• 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 |OT7| Notorious R.B.G. Plans NZ Tour

Status
Not open for further replies.
The discussion of Basic Income has made me realize that we have a lousy standard definition of poverty, based on dollars. We really need better metrics, and to socialize them so that the not all discussions about poverty and up being just about money.

It should be some matrix of living conditions, access to healthcare, access to food, and then some additional modifier for non-essentials. And a factor for dependents, as well.

It seems that the basic $X ruler leaves a lot to be desired, and it would be better to measure against rent and food. Then if the Basic Income does nothing but raise rents, it will be clear that it hasn't succeeded.

Even better if we could include quality of life/happiness, but that's harder.
 
Hmm, let's say that the U.S. instituted Single Transferable Vote for Congressional elections and Instant Runoff Voting for presidents and governors.

Then the Democrats and Republicans break into these separate parties:

-America First: Trumpers

-Christian Americans: Cruz's people

-Justice Party: Focuses on social justice and issues facing minorities and women.

-Labor: Focuses on improving economic conditions of middle class and poor.

-Looking Forward: Technocratic, neoliberal, centrist party.


How well do these parties do?
 

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
Please pick Newt, give us 90s Misogynists: The Ticket

Could that ticket actually get any more misogynistic? I don't think it could.

I actually remember people on Daily Kos having her name on the list, but it literally had every GOP governor on there with a positive approval rating.

Well yea, if you cast a net that wide you'd have had her on the list. But my point still stands: no one really saw that shit coming.
 

CCS

Banned
Could that ticket actually get any more misogynistic? I don't think it could.



Well yea, if you cast a net that wide you'd have had her on the list. But my point still stands: no one really saw that shit coming.

Herman Cain maybe? Maybe?
 

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
Herman Cain maybe? Maybe?

Nah, Newt is one of those old school misogynists. Dude had 3 wives and cheated on one while she was fighting cancer.

Wait, is THAT the namesake of that book?

No, it's just a coincidental play on words. Obama was the game changer. His campaign was the game changer. McCain was just looking for something to alter the dynamic of the race.

Why is the media thinking Christie is a potential VP pick?

Didn't he fail the Romney vetting?

Considering how much he's been sucking up to Trump you can't blame them for assuming he's on the list.
 
John Harwood ‏@JohnJHarwood 4m4 minutes ago
Trump on VP search: "I'm actually looking at about 10 people. Some names that haven't surfaced yet"

John Harwood ‏@JohnJHarwood 4m4 minutes ago
Trump says two generals under VP considering but "I've been thinking more in terms of the politicians"

.
 
T

thepotatoman

Unconfirmed Member
Oh, we did! I think the biggest thing for me, if this is truly universal, is that if you give everyone say $20000, what have you actually done to alleviate poverty or effect the income distribution? Really all you've done is raise the bar of what can be considered poverty, and capitalism has done a pretty swell job of that so far, so theres no need for a radical departure.

If it's not universal, and you give everyone under a certain threshold that $20k and leave everyone else the same, how do you take away benefits as their incomes rise? It's kinda like the welfare trap right now. I know this is a meme about Americans not understanding progressive income taxes, but for certain incomes in the lower spectrum, a raise will ensure that you have less money for basic necessities.

How do we ensure that a UBI doesn't have a negative incentive structure like that?

An NIT is just a lot less messy for me. It comes builtin with a minimum income a person will receive if they have no job, and ensures that the act of taking a job will always raise their incomes, and to an appreciable degree. There is never a moment with an NIT where workers are disincentivized from getting a raise, or moving to a higher paying job, as their wage will always rise.

So in summary, either you give a UBI to everyone, in which case there are inflationary expectations that need be explored, and all you've done is raise where relative poverty is located, which is what capitalism does, refrigerator.jpg, or you only give it to poor people, and then you need to explore how you take it away as their incomes rise and whether it disincentivizes a higher paying job.

The assumption would be you'd offset the inflationary pressure with taxes. By the time you make $100,000 you've lost all the $20,000 extra just in the increase in taxes to pay for it. That's not to be confused with minimum income where you lose all $20,000 extra once you make $20,000.

Even if you do pay for it strictly with inflation, people on the bottom will be increasing their income by 100%, while the average wage increases by 25%, so it's hard to say that the inflation would completely cancel out the benefits for the poor.
 
I actually remember people on Daily Kos having her name on the list, but it literally had every GOP governor on there with a positive approval rating.

Palin was listed in articles as an outside possibility. Here's one boosting her that includes some Newt praise. http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/jul/31/mccain-veep-talk-turns-female-candidates/

I had a friend who wanted Palin and was really happy when she was picked. She mainly liked her because she didn't abort her baby with Down's Syndrome.
 

Ecotic

Member
Why is the media thinking Christie is a potential VP pick?

Didn't he fail the Romney vetting?

I imagine Trump's standards are lower on things like ethics and personal financial accounting. And he prizes more heavily things like bombast and cocksureness.
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
Hmm, let's say that the U.S. instituted Single Transferable Vote for Congressional elections and Instant Runoff Voting for presidents and governors.

Then the Democrats and Republicans break into these separate parties:

-America First: Trumpers

-Christian Americans: Cruz's people

-Justice Party: Focuses on social justice and issues facing minorities and women.

-Labor: Focuses on improving economic conditions of middle class and poor.

-Looking Forward: Technocratic, neoliberal, centrist party.


How well do these parties do?

Labor probably wins most frequently, but would be more socially conservative than you might expect.
 
Hmm, let's say that the U.S. instituted Single Transferable Vote for Congressional elections and Instant Runoff Voting for presidents and governors.

Then the Democrats and Republicans break into these separate parties:

-America First: Trumpers

-Christian Americans: Cruz's people

-Justice Party: Focuses on social justice and issues facing minorities and women.

-Labor: Focuses on improving economic conditions of middle class and poor.

-Looking Forward: Technocratic, neoliberal, centrist party.


How well do these parties do?

I'd actually think you'd see:

- Populist Party: Trump
- Classically Center-Right/Right Party Coalition: Kasich/Cruz
- Center Left Party: Clinton
- Probably a new, much more left-wing oriented party: Bernie
- Greens: Jill

You'd have some minor parties in there, but what we've seen in other countries with ranked voting in parliamentary systems is that (usually) the Christian Right and the Center-Right have their own coalition, especially in countries that more closely resemble the US (UK, Australia).

My guess is that from that coalition, we'd have trouble these days with the Center-Left party ceding a lot of their power to a Podemos-like party while the Center-Right party loses a lot of its rural power to a Populist Party.
 
Cesare you said Trump was out of money :(

As of the last FEC report he was. And I'm not impressed by his June numbers at all. Romney raised 100m in June (between his campaign and outside groups).

I wonder how much of Trump's money came from major donors expecting an indictment or some type of damage to Clinton.
 
The assumption would be you'd offset the inflationary pressure with taxes. By the time you make $100,000 you've lost all the $20,000 extra just in the increase in taxes to pay for it. That's not to be confused with minimum income where you lose all $20,000 extra once you make $20,000.

Even if you do pay for it strictly with inflation, people on the bottom will be increasing their income by 100%, while the average wage increases by 25%, so it's hard to say that the inflation would completely cancel out the benefits for the poor.

After $100k, net you've lost that extra 20k,but we're still taking money from these people and giving them back $20k. Why is that necessary? Why does everyone need to get $20k?

And nowhere did I say that inflation would completely cancel out the benefits for the poor, so it's really odd for you to have a counter to an argument I didn't make. All I said was that there were certain inflationary expectations that would need to be dealt with, and you admit that's 100% true.
 
Hmm, I don't know if the Christian Right and Business Right would stick together if the GOP broke apart after ranked voting. Would bankers with New York Values and middle class Evangelicals in Oklahoma really be that aligned in a several party system?

The Business Right refused to back Cruz over Kasich even when Cruz was the only viable Trump alternative.
 

itschris

Member
Politico: Sanders endorsement talks heat up

Bernie Sanders didn’t endorse Hillary Clinton the day after Barack Obama launched his own "I'm With Her" campaign — actually, he got booed by House Democrats fed up with his slow walk to the finish line — but there were growing signs that an announcement may be in the works.

Clinton’s campaign hastily released a new college affordability plan, offering free college tuition to working families, just hours before the presumptive Democratic nominee was set to excoriate Donald Trump’s business record in the heart of his failed Atlantic City casino empire.

She wasn't planning to address the big policy shift in this down-on-its-luck casino town, but the announcement was intended as a peace offering to the Vermont senator — and the first major public step towards an endorsement sources close to the negotiations now expect to arrive before the Republican convention.

By leaking the plan, Clinton made a significant concession to Sanders on one of the driving issues of his campaign — free public college for all — a pledge that has in part accounted for his stunning 5-to-1 margin over the party's nominee among voters under the age of 30.

Clinton’s new proposal, the product of weeks of negotiations between the campaigns, outlines a plan to provide free college for families earning $125,000 or less at in-state public colleges and universities, which would include about 80 percent of the college-age population.

...

The college plan designed to bring Sanders and his supporters along was part of a time-consuming end game weeks in the making.

Over the past few weeks talks between Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook and his Sanders counterpart, Jeff Weaver, have lurched along without, until now, producing a clear result. The issue wasn't ideology, necessarily, and the two operatives have developed a decent working relationship. In addition to the concessions on free college, Clinton and her team, according to two people briefed on the talks, have been willing to discuss further strengthening rules on Wall Street banks — though she remains opposed to the re-institution of the lapsed Glass-Steagall separation between vanilla banking and high-risk securities investment.

The two sides had bogged down of the specific details of policy — not surprisingly, Sanders has insisted on the biggest possible proposals while Clinton's bean-counting policy team has focused on the details of funding, legislation and implementation.

...

But, in general, sources from both sides said the talks have been more focused on getting Sanders and his wife, Jane, acclimated to the idea that his revolution came up short — and it's time for him to play a supporting role in the fight against Trump.

Since Clinton’s victory speech in New York when she clinched the nomination on June 7, her aides have consistently said they believe Sanders should be part of the convention and that they were open to “celebrating what he has accomplished.”

Hopefully this pans out and he does endorse before the Republican convention. Sure, it's not necessary to defeat Trump, but I think it would be helpful if Bernie was part of the convention and gave a good speech for Hillary.
 

Teggy

Member
Sad!




CmsxAQuW8AAZchL.jpg:large

Mark Murray ‏@mmurraypolitics 36m36 minutes ago
Mark Murray Retweeted Judd Legum
Good catch. Trump press release clearly says that joint $25M is from June AND last week in May -- so additional week

.
 

Maledict

Member
Why is the media thinking Christie is a potential VP pick?

Didn't he fail the Romney vetting?

Yes - but then Romney ran an actual campaign, with proper vetting and a campaign strategy and data analytics and everything. And to be fair to Romney, one thing his campaign was good at was destroying republican opposition - they crushed Newt underfoot in 2012, and I'm convinced they would have done something similar to Trump.

Unfortunately for the republicans, Romney's failed 2012 campaign was the best run they've had in a while.
 
Why is Trump calling Chuck Todd "Sleepy Eyes"?

I mean, I know this is a stupid question because there's no rhyme or reason why Trump does anything....
 
What the fuck?

Donald J. Trump ‏@realDonaldTrump 6h6 hours ago

Sleepy eyes Chuck Todd, a man with so little touch for politics, is at it again.He could not have watched my standing ovation speech in N.C.

Donald J. Trump ‏@realDonaldTrump 6h6 hours ago

I have over seven million hits on social media re Crooked Hillary Clinton. Check it out Sleepy Eyes, @MarkHalperin @NBCPolitics

I don't get the reference?
 

fauxtrot

Banned
I still find Paul Ryan oddly hot, in a self-loathing kind of way.

Sorry to reply to this so far after it was posted... but I'm right there with you. I'm equal parts attracted and ashamed. Also, he kind of looks like a young(ish) Ernest Worrell, which is creepy in and of itself.
 

Emarv

Member
I refuse to believe any fundraising numbers from Trump until I see the reciepts. Actually, extend that to anything money related with Trump.

Show me the official numbers. No way I'm believing a Trump press release.
 

Plinko

Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
Why is Trump calling Chuck Todd "Sleepy Eyes"?

I mean, I know this is a stupid question because there's no rhyme or reason why Trump does anything....

I think he's making fun of his appearance, which seems right up the GOP alley.

Edit: So Corker said he thinks Pence is the guy, eh? I'll gladly take that. Hello, Governor Gregg!
 

HylianTom

Banned
I want him to devolve further into schoolyard-tier taunts at some point. Especially hoping that someone gets the "poopy" adjective added to their name, or to their product/program/etc.

"Anderson Cooper is a horrible newsman. His program is downright poopy, and he should be ashamed!"
 

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
I want him to devolve further into schoolyard-tier taunts at some point. Especially hoping that someone gets the "poopy" adjective added to their name, or to their product/program/etc.

"Anderson Cooper is a horrible newsman. His program is downright poopy, and he should be ashamed!"

Even Trump isn't insane enough to go at the silver fox.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom