| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/14/2012 08:47:10 PM · #201 |
| I didn't realize low life expectancy was a priority for those on the right... :p |
|
|
|
09/14/2012 08:49:48 PM · #202 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I didn't realize low life expectancy was a priority for those on the right... :p |
Of course it is, why do you think they want capital punishment and hate gun laws so much ;-) |
|
|
|
09/14/2012 09:19:26 PM · #203 |
| Heh. The left, OTOH, doesn't even want to risk it so kills them before they are born. ;) |
|
|
|
09/14/2012 09:26:26 PM · #204 |
The thing is, opinion pieces can and often do have a bias. Facts do not. I see more and more people claim bias if the account doesn't agree with their belief, when it's really just true. What REALLY gets me is when I encounter something like this:
"Joe is bad because he did this yesterday."
"Every major news organization says that's not true."
"Those sources are all biased. Joe did that yesterday and it's an outrage"
"OK, show me where Joe did that."
"Here's an awesome article on JoeSucks.com"
"Your article was dated 6 years ago and says Mike did that while Joe refused."
"Joe is still bad because he did this yesterday."
Message edited by author 2012-09-14 21:28:08. |
|
|
|
09/14/2012 09:44:09 PM · #205 |
| At that point you just nod and back away slowly. |
|
|
|
09/14/2012 09:50:51 PM · #206 |
|
|
|
09/15/2012 01:36:03 AM · #207 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Heh. The left, OTOH, doesn't even want to risk it so kills them before they are born. ;) |
Define kill... is masterbation the act of a wanton killer and is it something only those on the Left do? :O)
Ray |
|
|
|
09/15/2012 01:52:54 AM · #208 |
We don't need to go there again. Define life. To kill is to end a life. The scientist in me will pretty clearly tell you a sperm cell is not a "life".
It was a witty comeback to a witty counter to a witty tweak of a throwaway fact. Don't make more of it than that.
Message edited by author 2012-09-15 01:56:48. |
|
|
|
09/15/2012 03:14:12 AM · #209 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
It was a witty comeback to a witty counter to a witty tweak of a throwaway fact. Don't make more of it than that. |
Not me Doc... I was just in the chain yanking mode that's all :O)
Ray |
|
|
|
09/15/2012 11:09:53 AM · #210 |
| Well, I fell for it... :). Yank! |
|
|
|
09/15/2012 03:13:39 PM · #211 |
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
You are attacking a fuzzy centrist as if he were the Devil himself. If the left had a voice in the popular press you would know they don't much like him either. His policies wanders the middle path, so it is more poorly lit. |
Are you trying to say Obama is middle of the road??? Neither left or right. He is so far left it hurt...Look at all the things he has socialized...i.e. healthcare. Also are you trying to say that the left is not in the media. That is a joke. Have you ever watched CNN. |
When you use the plural form you should probably list more than one thing. Besides, he didn't socialize healthcare. The vast majority of people with health insurance are not getting it from the government. Ironic that someone who has worked for the government would be complaining about government based benefits. |
|
|
|
09/18/2012 01:43:11 PM · #212 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by JamesDowning:
Politically, I believe the united states is generally considered a center-left country, with Republicans actually still somewhat left of the universal "center". |
If you are comparing the USA to all the world's governments, maybe. Most of Africa and central Asia tends towards the ruthless totalitarian tribal kleptocracy, so we balance out to the left of them.
If you compare the USA to first world countries, we are pretty far to the right, in fact we are the only first world nation without universal healthcare, with a high poverty rate, a low life expectancy, low taxation, we have the death penalty....Im sure it could be a long list.
Of course where we land on your balance will depend where you place your fulcrum. |
I believe the fulcrum is pretty well established from a poly sci standpoint. It seems center-left is generally defined as follows (Wikipedia):
Originally posted by :
The centre-left promotes a degree of social equality that it believes is achievable through promoting equal opportunity.
The centre-left opposes a wide gap between the rich and the poor and supports moderate measures to reduce the gap, such as a progressive income tax, laws prohibiting child labour, minimum wage laws, laws regulating working conditions, limits on working hours, laws to ensure workers' right to organize. The centre-left, unlike the far-left, typically claims that equality of outcome is not possible, but that equal opportunity improves social equality in society. |
So it seems the belief is generally that we were centrist at the beginning, but as we have enacted more leftist policies such as the new deal, we've slowly moved towards the left. |
|
|
|
09/18/2012 01:57:52 PM · #213 |
Originally posted by JamesDowning:
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by JamesDowning:
Politically, I believe the united states is generally considered a center-left country, with Republicans actually still somewhat left of the universal "center". |
If you are comparing the USA to all the world's governments, maybe. Most of Africa and central Asia tends towards the ruthless totalitarian tribal kleptocracy, so we balance out to the left of them.
If you compare the USA to first world countries, we are pretty far to the right, in fact we are the only first world nation without universal healthcare, with a high poverty rate, a low life expectancy, low taxation, we have the death penalty....Im sure it could be a long list.
Of course where we land on your balance will depend where you place your fulcrum. |
I believe the fulcrum is pretty well established from a poly sci standpoint. It seems center-left is generally defined as follows (Wikipedia):
Originally posted by :
The centre-left promotes a degree of social equality that it believes is achievable through promoting equal opportunity.
The centre-left opposes a wide gap between the rich and the poor and supports moderate measures to reduce the gap, such as a progressive income tax, laws prohibiting child labour, minimum wage laws, laws regulating working conditions, limits on working hours, laws to ensure workers' right to organize. The centre-left, unlike the far-left, typically claims that equality of outcome is not possible, but that equal opportunity improves social equality in society. |
So it seems the belief is generally that we were centrist at the beginning, but as we have enacted more leftist policies such as the new deal, we've slowly moved towards the left. |
I think the point is that the Centre-left is not the standard in the USA- the rich-poor gap is wider than ever, the taxes are lower than ever, we have a congress that grudgingly looks at issues of wages, unions both private and public sector are diminishing, and the outcome is more determined than ever(not to mention all of the points Brennan made with respect to other western countries)
So you can proclaim "Obama is leftist and Socialist" and the like, but all the empirical evidence indicates if we were drifting left the ship has now leaned right. |
|
|
|
09/18/2012 02:31:12 PM · #214 |
I believe that 'leaning right' would technically mean repealing those leftist things that have been enacted. By simply allowing them to be and rarely changing them, that's more centrist - if I understand the terms correctly. But I guess I'm just arguing semantics.
I'm following you though, and it's not necessarily a bad thing. Just as we have market corrections, we have political corrections. If the country sways too far left, we get a correction right. If the country sways too far right, we get a correction left (as was basically seen in the 2008 election). It's just like the economy... if the economy begins steaming along too fast, you'll generally get a market correction. Growth and fiscal responsibility seem to come in waves. |
|
|
|
09/18/2012 02:49:34 PM · #215 |
Originally posted by JamesDowning:
The centre-left opposes a wide gap between the rich and the poor and supports moderate measures to reduce the gap, such as a progressive income tax, laws prohibiting child labour, minimum wage laws, laws regulating working conditions, limits on working hours, laws to ensure workers' right to organize. The centre-left, unlike the far-left, typically claims that equality of outcome is not possible, but that equal opportunity improves social equality in society. |
We have been moving away from those goals for the last thirty years.
Rich and poor; "From 1992 to 2007 the top 400 earners in the U.S. saw their income increase 392% and their average tax rate reduced by 37%.[39] The share of total income in America going to the top 1% of American households (also after federal taxes and income transfers) increased from 11.3% in 1979 to 20.9% in 2007.[40] During the Great Recession of 2007-2009, inequality declined, with total income going to the bottom 99 percent of Americans declining by 11.6%, but falling faster (36.3%) for the top 1%.[41][42] However disparity in income increased again during the 2009-2010 recovery, with the top 1% of income earners capturing 11.6% of income and capital gains, and the income of the other 99% remained flat, growing by only 0.2%.[43][44]" from wiki
Marginal tax: in the 1950s the top marginal tax rate was over 90%, today it is 35% and the average paid by top earners is below 20% as we have learned by Mr buffet and Mr Romney
Child Labor; Mr Gingrich spoke against child labor laws as part of his presidential stump speech, and Republicans in Maine and other states have put forward legislation to lower working age, with a lowering of minimum wage. "Retailers and the service industry are behind the movement to relax child labor laws, and grocery industry lobbyists plan to push the issue in other states." Under federal law, teenagers have to be paid only $4.25 an hour during their first three months on the job, making them attractive low-wage hires who could displace workers earning $7.25, the federal minimum wage for adults.
Minimum wage laws: Before Obama raised the minimum wage, it's purchasing power was at a 51 year low.
Workers' right to organize; In February of this year "Indiana became the 23rd state to pass anti-union "right-to-work" legislation on Wednesday and the first in the nation's manufacturing heartland, dealing a blow to organized labor by allowing workers to opt out of paying union dues. Indiana's Republican governor Mitch Daniels signed the legislation into law immediately after it was given final approval in the state Senate, making Indiana the first state to adopt such a measure since Oklahoma did so a decade ago."
I see all of these examples as of a strong rightward drift, a case that we have moved and are continuing to move further away from a center left position that we once had under Eisenhower and Nixon, those well know socialists.
Message edited by author 2012-09-18 14:57:23. |
|
|
|
09/18/2012 04:13:10 PM · #216 |
Concerning the wage gap, you fail to address immigration and how that affects the wage distribution. Immigrants tend to be in the lowest ranks of US earners, looking for opportunities. Obviously that will push down the wages of the lowest earners bracket. Immigration since the 30s has been growing at a nearly exponential rate. Immigration numbers in the 90s and 00s has been unprecedented in US history. I'm not arguing against immigration, just stating that its sheer existence can distort your numbers.
(and really, are you going to choose only the top 400 earners for your argument? that's the top 0.0001%.)
Marginal tax bracket has decreased, but it's still progressive.
Child labor is interesting... I've worked and submitted tax returns since I turned 14, so I don't see the big deal. I think it was good for me.
Gingrich also helped push through welfare reform. Are you going to argue that that was a right shift?
You also ignore our expanding entitlements. While our wages become more unequal between top and bottom earners the entitlement programs also continue to expand exponentially. What's the cause and effect here? It can be argued either way.
The point is that we're still very much a center left society, built on center left values. The extent of which is difficult to argue. Things change and adjustments are made, as they always should be. |
|
|
|
09/18/2012 04:22:08 PM · #217 |
Originally posted by JamesDowning:
Child labor is interesting... I've worked and submitted tax returns since I turned 14, so I don't see the big deal. I think it was good for me. |
Ditto. I worked since I was 12 (maybe earlier). In my teens, I always had to buy the beer because I was the only one with money. I wonder what the stats are as far as lifetime income earnings for people who worked at young ages. ...and yet I am too lazy to go look for them. Ironic, huh? :) |
|
|
|
09/18/2012 05:42:12 PM · #218 |
Originally posted by JamesDowning:
you fail to address immigration and how that affects the wage distribution. |
A century ago 15% of the population was foreign born, today 12% is. The absolute numbers are higher, but the percentage is down.
Originally posted by JamesDowning:
(and really, are you going to choose only the top 400 earners for your argument? that's the top 0.0001%.) |
The same numbers break out at 1%, 3%, 5% and 20% the middle class is being squeezed, and a higher percentage of the country's wealth is in the hands of fewer people. From 1983 to 2007 the net worth of the bottom 80% of the US population has dropped from 18.7% of the nation's wealth to 15%. 20% of the population controls 85% of the capital, and that concentration of wealth is getting greater.
Originally posted by JamesDowning:
Marginal tax bracket has decreased, but it's still progressive. |
So is the argument anyone who doesn't have a flat tax is leftist? I would say a top marginal rate of 90% would have a different effect that 35%. Our top marginal rate of 35% puts us in company with Malta, Equador, Turkey, Vietnam, Sri Lanka, Benin, and Ethiopia.
Originally posted by JamesDowning:
Child labor is interesting... I've worked and submitted tax returns since I turned 14, so I don't see the big deal. I think it was good for me. |
So your personal experience would lead you to think that child labor laws are a bad thing? And does that effect you argument that we are left of center as a country when we are moving to diminish the enforcement of child labor laws?
Originally posted by JamesDowning:
You also ignore our expanding entitlements. While our wages become more unequal between top and bottom earners the entitlement programs also continue to expand exponentially. What's the cause and effect here? It can be argued either way. |
It seems to me our "expanding entitlements" rest not with the expansion of those entitlements, but with demographic shifts in our aged and unemployed. To quote Lawrence Mishel:
[i]"So, thereâs no evidence to show weâre becoming an âentitlement society,â just that weâre low on revenues and the economy remains depressed. The citation of the safety net going from 37 percent to 66 percent (of revenues) has nothing to do with permanently expanding program eligibility or higher benefits, but much to do with cyclical factors and revenue erosion."
Originally posted by JamesDowning:
The point is that we're still very much a center left society, built on center left values. The extent of which is difficult to argue. Things change and adjustments are made, as they always should be. |
Again, I think your notion of where that center lies is the difficulty I have with your argument. If you include feudal dark age monarchies and warlords of the Han dynasty in the group, you are correct, we are far left of them; but if we are comparing the current state of first world economies we are far from left center, we are right center and moving to the right fast. |
|
|
|
09/18/2012 10:19:52 PM · #219 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
A century ago 15% of the population was foreign born, today 12% is. The absolute numbers are higher, but the percentage is down. |
I'm not sure your comparison works. We were much more central, politically, back then. We didn't even have a welfare system. Seems most economic policy comparisons tend to stick with post WWII numbers. But
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
The same numbers break out at 1%, 3%, 5% and 20% the middle class is being squeezed, and a higher percentage of the country's wealth is in the hands of fewer people. From 1983 to 2007 the net worth of the bottom 80% of the US population has dropped from 18.7% of the nation's wealth to 15%. 20% of the population controls 85% of the capital, and that concentration of wealth is getting greater. |
I understand your point, but the argument is that it's to be expected and cannot be helped. Yes the rich is getting richer, but is the poor really getting poorer? Your numbers indicate that but again do not consider that our population is constantly growing. The real question seems to come from the theory of socio-economic mobility. Of course, it's a disputed metric, but there are arguments that the US has a relatively high income elasticity among developed states.
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
So is the argument anyone who doesn't have a flat tax is leftist? I would say a top marginal rate of 90% would have a different effect that 35%. Our top marginal rate of 35% puts us in company with Malta, Equador, Turkey, Vietnam, Sri Lanka, Benin, and Ethiopia. |
A progressive tax is a leftist movement, yes. I'm not sure of your point regarding the top marginal rate.
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
So your personal experience would lead you to think that child labor laws are a bad thing? And does that effect you argument that we are left of center as a country when we are moving to diminish the enforcement of child labor laws? |
I didn't say it was a bad thing, but lowering the age limit doesn't sound bad to me. I see your argument though.
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
It seems to me our "expanding entitlements" rest not with the expansion of those entitlements, but with demographic shifts in our aged and unemployed. To quote Lawrence Mishel:
[i]"So, thereâs no evidence to show weâre becoming an âentitlement society,â just that weâre low on revenues and the economy remains depressed. The citation of the safety net going from 37 percent to 66 percent (of revenues) has nothing to do with permanently expanding program eligibility or higher benefits, but much to do with cyclical factors and revenue erosion." |
I'll have to find time to read your link and form a better response. But my initial response to your quotation is that the growing entitlements have been getting out of hand even before the recession. The Social Security committee (might be the wrong word for them) has been stating since the mid 90s that their program is no longer solvent. But yes, that has to do with baby boomers. Just a quick example.
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Again, I think your notion of where that center lies is the difficulty I have with your argument. If you include feudal dark age monarchies and warlords of the Han dynasty in the group, you are correct, we are far left of them; but if we are comparing the current state of first world economies we are far from left center, we are right center and moving to the right fast. |
I believe the spectrum does indeed include all political viewpoints. I wholeheartedly agree that among first worlds we are somewhere right of the pack, but that's our historical nature. We were built upon the theory that big government is not necessarily better and that governments cannot be trusted. Seems we as a people are slowly forgetting this. |
|
|
|
10/17/2012 07:56:16 AM · #220 |
It appears that Romney is making a strong comeback in the polls...and Obama is looking much weaker
|
|
|
|
10/17/2012 08:09:43 AM · #221 |
Supreme Court Approves Ohio Early Voting On Final Weekend Before Election Day
Looks like it won't be a "Diebold" determined election in Ohio. At least, not totally.
Message edited by author 2012-10-17 08:15:20. |
|
|
|
10/17/2012 09:25:46 AM · #222 |
Originally posted by hahn23:
Looks like it won't be a "Diebold" determined election in Ohio. At least, not totally. |
The important thing in democracy is not the voting, it's the counting.
Any technology introduced to improve the act of voting cannot make the act of counting less transparent or democracy suffers.
It is apparent that Diebold's systems (not to mention Diebold's paranoia for secrecy) render the act of counting less accountable and less transparent. Ergo, democracy suffers. The corporate justification for this secrecy is that these systems adhere to a list of "standards" put out by the Federal Election Commission, and that an "ITA" (Independent Testing Authority) carefully examines the voting system, which is then provided to states for their own certification. As it turns out, the states typically do not examine the computer code at all, relying instead on a "Logic and Accuracy" test which will not catch fraud and has frequently missed software programming errors that cause the machines to miscount.
If used in a close election - where exit polling and other secondary measurements are unable to confirm the results of the counting - the wrong person might actually get elected President of the United States of America.
Here's a link to Diebold's leaked emails which should concern any citizen who likes the idea of democracy. |
|
