or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Stupid political crap your friends post on facebook.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Stupid political crap your friends post on facebook. - Page 2

post #16 of 5454
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bhowie View Post

263

i dont get it. what's wrong with this
post #17 of 5454
Quote:
Originally Posted by indesertum View Post

i dont get it. what's wrong with this

While the amount of debt is a problem insofar the crowding out of private sector borrowing and the impact on consumer confidence, the difference between a household and a nation is that the nation can service this debt with future tax revenue and/or just plain printing out money. So long as inflation is kept under control and the amount of new debt created does not get out of hand the situation is serviceable.

You can look to Japan for what level of debt is sustainable for a 1st world country. American debt and Japanese debt can be thought of as interchangeable as investment grade assets, with American bonds being far more liquid and in-demand by financial institutions.
post #18 of 5454
so the analogy doesn't hold because a nation can print money and because you can use future income to pay off the debt?

i'll concede printing money, but can't households also use future revenue to pay off debt or are you talking about the gov't being able to issue bonds?



so deficit spending is beneficial at least until it erodes investor confidence?


in keeping with this thread

222
post #19 of 5454
258

463

201

312

Having stupid friends on Facebook makes me feel smart! biggrin.gif
post #20 of 5454
The difference between a household relying on future income and a nation relying on future tax revenue is that tax revenue is guaranteed, while our jobs (unfortunately) are not. The government's debts are as close to a risk free asset as we can get in this world, while any single individual household is subject to the whims of the local economy and the power of creditors to seize our assets. While in the past wars have been declared over failure to repay debts, I doubt any sovereign today is willing to try and 'seize' US assets.

You hit the nail on the head though when you said that a nation can issue new debt, with the caveat that it must not get out of hand however or we run into inflation.
post #21 of 5454
Quote:
Originally Posted by mordecai View Post

Why? People vote for rhetoric. Republicans don't generally say "We will cut government spending but keep popular entitlement programs" They say "We will cut government spending" and receive the votes of those most likely to benefit from increased or preserved entitlements (which is the common platform of Democrats). Obviously there isn't black and white liberal-conservative divide, but I'm speaking in general terms here only related to the chart (taking it at face value).
I understand your point, and i think it's half good and maybe half empty. Republicans don't want to shock their constituency into voting for the other guys via drastic reforms, but the idea that they could really even achieve drastic reforms without facing interest groups, power plays from colleagues on another part of the red-blue scale, filibuster, or veto seems questionable to me.

So the question is "doesn't this just add gravity to Republican efforts to reduce that spending". I don't think Republican's are really trying to cut spending rather they are using this as a justification to derail most legislative agendas until the end of Obama's term. Further, I don't think most voters understand what needs to happen to get to the balanced budget that is being promised and how it affects them personally. Based on these two assumptions I don't think this chart adds any gravity to the Republican efforts to cut spending.

Of course you will likely disagree with my first assumption. So fire away smile.gif
post #22 of 5454
ok i understand now
post #23 of 5454
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by cross22 View Post

So the question is "doesn't this just add gravity to Republican efforts to reduce that spending". I don't think Republican's are really trying to cut spending rather they are using this as a justification to derail most legislative agendas until the end of Obama's term. Further, I don't think most voters understand what needs to happen to get to the balanced budget that is being promised and how it affects them personally. Based on these two assumptions I don't think this chart adds any gravity to the Republican efforts to cut spending.
Of course you will likely disagree with my first assumption. So fire away smile.gif

My point wasn't about what Republicans are doing. My point was that the chart implies that people who most stand to gain from preserved or increased government spending are supporting people who are telling them they intend to cut that spending instead. Now since these numbers come from 04, and W was a spendthrift, maybe the interpretation doesn't hold. However, if they were representative of 2012, as they are being presented, I think it would. Perhaps I should have said "GOP rhetoric" rather than "GOP efforts" though. I don't know.
post #24 of 5454
Quote:
Originally Posted by mordecai View Post

Why? People vote for rhetoric. Republicans don't generally say "We will cut government spending but keep popular entitlement programs" They say "We will cut government spending" and receive the votes of those most likely to benefit from increased or preserved entitlements (which is the common platform of Democrats). Obviously there isn't black and white liberal-conservative divide, but I'm speaking in general terms here only related to the chart (taking it at face value).
I understand your point, and i think it's half good and maybe half empty. Republicans don't want to shock their constituency into voting for the other guys via drastic reforms, but the idea that they could really even achieve drastic reforms without facing interest groups, power plays from colleagues on another part of the red-blue scale, filibuster, or veto seems questionable to me.

Two issues;

(1) It really depends on the Republican. Plenty of them have in fact said "we will cut government spending but keep popular entitlements," namely SS and Medicare. See: Medicare part D, GOP cries of Obama "destroying Medicare" with HCR, etc. Many of them play the entitlement card when it suits them. I will grant that they are becoming more consistent on this issue, however.

(2) There is a really interesting phenomenon where rich states tend to vote for Democrats, and poor states for Republicans, but rich individuals for Republicans and poor individuals for Democrats. A lot of different explanations have been offered to explain this behavior. Personally, I'm sympathetic to the argument that in generally prosperous states, people are less likely to see resources as scarce and therefore less likely to be concerned with welfare state spending going to others.

What you really have going on, essentially, are middle-class and upper-class people in Red states who see a lot of poverty around them, often with a significant racial divide between the classes, and they vote against continuing support for those poor people. And they're able to do this with the support of some amount of working class whites voting based on cultural or racial preferences. Meanwhile, the poor folks in Red states do continue to generally vote for Democrats. If people making under $20,000/year were the only voters in '08, Obama would have swept 48 states, including the entire South except for West Virginia.

It's sort of the same thing as with race; during the Democratic primary of '08, the higher the black population of the state, the higher the percentage of the white vote that Hillary tended to win. States with more poverty tend to polarize voters and drive middle and upper class voters in higher margins to elected officials who promise to cut off aid to the poor, and this is especially true in states with high minority populations as in much of the South.
post #25 of 5454
277
post #26 of 5454
What's wrong with that one?
post #27 of 5454
Thread Starter 
It seems like it doesn't quite send the right message to say "We should allow gay marriage because the institution is already fucked"
post #28 of 5454
Pointing out hypocrisy is always cool.
post #29 of 5454
402664_330282110338069_291294860903461_1022673_494681384_n.jpg
post #30 of 5454
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by javyn View Post

Pointing out hypocrisy is always cool.

Like Julian Assange crying about government transparency and then going to work for a government with one of the worst and most corrupt records on the subject?
Quote:
Originally Posted by javyn View Post

402664_330282110338069_291294860903461_1022673_494681384_n.jpg


Is this something annoying posted by a friend, or is it just you being annoying?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Events, Power and Money
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Stupid political crap your friends post on facebook.