Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

 

[David Dennison 19538]

1 minute ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

 

Democrats are going to dominate on these issues. Most people support them. That's what scares the hell out of conservatives.

[FondrenRoad 4378]

7 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

 

Its funny that that graphic is supposed to make her evil to Fox viewers.  Even the way they are worded, the only issues that the average conservative should have with that platform should be gun control and the "abolish ice" portion of immigration justice.  Some of the others could have tax/spend issues when policies are actually fleshed out, but they shouldn't be evil scary ideas to an actual conservative. 

OMG, she wants to support seniors, Ethel.  I'm tearing up my social security checks from now on.  I refuse to accept support.

[Js1 87182]

Because we have a selfish, uneducated population, 30% that is brainwashed by Fox News to see anything that would make our society healthier, better educated and more sustainable as trying to steal from you.
 

Promote the general welfare just means FUCK YOU I GOT MINE!

[FondrenRoad 4378]

17 minutes ago, longhornmatt said:

For only 40-60% of all your income above working class levels, plus a 25% VAT, you can also live the Democratic Socialist dream!  How has this not happened already!

Because we don't give a shit about poor people.  God forbid we emulate Denmark, a country that has near the highest quality of life in the world.  But it doesn't start with poor people.  We don't even give a shit about teachers, social workers, or any of the other people who try to help the impoverished people of our country learn how to use their "bootstraps."  You think a Danish public school teacher is barely making ends meet like an Oklahoma teacher?  

Much of it is about making a more equitable split between the boss and the lowest worker at both private companies and public facilities.  Actual welfare spending per capita in Denmark isn't blowing our welfare spending away.  In 2013, they spent $13,259.80 per capita.  We spent $9,838.40.  And much of that gap comes from single payer healthcare spending, and not from additional housing or food subsidies.  But their employers, both public and private, pay their employees a living wage, so there is less need for subsidies for people that are employed.

Edited July 27, 2018 by FondrenRoad

[Huckleberry 34644]

This is all just political sloganeering and shit-flinging. Everyone realizes that we have to pay taxes and that the government has to provide services in return. The question is how many taxes for how much in services.

Everyone benefits from certain things that taxes pay for. Some are obvious like roads and emergency services, some are less obvious but even more pervasive in their assistance to every member of society such as public education. Shouting about how for 40-60% of your income above working class levels plus a 25% VAT you can live the dream is hardly instructive. If people could pay 50% tax on their income above $60K and have all medical costs paid for then that would actually work out as a positive economic situation (compared to their current baseline) for a huge chunk of the American population, especially when you consider that salaries may not be as negatively affected by the VAT as people would fear because medical insurance would be decoupled from employment. Salaries may actually go up because of that, I have no idea what the rough equivalent between a 25% VAT is in terms of sales taxes that we pay. Add in free college education compared to the debt load that people have right now and you have even more people who would end up net positive in such a system.

Screaming about the costs without mentioning the benefits is silly. Now I happen to think the benefits would not be nearly as great as people want to believe, inefficiencies would increase costs on those benefits over time, and eventually the system would collapse. But it's completely disingenuous to talk about the proposed costs but not the proposed benefits.

THEY WANT A WORLD WHERE YOU PAY TWICE AS MUCH FOR A GLASS OF BEER!!! By the way, the glass of beer is twice as large.

 

[BurdineBandit 846]

14 hours ago, Buzzrock said:

There’s nothing better than a bt Fondren CR tickle pile.

And Alex Octave Corona is a Kardashian millennial politician. A complete flibbertigibbet. Unless you think “Well, like, um,” is sound political discourse.

Let's compare what the Reality TV Star who has never had to work to live a day in their life and has a propensity for cameras in the bedroom (who now resides in the Oval Office) has in common with Kim Kardashian, compared to Ocasio-Cortez.

[Js1 87182]

3 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

This is all just political sloganeering and shit-flinging. Everyone realizes that we have to pay taxes and that the government has to provide services in return. The question is how many taxes for how much in services.

Everyone benefits from certain things that taxes pay for. Some are obvious like roads and emergency services, some are less obvious but even more pervasive in their assistance to every member of society such as public education. Shouting about how for 40-60% of your income above working class levels plus a 25% VAT you can live the dream is hardly instructive. If people could pay 50% tax on their income above $60K and have all medical costs paid for then that would actually work out as a positive economic situation (compared to their current baseline) for a huge chunk of the American population, especially when you consider that salaries may not be as negatively affected by the VAT as people would fear because medical insurance would be decoupled from employment. Salaries may actually go up because of that, I have no idea what the rough equivalent between a 25% VAT is in terms of sales taxes that we pay. Add in free college education compared to the debt load that people have right now and you have even more people who would end up net positive in such a system.

Screaming about the costs without mentioning the benefits is silly. Now I happen to think the benefits would not be nearly as great as people want to believe, inefficiencies would increase costs on those benefits over time, and eventually the system would collapse. But it's completely disingenuous to talk about the proposed costs but not the proposed benefits.

THEY WANT A WORLD WHERE YOU PAY TWICE AS MUCH FOR A GLASS OF BEER!!! By the way, the glass of beer is twice as large.

 

THAT SOUNDS HORRIBLE HOW DARE YOU TRYING TO MAKE ME PAY TWICE AS MUCH FOR BEER!

Because that's where they'd stop reading.  And then claim you're trying to steal from them to pay for the guy down the street's beer.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Seems like she’s going on offense.

[Huckleberry 34644]

Yes, the fact that more regressive taxation is necessary to cover the costs of such programs is a valid talking point. As an aside, currently the top marginal rate is 55.8% from what I can tell, the 60% was several years ago. Also, there is a 51.5% maximum rate on income taxes in Denmark.

Regardless, it should also be pointed out that after years and years of this tax system Danes still overwhelmingly support it based on the society it has enabled.

That's not an endorsement of trying it in the USA, though. Cultural differences, not to mention the logistical issues of even attempting something like that in a country of 325 million versus 6 million, mean it would take a lot going right for such a system to last even a decade here. It's a bad idea but let's stick to the real reasons that it's a bad idea.

[FondrenRoad 4378]

29 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

This is all just political sloganeering and shit-flinging. Everyone realizes that we have to pay taxes and that the government has to provide services in return. The question is how many taxes for how much in services.

Everyone benefits from certain things that taxes pay for. Some are obvious like roads and emergency services, some are less obvious but even more pervasive in their assistance to every member of society such as public education. Shouting about how for 40-60% of your income above working class levels plus a 25% VAT you can live the dream is hardly instructive. If people could pay 50% tax on their income above $60K and have all medical costs paid for then that would actually work out as a positive economic situation (compared to their current baseline) for a huge chunk of the American population, especially when you consider that salaries may not be as negatively affected by the VAT as people would fear because medical insurance would be decoupled from employment. Salaries may actually go up because of that, I have no idea what the rough equivalent between a 25% VAT is in terms of sales taxes that we pay. Add in free college education compared to the debt load that people have right now and you have even more people who would end up net positive in such a system.

Screaming about the costs without mentioning the benefits is silly. Now I happen to think the benefits would not be nearly as great as people want to believe, inefficiencies would increase costs on those benefits over time, and eventually the system would collapse. But it's completely disingenuous to talk about the proposed costs but not the proposed benefits.

THEY WANT A WORLD WHERE YOU PAY TWICE AS MUCH FOR A GLASS OF BEER!!! By the way, the glass of beer is twice as large.

 

Never been to Denmark, but beer and wine are way cheaper than here in Germany, France, and Belgium.

[Js1 87182]

"It sounds logistically difficult, we shouldn't bother to discuss why it's a bad idea and just keep the status quo" ....

- George Washington on the American Revolution

- Abraham Lincoln on freeing the slaves

- FDR on the New Deal

- LBJ on the Great Society

- Truman on dropping the bombs in Japan

[MaybeACoordinator 8350]

31 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

Because we don't give a shit about poor people.  God forbid we emulate Denmark, a country that has near the highest quality of life in the world.  But it doesn't start with poor people.  We don't even give a shit about teachers, social workers, or any of the other people who try to help the impoverished people of our country learn how to use their "bootstraps."  You think a Danish public school teacher is barely making ends meet like an Oklahoma teacher?  

Much of it is about making a more equitable split between the boss and the lowest worker at both private companies and public facilities.  Actual welfare spending per capita in Denmark isn't blowing our welfare spending away.  In 2013, they spent $13,259.80 per capita.  We spent $9,838.40.  And much of that gap comes from single payer healthcare spending, and not from additional housing or food subsidies.  But their employers, both public and private, pay their employees a living wage, so there is less need for subsidies for people that are employed.

But but but but....Denmark is homogenous. 

[Brisketexan 106893]

2 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

Yes, the fact that more regressive taxation is necessary to cover the costs of such programs is a valid talking point. As an aside, currently the top marginal rate is 55.8% from what I can tell, the 60% was several years ago. Also, there is a 51.5% maximum rate on income taxes in Denmark.

Regardless, it should also be pointed out that after years and years of this tax system Danes still overwhelmingly support it based on the society it has enabled.

That's not an endorsement of trying it in the USA, though. Cultural differences, not to mention the logistical issues of even attempting something like that in a country of 325 million versus 6 million, mean it would take a lot going right for such a system to last even a decade here. It's a bad idea but let's stick to the real reasons that it's a bad idea.

This.

There are lessons and pieces that we can take from the Denmark model.  Shit, it's like me looking at my neighbor's house and deciding that there are things they've done that would be a good idea and would work on my house, as well as some things that would be a bad idea because I have a steeper lot, more pitched roof line, etc.

Each spending item should be looked at in light of the totality of the economic cost and impact.  Education is a GREAT example.  If you just look at it in terms of dollars per pupil, and the taxes it takes to do that, you are missing the most important part of the analysis -- the positive economic impact by having an educated workforce, folks who are less likely to commit crimes and occupy expensive prison space, etc.  If it costs us $150k to educate a child from 1-12th grade, but that yields $900k in extra juice into the economy when he becomes a productive worker, and saves us, over a lifetime, $250k in tax expenditures for each person who goes to prison for a significant period of time, then the economic decision is an easy one.  Consider ALL of the impacts and data points, and the irony is, for those folks who say it's all about the dollars, they should be in FAVOR of things like public education expenditures.

But, we live in a world where "SAD!" is considered deep political commentary.  So, fuck it.

[MaybeACoordinator 8350]

We've been so long used to getting so little tangible benefit from our tax dollars we don't see the point of paying taxes at all. Most of our money goes to olds and the military and military olds and some crumbs to the poors. The average young middle class family doesn't benefit from any of this at all, whereas in countries like Denmark they get healthcare, parental leave, vacation, unemployment, etc. 

[RandomIdoit 739]

4 minutes ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

We've been so long used to getting so little tangible benefit from our tax dollars we don't see the point of paying taxes at all. Most of our money goes to olds and the military and military olds and some crumbs to the poors. The average young middle class family doesn't benefit from any of this at all, whereas in countries like Denmark they get healthcare, parental leave, vacation, unemployment, etc. 

The fact that people think that giving more money to the government is a good thing makes me laugh. 

[MaybeACoordinator 8350]

Just now, RandomIdoit said:

The fact that people think that giving more money to the government is a good thing makes me laugh. 

Because you've been conditioned to think that way. Texas state parks kind of suck, because we don't put any money into them, and then you have to pay out of pocket when you get there. That's not the way it's supposed to work. We are supposed to pay a little more in taxes for them, and then have great state parks, and then pay no admission fee and very little for cabins and such when we go. It would also be nice if the state park system could acquire more land and build more parks and not have to charge for them, etc., but we'd rather just have more Schlitterbahns and shit. 

[Huckleberry 34644]

The fact that people think that giving more money to the government is a good thing makes me laugh. 

There's that deep insightful analysis we're looking for.

Do you think you're paying the right amount to the government now? If not, then how much is the right amount? What do you base that on? Do you value the government provided items and services that allow you to live the life you do?

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

10 minutes ago, RandomIdoit said:

The fact that people think that giving more money to the government is a good thing makes me laugh. 

This is the mentality Health Insurance/big pharma want you to have while they rob the middle class blind and get laws written for them by politicians they’ve paid good money for.

Same thing with for profit schools and banks.

We are getting screwed more by the corporate giants which use the government as a tool to keep robbing us blind.

Edited July 27, 2018 by Hugo Stiglitz

[Js1 87182]

1 minute ago, Huckleberry said:

There's that deep insightful analysis we're looking for.

Do you think you're paying the right amount to the government now? If not, then how much is the right amount? What do you base that on? Do you value the government provided items and services that allow you to live the life you do?

Oh the Clearlake Horn defense of "I should live in this dream conservative utopia where I pay absolutely nothing in taxes because fuck you, I got mine."

[David Dennison 19538]

7 minutes ago, RandomIdoit said:

The fact that people think that giving more money to the government is a good thing makes me laugh. 

How about we not give the government more money, but rather cut the military budget in half and spend money we already have on more productive endeavors.

[Biff Tannen 46165]

2 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

How about we not give the government more money, but rather cut the military budget in half and spend money we already have on more productive endeavors.

But then you hate America.  Or something.  Because the brown people.

[RomaVicta 30583]

1 hour ago, Js1 said:

Because we have a selfish, uneducated population, 30% that is brainwashed by Fox News to see anything that would make our society healthier, better educated and more sustainable as trying to steal from you.
 

Promote the general welfare just means FUCK YOU I GOT MINE!

Someone noted several years ago that the US was being changed by people thinking of themselves as tax payers instead of citizens. I thought that was astute then, and now I think it was prophetic. 

The safety nets created by government were a response to citizens not wanting to see senior citizens living without homes or healthcare and not wanting to see people starving in a country that produces huge surpluses of food.

Of course, those programs, like all programs, reveal flaws which tax payers use to argue that entire programs should be shut down. The urban legend of welfare Cadillacs was created to scorn the people who needed the help in hopes of destroying the programs. 

Handouts to the poor are such a tiny part of our budget, but many of the rich got rich by arguing over every dime. Thirty percent of us cheer them.

ps Nice debate on these last few pages. I'd checked out after the first few pages.

Edited July 27, 2018 by RomaVicta

[RandomIdoit 739]

1 minute ago, Huckleberry said:

There's that deep insightful analysis we're looking for.

Do you think you're paying the right amount to the government now? If not, then how much is the right amount? What do you base that on? Do you value the government provided items and services that allow you to live the life you do?

By my calculations, my tax as percentage of income was around 18.44%. I don't know what the "right" amount is. Yes, I value the government items and services that allow me to live the life that I do, that's why I have no problem paying the amount that I do, which I think is fair.

 

2 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

How about we not give the government more money, but rather cut the military budget in half and spend money we already have on more productive endeavors.

Sure, I have no problems with that.

[Guest]

For those endorsing any particular plan (e.g. bad teammate and fondren road or any others):

Instead of giving qualitative analysis with a few basic numbers thrown in (e.g. "free college for all to be paid for if we increase taxes, maybe something like 65% for the top 20%; this should work out"), why not give quantification for all claims with summed total projected costs and revenues to see if your comprehensive plan is even feasible?  Of course you can't know all projected costs with full certainty, but reasonable estimates (with your reasoning for the given estimates) can be used where necessary.  We are talking about things that all incur costs and generate revenues; all of these things can be quantified and so there is no need to rely solely on gobs of text on hopes & expectations.  It is either feasible that your plan will work (i.e. the revenue from your taxes will cover the costs of your plan) or it is not.  If you've not even performed a basic analysis using numbers and not presumptions, then there is really no point in talking about the plan.  This is the difference between talking with someone who wants to start a business who has an actual business plan with detailed numbers vs talking with someone with dreams.  

 

[TwiceHorn 32078]

On 7/24/2018 at 11:31 AM, FondrenRoad said:

Because you don't understand addiction, mental illness, or homelessness.  I've told you multiple times now that NYC already provides your entire list of socialist dreams to homeless people.  The only thing NYC doesn't do is force homeless people to use them.  And since you keep doubling down, I can only believe that you want them forced into housing and jobs against their will because that is really the only thing left we can do for them.

I mean, you could just say "Its great that NYC provides that, so even while I love O-C, I understand she is wrong in conflating homelessness in NYC with apartment vacancies, and perhaps she lacks an understanding of the services currently available to the homeless in NYC.  Her heart is in the right place, and perhaps with a better understanding, she can help NYC's programs become federal programs.  However, in spite of NYC having the most robust homeless outreach and shelter program in the United States, we still need to figure out how to reach out to the mentally ill in a better way."

But you don't say that.  Instead you double down on idiocy.  You also, like O-C, get caught up in catchphrases when you say shit like "Crowley didn't want "Medicare for all" until the primary!" Thats because he wanted single payer universal healthcare.  You know, the same fucking thing.  "He doesn't want to abolish ICE!"  No, he wanted them to stop their gestapo tactics, but understands that some agency will be handling immigration enforcement and he doesn't really care what acronym they operate under.  He only cares that they operate in a humane and just manner.  But O-C actually knows all that, and she even recognized that in her debates.  She just uses buzzwords to play people like you like a fiddle because you're the left wing equivalent of a rube who loves the sound of "Make America Great Again!"  But while you're a useful idiot, she needs to start actually studying up and putting plans, like the ones already in place in NYC, behind her catchphrases.

Also, people with their wits about them who appear homeless and are panhandling, aren't usually homeless.  They are able to pull in over 100 dollars a day on a typical day, and unlike you and me, their income is tax free.  And in the summer, there are always exponentially more people on the streets doing this. And they will never come to a shelter when you offer to take them.

But hey, I only volunteer to do homeless outreach and also volunteer regularly at family shelters.  She volunteered for Bernie, and protests, so she must know more about the homeless.

My respect for you, always present, grows.

[TwiceHorn 32078]

32 minutes ago, Aphelion said:

For those endorsing any particular plan (e.g. bad teammate and fondren road or any others):

Instead of giving qualitative analysis with a few basic numbers thrown in (e.g. "free college for all to be paid for if we increase taxes, maybe something like 65% for the top 20%; this should work out"), why not give quantification for all claims with summed total projected costs and revenues to see if your comprehensive plan is even feasible?  Of course you can't know all projected costs with full certainty, but reasonable estimates (with your reasoning for the given estimates) can be used where necessary.  We are talking about things that all incur costs and generate revenues; all of these things can be quantified and so there is no need to rely solely on gobs of text on hopes & expectations.  It is either feasible that your plan will work (i.e. the revenue from your taxes will cover the costs of your plan) or it is not.  If you've not even performed a basic analysis using numbers and not presumptions, then there is really no point in talking about the plan.  This is the difference between talking with someone who wants to start a business who has an actual business plan with detailed numbers vs talking with someone with dreams.  

 

Out of rep, but yes, love this idea.  Cost-benefit analysis everything.  It isn't perfect and the analyses will be wrong, but at least do it and get it out there for consideration.

 

I am not opposed to socialistic ideas, but the way they are often presented is without regard to costs vs. benefits (because no one is considering it).  As is common, people sell the good and leave out the bad.

Edited July 27, 2018 by TwiceHorn

[TwiceHorn 32078]

2 hours ago, Huckleberry said:

Yes, the fact that more regressive taxation is necessary to cover the costs of such programs is a valid talking point. As an aside, currently the top marginal rate is 55.8% from what I can tell, the 60% was several years ago. Also, there is a 51.5% maximum rate on income taxes in Denmark.

Regardless, it should also be pointed out that after years and years of this tax system Danes still overwhelmingly support it based on the society it has enabled.

That's not an endorsement of trying it in the USA, though. Cultural differences, not to mention the logistical issues of even attempting something like that in a country of 325 million versus 6 million, mean it would take a lot going right for such a system to last even a decade here. It's a bad idea but let's stick to the real reasons that it's a bad idea.

Great post.

[Incredulity 11876]

1 hour ago, Aphelion said:

For those endorsing any particular plan (e.g. bad teammate and fondren road or any others):

Instead of giving qualitative analysis with a few basic numbers thrown in (e.g. "free college for all to be paid for if we increase taxes, maybe something like 65% for the top 20%; this should work out"), why not give quantification for all claims with summed total projected costs and revenues to see if your comprehensive plan is even feasible?  Of course you can't know all projected costs with full certainty, but reasonable estimates (with your reasoning for the given estimates) can be used where necessary.  We are talking about things that all incur costs and generate revenues; all of these things can be quantified and so there is no need to rely solely on gobs of text on hopes & expectations.  It is either feasible that your plan will work (i.e. the revenue from your taxes will cover the costs of your plan) or it is not.  If you've not even performed a basic analysis using numbers and not presumptions, then there is really no point in talking about the plan.  This is the difference between talking with someone who wants to start a business who has an actual business plan with detailed numbers vs talking with someone with dreams.  

 

Numbers are part of the Patriarchy, you Nazi bigot. 

Edited July 27, 2018 by Incredulity

[Huckleberry 34644]

1 hour ago, Aphelion said:

For those endorsing any particular plan (e.g. bad teammate and fondren road or any others):

Instead of giving qualitative analysis with a few basic numbers thrown in (e.g. "free college for all to be paid for if we increase taxes, maybe something like 65% for the top 20%; this should work out"), why not give quantification for all claims with summed total projected costs and revenues to see if your comprehensive plan is even feasible?  Of course you can't know all projected costs with full certainty, but reasonable estimates (with your reasoning for the given estimates) can be used where necessary.  We are talking about things that all incur costs and generate revenues; all of these things can be quantified and so there is no need to rely solely on gobs of text on hopes & expectations.  It is either feasible that your plan will work (i.e. the revenue from your taxes will cover the costs of your plan) or it is not.  If you've not even performed a basic analysis using numbers and not presumptions, then there is really no point in talking about the plan.  This is the difference between talking with someone who wants to start a business who has an actual business plan with detailed numbers vs talking with someone with dreams.  

 

 

4 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

Numbers are part of the Patriarchy, you Nazi bigot. 

Here we see the difference between a thoughtful poster making a good post suggesting specific improvements to raise the level of discourse and an idiot.

[Incredulity 11876]

It was a joke, you pedantic cunt.

[riloh05 107]

2 hours ago, FondrenRoad said:

Because we don't give a shit about poor people. 

as an aside... i dont think social media is helping "the poor" with their cause. a lot of emotion that was used in the past is falling on deaf ears because someone can point to something they saw on social media and generally make a call/thought on they dont need that anymore...or the sympathy card is no longer on the table.

there will always be those that will sympathize...but then there are those folks who work everyday, come home, log in to facebook or whatever and see what "the poor" has been doing while they were at work all day. its not science, but just an observation.

[Brisketexan 106893]

1 hour ago, Aphelion said:

For those endorsing any particular plan (e.g. bad teammate and fondren road or any others):

Instead of giving qualitative analysis with a few basic numbers thrown in (e.g. "free college for all to be paid for if we increase taxes, maybe something like 65% for the top 20%; this should work out"), why not give quantification for all claims with summed total projected costs and revenues to see if your comprehensive plan is even feasible?  Of course you can't know all projected costs with full certainty, but reasonable estimates (with your reasoning for the given estimates) can be used where necessary.  We are talking about things that all incur costs and generate revenues; all of these things can be quantified and so there is no need to rely solely on gobs of text on hopes & expectations.  It is either feasible that your plan will work (i.e. the revenue from your taxes will cover the costs of your plan) or it is not.  If you've not even performed a basic analysis using numbers and not presumptions, then there is really no point in talking about the plan.  This is the difference between talking with someone who wants to start a business who has an actual business plan with detailed numbers vs talking with someone with dreams.  

 

Agree with the fact that this is an actual interesting, productive discussion.  I'm impressed.  I feel like I need to post some snarky meme to make it more Surly-appropriate, but I'll resist the urge for now.

As to your point above, Aphelion, I agree, but I think answering the questions of "what constitutes costs," and "what constitutes benefits" are the important ones.  We the people tend to think in ridiculously simple bilateral transactional terms when it comes to such matters -- "I pay $20k a year in taxes, and I hardly get any benefits -- I don't get welfare, I'm not a defense contractor, etc.!"  We don't look at the full spectrum of economic benefits provided (and to be fair, the costs/unintended consequences, which are equally important).

As an example, maintaining interstate highways.  It costs X, and hey, I barely drive on them.  Why should I pay for that?  Well, I get fresh avocados in my grocery store because of them.  My state sees the influx of tourism dollars form folks who road trip here.  My employer is able to ship its goods nationwide via truck, which means it makes 3X what it woudl on shitty roads, which means it can hire folks....like me.  Etc. etc.

As a counter-example (unintended consequences), loosening the purse strings on mortgage lending and student debt, while making housing and college more accessible for more folks also made it more EXPENSIVE for EVERYONE (increase money supply, you get inflation), and instead of producing more college grads who could go out and earn more money and drive the economy, it produced grads who are so burdened by debt that they can't even rev up the economy by making large purchases like a house or car.  And on top of those, there are social costs -- folks being stuck underwater in mortgages on homes that were overpriced has limited American mobility, which artificially constrains the job market (folks in OH and WV shouldn't stay there tied to their house -- they should pack up and move to Houston and work construction or oil patch).

Every decision to spend, or not spend, has a cascade effect.  Some of that waterfall is positive, some is negative.  We need to figure out what ALL of the reasonable costs and benefits are, and then evaluate and make our judgment.

[TwiceHorn 32078]

23 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Agree with the fact that this is an actual interesting, productive discussion.  I'm impressed.  I feel like I need to post some snarky meme to make it more Surly-appropriate, but I'll resist the urge for now.

As to your point above, Aphelion, I agree, but I think answering the questions of "what constitutes costs," and "what constitutes benefits" are the important ones.  We the people tend to think in ridiculously simple bilateral transactional terms when it comes to such matters -- "I pay $20k a year in taxes, and I hardly get any benefits -- I don't get welfare, I'm not a defense contractor, etc.!"  We don't look at the full spectrum of economic benefits provided (and to be fair, the costs/unintended consequences, which are equally important).

As an example, maintaining interstate highways.  It costs X, and hey, I barely drive on them.  Why should I pay for that?  Well, I get fresh avocados in my grocery store because of them.  My state sees the influx of tourism dollars form folks who road trip here.  My employer is able to ship its goods nationwide via truck, which means it makes 3X what it woudl on shitty roads, which means it can hire folks....like me.  Etc. etc.

As a counter-example (unintended consequences), loosening the purse strings on mortgage lending and student debt, while making housing and college more accessible for more folks also made it more EXPENSIVE for EVERYONE (increase money supply, you get inflation), and instead of producing more college grads who could go out and earn more money and drive the economy, it produced grads who are so burdened by debt that they can't even rev up the economy by making large purchases like a house or car.  And on top of those, there are social costs -- folks being stuck underwater in mortgages on homes that were overpriced has limited American mobility, which artificially constrains the job market (folks in OH and WV shouldn't stay there tied to their house -- they should pack up and move to Houston and work construction or oil patch).

Every decision to spend, or not spend, has a cascade effect.  Some of that waterfall is positive, some is negative.  We need to figure out what ALL of the reasonable costs and benefits are, and then evaluate and make our judgment.

Good stuff.  Same with cutting spending.  I'm for cutting defense spending but also realize that it's gonna put a lot of people out of work. It's one of the few areas where manufacturing jobs still exist. 

Edited July 27, 2018 by TwiceHorn

[Huckleberry 34644]

38 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

It was a joke, you pedantic cunt.

Congratulations on posting an unfunny joke to mock your caricature of the left that made the discussion dumber. Solid work.

[Incredulity 11876]

2 hours ago, Huckleberry said:

Congratulations on posting an unfunny joke to mock your caricature of the left that made the discussion dumber. Solid work.

Got it. It’s abundantly clear you think VERY highly of your own opinions.

[Clob94 121]

5 hours ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

Because you've been conditioned to think that way. Texas state parks kind of suck, because we don't put any money into them, and then you have to pay out of pocket when you get there. That's not the way it's supposed to work. We are supposed to pay a little more in taxes for them, and then have great state parks, and then pay no admission fee and very little for cabins and such when we go. It would also be nice if the state park system could acquire more land and build more parks and not have to charge for them, etc., but we'd rather just have more Schlitterbahns and shit. 

We paid taxes to build roads that were built for us using federal funds. Later, greedy governments looking for a money grab turned some of those roads into toll roads in order to get us to what? Pay for those roads twice? If we pump more money into parks, eventually they will start charging again. Write it down in stone. 

[EuroHorn 3295]

[zork 629]

What say you:

I say(to the debt forgiveness part at least):

 

 

[Buzzrock 15136]

Let's compare what the Reality TV Star who has never had to work to live a day in their life and has a propensity for cameras in the bedroom (who now resides in the Oval Office) has in common with Kim Kardashian, compared to Ocasio-Cortez.

Plenty of threads for that.

[XR4ticlone 122]

10 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

 

None of these countries have the population we have...

We also pay for the majority of most every one of those countries national defense.  

The US also funds a majority of the health care R&D and drug development that these countries enjoy...at least before Obamacare killed much of that.

Germany has 'free college'...my cousin who is a manager for the German IRS...2 of his 3 kids went to college...in the UNITED STATES.  Why? Because they weren't 'smart enough' to be eligible for free 4 year college there.  Hmmm...  🤔

They don't just let any moronic jackass go to free college to be a Women's Studies major.  But I'm sure She Guevara knows that...🙄

 

[bad_teammate 13523]

Yes to statehood

Yes to Marshall Plan (which I assume is just heavy, heavy investment)

Yes to debt forgiveness

I don't know how any of these are even questions.

[Anastasis 23718]

Just now, bad_teammate said:

Yes to statehood

Yes to Marshall Plan (which I assume is just heavy, heavy investment)

Yes to debt forgiveness

I don't know how any of these are even questions.

via Imgflip Meme Generator

[bad_teammate 13523]

1 minute ago, Anastasis said:

via Imgflip Meme Generator

A group of citizens that has been exploited and treated like shit and suffered a horrific natural disaster. Yeah, I'm fine with it.

[David Dennison 19538]

14 minutes ago, XR4ticlone said:

None of these countries have the population we have...

We also pay for the majority of most every one of those countries national defense.  

The US also funds a majority of the health care R&D and drug development that these countries enjoy...at least before Obamacare killed much of that.

Germany has 'free college'...my cousin who is a manager for the German IRS...2 of his 3 kids went to college...in the UNITED STATES.  Why? Because they weren't 'smart enough' to be eligible for free 4 year college there.  Hmmm...  🤔

They don't just let any moronic jackass go to free college to be a Women's Studies major.  But I'm sure She Guevara knows that...🙄

 

None of your arguments are persuasive.

[Huckleberry 34644]

3 hours ago, zork said:

I say(to the debt forgiveness part at least):

 

 

 

2 hours ago, Anastasis said:

via Imgflip Meme Generator

So in your world do y'all pretend that the United States federal government doesn't shoulder a significant portion of the blame for Puerto Rico's debt?

[Anastasis 23718]

21 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

 

So in your world do y'all pretend that the United States federal government doesn't shoulder a significant portion of the blame for Puerto Rico's debt?

Lay the case out. 

[FondrenRoad 4378]

24 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

 

So in your world do y'all pretend that the United States federal government doesn't shoulder a significant portion of the blame for Puerto Rico's debt?

It isn't like the US gov't is going to pay it off if it is deemed "illegal" or if it is "forgiven."  It isn't owed to the US gov't.  Trump has even offered to wipe out the debt, so he and O-C have that in common.

No matter what, they need to shit or get off the pot on their status.  They need to vote in a binding referendum to either be a state or an independent nation, and Congress needs to respect their choice whichever it is.  While we're at it, we shouldn't have any territories that aren't part of a US state.  Other US Caribbean territories which are too small to be their own states should be part of the state of Puerto Rico.  Guam and other pacific territories should be part of the state of Hawaii.  Or they can leave outright too if they choose that instead.

Edited July 28, 2018 by FondrenRoad

[RayDog 682]

4 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

It isn't like the US gov't is going to pay it off if it is deemed "illegal" or if it is "forgiven."  It isn't owed to the US gov't.  Trump has even offered to wipe out the debt, so he and O-C have that in common.

No matter what, they need to shit or get off the pot on their status.  They need to vote in a binding referendum to either be a state or an independent nation, and Congress needs to respect their choice whichever it is.

They voted to be a state and a couple weeks ago the governor asked Trump for them to become a state. It is assumed he said no even though statehood is supported in the Republican party platform. They (and DC) will become a state when the Democrats are in charge which will likely be the first part pf 2021. 

[bad_teammate 13523]

"Mr. President, should we expand the US to include a state full of Latinos?"

- "What's that?"

"*sigh* .... Mexicans"