I'm starting to feel pity for McCain.

[KrazyHorse]

Most of them have not yet voted for Obama. I also didn't see you out stumping for Gore or Kerry...

[Naked Gents Rut]

I voted for the physicist in 2000. Didn't send for my absentee in 2004.

[Ramo]

I wonder if there's a single center-right party in Europe whose platform is the right of Obama's...

[KrazyHorse]

I have no idea what physicist ran in 2000.

[Naked Gents Rut]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
I have no idea what physicist ran in 2000.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hagelin

IIRC, I was one of 18 people who voted for him in Nebraska.

[KrazyHorse]

Oh, that dude. He's the crazy guy with the yogic power.

My advisor knows him. They may even have coauthored a paper. Not sure.

[Naked Gents Rut]

Yeah, I wonder why he went all crazy transcendental. He seems to have a pretty impressive resume otherwise.

[Darius871]

What was impressive about him in your view? I couldn't help but notice that he endorsed Kucinich, who I'm guessing isn't your cup of tea...

[KrazyHorse]

He was actually a serious particle theorist before his wackiness hit. I'm guessing Drake's vote was more of protest than a ringing endorsement of transcendental meditation.

[Seedle]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


That just tells me that at least 70% of Americans have no clue what wealth redistribution means.

What do you think it means? And I ask not as a challenge, but because you seem well educated on the subject. Any recommended reading for general audiences on economics?

[Darius871]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
He was actually a serious particle theorist before his wackiness hit. I'm guessing Drake's vote was more of protest than a ringing endorsement of transcendental meditation.

Well, the longer Tesla tried to craft a UFT the more into transcendental yogi BS he got also, so maybe there's something to that stuff. Or maybe considering UFT just tends to drive men mad.

[Naked Gents Rut]

What was impressive about him in your view? I couldn't help but notice that he endorsed Kucinich, who I'm guessing isn't your cup of tea...

I was 21 and voting for the first time. I remember reading something about him being more moderately libertarian than whoever the crazy Libertarian candidate was that year and that seemed good enough for me. I'll admit that I didn't put a responsible amount of thought into my protest vote.

In retrospect, I should've voted for Gore, even though it wouldn't have mattered. He may have been a complete populist douche during the campaign, but he obviously would've been better than Bush. Not going to make that mistake this time around.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Seedle
What do you think it means? And I ask not as a challenge, but because you seem well educated on the subject. Any recommended reading for general audiences on economics?

Well the literal meaning would be anything, anything other than a universal tax of a single dollar amount, because even a value-added tax or flat-rate tax (to say nothing of our openly progressive tax scale) would still require person X to pay more net than person Y, for services from which Y usually benefits more, amounting to a redistribution from X to Y.

The public meaning evidenced by NGR's poll obviously must be something distinct not only in quantity but in quality, such as taxing X and then cutting a check directly to Y. That's what the "mainstream" is against, but whether it applies to Obama isn't certain. I've heard it alleged that his promises to "cut" the taxes of even people who don't pay taxes would effectively mean giving out actual checks, but I have no clue if that's true, and even if it is, that could be characterized as an "economic stimulus" check. Even the allegations about checks are untrue, his apparent wllingness to expand the welfare state would have to include things like welfare checks and food stamps, which would fall under the public meaning as opposed to mere "services" which wouldn't.

Just $0.02.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Seedle


What do you think it means? And I ask not as a challenge, but because you seem well educated on the subject. Any recommended reading for general audiences on economics?

I think it should be construed to include any deliberate skewing of the tax/benefit system so that the rich generally receive less from the government than they pay in and the poor generally receive more than they pay in. This is how the tax and benefit systems of all major modernized countries are structured.

It's a dirty term in the US, but I'd be interested to see how most of the people in the US would react when they were told that they'd been drastically underpaying their share.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Darius871


Well the literal meaning would be anything, anything other than a universal tax of a single dollar amount, because even a value-added tax or flat-rate tax (to say nothing of our openly progressive tax scale) would still require person X to pay more net than person Y, for services from which Y usually benefits more, amounting to a redistribution from X to Y.

The rich generally receive more benefits from the government than the poor do. They have more assets to protect, for one, and are more dependent on a stable society to earn their money (either as highly-paid professionals or as investors).

Nonetheless, a flat rate probably understates the benefits the poor get from the government. We could probably reasonably approximate a non-redistributive system by a per capita tax as well as a flat rate tax on consumption, combined with an elimination of education, housing, health care and agricultural subsidies, as well as social security and medicare.