|
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 2018 11:25 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2018 11:16 Introvert wrote:On February 09 2018 11:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 09 2018 11:02 Introvert wrote:On February 09 2018 10:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 09 2018 10:50 Introvert wrote:On February 09 2018 10:47 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 09 2018 10:38 Introvert wrote:On February 09 2018 10:24 Plansix wrote:On February 09 2018 10:17 Introvert wrote:
[quote]
spending is different than tax cuts. he isn't the hypocrite here.
He is right that spending should be cut, but at most he'll get an overnight shutdown which in my mind doesn't count as a shutdown at all. That isn’t how my bills work. Or the state budget of Oklahoma and Kentucky. But these are the people who vote to go to war and cut taxes. Cutting spending means losing elections or gutting their state’s budget. I don't pretend to know about those states beyond the reporting I see that, to say the least, I view as suspect. Nonetheless, you do have to cut spending if you cut taxes, generally speaking. Many states that cut taxes won't cut spending, because it's unpopular. There is nothing hypocritical about supporting both tax cuts and spending cuts.There are obviously hypocrites in both parties on this, but not for that reason. I kinda wonder what the end game is. We know their policy concentrates more wealth at the top (wanting to eliminate the estate tax is probably the most blatant), you want less government spending and less taxes but till when? Just as a rough estimate we recently have had ~$5-666 billion deficits, so presumably we need to cut at least that much spending, but how much more are we talking? This also means that the concept that lower rates will bring in more/comparable revenue isn't really what Republicans/Conservatives even want. They don't want the government getting a penny more in revenue than it is now, and who knows how much less they think it should be getting. The same objection could be made to the left. how much MORE should the government be doing? I've told you this before but demanding some endstate like "government revenue should be x dollars and not higher" is dumb and not an argument made in good faith. I won't ask you for Utopia and you won't ask me, seems well enough for TL at least. Well the government doesn'thave to do much if people just stop appropriating the surplus value of countless workers into the hands of a few people So it's not really the same at all. You want to cut spending and revenue to the government you gotta have a floor. "Like there's no way the government could run on less than X" then we can see what a government can do with that much money. It would be just as unfair if I asked you to tell me exactly what the tax rates should be and how much government should spend on everything. You would say "as much as it needs to do x" and that's about what I would say, unless I'm in DC writing budgets. I'm not really looking for a detailed analysis, I could say I need the government to bring the distribution of surplus value to a more reasonable level of fairness. Something like 15-1 maybe nothing more than 100-1 (under certain circumstances) or maybe something close. What I'm looking for is something like "~50% of current revenue is where I'd like to see it" more or less. With some idea of the sectors it would be coming from. It's not a manifesto it's just a rough idea of what it is you want. Your first and second paragraph are not alike, and surely you can see that. Like you did in your first paragraph, I have goals in mind, not dollar amounts. Neither a conservative or a liberal (or progressive, nationalist, etc) has a philosophical commitment to a particular number for anything. Let me ask it this way (I'm genuinely curious), can you give me a description similar to the first one in your view? I think of the main governing principal I see needing something like a federal gov to fulfill is redistributing the SV since the system we have has done such an extraordinarily terrible job (the whole 3 people having more wealth than half the country thing). Then that I gave you roughly what I think it should look like numerically. It's kinda obvious where the redistribution comes from/goes in my scenario so that's why I'm wondering where you would like to see these cuts. Not exhaustive, just some concrete examples like shave 5% of SS, cut foreign aid in half, is the military budget on the table? I'm not trying to be difficult I'm just genuinely confused.
Everything is on the table, although I obviously view defense as the primary role of the federal government so I'm not fond of that one. I hope you see why i'm avoiding numbers. This is a work in progress. If I told you I wanted a 7.5% cut in SS spending that what is your next question... why that? what about x? It's easy to say "I want the government to reduce inequality" which is a different question than one about 5% cuts in SS.
The problem at the moment is not so much that the government doesn't do something (ala inequality) but that it does too much. I approve of military spending. I am ok with the existence of safety nets, narrowly speaking. So in that sense there isn't an analog. But there is a more philosophical position for you, I guess.
|
On February 09 2018 11:54 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2018 11:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 09 2018 11:16 Introvert wrote:On February 09 2018 11:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 09 2018 11:02 Introvert wrote:On February 09 2018 10:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 09 2018 10:50 Introvert wrote:On February 09 2018 10:47 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 09 2018 10:38 Introvert wrote:On February 09 2018 10:24 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
That isn’t how my bills work. Or the state budget of Oklahoma and Kentucky. But these are the people who vote to go to war and cut taxes. Cutting spending means losing elections or gutting their state’s budget. I don't pretend to know about those states beyond the reporting I see that, to say the least, I view as suspect. Nonetheless, you do have to cut spending if you cut taxes, generally speaking. Many states that cut taxes won't cut spending, because it's unpopular. There is nothing hypocritical about supporting both tax cuts and spending cuts.There are obviously hypocrites in both parties on this, but not for that reason. I kinda wonder what the end game is. We know their policy concentrates more wealth at the top (wanting to eliminate the estate tax is probably the most blatant), you want less government spending and less taxes but till when? Just as a rough estimate we recently have had ~$5-666 billion deficits, so presumably we need to cut at least that much spending, but how much more are we talking? This also means that the concept that lower rates will bring in more/comparable revenue isn't really what Republicans/Conservatives even want. They don't want the government getting a penny more in revenue than it is now, and who knows how much less they think it should be getting. The same objection could be made to the left. how much MORE should the government be doing? I've told you this before but demanding some endstate like "government revenue should be x dollars and not higher" is dumb and not an argument made in good faith. I won't ask you for Utopia and you won't ask me, seems well enough for TL at least. Well the government doesn'thave to do much if people just stop appropriating the surplus value of countless workers into the hands of a few people So it's not really the same at all. You want to cut spending and revenue to the government you gotta have a floor. "Like there's no way the government could run on less than X" then we can see what a government can do with that much money. It would be just as unfair if I asked you to tell me exactly what the tax rates should be and how much government should spend on everything. You would say "as much as it needs to do x" and that's about what I would say, unless I'm in DC writing budgets. I'm not really looking for a detailed analysis, I could say I need the government to bring the distribution of surplus value to a more reasonable level of fairness. Something like 15-1 maybe nothing more than 100-1 (under certain circumstances) or maybe something close. What I'm looking for is something like "~50% of current revenue is where I'd like to see it" more or less. With some idea of the sectors it would be coming from. It's not a manifesto it's just a rough idea of what it is you want. Your first and second paragraph are not alike, and surely you can see that. Like you did in your first paragraph, I have goals in mind, not dollar amounts. Neither a conservative or a liberal (or progressive, nationalist, etc) has a philosophical commitment to a particular number for anything. Let me ask it this way (I'm genuinely curious), can you give me a description similar to the first one in your view? I think of the main governing principal I see needing something like a federal gov to fulfill is redistributing the SV since the system we have has done such an extraordinarily terrible job (the whole 3 people having more wealth than half the country thing). Then that I gave you roughly what I think it should look like numerically. It's kinda obvious where the redistribution comes from/goes in my scenario so that's why I'm wondering where you would like to see these cuts. Not exhaustive, just some concrete examples like shave 5% of SS, cut foreign aid in half, is the military budget on the table? I'm not trying to be difficult I'm just genuinely confused. Everything is on the table, although I obviously view defense as the primary role of the federal government so I'm not fond of that one. I hope you see why i'm avoiding numbers. This is a work in progress. If I told you I wanted a 7.5% cut in SS spending that what is your next question... why that? what about x? It's easy to say "I want the government to reduce inequality" which is a different question than one about 5% cuts in SS. The problem at the moment is not so much that the government doesn't do something (ala inequality) but that it does too much. I approve of military spending. I am ok with the existence of safety nets, narrowly speaking. So in that sense there isn't an analog. But there is a more philosophical position for you, I guess.
I appreciate the response.
I'm not really interested in "why this over that?" questions, but more thinking "okay, they want to cut a minimum of $500 billion from government spending but I don't really understand where they see that coming from. It seems obvious to them that there's at least that much to cut (as they are supportive of cutting revenue further still) but they don't seem to even a fraction of what that would be in their minds"
Does that make more sense?
|
So do each them them get 5 investigations each like Clinton?
|
My school went 4 days a week when I went there and I actually enjoyed it. Longer days ment more time on each subject which actualy boosted test scores (we were the generation that had larger then average test scores so it might have just been a generational thing) and the free mondays was great for extra curriculars.
|
On February 09 2018 12:28 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2018 11:54 Introvert wrote:On February 09 2018 11:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 09 2018 11:16 Introvert wrote:On February 09 2018 11:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 09 2018 11:02 Introvert wrote:On February 09 2018 10:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 09 2018 10:50 Introvert wrote:On February 09 2018 10:47 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 09 2018 10:38 Introvert wrote:
[quote]
I don't pretend to know about those states beyond the reporting I see that, to say the least, I view as suspect. Nonetheless, you do have to cut spending if you cut taxes, generally speaking. Many states that cut taxes won't cut spending, because it's unpopular. There is nothing hypocritical about supporting both tax cuts and spending cuts.There are obviously hypocrites in both parties on this, but not for that reason. I kinda wonder what the end game is. We know their policy concentrates more wealth at the top (wanting to eliminate the estate tax is probably the most blatant), you want less government spending and less taxes but till when? Just as a rough estimate we recently have had ~$5-666 billion deficits, so presumably we need to cut at least that much spending, but how much more are we talking? This also means that the concept that lower rates will bring in more/comparable revenue isn't really what Republicans/Conservatives even want. They don't want the government getting a penny more in revenue than it is now, and who knows how much less they think it should be getting. The same objection could be made to the left. how much MORE should the government be doing? I've told you this before but demanding some endstate like "government revenue should be x dollars and not higher" is dumb and not an argument made in good faith. I won't ask you for Utopia and you won't ask me, seems well enough for TL at least. Well the government doesn'thave to do much if people just stop appropriating the surplus value of countless workers into the hands of a few people So it's not really the same at all. You want to cut spending and revenue to the government you gotta have a floor. "Like there's no way the government could run on less than X" then we can see what a government can do with that much money. It would be just as unfair if I asked you to tell me exactly what the tax rates should be and how much government should spend on everything. You would say "as much as it needs to do x" and that's about what I would say, unless I'm in DC writing budgets. I'm not really looking for a detailed analysis, I could say I need the government to bring the distribution of surplus value to a more reasonable level of fairness. Something like 15-1 maybe nothing more than 100-1 (under certain circumstances) or maybe something close. What I'm looking for is something like "~50% of current revenue is where I'd like to see it" more or less. With some idea of the sectors it would be coming from. It's not a manifesto it's just a rough idea of what it is you want. Your first and second paragraph are not alike, and surely you can see that. Like you did in your first paragraph, I have goals in mind, not dollar amounts. Neither a conservative or a liberal (or progressive, nationalist, etc) has a philosophical commitment to a particular number for anything. Let me ask it this way (I'm genuinely curious), can you give me a description similar to the first one in your view? I think of the main governing principal I see needing something like a federal gov to fulfill is redistributing the SV since the system we have has done such an extraordinarily terrible job (the whole 3 people having more wealth than half the country thing). Then that I gave you roughly what I think it should look like numerically. It's kinda obvious where the redistribution comes from/goes in my scenario so that's why I'm wondering where you would like to see these cuts. Not exhaustive, just some concrete examples like shave 5% of SS, cut foreign aid in half, is the military budget on the table? I'm not trying to be difficult I'm just genuinely confused. Everything is on the table, although I obviously view defense as the primary role of the federal government so I'm not fond of that one. I hope you see why i'm avoiding numbers. This is a work in progress. If I told you I wanted a 7.5% cut in SS spending that what is your next question... why that? what about x? It's easy to say "I want the government to reduce inequality" which is a different question than one about 5% cuts in SS. The problem at the moment is not so much that the government doesn't do something (ala inequality) but that it does too much. I approve of military spending. I am ok with the existence of safety nets, narrowly speaking. So in that sense there isn't an analog. But there is a more philosophical position for you, I guess. I appreciate the response. I'm not really interested in "why this over that?" questions, but more thinking "okay, they want to cut a minimum of $500 billion from government spending but I don't really understand where they see that coming from. It seems obvious to them that there's at least that much to cut (as they are supportive of cutting revenue further still) but they don't seem to even a fraction of what that would be in their minds" Does that make more sense?
I know what you are asking, and I keep replying that wondering about exact numbers isn't productive.
As for the Congressmen in DC, well they know where they'd like to save at least some money (upping the retirement age, as an example) but they lack the courage to press the issue to the people over the political opposition they would encounter. They instead meekly press these small changes and then run away. You are asking me about policy changes and the related math. You started off asking me "until when" when it comes to shrinking things. And the answer is "until it gets as small as possible."
I'm sorry if I don't know how to interpret your question except as one about specific funding levels; a debate I think is next to useless when clearly neither party is going to get this under control until it's about to explode.
|
On February 09 2018 17:00 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2018 12:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 09 2018 11:54 Introvert wrote:On February 09 2018 11:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 09 2018 11:16 Introvert wrote:On February 09 2018 11:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 09 2018 11:02 Introvert wrote:On February 09 2018 10:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 09 2018 10:50 Introvert wrote:On February 09 2018 10:47 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
I kinda wonder what the end game is. We know their policy concentrates more wealth at the top (wanting to eliminate the estate tax is probably the most blatant), you want less government spending and less taxes but till when?
Just as a rough estimate we recently have had ~$5-666 billion deficits, so presumably we need to cut at least that much spending, but how much more are we talking?
This also means that the concept that lower rates will bring in more/comparable revenue isn't really what Republicans/Conservatives even want. They don't want the government getting a penny more in revenue than it is now, and who knows how much less they think it should be getting. The same objection could be made to the left. how much MORE should the government be doing? I've told you this before but demanding some endstate like "government revenue should be x dollars and not higher" is dumb and not an argument made in good faith. I won't ask you for Utopia and you won't ask me, seems well enough for TL at least. Well the government doesn'thave to do much if people just stop appropriating the surplus value of countless workers into the hands of a few people So it's not really the same at all. You want to cut spending and revenue to the government you gotta have a floor. "Like there's no way the government could run on less than X" then we can see what a government can do with that much money. It would be just as unfair if I asked you to tell me exactly what the tax rates should be and how much government should spend on everything. You would say "as much as it needs to do x" and that's about what I would say, unless I'm in DC writing budgets. I'm not really looking for a detailed analysis, I could say I need the government to bring the distribution of surplus value to a more reasonable level of fairness. Something like 15-1 maybe nothing more than 100-1 (under certain circumstances) or maybe something close. What I'm looking for is something like "~50% of current revenue is where I'd like to see it" more or less. With some idea of the sectors it would be coming from. It's not a manifesto it's just a rough idea of what it is you want. Your first and second paragraph are not alike, and surely you can see that. Like you did in your first paragraph, I have goals in mind, not dollar amounts. Neither a conservative or a liberal (or progressive, nationalist, etc) has a philosophical commitment to a particular number for anything. Let me ask it this way (I'm genuinely curious), can you give me a description similar to the first one in your view? I think of the main governing principal I see needing something like a federal gov to fulfill is redistributing the SV since the system we have has done such an extraordinarily terrible job (the whole 3 people having more wealth than half the country thing). Then that I gave you roughly what I think it should look like numerically. It's kinda obvious where the redistribution comes from/goes in my scenario so that's why I'm wondering where you would like to see these cuts. Not exhaustive, just some concrete examples like shave 5% of SS, cut foreign aid in half, is the military budget on the table? I'm not trying to be difficult I'm just genuinely confused. Everything is on the table, although I obviously view defense as the primary role of the federal government so I'm not fond of that one. I hope you see why i'm avoiding numbers. This is a work in progress. If I told you I wanted a 7.5% cut in SS spending that what is your next question... why that? what about x? It's easy to say "I want the government to reduce inequality" which is a different question than one about 5% cuts in SS. The problem at the moment is not so much that the government doesn't do something (ala inequality) but that it does too much. I approve of military spending. I am ok with the existence of safety nets, narrowly speaking. So in that sense there isn't an analog. But there is a more philosophical position for you, I guess. I appreciate the response. I'm not really interested in "why this over that?" questions, but more thinking "okay, they want to cut a minimum of $500 billion from government spending but I don't really understand where they see that coming from. It seems obvious to them that there's at least that much to cut (as they are supportive of cutting revenue further still) but they don't seem to even a fraction of what that would be in their minds" Does that make more sense? I know what you are asking, and I keep replying that wondering about exact numbers isn't productive. As for the Congressmen in DC, well they know where they'd like to save at least some money (upping the retirement age, as an example) but they lack the courage to press the issue to the people over the political opposition they would encounter. They instead meekly press these small changes and then run away. You are asking me about policy changes and the related math. You started off asking me "until when" when it comes to shrinking things. And the answer is "until it gets as small as possible." I'm sorry if I don't know how to interpret your question except as one about specific funding levels; a debate I think is next to useless when clearly neither party is going to get this under control until it's about to explode.
Well if the Republican/conservative congressmen are the reference, they have never even come close to cutting us out of our deficit with even their best plans over the last 40 years. In fact they've done the opposite. So if congress has no idea, I'm going to presume you have no idea where the vast majority of the money you think should obviously be cut would actually come from.
That sounds like a pretty terrible plan/idea. But imagining for a moment that it wasn't, it should at least be clear at this point why the concept that it's obvious that federal spending needs to be cut is less obvious to those who don't believe it without having to have any remotely solid idea about where they are cutting this very large but indeterminate amount of spending from.
|
On February 09 2018 17:33 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2018 17:00 Introvert wrote:On February 09 2018 12:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 09 2018 11:54 Introvert wrote:On February 09 2018 11:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 09 2018 11:16 Introvert wrote:On February 09 2018 11:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 09 2018 11:02 Introvert wrote:On February 09 2018 10:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 09 2018 10:50 Introvert wrote:
[quote]
The same objection could be made to the left. how much MORE should the government be doing? I've told you this before but demanding some endstate like "government revenue should be x dollars and not higher" is dumb and not an argument made in good faith. I won't ask you for Utopia and you won't ask me, seems well enough for TL at least.
Well the government doesn'thave to do much if people just stop appropriating the surplus value of countless workers into the hands of a few people So it's not really the same at all. You want to cut spending and revenue to the government you gotta have a floor. "Like there's no way the government could run on less than X" then we can see what a government can do with that much money. It would be just as unfair if I asked you to tell me exactly what the tax rates should be and how much government should spend on everything. You would say "as much as it needs to do x" and that's about what I would say, unless I'm in DC writing budgets. I'm not really looking for a detailed analysis, I could say I need the government to bring the distribution of surplus value to a more reasonable level of fairness. Something like 15-1 maybe nothing more than 100-1 (under certain circumstances) or maybe something close. What I'm looking for is something like "~50% of current revenue is where I'd like to see it" more or less. With some idea of the sectors it would be coming from. It's not a manifesto it's just a rough idea of what it is you want. Your first and second paragraph are not alike, and surely you can see that. Like you did in your first paragraph, I have goals in mind, not dollar amounts. Neither a conservative or a liberal (or progressive, nationalist, etc) has a philosophical commitment to a particular number for anything. Let me ask it this way (I'm genuinely curious), can you give me a description similar to the first one in your view? I think of the main governing principal I see needing something like a federal gov to fulfill is redistributing the SV since the system we have has done such an extraordinarily terrible job (the whole 3 people having more wealth than half the country thing). Then that I gave you roughly what I think it should look like numerically. It's kinda obvious where the redistribution comes from/goes in my scenario so that's why I'm wondering where you would like to see these cuts. Not exhaustive, just some concrete examples like shave 5% of SS, cut foreign aid in half, is the military budget on the table? I'm not trying to be difficult I'm just genuinely confused. Everything is on the table, although I obviously view defense as the primary role of the federal government so I'm not fond of that one. I hope you see why i'm avoiding numbers. This is a work in progress. If I told you I wanted a 7.5% cut in SS spending that what is your next question... why that? what about x? It's easy to say "I want the government to reduce inequality" which is a different question than one about 5% cuts in SS. The problem at the moment is not so much that the government doesn't do something (ala inequality) but that it does too much. I approve of military spending. I am ok with the existence of safety nets, narrowly speaking. So in that sense there isn't an analog. But there is a more philosophical position for you, I guess. I appreciate the response. I'm not really interested in "why this over that?" questions, but more thinking "okay, they want to cut a minimum of $500 billion from government spending but I don't really understand where they see that coming from. It seems obvious to them that there's at least that much to cut (as they are supportive of cutting revenue further still) but they don't seem to even a fraction of what that would be in their minds" Does that make more sense? I know what you are asking, and I keep replying that wondering about exact numbers isn't productive. As for the Congressmen in DC, well they know where they'd like to save at least some money (upping the retirement age, as an example) but they lack the courage to press the issue to the people over the political opposition they would encounter. They instead meekly press these small changes and then run away. You are asking me about policy changes and the related math. You started off asking me "until when" when it comes to shrinking things. And the answer is "until it gets as small as possible." I'm sorry if I don't know how to interpret your question except as one about specific funding levels; a debate I think is next to useless when clearly neither party is going to get this under control until it's about to explode. Well if the Republican/conservative congressmen are the reference, they have never even come close to cutting us out of our deficit with even their best plans over the last 40 years. In fact they've done the opposite. So if congress has no idea, I'm going to presume you have no idea where the vast majority of the money you think should obviously be cut would actually come from. That sounds like a pretty terrible plan/idea. But imagining for a moment that it wasn't, it should at least be clear at this point why the concept that it's obvious that federal spending needs to be cut is less obvious to those who don't believe it without having to have any remotely solid idea about where they are cutting this very large but indeterminate amount of spending from.
You may take my longstanding refusal to haggle numbers with you however you wish. I've tried to explain why I don't do that and I why don't ask anyone else to do that either.
|
On February 09 2018 17:56 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2018 17:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 09 2018 17:00 Introvert wrote:On February 09 2018 12:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 09 2018 11:54 Introvert wrote:On February 09 2018 11:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 09 2018 11:16 Introvert wrote:On February 09 2018 11:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 09 2018 11:02 Introvert wrote:On February 09 2018 10:58 GreenHorizons wrote:[quote] Well the government doesn'thave to do much if people just stop appropriating the surplus value of countless workers into the hands of a few people So it's not really the same at all. You want to cut spending and revenue to the government you gotta have a floor. "Like there's no way the government could run on less than X" then we can see what a government can do with that much money. It would be just as unfair if I asked you to tell me exactly what the tax rates should be and how much government should spend on everything. You would say "as much as it needs to do x" and that's about what I would say, unless I'm in DC writing budgets. I'm not really looking for a detailed analysis, I could say I need the government to bring the distribution of surplus value to a more reasonable level of fairness. Something like 15-1 maybe nothing more than 100-1 (under certain circumstances) or maybe something close. What I'm looking for is something like "~50% of current revenue is where I'd like to see it" more or less. With some idea of the sectors it would be coming from. It's not a manifesto it's just a rough idea of what it is you want. Your first and second paragraph are not alike, and surely you can see that. Like you did in your first paragraph, I have goals in mind, not dollar amounts. Neither a conservative or a liberal (or progressive, nationalist, etc) has a philosophical commitment to a particular number for anything. Let me ask it this way (I'm genuinely curious), can you give me a description similar to the first one in your view? I think of the main governing principal I see needing something like a federal gov to fulfill is redistributing the SV since the system we have has done such an extraordinarily terrible job (the whole 3 people having more wealth than half the country thing). Then that I gave you roughly what I think it should look like numerically. It's kinda obvious where the redistribution comes from/goes in my scenario so that's why I'm wondering where you would like to see these cuts. Not exhaustive, just some concrete examples like shave 5% of SS, cut foreign aid in half, is the military budget on the table? I'm not trying to be difficult I'm just genuinely confused. Everything is on the table, although I obviously view defense as the primary role of the federal government so I'm not fond of that one. I hope you see why i'm avoiding numbers. This is a work in progress. If I told you I wanted a 7.5% cut in SS spending that what is your next question... why that? what about x? It's easy to say "I want the government to reduce inequality" which is a different question than one about 5% cuts in SS. The problem at the moment is not so much that the government doesn't do something (ala inequality) but that it does too much. I approve of military spending. I am ok with the existence of safety nets, narrowly speaking. So in that sense there isn't an analog. But there is a more philosophical position for you, I guess. I appreciate the response. I'm not really interested in "why this over that?" questions, but more thinking "okay, they want to cut a minimum of $500 billion from government spending but I don't really understand where they see that coming from. It seems obvious to them that there's at least that much to cut (as they are supportive of cutting revenue further still) but they don't seem to even a fraction of what that would be in their minds" Does that make more sense? I know what you are asking, and I keep replying that wondering about exact numbers isn't productive. As for the Congressmen in DC, well they know where they'd like to save at least some money (upping the retirement age, as an example) but they lack the courage to press the issue to the people over the political opposition they would encounter. They instead meekly press these small changes and then run away. You are asking me about policy changes and the related math. You started off asking me "until when" when it comes to shrinking things. And the answer is "until it gets as small as possible." I'm sorry if I don't know how to interpret your question except as one about specific funding levels; a debate I think is next to useless when clearly neither party is going to get this under control until it's about to explode. Well if the Republican/conservative congressmen are the reference, they have never even come close to cutting us out of our deficit with even their best plans over the last 40 years. In fact they've done the opposite. So if congress has no idea, I'm going to presume you have no idea where the vast majority of the money you think should obviously be cut would actually come from. That sounds like a pretty terrible plan/idea. But imagining for a moment that it wasn't, it should at least be clear at this point why the concept that it's obvious that federal spending needs to be cut is less obvious to those who don't believe it without having to have any remotely solid idea about where they are cutting this very large but indeterminate amount of spending from. You may take my longstanding refusal to haggle numbers with you however you wish. I've tried to explain why I don't do that and I why don't ask anyone else to do that either.
You might as well go with "Trust me, I've got the best cuts. They'll be beautiful cuts. The best cuts you've ever seen "
|
On February 09 2018 17:33 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2018 17:00 Introvert wrote:On February 09 2018 12:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 09 2018 11:54 Introvert wrote:On February 09 2018 11:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 09 2018 11:16 Introvert wrote:On February 09 2018 11:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 09 2018 11:02 Introvert wrote:On February 09 2018 10:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 09 2018 10:50 Introvert wrote:
[quote]
The same objection could be made to the left. how much MORE should the government be doing? I've told you this before but demanding some endstate like "government revenue should be x dollars and not higher" is dumb and not an argument made in good faith. I won't ask you for Utopia and you won't ask me, seems well enough for TL at least.
Well the government doesn'thave to do much if people just stop appropriating the surplus value of countless workers into the hands of a few people So it's not really the same at all. You want to cut spending and revenue to the government you gotta have a floor. "Like there's no way the government could run on less than X" then we can see what a government can do with that much money. It would be just as unfair if I asked you to tell me exactly what the tax rates should be and how much government should spend on everything. You would say "as much as it needs to do x" and that's about what I would say, unless I'm in DC writing budgets. I'm not really looking for a detailed analysis, I could say I need the government to bring the distribution of surplus value to a more reasonable level of fairness. Something like 15-1 maybe nothing more than 100-1 (under certain circumstances) or maybe something close. What I'm looking for is something like "~50% of current revenue is where I'd like to see it" more or less. With some idea of the sectors it would be coming from. It's not a manifesto it's just a rough idea of what it is you want. Your first and second paragraph are not alike, and surely you can see that. Like you did in your first paragraph, I have goals in mind, not dollar amounts. Neither a conservative or a liberal (or progressive, nationalist, etc) has a philosophical commitment to a particular number for anything. Let me ask it this way (I'm genuinely curious), can you give me a description similar to the first one in your view? I think of the main governing principal I see needing something like a federal gov to fulfill is redistributing the SV since the system we have has done such an extraordinarily terrible job (the whole 3 people having more wealth than half the country thing). Then that I gave you roughly what I think it should look like numerically. It's kinda obvious where the redistribution comes from/goes in my scenario so that's why I'm wondering where you would like to see these cuts. Not exhaustive, just some concrete examples like shave 5% of SS, cut foreign aid in half, is the military budget on the table? I'm not trying to be difficult I'm just genuinely confused. Everything is on the table, although I obviously view defense as the primary role of the federal government so I'm not fond of that one. I hope you see why i'm avoiding numbers. This is a work in progress. If I told you I wanted a 7.5% cut in SS spending that what is your next question... why that? what about x? It's easy to say "I want the government to reduce inequality" which is a different question than one about 5% cuts in SS. The problem at the moment is not so much that the government doesn't do something (ala inequality) but that it does too much. I approve of military spending. I am ok with the existence of safety nets, narrowly speaking. So in that sense there isn't an analog. But there is a more philosophical position for you, I guess. I appreciate the response. I'm not really interested in "why this over that?" questions, but more thinking "okay, they want to cut a minimum of $500 billion from government spending but I don't really understand where they see that coming from. It seems obvious to them that there's at least that much to cut (as they are supportive of cutting revenue further still) but they don't seem to even a fraction of what that would be in their minds" Does that make more sense? I know what you are asking, and I keep replying that wondering about exact numbers isn't productive. As for the Congressmen in DC, well they know where they'd like to save at least some money (upping the retirement age, as an example) but they lack the courage to press the issue to the people over the political opposition they would encounter. They instead meekly press these small changes and then run away. You are asking me about policy changes and the related math. You started off asking me "until when" when it comes to shrinking things. And the answer is "until it gets as small as possible." I'm sorry if I don't know how to interpret your question except as one about specific funding levels; a debate I think is next to useless when clearly neither party is going to get this under control until it's about to explode. Well if the Republican/conservative congressmen are the reference, they have never even come close to cutting us out of our deficit with even their best plans over the last 40 years. In fact they've done the opposite. So if congress has no idea, I'm going to presume you have no idea where the vast majority of the money you think should obviously be cut would actually come from. That sounds like a pretty terrible plan/idea. But imagining for a moment that it wasn't, it should at least be clear at this point why the concept that it's obvious that federal spending needs to be cut is less obvious to those who don't believe it without having to have any remotely solid idea about where they are cutting this very large but indeterminate amount of spending from.
Well, if Rand Paul is to be trusted, we spent entirely too much money on funding research into the effects of Cocaine on the reward circuit in the brain, and particularly how and why it causes increased sexual risktaking. Or as Rand Paul would say: "whai in djezus' naim ah we fuhnding resuch into doped up kwails having sex?"
Oh, here's a decent blog on this: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/scicurious-brain/cocaine-and-the-sexual-habits-of-quail-or-why-does-nih-fund-what-it-does/
|
On February 09 2018 18:01 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2018 17:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 09 2018 17:00 Introvert wrote:On February 09 2018 12:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 09 2018 11:54 Introvert wrote:On February 09 2018 11:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 09 2018 11:16 Introvert wrote:On February 09 2018 11:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 09 2018 11:02 Introvert wrote:On February 09 2018 10:58 GreenHorizons wrote:[quote] Well the government doesn'thave to do much if people just stop appropriating the surplus value of countless workers into the hands of a few people So it's not really the same at all. You want to cut spending and revenue to the government you gotta have a floor. "Like there's no way the government could run on less than X" then we can see what a government can do with that much money. It would be just as unfair if I asked you to tell me exactly what the tax rates should be and how much government should spend on everything. You would say "as much as it needs to do x" and that's about what I would say, unless I'm in DC writing budgets. I'm not really looking for a detailed analysis, I could say I need the government to bring the distribution of surplus value to a more reasonable level of fairness. Something like 15-1 maybe nothing more than 100-1 (under certain circumstances) or maybe something close. What I'm looking for is something like "~50% of current revenue is where I'd like to see it" more or less. With some idea of the sectors it would be coming from. It's not a manifesto it's just a rough idea of what it is you want. Your first and second paragraph are not alike, and surely you can see that. Like you did in your first paragraph, I have goals in mind, not dollar amounts. Neither a conservative or a liberal (or progressive, nationalist, etc) has a philosophical commitment to a particular number for anything. Let me ask it this way (I'm genuinely curious), can you give me a description similar to the first one in your view? I think of the main governing principal I see needing something like a federal gov to fulfill is redistributing the SV since the system we have has done such an extraordinarily terrible job (the whole 3 people having more wealth than half the country thing). Then that I gave you roughly what I think it should look like numerically. It's kinda obvious where the redistribution comes from/goes in my scenario so that's why I'm wondering where you would like to see these cuts. Not exhaustive, just some concrete examples like shave 5% of SS, cut foreign aid in half, is the military budget on the table? I'm not trying to be difficult I'm just genuinely confused. Everything is on the table, although I obviously view defense as the primary role of the federal government so I'm not fond of that one. I hope you see why i'm avoiding numbers. This is a work in progress. If I told you I wanted a 7.5% cut in SS spending that what is your next question... why that? what about x? It's easy to say "I want the government to reduce inequality" which is a different question than one about 5% cuts in SS. The problem at the moment is not so much that the government doesn't do something (ala inequality) but that it does too much. I approve of military spending. I am ok with the existence of safety nets, narrowly speaking. So in that sense there isn't an analog. But there is a more philosophical position for you, I guess. I appreciate the response. I'm not really interested in "why this over that?" questions, but more thinking "okay, they want to cut a minimum of $500 billion from government spending but I don't really understand where they see that coming from. It seems obvious to them that there's at least that much to cut (as they are supportive of cutting revenue further still) but they don't seem to even a fraction of what that would be in their minds" Does that make more sense? I know what you are asking, and I keep replying that wondering about exact numbers isn't productive. As for the Congressmen in DC, well they know where they'd like to save at least some money (upping the retirement age, as an example) but they lack the courage to press the issue to the people over the political opposition they would encounter. They instead meekly press these small changes and then run away. You are asking me about policy changes and the related math. You started off asking me "until when" when it comes to shrinking things. And the answer is "until it gets as small as possible." I'm sorry if I don't know how to interpret your question except as one about specific funding levels; a debate I think is next to useless when clearly neither party is going to get this under control until it's about to explode. Well if the Republican/conservative congressmen are the reference, they have never even come close to cutting us out of our deficit with even their best plans over the last 40 years. In fact they've done the opposite. So if congress has no idea, I'm going to presume you have no idea where the vast majority of the money you think should obviously be cut would actually come from. That sounds like a pretty terrible plan/idea. But imagining for a moment that it wasn't, it should at least be clear at this point why the concept that it's obvious that federal spending needs to be cut is less obvious to those who don't believe it without having to have any remotely solid idea about where they are cutting this very large but indeterminate amount of spending from. Well, if Rand Paul is to be trusted, we spent entirely too much money on funding research into the effects of Cocaine on the reward circuit in the brain, and particularly how and why it causes increased sexual risktaking. Or as Rand Paul would say: "whai in djezus' naim ah we fuhnding resuch into doped up kwails having sex?" Oh, here's a decent blog on this: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/scicurious-brain/cocaine-and-the-sexual-habits-of-quail-or-why-does-nih-fund-what-it-does/
He is the closest they have as an example of a true conservative (think intro would prefer Cruz), so if not them, who?
|
On February 09 2018 09:53 Plansix wrote:
On a more amusing note, Rand Paul apparently likes to attack studies he thinks sound dumb. But the thread is fun.
either you accept that scientist should get money for research other scientist deem interesting or don't. But he, or the public, does not have the knowledge to say what is worthy or not.
If you want to talk about waste, how much money is given to congress to do its job that a LARGE % of the population is not happy about? the funds for this research is a drop of water in that well
|
Imagine the chaos if Trump vetoes.
|
Amazing, this is amateur hour.
|
I bet it was more a "men will be men, that's not so bad, why is it stopping his security clearance" kind of thing.
|
So. Democrats caved without a fight?
no DACA deal. a debate later but the GOP is just going to shut down any actual legislation from passing.
So Dreamers basically got fucked over without a fight. What do the Democrats have left to use as leverage?
|
They seems to be sticking with the “that wasn’t the man we worked with” which is code for “all these women are lying.”
Edit: some democrats voted for the spending bill. Others didn’t. No one control over the entire party.
|
On February 09 2018 21:32 Gorsameth wrote:
So. Democrats caved without a fight?
no DACA deal. a debate later but the GOP is just going to shut down any actual legislation from passing.
So Dreamers basically got fucked over without a fight. What do the Democrats have left to use as leverage?
DACA still has lip service from Republicans insofar as legislative progress on a solution is concerned, but you're right that Dems got beat in that fight it would seem. However, this budget is full of wins for Democrats otherwise and the total breakdown of legislative "small government" priorities from republicans will wreak havoc in their '18 elections.
|
On February 09 2018 11:54 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2018 11:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 09 2018 11:16 Introvert wrote:On February 09 2018 11:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 09 2018 11:02 Introvert wrote:On February 09 2018 10:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 09 2018 10:50 Introvert wrote:On February 09 2018 10:47 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 09 2018 10:38 Introvert wrote:On February 09 2018 10:24 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
That isn’t how my bills work. Or the state budget of Oklahoma and Kentucky. But these are the people who vote to go to war and cut taxes. Cutting spending means losing elections or gutting their state’s budget. I don't pretend to know about those states beyond the reporting I see that, to say the least, I view as suspect. Nonetheless, you do have to cut spending if you cut taxes, generally speaking. Many states that cut taxes won't cut spending, because it's unpopular. There is nothing hypocritical about supporting both tax cuts and spending cuts.There are obviously hypocrites in both parties on this, but not for that reason. I kinda wonder what the end game is. We know their policy concentrates more wealth at the top (wanting to eliminate the estate tax is probably the most blatant), you want less government spending and less taxes but till when? Just as a rough estimate we recently have had ~$5-666 billion deficits, so presumably we need to cut at least that much spending, but how much more are we talking? This also means that the concept that lower rates will bring in more/comparable revenue isn't really what Republicans/Conservatives even want. They don't want the government getting a penny more in revenue than it is now, and who knows how much less they think it should be getting. The same objection could be made to the left. how much MORE should the government be doing? I've told you this before but demanding some endstate like "government revenue should be x dollars and not higher" is dumb and not an argument made in good faith. I won't ask you for Utopia and you won't ask me, seems well enough for TL at least. Well the government doesn'thave to do much if people just stop appropriating the surplus value of countless workers into the hands of a few people So it's not really the same at all. You want to cut spending and revenue to the government you gotta have a floor. "Like there's no way the government could run on less than X" then we can see what a government can do with that much money. It would be just as unfair if I asked you to tell me exactly what the tax rates should be and how much government should spend on everything. You would say "as much as it needs to do x" and that's about what I would say, unless I'm in DC writing budgets. I'm not really looking for a detailed analysis, I could say I need the government to bring the distribution of surplus value to a more reasonable level of fairness. Something like 15-1 maybe nothing more than 100-1 (under certain circumstances) or maybe something close. What I'm looking for is something like "~50% of current revenue is where I'd like to see it" more or less. With some idea of the sectors it would be coming from. It's not a manifesto it's just a rough idea of what it is you want. Your first and second paragraph are not alike, and surely you can see that. Like you did in your first paragraph, I have goals in mind, not dollar amounts. Neither a conservative or a liberal (or progressive, nationalist, etc) has a philosophical commitment to a particular number for anything. Let me ask it this way (I'm genuinely curious), can you give me a description similar to the first one in your view? I think of the main governing principal I see needing something like a federal gov to fulfill is redistributing the SV since the system we have has done such an extraordinarily terrible job (the whole 3 people having more wealth than half the country thing). Then that I gave you roughly what I think it should look like numerically. It's kinda obvious where the redistribution comes from/goes in my scenario so that's why I'm wondering where you would like to see these cuts. Not exhaustive, just some concrete examples like shave 5% of SS, cut foreign aid in half, is the military budget on the table? I'm not trying to be difficult I'm just genuinely confused. Everything is on the table, although I obviously view defense as the primary role of the federal government so I'm not fond of that one. I hope you see why i'm avoiding numbers. This is a work in progress. If I told you I wanted a 7.5% cut in SS spending that what is your next question... why that? what about x? It's easy to say "I want the government to reduce inequality" which is a different question than one about 5% cuts in SS. The problem at the moment is not so much that the government doesn't do something (ala inequality) but that it does too much. I approve of military spending. I am ok with the existence of safety nets, narrowly speaking. So in that sense there isn't an analog. But there is a more philosophical position for you, I guess.
I'm curious; you say the government does 'too much'; so what is the government doing that you wish it wasn't?
And do you not see an issue where the Republican strategy of taking away everyone's money on behalf of their donors creates a necessity for the government to do more on behalf of the people they're disempowering by crippling their ability to economically care for themselves?
Honestly, this is one of the areas I agree with right wing people on. I'd love for the individual to have more power and for the government to have less. But it seems to me that most right wing people are simultaneously promoting policies that make it impossible for anyone other than people who already HAVE that power to be able to do more, while making it harder for people without that power to attain it. Not a judgement or comment on yourself, just a trend I notice in right wing politicians both in my country and yours (though the Republicans are more extreme than the UK Conservatives).
|
On February 09 2018 21:32 Gorsameth wrote:
So. Democrats caved without a fight?
no DACA deal. a debate later but the GOP is just going to shut down any actual legislation from passing.
So Dreamers basically got fucked over without a fight. What do the Democrats have left to use as leverage?
First, trying to die on the DREAMers hill would have been colossally stupid. There is no way to look good when you force a government shutdown over the legal status of people who aren't citizens vs. funding government services, pay military members' salaries, etc. Regardless of where you stand on the DREAMers issue, the Dems would've looked awful if they shut down the government for it.
Second, this budget got Dems a lot of what they wanted. It funds a lot of different things that Dems have been pushing for and will also make Republicans look terrible when the deficit skyrockets.
|
On February 09 2018 21:32 Plansix wrote:
They seems to be sticking with the “that wasn’t the man we worked with” which is code for “all these women are lying.”
Edit: some democrats voted for the spending bill. Others didn’t. No one control over the entire party.
How many ended up voting for it?
I wonder because then it would seem Democrats would need a majority plus that to ever actually be able to protect DACA folks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
