Difference between revisions of "2009-05-31 Why do people persist in voting Republican/woozle/2009"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(→Taxes) |
(→Midian responds: pretty much done, but no time for some elaboration I wish I had time for...) |
||
| Line 788: | Line 788: | ||
From that point up, a progressive tax starting at the 0% from the national average. No exemptions, no breaks, no loopholes. If the rich want to cut their taxes, they can get into politics and start by cutting the out-of-control spending in the government. | From that point up, a progressive tax starting at the 0% from the national average. No exemptions, no breaks, no loopholes. If the rich want to cut their taxes, they can get into politics and start by cutting the out-of-control spending in the government. | ||
| − | + | ====Deficit==== | |
| + | |||
| + | ====Implementation==== | ||
| + | As to all the things we agree on, how do we get them implemented? :) | ||
| + | ===Woozle responds=== | ||
| + | ====The Financial Mess==== | ||
| + | : [W] "but let's not forget who got us into this mess, if you're going to blame Obama for not getting us out of it fast enough." | ||
| + | : [M] "You mean Clinton?" | ||
| + | |||
| + | No, I [[Bill Clinton helped cause the 2008 financial meltdown|don't mean Clinton]]. Clinton left office with record surpluses, which Bush pissed away in tax breaks for the rich and two endless wars against countries which did not attack us -- leading to record deficits which would have caused serious problems in the economy without any help at all, sooner or later. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Even if you can argue successfully that deregulation under Clinton was a contributor to the crisis -- which certainly could be true -- there is a world of difference between (a) making a bad decision after listening to all the available advice, and (b) doing something really obviously stupid (or, to put it more diplomatically: carefully limiting the advice you allow yourself to hear so you can feel justified in doing what you had already decided on beforehand)... and then doing more of it. And more after that. | ||
| + | |||
| + | But thanks for the [[2008-10-26 The Bet That Blew Up Wall Street|CBS]] and [[2009-06-26 Did Clinton cause the banking crisis|MSN]] links (already had the [[1999-09-30 Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending|NYT]]); I've filed them. | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | From what I can tell, they are. To the extent that they are not, it looks like this is largely because of Republican obstructionism. The Republicans have said, time and time again, that they don't care if what Obama does is any good -- they just want him to fail so they don't look bad. They have openly put their own party's fortunes ahead of the good of America. | ||
| + | |||
| + | When Democrats go wrong, it's in giving in to Republican demands. Here's what happens: | ||
| + | * Democrats offer legislation. Republicans don't like it; they suggest an amendment, threatening a filibuster if the amendment isn't inserted. Democrats, wanting to be fair and represent everyone, compromise and allow the amendment. (This kind of implies a "gentleman's agreement" to vote for the amended legislation, or at least not to filibuster it, wouldn't you think?) | ||
| + | * Republicans then filibuster the resulting legislation, and demand more amendments (repeating earlier claims that the Dems are trying to steamroller over the will of the people, etc.) | ||
| + | * Dems then make further concessions; Reps ask for more. Lather, rinse, repeat. Eventually enough Republican "defectors" (who are then accused of being "traitors to America", in outraged tones) switch their votes so we can make some progress. | ||
| + | * In the event that the bastardized legislation is then passed, Democrats are then accused of being responsible for the horrid monstrosity it has become. Republicans go back to their home districts and hold up the legislation like it was a soiled diaper (not too far from the truth) and beg for money to go defeat what those horrible Democrats over there in Washington DC are doing to our country. | ||
| + | |||
| + | The repeal of Glass-Steagall -- and your subsequent use of this as a club to bash Clinton -- is a prime example. Republicans are ''against'' regulation, they have ''always'' been against regulation, and repealing GS was (as I understand it) a longtime Republican agenda item. (Is this untrue? I can look for sources if you think this is incorrect.) | ||
| + | |||
| + | On top of that, I'd be surprised to hear that there were many GOP voices pushing to do what Clinton is supposedly so horrible for having failed to do in 1999 (i.e. regulate the new derivatives market). | ||
| + | |||
| + | So no, don't give me that "Clinton did it" BS. Bush II destroyed our prosperity. Before him, Bush I and Reagan started taking it apart. | ||
| + | ====Guns==== | ||
| + | : [W] "the problem is that the horrendous array of portable personal weapons currently available is nothing the founding fathers could reasonably have foreseen, and clearly they did not anticipate the social problems caused by such weaponry." | ||
| + | : [M] "I disagree. They knew the history of the advent of firearms, and the drastic changes from arrows to flintlocks. I believe they did foresee a future where technological advances would create even more advanced weaponry, and felt the best protection from usurpation would be total freedom for personal defense." | ||
| + | |||
| + | While I'm willing to believe that they might have been ''capable'' of such foresight, I've not seen any evidence that they actually did (the fact that the Constitution touches so lightly on this issue, which is now a huge problem, seems to me pretty conclusive). Do you have such evidence? Does the Constitution offer any clues as to how we were expected to deal with these advances? | ||
| + | ====Prisons==== | ||
| + | : [W] "The prison system is a huge mess, and needs reform." | ||
| + | : [M] "First, reform the laws. No victim-less crime should be punishable. Prostitution, drug possession, etc." | ||
| + | |||
| + | Agreed, strongly. | ||
| + | |||
| + | : [M] "Second, reform the courts. Any lawyer or judge who attempts to suppress evidence, either for or against a defendant should be disbarred on the spot. The law should rule, not whoever has the most money." | ||
| + | |||
| + | Agreed, strongly. | ||
| + | |||
| + | I would also add that we need to abolish the horrid "State Secrets Privilege" often used to prevent suspects from presenting evidence in their defense. (If it's any consolation, Obama seems to be in favor of keeping it -- one of our big disappointments in him.) | ||
| + | |||
| + | : [W] "I see no need for prisons to be primarily an instrument of punishment" | ||
| + | : [M] "What do you consider punishment? To reduce crime we need to reduce recidivism. If over 60% of criminals come back to jail after already spending time there, the current system is not a big enough deterrent." | ||
| + | |||
| + | As I said, it needs to be shown that "stronger punishment" actually ''acts as a deterrent''. If over 60% of criminals return to jail, does this mean we didn't beat them hard enough? -- or does it mean that, after being treated like property for several years, treating other people like objects is all they know how to do? I'm not suggesting that they need more hugs or something stupid like that, but I think we need to look at ''what works'' for reducing recidivism. | ||
| + | |||
| + | I don't know what that is, but if over 60% are repeat offenders, then I don't think we're doing it. (How does this compare with recidivism worldwide? What countries have the lowest recidivism rates, and how do they treat their inmates?) | ||
| − | As to all the things we agree on, how do we get them implemented? :) | + | |
| + | |||
| + | Who is making this claim? I would say it depends on the conditions. Workers on chain gangs should be adequately fed and (especially) watered, and have access to proper medical care. Beyond that -- make them do whatever work they're capable of that nobody else wants to do. (Tentatively, I'd say that hard, purposeful work can be very redeeming, both from the prisoner's point of view and from society's... but it does need to be purposeful.) | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | Agreed; this is what I meant by "preventing them from being able to commit more crimes, at least for awhile." | ||
| + | |||
| + | : [M] "And every time someone tries to reform the system, the ACLU, ADL, etc. come in and sues them." | ||
| + | |||
| + | Examples? | ||
| + | |||
| + | : [M] "Joe Arpaio in Maricopa County has been sued by liberal groups worried about criminal rights over and over again." | ||
| + | |||
| + | Joe Arpaio is <s>an asshole</s> person of questionable integrity who should be <s>strung up</s> firmly removed from office and never allowed to have power over another individual ever again: [http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/arizona-sheriff-turns-county-meeting] [http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/doj-coming-down-check-out-sheriff-jo] [http://crooksandliars.com/logan-murphy/ice-strips-sheriff-joe-arpaio-immigra] ...shall I go on? | ||
| + | |||
| + | ====Taxes==== | ||
| + | : [M] "Constitutional amendment: Income tax imposed on no one with income less than the national average income." | ||
| + | |||
| + | Hey, I think I like that! It's easy to understand, and it favors those with lower incomes without decimating the income received by the government. (For reference: in 2007, median [[wikipedia:Household income in the United States|US household income]] was just over $50k. I'd prefer to use the mean, though, because the median doesn't care if your top earners make 10 times as much as everyone else or 10,000 times -- and I think that should make a difference.) | ||
| + | |||
| + | : [M] "From that point up, a progressive tax starting at the 0% from the national average. No exemptions, no breaks, no loopholes. If the rich want to cut their taxes, they can get into politics and start by cutting the out-of-control spending in the government." | ||
| + | |||
| + | Seconded... | ||
| + | ====Deficit==== | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | ====Implementation==== | ||
| + | : [M] "As to all the things we agree on, how do we get them implemented? :)" | ||
| + | |||
| + | An excellent question. I think the internet holds the key; it's a new tool, offering us the opportunity to change the game in ways that the old players haven't (yet) anticipated. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Discussion over at Boiling Frogs (see above link) has been focusing on the idea of fielding a candidate who is neither Republican nor Democrat. That is certainly one angle of attack, but I don't know enough about the election biz to say whether it has any chance of succeeding -- even if (as I suggest) we all agree to support whatever candidate is chosen by an internal "election" we hold amongst ourselves. | ||
| + | |||
| + | I have some other specific ideas which are just starting to come together; I will try to post them later as an addendum (right now I have to go pick up kids...) In the meantime, you can read about [[InstaGov|this]], which is my idea for web-based software to make it easier for large groups of people (as in thousands or millions) to reach sensible decisions. | ||