|
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 February 09 2013 10:05 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Find it ironic that Karl Rove and the Tea Party are fighting which is further dragging down the Republican Party. If only there were enough Moderates in the party to kick out both and start the healing process.
With the rise of people registering as independents it might be too late to actually stop the fringe candidates from winning primaries because there just arent enough moderates left to stop them.
|
On February 13 2013 04:51 Adreme wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2013 10:05 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Find it ironic that Karl Rove and the Tea Party are fighting which is further dragging down the Republican Party. If only there were enough Moderates in the party to kick out both and start the healing process. With the rise of people registering as independents it might be too late to actually stop the fringe candidates from winning primaries because there just arent enough moderates left to stop them.
I would guess it depends. I know some states have at least some advantages to being independents? Things like voting in primaries for at least presidential candidates. If you are truely politically active you would change from party to party to gain as much say in the primaries as you can. Empowering independents would be a way to deal with that.
|
On February 13 2013 04:26 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2013 23:07 paralleluniverse wrote:
SotU tonight. The media buzz seems to suggest that Obama will focus on jobs, instead of the counterproductive obsession with deficits. Hopefully, he really will focus on jobs, ask for more spending on infrastructure, education, etc. It's doubtful that he will get it, but reshaping the public debate is a important step now.
I don't think he can completely ignore talking about deficits, given that the sequester is imminent. He should clearly reject Republicans saying that there will be no tax hikes as the deal averting the fiscal cliff contained entirely tax hikes. This ignores the fact that the deficit reduction deal of 2011 contained entirely spending cuts, much more so than recent tax hikes. In fact, and I know this will never happen, he should ask for the sequester to be delayed until 1 year after the unemployment rate hits 6.5%.
Obama should continue to assert that the best way to achieve fiscal sustainability is not through cuts and suffering but through growth and jobs. It would also be good, if he outlines some debt relief for underwater homeowners, and ways to make it easier for them to refinance, or otherwise fix the drag caused by the slow housing recovery.
However, SotUs usually seem to achieve nothing substantial. So one should not expect much. Correct me if I'm wrong but I think those cuts were just reductions in the baseline growth rate of spending.
Depends how you look at it. There's been reductions in the rate of growth of spending, i.e. spending is increasing slower than normal. But there's also has been actual reduction in spending as a share of GDP. i.e. spending as a percentage of GDP is down, see FRED. There's also been reduction in spending government consumption and investment.
People need to get over this obsession, at least for until the economy is better.
|
On February 13 2013 07:22 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2013 04:26 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 12 2013 23:07 paralleluniverse wrote:
SotU tonight. The media buzz seems to suggest that Obama will focus on jobs, instead of the counterproductive obsession with deficits. Hopefully, he really will focus on jobs, ask for more spending on infrastructure, education, etc. It's doubtful that he will get it, but reshaping the public debate is a important step now.
I don't think he can completely ignore talking about deficits, given that the sequester is imminent. He should clearly reject Republicans saying that there will be no tax hikes as the deal averting the fiscal cliff contained entirely tax hikes. This ignores the fact that the deficit reduction deal of 2011 contained entirely spending cuts, much more so than recent tax hikes. In fact, and I know this will never happen, he should ask for the sequester to be delayed until 1 year after the unemployment rate hits 6.5%.
Obama should continue to assert that the best way to achieve fiscal sustainability is not through cuts and suffering but through growth and jobs. It would also be good, if he outlines some debt relief for underwater homeowners, and ways to make it easier for them to refinance, or otherwise fix the drag caused by the slow housing recovery.
However, SotUs usually seem to achieve nothing substantial. So one should not expect much. Correct me if I'm wrong but I think those cuts were just reductions in the baseline growth rate of spending. Depends how you look at it. There's been reductions in the rate of growth of spending, i.e. spending is increasing slower than normal. But there's also has been actual reduction in spending as a share of GDP. i.e. spending as a percentage of GDP is down, see FRED. There's also been reduction in spending government consumption and investment. People need to get over this obsession, at least for until the economy is better.
So yes, spending cuts, actual reductions in the level of spending, have not been enacted yet.
Got it.
|
Wouldn't you expect that this would never happen in a society in which the growth of economic activity in general is presupposed as a constant? How could one ever expect absolute reductions in government spending in such a society?
edit: basically, Jonny, I'll make you a deal. I'll agree that the goal is to reduce government spending, if you'll agree that the goal is to shrink the GDP.
edit: as another TLer put it so eloquently somewhere else: "Mo' dernity, Mo' problems"
|
On February 13 2013 08:03 sam!zdat wrote:
Wouldn't you expect that this would never happen in a society in which the growth of economic activity in general is presupposed as a constant? How could one ever expect absolute reductions in government spending in such a society?
edit: basically, Jonny, I'll make you a deal. I'll agree that the goal is to reduce government spending, if you'll agree that the goal is to shrink the GDP.
Well my original point was that complaining about the previously enacted spending cuts is like complaining that you got a raise and subsequently had to pay more in taxes... "you got a raise so stfu! rawr!"
Conversely, the tax increases mean that people who haven't gotten a raise now have to pay more (yes they're rich and so we hate them but the point still stands).
As far as the point in you edit goes - as usual I'd have to think about it some more 
|
On February 13 2013 08:21 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2013 08:03 sam!zdat wrote:
Wouldn't you expect that this would never happen in a society in which the growth of economic activity in general is presupposed as a constant? How could one ever expect absolute reductions in government spending in such a society?
edit: basically, Jonny, I'll make you a deal. I'll agree that the goal is to reduce government spending, if you'll agree that the goal is to shrink the GDP. Well my original point was that complaining about the previously enacted spending cuts is like complaining that you got a raise and subsequently had to pay more in taxes... "you got a raise so stfu! rawr!" Conversely, the tax increases mean that people who haven't gotten a raise now have to pay more (yes they're rich and so we hate them but the point still stands).
I may have been a bit confused about the context, sorry if i misunderstood - I've only been paying half attention to the thread. I thought we were talking about how reducing rate of government growth is not the same as reducing the government, and whenever I hear this, I just sit here thinking "well what do you expect, if you also want society to go faster and do more stuff and have more people as a sort of basic assumption about the meaning of life, how could the government ever actually just shrink in absolute terms, it doesn't make any sense"
As far as the point in you edit goes - as usual I'd have to think about it some more
yeah well, me too 
edit: I think we can say that, stabler societies can have smaller governments, unstable societies need larger governments to keep them from falling apart. Societies that are in the middle of rapid change (as we keep insisting that ours IS and SHOULD BE) are going to be unstable societies, there's no two ways about it. The fact that our ideology perversely trumpets the very instability of our society (thank you, schumpeter) as an ASSET, should indicate that we are obviously going to need a rather large government to deal with the inevitable fallout. I don't see how anybody can believe that a limited government is actually possible in the kind of world that capitalist ideology wants to exist.
|
On February 13 2013 08:24 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2013 08:21 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On February 13 2013 08:03 sam!zdat wrote:
Wouldn't you expect that this would never happen in a society in which the growth of economic activity in general is presupposed as a constant? How could one ever expect absolute reductions in government spending in such a society?
edit: basically, Jonny, I'll make you a deal. I'll agree that the goal is to reduce government spending, if you'll agree that the goal is to shrink the GDP. Well my original point was that complaining about the previously enacted spending cuts is like complaining that you got a raise and subsequently had to pay more in taxes... "you got a raise so stfu! rawr!" Conversely, the tax increases mean that people who haven't gotten a raise now have to pay more (yes they're rich and so we hate them but the point still stands). I may have been a bit confused about the context, sorry if i misunderstood - I've only been paying half attention to the thread. I thought we were talking about how reducing rate of government growth is not the same as reducing the government, and whenever I hear this, I just sit here thinking "well what do you expect, if you also want society to go faster and do more stuff and have more people as a sort of basic assumption about the meaning of life, how could the government ever actually just shrink in absolute terms, it doesn't make any sense" Show nested quote +As far as the point in you edit goes - as usual I'd have to think about it some more yeah well, me too edit: I think we can say that, stabler societies can have smaller governments, unstable societies need larger governments to keep them from falling apart. Societies that are in the middle of rapid change (as we keep insisting that ours IS and SHOULD BE) are going to be unstable societies, there's no two ways about it. The fact that our ideology perversely trumpets the very instability of our society (thank you, schumpeter) as an ASSET, should indicate that we are obviously going to need a rather large government to deal with the inevitable fallout. I don't see how anybody can believe that a limited government is actually possible in the kind of world that capitalist ideology wants to exist.
For now I'm going to say that our economy should keep growing but I'll throw in this: people could certainly do with less stuff but I see that as a separate issue.
|
I wonder if he will manage to connect the economy with a new green economy and global warming.
Here we go.
|
"The state of our union is stronger"
Everyone on screen except Boehner claps.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
|
|
|
On February 13 2013 08:21 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2013 08:03 sam!zdat wrote:
Wouldn't you expect that this would never happen in a society in which the growth of economic activity in general is presupposed as a constant? How could one ever expect absolute reductions in government spending in such a society?
edit: basically, Jonny, I'll make you a deal. I'll agree that the goal is to reduce government spending, if you'll agree that the goal is to shrink the GDP. Well my original point was that complaining about the previously enacted spending cuts is like complaining that you got a raise and subsequently had to pay more in taxes... "you got a raise so stfu! rawr!" Conversely, the tax increases mean that people who haven't gotten a raise now have to pay more (yes they're rich and so we hate them but the point still stands). As far as the point in you edit goes - as usual I'd have to think about it some more
The spending cuts issue is more like complaining about changes to a long term contract than complaining about an unexpected raise. Analogies with government spending is tricky because government finance is sort of unique. Also look at any chart of income over the past few decades, the rich have gotten a nice raise, it's not that people hate the rich, there is just a feeling that they have gained more from recent economic growth than average income earners. This feeling can be supported with a lot of data too.
You can argue about non cash benefits but the American dream is not to have health insurance make up most of their income.
I really wouldn't mind some nice cuts to defense spending.
|
Decided to tune in right when he starts talking about debt and deficits. So angry.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On February 13 2013 11:25 aksfjh wrote:
Decided to tune in right when he starts talking about debt and deficits. So angry.
I missed part of it. What're you angry about?
|
|
|
Obama: Let's close loopholes so businesses pay their fair share and then open up new ones!
|
Finally addressing Climate Change.
|
Well whatever your opinions may be on anything else, you have to be happy about Obama's stance on climate change
|
On February 13 2013 11:27 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2013 11:25 aksfjh wrote:
Decided to tune in right when he starts talking about debt and deficits. So angry. I missed part of it. What're you angry about?
We're hovering around 8.0% unemployment and underemployment through the roof, but instead of everything being framed in fixing that problem, we talk about fixing the debt and deficit first. Sure, we can shoot around some ideas to help the middle class economy, but god forbid it doesn't actively address the deficit and debt first.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
