Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Politico)   "The Millennial-Industrial Complex" This has nothing to do with helping Millennials get into the workforce and everything about how best to screw them over politically   (politico.com ) divider line
    More: Ironic  
•       •       •

1112 clicks; posted to Politics » on 12 Feb 2014 at 8:03 AM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



82 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2014-02-12 12:31:34 PM  

Wendy's Chili: WTF Indeed: somedude210: I don't understand how no one knows how they side politically? They're incredibly socially liberal (compared to the rest of the voting public) and sorta fiscally conservative socialist. They don't want to get completely screwed over by the Boomers blowing up the economy while also wanting the feds to be there to help out if/when they need it.

It's not how they vote now, it's how they will vote when they are 30.

We're already 30.


Ding.
 
2014-02-12 12:42:56 PM  

sprawl15: somedude210: I don't understand how no one knows how they side politically?

serious talk

my biggest issue is that i do not believe the constitution represents an efficient form of government, and needs to be revised to eliminate the influence of money in elections as well as the influence of politicians themselves by switching to national proportional representation of parties instead of voting for candidates, with parties managing their own internal systems for selecting which butts get in which seats. this would necessitate the elimination of the senate and state sovereignty.

the balance of powers is similarly farked, due to the political question doctrine and vagaries in the constitution. things like the war powers resolution's constitutional validity, which are fundamental issues in how the constitution and balance of powers work, simply cannot be resolved within our system - it's equivalent to the square root of -1, something that just cannot be expressed in the language of powers.

you see, to me, it doesn't really matter what kind of political changes we make on the minute-to-minute level, because the system itself is so fundamentally flawed. until/unless the system is hogtied and saddled, it really doesn't matter what we do until then, because any actions taken by the government have the interests of the politicians taking primacy over the interests of the electorate..

so which party am i leaning towards politically?


Didn't get to college algebra? It's called i.

And the system can be fixed. But it's going to take a ton of work, and probably an amendment or three. The initial problem is the fact that the framers presumed too much. The system as they saw it actually worked pretty well in the environment it was instituted in. Free public education that was decently rigorous, bar set pretty high in order to insure that those who did vote were careful and contemplative at the ballot. Over the course of time those conditions were eroded away, and on purpose.

If we can get back to having an educated and contemplative electorate, the system will fix itself. It might sound pretty damn elitist, but it's necessary. Mandatory civics education, and some form of test on said education that's tough enough to weed out those that can't even perform basic math or form a coherent sentence. Good bye ignorant hicks, we have no use for those who couldn't pass a first year economics class in our electorate.
 
2014-02-12 12:51:15 PM  

iq_in_binary: It's called i


probably should have used x/0. half asleep posting is half asleep

iq_in_binary: And the system can be fixed.


no, it's a question of motivations of those who have power. there is no motivation to fix the system for anyone who is invested in it. it's like asking bankers to forgive your loans; you're already in the shiatter, they're reaping the benefit, so why bother?

the environment they worked within was dependent on incredible friction to the transmission of information - it depended on the gross ignorance of the common man to be exploited by those intelligent enough and wealthy enough to do so, and for their pseudo-chivalric ideas to ensure that debate doesn't turn into slapfighting

an educated electorate is the absolute worst thing, systemically, for our system of governance. we absolutely need one, but we need a system that can engage such an electorate, and a fptp system focused on geographically linked interests is not such a system
 
2014-02-12 12:51:31 PM  

Nabb1: ckccfa: Nabb1: abb3w: WTF Indeed: The Millennials have two grand examples how not to act politically:

Don't be as greedy and selfish as Baby Boomers.
Don't be as uninvolved as Gen Xers.

So, they're going to set out to combine the worst features of both, and become Libertarians.

The entitlement generation is not going to like the Libertarian Party too much when they find out that cradle-to-grave government benefits are not part of the deal.

Oh shut the fark up with this bullshiat.  We're no more the "entitlement generation" than the farking Boomers.  How dare we want the same fair shake and social support that our parents and grandparents enjoyed.  How farking dare we desire social and infrastructure investment, livable wages, and some opportunities for advancement.  How dare we want the same access to decent healthcare, the ability to own a house, and the ability to raise a family that previous generations enjoyed.
We entered/are entering adulthood at a time of incredible wage stagnation, a shiatty economy that was wrecked by forces beyond our control, and intense corporate greed.  We are trying to attain the same successes our parents did on less money, with fewer jobs, and with more debt than they ever did (because you have to go to a good, expensive college so you can get a job!).  So excuse us for wanting to rebalance the system to fark us just a little less.
Jesus farking christ.


/And if anyone is to blame for making us a bunch of whining entitlement monkeys it's the people who raised us.
//"I learned it by watching you, Dad!"

Yeah, yeah, it's the same self-absorbed whining Generation X engaged in, too, but we just reacted with detached ambivalence. We were the first generation projected to do worse than their parents. We were raised with the expectation that everyone should go to college in order to secure a good job. You think the 90's were some sort of halcyon days for young people? Ever heard the phrase "McJobs"? We coined that - dead end, low-pay ...


Yes, except that you did it to yourselves. We weren't even born when you dumbasses elected Reagan. And don't give me that "I didn't vote for him" nonsense. He didn't take 49 states on the backs of the boomers alone.
 
2014-02-12 12:53:00 PM  

Nabb1: You think the 90's were some sort of halcyon days for young people? Ever heard the phrase "McJobs"?


Yeah. I actually had a McJob. In the nineties, no less. You see, in the nineties, unemployment was four percent, and investors were willing to throw money at anyone who could pronounce the word "internet." Grownups had a lot more options back then, so the burger-flipping was left to whippersnappers like myself.
 
2014-02-12 12:59:50 PM  
iq_in_binary: Yes, except that you did it to yourselves. We weren't even born when you dumbasses elected Reagan. And don't give me that "I didn't vote for him" nonsense. He didn't take 49 states on the backs of the boomers alone.

The youngest Gen Xers were born in 1965, making them 15 when Reagan beat Carter.
 
2014-02-12 01:04:44 PM  

sprawl15: an educated electorate is the absolute worst thing, systemically, for our system of governance. we absolutely need one, but we need a system that can engage such an electorate, and a fptp system focused on geographically linked interests is not such a system


Curious why you think an educated electorate is bad systemically. The system was designed to be ponderous, but (reasonably) easily amendable if the populace feels overwhelmingly strongly about anything.
 
2014-02-12 01:06:41 PM  

llortcM_yllort: iq_in_binary: Yes, except that you did it to yourselves. We weren't even born when you dumbasses elected Reagan. And don't give me that "I didn't vote for him" nonsense. He didn't take 49 states on the backs of the boomers alone.

The youngestoldest Gen Xers were born in 1965, making them 15 when Reagan beat Carter.


FTFY.  My point is that you can't blame the Reagan presidency on a group of people who were too young to vote for Reagan.
 
2014-02-12 01:08:59 PM  

UrukHaiGuyz: The system was designed to be ponderous, but (reasonably) easily amendable if the populace feels overwhelmingly strongly about anything.


by people who intended the electorate to be limited only to educated, white male landowners
 
2014-02-12 01:15:00 PM  

sprawl15: UrukHaiGuyz: The system was designed to be ponderous, but (reasonably) easily amendable if the populace feels overwhelmingly strongly about anything.

by people who intended the electorate to be limited only to educated, white male landowners


Who cares? Conditions change, but you still haven't given any concrete reason why it's worse for the populace to be better educated. Or are you saying it's not in the interests of the powerful to have an educated electorate?
 
2014-02-12 01:16:10 PM  

iq_in_binary: sprawl15: somedude210: I don't understand how no one knows how they side politically?

serious talk

my biggest issue is that i do not believe the constitution represents an efficient form of government, and needs to be revised to eliminate the influence of money in elections as well as the influence of politicians themselves by switching to national proportional representation of parties instead of voting for candidates, with parties managing their own internal systems for selecting which butts get in which seats. this would necessitate the elimination of the senate and state sovereignty.

the balance of powers is similarly farked, due to the political question doctrine and vagaries in the constitution. things like the war powers resolution's constitutional validity, which are fundamental issues in how the constitution and balance of powers work, simply cannot be resolved within our system - it's equivalent to the square root of -1, something that just cannot be expressed in the language of powers.

you see, to me, it doesn't really matter what kind of political changes we make on the minute-to-minute level, because the system itself is so fundamentally flawed. until/unless the system is hogtied and saddled, it really doesn't matter what we do until then, because any actions taken by the government have the interests of the politicians taking primacy over the interests of the electorate..

so which party am i leaning towards politically?

Didn't get to college algebra? It's called i.

And the system can be fixed. But it's going to take a ton of work, and probably an amendment or three. The initial problem is the fact that the framers presumed too much. The system as they saw it actually worked pretty well in the environment it was instituted in. Free public education that was decently rigorous, bar set pretty high in order to insure that those who did vote were careful and contemplative at the ballot. Over the course of time those conditions were eroded away, and o ...


The problem with this logic, is where do you draw the line and what information do you value?  Someone will have to decide these questions, and odds are they will be the people who rely on votes to keep their jobs.  If you have a group of people decide who is eligible to vote and who isn't, then you get a system where the people who make those decisions will abuse that power to make sure that only the people they want to vote will vote.  The reason the system you described in the first place was abandoned was because it was abused so heavily.  Besides, if the goal is to get the smartest people involved why not just scrap the voting system and replace the government with a bunch of bureaucrats who are experts in the field they run?
 
2014-02-12 01:17:28 PM  

llortcM_yllort: iq_in_binary: Yes, except that you did it to yourselves. We weren't even born when you dumbasses elected Reagan. And don't give me that "I didn't vote for him" nonsense. He didn't take 49 states on the backs of the boomers alone.

The youngest Gen Xers were born in 1965, making them 15 when Reagan beat Carter.


I always understood Gen X to be 1960-1980. And they certainly were old enough to put him back in office in 1984.
 
2014-02-12 01:19:27 PM  

llortcM_yllort: iq_in_binary: sprawl15: somedude210: I don't understand how no one knows how they side politically?

serious talk

my biggest issue is that i do not believe the constitution represents an efficient form of government, and needs to be revised to eliminate the influence of money in elections as well as the influence of politicians themselves by switching to national proportional representation of parties instead of voting for candidates, with parties managing their own internal systems for selecting which butts get in which seats. this would necessitate the elimination of the senate and state sovereignty.

the balance of powers is similarly farked, due to the political question doctrine and vagaries in the constitution. things like the war powers resolution's constitutional validity, which are fundamental issues in how the constitution and balance of powers work, simply cannot be resolved within our system - it's equivalent to the square root of -1, something that just cannot be expressed in the language of powers.

you see, to me, it doesn't really matter what kind of political changes we make on the minute-to-minute level, because the system itself is so fundamentally flawed. until/unless the system is hogtied and saddled, it really doesn't matter what we do until then, because any actions taken by the government have the interests of the politicians taking primacy over the interests of the electorate..

so which party am i leaning towards politically?

Didn't get to college algebra? It's called i.

And the system can be fixed. But it's going to take a ton of work, and probably an amendment or three. The initial problem is the fact that the framers presumed too much. The system as they saw it actually worked pretty well in the environment it was instituted in. Free public education that was decently rigorous, bar set pretty high in order to insure that those who did vote were careful and contemplative at the ballot. Over the course of time those conditions were erod ...


We've already got a system in place that has worked pretty well for decades. It's the same test we give immigrants who want to become citizens. The test is already there.
 
2014-02-12 01:20:05 PM  

UrukHaiGuyz: Or are you saying it's not in the interests of the powerful to have an educated electorate?


yes that is what i meant when i said our system depends on "the gross ignorance of the common man to be exploited by those intelligent enough and wealthy enough to do so"

UrukHaiGuyz: you still haven't given any concrete reason why it's worse for the populace to be better educated


sprawl15: we absolutely need [an educated electorate], but we need a system that can engage such an electorate, and a fptp system focused on geographically linked interests is not such a system

 
2014-02-12 01:29:26 PM  

iq_in_binary: We've already got a system in place that has worked pretty well for decades. It's the same test we give immigrants who want to become citizens. The test is already there.

You have too much faith in people if you think that the test will not be changed once the idea of having a test is put in place.

iq_in_binary: llortcM_yllort: iq_in_binary: Yes, except that you did it to yourselves. We weren't even born when you dumbasses elected Reagan. And don't give me that "I didn't vote for him" nonsense. He didn't take 49 states on the backs of the boomers alone.

The youngest Gen Xers were born in 1965, making them 15 when Reagan beat Carter.

I always understood Gen X to be 1960-1980. And they certainly were old enough to put him back in office in 1984.


It's a debated point where one generation starts and another ends.  Still, even if we use the 1960-1980 timeframe, that means that over half the generation (those born in 1967 or later) were too young to vote in the 1984 election.  Blaming Reagan on generation X is profoundly dumb.
 
2014-02-12 01:30:02 PM  

llortcM_yllort: iq_in_binary: We've already got a system in place that has worked pretty well for decades. It's the same test we give immigrants who want to become citizens. The test is already there.

You have too much faith in people if you think that the test will not be changed once the idea of having a test is put in place.

iq_in_binary: llortcM_yllort: iq_in_binary: Yes, except that you did it to yourselves. We weren't even born when you dumbasses elected Reagan. And don't give me that "I didn't vote for him" nonsense. He didn't take 49 states on the backs of the boomers alone.

The youngest Gen Xers were born in 1965, making them 15 when Reagan beat Carter.

I always understood Gen X to be 1960-1980. And they certainly were old enough to put him back in office in 1984.

It's a debated point where one generation starts and another ends.  Still, even if we use the 1960-1980 timeframe, that means that over half the generation (those born in 1967 or later) were too young to vote in the 1984 election.  Blaming Reagan on generation X is profoundly dumb.


GAH! bad formatting.
 
2014-02-12 01:47:08 PM  

sprawl15: UrukHaiGuyz: Or are you saying it's not in the interests of the powerful to have an educated electorate?

yes that is what i meant when i said our system depends on "the gross ignorance of the common man to be exploited by those intelligent enough and wealthy enough to do so"


Exploitation is not a necessary feature of the system. Technology has increased the power of average individuals, and only the gross distortion of money in the system (campaign finance/lobbying/etc.) has kept the oligarchs in power.

UrukHaiGuyz: you still haven't given any concrete reason why it's worse for the populace to be better educated

sprawl15: we absolutely need [an educated electorate], but we need a system that can engage such an electorate, and a fptp system focused on geographically linked interests is not such a system


I think you're oversimplifying. We already have an overarching federal system, and the tension between it and the states is how we've traditionally balanced national vs. regional interests. I do think the stranglehold the two major parties have on the political system is toxic, and would prefer a more parliamentary system. Additionally there are legitimate local/regional concerns, like water rights for instance.
 
2014-02-12 01:59:10 PM  

iq_in_binary: Nabb1: ckccfa: Nabb1: abb3w: WTF Indeed: The Millennials have two grand examples how not to act politically:

Don't be as greedy and selfish as Baby Boomers.
Don't be as uninvolved as Gen Xers.

So, they're going to set out to combine the worst features of both, and become Libertarians.

The entitlement generation is not going to like the Libertarian Party too much when they find out that cradle-to-grave government benefits are not part of the deal.

Oh shut the fark up with this bullshiat.  We're no more the "entitlement generation" than the farking Boomers.  How dare we want the same fair shake and social support that our parents and grandparents enjoyed.  How farking dare we desire social and infrastructure investment, livable wages, and some opportunities for advancement.  How dare we want the same access to decent healthcare, the ability to own a house, and the ability to raise a family that previous generations enjoyed.
We entered/are entering adulthood at a time of incredible wage stagnation, a shiatty economy that was wrecked by forces beyond our control, and intense corporate greed.  We are trying to attain the same successes our parents did on less money, with fewer jobs, and with more debt than they ever did (because you have to go to a good, expensive college so you can get a job!).  So excuse us for wanting to rebalance the system to fark us just a little less.
Jesus farking christ.


/And if anyone is to blame for making us a bunch of whining entitlement monkeys it's the people who raised us.
//"I learned it by watching you, Dad!"

Yeah, yeah, it's the same self-absorbed whining Generation X engaged in, too, but we just reacted with detached ambivalence. We were the first generation projected to do worse than their parents. We were raised with the expectation that everyone should go to college in order to secure a good job. You think the 90's were some sort of halcyon days for young people? Ever heard the phrase "McJobs"? We coined that - dead end, low ...


I was twelve years old in 1984, genius.
 
2014-02-12 03:14:03 PM  

somedude210: WTF Indeed: somedude210: I don't understand how no one knows how they side politically? They're incredibly socially liberal (compared to the rest of the voting public) and sorta fiscally conservative socialist. They don't want to get completely screwed over by the Boomers blowing up the economy while also wanting the feds to be there to help out if/when they need it.

It's not how they vote now, it's how they will vote when they are 30.

Again, like the generation that lived through the depression, I think you'll see these kids be more pessimistic with how they'll do financially and will look to the feds to help out more and will be far more open-minded socially.


It depends.

I think that the conservatives lost the social fight.  End of story.  The Gay marriage ship has sailed.  They're queer, they're here, they're actually pretty normal.  Ditto for pretty much every other ship, with the possible exception of the gun control ship as a result of the 3D printer issue (Namely, within 20 years, every single house is going to have the capability of printing a working gun within minutes.  There's no real way of stopping this, without either missing out on the next cool economic thing OR doing creepy dystopia things that would kick off a civil war and have me on their side).  You'll get some pushback against political correctness, (and in certain ways, the *racists/sexists* are more realistic.  People are different, cultures are different, heck, genders have serious differences, and these differences will combine with natural luck to produce differences in outcomes between groups.  And trying to solve these inequalities through legal discrimination is evil), but in general, the social fights are ALL Democrats.

The financial/fiscal fight is going to be interesting.

On the low end, those kids are farked.  They don't have schools, they don't have brains, they don't have a culture that favors either, increasingly you need all of those things to get to not-starving.  They're farked.  They're going to run to Momma and vote accordingly (but they already are,and poor/stupid* people don't vote anyways).

On the high end, I don't know.

Right now, if we ended SS, every working American would get a 12% raise.  Unemployment is another 8% payroll tax.  We're spending most of the budget on various forms of welfare.  Yes, military spending is high, but compared to welfare, it's practically nothing.  It's 4-5% of GDP and even Europe's at like 2% without any of our overseas commitments (and the last time we pulled back from those, WW2 happened), so you can't cut *that* much.  That's not to say that there isn't waste, but it's not like you can cut the military and then use that money to actually pay for significant new programs.  There's just not enough of it.

And there's no farking way we're paying all the pensions.  You can't hire a guy for 30 years and then turn back around and pay him his highest pay rate for another 30 years, while paying a 2nd guy to do his job.  That's paying 3 salaries for 1 worker.  You can't afford the welfare AND the pensions.  At least not without letting the rich go completely nuts doing cool things and making a fark-ton of money in the process, and then you taxing them.  So income equality is DEAD.  Because the higher the incomes are, the fewer taxes you bring in, and the more tax money you put out in the form of higher pensions.

Heck, for these people, trickle-down's been working.  You go to school in something useful, graduate, some cool guy has a cool idea, you join his company, get a few (hundredths/tenths of a) percent along with a nice salary, and get a nice down payment on a house 5 years later when they IPO.  Or use it as the seed money to found your company and follow in his footsteps.  And then now you're the founder, and he's the VC funding you.  And then your second company goes big, and now you're a VC, and never have to work again, and you're only 35.  It doesn't happen often, but it happens enough.  Sure, the rich VC's got even richer, but so what?  You're rich, why do you care?

And the rest of the world gets the really cool toys that you and all of your friends come out with.  So Google, Youtube, Facebook, Netflix, cheap PC's, iPhones, etc, etc, etc.  So trickle-down works for them.

So you're looking at "people who want to do cool shiat, and people who want to get rich off of people doing cool shiat, and people who realize that having the cool shiat people in America developing Google or the internet is worthwhile (or at least better than having them all in China or Europe)".

And as the pension crisis hits and entitlements become increasingly more and more strained (CA's $1 Trillion in the hole.  Over like 50 years, but the increased funding efforts are already causing significant financial strain on a city level), and as increasingly large numbers of really bright people who actually vote start losing 60, 70, 80, 100% of their takehome to taxes (Taxes are x/(1-x).  That's a mere 35-50% tax rate), and are increasingly fiscally screwed because of taxes and policies that raise the cost of living, and as the poor stop being hard-working people down on their luck, and (correctly on both sides) become those farking lazy assholes, you could probably get a party together based around "fark the Poor until I'm ONLY losing a third of my income, because I'd really like to be able to live the same life my parents did, but I can't because of taxes and rent control/zoning driving up rents (Oh, and cool people doing cool shiat put us in charge of the Information Age, without requiring us to bomb Europe and Asia into oblivion first), and let's be socially liberal because I don't actually care about that stuff".

Let's call them "Sane Libertarians" (or hell, "Sane Tea Partiers".  VERY similar philosophical starting points.)  "We need to get shiat done, occasionally government is the best way of doing it, but lots of government just produces fraud, corruption, and cronyism, as well as higher unemployment, lower personal incomes (remember, high end), and lower societal wealth over the long run, as well as fewer cool toys.  Throw down a (low) GMI so that no one starves, and then let cool people do cool shiat, and get rich off it, and we'll all be better for it".  Start with Paul Graham's essays and create a political philosophy out of it.   http://www.paulgraham.com/articles.html   -   http://www.paulgraham.com/gh.htmlhttp://www.paulgraham.com/gap.htmlhttp://www.paulgraham.com/wealth.html -  At various times and places in history, whether you could accumulate a fortune by creating wealth has been turned on and off. Northern Italy in 800, off (warlords would steal it). Northern Italy in 1100, on. Central France in 1100, off (still feudal). England in 1800, on. England in 1974, off (98% tax on investment income). United States in 1974, on. We've even had a twin study: West Germany, on; East Germany, off. In every case, the creation of wealth seems to appear and disappear like the noise of a fan as you switch on and off the prospect of keeping it.

*And as we shift over from physical work to knowledge work, those 2 are becoming increasingly correlated.
 
2014-02-12 03:40:55 PM  

UrukHaiGuyz: Exploitation is not a necessary feature of the system.


It is. It's basic game theory applied to a fptp electoral system - to win, all you need is a plurality. no more. and the system encourages winning over all, because failure to achieve a plurality means your ideas simply are not voiced as a result of the election. that's the driving factor for the message of ignorance, because if you are addressed as an intelligent human being in an honest discussion with an open offer to agree or disagree with a position, you might say no. better to frame the question as pro-life or pro-choice or for the troops or all the other jingoistic bullshiat we spout

technology as it's leveraged now is only a distraction. news agencies have the same issue of conflicting interests - they need viewers, and if that means putting a story on what kind of blow lindsay lohan is doing in the primetime slot then so be it. educating people is not a profit vector. and that's something that'll never change.

UrukHaiGuyz: We already have an overarching federal system, and the tension between it and the states is how we've traditionally balanced national vs. regional interests.


the concept of regional interests is marginal in comparison to how the system was intended. remember - at the time, states printed their own farking money and the constitution was only a few ratchets down from a system where only states could have standing militaries and the federal government only used them at the states' grace

take, for example, the provisions on interstate commerce. with the invention of the internet and modern logistics networks, the idea that commerce can really exist as independently intrastate is hilariously outdated. yet the constitution still forces a distinction where none exists (as if the majority of the population only travel ~10 miles from their house) to the point where things like the civil rights act can only apply to certain public businesses that can be argue fall within interstate commerce

UrukHaiGuyz: Additionally there are legitimate local/regional concerns, like water rights for instance.


which can be dealt with similarly. in a proper proportional representation system (not parliamentary, that's simply where the executive is appointed by the legislature. parliamentary is in contrast to a presidential system, not a fptp system), if the party of fix this bridge gets 5% of the votes they get 5% of the seats. that allows a far greater fractionalization of party, and voting blocs on a per-issue basis. the lower barrier to entry ensures that parties can grow, die, split, merge, whatever, as long as they retain support from their voters. and voters are not required per duverger's law to pick the worst of two evils, creating a motivating force to educate oneself
 
2014-02-12 05:21:53 PM  

meyerkev: Right now, if we ended SS, every working American would get a 12% raise. Unemployment is another 8% payroll tax. We're spending most of the budget on various forms of welfare. Yes, military spending is high, but compared to welfare, it's practically nothing. It's 4-5% of GDP and even Europe's at like 2% without any of our overseas commitments (and the last time we pulled back from those, WW2 happened), so you can't cut *that* much. That's not to say that there isn't waste, but it's not like you can cut the military and then use that money to actually pay for significant new programs. There's just not enough of it.


There is a very good reason our safety nets exist, and one similar in purpose to our military. To keep peace within our borders, it is imperitavely in our interest to ensure that the losers of capitalism aren't immediately sunk at the first crisis they face, be it financial, medical, or whatever. Long term unemployment is as bad as it's been since WW2, and while it is improving, you can't just cast 4 million or so people onto the streets because paid-for Representatives won't even make the cuts that the military itself is asking for. This insistence on destroying the social glue of America by telling the poor to just fark off and die when the Information Age allows us to speak in real time to people in Canada, New Zealand, E.U., etc. where basic benefits are providing real improvements to citizen's lives is what will ultimately tank the GOP.
 
2014-02-12 05:27:32 PM  

sprawl15: which can be dealt with similarly. in a proper proportional representation system (not parliamentary, that's simply where the executive is appointed by the legislature. parliamentary is in contrast to a presidential system, not a fptp system), if the party of fix this bridge gets 5% of the votes they get 5% of the seats. that allows a far greater fractionalization of party, and voting blocs on a per-issue basis. the lower barrier to entry ensures that parties can grow, die, split, merge, whatever, as long as they retain support from their voters. and voters are not required per duverger's law to pick the worst of two evils, creating a motivating force to educate oneself


I do like that a lower barrier to entry keeps politicians on their toes and less beholden to the monied interests currently drowning U.S. politics in cash. I'll have to think on the rest of what you wrote. Interesting stuff.
 
2014-02-12 05:59:11 PM  

UrukHaiGuyz: meyerkev: Right now, if we ended SS, every working American would get a 12% raise. Unemployment is another 8% payroll tax. We're spending most of the budget on various forms of welfare. Yes, military spending is high, but compared to welfare, it's practically nothing. It's 4-5% of GDP and even Europe's at like 2% without any of our overseas commitments (and the last time we pulled back from those, WW2 happened), so you can't cut *that* much. That's not to say that there isn't waste, but it's not like you can cut the military and then use that money to actually pay for significant new programs. There's just not enough of it.

There is a very good reason our safety nets exist, and one similar in purpose to our military. To keep peace within our borders, it is imperitavely in our interest to ensure that the losers of capitalism aren't immediately sunk at the first crisis they face, be it financial, medical, or whatever. Long term unemployment is as bad as it's been since WW2, and while it is improving, you can't just cast 4 million or so people onto the streets because paid-for Representatives won't even make the cuts that the military itself is asking for. This insistence on destroying the social glue of America by telling the poor to just fark off and die when the Information Age allows us to speak in real time to people in Canada, New Zealand, E.U., etc. where basic benefits are providing real improvements to citizen's lives is what will ultimately tank the GOP.


I'm not saying that it's a good IDEA.

I'm saying that this is true:
www.econdataus.com

So right now, something like 60% of our budget is various forms of safety net.  We have $1.5 Trillion in means-tested welfare (and that DOESN'T count SS or Medicare), we're paying people hundreds of thousands of dollars a year in pensions and SS, and we can't afford it.  Cities are going bankrupt, local and state taxes are going up, services are getting slashed, the middle class is dead (and government can't bring that back) and even Palo Alto and Menlo Park (Rich assholes in Silicon Valley) are talking about cutting pensions because there is no money.  And that burden per worker is about to double.

Yes, tax the rich, but FFS, you're already approaching 70-100% of takehome in expensive places where rent is another third or more.

And so when people are in their 30's,40's,50's, and they can't live the lives their parents lived because of the outright crippling taxes while their parents are living it up on their $25-100K worth of SS/pensions* paid for by their taxes on their shiat jobs, and the poor are resting in their exceedingly inefficient, overly expensive safety net ...  yeah, we'll be cutting that shiat.  Or there'll be a riot.  Or there'll be some other nation that the people who really make the economy move to, because you CAN get rich there and keep the wealth.

*I'm not farking joking.  That's an average amongst my aunts and uncles who worked for government or unions.  SS + Pension (+ Other Pension if applicable)   It might be a bright idea, but that's unaffordable unless you let the tech people go nuts and make tons of money which you can then tax.  Because say what you will about trickle-down, on a purely GDP level, it works.  GDP is UP, tax revenues are UP, and stagflation is OVER.  If you let people keep wealth, they will create wealth (like Google, Youtube, pretty much every cool technical thing from the last few decades.  They become billionaires, a bunch of employees become millionaires, and you get a cool new toy).
 
2014-02-12 06:06:33 PM  

UrukHaiGuyz: sprawl15: which can be dealt with similarly. in a proper proportional representation system (not parliamentary, that's simply where the executive is appointed by the legislature. parliamentary is in contrast to a presidential system, not a fptp system), if the party of fix this bridge gets 5% of the votes they get 5% of the seats. that allows a far greater fractionalization of party, and voting blocs on a per-issue basis. the lower barrier to entry ensures that parties can grow, die, split, merge, whatever, as long as they retain support from their voters. and voters are not required per duverger's law to pick the worst of two evils, creating a motivating force to educate oneself

I do like that a lower barrier to entry keeps politicians on their toes and less beholden to the monied interests currently drowning U.S. politics in cash. I'll have to think on the rest of what you wrote. Interesting stuff.


It's worth noting that one of the problems with that is that fringe parties get WAY more power.  Party A ties Party B, and Party C is kingmaker, while Parties D, E and F keep going because they won like 3 seats and so "Next Time.  Next tIme, we'll win big".  Seriously, look at the political history of the Nazi party.  They only had like 2 seats for a bunch of elections, but those few seats kept them together until they won it all.

Under the 2-party system, you get a place where 1% of the Republican party is racist nutters ala KKK (There's quite a few more culturalists ("I'm OK with black people, but I really hate Ni-BONG-'s"/"Speak English, Jose") and a bunch of people who disagree with affirmative action, but very few outright racists).  And if the Republican Party can't keep them under control, then everyone votes Democrat and the Republicans don't control anything important.

/Arrow's Theorem.  No social choice mechanism is perfect.  That one's been tried.  And it ended up with Nazi's and WW2.  I'm not joking.  There was some other stuff going on, but do you REALLY want a KKK party?  Because I'm guessing that they could win a seat or two.
 
2014-02-12 06:25:33 PM  

meyerkev: UrukHaiGuyz: sprawl15: which can be dealt with similarly. in a proper proportional representation system (not parliamentary, that's simply where the executive is appointed by the legislature. parliamentary is in contrast to a presidential system, not a fptp system), if the party of fix this bridge gets 5% of the votes they get 5% of the seats. that allows a far greater fractionalization of party, and voting blocs on a per-issue basis. the lower barrier to entry ensures that parties can grow, die, split, merge, whatever, as long as they retain support from their voters. and voters are not required per duverger's law to pick the worst of two evils, creating a motivating force to educate oneself

I do like that a lower barrier to entry keeps politicians on their toes and less beholden to the monied interests currently drowning U.S. politics in cash. I'll have to think on the rest of what you wrote. Interesting stuff.

It's worth noting that one of the problems with that is that fringe parties get WAY more power.  Party A ties Party B, and Party C is kingmaker, while Parties D, E and F keep going because they won like 3 seats and so "Next Time.  Next tIme, we'll win big".  Seriously, look at the political history of the Nazi party.  They only had like 2 seats for a bunch of elections, but those few seats kept them together until they won it all.

Under the 2-party system, you get a place where 1% of the Republican party is racist nutters ala KKK (There's quite a few more culturalists ("I'm OK with black people, but I really hate Ni-BONG-'s"/"Speak English, Jose") and a bunch of people who disagree with affirmative action, but very few outright racists).  And if the Republican Party can't keep them under control, then everyone votes Democrat and the Republicans don't control anything important.

/Arrow's Theorem.  No social choice mechanism is perfect.  That one's been tried.  And it ended up with Nazi's and WW2.  I'm not joking.  There was some other stuff going on, but ...


Well, I'd say that's a real problem except that we have a whole (controlling!) faction of our one right-wing party that's pretty well gone off the rails. My Senator fake filibustered with Dr. Suess to shut down the federal government. It's insane to me that that sentence is true. The right seems to have given up on policing its own (in the media at least) as far blatant racism, gyno- and homophobia go. Things are fairly grim from a social rights perspective as it is, especially when compared with Europe, which actually has proper proportional representation systems. I'd roll the dice on a Fascist party. Let them directly represent themselves and see how well they fare.
 
2014-02-12 06:38:46 PM  
I'd also like to say that 25k/year on the low end isn't "living it up". If there's a population bump to smooth out, just invite more immigrants. People are more productive and more creative and more likely to start a business if they aren't tied to a job for healthcare, for instance. Benefits pay dividends for all of society including the wealthiest. There are much smarter ways to address the costs, smarter ways to force corporate America to stop sucking at the taxpayers teat and actually pay a fair wage.
 
2014-02-12 06:50:45 PM  

meyerkev: It's worth noting that one of the problems with that is that fringe parties get WAY more power.


which is fine. fringe parties should exist, and they should be given a voice. their opinions and contributions should not be discarded from the discussion solely because they're unpopular. and UrukHaiGuyz is absolutely right in the other shortcoming of our current system where fringe parties are given leeway to hijack a major party because the loss of that fringe is enough to bring the party below plurality. the primary goal of plurality is why the gop let the tea party stick its dick in their collective ears

meyerkev: They only had like 2 seats for a bunch of elections, but those few seats kept them together until they won it all.


which is not a problem with fringe parties existing. the libertarian party has existed for decades without ever really holding power in our country. it was only when the nazis actually were able to get enough votes and enough seats that they were able to do anything. you're outright contradicting your own argument by saying fringe parties are bad because when they are no longer fringe they aren't restricted to fringe level powers

meyerkev: but do you REALLY want a KKK party?


yes. and if 2 seats worth of this nation decides that the best party to represent their interests is the KKK, so be it. that's the whole point. if there's 2 seats of kkk and 2 seats of black panthers and 2 seats of la raza 2: the razaning, that's absolutely 100% fine by me. then those voices are allowed to speak their position in turn and everyone else is able to move on and actually get shiat done.

the whole point of the system is to encourage the fringe, encourage people to break up into groups that are granular enough to more effectively represent their interests, and allow those groups to function independently towards their own legislative agenda without burdening them with the caucus system.

i mean if really all you have is 'hitler did it' and 'but the gop is bad' i really don't even know why you posted
 
2014-02-12 06:54:30 PM  

meyerkev: trickle-down's been working


meyerkev: you're already approaching 70-100% of takehome


meyerkev: outright crippling taxes


No, wrong. Not even close. Anti-tax, neo-con derp.
Trickle-down is a disaster that's screwed everyone below the top 1%. Trickle-down has screwed even you, because even you should be making more money than the "job creators" are paying out, and that's with everyone's taxes at some of the lowest they've been in modern history. Your particularly scrumptious scrap from the tables of the wealthy elite is not any indication whatsoever that the failure that is supply-side economics has succeeded at doing anything but enriching those very elite.
 
2014-02-12 08:55:25 PM  

Sergeant Grumbles: Trickle-down has screwed even you, because even you should be making more money than the "job creators" are paying out, and that's with everyone's taxes at some of the lowest they've been in modern history.


Dude, I'm getting paid in STOCK (And money.  And not having to work for BigCorp).

If the 1% make out like bandits, so do I.  Admittedly to a lesser degree, but it's not my idea, not my money, largely not my knowledge (First non-PHD in the company, and I showed up a couple years later), and mostly not my labor.  We do this right (and there IS a market there, and we do have some good tech.  I don't know if we have the right timing, but someone's going to get super-rich doing what we do and we hold the patent), and we ALL get rich (enough to be able to pick and choose who we work for).

/Seriously, how did they do it back when taxes were way higher?  And what were we spending all of that money on?
//Oh right, Cold War.   13% of GDP in the Military.
 
2014-02-12 09:30:36 PM  

meyerkev: Dude, I'm getting paid in STOCK (And money.  And not having to work for BigCorp).


Must resist urge to make 90s pop culture reference.
 
2014-02-12 09:42:52 PM  

meyerkev: If the 1% make out like bandits, so do I. Admittedly to a lesser degree, but it's not my idea, not my money, largely not my knowledge (First non-PHD in the company, and I showed up a couple years later), and mostly not my labor.


And there's the whole problem. If they didn't need your labor, you wouldn't be there. You're just as much a part of the process as everyone else, and there's no reason you should settle for "a lesser degree". Your productivity is being stolen out from under you, and you're gullible enough to let it happen.
You're stuck on the idea that the only people capable of making this work are the super-rich and that they should be getting the lion's share of the rewards. That if the super-rich are not around, there will be no investment, no stock market, no jobs, no anything. It's pants on the head retarded. It wasn't just the Cold War where all the money was going. It was going to infrastructure, it was going to subsidize college costs, it was being paid into pensions. It was the largest middle class in history buying, spending, consuming. A middle class that could invest, buy stock, and employ far better than a small cadre of wealthy.
The super-rich are stripping all of that away, and just to let you in on a little secret, you becoming rich is an unintended oversight. If they can correct that and funnel all of your money into their pocket, they will, and no amount of white-knighting for them and no amount of skills or experience on your part are going to change that.
 
2014-02-13 09:18:18 AM  

Sergeant Grumbles: It wasn't just the Cold War where all the money was going. It was going to infrastructure, it was going to subsidize college costs, it was being paid into pensions.


and it wasn't going to the insanely inflated health care costs that have soaked up more than the amount of effective wage increase between then and now

or to paying off credit card debt with whatever was left over
 
Displayed 32 of 82 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter








In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report