d2jsp
Log InRegister
d2jsp Forums > Off-Topic > General Chat > Political & Religious Debate > William Mckinley, Teddy Roosevelt, Bernie Sanders
12Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll
Retired Moderator
Posts: 115,437
Joined: Jan 19 2007
Gold: 35,078.94
Trader: Trusted
Sep 27 2015 08:13am
In the 1890s there were oil, steel, railroad, and electricity cartels. As William Jennings Bryan attempted to stop them in their tracks, the behemoths JP Morgan, Carnigie, and Rockefeller paid McKinley as the beginning of an era of buying elections. They succeeded and he was elected twice. However, when McKinley was killed by a big business antagonist, Teddy Roosevelt came into power. Roosevelt, known as a New York aristocrat, changed his image early to be a man of the people. In his reign as president he took down JP Morgan and eventually split Rockefeller's standard oil to what we know today as Aamco, texaco, etc.

This did great things for the economy by splitting the mass wealth. It prompted people like Henry Ford to also become rich, but pay legitimate wages to workers to improve everyone's lives. Despite ALAM's attempt (owners of the automobile patent) to stop Ford, he succeeded at the same time that Rockefeller's reign fell.

Personally, I am a pure moderate. I believe in the liberal concept of spending money to make money later. I believe in the conservative ideology of lowering spending on what may not be essential. I even agree in some ways of the TEA parties idea of no new taxes. I see all sides very well.

Bernie Sanders seems a socialist on paper. Perhaps that isn't so bad. I don't think McDonald's workers should make $15 an hour. I don't think college should be free due to the high % of dropout rate among the poor currently. I think boosting social security is too extreme to do. I think taxing the super rich more is unfair as their risk and determination prompted their success and I don't think we should penalize that.

That being said, I also fear a president who has too much interest in the wealthy and deregulation. The purchase of elections by the Koch brothers among several people and companies will become more prevalent. There is a stark difference between monopoly and enterprise. I fear the monopolization of top power. I see this as significantly more dangerous than empowering the "working class."

I believe public programs will be heavily taken advantage of under a president like Bernie Sanders in a negative way. However, I believe this could be a better bet than continuing to flurry top businesses with low interest rates and cheap money as that is more likely to lead to bigger businesses keeping small businesses from growing.

I don't know how I am going to vote, but as I think back through history, I see the success in Theodore Roosevelt as a far greater success than under William McKinley.
Member
Posts: 1,717
Joined: May 29 2015
Gold: 10.00
Sep 27 2015 08:19am
Member
Posts: 38,317
Joined: Jul 12 2006
Gold: 20.31
Sep 27 2015 09:15am
That's a lot to unpack. There's an elevated college dropout rate among the poor because college is so expensive, and a lot of that expense is excess. If you cut away all the bullshit excess and gouging and simply let students pass or fail on their own capacity then we'd get a much more-accurate reading on where the system is effective and where it isn't. As it stands now, too much of success/failure hinges on the other socio-economic factors. And considering that we could have that experiment (national low-cost college) just by cutting a little corporate welfare, it's stupid that we're not building towards it given the demographic imperative we face. I don't know what "boosting Social Security" means or why you think it's extreme. It's obviously a proven anti-poverty measure, and a pretty fair and efficient one at that. Again, cutting a little corporate welfare and making some obvious structural changes could easily add hundreds of years of solvency to that program.

Considering that so much of the affluent's wealth is government-assisted (if not just outright granted), I can't see it as being a product of "risk or determination." That's outdated 1960's-era talk. We've been throwing money at rich people practically uninterupted for 35 years, and now it's their children who have never worked for anything holding that wealth and it obviously wasn't a product of their risk or determination. We don't have to get any crazier than a basic graduated, progressive tax system because that would be unfair to the affluent, but we really do need to drop all the delusions associated with the trickle-down nonsense and stop just giving them money for no reason. That would be fair to everyone.
Member
Posts: 1,717
Joined: May 29 2015
Gold: 10.00
Sep 27 2015 09:22am
How come presidents nowadays don't have facial hair? Our next president needs to have a beard
Retired Moderator
Posts: 115,437
Joined: Jan 19 2007
Gold: 35,078.94
Trader: Trusted
Sep 27 2015 09:35am
Quote (Pollster @ Sep 27 2015 10:15am)
That's a lot to unpack. There's an elevated college dropout rate among the poor because college is so expensive, and a lot of that expense is excess. If you cut away all the bullshit excess and gouging and simply let students pass or fail on their own capacity then we'd get a much more-accurate reading on where the system is effective and where it isn't. As it stands now, too much of success/failure hinges on the other socio-economic factors. And considering that we could have that experiment (national low-cost college) just by cutting a little corporate welfare, it's stupid that we're not building towards it given the demographic imperative we face. I don't know what "boosting Social Security" means or why you think it's extreme. It's obviously a proven anti-poverty measure, and a pretty fair and efficient one at that. Again, cutting a little corporate welfare and making some obvious structural changes could easily add hundreds of years of solvency to that program.

Considering that so much of the affluent's wealth is government-assisted (if not just outright granted), I can't see it as being a product of "risk or determination." That's outdated 1960's-era talk. We've been throwing money at rich people practically uninterupted for 35 years, and now it's their children who have never worked for anything holding that wealth and it obviously wasn't a product of their risk or determination. We don't have to get any crazier than a basic graduated, progressive tax system because that would be unfair to the affluent, but we really do need to drop all the delusions associated with the trickle-down nonsense and stop just giving them money for no reason. That would be fair to everyone.


The poor also dramatically worse grades in high school and college. I'm fine with free college as long as it's done on a reimbursement basis so that if you fail, you pay every dime. I liked Obama's free community college reimbursement plan because it requires i think a 2.5 or a 3.0 or something.

I agree with you on the points of tax loopholes and trickle-down nonsense essentially giving the rich money for nothing then hearing them whine when the poor get money for nothing. I just dont like anyone getting money for nothing personally...
Member
Posts: 38,317
Joined: Jul 12 2006
Gold: 20.31
Sep 27 2015 09:53am
Quote (AspenSniper @ Sep 27 2015 08:35am)
The poor also dramatically worse grades in high school and college. I'm fine with free college as long as it's done on a reimbursement basis so that if you fail, you pay every dime. I liked Obama's free community college reimbursement plan because it requires i think a 2.5 or a 3.0 or something.

I agree with you on the points of tax loopholes and trickle-down nonsense essentially giving the rich money for nothing then hearing them whine when the poor get money for nothing. I just dont like anyone getting money for nothing personally...


The outsized significance of other socio-economic factors is the same at every level of education though. "The poor" are hungry in school. They can't hire tutors. They work as teenagers. Availability of every resource is obviously lower. All of it dramatically tilts the field towards the affluent as you would expect.

It's fine to not like abuse in the system, whether money is going to rich or poor or whoever "for nothing." But outside of the moral argument, the government makes huge expenditures and gives tax benefits to middle and low-income earners because that actually drives the economy in the way that giving more money to the affluent doesn't. It makes basic macroeconomic sense to direct assistance to the people who consume more if there's going to be assistance at all. From where I'm sitting, no one has a right to gripe about money going to "the poor" or anyone else when it's a massive economic driver (so long as abuse is kept in check), especially the affluent. They're different from previous generaitons in that a lot of them owe their place simply to a silly economic theory that never panned out, so they're the last people who need to be clutching their pearls about "handouts."
Member
Posts: 63,030
Joined: Jul 15 2005
Gold: 152.00
Sep 27 2015 09:54am
I think I judged you prematurely, I recall attacking one (or more) of your posts in the past but your opinions are very well articulated and reasonable. I largely agree with the pragmatism you are presenting (though I am much more fiscally liberal than you and so there is no major conflict for me and I support Bernie almost across the board).
Retired Moderator
Posts: 115,437
Joined: Jan 19 2007
Gold: 35,078.94
Trader: Trusted
Sep 27 2015 10:01am
Quote (Pollster @ Sep 27 2015 10:53am)
The outsized significance of other socio-economic factors is the same at every level of education though. "The poor" are hungry in school. They can't hire tutors. They work as teenagers. Availability of every resource is obviously lower. All of it dramatically tilts the field towards the affluent as you would expect.

It's fine to not like abuse in the system, whether money is going to rich or poor or whoever "for nothing." But outside of the moral argument, the government makes huge expenditures and gives tax benefits to middle and low-income earners because that actually drives the economy in the way that giving more money to the affluent doesn't. It makes basic macroeconomic sense to direct assistance to the people who consume more if there's going to be assistance at all. From where I'm sitting, no one has a right to gripe about money going to "the poor" or anyone else when it's a massive economic driver (so long as abuse is kept in check), especially the affluent. They're different from previous generaitons in that a lot of them owe their place simply to a silly economic theory that never panned out, so they're the last people who need to be clutching their pearls about "handouts."



I actually hate the argument of poor kids do worse in school due to hunger, no tutors, no money. I didn't go hungry but I sure wasn't rich. My best friend does teach for America and the problem is that poor kids tend to be in urban areas that even with tons of funding (Mark zuckerburg and Newark schools for example) it requires a parent to reinforce and a kid to fucking give a shit. It's a cultural problem, not a money problem. It's not cool to get tutoring, even if free. It is cool to skip class. Rich kids tend not to care as much about that and they study hard because they care about their vision of going to college.
Member
Posts: 65,046
Joined: Jul 7 2008
Gold: Locked
Sep 27 2015 12:42pm
Quote (Voyaging @ Sep 27 2015 08:54am)
I think I judged you prematurely, I recall attacking one (or more) of your posts in the past but your opinions are very well articulated and reasonable. I largely agree with the pragmatism you are presenting (though I am much more fiscally liberal than you and so there is no major conflict for me and I support Bernie almost across the board).


Just like everyone else, there are some things Aspen is smart about. There are some things he's absolutely retarded about.
Retired Moderator
Posts: 115,437
Joined: Jan 19 2007
Gold: 35,078.94
Trader: Trusted
Sep 28 2015 11:01am
Quote (Voyaging @ Sep 27 2015 10:54am)
I think I judged you prematurely, I recall attacking one (or more) of your posts in the past but your opinions are very well articulated and reasonable. I largely agree with the pragmatism you are presenting (though I am much more fiscally liberal than you and so there is no major conflict for me and I support Bernie almost across the board).


I like Bernie, but I think he's done a very poor job explaining his plan of how to fund the trillions of dollars in programs he intends to implement. I too would looooove to raise minimum wage, add benefits to unemployment, make college free, etc., but his best plan for paying the money back is "it'll boost the lower-middle class and it'll cover itself" which I find to be a stretch. I think Bernie still needs to figure out ways to cut spending.

Quote (BardOfXiix @ Sep 27 2015 01:42pm)
Just like everyone else, there are some things Aspen is smart about. There are some things he's absolutely retarded about.


wow thank you for this compliment

This post was edited by AspenSniper on Sep 28 2015 11:03am
Go Back To Political & Religious Debate Topic List
12Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll