9 ms·

The problem isn't technical debt. It's affording and attracting talent. Talent follows money. Even SJW's have to eat. The IRS doesn't have any money because the

The problem isn't technical debt. It's affording and attracting talent. Talent follows money. Even SJW's have to eat. The IRS doesn't have any money because the last time they devoted resources to understanding the tax landscape of the ultra-wealthy the ultra-wealthy lobbied to slash the IRS's budget. The IRS was purposely castrated by the very demographic it sought to understand. This is, quite literally, a won battle at this point. The only way to fix it is for the ancient republican party to either collapse or iterate into something that serves America's interests instead of ultra-wealthy interests.

jngreenlee 8y ago
Arguably the wealthy are now liberals...cultured elites in the cities. I think you can see this by tracking who donates to Dem. campaigns....so just saying...don't be quick to roll out this old trope that Rep.= wealthy. I don't think it's that simple. I'll counter and say the only way to fix it is to either go to pre-1917 no income tax, and have a smaller government (do we really need $700BN/yr on defense around the world?), or move to a flat % wealth or income tax (if you are pro-progressive, set an offset that neutralizes to $0 at say $50k/year, but I am against). We can do this without all the loopholes and misaligned incentives that causes finger pointing in all directions. And we won't need the CompSci majors from CalTech!
- zelon88 8y ago
  I would point out that the "elitist liberals" in the cities are actually your middle/lower-middle class citizens. They make probably between $50k and $150k. So they're not doing terrible, but not wealthy enough to blip on anybody's radar. They're the prime movers of the economy (we can agree on that or not). On either side of those "elitist liberals" are where I see the biggest concentration of conservative political views. There's the stoic >$50k crowd who preach personal responsibility between drags off a Pall Mall while Rosanne reruns play softly in the background but carry balances on all their debts and haven't had a raise or a job interview in 10 years. They think the world should be like them, content to stay near the bottom because they think they're still in the middle. Probably lower-mid level education with a proclivity to disdain any social spending at all with an emphasis on "WWJD?" These people are conservative because their own brand of low-effort thought aligns with typical knee-jerk conservative policies like "shut down the entire border" or "trickle down economics creates jobs (that aren't worth having)." They only know about the social conservative policies that (they believe) affect them. Like women's rights (or lack of), LBTQ rights, anti-discrimination, gun laws. Economically they have no idea what's going on and they just trust whoever tells them they get to keep their guns. On the other side of the "elitist liberals" are the ultra-wealthy conservatives. They are the engines of the party and use their resources and influence to concoct the low-effort policies that rope in the lower-class conservatives. Then they focus their hoarde on how "amoral" the left is while these ultra-wealthy conservatives empty all of the social services the non-stoic poor people rely on to save themselves money and taxes. They use their lower-education counterparts as pawns and fodder to keep the liberals busy talking about non-issues while they dismantle safety nets and redirect government resources into the private sector. They don't believe half of the things their own party tells poor people, but they all rub each other off and that's what keeps the party going.
  - HillaryBriss 8y ago
    and yet, when we look at most of the political endorsements of Jeff Bezos, Warren Buffett, Michael Bloomberg, Bill Gates and nearly all of SVs billionaires we see that they tend to favor Democratic candidates. the simple idea of rich republicans vs. average to poor democrats has some truth, but there's also the pesky fact of a large number of liberal Democratic billionaires which complicates the picture. i think it's because these ultra-wealthy folks can extract their needs from (aka corrupt) any politician. D vs R doesn't really matter much.
    - zelon88 8y ago
      > and yet, when we look at most of the political endorsements of Jeff Bezos, Warren Buffett, Michael Bloomberg, Bill Gates and nearly all of SVs billionaires we see that they tend to favor Democratic candidates. Actions speak louder than words. Endorsing a democratic candidate while paying your warehouse employees barely enough to survive without food stamps doesn't exactly quality you for "liberal of the year." > i think it's because these ultra-wealthy folks can extract their needs from (aka corrupt) any politician. D vs R doesn't really matter much. This is 100% true, and also why I did not/do not support Hilary Clinton for any elected office.
      - HillaryBriss 8y ago
        yeah. rich Democrats are not always so liberal with their own cash. but they can still drape themselves in the cloak of the "socially liberal," whatever that means and for whatever it's worth. of course, even that idealism may evaporate if it means an intelligent, meritorious poor or disadvantaged student might take the place of a favored son at an elite university. are the wealthy really "D" or "R" at all? it seems to me they're "W" first and foremost. also narcissistic. really narcissistic. presidentially narcissistic.
  - taysic 8y ago
    You can look at a map by precinct of what percentage of people voted for Hilary Clinton and you will see that some of the highest percentages were the most wealthy areas in CA: https://www.latimes.com/projects/la-pol-ca-california-neighborhood-election-results/ https://www.latimes.com/projects/la-pol-ca-california-neighb...
Spooky23 8y ago
The republican issue is the post-LBJ realignment of racists and western resource owners with the old-school "chamber of commerce" mainstream GOP. The problem is a democratic party one -- they need to figure out a way to grow beyond their urban core to appeal to some subset of rural and other voters. You need a better message to control the Senate.
- nickthemagicman 8y ago
  It's not that the Dems have a bad message. It's that republican propoganda has made it hard to make inroads in these places no matter the message. Trump said he could shoot someone on fifth avenue and not lose a single voter. And he's right.
  - mastox 8y ago
    Who should non-racist proud white Americans, that believe in individuals over groups first, and doesn't care who marries who or why, vote for?
    - eximius 8y ago
      For now, not Republicans. Republicans (the politicians) don't care about individuals, despite what they claim, and they downright disagree with the rest of your position behind closed doors. If we can change our voting system, then maybe I can give you better advice. Until then, game theory suggests voting Democrat. > proud white Americans Better be careful here. Proud to be an American is okay. Proud to be white... why should anyone be proud of the color of their skin? Even if it should be okay (but honestly white people have an awful history, as do most skin colors if you look back far enough), it's so arbitrary. There's nothing to be proud of, you just have specific pigmentation.
      - mastox 8y ago
        > Better be careful here. Proud to be an American is okay. Proud to be white... why should anyone be proud of the color of their skin? Even if it should be okay (but honestly white people have an awful history, as do most skin colors if you look back far enough), it's so arbitrary. There's nothing to be proud of, you just have specific pigmentation. I cannot argue with any of this, and highlights some of my flawed thinking. I guess I thought of "white americans" as an abstraction of Americans of European decent. So I guess, I don't know the proper way to convey "Someone who is proud of their European heritage, and proud of being an American."
bluGill 8y ago
Can you get out of your republicans are evil bubble and look at what they really stand for?
- zelon88 8y ago
  Care to elaborate? Those views of mine were developed over years of observation and represent my true opinion of the Republican party. If you feel I'm misrepresenting anything feel free to get specific about your beliefs.
  - mastox 8y ago
    The choice to attack/blame 100% of the countries problems on 50% of the voting population doesn't feel justified.
    - zelon88 8y ago
      Fair enough. However why did the republican administration pick a specialist in tax evasion for the position of IRS commissioner?
      - mastox 8y ago
        Let me roll a dice through history were one side of the political spectrum has harmed the other.
      - pas 8y ago
        That in itself doesn't necessarily mean ill intent. Someone who knows what to go after can be very useful, if they chose to utilize that knowledge. Also, the IRS is big, the commissioner does not decide cases, however it issues policy memos, which have a large influence on enforcement. And these are usually public and or can be FOIA-ed. So all in all, their pick is very much a political ally, and that he/she happens to be a tax specialist is just a convenient factor. (So that the man is fit to deal with IRS stuff.)
    - wffurr 8y ago

jngreenlee 8y ago

Arguably the wealthy are now liberals...cultured elites in the cities. I think you can see this by tracking who donates to Dem. campaigns....so just saying...don't be quick to roll out this old trope that Rep.= wealthy. I don't think it's that simple. I'll counter and say the only way to fix it is to either go to pre-1917 no income tax, and have a smaller government (do we really need $700BN/yr on defense around the world?), or move to a flat % wealth or income tax (if you are pro-progressive, set an offset that neutralizes to $0 at say $50k/year, but I am against). We can do this without all the loopholes and misaligned incentives that causes finger pointing in all directions. And we won't need the CompSci majors from CalTech!

zelon88 8y ago
I would point out that the "elitist liberals" in the cities are actually your middle/lower-middle class citizens. They make probably between $50k and $150k. So they're not doing terrible, but not wealthy enough to blip on anybody's radar. They're the prime movers of the economy (we can agree on that or not). On either side of those "elitist liberals" are where I see the biggest concentration of conservative political views. There's the stoic >$50k crowd who preach personal responsibility between drags off a Pall Mall while Rosanne reruns play softly in the background but carry balances on all their debts and haven't had a raise or a job interview in 10 years. They think the world should be like them, content to stay near the bottom because they think they're still in the middle. Probably lower-mid level education with a proclivity to disdain any social spending at all with an emphasis on "WWJD?" These people are conservative because their own brand of low-effort thought aligns with typical knee-jerk conservative policies like "shut down the entire border" or "trickle down economics creates jobs (that aren't worth having)." They only know about the social conservative policies that (they believe) affect them. Like women's rights (or lack of), LBTQ rights, anti-discrimination, gun laws. Economically they have no idea what's going on and they just trust whoever tells them they get to keep their guns. On the other side of the "elitist liberals" are the ultra-wealthy conservatives. They are the engines of the party and use their resources and influence to concoct the low-effort policies that rope in the lower-class conservatives. Then they focus their hoarde on how "amoral" the left is while these ultra-wealthy conservatives empty all of the social services the non-stoic poor people rely on to save themselves money and taxes. They use their lower-education counterparts as pawns and fodder to keep the liberals busy talking about non-issues while they dismantle safety nets and redirect government resources into the private sector. They don't believe half of the things their own party tells poor people, but they all rub each other off and that's what keeps the party going.
- HillaryBriss 8y ago
  and yet, when we look at most of the political endorsements of Jeff Bezos, Warren Buffett, Michael Bloomberg, Bill Gates and nearly all of SVs billionaires we see that they tend to favor Democratic candidates. the simple idea of rich republicans vs. average to poor democrats has some truth, but there's also the pesky fact of a large number of liberal Democratic billionaires which complicates the picture. i think it's because these ultra-wealthy folks can extract their needs from (aka corrupt) any politician. D vs R doesn't really matter much.
  - zelon88 8y ago
    > and yet, when we look at most of the political endorsements of Jeff Bezos, Warren Buffett, Michael Bloomberg, Bill Gates and nearly all of SVs billionaires we see that they tend to favor Democratic candidates. Actions speak louder than words. Endorsing a democratic candidate while paying your warehouse employees barely enough to survive without food stamps doesn't exactly quality you for "liberal of the year." > i think it's because these ultra-wealthy folks can extract their needs from (aka corrupt) any politician. D vs R doesn't really matter much. This is 100% true, and also why I did not/do not support Hilary Clinton for any elected office.
    - HillaryBriss 8y ago
      yeah. rich Democrats are not always so liberal with their own cash. but they can still drape themselves in the cloak of the "socially liberal," whatever that means and for whatever it's worth. of course, even that idealism may evaporate if it means an intelligent, meritorious poor or disadvantaged student might take the place of a favored son at an elite university. are the wealthy really "D" or "R" at all? it seems to me they're "W" first and foremost. also narcissistic. really narcissistic. presidentially narcissistic.
- taysic 8y ago
  You can look at a map by precinct of what percentage of people voted for Hilary Clinton and you will see that some of the highest percentages were the most wealthy areas in CA: https://www.latimes.com/projects/la-pol-ca-california-neighborhood-election-results/ https://www.latimes.com/projects/la-pol-ca-california-neighb...

Spooky23 8y ago

The republican issue is the post-LBJ realignment of racists and western resource owners with the old-school "chamber of commerce" mainstream GOP. The problem is a democratic party one -- they need to figure out a way to grow beyond their urban core to appeal to some subset of rural and other voters. You need a better message to control the Senate.

nickthemagicman 8y ago
It's not that the Dems have a bad message. It's that republican propoganda has made it hard to make inroads in these places no matter the message. Trump said he could shoot someone on fifth avenue and not lose a single voter. And he's right.
- mastox 8y ago
  Who should non-racist proud white Americans, that believe in individuals over groups first, and doesn't care who marries who or why, vote for?
  - eximius 8y ago
    For now, not Republicans. Republicans (the politicians) don't care about individuals, despite what they claim, and they downright disagree with the rest of your position behind closed doors. If we can change our voting system, then maybe I can give you better advice. Until then, game theory suggests voting Democrat. > proud white Americans Better be careful here. Proud to be an American is okay. Proud to be white... why should anyone be proud of the color of their skin? Even if it should be okay (but honestly white people have an awful history, as do most skin colors if you look back far enough), it's so arbitrary. There's nothing to be proud of, you just have specific pigmentation.
    - mastox 8y ago
      > Better be careful here. Proud to be an American is okay. Proud to be white... why should anyone be proud of the color of their skin? Even if it should be okay (but honestly white people have an awful history, as do most skin colors if you look back far enough), it's so arbitrary. There's nothing to be proud of, you just have specific pigmentation. I cannot argue with any of this, and highlights some of my flawed thinking. I guess I thought of "white americans" as an abstraction of Americans of European decent. So I guess, I don't know the proper way to convey "Someone who is proud of their European heritage, and proud of being an American."

bluGill 8y ago

Can you get out of your republicans are evil bubble and look at what they really stand for?

zelon88 8y ago
Care to elaborate? Those views of mine were developed over years of observation and represent my true opinion of the Republican party. If you feel I'm misrepresenting anything feel free to get specific about your beliefs.
- mastox 8y ago
  The choice to attack/blame 100% of the countries problems on 50% of the voting population doesn't feel justified.
  - zelon88 8y ago
    Fair enough. However why did the republican administration pick a specialist in tax evasion for the position of IRS commissioner?
    - mastox 8y ago
      Let me roll a dice through history were one side of the political spectrum has harmed the other.
    - pas 8y ago
      That in itself doesn't necessarily mean ill intent. Someone who knows what to go after can be very useful, if they chose to utilize that knowledge. Also, the IRS is big, the commissioner does not decide cases, however it issues policy memos, which have a large influence on enforcement. And these are usually public and or can be FOIA-ed. So all in all, their pick is very much a political ally, and that he/she happens to be a tax specialist is just a convenient factor. (So that the man is fit to deal with IRS stuff.)
  - wffurr 8y ago