Republican Platform

[ClydeR]

Republicans passed a lot of important stuff for the official GOP platform today.. banning pornography, conversion therapy for homosexual children, overturning homosexual marriage, and making sure everybody uses the right bathroom.


An aide to Donald Trump, Michael Biundo, was in the room as the subcommittee met, but didn’t offer any guidance or input. Perkins told reporters that Trump’s campaign was allowing the committee to work autonomously, calling it a break from the practice of previous presumptive nominees who have been more invested in the platform discussions.

More... (http://time.com/4401600/gop-platform-contemplates-anti-porn-provision-embrace-of-conversion-therapy/)

[Fallen]

Really wish there was a fiscally conservative socially liberal party. I guess there's Johnson's libertarians, but they have their own crazy fringe as well.

[drauz]

Really wish there was a fiscally conservative socially liberal party. I guess there's Johnson's libertarians, but they have their own crazy fringe as well.

So people who spend little on social programs but enact liberal laws?

[time4fun]

Really wish there was a fiscally conservative socially liberal party. I guess there's Johnson's libertarians, but they have their own crazy fringe as well.

Higher government spending isn't a bad thing, contrary to popular belief. It typically generates more income than is spent.

Reducing government spending is, short term at least, generally bad for the economy. (They are the largest spender in the US Economy... One of the largest spenders in the global economy as well)

[Candor]

Higher government spending isn't a bad thing, contrary to popular belief. It typically generates more income than is spent.

Do you ever read your posts before you submit them?

[Fallen]

So people who spend little on social programs but enact liberal laws?

Social programs and the military. You can't be fiscally conservative, yet not be willing to cut the military budget.

[drauz]

Social programs and the military. You can't be fiscally conservative, yet not be willing to cut the military budget.

I assume you mean closing bases around the world? Would you cut aid to foreign gov'ts?

[drauz]

Do you ever read your posts before you submit them?

Its quite possible to do. I believe something like every dollar spent on the IRS returns 6 dollars.

[Jarvan]

Higher government spending isn't a bad thing, contrary to popular belief. It typically generates more income than is spent.

Reducing government spending is, short term at least, generally bad for the economy. (They are the largest spender in the US Economy... One of the largest spenders in the global economy as well)

If that is the case, Why not increase spending by 20 trillion a year. that should solve out economic problems since it creates more income then is spent. Our GDP would be FUCKING AWESOME.


In other news.. stop regurgitating the drivel that the skeleton Pelosi keeps saying.

[Warriorbird]

If that is the case, Why not increase spending by 20 trillion a year. that should solve out economic problems since it creates more income then is spent. Our GDP would be FUCKING AWESOME.


In other news.. stop regurgitating the drivel that the skeleton Pelosi keeps saying.

Our last two Presidents liked that theory. So did your favoritest President Reagan.

[time4fun]

Its quite possible to do. I believe something like every dollar spent on the IRS returns 6 dollars.

IRS spending is pretty extreme, most spending isn't quite that efficient.

But it's basic macroeconomics. Government spending increases the velocity of money- which is critical to economic growth. It's the same reason why tax cuts to the poor are better for the economy than tax cuts for the rich.

People seem to think that government spending goes into a black hole for some reason. But really it goes into the hands of the citizens and their businesses in most cases- and then it gets spent. It goes right back into the economy.

[Fallen]

I assume you mean closing bases around the world? Would you cut aid to foreign gov'ts?

A general restructuring of military priorities to include base closures when needed. More closing bases HERE versus overseas, I imagine.

Could likely find better sources, but the general consensus with foreign aid is that it is trivial in the overall budget. More of a talking point.


So the range goes from $31.3 billion to $39.9 billion. On a total federal budget of just under $3.5 trillion, that's 0.9 percent to less than 1.2 percent.


http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/mar/11/marco-rubio/marco-rubio-says-foreign-aid-less-1-percent-federa/

I found this chart interesting, from the same source. I had thought military spending counted for more of the overall government spending than it did. It's still a significant amount, but not nearly the high percentage that is tossed about.

https://66.media.tumblr.com/0102cdcc250b7393039976409e77ec62/tumblr_oa6o8oYiOm1tquz95o1_1280.png

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/aug/17/facebook-posts/pie-chart-federal-spending-circulating-internet-mi/

I'm not seeing any mention of spending for ongoing operations in the Middle East, though.

That 1% on science is depressing. The private sector typically won't fund research that isn't directly tied to some immediate money making opportunity.

[time4fun]

Yeah it's a big part of our discretionary spending. We also spend more than like the next 8 countries combined, or something ridiculous like that. We're like 1/3 of the total global military expenditure- it's gross.

Personally I'd stop spending on weapons first, as opposed to closing bases and firing people. The military is a huge employer- cutting spending by firing people is going to hurt the economy, not help it.

[drauz]

Yeah it's a big part of our discretionary spending. We also spend more than like the next 8 countries combined, or something ridiculous like that. We're like 1/3 of the total global military expenditure- it's gross.

Personally I'd stop spending on weapons first, as opposed to closing bases and firing people. The military is a huge employer- cutting spending by firing people is going to hurt the economy, not help it.

That would still cause people to get fired.. They just wouldn't be fired from the military.

[Enuch]

While the science is at just 1% it probably doesn't account for the parts in the military/homeland security budget aspect of R and D, or at least I am assuming it doesn't. While those items in some or most cases don't have civilian applications, there are things that come from military and private sector R and D that eventually becomes a civilian product. I agree we need more scientific funding but I think the 1% is skewed given that a lot of things fall under the military umbrella

[Fallen]

While the science is at just 1% it probably doesn't account for the parts in the military/homeland security budget aspect of R and D, or at least I am assuming it doesn't. While those items in some or most cases don't have civilian applications, there are things that come from military and private sector R and D that eventually becomes a civilian product. I agree we need more scientific funding but I think the 1% is skewed given that a lot of things fall under the military umbrella

A fair point. I was also wondering where NASA's budget falls in that pie chart.

[Wrathbringer]

Social programs and the military. You can't be fiscally conservative, yet not be willing to cut the military budget.

truth

[Parkbandit]

https://66.media.tumblr.com/0102cdcc250b7393039976409e77ec62/tumblr_oa6o8oYiOm1tquz95o1_1280.png

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/aug/17/facebook-posts/pie-chart-federal-spending-circulating-internet-mi/

I'm not seeing any mention of spending for ongoing operations in the Middle East, though.



Politifact...... why are you using such a ridiculous "source" as the basis for your opinion?

Where is the money spent on things like debt service, welfare, unemployment, Medicare, etc? Is that all lumped under "health"?

Also, I would imagine any ongoing military operation in the Middle East would be under "Defense/Homeland Security".

And 1% of 3.2 TRILLION DOLLARS is a metric shit ton of money. Not to mention all the private companies working on it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_private_spaceflight_companies

[Warriorbird]

Military spending wise the issue is more with a vast series of programs that could be handled more efficiently... for instance a certain recent jet.

[time4fun]

Politifact...... why are you using such a ridiculous "source" as the basis for your opinion?

Where is the money spent on things like debt service, welfare, unemployment, Medicare, etc? Is that all lumped under "health"?

Also, I would imagine any ongoing military operation in the Middle East would be under "Defense/Homeland Security".

And 1% of 3.2 TRILLION DOLLARS is a metric shit ton of money. Not to mention all the private companies working on it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_private_spaceflight_companies

ROFL

Conservative alternate reality at its finest. Politifact is only a questionable source in your insane world.

[Warriorbird]

ROFL

Conservative alternate reality at its finest. Politifact is only a questionable source in your insane world.

Politifact DOES have selection bias. So does conservative news aggregation, quite obviously.

[Parkbandit]

ROFL

Conservative alternate reality at its finest. Politifact is only a questionable source in your insane world.

"DERP IT SAYS POLITIFACT AND I AGREE WITH EVERYTHING THEY SAY SO IT MUST BE UNBIASED DERP DERP!!!"

Seriously, stop. I'm honestly beginning to feel like I'm picking on the mentally retarded now.. and no one likes to be that guy.

[Parkbandit]

Politifact DOES have selection bias. So does conservative news aggregation, quite obviously.

LOL.

You are either trolling us or you honestly don't see it.

[Fallen]

Politifact...... why are you using such a ridiculous "source" as the basis for your opinion?


Could likely find better sources.

Feel free to link with what source you trust when attempting to analyze the budget. It was simply the most expedient source of information I found when googling for a few seconds on the issue.

[Kembal]

Do you ever read your posts before you submit them?

Sorry, this is correct. The vast majority of government spending has a fiscal multiplier of greater than 1, which means it would generate more income than the initial dollars spent. There are diminishing returns at some point, but we're nowhere near that. This isn't really a point debated by any serious economists - fiscal stimulus right now, especially in infrastructure, would help significantly.

[time4fun]

Politifact DOES have selection bias. So does conservative news aggregation, quite obviously.

Leaving aside that piece (Ostermier's breakdown was like 50% GOP/47% Dem- hardly a huge partisan bias, if that's what you mean), PB's critique is of their evaluation of truth, not any selection bias. (Or if it isn't, then I'm not sure what he's arguing about)

Though the right has been critical of politifact (mostly because it's turned out that they're responsible for more of the abject lies that Politifact finds), there's nothing academic or objective that has demonstrated that there's any reason to think Politifact is anything less than reputable. The only real critique against Politifact is that it heavily focuses on things people say about their opponents, which means it's more of a check on campaign narratives than it is on policies. But that's sort of the point.

[Warriorbird]

Leaving aside that piece (Ostermier's breakdown was like 50% GOP/47% Dem- hardly a huge partisan bias, if that's what you mean), PB's critique is of their evaluation of truth, not any selection bias. (Or if it isn't, then I'm not sure what he's arguing about)

Though the right has been critical of politifact (mostly because it's turned out that they're responsible for more of the abject lies that Politifact finds), there's nothing academic or objective that has demonstrated that there's any reason to think Politifact is anything less than reputable. The only real critique against Politifact is that it heavily focuses on things people say about their opponents, which means it's more of a check on campaign narratives than it is on policies. But that's sort of the point.

Where I've seen them get critiqued (and I believe rightfully so) is what gets headlined on the site itself. It doesn't mean it's a lousy place to get budget info from however.

[time4fun]

Sorry, this is correct. The vast majority of government spending has a fiscal multiplier of greater than 1, which means it would generate more income than the initial dollars spent. There are diminishing returns at some point, but we're nowhere near that. This isn't really a point debated by any serious economists - fiscal stimulus right now, especially in infrastructure, would help significantly.

Yup. The whole "fiscally conservative means reducing government spending" narrative never had anything to do with economic theory, it's part of the Starve The Beast (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starve_the_beast) strategy aimed at dismantling social welfare policies. Decrease tax revenue, argue for reduction in government spending, target social welfare programs that people on the right hate.

Which is also why the GOP blocked (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/02/business/questions-raised-on-withdrawal-of-congressional-research-services-report-on-tax-rates.html?ref=business&_r=2&) the release of a CBO study that demonstrated that reducing taxes on the top brackets had no benefit to economic growth- it just increased economic inequality.

It's never been about actual economic growth, it's always been about a political coalition and its principled opposition to social safety nets.

[time4fun]

Where I've seen them get critiqued (and I believe rightfully so) is what gets headlined on the site itself. It doesn't mean it's a lousy place to get budget info from however.

Haven't heard this criticism. What's the concern?

[Fallen]

I'm talking about stuff like raising the retirement age for social security and medicare.

[time4fun]

I'm talking about stuff like raising the retirement age for social security and medicare.

It's not a particularly academic reaction, but forcing elderly people to work longer to justify tax breaks on the wealthy and buying more bombs just feels so gross to me.

[Warriorbird]

Haven't heard this criticism. What's the concern?

That they don't check a different total of facts or cheat but feature the refuted Republican ones most prominently.

I think its audience driven.

[time4fun]

Back to the point of the thread.

Apparently the GOP has finally managed to add something substantive to the public health debate.

Pornography has been declared a public health crisis (http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/11/politics/gop-platform-republican-convention-internet-pornography/).

[Fallen]

It's not a particularly academic reaction, but forcing elderly people to work longer to justify tax breaks on the wealthy and buying more bombs just feels so gross to me.

People are living longer than before. The argument is that poor people aren't seeing these lifespan increases to the same extent as the rich, but this is counteracted by the point that the differences in lifespan have to do with the period AFTER SS already kicks in. There is also disability for those who are unable to work due to age-related issues. Expanding qualifying conditions for those over the old age of retirement seems fair.

I'd also be fine with cutoffs being lowered for those making enough money over their lifetime to not receive SS benefits, or at least apply a sliding scale. Multi-millionaires don't need SS, though you're not making up huge differences in this type of cut.

[Parkbandit]

Feel free to link with what source you trust when attempting to analyze the budget. It was simply the most expedient source of information I found when googling for a few seconds on the issue.

Wait.. what exactly did you google to have Politifact at the top of your search results for us government spending?

If I need to find out how our government spends it's money.. I don't even have to Google:

https://www.cbo.gov/

[Parkbandit]

Haven't heard this criticism. What's the concern?

That's because this is you:

http://wonderopolis.org/wp-content/uploads//2015/03/1425_3.jpg

[Fallen]

Wait.. what exactly did you google to have Politifact at the top of your search results for us government spending?

If I need to find out how our government spends it's money.. I don't even have to Google:

https://www.cbo.gov/

https://www.google.com/search?q=What+percentage+of+the+budget+is+spent+on +foreign+aid&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

NPR and Washington Post top the list, but something tells me you wouldn't be fond of me quoting those either. Politifact is 5th down or so.

I'm poking around cbo.gov, but material on what amount is spent on foreign aid isn't readily apparent.

[Parkbandit]

It's not a particularly academic reaction, but forcing elderly people to work longer to justify tax breaks on the wealthy and buying more bombs just feels so gross to me.

When Social Security was first passed, the average lifespan of an American was 65.. which was the same as the retirement age.

Today, the average lifespan of an American is close to the age of 80.

It honestly takes a very small amount of intelligence to figure out that something won't work with this scheme.....

[Parkbandit]

I'd also be fine with cutoffs being lowered for those making enough money over their lifetime to not receive SS benefits, or at least apply a sliding scale. Multi-millionaires don't need SS, though you're not making up huge differences in this type of cut.

Then it would change the program from a self funded insurance program to a public handout program... something it was not intended to be.

[Fallen]

Then it would change the program from a self funded insurance program to a public handout program... something it was not intended to be.

As you just pointed out in your previous post, the program must change to fit the times. The argument you have against not giving social security to multi-millionaires is that it wouldn't be true to the spirit of how Social Security was designed, is that right?

[Parkbandit]

As you just pointed out in your previous post, the program must change to fit the times. The argument you have against not giving social security to multi-millionaires is that it wouldn't be true to the spirit of how Social Security was designed, is that right?

I'm saying that I would be less willing to pay into social security if I knew I wouldn't have the opportunity to participate in the program and that most of the money would be going to deadbeats that never held a reported job in their lives.

Changing the effective retirement date to go along with the life expectancy isn't changing the program to fit the times like saying "Oh man, you made too much money when you were younger.. you will not be getting any of it back"

[Fallen]

I'm saying that I would be less willing to pay into social security if I knew I wouldn't have the opportunity to participate in the program and that most of the money would be going to deadbeats that never held a reported job in their lives.

Changing the effective retirement date to go along with the life expectancy isn't changing the program to fit the times like saying "Oh man, you made too much money when you were younger.. you will not be getting any of it back"

Typically, willingness doesn't have much to do with paying one's taxes. I grant you that it wouldn't seem as fair to the wealthy as the current system is now, but the same argument of fairness could be applied to many things taxes go to which don't benefit those flipping the bill.

For instance, I am not planning on having kids, why should I pay for schools?

[Kembal]

Typically, willingness doesn't have much to do with paying one's taxes. I grant you that it wouldn't seem as fair to the wealthy as the current system is now, but the same argument of fairness could be applied to many things taxes go to which don't benefit those flipping the bill.

For instance, I am not planning on having kids, why should I pay for schools?

No, PB's correct. Means-testing Social Security is a great way to get it killed politically.

A better option would be increasing the payroll tax cap.

[Fallen]

A better option would be increasing the payroll tax cap.

I was talking to a friend and that is what he recommended as well. I think the current cap is 118k.

[Jarvan]

A fair point. I was also wondering where NASA's budget falls in that pie chart.

NASA doesn't have a budget anymore. Obama cut it. They now operate on the fumes from the past 50 years.

[Parkbandit]

No, PB's correct.

This is always a good stance to take.


Means-testing Social Security is a great way to get it killed politically.

A better option would be increasing the payroll tax cap.

I have no problem with that cap being raised. I think it's dumb it's not.

[Tgo01]

Sorry, this is correct. The vast majority of government spending has a fiscal multiplier of greater than 1, which means it would generate more income than the initial dollars spent.

Would you and time4fun please stop using the word "income."

Surely you mean 1 dollar spent would generate 1.3 (or whatever) dollars in the economy. That's a huge difference.

What you and time4fun are saying is the government can literally spend 1 dollar and get 1.3 dollars back. It doesn't work like that.

Of course spending stimulates the economy, I don't think anyone really argues against that. The point is we don't need the government to "spend" money in order to stimulate the economy.

You do know the overwhelming majority of money the government spends comes from citizens via taxes, right? And a lot of that money goes right to paying interest.

Saying 1 dollar spent generates 1.3 dollars in economic activity is ignoring the fact that maybe, JUST MAYBE, if those taxes didn't exist in the first place that taxed citizen would have spent that money anyways and helped stimulate the economy, all without giving money to the government where the money is then subjected to waste, fraud, gluttony, and a myriad number of other things that tend to go wrong when you hand over money to the government.

Now don't get me wrong, I do happen to think the government does manage to get some things right and there are some things I think the government should be responsible for and thus taxes are necessary. But let's please cut this shit out that if we just keep pumping money into the government we can actually all live better lives via a government fueled economy.

[Tgo01]

It's not a particularly academic reaction, but forcing elderly people to work longer

No one is "forced" to do anything, that's the beauty of living in a free society.

[time4fun]

When Social Security was first passed, the average lifespan of an American was 65.. which was the same as the retirement age.

Today, the average lifespan of an American is close to the age of 80.

It honestly takes a very small amount of intelligence to figure out that something won't work with this scheme.....

And as usual your reliance on the answers that come easily obscure what's actually going on.

From the CBO (http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/115xx/doc11580/07-01-SSOptions_forWeb.pdf):

Because the earnings of workers in the highest income groups have grown faster than average earnings in recent decades, the share of all earnings from jobs covered by the Social Security program that were below the taxable maximum has fallen from about 91 percent in 1983 to about 83 percent in 2009.

Income inequality is actually a major driver of insolvency right now (as is the refusal to increase the payroll tax for Social Security by a meager 2%)- one of the many reasons why income equality is just good policy. The cap is killing social security, and it should be removed, and the Social Security tax should be expanded to currently non-taxable sources of income. (There are too many people primarily making their money off of the market, for example, for us to pretend like it's not employment)

I disagree with Fallen on the notion that the wealthy don't need Social Security- 2008 shows us that even the wealthiest can find themselves in precarious situations later in life. I will also say that one of the things that somehow gets missed in these discussions is both the moral and economic cost of having an entire population of people starving in the streets. The elderly are a vulnerable group, and too many of them rely on Social Security to eek out a living long after they are able to work (or should be asked to). As with most of these situations, pulling away Social Security would require us to support these people some other way anyway, but it would deprive them of any shred of dignity in the process.

The reason why most people don't take folks like PB seriously in these discussions is that in their attempts to enact draconian social Darwinism, they've never managed to answer the crucial basic question: What do you do with the people who would be starving and homeless without this program?

"Fuck 'em, it's their fault" isn't sound policy.

[Tgo01]

From the CBO (http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/115xx/doc11580/07-01-SSOptions_forWeb.pdf):

Because the earnings of workers in the highest income groups have grown faster than average earnings in recent decades, the share of all earnings from jobs covered by the Social Security program that were below the taxable maximum has fallen from about 91 percent in 1983 to about 83 percent in 2009.

I couldn't find this quote in the link you provided, but I did find this quote in there:


As the population of the United States continues to grow older, the number of Social Security beneficiaries will continue to rise, and the program's outlays will increase faster than its revenues.

That kind of backs up what PB said that you were giving him shit for.

"Income inequality" is to blame for social security funds drying up. Now I really have heard it all.

[Shaps]

I just wish for 1 year... everyone that currently works, owns a business, or invests their money.. sold everything, stopped working and filed for Government aid.. and those that currently don't.. yea, they can do whatever. Then there would be no them or us, and then who would people complain about?

Also wish that the police would organize... take a few days off from work.. and march in the streets all over the nation.. then people couldn't complain about them and their actions in their neighborhoods.

Maybe that's just to much to wish for.

[Fallen]

Police have largely stopped enforcing laws in the past. That happened for a few days in New York not that long ago. Blue flu has also taken place.

[Warriorbird]

I just wish for 1 year... everyone that currently works, owns a business, or invests their money.. sold everything, stopped working and filed for Government aid.. and those that currently don't.. yea, they can do whatever. Then there would be no them or us, and then who would people complain about?

Also wish that the police would organize... take a few days off from work.. and march in the streets all over the nation.. then people couldn't complain about them and their actions in their neighborhoods.

Maybe that's just to much to wish for.

If you want to experience what happens when nobody helps others because you love Objectivism you could always visit Somalia or play Bioshock.

[Shaps]

If you want to experience what happens when nobody helps others because you love Objectivism you could always visit Somalia or play Bioshock.

Been to places like that.. people in the US don't realize how good they really have it.

[Wesley]

Been to places like that.. people in the US don't realize how good they really have it.

For example you...right now. With that comment above.

[Warriorbird]

Been to places like that.. people in the US don't realize how good they really have it.

That's true. It makes them think focusing on themselves and neglecting everyone else is a good idea in spite of having seen other places where people did just that.

[Parkbandit]

And as usual your reliance on the answers that come easily obscure what's actually going on.

You should be very careful with all this irony in your diet...


From the CBO (http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/115xx/doc11580/07-01-SSOptions_forWeb.pdf):

Because the earnings of workers in the highest income groups have grown faster than average earnings in recent decades, the share of all earnings from jobs covered by the Social Security program that were below the taxable maximum has fallen from about 91 percent in 1983 to about 83 percent in 2009.

Income inequality is actually a major driver of insolvency right now (as is the refusal to increase the payroll tax for Social Security by a meager 2%)- one of the many reasons why income equality is just good policy. The cap is killing social security, and it should be removed, and the Social Security tax should be expanded to currently non-taxable sources of income. (There are too many people primarily making their money off of the market, for example, for us to pretend like it's not employment)

Yes, yes.. tell us the story of how a $15 minimum wage would fix all these problems? I love ignorant fiction with no logic.


I disagree with Fallen on the notion that the wealthy don't need Social Security- 2008 shows us that even the wealthiest can find themselves in precarious situations later in life. I will also say that one of the things that somehow gets missed in these discussions is both the moral and economic cost of having an entire population of people starving in the streets. The elderly are a vulnerable group, and too many of them rely on Social Security to eek out a living long after they are able to work (or should be asked to). As with most of these situations, pulling away Social Security would require us to support these people some other way anyway, but it would deprive them of any shred of dignity in the process.

No one is "pulling away Social Security".. these changes would take place for people well in their prime working years and would not affect anyone even remotely close to retirement.


The reason why most people don't take folks like PB seriously in these discussions

I'd say the only one here that isn't taken seriously by anyone with an IQ above like 32.. is you.


is that in their attempts to enact draconian social Darwinism, they've never managed to answer the crucial basic question: What do you do with the people who would be starving and homeless without this program?

"Fuck 'em, it's their fault" isn't sound policy.

When my wife has an employee who can't work more than 14 hours a week or they would lose their Medicare and HUD money.. we're doing something drastically wrong with the "starving and homeless".

[Shaps]

That's true. It makes them think focusing on themselves and neglecting everyone else is a good idea in spite of having seen other places where people did just that.

I didn't say neglect anyone.

1. People complain that the wealthy need to give more. That taking someones earnings and giving it to others is a good thing. Okay... so what's wrong if those that currently earn decide... they don't want to anymore. What's wrong with that? It's their choice right? Does their lack of earnings somehow stop someone else from earning? Because apparently it's very easy, and if only the people who have things, stopped acquiring things... then that would mean more for everyone else right?

2. Citizens have a right to protest correct? Police earn leave correct? So Police could take their earned leave... and form a protest against violence against police... or do they not have those rights? They aren't breaking any laws, so what's wrong with them supporting a valid cause?
People complain about police presence in their neighborhoods and what they do, so a few days to run their communities how they want should be a welcome change correct? Or is self-control and self-protection to difficult of a concept?

It's always easy for people to pick apart someone they perceive as having more, a better position in life, a person in authority, the laws that govern us... until they realize... if other's aren't doing those things for them.. then they might have to do it themselves.

/shrug

[Shaps]

Lol.. I know exactly how nice it is to be a citizen of the US. And I'm perfectly fine with that. Done my part (as many others on this site, and in our Nation). It's okay to relax now that I'm getting older and let someone else have to do theirs.

[Shaps]

I really overuse (, - commas). Lol :)

[Shaps]

Lol.. someone wrote me a bad rep comment with the words "Basic Economy"..

What basic economy do you speak of? Some work, other's don't.. a lot of people these days complain and think that they deserve more for doing less.. and that if only those bad 1%'ers would give up all their money, things would be better.

So I say.. do it. All the "rich" stop earning money. They just sit on what they have and step aside. Letting those that complain about their accumulation of wealth, when they are already wealthy stop. Now everyone else should have a chance to earn all that money not being hoarded by those greedy sum's a bitches.

Win/Win right there.

[Warriorbird]

I didn't say neglect anyone.

1. People complain that the wealthy need to give more. That taking someones earnings and giving it to others is a good thing. Okay... so what's wrong if those that currently earn decide... they don't want to anymore. What's wrong with that? It's their choice right? Does their lack of earnings somehow stop someone else from earning? Because apparently it's very easy, and if only the people who have things, stopped acquiring things... then that would mean more for everyone else right?

2. Citizens have a right to protest correct? Police earn leave correct? So Police could take their earned leave... and form a protest against violence against police... or do they not have those rights? They aren't breaking any laws, so what's wrong with them supporting a valid cause?
People complain about police presence in their neighborhoods and what they do, so a few days to run their communities how they want should be a welcome change correct? Or is self-control and self-protection to difficult of a concept?

It's always easy for people to pick apart someone they perceive as having more, a better position in life, a person in authority, the laws that govern us... until they realize... if other's aren't doing those things for them.. then they might have to do it themselves.

/shrug

1. When the wealthy gave more our economy actually performed better. The wealthy lobby for themselves quite well though.

2. Police should absolutely be able to protest. You get all sorts of conservative states like mine where they'd get fired for doing that, just like I would, as a teacher. It doesn't make anything better but the same conservative folks like you are the ones that made it that way to begin with.

[Shaps]

1. When the wealthy gave more our economy actually performed better. The wealthy lobby for themselves quite well though.

2. Police should absolutely be able to protest. You get all sorts of conservative states like mine where they'd get fired for doing that, just like I would, as a teacher. It doesn't make anything better but the same conservative folks like you are the ones that made it that way to begin with.

1. I'm simply saying, the wealthy stop earning more wealth.. step aside.. and let all those that complain about it, earn it. That rich CEO SOB.. just quits and walks away.. then someone else can move up. That store owner, just sells his shop to someone else and goes away. That would solve it right? I'm just trying to create job opportunities. I figured the same liberal folks like you would be on board with something like that. ;)

Why do you think I'm a conservative? Is that a dirty word or something? What's conservative about just giving people what they want?

As for certain regulations within departments about protesting and who can participate, I disagree with for the most part. So long is on your personal time, and does not promote any aspect of violence.. then you as well as the Police should be able to participate IMO.

Did I just blow your mind that I disagree with all those "same conservative folks like me"? ***MIND BLOWN***

[Shaps]

Oh.. and BTW.. ALL lives matter.

**grabs popcorn and waits for the hate mongering to begin**

[Tgo01]

Oh.. and BTW.. ALL lives matter.

**grabs popcorn and waits for the hate mongering to begin**

You sound racist.

[time4fun]

1. When the wealthy gave more our economy actually performed better. The wealthy lobby for themselves quite well though.

2. Police should absolutely be able to protest. You get all sorts of conservative states like mine where they'd get fired for doing that, just like I would, as a teacher. It doesn't make anything better but the same conservative folks like you are the ones that made it that way to begin with.

To Warrior's point, income equality is good policy. Even leaving aside the moral issues here, the more concentrated wealth is, the worse the economy does. The social security situation is just one of many examples of how concentrated wealth at the top causes problems.

The best illustration (albeit a simplified one) is a comparative look at two situations:

A) Give $1 to a million people

B) Give $1 million dollars to one person

Which is better for the economy?

Turns out option A is. Because that money goes straight back into the economy virtually overnight and in very diverse places, while the $1 million to one person tends to be spent more sluggishly (occasionally "magically" finds itself unaccounted for in Switzerland somewhere) and finds its way to fewer places. I'm sort of grossly oversimplifying here, but you get the gist.

There's a nice, easy to consume article on Forbes (http://www.forbes.com/sites/eriksherman/2014/12/09/income-inequality-hurts-economic-growth/#1da21e0161d6) from a year or two ago that breaks down a recent OECD study and outlines in broad strokes the negative impact to the economy that occurs as income inequality gets worse.

[Shaps]

To Warrior's point, income equality is good policy. Even leaving aside the moral issues here, the more concentrated wealth is, the worse the economy does. The social security situation is just one of many examples of how concentrated wealth at the top causes problems.

The best illustration (albeit a simplified one) is a comparative look at two situations:

A) Give $1 to a million people

B) Give $1 million dollars to one person

Which is better for the economy?

Turns out option A is. Because that money goes straight back into the economy virtually overnight and in very diverse places, while the $1 million to one person tends to be spent more sluggishly (occasionally "magically" finds itself unaccounted for in Switzerland somewhere) and finds its way to fewer places. I'm sort of grossly oversimplifying here, but you get the gist.

There's a nice, easy to consume article on Forbes (http://www.forbes.com/sites/eriksherman/2014/12/09/income-inequality-hurts-economic-growth/#1da21e0161d6) from a year or two ago that breaks down a recent OECD study and outlines in broad strokes the negative impact to the economy that occurs as income inequality gets worse.

One concept wrong with your statements.. you use the term "give".. let me know which of the following 2 options is better for the economy...

A) A million people earn a dollar.

B) One person earns a million dollars.

Per your logic, the million people working and earning a dollar each would be much better for the economy.

Try selling that idea to a million people and see where it gets you ;) .

People only care about "what's good for the economy" when it's "good for them".

[Tgo01]

A) Give $1 to a million people

B) Give $1 million dollars to one person

Which is better for the economy?

Turns out option A is. Because that money goes straight back into the economy virtually overnight and in very diverse places, while the $1 million to one person tends to be spent more sluggishly (occasionally "magically" finds itself unaccounted for in Switzerland somewhere) and finds its way to fewer places. I'm sort of grossly oversimplifying here

Yes you are very much oversimplifying this because you are misunderstanding the nuances of what you are regurgitating, as evidenced by the fact that you think if a poor person received 1 million dollars they would put it into a Swiss bank account. I mean come on.

Your scenario is missing one very important key part; how much money do these people have to begin with?

Give 1 dollar each to a million poor people or give 1 million dollars to one poor person, honestly it probably wouldn't make much of a difference. In the former scenario that dollar per person is going to be spent because most people live paycheck to paycheck so they are going to spend that 1 dollar.

Likewise it's highly unlikely a poor person is going to sit on a million dollars, shit just look at how often lottery winners end up filing for bankruptcy.

Likewise if you give 1 dollar to one million rich people or 1 million dollars to 1 rich person and most likely nothing would happen with the money either way because the rich are already rich (assuming of course we are talking mega wealthy here, like the top .1%)

But like I said this is because most people live paycheck to paycheck, so any extra money given to them is most likely going to be spent, even if it's a million dollars. If suddenly everyone is making the same amount then who is to say people will be living paycheck to paycheck and thus spending every dime they make as soon as they make it? Maybe then everyone will be putting money aside in Swiss bank accounts.

[time4fun]

One concept wrong with your statements.. you use the term "give".. let me know which of the following 2 options is better for the economy...

A) A million people earn a dollar.

B) One person earns a million dollars.

Per your logic, the million people working and earning a dollar each would be much better for the economy.

Try selling that idea to a million people and see where it gets you ;) .

People only care about "what's good for the economy" when it's "good for them".

Earn or give, either way it's the same. And we've got ourselves a little fact vs opinion scope shift going on here.

There's a difference between what's good for people and what's politically compelling. The argument is that reducing economic inequality is good for the economy, not that the steps to get there are always an easy sell.

I'll definitely say that one of the distinct advantages conservatives have when it comes to fiscal debates is that their concepts tend to work better as sound bites because they tend to more easily draw on common sense tropes (i.e "Debt is bad"- which is true for household budgets but not necessarily true for a Country's budget. "Taxes are bad" which, again, makes a ton of sense when you're paying taxes and less sense when you're trying to build a balanced, functional economy). Liberal economic policy, on the other hand, is harder to explain in half a sentence or less. Keynesian Economic principles don't exactly roll off the tongue.

[Shaps]

Also, implied in the term "give" means that someone had to have "earned" that 1 million dollars to give to those 1 million people.

So I guess, it's okay to force another to work for you, then give you everything they've earned. Because really... it's better for us all right?

Well maybe I, or you, or WB doesn't want to be the one doing all that work for 1 million... just to give it away to everyone else... even though it's "better for the economy"... so who is the volunteer that will work for us all and revive our wonderful economy? Step up silent knight and receive your thanks!

[Shaps]

Earn or give, either way it's the same. And we've got ourselves a little fact vs opinion scope shift going on here.

There's a difference between what's good for people and what's politically compelling.

I'll definitely say that one of the distinct advantages conservatives have when it comes to fiscal debates is that their concepts tend to work better as sound bites because they tend to more easily draw on common sense tropes (i.e "Debt is bad"- which is true for household budgets but not necessarily true for a Country's budget. "Taxes are bad" which, again, makes a ton of sense when you're paying taxes and less sense when you're trying to build a balanced, functional economy). Liberal economic policy, on the other hand, is harder to explain in half a sentence or less. Keynesian Economic principles don't exactly roll off the tongue.

Lol.. love ideas where the terms "earn" and "give" are considered the "same". Wowza.

Could it be that it's harder to explain, because you're trying to bullshit others into thinking it's okay to take what they work for? Just one of those conceptual questions I suppose.

[time4fun]

Lol.. love ideas where the terms "earn" and "give" are considered the "same". Wowza.

While they aren't the same in every context, in this particular argument they play out the same way when we hold all other things equal.

Tax policy obviously plays a big role here, but since tax policy already has its own built-in assumptions and goals in regards to income equality, you have to leave it out. Especially since tax policy is, itself, one of the major ways to control for income inequality (or not). If the argument here is that we should push for more income equality, then treating tax policy as an immutable constant just gets us spun in circles.

[Kembal]

Would you and time4fun please stop using the word "income."

Surely you mean 1 dollar spent would generate 1.3 (or whatever) dollars in the economy. That's a huge difference.

What you and time4fun are saying is the government can literally spend 1 dollar and get 1.3 dollars back. It doesn't work like that.

Ok, GDP is a better term than income in this instance. I'll take that correction.



Of course spending stimulates the economy, I don't think anyone really argues against that. The point is we don't need the government to "spend" money in order to stimulate the economy.

You do know the overwhelming majority of money the government spends comes from citizens via taxes, right? And a lot of that money goes right to paying interest.

Saying 1 dollar spent generates 1.3 dollars in economic activity is ignoring the fact that maybe, JUST MAYBE, if those taxes didn't exist in the first place that taxed citizen would have spent that money anyways and helped stimulate the economy, all without giving money to the government where the money is then subjected to waste, fraud, gluttony, and a myriad number of other things that tend to go wrong when you hand over money to the government.

Now don't get me wrong, I do happen to think the government does manage to get some things right and there are some things I think the government should be responsible for and thus taxes are necessary. But let's please cut this shit out that if we just keep pumping money into the government we can actually all live better lives via a government fueled economy.

I don't think I argued that either. You're putting up a strawman there. I specifically cited infrastructure spending in my prior post, and that's something the government will always do better than a private company. I certainly don't think that the government being the primary driver of all GDP is a good thing.

Could that money paid as taxes have boosted the economy if spent by individual consumers and businesses? Sure. But would it have been spent on things that are required for the long term health of the nation? Probably not. And that's the kicker.

[Shaps]

While they aren't the same in every context, in this particular argument they play out the same way when we hold all other things equal.

Tax policy obviously plays a big role here, but since tax policy already has its own built-in assumptions and goals in regards to income equality, you have to leave it out. Especially since tax policy is, itself, one of the major ways to control for income inequality (or not). If the argument here is that we should push for more income equality, then treating tax policy as an immutable constant just gets us spun in circles.

I do enjoy antagonizing conversations a bit, but I do enjoy the conversations we have on policies, etc.

With that said.. one thing I try to keep in mind.. is that humans are humans. Regardless of whatever may be best, may be fair, may be just.. humans are humans. And humans, naturally, will always lean towards what's best for them and their families/friends.. if even unconsciously.

That's why discussions like these always make me chuckle. Because one person says "I deserve more!", another says "Why should I work harder to give you more!"... then when the person that first wanted more, get's more and then is told to give more (not voluntarily, but directed).. they become the one asking "Why should I work harder to give you more!"... while the others say "But we deserve more!".

This shit is hopeless. LoL :)

Good conversations though. Keep it going!

[Tgo01]

I don't think I argued that either. You're putting up a strawman there.

It's not a straw man. You're arguing the government spending money is good because it stimulates the economy. This ignores whether or not that tax money would have been spent anyways. This is very much an on topic point and not a straw man.


But would it have been spent on things that are required for the long term health of the nation? Probably not.

First of all this is highly subjective. Second of all what are you basing your conclusion on?

[Wesley]

Hmmmmm.... Wait, wait. I've got the solution.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H1QdypYE_FQ

[zennsunni]

Military spending wise the issue is more with a vast series of programs that could be handled more efficiently... for instance a certain recent jet.

As a graduate degree holder with ~$40,000 in student loans, I am so diabolically opposed to the F-35 I can't overstate it. And take note - I'm an aerospace nerd. I love jets. But fuck that thing. Just one of them would pay for my entire generation's graduate education. Instead, we get a jet that barely works, and that's one technological breakthrough from being totally obsolete.

[Warriorbird]

1. I'm simply saying, the wealthy stop earning more wealth.. step aside.. and let all those that complain about it, earn it. That rich CEO SOB.. just quits and walks away.. then someone else can move up. That store owner, just sells his shop to someone else and goes away. That would solve it right? I'm just trying to create job opportunities. I figured the same liberal folks like you would be on board with something like that. ;)

Why do you think I'm a conservative? Is that a dirty word or something? What's conservative about just giving people what they want?

As for certain regulations within departments about protesting and who can participate, I disagree with for the most part. So long is on your personal time, and does not promote any aspect of violence.. then you as well as the Police should be able to participate IMO.

Did I just blow your mind that I disagree with all those "same conservative folks like me"? ***MIND BLOWN***

Why do I think you're conservative? Your thought experiment basically comes directly from a book by Ayn Rand. Objectivism is basically rent-seeking behavior by people who stepped up out of lower tiers of economic success or by people who inherited money without working for it. Basically both have a lot of similarities to the people they tend to resent.

For myself, since I own part of a small business, I want people to have enough money to actually take part in the very miracle of capitalism you seem to espouse. When the poor and middle class are able to spend money I'll make more money. I much prefer that to the vision of the 1890s that the typical Objectivist glorifies. Only a few individuals held much of the economic power in America then. The more individuals who are able to be economic actors the stronger the economy. We don't suffer from resource curses. This is one of the reasons that the South lost the Civil War... there were too many people who weren't a part of the economy. Ironically this is one of the principles the Republican Party was founded on and I find it far more interesting than the "just to stop slavery" claims that get thrown out.

You didn't blow my mind much about wanting the police to be able to protest. I think most people think that ought to be a right if folks reflect on that. Sadly, to break the power of the unions to influence votes, the Republican Party as a whole does whatever they can to stop unionization, even of police. None of my local LEO friends are able to protest and they should have been able to when our last Republican governor basically failed to give them a raise for his entire four year term of office.


As a graduate degree holder with ~$40,000 in student loans, I am so diabolically opposed to the F-35 I can't overstate it. And take note - I'm an aerospace nerd. I love jets. But fuck that thing. Just one of them would pay for my entire generation's graduate education. Instead, we get a jet that barely works, and that's one technological breakthrough from being totally obsolete.

It is bafflingly awful... and I love American air power too. One of my great uncles was an Air Force Brigadier General before he retired.


Oh.. and BTW.. ALL lives matter.

**grabs popcorn and waits for the hate mongering to begin**

Of course they do. Unfortunately thousands of black, Hispanic, and even blue lives have been lost to uniformly idiotic drug policies and just how much white people really love drugs. Black Lives Matter is way off about police shootings but black America has worked over pretty thoroughly by the whole situation.

[Latrinsorm]

Wait.. what exactly did you google to have Politifact at the top of your search results for us government spending? If I need to find out how our government spends it's money.. I don't even have to Google: https://www.cbo.gov/From the CBO website that you just linked, (https://www.cbo.gov/about/products/budget_economic_data#2) the file titled March 2016 (I don't know when the graph was made):

23.9% Social Security (881.9 / 3688.3)
15.8% Defense (583.3 / 3688.3)
26.7% Medicare and Medicaid (983.9 / 3688.3)

Looks like Politifact was pretty on the ball to me.
I'm saying that I would be less willing to pay into social security if I knew I wouldn't have the opportunity to participate in the program and that most of the money would be going to deadbeats that never held a reported job in their lives.Social Security pays nothing to people who have never reported an income unless they can establish that they were disabled.
1. People complain that the wealthy need to give more. That taking someones earnings and giving it to others is a good thing. Okay... so what's wrong if those that currently earn decide... they don't want to anymore. What's wrong with that? It's their choice right? Does their lack of earnings somehow stop someone else from earning? Because apparently it's very easy, and if only the people who have things, stopped acquiring things... then that would mean more for everyone else right?Go ahead. Nobody's stopping you but yourself, and history has shown us over and over and over that the wealthy that pay massive taxes are perfectly happy to continue being wealthy and paying massive taxes despite their protestations to the contrary. Obviously they'd prefer being wealthy and NOT paying massive taxes, and so lobby the government to do so, but you're never, ever, ever going to see a widescale movement to voluntarily abandon being wealthy.
With that said.. one thing I try to keep in mind.. is that humans are humans. Regardless of whatever may be best, may be fair, may be just.. humans are humans. And humans, naturally, will always lean towards what's best for them and their families/friends.. if even unconsciously.They will lean towards what they BELIEVE is best for them. This can be very, very different from what is actually best for them.

[Androidpk]

Everyone's complaining about the F-35 price tag when the B-21 is over in the corner siphoning up all the money while no one's watching.

[Jarvan]

I just want to take this moment to say what I think the Dem Platform will be...

Free Healthcare for all, Higher taxes on the rich (to be fair), Free college for all, at least 15 an hour minimum wage for every person working in america, open borders, BLM, and cops are bad.

[Warriorbird]

Everyone's complaining about the F-35 price tag when the B-21 is over in the corner siphoning up all the money while no one's watching.

Yeah. The F-35 is just one example.

[Wesley]

In what little defense the F-35 deserves, it WAS a good idea. It's just that in hindsight we all see what a massive money pit clusterfuck it was because it's been plagued with issues, both technical and contractual, since day one. But the idea to design a next generation fighter with modular capabilities to suit the needs of most armed forces, intended to be both utilized in our own fleet and sold to our allies? That was definitely a lucrative idea that could have paid for itself and then some had it not turned into the above mentioned huge clusterfuck.

[Jarvan]

In what little defense the F-35 deserves, it WAS a good idea. It's just that in hindsight we all see what a massive money pit clusterfuck it was because it's been plagued with issues, both technical and contractual, since day one. But the idea to design a next generation fighter with modular capabilities to suit the needs of most armed forces, intended to be both utilized in our own fleet and sold to our allies? That was definitely a lucrative idea that could have paid for itself and then some had it not turned into the above mentioned huge clusterfuck.

The F-35 was never a good idea.

3 words...

Bradly Fighting Vehicle.

or in GS words....

it's a nearly capped warrior that uses wands to fight in nelemar and picks his own boxes while using scrolls to heal.

[Kembal]

It's not a straw man. You're arguing the government spending money is good because it stimulates the economy. This ignores whether or not that tax money would have been spent anyways. This is very much an on topic point and not a straw man.

1. The government is less likely to spend money on products/services that come from other countries than your average consumer or business.
2. At least personally, if I had to send less in taxes, I would not be spending the rest of the extra money. The vast majority of it would be saved, not spent on items for consumption. I suspect this is true for most people as you go up the income bracket.


First of all this is highly subjective. Second of all what are you basing your conclusion on?

As an example, consumers do not spend money on their own to repair and replace infrastructure. It's the collective action problem. Government spending solves those issues, because government has the ability to take collective action to benefit everyone.

[Androidpk]

The F-35 was never a good idea.

3 words...

Bradly Fighting Vehicle.

or in GS words....

it's a nearly capped warrior that uses wands to fight in nelemar and picks his own boxes while using scrolls to heal.

The Bradley proved its worth in desert storm.

[Parkbandit]

1. The government is less likely to spend money on products/services that come from other countries than your average consumer or business.
2. At least personally, if I had to send less in taxes, I would not be spending the rest of the extra money. The vast majority of it would be saved, not spent on items for consumption. I suspect this is true for most people as you go up the income bracket.

Anecdotal evidence is.. anecdotal.

As a general rule, if one has more disposable income, their spending goes up.


As an example, consumers do not spend money on their own to repair and replace infrastructure. It's the collective action problem. Government spending solves those issues, because government has the ability to take collective action to benefit everyone.

Government has the ability to seize the citizens money and doing with it anything they want.

[Kembal]

Anecdotal evidence is.. anecdotal.

As a general rule, if one has more disposable income, their spending goes up.



Well, of course. Even in my example, I said that I'd end up spending some more. However, TGO's argument is that if taxes were lower, all of the newly untaxed money would be spent by consumers/businesses, thus it would be equivalent economic stimulus as to the government spending it. And now that I've had more time to think about this, pretty sure the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts (and the continuation of those cuts later on) proved the opposite to be true. The fiscal multiplier for those cuts were estimated to be less than 1, which means all of that money was not spent.

[Tgo01]

1. The government is less likely to spend money on products/services that come from other countries than your average consumer or business.

Funny.


2. At least personally, if I had to send less in taxes, I would not be spending the rest of the extra money. The vast majority of it would be saved, not spent on items for consumption. I suspect this is true for most people as you go up the income bracket.

No, I highly doubt you are what "most people" would do in this scenario. People would save more if they were taxed less, now I've heard it all.


However, TGO's argument is that if taxes were lower, all of the newly untaxed money would be spent by consumers/businesses

I very specifically said maybe that money would be spent by the citizen (I even put maybe in caps.) My whole point is you can't just say 1 dollar spent by the government means 1.3 dollars in economic activity therefore government spending is good. There are a lot of factors to look into and the largest one this argument misses is how much of that money would have been spent by citizens anyways.


And now that I've had more time to think about this, pretty sure the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts (and the continuation of those cuts later on) proved the opposite to be true. The fiscal multiplier for those cuts were estimated to be less than 1, which means all of that money was not spent.

Well yes I'm quite positive all of that money wasn't spent. If you have any links that shows how much of that money was and was not spent and if it breaks it down by income/wealth I would love to see it.

[Kembal]

Funny.

Check the Buy American Act of 1933 and the Buy America Act of 1983 as a start if you don't believe me.


No, I highly doubt you are what "most people" would do in this scenario. People would save more if they were taxed less, now I've heard it all.

I'll look up the research and come back on this.


I very specifically said maybe that money would be spent by the citizen (I even put maybe in caps.) My whole point is you can't just say 1 dollar spent by the government means 1.3 dollars in economic activity therefore government spending is good. There are a lot of factors to look into and the largest one this argument misses is how much of that money would have been spent by citizens anyways.

Government spending is a better stimulus than using a tax cut to boost consumer spending. That was and has remained my argument, and that's proven by research. The argument doesn't really miss your assertion. Fiscal multipliers are a great way to compare two potential stimuli to see which is more effective, and in an either-or scenario as you present, give a very clear answer as to which is the better course of action.


Well yes I'm quite positive all of that money wasn't spent. If you have any links that shows how much of that money was and was not spent and if it breaks it down by income/wealth I would love to see it.

I'll look it up, since it'll prove or disprove the other point above as well regarding the effect of tax cuts on higher income people.

[Tgo01]

Check the Buy American Act of 1933 and the Buy America Act of 1983 as a start if you don't believe me.

I thought we were talking about social programs like food stamps and welfare.

The Buy American Act only pertains to the federal government.

Also it only looks at the end product. Some products are assembled in the US but all of the components are imported from overseas.

Finally a US consumer is most likely going to deal with a US business, as in shopping at Target or Macy's or what have you. That circulates US dollars right here in the country.


Government spending is a better stimulus than using a tax cut to boost consumer spending. That was and has remained my argument, and that's proven by research. The argument doesn't really miss your assertion. Fiscal multipliers are a great way to compare two potential stimuli to see which is more effective, and in an either-or scenario as you present, give a very clear answer as to which is the better course of action.

Sounds great. I would love to see some research that shows we should increase taxes because apparently the government does a better job at stimulating the economy when it spends money than consumers do.

[Kembal]

I thought we were talking about social programs like food stamps and welfare.

Somehow I'm not surprised that's the examples you reach for when you think of government spending.


The Buy American Act only pertains to the federal government.

It's one example. The Buy America Act of 1983 relates to all federal aid to states and municipalities for transportation infrastructure projects, mandates 60% to 100% domestic content, depending on the type of project and equipment. Water and wastewater infrastructure projects (the industry I work in) that have federal aid now are required to only buy US-made iron and steel products for use in those projects, due to the American Iron and Steel provision inserted into the law governing appropriations to the EPA. And of course, an actual stimulus bill (such as the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act) can mandate everything is US made, like ARRA did.


Also it only looks at the end product. Some products are assembled in the US but all of the components are imported from overseas.

This is flat-out wrong. Don't know where you got that from, but all manufacturing processes (including components) have to be in the US for it to be considered US content. This is consistent across the US government's various programs.


Finally a US consumer is most likely going to deal with a US business, as in shopping at Target or Macy's or what have you. That circulates US dollars right here in the country.

If the product they purchased is made overseas and imported here, then some of those US dollars are going out of the country and thus do not add to GDP. The vast majority of products you find in most stores are made overseas.


Sounds great. I would love to see some research that shows we should increase taxes because apparently the government does a better job at stimulating the economy when it spends money than consumers do.

Strawman. No one talked about a tax increase.

[Tgo01]

Somehow I'm not surprised that's the examples you reach for when you think of government spending.

Cute. But since this all started with time4fun's initial claim that "most" of the money the government spends goes right to citizens, and the fact that about 70% of federal spending is either social programs, VA benefits, pensions, healthcare and the like, while another 7% goes straight towards interest payments...yeah it's a safe bet that MOST federal money spent isn't on actual tangible products where the Buy American Act comes into play.


The Buy America Act of 1983 relates to all federal aid to states and municipalities for transportation infrastructure projects

...that's still federal spending...


This is flat-out wrong. Don't know where you got that from, but all manufacturing processes (including components) have to be in the US for it to be considered US content. This is consistent across the US government's various programs.

My bad, I left out one caveat; as long as the total cost of the American made parts exceeds 50% of the total cost of the completed item. So as long as the item is made in the US and 51% of the cost of the components of the item came from the US then it's all good.


If the product they purchased is made overseas and imported here, then some of those US dollars are going out of the country and thus do not add to GDP. The vast majority of products you find in most stores are made overseas.

So you are literally making the argument that we, what, need the government to spend our money since we're too stupid to buy American or what? You aren't making that argument, right?

Also the US just doesn't make that much anymore. It's not like there are some companies out there making products just for the US government to buy. So if the US government needs a product and no US company makes it (or it's more than 50% more expensive than a foreign made product) then even the US government is going to buy the foreign made product. I'd really like to see just how much money the federal government spends on US made products compared to foreign made products. I bet the number isn't nearly as high as you think it is.


Strawman. No one talked about a tax increase.

Now you're just being pedantic. Show me this source you keep referencing showing that the US government does a better job of stimulating the economy than consumers do. You have been arguing for not lowering taxes because of this research, if it's true then why wouldn't we raise taxes?

No, honestly, if the US government somehow does a better job at spending our money to stimulate the economy then why wouldn't we increase taxes based on just that? How is that not part of your argument? Unless you're saying there is a point where the federal government actually starts to do a worse job than US consumers. If so please show me the research on that.

[Warriorbird]

Now you're just being pedantic.

I'm not sure you're allowed to use that one.

[Tgo01]

I'm not sure you're allowed to use that one.

Sure I am. I learned that word, I can use it whenever I want!!!

[Kembal]

Cute. But since this all started with time4fun's initial claim that "most" of the money the government spends goes right to citizens, and the fact that about 70% of federal spending is either social programs, VA benefits, pensions, healthcare and the like, while another 7% goes straight towards interest payments...yeah it's a safe bet that MOST federal money spent isn't on actual tangible products where the Buy American Act comes into play.

And yet all federal healthcare spending, by definition, is increasing US GDP. Can't use those VA benefits, Medicare, or Medicaid overseas. Food stamps mainly supports American agriculture. (the US Dept. of Agriculture runs the food stamp program for a reason) The only major pure cash transfer programs the US govt has are Social Security and unemployment/welfare benefits.


...that's still federal spending...

Don't think you get the distinction. Buy American Act regulates direct federal purchases. Buy America Act regulates the federal government giving money to states to fund transportation projects, and it has much higher standards than the Buy American Act on US content. Same goes for the water/wastewater infrastructure federal aid program - that requires 95% domestic content for iron and steel products, for the most part. Those federal aid programs are billions of dollars every year - water/wastewater is $4 billion alone. Highways, probably triple that. (haven't checked on highway spending in a while, so just guessing there.)


My bad, I left out one caveat; as long as the total cost of the American made parts exceeds 50% of the total cost of the completed item. So as long as the item is made in the US and 51% of the cost of the components of the item came from the US then it's all good.

That's accurate.


So you are literally making the argument that we, what, need the government to spend our money since we're too stupid to buy American or what? You aren't making that argument, right?

Look, as a consumer, if you hold two products as equal, you'll pick the cheaper one. It's economically rational. Generally, the imported stuff on most goods (not food) is cheaper. So you'll buy that. Heck, that was the case in my industry. Before the federal government changed the rules when utilizing federal aid, municipalities used to buy our imported products because they were half the price of the domestic products one of our competitors made. (they were the only domestic producer) Now, since they're required to buy domestic when using federal aid, all of them are now buying domestic because they're required to. They're the exact same in quality and function, the only difference is place of origin. I'm glad we saw this coming a few years ago, and built a domestic manufacturing division (making us the second domestic producer), or we'd be like another competitor is right now - putting ourselves up for sale.


Also the US just doesn't make that much anymore. It's not like there are some companies out there making products just for the US government to buy. So if the US government needs a product and no US company makes it (or it's more than 50% more expensive than a foreign made product) then even the US government is going to buy the foreign made product. I'd really like to see just how much money the federal government spends on US made products compared to foreign made products. I bet the number isn't nearly as high as you think it is.

You'll have to research this one for the aggregate. In terms of my industry, our domestic product sales have risen 40% in the past year, since the change in law took effect on federal aid and domestic content. Imported product sales, flat.


Now you're just being pedantic. Show me this source you keep referencing showing that the US government does a better job of stimulating the economy than consumers do. You have been arguing for not lowering taxes because of this research, if it's true then why wouldn't we raise taxes?

No, honestly, if the US government somehow does a better job at spending our money to stimulate the economy then why wouldn't we increase taxes based on just that? How is that not part of your argument? Unless you're saying there is a point where the federal government actually starts to do a worse job than US consumers. If so please show me the research on that.

Raising taxes is anti-stimulative. Doing that to increase government spending would cancel out the stimulative effect from the increased government spending. The fact that you even asked this question kind of says that you need to go study macroeconomics in an actual course.

[Jarvan]

NASA doesn't have a budget anymore. Obama cut it. They now operate on the fumes from the past 50 years.

Someone's anon rep (Loser)

Thread: Republican Platform
You mean the GOP forced those cuts through, right? Ahhh.

You mean the cuts that Obama signed? The ones he wanted?

Credit: NASA.
The Obama Administration has announced its new Federal budget and is proposing to cut NASA's Fiscal Year 2017 Budget to $19 billion by carving away significant funding for deep space exploration, whereas the overall US Federal budget actually increases to over $4.1 trillion.Feb 13, 2016

I take it this anon repper is a die hard Dem due to the way they instantly only blamed Republicans. Not to mention not having the balls to sign it.

Since both parties couldn't agree due to basic differences in philosophy on how to reduce the Deficit, it really is both parties problem. Of course that was only Sequestration. Obama asking for a further reduction in NASA Budget isn't really Republicans fault this time. Unless of course Obama is a Republican.

I am sure you feel that Republicans should have just caved and given up their beliefs for the betterment of our world and fell in line with Dem ideas.


Pssst... Ashliana. Just so you know... Dem's won't cave when the shoe is on the other foot. Of course, to you, I am sure it will still be Repubs fault.

[Parkbandit]

Pssst... Ashliana. Just so you know... Dem's won't cave when the shoe is on the other foot. Of course, to you, I am sure it will still be Repubs fault.

Tell him it's a Cute Pageant Jewel Rhine Stone Mary Jane High Heel Dress Shoes.. then you'll get his attention.

[Gelston]

Someone's anon rep (Loser)

Thread: Republican Platform
You mean the GOP forced those cuts through, right? Ahhh.

There is no point in signing rep, even if you used to beable to before... Seeing as it isn't actually anonymous and is simple as hell to see who sent it.