US Politics V - now with 20% more echo chamber - Page 16 - 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 12-15-2017, 12:59 AM   #301
Refugee
 
kiwilad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Malmsbury Villa
Posts: 1,474
Local Time: 04:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BEAL View Post
Hope it does fail.

There does seem to more chatter against the Trump/Bannon side of things.

Losing a seat in AL has to hurt
It has to, right?
This is an unprecedented presidency so it's impossible to draw parallels, but it seems like history will look back on a moment when the weight of bullshit becomes too much and everything crumbles. The snowflake that breaks the branch.
Is Moore the snowflake?
Will it be some development with the Russia stuff.
It could yet be the GOP itself (or a senior figure from the party) who breaks away from Trump in an act of defiance and leadership in an attempt to set themselves apart from the Trump legacy. I can kinda see Ryan doing this.
__________________

kiwilad is offline  
Old 12-15-2017, 06:58 AM   #302
Blue Crack Distributor
 
Headache in a Suitcase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: DC
Posts: 68,170
Local Time: 10:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
Predictions now that the tax plan may fail due to Rubio, Collins, and others having problems.

I wonder if the Moore defeat is the turning point, and the GOP starts to turn on Trump.

Let the blood fly!
Well it's Moore, Strange and Gillespie; and in quick succession.

The only reason to fear Trump was the fear of losing your seat if you didn't kiss the ring.

That fear is now gone.
__________________

Headache in a Suitcase is online now  
Old 12-15-2017, 07:00 AM   #303
Blue Crack Distributor
 
Headache in a Suitcase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: DC
Posts: 68,170
Local Time: 10:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BEAL View Post
So lots of stories out about Paul Ryan getting out of politics. Fatigue listed as main reason.

Could it be he’s got some part of the Russia meddling and he’s getting out now before it looks worse for him?

I’m thinking Trump AND Pence will be removed so that means whoever is Speaker takes over.

And if Ryan doesn’t run for re election, and Dems some how pull off 2018 (unlikely) what a crazy turn of events.

But realistically I’d think GOP would want someone very clean and establishment to take Ryan’s spot
You mean like the rumors that Ryan's comments about Trump being on Putin's payroll clearly weren't said in a joking matter, and that Evan McMullen recorded it?
Headache in a Suitcase is online now  
Old 12-15-2017, 07:03 AM   #304
Blue Crack Distributor
 
Headache in a Suitcase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: DC
Posts: 68,170
Local Time: 10:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7 View Post
I think he's tired of having to dance a line as his party's decency dwindles and turns into the party of Trump. I wouldn't get so conspiratorial about it.
I take everything with a grain of salt... but if you made a tin foil checklist last year, more items would have check marks next to them today than X's.
Headache in a Suitcase is online now  
Old 12-15-2017, 07:56 AM   #305
Blue Crack Distributor
 
Headache in a Suitcase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: DC
Posts: 68,170
Local Time: 10:20 PM
The bots are extra active this morning. Could we have incoming?
Headache in a Suitcase is online now  
Old 12-15-2017, 08:44 AM   #306
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,465
Local Time: 11:20 PM
Click image for larger version

Name:	Image1513345442.165455.jpg
Views:	23
Size:	36.6 KB
ID:	11682
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 12-15-2017, 08:47 AM   #307
Blue Crack Distributor
 
Headache in a Suitcase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: DC
Posts: 68,170
Local Time: 10:20 PM
Fake News!
Headache in a Suitcase is online now  
Old 12-15-2017, 09:35 AM   #308
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: The Rum Tum Tugger is a Curious Cat...
Posts: 6,663
Local Time: 04:20 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilsFan View Post
What exactly is contradictory? I'd be happy to have a more specific discussion.
There have been a number of polls on this subject the past several years, given that approval for "socialism" in the US is at its highest levels since the 1930's. This is driven primarily by renewed interest among millienials, but I like I said I'm not convinced they understand what socialism really is. At best, it's an affinity for what Bernie Sanders calls "democratic socialism" but it really seems to be about stuff like getting free college. Again, this is reflected in millennial's lack of understanding of what socialism is, or even basis economics, which as I said have shown to often be contractictory.

Quote:
On spending:
- 65 percent of Millennials would like to cut spending.
- 62 percent would like to spend more on infrastructure and jobs.
On taxes:
- 58 percent of Millennials want to cut taxes overall.
- 66 percent want to raise taxes on the wealthy.
On government's role in our lives:
- 66 percent of Millennials say that "when something is funded by the government, it is usually inefficient and wasteful."
- More than two-thirds think the government should guarantee food, shelter, and a living wage.
On government size:
- 57 percent want smaller government with fewer services (if you mention the magic word "taxes").
- 54 percent want larger government with more services (if you don't mention "taxes").
Quote:
42% of Millenials say socialism is preferable to capitalism...
....but 64% say a free market economy is preferable to a government managed economy.

55% say they'd like to start their own business one day…
…but a plurality (48%) say that businesses mostly get rich at someone else's expense.

61% cite "hard work" as a major reason for determining wealth and success in life…
…but only 31% cite "lack of work ethic" as a major reason for why people are poor.

73% agree that "people should be allowed to keep what they produce, even if there are others with greater needs"…
…but 58% agree that government should "spend more on financial assistance to the poor, even if it leads to higher taxes."

69% think the government should guarantee health insurance…
…but 55% are "unwilling to pay more for health insurance in order to help provide coverage to the uninsured."
Also, polling has shown that Millennials, like most people, also tend to get more conservative economically (and their support for socialism drops) as their income rises.

Sources:

Study: Millennials Deeply Confused About Their Politics, Finances, and Culture
Millennials' Political Views Don't Make Any Sense
Nick66 is offline  
Old 12-15-2017, 09:53 AM   #309
Blue Crack Distributor
 
Headache in a Suitcase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: DC
Posts: 68,170
Local Time: 10:20 PM
Must be all the avocados
Headache in a Suitcase is online now  
Old 12-15-2017, 10:24 AM   #310
ONE
love, blood, life
 
iron yuppie's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Chicago
Posts: 10,575
Local Time: 09:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick66 View Post
There have been a number of polls on this subject the past several years, given that approval for "socialism" in the US is at its highest levels since the 1930's. This is driven primarily by renewed interest among millienials, but I like I said I'm not convinced they understand what socialism really is. At best, it's an affinity for what Bernie Sanders calls "democratic socialism" but it really seems to be about stuff like getting free college.
It seems like whenever the term "socialism" is mentioned, someone makes this objection about it not being properly understood or something. I don't think it is at all helpful to default toward an academic view of socialism as a pure socio-economic theory. As theory it will never be directly implemented, just as pure capitalism will never be implemented - but no one ever seems to object to the latter term when it is used casually.

I think we all understand what a loose socialism would look like, which at the very least would involve direct government involvement in large-scale, high-stakes market failures like mortgages and higher education. And I don't think it's "free" college that people are clamoring for, but rather affordable college, which is a perfectly reasonable expectation given that real higher ed costs are outpacing real wages by some ungodly amount.
iron yuppie is online now  
Old 12-15-2017, 10:39 AM   #311
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: The Rum Tum Tugger is a Curious Cat...
Posts: 6,663
Local Time: 04:20 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by iron yuppie View Post
I think we all understand what a loose socialism would look like, which at the very least would involve direct government involvement in large-scale, high-stakes market failures like mortgages and higher education.
Well this already happens in the US....in fact it happened in pretty dramatic fashion of the last big economic crisis.

And in any event, a Government taking this kind of action isn't socialism, "loose" or otherwise. The Government engaging in regulation of a capitalistic economy isn't socialism. Even the vaunted economies in Scandinavia, often cited as examples of socialism, really aren't socialist. Those economies are fuelled by capitalism, albeit under increased Government regulation.

And while I agree that we shouldn't get too caught up on the "academic" definitions of things, words still have meaning. If it's more regulation of capitalism you're after, then say that, but that doesn't make you (and I'm using "you" rhetorically) a socialist, or mean you want socialism. And if you are going to call for "socialism", you should probably at least have some sort of consistency and coherence to your economic views.
Nick66 is offline  
Old 12-15-2017, 12:00 PM   #312
ONE
love, blood, life
 
iron yuppie's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Chicago
Posts: 10,575
Local Time: 09:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick66 View Post
And while I agree that we shouldn't get too caught up on the "academic" definitions of things, words still have meaning. If it's more regulation of capitalism you're after, then say that, but that doesn't make you (and I'm using "you" rhetorically) a socialist, or mean you want socialism. And if you are going to call for "socialism", you should probably at least have some sort of consistency and coherence to your economic views.
For me that regulated capitalism is as close to theoretical socialism as any state is going to get, in the simple sense that redistribution is taking place through non-market forces on a significant scale. I get that it doesn't amount to true public ownership, but I'm not aware of any state on the planet that really has a large-scale public ownership economy.

Seems to me one of the fundamental maxims of economics is that people will find a way to compete no matter how much institutions try to prevent it (see the large-scale presence of black markets in the Soviet Union), so sensible regulation and redistribution measures are what we should aim for.
iron yuppie is online now  
Old 12-15-2017, 12:03 PM   #313
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
BEAL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: San Diego
Posts: 6,514
Local Time: 03:20 AM
Lots of talk from the tin foil crowd about The Kush being the next domino to fall.

My only hesitation is that this seems to happen every Friday, and then there's nothing. But if you literally say the same thing every week, it'll eventually happen. They're not going out on a limb, as we all know further indictments are coming...

I can't help to take peaks throughout the day though, just cause it is a bit fascinating to follow
BEAL is offline  
Old 12-15-2017, 12:03 PM   #314
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 18,918
Local Time: 11:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by iron yuppie View Post
Seems to me one of the fundamental maxims of economics is that people will find a way to compete no matter how much institutions try to prevent it (see the large-scale presence of black markets in the Soviet Union), so sensible regulation and redistribution measures are what we should aim for.


Combined with inherent competition driven by a difference in competence, ability and ambition levels between people all those former Eastern bloc countries were defined by significant corruption. In other words, people will find a way not to be equal to their neighbour any way they can.
anitram is offline  
Old 12-15-2017, 03:44 PM   #315
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,465
Local Time: 11:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by iron yuppie View Post
For me that regulated capitalism is as close to theoretical socialism as any state is going to get, in the simple sense that redistribution is taking place through non-market forces on a significant scale. I get that it doesn't amount to true public ownership, but I'm not aware of any state on the planet that really has a large-scale public ownership economy.

Seems to me one of the fundamental maxims of economics is that people will find a way to compete no matter how much institutions try to prevent it (see the large-scale presence of black markets in the Soviet Union), so sensible regulation and redistribution measures are what we should aim for.


This is one of the most cogent posts I’ve read in here in a long time. Thank you for writing it.
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 12-15-2017, 04:20 PM   #316
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: The Rum Tum Tugger is a Curious Cat...
Posts: 6,663
Local Time: 04:20 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by iron yuppie View Post
For me that regulated capitalism is as close to theoretical socialism as any state is going to get, in the simple sense that redistribution is taking place through non-market forces on a significant scale. I get that it doesn't amount to true public ownership, but I'm not aware of any state on the planet that really has a large-scale public ownership economy.

Seems to me one of the fundamental maxims of economics is that people will find a way to compete no matter how much institutions try to prevent it (see the large-scale presence of black markets in the Soviet Union), so sensible regulation and redistribution measures are what we should aim for.
I think all of that is true enough, and certainly as you point out that even in the most totalitarian of regimes where the state does literally own the means of production, there are still black marked economies. Even North Korea has one.

It's worth noting, however, that in order for a highly regulated economy to work effectively it must be well regulated, and part of this means that the government doing the regulating should be mostly free from corruption. This is part of the reason the "Scandinavian model" seems to work so well...those countries, at least in terms of perception, are among the least corrupt. Conversely, the government managed economy in the Soviet Union (and almost every genuinely Socialist country) was highly corrupt, to disastrous results.

Then there's the reality that in a country where large corporations and private interests wield great influence with legislators, via lobbyists, financial support, etc., economic regulations themselves can be compromised and tailored to favour certain businesses and industries. This creates a defacto partnership between companies subject to regulation and those doing the regulating. If that relationship is compromised, or corrupt, then the system itself is compromised.

So how does a highly regulated economy work in the United States (and let's remember, the US in many ways does have a very regulated economy already), where large special interests yield outsized power with regulators? Would you be OK with state run economy if Republicans were the ones running it?

You only have to look no further than the recent vote on Net Neutrality to get at least part of your answer.
Nick66 is offline  
Old 12-15-2017, 05:26 PM   #317
ONE
love, blood, life
 
iron yuppie's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Chicago
Posts: 10,575
Local Time: 09:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick66 View Post
Then there's the reality that in a country where large corporations and private interests wield great influence with legislators, via lobbyists, financial support, etc., economic regulations themselves can be compromised and tailored to favour certain businesses and industries. This creates a defacto partnership between companies subject to regulation and those doing the regulating. If that relationship is compromised, or corrupt, then the system itself is compromised.

So how does a highly regulated economy work in the United States (and let's remember, the US in many ways does have a very regulated economy already), where large special interests yield outsized power with regulators? Would you be OK with state run economy if Republicans were the ones running it?

You only have to look no further than the recent vote on Net Neutrality to get at least part of your answer.
I think a big factor in mitigating pernicious corporate-gov alliances is significant campaign finance reform, especially getting rid of that citizens united decision, however unlikely that might be. I see your point there, as an example (if I recall correctly) mortgage ratings agencies were under direct employment of mortgage firms before the housing crash, which is obviously a horrible conflict of interest.

I'm not in favor of a "state-run" economy, if that's what you were suggesting. I don't think government should be regulating the strand count in my sweater or anything like that. I am in favor of state regulations on high-stakes markets where the consumer can easily be taken advantage of through information asymmetries, like (again) healthcare and housing, or where corporations have senselessly run amok to everyone's disadvantage (again, housing).
iron yuppie is online now  
Old 12-15-2017, 05:46 PM   #318
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
BEAL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: San Diego
Posts: 6,514
Local Time: 03:20 AM
So how likely is it that Trump starts firing everyone at the FBI in order to get to Mueller?

Adam Schiff had a big Twitter rant about how the GOP will most likely end the senate investigation this month , despite the fact that They haven’t interviewed everyone yet. They don’t even have anyone lined up for rest of the year.

And the replies i see is that if this happens, apparently the only thing we can do is “march”
BEAL is offline  
Old 12-15-2017, 07:17 PM   #319
Blue Crack Distributor
 
Headache in a Suitcase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: DC
Posts: 68,170
Local Time: 10:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BEAL View Post
So how likely is it that Trump starts firing everyone at the FBI in order to get to Mueller?

Adam Schiff had a big Twitter rant about how the GOP will most likely end the senate investigation this month , despite the fact that They haven’t interviewed everyone yet. They don’t even have anyone lined up for rest of the year.

And the replies i see is that if this happens, apparently the only thing we can do is “march”
They're absolutely laying the groundwork to fire Mueller.

The only question is whether or not he's damaged himself enough politically with Gillespie, Strange and Moore that the Republicans will actually stop him from doing it.

Regardless - he has a year tops. Once the Democrats retake Congress in 2018, which at this rather they will easily, it's all over.
Headache in a Suitcase is online now  
Old 12-15-2017, 07:34 PM   #320
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,232
Local Time: 10:20 PM
US Politics V - now with 20% more echo chamber

This seems to be one of the only conservative groups that get it:

http://www.cc.org/fast_facts_conserv...net_neutrality

For a group that whines about liberal media so much, you’d think they would fear this, but they don’t bother to understand the regulations. They just hear “regulations” and get a hard-on for the repealing of them.

I saw our friend cheer on Trump’s cutting of regulations to big banks. So what if my grandchildren get screwed on their loans, so what if my media outlets will be the ones most effected, so what if this opens a floodgate a swampy lobbyists; Trump got rid of regulations.

None of them seem to understand they shot themselves in the foot. SOME conservatives get it, and are upset, will it be enough to turn on Trump?
__________________

BVS 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 10:20 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
×