Favourite latest post by previous poster

[Torie]

This post seems sensible - and correct. The poll tax needed to go, along with large swaths of the nation not allowing blacks to vote, to have a universal franchise. The one person, one vote SCOTUS decision had been decided a few years' before, Baker v. Carr, which I think is also an essential ingredient.

As has been said, there's no clear, universal line separating an inclusive oligarchy from a restrictive democracy. It's a continuum and definitions can only vary through time and context.

That said, 1968 is unquestionably the date where the minimum requisites for a modern democracy (no discrimination on the basis of wealth, gender or race) were met.

[Torie]

For a man from the left side of the tracks, Train is actually quite rock solid - and knowledgeable - about economics.

so, the question always is, where to draw the line.  the most convenient answer for the politicians is to tax the product at point of sale.  tobacco taxes are extremely regressive.  a sugar tax would be regressive, albeit less so.  

I'll simply say that "convenience" is far from the only reason that excise taxes are chosen as a solution.  They make solid Pigouvian sense even in the absence of political constraints, and in a very real sense constrain the liberty of the consumer less than other approaches such as outright bans, rationing, the sorts of state monopolies set up for alcohol after Prohibition, etc.

That consumption taxes (certain specific luxury goods excepted) tend to be regressive in practice is an issue, yes. But it's one that needs to be balanced against the severity of the externality problems, and also one that can and should be remedied in other parts of the code instead.  For most things, I'd be willing to entertain arguments that a proper balancing test of the external consequences vs. distributional pain should keep rates low.  Fossil fuels and tobacco are, however, the two shining examples where the harm is so urgent and pervasive that high-to-punitive rates are a moral imperative.  Eh... with tobacco, it might in fact be high enough already.  I'm plenty anti-tobacco, but this is a battle that has been largely won, at least in our neck of the woods.

[Torie]

I always heard 35 to 40- not a majority by any means, but certainly enough to outnumber loyalists. Also, many of the people who were initially neutral broke to the Patriots during the war.

[Torie]

The post below has enough truth in it, to make me feel a bit uncomfortable, and that is a good thing, rather than a bad thing.

I agree with you there; Trump's support comes from a bewilderment in general, and many of his supporters, while aghast at societal changes, aren't even particularly religious.  As far as the GOP goes, I completely agree with that sentiment.  It seems like the only things the GOP is able to deliver on is what many in the political/donor class want, such as more assorted tax breaks/credits and a few reforms here and there.  But they aren't even trying to reverse or undo any of the huge changes that have taken place.  A big part of that is that, despite the GOP base being quite conservative in outlook and very concerned about the nation's future, the people who write checks for the Republicans are mostly socially progressive rich people who generally (but not always) have a hawkish foreign policy.  They don't have a huge beef with Obama for the most part, and are more than happy with things as they are, so long as Republicans control the statehouses and Congress, preventing tax increases and advancing certain, specific agenda items on labor, spending, and taxes.  A corrolary is that while much of the Democratic base is quite socialist, Obama knows he can't pass an economic agenda that is too progressive without incurring wrath from upper-class moderates, so that base often gets left in the dust as well, in favor of SJW and social liberal interests.