The 2012 Presidential Election Part I - The guns of August

[5mn_Major]

Re: The 2012 Presidential Election Part I - The guns of August

They say the typical bump from a VP pick is about +4% pts. So far it seems, Ryan has resulted in a bit less...maybe 2. The analysts (Silver) believes that he will have less of a bump. I'm not so sure that this has played out yet. Unlike some last years, most don't know Ryan yet and unlike say a Palin, he probably hasn't had the kind of personal splash as some other VPs. Could be just a matter of time before this bump goes up to 4 pts.

Regardless, the pick certainly has the base on his side. The big question remains in October and whether they deflect the issue of ticket's significant gaps in experience required in the white house.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The 2012 Presidential Election Part I - The guns of August

They say the typical bump from a VP pick is about +4% pts. So far it seems, Ryan has resulted in a bit less...maybe 2. The analysts (Silver) believes that he will have less of a bump. I'm not so sure that this has played out yet. Unlike some last years, most don't know Ryan yet and unlike say a Palin, he probably hasn't had the kind of personal splash as some other VPs. Could be just a matter of time before this bump goes up to 4 pts.

Regardless, the pick certainly has the base on his side. The big question remains in October and whether they deflect the issue of ticket's significant gaps in experience required in the white house.

You mean like Obama successfully deflected in 2008?

 

[Kepler]

Re: The 2012 Presidential Election Part I - The guns of August

Certainly though, with the air of entitlement many Americans carry about with them, which is certainly way higher than 1 in 10 (and again there's a range of how entitled people think they are), I would say the tendency to look for a handout in its many various forms has grown over time.

Perhaps, but I think there has always been a tendency to believe morals and work ethic are in decline. People have been thinking the world is going to hell in a hand basket for millenia. My intuition is humanity has not fundamentally changed since our pets were the gators along the Nile.

Edit: crocs, not gators

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The 2012 Presidential Election Part I - The guns of August

Perhaps, but I think there has always been a tendency to believe morals and work ethic are in decline. People have been thinking the world is going to hell in a hand basket for millenia. My intuition is humanity has not fundamentally changed since our pets were the gators along the Nile.

Edit: crocs, not gators

Maybe your experience is different than mine, but I look back at my grandparents, and they worked incredibly hard to make ends meet, let alone have any money above and beyond. I don't think anyone in my current generation of my family (let alone kids nowaways) has had to work nearly as hard to get where they are as my grandparents did. Part of it is simply that a lot of the harder labor kind of jobs just aren't around as much in recent decades. But, I think 60 or 80 years ago a lot more Americans would jump at those hard manual labor jobs on farms and such that now sometimes go wanting (due to Americans seemingly not wanting them and making it more difficult for illegals to hold them). Any time a nation experiences the kind of affluence our country has, I think it has a tendency to erode the work ethic over time.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The 2012 Presidential Election Part I - The guns of August

Maybe your experience is different than mine, but I look back at my grandparents, and they worked incredibly hard to make ends meet, let alone have any money above and beyond. I don't think anyone in my current generation of my family (let alone kids nowaways) has had to work nearly as hard to get where they are as my grandparents did. Part of it is simply that a lot of the harder labor kind of jobs just aren't around as much in recent decades. But, I think 60 or 80 years ago a lot more Americans would jump at those hard manual labor jobs on farms and such that now sometimes go wanting (due to Americans seemingly not wanting them and making it more difficult for illegals to hold them). Any time a nation experiences the kind of affluence our country has, I think it has a tendency to erode the work ethic over time.

I'm sure our lives are easier. I can't imagine having to hew a forest to survive a winter; I can't even imagine having to work in a steel mill 10 hours a day 6 days a week as my paternal forefathers did, or live half your adult life underground digging mines like my maternal wing. The machine age certainly changed our physical circumstances so significantly that perhaps it actually did "change man." But just as that's no reason to roll back the industrial revolution, it's also no reason to roll back the social safety net. (It may, however, be a reason for all of us to mix in a salad from time to time.)

I'm not sure our work ethic is any lower, though. People basically work to meet their requirements. Think of this: 19th century Americans were drunk a lot. We are probably far, far more diligent about paying our bills, making sure our children are fed and safe, and doing all the thousand little time-eating, anxiety-inducing things our off-hours are filled with. Adults now just cannot afford to spend their off time in an alcohol haze, beating their spouses and dying at 49, yet that appears to be the way many Americans lived back in the good old days.

 

[Gurtholfin]

Re: The 2012 Presidential Election Part I - The guns of August

Maybe your experience is different than mine, but I look back at my grandparents, and they worked incredibly hard to make ends meet, let alone have any money above and beyond. I don't think anyone in my current generation of my family (let alone kids nowaways) has had to work nearly as hard to get where they are as my grandparents did. Part of it is simply that a lot of the harder labor kind of jobs just aren't around as much in recent decades. But, I think 60 or 80 years ago a lot more Americans would jump at those hard manual labor jobs on farms and such that now sometimes go wanting (due to Americans seemingly not wanting them and making it more difficult for illegals to hold them). Any time a nation experiences the kind of affluence our country has, I think it has a tendency to erode the work ethic over time.

One difference is that those jobs paid better in relative terms at that time. Years ago, my grandpa used to point out some of the farms that he worked at when we would drive down the interstate here in Wisconsin.

He was able to support a family, buy a house (pretty nice one - certainly not on the wrong side of the tracks), send his daughter to nursing school, etc with those jobs.

Not sure it's only work ethic. I would guess that a lot of it has to do with pay level. I'm pretty sure that I couldn't do what he did as a farm hand these days.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: The 2012 Presidential Election Part I - The guns of August

One difference is that those jobs paid better in relative terms at that time.

Exactly. Try to raise a family, buy a house, and send a daughter to nursing school nowadays.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The 2012 Presidential Election Part I - The guns of August

One difference is that those jobs paid better in relative terms at that time. Years ago, my grandpa used to point out some of the farms that he worked at when we would drive down the interstate here in Wisconsin.

He was able to support a family, buy a house (pretty nice one - certainly not on the wrong side of the tracks), send his daughter to nursing school, etc with those jobs.

Not sure it's only work ethic. I would guess that a lot of it has to do with pay level. I'm pretty sure that I couldn't do what he did as a farm hand these days.

Certainly the mix of jobs available has changed drastically, and not necessarily for the better for large swaths of the American populace. Huge industries that used to be mainstays of the American economy and employ millions are basically gone (textiles) or greatly shrunken (auto, steel). And there are a myriad of reasons this has happened, some on purpose, some are just the natural way things have gone in recent decades.

 

[LynahFan]

Re: The 2012 Presidential Election Part I - The guns of August

So you disagree with my premise that the rich and the poor consume different levels of government services?

No, I did not disagree with that premise. Can you read?

The rich DO consume more services than the poor, especially if you're thinking about it (as you are) on a per capita basis. However, there are only 1% (or 5%, or wherever you want to draw the line) of people who are rich, but there are nearly 50 million people who are below the poverty line, and 40% of people who pay no income tax at all. Social security and medicare taxes do not enter in to this discussion - those are not used for providing government services like roads, etc. which you are complaining about. So, heck yes, the rich consume more services - but they ALSO pay way, way more (infinite % more than the poor, in fact) into the General Fund, which provides those services.

The rich do use more and do pay more. What, exactly, is the problem?

 

[walrus]

Re: The 2012 Presidential Election Part I - The guns of August

Check out the cover of this weeks Newsweek, Wow, Obama must go?
http://www.businessinsider.com/newsweek-cover-obama-must-go-2012-8

 

[Rover]

Re: The 2012 Presidential Election Part I - The guns of August

Question: When people site stats like "40% of people pay no income tax at all" are they talking about the total population, total adult population, or % of the workforce? I ask because with a high % of unemployed and retirees in the country, it would make some sense a lot of people aren't contributing to the tax rolls in that instance.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: The 2012 Presidential Election Part I - The guns of August

Maybe your experience is different than mine, but I look back at my grandparents, and they worked incredibly hard to make ends meet, let alone have any money above and beyond. I don't think anyone in my current generation of my family (let alone kids nowaways) has had to work nearly as hard to get where they are as my grandparents did. Part of it is simply that a lot of the harder labor kind of jobs just aren't around as much in recent decades. But, I think 60 or 80 years ago a lot more Americans would jump at those hard manual labor jobs on farms and such that now sometimes go wanting (due to Americans seemingly not wanting them and making it more difficult for illegals to hold them). Any time a nation experiences the kind of affluence our country has, I think it has a tendency to erode the work ethic over time.

Perhaps it shows that there is another inherent problem with America today, that being one of complacency. I'm sure when the Industrial Revolution began, although there weren't the discussion means we have today, people felt that the even further manual labour tasks they had that were going to be done by machine would cause the same problems we see today. Did they have the same adaptation issues we have today? Maybe what we need to do is not dwell on the manual labour tasks, but rather look forward to future tasks that are required of Americans to thrive.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: The 2012 Presidential Election Part I - The guns of August

The rich do use more and do pay more. What, exactly, is the problem?

5mn_major wants a free lunch.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: The 2012 Presidential Election Part I - The guns of August

Here's a thought: Is unemployment insurance the new de facto minimum wage?

The other day, I was watching CNBC where they were doing a documentary on a bread line. However, literally around the corner from the bread line were businesses with "Help Wanted" signs. So why wouldn't they go there? The two most common excuses were, "I didn't know they were hiring," (and none of them in the bread line immediately left to inquire) and, "Unemployment insurance pays better." Also, when talking to some of my friends who were laid off where I work, they actually decided that instead of immediately going to look for a job, they would sit on their hands for whatever amount of time the unemployment insurance ran, especially now that you are not required to submit proof of submitting job applications in order to receive your check, before they would look for another job. This is not a knuckledragger talking point, either, as I actually asked people about this.

High unemployment is not being caused by a lack of jobs, but rather government subsidy. To reduce unemployment, cut the safety net.

EDIT: Here's my suggestion:

Reduce the unemployment insurance amount by $40/week each year until it is down to the federal minimum wage for servers. In the meantime, enact into law a subsidy up to a total of the maximum amount given in unemployment insurance for the particular year. This will get people back to work.

 

[LynahFan]

Re: The 2012 Presidential Election Part I - The guns of August

Question: When people site stats like "40% of people pay no income tax at all" are they talking about the total population, total adult population, or % of the workforce? I ask because with a high % of unemployed and retirees in the country, it would make some sense a lot of people aren't contributing to the tax rolls in that instance.

A little quick Googling found that in 2009, 51% of households paid no federal income tax, but that was during the economic crises. In 2007, it was 40% of households, which is probably why the number 40% was in my mind - a more typical proportion over the years. Not sure if the households which pay no income tax have more or less people per household on average - a lot of them are probably low-income because they're single-parent families or elderly with no dependents (smaller), but some are probably not paying tax because they have a lot of dependents (larger).

And sure, unemployed, retirees, disabled, etc probably make up a decent amount of that 40%, but I'm not sure where you're going with that line of thinking. 5MM's point is that high income people should pay more than low income people, because high earners use a disproportionate share of government services. For that argument, I'm not sure that it matters WHY someone is a low income person - 5MM would argue that low income people use fewer government services whether they're unemployed, disabled, retired, or just working at a low paying job. He's right, but whatever government services they DO consume are paid for by someone else - they're riding on someone else's dime.

I'm NOT arguing that they shouldn't get those services or that they should have to pay for those services - just pointing out the fact that they are getting something that is paid for by someone else. Conversely, the rich are paying proportionately far more than the government services that they do consume - they're paying for their own government services PLUS the services that go to those who pay no income tax. I'm also definitely not arguing that they should pay less tax - again, just pointing out the reality. The rich do subsidize the poor's services. We can discuss whether they should be subsidizing even more than they are now, or perhaps less - but it's not correct to say that they are not already doing so.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The 2012 Presidential Election Part I - The guns of August

The rich do subsidize the poor's services. We can discuss whether they should be subsidizing even more than they are now, or perhaps less - but it's not correct to say that they are not already doing so.

On the other hand, the government enforces (at gunpoint) domestic and foreign policies that disproportionately assist the rich.

One marine dying for United Fruit's shareholders' interests pretty much outweighs all the sympathy I have for the rich having to kick in for food stamps.

 

[ExileOnDaytonStreet]

Re: The 2012 Presidential Election Part I - The guns of August

The rich do use more and do pay more. What, exactly, is the problem?

The only problem? Whiny objectivists that read waaaaay too much Ayn Rand for their own good. They specialize in trying to somehow make the wealthy look like downtrodden oppressed victims of that troublesome, omnipotent group of overlords (The Poors) who are preventing them from finally moving up in life.

I think there's something to be said that when taxes pay for more, that's more resources for people to try to take advantage of and scam the system (see: the discussion above about unemployment benefits). Is it something that Tea Party types exaggerate and make too big a deal over? Maybe, but I'll be ****ed if there isn't a significant amount of truth to it. However, that's really more of a question about the size and scope of what we pay for, not how to portion out the tab.

 

[LynahFan]

Re: The 2012 Presidential Election Part I - The guns of August

On the other hand, the government enforces (at gunpoint) domestic and foreign policies that disproportionately assist the rich.

And it also enforces (at gunpoint) a progressive tax system which disproportionately extracts money from the rich. That's my only point - we already do have a progressive tax system.

One marine dying for United Fruit's shareholders' interests pretty much outweighs all the sympathy I have for the rich having to kick in for food stamps.

Well, now you're contemplating applying principles of economics to emotions - not sure I want to follow you down that rabbit hole. For the record, though, I would be just as horrified as you about that marine's death - and I expect that 99.9% of veterans (conservative and liberal alike) would be as well.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The 2012 Presidential Election Part I - The guns of August

The only problem? Whiny objectivists that read waaaaay too much Ayn Rand for their own good. They specialize in trying to somehow make the wealthy look like downtrodden oppressed victims

It's like Tom Lehrer's song In Old Mexico,

He soon became a specialist, specializing in diseases of the rich. He was therefore able to retire at an early age.

Pandering is an old game, and pandering to the rich is the smartest way to play it. They gave Rand a limousine lifestyle in exchange for being constantly reassured they were hard-working, morally superior victims. Every tribe creates their god in its own image; why would the wealthy be any different?

 

[Old Pio]

Re: The 2012 Presidential Election Part I - The guns of August

On the other hand, the government enforces (at gunpoint) domestic and foreign policies that disproportionately assist the rich.

One marine dying for United Fruit's shareholders' interests pretty much outweighs all the sympathy I have for the rich having to kick in for food stamps.

High marks for "United Fruit." I'm guessing our younger colleagues aren't aware that for years the "I'm going to Cuba to cut sugar cane" crowd used the company as example number one of the evils of capitalism. Replaced by ITT and Dita Beard.