World is Falling Apart Thread (Locked forever)

[ElkinFencer10]

I wish we'd just ditch the bullshit two party system and get a decent four or five major parties. Imagine if we only had Playstation or Xbox - no PC, no Nintendo, no handhelds, not even quirky microconsoles for the lulz. Just Playstation or Xbox, where the people who are involved with one or the other can see the differences, but they're pretty similar to the average onlooker. The Democrats and the Republicans are VERY different when you get into platforms and ideals, but to the average, disillusioned American, it can get hard to tell how they're different (especially with Third Way Democrats like the Clintons).

Imagine if it were only Nintendo and Sega.

Oh wait...

And Marco Rubio's pretty face isn't going to really change the party's core policy initiatives.

Truth, and at least we agree it's a pretty face.

My biggest problem with Rubio is that he advocates dismantling the federal programs that he openly admits are the reasons he was able to get where he is today. Cruz does the same thing (although I could write a whole book on why I think Ted Cruz is a psychotic fucktard).

[MrPopo]

I wish we'd just ditch the bullshit two party system and get a decent four or five major parties. Imagine if we only had Playstation or Xbox - no PC, no Nintendo, no handhelds, not even quirky microconsoles for the lulz. Just Playstation or Xbox, where the people who are involved with one or the other can see the differences, but they're pretty similar to the average onlooker. The Democrats and the Republicans are VERY different when you get into platforms and ideals, but to the average, disillusioned American, it can get hard to tell how they're different (especially with Third Way Democrats like the Clintons).

That dream died with the Bull Moose Party.

[ElkinFencer10]

I wish we'd just ditch the bullshit two party system and get a decent four or five major parties. Imagine if we only had Playstation or Xbox - no PC, no Nintendo, no handhelds, not even quirky microconsoles for the lulz. Just Playstation or Xbox, where the people who are involved with one or the other can see the differences, but they're pretty similar to the average onlooker. The Democrats and the Republicans are VERY different when you get into platforms and ideals, but to the average, disillusioned American, it can get hard to tell how they're different (especially with Third Way Democrats like the Clintons).

That dream died with the Bull Moose Party.

Idk, Ross Perot almost brought it back in 1992. I mean, granted, Ross Perot was a little out there, but his candidacy as a third party runner was probably half of what lost Bush the election (that and Billy Boy's undeniable and slightly unnerving charisma and charm).

[Ack]

My biggest problem with Rubio is that he advocates dismantling the federal programs that he openly admits are the reasons he was able to get where he is today. Cruz does the same thing (although I could write a whole book on why I think Ted Cruz is a psychotic fucktard).

Which programs do you mean? I'm being honest, I am unsure of which component of his platform you mean.

[ElkinFencer10]

My biggest problem with Rubio is that he advocates dismantling the federal programs that he openly admits are the reasons he was able to get where he is today. Cruz does the same thing (although I could write a whole book on why I think Ted Cruz is a psychotic fucktard).

Which programs do you mean? I'm being honest, I am unsure of which component of his platform you mean.

The one I remember off the top of my head (and the reason I don't think he'd be able to win the Latino vote) is his stance on immigration. He's said that the immigration laws of the 1950s are the entire reason his parents were able to move to the United States, but he still thinks that we need to repeal those laws. I don't remember exact quotes (it was a pretty big deal in the Latino community, though, so I'm sure you can Google it easily enough), but it was basically "Immigration Law A are why my parents were able to have me here, but because of X, Y, and Z, we need to get rid of Immigration Law A."

In fairness, he offered some justification on why we need to get rid of those laws, but still, the fact that he admitted that they're the entire reason he's even here left a sour taste in my mouth. Gives the vibe of "I've got mine, now screw the rest of you."

[Jmustang1968]

In general though, liberal governments are bigger, require more taxes, more spending etc...

In general, nations with more liberal governments tend to have higher standards of living, a better educated populace, and reduced income inequality. Broadly speaking, of course. There are ALWAYS exceptions. And nations with those characteristics are more likely to opt for more liberal-leaning government.

Some of that is debatable, especially some of the quality of living arguments. I am fairly confident though that nowhere else could I get the quality of living I get for the salary to cost of living ratio.

The income inequality is also somewhat misleading as some of it is forced or redistributed income. Some level of income inequality is inherent to a capitalist system. When is it too much?

[marurun]

In general though, liberal governments are bigger, require more taxes, more spending etc...

In general, nations with more liberal governments tend to have higher standards of living, a better educated populace, and reduced income inequality. Broadly speaking, of course. There are ALWAYS exceptions. And nations with those characteristics are more likely to opt for more liberal-leaning government.

Some of that is debatable, especially some of the quality of living arguments. I am fairly confident though that nowhere else could I get the quality of living I get for the salary to cost of living ratio.

The income inequality is also somewhat misleading as some of it is forced or redistributed income. Some level of income inequality is inherent to a capitalist system. When is it too much?

The thing is, in those countries, costs vary differently than here. For example, in most other countries food costs more, but health care costs less. So you have less disposable income, so you have fewer "elective" purchases, but you would still live comfortably, and catastrophic events like major health issues would be far less likely to completely destroy your financial stability. Keep in mind that quality of life is typically not measured by how nice a car you have and how big your house is, but by measures of general health, education, financial stability, access to basic utilities, etc...

And I don't know anyone who would argue that we should all make the same amount of money no matter what we chose to do (OK, I actually do know one person). The problem isn't that there is income inequality. The problem is the current degree, scope, and scale of it, and the fact that it is widening. American prosperity from the 50s through the 80s was in large part due to massively constrained income inequality. That was where the middle class came from. They were productive, effective, efficient, and capable of purchasing goods. And while it was annoying that married women were largely not allowed to work and were often forced to stay home with the kids, it was nice that families were able to support themselves on a single income. So yes, there's some debate over what level of income inequality is tolerable to society, but what it is now is not that point.

[Forlorn Drifter]

I want to apologize to the people of this thread for acting like a jackass recently, while I started with a somewhat legitimate complaint, I turned it into a piss fit. A mix of personal issues, alcohol, and a political argument with a TA at school (a class-wide argument involving nearly half the class, dealing with a political issue they were uninformed about, and that is hugely important to people in my major, whichever side they are on) put me in a very bad mood.

[jp1]

I want to apologize to the people of this thread for acting like a jackass recently, while I started with a somewhat legitimate complaint, I turned it into a piss fit. A mix of personal issues, alcohol, and a political argument with a TA at school (a class-wide argument involving nearly half the class, dealing with a political issue they were uninformed about, and that is hugely important to people in my major, whichever side they are on) put me in a very bad mood.

Don't sweat it boss, many of us have been there.

[Jmustang1968]

In general, nations with more liberal governments tend to have higher standards of living, a better educated populace, and reduced income inequality. Broadly speaking, of course. There are ALWAYS exceptions. And nations with those characteristics are more likely to opt for more liberal-leaning government.

Some of that is debatable, especially some of the quality of living arguments. I am fairly confident though that nowhere else could I get the quality of living I get for the salary to cost of living ratio.

The income inequality is also somewhat misleading as some of it is forced or redistributed income. Some level of income inequality is inherent to a capitalist system. When is it too much?

The thing is, in those countries, costs vary differently than here. For example, in most other countries food costs more, but health care costs less. So you have less disposable income, so you have fewer "elective" purchases, but you would still live comfortably, and catastrophic events like major health issues would be far less likely to completely destroy your financial stability. Keep in mind that quality of life is typically not measured by how nice a car you have and how big your house is, but by measures of general health, education, financial stability, access to basic utilities, etc...

And I don't know anyone who would argue that we should all make the same amount of money no matter what we chose to do (OK, I actually do know one person). The problem isn't that there is income inequality. The problem is the current degree, scope, and scale of it, and the fact that it is widening. American prosperity from the 50s through the 80s was in large part due to massively constrained income inequality. That was where the middle class came from. They were productive, effective, efficient, and capable of purchasing goods. And while it was annoying that married women were largely not allowed to work and were often forced to stay home with the kids, it was nice that families were able to support themselves on a single income. So yes, there's some debate over what level of income inequality is tolerable to society, but what it is now is not that point.

But then Business Insider shows USA as having the highest disposable incomes:
http://www.businessinsider.com/top-coun ... 013-5?op=1

I've seen many of these type of rankings, and have issues with them. Do certain statistics weigh in more? Many of the rankings are subjective etc...

And further data like shown in this chart: http://www.advisorperspectives.com/dsho ... bution.php

Yeah, the rich have gotten richer, to a degree, and they really spiked in the 90s, the poor and middle class have stayed relatively steady. I attribute a lot of that bump in income due to PCs/automation/internet. Whereas the poor and middle havent really become worse off, the gap is mostly just the rich getting a bit richer in comparison.

That chart shows that most of the incomes peaked in about 99/2000 but have all followed nearly the same up and down trends with the overall economy since then.

This link: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/20 ... r-decades/

Says real wages have been mostly stagnant since the 70s, so about same purchasing power. A big thing attributing to this according them is a steep rise in benefit expenses.

While there is some concern, I think a lot of the harping on the income inequality is a bit over-emphasized, and is exacerbated by the tumultuous recession prone US and world economy of the last decade or so.