U.S. Politics, 12

[Arthmail]

Republicans overwhelmingly opposed the stimulus and the health care bill, and Democrats rammed both through anyway despite that opposition. That was their right because they had the votes. And because the Democrats pushed their agenda despite Republican opposition, they managed to enact the most progressive legislative agenda since the 1960's. They didn't achieve that by compromising with Republicans. The only compromises they made were those they had to make within their own party to maintain the majority.

They rammed it through because the Republicans made a point of opposing everything for the sake of opposing it. They said as much when Obama won.

Sure, voting legisltation comes down to yes and no. But thats like asking an American if they want to win in Iraq. The answer in and of itself might be easy, but the foundations of that answer are difficult. To think otherwise is stupid.

Corporations that damn their customers tend not to do so well, but I suspect you'd have no clue as to that. And I wasn't talking about corporate austerity anyway, which should have been obvious because I was talking about government spending. There have been arguments on here for months regarding whether all the spending by this Administration has been a good idea or not, and I have no desire to rehash the merits of those arguments. I am simply saying that Republicans ran on that platform, and I'm going to be pissed if they don't follow through with it, regardless of whether the President likes it or not.

Yea? How about the health care insurance providers? Or the banks and institutions that helped to bring about the current economic mess? Are they not doing well? I imagine that if you take a look at them, many of whom ultimately did not need whatever stimulus monies that they did recieve, and you'll see that they are doing pretty well. On top of that, they're fucking their customers left and right.

Your problem, FLOW, is that you border on being a smarmy fuck most of the time, making personal attacks without having any idea of an individual posters level of knowledge or involvement in any given subject area. Your attitude gives me the same greasy taste in my mouth as the avatar that you hold up to represent yourself.

[Faelar006]

At least Palladino, The Witch, and the Nazi have appreared to have lost. That leaves Angle. And speaking of bat-shit crazy, Michelle Bachman might get GOP Conference chair? God help us. Seriously. Oh and OK voted to ban Sharia Law.

:bang:

My state never fails to disappoint when it comes to sheer idiocy. Not only does SQ 755 prohibit Oklahoma judges from "considering or using Sharia Law" in their deliberations, it also prohibits them from considering any international law as well.

Some other ballot initiative gems that I voted no on yesterday:

SQ 746 - initiative requiring each person appearing to vote to present a document proving their identity

SQ 751 - initiative dictating English and possibly Native American languages to be the language used in taking official State action

SQ 756 - inititiative prohibiting making a person participate in a health care system that explicitly mentions the Supremacy Clause in the US Constitution and basically admits outright that it will do nothing to affect the provisions of the ACA

Oh, and the immigrant baiting in this year's campaign ads was downright sickening. There was one ad that basically said that if Oklahoma didn't enact "Arizona-style" immigration policies, that it was essentially "abandoning" south OKC to rampant crime, urban decay, etc. Southwest OKC of course being one of the main places where Latino immigrants to the U.S. choose to settle down when moving to Oklahoma City. I really, really need to consider picking up my roots and getting out of here, but it's just so difficult to do right now.

[Inigima]

Dave Weigel's response to the Bayh column was perfect: "Shut up, quitter."

No one should ever give a fuck what Evan Bayh thinks about anything. He ran as a Democrat, acted like a bad Republican -- bad at it, I mean -- was generally worthless and milquetoast, and then quit, sitting on a huge pile of campaign cash other Democrats could have actually used, in order to, as Glenn Greenwald put it, frolic around in his wife's millions of healthcare dollars.

Go the fuck home and don't ever open your mouth in public again, Bayh.

[Fez]

I think that even proposing a VAT is about the fastest way to get run out of town on a rail that you do in modern US politics.

I am however all for a reformed tax code. When I get taxed on the same income multiple times it makes me wonder why I bother investing money in the economy. I would be in favor of a tax code that had no exceptions or exemptions for anyone low income or not and no tax exempt status for non-profits. If everyone pays equally no one has room to complain, even though they will of course.

Hey not saying it would ever actually happen. Just saying that from a tax theory perspective it makes the most sense; the goal of tax systems is a broad base with low rates. Exemptions just eat into that base for no good reason (and it makes more sense to promote whatever goals the exemptions have with legislation instead), and should be eliminated. In my socialist paradise the rates would be higher, but we're not there, so lower the rates to make up for that fact that everyone's precious mortgage interest deduction is gone along with all the rest of the exemptions. Add a low VAT (and one that covers services as well as goods)and that would provide more than enough money to eliminate deficit spending while at the same time being equitable to all people.

But of course good policy almost never equals good politics.

If we had good policy sense we would have borrowed even more money the past few years when interest rates were so low (we sold some treasury bonds at a negative rate recently) to pay for a massive infrastructure upgrade. Besides the massive stimulative effect it would also help lay the groundwork for economic expansion, the tax revenues from which would more than cover the debt cost in the end. But no, everyone had to scream about the deficit instead.

[Shryke]

So basically, it went down almost exactly as predicted last night. The Dems hemoraghed Blue Dogs like it was going out of style (but no one watching this really expected to hang on to those seats) so it was as much an involuntary house-cleaning as anything.

Losing Feingold especially, and Sestak and Ginnoulias, sucks though and counts as some real loses. As does losing Pelosi as Speaker, even though it was eminently predictable. Sitting Presidents pretty much ALWAYS lose at least 1 House. Sucks that it was the incredibly capable Pelosi instead of the useless Reid.

Nice to see the Tea Baggers costing the GOP at least 2 Senate Seats though. The ones that did win will fall mostly in lockstep with the rest of the party.

So we can except a bright 2 years of obstruction and rampant Investigations of everything anyone in the Obama Administration has ever done, wasting tons of money and time and ignoring real problem. Wahoo!

Funny thing though, the GOP is already heading straight for a big PR fuck-up. Anyone expecting them to follow through on their cries of "fiscal conservatism" (you know, unlike every single other time) is gonna be disappointed.

Because essentially the very first thing the GOP is gonna haev to do is extend the US's Debt Ceiling:

We mentioned this earlier, but we think it's worth discussing some more... one of the big votes that will come up this year is the decision to hike the debt ceiling.

If the Congress does not vote to hike it, the US will basically go into default right away, and that would create all sorts of havoc for the global economy.

The question is whether the new breed of deficit-fighting Republicans will go for this.

http://www.businessinsider.com/not-a-single-republican-voted-to-raise-the-debt-ceiling-in-february-2010-11

Essentially, they have to pass a bill allowing the country to take on more debt or the US will instantly go into default and be FUCKED.

Gonna be funny.

[Commodore]

Tea Party was new and unorganized, their task going forward will be finding more Rubio types rather than O'Donnell/Angle types.

The vetting/recruiting process will be better for the next cycle (which is more favorable to begin with, Dems will be defending lots of seats in states McCain/Bush won).

[Guest Raidne]

"Second, don’t blame the voters. They aren’t stupid or addled by fear. They are skeptical about government efficacy, worried about the deficit and angry that Democrats placed other priorities above their main concern: economic growth."

Look, let's nail this shit down. Did people vote against Democrats because:

(1) The economy is bad. Period.

(2) Democrats did too little about the economy (what Bayh seems to be implying by saying they did not make a priority - apparently they needed to spend more than nearly a trillion dollars).

(3) Democrats spent WAY too much money trying to do something about the economy (socialists!) (of course, the top choice for new legislation amongst voters is a new stimulus bill).

(4) Democrats did not get enough results for the money they spent trying to fix the economy.

And, let's figure out who we're talking about. First, we're talking about people who voted right? Because the problem seems to be people who did not vote, in many cases - the people who decided the Democrats were timid or Republican-lite. Those people don't even map onto 1-4.

1-4 are only about the centrist voters - the Reagan Democrats or Clinton conservatives. So, which is it?

[Shryke]

Voters don't seem to like the Democrats' agenda. They did reward Republican obstructionism. But we tend to hate the Republicans for obstructing when we should instead resent the dipshit electorate, because the Republicans do seem to be giving them what they want. It's just that the electorate has an awful lot of know-nothing retards who don't have any idea about anything.

This is going to sound a lot like liberal elitism, and that's because it is. I'll say it: the voters have shown that they're dumb and vote for things that are bad for them and bad for the country. The Republicans are merely permitting them to do so.

I make this claim because an enormous number of conservative policies have been shown to be nonfunctional or aggressively bad ideas, and a lot of liberal policies have been shown to benefit the public. But maybe it's time to stop blaming Republican politicians and start blaming the people who vote for them. Or maybe we should start blaming the Democrats for failing to get their message out properly.

The thing is Inigma, polling shows people DO like a progressive agenda.

The problem is the intersection between "people" and "voters" and, more so then that, the fact that what people like and want and what they vote for aren't really that connected.

The Dems lost yesterday based on bad messaging (ie - how they said it, not what they said) and, mostly, the fact that the economy is shit. When people's lives suck, they blame whoever they see as in charge. Polling shows they liked the Republicans LESS this election then the Democrats, but they still voted for them. (although again, you have to remember the difference between voters and people. This election was all about old people voting.)

Another good example is Health Care Reform. When polled, people hated "Obamacare", but supported everything IN "Obamacare".

It's all about messaging because that's what controls how people vote, not what they actually support or want.

[Inigima]

I agree that, in a vacuum, I'd much rather lose Reid than Pelosi... but losing Reid would have meant gaining (so to speak) Angle. I quite like Pelosi, and will be very sad to lose her -- we have precious few capable leaders on our side. But you could cut with a knife my relief at not having that fucking wingnut Angle in the Senate.

[Guest Raidne]

Just because it's topical, a poll on what should be the highest priority for the new Congress.

I'm convinced. People are just stupid.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Shryke,

When you say "House" you mean "House of Representatives or Senate", right? Because the Democrats held the HofR for 40 years prior to 1994.

[ljkeane]

Just because it's topical, a poll on what should be the highest priority for the new Congress.

Is that poll likely to be accurate? I'm confused as to how the Republicans have just done so well if there's such little support for their actual policies. ETA: Oh wait I misread that but still not a paricularly strong mandate for the Republicans.

[Inigima]

Raids,

I think the Democrats are timid and Republican-lite, and I voted yesterday, generally for Democrats. Let's not paint with too broad a brush ;) I read yesterday, though, that it turns out that the 37% or so who do vote give pretty much the same results you'd get with perfect attendance. I'll see if I can dig up that link when I get home.

Shryke,

That's true, and that's partly the Democrats' shitty messaging and the Republicans' good messaging. But the voters need to finally take some fucking blame for having the intellectual curiosity of Special Olympians and not verifying anything even as they themselves say politicians lie. "Get your government hands off my Medicare" indeed.

[Commodore]

Tea Party was brand new and unorganized, they will need to focus on recruiting more Rubio types and less O'Donnel/Angle types.

Next cycle will be much more favorable (lots of Dems up for reelection in states McCain/Bush won).

[Shryke]

Just because it's topical, a poll on what should be the highest priority for the new Congress.

I'm convinced. People are just stupid.

Here's an even better one Raidne: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2010/results/polls/#CAI01p1

From Prop 19 in California.

2/3 of people who think "Government does too much" voted against Prop 19

I mean ... seriously.

Then again, the crosstabs say it all: Fuck. Old. People.

Logan's Run was right.

[Guest Raidne]

Is that poll likely to be accurate? I'm confused as to how the Republicans have just done so well if there's such little support for their actual policies.

As am I. As am I.

I think the Democrats are timid and Republican-lite, and I voted yesterday, generally for Democrats.

I don't have a link, but on CNN last night they said there was little turnout among the younger demographic that showed up for Obama in Indiana and Ohio.

[Shryke]

Is that poll likely to be accurate? I'm confused as to how the Republicans have just done so well if there's such little support for their actual policies.

Because how people vote and what policies they support don't have much to do with one another.

People liked Democratic policies. Hell, they even liked Democrats more then Republicans.

But voters still voted Republican. In large part because of the economy. "Bad economy" => "Oust whoevers seen as in charge".

Shit, if you watched the campaigns, essentially every downticket race was run against Obama. Running for Mayor or Governor? "We've got to stick it to Obama!". It would be funny if it wasn't so sad.

Shryke,

That's true, and that's partly the Democrats' shitty messaging and the Republicans' good messaging. But the voters need to finally take some fucking blame for having the intellectual curiosity of Special Olympians and not verifying anything even as they themselves say politicians lie. "Get your government hands off my Medicare" indeed.

Oh yeah, you can definitely blame them.

But my point was, they DO support progressive policies. Just see, to use your example, how many people fucking LOVE Medicare. But that doesn't mean they won't vote for the "slash medicare" party.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

But you're right that Raidne's thesis is not supportable because she used the word "all."

Why pick on her? Here's what you said:

Sounds to me like they want to eliminate all progressive taxing.

And that's because you made the mistake of assuming that a so-called flat tax can't be progressive, because you ignored how those proposals include a significant baseline deduction.

In reality, though, it's a very minor difference between all progressivity and just a tiny bit of it. Even if you set the exemption to 25k per two adults plus 10k per child, where a family of 4 will get 45k, you're still taxing regressively the big chunk of the population that makes more than 45k/family of 4 to, say, 250K/family of 4.

No, that's just false. Let's say you set the exemption for a family of 2 at your number of $25k, and the rate at 18%. A family of 2 earning $45k will pay $3,600.00 in taxes on $20k in income, because the first $25k is exempt. That's an effective tax rate of 8%.

Someone making $250k will pay $40,500k in taxes on $225k in taxable income. That's an effective tax rate of over 16%, more than twice the rate of the person making only $45k. That's a progressive system no matter how you view it. And of course, the number can be adjusted depending on where you set the exemption level. Now, if you want to argue that The Republican Party supports a flat tax with a minimal or non-existent exemption, then fine. But you haven't offered any support for that.

It's just so bizarre to hear an argument that flat tax is not regressive, when it so clearly is. Having one small exemption does not magically make the entire premise of flat tax something other than what it is.

That's because you have a flawed understanding of what the flat tax is, and how that concept has been discussed openly for years. You're taking your personal view of the literal meaning of the term "flat-tax", and ignoring how that concept has actually been used by the people who support it.

Plus, that's a rather bad bait-and-switch anyway, because it's really not a flat tax any more with that exemption. They should call it what it is instead of trying to deceive people about what they want to implement.

Just because you haven't done any of the background meaning and don't understand the concept doesn't make it a bait-and-switch. There's no deception involved at all except what you're trying to create to manufacture an argument. Heritage has been very upfront about this for a long time, and hasn't hidden anything. As you can see, they put it right on their website, and if you've paid any attention to the flat tax discussions at all, the existence of a single baseline deduction is a given.

At any rate, are there any countries, now preferably but I'll take historical records, that has implemented a flat tax system? How did it work out?

Yes, there are some. You can google it yourself because the FLOW research division is still out celebrating last night's elections. There have been bunches of studies, but it's hard to draw generalizations because of so many factors that influence economic growth. The bulk of recent adherents are in the former eastern bloc countries. I'm sure there are historical examples too, but you can find them as easily as me.

I'm simply refuting the still unproven claim that the Republican Party wants to "eliminate all progressive taxing."

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

Ahh it's good to look at this shit from outside and be able to point and laugh at everyone. That's the one advantage of subscribing to an ideology almost everyone hates.

Fun fact from my perspective though. Reading through the results, almost everywhere where someone other than a democrat or a republican was on the ballot, they got about 5% of the vote. That is a hopeful sign. Maybe in 2 years we can make it 10% and start ruining some people's plans.

[Shryke]

I don't have a link, but on CNN last night they said there was little turnout among the younger demographic that showed up for Obama in Indiana and Ohio.

Here's a good one: http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/votingage.jpg