What are your political leanings?

[cardgame]

That's because we're writing a blank check in the form of corporate welfare to big pharma and the health insurance industry. If you want meaningful change wrt social security and medicare, Bernie or Warren are your only answers. Obviously nobody is going to destroy them as they stand and leave the biggest voting bloc out in the cold, quite possibly literally. Leaving aside the political infeasibility it's not an option, morally.

 

[Tristan_C]

I disagree. The government is not the best solution to the problems it caused.

 

[Hrothbern]

I disagree. The government is not the best solution to the problems it caused.

semi-monopolic oligarchic constructions are worse

Here a nice read on that: http://www.janeeckhout.com/wp-content/uploads/RMP.pdf

an eyeopener for many I think on how profit and wealth shifted during the last decades under the radar of our day to day stuff.

Abstract

We document the evolution of market power based on firm-level data for the US economy since 1955. We measure both markups and profitability. In 1980, average markups start to rise from 21% above marginal cost to 61% now. The increase is driven mainly by the upper tail of the markup distribution: the upper percentiles have increased sharply. Quite strikingly, the median is unchanged. In addition to the fattening upper tail of the markup distribution, there is reallocation of market share from low to high markup firms. This rise occurs mostly within industry. We also find an increase in the average profit rate from 1% to 8%. While there is also an increase in overhead costs, the markup increase is in excess of overhead. We then discuss the macroeconomic implications of an increase in average market power, which can account for a number of secular trends in the last four decades, most notably the declining labor and capital shares as well as the decrease in labor market dynamism.

 

[Patine]

Here is the scale of the difference in the effect of financial irresponsibility on the national debt.
Cost of the War on Terror, 2001-2019: $2.4 trillion [1]
Cost of Medicare+caid+SS, 2001-2019, only the portion not paid-as-you-go by payroll taxes: $14.7 trillion [1] [2]

I won't even get into the price tag on the 2009 pork bailout. A modern Gordian Knot. I'm neither fond of nor strongly opposed to the existence of the fed, but the long term effects on banking caused by our overpriced safety net are pretty much incalculable. If you want to deposit money in a bank, your terrible interest rate is due to the fact that you're competing with the fed, a powerful wholesale lender. If you want a loan, your terrible interest rate is due to the fact that you're competing with the Treasury, a powerful wholesale borrower. This two-way relationship is welfare for banks. Guess which party employs bankers to run its social program initiatives.

The regular military budget represents 20 percent of expenditures and is explicitly constitutional. The social outlays above represent 60 percent of expenditures and are not constitutional.

"Promote the general welfare" - The content of the preamble is delineated in the articles; items comprising 60 percent of expenses which literally created the need for the federal income tax, you'd think these should be mentioned somewhere. I'm not saying these things should be repealed outright. They are entrenched, and people have grown dependent on them. That's the Democrats' fault. They buy their votes with this garbage and we're stuck in it. Change would only bring chaos.



You either didn't read or didn't comprehend the post correctly. It says both.

Debts in the trillions over short periods is not fiscally responsible, however you cut it - whether you're taking care of your own people like a government, or butchering foreigners, destroying foreigners, torturing people, and violating their own Constitution and concept of due process at home - under illegal pretexts, lies, playing the people's anger and fear after one terrorist attacks in the planning since 1982 (and yet U.S. Intelligence had no wind of it?) like a harp, and claiming that phenomenon like "terrorism," even remotely had a direct military solution that was possible - especially given the form of terrorism, as it was currently defined, was created in the first place by the U.S., UK, France, the USSR, and Israel screwing around in a cavalier manner in pre-dominantly Islamic countries - it didn't exist as such prior to that - but when you punch the wasp's nest and are surprised when you got stung, and think punching it again will do any good, then maybe you're the fool - and, of course, employing in this "War on Terror," one of the worst terrorist organizations since the end of WW2 - the CIA - as a major implement and tool toward this endeavour, it's a failure and disaster from the start. The American taxpayers are owed their 2.4 trillion dollarsby their government back, and the Bush Administration members on trial, frankly.

Voters 65+ (i.e. Medicare and Social Security recipients) went for Trump 53-44. If the Democrats are buying votes with handouts they sure are doing a lousy job at it.

Ah, so a few percentage points of the votes of Senior Citizens in one election kills a whole line of argument flat! A real coup d'grace! A single anecdote to slay a whole broad-based argument! Masterful debating skills!

(Sarcasm detected)

 

[Patine]

I disagree. The government is not the best solution to the problems it caused.

So, you advocate the Government shrugging responsibility for it's own messes, and getting others to clean them up?

 

[stinkubus]

Debts in the trillions over short periods is not fiscally responsible, however you cut it - whether you're taking care of your own people like a government, or butchering foreigners, destroying foreigners, torturing people, and violating their own Constitution and concept of due process at home - under illegal pretexts, lies, playing the people's anger and fear after one terrorist attacks in the planning since 1982 (and yet U.S. Intelligence had no wind of it?) like a harp, and claiming that phenomenon like "terrorism," even remotely had a direct military solution that was possible - especially given the form of terrorism, as it was currently defined, was created in the first place by the U.S., UK, France, the USSR, and Israel screwing around in a cavalier manner in pre-dominantly Islamic countries - it didn't exist as such prior to that - but when you punch the wasp's nest and are surprised when you got stung, and think punching it again will do any good, then maybe you're the fool - and, of course, employing in this "War on Terror," one of the worst terrorist organizations since the end of WW2 - the CIA - as a major implement and tool toward this endeavour, it's a failure and disaster from the start. The American taxpayers are owed their 2.4 trillion dollarsby their government back, and the Bush Administration members on trial, frankly.



Ah, so a few percentage points of the votes of Senior Citizens in one election kills a whole line of argument flat! A real coup d'grace! A single anecdote to slay a whole broad-based argument! Masterful debating skills!

(Sarcasm detected)

It's a pretty strong data point. If the purpose of social welfare programs are to buy votes *BY CREATING DEPENDENCY* why is the demographic which is BY FAR the largest beneficiaries of those programs voting for the party that explicitly wishes to abolish them?

 

[Lexicus]

Debts in the trillions over short periods is not fiscally responsible, however you cut it -

Why?

 

[Patine]

SSA is obviously lying about their flagrantly unconstitutional program which can't be challenged in court because REASONS.

Dude's trying to act like Social Security is some untouchable third rail when in reality both parties have been explicitly discussing either cuts or privatization since at least the Clinton administration.


It's a pretty strong data point. If the purpose of social welfare programs are to buy votes *BY CREATING DEPENDENCY* why is the demographic which is BY FAR the largest beneficiaries of those programs voting for the party that explicitly wishes to abolish them?

How would you feel about the (Un)Patriot Act and all those Cold War "National Security" Acts, including the ones that "legally" allow the existence and operation of groups like the CIA and NSA AT ALL, warrantless and secret Government surveillance of it's people for ANY reason, and "allow" the Government to keep all those horrible secrets from their citizens, many of which are quite harmful to them, and even acts of treason by the Government against their people, which are all blatantly Unconstitutional, being struck down along these acts you are complaining about?

 

[stinkubus]

I'm not playing this game. That's a complete change of the subject. I was responding to another poster who explicitly stated that Social Security was unconstitutional. If we are going to have threads for political debate these sort of Busch League tactics really ought to be moderated.

 

[Patine]

I'm not playing this game. That's a complete change of the subject. I was responding to another poster who explicitly stated that Social Security was unconstitutional. If we are going to have threads for political debate these sort of Busch League tactics really ought to be moderated.

The Busch League? I must ask, as an aside question, who are they?

 

[luiz]

There are so many options that it's hard to know what to make of the results, other than the obvious conclusion that this forum leans left heavily, bordering on far left.

I'd be more interested to find out what happened to the political leanings of the old posters. Are the commie kids still commies after they became adults? What about the libertarians? The pro-war Bush voters?

 

[Tristan_C]

So, you advocate the Government shrugging responsibility for it's own messes, and getting others to clean them up?

This goes to the heart of what it means to have a "classical liberal" instinct. Accept the fact that government is not equipped to handle certain responsibilities. If you want to reduce poverty in an area, government is not adequate for this kind of complex task. Whereas if you want a wing of stealth bombers to reduce the area to radioactive slag, government is ideal.

 

[Patine]

This goes to the heart of what it means to have a "classical liberal" instinct. Accept the fact that government is not equipped to handle certain responsibilities. If you want to reduce poverty in an area, government is not adequate for this kind of complex task. Whereas if you want a wing of stealth bombers to reduce the area to radioactive slag, government is ideal.

That post is so twisted and warped in perspective. You're basically portraying a post-modern view of a "barbarian warlord," view of governance, like Attila the Hun, Genghis Khan, or Tamerlane - "we conquer and trash the region, and put our banner down - someone else can make it liveable again. And that someone else can also pay taxes to finance our armies to boot."

I'm not playing this game. That's a complete change of the subject. I was responding to another poster who explicitly stated that Social Security was unconstitutional. If we are going to have threads for political debate these sort of Busch League tactics really ought to be moderated.

Also, I must apologize. I was moreso responding to the post you were quoting and not you, and I was mistaken.

 

[Naskra]

what happened to the political leanings of the old posters

I am well-stricken in years. In my youth, I was libertarian (I knew M. Rothbard, and you don't get more libertarian street-cred than that). Back then, I thought men were rational; I have since learned that Fashion rules the world, so the hell with it. That and the Flynn effect in high gear reverse.
And before you all start: Chuck Koch's beltway libertarianism is not what I mean by the term.

 

[Hrothbern]

There are so many options that it's hard to know what to make of the results, other than the obvious conclusion that this forum leans left heavily, bordering on far left.

I'd be more interested to find out what happened to the political leanings of the old posters. Are the commie kids still commies after they became adults? What about the libertarians? The pro-war Bush voters?

I would like those posters back if we are all capable to have a mix of debate & deliberate here on this forum.

Not seek and destroy missions when we can keep up a decent level.

 

[Estebonrober]

There are so many options that it's hard to know what to make of the results, other than the obvious conclusion that this forum leans left heavily, bordering on far left.

I'd be more interested to find out what happened to the political leanings of the old posters. Are the commie kids still commies after they became adults? What about the libertarians? The pro-war Bush voters?

Please plenty of people have posted center positions that would only be considered center in the USA. there are many right wingers who haven't responded who nonetheless are very active around here.

 

[Tristan_C]

That post is so twisted and warped in perspective. You're basically portraying a post-modern view of a "barbarian warlord," view of governance.

I am not saying that government should be like this, I am saying realistically that it is like this, and suggesting that people not entrust it with complicated goals that lie outside of its expertise.

Government can do certain other things besides kill people. One of the strengths of the US constitution is that the 'enumerated powers' of the government (article 1, section 8) are all jobs the government is reasonably well-suited to handling, and by their nature are very difficult to achieve in the private sector. Even though the framers lacked academic terms to describe "public goods"— non-rivalrous and non-excludable benefits— they still generated a list of items of this description.

If your instinct regarding a problem is to discuss how the government can go about fixing it, this is a progressive mindset. If your instinct is to discuss whether the government is suited to fixing it, this is a classical liberal mindset.

 

[El_Machinae]

I've learned here in the last couple days that my perception of (USAian) libertarian is incorrect, that "socially liberal" apparently isn't. You can imagine how bummed I am to find out that the label I thought appropriate has been appropriated by greedy racist whackjobs. So put me down for someone who (very broadly) favors the minimum government necessary to protect individual rights and defend the country from external threats. Classical liberal?

I think of you as a 'real' libertarian, and am really pleased that you didn't disappoint now that I see that you're back. I think that the problem is that the huge majority of 'libertarians' are actually just people who call themselves that without actually believing it.

I thought of myself ( and kinda still do) as a libertarian. Or, at least that's my foundation. I lost a lot of respect for the concept of libertarianism (as a mindset) during the Ebola crisis. All the people who called themselves libertarians ... end up not being libertarian.

I guess the major difference I'd take (for myself) of your definition of libertarian is that the government's role just isn't 'external threats', but also 'threats'. If there's a market breakdown that results in an underprovision of a necessary service, then that's a place for government to step in as an investor.

I often liken the voters to being shareholders of the countries that they're in. It would be very weird thinking that a company should do things that a government must not do, considering I am both an owner of a country and also a shareholder.

 

[Patine]

I often liken the voters to being shareholders of the countries that they're in. It would be very weird thinking that a company should do things that a government must not do, considering I am both an owner of a country and also a shareholder.

You know, that sounds frighteningly similar (not exactly, but very similar) to what the OCP CEO in "Robocop 2," told the Mayor of Detroit when OCP foreclosed on all city assets and property, and the Mayor said, "what about democracy?" Although, I believe in that case, the response did involve the citizens having to buy shares in the first place. However, I must interject that viewing a government in a similar vein to a corporation is a very distorted and wrong-headed Governments and corporations, by definition, and the nature of what they do, and what their mandates are, are so very different from each other, even at the base level of definition, they can't be compared nearly that easily without HORRID levels of distortion and self-deception.

 

[Estebonrober]

I am not saying that government should be like this, I am saying realistically that it is like this, and suggesting that people not entrust it with complicated goals that lie outside of its expertise.

Government can do certain other things besides kill people. One of the strengths of the US constitution is that the 'enumerated powers' of the government (article 1, section 8) are all jobs the government is reasonably well-suited to handling, and by their nature are very difficult to achieve in the private sector. Even though the framers lacked academic terms to describe "public goods"— non-rivalrous and non-excludable benefits— they still generated a list of items of this description.

If your instinct regarding a problem is to discuss how the government can go about fixing it, this is a progressive mindset. If your instinct is to discuss whether the government is suited to fixing it, this is a classical liberal mindset.

Nobody has any idea what you think you are talking about. Lincoln Republicans back in the pre civil war days main platform was government programs to promote infrastructure spending, small businesses, and education across the frontier. You seem to lack a more complex understanding of American history of modern economics, and of realities around you currently.

Balancing the budget is possible under current settings (arguable whether that's truly desirable though), hell we can dramatically increase spending and still be able to balance it. You are looking at the wrong side of the ledger for a modern state.