Support NeoGAF

[pgtl_10]

I don't like the half of America don't pay income tax argument. People who say that only half pay income taxes fail to acknowledge that payroll taxes make up a significant portion of Federal revenue:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/04/13/150441259/what-america-pays-in-taxes

All taxes collected in 2011

 

[astroturfing]

as a non-American interested in American politics, ive been trying to wrap my head around what exactly Romney was saying or trying to say in the video... and its just baffling to me.

who does he really refer to with the 47%? i just watched the Daily Show and they had a bit that showed that the 47% who dont pay income tax actually includes the elderly, working people who make less than 50,000 a year, working people who make less than 20,000 a year, and small numbers of other demographics...

so like, what the fuck? why would a presidential candidate call the ELDERLY and WORKING PEOPLE "victims" and other such nonsense, disparaging them for thinking that they are entitled to fucking food?

arent the people he is mocking mostly hard workers, people who have surely had to work much harder than Romney ever had to, with much more stress about essential needs like healthcare and feeding their families etc? what kind of a MASSIVE ASSHOLE is he for having the nerve to mock them? even calling him a sociopath would seem like an understatement in my opinion. i find it hard to believe that this kind of person is what qualifies as a presidential candidate in the most powerful country in the history of humanity. like, really hard to believe. but apparently he is real? and not an actor?

also, is it true that his own father had to rely on welfare (said on the Daily Show)? if so, Mitt thinks his own father was a lazy piece of shit and a victim who needed a government handout? did he ever say that to his face?

 

[Averon]

I don't understand this attitude that no matter how wrong or damaging your initial position on any issue, that changing your mind for any reason at all is a sign if deplorable, if not dangerous, weakness.

You can thank the GOP for that. The term 'flip-flop' originated from the 2004 presidential campaign. Since then, flip flopping (or simply changing your mind) has been a big no-no in US politics since. Only difference now is that it's working against the GOP this time, not the Dems.

 

[Forever]

who does he really refer to with the 47%? i just watched the Daily Show and they had a bit that showed that the 47% who dont pay income tax actually includes the elderly, working people who make less than 50,000 a year, working people who make less than 20,000 a year, and small numbers of other demographics...

so like, what the fuck? why would a presidential candidate call the ELDERLY and WORKING PEOPLE "victims" and other such nonsense, disparaging them for thinking that they are entitled to fucking food?

arent the people he is mocking mostly hard workers, people who have surely had to work much harder than Romney ever had to, with much more stress about essential needs like healthcare and feeding their families etc? what kind of a MASSIVE ASSHOLE is he for having the nerve to mock them? even calling him a sociopath would seem like an understatement in my opinion. i find it hard to believe that this kind of person is what qualifies as a presidential candidate in the most powerful country in the history of humanity. like, really hard to believe. but apparently he is real? and not an actor?

also, is it true that his own father had to rely on welfare (said on the Daily Show)? if so, Mitt thinks his own father was a lazy piece of shit and a victim who needed a government handout? did he ever say that to his face?

Mitt grew up wealthy so he never knew what it was like to be on welfare. He forgot where he came from, to use the old saying. Like the financial backers of the GOP, he has lived his entire life in privilege and lacks any perspective of what that 47% actually consists of. He just doesn't think about them as more than a number. It's actually not an uncommon opinion in the GOP base so it's not really surprising to us that he'd say such things in private to his wealthy donors; the reason it's so damaging now is because he got caught on tape for the whole country to hear.

 

[greatestjediever]

The first time I read the headlines about it, I just said 'huh'? Not even on ideological lines, but the fact that it doesn't even make any sense because I'm sure there is a non-trivial number of republicans who are in that 47%. His statement assumes that all poor people are voting democratic, which isn't true at all.

 

[johnsmith]

I don't like the half of America don't pay income tax argument. People who say that only half pay income taxes fail to acknowledge that payroll taxes make up a significant portion of Federal revenue:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/04/13/150441259/what-america-pays-in-taxes

All taxes collected in 2011

Corporations are the real deadbeats.

 

[kehs]

He's not going to be unprepared for the debates. If arguments were important, GWB wouldn't have ever been president. Romney is too stiff and self-conscious to have a great debate performance, but he will hold his own.

Dude has done 5 mock debates in the past 48 hours, if that doesn't reek of last minute preparation, I don't know what to tell you dude.

Anybody who has actual plans will use it to posture, and all he has done is deflect and scurry around like a chicken with it's head partially cut off as it stains the room.

 

[pgtl_10]

Corporations are the real deadbeats.

But But corporate taxes are too high!!!

 

[speculawyer]

as a non-American interested in American politics, ive been trying to wrap my head around what exactly Romney was saying or trying to say in the video... and its just baffling to me.

who does he really refer to with the 47%? i just watched the Daily Show and they had a bit that showed that the 47% who dont pay income tax actually includes the elderly, working people who make less than 50,000 a year, working people who make less than 20,000 a year, and small numbers of other demographics...

so like, what the fuck? why would a presidential candidate call the ELDERLY and WORKING PEOPLE "victims" and other such nonsense, disparaging them for thinking that they are entitled to fucking food?

arent the people he is mocking mostly hard workers, people who have surely had to work much harder than Romney ever had to, with much more stress about essential needs like healthcare and feeding their families etc? what kind of a MASSIVE ASSHOLE is he for having the nerve to mock them? even calling him a sociopath would seem like an understatement in my opinion. i find it hard to believe that this kind of person is what qualifies as a presidential candidate in the most powerful country in the history of humanity. like, really hard to believe. but apparently he is real? and not an actor?

But many of the people in that 47% won't admit they are in that group . . . they think he is just referring to 'those people'. And others don't care if Mitt just insulted them . . . they'll still kiss his butt like good little serfs because of guns, gays, and abortion.

The first time I read the headlines about it, I just said 'huh'? Not even on ideological lines, but the fact that it doesn't even make any sense because I'm sure there is a non-trivial number of republicans who are in that 47%. His statement assumes that all poor people are voting democratic, which isn't true at all.

He also assumes that all rich people vote Republican which is pretty insulting. Fuck you, Mitt. I don't vote for a party that shits on science.

 

[hukasmokincaterpillar]

Programmers can only create income by producing products. The more useful their output, the more they can earn. That's competition at work, and it's a good thing. We want to reward people who produce things society wants.

Drive: The surprising truth about what motivates us
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc

RSA animate on intrinsic motivation vs. extrinsic motivation. In short, much of the conventional wisdom in behavioral economics is empirically ignorant of human nature.

 

[segarr]

Any guy who thinks nearly half the country are freeloading leeches shouldn't be President by default. You have to lead the entire country, not just your rich and low-income high-ignorance rural whites.

Those poor people receiving benefits will vote for him anyway. A lot of them don't even seem to realize where the money comes from.

From this stuff to the "food stamp president" remarks to the complete lies on removing welfare to work, the Republicans must think they're slick with the racist dog-whistling. They might as well double down and just go all out now--go full birther. This campaign is embarrassing.

I think back to him defining middle class as 200,000$-250,000$ a year and plenty of gaffers trying to defend it and just shake my head...

edit:You got it all correct astroturfing. This is the guy who is the challenger to President Obama

 

[Schattenjäger]

as a non-American interested in American politics, ive been trying to wrap my head around what exactly Romney was saying or trying to say in the video... and its just baffling to me.

who does he really refer to with the 47%? i just watched the Daily Show and they had a bit that showed that the 47% who dont pay income tax actually includes the elderly, working people who make less than 50,000 a year, working people who make less than 20,000 a year, and small numbers of other demographics...

so like, what the fuck? why would a presidential candidate call the ELDERLY and WORKING PEOPLE "victims" and other such nonsense, disparaging them for thinking that they are entitled to fucking food?

arent the people he is mocking mostly hard workers, people who have surely had to work much harder than Romney ever had to, with much more stress about essential needs like healthcare and feeding their families etc? what kind of a MASSIVE ASSHOLE is he for having the nerve to mock them? even calling him a sociopath would seem like an understatement in my opinion. i find it hard to believe that this kind of person is what qualifies as a presidential candidate in the most powerful country in the history of humanity. like, really hard to believe. but apparently he is real? and not an actor?

also, is it true that his own father had to rely on welfare (said on the Daily Show)? if so, Mitt thinks his own father was a lazy piece of shit and a victim who needed a government handout? did he ever say that to his face?

Well he thinks the majority of people he is mocking are NOT hard workers - thats the issue - he is referring to those on welfare and advocating a tough love type of philosophy - the more you give, the less harder people work (there is some truth to this)
His big mistake is that there are many hard workers that are part of that group - especially after the Great Recession

 

[speculawyer]

Well he thinks the majority of people he is mocking are NOT hard workers - thats the issue

Yeah, that is the issue . . . he is completely clueless as to how normal people live and tax policy. It is quite disconcerting that he doesn't have a realistic grasp on the actual facts.

 

[Forever]

Well he thinks the majority of people he is mocking are NOT hard workers - thats the issue - he is referring to those on welfare and advocating a tough love type of philosophy - the more you give, the less harder people work (there is some truth to this)
His big mistake is that there are many hard workers that are part of that group - especially after the Great Recession

I'm amazed and impressed that you're not defending him.

 

[Divvy]

Some outside campaign advisers have long expressed frustration that Romney’s ads didn’t feature him speaking to the camera. This week, the campaign debuted a more intimate ad, called the “The Romney Plan,” in which the only voice is the candidate’s. He is shown without a tie, speaking in a casual tone – twice using “gotta.”

“My plan is to help the middle class,” Romney said. “You gotta cut the deficit. You’ve got to stop spending more money than we take in. And … champion small business.”

Is this real life?

"We programmed him to say gotta twice!"

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0912/81428_Page2.html

 

[Schattenjäger]

I'm amazed and impressed that you're not defending him.

If I wanted to defend him, I would say he was playing politician and pandering to the rich snobs in the room that are giving him money

 

[Forever]

If I wanted to defend him, I would say he was playing politician and pandering to the rich snobs in the room that are giving him money

The amazing thing is how much more natural and comfortable he looks in that setting and saying those words.

 

[Zzoram]

All those hard working waiters and chefs feeding him and his audience probably count among those 47% not earning enough to pay federal income tax. He's calling them moochers as they feed him.

 

[ElectricBlue187]

Well he thinks the majority of people he is mocking are NOT hard workers - thats the issue - he is referring to those on welfare and advocating a tough love type of philosophy - the more you give, the less harder people work (there is some truth to this)
His big mistake is that there are many hard workers that are part of that group - especially after the Great Recession

The fact that this guy, who has very likely never done a hard or honest day's work in his entire life, has the stones to call the people who build his houses, landscape his yards, pave his roads, fought in our wars, entitled lazy shiftless victims and moochers is just too much for any rational person to process. It defies any possible explaination other than the worship of wealth and those who attain it. He didn't misspeak when he said he's not worried about the poor, he really doesn't give a shit about them.

 

[Open Source]

Romney targeted 47 percent of voters in his comments, but a large majority in the poll - 67 percent - said they identified more with the people he was talking about than with the wealthy donors he was addressing.

I give a speech to an audience of gerbils. I tell the gerbils that 47% of American humans are gluttonous.

Then a poll asks: "Do you identify more closely with American humans or with gerbils?"

It's classic push poll misdirection.

 

[remnant]

The fact that this guy, who has very likely never done a hard or honest day's work in his entire life, has the stones to call the people who build his houses, landscape his yards, pave his roads, fought in our wars, entitled lazy shiftless victims and moochers is just too much for any rational person to process. It defies any possible explaination other than the worship of wealth and those who attain it. He didn't misspeak when he said he's not worried about the poor, he really doesn't give a shit about them.

And you know this how?

Whether or not the people he is talking about are the salt of the earth or not is irrelevant. He isn't wrong. If you are one of those getting food stamps, the millions getting SS or medicare, or work in the military and live off their funding, you are not going to vote for him or anyone who is seriously about real reforms for any of those programs.

Instead of crying over the 47 percent Mitt "insulted" maybe we should worry that so many of us in this country are picking up a government check in some form, as it that's a good thing.

 

[Dead Man]

And you know this how?

Whether or not the people he is talking about are the salt of the earth or not is irrelevant. He isn't wrong. If you are one of those getting food stamps, the millions getting SS or medicare, or work in the military and live off their funding, you are not going to vote for him or anyone who is seriously about real reforms for any of those programs.

Instead of crying over the 47 percent Mitt "insulted" maybe we should worry that so many of us in this country are picking up a government check in some form, as it that's a good thing.

Oh dear lord.

 

[sonicmj1]

And you know this how?

Whether or not the people he is talking about are the salt of the earth or not is irrelevant. He isn't wrong. If you are one of those getting food stamps, the millions getting SS or medicare, or work in the military and live off their funding, you are not going to vote for him or anyone who is seriously about real reforms for any of those programs.

Instead of crying over the 47 percent Mitt "insulted" maybe we should worry that so many of us in this country are picking up a government check in some form, as it that's a good thing.

Yeah, members of the military and the elderly never vote Republican.

I agree that the comment about "never having done an honest day's work" was completely uncalled for, but it's bullshit to say that everyone who doesn't pay income tax (many of whom don't do so because of Republican income tax cuts) are people who "see themselves as victims", who can never be convinced to "take responsibility for their lives", and who will never vote for Mitt Romney.

There's a serious conversation worth having about how money flows from Washington to other people in various ways. Various forms of entitlements reach everyone in all tax brackets, from food stamps to farm subsidies to capital gains. It's impossible to have that conversation if half the country gets dismissed for no reason.

 

[Salvor.Hardin]

I don't understand this attitude that no matter how wrong or damaging your initial position on any issue, that changing your mind for any reason at all is a sign if deplorable, if not dangerous, weakness.

It's not so much the changing of position that turns people off, but rather the reason for changing position. If it's clear that someone changes his views because of outside pressure, then his future commitments are immediately called into question. Although it should be said that even if the change takes place due to actual deep thought and reflection, the candidate will still be deemed a flip flopper by someone of opposing views.

 

[Nekofrog]

oh i'm sure romney has worked his ass off.

was it honest? you bet your ass it probably wasn't

 

[remnant]

Yeah, members of the military and the elderly never vote Republican.

Yeah no military member or elderly citizen has ever voted for a democrat. Ever. No one in the military opposes military cuts and elderly people love talking about entitlements reforms

I agree that the comment about "never having done an honest day's work" was completely uncalled for, but it's bullshit to say that everyone who doesn't pay income tax (many of whom don't do so because of Republican income tax cuts) are people who "see themselves as victims", who can never be convinced to "take responsibility for their lives", and who will never vote for Mitt Romney.

There's a serious conversation worth having about how money flows from Washington to other people in various ways. Various forms of entitlements reach everyone in all tax brackets, from food stamps to farm subsidies to capital gains. It's impossible to have that conversation if half the country gets dismissed for no reason.

He was blunt, okay...but is he wrong? If you are in that group either you aren't voting for Mitt, or something else compels you to vote for him. On an economic level, there is very little reason to believe those people will support Mitt, and the "government needs to take care of me/us" attitude is something I see people have in America, including people on GAF. He isn't making a bogeyman, he is saying what I hear people say all the fucking time.

 

[Timedog]

And you know this how?

Whether or not the people he is talking about are the salt of the earth or not is irrelevant. He isn't wrong. If you are one of those getting food stamps, the millions getting SS or medicare, or work in the military and live off their funding, you are not going to vote for him or anyone who is seriously about real reforms for any of those programs.

Instead of crying over the 47 percent Mitt "insulted" maybe we should worry that so many of us in this country are picking up a government check in some form, as it that's a good thing.

Actually, he IS 100% factually wrong, and so are you. Seeing as how this has been discredited all over the entirety of the internet, cable news, and newspapers starting immediately after the video was posted, please provide proof (which doesn't exist) of the claims made here (in bold).

Short of that, I'm going to assume you are a 13 year old with average intelligence who gets their political opinions and "facts" from listening to their Republican father complain while watching Fox News.

 

[ElectricBlue187]

Yeah no military member or elderly citizen has ever voted for a democrat. Ever. No one in the military opposes military cuts and elderly people love talking about entitlements reforms

I'm pretty sure they both overwhelmingly vote republican.

 

[Link Man]

Is this real life?

"We programmed him to say gotta twice!"

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0912/81428_Page2.html

M.I.T.T.

Mechanical Interface Turing Test

 

[Az]

Actually, he IS 100% factually wrong, and so are you. Seeing as how this has been discredited all over the entirety of the internet, cable news, and newspapers starting immediately after the video was posted, please provide proof (which doesn't exist) of the claims made here (in bold).

Short of that, I'm going to assume you are a 13 year old with average intelligence who gets their political opinions and "facts" from listening to their Republican father complain while watching Fox News.

cot damnnn

 

[ElectricBlue187]

oh i'm sure romney has worked his ass off.

was it honest? you bet your ass it probably wasn't

ok maybe it wasn't worded correctly, Maureen Dowd said it a bit better

It’s literally rich: Willard, born on third base and acting self-made, whining to the rich about what a great deal in life the poor have.

We thought Romney was secretly moderate, but it turns out that he’s secretly cruel, a social Darwinist just like his running mate.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/19/o...=general&gwh=E588BCC11DD52612FB113CA08245C6C7

 

[sonicmj1]

Yeah no military member or elderly citizen has ever voted for a democrat. Ever. No one in the military opposes military cuts and elderly people love talking about entitlements reforms

I'm not sure what point you're making here, because that wasn't what I was saying either. Both groups vote for both sides, but trend Republican. Same with that gigantic 47% that Mitt is writing off. Huge generalizations like that might serve campaign strategists (and I think that's what Mitt was trying to evoke when he said those things), but they make for poor Presidents.

He was blunt, okay...but is he wrong? If you are in that group either you aren't voting for Mitt, or something else compels you to vote for him. On an economic level, there is very little reason to believe those people will support Mitt, and the "government needs to take care of me/us" attitude is something I see people have in America, including people on GAF. He isn't making a bogeyman, he is saying what I hear people say all the fucking time.

"Those people" are a diverse bunch. Many of them are planning to vote for Mitt. If they weren't, we wouldn't have anything resembling a race. Just as there are wealthy Democratic donors that oppose receiving huge tax breaks, there are poor Republicans who think that government spending on them is wasteful.

The government needing to take care of people, to some degree, is an attitude that almost everyone shares. It's an attitude Mitt Romney shares. His father was supported by welfare after returning from Mexico, and used that money to advance. He talked earlier about how we don't have to worry about the "very poor", because there's a government safety net that is taking care of them. He hasn't talked about removing it, because he thinks that's what the government should do. You're correct that many people do believe themselves to be entitled to health care, housing, and food.

But when Romney goes on to say that those people "see themselves as victims", that they can't be convinced to "take responsibility for their lives", that's bullshit. Many of the people he's talking about work hard at low-paying jobs, who don't pay taxes because they supported Republican-backed tax cuts. Many of the people he's talking about work in the military. Many of the people he's talking about are elderly folk receiving benefits they were promised by Depression-era policies. They're not slackers or moochers, and characterizing them that way is a gross generalization. Many are probably willing to think of the larger picture when they make their vote, either in reference to the economy, or to social issues, or to other things.

 

[Dude Abides]

Yeah no military member or elderly citizen has ever voted for a democrat. Ever. No one in the military opposes military cuts and elderly people love talking about entitlements reforms.

You're the one who said nobody on Social Security, Medicare, or in the military would vote for him, which shows that you know absolutely nothing about American politics.

 

[Shake Appeal]

It's basic human nature: people respond to incentives. Stress causes action. Positive and negative reinforcements work.

http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_pink_on_motivation.html

Also worth reading:

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2011/09/Berg.htm

In recent work (Berg, Ostry, and Zettelmeyer, 2011; and Berg and Ostry, 2011), we discovered that when growth is looked at over the long term, the trade-off between efficiency and equality may not exist. In fact equality appears to be an important ingredient in promoting and sustaining growth. The difference between countries that can sustain rapid growth for many years or even decades and the many others that see growth spurts fade quickly may be the level of inequality. Countries may find that improving equality may also improve efficiency, understood as more sustainable long-run growth.

And this is something we failed to learn from history:

Marriner Eccles, the Depression-era chairman of the Federal Reserve (and an architect of the New Deal), blamed the Great Crash on the nation's wealth gap. "A giant suction pump had by 1929-1930 drawn into a few hands an increasing portion of currently produced wealth," Eccles recalled in his memoirs. "In consequence, as in a poker game where the chips were concentrated in fewer and fewer hands, the other fellows could stay in the game only by borrowing. When the credit ran out, the game stopped."

 

[Link]

He also assumes that all rich people vote Republican which is pretty insulting. Fuck you, Mitt. I don't vote for a party that shits on science.

Clearly, you're just not rich enough. Let me ask you, do you own any islands?

 

[sonicmj1]

Drive: The surprising truth about what motivates us
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc

RSA animate on intrinsic motivation vs. extrinsic motivation. In short, much of the conventional wisdom in behavioral economics is empirically ignorant of human nature.

http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_pink_on_motivation.html

Also worth reading:

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2011/09/Berg.htm

And this is something we failed to learn from history:

I just watched the first link (I assume the TED talk is essentially the same thing), and that's really interesting stuff. I kind of had startups in my mind when I was making that post, and I wasn't even considering the open-source movement. I don't think that undercuts what I was saying entirely (profit generation through production vs through reduction), but motivation is absolutely an issue worth raising.

One thing that Dan Pink says in that video is that money is at its best as a motivator when people have enough of it that they don't have to worry about it. Once you go past that stage, it becomes less effective. I wonder if that can be extended in a way that relates to income inequality. People are more productive when they have enough money to get by. That means less worrying about dealing with the bare necessities, and more mobility and freedom for people to do things that give them purpose.

I guess you could say that's more related to eliminating poverty than income inequality, but it's still something worth remembering.

 

[slit]

Actually, he IS 100% factually wrong, and so are you. Seeing as how this has been discredited all over the entirety of the internet, cable news, and newspapers starting immediately after the video was posted, please provide proof (which doesn't exist) of the claims made here (in bold).

Short of that, I'm going to assume you are a 13 year old with average intelligence who gets their political opinions and "facts" from listening to their Republican father complain while watching Fox News.

Woah, he's really gonna need some ice for that burn. :lol

 

[Kad5]

http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_pink_on_motivation.html

Also worth reading:

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2011/09/Berg.htm



And this is something we failed to learn from history:

You should read this book.

 

[IrishNinja]

You should read this book.

with respect: i made it this far -

Applied Austrian economic

i have a hard time taking faith-based economics seriously.

 

[Schattenjäger]

Yeah no military member or elderly citizen has ever voted for a democrat. Ever. No one in the military opposes military cuts and elderly people love talking about entitlements reforms



He was blunt, okay...but is he wrong? If you are in that group either you aren't voting for Mitt, or something else compels you to vote for him. On an economic level, there is very little reason to believe those people will support Mitt, and the "government needs to take care of me/us" attitude is something I see people have in America, including people on GAF. He isn't making a bogeyman, he is saying what I hear people say all the fucking time.

This is where the GOP needs to become moderate on social issues
You can't have a platform that wants to make the tough choices of cutting government assistance AND is against gay marriage, abortion, and made up of religious freaks and expect to win an election
By wanting to cut government assistance, you're guaranteed to lose most of those votes and need to make up for it somewhere
The tea party has really screwed the GOP

 

[Shake Appeal]

with respect: i made it this far -

Voluntaryist avatar meant my alarm bells were ringing even before the link was clicked.

 

[RDreamer]

He was blunt, okay...but is he wrong? If you are in that group either you aren't voting for Mitt, or something else compels you to vote for him. On an economic level, there is very little reason to believe those people will support Mitt, and the "government needs to take care of me/us" attitude is something I see people have in America, including people on GAF. He isn't making a bogeyman, he is saying what I hear people say all the fucking time.

Yes he's wrong, and yes he's making a boogeyman. The people he was talking about aren't people on welfare or what have you. He specifically said he was talking about people not paying income taxes, which can mean any number of things. It can be the elderly, students, disabled, people in a combat zone, people working their asses off but not making quite enough money, etc. For a man born into so much wealth to criticize half the fucking nation for being lazy moochers, it's hilarious. That 47% number is nothing but a scare tactic boogeyman number. It's intellectually dishonest and morally repugnant to be trotting that out in any seriousness.

Sure there are some people that say the government needs to help, or to put it better, society needs to come together to do things that only a society can do, or that a society can do better. Nothing wrong with that sentiment. The worse attitude in my opinion is the ones that think, despite all evidence to the contrary, that government and society does nothing for them but shit in their cereal, and then have a fit when anyone tells them that anyone at all helped them.

 

[Afro Gunsou]

I don't understand this attitude that no matter how wrong or damaging your initial position on any issue, that changing your mind for any reason at all is a sign if deplorable, if not dangerous, weakness.

Completely agree with this.

 

[Dead Man]

You're the one who said nobody on Social Security, Medicare, or in the military would vote for him, which shows that you know absolutely nothing about American politics.

Can this join Alphanoids taxes issues? Saying no one in the military votes republican is pretty fantastic.

 

[Azih]

I recommend you read this great essay by Paul Graham.

I like some parts of the article but the premise is flawed. Namely:

There is a conservation law at work here: if you want to make a million dollars, you have to endure a million dollars' worth of pain.

This is incredibly easy to demonstrate untrue. For quite a few people making a million dollars requires nothing more than faffing about while your trust fund spits out money.

His point from history about the start of the industrial revolution doesn't quite hang for me either

So for the first time in our history, the bullies stopped stealing the nerds' lunch money

This is a somewhat bizarre statement. Merchants and owners of factories aren't nerds, they're not nerds by a long shot. They were the "New Money" competing with the "Old Money" Kings and Lords. They were just as much bullies they just traded bullying serfs on farms for bullying workers in factories.

And saying that the Soviet Union tried to 'return to the old model' is complete nonsense. Communism is completely and totally different from Feudalism.

Now being a worker in a factory is much better than being a serf on a farm for the basic reason that to be an effective worker you need to have some level of education, which makes it *possible* for you to stand up to your overlords unlike the poor serf who has no idea what's going on but that's a completely different issue.

 

[pigeon]

I just watched the first link (I assume the TED talk is essentially the same thing), and that's really interesting stuff. I kind of had startups in my mind when I was making that post, and I wasn't even considering the open-source movement. I don't think that undercuts what I was saying entirely (profit generation through production vs through reduction), but motivation is absolutely an issue worth raising.

One thing that Dan Pink says in that video is that money is at its best as a motivator when people have enough of it that they don't have to worry about it. Once you go past that stage, it becomes less effective. I wonder if that can be extended in a way that relates to income inequality. People are more productive when they have enough money to get by. That means less worrying about dealing with the bare necessities, and more mobility and freedom for people to do things that give them purpose.

I guess you could say that's more related to eliminating poverty than income inequality, but it's still something worth remembering.

The sad thing is that, as you see above, this is settled knowledge -- and it's also common sense. If inequity was a powerful motivator towards success, Harvard would be admitting kids from Compton instead of Beverly Hills, but in reality, people who can feed themselves are just more productive than people who can't. If incentive was the primary reason people worked, Soviet Russia and Communist China would've failed just due to indolence, but of course the exact opposite is true -- the extraordinary industriousness of the people living under these Communist regimes is the only reason they survived as long as they did under such corrupt leadership. There is no evidence, anywhere, to support the claim that if you feed people they won't work. It's purely a cynical expression of faith -- call it 47% Jesus. That's why it's often so difficult to grapple with -- people don't present it as an argument, but just to make it clear they consider themselves superior to most of humanity.

 

[Jason's Ultimatum]

Aren't tax cuts for the rich redistribution, too?

 

[Omegasquash]

Completely agree with this.

ZOMG a flip flopper! It's the over riding perception that a candidate is malleable, as opposed to flexible, were he or she to change a position.

At least I think that's what it is.

 

[verbum]

ZOMG a flip flopper! It's the over riding perception that a candidate is malleable, as opposed to flexible, were he or she to change a position.

At least I think that's what it is.

Obama has changed several positions he stated earlier in the decade. The Republicans have brought this up but I believe it is dismissed by a lot of the audience when they are considering the source and I believe most liberal folk are more tolerant of changes.
Romney's flip flops have been also been brought up by the Republicans. A lot more people take this to heart because of the source and I believe most Republicans and conservatives do not believe in changing your beliefs once you have stated them.

 

[ElectricBlue187]

Aren't tax cuts for the rich redistribution, too?

its not class warfare if the rich are screwing over the poor, that's called 'status quo'