• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

From WashPo: The GOP is at its peak, but conservatism has hit rock bottom

Lafayette said:
You are confused by a presidential victory.

It means nothing - as you will see. The long term is what counts in history ...
Click to expand...

You are correct making your previous statement incorrect. It is also about GOP control of state legislatures, the majority of GOP governors, control of the Senate and the House.
State legislatures:
Republicans are now in control of a record 67 (68 percent) of the 98 partisan state legislative chambers in the nation, more than twice the number (31) in which Democrats have a majority, according to the bipartisan National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL).
“That’s more than at any other time in the history of the Republican Party,” according to NCSL. “They also hold more total seats, well over 4,100 of the 7,383, than they have since 1920.”
Click to expand...
Republicans Now Control Record Number of State Legislative Chambers
State_Legislative_Trifectas.jpg

Governors:
Democrats had also hoped to gain among governors in 2016, and indeed they likely flipped North Carolina, pending a recount. However, they failed to flip Indiana and lost Missouri, New Hampshire, and Vermont. The electoral calendar also severely limited Democratic opportunities for gains because 38 states did not hold gubernatorial elections in 2016, and 34 governors in many big blue states like Illinois were last elected in the low-turnout 2014 midterm wave, which benefited Republicans immensely.
Click to expand...
Republicans now dominate state government, with 32 legislatures and 33 governors
Governors.jpg
 
Lafayette said:
Nobody decides, it is at the level of taxation policy that the rules are fixed. And ours are wholly lop-sided. They are based upon the fact that in the 1980s, Reckless Ronnie changed the rules. He wrenched taxation down from around 70% to below 30%. (See that historical fact, if you like, here.)

What happened, if you will look at the infographic I posted in the 1980s. Everything changed in terms of how much Income shifted up into Wealth, and it was a direct result of the Reagan Administration in the 1980s, which is explained here. (Why the hell the Dems went along with it is lost in the mists of history.)

You are right in the context of "yourself". I am not considering individual circumstances. As an economist, I try to look at the BigPicture.

And, as an economist, what matters is what happens to "most people", and the only measure of that is in the statistics. Hard, dry but evident.

As regards the mass of people in the US, things are not as "good" as they could be. Despite the fact that we are exiting, after 8 longggg years, the worst recession since the 1930s. And why?

Because despite America's renowned ability to "work hard", the results of that work is not distributed fairly. That is, to those who produce our GDP. They get very little of the Wealth that their work generates.

Because Net After-tax Income at the high end is at a cockamamie fixed-rate upper income tax as seen here:
View attachment 67211449

So Income after-tax accumulates into Wealth to a very select and very few number of families. As is depicted by the statistical evidence here:
View attachment 67211448

I presume you can read that infographic. It is telling you that only 0.1% of your fellow Americans are enjoying as much Wealth as 90% of the rest - meaning you and me. Do you think that is fair? Is it Honest? Or just, or equitable?

After all, it was YOUR hard work that helped generate the Income that became somebody else's Wealth.

Nope, there's no way that the present distribution is fair-play. Because it is a monumental Rip-off!

But, if what you are earning is fine enough for you. Then, well ... that's great!
Click to expand...

And you repeated the same stuff that you posted before. I don't care how much a person makes, regardless of how rich or poor they are. My answer to people that want more money is to get a job, invent something useful, work more or start a successful business.
 
Conservatism is morphing again as it did with the Southern Strategy, Ronnie's Evangelical Embrace, and further with the tea party. So is liberalism/progressivism. Nothing new about this. What's new is the rise of angry populism to a level that's politically potent.

I keep asking this : Will the GOP change Trump,or vice versa? Trump did not run as a conservative and was probably the most blatant RINO ever.
 
Porkuloss said:
Conservatism is morphing again as it did with the Southern Strategy, Ronnie's Evangelical Embrace, and further with the tea party. So is liberalism/progressivism. Nothing new about this. What's new is the rise of angry populism to a level that's politically potent.

I keep asking this : Will the GOP change Trump,or vice versa? Trump did not run as a conservative and was probably the most blatant RINO ever.
Click to expand...

Personally, I think that Trump will change the GOP and the GOP will change Trump. It doesn't have to be an all or nothing deal.
 
TurtleDude said:
I agree with a position advanced by Professor Markovits of Yale Law school who noted wealth disparity in the USA has become accentuated because high incomes are now tied with high information and wealthy people can spend huge amounts on their children that separate them from others. This is further increased by elite institutions, such as the grade schools in NYC that cost more for a year than a top public university, the elite prep schools like NYC's Trinity and Riverdale and the boarding schools such as Exeter and Hotchkiss, and then of course places like MIT, Harvard and Cornell. making these elite institutions more accessible might slightly water down the amount of information the students obtain but it would do much in spreading the "wealth" so to say.

with globalization, high paying low information jobs are disappearing (short of say modeling and some athletics) People cannot expect to work on a factory line and with that salary, afford a summer home and a spouse who stays home and raise the kids (which of course is another source of disparity-a parent engaged in full time child rearing is an advantage). those who are unable or unwilling to obtain high amounts of information are not going to be able to compete against kids who do
Click to expand...
Good points. Now all we have to do is find some solution that works toward somehow decreasing that disparity.
 
prometeus said:
Good points. Now all we have to do is find some solution that works toward somehow decreasing that disparity.
Click to expand...

craving and seeking information (education) is a good start. Jewish immigrants and some Asian groups have proven how effective that is
 
TurtleDude said:
craving and seeking information (education) is a good start. Jewish immigrants and some Asian groups have proven how effective that is
Click to expand...
That is also true, but that craving is instilled by parenting. It does not come by itself and sadly far too many parents today are simply not in a position to make that a reality. The reasons for that inability are countless but real none the less.
 
prometeus said:
That is also true, but that craving is instilled by parenting. It does not come by itself and sadly far too many parents today are simply not in a position to make that a reality. The reasons for that inability are countless but real none the less.
Click to expand...

add on top of that that many people are having children who are not prepared to be proper parents
 
prometeus said:
Good points. Now all we have to do is find some solution that works toward somehow decreasing that disparity.
Click to expand...

Oh my gosh. Are you really saying that it would be better to give the poor tools to raise themselves up out of their holes instead of keeping them in a cycle of poverty by just throwing money at them (from increased taxes on the wealthy)? You damn Republican you. This is something we can have an honest debate about if we have finally found a liberal who is willing to chuck the stereotypical failed liberal policies of keeping them dependent generation after generation after generation and not requiring anything of them other than to continue being dependent on the government.
 
Moderate Right said:
Oh my gosh. Are you really saying that it would be better to give the poor tools to raise themselves up out of their holes instead of keeping them in a cycle of poverty by just throwing money at them
Click to expand...
Are you totally incapable of honest discussion? Where have I ever advocated giving money away?

This is something we can have an honest debate
Click to expand...
You have yet to show the slightest capacity for honest anything.

if we have finally found a liberal
Click to expand...
Your need to label betrays only ignorance. You do not know anything about me.
 
prometeus said:
Are you totally incapable of honest discussion? Where have I ever advocated giving money away?

You have yet to show the slightest capacity for honest anything.

Your need to label betrays only ignorance. You do not know anything about me.
Click to expand...

Then, for the record, please come out and say that you do not favor taxing the rich more and redistributing that money to the poor and then I will say that I'm sorry for accusing you of something that you don't believe in.
 
Moderate Right said:
Then, for the record, please come out and say that you do not favor taxing the rich more and redistributing that money to the poor and then I will say that I'm sorry for accusing you of something that you don't believe in.
Click to expand...
I do not play your ignorant games. Such blanket statements are for those who out of ignorance latch onto talking points. You want answers ask about specific issues and I will give you answers. For your information, we are already taxing the rich more.
 
prometeus said:
I do not play your ignorant games. Such blanket statements are for those who out of ignorance latch onto talking points. You want answers ask about specific issues and I will give you answers. For your information, we are already taxing the rich more.
Click to expand...

I asked you a specific issue. Do you favor taxing the rich more and redistributing that money to the poor? I can't make it any simpler than that for you. Simple yes or no answer please. You don't even have to elaborate if you don't want to. If you want to elaborate that's fine to.
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
I am king at my house, who is king at yours?

I have plenty to eat, with variety and quality, I eat better than most kings a hundred years ago precisely because America went the way we did.
Click to expand...
Yeah, not so much.

I concur that the typical American has a much higher quality of life than the wealthiest person in the year 1000. However, the average Cuban can say the same thing -- certainly in terms of medical care, transportation, energy, food, nutrition, running water, physical safety, crime rates, casualties of war and violence.

The increase of the quality of life is not because of the American political and economic system, it's because of technological advances -- a trajectory that started when "America" was a handful of malaria-ridden swamps and most of the New World was inhabited by native populations. Even disastrously run economies like the USSR were able to provide roads, cars, medical care, refrigeration, climate control, TVs and phones to citizens, advanced education -- and technological advances.


Why, and you never ever really answer this question, why after all needs are met and so many wants also fulfilled for such a large number of people, far more people than ever before in history, do you feel compelled to complain so much about what others have even though we all have so much in this system?
Click to expand...
Because....

1) We are social creatures, and our happiness is often based on relative measures. (This has been thoroughly examined by behavioral economists, sociologists and other researchers.)

2) The massive incomes of the top 0.1% doesn't just mean physical comforts, it means political power. As we see happening right now, with a billionaire putting a dozen other billionaires in key positions in the executive branch of our government.

3) In the same way that people in Cuba and the USSR and East Germany were justifiably not satisfied with subsistence, poverty in America still sucks -- and there's lots and lots of poor people in the US.

4) We had booming growth back in the days when economic inequality was much more even.

5) High levels of economic inequality is in fact bad for an economy. It fractures the society; it results in a population that can't afford to consume what it produces;

6) Economic inequality reduces economic mobility. In a nation that likes to pat itself on the back for offering opportunity to all, those windows of opportunity are increasingly closed to those on the bottom half of the income ladder.
 
NonoBadDog said:
And you repeated the same stuff that you posted before. I don't care how much a person makes, regardless of how rich or poor they are. My answer to people that want more money is to get a job, invent something useful, work more or start a successful business.
Click to expand...
Really?

Do you want to tell all the ex-miners in West Virginia that it's their fault that they are unemployed?

What about all the people who believe that their jobs were "taken" by Mexican and Chinese and Vietnamese factories? Why shouldn't they just all start their own businesses?

Are the opportunities identical when unemployment is 5%, or 10%, or 20%?

Are the opportunities identical when interest rates are 4%, or 8%, or 16%?

If hard work is the answer, then how do you explain how one person can work their ass off at a minimum wage job and only make $25,000 a year, while another educated person can work less and earn $125,000 a year?
 
Moderate Right said:
I asked you a specific issue.
Click to expand...
You did not. You latched on to a moronic talking point because you can not grasp reality. Pray tell where is one single money distribution center. I'd like to visit it and then after seeing how it operates I will tell you if I am in favor of it.
 
Visbek said:
Really?

Do you want to tell all the ex-miners in West Virginia that it's their fault that they are unemployed?
Click to expand...
They are unemployed because the Democrats are anti coal. This is where you justify being anti coal rather than addressing what my statement was.

What about all the people who believe that their jobs were "taken" by Mexican and Chinese and Vietnamese factories? Why shouldn't they just all start their own businesses?
Click to expand...
Another place where Democrats lost votes. Batting a thousand here. People didn't buy the status quo BS that your party is spouting.
Are the opportunities identical when unemployment is 5%, or 10%, or 20%?
Click to expand...
Mining and manufacturing is in the toilet. That is where the average person would look for employment 20 years ago.

If hard work is the answer, then how do you explain how one person can work their ass off at a minimum wage job and only make $25,000 a year, while another educated person can work less and earn $125,000 a year?
Liberals tend to be more educated and make less money on average. Conservatives tend to be less educated and make more money. Why is that?
 
Visbek said:
Yeah, not so much.

I concur that the typical American has a much higher quality of life than the wealthiest person in the year 1000. However, the average Cuban can say the same thing -- certainly in terms of medical care, transportation, energy, food, nutrition, running water, physical safety, crime rates, casualties of war and violence.

The increase of the quality of life is not because of the American political and economic system, it's because of technological advances -- a trajectory that started when "America" was a handful of malaria-ridden swamps and most of the New World was inhabited by native populations. Even disastrously run economies like the USSR were able to provide roads, cars, medical care, refrigeration, climate control, TVs and phones to citizens, advanced education -- and technological advances.
Click to expand...
It is precisely our economic system which makes these technological advances possible. R&D costs money and that money is generated from profits.

Ever notice that the wealthiest nations have the best sanitation, pollution control, and are generally much "cleaner" than poorer nations? Think that's a coincidence?
 
prometeus said:
You did not. You latched on to a moronic talking point because you can not grasp reality. Pray tell where is one single money distribution center. I'd like to visit it and then after seeing how it operates I will tell you if I am in favor of it.
Click to expand...

You can't answer a simple yes or no question.
 
NonoBadDog said:
They are unemployed because the Democrats are anti coal.
Click to expand...
Actually they are unemployed for the same reasons buggy drivers became unemployed a long time ago.

Another place where Democrats lost votes.
Click to expand...
Democrats winning or loosing votes will still not bring back coal mining to previous levels.

Mining and manufacturing is in the toilet.
Click to expand...
And of course only the democrats can be blamed for that. :lamo:lamo:lamo

Liberals tend to be more educated and make less money on average. Conservatives tend to be less educated and make more money. Why is that?
Click to expand...
Can you support that with a source?
 
prometeus said:
Of course I can when a simple question that warrants a yes or no. You asked a vague moronic one that has no possible answer because it has no basis in reality.
Click to expand...

No basis in reality? Are you saying that there are no bad points at all to UHC? If so, then you have finally answered the question. Is that what you mean? Are you finally admitting that you don't think there are any bad points to UHC?
 
Moderate Right said:
No basis in reality? Are you saying that there are no bad points at all to UHC? If so, then you have finally answered the question. Is that what you mean? Are you finally admitting that you don't think there are any bad points to UHC?
Click to expand...
What the **** are you babbling about? The moronic question you asked was about income redistribution. No wonder you are not capable of intelligent honest debate. You can't even follow the topic of a thread.
 
prometeus said:
Actually they are unemployed for the same reasons buggy drivers became unemployed a long time ago.

Democrats winning or loosing votes will still not bring back coal mining to previous levels.
Click to expand...
They still weren't concerned about miners. They still aren't.

And of course only the democrats can be blamed for that. :lamo:lamo:lamo
Click to expand...
Yep. Of course working people are not falling for the "you can sacrifice your job and work at McDonalds for the good of the party cuz climate change" crap anymore.
Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) shot out a statement Friday morning declaring that the regulation “will have devastating impacts to the coal industry and our economy.”

Rep. Nick Rahall (D-W.Va.), who faces a tough reelection campaign in 2014, quickly followed suit in a statement that rivaled even many Republicans in denouncing the proposal.
“I am dead-set against the EPA and their scheme to issue emissions standards that would make it next to impossible for new coal-fired power plants to be constructed,” Rahall said. He added, “This callous, ideologically driven agency continues to be numb to the economic pain that their reckless regulations cause. Today’s rule is just the latest salvo in the EPA’s war on coal, a war I have unwaveringly soldiered against, and I will work tirelessly to prevent such an ill-conceived and illogical plan from moving forward.”
Click to expand...
“Yet again President Obama’s administration has taken direct aim at Kentucky jobs,” Grimes said. “Kentuckians deserve better than out-of-touch Washington regulation that further devastates an already ravaged region.”
Click to expand...
Coal-state Democrats slam EPA - POLITICO

Can you support that with a source?
Click to expand...
Of course I can. Stupid question.
LATIMESDASHBOARD.jpg
http://graphics.latimes.com/usc-presidential-poll-dashboard/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom