06:54 PM
Is John McCain having a stroke?

He kept quoting Comey's use of "it's a big deal", but what he said several minutes earlier was "if any Americans had helped the Russians do this to us that's a big deal."

Maybe McCain is unaware that the investigation into Clinton's email use and into Russian meddling into the 2016 election are two separate things and it's normal for one investigation to conclude before the other.
__________________

BoMac is offline  
Old 06-08-2017, 12:43 PM   #710
Blue Crack Distributor
 
bono_212's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 83,672
Local Time: 01:54 PM
That was the most troubling, cringy awkward thing I've ever watched on live television. And I saw the John Travolta hug thing when it happened. Oh, Maverick .
__________________
bono_212 is offline  
Old 06-08-2017, 12:44 PM   #711
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,471
Local Time: 05:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by iron yuppie View Post
Loss aversion, basically. I think it's pretty well established in psychology and behavioral econ that people will see a loss of income as disproportionately large in comparison to a similar gain. In the context of an individual loss vs a societal gain, loss aversion is even further magnified.


I guess my question is more why this approach has never been successful in the US whereas it has in several European democracies.
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 06-08-2017, 01:36 PM   #712
Blue Crack Addict
 
DaveC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: nazi punks fuck off
Posts: 21,973
Local Time: 04:54 PM
good lord the excessive (glorified) hyperbole in this forum drives me nuts sometimes.
DaveC is offline  
Old 06-08-2017, 01:54 PM   #713
Blue Crack Distributor
 
bono_212's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 83,672
Local Time: 01:54 PM
https://twitter.com/ChuckWendig/stat...55073054969857

__________________
bono_212 is offline  
Old 06-08-2017, 03:23 PM   #714
Blue Crack Distributor
 
corianderstem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Seattle
Posts: 64,498
Local Time: 02:54 PM
The word "president" was misspelled in the opening line of the response from Trump's lawyer.

If that doesn't sum up this entire shitshow, I don't know what does.
corianderstem is offline  
Old 06-08-2017, 03:41 PM   #715
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 18,918
Local Time: 05:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BEAL View Post
Agree with this. I am by no means a 1%, but I am upper middle class, and single. Under Bernie's tax proposal, I was looking at a huge loss of income. If I still lived in Iowa, I would have been just fine as cost of living is dirt cheap, and I could easily cut back on certain expenses.

I live in San Diego. To lose the amount of income under Bernie plan, I probably would have needed to get at least one roommate to survive, even with cutting expenses. So naturally I would fee like why am I being punished? The uber rich would lose a lot too, but they're still rich.
This is the problem with the simplistic "tax the top 1/5/10%" stuff we hear all the time. Several issues with it:

1. We have to divorce the notions of income and wealth. These seem to be almost interchangeable by some people who seem to think that the rich are those who make a lot of $, hence they are rich. The truth is that most people who make up the top 5% which is actually not that high a threshold of INCOME are people who are generally the working upper middle class in high earning professions. Most of them are NOT rich and many live in liberal/coastal "elite" areas where their incomes are actually not particularly extraordinary. These are the couples with kids making $275K per year in San Francisco or NYC. Sure that sounds rich when you live in the middle of nowhere, Kansas, but try renting a livable space in Manhattan or buying a house in Westchester County within commuting distance and do the math. The truly wealthy often have little or very low income in relation to their wealth because their wealth has been accumulated over the years/generations and is squirreled away by tax lawyers.

2. When you start ranting about increasing taxes on these people, many of whom are probably like-minded voters as you generally, you are saying to them that you think it is appropriate that family comprised of say a VP in HR and an orthodontist making $350K per year should have their taxes hiked to 50, 55, 60% while Warren Buffet who paid himself $100K in income in the same year should be at a lower marginal tax rate. If you think that Buffet is the only millionaire/billionaire with extraordinary wealth BUT LOW ACTIVE INCOME then I hate to ruin your day, but...so who do you think will bear the burden of increasing income tax? The working upper middle class, in addition to the middle class because that much $ needs to come from somewhere. Rationally, it makes little sense to go after this socioeconomic group.

3. If you want to start talking about aggressively taxing wealth, you quickly run into problems of globalization and the fact that with today's mobility, nobody needs to live in the US, least of all the ultra rich.

This is not to say that we can't have a better tax code and that the general concept of noblesse oblige should be abandoned, but let's at least start intelligently discussing realistic ways of getting this done rather than screaming about the rich.
anitram is offline  
Old 06-08-2017, 03:46 PM   #716
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 18,918
Local Time: 05:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BEAL View Post
All this being said, I would have voted for him over Trump. Even with the potential of financial loss.
Short of him dropping dead while chowing down on a bucket of KFC, the best reason has always been and will remain to be, the markets tanking.

The problem is that the markets probably aren't going to go down significantly until maybe 12-18 months from now, they typically begin to drop out about 6 months before a recession (even a mild one) and right now the markers for a recession are not suggestive of one occurring in the immediate future.
anitram is offline  
Old 06-08-2017, 04:09 PM   #717
Blue Crack Addict
 
DaveC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: nazi punks fuck off
Posts: 21,973
Local Time: 04:54 PM
i gotta say the historian in me became a bit tumescent when comey out of nowhere made reference to the thomas a becket/henry ii affair this morning.

"will no one rid me of this turbulent priest" was pretty low on the list of things i expected to hear today
DaveC is offline  
Old 06-08-2017, 04:10 PM   #718
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
BEAL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: San Diego
Posts: 6,516
Local Time: 09:54 PM
CNN listed Thomas Becket as one of the winners, just for the reference haha
BEAL is offline  
Old 06-08-2017, 04:33 PM   #719
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,232
Local Time: 04:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by corianderstem View Post
The word "president" was misspelled in the opening line of the response from Trump's lawyer.

If that doesn't sum up this entire shitshow, I don't know what does.


Unpresidented
BVS is online now  
Old 06-08-2017, 04:43 PM   #720
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,471
Local Time: 05:54 PM
i can understand some of the eyerolling at Hillary, but she was dead-on about this stuff.


Quote:
CLINTON: So I actually think the most important question of this evening, Chris, is, finally, will Donald Trump admit and condemn that the Russians are doing this and make it clear that he will not have the help of Putin in in this election, that he rejects Russian espionage against Americans, which he actually encouraged in the past? Those are the questions we need answered. We've never had anything like this happen in any of our elections before.
WALLACE: Well?
TRUMP: That was a great pivot off the fact that she wants open borders, OK? How did we get on to Putin?
WALLACE: Hold on -- hold on, wait. Hold on, folks. Because we -- this is going to end up getting out of control. Let's try to keep it quiet so -- for the candidates and for the American people.
TRUMP: So just to finish on the borders...
WALLACE: Yes?
TRUMP: She wants open borders. People are going to pour into our country. People are going to come in from Syria. She wants 550 percent more people than Barack Obama, and he has thousands and thousands of people. They have no idea where they come from.
And you see, we are going to stop radical Islamic terrorism in this country. She won't even mention the words, and neither will President Obama. So I just want to tell you, she wants open borders.
Now we can talk about Putin. I don't know Putin. He said nice things about me. If we got along well, that would be good. If Russia and the United States got along well and went after ISIS, that would be good.
He has no respect for her. He has no respect for our president. And I'll tell you what: We're in very serious trouble, because we have a country with tremendous numbers of nuclear warheads -- 1,800, by the way -- where they expanded and we didn't, 1,800 nuclear warheads. And she's playing chicken. Look, Putin...
WALLACE: Wait, but...
TRUMP: ... from everything I see, has no respect for this person.
CLINTON: Well, that's because he'd rather have a puppet as president of the United States.
TRUMP: No puppet. No puppet.
CLINTON: And it's pretty clear...
TRUMP: You're the puppet!
CLINTON: It's pretty clear you won't admit...
TRUMP: No, you're the puppet.
CLINTON: ... that the Russians have engaged in cyberattacks against the United States of America, that you encouraged espionage against our people, that you are willing to spout the Putin line, sign up for his wish list, break up NATO, do whatever he wants to do, and that you continue to get help from him, because he has a very clear favorite in this race.

So I think that this is such an unprecedented situation. We've never had a foreign government trying to interfere in our election. We have 17 -- 17 intelligence agencies, civilian and military, who have all concluded that these espionage attacks, these cyberattacks, come from the highest levels of the Kremlin and they are designed to influence our election. I find that deeply disturbing.
WALLACE: Secretary Clinton...
CLINTON: And I think it's time you take a stand...
TRUMP: She has no idea whether it's Russia, China, or anybody else.
CLINTON: I am not quoting myself.
TRUMP: She has no idea.
CLINTON: I am quoting 17...
TRUMP: Hillary, you have no idea.
CLINTON: ... 17 intelligence -- do you doubt 17 military and civilian...
TRUMP: And our country has no idea.
CLINTON: ... agencies.
TRUMP: Yeah, I doubt it. I doubt it.
CLINTON: Well, he'd rather believe Vladimir Putin than the military and civilian intelligence professionals who are sworn to protect us. I find that just absolutely...
(CROSSTALK)
TRUMP: She doesn't like Putin because Putin has outsmarted her at every step of the way.
__________________

Irvine511 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:54 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com
×