|
The scope of debate at this point in this thread is incredibly narrow and riddled with assumptions. This is evidence of a complete lack of critical thinking on the part of educated people in the U.S. (If we assume that American visitors to Teamliquid are generally educated to a high level, it seems to me there are a lot of college students here...)
I'll start with cfoy3, who occasionally makes good points, but then ruins it by parroting doctrine that has no basis in evidence:
On July 30 2011 15:31 cfoy3 wrote:This means privatizing many institutions to make them more flexible and provide better quality than a bureaucracy.
Why do you say that private institutions are "more flexible and provide better quality" than -what I assume you mean- public institutions? What evidence do you have for this position? By using the term "bureaucracy" quite literally as a substitution for "public institution" you are implying that bureaucracy is literally impossible in a private institution. You either need to examine the definition of "bureaucracy" more closely or choose your words more carefully.
On July 30 2011 15:31 cfoy3 wrote:
I do think we should end [the wars], but I think we should do so carefully. We can not just leave because it becomes inconvient. We toppled these government and we have an obligation to make sure these places are stable and better off than when we got there. If these government just collapse then the whole excercise was just a waster of blood,sweat and money. The generals on the ground no best and they have given the president a timeline and I think its important that we stick to it. Al Qaeda is on the ropes,Osama is dead and Iraq is doing well on its own, its not too much longer.
A better reason to leave than conviniece might be that it would be better for the people of those countries if the U.S. left. That U.S. definitions of "democracy" and "stability" have U.S. interests at their heart (naturally). What if countries are perfectly capable of looking after themselves without American intervention? If they want U.S. intervention perhaps they can define what they want for themselves? The generals on the ground are American government officials with guns, what makes you think they know whats best for they countries they are occupying? We can be certain they will have some good ideas and some bad ones, that's about all. Your last bit about The Threat of Terrorism is interesting, it's a narrative that has a strong hold on the public imagination around the world. Are you sure it's accurate?
Honestly I read both invasions as nothing to do with terrorism - most serious analysts agree that "terrorist attacks" are far more likely now as a result of these invasions - it comes down to social wellfare (government spending) for large companies closely alligned with whichever president happens to be in power and and enormous bloody subsidy to keep petrol cheap.
As I say though cfoy3 makes other good points, it's those that make these huge assumptions which sit right along the comfortable middle of U.S. politics stand out. Here's another by sunprince:
On July 30 2011 20:44 sunprince wrote:Economists do agree that raising taxes hurts the economy in a general sense.
Unless the Economist in question is a complete free market cultist, or he/she thinks the U.S. tax rates are perfect as they are, this is manifestly untrue. If you agree that taxes are required and that taxes at the moment are imperfect, it follows that the ideal tax rate might be higher or lower than the current one for a given section of the population. If your argument is that "taxes are always too high" then you are effectively advocating a tax rate of zero. If this isn't the case then you need to argue -or quote arguments- showing that reducing taxes from their current rate to some lower rate is beneficial. It's worth remembering that the U.S. has been slashing taxes for 30 years and this has not resulted in an economic miracle, quite the opposite in fact.
|
@Dapper_Cad
I do feel its a belief that private cooperations are more efficient than government. If you have looked at the federal government, or just looked at any government institution you see huge amounts of waste. The fact is that these cooperations are more effiecient because they have a goal-make more money. Most public institutions have an abstract goal and no measurable way of determing how well they succeed. For instance, my mother used to work for a private hospital that now has been bought out by the government public hospital system. The amount of waste, ineffiecieny and poor management is astounding. Now you are right just beinga public institution doesn't gurantee that will happen, but I think in practice it almost certainly does.
You spoke of American interests in play when determing the stability of Afghanistan. You are right there are inevitably biase that taints are analysis, yet we do listen to the input of these government. Iraq has by and large taken over there country and we only occupy rural areas. They told us to leave and gave us a timetable and we left.
You mentioned my comment about Al Qaeda on the ropes and questioned its validity. My understanding comes from the recent reports of our generals on the ground who make this claim. That there is less than a 100 in afghanistan. I think afghanistan was a correct war. Al Qaeda did have a stronghold there and they did attack us. Iraq was the bs war. It is important to remember that distinction.
Most people do want a balanced budget amendment of some form, they want higher taxes on the wealthy, they want to end cooperate welfare, they want term limits and they want reductions in the size of government. These things are not rocket science and if you lived here you would see why they are not just "assumptions". Many of the people in this thread are American and we see whats going on in our country. The reason why its narrow is because its pretty obvious from a fiscal standpoint what needs to be done and most people support these initiatives. The only reason they are not in place now is because a radical fridge of the GOP calling themselves the Tea Party insist on No new taxes. This is in complete opposition to the American public, where less than 1/5th like this cuts only approach.
|
On July 30 2011 15:00 TOloseGT wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2011 14:57 cfoy3 wrote:
Only one thing to do, educate yourself and elect more responsible members of Congress. We need to weed out radicals. Educating ourselves isn't the problem, it's rehabilitating the mouth foaming masses sucking up Foxnews.
No kidding. I'm doing just fine in the realm of critical thinking. It's everyone else that has me worried.
|
The way I see it is pretty cut and dry; this much debt is bad. We NEED to take action to cutback, pay it off, and figgin balance the budget.
|
On July 31 2011 02:52 StuBob wrote:
The way I see it is pretty cut and dry; this much debt is bad. We NEED to take action to cutback, pay it off, and figgin balance the budget.
Most of this thread has been about nothing if not explaining that nothing is cut-and-dry and there is no inherent virtue to "the way you see" things sans references. Nearly every other page has a post from someone who admittedly knows little but what they do know are the same slogans we've heard countless times before, which is mostly why Congress is in the mess they're in. No offense.
Anyhow, is a credit downgrade inevitable at this point? Because
The federal government makes about $250 billion in interest payments a year. Even a small increase in the rates demanded by investors in United States debt could add tens of billions of dollars to those payments. And the credit rating agencies have said other downgrades would follow like dominoes.
For example, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the huge mortgage companies that are backed by the federal government, would be downgraded, raising rates on home mortgage loans for borrowers. Maryland and Virginia, and many local governments near Washington, their economies tied to the government, would also be downgraded. So would New Mexico, because an unusually high proportion of residents depend on federal benefits.
This sounds effectively like a tax hike, only revenues won't go to benefit the government and its programs but I cannot even finish this sentence.
|
I don't know ANYTHING about the debt crisis, so this may sound stupid, but here goes:
Can't you split up the amount you owe between americas citizens(maybe make a rule so those who make over 1 million a year or something like that pays more) and then pay a one-time fee to the government so they can pay back the debt?
|
On July 31 2011 03:06 Arnstein wrote:
I don't know ANYTHING about the debt crisis, so this may sound stupid, but here goes:
Can't you split up the amount you owe between americas citizens(maybe make a rule so those who make over 1 million a year or something like that pays more) and then pay a one-time fee to the government so they can pay back the debt?
Unfortunately if you were to split up the debt individually between our people, it would be around $46,000 per citizen. We don't have that kind of money.
http://www.usdebtclock.org/
|
On July 31 2011 03:10 LaLLsc2 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2011 03:06 Arnstein wrote:
I don't know ANYTHING about the debt crisis, so this may sound stupid, but here goes:
Can't you split up the amount you owe between americas citizens(maybe make a rule so those who make over 1 million a year or something like that pays more) and then pay a one-time fee to the government so they can pay back the debt?
Unfortunately if you were to split up the debt individually between our people, it would be around $46,000 per citizen. We don't have that kind of money. http://www.usdebtclock.org/
lol, you're screwed 
How many people make over 10 million dollars a year/have 10 million dollars? They could probably pay 10 000 dollars each, so maybe middle class people could pay around 100 dollars. I don't know, just thought I'd ask, but apparently it seems impossible to do this way.
|
@fcoy3
You can't use a single case to justify such a broad position. We all know it's the recieved wisdom that government institutions are less efficient than private institutions, can any of us point to real data to back this position up? You ask me to look at government, what studies have you read of federal government and government institutions? Look here for some discussion on private insurers vs. medicare:
http://andrewgelman.com/2009/07/does_medicare_a/
Doesn't look very clear cut to me. It's entirely possible that your assumption is correct, it's also possible it's incorrect, it's also possible that one model works better in some areas, the other better in others. However the fact remains that this assumption gets repeated again and again and again untill perfectly intelligent people repeat it without examining it properly.
U.S. interference in the region goes back much further than the current military occupation, it will continue long after the occupation has been declared ended, when all that's left are American military bases, American contractors, American corporations and Anerican intelligence agents. Perhaps the U.S. listens to the Iraqi goverment, but what does that mean? Opinoin polls of Iraqis show them calling for withdrawl for years with a good portion of them wanting it immediately. What makes you think a democracy installed by America will be any more responsive to the will of the people than American democracy itself?
However few people in Afghanistan want to kill American civilians, it doesn't really matter. What matters is how many people world wide want that. Perhaps all the real nut jobs jumped the boarder for Pakistan. It's got to be equally easy to get to the U.S. from either country. Although perhaps they didn't, I'm not sure any of it matters as much as we are lead to believe. Did you know that 300 people are injured by lightning each year in the U.S.? Given 3000 deaths in 9/11 10 years ago and no major terrorist attacks on U.S. soil since, as many people have been struck by lightning as have been killed by terrorist attacks in the U.S. and that beginning the sample with the very worst case of terrorism ever recorded in the U.S.
If most people want a balanced budget then most people might be wrong. A lot of economic theorists argue that running a deficit is the only way out of a recession. But you're right, that doesn't make it an assumption. If your position is that a balanced budget is best because it works for your household, or because that's what the government keep saying then it's an assumption. If you've researched the subject then perhaps it's not.
If most people want a reduction in the size of government that's a pretty vague view point, surely it's what the government spends it's money on that's the discussion, and whether that spending is "helpful" or not. Then you can look at what needs cutting and what MAYBE needs expanding. So again, as you say, this isn't an assumption, more a point of view that either must advocate for zero government, or be too vague to be worth commenting on.
Maybe my analysis is completely wrong though, maybe everything I've said is so far from correct as to be laughable. BUT. You need to be very very careful before you call something obviously true with no evidence to back that position up.
|
The debt-ceiling/deficit issue is a manufactured crisis. It's a joke. With an economy that is stalling because of decreased government spending and interest rates that are at historical lows, we should be borrowing MORE money and spending MORE money, not undoing crucial parts of the New Deal in a thinly veiled effort to undo one of the greatest social contracts on Earth.
|
On July 31 2011 03:04 jon arbuckle wrote:
Nearly every other page has a post from someone who admittedly knows little but what they do know are the same slogans we've heard countless times before, which is mostly why Congress is in the mess they're in. No offense.
Flag that man for awesome.
On July 31 2011 03:06 Arnstein wrote:
I don't know ANYTHING about the debt crisis, so this may sound stupid, but here goes:
Can't you split up the amount you owe between americas citizens(maybe make a rule so those who make over 1 million a year or something like that pays more) and then pay a one-time fee to the government so they can pay back the debt?
If you're sincere in seeking new information then there are no stupid questions. If you take your idea and spread it out over a number of years it's identical to raising taxes.
|
On July 31 2011 03:38 Fleebenworth wrote:
The debt-ceiling/deficit issue is a manufactured crisis. It's a joke. With an economy that is stalling because of decreased government spending and interest rates that are at historical lows, we should be borrowing MORE money and spending MORE money, not undoing crucial parts of the New Deal in a thinly veiled effort to undo one of the greatest social contracts on Earth.
Haha!! Negative interest rates all the way baby. Hey Bernanke! Get the money printing machine ready we gotta stimulate this economy.
![[image loading]](http://i1190.photobucket.com/albums/z443/joeshmoe762/lnmkuu-b78815616z120110630154612000gqp10cf7f1.jpg)
|
It's not specifically the Tea Party that demands no new taxes, it's almost every Republican. They control the House of Representatives, not the Tea Party. A lot of them signed Grover's pledge, but they also played politics too much and painted themselves into a corner so they have to double down. That's the problem with radicalism, you leave no room for compromise. Moderate conservatives are called out as liberals and moderate liberals are labelled communists. Not by you guys of course, but definitely by the talking heads that get all the attention.
It's kind of whacky. Obama is too moderate for his time. The right calls him a radical because they have to double down, but the left is incredibly frustrated with how moderate he is. The guy compromises on everything, even when his party controlled both houses of Congress. The stimulus, Health care, off-shore drilling, Bush tax cuts, and now Medicare and Social Security too apparently. He looks like a conservative when it comes to the wars, he continued many conservative policies from the Bush era and it took forever to get him to stand up for gay rights. Guantanamo Bay didn't close, it just moved. There's been no progress on climate change. For all the fancy rhetoric, Barack Obama and Mitt Romney might be the same person.
|
@Dapper_Cad
I think you make several valid points. My argument for scaling back of government is based on Coburn's Back in Black book. He comprehensively goes through the entire government and lists programs that are redundant and are a waste. He also lists into causes of the current system. Politicians institute programs to say show that they are willing to improve things, but create no metric for examining their programs to see if they are having a positive effect or even if they are neccessary (i.e other programs already do these things).He shows how we could save 9 trillion dollars in a decade. Several of his arguments are quite compelling.
It is clear to everyone that looks at our fiscal situtation that we have a spending problem, and that our tax code and entitlements need to be reformed. Your commenst regarding a balanced budget are arguments against a STRONG BBA. I think that this distinction is crucial. We need something that caps the government spending (I think 97% of last year's revenue is good) to create a piggy bank for the next crisis. With controls authorized by the treasury to determine how much money should be kept in reserve. Further, it should have a measure that would allow a super majority to override the amendment so that again in times of crisis if we need to we can run a deficit. Most economist say we need to spend money, not neccessarily create a deficit. Those two do not have to be linked. This would allow on a year to year basis be well grounded fiscally.
With your comment on private vs public. Of course context is everything. I am sorry if I implied otherwise. There may be some areas that we would not want a cooperation in control. With your comment in regards to medical insurance is an excellent example of cooperation bueracracy, I think it also an example where government could step in to draft apropriate legislation to improve the competition. Frankly the competition we have is not the kind we want. We want competition to drive down costs and improve quality to improve profit. Not shit on people with the medical insurance agencies competing on how to attract healthy people while throwing other people under the bus. There should be a government option that has good policies that force competition down the path we want, there should an agency that rate these plans so that average people can understand which is better, there should be safe guards in place that protect the sickest of us.
|
On July 31 2011 03:47 LaLLsc2 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2011 03:38 Fleebenworth wrote:
The debt-ceiling/deficit issue is a manufactured crisis. It's a joke. With an economy that is stalling because of decreased government spending and interest rates that are at historical lows, we should be borrowing MORE money and spending MORE money, not undoing crucial parts of the New Deal in a thinly veiled effort to undo one of the greatest social contracts on Earth. Haha!! Negative interest rates all the way baby. Hey Bernanke! Get the money printing machine ready we gotta stimulate this economy.
I know it must be hard for you reality-denying types to accept, but the after 9 months of austerity the UK has slowed to a halt, as the stimulus funds have run out the US economy has similarly decelerated. Our deficit is mostly due to lack of employment combined with the two most costly foreign policy blunders of all time. If people were seriously about fixing the deficit and debt they would raise taxes on the most wealthy individuals, remove loopholes and subsidies for mature industries and adopt a single-payer healthcare system. Of course no one is serious about the deficit, which is why we wind up in stupid situations where people are calling for cuts to the most successful government program of all time (social security).
|
On July 24 2011 04:07 ploy wrote:
Basically, at some point, SOME GENERATION will have to take the hit for the irresponsibility of our government's actions for the past 20-30 years.
Um, try more like the last 150+ years. That's how long we've had a national debt that was significant. Granted, it didn't jump up into the trillions until the 1940s. Honestly, our ridiculous defense budget is the main factor to blame for our even more ludicrous debt. If we would have cut defense spending by 66% since the Cold War ended, we probably would have paid most of the debt off by now or at least made it far more manageable.
|
House kills Reid proposal. This is absolutely pathetic. There's no point in even going for it in the Senate.
|
On July 31 2011 03:44 Dapper_Cad wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2011 03:04 jon arbuckle wrote:
Nearly every other page has a post from someone who admittedly knows little but what they do know are the same slogans we've heard countless times before, which is mostly why Congress is in the mess they're in. No offense. Flag that man for awesome. Show nested quote +On July 31 2011 03:06 Arnstein wrote:
I don't know ANYTHING about the debt crisis, so this may sound stupid, but here goes:
Can't you split up the amount you owe between americas citizens(maybe make a rule so those who make over 1 million a year or something like that pays more) and then pay a one-time fee to the government so they can pay back the debt?
If you're sincere in seeking new information then there are no stupid questions. If you take your idea and spread it out over a number of years it's identical to raising taxes.
Yes, and raising taxes isn't bad? It's much better to raise tax than to cut budgets for schools and other important things, yeah?
|
On July 31 2011 04:08 Fleebenworth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2011 03:47 LaLLsc2 wrote:On July 31 2011 03:38 Fleebenworth wrote:
The debt-ceiling/deficit issue is a manufactured crisis. It's a joke. With an economy that is stalling because of decreased government spending and interest rates that are at historical lows, we should be borrowing MORE money and spending MORE money, not undoing crucial parts of the New Deal in a thinly veiled effort to undo one of the greatest social contracts on Earth. Haha!! Negative interest rates all the way baby. Hey Bernanke! Get the money printing machine ready we gotta stimulate this economy. I know it must be hard for you reality-denying types to accept, but the after 9 months of austerity the UK has slowed to a halt, as the stimulus funds have run out the US economy has similarly decelerated. Our deficit is mostly due to lack of employment combined with the two most costly foreign policy blunders of all time. If people were seriously about fixing the deficit and debt they would raise taxes on the most wealthy individuals, remove loopholes and subsidies for mature industries and adopt a single-payer healthcare system. Of course no one is serious about the deficit, which is why we wind up in stupid situations where people are calling for cuts to the most successful government program of all time (social security).
You are one of them, let the status quo continue. Tax a little more, ignore the wars that are a direct result of political lobbying. I'm glad you mentioned foreign policy, but its shocking to me that the wars are not the first place someone would go when talking about how to save money / strengthen our national security.
![[image loading]](http://i1190.photobucket.com/albums/z443/joeshmoe762/hppromo_costofwar.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i1190.photobucket.com/albums/z443/joeshmoe762/447280185v4_480x480_Front_Color-White_padToSquare-true.jpg)
|
On July 31 2011 04:11 NEOtheONE wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2011 04:07 ploy wrote:
Basically, at some point, SOME GENERATION will have to take the hit for the irresponsibility of our government's actions for the past 20-30 years. Um, try more like the last 150+ years. That's how long we've had a national debt that was significant. Granted, it didn't jump up into the trillions until the 1940s. Honestly, our ridiculous defense budget is the main factor to blame for our even more ludicrous debt. If we would have cut defense spending by 66% since the Cold War ended, we probably would have paid most of the debt off by now or at least made it far more manageable.
We had a good reason to bump it up in the 1940s, you know, being that we were fighting a World War and we put the entire economy of the United States on a total war footing. Not to mention that the rate for the top tax bracket was at 90% and not 35% (15% for capital gains) so we could actually pay for shit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
