Politics: Where we struggle to kneel in the muck.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Not Me
Perhaps but under the current system, all the electoral votes in CA go to the Dems. At least for the period of time that I can remember.

I think that there are some good things about the electoral college and some bad things and the NE/MA system seems to me to be a decent compromise between a popular vote and an electoral college vote. I don't know if I would be in favor of abolishing the electoral college or not. I see the point of it in a diverse nation.

If you get rid of the electoral college, I think the next step would be a move to have the Senate apportioned like the House is.

If you award votes proportionately within each state, you are minimizing many of the effects of the electoral college, while preseving the disproportionate influence given to small states. In other words, what's in it for California?

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
This is f'ed up. either every state should do it, or none should. If California did this, Dems would never win again.

So much for federalism. This sort of talk will get you kicked off club's island and out of hello's Right.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

This picture is creepy enough, eh?

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
The problem with the system in paragraph 1 is the "most people", since those who are not "most" will likely end up needing to be supported somewhere. The portion of these financial costs born by the government has to be factored in, and the social costs have to be considered.

The problem with paragraph 2 is practical - you'll lose public support.

I'm not disagreeing with what you say. However, I think that the expenditure of supporting the people in paragraph 1 would be lower overall than the cost of paying social security to all recipients under the current system.

I agree with your assessment of paragraph2, which is why I am not running for Congress.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Short-term cash equivalents return 3-4% real interest? That surprises me, to the extent that I don't think I can believe it without seeing backup.

If SS becomes a pure welfare for old people system, it's no longer social security. If you are moving to this, why even bother having the forced savings? Especially if people can invest in whatever they want?

ETA who is going to administer the accounts? What a fucking recordkeeper nightmare. And what do they get invested in? Making it anything on the market complicates the recordkeeoping hugely, but there will be so much money that having a group of mutual funds probably won't work.

Fringey, the research was stuff I did a number of years ago for a paper on tax policy when I was doing my LL.M. Remember, we're talking about a thirty-year time frame, which historically will include both a high interest period and a low interest period, since thirty years is a fairly good istorical approximation of the average business cycle.

The forced savings component is necessary because in order to move to a pure welfare system, you need to assure yourself that the system won't get overtaxed.

I have to confess, I never did come up with a foolproof accounting system. My best alternative was a 401(k) or IRA type of account, with a filing requirement for the annual account summary. Again, it's not a foolproof system. I just think it's better than what we have. And if I ever do work it all out, I will run for Congress.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Over at his blog, I'll take a crack at that. I think the answer encompasses three main points:

Forget about the substance of the post for a minute. Why would you suggest we take a risk on Kerry?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
This sort of talk will get you kicked off club's island

You mean barred from admittance. She has not made it to the Island yet.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by sgtclub
You mean barred from admittance. She has not made it to the Island yet.

Hank's a girl?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Forget about the substance of the post for a minute. Why would you suggest we take a risk on Kerry?

We're taking a risk on either Bush or Kerry. Even if you think that Bush has the right foreign-policy inclinations -- and I don't -- he keeps screwing things up. E.g., reasonable minds can differ about whether invading Iraq was the right thing to do, but not without a plan.

On the criticisms of Kerry, I think Republicans like to tell themselves that 9/11 changed everything, but that Democrats didn't get the message. As we've discussed ad nauseum on this board, Bush plainly did not give much attention to the threat posed by Al Qaeda before 9/11. Y'all give him credit, not unreasonably, for changing his priorities thereafter. Yet you look at Kerry's record before 9/11 and pretend that he would go back to that time. I understand why this is appealing as propaganda, but if you really believe it then you're not being serious.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
If you award votes proportionately within each state, you are minimizing many of the effects of the electoral college, while preseving the disproportionate influence given to small states. In other words, what's in it for California?

The way I see it, the Reps have written off CA. They know they won't carry that state in presidential elections. However, the Reps have held the WH far more often than the Dems have since 1970. In the last 34 years, the Dems have only held it 12 years. If CA had electoral votes in play, they would have more influence on the Reps, which I see as the party most likely to hold the WH in the next 34 years.

GWB may not win this election, but when I look at who is up next for either party, I think the GOP field is stronger.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Yet you look at Kerry's record before 9/11 and pretend that he would go back to that time. I understand why this is appealing as propaganda, but if you really believe it then you're not being serious.

I'll accept the reasoning that we should limit our view of actions and words to that of the post 9/11 world. But get your boy to use the word "preemption when feasible and, if necessary, alone", or I simply don't buy it. That is a decent litmus test of security committment if America is to try and stay safe in the post 9/11 world. We can agree about enlarging the army (more money). Maybe not necessarily on expanding special forces (if it merely means lowering the standards for getting through Ranger school, then the new guys aren't so special). Certainly on engaging our allies, old and new, without giving anyone a veto. But of those 60 countries referenced in the post, is Kerry willing to take preemptive action in any one? If so, under what circumstances?

Maybe Bush has an unfair advantage insofar as we know he's crazy enough to do it because he's done it in the past. He can't articulate anything to save his life unless he's reading from a script (but hey, who can). But all Kerry needed to do was talk about what he's willing to do in a worst case of necessary prevention. All I've heard him say is what he'll try to do to avoid acting preemptively unilaterally. Is he willing to do it should it be deemed necessary to avoid harm to our nation?

Hello

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Sox finally win
Thus, they remain a nuisance.
Like shit on a shoe

Who is your Papi?
Rivera mortal again
Stink growing stronger

[SlaveNoMore]

by Tyrone Slothrop
On the criticisms of Kerry, I think Republicans like to tell themselves that 9/11 changed everything, but that Democrats didn't get the message. As we've discussed ad nauseum on this board, Bush plainly did not give much attention to the threat posed by Al Qaeda before 9/11. Y'all give him credit, not unreasonably, for changing his priorities thereafter. Yet you look at Kerry's record before 9/11 and pretend that he would go back to that time. I understand why this is appealing as propaganda, but if you really believe it then you're not being serious.

I look to what Kerry says about our Allies, I look to his kow-towing to the Dean crowd, and I look at his tin-eared and poor statements regarding the "global test" and the terrorism "nuisance", and it is more than enough for me - regardless of his feckless and pathetic record pre-2001.

[SlaveNoMore]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Who is your Papi?
Rivera mortal again
Stink growing stronger

I said Yanks in 6
Watch Schilling blow out leg Tues.
See you in Series.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
I'll accept the reasoning that we should limit our view of actions and words to that of the post 9/11 world. But get your boy to use the word "preemption when feasible and, if necessary, alone", or I simply don't buy it. That is a decent litmus test of security committment if America is to try and stay safe in the post 9/11 world. We can agree about enlarging the army (more money). Maybe not necessarily on expanding special forces (if it merely means lowering the standards for getting through Ranger school, then the new guys aren't so special). Certainly on engaging our allies, old and new, without giving anyone a veto. But of those 60 countries referenced in the post, is Kerry willing to take preemptive action in any one? If so, under what circumstances?

Maybe Bush has an unfair advantage insofar as we know he's crazy enough to do it because he's done it in the past. He can't articulate anything to save his life unless he's reading from a script (but hey, who can). But all Kerry needed to do was talk about what he's willing to do in a worst case of necessary prevention. All I've heard him say is what he'll try to do to avoid acting preemptively unilaterally. Is he willing to do it should it be deemed necessary to avoid harm to our nation?

I'm sure that anyone willing to do what Kerry did in Vietnam would not shrink from using force to avoid harm to the nation if he thought it were wise. We're now in the realm of wisdom, not principle. I think Bush has made bad decisions out of the best of motives -- rashly, unwisely. We now know that Iraq did not pose a threat to us. So why are we arguing about whether Kerry would act to protect us from imminent harm? Why aren't we arguing about the lives and resources spent because Bush made the wrong call. I think Kerry has better judgment.