In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On November 29 2012 14:34 BlueBird. wrote: I don't know the exact reason that more men are homeless, or more men commit crime, I actually do think that current gender roles on society encourage violence by men. Also men are looked down upon if they ask for help, so someof the male homeless that don't have mental disabilities might be scared of asking family/friends for help or their friends/family are unlikely to help them because they don't view them as the weak dainty female that needs their help to survive. This is just speculation though.
Gender roles encourage violence by men on other men (and only other men).
Yeah, keep dreaming.
It is socially unacceptable to hit women. If you're unaware of this, I don't know where you've been living, but it's not in Western civilization for the last millenia.
Last millenia? Bullshit; violence against women has been pretty much pervasive among Western culture for much of the last 1000 years. The whole rape, pillage, and plunder thing that happened? Yeah, that wasn't buggering the menfolk of the village in question.
Wife-beating was common through the 50's and 60's. It was socially unacceptable to hit a woman who wasn't your wife. And in the early 20th century, it was socially unacceptable to hit your wife in public. But doing it in private was not merely acceptable, but expected if she got out of line.
On November 29 2012 16:25 sunprince wrote:
On November 29 2012 16:08 NicolBolas wrote:
On November 29 2012 15:34 sunprince wrote: Men are not only looked down on when they ask for help, they are also less likely to get help when they ask for it
By other men just as much if not more than by women.
Oh, look, more victim blaming. Who gives a shit who does it? Most slut-shaming is woman-on-woman, does that make it okay or stop feminists from using it as an example of sexism?
I didn't say it was OK; my point is that it isn't the fault of women or Feminist in general.
On November 29 2012 16:25 sunprince wrote:
On November 29 2012 16:08 NicolBolas wrote:
On November 29 2012 15:34 sunprince wrote: (just look at how feminists call men "whiners/babies" and tell them to "man up" when they talk about male problems).
I love how you're speaking for people. Because the best way to know what a group of people think is to ask someone who hates them. Because obviously, a hater understands them better than they know themselves.
I have plenty of personal experiences to reinforce this notion. Shit tons of examples can be found all over the web.
It's the Internet; assholes are legion here.
The presence of assholes proves nothing about what Feminists in general think, act, or do. It only proves what those individual Feminists think, act, or do.
On November 29 2012 16:25 sunprince wrote:
On November 29 2012 16:08 NicolBolas wrote:
On November 29 2012 15:34 sunprince wrote: Both of these tie back into male disposability as a gender expectation, as I noted when I stated "males have less intrinsic value to society and are discarded when they break".
This is a classic dodge of sexism-against-women. You point at something that's sexist against men, then claim that this either balances things or makes them worse towards men in some way.
As if that somehow made the sexism against women disappear. Nor is it an indictment against those trying to fight sexism against women that they aren't also taking up the banner of sexism against men.
If you want to push forward on that issue, be my guest. But don't act like it somehow negates the prevalence of sexism against women in society. There's a lot of sexism in society to go around.
That statement has nothing to do with comparing sexism. I'm merely explaining to someone else one of the main reasons why more men are homeless.
First, it very much has to do with comparing sexism. You're saying that there is no pervasive sexism against women. And your prime evidence is what you consider pervasive sexism against men, to the point that you accuse society itself of feeling that men are disposable.
How is that not comparing sexism?
Also, you're inventing explanations about why more men are homeless. You've gone from a fact (a larger percentage of homeless people are men) to an inference not supported by said fact (society sees men as less important) to random nonsense (therefore, society doesn't have a bias against women). The fact that more men than women are homeless only means, at best, that society is less willing to allow women to be on the streets than men. It says nothing about how it feels about men in general. And equally importantly, you can't take a fact about the world and decide that this fact exists because "society" wants that to happen.
Oh and do note: the reason that those extra safety nets exist for women? Women helped make them. They went out and did the legwork for themselves to help get their people into shelters. If you want more men's shelters, great; go get it done. It's not going to happen because you whine about it on a forum.
On November 29 2012 16:25 sunprince wrote: You're also dodging the burden of proof, like many others. Instead of taking for granted that there is a "prevalence of sexism" against women in society, prove it. Demonstrate that society systemtically discriminates against women, as feminists and others in this thread have repeatedly argued.
The evidence is everywhere. It is all around us. Even now, in this very thread. You can see it when you look out your window or when you turn on your television. You can feel it when you go to work... when you go to church... when you pay your taxes. It is the world that has been pulled over your eyes to blind you from the truth.
On November 29 2012 16:37 BlueBird. wrote: No real feminist that understands the gender issues in society would call men whiners and cry babies, your cherry picking.
And you were doing so well, then stooped to his level with a No True Scottsman fallacy. Yes, there are Feminists who do indeed indulge in such things. And just like the more reasonable Republicans among us are ashamed when dickhead social conservatives start talking about "legitimate rape", so too are other Feminists when those under the banner take things too far.
It does happen, and pretending that it doesn't isn't helping anyone.
Meh not pretending it doesn't happen just saying that his blatant portrait of feminists is completely false, if someone understands gender issues than they probably won't be using those terms.
I'm done discussing this crap on team liquid as far as feminism goes, it makes me depressed to read my fellow gamers comments on women. Between sun prince, the what is rape? thread, the thread about how we enslave men with child support, etc just sad.
Ultimately for me, I can't help but fall victim to a bit of anecdotal bias when it comes to this topic; having been raised almost entirely by a single mother while watching her basically get shit on in court repeatedly by my dad with a much better lawyer doesn't lend itself well to a view of the contemporary society as anti-men. Now I will certainly say that there are some self-destructive and odd trends in some branches of gender theory and radical feminism that literally paint a war against men as the backdrop for some sort of amazonian putsch, but I also can say that I've a great deal of experience with self-proclaimed feminists who are generally incredibly reasonable and more concerned with egalitarianism than the strictures of some rigid definition of feminism that might compel them to act irrationally. Now, if we were talking about the troubling prevalence of ethnocentric and gender study-centric works amongst academic publishing standards these days, that would be a different story, but I digress
On November 29 2012 14:34 BlueBird. wrote: I don't know the exact reason that more men are homeless, or more men commit crime, I actually do think that current gender roles on society encourage violence by men. Also men are looked down upon if they ask for help, so someof the male homeless that don't have mental disabilities might be scared of asking family/friends for help or their friends/family are unlikely to help them because they don't view them as the weak dainty female that needs their help to survive. This is just speculation though.
Gender roles encourage violence by men on other men (and only other men).
Yeah, keep dreaming.
It is socially unacceptable to hit women. If you're unaware of this, I don't know where you've been living, but it's not in Western civilization for the last millenia.
Last millenia? Bullshit; violence against women has been pretty much pervasive among Western culture for much of the last 1000 years. The whole rape, pillage, and plunder thing that happened? Yeah, that wasn't buggering the menfolk of the village in question.
Terribad argument. The fact that something happens in war does not mean it's socially acceptable; otherwise, the same logic would suggest that murder, pillage, and plunder are considered socially unacceptable. If anything, part of the point of war is to do socially unacceptable things to your enemy. And you're absolutely wrong to suggest that it's limited to the women; victorious armies of antiquity often raped the losers, Roman military officers often kept young boys of defeated peoples as sex slaves, etc. Go study history sometime instead of feminist revisionist propaganda.
On November 29 2012 17:19 NicolBolas wrote: Wife-beating was common through the 50's and 60's. It was socially unacceptable to hit a woman who wasn't your wife. And in the early 20th century, it was socially unacceptable to hit your wife in public. But doing it in private was not merely acceptable, but expected if she got out of line.
More feminist myths. There is plenty of evidence that beating women was not in fact endorsed in the past then as feminists claim, merely that because their husbands were held legally responsible for all their actions (jail, etc) they were allowed to physically discipline them if they had to. Men who did beat their wives were vilified in the community.
On November 29 2012 15:34 sunprince wrote: Men are not only looked down on when they ask for help, they are also less likely to get help when they ask for it
By other men just as much if not more than by women.
Oh, look, more victim blaming. Who gives a shit who does it? Most slut-shaming is woman-on-woman, does that make it okay or stop feminists from using it as an example of sexism?
I didn't say it was OK; my point is that it isn't the fault of women or Feminist in general.
Your point then is a non-sequitur. Remember that the issue at hand is whether or not society systematically discriminates against women (what feminists call patriarchy). Society is composed of both men and women, and the fact that society as a whole (both men and women) discriminates against men is evidence against the feminist myth that society is ruled by men who use their power to oppress women.
On November 29 2012 15:34 sunprince wrote: (just look at how feminists call men "whiners/babies" and tell them to "man up" when they talk about male problems).
I love how you're speaking for people. Because the best way to know what a group of people think is to ask someone who hates them. Because obviously, a hater understands them better than they know themselves.
I have plenty of personal experiences to reinforce this notion. Shit tons of examples can be found all over the web.
It's the Internet; assholes are legion here.
The presence of assholes proves nothing about what Feminists in general think, act, or do. It only proves what those individual Feminists think, act, or do.
You're right, it's the actions of feminists that actually counts. And when you look at how feminists have influenced legislation, and done their absolute best to keep the government from funding resources for men like men's shelters and men's centers on university campuses, writing horrendously misandric policies like VAWA and the Duluth model, and perpetuating lies, it's pretty obvious what feminists think.
On November 29 2012 15:34 sunprince wrote: Both of these tie back into male disposability as a gender expectation, as I noted when I stated "males have less intrinsic value to society and are discarded when they break".
This is a classic dodge of sexism-against-women. You point at something that's sexist against men, then claim that this either balances things or makes them worse towards men in some way.
As if that somehow made the sexism against women disappear. Nor is it an indictment against those trying to fight sexism against women that they aren't also taking up the banner of sexism against men.
If you want to push forward on that issue, be my guest. But don't act like it somehow negates the prevalence of sexism against women in society. There's a lot of sexism in society to go around.
That statement has nothing to do with comparing sexism. I'm merely explaining to someone else one of the main reasons why more men are homeless.
First, it very much has to do with comparing sexism. You're saying that there is no pervasive sexism against women. And your prime evidence is what you consider pervasive sexism against men, to the point that you accuse society itself of feeling that men are disposable.
How is that not comparing sexism?
I'm setting a standard for what you would need to argue that there is pervasive sexism against women. The feminist myth of patriarchy is that it's a system whereby men oppress women. If you can't even provide a single argument to support the notion of patriarchy, then feel free to disregard my pre-emptive counterargument; I don't even need them since the burden of proof is on you.
On November 29 2012 17:19 NicolBolas wrote: Also, you're inventing explanations about why more men are homeless. You've gone from a fact (a larger percentage of homeless people are men) to an inference not supported by said fact (society sees men as less important) to random nonsense (therefore, society doesn't have a bias against women). The fact that more men than women are homeless only means, at best, that society is less willing to allow women to be on the streets than men. It says nothing about how it feels about men in general. And equally importantly, you can't take a fact about the world and decide that this fact exists because "society" wants that to happen.
Read some literature on homelessness. The reason why the vast majority of men are homeless is that there is a stronger social safety net for women. This is supported by the massive disparity in funding for women and men, as well as the fact that there are far, far more women's shelters than there are men's shelters. The fact that society is less willing to allow women to be on the streets than men logically implies that men are not as valuable. The actual topic of male disposability is beyond this discussion, but if you're interested feel free to read Warren Farrell's The Myth of Male Power.
On November 29 2012 17:19 NicolBolas wrote: Oh and do note: the reason that those extra safety nets exist for women? Women helped make them. They went out and did the legwork for themselves to help get their people into shelters. If you want more men's shelters, great; go get it done. It's not going to happen because you whine about it on a forum.
Women made them because they asked and were immediately given them. When men ask for them, they not only don't get them, but feminists block the attempts for fear that they would divert money that would otherwise go to women's shelters. It's not going to happen, period, until the general public stops believing bullshit feminist lies enough that they stop being a potent lobbying force.
On November 29 2012 16:25 sunprince wrote: You're also dodging the burden of proof, like many others. Instead of taking for granted that there is a "prevalence of sexism" against women in society, prove it. Demonstrate that society systemtically discriminates against women, as feminists and others in this thread have repeatedly argued.
The evidence is everywhere. It is all around us. Even now, in this very thread. You can see it when you look out your window or when you turn on your television. You can feel it when you go to work... when you go to church... when you pay your taxes. It is the world that has been pulled over your eyes to blind you from the truth.
You're joking, right? That's not an argument, that's a logical fallacy. Hell, that's the exact kind of bullshit peddled by religions, cults, and ideologies in place of actual facts. Then again, feminism does strongly resemble a religion...
There is no justification for the State of Gaza being able to shoot at our towns with impunity. We need to flatten entire neighborhoods in Gaza. Flatten all of Gaza. The Americans didn’t stop with Hiroshima – the Japanese weren’t surrendering fast enough, so they hit Nagasaki, too.
This, according to the Israeli government, is in response to hundreds of rockets fired at Israel by Hamas from Gaza, that has created fear amongst the Israeli population and claimed three Israeli lives. But this is asymmetric warfare: The death toll in Gaza has already crossed 100, including many women and children.
Such a weird conflict. Both sides consider themselves victims and justified in their actions. Even stranger is the ritual where first palestinians fire rockets, then israel retalliates and then there are peace talks. It is almost like a married couple.
Just take fact and don't listen to the excuse some party might comes up. Takes the numbers of death from both sides, takes the humanitarian situation (living condition, life expectancy, health) in both country, takes the army on both sides : everything shows that there is one super power with an economy almost on par with developped country and a weak country with almost half of the population under 14 years old.
Im really disturbed by the naivety of people, when they can't consider that both sides in a war see themselves as the victims and others as the "evul perpetrat00rs!".
Thats what wars ALWAYS are. Maybe it has to do with internalizing this message while it conflicts with the idea your own country is always right in wars, as long as your country keeps winning (the superlative your).
edit: this ESPECIALLY holds true in Asymmetric warfare. THeres no end to video games where you play legitimate terrorists to states, including Final Fantasy 7 and Tactics Ogre, where you're rebels. We reclassed these as terrorists in this day an age, to encourage public hatred towards these groups so they'd find no foothold of sympathizers.
I have to ad that sunprince's argument about male vs female "help" from the government is correct. Females pay less into government programs, and get more back than males.
If a guy calls a battered relationship hotline, he's referred directly to the batterER hotline, as if he's the one doing the damage. It's inconceivable that a man is being abused even though we cheer when we publicly see a woman hit a man because "he mustve done something to deserve it".
On November 29 2012 15:15 Souma wrote: Well, actually, men are more biologically predisposed to exert aggressive behavior (crime), aren't they? Haven't looked up any studies but it's what I assume (they are, at the very least, more biologically endowed with the physical attributes to commit crimes which may explain why they actually engage in violent crime more than women).
Another way to look at it is that laws have been designed to criminalize male behavior while leaving female behavior alone.
Domestic violence is an obvious one: the CDC finds that gender violence is close to 50/50, yet feminist-crafted legislation/approaches like VAWA and the Duluth model encourage prosecution almost entirely against men. Similarly, the CDC finds that men are raped by women almost as often as women are raped by men, yet very few women are prosecuted. Feminist-crafted statutory laws disproportionately criminalize male behavior, because men are generally attracted to younger women while women are generally attracted to older men (and cases with female statutory rapists rarely result in social disapproval or criminal punishment). False accusations of rape are almost never prosecuted even when they were obviously criminally malicious, for fear of offending feminists who argue that such prosecutions would "discourage real victims from coming forward". Throw the sentencing and conviction disparity on top of things like that, and you end up with a very skewed view.
If you criminalize primariily the things that male criminals do, then obviously men are going to look predisposed towards crime. It's no different from how black people wind up in jail longer if you impose heavy sentences on selling weed and light sentences on white collar crime.
I'm not sure where the CDC says what you said. I have found where it says this:
• 1.3 million women were raped during the year preceding the survey. • Nearly 1 in 5 women have been raped in their lifetime while 1 in 71 men have been raped in their lifetime. • 1 in 6 women have been stalked during their lifetime. 1 in 19 men have experienced stalking in their lifetime. • 1 in 4 women have been the victim of severe physical violence by an intimate partner while 1 in 7 men experienced severe physical violence by an intimate partner
It's interesting: you accused others of cherry-picking data, then immediately do so yourself.
First, you only look at 2010, disregarding all other data, due to what you claim are accuracy concerns. You don't state what those concerns actually are; you simply say that the newer data must be more accurate. OK, I'll buy into that for the moment.
I didn't say that the newer data must be more accurate, but you're right that the reason why I used the most recent available data from the CDC is because it's the best source available. Here's plenty more, including a review of all available studies:
TL;DR: There's actually tons of data which indicates women are just as aggressive or more aggressive than men when it comes to domestic violence; women just don't get arrested for it like men do (and thanks to feminist policies like the Duluth model, men in many states are subject to mandatory arrest if they report domestic violence by women). The only one who's cherry picking data are feminists and women's studies publications; the public health, psychology, and criminology fields are all well aware that feminist propaganda on domestic violence is bullshit.
It's not even a new revelation, either. Erin Pizzey, who founded Europe's first women's shelters, realized soon after that most domestic violence was reciprocal. When she told people this, feminists not only excommunicated and boycotted her, but they issued death threats to her family and killed her dog.
On November 29 2012 10:18 sc2superfan101 wrote: @kwizach
okay, but do you have the actual document? I'm looking for it right now, and I can't find it. I don't want to make a judgement about something I haven't read.
and the Republican plan is actually to cut massive amounts of entitlement programs, reform everything, simplify the tax-code and lower the rates substantially, and slash spending to a fraction of what it is.
the Democrat plan is to substantially raise taxes on the wealthy (and thus everyone else), eliminate the loopholes and deductions (further raising taxes), and increase spending substantially.
so the Republicans have come up with a plan that would cut a bit, make some reforms, reduce spending and in return we will expand the tax-base and lower rates slightly. there would still be a net increase in taxes, so this would even technically be Republicans breaking their pledge, but pretty much all Republicans are willing to accept that. so we would be giving you higher taxes, but we want cuts in spending because that is where the problem is. and no, we won't and shouldn't just vote to raise taxes ridiculously the wealthy because that hurts the economy. we're not going to hurt the economy to satisfy some weird anti-rich fetish that the Democrats have gotten on lately.
if Obama is willing to make substantial cuts, and is willing to sacrifice substantially raising taxes on the wealthy, then let him craft a bill and send it to Congress to sign. Republicans would go for it, if he actually made serious cuts.
it's not fair that Obama wins, declares a mandate, says that he is in the driver seat, and then blames Republicans for driving the car toward the cliff. He's the one behind the wheel, he's the driver. let him craft the bill that Republicans can sign without it being political suicide and then he can talk about obstructionism. not before.
This argument of "broaden the base and cut all rates" is horrible and ignores the basic driver of our economy. The US economy is driven by consumption but you sit there and call for base broadening, wonderful code for increasing the proportion of taxes paid by lower income individuals. Increasing taxes on the rich, according to the Congressional Research service has little impact on the economy.
I'm not even going to listen to any argument about "investment" because money is cheap right now but thecredit markets are still full of people deleveraging, not borrowing more.
So please explain to me why gutting our automatic stabilizers that keep our economy running and following the wonderful path the UK is going down is good for us. The weird fetish is how far Republicans are willing to go to protect a few rich people from a small tax increase while clamoring about debts and calling for tax rate cuts. (Its that weird, since they need those sweet campaign dollars)
"We're to far in debt! We need tax cuts!" Is ludicrous, the truth is that raising taxes on anyone is bad for the economy, but cutting them for the rich is one of the least stimulative things and raising them on the poor is one of the worst things to do for the economy but that's what you want. Look at studies on minimum wage laws based on empirical data instead of theoretical models for proof that giving low wage earners more is good for the economy.
Obama should not make the serious cuts Republicans want because it's insane to cut spending right now. Our interest payments on new debt barely keep pace with inflation so there's obviously no real debt crisis. Every plan the Republicans call serious cuts revenues more than spending anyways, leaving us still with a big fat deficit but more money to the rich and less of a social safety net with an excuse to do the same in the near future: that deficit they left in place.
What I really want to know is why austerity is good in the US even though it has failed badly to meet even conservative projections in the UK.
economies aren't driven by consumption though, at least, not primarily. and yes, broadening the base would increase the share of taxes held by the lower income families and individuals. the top % already pays a disproportionate amount in taxes as compared to their share of the wealth, so I don't see why equalizing that would be a bad idea. ideally, we would cut taxes on everyone, but Dems want tax hikes, so we'll give them some.
people aren't lending because interest rates are being kept artificially low. this is going to (and is) causing another bubble. minimum wage is an example of the failure inherent with trying to manipulate the market. minimum wage laws stagnate wages and actually push out the poor and the young from low income entry-level jobs. poverty hasn't been alleviated by the ever-increasing minimum wage, and prices haven't dropped. they've risen, along with inflation, debt, and entitlement spending.
even you agree that cutting taxes on everyone will help the economy, yet you still argue for taxing the rich more. you acknowledge that it's not about helping the economy, which leads me to believe there is another reason for it. besides, our problem isn't revenue, it's spending. we can't keep spending at these ridiculous levels even if we tax the rich completely dry. something has to be cut and it's going to have to be mainly spending. increasing taxes will hurt the economy and will actually give us less revenue; lowering taxes or keeping them low will actually increase revenue when the economy gets started again, which it will if we stop trying to force a bubble.
If liberals and progressives are going to blather on about fairness, it's pretty hard to say with a straight face that a large chunk of the population paying zero income tax to the federal government is fair to the very small amount of people who pay the vast majority of income tax, or the larger but still smallish segment who pay the rest. So that's why they run to the economics argument (raising taxes on the poor lowers consumption), the same way conservatives don't talk about fairness but rather economic impact of raising taxes on the rich (lowers consumption). Funny that the arguments are the same. The fairness argument against soaking the rich is principled but not emotionally attractive (thanks Ayn Rand), while the fairness argument against everyone paying some federal income tax is also principled but similarly unappealing to anyone who actually does pay federal income tax.
On November 29 2012 10:18 sc2superfan101 wrote: @kwizach
okay, but do you have the actual document? I'm looking for it right now, and I can't find it. I don't want to make a judgement about something I haven't read.
and the Republican plan is actually to cut massive amounts of entitlement programs, reform everything, simplify the tax-code and lower the rates substantially, and slash spending to a fraction of what it is.
the Democrat plan is to substantially raise taxes on the wealthy (and thus everyone else), eliminate the loopholes and deductions (further raising taxes), and increase spending substantially.
so the Republicans have come up with a plan that would cut a bit, make some reforms, reduce spending and in return we will expand the tax-base and lower rates slightly. there would still be a net increase in taxes, so this would even technically be Republicans breaking their pledge, but pretty much all Republicans are willing to accept that. so we would be giving you higher taxes, but we want cuts in spending because that is where the problem is. and no, we won't and shouldn't just vote to raise taxes ridiculously the wealthy because that hurts the economy. we're not going to hurt the economy to satisfy some weird anti-rich fetish that the Democrats have gotten on lately.
if Obama is willing to make substantial cuts, and is willing to sacrifice substantially raising taxes on the wealthy, then let him craft a bill and send it to Congress to sign. Republicans would go for it, if he actually made serious cuts.
it's not fair that Obama wins, declares a mandate, says that he is in the driver seat, and then blames Republicans for driving the car toward the cliff. He's the one behind the wheel, he's the driver. let him craft the bill that Republicans can sign without it being political suicide and then he can talk about obstructionism. not before.
This argument of "broaden the base and cut all rates" is horrible and ignores the basic driver of our economy. The US economy is driven by consumption but you sit there and call for base broadening, wonderful code for increasing the proportion of taxes paid by lower income individuals. Increasing taxes on the rich, according to the Congressional Research service has little impact on the economy.
I'm not even going to listen to any argument about "investment" because money is cheap right now but thecredit markets are still full of people deleveraging, not borrowing more.
So please explain to me why gutting our automatic stabilizers that keep our economy running and following the wonderful path the UK is going down is good for us. The weird fetish is how far Republicans are willing to go to protect a few rich people from a small tax increase while clamoring about debts and calling for tax rate cuts. (Its that weird, since they need those sweet campaign dollars)
"We're to far in debt! We need tax cuts!" Is ludicrous, the truth is that raising taxes on anyone is bad for the economy, but cutting them for the rich is one of the least stimulative things and raising them on the poor is one of the worst things to do for the economy but that's what you want. Look at studies on minimum wage laws based on empirical data instead of theoretical models for proof that giving low wage earners more is good for the economy.
Obama should not make the serious cuts Republicans want because it's insane to cut spending right now. Our interest payments on new debt barely keep pace with inflation so there's obviously no real debt crisis. Every plan the Republicans call serious cuts revenues more than spending anyways, leaving us still with a big fat deficit but more money to the rich and less of a social safety net with an excuse to do the same in the near future: that deficit they left in place.
What I really want to know is why austerity is good in the US even though it has failed badly to meet even conservative projections in the UK.
economies aren't driven by consumption though, at least, not primarily. and yes, broadening the base would increase the share of taxes held by the lower income families and individuals. the top % already pays a disproportionate amount in taxes as compared to their share of the wealth, so I don't see why equalizing that would be a bad idea. ideally, we would cut taxes on everyone, but Dems want tax hikes, so we'll give them some.
people aren't lending because interest rates are being kept artificially low. this is going to (and is) causing another bubble. minimum wage is an example of the failure inherent with trying to manipulate the market. minimum wage laws stagnate wages and actually push out the poor and the young from low income entry-level jobs. poverty hasn't been alleviated by the ever-increasing minimum wage, and prices haven't dropped. they've risen, along with inflation, debt, and entitlement spending.
even you agree that cutting taxes on everyone will help the economy, yet you still argue for taxing the rich more. you acknowledge that it's not about helping the economy, which leads me to believe there is another reason for it. besides, our problem isn't revenue, it's spending. we can't keep spending at these ridiculous levels even if we tax the rich completely dry. something has to be cut and it's going to have to be mainly spending. increasing taxes will hurt the economy and will actually give us less revenue; lowering taxes or keeping them low will actually increase revenue when the economy gets started again, which it will if we stop trying to force a bubble.
Sorry to jump in late, but the UK doesn't have austerity - spending has increased massively since the 2007, the austerity line is absolute total hogwash. The Tories just want to look like they are fighting the 'entitlement' culture. But I agree, cutting taxes for the rich in this environment is really dumb (remember that the really high earners in the US and the UK are NOT productive businessmen, they are speculators. they are not going to invest any tax breaks back into the real economy). I agree with you about the next bubble also - my motto, follow the fiat funny money, so its gonna be sovereign bonds.
Anyway in my opinion, spending needs to come down because of future unfunded public sector liabilities - welfare, pensions, healthcare etc. I don't want to be paying 80% tax (or inflation, whichever they choose) in ten years time because people twenty years my senior were stupid enough to trust the government with their retirement money. Why can't people accept that they have got to take responsibility for themselves?
On November 29 2012 10:18 sc2superfan101 wrote: @kwizach
okay, but do you have the actual document? I'm looking for it right now, and I can't find it. I don't want to make a judgement about something I haven't read.
and the Republican plan is actually to cut massive amounts of entitlement programs, reform everything, simplify the tax-code and lower the rates substantially, and slash spending to a fraction of what it is.
the Democrat plan is to substantially raise taxes on the wealthy (and thus everyone else), eliminate the loopholes and deductions (further raising taxes), and increase spending substantially.
so the Republicans have come up with a plan that would cut a bit, make some reforms, reduce spending and in return we will expand the tax-base and lower rates slightly. there would still be a net increase in taxes, so this would even technically be Republicans breaking their pledge, but pretty much all Republicans are willing to accept that. so we would be giving you higher taxes, but we want cuts in spending because that is where the problem is. and no, we won't and shouldn't just vote to raise taxes ridiculously the wealthy because that hurts the economy. we're not going to hurt the economy to satisfy some weird anti-rich fetish that the Democrats have gotten on lately.
if Obama is willing to make substantial cuts, and is willing to sacrifice substantially raising taxes on the wealthy, then let him craft a bill and send it to Congress to sign. Republicans would go for it, if he actually made serious cuts.
it's not fair that Obama wins, declares a mandate, says that he is in the driver seat, and then blames Republicans for driving the car toward the cliff. He's the one behind the wheel, he's the driver. let him craft the bill that Republicans can sign without it being political suicide and then he can talk about obstructionism. not before.
This argument of "broaden the base and cut all rates" is horrible and ignores the basic driver of our economy. The US economy is driven by consumption but you sit there and call for base broadening, wonderful code for increasing the proportion of taxes paid by lower income individuals. Increasing taxes on the rich, according to the Congressional Research service has little impact on the economy.
I'm not even going to listen to any argument about "investment" because money is cheap right now but thecredit markets are still full of people deleveraging, not borrowing more.
So please explain to me why gutting our automatic stabilizers that keep our economy running and following the wonderful path the UK is going down is good for us. The weird fetish is how far Republicans are willing to go to protect a few rich people from a small tax increase while clamoring about debts and calling for tax rate cuts. (Its that weird, since they need those sweet campaign dollars)
"We're to far in debt! We need tax cuts!" Is ludicrous, the truth is that raising taxes on anyone is bad for the economy, but cutting them for the rich is one of the least stimulative things and raising them on the poor is one of the worst things to do for the economy but that's what you want. Look at studies on minimum wage laws based on empirical data instead of theoretical models for proof that giving low wage earners more is good for the economy.
Obama should not make the serious cuts Republicans want because it's insane to cut spending right now. Our interest payments on new debt barely keep pace with inflation so there's obviously no real debt crisis. Every plan the Republicans call serious cuts revenues more than spending anyways, leaving us still with a big fat deficit but more money to the rich and less of a social safety net with an excuse to do the same in the near future: that deficit they left in place.
What I really want to know is why austerity is good in the US even though it has failed badly to meet even conservative projections in the UK.
economies aren't driven by consumption though, at least, not primarily. and yes, broadening the base would increase the share of taxes held by the lower income families and individuals. the top % already pays a disproportionate amount in taxes as compared to their share of the wealth, so I don't see why equalizing that would be a bad idea. ideally, we would cut taxes on everyone, but Dems want tax hikes, so we'll give them some.
people aren't lending because interest rates are being kept artificially low. this is going to (and is) causing another bubble. minimum wage is an example of the failure inherent with trying to manipulate the market. minimum wage laws stagnate wages and actually push out the poor and the young from low income entry-level jobs. poverty hasn't been alleviated by the ever-increasing minimum wage, and prices haven't dropped. they've risen, along with inflation, debt, and entitlement spending.
even you agree that cutting taxes on everyone will help the economy, yet you still argue for taxing the rich more. you acknowledge that it's not about helping the economy, which leads me to believe there is another reason for it. besides, our problem isn't revenue, it's spending. we can't keep spending at these ridiculous levels even if we tax the rich completely dry. something has to be cut and it's going to have to be mainly spending. increasing taxes will hurt the economy and will actually give us less revenue; lowering taxes or keeping them low will actually increase revenue when the economy gets started again, which it will if we stop trying to force a bubble.
Our economy is driven by consumption: More than 70% of what the U.S. produces is for personal consumption. In 2011, $10.726 trillion of the $15.094 trillion produced went toward household purchases. The BEA sub-divides personal consumption expenditures into goods and services. (http://useconomy.about.com/od/grossdomesticproduct/f/GDP_Components.htm)
It's not like the supply of consumption goods is why they are purchased, if consumer purchases make up 70% of the economy, I think its fair to say that consumer demand drives the economy. Removing the progressiveness of the income tax system is a terrible idea, for ethical reasons, for practical reasons (MPC, marginal utility of income), and because the poor already face benefits losses which are an effective marginal tax, Mankiw (top Romney economic advisor) said the US practically has a flat tax.
People aren't lending because rates are low? Do you believe in Say's Law? People aren't borrowing because of widespread deleveraging and because of more stringent credit markets.
When you actually control for other variables, entitlement spending isn't up much from the mid 60s, inflation has been on target for decades and the minimum wage has not caused a drop in employment when done well.
In the US, this is not the case because we do those stupid lump sum increases when we feel like it which is the best way to negatively impact employment. Britain has a board that raises it a few cents every year, much better system.
Also, don't put words in my mouth, I never called for taxes on the rich, I said taxing the rich has less of a drag on the economy than gutting our automatic stabilizers and increasing the tax burden of the poor. What I said was that the kind of austerity program you are calling for has been done in Britain and it has failed miserably so we shouldn't be doing one here. They point to their bond yields and say "Look what we did! It's working!" but they are back in a recession and the US has bond yields at about the same rates.
Please don't try to push your horrible tax revenue argument on me. Tax cuts do not pay for themselves, not now, not ever.
@DeepElemBlues: I would more go for the whole marginal utility of income thing to justify it on ethical grounds, plus that whole transfer payments report that lays out the effective marginal tax rates of low income people. They "pay" by getting less from the government as they earn more.
On November 30 2012 00:58 DeepElemBlues wrote: If liberals and progressives are going to blather on about fairness, it's pretty hard to say with a straight face that a large chunk of the population paying zero income tax to the federal government is fair to the very small amount of people who pay the vast majority of income tax, or the larger but still smallish segment who pay the rest.
That's a disingenuous statement. The people who pay no income tax only do so because they don't have enough income. If you don't make very much money, it's perfectly fair to take nothing from you; taking from you isn't that helpful anyway because you don't make much. If you make a huge amount of money, it is reasonable to take more from you, because you are disproportionately less impacted by it.
On November 30 2012 00:58 DeepElemBlues wrote: So that's why they run to the economics argument (raising taxes on the poor lowers consumption), the same way conservatives don't talk about fairness but rather economic impact of raising taxes on the rich (lowers consumption). Funny that the arguments are the same. The fairness argument against soaking the rich is principled but not emotionally attractive (thanks Ayn Rand),
Based on what principles?
On November 30 2012 00:58 DeepElemBlues wrote: while the fairness argument against everyone paying some federal income tax is also principled but similarly unappealing to anyone who actually does pay federal income tax.
No, it's only unappealing to people who think that everyone should pay income tax regardless of income or the ability to do so without starvation. And quite frankly, I can't be bothered to care about the thoughts of people who don't understand what "poor" means.
On November 29 2012 10:18 sc2superfan101 wrote: @kwizach
okay, but do you have the actual document? I'm looking for it right now, and I can't find it. I don't want to make a judgement about something I haven't read.
and the Republican plan is actually to cut massive amounts of entitlement programs, reform everything, simplify the tax-code and lower the rates substantially, and slash spending to a fraction of what it is.
the Democrat plan is to substantially raise taxes on the wealthy (and thus everyone else), eliminate the loopholes and deductions (further raising taxes), and increase spending substantially.
so the Republicans have come up with a plan that would cut a bit, make some reforms, reduce spending and in return we will expand the tax-base and lower rates slightly. there would still be a net increase in taxes, so this would even technically be Republicans breaking their pledge, but pretty much all Republicans are willing to accept that. so we would be giving you higher taxes, but we want cuts in spending because that is where the problem is. and no, we won't and shouldn't just vote to raise taxes ridiculously the wealthy because that hurts the economy. we're not going to hurt the economy to satisfy some weird anti-rich fetish that the Democrats have gotten on lately.
if Obama is willing to make substantial cuts, and is willing to sacrifice substantially raising taxes on the wealthy, then let him craft a bill and send it to Congress to sign. Republicans would go for it, if he actually made serious cuts.
it's not fair that Obama wins, declares a mandate, says that he is in the driver seat, and then blames Republicans for driving the car toward the cliff. He's the one behind the wheel, he's the driver. let him craft the bill that Republicans can sign without it being political suicide and then he can talk about obstructionism. not before.
This argument of "broaden the base and cut all rates" is horrible and ignores the basic driver of our economy. The US economy is driven by consumption but you sit there and call for base broadening, wonderful code for increasing the proportion of taxes paid by lower income individuals. Increasing taxes on the rich, according to the Congressional Research service has little impact on the economy.
I'm not even going to listen to any argument about "investment" because money is cheap right now but thecredit markets are still full of people deleveraging, not borrowing more.
So please explain to me why gutting our automatic stabilizers that keep our economy running and following the wonderful path the UK is going down is good for us. The weird fetish is how far Republicans are willing to go to protect a few rich people from a small tax increase while clamoring about debts and calling for tax rate cuts. (Its that weird, since they need those sweet campaign dollars)
"We're to far in debt! We need tax cuts!" Is ludicrous, the truth is that raising taxes on anyone is bad for the economy, but cutting them for the rich is one of the least stimulative things and raising them on the poor is one of the worst things to do for the economy but that's what you want. Look at studies on minimum wage laws based on empirical data instead of theoretical models for proof that giving low wage earners more is good for the economy.
Obama should not make the serious cuts Republicans want because it's insane to cut spending right now. Our interest payments on new debt barely keep pace with inflation so there's obviously no real debt crisis. Every plan the Republicans call serious cuts revenues more than spending anyways, leaving us still with a big fat deficit but more money to the rich and less of a social safety net with an excuse to do the same in the near future: that deficit they left in place.
What I really want to know is why austerity is good in the US even though it has failed badly to meet even conservative projections in the UK.
economies aren't driven by consumption though, at least, not primarily. and yes, broadening the base would increase the share of taxes held by the lower income families and individuals. the top % already pays a disproportionate amount in taxes as compared to their share of the wealth, so I don't see why equalizing that would be a bad idea. ideally, we would cut taxes on everyone, but Dems want tax hikes, so we'll give them some.
people aren't lending because interest rates are being kept artificially low. this is going to (and is) causing another bubble. minimum wage is an example of the failure inherent with trying to manipulate the market. minimum wage laws stagnate wages and actually push out the poor and the young from low income entry-level jobs. poverty hasn't been alleviated by the ever-increasing minimum wage, and prices haven't dropped. they've risen, along with inflation, debt, and entitlement spending.
even you agree that cutting taxes on everyone will help the economy, yet you still argue for taxing the rich more. you acknowledge that it's not about helping the economy, which leads me to believe there is another reason for it. besides, our problem isn't revenue, it's spending. we can't keep spending at these ridiculous levels even if we tax the rich completely dry. something has to be cut and it's going to have to be mainly spending. increasing taxes will hurt the economy and will actually give us less revenue; lowering taxes or keeping them low will actually increase revenue when the economy gets started again, which it will if we stop trying to force a bubble.
Sorry to jump in late, but the UK doesn't have austerity - spending has increased massively since the 2007, the austerity line is absolute total hogwash. The Tories just want to look like they are fighting the 'entitlement' culture. But I agree, cutting taxes for the rich in this environment is really dumb (remember that the really high earners in the US and the UK are NOT productive businessmen, they are speculators. they are not going to invest any tax breaks back into the real economy). I agree with you about the next bubble also - my motto, follow the fiat funny money, so its gonna be sovereign bonds.
Anyway in my opinion, spending needs to come down because of future unfunded public sector liabilities - welfare, pensions, healthcare etc. I don't want to be paying 80% tax (or inflation, whichever they choose) in ten years time because people twenty years my senior were stupid enough to trust the government with their retirement money. Why can't people accept that they have got to take responsibility for themselves?
Cool thread, some good discussions :D
Government spending always increases in a recession, that's when more people need the welfare state (those automatic stabilizer things I've mentioned) so of course the budget deficit has exploded since 2007, that's not a good baseline to use at all.
Inflation is better than taxes since your wages should increase roughly with the inflation while the debt stays the same nominal amount but that won't deal with the liabilities very well.
That's a disingenuous statement. The people who pay no income tax only do so because they don't have enough income. If you don't make very much money, it's perfectly fair to take nothing from you; taking from you isn't that helpful anyway because you don't make much. If you make a huge amount of money, it is reasonable to take more from you, because you are disproportionately less impacted by it.
Calling that disingenuous is a real head-scratcher.
The only reason their income is not high enough to be taxed is because the government has decided they don't make enough to be taxed. Not because there is some natural law that says so.
Your argument that it's perfectly fair to ask people to contribute nothing because they won't contribute much ignores the fact that small contributions from 100 million people turns out to be big bucks.
I never said progressive taxation wasn't reasonable, now did I? I said it wasn't fair that some people make zero contribution. Hardly a situation conducive to giving people a real connection to the effects of government spending, or giving them a sense of obligation to society, is it? Here are all these handouts and you don't have to pay, even indirectly, for them.
Based on what principles?
The principle of don't take stuff that isn't yours?
No, it's only unappealing to people who think that everyone should pay income tax regardless of income or the ability to do so without starvation. And quite frankly, I can't be bothered to care about the thoughts of people who don't understand what "poor" means.
Do you really believe stupid shit like this? Regardless of the ability to do so without starvation? You really think a small income tax rate on the ~45% who don't pay any - the vast majority of whom already receive government food assistance - would threaten starvation? Come on.
Quite frankly, I can't be bothered to care about the thoughts of people who so clearly do not understand the difference between reasonable and ridiculous.
If we made them pay wouldn't we just have to give them more stuff? Except it would go through the whole government process, creating a bunch of lost value. "Well we taxed you 100$ but we are going to hand you $90 in food stamps, shame we spent that 10 bucks taking it from you and turning it into EBT form."
"In 2007, before the economy turned down, 40 percent of households did not owe federal income tax. This figure more closely reflects the percentage that do not owe income tax in normal economic times.[4]"
That's 20% of the people who "don't pay" right there, fix the economy and they are out of that bracket.
Edit: So its clear, that is not the only problem with that number, please read the link. The total people on food stamps is 46 mil. Edit 2: The US population is 311 mil. 14.7% of Americans are on food stamps, that's not even close to "the vast majority" of 45% of our population.
consumer spending has nothing to do with whether the economy is demand driven or supply driven. the truth is that there is no such thing as a demand-driven, consumer based economy. supply is always the primary determining factor of prices. production is where wealth is created, demand is just a singular guiding factor of what to produce and when. where demand can be manufactured (advertising, tax-cuts, entitlement spending), supply cannot be manufactured or manipulated. the cost of production will remain the cost of production, despite any change in demand. and people do buy based on supply, as it is supply which most determines prices.
I don't know if Say's Law is perfectly accurate but I certainly don't agree with the Keynesian criticism of it. increasing demand artificially won't help the economy when the increase comes in the form of subsidies from the supplier to the demand-er. this holds true across all sectors of the economy, including borrowing and lending.
as for the austerity of the UK, the problem is that it's a pretty weak form of austerity, and further it's not being coupled with deregulation and tax-cuts. and yes, this would cause some temporary setbacks while the market corrects itself. and even further, the fact was, whatever austerity is doing to the UK or isn't doing, they can't keep spending at the levels they were spending at. you could drain the rich of every cent the rich have and you still won't pay for all the spending in the US, so I don't see how it would work in the UK.
simple logic applies to tax-cuts and raising revenues.
If we made them pay wouldn't we just have to give them more stuff? Except it would go through the whole government process, creating a bunch of lost value. "Well we taxed you 100$ but we are going to hand you $90 in food stamps, shame we spent that 10 bucks taking it from you and turning it into EBT form."
The government isn't giving enough money out in food stamps then, if people on food stamps still have to use part of their income because the amount of EBT money isn't sufficient.
"In 2007, before the economy turned down, 40 percent of households did not owe federal income tax. This figure more closely reflects the percentage that do not owe income tax in normal economic times.[4]"
That's 20% of the people who "don't pay" right there, fix the economy and they are out of that bracket.
Didn't say 50%, and a number from 2007 is irrelevant as we're not living in normal economic times, are we? When we get back to normal economic times, dispute it then. But I won't be using that number then either, because it will undoubtedly have changed. I'd love to see the percentage of people not paying federal income tax decline because more people are making more income, enough more to be liable for some income tax under the current rules. But that doesn't mean I think the current rules are fine.
Edit: So its clear, that is not the only problem with that number, please read the link. The total people on food stamps is 46 mil. Edit 2: The US population is 311 mil. 14.7% of Americans are on food stamps, that's not even close to "the vast majority" of 45% of our population.
That's the amount of people who directly receive the benefits.
On November 30 2012 02:46 sc2superfan101 wrote: consumer spending has nothing to do with whether the economy is demand driven or supply driven. the truth is that there is no such thing as a demand-driven, consumer based economy. supply is always the primary determining factor in prices. production is where wealth is created, demand is just a singular guiding factor of what to produce and when. where demand can be manufactured (advertising, tax-cuts, entitlement spending), supply cannot be manufactured or manipulated. the cost of production will remain the cost of production, despite any change in demand. and people do buy based on supply, as it is supply which most determines prices.
I don't know if Say's Law is perfectly accurate but I certainly don't agree with the Keynesian criticism of it. increasing demand artificially won't help the economy when the increase comes in the form of subsidies from the supplier to the demand-er. this holds true across all sectors of the economy, including borrowing and lending.
as for the austerity of the UK, the problem is that it's a pretty weak form of austerity, and further it's not being coupled with deregulation and tax-cuts. and yes, this would cause some temporary setbacks while the market corrects itself. and even further, the fact was, whatever austerity is doing to the UK or isn't doing, they can't keep spending at the levels they were spending at. you could drain the rich of every cent the rich have and you still won't pay for all the spending in the US, so I don't see how it would work in the UK.
simple logic applies to tax-cuts and raising revenues.
Simple logic, much like "common sense" just doesn't apply to reality on tax cuts. Arguments can valid but wrong.
So your argument in the UK boils down to: "What I'm saying isn't working but that's only because they haven't gone far enough!"? That's insane, all the estimates of austerity impact by conservatives were way off, if it had come close to their estimates, I might be willing to try it here but it hasn't and so more of the same seems dumb.
I think I'm done with this discussion.
@ DeepBlues: You did say 45% not 50%, but that number is still more than in a normal economy and still distorted to portray a large swath of America as moochers. The fact we aren't in a normal economy is a good reason to tax people less, not to tax the poor more.
You might have missed my point on food stamps. There is deadweight loss in taxing people and then paying them back in foodstamps, administrative costs and such. It doesn't make any sense to increase tax burdens and welfare benefits, you are just cycling more money through the governments accounts. I'm not screaming "people will starve!!" I'm saying that taxing people so you can provide them with consumption goods is inherently inefficient.
To make the point a little more clear: that 10$ the government wasted by taxing and giving benefits will come from somebody, me, you, the government employees paid to tax and give foodstamps. The poor already pay an effective marginal tax rate of 30+% through benefit losses, if you tax them while stepping up benefits to offset the taxation you have done nothing but increase the complexity of our transfer payments and taxation.
We would be better off focusing on growing the economy taxing people, taxing people certainly doesn't improve the economy, something conservatives seem to agree on until we start talking about poor people. Then the tone changes.
Those are the people who directly receive benefits or "assistance", you put the number at over 22.5% but have failed to back it up. If you want to include people like my step father, a grocery store manager whose customers sometimes use food stamps, then you are getting into the reason why we should be continuing these programs. They have a strong stimulative effect. That said, his income is high enough that he pays income taxes so... I'm not sure how that argument holds together especially since you haven't defended your claim at all.
On November 30 2012 02:46 sc2superfan101 wrote: I don't know if Say's Law is perfectly accurate but I certainly don't agree with the Keynesian criticism of it. increasing demand artificially won't help the economy when the increase comes in the form of subsidies from the supplier to the demand-er. this holds true across all sectors of the economy, including borrowing and lending. .
Say's Law is false because it does not recognize that sales and purchases are separated by time and do not occur simultaneously. That is, surplus value has to be realized in the future as use value, or else it is to be devalued - this opens up the possibility for a general crisis of overaccumulation. The Keynesian criticism is the bandaid criticism of Say's Law.
Keynesianism just resets the clock by absorbing excessive production which can't be realized (and would thus be devalued), temporarily alleviating the crisis of overaccumulation and allowing things to move forward again, but it doesn't fix any basic contradictions in the system itself.
edit:
On November 30 2012 02:46 sc2superfan101 wrote: supply cannot be manufactured or manipulated.
On November 29 2012 19:03 sunprince wrote: Remember that the issue at hand is whether or not society systematically discriminates against women (what feminists call patriarchy). Society is composed of both men and women, and the fact that society as a whole (both men and women) discriminates against men is evidence against the feminist myth that society is ruled by men who use their power to oppress women.
I think A and you think B! You claim B and that's stupid because B is a myth! B is a myth because A is true! QED
On November 30 2012 00:58 DeepElemBlues wrote: If liberals and progressives are going to blather on about fairness, it's pretty hard to say with a straight face that a large chunk of the population paying zero income tax to the federal government is fair to the very small amount of people who pay the vast majority of income tax, or the larger but still smallish segment who pay the rest.
Can you elaborate? I have no problem saying that with a straight face. American ideology needs a good dose of noblesse oblige, you ask me.
edit
On November 30 2012 03:44 TheFrankOne wrote: "What I'm saying isn't working but that's only because they haven't gone far enough!"?
standard liberal line: free markets aren't working? because they aren't free enough!
On November 29 2012 10:18 sc2superfan101 wrote: @kwizach
okay, but do you have the actual document? I'm looking for it right now, and I can't find it. I don't want to make a judgement about something I haven't read.
and the Republican plan is actually to cut massive amounts of entitlement programs, reform everything, simplify the tax-code and lower the rates substantially, and slash spending to a fraction of what it is.
the Democrat plan is to substantially raise taxes on the wealthy (and thus everyone else), eliminate the loopholes and deductions (further raising taxes), and increase spending substantially.
so the Republicans have come up with a plan that would cut a bit, make some reforms, reduce spending and in return we will expand the tax-base and lower rates slightly. there would still be a net increase in taxes, so this would even technically be Republicans breaking their pledge, but pretty much all Republicans are willing to accept that. so we would be giving you higher taxes, but we want cuts in spending because that is where the problem is. and no, we won't and shouldn't just vote to raise taxes ridiculously the wealthy because that hurts the economy. we're not going to hurt the economy to satisfy some weird anti-rich fetish that the Democrats have gotten on lately.
if Obama is willing to make substantial cuts, and is willing to sacrifice substantially raising taxes on the wealthy, then let him craft a bill and send it to Congress to sign. Republicans would go for it, if he actually made serious cuts.
it's not fair that Obama wins, declares a mandate, says that he is in the driver seat, and then blames Republicans for driving the car toward the cliff. He's the one behind the wheel, he's the driver. let him craft the bill that Republicans can sign without it being political suicide and then he can talk about obstructionism. not before.
This argument of "broaden the base and cut all rates" is horrible and ignores the basic driver of our economy. The US economy is driven by consumption but you sit there and call for base broadening, wonderful code for increasing the proportion of taxes paid by lower income individuals. Increasing taxes on the rich, according to the Congressional Research service has little impact on the economy.
I'm not even going to listen to any argument about "investment" because money is cheap right now but thecredit markets are still full of people deleveraging, not borrowing more.
So please explain to me why gutting our automatic stabilizers that keep our economy running and following the wonderful path the UK is going down is good for us. The weird fetish is how far Republicans are willing to go to protect a few rich people from a small tax increase while clamoring about debts and calling for tax rate cuts. (Its that weird, since they need those sweet campaign dollars)
"We're to far in debt! We need tax cuts!" Is ludicrous, the truth is that raising taxes on anyone is bad for the economy, but cutting them for the rich is one of the least stimulative things and raising them on the poor is one of the worst things to do for the economy but that's what you want. Look at studies on minimum wage laws based on empirical data instead of theoretical models for proof that giving low wage earners more is good for the economy.
Obama should not make the serious cuts Republicans want because it's insane to cut spending right now. Our interest payments on new debt barely keep pace with inflation so there's obviously no real debt crisis. Every plan the Republicans call serious cuts revenues more than spending anyways, leaving us still with a big fat deficit but more money to the rich and less of a social safety net with an excuse to do the same in the near future: that deficit they left in place.
What I really want to know is why austerity is good in the US even though it has failed badly to meet even conservative projections in the UK.
economies aren't driven by consumption though, at least, not primarily. and yes, broadening the base would increase the share of taxes held by the lower income families and individuals. the top % already pays a disproportionate amount in taxes as compared to their share of the wealth, so I don't see why equalizing that would be a bad idea. ideally, we would cut taxes on everyone, but Dems want tax hikes, so we'll give them some.
people aren't lending because interest rates are being kept artificially low. this is going to (and is) causing another bubble. minimum wage is an example of the failure inherent with trying to manipulate the market. minimum wage laws stagnate wages and actually push out the poor and the young from low income entry-level jobs. poverty hasn't been alleviated by the ever-increasing minimum wage, and prices haven't dropped. they've risen, along with inflation, debt, and entitlement spending.
even you agree that cutting taxes on everyone will help the economy, yet you still argue for taxing the rich more. you acknowledge that it's not about helping the economy, which leads me to believe there is another reason for it. besides, our problem isn't revenue, it's spending. we can't keep spending at these ridiculous levels even if we tax the rich completely dry. something has to be cut and it's going to have to be mainly spending. increasing taxes will hurt the economy and will actually give us less revenue; lowering taxes or keeping them low will actually increase revenue when the economy gets started again, which it will if we stop trying to force a bubble.
Our economy is driven by consumption: More than 70% of what the U.S. produces is for personal consumption. In 2011, $10.726 trillion of the $15.094 trillion produced went toward household purchases. The BEA sub-divides personal consumption expenditures into goods and services. (http://useconomy.about.com/od/grossdomesticproduct/f/GDP_Components.htm)
It's not like the supply of consumption goods is why they are purchased, if consumer purchases make up 70% of the economy, I think its fair to say that consumer demand drives the economy. Removing the progressiveness of the income tax system is a terrible idea, for ethical reasons, for practical reasons (MPC, marginal utility of income), and because the poor already face benefits losses which are an effective marginal tax, Mankiw (top Romney economic advisor) said the US practically has a flat tax.
People aren't lending because rates are low? Do you believe in Say's Law? People aren't borrowing because of widespread deleveraging and because of more stringent credit markets.
When you actually control for other variables, entitlement spending isn't up much from the mid 60s, inflation has been on target for decades and the minimum wage has not caused a drop in employment when done well.
In the US, this is not the case because we do those stupid lump sum increases when we feel like it which is the best way to negatively impact employment. Britain has a board that raises it a few cents every year, much better system.
Also, don't put words in my mouth, I never called for taxes on the rich, I said taxing the rich has less of a drag on the economy than gutting our automatic stabilizers and increasing the tax burden of the poor. What I said was that the kind of austerity program you are calling for has been done in Britain and it has failed miserably so we shouldn't be doing one here. They point to their bond yields and say "Look what we did! It's working!" but they are back in a recession and the US has bond yields at about the same rates.
Please don't try to push your horrible tax revenue argument on me. Tax cuts do not pay for themselves, not now, not ever.
@DeepElemBlues: I would more go for the whole marginal utility of income thing to justify it on ethical grounds, plus that whole transfer payments report that lays out the effective marginal tax rates of low income people. They "pay" by getting less from the government as they earn more.
I have to disagree with a few points you made.
First, entitlement spending is WAY up, both in inflation adjusted per capita terms and percent of GDP terms and will continue to rise under current law due to baby boomers retiring.
Second, counting a benefit reduction as a tax (as the transfer payment report did) has no merit beyond the scope of the paper.
Third, while low interest rates are certainly warranted there's still room for criticism here. Low rates aren't a free lunch - those who rely on rates for income (retirees, pension funds, insurance companies, etc.) have all seen their income fall because of low rates (link). Also the low rates are making it harder for lenders to earn a decent spread on their loans. I have no idea if its had much of an impact yet but its something to worry about going forward.
On November 29 2012 17:32 BluePanther wrote: I had wanted to make a new thread about this, since it relates to more than just the US and isn't actually political debate, but a moderator thinks it's a blog and moved it. Since nobody actually reads those, I'll just put it in this thread despite it being slightly off-topic. I know this post rambles a little bit, but please bear with me -- the thought is not developed enough for me to write a super-organized outline of the ideas contained.
This is a story that will start with a little of who I am, what I think about, and eventually connect it to you, what you think, and set the table for a discussion on how to truly revolutionize freedom, democracy, government, and, to an extent capitalism—essentially the whole social world order. I have wanted to discuss this with you for some time, and the motivation to write this post finally hit me tonight. I never felt it fit in with any of the other political threads, but my hand has been forced here by the mods. This post is not US-centric.
Note: These are not predictions or even personal endorsements of the ideas contained within. It's merely an exercise of the mind at this point and time. This also has not been researched fully, despite my relative expertise in the subject. Please feel free to correct such mistakes in a productive manner.
First, My Musings:
Some may know me on these forums; many do not. I have been around recently commenting on political discussions, particularly the presidential elections. I have been rather attracted to the high amount of intelligent political discussions on these forums. They are both intelligent and civil, with viewpoints from around the world on delicate and contentious issues of both morality and practicality. This is why I write this discussion to you before I write to some academic publication: I want your thoughts.
I am a Republican (albeit a rather liberal and moderate one), and spent the last year working on a political campaign. While I kept it quiet as to whom I worked for in case we won (PR reasons as I would have been a Senate staffer), there is no real point anymore since we lost: I worked for Tommy Thompson in his bid to become a Senator for the State of Wisconsin. I was one of a dozen people that helped drive one of the very few moderate primary campaigns that overcame the (impressive) Tea Party power to make it to a general election. While we didn’t win the general election, I was able to be involved in shaping political discussions throughout my state. For this reason, I do not regret what I spent my time doing. I am very proud of both what we accomplished and the candidate I worked for. I do not agree with him on everything, but he’s honest, hardworking, and (unlike most politicians) sincerely cares about solutions and not popularity.
During this foray into politics, I learned a lot; most of it was interesting, yet some was downright depressing. What stuck out most to me was the amount of influence that a few individuals can exercise over government policy and the direction of public discussions. It's far more than even educated and involved citizens believe. I found it both astounding and frustrating. Legitimate political concerns are rarely discussed, yet one-issue voters are able to drive the public debate by concentration of topic and power in numbers. Single powerful entities (whether individual media members, interest groups, or single donors) can frame the public discussion so subtly that most citizens are completely unaware of what is happening. I found this troubling for many reasons, but mostly how substance of government is developed within representative election systems.
Back to me again. Outside of my political life, I finish my JD degree later this month. In other words, I’ll be a lawyer. However, unlike most lawyers, I specialize in governments--constitutional and structural theory, to be specific. I have a background in sociology and engineering, and it has assisted me in the study and critique of constitutions that are under consideration by new governments (Somalia and Egypt) to provide commentary on the practical social EFFECTS of said documents as drafted. I am essentially the academic link between a Constitutional Scholar and a Sociologist/Economist. While I likely won’t work in this field (nobody pays anyone to have their head in the cloud and most people in power don’t give a shit what someone like me has to say), I think it’s a topic that is not talked about enough amongst smart people.
I honestly believe that there is not enough discussion around an impending revolution in this topic. The reason the experts don’t talk about it isn’t a lack of interest; I honestly think most of them are unaware of it. Why? Because the driving force behind my discussion is something they are not experts in: technology and internet productivity. It’s difficult for even smart individuals to grasp the impending change if they cannot understand the factors and nuances of the driving force. Not that they cannot, but I doubt most Ivory Tower-types with such thoughts understand things such as programming, open-source cooperation, and internet subculture. That is one advantage this forum has—it is filled with politically educated individuals from around the world with an understanding of HOW the internet culture works and how technology can be harnessed for productive uses (even if it's currenly mostly used to produce the lulz). A mass of people on the internet with an idea or a goal can often fulfill it with astounding resourcefulness (see wikipedia). Ivory tower types just don’t get it (yes, I read what they write).
Yochai Benkler, a Harvard Professor, has discussed this matter to a certain degree, but I think he’s missing the true implications of his ideas. Benkler (along with other experts) focuses on the economic implications of the internet’s networking productivity; he misses the drastic political implications.
Where am I going with this you might ask? Hang in there with me for a little bit. My curiosity dives into the more interesting parts of government: the why and the how. We (and by this I mean the Western Society) have developed a system where we discount from serious discussion anything that isn’t a constitutional democracy based on capitalist-based market principles. However, I think this cementing of ideas is rather short-sighted. Five hundred years ago or so, we as humanity did not embrace any major government without a single central figure who dominated every aspect of society. Fast-forward to today and we consider such an approach to be horrendously unfair and inefficient. It may have just been practical reasons more than philosophical reasons that led to this change, but that does not mean that government cannot change drastically over time and that said change will not result in better government structures.
As the saying goes, government is “by the people, for the people.” Yet we have developed a system where the people usually only have a say in one thing and only at one time—the voting for representatives on election day. Sure, this solves the “no taxation without representation” problem, and for many it appeases their desires for freedom. It has served us well in our transition from Dictatorial style governments to a system that allows more freedoms without being unstable. What this system does not represent, however, is an ideal system where the government is truly ‘by’ the people; it’s merely ‘for’ the people. Special interests and powerful individuals are capable of defining the discussion to such a great degree that I decline to agree with the assessment that government is truly ‘by’ the people. The way it works now is that solutions are proposed by powerful individuals or organizations and public opinion is noted. A solution is then imposed in a method that the population will accept. Sure, we vote on who gauges the public opinion, but our collective mass opinion is truly as far as the average citizen will go in their participation. Over time, this system has led to increased apathy and a feeling of disconnect from one's government as other methods of networking and communication have improved while the representation system has stood pat.
What I mean by this is, have you ever attempted to petition a government official? You may have realized that it is essentially futile unless you have an absolutely rabid base of single-issue pressure backed by special interests (see SOPA). But do you have a great idea for how to save the government money? Do you have a complaint about something that needs fixing? Do you have a problem with anything that the government could remedy? The truth is that when you write your elected representative a letter, it is ignored. They have an intern read it and draft a boring, non-comittal reply. They literally hire interns to do nothing but this. Your concern is not truly noted and will have no impact in government actions. It is completely ignored. Unfortunately, I think most people acknowledge this fact. And we’ve come to live with it.
What if you could act on your political ideas and solutoins?
Now on to the exciting discussion:
Today, when discussing government theory, most people ask, “Can make government better?” I think they are missing the point. The question that drives my inquiry is different. What we should be asking is, “Can we make a better government?”
This is not new. This question has been asked in the past. Communism came about from this very same discussion! It failed, and for good reasons (it ignored some inherent human tendencies and focused on economics). However, I think there is a new development that has the potential to open up discourse on this topic once again. It is something that we didn’t have prior to this decade. It is new and provides a base structure that permits government to function in ways that simply would have been inconceivable even ten years ago. I’m not talking about difficult to implement, but new developments that would have been so foreign that it would have been impossible to even have this conversation more than ten years ago. This new “thing” is the Internet. Social Media. Not Twitter of Facebook, but a level of connectivity and networking between individuals that has revolutionized our social lives, our economy, our world outlook, but as of yet has NOT revolutionized our government.
Is it possible for us to devise a system using technology and networking to develop a more efficient, more productive, and more representative government than the style the Western World has spent the last two centuries promoting and refining?
There are some things holding the idea back. Our generation (assuming you are under 40) uses personal digital devices daily, yet the older generation has not adopted and would resist change. But eventually the old people will die off and we will have a society that could not function without their PDAs and smartphones. I believe that while we may not be able to implement any serious changes for another 30 years, this roadblock should not prevent us from laying the theoretical groundwork for this eventual r/evolution.
Think about it: - Pure democracy and voting from your phone on mundane issues during your bus ride to work - A binding neighborhood teleconference/forum discussion and vote on how to deal with playground grafitti. - Being able to snap a picture of a pothole and send it to your city works department through your smartphone without thinking about it. (GPS coordinates of pictures along with a note if you want to include one) - Transferable votes instead of elected representatives - Federal budgets crafted in a Wikipedia environment with input from thousands of ordinary people or more
It would be possible to devise political systems that require no representatives, no presidents, no mayors, no governors, no senators, no city councils, fewer bureaucracies. And do we really need most of that stuff? The truth is that already nobody gives a damn what is said on the floor of the House in the USA. The discussion is already held in the public communications sphere (both on TV and on the internet). Our opinions aren’t developed by listening to representative debates but rather by our debates with our peers. Yet the discussion on how to create a better government with less political party tension has always revolved around the assumption that we must have representative systems. What if we didn’t?
Such a system could theoretically be Government Lite™. A massive increase in efficiency combined with a massive decrease in burden that could create a government structure that makes our current representative democracy look antiquated by every measure. For too long, the debate has been a discussion of who should hold the power to do this or that and how economics should shape government. The idea that economics should not define government at all is foreign to most people who talk about these ideas, but the internet has already shown it has the power to transcend previously uncontested economic theories. Why can’t it transcend governmental theories?
My questions to you, TL.net, are simple ones in form but complicated in substance. What do you think is the next evolution in social government? If you don’t think it will happen, why not? What do you think about what I’ve written here? Can government be made more fluid with the help of networks? What do you see as potential benefits? What do you see as drawbacks? Do not limit yourself to one specific level of government. These ideas are actually probably better discussed at a local level due to the ability to experiment and would have more practical impact, but don't hesitate to look at the big picture either.
Thoughtful responses only, please. Do not respond with one-liners, as I would like to have an actual discussion on this musing.
As a musing, I appreciate your post and thoughtfulness, but my immediate reaction calls some key points into question. I question the power of social media, the impact you describe it would have in transforming a better government, and your discounting the importance of economics. As you mention, a lot of issues (such as pot holes) are a matter for the local government, and structurally these issues need to be discussed separately.
There has been a lot of discussion, especially since the revolutions taking place in the Middle East, about the importance of social media. It is of my opinion that this importance has been grossly overstated. The process of organization and communication as a necessary component of revolution, or any change, has always happened without the internet. The internet brings efficiency, inclusion, and greater scale, but it does not change the root causes/need for change, the objectives of change, or help with the actual outcome (ie: at the end of the day, someone needs to fund, fight, or protest, all of which are not virtual realities). Syria, for example, just blacked out the internet. As noted in a recent Bloomberg cover story, the Syrian government was already monitoring political activists computers, and using it against them. The net effect of that we can't determine, but I can assure everyone that the revolution will continue. Maybe less efficiently, but maybe more efficiently as the government can not infiltrate communications as easily. Either way, a strong argument can be made that the impact of social media on change is overstated.
In the same line of thinking, the examples that you gave about the internet changing the way we do government, are more examples of efficiency. Voting in an election on our phones is certainly more efficient that going to the local school gym or church and standing in line, but does that change the actual structure of government? The implication that the people would simply vote on every issues has 2 main drawbacks. One, people are not educated, informed, or prepared on every issue, and would still be as vulnerable to misinformation as they are now. Two, there are limited funds and resources to govern with, and the people as a whole all can't be managing the resources. For example, we can take a picture of a pot hole and send it to our city hall. What if there were many pot holes, and we could only fix 80% of them? How would we make that decision? People would simply vote for the pot holes that directly effect them, unless there was some campaign to educate people on the reasons why other pot holes would be more beneficial to fix. Then you would have agency problems, where local business (as an example), would try to inform people that the pot holes closest to them would be the most important. Essentially, we would end up with the same system we have now, just with more efficient (and possibly less secure) voting. This scenario leads to issues that you probably know more about than I (with a law background), about the right to free speech through campaign donations, political advocacy, etc... This is a law issue, but also an issue that refers to another point, about economics (which is my background, B.S. in economics).
Economics isn't just about the expansion of GDP, inflation rates, etc... Economics is about choosing one option over another to achieve maximum utility, individually and collectively. The role that free markets play in the collective vs individual good is at the heart of debate about the role of government. The governments role, at its most basic level, is to provide what the free market can't, or to drive for a market equilibrium that the free market won't due to externalities. Even if the government was stripped down to simply national security and advancing interstate infrastructure such as highway systems, etc... economic decisions are still at the basis of the governments role.
Generally speaking, people are simply uneducated about the political process. For example, here in Michigan there was a proposal on the ballot that would require any international bridge (ie: one about to be built into Windsor), would have to get a popular vote. The only reason this was on the ballot was because the owner of the current bridge paid millions of dollars to get it on the ballot and advocate for it, to protect his prophets. Surprisingly, not many people knew this, despite the fact that it was talked about in the news and the information was available on any website providing election based information such as fact check websites. The ignorance revolved around the issue was entirely the fault of the people that were ignorant, and they are the reason that the political system is so easy to manipulate. "People" want the government to fix a lot of problems, but don't want to pay for it, or be involved in it. The current political system, in my view, is corrupt, but the solution isn't to change the system, but for the people to actually engage in the system. The mechanisms to root out corruption are already in place, people just need to use them. On a positive note, the recent presidential election demonstrated that people are not entirely susceptible to manipulation. The republican party spent an astronomical amount of money to take down Obama, and Romney was still left, ironically, with only 47% of the vote.
EPT
