Another Bush For President

[Racoon]

Sorry Craig D.. Of Course there was Expansionist Military after World War Two on the United States Part. ..

 

Europe Depended on it..

 

Or you'd be in a Stalinist Gulag.

 

Thats how they were able to afford all those Socialist Policies.. Because after World War II the US  had their Backs and they didn't have to spend so much on their own National defense..

 

Now  Its a different story.. All the Multicultralism Imports and Welfare expenses are bleeding European nations Dry.. With Nothing to show for it other than higher crime rates and Islam taking root..  

Hows that Divershitty working out for Europeans??

Edited November 1, 2014 by Racoon

[CraigD]

... Of Course there was Expansionist Military after World War Two on the United States Part.

... Or you'd be in a Stalinist Gulag.

You seem to be asserting, Racoon, that had the US not expanded its military after 1945, the USSR would have invaded the US, and put me in a prison.

 

Though there’s no sure scientific way to judge “what if” alternate history scenarios like this, I think you’re wrong. I believe that the matching military buildup of the US and USSR known as the “arm race” would have been smaller if either of these countries governments had stopped increasing the provisioning of their militaries, because the other government would have also stopped. I believe that neither country would have invaded the other, even had their military provisioning been equal or less than 1945 levels. The buildup was, I think, an inevitable consequence of the failure to restrain policies driven by a natural human fear of war in the minds of leaders and the People in general. In the US, these policies should have been restrained by its laws, the supreme one being its Constitution, specifically those in Article 1 Section 8 enumerating the powers of Congress. In the USSR, it should have been the rational dialectic of its soviets. Both system, I think, failed. Although negotiations between the US and USSR beginning in 1964 restrained the US-USSR arms race somewhat, I think that by then, the “acquisition of unwarranted influence” and “disastrous rise of misplaced power” Eisenhower warned against in his 1961 address had already taken hold in the US, and something analogous to, though different from it, in the USSR.

 

Considering the present day rather than the above real and alternate history, I don’t think that a dramatic decrease in defense spending by the US government would result in an invasion of the US by Russia, or any other country.

 

It’s tempting to consider just the direct effect of defense spending on the military-industrial complex, but at least in the case of the US, I think this is simplistic and critically wrong.

 

Consider how the US Congress has been able to support a large military since 1945.

 

Prior to the 1913 adoption of the 16th Amendment, Congress could raise money only by taxing the states proportionally to their same population numbers used to determine their number of Representatives, of by excise (sales taxes)or tariffs (import or export taxes). The 16th Amendment allowed Congress to collect a tax on individual people and corporations’ incomes. The practical effect of this was that Congress could much more easily collect more money

 

So, while the fear-inducing effects of the 20th Century’s world wars and the US-USSR cold war may have driven the rise of the military-industrial complex against which Eisenhower warned, I think the 16th Amendment made it fiscally possible.

[Racoon]

The problem after the U.S. and the allies knew they had won the war against Hitler, that they faced a new threat in Stalin.

 

Dropping the atom bomb on Hiroshima wasn't just to defeat and demoralize the Japanese.. It was to show Stalin that he wasn't going to win the arms race or aggresively aquire more territory, as was Stalin's ambition.

 

There was a race for the Nazi scientists afterall, and the amazing technology they had developed, albeit alittle too late to turn the tide of the War at that point. The US and the Allies won that race.. Stalin was awarded his prizes also.

 

I've studied alot of WWII History, and there are a lot of "What Ifs"

 

Its No Secret that Stalin was an enemy, but 'an enemy of my enemy' against Hitler first...

 

The United States had to build such an armed force for countering the Communist takeover threat on a world scale post WWII.. such as Korea and Vietnam, Cuba, and in other places...

[AnssiH]

No actually I meant Ron... Hadn't even realized Rand is his son though. :) Anyway, I was asking because in the earlier elections he was pretty much dismissed in the media, but then often the sound bites I hear from him were quite rational. So I wondered what had happened to him.

 

I don't know that much about him, so, what were the kooky things that people mostly remember him from?

The reason I am asking this is because a lot of the sound bites I hear from him are directly threatening the powers that be, including federal reserve system and the owners of global media corporations. So I find it very interesting that he is portrayed so poorly in the media.

 

In this thread, there's a cry for some alternative options, but is it also true that when someone actually offers any alternative to the powers that be, it is far too easy to portray them as cranks?

 

So are there any specific kooky things that he has said that someone can point out, or is it just a general perception created in the media?

 

-Anssi

[CraigD]

So are there any specific kooky things that he [Rand Paul] has said that someone can point out, or is it just a general perception created in the media?

Though I wouldn’t describe them as “kooky”, because they express beliefs held by many people, I disagree with current US senator and member of the Republican political party Rand Paul’s calls to prohibit abortion even in the early stages of pregnancy, and related calls to define a fertilized egg as a legal person, making any intentional termination of its development subject to the same treatment as murder.

 

This differs strongly from the views of his father, current US representative and member of the Republican party Ron Paul, who adheres to the usual libertarian view that the government should not prohibit abortion.

 

Rand Paul’s rejection of this view allows him to be a successful member of the Republican party, which Ron Paul’s adherence to it has marginalized him, resulting in his changing party affiliation between the Republican party and the much smaller and less powerful Libertarian party. I think it’s likely Rand Paul could win a Republican party nomination for US President (if not in 2014, later), but unlikely that Ron Paul could.

[AnssiH]

No I meant Ron, not Rand. Rand doesn't seem to be too far off from the typical Republican stance. What I find interesting is that;

 

Rand Paul’s rejection of this view allows him to be a successful member of the Republican party, which Ron Paul’s adherence to it has marginalized him, resulting in his changing party affiliation between the Republican party and the much smaller and less powerful Libertarian party. I think it’s likely Rand Paul could win a Republican party nomination for US President (if not in 2014, later), but unlikely that Ron Paul could.

...since you have two party system, it seems almost impossible to climb anywhere in the political ladder without appealing to the lowest common denominator of one or the other side constantly. (Which is also why so many politicians have to lie so much during their campaigns)

 

The sound bites from Ron strike me as someone who is more willing to state his own opinions, even if they are unpopular. Like MH-17, it is very easy to collect the emotional response from the public by blaming Russia, and posing as the protector from the threat of Russia. In the meantime you see Ron saying "hey, what about actual investigations?" Is that why he's perceived as kooky?

 

Related to MH-17, here's an example of what I mean;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FXeOxKWgB4

 

You need kind of a special mind to not know that there are all kinds of things to be gained by shooting down a passenger plane, and it has been used many times before to bring in sanctions (for instance in Libya). Which side of the isle exactly is kooky?

 

Or another example, it is completely normal lowest common denominator stance to say that middle eastern anti-US terrorism is caused by the fact that "they hate freedom". And when someone says "well maybe terrorism is fueled by the fact that we keep bombing them", that's portrayed as kooky. The sad fact is, there really are masses of uneducated people who believe there exists another group of people who is so hell bent on hating freedom, that they want to murder for it. And that mass sees anyone opposing the bombings as dangerous.

 

It's noteworthy that the public stances of the two political parties are an exact reflection of some lowest common denominator opinions; a party that doesn't do this will not stay afloat. And anyone who publicly differs from the official partyline has much harder time actually getting anywhere. A pro-abortion conservative will lose the conservative votes, but will not gain very many democrat votes.

 

And if one actually agrees with every lowest common denominator issue, they are probably pretty simple and uneducated themselves. So basically, after the 2-party filter, you get to vote between simpletons and liars.

 

To answer the OP, the system is pretty fundamentally broken when even elementary game theory can point out exactly why things cannot change from the usual plutocratic lie-campaings. That's what the game is, and if you are not playing, you cannot possibly get anywhere.

Edited November 30, 2014 by AnssiH

[pgrmdave]

Ron Paul would be a terrible president.

His taxes? Favor the wealthy and punish the poor.  He's changed over time, but he's favored things like a flat tax (which reduces wealthy people's discretionary income and reduces poorer people's needed income), a sales tax (which is highly regressive, as poorer people spend a greater % of their income), eliminating gift and estate taxes (which increases wealth inequality over time by maintaining the head-start that certain groups have over others), and reducing inflation (inflation helps people who are in debt - overwhelmingly poorer people, not wealthier people).

 

 

Prayer in publicly funded schools? He thinks that people, including teachers, should be allowed to preach in schools that are publicly funded, basically arguing that churches are where people get their morality. Something which is confusing to all of us who are atheists and managed just fine to be moral people.

Opposition to net neutrality?  He's pretty much opposed to the idea of the government ever preventing a corporation from doing anything - even to the point of arguing that it's not *possible* for a corporation to harm people unless the government is involved.  

Unlimited money in elections? Yup - this is a free speech issue.  Corporations should have the right to dump millions of dollars into a campaign, because that would in no way lead to a quid pro quo.  Allowing unlimited funds to be given to candidates is just a terrible way to have elected officials.

Returning abortion to the States (i.e. making it illegal)? As someone who strongly thinks that women shouldn't be forced by the government to remain pregnant against their will, this is particularly odious to me.  If you support people's right to bodily autonomy, there is no reasonable way to support making abortion illegal which is exactly what you do when you kick the can to the States. You don't get to wash your hands of the decision just because you let someone else make it for you.  

Opposition to increasing access to education? Yup - because the free market has worked great at helping poorer people access education.  We've got so many private colleges which are filled with a true cross-section of wealth.

 

He's opposed environmental protections while voting to continue tax breaks for oil and gas. He does not believe that people have a right to healthcare (contrary to most of the civilized world) and that doctors shouldn't need to be licensed.  He opposes the Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act for the incredibly naive reason that he somehow thinks discrimination is either perfectly okay (an easy view to take for a wealthy white christian man) or that businesses wouldn't discriminate against anybody (which is bizarre, given that discrimination has pretty much existed forever).

He's basically made many, many decisions that are not just bad but actually *dangerous*.  While he's in Congress it's fine - he's just a kooky old uncle among hundreds.  But if he had the Presidency? The ability to eliminate entire government agencies? We'd see a return to the golden age of America...wait - no - the *gilded* age of America.  Strong property rights, insane funds being spent buying politicians, and terrible results for anybody who isn't in the top %.

[AnssiH]

Right I see, so basically he is so pro-corporation that he is seen as kooky. Quite interesting, considering that some of those policies seem to be individually supported by many other popular politicians. Personally I would agree that many of them would most likely have terrible consequences.

 

Few details prompt me to comment though. The flat taxes; without knowing what Ron might mean by that exactly, it should be realized that current tax policy actually favors the wealthy. Wealthy people don't pay income taxes, and their effective tax rates are typically far less than typical lower-middle class working people. Their tax policies are decided by wealthy class people; the very people who benefit from it.

 

The tax system in most western countries is setup for heavy progressive income tax, which just means that the worker class is kept at roughly even playing field, and outside of the wealthy class even if you are succesfull. And it is interesting that in many cases you need to earn relatively little as base salary for the tax rate to cap in full effect.

 

But, progressive, flat or whatever tax policy, I think this is quite irrelevant compared to the problems of global tax game, which means you have to keep tax rate at an average of about ~0% for large corporations in order to keep them in the country (which is where the complicated tax codes come in, and allow even negative tax rates for corporations), which leads into larger income unequality. Furthermore, a large percentage of taxes is being used to simply keep the moneytary policy running, in the form of interests paid for government debt, instead of being used to actually serve the citizens or building the infrastructure.

 

I think a lot of people have lost track of what happens with taxes, and who benefits from the system.

 

Second, his arguments about healthcare, where he argues that government meddling with healthcare has caused the prices to sky-rocket. There's a grain of truth in this, but it's not the government alone that has caused it, it's the fact that the system is ran via insurance companies. It's pretty simple how that works, and it always happens if you run money through insurance companies. When a company bills insurance company, the bills will become much larger than if they had to actually compete for the market share. I was recently involved in a situation where, when bunch of renovation companies realized they'd be billing an insurance company, the bills become almost ten-fold of what they would have otherwise been.

 

It is possible to create a system where public healthcare cuts out any insurance party out of the equation completely, and is running the system closer to its true costs. That does also put pressure to the private institutions to push their prices closer to an actually competitive level.

 

I'm afraid in the US the large companies who benefit from the current healthcare system have far too much political power for anything like this to happen anytime soon.The plain fact is that in terms of resources, a modern civilized country could easily provide top notch healthcare for all of its citizens without bankrupting anyone. Anything else is corruption and failed policies. Sorry US, you are trapped into a terrible system.

 

But that's besides the point I guess...

[pgrmdave]

 

 The flat taxes; without knowing what Ron might mean by that exactly, it should be realized that current tax policy actually favors the wealthy. Wealthy people don't pay income taxes, and their effective tax rates are typically far less than typical lower-middle class working people. Their tax policies are decided by wealthy class people; the very people who benefit from it.

 

And do you have any numbers to back this up? At all?

 

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=456

 

Median effective tax rate is 11% (in 2010).  The higher earners paid higher rates, the lower earners paid lower rates.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/01/18/us/effective-income-tax-rates.html?_r=1&

 

Median income+payroll taxes in 2007 were 12.7% with again, higher percentages for higher earners, lower percentages for lower earners.

 

 

You might need to do some actual research - your ideas seem to be based around lies and falsehoods.

[pgrmdave]

Here's one that breaks down the top earners further, showing that even within that group they pay higher percent of their income in taxes as they earn more:
http://pgpf.org/budget-explainer/taxes

[AnssiH]

And do you have any numbers to back this up? At all?

I was referring to the fact that wealthy people generally get their income form capital gains, which are typically taxed at 10-15% depending on country.

 

In the meantime, high earning working class people, i.e. people who get their money as normal salary, are taxed much more heavily.

 

Remember the ruckus about Mitt Romney's tax rate, for example? It seemed to come as a surprise to a lot of people, how someone who earns around 14 million dollars a year, can have a tax rate of around 14%

 

In Finland the distinction between these tax rates is even sharper. I have personally had a tax rate of ~60% with an income that would be considered upper middle class income in the US. Had that income been classified as technically capital income, it would have been taxed at around 12%.

 

The defense for that tax system is "trickle down economy"; the idea is the wealthy people create jobs. Not sure that's true, as they just enter their money into various funds, just like the high earning working class people would.

 

Note also that corporations have a very complex tax code in their hands, which they do use to their advantage in lowering their own taxes. It is not difficult to spend few billion dollars on "consultation" fees and turn out a "non-profitable" year. Even if the consultation fee was paid to your own cayman island office.

[pgrmdave]

I was referring to the fact that wealthy people generally get their income form capital gains, which are typically taxed at 10-15% depending on country.

Which country are you referring to? Because I was citing sources that used all taxed income - including capital gains - and you seem to have just decided to ignore that.

 

Also, in the US long-term capital gains are only taxed at 15% if you're earning less than 400k a year (which the top 1% is not), otherwise they're 25% (more complicated if it's not just basic investments, but we'll assume it's just a portfolio of stocks and bonds).

[AnssiH]

Which country are you referring to? Because I was citing sources that used all taxed income - including capital gains - and you seem to have just decided to ignore that.

I was talking about the perspective I have globally. I did ignore your links because it mostly shows the progression among working class people. It's hard to intepret the impact of the thin layer of multi-million dollar Buffets and Romneys on those graphs. I think it's a bit strange to stop at top 1% when people make those graphs, as most of top 1% are not outside of working class yet. So I opted to just comment on the fact that capital gains are generally taxed less heavily.

 

But okay, let's look at the links you provided. Notice that the two first ones represent the high earners as "top 1%". 90% of that group are working class people. Doctor's lawyers, and so on, earning few hundred k's to a million or two a year.

 

The small group on the very top, i.e. the Romney's and Buffetts, the multi-million dollar earners, that's where you start to get to the people who actually have power because of their wealth. These are generally the bankers and people who are in the business of controlling private and public money flows, or people who have sold succesfull businessess and entered the capital gains money game that way.

 

The last link showed a 0.1% of US as being taxed more heavily than the 1% club, which if true would surprise me. It would mean most of that power elite gets bulk of their income as salary, and are not using taxation loopholes... On that note, I would also like to understand how do people expect to make these estimates from IRS data, when it's well known fact that wealthy people have plenty of legal ways to hide much of their income from taxation.

 

Or perhaps it is right and the raises on capital taxes in recent couple of years have taken effect? It is hard to say because there are different ways to estimate these things.

 

I quickly just googled few different versions, and for example, Forbes here;

http://www.forbes.com/sites/janetnovack/2013/03/06/as-stock-market-recovered-rich-took-bigger-share-of-nations-income-and-paid-lower-tax-rate/

 

claims that top 1% paid average rate of 23,39%, while top 0.1% paid slightly less, 22,84%. They also mention that previous year the top 400 people had tax rate of 19.9%

 

I must say I'm still surprised by even those figures, as the distinction appears to be much sharper where I live.

 

While I was googling for some numbers, I found couple of comments that I find quite interesting;

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-critical-difference-between-the-top-1-and-the-top-1-capital-gains-2011-7?IR=T

 

http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/investment_manager.html

 

Pretty interesting read in my opinion. Notice the sharp distinction they make between the working class rich people, and the truly rich who mostly consist of people who are running the monetary and investment systems.

[pgrmdave]

claims that top 1% paid average rate of 23,39%, while top 0.1% paid slightly less, 22,84%. They also mention that previous year the top 400 people had tax rate of 19.9%

Which means that if you're interested in getting the top earners to pay just the *same* as they do now with a flat tax, you're looking at more than doubling the average taxes people pay, and tripling the taxes for people in poverty. If you expect them to pay more then you're looking at severely harming those who in the bottom 99.9% for marginal benefits. A flat tax benefits the wealthy and hurts the poor.

 

Taxes should be purely progressive (that is, the more income you have the higher percent of your income you pay) and there should never be incentive to earn less (because of our tax code there are instances where you have greater take-home pay when you earn less money. Most of that deals with things like the AMT and deductions that are eliminated once you cross a threshold.)