US Politics: The Accountability Problem

[Rippounet]

25 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

As someone who also lives in the NYC area, it gives one a sense that the money is flagrantly wasted, that billions of taxpayer dollars are spent every year, and yet, we don't see improvement, but the opposite, which suggests to some that the problem isn't a lack of money but other systemic problems related to corruption and bureaucracy.

Yeah, but even if we assume your impression is correct, the conclusion that taxes should be lowered is still a pretty big leap in reasoning.

Poor management in one place (i.e. NY City in this case) doesn't mean that paying taxes for public services is an evil in itself. Of course some governments are far more efficient than others. Weirdly enough, the more efficient ones seem to be where the necessity of having a strong public sector is barely questioned in the first place...

[OldGimletEye]

51 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

As someone who also lives in the NYC area, it gives one a sense that the money is flagrantly wasted, that billions of taxpayer dollars are spent every year, and yet, we don't see improvement, but the opposite, which suggests to some that the problem isn't a lack of money but other systemic problems related to corruption and bureaucracy.  Indeed, I see this evidenced all around by the fact that brand new construction projects start falling apart within 5 years or less.

While I’m not sure about how to refute “lived conservative experiences”, I’ll just note a few things:
1. Basically the whole conservative pitch, for several decades now has been “let us cut taxes, bust up your unions, weaken minimum wage laws, lower government spending and you’ll see economic growth like you’ve never seen before! It will be just like Reagan did it, when he cut taxes!” I’ve noted several times that “mornin’ in America” had really nothing to do with tax cuts and everything to do with monetary policy during the 1980s, even if Newt Gingrich disagrees. Gasp! And it would seem that all these conservative promises have not come to pass.
2. If all these conservative supply side fantasies were true, then one wonders what the hell happened in Kansas with the Clownback Bust. When that whole ridiculous thing started, my first thought was, yeah it won’t do shit for economic growth. But, it turns out that I may have been way too optimistic about it’s prospects, as there is evidence that in may in fact harmed growth.
3. I know of one paper where the author used war casualties as proxy for state spending during the 18th Century and generally found that higher state spending led to faster economic growth.
4. There is other evidence that one reason the South fell behind the North economically was because of lower public investment by the South, which seemingly reflected the preferences of the old plantation class.
5, The US doesn’t have the best labor participation rate, even when compared to “socialist” countries.
The upshot of all this is there are reasons to have a lot of doubt about broad libertarian type claims, that lower taxes begat lower wasteful spending which in turn begat higher economic growth.

Of course can money be wasted on bullshit, I wouldn't deny that. But broad claims that just cutting spending and cutting taxes will unleash morin' in America need to be scrutinized very carefully.
 

[Zorral]

3 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

While I’m not sure about how to refute “lived conservative experiences”, I’ll just note a few things:
1. Basically the whole conservative pitch, for several decades now has been “let us cut taxes, bust up your unions, weaken minimum wage laws, lower government spending and you’ll see economic growth like you’ve never seen before! It will be just like Reagan did it, when he cut taxes!” I’ve noted several times that “mornin’ in America” had really nothing to do with tax cuts and everything to do with monetary policy during the 1980s, even if Newt Gingrich disagrees. Gasp! And it would seem that all these conservative promises have not come to pass.
2. If all these conservative supply side fantasies were true, then one wonders what the hell happened in Kansas with the Clownback Bust. When that whole ridiculous thing started, my first thought was, yeah it won’t do shit for economic growth. But, it turns out that I may have been way too optimistic about it’s prospects, as there is evidence that in may in fact harmed growth.
3. I know of one paper where the author used war casualties as proxy for state spending during the 18th Century and generally found that higher state spending led to faster economic growth.
4. There is other evidence that one reason the South fell behind the North economically was because of lower public investment by the South, which seemingly reflected the preferences of the old plantation class.
5, The US doesn’t have the best labor participation rate, even when compared “socialist” countries.
The upshot of all this is there are reasons to have a lot of doubt about broad libertarian type claims, that lower taxes begat lower wasteful spending which in turn begat higher economic growth.
 

In other words, like FB, this is about sucking up all the value -- value not created by them or their entities -- and never putting anything of value out.

[Darth Richard II]

3 hours ago, Martell Spy said:

Wow, it really looks like AOC pisses conservatives off more than any politician since Obama. I wonder why that is? We did not see this level of vitriol over Sanders, who is also a Democratic-Socialist.

Yes, perplexing isn't it?

[Cas Stark]

39 minutes ago, Zorral said:

It is likely more caused by the flagrantly obscenely wealthy corporations and those who own them and their shares, which take and take and take from NYC's infrastructure and give nothing back, including taxes -- amazilla getting THREE BILLION in tax incentives and rebates??????? WTF?????????????  I've listened often to Cuomo and de Blasio blather angrily about why this is a good idea and not single word they utter in explanation makes any sense or even carries meaning.  It's just word salad. Politico word salad.

Right now, every walk in my neighborhood reveals yet another store closed and more vacant store fronts and entire buildings vacant. The owners do not have to pay property taxes on those vacant properties via all sorts of work around exemptions.  Just imagine how things in NYC would change if THAT changed.  Yet no one in city government will even allow the idea to be broached.

Beyond this into the bigger and bigger picture: we've been carrying on wars non-stop for decades now, very very very VERY expensive wars -- and there is where all these corps in many different ways are working out corruption and waste to fill their already bloated coffers.  Yet every year the military budget (though not the pay and benefits of the human beings involved) gets bigger, while nothing ever changes except that more and more funds are siphoned away and / or cut from essential goods, services and infrastructure in every area from highway and bridge repairs, new airports and schools and hospitals (fewer hospitals all the time!), education and medical programs -- to pay for this military pig trough for big biz.

I'm sure you enjoyed that rant, but it is irrelevant to the issue of where do the tens of billions spent by NYC every single year go? Why are the streets and the rest of the infrastructure falling apart?  Why can't the schools improve?  Why do the prices go up, but services go down and nothing is fixed?  I mean, 'corporations' are not in charge of NYC subways, or schools, or streets, or garbage removal, or parks.....

 

 

 

[Cas Stark]

17 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

snipped..... But broad claims that just cutting spending and cutting taxes will unleash morin' in America need to be scrutinized very carefully.
 

I never said anything like that, though. 

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, Cas Stark said:

I never said anything like that, though. 

Well maybe you didn't, but that has been basically been the claims of conservatives and their libertarian allies over the last 4 decades or so.

I think we all remember conservatives running around and shouting from rooftops about the "The Bush Boom" or "Gettin' Bullish on Bush" and the "Brownback Boom". 

[Cas Stark]

34 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

Yeah, but even if we assume your impression is correct, the conclusion that taxes should be lowered is still a pretty big leap in reasoning.

Poor management in one place (i.e. NY City in this case) doesn't mean that paying taxes for public services is an evil in itself. Of course some governments are far more efficient than others. Weirdly enough, the more efficient ones seem to be where the necessity of having a strong public sector is barely questioned in the first place...

I don't think anyone thinks this, but I will speak for myself only.  Before taxes and service fees are raised, I'd like to see improvements in efficiency, that doesn't seem too much to ask or expect, especially when looking at the budgets of city/state/federal government in the U.S. in areas like NYC and other urban areas, where truly massive amounts are spent, and yet, very little return, very few successes, and just by the look, as with the subway, it's clearly not going into the infrastructure itself.  Just since I have lived in the area the consumer costs have doubled or more for subway/Path and the bridges/tunnels, to take a single example, and yet there has been no inflation and cost of living has not doubled, LOL. So, where is that money going?  There are also, sticking with just the subway fewer services, e.g more automation, fewer workers, fewer workers has other negatives such as increasing the likelihood of crimes occurring.  So, I ask myself "where is the money going" "why does the subway look worse now that it did 15 years ago"?  And to me, the answer isn't that we need to pay more, we need to find out what in the hell is happening to the money.  

[Zorral]

35 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

I'm sure you enjoyed that rant, but it is irrelevant to the issue of where do the tens of billions spent by NYC every single year go? Why are the streets and the rest of the infrastructure falling apart?  Why can't the schools improve?  Why do the prices go up, but services go down and nothing is fixed?  I mean, 'corporations' are not in charge of NYC subways, or schools, or streets, or garbage removal, or parks.....

 

 

 

Excuse me?  It was made clear that all this value goes in one corrupt, manipulation after another into the bank accounts of the corporations and so on who supposedly provide services and products but only siphon up the value for themselves.

[Cas Stark]

8 minutes ago, Zorral said:

Excuse me?  It was made clear that all this value goes in one corrupt, manipulation after another into the bank accounts of the corporations and so on who supposedly provide services and products but only siphon up the value for themselves.

The NYC budget is $90 billion, the city employs almost 300,00 people full time.  Yet the problem is corporations? Might as well end this discussion here.

[The guy from the Vale]

300'000 public servants in a city of almost 9 million is... not much.

[Zorral]

6 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

The NYC budget is $90 billion, the city employs almost 300,00 people full time.  Yet the problem is corporations? Might as well end this discussion here.

Ya because you won't look at the matters that are the underlying causes.  How much of OUR MONEY do you think goes to the companies that are supposed to be servicing the subways?  Where does that money go -- as you say yourself, not into the subways.  Blame the subways and paying for them for the fact the monies allocated to them disappear in the same ways and to same sorts of people where the monies allocated for services in the kleptocracies such Nigeria and Brazil -- and then blame taxes and the subways, is either willfully blind or willful determination to keep the truth from being recognized.  Richard Prince made billions of out the middle eastern war allocations to the Pentagon.  Yet, we didn't win those wars did we? But nobody's talking about getting rid of those budgets, or cutting them, or getting rid of the military at all, are they?  Well, maybe the human forces that just make it all inconvenient and messy with the tax payers who hate seeing their loved ones being killed for no reason.

[Fragile Bird]

5 hours ago, Ormond said:

I knew there was something wrong with that figure. The Vox article does NOT say "average class size" dropped from 20 to 12. It says there are now 12 students for every teacher employed, which is NOT the same thing. Here are a couple of paragraphs from an NEA report about 2014 statistics pointing this out:

http://www.nea.org/home/rankings-and-estimates-2014-2015.html

 

<snipped for length>

Aha! Thanks for that explanation!

[Cas Stark]

15 minutes ago, Zorral said:

Ya because you won't look at the matters that are the underlying causes.  How much of OUR MONEY do you think goes to the companies that are supposed to be servicing the subways?  Where does that money go -- as you say yourself, not into the subways.  Blame the subways and paying for them for the fact the monies allocated to them disappear in the same ways and to same sorts of people where the monies allocated for services in the kleptocracies such Nigeria and Brazil -- and then blame taxes and the subways, is either willfully blind or willful determination to keep the truth from being recognized.  Richard Prince made billions of out the middle eastern war allocations to the Pentagon.  Yet, we didn't win those wars did we? But nobody's talking about getting rid of those budgets, or cutting them, or getting rid of the military at all, are they?  Well, maybe the human forces that just make it all inconvenient and messy with the tax payers who hate seeing their loved ones being killed for no reason.

I have no trouble believing the city of NY is rife with corruption, incompetence and double dealing, but again, the answer isn't to spend more money. That's my issue. There is very rarely any call from progressives to review existing government entities from top to bottom and to demand that they produce the desired results, to demand efficiency, to even identify what the problems are, if it's corruption or misallocation or whatever, what is almost always demanded is simply more money, and then, if you reject this demand, you are told you are dumb, evil, greedy, hate the children, or whatever.  When I was last in Amsterdam I felt like I could "see" the money that was spent there, it was clean, buses were new, trains were nice, everything felt safe,  public employees were helpful.  I don't see that in NYC, I see the opposite.  War has nothing to do with the NYC budget, seriously, if someone cannot run a city on $90 billion a year and make it look good, the problem is not the Defense Department budget.

[ThinkerX]

30 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

I have no trouble believing the city of NY is rife with corruption, incompetence and double dealing, but again, the answer isn't to spend more money. That's my issue. There is very rarely any call from progressives to review existing government entities from top to bottom and to demand that they produce the desired results, to demand efficiency, to even identify what the problems are, if it's corruption or misallocation or whatever, what is almost always demanded is simply more money, and then, if you reject this demand, you are told you are dumb, evil, greedy, hate the children, or whatever.  When I was last in Amsterdam I felt like I could "see" the money that was spent there, it was clean, buses were new, trains were nice, everything felt safe,  public employees were helpful.  I don't see that in NYC, I see the opposite.  War has nothing to do with the NYC budget, seriously, if someone cannot run a city on $90 billion a year and make it look good, the problem is not the Defense Department budget.

With respect, this is a fairly classic conservative error.

Conservatives repeatedly and loudly denounce wasteful government spending, citing such things as $100 hammers and $300 toilet seats - yet almost never acknowledge that markup comes from the contracts and companies *selling* those items.  They engage in such practices because they can get away with it.  Yet, to conservatives, these criminal contractors and companies are heroic, models of efficiency.  It almost never occurs to conservatives that the true efficiency of private industry - ESPECIALLY if unconstrained - is to make money for themselves by any means whatsoever, *NOT* the public good.  Yet, conservatives insist on privatizing one public function after another, and then express genuine confusion as to why inefficiency and costs both grow.

As to the minimum wage - in my younger years, I spent a long time in a minimum wage job, and have an assortment of quasi relatives who've been in such jobs themselves.  In my case, it was pizza delivery; the paycheck was almost secondary compared to the tips and mileage allotment.  (But it was the full minimum).  During my tenure, the minimum wage increased a number of times, by $1 increments, usually a couple years apart.  Each and every time, conservatives howled that this would result in skyrocketing prices, automation, and mass layoffs throughout the relevant industries.  This did not happen.  The prices of the pizzas did go up - by about 20-30 cents (on pizzas that sold for $17-20).  Almost none of the customers even noticed that.  Nor did the hikes result in layoffs at any of the places me or my quasi relatives worked at - because the work *STILL* needed to be done.  Layoffs were almost always because of idiots showing up drunk or suspected but not proven theft or protracted slow spells. 

 

[ThinkerX]

Regarding conservatives and climate change.  Most of the people on my route (I am a rural USPS contractor) are conservatives, many of them snowbirds with winter dwellings in warmer parts of the US.  Or they have extended families in warmer climes.  I talk with many of them frequently about matters economic (some admit a modest minimum wage hike might not be a bad idea) and about the climate, usually in connection with the weather (we've had a run of warmer than normal winters here.)  Most of them agree something weird is going on with the weather, and there might be something to this climate change bit - especially those with second homes or relatives in say, Florida or Texas. 

 

These are also people who regard Obama as a traitor and believe Trump is the best president the US ever had.    Still, more liberal types who are really, really good with words could get them to agree on these points. 

[lokisnow]

4 hours ago, Cas Stark said:

$15 an hour works out to $30K a year, approximately.  I would assume since this is viewed as the minimum 'living wage' in many circles, that any guaranteed income would have to be at least this amount. 

Clearly you have never worked a minimum wage job, virtually all minimum wage jobs schedule between 25-35 hours per week  (varies week to week) and most are under stringent corporate directive (with scheduling algorithm) to make schedules as irregular as possible (day to day week to week month to month the schedule is designed to fluctuate.) 

and the better/ore productive you are as an employee the more irregular your schedule gets because your employer does not want you to have a regular schedule because that would make your second job easier to schedule with more hours and your employer doesn’t want your performance to decline from working 50-70 hours per week so they do everything possible to make your schedule as awful as they can without inducing you to quit. And your second job employer is doing the same thing.

and you can’t just work one job because you never know how many hours you will work the next week and if you’ll have enough hours in a month to make rent and pay your other bills. So you have to get a second job to just get some stability in your finances.

minimum wage in the age of algorithms is a special kind of hell many people who worked minimum wage in earlier eras can’t  wrap their heads around.

[Martell Spy]

1 hour ago, lokisnow said:

Clearly you have never worked a minimum wage job, virtually all minimum wage jobs schedule between 25-35 hours per week  (varies week to week) and most are under stringent corporate directive (with scheduling algorithm) to make schedules as irregular as possible (day to day week to week month to month the schedule is designed to fluctuate.) 

and the better/ore productive you are as an employee the more irregular your schedule gets because your employer does not want you to have a regular schedule because that would make your second job easier to schedule with more hours and your employer doesn’t want your performance to decline from working 50-70 hours per week so they do everything possible to make your schedule as awful as they can without inducing you to quit. And your second job employer is doing the same thing.

and you can’t just work one job because you never know how many hours you will work the next week and if you’ll have enough hours in a month to make rent and pay your other bills. So you have to get a second job to just get some stability in your finances.

minimum wage in the age of algorithms is a special kind of hell many people who worked minimum wage in earlier eras can’t  wrap their heads around.

I'd also add that transportation costs are a large cost to low-wage workers. In non-city environments there are people without cars, but life is pretty difficult for them. And of course if they are in the city, their housing costs are higher, plus the cost of a bus pass. 

The stress of working in general leads to you spending money. I'm sure many of us have been there.

So, no UBI would not have to be equal to minimum wage at all. Although I am not at all opposed to jacking up the minimum wage  higher and setting UBI at 15. 

And of course if we have already expanded healthcare, not as much healthcare costs would have to be calculated into UBI.

Even a very limited UBI would pretty much eliminate deep poverty, which is a good in its own right. 

[Altherion]

5 hours ago, Rippounet said:

Oh, I agree with that. Like, 686 billion dollars for the US military? According to my calculator, if that was cut down by half, a 30k UBI could be provided to about 11 million people.

Of course, you might argue that the military-industrial complex provides jobs, technology and geopolitical influence. To which I'd answer that 11 million poor people would no doubt spend their "free" money, thus helping the economy as well. And again, since I'm not a conservative, I think most of those 11 million would actually use their time to be productive members of society. Also, I'm still leaving 343 billion $ for the US military, which ain't bad, since it would *still* be the largest military budget in the world.

Who gets to choose which 11 million? The military-industrial complex as well as the telecoms and various other large corporations which collect money from the government are undoubtedly parasitic too, but if we're going to limit their parasitism (this is a purely hypothetical argument; it will never happen within the existing framework), why not simply collect less money from the people who are paying it in the first place?

5 hours ago, Rippounet said:

And what's with you and New York anyway? Even if you're correct and public services in NY being overpriced, what is that supposed to demonstrate exactly?

Partly because New York is the city I know best (I've lived in three others over the course of my life, but not for as long), partly because its politicians fight very hard to claim that they're on the leading edge of the progressive movement (e.g. Ocasio-Cortez is from here) and partly because New York is emblematic of the economic environment the country is being pushed into.

2 hours ago, ThinkerX said:

Conservatives repeatedly and loudly denounce wasteful government spending, citing such things as $100 hammers and $300 toilet seats - yet almost never acknowledge that markup comes from the contracts and companies *selling* those items.  They engage in such practices because they can get away with it.  Yet, to conservatives, these criminal contractors and companies are heroic, models of efficiency.

Not in this case. Everybody knows that the tax money is somehow making its way to private hands, but it's hard to figure out exactly where it's going and even if you manage to do so, it's impossible to get the city to justify why they went for that specific high cost, low production option.

[Serious Callers Only]

10 hours ago, OldGimletEye said:

Quick question: Just what is the conservative plan for the issue of Climate Change? Throwing around some libertarian fairy dust and hoping for the best? 

Murder. It's murder.