On August 23 2012 10:51 catabowl wrote: Simple question that Ronald Reagan asked 30 years ago and that question is even more true today.
That is not the question you should be asking yourself in regards to an election. The question you should always be asking is, "Which candidate will I be better off with for the next four years?"
If you are not better off now than you were four years ago, but then you pick the opposing candidate just for that reason, for all you know you might end up even more worse off.
On August 23 2012 08:43 Falling wrote: Sometimes I really don't understand the roles of executive and legislative power in non-Parliamentary democracies.
What effect does the GOP approving the conservative platform on Romney's bid to become president? Does he have to adopt this platform? Is he involved in this? Or is this just a parallel set of promises from Congress/ Senate and has little to do with Romney.
Honestly, if it wasn't for the social conservatism stuff, I bet 70%+ of America would be Republican. Their economic platform is bounds ahead of the Democrat platform.
If by "bounds ahead" you mean beneficial to the rich and detrimental to the poor, the elderly and the middle class, more likely to increase the deficit, and less likely to improve the economy, then sure, it's bounds ahead.
On August 23 2012 10:50 Souma wrote: Honestly this election would be a lot better if it was Obama vs. Ryan. Romney stands for absolutely nothing. As a leader that's significantly detrimental. At least with Ryan, I can see where he stands, where he's coming from, and what he actually believes, even if I disagree with a lot of it.
I agree that Obama vs Ryan would be better, but I wouldn't confuse Romney's ideological vacillations with his capacity to lead. The guy is a seasoned executive. I think that by picking Ryan, Romney has committed to a specific ideological bent for his campaign and presidency. Sure, it's not really his (it is Ryan's), but it will do.
The problem I have with Romney is that he doesn't think for himself, nor does he try to press his own agenda but rather submits himself to another's. A leader needs to be so much more than that. While compromise and understanding are a large part of being a good leader, so is the ability to lead and not betray the very fundamental principles you believe in. What angers me the most about Romney is that his relatively moderate platform as Governor of Massachusetts was basically ripped to shreds by his very own hands.
On August 23 2012 11:05 Souma wrote: What angries me the most about Romney is that his relatively moderate platform as Governor of Massachusetts was basically ripped to shreds by his very own hands.
Speaking of... I've been trying to find some debates between Romney and Jill Stein on youtube from that 2002 race. Thought it would be kind of interesting. Found one or two, but really bad quality.
Edit: oh hey found it on cspan... hour long and 5 candidates though :D (So far it's been less of a debate between the two and more of them teaming up to slam dunk a libertarian lol)
On August 23 2012 08:19 Souma wrote: Oh wow, it's more extreme than I thought it would be...
By the way, can someone explain to me what's wrong with auditing the Federal Reserve? Why would anyone be against it?
The Federal Reserve is already highly audited. Ron Paul wants to peek in to their monetary policy discussions, which seriously pressures the Fed's ability to be apolitical.
On August 23 2012 08:36 Souma wrote: Oh also, can someone explain to me why an ultrasound should not be mandatory before an abortion?
It's not so much there being a mandatory ultrasound, it's their reasoning behind it.
They literally want you to do be forced to do it so you aren't as likely to abort the baby because you'd develop feelings.
Not any of the medical and safety reasons to do it.
I'm a pro-choice advocate, always have been and always will be, but I do not think we should dismiss such reasoning. Even if I am pro-choice I do not think abortions are necessarily a good thing, but they are just not my decision to make because I am not familiar with the woman and her situation. In that respect, isn't it pivotal for anyone who wants to have an abortion to know exactly what they are doing and who they are doing it to?
The good thing about our two-party system is that the parties keep each other humble. In regards to abortion, liberals need the conservative opposition to keep them reminded that abortion is much more than just destroying some cells. So while abortion is a woman's decision, it would be great if she fully weighed the pros and cons before having the procedure, and developing an emotional attachment can ensure that the decision is not made lightly but out of pure necessity. It would be a great tragedy if potential life was stifled because people began to develop a callous disposition towards what is regarded as a bunch of cells.
Probably one of the very few things (if not the only thing) you'll ever see me agree with social conservatives on.
On August 23 2012 08:36 Souma wrote: Oh also, can someone explain to me why an ultrasound should not be mandatory before an abortion?
It's not so much there being a mandatory ultrasound, it's their reasoning behind it.
They literally want you to do be forced to do it so you aren't as likely to abort the baby because you'd develop feelings.
Not any of the medical and safety reasons to do it.
I'm a pro-choice advocate, always have been and always will be, but I do not think we should dismiss such reasoning. Even if I am pro-choice I do not think abortions are necessarily a good thing, but they are just not my decision to make because I am not familiar with the woman and her situation. In that respect, isn't it pivotal for anyone who wants to have an abortion to know exactly what they are doing and who they are doing it to?
The good thing about our two-party system is that the parties keep each other humble. In regards to abortion, liberals need the conservative opposition to keep them reminded that abortion is much more than just destroying some cells. So while abortion is a woman's decision, it would be great if she fully weighed the pros and cons before having the procedure, and developing an emotional attachment can ensure that the decision is not made lightly but out of pure necessity. It would be a great tragedy if potential life was stifled because people began to develop a callous disposition towards what is regarded as a bunch of cells.
Probably one of the very few things (if not the only thing) you'll ever see me agree with social conservatives on.
While I respect that opinion, legislation like that is a last resort. There are some unwanted effects of this. Namely for rape/incest-victims being forced to relive their trauma and people with birthcomplications threatening their own life. These are a minority, I know, but it takes a special kind of cruel to treat victims of situations as criminals.
On August 23 2012 08:43 Falling wrote: Sometimes I really don't understand the roles of executive and legislative power in non-Parliamentary democracies.
What effect does the GOP approving the conservative platform on Romney's bid to become president? Does he have to adopt this platform? Is he involved in this? Or is this just a parallel set of promises from Congress/ Senate and has little to do with Romney.
Honestly, if it wasn't for the social conservatism stuff, I bet 70%+ of America would be Republican. Their economic platform is bounds ahead of the Democrat platform.
If by "bounds ahead" you mean beneficial to the rich and detrimental to the poor, the elderly and the middle class, more likely to increase the deficit, and less likely to improve the economy, then sure, it's bounds ahead.
By "bounds ahead", I mean that I actually study proposals and talk with important people about this stuff, and have come to the conclusion that while not everything in the Republicans goals are perfect, they actually HAVE goals and plans. Democrats do not.
Democrats almost always spout rhetoric and talking points on the economy. Do you even know how much the Buffet Rule would make the government? It's seriously a drop in the bucket for the deficit. You can argue until you're blue in the face that higher taxes on rich people will solve the problem: it won't. I'm a Republican that supports a progressive tax rate, but I'm in no way delusioned that this solves the problem like almost all Democrats are. The Democrats don't have a plan. They really don't. They are just pandering to the majority of poeple who are too dumb to know the difference. Million, Billion, Trillion, it's all fictional at that point to the average Joe.
It's absolutely criminal the accounting tactics that are used by Congressman and the CBO to spin their proposals.
For all the trashing that has gone onto the Ryan plan, can you name a single constructive criticism of it yet? No? Why not? The only criticism is that it cuts Medicare. Well no shit it cuts Medicare, how the f#@# else are you going to lower our spending? There is not a single alternative plan that anyone is willing to bet their political life on because there ISNT A SINGLE OTHER PLAN ANYONE THINKS WILL PASS IN THE COURT OF PUBLIC OPINION. Our President proposed a budget with a 1.4 TRILLION dollar deficit. Can you not see that absolute lunacy in that?
The Dems are just tearing down the Reps right now on the economy for a short term win, but in the long term we're all going to lose if Congress doesn't address the problem.
Also, just to touch on your "less beneficial to the middle class and the poor", you need to actually read the stuff that the Dems enacted and propose. It all includes flat taxes without regard for your income level. Believe it or not, Reps are actually nicer to the poor when it comes to taxes--they are just less likely to dole that tax money back out to those people. They are far less likely to balloon the deficit (I mean, the alternative of doing nothing is seriously the equivalent to driving a bus off a cliff).
You're right about two things:
It may not directly improve the economy in the short term. However, deficit spending has not been effective and there isn't another trick in the bag from anyone else right now. It's not going to hurt our economy, and their proposals have the added benefit of being good in the long term.
It helps the rich. So fucking what if it helps the rich? It helps the rest of us too, and that's all I give a damn about. Be jealous harder...
On August 23 2012 08:36 Souma wrote: Oh also, can someone explain to me why an ultrasound should not be mandatory before an abortion?
It's not so much there being a mandatory ultrasound, it's their reasoning behind it.
They literally want you to do be forced to do it so you aren't as likely to abort the baby because you'd develop feelings.
Not any of the medical and safety reasons to do it.
I'm a pro-choice advocate, always have been and always will be, but I do not think we should dismiss such reasoning. Even if I am pro-choice I do not think abortions are necessarily a good thing, but they are just not my decision to make because I am not familiar with the woman and her situation. In that respect, isn't it pivotal for anyone who wants to have an abortion to know exactly what they are doing and who they are doing it to?
The good thing about our two-party system is that the parties keep each other humble. In regards to abortion, liberals need the conservative opposition to keep them reminded that abortion is much more than just destroying some cells. So while abortion is a woman's decision, it would be great if she fully weighed the pros and cons before having the procedure, and developing an emotional attachment can ensure that the decision is not made lightly but out of pure necessity. It would be a great tragedy if potential life was stifled because people began to develop a callous disposition towards what is regarded as a bunch of cells.
Probably one of the very few things (if not the only thing) you'll ever see me agree with social conservatives on.
While I respect that opinion, legislation like that is a last resort. There are some unwanted effects of this. Namely for rape/incest-victims being forced to relive their trauma and people with birthcomplications threatening their own life. These are a minority, I know, but it takes a special kind of cruel to treat victims of situations as criminals.
I gotta admit I'm also iffy in that regard. If any such legislation like that is passed I hope it's with an exception to that minority.
On August 23 2012 08:43 Falling wrote: Sometimes I really don't understand the roles of executive and legislative power in non-Parliamentary democracies.
What effect does the GOP approving the conservative platform on Romney's bid to become president? Does he have to adopt this platform? Is he involved in this? Or is this just a parallel set of promises from Congress/ Senate and has little to do with Romney.
They have influence, but Romney isn't the head of his party yet. The platform is set by 100+ "insiders" who consist of mostly old people. They pass what they envision their party to be, but it by no means requires anyone to follow them. It's more like guidelines than actual rules. There are Republicans who disagree with all sorts of parts of the party platform, but they're still Republicans.
Honestly, if it wasn't for the social conservatism stuff, I bet 70%+ of America would be Republican. Their economic platform is bounds ahead of the Democrat platform.
I think it's much more likely that the exact opposite is true, and that if one were to create political parties out of a vacuum today, an economically left-wing but socially conservative and racist party would be the most popular. Just look at how powerful the Democrats were for most of the 20th century, and how most of their losses were due to supporting civil rights and the subsequent New Left alienating white organized labor.
On August 23 2012 08:43 Falling wrote: Sometimes I really don't understand the roles of executive and legislative power in non-Parliamentary democracies.
What effect does the GOP approving the conservative platform on Romney's bid to become president? Does he have to adopt this platform? Is he involved in this? Or is this just a parallel set of promises from Congress/ Senate and has little to do with Romney.
Honestly, if it wasn't for the social conservatism stuff, I bet 70%+ of America would be Republican. Their economic platform is bounds ahead of the Democrat platform.
If by "bounds ahead" you mean beneficial to the rich and detrimental to the poor, the elderly and the middle class, more likely to increase the deficit, and less likely to improve the economy, then sure, it's bounds ahead.
By "bounds ahead", I mean that I actually study proposals and talk with important people about this stuff, and have come to the conclusion that while not everything in the Republicans goals are perfect, they actually HAVE goals and plans. Democrats do not.
Democrats almost always spout rhetoric and talking points on the economy. Do you even know how much the Buffet Rule would make the government? It's seriously a drop in the bucket for the deficit. You can argue until you're blue in the face that higher taxes on rich people will solve the problem: it won't. I'm a Republican that supports a progressive tax rate, but I'm in no way delusioned that this solves the problem like almost all Democrats are. The Democrats don't have a plan. They really don't. They are just pandering to the majority of poeple who are too dumb to know the difference. Million, Billion, Trillion, it's all fictional at that point to the average Joe.
It's absolutely criminal the accounting tactics that are used by Congressman and the CBO to spin their proposals.
For all the trashing that has gone onto the Ryan plan, can you name a single constructive criticism of it yet? No? Why not? The only criticism is that it cuts Medicare. Well no shit it cuts Medicare, how the f#@# else are you going to lower our spending? There is not a single alternative plan that anyone is willing to bet their political life on because there ISNT A SINGLE OTHER PLAN ANYONE THINKS WILL PASS IN THE COURT OF PUBLIC OPINION. Our President proposed a budget with a 1.4 TRILLION dollar deficit. Can you not see that absolute lunacy in that?
The Dems are just tearing down the Reps right now on the economy for a short term win, but in the long term we're all going to lose if Congress doesn't address the problem.
Also, just to touch on your "less beneficial to the middle class and the poor", you need to actually read the stuff that the Dems enacted and propose. It all includes flat taxes without regard for your income level. Believe it or not, Reps are actually nicer to the poor when it comes to taxes--they are just less likely to dole that tax money back out to those people. They are far less likely to balloon the deficit (I mean, the alternative of doing nothing is seriously the equivalent to driving a bus off a cliff).
You're right about two things:
It may not directly improve the economy in the short term. However, deficit spending has not been effective and there isn't another trick in the bag from anyone else right now. It's not going to hurt our economy, and their proposals have the added benefit of being good in the long term.
It helps the rich. So fucking what if it helps the rich? It helps the rest of us too, and that's all I give a damn about. Be jealous harder...
You do realize that the cuts are quite massive, and end up targetting low income individuals, right? And do you realize that the plan then goes on to give incredibly imbalanced tax cuts to the upper income brackets? It's not a serious deficit cutting plan, because the Republicans don't give a flying fuck about cutting deficits any more (or less) than Democrats. They use the excuse to stall spending bills and cockblock any meaningful legislation, because they know their goddamn do-nothing attitude isn't going to work unless they have some bullshit idea to get behind.
And yes, Democrats do have a plan, at least from Obama. You can bitch and moan about Democrats not putting it in bill form, but it is out there. You even said that he had a budget.
Also, according to your source, Dems proposed a bill that's part of the budget.
And I like your little bullshit line about flat taxes, since the only taxes they've talked about for the past year are ending Bush tax cuts and enacting the "Buffett Rule." Get your head out of your talk radio infested asshole and do try to keep up with fact based discussion. (I'm not even going to touch the bullshit about deficit spending with you).
On August 23 2012 08:36 Souma wrote: Oh also, can someone explain to me why an ultrasound should not be mandatory before an abortion?
It's not so much there being a mandatory ultrasound, it's their reasoning behind it.
They literally want you to do be forced to do it so you aren't as likely to abort the baby because you'd develop feelings.
Not any of the medical and safety reasons to do it.
I'm a pro-choice advocate, always have been and always will be, but I do not think we should dismiss such reasoning. Even if I am pro-choice I do not think abortions are necessarily a good thing, but they are just not my decision to make because I am not familiar with the woman and her situation. In that respect, isn't it pivotal for anyone who wants to have an abortion to know exactly what they are doing and who they are doing it to?
The good thing about our two-party system is that the parties keep each other humble. In regards to abortion, liberals need the conservative opposition to keep them reminded that abortion is much more than just destroying some cells. So while abortion is a woman's decision, it would be great if she fully weighed the pros and cons before having the procedure, and developing an emotional attachment can ensure that the decision is not made lightly but out of pure necessity. It would be a great tragedy if potential life was stifled because people began to develop a callous disposition towards what is regarded as a bunch of cells.
Probably one of the very few things (if not the only thing) you'll ever see me agree with social conservatives on.
While I respect that opinion, legislation like that is a last resort. There are some unwanted effects of this. Namely for rape/incest-victims being forced to relive their trauma and people with birthcomplications threatening their own life. These are a minority, I know, but it takes a special kind of cruel to treat victims of situations as criminals.
I gotta admit I'm also iffy in that regard. If any such legislation like that is passed I hope it's with an exception to that minority.
Absolutely not. It's not just the fact that some girls won't mention or will lie about the fact they are raped, we can ignore that for now, it's the fact that there are serious psychological consequences for abortions, even if it was the best possible decision for girls at that time of their lives. Girls can be depressed or worse afterwards, without ever looking at ultrasounds, this mandate just makes this whole process that much worse.
Girls/woman can be informed of their options and make informed decisions without forcing them to look at the ultrasound.
On August 23 2012 08:43 Falling wrote: Sometimes I really don't understand the roles of executive and legislative power in non-Parliamentary democracies.
What effect does the GOP approving the conservative platform on Romney's bid to become president? Does he have to adopt this platform? Is he involved in this? Or is this just a parallel set of promises from Congress/ Senate and has little to do with Romney.
They have influence, but Romney isn't the head of his party yet. The platform is set by 100+ "insiders" who consist of mostly old people. They pass what they envision their party to be, but it by no means requires anyone to follow them. It's more like guidelines than actual rules. There are Republicans who disagree with all sorts of parts of the party platform, but they're still Republicans.
Honestly, if it wasn't for the social conservatism stuff, I bet 70%+ of America would be Republican. Their economic platform is bounds ahead of the Democrat platform.
Probably more like 60%. But yea I'd say that's about right.
But the social conservatism stuff is there. It's active. It's not like they aren't acting on it. All across the states we've seen state legislatures legislate viciously against abortion in random and strange ways (because obviously they can't outright ban it). And it's not at all minor and simple to ignore. Although you and xDaunt are trying your darned hardest.
The fact is that there are plenty of corporatist and fiscally conservative democrats, but for some reason that gets ignored too. I honestly don't get it. How authoritarian do they need to be on social side before you stop supporting them? Because they're really trying to push that envelope at this point.
There are socially liberal republicans too. Though they are an endangered species these days. Both sides have grown more extreme. Republicans more so since they've been the party out of power.
Last time in power, Republicans tried (under Bush believe it or not) to be more moderate though their policies in that regard were a mixed bag.
IMO fixing gerrymandering would go a long way to make both parties more moderate and reasonable.
Really, if we changed the House to a more party vote parliamentary system, I think that would go a long way. It's not like the Congressmen in there represent their electorate these days anyways. Elections are mostly party platform contests anyways rather than the best "person" to represent a district, especially when they can be "representing" close to half a million people. You could still divide them by state still, but taking away the gerrymandering abilities would be a great way to bring more legitimacy back to our government.
On August 23 2012 08:36 Souma wrote: Oh also, can someone explain to me why an ultrasound should not be mandatory before an abortion?
It's not so much there being a mandatory ultrasound, it's their reasoning behind it.
They literally want you to do be forced to do it so you aren't as likely to abort the baby because you'd develop feelings.
Not any of the medical and safety reasons to do it.
I'm a pro-choice advocate, always have been and always will be, but I do not think we should dismiss such reasoning. Even if I am pro-choice I do not think abortions are necessarily a good thing, but they are just not my decision to make because I am not familiar with the woman and her situation. In that respect, isn't it pivotal for anyone who wants to have an abortion to know exactly what they are doing and who they are doing it to?
The good thing about our two-party system is that the parties keep each other humble. In regards to abortion, liberals need the conservative opposition to keep them reminded that abortion is much more than just destroying some cells. So while abortion is a woman's decision, it would be great if she fully weighed the pros and cons before having the procedure, and developing an emotional attachment can ensure that the decision is not made lightly but out of pure necessity. It would be a great tragedy if potential life was stifled because people began to develop a callous disposition towards what is regarded as a bunch of cells.
Probably one of the very few things (if not the only thing) you'll ever see me agree with social conservatives on.
While I respect that opinion, legislation like that is a last resort. There are some unwanted effects of this. Namely for rape/incest-victims being forced to relive their trauma and people with birthcomplications threatening their own life. These are a minority, I know, but it takes a special kind of cruel to treat victims of situations as criminals.
I gotta admit I'm also iffy in that regard. If any such legislation like that is passed I hope it's with an exception to that minority.
Absolutely not. It's not just the fact that some girls won't mention or will lie about the fact they are raped, we can ignore that for now, it's the fact that there are serious psychological consequences for abortions, even if it was the best possible decision for girls at that time of their lives. Girls can be depressed or worse afterwards, without ever looking at ultrasounds, this mandate just makes this whole process that much worse.
Girls/woman can be informed of their options and make informed decisions without forcing them to look at the ultrasound.
Abortion can be a traumatic experience, no doubt it, but I have trouble accepting that that is not worth making sure less potential lives are taken with callous disregard. I'm honestly struggling pretty hard weighing in on the matter myself. I believe one reason why it's so easy for many people to be pro-choice is because the fetus is in a womb and not out in plain sight. It's so much easier to kill something when you don't have to watch it die (I'm a baby, I can't even kill a cockroach). It's like imagine the number of people who would stop using makeup if they had to watch a graphic video on animal experimentation. But alas, abortion, much like animal experimentation, is for the benefit of the people.
On August 23 2012 08:36 Souma wrote: Oh also, can someone explain to me why an ultrasound should not be mandatory before an abortion?
It's not so much there being a mandatory ultrasound, it's their reasoning behind it.
They literally want you to do be forced to do it so you aren't as likely to abort the baby because you'd develop feelings.
Not any of the medical and safety reasons to do it.
I'm a pro-choice advocate, always have been and always will be, but I do not think we should dismiss such reasoning. Even if I am pro-choice I do not think abortions are necessarily a good thing, but they are just not my decision to make because I am not familiar with the woman and her situation. In that respect, isn't it pivotal for anyone who wants to have an abortion to know exactly what they are doing and who they are doing it to?
The good thing about our two-party system is that the parties keep each other humble. In regards to abortion, liberals need the conservative opposition to keep them reminded that abortion is much more than just destroying some cells. So while abortion is a woman's decision, it would be great if she fully weighed the pros and cons before having the procedure, and developing an emotional attachment can ensure that the decision is not made lightly but out of pure necessity. It would be a great tragedy if potential life was stifled because people began to develop a callous disposition towards what is regarded as a bunch of cells.
Probably one of the very few things (if not the only thing) you'll ever see me agree with social conservatives on.
While I respect that opinion, legislation like that is a last resort. There are some unwanted effects of this. Namely for rape/incest-victims being forced to relive their trauma and people with birthcomplications threatening their own life. These are a minority, I know, but it takes a special kind of cruel to treat victims of situations as criminals.
I gotta admit I'm also iffy in that regard. If any such legislation like that is passed I hope it's with an exception to that minority.
Absolutely not. It's not just the fact that some girls won't mention or will lie about the fact they are raped, we can ignore that for now, it's the fact that there are serious psychological consequences for abortions, even if it was the best possible decision for girls at that time of their lives. Girls can be depressed or worse afterwards, without ever looking at ultrasounds, this mandate just makes this whole process that much worse.
Girls/woman can be informed of their options and make informed decisions without forcing them to look at the ultrasound.
Abortion can be a traumatic experience, no doubt it, but I have trouble accepting that that is not worth making sure less potential lives are taken with callous disregard. I'm honestly struggling pretty hard weighing in on the matter myself. I believe one reason why it's so easy for many people to be pro-choice is because the fetus is in a womb and not out in plain sight. It's so much easier to kill something when you don't have to watch it die (I'm a baby, I can't even kill a cockroach). It's like imagine the number of people who would stop using makeup if they had to watch a graphic video on animal experimentation. But alas, abortion, much like animal experimentation, is for the benefit of the people.
Fucked up world we live in, gentlemen.
There is a point where it becomes too late to do the abortion The magic line where the parasite becomes a life and gains rights and protections. For me its the first trimester, for others it's somewhere else, for some it's at conception(meaning some forms of birth control would be illegal). Before that magic line, It's just not my place too tell a woman what to do or what too look at.
Im a vegan so I don't really understand why people use makeup tested on animals, or eat animals for that matter, and don't see the connection.
Velr, if the trauma is just a social problem, then let's hope it goes the fuck away soon. Too many people have been damaged by it and it's disgusting.
Romney relased some details on his energy policy, no surprises:
-Increased offshore drilling -Shifting powers to the states (can't wait to see what AZ will do with that lol- joking aside mountaintop removal in WV) -Sounds like more public land to be sold off (see: Tim DeChristopher ) -No plans for renewable sources (wind, solar, etc) -Subsidies for oil companies which don't need them, no funding for alternative fuels- sink or swim on their own
On August 20 2012 21:03 paralleluniverse wrote: I'm definitely not opposed to redirecting "poor quality government spending" to better uses. You say that this is the main thing you're advocating for, but it's not obvious from any of your writings that that's your view. The standard Republican view is to gut all spending (apart from tax cuts to the rich, of course).
The "making stuff up" comment was directed at your factoid that stimulus is ineffective when debt is high. I can't accuse you of making stuff up now that you have given a source (probably the most random and no-name source that's been linked this thread). However, I still don't agree with the content in your link.
If it seems random and no-name it was mentioned on CNBC a few weeks back (randomly) and so I took a look at it then. It is also reflective of the views and opinions of quite a few guests they have had on the channel over the last couple years. It is not wise to ignore what market participants are telling you. Plenty are saying that the high level of government debt and deficits are leading to less investment - that's not a good thing and it needs to be noted.
Now, while you're source is quite no-name, it does cite some more reputable studies (in the "Recent Academic Evidence" section) to come to the view quoted above, that being Reinhart, Reinhart, Rogoff. But your source has misinterpreted the finding of this paper, which is that recessions caused by debt overhangs are long, and that high debt (the magical 90% number) is correlated with slow economic growth.
It even calls it a "corollary", because it's the implication they drew from the evidence. But it does not follow from the Reinhart, Reinhart, Rogoff paper that was cited, that even higher debt, in the form of stimulus, will cause even slower economic growth. This Hoisington paper confuses correlation with causation. The original source says that prolonged levels of high debt is correlated with slow economic growth.
They are not arguing that stimulus is causing slow growth. The argument is that government stimulus is far less effective following a debt overhang than normal and that high levels of government debt (in general) leads to slower growth. Because of that higher and higher levels of stimulus will not lead to added growth (or very little of it) because the added growth from stimulus will be offset by the private sector reacting negatively towards it.
We know that excessive debt is an issue for both households and businesses and leads to lower economic growth. Now, government debt is a bit different but not exceedingly so. Ultimately the cost of that debt will be paid for by households and businesses through higher taxes or lower government spending or a prolonged period of negative real rates. So it is not a huge leap in logic to say that a huge pile of government debt will have a similar impact as private debt.
Maybe the 90% number isn't a good number. But according to usgovernmentspending.com we'll be at 122% of GDP this year. To a lot of people in the economy that's a scary number, and because of that many have already pared back their spending and investment plans... which has slowed growth.
But, let's see what Reinhart and Rogoff actually have to say about stimulus:
The U.S. must reduce its debt or suffer economic stagnation, they said in interviews with McClatchy, but in the short term they also favor more government stimulus to boost the economy, even if that raises the debt a bit more.
"We may need another stimulus bill just to decompress from the previous one, a smaller one to cushion the landing," said Kenneth Rogoff, a Harvard University economist and a co-author of the book.
Added his fellow co-author, Carmen Reinhart, a University of Maryland economist: "I'm not one of those deficit hawks. ... I'm not saying you run out and pull the plug and have an adjustment that could derail what fragile recovery we do have."
However, she cautioned, "the whole thing that we can disregard debt because we're the U.S. is really grasping at straws. Taxpayers need to understand the tradeoff, and that is, we're going to be paying for this in terms of lower growth in the future."
As for Reinhart, I asked her about this for a retrospective I did on the Obama administration’s economic policy. “The initial policy of monetary and fiscal stimulus really made a huge difference,” she told me. “I would tattoo that on my forehead. The output decline we had was peanuts compared to the output decline we would otherwise have had in a crisis like this. That isn’t fully appreciated.”
This seems to be a very reasonable economic position: stimulus now, cut spending later. In fact, it's pretty much the position of Barrack Obama. Note that the first link is from 2010, these days I believe Rogoff has become a typical "cut everything, now, now, now!!" Republican.
Sure they praise the stimulus back during the recession and at first into the recovery. But that was years ago. We're now talking about continued stimulus, and even added stimulus years after growth resumed and government debt has piled up to higher levels. We're getting to the point where perpetual stimulus is being called for as has happened in Japan over the past few decades.
I think Obama's plan is to spend more now, and cut more later. He wants additional stimulus like the American Jobs Act. I don't think the cost of new stimulus like that is worth the benefits. We might get a bit more growth now, but it will just set us up for a new fiscal cliff in the future and then need a new stimulus plan to offset it.
Now, maybe additional stimulus is the best plan out there. But there's no 100% certainty to that. There's a risk that the added stimulus won't be very effective and will just make the future more painful. In light of that risk the prudent thing to do is redirect the garbage spending.
They are arguing that when there's high debt (for the record: Bush's fault), then stimulus, which increases debt would "perpetuate the period of slow economic growth". And this is a misinterpretation of the cited work of Reinhart, Reinhart and Rogoff, which finds that high debt is correlated with slow growth. This does not imply that even higher debt will cause even slower growth. In fact, where in the Reinhart, Reinhart and Rogoff paper does it say that stimulus is bad when debt is high? It doesn't. It's a invalid inference made my this no-name paper. It fails to understand the most simplistic mantra of statistical inference: correlation does not imply causation.
In the very last paragraph of the Reinhart, Reinhart and Rogoff paper it says:
Finally, this paper should not be interpreted as a manifesto for rapid public debt deleveraging in an environment of extremely weak growth and high unemployment. However, our read of the evidence certainly casts doubt on the view that soaring government debt is a non-issue simply because markets are presently happy to absorb it.
Why was this statement ignored? The finding that high debt is correlated with low growth doesn't imply that even higher debt will cause even lower growth. If the government doesn't spend, then who will? Why would the private sector spend when there is a lack of aggregate demand?
I generally don't dispute that in the long run, high debt is bad for growth. High government debt isn't cost-free. But this is a correlation, it can run both ways, maybe low growth causes high debt. In the short run, trying to cut government spending now would be doing exactly what Reinhart, Reinhart and Rogoff cautions us to not do. The idea that when government spending is cut, people would be inspired by the confidence fairy to spend more is exactly the flawed logic behind Europe's disastrous austerity. Cutting spending in a recession further depresses the economy, making it even harder to pay down government debt in the long run. Having high debt is not a sustainable long run policy, but in the short run, it is self-defeating to make the recession worse by cutting spending which makes the debt problem worse.
Also, that quote from Reinhart in the Washington Times, essentially saying that stimulus saved the economy, wasn't from many years ago. It's from November 2011, which is quite recent. Where does she say that stimulus is a waste of money?
The fact that people are somehow spooked out of investing my high government debt is laughable. Government debt should only factor into investment decisions to the extend that rational agents anticipate higher future taxes because the government would need to pay down the debt later. The argument that this stops stimulus from working is known as Ricardian Equivalence. Krugman got into a long debate with Chicago economists on why this is completely wrong: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/26/a-note-on-the-ricardian-equivalence-argument-against-stimulus-slightly-wonkish/
They've since backed down from the claim.
Rogoff argued for a stimulus going into and during the recession. But Rogoff also argued that after the recession (where we are now) more prudence was in order.
As it becomes increasingly evident that the recovery will remain subdued in Europe and the US, there is a growing chorus for indefinitely sustaining aggressive post-crisis fiscal stimulus. Governments that instead propose gradually reducing deficits and ultimately stabilising debt to income levels - such as both Germany and the UK - are accused of pig-headed fiscal conservatism. Had they only a better grasp of Keynesian truisms, we are told, these countries' leaders would realise that their penury risks throwing already weak economies into double-dip recessions, or even a sustained depression. There is no question that huge uncertainty hangs over the global economy, but is the case against commonsense fiscal conservatism so compelling? I don't see it.
As to the Krugman article - yes, buying a home on credit will result in a large net increase in spending. But in following years spending will be lessened due to repaying the mortgage.
In policy terms, yes, deficit spending can boost overall spending but the after affect is sluggish growth. Just as the mortgage results in a crimp in household spending, the government debt acts as a drag on growth. If the response to the sluggish growth is more debt then the consequence will repeat itself - more debt, less growth, leading to more debt and continued sluggish growth. That's the story of Japan over the past 30 years as government debt climbed from 60% of GDP to 230%.
Moreover, what if we consider bad debt? If a bank lends out money to finance a home purchase and sees that the homeowner is having difficulty paying it back then the bank will increase its loan loss reserves and curtail new lending.
Similarly if people see government spending as inefficient or unsustainable it will result in them curtailing their own lending, spending and investment. It may not be $1 for $1, but it will be more than nothing.
Did the Bush tax cuts and resulting deficits result in a prosperous decade? Certainly not. The tax cuts may have helped stabilize the economy following the recession but it didn't make the economy very robust afterwards. Why? Were the tax cuts just not big enough? Yeah, that's the ticket...
Now you've changed the subject from whether fiscal stimulus is effective when government has high debt to the cost of fiscal stimulus.
The idea that people would withhold a small portion of spending due to anticipated future tax increases that is needed to pay off the debt incurred with fiscal stimulus is highly unrealistic. But even if we stick to the model, and assume this is true, you're assertion that people will spend less in the future because of this doesn't mean that fiscal stimulus is a bad idea.
You're comparing 2 scenarios: (a) reduced future spending due to stimulus with (b) no reduction in future spending due to not doing stimulus. Then you conclude that (b) is better than (a), therefore stimulus is bad. But this only shows that fiscal stimulus is useless in normal times (which it is), it completely misses the point. The alternative to (a) isn't (b). In the absence of stimulus, in a recession, (b) will not happen, future spending will decrease due to the collapse of aggregate demand as part of the recession. Here, (b) does not describe a recession absent stimulus, it describes an economy in normal times absent stimulus. Therefore, your analysis does not apply in the current economic environment. The two choices are more like: (a) reduced future spending due to stimulus and (b) even more reduced future spending and prolonged recession due to not doing stimulus.
We are neither in normal times nor recessionary times. We're in between. I don't deny that a stimulus can help during a recession - though the one we had wasn't particularly effective - but we are not in a recession anymore.
That's not to say that if we look at the economy as a whole things are fine and dandy - they certainly are not. But economic misery is not evenly spread out. Sure, California with a 10.7% unemployment rate could use a stimulus, but certainly not North Dakota with a 3% unemployment rate. Yet the ARRA continues to pour money into North Dakota and any new stimulus bill will do the same. The disparity isn't just regional either. Some industries, such as natural gas drilling, are doing phenomenally well while other industries, such as new home construction, continue to languish.
Yet the reality of any current or planned stimulus is that it will blanket the economy. Stimulus is like a sledgehammer. If during a recession it is the only tool you have then by all means use it. But once the recession ends the sledgehammer should be returned to the tool shed and more precise tools need to be employed.
But I thought you were for well-designed stimulus?
Now you're just looking for every petty excuse to say no to stimulus.
The US is technically not in a recession, but this is just a matter of semantics. Unemployment is high, inflation is low, GDP is far below potential, treasury yields are low, tax revenue is down, the Fed's rate is at the zero lower bound, etc, these are the situations in which stimulus is most effective. Going back to the example, the updated choices of (a) and (b) apply to the current situation, where a lack of action will prolong this period of high unemployment, subpar GDP growth, low inflation, and falling tax revenue, all of which make the debt problem worse. Low employment, at potential GDP growth, higher inflation, increasing tax revenue -- all of these things make the debt problem better.
Fiscal stimulus is a sledgehammer? What? Fiscal stimulus can be as precise and well-targeted as you want. North Dakota has low unemployment -- fine, don't give them stimulus. In fact, there's absolutely no reason why a stimulus package can't take money away from North Dakota and shift it to Nevada. 34 states have unemployment greater or equal to 7%. Also, saying that North Dakota has 3% unemployment because ARRA money keeps pouring into it is a (clearly accidental) admission that stimulus works.
On August 23 2012 08:36 Souma wrote: Oh also, can someone explain to me why an ultrasound should not be mandatory before an abortion?
It's not so much there being a mandatory ultrasound, it's their reasoning behind it.
They literally want you to do be forced to do it so you aren't as likely to abort the baby because you'd develop feelings.
Not any of the medical and safety reasons to do it.
I'm a pro-choice advocate, always have been and always will be, but I do not think we should dismiss such reasoning. Even if I am pro-choice I do not think abortions are necessarily a good thing, but they are just not my decision to make because I am not familiar with the woman and her situation. In that respect, isn't it pivotal for anyone who wants to have an abortion to know exactly what they are doing and who they are doing it to?
The good thing about our two-party system is that the parties keep each other humble. In regards to abortion, liberals need the conservative opposition to keep them reminded that abortion is much more than just destroying some cells. So while abortion is a woman's decision, it would be great if she fully weighed the pros and cons before having the procedure, and developing an emotional attachment can ensure that the decision is not made lightly but out of pure necessity. It would be a great tragedy if potential life was stifled because people began to develop a callous disposition towards what is regarded as a bunch of cells.
Probably one of the very few things (if not the only thing) you'll ever see me agree with social conservatives on.
I'm sorry but this is just nonsense. A multiparty system offers the same degree of "humbleness" and also allows for more view than two on issues. In this case you could have the no-abortion, the abortion-if-raped/dying and the always-abortion-ok camps all available to the voters at the same time.
That said I fail to see how making the mother feel even worse about her abortion is going to help anything. It will just force a lot of very unnecessary psychological strain on the woman. I really do get the "war on women" the republicans get accused of because for all intents and purposes that is what they are on about. Indirectly and discreetly domesticating the woman through the traditional role, limiting her options. I wouldn't really care too much if it wasn't for the fact that they don't admit this will have any negative effects for women bearing unwanted children, or in this case, forcing them to bear additional emotional strain. They're either completely ignorant or knowingly manipulative of the issue.
I should have clarified. I didn't mean I preferred to have two parties as opposed to three or more, just meant I preferred to have parties period, as opposed to just one.
In any case, any additional emotional strain brought forth by having an ultrasound is not necessarily unnecessary, but rather a reassurance that potential life is not carelessly erased. No matter how much we toss around the rhetoric that during the first trimester the fetus is just a clump of cells, our conscience tells us otherwise. I am pro-choice, but I rather not see that choice abused. If this is really too much then I would at least like to see high school students educated in the matters of abortion and shown a clip of the procedure during sex education classes (sex ed classes are generally horrendously graphic and the perfect environment for it).
EPT
