Prioritizing government spending.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Here's one I think our divided political viewpoints can come together on.

Fiscal conservatism means, in the simplest terms, not spending money like a drunken sailor, and most certainly not on nonessential projects. Liberals and progressives and other assorted socially responsible types believe that the role of government is to give people an assist when they are in trouble. It's why we have a military... one for all and all for one, if someone invades our country, we rise up and kill that son of a gun. And we do it as one united front. It's also why we have disaster relief... when people are drowning in New Orleans, we send people to help. Rescue teams and trained folks who know how to react in those situations. It's part of our common humanity that we have a designated group of trained, experienced, paid people who go do this, or at least have a core of professionals who are the first on the scene, with volunteers and charities who help from the private sector. That takes money, and no one wants such programs to go underfunded.

One thing we seem to agree on is that when people are in serious trouble, that's what the government is for: it should do something for that. Where we tend to disagree is on most of everything else it does. If it is non-essential, how can we justify forcing people to give up their private property, their earned or saved monies, to contribute to a project they may not even need, and we don't even need? I don't care how progressive you are, there are some kinds of spending you'd scoff at, and rightly so. I'd wager there are very few people around who truly believe that we have a right to take everyone's money and spend it on any old thing.

So, long story as short as I can make it, what's the deal with these wasteful government projects, approved in equal measure by liberals and conservative politicians alike, Republicans, Democrats, and Independents?

I am told the following things:

Other states do it, so it's okay for mine to do so.
The people in my state pay into the federal pot, and getting as much of that money back for my state is kind of like reducing taxes... the money stays in my state.
These projects create jobs and stimulate the economy.

And so on and so forth.


Meanwhile, I am told that we have the following problems on our hands:

Our nation is experiencing a huge federal deficit.
Our nation is trillions of dollars in debt already.
Many of our state budgets are bleeding money, and essential services are being shut down or reduced in scope.
We have two wars we're fighting.
We have allies who need financial assistance in some way or other.
We have staggering unemployment, and unemployment compensation is running out of money.
We have millions and millions who can't afford health insurance premiums, and then health insurers can kick you out for little or no reason.
We have millions of homeowners who are behind on their mortgage, and that in turn is causing our banks to require federal assistance.
Social Security and medicare, vital systems that millions rely on, are going to go broke.

Now, this second list doesn't make politicians think twice about spending other people's money on:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100425/ap_on_re_us/us_freeways_for_fish
Endangered Trout.

I find that to be a little bit morally reprehensible.



What are our priorities?

In my estimation:
1. Making sure nobody sets off nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons on our shores (or anywhere else, frankly), and generally trying to stop invasions or terrorist acts.
2. Rescuing our citizens in cases of earthquake, fire, flood, or other disasters.
3. Catching rapists and murderers and bank robbers, putting them on trial, and then putting them in jail if found guilty.
4. Making sure old people and the disabled can afford to eat.
5. Making sure a Doctor gets paid when he treats someone who has no job.

To me, all of the above is some part of saving and protecting lives. Some people disagree on number five. Some people think that it's not the federal government's job to do number 4 either, and some people think that it's up to the local law enforcement to do number 3, and yadda yadda.

But what I see is if we cannot even do one through five, then WHY are we spending money on ANYTHING else? Is anything else more important? Is anything else more vital? Explain.

Why is a fish more important than a healthcare system? Why is a bridge to nowhere more important than funding social security? Why is a space program more important than underfunded law enforcement programs? Why is a bank bailout the solution, when you could just give a bailout to the home owners who have those bad loans, and repay the banks, and then the banks don't go under and people own their own houses?

Maybe I'm not understanding, and I'm hoping someone will educate me. But why are we subsidizing corn, when we don't have enough money to subsidize unemployed people or social security?

Some call for government works projects to create jobs. Some even say "pay people to dig ditches, and then fill those ditches" to combat unemployment. Well that's fine, but not everyone can dig a ditch or do manual labor of that kind. Not all of that money reaches the locales which have unemployment. If you're willing to pay people to dig a ditch you don't even need, then why can't you afford the unemployment compensation? Why can't you afford paying doctors to treat the sick? Why can't you bailout those who can't pay their mortgage?

If you spend the money there, where does it go?

1. Unemployment compensation goes DIRECTLY back into the economy. They spend it on food, rent, and bills. The capitalist economy gets close to 100% of that money right back, and you have people who aren't starving! You don't get that kind of return on subsidizing corn. Dollar for dollar, that does not give as many people a safety net, and it causes people to permanently rely on government spending on corn to even have a job. That's not a solution. Given the choice between unemployment checks which don't cover **** and a job that pays minimum wage, guess where I'm going? Anything is better than unemployment, so when there's a job, I'm gone. Working off of money which subsidizes corn means I'll be relying on that government money forever, until I find another job. So all it is, is really expensive unemployment compensation. It's the same thing, just less efficient, and the corn-growing industry which needs no help gets to benefit from government assistance.

2. Paying a doctor to treat the sick. Where does that go? Well if it goes into his pocket, he tends to spend it on consumer goods, or he invests that money in savings accounts or other investments. And he's providing a necessary service, and that money goes back into the economy. It's about saving lives and making sure doctors are paid for their well-trained services. How can you go wrong here?

3. Helping those who are "underwater" as it pertains to their mortgage would send 100% of that money right back to the very banks that were whining about not being paid. I seem to recall we spent a lot of money on those banks, and they paid their executives very well and gave out lots of bonuses, which is fine. And they started back up with the credit swaps and derivatives like the responsible stewards of our economy that they are, good for them. But many of those who still owe on their loans are still in trouble and nothing has been resolved. You could have helped those banks and the loanholders at the same time, by directly addressing the problem. Helping those loanholders would help pay off the banks, and reduce the amount of homelessness and foreclosure and help our housing market recover, and maybe even turn our economy around. So you get a direct benefit from every dollar you spend there. If you're going to "stimulate" the economy, doing that would do a lot more good than reducing taxes by a small fraction for people who are already paying low taxes and already spend their money comfortably. Instead you've got people on the street, houses that are empty, the housing market totally depressed, and banks still not getting their money back, but we bailed them out and now the money is all spent. What did we accomplish? I'm either naive or that's totally absurd.

Bottom line is that we can't afford to waste money, now more than ever, and as a general principle, when handling other people's money, you really have to justify every dollar spent. So when I see subsidies for nonessential items, when I see projects to protect fish and not protect people, when I see budgets and essential services being bled to death, with two wars going on, and taxes are being lowered... I get a little sick to my stomach. Every dollar spent on one thing is another dollar not spent on another, more essential thing. Every one of those million dollars for the trout recovery effort could have been used to cover the costs of several patient's medical bills who couldn't afford to pay, or extend unemployment coverage for a hundred people, or to keep many dozens of families in their homes.


What did you get for your million dollars?


For example, the United Conservation District in Ventura needs to replace a 20-year-old $1.5 million ladder at a cost of up to $25 million, according to general manager Michael Solomon.

Something that didn't work as advertised and needed to be replaced for 25 million dollars.

Government spends wisely once again.



Third party solution?



You want to have a third party, a tea party, some kind of taxpayers' union or outsider political party that challenges Republicans and Democrats? You would get far with a party based purely on the above philosophy, one that I BELIEVE liberals and conservatives would agree on, and that's adjusting spending priorities. I haven't even talked about touching the tax rates, or overhauling the tax code to look for loopholes, or anything all that controversial. If you had a platform based purely on prudent, efficient spending, and cutting waste and fraud and moving that money where it could be used wisely, to get a bigger bang for your trillions of federal bucks, and maybe a bigger bang for your (I don't even know how much) State budget bucks, then you might go far.

Why these third parties fail is because they go somewhere ideological that the Democrats or the Republicans have already cornered the market on. You want to have a controversial, ideological, partisan position on social morality or abortion or hold a non-mainstream position on secession or abolishing the IRS or things of that nature, and you'll never get anywhere. That's not pragmatic or realistic. You can vote how you want, but a party built on those ideas won't win elections, or you already have a Republican or Democratic politician who supports your view.

As for managing or mismanaging our money, which is about 90% of what the government does, you need to have a broad-appeal, mainstream, single-issue party which can usurp the entrenched pork lovers in the Democratic and Republican parties, and reclaim our money and spend it properly, completely re-adjust our spending priorities and fix issues in the system like campaign financing. Then, job done, that party needs to go away or split up into other issue-based parties which may disagree on hot button issues, and go nowhere on abortion or gay rights or what have you. Fine, go back to your squabbles that will probably never be resolved. But can you not come together on basic, common sense (expletive)? Just for that one issue, which I know most of you agree on?

Seriously.

Even if you disagree with half of what I've said, or don't share the same perspective as what my perspective is, you know as well as I do that there's immense amounts of government spending that is totally unwise and unethical, not prudent and wasteful. We might agree just enough to put someone in charge who could get something done about it, and then when it is done, then we can go back to disagreeing on other issues.

There's obviously a lot of disgust with both parties at the moment, and there's no time like the present to challenge incumbents with a third party candidate or even a Republican/Democrat who pledges to adhere to anti-waste and prudent spending principles. You don't really even need a whole new third party unless there isn't a viable candidate in either party who agrees with the platform. Change can happen and it wouldn't be outlandish to believe it could.

So, what about a party platform? Is it possible that we as citizens can cut out the middleman and agree amongst ourselves what is necessary and vital, and what is not? Is it really so controversial to say that spending 25 million dollars on trout recovery is less important than funding medicare or paying cops?

A platform we can agree on

Can we agree on stuff like that? I challenge you... if you care about this issue, please post your thoughts, and highlight what you think should be part of this party platform against wasteful spending. The caveat is, I don't want you to say "simply stop spending the money", or "raise taxes" because that talks about adjusting how much in total we spend or take in to fund services. That's a separate, and might I add, ideological issue we will be divided on. The premise here is, if we're going to spend X number of trillion dollars based on Y percentage of tax rate, and that's what we are given to start with, where does the money go? Deal with tax rates and how much we spend in total somewhere else, and assume for the sake of argument we have the same tax rate and same spending rate, since we're spending the money anyway and adjusting the tax rate is controversial.

Discuss, or tell me I talk too much. I don't care. I just needed to express this. If you can, focus on what we might be able agree on. If you completely disagree with me, then say so, but allow us who do agree to have our discussion.

[KukriKhan]

That's a whole bunch to chew on and give a respectful, detailed response to, so I'll kick off with the frivolous (but hopefully relevant):


Fiscal conservatism means, in the simplest terms, not spending money like a drunken sailor...


...Our nation is experiencing a huge federal deficit.
Our nation is trillions of dollars in debt already...

I've not ever been a drunken sailor, but I have been a drunken soldier. And when I was a drunken soldier, the thing is: when my pockets were finally empty, I STOPPED BUYING BOOZE. I returned to barracks, slept it off, and went about earning more money so I could be a drunken soldier again. Perhaps there's a lesson there.

[al Roumi]

I'm afraid I also don't have time right now to invest myself into the reading and reflection meritous of APG's behemoth of economic policy considerations, so i will limit myself to a smarmy little interjection on our esteemed mod's post...


I've not ever been a drunken sailor, but I have been a drunken soldier. And when I was a drunken soldier, the thing is: when my pockets were finally empty, I STOPPED BUYING BOOZE. I returned to barracks, slept it off, and went about earning more money so I could be a drunken soldier again. Perhaps there's a lesson there.

Sounds simple when you put it like that, but the analogy may not fit so well with this issue. To compare a state's annual budget to a soldier's beer money and consider a state's budget a "free resource" is political view in itself.

A soldier does not have as much control or responsability for himself as a state (such as the US) has for itself -his immediate requirements for survival are satisfied without him having to consider them. The money a soldier is handed out on pay day (please feel free to correct me if i'm wrong) is potentially all his to spend as he sees fit (all neccessary costs are paid before he touches it): beer money -he can save it, drink it, gamble it or :daisy: it...

A state however has to make hard decisions about what its immediate requirements for survival (or minimum financial requirements) actually are, as well as how it can meet them or not. These "minimums" are of course entirely political, that is not all will agree to them being a "minimum" -e.g. healthcare or national security.

[drone]

I've not ever been a drunken sailor, but I have been a drunken soldier. And when I was a drunken soldier, the thing is: when my pockets were finally empty, I STOPPED BUYING BOOZE. I returned to barracks, slept it off, and went about earning more money so I could be a drunken soldier again. Perhaps there's a lesson there.
What would you have done if you had a credit card? That scenario is closer to the reality we have today.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

What would you have done if you had a credit card? That scenario is closer to the reality we have today.

Spent to his limit, scraped along paying minimums for a couple of years, then declare bankruptcy and make other people eat the loss.

...or not. Kukri is honorable, you see, and that messes up rational calculations about gaming the system.

[PanzerJaeger]

:furious3:....entitlement spending....:furious3:

[Riedquat]

I've not ever been a drunken sailor, but I have been a drunken soldier. And when I was a drunken soldier, the thing is: when my pockets were finally empty, I STOPPED BUYING BOOZE. I returned to barracks, slept it off, and went about earning more money so I could be a drunken soldier again. Perhaps there's a lesson there.


What would you have done if you had a credit card? That scenario is closer to the reality we have today.

Really its more close than you think in some countries...


Spent to his limit, scraped along paying minimums for a couple of years, then declare bankruptcy and make other people eat the loss.

Exactly... not comparable in any shape or form with USA situation but relevant somehow, Argentina's debt (http://www.fmmeducacion.com.ar/Historia/Notas/evodeudaargentina.htm) look at the period between 1973 and 1982/3 and see what happened when the drunken soldiers were in charge...

:skull:

[Beskar]

Conquences of being a drunken sailor are far worse than a drunken soldier. With a drunken soldier, the only thing you lose is your money.

[Riedquat]

Depends of the country I guess, with our drunken soldiers currently we dont own our own rear ends... so... it can't be worst ;)

[Louis VI the Fat]

America's public debt is enormous, its size gives it geopolitical consequences.

However, as a percentage of GDP it is not as large as one would expect. It is as low as that of 'fiscal discipline 'r us' Germany, and not half that of 'save, save, save' Japan.

[Strike For The South]

America's public debt is enormous, its size gives it geopolitical consequences.

However, as a percentage of GDP it is not as large as one would expect. It is as low as that of 'fiscal discipline 'r us' Germany, and not half that of 'save, save, save' Japan.

It's America, the sky is always falling and everyone is a communist just waiting to spring there trap

[Lemur]

It's America, the sky is always falling and everyone is a communist just waiting to spring there trap
You know who you sound like? HILTER!

[Strike For The South]

You know who you sound like? HILTER!

You know who would say that? STALIN!

[Lemur]

You know who loves to call people Stalin? MAO!

[Strike For The South]

You know who loves to call people Stalin? MAO!

You know who brings up MAO? East Coast Ivory tower elitists!

[Lemur]

You know who brings up MAO? East Coast Ivory tower elitists!
You know who plays the East Coast Ivory Elitist card? Redneck racist teabaggers!

[drone]

This thread eerily echoes the standard debate in DC on this subject.

[Beskar]

I still can't get over how they call themselves "teabaggers" due to the other uses of the word.

It does explain their attitude though.

[Crazed Rabbit]

But what I see is if we cannot even do one through five, then WHY are we spending money on ANYTHING else? Is anything else more important? Is anything else more vital? Explain.

Why is a fish more important than a healthcare system? Why is a bridge to nowhere more important than funding social security? Why is a space program more important than underfunded law enforcement programs? Why is a bank bailout the solution, when you could just give a bailout to the home owners who have those bad loans, and repay the banks, and then the banks don't go under and people own their own houses?

The short answer; special interests. Believe it or not, there are groups that lobby for federal spending on a whole load of useless crap, like animals and plants and community programs and pet projects like ethanol that aren't on your list of necessities. For each one of them, the benefit from the special spending on their particular issue is much greater than the small negative impact from the increased deficit.

And there's only a few out of hundreds of congressmen who care enough to not tack on handouts to groups on every bill (ie John McCain).



Maybe I'm not understanding, and I'm hoping someone will educate me. But why are we subsidizing corn, when we don't have enough money to subsidize unemployed people or social security?

Some call for government works projects to create jobs. Some even say "pay people to dig ditches, and then fill those ditches" to combat unemployment. Well that's fine, but not everyone can dig a ditch or do manual labor of that kind.

Actually that's not fine. It's a colossal waste of money. GDP, or gross domestic product, is a measure of the value of goods created in the nation. Digging and then filling ditches has a value of zero dollars. So you're taking money (via taxes) from people earning it for useful work and giving it to other people to accomplish nothing. The people you're taxing would otherwise spend that money buying goods and thus increase GDP. So you're hurting GDP and people with jobs to accomplish, literally, nothing.

Government cannot efficiently create jobs. Each job it 'creates', through subsidies or whatever, costs much more to the economy than just the worker's wage. It creates significant inefficiencies.

For example, when the government enacts protective tariffs to protect domestic jobs, the net cost to the economy ends up being many times the cost of those worker's salaries.


1. Unemployment compensation goes DIRECTLY back into the economy. They spend it on food, rent, and bills. The capitalist economy gets close to 100% of that money right back, and you have people who aren't starving!

You also have people paid to do nothing. While you might constantly try to get a job, most people wait until the benefits are about to run out before really looking for jobs. Incentive wise, you're increasing the reasons not to hold a job and decreasing the reasons to hold a job.


2. Paying a doctor to treat the sick. Where does that go? Well if it goes into his pocket, he tends to spend it on consumer goods, or he invests that money in savings accounts or other investments. And he's providing a necessary service, and that money goes back into the economy. It's about saving lives and making sure doctors are paid for their well-trained services. How can you go wrong here?

If people don't pay for doctor visits they'll go more often, since they don't see any downside to constant doctor visits even if they aren't really sick. Again, you're punishing people who pay for insurance and rewarding those who don't pay.


3. Helping those who are "underwater" as it pertains to their mortgage would send 100% of that money right back to the very banks that were whining about not being paid.

Again, you help people who don't deserve it. Why should someone who foolishly bought something they can't afford have the government pay for it? It creates a moral hazard. That is, it says to foolish people; "Go ahead and buy things you can't afford, because the government will bail you out if it gets tough!". And so you have people making foolish purchases without worrying about the consequences.

***********

As for how to solve it - I don't have faith politicians can fix it, be they from any political party.

The main reason for that is that only half of the people pay any federal income tax. So half get all the services of the government without having to pay for any of it. Those people will always support more government spending.

Therefore, I think the simplest way to cut down on spending will be to take away the vote from people who do not pay more in taxes than they receive in handouts. A corollary would be to prohibit any business that gets more in subsidies than it pays in taxes from donating to any political causes or candidates. We'll still have people who whine for more spending, but they won't be pandered to because they can't vote.

Also, get rid of the amendment that made Senators elected instead of appointed by states.

CR

[Beskar]

Therefore, I think the simplest way to cut down on spending will be to take away the vote from people who do not pay more in taxes than they receive in handouts. A corollary would be to prohibit any business that gets more in subsidies than it pays in taxes from donating to any political causes or candidates. We'll still have people who whine for more spending, but they won't be pandered to because they can't vote.

Also, get rid of the amendment that made Senators elected instead of appointed by states.

I like how Crazed Rabbit wants to unravel democratic freedoms, you can tell where his loyalties lie.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

This thread eerily echoes the standard debate in DC on this subject.

Nope, I have to give the edge to the BR for verbal wit/style.

[Crazed Rabbit]

I like how Crazed Rabbit wants to unravel democratic freedoms, you can tell where his loyalties lie.

Where, exactly?

And I'm not unraveling anything with the Senators; that would merely return things to the original writing of the constitution.

Not allowing some people to vote already happens; we don't let children vote. Why should we let people who don't contribute vote?

Our current system gives a perverse incentive for politicians to highly tax the very successful so they can pay out money to the unsuccessful, but more numerous, people.

CR

[Beskar]

Our current system gives a perverse incentive for politicians to highly tax the very successful so they can pay out money to the unsuccessful, but more numerous, people.

I guess this is the point where you say you have no humanity or soul. It is in the best interest of the state to look after the poor, not for them to be exploited by the rich and powerful which you are proposing. Since being honest, the "very successful" can lose the money in the first place, I doubt owning another limited edition ferrari is going to severely impact their standard of living. The reason they are so rich in the first place is because of a broken wealth distribution system. Even then, the vast majority of the "very successful" are simply 'luckly' due to the riches of their own parents, very rare from anyone from a working background to get into the category.

Who says the original consitution was right in the first-place? It is like a fundamentalist taking the bible literially from over a thousand years ago. There are reasons for changes and there is always very valid reasons for progress.

The conquences of your actions would basically bring about a dystopia with a system far more sinister and corrupt in its place where the poor are merely cattle for the rich to exploit, and what is to stop the rich from exploiting now? You successfully disarmed everyone via removing their right to vote.

Your argument about "not let children vote" is as a reason is laughable, because you completely ignored the reasons why they have to reach a certain age to vote in the first place. Would you advocate banning gun ownership and driving cars because children cannot do them either? According to your logic, this fact means we should ban them tomorrow.

Edit: Before you ask, yes, if I was the "very successful" I wouldn't care about the loss of that money, infact, I would probably support it and promote it more.

[Crazed Rabbit]

:rolleyes:

Good grief.

Could you actually state where I propose that people be exploited, or is that just more nonsensical psuedo extrapolation? I.e. a strawman of terrifying proportions. Since I don't want to derail the thread and grow weary of debunking socialist claptrap, I shall merely direct you to read Greg Mankiw's blog.

And we do let children (18 and under) own guns and drive in some circumstances. In fact, we ban certain adults from owning guns (criminals) and driving (reckless and/or DUI morons), which fits in nicely with banning those who subsist on government handouts from voting.

In many western nations, government spending is unsustainable. It continues because politicians, voted in by those who pay nothing, keep voting for more programs and no cuts. It seems to make perfect sense that those who can't live on their own earnings should not be able to dictate (indirectly) how other people's money is spent.

CR

[Beskar]

Could you actually state where I propose that people be exploited, or is that just more nonsensical psuedo extrapolation? I.e. a strawman of terrifying proportions. Since I don't want to derail the thread and grow weary of debunking socialist claptrap, I shall merely direct you to read Greg Mankiw's blog.

It is the consequences of your proposels. Doesn't take much to realise that, or is it are you just blinded by your own elitist claptrap? But I must be wrong, there is no harm in stripping the right for people to vote, so the power becomes more centralised untill an oligarchy of your "very successful" who is obviously not use this to their advantage to exploit people and come even more "successful". People say the corperations and 'Wall Street' have too much power already, but with your proposals, they will be the only powers.

We can undo hundreds of years of suffrage, simply because [Some Elitist] is paranoid that some hobo is getting a free meal from the soup-kitchen and wants to stop it and prefer them to lay-facedown in the gutter suffering, as he drives past in his 2010BMW mocking them and taking snaps with his iphone, uploading a picture on the forum with the caption "Go and get a job you bums!", unaware that he removed the ability for them to try to pick themselves up last week with his vote.

But I trust that you won't go that far, and realise the lunacy before then.

[Crazed Rabbit]

It is the consequences of your proposels.

So human nature will change and those who earn enough to be taxed will suddenly start hating the poor?

You do know that woman's suffrage came about even while only men could vote? And that before that, universal suffrage for white men came about even when only property owning men could vote?

My point is that people won't suddenly stop caring about others. Nor will Wall Street and big corporations suddenly become all powerful. If politicians cut down on handouts and entitlement spending, that just means more people will be able to vote.

You know, it's the Democratic party that favors big corporations at the cost of small businesses with all the regulations they write. Large corporations with teams of lawyers find it easier to comply with all those regulations.

Heck, your whole 'argument' is nothing but strawmen and wild accusations with evidence or facts to back it up.

CR

PS I'm amused you think I own a car. Or a cellphone that can take pictures. Or that the government controls whether people are successful or not.

[Beskar]

So human nature will change and those who earn enough to be taxed will suddenly start hating the poor?

No no no! My poor CR, the "very successful" will not suddenly hate the poor, they already do. You are just removing power from the poor, which acts as a counterbalance to their self-interest. The elitists have looked down upon the poor and classes underneath them long before Jesus and the Eypgtians. After-all, why do 'we' at the top have to bother with the vermin below? Human nature won't be changing at all. Which is one of the reasons why in itself, socialism can be seen as viable. The greed of the many overrides greed of the individual.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Ah, that explains why the rich, 'successful' people gave the poor people the vote in the first place.

And ignores the fact that the majority of the citizens would still be able to vote. So what you're saying is based on something that says socialism is viable, ignores historic facts, and assumes that people making 50k a year or more are all part of some giant evil conspiracy to oppress the poor, whom they hate.

CR

[Beskar]

Ah, that explains why the rich, 'successful' people gave the poor people the vote in the first place.

And ignores the fact that the majority of the citizens would still be able to vote. So what you're saying is based on something that says socialism is viable, ignores historic facts, and assumes that people making 50k a year or more are all part of some giant evil conspiracy to oppress the poor, whom they hate.

CR

Where did the 50k come from? We were talking about the "very successful", so we would be look at least 100k.

Also what is interesting, History backs my claims, so it isn't ignoring any facts. As for "gave the poor people the vote in the first place." I am sure you heard of the threat of revolution right? After the French revolution, the "very successful" astrocrats completely wet themselves, and with growing ideology of socialism and communist, which aimed to provide equality to the oppressed masses, they had to do something to stem the tide.

Then there were obviously those who were with that grouping which obvious saw the oppression and worked to counter-it themselves, freely giving power and wealth to make this happen. But it would be interesting if you start using them as your "heroes" because you wanting the enact the opposite they were doing.

[Crazed Rabbit]

It's the people who make over 250k a year who are targeted for high taxes in the USA and called "The Rich" by democrats.

Under my plan though, everyone who pays more in taxes than they get from the government gets to vote. Which means the cutoff would be around 50k a year or thereabouts.

As for your 'history'; the French Revolution occurred in the late 1700s, while socialism and communism became relatively popular around after the 1850s, IIRC.

And that doesn't have anything to do with what happened in America and how suffrage was expanded to all white males. You continue to ignore American history, which is what I'm talking about here. And seeing as how we're talking about America politics in this thread, that's the relevant history.

CR

[Centurion1]

I still can't get over how they call themselves "teabaggers" due to the other uses of the word.

It does explain their attitude though.

they dont i find the term insulting and derogatory

[Furunculus]

In many western nations, government spending is unsustainable.
CR
this is a very good point, the Bank of International Settlements recently produced a report that Britain was currently heading towards a national debt of 400% of GDP by 2040, and that even if all the efficiences and spending cuts currently proposed by the three parties worked perfectly as advertised we would still have a national debt of 350% of GDP.

i.e. by 2040 half of annual Gov't spending would be used to service debt interest.

if you are a cold and callous right-wing nazi like me this is quite simply immoral.
but even if you are a happy clapping big social-responsibility kind of guy this ought to worry you, because how are we going to afford all those disability benefits and gender-awareness officers if we are giving half of government spending straight back to financiers?!?!?

we need drastic reform.

[al Roumi]

this is a very good point, the Bank of International Settlements recently produced a report that Britain was currently heading towards a national debt of 400% of GDP by 2040, and that even if all the efficiences and spending cuts currently proposed by the three parties worked perfectly as advertised we would still have a national debt of 350% of GDP.

i.e. by 2040 half of annual Gov't spending would be used to service debt interest.

if you are a cold and callous right-wing nazi like me this is quite simply immoral.
but even if you are a happy clapping big social-responsibility kind of guy this ought to worry you, because how are we going to afford all those disability benefits and gender-awareness officers if we are giving half of government spending straight back to financiers?!?!?

we need drastic reform.

I think the key point here is that whichever UK party wins the election will have to get to grips with the deficit. Untill the debates begin to discuss it more directly, no one is going to bring it up or declare how much they are really prepared to cleave off.

I would suggest that concern over a deficit of this level transcends big/small govenment views, the manner and targetting of the cull will differ between parties however.

[Scienter]

APTG's post was TLDR right before I have to leave for work but I need to go back and read it. Financially, I'm pretty conservative, and I wish I could vote with my wallet. But, I'm so far left when it comes to social issues that I just can't bring myself to vote for the Republican candidates that run for office in my state. It's a choice I didn't wish I had to make, but both parties think that running to the extreme end of their ideologies is a better idea than coming towards the center. :shrug: One thing I definitely think we should stop hemorrhaging money into is the war on drugs.

[Ironside]

The short answer; special interests. Believe it or not, there are groups that lobby for federal spending on a whole load of useless crap, like animals and plants and community programs and pet projects like ethanol that aren't on your list of necessities. For each one of them, the benefit from the special spending on their particular issue is much greater than the small negative impact from the increased deficit.

And there's only a few out of hundreds of congressmen who care enough to not tack on handouts to groups on every bill (ie John McCain).

I'm shockingly going to agree on this issue. The abillity to tag pork to major bills is a considerble problem.


Actually that's not fine. It's a colossal waste of money. GDP, or gross domestic product, is a measure of the value of goods created in the nation. Digging and then filling ditches has a value of zero dollars. So you're taking money (via taxes) from people earning it for useful work and giving it to other people to accomplish nothing. The people you're taxing would otherwise spend that money buying goods and thus increase GDP. So you're hurting GDP and people with jobs to accomplish, literally, nothing.

It would reduce crime, Hah! Basic concept is correct, but that kind getty increadibly complicated and messy quite quickly. I'm not sure if the ones working with it can follow that one. For example, the US money lost in Iraq due to American corruption is often respent in the US, making it causing US growth, while a viable Iraq is probably better for future American investments etc, etc.


Government cannot efficiently create jobs. Each job it 'creates', through subsidies or whatever, costs much more to the economy than just the worker's wage. It creates significant inefficiencies.

For example, when the government enacts protective tariffs to protect domestic jobs, the net cost to the economy ends up being many times the cost of those worker's salaries.

So every single goverment invested job is not contributing to the economy? Police, Fire department, Teachers, Road maintenance for starters? I know there's several economical ineffient subsided jobs, but all of them? Hardly.

I suspect more of those tariffs, when the efficient jobs start to drop below the number of people needed to be employed. It is this fear it plays on.


You also have people paid to do nothing. While you might constantly try to get a job, most people wait until the benefits are about to run out before really looking for jobs. Incentive wise, you're increasing the reasons not to hold a job and decreasing the reasons to hold a job.

Incentive wise, you would also encurage people to maintain a very large cash reserve in case they get unemployed. Which economic system maintains that having large money reserves are bad for the economy, since it is not spent and consumption is the driving force?


If people don't pay for doctor visits they'll go more often, since they don't see any downside to constant doctor visits even if they aren't really sick. Again, you're punishing people who pay for insurance and rewarding those who don't pay.

That's why you pay a minor sum for a visit. And keeping the population healthly also keeps them productive.


Again, you help people who don't deserve it. Why should someone who foolishly bought something they can't afford have the government pay for it? It creates a moral hazard. That is, it says to foolish people; "Go ahead and buy things you can't afford, because the government will bail you out if it gets tough!". And so you have people making foolish purchases without worrying about the consequences.

***********

That was the real miss of the bailout. If you use it to save the (banking) system, then you also want to make sure that the original risktakers is punished.


As for how to solve it - I don't have faith politicians can fix it, be they from any political party.

The main reason for that is that only half of the people pay any federal income tax. So half get all the services of the government without having to pay for any of it. Those people will always support more government spending.

Since you implied having relative poverty yourself, do you pay federal income taxes? You have to, otherwise you're one of "those people". And linking it to your new voting suggestions, you claim that those people are few, yet they are enough to dominate the politics... The simple reason is that people won't support balancing the budget until they do, and for many people this is done only by necceccity, after the fact. That has very little to do with economical class by the way.


Therefore, I think the simplest way to cut down on spending will be to take away the vote from people who do not pay more in taxes than they receive in handouts. A corollary would be to prohibit any business that gets more in subsidies than it pays in taxes from donating to any political causes or candidates. We'll still have people who whine for more spending, but they won't be pandered to because they can't vote.

So every time a ruler has broken a country in the past, it was because of the poor?
And how is this maintained? Loosing your job meaning loss of voting rights? Farmers, who are partially subsided to be a strategical food reserve, is going to be rewarded by loss of voting? Working for the goverment is a loss of voting?


Also, get rid of the amendment that made Senators elected instead of appointed by states.

CR

Interesting suggestion by someone who don't trust the goverment. The plebs cannot be trusted to vote what's really good for them? :juggle2:

[drone]

Interesting suggestion by someone who don't trust the goverment. The plebs cannot be trusted to vote what's really good for them?
Originally, the State governments were responsible for selecting their Senators. This reflected to representation responsibilities that the Founding Fathers had for the two houses of Congress. The House of Representatives was to represent the people, this is why the Reps are distributed and voted on based on population (their districts). The Senate was to represent the States and the interests of the States, this is why there are 2 per State, regardless of population. The 17th Amendment changes the selection of Senators to be by popular vote in the State. State government power has thus weakened, with the Federal government assuming the power. The Senate was not for the plebs, although they could influence the Senate indirectly through their State government elections. The 17th is actually unjust to the voting public, since a voter in Wyoming has a great deal more influence in the Senate than a voter in California.

CR's tax-based voting rights idea isn't really feasible, since the benefits received aren't always measurable. The distribution of handouts/taxes are also a muddle. Where do "benefits" come from? Local, State, or Federal? A poor person might not pay any federal tax, but probably contributes to local/state taxes via sales tax, personal property tax, etc. Will the unwashed masses be cut out of federal voting, but still allowed to vote for the mayor? Too complicated to be fair.

[Furunculus]

I would suggest that concern over a deficit of this level transcends big/small govenment views, the manner and targetting of the cull will differ between parties however.

i disagree, this IS a big/small government question:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/neilobrien1/100036838/will-the-truth-about-cuts-come-out-at-last/

[al Roumi]

i disagree, this IS a big/small government question:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/neilobrien1/100036838/will-the-truth-about-cuts-come-out-at-last/

It certainly is when it comes down to (as i tried to express in the 2nd half of the sentence) deciding how to manage the deficit. The scale of the deficit however is such that a high spending government cannot afford to continue its "big government" aspirations, even if it wants to (without completely buggering the country -more than you might say they had already).

The balance of cuts and tax as a means to make up the deficit is indeed an ideological (big/small govt) battle ground.

[a completely inoffensive name]

You do know that woman's suffrage came about even while only men could vote?

They mobilized as a special interest group to get the bill through Congress (like most special interest groups do) and many individual states had long granted women the right to vote on the state level allowing them to get through the state legislature portion more easily. They were not as dependent on men as you seem to put it.

Just saying.

[Crazed Rabbit]

So every single goverment invested job is not contributing to the economy? Police, Fire department, Teachers, Road maintenance for starters? I know there's several economical ineffient subsided jobs, but all of them? Hardly.

I suspect more of those tariffs, when the efficient jobs start to drop below the number of people needed to be employed. It is this fear it plays on.

I was speaking about when politicians pass some spending bill and say it will 'create jobs' in the economy, not government service jobs.


Incentive wise, you would also encurage people to maintain a very large cash reserve in case they get unemployed. Which economic system maintains that having large money reserves are bad for the economy, since it is not spent and consumption is the driving force?

Indeed, it would encourage savings. And it is the failed Keynesian theory that says savings are bad. But we can see from the housing crash that more savings and less wild spending would have been very good. Savings are the foundation of a sound economy.


That was the real miss of the bailout. If you use it to save the (banking) system, then you also want to make sure that the original risktakers is punished.

I suppose we agree again.


Since you implied having relative poverty yourself, do you pay federal income taxes? You have to, otherwise you're one of "those people". And linking it to your new voting suggestions, you claim that those people are few, yet they are enough to dominate the politics... The simple reason is that people won't support balancing the budget until they do, and for many people this is done only by necceccity, after the fact. That has very little to do with economical class by the way.

No. I paid federal taxes (not income taxes though). Even if I hadn't, I wouldn't be one of 'those people' because I didn't get any unemployment benefits or the like from the government. And a group can be relatively small and still swing support to give one party the lead over the other.


And how is this maintained? Loosing your job meaning loss of voting rights? Farmers, who are partially subsided to be a strategical food reserve, is going to be rewarded by loss of voting? Working for the goverment is a loss of voting?

No, loosing your job doesn't mean loosing the vote unless you have no savings and run to the government for money. And subsidizing farmers is bad for the economy, while keeping third world farmers (who could produce food cheaper if not for first world subsidies) in grinding poverty (not to mention we'll never lose all farmers in the US).


Interesting suggestion by someone who don't trust the goverment. The plebs cannot be trusted to vote what's really good for them? :juggle2:

No, Senators can not be trusted to look after the interests of their state instead of the federal government.

CR

[Ironside]

I was speaking about when politicians pass some spending bill and say it will 'create jobs' in the economy, not government service jobs.

Like infrastructure jobs? I get your dislike for "labour market policy measures" when it's about digging a ditch style, but I'm curious how far you're going with this.


Indeed, it would encourage savings. And it is the failed Keynesian theory that says savings are bad. But we can see from the housing crash that more savings and less wild spending would have been very good. Savings are the foundation of a sound economy.

And the million dollar question is: "Is the current system sound?" Personally I say no, but the problem is how to switch and what to switch to.

And doesn't Keynes talk about states more than induviduals? I mgiht be wrong since I haven't studied economics. For the brilliance of the current system, if you saved on the bank or in stocks, you were indirectly involved thanks to what the banks and the economical institutes were doing on the financial market.


No. I paid federal taxes (not income taxes though). Even if I hadn't, I wouldn't be one of 'those people' because I didn't get any unemployment benefits or the like from the government. And a group can be relatively small and still swing support to give one party the lead over the other.

But this isn't swing voters. Using the prejudice system they would be democrats or not voting at all. So why are the Republicans pandering for them as well?

Oh and simply to point out differences between our countries, the left wing parties are clearing leading in the polls for the election later this year and they are publically stating an increase in taxes. Not sure if it will last, but I'm fairly sure that it would be complete political suecide in the US.


No, loosing your job doesn't mean loosing the vote unless you have no savings and run to the government for money. And subsidizing farmers is bad for the economy, while keeping third world farmers (who could produce food cheaper if not for first world subsidies) in grinding poverty (not to mention we'll never lose all farmers in the US).

Free market wise, it's really bad. But if you have a strategical purpose as well? How is it going to be valued?


No, Senators can not be trusted to look after the interests of their state instead of the federal government.

CR

Because the voters think federally instead of state wise when electing their senator? :inquisitive: Enlightened self interest indeed.

[Askthepizzaguy]

The short answer; special interests. Believe it or not, there are groups that lobby for federal spending on a whole load of useless crap, like animals and plants and community programs and pet projects like ethanol that aren't on your list of necessities. For each one of them, the benefit from the special spending on their particular issue is much greater than the small negative impact from the increased deficit.

I agree. And apparently there are very few people out there willing to say no to unnecessary spending in both parties.


Actually that's not fine.

I agree, in the context of what I was saying, it's useless to do that when you could be doing other more productive things with it.


You also have people paid to do nothing. While you might constantly try to get a job, most people wait until the benefits are about to run out before really looking for jobs. Incentive wise, you're increasing the reasons not to hold a job and decreasing the reasons to hold a job.

I don't know, when I look at my some 600 dollars I get to spend a month, which doesn't cover rent, food, car payments and insurance... I haven't put gas in the car except when I am looking for jobs, and I can't insure it.

I have every incentive to find a job. Even with benefits I cannot pay my bills.

Being unemployed is no sweet ticket to freedom unless you've also spit out a dozen kids and are actually making an industry out of your reproductive organs which the government ends up subsidizing. And then there is no incentive to be employed because you'd never be able to afford a babysitter. There are gaping wastes in the system, but a 1-year college man who had worked for 10 years straight since I was 15, utterly ruined due to a job loss, and 12% unemployment in my area, I'm afraid I will never see things your way.

There's no incentive to remain on unemployment for me, and most productive members of our society.


If people don't pay for doctor visits they'll go more often, since they don't see any downside to constant doctor visits even if they aren't really sick. Again, you're punishing people who pay for insurance and rewarding those who don't pay.

I haven't seen a dentist since I was 10.

I haven't had a proper doctor's visit since I was a child.

I cannot afford to go.

As for punishing those with insurance, I cannot afford car insurance at the moment, and when I am employed and I can, I can't afford health insurance premiums, which I could pay into for a decade and then be dropped because the company decided I was too high risk for them.

If minimum wage were higher I could afford it. There was a time when premiums were low enough, and a low enough percentage of the minimum wage, where someone could feed his family and have basic insurance. That's not the case anymore due to inflation and rising premiums, while the wage has trailed behind.


Again, you help people who don't deserve it. Why should someone who foolishly bought something they can't afford have the government pay for it? It creates a moral hazard. That is, it says to foolish people; "Go ahead and buy things you can't afford, because the government will bail you out if it gets tough!". And so you have people making foolish purchases without worrying about the consequences.

Sounds exactly like the bailouts to me.

***********


The main reason for that is that only half of the people pay any federal income tax. So half get all the services of the government without having to pay for any of it. Those people will always support more government spending.

I think they pay for it by living off of the lowest amount of income, so the rich are allowed to generate more profits for themselves, which they are entitled to.

But when employers and wages cannot cover essential services like healthcare, I am not going to shed one tear for a man who has to pay a whole nother percentage point of his million dollar salary so that I (and about a thousand others) can see a doctor once a year.

Just saying.


Therefore, I think the simplest way to cut down on spending will be to take away the vote from people who do not pay more in taxes than they receive in handouts.

If:


A corollary would be to prohibit any business that gets more in subsidies than it pays in taxes from donating to any political causes or candidates. We'll still have people who whine for more spending, but they won't be pandered to because they can't vote.

You remove any such thing as private campaign contributions, I'd support the first part.

Government shouldn't be determined by how much money one can afford to support a campaign, because then the consumers lose, and industry loses, and workers lose, and only the owners win.


Also, get rid of the amendment that made Senators elected instead of appointed by states.

I'm pretty sure they're already appointed by insurers, bankers, and other big industries. I really would like the ability to outvote those whose sole interest is ripping me off a little more by removing safety regulations, getting former employees of your company to end up inspecting and regulating it, raising interest rates on everyone even when making huge profits, or canceling an insurance policy I paid into for decades.

I only have one defense as a man with no money or influence, and that is to be one vote. Removing that will remove the last shred of protection I have, in a system already slanted towards the richest 5%.



I'm not interested in class warfare though, my original post was supposed to be sidestepping that whole briar patch by leaving tax rates where they are, and moving unnecessary spending back toward essential services and cutting spending where it isn't absolutely vital. The "how much we spend on protecting the sick and unemployed" argument should be a separate discussion, and in my mind those are more essential than, say, spending millions on fish ladders that don't work and create very few jobs.

Like I said, there are plenty of contentious issues that can be addressed.... in my mind, after we stop the gigantic amount of hemorraging we're experiencing. And if tax hikes are necessary, they should be across the board, on the shoulders of all except those who have no money to tax. I am not out to screw the rich man, even though that is his sole mission in life, so he can show his billionaire friends how much larger his money pile is when compared with theirs. Hey, if that's what he thinks money is for, whatever makes him happy. If taxes get raised, perhaps by a percentage that's the same for everyone so it is fair. It's clearly necessary or we wouldn't be bleeding trillions of dollars into the abyss.

In the meantime, all I am saying is that every dollar spent on the most ridiculous wastes of money, is another dollar which could be paying for operations and transplants, or feeding the poor. And that money goes directly to the producers who made those products, and the doctors who want to treat patients and get paid for it for a change. It's almost exactly a 1 dollar spent is 1 dollar not wasted exchange, as opposed to 1 dollar spent, 99.99 cents wasted affair like the fish ladder. I rather think that people of all political persuasions and classes could get behind the idea. At least I'd like to hope.

Sadly I see that classism and hopelessness is going to prevent all this.

[jabarto]

Our current system gives a perverse incentive for politicians to highly tax the very successful so they can pay out money to the unsuccessful, but more numerous, people.

First of all, that's not 'perversion', that's called "not living under a caste system". Second, that's not how it works. Taxes on the rich are the lowest they've been in 50 years and our income inequality has soared over the last 30.

You know, CR, I've been meaning to ask you for a while now. What exactly is your background in economics?

[Beskar]

He "has a very low opion" of poor people.

He is probably one of those types who excludes many factors such as the "very successful" don't actually need money, while others are starving to death, unable to get work and live in destitute and poverty. Instead of seeing the inequality and going "Why can't these people get food?", his peers are the type that kicks them down and go "Worthless scum! You deserve it all!". Then laughs at them as he gets in his limited edition BMW 2010, off to a big hotel party, costing well over the hundred thousand for him and his select rich clienté.

He later goes to his bank account and goes "More taxes, huh, they are robbing me stupid. I pay more than those poor people, where at my 'entitlements'" then rants about it on the forum. Far removed from facts like he wouldn't even need them or would take them, even if he had them, with the riches he has got.

There is the more accurate version of events though, if he is indeed doing economics, he is probably looking at the figures and sees the spending as "waste", and he hates this waste, which of course, translates into the poor. He looks at the information from a removed setting, devoid of humanity, he doesn't associate "the waste" with poor people who are in need, they assoicaites the "waste" with scum/vermin who don't work hard enough. He doesn't factor in the socialeconomics of the situations either.

[jabarto]

He hates poor people.

Evicently. But I should probably soften my post a bit. Don't want to get another infraction. :sweatdrop:

[drone]

He "has a very low opion" of poor people.

He is probably one of those types who excludes many factors such as the "very successful" don't actually need money, while others are starving to death, unable to get work and live in destitute and poverty. Instead of seeing the inequality and going "Why can't these people get food?", his peers are the type that kicks them down and go "Worthless scum! You deserve it all!". Then laughs at them as he gets in his limited edition BMW 2010, off to a big hotel party, costing well over the hundred thousand for him and his select rich clienté.

He later goes to his bank account and goes "More taxes, huh, they are robbing me stupid. I pay more than those poor people, where at my 'entitlements'" then rants about it on the forum. Far removed from facts like he wouldn't even need them or would take them, even if he had them, with the riches he has got.

There is the more accurate version of events though, if he is indeed doing economics, he is probably looking at the figures and sees the spending as "waste", and he hates this waste, which of course, translates into the poor. He looks at the information from a removed setting, devoid of humanity, he doesn't associate "the waste" with poor people who are in need, they assoicaites the "waste" with scum/vermin who don't work hard enough. He doesn't factor in the socialeconomics of the situations either.

:laugh4:

[Crazed Rabbit]

I don't know, when I look at my some 600 dollars I get to spend a month, which doesn't cover rent, food, car payments and insurance... I haven't put gas in the car except when I am looking for jobs, and I can't insure it.

I have every incentive to find a job. Even with benefits I cannot pay my bills.

Being unemployed is no sweet ticket to freedom unless you've also spit out a dozen kids and are actually making an industry out of your reproductive organs which the government ends up subsidizing. And then there is no incentive to be employed because you'd never be able to afford a babysitter. There are gaping wastes in the system, but a 1-year college man who had worked for 10 years straight since I was 15, utterly ruined due to a job loss, and 12% unemployment in my area, I'm afraid I will never see things your way.

There's no incentive to remain on unemployment for me, and most productive members of our society.

I certainly recognize that you and many people on unemployment want to get a job. However, there are large numbers of people who don't (http://detnews.com/article/20100510/BIZ/5100335);

In a state with the nation's highest jobless rate, landscaping companies are finding some job applicants are rejecting work offers so they can continue collecting unemployment benefits.

It is unclear whether this trend is affecting other seasonal industries. But the fact that some seasonal landscaping workers choose to stay home and collect a check from the state, rather than work outside for a full week and spend money for gas, taxes and other expenses, raises questions about whether extended unemployment benefits give the jobless an incentive to avoid work.

Members of the Michigan Nursery and Landscape Association "have told me that they have a lot of people applying but that when they actually talk to them, it turns out that they're on unemployment and not looking for work," said Amy Frankmann, the group's executive director. "It is starting to make things difficult."

Chris Pompeo, vice president of operations for Landscape America in Warren, said he has had about a dozen offers declined. One applicant, who had eight weeks to go until his state unemployment benefits ran out, asked for a deferred start date.

"It's like, you've got to be kidding me," Pompeo said. "It's frustrating. It's honestly something I've never seen before. They say, 'Oh, OK,' like I surprised them by offering them a job."

Some job applicants are asking to be paid in cash so they can collect unemployment illegally, said Gayle Younglove, vice president at Outdoor Experts Inc. in Romulus.

"Unfortunately, we feel the economy is promoting more and more people and companies to play the system and get paid or collect cash money so they don't have to pay taxes," Younglove said.
$12-per-hour jobs

A person becomes ineligible for benefits if he or she fails to accept suitable work, said Stephen Geskey, director of Michigan's Unemployment Insurance Agency.

The average landscape worker earns about $12 per hour, according to the Michigan Department of Labor and Economic Growth. A full-time landscaping employee would make $225 more a week working than from an unemployment check of $255.

But after federal and state taxes are deducted, a full-time landscaper would earn $350 a week, or $95 more than a jobless check. The gap could narrow further for those who worked at other higher-paying seasonal jobs, such as construction or roofing, which would result in a larger benefits check.

The maximum weekly benefit an unemployed Michigan worker can receive is $387.

The jobless in Michigan are collecting for a longer time -- an average of 19.4 weeks last year, up from 15 weeks in 2008. State benefits last for up to 26 weeks.

The unemployed can then apply for extended federal benefits that increase the total time on the public dole up to a maximum of 99 weeks.



I haven't seen a dentist since I was 10.

I haven't had a proper doctor's visit since I was a child.

I cannot afford to go.

As for punishing those with insurance, I cannot afford car insurance at the moment, and when I am employed and I can, I can't afford health insurance premiums, which I could pay into for a decade and then be dropped because the company decided I was too high risk for them.

If minimum wage were higher I could afford it. There was a time when premiums were low enough, and a low enough percentage of the minimum wage, where someone could feed his family and have basic insurance. That's not the case anymore due to inflation and rising premiums, while the wage has trailed behind.

I think the underlying problem is with how expensive doctor's visits and other medical costs are. People shouldn't have to be on insurance in order to visit a doctor. Simply subsidizing health care is treating the symptoms, not the cause.



Sounds exactly like the bailouts to me.

I was against them as well.



I think they pay for it by living off of the lowest amount of income, so the rich are allowed to generate more profits for themselves, which they are entitled to.

But when employers and wages cannot cover essential services like healthcare, I am not going to shed one tear for a man who has to pay a whole nother percentage point of his million dollar salary so that I (and about a thousand others) can see a doctor once a year.

Just saying.


Overall, helping people pay for doctor's visits is money spent a lot better than most government funds. The problem is special interest lobbying and the huge entitlement programs. Social security is just a giant ponzi scheme, and people would be better off if they put their savings in a bank instead of having to give it to the government.



You remove any such thing as private campaign contributions, I'd support the first part.

Government shouldn't be determined by how much money one can afford to support a campaign, because then the consumers lose, and industry loses, and workers lose, and only the owners win.

What reason do you have to say that? Large wealthy donors can give a candidate who otherwise wouldn't have much of a chance a shot at getting their message heard. Like it or no, money is often equivalent to free speech and the ability to get yourself heard. The government shouldn't be the one determining who gets heard - especially since incumbents and the two main parties would use it to increase their already sizable advantage over everyone else.



In the meantime, all I am saying is that every dollar spent on the most ridiculous wastes of money, is another dollar which could be paying for operations and transplants, or feeding the poor. And that money goes directly to the producers who made those products, and the doctors who want to treat patients and get paid for it for a change. It's almost exactly a 1 dollar spent is 1 dollar not wasted exchange, as opposed to 1 dollar spent, 99.99 cents wasted affair like the fish ladder. I rather think that people of all political persuasions and classes could get behind the idea. At least I'd like to hope.

Well the thing is, there's a lot of people who believe their stupid POS project, like community theater or salmon commissions are important, and they want other people's money spent on it.


He "has a very low opion" of poor people.

He is probably one of those types who excludes many factors such as the "very successful" don't actually need money, while others are starving to death, unable to get work and live in destitute and poverty. Instead of seeing the inequality and going "Why can't these people get food?", his peers are the type that kicks them down and go "Worthless scum! You deserve it all!". Then laughs at them as he gets in his limited edition BMW 2010, off to a big hotel party, costing well over the hundred thousand for him and his select rich clienté.

He later goes to his bank account and goes "More taxes, huh, they are robbing me stupid. I pay more than those poor people, where at my 'entitlements'" then rants about it on the forum. Far removed from facts like he wouldn't even need them or would take them, even if he had them, with the riches he has got.

There is the more accurate version of events though, if he is indeed doing economics, he is probably looking at the figures and sees the spending as "waste", and he hates this waste, which of course, translates into the poor. He looks at the information from a removed setting, devoid of humanity, he doesn't associate "the waste" with poor people who are in need, they assoicaites the "waste" with scum/vermin who don't work hard enough. He doesn't factor in the socialeconomics of the situations either.
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

You know nothing about me, and it's hilarious.



Taxes on the rich are the lowest they've been in 50 years and our income inequality has soared over the last 30.

Wrong. They're the lowest they've been since George HW Bush (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States#History_of_top_rates.5B21.5D).

And income inequality? A worthless statistic.

Tell me, if the poorest person makes $10k, while the richest makes $1M, and then both incomes increase - the poor person now makes $100k, while the rich person now makes $100M, isn't the poorer person better off while at the same time 'income inequality' has increased?


You know, CR, I've been meaning to ask you for a while now. What exactly is your background in economics?

I got a degree (a minor) in Economic Sciences.

CR

[jabarto]

Wrong. They're the lowest they've been since George HW Bush (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States#History_of_top_rates.5B21.5D).

Fair enough. But my point was that 50 years ago, the rich had a maximum tax of 90%, and now it's at - what, 35%? No matter how you look at it, taxes on the rihc are nowhere near what they once were, so saying that we're incentivized to tax the rich is ridiculous. It's actually one of the most incediary topics in our country.


And income inequality? A worthless statistic.

Prove it. The experts certainly don't think it's worthless.


Tell me, if the poorest person makes $10k, while the richest makes $1M, and then both incomes increase - the poor person now makes $100k, while the rich person now makes $100M, isn't the poorer person better off while at the same time 'income inequality' has increased?

See, statements like this are what made me question your background. When has this ever happened?

[drone]

Fair enough. But my point was that 50 years ago, the rich had a maximum tax of 90%, and now it's at - what, 35%? No matter how you look at it, taxes on the rihc are nowhere near what they once were, so saying that we're incentivized to tax the rich is ridiculous. It's actually one of the most incediary topics in our country.
Look at the peaks in the graph on the wiki page. The first peak is 1917-21, what world event might have caused the US government to raise taxes in such an extreme manner?

The second peak starts at 1932, tops out at 1944, and starts the drop at 1963. This peak is pretty interesting, especially if you look at the lowest tax bracket percent. This goes from 4% in 1932, jumps to 10% in 1941, peaks at 23% in 1944, drops a bit, then goes back up to 20+% through to 1963. This tells me that the rich got hit with high taxes during the Depression, then everyone gets hit for WWII, and then it slowly drops off for both rich and poor as war debt is slowly paid off.

Some may argue (myself included) that raised taxes should have been included as part of our ill-advised Mesopotamian adventure. There is precedent for it, and it invests the population into the outcome. But keeping at such high rates for any tax bracket just because is not a good thing.

[Beskar]

See, statements like this are what made me question your background. When has this ever happened?

In real-life, the recession hit, at that guy making 10k is now out of a job or on a lower income, while the guy making the 1million takes advantage of the situation and gets himself into the 100 million numbers.

[jabarto]

But keeping at such high rates for any tax bracket just because is not a good thing.

Why not? Every single one of us would have been better off today if taxes on the rich had stayed high. And it's not "just because", either. It's because the rich beneift from society's institutions more than any other class, ergo, they should pay more. This doesn't even touch on the fact that the marginal utility of a dollar is lower for them anyway.


In real-life, the recession hit, at that guy making 10k is now out of a job or on a lower income, while the guy making the 1million takes advantage of the situation and gets himself into the 100 million numbers.

Well spoken. This is almost word for word what I tell people who believe in trickle-down economics.

[drone]

Why not? Every single one of us would have been better off today if taxes on the rich had stayed high. And it's not "just because", either. It's because the rich beneift from society's institutions more than any other class, ergo, they should pay more.
Even with a flat tax rate, the rich would pay more income tax.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Why not? Every single one of us would have been better off today if taxes on the rich had stayed high. And it's not "just because", either. It's because the rich beneift from society's institutions more than any other class, ergo, they should pay more. This doesn't even touch on the fact that the marginal utility of a dollar is lower for them anyway.

Well spoken. This is almost word for word what I tell people who believe in trickle-down economics.

So, you don't answer my question (hypothetical, yes) about 'inequality', you don't seem to know about economic incentives (who's going to work hard when the government takes 90% of their paycheck?), you agree with positively inane statements about economics (just how is a guy who makes $1M per year going to make $100M in a recession?) and then you question my background? I don't think you're qualified.

CR

[jabarto]

So, you don't answer my question (hypothetical, yes) about 'inequality'

Nor did you answer mine. Again. Would it trouble you terribly to share this magical gold dust that you've stumbled upon that expert economists somehow have missed?


you don't seem to know about economic incentives (who's going to work hard when the government takes 90% of their paycheck?)

Multimillionaires, for one. Now. Time to throw down the gauntlet because I'm sick of seeing this:

I defy you to name a single instance in history where someone refused to work to better their situation because of taxes. Just one.


you agree with positively inane statements about economics (just how is a guy who makes $1M per year going to make $100M in a recession?) and then you question my background?

Easy. He realizes that his employees can't get work anywhere else, so he cuts their benefits and pockets the difference.


I don't think you're qualified.

You're probably right. I have no claim to formal education in this matter.

[drone]

Multimillionaires, for one. Now. Time to throw down the gauntlet because I'm sick of seeing this:

I defy you to name a single instance in history where someone refused to work to better their situation because of taxes. Just one.
Look at why the Rolling Stones moved to the US in the 70's.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

...It's because the rich beneift from society's institutions more than any other class, ergo, they should pay more.

How so? Same infrastructure etc. I often hear this mantra repeated, but never explained.

Marginal utility argument is a better one by far.

[jabarto]

How so? Same infrastructure etc. I often hear this mantra repeated, but never explained.

Marginal utility argument is a better one by far.

Education is the big one; employers wouldn't be very successful if their employees aren't educated on the public's dime. There are other points but to be honest I'm not on my home computer right now and can't look at my notes on the topic. Maybe in a day or two.

[Tellos Athenaios]

A point is that if you talk about your basic infrastructure: the rich tend to use, quite literally, more of it. (More water, more electricity, more tarmac, more real estate.)
And before you say “but I thought I paid the water/electricity/gas company a monthly fee” consider that often enough not all costs are amortized and charged to the customer in that fashion. (The running cost of power grids is amortized per customer; not per watt AFAIK.)

[drone]

A point is that if you talk about your basic infrastructure: the rich tend to use, quite literally, more of it. (More water, more electricity, more tarmac, more real estate.)
And before you say "but I thought I paid the water/electricity/gas company a monthly fee" consider that often enough not all costs are amortized and charged to the customer in that fashion. (The running cost of power grids is amortized per customer; not per watt AFAIK.)
In the US, your examples of infrastructure are not generally paid for through federal income taxes. Water is supplied by a local/county controlled concern in urban/suburban areas, in rural areas it is generally well-water which is the responsibility of the consumer (as well as the septic field). Electricity is paid for by the kwh, so increased usage is dealt with. Most utilities tack on usage taxes (either state or federal) to the bill, but the federal government does not run the infrastructure, it generally just regulates it. Tarmac is paid for through gasoline taxes, if you use more you pay more. Real estate is also taxed at the local/county level.

[Ironside]

And income inequality? A worthless statistic.

Tell me, if the poorest person makes $10k, while the richest makes $1M, and then both incomes increase - the poor person now makes $100k, while the rich person now makes $100M, isn't the poorer person better off while at the same time 'income inequality' has increased?


Humans have a tendency to value equality quite a bit. It's part of that getting what you deserve bit that you're so fond of refering to.

Excempting risk possible social disruption later on, yes the poor would be better off in your example. See China.
Now for a real world example for the US, your boss now makes 13M (he got the GDP growth), while you just got back to the 10k you earned 8-10 years ago (that applies for the poor half of the US population). Then that other crash came along...

So what do you do if your income stands more or less still while your boss is making significantly more?

[Crazed Rabbit]

Nor did you answer mine. Again. Would it trouble you terribly to share this magical gold dust that you've stumbled upon that expert economists somehow have missed?

I already explained it; the difference between incomes is not as important as the income and quality of life for the poorer person. Perhaps you could share some of these 'expert economists' so concerned about income inequality.



Multimillionaires, for one. Now. Time to throw down the gauntlet because I'm sick of seeing this:

I defy you to name a single instance in history where someone refused to work to better their situation because of taxes. Just one.

:laugh4: Ok, first of all, it's completely logical. A person works x hours for y benefit. Now, you jack up the taxes and he now works x hours for y/2 benefit. Other uses of his time, like leisure (Which may have y/1.5 benefit), will look more relatively beneficial.

Secondly, just one instance? How about hundreds of millions? (http://www.minneapolisfed.org/publications_papers/pub_display.cfm?id=905) :book: :beam:


Abstract

Americans now work 50 percent more than do the Germans, French, and Italians. This was not the case in the early 1970s, when the Western Europeans worked more than Americans. This article examines the role of taxes in accounting for the differences in labor supply across time and across countries; in particular, the effective marginal tax rate on labor income. The population of countries considered is the G-7 countries, which are major advanced industrial countries. The surprising finding is that this marginal tax rate accounts for the predominance of differences at points in time and the large change in relative labor supply over time.




Easy. He realizes that his employees can't get work anywhere else, so he cuts their benefits and pockets the difference.

So he cuts $99M worth of salary from his employees? And pockets the difference? That is so very absurd (how could he simply break contracts, why would employees keep working for him, etc.). Can you name one time something so extreme has happened?

CR

[jabarto]

I already explained it; the difference between incomes is not as important as the income and quality of life for the poorer person. Perhaps you could share some of these 'expert economists' so concerned about income inequality.

Paul Krugman, John Kenneth Galbraith, and Josepth Stiglitz are all Nobel Prize-winning economists and they all hold it to be important.


:laugh4: Ok, first of all, it's completely logical. A person works x hours for y benefit. Now, you jack up the taxes and he now works x hours for y/2 benefit. Other uses of his time, like leisure (Which may have y/1.5 benefit), will look more relatively beneficial.

Secondly, just one instance? How about hundreds of millions? (http://www.minneapolisfed.org/publications_papers/pub_display.cfm?id=905) :book: :beam:

Or maybe our discrepancies in work hours are due to the quasi-religious reverence for hard work in this country? Because workers have been borderline brainwashed into accepting increasingly egregious working conditions because they don't expect any better?


So he cuts $99M worth of salary from his employees? And pockets the difference? That is so very absurd (how could he simply break contracts, why would employees keep working for him, etc.). Can you name one time something so extreme has happened?

He can break contracts because his employees have no bargaining power against him. And his employees would keep working for him because they need to eat.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Paul Krugman, John Kenneth Galbraith, and Josepth Stiglitz are all Nobel Prize-winning economists and they all hold it to be important.

Very well, care to provide links to their thoughts on the matter?


Or maybe our discrepancies in work hours are due to the quasi-religious reverence for hard work in this country? Because workers have been borderline brainwashed into accepting increasingly egregious working conditions because they don't expect any better?

No. What I have provided is a scientific study, backed by data, research, and analysis. What you have is two sentences of conjecture with no evidence except your assumptions about the ills of capitalism.


He can break contracts because his employees have no bargaining power against him. And his employees would keep working for him because they need to eat.

:rolleyes: Like I said, just one example of that happening.

CR

[Beskar]

:rolleyes: Like I said, just one example of that happening.


It has been occuring all over the world, in Europe as well. It is a common-fact.

You wanted just one instance right? How about this from a "Conservative"/buisness newspaper.
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/specials/rich_list/article7107299.ece


THE richest people in Britain have seen a record boom in wealth over the past year. Their fortunes have soared by 30% even though much of the UK is struggling to recover from recession and the near-collapse of the banking system.


Rich List, published today, reveals that the 1,000 richest people in the country increased their wealth by £77 billion last year, bringing their total wealth to £335.5 billion — equal to more than one-third of the national debt.

The number of billionaires has risen from 43 to 53, with nine seeing their wealth rise by £1 billion or more during the past 12 months.


More controversially, a host of City bankers and financiers have seen their fortunes rise sharply after the financial system was rescued from meltdown by taxpayers.

Good to know that the recession is good for the rich while us poor have to pick up the pieces they created.

[Crazed Rabbit]

It has been occuring all over the world, in Europe as well. It is a common-fact.

You wanted just one instance right? How about this from a "Conservative"/buisness newspaper.
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/specials/rich_list/article7107299.ece

No, I asked for a real life example of Jabarto's example:


Easy. He realizes that his employees can't get work anywhere else, so he cuts their benefits and pockets the difference.

What you provide is not what I was asking for.


Good to know that the recession is good for the rich while us poor have to pick up the pieces they created.

So you begrudge a person for making money in a difficult time? Could you illustrate how their wealth has hurt others? Lakshmi Mittal, made billions from the steel market. Do you think he fired people or hired more people? If they want money, they have to expand their companies, which means hiring people. What's so terrible about that?

CR

[Beskar]

So you begrudge a person for making money in a difficult time?

What a wording, far removed from reality.

This is the reality:
"Oh hello, we bankrupted your country, we put you out of jobs, made you have to suffer cuts and pay freezes, and we gain an increase of 33% in our back pockets."



What you provide is not what I was asking for.

Actually, a majority of the people on the Rich list have done that. I remember reading an article which said about the most of them. Also, everyone knows that lots of people have suffered pay freezes and cuts or losing their jobs, and everyone knows the rich have been getting richer. So even then, it is pretty obvious we aren't making things up.


On another note, I saw this and laughed:

If we took half of the wealth of these 1000 people as a one-off "downturn tax" , we could pay off the whole of the national deficit without raising taxes on the rest of us or cutting services, and it would not affect their lifestyle one bit. What does one person do with £22.4 billion anyway ?

[Crazed Rabbit]

What a wording, far removed from reality.

This is the reality:
"Oh hello, we bankrupted your country, we put you out of jobs, made you have to suffer cuts and pay freezes, and we gain an increase of 33% in our back pockets."

Please tell how the steel industry bankrupted your country.


Actually, a majority of the people on the Rich list have done that. I remember reading an article which said about the most of them. Also, everyone knows that lots of people have suffered pay freezes and cuts or losing their jobs, and everyone knows the rich have been getting richer. So even then, it is pretty obvious we aren't making things up.

Ah, so since someone, somewhere, is laid off while in a completely different industry someone makes money because their business is successful and not laying people off, it's obvious the rich are getting richer? :dizzy2: :laugh4:

CR

[Beskar]

Please tell how the steel industry bankrupted your country.

Hmm... I think there was this quote.

More controversially, a host of City bankers and financiers have seen their fortunes rise sharply after the financial system was rescued from meltdown by taxpayers.

Steel where? :dizzy2:

[Crazed Rabbit]

Hmm... I think there was this quote.


Steel where? :dizzy2:

Steel as in the number one man on the list. Steel as in the I mentioned said man already. Steel as in I mentioned the industry he worked in already.

Now, either you explain how the steel industry contributed to the collapse or you acknowledge not all the 'rich', even in your fantasy world, aren't responsible for the crash. This was after you linked to the article to show that rich people were firing people and raising their salaries. Even in teh financial industry you haven't proven that.

As for people in the financial industry - how does that fact alone make them responsible for the crash? If they were CEOs of banks that were bailed out, that would be one thing, but were any of the hedge funds run by people on the rich list bailed out?

Maybe you can stop lumping all the 'rich' together and illogically cross referencing all their actions in order to fabricate crimes from thin air.

CR

[Beskar]

Actually, speaking of steel...
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aJkYk5ibKyVc&refer=europe-redirectoldpage

Cutting 8000 jobs a year, even though they are experiencing very nice growth.

I believe there is also another article for another company which made big gains in fortune, by cutting wages and jobs.

Why you are defending the guilty? Everyone on the Rich list most likely commiting a crime or another anyway, may it be fraud, off-shore banking, tax evasion, etc. Some people say "oh, it is one law for the rich, another for the poor", but it is actually "no law for the rich" because the wealth brings power, and thus they can just go around the law.

[jabarto]

Very well, care to provide links to their thoughts on the matter?

I'd rather not have this devolve into a meaningless source war, thanks. Suffice it to say that Krugman's book Peddling Prosperity has an entire chapter dedicated to the topic.


No. What I have provided is a scientific study, backed by data, research, and analysis. What you have is two sentences of conjecture with no evidence except your assumptions about the ills of capitalism.

Okay, we'll talk facts, then. Fact: Productivity has increased over the last 30 years. Fact: The median wage has remained largely static over the same time frame. Clearly, the gains aren't going to the people doing the work. So how do you explain the fact that people are working harder to enrich the people above them with no benefit to themselves? Where's the incentive in that, hm?

[Crazed Rabbit]

Actually, speaking of steel...
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aJkYk5ibKyVc&refer=europe-redirectoldpage

Cutting 8000 jobs a year, even though they are experiencing very nice growth.

I believe there is also another article for another company which made big gains in fortune, by cutting wages and jobs.

Ah, nicely done. However I just need to correct one bit:

Cutting 8000 jobs a year, even though is why they are experiencing very nice growth.

This guy has a lot of experience running steel plants, and given the successful history of his company we can deduce he knows what he's doing; the jobs he's cutting are likely unneeded. Not cutting some jobs could lead to cutting all jobs.


Why you are defending the guilty? Everyone on the Rich list most likely commiting a crime or another anyway, may it be fraud, off-shore banking, tax evasion, etc. Some people say "oh, it is one law for the rich, another for the poor", but it is actually "no law for the rich" because the wealth brings power, and thus they can just go around the law.

Sooooooo...just because they're rich they're guilty? No need for trials or evidence or convictions, just you proclaiming they're guilty because they're rich and you don't see how people can become rich without committing a crime? This presents an interesting look at how you think. The issue seems to be you don't think of 'the rich' as human like you would your friends and family.

In fact, you think of them as you accuse me of thinking about the poor. Perhaps your constant accusations about how I think of the poor are really you projecting your loathing of the rich onto me.


I'd rather not have this devolve into a meaningless source war, thanks. Suffice it to say that Krugman's book Peddling Prosperity has an entire chapter dedicated to the topic.

I've laid out my argument. You've said 'nobel prize winning economists' agree with you, but never quoted them or linked to them to explain your argument. I'm not asking for a source war, I'm just asking for an explanation of your position. :balloon2:


Fact: The median wage has remained largely static over the same time frame.

You've got an odd (http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/COLA/AWI.html#Series) definition (http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/COLA/awidevelop.html)of fact (http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/COLA/central.html) (82% cumulative increase in median net compensation 1990 to 2008). Or an odd definition of static.


So how do you explain the fact that people are working harder to enrich the people above them with no benefit to themselves? Where's the incentive in that, hm?

Who says the average person makes only the average wage their whole lives? It seems more likely people start out below the average wage, then go above it as they work throughout their lives.

I think you ought to read the study I linked.

CR

[Ironside]

You've got an odd (http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/COLA/AWI.html#Series) definition (http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/COLA/awidevelop.html)of fact (http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/COLA/central.html) (82% cumulative increase in median net compensation 1990 to 2008). Or an odd definition of static.


Thank you for the links. They are quite good.

Now could you please locate the place were they mention that those numbers are inflation adjusted?... :oops:

Now using this (http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/inflation/historical-inflation-rates/) and adding the years together, the total inflation between 2000-2008 was 29,2%. The median salary increased from 20.957 to 26.514, a 26,5% increase. As you can see from the data, the average income has increased more than inflation during this time, but less than half of the US workers have gained on it.
The inflation 1990-2008 was 73,7%, so an increase there, but with the current development, more than half of the US population will be poorer 2020 than they were in 2000, while the "average american" will be richer than ever.

[Beskar]

Sooooooo...just because they're rich they're guilty? No need for trials or evidence or convictions, just you proclaiming they're guilty because they're rich and you don't see how people can become rich without committing a crime?

No, it is just a fact. I never said anything about no trials/evidence/convictions, the fact is, they can flaut past these things by legal loophoops, expensive lawyers who are experts in fiddling and other various means, which by all accounts makes them guilty, their power from wealth just makes them untouchable by the law, and even when they are, it is a minor slap on the wrist.

Just type "Rich" "fraud" "offshore banking" and various combinations of terms in any popular search engine of your choice.