2012 Presidential Campaign

[stevew]

Originally Posted by Chubby

ask Greece how that's going

Paying off good for their Nazi party.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Chubby

ask Greece how that's going

Greece couldn't afford the debt service and they don't control their currency. We're nowhere close to a Greece situation.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Chubby

ask Greece how that's going

Greece is to the US as your local one-branch bank is to Citigroup.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

Debt that is 6 times your annual revenue can be pretty bad if you are making no effort to pay it down. It's got to be paid back sometime.

It doesn't - that's first flaw. Servicing the debt is more important than repaying it, and we have no issues doing so. People keep comparing governments to companies, when the analogy is flawed in a multitude of ways. This idiotic analogy that went around a whole back comparing the government to a household leads people to completely misinterpret government financials. For example, the government has the ability to print more currency, and in the US, is the de facto reserve currency of the planet - all those are attributes that don't easily translate to the traditional ways we think about debt. Hell, if the US paid of its debt tomorrow, the world markets (and your 401K) would be in a tizzy - that's a significant chunk of the AAA debt that exists. For example, read this piece:

What If We Paid Off The Debt? The Secret Government Report : Planet Money : NPR

There are plenty of good reasons to argue for a decrease in government spending - the idea that our debt load is overwhelming is not one of them.

[Buccaneer]

What I find interesting is as long as the proposed budgets keep rising, the interest on debt percentage will go down. In FY12, it's 6%. In 2005, it was 7.4% and in 1999 (where a balanced budget was submitted), it was 13%.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Chubby

ask Greece how that's going

Greece has next to nothing in common with our situation.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

What I find interesting is as long as the proposed budgets keep rising, the interest on debt percentage will go down. In FY12, it's 6%. In 2005, it was 7.4% and in 1999 (where a balanced budget was submitted), it was 13%.

Lower T-bill rates play a big roll in that drop.

[Solecismic]

It seems quite a reach to say that printing more money doesn't eventually come back to harm the economy. When you print more, the value of existing currency declines. Under Obama, the amount of cash in circulation has risen dramatically. We've never had anywhere close to this much.

You can borrow money, too. The problem with borrowing money is that someone is lending it to you. You have to service that debt. That's fine at first, but if you keep borrowing more, the percentage of your budget going to service that debt keeps rising.

Greece could eliminate its government tomorrow, and the amount going to service its debt would still be more than the country takes in. We're not there yet. We're headed in that direction with these trillion-dollar deficits.

Someone has to finance your debt. If there's a perception that you can't pay back your debt, your rating goes down and you have to pay a higher interest rate.

Our GDP is $15 trillion. Greece's is $300 billion. So our economy is about 50 times larger. Let's not assume we're too big to fail. We can't keep borrowing from our grandchildren forever.

There's an assumption that you should handle a recession by borrowing even more money. That assumes you ordinarily run a balanced budget or even a surplus. We're in uncharted territory right now. We still haven't begun the pieces of Obamacare that will add even more debt. So far, the only real effect we've felt from this financial mess is the loss in value of our homes. For those of you who don't own homes, you've largely escaped unscathed. The next round will hit everyone, felt as inflation while wages remain the same or even decline.

France ($3 trillion GDP) has elected a new president who has decided to go the increased taxation and spending route rather than the "austerity" route (which usually means keeping the percentage of spending on entitlements roughly the same rather than dropping it, as Greece has had to do). Hopefully, we'll see how this goes for France and be able to adjust accordingly before it's too late.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

The asburdities of the various (current) third parties aren't likely to be embraced in meaningful numbers at the district level either. They're third parties (or 4th/5th/6th tier parties) for some pretty basic reasons.

$ and media exposure.

[stevew]

You'd basically have to have guys like Ron Paul and some other popular guys in their districts form some sort of coalition party separate from the Republicans and then hope that enough other people would actually vote for that part for lesser known people. Outside of a formal party split, 3rd parties will never have much more than then super-popular guy like Sanders or King.

Even some country like Brazil who has like 16 different parties with representation(guestimating) still has like a humongous coalition gov't made up of about 70% of total representatives. In effect it functions quite a bit like the Democratic or republican parties do with their individualized less formal voting blocks.

[CrimsonFox]

Originally Posted by Kodos

One of the best episodes ever.

Don't blame me, I voted for Kang.

[CrimsonFox]

kind of a silly quiz but a way to spend 2 mintutes

Stein 87%
Rocky 85%
Obama 78%
Romney 10%
that's 10% too much

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

It seems quite a reach to say that printing more money doesn't eventually come back to harm the economy. When you print more, the value of existing currency declines. Under Obama, the amount of cash in circulation has risen dramatically. We've never had anywhere close to this much.

You can borrow money, too. The problem with borrowing money is that someone is lending it to you. You have to service that debt. That's fine at first, but if you keep borrowing more, the percentage of your budget going to service that debt keeps rising.

Greece could eliminate its government tomorrow, and the amount going to service its debt would still be more than the country takes in. We're not there yet. We're headed in that direction with these trillion-dollar deficits.

Someone has to finance your debt. If there's a perception that you can't pay back your debt, your rating goes down and you have to pay a higher interest rate.

Our GDP is $15 trillion. Greece's is $300 billion. So our economy is about 50 times larger. Let's not assume we're too big to fail. We can't keep borrowing from our grandchildren forever.

There's an assumption that you should handle a recession by borrowing even more money. That assumes you ordinarily run a balanced budget or even a surplus. We're in uncharted territory right now. We still haven't begun the pieces of Obamacare that will add even more debt. So far, the only real effect we've felt from this financial mess is the loss in value of our homes. For those of you who don't own homes, you've largely escaped unscathed. The next round will hit everyone, felt as inflation while wages remain the same or even decline.

France ($3 trillion GDP) has elected a new president who has decided to go the increased taxation and spending route rather than the "austerity" route (which usually means keeping the percentage of spending on entitlements roughly the same rather than dropping it, as Greece has had to do). Hopefully, we'll see how this goes for France and be able to adjust accordingly before it's too late.

And inflation is very low, so low that a mild rise in inflation would probably be beneficial overall. Eventually inflation becomes a problem, but there's no reason to think three or four percent inflation would hurt us. We can't run into a Greek situation because we print our own money.

The CBO continues to say Obamacare will be a net deficit reducer.

I don't know whether France's plan will work, but I know that austerity in England, Italy, and Spain has only led to greater deficits.

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

It seems quite a reach to say that printing more money doesn't eventually come back to harm the economy. When you print more, the value of existing currency declines. Under Obama, the amount of cash in circulation has risen dramatically. We've never had anywhere close to this much.

This depends on what you're attempting to achieve and why the money is created imho.

The reason for the bubble was largely that the banks 'printed money' by loaning out money which didn't exist - when this ponzi scheme collapsed the bubble (and leveraged money) dissapated leaving a recession, the government has effectively attempted to 'reinflate' that bubble by pumping cheap money into the economy to encourage investment and spending.

You are correct that the value of currency in this situation will generally decline - however this is an unpredictable/new scenario for economists and because of the global scale of the bubble and the fact that nearly all countries have done the same thing presently the 'balance' of exchange rates has stayed reasonably in balance.

PS - I'd also argue that England devaluing the pound in the 70's was actually fundamental in the countries economic recovery later in that century; while it did affect people somewhat it also rebalanced the competitiveness of the countries workers in a way which no technological advance would have managed ... if the dollar devalues then a similar thing will occur in the US.

You can borrow money, too. The problem with borrowing money is that someone is lending it to you. You have to service that debt. That's fine at first, but if you keep borrowing more, the percentage of your budget going to service that debt keeps rising.

Borrowing is mostly a problem in circumstances where the rate of interest charged is higher than inflation - if its lower than inflation then effectively the loan devalues over time.

Its this kind of thing which helps make house purchases appealing to people - the 'rates' aren't often set below inflation but a lot of people take them out at 'fixed rates' with a view to making the repayments affordable but for inflation to make them appear 'lesser' over a period of time - so that mortgage which stretched you initially might feel tiny towards the end of its 25 year payment duration.

Greece could eliminate its government tomorrow, and the amount going to service its debt would still be more than the country takes in. We're not there yet. We're headed in that direction with these trillion-dollar deficits.

Things to bear in mind are that

(1) the largest debtor of the US government is the US government ... a large proportion of the debt is actually owed to itself. Its a bit like splitting your savings into different accounts and then borrowing from one to pay for something you hadn't expected you 'owe' that money to the account - but its a moral debt rather than a physical one (ie. you won't be able to buy whatever it was that savings account was meant for).
(2) All debts are ficticious because the dollar isn't based on anything and is purely and simply a currency of 'faith'.
Its not in the best interests of any government/corporation for the calamity that the collapse which the collapse of the US dollar would precipitate, as such the US will be propped up for the foreseeable future regardless; at some point however I agree things need to be reined in.

France ($3 trillion GDP) has elected a new president who has decided to go the increased taxation and spending route rather than the "austerity" route (which usually means keeping the percentage of spending on entitlements roughly the same rather than dropping it, as Greece has had to do). Hopefully, we'll see how this goes for France and be able to adjust accordingly before it's too late.

This (France) to me seems the most sensible route - if you look back through history taxation doesn't scare investors/wealth creators off as much as some politicians would like people to think ... after all its better to be taxed on a profit than to lose money in a country in recession.

A huge proportion of the US economy is consumer spending - to me I'd have thought putting a straight 'tax' onto sale prices (like the European VAT) would be a darn good way at reducing corporate profits/funneling some of that money back towards debt .... yes some companies would pass costs onto the consumer and it'd be unpopular but it'd be a hard thing for corporations to 'cheat' paying.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

This depends on what you're attempting to achieve and why the money is created imho.

The reason for the bubble was largely that the banks 'printed money' by loaning out money which didn't exist - when this ponzi scheme collapsed the bubble (and leveraged money) dissapated leaving a recession, the government has effectively attempted to 'reinflate' that bubble by pumping cheap money into the economy to encourage investment and spending.

You are correct that the value of currency in this situation will generally decline - however this is an unpredictable/new scenario for economists and because of the global scale of the bubble and the fact that nearly all countries have done the same thing presently the 'balance' of exchange rates has stayed reasonably in balance.

PS - I'd also argue that England devaluing the pound in the 70's was actually fundamental in the countries economic recovery later in that century; while it did affect people somewhat it also rebalanced the competitiveness of the countries workers in a way which no technological advance would have managed ... if the dollar devalues then a similar thing will occur in the US.


Borrowing is mostly a problem in circumstances where the rate of interest charged is higher than inflation - if its lower than inflation then effectively the loan devalues over time.

Its this kind of thing which helps make house purchases appealing to people - the 'rates' aren't often set below inflation but a lot of people take them out at 'fixed rates' with a view to making the repayments affordable but for inflation to make them appear 'lesser' over a period of time - so that mortgage which stretched you initially might feel tiny towards the end of its 25 year payment duration.


Things to bear in mind are that

(1) the largest debtor of the US government is the US government ... a large proportion of the debt is actually owed to itself. Its a bit like splitting your savings into different accounts and then borrowing from one to pay for something you hadn't expected you 'owe' that money to the account - but its a moral debt rather than a physical one (ie. you won't be able to buy whatever it was that savings account was meant for).
(2) All debts are ficticious because the dollar isn't based on anything and is purely and simply a currency of 'faith'.
Its not in the best interests of any government/corporation for the calamity that the collapse which the collapse of the US dollar would precipitate, as such the US will be propped up for the foreseeable future regardless; at some point however I agree things need to be reined in.


This (France) to me seems the most sensible route - if you look back through history taxation doesn't scare investors/wealth creators off as much as some politicians would like people to think ... after all its better to be taxed on a profit than to lose money in a country in recession.

A huge proportion of the US economy is consumer spending - to me I'd have thought putting a straight 'tax' onto sale prices (like the European VAT) would be a darn good way at reducing corporate profits/funneling some of that money back towards debt .... yes some companies would pass costs onto the consumer and it'd be unpopular but it'd be a hard thing for corporations to 'cheat' paying.

Marc - I honestly don't know the answer, but do the European countries with VAT's rebate back VAT payments to folks below a certain income level at the end of the year? I would assume they do, but I don't actually know.

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

(1) the largest debtor of the US government is the US government ... a large proportion of the debt is actually owed to itself. Its a bit like splitting your savings into different accounts and then borrowing from one to pay for something you hadn't expected you 'owe' that money to the account - but its a moral debt rather than a physical one (ie. you won't be able to buy whatever it was that savings account was meant for).

No, it's a physical debt. The Fed, Social Security Trust, etc., buy treasury bonds, the same as other nations, mutual funds, pensions funds, individual investors, etc. The government can't just not pay that back.

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Marc - I honestly don't know the answer, but do the European countries with VAT's rebate back VAT payments to folks below a certain income level at the end of the year? I would assume they do, but I don't actually know.

No they don't HOWEVER certain items are VAT free in most countries; these generally include food (non-restaurant/takeaway) and a fair few things which are excluded because they're seen as positive things for people to have/do (ie. books for instance) or because they're essential/unavoidable for people (for instance women tampons etc.).

HM Revenue & Customs: Rates of VAT on different goods and services

VAT is a non-progressive tax, that is it can easily be argued it penalises the lower paid more than the higher paid - however because many essentials are exempt and the full whack is generally found on 'luxury' items (which Richer people generally purchase more of) its not as clear as it might seem in that regard - it is however very easy to enforce and ensures that a successful product such say an iPhone gives a percentage of its revenue back towards society/government in contrast to the situation in the US presently where Apple hide the profits and thus artificially increased their profit by paying very limited taxes.

One of the big things which surprised me when I moved to the US was that many things could be 'reclaimed' from your taxes - in the UK you get a job and it pays you a wage ... if that wage isn't enough to cover what you need to undertake that job then you're a sucker, you can't get rebates to cover it.

When I worked in London I made sure that the salary I was on covered the £4,000 ($6,000) it cost me to commute into London each year you couldn't claim that back on taxes its each persons responsibility to work out such things and handle them.

(I still find doing taxes here bizarre tbh - but when in Rome ...)

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

No they don't HOWEVER certain items are VAT free in most countries; these generally include food (non-restaurant/takeaway) and a fair few things which are excluded because they're seen as positive things for people to have/do (ie. books for instance) or because they're essential/unavoidable for people (for instance women tampons etc.).

HM Revenue & Customs: Rates of VAT on different goods and services

VAT is a non-progressive tax, that is it can easily be argued it penalises the lower paid more than the higher paid - however because many essentials are exempt and the full whack is generally found on 'luxury' items (which Richer people generally purchase more of) its not as clear as it might seem in that regard - it is however very easy to enforce and ensures that a successful product such say an iPhone gives a percentage of its revenue back towards society/government in contrast to the situation in the US presently where Apple hide the profits and thus artificially increased their profit by paying very limited taxes.

One of the big things which surprised me when I moved to the US was that many things could be 'reclaimed' from your taxes - in the UK you get a job and it pays you a wage ... if that wage isn't enough to cover what you need to undertake that job then you're a sucker, you can't get rebates to cover it.

When I worked in London I made sure that the salary I was on covered the £4,000 ($6,000) it cost me to commute into London each year you couldn't claim that back on taxes its each persons responsibility to work out such things and handle them.

(I still find doing taxes here bizarre tbh - but when in Rome ...)

Interesting - thanks.

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by sabotai

No, it's a physical debt. The Fed, Social Security Trust, etc., buy treasury bonds, the same as other nations, mutual funds, pensions funds, individual investors, etc. The government can't just not pay that back.

A physical debt from yourself to yourself is still an illusion even if you give yourself a piece of paper indicating it exists imho ....

I agree there are consequences if they didn't 'pay it back' - but I did try and mention that.

I see it a little like the country is a person with a collection of credit cards. They have a fixed income and a certain amount of debt on the cards, they can shuffle the debts between the cards for a lot longer than expected so long as the companies keep extending limits and giving out new cards ...

The US is at the point where its got good credit, because its using its cards - but will one day reach a point where its near its card limits and doesn't have any more companies to open cards with.

At that point the 'debts to itself' (say the person owned a house and had borrowed against it) come due there will be serious consequences - in a similar fashion if the US can't fund programs its borrowed money from (or which have (cough) invested in US treasuries) those programs will struggle ...

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by sabotai

No, it's a physical debt. The Fed, Social Security Trust, etc., buy treasury bonds, the same as other nations, mutual funds, pensions funds, individual investors, etc. The government can't just not pay that back.

It's both. Almost half of U.S. debt is held by our own government, with about a third owed to the Social Security Trust Fund. The Federal Reserve, SS and Medicare hold five times more U.S. debt than anyone else.

We are going to have a much bigger problem paying ourselves back than we will other investors. We can always continue servicing most debt. But the SS Trust Fund debt will need to be cashed in at some point, which means we will either need to pay off that debt through cuts or more borrowing. The likelihood is that over the next 25 years the intragovernmental debt will transfer to other investors, assuming there are investors to purchase.

Japan is only the real troublesome investor out there. Japan bought U.S. debt to plan for their own post-WWII baby boom, and they will want to cash in that debt just as the SS Trust Fund will need to. But at this point Japan holds a small share of U.S. debt that they once did so it's not as crippling.

The reality is that as long as someone is willing and able to purchase U.S. debt and we continue to service that debt, there are no problems. However, it will become a problem at some point, we just don't know when. It could come in the next 30 years, it may not.

[Solecismic]

Right. And the country has the ability to take out credit cards in our children's names.

The real-estate bubble was created because the government eliminated the risk of borrowing money to buy houses. Banks then, with no risk involved, were able to package those loans and treat them like stocks. You couldn't turn on a television without seeing a commercial promising you a life of luxury investing in real estate. You couldn't open your mailbox without an offer to loan you money to buy a house with "zero" down.

You might think there's no downside to devaluing currency. But it encourages dependence on the government. It's basically a massive wealth transfer from those who have saved money to those who haven't.

One could argue that it's necessary because savings rates dropped enormously from the 1980s to a couple of years ago - that we're already past the point where individuals can be expected to behave as if they won't be completely dependent on the government after retirement. Maybe that's the fundamental difference between those who want to see deficit reduction and those who don't see the need - the latter is assuming more and more government dependence anyway.

If currency is devalued, though, production isn't necessarily devalued. It still costs money to transport food to the supermarket. It's there where devaluation hits the poor harder. You might not lose from seeing your savings depleted, but you do lose on the other end. So now you need to provide more food stamps (as Obama has done).

I think it will be interesting to see what happens in France - whether you can borrow your way out of the need to stop borrowing so much - whether production can continue when you reduce the incentive to save and reduce the benefit of individual success.

However, if everything people are saying is true, why, then, is Greece in its current mess? Why can't Greece just pretend it has no debt and go back to its cradle-to-grave socialism? That's certainly what the Greek people expect. Those nasty Germans won't give them any more money.

Romney was certainly wrong about the "47%" being completely dependent on government and thus unwilling to vote for him. It doesn't work that way and he knows it. But that percentage is increasing and it will vote for a party that promises a society where the need to earn money and save money is entirely absent.

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

We are going to have a much bigger problem paying ourselves back than we will other investors. We can always continue servicing most debt. But the SS Trust Fund debt will need to be cashed in at some point, which means we will either need to pay off that debt through cuts or more borrowing. The likelihood is that over the next 25 years the intragovernmental debt will transfer to other investors, assuming there are investors to purchase.

The SS Trust Fund is a bit unique since they get "special issue" bonds rather then the regular kind everyone else gets. They can be cashed in at any time with interest. And they are cashing in its bonds all the time (it's how they make monthly payments), but then again, it's taking out more bonds all the time as well (it's what they do with the money that comes in).

But all that debt will never need to be cashed in (as in, the Trust fund will never need to be depleted) as long as it keeps taking in more than it needs (through taxes and interest on it's $2.6 trillion in bonds). But as others pointed out, SS needs some reform to make sure that keeps happening.

The reality is that as long as someone is willing and able to purchase U.S. debt and we continue to service that debt, there are no problems. However, it will become a problem at some point, we just don't know when. It could come in the next 30 years, it may not.

Obviously we can't keep adding $1 trillion plus a year or it will become a problem much sooner than later. We're still a ways away from that though, as long as we don't get anymore debates in Congress about increasing the debt ceiling. The debate itself causes the credit rating to go down. If they actually follow through with it....interest rates will be the least of our concerns.

We're at 67% of GDP in national debt, lower than many other nations (including Canada of all places). We don't need to be freaking out over our national debt yet.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Right. And the country has the ability to take out credit cards in our children's names.

The real-estate bubble was created because the government eliminated the risk of borrowing money to buy houses. Banks then, with no risk involved, were able to package those loans and treat them like stocks. You couldn't turn on a television without seeing a commercial promising you a life of luxury investing in real estate. You couldn't open your mailbox without an offer to loan you money to buy a house with "zero" down.

You might think there's no downside to devaluing currency. But it encourages dependence on the government. It's basically a massive wealth transfer from those who have saved money to those who haven't.

One could argue that it's necessary because savings rates dropped enormously from the 1980s to a couple of years ago - that we're already past the point where individuals can be expected to behave as if they won't be completely dependent on the government after retirement. Maybe that's the fundamental difference between those who want to see deficit reduction and those who don't see the need - the latter is assuming more and more government dependence anyway.

If currency is devalued, though, production isn't necessarily devalued. It still costs money to transport food to the supermarket. It's there where devaluation hits the poor harder. You might not lose from seeing your savings depleted, but you do lose on the other end. So now you need to provide more food stamps (as Obama has done).

I think it will be interesting to see what happens in France - whether you can borrow your way out of the need to stop borrowing so much - whether production can continue when you reduce the incentive to save and reduce the benefit of individual success.

However, if everything people are saying is true, why, then, is Greece in its current mess? Why can't Greece just pretend it has no debt and go back to its cradle-to-grave socialism? That's certainly what the Greek people expect. Those nasty Germans won't give them any more money.

Romney was certainly wrong about the "47%" being completely dependent on government and thus unwilling to vote for him. It doesn't work that way and he knows it. But that percentage is increasing and it will vote for a party that promises a society where the need to earn money and save money is entirely absent.

Re: Greece,

The debt service was too high and they don't control their currency. I think the right thing for Greece is to drop the Euro and deal with the two or three years of consequences. If they had their own currency they could inflate the debt service down, revalue the currency and move on. It will suck for a few years, but it won't be the long-term indentured servitude that Germany is requiring.

Argentina had three years of problems before returning to steady growth until the current global recession.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by sabotai

We're at 67% of GDP in national debt, lower than many other nations (including Canada of all places). We don't need to be freaking out over our national debt yet.

And if it's the greatest problem ever, why won't the GOP agree to some tax increases at a time when taxes are at a fifty year low?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

And if it's the greatest problem ever, why won't the GOP agree to some tax increases at a time when taxes are at a fifty year low?

It's a great talking point & all, but not only is that not "the greatest problem ever", it's not even in the top 2-3 in the country at the moment.

For example, the popularity of the notion that a tax increase is the solution to the debt situation is a much bigger issue, one that points to a much more fundamental crisis facing the nation.

[sabotai]

not anywhere close to being a dola,

Trying to pin down the numbers and it depends on the source. CIA Factbook and Eurostat put the US debt to GDP at 67%. The IMF puts it at 102%. Looking at the numbers, there seems to a wide difference between CIA & Eurostat and the IMF for many nations.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

T
This (France) to me seems the most sensible route - if you look back through history taxation doesn't scare investors/wealth creators off as much as some politicians would like people to think ... after all its better to be taxed on a profit than to lose money in a country in recession.

Interesting enough...it seems like the UK tax hikes haven't raised the excepted revenue 50p tax rate 'failing to boost revenues’ - Telegraph


Which is why I hate the "Excepted revenue" projections just because you raise the tax rate, as if taxpayers and businesses aren't going to adjust to the new taxes and rules. If you look at states that have imposed higher taxes on its higher earners, it appears to end up not raising the needed revenue.

[JPhillips]

Contractionary policies are contractionary.

But Keynes was wrong.

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

And if it's the greatest problem ever, why won't the GOP agree to some tax increases at a time when taxes are at a fifty year low?

Asking me to explain the general thought process of the average Republican would like asking me to explain the general thought process of the average woman. My answer is "I have no fucking clue."

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by sabotai

Asking me to explain the general thought process of the average Republican would like asking me to explain the general thought process of the average woman. My answer is "I have no fucking clue."

The general though process could be flipped for the average Democrat in regards to raising taxes, but not cut or reform spending.

[JPhillips]

That's a good point except that the general Dem position is a mix of tax increases and spending cuts. Obama offered 3 to 1 cuts to tax increases and the GOP rejected it.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Contractionary policies are contractionary.

But Keynes was wrong.

Why do you think Keynes is wrong?

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

Why do you think Keynes is wrong?

Sarcasm.

I think Keynes has been proven correct in a number of ways.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Sarcasm.

I think Keynes has been proven correct in a number of ways.

Got ya. Internet sarcasm detection meter is off today. I agree with you, it just seems that governments have gotten away from how Keynes *should* work, and what his true ideas are.

I agree with you. I'm guessing you're not an Ayn Rand fan?

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

That's a good point except that the general Dem position is a mix of tax increases and spending cuts. Obama offered 3 to 1 cuts to tax increases and the GOP rejected it.

From Clinton's speech at the Convention. Fair or unfair assessment? (General question)

Fact checking Bill Clinton’s speech and other Democrats at the convention in Charlotte - The Washington Post

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

That's a good point except that the general Dem position is a mix of tax increases and spending cuts. Obama offered 3 to 1 cuts to tax increases and the GOP rejected it.

And rightfully so.

There is no, repeat NO, current justification for raising taxes. Flatten the rate across the board, see where we are, then we can talk. And that conversation begins with cutting expenses in every area other than national defense & domestic security coming before an additional penny.

Until then, that should be the most non-negotiable point possible. With pitchforks & torches a good starting point for elected official who votes otherwise.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

And that conversation begins with cutting expenses in every area other than national defense & domestic security coming before an additional penny.

Conservatives love to talk about how "throwing money at education doesn't make it any better."

Why doesn't this same line of reasoning apply to the national defense?

Why does throwing more money at the military somehow automagically mean we're stronger, but doing the same for education is a fool's game?

40%+ of all military expenditures in the WORLD come from the United States. You're telling me that any pullback in funding for a military that outspends the next 170 countries combined is suddenly going to make us ripe for invasion from, like...Iran? Seriously?

We spent five times as much on the military in 2011 as China did. 41% of the global total of 1.74 trillion that year, or $713 million. The budget for next year is $825 billion. We could cut that by 10% and still spend six dollars on the military for every one China spends, and save almost a hundred billion in the process.

We can do that by eliminating programs that the military says it no longer wants or needs, instead of funding them anyway because "jobs for my district".

And we can do that without raising taxes, cutting funding for education, privatizing Social Security, or any of the other panoply of Republican nightmares and wet dreams.

Doing it via sequestration, where it's just 'every part of your budget takes a mandatory hit'? Yeah, that's blunt surgery, and that's bad. But it's possible to engage in targeted cuts to defense spending that don't affect the defense posture one bit without resorting to 'torches and pitchforks.'

Which, the fun part is? The Democrats can get their revenue increases without anybody having to cast a vote for it, because the Bush cuts expire in a couple months.

Your line in the sand is much more likely to get you the tax increases you're taking this admirable meaningless stand against than saying "Okay, we'll agree to revenue increases, but here are the requirements for that." Instead of bargaining for something that's going to happen anyway and getting something out of it, you and your ilk are willing to let it happen anyway instead of compromising and then throw a fit over it later.

[JPhillips]

The deficit is sooo important that it must be cut without effecting anything I care about.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

Conservatives love to talk about how "throwing money at education doesn't make it any better."

Why doesn't this same line of reasoning apply to the national defense?

Why does throwing more money at the military somehow automagically mean we're stronger, but doing the same for education is a fool's game?

Because of their respective results.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Because of their respective results.

9/11?

[CrimsonFox]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

9/11?

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

9/11?

Obviously not.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

We spent five times as much on the military in 2011 as China did.

I'm pretty sure their strategy is a bit different than ours. One of the advantages of excess population.

But it's possible to engage in targeted cuts to defense spending that don't affect the defense posture one bit without resorting to 'torches and pitchforks.'

I think my positioning of certain phrases may have caused some confusion. Torches & pitchforks were for any & all who vote for any tax increase, not so much about any potential cuts to even the defense budget.

My intent there regarding defense was "last thing cut",and only after a number of other conditions were met, not that no cut was ever conceivable. But I can completely see how that wasn't clear given how I ordered my thoughts on paper.

"Okay, we'll agree to revenue increases, but here are the requirements for that."

There is NO current scenario where "revenue increases" via taxation under the current tax structure is acceptable in any manner, way, shape or form. None. Nada. Zip. Zero. Not another fucking penny. Nor is any change to the tax structure that doesn't serve to flatten the rate. Those aren't issues for compromise, they're issues for revolution if necessary.

Can we hypothetically create some scenario where I'd back an increase? Sure. I'm confident that I have a vivid enough imagination where I could come up with something. But that's strictly hypothetical, we're far too inside out & upside down as a nation for me to think they're going to happen before another tax matter hits the Congressional floor. And the torches & pitchforks are what should await every single damned soul that grabs another penny from those who've already had far too much taken from them at gunpoint.

[molson]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

We can do that by eliminating programs that the military says it no longer wants or needs, instead of funding them anyway because "jobs for my district".

Like most things in the federal government, defense could no doubt be much more effective AND cheaper if the money was spent less politically, more effectively, and with less corruption/less attention to the interests of defense contractors, but I don't quite understand why the impact on the economy is sometimes portrayed by some liberals as a throw-away concern when it comes to defense, but a serious consideration when it comes to any other kind of cut. When it comes to defense, a lot of liberals suddenly turn into Gary Johnson (and when it comes to defense, a lot of conservatives suddenly turn into Francois Hollande for some reason).

[JPhillips]

Taxes are the lowest they've been in fifty years.

TO THE BARRICADES!!!!

[CrimsonFox]

Originally Posted by sabotai

Asking me to explain the general thought process of the average Republican would like asking me to explain the general thought process of the average woman. My answer is "I have no fucking clue."

I seems for 20 years to have been. let's not let anyone else get anything done. Let's not even discuss anything. As long as we aren't in charge we aren't helping move forward. Then blame it on them.

That seems to be their mode.

[molson]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Taxes are the lowest they've been in fifty years.

TO THE BARRICADES!!!!

Violent crime rates are the lowest they've been in 50 years and gun control is a super hot topic (well, Obama's not taking the bait on that, but among a lot of regular liberals it is).

The reason is probably the same in both instances - irrational emotion.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by molson

Violent crime rates are the lowest they've been in 50 years and gun control is a super hot topic (well, Obama's not taking the bait on that, but among a lot of regular liberals it is).

The reason is probably the same in both instances - irrational emotion.

I don't think there's a single liberal advocating gun control or revolution.

[molson]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I don't think there's a single liberal advocating gun control or revolution.

Over gun control, no, but those views are kind of contradictory, aren't they? Violent overthrow if no gun control? Ya, I think it's fair to say that nobody thinks that.

I'm pretty sure OWS advocates revolution, at least in the form of general strikes and such, other societal stuff like wealth distribution though. But that's an extreme view

Edit: Though, I see you're just responding to JonInMiddleGA in this instance, so nevermind. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that revolution isn't seriously on the table at this point for either side.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by CrimsonFox

As long as we aren't in charge we aren't helping move forward.

I'm pretty sure the definition of "forward" here is pretty critical.

What I'd call "forward", most libs consider regression. And vice versa. And it's beyond lunacy to help someone move backwards (when you're certain they're going the wrong direction).