Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 13, 2017 21:47:26 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by misternic on Sept 13, 2017 21:56:39 GMT -5
Part of what I think is readily dismissed about Trump voters is that "choosing" Trump was not done in a vacuum. Currently (and for 200 years) this country has mainly had a two party system. Every attempt to start a viable third option is never fully realized. I know many Trump voters who are intelligent, respectable, open minded people. Given better options, they would not have considered Trump, but were not at all onboard with a Hillary agenda and thus you have it. I mentioned previously I voted for neither Trump nor Clinton. I do not agree with most of the Hillary agenda, and I did not agree with who Trump was as a person and parts of his agenda. Many voters (on both sides) voted for the lesser of two bad options, even if they did not "like" the candidate for which they voted.
The "how could you vote for xxxx" is pointless, because I may not want to eat dog food, but I hate starving even more. How can a person choose to eat dog food but the alternatives might be worse.
|
|
|
|
Post by joegolferg on Sept 14, 2017 0:54:28 GMT -5
And not only did they prop up the Tory agenda, they then promptly didn't press any of their own agenda items at all - famously ceding key areas all together. Loads of young people voted for them on the back of tuition fees - and were betrayed - that's the only word that can be used. Twas a stupid pledge - one from a party that clearly never really considered they might be in government. Got to say though, i do think they've been punished far more than almost any other political party to have broken a promise (and that's all of them). Almost like they are held to higher standards than the big two. Promising too big is the biggest potential downfall of the Corbyn project IMO. He offers something radically different, which is good, but his election campaign did end up being "We'll give you X, Y & Z if you vote for us, and only the very richest (Top 5%) will have to foot the bill". Which IMO is undeliverable. All too easy to say it from opposition when you expect to lose, different when you have to actually do it. The reality is that to roll back the worst of the Tory cuts & have a top class NHS etc, most of us will have to pay a little bit more. I think that's fine, and actually think most people would agree. I don't believe Corbyn's policies on taxing the Corps to the tune of 22% Corp tax and putting the highest earners back on the 50p job such a hard task. I know he will face fierce opposition from the establishment but he successfully fended them all off over the past two years and managed to gain an extra 3.5 million votes for Labour, this also with only six weeks to campaign for the election. At the end of the day it's the mass of people who hold the power and that is why Momentum has become one of the biggest political forces of the past decade, due to the pure decay of our system ever since the big crash in 2008, people have lost all interest in neo liberal politics because they're now really feeling the effects of that economic meltdown. Every time there is a depression or recession they tell us that they know how it went wrong and it will not happen again, but it repeats itself over and over as the next generation of people in power aren't properly educated on the conflicts of capitalism, or maybe they are but they only care about getting rich whilst we only live for a short time on earth. The ideas you don't see as realistic is because we live in a country where the population have always submitted to their masters, we don't know what radical change looks like because the establishment use propaganda against it to protect their own interests. Economics is a completely open book, there are now defined rules that you have to live by, things can always change for better or worse, I think it's time we finally opt for a big change and it seems the momentum is building for it. |
|
|
|
Post by mcbogga on Sept 14, 2017 2:03:01 GMT -5
I'm not smart enough to make this up. Mr Rosenbaum who wrote[...] Well argued and a reputable source, but his conclusions are drawn too far imho. Essentially Rosenbaums' thesis boils down to "Trump uses buffoonery to confuse and avoid political judgment. And so did Hitler. Trump is pulling from Hitlers playbook". That's a logical fallacy. And it's an overused one at that. So many World leaders have been dubbed the next Hitler it's not funny - because it downplays the real significance of what Hitler did and also reduces our acuity to the signs - you know, the boy who cried wolf.... Here's the counter example: Boris Johnson from our fine UK shores is a buffoon of the highest order. And he's used it to obtain very high office without consequence - currently our Foreign Minister  He's many things, but he's not like Hitler or pulling from Hitler's "playbook"... And neither imho is Trump. He's not calculated enough. The analogy is unhelpful in dealing with a man who presents very different challenges... Yep, it's equally bad taste and logic drawing Hitler parallels no matter if they come from a video game cheater or a guy called Rosenbaum. Agree with Paulus that Trump is a lightweight in terms of skill at consolidating power compared to Hitler. If he was actually any good at it there might be time to start worrying. |
|
|
|
Post by AFCTUJacko on Sept 14, 2017 3:25:01 GMT -5
Twas a stupid pledge - one from a party that clearly never really considered they might be in government. Got to say though, i do think they've been punished far more than almost any other political party to have broken a promise (and that's all of them). Almost like they are held to higher standards than the big two. Promising too big is the biggest potential downfall of the Corbyn project IMO. He offers something radically different, which is good, but his election campaign did end up being "We'll give you X, Y & Z if you vote for us, and only the very richest (Top 5%) will have to foot the bill". Which IMO is undeliverable. All too easy to say it from opposition when you expect to lose, different when you have to actually do it. The reality is that to roll back the worst of the Tory cuts & have a top class NHS etc, most of us will have to pay a little bit more. I think that's fine, and actually think most people would agree. I don't believe Corbyn's policies on taxing the Corps to the tune of 22% Corp tax and putting the highest earners back on the 50p job such a hard task. I know he will face fierce opposition from the establishment but he successfully fended them all off over the past two years and managed to gain an extra 3.5 million votes for Labour, this also with only six weeks to campaign for the election. At the end of the day it's the mass of people who hold the power and that is why Momentum has become one of the biggest political forces of the past decade, due to the pure decay of our system ever since the big crash in 2008, people have lost all interest in neo liberal politics because they're now really feeling the effects of that economic meltdown. Every time there is a depression or recession they tell us that they know how it went wrong and it will not happen again, but it repeats itself over and over as the next generation of people in power aren't properly educated on the conflicts of capitalism, or maybe they are but they only care about getting rich whilst we only live for a short time on earth. The ideas you don't see as realistic is because we live in a country where the population have always submitted to their masters, we don't know what radical change looks like because the establishment use propaganda against it to protect their own interests. Economics is a completely open book, there are now defined rules that you have to live by, things can always change for better or worse, I think it's time we finally opt for a big change and it seems the momentum is building for it. I wasn't suggesting he can't enact his policies, or tax the wealthiest/corporations a great deal more. He can and I hope he does.
But it's widely accepted that he won't be able to afford the spending commitments he made without increasing tax on a much higher percentage of the population than the top 5%.
And personally, I'd rather he was more honest about it. But generally asking people to pay more tax isn't how you win elections 
|
|
|
|
Post by joegolferg on Sept 14, 2017 4:16:28 GMT -5
I had to post this in here as PJW is one of Trumps biggest Twitter warriors. A very stupid one mind. You seriously cannot be this stupid and be unaware.
|
|
|
|
Post by joegolferg on Sept 14, 2017 4:22:44 GMT -5
I don't believe Corbyn's policies on taxing the Corps to the tune of 22% Corp tax and putting the highest earners back on the 50p job such a hard task. I know he will face fierce opposition from the establishment but he successfully fended them all off over the past two years and managed to gain an extra 3.5 million votes for Labour, this also with only six weeks to campaign for the election. At the end of the day it's the mass of people who hold the power and that is why Momentum has become one of the biggest political forces of the past decade, due to the pure decay of our system ever since the big crash in 2008, people have lost all interest in neo liberal politics because they're now really feeling the effects of that economic meltdown. Every time there is a depression or recession they tell us that they know how it went wrong and it will not happen again, but it repeats itself over and over as the next generation of people in power aren't properly educated on the conflicts of capitalism, or maybe they are but they only care about getting rich whilst we only live for a short time on earth. The ideas you don't see as realistic is because we live in a country where the population have always submitted to their masters, we don't know what radical change looks like because the establishment use propaganda against it to protect their own interests. Economics is a completely open book, there are now defined rules that you have to live by, things can always change for better or worse, I think it's time we finally opt for a big change and it seems the momentum is building for it. I wasn't suggesting he can't enact his policies, or tax the wealthiest/corporations a great deal more. He can and I hope he does.
But it's widely accepted that he won't be able to afford the spending commitments he made without increasing tax on a much higher percentage of the population than the top 5%.
And personally, I'd rather he was more honest about it. But generally asking people to pay more tax isn't how you win elections
Consider he is only asking the top 10% to pay more tax, the other 90% will not really be that concerned. There is growing anger here in the UK over the richest not paying their fair share. It isn't just about the rates of tax, Corbyn also speaks a lot about closing the loopholes that allow those who earn a high amount to dodge paying their full taxes. The latest figures show that £119 billion of tax is dodged every single year. Just imagine if we could claw back half of that. |
|
|
|
Post by paulus on Sept 14, 2017 5:54:05 GMT -5
The latest figures show that £119 billion of tax is dodged every single year. Just imagine if we could claw back half of that. Nah that number is too big - it's gonna be too hard to do. Lets just focus all our political energies on demonising the poor & claw back some of the £1.5billion in benefit fraud instead. Obviously it'll make @!$# all difference to the public purse in real terms, but it'll be much easier and also doesn't affect me and my mates... |
|
|
|
Post by mcbogga on Sept 14, 2017 11:44:06 GMT -5
I wasn't suggesting he can't enact his policies, or tax the wealthiest/corporations a great deal more. He can and I hope he does.
But it's widely accepted that he won't be able to afford the spending commitments he made without increasing tax on a much higher percentage of the population than the top 5%.
And personally, I'd rather he was more honest about it. But generally asking people to pay more tax isn't how you win elections
Consider he is only asking the top 10% to pay more tax, the other 90% will not really be that concerned. There is growing anger here in the UK over the richest not paying their fair share. It isn't just about the rates of tax, Corbyn also speaks a lot about closing the loopholes that allow those who earn a high amount to dodge paying their full taxes. The latest figures show that £119 billion of tax is dodged every single year. Just imagine if we could claw back half of that. The issue with taxing the top 5% or even 10% is that they are usually quite mobile and fickle and have power over a significant amount of the available jobs in the country... No matter what you think about it from an ideological standpoint, the realities of globalisation makes it a questionable strategy.... |
|
|
|
Post by joegolferg on Sept 14, 2017 12:14:47 GMT -5
Consider he is only asking the top 10% to pay more tax, the other 90% will not really be that concerned. There is growing anger here in the UK over the richest not paying their fair share. It isn't just about the rates of tax, Corbyn also speaks a lot about closing the loopholes that allow those who earn a high amount to dodge paying their full taxes. The latest figures show that £119 billion of tax is dodged every single year. Just imagine if we could claw back half of that. The issue with taxing the top 5% or even 10% is that they are usually quite mobile and fickle and have power over a significant amount of the available jobs in the country... No matter what you think about it from an ideological standpoint, the realities of globalisation makes it a questionable strategy.... What power do they really have when up against a genuine opponent of their cronyism? When up against somebody who cannot be bought? The only true weapon they possess is money, and money doesn't talk for everyone as past revolutionaries and even just plain old presidents have shown us. Those holding the wealth and jobs at the top cannot dodge the laws and regulations that would halt them from carrying on with their cosy tax arrangements etc, especially if there was somebody in government who truly followed through on curbing corruption and evasion. It isn't as though they could threaten to take jobs away, who in their right mind would shut up shop in a market of 60 million people? It seems that these wealth hoarders are untouchable because we've always had governments that appease them for few quid in their back pockets, but it can be different. I agree that in places like the US, this may not be possible at all, they are the nation that litteraly kicked off the corporate culture as it us today, I'm only speaking exclusively about the UK on this topic. Globalization on the other hand is changing rapidly due to the fact that advanced technology is automating too many workplaces, and if we're not careful it will cause devastating effects to employment figures world wide. We cannot have a capitalist world with high automation, this is one of the biggest conflicts within the system and should be regulated accordingly in my opinion, and taxing robots is not the answer by any means. |
|
|
|
Post by paulus on Sept 14, 2017 16:36:45 GMT -5
We cannot have a capitalist world with high automation, this is one of the biggest conflicts within the system and should be regulated accordingly in my opinion, and taxing robots is not the answer by any means. Absolutely - the coming of robots and in particular AI will be the death knell for the current system - you can't have that many people without means. The only point of debate is whether it will be a bloody or bloodless revolution. Taxing robots definitely is not the answer, but luckily there is very good alternative: Universal living wage. Already being tried in Finland... www.theguardian.com/society/2017/feb/19/basic-income-finland-low-wages-fewer-jobs |
|
|
|
Post by paulus on Sept 14, 2017 16:46:38 GMT -5
The issue with taxing the top 5% or even 10% is that they are usually quite mobile and fickle and have power over a significant amount of the available jobs in the country... No matter what you think about it from an ideological standpoint, the realities of globalisation makes it a questionable strategy.... This is an often cited reason for not taxing those that can afford it and should be contributing back to the societies from which they take so much. Trouble is - it's just theory - there's not a single shred of evidence to support it. And in fact states like New Jersey & California raised their millionaire brackets and it didn't make a jot of difference to the numbers paying and the businesses that got placed there. As Joe points out - when faced with a choice of lower revenue or no revenue - the rich aren't mad, they'll take some money rather than none. They'll kick up a fuss for sure, but they'll take what they can get ultimately. |
|
|
|
Post by mcbogga on Sept 14, 2017 17:27:51 GMT -5
Fair points. Not like a small increase is going to lead to an exodus, of course.
|
|
|
|
Post by nevadaballin on Sept 14, 2017 19:08:36 GMT -5
We cannot have a capitalist world with high automation, this is one of the biggest conflicts within the system and should be regulated accordingly in my opinion, and taxing robots is not the answer by any means. Absolutely - the coming of robots and in particular AI will be the death knell for the current system - you can't have that many people without means. The only point of debate is whether it will be a bloody or bloodless revolution. Taxing robots definitely is not the answer, but luckily there is very good alternative: Universal living wage. Already being tried in Finland... www.theguardian.com/society/2017/feb/19/basic-income-finland-low-wages-fewer-jobsThere are presently 6.2 million unfilled jobs in the USA, the most ever in our history. Many of them are well-paying tech jobs. We're not talking about picking lima beans in 105 degree heat for $5 an hour.They aren't filled because we don't have the skilled labor to fill them. There's a huge gap of vocational education going on. So many jobs to fill and not enough talent to fill them. that includes robots  We don't have a jobs problem here. We have a vocational problem and a wages problem. The rent for our apartment has gone up $300 per month over the last two years. I asked them why and they said "it's the market". I told her "the market" didn't raise my income by that much. She shrugged. Lol. |
|
|
|
Post by paulus on Sept 14, 2017 20:11:50 GMT -5
There are presently 6.2 million unfilled jobs in the USA, the most ever in our history. Many of them are well-paying tech jobs. We're not talking about picking lima beans in 105 degree heat for $5 an hour.They aren't filled because we don't have the skilled labor to fill them. There's a huge gap of vocational education going on. So many jobs to fill and not enough talent to fill them. that includes robots Spot on statistic and I think your argument may hold for some specialist sectors, but at a macro level I'm not sure it's about skills shortage. Headline figures like this can hide a lot of subtle detail. Here a couple of counter points; 1) The figure is based on adverts for openings - online or otherwise. Employers over-advertise their positions, so the figure is generally accepted as inflated. 2) The evidence that employers are trying very hard to fill these positions is very scant. If it were the case, then; a) Salaries would rise - but that's not happening. b) Poaching of employees from other companies would be commonplace - but "quit rates" are still below pre-recession levels. This is indicative of a weak Labour market, when workers feel they can quit because there are better opportunities, they do so. So what's going on? The hunt for the Purple Squirrel that's what!  www.businesscycle.com/ecri-news-events/news-details/economic-cycle-research-ecri-only-purple-squirrels-need-applyThere have also been a few scientific studies that also came to the same conclusion - the Labour market is still very tight, despite what the headline "Job Openings" figures say... journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0019793914564961journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0019793916660067 |
|
He's many things, but he's not like Hitler or pulling from Hitler's "playbook"...
