United States Politics Thread 46

[Raphael]

But the real question is, what's the plan? How are old folks supposed to, y'know, eat? Is everybody super enthused at the idea of taking Grandma in?

IIRC the idea is to have people invest money before they retire, and then live of those investments once they're retired. One of the many problems with that proposal - and that is what many people who are your or my age or younger seem to have trouble understanding - is that the new system would have the same problems as the old one. That's because every system that ensures that retires have money to live works, fundamentally, the same way as the current US Social Security system and it's counterparts in other countries do. The proposed alternatives are just less direct about what they're doing than Social Security is. If you no longer work because you're retired, you're consuming good and services produced by the work of people who aren't retired yet. That holds true no matter which exact administrative, legal, and financial mechanisms make sure that you have the money to pay for those goods and services. And if there really is a situation where there are too many retirees and not enough people working to produce goods and services, then that's still a problem no matter how those administrative, legal, and financial mechanisms work.

[Ares Land]

IIRC the idea is to have people invest money before they retire, and then live of those investments once they're retired. One of the many problems with that proposal - and that is what many people who are your or my age or younger seem to have trouble understanding - is that the new system would have the same problems as the old one. That's because every system that ensures that retires have money to live works, fundamentally, the same way as the current US Social Security system and it's counterparts in other countries do. The proposed alternatives are just less direct about what they're doing than Social Security is. If you no longer work because you're retired, you're consuming good and services produced by the work of people who aren't retired yet. That holds true no matter which exact administrative, legal, and financial mechanisms make sure that you have the money to pay for those goods and services. And if there really is a situation where there are too many retirees and not enough people working to produce goods and services, then that's still a problem no matter how those administrative, legal, and financial mechanisms work.

Yes, exactly! If there is a problem with demographics, no matter how the pensions work, we're still going to run into the same kind of problems.

[Linguoboy]

Yes, exactly! If there is a problem with demographics, no matter how the pensions work, we're still going to run into the same kind of problems.

There is a potential shortage of labour. That's only equivalent to a "problem with demographics" if we don't continue to improve productivity through increased automation etc.

The problem with Social Security in particular is that it's not actually funded. The government pretends that there's a "fund" that it "borrows" against, but really this is all a fiction. All there really is is an obligation to pay that's funded out of current revenues.

[jcb]

Social security takes from the young, who mostly don't believe it'll be solvent when they're old, to give to the old, many of whom are members of the AARP, which is a lobbying organization that is good at its job.

We hear that a lot from young or young-ish conservatives here over pensions. The belief that the pension system is going to be insolvent is prevalent but I'm not sure how well founded it is. But the real question is, what's the plan? How are old folks supposed to, y'know, eat? Is everybody super enthused at the idea of taking Grandma in?

No, grandma is just supposed to hurry up and die, eagerly sacrificing herself on the altar of Mammon Theconomy: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/ ... an-patrick

[Raphael]

All there really is is an obligation to pay that's funded out of current revenues.

The thing with the proposed alternatives is that they mainly just go to greater lengths to hide the same kind of thing.

[Ares Land]

All there really is is an obligation to pay that's funded out of current revenues.

The thing with the proposed alternatives is that they mainly just go to greater lengths to hide the same kind of thing.

In the US or more generally? Here pensions and our equivalent of Social Security have dedicated funds and revenues.

[bradrn]

Australia has quite an interesting ‘superannuation’ system to solve this particular problem. Essentially, each superannuation provider is a private investment fund, independent from the government (but well-regulated). It is mandatory for a certain amount of your income to be directed into your chosen fund, with tax benefits for doing so. You cannot access the money until you retire, at which point you get full access to the balance.

Of course, Australia has a governmental pension in addition to superannuation. (I’m not sure how that’s administered.) But superannuation certainly helps to take off some of the pressure on it. As far as I can tell, it seems very broadly popular (despite the usual grumbles now and again), and is one of the few such schemes which actually works as intended.

[Linguoboy]

All there really is is an obligation to pay that's funded out of current revenues.

The thing with the proposed alternatives is that they mainly just go to greater lengths to hide the same kind of thing.

In the US or more generally? Here pensions and our equivalent of Social Security have dedicated funds and revenues.

The reason I capitalised "Social Security" was to clarify that I was referring specifically to the US government programme and not to social insurance programmes more generally. I'm sorry that wasn't clear.

[Linguoboy]

These conspiracy theories about the student encampments are really getting bonkers. First, a relatively sane friend shared a headline about how 80% of the protesters arrested at ASU you were not university affiliates with the question "Wondering what percentage of the participants of these protests are part of a Steve Bannon/Jill Stein op." (Weird, it's like you can't actually arrest students and faculty for attending their own university.) Then someone in a politics groups I follow shared a post from a hedge fund manager "just asking questions" about the "suspicious uniformity" of the tents at the different encampments--almost as if they'd all been bought and paid for by the same shadowy individual.! Never mind that a moment's googling will show you a motley assortment of tents at pretty much every encampment.

I get why a spontaneous student movement is as threatening to establishment Democrats as it is to Republicans, but I really wish people would apply a modicum of common sense and a healthy dose of scepticism when evaluating the charges of those trying to discredit the movement. It's the same canards from Occupy and BLM just recycled over again.

[MacAnDàil]

In any case, social security does not take from the old to give to the young, notably retirement. I argue that a good role of a state: improves the conditions of the citizens and inhabitants, notably the most vulnerable, while encouraging virtue i.e. positive behaviour and discouraging vice i.e. negative behaviour and maintaining a balance between freedom and order.

Social security takes from the young, who mostly don't believe it'll be solvent when they're old, to give to the old, many of whom are members of the AARP, which is a lobbying organization that is good at its job. (See also: the NRA.) Also, the young get to pay upwards of $2000/mo for a one-bedroom apartment because building more housing might lower the property values of the people who bought houses when they were cheap - but it's fine because, anyway, cities encourage vice. Urban youths, you know? We need to do something about the urban youths. We need to get their noses to the grindstone so our lines go up faster and we can play more golf in Florida. Not to mention immigration - the only time in my adult life that I've had neighbors who spoke fluent English was when I moved to the country to wait out the plague and lived down the street from a horse farm, but that's what it takes to keep the pyramid schemes solvent for the over-65s without leaving the under-40s enough time, money, or energy to have kids of their own. The youths can't be trusted with freedom, you know. They don't have the wisdom that comes with age. They'd probably all blow it on video games, or gang crime, or something.

There seems to be some sarcasm here but I'm not whether it's mixed in with non-sarcastic parts.
A government should hoepfully do better than their rivals and their absence at least and improve life.

[Travis B.]

These conspiracy theories about the student encampments are really getting bonkers. First, a relatively sane friend shared a headline about how 80% of the protesters arrested at ASU you were not university affiliates with the question "Wondering what percentage of the participants of these protests are part of a Steve Bannon/Jill Stein op." (Weird, it's like you can't actually arrest students and faculty for attending their own university.) Then someone in a politics groups I follow shared a post from a hedge fund manager "just asking questions" about the "suspicious uniformity" of the tents at the different encampments--almost as if they'd all been bought and paid for by the same shadowy individual.! Never mind that a moment's googling will show you a motley assortment of tents at pretty much every encampment.

I get why a spontaneous student movement is as threatening to establishment Democrats as it is to Republicans, but I really wish people would apply a modicum of common sense and a healthy dose of scepticism when evaluating the charges of those trying to discredit the movement. It's the same canards from Occupy and BLM just recycled over again.

The big problem is that we need everyone possible to vote for Biden et al or else, but I suspect many of these people protesting won't vote or will vote third-party even though Trump wouldn't stop sending money to Israel anyways, and would probably put no pressure at all on Israel. These are the kind of people who don't believe in the adage "the perfect is the enemy of good" (and yes, sending money to fund what Israel is doing isn't "good", but the fact is that the alternative is even worse).

[MacAnDàil]

Exactly, we need to consider what the alternative is. Realistically the only remotely probable alternatives to the US presidential election are Trump being president and Biden being president, the latter being clearly better on not just foreign policy but also environment, democracy, and more or less anything else.

It's the same with pensions, as Ares Land was saying: either old folk continue working until they die or we support them not working in some way, whether that's individually or cellectively organised. And most individuals would not have the possibility if it was up to each of us to fund our own retirement (which brings us back to the issue of wealth, property and income redistribution) so it would wind up with rich people retiring and poor people continuing working until death, which is unjust and the hotbed of discontent for anyone who remotely considers or contests unjust situation.

[masako]

...these people protesting won't vote or will vote third-party...

It's worse than that. The blindingly stupid majority of these rubes think that by not voting, or voting third party, they're actually effectuating substantive political change. IMHO it's a symptom of a lack of civic understanding. Most of them want an actual revolution, not just a political paradigm shift...I worry, that they will end up fueling a revolution that results in more, not less, fascism. The unwillingness to support the rival of a fascist will tend to result in passive support of the same, but explaining that to these folks becomes a moral debate that borders on an existential, sometimes metaphysical, quibble about the meaning of words and true intent.

I've seen stuff online suggesting that if Biden wins reelection, the political sphere will somehow revert to some quasi-pre-Trump state, and, no...just no. The MAGA wing is here for the foreseeable future, and will likely get worse before fading away. Voting is currently the most potent weapon against them, and anyone who thinks otherwise is demonstrating a lack of comprehension of the US political system that rivals the amorality of Trump himself.

[Linguoboy]

I get why a spontaneous student movement is as threatening to establishment Democrats as it is to Republicans, but I really wish people would apply a modicum of common sense and a healthy dose of scepticism when evaluating the charges of those trying to discredit the movement. It's the same canards from Occupy and BLM just recycled over again.

The big problem is that we need everyone possible to vote for Biden et al or else, but I suspect many of these people protesting won't vote or will vote third-party even though Trump wouldn't stop sending money to Israel anyways, and would probably put no pressure at all on Israel. These are the kind of people who don't believe in the adage "the perfect is the enemy of good" (and yes, sending money to fund what Israel is doing isn't "good", but the fact is that the alternative is even worse).

So that's a justification for endorsing conspiracy theories which discredit the protesters? That's going to be what wins them over to the Biden side?

I'm not really sure what the point is you're making here, Travis. Young people are disgusted by the moral choices of the people in power and they're turning to direct action to make that clear since the apparatus of democracy in this country has been almost wholly ineffectual at transforming their demographic significance into political power. I can't think of any better way to deepen that disgust than to ignore their concerns, suggest they're nothing more than dupes, and lecture them on their poor understanding of civics. The inability to come up with a means for harnessing the enthusiasm for change of the most left-wing generation in years at a time of rising fascism really is peak Democrat.

[Travis B.]

I get why a spontaneous student movement is as threatening to establishment Democrats as it is to Republicans, but I really wish people would apply a modicum of common sense and a healthy dose of scepticism when evaluating the charges of those trying to discredit the movement. It's the same canards from Occupy and BLM just recycled over again.

The big problem is that we need everyone possible to vote for Biden et al or else, but I suspect many of these people protesting won't vote or will vote third-party even though Trump wouldn't stop sending money to Israel anyways, and would probably put no pressure at all on Israel. These are the kind of people who don't believe in the adage "the perfect is the enemy of good" (and yes, sending money to fund what Israel is doing isn't "good", but the fact is that the alternative is even worse).

So that's a justification for endorsing conspiracy theories which discredit the protesters? That's going to be what wins them over to the Biden side?

I'm not really sure what the point is you're making here, Travis. Young people are disgusted by the moral choices of the people in power and they're turning to direct action to make that clear since the apparatus of democracy in this country has been almost wholly ineffectual at transforming their demographic significance into political power. I can't think of any better way to deepen that disgust than to ignore their concerns, suggest they're nothing more than dupes, and lecture them on their poor understanding of civics. The inability to come up with a means for harnessing the enthusiasm for change of the most left-wing generation in years at a time of rising fascism really is peak Democrat.

What the Biden administration can do is what they are starting to do now ─ i.e. put pressure on Israel through making aid conditional on what Israel does or doesn't do. This is what they should have done a while ago, and this does reflect the amount of pressure that is being put on the Biden administration.

The fundamental problem, though, is not voting at all or voting third-party in the actual election is a classic example of the perfect is the enemy of the good, and will obviously fail to achieve the desired objective, because it will throw the election to Trump, and Trump won't hold back on military aid to Israel at all, amongst all the other evils he will perpetrate. Consequently, breaking with Biden altogether over Biden's longstanding support for Israel will be self-defeating.

[MacAnDàil]

I think Travis's point, which I agree with, is about which way to vote, not about discrediting protests.

[Linguoboy]

I think Travis's point, which I agree with, is about which way to vote, not about discrediting protests.

Please show me where in my OP I said a damn word about voting or not voting. He simply ignored the content of my post to ride his old hobby horse about voting.

[Travis B.]

I think Travis's point, which I agree with, is about which way to vote, not about discrediting protests.

Please show me where in my OP I said a damn word about voting or not voting. He simply ignored the content of my post to ride his old hobby horse about voting.

Obviously you would delegitimize concerns about protest (non-)votes, and that they would only increase the chances of the next presidential election being the last, from how you put that, because such concerns would potentially discredit the protestors?

[Ares Land]

Moving back a recent discussion where it belongs

PS There are other explanations for preferring a fascist or similar: being misguided, misinformed, short-sighted, opportunistic among others.

Another factor -- and possibly the main one is that fascists are just way better at propaganda. Here having an ideology completely divorced from reality helps a lot; any stupid idea can be described as incredibly subtle 4D chess.


A thought that occured to me too is that -- from my foreign, limited perspective -- Republicans are pretty easy to read and have better luck implementing their policies.
Democratic presidencies are a bit anticlimatic and sometimes difficult to understand, because the Democrats are a vary wide coalition and second because they so often have to deal with a Republican Congress.

Right now US politics towards the Middle East is, to put it mildly, hard to follow. It seems Biden wants one thing, Democratic financial backers want yet another thing, and of course Congress wants its own thing. So you get Biden drawing red lines and doing absolutely nothing when they get crossed.

The Trump+Republican act of simply maximizing evil is a lot easier to follow.

[zompist]

A thought that occured to me too is that -- from my foreign, limited perspective -- Republicans are pretty easy to read and have better luck implementing their policies.

Depends on what you consider their policies to be. The one thing they can all agree on is cutting taxes. They were unable to repeal Obamacare or implement Paul Ryan's libertarian fantasies during the Trump years, and the Speaker fights have shown them to be way more fractious than the Dems.

Right now US politics towards the Middle East is, to put it mildly, hard to follow. It seems Biden wants one thing, Democratic financial backers want yet another thing, and of course Congress wants its own thing. So you get Biden drawing red lines and doing absolutely nothing when they get crossed.

It's depressingly simple: not supporting Israel is political suicide. A recent poll shows 58% very or mostly favorable views of Israel. And it was over 60% for the entire period 2005-2023... often over 70%. You don't get ahead in US politics by bucking that kind of trend.

It's not a constant, though. Support has declined a lot in the last year-- even among Republicans. And the number was as low as 45% in 1989.

Support for the Palestinian Authority has also gone down... rather precipitously for the middle-aged... which doesn't say much for most Americans' ability to understand who is doing what in the Middle East.