2017 American Political Scene

[antimony]

antimony,



there's the tax prep lobby, and just as importantly a very vocal contingent of conservatives whom think that if the populace doesn't actively suffer by doing their own taxes, then it'd be easier for Dems to raise rates.

I know that. I think it was Turbotax that led the charge
I think there is also that perennial fear of hiring government bureaucrats allowed to do something useful for a change.

I just don't see why the public puts up with this nonsense.

[astralis]

I just don't see why the public puts up with this nonsense.

90% of americans support expanded background checks on guns too, but nothing's being done there either.

[antimony]

90% of Americans support expanded background checks on guns too, but nothing's being done there either.

Yeah, but that has NRA money and some genuine obstacles in the form of the 2A. I can see guns being someone's lifeline and their willingness to be single issue voters to prevent that. I can't see people clinging on happily to the idea of filling in pages and pages of useless stuff that could easily be automated.

The govt. has my W2 and W4 data already. If I do not have anything beside standard deductions, why can't it be automated to fill a 1040 and presented back to me through my IRS online account? If I like it, I put in my bank details, e-sign it and I am good to go. If I don't I can go to Turbotax or whoever and pay them a bunch of money to do the same.

Turbotax says that their free stuff does the same. No, it doesn't. I have to manually enter all my W2 info in there. If I have to pull it automatically, then I have to upgrade to the paid version.

[GVChamp]

Um, higher population density requires substantially more infrastructure. The "one road to one farm vs. one road to one 60-story apartment building" analogy is false, considering the amount of overall infrastructure needed to support that high rise.

I'm aiming more at a per-person or per-household expenditure as a fixed base, and then optimizing the density. So is it better to supply infrastructure for 300 million people across the entire nation, a bunch of sprawling suburbs, or some high-density cities.

My impression is that the high-density cities generally are more cost efficient and deliver more value for a given population level. Hey, I might be wrong on that.

But I don't think we can support high-density without major infrastructure increases. Like I said to Asty a few pages back, the San Francisco Bay Area can't support a Manhattan level of density without roads and sewers and subways to support it. IMO, the in-fill development that will happen there will not result in well-designed cities, just an ugly high-density suburb.

GV, again I'm not sure I agree with the above. Taking Western history as an example (since for cultural reasons this is the region I am most familiar with) I think you will find that economic socialism as a concept only arose relatively late in the course of events.

If you start with early pre bronze age cultures, I think you will find that communities on face value adopted ‘socialist principals’ purely to the extent that it was necessary for the survival of the community. Surviving one harsh winter or period of drought necessitated cooperation at the village level. Everyone worked together because the survival of the group depended on mutual support.

Once you move to more advanced level of cultures however with higher population levels and more robust surpluses of food and other basic goods this relationship breaks down. Survival became a matter of familial/clan support co-operation. Tribal Kings or indeed Roman Emperors raised taxes for or arms for the benefit of the polity but offered little or no support for the citizens in return. IN Roman times there may have been an expectation in the higher levels of society that they would support the ‘State’ but the lower classes had no expectations of support beyond their blood relatives and or a degree of patronage from any of their richer, better connected ‘social betters’ that they may have provided services to from time to time. The State as such expected their obedience, their taxes and their service, providing only the opportunity to earn a living and a general level of protection under the rule of royal law in return.

Same thing in the medieval period, there was no expectation from the serfs or city dwellers that the ‘State’ would provide any service other than a protection from aggressors and a strictly limited protection of their rights at law – such as they were. However when this basic of protection broke down and the ‘State’ failed to maintain basic level of protection or overtaxed its citizens etc you got peasant revolts, civil wars and all sorts of other nastiness. In other words there were limits on the extent to which Kings could impose a one way deal on their subjects.

Socialism as a force in human history only really begins to raise its ugly head with rise of the concept of the nation state at the end of the 16th century as the rule of kings waned. In fact I would ae that history demonstrates nationalism and socialism are inexorably linked. When the ‘State starts to impose its identity on person living within it borders it also starts to impose a set of obligations on all its ‘Citizens’. First and foremost is the obligation to obey the rules and regulations imposed by the state together with (surprise, surprise) the obligation to pay those taxes necessary to support it. National service soon follows and so does the ‘rule of law’.

Logically however this situation also gives rise to the idea of reciprocal obligations. If the State is the protector of its citizens and all citizens owe an obligation to the State then by extension the State has obligations to its citizens. Hence the rise of Marxism and Socialism in Europe during the 19th century. Without a ‘State’ to who all citizens owe allegiance socialism doesn’t have any entry upon which to impose reciprocal obligations.

In the end you get socialism following along in the wake of Nationalism like a horse reluctantly towing a heavy load. Which brings us to the modern era.
To the extent that current generations are enamoured with socialism I believe you will find this is not so much based on an implicit belief in the principals of classic socialism but rather on the perception that conventional western politics has become so corrupted by big (read corporate) money’ that individual citizens can no longer access the ‘ear’ of the State.

In other words they are so much socialist’s so much as disgruntled voters who, in the absence of pitchforks and riots turn to non-conventional politics for a solution. The vast majority of younger voters turn to left wing solutions not because they think they ware intrinsically workable but because the current solutions don’t answer their needs.

Any voter who actual had the chance to live in a socialist state would soon find it oppressive and unworkable. Truly socials parties in most of the West have limited (at best) populist support and every nation that has ever embraced socialism as you put it has also ended up rejecting it even more forcefully.

As for 'socialist' health care the issue is simply that the current model (in the US at least ) simply fails to deliver effective results for a large % of the population.I have argued previously that the issue lies in the basic economics and structure of health care industry i.e. that it bears a closer resemblance to a public good than it does to any convention good or service. It follows that you will always have problems trying to deliver comprehensive health care to a nation via private enterprise - for the same reason you don't have private enterprise delivering your local streets, water or electricity cables. Private enterprise can and does pay a vital role in the delivery of these services but cannot do so in the absence of 'state intervention'.

I don't really think any of this leads to the conclusion that the Western population will only rationally accept socialism after a long, heady thought-process about the matter. Within living memory, we embraced all sorts of policies that were bat-shit crazy. It's pretty obvious that vast portions of the West, vast, vast, vast portions, distrust markets in general and corporations in specific instinctively, and will absolutely vote for a socialist policy...simply because it's socialist and they distrust market mechanisms.

This is common all throughout history. My point isn't that the Roman Empire was a Marxist paradise. Ancient empires were basically extractive plunder states. But were the citizens and people good market supporters? Aristotle was basically one step removed from labor theory of value.
Here's Wiki on Aquinas:

Aquinas argued it was immoral for sellers to raise their prices simply because buyers had a pressing need for a product.

I don't think you see anything even approaching respect for commerce in the West until you get commercial revolutions in the 1600s, which are largely a Dutch and English thing.

Even then, the market really isn't respected. Just the last 2 centuries are enough to show that. Yeah, it's more respected now than what it historically has been, but it's a historical aberration to have national and global markets that have trust from citizenry.

So, yeah, totally willing to believe that nations will implement a socialist policy just because its socialist, even in the West, or other otherwise market economies. Good example: Singapore apparently houses 80% of its citizens in public housing. Apparently it works decently well for them. I still think its stupid and don't want it here. I am sure if for some reason all the Western nations had emerged in identical situations to Singapore and all ended up with public housing, you'd be telling us how awesome public housing is and how we all need to implement it and markets obviously can provide something as important as housing.

In fact, I know this, because the US and the UK both did the public housing experiment, and it was a disaster.

There's also some stupid rule in the US that we can't trade future contracts on onions, because REASONS. That bill was advanced by Gerald Ford, a run-of-the-mill-Republican, because that's just how things were back in the 50s and 60s, in every nation.


I'm aware of the arguments regarding market-healthcare. I don't buy any of them. Most of these arguments apply for individual insurance, but most Americans are covered by group insurance in one way or another, which includes thinks like guaranteed issue (because the company can't exclude you from buying insurance).
People on the individual market should be allowed deductions to purchase insurance in the same fashion companies get. People who are uninsurable can be covered through high-risk insurance pools.

The major problem is that a lot of people are too poor to buy health insurance. That's not a market failure. It's also not a market failure if people decline to buy insurance because it's a crappy deal for them.

[drhuy]

drhuy,


don't think Dems anywhere were "too sure" they were going to win a ruby-red state. they had GOOD REASON to hope that they would win, but as far as i know -no one- was saying that this was going to be a slam-dunk for the Dems.

yeah, no kidding it's a disappointment for Dems that they didn't win after spending a lot of time, energy, and money in the district...but that doesn't mean the GOP is doing great and have nothing to fear, either.

you always avoided to answer my question about why they called it a "referendum on trump" if they had not expect/hope/...its a "slam-dunk" LOL

[drhuy]

My leftist media? Mighty presumptuous besides me having no idea who the left equivalent of Breitbart is which means you'll have to ask.

oh i meant the kind of media that just had to let 3 of their employees, including one pulitzer winner, go because of a fake story, and the kind of media that has one of their producer caught on tape saying the whole russian story is BS!

[drhuy]

bigots, racists love him.

!

are you sure? like, if Omar Mateen had voted, pretty sure he would have voted for hillary

[drhuy]

by the way, i still believe that demographics support Dems. it's not -destiny-, as the more optimistic Dems believed just a year ago, but it's an ever-growing thumb on the scale for Dems.

then why dems lost nearly 1,000 seats during obama years, lost the 2016 election, lost all special elections since then?

[DOR]

GVChamp,

So is it better to supply infrastructure for 300 million people across the entire nation, a bunch of sprawling suburbs, or some high-density cities.

Define ‘better.’ If you mean less expensive, smaller projects tend to cost less overall, but cost more per unit delivered.

My impression is that the high-density cities generally are more cost efficient and deliver more value for a given population level. Hey, I might be wrong on that.

No, you’re not wrong. Efficiency vs. economy: it costs more to build infrastructure in dense, urban settings (land acquisition, traffic disruptions) than it does to plow under green field sites away from the masses. The benefits, however, are overwhelmingly on the urban side.

SF vs. NYC: one has a population density of 17,000 per square mile, and the other 27,000 psm (and, NYC has ten times the population). But, if the SF Bay Area is the definition, the population discrepancy nearly vanishes while the SFBA density drops to less than 950 psm.

Aside: Singapore’s “public housing” is overwhelmingly privately owned. Unlike Hong Kong and most other places, people buy their subsidized homes from the government, one month at a time. Resale is restricted to prevent profiteering.

are you sure? like, if Omar Mateen had voted, pretty sure he would have voted for hillary

Cite your sources. There was exactly one homophobic candidate running on a major party presidential ticket, and he wasn't named Hillary.

[Monash]

Good example: Singapore apparently houses 80% of its citizens in public housing. Apparently it works decently well for them. I still think its stupid and don't want it here. I am sure if for some reason all the Western nations had emerged in identical situations to Singapore and all ended up with public housing, you'd be telling us how awesome public housing is and how we all need to implement it and markets obviously can provide something as important as housing.

In fact, I know this, because the US and the UK both did the public housing experiment, and it was a disaster.

I'm aware of the arguments regarding market-healthcare. I don't buy any of them. Most of these arguments apply for individual insurance, but most Americans are covered by group insurance in one way or another, which includes thinks like guaranteed issue (because the company can't exclude you from buying insurance).
People on the individual market should be allowed deductions to purchase insurance in the same fashion companies get. People who are uninsurable can be covered through high-risk insurance pools.

The major problem is that a lot of people are too poor to buy health insurance. That's not a market failure. It's also not a market failure if people decline to buy insurance because it's a crappy deal for them.

G.V. Good debate that maybe deserves it's own thread. You should visit Singapore and get a feel for the place - it is of course a globally competitive free market economy. FYI - both the UK and Australia have extensive public housing systems, more or less sufficiently run (depending on where you live) with a lot of tinkering going on re; market intervention. As far as health care is concerned if, as you put it 'The major problem is that a lot of people are too poor to buy health insurance' then yes, technically the market hasn't failed because a scarce resource can be purchased by those wealthy enough to afford it. However the same argument would apply if their was a food shortage in the US and I doubt most Americans would be so sanguine about letting 20-30 million US people starve to death because they were to poor to pay a higher price for basic nutrition! Economists have long recognized that there are situations where the basic supply and demand equation of free market economics can 'break down'. I would suggest that advocating government intervention in such rare situations is not the same thing as arguing for the implementation of socialist principals on an nation wide basis.

[tbm3fan]

oh i meant the kind of media that just had to let 3 of their employees, including one pulitzer winner, go because of a fake story, and the kind of media that has one of their producer caught on tape saying the whole russian story is BS!

At least the three resigned once exposed faking it. The decent thing to do. I can think of another guy who has been exposed faking it but has yet to do the same thing...resign. Then again he has zero dignity.

[antimony]

Trump was right, I am already getting tired of the "winning"

http://www.theamericanconservative.c...dle-east-mess/

But while Tillerson’s answer was meant to soothe concerns over the crisis, behind the scenes he and Mattis were scrambling to undo the damage caused by Saudi action. The two huddled in Sydney and decided that Tillerson would take the lead in trying to resolve the falling out. Which is why, three days after the Sydney press conference, Tillerson called on Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Bahrain and Egypt to ease their anti-Qatar blockade and announced that the U.S. supported a Kuwaiti-led mediation effort. The problem for Tillerson was that his statement was contradicted by Donald Trump who, during a Rose Garden appearance on the same day, castigated Qatar, saying the emirate “has historically been a funder of terrorism at a very high level.”

A close associate of the secretary of state says that Tillerson was not only “blind-sided by the Trump statement,” but “absolutely enraged that the White House and State Department weren’t on the same page.” Tillerson’s aides, I was told, were convinced that the true author of Trump’s statement was U.A.E. ambassador Yousef Al Otaiba, a close friend of Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner. “Rex put two-and-two together,” his close associate says, “and concluded that this absolutely vacuous kid was running a second foreign policy out of the White House family quarters. Otaiba weighed in with Jared and Jared weighed in with Trump. What a mess.” The Trump statement was nearly the last straw for Tillerson, this close associate explains: “Rex is just exhausted. He can’t get any of his appointments approved and is running around the world cleaning up after a president whose primary foreign policy adviser is a 36-year-old amateur.”

Worse yet, at least from Tillerson’s point of view, a White House official explained the difference between the two statements by telling the press to ignore the secretary of state. “Tillerson may initially have had a view,” a White House official told the Washington Post, “then the president has his view, and obviously the president’s view prevails.”

[tbm3fan]

Trump was right, I am already getting tired of the "winning"

http://www.theamericanconservative.c...dle-east-mess/

Just 5 months in too. The only thing that could be worse is if Lucifer had gotten elected. Then again I'm not so sure that didn't happen...

[Bigfella]

Just 5 months in too. The only thing that could be worse is if Lucifer had gotten elected. Then again I'm not so sure that didn't happen...

Nah. Obama was Lucifer, weren't you paying attention. ...but seriously, I remember a former member of this forum describe him as the antichrist.

Lucifer wouldn't be tweeting abuse on twitter like an angry 14 year old. The only thing more pathetic than watching the most powerful man in the world throw a succession of tantrums in between bouts of insecure boastfulness is the number of GOP supporters who are defending him. A reminder of how hollow most of their criticisms of Obama were.

[antimony]

Nah. Obama was Lucifer, weren't you paying attention. ...but seriously, I remember a former member of this forum describe him as the antichrist.

Lucifer wouldn't be tweeting abuse on twitter like an angry 14 year old. The only thing more pathetic than watching the most powerful man in the world throw a succession of tantrums in between bouts of insecure boastfulness is the number of GOP supporters who are defending him. A reminder of how hollow most of their criticisms of Obama were.

The tragedy is that even usually respected Republicans who were against him have now started to defend and justify him and his actions. they pay some lip service to being "disappointed and concerned" but ultimately stand by his side. They don't realize this - he will be gone by '20 or by '24. People will remember them