"A black sheriff?!": The Official Topic of Obama and New Era American Politics

[Van Cruncheon]

they can always take their ball to dubai if they don't like it here!

[The Fake Shemp]

My biggest problem with this conservative/libertarian philosophy that the less we tax industrialists, the more likely they are to give back to America in philanthropy, programs/services and jobs is the conceit that the wealthy care about nationalism anymore.

Has "trickle down" economics ever been proven to work, let alone in a globalized economy?

[Human Snorenado]

they can always take their ball to dubai if they don't like it here!

[youtube=560,345]7QDv4sYwjO0[/youtube]

Somalia is where it's at!

[Phoenix Dark]

Question: If we raise taxes on people that provide jobs will that make them more likely to spend money?

spoiler (click to show/hide)

liberal logic

[close]

[Van Cruncheon]

rich people don't spend on goods/services; they hoard and invest -- and investment money only really goes to other rich folks, with a trickle going to the little people

the middle-class spends several orders of magnitude more, when they have money

hence, take the money from the non-spenders and give it to the spenders

[Oblivion]

But Joe the plumber told me that Jimmy, the cashier monkey at McDonald's will lose the incentive to become a millionaire some day if taxes on the rich are raised.  :'(

[brawndolicious]

Reminds me of that WSJ article about how rewarding greed is a good thing or something.

[Oblivion]

Also, how come FoC and his ilk have a problem with the gubment taking rich people's taxes to give to the poors, but don't have a problem for the reverse? I mean, who do they think pay for those tax cuts the rich get?

[brawndolicious]

I think they just fear social darwinism or something.  If you take away basic living needs from poor people like affordable healthcare and decent education, they'll have less ability to compete for comfy, yuppie lifestyles.  It's probably not so much about taking an extra couple percent home a year as it is about reinforcing the glass ceiling.  Making sure your spawn doesn't have to clean toilets.

[Fragamemnon]

But Joe the plumber told me that Jimmy, the cashier monkey at McDonald's will lose the incentive to become a millionaire some day if taxes on the rich are raised.  :'(

Not picking on you or anything, but one of the most frustrating things is seeing lower and middle class people defend the wealth accumulation of the wealthy because they know that one day their hard work/plans will get them to be one of them-when of course this will never actually happen and they'd be better off redistributing the living heck out of said wealth accumulation and having the proceeds benefit people of their station.

[Mandark]

My biggest problem with this conservative/libertarian philosophy that the less we tax industrialists, the more likely they are to give back to America in philanthropy, programs/services and jobs is the conceit that the wealthy care about nationalism anymore.

Has "trickle down" economics ever been proven to work, let alone in a globalized economy?

Short answer:  No.

We have actual test cases of this theory, in the form of every nation before they implemented a social welfare system.  In every case, any remotely objective measurement of poverty and misery was higher before than after.

The "charitable" giving, especially of the rich, isn't always directed towards the poor, either.  A lot of it is donating to their (often Ivy League) alma maters, supporting fine arts, etc.  There's a bunch of research on altruism, and while I haven't read it, I'm pretty certain that "charity is an awesome, market-driven, comprehensive replacement for government services that will help the poor if only we tear down the New Deal" is not the conclusion they draw.

And what's up with conservatarians always describing corporate executives and the holders of capital as "the people who create jobs"?  It's as if our economy is solely the work of our entrepreneurial overlords, and that we should all be glad that they deign to employ the rest of us.  Nah, I know what's up.  It's just rephrasing the Galt myth.

Not picking on you or anything, but one of the most frustrating things is seeing lower and middle class people defend the wealth accumulation of the wealthy because they know that one day their hard work/plans will get them to be one of them-when of course this will never actually happen and they'd be better off redistributing the living heck out of said wealth accumulation and having the proceeds benefit people of their station.

There's a neat little exchange in 1776 that sums up the whole thing.

[Human Snorenado]

The conclusion I draw is that presuming one's money is one's rightful property, whom one chooses to give it to is their business.

However, yes, the right-leaning do donate more to charitable organizations while the left-leaning want to shunt more responsibility onto the government.  It seems - for you at least - that one rationale for this is that you want a say in where that cash goes, since presumably you think you have any kind of right to do so.

Which I guess makes for an awesome philosophy in the abstract, but has proven to make a shitty society here in Real World Land.

[brawndolicious]

It's not charity if it doesn't go to the needy.

Also, if a person gets taxed on the profit they take home, what harm does it do to anything to tax that more?

[FlameOfCallandor]

Which I guess makes for an awesome philosophy in the abstract, but has proven to make a shitty society here in Real World Land.

ORLY?

[FlameOfCallandor]

It's not charity if it doesn't go to the needy.

And who is needy?

[FlameOfCallandor]

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/international/warm_and_fuzzy_facts_RD1aMFGyyvy19b0ZTHaGwO

COPENHAGEN -- Shakespeare's Marcellus was right. Something is rotten in the state of Denmark.
In this hotbed of homogeneity, where global warming is a sacred assumption for the faithful, 15,000 people will come together from 192 countries to pray for two weeks over what can be done to save the Earth from certain doom. Few places are better suited to handle the throngs of unquestioning believers who will journey from around the globe.
Dissent is not tolerated, and diversity -- in any form other than biodiversity -- is not welcome here.
...

His Democratic majority dwindles to basically nothing without members from coal states, heavy-industry states and other states where people generally would like to find a job.
But this crowd gathering here is far worse than just a bunch of hand-wringing Hamlets dithering in Denmark.
Some 40,000 tons of carbon will be spewed getting this crowd together and keeping them in comfort.
That is the amount of carbon dioxide produced by more than 60 of the world's smaller countries in an entire year -- combined.

[Human Snorenado]

Which I guess makes for an awesome philosophy in the abstract, but has proven to make a shitty society here in Real World Land.

ORLY?

YA RLY

[FlameOfCallandor]

Which I guess makes for an awesome philosophy in the abstract, but has proven to make a shitty society here in Real World Land.

ORLY?

YA RLY

Sorry your life is so shitty. Maybe you shouldn't suck so bad at life. I think our society is pretty fucking great. In fact our standard of living as a human race is higher than it has ever been in human history.

capitalism
People who suck at it

[Barry Egan]

"Society is pretty great!" says the fringe looney toon who wants to dramatically alter the direction society is heading.

[FlameOfCallandor]

Who are you talking about? 

[Human Snorenado]

I'm curious as to what our resident libertopian and libertard (JayDubya and FoC, natch) think about this story:

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2009/12/03/wal_mart_will_pay_40m_to_workers/?page=1

To sum up- WalMart forces employees to work through their breaks and after hours after they've apparently clocked out, in effect STEALING CITIZENS' MONEY/ABILITY TO MAKE MONEY just as efficiently (if not moreso!) than, say, a tax would.  So they settle a lawsuit for 40 million in back pay to almost 90k workers in MA.  Lest you think this is an uncommon occurrence for the genial, awesome conglomerate, last year around this time they settled 63 similar cases in 42 states to the tune of around 352 million dollars.

spoiler (click to show/hide)

Seeing as how neither one is capable of actual thought and just regurgitates the same old crap, let me answer for them- those people in those jobs made a choice, blah blah blah, they could always have just found a better job, blah blah blah.

[close]

[FlameOfCallandor]

 

I like how you think I am Pro big business just because I support free markets. I'm glad that wal-mart lost this and think they should have paid even more.

Not paying workers is akin to stealing which is wrong.

[Human Snorenado]

Gee, what with your sympathy to the plight of workers being taken advantage of, it's a crying shame that there isn't some sort of organization that these workers could form to make sure they're not being chronically fucked over like that!

[FlameOfCallandor]

Gee, what with your sympathy to the plight of workers being taken advantage of, it's a crying shame that there isn't some sort of organization that these workers could form to make sure they're not being chronically fucked over like that!

What like a class action lawsuit?

[Human Snorenado]

Gee, what with your sympathy to the plight of workers being taken advantage of, it's a crying shame that there isn't some sort of organization that these workers could form to make sure they're not being chronically fucked over like that!

What like a class action lawsuit?

Which, considering the amount of lawsuits settled by WalMart, seems to do fuck all to deter them from this sort of shit.

[FlameOfCallandor]

Then I assume you don't do business at wal-mart?

Problem solved. Company sucks and you don't have to have anything to do with them.

Only people who want to work there, and people who want to shop there need apply.
Capitalism succeeds again.

[Brehvolution]

Damn liberals and their labor laws.

[brawndolicious]

It's not charity if it doesn't go to the needy.

And who is needy?

That would be anybody who can't afford basic living needs like food, medical care, education, etc.  What is your standard for "needy"?

[Phoenix Dark]

Medicare buy-in attracting interest in the public option negotiations

    The proposal would lower the age of eligibility for Medicare from 65 to 55, though an age limit of 60 has also been suggested. Crucial details -- such as the timing of the implementation of such a reform -- were not provided due to the sensitivity and ongoing nature of the deliberations. A high-ranking Democratic source off the Hill confirmed that such discussions are taking place.

    Lowering the floor for Medicare is one of several ideas being discussed as a way to pacify progressives upset over the potential elimination of a public option for insurance coverage, one of the sources added. Senate Democrats held discussions this past weekend about replacing Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's version of a public plan with one that would be non-profit-based. The alternative proposal would be offered in state exchanges, run by private insurers but monitored by the Office of Personnel Management.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/12/exclusive_medicare_buy-in_attr.html
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/12/7/811654/-Medicare-Buy-In-Gaining-Traction-in-Public-Option-Negotiations

[Oblivion]

Then I assume you don't do business at wal-mart?

Problem solved. Company sucks and you don't have to have anything to do with them.

Only people who want to work there, and people who want to shop there need apply.
Capitalism succeeds again.

Yeah, they should just quit and find another job. It's not like we're in a recession or anything.

[FlameOfCallandor]

Then I assume you don't do business at wal-mart?

Problem solved. Company sucks and you don't have to have anything to do with them.

Only people who want to work there, and people who want to shop there need apply.
Capitalism succeeds again.

Yeah, they should just quit and find another job. It's not like we're in a recession or anything.

Are you suggesting that they might be the envy of some jobless people...

[brawndolicious]

No, most people would not envy a minimum wage job where your employer cheats you out of money.  Even if you had AIDS, would you envy another guy with anal warts?

[Van Cruncheon]

Then I assume you don't do business at wal-mart?

Problem solved. Company sucks and you don't have to have anything to do with them.

Only people who want to work there, and people who want to shop there need apply.
Capitalism succeeds again.

Yeah, they should just quit and find another job. It's not like we're in a recession or anything.

Are you suggesting that they might be the envy of some jobless people...

ever had to pay to live without mommy and daddy to bail you out

[FlameOfCallandor]

No, most people would not envy a minimum wage job where your employer cheats you out of money.  Even if you had AIDS, would you envy another guy with anal warts?

Really? Then I guess the CNBC special about a new Wal-mart opening and thousands of people lining up for a job was just fancy camera work?

[brawndolicious]

If you still have house and car payments, like many of the now unemployed, there's no way a minimum wage job can sustain you so there's no way those people would want to line up outside Wal-Mart.

Also, do you think that even 1% of the people lining up think that they're going to be working unpaid overtime?

If you agree with me on both of the above points, then I have no idea what your fucking argument is.

[AdmiralViscen]

I like how it was progressive labor laws that made the lawsuit possible to begin with, and the money is ruled on and doled out by agents of the government.

[FlameOfCallandor]

I like how it was progressive labor laws that made the lawsuit possible to begin with, and the money is ruled on and doled out by agents of the government.

You mean a system of justice that protects the property rights of the party who whose contract was broken? That system? 

And I guess nobody ever got paid before labor laws.

spoiler (click to show/hide)

[close]

[FlameOfCallandor]

Not sure what either of those have to do with the argument.

[FlameOfCallandor]

Good argument.

[Phoenix Dark]

...smh

at least Texas is gonna get destroyed next month.

[FlameOfCallandor]

Union membership is at its lowest membership in decades.

Liberals helplessly hanging on to an aged and dated social institution. 

[Mandark]

The conclusion I draw is that presuming one's money is one's rightful property, whom one chooses to give it to is their business.

Yeah yeah.  Private property's an inalienable right.

If you mean that rights are something which objectively exist outside the conventions of society, please prove it.

If you meant that they don't exist that way, but that society should act as if they do, please explain why.

Either way, show your work.

[AdmiralViscen]

I like how it was progressive labor laws that made the lawsuit possible to begin with, and the money is ruled on and doled out by agents of the government.

You mean a system of justice that protects the property rights of the party who whose contract was broken? That system? 

And I guess nobody ever got paid before labor laws.

spoiler (click to show/hide)

[close]

Who set the requirements of the contract in question? What force compels the losing party to pay up, and who decides exactly how much?

[FlameOfCallandor]

Who set the requirements of the contract in question?

The parties entering into the contract.

What force compels the losing party to pay up, and who decides exactly how much?

The legal system.

I hope you're not trying to suggest that I am against a legal system by another thinly veiled attempt to paint me as an anarchist.


You can do better.

[Mandark]

Wait, FoC, haven't you said you're in favor of tort reform?

[FlameOfCallandor]

Tort reform.. as in taking power away from juries?

Probably not.

[Mandark]

I'm a fan of some Tort reform

[Boogie]

Yeah yeah.  Private property's an inalienable right.

If you mean that rights are something which objectively exist outside the conventions of society, please prove it.

If you meant that they don't exist that way, but that society should act as if they do, please explain why.

Either way, show your work.

Why do you think he'll actually do so this time?

[FlameOfCallandor]

I'm a fan of some Tort reform

Is that the best you got?

[Mandark]

Boogie:  Hey, worst-case scenario I've got a generic post I can c/p whenever JayDubya's argument boils down to an unsupported assertion of natural rights (which is, you know, every single time).




FoC:  Point is, you gotta explain how you feel about tort reform, considering you're leaving civil suits as the only avenue of redress for workers who find themselves on the wrong end of a breached contract.  Ah, I'm kidding.  Nobody expects you to put forward a viable, libertarian alternative to the current political economy.  You just keep telling us how great Candyland will be.

[Flannel Boy]

Tort reform.. as in taking power away from juries?

Probably not.

Are you also in favor of removing juries from criminal trials? If not, why would you trust juries to judge criminal conduct, but not tortious (I mean tortful!!) conduct?

[Dickie Dee]

That's my #1 complaint about lolbertopians, maybe it's unfair to ask them to concoct an entire self-consistant fantasy land out of their beliefs, but at least for the sake of forum argument, can't you at least see your ideas a couple steps ahead and how quickly they break down. It's all stopped being fun.

[Mandark]

JD:  "Why don't you explain the set of objectively-existing, incontrovertible truths which you subscribe to, huh?"

Me:  "But I don't have any."

[Mandark]

I'm getting flashbacks to my first college roommate, who asked me how I couldn't believe in God, cause then there would be no basis for ethics or morality whatsoever.

It's like he was scared to believe that humans created their own rules of behavior and interaction.  He had to believe that it came from some transcendent, authoritative source.  Me?  Not so much.

So, I'll repeat:

If you mean that rights are something which objectively exist outside the conventions of society, please prove it.

If you meant that they don't exist that way, but that society should act as if they do, please explain why.

Either way, show your work.

[Mandark]

If you mean that rights are something which objectively exist outside the conventions of society, please prove it.

If you meant that they don't exist that way, but that society should act as if they do, please explain why.

Either way, show your work.

[Van Cruncheon]

there is nothing you have which i or society at large cannot take away, and whether or not is acceptable is based entirely on context -- time, location, culture, etc. all you have are "privileges" and "suffrances" from the rest of us.

[The Fake Shemp]

JayDubya talks smart, but his arguments always boil down to semantics and nothing of actual substance. When his positions are debated, there is no reasoning other than, "I can't talk to you when you continue this campaign of lies!"

[brawndolicious]

So FOC, did you even have a point when you said that jobless people ENVIED Wal-Mart employees?  Do you see now why it gets you nowhere just playing mad-libs with random philosophical bullet points about money, value, and Wal-Mart?

JD, there are definitely some "rights" that most everybody would agree are deserved but you can't use their popularity, today at this one second, to justify them.  A minority of adults were able to vote in this country's first elections despite whether they had a "right" to or not.  In the real world, where everybody is out for themselves, it's what is enforceable and legal that matters.

[Mandark]

Regardless of how I proceed, this will be a timesink that will mostly have to wait for tomorrow.

I like this sort of answer on forums.  "I don't want to respond to that.  Not because I don't have a good answer, but because my answer is too good."

[Van Cruncheon]

i'm still racking my brain to think of a single facet of the human condition that i can't abrogate! i'm expecting to be AMAZED