US Politics Mega-thread - Page 9577

On December 20 2017 15:18 mozoku wrote:
It's hardly surprising that countries who rely on someone else for defense and technological advancement are more concerned with inequality than growth.

On December 20 2017 19:15 SoSexy wrote:
Today I check the Italian news and the main focus on US politics is Trump holding a glass with two hands. I thought we already scraped the bottom of the barrel...this is honestly pathetic. What kind of news is that?

On December 20 2017 14:30 Danglars wrote:
I don’t know who else is watching Senate floor votes, but Schumer grandstanding with all his lies and Murray behind him looking like the country is about to die was worth it.

On December 20 2017 22:33 farvacola wrote:
MLK's letter from Birmingham Jail is what you're looking for.

On December 20 2017 20:49 Simberto wrote:
It is strange how in the US the spending and taxes don't seem to be linked in the minds of a lot of people.

It is as if they think that taxes are just there to punish them, and government spending comes from a totally other place that has nothing to do with taxes.

If i hear "We reduce taxes for everyone", i stop to ask "Where does that money come from?". In the US, reducing taxes seems to be seen completely unrelated to what is cut for those tax cuts.

On December 20 2017 22:45 A3th3r wrote:


That worries me too! With Trump's tax bill being passed, it seems there are a lot of average citizens who are now paying attention to what is in that bill. Sort of an odd dynamic where now all of a sudden there is a lot of debate going on about in among the citizenry when it is now a done deal. That seems backwards to me, I'd have to think.

On December 20 2017 20:49 Simberto wrote:
It is strange how in the US the spending and taxes don't seem to be linked in the minds of a lot of people.

It is as if they think that taxes are just there to punish them, and government spending comes from a totally other place that has nothing to do with taxes.

If i hear "We reduce taxes for everyone", i stop to ask "Where does that money come from?". In the US, reducing taxes seems to be seen completely unrelated to what is cut for those tax cuts. That is weird.

On December 20 2017 15:18 mozoku wrote:
Define "conclusively linked."

The US is a unique country in the world. Every country that is similarly developed has zero resemblance to it in terms of geographic diversity, ethnic diversity, size, and population. Every country that is comparable to it in those characteristics is nothing like the US in terms of development.

Taking lessons from other countries can be instructive, but there's certainly nothing empirically "conclusive" about how such policies would affect the US.

Worse still, even within Europe, the question of which way the causality points between lower inequality and outcomes is an open question.

I could likely just as easily claim that, amongst sufficiently wealthy countries, inequality and innovation are "conclusively linked."

Before someone asks, I'm not positing that inequality drives lower health, lower crime, etc. The argument is that inequality is a byproduct of growth, and that in the long-term it's better to be a faster growing, more innovative nation with greater inequality than the converse. Low inequality is great for Europe, but they're also freeloaders on the American innovation train. Growth also allows increased military spending, which ensures the defense of a liberal (and less necessarily) Western order against countries led by authoritarian despots such as Xi Jinpeng and Vladimir Putin.

Efforts should be made to allow everyone the opportunity to live a good life and to take care of those who've encountered misfortune, but I feel no obligation to slow growth and innovation for the sake of raising outcome numbers of those unwilling to work for outcomes themselves.

It's hardly surprising that countries who rely on someone else for defense and technological advancement are more concerned with inequality than growth.

Efforts should be made to allow everyone the opportunity to live a good life and to take care of those who've encountered misfortune

I feel no obligation to slow growth and innovation for the sake of raising outcome numbers of those unwilling to work for outcomes themselves.

On December 20 2017 22:54 Plansix wrote:

The last time we updated the tax system it took almost 2 years. There were public hearings, debate and discourse around the subject. This bill was drafted in a closet for three months and no one got to see the final version until over the weekend. Because the Republicans know they can’t pass a bill through the normal means like they did in the 1980s. Their demands are to unreasonable.

On December 20 2017 23:02 Danglars wrote:

Increases in government spending are unmoored from revenues. It has been for decades now.

The rest of it is weariness with government rhetoric. Every program is too crucial to be cut. Only taxes on the rich are ever considered. Any tax cut is blamed on giving breaks to the rich, though they pay the vast majority of taxes. Civics isn’t taught to ordinary Americans about how social security is bankrupt, and spending on entitlements generally outpaces any possible revenue increases in the next fifty years. So the rhetoric is mismatched and Americans aren’t demanding spending responsibility and options narrow. Starve the beast? Put the money back in the wallets of hard working Americans? No real comprehensive options truly remain, speaking generally and not specifically about this tax cut I opposed.

On December 20 2017 23:02 Danglars wrote:

Increases in government spending are unmoored from revenues. It has been for decades now.

The rest of it is weariness with government rhetoric. Every program is too crucial to be cut. Only taxes on the rich are ever considered. Any tax cut is blamed on giving breaks to the rich, though they pay the vast majority of taxes. Civics isn’t taught to ordinary Americans about how social security is bankrupt, and spending on entitlements generally outpaces any possible revenue increases in the next fifty years. So the rhetoric is mismatched and Americans aren’t demanding spending responsibility and options narrow. Starve the beast? Put the money back in the wallets of hard working Americans? No real comprehensive options truly remain, speaking generally and not specifically about this tax cut I opposed.

On December 20 2017 15:18 mozoku wrote:
Define "conclusively linked."

The US is a unique country in the world. Every country that is similarly developed has zero resemblance to it in terms of geographic diversity, ethnic diversity, size, and population. Every country that is comparable to it in those characteristics is nothing like the US in terms of development.

Taking lessons from other countries can be instructive, but there's certainly nothing empirically "conclusive" about how such policies would affect the US.

Worse still, even within Europe, the question of which way the causality points between lower inequality and outcomes is an open question.

I could likely just as easily claim that, amongst sufficiently wealthy countries, inequality and innovation are "conclusively linked."

Before someone asks, I'm not positing that inequality drives lower health, lower crime, etc. The argument is that inequality is a byproduct of growth, and that in the long-term it's better to be a faster growing, more innovative nation with greater inequality than the converse. Low inequality is great for Europe, but they're also freeloaders on the American innovation train. Growth also allows increased military spending, which ensures the defense of a liberal (and less necessarily) Western order against countries led by authoritarian despots such as Xi Jinpeng and Vladimir Putin.

Efforts should be made to allow everyone the opportunity to live a good life and to take care of those who've encountered misfortune, but I feel no obligation to slow growth and innovation for the sake of raising outcome numbers of those unwilling to work for outcomes themselves.

It's hardly surprising that countries who rely on someone else for defense and technological advancement are more concerned with inequality than growth.