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: 6580
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Thesh » Fri Jun 19, 2015 5:53 pm UTC

duckshirt wrote:Third, even though 4% is likely too ambitious, I am certain that has happened many times since FDR.


Sustained 4% growth rate? No. Individual years? Yes, I'm pretty sure every President whose last name is not Bush or Obama did 4% at least once.
Last edited by Thesh on Fri Jun 19, 2015 5:53 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
Mighty Jalapeno
Inne Juste 7 Dayes I Wille Make You A Hero!
Posts: 11265
Joined: Mon May 07, 2007 9:16 pm UTC
Location: Prince George In A Can
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Mighty Jalapeno » Fri Jun 19, 2015 5:53 pm UTC

duckshirt wrote:Third, even though 4% is likely too ambitious, I am certain that has happened many times since FDR.

It has! In a staggering coincidence, those growth peaks correspond with major international war expenditures...

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6580
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Thesh » Fri Jun 19, 2015 5:54 pm UTC

Mighty Jalapeno wrote:
duckshirt wrote:Third, even though 4% is likely too ambitious, I am certain that has happened many times since FDR.

It has! In a staggering coincidence, those growth peaks correspond with major international war expenditures...


That doesn't explain the Bush's. Both had large wars, both had terrible economies.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
Dauric
Posts: 3989
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 6:58 pm UTC
Location: In midair, traversing laterally over a container of sharks. No water, just sharks, with lasers.

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Dauric » Fri Jun 19, 2015 5:58 pm UTC

Thesh wrote:We've done 4% in the 90s, but not sustained. 4% sustained for 8 years would be a 37% increase in the size of the economy. In the last 15 years, our economy has grown 33% (I was wrong about 2.5% average growth for the past 15 years, I was going off of memory but that was our average not counting the recession). From 1970-1999 we averaged 3.2% growth.


I'd read somewhere, though I can't find it now, that a not-insignificant portion of that 4% economic growth came from an easing of credit standards and increased consumer borrowing that lead to multiple bubbles (dot-com/bomb of the late 90's and housing bubble of the 2000's among others). The grand upshot of their argument was the numbers used to calculate that GDP increase didn't reflect that the increase wasn't built on actual productivity put rather promises of future productivity (which would pay off the consumer debts).

Economics isn't my field so I'm not sure how well that claim stands up, maybe we've got some experts 'round these parts that would be more knowledgeable about it.
We're in the traffic-chopper over the XKCD boards where there's been a thread-derailment. A Liquified Godwin spill has evacuated threads in a fourty-post radius of the accident, Lolcats and TVTropes have broken free of their containers. It is believed that the Point has perished.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6580
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Thesh » Fri Jun 19, 2015 6:24 pm UTC

Dauric wrote:
Thesh wrote:We've done 4% in the 90s, but not sustained. 4% sustained for 8 years would be a 37% increase in the size of the economy. In the last 15 years, our economy has grown 33% (I was wrong about 2.5% average growth for the past 15 years, I was going off of memory but that was our average not counting the recession). From 1970-1999 we averaged 3.2% growth.


I'd read somewhere, though I can't find it now, that a not-insignificant portion of that 4% economic growth came from an easing of credit standards and increased consumer borrowing that lead to multiple bubbles (dot-com/bomb of the late 90's and housing bubble of the 2000's among others). The grand upshot of their argument was the numbers used to calculate that GDP increase didn't reflect that the increase wasn't built on actual productivity put rather promises of future productivity (which would pay off the consumer debts).

Economics isn't my field so I'm not sure how well that claim stands up, maybe we've got some experts 'round these parts that would be more knowledgeable about it.


I can't really say anything with regards to that, but only the figures I have seen. Post WWII, the 1950s and 1960s are the strongest decades, averaging 4.4% (but with their share of recessions, and periods of weak growth, so not sustained). The 1950s was coming off the heals of the post-WWII recession. Our largest years for growth are, of course, following recessions (this stopped happening starting with the 2000/2001 recession). The 1950s and 1960s saw the largest gains in productivity of any other decade as well as the strongest post-war growth, but of course so did the 2000s which also had the worst growth. Total employment didn't really grow amazingly in the 1950s, but was fairly strong in the 1960s which also saw the largest post-WWII productivity growth. I suspect the advancements in manufacturing technologies are the largest reasons for the growth in productivity in the 50s and 60s.

The 1970s, strangely, saw the largest growth in total employment (final wave in baby boomers, plus more women entering the workforce), but didn't have amazing growth overall, which is probably due to the lack of productivity gains as many women without much experience in the workforce started getting jobs. The 1980s continued the trend of the 1970s with more women entering, although the baby boomers were a much smaller contribution and it also didn't have strong productivity gains. The 1990s had the tech boom, and saw pretty good productivity gains just without a large increase in total employment; probably a combination of the new tech bringing more highly-educated jobs, as well as women becoming much more experienced. The 2000s saw a combination of jobs going oversees, jobs going away through technology (e.g. the Internet killing many physical stores), and the baby boomers starting to retire (which wasn't enough to make up for the job losses from off-shoring and the internet, as we still saw a low demand for labor overall); it did however have the strongest growth in productivity since the 1960s, just without any of it translating to higher wages (due to low demand for labor).
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Fri Jun 19, 2015 7:07 pm UTC

sardia wrote:Why do you think 4% growth is achievable? I feel you don't truly appreciate the scale of the economy if you think 4% isn't a ridiculous exaggerated impossible goal. It's on par with " we can confiscate every gun in the country and lower ownership to below 4%. If anything, seizing all of guns would be easier than a 'mere' 4%increase of 17,000,000,000,000 dollars. I understand you want clear goals but it you don't realize the goals are impossible in the first place, it speaks poorly on both the candidate and any supporters.


Because it actually happens? What more do I need than historical fact? Sure, it's significant...but it's not impossible. Hell, 5% growth rates have happened, but at that point, you're scraping against the edge of the bell curve, so as a sustained goal, it's a bit unlikely. Still, you don't really expect candidates to set below average goals for the stuff they're focusing on. So....4% isn't that surprising.

Zamfir wrote:
Unless you are suggesting Bush is going to run on a policy of massive immigration

That is what his link says, right? Most of it is run of the mill cut-taxes-slash-social-spending-watch-miracle. The original part is that he wants' economic oriented' immigration instead of 'family oriented' immigration. Which, from skimming the intertubes, means importing lots of cheap workers who will be deported if they lose their job. Dubai-light, so to speak.

I doubt that would be politically feasible on the scale to grow the economy by exrta percent points, but such a play Lucy might indeed boost GDP growth by percent-points (though probably not GDP per resident...)


Immigration is great for growth, yeah. I read it as the republican-acceptable way of working on easing immigration rules, so it kind of makes sense. At least in theory. In practice, who knows how much of his plan'll actually make it into implementation. Such are politics. And then, it's blame game time!

Thesh wrote:
Mighty Jalapeno wrote:
duckshirt wrote:Third, even though 4% is likely too ambitious, I am certain that has happened many times since FDR.

It has! In a staggering coincidence, those growth peaks correspond with major international war expenditures...


That doesn't explain the Bush's. Both had large wars, both had terrible economies.


Long term, you're gonna want to keep wars down if you want to focus on growth, sure. Resources that in turn produce things are going to be more helpful than stuff you blow up.

Of course, everyone wants peace...while running, and the situation hasn't changed to be dangerous yet. So, yknow, who knows how that'll turn out. Maybe we'll get to invade Iraq again. Third time's the charm, right?

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby duckshirt » Fri Jun 19, 2015 7:15 pm UTC

Thesh wrote:
duckshirt wrote:Third, even though 4% is likely too ambitious, I am certain that has happened many times since FDR.


Sustained 4% growth rate? No. Individual years? Yes, I'm pretty sure every President whose last name is not Bush or Obama did 4% at least once.

I would say an 8 year period averaging 4% is sustained growth... There will always be bubbles and recessions and over reactions to them.
lol everything matters
-Ed

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6580
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Thesh » Fri Jun 19, 2015 7:25 pm UTC

Last time that happened was 1965-1972; there is little reason to believe it will happen again any time soon (given differences in demographic changes).
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
Dauric
Posts: 3989
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 6:58 pm UTC
Location: In midair, traversing laterally over a container of sharks. No water, just sharks, with lasers.

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Dauric » Fri Jun 19, 2015 8:19 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:
Zamfir wrote:
Unless you are suggesting Bush is going to run on a policy of massive immigration

That is what his link says, right? Most of it is run of the mill cut-taxes-slash-social-spending-watch-miracle. The original part is that he wants' economic oriented' immigration instead of 'family oriented' immigration. Which, from skimming the intertubes, means importing lots of cheap workers who will be deported if they lose their job. Dubai-light, so to speak.

I doubt that would be politically feasible on the scale to grow the economy by exrta percent points, but such a play Lucy might indeed boost GDP growth by percent-points (though probably not GDP per resident...)


Immigration is great for growth, yeah. I read it as the republican-acceptable way of working on easing immigration rules, so it kind of makes sense. At least in theory. In practice, who knows how much of his plan'll actually make it into implementation. Such are politics. And then, it's blame game time!


.. but... wait... Doesn't this go directly against the typical Republican "farglebargle" that we can't let those darn foreigners in to the country or they will steal American jobs from Americans?
We're in the traffic-chopper over the XKCD boards where there's been a thread-derailment. A Liquified Godwin spill has evacuated threads in a fourty-post radius of the accident, Lolcats and TVTropes have broken free of their containers. It is believed that the Point has perished.

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Fri Jun 19, 2015 8:53 pm UTC

Dauric wrote:.. but... wait... Doesn't this go directly against the typical Republican "farglebargle" that we can't let those darn foreigners in to the country or they will steal American jobs from Americans?


There's a lot of terrible fuzziness on that. I mean, hell, you could frame this move as being "anti family", which also sounds pretty damn bad for repubs, but whatever. There's tolerance for a certain degree of flip flopping as long as you frame it right.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6801
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Fri Jun 19, 2015 11:37 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:
sardia wrote:Why do you think 4% growth is achievable? I feel you don't truly appreciate the scale of the economy if you think 4% isn't a ridiculous exaggerated impossible goal. It's on par with " we can confiscate every gun in the country and lower ownership to below 4%. If anything, seizing all of guns would be easier than a 'mere' 4%increase of 17,000,000,000,000 dollars. I understand you want clear goals but it you don't realize the goals are impossible in the first place, it speaks poorly on both the candidate and any supporters.


Because it actually happens? What more do I need than historical fact? Sure, it's significant...but it's not impossible. Hell, 5% growth rates have happened, but at that point, you're scraping against the edge of the bell curve, so as a sustained goal, it's a bit unlikely. Still, you don't really expect candidates to set below average goals for the stuff they're focusing on. So....4% isn't that surprising.


5% growth happened once and it took a world war. But that's not what Jeb was promising. He's saying that if he is elected godking, his policies can somehow get us to 4% growth. I'm not gonna discount the political chances here, just the effects of policy x on GDP growth rate.

First, the headwinds: Babyboomers are retiring. Is Jeb promising to take all their money and use it for more productive purposes? Nope.
Is Jeb promising to replace them with young able bodied people? Kinda sorta, it's called immmigration policy changes and he hasn't campaigned for opening up the floodgates on the border.

Next, fiscal policy. Is he going to slash fiscal spending and fundamentally alter our tax system, like say Rand with a consumption instead of income or a 0% income/investment tax rate? No, cuz Jeb is the moderate candidate, he's not offering that at all. Not to mention any predictions that people are perfectly responsive to tax cuts(hint, it's underwhelming, see the bush tax cuts).
What about fiscal stimulus by spending government dollars on high returning investments? nope, cuz those are liberal ideas, and Jeb is a conservative.
Is there a large pool of workers ready to enter the labor force, a la women entering the work force? Not without immigration it's not.

His only other options are boosting productivity and starting a massive war. Maybe Bush has invented cold fusion and is going to attack Russia and China. Now that would get us to 4% without Jeb violating his campaign promises.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/18/upsho ... 0002&abg=0
http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolit ... to-see-how

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby duckshirt » Sun Jun 21, 2015 8:02 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:
Dauric wrote:.. but... wait... Doesn't this go directly against the typical Republican "farglebargle" that we can't let those darn foreigners in to the country or they will steal American jobs from Americans?


There's a lot of terrible fuzziness on that. I mean, hell, you could frame this move as being "anti family", which also sounds pretty damn bad for repubs, but whatever. There's tolerance for a certain degree of flip flopping as long as you frame it right.


Jeb Bush is already considered a moderate and is disliked by most conservatives.
lol everything matters
-Ed

User avatar
mathmannix
Posts: 1446
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2012 2:12 pm UTC
Location: Washington, DC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby mathmannix » Mon Jun 22, 2015 2:38 pm UTC

Liri wrote:I'm from and live in the two most heavily gerrymandered districts in NC (and two of the worst in the nation). The latest redrawing was done when Republicans won back the legislature in 2010 after not being in power since Reconstruction, and they were quite biased towards Democrats before this.

Image
and
Image
(seahorse)

It's unlikely things will change any time soon, though maybe Bernie will appeal to older Blue-dog Democrats that have switched to voting Republican.

Wow, just wow. Anytime I see maps of districts like that... wow.

I am very politically biased, but as a staunch anti-Democrat, even if the gerrymandering is done by Republicans, I still hate it. How could anyone consider this fair? There really needs to be an Amendment to fix this.

For most states, it would probably work to say, you have to divide your districts along county boundaries. Each district has to be composed of a contiguous collection of counties. That would work for most states, including North Carolina. Now obviously the most populous county, Los Angeles County (with 10 million people) needs more than one district to keep them even (right now it has roughly 14, but of course they don't line up so that's rough.) And New York City has 11... roughly 3 each for Queens and Brooklyn, 2 each for Bronx and Manhattan, and one for Staten Island. Maybe for only the counties that need multiple districts, then you have to use a collection of contiguous townships (the level of geographic administration below counties, for most states.)

The amendment would still allow a little wiggle room for politicians to decide which counties to group together, so they could still play their game to some extent, but nothing like the abomination of Illinois-4, which "has two absurdly gerrymandered halves held together by a thin strip of land at its western edge that is nothing more than the median strip along Interstate Highway 294." (source)
I hear velociraptor tastes like chicken.

Puppyclaws
Posts: 391
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 7:08 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Puppyclaws » Mon Jun 22, 2015 3:39 pm UTC

Illinois is great at this game. Check out the tiny strip of land that connects O'Hare Airport to the city. https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Municip ... re_Airport

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6580
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Thesh » Mon Jun 22, 2015 3:43 pm UTC

California has improved significantly since we introduced the nonpartisan citizens redistricting committee. I'd like to see more states start doing the same.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
mathmannix
Posts: 1446
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2012 2:12 pm UTC
Location: Washington, DC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby mathmannix » Mon Jun 22, 2015 5:55 pm UTC

Or... to go a different way, a way that would be fair (and maybe even closer to something the Founding Fathers intended):

the original intent of the Great Compromise was to let one house (Senate) be fair across all states (like Delaware and Rhode Island wanted - they were (then) the two states with the smallest populations, as well as (still) the smallest land areas) and the other house (of Representin') be unfair towards the states with larger populations (like Virginia and Pennsylvania, or today California and Texas, want[ed].) I don't think they were assuming people would be divided that much on issues within states, just that different states would think differently from each other. (This is why the electoral vote system is winner-of-state-takes-all.) So anyway, this method would be easier to do now, with fancy computers and whatnot, and would basically give each state the same type of agreement between its delegation to Congress that was originally presumed.

Just divide voters by last name, alphabetically, into however many virtual districts are necessary per state.

It's completely fair, and there can't be any charges of gerrymandering.

EDIT: while we're at it, we could get rid of the whole two-party idea (for the House, anyway). There could still be candidates that identify as a certain faction or whatever, but they wouldn't have to formally belong to a national political party. (Let there be more than two candidates, and the plurality wins, not a necessary majority.)
Last edited by mathmannix on Mon Jun 22, 2015 5:59 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
I hear velociraptor tastes like chicken.


User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6801
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Tue Jun 23, 2015 2:16 am UTC

Mighty Jalapeno wrote:Wagging the dog is getting more difficult! Whatever shall we do?!

Since when did you become so antiscience? Would you be equally happy if our census polls were also declining in quality?

User avatar
Mighty Jalapeno
Inne Juste 7 Dayes I Wille Make You A Hero!
Posts: 11265
Joined: Mon May 07, 2007 9:16 pm UTC
Location: Prince George In A Can
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Mighty Jalapeno » Tue Jun 23, 2015 4:11 am UTC

Since census polls and political polls are about as similar as thesis papers and YouTube comments, I really don't see how they even belong in the same sentence.

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Jun 23, 2015 3:20 pm UTC

mathmannix wrote:Or... to go a different way, a way that would be fair (and maybe even closer to something the Founding Fathers intended):

the original intent of the Great Compromise was to let one house (Senate) be fair across all states (like Delaware and Rhode Island wanted - they were (then) the two states with the smallest populations, as well as (still) the smallest land areas) and the other house (of Representin') be unfair towards the states with larger populations (like Virginia and Pennsylvania, or today California and Texas, want[ed].) I don't think they were assuming people would be divided that much on issues within states, just that different states would think differently from each other. (This is why the electoral vote system is winner-of-state-takes-all.) So anyway, this method would be easier to do now, with fancy computers and whatnot, and would basically give each state the same type of agreement between its delegation to Congress that was originally presumed.

Just divide voters by last name, alphabetically, into however many virtual districts are necessary per state.

It's completely fair, and there can't be any charges of gerrymandering.

EDIT: while we're at it, we could get rid of the whole two-party idea (for the House, anyway). There could still be candidates that identify as a certain faction or whatever, but they wouldn't have to formally belong to a national political party. (Let there be more than two candidates, and the plurality wins, not a necessary majority.)


I believe the idea with doing it by area is to provide representation for regional issues. Splitting out by last name would not really address this.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6801
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Tue Jun 23, 2015 6:41 pm UTC

Mighty Jalapeno wrote:Since census polls and political polls are about as similar as thesis papers and YouTube comments, I really don't see how they even belong in the same sentence.

They are more alike than you think. Namely, most of the stuff posted is crap, and you get a few diamonds in the rough.
Is your beef against bad polls designed to sway votes? Or all polls?

User avatar
Mighty Jalapeno
Inne Juste 7 Dayes I Wille Make You A Hero!
Posts: 11265
Joined: Mon May 07, 2007 9:16 pm UTC
Location: Prince George In A Can
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Mighty Jalapeno » Tue Jun 23, 2015 6:48 pm UTC

Just the dozens and dozens of different political polls that come out every few days, show wildly different numbers, and are generally skewed by horribly-phrased questions ("Are you against a: The Affordable Care Act or b: America? Pick one.") Also somewhat confused, offended and upset by the phenomena of polls actually affecting voting and elections. That's like the thermometer affecting the weather... but in politics, people hear "CANDIDATE A TOTALLY HAS A LOCK ON THIS! CANDIDATE B MIGHT AS WELL JUST GIVE UP!" so people don't bother going out to vote for Candidate B... or worse, they change sides to be on the "winning team", which was a phenomenon explained to me on Facebook. It is literally one of the dumbest things I've ever heard in my life.

User avatar
Dauric
Posts: 3989
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 6:58 pm UTC
Location: In midair, traversing laterally over a container of sharks. No water, just sharks, with lasers.

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Dauric » Tue Jun 23, 2015 7:19 pm UTC

A corollary to Mighty Jalapeno's point is the importance the media places on all these polls as opposed to say some degree of scholarly analysis about the policies the candidates are spewing. It's really no wonder that candidates don't elaborate on what they would do to achieve 4% sustained growth, they just get polled on whether people would like sustained 4% growth and that becomes the lion's share of their media coverage.

I know -why- we don't get proper policy analysis, it's not sexy. Experts droning on about economics or diplomacy or national security can be lengthy and more than a little dry, where a horse-race of a popularity contest expressed in 5-minute (or less) soundbites sounds all exciting, and is brief enough to be over before the shiny wears off.

Still, every time I hear news outlets treat elections as a polling-data horse race I think the candidates (and some of the news commentators) should be strapped to pony-carts for our amusement.
We're in the traffic-chopper over the XKCD boards where there's been a thread-derailment. A Liquified Godwin spill has evacuated threads in a fourty-post radius of the accident, Lolcats and TVTropes have broken free of their containers. It is believed that the Point has perished.


cphite
Posts: 1362
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 5:27 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby cphite » Tue Jun 23, 2015 7:23 pm UTC

mathmannix wrote:Or... to go a different way, a way that would be fair (and maybe even closer to something the Founding Fathers intended):

the original intent of the Great Compromise was to let one house (Senate) be fair across all states (like Delaware and Rhode Island wanted - they were (then) the two states with the smallest populations, as well as (still) the smallest land areas) and the other house (of Representin') be unfair towards the states with larger populations (like Virginia and Pennsylvania, or today California and Texas, want[ed].) I don't think they were assuming people would be divided that much on issues within states, just that different states would think differently from each other. (This is why the electoral vote system is winner-of-state-takes-all.) So anyway, this method would be easier to do now, with fancy computers and whatnot, and would basically give each state the same type of agreement between its delegation to Congress that was originally presumed.

Just divide voters by last name, alphabetically, into however many virtual districts are necessary per state.

It's completely fair, and there can't be any charges of gerrymandering.


But it also completely defeats the purpose of having a House of Representin' in the first place, which is to directly represent the actual people living in a district; so unless you're also advocating that we physically relocate voters based on their last names, the idea falls apart. :wink:

EDIT: while we're at it, we could get rid of the whole two-party idea (for the House, anyway). There could still be candidates that identify as a certain faction or whatever, but they wouldn't have to formally belong to a national political party. (Let there be more than two candidates, and the plurality wins, not a necessary majority.)


Umm... that's actually how it is already... while it's relatively rare for third parties to get elected, it does happen. The House is actually the easiest (relatively speaking) to get into as a third party candidate on the national level.

User avatar
Djehutynakht
Posts: 1546
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2011 1:37 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Djehutynakht » Mon Jun 29, 2015 11:44 am UTC

The DNC has now kinda ticked me off.

If you go on their website, democrats.org, and click on "2016", do you know what you get?

Information about Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton and other prospective Democratic hopefuls, as well as Democratic ideas and missions for the 2016 elections?

Nope.

The entire section of the Democratic website devoted to the 2016 elections is profiles of all of the Republican candidates, lambasting all of them and outlining why all of them would be horrible presidents.

I think it's seriously the worst level of "going negative" in a campaign. Usually, even, you wait a little bit till they've agreed on a nominee and then attack him unilaterally. But their website is basically devoted to attacking the field as a whole, while completely ignoring the candidates which are running in their own party.

I think it reflects negatively on them, frankly.

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Jun 29, 2015 1:46 pm UTC

That sounds like terrible strategy. Going too negative too early definitely does look poor. You need to establish yourself, not merely tear down the other guy. Sure, sure, you can do some tearing down later, but usually you wanna start the building first.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6580
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Thesh » Mon Jun 29, 2015 8:04 pm UTC

So a spanish language channel, Univision, has chosen not to air Miss USA or Miss Universe after Trump made a blanket statement calling Mexican immigrants "rapists" and so Trump threw a fit, threatened to sue (doesn't the right hate the idea of people suing for every little thing?), and published a Univision news anchor's personal phone number online. Now NBC has cut ties with him:

http://money.cnn.com/2015/06/26/media/d ... f-courses/
https://fortune.com/2015/06/29/nbc-donald-trump/

Proving once again, that the only thing he cares about is attention, not actually trying to win.

As for the DNC, they're taking the approach "It's better to not say anything at all about what you believe, than to say things that voters might disagree with" and so they've decided that best way to handle that is with attacks. It's stupid, and it represents everything that is wrong with politics in America today.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Jun 30, 2015 6:12 pm UTC

Christie declares he's officially running for the GOP nomination as well, leaving you, me and Hillary Clinton as the only people left in the country NOT running for it.

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Diadem » Wed Jul 01, 2015 2:10 am UTC

Holy shit I knew Trump was an idiot but I had no idea he was such an idiot.

I understand now why no one takes him seriously. He's both a complete idiot and a complete asshole.
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


User avatar
Djehutynakht
Posts: 1546
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2011 1:37 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Djehutynakht » Thu Jul 02, 2015 3:14 pm UTC

Polling data is largely completely irrelevant this early in the game.

User avatar
Mighty Jalapeno
Inne Juste 7 Dayes I Wille Make You A Hero!
Posts: 11265
Joined: Mon May 07, 2007 9:16 pm UTC
Location: Prince George In A Can
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Mighty Jalapeno » Thu Jul 02, 2015 3:19 pm UTC

Djehutynakht could also have said: wrote:Polling data is largely completely irrelevant this late in human civilization.

Also true.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6801
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Sat Jul 04, 2015 5:13 pm UTC

Somewhat related political stuff
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/05/busin ... f=business
TLDR: Government needs money, so taxes should come as efficiently as possible. Property taxes are super efficient & consistent at transferring wealth to the government with minimal damage to the economy.
Spoiler:
If you’re a homeowner, you probably don’t like paying property taxes. But economists like property taxes for the same reason taxpayers hate them: They’re hard to avoid.
A 2008 study by researchers at the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development looked at a number of countries and found that taxes on real property caused the least drag on gross domestic product per dollar of revenue raised. Next came sales taxes, personal income taxes and corporate income taxes. In other words, property taxes were the best way to collect revenue without hurting the economy too much.

Whenever someone promises to hold down or cut taxes, what they're really doing is making the government less efficient. It may sound good but it screws you later in subtle ways.
E.g. Cutting property taxes will raise sales taxes. Sales tax increases push people to make inefficient choices like traveling across county lines to avoid taxes or depressing spending on sales taxed items. Then the budget gets further out of whack, so taxes rise more to balance the budget. That incurs further economic inefficiencies as more people change behavior to avoid the higher sales taxes. Now if you just raised the property tax, people can't avoid them and they pay it.

Overall, the money collected is roughly the same, but property taxes don't make people dance in circles just so government can pay the bills. Just a little tip when you see those yearly property tax proposals (or lack thereof)

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Jul 06, 2015 7:58 pm UTC

sardia wrote:Whenever someone promises to hold down or cut taxes, what they're really doing is making the government less efficient. It may sound good but it screws you later in subtle ways.


This doesn't really follow from your quote.

Usually, the cut taxes/hold down taxes accompanies promises of reduced wasteage, reduced spending on x, etc. Unsurprisingly, both parties are big fans of gains for the things they like by cutting the things they don't. Wooo, solar energy will basically cost us nothing if we cut the shit out of the military! We can have awesome low taxes if we cut the crap out of welfare!

And low or high taxes, the tax burden is optimized not for efficiency, but for taxpayer acceptance. Rather than concentrating it all into a single, more efficient tax system, it's a bunch of smaller things. Even if the overall burden is greater, each individual bit is less painful at once.

Due to this system, it is rare to see a true consolidation scheme. Usually it's "we need more money for schools, so we want to raise the property taxes". No associated decrease is proposed for say, sales tax or gas tax, because those are set by different folks than the ones who set the property taxes. And then, when approved, the legislature is apt to decrease funding to schools from the general fund for schools, and spend more on other things. End result: Schools not a lot different, higher property taxes, no lower taxes elsewhere.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6801
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Tue Jul 07, 2015 12:55 am UTC

In your example, you implied that nothing really changed when you raised property taxes for schools, but then general funds to schools was reduced to spend more on other things. Underlined for emphasized benefit that you casually disregarded. That's a benefit the government got out of raising taxes, and then fiddling with the budget that they couldn't get before. Why would you think there was no net increase in your own example?

The article was fairly straightforward, applied to your example it would be as follows:
Taxes are proposed to increase school funding. The legislature is apt to decrease funding to schools from the general fund for schools, and spend more on other things. End result: Schools not a lot different, higher property taxes, no lower taxes elsewhere, but more money is available for the government to spend on priorities.
What's different is you would either negatively impact the economy more or it would raise less funds if you used taxes that are easy to evade. The most economically efficient taxes are property taxes. Raising other taxes too much would start adversely affecting economic behavior and provides inconsistent revenue(aka, impossible to plan around).

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Jul 07, 2015 3:31 pm UTC

sardia wrote:In your example, you implied that nothing really changed when you raised property taxes for schools, but then general funds to schools was reduced to spend more on other things. Underlined for emphasized benefit that you casually disregarded. That's a benefit the government got out of raising taxes, and then fiddling with the budget that they couldn't get before. Why would you think there was no net increase in your own example?


In other words, the money is spent on things that they couldn't justify the spending on if proposed in an up front manner.

The point is that I DONT have the option to vote for all taxes to become property taxes, conveniently concise as that would be...I only have the option to vote for additional taxes, not to improve taxation efficiency.

And if you honestly wanted to improve efficiency, you'd be opposing the death tax, and other additional, new forms of taxation in favor of a simple plan. For instance, Rand actually is proposing a much simpler tax structure. I'm not overly optimistic about the chances of this actually happening, mind, but

In short, no hypocrisy actually exists in opposing higher property taxes, since not displacing other taxation means we're not fixing any inefficiencies. They still exist. It's just a straightforward disagreement over overall taxation levels.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6580
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Thesh » Sun Jul 12, 2015 1:15 am UTC

So recently Bush got a lot of flack for stating that Americans aren't working enough, then he later said that he was talking about involuntary underemployed. His full quote is here:

Jeb Bush wrote:My aspiration for the country, and I believe we can achieve it, is 4 percent growth as far as the eye can see. Which means we have to be a lot more productive, workforce participation has to rise from its all-time modern lows. It means that people need to work longer hours.


Personally, reading that quote, I don't buy it. It's a pretty common Republican narrative to blame our economic troubles on lazy people who are staying at home collecting welfare checks (it was his Brother who told a Single Mom how great it was that she was working three jobs, and that it was "uniquely American", after all), and the wording "we have to be a lot more productive" rather than "we need to invest in technology to improve productivity" and "people need to work longer hours" rather than "we need to create more full time jobs" seems to suggest that he believes it's the workers who are the problem.

Also, it should be stated that the comment is stupid regardless of the intent. It ignores that workforce participation and average hours worked are down because older people are retiring or taking part time jobs to supplement social security, and that we are still barely below 2007 in average annual hours worked (1789 in 2014 vs 1797 in 2007, according to the OECD) and that only a complete moron would think that focusing on those areas to achieve sustained 4% growth is realistic; this is especially true given the highest productivity growth ever seen for any 10 year period since 1947 was 3.1% (for 1959-1968), compared to the 2000s which had 2.6% growth in labor productivity which beat out every 10 year period starting after 1973 and ending before 2003, and the 2000s had poor economic growth - even if we did 3.1% productivity growth every year in the 2000s, we would have still only averaged 3% GDP growth from 2000-2007.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Jul 13, 2015 4:20 pm UTC

Mighty Jalapeno wrote:And yet, still ahead in the polls.


This early on, name recognition from beforehand is still huge. Betting against Trump getting the nom seems pretty safe and wise. He's simply too much of a jackass.

Thesh wrote:So recently Bush got a lot of flack for stating that Americans aren't working enough, then he later said that he was talking about involuntary underemployed. His full quote is here:

Jeb Bush wrote:My aspiration for the country, and I believe we can achieve it, is 4 percent growth as far as the eye can see. Which means we have to be a lot more productive, workforce participation has to rise from its all-time modern lows. It means that people need to work longer hours.


Well, that's one approach, sure. Productivity and folks working do go hand in hand. It's not a terribly novel approach, and it of course raises the question of how he'll improve workforce participation, but there's nothing really crazy about that.

Thesh wrote:S
Personally, reading that quote, I don't buy it. It's a pretty common Republican narrative to blame our economic troubles on lazy people who are staying at home collecting welfare checks (it was his Brother who told a Single Mom how great it was that she was working three jobs, and that it was "uniquely American", after all), and the wording "we have to be a lot more productive" rather than "we need to invest in technology to improve productivity" and "people need to work longer hours" rather than "we need to create more full time jobs" seems to suggest that he believes it's the workers who are the problem.


Judging him by what his relatives have done/republican steriotypes is...ehhh. He may blame lazy people in the future, but this statement isn't hatred directed towards the poor.

Talking about unemployment rates is really, really common, and updating that to include underemployment is basically common sense. It doesn't mean one is necessarily blaming everything on lazy people. Your suggestions are more specific, and include assumptions that he may not share(for instance, technology can improve productivity, but tech investment isn't the ONLY way to do so).

Thesh wrote:Also, it should be stated that the comment is stupid regardless of the intent. It ignores that workforce participation and average hours worked are down because older people are retiring or taking part time jobs to supplement social security, and that we are still barely below 2007 in average annual hours worked (1789 in 2014 vs 1797 in 2007, according to the OECD) and that only a complete moron would think that focusing on those areas to achieve sustained 4% growth is realistic; this is especially true given the highest productivity growth ever seen for any 10 year period since 1947 was 3.1% (for 1959-1968), compared to the 2000s which had 2.6% growth in labor productivity which beat out every 10 year period starting after 1973 and ending before 2003, and the 2000s had poor economic growth - even if we did 3.1% productivity growth every year in the 2000s, we would have still only averaged 3% GDP growth from 2000-2007.


He is unlikely to be president for ten years. A four year term of consistent average growth is, while still optimistic, far more frequent.

Also, strictly speaking, post recession is a good time to be making that kind of statement. Regardless of his tactics, it's simply easier to pull off higher growth once you've gotten over a big correction. Making the same promise just after the housing bubble burst would be much harder, because you've got to deal with that mess first.

Again, I'm more interested in the "how" than the specifics of the promise.

Cradarc
Posts: 455
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2014 11:30 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Cradarc » Tue Jul 14, 2015 1:38 am UTC

BERNIE SANDERS

Okay, I'll leave now.
This is a block of text that can be added to posts you make. There is a 300 character limit.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests