The Politics Thread (PLAY NICELY!)

I actually agree in some ways, but again this is where we hit the rough spots and opinions. It's a mess and all I'm saying is we need a strong president who knows how to manage these messes. That's the mindset of just about everyone else voting for Trump.

And I'm sure the US could manage the same but it would require a massive change in politics.

Kiwi, fun fact: our debt doesn't matter.

The US isn't going to experience a debt crisis because we keep printing more of our own money, and it's not going to undergo hyperinflation because international demand for the $ is too great to allow for a sufficient lapse in demand to cause hyperinflation.

debt is.... fuckk how do you not know this **** already????

fukin google keynesian economics this forum isn't a fukin encyclopedia.

Debt has no fukin influence on any damn part of your country's spending's

and you spend way more on nukes then you do on education (like 4-5 times more) :

you're gonna get burnt. he has no such capacity and it's quite baffling you or any of his supporters can't see that.

holy **** all the articles that come up are hardly processable garbage. Fair enough. let me help out : http://www.maynardkeynes.org/maynard-keynes-economics.html

also Keynes (no not this dude this one )
invented the trick to borrowing money you can't pay up then borrowing again from someone else to pay the first with the obvious intent of keeping this process going unapologetically forever.

yes this is foul. yes this is the system every government except china (they are the main loaners) around the world uses even companies. yes of course, this does cause an inevitable acceleration of the phenomena due to interest on loans. yes we're fucked. but it also means no government of the world gives two blue shits about their debt.

Debt. For Gods sake, it's debt

Recent cuts in education support (getting paid to go to school ) over here measurably increased succes rates accross the board. Completely free education even for uni will only lead to higher dropout rates and more wasted time and money.

University and college level education should be accessible to all, but that doesnt mean it should be totally free.

Also, the irony of your use of "ya" is almost painful

All Trump does is jump on whatever gets him the most votes. He noticed that there is a considerable amount of xenophobic Americans so he is focusing his campaign on ideas like "build a wall on the whole border to mexiko" or "deport all 11 million illegal immigrants within 2 years".
Those claims btw are not just morally wrong but also would cost insane amount of money. Yes ofc the rest of the democratic system _probably_ (I mean the comparison is always extreme, but remember: Hitler was voted into power as well and then managed to get rid of all democratic control) will prevent Trump from doing completely ridiculous things, but even then it would mean your nation loses a bunch of years on a President who only pushes ridiculous things. I think we can agree that there are many real problems to tackle and a President like Trump will mainly do one thing: Stall the work on them.

I mean: What demand of Trump is actually something you can support because it will be good for the US? Is there a single reasonable thing that he is planning to do if he becomes the next President?!

Lol. Keynesian Economics is a sure path to failure - you end up trillions in debt with a massive gap between the rich and poor because the rich exploit the system. Classical Economics does a much better job because it takes a hands off approach to the market and taxation. This leaves less loopholes for the rich dudes and more money for the middle class to expand with. You'd get more high-income people and less problems with poverty due to expanded charity spending.

If you ignore the political bullshit that each candidate throws to the crowds, Trump wouldn't be an inherently bad choice. The elite establishment in our country hates him and is scared of him to a T. He will have a stronger foriegn policy than Obama's 'we won't do anything but I guess drones.'. He'll crack down on massive overspending within our government and hopefully repeal Obamacare.

You could do a similar analysis for each candidate, but Try!p is the one people misunderstand all the time. *oh noes he's a bigot ahhhh* ia a huge overreaction to someone who is suggesting we deport the ONLY group of people in the world willing to blow themselves up and kill thousands just to make a point. Is it wrong? Sure! But it doesn't make him racist or what have you.

That's some great bullshit you've got there Mered. Let me grab a chart to reveal how bullshit it is.



Funny, looks like the government programs of FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Johnson reduced income inequality. Who woulda thunk it.

Missunderstood? The headlines I read about Trumps statements that I remember right now are:
- Just recently he declared he'd not only be all for waterboarding but would also push for even more violent torture methods. Look at a calendar. The middle ages ended a few hundred years ago.
- That "I'll just bomb ISIS to dust" thing. It's the definition of plump violent over simplified "solutions". You have a problem? Sure I'll just bomb it away.
- That wall on the border
- That deportation plan for 11 million immigrants
- That "oh no a handful muslims committed a crime somewhere, we should probably close our borders for them"

I don't think I misunderstand the guy.

That guy never ever has made a statement I am aware of that wasn't crazy bullshit.
Want me to do a Trump like statement about the US?
"we need to cut all ties with the US because they have stupid people like Trump and anyway all Americans are murders because look at that most recent report on their war crimes. They ALL have to be assholes, no exception. I mean they are also clearly spying -see NSA- on us all the time, so they really all have to be really bad people. Probably best to deport all Americans from here right about now."
"Also we should disallow our citizens from going to the US, because a German transfer student was shot last (or the year before I dont remember exactly) year when he was in the US. Some gun-loving madman there thought it was a good idea to shoot him. We need to protected our citizens from those crazy gunslingers".
That's the amount of "reason" Trump uses.

Again can you list real plans and changes you hope to get from him?
How does he exactly crack down on overspending?
Why would taking away health care from a substantial amount of the US population help with anything?
What is a stronger foreign policy? What aims does it have? Your budget on war is already rather high, would that not increase overspending?

I don't understand, explain your believe in a few more words than just "it'll work because Trump is a strong man".
I btw agree that that "make debts to pay for debts"-stuff is a bad idea. It is bound to blow the financial system again at some point in time. But I doubt anybody can change that. The whole financial system is build under the assumption of infinite growth. That's all you need to know to figure out: It'll blow again.

It's not always a good thing to have low income inequality though. I'd say 15% on that chart would be a sweet spot.

Also, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_income_inequality_in_the_United_States#Income_taxes

This text on wikipedia is why I agree with Colin on the more intense progressive tax rate.

What are the advantages of a high income inequality?

I really like this thread, I think it helps to show why the US political system is so easily exploited--many people are not educated about the subjects they have opinions are, reliable sources for such information are tough to find, and nobody really seems to want it to change. Also, we have "winners and losers," resulting in a very binary representation of opinions, since it's way more reliable to jump on the bandwagon with the major party closest to your opinion, then it is to stick with some super minority (green, socialist, etc).

I'd say that high, or even moderate income inequality isn't a good thing. However, I do think that in a fair system, you're still going to have a significant income inequality, though more managed than currently. There should always be a gap between the crappiest jobs (fry cook) and the higher quality jobs (lead engineer), and that should always produce some income inequality. People should be allowed to make 2,3,5 times what others are making, but the issue becomes when they hoard their money or never use it to benefit others, which is where taxation should step in more than at lower levels. Right now, if you're at the top of the money making pyramid, you get to keep more of your money than those at the middle, which doesn't really make much sense. Just think, if you increase taxes by just 1% on people making $1 million, you would get a significantly more efficient return than by doing the same to those who make less money. Taxes suck, but taxes suck more when you take 25% of $100,000, leaving you with only $75,000, when you could take 50% of 1,000,000, leaving you with $500,000 (6.6 times as much net income, while only doubling taxes). That's still more than enough money for people to live on. So what if you can't by the private jet you want this year, at least the people at the bottom can afford to take a week off of work to go on a family vacation without worrying if they can make payments.

Edit: if we're going to take taxes, I wish that we would use them better, or just not take as much. There's so much inefficiency in the government that we waste so much money, and even more so when you think about how much congress wastes on their shenanigans, particularly when they have a stupidly low approval rating.

If you can't use my money right, how about you don't take it at all? Or at least represent my interests (I'm paying you) over the corporations that give out "donations" (legal bribes).

Here have a video:

From http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/3586/economics/pros-and-cons-of-inequality/
Pros of Inequality

1. If someone works harder and as a consequence receives a higher wage then this is not market failure. The promise of a higher wage is essential to encourage extra effort. By rewarding hard work, there will be a boost to productivity leading to a higher national output – so everyone can benefit.
2. Inequality is necessary to encourage entrepreneurs to take risks and set up new business. Without the prospect of substantial rewards, there would be little incentive to take risks and invest in new business opportunities.
3. Trickle Down Effect. If some people gain extra income, then this can ‘trickle down’ to other people, e.g. if an entrepreneur sets up a business he may become a millionaire, but also will create jobs and provide incomes for other workers. There may be a gap between highest and lowest earners. But, the lowest earners are still better off than without the entrepreneur. (more on trickle down effect – which is quite controversial)
4. People deserve to keep higher incomes if their skills merit it. If a top footballer gets paid £100,000 a week, this is a reflection that people are willing to pay that kind of money to watch him.

The cons of inequality on this website are also true and I'm not denying them. I said there should be moderate or even mild inequality because it should minimize the cons and keep the pros. 0% income inequality (everyone gets paid the same) is literally communism.

If you have to work 2 full time jobs to live, something is wrong.

Nobody wants 0% income inequality But there is an inequality of ... I dunno many orders of magnitude. You have people that need two jobs to get around and others who make a millions each month.
Also the "Trickle Down Effect" thing sounds like an invention by filthy rich people to justify why they are getting their next private jet while millions of other people are working their *** of just to have enough food.

People should be allowed to make 20, 50, 100, even 1000 times as much as others. As long as it's proportional to what they do, it's fine. But as a frenchman (i believe he was french) recently pointed out, most wealth is simply inherited. People make money because they have money, because they have rich dead parents.

So in stead of wealth being freed up when people die and allowing anyone to become rich (assuming they work proportionally hard for it), wealth stays locked up in rich families, who are rich because they have rich dead ancestors, who once maybe worked hard.

It's crazy. you're so wildly misinformed about your own country.

the Obama hate is real. And frankly I've witnessed so much bullshit bias about him I'm no longer inclined to dismiss pinning it on racism. we're way past the overflow now.

How could you ever hope to find out to learn what he really did if you turn down every piece of news about him?

Even the bad things he did you're wrong about : drones are much more lethal and damage-dealing than any amount of infantry.

Of course by then you get the impression he sits around idly.