Jump to content

US Politics #1


BloodRider

Recommended Posts

I can't decide if it is an extreme rightist, or an extreme leftist. Why leftist? Because really, I can't think of someone who has brought up more lame ass arguments that are such obvious strawmen. Hell, its even driven you and ser Scott away from some of the far right's positions. So yeah....

As to calling teabaggers teabaggers. I have an anecdote. My dad's initials are WFT. Of late he has take to putting his monogram on EVERYTHING. Which would be OK, except he insists on using the traditional style of monogram with the last name in the middle.

Thats right, practically everything business related my dad owns is labeled with WTF. I keep telling him what message that sends, and his take on it is - well thats my initials. OK fair enough. But it has an effect on his clientelle. Is that right or the way it should be? Perhaps no. He was named well before anyone had even conceived of texting.

But it still cracks me up every time I see it. Just like people who are adamantly anti-sex-except-for-procreation-especially-if-it-teh-gay-sex calling themselves teabaggers will keep me laughing for quite a while. I am not laughing at them per se, just the irony of it all. And the stubbornness that keeps the joke alive.

Surely all this stereotyping of the right is a punishable offense in terminally PC circles...non?

"people who are adamantly anti-sex"....LOL...you definitely don't know many people from the right. teeheehee

It's really very amusing to see Libs practice exactly what they so vehemently preach against in that robotically programmed manner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But there seems to be a "have your cake and eat it too" logic to some of the support for this, because it doesn't quite seem we know whether we want people to spend, and thereby stimulate the economy, or save.

It's hard to comment not knowing when it would be implemented. At this point, we don't know much more than it's about encouraging long term planning. Whether or not such a bill would stand to impact the short-term, our economic recovery, due to timing remains a question mark.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

THat's because you are not thinking about it ... well at all really.

Savings is good when it's Savings vs No Savings. Not so much in an economic crisis when it's Lots of Savings vs Lots of Savings and then a bit more Savings too. And the difference between those 2 is largely income. The big problem with tax cuts is that the more money you make/have, the more likely you are to save it. Propensity to Save goes up as income and wealth increase.

This kind of initiative largely targets people on the lower end of the income spectrum, simply because they are the most likely to not opt-out of it and know what to do with their money. And these people are, at the same time, the least likely to save if given a tax cut.

The people higher on the income spectrum, on the other hand, are the most likely ones to opt-out of this initiative because they generally save already and know what to do with their money. And it's exactly BECAUSE of this behavior that tax cuts don't work on them in a recession because they will simply save the money.

These things are not at cross-purpose because they are targeting different groups. They, in fact, work fine together because those most likely to be forced to save by this are those least likely to save on their own. Mostly it would seem to even out the savings rate.

Shryke,

This is most sane post I have ever seen from you. Kudos. Although I still do not agree with any tax increases (wealthy or otherwise) during this recession (very close to depression) that we are currently in.

But lets take this another step. If the folks who are being told to save (those on the lower spectrum of the money curve), are those that would spend more...how do we teach them different? In other words, give a man a fish, he eats for a day, teach him to fish...he eats for a lifetime. Certainly there should be more teaching out there to get Americans off the credit card debt kick??

On another note:

When the government learns how to spend money wisely, only then can they dictate any kind of tax increases (and no this does not include the bogus stimulus bill, or the bogus health care reform bill. Note, these are examples of throwing money away. And for the libs here, I do agree with military cuts, as well as other social program cuts. These are both necesary to get the government spending back in line). I would also include cuts to all government workers salaries, including the President. As well as cuts to their benefits, and retirement packages. I would also say that it should be illegal for Unions to be government employees...kind of a conflict of interest there don't ya think? Ok...enough ranting.

Oh..while I'm thinking Pie in the Sky type of government...it should also be illegal for Laywers to make laws. HUGE conflict of interest there...but hey...in a perfect world, everyone would think like engineers or at least most people would.

Shrug.

Hasta!

Stark Out!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shryke,

This is most sane post I have ever seen from you. Kudos. Although I still do not agree with any tax increases (wealthy or otherwise) during this recession (very close to depression) that we are currently in.

But lets take this another step. If the folks who are being told to save (those on the lower spectrum of the money curve), are those that would spend more...how do we teach them different? In other words, give a man a fish, he eats for a day, teach him to fish...he eats for a lifetime. Certainly there should be more teaching out there to get Americans off the credit card debt kick??

Sure, but that isn't mutually exclusive with this program.

The truth is, there IS gonna be a bunch of people who piss away the mandated savings anyway. But that doesn't really matter because as long as it encourages some people to save, it'll help. And then the only question becomes "Is the cost of running this program worth it's benefits?".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's a discussion on how obvious it is that the Bush tax cuts have added to the deficit by decreasing government revenue, despite Mitch McConnell's protestations to the contrary.

Multiple Bush economists are cited to hammer home the absurdity of what McConnell is trying to say.

yep, every examination of tax cuts has shown that cuts in a booming, roaring economy (best case scenario) only pay for about 30% of their cost, whereas in a torpid economy, tax cuts only pay for about 10% of their costs.

Meaning if you want to cut taxes by 1 trillion, due to the stimulative effect on the economy that would result in new taxes from spending and new jobs etc from the tax cut, it would actually cost between 900 billion and 700 billion, depending on the rest of the economy.

But that means you're adding 900 billion to 700 billion of deficit spending in order to have the tax cut. So if you don't pair the tax cut with spending cuts you have a massive deficit.

And remember those spending cuts, to the tune of 900 to 700 billion by the government would be DEVASTATING to the national economy. It would involve laying off hundreds of thousands if not millions of public employees, or severely cutting their salaries, basically abandoning all public works projects (which employ hundreds of thousands of other non-government employees) and pretty much suspending all investment in keeping the United States competitive in the future (all our university grants, research etc) while also severely curtailing expensive military projects and personell that also employ more people.

In fact, spending cuts to that tune, in order to pay for your lovely trillion dollar tax cut, would probably send the economy into a recession or depression because the amount of people laid off would probably outpace the amount of jobs created in private industry due to the tax cut.

and cutting taxes to add private sector jobs is a stupid way to go about it. the private sector pockets 95% of the tax cut as profit and employs as few people as possible so we get and incredibly poor return on investment for trying to use tax policy to affect employment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

THat's because you are not thinking about it ... well at all really.

Savings is good when it's Savings vs No Savings. Not so much in an economic crisis when it's Lots of Savings vs Lots of Savings and then a bit more Savings too. And the difference between those 2 is largely income. The big problem with tax cuts is that the more money you make/have, the more likely you are to save it. Propensity to Save goes up as income and wealth increase.

This kind of initiative largely targets people on the lower end of the income spectrum, simply because they are the most likely to not opt-out of it and know what to do with their money. And these people are, at the same time, the least likely to save if given a tax cut.

The people higher on the income spectrum, on the other hand, are the most likely ones to opt-out of this initiative because they generally save already and know what to do with their money. And it's exactly BECAUSE of this behavior that tax cuts don't work on them in a recession because they will simply save the money.

These things are not at cross-purpose because they are targeting different groups. They, in fact, work fine together because those most likely to be forced to save by this are those least likely to save on their own. Mostly it would seem to even out the savings rate.

I might agree with you here but there is to much personal debt out there for that to work (no I don't have a lot of facts and figures but I deal with this stuff on a daily bases and if people get extra money they are paying down credit cards). Isn't that why the two Bush stimulus's didn't work, the people who got money just paid down debts. The Obama stimulus should have bought us an economy that ran like a Porshe or at least a Lexus but we ended up with a Ford Pinto instead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

it should also be illegal for Laywers to make laws. HUGE conflict of interest there

You were actually making some sense here until this line. You do realize that twenty-five of our presidents were lawyers, right? Including Thomas Jefferson and John Adams? Are you saying they should not have been able to make laws?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I might agree with you here but there is to much personal debt out there for that to work (no I don't have a lot of facts and figures but I deal with this stuff on a daily bases and if people get extra money they are paying down credit cards). Isn't that why the two Bush stimulus's didn't work, the people who got money just paid down debts. The Obama stimulus should have bought us an economy that ran like a Porshe or at least a Lexus but we ended up with a Ford Pinto instead.

Some economists say that the stimulus should have been alot bigger, AndyP, and that even as it was it may have save millions of jobs. I would not make that kind of blithe assertion, if I were you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You were actually making some sense here until this line. You do realize that twenty-five of our presidents were lawyers, right? Including Thomas Jefferson and John Adams? Are you saying they should not have been able to make laws?

Jefferson & Adams were almost the last generation of lawyers to put the nation's best interest ahead of their personal enrichment & power grab. The latter activities are the reason most Americans have a very poor opinion of congress as a whole. Sadly, however many of those same citizens look on their own individual pork-meister member as worthy of their vote.

Modern DC lawyers...hmmm...Dem Wm Jefferson Clinton; global-warming-snakeOil-salesman Dem Al Gore; Repub Orrin Hatch; flip-flop king Arlen Specter, soon-to-be Dem presidential candidate Secy of State Hillary Clinton, etc. etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"But other than THAT Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?'

Have you ever heard of the commitment response? It's an interesting psychological phenomenon. What people (and many animals) to when faced with a choice where they typically favour the lesser short-term return over the greater long-term return (the general phenomenon is called hyperbolic discounting if you're interested) they prevent themselves from having the option fo the short-term return to "lock" themselves into the long-term return.

To put it another way: say you need to study for an exam. Unless the internet collapsed, you would spend some of your time on this board. So you ask to be banned from this board for the duration of your exam break. Now banned, you have removed your distraction and chosen to 'force' yourself to do the appropriate long-term thing.

I think this is an appropriate way to view government action. We know a great deal about human nature. We would like long-term returns. We know that our nature is such that we would fail to obtain them. So we create a general agency that recharacterizes the option in such a way that we default to the better long-run outcome without changing the choice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the folks who are being told to save (those on the lower spectrum of the money curve),

I don't think the assumption that persons on the lower end of spectrum will essentially be too ignorant to opt out is valid. This is something that will necessarily have to be administered at the employer level because that's the source of the individual's income. So on the first day of employment, they'll be asked by the office administrator or whomever the same question they're asked right now: "Do you want to contribute to a retirement/401(k) fund?". The only difference is that if they answer "yes", they won't have to sign anything, and if they answer "no", they'll have to sign the opt-out form. That's the reverse from how it was previously, but that's purely an administrative issue for the office. For the employee, that minor administrative distinction won't make a difference in how they answer that question

But assuming that assumption -- that this really only will affect lower income folks -- is true, there are two problems. Upthread, someone argued in favor of this program because the savings rate in this country was too low, and needed to be increased. But if only the poor are going to be sucked into it, then it's not really going to have a material effect on the savings rate at all because the poor don't have much money anyway. You can't argue both that it will increase the savings rate to any significant degree, and that it only will affect lower income folks.

The other problem -- if that assumption is true -- is the point Chataya raised. We're going to essentially be "tricking" lower income folks into putting their money into retirement funds when those people already are struggling to make ends meet, and when their regular savings are low already. In essence, you're going to be reducing the disposable income of the people who need it the most.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some economists say that the stimulus should have been alot bigger, AndyP, and that even as it was it may have save millions of jobs. I would not make that kind of blithe assertion, if I were you.

Are these the same economists who said that unemployment could get as high as 9% without the stimulus, and that the stimulus would keep it under 8%?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You were actually making some sense here until this line. You do realize that twenty-five of our presidents were lawyers, right? Including Thomas Jefferson and John Adams? Are you saying they should not have been able to make laws?

Wow, thanks for the responce without a bunch of hate (which is what I usually get here).

Let me clarify here. First off, Presidents do not make laws, they enforce laws. So, its perfectly fine for Presidents to be Laywers. In fact, it make make more sence for Presidents to be Lawyers (and it makes lots of sence for Presidents to be in the military as well...but that is a different story).

Here is the gist of my point. And this is coming from an extremely anti-laywer point of view (me being an engineer...Laywers and Politticians are the 2 biggest burdens in actually solving problems).

OK, gist of my point. Have you ever gone to a house closing? If so, your Lawyer sits down and explains to you 'in layman terms' the 20 page bullshit document you have to sign in order to sell or buy a house. So...why cant the document actually say what the laywer is interpreting hmm?? Why does it have to be so complicated hmm??

I'll tell you why. There are 3 reasons for legalize speak.

1) To make sure lawywers have a job and perpetuate the need for lawyers.

2) To make things so damn complicated no one can understand shit...until years later, some laywer comes out and says 'I gotcha!!!" from clause 35 of page 6034 on this document.

3) Laywers get in Congress and make laws that benefit their profession.

Yes...all of these are pretty cinical. But ya know what...personal experience says they are all true.

So, there is my reasoning why Laywers should never be able to make laws. Advise..sure thing! Make...never. It is too self serving.

Hasta!

Stark Out!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some economists say that the stimulus should have been alot bigger, AndyP, and that even as it was it may have save millions of jobs. I would not make that kind of blithe assertion, if I were you.

Hell, alot of the money we know went to state governments to keep them from having to cut thousands and thousands of jobs in order to balance their books. (Yeah for Balanced Budget Amendments!!!! Makes total sense for a state!)

Most of the comments about the stimulus doing nothing never seem to consider that the alternative was not simply the status quo before the crash.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have you ever heard of the commitment response? It's an interesting psychological phenomenon. What people (and many animals) to when faced with a choice where they typically favour the lesser short-term return over the greater long-term return (the general phenomenon is called hyperbolic discounting if you're interested) they prevent themselves from having the option fo the short-term return to "lock" themselves into the long-term return.

To put it another way: say you need to study for an exam. Unless the internet collapsed, you would spend some of your time on this board. So you ask to be banned from this board for the duration of your exam break. Now banned, you have removed your distraction and chosen to 'force' yourself to do the appropriate long-term thing.

I think this is an appropriate way to view government action. We know a great deal about human nature. We would like long-term returns. We know that our nature is such that we would fail to obtain them. So we create a general agency that recharacterizes the option in such a way that we default to the better long-run outcome without changing the choice.

Sure. I understand all that.

But you are ignoring the potential issues/unintended consequences with the policy that have already been pointed out. And the assumption that this creates a better long term outcome is not a slam dunk, nor is the question of whether the long term outcome is worth the short/mid term costs.

That was really what i was getting at when i responded.

His reply seemed to be saying 'I agree that the issues raised by Chats are probably troublesome, but other than that I don't think it's all that intrusive to force people to save, therefor what's the big deal and so i support this legislation.'

I just think it's odd to admit that the larger issues involved exist, and then support it anyway because the lesser issue isn't really a big deal.

As a reminder, here are the questions we're talking about:

1. Where would the money be saved? (what kind of investments would be allowed?)

2. Would the government guarantee the principal? (or, more likely, be seen to guarantee the principal, a la Freddie, Fannie, etc)

3. Why just encourage retirement savings? Americans under-save by horrifying rates, but encouraging retirement savings at the cost of all else is a sure way to lead to under-saving for emergencies.

I don't think the assumption that persons on the lower end of spectrum will essentially be too ignorant to opt out is valid. This is something that will necessarily have to be administered at the employer level because that's the source of the individual's income. So on the first day of employment, they'll be asked by the office administrator or whomever the same question they're asked right now: "Do you want to contribute to a retirement/401(k) fund?". The only difference is that if they answer "yes", they won't have to sign anything, and if they answer "no", they'll have to sign the opt-out form. That's the reverse from how it was previously, but that's purely an administrative issue for the office. For the employee, that minor administrative distinction won't make a difference in how they answer that question

I hadn't even noticed this was new employees only.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think the assumption that persons on the lower end of spectrum will essentially be too ignorant to opt out is valid. This is something that will necessarily have to be administered at the employer level because that's the source of the individual's income. So on the first day of employment, they'll be asked by the office administrator or whomever the same question they're asked right now: "Do you want to contribute to a retirement/401(k) fund?". The only difference is that if they answer "yes", they won't have to sign anything, and if they answer "no", they'll have to sign the opt-out form. That's the reverse from how it was previously, but that's purely an administrative issue for the office. For the employee, that minor administrative distinction won't make a difference in how they answer that question

Except this doens't happen in practice.

While the difference between "opt-in" and "opt-out" would seem, rationally, to be nothing, in practice people are "lazy" and tend to not change. If you change your program from Opt-In to Opt-Out, more people will be part of the program.

But assuming that assumption -- that this really only will affect lower income folks -- is true, there are two problems. Upthread, someone argued in favor of this program because the savings rate in this country was too low, and needed to be increased. But if only the poor are going to be sucked into it, then it's not really going to have a material effect on the savings rate at all because the poor don't have much money anyway. You can't argue both that it will increase the savings rate to any significant degree, and that it only will affect lower income folks.

You were arguing it vs tax breaks and savings, which have a very clear and well-documented variance when it comes to income. You need to keep your argument straight.

This program will disproportionately effect those who don't know WTF they are doing when it comes to saving money. (This does tend to skew lower income though)

What it will mostly do is make more people who aren't saving now save. Thus increasing the savings rate.

It's very simple: Those most likely to not notice or opt-out of the program are those most likely to not save in the first place. It's targeting exactly the group you want to hit.

The other problem -- if that assumption is true -- is the point Chataya raised. We're going to essentially be "tricking" lower income folks into putting their money into retirement funds when those people already are struggling to make ends meet, and when their regular savings are low already. In essence, you're going to be reducing the disposable income of the people who need it the most.

1) Those people need to be saving for their retirement anyway.

2) Any decently set up program will be taking these people into account. Maybe it will be a lower percentage for them. Maybe there will be some government assistance. Maybe there's a cut-off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...