[hrothgar]

 blackshoe, on 2016-January-23, 02:47, said:

But the operative word here is "take". A government has no more right to do that than does the street corner mugger.

I know that you prefer to live in some bizarre little fantasy headspace constructed by gold bugs and 1950s science fiction authors, but out here in the real world, there's several hundred years of jurisprudence that says you're utterly and completely wrong.

But go ahead, think of yourself as a rugged individualist, beholden to no one, while you wait at home for your government pension check and your government health care...

[kenberg]

 blackshoe, on 2016-January-23, 02:47, said:

"Take from the rich and give to the poor" is something the left has always appreciated. But the operative word here is "take". A government has no more right to do that than does the street corner mugger. Now if those wealthiest earners want to voluntarily give up that "small part", more power to 'em.

I saw a video the other day that tried to claim paying taxes is voluntary, that there is no law that says we have to pay taxes. Yeah, right. Tell it to Al Capone. Or try it yourself. Good luck.

A recurring issue and probably pretty much I am giving a recurring response.

Man is a social animal, at least somewhat, and with a little effort the whole can be more than the sum of the parts.

I look at this from two competing sides:

Growing up, and later for that matter, our social/political structure was to my benefit.

Growing up, I understood that I was to support myself as an adult.

Many years later, my outlook still comes down to some sort of combination of the above. It is best for everyone if people grow to be self-supporting responsible adults. Society has a role to play in bringing this about, the individual has a role to play in bringing this about. The trick is to get the balance right.

My views are rooted much more in experience than in philosophy, so they are not apt to change. They haven't yet, anyway.

[awm]

 blackshoe, on 2016-January-23, 02:47, said:

"Take from the rich and give to the poor" is something the left has always appreciated. But the operative word here is "take". A government has no more right to do that than does the street corner mugger. Now if those wealthiest earners want to voluntarily give up that "small part", more power to 'em.

I saw a video the other day that tried to claim paying taxes is voluntary, that there is no law that says we have to pay taxes. Yeah, right. Tell it to Al Capone. Or try it yourself. Good luck.

I view this as somewhat like an investment -- the government invests in its citizens by providing them with education, safety, contract law enforcement, and a set of insurance policies in the form of a safety net. In return for this investment, we owe the government a fraction of our profits. The exact terms of the investment are negotiated between the people and the government through the process of voting. It's difficult to "opt out" of the investment for two reasons: one because most of the things government provides are "social goods" where it's hard to discriminate (i.e. government keeps acid out of the rain by restricting certain chemical pollutants, even if I don't pay my taxes it's hard to put the acid back in my rain without putting it in everyone else's) and because a great deal of the investment is already made by the time the age of majority is reached (childhood education, non-death from disease, etc). Nonetheless you can change social contracts by voting or moving to another country.

[Winstonm]

 mike777, on 2016-January-22, 23:51, said:

I agree with Winston.... we should not fear those that make 100% of the earnings spend it.

do not be afraid that the rich spend.

Mike,

How many wealthy people (those earning 1 million or more per year) do you know who spend (consume in goods) 100% of their earnings?

[gwnn]

Awm, I think you left out taking over various government properties and arming yourself to the teeth (before asking for food and supplies from sympathisers and then being offended when you get numerous dildos too).

[kenberg]

In a clear indication of my political predictive powers, I said a few days back that there would be no major third party candidate. The NYT has an article today about Bloomberg perhaps making a run for it.

This had not even occurred to me. Apparently he believes that many people are dismayed at the prospects in the two major parties. It's hard to quarrel with that observation.

Not living in NY, I don't much follow the politics there. I gather the bloom is off Bloomberg, but I also gather that De Blasio has not been a great success. It's a tough city.


I see Bloomberg is 73. I'm sorry, but that is an issue with me. At 77 I'm not dead yet, but I take pills, I tire more easily, my memory is less sharp, I spend more time talking to doctors. This seems pretty universal in my age group. Becky is out shoveling snow because I just had cataract surgery and I am forbidden to do such things for a couple of weeks. "Not dead yet" and "Up to be president" are very different things.


Of course some people are dead, literally of figuratively, when they are 60 so we have to look at the individual. And the president does not have to shovel his own snow.

[awm]

 kenberg, on 2016-January-24, 08:26, said:

I see Bloomberg is 73. I'm sorry, but that is an issue with me. At 77 I'm not dead yet, but I take pills, I tire more easily, my memory is less sharp, I spend more time talking to doctors. This seems pretty universal in my age group. Becky is out shoveling snow because I just had cataract surgery and I am forbidden to do such things for a couple of weeks. "Not dead yet" and "Up to be president" are very different things.


Of course some people are dead, literally of figuratively, when they are 60 so we have to look at the individual. And the president does not have to shovel his own snow.

Bernie Sanders is even older at 74. Hillary Clinton is just a bit younger at 68. Donald Trump is 69. Of course, Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio are considerably younger (mid-forties in fact). It is interesting whether this will be a factor in the election. It's also interesting that young people vote overwhelmingly for Democrats (admittedly turnout is low, but the young people who vote skew left), but the Democrats don't seem to have a lot of young candidates (even if we look at Democrats in Congress they seem to skew older).

[kenberg]

 awm, on 2016-January-24, 10:59, said:

Bernie Sanders is even older at 74. Hillary Clinton is just a bit younger at 68. Donald Trump is 69. Of course, Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio are considerably younger (mid-forties in fact). It is interesting whether this will be a factor in the election. It's also interesting that young people vote overwhelmingly for Democrats (admittedly turnout is low, but the young people who vote skew left), but the Democrats don't seem to have a lot of young candidates (even if we look at Democrats in Congress they seem to skew older).

Yes, now that you mention it, it seems odd. But maybe just a fluke of the moment. Bill Clinton was young when elected and Obama even younger (I think). But it is a little weird to have the party of the young (the Dems) choosing between Hillary and Bernie while the party of the old (the Reps) at least have some young people in the race. Back to the Dems, Martin O'Malley is 53, fairly young for someone running for pres. He will not be the nominee.

Age is a tricky business. When I was 50 I could realize I was not 30, but since I was not earning my living as a basketball player the difference seemed unimportant. I no longer would say that. I enjoy good health and, had it not been for the recent surgery, I would be out happily shoveling snow. Sure I could buy a snow blower (a childhood friend saw news about the storm and offered to send me one, he still lives in Minnesota and has three) but I don't want one. Shoveling is good exercise, you can chat with a neighbor, etc. But there are reasons for me not working a forty hour week, let alone taking a non-stop job, as the presidency is.

Hillary doesn't look all that old to me. Not young, but young enough. Bernie looks old. I want to say "Take it easy, let the kids do it".

If Bernie gets the nomination, I will not write him off on age. Nor will I write off Bloomberg on age. I have always seen individuals as individuals. But I know a lot of people my age who have been very active and are now taking it easy. This seems normal to me.

[gwnn]

It seems only old people write off Bernie as old he has an 11% lead ahead of Hillary among millenials (defined as less than 35 - looked up the numbers). No real point to this post but it's interesting to see how much young people identify with Bernie.

This post has been edited by gwnn: 2016-January-24, 11:59

[hrothgar]

 gwnn, on 2016-January-24, 11:56, said:

It seems only old people write off Bernie as old he has an 11% lead ahead of Hillary among millenials (defined as less than 35 - looked up the numbers). No real point to this post but it's interesting to see how much young people identify with Bernie.

Don't get me wrong... Bernies' views are much closer to mine than Hillary's.

With this said and done, Reagan's Alzheimer's really started kicking in midway through his second term.
Not something that I want to see happen again.
Going with a younger candidate is one way to mitigate the risk.

[gwnn]

Saying "I went to Wall Street and told them: Cut it out!" and thinking it's a convincing argument or whatever sounds more like Alzheimer than anything Bernie said.

[kenberg]

 gwnn, on 2016-January-24, 11:56, said:

It seems only old people write off Bernie as old

Which, if you think about it, might not be as crazy as it sounds. We live it.
But I won't write him off. I think age is relevant, but not disqualifying.
General health is very relevant, and age is part of health.
We would all like the perfect candidate, we always have to balance things out.

[barmar]

In case anyone is interested in the statistics:

Youngest: eleected = JFK 43.6, by ascension = Teddy Roosevelt 42.9
Median: 54.9
Oldest: Reagan: almost 70

More at https://en.wikipedia...d_States_by_age

[Winstonm]

 hrothgar, on 2016-January-24, 12:52, said:

Don't get me wrong... Bernies' views are much closer to mine than Hillary's.

With this said and done, Reagan's Alzheimer's really started kicking in midway through his second term.
Not something that I want to see happen again.
Going with a younger candidate is one way to mitigate the risk.

A Reagan with all his faculties is something I hope to never again see.

[Winstonm]

Carn...as far as the eye can see...carn. And it's only 7 days away.

[Flem72]

 Winstonm, on 2016-January-25, 11:53, said:

A Reagan with all his faculties is something I hope to never again see.

but he probably wouldn't split the infinitive....

[Winstonm]

 Flem72, on 2016-January-26, 09:23, said:

but he probably wouldn't split the infinitive....

No, but I tend "to boldly go where no man has gone before>"

[barmar]

 Flem72, on 2016-January-26, 09:23, said:

but he probably wouldn't split the infinitive....

It took some searching, but I found these from his announcement of his presidential candidacy:

Quote

Much of this talk has come from leaders who claim that our problems are too difficult to handle. We are supposed to meekly accept their failures as the most which humanly can be done.
...
I believe this nation hungers for a spiritual revival; hungers to once again see honor placed above political expediency;

[gwnn]

 barmar, on 2016-January-26, 10:21, said:

It took some searching, but I found these from his announcement of his presidential candidacy:

Great stuff! Have a virtual upvote!!

[kenberg]

We have watched the first two episodes of Billions, and maybe we will watch a third.. It's not a gret show but it brought to mind some questions I have thought about from time to time.
Regarding the problems created by the unrestrained financial behavior of some at the very top:

A. To what extent do we need new laws, to what extent to we need better enforcement of existing laws?

B. In either case, few people understand the complexities of high finance. I don't, for example. I barely know a hedge fund from a hedgehog. To either write or enforce laws effectively we need people who have extensive understanding of the mechanisms. But such people come from the high finance culture, and quite possibly their goals are not my goals.

Not that I actually have a solution.