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

[Taskmage]

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

I'd credit the poor price/performance of the American school system to a failure of central planning. To some extent the health care system as well, but that's a whole other can of worms which itself contains additional nested cans of worms.

I still don't think a broad increase in income is going to have the effect you want. I support the expansion of non-monetary forms of compensation. I feel that would go much farther toward increasing quality of life.

I'm puzzled by the child feeding issue. I think that if necessary I could feed my family healthily on $10 a day. So long as you have any income at all, it should be possible. I hear that food deserts exist where literally no fresh produce is available in urban areas, and that it's a big issue. I don't know the statistics, but that seems like the only excuse. If you're outsourcing a significant number of your meals to fast food establishments, then you're definitely going to have trouble affording enough calories and getting enough nutrition.

This time it may be me that's oversimplifying, but I think a lot of these domestic issues could be solved by a change in attitude and better "home economics" education. Not enough respect is given to homemakers and the tasks normally handled by those people, of which admittedly I currently am one, are being delegated to childcare facilities and pre-prepared food companies at exorbitant rates, while people manage their finances poorly and run into trouble. I didn't know how to do a single damn one of those things when I graduated high school or college and had to learn the hard way, but doing it yourself is just orders of magnitude more efficient and, if I may be so presumptuous, healthier for the family unit. I don't mean to harp on this, but I am dirt poor and do fine, so it's just unthinkable to me that a family with 2-3x as much income could be struggling to get by.

[Malacite]

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

I'd also like to add in the impact it has on families as a whole.

Just look at the education system - the U.S. spends on average, double what most other nations do. Yet the results don't reflect in the way they should (and the same applies to health care but let's not go there for now.)


A 4-day work week (or 5 shorter days which would be even better) and increased income for the middle class, along with adequate mandatory paid vacation time, would go a long ways towards helping things. Reduced stress, more free time to spend with friends & loved ones - the latter of which is incredibly important and is the tie in to my education point. Yes, there are problem schools and teachers, but I maintain the biggest issue is with the parents & the kids themselves. How many parents are really able to spend as much time as they'd like or need to with their kids, to help them with their schooling and really just maintain cohesion as a family unit?

It's not about making life easy for everyone - that's a fallacy. But you can improve standards, reduce stress and give the general public a better shot at things. A child who's properly fed (this is sadly still a large issue across North America), has a nice (and that's subjective I know) home and parents who aren't constantly overworked, worrying about bills and able to dedicate time to them tends to do far better in school. The teachers can only do so much.


EDIT: WTF is with the double posts...

Not to mention once the middle class is gone, we're basically back to the old Peasants and Nobility dynamic, which I think we can all agree was a pretty shitty situation.

That was my entire point, that's what the republicans (or more specifically, the extremist assholes in the party) are trying to do and someone really has to stop them. And with Obama having a chance to possibly nominate 2 more justices in his next term, it's even more vital he wins - it'd be nice to see a more liberal court for once, or at least one that isn't so pro-corporate. Antonin Scallia is a complete piece of shit, Thomas too. There really ought to be a rule that says you can't just abstain from every fucking vote.

Someone needs to put a hit out on Rove though. I'm dead serious, he's probably the single most destructive force in U.S. politics and Citizens United has only increased his influence. Virtually any and every truly conservative candidate has been bumped off for not towing the line. He runs that party, and it's his way or the highway. While I don't personally believe in Hell, I do like to think there's a special place reserved for assholes like him.

[cidbahamut]

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

Not to mention once the middle class is gone, we're basically back to the old Peasants and Nobility dynamic, which I think we can all agree was a pretty shitty situation.

[Icemage]

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

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.

That's more or less it, though my point was a bit more meta than that.

Above and beyond the concept of social mobility, a big problem with income inequality as we know it today in the US is because the middle class is shrinking as a direct result of increased income inequality. That doesn't at first sound like a problem until one realizes that it is middle income people who drive diversity in the economy. If you lose the middle class, whole industries disappear.

Arts and theater? Professional sports? Non-mainstream music? Gone. Without the middle class, who has the disposable income to fill an auditorium?

Organic food? Mid-sized cars? Local restaurants? Gone. Without the middle class, who can spend on these things in enough volume to justify the price tag?

Coach class airfare? Theme parks? Video games? Yup. Gone.

The elite rich are that way because they have more money than they can spend - and more importantly, they are too few to support anything but the most exorbitant industries like fine art and luxury cars. The poor, on the other hand, do not have the disposable income to support anything that does not contribute directly to their immediate well-being (medicine, rent, food, utilities). Sure, they may make small sacrifices to purchase something they really want, but those are the exception and not the rule. Without the middle class as a buffer to support the rest of the economy, things go south really fast.


Icemage

[Taskmage]

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

The bit about us working longer hours and getting less vacation time than other nations is especially frustrating in light of the fact that it's been proven in study after study that increasing the work week beyond about 30 hours actually results in a decrease in worker productivity especially in the fields of innovation that Americans are most proud of.

[Malacite]

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

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

And the way things are going with the Politics & especially the Supreme Court, that dream is going to keep slipping further and further away as people work harder and harder for less money & happiness overall.

There's no questioning that America has the most productive work force in the world - that's absolutely true. However, you guys also have the least amount of paid vacation time (it's not even mandatory) averaging 13 days and less than 10% of Americans take the full amount. Compare that to France (which ranks 4th or 5th I believe in happiness globally) where they get 39 days on average and around 90% of French people use all 39 days.

You (it's a bit better but not by much in Canada) are getting screwed over more and more. Combined with the rising % of income that has to go towards housing and other things... to me, it just looks like Wallstree & Big Business are being allowed to buy too much influence, so they can screw over the general population as they see fit for their own gain and someone's gotta put a stop to it and strike a proper balance before it's too late. As the 1 guest in video points out, we're not quite there yet, but it's fast approaching at the rate things are going.


EDIT: It's not just the current recession - there is tonnes of empirical evidence to support Keynes' theory, the greatest example of which being The New Deal (which republicans and even the supreme court I believe tried to fight viciously). Nixon himself famously said "We're all Keynesians now". The Republicans are trying to (again) turn the U.S. into a plutocracy, with the help of Rove & Norquist.

[Taskmage]

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

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.

[Icemage]

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

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]

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

/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.

[Malacite]

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

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]

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

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?

[Aeni]

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

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]

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

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.

[Malacite]

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

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.

[Omgwtfbbqkitten]

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

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!