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.
It is possible that conservatism had a major ideological win within our political system as a result of the shutdown. As we all know, most all of the tea party republicans are elected in heavily gerrymandered districts. There is no way they can't lose an election unless an even more extreme right wing conservative comes to challenge them, which is already happening to some republicans in the house who voted to end the shutdown. Quoted from the article above:
"...the GOP is now a largely regional party that has effectively gerrymandered itself a separate country - one that is politically insulated from national public opinion."
It's part of a trend where the actions of the US government are drifting further and further right of what the majority of public opinion actually says.
There is also this question: Why is ideological extremism currently so prevalent in the right and not the left?
“The extreme right has 90 seats in the House,” Mr. Echevarria said. “Occupy Wall Street has no seats.”
There is/was broad public support for many of the agenda of Occupy Wall Street yet there is no broad support for the tea party at all and yet the political spectrum has shifted further right.
I saw an article from the Daily Beast a week or two ago that said something similar: regardless of the fact that republicans may have lost the political battle, they are winning the ideological war. Frankly, I'm not sure that I buy that.
On October 23 2013 05:33 farvacola wrote: Yeah, extra money given to the middle and lower class is the first place we should look! I'm sure they can afford the hit more than the corporations who use similarly lax tax incentives to put away far more than 110 billion.
Going after one tax code abuse doesn't mean you can't go after another.
What corporate tax credit would you like to get rid of? Solar panel credits?
When a tax system needs to be revisited, starting with the aspects that affect those least able to weather further hardship is both morally reprehensible and a recipe for greater inequality. And you know I'm not talking about small time tax credits, I'm talking about changing the system so that hiding your money from the eyes of the government using tax code sleight of hand becomes illegal. A simplified code is part and parcel.
On October 23 2013 05:42 FeUerFlieGe wrote: There is also this question: Why is ideological extremism currently so prevalent in the right and not the left?
“The extreme right has 90 seats in the House,” Mr. Echevarria said. “Occupy Wall Street has no seats.”
There is/was broad public support for many of the agenda of Occupy Wall Street yet there is no broad support for the tea party at all and yet the political spectrum has shifted further right.
Initially there was a lot of popular support for the tea party. I see it as sort of right wing populism.
As for why the tea party was able to get seats, I'd attribute it (at least partially) to favorable demographics. OWS was a lot of young people who are biased towards taking action in bursts - protests and whatnot. Tea party is older people, who are more able and willing to organize for the long term.
On October 23 2013 05:33 farvacola wrote: Yeah, extra money given to the middle and lower class is the first place we should look! I'm sure they can afford the hit more than the corporations who use similarly lax tax incentives to put away far more than 110 billion.
Going after one tax code abuse doesn't mean you can't go after another.
What corporate tax credit would you like to get rid of? Solar panel credits?
When a tax system needs to be revisited, starting with the aspects that affect those least able to weather further hardship is both morally reprehensible and a recipe for greater inequality. And you know I'm not talking about small time tax credits, I'm talking about changing the system so that hiding your money from the eyes of the government using tax code sleight of hand becomes illegal. A simplified code is part and parcel.
We've already been raising taxes on the wealthy and working with other countries to bring hidden assets to light. We aren't starting with low income people who, by the way, are violating tax law.
Regardless, I don't think that stopping people from violating the law, even if they are poor, is morally reprehensible. I think that exactly the opposite is true.
I see no one's interested in discussing budget cuts; ok, so we can discuss revisiting the tax code then. It seems pretty reasonable to try to correct issues with people getting tax cuts they aren't supposed to. Certainly we should revise the tax code; or rewrite it from scratch. (since it's the one of the other big meta problems with all government, a lack of system to clear stuff out over time)
IRS paid more than $110 billion in improper tax credits: Investigator
The Internal Revenue Service paid out more than $110 billion in tax credits over the past decade to people who didn't qualify for them, according to a Treasury report released Tuesday.
The Earned Income Tax Credits were intended for poor working families. In his report, IRS inspector general J. Russell George said more than one-fifth of all credits paid under the program went to people who didn't qualify.
Ouch. Sounds like a place where improvements can be made.
They should just make a guaranteed minimum income/negative income tax like Milton Friedman wanted, and this wouldn't be a problem. But nobody's going to listen to some dead radical socialist like Friedman these days
On October 23 2013 06:30 zlefin wrote: I see no one's interested in discussing budget cuts; ok, so we can discuss revisiting the tax code then. It seems pretty reasonable to try to correct issues with people getting tax cuts they aren't supposed to. Certainly we should revise the tax code; or rewrite it from scratch. (since it's the one of the other big meta problems with all government, a lack of system to clear stuff out over time)
The problem with budget cuts is that the money isn't technically wasted, as the money still gets spent towards something tangible, whether it's be infrastructure, grants, military assets, social entitlement spending, etc., but there are repercussions of cutting the budget.
The biggest problem with budget cuts/reform is that everyone wants to cut the budget, but they don't want to cut their own projects that serve their own constituents in their districts. For example, there was an incident where the Army did not even want the new tanks, but got voted for anyway by Congress because the district needed jobs. Another example would be the Hurricane Sandy relief bill where some Congressmen in districts that were unaffected by the hurricane opposed the bill, while states/districts that were affected by the storm voted for the bill. By instituting spending cuts, you're causing rising unemployment across the country, with few transferable skills into a new job. No one wants to be a politician that presided over rising unemployment.
If politicians are going to touch these sacred cows (SS/Medicare/Military districts), they're going to lose the next election, and the new guy will vow to continue the same benefits (unless you can get a majority of the people to change their minds), which fixes nothing long-term.
I'm not talking about politicians making cuts (though I would if I was a politician), but about us here, discussing what to do; to talk about making cuts. Or we could just put the blue-ribbon commissions in charge; since those actually seem to do a good job. If you want to talk about how to reform the entire system so that sacred cows get dealt with better, I'd be happy to do that too. I just want some work in this thread to actually discuss solutions instead of sniping back and forth at each other (which is fun, but gets a bit boring at times).
On October 23 2013 07:11 zlefin wrote: I'm not talking about politicians making cuts (though I would if I was a politician), but about us here, discussing what to do; to talk about making cuts. Or we could just put the blue-ribbon commissions in charge; since those actually seem to do a good job. If you want to talk about how to reform the entire system so that sacred cows get dealt with better, I'd be happy to do that too. I just want some work in this thread to actually discuss solutions instead of sniping back and forth at each other (which is fun, but gets a bit boring at times).
It's a little out of date at this point, but here:
Go nuts Here's mine, hopefully the data sticks with the link.
Edit: I'd prefer a bit less in tax hikes and a bit more in military and entitlement cuts (maybe ~100B each way), but I had to work with limited options.
with the U.S. being the biggest power etc and still having its debt denominated in the dollar, a global reserve currency still, its national debt situation is rather unique and strategic. if the guys who are buying up treasury bonds are stuck in that position, then it's not that big of a deal except in the harm prolonged reliance upon government spending can cause to the economy, generating entrenched contractor interests that crowd out innovative businesses actuall doing the work
Edit: I'd prefer a bit less in tax hikes and a bit more in military and entitlement cuts (maybe ~100B each way), but I had to work with limited options.
why do they have the bush tax cut as a single bloc option. there's a lot of room for tinkering with it
The debt does matter; debt is bad; its' certainly manageable, but i'd like to fix the debt. It's preferable to not owe piles of money. I'm also not sure how well government spending truly fixes the economy, it can reduce unemployment, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's justifying the expense long term. Though I'd be interested to review the options for getting employment back up, but I get the feeling there may not be good options. If I were in charge, there wouldn't be so much debt to begin with; only time to take massive debt is when you're at war (or there's something so awesome long term that it's worth debt-spending to do).
On October 23 2013 05:33 farvacola wrote: Yeah, extra money given to the middle and lower class is the first place we should look! I'm sure they can afford the hit more than the corporations who use similarly lax tax incentives to put away far more than 110 billion.
Going after one tax code abuse doesn't mean you can't go after another.
What corporate tax credit would you like to get rid of? Solar panel credits?
When a tax system needs to be revisited, starting with the aspects that affect those least able to weather further hardship is both morally reprehensible and a recipe for greater inequality. And you know I'm not talking about small time tax credits, I'm talking about changing the system so that hiding your money from the eyes of the government using tax code sleight of hand becomes illegal. A simplified code is part and parcel.
We've already been raising taxes on the wealthy and working with other countries to bring hidden assets to light. We aren't starting with low income people who, by the way, are violating tax law.
Regardless, I don't think that stopping people from violating the law, even if they are poor, is morally reprehensible. I think that exactly the opposite is true.
Clearly it's not just about "raising taxes" it's not just the income disparity that is so harmful to our country, it's the disgusting wealth disparity and the gross ignorance of it's existence/causes.
So lets say your idea of where our policing should happen isn't morally reprehensible. I'd have to say it is at least stupid.
I don't see how anyone could look at information like the video below and come away with the idea that the bottom 20% of income earners is where our money is being "wasted" or is an unmanageable burden on society.
I understand how people ignorant of the facts could buy into the false narrative that the 47% of American people who are "dependent on government" (which is stupid on it's face as we are all dependent on government, but whatever...) are the drain on society that will lead to our economic fall from grace.
What I don't understand is, how educated reasonably informed people can possibly believe that.
Particularly when it comes to wealth distribution, it absolutely boggles my mind. All the wealth of "welfare queens, food stamp bandits, disability dynamos, and WIC wah babies, etc.." piled together doesn't even come close to the share enjoyed by just a handful of modern day robber barons.
To be clear, I don't begrudge people's successes. The problem is the equity or complete lack there of among the successes.
It is incontrovertible that the old axiom "The rich get richer, while the poor get poorer" hasn't been more true since the great depression (if even then). Until addressing that issue stops being "class warfare" and starts being something more along the lines of "economic justice" things are only going to get worse.
I don't have a great solution as to how one resolves the problem but it has been made abundantly clear that the 'free market' isn't the solution. Well unless you consider taking from the poor until they are left with only a choice of capitulation to eternal poverty or an uprising which will likely carry a lot of violence and disdain for those who are perceived to be 'haves' rightly or not to be a desirable solution.
With even famed Ayn Rand fan and free market guru Allen Greenspan had to come to grips with the fact that the fundamental assumption that "people act in their rational self interest" is an outright fallacy. One that was at the core of how/why we nearly had an economic collapse of unparalleled scale (and if allowed to continue to fester in the minds of economic thinkers will still do so).
On October 23 2013 08:52 SnipedSoul wrote: Where the heck is the option to cut military spending in half?
Deficit solved if you repeal bush tax cuts and cut military.
Cutting military spending in half would be pretty disastrous especially if it were to happen in 1 budget cycle. Like it or not, American hegemony is a rather strong for in international relations at the moment, and completely undercutting it like that would have some pretty drastic effects that you probably wouldn't like. If you want to spend less money you need to redesign the US military to do something different than what it currently does, and you need to do that slowly so as not to upset things.
On October 23 2013 08:53 zlefin wrote: The debt does matter; debt is bad; its' certainly manageable, but i'd like to fix the debt. It's preferable to not owe piles of money. I'm also not sure how well government spending truly fixes the economy, it can reduce unemployment, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's justifying the expense long term. Though I'd be interested to review the options for getting employment back up, but I get the feeling there may not be good options. If I were in charge, there wouldn't be so much debt to begin with; only time to take massive debt is when you're at war (or there's something so awesome long term that it's worth debt-spending to do).
Look, the debt is a thing that we're going to have to deal with. However, trying to deal with it in a depressed economy is just a bad idea. While unemployment is happening, it should not be a priority. Get full employment, then I'll talk about the debt.
Cut the military in half? Excuse me? Think of how many people lose their jobs. What, you think the private sector will absorb those jobs? When we already have unemployment? Yea right. It won't happen. So we contract the economy, and the next year we have less revenues. So we're going to have to make more cuts. And that's not theory, that's what happened to Britain, and a number of the Euro countries in general.
There are ways of not aggravating our economy and reducing the debt, like taxing rich people or something. But the fact remains that the real problem of America right now is not the debt. Reducing the debt too quickly right now can contract the economy. The real problem right now is unemployment.
17,000,000,000,000 is not nearly as scary a number as 63.2.
On October 23 2013 08:40 DoubleReed wrote: Where's the "spend money to get employment back up" option?
Seriously. Priorities. The debt does not matter when unemployment is at 7.2% after five years. Labor participation is at a historic low.
Fix debt problems with growth.
You don't need that option. If you want to spend more now, and increase taxes / spend less later you can do that. Just run a smaller deficit / bigger surplus in 2020 than you otherwise would to pay back the money you want to borrow today.
On October 23 2013 08:52 SnipedSoul wrote: Where the heck is the option to cut military spending in half?
Deficit solved if you repeal bush tax cuts and cut military.
I don't think either repealing the bush tax cuts or cutting the military in half has much public support. Could be wrong.
On October 23 2013 05:33 farvacola wrote: Yeah, extra money given to the middle and lower class is the first place we should look! I'm sure they can afford the hit more than the corporations who use similarly lax tax incentives to put away far more than 110 billion.
Going after one tax code abuse doesn't mean you can't go after another.
What corporate tax credit would you like to get rid of? Solar panel credits?
When a tax system needs to be revisited, starting with the aspects that affect those least able to weather further hardship is both morally reprehensible and a recipe for greater inequality. And you know I'm not talking about small time tax credits, I'm talking about changing the system so that hiding your money from the eyes of the government using tax code sleight of hand becomes illegal. A simplified code is part and parcel.
We've already been raising taxes on the wealthy and working with other countries to bring hidden assets to light. We aren't starting with low income people who, by the way, are violating tax law.
Regardless, I don't think that stopping people from violating the law, even if they are poor, is morally reprehensible. I think that exactly the opposite is true.
So lets say your idea of where our policing should happen isn't morally reprehensible. I'd have to say it is at least stupid.
No, what's stupid (and I mean really, really stupid) is the idea that poor people should be allowed to break the law simply because they are poor.
EPT
Here's 
