Wasteful Spending

[Methais]

This is the top 30:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tDDkAzPzlZw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1zOYjLK3-Q

31-100 are in related somewhere.

[4a6c1]

Bleh. I want to stick my head in a hole for the next 4 years until someone else comes along and wipes the slate clean of all this liberal nonsense. If by some miracle he doesn't completely scare away the misguided, intellectual, college-going demographic that voted for him-to-be-cool and/or crackheads on the street begin voting....I am moving back to Alaska and doing just that so I dont have to explain to my daughter in grown-up words why 'The President Hates Us'.

[Methais]

He'll hate you in Alaska too.

[Bobmuhthol]

There's one of those "This project is funded by the American Reinvestment bullshit" signs (#3) on I-95. I facepalmed when I drove by it the first time.

[Methais]

There's one of those "This project is funded by the American Reinvestment bullshit" signs (#3) on I-95. I facepalmed when I drove by it the first time.

You should print out a giant Picard facepalm and stick it on the sign next time you drive by it.

http://www.eightbits.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/picard-facepalm.jpg

[Warriorbird]

Gosh... wonder if y'all Kool Aid drinking types ever pondered the list under the previous administration.

At least most of the pointless Obama spending is staying inside the country.

:)

[Parkbandit]

Gosh... wonder if y'all Kool Aid drinking types ever pondered the list under the previous administration.

At least most of the pointless Obama spending is staying inside the country.

:)

Obama is making Bush look almost conservative... and like Obama has already stated "You ain't seen nothin' yet"...

[radamanthys]

Gosh... wonder if y'all Kool Aid drinking types ever pondered the list under the previous administration.

At least most of the pointless Obama spending is staying inside the country.

:)

Obama has already spent more than the entire cost of the Iraq war.

[Warriorbird]

If you use funny math you can try to make all sorts of things true. Perot taught us that. That particular cost calculation features only strictly military expenditures.

[radamanthys]

If you use funny math you can try to make all sorts of things true. Perot taught us that. That particular cost calculation features only strictly military expenditures.

Honestly, it doesn't matter. They both were financially irresponsible, no matter how you calculate it.

[Warriorbird]

I'm sorry. I got fussed at for stirring you guys up. It is certainly vintage Hannity and I know how some people love that.

[radamanthys]

I'm sorry. I got fussed at for stirring you guys up. It is certainly vintage Hannity and I know how some people love that.

It's all good. Getting us stirred up is your job. :-)

[Parkbandit]

I'm sorry. I got fussed at for stirring you guys up. It is certainly vintage Hannity and I know how some people love that.

Translation: I don't have a leg to stand on. I always complained about Bush and how much money he was spending, but now I am have no problem with government spending because there is a Democrat doing it. I realize this makes me a fucking hypocrite, so I'll try and make a graceful exit before someone calls me on it.

[Warriorbird]

Stop projecting, PB.

Wasteful Spending 05-30-2009 08:49 PM Don't stir them up!

:)

[Jayvn]

I'm suprised he hasn't passed a bill to put spinners on every project the government has put money into.. you know..to show that it was their work. SPINNERS BITCHES...

[4a6c1]

Hannity is freakin hot. I've always wanted to call his radio show and breath politics heavily into the phone.

[Parkbandit]

Stop projecting, PB.


Unlike you, my beliefs, views and values don't change with who is in the White House. I have a very well documented history here in regards to government spending and waste... one of the criticisms I had with Bush.

[Warriorbird]

And you fall victim to projecting what you often accuse me of not grasping about you.

I can agree with some of the points that a politician holds but not all of them. Everybody has a range of values.

The world isn't a duality... it is a spectrum. The current Republican Party just tends to go steadfastly against more of my key issues.

In a contest where everybody was pro-Iraq war, pro-drilling, anti-abortion, and anti-gay... I voted for the fiscal conservative.

[Parkbandit]

And you fall victim to projecting what you often accuse me of not grasping about you.

I can agree with some of the points that a politician holds but not all of them. Everybody has a range of values.

The world isn't a duality... it is a spectrum. The current Republican Party just tends to go steadfastly against more of my key issues.

In a contest where everybody was pro-Iraq war, pro-drilling, anti-abortion, and anti-gay... I voted for the fiscal conservative.

http://thecount.com/wp-content/uploads/wtf-cat.jpg

[Warriorbird]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Cassidy

[Methais]

Gosh... wonder if y'all Kool Aid drinking types ever pondered the list under the previous administration.

At least most of the pointless Obama spending is staying inside the country.

:)

Are you people capable of coming up with anything better than "Yeah well Bush spent a lot of money too!"?

[Warriorbird]

I tend to favor "I'd rather have the money wasted on Americans versus some people in the desert who don't really like us.... if we're going to waste it."

[radamanthys]

Are you people capable of coming up with anything better than "Yeah well Bush spent a lot of money too!"?

Devil's advocate:
The only argument to this is ROI. The stimulus has the (alleged) benefit of increasing inflow of money. Iraq was an outflow.

To rebut myself:
The ebb and flow of the economy is faster than the debt will catch us. The spending of the nation takes a while to show its damage, save for the immediate harm on April 15th, as well as every paycheck. The true harm come in the form of inflation, default or tax increases. It won't effect the economy until then. So it's more of a time bomb. For the short term, the stimulus will probably show a moderate success.

The economy's improvement, however, likely will have less to do with the stimulus than the current administration will take credit for. As I mentioned, there's a typical ebb and flow with these types of things. That said, I worry about the timetable: People won't re-trust the stock market with what's left of their retirement savings unless they have money superfluous to their required income- not that the stock market is the economy or anything.

ROI, in this case, is silly to calculate. There's no profit margin to consider, as the money is taken from elsewhere to cause other kinds of damage.

[Methais]

I tend to favor "I'd rather have the money wasted on Americans versus some people in the desert who don't really like us.... if we're going to waste it."

I'd rather not have money wasted at all.

However, you'll find that there are people who don't think the money spent on Iraq was a waste.

On the other hand, how many people do you know that think spending X million dollars for researching pig stink isn't wasteful, for example?

[Warriorbird]

I dunno. When you consider the vast amounts that go to Social Security (which we'll probably never recieve), bailing out banks, bailing out auto companies, the Iraq War, parts of the military that we might never use, and healthcare for people who aren't even citizens....

....all those other things, while they make ha ha funny stories seem pretty small.

[radamanthys]

I dunno. When you consider the vast amounts that go to Social Security (which we'll probably never recieve), bailing out banks, bailing out auto companies, the Iraq War, parts of the military that we might never use, and healthcare for people who aren't even citizens....

....all those other things, while they make ha ha funny stories seem pretty small.

Sad, but quite true.

[Methais]

I dunno. When you consider the vast amounts that go to Social Security (which we'll probably never recieve), bailing out banks, bailing out auto companies, the Iraq War, parts of the military that we might never use, and healthcare for people who aren't even citizens....

....all those other things, while they make ha ha funny stories seem pretty small.

Agreed, but that still doesn't make Obama's spending any less wasteful, especially after his big campaign promise of eliminating all earmarks.

[Stanley Burrell]

What Obama should really do is use the budget surplus to provide tax breaks mostly for rich people.

[Parkbandit]

What Obama should really do is use the budget surplus to provide tax breaks mostly for rich people.

:rofl:

This post reminds me how ignorant the typical American is.

[Stanley Burrell]

:rofl:

This post reminds me how ignorant the typical American is.

Dumbass.

[radamanthys]

:rofl:

This post reminds me how ignorant the typical American is.

It's a matter of ideal. I, for one, believe that since the 'poor' only pay 1% of the tax burden, that bottom 1% should be eliminated (not the people, their tax burden). Then we cut a portion of spending equal or greater than the loss in revenue. Zero sum, and all that.

In a perfect world, we'd be using a variation on the FairTax program. Eliminate Income tax (and repeal the associated amendment), pay VAT. The rich buy more, they pay more. We can then tax those that walk into the welfare office in $500 sneakers with a $400 cell phone. It ooesn't matter how you earn your money- you could be a human trafficker, child porn peddler, pot dealer or prostitute. You'd be taxed on the same basis as everyone else, and the arguments of tax the rich/tax equally would cease.

I have a thing against taxes. For the rich, for the poor, for everyone. The federal tax expectation is far too high for the services offered to every american.

[Androidpk]

It's a matter of ideal. I, for one, believe that since the 'poor' only pay 1% of the tax burden, that bottom 1% should be eliminated (not the people, their tax burden). Then we cut a portion of spending equal or greater than the loss in revenue. Zero sum, and all that.

In a perfect world, we'd be using a variation on the FairTax program. Eliminate Income tax (and repeal the associated amendment), pay VAT. The rich buy more, they pay more. We can then tax those that walk into the welfare office in $500 sneakers with a $400 cell phone. It ooesn't matter how you earn your money- you could be a human trafficker, child porn peddler, pot dealer or prostitute. You'd be taxed on the same basis as everyone else, and the arguments of tax the rich/tax equally would cease.

I have a thing against taxes. For the rich, for the poor, for everyone. The federal tax expectation is far too high for the services offered to every american.

Ron Paul is all for that, I think it's a great idea as well.

[Bobmuhthol]

Fair tax sucks.

[radamanthys]

Fair tax sucks.

I haven't read the actual fairtax proposal, but it seems to me that the idea is sound. The only problem would be repealing the amendment- it would certainly suck with a VAT and Income tax both.

Why does it suck?

[Bobmuhthol]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadweight_loss

It's effectively a massive sales tax, and the last thing we need is to tax consumption spending. The idea that creating an expenditure tax "taxes everyone fairly" is a very naive statement, especially when the prime targets are always cited to be "drug dealers, prostitutes, anyone else who earns hardly any income anyway but doesn't pay proper taxes!" There are black markets in every country, and they are a representation of the severity of rebellion against government (see: Italy, huge black market as a result of huge government taxation). I can only imagine that America's would get worse given such a tax system, because buying and selling things without paying taxes seems a hell of a lot easier than avoiding the IRS when you have enough money to make a difference.

[radamanthys]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadweight_loss

It's effectively a massive sales tax, and the last thing we need is to tax consumption spending. The idea that creating an expenditure tax "taxes everyone fairly" is a very naive statement, especially when the prime targets are always cited to be "drug dealers, prostitutes, anyone else who earns hardly any income anyway but doesn't pay proper taxes!" There are black markets in every country, and they are a representation of the severity of rebellion against government (see: Italy, huge black market as a result of huge government taxation). I can only imagine that America's would get worse given such a tax system, because buying and selling things without paying taxes seems a hell of a lot easier than avoiding the IRS when you have enough money to make a difference.

Those that are poor would have their tax rebated. The poor are the most apt to commit crimes. Those that can't afford a good would be the only ones to pay on the black market- which would be marked up anyway. The price differential would be negligible.

As well, there's trillions in overseas accounts that would be brought back to this country- brought back into the economy.

And not for nothing, but a good chunk of the rest of the world already uses a hefty VAT. It didn't create the effects you describe.

[Warriorbird]

Those that are poor would have their tax rebated. The poor are the most apt to commit crimes. Those that can't afford a good would be the only ones to pay on the black market- which would be marked up anyway. The price differential would be negligible.

As well, there's trillions in overseas accounts that would be brought back to this country- brought back into the economy.

And not for nothing, but a good chunk of the rest of the world already uses a hefty VAT. It didn't create the effects you describe.

Here's a thought... those 'trillions in overseas accounts' might not be there due to taxes.

Bob was citing a 'VAT' example.

[radamanthys]

Here's a thought... those 'trillions in overseas accounts' might not be there due to taxes.

Bob was citing a 'VAT' example.

Some of those trillions are, though. Which matters.

God, the fairtax argument is far too involved for proper argument in an internet forum.

It'd be WoT after WoT, with nobody getting anywhere.

[Bobmuhthol]

<<And not for nothing, but a good chunk of the rest of the world already uses a hefty VAT. It didn't create the effects you describe.>>

Yes it did. It is also heavily criticized for being too cumbersome to collect efficiently. I didn't say it would destroy the country, I said it would be worse for America than an income tax.

Michigan used it, and stopped, because they realized it sucked.

<<The poor are the most apt to commit crimes.>>

Hahaha, in terms of black markets, dollar-for-dollar that is so far from true. Reasoning: the huge prices on goods that rich people buy illegally far outweigh the higher quantity but lower costs of the goods that poor people buy illegally.

<<Those that can't afford a good would be the only ones to pay on the black market- which would be marked up anyway. The price differential would be negligible.>>

Where do you come up with this phenomenon? There would therefore be no incentive to commit fraud and thus no black market if there was no price differential, so I have to disagree with this.

[radamanthys]

<<And not for nothing, but a good chunk of the rest of the world already uses a hefty VAT. It didn't create the effects you describe.>>

Yes it did. It is also heavily criticized for being too cumbersome to collect efficiently. I didn't say it would destroy the country, I said it would be worse for America than an income tax.

Michigan used it, and stopped, because they realized it sucked.

<<The poor are the most apt to commit crimes.>>

Hahaha, in terms of black markets, dollar-for-dollar that is so far from true.

<<Those that can't afford a good would be the only ones to pay on the black market- which would be marked up anyway. The price differential would be negligible.>>

Where do you come up with this phenomenon? There would therefore be no incentive to commit fraud and thus no black market if there was no price differential, so I have to disagree with this.

A black market for patently illegal goods is different than a black market for overpriced goods. It's like comparing drug sales to music downloads.

The entire theory of black market in re fairtax is a theory. In practice, there'd be a 20 something tax on goods, but nobody is paying income any further, so their available money is higher. Those in low income brackets would be refunded. Why would a shopkeeper go through the hassle and risk of selling without taxing? Their profit margins are the same. The only black market would be in stolen goods- which already exists.

[Bobmuhthol]

I can't even respond to that.

[radamanthys]

I can't even respond to that.

*shrug* I'm not the best person to make the argument. I've read up on it, but not well enough to repeat others' analyses.

It makes sense to hundreds of thousands of people, if not millions.

Professional Economists agree with it. A sophomoric understanding of economics (see what I did there?) doesn't mean that you can dismiss me entirely.

Either pose a rebuttal or gtfo. Terse dismissals are the providence of cowards and idiots. Of which I believe you are neither.

[Bobmuhthol]

1) I see what you did there. More like a freshmanic understanding, lol.

2) I clearly did gtfo, but allow me to explain. We're being just vague enough that we were talking about different things (at least as far as what constitutes a black market), so my argument doesn't really apply as a response to yours and vice versa. Our main problem is that we have no real means of accurately calculating the effects of policy changes, so while I feel very strongly that the fair tax is absolutely ludicrous for the reasons I described, there may be something I am overlooking that could make the fair tax more beneficial than not (and the same idea applies for those supporting fair tax). A lot of policy decisions depend on scenarios like "which of these things will actually matter more?" and it is hard to tell most of the time.

I'm still pissed that I had to pay the VAT when I was in Canada, so maybe I'm just biased because I didn't benefit from the tax, but I don't think promoting consumption (which every sensible economist believes is necessary) is best done by taxing it.

[radamanthys]

1) I see what you did there. More like a freshmanic understanding, lol.

2) I clearly did gtfo, but allow me to explain. We're being just vague enough that we were talking about different things (at least as far as what constitutes a black market), so my argument doesn't really apply as a response to yours and vice versa. Our main problem is that we have no real means of accurately calculating the effects of policy changes, so while I feel very strongly that the fair tax is absolutely ludicrous for the reasons I described, there may be something I am overlooking that could make the fair tax more beneficial than not (and the same idea applies for those supporting fair tax). A lot of policy decisions depend on scenarios like "which of these things will actually matter more?" and it is hard to tell most of the time.

I'm still pissed that I had to pay the VAT when I was in Canada, so maybe I'm just biased because I didn't benefit from the tax, but I don't think promoting consumption (which every sensible economist believes is necessary) is best done by taxing it.

Yea, I was a piss-poor econ student when I took it.

Promotion of consumption is an economically sound thing, that's true. There's other factors in it somewhere- and I'm not really sure to what degree we could prevent consumption in this country.

I mentioned earlier how hard a topic this is to discuss on a forum. I don't want to write a WoT, and I doubt anyone wants to read it. Especially on something like tax.

There's already tons of literature on the debate- on the pros and cons of it. It's an interesting read. You're right, it comes down to many 'ifs', and it's a question of values. Income tax is a tax on money earned. VAT is on money spent. Which is a better thing to tax?

The biggest concern: It would destroy tax prep people. And the 11bn+ a year for the IRS. And $ from chasing down, prosecuting and holding tax evaders in federal holding.

I believe the end result is less money spent by the government, and that's a good thing to me. Others disagree- their political ideology is for a pervasive national government. In some politician's minds, Income tax is seen a tool towards their ends (tax the rich). A VAT wouldn't allow shifts in the overall tax burden depending on the politics of the ptb. *shrug*

I happen to see many benefits of it. The 20% VAT would be annoying, but way better when you're not withholding 35% of your pay to pay later in taxes.