U.S. Politics, 14

[Commodore]

Isn't it more or less proven that the top 1% make more money than they spend? Meaning that more money to that group of people means less total capital being returned to the economy?

If they buried the money in the backyard or under a mattress, this would be true.

Income not used for short term consumption is invested.

[Jon Sprunk]

I don't post too often on these boards, but I want to thank FLOW for his defense of conservatism. I believe that the traditional conservative ideology has much merit at the personal level. Personal responsibility, savings over waste, respect for your environment (oops, think the GOP missed that one). But, seriously, these are some of the ideals that America was built upon. There are two problems, though.

First, the devil is in the details. When strict conservative values are enforced, many people suffer, particularly the poor, the under-educated, the old, and the unlucky -- the most vulnerable among us. If progressive liberals have a problem, it's that they sometimes reach too far to protect these groups. But in a country as prosperous as this one, I think that's not necessarily a sin.

The much bigger problem for conservatives is that, at the national level, they don't believe their own dogma. If the conservatives (or GOP) had total, overwhelming control of both houses of congress and the White House, the size of government would not be reduced one iota. In fact, if history is any indicator, the role of government would expand, and the debt would continue to rise higher and higher. Because the government has an increasingly large appetite, no matter which party or ideology is "in charge."

So, I just wish conservatives would stop with the "less government, lower taxes" line, because it will never happen. The only administration in recent memory to "balance" the budget (with some very optimistic math) was Clinton, and the conservatives couldn't stop castigating him as a "big government tax-and-spender."

The reality is the US govt will always take a large chunk of your earnings and spend it, and then spend some more on top of that. The only real debate is about where to spend it. Perks for one social class or another, foreign military adventures, social saftey nets, colonizing Uranus... pick your favorite project. But don't dare to wish for a small, rational, fiscally-responsible government. It's never going to happen.

[awesome possum]

If ever there was a moment for Harry Reid to actually make the Republicans "work" for their obstruction, this was it: refuse to move onto new business until the extension had been passed. Meanwhile the Republicans would be forced to demonstate their sociopathy in public.

I saw an interview with an Ohio senator yesterday, forget his name, and he brought up a good point. Republicans would have caved on UI benefits no matter what, if the Dems prodded them hard and long enough. His plan went something like this: Obama flies around the country giving fire and brimstone speeches in states with a Republican senator up for reelection in 2012, explaining to people that the GOP is holding up unemployment benefits just before Christmas and winter. Then the Senate and House would be forced to stay- Christmas Eve, Christmas Day, up until New Years Eve. No break for them. They stay and force Republicans to stand on the senate floor and explain why tax cuts for the filthy rich is more important than unemployment benefits for those who can't feed their families, buy Christmas presents for their children, heat their homes, etc.

Republicans would have caved, he explained, because they always cave on UI benefits. They have no choice.

Of course, doing so would require a spine from most Democrats, which is something many of them - apparently including the President - lack.

Sariel,

I'm curious are you saying making enough money to be able to save some is a bad thing?

Scot, did you miss the part where Sariel said the top 1% of Americans. There's a difference between "making enough money to be able to save" and "making so much money that you buy a new $230,000,000 yacht, a new townhouse on Martha's Vineyard, a condo in Paris, a bungalow in Belize, a couple new cars for your kids and still have more money laying around then 2,000 poor people make in a year combined."

Of course, I think you know that. Gotta have those "gotcha" questions, though, don't you?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Jon Sprunk,

No.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Ser Poss.,

Okay. I understand he's talking about upper income earners. However, what he said implied saving is not good for the economy. Hence my question.

[Andriy Czarchenko]

Ser Poss.,

Okay. I understand he's talking about upper income earners. However, what he said implied saving is not good for the economy. Hence my question.

Depends how much you save.

[Sariel]

In a period of high unemployment I'd think the last thing you'd want is for money to be saved rather than poured back into the economy.

Mind you, my economic knowledge comes from some pretty basic stuff I took in the IB.

Furthermore as Ser Possum mentioned, further parts of that money will not be returned to the US economy at all.

[TerraPrime]

TP, you stated previously that federal income taxes don't pay for unemployment benefits. While that is true for initial benefits, the extended benefits have been paid by federal tax dollars, not by employer contributions. That has nothing to do with the employer-specific UI accounts maintained by states.

Are you now claiming that the states, or employers within the states, are going to repay the federal government for those extended benefits? Because otherwise, the fact remains that those benefits are being paid by general federal revenues

, including income taxes.

You are right that the extending of unemployment benefits will use fund that is not in the UI accounts. That's why we call it extension.

However, the comment that I responded to was not, as far as I can tell, specifically about the extension, but about unemployment benefits in general. Specifically, I was responding to the idea that it is preposterous to pay someone while they're unemployed, and that we should not have to pay for it. In general, we don't pay for it, they do from the UI mechanism. That was my point. For reference, the below bit is what I was responding to when I started this part of the conversation:

I'm not sure how that changes the point, though. I'd agree that people might take part-time work out of "desperation" if their benefits are about to run out. But exactly what's wrong with them working for money rather than being handed it for doing nothing? They can always continue looking for full-time positions if only employed part-time, right? For that matter, a great many people look for better full-time work even when they're already employed full-time.

[TrackerNeil]

In fact, if history is any indicator, the role of government would expand, and the debt would continue to rise higher and higher. Because the government has an increasingly large appetite, no matter which party or ideology is "in charge."

Great post, but I will quibble with one thing you said. I don't think that government is the one with the appetite for spending; it's the voters. Even now, with all this weird focus on the debt, in polls Americans say they don't want to pay down the debt with cuts to defense, Social Security or Medicare. That tells me two things: 1) Americans have little or no idea just how much federal money goes to those three things; and 2) Americans love federal money. We love our tax breaks and subsidies and all of the other goodies we get from Uncle Sam, and given a choice between cutting those and increasing the national debt, we choose to increase the debt every time.

However, on a non-Sprunk-related note, I must say this thread has taught me something interesting about the way conservatives view deficits. Apparently, adding to the debt by spending increases is bad, but adding to the debt by reducing tax revenue is...not adding to the debt. <shakes head>

[Jon Sprunk]

Jon Sprunk,

No.

I'm not attacking conservatism in general, Ser Scot. I'm pointing out that there is a severe disconnect between the rank-and-file, work-hard-to-support-their-family, save-for-rainy-days, take-responsiblity-for-their-actions conservatives and the corporate puppets in the federal government with Rs behind their names.

[Commodore]

The reality is the US govt will always take a large chunk of your earnings and spend it, and then spend some more on top of that.

If only they spent what they took and nothing more.

It's the borrowing that cannot go on "always".

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

I don't post too often on these boards, but I want to thank FLOW for his defense of conservatism.

Thank you.

First, the devil is in the details. When strict conservative values are enforced, many people suffer, particularly the poor, the under-educated, the old, and the unlucky -- the most vulnerable among us.

Conservative values are not equivalent to social darwinism. Most conservatives I know believe in some level of a social safety net, and are very supportive of private charity efforts. Perhaps more importantly, conservatives believe that their values and policies will result, long-term, in a stronger, more stable economy that will benefit all income groups, and provide the largest number of people with gainful employment. We also tend to believe that liberal prescriptions, while they assuage the conscience by providing more to the less fortunate in the short term, ultimately end in an economic black hole where virtually everyone will suffer.

Obviously, it's a disputed factual issue as to which view is correct economically. I'm simply pointing out that conservative philosophy is not indifferent to the plight of the less fortunate. We just think you guys are short-sighted, essentially advocating policies that will kill the geese that lay the golden eggs.

The much bigger problem for conservatives is that, at the national level, they don't believe their own dogma. If the conservatives (or GOP) had total, overwhelming control of both houses of congress and the White House, the size of government would not be reduced one iota.

Equating "conservatism" with "GOP" is where you are going wrong. Most of the conservatives I know tend to lambast the overall direction of the party, believing it has not followed true conservative principles, and instead has followed a weird middle ground where government expenditures continue to grow. To those conservatives, the GOP is the preferred alternative simply because it is more conservative (or less liberal) than the alternative. One aspect of this is the whole "RINO" (Republican In Name Only) perjorative commonly applied to some Republicans by other Republicans who believe they do not follow conservative principles. McCain, Romney, Giuliani, etc., all had that label applied to them during the 2008 primary.

Not surprisingly, Democrats and others on the left tend to approve of these same "RINO" Republicans as the "reasonable" Republicans, and complain bitterly about those Republicans who actually do try to hold onto conservative principles. Yet in discussions such as this, those same Democrats will lambast the GOP for not being true to its supposed conservative ideals. The truth is the Maine Senators, Voinovich, Graham, and others in the GOP are not conservatives, and I really can't think of the last time the GOP had a Senate majority that consisted of actual conservatives.

So, I just wish conservatives would stop with the "less government, lower taxes" line, because it will never happen. The only administration in recent memory to "balance" the budget (with some very optimistic math) was Clinton, and the conservatives couldn't stop castigating him as a "big government tax-and-spender."

Would you say the same of "progressives/liberals", because they can't really get their preferred agenda enacted completely either? Because the flip side of what I said above all this are those Democrats who complain that Obama has been too moderate, are angry that there was no public option, etc. Just as those liberals/progressives didn't have complete control despite Democratic majorities in both houses, so too have conservatives really never had control either. But does that mean they should stop arguing and advocating their beliefs in the hope of getting at least some of them enacted into law?

The only administration in recent memory to "balance" the budget (with some very optimistic math) was Clinton, and the conservatives couldn't stop castigating him as a "big government tax-and-spender."

You may recall that he also was working with perhaps the only truly "conservative" majority the GOP has had in Congress (or at least the House) for a very long time. Those conservatives managed to push through some truly "conservative" reforms, such as welfare reform that Clinton signed.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

You are right that the extending of unemployment benefits will use fund that is not in the UI accounts. That's why we call it extension.

However, the comment that I responded to was not, as far as I can tell, specifically about the extension, but about unemployment benefits in general. Specifically, I was responding to the idea that it is preposterous to pay someone while they're unemployed, and that we should not have to pay for it.

I never said it was preposterous to pay someone while they're unemployed, nor did I imply that. What I did question was paying someone while they're unemployed if they have a job offer that they turn down. Moreover, it strains credulity for you to claim that you didn't think the discussion involved the federally-funded extension given that the genesis for this entire discussion was the federally-funded extension of benefits contained in the tax-compromise proposal.

But I suppose if you want to argue it was a misunderstanding or miscommunication, fine. I'll still stand by my point that continuing to turn down employment after the initial 26 weeks have expired, during the extended period of federally-funded, is not something the government should encourage. And usually, at least in my state, partial unemployment less than the amount of benefits is supplemented by partial benefits.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

However, on a non-Sprunk-related note, I must say this thread has taught me something interesting about the way conservatives view deficits. Apparently, adding to the debt by spending increases is bad, but adding to the debt by reducing tax revenue is...not adding to the debt. <shakes head>

Who said reducing revenue doesn't add to the debt?

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

You'll rarely if ever hear any liberal argue that big government is good; government should be large enough to enact whatever policy that liberal likes. If a small government can do the job, most liberals have no objection.

But that's just a semantic game, Neil. "Big" or "Small" government doesn't refer simply to the number of govenrment employees, but rather the size and scope of various programs and policies of that government. Liberals want the government to do more in terms of social services, social safety nets, subsidizing education, research, etc. Whether you call that "big government" or not, the concept is pretty clear.

Conservatives, on the other hand, are always going on about the virtues of small government, which they view as an end in itself. They don't care how effective or efficient a large government is; they object to the concept of large government. The former viewpoint is pragmatic; the latter, philosophical.

You're applying two different standards. Liberals wants univeral health coverage because they believe health care is a right, and conservatives oppose it because they don't believe it is a right. Neither position is any more pragamatic or philosophical than the other, because both are dependent upon specific moral views.

I am pragmatic about governing. I don't view taxes as good or bad, and the same goes for government (of any size) or Social Security or whatever other program you care to name. It's all policy, and the good or bad comes in the application. I don't know if that answers your question, though.

So you don't care whether everyone has health care or not, as long as the budget is balanced?

Didn't think so.....

[Lord O' Bones]

So you don't care whether everyone has health care or not, as long as the budget is balanced?

Didn't think so.....

If it weren't for drowning in shitheads in government, we could have both.

[Swordfish]

If it weren't for drowning in shitheads in government, we could have both.

But if you acknowledge this, is it pragmatic to support large government programs like UHC, or would that be more of a position based on a moral philosophy?

[Kelli Fury]

re:mn governor's race, Emmer conceded today

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

If it weren't for drowning in shitheads in government, we could have both.

Or, you could lower taxes, not have UHC, and still balance the budget. It all matters on the subjective moral weighing of more government benefits v. less taxation.

[Lord O' Bones]

But if you acknowledge this, is it pragmatic to support large government programs like UHC, or would that be more of a position based on a moral philosophy?

Yes.

There is no "or" here. Of all the large government programs that should be in the first place, health care is one of them.

A shitty or poorly managed government doesn't change my stance on these things.