The 2016 Presidential Election Trainwreck

[imanihonjin]

What do you mean by well regulated capitalism? What specifically would this do in order to alleviate poverty?

Capitalism has done more to alleviate poverty than any other form of government, and it isn't even close.

[imanihonjin]

Joe Biden not running. Hillary breathes a huge sigh of relief.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/21/politi...ion/index.html

NNNNNOOOOOOOO!!!!!! There go my dreams of a Trump Biden debate. I would settle for Trump Sanders, but Trump Biden would have been an all time great TV moment.

[ERCougar]

Well regulated capitalism.

And this is why I don't believe you--you keep throwing out these vague notions that seem more like excuses to ignore the problem than any real attempt to solve it.
How is this going to help equalize the opportunities in Compton? Or put another way, are you suggesting that the inequality is caused by a lack of well regulated capitalism (whatever the hell that means)?

[imanihonjin]

I have no idea what you're suggesting here. First plank - disability payments. You want to expand them? I have to admit that I wasn't expecting that but I'm still not sure if that's what youre suggesting. Second plank is a vague combination of welfare and food stamps. Again, I have no idea what you're suggesting,other than connect it to work training, which would represent another expansion of another government program. Third plank looks eerily similar to what brought us our latest financial crisis. And the fourth is another new government program,although I'm unclear on who the target would be.
So overall, a massive expansion of government. Okay, but what's wrong with progressive taxation again? Not enough government involvement?

This seems to be lock step with the way the Republican party thinks today. They spout off about how ticked off they are that the left always wants to expand government and then when they are in power all they do is expand government in a way that differs from how the dems would have expanded government.

[New Mexican Disaster]

You are a masochist.

Well, I just wanted to see if there is any substance there, and real ideas or just one big idea: government bad, markets good.

[imanihonjin]

And this is why I don't believe you--you keep throwing out these vague notions that seem more like excuses to ignore the problem than any real attempt to solve it.
How is this going to help equalize the opportunities in Compton? Or put another way, are you suggesting that the inequality is caused by a lack of well regulated capitalism (whatever the hell that means)?

How is providing the option of we regulated capitalism an excuse?

What does equalizing opportunity mean to you? Do you really believe that it means that the kid in Compton should have the same options as the kid in Beverly Hills? If that is your position then I am not sure how you even think this is achievable unless you institute communism.

To me equal opportunity means that the government protects a persons unalienable rights, i.e., the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Property rights are also key to this equation. Capitalism unfettered could get ugly so I think anti-trust laws and the like are critical as long as they are done to promote competition in the market place rather than stifle it.

Capitalism has done more to raise the quality of life for the poor and needy than has any other form of government. Wal-mart is better than any government welfare plan as it has figured out how to bring the goods people want and need more efficiently and more economically than could any central governing mechanism. Need an example of this? Look at Katrina....Wal-mart was ready to provide the goods and supplies need to help people after the storm hit because of the preparations it made before hand. Sure they were doing it initially to earn money, but they had the supplies in place that people needed. The government on the other hand was a complete mess from the get go. We all know that story and how it went down.

Whatever the government has done to try and reduce poverty hasn't worked. As Nakoma point out, despite all the programs that were supposed to alleviate the problem, the percentage of those in poverty hasn't changed much. Why in the world would we want to expand such a miserably performing part of our government?

[ERCougar]

How is providing the option of we regulated capitalism an excuse?

What does equalizing opportunity mean to you? Do you really believe that it means that the kid in Compton should have the same options as the kid in Beverly Hills? If that is your position then I am not sure how you even think this is achievable unless you institute communism.

To me equal opportunity means that the government protects a persons unalienable rights, i.e., the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Property rights are also key to this equation. Capitalism unfettered could get ugly so I think anti-trust laws and the like are critical as long as they are done to promote competition in the market place rather than stifle it.

Capitalism has done more to raise the quality of life for the poor and needy than has any other form of government. Wal-mart is better than any government welfare plan as it has figured out how to bring the goods people want and need more efficiently and more economically than could any central governing mechanism. Need an example of this? Look at Katrina....Wal-mart was ready to provide the goods and supplies need to help people after the storm hit because of the preparations it made before hand. Sure they were doing it initially to earn money, but they had the supplies in place that people needed. The government on the other hand was a complete mess from the get go. We all know that story and how it went down.

Whatever the government has done to try and reduce poverty hasn't worked. As Nakoma point out, despite all the programs that were supposed to alleviate the problem, the percentage of those in poverty hasn't changed much. Why in the world would we want to expand such a miserably performing part of our government?

I told you what I mean by equalizing opportunity--creating a society where I'd feel comfortable raising my child anywhere in it. If you can say that about the US, then I can see how you would feel that we're done here. I can't say that so I think we need to do what we can to make that the situation here. Wealth redistribution is the best way I know how to do that. I'm listening for other options and I'm hearing... Better anti trust laws? Seriously, we already have well regulated capitalism. What else?

[imanihonjin]

I told you what I mean by equalizing opportunity--creating a society where I'd feel comfortable raising my child anywhere in it. If you can say that about the US, then I can see how you would feel that we're done here. I can't say that so I think we need to do what we can to make that the situation here. Wealth redistribution is the best way I know how to do that. I'm listening for other options and I'm hearing... Better anti trust laws? Seriously, we already have well regulated capitalism. What else?

We don't have well regulated capitalism here.....we have over regulated capitalism. The government programs you seemingly support haven't done anything to better conditions in Compton. Why do you think more of them would be better?

[Topper]

I have no idea what you're suggesting here. First plank - disability payments. You want to expand them? I have to admit that I wasn't expecting that but I'm still not sure if that's what youre suggesting. Second plank is a vague combination of welfare and food stamps. Again, I have no idea what you're suggesting,other than connect it to work training, which would represent another expansion of another government program. Third plank looks eerily similar to what brought us our latest financial crisis. And the fourth is another new government program,although I'm unclear on who the target would be.
So overall, a massive expansion of government. Okay, but what's wrong with progressive taxation again? Not enough government involvement?

I apologize for it not being clear. I am setting forth premises before establishing the approach.

First, I believe most of what needs to be done is justified through the police powers concept of Constitutional law, and not through the nebulous concept of substantive due process as the Justices tried to use to declare entitlements a Constitutional requirement.

I am in agreement that society will provide, whether it should or not, and therefore we need efficient means of being effective. Currently, the war on poverty suggests we are inefficient and ineffective.

You never clarified how a higher wage earner owes the system a greater proportion of his higher wage to the system than a lower wage earner. I know many in society accept this, but nobody has explained it in tangible terms why this is so. You simply assume the conclusion without establishing the premises.

It is my belief, one that will not be tested because too few are interested, that government would be more responsive to all voters if a single rate tax were implemented because each voter will feel the pain of any tax increase. If government can merely overspend and tax one segment, there can never be responsible government. There are other basics of human psychology to consider as well.

As to my premise that progressive taxation is based upon emotion and not rational thought, I submit we do all benefit from the system in place. That much is a given, however, and nobody starts off from an equal position. That is also a given. However, not all wage earners are created equal. Some high wage earners were there based upon their parents. In fact, I speculate most are. However, some are not but due to special talent which society values greater than other talents or skills. Although the gross amount is different, I submit it is proportionate to a low wager earner. If the low wage earner earns 100 and pays ten, he recognizes society's contribution to be ten.

If the high wage earner earns 1000 and pays 100, he recognizes society's contribution to be 100, the same ratio. Nothing you have stated explains why high wage earner's superior position or skill is proportionately more in debt to society than the low wage earner. I have speculated as to your reasons but you have not articulated them. Please explain and how that affects government's role with respect to all taxpayers and voters.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Well, I just wanted to see if there is any substance there, and real ideas or just one big idea: government bad, markets good.

lol @ everyone arguing with a couple of ideologues

[imanihonjin]

lol @ everyone arguing with a couple of ideologues

Lol....yet your are still here reading every post.

[YOhio]

Lol....yet your are still here reading every post.

Sometimes I feel like Jeff Lebowski just loves to have the spirit of contention!

[Northwestcoug]

Lol....yet your are still here reading every post.

Dude, he's already admitted to not reading one idealogue's post. I wouldn't be surprised if he doesn't read the other's.

[imanihonjin]

Dude, he's already admitted to not reading one idealogue's post. I wouldn't be surprised if he doesn't read the other's.

Oh no. That would be awful.

[ERCougar]

We don't have well regulated capitalism here.....we have over regulated capitalism. The government programs you seemingly support haven't done anything to better conditions in Compton. Why do you think more of them would be better?

This is getting painful so I'm about done, but I'll just point out that the only government program I've specifically supported in this thread is the EIC, which has plenty of good research demonstrating its effectiveness. You, on the other hand, are claiming that the kid in Compton is poor only because the government just won't get out of Walmart et al's way. Um... Ok. Yeah, I'm done.

I apologize for it not being clear. I am setting forth premises before establishing the approach.

First, I believe most of what needs to be done is justified through the police powers concept of Constitutional law, and not through the nebulous concept of substantive due process as the Justices tried to use to declare entitlements a Constitutional requirement.

I am in agreement that society will provide, whether it should or not, and therefore we need efficient means of being effective. Currently, the war on poverty suggests we are inefficient and ineffective.

You never clarified how a higher wage earner owes the system a greater proportion of his higher wage to the system than a lower wage earner. I know many in society accept this, but nobody has explained it in tangible terms why this is so. You simply assume the conclusion without establishing the premises.

It is my belief, one that will not be tested because too few are interested, that government would be more responsive to all voters if a single rate tax were implemented because each voter will feel the pain of any tax increase. If government can merely overspend and tax one segment, there can never be responsible government. There are other basics of human psychology to consider as well.

As to my premise that progressive taxation is based upon emotion and not rational thought, I submit we do all benefit from the system in place. That much is a given, however, and nobody starts off from an equal position. That is also a given. However, not all wage earners are created equal. Some high wage earners were there based upon their parents. In fact, I speculate most are. However, some are not but due to special talent which society values greater than other talents or skills. Although the gross amount is different, I submit it is proportionate to a low wager earner. If the low wage earner earns 100 and pays ten, he recognizes society's contribution to be ten.

If the high wage earner earns 1000 and pays 100, he recognizes society's contribution to be 100, the same ratio. Nothing you have stated explains why high wage earner's superior position or skill is proportionately more in debt to society than the low wage earner. I have speculated as to your reasons but you have not articulated them. Please explain and how that affects government's role with respect to all taxpayers and voters.

I couldn't care less about the constitutional basis behind helping out poor people. I'm not sure why you keep bringing this up, but I guess I'll just agree with whatever you're saying here.

If you haven't heard why I think a progressive tax is not only just, but also fair, you're not listening and I'm too lazy to repeat it on my phone. You can disagree, but to claim I didn't address it is dumb.

Anyway, JLs right. Moving on