All Forums > General Discussion > Non-Sports > Socialism Experiment
2/27/2013 1:07 PM
Posted by tecwrg on 2/27/2013 12:58:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 2/27/2013 12:51:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 2/27/2013 12:27:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 2/27/2013 11:59:00 AM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 2/27/2013 11:49:00 AM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 2/27/2013 11:42:00 AM (view original):
Why focus on cuts now? Does reducing the deficit benefit the economy?
Would the United States getting a credit rating downgrade benefit the economy?
No, it wouldn't. But it isn't the deficit itself that causes the downgrade, it's the belief that the government is so dysfunctional that instead of working things out in a rational way, the politicians will allow us to hit the debt ceiling and default on obligations.
You don't think our government is dysfunctional now, by doing nothing but fingerpointing at the other side?

Your "solution" is to still do nothing, but without the fingerpointing?

Will that make us somehow magically look better, with the debt continuing to spin out of control?

Are you Captain Smith, directing the Titanic band to keep playing while the ship is going under?
Our government is dysfunctional but deficits financed at a near zero interest rate are manageable and don't affect our credit rating. Playing chicken with the debt ceiling is what earned us a credit downgrade.

Cutting spending to shrink the deficit is a short term negative for the economy. A better solution is to allow the economy to fully recover (which will take care of a lot of the deficit) and then get the budget trimmed.
Who or what defines a "fully recovered" economy?  Because one can define things in such a way that we never get there, and our deficit continues to rise out of control.

The deficit has shrunk under Obama so, while still high, it isn't out of control. Do you think the economy is fully recovered? The job market seems to indicate it hasn't. I don't think GDP has grown all that much lately either.
2/27/2013 1:30 PM
Posted by tecwrg on 2/27/2013 12:53:00 PM (view original):
Republicans put up tax increases in the "fiscal cliff" crisis in December.  Obama did not offer any spending cuts at that point.  Now, for the "sequestor", Obama is demanding more tax increases while refusing to offer any spending cuts.
Right. "Fiscal cliff" is old news.

Republicans haven't put up tax increases for the sequester. Instead they're just grandstanding. Obama is offering spending cuts as I linked earlier.

And the deficit is going down.
2/27/2013 1:32 PM
I do not think the economy is fully recovered.

I also do not think that a debt that continues to rise is in the best interests of our country.

We've had this discussion before.  You seem to think that the government is incapable of multi-tasking, that we have to COMPLETELY fix the economy before we can try to tackle the debt.

Most successful businesses are able to do multiple things at once, i.e. work towards multiple goals at the same time.  The ones that are singularly focused on one and only one thing at a time are the ones that are destined to fail.
2/27/2013 2:09 PM
Based on a purely Keynesian perspective, it is basically impossible to simultaneously reduce the deficit and grow the economy.  Keynesian economics argues that the primary tool the government has to control economic growth rates, aside from the prime rate, is deficit spending, IE injection of additional money into the economy.  I'm fairly certain from previous discussions that BL is a hardcore Keynesian, so he's going to buy into that basically 100%.  I certainly would agree there is some merit to it.  As long as it's being spent domestically, government money is still paying somebody's salary or buying somebody equipment.  Even if the product of the spending isn't terribly useful or worth the money, it is being injected into the economy somewhere.
2/27/2013 2:13 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 2/27/2013 9:43:00 AM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 2/27/2013 9:27:00 AM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 2/26/2013 10:26:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 2/26/2013 10:07:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 2/26/2013 9:04:00 PM (view original):
This:  "hope the economy grows"

**** hope.  Give me a plan.
If the economy doesn't grow we're ****** regardless of the deficit.
So what part of "**** hope.  Give me a plan" confused you?

You're the one who said "hope the economy grows"

I'm a little tired of "Let's do this and hope it works!!!!"
If the plan is "cut spending" then we're ****** because that will negatively affect the economy.
Do you think it matters what gets cut?   Or do you believe any cut at all will negatively affect the economy?

If that's what you think, that's pretty dumb.

As I said "**** hope.  Give me a plan."    Said plan can include cuts that won't negatively affect the economy, don't you think?
You failed to answer this.  I'll re-word to cut the confusion.

Do you think any cuts can be made that won't affect economic recovery?
2/27/2013 2:24 PM
I'm sure there are some. But as soon as you get into numbers high enough that the cuts have a real effect on the deficit, you're negatively impacting the economy.
2/27/2013 2:27 PM
Posted by tecwrg on 2/27/2013 1:32:00 PM (view original):
I do not think the economy is fully recovered.

I also do not think that a debt that continues to rise is in the best interests of our country.

We've had this discussion before.  You seem to think that the government is incapable of multi-tasking, that we have to COMPLETELY fix the economy before we can try to tackle the debt.

Most successful businesses are able to do multiple things at once, i.e. work towards multiple goals at the same time.  The ones that are singularly focused on one and only one thing at a time are the ones that are destined to fail.
It's not that they can't multitask, it's that accomplishing those specific objectives would require us to move in forward and reverse at the same time.
2/27/2013 2:34 PM
Posted by dahsdebater on 2/27/2013 2:09:00 PM (view original):
Based on a purely Keynesian perspective, it is basically impossible to simultaneously reduce the deficit and grow the economy.  Keynesian economics argues that the primary tool the government has to control economic growth rates, aside from the prime rate, is deficit spending, IE injection of additional money into the economy.  I'm fairly certain from previous discussions that BL is a hardcore Keynesian, so he's going to buy into that basically 100%.  I certainly would agree there is some merit to it.  As long as it's being spent domestically, government money is still paying somebody's salary or buying somebody equipment.  Even if the product of the spending isn't terribly useful or worth the money, it is being injected into the economy somewhere.
Keynesian economics ignore sociological environments and societal attitudes.   Government money might be paying a salary, but if it's not producing a good or benefit, the money is essentially wasted.  Think of it this way, if they wanted to fund fast food companies, they would get a greater benefit by directly subsidizing them rather than giving money to poor people and hoping that they spend it where the government wants them to.

That's the problem right now.  Government money is being given away (to non-producing individuals) and that money isn't being put to any good at all.  Stop giving money to people who aren't working.  Incentivize people who WANT to work to produce something.  Giving money away (which is what increasing the size of government is doing) doesn't encourage growth or productivity.  It encourages government dependence.
2/27/2013 2:38 PM (edited)
Posted by bad_luck on 2/27/2013 2:24:00 PM (view original):
I'm sure there are some. But as soon as you get into numbers high enough that the cuts have a real effect on the deficit, you're negatively impacting the economy.
So, without a "real effect", nothing should be done? 

Are you implying that our government shouldn't care one iota about spending until there is a "full" economic recovery?

2/27/2013 3:41 PM
Posted by toddcommish on 2/27/2013 2:34:00 PM (view original):
Posted by dahsdebater on 2/27/2013 2:09:00 PM (view original):
Based on a purely Keynesian perspective, it is basically impossible to simultaneously reduce the deficit and grow the economy.  Keynesian economics argues that the primary tool the government has to control economic growth rates, aside from the prime rate, is deficit spending, IE injection of additional money into the economy.  I'm fairly certain from previous discussions that BL is a hardcore Keynesian, so he's going to buy into that basically 100%.  I certainly would agree there is some merit to it.  As long as it's being spent domestically, government money is still paying somebody's salary or buying somebody equipment.  Even if the product of the spending isn't terribly useful or worth the money, it is being injected into the economy somewhere.
Keynesian economics ignore sociological environments and societal attitudes.   Government money might be paying a salary, but if it's not producing a good or benefit, the money is essentially wasted.  Think of it this way, if they wanted to fund fast food companies, they would get a greater benefit by directly subsidizing them rather than giving money to poor people and hoping that they spend it where the government wants them to.

That's the problem right now.  Government money is being given away (to non-producing individuals) and that money isn't being put to any good at all.  Stop giving money to people who aren't working.  Incentivize people who WANT to work to produce something.  Giving money away (which is what increasing the size of government is doing) doesn't encourage growth or productivity.  It encourages government dependence.
Absolutely.

Which is better for the economy?
1. Not raising taxes so people have more of their own money to spend on goods and services which in-turn improves the economy 

or

2. Taking that money away in the form of higher taxes and giving it to people who aren't working, or companies that can't be self-sustaining without the government hand-out

#1 would require not raising taxes and less spending (a win win)
#2 would require raising taxes and continued higher spending (lose lose)

Which one do Repubs want?   #1
Which one does Obama and Dems want?  #2
2/27/2013 3:47 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 2/27/2013 2:38:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 2/27/2013 2:24:00 PM (view original):
I'm sure there are some. But as soon as you get into numbers high enough that the cuts have a real effect on the deficit, you're negatively impacting the economy.
So, without a "real effect", nothing should be done? 

Are you implying that our government shouldn't care one iota about spending until there is a "full" economic recovery?

He's not implying that.  He's flat-out endorsing that.
2/27/2013 3:47 PM
Posted by toddcommish on 2/27/2013 2:34:00 PM (view original):
Posted by dahsdebater on 2/27/2013 2:09:00 PM (view original):
Based on a purely Keynesian perspective, it is basically impossible to simultaneously reduce the deficit and grow the economy.  Keynesian economics argues that the primary tool the government has to control economic growth rates, aside from the prime rate, is deficit spending, IE injection of additional money into the economy.  I'm fairly certain from previous discussions that BL is a hardcore Keynesian, so he's going to buy into that basically 100%.  I certainly would agree there is some merit to it.  As long as it's being spent domestically, government money is still paying somebody's salary or buying somebody equipment.  Even if the product of the spending isn't terribly useful or worth the money, it is being injected into the economy somewhere.
Keynesian economics ignore sociological environments and societal attitudes.   Government money might be paying a salary, but if it's not producing a good or benefit, the money is essentially wasted.  Think of it this way, if they wanted to fund fast food companies, they would get a greater benefit by directly subsidizing them rather than giving money to poor people and hoping that they spend it where the government wants them to.

That's the problem right now.  Government money is being given away (to non-producing individuals) and that money isn't being put to any good at all.  Stop giving money to people who aren't working.  Incentivize people who WANT to work to produce something.  Giving money away (which is what increasing the size of government is doing) doesn't encourage growth or productivity.  It encourages government dependence.
"Government money might be paying a salary, but if it's not producing a good or benefit, the money is essentially wasted"

Person A gets a paycheck from their job. They use that money to pay rent, buy food, make their car payment, go to a bar, buy clothes, etc.
Person B gets a paycheck from their job. They use that money to pay rent, buy food, make their car payment, go to a bar, buy clothes, etc.

One person's job is a direct result of government spending. The other's isn't. What's the difference?

"if they wanted to fund fast food companies, they would get a greater benefit by directly subsidizing them rather than giving money to poor people and hoping that they spend it where the government wants them to"

You're not seeing the big picture. If demand wasn't deflated, the spending wouldn't be necessary. In other words, what's keeping the fast food company in your example from hiring isn't a shortage of money, but a shortage of demand for their product. Giving that company money without increasing demand does nothing. Giving that money to people who are going to spend it drives demand, increasing sales at your food company and forcing the food company to hire more employees to keep up.

"Government money is being given away (to non-producing individuals) and that money isn't being put to any good at all"

You're twisting a little here. Programs like welfare aren't driving the deficit. 61% of the federal budget is medicare, defense, and social security. Only 13% is other safety net programs. From a purely stimulative perspective, welfare/foodstamps/unemployment are among the most effective ways for the government to spend money in a recession. All of that money goes directly back into the economy (rent, food, gas, clothes) and next to none of it is reserved in savings accounts. The money is being put to good because it is immediately going into the economy and increasing demand. Without it, those people would move in with relatives, cut back on food and clothes, etc. This would reduce demand.

"Stop giving money to people who aren't working.  Incentivize people who WANT to work to produce something."

There is no shortage of people who want to work. Jobs are what we lack.

2/27/2013 3:54 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 2/27/2013 2:38:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 2/27/2013 2:24:00 PM (view original):
I'm sure there are some. But as soon as you get into numbers high enough that the cuts have a real effect on the deficit, you're negatively impacting the economy.
So, without a "real effect", nothing should be done? 

Are you implying that our government shouldn't care one iota about spending until there is a "full" economic recovery?

I'm saying that we should prioritize the economy over the deficit. Reducing the deficit slightly doesn't improve the economy. Reducing the deficit significantly hurts the economy.

If you want to cut things like the $85 million snack subsidy to Amtrak, fine. Just know that the Amtrak food budget will go down, and the companies that supply food to Amtrak will see less business and need fewer employees.

If you want to keep tax rates where they are (or lower them), I can get behind that too.

But let's not live in a fantasy world. The debt and deficit aren't hurting the economy, they shouldn't be dealt with at the expense of the economy.
2/27/2013 4:09 PM
Posted by bheid408 on 2/27/2013 3:41:00 PM (view original):
Posted by toddcommish on 2/27/2013 2:34:00 PM (view original):
Posted by dahsdebater on 2/27/2013 2:09:00 PM (view original):
Based on a purely Keynesian perspective, it is basically impossible to simultaneously reduce the deficit and grow the economy.  Keynesian economics argues that the primary tool the government has to control economic growth rates, aside from the prime rate, is deficit spending, IE injection of additional money into the economy.  I'm fairly certain from previous discussions that BL is a hardcore Keynesian, so he's going to buy into that basically 100%.  I certainly would agree there is some merit to it.  As long as it's being spent domestically, government money is still paying somebody's salary or buying somebody equipment.  Even if the product of the spending isn't terribly useful or worth the money, it is being injected into the economy somewhere.
Keynesian economics ignore sociological environments and societal attitudes.   Government money might be paying a salary, but if it's not producing a good or benefit, the money is essentially wasted.  Think of it this way, if they wanted to fund fast food companies, they would get a greater benefit by directly subsidizing them rather than giving money to poor people and hoping that they spend it where the government wants them to.

That's the problem right now.  Government money is being given away (to non-producing individuals) and that money isn't being put to any good at all.  Stop giving money to people who aren't working.  Incentivize people who WANT to work to produce something.  Giving money away (which is what increasing the size of government is doing) doesn't encourage growth or productivity.  It encourages government dependence.
Absolutely.

Which is better for the economy?
1. Not raising taxes so people have more of their own money to spend on goods and services which in-turn improves the economy 

or

2. Taking that money away in the form of higher taxes and giving it to people who aren't working, or companies that can't be self-sustaining without the government hand-out

#1 would require not raising taxes and less spending (a win win)
#2 would require raising taxes and continued higher spending (lose lose)

Which one do Repubs want?   #1
Which one does Obama and Dems want?  #2
If you really buy this bullshit you are too stupid to have this discussion with, but briefly:

BL is endorsing NOT reducing the deficit.  You don't even seem capable of grasping that concept.  He never said jack or **** about raising taxes, only avoiding spending cuts.  The idea is to NOT reduce the deficit.  IE you don't raise taxes AND you don't cut spending.  So your dichotomy is already a massive oversimplification.

Also, how is reducing a spending a "win" and raising spending a "loss?"  The biggest problem for governments is that everybody wants to pay less taxes and get more from the government.  If they really think about it, 90+% of the population are realistically in favor of government spending once it's made concrete.  Road upkeep, park systems, funding for education, funding for scientific research, etc.  How is reducing spending a win in your mind?  It's bad for the economy, it's bad for whoever benefits from the specific spending being cut.

It's pretty clear that option number 1 of your false dichotomy is a win-lose and #2 is a lose-win.

2/27/2013 5:36 PM

1. I never said that BL wanted to raise taxes. I said Obama and the Dems did. Big difference!

2. I never said that spending towards good programs like roads, parks, education, and research, like you stated, should be cut, however if you think that every f*cking dollar that gets spent in Washington goes to a good cause then you are a fool.

3. Try to start your posts without insulting others. It will make them and yourself more credible.

 

of 45
All Forums > General Discussion > Non-Sports > Socialism Experiment

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.