Has U.S. Democracy Been Trumped?

[Winstonm]

If everyone has nothing then equality is perfect,right? Is that preferable to some having more than others?

 

Silly comparison and therefore a silly question.

 

Here's one for you: which is your favorite Ayn Rand novel?

[Cyberyeti]

Silly comparison and therefore a silly question.

 

Here's one for you: which is your favorite Ayn Rand novel?

 

Not as stupid as it sounds. If in a communist country, 90% of people have less than 90%+ of yours in a capitalist country, but nobody is being allowed to die of poverty, is that better or worse ? is a valid question.

[awm]

Why do you think there is such a maldistribution of income? In my opinion it is due to "regulatory capture".

 

It's interesting that you post this, because I agree this is a big part of the problem. However, keep in mind who has:

 

1. Put an international oil company CEO (with no other relevant experience) in charge of foreign policy.

2. Put a big campaign donor (with no other relevant experience) in charge of education policy.

3. Put a banker in charge of the treasury (okay this one has been done before).

 

Sure seems like "regulatory capture" to me.

 

And a smaller government won't fix all the problems either. When we had a smaller federal government (back before the Great Depression) big companies basically walked all over their employees, and inequality was quite a bit worse than it is now. The time when productivity gains were shared evenly was roughly 1945-1980, and key features included very high tax rates on the top incomes, more regulation of banks and potential monopolies, cheaper access to education than exists today (mostly funded at the state level), stronger unions in the workplace, and jail time for white collar criminals (rather than fines which are tiny compared to the profits made from the criminal activity).

 

What we need is cleaner government and not necessarily smaller government. To some extent both parties have been captured by wealthy interests, but the Republican party (whose sole purpose these days seems to be helping out big companies and wealthy individuals by "de-regulating" and reducing their taxes while cutting benefits for poor and middle-class people) is far worse. If we want a "smaller government" why not reduce sentences for non-violent drug offenders? Reduce the size of ICE rather than increasing it? Reduce military spending and waste rather than increasing it? Why not reduce taxes for small business rather than for big business? Why not eliminate subsidies to oil companies? Strengthen the unions so workers don't have to rely on government to enforce their rights? Somehow "reduce the size of government" seems to equate to giving big monopolistic companies free reign. Feudalism is not an improvement over democracy, however flawed democracy might be.

[RedSpawn]

Why do you think there is such a maldistribution of income? In my opinion it is due to "regulatory capture". When you put more power into the government, the government then becomes a major prize to be won by the highest bidder. As long as political campaigns cost money, politicians will be susceptible to bribes in one form or another. You want better distribution of incomes, then significantly reduce the size and reach of government. Of course it will be less equal, but better distributed. Not everyone but the 1% will be poor. But can you accept such inequality? Or would you prefer what is happening now, a trend toward everyone being equally poor except for the 1%?

The problem started when we were given the illusion of choice between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump as the candidates for President. When you look at the candidates who weren't selected, you can immediately see this is no ordinary marketplace or natural selection process.

 

Our political markets do not produce natural outcomes because big money, national committees, and big business (corporations) including the 4th estate are gatekeepers who CONTROL the selection of individuals for the candidacy menu! This is dangerous consolidated power that essentially disenfranchises the body politic.

 

We the people argue over Trump and Clinton but don't really question the system that creates such horrible choices. Why is that?

 

It is unfair to blame the people for selecting Trump when the broken system produced a final duel between Trump and Clinton. Trump is too inexperienced and allegedly unqualified and Clinton is too corrupt, puppet-like, and familiar. The whole notion that we even open the White House to another potential 8 years of Bill Clinton is antithetical to what our forefathers wanted, envisioned, or designed.

 

No Former President who served for 8 Years should be in the White House again "just as" First Gentleman. He becomes an unpaid and unseen Senior Adviser to the President who influences her policy making. The optics alone smack of malfeasance and corruption. There are term limits for President for a reason. Political dynasties and media corporations have become too strong when they can influence outcomes and our menu choices this way.

 

It's the illusion of choice. We are witnessing the "unnatural selection" of our menu choices for the highest office by those with big money and power. We should be reviewing and questioning HOW did we get this crazy menu in the 1st place.

[y66]

From Trump Fails To Reach Beyond Base As Independents' Disapproval Grows by Jessica Taylor:

 

President Trump's support among independent voters has eroded since he took office. Though he still clings to a loyal base of supporters, his overall disapproval among Americans has reached record highs, according to a new NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll.

 

Just 37 percent of Americans approve of the job Trump is doing just over five months into his tenure, while 51 percent disapprove. Forty percent of those polled strongly disapprove of Trump's performance, twice the 20 percent who strongly approved.

 

The most pronounced swing seen in the poll was among independents. Over the past four months, their approval of the president has dissipated. In February, 40 percent of independents said they approved of the job Trump was doing, with 51 percent disapproving. Four months later in June, just 31 percent say they approve of the president with 59 percent of independents disapproving — a 17-point net-negative drop.

 

Despite almost full employment nationwide, independents are particularly dissatisfied with Trump on the economy. That's likely driving much of their overall disapproval. Just 31 percent of independents say they have confidence in Trump's ability to improve the U.S. economy, while 49 percent doubt he can do so. Just three months ago, 44 percent thought Trump could turn around the economy, while 38 percent didn't — a whiplash-worthy 24-point swing.

 

Lee Miringoff, the director of the Marist College Institute for Public Opinion, said the scope of the shift over the past few months among independents should cause "alarm bells to go off" at the White House.

 

"Independents were certainly willing to give Trump the benefit of the doubt when he entered office," Miringoff said, "but on issues like the direction of the country and the economy, they've really soured on him. It's hard for someone like him to make a second impression. Independents have come to the conclusion that what you see is what you get."

 

The good news for Trump is that his base hasn't abandoned him even as he has faced mounting investigations. Eighty percent of Republicans still approve of the job he is doing, including 91 percent who identify as strong Republicans. Trump has an 89 percent approval rating among those who voted for him last November. He has a 65 percent approval rating among white evangelical Christians, though almost a quarter disapprove of the job he is doing.

 

Still, there are some warning signs for the president among some of his key demographic groups. Only 52 percent of white, non-college-educated Americans approve of the job he's doing, though just 37 percent disapprove. And that is higher than most other subgroups. More worrisome for the president, among older Americans, 60 and older, he's underwater — 47 percent disapprove, while 43 percent approve.

 

Overall, Americans' outlook under Trump is dismal. Almost double say the country is on the wrong track as those who think it's on the right track, 61 percent to 31 percent, a gap that has nearly doubled since February.

 

More people say they feel worse off — 40 percent — since Trump took office, than better off — 34 percent. There is a deep partisan divide on that question, of course — 73 percent of Republicans say they're better off, while 67 percent of Democrats say the opposite. Among independents, far more — 44 percent — say they're worse off, compared with just 27 percent who say they're better off.

 

Americans also think Trump has hurt the country on the global stage. Fifty-eight percent say the president has weakened the United States' position abroad, while 34 percent say he has strengthened it.

 

In addition, by a 24-point margin, Americans believe former President Barack Obama was, by far, a more effective leader in comparison to Trump, 58 percent to 34 percent. Among independents, there is an even more pronounced 36-point difference, 65 percent to 29 percent.

 

A narrow plurality do think Trump is keeping his campaign promises (48 percent who do and 45 percent who don't), but most people disagree with some of the president's recent decisions. Fifty-three percent of those surveyed said they opposed Trump pulling out of the Paris climate accord earlier this month, while just 30 percent supported it.

 

Just over half of Americans also think the Supreme Court should rule against Trump's travel ban, which would curtail the entry of people from six Muslim-majority countries, while 43 percent say the high court should rule in the president's favor and allow him to proceed with one of his key campaign promises. A slim majority of independents (52 percent) also think the court should strike down the ban.

 

There is a cloud of suspicion that hangs over the president as well, with mounting questions about his business ties that are only compounded by his continued refusal to release his tax returns. More than 6 in 10 Americans say they believe Trump has either done something illegal (33 percent) or unethical but not illegal (28 percent). Just 31 percent say they believe he has done nothing wrong.

 

One place where Trump is losing GOP support is over his Twitter habit. Sixty-nine percent of Americans say Trump's use of Twitter is "reckless and distracting," while only 21 percent say it's "effective and informative." Even among Republicans, only a narrow plurality (43 percent) say the president's use of Twitter is positive, while 42 percent agree it's reckless and distracting.

 

And while Americans have a sour view of Trump, their opinion of Congress — both Democrats and Republicans — is no better. Congressional Republicans have a 33-point net-negative approval rating (28 percent to 61 percent) while congressional Democrats are not much better with a 27-point net-negative approval (30 percent to 57 percent).

 

"Nobody is benefiting in Washington from what is going on," Miringoff said.

 

Looking ahead to the 2018 midterms, registered voters say they're more likely to vote for a Democratic member of Congress over a Republican one by a 10-point margin, 48 percent to 38 percent.

 

But, with a gerrymandered congressional map that benefits the GOP, that double-digit advantage is less imposing than it may seem and may not be enough to help Democrats win back the House.

 

What's more, as they learned in last week's special-election loss in a Georgia House race, making the election too much about Trump isn't necessarily a silver bullet, either.

[jogs]

I said wealth. Wealth and income are not the same thing. Productivity gains used to be shared, albeit not perfectly proportionately, among labor, management, and ownership. That stopped being the case, starting with the redistribution of wealth that occurred under Reagan and Greenspan and has continued since.

This has nothing to do with republicans. It's the new information tech. 5% of the population is of real value. They are mostly democrats and they are getting all the money. Zuckerburg says in the near future robots will replace 50% of the workforce.

 

Old rules no longer apply. The govt must provide income to the useless 50%.

[Al_U_Card]

Somewhat reminiscent of "The 400". The ratio is likely less but there are now more of the "1%". (But the 0.01% are likely the same with the rest being more "nouveau riche".)

 

Wealth indeed. Income is a measure of value to society/corporatism. (CEO vs. worker) and with our current "industrial" status more electronic than actual, the artisans are harder to identify.

Wealth also includes health and prospects. Poverty is not just measured by $$$.

[PassedOut]

The Post has a good read about how a Muslim doctor in Minnesota is dealing with the ugliness of Trump's election: ‘Love Thy Neighbor?’

 

The morning after the election, he was shocked and angry, and when he looked up the local results before he went to work, the feelings only intensified. Not only had Trump won the county, he had won Dawson itself by six percentage points.

 

By the time he got to the hospital, he was pacing up and down the hallways, saying he hoped people realized that they just voted to put his family on a Muslim registry, and how would he be treated around here if he didn’t have “M.D.” after his name? People tried to reason with him. A colleague told him it’s not that people agreed with everything Trump said, and Ayaz said no, you’re giving them a pass. He told the hospital’s chief executive that he was thinking of resigning, and she told him to take some days to cool off.

 

He and Musarrat talked about what to do. He began investigating a job in Dubai. He spoke to his brother in Florida, an investment adviser, who had received a fax after the election that read, “Get the f--- out of my country you Muslim pig,” and was moving to Canada. Musarrat kept thinking about the time after Sept. 11 when a man had chased her with a baseball bat, yelling about her headscarf.

 

Nothing like that had happened in Dawson, but the Virjis began feeling differently about the town. They wondered whether the people who had seemed so warm were secretly harboring hateful thoughts or suspicions about them. Musarrat told Ayaz that she noticed more silence from certain friends. Ayaz was stopped on a sidewalk by a woman who said, “Jesus loves you,” and wondered what would happen if he said, “Muhammad loves you.” Another day, he ran into a patient who told him that a lot of farmers had voted for Trump because of sky-high health insurance premiums, not because of “anything racial,” and please, no one wants you to go.

 

Ayaz wasn’t sure whether to believe that. But he and Musarrat decided to stay, at least for the time being, and he tried to transform his anger into understanding. Maybe people really didn’t know, he told himself. Maybe people were suffering in ways he didn’t understand. Not long after that, a patient of his named Mandy France, a pastor in training at Grace Lutheran, asked if he might be willing to give a talk about Islam to the community. She said she’d been horrified by some of the things she’d heard people saying about Muslims in her prayer group.

And, after that

[Winstonm]

Not as stupid as it sounds. If in a communist country, 90% of people have less than 90%+ of yours in a capitalist country, but nobody is being allowed to die of poverty, is that better or worse ? is a valid question.

 

No, it was silly because I could easily add a third option to the false dichotomy: what about everyone having an equal amount? Is that better or worse?

 

None of the all/some questions are relevant because they deal with non-realities. Even your example (for which you site no data other than your own guess of distribution in a communist country?), is flawed because it doesn't answer the none/some question posed. And furthermore, my own suggestion is silly because there will never be perfect equality.

 

Playing mind/word games may win points in some online debates, but it does nothing to resolve the real problems caused by wealth inequality.

[ldrews]

No, it was silly because I could easily add a third option to the false dichotomy: what about everyone having an equal amount? Is that better or worse?

 

 

That is plain silly. People are inherently unequal in talents, energy, creativity. So the results of their efforts are unequal. The only way to achieve equality of outcome is for the government to step in and take from those that produce/have more and give to those who produce/have less.

 

One of the foundations of US civilization if equality before the law. Historically that has been what is meant by "all citizens are created equal".

[RedSpawn]

This has nothing to do with republicans. It's the new information tech. 5% of the population is of real value. They are mostly democrats and they are getting all the money. Zuckerburg says in the near future robots will replace 50% of the workforce.

 

Old rules no longer apply. The govt must provide income to the useless 50%.

If Zuckerburg is on record saying that 50% of the workforce will be replaced by robots, he should provide some solutions for what society should do for the displaced "disposable containers." Robots don't have to provide for their families, but humans do.

 

We have to be honest here. We will be competing against soulless metal and computer chips for our future jobs. We don't perceive this technological automation as a threat to our economic stability even though it is....but we do see the threat when its another human who is an illegal immigrant.

 

Same encroachment problem different form. When the driverless car technology becomes fully automated, there will be a bunch of disillusioned drivers protesting in the streets when their "secure" jobs are replaced. Corporate America will march on and privatize the productivity gains/profits and pawn off the societal job eliminations to the government.

[Zelandakh]

And a smaller government won't fix all the problems either. When we had a smaller federal government (back before the Great Depression) big companies basically walked all over their employees, and inequality was quite a bit worse than it is now. The time when productivity gains were shared evenly was roughly 1945-1980, and key features included very high tax rates on the top incomes, more regulation of banks and potential monopolies, cheaper access to education than exists today (mostly funded at the state level), stronger unions in the workplace, and jail time for white collar criminals (rather than fines which are tiny compared to the profits made from the criminal activity).

Would it be fair to say that another feature of that time compared to today is a lack of an international tax market. One of the primary reasons why even socialist governments do not raise taxes to similar rates to before is that the people in the top tax brackets are able to re-register their holdings offshore, in some cases even moving their primary residence, meaning that the tax rake takes a msssive hit. This means that the rich are essentially able to demand a tax rate below a certain threashold.

 

This is actually the one area of government where I had some small hope that Trump might do something positive (given how often he spoke about how he undesrtands the tax system like no other and would reform it). Being able to force big businesses and the wealthiest individuals to pay their fair share of taxes despite such tax avoidance strategies would make a huge difference and allow America to move forward on issues such as healthcare as discussed in the other thread. So far though, the only move on tax appears to be for big businesses and the wealthiest to pay less, which is surely a retrograde step, not only for equality (currently regarded as the most statistically significant factor in national happiness) but also for the country as a whole.

[ldrews]

W Being able to force big businesses and the wealthiest individuals to pay their fair share of taxes despite such tax avoidance strategies

 

"Fair" is in the eyes of the beholder. I assume that many of the wealthy think that because their capital is providing so many jobs for others that their "fair" share should be even less than it is now.

[Winstonm]

"Fair" is in the eyes of the beholder. I assume that many of the wealthy think that because their capital is providing so many jobs for others that their "fair" share should be even less than it is now.

 

Spoken like a true supply-side proponent. My response: Kansas.

[ldrews]

Spoken like a true supply-side proponent. My response: Kansas.

 

Spoken like a true socialist. Your response is unintelligible.

[RedSpawn]

Spoken like a true socialist. Your response is unintelligible.

http://www.npr.org/2017/06/07/531886684/the-kansas-tax-cut-experiment-comes-to-an-end-as-lawmakers-vote-to-raise-taxes

 

I think this provides a bit more clarity about the trickle-down nature of tax cuts for businesses.

[RedSpawn]

.deleted

[ldrews]

http://www.npr.org/2017/06/07/531886684/the-kansas-tax-cut-experiment-comes-to-an-end-as-lawmakers-vote-to-raise-taxes

 

I think this provides a bit more clarity about the trickle-down nature of tax cuts for businesses.

 

Thank you for the link. I have never believed in tax cuts as a panacea for growth. They are but one of the drivers.

 

There is currently no social consensus on how our society should be run and structured. As we raise taxes to pay for more and increased social programs, as we impose more laws and regulations in an attempt to prevent damage to anybody, businesses and creative people flee to other jurisdictions where such things are not implemented. Unless we are willing to impose draconian and repressive restraints, that will continue to be the case. But then society will not look anything like the society that I grew up in. And such an approach offends my sensibilities. "This lady is not for turning!"

[mike777]

Thank you for the link. I have never believed in tax cuts as a panacea for growth. They are but one of the drivers.

 

There is currently no social consensus on how our society should be run and structured. As we raise taxes to pay for more and increased social programs, as we impose more laws and regulations in an attempt to prevent damage to anybody, businesses and creative people flee to other jurisdictions where such things are not implemented. Unless we are willing to impose draconian and repressive restraints, that will continue to be the case. But then society will not look anything like the society that I grew up in. And such an approach offends my sensibilities. "This lady is not for turning!"

 

for a first step you are offended.

 

second step society is not as you grew up in...

 

I understand...evolution is confusing and complicated....

[cherdano]

As we raise taxes to pay for more and increased social programs, as we impose more laws and regulations in an attempt to prevent damage to anybody, businesses and creative people flee to other jurisdictions where such things are not implemented.

Right. That's why all innovative businesses flee California, and why not creative people want to work there.

 

And such an approach offends my sensibilities.

Snowflake needs a safe space?

[RedSpawn]

for a first step you are offended.

 

second step society is not as you grew up in...

 

I understand...evolution is confusing and complicated....

 

We need to delve here:

https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Releases/News-Release-View/Article/1190216/dod-releases-fiscal-year-2018-budget-proposal/

 

https://www.nationalpriorities.org/blog/2016/05/10/pentagon-spending-out-control/

https://www.nationalpriorities.org/campaigns/overseas-contingency-operations/

 

Before we look for tax cuts, can someone on the left or right of the aisle tell me...

1) why does the Department of Defense request a war contingency fund of $52 billion called the OCO? See link #1 and #3. It's a slush fund.

2) why does our defense cost almost $600 billion annually ... See link #2. It is approximately 55% of our annual discretionary budget and is more than defense of 7 different countries' military budgets COMBINED.

3) how does the Department of Defense know it needs these amounts when it can't fix a $6 trillion year-end accounting entry problem over 17 years and can't produce reliable financial statements approved by our own Inspector General in ANY of those years?

 

These are very fair questions for the white elephant in the room.

[Zelandakh]

Before we look for tax cuts, can someone on the left or right of the aisle tell me...

1) why does the Department of Defense request a war contingency fund of $52 billion called the OCO? See link #1 and #3. It's a slush fund.

2) why does our defense cost almost $600 billion annually ... See link #2. It is approximately 55% of our annual discretionary budget and is more than defense of 7 different countries' military budgets COMBINED.

3) how does the Department of Defense know it needs these amounts when it can't fix a $6 trillion year-end accounting entry problem over 17 years and can't produce reliable financial statements approved by our own Inspector General in ANY of those years?

1. Because GWB set this up as an emergency fund for the "Global War on Terrorism" and it has continued every year since. The change of name to "Overseas Contingency Operations", often abbreviated to OCO/GWOT, reflects changes in the usage of the fund over time. Whether the fund is still appropriate is another question but you are probably aware that once funds are created they tend to be difficult to shut down.

 

2. Because it is US policy to hold overwhelming military might over any possible enemy including the ability to fight on multiple fronts. A war against an opponents such as Russia or China would tax the US military even with such spending and there are signs that China wants to ramp up their military, first land and air forces but eventually also to be able to challenge America on the seas. Quite aside from the practical case, the military also holds strong political clout and attempts to rationalise would run into all sorts of difficulties at both local and national levels.

 

3. If you look at your bank account at the start of the year, get a certain (known) budget/salary and then look at your bank account at the end of the year, you know how much has been spent irrespective of the accounting in-between. You can then know (or estimate) how much more or less then this you need in the following year and take this as your next base figure. It is not necessary to know precisely how much is being spent on ammunition, chicken or washing powder, for budgets you only need to know the end figures. And has already been pointed out to you, those are perfectly correct; it is only the internal accounting discrepancies between the various books that adds up to the quoted figure.

[ldrews]

for a first step you are offended.

 

second step society is not as you grew up in...

 

I understand...evolution is confusing and complicated....

 

Third steo is that I, and many like me, vote.

[ldrews]

Right. That's why all innovative businesses flee California, and why not creative people want to work there.

 

 

Snowflake needs a safe space?

 

Asshole needs a place to pontificate?

[ldrews]

We need to delve here:

https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Releases/News-Release-View/Article/1190216/dod-releases-fiscal-year-2018-budget-proposal/

 

https://www.nationalpriorities.org/blog/2016/05/10/pentagon-spending-out-control/

https://www.nationalpriorities.org/campaigns/overseas-contingency-operations/

 

Before we look for tax cuts, can someone on the left or right of the aisle tell me...

1) why does the Department of Defense request a war contingency fund of $52 billion called the OCO? See link #1 and #3. It's a slush fund.

2) why does our defense cost almost $600 billion annually ... See link #2. It is approximately 55% of our annual discretionary budget and is more than defense of 7 different countries' military budgets COMBINED.

3) how does the Department of Defense know it needs these amounts when it can't fix a $6 trillion year-end accounting entry problem over 17 years and can't produce reliable financial statements approved by our own Inspector General in ANY of those years?

 

These are very fair questions for the white elephant in the room.

 

Absolutely agree. Actual defense of the US territory can probably be done for 10% of current defense budget.