Solutions?

[exchemist]

I don't see a lot of discussions about solutions. In a lot of cases it's clear what some don't want but not so clear what you do want or what you do think is a better solution and why it's better?

If I had to focus the electorate I would say that there needs to be more critical thinking and transparency.

Most issues aren't really issues. Critical thinking would target that. Transparency would also lead to self-correction in most cases. Balance the budget, raise taxes to pay for all promises rather than monetizing the debt and slowly debasing the currency and you would see voters demanding less promises.

Regarding critical thinking, slogans like "the rich don't pay their fair share" "Trump's tax cuts for the rich" or concepts like "inequality" would be shot down for the misdirection that they are.

Society wouldn't be framed by progressives, which it currently is. We all think in terms of the "advantaged" and the "disadvantaged". We focus our attention on the "disadvantaged". In reality it's between the social and the anti-social or the adaptors and the screwups. That doesn't have the same ring.

The problem is really between the productive and the criminals and addicts. The "disadvantaged" aren't a problem. Most aren't criminals or addicts. Most are just like everyone else, trying to be productive. Therefore there is no division there. The bottom 20% 30% are where the problems are. So require a little assistance and many require prisons and a lot of oversight.

Inequality is just a "positive" side-effect of the Industrial Revolution. With machines, there is excess. You can make more shoes than you personally need so there is excess. Everyone gets less expensive shoes and you get wealth. There is no inequality of wealth without excess. We don't want a world where there is no excess. That's just subsistence living.

If you substantially disagree with what I've written, layout your solution that is better.

Solutions to what problem? Do you want to talk (yet again) about the management of the US economy, or do you want to talk about reform of the political system.

 

[parmalee]

I like how "most issues aren't really issues" and how--if you're a "critical thinker", of course--taxation is not a solution to anything. Well, if there aren't any real problems and you couldn't fix them anyway, because you can't get any funding, then what the hell are we talking about here?

Also, "most issues aren't really issues." That reflects some real deep--sorry, critical thinking there! I mean, really? I can probably name a few dozen pretty serious problems just off the top of my head. To start with: Education. Younger people--again those born after about 1985 or 1990--got some rather shocking knowledge deficits in the areas of civics and the humanities. Probably STEM stuff too, what with COVID and all. Consequently, they also lack critical thinking skills and the ability to figure shit out. Back in the day, something done broke and you couldn't obtain schematics or exploded diagrams or any of that stuff all that easily. You had some serious figuring to do. Now you just go on YouTube and probably someone has done the exact thing that you're hoping to do, so you don't gotta figure anything out. And if you want to get a sense of how clueless younger people are in matters of civics, I encourage anyone who "enjoys" truly horrifying content to watch at least part of this disaster:

And what exactly would this class in critical thinking that is inexplicably only for seniors in high school in the second to top decile entail? I mean, that's pretty damn vague and yet weirdly specific at the same time. I can tell ya what a class in critical thinking would not teach (or tell, rather) you: if you look at blah blah blah then taxes clearly are not the issue. That ain't critical thinking.

 

[Pinball1970]

is a better solution and why it's better?

Vote in a democratic government.
Better because they will follow rule of law rather than executive orders.
Better because they will not cosy up to self serving oligarchs and murdering war mongering dictators.
I am not an Economist or qualified in any way but probably stop the tariffs.

As a start.

 

[parmalee]

Society wouldn't be framed by progressives, which it currently is. We all think in terms of the "advantaged" and the "disadvantaged". We focus our attention on the "disadvantaged". In reality it's between the social and the anti-social or the adaptors and the screwups. That doesn't have the same ring.

Which one are you? An "adaptor" (are you Canadian or English all of a sudden?) or a "screwup"? Based upon what you've written here:

The problem is really between the productive and the criminals and addicts. The "disadvantaged" aren't a problem. Most aren't criminals or addicts. Most are just like everyone else, trying to be productive. Therefore there is no division there. The bottom 20% 30% are where the problems are. So require a little assistance and many require prisons and a lot of oversight.

Wellllll...

You seem to harbor a lot of animosity towards homeless people and addicts, but the funny thing is you actually talk a lot like the stereotypical crazy homeless person. I can't even begin to figure out what it is that you are trying to communicate with that curious passage. So are you suggesting that the bottom 20% or 30% is comprised mostly of the "disadvantaged", or are they mostly the criminals and addicts? Which ones require assistance and which require prisons?

"The 'disadvantaged' aren't a problem." What does that mean? What do you mean by "problem"? And what is this "division" you speak of? If there are those who are "disadvantaged" and those who are not, that implicitly suggests a division--remember that "critical thinking" thing you were talking about?

If you substantially disagree with what I've written, layout your solution that is better.

For you personally, I would suggest that perhaps you take advantage of an adult literacy program in your area. When you feel sufficiently confident in your ability to comprehend what you read, maybe consider taking an introductory philosophy course at a community college or something. When you come to understand that, say, terms like "bothsidesism"--or "false balance"--has got precisely fuck-all nothing to do with Trump saying that there were good people on "both sides", as you posited some months back, you will feel a great burden lifted from you--the burden of ignorance. Learning is, in fact, fun.

 

[billvon]

So just consider that in most cases where you see the word "homeless" it's referring to those living under the bridges.

Which is exactly my point; misconceptions like yours make solving the problem that much more difficult, because you have to accurately identify the problem before you can solve it.

If the market isn't working for you, describe your idea system. That's what this thread is for.

The market is working just fine for me. The problem is that it's not working for a very sizable fraction of Americans. UBI is one solution to that particular problem. A more progressive tax system is a partial solution. Both of those have their own problems, of course; there are no perfect solutions.

 

[Tiassa]

I'm arguing that the problem isn't "inequalities". The problem is that a homeless guy has it rough but it's not because someone else has it great or greater. The gap isn't the problem. His condition is the problem. His condition isn't better if the other guys income is capped.

One thing we can say is that culling everyone who fails to satisfy you isn't really a solution.

Inasmuch as "the gap isn't the problem", you are right, what the gap signifies is the problem.

The solution is to close the gap.

You seem to forget about the fact that what you're asking for occurs in a society. If the society is so dysfunctional as you need, then the gap won't matter to the wealthy nearly as much as the broken glass that cuts their throat.

 

[Sarkus]

If your opinion is that current tax cuts for the rich is a problem, critical thinking will reveal that the tax cuts are for everyone, including you. If you understand that and still are against it, I'm fine with that. In this particular case, I wouldn't extend them but just understand that your taxes will go up because it isn't just a tax cut for the rich. Deal with reality.

When people say "tax cuts for the rich" are the problem, they're not referring to the tax cuts to the lower-income people, but (and the clue's in the words) the tax cuts for the rich. Sure, Trump's policy is a tax cut for everyone, but that doesn't remove the issue within that policy of there being tax cuts for the rich. Why are you choosing to look at the policy in its entirety rather than the actual issue that people have with it?
It is quite possible, is it not, to retain the tax cuts for the lower-income, and remove the tax cuts for the higher earners?
The Dems even tabled a motion for an exemption from the tax cuts for those earning over $1m, then $10m, then $100m, and each vote every single Republican said no.

THIS is the issue that the people are talking about, that the policy contained tax-cuts for the rich. Hence their complaint is that "tax cuts for the rich" is a problem for them.

If you applied some critical thinking, you'd realise this, and not come up with the misrepresentation that you're currently doing.

Spending is the problem. If you use critical thinking to compare the two, spending vs taxes you will see which problem is out of bounds. It's not taxation.

It depends what you want in your economy and society.
I would say that spending is an issue, but that doesn't preclude the taxation system and rates from being a problem as well for people. Less spending and a more equitable tax system/rates, would resolve much.

It's not about my personal preferences or views. Think critically, and make and pay for your own policies. That's fine with me. Think critically and be transparent and all problems will be made better.

So you're not actually proposing a solution, but a tool for reaching a solution.
Got it.
Rather ironic that your OP was concerned about not many people discussing solutions.

 

[parmalee]

Which is exactly my point; misconceptions like yours make solving the problem that much more difficult, because you have to accurately identify the problem before you can solve it.

And if one is positing that the "criminals" and "addicts" all fall within the bottom 20% or 30% (or maybe it's just the ones who are "the problem" that fall within that grouping--who knows what the hell this guy is saying?), I think you're a pretty long ways from identifying the problem accurately.

 

[Seattle]

Solutions to what problem? Do you want to talk (yet again) about the management of the US economy, or do you want to talk about reform of the political system.

Are you not able to do both? It's an open-ended discussion. We could talk about chemistry (yet again).

 

[Seattle]

Vote in a democratic government.
Better because they will follow rule of law rather than executive orders.
Better because they will not cosy up to self serving oligarchs and murdering war mongering dictators.
I am not an Economist or qualified in any way but probably stop the tariffs.

As a start.

This wasn't about Trump but your comments are valid enough so thanks for the comments.

 

[Seattle]

Which one are you? An "adaptor" (are you Canadian or English all of a sudden?) or a "screwup"? Based upon what you've written here:

Wellllll...

You seem to harbor a lot of animosity towards homeless people and addicts, but the funny thing is you actually talk a lot like the stereotypical crazy homeless person. I can't even begin to figure out what it is that you are trying to communicate with that curious passage. So are you suggesting that the bottom 20% or 30% is comprised mostly of the "disadvantaged", or are they mostly the criminals and addicts? Which ones require assistance and which require prisons?

"The 'disadvantaged' aren't a problem." What does that mean? What do you mean by "problem"? And what is this "division" you speak of? If there are those who are "disadvantaged" and those who are not, that implicitly suggests a division--remember that "critical thinking" thing you were talking about?

For you personally, I would suggest that perhaps you take advantage of an adult literacy program in your area. When you feel sufficiently confident in your ability to comprehend what you read, maybe consider taking an introductory philosophy course at a community college or something. When you come to understand that, say, terms like "bothsidesism"--or "false balance"--has got precisely fuck-all nothing to do with Trump saying that there were good people on "both sides", as you posited some months back, you will feel a great burden lifted from you--the burden of ignorance. Learning is, in fact, fun.

So you don't have a better system in mind and you're just anti-social in nature? Oh, and proud to be literate?

 

[Seattle]

Which is exactly my point; misconceptions like yours make solving the problem that much more difficult, because you have to accurately identify the problem before you can solve it.

The market is working just fine for me. The problem is that it's not working for a very sizable fraction of Americans. UBI is one solution to that particular problem. A more progressive tax system is a partial solution. Both of those have their own problems, of course; there are no perfect solutions.

OK, so the current system is fine for you but your comments tend to be about how it isn't working and you want some kind of change but it won't be perfect either. I guess the current one works well enough then all things considered?

 

[Seattle]

One thing we can say is that culling everyone who fails to satisfy you isn't really a solution.

Inasmuch as "the gap isn't the problem", you are right, what the gap signifies is the problem.

The solution is to close the gap.

You seem to forget about the fact that what you're asking for occurs in a society. If the society is so dysfunctional as you need, then the gap won't matter to the wealthy nearly as much as the broken glass that cuts their throat.

Parmalee, is that you?

 

[parmalee]

So you don't have a better system in mind and you're just anti-social in nature? Oh, and proud to be literate?

So you didn't want to have an actual discussion, you just wanted to disseminate more of your odious misinformation and propaganda about all the troublesome "addicts", "criminals" and "homeless" amongst the lower classes?

 

[Seattle]

So you didn't want to have an actual discussion, you just wanted to disseminate more of your odious misinformation and propaganda about all the troublesome "addicts", "criminals" and "homeless" amongst the lower classes?

I've commented quite extensively about our system. You haven't. We know you can curse and that apparently you are quite literate but little else has been discussed. We know you have a 14" neck but we don't know what you would do to change the system for the better.

 

[billvon]

OK, so the current system is fine for you but your comments tend to be about how it isn't working and you want some kind of change but it won't be perfect either.

Right. It could be better. It will still not be perfect; nothing ever is.

 

[parmalee]

I've commented quite extensively about our system.

Define "addicts". Are you talking about those addicted to substances, ranging from nicotine and alcohol to pharmaceuticals and illicit drugs? Food addicts? Gambling or online sports betting addicts? How are you distinguishing between those regarded (rather vaguely, usually) as "high functioning" and "low functioning"? And what exactly are the "problems" associated with such--or, rather, how are they "the problem"? Define "critical thinking" and "transparency". It's apparent from reading the responses within this thread that most readers regard such rather differently from how you regard these notions. Explain to me how it is that, in your view, most "criminals" and "addicts" seem to be in the bottom 20 or 30 percent (whatever it is that you mean by that).

You haven't.

Right. I've never commented on "our system".

 

[Seattle]

When people say "tax cuts for the rich" are the problem, they're not referring to the tax cuts to the lower-income people, but (and the clue's in the words) the tax cuts for the rich. Sure, Trump's policy is a tax cut for everyone, but that doesn't remove the issue within that policy of there being tax cuts for the rich. Why are you choosing to look at the policy in its entirety rather than the actual issue that people have with it?
It is quite possible, is it not, to retain the tax cuts for the lower-income, and remove the tax cuts for the higher earners?
The Dems even tabled a motion for an exemption from the tax cuts for those earning over $1m, then $10m, then $100m, and each vote every single Republican said no.

THIS is the issue that the people are talking about, that the policy contained tax-cuts for the rich. Hence their complaint is that "tax cuts for the rich" is a problem for them.

If you applied some critical thinking, you'd realise this, and not come up with the misrepresentation that you're currently doing.

I'm not misrepresenting anything. If you were engaging in critical thinking you'd realize that motion to exempt below $1m, $10m, and then $100m was just a stunt and was just done in the last few days.

No one was referring to extending cuts for some but not all. The whole bill in it's entirety was what people were talking about No one was doing as you suggest and supporting cuts for the middle-class.

The bit about the $1m, $10m, $100m, wouldn't make a dent if you excluded those since it would still leave millions in the middle class and that is where the money would be.

It also makes no sense to be OK with someone making $400k but $1 million is just too much?
In any event, as posted, since we have this debt problem, I wouldn't extend these cuts just because we could use the $400 billion that would be generated to reduce the deficit and we are only talking about having the top rate go from 37% to 39%.

Again, no one over here was only referring to the top portion of the Trump tax cuts for the rich while proposing to keep the bottom cuts. You just made that up (until the recent stunt in committee).

It depends what you want in your economy and society.
I would say that spending is an issue, but that doesn't preclude the taxation system and rates from being a problem as well for people. Less spending and a more equitable tax system/rates, would resolve much.

So you're not actually proposing a solution, but a tool for reaching a solution.
Got it.
Rather ironic that your OP was concerned about not many people discussing solutions.

It's not ironic at all and there are still not many people here discussing their solutions. Bill and I are fine and Tiassa and Parmalee are angry and violent but still few suggestions. No irony there.

Yes, I'm good with rational people, thinking critically and living with whatever the outcomes are. The outcomes will be better that way. Rates are within a normal realm and result in near optimal tax receipts. Tax receipts as a percentage of GDP have been remarkably similar regardless of the top tax rate. Spending is wildly out of control.

Arguing about Trump, Musk, the Republicans, or the Democrats doesn't change that (or anything really). Critical thinking, give it a try?

 

[billvon]

I'm not misrepresenting anything. If you were engaging in critical thinking you'd realize that . . . .

. . . tax cuts for the rich are tax cuts for the rich. Super simple.

If you have trouble with calling things what they are if those facts contradict your agenda - well, that's the problem you were describing above.

Now, if you had said "I have an issue with how people are discussing this tax bill, because it cuts taxes on the rich AND the middle class, and that's a great thing" then no problem. But you didn't say that. You said that critical thinkers could see that the statement "tax cuts for the rich" is misdirection, implying that people like me who understand that tax cuts for the rich mean tax cuts for the rich are incapable of critical thinking.

And of course you can do that. But if you start every argument with "people who disagree with me cannot think critically" then you should expect such arguments in return i.e. "Seattle could understand this if he was a little more intelligent, but as it stands now he can't."

Is that how you would prefer arguments here to go? Because we can do that for you, if you really want it.

 

[Seattle]

. . . tax cuts for the rich are tax cuts for the rich. Super simple.

If you have trouble with calling things what they are if those facts contradict your agenda - well, that's the problem you were describing above.

Now, if you had said "I have an issue with how people are discussing this tax bill, because it cuts taxes on the rich AND the middle class, and that's a great thing" then no problem. But you didn't say that. You said that critical thinkers could see that the statement "tax cuts for the rich" is misdirection, implying that people like me who understand that tax cuts for the rich mean tax cuts for the rich are incapable of critical thinking.

And of course you can do that. But if you start every argument with "people who disagree with me cannot think critically" then you should expect such arguments in return i.e. "Seattle could understand this if he was a little more intelligent, but as it stands now he can't."

Is that how you would prefer arguments here to go? Because we can do that for you, if you really want it.

Some of you more literally inclined are already doing that "for me". I generally put "Tax cuts for the Rich" in quotes to show that is how it is being used in the media. Most people would probably pick up on that.

It's a rather minor point in this whole discussion, isn't it? I have said nothing about having a problem with people who disagree with me, I'm here after all and I have pointed out that I have no use for Trump or the Republicans and that I would personally let this tax cut expire yet that doesn't seem to stop many of the responses being about Trump.

I also pointed out the I'm fine with anyone's conclusions if critical thinking was involved. It generally isn't involved. I'll also point out that after all of these years of descent, have we ever heard Parmalee or Tiassa lay out their alternatives?