U.S. to close..

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

Got me boxed in a corner...

I can't prove there's fraud since I don't have any evidence but I can't get any evidence if there is no investigation, so you can claim I'm "pretending" and mock the idea that there may be fraud discouraging anyone else from asking for an investigation which makes it even less likely to get evidence...and so on...

Just they way those in power like it.

Sorry, essentially , society works by those making allegations provide the evidence otherwise you open up the system to simple crackpot allegations.

It’s not up to your opponent to prove your allegation is false , it’s up to you to prove it’s true.

That’s the way the cookie crumbles

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

In some ways yes, but it also happened by design. Government policy matters, and the policy of the day saw a 95% marginal tax rate on the highest incomes, and an overall economic policy which aimed at full employment. Unions and collective bargaining were actively supported.

At around the mid 1970s those big policy drives began to shift to lowering taxes and controlling inflation. Unions were weakened. Capital, not labour, was prioritized, which ushered in the era of deregulation and a return to more laissez-faire economics.

So macro events do matter. WWII was huge, but the current state of massive inequality was not arrived at by accident, or through some natural force of nature. It was, and continues to be, the result of deliberate public policy choices. These policies favour capital over labour, and rich over poor.

When looked at through the broad historic lens, the post war economic boom that actually did float all boats is more the aberration than than the rule. If you've read Thomas Piketty, you'll know his observation is that it is more normal to see wealth concentrated in the hands of the few vs the many.

It seems that we're just moving back to the norm where there are a few lords and masses of serfs.

It wasn't policy that made the 50-60's a golden era. Didn't matter what they did, the economy boomed...at best you could claim the Marshal Plan helped in the USA but once Europe and Japan were largely rebuilt, there wasn't much point in continuing that.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Why should a serious investigation be launched on a hypothetical fear? As shown earlier, any significant voting fraud leaves a statistical fingerprint, so it would be evident to the folks who run and process the election results.

I agree, it leaves a statistical fingerprint...that's why in the jurisdictions where one party dominates, they wont' do a serious investigation. They don't want those fingerprints to show up.

Why are you so afraid of a serious investigation?

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by AKA-None

Social security isn’t intended to be a retirement plan but a safety net. If you’re making 12k month you should be planning for retirement.
A tax system that lets me pay less percentage wise than someone who makes far less or even $$ wise less and leaves them barely covering food is unfair. And sure I’ll bet someone will say just write a bigger check to taxes is is someone not getting the point.

While there is a safety net aspect...it most certainly was NOT sold as welfare.

Try this...go run for office on a platform that Social Security for those making above the average income will lose their benefits because it's a safety net for the poor...see how that plays out.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by UFO

No its nowhere near 3rd world poverty - Wonder through an Indian slum and you will know what poverty is and by some parts of the world they are probably considered well off, but funnily enough they are much happier and at peace with themselves than many of the rich in the Western World, all dosed up on anti this and upper that, whilst seeing their shrink once per week.

On the other hand wonder down to downtown LA at night through skid row and there is a pretty gnarly example of poverty in the West.

Just finished 3 weeks of travel around California.

Ironically, California is one of the wealthier states and bastion of looking out for the poor (supposedly)...yet it was one of the worst states we've seen in terms of poverty.

That said, I've been to India also and by comparison, the California homeless were living like kings.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

Sorry, essentially , society works by those making allegations provide the evidence otherwise you open up the system to simple crackpot allegations.

It’s not up to your opponent to prove your allegation is false , it’s up to you to prove it’s true.

That’s the way the cookie crumbles

The other way to put it “ sh|t or get off the pot “

Yep, that's the way society works and the best corruption takes advantage of that blind spot.

Instead of doing periodic independent investigations to make sure the system is working well, trot out some crackpots, make fun of the outcome and then claim an investigation isn't needed.

Of course, this isn't new. The jokes about Chicago politics go way back. Those jokes didn't come out of thin air.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

I agree, [vote fraud] leaves a statistical fingerprint...that's why in the jurisdictions where one party dominates, they wont' do a serious investigation. They don't want those fingerprints to show up.

Why are you so afraid of a serious investigation?

You're just being a contrarian. But, if any state government can quash (or spring) an investigation at will, and there's no arms-length agency to monitor and police every election, you're at least helping me make the case that US electoral reform is long overdue.

Sleep lightly, in case those black SUVs show up dark and early... no need to be afraid, right?

Originally Posted by valhalla360

While there is a safety net aspect...it most certainly was NOT sold as welfare.

Try this...go run for office on a platform that Social Security for those making above the average income will lose their benefits because it's a safety net for the poor...see how that plays out.

Many people have based their retirement planning around the expectation of receiving SS. Doesn't mean that SS can't become means-tested, but you'd need to phase that in.

If SS stays paid to all, it will be Exhibit A in the case for eventually rolling out Basic Personal Income. Just sayin'.

(funny that all the government-is-the-problem, hands-off-my-wealth people don't refuse SS just on principle )

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

Yep, that's the way society works and the best corruption takes advantage of that blind spot.

Instead of doing periodic independent investigations to make sure the system is working well, trot out some crackpots, make fun of the outcome and then claim an investigation isn't needed.

Of course, this isn't new. The jokes about Chicago politics go way back. Those jokes didn't come out of thin air.

If we simply investigated on the back of abject hearsay , we’d spend billions in useless investigations of baseless claims

Just like this supposed election fraud , it’s embarrassing , really embarrassing to see professional legal teams that actually haven’t a screed of evidence to backup politically motivated allegations

The US electoral process has been damaged for years , every election followed by largely frivolous claims of voter fraud , the intent of such allegations being to attempt to deny legitimate votes because they were cast for the opponent

In this election trump was comprehensively beaten , end of story , nothing material will come out of the challenges ( this is already evident ) it was largely noise from a man known for his vindictive personality.

The votes will be all certified by mid Dec, the electoral college will not be subverted by Trump pressure and Jan 20 will see Biden taking the reins
Anything else is fantasy land

( what isnt fantasy , is Trumo will be waist deep in lawsuits for the next 10 years. )

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

It wasn't policy that made the 50-60's a golden era. Didn't matter what they did, the economy boomed...at best you could claim the Marshal Plan helped in the USA but once Europe and Japan were largely rebuilt, there wasn't much point in continuing that.

Indeed!
In the 1950s (& before) engineering/manufacturing types ran North American industrial companies.
By the 1960s, companies were, and had been, making so much profit (no matter how poorly they did), that managing their money became more important than making their money, and accounting types took over top management.

[Jason Flare]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

(funny that all the government-is-the-problem, hands-off-my-wealth people don't refuse SS just on principle )

That would be like the income equality people voluntarily sending additional money to their federal treasury to help raise people out of poverty.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Jason Flare

That would be like the income equality people voluntarily sending additional money to their federal treasury to help raise people out of poverty.

Well, some ARE thinking along those lines... and you can't deny the contributions being made voluntarily by Bill Gates and others.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

If we simply investigated on the back of abject hearsay , we’d spend billions in useless investigations of baseless claims

Nope, it's a form of Quality Control and it doesn't have to be based on individual claims but should be done by independent outsiders (of course, always a challenge in politics).

When you do engineering design plans, you don't simply trust that the guy did them right. Doesn't matter if he has 30yrs of experience and has always done a great job. You do an internal review and then the client typically does a review.

Where you see that QC process cut out, you often see major problems show up down the road.

Only difference with politics is when the group running the show has an incentive to encourage those problems, they actually like that the QC process is short circuited.

I do agree, we need reform. There's no good justification to be using mailed in paper ballots or to have people manually counting. Yes, there needs to be security but the reform needs to be started now...we shouldn't have major reforms being implemented on the fly a couple months ahead of an election.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

There's no good justification to be using mailed in paper ballots or to have people manually counting.

Yes, there is. Even in this day and age, a paper backup is still advisable. In Canada we use a paper ballot system. At time of counting, the ballots are electronically scanned and votes counted (and it's faster than many US systems apparently) but the paper ballots remain for recounts and other checks.

You simply can't end mailed ballots. Especially since you're so set against having sufficient and convenient polling stations.

A pure electronic voting system is currently WAY more opaque and prone to fraud. It could be better, but the path to acceptance is too onerous (and partisan. You think the GOP would embrace a free downloadable voting app? Ha ha)

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

You're just being a contrarian. But, if any state government can quash (or spring) an investigation at will, and there's no arms-length agency to monitor and police every election, you're at least helping me make the case that US electoral reform is long overdue.

Sleep lightly, in case those black SUVs show up dark and early... no need to be afraid, right?



Many people have based their retirement planning around the expectation of receiving SS. Doesn't mean that SS can't become means-tested, but you'd need to phase that in.

If SS stays paid to all, it will be Exhibit A in the case for eventually rolling out Basic Personal Income. Just sayin'.

(funny that all the government-is-the-problem, hands-off-my-wealth people don't refuse SS just on principle )

I agree we need election reform. The current process is silly and cumbersome. The biggest challenge is the Constitution gives the election process over to the states, so it's hard to enforce federal level rules and in many states, they have little incentive to do so, since it benefits them.

Sure the govt can change the rules on SS the biggest protection against many of those changes is old folks make up a large percentage of the voting population and they vote. It's long been a fact that any major cuts to SS is death for a politician because they will be voted out before they finish announcing their plan. Eventually, they will have no choice as the funds run down but I don't expect them to do anything until they have no other choice. Of course, it could be as simple as taking it out of the general fund...the govt spends money it doesn't have all the time.

Nothing funny about it. Given the opportunity, many would love to refuse to participate in SS but it doesn't work that way (with certain specific exceptions). They take it out of your paycheck (and if you don't pay the IRS will happily raid your bank accounts and then sort out the legalities later). Once they confiscate the money, why wouldn't people want the money that was forcibly taking money from them back. SS works different from many govt programs as there is a separate line item on your pay stub showing the SS money being taken out unlike other govt programs where it's comingled with your general taxes, so it's very clear what they have taken.

I'm currently in for just shy of a quarter million...if you figure the net present value, it's probably closer to $1.5m. Based on my projected checks, if we ignore ROI on the $1.5m, I'll need to live to my upper 90's to get the money back. If you assume even a modest ROI, I never get the money back. And I'm not even close to the upper end of the income limits for SS.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Yes, there is. Even in this day and age, a paper backup is still advisable. In Canada we use a paper ballot system. At time of counting, the ballots are electronically scanned and votes counted (and it's faster than many US systems apparently) but the paper ballots remain for recounts and other checks.

You simply can't end mailed ballots. Especially since you're so set against having sufficient and convenient polling stations.

A pure electronic voting system is currently WAY more opaque and prone to fraud. It could be better, but the path to acceptance is too onerous (and partisan. You think the GOP would embrace a free downloadable voting app? Ha ha)

Back in the early 1980's my Dad was the township clerk and I helped him set up the voting machines. Unless you did absentee voting, there was no paper ballot. Of course, since the machine controlled everything, there was far less opportunity for shenanigans. When the election was over, you read the totals off each machine and that was the answer. No questions about hanging chads or did that stray mark in the next bubble over invalidate the vote.

Mail in ballots are needed...until we go electronic. Currently, they are a necessary evil but not something we should be pushing for more of.

No question an electronic system will need a host of security measure...but the current system needs that also. Even back in the 1980's the mechanical voting machines had a series of lead seals with a very specific process for breaking them to access the results.

An electronic system would largely solve the issue of having enough polling stations. Sure, you could have some kicking around for the rare person without access to a computer but 98% of people would have their own polling station...not to mention, why the election needs to be on a single day is beyond me. Make it a week or two would be simple. Maybe the first step would be dedicated touch screen systems isolated from the internet. It doesn't have to be all in one huge step.

As far as electronic voting being partisan...that's just an attempt to be contrary. Politics is by definition partisan. Always has been and that applies to just about every issue that comes before the govt.