OT: Politics

[ironyusa]

we live in a post-facts world.

Nope. Since it's clear facts don't matter to you, bye.

[cockerpunk]

Nope. Since it's clear facts don't matter to you, bye.

>says poly couples cannot rear children
>poly couples regularly rear children

i don't think im the one with the facts problem.

[pbjosh]

It does not logically follow that just because there is a net transfer of wealth through governmental mechanisms, that "the rich aren't in control". We'd have to know a lot more than that to even begin to answer this question.

I disagree - It does show that the power for redistribution is, whither called for in keeping the masses happy or otherwise, overrides the rich's desire to not pay taxes. Because on average they are paying 100% of them.

What logic is it then that by trying to skip out on taxes the rich do that by paying 100% of the burden? Logic would state they would pay a burden far lower. If they had control. If say, Gordon, Steve, Irony, Myself and a random stranger were all having dinner, and by vote you were forced to pay the bill, say all $100 of it, that maybe you were not the one in control? If I paid a bit of the bill, pop in $20, and a couple dollars from the rest, but we had to give Gordon, Steve and the stranger each a fiver and a couple bucks back.

Logically, you are not in control.

That is how 'fair and equitable' our system is now.

A better question is, is the current end distribution (outcomes) of wealth equitable and desirable?

In the developed nations no nation really has close to our level of progressive taxation. https://www.economist.com/united-sta...pending-is-not

AND we are really bad, compared to most nations, at actually doling it out to the poor. And we have high income inequality by some standards.

On top of that, the nation that does have the top progressive tax, South Africa, also have the highest rates of income inequality.

They are the most progressive, and yet have the worst results.

An even better question then would be: Is the process we are using to produce our current end distribution (outcomes) of wealth equitable and desirable?

I would say no.

Look, when conservatives I talk to, and this is almost daily, talk about fixing welfare they bring up your same point. The US Government is really fucking bad at efficiently spending the money they tax from us. They wouldn't mind welfare as much if the government didn't waste a lot of it. Your point in the previous link. So I think we can say we are on the same page there. Let me know if I am wrong.

I understand wanting to help out. I get it. But why not try a system that helps out for more people for less money? Because this system is crap. Our government is being a poor steward of our money. One of the worst in the world for return.

But I am stuck with this question: Why in the hell is the answer always taxing the rich? "Oh, the rich are not paying their part" "If we just taxed them more..." "If our system was the more progressive."

Not saying you are using this exact statement, but if you want to see 'eat the rich signs' for me to post, they are all over the place.

Wouldn't making the government be far more efficient at doing it's job go far further to both helping more people and to reducing the need to taxing more at the same time?

[pbjosh]

You need to read my posts again.

Hey man, he just can't read or at least comprehend what he is reading. Ignore him. Ryan is back, we can chat. Here, have some tea.

[cockerpunk]

I disagree - It does show that the power for redistribution is, whither called for in keeping the masses happy or otherwise, overrides the rich's desire to not pay taxes. Because on average they are paying 100% of them.

What logic is it then that by trying to skip out on taxes the rich do that by paying 100% of the burden? Logic would state they would pay a burden far lower. If they had control. If say, Gordon, Steve, Irony, Myself and a random stranger were all having dinner, and by vote you were forced to pay the bill, say all $100 of it, that maybe you were not the one in control? If I paid a bit of the bill, pop in $20, and a couple dollars from the rest, but we had to give Gordon, Steve and the stranger each a fiver and a couple bucks back.

That is how 'fair and equitable' our system is now.



In the developed nations no nation really has close to our level of progressive taxation. https://www.economist.com/united-sta...pending-is-not

AND we are really bad, compared to most nations, at actually doling it out to the poor. And we have high income inequality by some standards.

On top of that, the nation that does have the top progressive tax, South Africa, also have the highest rates of income inequality.

They are the most progressive, and yet have the worst results.

An even better question then would be: Is the process we are using to produce our current end distribution (outcomes) of wealth equitable and desirable?

I would say no.

Look, when conservatives I talk to, and this is almost daily, talk about fixing welfare they bring up your same point. The US Government is really fucking bad at efficiently spending the money they tax from us. They wouldn't mind welfare as much if the government didn't waste a lot of it. Your point in the previous link. So I think we can say we are on the same page there. Let me know if I am wrong.

I understand wanting to help out. I get it. But why not try a system that helps out for more people for less money? Because this system is crap. Our government is being a poor steward of our money. One of the worst in the world for return.

But I am stuck with this question: Why in the hell is the answer always taxing the rich? "Oh, the rich are not paying their part" "If we just taxed them more..." "If our system was the more progressive."

Not saying you are using this exact statement, but if you want to eat the rich signs for me to post, they are all over the place.

Wouldn't making the government be far more efficient at doing it's job go far further to both helping more people and to reducing the need to taxing more at the same time?

welfare "waste" is actually quite minimal.

for example, SNAP has a fraud rate of around 0.9% - https://www.forbes.com/sites/simonco.../#53ffbf3df880

thats actually pretty incredible its that good. id love it if my corporation only lost 0.9% to stupidity that would be fantastic!



interestingly ... why is the perception that welfare fraud is so high? ........ it starts with an R .....

that being said i am all for reducing welfare scamming. its just a non-issue compared to what we are doing with our budget.

[pbjosh]

welfare "waste" is actually quite minimal.

for example, SNAP has a fraud rate of around 0.9% - https://www.forbes.com/sites/simonco.../#53ffbf3df880

thats actually pretty incredible its that good. id love it if my corporation only lost 0.9% to stupidity that would be fantastic!



interestingly ... why is the perception that welfare fraud is so high? ........ it starts with an R .....

that being said i am all for reducing welfare scamming. its just a non-issue compared to what we are doing with our budget.

[Hears something]



[Ignores it]

[cockerpunk]

[Hears something]



[Ignores it]

and im the one with the facts problem?

ho boy.

[PBSteve]

To start, I'm just not going to have time to respond to this again until next weekend. Sorry, been busy.

Haha, excellent. Just more rehashed rhetoric with no substantiation. Anyway, I'm bored with seeing your same nonsense on replay. Neither of you care about policies, solutions or other people for that matter.

The Klan WAS enormous.

Rallies of 200,000 people were not uncommon in the 1920s. Now? 300 to 400. Because there are 3000 klan memebers, and maybe 1600 alt right.

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-sta...the-us-in-2017

3000 people in 330,000,000

1 in 110,000

.000909%

Let's not be disingenuous. The Klan's no longer in vogue, but the same sentiments are still strong among the electorate.

Among the questions, respondents were asked if they agreed or disagreed with statements asking whether white people and/or racial minorities in the United States are ?under attack.? Notably, 14% of all respondents both 1) agreed that white people are under attack and 2) disagreed with the statement that nonwhites are under attack.

Nearly one-third of respondents (31%) strongly or somewhat agreed that the country needs to ?protect and preserve its White European heritage.? Another third (34%) strongly or somewhat disagreed with the statement, and 29% neither agreed nor disagreed.

Fifty years after the United States Supreme Court struck down bans on mixed-race marriage in Loving v. Virginia, about one-sixth of respondents (16%) agreed with the statement that ?marriage should only be allowed between two people of the same race? and an additional 14% neither agreed nor disagreed with the statement, while 4% said they didn?t know. In total, about a third failed to express tolerance of interracial marriage. Among whites, 17% agreed that marriage should be restricted to the same race, with 15% neither agreeing nor disagreeing. This was slightly higher than nonwhites (15% agreed, 12% neither agreed nor disagreed).

http://www.centerforpolitics.org/cry...-supremacists/

I think the most telling part is that the black electorate in the US is actually fairly conservative, but they don't vote for Republicans.

Kanye West?s recent tweets in support of President Donald Trump and Chance The Rapper?s corresponding tweet that ?Black people don?t have to be Democrats? have revived the ongoing conversation in national politics about African American political views. Late last year, a Pew Research Center poll revealed interesting insights: a majority of African Americans consider themselves politically moderate (44 percent) or conservative (27 percent), with just over a quarter calling themselves politically liberal (26 percent). Those numbers can be puzzling, considering that almost 90 percent of blacks vote primarily Democrat.

https://thehill.com/opinion/civil-ri...f-black-voters

You're an immature little kid trying to call out inequality from behind your desk when the reality is you don't care about blacks. You don't care about brown people either. Stop framing them as victims of systemic oppression, which you can't prove, and lets talk about policy. You're a horrible human being for using minorities to push your agenda. You're walking the line of racism.

Alright, let's talk about policy.

Since fiscal responsibility is the GoP party line, when will we hear about eliminating the MID or ESI exclusion?

https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/brie...x-expenditures

Of the top 5 tax expenditures we have the primary beneficiaries being 1.) salaried employees, 2.) landlords 3.)multinational corporations 4.) high capital investment and 5.) salaried employees again. Those five alone account for 640 billion dollars in tax expenditures, not to mention the market distortions they create.

The current GoP plans to address the $1 TN deficit they created revolves around gutting Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Why not address the tax expenditures listed above? I have a guess at your response, but I'll let you answer.

[ironyusa]

Steve,
First thing I'd ask is, what point are you arguing? Are you siding with Gordon that ALL republican policies are racist or are you smart enough to see it as a single-data point in a more complex context? Assuming the later, can we start with your estimates on the % breakdown of these factors?

I have never said racism doesn't exist, in fact, I said it's was statistically inevitable. I also think the approaches to dealing with racism is different from dealing with sub-conscience (implicit) racial biases, namely that one can be educated and the other rejects facts in favor of their own ideologies founded in hatred. I also reject the notion that racism is a 1-way street... I can still be a minority and be a racist. Racial oppression is, however, defined by a power structure and ultimately I'd suggest it's an easier point to argue with policy.

Fifty years after the United States Supreme Court struck down bans on mixed-race marriage in Loving v. Virginia, about one-sixth of respondents (16%) agreed with the statement that *marriage should only be allowed between two people of the same race* and an additional 14% neither agreed nor disagreed with the statement, while 4% said they didn*t know. In total, about a third failed to express tolerance of interracial marriage. Among whites, 17% agreed that marriage should be restricted to the same race, with 15% neither agreeing nor disagreeing. This was slightly higher than nonwhites (15% agreed, 12% neither agreed nor disagreed).

Just a couple quick points. There is no inference to be made from a non-answer and the bias of the article is immediately obvious when it does just that. It lumps "no opinion" in with racism. The second point is that the article groups all "nonwhites" into a single category when the article Josh posted suggests that the greatest disparity in race perception is how black view whites. Not to mention, the 2% difference may or may not be statistically significant.

The second article is a tough one to stomach. I mean, blacks, like most other American moderates believe that both parties are letting them down. Unfortunately,

BY JUSTIN E. GIBONEY, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR * 05/30/18 09:00 AM EDT - THE VIEWS EXPRESSED BY CONTRIBUTORS ARE THEIR OWN AND NOT THE VIEW OF THE HILL

an opinion piece by Mr. Giboney doesn't really do much in the way of "fact." I happen to agree that there's a problem, but would probably suggest that there is a stronger social aspect to it than suggested there.

Alright, let's talk about policy.

Since fiscal responsibility is the GoP party line, when will we hear about eliminating the MID or ESI exclusion?

https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/brie...x-expenditures

Of the top 5 tax expenditures we have the primary beneficiaries being 1.) salaried employees, 2.) landlords 3.)multinational corporations 4.) high capital investment and 5.) salaried employees again. Those five alone account for 640 billion dollars in tax expenditures, not to mention the market distortions they create.

The current GoP plans to address the $1 TN deficit they created revolves around gutting Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Why not address the tax expenditures listed above? I have a guess at your response, but I'll let you answer.

As requested above, I'd like to understand what it is you're arguing before I answer. Personally, I reject the GoP's party line of "fiscal responsibility" so unless you're saying it's 100% racism then I don't see where we disagree.

[PBSteve]

The way I would put it is the litmus test most GoP policies must pass before the party will support them is that they have to be tolerable to racists, or they risk alienating a large portion of their base.

I'm not sure what to tell you if you're not going to listen to a conservative black political strategist citing poll numbers. Do you have an explanation for the vote disconnect?