Here's the meat of that article I linked to. You can find plenty of articles about the policy if you Google something like "nordic tax returns public".
It is one of the last taboos. You can swear on television and breastfeed in public, but you cannot talk about how much you earn. Not in Britain, at least. Viewed from Scandinavia, the controversy around the UK government forcing the BBC to reveal the salaries of its top presenters was hard to understand.
Each year Sweden, Finland and Norway publish everyone’s income tax returns. In Sweden anyone can find out anyone’s salary with a quick phone call to the tax authorities. The person whose returns you request will know it was you, but that is all.
You can know how much your neighbour earns, and how much tax she pays. The practice dates back to the 18th century. Different cultures have different ideas about privacy. The British seem not to mind being watched by millions of surveillance cameras, but they do not want their salaries to be public record. In Sweden it is the other way around.
For many Britons, how much someone earns is not information that belongs in the public space. Money is private. Except, of course, it is not.
“The personal is political” used to be the slogan of second-wave feminists. And most political progress for women has required some kind of renegotiation of the border between the private and the public sphere.
The debate about pay transparency is no different. The salaries of BBC presenters such as Gary Lineker or John Humphrys are not strictly private matters — they are part of a larger pattern in which the average pay gap between men and women in the UK is 18 per cent. It might not be “very nice” to talk about, as the actor Kate Winslet put it, but that does not make the conversation any less necessary.
In Sweden, businesses with 25 or more employees have to establish an equality action plan. And companies with big pay gaps face fines if they fail to take steps to close them. The Swedish gender pay gap has become smaller since this system was introduced, but it is still 15 per cent. Finland, where tax returns are also public, has a gender pay gap similar to that of the UK.
One reason for Sweden’s gender pay gap being relatively high is the segregated nature of the labour market. A large proportion of women work in the public sector, where pay is low. But if you only measure men and women doing the same jobs, Sweden does much better. The pay gap here is 6 per cent.
Pay transparency probably has a lot to do with this. It also has other benefits. In 2015, the American company PayScale surveyed more than 70,000 US employees. The resulting study showed that the more people knew about why they earn what they earn, especially in relation to their peers, the less likely they were to quit. Dave Smith of PayScale said that “open and honest discussion around pay was found to be more important than typical measures of employee engagement” — career advancement, say, or earning the approbation of one’s boss.
Having more information tends to help people make better decisions and the economy to work better. Why should pay be any exception?
One of the reasons people in Scandinavian countries tend to be more relaxed about talking about money is that what you earn carries less weight there. But in a more unequal society, like Britain, where quality of life is closely tied to income, conversations about pay are much more freighted.
John Maynard Keynes once dreamt of a world in which economics is less important. Once our economic problems are solved, he thought, we would be free to focus on other things. Economists would be “thought of as humble, competent people on a level with dentists”. Maybe one day talking about how much you earn might be no more fraught than talking about the weather. Even in Britain.
So if you don't cheat on your taxes, there should be no problem letting people see them. Again, every president since Nixon except Trump has had no problem releasing their tax returns. This isn't some complicated case of liberty, it's a conman who cheats in life trying to keep his evidence of crimes concealed.
If Dems were to see the taxes it would not be made public because that's the rules and Dems, unlike Republicans, care about America and follow rules to a fault. But the public might hear about it indirectly if there are criminal charges referred out of being able to see them.
Trump's taxes are only an issue because he is the first President in modern history to refuse to release them to the public during the campaign. Remember when he promised we'd see them, but he was under audit?? That was 2 1/2 years ago. And the media doesn't even ask him the question anymore. Beyond that, the House has every legal right to obtain his records from the IRS. But Trump will likely order that not to happen as well. Strange how he keeps saying we'll see things and it never ends up happening. It's almost like he's lying every time he opens his mouth.
As a related note, Bernie Sanders is starting to go down this road as well. On one hand, why not?? It clearly has no consequences. But we all know that it WILL have consequences for a Democratic candidate, because that's just how the media works. And Sanders is oddly sensitive about this question, and as the current favorite to win the nomination, it is becoming troubling.
Here's the meat of that article I linked to. You can find plenty of articles about the policy if you Google something like "nordic tax returns public".
It is one of the last taboos. You can swear on television and breastfeed in public, but you cannot talk about how much you earn. Not in Britain, at least. Viewed from Scandinavia, the controversy around the UK government forcing the BBC to reveal the salaries of its top presenters was hard to understand.
Each year Sweden, Finland and Norway publish everyone’s income tax returns. In Sweden anyone can find out anyone’s salary with a quick phone call to the tax authorities. The person whose returns you request will know it was you, but that is all.
You can know how much your neighbour earns, and how much tax she pays. The practice dates back to the 18th century. Different cultures have different ideas about privacy. The British seem not to mind being watched by millions of surveillance cameras, but they do not want their salaries to be public record. In Sweden it is the other way around.
For many Britons, how much someone earns is not information that belongs in the public space. Money is private. Except, of course, it is not.
“The personal is political” used to be the slogan of second-wave feminists. And most political progress for women has required some kind of renegotiation of the border between the private and the public sphere.
The debate about pay transparency is no different. The salaries of BBC presenters such as Gary Lineker or John Humphrys are not strictly private matters — they are part of a larger pattern in which the average pay gap between men and women in the UK is 18 per cent. It might not be “very nice” to talk about, as the actor Kate Winslet put it, but that does not make the conversation any less necessary.
In Sweden, businesses with 25 or more employees have to establish an equality action plan. And companies with big pay gaps face fines if they fail to take steps to close them. The Swedish gender pay gap has become smaller since this system was introduced, but it is still 15 per cent. Finland, where tax returns are also public, has a gender pay gap similar to that of the UK.
One reason for Sweden’s gender pay gap being relatively high is the segregated nature of the labour market. A large proportion of women work in the public sector, where pay is low. But if you only measure men and women doing the same jobs, Sweden does much better. The pay gap here is 6 per cent.
Pay transparency probably has a lot to do with this. It also has other benefits. In 2015, the American company PayScale surveyed more than 70,000 US employees. The resulting study showed that the more people knew about why they earn what they earn, especially in relation to their peers, the less likely they were to quit. Dave Smith of PayScale said that “open and honest discussion around pay was found to be more important than typical measures of employee engagement” — career advancement, say, or earning the approbation of one’s boss.
Having more information tends to help people make better decisions and the economy to work better. Why should pay be any exception?
One of the reasons people in Scandinavian countries tend to be more relaxed about talking about money is that what you earn carries less weight there. But in a more unequal society, like Britain, where quality of life is closely tied to income, conversations about pay are much more freighted.
John Maynard Keynes once dreamt of a world in which economics is less important. Once our economic problems are solved, he thought, we would be free to focus on other things. Economists would be “thought of as humble, competent people on a level with dentists”. Maybe one day talking about how much you earn might be no more fraught than talking about the weather. Even in Britain.
So basically you get a macro version, but not a micro version. A person can find how much you earn and pay in taxes but can not find out what charities you donated too to get a deductible or how much of a loan you have out and from whom. Those are more privacy issues.
So if you don't cheat on your taxes, there should be no problem letting people see them. Again, every president since Nixon except Trump has had no problem releasing their tax returns. This isn't some complicated case of liberty, it's a conman who cheats in life trying to keep his evidence of crimes concealed.
If Dems were to see the taxes it would not be made public because that's the rules and Dems, unlike Republicans, care about America and follow rules to a fault. But the public might hear about it indirectly if there are criminal charges referred put of being able to see them.
If you didn’t rob a store, you should have no reason to complain if the cops decide to search your house for stolen goods.
~
Sanders maybe playing the “I’ll release them when Trump releases them card.”
I personally wouldn't release shit unless I was required to. I don't blame Trump for feeling the same. This smells like political shenanigans to me. The Dems know there's no way to get what they want but they want to score points. I don't think this will get them any more points than they had before, though...
This is a weird thought I had that may or may not belong in this thread. Why aren't drones used to patrol the Mexican border? If you had 3000 people using drones (maybe cycling between 3-5 drones each so as not to run out of charge) even if you paid them $100k/year each that would only cost $300M to implement. If each handler was in charge of 10 square miles, that would cover 10,000 square miles of territory. For a $billion/year you could cover 33,333 square miles 24/7 (or 100,000 square miles for $3 billion). That's chump change considering the price of a 'wall'. Why is this not discussed at all?
This is a weird thought I had that may or may not belong in this thread. Why aren't drones used to patrol the Mexican border? If you had 3000 people using drones (maybe cycling between 3-5 drones each so as not to run out of charge) even if you paid them $100k/year each that would only cost $300M to implement. If each handler was in charge of 10 square miles, that would cover 10,000 square miles of territory. For a $billion/year you could cover 33,333 square miles 24/7 (or 100,000 square miles for $3 billion). That's chump change considering the price of a 'wall'. Why is this not discussed at all?
This is something Democrats talk about all the time [example]. They're willing to fund border security, which explicitly includes drones. Trump's push for a wall isn't actually about effective border security; it's about satisfying his base by making a giant monument to xenophobia.
This is a weird thought I had that may or may not belong in this thread. Why aren't drones used to patrol the Mexican border? If you had 3000 people using drones (maybe cycling between 3-5 drones each so as not to run out of charge) even if you paid them $100k/year each that would only cost $300M to implement. If each handler was in charge of 10 square miles, that would cover 10,000 square miles of territory. For a $billion/year you could cover 33,333 square miles 24/7 (or 100,000 square miles for $3 billion). That's chump change considering the price of a 'wall'. Why is this not discussed at all?
This is something Democrats talk about all the time [example]. They're willing to fund border security, which explicitly includes drones. Trump's push for a wall isn't actually about effective border security; it's about satisfying his base by making a giant monument to xenophobia.
What do the Democrats intend to do with the people captured by the enhanced security in that case? I hear nothing about that either...
This is a weird thought I had that may or may not belong in this thread. Why aren't drones used to patrol the Mexican border? If you had 3000 people using drones (maybe cycling between 3-5 drones each so as not to run out of charge) even if you paid them $100k/year each that would only cost $300M to implement. If each handler was in charge of 10 square miles, that would cover 10,000 square miles of territory. For a $billion/year you could cover 33,333 square miles 24/7 (or 100,000 square miles for $3 billion). That's chump change considering the price of a 'wall'. Why is this not discussed at all?
This is something Democrats talk about all the time [example]. They're willing to fund border security, which explicitly includes drones. Trump's push for a wall isn't actually about effective border security; it's about satisfying his base by making a giant monument to xenophobia.
What do the Democrats intend to do with the people captured by the enhanced security in that case? I hear nothing about that either...
Probably just process them as the laws that already exist require. Its not like there is some big crisis. We already have a process in place. Trump's administration just hasn't been doing its job.
This is a weird thought I had that may or may not belong in this thread. Why aren't drones used to patrol the Mexican border? If you had 3000 people using drones (maybe cycling between 3-5 drones each so as not to run out of charge) even if you paid them $100k/year each that would only cost $300M to implement. If each handler was in charge of 10 square miles, that would cover 10,000 square miles of territory. For a $billion/year you could cover 33,333 square miles 24/7 (or 100,000 square miles for $3 billion). That's chump change considering the price of a 'wall'. Why is this not discussed at all?
This is something Democrats talk about all the time [example]. They're willing to fund border security, which explicitly includes drones. Trump's push for a wall isn't actually about effective border security; it's about satisfying his base by making a giant monument to xenophobia.
What do the Democrats intend to do with the people captured by the enhanced security in that case? I hear nothing about that either...
Probably just process them as the laws that already exist require. Its not like there is some big crisis. We already have a process in place. Trump's administration just hasn't been doing its job.
Where would they hold them, and for how long? How quickly would they be processed? There are thousands trying to cross. How would the Democrats' way of dealing with this be different than Trump's?
This is a weird thought I had that may or may not belong in this thread. Why aren't drones used to patrol the Mexican border? If you had 3000 people using drones (maybe cycling between 3-5 drones each so as not to run out of charge) even if you paid them $100k/year each that would only cost $300M to implement. If each handler was in charge of 10 square miles, that would cover 10,000 square miles of territory. For a $billion/year you could cover 33,333 square miles 24/7 (or 100,000 square miles for $3 billion). That's chump change considering the price of a 'wall'. Why is this not discussed at all?
This is something Democrats talk about all the time [example]. They're willing to fund border security, which explicitly includes drones. Trump's push for a wall isn't actually about effective border security; it's about satisfying his base by making a giant monument to xenophobia.
Eh...yes and no. The conclusion, that Democrats want a "smart wall" as opposed to a clearly racist, normal old wall with fascistic tendencies, is about half true. It's clearly not what they will say out loud, for sure, but they will vote for it in private and vote against it when they need to make a public statement. All the democrat presidential hopefuls voted against increased border funding and new technology, except for Bernie Sanders, but the rest of the party voted for it. A few years ago it wouldn't be a shock to hear democrats talk of deportation or wall funding. Now that they court the progressive wing more only Sanders held out on an even moderately anti-open borders stance until late 2015.
Basically although it is true Democrats were once good on the border and migration the trend towards emotionally driven virtue signaling in place of a sober analysis of the consequences of migration for society is obvious and gaining more and more traction in the party.
This is a weird thought I had that may or may not belong in this thread. Why aren't drones used to patrol the Mexican border? If you had 3000 people using drones (maybe cycling between 3-5 drones each so as not to run out of charge) even if you paid them $100k/year each that would only cost $300M to implement. If each handler was in charge of 10 square miles, that would cover 10,000 square miles of territory. For a $billion/year you could cover 33,333 square miles 24/7 (or 100,000 square miles for $3 billion). That's chump change considering the price of a 'wall'. Why is this not discussed at all?
This is something Democrats talk about all the time [example]. They're willing to fund border security, which explicitly includes drones. Trump's push for a wall isn't actually about effective border security; it's about satisfying his base by making a giant monument to xenophobia.
Eh...yes and no. The conclusion, that Democrats want a "smart wall" as opposed to a clearly racist, normal old wall with fascistic tendencies, is about half true. It's clearly not what they will say out loud, for sure, but they will vote for it in private and vote against it when they need to make a public statement. All the democrat presidential hopefuls voted against increased border funding and new technology, except for Bernie Sanders, but the rest of the party voted for it. A few years ago it wouldn't be a shock to hear democrats talk of deportation or wall funding. Now that they court the progressive wing more only Sanders held out on an even moderately anti-open borders stance until late 2015.
Basically although it is true Democrats were once good on the border and migration the trend towards emotionally driven virtue signaling in place of a sober analysis of the consequences of migration for society is obvious and gaining more and more traction in the party.
Hmmm... You may have explained why 'Trump evil' but 'wait we have no plan'. It's eerily similar to the 'no plan' the Republicans have for healthcare. Both parties are full of shit!
It's absolutely true that there's an activist wing of the left that supports open borders, and that Democratic politicians often try not to alienate them too much before primaries. But I think all indications are that Democrats prefer to adopt fairly centrist, pragmatic policies on border security in primary elections or while actually governing. Yes, it's a bit cynical, and the inconsistent rhetoric frustrates me too.
Incidentally, I don't believe that walls are inherently racist or fascistic or whatever. But Trump has consistently used the wall as a symbol, so it has taken on those connotations.
To answer the question about Democrats' plan, I think you can get a reasonable approximation of how mainstream Democrats would handle the border by looking at what Obama did, which was still quite harsh. As a group, Democrats are more inclined than Republicans to want relatively gentle treatment of undocumented immigrants who already live here (e.g., a path to citizenship), but most of them still want to get illegal immigration at the border under control.
It's absolutely true that there's an activist wing of the left that supports open borders, and that Democratic politicians often try not to alienate them too much before primaries. But I think all indications are that Democrats prefer to adopt fairly centrist, pragmatic policies on border security in primary elections or while actually governing. Yes, it's a bit cynical, and the inconsistent rhetoric frustrates me too.
Incidentally, I don't believe that walls are inherently racist or fascistic or whatever. But Trump has consistently used the wall as a symbol, so it has taken on those connotations.
To answer the question about Democrats' plan, I think you can get a reasonable approximation of how mainstream Democrats would handle the border by looking at what Obama did, which was still quite harsh. As a group, Democrats are more inclined than Republicans to want relatively gentle treatment of undocumented immigrants who already live here (e.g., a path to citizenship), but most of them still want to get illegal immigration at the border under control.
Mainstream Democrats don't speak for the party now, however, so their views are becoming antiquated. Just saying...
I'm not sure what you mean by "speak for the party." The Democrats in positions of power are almost all mainstream Democrats in my view. The fact that Fox News prefers to talk about AOC and Ilhan Omar 24/7 doesn't change much in how the Democratic party as a whole governs.
It's absolutely true that there's an activist wing of the left that supports open borders, and that Democratic politicians often try not to alienate them too much before primaries. But I think all indications are that Democrats prefer to adopt fairly centrist, pragmatic policies on border security in primary elections or while actually governing. Yes, it's a bit cynical, and the inconsistent rhetoric frustrates me too.
Incidentally, I don't believe that walls are inherently racist or fascistic or whatever. But Trump has consistently used the wall as a symbol, so it has taken on those connotations.
To answer the question about Democrats' plan, I think you can get a reasonable approximation of how mainstream Democrats would handle the border by looking at what Obama did, which was still quite harsh. As a group, Democrats are more inclined than Republicans to want relatively gentle treatment of undocumented immigrants who already live here (e.g., a path to citizenship), but most of them still want to get illegal immigration at the border under control.
Mainstream Democrats don't speak for the party now, however, so their views are becoming antiquated. Just saying...
Neither do mainstream Republicans, really. Trump got elected because, in short and to generalize, a lot of the conservative base is culturally right and economically left while the rest of the party was the opposite.
The Democratic party, as I see it right now, is split on the question of basing their politics around identity and race or basing their politics on the more traditional aspects of liberal policy. It's an open question which side will win out but it looks like the identitarians are stronger at the moment.
Andrew Yang gets this issue based on his statements, so i'm still hopeful he makes waves in the primary.
I'm not sure what you mean by "speak for the party." The Democrats in positions of power are almost all mainstream Democrats in my view. The fact that Fox News prefers to talk about AOC and Ilhan Omar 24/7 doesn't change much in how the Democratic party as a whole governs.
CNN doesn't seem to speak for mainstream liberalism and, although I don't watch MSNBC, I doubt they do either. I would really like to hear mainstream liberal ideas that dont involve 'Trump is an evil fascist so vote for us'. I won't hold my breath however...
Well, this broadened out quickly. My point is a fairly narrow one: If a Democrat gets elected President in 2020, then I guarantee that under that President, DHS will deploy new technology, including drones, to curb the flow of illegal immigration at the border.
The fight in government over the wall is largely about symbolism (or bilateral "virtue signaling," if you prefer), not about open vs. secure borders. Governing Democrats favor secure borders, because almost all Americans favor secure borders. I can't make any promises about what Symone Sanders or whoever will say on CNN, and I recommend never watching any cable news channel ever again.
A guarantee is a bold claim, we'll see if it pays off.
Personally I find all proposals that end at just securing the border to be a loss over time. You have to fix the broken incentive system that makes cheating the system a worthwhile, potentially rewarding endeavor, otherwise no amount of security measures are going to stop the flow of people and the human trafficking that comes with it.
Well, this broadened out quickly. My point is a fairly narrow one: If a Democrat gets elected President in 2020, then I guarantee that under that President, DHS will deploy new technology, including drones, to curb the flow of illegal immigration at the border.
The fight in government over the wall is largely about symbolism (or bilateral "virtue signaling," if you prefer), not about open vs. secure borders. Governing Democrats favor secure borders, because almost all Americans favor secure borders. I can't make any promises about what Symone Sanders or whoever will say on CNN, and I recommend never watching any cable news channel ever again.
I'll believe when a Democrat candidate promises it. Again, I won't hold my breath...
The Democrats will promise whatever galvanizes their base, the same as Trump is going to do. We'll see whichever minority base gets their way. Our system is a joke!
The main reason Trump pushes for a wall is because it's a stupid idea. People say hey this is bad for a number of reasons. But he doesn't like to be told no. He likes to do whatever without asking. And because people tell him no it gives him an excuse to distract and whine and cry and complain which is what he's best at.
I've got a secret for the MAGA crowd. The wall is another hoax from Don the Con. It won't magically solve all your problems. You'll still be unhappy if you get the wall because then he will pivot to complaining about something else. There will always be some other distraction for you to focus on like sheep. They want you focusing on political correctness and culture wars while they run off with all the money at your expense.
Meanwhile, we'll be stuck with a stupid weak wall that was a fantastic waste of taxpayers money that will harm us all. Besides, we'll just end up tearing it down later anyway like the Berlin Wall.
You have to fix the broken incentive system that makes cheating the system a worthwhile, potentially rewarding endeavor, otherwise no amount of security measures are going to stop the flow of people and the human trafficking that comes with it.
I agree with this. But fixing those incentives has to involve both carrot and stick, which is why ending foreign aid to Central American countries is such a braindead idea.
My parents are total Trump supporters. They admitted that Trump's tax cuts didn't shit for them but they don't care. Many liberals in this forum have admitted that the Democrats don't do shit when they have power (the exception bring @ThacoBell who actually benefited personally from Obamacare and I respect his viewpoint). The Dems rolled over on the Supreme Court issue and I personally think it's because they now have a foil to blame for not getting what they really don't want anyway. Wake up people! I try to wake up my parents and I also try to wake up Democrats. I'm truly sorry if it seems like I agree with nobody, but that's pretty much where I stand...
This is a weird thought I had that may or may not belong in this thread. Why aren't drones used to patrol the Mexican border? If you had 3000 people using drones (maybe cycling between 3-5 drones each so as not to run out of charge) even if you paid them $100k/year each that would only cost $300M to implement. If each handler was in charge of 10 square miles, that would cover 10,000 square miles of territory. For a $billion/year you could cover 33,333 square miles 24/7 (or 100,000 square miles for $3 billion). That's chump change considering the price of a 'wall'. Why is this not discussed at all?
This is something Democrats talk about all the time [example]. They're willing to fund border security, which explicitly includes drones. Trump's push for a wall isn't actually about effective border security; it's about satisfying his base by making a giant monument to xenophobia.
What do the Democrats intend to do with the people captured by the enhanced security in that case? I hear nothing about that either...
Probably just process them as the laws that already exist require. Its not like there is some big crisis. We already have a process in place. Trump's administration just hasn't been doing its job.
Where would they hold them, and for how long? How quickly would they be processed? There are thousands trying to cross. How would the Democrats' way of dealing with this be different than Trump's?
We have detention centers for this exact purpose. I can't say specifically how long processing takes, but Asylum applications take about 45 days, but catching someone who tried to enter illegally should be a fairly quick deportation process. The Trump response has been to refuse to process anyone and detain them for indeterminate periods. People are literally dying in our care.
Oh, and if anyone is wondering why I claim to be mostly a centrist, yet am really hard on Republicans, I tend to be more critical of the party in power, since they are the ones capable of actually effecting any kind of change. I wasn't super active on the forums for most of Obama's presidency, I was just as vocal about what I saw as his short comings irl.
My parents are total Trump supporters. They admitted that Trump's tax cuts didn't shit for them but they don't care. Many liberals in this forum have admitted that the Democrats don't do shit when they have power (the exception bring @ThacoBell who actually benefited personally from Obamacare and I respect his viewpoint). The Dems rolled over on the Supreme Court issue and I personally think it's because they now have a foil to blame for not getting what they really don't want anyway. Wake up people! I try to wake up my parents and I also try to wake up Democrats. I'm truly sorry if it seems like I agree with nobody, but that's pretty much where I stand...
What was Obama supposed to do, send in armed guards to force McConnell to hold a hearing on Garland?? The only thing he could have done was recess appoint him, which has ALSO never been done. And he would have been accused of an unconstitutional act for doing so. Once again, the system is predicated on the actors in SOME degree in good faith. And Republicans threw it out the window.
They weren't obligated to vote for any particular Obama nominee. What they WERE obligated to do is consider Garland or anyone else Obama put up after. And they just said "we aren't doing that anymore, no more Democratic Supreme Court picks". It wasn't Hillary's or Trump's pick to make, regardless of who won. Obama was elected to a 4-year term. And everyone who voted for him had one of those years chopped off. 3/4s of a vote, if you will.
This is a weird thought I had that may or may not belong in this thread. Why aren't drones used to patrol the Mexican border? If you had 3000 people using drones (maybe cycling between 3-5 drones each so as not to run out of charge) even if you paid them $100k/year each that would only cost $300M to implement. If each handler was in charge of 10 square miles, that would cover 10,000 square miles of territory. For a $billion/year you could cover 33,333 square miles 24/7 (or 100,000 square miles for $3 billion). That's chump change considering the price of a 'wall'. Why is this not discussed at all?
This is something Democrats talk about all the time [example]. They're willing to fund border security, which explicitly includes drones. Trump's push for a wall isn't actually about effective border security; it's about satisfying his base by making a giant monument to xenophobia.
What do the Democrats intend to do with the people captured by the enhanced security in that case? I hear nothing about that either...
Probably just process them as the laws that already exist require. Its not like there is some big crisis. We already have a process in place. Trump's administration just hasn't been doing its job.
Where would they hold them, and for how long? How quickly would they be processed? There are thousands trying to cross. How would the Democrats' way of dealing with this be different than Trump's?
We have detention centers for this exact purpose. I can't say specifically how long processing takes, but Asylum applications take about 45 days, but catching someone who tried to enter illegally should be a fairly quick deportation process. The Trump response has been to refuse to process anyone and detain them for indeterminate periods. People are literally dying in our care.
Oh, and if anyone is wondering why I claim to be mostly a centrist, yet am really hard on Republicans, I tend to be more critical of the party in power, since they are the ones capable of actually effecting any kind of change. I wasn't super active on the forums for most of Obama's presidency, I was just as vocal about what I saw as his short comings irl.
I'm critical of both parties because they both use the other as a foil in order to change little to nothing. It's infuriating to me if you haven't noticed! I'd choose Republican border security measures (minus Trump's wall) and foreign affairs (yes, I like Trump's harder line with other countries for the most part), Democrats healthcare solution and Libertarian economic policies and social stances if it was up to me...
Edit: Truth be told there's a fair amount of Green Party policies I wouldn't object to either.
My parents are total Trump supporters. They admitted that Trump's tax cuts didn't shit for them but they don't care. Many liberals in this forum have admitted that the Democrats don't do shit when they have power (the exception bring @ThacoBell who actually benefited personally from Obamacare and I respect his viewpoint). The Dems rolled over on the Supreme Court issue and I personally think it's because they now have a foil to blame for not getting what they really don't want anyway. Wake up people! I try to wake up my parents and I also try to wake up Democrats. I'm truly sorry if it seems like I agree with nobody, but that's pretty much where I stand...
What was Obama supposed to do, send in armed guards to force McConnell to hold a hearing on Garland?? The only thing he could have done was recess appoint him, which has ALSO never been done. And he would have been accused of an unconstitutional act for doing so. Once again, the system is predicated on the actors in SOME degree in good faith. And Republicans threw it out the window.
They weren't obligated to vote for any particular Obama nominee. What they WERE obligated to do is consider Garland or anyone else Obama put up after. And they just said "we aren't doing that anymore, no more Democratic Supreme Court picks". It wasn't Hillary's or Trump's pick to make, regardless of who won. Obama was elected to a 4-year term. And everyone who voted for him had one of those years chopped off. 3/4s of a vote, if you will.
Trump isn't afraid of 'unconstitutional' actions. Why was Obama? I say it's because he and his party didn't care. What better way to disguise the fact that they didn't care about it? Hiding behind 'holiness'. Yeah, right...
My parents are total Trump supporters. They admitted that Trump's tax cuts didn't shit for them but they don't care. Many liberals in this forum have admitted that the Democrats don't do shit when they have power (the exception bring @ThacoBell who actually benefited personally from Obamacare and I respect his viewpoint). The Dems rolled over on the Supreme Court issue and I personally think it's because they now have a foil to blame for not getting what they really don't want anyway. Wake up people! I try to wake up my parents and I also try to wake up Democrats. I'm truly sorry if it seems like I agree with nobody, but that's pretty much where I stand...
What was Obama supposed to do, send in armed guards to force McConnell to hold a hearing on Garland?? The only thing he could have done was recess appoint him, which has ALSO never been done. And he would have been accused of an unconstitutional act for doing so. Once again, the system is predicated on the actors in SOME degree in good faith. And Republicans threw it out the window.
They weren't obligated to vote for any particular Obama nominee. What they WERE obligated to do is consider Garland or anyone else Obama put up after. And they just said "we aren't doing that anymore, no more Democratic Supreme Court picks". It wasn't Hillary's or Trump's pick to make, regardless of who won. Obama was elected to a 4-year term. And everyone who voted for him had one of those years chopped off. 3/4s of a vote, if you will.
Trump isn't afraid of 'unconstitutional' actions. Why was Obama? I say it's because he and his party didn't care. What better way to disguise the fact that they didn't care about it? Hiding behind 'holiness'. Yeah, right...
Edit: The only other possible explanation is that they were overconfident about winning the presidency. Either way it's their fault.
Comments
Each year Sweden, Finland and Norway publish everyone’s income tax returns. In Sweden anyone can find out anyone’s salary with a quick phone call to the tax authorities. The person whose returns you request will know it was you, but that is all.
You can know how much your neighbour earns, and how much tax she pays. The practice dates back to the 18th century. Different cultures have different ideas about privacy. The British seem not to mind being watched by millions of surveillance cameras, but they do not want their salaries to be public record. In Sweden it is the other way around.
For many Britons, how much someone earns is not information that belongs in the public space. Money is private. Except, of course, it is not.
“The personal is political” used to be the slogan of second-wave feminists. And most political progress for women has required some kind of renegotiation of the border between the private and the public sphere.
The debate about pay transparency is no different. The salaries of BBC presenters such as Gary Lineker or John Humphrys are not strictly private matters — they are part of a larger pattern in which the average pay gap between men and women in the UK is 18 per cent. It might not be “very nice” to talk about, as the actor Kate Winslet put it, but that does not make the conversation any less necessary.
In Sweden, businesses with 25 or more employees have to establish an equality action plan. And companies with big pay gaps face fines if they fail to take steps to close them. The Swedish gender pay gap has become smaller since this system was introduced, but it is still 15 per cent. Finland, where tax returns are also public, has a gender pay gap similar to that of the UK.
One reason for Sweden’s gender pay gap being relatively high is the segregated nature of the labour market. A large proportion of women work in the public sector, where pay is low. But if you only measure men and women doing the same jobs, Sweden does much better. The pay gap here is 6 per cent.
Pay transparency probably has a lot to do with this. It also has other benefits. In 2015, the American company PayScale surveyed more than 70,000 US employees. The resulting study showed that the more people knew about why they earn what they earn, especially in relation to their peers, the less likely they were to quit. Dave Smith of PayScale said that “open and honest discussion around pay was found to be more important than typical measures of employee engagement” — career advancement, say, or earning the approbation of one’s boss.
Having more information tends to help people make better decisions and the economy to work better. Why should pay be any exception?
One of the reasons people in Scandinavian countries tend to be more relaxed about talking about money is that what you earn carries less weight there. But in a more unequal society, like Britain, where quality of life is closely tied to income, conversations about pay are much more freighted.
John Maynard Keynes once dreamt of a world in which economics is less important. Once our economic problems are solved, he thought, we would be free to focus on other things. Economists would be “thought of as humble, competent people on a level with dentists”. Maybe one day talking about how much you earn might be no more fraught than talking about the weather. Even in Britain.
If Dems were to see the taxes it would not be made public because that's the rules and Dems, unlike Republicans, care about America and follow rules to a fault. But the public might hear about it indirectly if there are criminal charges referred out of being able to see them.
As a related note, Bernie Sanders is starting to go down this road as well. On one hand, why not?? It clearly has no consequences. But we all know that it WILL have consequences for a Democratic candidate, because that's just how the media works. And Sanders is oddly sensitive about this question, and as the current favorite to win the nomination, it is becoming troubling.
So basically you get a macro version, but not a micro version. A person can find how much you earn and pay in taxes but can not find out what charities you donated too to get a deductible or how much of a loan you have out and from whom. Those are more privacy issues.
If you didn’t rob a store, you should have no reason to complain if the cops decide to search your house for stolen goods.
~
Sanders maybe playing the “I’ll release them when Trump releases them card.”
This is something Democrats talk about all the time [example]. They're willing to fund border security, which explicitly includes drones. Trump's push for a wall isn't actually about effective border security; it's about satisfying his base by making a giant monument to xenophobia.
What do the Democrats intend to do with the people captured by the enhanced security in that case? I hear nothing about that either...
Probably just process them as the laws that already exist require. Its not like there is some big crisis. We already have a process in place. Trump's administration just hasn't been doing its job.
Where would they hold them, and for how long? How quickly would they be processed? There are thousands trying to cross. How would the Democrats' way of dealing with this be different than Trump's?
Eh...yes and no. The conclusion, that Democrats want a "smart wall" as opposed to a clearly racist, normal old wall with fascistic tendencies, is about half true. It's clearly not what they will say out loud, for sure, but they will vote for it in private and vote against it when they need to make a public statement. All the democrat presidential hopefuls voted against increased border funding and new technology, except for Bernie Sanders, but the rest of the party voted for it. A few years ago it wouldn't be a shock to hear democrats talk of deportation or wall funding. Now that they court the progressive wing more only Sanders held out on an even moderately anti-open borders stance until late 2015.
Basically although it is true Democrats were once good on the border and migration the trend towards emotionally driven virtue signaling in place of a sober analysis of the consequences of migration for society is obvious and gaining more and more traction in the party.
Hmmm... You may have explained why 'Trump evil' but 'wait we have no plan'. It's eerily similar to the 'no plan' the Republicans have for healthcare. Both parties are full of shit!
Incidentally, I don't believe that walls are inherently racist or fascistic or whatever. But Trump has consistently used the wall as a symbol, so it has taken on those connotations.
To answer the question about Democrats' plan, I think you can get a reasonable approximation of how mainstream Democrats would handle the border by looking at what Obama did, which was still quite harsh. As a group, Democrats are more inclined than Republicans to want relatively gentle treatment of undocumented immigrants who already live here (e.g., a path to citizenship), but most of them still want to get illegal immigration at the border under control.
Mainstream Democrats don't speak for the party now, however, so their views are becoming antiquated. Just saying...
Neither do mainstream Republicans, really. Trump got elected because, in short and to generalize, a lot of the conservative base is culturally right and economically left while the rest of the party was the opposite.
The Democratic party, as I see it right now, is split on the question of basing their politics around identity and race or basing their politics on the more traditional aspects of liberal policy. It's an open question which side will win out but it looks like the identitarians are stronger at the moment.
Andrew Yang gets this issue based on his statements, so i'm still hopeful he makes waves in the primary.
CNN doesn't seem to speak for mainstream liberalism and, although I don't watch MSNBC, I doubt they do either. I would really like to hear mainstream liberal ideas that dont involve 'Trump is an evil fascist so vote for us'. I won't hold my breath however...
The fight in government over the wall is largely about symbolism (or bilateral "virtue signaling," if you prefer), not about open vs. secure borders. Governing Democrats favor secure borders, because almost all Americans favor secure borders. I can't make any promises about what Symone Sanders or whoever will say on CNN, and I recommend never watching any cable news channel ever again.
Personally I find all proposals that end at just securing the border to be a loss over time. You have to fix the broken incentive system that makes cheating the system a worthwhile, potentially rewarding endeavor, otherwise no amount of security measures are going to stop the flow of people and the human trafficking that comes with it.
I'll believe when a Democrat candidate promises it. Again, I won't hold my breath...
I've got a secret for the MAGA crowd. The wall is another hoax from Don the Con. It won't magically solve all your problems. You'll still be unhappy if you get the wall because then he will pivot to complaining about something else. There will always be some other distraction for you to focus on like sheep. They want you focusing on political correctness and culture wars while they run off with all the money at your expense.
Meanwhile, we'll be stuck with a stupid weak wall that was a fantastic waste of taxpayers money that will harm us all. Besides, we'll just end up tearing it down later anyway like the Berlin Wall.
I agree with this. But fixing those incentives has to involve both carrot and stick, which is why ending foreign aid to Central American countries is such a braindead idea.
We have detention centers for this exact purpose. I can't say specifically how long processing takes, but Asylum applications take about 45 days, but catching someone who tried to enter illegally should be a fairly quick deportation process. The Trump response has been to refuse to process anyone and detain them for indeterminate periods. People are literally dying in our care.
Oh, and if anyone is wondering why I claim to be mostly a centrist, yet am really hard on Republicans, I tend to be more critical of the party in power, since they are the ones capable of actually effecting any kind of change. I wasn't super active on the forums for most of Obama's presidency, I was just as vocal about what I saw as his short comings irl.
What was Obama supposed to do, send in armed guards to force McConnell to hold a hearing on Garland?? The only thing he could have done was recess appoint him, which has ALSO never been done. And he would have been accused of an unconstitutional act for doing so. Once again, the system is predicated on the actors in SOME degree in good faith. And Republicans threw it out the window.
They weren't obligated to vote for any particular Obama nominee. What they WERE obligated to do is consider Garland or anyone else Obama put up after. And they just said "we aren't doing that anymore, no more Democratic Supreme Court picks". It wasn't Hillary's or Trump's pick to make, regardless of who won. Obama was elected to a 4-year term. And everyone who voted for him had one of those years chopped off. 3/4s of a vote, if you will.
I'm critical of both parties because they both use the other as a foil in order to change little to nothing. It's infuriating to me if you haven't noticed! I'd choose Republican border security measures (minus Trump's wall) and foreign affairs (yes, I like Trump's harder line with other countries for the most part), Democrats healthcare solution and Libertarian economic policies and social stances if it was up to me...
Edit: Truth be told there's a fair amount of Green Party policies I wouldn't object to either.
Trump isn't afraid of 'unconstitutional' actions. Why was Obama? I say it's because he and his party didn't care. What better way to disguise the fact that they didn't care about it? Hiding behind 'holiness'. Yeah, right...
Edit: The only other possible explanation is that they were overconfident about winning the presidency. Either way it's their fault.