US Politics Mega-thread - Page 1630

On February 08 2015 05:59 JonnyBNoHo wrote:

Bear with me, it's been a long time since econ 101.

Simple economy:

GDP = (C)onsumption + (I)nvestment

Increaseing C decreases I. In the short-run increasing C can increase GDP without causing I to decrease, but only if you have idle capacity. When we talk about the long-run GDP is around potential, so there isn't spare capacity laying around.

Without spare capacity you have a budgetary constraint. More money spent on C means less spent on something else, which in this case is I.

On February 08 2015 10:50 Pwere wrote:
You're mistaking GDP for real-world economy. GDP is just a number that used to be informative about the state of the economy. Then people started working to increase GDP instead of productivity, which led to the mess we're in.

This is the same issue that arises in businesses where, for example, they rank their programmers by line of codes written. Sure, that is a useful productivity indicator, but it stops being useful the moment they know you're using it.

To be honest, there are so many logical holes in the GDP-centricy theories that accepting it borders on indoctrination.

In the real world, helping the poor has many benefits and certainly helps the economy. It might not contribute to immediate GDP-growth, but that is a flaw in GDP, and a reason why it's a dangerous indicator.

TOPEKA, Kan. (AP) — Kansas voters who re-elected a Republican governor known for aggressive tax cutting are learning that the state won't solve its serious budget problems without putting a normally sacrosanct asset in the crosshairs — its state-of-the-art highway system.

Gov. Sam Brownback and the GOP-dominated Legislature this past week worked out plans for closing a $344 million deficit and allowing the state to pay its bills on time into the summer. The plans included cuts to predictable targets, such as education spending and public pension contributions, but also diverted money from highway projects, which are especially prized by the governor's rural supporters.

The extent of the cutbacks brought home the impact of the income tax reductions that Brownback, an outspoken fiscal conservative, has pushed through since taking office in 2011.

Even a few of the Legislature's most austerity minded members were taken aback by the blow to the highway program, which comes as other states are considering new ways of ramping up infrastructure investment — some by raising taxes.

"When I send out surveys and say, 'What are the roles of government?' — and this is not just my district — roads are generally at the top of the list," said Sen. Forrest Knox, a southeast Kansas Republican who's among the Legislature's most conservative members.

Many of Brownback's allies have supported the cuts he's made to cover the revenue lost from his tax measures, which dropped the top rate for individuals by 29 percent and exempted 191,000 business owners altogether. Brownback has argued that lower taxes would attract more businesses to Kansas and benefit the economy.

But revenues have fallen short of expectations, and Kansas' credit ratings were downgraded last year.

Brownback this week proposed cutting spending on public schools and state universities by $45 million, prompting education supporters to warn about potential hikes in tuition and losses in summer school programs and classes for at-risk students.

"It is time to quit living in fantasyland," said state Rep. Don Hineman, a moderate Republican from a western Kansas county who said it's time for the governor to admit his tax-cutting experiment hasn't worked.

Brownback, said state Senate Democratic Leader Anthony Hensley, is "in a state of denial."

On February 08 2015 11:15 Nyxisto wrote:
Only if the factory is build in the US, which will reasonably likely not be the case. Redistributing wealth to the lower classes is not only a matter of social fairness but will also keep more money in the domestic economy.

On February 08 2015 11:44 GreenHorizons wrote:


Yeah cutting education and highway funding should help usher in those tax-cut-jobs any day now...

On February 08 2015 11:56 Sub40APM wrote:

Stop whinging, as Johny clearly explained tax cuts are the only thing that generates growth. He had a little equation and everything, its science!

On February 08 2015 10:00 JonnyBNoHo wrote:

Not sure what you're correcting me on. I wrote that entitlements have had the spending priority and that they've pushed aside other spending. That dynamic is shown in the NPR chart. If you think there's a difference between my statement and the chart, that's a failure on your end, not mine.

If you still think I got something wrong, just post the numbers.

On February 08 2015 12:58 IgnE wrote:


Do you think we should go back to spending 50+% of the budget on defense?

It's a strange assumption to say that all new spending must be apportioned in the exact same percentages as the old spending. You act like spending on entitlements has taken money from other more productive spending by the government, like say some more bombs and planes to drop them with. But that's simply not true. Maybe defense spending hasn't risen as quickly as entitlement spending but that's not the same thing as cutting into defense spending to make room for entitlements. As for supposedly cutting into education spending, have you not previously taken the position that education spending has gone up in general and that simply throwing more money at the problem won't produce better outcomes?

On February 08 2015 15:08 IgnE wrote:
Lol you posted a TED talk with Bill Gates talking about K-12 and now you're yelling at me that you never meant that you think spending on K-12 is being cut too much, only higher ed spending??? What? Forgive me for "casually swapping" your conflicting earlier sentiments with these that are restricted to college spending per students.

So please post some absolute numbers showing that entitlements have forced legislators to "find cost savings" in other areas that you deem under-funded. I'm almost beginning to think that you just think entitlent spending should be slashed with maybe 5% of that saving going to states to fund more college administrators and maybe 2% of that going to repairing potholes on I-95.

And just look at what happened with the tuitions with the University of California and project that out for another three, four, five years -- it's unaffordable.

The United Steelworkers union said on Saturday the strike by U.S. refinery workers is expanding to two more plants early on Sunday due to unfair labor practices by oil companies.

Walk-outs at BP Plc's Whiting, Indiana, refinery and the company's joint-venture refinery with Husky Energy in Toledo, Ohio, on Sunday would bring the number of plants with striking hourly workers to 11, including nine refineries accounting for 13 percent of U.S. refining capacity.

BP said on Friday it had received notice of the walk-outs at the two refineries, but the Steelworkers (USW) had said little about them until Saturday.

Safety is at the heart of the largest national strike of oil workers since 1980. USW represents 30,000 workers at more than 200 refineries.

The union said in a statement that U.S. refinery owners led by Royal Dutch Shell have failed to discuss health and safety issues and engaged in "bad-faith bargaining, including the refusal to bargain over mandatory subjects; undue delays in providing information; impeded bargaining; and threats issued to workers if they joined the strike."

A Shell spokesman said the company was unaware of any unfair labor practice charge filed against it with the U.S Department of Labor.

"We regret that we have been unable to reach a mutually satisfactory agreement with the USW prior to contract expiration," said Shell spokesman Ray Fisher. "We remain committed to resolving the remaining issues through collective bargaining at the bargaining table."

Saturday was the seventh day of the strike, which the USW called on Jan. 31 after it said Shell had walked away from the negotiating table.

About 4,000 workers at refineries in California, Kentucky, Texas and Washington initially left their jobs when the strike began shortly after midnight on Feb. 1. Another 1,440 workers will join the picket lines when employees of the BP-operated refineries in Indiana and Ohio leave their jobs early on Sunday.

On February 09 2015 04:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:

He was talking about education spending, which includes both K-12 and higher ed. Hence he pointed out things like rising tuition costs. Ex.
Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm going to assume that the University of California is not for K-12 education.

But really there's no point in continuing this discussion. You've completely retreated into your ideological cave and are resorting to throwing out talking points rather than discuss the topic with me. If you'd like to continue first spend some time, maybe a few months, learning about government budgets, how budgeting processes work and how the numbers interact with each other.

Side note: I-90 and I-91 are the main highways near me, not I-95. But I do appreciate the pothole reference - those things suck!

When voters in four U.S. states — Colorado, Washington, Alaska and Oregon — approved recreational marijuana sales, part of the appeal was the promise of a new revenue source to buoy cash-strapped cities and states.

But tensions are growing in those four states over how the tax rewards from pot sales should be divided. Local governments want to get what they say is their share of pot tax revenues.

Under Oregon's new pot law, cities get 10 percent of the tax revenues. Even though the state's retail industry doesn't start until next year, city leaders are already saying their share is not nearly enough.

"Somebody else thought they knew how much we were going to need," says Scott Winkels, lobbyist with the League of Oregon Cities.

Winkels argues that if pot becomes more available, more people will use it and inevitably do something stupid — and cities will bear the costs, not the state.

"We reasonably expect to see an increase in things like drug driving," he says. "How many neighborhood complaints to the city manager has the state dealt with because of odor? When that smoke comes wafting over the fence and somebody's upset that their kids are smelling it, who's going to take that call? It's going to be your local government."

Winkels estimates roughly 70 cities in Oregon have passed a sales tax on retail pot, with the hope of bringing in additional revenues.

But it's unclear whether those cities will be allowed to keep their sales taxes: Oregon's marijuana law contains a provision that specifically prohibits local governments from adding their own taxes.

On February 08 2015 11:04 JonnyBNoHo wrote:

Yeah GDP has some flaws - that's well-known though I wouldn't call it dangerous. However, any imperfections in GDP as a measure are immaterial to my point. My point wasn't boosting GDP, but rather boosting the real economy over the long-run using GDP as an illustration.

You can think of it in terms of real resources if you prefer. You have enough resources to build 2 factories or 200 cars, or some combination of both, like 1 factory and 100 cars. Saying: "oh but if we take that guy's wealth..." doesn't lift the limited resource constraint. The best you can do is shift the equation to building more cars and fewer factories. That hurts growth in the long run since you just gave up on having more productive capacity (another factory) in the future.

On February 09 2015 12:35 killa_robot wrote:


I don't get your example. Is the real resources of factories and cars supposed to represent the guy's wealth, or do you want to take the guy's wealth so you can get more cars and factories?

And, more importantly, why do you think taking the wealth is bad if you just tried to make the comparison that taking wealth doesn't affect the real resources?

On February 09 2015 12:15 IgnE wrote:


Oh I thought bringing up your specific posting history was particularized and pointed. My point was that you are pointing to some graphs showing a major reduction in the budget percentages spent on defense, with minor reductions in "transportation" and "other," while you yourself vaguely mention NASA cuts. I was asking for specific numbers because 1) spending on thise things has grown, if not as fast as spending on SS and Medicare and 2) the only things you mentioned specifically are education, transportation, and NASA. Transportation and NASA are pennies on the dollar compared to defense and SS. Education is more expensive, but your previously expressed views seemed to contradict a wholesale increase in spending on education, but it's ok because you've now narrowed the category. What I was trying to get you to admit is that your original comment is absurd and relies on the ridiculous conceit that 1) the handful of things you think are being neglected in favor of "entitlements" costs a lot of money and 2) that the only wag to pay for things is to cut "entitlements" instead of, i don't know, raising taxes, or buying fewer bombs. But yeah you can pretend like I'm the ideological troll and you are the serious businessman if you want.

I imagine some amount of bracket creep / means testing to keep the system solvent.

Just about everything that isn't. Defense, transportation, higher ed, R&D, etc