4 ms·

Yes. I couldn’t imagine if a party had all 3 branches in control. So leaving more rights to states and not forcing them on the entire nation is going to be bett

Yes. I couldn’t imagine if a party had all 3 branches in control. So leaving more rights to states and not forcing them on the entire nation is going to be better. You can vote in your state for reps that support your cause. Don’t like it? Move elsewhere. People are doing exactly the same. Florida being one of the top states with influx of people from other states, specifically California.

troyvit 4y ago
I think the Democrats have had that trifecta now and again. It's pretty great because they just mill around, argue a bunch, then collapse. I honestly don't get why Libertarians don't vote straight Democrat: it's a sure way to keep government out of peoples' lives due merely to their utter lack of discipline and cohesion.
- surement 4y ago
  The only presidency that ended with less regulation in recent times was Reagan's. In general republican administrations are the ones who get less done (and "undo" less of what the opposition party has done).
  - systemvoltage 4y ago
    I’m changing my views on regulations and supply-side economics. I think this nation needs to kick start innovation and tech progress that was displayed in 1950-1970. That means, low taxes, control inflation, get budget in order and have a surplus even, stop spending and question the efficiency of the Gov (Do 2x from existing funding). Huge tax breaks for startups and small biz. No state income tax. It’s wishful thinking but I want Taiwan x Singapore x HongKong economic policies in the USA. Special economic zones like Shenzhen.
    - lanstin 4y ago
      Didn’t we have high taxes from 1950 to 1970 and massive government science military and education programs to do moon shots, stop the commie dominoes, and improve STEM education after Sputnik? And we had labor unions so your average job was enough to buy a home and send your kids to school if they wanted and maybe save enough for a boat when you started getting your pension? I mean there was segregation, anti black and LGTBQIA violence and lots of rape of women and children, but economically, it had taxes. And larger non-entitlement government spending.
      - systemvoltage 4y ago
        I am not advocating 1950-1970 policies, only indicating the level of progress. Otherwise, we'd also need to advocate for a massive World War that lead to the political resolve/unity followed by Cold War where we are on the verge of nuking each other for 3 decades necessitating intense R&D and military spending. Furthermore, it also necessitates that we form new Gov agencies like they did in 1950's which were nimble, highly efficient and competent. The latter, I would be in favor of. Remove regulations and start new agencies, abolishing old ones. It is also interesting to study why USSR, Cambodia and North Korea failed spectacularly while others that adopted highly capitalistic policies propelled into pulling people out of poverty (China, SK, HK, Taiwan, Singapore, and more recently Indonesia, India post-1990's, Vietnam and Thailand).
    - nobody9999 4y ago
      >That means, low taxes, control inflation, get budget in order and have a surplus even, stop spending and question the efficiency of the Gov (Do 2x from existing funding). Huge tax breaks for startups and small biz. No state income tax. IIRC, the top marginal Federal income tax rate in the 1950s-1960s was never below 70%[0]. [0] https://bradfordtaxinstitute.com/Free_Resources/Federal-Income-Tax-Rates.aspx https://bradfordtaxinstitute.com/Free_Resources/Federal-Inco... Edit: Fixed prose.
      - systemvoltage 4y ago
        I should have compared to progress in the Roman empire just so that I can say that I do not condone aristocracy, only making a point about progress itself. I refuted the points here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31867958 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31867958
        nobody9999 4y ago
        I have no opinion about what you said that I'm willing to express here, except that you mis-stated the level of income taxes during the period you mentioned. Not an attack on you, just correcting the record.
        deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
        systemvoltage 4y ago
        Thanks and correction accepted. Lot of it is still misleading though. We should also clarify that it was the marginal tax rate, not the "tax rate" as we know. Marginal = above a certain threshold. 90% marginal tax rate, but effective tax rate only bit higher than it is today. https://taxfoundation.org/taxes-on-the-rich-1950s-not-high/ https://taxfoundation.org/taxes-on-the-rich-1950s-not-high/
    - tyrrvk 4y ago
      no/low taxes has been done since the 80's and all we have for it is massive wealth disparity in this country. It's a failed policy that punishes the majority so a few can be obscenely wealthy. The wealthy economic zones also require we be OK with little to no environmental regulation, Hong Kong was known for having medical waste simply be dumped into the ocean. It wasn't unheard of to find used syringes and such wash up on the beaches..
      - systemvoltage 4y ago
        I'd argue that wealth disparity is good if we can lift the entire stratum upwards. We have been doing exactly that since the industrial age. Life of the poorest has gotten better. Worth visiting this debate at Yale: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3RITVJy7ogI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3RITVJy7ogI Inequality is overplayed and oversold to people who conflate crony capitalism to capitalism. The kinds of Thomas Piketty has done a tremendous amount of disservice to the west which hailed capitalism for over 2 centuries, unfortunately, USA + EU are regressing into socialism.
        tyrrvk 4y ago
        Yeah, I'm not going to base the idea that "inequality is OK" by someone from the federalist society. That's like asking an arsonist if fire is good. I'd argue that the lower class has lost upward mobility in this country in the last 40-60 years. Sure, cheap crap can be purchased from walmart - but that's just subsidized crap. China has been lifting their lower classes up - yes, but at our expense.
- wernercd 4y ago
  Hard to argue voting democrat is keeping government out of lives when some of the largest government overreaches have come from democrats. IE: ACA. I do agree that they fail to utilize their advantage more often than not but to say that Democrats in control is going to keep government out of peoples lives is... an interesting approach given history.
  - megaman821 4y ago
    Seriously, ACA has been the largest government overreach in your life? The government plays a huge role in insurance (over 1/3 of those insured are insure through the government) with Medicare, Medicaid and VA benefits. A few wildly popular rule changes (preexisting conditions) and some state-level exchanges have not moved the needle from giant player to overreach.
    - wernercd 4y ago
      I didn't say "largest". I said "democrats overreach". That's not saying "republicans don't". Both do it... the idea that Democrats stay out of your lives is stupid. They want to control your lives every bit as much. They are trying to create a Ministry of Truth. They are sending the FBI after soccer moms. Biden made unconstitutional moves to use the FDA to enforce unproven vaccines. He's gotten slapped down by the courts repeatedly for various things. In none of the previous paragraph did I say "republican are innocent". They both want expanded powers and will abuse them given the chance. "have not moved the needle from player to overreach" one of the largest - if not the largest - expansion of government in recent history isn't "player" level. You can't say "1/3rd of people are covered by the government" and not admit that that is massive overreach for a federal government that has no right in that area to begin with. Lock stock and barrel: over reach.
  - tyrrvk 4y ago
    The creation of a whole new federal branch - "homeland security" was created under BushII. Cushy federal jobs with pensions all funded off that sweet sweet defense budget. So now airline travel is ruined all for security theater..and you think ACA is overreach?

troyvit 4y ago

I think the Democrats have had that trifecta now and again. It's pretty great because they just mill around, argue a bunch, then collapse. I honestly don't get why Libertarians don't vote straight Democrat: it's a sure way to keep government out of peoples' lives due merely to their utter lack of discipline and cohesion.

surement 4y ago
The only presidency that ended with less regulation in recent times was Reagan's. In general republican administrations are the ones who get less done (and "undo" less of what the opposition party has done).
- systemvoltage 4y ago
  I’m changing my views on regulations and supply-side economics. I think this nation needs to kick start innovation and tech progress that was displayed in 1950-1970. That means, low taxes, control inflation, get budget in order and have a surplus even, stop spending and question the efficiency of the Gov (Do 2x from existing funding). Huge tax breaks for startups and small biz. No state income tax. It’s wishful thinking but I want Taiwan x Singapore x HongKong economic policies in the USA. Special economic zones like Shenzhen.
  - lanstin 4y ago
    Didn’t we have high taxes from 1950 to 1970 and massive government science military and education programs to do moon shots, stop the commie dominoes, and improve STEM education after Sputnik? And we had labor unions so your average job was enough to buy a home and send your kids to school if they wanted and maybe save enough for a boat when you started getting your pension? I mean there was segregation, anti black and LGTBQIA violence and lots of rape of women and children, but economically, it had taxes. And larger non-entitlement government spending.
    - systemvoltage 4y ago
      I am not advocating 1950-1970 policies, only indicating the level of progress. Otherwise, we'd also need to advocate for a massive World War that lead to the political resolve/unity followed by Cold War where we are on the verge of nuking each other for 3 decades necessitating intense R&D and military spending. Furthermore, it also necessitates that we form new Gov agencies like they did in 1950's which were nimble, highly efficient and competent. The latter, I would be in favor of. Remove regulations and start new agencies, abolishing old ones. It is also interesting to study why USSR, Cambodia and North Korea failed spectacularly while others that adopted highly capitalistic policies propelled into pulling people out of poverty (China, SK, HK, Taiwan, Singapore, and more recently Indonesia, India post-1990's, Vietnam and Thailand).
  - nobody9999 4y ago
    >That means, low taxes, control inflation, get budget in order and have a surplus even, stop spending and question the efficiency of the Gov (Do 2x from existing funding). Huge tax breaks for startups and small biz. No state income tax. IIRC, the top marginal Federal income tax rate in the 1950s-1960s was never below 70%[0]. [0] https://bradfordtaxinstitute.com/Free_Resources/Federal-Income-Tax-Rates.aspx https://bradfordtaxinstitute.com/Free_Resources/Federal-Inco... Edit: Fixed prose.
    - systemvoltage 4y ago
      I should have compared to progress in the Roman empire just so that I can say that I do not condone aristocracy, only making a point about progress itself. I refuted the points here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31867958 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31867958
      - nobody9999 4y ago
        I have no opinion about what you said that I'm willing to express here, except that you mis-stated the level of income taxes during the period you mentioned. Not an attack on you, just correcting the record.
        deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
        systemvoltage 4y ago
        Thanks and correction accepted. Lot of it is still misleading though. We should also clarify that it was the marginal tax rate, not the "tax rate" as we know. Marginal = above a certain threshold. 90% marginal tax rate, but effective tax rate only bit higher than it is today. https://taxfoundation.org/taxes-on-the-rich-1950s-not-high/ https://taxfoundation.org/taxes-on-the-rich-1950s-not-high/
  - tyrrvk 4y ago
    no/low taxes has been done since the 80's and all we have for it is massive wealth disparity in this country. It's a failed policy that punishes the majority so a few can be obscenely wealthy. The wealthy economic zones also require we be OK with little to no environmental regulation, Hong Kong was known for having medical waste simply be dumped into the ocean. It wasn't unheard of to find used syringes and such wash up on the beaches..
    - systemvoltage 4y ago
      I'd argue that wealth disparity is good if we can lift the entire stratum upwards. We have been doing exactly that since the industrial age. Life of the poorest has gotten better. Worth visiting this debate at Yale: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3RITVJy7ogI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3RITVJy7ogI Inequality is overplayed and oversold to people who conflate crony capitalism to capitalism. The kinds of Thomas Piketty has done a tremendous amount of disservice to the west which hailed capitalism for over 2 centuries, unfortunately, USA + EU are regressing into socialism.
      - tyrrvk 4y ago
        Yeah, I'm not going to base the idea that "inequality is OK" by someone from the federalist society. That's like asking an arsonist if fire is good. I'd argue that the lower class has lost upward mobility in this country in the last 40-60 years. Sure, cheap crap can be purchased from walmart - but that's just subsidized crap. China has been lifting their lower classes up - yes, but at our expense.
wernercd 4y ago
Hard to argue voting democrat is keeping government out of lives when some of the largest government overreaches have come from democrats. IE: ACA. I do agree that they fail to utilize their advantage more often than not but to say that Democrats in control is going to keep government out of peoples lives is... an interesting approach given history.
- megaman821 4y ago
  Seriously, ACA has been the largest government overreach in your life? The government plays a huge role in insurance (over 1/3 of those insured are insure through the government) with Medicare, Medicaid and VA benefits. A few wildly popular rule changes (preexisting conditions) and some state-level exchanges have not moved the needle from giant player to overreach.
  - wernercd 4y ago
    I didn't say "largest". I said "democrats overreach". That's not saying "republicans don't". Both do it... the idea that Democrats stay out of your lives is stupid. They want to control your lives every bit as much. They are trying to create a Ministry of Truth. They are sending the FBI after soccer moms. Biden made unconstitutional moves to use the FDA to enforce unproven vaccines. He's gotten slapped down by the courts repeatedly for various things. In none of the previous paragraph did I say "republican are innocent". They both want expanded powers and will abuse them given the chance. "have not moved the needle from player to overreach" one of the largest - if not the largest - expansion of government in recent history isn't "player" level. You can't say "1/3rd of people are covered by the government" and not admit that that is massive overreach for a federal government that has no right in that area to begin with. Lock stock and barrel: over reach.
- tyrrvk 4y ago
  The creation of a whole new federal branch - "homeland security" was created under BushII. Cushy federal jobs with pensions all funded off that sweet sweet defense budget. So now airline travel is ruined all for security theater..and you think ACA is overreach?