New Campaign Slogan has ties to Socialism/Marxism

[scarshapedstar]

Wait - I thought we based our laws on what Jesus said.

Actually, I've always wanted to stone disobedient children and genocide the Amalekites, this is great!

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[deleted103644]

Wait - I thought we based our laws on what Jesus said.

Actually, I've always wanted to stone disobedient children and genocide the Amalekites, this is great!

Indeed, far too few people are stoned.

 

[AnesNavy]

pictures are worth a million words

 

[BLADEMDA]

I literally get chills reading sentences like this, equating the "moral decay" of a society with acceptance of marriage equality for homosexuals. I hope you can appreciate your status as a dinosaur, Blade (et al.). Oh how generations differ on this. I do not back most of my generation's political views, but I'm happy the vast majority of us agree on this one in a showing of moral fortitude.

Oh yes, I am a dinosaur. I also understand how the younger generation feels on this issue and others like Marijuana, etc. I even get the polling data is showing a huge change on this issue over the past 8 years.

These facts don't change my opinion one bit. I fully accept my view on "moral" may not be yours; Homosexuals deserve the exact same rights and protection under the law as everyone else. Whether "marriage" qualifies as one of those rights is up for debate.
Certainly, if the law allows their "civil unions" to enjoy the legal benefits of that status then so be it. However, Marriage as I understand it will always be between a man and a woman.

Now, I'm not looking to impose any of my morals on others. But, we vote for representatives in our areas to speak for the people. That's how our democratic republic works. In addition, we have the constitution and SCOTUS (brown vs the board of education) to point out the error of any laws which violate civil rights.

Now, back to the real topic at hand: $16 trillion in debt and a stagnant economy.
Will the voters choose Socialism and bigger government or Capitalism and individualism?

 

[BLADEMDA]

I literally get chills reading sentences like this, equating the "moral decay" of a society with acceptance of marriage equality for homosexuals. I hope you can appreciate your status as a dinosaur, Blade (et al.). Oh how generations differ on this. I do not back most of my generation's political views, but I'm happy the vast majority of us agree on this one in a showing of moral fortitude.

You should SHIVER when you read this:



Same-sex marriage in the Midrash
The Midrash is one of the few ancient religious texts that makes reference to same-sex marriage. The following teaching can be found twice in the Midrash:

"Rabbi Huna said in the name of Rabbi Joseph, 'The generation of the Flood was not wiped out until they wrote marriage documents for the union of a man to a male or to an animal.'"[2]
​

 

[deleted103644]

You should SHIVER when you read this:



Same-sex marriage in the Midrash
The Midrash is one of the few ancient religious texts that makes reference to same-sex marriage. The following teaching can be found twice in the Midrash:

"Rabbi Huna said in the name of Rabbi Joseph, 'The generation of the Flood was not wiped out until they wrote marriage documents for the union of a man to a male or to an animal.'"[2]
​

Hm, never imagined you were Jewish. Figured more likely hardcore Protestant or maybe even Evangelical.

Or are you just grasping for straws?

 

[BLADEMDA]

Hm, never imagined you were Jewish. Figured more likely hardcore Protestant or maybe even Evangelical.

Or are you just grasping for straws?

No. I'm pointing out that learned, Torah Scholars from the past recognized the abomination before God of Homosexual marriages. Christians today believe the same as those ancient, wise Rabbis of old. Gay Marriage is very much a religous issue and many Latinos won't be as "understanding" about the issue as you.

Christians/Jews/Muslims all pretty much see this issue the same way.

 

[deleted103644]

No. I'm pointing out that learned, Torah Scholars from the past recognized the abomination before God of Homosexual marriages. Christians today believe the same as those ancient, wise Rabbis of old. Gay Marriage is very much a religous issue and many Latinos won't be as "understanding" about the issue as you.

Christians/Jews/Muslims all pretty much see this issue the same way.

Hahaha, you should read more.

Some of those Rabbis say nutty things. Only piece of advice from them I take to heart is making a sandwich of maror and haroset during Seder.

"The Devil can quote scripture to his purpose."

You could find evidence for almost any argument in the Bible/Torah, and even more so if you extend it to the ancillary literature.

 

[BLADEMDA]

Hahaha, you should read more.

Some of those Rabbis say nutty things. Only piece of advice from them I take to heart is making a sandwich of maror and haroset during Seder.

"The Devil can quote scripture to his purpose."

You could find evidence for almost any argument in the Bible/Torah, and even more so if you extend it to the ancillary literature.

Is that what I'm doing? Or, am I explaining that the 3 major religions of the world REJECT Homosexual marriage?

I'm not looking to argue any scripture with you but rather explain that many view Homosexual marriage as a religous issue while you see it as a civil rights one.

 

[BLADEMDA]

OBAMA: "Well, what I believe, in my faith, is that a man and a woman, when they get married, are performing something before God, and it's not simply the two persons who are meeting. But that doesn't mean that that necessarily translates into a position on public policy or with respect to civil unions. What it does mean is that we have a set of traditions in place that, I think, need to be preserved, but I also think we have to make sure that gays and lesbians have the same set of basic rights that are in place. And I was glad to see, for example, that the president today apparently stated that he was in favor of civil unions. This may be a reversal of his position but I think it's a healthy one. I think, on this, President Bush and I disagree, apparently, with Mr. Keyes on this, because I think that that kind of basic ethic of regard towards all people, regardless of sexual orientation, is a valuable thing."

OBAMA: "I don't think marriage is a civil right, but I think that being able



Obama 2004

 

[deleted103644]

Is that what I'm doing? Or, am I explaining that the 3 major religions of the world REJECT Homosexual marriage?

I'm not looking to argue any scripture with you but rather explain that many view Homosexual marriage as a religous issue while you see it as a civil rights one.

Almost every Jewish person I know supports gay marriage (and I'm betting I know more than you).

I'm actually less gungho about it than most, my actual position is closer to yours, just because I think the government has better things to do than define marriage.

Civil unions for everybody, and leave marriage as a religious thing. If your religion doesn't allow gay marriage, choose a better religion.

 

[BLADEMDA]

Almost every Jewish person I know supports gay marriage (and I'm betting I know more than you).

I'm actually less gungho about it than most, my actual position is closer to yours, just because I think the government has better things to do than define marriage.

Civil unions for everybody, and leave marriage as a religious thing. If your religion doesn't allow gay marriage, choose a better religion.

You are free to choose your religion. Even Obama looked at Gay marriage as a religious issue in 2004 but in 2012 he has evolved.

 

[BLADEMDA]

Almost every Jewish person I know supports gay marriage (and I'm betting I know more than you).

I'm actually less gungho about it than most, my actual position is closer to yours, just because I think the government has better things to do than define marriage.

Civil unions for everybody, and leave marriage as a religious thing. If your religion doesn't allow gay marriage, choose a better religion.

I'll go slow here. My references to the major religions of the word were to the ORTHODOX sects.

For example, the Catholic Church rejects Birth Control yet the majority of practicing Catholics disagree with that view. This may hold true for Gay Marriage as well.

The fact that liberals of all religions support Gay Marriage doesn't make it less of a religous issue to some.

 

[deleted103644]

I'll go slow here. My references to the major religions of the word were to the ORTHODOX sects.

For example, the Catholic Church rejects Birth Control yet the majority of practicing Catholics disagree with that view. This may hold true for Gay Marriage as well.

The fact that liberals of all religions support Gay Marriage doesn't make it less of a religous issue to some.

Fundamentalists believe crazy stuff in many religions, the government already humors them far too much.

 

[deleted103644]

You are free to choose your religion. Even Obama looked at Gay marriage as a religious issue in 2004 but in 2012 he has evolved.

Obama's personal views didn't evolve. He was lying in 2008 - it was a political choice.

He's a politician.

 

[midazme]

my favorite part of scripture is the part where it talks about the value of charity and the evils of greed.

 

[countingdays]

Obama's personal views didn't evolve. He was lying in 2008 - it was a political choice.

He's a politician.

or maybe he was lying in 2012? who knows?

all I know is he is exploding the debt and expects my kids, who don't have the right to vote against him, to pay for all the handouts he gives his base,

It's easy to pass the costs of programs on to the future,
it's like taking candy from a baby

 

[deleted103644]

or maybe he was lying in 2012? who knows?

all I know is he is exploding the debt and expects my kids, who don't have the right to vote against him, to pay for all the handouts he gives his base,

It's easy to pass the costs of programs on to the future, democrats have unlimited generocity with other peoples money, imagine that
it's like taking candy from a baby

Who is he giving handouts to?

Mainly old people, and they aren't his base. (And he's just continuing past policies.)

He's really changed almost nothing. In almost every policy, he's just continuing what Bush would have done except the healthcare plan (which is what the 1990's Republicans supported over Hillarycare).

The only significant things he's done are:

1) Put Osama in the ocean
2) Put two supreme court justices on the bench.

Everything else is just more of the same.

 

[scarshapedstar]

The company we keep...

Though this image might seem like some kind of coincidental cheap shot—"Only uneducated people don't support gay marriage!"—real studies gird its point. The Pew Research Center found in 2010 that support for gay marriage is directly proportional to educational achievement (it's also correlated with age, so it makes sense that students voted no). While the majority of college graduates believe gay marriage should be legal, only 46 percent of people with some college experience agreed. And among people with a high school diploma or less, just 34 percent supported gay marriage.

We gotta keep 'em breedin'! Way to get-r-dun, NC.

[YOUTUBE]icmRCixQrx8[/YOUTUBE]

 

[Gern Blansten]

An old response to Dr Laura's comments that gays are a "biological mistake" and an abomination:

Dear Dr. Laura:

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God’s Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the other specific laws and how to follow them:

When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord – Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness – Lev.15:19- 24. The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can’t I own Canadians?

I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination – Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don’t agree. Can you settle this?

Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? – Lev.24:10-16. Couldn’t we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

James: I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God’s word is eternal and unchanging.

 

[countingdays]

Who is he giving handouts to?

Mainly old people, and they aren't his base. (And he's just continuing past policies.)

He's really changed almost nothing. In almost every policy, he's just continuing what Bush would have done except the healthcare plan (which is what the 1990's Republicans supported over Hillarycare).

The only significant things he's done are:

1) Put Osama in the ocean
2) Put two supreme court justices on the bench.

Everything else is just more of the same.

Look at the debt, Obama is the worst president in the history of the United States.

More of the same is no defense. If he can't make things better for the future, then he's wrong for the job, however similar he might be to past presidents.

 

[deleted103644]

Look at the debt, Obama is the worst president in the history of the United States.

More of the same is no defense. If he can't make things better for the future, then he's wrong for the job, however similar he might be to past presidents.

The entire debt increase under Obama can be explained by three things:

1) The bailout (which any of the Republican candidates except Ron Paul would have gone through with just like the one under Bush...)

2) The stimulus (which probably would have been bigger with a Republican, just all tax cut instead of mixed, adding the same or more to the debt).

3) Counter-cyclical government programs. These kicked in without Obama doing anything, but in a downturn of course we end up spending more on programs that support the poor because more people are poor.

I'd have to refresh myself on precise numbers, but believe the bulk is 1 & 3, although you probably have the biggest issue with 2.

And #2 would have happened with a Republican too, just all tax cut without spending. Even if you believe in trickle down magic, you would still lose government funds and have increased the debt equally.

The outrage over Obama for the debt is dishonest. Just look at the various Republican budget plans - they all focus far more on tax cuts than debt reduction, and those are not the same thing (in fact, they're opposite).

 

[BLADEMDA]

The entire debt increase under Obama can be explained by three things:

1) The bailout (which any of the Republican candidates except Ron Paul would have gone through with just like the one under Bush...)

2) The stimulus (which probably would have been bigger with a Republican, just all tax cut instead of mixed, adding the same or more to the debt).

3) Counter-cyclical government programs. These kicked in without Obama doing anything, but in a downturn of course we end up spending more on programs that support the poor because more people are poor.

I'd have to refresh myself on precise numbers, but believe the bulk is 1 & 3, although you probably have the biggest issue with 2.

And #2 would have happened with a Republican too, just all tax cut without spending. Even if you believe in trickle down magic, you would still lose government funds and have increased the debt equally.

The outrage over Obama for the debt is dishonest. Just look at the various Republican budget plans - they all focus far more on tax cuts than debt reduction, and those are not the same thing (in fact, they're opposite).

I supprt Simpson-Bowles. Is it perfect? No. But, cut spending and enact Simpson Bowles to save America.

 

[deleted103644]

I supprt Simpson-Bowles. Is it perfect? No. But, cut spending and enact Simpson Bowles to save America.

I'll let Krugman respond to that one. No serious debt reduction plan should include a cut to income taxes.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/10/unserious-people-2/

OK, let's say goodbye to the deficit commission. If you're sincerely worried about the US fiscal future — and there's good reason to be — you don't propose a plan that involves large cuts in income taxes. Even if those cuts are offset by supposed elimination of tax breaks elsewhere, balancing the budget is hard enough without giving out a lot of goodies — goodies that fairly obviously, even without having the details, would go largely to the very affluent.

I mean, what's this about? There is no — zero — evidence that income taxes at current rates are an important drag on growth.

Oh, and they're talking about raising the retirement age, because people live longer — except that the people who really depend on Social Security, those in the bottom half of the distribution, aren't living much longer. So you're going to tell janitors to work until they're 70 because lawyers are living longer than ever.

Still, I guess this is what it takes to get compromise, if by compromise you mean something the center-right and the hard right can agree on.

Update: It's here. And it really is that bad. The idea that co-chairs of a commission whose charge is fiscal sustainability should take it upon themselves to (a) declare that federal revenue must not exceed 21 percent of GDP — that's right, putting a cap on receipts and (b) call for reducing the top rate from 35 to 23 is just awesome.

 

[doctor712]

Homosexuals deserve the exact same rights and protection under the law as everyone else.

Yay Blade, excellent statement! I'm happy you feel this way.

Whether "marriage" qualifies as one of those rights is up for debate.

Wait, what? EXACT SAME RIGHTS = EXACT SAME RIGHTS.

Oy.

D712

 

[doctor712]

Now, I'm not looking to impose any of my morals on others.

Blade, you da man, but, are you feeling ok?

You are ABSOLUTELY IMPOSING MORALS!!!! If you take religion and your morals away, what is your argument?
You have NEVER even attempted to make a constitutional argument, you're 100% religious beliefs on this issue...

D712

 

[countingdays]

I'll let Krugman respond to that one. No serious debt reduction plan should include a cut to income taxes.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/10/unserious-people-2/

OK, let's say goodbye to the deficit commission. If you're sincerely worried about the US fiscal future — and there's good reason to be — you don't propose a plan that involves large cuts in income taxes. Even if those cuts are offset by supposed elimination of tax breaks elsewhere, balancing the budget is hard enough without giving out a lot of goodies — goodies that fairly obviously, even without having the details, would go largely to the very affluent.

I mean, what's this about? There is no — zero — evidence that income taxes at current rates are an important drag on growth.

Oh, and they're talking about raising the retirement age, because people live longer — except that the people who really depend on Social Security, those in the bottom half of the distribution, aren't living much longer. So you're going to tell janitors to work until they're 70 because lawyers are living longer than ever.

Still, I guess this is what it takes to get compromise, if by compromise you mean something the center-right and the hard right can agree on.

Update: It's here. And it really is that bad. The idea that co-chairs of a commission whose charge is fiscal sustainability should take it upon themselves to (a) declare that federal revenue must not exceed 21 percent of GDP — that's right, putting a cap on receipts and (b) call for reducing the top rate from 35 to 23 is just awesome.

It isn't the 'retirement age'. It's eligibility for medicare and social security. You can retire whenever you can afford it. If you buy things you can't afford instead of saving for retirement, then you can't retire young. That's your decision. God forbid anyone would have to actually pay for a few years of retirement with retirement savings.

Medicare and social security are welfare programs for the elderly, treat them as welfare programs, not an entitlement for all. They didn't 'pay into the system' and they aren't getting their money back. They knew all along that they were contributing inadequately and were happy to **** over future generations in order to keep their own taxes low.

 

[deleted103644]

It isn't the 'retirement age'. It's eligibility for medicare and social security. You can retire whenever you can afford it. If you buy things you can't afford instead of saving for retirement, then you can't retire young. That's your decision. God forbid anyone would have to actually pay for a few years of retirement with retirement savings.

Medicare and social security are welfare programs for the elderly, treat them as welfare program, not an entitlement for all. They didn't 'pay into the system' and they aren't getting their money back. They knew all along that they were contributing inadequately and were happy to **** over future generations in order to keep their own taxes low.

You have a point on Medicare (which is mainly due to the rapid rate of increasing health costs), but Social Security is absolutely something people paid into...

Unlike Krugman I'm not opposed to raising ages, but it should only be done after:

1) We eliminate the caps on taxes for those entitlements. (Why limit them to only ~$100k in income?)

2) We means test payments, particularly for Medicare. People with insurance from past employers or sufficient funds should be required to use those first.

I also think instead of just raising the age, we could smooth the transition by letting people buy in at earlier ages for amounts that decrease as they get older (until it's free).

 

[pgg]

Oh, and they're talking about raising the retirement age, because people live longer — except that the people who really depend on Social Security, those in the bottom half of the distribution, aren't living much longer. So you're going to tell janitors to work until they're 70 because lawyers are living longer than ever.

That's an interesting line of argument. Do you know of a reputable data source that shows US life expectancy stratified by income, given a starting age of ~60?

Difficulty #1: Don't refer me to Krugman, the source of your janitor/lawyer example, even though he's first on the Google results for "US life expectancy by income" ...

Difficulty #2: Recognize that absolute life expectancy is an irrelevant number anyway; what is important is life expectancy of a group AFTER the group reaches age 60 or so. This is an important distinction because there are many reasons why poor people die younger than rich people. With regard to discussions concerning the age of eligibility for Social Security benefits and program costs, most of those reasons don't matter. More poor people die violent deaths early in life, work riskier jobs, spend time incarcerated, etc - for the ones who make it to age 60, are they really dying that much younger than their rich counterparts?


Those inequities in life expectancy are a problem and are worth discussing, but it doesn't automatically follow that increases in SS eligibility ages disproportionately affect the poor.


And once again, whatever the intentions of the government flavor-of-the-week, the ultimate effect of expanding debt will be an ongoing need for QE which, in the long run, can only result in inflation and devalued currency. Inflation may be low now (though it's clearly higher than has been officially acknowledged), but in time it won't matter if Social Security is fully funded and the checks don't bounce, if the money buys 1/2 as much stuff.

 

[deleted103644]

That's an interesting line of argument. Do you know of a reputable data source that shows US life expectancy stratified by income, given a starting age of ~60?

Difficulty #1: Don't refer me to Krugman, the source of your janitor/lawyer example, even though he's first on the Google results for "US life expectancy by income" ...

Difficulty #2: Recognize that absolute life expectancy is an irrelevant number anyway; what is important is life expectancy of a group AFTER the group reaches age 60 or so. This is an important distinction because there are many reasons why poor people die younger than rich people. With regard to discussions concerning the age of eligibility for Social Security benefits and program costs, most of those reasons don't matter. More poor people die violent deaths early in life, work riskier jobs, spend time incarcerated, etc - for the ones who make it to age 60, are they really dying that much younger than their rich counterparts?


Those inequities in life expectancy are a problem and are worth discussing, but it doesn't automatically follow that increases in SS eligibility ages disproportionately affect the poor.


And once again, whatever the intentions of the government flavor-of-the-week, the ultimate effect of expanding debt will be an ongoing need for QE which, in the long run, can only result in inflation and devalued currency. Inflation may be low now (though it's clearly higher than has been officially acknowledged), but in time it won't matter if Social Security is fully funded and the checks don't bounce, if the money buys 1/2 as much stuff.

Look at my proposals in the previous post. I'm not 100% in agreement with Krugman about the futility of raising ages.

I know Krugman is probably the top hit for that Google search, but I'm sure he backs it up with some decent references - if it were key to my point I'd do the legwork for you, but you should just find the post and then follow it to the primary source.

Also regarding inflation, here's another gem I found by reading Krugman's blog:

The Billion Price Project
http://bpp.mit.edu/

Even if you don't trust government sources, you should be able to believe those numbers. It's continuously updated, created by some really smart guys at MIT, and I believe they are able to use it even in counties with far less reliable government stats than ours. I'm on an iPhone so can't check the current stats, but it's usually pretty close to the official ones (ie no grand conspiracy).

I know you disagree with Krugman, but I still recommend reading his blog. He's overly dramatic at times, but definitely tries to back things up with data. It's always a good intellectual exercise to read opposing views rather than get stuck in an Internet bubble. (With Google tailoring search results, people are getting even more insulated from opposing viewpoints.)

 

[deleted103644]

And regarding debt --> inflation, in a strong economy obviously this is true, but the evidence has been pretty conclusive in the other direction while it is depressed.

No one is saying we shouldn't fight the debt. All I'm saying is:

1) Don't do anything crazy while the economy is still teetering on the edge (short term effects of austerity have been overwhelmingly negative).

2) We need to cut spending and raise taxes. Any plan that tries to be revenue neutral or cuts income taxes or corporate rates needs to be dismissed outright. I don't like how the Democrats pander with middle class tax cuts (those need to be reversed, and the payroll tax cut was bad policy in general), but the Republicans have been far more irresponsible.

 

[pgg]

The Billion Price Project
http://bpp.mit.edu/

Even if you don't trust government sources, you should be able to believe those numbers. It's continuously updated, created by some really smart guys at MIT, and I believe they are able to use it even in counties with far less reliable government stats than ours. I'm on an iPhone so can't check the current stats, but it's usually pretty close to the official ones (ie no grand conspiracy).

That'll be an interesting site to watch in coming years.

Wish there was more detail on their methodology. I also wonder how applicable to real life their figures are ... tracking the prices of a large number of goods available online, in an unweighted fashion, may not accurately reflect the inflation rate felt by actual people who spend 17% of their income on fuel, 15% on food, 6% on clothing, 48% on rent, etc.

IE - I could write a program to survey 5,000 products at Home Depot's web site every day, and then conclude that because the price of a boxes of 3" wood screws, 2.5" wood screws, 2" wood screws, 1.5" wood screws, etc only went from $5.00 to $6.09 in the last 10 years, that inflation is just 2%. Meanwhile people who aren't building decks for a living and aren't buying deck screws are actually buying gasoline, food, and clothing ... items that are likely to be vastly underrepresented by web-crawling price tracking software.

 

[BLADEMDA]

And regarding debt --> inflation, in a strong economy obviously this is true, but the evidence has been pretty conclusive in the other direction while it is depressed.

No one is saying we shouldn't fight the debt. All I'm saying is:

1) Don't do anything crazy while the economy is still teetering on the edge (short term effects of austerity have been overwhelmingly negative).

2) We need to cut spending and raise taxes. Any plan that tries to be revenue neutral or cuts income taxes or corporate rates needs to be dismissed outright. I don't like how the Democrats pander with middle class tax cuts (those need to be reversed, and the payroll tax cut was bad policy in general), but the Republicans have been far more irresponsible.

Thank God for Ron Paul and the GOP when it comes to taxes or liberals like you would simply steal all of my money.

The key word is MY money. If God only demands ten percent I'm sure as hell not gong to give a bunch of idiots in Washington 45 percent or more to spend as they see fit.

Medicare is out of control and more taxes won't fix this program long term.

I'm glad For reasonable people like Simpson Bowles. I expect middle of the road compromise along the lines of Simpson Bowles. The govt gets more revenue and I don't get hosed by special interest group deductions forcing my bracket up

 

[deleted103644]

That'll be an interesting site to watch in coming years.

Wish there was more detail on their methodology. I also wonder how applicable to real life their figures are ... tracking the prices of a large number of goods available online, in an unweighted fashion, may not accurately reflect the inflation rate felt by actual people who spend 17% of their income on fuel, 15% on food, 6% on clothing, 48% on rent, etc.

IE - I could write a program to survey 5,000 products at Home Depot's web site every day, and then conclude that because the price of a boxes of 3" wood screws, 2.5" wood screws, 2" wood screws, 1.5" wood screws, etc only went from $5.00 to $6.09 in the last 10 years, that inflation is just 2%. Meanwhile people who aren't building decks for a living and aren't buying deck screws are actually buying gasoline, food, and clothing ... items that are likely to be vastly underrepresented by web-crawling price tracking software.

Pretty sure they've published a paper or two. You should be able to find a decent description of their methodology there if not on the site. It's definitely weighted, although not sure exactly how. I also don't think they correct for food/oil prices, which can be a bit of a confound.

They're a bit cagey about precisely which online retailers give them special access to their prices, but they give reasons for it that I remember sounding reasonable. Think it's mainly about PR. They use web crawlers for a lot of other information in addition to the direct access they get from certain retailers.

Also, another good resource Krugman likes to use is FRED. Makes it very easy to quickly generate graphs of various economic indicators.

If BLADE made his own graphs on that I'd actually look more closely at his image posts.

 

[deleted103644]

Thank God for Ron Paul and the GOP when it comes to taxes or liberals like you would simply steal all of my money.

The key word is MY money. If God only demands ten percent I'm sure as hell not gong to give a bunch of idiots in Washington 45 percent or more to spend as they see fit.

Medicare is out of control and more taxes won't fix this program long term.

I'm glad For reasonable people like Simpson Bowles. I expect middle of the road compromise along the lines of Simpson Bowles. The govt gets more revenue and I don't get hosed by special interest group deductions forcing my bracket up

Yup. I'm sure you get no money from Medicare and use no public services or infrastructure. Cutting Medicare hurts us, doesn't help us, because we're still going to be responsible for care for those people and the government will just cut our reimbursements.

Of Ron Paul, Jesus, and Grover Norquist, only the last actually has any influence over Republican policies when they're in power.

BLADE, assuming you're in doctor range salaries, I only think you should go back to Clinton era rates. That wouldn't be socialism (anymore than we've been socialist since FDR). People earning far less need tax increases too - we've been at war for 10 years and we haven't paid for it.

Doctors get screwed by the tax system. We're rich, but not that rich, and still we're in the top tax bracket. There should be several brackets above us and no more capital gains loopholes for the megarich.

 

[countingdays]

You have a point on Medicare (which is mainly due to the rapid rate of increasing health costs), but Social Security is absolutely something people paid into...

Unlike Krugman I'm not opposed to raising ages, but it should only be done after:

1) We eliminate the caps on taxes for those entitlements. (Why limit them to only ~$100k in income?)

People didn't pay into social security. Their's no savings. We have known for my lifetime at least that they were not paying enough to support future payments, and the voters and their representatives thought it would be easier to **** over future taxpayers than to change the ponzi scheme.

We don't remove caps because taking off the caps removes the lie that they are programs that everyone contributed to and everyone deserves. Taking away the caps is just a tax increase on people whose taxes are already too high. If you want to raise taxes, remove deductions and credits.

2) We means test payments, particularly for Medicare. People with insurance from past employers or sufficient funds should be required to use those first.

That would just drive up the cost of private insurance, right?

I also think instead of just raising the age, we could smooth the transition by letting people buy in at earlier ages for amounts that decrease as they get older (until it's free).

That's good except instead of buying in at earlier ages have people buy in at the current minimum age and raise the age at which it becomes free. (Obviously phase in the changes over 10 years of so)

 

[pgg]

And regarding debt --> inflation, in a strong economy obviously this is true, but the evidence has been pretty conclusive in the other direction while it is depressed.

How much of the deflating forces in the last few years have come from assets (like housing)?

This is one of the problems with claiming that inflation is not presently a problem. In aggregate, inflation might be an eye-pleasing 2%, if things are massaged and weighted just right. But if the cost of stuff people need to live is inflating, while the value of their homes and vehicles at resale is deflating, the two don't just cancel out.

The deflation of 2009 was a great time to be a used car buyer if you had cash. Not so much if you were the one selling the car because you were unemployed and had hungry kids.

1) Don't do anything crazy while the economy is still teetering on the edge (short term effects of austerity have been overwhelmingly negative).

At what point do we stop the deficit spending / stimulus if the economy doesn't return to healthy and sustainable 3%+ annual growth?

Is there a point at which we admit the Keynesian approach of spending and stimulus to boost the economy isn't going to work, and that the only thing the spending is really accomplishing is running up more debt?

What if we put off real spending cuts for another 5 years, get 5 years of weak economic growth, and we find ourselves exactly where we are now, with a fragile economy - except now the debt is >$20 trillion?

What then, double down and keep spending at an even faster rate with even more printed money, because the economy is still teetering on the edge?

Where's the formal definition of "success" for the stimulus, and the logical end point for it?
Where's the discussion of whether or not the cost of the stimulus is worth that "success"?
Where's the acknowledgement that if "success" isn't achieved, something else should be done?

The problem so many of us have with the Keynesian "spend during down times" mantra is that their answer to "things aren't getting better" is always "we're not spending enough" ...

I could stand on the beach and chuck rocks in the ocean and make a similar claim that the economy isn't getting better because I'm not throwing enough rocks, but at least MY rocks don't have $100 bills wrapped around them.

2) We need to cut spending and raise taxes. Any plan that tries to be revenue neutral or cuts income taxes or corporate rates needs to be dismissed outright.

I agree.

I don't like how the Democrats pander with middle class tax cuts (those need to be reversed, and the payroll tax cut was bad policy in general), but the Republicans have been far more irresponsible.

Plenty of irresponsibility and pandering to go around, I'll give you that.

 

[countingdays]

Doctors get screwed by the tax system. We're rich, but not that rich, and still we're in the top tax bracket. There should be several brackets above us and no more capital gains loopholes for the megarich.

There shouldn't be more tax brackets. There should be the Fair Tax.

 

[deleted103644]

People didn't pay into social security. Their's no savings. We have known for my lifetime at least that they were not paying enough to support future payments, and the voters and their representatives thought it would be easier to **** over future taxpayers than to change the ponzi scheme.

All the shortfalls in social security disappear if you means-test it and get rid of caps. Even without that, it's still remarkably stable well past 2030. In other words, not an immediate issue.

We don't remove caps because taking off the caps removes the lie that they are programs that everyone contributed to and everyone deserves. Taking away the caps is just a tax increase on people whose taxes are already too high. If you want to raise taxes, remove deductions and credits.

Sorry, right now everyone's taxes are too low, particularly those in the 7+ figures.

I agree, we should remove most deductions and subsidies. Not sure if you're including capital gains, but that should be taxed at the old rate.

That would just drive up the cost of private insurance, right?

So? Aren't we talking about public debt? Any decrease in Medicare coverage will do this.

That's good except instead of buying in at earlier ages have people buy in at the current minimum age and raise the age at which it becomes free. (Obviously phase in the changes over 10 years of so)

I wasn't saying earlier relative to current cutoffs, I meant relative to those who would get it for free. I don't have a firm opinion on ages or rates people should have to pay into Medicare, but I think at some price it should be available to anyone who wants it - as long as that price is high enough for those buying in early, it wouldn't increase the debt burden.

 

[deleted103644]

How much of the deflating forces in the last few years have come from assets (like housing)?

Too long to quote your whole thing so apologies if I skip a key point.

I actually don't think the BPP index includes housing, but I may be wrong. Even so, what prices have you seen increasing the past few years? Aside from gold hysteria and oil (which has become more expensive globally for too many reasons to talk about), I haven't noticed prices for daily goods increasing that much (or at all really).

So I don't understand where the inflation concerns are coming from... Except I suppose from people with a large amount in a savings account, but that's more due to almost nonexistent interest right now, not rampant inflation.

Employment has dropped in all sectors of the economy (and wages have been stagnant), so from a demand side you would expect prices to be fairly stable or even drop, as the official data suggests.

As for when to start trying to fix the debt, I would:

1) Wait for the Euro mess to boil over. There's the potential for that to explode into a worldwide depression in the next couple of years and we can't tie our hands in case we need to do serious damage control (and I mean to our own economy from the fallout, not bailing out theirs).

2) Wait for employment and consumer spending to get back to an acceptable level (where exactly I'd leave to someone more knowledgeable, but clearly not where we are now).

3) Watch inflation. We should be trying to optimize both inflation and employment (which are roughly inversely proportional), and right now we're doing too good a job on inflation and too bad a job on employment.


And obviously nothing will happen before the election due to inertia, but even if it could I wouldn't trust election year politics to produce something rational.

 

[deleted103644]

There shouldn't be more tax brackets. There should be the Fair Tax.

Why? You could have a simple sigmoidal tax rather than a flat tax, with all the stated benefits of the "Fair" tax and it would still be progressive rather than regressive.

 

[countingdays]

Why? You could have a simple sigmoidal tax rather than a flat tax, with all the stated benefits of the "Fair" tax and it would still be progressive rather than regressive.

The fair tax is sigmoidal.

 

[deleted103644]

The fair tax is sigmoidal.

Is it? I thought it was just a reincarnation of the flat tax.

If it is than my only issues would be with the parameters (and that it would need to be revenue positive).

 

[Gern Blansten]

The fair tax is sigmoidal.

So is the last part of my colon...

 

[deleted103644]

The fair tax is sigmoidal.

Oh whoa, definitely not on board for that. Maybe a federal sales tax in addition to the federal income tax, but not as a replacement.

I'm talking about a sigmoidal income tax with no loopholes.

EDIT: Also, a national sales tax would be a huge disincentive for consumption, which would be a final nail in the economy's coffin.

 

[pgg]

1) Wait for the Euro mess to boil over. There's the potential for that to explode into a worldwide depression in the next couple of years and we can't tie our hands in case we need to do serious damage control (and I mean to our own economy from the fallout, not bailing out theirs).

Do you think that's more or less likely in the last week since France & Greece voted out a bunch of austerity-favoring politicians?

2) Wait for employment and consumer spending to get back to an acceptable level (where exactly I'd leave to someone more knowledgeable, but clearly not where we are now).

The problem I see with that approach is that if they do recover to some acceptable level, it'll be argued that the spending has to continue in order to maintain them at that level. Which may in fact even be true. Not sustainable, and not a solution, but true.

3) Watch inflation. We should be trying to optimize both inflation and employment (which are roughly inversely proportional), and right now we're doing too good a job on inflation and too bad a job on employment.

I fundamentally disagree that ANY inflation is desirable. All my life I've been told that 3% annual inflation is just good for us, but 3% inflation halves the value of a currency in 24 years ... halves it again 24 years after that ... in the average person's lifetime, it erodes 90% of a currency's purchasing power.

Why is deflation a bad thing? Why is it so horrible for products to become more affordable over time? Everybody loves it when it's a computer or cell phone. Why is it normal or desirable for food, clothing, transportation, everything else to get more expensive over time? Why is it a good thing that a fast food combo meal cost me $3-4 when I was in high school, but 20 years later costs me $7-8? That's only about 3% annual inflation.

The stock answer to this is that deflation encourages saving, not consumption, and hurts the economy. Oh my god, the horror. Imagine a world in which investors didn't have to chase riskier and riskier targets to beat inflation, in which individuals could reasonably expect their savings to be worth something in retirement.



Gold's up 4x since it's long stint around $300-400 but other goods haven't quadrupled in price. There's a lot of emotion involved in its price. I also personally believe China will essentially set a ~$1600 floor on its price no matter what happens, because they'll buy unlimited quantities at that price. I think they're taking the long view that gold bought today (even at a bubbly price) is a better long term bet than their other options.

Oil is expensive, despite a huge global economic slump, partly because of rampant speculation and unrest in the middle east, but more (I think) because global production genuinely plateaued starting around 2005, and we're staring down the barrel of a very, very unfavorable supply-demand problem. "Peak oil" hit US domestic production 40 years ago; it's not a theoretical phenomenon. It's hitting global production now.

So I don't look at oil and gold prices as particularly evidence of inflation, per se. Those trends are ominous for other reasons.

 

[pgg]

Also, a national sales tax would be a huge disincentive for consumption, which would be a final nail in the economy's coffin.

The US consumes 1/4 of the world's oil, and we're not exactly on per-capita equal footing with the rest of the world's consumption of other resources, either.

Large trade deficits like ours aren't sustainable. I don't think this is really a controversial claim - it's self evident that if a region imports/buys more than it exports/sells, there must come a point at which it lacks the resources or credit to import/buy more stuff.

So - given that our current pattern of consumption is unsustainable, it seems to me there ought to be some consideration given to how we're going to migrate to a less-consumption centric economy.

Maybe what this country needs is a disincentive for consumption, and an incentive for saving and investing. Wouldn't the country be better off if a citizen put $500 into a retirement account that invests that money (perhaps in US companies that make airplanes or farm equipment or pharmaceuticals), instead of buying another TV from the box store (which effectively exports US wealth to China, temporarily keeping the box store afloat with its $5 or 1% profit from that transaction)?

Of course what would probably happen with a 10% VAT is that guy would buy a $450 TV, pay $500, the box store would only profit $4.50, and nothing would get saved for retirement or invested anyway.

 

[deleted103644]

Do you think that's more or less likely in the last week since France & Greece voted out a bunch of austerity-favoring politicians?

Greece needs to default and probably to leave the Euro.

The only question is how much the aftermath of that will affect Spain, Portugal, Italy and France, and that depends to a large extent on the ECB.

The French election may pressure Germany to behave more reasonably, the Greek election is irrelevant (Greece's economy is almost completely out of its hands until it defaults.)

The problem I see with that approach is that if they do recover to some acceptable level, it'll be argued that the spending has to continue in order to maintain them at that level. Which may in fact even be true. Not sustainable, and not a solution, but true.

No, to some extent it's self sustaining. Once people are sufficiently employed, they start to consume again, causing businesses to invest, etc etc.

It's the corollary of the paradox of thrift.

I fundamentally disagree that ANY inflation is desirable. All my life I've been told that 3% annual inflation is just good for us, but 3% inflation halves the value of a currency in 24 years ... halves it again 24 years after that ... in the average person's lifetime, it erodes 90% of a currency's purchasing power.

Why is deflation a bad thing? Why is it so horrible for products to become more affordable over time? Everybody loves it when it's a computer or cell phone. Why is it normal or desirable for food, clothing, transportation, everything else to get more expensive over time? Why is it a good thing that a fast food combo meal cost me $3-4 when I was in high school, but 20 years later costs me $7-8? That's only about 3% annual inflation.

The stock answer to this is that deflation encourages saving, not consumption, and hurts the economy. Oh my god, the horror. Imagine a world in which investors didn't have to chase riskier and riskier targets to beat inflation, in which individuals could reasonably expect their savings to be worth something in retirement.

Deflation is tricky because certain costs simply will not go down. Wages are particularly sticky.

If a company has to start charging less for its widgets due to deflation, even though it has the same purchasing power, it has less nominal funds for salaries. Most companies would fire a few people instead of decreasing salaries across the board.

There are a lot of other issues there too.

And as far as keeping the next generation employed goes, it's better to force people to invest their money to maintain value than to let them stuff it into their mattresses.

Gold's up 4x since it's long stint around $300-400 but other goods haven't quadrupled in price. There's a lot of emotion involved in its price. I also personally believe China will essentially set a ~$1600 floor on its price no matter what happens, because they'll buy unlimited quantities at that price. I think they're taking the long view that gold bought today (even at a bubbly price) is a better long term bet than their other options.

Oil is expensive, despite a huge global economic slump, partly because of rampant speculation and unrest in the middle east, but more (I think) because global production genuinely plateaued starting around 2005, and we're staring down the barrel of a very, very unfavorable supply-demand problem. "Peak oil" hit US domestic production 40 years ago; it's not a theoretical phenomenon. It's hitting global production now.

So I don't look at oil and gold prices as particularly evidence of inflation, per se. Those trends are ominous for other reasons.

Gold isn't a good investment at $1600. There is a huge amount of it left in the ground.

If anyone knows how to invest in helium though, please let me know... That stuff may disappear from the face of the earth in our lifetimes...

 

[countingdays]

Oh whoa, definitely not on board for that. Maybe a federal sales tax in addition to the federal income tax, but not as a replacement.

I'm talking about a sigmoidal income tax with no loopholes.

EDIT: Also, a national sales tax would be a huge disincentive for consumption, which would be a final nail in the economy's coffin.

A high income tax is a disincentive to work. Consumption is partly unavoidable and partly leads to investment/savings= win/win.

 

[deleted103644]

The US consumes 1/4 of the world's oil, and we're not exactly on per-capita equal footing with the rest of the world's consumption of other resources, either.

Large trade deficits like ours aren't sustainable. I don't think this is really a controversial claim - it's self evident that if a region imports/buys more than it exports/sells, there must come a point at which it lacks the resources or credit to import/buy more stuff.

So - given that our current pattern of consumption is unsustainable, it seems to me there ought to be some consideration given to how we're going to migrate to a less-consumption centric economy.

Maybe what this country needs is a disincentive for consumption, and an incentive for saving and investing. Wouldn't the country be better off if a citizen put $500 into a retirement account that invests that money (perhaps in US companies that make airplanes or farm equipment or pharmaceuticals), instead of buying another TV from the box store (which effectively exports US wealth to China, temporarily keeping the box store afloat with its $5 or 1% profit from that transaction)?

Of course what would probably happen with a 10% VAT is that guy would buy a $450 TV, pay $500, the box store would only profit $4.50, and nothing would get saved for retirement or invested anyway.

That's why decreasing US labor costs (which can basically only be done through inflation) can be a good thing. It will make our manufactured products more competitive globally.

If everyone starts saving more at the same time, it's bad for the economy. For better or worse, consumption is a huge part of what drives our economy and when people are all forced to behave more responsibly at the same time, you get a recession.

In fact that's a large piece of our most recent recession - look at a graph of private debt levels over the last few years, everyone increased their savings/decreased their debt at once and consumption fell off a cliff. The results were not great.