speculawyer
Member
No one is brave enough to say this.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2012 Community Thread |OT2| This thread title is now under military control
- Thread starter AlteredBeast
- Start date
- Status
No one is brave enough to say this.
I really don't see this as any kind of issue that will affect the election in any way, nor does Murdoch, if I had to venture a guess. So if you're really asking what I think about people who think Murdoch would care enough to have exerted some editorial control over a silly issue like this (or would let it go because he doesn't like Romney), the answer would be yes, I think you are that stupid.
empty vessel
Member
We shouldn't make policy based on the future capacity for fearmongering. We need to stop talking about government revenue like it matters per se. The only thing government revenue "buys" you is fiscal space for the government to act. Taxation (removing money from the economy) induces deflation, which leaves more room for government participation in the economy. That's it. You have to decide what government you want, first, and then decide how much it must tax to make the fiscal space to act in the way you want without causing inflation. The next question, then, is what is taxed and what the distribution of that tax will be. Ultimately, our tax policy should be flexible enough to go up and down depending upon (1) what we government to be dong; and (2) what the economic needs of the time are.
Right now, because of sagging demand causing abundant idle capital and labor, the government has tons of "fiscal space" to act in the private sector without causing inflation, i.e., to spend. It can spend either by cutting taxes or creating new money. Tax raises aren't even--or shouldn't be--in the picture right now at all, given the economic situation. The single possible exception to this would be tax increases on very high income earners, if it is deemed that the benefits of increasing equality (the result of such a tax) outweigh the relatively small knock to aggregate demand (another result of such a tax) that that would entail.
AlteredBeast
Fork 'em, Sparky!
Nor politically suicidal enough.
Has anyone in here actually had their vote swung by any of this discussion? I check this thread periodically for lulz, and can't help butt think that despite 80+ pages of going back and forth, you're all gonna vote the same as when you entered this thread. Right now, I'm still voting Stein/Honkala this Fall. Fuck the treadmill. PEACE.
ClovingWestbrook
Banned
Eric Cantor defends Michelle Bachman and (bigoted) friends. SHOCKING!
Ironic given Bachmann's husband's proclivities.
PhoenixDark
Banned
It's just a distraction for them to forget about Obama's failure to improve the economy
AlteredBeast
Fork 'em, Sparky!
I might vote Stein, whereas before I was going to write-in Daffy Duck. Don't be naive to think these threads accomplish no good. There is a great deal of persuasion and discussion in here.
DeathbyVolcano
Banned
shut up
We Ask America just released a poll of Ohio in which 19% of self-described Republicans say they will vote for Obama.
http://weaskamerica.com/2012/07/27/oh-bama/
Even they don't believe it. They ran it twice!
http://weaskamerica.com/2012/07/27/oh-bama/
Even they don't believe it. They ran it twice!
PhoenixDark
Banned
What distraction will Obama roll out next? July's job report will certainly be <80k again, plus these horrible GDP numbers. This election will effectively be over once the Olympics end
Hard to believe Bachman hasn't a moment like in season 3 of Mad Men when Sal's wife realizes he must be gay after he describes the Sugar Free Patio commercial.
Captain Pants
Killed by a goddamned Dredgeling
I lurk in these threads largely because I either have nothing to say, or what I have to say is so closely mirrored by other people that there is no point in saying it. That being said, I never saw the stuff that happens in here as being about trying to sway anyone. I read this thread because the regular posters are good news aggregators for me. WAR.
DeathbyVolcano
Banned
I love you
What were the benefits? What was the benefit of the middle class having a few thousand dollars every year in their pocket? Are they (collectively) in a better place because of it? They weren't saving it. They (like everyone else) were racking up historic personal debt and pouring all their money into inflated property prices. Were they able to buy more electronic gizmos that were manufactured overseas?
Wouldn't they have benefitted more from a beefier/lengthier ARRA or an expanded Health Care Reform?
By intentionally limiting your revenue (for the questionable short-term economic stimulus it provides), you limit or negate 'the possible' down the road.
Cal Thomas's piece today actually sides with Bachmann explicitly and basically says that all Muslims need to be thoroughly investigated.
empty vessel
Member
And immediately limit your economy and reduce the welfare of the society. But what's all that about!?
Why do you think people seek out debt? When does debt become necessary?
Byakuya769
Member
Welcome back, Russ. Now put a championship ring on that avatar.
DeathbyVolcano
Banned
My dad's a registered republican but he's voting Obama in November -- again. He's absolutely baffled at how Mitt Romney got the nomination. He was rooting for Jon Huntsman in the primaries, but now he doesn't even identify as a republican as they are now.
Obama is the type of republican my dad likes
not to mention the fact that those stickers are simply naked political marketing - as is the sentiment. Stickers should read - "I do my masters' bidding even as they insert cognitive dissonance corndogs into my rectum and I do it because I am sort of racist."
RustyNails
Member
Captain Pants
Killed by a goddamned Dredgeling
How do you guys feel about how the government/military handles budgeting? I work at a stone engraving shop, and right around this time every year, we start getting calls from the two local Air Force Bases. They tell us that they need to spend x amount of dollars or they'll have a smaller budget next year. In return, we get to work on some cool monuments and stone signage out on the bases. I guess I could see it as wasteful, but it is a pretty decent mini-stimulus for us and the people that we buy materials from. Part of me feels like it is wrong, but I see how much the local community benefits from this kind of spending.
In the end, it seems weird to have to throw money away so that you get the same budget next year. Wouldn't it make more sense for them to keep their excess money from each year rather than spend it?
In the end, it seems weird to have to throw money away so that you get the same budget next year. Wouldn't it make more sense for them to keep their excess money from each year rather than spend it?
that kind of accounting is common in businesses and makes sense - reliable spending forecasts are a good thing - problem is, military isn't supposed to be a business.
Welcome to budgeting for anywhere.
Yes, reliable spending forecasts are a good thing. Actually spending simply so you can use up all your budget is not necessarily a good thing.
In Washington, money is power. No area of government is going to willfully spend less to get their budget cut and lose power.
Captain Pants
Killed by a goddamned Dredgeling
Solid point.
Fair enough. I'm fairly ignorant of how that stuff works. I also know that what they are throwing our way is a drop in the bucket. It is good for us, and it is a fraction of their budget. I'm just always surprised to get a call where they just say "We're going to give you money today, and figure out what we actually want later."
It's not the future, it is the current one. It's been the paradigm for the past few decades and has helped drive some of the greatest political upheavals during this time. Which has been further exacerbated by more and more tax cuts.
It matters because it decides elections. Elections of people who make legislation.
The Bush Tax Cuts of 2001 and 2003 prove that these are not satisfactory stimulative measures.
These aren't tax raises. They are correcting mistakes made over the past 15 years and returning our government's ledger back to the late 90's.
ClovingWestbrook
Banned
I don't think it's a good "thing" because I hate waste, but it's designed, in business, to create dsicipline and accountability, which in the long term have more benefits than small, counterintuitive abberations in spending.
But the military is an expenditure. They should spend what they need and return the excess (as a broad generalization). There is literally nothing preventing this beyond the interests of business and politicians.
The most eggregious and obvious examples are things like Battleships nobody wants but there are millions of these all over the country and it is a 100% bipartisan problem.
empty vessel
Member
So the answer is to give in, impose austerity, and create more unemployment and underemployment?
No they don't. The Bush tax cuts went overwhelmingly to the highest income earners in the country. They were entirely inadequate to overcome what the Clinton surplus set in motion by draining the economy of money--a debt boom.
You mean this government ledger:
See also:
First, let's make the simple point: [The Clinton surpluses] certainly didn't make the economy better. The late 90s were arguably the peak of the US economy, and since then it's basically been a long slog down, with one bubble (the housing bubble) interrupting the ride. We can all agree that the surpluses provided the US economy no protection against collapse or crisis or anything like that.
But, beyond that there's a straight line to be drawn between the government's lack of leverage, and the expansion of leverage elsewhere.
The lack of government Treasury issuance, for example, lead to huge demand for Fannie and Freddie debt among investors.
And you can see how government debt is mirrored in the private sector.
This chart shows household debt service payments (as a percentage of income) vs. the federal deficit.
As you can see, when the deficit was reduced in the late 90s, it corresponded with the initial spike in household leverage.
That household leverage didn't decline until government leverage shot up.
Here's another chart showing something similar.
The change in total liabilities of household nicely mirrors government savings.
As the government saved more, household liability growth accelerated. As government savings collapsed (deficits exploded), households were able to deleverage.
Now let's talk about causation: Why were the Clinton surpluses associated with an increase in household leverage? It basically comes down to the fact that a surplus basically represents the government sucking money out of the economy through some combination of higher taxes (which Clinton hiked, and which the government got via bubblicious capital gains) and lower spending (welfare reform, etc.). Sure, spending grew under Clinton, but a switch from deficit to surplus by definition means a net decrease in government spending.
Thus for the private sector to keep on growing, it needs to find some way to offset the government drag, and that was done via more leverage.
http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-07-07/markets/30006821_1_leverage-household-private-sector
I've certainly become better educated on a range of issues and had my opinions change on a huge amount of policy issues.
I'm glad you're so much more enlightened then us though. Thank you for coming in and talking down to us sheep again.
Aren't you cute!
empty vessel
Member
The government "keeping" "excess" money doesn't make any sense. It has no capacity to save, because it creates money. It's like suggesting that a perpetual motion machine "save" its energy for later. The relevant question is not whether the government should "save" money, but, rather, whether the spending it does engage in is worthwhile. Now, spending on various monuments probably isn't the best use of money. It is stimulus, and that is a benefit, but the question is always whether something better could have been done with the labor and resources that were used. Money directs resources and labor.
Don't get me wrong, paying some people to dig holes and fill them back up can well be better than nothing, depending on the political and economic environment (and I am not equating building monuments to that, because a monument does have social utility as art). But if we have a choice, we should direct those resources and that labor somewhere that has a social benefit as opposed to somewhere that doesn't (e.g., build a bridge, a road, a school, a hospital, a park, etc.).
ClovingWestbrook
Banned
If you mean during this election, the no. If you mean since joining NeoGAF, then yes. Ask a few folks around here. I voted Bush in 2004, McCain in 2008, will be voting Obama 2012. Came to NeoGAF being against gay marriage, against a public option/universal health care, supporting the GOP. That isn't the case any longer and most of that metamorphosis took place during my time in PoliGAF.
The whole idea that people don't change their political compass during their lifetime is absurd. It might not be a forum like GAF that changes your mind, but something eventually does -- a political catalyst or two of some kind.
Aaron Strife
Banned
We Ask America - a GOP pollster - showed Obama leading Romney by 8 in Ohio. 48-40.
They found 18% of Republicans going for Obama. They actually called them back to make sure they had it right and they did.
Romney's so screwed.
They found 18% of Republicans going for Obama. They actually called them back to make sure they had it right and they did.
Romney's so screwed.
cartoon_soldier
Member
Shitty GDP numbers are shitty
PhoenixDark
Banned
You honestly think the majority of those republicans won't come home by November? lol
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
Man, its hard to completely write off a seven point difference even this early on. Without some kind of weird upset in the next three months Romney is screwed in Ohio, and without Ohio...
Aaron Strife
Banned
They're actually slightly better than expected. As it pertains to the election, Alan Abramowitz's model said a growth rate of 1% or higher would guarantee Obama wins the popular vote. I'm not stressing.Shitty GDP numbers are shitty
Ohio's economy is doing great and a huge part of that is due to the autobailout.PhoenixDark said:
Romney on the other hand sucks as a candidate.
But hey, if it makes you feel any better, Rasmussen has Romney up today by 5. lol
It's probably just one of those outliers, but it's still funny that they got those numbers considering their track record.
Just like women were gonna flock to McCain because of Palin?
cartoon_soldier
Member
I see Romney as favorite to win the election right now, with the current state of the economy + the Obama out of context comments.
Sullivan agrees
http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/07/romney-is-gaining.html
PhoenixDark
Banned
Since when is republicans going home to the republican nominee analogous to the ridiculous notion of women flocking to McCain due to Palin? Try harder next time
Baraka in the White House
2-Terms of Kombat
No one can compete with you.
I forgot that there's never been an instance in US presidential elections where a candidate gets a significant chunk of voters to break for them from across party lines. That has never happened before, you got me.
They always come home.
- Status