2016 Presidential Horse Race

[FightingIrishLover7]

I hear you. But people are looking for the government to solve those problems while it's the government that created many of them.

So, someone that creates a problem is automatically unable to fix them? That's what you just implied anyway. Interesting.

 

[ACamp1900]

So, someone that creates a problem is automatically unable to fix them? That's what you just implied anyway. Interesting.

Does anyone honestly believe big gov wants to fix many of these issues they helped create??

 

[wizards8507]

So, someone that creates a problem is automatically unable to fix them? That's what you just implied anyway. Interesting.

No, not "someone." The government. The government sucks at doing most things. That's not a philosophical argument built on formal logic, it's a pragmatic argument built by using your eyes and studying history.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

Don't want to get into the minute details, but Sanders proposed lifting the cap on social security. So, in effect (not arguing if it is fair or not) that is a marginal tax increase for anyone making over $118K a year. What you have there is a mix of marginal and effective. The marginal increase is real, whether we agree it is a fair increase or not. That is why you are falling short of the 73%. Also, there are many municipalities & counties across the country that levy income taxes, which not included in your figure. For example, all Maryland counties have an income tax, which I believe ranges from 1.25% up to 3%.

And while those figures above are marginal rates, the effective rate will be just as large as an increase. Why? The social security increase will impact people, treating capital gains as ordinary income with increased marginal rates will increase effective rates as will further restricting deductions for those making over $250K.

Finally, the 73% is magical because it is what Diamond and Saez believed would be the optimum rate to maximize revenues on the top end while curbing top level "greed". There were many assumptions that went into that theory, including ETI. It's a theory and like all theories, some agree and some disagree. The key disagreement is that the 73% looks at it from a pure utility perspective of the whole (all Americans) and what utility means is open for debate. In any event, the 73% takes into consideration ETI, which means it stunts growth of income (to an extent) for those impacted. Thus, assuming 73% top marginal tax rate WITHOUT a change income growth (which is what I mentioned in my prior post) would lead to a failed model on Sanders side.

https://berniesanders.com/issues/strengthen-and-expand-social-security/

Apologies for not fully understanding your post. It goes beyond my understanding of economics. I thought your 73% reference was similar to what the media is saying when they claim 90% tax rates.

Bottom line, I don't think anyone knows if Sanders' plans will actually work or fail. What I do know, is that I agree with the direction, I agree with the ideas, I agree with the end game and it's because of that that I'm not willing to just say nope it's impossible, it'll fail, it'll doom the economy like many people are saying. I've said this once before (in this thread probably) that I look at things from the perspective of "how can I" versus "I can't."

 

[FightingIrishLover7]

What we have today is not real capitalism. Real capitalism is a natural order that arises two principles: private property rights and free association. That's it.

That's what I meant about greed, once the banker gets all the money the game is no longer fair (No longer "real"). Capitalism too heavily favors the upper-tier of individuals. Of course they do "good" for the economy along the way, but the negative effects snowball over time, just has the greed snowballs.

Capitalism doesn't have (or need) checks and balances. It's a shootout. In the end, only the ones with the quickest draw will be left standing.

We're better, and more moral (I hope) to be playing this social-darwinian game.

 

[wizards8507]

That's what I meant about greed, once the banker gets all the money the game is no longer fair (No longer "real"). Capitalism too heavily favors the upper-tier of individuals. Of course they do "good" for the economy along the way, but the negative effects snowball over time, just has the greed snowballs.

Capitalism doesn't have (or need) checks and balances. It's a shootout. In the end, only the ones with the quickest draw will be left standing.

Underlying this is the notion that wealth is a fixed pie. In that case you'd be right. The "quickest draw" would scoop up the most pie and leave people without. But capitalism builds ovens that bake more and bigger pies. The "banker," as you call him, might own the pie shop, but the pie shop require oven manufacturers and bakers. Eventually one of the oven manufacturers saves enough to build his own pie shop and the baking grows exponentially.

The banker doesn't acquire wealth and sit on it. The banker wants more wealth so he invests his wealth and it benefits everyone. The purpose is capitalism is not acquisition, but increase.

We're better, and more moral (I hope) to be playing this social-darwinian game.

You're also assuming that greed is the only human trait. Everyone has some greed and some people are all greed, but people also recognize that cooperation is beneficial for themselves. People are smart enough to look beyond the proximate consequences of an action when determining their self-interest.

 

[FightingIrishLover7]

No, not "someone." The government. The government sucks at doing most things. That's not a philosophical argument built on formal logic, it's a pragmatic argument built by using your eyes and studying history.

You act like the government hasn't had huge success in the past...

My God, where would be without things such as child labor laws and workforce regulations? What about social security and medicare? What about if we remove the EPA (like many Republicans insist on), should we revert back to dumping toxins into our air and water supply?

Obviously these programs have cons as well (especially for watchdogs like the FDA and EPA, expecting them to not miss a single deviation is more than a tall task to ask of them), virtually every institutional decision is a game of trade-offs. But, the government has instituted programs with positive cost:benefits in the past, and they can again.

 

[FightingIrishLover7]

Underlying this is the notion that wealth is a fixed pie. In that case you'd be right. The "quickest draw" would scoop up the most pie and leave people without. But capitalism builds ovens that bake more and bigger pies. The "banker," as you call him, might own the pie shop, but the pie shop require oven manufacturers and bakers. Eventually one of the oven manufacturers saves enough to build his own pie shop and the baking grows exponentially.

The banker doesn't acquire wealth and sit on it. The banker wants more wealth so he invests his wealth and it benefits everyone. The purpose is capitalism is not acquisition, but increase.


You're also assuming that greed is the only human trait. Everyone has some greed and some people are all greed, but people also recognize that cooperation is beneficial for themselves. People are smart enough to look beyond the proximate consequences of an action when determining their self-interest.

Do bread-crumbs count as cooperation? The banker wants cheesemakers, I won't argue that.

 

[wizards8507]

My God, where would be without things such as child labor laws and workforce regulations?

Kids would learn work ethic and the value of a dollar?

What about social security and medicare?

I'd keep my own paycheck and invest it, earning 10% rather than zero.

What about if we remove the EPA (like many Republicans insist on), should we revert back to dumping toxins into our air and water supply?

Lawsuits would put a stop to that real quick, and be much more effective than EPA fines. You pollute my lake, I sue your ass off for millions and millions of dollars.

 

[wizards8507]

Do bread-crumbs count as cooperation? The banker wants cheesemakers, I won't argue that.

I'd rather have the banker's crumbs than nothing.

 

[Ndaccountant]

Apologies for not fully understanding your post. It goes beyond my understanding of economics. I thought your 73% reference was similar to what the media is saying when they claim 90% tax rates.

Bottom line, I don't think anyone knows if Sanders' plans will actually work or fail. What I do know, is that I agree with the direction, I agree with the ideas, I agree with the end game and it's because of that that I'm not willing to just say nope it's impossible, it'll fail, it'll doom the economy like many people are saying. I've said this once before (in this thread probably) that I look at things from the perspective of "how can I" versus "I can't."

No worries.....just wanted to make sure my point was clear.

Sanders ideas would be doing something radically different than where we are today, realizing some of the taxation policies may have been similar 40 years ago. While campaigning is about spreading ideas about your principles, I would be much more interested in what Sanders would do w/r/t to taking steps towards his vision. It's too radical of a change to be done instantly even if it would get through Congress unchanged, which we know isn't likely.

I personally am looking for anyone to lead the country through compromise and I am just not seeing it. It would mean alienating your base, especially since people like Sanders and Cruz are farther out on the spectrum (this includes Bern who I would doubt compromise his principles to achieve policy through Congress and other R's how would upset donors). BTW, this includes those serving in Congress too. I fear no matter what happens, we will get back to where we are now, which is a President acting through Executive Orders. While that may get something done temporarily, it isn't a long term solution. Sadly, I don't see this changing.

 

[pkt77242]

I love this. Capitalism has lifted more people out of poverty than any government program in the history of mankind. Capitalism is beautiful because it helps the poor. Government programs keep poor people alive. They also keep poor people poor. But it's the capitalist that hates the poor.

Only when balanced with some form of socialism. History shows that unrestrained capitalism didn't work very well for the poor person in the U.S (especially during the 1870s to early 1900's though there was a brief time in the early 1800's where it seemed to be working). Many laws and regulations were added because of the behaviors of corporations.

 

[IrishLax]

Only when balanced with some form of socialism. History shows that unrestrained capitalism didn't work very well for the poor person in the U.S (especially during the 1870s to early 1900's though there was a brief time in the early 1800's where it seemed to be working). Many laws and regulations were added because of the behaviors of corporations.

EXACTLY. How do people not understand this?

True "laissez faire" capitalism absolutely hoses the poor. Whether you want to call it "socialism" or something else, you absolutely need some checks and balances via the Government or capitalism fails catastrophically.

 

[phgreek]

Man, what a dickish view of the whole situation. Nothing is Cruz's fault even though he led the charge to shut down the government. It's the fault of people who live within their means but need their paychecks to do that, and its the fault of people who work as contractors who should have somehow known that some asshole was going to actively work to shut down the government and screw them over.

what he said sounds harsh for sure...

But there is some level of responsibility to prepare for bad times. Financial literacy is probably at an all time low. If you can't go 6 months w/o a paycheck, you are doing it wrong. Now I realize some folks might get caught in a perfect storm, and their emergency savings are tapped due to a medical issue, or they just graduated, and don't have one. That sucks, and I feel for them.

But generally folks working as contractors in the government have been around a few years. It is hard for me to be pissed at Ted Cruze for a temporary shut down. Especially considering no government contractor has more than 12 months of backlog, realistically, and is often faced with funding drops that don't neatly fit in 12 month cycles. You should be planning for periods of contract down time. As well the government may terminate a contract at any point for cause or convenience, as is often the case when elections cause a major shift in "priority". As alluded to above, Budgets are almost always late, w/o Ted Cruze and have caused short term shutdowns. Point is something happens to cause concern for or an actual shutdown with enough frequency that anyone in government service w/o a way to weather the storm is foolish. As well the most basic of financial literacy tells you to put yourself in a position to have 6 months to a year of money to live on. Add in the government budget dance, and really, Ted's deal should be an annoyance, not earth shattering. Living within your means includes the emergency fund budget.

 

[pkt77242]

Kids would learn work ethic and the value of a dollar?


I'd keep my own paycheck and invest it, earning 10% rather than zero.


Lawsuits would put a stop to that real quick, and be much more effective than EPA fines. You pollute my lake, I sue your ass off for millions and millions of dollars.

How? What makes it your lake and not their lake? If you get rid of the regulations, what are you suing them over? Why can't they pollute the lake? Also how will you know that they polluted it, or what the pollution is? What or who will determine what is safe levels of the pollutant? Do you not see how that would epically fail?

 

[dales5050]

Are you suggesting that people should vote for something that is worse for them personally? Our entire system of government -- one person, one vote -- is designed for people to vote according to their own self interest. What you see as "the problem," I see as the solution. This is what Bernie talks about when he speaks of a "revolution." Stop listening to the talking heads and corrupted, special interest-tainted politicians who will benefit if you do as they say, and start voting for your self interest.

This has to be one of THE dumbest things I have read in a long, long time.

Our system is designed for voters to elect representatives who will do the most good for the common populus. If you vote for only yourself...you're doing it wrong.

 

[wizards8507]

Only when balanced with some form of socialism. History shows that unrestrained capitalism didn't work very well for the poor person in the U.S (especially during the 1870s to early 1900's though there was a brief time in the early 1800's where it seemed to be working). Many laws and regulations were added because of the behaviors of corporations.

Corporatism is not capitalism. Most of the problems you're describing are the product of sweetheart deals with governments. The government was complicit in creating those problems, then rushed in to fix them as it always does.

EXACTLY. How do people not understand this?

True "laissez faire" capitalism absolutely hoses the poor. Whether you want to call it "socialism" or something else, you absolutely need some checks and balances via the Government or capitalism fails catastrophically.

I'm not an anarchist. Courts are legitimate institutions used to enforce contracts and protect from abuse.

 

[FightingIrishLover7]

EXACTLY. How do people not understand this?

True "laissez faire" capitalism absolutely hoses the poor. Whether you want to call it "socialism" or something else, you absolutely need some checks and balances via the Government or capitalism fails catastrophically.

That's essentially what democratic socialism is.

Regardless, I agree capitalism could work. But my fear is you're going to get a Republican eventually that will convince enough people that we need to REMOVE social programs. Claiming that you'll get lower tax rates (or some other "incentive").

There needs to be checks and balances, period. Whether that's democratic socialism or social capitalism, I don't care.

The most exciting thing about Bernie, imo, is that he's actually creating some pressure on big corporations. He's using blue collar money to make super-pac Clinton sweat. And that in itself is a huge win for idealism.

 

[kmoose]

Sucks.

A month-long vacation with the only stipulation being that I'll be paid a few weeks late? Sign me up every time. It's not Ted Cruz' fault if people are too shit at managing their finances that they can't survive a quick blip in their cash flow.

I will have you know that the TSA people that I work with had to come to work everyday, yet they were not getting paid until the government shutdown was over. They did so, mostly, without complaint.

And it's not about whether or not they had a rainy day fund or not. It's about some dickhead(Ted Cruz) shutting down the government to gain favor with his party leaders, for his own benefit and no one else's. Tell me........... what's the difference between passing a bill to gain favor with a fat cat donor, and shutting the government down to gain favor with the people who decide who the party will back for future office?

Cruz is the Lane Kiffin of politics. Elect him, and you will be starting a giant dumpster fire in the United States.

 

[wizards8507]

That's essentially what democratic socialism is.

Regardless, I agree capitalism could work. But my fear is you're going to get a Republican eventually that will convince enough people that we need to REMOVE social programs. Claiming that you'll get lower tax rates (or some other "incentive").

There needs to be checks and balances, period. Whether that's democratic socialism or social capitalism, I don't care.

The most exciting thing about Bernie, imo, is that he's actually creating some pressure on big corporations. He's using blue collar money to make super-pac Clinton sweat. And that in itself is a huge win for idealism.

What the fuck? Idealism isn't a thing to be pursued.

 

[FightingIrishLover7]

I'd rather have the banker's crumbs than nothing.

This right here sums you up well. Enjoy your crumbs.

 

[IrishLax]

I'll add that the vast, VAST majority of countries that tried some sort of Marxism/Leninism failed or gave up on it. China is probably the most "successful"... and they only started growing their economy in earnest when they incorporated more capitalism into their country, and they have deplorable human rights/environmental conditions so they're hardly a shining example of "success."

Looking at other forms of "socialism" (which is a very broad term)\, many people point to places like Denmark, Sweden, etc. as examples of success. Without going too far down the rabbit hole, there are lots of issues with these countries that we don't have here. They also do a lot of things better than we do here. There are always tradeoffs. No system is perfect, or everyone would use it.

 

[wizards8507]

And it's not about whether or not they had a rainy day fund or not. It's about some dickhead(Ted Cruz) shutting down the government to gain favor with his party leaders, for his own benefit and no one else's. Tell me........... what's the difference between passing a bill to gain favor with a fat cat donor, and shutting the government down to gain favor with the people who decide who the party will back for future office?

What the hell are you talking about? Ted Cruz' party leaders HATE HIM. They didn't want him to shut down the government because they're terrified of the media blaming Republicans for shit. Ted Cruz was elected after campaigning to act as a check to Obama's agenda. He acted to fulfill his campaign promises against the will of the party. My God, there's room to criticize Ted Cruz but the notion that he's some puppet of the Republican power structure is absurd. The Republican power structure is diametrically opposed to Ted Cruz.

This right here sums you up well. Enjoy your crumbs.

Which of these ten-person economic systems is better in your opinion?

System 1: Every person makes $50,000 per year.

System 2: One person makes $1 billion per year. Everyone else makes $60,000 per year because they work for the $1 billion guy's corporation.

Bernie wants to move us towards System 1 even though everyone is better off in System 2. Socialism is built on envy and it's evil. Equal misery shared by all, as long as it's "fair."

 

[ACamp1900]

Wasn't anyone else taken back by how much a gov shutdown supposedly destroyed the lives of so many... left so many in the streets hungry and such... I mean really if any of that hyperbole was to be even remotely believed then just write them up as line item 5,467 on the list of reasons gov is too f'ing big to begin with.

 

[FightingIrishLover7]

Kids would learn work ethic and the value of a dollar?


I'd keep my own paycheck and invest it, earning 10% rather than zero.


Lawsuits would put a stop to that real quick, and be much more effective than EPA fines. You pollute my lake, I sue your ass off for millions and millions of dollars.

WOW. Have you know familiarity with working conditions during the industrial revolution? What you just said is absolutely ruthless, and more than insulting to children that were literally working in the American equivalent of sweatshops...

That was cold, and beyond your level of heartlessness. I hope that you aren't a christian. Because, I'm pretty confident you're throwing around some non-Christ-like ideology here.

 

[pkt77242]

Corporatism is not capitalism. Most of the problems you're describing are the product of sweetheart deals with governments. The government was complicit in creating those problems, then rushed in to fix them as it always does.


I'm not an anarchist. Courts are legitimate institutions used to enforce contracts and protect from abuse.

Without regulations how is their abuse? If you remove regulation about polluting what exactly are they abusing?

 

[wizards8507]

WOW. Have you know familiarity with working conditions during the industrial revolution? What you just said is absolutely ruthless, and more than insulting to children that were literally working in the American equivalent of sweatshops...

That was cold, and beyond your level of heartlessness. I hope that you aren't a christian. Because, I'm pretty confident you're throwing around some non-Christ-like ideology here.

What's so evil about work? Work is a good, noble, virtuous thing.

Without regulations how is their abuse? If you remove regulation about polluting what exactly are they abusing?

Private property rights. McDonald's can't dump its grease traps in your lawn because it's your lawn.

 

[IrishLax]

Wasn't anyone else taken back by how much a gov shutdown supposedly destroyed the lives of so many... left so many in the streets hungry and such... I mean really if any of that hyperbole was to be even remotely believed then just write them up as line item 5,467 on the list of reasons gov is too f'ing big to begin with.

Yeah, the joke around here is that the only thing the shutdown did was improve our commutes and pack the bars.

Obviously, the issue is that there was TONS of background work that is VERY important that wasn't being done.

With that being said, if you hired consultants Office Space style to "trim the fat" from the Government I bet you could cut about 20% of the existing workforce with virtually no drop off in service... and then take that 20% and put them to work in other roles.

 

[woolybug25]

Sucks.

A month-long vacation with the only stipulation being that I'll be paid a few weeks late? Sign me up every time. It's not Ted Cruz' fault if people are too shit at managing their finances that they can't survive a quick blip in their cash flow.

Who is Ted Cruz to decide that the single mother making ends meet should budget her dollar better? Or that he should dictate anyone's spending habits period? It's not his role or his right to do so. Let's also not act like a month is a "quick blip", for some people, that is a ton of debt service that they simply wont be able to recover quickly from.

It's fuq'n crazy to me that you are Mr "Stay out of my life, guvment", but have no problem with a politician single handily taking away contractually agreed upon income from citizens. For political posturing, no less.

I highly doubt that if a Dem did the same thing under the argument of [/insert liberal talking point], that "well... they should know how to budget their money" would be an appropriate response.

I understand.

Different topic:

If America would learn how to budget/prioritize and not try to keep up with the Jones's then having your paycheck postponed one month shouldn't be a problem.

Too many people living beyond their means now days.

I agree. But I also don't want government telling the public how they should spend their money. If someone wants to live pay check to pay check, then that is their decision. I also don't like government making political postures that cost people their income stream.

 

[kmoose]

What the hell are you talking about? Ted Cruz' party leaders HATE HIM. They didn't want him to shut down the government because they're terrified of the media blaming Republicans for shit. Ted Cruz was elected after campaigning to act as a check to Obama's agenda. He acted to fulfill his campaign promises against the will of the party. My God, there's room to criticize Ted Cruz but the notion that he's some puppet of the Republican power structure is absurd. The Republican power structure is diametrically opposed to Ted Cruz.

Cruz is a fucking idiot of the highest order. But I misspoke about the party leaders. What I was thinking is that he was trying to pander to the leaders of the "Tea Party Movement" within the Republican Party. I think he felt that a revolution was underway, and if he completely sold out to block Obamacare, then he would be seen as the hero of the revolution and would be elevated to the supreme leadership position after the revolution.