Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by IllegalContact, Nov 14, 2012.
the beauty is in the simplicity........it would work great
If he ran on that platform I would vote for him.
Ralph is now 78, so he will not run for president..
Like the simplicity of his plan, small banks, farmer's markets, cracking down on corporate fraud, simplified tax code... all makes sense.
In addition to taxing labor (does he mean income?), I think that taxing investment is not a good idea. I am all for "taxing" corporate crime, pollution, etc. I can see taxing derivatives as getting tricky and leading to new alternatives designed to get around that scheme (not that I am a big fan). I think increasing taxes on fuel (particularly diesel) could help to fund infrastructure repair and upgrades.
Sign me up for ending subsidies. As far as tax loopholes, I think that is in the eye of the beholder. One man's tax deduction is welfare to those who don't benefit from it.
Who cares if they go to jail? Hit them with fines. Go after the money. I never understood the desire to put white-collar crooks in jail while their families continue to enjoy the stolen wealth.
I think this dovetails with the idea of increasing the cost of transportation of goods (i.e. tax on diesel). That would encourage more localized commerce. No doubt that big business is part of the problem. Not sure if Ralph is also interested in decentralizing government control as well.
He has...many times. He just couldn't get into any debates and didn't look good enought to run our Idiocracy which is obsessed with appearance, slogan fluff and cool commercials. Bad posture, lazy eye, all that...
We needed Ralph years ago and no one took him seriously because he refused to run on the Republicrat ticket and was subsequently shut out of the process. Too bad. Imagine what shape we'd be in if he had been an 8-year president instead of Bush. Now it's too late. He's too old and our country's too stupid.
Yes I remember him running. I didn't think he was 78 though.
It has to be both. If there isn't jail time, then what's to stop people from trying to steal wealth? You have to confiscate the stolen loot, fine them so as to take away from what they personally have, and then toss them in jail so they personally pay a price.
I guess I was thinking about the burden of proof for civil vs. criminal offenses. I think there is a lot of fuzzy math in this area where bad stewardship becomes a jailable offense. I favor making the punishment fit the crime. If there is clear evidence of fraud then yeah, throw them in jail. There are plenty of others that are on the edge of legal behavior, but who definitely profited at the expense of those on whose behalf they were running a company. In those cases at least get the money!
The whole "corporate governance" movement post-Enron in the end produced lots of fees for consultants and we still wound up with the 2008 financial collapse. It also created some ludicrous prosecutions, like that of Conrad Black. After his ouster the value of the company collapsed.
Without exception, everyone makes immediate judgement based upon looks. If Christie ran at his 350 lb current weight, he'd never even get nominated. And prolly rightly so....we don't want him having a HAHT attack while in office.
everywhere you look on this earth, you see similar examples. Dictatorships can't be included! But in any country where people vote, ugly bastids don't get elected.
Every now and then, you see an exception that gives us false hope. Nixon and Carter weren't too good looking.
Ă“scar Arias, President of Costa Rica
Costa Rica must be a pragmatic country not obsessed with appearances
Why the hell doesn't he do something about his weight? He's got to realize what a liability it is in many ways.
Nothing redeeming to say about Nixon's looks. But Carter had a certain stooped-shouldered, muscularly challenged version of val kilmer thing going on.
As always, nader brings a fresh view of things, but to get there you'd have to go through some paroxysms we wouldn't stand for, and some unintended consequences. What do we mean by "encourage" the community level? If as proposed here we mean higher transportation costs, people would defecate whole litters of bricks over higher food prices in the stores we have on the way to the "encouragement."
Off-topic, again addressing the gloss above (not Ralph's original, at least as proposed in the link): Don't know how I feel about diesel in general. Better fuel economy, somewhat more particulates, but you have to use more crude to make a gallon of diesel (hence the higher energy density.) All-in, you might still foul the environment more with diesel, although it's somehow considered a sort of half-step toward environmentalism to drive a diesel these days (how times have changed.)
Taxing labor is exactly what Ralph said, it's taxing labor. You can get income by investing and getting more money back than you put in, without working. I think he's pretty clear on this -- we preferentially treat bets, and, as he calls derivatives, bets on bets. We oughtta knock it off.
The trouble with Ralph is that even when he's describing the practical, on-the-ground implementation of such ideas, they look like 30,000 foot prescriptions. Again, just think of the backlash against crazy President Ralph actually making fuel more expensive. If you call Obama a Socialist for suggesting a 4% change in the top marginal rate, Nader would be Pol Pot for trying to devolve the economy down to local units instead of one big interconnected (and crash-prone) whole.
So what can I say... as usual a lot to like here, but as usual with Nader, it's free of the on-the-ground acceptability you'd want from his ideas as soon as someone develops the implementing ideas.
I think our current obsession with debt and economic self-flagellation will be similarly undercut when we feel the outcome. I've said all along you start with the top marginal rates and cuts to an extremely flabby defense establishment. A tinker here or there to the entitlements, but not pubbie-style gutting. Only tax labor when people who work for a living can take it, not now. But they'll ultimately go further so that the poor rich folks [sic] don't get "soaked."
The 2010 push-back against one "big" change in the U.S. -- a system where free riders have to get insurance on the private market -- is still a big deal in U.S. politics. With another 4 years however, Obamacare will be a done deal.
But think about the pushback if we adopted the Ralph Program. The younger cohorts may go for it, but for their elders I'm afraid that right or wrong, he's too far out front.
Sad but true, PFinV.
Pardon me while I go bang my skull against a brick wall.
Their already higher, but yeah, no way to get away from an import and transport-based economy painlessly.
Not sure if you are responding to what I mentioned about diesel, but my idea was meant to discourage long-range shipping that is primarily powered by diesel engines.
I was saying that taxing either labor or investment was not good. The issue is: who decides what constitutes an "investment" and what is a "bet"?
Yeah...I keep coming back to the idea that they are largely the ones who got us into the current mess. Our generation hasn't been running the joint for the last 30 years.
A lot of truth to that, B5. A lot of what you see today goes back to Reagan discovering that nobody tracks it when you borrow... now, he couldn't imagine the level that's been taken to. But he was the pioneer.
I'm not saying that just to be partisan, although of course that's in there. I'm placing the generations here. I was a college kid when Carter lost. At the time I mainly processed it as a fit of jingoism, but the economic mindset of a generation was set:
- We must always be taxed less
- We must always complain about all spending except spending that makes us personally happy and/or enormous military buildups.
- We are the American people. It must always be morning to us.
People my age (50ish) and older feel deeply that the worst thing that can ever happen is Carter-era inflation.
We also disguise pure baseless selfishness in the cloak of "rugged individualism."
These are the politics of late boomers and generation X, to the extent that Xers have politics. Not much has been written of them since the 80s, but I still find Xers to be about themselves much more than the Millennials or even the Boomers, although the Boomers are self-obsessed as a generation. But I don't want to get into that.
Point is, your elders will cry and moan and riot in the streets if the idea of giving back to the country crosses their paths, whether we mean paying taxes, accepting more expensive fuel and a different (more local) way of life, whatever.
I see among the younger set way more willingness to do things for each other, for the community, for "the people," other people. I love seeing it. Once again, that could have a partisan face, but that's not the only reason I feel that. I think being a citizen should have a tiny bit of what the military expects of each other, God Country Corps and all that. I actually see that in my contemporaries, in a small civilian gubmit agency. I don't see it a lot of the time in contemporaries elsewhere. But maybe you just need to work with people during a heavy-duty deadline to see them sacrifice.
Don't hit your head against a wall. Your generation will be in charge, and it's starting (through voting.)
Ultimately there's one simple key to being a country you want to live in: it's "love your neighbor." Now, I've said before I'm partisan, so I think the Dems are better at putting that into practice. But ultimately, the principle can exist under any political philosophy. The principle is this: All yeahbuts aside, we are not just a collection of individuals pursuing our own individual interests. We are Americans... and even add to that, we are humans. You are your brother's keeper. More than that, we can build things together, both of us sacrificing to get something later that both of us can benefit from.
So putting politics aside, I think your generation has that in spades.
In office environments I hear complaints about an "entitled" attitude. But I don't see people thinking they're "entitled" to just being given promotions, or raises, or whatever. I see them feeling that their viewpoints are valid, despite their inexperience or "low station," and that freaks out Gen X especially... a generation that's had to plod along a rung or two from the bottom for ages while the more populous Boomers sit on their broadening behinds. They don't get why millennials think they can just pull up a chair at the grownup table, when they've barely been there a few years themselves.
But that dynamic was wrong to start -- Gen Xers need to get over it, and accept the insights of the young. For one thing, they have a lot more to bring to the table in terms of understanding evolving culture and tech. That's always the case.
The real dinosaurs -- the Boomers -- are on their way out of the workforce now (but they've really just started.) As they go, with the tail end being my retirement in about 17 years, the top of organizations will increasingly open up (and remember, it's started already.) The best of Gen X is not going to be able to replace the departing Boomers on their own... and the best of the Millennials are going to have a pretty rosy future.
Remember, these cohorts are an hourglass. The Boomers and the Millennials are the thick ends, and Gen X is the wasp waist. Plenty of room for a wiz kid.
In political terms, us selfish farts are going to die. It's what old people do. We may not do it as fast as people used to, but we'll get there.
The reason I am a big fan of entitlement programs -- bad name, that -- is that they're a generational contract: In America, you will not sink past a certain floor, whoever you are. Some want to gut them because of our momentary position. The goal should be to preserve them for other generations -- and not preserve them by rolling the dice (and getting your buddies contracts for the fees,) or something like that.
Lots of boomers didn't worry about retirement, and didn't do a damn thing about it. They saw their parents do it and took it for granted. Xers got propagandized into assuming they'll die at their desks. These are both delusional stances.
Here's hoping your cohort gets that we all have to deal with the elderly at least, and that planning beats the hell out of hoping and wishing. And meanwhile, if you want to, remember you can do big things... Ralph-scale things.
Okay, that was a core dump. I apologize for rambling.
Oh yeah on diesel - I knew what you meant. I was just saying that if, all-in, diesel is a better deal for the environment, I'd be slow to get on-board with treating gasoline differently.
But here's a thought nobody at present will accept: Instead of letting the disappearing carbon rise in cost naturally and disastrously with no back-up plan, your solution is pretty much the way to use market pricing (i.e., raise it) to encourage smarter fuel use... yes, you do that as a heavy tax, and yes, it would be a surefire way to lose an election. But yes, it would also serve as an incentive to localize many functions. Oh and you want more bang for the buck? Impose the equivalent fuel charge for ships that get their fuel elsewhere at better prices. You tanked up at $2 per gallon and it's $4 here? Add a buck to it.
What's that mean? Three things. Higher prices for your made-in-China shirt, and more revenue for the common good. What's the last thing? More competitive US biz.
China would be pissed.
You'd have to think it through, because it's a form of protectionism. But if we use the mechanism to keep things local, what's to be done with the fact that other nations don't pay our fuel surcharge to ship goods here (and jobs there?) Seems like if it's good at home it's good for goods coming to these shores.
Ralph Nader was not ever a serious threat to either party. Sure, his ideas for the most part make total sense. But, since when did that ever make a difference?
It is like the candidates that start off championing the flat tax. Near the end they are not talking about a flat tax anymore. The more simple the system the harder it is to hide the cheating and corruption. One day people will realize that our rich politicians will not do anything to hurt themselves.
We have a flat tax. It's called sales tax, and everybody pays them, to the tune of hundreds (and for all but the very poorest, thousands) of dollars per year.
We need a progressive tax as well in the form of an income tax.
Separate names with a comma.