Chit Chat

"Brexit"

124»

Re: "Brexit"


  • First bolded- no. That's not democracy, that's rigging. No offense, but that's another element that irritates me about the results of Brexit and the results of every US presidential election- that somehow the results aren't accurate, x population shouldn't be or should be allowed to vote, so forth and so on- anything to get the outcomes you want and you think is best for everyone else. 

    Look, I'm in the minority on these boards in terms of political beliefs (Libertarian). My only skin in the Brexit game is that my 401k and IRA took a dive, but hey, when the market's down I'll just buy more shares and make more money in the long run; think I'll plan a vacay to see my family now that the Pound is down. People need to be able to vote how THEY want to vote, not how others THINK OTHERS should vote.  

    Second bolded- no idea. Are that many more citizens going to come of age in the next two years, and are that many seniors going to die? Who knows. If I recall the stats correctly, not a majority of the young crowd voted, so would that even make a difference? 

    You can like this or you can not like this, but millions of perfectly normal, reasonable people voted and Leave won. Trying to change the outcome is nothing but a temper tantrum and a vote for oligarchy. No thanks. 
    I'm not saying older people shouldn't be allowed to vote or whatever- I'm just stating the fact that they have to live with their decision a lot less time. Which seems unfair to me, but, as I said, I have no idea what you could do to fairly account for that. 
    So you're saying that people with the longest to live should carry the most weight in elections. 

    That also makes no sense. If young people were in control of the vote right now in the US, we'd be voted into Socialism by a bunch of millennials with massive student debt, poor job prospects, and degrees that were highly unlikely to contain any education in basic economics (why isn't finance General Education??). People who have no concept of what "free" means in terms stifling economic growth. People who voted for the ACA and caused the obvious repercussions of doubling and tripling premiums on older people trying to retire, who need all their savings possible that they're entitled to. But the older people's opinion- based on dozens of years of experience living through various economic peaks and valleys- on the quality of their golden years shouldn't matter in relation to younger people with barely any real life experience?
    Um, ok. 
    In all fairness, I don't think that's what she is saying at all.  She is saying that the long term repercussions from this vote, which are yet to be known, will have the greatest and longest impact on the group of voters whose generation overwhelmingly voted against it.  It does seem unfair, yet there is no real way to change it.

    It's like naming your son Sue and then taking off.  You had the power initially, but weren't around for the years of bullying he endured, even though at the end we learn you had the best of intentions.
    But it's not unfair. The policies that affect us now were decided upon by people (in some form of democracy or another) who came before us. Health insurance being tied up with employers (which I think is completely bonkers) dates back to the Depression and trudged along in various forms until the ACA. Federal student loans and the 70's. The Clinton years and NAFTA. This is how it's always worked and it is most fair for each individual person to vote by their conscious. If young people were that concerned about older people deciding their fate, they should have voted. 

    Poll turnout:
    18-24: 36% 25-34: 58% 35-44: 72% 45-54: 75% 55-64: 81% 65+: 83%
    I agree it is not unfair, per se, but rather it sucks for younger voters knowing that a large segment of the people who overwhelmingly voted to leave are not going to have to live with the consequences for the next 50 years. That being said, I also agree with the bolded - younger voters should have turned out in greater numbers if they wanted their opinion to matter... I always argue that if you don't vote, you don't have the right to complain about the outcome.
    I agree that it can suck to feel that way, yes. Everyone's entitled to their feelings, of course! 
    I feel sucky about a lot of decisions that are democratically brought to fruition, but I'd never dare suggest any group be silenced so that my minority views can be implemented. When you think about all the people in the past and currently around the world that fight for and die for the right to vote, for their voice to at least be heard, I just shudder to think there are people that would prefer that some members of society shouldn't have as much say in their lives. That is the wrong, wrong, wrong path to go down. Every time a recount is demanded, a recall is demanded... holy shit. You lost, get over it. 

    Ok, off my soapbox.  

    Just to be clear, that's not what I'm saying at all. No one should be silenced, and honestly nothing should be done about it- at least, I can't think of anything reasonable that could possibly be done.

    I think you're trying to argue against an argument that isn't being made here- no one wants to take away votes from old people, we're just saying it's unfortunate that the negative consequences of Brexit, whatever they may be, will fall disproportionately on people who voted against it. It's also sad young people, for whatever reason, didn't feel moved to vote in greater numbers.

    Also I get that you're being flippant or whatever but the whole "you lost, get over it" sentiment is a pretty gross attitude to take IMO. This vote is going to have very real consequences for people's lives so maybe they get to feel down about it for a little while? It's easy to shrug it off when you have little at stake, but recognized it's a privilege to be in that position.

    STUCK

    Fair point, point taken. 
    ________________________________


  • MCmeowMCmeow member
    500 Love Its Fourth Anniversary 100 Comments Name Dropper
    edited June 2016
    I've been hearing some more opinions about this and honestly this seems like more of a win in the long run against neo-liberals (in the progressive perspective). There were many people in the far left who voted to separate from the EU because they wanted to change the system, they believe the economy will take a hit for now but it would have been much worse very soon if they stayed (similar to in the US) 
    and did someone really bad mouth socialism? Some of our best programs are socialist, the Cold War is over guys lol and Denmark is the world's happiest country. And young people have every reason to feel upset right now, they do live with the consequences, it doesn't mean older people shouldn't vote, I think voting should be made easier, and the age should be lowered, and the mainstream media needs to be reformed.
    Wedding Countdown Ticker
  • MCmeow said:
    I've been hearing some more opinions about this and honestly this seems like more of a win in the long run against neo-liberals (in the progressive perspective). There were many people in the far left who voted to separate from the EU because they wanted to change the system, they believe the economy will take a hit for now but it would have been much worse very soon if they stayed (similar to in the US) 
    and did someone really bad mouth socialism? Some of our best programs are socialist, the Cold War is over guys lol and Denmark is the world's happiest country. And young people have every reason to feel upset right now, they do live with the consequences, it doesn't mean older people shouldn't vote, I think voting should be made easier, and the age should be lowered, and the mainstream media needs to be reformed.
    You're probably referring to me, and I don't bad-mouth socialism per se. This is the problem with politics- going with your heart over your head. Sure, everyone throwing their money into the collective pot to help the less fortunate is admirable. 
    But you can't just take bits and pieces of a country's system and assume it'll work everywhere else. You know why Denmark can afford their welfare system? Because they lightly regulate business. There is no money for public programs if you can't earn the money first. Businesses don't set up shop where it doesn't make economic sense to do so. If you try to plop welfare state policies into the United States, which heavily regulates business so much so that businesses are fleeing to tax havens... you won't have jobs and you can't afford socialism.

    I'm not a jerk, ok. This is economics, it's math, it's logic. Sorry it sounds heartless.
    ________________________________


  • MCmeow said:
    I've been hearing some more opinions about this and honestly this seems like more of a win in the long run against neo-liberals (in the progressive perspective). There were many people in the far left who voted to separate from the EU because they wanted to change the system, they believe the economy will take a hit for now but it would have been much worse very soon if they stayed (similar to in the US) 
    and did someone really bad mouth socialism? Some of our best programs are socialist, the Cold War is over guys lol and Denmark is the world's happiest country. And young people have every reason to feel upset right now, they do live with the consequences, it doesn't mean older people shouldn't vote, I think voting should be made easier, and the age should be lowered, and the mainstream media needs to be reformed.
    You're probably referring to me, and I don't bad-mouth socialism per se. This is the problem with politics- going with your heart over your head. Sure, everyone throwing their money into the collective pot to help the less fortunate is admirable. 
    But you can't just take bits and pieces of a country's system and assume it'll work everywhere else. You know why Denmark can afford their welfare system? Because they lightly regulate business. There is no money for public programs if you can't earn the money first. Businesses don't set up shop where it doesn't make economic sense to do so. If you try to plop welfare state policies into the United States, which heavily regulates business so much so that businesses are fleeing to tax havens... you won't have jobs and you can't afford socialism.

    I'm not a jerk, ok. This is economics, it's math, it's logic. Sorry it sounds heartless.
    They also have very high taxation. That's one of the big differences between any of the countries with any socialised welfare systems in place and the US, the taxes. Even in Canada we are taxed on all sides, it's why we can have one year Maternity/Parental leave, Healthcare, and subsidised post-secondary. 
  • MCmeow said:
    I've been hearing some more opinions about this and honestly this seems like more of a win in the long run against neo-liberals (in the progressive perspective). There were many people in the far left who voted to separate from the EU because they wanted to change the system, they believe the economy will take a hit for now but it would have been much worse very soon if they stayed (similar to in the US) 
    and did someone really bad mouth socialism? Some of our best programs are socialist, the Cold War is over guys lol and Denmark is the world's happiest country. And young people have every reason to feel upset right now, they do live with the consequences, it doesn't mean older people shouldn't vote, I think voting should be made easier, and the age should be lowered, and the mainstream media needs to be reformed.
    Completely agree with this! I honestly believe the vote should have been lowered to 16 as this is going to affect them so much and this is such an important vote. I've had lots of controversial conversations since the vote about those over 75 being able to vote, half the views are they have every right to vote just like any of us but the other side is why should they be voting if it won't have an effect on them but will have a severe affect on younger generations future.

    Also I'm 22 and I am so upset about this decision and have every right to be, I'm saving to buy a house and have no idea whether that will even be an option by the time I'm ready in the new economy. The only people I know who voted leave are in their mid 50's and above (except for a few openly racist individuals) and a lot of the younger generation feel that they've left us with a declining future while they were handed free education, golden pensions and social mobility. 75% of younger generation votes were to remain and it was disregarded because the leave vote won by less than 2% so I think everyone who wanted to remain has ever single right to be upset by this outcome.
  • MCmeowMCmeow member
    500 Love Its Fourth Anniversary 100 Comments Name Dropper
    edited June 2016
    MCmeow said:
    I've been hearing some more opinions about this and honestly this seems like more of a win in the long run against neo-liberals (in the progressive perspective). There were many people in the far left who voted to separate from the EU because they wanted to change the system, they believe the economy will take a hit for now but it would have been much worse very soon if they stayed (similar to in the US) 
    and did someone really bad mouth socialism? Some of our best programs are socialist, the Cold War is over guys lol and Denmark is the world's happiest country. And young people have every reason to feel upset right now, they do live with the consequences, it doesn't mean older people shouldn't vote, I think voting should be made easier, and the age should be lowered, and the mainstream media needs to be reformed.
    You're probably referring to me, and I don't bad-mouth socialism per se. This is the problem with politics- going with your heart over your head. Sure, everyone throwing their money into the collective pot to help the less fortunate is admirable. 
    But you can't just take bits and pieces of a country's system and assume it'll work everywhere else. You know why Denmark can afford their welfare system? Because they lightly regulate business. There is no money for public programs if you can't earn the money first. Businesses don't set up shop where it doesn't make economic sense to do so. If you try to plop welfare state policies into the United States, which heavily regulates business so much so that businesses are fleeing to tax havens... you won't have jobs and you can't afford socialism.

    I'm not a jerk, ok. This is economics, it's math, it's logic. Sorry it sounds heartless.
    I understand having differences in opinions on this. But we do have the money, we just need to reallocate it. It's not about destroying capitalism completely, it's about having some things government regulated that should be government regulated and other things privatized. We need a balance. We have socialism for corporations in the US not the people. Look up Asher Adelman, one of the most successful people in Wall Street and he agrees. The tax havens are something that our government is allowing and encouraging, politicians are also benefiting from them which also needs to change.

    Also there was a shift in the 80's, the US used to be slightly more socialist when there was less income inequality, more people could afford to go to college and buy homes but then trickle down economics came in which is proven not to work.


    Edit: also I don't think you're a jerk. This topic has many sides to it.
    Wedding Countdown Ticker
  • MCmeow said:
    MCmeow said:
    I've been hearing some more opinions about this and honestly this seems like more of a win in the long run against neo-liberals (in the progressive perspective). There were many people in the far left who voted to separate from the EU because they wanted to change the system, they believe the economy will take a hit for now but it would have been much worse very soon if they stayed (similar to in the US) 
    and did someone really bad mouth socialism? Some of our best programs are socialist, the Cold War is over guys lol and Denmark is the world's happiest country. And young people have every reason to feel upset right now, they do live with the consequences, it doesn't mean older people shouldn't vote, I think voting should be made easier, and the age should be lowered, and the mainstream media needs to be reformed.
    You're probably referring to me, and I don't bad-mouth socialism per se. This is the problem with politics- going with your heart over your head. Sure, everyone throwing their money into the collective pot to help the less fortunate is admirable. 
    But you can't just take bits and pieces of a country's system and assume it'll work everywhere else. You know why Denmark can afford their welfare system? Because they lightly regulate business. There is no money for public programs if you can't earn the money first. Businesses don't set up shop where it doesn't make economic sense to do so. If you try to plop welfare state policies into the United States, which heavily regulates business so much so that businesses are fleeing to tax havens... you won't have jobs and you can't afford socialism.

    I'm not a jerk, ok. This is economics, it's math, it's logic. Sorry it sounds heartless.
    I understand having differences in opinions on this. But we do have the money, we just need to reallocate it. It's not about destroying capitalism completely, it's about having some things government regulated that should be government regulated and other things privatized. We need a balance. We have socialism for corporations in the US not the people. Look up Asher Adelman, one of the most successful people in Wall Street and he agrees. The tax havens are something that our government is allowing and encouraging, politicians are also benefiting from them which also needs to change.

    Also there was a shift in the 80's, the US used to be slightly more socialist when there was less income inequality, more people could afford to go to college and buy homes but then trickle down economics came in which is proven not to work.


    Edit: also I don't think you're a jerk. This topic has many sides to it.
    The bolded is what I agree with. I think people don't agree on how to get it done. The common conversation is to tax businesses, tax the rich, fair share, etc. But the US is not on a level playing field with the rest of the globe. So when our businesses are highly taxed and highly regulated, they move out of the US to places with more business friendly (money and regulation) policies. Then people in those countries get the jobs, and Americans bitch and moan. 
    If you didn't tax businesses to high heaven, they wouldn't have such high overhead. They'd employ more people here. The people would continue paying their own taxes in whatever form. They'd purchase more stuff because they'd have more money. That's more demand for supply, which is more jobs. The positive cycle continues. Plus, with more people employed, you'd need less taxes for welfare and unemployment and could spend it more wisely. It's all positive economic reinforcement. On a micro level, look at how IL is in the pits economically and businesses are moving to IN and WI. Look how Chicago's stringent moral policies just make people purchase their vices elsewhere. A non-level playing field accomplishes nothing. 

    What I keep seeing this country trying to do is raise taxes for welfare, raise taxes for healthcare for those who can't afford it, raise taxes for all kinds of stuff. There's so many tax dollars that wouldn't have to be spent if people were just employed! What the loudest voices in the US are trying to do is completely, utterly, economically backwards. Denmark works not because "they're socialist" it's because they have the right combination of business friendly environment and high taxes.

    So, sorry to totally derail from Brexit, but I'm just not surprised they voted to Leave, no matter how thin the margin. You see your money and your jobs going elsewhere and the social safety nets weakening... Well.  
    ________________________________


  • MCmeowMCmeow member
    500 Love Its Fourth Anniversary 100 Comments Name Dropper
    edited June 2016
    MCmeow said:
    MCmeow said:
    I've been hearing some more opinions about this and honestly this seems like more of a win in the long run against neo-liberals (in the progressive perspective). There were many people in the far left who voted to separate from the EU because they wanted to change the system, they believe the economy will take a hit for now but it would have been much worse very soon if they stayed (similar to in the US) 
    and did someone really bad mouth socialism? Some of our best programs are socialist, the Cold War is over guys lol and Denmark is the world's happiest country. And young people have every reason to feel upset right now, they do live with the consequences, it doesn't mean older people shouldn't vote, I think voting should be made easier, and the age should be lowered, and the mainstream media needs to be reformed.
    You're probably referring to me, and I don't bad-mouth socialism per se. This is the problem with politics- going with your heart over your head. Sure, everyone throwing their money into the collective pot to help the less fortunate is admirable. 
    But you can't just take bits and pieces of a country's system and assume it'll work everywhere else. You know why Denmark can afford their welfare system? Because they lightly regulate business. There is no money for public programs if you can't earn the money first. Businesses don't set up shop where it doesn't make economic sense to do so. If you try to plop welfare state policies into the United States, which heavily regulates business so much so that businesses are fleeing to tax havens... you won't have jobs and you can't afford socialism.

    I'm not a jerk, ok. This is economics, it's math, it's logic. Sorry it sounds heartless.
    I understand having differences in opinions on this. But we do have the money, we just need to reallocate it. It's not about destroying capitalism completely, it's about having some things government regulated that should be government regulated and other things privatized. We need a balance. We have socialism for corporations in the US not the people. Look up Asher Adelman, one of the most successful people in Wall Street and he agrees. The tax havens are something that our government is allowing and encouraging, politicians are also benefiting from them which also needs to change.

    Also there was a shift in the 80's, the US used to be slightly more socialist when there was less income inequality, more people could afford to go to college and buy homes but then trickle down economics came in which is proven not to work.


    Edit: also I don't think you're a jerk. This topic has many sides to it.
    The bolded is what I agree with. I think people don't agree on how to get it done. The common conversation is to tax businesses, tax the rich, fair share, etc. But the US is not on a level playing field with the rest of the globe. So when our businesses are highly taxed and highly regulated, they move out of the US to places with more business friendly (money and regulation) policies. Then people in those countries get the jobs, and Americans bitch and moan. 
    If you didn't tax businesses to high heaven, they wouldn't have such high overhead. They'd employ more people here. The people would continue paying their own taxes in whatever form. They'd purchase more stuff because they'd have more money. That's more demand for supply, which is more jobs. The positive cycle continues. Plus, with more people employed, you'd need less taxes for welfare and unemployment and could spend it more wisely. It's all positive economic reinforcement. On a micro level, look at how IL is in the pits economically and businesses are moving to IN and WI. Look how Chicago's stringent moral policies just make people purchase their vices elsewhere. A non-level playing field accomplishes nothing. 

    What I keep seeing this country trying to do is raise taxes for welfare, raise taxes for healthcare for those who can't afford it, raise taxes for all kinds of stuff. There's so many tax dollars that wouldn't have to be spent if people were just employed! What the loudest voices in the US are trying to do is completely, utterly, economically backwards. Denmark works not because "they're socialist" it's because they have the right combination of business friendly environment and high taxes.

    So, sorry to totally derail from Brexit, but I'm just not surprised they voted to Leave, no matter how thin the margin. You see your money and your jobs going elsewhere and the social safety nets weakening... Well.  
    I understand the concern with companies leaving, but they aren't leaving because of taxes, they currently avoid taxes. Top corporations currently control everything in this country including our media, and it's because of these corporations that many people are on welfare in the first place which we pay for (example: Walmart). But yes we do agree there should be a balance in capitalism, but corporations should be fairly taxed because they currently avoid them and pass the expenses onto us. This is similar to Brexit with the concerns they're facing. Citizens are tired of their jobs being outsourced and placing the blame on the wrong people among other things, the TPP must die.

    edit: just to clarify, the thing that is pushing corporations overseas are not the nonexistent taxes, it's our trade deals that politicians defend.
    Wedding Countdown Ticker
  • MCmeow said:
    MCmeow said:
    MCmeow said:
    I've been hearing some more opinions about this and honestly this seems like more of a win in the long run against neo-liberals (in the progressive perspective). There were many people in the far left who voted to separate from the EU because they wanted to change the system, they believe the economy will take a hit for now but it would have been much worse very soon if they stayed (similar to in the US) 
    and did someone really bad mouth socialism? Some of our best programs are socialist, the Cold War is over guys lol and Denmark is the world's happiest country. And young people have every reason to feel upset right now, they do live with the consequences, it doesn't mean older people shouldn't vote, I think voting should be made easier, and the age should be lowered, and the mainstream media needs to be reformed.
    You're probably referring to me, and I don't bad-mouth socialism per se. This is the problem with politics- going with your heart over your head. Sure, everyone throwing their money into the collective pot to help the less fortunate is admirable. 
    But you can't just take bits and pieces of a country's system and assume it'll work everywhere else. You know why Denmark can afford their welfare system? Because they lightly regulate business. There is no money for public programs if you can't earn the money first. Businesses don't set up shop where it doesn't make economic sense to do so. If you try to plop welfare state policies into the United States, which heavily regulates business so much so that businesses are fleeing to tax havens... you won't have jobs and you can't afford socialism.

    I'm not a jerk, ok. This is economics, it's math, it's logic. Sorry it sounds heartless.
    I understand having differences in opinions on this. But we do have the money, we just need to reallocate it. It's not about destroying capitalism completely, it's about having some things government regulated that should be government regulated and other things privatized. We need a balance. We have socialism for corporations in the US not the people. Look up Asher Adelman, one of the most successful people in Wall Street and he agrees. The tax havens are something that our government is allowing and encouraging, politicians are also benefiting from them which also needs to change.

    Also there was a shift in the 80's, the US used to be slightly more socialist when there was less income inequality, more people could afford to go to college and buy homes but then trickle down economics came in which is proven not to work.


    Edit: also I don't think you're a jerk. This topic has many sides to it.
    The bolded is what I agree with. I think people don't agree on how to get it done. The common conversation is to tax businesses, tax the rich, fair share, etc. But the US is not on a level playing field with the rest of the globe. So when our businesses are highly taxed and highly regulated, they move out of the US to places with more business friendly (money and regulation) policies. Then people in those countries get the jobs, and Americans bitch and moan. 
    If you didn't tax businesses to high heaven, they wouldn't have such high overhead. They'd employ more people here. The people would continue paying their own taxes in whatever form. They'd purchase more stuff because they'd have more money. That's more demand for supply, which is more jobs. The positive cycle continues. Plus, with more people employed, you'd need less taxes for welfare and unemployment and could spend it more wisely. It's all positive economic reinforcement. On a micro level, look at how IL is in the pits economically and businesses are moving to IN and WI. Look how Chicago's stringent moral policies just make people purchase their vices elsewhere. A non-level playing field accomplishes nothing. 

    What I keep seeing this country trying to do is raise taxes for welfare, raise taxes for healthcare for those who can't afford it, raise taxes for all kinds of stuff. There's so many tax dollars that wouldn't have to be spent if people were just employed! What the loudest voices in the US are trying to do is completely, utterly, economically backwards. Denmark works not because "they're socialist" it's because they have the right combination of business friendly environment and high taxes.

    So, sorry to totally derail from Brexit, but I'm just not surprised they voted to Leave, no matter how thin the margin. You see your money and your jobs going elsewhere and the social safety nets weakening... Well.  
    I understand the concern with companies leaving, but they aren't leaving because of taxes, they currently avoid taxes. Top corporations currently control everything in this country including our media, and it's because of these corporations that many people are on welfare in the first place which we pay for (example: Walmart). But yes we do agree there should be a balance in capitalism, but corporations should be fairly taxed because they currently avoid them and pass the expenses onto us. This is similar to Brexit with the concerns they're facing. Citizens are tired of their jobs being outsourced and placing the blame on the wrong people among other things, the TPP must die.

    edit: just to clarify, the thing that is pushing corporations overseas are not the nonexistent taxes, it's our trade deals that politicians defend.
    I don't really get what you mean with the bolded. Corporations do whatever is legal per the tax code. The tax code is a big part of the problem here. If they find taxes where they're incorporated oppressive, they can avoid them using legal loopholes in the code, or leave completely. So yeah, we lose jobs because of taxes. You don't avoid what doesn't bother you or hinder you. 

    Here's another way to think of it. You live in a dry county (or accidentally vacation in a dry county, whoopsies). Do you think, "Gee, it's illegal to buy alcohol where I live, guess I'll just stop drinking!" or do you drive out of your way to a county where you can be alcohol (and stock up)? I'm guessing the latter. What about gas? I never fill up my car in Cook County and take care to get gas when I'm out in the further 'burbs like Lake or McHenry County. Lower taxes, lower price per gallon. When I visit my sister in Wisconsin? Gotta go shopping; their sales tax is like half of Chicago's. Saves me money. 

    (Trade deals, media control, politician control- oh yeah, totally agree, all related yet other huge problems in themselves.)

    There's fair, and then there's actual human behavior. We can have an idealized view of how the world should work. But in the end, people and corporations are going to choose the easiest route for their own self interests. 
    ________________________________


This discussion has been closed.
Choose Another Board
Search Boards