American Politics

[Spidy]

The insidious mental midget strikes again, "insidious crutch" aka the US Constitution.

In 1969, your own Repub President Richard Nixon, endorsed, a direct national election for President, and called it "...a thoroughly acceptable reform."

Unfortunately, a filibuster backed by segregationist Southerners in the Senate killed it.

[Tiny 12]

And I guess the way the government pays the people making the ponies is that it prints money and gives it to the them right?

I want to understand this more too. We do not need to go into debt. Given that a nation defaults historically when a third of its income is used to pay interest on the debt, and we are there now, why do we not just quit issuing debt? If you do not have debt, you cannot go broke, so we can just tell the credit agencies to fuck off then. Gee, I wonder what would happen if we did that. I am sure that would be fine.

And we do not have to pay any interest if we do not issue debt. That is brilliant. We can tell all those people getting 5% interest now, you are going to get zero and like it. What a cost saving move that would be. I cannot think of any downside to that either.

In the Movie Dumb and Dumber, Jim Carrey was handing out pieces of paper / IOUs to pay for things after he blew all his money and swore those IOUs were as good as gold. Is that where MMT came from? Are you sure all these Democratic economists did not just steal the idea from Jim Carey?

As I understand it, with MMT you DO issue debt, lots of it to fund government spending. You don't literally print paper money, at least the way we'd implement this in the USA. It wouldn't surprise me though if they literally fired up the printing presses in places like Zimbabwe and Venezuela. Anyway the central bank fiddles with bank reserves and perhaps also buys government debt to create more money. Seemingly small changes in bank reserves can create a lot of money because of the multiplier effect and velocity of money. The big issue though is that with MMT you're going to run the national debt way up, and greatly increase the amount of Treasury securities in circulation.

Yeah, I don't see how you keep interest rates low. Theoretically you can do it through the Fed, by setting short term rates at low levels and buying longer term bonds. But eventually that should catch up with you. Turkey tried to do that and failed miserably. Inflation soared. And Turkey's national debt wasn't out of control. What happens if the MMT theorists were wrong and they can't control the interest rate? What happens if you have to raise rates to the levels of the late 70's / early 80's? Or higher? Maybe something like what Nigeria's experiencing now. I read they spent around 70% of their budget on debt service last year and 90% year before last. Or alternately the Fed does keep the interest rate low, but inflation as a result skyrockets and we end up with something like Turkey, where people lose faith in the dollar? Intuitively, I don't think this is worth the risk. We've got the world's reserve currency. There are a lot of "seeming" advantages to that, like the ability to buy more from the rest of the world than we sell to it, and lower interest rates. The USA shouldn't want the rest of the world to abandon the dollar, and give that up.

I can't in my own mind kill the idea with 100% certainty though, because Japan has gotten away with something like this, and I don't know why they've gotten off with just a stagnant economy instead of an economic disaster. And I haven't read much of what the MMT proponents wrote, mostly just the critiques and analysis. The criticism comes from some very smart economists, including Paul Krugman who's a progressive.

[Tiny 12]

When I take the political spectrum test I'm down in far libertarian left. Yes on the majority of social issues I guess I could be considered fairly libertarian, however when it comes to economics I'm a bit to the right of Lenin. I like chomsky's ideas of a narcosynicalism and also Dr Richard Wolff's ideas of democracy in the workplace. Why shouldn't labor have a say in what is produced, how it is produced, and how it is distributed? Without democracy yet there is none in the workplace, which is really rather where it should be rooted. And it's that that keeps me from voting libertarian. I've always liked Dennis Kusinich, but Ron paul, well he staunchly anti-abortion and believes it should be left up to the states, which I don't, I believe it should be left only to women.

One book that I found thoroughly enlightening was democracy in chains by Nancy McClean. It's basically a history of libertarian party starting with John see Calhoun. He argued that his property rights, the right to own a slave, superseded the slaves human rights. This in a nutshell is the American struggle since inception, and I do find that libertarians tend to embrace private property in many ways more than they embrace human rights.

Another excellent book is we the elites how the Constitution serves the very few by Robert Ovetz. America was designed to sure that landowners made the decisions. And with the exception of the time between World War II and the 1990's it's pretty much been that way. The wealthy and control. It took both sides of the political aisle 50 years to undo the good that Teddy and FDR did. The majority of us were raised in that idyllic time when labor had power and the corporatists were kept somewhat at bay.

I'm convinced that capitalism, free markets, and rule of law work best. To the extent those have been implemented, they've lifted billions out of poverty and are better than the alternatives. I don't mean unfettered or crony capitalism. You do need appropriate regulation, protections for workers, etc.

Thanks for bringing up what you have. I've read up a little on narcosynicalism, and more than a little on MMT and am looking forward to learning more. As you say we may disagree, strongly on economic issues, but this has been an educational experience for me. I'm going to have to slow down on the posts for a while as I'm getting behind on work but will look forward to checking back.

[CheckMate1]

If USA eliminates the electoral college and switches to a popular vote, the only areas politicians would campaign in would be large urban cities. That's how they would garner the most support and votes. What incentive would a politician have to travel to a small rural town on the campaign trail to get a very small amount of votes? Basically anyone living outside of a large metropolitan area would be insignificant in terms of winning the presidential election. Those small town populations are still extremely important. They best understand the issues affecting their community.

An example of that is the Southern New Jersey coast right now. They are trying to build wind farms all along the coast which most residents hate and don't want it to happen for several reasons. It will effect the boating and fishing industries as well as have an environmental impact. Politicians at the national level and more urban Northern NJ are pushing it through anyway. It will most likely also lower property values all along the coast. New Jersey for the most part is very urban, but Southern NJ is actually more rural and suburban. The urban population is using their superior voting power to push an agenda which will enrich them through these wind farm contracts, and it is coming at the expense of rural community voters who don't want wind farms all over their coasts.

This is just a state issue too. If you eliminate the electoral college, urban cities will have the voting power to get whatever they want and it will come at the expense of rural communities and the vast natural resources that support those industries. Agriculture, mining, timber, fresh water, fishing, and many other industries those local people work in will have their profits start to be siphoned off as they lose voting power. That is just the nature of the beast / large Corporations. The people who spent their lives living around their natural resources usually have the best understanding of how they should be utilized without damaging their environment and communities. They should have the most say in what is happening to their environment. Not some big city 1000 miles away across the country.

That is why the electoral college is so important. It protects the voting power of people and resources outside the large urban cities. Think of the things San Francisco advocates for and think of things a small town in Texas advocates for. It is totally different. Small rural populations need to have a voice too.

Instead of majority rule. You would instead have the rural areas of the country to make rules for the masses. So whatever quirky idea / Tradition is imparted to "urban" areas.

I will agree that it creates a situation where the candidates will mainly go to population centers. I disagree that all population centers will always be for one party or another. If a candidates provide the voters with their best plans, the best plan will win out. You also have 2 senators representing each state, giving them the power to legislate to advocate for their constituents. Elections are not about one person (President), but putting representatives for its citizen.

As an aside:

For years, republicans have focused on state ballots, congressional candidates, senate candidates, governorship, and worked the system to make sure they're majority in something. Since Trump, everything is about him, and the neglect for the down ballots will be the downfall of the party.

[EihTooms]

Wow. (former) Big Time Trump-Supporter and dinner guest neo-Nazi Nick Fuentes is hopping mad that his (former) lord and savior has now confessed to lying to him and all the other numbskulls he conned into defending him, supporting him and committing crimes for him:

Trump confesses, "He (Biden) beat us"

https://youtu.be/AKP8fu-Tu04?si=j9RtHoDiib-Mphg6

[RamDavidson84]

Meaning what exactly? And how is it local reps. Are related to the electoral college (EC)?

How is that any different from how things work now? Meaning, your local representation is down-ballot (if up for re-election), is it not?

While your suggestions are understandably different w/r to who gets to vote, I think it's a slippery slope. Next thing you know, no doubt, the billionaires, would be lobbying for more votes according to status, wealth and size of their crowd rallies. Ahem! I mean corporations and businesses.

Besides, I can't imagine for a second, giving Repubs, even more ammunition (ie. Reasons), to purge people from voter lists. Or torpedo (ie. Mess up) and farther complicate a simple voting process, any more than they already have, with nonsense like "STOP THE STEAL" (...kkkk!)

If USA eliminates the electoral college and switches to a popular vote, the only areas politicians would campaign in would be large urban cities. That's how they would garner the most support and votes. What incentive would a politician have to travel to a small rural town on the campaign trail to get a very small amount of votes? Basically anyone living outside of a large metropolitan area would be insignificant in terms of winning the presidential election. Those small town populations are still extremely important. They best understand the issues affecting their community.

An example of that is the Southern New Jersey coast right now. They are trying to build wind farms all along the coast which most residents hate and don't want it to happen for several reasons. It will effect the boating and fishing industries as well as have an environmental impact. Politicians at the national level and more urban Northern NJ are pushing it through anyway. It will most likely also lower property values all along the coast. New Jersey for the most part is very urban, but Southern NJ is actually more rural and suburban. The urban population is using their superior voting power to push an agenda which will enrich them through these wind farm contracts, and it is coming at the expense of rural community voters who don't want wind farms all over their coasts.

This is just a state issue too. If you eliminate the electoral college, urban cities will have the voting power to get whatever they want and it will come at the expense of rural communities and the vast natural resources that support those industries. Agriculture, mining, timber, fresh water, fishing, and many other industries those local people work in will have their profits start to be siphoned off as they lose voting power. That is just the nature of the beast / large Corporations. The people who spent their lives living around their natural resources usually have the best understanding of how they should be utilized without damaging their environment and communities. They should have the most say in what is happening to their environment. Not some big city 1000 miles away across the country.

That is why the electoral college is so important. It protects the voting power of people and resources outside the large urban cities. Think of the things San Francisco advocates for and think of things a small town in Texas advocates for. It is totally different. Small rural populations need to have a voice too.

[CheckMate1]

Here's another reasonable proposal, your connection to the USA gives some votes more weight than others, ie.

Your family has run a huge farm for 200 yrs, or you just crossed illegally from some 3rd world shithole and Scumbag Joe gave you asylum and papers to vote?

Or not even that?

https://www.foxnews.com/us/doj-illeg...rican-passport

Stay true to what the document that you always tout as set in stone.

Pick a lane, you have the Constitution that is amendable, yet you argue about the what if's. The Constitution is credible when you agree with it, and not because you dislike part of it. That 200 year old farm may have been set up by someone seeking asylum once upon a time. England used to call us a shithole country. Strange how history does repeat itself.

PSA: Make your case to people to vote for your guy. Don't try to distract others on nonsensical things you found on the internet. Encourage everyone to vote, and then through a majority (electral college or not) of votes, the best candidate wins. Exactly (paraphrasing) how the Constitution was written.

[EihTooms]

That is indeed, unprecedented, unparalleled and unmatched economic job creation by Dems!

This cannot be over stated enough, especially to those would be, ISG Repub economists and conspiracists, where facts matter, in the face of Trumpian "Jedi mind tricks" and unfounded opinions.

Who knew, your initial calculations, as good as they were, could be even better, more impressive and include an even more substantial increase, in the economic job creation, upon farther review of "clawed-back generosity" (extended to the Repubs), over the same period of time for Dems.

Truly Amazing!.

A majority of poll respondents quite often tell polsters they prefer the "Red State / Repub Economic Model" of economic policies.

And who wouldn't? As I have heard Repubs sell their economic "policies" over the decades, they always sound pretty damn sweet to me too.

A couple of examples:

- We will cut your taxes (well, mostly big cuts for the wealthy, a little bit for you but then we will cut some other service or tax exemption you used to enjoy. Have to. Those tax cuts for the wealthy aren't going to pay for themselves, dummy), the increased income for the wealthy will come "Trickling Down" into your pockets and we can all live like deadbeat millionaires! (Please ignore the Great Repub Depression, Great Repub Recession and Massive Repub Jobs Destruction that is bound to follow).

- Tariffs are taxes we impose on other counties and when those other countries pay those taxes the revenue windfall will be so great, YOU will never have to pay for anything. Ever. Really. Swear to God.

Yeah. I would vote for those policies anytime IF only they remained academic policies that never, ever produced the Real World results those Repub economic policies virtually always produce.

[EihTooms]

2021 was the pandemic when people were not allowed to work.

2022 had two quarters of negative growth and the market tanked.

2023 and until recently in 2024, the market has exploded. I said I was wrong about that and Tooms was right, but here is the thing you do not get Spidy, markets can be irrational and people can be rational. The most common measure of market valuation is the PE ratio. Historically, that has been in the high teens and now the market PE is in the high 20's and low 30's. That is about double what it historically what it has been suggesting it is massively overvalued.

Those are called facts. Be different and try using them some time to make an argument.

In 2000, the market soared and the federal government amazingly went into surplus. Unemployment was 2% and strip clubs had customers lined up 5 deep. People had more money in real life then than I have ever seen.

Look at it right now. Red Lobster went under. Strip clubs are empty. The consumer is so tapped out McDonald's is offering up cheaper meals. The dollar stores are getting killed because their low end customers are buying less and their only growth is in the higher income folks looking to save a buck. The airport I was just in, one of the nation's busiest, was as empty as during Covid times...

A couple of Red Lobsters opened in Bangkok over the past couple of years.

I tried the bigger, nicer one a few months ago. The food was way overpriced for what you get even if it had been good. But it was crap.

I am surprised that place has survived as long as it did.

However, apparently they have not gone completely under. Despite their atrocious mismanagement, it appears the USA Economy is doing so well even a badly managed restaurant chain that serves overpriced crap food can keep hundreds of their locations open:

Red Lobster cleared to exit Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.
Red Lobster will operate 544 locations across North America.

https://www.foxbusiness.com/lifestyl...tcy-protection

Americans have discretionary money to burn, apparently.

Thanks, Joe. I think.

[EihTooms]

Excellent link Tooms! I'd say I'd welcome you to Texas with open arms, just as long as you don't vote, but I'll be leaving here soon. I'm sure Elvis will though in my place.

Here are some excerpts:

An examination of key economic measures -- including job and income growth -- found an overwhelming majority of red states among 18 top performers.

The disparity between red and blue states has little to do with anything Biden has done, experts interviewed by ABC News said, noting that federal policy typically holds minimal influence over state-by-state economic trends.

Instead, they added, the dynamic owes in large part to the appeal of warm weather states for workers and businesses, as well as the combination of company-friendly state policies and *leaning cities that attract young, educated workers.

Five states are currently enjoying better-than-average performance on four key metrics analyzed by ABC News: job growth, personal income growth, gross domestic product growth and gas prices, according to data from the USA Bureau of Economic Analysis, the USA Bureau of Labor Statistics and AAA..

Have you ever wondered why those typical and rather routine by now Great Repub Depressions, Great Repub Recessions and Massive Repub Jobs Destruction results cause more damage to Red States and therefore require more Federal Aid to bail them out of the Repub Economic Disaster when Dems are voted in to recover America from the latest Repub economic disaster?

It is for the same reason so many Red States work so hard to tout themselves as "Company-friendly" or "Business-friendly. " LOL. The very terms that are used to supposedly glorify the "Red State / Repub Model" in the links and as they sell themselves to America;.

Those terms are Code for "We do not support or require companies to pay well, provide benefits, enforce pesky rules and regulations or in any meaningful way give a shit about your employees."

Consequently, when the inevitable Great Repub Economic Disaster occurs, well, it is pretty obvious how that is going to wreak way more havoc on the lives of the workers who live in those "Business-friendly" states than workers who live in "Worker-friendly" states:

These are Americas 10 worst states to live and work in for 2023, and theres a big surprise at the very bottom

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/07/14/thes...ndroidappshare

[Spidy]

When I take the political spectrum test I'm down in far libertarian left. Yes on the majority of social issues I guess I could be considered fairly libertarian, however when it comes to economics I'm a bit to the right of Lenin. I like chomsky's ideas of a narcosynicalism and also Dr Richard Wolff's ideas of democracy in the workplace. Why shouldn't labor have a say in what is produced, how it is produced, and how it is distributed? Without democracy yet there is none in the workplace, which is really rather where it should be rooted. And it's that that keeps me from voting libertarian. I've always liked Dennis Kusinich, but Ron paul, well he staunchly anti-abortion and believes it should be left up to the states, which I don't, I believe it should be left only to women.

All very good, but I'm too lazy right now, to expound on Chomsky and Wolff at the moment. But will say the story of Mondragon is what many U.S. companies should follow.

One book that I found thoroughly enlightening was democracy in chains by Nancy McClean. It's basically a history of libertarian party starting with John see Calhoun. He argued that his property rights, the right to own a slave, superseded the slaves human rights. This in a nutshell is the American struggle since inception, and I do find that libertarians tend to embrace private property in many ways more than they embrace human rights.

Very well said!

I couldn't put my finger on how to think about "libertarians" (much less "Republican Libertarians"), but your description (in bold), nicely highlights what I couldn't quite pinpoint. Thanks, you've encapsulated what I was kinda thinking.

However, this maybe more of a depiction of "right-libertarians", and wouldn't want to offend any "left-libertarians", if there is indeed a discerning difference? Long story short, I didn't want to go down the "libertarian rabbit-hole", as I surmised the realm of what is a "libertarian", is a vast and diverse, contrasting of ideals.

Another excellent book is we the elites how the Constitution serves the very few by Robert Ovetz. America was designed to sure that landowners made the decisions. And with the exception of the time between World War II and the 1990's it's pretty much been that way. The wealthy and control. It took both sides of the political aisle 50 years to undo the good that Teddy and FDR did. The majority of us were raised in that idyllic time when labor had power and the corporatists were kept somewhat at bay.

Agreed! Today, Biden/Harris, are making inroads with regards to more equity and rights for Unions, and bringing back a modicum of a more balanced power structure. But definitely more employee empowerment companies structures like Mondragon, will go a long way to that end.

[Spidy]

There is more to a nation than just people. Land and resources are best represented by the local population. If electoral college is eliminated, rural populations will basically have no politicians even attempt to appeal to them.

Meaning what exactly? And how is it local reps. Are related to the electoral college (EC)?

All campaigning will be done in extremely liberal centers of urban populations.

How is that any different from how things work now? Meaning, your local representation is down-ballot (if up for re-election), is it not?

Personally I believe you shouldn't even have a vote until your 30 years old or have done something like earn a college degree, start a business, or serve in the military to be eligible to vote at a younger age. Voting should also be merit based. The 19 year meth head convicted felon has the same voting strength as a 55 year old doctor who has dedicated his life to serving people and improving their health. Just doesn't seem logical their votes should count as the same. Convicted child molesters have the same vote as a military 5-star general. 18 year old video game kid with absolutely no real world experience has same vote as a 75 year retiree who worked his whole life and raised a multi-generational family.

While your suggestions are understandably different w/r to who gets to vote, I think it's a slippery slope. Next thing you know, no doubt, the billionaires, would be lobbying for more votes according to status, wealth and size of their crowd rallies. Ahem! I mean corporations and businesses.

Besides, I can't imagine for a second, giving Repubs, even more ammunition (ie. Reasons), to purge people from voter lists. Or torpedo (ie. Mess up) and farther complicate a simple voting process, any more than they already have, with nonsense like "STOP THE STEAL" (...kkkk!)

[Goatscrot]

Hey Goatscrot, First, I largely agree with your post and think similarly. I've never thought about allowing individuals to exercise liberties, freedoms and rights in accordance with state or federal law, whichever is more liberal, but that makes good sense.

The Mises Caucus tried to take control of the Libertarian Party from the Gary Johnson wing a few years ago. And some of your criticisms, like intolerance and excessive Constitutionalism, are valid for them. However, they have since been booted to the ground like the scum they are. The Libertarian candidate for president this year, Chase Oliver, is a classical liberal from the Gary Johnson wing. He says he's armed and gay. And I suspect the only significant social policy you might disagree with Chase about is gun control.

The Libertarians would have to be closer to you on social issues than either of the major parties. The Progressive democrats might come closer than the rest, but they still condemn our lifestyle. On the other hand the Libertarians probably are farther from your beliefs on economic and foreign policy than the major parties. However the Gary Johnson Libertarians are kinder and gentler and stronger believers in a social safety net than the Mises Caucus, which again is probably history.

I don't have strong feelings about the Constitution, except that to the extent it protects individual liberties and rights and prevents a tyranny of the majority. I'm all on board with that.

I took a multiple choice test many years ago that would tell me which presidential candidates I should vote for. It came back with a tie, Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich. Some would say they're as far apart on the political spectrum as two candidates can be. But on some issues they're like two peas in a pod. So it is with many of us.

When I take the political spectrum test I'm down in far libertarian left. Yes on the majority of social issues I guess I could be considered fairly libertarian, however when it comes to economics I'm a bit to the right of Lenin. I like chomsky's ideas of a narcosynicalism and also Dr Richard Wolff's ideas of democracy in the workplace. Why shouldn't labor have a say in what is produced, how it is produced, and how it is distributed? Without democracy yet there is none in the workplace, which is really rather where it should be rooted. And it's that that keeps me from voting libertarian. I've always liked Dennis Kusinich, but Ron paul, well he staunchly anti-abortion and believes it should be left up to the states, which I don't, I believe it should be left only to women.

One book that I found thoroughly enlightening was democracy in chains by Nancy McClean. It's basically a history of libertarian party starting with John see Calhoun. He argued that his property rights, the right to own a slave, superseded the slaves human rights. This in a nutshell is the American struggle since inception, and I do find that libertarians tend to embrace private property in many ways more than they embrace human rights.

Another excellent book is we the elites how the Constitution serves the very few by Robert Ovetz. America was designed to sure that landowners made the decisions. And with the exception of the time between World War II and the 1990's it's pretty much been that way. The wealthy and control. It took both sides of the political aisle 50 years to undo the good that Teddy and FDR did. The majority of us were raised in that idyllic time when labor had power and the corporatists were kept somewhat at bay.

[MarquisdeSade1]

There is more to a nation than just people. Land and resources are best represented by the local population. If electoral college is eliminated, rural populations will basically have no politicians even attempt to appeal to them. All campaigning will be done in extremely liberal centers of urban populations.

Personally I believe you shouldn't even have a vote until your 30 years old or have done something like earn a college degree, start a business, or serve in the military to be eligible to vote at a younger age. Voting should also be merit based. The 19 year meth head convicted felon has the same voting strength as a 55 year old doctor who has dedicated his life to serving people and improving their health. Just doesn't seem logical their votes should count as the same. Convicted child molesters have the same vote as a military 5-star general. 18 year old video game kid with absolutely no real world experience has same vote as a 75 year retiree who worked his whole life and raised a multi-generational family.

Here's another reasonable proposal, your connection to the USA gives some votes more weight than others, ie.

Your family has run a huge farm for 200 yrs, or you just crossed illegally from some 3rd world shithole and Scumbag Joe gave you asylum and papers to vote?

Or not even that?

https://www.foxnews.com/us/doj-illeg...rican-passport

[MarquisdeSade1]

Many thanks for the compliment. It's been fun to report on Bangkok for the last couple of decades.

In my argument against the Constitution is that it hasn't seen a meaningful amendment in over 50 years. We certainly wouldn't endorse using science textbooks that were written over 50 years ago without being updated, yet we cling to a document and it's amendments that haven't been reviewed and updated in over half a century. The United States in the world is completely different than it was in the early 1970's in the structure of the government needs to reflect that.
.

Well I seriously doubt science changed much since I was in HS I'm willing to bet Chemistry hasn't changed since I used the textbook in 1979.

But nonetheless its very odd you think that's analogous to a 240 yr old political document? You say the world has changed? Well I would say mostly for the worse.

So let me decide on those changes to the Constitution, are you ok with that, or are you just interested in changes to your ideological liking?