|
I'm currently listening to Obama's address. There's so much bullshit that I just can't stop myself from posting. I know TL tends to lean left. I'm not in any way stating that either side is more or less responsible for bullshit. I just need to let this out.
Three things that popped out at me.
1) Obama says he will not accept any cuts to the Head Start program. He says that the proposed cut, which would cut 200,000 students from the program, would eliminate 55,000 jobs for teachers.
Do these students really get a better than 4:1 Student:Teacher ratio? Thats better than MIT (6.8:1), Stanford (6.4:1), and Yale (6.1). My old highschool touted the fact that had an excellent 18:1 ratio. Either these kids are pampered as hell, or that figure is entirely bull.
2) Obama says that he tells "his team" what is acceptable and what is not when negotiating the budget. Immediately after this and statement 1, he says that politics should have no part in the budget battle.
So let me get this straight, you will not let any of your programs be cut, but politics shouldn't be considered when doing the budget. Riiiight.
3) He says that we can't continue to run the government on two-week extensions, because that is irresponsible.
I completely agree with this by the way. But the fact of the matter is, the Budget could've and should've been passed back in October, before Republicans even had control of the House or Representatives. Yep, the Democrats had control of the House, Senate, and White House, but they couldn't pass a budget before they were kicked out of office. Thats bullshit on a whole different, almost criminal level.
One of these days I'll write a blog about how much bullshit pisses me off from some Republican, just so I can be "fair" and "balanced" (trololol). But for now, this is what I hear, this is what I feel, this is what I write.
Pre-response to those asking my political affiliation: I'm closest to a Jacksonian Democrat.
 
|
Politicians talk shite. It's a stereotype but also a fact of life. I've stopped paying attention almost entirely, every time I see one of our lot come on the news speaking entirely in soundbytes I have to fight down a rising sense of despair. They're so obsessed with saying what they think you want to hear that it's genuinely rare that anything they say means anything at all.
|
On March 12 2011 03:43 iGrok wrote:1) Obama says he will not accept any cuts to the Head Start program. He says that the proposed cut, which would cut 200,000 students from the program, would eliminate 55,000 jobs for teachers. Do these students really get a better than 4:1 Student:Teacher ratio? Thats better than MIT (6.8:1), Stanford (6.4:1), and Yale (6.1). My old highschool touted the fact that had an excellent 18:1 ratio. Either these kids are pampered as hell, or that figure is entirely bull.
I like how you just assume that the number of teachers that would be let go corresponds exactly to the number of children who will lose access to the program, instead of them just being two numbers involved in the cuts.
On March 12 2011 03:43 iGrok wrote:
2) Obama says that he tells "his team" what is acceptable and what is not when negotiating the budget. Immediately after this and statement 1, he says that politics should have no part in the budget battle.
So let me get this straight, you will not let any of your programs be cut, but politics shouldn't be considered when doing the budget. Riiiight.
Seems straightforward enough to me. An acceptable cut is probably a cut that won't completely halt a government program or treat one portion of the country better than another for purely political reasons. An unacceptable cut is a cut that would, for example, have the crippling of unions as its primary goal or prevent your new health care legislation from being implemented correctly, which has undoubtedly been put forward as an "idea" by some opposition member of congress as a sneaky way of achieving his own agenda.
|
On March 12 2011 03:43 iGrok wrote:
I'm currently listening to Obama's address. There's so much bullshit that I just can't stop myself from posting. I know TL tends to lean left. I'm not in any way stating that either side is more or less responsible for bullshit. I just need to let this out.
Politicians lie. It's a fact of life. Even more than that, it's a law of nature. You can't get to a high office by having strong convictions and sticking to them. Not sure how much it applies to you, but I find people will often let lies slide if it supports their position and cry foul when it doesn't. I find that kind of behaviour even worse than the lying.
|
On March 12 2011 03:43 iGrok wrote:I'm currently listening to Obama's address. There's so much bullshit that I just can't stop myself from posting. I know TL tends to lean left. I'm not in any way stating that either side is more or less responsible for bullshit. I just need to let this out. Three things that popped out at me. 1) Obama says he will not accept any cuts to the Head Start program. He says that the proposed cut, which would cut 200,000 students from the program, would eliminate 55,000 jobs for teachers. Do these students really get a better than 4:1 Student:Teacher ratio? Thats better than MIT (6.8:1), Stanford (6.4:1), and Yale (6.1). My old highschool touted the fact that had an excellent 18:1 ratio. Either these kids are pampered as hell, or that figure is entirely bull.
The proposed cut isn't removing all of Headstart. What it's effectively doing is it's increasing the student to teacher ratio. Currently I think the average is like 15-18 students per teacher, if they cut 55,000 teachers (which this number doesn't just include teachers btw, it includes other positions) and they remove eligibility for 200,000 students, then the student-teacher ratio goes up. They're not cutting all of the teachers, they're just cutting more teachers in proportion to the number of students who lose eligibility.
In essence, the entire program suffers proportionally more because it will be severely understaffed if these cuts go through. So please don't misinterpret figures. Learn to comprehend.
On March 12 2011 03:43 iGrok wrote:
2) Obama says that he tells "his team" what is acceptable and what is not when negotiating the budget. Immediately after this and statement 1, he says that politics should have no part in the budget battle.
So let me get this straight, you will not let any of your programs be cut, but politics shouldn't be considered when doing the budget. Riiiight.
What do you mean "his" programs? Headstart has been around for 40 years, and it's been accepted by both parties until now. The Republicans are simply looking for excuses not to cut defense, which, btw, they will not find. The proposed cuts to education and the department of energy are miniscule, and they will be overshadowed by the interest on debt alone within about a year. You can make fifty times the magnitude in cuts in the defense budget and see an effect immediately, and for the long-term. This is not true with education, energy, or infrastructure investment. In the short term (on the order of months) you'll see a reduction in the budget of a few billion. After that, we'll be back to square 1, because the cuts to these programs have greater negative externalities than the positive effects on the budget.
On March 12 2011 03:43 iGrok wrote:
3) He says that we can't continue to run the government on two-week extensions, because that is irresponsible.
I completely agree with this by the way. But the fact of the matter is, the Budget could've and should've been passed back in October, before Republicans even had control of the House or Representatives. Yep, the Democrats had control of the House, Senate, and White House, but they couldn't pass a budget before they were kicked out of office. Thats bullshit on a whole different, almost criminal level.
I don't see where this logic is coming from. If the budget was passed then, the Republicans would drag their feet on other legislation even more. The Democrats hesitated on passing the budget as it was then because of fears that the Republicans, if they were to gain control in Congress (which they did; House majority Republican and gained seats in the Senate) that legislation this year would be difficult to pass. As it stands, Republicans dragged their feet anyway, so neither the budget nor any significant legislation has passed since.
|
Russian Federation3631 Posts
You can make fifty times the magnitude in cuts in the defense budget and see an effect immediately, and for the long-term.
Even defunding the American military and all other defense spending for a full year wouldn't solve the deficit problem. (See: "deficit as percentage of GDP", then "military spending as percentage of GDP")
Entitlement cuts are going to have to happen. I mean, Social Security is in effect a Ponzi scheme. What did people think was going to happen?
In any case, both sides are trying to solve the deficit problem by cutting politically opposite programs...but the only viable set of cuts involve everyone's pet projects getting gutted, which is why its never going to happen.
Basically there's a choice between "unserious cuts" (the Republicans) and "problem? what problem?" (the Democrats).
|
On March 12 2011 05:06 419 wrote:Show nested quote +You can make fifty times the magnitude in cuts in the defense budget and see an effect immediately, and for the long-term. Even defunding the American military and all other defense spending for a full year wouldn't solve the deficit problem. Entitlement cuts are going to have to happen.
Raising taxing works too. It may or may not be the solution but ignoring the option is just wrong.
|
Russian Federation3631 Posts
On March 12 2011 05:09 hypercube wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2011 05:06 419 wrote:You can make fifty times the magnitude in cuts in the defense budget and see an effect immediately, and for the long-term. Even defunding the American military and all other defense spending for a full year wouldn't solve the deficit problem. Entitlement cuts are going to have to happen. Raising taxing works too. It may or may not be the solution but ignoring the option is just wrong.
Probably both will happen 
To put it in perspective, seizing 100% of the wealth of the 1.5% richest people in America (Michael Moore style) would yield only enough to pay off a mere 33% of the US debt.
Thanks, FDR! (And the Baby Boomer generation) Even worse, the glorious American school system has the average pupil de-educated enough to not understand basic economics. :/
I guess the upside is that the tax consumer class (governmental employees + welfare wards of the state) will probably be hardest hit once the inevitable crisis hits.
|
On March 12 2011 05:12 419 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2011 05:09 hypercube wrote:On March 12 2011 05:06 419 wrote:You can make fifty times the magnitude in cuts in the defense budget and see an effect immediately, and for the long-term. Even defunding the American military and all other defense spending for a full year wouldn't solve the deficit problem. Entitlement cuts are going to have to happen. Raising taxing works too. It may or may not be the solution but ignoring the option is just wrong. Probably both will happen To put it in perspective, seizing 100% of the wealth of the 1.5% richest people in America (Michael Moore style) would yield only enough to pay off a mere 33% of the US debt.
That's a weird statistic. The idea isn't to take away rich people's wealth, it's to tax their income. It's less drastic AND has a bigger impact long term.
|
LOLOLOL you guys are seriously claiming that the Democrats wouldn't pass the budget -- for the first time since 1974 -- for fear of the Republicans dragging their feet on other issues? What on Earth could possibly be more important than the budget?
I'll tell you why the Democrats wouldn't pass the bugdet: 3.83 trillion in estimated expenditures, 300 billion over the year before, deficit originally estimated by Obama's administration optimistically at 1.27 trillion (in February, Obama revised the estimated deficit to a whopping 1.65 trillion). The general public is getting nervous about this issue: there is no realistic plan for controlling deficit. The Democrats in Congress knew that approving that budget was career suicide.
|
Russian Federation3631 Posts
On March 12 2011 05:24 hypercube wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2011 05:12 419 wrote:On March 12 2011 05:09 hypercube wrote:On March 12 2011 05:06 419 wrote:You can make fifty times the magnitude in cuts in the defense budget and see an effect immediately, and for the long-term. Even defunding the American military and all other defense spending for a full year wouldn't solve the deficit problem. Entitlement cuts are going to have to happen. Raising taxing works too. It may or may not be the solution but ignoring the option is just wrong. Probably both will happen To put it in perspective, seizing 100% of the wealth of the 1.5% richest people in America (Michael Moore style) would yield only enough to pay off a mere 33% of the US debt. That's a weird statistic. The idea isn't to take away rich people's wealth, it's to tax their income. It's less drastic AND has a bigger impact long term.
Weird, to be sure, but it illustrates rather starkly that budget cuts need to be made. The problem cannot be solved through tax increase alone.
Keep in mind that a 100% marginal tax rate means that, given a reasonable timescale for people to make their decisions, zero tax dollars are collected.
|
On March 12 2011 05:06 419 wrote:Show nested quote +You can make fifty times the magnitude in cuts in the defense budget and see an effect immediately, and for the long-term. Even defunding the American military and all other defense spending for a full year wouldn't solve the deficit problem. (See: "deficit as percentage of GDP", then "military spending as percentage of GDP") Entitlement cuts are going to have to happen. I mean, Social Security is in effect a Ponzi scheme. What did people think was going to happen? In any case, both sides are trying to solve the deficit problem by cutting politically opposite programs...but the only viable set of cuts involve everyone's pet projects getting gutted, which is why its never going to happen. Basically there's a choice between "unserious cuts" (the Republicans) and "problem? what problem?" (the Democrats).
If you cut defense spending by a third and increase taxes on anyone who earns more than 200,000 to an average tax rate of 40% (up from 34% now) you'll see a massive reduction in the deficit.
On March 12 2011 05:12 419 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2011 05:09 hypercube wrote:On March 12 2011 05:06 419 wrote:You can make fifty times the magnitude in cuts in the defense budget and see an effect immediately, and for the long-term. Even defunding the American military and all other defense spending for a full year wouldn't solve the deficit problem. Entitlement cuts are going to have to happen. Raising taxing works too. It may or may not be the solution but ignoring the option is just wrong. Probably both will happen To put it in perspective, seizing 100% of the wealth of the 1.5% richest people in America (Michael Moore style) would yield only enough to pay off a mere 33% of the US debt. Thanks, FDR! (And the Baby Boomer generation) Even worse, the glorious American school system has the average pupil de-educated enough to not understand basic economics. :/ I guess the upside is that the tax consumer class (governmental employees + welfare wards of the state) will probably be hardest hit once the inevitable crisis hits.
Actually, this is all false.
Hypothetically, if you taxed the top 1% for everything they have, we'd have a budgetary surplus and we'd probably eliminate the national debt (in its entirety) within a few years.
|
On March 12 2011 05:12 419 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2011 05:09 hypercube wrote:On March 12 2011 05:06 419 wrote:You can make fifty times the magnitude in cuts in the defense budget and see an effect immediately, and for the long-term. Even defunding the American military and all other defense spending for a full year wouldn't solve the deficit problem. Entitlement cuts are going to have to happen. Raising taxing works too. It may or may not be the solution but ignoring the option is just wrong. Probably both will happen To put it in perspective, seizing 100% of the wealth of the 1.5% richest people in America (Michael Moore style) would yield only enough to pay off a mere 33% of the US debt. Thanks, FDR! (And the Baby Boomer generation) Even worse, the glorious American school system has the average pupil de-educated enough to not understand basic economics. :/
Now now, if the populace understood economics then they'd be able to make educated choices when voting, and we wouldn't want that now would we?
I guess the upside is that the tax consumer class (governmental employees + welfare wards of the state) will probably be hardest hit once the inevitable crisis hit
What's wrong with governmental employees/public sector workers?
And 'welfare wards' may be an issue (I'm assuming you mean welfare cheats/people who survive on benefits who do not have to) but welfare exists for a reason; to help those who are too poor to support themselves, for whatever reason. Is it an upside if those people are hardest hit? Is that some American style 'if you're poor you aren't working hard enough' rhetoric I spy?
|
On March 12 2011 05:31 419 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2011 05:24 hypercube wrote:On March 12 2011 05:12 419 wrote:On March 12 2011 05:09 hypercube wrote:On March 12 2011 05:06 419 wrote:You can make fifty times the magnitude in cuts in the defense budget and see an effect immediately, and for the long-term. Even defunding the American military and all other defense spending for a full year wouldn't solve the deficit problem. Entitlement cuts are going to have to happen. Raising taxing works too. It may or may not be the solution but ignoring the option is just wrong. Probably both will happen To put it in perspective, seizing 100% of the wealth of the 1.5% richest people in America (Michael Moore style) would yield only enough to pay off a mere 33% of the US debt. That's a weird statistic. The idea isn't to take away rich people's wealth, it's to tax their income. It's less drastic AND has a bigger impact long term. Weird, to be sure, but it illustrates rather starkly that budget cuts need to be made. The problem cannot be solved through tax increase alone.
No, it doesn't. It's a misleading illustration and it is meant to be misleading. Probably not by you, but whoever first made that point.
Keep in mind that a 100% marginal tax rate means that, given a reasonable timescale for people to make their decisions, zero tax dollars are collected.
Again, noone is advocating 100% marginal tax rate. It's unfair AND leads to less income for the government. So why even bring it up?
I'm just guessing here but if your point is that the deficit can't be covered by tax increases alone you might well be right. However, it should still be a part of the debate.
TBH, I don't have a vested interest. I just find it fascinating that people can be so biased in a thread about bullshitting politicians. But politicians bullshit to keep their jobs or advance their carreers. How about their supporters? What's their excuse?
|
Belgium9946 Posts
On March 12 2011 04:56 wherebugsgo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2011 03:43 iGrok wrote:I'm currently listening to Obama's address. There's so much bullshit that I just can't stop myself from posting. I know TL tends to lean left. I'm not in any way stating that either side is more or less responsible for bullshit. I just need to let this out. Three things that popped out at me. 1) Obama says he will not accept any cuts to the Head Start program. He says that the proposed cut, which would cut 200,000 students from the program, would eliminate 55,000 jobs for teachers. Do these students really get a better than 4:1 Student:Teacher ratio? Thats better than MIT (6.8:1), Stanford (6.4:1), and Yale (6.1). My old highschool touted the fact that had an excellent 18:1 ratio. Either these kids are pampered as hell, or that figure is entirely bull. The proposed cut isn't removing all of Headstart. What it's effectively doing is it's increasing the student to teacher ratio. Currently I think the average is like 15-18 students per teacher, if they cut 55,000 teachers (which this number doesn't just include teachers btw, it includes other positions) and they remove eligibility for 200,000 students, then the student-teacher ratio goes up. They're not cutting all of the teachers, they're just cutting more teachers in proportion to the number of students who lose eligibility.In essence, the entire program suffers proportionally more because it will be severely understaffed if these cuts go through. So please don't misinterpret figures. Learn to comprehend.
Yeah wow, I was amazed as well that OP jumped to the opposite conclusion of reality, being that those numbers actually literally tell you he intends to cut budget by increasing the student to teacher ratio.
I guess OP was being as "fair and balanced" as his pun implied. (I know it was an honest mistake, but you have to admit this kinda shows your easy to jump to biased conclusions)
|
On March 12 2011 05:12 419 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2011 05:09 hypercube wrote:On March 12 2011 05:06 419 wrote:You can make fifty times the magnitude in cuts in the defense budget and see an effect immediately, and for the long-term. Even defunding the American military and all other defense spending for a full year wouldn't solve the deficit problem. Entitlement cuts are going to have to happen. Raising taxing works too. It may or may not be the solution but ignoring the option is just wrong. I guess the upside is that the tax consumer class (governmental employees + welfare wards of the state) will probably be hardest hit once the inevitable crisis hits.
And that's a good thing... why?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
