Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[misko27]

Oh no, I've thought of that. I don't plan to remain as I am, dirt poor. Oh no, I have plans. That's why These are so far in the futuer, need time to build up. That's why I need to do well in school. 25% of my high school goes ot a Ivy league, many others go to things like MIT, I think I have an advantage.
 
Yeah, unless all hell breaks loose and I can emulate the new parties of the 20s and 30s, ain't no way I'm getting anywhere as is.

[PanH]

Why bother get rich before, when you can be after ?

The best, and easier plan is an student revolution, that could shorten your plan for 30 years. Now, I propose we split countries, and each people of B12 get his own country, for the student revolution alliance.

[FearfulJesuit]

An interesting new article from the Atlantic about the GOP. Long story short, they may have staved off the debt ceiling, but the party is still set to implode.

[Dutchling]

Why is the US the only country that seems to have a debt ceiling, and why does it have one for every other year?

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Why is the US the only country that seems to have a debt ceiling, and why does it have one for every other year?

Short Answer: Because.

Long Answer: CGP Grey to the rescue!

[FearfulJesuit]

What I'm most interested in is what will happen when they do implode. The US Constitution all but guarantees a two-party system; at the same time, we have at least half a dozen major ideological strains at the moment:

-The Religious Right, of course, socially conservative, opposed to abortion and gay marriage, often anti-science, and economically on the right;
-The plutocrats, economically pro-corporatist, but indifferent on some social issues and even progressive on a few, notably immigration (though for the wrong reasons);
-The libertarians, economically on the right but generally anti-corporatist, and socially liberal;
-The classic Democrat, liberal on social issues and center-left to left economically;
-The moderate conservative, a rare breed in Washington but quite common in the electorate. Generally center to center-right economically, and center-right to center-left socially. The best example is probably Michael Bloomsburg. Shades into "classic Democrat" as you look at most self-described moderates.
-The socially conservative but economically leftist voter. Generally speaking, we call these African-Americans, who have historically fit here and have been the only major group to fit here for a while, although some Hispanics and urban white evangelical Christians fit here too. There's also some overlap with the classic Democrats here, too, especially with Catholics, many of whom tend to be fairly liberal but are pro-life.

And that's just the main ones off the top of my head! The problem is that there's only two parties, though, so inevitably there will be inter-party conflicts.

If the Republicans implode, the Religious Right, plutocrats, and some libertarians will suddenly have to reshuffle. We could see a return to the libertarian-ish/populist setup we had at the turn of the century, where the social conservatives are also the fiscal liberals (in which case the left-wing evangelicals will swallow up the Religious Right); or one or more of these groups might become marginalized in Washington, like the moderate conservatives are now. (I'd put my bet on the Religious Right, long-term, for this to happen.)

The problem is that the implosion is going to be a question of when, not if. There are several issues that could divide the GOP irreparably like slavery did the Whigs; I'd put my money on gay marriage.

[mainiac]

Why is the US the only country that seems to have a debt ceiling, and why does it have one for every other year?

The constitution says that congress authorizes the issue of debt.  Until the 20th century that meant that congress had to vote to issue debt for every debt financed program individually.  As the nation grew larger and more industrialized this became a bigger and bigger waste of time.  So during WWI they passed a law granting the treasury the right to issue a given amount of debt to finance all the spending that congress had authorized.  This practice continued with Congress just giving a blanket authorization every once in a while and letting the treasury work out the details to get the best deal possible.  The debt ceiling is just the limit set by congress.  They could abolish it tomorrow if they wanted to by just setting a procedural rule that any bill authorizing use of funds authorizes the issuance of debt to cover those funds.  But they don't want to because politics.

[Trollheiming]

-The moderate conservative, a rare breed in Washington but quite common in the electorate. Generally center to center-right economically, and center-right to center-left socially. The best example is probably Michael Bloomsburg. Shades into "classic Democrat" as you look at most self-described moderates.

Michael Bloomburg is a "quite common" moderative conservative, yeah, because most ordinary conservatives really want to slap the Big Gulp out of other people's hands, but our damned Republican politicians won't allow us to press the issue. Yup. You got us down to rights.

The problem is that the implosion is going to be a question of when, not if. There are several issues that could divide the GOP irreparably like slavery did the Whigs; I'd put my money on gay marriage.

Lol. Gay marriage! Biggest red herring ever. Gays are an insignificant 3% of the population, and marriage is going out of style among heteros, yet you expect Republican libertarians to summon a party-breaking passion for defending gay rights to this outmoded institution? Marriage is pointless and dated. It's the first time in history that gay people have lagged behind the latest fashions. 

Here's a inside tip. Republicans aren't going to implode. GDP just dipped into negative territory again four years after Obama's election. Still Bush's fault, sure, keep chanting that for the next four years also. America is going nowhere fast, and you don't start a golden age of progressivism with huge debts and failing economies. Obama has no answers, progressives have no answers... and conservatives do. This is the third year that America has fallen in the economic freedom rankings. We're now only the 10th in the world. That's what has to change, and Obama won't do it.

[SalmonGod]

Corporate profits keep rising every single year.  Wages keep dropping.  I don't think giving the people in charge of this trend more freedom is the answer.

[Trollheiming]

Corporate profits keep rising every single year.  Wages keep dropping.  I don't think giving the people in charge of this trend more freedom is the answer.

Economic freedom is a measure of how easy it is to start a business. Those already in business have no fear from lack of freedom, because money is a universal lubricant. The "powers that be" never give a shit about rules or regulations, because they have legions of lawyers for that. They don't give a shit about taxes, because they already have vast wealth stashed far beyond the taxmen. In fact, they love these policies, because impenetrable forests of inane regs stop rivals from sprouting up, and taxes lower the income of people who just now started to make a good living.

If you like things the way they are now, you rightly should love the unfree system that enables old money to fossilize at the top. Ever wonder why rich people like Buffet talk up tax increases? When you already have billions, it's more important to keep other people down, than to add a few more billion to your own heap.

[SalmonGod]

That will happen either way.  If you remove government controls, it only means the wealthy don't need to worry about usurping the government anymore.  Wealth will still snowball, and other methods of crushing competition become available when the government method is removed.  This is why I'm an anarchist.  We can pendulum back and forth for eternity, and we'll never get a desirable result. 

Given a choice between two directions in the meantime, I'd rather stay on the side that is at least ostensibly supposed to be about serving the people, instead of 100% ruthless winner-take-all-and-losers-can-go-die competition.  That way when it is proven that the system has been sabotaged, there is the slimmest potential for people to organize on the basis of a common idea.  At least when things suck, everyone knows it's because something is broken.  On the other side everything can simultaneously suck but also be working exactly how it's supposed to even in theory, which thins the sociological glue of common understanding necessary for change.

[GreatJustice]

That will happen either way.  If you remove government controls, it only means the wealthy don't need to worry about usurping the government anymore.  Wealth will still snowball, and other methods of crushing competition become available when the government method is removed.  This is why I'm an anarchist.  We can pendulum back and forth for eternity, and we'll never get a desirable result. 

Given a choice between two directions in the meantime, I'd rather stay on the side that is at least ostensibly supposed to be about serving the people, instead of 100% ruthless winner-take-all-and-losers-can-go-die competition.  That way when it is proven that the system has been sabotaged, there is the slimmest potential for people to organize on the basis of a common idea.  At least when things suck, everyone knows it's because something is broken.  On the other side everything can simultaneously suck but also be working exactly how it's supposed to even in theory, which thins the sociological glue of common understanding necessary for change.

Yet without the many government imposed barriers to entry, entrenched wealth would only last so long as it's possessor was capable with it (Shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves in three generations and so on). It's pretty damn easy to hold onto your wealth when your stock investments are basically guaranteed to go up by the Central Bank, your companies shielded from competition by high entry costs, and your bank grows by default because it's the first to receive cash from the Central Bank (meaning it gets the benefit of however many billion dollars, and the inflation doesn't kick in until some other chump receives it). Plus, if despite all this things go sour, you have nothing to fear because the government will pay you back for your losses should you be in danger of, god forbid, failing! Hell, if you're a bank in a "progressive" country, the government will promptly drop everything else and fleece it's unfortunate population for tax revenue on your behalf! Furthermore, when the economy is on the brink and things are looking bad, the fellows within the government will prioritize what will get them reelected above what might help; hence, you end up with passionate arguments about cutting a few million or hundred million from a budget of trillions, or else argue about things like the income tax on the richest 1% (which won't affect the absolute richest and most powerful anyway because THEY make money through investments and effective tax shelters like Berkshire Hathaway).

[mainiac]

Which explains why the gilded age was famous for it's equality and how the rich were brought to heel by the poor.

[Trollheiming]

Which explains why the gilded age was famous for it's equality and how the rich were brought to heel by the poor.

Brought to heel? Your mentality is a litte vicious and petty. I'd rather the system allow people to elevate themselves, rather than the system be centered around scrutinizing who has to be brought down next by our political overlords.

Which explains why the Soviet Union was a beautiful paradise of equality, where the politicians lived just like all the other peons... except feasting in dachas, while others starved in tiny cookie-cutter flats.

[mainiac]

Brought to heel? Your mentality is a litte vicious and petty.

And this, gentlemen, is why we can't have nice things.  Liberals can't even make positive statements without it being strawmanned into absurd parodies of normative morality.

And it's pretty endemic of the conservative movement as a whole.  Anybody remember when Obama said the best revenge is voting and Romney said all Obama voters wanted was revenge against america?