Honest Political Question

[garlic_b]

It's quite analogous to obesity and weight loss.

If you eat a lot and don't exercise you get fat. I.e., If your caloric intake is greater than your caloric output, you gain weight.

Consequently if you spend a lot of money but have low income, then you will go further into debt.

The only way to overcome this is to first cut spending. That is paramount. If you cut taxes first, it's comparable to taking a lower paying job but still spending at the same rate.

If you cut taxes without cutting spending you actually make things worse. Which is where we are now. Tax cuts in the 2000-2008 period were paired with increased spending.

There is only one solution.

We have to make income (tax revenue) greater than expenditures (various entitlements and programs.)

That said, which programs should we cut, and whose taxes should we raise? That is the hard question that politicians need to answer. Republicans don't want to raise taxes on the rich or corporations or cut spending on their big ticket items. Democrats don't want to raise taxes on the lower and middle class or cut spending on their big ticket items.

Nobody wants to make short term hard choices that will cause hard times in exchange for long term financial solvency, mostly because it's political suicide. Can you imagine Republicans cutting defense spending in half? Or Democrats cutting welfare/social security or any number of other programs?

And the biggest ticket item that can be cut is defense. Not all defense, but there is quite a bit of fat that can be trimmed. We need to be cold calculating and utterly merciless when it comes to cutting unnecessary spending in defense.

First: Eliminate the desire for politicians to be concerned with their reelection. (Universal Term Limits)

Second: Actually find ways to prevent corporations from avoiding to pay US taxes. Sure they're tax rate is something >30%, but that's only if they actually pay any taxes at all! Why can they hide from US taxes by using international subsidiaries, but as an individual living and working abroad I get taxed twice. Once by host country. Once by the US?

Third: Take a long, hard and cold merciless look on what services are really needed. If it's not needed, it gets cut. Period.


So let's hear your ideas! Which of your favorite pet programs would you cut? Not the other sides programs, but your own?

 

[Blue Tile Spook]

And again you prove my earlier statement regarding how much Austrian economics you've actually read. This is one of the earliest points made in any general Austrian text, and is usually covered by about the third chapter. To save you the effort of doing any actual work, I shall endeavor to summarize:

Voluntary exchange is a positive-sum activity. I trade $20 for a box of ammo. I am enriched because I necessarily value the ammo more than I value the $20, and the store is enriched because it values the $20 more than it values the ammo. If either one of us valued what we traded away equal to or higher than what we received, no exchange would have taken place; since an exchange has taken place, by definition we have gained what we value more in exchange for what we value less. Wealth has been increased all around, and because of the nature of human action, it has been maximized.

If, before I can go to the store, some thug accosts me and takes my $20, my wealth has been decreased not only by the value of the $20, but also by the difference in value between the $20 and the box of ammo. It matters not the nature of the thug nor what he does with the money; wealth has been destroyed and rights violated. It doesn't matter if the thug goes out and gives the money to the poor, or even if he buys something on my behalf and gives it to me; I have lost the value of my wealth.

Value systems between individuals are heterogeneous, so they can't really be compared in a quantitative sense. The best that can be said is that the thug cannot value my $20 as much as I do, else he would have exchanged labor in voluntary trade to earn it as I did, rather than violating my rights to that which I have earned.

Similarly government, by the very nature of taxation, admits its own illegitimacy. If it offered something people valued, there would be no need to forcibly extract taxes from them to pay for it -- people will voluntarily purchase what they value. If it valued the money it confiscates as much as the people who earned it value that same money, government would earn it the way they do: by exchanging value for value in voluntary trade. Since government by its own tacit admission has nothing of value to offer, anything it endeavors to do destroys wealth by definition.

There are those here who have stated repeatedly that there are things they would gladly pay taxes to have, but they miss the point that if they would voluntarily pay for it, it's not a tax. The only morally legitimate source of funding for government is voluntary donation, or purchase of services rendered. Give everyone a 0% tax rate, and ask who's willing to donate to fund a military, and I guarantee you that there would be a lot of people around here who would step forward, checkbook in hand. Go down the list of "services" provided by the government in the same fashion, and you would quickly find out what people actually value and what they don't. You would also find just how much faith they place in government, as many would undoubtedly purchase the things they value from other vendors.

Unfortunately, you are asserting that very thing, and do not realize it, though you are correct in agreeing that destruction doesn't add value. You speak of money supply and interest rates, but fail to understand that inflation is destruction of wealth in the form of savings, and interest rate manipulation is destruction of wealth through the creation of shortages via price controls. You laud Obama's stimulus package without comprehending the massive destruction of existing savings that accompanies it, or the destruction and disincentivizing of future savings that must surely follow an effectively negative interest rate. You fail to grasp that the stimulus package (and its predecessor TARP) were deemed necessary because the credit shortages they are designed to alleviate were created by the price controls in the previous batch of interventions, which were deemed necessary because of the disastrous effects of the interventions before them, and so on.

Each intervention eventually necessitates an even greater intervention to fix its unintended consequences. Unfortunately, we have just hit the "Zero Wall" with the interest rate, and are attempting to push past it, but reality is beginning to assert itself. What has people up in arms is the fact that they realize, intuitively for the most part, that there is nowhere to go from here. When the consequences of this intervention create the need for the next intervention (and they will), we could very well have no choice but to suffer the enormous pain that has been delayed and piled up over decades of boom/bust cycles perpetrated by all of these interventions. If Obama were any kind of true leader, he'd be letting the house of cards fall apart now rather than desperately trying to pile one more layer onto it.

Awesome post, said very succinctly.

 

[evansvillethompsongunner]

With all due respect, who says it should be EVERYONE who pays taxes?

I agree, taxation should be fair - why not proportionate?

I don't have children who attend public school.
I once WAS a child who attended public school, so how about cutting me a bill for my portion of the costs and let's be on our merry way? What about those who privately - or personally - instruct their children, having put no burden on the school system, who are then expected to pay into the system simply because everyone else is getting shafted, so they're going to shaft those parents as well?

I'm all for equality of taxation: none of it should be paid by anyone for anything. NOTHING should be mandated. If there is a burden or usage or consumption of a good, I'm sure private collective enterprises would spring up to fill the gap left by ineffectually-starved government. Highways would still be built and maintained - but we wouldn't be paying government, and it wouldn't be mandatory. If you use the highway, or plan to do, chip in. If you don't, you can't use the highway. If you do, you may use the highway as you helped to build it. I'm not talking socialism, either. I'm talking about efficient use of capitalism to achieve some serious goals. Privatize everything. Hell, if you WANT the local sewage system to run under your house, chip in and the company in that town whom everyone with sewage systems have elected to let build it will make sure that it runs under your home. Or don't, you can crap in buckets and toss it on your garden.

But this whole 'WE'RE GOING TO STEAL FROM YOU REGARDLESS OF WHETHER YOU LIKE IT AND REGARDLESS OF WHETHER YOU CONSUME AS MANY RESOURCES AS THE NEXT SCHMUCK AND REGARDLESS OF OUR LEGITIMACY IN TAKING YOUR MONEY, YOU'RE GOING TO PAY US' philosophy is for the birds, man. I resent heavily the notion that my money is used to pay for things which I do not use - that which I do, awesome, more than happy to chip in and cover the cost of my usage of a publicly-maintained service. I personally like modern sewage systems, although there is something to be said for septic tanks and lawn fertilizer, and I like having smooth roads for my thirty-three year old car.

So, send me a bill for my consumption of 12 years in the public school system and a yearly bill for sewage construction and usage and highway construction, maintenance, and usage, and otherwise government can keep its goddamned hand out of my pocket... enumerated power notwithstanding.

To hell with FICA, to hell with income tax, to hell with all of it.

"And, Mr. Speaker, if the Governor and Council don't see fit to fall in with us, I say let the general duty law, and all, go to the devil, sir, and go about our business." - Brig. Gen. Christopher Gadsden

 

[BloodEclipse]

With all due respect, who says it should be EVERYONE who pays taxes?

I agree, taxation should be fair - why not proportionate?

I don't have children who attend public school.
I once WAS a child who attended public school, so how about cutting me a bill for my portion of the costs and let's be on our merry way? What about those who privately - or personally - instruct their children, having put no burden on the school system, who are then expected to pay into the system simply because everyone else is getting shafted, so they're going to shaft those parents as well?

I'm all for equality of taxation: none of it should be paid by anyone for anything. NOTHING should be mandated. If there is a burden or usage or consumption of a good, I'm sure private collective enterprises would spring up to fill the gap left by ineffectually-starved government. Highways would still be built and maintained - but we wouldn't be paying government, and it wouldn't be mandatory. If you use the highway, or plan to do, chip in. If you don't, you can't use the highway. If you do, you may use the highway as you helped to build it. I'm not talking socialism, either. I'm talking about efficient use of capitalism to achieve some serious goals. Privatize everything. Hell, if you WANT the local sewage system to run under your house, chip in and the company in that town whom everyone with sewage systems have elected to let build it will make sure that it runs under your home. Or don't, you can crap in buckets and toss it on your garden.

But this whole 'WE'RE GOING TO STEAL FROM YOU REGARDLESS OF WHETHER YOU LIKE IT AND REGARDLESS OF WHETHER YOU CONSUME AS MANY RESOURCES AS THE NEXT SCHMUCK AND REGARDLESS OF OUR LEGITIMACY IN TAKING YOUR MONEY, YOU'RE GOING TO PAY US' philosophy is for the birds, man. I resent heavily the notion that my money is used to pay for things which I do not use - that which I do, awesome, more than happy to chip in and cover the cost of my usage of a publicly-maintained service. I personally like modern sewage systems, although there is something to be said for septic tanks and lawn fertilizer, and I like having smooth roads for my thirty-three year old car.

So, send me a bill for my consumption of 12 years in the public school system and a yearly bill for sewage construction and usage and highway construction, maintenance, and usage, and otherwise government can keep its goddamned hand out of my pocket... enumerated power notwithstanding.

To hell with FICA, to hell with income tax, to hell with all of it.

"And, Mr. Speaker, if the Governor and Council don't see fit to fall in with us, I say let the general duty law, and all, go to the devil, sir, and go about our business." - Brig. Gen. Christopher Gadsden

You won't get an argument from me. The problem with our current system is many of us end up paying for every program/service conceived by government but are not allowed to access those programs/services because we earn too much money. On the other hand we have many who end up getting money back that they never paid in and using all of the programs/services available.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

It is very much their personal intervention. They want to control every aspect of our lives. The only time they want to make us intervene is to open our wallets. The only input they want from us is to open our wallets. Only they are capable of anything else.

Yes, they want to control, but the do that by forcing you to expend and thereby reduce your resources while growing or at least keeping their own intact. Ultimately, all power eminates from money (or pictures of someone wearing a diaper in a closet with a hooker, but I digress). You can't have power without money.

 

[JetGirl]

And again you prove my earlier statement regarding how much Austrian economics you've actually read. This is one of the earliest points made in any general Austrian text, and is usually covered by about the third chapter. To save you the effort of doing any actual work, I shall endeavor to summarize:

Voluntary exchange is a positive-sum activity. I trade $20 for a box of ammo. I am enriched because I necessarily value the ammo more than I value the $20, and the store is enriched because it values the $20 more than it values the ammo. If either one of us valued what we traded away equal to or higher than what we received, no exchange would have taken place; since an exchange has taken place, by definition we have gained what we value more in exchange for what we value less. Wealth has been increased all around, and because of the nature of human action, it has been maximized.

If, before I can go to the store, some thug accosts me and takes my $20, my wealth has been decreased not only by the value of the $20, but also by the difference in value between the $20 and the box of ammo. It matters not the nature of the thug nor what he does with the money; wealth has been destroyed and rights violated. It doesn't matter if the thug goes out and gives the money to the poor, or even if he buys something on my behalf and gives it to me; I have lost the value of my wealth.

Value systems between individuals are heterogeneous, so they can't really be compared in a quantitative sense. The best that can be said is that the thug cannot value my $20 as much as I do, else he would have exchanged labor in voluntary trade to earn it as I did, rather than violating my rights to that which I have earned.

Similarly government, by the very nature of taxation, admits its own illegitimacy. If it offered something people valued, there would be no need to forcibly extract taxes from them to pay for it -- people will voluntarily purchase what they value. If it valued the money it confiscates as much as the people who earned it value that same money, government would earn it the way they do: by exchanging value for value in voluntary trade. Since government by its own tacit admission has nothing of value to offer, anything it endeavors to do destroys wealth by definition.

There are those here who have stated repeatedly that there are things they would gladly pay taxes to have, but they miss the point that if they would voluntarily pay for it, it's not a tax. The only morally legitimate source of funding for government is voluntary donation, or purchase of services rendered. Give everyone a 0% tax rate, and ask who's willing to donate to fund a military, and I guarantee you that there would be a lot of people around here who would step forward, checkbook in hand. Go down the list of "services" provided by the government in the same fashion, and you would quickly find out what people actually value and what they don't. You would also find just how much faith they place in government, as many would undoubtedly purchase the things they value from other vendors.

I lurve this post ^ so hard...I want to marry it and have like ten thousand of its babies.

 

[BloodEclipse]

I lurve this post ^ so hard...I want to marry it and have like ten thousand of its babies.

I wonder what they would look like?

 

[JetGirl]

I wonder what they would look like?

Looks?? Dunno.

Sounds?? Probably something like "Bow chicka bow bow wicka bow baaaow"

 

[Jaklee]

Zphique,

A very good question. As I will presume you have already guessed there can be no single answer to this question. Rather, it will take a multitude of measures that will improve our nations fiscal health.

Let's start w/ a simple one: Cut the tax on corporations to about 10% to 15%. Right now corporate profits are taxed up to 35%. By cutting this tax it will give companies an incentive to grow here and to build here. This will stimulate all other areas of the economy by reducing unemployment and creating jobs. Workers can then be moved from unemployment to being taxed and adding to our revenue stream.

#2) Get the federal govt on the track of not spending more money than we bring in. I would ask for five (5) years. This would give everyone a chance to adjust to the concept of tightening the belt.

#3) Phase out the sale of Treasury Bonds. These are debts that we must pay on in future years. It would be relatively easy to cut their sale by 5% per year (from the currant year) so that in 20 years we are selling zero (0) debt instruments. Then, w/ 30 year bonds we would be totally debt free in this area in 50 years. Not right around the corner but doable in our childrens lifetime.

#4) Completely privatize Social Security. This would help many poorer families and minorities break the cycle of poverty. Right now an employee could work their entire life, retire, and two (2) monthes later die. Benefits are marginal. As blacks and other minorities have shorter live expectancies this affects them more. If on the other hand they owned their savings this would allow hundreds of thousands of dollars to be inherited by survivors, giving them opportunities at higher education. Would everyone do this? Of course not. But there would be a percentage who would and this would help transition some families from marginal living to a middle and/or upper middle class lifestyle.

#5) Simplify the tax code - FOR REAL! I don't care if you go w/ a flat tax, Fair Tax, or whatever else is available. The simpler the code the easier it will be to collect and not allow for payoffs politically. This would give us a better ability to collect everyone's fair amount and keep people from taking advantage of loopholes or dodging their debt load.

#6) Education, education, education! Start informing people what our debt is and why it is bad! Try to speak at local schools to young people. This is the one area I am a communist! The better informed the public at all levels the better decisions we will be able to make.

#7) Initiate some significant free market reforms into the health care system. Our health care costs have been skyrocketing and President Obama was right to address this. He did not, however, do a damn thing to address costs! Do you think we would be complaining if an MRI was $250? Or a hip replacement was $3000? What about a broken bone for $1500? I don't think so! The United States has the best health care in the world, the problem with it is cost. It is too expensive to access health care. Chronic diseases would still cause a problem but would be more manageable with some free market reforms. By the way, these could be done on top of the current Federal health care bill. Or EVEN by the State of Indiana!

#8) Initiate massive cuts in military spending. We don't need hundreds of bases all over the world! They are nice and make things easy, but are unnecessary to maintain over decades of time. Also, start giving congress grief for not putting a choke hold on the executive branch! They declare war on everything with no way to win. I think we still have a war on obesity! How do we win that? What do we need? 500 fat people to march on Washington to discuss terms of surrender? What about our war on poverty? Could a poor person go to Washington and say, "I've got a job now and am doing well, thank you. I wish to surrender and discuss terms. You've won. I'm not poor anymore."
Sorry, minor rant there...

#9) When we run a surplus we could always discuss early payoffs with large debt holders. Say we owe Great Britain $100 Billion in treasury bonds, on which we will bay $100 Billion in interest payments over the next 30 years. Well, if we come up with an extra $10 Billion we could offer them $10 Billion today for them to agree to wipe $15 or $20 Billion in current debt. You wouldn't want to do this with deficit spending, but with excess revenue.

#10) Start electing people who want to deal with the problem and won't be part OF the problem.

Just a few thoughts off the top of my head. I'm certain others will come up with fine ideas as well. It is not the ideas that matter, but getting elected officials to act on them that really matters.

Regards,

Doug

I'm very impressed! Well said.

 

[tuoder]

FAIR WARNING: TEXTWALL

Borrow money from the Chinese, hand it out to reward those who voted for you. Stimulus money going to shovel ready() projects in favored districts sounds more like vote buying than it does stimulus.

If we're going to have a spending program, there should be a tax, and if there's going to be a tax cut, there should be a spending cut.

Sure and they suck at it. Look at the track record.

On this we disagree.



I'm sorry if you don't think you've had any help from the government in getting to where you are today.

When I act on my own interest and fail, I'm more than happy to accept the consequences. It is my responsibility to do so. But I have a real problem with those who believe I'm too stupid to know what's best for me. IE social security. I'm told I'm too stupid and irresponsible to be responsible for my future retirement so they create a great new program to take care of me in my golden years. They risk my money on this program, not their own. Then they squander my money and leave me holding the bag and accept no responsibility for it. Their answer? Well, we had good intentions.

Well I'm smart enought o know that the .gov f's up everything it touches and I won't receive a dime in social security. My solution? I get to pay for my retirement twice. The money the .gov confiscates from me by force and my private retirement savings. Do you know what the icing on the cake is? I know they will further confiscate my "profits" from my private savings to hand out to the douches who relied on social security. Wouldn't want them to have to choose between buying food or medicine!

It isn't about being too stupid to handle it yourself, it's risk aggregation. Social Security shouldn't be your whole retirement, but if you're willing to be quite poor, it will save you from homelessness. Now for most people, this won't be an issue, but a small amount of guaranteed income will add some stability to anyone's retirement plan.

The money you pay into Social Security isn't squandered, it's used to pay for the disabled's living expenses, to string people along between jobs, to feed families that have trouble making ends meet, and to help pay for the very poor's health insurance. I hardly think that's wasted.

Now, there is real overhead in the system, but efficiency isn't bad. Medicare's overhead is 3%. Private insurance's average is 18%.

An unanticipated issue with Social Security is that there are far more old people, as a percentage of the population, than ever before. So now there are far fewer workers per retiree. There are going to have to be spending cuts and or/tax increases to maintain this system. IRAs should help close the gap. But, if you're against social security, I suppose this is a good thing, since it will have to result in a de facto shrinking of the program.

Tuoder,

What kind of elitist "I am god" complex do liberals suffer from that they believe without their own personal intervention in others lives they will starve to death? I find the idea that one person must control another to save them is just as morally repugnant as slavery. What makes a liberal more qualified to know how to live my life better than I do?

It's not about knowledge, it's about ability. Some people are simply unable to save themselves, and while private charity has always done a lot, it cannot do the job alone. Nobody is trying to enslave everyone. These programs are an attempt to free people from the tyranny of circumstance. Now, if your circumstances are good, it's easy to think this doesn't benefit you. It does, not only because you can't know what will happen to you in the future, although I'm sure you've made plans, and also that it encourages economic growth and personal independence for those who benefit.

And again you prove my earlier statement regarding how much Austrian economics you've actually read. This is one of the earliest points made in any general Austrian text, and is usually covered by about the third chapter. To save you the effort of doing any actual work, I shall endeavor to summarize:

Voluntary exchange is a positive-sum activity. I trade $20 for a box of ammo. I am enriched because I necessarily value the ammo more than I value the $20, and the store is enriched because it values the $20 more than it values the ammo. If either one of us valued what we traded away equal to or higher than what we received, no exchange would have taken place; since an exchange has taken place, by definition we have gained what we value more in exchange for what we value less. Wealth has been increased all around, and because of the nature of human action, it has been maximized.

Oh come now. You don't think you have to explain voluntary exchange to me, do you?

If, before I can go to the store, some thug accosts me and takes my $20, my wealth has been decreased not only by the value of the $20, but also by the difference in value between the $20 and the box of ammo. It matters not the nature of the thug nor what he does with the money; wealth has been destroyed and rights violated. It doesn't matter if the thug goes out and gives the money to the poor, or even if he buys something on my behalf and gives it to me; I have lost the value of my wealth.

The loss of opportunity cost to the one who is stolen from is pretty clear in the case of a theft. You've still got to compare the value of the opportunity lost to the one stolen from to the value of the opportunity cost gained by the thug.

If a homeless man cons me out of $20, I'm out the cost of a case of good beer. He's in the cost of his sustenance (or drugs, but that's a whole different discussion) for the next week. I don't get drunk, and he lives for a week.

Now, if you're poor and desperate enough, you're going to steal. Is it wrong for the hungry to steal bread from the grocery store? I mean, I know where the law stands, but ethically speaking, is it wrong?

This form of taxation recognizes that theft is going to happen as long as we have desperately poor people. Instead of having the desperate steal from the working poor's wallet, we have taxation of the discretionary income of the others.

Value systems between individuals are heterogeneous, so they can't really be compared in a quantitative sense. The best that can be said is that the thug cannot value my $20 as much as I do, else he would have exchanged labor in voluntary trade to earn it as I did, rather than violating my rights to that which I have earned.

You assume that he has the opportunity. Do think people really want to become criminals? I mean some seem to like it, and even glorify it as an ideal, but what happens when someone has no legitimate opportunities in life is that they create illegitimate ones.

Similarly government, by the very nature of taxation, admits its own illegitimacy. If it offered something people valued, there would be no need to forcibly extract taxes from them to pay for it -- people will voluntarily purchase what they value. If it valued the money it confiscates as much as the people who earned it value that same money, government would earn it the way they do: by exchanging value for value in voluntary trade. Since government by its own tacit admission has nothing of value to offer, anything it endeavors to do destroys wealth by definition.

It's not that many don't need it, it's that many can't afford it, and this occasionally leads to tragic situations. Many are not paid well enough to save to ensure their future.

I'd also rather not see the government engaging in business directly, generally speaking. It's difficult to both be the regulator of business and the business itself, and so if the government is going to regulate business, it needs to maintain a lack of conflict of interest in it.

There are those here who have stated repeatedly that there are things they would gladly pay taxes to have, but they miss the point that if they would voluntarily pay for it, it's not a tax. The only morally legitimate source of funding for government is voluntary donation, or purchase of services rendered. Give everyone a 0% tax rate, and ask who's willing to donate to fund a military, and I guarantee you that there would be a lot of people around here who would step forward, checkbook in hand. Go down the list of "services" provided by the government in the same fashion, and you would quickly find out what people actually value and what they don't. You would also find just how much faith they place in government, as many would undoubtedly purchase the things they value from other vendors.

I think you'd find quite the opposite. The government would not have money to do anything. You can take the Articles of Confederation as an example. The "federal" government was funded through voluntary donation format he sates. The failure of this system was one of the major reasons why we have our current constitution. They were unable even to pay for the military.

Furthermore, it is possible to donate money right now to pay down the national debt. Why don't people step up? There's a diffusion of responsibility felt for social problems. No one raindrop thinks it caused the flood. It's an error in human thinking. People are predictably irrational in some respects.

Unfortunately, you are asserting that very thing, and do not realize it, though you are correct in agreeing that destruction doesn't add value. You speak of money supply and interest rates, but fail to understand that inflation is destruction of wealth in the form of savings, and interest rate manipulation is destruction of wealth through the creation of shortages via price controls. You laud Obama's stimulus package without comprehending the massive destruction of existing savings that accompanies it, or the destruction and disincentivizing of future savings that must surely follow an effectively negative interest rate. You fail to grasp that the stimulus package (and its predecessor TARP) were deemed necessary because the credit shortages they are designed to alleviate were created by the price controls in the previous batch of interventions, which were deemed necessary because of the disastrous effects of the interventions before them, and so on.

I'm not advocating destruction in order to stimulate the economy. I'm advocating encouragement is necessary to get markets out of a funk. I'm advocating reining in irrational exuberance, and encouraging when people are irrationally depressed.

Virtually every intervention has untended consequences--but they also have the intended consequences, which are more significant.

Each intervention eventually necessitates an even greater intervention to fix its unintended consequences. Unfortunately, we have just hit the "Zero Wall" with the interest rate, and are attempting to push past it, but reality is beginning to assert itself. What has people up in arms is the fact that they realize, intuitively for the most part, that there is nowhere to go from here. When the consequences of this intervention create the need for the next intervention (and they will), we could very well have no choice but to suffer the enormous pain that has been delayed and piled up over decades of boom/bust cycles perpetrated by all of these interventions. If Obama were any kind of true leader, he'd be letting the house of cards fall apart now rather than desperately trying to pile one more layer onto it.

Greenspan took us to a place where we've got a bunch of ARMs that can only be afforded if interest rates are low. So, that rate can't be changed much for a while. But that's not the only regulatory tool at the government's disposal. There's still a great deal of control over the money supply and taxation, as well as the use of spending programs.

Not even the first to say so... I said pretty much the same thing in a PM to another member earlier today. You shouldn't mistake disagreement with dislike; one of the people I respect most in this world is a flaming leftist. He and I will never see eye-to-eye on politics, and we both know it, but I'd take a bullet for him, and I'm fairly certain he'd do the same for me.

Personal insults have been rife on this forum directed at me. I was advised over at reddit.com/r/guns that I should avoid the political bits of forums such as this for this reason. I've seen people starting thread about hating liberals and another praying for the death of the President. That's not any kind of attempt at civil discourse.

Also, I'm no leftist. I express a view coming from one of the main capitalist views on economics, and I'm accused of Socialism and Fascism.

I have an obscene weakness for trollbait.

 

[mrjarrell]

So let's hear your ideas! Which of your favorite pet programs would you cut? Not the other sides programs, but your own?

I don't have any pet programs. As far as I know they're all "the other sides" programs. As to where I'd cut...I'd flat out abolish a large number of them. Education, energy, EPA, BIA, Agriculture, DHS, TSA, ATF, DEA, IRS and more. I'd make huge cuts in in the military and federal "law enforcement" as well as SS, Medicare/Medicaid with an eye to abolishing them.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

So let's hear your ideas! Which of your favorite pet programs would you cut? Not the other sides programs, but your own?

I would tell people paying into SS that they will receive no benefits from the program unless they are 50 or older. Ther program would sunset 50 years or so from now when the last currently eligible recipient passes. I'm 46, so I will have to pay into the system knowing that I will never get anything from it. I will live with it. I guess that's not really a sacrifice because there won't be anything there anyway.

I would also cut the number of federal enforcement agents. I want local police working on local needs. While there needs to be enforcement that crosses jurisdiction, it should be a coordinating activity.

 

[Fletch]

Oh come now. You don't think you have to explain voluntary exchange to me, do you?

At this point it is not safe to assume any knowledge on your part.

Now, if you're poor and desperate enough, you're going to steal. Is it wrong for the hungry to steal bread from the grocery store? I mean, I know where the law stands, but ethically speaking, is it wrong?

Yes, it is wrong. That you have to ask highlights the source of disagreement between you and everyone else here.

This form of taxation recognizes that theft is going to happen as long as we have desperately poor people. Instead of having the desperate steal from the working poor's wallet, we have taxation of the discretionary income of the others.

At least you have finally properly equated taxation with theft.

You assume that he has the opportunity. Do think people really want to become criminals? I mean some seem to like it, and even glorify it as an ideal, but what happens when someone has no legitimate opportunities in life is that they create illegitimate ones.

Opportunities do not fall from the sky like manna from heaven. Opportunities are created by enterprising individuals. I'll give you an example:

A friend of mine's kid is a 13-year-old boy. Around here, everyone puts their garbage in these large poly-carts that the trash truck can scoop up and empty with its robotic arm. There are many neighborhoods which mandate through covenants that your poly-cart can only be at the curb on trash day, and all the rest of the time it has to be hidden from the street.

Dylan went up and down his block and offered to bring each person's poly-cart back up to their garage for $1/week. For about an hour's worth of work every trash day, he was making somewhere in the neighborhood of $40. You can live on $40/week in America -- not well, but you can live. If that's what an hour of effort can provide, what else might a person who really put their mind to it be able to accomplish?

ANY person can create legitimate opportunities for themselves. Not every opportunity exists in the form of a full-time job with benefits; all it takes is a willingness to do something of value for which others will trade their goods, services, or money. Even if you have NOTHING to offer, beggars make enough to live on, and do not need to violate the rights of others to do it.

It's not that many don't need it, it's that many can't afford it, and this occasionally leads to tragic situations. Many are not paid well enough to save to ensure their future.

Bull****. I worked part-time at Taco Bell for two years, my only source of income and security back when minimum wage was something like $3.15/hour, and managed to save and invest enough to better my condition. It's not luck, or fate, or any of that tea-leaf-reading nonsense. It's what you are willing to do to make your own life better.

I think you'd find quite the opposite. The government would not have money to do anything.

Compared to what it does now, you're right. But it would have the funding to do what was actually necessary -- if it offered something people valued.

Furthermore, it is possible to donate money right now to pay down the national debt. Why don't people step up? There's a diffusion of responsibility felt for social problems.

It has nothing to do with diffusion of responsibility. When thieves steal my car stereo, then offer me the opportunity to give them the car, I'm not exactly predisposed to agree. When the nature of the relationship is that A initiates violence against B, B has no incentive to further engage in voluntary relations with A. If A treated B with respect, and offered something of value in exchange for B's hard-earned dollars, B would at least be able to recognize that A is a fellow free trader like himself.

I'm not advocating destruction in order to stimulate the economy. I'm advocating encouragement is necessary to get markets out of a funk.

You are advocating destruction. Inflation destroys savings. What is needed right now is savings, something that people are desperately trying to do. Our capital stock is all but depleted. There is malinvestment throughout the economy that needs to be corrected. Instead of allowing the corrections to happen, instead of allowing savings to build, you are advocating that savings be destroyed -- and not just destroyed, but prevented in the future -- in order to prevent the necessary market corrections from running their course.

There are neighborhoods being built all over the USA -- brand new houses that sit empty for YEARS after they're built because there are no buyers. THAT is malinvestment. There are areas of the country where the government is working feverishly to prevent a drop in home prices, despite every indicator that home prices MUST DROP. THAT is malinvestment. And every time the government steps in to attempt to hold the market in a frozen state instead of allowing the corrections to happen, it piles another layer on the house of cards that must eventually crash.

I'm advocating reining in irrational exuberance, and encouraging when people are irrationally depressed.

Government is not a therapist.

Virtually every intervention has untended consequences--but they also have the intended consequences, which are more significant.

I actually laughed out loud at this one. I'm beginning to wonder if you've been paying attention at all to the world around you.

Greenspan took us to a place where we've got a bunch of ARMs that can only be afforded if interest rates are low. So, that rate can't be changed much for a while.

Not only can it be changed, it MUST be changed. Those ARMs need to be cleared from the books. The borrowers of those loans need to default, and the creditors need to eat the loss. Again, malinvestment should not be protected. Next you'll be saying that the kid who bought the magic beans should be prevented from discovering that he's a sucker and they're not actually magic.

But that's not the only regulatory tool at the government's disposal. There's still a great deal of control over the money supply and taxation, as well as the use of spending programs.

Again, destroying savings when it needs to be built.

Personal insults have been rife on this forum directed at me.

You seriously need to get out more. I've been monitoring the few major threads you've been involved with, and if you think you've been insulted, I wonder how you ever made it through junior high school.

Also, I'm no leftist. I express a view coming from one of the main capitalist views on economics, and I'm accused of Socialism and Fascism.

Keynesianism is not capitalist. If you think it is, you have a lot to learn.

 

[dross]

Now, there is real overhead in the system, but efficiency isn't bad. Medicare's overhead is 3%. Private insurance's average is 18%.

I disagree with many of things you posted, but this one needs to be addressed.

The idea that Medicare is more efficient is a complete myth, and a purposeful lie perpetrated by people who think we're too stupid to understand simple math.

Because by definition Medicare's insured population is elderly, the amount of money spend on services is much greater than a private insurer's, which makes the administrative costs less as a percentage. If you look at real dollars spent on administrative costs per beneficiary, Medicare's admin costs are 25% higher than a private insurer's. And that's even when you consider that private insurers have costs Medicare does not, including taxes and marketing costs.

Also, providers lose money on many Medicare services, causing cost shifting, where private insurers pick up the tab for services for which Medicare reimbursement is below costs.

The folks (I don't mean you, I know you got this from the propaganda) who tell this damnable lie are perpetrating a cynical fraud and trusting in the American people's ignorance.

 

[JetGirl]

Is it wrong for the hungry to steal bread from the grocery store? I mean, I know where the law stands, but ethically speaking, is it wrong?

Oh. My. G... DUDE!!
Theft is theft! No matter what the thief intends to do with the "loot". Did you not actually *read* any of Fletch's posts?
Or are you just skimming and picking out buzz words and catch phrases to quote?

Yes, it is wrong.

Dang skippy.

 

[jsgolfman]

Yeah, I dropped out of this thread earlier because I could tell it was headed nowhere with him, but this statement?

 

[tuoder]

At this point it is not safe to assume any knowledge on your part.

Two perfectly intelligent people can look at the same facts and come to completely different conclusions. The fact that you consider yourself correct is no proof that anyone who disagrees with you is stupider than you.

Yes, it is wrong. That you have to ask highlights the source of disagreement between you and everyone else here.

Then no one here has either really been poor, or has an ounce of empathy for the poor. I sincerely doubt this to be the case.

At least you have finally properly equated taxation with theft.

Actually, I was delineating between the two, showing the destructiveness of theft, and the increased economic efficiency possible through taxation. I was making the case that spending programs can prevent theft, and that the net opportunity available to society can be increased in this way.

Opportunities do not fall from the sky like manna from heaven. Opportunities are created by enterprising individuals. I'll give you an example:

A friend of mine's kid is a 13-year-old boy. Around here, everyone puts their garbage in these large poly-carts that the trash truck can scoop up and empty with its robotic arm. There are many neighborhoods which mandate through covenants that your poly-cart can only be at the curb on trash day, and all the rest of the time it has to be hidden from the street.

Dylan went up and down his block and offered to bring each person's poly-cart back up to their garage for $1/week. For about an hour's worth of work every trash day, he was making somewhere in the neighborhood of $40. You can live on $40/week in America -- not well, but you can live. If that's what an hour of effort can provide, what else might a person who really put their mind to it be able to accomplish?

ANY person can create legitimate opportunities for themselves. Not every opportunity exists in the form of a full-time job with benefits; all it takes is a willingness to do something of value for which others will trade their goods, services, or money. Even if you have NOTHING to offer, beggars make enough to live on, and do not need to violate the rights of others to do it.

How do you think people would have reacted to the same proposition coming from this guy:

[imghttp://micaiahsellsout.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/homeless-man.jpg[/img]

There are not always opportunities available. People are not always even able to create their own opportunities. When you've gotten to be as bad off as many homeless people are, and lack so many of the skill necessary to participate in normal life, you can become stuck in poverty.

Bull****. I worked part-time at Taco Bell for two years, my only source of income and security back when minimum wage was something like $3.15/hour, and managed to save and invest enough to better my condition. It's not luck, or fate, or any of that tea-leaf-reading nonsense. It's what you are willing to do to make your own life better.

People who have no will to remove themselves from poverty will fail, but trying the best you know how is not always enough.

Compared to what it does now, you're right. But it would have the funding to do what was actually necessary -- if it offered something people valued.

It offers things to people who cannot afford it themselves. Many people's selfish instincts lead to negative repercussions for society.

It has nothing to do with diffusion of responsibility. When thieves steal my car stereo, then offer me the opportunity to give them the car, I'm not exactly predisposed to agree. When the nature of the relationship is that A initiates violence against B, B has no incentive to further engage in voluntary relations with A. If A treated B with respect, and offered something of value in exchange for B's hard-earned dollars, B would at least be able to recognize that A is a fellow free trader like himself.

I agree with you generally on the destructiveness of theft, but not that taxation is the same thing, and furthermore, theft can ultimately benefit society in specific cases. It takes very little investment in society to prevent destructive theft, and replace it with productive taxation.

You are advocating destruction. Inflation destroys savings. What is needed right now is savings, something that people are desperately trying to do. Our capital stock is all but depleted. There is malinvestment throughout the economy that needs to be corrected. Instead of allowing the corrections to happen, instead of allowing savings to build, you are advocating that savings be destroyed -- and not just destroyed, but prevented in the future -- in order to prevent the necessary market corrections from running their course.

Inflation reallocates savings and increases overall liquidity. It is occasionally worth a little bit of inflation during a time of large contraction in the credit supply. It disproptionately affects those with huge amounts of dollar-denominated assets, and so it shouldn't be abused. The inflation rate in the US is among the lowest in the world, behind only Switzerland's Franc.

What Keynesian economic theory attempts to prescribe is a flattening out of the business cycle that rocked this country so deeply every few years until WWII, with the purpose of avoiding permanent recession or deep recession or depression.

There are neighborhoods being built all over the USA -- brand new houses that sit empty for YEARS after they're built because there are no buyers. THAT is malinvestment. There are areas of the country where the government is working feverishly to prevent a drop in home prices, despite every indicator that home prices MUST DROP. THAT is malinvestment. And every time the government steps in to attempt to hold the market in a frozen state instead of allowing the corrections to happen, it piles another layer on the house of cards that must eventually crash.

I agree. Greenspan should not have lowered interest rates, as per his understanding of Austrian economics.

Government is not a therapist.

Government can play a role in encouraging investment.

I actually laughed out loud at this one. I'm beginning to wonder if you've been paying attention at all to the world around you.

Not only can it be changed, it MUST be changed. Those ARMs need to be cleared from the books. The borrowers of those loans need to default, and the creditors need to eat the loss. Again, malinvestment should not be protected. Next you'll be saying that the kid who bought the magic beans should be prevented from discovering that he's a sucker and they're not actually magic.

I think government regulation can do a bit better than caveat emptor. People entereed into agreements that they believed to be equitable and agreeable with banks, who came to the same conclusion, based on indications from Greenspan's Fed that interest rates would be low--as low as they had ever been.

If we were talking about a few individuals, that would be one thing, be we're talking about shaking the entire banking industry to it's core, and throwing thousands of families out onto the street. There are real social implications of destroying the existing agreements.

It was deregulation allowing banks to become too big to fail that was a significant part of getting us into this situation. Making sure that banks that are too big to fail are also too big to exist can help.

You seriously need to get out more. I've been monitoring the few major threads you've been involved with, and if you think you've been insulted, I wonder how you ever made it through junior high school.

I guess I would be happier if I lowered my expectations of the political discussion to the level of the middle school playground.

Keynesianism is not capitalist. If you think it is, you have a lot to learn.

If you think he isn't, then you don't know what capitalism or socialism are.

 

[tuoder]

I disagree with many of things you posted, but this one needs to be addressed.

The idea that Medicare is more efficient is a complete myth, and a purposeful lie perpetrated by people who think we're too stupid to understand simple math.

Liberals are just trying to take advantage of everyone, eh? No legitimate disagreement exists, just a bunch of tricksters with made up theories, right?

Because by definition Medicare's insured population is elderly, the amount of money spend on services is much greater than a private insurer's, which makes the administrative costs less as a percentage. If you look at real dollars spent on administrative costs per beneficiary, Medicare's admin costs are 25% higher than a private insurer's. And that's even when you consider that private insurers have costs Medicare does not, including taxes and marketing costs.

I would expect administrative costs per beneficiary to be higher because there is more medical treatment necessary. It's more complicated to actually treat someone than it is to try to find reasons not to.

Also, providers lose money on many Medicare services, causing cost shifting, where private insurers pick up the tab for services for which Medicare reimbursement is below costs.

Medicare reimbursement rates have been problematic. First they were super high, then they were low, etc. It's an ongoing job to make sure the rates are fair.

The folks (I don't mean you, I know you got this from the propaganda) who tell this damnable lie are perpetrating a cynical fraud and trusting in the American people's ignorance.

Actually, they really have a difference in opinion on how the world works, and come to different conclusions on how to solve problems as a result.

Oh. My. G... DUDE!!
Theft is theft! No matter what the thief intends to do with the "loot". Did you not actually *read* any of Fletch's posts?
Or are you just skimming and picking out buzz words and catch phrases to quote?

I quoted darn near everything. I thought I replied to it thoroughly.

Dang skippy.

Hypothetically, if it's stealing or starving, which do you pick?

Yeah, I dropped out of this thread earlier because I could tell it was headed nowhere with him, but this statement?

Which?

 

[hornadylnl]

It isn't about being too stupid to handle it yourself, it's risk aggregation.

So I can sleep with every $2 whore and you will be share in the risks that I take? Aids, Herpes Simplex 10, etc.? The fact is the consequences of promiscuity prevent many people from doing it. I can't expect you or anyone else to share in my risk if I choose to bag skanks. You can't take part of my aids if I get it and diffuse my losses from it. Why should anyone else suffer the burdens of my decisions?

If I risk my dollar on a stock and lose it, it's my loss. What you are suggesting is that everyone else must provide me insurance against my loss. If I know that I invest my dollar and it goes south and society is going to insure me against that loss, I will be much more reckless in the investments I choose. I'll go to the casino with your money all day every day. If I come out with a loss, what did I lose other than my time? If I go there with my money and come out with a loss, I have to think about how I'm going to buy groceries, pay my bills etc. The fact that I have obligations deters me from wasting my money.

Trust me, those debating you here are being extremely civil and I do think they have a great level of respect for you. I know you're not a troll and you really believe what you are saying. If not, you'd be dropping bombs in here and watching the frenzy.

What I'm truly sorry about is the amount of respect you have for your fellow citizens' abilities. I'm reminded of Bush's phrase "the soft bigotry of low expectations". Google Answers: soft bigotry of lowered expectations It is human nature to only achieve to the level of which you are expected. Did you just wake up one day and decide you wanted to do well in school and go on to college or did your parents expect it of you? Those of us on the other side of you expect people to take care of themselves and you are telling those people that they are incapable of doing it. I assume you don't have any children yet but would you give them the same expectations that you give your fellow Americans? I certainly hope not.

 

[hornadylnl]

Hypothetically, if it's stealing or starving, which do you pick?



Which?

Neither. If I were living on the streets and had nothing to feed my family with, I'd knock on every door until I found somebody who was willing to exchange my labor for a loaf of bread.

I love these people who hold the "will work for food" signs. 99% of them won't accept an offer for work. "Will work for food" = I want something for nothing. If you come to my house demanding a loaf of bread for your family for nothing, I will take your kids into my house and fill their bellies to the point of explosion while you stand in the street getting nothing. If you come to my house and ask what you can do to earn a meal to feed your family, I will find something for you to do and fill all of your bellies to the point of explosion and send a bag of groceries with you. Even if I had nothing for you to do, I'd still fill your bellies and send a bag of groceries with you.

I've said it on here before. My sense of charity is directly proportional to your sense of entitlement to it. Meditate on that a little.