[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/ext/alfredoramos/seometadata/event/listener.php on line 114: Undefined array key 6979661 [phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/ext/alfredoramos/seometadata/event/listener.php on line 114: Trying to access array offset on value of type null 2016 US Presidential Election Thread - Mafiascum.net
In post 31, MonkeyMan576 wrote:Also, never in US History has 4 consecutive presidents won reelection and finished both terms(Clinton>Bush>Obama>???), so history is against that happening this time.
This is kind of a nonsense stat for predictive purposes. Is it REALLY less likey? If I flip a coin 4 times, it is unlikely to end up heads every single time. But if I've flipped 3 heads it's still 50/50 i'll get a heads next time.
Unless you can come up with a cogent theory on WHY this is a phenomenon, given the small sample size (43 presidents [not counting Cleveland twice]) this isn't very convincing.
In post 49, MonkeyMan576 wrote:Which happens first, the confederate flag is removed from all state flags or a third party candidate wins the presidency?
I mean the Republicans were a third party at one point, but the former is far more likely.
I'm all for limiting their health plans to some norm, but I think limiting salaries has an adverse effect and furthers the issue of only rich people being able to get elected and serve.
In post 83, MonkeyMan576 wrote:An artificially high minimum wage just incourages inflation and discourages businesses from hiring new employees.
Just
does that? No.
Does it do that? Maybe. Inflation is a kind of an open question without a lot of proof, but most think that higher minimum wages do discourage to some extent (as well as encourage developing substitute labor like robots). The question is to what extent is this true, and is it balanced out by the good it achieves (level 1 analysis: is the good provided by a living wage outweigh a slightly higher unemployment rate? Level 2 analysis: does having more lower income workers with more money [who tend to save less] serve as an overall boost to the economy and thus counteract the desire to hire fewer workers at the higher rate)
I don't know that it has any meaning other than to reinforce your views on it. A minimum wage has no purpose if it's not "artificial." You could set the minimum wage at a dime an hour, but it would have no meaning because no one would pay/accept that wage.
actually, he did drop out shaft. He dropped out and then came back in 92. Common wisdom is that he hurt his chances a lot by doing that, but it's hard to know if his chances would have gone down anyway. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ross_Pero ... withdrawal
ultra-conservatives are a fickle bunch (and truth be told I don't think they're so much ultra-conservative as they are anti-establishment honestly). In 2012 over the course of 3-4 months they "chose" a bunch of different champions: Santorum, Cain, Bachman, Gingrich...
We're 7 months before the first caucus. People are mostly indicating based on their feelings of discontent than they are any serious evaluation. Things will change between now and then. I'll bet anyone who wants to that Trump will not win a single state in the primaries. Heck, I'll say Trump doesn't even finish with over 30% in any state.
Done. One month after he gets 30% in a single state (or if he wins a state with less than 30%), I'll set my avatar to Trump (let's not include territories here as who knows what the 8 republicans in the virgin islands will vote) for a month. If he doesn't achieve that threshold, after the 50th state votes in the republican primary, you set your avatar to the democratic nominee for a month. Fair?
If you're looking for a southerner Clinton can add, I'd expect one of the Senators of Virginia (probably Tim Kaine over Mark Warner) to be high on the list. Julian Castro (or Joaquin) would be an exciting choice as well and would counteract her age.
What, to your republican mother, makes him a "decent candidate"? I really fail to see how Sanders can make people "cross party lines" unless they weren't remotely conservative to begin with.
I guess Sanders does love guns, but it's hard to think of another area where Sanders sits closer to a Republican candidate than any of the other Democratic candidates.
In post 403, Psyche wrote:do you think class-based appeals are just more feasible politically or do you really think that the troubles faced by minorities in America are just class issues
I think the class issues that many minorities face are because of systemic and personal racism. I think that trying to rectify the class issues will be more productive than saying racism is bad and hoping it goes away (though reminding people that racism is bad isn't a thing that should stop). So the first option.
Well, hopefully you realize why this isn't so cut and dried as "Sanders is better for minorities" then. You have certain opinions about what is best for minorities, which verge on paternalism. But it's at least not obvious to me that this is the correct (or at least only) approach to the systemic issues that minorities face.
Someone has to work warehouse jobs and fast food. its one thing to give advice to someone about how they can escape poverty; it's another to confuse that with a societal response to poverty.
Looking at marginal tax rates is a pretty crummy way of determining how much taxation there is. Consider two systems with 40% marginal tax rates, one of which starts at $50k a year and one that starts at $500k.
But you surely have reasons for that preference? Like... it's not just a matter of taste: I like pepperoni pizza more than sausage pizza is a matter of opinion in that it's a matter of taste-- we don't necessarily have a reason other than "I like this more than that" But that's usually not the case for an opinion on a political ideology.
We are all products of our environment, of course, but I grew up and still am by most measures "upper class." I know a lot of people who have worked hard, but I don't think there's much in the "hard work" argument.
Few people are making the argument that some wealth and income disparity is a useful or good thing. But when they think about it, they greatly underestimate what that disparity is:
Not everyone is or can be smart or valuable to the economic system. It's probably okay that they aren't rewarded in the same way, but I'd still like people to be able to live at a certain base line of existence that includes health care, a wage that can support a reasonable family, etc. That's particularly true with the knowledge that people in our system start with vastly different opportunities to make themselves economically valuable.
In post 535, Brandi wrote:This conversation is so interesting. Does anyone know what people in the top 1% do with all of their money? What do most of them do career wise? Also is our society not considered capitalist? I keep hearing things online about how "real capitalism is the answer' but I never see any elaborations.
It depends on whether you're using wealth or income to determine the 1%. But the 1% save a lot more money than those not in the 1% (or rather, they invest it).
oh, well you quoted a part of his stuff that didn't even mention flat taxes. In fact, the statement quoted implies he kind of does believe in progressive taxes... just not too progressive.
In post 577, MonkeyMan576 wrote:Again, the idea that successfull people should be punished for things like hiring tax experts.
I would be in favor of closing tax loopholes though.
And everyone needs tax code reform, imho.
Okay, the first thing is that no one is suggesting "punishing successful people" for hiring tax experts. They're suggesting removing the REASON tax experts are able to avoid taxes for wealthy americans.
Also, the US tax code is purposefully difficult to navigate. For the vast majority of people who earn income reported on W2s (as well as other automatic forms such as 1099s), the IRS knows almost exactly what you should be paying. Many countries will automatically tell you what your bill is without having to pay anyone or use any software. That's not to say you can't file your own form or amend it or anything, but for the vast majority of Americans there would be no need. But lobbying efforts have basically blocked that (also anti-tax people tend to oppose these changes because anything that makes taxes less painful makes people hate them less).
H&R block, for example, spends a whole lot of money campaigning against ANYTHING that simplifies the tax code. and they do it successfully: http://www.vox.com/2015/8/24/9195129/h-r-block
In post 621, MonkeyMan576 wrote:I think the point is that it shouldn't be up to government to "even the playing field" for the rich and the poor. Having an unfairly high progressive tax is basically saying the rich shouldn't be rewarded for success. It's saying that there aren't a lot of rich people that are willingly generous with their money. This just isn't the case, in America you are rewarded for success, not punished. There is a balance that can be struck between taking care of the poor and allowing people to keep their hard earned money.
My family is well off. I don't think any of us feel like we aren't being rewarded for success despite being taxed at higher levels. This is just nonsense. I understand the idea that at a certain point a tax rate becomes confiscatory and discourages economic behavior, and we can argue about at what point that becomes the case (or more specifically at what point the positives outweigh the negatives), but few are turning down the opportunity to earn an extra 100k just because they'll only take 60k of that home when the previous 100k they were able to take home 65k. And they're still being REWARDED for that behavior even if they're only being rewarded at a rate slightly less than they were for the first part of their money.
Just to make sure, you do understand how tax brackets and marginal tax rates work right? Like... if I earn 500k a year, I'm not being taxed at an effective rate of 39.6% right -- that's just my marginal tax rate?
It depends on what time line, whether you value quality of life improvements or mortality improvements, and whether you value those who have a closer connection to you (because you live in their city, country, etc. share a religion, etc.).
Generally things like Malaria nets tend to be the most effective use of money.
as a billionaire philanthropist you also have some additional things to think about. As a regular person giving to charity, I might evaluation something like Direct Relief as a good choice for my money, but if I were to give them a billion dollars, will they remain as effective? Do they have the ability to put that into effect immediately?
In post 629, Brandi wrote:Just curious, if super rich people were more charitable what would be the most effective and helpful use of their charity?
Or maybe "If you were a billionaire and wanted to help those in need, what would you do?"
It may interest you to look into the different charitable initiatives the super rich undertake. It's actually quite surprising how many are involved philanthropically, including the degree to which they are.
Some of the super rich do donate a lot to charity, but actually, most charity giving comes from the middle class. As a percentage of their wealth, middle class people tend to be more generous on average then the rich. It's just that when a really rich person does give huge amounts of money to charity (Bill Gates, ect) you hear about it.
is this verifiably true? particularly if you remove tithing from the equation?
Regardless charitable giving can be lots of things. Giving to Harvard to build a building named after you is barely charity at all.
In post 629, Brandi wrote:Just curious, if super rich people were more charitable what would be the most effective and helpful use of their charity?
Or maybe "If you were a billionaire and wanted to help those in need, what would you do?"
It may interest you to look into the different charitable initiatives the super rich undertake. It's actually quite surprising how many are involved philanthropically, including the degree to which they are.
Some of the super rich do donate a lot to charity, but actually, most charity giving comes from the middle class. As a percentage of their wealth, middle class people tend to be more generous on average then the rich. It's just that when a really rich person does give huge amounts of money to charity (Bill Gates, ect) you hear about it.
I'd actually bet on the top 5% giving a higher percentage to charitable endeavors than the rest of the 95%.
To be fair, the top 5% isn't that high a bar to reach, around 160k a year.
It seems like you need to be in the 10m+ category (and who knows if that's people making 10m a year or 100m a year bringing that up) to be as high as between 45k and 50k:
Unfortunately this includes charitable donations to churches, which I suspect alters this pretty heavily.
I assume in your dream world this dream candidate who only cares about one single thing that isn't even good in and of itself would (1) reform exactly as you'd want and (2) have a dream congress, a dream supreme court and a dream set of states [if using a constitutional amendment] who would implement the reform because otherwise you have a single issue politician who can't achieve his or her single issue?
I'd be happy to take the "Someone other than Jeb" bet. I think he probably has the highest chance of any individual republican, but nowhere near a commanding chance that would make him an 80% favorite ALONE much less in tandem with Clinton. I'd put Clinton winning at maybe 75-80% by itself.
I don't think people really weigh things probabalistically very well.
In post 800, MonkeyMan576 wrote:I.e. Jeb vs sanders not happening, hillary vs trump not happening etc
That's a weird way to say "there's an 80% chance of clinton being the nominee" unless you think Sanders/Biden/Whoever would for some reason be more/less likely to run against Bush if they were to be nominated.
"Jeb vs. Hillary is almost 80% likely imho. Trump has a small chance at a nom but almost none at winning. The only reason he is doing well now is no one takes the gop seriously."
and then when I said that seemed really high you said
"80% at jeb vs hillary vs. Other matchups, not 80% at jeb winning" and "I.e. Jeb vs sanders not happening, hillary vs trump not happening etc"
so I'm really not sure what you're trying to say.
Is it:
1) "I think there is an 80% chance we will see Bush vs. Clinton"
2) "I think that if Bush is the nominee there is an 80% chance we will see Bush vs. Clinton"
or some third option?
Or to put it another way: what do you think is the likelihood that Jeb Bush will win the nomination? Hillary Clinton?
I think bush is the most likely, but I don't think he's anywhere near the majority probability to do so. If I were wagering, I'd actually put money on Rubio if given decent odds.
