Support NeoGAF

[East Lake]

I don't know of Rothbard taking the Holocause denialist position so I'm going to work with innocent until proven guilty like I would for anyone who hasn't denied the Holocaust.

I don't know why Rothbard would mention Holocaust denial when discussing the "origins of World War II" or why anyone else would for that matter.

Well one reason might be that he's jewish and holocaust denialism might present problems discussing history in the wake of WWII. I'm sure there's other good reasons.

I think Jesse Walker's recent book is just one of many that illustrates how central such things are to the human existence and thus the value of understanding them.

Right but where has the value gone?

I went back to Plato in that quote. And why would it change if it's still defining the same thing? We still call them cats because their fundamental core features of identification haven't changed. We still call them guns because they operate by the same fundamental principle. So on.

So how are governments doing in relation to projectile weaponry since Plato? Which has seen more advancement?

 

[benjipwns]

If someone has not expressed holocaust denialism, or any other kind like Armenian genocide denialism, then I have no cause to operate on the assumption they are a denialist. You filthy holocaust denialist.

Right but where has the value gone?

What?

So how are governments doing in relation to projectile weaponry since Plato? Which has seen more advancement?

Too many variables for me be assed to find out. Population increases probably play as much if not more of a role in governments slaughtering their populations in the peoples will as increases in technology or government efficiency committees do.

Projectiles certain go farther these days from my casual examination of the issue.

 

[East Lake]

Well if I was a holocaust denier it would only be to add wealth for good of the people.

And yes I agree with that assessment. Projectiles seem to be doing better. Too many variables doesn't seem to have stopped any of the austrians in their writings, so I'm still interested in the development of projectiles and governments. Gun manufacturers seem to be learning from their mistakes and developing new designs more quickly. The free market after all. But what is stopping the people from soundly rejecting these forms of governments that are not all that different from the kings and lords thousands of years ago?

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Inflation it too low, very low bond yields, high unemployment, why the hell should be lowering the deficit right now?

It makes us feel good!

Spoiler

real answer rich people want lower taxes and less government spending

 

[speculawyer]

The Federal Budget Deficit Is Back to Normal

The federal budget deficit has narrowed sharply, and is back to relatively normal levels.

With the government’s budget year having concluded at the end of September, the Congressional Budget Office now estimates that the deficit for 2014 was 2.8 percent of G.D.P., down from 4.1 percent last year. The deficit is now smaller than its average over the past 40 years of 3.1 percent.

Seriously . . . this news needs to be repeated over and over. Obama & Dems are idiots for not saying it. Whether you think the deficit is too low or not, the fact that it is this low needs to be trumpeted nonstop to defeat all the FUD out there.

 

[benjipwns]

But what is stopping the people from soundly rejecting these forms of governments that are not all that different from the kings and lords thousands of years ago?

Victim blaming.

 

[Chichikov]

The average inflation rate of 2014 is 1.6%, really close to the FRB's target 2%. Average Unemployment for 2014 thus far is 6.3%, near the 6.0% median since 1970. And bond yields have been dropping since 1980.

The timing isn't 100% perfect, but part of economics is accounting for the political process, which can be pretty slow. I think it's easy to think things suck if they're not at all time highs, but usually those all time highs are bubbles which Keynesian theory teaches us to slow down. I'm not saying we should slam on the breaks, we just need to stop worrying about adding stimulus so much right this moment, and start thinking about what might be good ways to cut the deficit in the future, which should be by taxes.

I get that austerity has become a scary term given years of mostly Republicans acting like spending cuts are the one and only way to ever cut deficits, but that's obviously not true. Just sell it as belt tightening that has to come from somewhere, and I think there's plenty evidence that can be used to sell the fact that the people at the top need their belts tightened the most.

You might think it impossible for the public to accept something so negative, but people think the Republicans are better at economics, and they've been pumping austerity and belt tightening for years. People aren't dumb, and they know tough decisions sometimes need to be made, but when Democrats publicly talk like they can solve every last problem at once, they are going to think Republicans have a better economic plan.

If we want to be seen better at economics, we probably should be better about addressing the drawbacks to economic policies. Like when criticized about the deficit back in 2011, say you believe in america, and that in the future, with help from this stimulus, things will get better, and that's when we can address the deficit, but for now things are bad and the american people need help, and addressing the deficit right now will just make things worse. But cutting the deficit, fighting to keep spending intact, and basically promoting tax cuts just combines to sound like bull, so of course they're going to assume the republicans who promote nebulous spending cuts were responsible for the deficit.

In 2014, people are still feeling a recession. But a switch to tax increases would basically be sold by complaining about deficits (which is obviously easy to sell), data about the CEOs and Bankers and billionaires who are clearly not in recession anymore and have the ability to tighten their belts, that the people tightening their belts would be benefited by the better economy they're helping create anyway, and listing the ways you are continuing to help people that need it (like removing the sequester). They might call you a socialist for wanting to make the tax brackets more progressive, but they already call you a socialist no matter what, so no change there.

I mean you can Luntz it up, unilaterally replacing the word taxes with revenue increases or something, and generally polishing everything into making higher taxes on the rich sound as positive as possible, but in some ways that's still less patronizing than saying a vote for democrats is a vote for infinite spending, infinite tax cuts, and infinite deficit cuts, no matter the situation.

I still don't understand why you think the deficit is too high.
Explain to me like I'm 5, what are the measures that you're using to come to this conclusion and what do you think the deficit should be?

p.s.
1.6% is not really all that close to 2%, and are you really making the case that 6% unemployment is full employment?

It makes us feel good!

Spoiler

real answer rich people want lower taxes and less government spending

It's more than that, lower inflation is by and large, on the macro level good for rich people and bad for poor people, which is why it is prioritized over unemployment (higher unemployment is also generally help business owners, at least in the short term, as it helps with wage suppression).

 

[East Lake]

Victim blaming.

Of course if victim blaming is the answer I'd imagine the victims could deal with the problem like a capitalist would. A capitalist would cease dealing with the government and move or perhaps create their own vastly different government. If the government were to violently crack down on them it would certainly be a negative outcome, but would only serve to build wealth and knowledge each time it happened. The elites would receive bad press and the victims would gain sympathy and it would hurt business. Some countries like England might allow a Scotland for example to separate and create a better government. I'm sure there have been a few instances since Plato where this may have been possible.

 

[benjipwns]

More than a few. One of the benefits of our anarchist world.

Sometimes it goes better:

Than others:

 

[East Lake]

Right but better in historical terms turns out to be as you say not that much different from the times of Plato. So the ideas have developed but not the governments. For instance nobody in Scotland has seemed to recognize the brilliance of the Rothbardian free child trading principles. After 2500 years people haven't bothered to design a government to capitalize on that type of market. Certainly at this point it could be adopted and integrated into certain society like new gun design.

 

[benjipwns]

To rephrase Frankin, the visible and immediate price of liberty is higher than the visible and immediate price of slavery. Simple supply and demand.

 

[benjipwns]

Communists at NYT want to cut and run from Cuba:

Fully ending the embargo will require Congress’s approval. But there is much more the White House could do on its own. For instance, it could lift caps on remittances, allow Americans to finance private Cuban businesses and expand opportunities for travel to the island.

It could also help American companies that are interested in developing the island’s telecommunications network but remain wary of the legal and political risks. Failing to engage with Cuba now will likely cede this market to competitors. The presidents of China and Russia traveled to Cuba in separate visits in July, and both leaders pledged to expand ties.

Cuba and the United States already have diplomatic missions, called interests sections, that operate much like embassies. However, under the current arrangement, American diplomats have few opportunities to travel outside the capital to engage with ordinary Cubans, and their access to the Cuban government is very limited.

Restoring diplomatic ties, which the White House can do without congressional approval, would allow the United States to expand and deepen cooperation in areas where the two nations already manage to work collaboratively — like managing migration flows, maritime patrolling and oil rig safety. It would better position Washington to press the Cubans on democratic reforms, and could stem a new wave of migration to the United States driven by hopelessness.

Closer ties could also bring a breakthrough on the case of an American development contractor, Alan Gross, who has been unjustly imprisoned by Cuba for nearly five years. More broadly, it would create opportunities to empower ordinary Cubans, gradually eroding the government’s ability to control their lives.

In April, Western Hemisphere heads of state will meet in Panama City for the seventh Summit of the Americas. Latin American governments insisted that Cuba, the Caribbean’s most populous island and one of the most educated societies in the hemisphere, be invited, breaking with its traditional exclusion at the insistence of Washington.

Given the many crises around the world, the White House may want to avoid a major shift in Cuba policy. Yet engaging with Cuba and starting to unlock the potential of its citizens could end up being among the administration’s most consequential foreign-policy legacies.

Normalizing relations with Havana would improve Washington’s relationships with governments in Latin America, and resolve an irritant that has stymied initiatives in the hemisphere. The Obama administration is leery of Cuba’s presence at the meeting and Mr. Obama has not committed to attending. He must — and he should see it as an opportunity to make history.

I think we should try funding rebels and assist them in making a landing, maybe somewhere on the South of the island not far from Havana.

 

[East Lake]

To rephrase Frankin, the visible and immediate price of liberty is higher than the visible and immediate price of slavery. Simple supply and demand.

Well maybe but that doesn't adequately explain after all the wealth building why some group hasn't managed to create anything appreciably different from ancient greece. After 2500 years certainly the modern consumer should be able to see the inherent violence and illegitimacy in the system the same way they could distinguish between an old greek sling and a modern rifle. Then make moves toward the new product, whatever it is. It doesn't seem to be happening though even with all the wealth and knowledge building over time. We only seem to be building new objects to behave the same way we always did.

 

[benjipwns]

I don't know, whatever you want to call the current "Information Revolution" seems like a serious new stress. Look at Iran, Egypt, Lebanon, etc. Even the capacity of things like Occupy and the Tea Party.

 

[benjipwns]

Was this posted? Clay Aiken's billboard:

 

[NYCmetsfan]

http://washingtonexaminer.com/lackl...ernst-in-iowa-senate-showdown/article/2554696

ernst had a shit night, as told by a conservative

Next came Social Security. Ernst made a perfectly reasonable case for raising the eligibility age for younger Americans. Then Braley was asked about his proposal to raise the cap for Social Security taxes above today's $117,000 annual income limit. "Won't that be a drag on the economy?" the questioner asked.

Yes, it will, but of course Braley did not want to say that. So he first tried to deflect the question with a joke about the Orioles-Royals game, before offering an exceedingly feeble defense of raising the cap. But a moment later, when Ernst was asked whether she, too, would consider raising the cap, she said, "That is an option, and we need to sit down and discuss that, in a bipartisan manner." Ernst gave away whatever advantage she held.

Just hours before the debate, the Des Moines Register released the results of a new poll that showed Ernst leading Braley by just one point, 47 percent to 46 percent. In the last Register poll, on September 30, Ernst led by six, and the paper declared, "The ground under Bruce Braley has shifted." Now, apparently, it has shifted back. It's fair to say that everyone, or nearly everyone, observing the race thinks it is a very, very close contest. Saturday's debate probably made it even closer.

 

[thepotatoman]

I still don't understand why you think the deficit is too high.
Explain to me like I'm 5, what are the measures that you're using to come to this conclusion and what do you think the deficit should be?

Well, I admit it's not my number one priority, but more debt to gdp does create inflation pressure in a way that is not easily fixed should it become a problem. Letting debt to gdp rise every time there's a recession, while doing nothing about it when times are good will eventually cause a problem.

Remember these things don't change overnight. If we had 6 years of fairly extreme debt build up, it'll take 10 years of moderate austerity to get back to normal. We can't wait for the 2 years where things happen to be perfect to seek to normalize it.

And no, I do not wish to be facing Japan's extreme deflation problems in order to have a sustainability high debt to GDP ratio, and I'm not yet convinced that wont cause them problems if they ever do find their way to some sort of normalcy, though it's too late for them to worry about that now. I want to worry about it decades before it's too late to worry.

As for the actual targets, I'm mostly fine following the CBO's suggestions, which I haven't looked at in a little while. They don't seem that hard to hit. Especially if it's done with things like a carbon tax which have a side benefit of helping the environment, or a Buffet Rule tax that also has a side benefit of helping the income/wealth gap.

p.s.
1.6% is not really all that close to 2%, and are you really making the case that 6% unemployment is full employment?

I guess I just don't like making the criteria of a good economy so high, that we are saying that the economy is only good 20% of the time. Especially if that 20% of the time is driven by bubbles which causes the other 80% of the time to suck.

That's why I said median unemployment. Full employment is either an overly ambitious goal to drive for, or is an ambiguous term that can mean anything depending on your criteria. I do think 5% unemployment would be good, and 6% isn't terrible.

It's more than that, lower inflation is by and large, on the macro level good for rich people and bad for poor people, which is why it is prioritized over unemployment (higher unemployment is also generally help business owners, at least in the short term, as it helps with wage suppression).

It's an extremely outdated way of thinking to say that inflation helps poor more than the rich. That was true back when the poor owned the houses they built and lived in and the plants they grew and sold. Now days, when the poor rent their places and are so completely removed from the ownership of their labor, inflation only helps if they get a raise on their salary, which is likely a very diluted form of inflation by the time it gets to them.

Sure, it still helps them with their debts, but rich people have debts too. In fact the rich have a much easier time getting debt. I bet most billionaires have more debt than they have cash on hand, while most of the rest is in assets that they'd love to see go up with inflation. And nowadays the banks have plenty of investments that make them perfectly fine with inflation too.

I mean I still want inflation. I actually look at it as an example of a good supply side policy, because investments would dry up in a deflationary economy even with good demand, as putting money under a matress becomes better than keeping it invested. It's just not a good idea to raise inflation with the hope that the salary/debt ratio does more good than the harm inflation does to the salary/cost of living ratio, and I highly doubt low inflation/deflation does the rich enough good to be worth creating some huge conspiracy around it.

 

[benjipwns]

http://washingtonexaminer.com/lackl...ernst-in-iowa-senate-showdown/article/2554696

ernst had a shit night, as told by a conservative

Wait, they both agreed to a reasonable Social Security reform? And that's how she gave away her advantage?

 

[Chichikov]

Well, I admit it's not my number one priority, but more debt to gdp does create inflation pressure in a way that is not easily fixed should it become a problem. Letting debt to gdp rise every time there's a recession, while doing nothing about it when times are good will eventually cause a problem.

Remember these things don't change overnight. If we had 6 years of fairly extreme debt build up, it'll take 10 years of moderate austerity to get back to normal. We can't wait for the 2 years where things happen to be perfect to seek to normalize it.

And no, I do not wish to be facing Japan's extreme deflation problems in order to have a sustainability high debt to GDP ratio, and I'm not yet convinced that wont cause them problems if they ever do find their way to some sort of normalcy, though it's too late for them to worry about that now. I want to worry about it decades before it's too late to worry.

As for the actual targets, I'm mostly fine following the CBO's suggestions, which I haven't looked at in a little while. They don't seem that hard to hit. Especially if it's done with things like a carbon tax which have a side benefit of helping the environment, or a Buffet Rule tax that also has a side benefit of helping the income/wealth gap.



I guess I just don't like making the criteria of a good economy so high, that we are saying that the economy is only good 20% of the time. Especially if that 20% of the time is driven by bubbles which causes the other 80% of the time to suck.

That's why I said median unemployment. Full employment is either an overly ambitious goal to drive for, or is an ambiguous term that can mean anything depending on your criteria. I do think 5% unemployment would be good, and 6% isn't terrible.



It's an extremely outdated way of thinking to say that inflation helps poor more than the rich. That was true back when the poor owned the houses they built and lived in and the plants they grew and sold. Now days, when the poor rent their places and are so completely removed from the ownership of their labor, inflation only helps if they get a raise on their salary, which is likely a very diluted form of inflation by the time it gets to them.

Sure, it still helps them with their debts, but rich people have debts too. In fact the rich have a much easier time getting debt. I bet most billionaires have more debt than they have cash on hand, while most of the rest is in assets that they'd love to see go up with inflation. And nowadays the banks have plenty of investments that make them perfectly fine with inflation too.

I mean I still want inflation. I actually look at it as an example of a good supply side policy, because investments would dry up in a deflationary economy even with good demand, as putting money under a matress becomes better than keeping it invested. It's just not a good idea to raise inflation with the hope that the salary/debt ratio does more good than the harm inflation does to the salary/cost of living ratio, and I highly doubt low inflation/deflation does the rich enough good to be worth creating some huge conspiracy around it.

I'm sorry, I don't understand, how can inflation be below target (and 2% is too low in my mind, but that's a different discussion) and at the same time worry about too much inflationary pressure?
Also, debt to gdp don't directly create inflationary pressure, it's the deficit that does that.
Though again, if inflation is too low, what make you think either of those figures is too high?
Shit, if inflation is 30% too low, wouldn't we want more of it

Spoiler

yes we would.

As for inflation helping the poor, on the macro level, inflation hurt creditor and help debtor.

p.s.
If inflation didn't hurt the poor, why would the GOP, rich people and conservatives in general prioritize lowering it more than anything.
As Cicero said, cui bono, which in translate roughly to U2 fucking sucks.

 

[thepotatoman]

I'm sorry, I don't understand, how can inflation be below target (and 2% is too low in my mind, but that's a different discussion) and at the same time worry about too much inflationary pressure?
Also, debt to gdp don't directly create inflationary pressure, it's the deficit that does that.
Though again, if inflation is too low, what make you think either of those figures is too high?
Shit, if inflation is 30% too low, wouldn't we want more of it

Spoiler

yes we would.

You have to pay interest on that debt, and that's not the sort of thing you can change month to month. More interest means more sustained inflation pressure. It takes a long time to change your debt to GDP levels, so you need a long term strategy to give you as much room as possible in case of emergencies, such as 2008.

Again, I think the biggest thing you are missing is the time frame here. Me saying we should think about cutting deficits beyond the default projections doesn't mean we're going to cut everything today. Just to start talking about it, so that when the time does come in the next year or two or four, GOP solutions aren't the only solutions that have even been primed for it. We need to stop thinking like the only path to austerity is following through with GOP's wet dream of privatizing social security and medicare.

As for inflation helping the poor, on the macro level, inflation hurt creditor and help debtor.

Like I said, rich people are debtors too. I really doubt saving and loans banks have that much influence on the economy or politics, even inside the GOP. Particularly since the biggest banks aren't simple saving and loans banks anymore.

p.s.
If inflation didn't hurt the poor, why would the GOP, rich people and conservatives in general prioritize lowering it more than anything.
As Cicero said, cui bono, which in translate roughly to U2 fucking sucks.

Obama voted no on a debt ceiling increase. Is he in on this plan of rich people scheming against poor people? It's far more likely that they're just playing the politics that minority parties always play, just this issue happens to sell better to the republican base as it's inherently anti government, and it's amped up to eleven because republicans really dislike Obama. They weren't exactly super austerian back when Bush was cutting taxes while increasing government spending for war.

 

[HylianTom]

Seriously . . . this news needs to be repeated over and over. Obama & Dems are idiots for not saying it. Whether you think the deficit is too low or not, the fact that it is this low needs to be trumpeted nonstop to defeat all the FUD out there.

Seriously.. it seems like whenever something good happened to the economy, Bill Clinton was in front of TV cameras bragging about it loudly and repeatedly.

Future Democratic presidents really need to take note of this, because it works, and it's almost the only way to break-through the thick, creamy layer of GOP/media bullshit that usually prevents the general public from recognizing it.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Warren Hits Obama: He 'Protected Wall Street'

Here’s the penultimate question: everything you’re saying are issues that have been important to me most of my adult life. In 2008, I thought I had a candidate who was going to address these things. Right? Barack Obama. Today, my friends and I are pretty disappointed with what he’s done. I wonder if you feel he has been forthright enough on these subjects. And I also wonder if you think that someone can take any of this stuff on without being president. You know, there are a lot of good politicians in America who have their heart in the right place. But they’re not the president. Well anyhow. You understand my frustration…

I understand your frustration, Tom and, actually, I talk about this in the book. When I think about the president, for me, it’s about both halves. If Barack Obama had not been president of the United States we would not have a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Period. I’m completely convinced of that. And I go through the details in the book, and I could tell them to you. But he was the one who refused to throw the agency under the bus and made sure that his team kept the agency alive and on the table. Now there was a lot of other stuff that also had to happen for it to happen. But if he hadn’t been there, we wouldn’t have gotten the agency. At the same time, he picked his economic team and when the going got tough, his economic team picked Wall Street.

You might say, “always.” Just about every time they had to compromise, they compromised in the direction of Wall Street.

That’s right. They protected Wall Street. Not families who were losing their homes. Not people who lost their jobs. Not young people who were struggling to get an education. And it happened over and over and over. So I see both of those things and they both matter.

http://www.salon.com/2014/10/12/exc..._jobs_and_it_happened_over_and_over_and_over/

I guess this means some "liberals" will begin attacking Warren now.

 

[Rhomega Beta]

Got my Early Voting General Election ballot in the mail today. All this talk about elections, and I fail to notice that it's a little over 3 weeks away.

 

[Avon Barksdale]

http://www.salon.com/2014/10/12/exc..._jobs_and_it_happened_over_and_over_and_over/

I guess this means some "liberals" will begin attacking Warren now.

She's not wrong, so there.

 

[Wilsongt]

New Ebola case in Texas.

Bad news for Obama.

 

[HylianTom]

All this talk about elections, and I fail to notice that it's a little over 3 weeks away.

Which means Election 2016 begins in one month. Finally.

 

[CygnusXS]

New Ebola case in Texas.

Bad news for Obama.

His TERRIBLE second term continues...

 

[speculawyer]

New Ebola case in Texas.

Bad news for Obama.

What about Kay Hagan?

 

[Rhomega Beta]

What about Kay Hagan?

She gets a decent Disney movie about her.

 

[Avon Barksdale]

Was this posted? Clay Aiken's billboard:

I don't think that's going to get him anymore voters.

 

[Wilsongt]

What about Kay Hagan?

Thom Tillis has that covered while his head explodes due to gay marriage.

 

[Wilsongt]

GAF FUD is nearly as bad as Fox News fud.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Was this posted? Clay Aiken's billboard:

It looks like the font for amiibo

 

[Oblivion]

Obama voted no on a debt ceiling increase.

What? I'm sure you know better than this, potato.

 

[kehs]

What? I'm sure you know better than this, potato.

He also voted against funding for soldier armour.

 

[teiresias]

I look forward to speculawyer making a new thread for each case of the flu this season.

 

[Wilsongt]

I look forward to speculawyer making a new thread for each case of the flu this season.

Someone already made a new thread for the Boston Ebola case. gaf and fox are going to be insufferable this flu season, and if I get my job, I am going to be buuuuuusy.

 

[Metaphoreus]

Benji pls explain.

http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/fourteen.asp

Also what's up with this holocaust denial stuff? Legit?

Vintage Koch read for anyone bored by state no state.

https://www.nsfwcorp.com/dispatch/shuts-down-the-holocaust/43201b3a2936ec68c823ff596b0a27c529ea9350/

Explain what?

I'm not Rothbard and disagree with him on plenty, like for example his pre-death dalliances with David Duke, Pat Buchanan and Ross Perot because he was tired of losing. He was better when he was hanging around with Karl Hess. He got worse after he ditched the Radicals for being too libertine.

Not surprisingly he started to downplay his favorable views of abortion as outlined there.

I'm not sure what inspired this discussion, but benji, I don't think you're taking it very seriously. East Lake has really connecte dthe dots here to make a convicing case that Murray Rothbard was one of the lizardmans* that secretly rule the world from bellow!

*

Spoiler

Yes, lizardmans, not lizardmen, because I refuse to subject myself to the nonexistant authority of the lizardmans to dictate our grammar rules! Alos:

Spoiler

PRIVACY NOTICE: Warning - any person and/or institution and/or Agent and/or Agency of any governmental structure including but not limited to the United States Federal Government also using or monitoring/using this website or any of its associated websites, you do NOT have my permission to utilize any of my profile information nor any of the content contained herein including, but not limited to my photos, and/or the comments made about my photos or any other "picture" art posted on my profile. You are hereby notified that you are strictly prohibited from disclosing, copying, distributing, disseminating, or taking any other action against me with regard to this profile and the contents herein. The foregoing prohibitions also apply to your employee, agent, student or any personnel under your direction or control.

The contents of this profile are private and legally privileged and confidential information, and the violation of my personal privacy is punishable by law.

UCC 1-103 1-308 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

 

[Chichikov]

You have to pay interest on that debt, and that's not the sort of thing you can change month to month. More interest means more sustained inflation pressure. It takes a long time to change your debt to GDP levels, so you need a long term strategy to give you as much room as possible in case of emergencies, such as 2008.

Again, I think the biggest thing you are missing is the time frame here. Me saying we should think about cutting deficits beyond the default projections doesn't mean we're going to cut everything today. Just to start talking about it, so that when the time does come in the next year or two or four, GOP solutions aren't the only solutions that have even been primed for it. We need to stop thinking like the only path to austerity is following through with GOP's wet dream of privatizing social security and medicare.

Like I said, rich people are debtors too. I really doubt saving and loans banks have that much influence on the economy or politics, even inside the GOP. Particularly since the biggest banks aren't simple saving and loans banks anymore.


Obama voted no on a debt ceiling increase. Is he in on this plan of rich people scheming against poor people? It's far more likely that they're just playing the politics that minority parties always play, just this issue happens to sell better to the republican base as it's inherently anti government, and it's amped up to eleven because republicans really dislike Obama. They weren't exactly super austerian back when Bush was cutting taxes while increasing government spending for war.

You wrote wall of words after wall of words and still didn't answer the very simple question - why do you think the deficit is too high?
Let me ask you it this way - we can all agree that there can be a hypotehtical situation when the deficit is not too high, so can you explain me how you differntiate between that case and now when you think it is?

p.s.
Let's focus on that question for a moment, maybe in hope you don't break this post into 3 parts, you're also wrong on the question of who own debt, look it up, but really, that's besides the point here.

 

[Wilsongt]

.... Oh.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/funding-decrease-cdc-preparedness-ebola

According to funding data analyzed by Judy Stone, annual funding for preparedness efforts have fallen by $1 billion between 2002 and 2013.

Oh. Okay.

She lamented that politicians who are poorly informed about infectious disease prevention are in charge of resources for such efforts. She said that funding cuts have led to job losses at the local level, impacting local health officials ability to prepare for an outbreak.

Of course.

We're fucked.

 

[Chichikov]

.... Oh.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/funding-decrease-cdc-preparedness-ebola



Oh. Okay.



Of course.

We're fucked.

Ugh.
What pisses me off is that even if you think that deficits are the biggest threat to this country and hyperinflation and Hitler are just around the corner (any moment now guys, seriously, just because every single one of those prediction over the last 20 years has been wrong doesn't mean it wouldn't happen this time. for real realz) these type of cuts, like cuts to NASA, the national parks or the cancelation of Desertron, are fucking meaningless in the grand budgetry picture. It's just for Republicans to show a pound of flesh to a base that has been conidiationed to hate anything that smell of the government and for Democrats to able to say that they are super serious about tackling the big issues of our blah blah blah.
Fuck that shit.

 

[Wilsongt]

Ugh.
What pisses me off is that even if you think that deficits are the biggest threat to this country and hyperinflation and Hitler are just around the corner (any moment now guys, seriously, just because every single one of those prediction over the last 20 years has been wrong doesn't mean it wouldn't happen this time. for real realz) these type of cuts, like cuts to NASA, the national parks or the cancelation of Desertron, are fucking meaningless in the grand budgetry picture. It's just for Republicans to show a pound of flesh to a base that has been conidiationed to hate anything that smell of the government and for Democrats to able to say that they are super serious about tackling the big issues of our blah blah blah.
Fuck that shit.

Yep. You cut your most essential resources that work behind the scenes because you think they are useless, and when they are important they are so under funded and understaffed they are useless.

Fuck Republican budget cuts.

 

[Chichikov]

Yep. You cut your most essential resources that work behind the scenes because you think they are useless, and when they are important they are so under funded and understaffed they are useless.

Fuck Republican budget cuts.

Also, it's the type of cuts that you don't feel immediately (and more importantly, until the next election).
No congressperson ever lost their seat for cutting infectious disease readiness budget.

And while I have not traced the exact history of this particular budget line, Democrats deserve a whole lot of the blame for those type of cuts. I don't want to play the "who is more to blame", but I strongly believe that there is a better chance to influence Democrats on these type of issues, which is why I think they should be scrutinized, harshly.

 

[Wilsongt]

Also, it's the type of cuts that you don't feel immediately (and more importantly, until the next election).
No congressperson ever lost their seat for cutting infectious disease readiness budget.

And while I have not traced the exact history of this particular budget line, Democrats deserve a whole lot of the blame for those type of cuts. I don't want to play the "who is more to blame", but I strongly believe that there is a better chance to influence Democrats on these type of issues, which is why I think they should be scrutinized, harshly.

Democrats get skewered for not supporting cuts like this. Pretty bad. There are people who really shouldn't have any say in what portions of government are funded. Current GOP is one of them. Spineless Democrats, perhaps.

 

[CygnusXS]

It'll be interesting to see people trace the long-term effects of sequestration a decade or two from now.

 

[Chichikov]

Democrats get skewered for not supporting cuts like this. Pretty bad. There are people who really shouldn't have any say in what portions of government are funded. Current GOP is one of them. Spineless Democrats, perhaps.

Big part of the problem is that Democrats, for the most part starting with Clinton but definitely continuing with Obama, has completely conceded the narrative in regards to deficits, and they do it just to gain short term political points.
When the debt to GDP or deficit is down, instead of saying "you see? I told you not to freak out, this is an easy problem to sort when the economy is growing again" they go all "I ARE A FISCAL WIZARD AND I SLAYED THE EVIL DEFICIT".
Fuck that noise.

Even from a tactical perspective this shit will not work, because Republicans will always look better on the those type of issues.

 

[Crisco]

http://www.salon.com/2014/10/12/exc..._jobs_and_it_happened_over_and_over_and_over/

I guess this means some "liberals" will begin attacking Warren now.

She's not wrong, and if she uses angst towards Obama from liberals as a springboard to a Presidential primary run, then I'm all for it. Obama's legacy is secure, his major policy achievements have all taken the longview, with Obamacare being the model for everything he's done. It may look rough at times, but at the end of the day, people were helped and the country was made better.

 

[OmniOne]

Time to get gay married in Alaska!

 

[Wilsongt]

Time to get gay married in Alaska!

Oh my god. I need pictures of Palin's head explodin stat!

 

[Chichikov]

She's not wrong, and if she uses angst towards Obama from liberals as a springboard to a Presidential primary run, then I'm all for it. Obama's legacy is secure, his major policy achievements have all taken the longview, with Obamacare being the model for everything he's done. It may look rough at times, but at the end of the day, people were helped and the country was made better.

No one will take from him the expansion of healthcare to millions of people, but boy, did we miss a giant opportunity to fix Wall Street.
There was a huge public support for strong meaningful change, those fuckers were fucking scared, and all we did was nibble around the edges, and worse, pretty much told them they don't have to worry about actual personal repercussions no matter what. Those smug assholes already think they're the masters of the universe, now they know they can even launder money for drug cartels and nothing seriously bad will happen to them.

Now we'll have to wait until the next crash.
Shit fucking sucks, and Warren is spitting truth bullets.