2016 US Presidential Election

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6579
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Thesh » Tue Nov 08, 2016 5:54 am UTC

According to that article, Trump just took the lead 32 to 25, if the trend continues he will easily take New Hampshire. Hillary is screwed unless she can find a way to make up 8 votes.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
Jumble
Posts: 1184
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 6:48 am UTC
Location: London(ish), UK.
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Jumble » Tue Nov 08, 2016 7:03 am UTC

Good luck today! You have definitely got our attention.
Spoiler:
Giant Speck wrote:You're a demon! DEMON!!!!

Oregonaut wrote:CURSE YOU VILLAIN!!
PhoenixEnigma wrote:Jumble is either the best or worst Santa ever, and I can't figure out which. Possibly both.

User avatar
duckshirt
Posts: 567
Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2007 1:41 am UTC
Location: Pacific Northwest

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby duckshirt » Tue Nov 08, 2016 7:06 am UTC

Thesh wrote:According to that article, Trump just took the lead 32 to 25, if the trend continues he will easily take New Hampshire. Hillary is screwed unless she can find a way to make up 8 votes.

Watch out for John Kasich! Just one vote but the momentum is clearly in his favor.
lol everything matters
-Ed

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby morriswalters » Tue Nov 08, 2016 11:51 am UTC

I voted, it's over. Hoorah!

User avatar
ahammel
My Little Cabbage
Posts: 2135
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2012 12:46 am UTC
Location: Vancouver BC
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby ahammel » Tue Nov 08, 2016 3:03 pm UTC

He/Him/His/Alex
God damn these electric sex pants!

JudeMorrigan
Posts: 1266
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 1:26 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby JudeMorrigan » Tue Nov 08, 2016 3:34 pm UTC

Coulter's gotta Coulter, but she's pretty literally gone Nazi on us:

https://twitter.com/AnnCoulter/status/7 ... 1501460480

To be considered German in the Third Reich, you needed four German grandparents.

User avatar
ahammel
My Little Cabbage
Posts: 2135
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2012 12:46 am UTC
Location: Vancouver BC
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby ahammel » Tue Nov 08, 2016 3:44 pm UTC

JudeMorrigan wrote:Coulter's gotta Coulter, but she's pretty literally gone Nazi on us:

https://twitter.com/AnnCoulter/status/7 ... 1501460480

To be considered German in the Third Reich, you needed four German grandparents.

It has been widely pointed out that Trump himself and 80% of his children would be denied the franchise under such a scheme.
He/Him/His/Alex
God damn these electric sex pants!

Dark567
First one to notify the boards of Rick and Morty Season 3
Posts: 3686
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 5:12 pm UTC
Location: Everywhere(in the US, I don't venture outside it too often, unfortunately)

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Dark567 » Tue Nov 08, 2016 3:46 pm UTC

For the obsessed, you can watch the exit polls in real time here:
http://www.slate.com/votecastr_election ... acker.html
I apologize, 90% of the time I write on the Fora I am intoxicated.


Yakk wrote:The question the thought experiment I posted is aimed at answering: When falling in a black hole, do you see the entire universe's future history train-car into your ass, or not?

User avatar
Diadem
Posts: 5654
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Diadem » Tue Nov 08, 2016 4:35 pm UTC

JudeMorrigan wrote:Coulter's gotta Coulter, but she's pretty literally gone Nazi on us:

https://twitter.com/AnnCoulter/status/7 ... 1501460480

To be considered German in the Third Reich, you needed four German grandparents.

I think it's a good idea, but it doesn't go far enough.

Only people whose ancestors gave been living in the US for at least 500 years should be allowed to vote. But, we want to be fair, so we'll make an exception for people whose ancestors did not come to the United States voluntarily.
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist
- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Nov 08, 2016 4:39 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:
Liri wrote:It bothers me a lot how Republicans have sort of co-opted their party name to mean American and of their ideology to be the only patriotic one. How many Democrats do you know with a US flag hanging outside their house? I hate feeling ashamed and uncomfortable whenever I see my own damn flag.


Eh, Democrats let that happen. Chants of "USA, USA" pretty much guarantee you're at a republican shindig. Democrats have treated patriotism as something to be vaguely ashamed of for some time now. They're much more comfortable pointing out American flaws than celebrating successes. Republicans, the reverse.

There's merit to each thing, of course, but it does seem like halo effects apply, and the two are to some degree exclusive in the public mind.


FYI: President Obama definitely led a "USA-USA" chant today at one of Clinton's rallies (I bet at this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9swGq6fEj00 but I haven't found it yet)

Not that I disagree with you in particular however. I do think Democrats in general are more ashamed to be patriotic than Republicans. But I was listening to the radio today and heard a very major counter-example and felt like sharing it.


Oh nifty. Probably a good move on Obama's part. He's got the clout to address it.

Liri wrote:Yeah, I'll definitely agree this election has changed that dynamic - at least on the national stage. Like at the DNC. Which is nice, in a way. But I still feel like being proud of being born in a particular place is a little silly, like Thesh said. The uncomfortable part comes from imagining the person living in the house with a 30 ft flagpole out front. Yes, I live in the south.

E: And yeah, what Dark said.


I mean, it's random chance, but...so are a great many things. People are proud of their cultural heritage, when being born into any given culture is no different, really. They're proud of accomplishments of sports teams they identify with, but did not contribute toward whatsoever.

Thesh wrote:
arbiteroftruth wrote:
Thesh wrote:I don't think you know what pragmatic is. Following your belief without considering facts or evidence, or even weighing consequences is not pragmatic - that's exactly what an ideologue does.


They would say they have considered the evidence and the consequences


No, they *deny* the evidence and the consequences and use the term "expert" as a pejorative; there is a HUGE difference there.


They use it sarcastically, because they do not believe the person to be an actual expert. Because they believe them to be incredibly wrong.

The left happily uses similar tactics, denying the expertise of those with differing opinions, and trumping up the credibility of those favoring them. Reliance on experts instead of evidence is a common error. Lots and lots of appeals to authority everywhere.

Thesh wrote: Even the economist under Reagan who supported trickle down said it doesn't work, in fact I'm not sure there's a study that supports it, but it's still the driving principle behind Republican economic policy.


Yeah, and you and everyone else on the left have been conflating every tax reduction idea with that single misguided idea ever since. Maybe address initiatives on their own merits, rather than attacking a decades old strawman, and you'll be seen as more pragmatic, and less idealistic.

ahammel wrote:Two polls are reporting already thanks to New Hampshire's weird voting laws (small communities are allowed to open the polls at midnight and close them again as soon as all of the registered voters have cast ballots).

Clinton/Kaine: 21
Trump/Pence: 16
Johnson/Wassisface: 4
Kasich: 1
Romney: 1
Sanders: 1


It occurs to me that living there probably has an outsize amount of publicity. Kind of amusing. Probably not terribly predictive of anything, but I do see similar things every election.

User avatar
Sableagle
Ormurinn's Alt
Posts: 2106
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2015 4:26 pm UTC
Location: The wrong side of the mirror
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Sableagle » Tue Nov 08, 2016 4:51 pm UTC

JudeMorrigan wrote:Coulter's gotta Coulter, but she's pretty literally gone Nazi on us:

https://twitter.com/AnnCoulter/status/7 ... 1501460480

To be considered German in the Third Reich, you needed four German grandparents.
Current top reply:
Anthony F. Irwin wrote:.@AnnCoulter are you counting the descendants of the Native Americans these people’s families wiped out

Diadem wrote:I think it's a good idea, but it doesn't go far enough.

Only people whose ancestors gave been living in the US for at least 500 years should be allowed to vote. But, we want to be fair, so we'll make an exception for people whose ancestors did not come to the United States voluntarily.
Also an excellent answer.
Oh, Willie McBride, it was all done in vain.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10268
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby addams » Tue Nov 08, 2016 5:02 pm UTC

I hang my head in shame.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_E._Neuman

Like Helen's Hen...I hang my head...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42D6bUta1gs

I read a strongly worded essay, one time.
That essay said, "The Artist has a Duty, too."

well...It was more strongly worded than that.
Kind'a like Bill Muher yelling at The Media..."Do Your Job!

They are doing their Job.
They are educating and entertaining.

What more do you want?
Hypnotism?

Here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=psYfugBVESY
Spoiler:
What did you wish for, before you blew out the candle?
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6579
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Thesh » Tue Nov 08, 2016 6:36 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:
Thesh wrote: Even the economist under Reagan who supported trickle down said it doesn't work, in fact I'm not sure there's a study that supports it, but it's still the driving principle behind Republican economic policy.


Yeah, and you and everyone else on the left have been conflating every tax reduction idea with that single misguided idea ever since. Maybe address initiatives on their own merits, rather than attacking a decades old strawman, and you'll be seen as more pragmatic, and less idealistic.


Tell me then, what merit has any Republican economic policy or or budget that the Republicans passed or heavily promoted where they didn't cut taxes massively on the wealthy, which anyone with half a brain and historical data knows has next to no impact on GDP growth, while proposing to cut spending that goes to the poor, which is the most effective fiscal policy we know of (this has been proven both theoretically, and empirically).

So tell me, where is this pragmatic Republican economic policy where the entire policy is not massive tax cuts to for the rich so they can cut programs for the poor, in a way that appears to be specifically designed to create a huge deficit increase while harming economic growth. Because the only economists you can find that support that work for business-funded think tanks that exists purely to promote pro-business, anti-worker economic policy.

So, what Republican economic policy of the last 10 years was not "cut taxes and regulations, keep minimum wage down, and cut services for the poor", and which Republican economic policy under Obama actually helped the economy? Obama signed their big small-business stimulus, and it did absolutely nothing. I mean, if I look at what Republicans have done the past 8 years, I see absolutely nothing. Compare that to Democrats, who in 2009 passed a stimulus that ended the recession and got our economy growing again, while Republicans actually refused to pass another stimulus.

Point to Congress, states, Presidents, anywhere. I want to see this mythological, sound Republican economic policy.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
Sableagle
Ormurinn's Alt
Posts: 2106
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2015 4:26 pm UTC
Location: The wrong side of the mirror
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Sableagle » Tue Nov 08, 2016 6:43 pm UTC

According to the "I'm With Her" page, "If you're in line when the polls close, they have to let you vote."

Someone disagrees:
Republican Donald Trump sued the registrar of voters in Clark County, Nevada over a polling place in Las Vegas that had been allowed to remain open late last week to accommodate people who were lined up to vote.


U.S. appeals court removes new voter-intimidation rules in Ohio

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump won a legal battle on Sunday when a U.S. appeals court in Ohio removed new restrictions on partisan poll watchers that Democrats had sought to prevent Election Day voter intimidation.

On Friday U.S. District Court Judge James Gwin imposed new restrictions on those who monitor voting activity, saying they may not interrogate voters within 100 feet of a polling place, block them from entering, or photograph them as they come and go. Those found to violate the rules could be held in contempt of court.

The Trump campaign had argued that those restrictions were not justified, given that there had been no reported instances of voter harassment in the state so far.
So ... they can't make a rule against you stopping people from entering the polling place until they have a report of people doing that?
Oh, Willie McBride, it was all done in vain.

User avatar
Yakk
Poster with most posts but no title.
Posts: 11128
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 7:27 pm UTC
Location: E pur si muove

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Yakk » Tue Nov 08, 2016 7:03 pm UTC

Suppose you think the government is too big. That big government, as a fraction of the economy, causes drag on the economy. And this is a persistant constant problem.

A spending surge might help kick you out of a recession, but the big constant problem remains.

To bring government under control, you need to make it smaller. There are two ways to do this.

First, you attack spending itself. Now, spending is popular among the spendees, so you attack spending on stuff your voters don't like. This leaves a lot of spending...

To attack that, you cut taxes. Wait, you say, that isn't spending! But cutting taxes makes the government in debt. And that debt leads to crisis. And in crisis, you can cut spending even on things your supporters like. You "have no choice" but to cut $holy program$!

Maybe you raise taxes in this case; but by saying "never raise taxes" as part of your ideology, the cuts become the only option.

Maybe you believe that each of these actions cause short-term harm. But your goal is to return growth, and you believe that real growth comes from smaller government.

Now, alias this from aiming for growth to aiming for freedom. If the government spends money, that isn't "freedom", it is obligation. So even if your small government growth policy fails, the small government freedom policy survives (I find this tends to happen when I cite facts at libertarians: if they fail empirical tests of utility, they go on about how the means is the end itself).

While you are doing this, you are attempting to generate power. Because parties that don't generate power disappear. So you channel spending through organizations that channel support back to you. You get government to deliver services through churches and businesses that in return support your party.

You sell off government owned assets; it doesn't matter if it is a good deal for the government. I mean, you sell it as if it is (making the thing you want to sell crippled by random rules you impose first is a good way to go about this, then stripping those rules once it is sold). You use the money to justify tax cuts (see above), pushing any debt pain later (so if you lose next cycle, the other party gets blamed). The cost to deliver the services goes up; more debt pain to maintain current level of service. The organization that buys it tends to support your party (after all, they got a great deal from you guys!) You win coming and going.

The flow of tax cuts makes it efficient for extremely rich people to send you money, as that lowers their personal tax bills. Cut taxes in areas that are their pet peeves and sell it with marketing (like estate tax cuts).

This is the "drown it in a bathtub" goal. Along the way, you random walk, but it is consistent.

Depressing wages and freeing capitol also makes sense if you see an inevidible collapse of the first world middle class due to globalization; as billions of equally skilled workers come online from the global south, their bargaining and hence financial and political power is doomed.

By impoverishing them gradually, you can hope to avoid shocks. The process will be gradual, so you can play the blame game with the other guy (who, against the forces of globalization, can at best slow the loss in the short term: which, your models show, just causes greater shocks). You form an alliance of the ultra-rich and whomever you can fool into supporting your short-term adjenda through whatever means possible.

There are lots of ways to model a consistent "I know better" Republican-style economist that provides a consistent basis for their actions. Most of them involve faith in untested or over-generalized hypothesis. But that is nothing unusual.

Now, I suspect that while this may be where it started in the 80s, the inmates are now in charge of the asylum. 30-odd years of selling a tall tail to the "base" so the "elites" can get the policy changes they want result in a whole pile of true believers in what was intended to be merely cover for the *real* plan. The *real* plan is now believed in by the 70 to 80 year old ex-politicians and their now 50-60 year old "young turks" who they let in on how things really work; the generation following has swallowed the surface propoganda.

Now they don't raise taxes for the sake of not raising taxes, no longer as a piece of a larger strategy. The means has now became the goal.

You can imagine something similar on the other side of the aisle; where the means becomes the goal. Some on the right would claim that affirmative action is one such example, where racism is gone, so there is no longer a need for it. Or welfare, which is claimed to have gone from keeping people from starving to a lifestyle. Or voting rights protections, which went from guarding against blatantly racist states to being obsolete because racism is over.
One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision - BR

Last edited by JHVH on Fri Oct 23, 4004 BCE 6:17 pm, edited 6 times in total.

User avatar
Xeio
Friends, Faidites, Countrymen
Posts: 5101
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 11:12 am UTC
Location: C:\Users\Xeio\
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Xeio » Tue Nov 08, 2016 7:19 pm UTC

Trump actively trying to get less people to vote is just another thing on the pile at this point. Just a reminder that "If only men could vote" electoral map Trump Jr. tweeted was an end goal.

This photo is just icing on the cake too. Trump Jr. got in on that action too.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6579
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Thesh » Tue Nov 08, 2016 7:31 pm UTC

Yakk wrote:Suppose you think the government is too big. That big government, as a fraction of the economy, causes drag on the economy.


Here's the problem, the first is a belief that can be justified on purely ideological grounds, the second is a falsifiable claim that doesn't hold water (i.e. it doesn't matter if government does it, the private sector does it, a non-profit does it - labor is labor in general, and sometimes private sector works better, sometimes government, but output is output and saying it will cause a drag on the economy requires evidence, and while government does allocate resources inefficiently all the time, so does the private sector) - clinging to that is not pragmatism.

Now, if they talked about specific policies they thought were hurting the economy that they wanted to change, we can debate those specifically, and some are sound some aren't. However, they tried tax cuts and deregulation in the 1970s and 1980s and it failed to produce any noticeable increase in growth (at most you might argue that it got us out of the recession, but that's debatable), and there is no evidence that it improved long term growth (although there is evidence it hurt long term growth ), but I won't fault the policy people then since there was no empirical evidence disproving it at the time; however, they are still pushing the same policies today.

So sure, maybe some of the Republican ideology is just lies to get the public to support them, sure there are some equivalents with some Democrats, but for the most part, Democratic policy is fairly pragmatic.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
Yakk
Poster with most posts but no title.
Posts: 11128
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 7:27 pm UTC
Location: E pur si muove

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Yakk » Tue Nov 08, 2016 7:52 pm UTC

Thesh wrote:
Yakk wrote:Suppose you think the government is too big. That big government, as a fraction of the economy, causes drag on the economy.
Here's the problem, the first is a belief that can be justified on purely ideological grounds, the second is a falsifiable claim that doesn't hold water (i.e. it doesn't matter if government does it, the private sector does it, a non-profit does it - labor is labor in general, and sometimes private sector works better, sometimes government, but output is output and saying it will cause a drag on the economy requires evidence, and while government does allocate resources inefficiently all the time, so does the private sector) - clinging to that is not pragmatism.
That presumes the way the government allocates resources is identical to the way the private sector does. The idea that the government drags the economy is that the way decisions are made in the government to allocate resources inevidibly causes net drag.

If the government was making decisions like the private sector does, it wouldn't be government any more. Because it would be gathering voluntary saved resources, using them to try out a plan, and attempting to generate economic profit with it. At any point that resources freed could be shown to be "better" than keeping them further invested, they would be freed for other purposes.

It isn't "a private company building a building is going to result in a more efficient building than the government", it is the buildings the private company build are going to be different ones, possibly in different spots. And point where the building project will be abandoned is also going to be different. The motivations of the people deciding what to do are different. Etc.

This is consistent with reality. Any claims you have tested it (or they have) conclusively is ridiculous; it is far to complex a situation (as is most of economics). There are arguments either way.

On the other hand, this same framing explains why government spending is different, and some things the government should and can do would not make sense for free enterprise to do. The interesting part (in an honest discussion) becomes which (style of resource expenditure) is better, short medium and long term, and who is it better for, and how do we decide?

Holding that there is never anything to be gained by having private enterprise solve a problem, because government could do it the same way, is just as questionable as the opposite. The hard part of economic is determining what to do, how to do it, and getting people to execute the required actions. All 3 work differently in a command economy (typical government and corporate ways of doing things) vs a market economy (which governments and corporations are typically embedded within).
One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision - BR

Last edited by JHVH on Fri Oct 23, 4004 BCE 6:17 pm, edited 6 times in total.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6579
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Thesh » Tue Nov 08, 2016 8:05 pm UTC

Yakk wrote:Holding that there is never anything to be gained by having private enterprise solve a problem, because government could do it the same way, is just as questionable as the opposite. The hard part of economic is determining what to do, how to do it, and getting people to execute the required actions. All 3 work differently in a command economy (typical government and corporate ways of doing things) vs a market economy (which governments and corporations are typically embedded within).


No one is advocating a command economy, so that's not relevant, and I've never met a single Democrat who doesn't agree that sometimes government can do things better, sometimes the private sector can. Republicans refuse to even acknowledge that the US healthcare system is less efficient than the UK healthcare system (either that, or they blame it on government without putting any thought into it), and argue for more privatization in face of reality.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Nov 08, 2016 8:09 pm UTC

Thesh wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:
Thesh wrote: Even the economist under Reagan who supported trickle down said it doesn't work, in fact I'm not sure there's a study that supports it, but it's still the driving principle behind Republican economic policy.


Yeah, and you and everyone else on the left have been conflating every tax reduction idea with that single misguided idea ever since. Maybe address initiatives on their own merits, rather than attacking a decades old strawman, and you'll be seen as more pragmatic, and less idealistic.


Tell me then, what merit has any Republican economic policy or or budget that the Republicans passed or heavily promoted where they didn't cut taxes massively on the wealthy, which anyone with half a brain and historical data knows has next to no impact on GDP growth, while proposing to cut spending that goes to the poor, which is the most effective fiscal policy we know of (this has been proven both theoretically, and empirically).


None of those things are why the trickle down policy of Regan's era failed.

Essentially, you've shifted from attacking tax reduction as a policy to attacking the distribution of said gains. A discussion of the virtues of progressiveness of structure is rather different from discussing overall taxation rates.

Also your source of "anyone with half a brain" is a bit weak. Let me offer a somewhat better counter. It applies to the corporate tax rate, so it's rather difficult to argue away as merely being a result of stimulus to the poor. https://www.federalreserve.gov/econresdata/feds/2016/files/2016006pap.pdf Cliff notes for those who don't want to read it: 1% cut in corporate tax rates correlates with a 3% increase in output. 'bout .4% to .6% boost to GDP. Tax increase/decreases also affect income and employment levels in exactly the way you'd think(boost taxation, employees get squeezed).

I mean, sure, we gotta have some taxes, because some bills gotta be paid for, but increased taxation, even if it's passed off as being only on the rich, does cost us all. There's room for honest debate over how much cost government services are worth, but when people start dismissing the costs as being worthy of consideration at all, you've definitely gone astray in idealism.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6579
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Thesh » Tue Nov 08, 2016 8:30 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:Also your source of "anyone with half a brain" is a bit weak. Let me offer a somewhat better counter. It applies to the corporate tax rate, so it's rather difficult to argue away as merely being a result of stimulus to the poor. https://www.federalreserve.gov/econresdata/feds/2016/files/2016006pap.pdf Cliff notes for those who don't want to read it: 1% cut in corporate tax rates correlates with a 3% increase in output. 'bout .4% to .6% boost to GDP. Tax increase/decreases also affect income and employment levels in exactly the way you'd think(boost taxation, employees get squeezed).


Thank you for making my point.

Our results suggest that increases in corporate tax rates are uniformly harmful for workers while corporate tax cuts are ineffectual in boosting economic activity
unless implemented during recessions.


And then there is this:

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=cSh

There's practically an inverse correlation between corporate tax rates, and rates today are so low there is hardly any gain to increasing them more. So if you were looking at economic policy, cutting corporate tax rates are probably the least effectual thing you can do today. So what we know from that evidence is that corporate tax rates are a poor stimulus in a recession (fiscal multiplier < 1 - this is consistent with Moody's analysis I have linked to before), meaning you get a high deficit with little extra growth, and does nothing outside of a recession.

Note, I favor eliminating the corporate taxes simply because there is no way to apply it evenly to small businesses and international corporations, and so it gives corporations a huge competitive advantage over small businesses.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
Yablo
Posts: 633
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2012 9:57 am UTC
Location: Juneau, Alaska

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Yablo » Tue Nov 08, 2016 8:35 pm UTC

duckshirt wrote:
Thesh wrote:According to that article, Trump just took the lead 32 to 25, if the trend continues he will easily take New Hampshire. Hillary is screwed unless she can find a way to make up 8 votes.

Watch out for John Kasich! Just one vote but the momentum is clearly in his favor.

Romney has just as much momentum, and if he's allowed to use last election's votes for this year, he's winning in a landslide so far.
If you like Call of Cthulhu and modern government conspiracy, check out my Delta Green thread.
Please feel free to ask questions or leave comments.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Nov 08, 2016 8:39 pm UTC

Thesh wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:Also your source of "anyone with half a brain" is a bit weak. Let me offer a somewhat better counter. It applies to the corporate tax rate, so it's rather difficult to argue away as merely being a result of stimulus to the poor. https://www.federalreserve.gov/econresdata/feds/2016/files/2016006pap.pdf Cliff notes for those who don't want to read it: 1% cut in corporate tax rates correlates with a 3% increase in output. 'bout .4% to .6% boost to GDP. Tax increase/decreases also affect income and employment levels in exactly the way you'd think(boost taxation, employees get squeezed).


Thank you for making my point.

Our results suggest that increases in corporate tax rates are uniformly harmful for workers while corporate tax cuts are ineffectual in boosting economic activity
unless implemented during recessions.


Read beyond the abstract. There's a clear correlation, it's just a lot lower. Corporations are slower to give money out in a tax cut situation than they are to stop giving it out in a tax increase, sure. But overall, you've got an amazingly clear link between taxation rates and economic activity.

Literally the next line after that, in the main article was "Second, our findings should not be interpreted as evidence that a cut in the federal corporate
income tax rate would have no beneficial effects (unless implemented in a recession)." They literally warned against *exactly* what you just said.


Note that liberal idealism generally favors focusing on spending, not tax cuts, in recessions, and decries attempts at the latter as "austerity". So, pointing out this point only further supports the view that Democrats have an idealistic blind spot here.

FiveThirtyEight wrote: It appears that the Trump campaign is filing a lawsuit against the Clark County Registrar’s Office for keeping polls open yesterday for two additional hours beyond their close time (this is being reported by CNN’s Jim Sciutto). It’s slightly confounding that they are doing so, since voters are allowed to cast ballots past the official poll closing time, as long as they were in line before the end of official voting hours. As a Clark County spokesman said a couple of days ago, “If there’s a line when closing time comes, we just keep processing voters until there’s no more line.”


Ah, I think I see the contention here. Probably the statement of "keep processing until there's no more line" implies that people who join the line after closing are still permitted to vote. I don't know if that's actually the case, or if it's just an excuse for disputing a result they believe will be unfavorable, but that's probably the root of it. Doesn't seem confounding at all.

For background, Clark County will almost certainly go democrat, and will likely take the state with it. It dominates all of Nevada, because of the low population density in the rest of the state. So, this county's results and methods of handling votes are particularly important.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6579
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Thesh » Tue Nov 08, 2016 8:48 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:Note that liberal idealism generally favors focusing on spending, not tax cuts, in recessions, and decries attempts at the latter as "austerity". So, pointing out this point only further supports the view that Democrats have an idealistic blind spot here.


Democrats were against tax cuts because of the deficit - Republicans opposed increasing taxes on the rich while complaining about the deficit, and then saying they need to cut spending - and then focus on spending that helps poor and middle class families, negating their tax cuts, and making economic growth worse - and they supported this to get out of the recession, which is mindbogglingly stupid (especially the idea that spending cuts can grow the economy during a period of high unemployment caused by a lack of demand). Most Democrats support making the tax system more progressive and cutting taxes on the poor, even in a recession, and that will grow your economy a lot more than completely eliminating corporate income tax (payroll tax, however, is a different story, and Republicans support increasing that).
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Nov 08, 2016 8:55 pm UTC

That's just the same "blame the other side for everything" approach that Republicans do. Look, both parties have created the deficit. Neither gets an out on it by blaming the opposition for everything. Whichever party is *worse* at deficit spending is always just whoever was last in power. You don't get to claim being more pragmatic by blaming the problems on the other side, and not fixing them. It's just two sides of the same coin, neither of which is interested in actually fixing the deficit, merely in claiming more resources for their pet ideology.

User avatar
Sableagle
Ormurinn's Alt
Posts: 2106
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2015 4:26 pm UTC
Location: The wrong side of the mirror
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Sableagle » Tue Nov 08, 2016 9:03 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:That's just the same "blame the other side for everything" approach that Republicans do. Look, both parties have created the deficit. Neither gets an out on it by blaming the opposition for everything. Whichever party is *worse* at deficit spending is always just whoever was last in power.
Not true from 1992 to 2004, arguably 2012 if you call the 2004-2008 shape a notch in a long downslope.

Incidentally, the guy who was President throughout that 8-year upward trend has some connections to one of the candidates in this year's election.
Oh, Willie McBride, it was all done in vain.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6579
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Thesh » Tue Nov 08, 2016 9:12 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:That's just the same "blame the other side for everything" approach that Republicans do.


I'm not blaming the Republicans solely for the deficit, I'm saying that since the recession, the Republicans were complaining about the deficit, while refusing to increase taxes on the wealthy, and in fact proposing even bigger tax cuts for the wealthy (generally with a tiny tax cut for the poor and middle class), while proposing to cut social safety net spending while struggling to recover from a recession. If you used that combination to significantly reduce the deficit like the Republicans proposed during the recovery, the drop in spending would have significantly slowed growth, and possibly caused us to go back into recession depending on the timing. If, however, you eliminated say the bottom tax bracket, then the spending would actually help. Of course, maybe harming the economy was the goal.

Republicans simply never propose cutting taxes on the poor, unless it comes with a massive tax cut for the wealthy and spending cuts that ensure that the poor don't come out ahead, and this is horrible economic policy.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Nov 08, 2016 9:22 pm UTC

Thesh wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:That's just the same "blame the other side for everything" approach that Republicans do.


I'm not blaming the Republicans solely for the deficit, I'm saying that since the recession, the Republicans were complaining about the deficit, while refusing to increase taxes on the wealthy, and in fact proposing even bigger tax cuts for the wealthy (generally with a tiny tax cut for the poor and middle class), while proposing to cut social safety net spending while struggling to recover from a recession.


Of course they did. They want less social net. This is like Republicans crying that Democrats want to cut military spending while we're in a war/in danger of a war.

Yeah. Of course they do. There's literally always a recession on or in the past, and there's literally always a war on or threatening.

Sableagle wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:That's just the same "blame the other side for everything" approach that Republicans do. Look, both parties have created the deficit. Neither gets an out on it by blaming the opposition for everything. Whichever party is *worse* at deficit spending is always just whoever was last in power.
Not true from 1992 to 2004, arguably 2012 if you call the 2004-2008 shape a notch in a long downslope.

Incidentally, the guy who was President throughout that 8-year upward trend has some connections to one of the candidates in this year's election.


Depends on who you credit with having power, to some degree, since both the house and the president have some responsibility here. The republicans under Gingrich did have an actual budget balancing kick for a while there, but one could credit much of that to partisan opposition to Clinton. Given more power, Clinton would certainly have spent more.

However, the general trend is that both parties keep spending more and more(after adjustment for inflation). Even under Clinton, while the trend was flatter, it was still increasing. So, be it deficit or taxes, both parties are in practice quite willing to spend in an extremely similar fashion overall, they merely favor different things.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6579
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Thesh » Tue Nov 08, 2016 9:30 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:
Thesh wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:That's just the same "blame the other side for everything" approach that Republicans do.


I'm not blaming the Republicans solely for the deficit, I'm saying that since the recession, the Republicans were complaining about the deficit, while refusing to increase taxes on the wealthy, and in fact proposing even bigger tax cuts for the wealthy (generally with a tiny tax cut for the poor and middle class), while proposing to cut social safety net spending while struggling to recover from a recession.


Of course they did. They want less social net. This is like Republicans crying that Democrats want to cut military spending while we're in a war/in danger of a war.

Yeah. Of course they do. There's literally always a recession on or in the past, and there's literally always a war on or threatening.


Until recently, and including during the recession, a majority of Republicans supported cutting defense spending, and no one believes that building 300 tanks to sit around is a good way to spend our money. I don't know where you get these false equivalencies to think that Republicans and Democrats are somehow the same in respect to proposing policy while ignoring facts, evidence, and consequences.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Nov 08, 2016 9:38 pm UTC

They are the same in some respects. Yes, they favor different positions, but what they do to achieve those positions is often functionally identical.

Do you have specific examples for a majority of Republicans supporting lower defense spending? Because it looks like Republicans consistently favor Defense spending substantially more than Democrats.

Image

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6800
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Tue Nov 08, 2016 9:43 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:That's just the same "blame the other side for everything" approach that Republicans do. Look, both parties have created the deficit. Neither gets an out on it by blaming the opposition for everything. Whichever party is *worse* at deficit spending is always just whoever was last in power. You don't get to claim being more pragmatic by blaming the problems on the other side, and not fixing them. It's just two sides of the same coin, neither of which is interested in actually fixing the deficit, merely in claiming more resources for their pet ideology.

That's not completely true, Obama's terms had good Annual deficit reductions and debt is a healthy percentage of the economy.

Interesting theory:
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/cli ... nst-trump/
Trump is a paper tiger, and the true train for his strength is the white hot hatred for Hillary. If we ran white bread Kaine or Biden against Trump, would Trump's anti Hillary voters defect?

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Nov 08, 2016 9:47 pm UTC

sardia wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:That's just the same "blame the other side for everything" approach that Republicans do. Look, both parties have created the deficit. Neither gets an out on it by blaming the opposition for everything. Whichever party is *worse* at deficit spending is always just whoever was last in power. You don't get to claim being more pragmatic by blaming the problems on the other side, and not fixing them. It's just two sides of the same coin, neither of which is interested in actually fixing the deficit, merely in claiming more resources for their pet ideology.

That's not completely true, Obama's terms had good Annual deficit reductions and debt is a healthy percentage of the economy.


"Barack Obama's budget is projected to run a deficit of $7.3 trillion over his eight years, making him the president with the largest budget deficit. George W. Bush is second, with a deficit of $3.29 trillion over his eight years." -Investopedia.

There's some projection of the future in there, and specific results may differ depending on measurement used, but it's ultimately irrelevant. I mean, he's already in first place, it's just a matter of by how much. It's not a close race.

Obama has not reduced the deficit. He's grown it. Any "deficit reductions" are merely plans to increase the deficit MORE, that were canceled. It's not actually a reduction in real terms.

sardia wrote:Interesting theory:
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/cli ... nst-trump/
Trump is a paper tiger, and the true train for his strength is the white hot hatred for Hillary. If we ran white bread Kaine or Biden against Trump, would Trump's anti Hillary voters defect?


Probably. Trump supporters usually default to hatred of Clinton as their first reason for voting Trump. Which, granted, is also true for the other side this time around, but it's really easy to imagine candidates that would be less hated than Trump. If someone with actual appeal were running against Clinton, she'd be dead in the water.

Edited to add, since I hadn't addressed it earlier:
Yakk wrote:The flow of tax cuts makes it efficient for extremely rich people to send you money, as that lowers their personal tax bills. Cut taxes in areas that are their pet peeves and sell it with marketing (like estate tax cuts).

This is the "drown it in a bathtub" goal. Along the way, you random walk, but it is consistent.


The flaw with the "drown it in a bathtub" strategy to cutting government via cutting taxes is that it doesn't actually force reduced spending, because deficits are a thing. So, tax cutting, while it has economic effects, hasn't actually been very effective at reducing government. Debt limits have been tried as a patch, but have proven to be pretty messy in practice.

You can't really address government size without fixing the spending problem directly. Indirect approaches all fail upon contact with reality.
Last edited by Tyndmyr on Tue Nov 08, 2016 9:56 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6579
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Thesh » Tue Nov 08, 2016 9:53 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:They are the same in some respects. Yes, they favor different positions, but what they do to achieve those positions is often functionally identical.

Do you have specific examples for a majority of Republicans supporting lower defense spending? Because it looks like Republicans consistently favor Defense spending substantially more than Democrats.

Image


Well, my claim is a incorrect - most Republicans were against increases until recently, but only a small minority supported cuts.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Nov 08, 2016 9:58 pm UTC

There is a large chunk of the US that's okay with more or less the current level, yeah, which explains the gap.

User avatar
Yakk
Poster with most posts but no title.
Posts: 11128
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 7:27 pm UTC
Location: E pur si muove

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Yakk » Tue Nov 08, 2016 10:07 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:The flaw with the "drown it in a bathtub" strategy to cutting government via cutting taxes is that it doesn't actually force reduced spending, because deficits are a thing. So, tax cutting, while it has economic effects, hasn't actually been very effective at reducing government. Debt limits have been tried as a patch, but have proven to be pretty messy in practice.

You can't really address government size without fixing the spending problem directly. Indirect approaches all fail upon contact with reality.

If you are willing to reach crisis levels, you can.

If the government has a huge amount of debt, and a new administration with control of both houses shows up, it either has to raise taxes (which they can rail against), or cut services (which are not the GOP's fault! They didn't do it!)

If they do raise taxes, they are unlikely to start a new popular program with them (if they are reasonable) and instead use them to fund existing programs and/or pay off debt.

Then you get back in power and you cut taxes some more. You get to *spend* the other party's savings. They get to play reactionary damage control.

The cycle becomes "cut taxes and raise debt" vs "raise taxes and pay off debt", not "pay off debt by cutting services" and "add government services and raise debt". In theory, the result is a smaller government than the alternative. And sometimes you get to generate a crisis (social security) and get the other side to cut some popular service! Win!

You are playing chicken with the economy, but you personally can cover it, and with a propoganda arm you can blame any damage on the other side (and threaten to in negotiations!). Dare they call your bluff? If they don't you get your way. If they do, oh well.

When they had control over both houses, they cut taxes and increased spending. The more they borrowed, the more power THEY had and the less power the NEXT administration had. Their priorities got done. Their opposition to ACA wasn't about ACA, it was about the other "team" getting something done despite the debt they saddled them with.

And tax rates are lower today than in Reagan's USA, despite the majority of the time being under a Democratic president.

Under Reagan, the Federal GDP share was ~21.6%. Today it is ~17.7%. It worked.
One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision - BR

Last edited by JHVH on Fri Oct 23, 4004 BCE 6:17 pm, edited 6 times in total.

User avatar
Deva
Has suggestions for the murderers out there.
Posts: 2041
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2011 5:18 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Deva » Tue Nov 08, 2016 10:14 pm UTC

Voted. Never waited. Processed roughly 110 ballots per hour at that location by that point. Went during sleepier hours, though.

Marks the first election of both parents agreeing on the presidential candidate.

Ends today, thankfully (…hopefully). Stops being [candidate] supporters. Returns to being people.
Changes its form depending on the observer.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Nov 08, 2016 10:19 pm UTC

Yakk wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:The flaw with the "drown it in a bathtub" strategy to cutting government via cutting taxes is that it doesn't actually force reduced spending, because deficits are a thing. So, tax cutting, while it has economic effects, hasn't actually been very effective at reducing government. Debt limits have been tried as a patch, but have proven to be pretty messy in practice.

You can't really address government size without fixing the spending problem directly. Indirect approaches all fail upon contact with reality.

If you are willing to reach crisis levels, you can.

If the government has a huge amount of debt, and a new administration with control of both houses shows up, it either has to raise taxes (which they can rail against), or cut services (which are not the GOP's fault! They didn't do it!)


The point of managing government size is to avert crisis, not to cause it. Pushing blame on the other team or not isn't relevant. That's just a matter of blame, not actually a means of fixing the root problem.

Generally speaking, it appears to be easier to start new programs or authorize new spending for one's preferred areas than to get cuts in the oppositions areas. Both sides do seek both, but the trendline at present seems to be toward government growth regardless of which party has more power...that merely determines which sectors the growth occurs in.

If they do raise taxes, they are unlikely to start a new popular program with them (if they are reasonable) and instead use them to fund existing programs and/or pay off debt.

Then you get back in power and you cut taxes some more. You get to *spend* the other party's savings. They get to play reactionary damage control.


This does not seem to actually be happening. Obama didn't gut conservative causes. Yeah, he didn't give them more than he had to, but any savings in reduced spending are vastly outstripped by new spending in liberal areas.

The same is true of Bush's presidency.

Yeah, congressional power adds a certain skewing factor there, but even with that involved, neither party seems to be in this cycle you propose. Neither is forced to save for the other, they simply BOTH spend.


Voted earlier. Lots of local issues. Apparently, the county decided to put up individual ballot questions for renaming committee positions and such. I voted no on all that, because...that's just a pointless waste of time, not a functional change. No line, everything seemed to be moving quite snappily. Trump signs seemed to predominate among the giant clusters on the way to the polls, which is odd, because MD. Maybe it's just one really enthusiastic dude who loves the shit out of Trump or something. I dunno. There was even an evenly spaced grid of Trump signs well away from the road in a less visible grassy area. Not sure I understand the rationale here.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Tue Nov 08, 2016 10:21 pm UTC

Deva wrote:Voted. Never waited. Processed roughly 110 ballots per hour at that location by that point. Went during sleepier hours, though.


Lucky. I waited 1-hour 30 minutes for the single voting machine to break (scanner-type machine)

The election judges (one Democrat + one Republican) then created an emergency storage bin, and promised to scan our ballots as soon as the technician arrived and fixed the machine. Lots of sketchy eyes as everybody in the line immediately distrusted the situation.

--------

EDIT: When the machine was working, it was able to process a ballot every 15 seconds or so. I still had over an hour wait, maybe ~15 minutes as the panicked election judges made phone calls and tried to unjam the machine before they gave up and opened up the "emergency bin".
Last edited by KnightExemplar on Tue Nov 08, 2016 10:24 pm UTC, edited 2 times in total.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6579
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Thesh » Tue Nov 08, 2016 10:21 pm UTC

So slate's new thing is tracking real-time exit poll results. So if you are a drama junkie, you can view this horror of modern electoral coverage here:

http://www.slate.com/votecastr_election ... acker.html

Hillary is up in all swing states according to that, but given that there is absolutely no track record for this kind of reporting, and given that different demographics vote at different times, I wouldn't trust it at all.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Nov 08, 2016 10:25 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:Lucky. I waited 1-hour 30 minutes for the single voting machine to break (scanner-type machine)


We had a single scanner machine too...seemed to be plugging along just fine, but yeah, relying on a single device seems super failure prone.

It's odd that voting is still this problematic. Making it reliable doesn't seem like it should be that hard.

Agreed w/regard to Slate.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests