|
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 December 01 2017 06:15 Seuss wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2017 05:53 zlefin wrote:On December 01 2017 05:50 doomdonker wrote:
I don’t get this tax bill or some people’s support for it. It doesn’t seem to promote a whole lot of growth as the most recent estimate guesses 0.8% growth, it balloons the deficit by a huge amount which should be concerning for fiscal conservatives and doesn’t give a tax cut to anyone that isn’t earning well over six figures. what's not to get? it hands out a lot of money to rich donors, who will not donate if some sort of tax bill isn't passed. do we know that the fiscal conservatives won't block the bill? I have'nt been following closely, and one of the long sticking points in making such a bill is that there are some republicans who simply will not accept a deficit increasing bill. What fiscal conservatives? If you think anyone in Congress who screamed about deficits under Obama is going to vote against this, I have a tired expression sarcastically suggesting gullibility you might be interested in.
there are some; not a lot, but some. they're not so much reasonable fiscal conservatives as crazy fiscal conservatives; they're some of the arch-right freedom caucus wing of the republicans who are like that. your response is asinine and suggests you're completely unaware of that reality of the situation, and not interested in discussing anything in a reasonable manner. so please don't bother responding in the future.
most of the republicans were just doing it to be anti-obama; but a few really aren't willing to budge on deficits (while that is good, those people also come with some real crazy to go with it, they're the types who're totally fine iwth shutting down the government for instance)
I also specifically note I haven't been following this specific issue too closely, so I haven't seen where the freedom caucus type people are on this; but they're part of the situation that lead to other things like the obamacare repeal failing.
|
On December 01 2017 06:07 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2017 06:00 Nevuk wrote:
It was curiosity. I was reading a politics thread on a very leftist forum, someone posted a twitter link to someone saying their 98 year old grandma said that Nazi Germany started out exactly like this. Then a one or two people freaked out about how we are doomed (also because of the tax bill). So I know what the far left reaction is (and think it is ridiculous), and was wondering about the reaction of those on the other side.
Personally, I don't think the GOP congressional leaders are competent enough to actually do anything. Trump is eh???? Basically a randomizer in the presidency.
Well devils advocate what can you do? You've already compromised your morals in some campaign to gain political power. Now you're whole life is trying to get the party to succeed in any way you can make it. Trump comes along and tanks the party for the next cycle and some. But you can't eject him because thats the base and if they go libertarian then you'll be hamstrung forever. The only competent thing for them in their position is to just meh around until they lose congress and the presidency and hope for the party to get gifted another Obama style recovery out of no where. All you can do is pack it in and start planning for what to make the party competitive when the trump stink goes the way of bush. I think far leftists were really afraid that Trump was as competent as his supporters thought he was and that he was going to be able to do what he said he wanted to do. Dems are bad but are they really lose to trump twice bad?
I wish people would stop caring as much about Trump. I was one of those people, that during the election said he was literally the worst person to have the job, and it was more important than anything to stop him. But I underestimated just how stupid not just Trump, but even people like Bannon and Gorka were. They can't survive in DC, they don't understand how to influence policy and they tend to immediately overreach. Trump by now is isolated, and clearly unable to cope under the stress and responsibilities of the presidency. I honestly can't tell whether the president literally has dementia or not.
He is still very dangerous and he has already committed to a host of evil actions, with long-term consequences (climate change especially). But he could continue golfing for the rest of his term, just occasionally tweet stuff, and as long as he signs whatever document is put in front of him there will be no solace. It is increasingly clear that his military policy is dictated by the generals and his economic policies by the GOP and their plutocrat allies. I don't see how president Pence is preferable at this point.
|
If the US federal government grows its debt by only 1 trillion by 2027... that might even mean that it's debt-to-GDP ratio improves if the economy grows by 2-3%. Pointing out hypocrisy in the fiscal conservatives is one thing but no need to bring hysteria to the economics of it.
|
On December 01 2017 05:46 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2017 05:41 xDaunt wrote:On December 01 2017 05:24 KwarK wrote:On December 01 2017 05:17 xDaunt wrote:On December 01 2017 05:02 KwarK wrote:On December 01 2017 04:40 xDaunt wrote:On December 01 2017 04:38 Sr18 wrote:
Isn't the idea of capatalism that it's the most effective system of increasing the total amount of wealth? So how can it be a zero sum game? Because the only people who think it's a zero sum game are the myopic ones who ignore the obvious second, third, fourth, etc order consequences of competition. Do you think human labour is infinite? What about physical resources? Capitalism works by making competing parties bid for finite labour and finite resources based upon the differing values they place on their own planned use for those. Higher value represents higher utility. Higher utility correlates with higher productivity. Higher productivity creates a greater amount of wealth. But none of that means that the underlying labour and resources being bid upon are infinite. They're finite. The winner wins them, the loser loses them. That's what is meant by it being a zero sum game. At any given discrete moment in time, available resources are obviously finite. However, I'm not sure why you're dwelling on the discrete moment in time when it's the long run that matters when discussing wealth generation. Great, so available resources at a given time are finite. Now let's say you and I both want the same thing. We both bid on it, and I bid more. Do we both get it, or does one of us get it and the other one lose it? No one gives a shit about the first order consequences of capitalist transactions. That's not where the wealth generation comes from. Like I said before, if you're going to myopically ignore the all of the secondary, tertiary, etc consequences of capitalist transactions to prove that capitalism is a zero sum game, then there's really nothing to discuss with you. The wealth generation absolutely comes from the first transactions. I bid based upon my utility, you bid based upon yours, what the winner pays is called the "market value". Your "wealth" is the "market value" of all of your things. I obtain more utility out of it than you, and therefore generate more wealth.
you are making his point for him but apparently dont see that. he is arguing that the bidding process when working correctly produces more "wealth" for the second round of bidding.
you need to go all the way marxian here and say theres a finite pool of natural resources and a finite but expandable pool of a special resource called "labor power" which generates value. you are starting to conflate "utility" as use value with market value, and your analysis is suffering because of your refusal to include surplus value generation through the buying and using of the special resource known as labor power
|
On December 01 2017 06:21 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2017 06:07 Sermokala wrote:On December 01 2017 06:00 Nevuk wrote:
It was curiosity. I was reading a politics thread on a very leftist forum, someone posted a twitter link to someone saying their 98 year old grandma said that Nazi Germany started out exactly like this. Then a one or two people freaked out about how we are doomed (also because of the tax bill). So I know what the far left reaction is (and think it is ridiculous), and was wondering about the reaction of those on the other side.
Personally, I don't think the GOP congressional leaders are competent enough to actually do anything. Trump is eh???? Basically a randomizer in the presidency.
Well devils advocate what can you do? You've already compromised your morals in some campaign to gain political power. Now you're whole life is trying to get the party to succeed in any way you can make it. Trump comes along and tanks the party for the next cycle and some. But you can't eject him because thats the base and if they go libertarian then you'll be hamstrung forever. The only competent thing for them in their position is to just meh around until they lose congress and the presidency and hope for the party to get gifted another Obama style recovery out of no where. All you can do is pack it in and start planning for what to make the party competitive when the trump stink goes the way of bush. I think far leftists were really afraid that Trump was as competent as his supporters thought he was and that he was going to be able to do what he said he wanted to do. Dems are bad but are they really lose to trump twice bad? I wish people would stop caring as much about Trump. I was one of those people, that during the election said he was literally the worst person to have the job, and it was more important than anything to stop him. But I underestimated just how stupid not just Trump, but even people like Bannon and Gorka were. They can't survive in DC, they don't understand how to influence policy and they tend to immediately overreach. Trump by now is isolated, and clearly unable to cope under the stress and responsibilities of the presidency. I honestly can't tell whether the president literally has dementia or not. He is still very dangerous and he has already committed to a host of evil actions, with long-term consequences (climate change especially). But he could continue golfing for the rest of his term, just occasionally tweet stuff, and as long as he signs whatever document is put in front of him there will be no solace. It is increasingly clear that his military policy is dictated by the generals and his economic policies by the GOP and their plutocrat allies. I don't see how president Pence is preferable at this point.
You don't think Pence would be better with foreign policy and diplomacy? You think Pence would be actively driving division and hostility in the country with his petty, vindictive squabbles? You don't think Pence would make the US appear much more professional and respected on the world stage? Domestic policy would be similar I agree, but everything else would be an improvement, and I have no love for Pence.
|
On December 01 2017 06:18 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2017 06:15 Seuss wrote:On December 01 2017 05:53 zlefin wrote:On December 01 2017 05:50 doomdonker wrote:
I don’t get this tax bill or some people’s support for it. It doesn’t seem to promote a whole lot of growth as the most recent estimate guesses 0.8% growth, it balloons the deficit by a huge amount which should be concerning for fiscal conservatives and doesn’t give a tax cut to anyone that isn’t earning well over six figures. what's not to get? it hands out a lot of money to rich donors, who will not donate if some sort of tax bill isn't passed. do we know that the fiscal conservatives won't block the bill? I have'nt been following closely, and one of the long sticking points in making such a bill is that there are some republicans who simply will not accept a deficit increasing bill. What fiscal conservatives? If you think anyone in Congress who screamed about deficits under Obama is going to vote against this, I have a tired expression sarcastically suggesting gullibility you might be interested in. there are some; not a lot, but some. they're not so much reasonable fiscal conservatives as crazy fiscal conservatives; they're some of the arch-right freedom caucus wing of the republicans who are like that. your response is asinine and suggests you're completely unaware of that reality of the situation, and not interested in discussing anything in a reasonable manner. so please don't bother responding in the future. most of the republicans were just doing it to be anti-obama; but a few really aren't willing to budge on deficits (while that is good, those people also come with some real crazy to go with it, they're the types who're totally fine iwth shutting down the government for instance) I also specifically note I haven't been following this specific issue too closely, so I haven't seen where the freedom caucus type people are on this; but they're part of the situation that lead to other things like the obamacare repeal failing.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/politics/tax-bill-senate-whip-count/
I was certainly hyperbolic, but if you scroll down the list of Senators who haven't committed to voting for the bill only three mention deficits (Corker, Heller, Moran), and of those two (Corker, Heller) are only concerned about future deficit spikes. You can maybe add Flake to the list as he's explicitly concerned about hidden costs (but doesn't mention deficits specifically).
So literally one Republican Senator is flat out against raising the deficit at all, versus the debt ceiling crisis in 2011 and the government shutdown in 2013. Kudos to that one Senator, but pardon me if I hold the rest of them in contempt for blatant hypocrisy.
|
|
|
On December 01 2017 06:44 Tachion wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2017 06:21 Grumbels wrote:On December 01 2017 06:07 Sermokala wrote:On December 01 2017 06:00 Nevuk wrote:
It was curiosity. I was reading a politics thread on a very leftist forum, someone posted a twitter link to someone saying their 98 year old grandma said that Nazi Germany started out exactly like this. Then a one or two people freaked out about how we are doomed (also because of the tax bill). So I know what the far left reaction is (and think it is ridiculous), and was wondering about the reaction of those on the other side.
Personally, I don't think the GOP congressional leaders are competent enough to actually do anything. Trump is eh???? Basically a randomizer in the presidency.
Well devils advocate what can you do? You've already compromised your morals in some campaign to gain political power. Now you're whole life is trying to get the party to succeed in any way you can make it. Trump comes along and tanks the party for the next cycle and some. But you can't eject him because thats the base and if they go libertarian then you'll be hamstrung forever. The only competent thing for them in their position is to just meh around until they lose congress and the presidency and hope for the party to get gifted another Obama style recovery out of no where. All you can do is pack it in and start planning for what to make the party competitive when the trump stink goes the way of bush. I think far leftists were really afraid that Trump was as competent as his supporters thought he was and that he was going to be able to do what he said he wanted to do. Dems are bad but are they really lose to trump twice bad? I wish people would stop caring as much about Trump. I was one of those people, that during the election said he was literally the worst person to have the job, and it was more important than anything to stop him. But I underestimated just how stupid not just Trump, but even people like Bannon and Gorka were. They can't survive in DC, they don't understand how to influence policy and they tend to immediately overreach. Trump by now is isolated, and clearly unable to cope under the stress and responsibilities of the presidency. I honestly can't tell whether the president literally has dementia or not. He is still very dangerous and he has already committed to a host of evil actions, with long-term consequences (climate change especially). But he could continue golfing for the rest of his term, just occasionally tweet stuff, and as long as he signs whatever document is put in front of him there will be no solace. It is increasingly clear that his military policy is dictated by the generals and his economic policies by the GOP and their plutocrat allies. I don't see how president Pence is preferable at this point. You don't think Pence would be better with foreign policy and diplomacy? You think Pence would be actively driving division and hostility in the country with his petty, vindictive squabbles? You don't think Pence would make the US appear much more professional and respected on the world stage? Domestic policy would be similar I agree, but everything else would be an improvement, and I have no love for Pence.
I don't want the USA to be better with foreign policy and diplomacy. And I don't want it to appear professional and respected on the world stage. Not because of any specific hatred against the US government, I just think all governments are stupid and evil. What I care about is whether Trump materially makes the world unsafe. e.g. leaving the Paris accord makes the world less safe, expanding the role of the military in various conflicts in the ME/Africa makes the world less safe. Being a vulgar idiot that provokes leaders in other countries probably pales in comparison (since diplomats will find ways to work around it), so I don't care as much about it. Maybe Pence can put up a respectable face for the USA, but he won't say no to the military and he won't say no to oil companies.
|
On December 01 2017 06:23 warding wrote:
If the US federal government grows its debt by only 1 trillion by 2027... that might even mean that it's debt-to-GDP ratio improves if the economy grows by 2-3%. Pointing out hypocrisy in the fiscal conservatives is one thing but no need to bring hysteria to the economics of it.
That number was after accounting for economic growth.
|
On December 01 2017 06:09 kollin wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2017 05:55 Sermokala wrote:On December 01 2017 05:49 kollin wrote:On December 01 2017 05:45 Sermokala wrote:On December 01 2017 05:42 kollin wrote:On December 01 2017 05:39 Introvert wrote:On December 01 2017 05:24 Nevuk wrote:
What do conservatives have to say about all the people who lived in pre ww2 Germany saying the current times remind them of the rise of the Nazi party? What do liberals have to say about all the people who lived in the Soviet Union saying the current times remind them of the rise of totalitarian Soviet Communism? Presumably the same thing the liberals say: they went through something so shocking and horrific that they are now overly sensitive and see it everywhere. Except a conservative would be more willing to listen to these people, so you'd have to actually present an argument, and not just toss these comments out. Has anyone said that? He was making a comparison to what was posted as apart of his argument. But if one of these things is happening, and the other is not, I don't see the relevance. Apart from the classic mass grouping of 'liberal' and 'conservative' which is entirely unhelpful for everyone. See when people are using their words for talking or debating they sometimes use the point bringing brought up by the other party and frame it in a new light in order to make their own point or argument about the topic being discussed. What you assume that someone else is saying may not be what you think they are saying. This is called "giving someone the benefit of the doubt" about what they're posting and is usually common curtsy when talking or debating with people. I found his analogy extremely banal, condescending, and not conducive to making any sort of constructive point. You'd know a lot about that though I'm sure.
There wasn't a point being made in the post I responded to. I wish Nevuk had included his context off the bat because it would have been easier to see what it was supposed to be about. What constructive response would you have preferred?
|
On December 01 2017 07:01 Kyadytim wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2017 06:23 warding wrote:
If the US federal government grows its debt by only 1 trillion by 2027... that might even mean that it's debt-to-GDP ratio improves if the economy grows by 2-3%. Pointing out hypocrisy in the fiscal conservatives is one thing but no need to bring hysteria to the economics of it. That number was after accounting for economic growth.
I'm aware. It accounts for economic growth in its impact on the absolute value increase of the debt, but my point is that it's looking at debt as absolute value and not as relative to gdp which is the appropriate metric when judging whether to freak out about federal debt.
|
On December 01 2017 06:23 warding wrote:
If the US federal government grows its debt by only 1 trillion by 2027... that might even mean that it's debt-to-GDP ratio improves if the economy grows by 2-3%. Pointing out hypocrisy in the fiscal conservatives is one thing but no need to bring hysteria to the economics of it.
That 1 trillion estimate is the estimated increase of deficit because of the tax cut, not the total deficit or increase of debt.
|
On December 01 2017 07:02 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2017 06:09 kollin wrote:On December 01 2017 05:55 Sermokala wrote:On December 01 2017 05:49 kollin wrote:On December 01 2017 05:45 Sermokala wrote:On December 01 2017 05:42 kollin wrote:On December 01 2017 05:39 Introvert wrote:On December 01 2017 05:24 Nevuk wrote:
What do conservatives have to say about all the people who lived in pre ww2 Germany saying the current times remind them of the rise of the Nazi party? What do liberals have to say about all the people who lived in the Soviet Union saying the current times remind them of the rise of totalitarian Soviet Communism? Presumably the same thing the liberals say: they went through something so shocking and horrific that they are now overly sensitive and see it everywhere. Except a conservative would be more willing to listen to these people, so you'd have to actually present an argument, and not just toss these comments out. Has anyone said that? He was making a comparison to what was posted as apart of his argument. But if one of these things is happening, and the other is not, I don't see the relevance. Apart from the classic mass grouping of 'liberal' and 'conservative' which is entirely unhelpful for everyone. See when people are using their words for talking or debating they sometimes use the point bringing brought up by the other party and frame it in a new light in order to make their own point or argument about the topic being discussed. What you assume that someone else is saying may not be what you think they are saying. This is called "giving someone the benefit of the doubt" about what they're posting and is usually common curtsy when talking or debating with people. I found his analogy extremely banal, condescending, and not conducive to making any sort of constructive point. You'd know a lot about that though I'm sure. There wasn't a point being made in the post I responded to. I wish Nevuk had included his context off the bat because it would have been easier to see what it was supposed to be about. What constructive response would you have preferred? yeah, that was my bad. I was pressed for time in my original and follow up posts. I only slept 4 hours last night and had to drive for like... half the day on and off. Currently functioning on two red bulls and a soda. It makes my anxiety weird. Basically I read that tweet, got mildly distressed, but intellectually knew "this is bullshit" so I sought out the people who would say it was bullshit but didn't provide context lol.
|
On December 01 2017 05:39 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2017 05:24 Nevuk wrote:
What do conservatives have to say about all the people who lived in pre ww2 Germany saying the current times remind them of the rise of the Nazi party? What do liberals have to say about all the people who lived in the Soviet Union saying the current times remind them of the rise of totalitarian Soviet Communism? Presumably the same thing the liberals say: they went through something so shocking and horrific that they are now overly sensitive and see it everywhere. Except a conservative would be more willing to listen to these people, so you'd have to actually present an argument, and not just toss these comments out. They don't need to say that, the sole Russian in this thread appear to be quite happy with the direction towards totalitarian Russia.
But if your meaning was to ask if the rise of populism and denigration of people of a different colour to you is shocking and horrific, that Trump doesn't understand that people should be politically free to criticise him as opposed to getting the DoJ to hunt down people who oppose him, his insults to the judiciary and his lack of udnerstanding about the rule of law in relation to totalitarianism, then yes, liberals are rightfully horrified. The disturbing thing is that y'all on the conservative right aren't.
|
On December 01 2017 02:46 xDaunt wrote:
This is an absurd statement. Just look at all of the technological development that has occurred in the US that has both enriched the creators and improved the quality of life of the consuming public. Wealth and income inequality -- and more specifically, the possibility thereof -- drives innovation.
My impression is that most of the dominant innovation that drove major shifts in society and personal quality of life were from the moderately well-off who became wealthy through their innovations. It's true that they were enriched by their work, but a large motivator is the aspirational component of the moderately well-off to become wealthy. The ultra-wealthy don't have the same drive to innovate because the marginal utility of becoming even wealthier is much smaller--they're much more interested in keeping what they have.
It would seem to me that if your goal is to drive innovation, the idea wealth distribution would be a large middle class with a high degree of upward social mobility--i.e. there are paths to become wealthy that encourage innovation and enterprise. "Large middle class" implies low income inequality because it implies more people near the median household income and less toward the extremes. This is always going to be at odds with the ultra-wealthy because "old money" aristocracy has always historically opposed the rise of "new money" even though "new money" is where the innovation and enterprise that you ascribe to wealth has come from.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On December 01 2017 05:40 Kyadytim wrote:
Republicans voting against guarantees that at least something trickles down from their trickle down economics tax plan. Not a surprise.
This does, to be fair, sound like a bad idea. It’s definitely not the right way to make that happen anyways.
|
|
|
On December 01 2017 07:43 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2017 02:46 xDaunt wrote:
This is an absurd statement. Just look at all of the technological development that has occurred in the US that has both enriched the creators and improved the quality of life of the consuming public. Wealth and income inequality -- and more specifically, the possibility thereof -- drives innovation. My impression is that most of the dominant innovation that drove major shifts in society and personal quality of life were from the moderately well-off who became wealthy through their innovations. It's true that they were enriched by their work, but a large motivator is the aspirational component of the moderately well-off to become wealthy. The ultra-wealthy don't have the same drive to innovate because the marginal utility of becoming even wealthier is much smaller--they're much more interested in keeping what they have. It would seem to me that if your goal is to drive innovation, the idea wealth distribution would be a large middle class with a high degree of upward social mobility--i.e. there are paths to become wealthy that encourage innovation and enterprise. "Large middle class" implies low income inequality because it implies more people near the median household income and less toward the extremes. This is always going to be at odds with the ultra-wealthy because "old money" aristocracy has always historically opposed the rise of "new money" even though "new money" is where the innovation and enterprise that you ascribe to wealth has come from.
well, calculations of marginal wealth utility are such an insignificant factor when it comes to what really motivates people to innovate that discussions like this are basically counterproductive. we should just stop entertaining this economic incentives story all together
|
Senator asking to see the bill.
|
Looks like a no to that post Plansix.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
