|
My Imaginary GF posted:Solution: A shitload of hard work, organizing, and increased amounts of money in politics.
|
#
¿
Dec 25, 2014 00:11
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 19, 2024 12:47 |
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:The cost/benefit of social program spending does not favor increasing allocations in order to win elections until the average cost per race is several times current levels, at a minimum. So how does more money in politics ever lead to lower price per votes for populist policy? Specifically in a society where the wealth gap is as high as our own?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 25, 2014 00:28
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Because every policy position has costs associated with it in terms of votes. More money in politics increasing return on populist policy positions which directly and visibly benefit lower classes. While these currently take the form of regressive tax structures, general demographic trends make those policies unsustainable: you can't cut taxes for someone who you've made tax exempt. You are gonna have to spell it out for me. By more money in politics you are talking about money supporting populist policy? Where does that money come from and how could it compete with established sources of campaign revenue? What about demographic trends suggests that plutocratic policies are unsustainable? Current trends show that the ultra-wealthy will continue to amass their wealth at higher than market rates.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 25, 2014 01:18
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:It doesn't compete, it lowers the amount of capital a campaign is required to raise in order to be competitive. Increase of contribution limits incentivizes maintainance of a few, highly lucrative interests over a broad subset of general interests. More money, less individuals whom you need to please, more options for innovative policy positions which lower price per vote while also raising necessary capital to be competitive. You realize that this is a garbage answer right? The problem isn't the number of people that Congress needs to please, it is the interests which congress is beholden to. Increasing contribution limits only allows for more spending among the people who have already been spending money. Senators only needing one major donor doesn't necessarily lead to reforms, in fact I don't see how things would be different at all. It certainly wouldn't lower the amount of capital that a campaign needs to raise, how does that make any sense at all?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 25, 2014 08:47
|
|
|
lmfao if you seriously don't believe that the US has a ruling class.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 25, 2014 22:43
|
|
|
It's not that it's only impractical, it's also insufficient.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 26, 2014 04:11
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:loving internet marxists, don't kill the rich, invent creative ways to increase their effective rate of taxation through novel and actionable policy solutions. Sound and fury. E: you never explained how fewer campaign donors leads to economic reforms or how increasing campaign donation caps leads to less capital required to run an election. Miltank fucked around with this message at 09:08 on Dec 26, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Dec 26, 2014 09:04
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:That's such a lazy and uncreative way to develop policy. loving christ, this thread is full of stereotypical leftists and lacks any appropriate sense of moderation and work ethic to effect policy implementation. It's sound and fury because no loving duh, that is the whole point of this thread- ways to tax capital out from under the ultra-wealthy. All the work ethic in the world isn't going to implement such policy without some sort of plan of action. A small number of campaign financiers to appease leads to economic reform how? That makes no sense.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 26, 2014 09:31
|
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:Global median per-capita income is just under $3000. How many of you would be willing, as zero-sumbEJWs, to give up meat, cars, and other trappings of First-World lifestyle to live like the global working class and poor? The First World may have to take a reduction in quality of life but it wouldn't put us anywhere near the level of the global third world, especially as birth rates decline. The median global income is obviously a retarded number to use for the point you are making. A better number to look at might be a theoretical distribution of global capital which is currently sitting at around $34,000 per person. Miltank fucked around with this message at 16:49 on Dec 26, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Dec 26, 2014 16:46
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:In my experience the "equality of opportunity vs. equality of outcome" trope is code for "minorities will squander welfare because of their inferior culture." I'm sure you would disclaim this. Please don't do this here. Equality of opportunity vs. equality of outcome is hardly a dog whistle for Christ's sake. Just play it out, the thread is young. E:^ it is that.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 26, 2014 16:55
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Gosh I would feel self-conscious about declaring a favorite right-wing trope to be "not a dog whistle." After all, the point of a dog whistle is that not everyone can hear it. And some folks pick it up and blow it without knowing what it is. Equality of opportunity vs. equality of outcome wasn't invented by conservatism. If ideological concepts are tools then this is one which can serve as a dog whistle, but that is certainly not it's only function. If we are discussing ways to create a radically egalitarian society, then questions of opportunity vs. outcome are not out of place or suspicious.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 26, 2014 17:18
|
|
|
citizens holding more than a certain level of wealth will have their assets seized equal to a fairly estimated lifetime of taxation upon expatriation.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 26, 2014 19:52
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Also get IRS the tools of CIA with the oversight of NSA and the budget of DEA. I would switch careers to IRS SWAT team Member. e: I want to be in the corporate tax gestapo
|
|
#
¿
Dec 26, 2014 21:37
|
|
|
Seems like locking some guy up in solitary for twenty years is more hosed up than giving some dude a lashing. I was friends with a girl from KSA in a com class who gave a persuasive speech about why corporal and disfiguring punishment is good and I gotta say that she made a strong case.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 27, 2014 17:07
|
|
|
maybe the problem is how expensive university is and not that kids want to go to university?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 27, 2014 21:42
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:It's both. Some people just aren't meant to be supported in their delusion that they are intellectuals. Undergraduate education seems like a good place to figure that out.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 27, 2014 22:21
|
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:That's what the education industry wants you to think. "Come drop tens of thousands of dollars a year to figure out what you want to be when you grow up." what if going to school was a good thing and having to pay 100k to do so was the bad thing?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 27, 2014 23:01
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 19, 2024 12:47 |
|
|
SedanChair posted:This was tried with busing, whites reconfigured society to escape it. If you try to force them with more drastic means, they'll commit acts of terrorism. Busing mainly effected the working poor who still lived in cities. The middle class had already left for the suburbs by the late sixties.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2014 19:02
|
|