|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.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 September 20 2013 18:34 Danglars wrote:
You're making false comparisons I wasn't even alleging. The increase in food stamp enrollment is not the advance of poverty across swaths of the American population. The growth is a failing of the needs-testing program and it needs reform. An able bodied adult that is capable of looking for a job, but given that he has all the food he needs, housing assistance maybe, and other state and local programs has less of an incentive. It is disconnected from its original aim (assuming its 1970s creators had that aim) of food assistance for the needing and is now little more than another check on top of unemployment and a moral hazard for government to engage in for too many.
If you're having trouble visualizing the process, begin by referring to the work programs established with welfare reform, 1996. I'm talking about how few on food stamps looked for work or worked any hours in the past month even at times when the unemployment rate was much lower (and you might have a point if this was a program made in the past decade and NOT 40 years ago with insufficient analysis on unemployment's contribution).
I think some people are sticking their heads in the sand on this. It doesn't matter if somebody could look for a job and chooses to feed themselves on food stamps. As long as one dollar out of every hundred goes to a needy family, it shouldn't get reformed or changed in any way!
I want to create jobs, I want to untether the job creators from the specter of additional costs of Obamacare and more regulations from aggressive government agencies, amongst other job killers out there. The past administration has been remarkably good at overseers the death of full time jobs and the creation of the part time. And if there's public works projects that need undertaking, sell them to the voter and their representatives and let's have at it. I've seen enough corporate welfare discussion to know people here have a clue.
"Job killerez are tha problemz with the modurn econermy. We's can just encurage jurb grownth by lowering taxers avery year and whern they reachn zero we have perfect ecornomy."
~ Danglars, 2013
You do realize that
1. Cutting government income is not a long term economic stimulus. You can't just cut government forever to artificially create jobs. (hint: you end up without a government)
2. Most people in the united states probably wouldn't vote anarchist, even if given a choice (except for hipsters trying to be ironic)
3. Use of the term 'job creator' generally indicates that you are either a politician or a moron. There isn't a massive support group for people going "gee I could really solve this whole unemployment thing if only a few little old government regulations were removed, but it's not profitable because I would pay 1% too many taxes!".
The exception to that rule would of course be the people who want minimum wage removed, because obviously, if you can pay people half as much as they currently earn, you can employ 10% more people.
|
On September 20 2013 23:19 DoubleReed wrote:
But seriously, you can notice how Danglars think jobs are bestowed by rich people to us poor plebians rather than how in the real world jobs are created to fulfill needs and cost-benefit analyses.
trying to preach to the chior isn't something to be impressed by. going DAE repers are nazies?!?1 is literaly the shit that got r/politics exiled from relevence in the first place beacuse it was literaly too bad for reddit even.
You could at least explain why you think the soviet union did so well with fulfilling needs and cost-benifit analyses. (which for some reason you're useing instead of the word profit) Or better yet why europe is doing so well right now considering how much further left they are then us.
I mean like the guy above me isn't even trying to be smart. He probably thinks hes being funny by mocking the guy who doesn't agree with the rest of the group. At least can we all try to not shit up the thread, we have sam back at the least and DEB is gone but its now worse then it was before.
|
@ Jormundr: I don't think raising government spending to 100% of GDP is much of a long term stimulus either.
@ Danglars: I can appreciate the desire to reform welfare, but if that's what the GOP is intending I don't see it in their current legislation. Maybe I'm missing something (if so point it out), but even if that's the case it means that they aren't communicating their intentions / plans well enough with the public.
How about some bigger cost of living adjustments? Rural red state Republicans can experience a fall in welfare payments and urban blue state Democrats can experience a rise.
|
On September 21 2013 00:09 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2013 23:19 DoubleReed wrote:
But seriously, you can notice how Danglars think jobs are bestowed by rich people to us poor plebians rather than how in the real world jobs are created to fulfill needs and cost-benefit analyses. trying to preach to the chior isn't something to be impressed by. going DAE repers are nazies?!?1 is literaly the shit that got r/politics exiled from relevence in the first place beacuse it was literaly too bad for reddit even. You could at least explain why you think the soviet union did so well with fulfilling needs and cost-benifit analyses. (which for some reason you're useing instead of the word profit) Or better yet why europe is doing so well right now considering how much further left they are then us. I mean like the guy above me isn't even trying to be smart. He probably thinks hes being funny by mocking the guy who doesn't agree with the rest of the group. At least can we all try to not shit up the thread, we have sam back at the least and DEB is gone but its now worse then it was before.
uhm... what?
Am I saying communist or socialist things here? Who said that the government should control the means of production? Keynesian Economics is capitalism, dude.
Europe responded to the economic crisis with much harsher austerity measures than the US which caused massive unemployment, exactly as Keynesians said it would. The US did a stimulus but it wasn't nearly enough and the public sector still hasn't recovered from it.
Also Europe has the Euro so they can't print money the way we can. The euro is having similar issues as the gold standard did as a result.
|
On September 21 2013 00:09 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2013 23:19 DoubleReed wrote:
But seriously, you can notice how Danglars think jobs are bestowed by rich people to us poor plebians rather than how in the real world jobs are created to fulfill needs and cost-benefit analyses. trying to preach to the chior isn't something to be impressed by. going DAE repers are nazies?!?1 is literaly the shit that got r/politics exiled from relevence in the first place beacuse it was literaly too bad for reddit even. You could at least explain why you think the soviet union did so well with fulfilling needs and cost-benifit analyses. (which for some reason you're useing instead of the word profit) Or better yet why europe is doing so well right now considering how much further left they are then us. I mean like the guy above me isn't even trying to be smart. He probably thinks hes being funny by mocking the guy who doesn't agree with the rest of the group. At least can we all try to not shit up the thread, we have sam back at the least and DEB is gone but its now worse then it was before.
Sorry, I guess it's wrong to ridicule the position of "cut government, job magic happens" because it really depends on your beliefs. Do you believe in magic (in a young girl's heart)? Also, you're pretty full of yourself. Criticizing the criticizer for criticizing doesn't add much more than hypocrisy to the conversation.
On September 21 2013 00:10 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
@ Jormundr: I don't think raising government spending to 100% of GDP is much of a long term stimulus either.
@ Danglars: I can appreciate the desire to reform welfare, but if that's what the GOP is intending I don't see it in their current legislation. Maybe I'm missing something (if so point it out), but even if that's the case it means that they aren't communicating their intentions / plans well enough with the public.
How about some bigger cost of living adjustments? Rural red state Republicans can experience a fall in welfare payments and urban blue state Democrats can experience a rise.
I don't understand why you both assume that I support the status quo. Throwing money into bank reserves has done shit all for our economy and continue to do so. I understand that our government is going retard, and Danglars is proposing that we have it go full retard for the hell of it.
As for your comments on welfare reform,
No shit it should be based on regional cost of living. That isn't really going to affect the job market however. It is however, absolutely moronic that THIS is considered an issue while we completely ignore the runaway trains which are social security and defense spending.
|
On September 21 2013 00:09 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2013 23:19 DoubleReed wrote:
But seriously, you can notice how Danglars think jobs are bestowed by rich people to us poor plebians rather than how in the real world jobs are created to fulfill needs and cost-benefit analyses. trying to preach to the chior isn't something to be impressed by. going DAE repers are nazies?!?1 is literaly the shit that got r/politics exiled from relevence in the first place beacuse it was literaly too bad for reddit even. You could at least explain why you think the soviet union did so well with fulfilling needs and cost-benifit analyses. (which for some reason you're useing instead of the word profit) Or better yet why europe is doing so well right now considering how much further left they are then us. I mean like the guy above me isn't even trying to be smart. He probably thinks hes being funny by mocking the guy who doesn't agree with the rest of the group. At least can we all try to not shit up the thread, we have sam back at the least and DEB is gone but its now worse then it was before.
I would agree that using the term "job creators" is unhelpful. It is a deliberately loaded term, portraying them as benevolent people who provide jobs out of the goodness of their hearts when any jobs they do provide are because they think they will profit from it. This attitude towards rich people isn't communist and shouldn't be compared to the soviet union. Thinking that rich people are acting in their own self-interest when they pay someone to do a job does not make me (or anyone else) a communist.
Also, Europe's response to the crisis was pretty much what the Reublicans in the US wanted in the US, namely harsh austerity; a shrinking government and reduced welfare. Germany has done well during the crisis but it benefits greatly from the artificially weak currency it has by sharing the Euro with the other countries. The weaker economies suffer in the same way as they are unable to devalue their currency. So many countries have fared very badly, including Ireland and Spain who were doing great before 2007. Looking at what happened in Europe goes against austerity-focused economic policy.
|
On September 20 2013 16:06 IgnE wrote:
With the amount of new coal plants going online between now and 2025, it's already too late. We are going to be dealing with some serious climate change.
Isn't that to replace older (and dirtier) coal plants? Or are you referencing the rest of the world?
|
On September 21 2013 00:40 Jormundr wrote:
[...] while we completely ignore the runaway trains which are social security and defense spending.
How is social security a "runaway train", exactly? I'll agree that it needs to be tweeked on the long term, but as it is currently its fund will be able to pay every benefit until 2033 (and 3/4s of those from then on).
|
On September 21 2013 00:55 Melliflue wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2013 00:09 Sermokala wrote:On September 20 2013 23:19 DoubleReed wrote:
But seriously, you can notice how Danglars think jobs are bestowed by rich people to us poor plebians rather than how in the real world jobs are created to fulfill needs and cost-benefit analyses. trying to preach to the chior isn't something to be impressed by. going DAE repers are nazies?!?1 is literaly the shit that got r/politics exiled from relevence in the first place beacuse it was literaly too bad for reddit even. You could at least explain why you think the soviet union did so well with fulfilling needs and cost-benifit analyses. (which for some reason you're useing instead of the word profit) Or better yet why europe is doing so well right now considering how much further left they are then us. I mean like the guy above me isn't even trying to be smart. He probably thinks hes being funny by mocking the guy who doesn't agree with the rest of the group. At least can we all try to not shit up the thread, we have sam back at the least and DEB is gone but its now worse then it was before. I would agree that using the term "job creators" is unhelpful. It is a deliberately loaded term, portraying them as benevolent people who provide jobs out of the goodness of their hearts when any jobs they do provide are because they think they will profit from it. This attitude towards rich people isn't communist and shouldn't be compared to the soviet union. Thinking that rich people are acting in their own self-interest when they pay someone to do a job does not make me (or anyone else) a communist. Also, Europe's response to the crisis was pretty much what the Reublicans in the US wanted in the US, namely harsh austerity; a shrinking government and reduced welfare. Germany has done well during the crisis but it benefits greatly from the artificially weak currency it has by sharing the Euro with the other countries. The weaker economies suffer in the same way as they are unable to devalue their currency. So many countries have fared very badly, including Ireland and Spain who were doing great before 2007. Looking at what happened in Europe goes against austerity-focused economic policy.
Saying taht they were doing great before 2007 is exactly the problem. the policies they had in place before 2007 are not anywere feasible after 2007. Spain and ireland didn't really have a choice in the economic matter if they didn't want to have an economic collapse so now they get a slow economic death instead to soften the landing.
America gets an artificially strong currency with it being the only currency people actually use for stuff that matters apparently and it has the same results as germany has.
But creating hate tword a group of people is just wrong no matter how "justified" it is. Whichhunting is really fun until you wake up the next day and realized you burned a few people at the stake. You can't be for gay rights and then be for class warfare, its just hypocritical.
On September 21 2013 02:18 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2013 00:40 Jormundr wrote:
[...] while we completely ignore the runaway trains which are social security and defense spending. How is social security a "runaway train", exactly? I'll agree that it needs to be tweeked on the long term, but as it is currently its fund will be able to pay every benefit until 2033 (and 3/4s of those from then on).
SS operates as, was created as, and can only work as a giant ponzi scheame that keeps going as when more people are paying in then the system is paying out. It being an okay thing to fix at some point doens't change its fundamental flaws.
|
On September 21 2013 02:29 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2013 00:55 Melliflue wrote:On September 21 2013 00:09 Sermokala wrote:On September 20 2013 23:19 DoubleReed wrote:
But seriously, you can notice how Danglars think jobs are bestowed by rich people to us poor plebians rather than how in the real world jobs are created to fulfill needs and cost-benefit analyses. trying to preach to the chior isn't something to be impressed by. going DAE repers are nazies?!?1 is literaly the shit that got r/politics exiled from relevence in the first place beacuse it was literaly too bad for reddit even. You could at least explain why you think the soviet union did so well with fulfilling needs and cost-benifit analyses. (which for some reason you're useing instead of the word profit) Or better yet why europe is doing so well right now considering how much further left they are then us. I mean like the guy above me isn't even trying to be smart. He probably thinks hes being funny by mocking the guy who doesn't agree with the rest of the group. At least can we all try to not shit up the thread, we have sam back at the least and DEB is gone but its now worse then it was before. I would agree that using the term "job creators" is unhelpful. It is a deliberately loaded term, portraying them as benevolent people who provide jobs out of the goodness of their hearts when any jobs they do provide are because they think they will profit from it. This attitude towards rich people isn't communist and shouldn't be compared to the soviet union. Thinking that rich people are acting in their own self-interest when they pay someone to do a job does not make me (or anyone else) a communist. Also, Europe's response to the crisis was pretty much what the Reublicans in the US wanted in the US, namely harsh austerity; a shrinking government and reduced welfare. Germany has done well during the crisis but it benefits greatly from the artificially weak currency it has by sharing the Euro with the other countries. The weaker economies suffer in the same way as they are unable to devalue their currency. So many countries have fared very badly, including Ireland and Spain who were doing great before 2007. Looking at what happened in Europe goes against austerity-focused economic policy. Saying taht they were doing great before 2007 is exactly the problem. the policies they had in place before 2007 are not anywere feasible after 2007. Spain and ireland didn't really have a choice in the economic matter if they didn't want to have an economic collapse so now they get a slow economic death instead to soften the landing. America gets an artificially strong currency with it being the only currency people actually use for stuff that matters apparently and it has the same results as germany has. But creating hate tword a group of people is just wrong no matter how "justified" it is. Whichhunting is really fun until you wake up the next day and realized you burned a few people at the stake. You can't be for gay rights and then be for class warfare, its just hypocritical.
wtf are you talking about? Rich people do not bestow jobs to the middle class and poor unless there's demand for it. How is that witch hunting? How is that class warfare? How is that socialism?
As opposed to the Republicans who just claimed that food stamps makes the poor too lazy to find a job.
And non-euro countries have actually pretty well with their supposedly unsustainable policies. Its almost like what you're saying doesn't reflect reality.
|
On September 21 2013 02:29 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2013 00:55 Melliflue wrote:On September 21 2013 00:09 Sermokala wrote:On September 20 2013 23:19 DoubleReed wrote:
But seriously, you can notice how Danglars think jobs are bestowed by rich people to us poor plebians rather than how in the real world jobs are created to fulfill needs and cost-benefit analyses. trying to preach to the chior isn't something to be impressed by. going DAE repers are nazies?!?1 is literaly the shit that got r/politics exiled from relevence in the first place beacuse it was literaly too bad for reddit even. You could at least explain why you think the soviet union did so well with fulfilling needs and cost-benifit analyses. (which for some reason you're useing instead of the word profit) Or better yet why europe is doing so well right now considering how much further left they are then us. I mean like the guy above me isn't even trying to be smart. He probably thinks hes being funny by mocking the guy who doesn't agree with the rest of the group. At least can we all try to not shit up the thread, we have sam back at the least and DEB is gone but its now worse then it was before. I would agree that using the term "job creators" is unhelpful. It is a deliberately loaded term, portraying them as benevolent people who provide jobs out of the goodness of their hearts when any jobs they do provide are because they think they will profit from it. This attitude towards rich people isn't communist and shouldn't be compared to the soviet union. Thinking that rich people are acting in their own self-interest when they pay someone to do a job does not make me (or anyone else) a communist. Also, Europe's response to the crisis was pretty much what the Reublicans in the US wanted in the US, namely harsh austerity; a shrinking government and reduced welfare. Germany has done well during the crisis but it benefits greatly from the artificially weak currency it has by sharing the Euro with the other countries. The weaker economies suffer in the same way as they are unable to devalue their currency. So many countries have fared very badly, including Ireland and Spain who were doing great before 2007. Looking at what happened in Europe goes against austerity-focused economic policy. Saying taht they were doing great before 2007 is exactly the problem. the policies they had in place before 2007 are not anywere feasible after 2007. Spain and ireland didn't really have a choice in the economic matter if they didn't want to have an economic collapse so now they get a slow economic death instead to soften the landing. America gets an artificially strong currency with it being the only currency people actually use for stuff that matters apparently and it has the same results as germany has. But creating hate tword a group of people is just wrong no matter how "justified" it is. Whichhunting is really fun until you wake up the next day and realized you burned a few people at the stake. You can't be for gay rights and then be for class warfare, its just hypocritical.
How can you be for or against class warfare ? Look at the evolution of the income of the 1% during the last 20 - 30 years please. Class warfare is a fact, and a rather simple one : people with different positions have different interests. There is nothing inherently wrong in saying that the interest of the rich is not the same interest as the poorests.
How is that witchhunting ?
|
On September 21 2013 02:29 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2013 02:18 kwizach wrote:On September 21 2013 00:40 Jormundr wrote:
[...] while we completely ignore the runaway trains which are social security and defense spending. How is social security a "runaway train", exactly? I'll agree that it needs to be tweeked on the long term, but as it is currently its fund will be able to pay every benefit until 2033 (and 3/4s of those from then on). SS operates as, was created as, and can only work as a giant ponzi scheame that keeps going as when more people are paying in then the system is paying out. It being an okay thing to fix at some point doens't change its fundamental flaws.
Ah, the good old "Ponzi scheme" flawed comparison. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with social security that would prevent it from going on past 2033 and on the long-term after some tweaks.
|
On September 21 2013 02:29 Sermokala wrote:
America gets an artificially strong currency with it being the only currency people actually use for stuff that matters apparently and it has the same results as germany has.
I don't understand what you're trying to say. Germany went for more austerity than the US ever did, and the US did do some fiscal stimulus. According to Keynsian economics the US recovery (in this situation) would be better, and as you said the US has done equally well despite the comparative strength of their currency, which surely suggests that US policy was better than German policy.
But creating hate tword a group of people is just wrong no matter how "justified" it is. Whichhunting is really fun until you wake up the next day and realized you burned a few people at the stake. You can't be for gay rights and then be for class warfare, its just hypocritical.
I never said I hated the rich. I wasn't witch-hunting. I wasn't engaged in class warfare. I don't know where you got that idea from. I merely said the rich are not being altruistic when they pay someone to do a job. Likewise the employee is not doing the job to benefit the employer. The employee does it for the money. I don't understand your reaction to what I said.
|
It would be hypocritical to not be for "class warfare" and to be for gay rights.
|
On September 21 2013 02:38 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2013 02:29 Sermokala wrote:On September 21 2013 02:18 kwizach wrote:On September 21 2013 00:40 Jormundr wrote:
[...] while we completely ignore the runaway trains which are social security and defense spending. How is social security a "runaway train", exactly? I'll agree that it needs to be tweeked on the long term, but as it is currently its fund will be able to pay every benefit until 2033 (and 3/4s of those from then on). SS operates as, was created as, and can only work as a giant ponzi scheame that keeps going as when more people are paying in then the system is paying out. It being an okay thing to fix at some point doens't change its fundamental flaws. Ah, the good old "Ponzi scheme" flawed comparison. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with social security that would prevent it from going on past 2033 and on the long-term after some tweeks.
And why should we give a shit that it is going to last 20 more years? We won't be receiving the same treatment in 40.
|
On September 21 2013 03:08 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2013 02:38 kwizach wrote:On September 21 2013 02:29 Sermokala wrote:On September 21 2013 02:18 kwizach wrote:On September 21 2013 00:40 Jormundr wrote:
[...] while we completely ignore the runaway trains which are social security and defense spending. How is social security a "runaway train", exactly? I'll agree that it needs to be tweeked on the long term, but as it is currently its fund will be able to pay every benefit until 2033 (and 3/4s of those from then on). SS operates as, was created as, and can only work as a giant ponzi scheame that keeps going as when more people are paying in then the system is paying out. It being an okay thing to fix at some point doens't change its fundamental flaws. Ah, the good old "Ponzi scheme" flawed comparison. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with social security that would prevent it from going on past 2033 and on the long-term after some tweeks. And why should we give a shit that it is going to last 20 more years? We won't be receiving the same treatment in 40.
That depends on plenty of factors and certainly does not make social security a "runaway train".
|
On September 21 2013 03:25 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2013 03:08 Jormundr wrote:On September 21 2013 02:38 kwizach wrote:On September 21 2013 02:29 Sermokala wrote:On September 21 2013 02:18 kwizach wrote:On September 21 2013 00:40 Jormundr wrote:
[...] while we completely ignore the runaway trains which are social security and defense spending. How is social security a "runaway train", exactly? I'll agree that it needs to be tweeked on the long term, but as it is currently its fund will be able to pay every benefit until 2033 (and 3/4s of those from then on). SS operates as, was created as, and can only work as a giant ponzi scheame that keeps going as when more people are paying in then the system is paying out. It being an okay thing to fix at some point doens't change its fundamental flaws. Ah, the good old "Ponzi scheme" flawed comparison. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with social security that would prevent it from going on past 2033 and on the long-term after some tweeks. And why should we give a shit that it is going to last 20 more years? We won't be receiving the same treatment in 40. That depends on plenty of factors and certainly does not make social security a "runaway train".
The fact that the SSA itself has predicted more money going out than going in does. How the hell does that get 'tweaked'?
|
Raise the retirement age to 75.
|
On September 21 2013 03:37 RCMDVA wrote:
Raise the retirement age to 75.
It would make more sense to do away with it entirely (I'm not against that).
|
On September 21 2013 01:17 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2013 16:06 IgnE wrote:
With the amount of new coal plants going online between now and 2025, it's already too late. We are going to be dealing with some serious climate change. Isn't that to replace older (and dirtier) coal plants? Or are you referencing the rest of the world?
No, it's to benefit from the glut in the coal market and take advantage of "clean coal" technologies from the last decade. Some of them may be replacing older plants, but many of them aren't.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
