Politics

[Dr Gloom 21568]

hillary will raise taxes on the wealthy. under her proposals the top 1% of households (who bring in more than $730,000 a year) would see their tax burden go up by more than $78,000 on average. she's also proposed to raise capital gains taxes on high-income investors and increase taxes on big estates and inheritances. this is designed to help fund her pledge to offer free college to virtually all americans, make one of the largest investments in history in infrastructure and raise the national minimum wage. that all sounds like pretty sensible stuff to me. 

 

trump promises tax cuts for all, but the biggest tax benefit by far would go to the very wealthiest households, who would see their taxes reduced by around 19%, compared with 4.9% for middle income households. 

[Rayvin 5131]

hillary will raise taxes on the wealthy. under her proposals the top 1% of households (who bring in more than $730,000 a year) would see their tax burden go up by more than $78,000 on average. she's also proposed to raise capital gains taxes on high-income investors and increase taxes on big estates and inheritances. this is designed to help fund her pledge to offer free college to virtually all americans, make one of the largest investments in history in infrastructure and raise the national minimum wage. that all sounds like pretty sensible stuff to me. 

 

trump promises tax cuts for all, but the biggest tax benefit by far would go to the very wealthiest households, who would see their taxes reduced by around 19%, compared with 4.9% for middle income households. 

 

Which is another good reason why Trump shouldn't win.

 

I think my argument here is that we're at best kicking the can further down the road with Hillary. She isn't going to improve people's lives enough, she isn't going to stop the rot that appears to be the widespread failure of Neo-Liberalism. So people will continue to be polarised, and people like Renton will have to continue despairing at the political choices of people like me. Either the left or the right can reverse this, IMO, but I'd far rather it was the left.

[Alex 34286]

It's the status quo v a right-wing nutter feeding off bigotted hatred. The problem with that is that the establishment have created scenario in which, by making the working and middle classes realively poorer than they were previously, it has become obvious how self-serving that establishment is and how they have continued to concentrate more and more of the wealth in the hands of the few. Up against that almost anything seems palatable. Even without the aforementioned mistakes and questionable things Clinton has done, she could hardly be more representative of the political old guard. In that context even a total fucking loony toon like Trump seems like a viable alternative.

[Dr Gloom 21568]

Which is another good reason why Trump shouldn't win.

 

I think my argument here is that we're at best kicking the can further down the road with Hillary. She isn't going to improve people's lives enough, she isn't going to stop the rot that appears to be the widespread failure of Neo-Liberalism. So people will continue to be polarised, and people like Renton will have to continue despairing at the political choices of people like me. Either the left or the right can reverse this, IMO, but I'd far rather it was the left.

Why can't she improve people's lives? Inequality in America is a problem, just like here, but their unemployment rate is hovering around 4% - that's much better than many parts of Europe. And her economic policies sound pretty progressive to me.

[Rayvin 5131]

It's the status quo v a right-wing nutter feeding off bigotted hatred. The problem with that is that the establishment have created scenario in which, by making the working and middle classes realively poorer than they were previously, it has become obvious how self-serving that establishment is and how they have continued to concentrate more and more of the wealth in the hands of the few. Up against that almost anything seems palatable. Even without the aforementioned mistakes and questionable things Clinton has done, she could hardly be more representative of the political old guard. In that context even a total fucking loony toon like Trump seems like a viable alternative.

 

A much more level-headed way of setting out what I was trying to convey. Thanks.

[Rayvin 5131]

Why can't she improve people's lives? Inequality in America is a problem, just like here, but their unemployment rate is hovering around 4% - that's much better than many parts of Europe. And her economic policies sound pretty progressive to me.

 

Why didn't Obama change enough people's lives? Maybe I'm wrong, perhaps we'll all look back on Hillary as this great reformist who, despite her immense wealth, put those on lower incomes first and effectively gave away what she had.

 

But I just don't think it's likely we'll see that.

[Renton 20620]

So I've just seen a side by side comparison of her policies compared with Sanders. They are remarkably similar, only slightly to the right on some issues and in full agreement on any others. So how is she establishment and not Sanders? Because of her marriage to Bill I suppose (who I personally rated highly)? She's an intelligent woman from a relatively modest background, I still don't get the vitriol.

[ewerk 29809]

I don't see the 'old guard' as necessarily a bad thing, certainly when the alternatives are extremists from both sides of the aisle.

[Renton 20620]

Why didn't Obama change enough people's lives? Maybe I'm wrong, perhaps we'll all look back on Hillary as this great reformist who, despite her immense wealth, put those on lower incomes first and effectively gave away what she had.

 

But I just don't think it's likely we'll see that.

Because he was blocked at every turn by a republican controlled Senate?

[Alex 34286]

A much more level-headed way of setting out what I was trying to convey. Thanks.

Like yourself I don't want him to win but I think you're spot on in the sense that it's just putting off the real problem of neo-liberalism til further down the line.

 

So I've just seen a side by side comparison of her policies compared with Sanders. They are remarkably similar, only slightly to the right on some issues and in full agreement on any others. So how is she establishment and not Sanders? Because of her marriage to Bill I suppose (who I personally rated highly)? She's an intelligent woman from a relatively modest background, I still don't get the vitriol.

 

You just answered your own question. Of course it's her marriage to the former president.

[Rayvin 5131]

So I've just seen a side by side comparison of her policies compared with Sanders. They are remarkably similar, only slightly to the right on some issues and in full agreement on any others. So how is she establishment and not Sanders? Because of her marriage to Bill I suppose (who I personally rated highly)? She's an intelligent woman from a relatively modest background, I still don't get the vitriol.

 

Did you check their relative net worth, out of interest?

 

But yes, they aren't that far apart. Except that Sanders isn't the establishment. And doesn't have all of these 'crooked' issues surrounding him. I've already posted why I'm inclined to believe that there's no smoke without fire on those.

 

And yes, she probably is suffering from association with Bill there.

Edited September 28, 2016 by Rayvin

[Alex 34286]

I don't see the 'old guard' as necessarily a bad thing, certainly when the alternatives are extremists from both sides of the aisle.

Irrespective of that, the point is that loads of the people I just described clearly do.

[NJS 4281]

So I've just seen a side by side comparison of her policies compared with Sanders. They are remarkably similar, only slightly to the right on some issues and in full agreement on any others. So how is she establishment and not Sanders? Because of her marriage to Bill I suppose (who I personally rated highly)? She's an intelligent woman from a relatively modest background, I still don't get the vitriol.

I think there's a feeling she only included a lot of stuff as a sop to Sanders supporters without really having an intention of following them as they weren't in there when she started her campaign.

 

We'll see - but she'll be facing the same obstacles less in Congress you mention as well.

Which is another good reason why Trump shouldn't win.

 

I think my argument here is that we're at best kicking the can further down the road with Hillary. She isn't going to improve people's lives enough, she isn't going to stop the rot that appears to be the widespread failure of Neo-Liberalism. So people will continue to be polarised, and people like Renton will have to continue despairing at the political choices of people like me. Either the left or the right can reverse this, IMO, but I'd far rather it was the left.

[Renton 20620]

Did you check their relative net worth, out of interest?

 

But yes, they aren't that far apart. Except that Sanders isn't the establishment. And doesn't have all of these 'crooked' issues surrounding him. I've already posted why I'm inclined to believe that there's no smoke without fire on those.

 

And yes, she probably is suffering from association with Bill there.

Interesting, so you're effectively dismissing Clinton not on her policies but because of who she is. I've had similar accusations thrown at me regarding Corbyn.

 

The US has always been about families having political dynasties though, hasn't it? The Kennedys, the Bushs, and now the Clintons. Why is it such an issue now?

[ewerk 29809]

Irrespective of that, the point is that loads of the people I just described clearly do.

 

Not enough to make a difference though. The RNC didn't want Trump to win because an establishment candidate would most likely do better than Trump in the polls. 

[Rayvin 5131]

Interesting, so you're effectively dismissing Clinton not on her policies but because of who she is. I've had similar accusations thrown at me regarding Corbyn.

 

The US has always been about families having political dynasties though, hasn't it? The Kennedys, the Bushs, and now the Clintons. Why is it such an issue now?

 

I said I would vote for Clinton. Would you vote for Corbyn?

 

Besides, in the US race there was no better choice than Sanders. If there had been a more progressive option, I would have gone for that. Somewhat different to your Corbyn scenario.

 

And it's an issue now, yet again, because Neo-Liberalism is failing. Because, geo-politically, people are being polarised. And that is dangerous. That sort of thing, eventually, leads to someone like Trump. It may already have done so. That's the risk of sticking to the centre, too many people are heading to the fringes, and more of the status quo is not going to fix that.

[ewerk 29809]

I think there's a feeling she only included a lot of stuff as a sop to Sanders supporters without really having an intention of following them as they weren't in there when she started her campaign.

 

We'll see - but she'll be facing the same obstacles less in Congress you mention as well.

 

That's absolutely true. Similar to Owen Smith trying to pretend that he's nearly as left wing as Corbyn.

[Dr Gloom 21568]

Why didn't Obama change enough people's lives? Maybe I'm wrong, perhaps we'll all look back on Hillary as this great reformist who, despite her immense wealth, put those on lower incomes first and effectively gave away what she had.

 

But I just don't think it's likely we'll see that.

 

i think obama did a pretty good job considering he took over in 2008. he launched a massive economic stimulus, which helped end the recession, extended unemployment benefits, saved 3m jobs by bailing out the car industry, reformed healthcare system, which though limited compared to the universal provision we enjoy did lead to accusations of being a socialist (a dirty word in america).

 

he's introduced more banking regulation - though this could arguably have gone further, so he could be accused of being establishment there. 

 

and i don't agree with all of his foreign policies, and his use of drone attacks) and i'm not sure he deserved the nobel peace prize like, but brokering the iran deal was a big achievement. 

[Rayvin 5131]

i think obama did a pretty good job considering he took over in 2008. he launched a massive economic stimulus, which helped end the recession, extended unemployment benefits, saved 3m jobs by bailing out the car industry, reformed healthcare system, which though limited compared to the universal provision we enjoy did lead to accusations of being a socialist (a dirty word in america).

 

he's introduced more banking regulation - though this could arguably have gone further, so he could be accused of being establishment there. 

 

and i don't agree with all of his foreign policies, and his use of drone attacks) and i'm not sure he deserved the nobel peace prize like, but brokering the iran deal was a big achievement. 

 

Yeah all true to be honest - I think that further sells my overall point though, that despite someone like Obama (i.e. very similar to Hillary) coming in with a wave of such policies, we're still on the brink of electing a right wing lunatic because of widespread discontent with centrist politics. Alex put it best further up.

[Dr Gloom 21568]

the situation in the US is nowhere as bad as trump makes out. it's the politics of fear. excellent leader in the FT on this

 

 

 

Anyone watching the first presidential debate would be forgiven for thinking the US was on the brink of collapse. The Republican candidate, Donald Trump, insisted the US was a third-world country suffering an almost biblical flight of jobs to China and beyond. Violence was out of control and parts of the country were now in open warfare.

 

Hillary Clinton’s language may have been rather less melodramatic. But she shared Mr Trump’s premise about the threat posed to the US by an open global economy. She declined the chance to re-embrace the Trans-Pacific Partnership that she once labelled a gold standard of trade deals. She also failed to spell out what kind of America the world should expect if she were to succeed Barack Obama. Their message to Americans was: “Be afraid. Be very afraid.” The rest of the world should take note.

 

The big puzzle is the gap between the relatively healthy reality of the American economy, particularly compared with Europe and Japan, and the dystopia gripping its politics. Contrary to Mr Trump’s depiction of a jobless America, the US unemployment rate is just 4.9 per cent, which is less than half that of parts of Europe.

 

Even in rust belt states such as Michigan and Ohio, joblessness has fallen far and reasonably fast since the Great Recession of 2008. Moreover, immigrants, illegal or otherwise, are not taking all the jobs — or suppressing workers’ wages. The rate of illegal entries into the US mostly from Mexico has gone into reverse. After a drought lasting more than a decade, US median incomes last year finally began to grow again. It is one thing to scapegoat trade and foreigners in the midst of a depression. It is quite another to do so when recovery is finally bearing some fruit.

 

That said, there is method in America’s frustration, even if the blame for it is misdirected. Middle-class incomes have finally started to advance again. But they remain considerably below where they were at the start of the century. If annual income growth had tracked normal patterns, they would now be almost a third higher than they are.

 

The distribution of US aggregate growth has also skewed more sharply towards the top 10 per cent, particularly the top 1 per cent. Meanwhile, US productivity growth, and trend annual growth in gross domestic product, have both slowed sharply in recent years.

 

There is little reason to suppose that there is another 1990s productivity miracle just around the corner. The outlook for blue-collar men in particular is bleak. One in eight prime-aged males is no longer in the job market, according to a report from the Council of Economic Advisers. In the absence of a dramatic turnround in skills training, that number is set to rise further. So too, will the politics of irate venting that has fuelled Mr Trump’s candidacy.

 

What can be done? The responsibility of a leader is to be straight with the people. Neither trade, nor technology, should be blamed for Washington’s failure to equip its workforce for the 21st century.

 

Both Mr Trump and Mrs Clinton pander to the idea that comfortable mid-20th century factory-floor jobs can simply be willed back into existence. It is a myth. The blame for America’s labour force woes and the increasingly skewed distribution of the fruits of growth are to be found at home. It is Washington, not Beijing, which sets US tax rates. The answer to most of America’s challenges are to be found in the booming cities and technological hubs of 21st century America. Blaming it on foreigners may be good tactics. But it could result in terrible policies that will only deepen the malaise.

[Meenzer 15199]

"It is one thing to scapegoat trade and foreigners in the midst of a depression. It is quite another to do so when recovery is finally bearing some fruit."

 

[Rayvin 5131]

Is his message one of fear, or is it one of optimism? I'm not advocating for the guy, but isn't his language positive and about 'making America great' and so on? Isn't he offering false hope? Much like Brexit?

[Dr Gloom 21568]

Is his message one of fear, or is it one of optimism? I'm not advocating for the guy, but isn't his language positive and about 'making America great' and so on? Isn't he offering false hope? Much like Brexit?

 

the doom mongering alternative reality he espouses - whether it's the flood of mexican rapists that need to be contained by a wall, the threat Isis poses to US citizens, china stealing all of america's jobs, or the all out warfare in the country's streets - is very much the politics of fear, yes. 

[Alex 34286]

Not enough to make a difference though. The RNC didn't want Trump to win because an establishment candidate would most likely do better than Trump in the polls. 

Maybe, but that wasn't my point anyway. I was just trying to articulate why I thought something that shouldn't even by anything approaching a close contest is a lot tighter than most would've predicted.

[Rayvin 5131]

the doom mongering alternative reality he espouses - whether it's the flood of mexican rapists that need to be contained by a wall, the threat Isis poses to US citizens, china stealing all of america's jobs, or the all out warfare in the country's streets - is very much the politics of fear, yes. 

 

I guess you're right. And I suppose the same thing is also true of Brexit. I think he's offering a more positive message overall than Clinton though, at least in the small bits and pieces that seem to be reaching me. And I read the Guardian...

Edited September 28, 2016 by Rayvin