The DNC KenyanCommieMooselimbDidn'tBuildIt MegaThread!

[Jacob]

Agreed, they don't scale linearly and there is a redistributive element.  But that just compounds my existing argument; Social Security redistributes money from the top of the income distribution to the bottom.

... and that is bad because? Society is better off if poor people too old to work cannot pay for food, housing, medicine and care?

There is also a gigantic redistributive component from singles to marrieds, but that's a whole nuther discussion.

I don't think your allies in the religious right are going to want that to change.

[jimmy olsen]

I say 200.5k

That's good enough to keep him where he's at now (in a slight lead), not good enough to improve it.

EDIT: And it turns out reading further into the thread that it was only 96k. Not nearly good enough.

[Admiral Yi]

Ah, I think I see the disconnect.

You seem obsessed with dividing everything into "givers" and "takers" as some sort of moral imperative. That's not the point. The point is to participate in the system by both giving and taking as appropriate, and thus both prosper and ensure that others have the best chance of prospering as well. It's about making sure that society as a whole prospers by doing your share when you can, and knowing that others will do theirs when you cannot. It's not about tallying up plusses and minuses in columns and making sure they balance out on an individual basis.

Of course.  And that's what this discussion is about: what is the situation in which it is appropriate to give, and which it is appropriate to take.

I think only half the people giving is inappropriate.  Others might think it would be appropriate that only 1% give, and about half take.

[Admiral Yi]

... and that is bad because? Society is better off if poor people too old to work cannot pay for food, housing, medicine and care?

It's good for the reason all redistributive policies are good: it channels money to people who need it the most.

It's bad for the reason all redistributive policies are bad: it disincentivizes work and saving.

I don't think your allies in the religious right are going to want that to change.

Don't join the retards Jake.

[Valmy]

SS transfers wealth from the young to the old more than it does from the rich to the poor.

Yes and generally the young are poorer than the rich so in fact it does just the opposite.

[Jacob]

... and that is bad because? Society is better off if poor people too old to work cannot pay for food, housing, medicine and care?

It's good for the reason all redistributive policies are good: it channels money to people who need it the most.

It's bad for the reason all redistributive policies are bad: it disincentivizes work and saving.

I don't think your allies in the religious right are going to want that to change.

Don't join the retards Jake.

Okay and okay.

For a discussion triggered by a response to an offhand comment about cheese, it seems like you're deliberately driving at a very specific point. I'm not quite sure what it is, however.

You're not interested in playing the usual languish partisan posture games it seems; which is cool.

Do you have some notions about what the ideal balance of redistribution in today's America, how this balance may be changed depending on the outcome of the upcoming election, and consequently which candidates are to be preferred?

Is it part of the scrum where we define or redefine what Obama meant by the concept of "citizenship" as part of a semi-partisan attempts to shape the debate (which the conversation started IMO)? If so, what's your play?

Are you primarily interested in refining a common set of definitions, vocabulary and understandings of economical process when we speak of various redistribution approaches as a precursor to a more practical discussion?

Where are you going Yi?

[Admiral Yi]

I'm interested in a system that broadly distributes the tax burden so that discussions about spending are on the terms of "do we as a people want this and are we as a people willing to pay for it."  I'm afraid of a Roman system in which "we" tax "those people over there" and then fight over the best seats in the Colliseum.

[Razgovory]

Is "disincentivizing work" actually a problem in the US?

[sbr]

Is "disincentivizing work" actually a problem in the US?

It's nearly as bad as fraud and corruption.

[Razgovory]

Ah, I think I see the disconnect.

You seem obsessed with dividing everything into "givers" and "takers" as some sort of moral imperative. That's not the point. The point is to participate in the system by both giving and taking as appropriate, and thus both prosper and ensure that others have the best chance of prospering as well. It's about making sure that society as a whole prospers by doing your share when you can, and knowing that others will do theirs when you cannot. It's not about tallying up plusses and minuses in columns and making sure they balance out on an individual basis.

Of course.  And that's what this discussion is about: what is the situation in which it is appropriate to give, and which it is appropriate to take.

I think only half the people giving is inappropriate.  Others might think it would be appropriate that only 1% give, and about half take.

You are still going with the "half don't pay taxes thing"?

[garbon]

Disabled people getting away with crimes?

Disabled people cannot commit crimes?

Doubtful to the extent that it is a compelling reason for why we should take care of them.

[derspiess]

Is "disincentivizing work" actually a problem in the US?

Yes.

[Queequeg]

Has anyone seen Hansie in the last month?  Every time I remember his "Romney, by a landslide" prediction I break out in giggles. 

[Martinus]

I just saw on the Daily Show how the DNC "voted" to amend the platform to include God and Jerusalem. How fucking pathetic. 

If I was an American, I would not go to vote at all after that.

[Faeelin]

I just saw on the Daily Show how the DNC "voted" to amend the platform to include God and Jerusalem. How fucking pathetic. 

If I was an American, I would not go to vote at all after that.

So, how many political parties in Poland endorse gay marriage?