2016 Election Thread

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

So I'm with you.  Where I'm more cautious is in predicting what that will look like.  At the rate we're accelerating, who's to say we don't just skip the automation-kills-jobs phase and go right to colonizing Mars?  I just have serious doubts about being able to be prepared for what technological advancement will bring us until they arrive.

No arguments from me. I'm only looking a few years into the future, not decades. God only knows what will come 20 years down the road.

 

But I'm becoming more convinced that a basic income is a "kill lotsa birds with one stone" style of argument.

 

Also, that second article posted pointed out the differences between "basic income", "guaranteed income", and "minimum income". I've been using the terms a little too interchangeably, which muddies the conversation a bit.

 

I think a small basic income is the short-term solution.

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

The big problem I have with a fair tax is that it really shafts the unemployed and poor.

 

My goal is to increase governmental efficiency while improving the lives of everyone in the country. I don't see a fair tax accomplishing that goal; the most positive studies I've seen on the fair tax is that overall tax revenue remains flat. That doesn't really fix any problems, it only shuffles the deck.

 

Now, if we talked fair tax AND some kind of minimum income, that could pay huge dividends in streamlining the government while returning a larger chunk of money to all Americans, not a select few.

 

To be clear, I'm probably more in the flat tax/no tax territory.  No tax means the government gets a ton smaller and that I think does wonders for all of these issues.  The real killer here is inflation.  It destroys the poor and adds more to their rank.  It's going to creep up every year (and let's not pretend that the official numbers are accurate) and in so doing it sucks more and more into it.  Inflation is a necessary evil for a government that's way too big.  It's one of the few ways they can continue spending what they are doing.

 

Minimum income becomes more of a bandaid.  Yes, I agree that something needs to be done for the poor, but minimum income won't fix that b/c it fails to understand why they are getting trapped in poverty in an increasing percentage.

 

As for the fair tax, it does provide a minimum income (around $600/mo if I remember right).  It increases demand for used products which puts a premium on quality over quantity.  There is also no income tax at all, with the big tradeoff of a massive sales tax.  I think most of those are good things.  The sales tax doesn't fix the problem that the government spends too much, but it does allow me to not fund it, and it does help the poor in that sense as they can essentially live tax free buying used products. 

[PseudoSABR]

 

To be clear, I'm probably more in the flat tax/no tax territory.  No tax means the government gets a ton smaller and that I think does wonders for all of these issues.  The real killer here is inflation.  It destroys the poor and adds more to their rank.  It's going to creep up every year (and let's not pretend that the official numbers are accurate) and in so doing it sucks more and more into it.  Inflation is a necessary evil for a government that's way too big.  It's one of the few ways they can continue spending what they are doing.

 

Minimum income becomes more of a bandaid.  Yes, I agree that something needs to be done for the poor, but minimum income won't fix that b/c it fails to understand why they are getting trapped in poverty in an increasing percentage.

 

As for the fair tax, it does provide a minimum income (around $600/mo if I remember right).  It increases demand for used products which puts a premium on quality over quantity.  There is also no income tax at all, with the big tradeoff of a massive sales tax.  I think most of those are good things.  The sales tax doesn't fix the problem that the government spends too much, but it does allow me to not fund it, and it does help the poor in that sense as they can essentially live tax free buying used products. 

That's an awful solution for the poor and further relegates them to second-class (er, second-hand) citizens.  

 

Why do you believe that the poor "are getting trapped in poverty in an increasing percentage."? 

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

That's an awful solution for the poor and further relegates them to second-class (er, second-hand) citizens.  

 

Why do you believe that the poor "are getting trapped in poverty in an increasing percentage."? 

 

As I said before, fair tax is not my first choice.  I just think it's better than what we have, especially since it provides the minimum income Brock was mentioning (which is why I brought it up, as I was somewhat curious where he fell on that).  It also has a nice benefit of forcing people to see just how much of their money is being taken from them (the current income tax system tends to hide that).

 

I'm referring more to inflation though.  That is far worse than a national sales tax, especially one where they pre-bate you a monthly allowance.  Inflation is an insidious regressive tax as the value of what few dollars the poor have gets siphoned off.  It discourages saving and encourages debt (which also enslaves).  Poverty as a percentage in this country has increased over the years.  Inflation is the main culprit for that, and the worst part is that the official numbers hide it.  The official stats report on core inflation which is carefully rigged to exclude things like fuel, healthcare, and other things that everyone depends on.  Simply put, incomes aren't rising as fast as expenses are, and the net effect is more poverty in higher percentages. 

[Steve J]

I don't know if the inflation stats are "rigged" or not because there might well be a legitimate reason why monetary inflation is so low while we are all seeing significant rising of costs of living....I personally fear a bubble.

 

and you are of course very correct about inflation.  Historically the first things hit by inflation are, IIRC, food costs and the last to recover are wages.  The stock market I believe has often been a hedge against inflation, but that does little good to people on fixed incomes....

[Badsmerf]

Anybody catch Elizabeth Warren last night destroying Trump? This election is going to get ugly. By the end of it I very much believe Clinton is going to win by a historic amount. I also believe Gary Johnson is going to do far better than any third party has to date..... Especially if they let him in on debates. I could very much see the media doing this as an attempt to seal Trumps fate. Live up to that fourth branch CNN.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Anybody catch Elizabeth Warren last night destroying Trump? This election is going to get ugly. By the end of it I very much believe Clinton is going to win by a historic amount. I also believe Gary Johnson is going to do far better than any third party has to date..... Especially if they let him in on debates. I could very much see the media doing this as an attempt to seal Trumps fate. Live up to that fourth branch CNN.

I don't think that for a few reasons:

 

1. Historic is Reagan. No one is duplicating that ass-kicking.

 

2. This country is too divided. Some states will refuse to consider anything other than their traditional party. The NE and Pacific states are guaranteed to Clinton. As are MN, IL, and a few others. Most of the midwest and rural states are guaranteed Trump victories.

 

The upside is that all Hillary has to do is hold her nearly-guaranteed states and pick up two mid-sized swing states or one large swing state. That gets her to 270.

[Badsmerf]

Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania are all Clinton states imo. The southern states are in jeopardy too. With the high Hispanic populations i could see them coming out strong to defeat Trump. We will see i guess.

[Squirrel]

Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania are all Clinton states imo. The southern states are in jeopardy too. With the high Hispanic populations i could see them coming out strong to defeat Trump. We will see i guess.

As a woman, I really hope you are right. This election scares me to the core.

[ericchri]

 

 

Anybody catch Elizabeth Warren last night destroying Trump? This election is going to get ugly. By the end of it I very much believe Clinton is going to win by a historic amount. I also believe Gary Johnson is going to do far better than any third party has to date..... Especially if they let him in on debates. I could very much see the media doing this as an attempt to seal Trumps fate. Live up to that fourth branch CNN.

 

I think people forget about Ross Perot making a legitimate 3rd party candidate in '92.  He got 19% of the vote (Clinton 43%, Bush 37%).  Yeah, not close to elected, but that's a pretty good number considering how many people have to get shaken out of voting for "their party" like normal.  His performance was good enough that the Reform party was a somewhat legit political party afterwards for a little while (heya gov Jesse V).  Then Pat Buchanan got mad that Republicans wouldn't back him and jumped ship with his ultra-conservative supporters to the Reform party and the whole thing blew up from internal strife.

 

That being said, I really hope Gary Johnson and the Libertarian party manages a little more publicity early enough in this cycle for people to stop and think, cause right now this election is between the two most disliked candidates in pretty much American history.  If he could get invited to the debates, that would be huge.  If he's left out of the debates he has no chance.  If he's in the debates he has no chance, but he might get a good enough vote count to make people pay attention to the Libertarians next election.

[ashbury]

Inflation is an insidious regressive tax as the value of what few dollars the poor have gets siphoned off.

If inflation was regressive, the very rich wouldn't have been fighting tooth and nail these past decades to squelch it. Inflation mainly hurts those sitting on large piles of cash and bonds; that isn't the poor.

 

As for a flat tax, even when I was a kid I heard the saying "that first million is always the hardest, har har har". With our economy now, which is both global and highly leveraged, the principle is ever more true. Hard work alone will usually get you your first $25-75K in income, more or less; beyond that, "your" money is coming in from the work of others or because of the benefits of living in this leveraged economy, and it's not unreasonable for the tax rate to be higher to help keep going the momentum that you're benefiting from. Obama was right on with his much-mocked "you didn't build that" quote. It's merely enlightened self-interest.

[PseudoSABR]

 

As for a flat tax, even when I was a kid I heard the saying "that first million is always the hardest, har har har". With our economy now, which is both global and highly leveraged, the principle is ever more true. Hard work alone will usually get you your first $25-75K in income, more or less; beyond that, "your" money is coming in from the work of others or because of the benefits of living in this leveraged economy, and it's not unreasonable for the tax rate to be higher to help keep going the momentum that you're benefiting from. Obama was right on with his much-mocked "you didn't build that" quote. It's merely enlightened self-interest.

Very nicely framed.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania are all Clinton states imo. The southern states are in jeopardy too. With the high Hispanic populations i could see them coming out strong to defeat Trump. We will see i guess.

 

Ohio is not that clear.  Neither is Florida.

 

Just sayin.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Ohio is not that clear. Neither is Florida.

 

Just sayin.

I agree on both states but their state map is pretty hilarious. Minnesota is only light blue while AZ, NC, OR, and NH are "toss-ups".

 

I think we can pretty much call all those states without thinking about it too hard.

[TheLeviathan]

 

I agree on both states but their state map is pretty hilarious. Minnesota is only light blue while AZ, NC, OR, and NH are "toss-ups".

I think we can pretty much call all those states without thinking about it too hard.

 

Sure, but there may be a host of reasons for that this year.  I don't expect things to go according to much of a plan.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Sure, but there may be a host of reasons for that this year. I don't expect things to go according to much of a plan.

It'll be interesting, for sure.

 

A good example is Utah. They vote Republican in a bloc but the Mormon hatred of Trump could turn them into a swing state when all is said and done.

 

I expect a lot of chaos in the coming months.

[PseudoSABR]

The polls aren't to be trusted yet.  And really, we've only had a couple of days where Clinton and Trump have truly been on the national stage vis-a-vis.  

 

For instance, Zogby just released a poll that showed Clinton beating Trump in Kansas (43-36).

 

While Clinton is unlikable, I think as general gears up, the prospects of a blow out in her favor will become pretty apparent.  I just don't see her becoming more unlikable through the general elections process as she's known-quantity; in fact, I think the general will go a long way to repairing Clinton's image.   

[TheLeviathan]

While I think a "blow-out" is possible, just because Trump is so incredibly stupid.....I also can't rule anything out.  

 

Trump has somehow managed to galvanize and maintain support despite a litany of things I'd have said would destroy him.  I'm past the point of thinking he gets blown out.  I'm at the point of just hoping he loses - however that has to happen.  And I'm not all that confident it's going to happen.  Things have just been too damn bizarre so far to be confident in anything.

[diehardtwinsfan]

I think you guys are really underestimating just how disliked Clinton is.  I'm no Trump supporter to be clear, but plenty of people will show up and vote for him b/c he's not her.  He has the same problem I might add, but Clinton is no shoe in.

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

If inflation was regressive, the very rich wouldn't have been fighting tooth and nail these past decades to squelch it. Inflation mainly hurts those sitting on large piles of cash and bonds; that isn't the poor.

 

As for a flat tax, even when I was a kid I heard the saying "that first million is always the hardest, har har har". With our economy now, which is both global and highly leveraged, the principle is ever more true. Hard work alone will usually get you your first $25-75K in income, more or less; beyond that, "your" money is coming in from the work of others or because of the benefits of living in this leveraged economy, and it's not unreasonable for the tax rate to be higher to help keep going the momentum that you're benefiting from. Obama was right on with his much-mocked "you didn't build that" quote. It's merely enlightened self-interest.

 

Inflation hurts just about anyone but the super elite.  But don't kid yourself, the rich benefit from it because (as you pointed out), they can make their money work from them.  Likewise, that 3% COL adjustment they get on 6/7 figure incomes outpaces the increases in the basic costs of living, something that the poor just don't get.  It's a regressive tax, and a nasty one at that.  The simple fact is that wages are the last to rise and expenses are the first to rise, and over the last few decades, expenses have far outpaced wages.  The poor get destroyed in that arrangement, and it is the biggest reason for while the bottom parts of the middle class are transitioning to the poor. 

 

As for whether or not it's unreasonable for those in higher brackets to pay higher taxes, I tend to think that everyone should pay the same percentage of tax.  You may not like it, but as the rules are currently set, the richest of the rich are paying the lowest taxes, not the highest, as they have the ability to get the rules to work in their favor.  Our problem is that we've built so many exceptions and loopholes into the tax code that the code is some massive 70000 page tome that no one can understand and that has ways out for too many people, socking the pressure of taxes on everyone else.  That's before we get into the real problem with how those tax dollars are wasted.  It's a different issue, but as someone who works with government workers on a near daily basis, let's just say that your dollars could be spent far more efficiently.

[Brock Beauchamp]

I think you guys are really underestimating just how disliked Clinton is. I'm no Trump supporter to be clear, but plenty of people will show up and vote for him b/c he's not her. He has the same problem I might add, but Clinton is no shoe in.

I think you're underestimating just how few non-white people will vote for Trump.

 

The guy locked up the nomination - which turns most candidates to "presidential" attitude and temperament - and he opened by accusing a Federal judge of not being able to treat him fairly because the judge had Mexican parents.

 

The guy is going to turn into a train wreck once the spotlight shines brightest. I thought he'd reel it in and possibly become a threat but he's choosing to double down and continue his juvenile nonsense.

 

Hillary barely has to campaign at this point. She can show Trump speeches on TV, sit back, and reel in ~240 electoral votes.

[Badsmerf]

I'm not worried. He's a bigot and he's going down. There are too many minorities and educated people in the country to elect him.

[Brock Beauchamp]

I'm not worried. He's a bigot and he's going down. There are too many minorities and educated people in the country to elect him.

I tend to agree. I think Trump has said and done too much that he can't walk back from and who knows what he'll say and do in the next five months.

 

I still can't believe he made those comments about the judge. The man has no restraint whatsoever.

 

What odds can I get on Donald calling Hillary a bitch before all is said and done?

[TheLeviathan]

Never underestimate the willingness of right wingers to vote in droves. And never underestimate the democrat's base and its willingness to sit it out.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Never underestimate the willingness of right wingers to vote in droves. And never underestimate the democrat's base and its willingness to sit it out.

Very fair and troubling points.

 

What may be the biggest factor in all of this is how Trump has fractured the GOP's base. I'm not sure it will be as easy for the GOP to "rally the troops' as it has been in the past.

 

I'm hoping that extends all the way down the chain through Congress and local legislatures.

[stringer bell]

 

Never underestimate the willingness of right wingers to vote in droves. And never underestimate the democrat's base and its willingness to sit it out.

Very true. Combine these tendencies with the voter suppression measures passed in several states and the Republicans will compete despite having a truly unqualified candidate on top of the ballot. IMHO the real question is how despised Hillary Clinton is. I know she has negative poll numbers, but how many people will eventually get to voting for a qualified candidate no matter how much she is disliked.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Very true. Combine these tendencies with the voter suppression measures passed in several states and the Republicans will compete despite having a truly unqualified candidate on top of the ballot. IMHO the real question is how despised Hillary Clinton is. I know she has negative poll numbers, but how many people will eventually get to voting for a qualified candidate no matter how much she is disliked.

 

Exactly right and this would be my answer to you Brock.  They don't have to come out to vote in droves for Trump.  It could just be against Clinton.  Then you combine that with how disliked Clinton is with how bitter the Bernie-backers are and the next question is easy - how many people that might have voted just to keep Trump out, stay home?

 

To me, this election revolves around those two questions - can the GOP march out enough voters with one of two reasons: anti Clinton or people that don't usually vote that are pro-Trump?  And can the Dems march out enough anti-Trump, Hillary cozying to Bernie's message, and minority enthusiasm to take it?

 

And my answer to that question, today, is - *$#& if I know.  But I'm preparing my passport just in case.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Fair points all around. I believe Trump fracturing the party will have a greater effect than Hillary hate - which I think will diminish as she presents her case and looks presidential doing it - but I wouldn't bet money on it, either.

 

I think it's going to become increasingly problematic that people like Graham, Romney, Bush, etc aren't just refusing to endorse Trump, they're declaring all-out war on the guy.

 

If you haven't seen it already, look up Romney's latest Trump statements. They're brutal.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Fair points all around. I believe Trump fracturing the party will have a greater effect than Hillary hate - which I think will diminish as she presents her case and looks presidential doing it - but I wouldn't bet money on it, either.

I think it's going to become increasingly problematic that people like Graham, Romney, Bush, etc aren't just refusing to endorse Trump, they're declaring all-out war on the guy.

If you haven't seen it already, look up Romney's latest Trump statements. They're brutal.

 

Agreed, and with guys like Goober Walker still saying things like "well, nothing is final until July...", I reserve the right to change my mind after we see how the convention plays out.  That could be telling.

[ashbury]

Moderator's note: In a heated topic like this, keep incendiary terms like "Goober" out of it, please. Even if only one side seems to be discussing it at the moment.