Melody's Melodramatic Meltdown on Mitt Romney (Tounge Twister?)

[Yellow Mage]

draw infinity

Yeah this sums it up kinda nicely.

[Aeni]

Oh, completely forgot I replied in this thread, but back to the first page where BBQ quoted me regarding Libertarians put under the "Republican Tent". Let's just say their interests align more with that party than the Dems. Yes, they advocate a strong foreign policy backed by a strong military, which is PRECISELY what the Republicans are all about. Everything else was compromised ... because it's not a strong enough issue for them to quibble over and break their partnership.

This is completely opposite that of the Dems. For example, Latinos in general, strongly support the definition of marriage as "between a man and a woman", and the same goes with a lot (not the super majority, though) of African Americans.

The political alignments in this country are not cut and dry like the media would have you believe. Unfortunately, the word "compromise" has become such a dirty, obscene word, that I don't see people trying to hammer out deals for the greater public good anymore. That's where self interest has found their footing, laid down an unshakeable foundation, and we're quickly moving to the plutocratic society that I think some politicians have in their wet dreams.

[Malacite]

Yeah it's interesting to note that in survey after survey (and various interviews I've seen on CNN and other networks) Latinos are actually more conservative than liberal... it's just the Right keeps putting in policies that make life uh, "difficult" shall we say, for them.

[Aeni]

Republicans tend to be dominant in Florida due to the very "conservative" Cuban population there. Although, as of late, Obama has gotten more of their support due to the "anti-immigration aka anti-Hispanic" rhetoric from the right. If the right tempered their rhetoric with a more "Reagan-like" feel, they'd be in the White House term after term, no matter how bad they run the country into the ground (fun fact, in just a couple of decades, the Latino/Hispanic population is projected to eclipse the caucasian population)

[Taskmage]

income inequality stuff

Okay, no offense, but I'm not going to watch a one hour program as research into whether your position has merit. Make the points yourself. My takeaway from the show's description and the first few minutes is that there's too much money in politics, which is undermining the fairness of the system. I'll accept that, but it really doesn't tell me anything about income inequality. I mean, even if we stole 90% of the earnings from the wealthiest individuals and businesses, making all the billionaires into multimillionaires and reducing the trillion dollar corporations to mere billion dollar corporations, it seems to me that they would still have more than enough money to buy off individual judges and politicians. To my viewpoint, the amount of money in politics says more about what an imbalanced force government is that corporations are so hungry to have direct control over it.

I'm not sure what point you meant to make by linking infant mortality statistics. The US is pretty low on that list, not far behind Canada, and our health care system is notoriously garbage compared to other developed nations. I don't think there's a strong correlation there to income inequality. In fact, the US is right between Hungary and Belarus on that list, two countries with the lowest income inequality in the world.

I think your best angle is the one about "establishing a basic sense of fairness." It's absolutely true that the disparity is offensive to the personal sense of justice of many people. What human intuition tells us about the world and how it should be isn't necessarily true, though. See the long list of logical fallacies and cognitive biases for proof. Intuition is a good foundation to lay evidence on, but not an argument unto itself.

You think that increasing the income of the disadvantaged across the board would alleviate the unnecessary suffering some of them face, but I think your picture of the economics of the situation is too simplistic. If you increase the amount of currency available to the consumer market, all you're going to see is the prices of consumer goods rising to match. You won't fundamentally change the value of a day's work in food service relative to the cost of living. The poor would have more money, but frustratingly wouldn't be able to afford more than they did before. This is essentially the same argument that economists make against increases in the minimum wage, which I believe is well represented in data and I will source it if you want. Anecdotally, the minimum wage today is over twice what it was in 1990, but despite having twice as much money, the poorest workers don't seem any better off.

[Taskmage]

On a completely different note: Romney Says No to “Net Neutrality” | Observations, Scientific American Blog Network

It is not the role of any government to “manage” the Internet. The Internet has flourished precisely because government has so far refrained from regulating this dynamic and essential cornerstone of our economy. I would rely primarily on innovation and market forces, not bureaucrats, to shape the Internet and maximize its economic, social and scientific value.

Thanks to the non-governmental multi-stakeholder model, the Internet is — and always has been — open to all ideas and lawful commerce as well as bountiful private investment. Unfortunately, President Obama has chosen to impose government as a central gatekeeper in the broadband economy. His policies interfere with the basic operation of the Internet, create uncertainty, and undermine investors and job creators.

Specifically, the FCC’s “Net Neutrality” regulation represents an Obama campaign promise fulfilled on behalf of certain special interests, but ultimately a “solution” in search of a problem. The government has now interjected itself in how networks will be constructed and managed, picked winners and losers in the marketplace, and determined how consumers will receive access to tomorrow’s new applications and services. The Obama Administration’s overreaching has replaced innovators and investors with Washington bureaucrats.

In addition to these domestic intrusions, there are also calls for increased international regulation of the Internet through the United Nations. I will oppose any effort to subject the Internet to an unaccountable, innovation-stifling international regulatory regime. Instead, I will clear away barriers to private investment and innovation and curtail needless regulation of the digital economy.

A free and open Internet is essential component of American society and of the modern economy. I support legislation to protect intellectual property online, but any effort to combat online piracy must not reduce freedom of expression, increase cybersecurity risk, or undermine the dynamic, innovative global Internet. I also believe it is essential that we take steps to strengthen our cybersecurity and ensure that we are guarding against threats to our vital information systems and critical infrastructure, all while preserving Americans’ privacy, data confidentiality, and civil liberties and recognizing the civilian nature of cyberspace.

[Omgwtfbbqkitten]

And yet they're both in favor of the Trans Pacific Partnership, which is NAFTA + ACTA
on steroids. It doesn't really matter what they say about net neutrality.

Obama and Romney Both Backing Secret Job-killing Deal? Trans-Pacific Partnership lurks - Democratic Underground

Turns out Romney only opposes it because Japan is a holdout, if they hopped in, he'd be happy as a pig in the mud and sign it. If that's all it takes, keep being Japan, Japan!

[Malacite]

Hmm, it's hard to find just the segment with the 1st 2 guests talking (the 2nd guest is about 15 min and is all about Karl Rove and pretty much how he's the devil incarnate - well, Loki might be more accurate idk )

If you don't want to listen to it that's fine, but it is very informative and it's difficult to really generalize it. Some of the key points though pertain to how the Republican party has been hijacked by extemists, and what they preach isn't true conservatism but some extremist (almost fascist really - they don't say that but I agree with Jesse Ventura's assertion) viewpoint & principals that will only serve to gradually destroy the middle class until there's nothing but the Rich & the Poor - it's the same shit they tried to do in the 1920's. The Supreme Court has also been monumentally destructive under Roberts for several reasons, most notably their catering to corporations and undermining the ability for civilians to take recourse against them.

Seriously, watch the whole thing, it's worth it.

[Taskmage]

I don't disagree with anything you just said, but none of it is really making clear to me why I should be concerned about income inequality when other social metrics are good. If you can show the relevance, I'll try to make time to watch it.

[Aeni]

Income inequality is bad for society as a whole and not bad for individuals. If you value the importance of society, then you'll need to implement a policy which safeguards against it. If you don't think society is as important or otherwise unneeded, then income inequality is a nonissue.

In either case, the kind of world you want to live in will usually shape your ideas and therefore your "moral or ethical" values. These ideas are relative, either to the individuals or to a group of individuals, but they aren't exactly mutually exclusive either. I like to think of it as philosophical differences. But if you're advocating an agenda for one or the other, make damn sure you are knowlegable of all the strengths AND weaknesses of the system you're trying to sell. Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats currently do this. And I suspect 90-95% of all Americans aren't able to do so either.

[Taskmage]

I don't understand. How is income inequality bad for society? Actually, I don't think I even understand what you mean by "society." Only in the past couple centuries have we had any semblance of income equality. In the feudal and dynastic nations of the past, did the "society" you're talking about not exist?

[Malacite]

I don't understand. How is income inequality bad for society? Actually, I don't think I even understand what you mean by "society." Only in the past couple centuries have we had any semblance of income equality. In the feudal and dynastic nations of the past, did the "society" you're talking about not exist?

Ask anyone born before WW2.


EDIT: Just to clarify, there's always going to be some level of inequality - that's just the nature of capitalism, and there's nothing inherently wrong with it, to a degree. I'd say in terms of "recent" years, the best levels were around the 1950's and 60's, when the middle class was booming after WW2 and the super wealthy were actually paying their fair share (though, it was incredibly extreme at one point. Frank Senatra paid 90 cents on the dollar, which was ridiculous. I don't think the rate should ever go above 50% unless you're a fucking billionaire).

The more money that's spread out among the middle class, the better for the economy as you have far more potential consumers. It also means you have a much broader tax base as well which again is vital. On the business side of things, I do think the corporate tax rate is too high. It's second only to Japan I believe, however it works for Japan because they hardly import anything other than food, and despite their national debt being over a staggering 200% GDP, they own all their debt so they can sustain it.

Canada's rate is about 34% (Harper wants to drop that to between 10 and 15), the U.S. 35 (and apparently it's approaching 40?). Japan's is 40%. Of course, a full 1/3 of US Corporations don't pay any income tax at all. Yeah, that's right, 1/3. Nothing! And that's NOT factoring in tax havens like Ireland or other off-shore accounts. Hell GE even got a tax *credit* for investing in green energy (which I'm not attacking, they did earn that but it does skew things).

Lower the rate to 20~25%, close the loop holes, and that would fix a lot of problems. It's part of the reason the CEO's are paying themselves so damn much in the first place, they can afford to when they really shouldn't be. Plus it makes investing in your country more attractive. It's also worth noting that the Republicans keep blocking any effort by the Democrats to get that bill passed that would reverse the tax incentives for outsourcing, and instead give business more reason to invest at home.

The impact of NAFTA is also greatly exaggerated, and has been a huge boon to both Canada & the U.S.

[Taskmage]

/sigh Everyone in my life over the age of 70 recently died. Even so, isn't that demographic solidly in the Republican camp, and therefore unlikely to come down on your side of this discussion?

Honestly, when I asked this question I thought it was a stupid question with an easy answer that I was just failing to see for some reason. I'm surprised and confused that nobody has been able to give me a simple straight answer, and I'm beginning to think that wealth disparity really is a red herring issue.

[Icemage]

I don't understand. How is income inequality bad for society? Actually, I don't think I even understand what you mean by "society." Only in the past couple centuries have we had any semblance of income equality. In the feudal and dynastic nations of the past, did the "society" you're talking about not exist?

Income inequality isn't a problem per se, except as a function of how easy it is to continue to hold the current societal framework together. In the US, we are held together by the concept of the American Dream: the promise that hard work will bring success with it.

Thing is, we (as Americans) work harder than just about everyone else on the planet, but when the economics don't work in favor of the majority of Americans doing better than "just getting by", the idea of the American Dream becomes corrupted, and you get a whole lot of people becoming disillusioned and dissatisfied... which causes the fabric of society to start to fray.

We're at a pivotal moment in history right now. The two competing schools of economic thought of Keynesian and supply-side economics are both under the microscope, and the Keynesians are winning (due to the plethora of evidence from the current recession). That in a nutshell is the biggest "general" problem the Republicans are having at the moment. They continue to believe in supply-side economics, and it has failed them spectacularly. Some people out there are too ignorant to know better, and some people who should know better cling to their preconceptions, but both groups are losing ground, and the current political atmosphere shows it. The Republicans want to go back to trickle-down supply-side economic policy, and the American populace is deeply suspicious of it. The Democrats like Keynesian economics, but the populace is also deeply suspicious of their non-economic spending.


Icemage

[Taskmage]

Now we're getting somewhere. It's going to take me a while to digest that and reply cogently. But if we're talking about an issue of class mobility then I absolutely understand the importance.