All-purpose news and politics thread: Two Steps Beyond!

[Brigonos Chomhgaill]

I agree with Corbyn's stance on the railways because while there's nothing wrong in theory with a privatised system, British railway companies are ****.

As for Corbyn's tax hikes for the rich, making so much money they have to take some off you sounds like one of those "good problems" I keep hearing about.

[PwrdOn]

I think what most people miss when they start labeling any kind of wealth redistribution as socialism is that what really brought down the communist bloc was the lack of any real consumer economy like the kind found in the West. It's not enough just to provide people with a minimal sustenance, they also need a bit of extra cash in their pocket so they can go out and buy Levi's and Walkmans and all the other stuff that they don't necessary require for survival, which in turn allows the economy to expand far past what it could have achieved if companies just catered to the select few who can afford such "luxuries." Continuing down the current path won't even help businesses, because potential entrepreneurs will be facing ever shrinking markets for their goods and the only people actually making money will be those who were already rich to begin with and can get a steady return on their investments without having to do much more.

[Mister Mets]

Speaking of "sting" news stories... a Breitbart news "source", Joshua Goldberg, the same fella who "reported" that Shaun King from BlackLivesMatter was "white like Rachel Dolezal" (when he's actually bi-racial, legitimately)... the same fine human being, has been arrested for domestic terrorism. Apparently, he liked to pose as members of hate groups online like Stormfront as a white supremacist or say, Gamergate to troll and gaslight them to help "make news"... but one of his favorite "personas" was a member of ISIS, and he would present himself as a Jihadist on social media...

Well, now Joshua Goldberg wanted to help them "make news" by teaching them how to make a bomb, and was encouraging them to do something on the September 11th anniversary in Kansas City, Missouri, to stoke anti-Muslim sentiment after the fact.

This is generally why I discount "news" from Breitbart. Also, f*** this guy, and f*** them for keeping him on payroll. He was already despicable, but this is about as terrible as it gets to push your narrative.

Goldberg had also written columns for the Daily Kos while pretending to be a human rights activist from Australia. He seems to have anti-Muslim libertarianish right wing sympathies, but his connections aren't limited to right wing websites.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...sh-lawyer.html

The Shaun King story is unconventional. He's a black lives matter activist who has been raised by a single mother (who is white) and who says that the white guy listed on his birth certificate as his father is not his actual father, but that his biological father is a light-skinned black man whose name he does not know.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ogical-father/

I will note that I do generally agree with you on the Breitbart website, but these are weird messy stories.

[Brigonos Chomhgaill]

I don't think socialism is anything to be afraid of in and of itself - those bankers to whom we gave billions seemed to like socialism just fine - but when it's part of a totalitarian military regime... well, at that stage, socialism is still nothing to be afraid of - you really need to be afraid of the totalitarian military regime thing. That would really be the main concern there.

[Kid A]

I know Blair and his ilk pushed the political center in UK to the far right, but that doesn't make Corbyn some radical communist for upholding pretty standard social democratic principles.

For all the talk about how American politics are way to the right of the UK's, I'm just glad the Obama administration didn't dogmatically buy into austerity and neoliberal nonsense the way Europe did.

[PwrdOn]

I don't think socialism is anything to be afraid of in and of itself - those bankers to whom we gave billions seemed to like socialism just fine - but when it's part of a totalitarian military regime... well, at that stage, socialism is still nothing to be afraid of - you really need to be afraid of the totalitarian military regime thing. That would really be the main concern there.

Well to be perfectly fair it's not as if socialism and totalitarian government are completely unrelated. A centrally planned economy requires pretty tight control to ensure that each person is contributing their share, and mass redistributions typically need to be justified by demonizing the soon to be dispossessed, which may in turn lead to pre-existing hatred amongst the lower classes to boil over which then needs to be suppressed. It also doesn't really help that socialism typically took root in poorer countries where it was usually combined with populism and nationalism to form a particularly volatile mix.

[Tendrin]

Well to be perfectly fair it's not as if socialism and totalitarian government are completely unrelated. A centrally planned economy requires pretty tight control to ensure that each person is contributing their share, and mass redistributions typically need to be justified by demonizing the soon to be dispossessed, which may in turn lead to pre-existing hatred amongst the lower classes to boil over which then needs to be suppressed. It also doesn't really help that socialism typically took root in poorer countries where it was usually combined with populism and nationalism to form a particularly volatile mix.

For that matter, it's not like capitalism and totalitarian governments are unrelated either.

[WestPhillyPunisher]

Some verbal diarrhea from the GOP clown car:

Scott Walker Blames Obama For Attacks On Police Officers

Ben Carson On Syrian Refugee Crisis: We Don't Want Another Boston Bomber Moment

[Spike-X]

Australia could have a new Prime Minister this week, with Malcolm Turnbull challenging PM Tony Abbott for leadership of the Liberal Party.

If the Americans are confused - here in Australia we don't directly elect the Prime Minister. Whoever is the leader of the party with the most seats in Parliament is PM.

[PwrdOn]

Australia could have a new Prime Minister this week, with Malcolm Turnbull challenging PM Tony Abbott for leadership of the Liberal Party.

If the Americans are confused - here in Australia we don't directly elect the Prime Minister. Whoever is the leader of the party with the most seats in Parliament is PM.

Pfft, you wannabe Brits and your electoral system, you're totally missing out on the joy and excitement of prolonged government gridlock. #murica #bloominonion

[Tendrin]

Surprising no one, Scott Walker's plans for the presidency is 'replicate Wisconsin's Disaster Nationwide'.

At a town hall meeting in Las Vegas, Walker will propose eliminating unions for employees of the federal government, making all workplaces right-to-work unless individual states vote otherwise, scrapping the federal agency that oversees unfair labor practices and making it more difficult for unions to organize.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/ap-exc...sugc_container

Because nothing says freedom like restricting the rights of people to organize!

[Kieran_Frost]

The problem is a handful of people being so obscenely rich they have money that will literally never be spent, while many, many others can't afford such basic things as food and shelter, and the system being set up specifically to ensure the former at the cost of the latter.

The government taking that money won't change that. The sad truth is in non-communist countries there will always be a large divide between the rich and poor; passing the wealth from the citizens to the government won't change that.

The party policy is very much subject to backbench pressure, especially with a thin majority.The new budget specifically didn't cut defence because Osbnore wants backbench voters in the forthcoming leadership election.
And Tim Montogomerie is very influential.

If this was true, then the Conservatives would have never supported and fort for gay marriage, because a lot of backbenchers didn't like it. If party policy was dictated by backbenchers, they'd be in the Cabinet and the Cabinet backbenchers. Do the backbenchers have some influence, yes. So do citizens. So do reporters. So do celebrities. But party policy is driven by the Cabinet; and it doesn't (nor has to) go in line with what the backbenchers think.

The amount of cuts and the pace of them seems to be in constant flux; again, Osborne said we should be in massive surplus by now. The targeting of welfare is because it is the least popular service which only a minority of people use and associate Labour with scroungers.

How hard can it be to balance the budget of a nation; shame on his lack of precognitive knowledge. The Chancellor's job is both easy and never effected by any outside factors that cannot be predicted. Seriously 2 + 2 = 4. It's not rocket science, George!

All that shows is that the minimum wage is too low.

The minimum wage is completely fine (and it's going up again, so it'll be even more fine).

That just proves my point. Footballers don't work hard enough to earn the amount of money they make.

You're missing the point. Let's say a foortball club (I'm making up numbers here) makes £500 million in a year. Who should the majority of that money go to in the business, if not the footballers?

Corbyn wants to take the power that comes with money, and redistribute it to the poorest in this country to make society a fairer place. That's the basic principle of progressive taxation and he's taking it to the logical conclusion to ensure no one is without a decent amount of money and power.

Life isn't fair and society isn't a fair place. We can do a lot to help (of course); but redistributing wealth isn't the way to proceed. There shouldn't be anything wrong about being rich, that is something many aspire to (people want security, not just for them but also for their family, and creature comforts, of course). There's nothing wrong with that; the fact some happen to be better at making lots of money than others is just life.

I think what most people miss when they start labeling any kind of wealth redistribution as socialism is that what really brought down the communist bloc was the lack of any real consumer economy like the kind found in the West. It's not enough just to provide people with a minimal sustenance, they also need a bit of extra cash in their pocket so they can go out and buy Levi's and Walkmans and all the other stuff that they don't necessary require for survival, which in turn allows the economy to expand far past what it could have achieved if companies just catered to the select few who can afford such "luxuries." Continuing down the current path won't even help businesses, because potential entrepreneurs will be facing ever shrinking markets for their goods and the only people actually making money will be those who were already rich to begin with and can get a steady return on their investments without having to do much more.

And if you "cap" wages; all that will happen is a lot of the talented people will go abroad (where their wage isn't capped by Governments). If Corbyn ever capped the maximum wage, a lot of high end professionals will leave in droves. Do nations survive if the government drive out all the rich, I forget?

Australia could have a new Prime Minister this week, with Malcolm Turnbull challenging PM Tony Abbott for leadership of the Liberal Party.

If the Americans are confused - here in Australia we don't directly elect the Prime Minister. Whoever is the leader of the party with the most seats in Parliament is PM.

Ohhhhh exciting; this could lead to gay marriage getting passed (which will never happen with Abbott around).

[Tendrin]

THe problem with flatly denying 'redistribution of wealth' is that ultimately, the level of inequality can approach a point of such topheavyness that allows wealth to capture governance, as well as generate more wealth faster than (as Piketty has pointed out) than society's ability to deal with it. Wealth generates wealth, so it's no surprising all the gains go to the same place. There's nothing wrong with being 'rich', aside from all the science that says being too rich and priviledged unsurprisingly turns you into an empathyless *******. (hi notch!)

Point is, redistribution of wealth is not an inherently evil thing for society, as capture of governance by the exceedingly wealth is a proven nightmare, and concentrated wealth that never trickles down (because it never does) is a bad thing for any consumer, capitalist economy.

Mind you, marginal rates are a far better tool for this than a cap.

[Brigonos Chomhgaill]

Well to be perfectly fair it's not as if socialism and totalitarian government are completely unrelated.

They are no more synonymous - or even "related" - than capitalism and slavery.

[Kieran_Frost]

THe problem with flatly denying 'redistribution of wealth' is that ultimately, the level of inequality can approach a point of such topheavyness that allows wealth to capture governance, as well as generate more wealth faster than (as Piketty has pointed out) than society's ability to deal with it. Wealth generates wealth, so it's no surprising all the gains go to the same place. There's nothing wrong with being 'rich', aside from all the science that says being too rich and priviledged unsurprisingly turns you into an empathyless *******. (hi notch!)

Point is, redistribution of wealth is not an inherently evil thing for society, as capture of governance by the exceedingly wealth is a proven nightmare, and concentrated wealth that never trickles down (because it never does) is a bad thing for any consumer, capitalist economy.

I just don't agree that any Government has proved to be worthy enough, and clean enough to: simultaneously take their citizens money; while placing a "glass ceiling" over said citizens. Certainly not the British government. It is what is, and it's a damn good system of governing compared to the alternatives, but it's not infallible. And crippling the lofty heights of your citizens, because "life should be fairer" is just opening a horrible can of worms and also not seeing the long term fallout: we stop paying well, they'll go to those who do. Do we really want entrepreneurs moving abroad, do we want those aiming to be the top travelling abroad because when they get to the top, they want the top salaries? The sad reality is people go where the money is, that's why charities need to pay their figure heads ludicrous sums, because otherwise they'll very, very rarely get the best. The best come with a price tag. It's the cruel reality of Capitalism.