The New American Politics thread

[troutman]

Obama delivers his final State of the Union address tonight. Going up against the College Football final.

[CaptainCrunch]

Wonder if that's on purpose?

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by MattyC

Yeah but how to help it is one of the main areas where American's disagree. There is a decent subset of left-leaning people, obviously, or else a guy like Sanders wouldn't even have a sniff. But they are vastly out numbered by people who have grown up in the mindset of trickle-down and any move away from pure capitalism towards the left is borderline anti-American. No way people vote for someone who even suggests something like universal education.

Those people may be less numerous than I think, but they are certainly the loudest.

I think this is the media narrative speaking and doesn't reflect the opinions of actual voters.

Most Americans are in favour of things like universal healthcare, taxing the rich, tax cuts for the poor etc etc. Economics is one of the few areas that most Americans can find common ground.

The media narrative is that GOP voters aren't like that etc but I don't believe that is the case, and public opinion polling data backs me up on that.

More than half of all Americans want social security and medicaid expanded, including the majority of self-identifying republicans in 'red' states. That issue has popular support amongst the electorate.

68% of respondents believe wealthy individuals pay too little tax. 85% of business owners polled are in favour of closing all offshore tax loopholes for corporations.

More than half of all Americans polled are in favour eliminating campaign donations. More than 60% of polled Americans are in favour of raising the minimum wage to $15 by 2020. This extends to organized labour as well, "A new Gallup Poll finds just over half of Americans, 53%, favoring a new law that would make it easier for labor unions to organize workers; 39% oppose it."

Most of what Bernie Sanders is proposing as policy initiatives has broad bi-partisan support from the average American, which is what makes him so dangerous.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

I think this is the media narrative speaking and doesn't reflect the opinions of actual voters.

Most Americans are in favour of things like universal healthcare, taxing the rich, tax cuts for the poor etc etc. Economics is one of the few areas that most Americans can find common ground.

The media narrative is that GOP voters aren't like that etc but I don't believe that is the case, and public opinion polling data backs me up on that.

More than half of all Americans want social security and medicaid expanded, including the majority of self-identifying republicans in 'red' states. That issue has popular support amongst the electorate.

68% of respondents believe wealthy individuals pay too little tax. 85% of business owners polled are in favour of closing all offshore tax loopholes for corporations.

More than half of all Americans polled are in favour eliminating campaign donations. More than 60% of polled Americans are in favour of raising the minimum wage to $15 by 2020. This extends to organized labour as well, "A new Gallup Poll finds just over half of Americans, 53%, favoring a new law that would make it easier for labor unions to organize workers; 39% oppose it."

Most of what Bernie Sanders is proposing as policy initiatives has broad bi-partisan support from the average American, which is what makes him so dangerous.

Good data, thanks.

Dangerous to whom?

[wittynickname]

Originally Posted by MattyC

Sanders is the best and worst thing that could happen tot he US.

Best because, well policy-wise they need someone like him. Worst because the vast majority of Americans don't realize that, associate any sort of social-leaning policy as communist, and I fully expect at least a few violent protests from people like the Oregon nutjobs.



Bill Clinton has been the best option for President pretty much since he left office. He should just run again.

I feel like when a progressive agenda is coming from an old white dude rather than a middle aged black one, the Oregon nutjob types aren't likely to get as vocal or vitriolic. Conservatives don't like Liberals--but to say that race has nothing to do with the violent rhetoric against Obama would be false.

Originally Posted by Kavvy

I don't know. The republicans may nominate a number of different crazies to which anyone may be able to beat once we are into the general election.

So, Sanders could win vs a few of them, however, he won't beat Hillary.


Sanders is only providing some sort of competition for Hillary, and getting his ideas into the national dialog- which is commendable.

I think another really good thing about Sanders being in the race is that he's so far left that he forces Hillary to pull to the left, because he's bringing up issues that the Democratic base is very concerned about, which are more progressive and more likely to have a socialist style solution.

Originally Posted by nik-

I don't like Clinton either. I don't like the money that comes into the Clinton Foundation, basically an "off the books" campaign donation, from foreign governments. I don't like the indebtedness to and fawning over the Saudis and I don't like that she's basically a political weather vane.

I still think she wins though, but who knows what happens in the next 10 months.




I think the main Sanders issue is the "Socialism" boogie man that's basically been bred into the American public for 60 years. It's ridiculous, but this is a place where millions upon millions of people vote with their bible against their best interests.

Which I always found absolutely hilarious, that Bible thumpers are so likely to vote GOP/Conservative solely on the abortion/gay marriage issues. Because Jesus said nothing about abortion or homosexuality--but he said a whole lot about helping the poor and disenfranchised. And he wasn't too fond of violence, but those Bible thumpers are also generally pretty strong NRA voters. Pro-life and pro-gun was always a combination I couldn't figure out.

I think that if Sanders was receiving the kind of media coverage that Trump is, he would be getting much better results in polling. That he refuses to have a Super PAC is refreshing, that he refuses big money from big Pharma and big business, big oil, etc, is a really huge thing in his favor. I think a lot of Americans are tired of politicians voting based on whoever's putting money into their campaigns, and Sanders is fighting against that kind of big money in politics.

Politicians are generally scumbags, even the decent ones. Sanders just seems like he actually got into the business of politics because he actually wants to positively impact public policy. He also hasn't really changed his tune based on the times. He was doing sit-ins for civil rights 40 years ago, he was pro-gay rights in the early 90s, well before most politicians went near the issue.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by MattyC

Bill Clinton has been the best option for President pretty much since he left office. He should just run again.

He's the President that started the mess the US is in right now.

He smooth though, which is sad because it is the only reason he gets a pass.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by nik-

I think the last thing a Michael Bay movie is going to do is inspire critical thought.

It would be interesting to have a US president who's so far left. Perhaps it will pull the political spectrum down there back to the centre as a result. Granted, he'll never be able to get anything done with that Congress anyway.

Sanders is only far left in today's political climate.

He's a traditional Eisenhower Republican.

[ernie]

Biden had some very nice things to say about Sanders.

Vice President Joe Biden offered effusive praise for Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders Monday, lauding Hillary Clinton's chief rival for doing a "heck of a job" on the campaign trail and praising Sanders for offering an authentic voice on income inequality.

And while Biden said Democrats had a slate of "great candidates" running for president, he suggested Clinton was a newcomer to issues like the growing gap between rich and poor.

"Bernie is speaking to a yearning that is deep and real. And he has credibility on it," Biden said during an interview with CNN chief political analyst Gloria Borger.

Biden is full of gaffs but the guy comes from a place of honesty and is one of the few politicians that really does try his hardest to make things better.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/11/politi...ity/index.html

[peter12]

Originally Posted by ernie

Biden had some very nice things to say about Sanders.



Biden is full of gaffs but the guy comes from a place of honesty and is one of the few politicians that really does try his hardest to make things better.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/11/politi...ity/index.html

Well, that was definitely done on purpose. Interesting.

[HockeyIlliterate]

Originally Posted by troutman

Obama delivers his final State of the Union address tonight. Going up against the College Football final.

Hope that you didn't spend all night last night trying to watch the speech.

[HockeyIlliterate]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Most Americans are in favour of things like . . .

And in other news, most Americans are in favor of getting things that they don't have to pay for and believe that anyone who earns more than they do are "rich" but they themselves are already paying their "fair share" of taxes.

I fully understand why Sanders is popular and supported by many. But at some point, many of his low-income followers will realize that Sanders will eventually run out of other people's money and that his promises are empty idealistic dreams. Unless they really don't understand economics...

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Azure

Sanders is only far left in today's political climate.

He's a traditional Eisenhower Republican.

More like a 1916 American socialist.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by HockeyIlliterate

And in other news, most Americans are in favor of getting things that they don't have to pay for and believe that anyone who earns more than they do are "rich" but they themselves are already paying their "fair share" of taxes.

I fully understand why Sanders is popular and supported by many. But at some point, many of his low-income followers will realize that Sanders will eventually run out of other people's money and that his promises are empty idealistic dreams. Unless they really don't understand economics...

Economics is about efficiency. Please explain to me with all your economics expertise how almost all the purchasing power of country in the hands of less than 1000 people is in any way efficient.

[HockeyIlliterate]

Originally Posted by MattyC

Economics is about efficiency. Please explain to me with all your economics expertise how almost all the purchasing power of country in the hands of less than 1000 people is in any way efficient.

Economics is about supply, demand, and allocation of resources. Maybe that all boils down to "efficiency," but I think it is more complex than just that.

In any event, "all the purchasing power" of the United States is not "in the hands of less than 1000 people."

But more to the point of my comment: Sanders can go to the "tax the rich" well as much as he wants, but the "rich" (whomever they might be) will likely end up simply allocating their resources (money, time, whatever) in such a way that will reduce the taxes to be collected, leaving Sanders (and many of his supporters) with little more than a dry hole in the ground.

Besides, Sanders is a one-man band. Some of his ideas may have merit. But the chance of him getting even 10% of his ideas through Congress (in its current make-up) is infinitesimal. He may move the needle as he plays his tune, but the record isn't being flipped.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by HockeyIlliterate

Economics is about supply, demand, and allocation of resources. Maybe that all boils down to "efficiency," but I think it is more complex than just that.

Allocation of resources is another way to say efficiency. Supply and demand is supposed be controlled by the market. Even in a very pro-capitalist nation like the US, that's not true. As much as they try to say it is.

In any event, "all the purchasing power" of the United States is not "in the hands of less than 1000 people."

The total US income is ~$13 trillion. 2015 Forbes 400 hold a collective $2.3 trillion. That's 18% of the countries total purchasing power in the hands of 0.000125% of the population. That is NOT an efficient allocation of resources. Yes, the overall population obviously carries most of the funds, but how much of that is expendable income? While people like Gates and Buffett grow billions of dollars per year, everyone else goes into debt the opposite way. There is a finite amount of money, it can't be concentrated in this way and only getting worse.

But more to the point of my comment: Sanders can go to the "tax the rich" well as much as he wants, but the "rich" (whomever they might be) will likely end up simply allocating their resources (money, time, whatever) in such a way that will reduce the taxes to be collected, leaving Sanders (and many of his supporters) with little more than a dry hole in the ground.

Besides, Sanders is a one-man band. Some of his ideas may have merit. But the chance of him getting even 10% of his ideas through Congress (in its current make-up) is infinitesimal. He may move the needle as he plays his tune, but the record isn't being flipped.

I don't disagree with the bolded. But how come we give those people a free pass in that way? It's like people here in Calgary blaming the government for chasing the wealthy out of the province with marginally higher tax rates. No ill will gets allocated to the selfish asshats that can just go live in their fifth home in some other province/country and pay less tax to someone else. It's the economic equivalent of taking your ball and going home.

As for your last point, I agree, even if he IS elected he would be in tough to get his policies through. That doesn't make them wrong. All it does is show that it's really not the will of the majority controlling what is happening.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by peter12

Well, that was definitely done on purpose. Interesting.

There is no love lost between Obama/Biden and Hillary.

It's the main fracture of the democratic party, Clintons vs. everyone else.

After this election cycle if Hillary isn't named president, it should be a resurgent time for the Democratic party because they won't be so controlled by Clintonesque fundraising and policy demands.

[HockeyIlliterate]

Originally Posted by MattyC

The total US income is ~$13 trillion. 2015 Forbes 400 hold a collective $2.3 trillion.

It is hard for me to follow your comment, as I think that you are conflating "income" with "wealth," and they aren't congruent.

In any event, I don't think that your comments in respect of purchasing power have any real bearing on the substance of the matter. I'm not saying that I disagree (or that I agree) with them, just that I think that they are a bit of a sideshow to the underlying debate.

Originally Posted by MattyC

But how come we give those people a free pass in that way?

Well, I don't know if we do (there was a bit of an uproar when Saverin gave up his US citizenship, ostensibly to avoid US taxation, and Zuckerberg's claim to send a portion of his wealth to "charity" has certainly gotten scrutiny, as it becomes more apparent that the move is really just a tax dodge).

Originally Posted by MattyC

No ill will gets allocated to the selfish asshats that can just go live in their fifth home in some other province/country and pay less tax to someone else.

Well, again, I think that some ill will does get allocated to those people.

But, ultimately, what can be done about it? The US already taxes its citizens based on their worldwide income, and tax dodges, shelters, schemes still abound.

Furthermore, I tend to think that the underlying reason why the ill will isn't too great is because everyone wants to believe that someday, somehow, they can be that selfish person too.

They might not admit that openly, but if they didn't think that they---or someone in their family---could maybe someday be that person, then why do they participate in a capitalist system at all? They want to believe in freedom and the freedom to create their own future and their own wealth and their own options.

And taking that freedom away from someone through punitive taxation (whether real or threatened) is not how you win elections. Hence the whole "tax the other guy" mentality that is prevalent in most elections and said by most candidates (Republican and Democrat alike)---because everyone thinks the "other guy" is someone other than themselves.

Originally Posted by MattyC

As for your last point, I agree, even if he IS elected he would be in tough to get his policies through. That doesn't make them wrong. All it does is show that it's really not the will of the majority controlling what is happening.

In regard to some matters, I submit that the "will of the majority" is not how things should be decided.

[DuffMan]

Originally Posted by peter12

More like a 1916 American socialist.

or pretty much like any developed country that thinks education and health care are rights.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by HockeyIlliterate

Economics is about supply, demand, and allocation of resources. Maybe that all boils down to "efficiency," but I think it is more complex than just that.

In any event, "all the purchasing power" of the United States is not "in the hands of less than 1000 people."

But more to the point of my comment: Sanders can go to the "tax the rich" well as much as he wants, but the "rich" (whomever they might be) will likely end up simply allocating their resources (money, time, whatever) in such a way that will reduce the taxes to be collected, leaving Sanders (and many of his supporters) with little more than a dry hole in the ground.

Besides, Sanders is a one-man band. Some of his ideas may have merit. But the chance of him getting even 10% of his ideas through Congress (in its current make-up) is infinitesimal. He may move the needle as he plays his tune, but the record isn't being flipped.

I think if the U.S. decided to increase taxes, both personal and business, provided it was done gradually, it would be fairly easy to do without massive capital outflow, it's not like taxes are cheaper elsewhere.
The reality is it's the U.S. that's been the big downward force on taxes with their absurd attachment to trickle down economics. it's true you move money easily but you need to move it to somewhere you can do business in, the U.S. is a huge market that few industries can turn their back on.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by HockeyIlliterate

It is hard for me to follow your comment, as I think that you are conflating "income" with "wealth," and they aren't congruent.

In any event, I don't think that your comments in respect of purchasing power have any real bearing on the substance of the matter. I'm not saying that I disagree (or that I agree) with them, just that I think that they are a bit of a sideshow to the underlying debate.

The point is that money is not just a force for buying and selling, it is a force of influence. When you have this huge amount of influence concentrated in a few people, they can basically bend and skew policy and, in some cases, real economic impactors to what is best for them. It's not democracy.

In regard to some matters, I submit that the "will of the majority" is not how things should be decided.

The only way this isn't a terrifying position is if you think that this influence is concentrated to the right people. IMO, people who have lived their lives in pursuit of profit above all else very rarely have the interest of anyone but themselves at heart.

You say "why live in a capitalist society if you don't believe you can be the other guy?" Without even getting into the fact that, barring some type of miracle invention, that it is borderline impossible to become "the other guy" I say, why live in a democracy if you're not going to adhere to the one basic principle of the thing, that will of the majority should guide the society? It's just straight up not democracy. And that's fine, if you want to live in a oligarchy, but don't pretend this is a democratic process. When you are actively acting against the interest of the many to benefit a few, how can you find that to be acceptable? You can either resign yourself to it "just being reality" or you can try to change what is the reality today to something different. Apathy is not an appropriate position on this IMO. It's fundamental to what our culture is supposed to be built on.