Political discussion thread

I'm not sure why people would oppose secession if the people in a state overwhelmingly support it (not that that's the case anyway). 

thellama73 wrote: Ron Paul is pro-secession and so am I. In all honesty, I feel like the country has become to big and too diverse to properly function as a single unit, much like how the European Union is crumbling. People are fond of saying that there is "strength in diversity" but that's not really true. You need some common ground on which to base you government. It's gotten to the point where no matter who wins elections, 150 million citizens are furious about it and have to submit to leadership they despise. That doesn't seem sustainable to me.

Well that's supposed to be part of the point of having a federalist government rather than a centrist one where the federal branches have all of the power.

I tend to agree though even with that in place. It's not just with the presidency. Think of the relative size of the Congress to the country.

We should divide the country in two:  smoking and non-smoking.  

HarbouringTheSoul wrote: thellama73 wrote: In all honesty, I feel like the country has become to big and too diverse to properly function as a single unit, much like how the European Union is crumbling. The EU is not a single unit and it's not crumbling. What's crumbling is our common currency, which was misconstructed from the get-go.

I know, that's what I meant. The attempt to unify a large number of diverse countries under a single system, in this case currency, is difficult at best, and potentially disastrous. At this point feel that many of the United States are almost as diverse as the countries that comprise the Eurozone, and it is starting to make less sense to keep them unified under a an increasingly rigid set of federal laws, rather than allowing them to pursue their individual interests.

The Dark Elf wrote: thellama73 wrote: The T wrote: I'm not sure why people would oppose secession if the people in a state overwhelmingly support it (not that that's the case anyway).  Well, it's perfectly understandable if they live in a state that is leeching off the other state's resources. When the rest of us start being forced to pick up California's bills  (and it's going to happen soon) I imagine Californians would very strongly oppose secession by rich and prosperous states like Texas. I am sure China will readily bankroll any states that want to secede. The better to pick at the bones. Or perhaps Mexico will finally regain Texas and California, some years hence, in a bloodless coup.

I listened to Stuart Varney talk about how the fair share talk is nonsense since the top 25% pay almost 90% of our income taxes and 47% pay no fed dollars.  Cool.

dtguitarfan wrote: Epignosis wrote: I listened to Stuart Varney talk about how the fair share talk is nonsense since the top 25% pay almost 90% of our income taxes and 47% pay no fed dollars.  Cool. You should read J.P. Bernbach's "Pack of Lies". This is lie number 17. It is taking into account one particular type of taxes and ignoring the others. If you account for all types of taxes, it is not so disproportionate: in 2011, the lowest earning quintile received 3.4% of the income and paid 2.1% of the taxes while the top 1% received 21% of the income and paid 21.6% of the taxes. Bernbach also goes on to demonstrate how the difference in earnings between rich and poor have more than doubled in the last decade, while the median income has pretty much stayed the same, amidst rising costs of living. So I don't buy the "those poor rich people - why is Obama picking on them?" argument.

That's not true. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, median family income in 2000 was $41,994. In 2011 inflation-adjusted dollars, it was $51,484. That's a 22.5% increase over and above the rising prices of inflation.

I don't see why people care about the gap between rich and poor at all. It would be one thing if the poor were getting poorer and the rich were getting richer (as people love to claim) but that is not what's happening. The poor are getting richer and the rich are getting richer.

Consider the following thought experiment:: if everyone's income is remaining the same, but one rich guy has a good idea for a company and uses it to make money, the gap between rich and poor will widen. But who has been damaged by this? The rich guy has more money, which is good for him, and society gets a new company that provides a useful service, whereas the poor have not lost anything, since their incomes have not changed. Should we begrudge people the opportunity to enrich themselves simply because it will result in income inequality, even though we cannot point to any harm that's being done? I don't understand this mindset. We should want everybody to grow richer, not just those on the lower end of the income scale.

I don't think it's particularly meaningful to measure household income as a percentage of GDP. What matters is what the income can buy, and there's no question that low income households can afford vastly more now than they could thirty years ago.

dtguitarfan wrote: Funny, after this conversation I noticed this link in my news feed: http://www.salon.com/2012/11/27/median_wealth_of_u_s_households_lowest_since_1969

This study looks at wealth (which includes debt and home prices) at the lowest point in the deepest recession in a hundred years, sparked by a crash in home prices. Of course it's going to show sharp declines. If the point is that the recession was devastating, I don't think you'll find anyone who disagrees.

Note that the median wealth in 2007, just before the recession, was double what it was in 2010, and nearly double what it was in 1969. Also note that mean wealth is still increasing.

This is also where I think correcting for inflation has its limits. The measures we use for inflation do not do a good job of taking into account the improvement of technology and the existence of better, cheaper goods. In 1962, my parents were in elementary school, and the poorest students could not afford shoes. That is unthinkable today. Do you think a family in the lowest decile of income could afford a television in the sixties? They can now. The inflation correction metrics do not account for these sorts of improvements and it is misleading to say that the median family in 1969 was wealthier than the median family today, purely in terms of what they can get for their money.

Increased productivity is not the same thing as working harder. In fact it's usually the opposite. Who is working harder, the unproductive mathematician who does all his calculations with a pencill and paper, or the very productive one who uses a calculator?