I think the side that can win elections is inevitably going to be the survivor eventually. That's how two-party systems work.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2016 |OT6| Delete your accounts
- Thread starter Spoiled Milk
- Start date
- Status
I think the side that can win elections is inevitably going to be the survivor eventually. That's how two-party systems work.
It does, but it's something we'd have to hope for. One functioning party isn't enough on the national stage, especially if they don't have the majorities needed in each house to govern.
benjipwns
Banned
The thing is that the GOP faction that's splitting off is ideologically only pro-interventionist foreign policy. All the other stuff, that GOP voters actually care about, they don't care about. They're entirely flexible on it for political reasons. Like immigration because business wants it.
Except, the party base is against immigration.
And Trump's opposition to interventionist foreign policy is more "DO IT BETTER CUZ I DO EVERYTHING BETTER" than a Rand Paul/Mike Lee wing of supporting terrorist rights over protecting America.
Trump and Ted Cruz were like 2/3rds of the party, and the flocking to Rubio was because he's a liar betrayer treasonist on immigration but is orthodox on foreign policy. (Cruz isn't, but ultimately compared to Trump (or Rand) he'd be acceptable.)
Except, the party base is against immigration.
And Trump's opposition to interventionist foreign policy is more "DO IT BETTER CUZ I DO EVERYTHING BETTER" than a Rand Paul/Mike Lee wing of supporting terrorist rights over protecting America.
Trump and Ted Cruz were like 2/3rds of the party, and the flocking to Rubio was because he's a liar betrayer treasonist on immigration but is orthodox on foreign policy. (Cruz isn't, but ultimately compared to Trump (or Rand) he'd be acceptable.)
Trump it is!
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
On a side note, looking at the Canadian basic income scheme is kind of uplifting. I have the pretty strong feeling this within the next 50 years, this will be universal across Western liberal democracies (excluding maybe America...) and it'll be one of those things like free access primary education and guaranteed healthcare that people just couldn't imagine life without.
Most likely. But the non crazy half will probably moderate their views a bit to appeal to the rest of the voting population that does not vote for the GOP.
South Dakota
Clinton 50
Sanders 47
http://media.wix.com/ugd/88a96b_6157397e1fb647dda9365d6067b5e0d9.pdf
It's something.
Clinton 50
Sanders 47
http://media.wix.com/ugd/88a96b_6157397e1fb647dda9365d6067b5e0d9.pdf
It's something.
Suikoguy
I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
It's going to be a tough battle in america simply because of the image of Black People getting money for nothing. I've seen it when bringing up the subject with my dad who I consider only mildly racist. I can't imagine the response with some of my extended family.
Wow if bernie loses south dakota to Hilary.
User 85168
Banned
Anyone know if Targeted Persuasion is any decent?
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
http://www.targetedpersuasionpolls.com/#!public-polls/szoo1
Not really, as you can see by their track record. There's no consistent Sanders/Clinton bias, they're just not accurate.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
When they get round to it, America will implement it as an NIT, for sure. Y'all are just too conservative not to.
Spoiled Milk
Banned
I think it's lazy policy. Basic income is pretty popular here on NeoGAF but I'm not sold on guaranteeing everyone a steady income just for being a living person. If there is a certain standard of living that is a human right in a modern country, then those items should be subsidized or provided without any cash exchange at all: healthcare, education, etc. By limiting the scope of wealth transfer we accomplish very specific goals and can more accurately determine their efficacy.
User 463088
Banned
I'm still not entirely sold on a guaranteed basic income, to be honest. My opposition isn't fully formed (and probably partially based on the way I've been socialized/raised). It's one of those far left policies that I don't immediately salivate at, though.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
No idea why anyone would find a biography of Randolph Churchill that interesting, he quit the only important job he ever got in a tantrum and died of syphilis shortly after. People only remember him for being Winston's granddad. Then again, it was Nixon.
EDIT: smh at the false progressives above
kri$toffer and adam "wall street" adam part of the corrupt political elite
EDIT: smh at the false progressives above
kri$toffer and adam "wall street" adam part of the corrupt political elite
excelsiorlef
Member
Guaranteed food, shelter is predominantly what it would be for.
Spoiled Milk
Banned
I'm a third-way tony blair sellout. At least I'm not an Atlantic seaboard delicacy.
There is good reason to believe that guaranteed income capabale of securing housing and food would lower everyone else's standard of living by dramatically increasing the demand for the lowest class of goods, raising the prices for most other people and pricing them out of higher tiers.
This strikes me as doing extra work for the sake of it. We already have a system for quickly and effectively distributing every possible good a person might require, and it's called the market economy. Setting up additional separate distribution networks for each additional good we also want to give away for free is wasteful and inefficient -- not to mention paternal in its assumption that people can't be trusted with money. That's why studies have shown pretty clearly that when it comes to, say, giving aid to Third World countries, direct cash grants are far more effective than any other form of aid.
User 463088
Banned
But, we have programs for food and shelter, specifically. Now,we can argue they are underfunded (which they are) and that benefits aren't enough (which they aren't). I'm fine with expanding those programs based on financial need. I'm even fine with easing work requirements for able bodied adults. (And think we should do this immediately, to be honest).
They got Indiana and Connecticut right, and they did correctly predict the winners of West Virginia, Rhode Island and Kentucky, though the margins were off.
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
Except things wont change even with this third party candidate. A few candidates in swing district/states will use it as a scapegoat around attaching themselves to trump, the candidate gets 10% or less of the popular vote, and then everyone on the right gets mad that the third party candidate let Clinton be president, and we're right back to where things started.
The only thing that'll probably make them wake up is to start losing midterms and lose the house. Until then they'll have plenty of reason to put off any real soul searching,
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Yeah, I can see that. IMO, Disraeli was the first recognizably modern politician in the world. I mean, I disagree with everything he stood for, but you can't help but see he was ahead of his time.
benjipwns
Banned
Mass public housing was a disaster in this country (and really is most everywhere) because the incentives are all screwed up for everyone involved.
Voucher systems are better, but they still have strings, misallocated incentives and heavy crony potential.
And remember, all of these programs require people to pursue them. How many new Medicaid sign-ups followed the ACA that were simply people already eligible who never bothered? It was like 80% of them for a period there early on IIRC.
No-strings consistent "cash" is much simpler for everyone involved. Except the bureaucrats and cronies. And legislators. And David Brooks.
Voucher systems are better, but they still have strings, misallocated incentives and heavy crony potential.
And remember, all of these programs require people to pursue them. How many new Medicaid sign-ups followed the ACA that were simply people already eligible who never bothered? It was like 80% of them for a period there early on IIRC.
No-strings consistent "cash" is much simpler for everyone involved. Except the bureaucrats and cronies. And legislators. And David Brooks.
Best benji is best.
Also David Brooks is a man-sized toad.
Don't make me second guess these things!
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
benji and I agree on everything except the things we don't agree on.
User 85168
Banned
Found a picture of Kev shitposting:
`How do I get back into chat?`
I also agree with benji on everything except the stuff that follows logically from the legitimate authority of the state.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Do you want him to... respect your authoritah?
benjipwns
Banned
Just to dig up an example (from WonkBlog) to show I was remembering at least it partly correctly, and to provide an example:
I know of a subsidy program in Michigan that had a 10% enrollment rate for the eligible. The department rather openly (in government circles) didn't want more sign-ups because of the work involved in each individual case.
They often tried to foster cases off onto other programs in other departments/agencies that were not truly applicable while not mentioning their own existing and more applicable programs.
This was before Rick Snyder got elected into office by PD too.
And that's still only the eligible people who have chosen to sign up!
I know of a subsidy program in Michigan that had a 10% enrollment rate for the eligible. The department rather openly (in government circles) didn't want more sign-ups because of the work involved in each individual case.
They often tried to foster cases off onto other programs in other departments/agencies that were not truly applicable while not mentioning their own existing and more applicable programs.
This was before Rick Snyder got elected into office by PD too.
*pours out Flint emergency bottled water for PD*
RIP
shinra-bansho
Member
Under the premise of basic income is there a trade off in service provision. Or is the expectation that (in places these are provided as public good) they remain freely accessible.
If these are still provided freely then are the gains purported in simplification of wealth transfer still realised.
If these are still provided freely then are the gains purported in simplification of wealth transfer still realised.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Depends on who you ask/who is implementing it.
Suikoguy
I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
lol, sometimes the stars do align?
But seriously, implement basic income, you can even get rid of things like minimum wage. The primary reason minimum wage exists is to give the employee a degree of leverage, basically a written agreement that nobody will work for less than X number of dollars. Basic income would replace that leverage. Because, if someone wants to pay you 3 dollars an hour to work at something, and you don't like it, you don't have to take the job to survive. Shit, you can could probably even reduce workplace regulations to a degree because employees have the ability to leave if they don't feel safe. Don't get me wrong, not all regulations should go though
It will get complicated though when it comes to determine what the amount should be combined with the differences in cost of living. Some of those differences should probably not be reflected as higher base income.
I'm out for the evening, so no more replied for awhile. Basic income is interesting to consider, and the ramifications of such a plan could be significant. But shit, it's 4:20 EST...
shinra-bansho
Member
For sake of discussion, the favoured implementation of those proposing it here. Similarly, I suppose what other policy changes accompany it e.g. minimum wages are no longer necessary as noted above?
And at what level is the proposed payment set.
And at what level is the proposed payment set.
User 463088
Banned
Someone at the BBQ I went to yesterday said that if his daughter didn't break up with her boyfriend he was going to "Put the fear of Trump" into him.
Is...is this a thing now? Ugh.
Is...is this a thing now? Ugh.
It's the GOP fracturing.
benjipwns
Banned
Vigilant Walrus
Member
Johnson was on Joe Rogan a week ago or so; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQIuHGbKckY
It was a interesting glimpse. I like what he said about isidewith. Of course he is like nader in that he believes in third parties, and he denounces tactical voting.
But his economic policies sounds... I've never heard anything like this. He essentially says that its possible to abolish nearly every kind of income tax.
Merkel and Hollande at Verdun. It's almost been 100 years... In one month. There is something ironic in the Brexit. And something scary.
http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...on-the-centenary-of-verdun-lessons-for-us-all
It's still almost impossible to understand the amount of death in such a short span of time.
It was a interesting glimpse. I like what he said about isidewith. Of course he is like nader in that he believes in third parties, and he denounces tactical voting.
But his economic policies sounds... I've never heard anything like this. He essentially says that its possible to abolish nearly every kind of income tax.
Merkel and Hollande at Verdun. It's almost been 100 years... In one month. There is something ironic in the Brexit. And something scary.
http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...on-the-centenary-of-verdun-lessons-for-us-all
It's still almost impossible to understand the amount of death in such a short span of time.
Hexa
Member
Don't know if it's been posted but from Stephen Byne
I would like to point out that the best future is the one where Doctor Doom takes over.
#skeletorforvp2016
Yeah that bothers me too. Magneto hates the Red Skull
TheLaughingStock
Member
Unconditional income as policy is equivalent to refusing to regulate over-the-counter derivatives. It will be a catastrophic calamity.
Found a picture of Kev shitposting:
Obvious photoshop. I don't wear red.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked