5 ms·

A very obscure, complicated and short term bill that lets democrat congressmen go back to their districts and run political advertisements that claim they "pass

by lzw 16y ago

A very obscure, complicated and short term bill that lets democrat congressmen go back to their districts and run political advertisements that claim they "passed legislation to help america's small businesses", etc. Minimal effect, and on top of it, it is overwhelmed by bills already signed that do significant damage to the economy. For instance, the bill that massively increases the size of government, putting a permanent burden in taxation or inflation on the economy that Obama claims will "Stimulate" it. Making things more expensive and preventing businesses from expanding is not stimulative. Adding more workers to the government payroll is a drain.

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
roc 16y ago
> "For instance, the bill that massively increases the size of government, putting a permanent burden in taxation or inflation on the economy that Obama claims will "Stimulate" it." Which bill is it that massively increases the size of government?
- harold 16y ago
  Healthcare? Without debating the merits of the bill, there's no doubt that it represents a huge increase in government bureaucracy.
  - roc 16y ago
    What's "huge"? Similarly, what's the benefit of considering "expansion" of government bureaucracy without the context of its budget impact? i.e. Is it meaningful to loathe an increase in the size of government if the effort will reduce the net cost of government? e.g. Suppose we could hire a thousand accounts at a hundred thousand dollars a year to go over the defense budget with a fine-toothed comb. If the effect of adding these accountants was a cost reduction of several billion dollars per year, have we expanded government? Looking at one side of the equation it's trivial to see that we have. But looking at the whole equation, in context, it's just as trivial to see that we haven't; not in any practical, useful sense. So pardon me if I'm deeply skeptical of people arguing about only one side of the equation and with subjective measurements to boot.
    - rick888 16y ago
      "i.e. Is it meaningful to loathe an increase in the size of government if the effort will reduce the net cost of government?" When has increasing the size of the government EVER reduced the net cost? "Suppose we could hire a thousand accounts at a hundred thousand dollars a year to go over the defense budget with a fine-toothed comb. If the effect of adding these accountants was a cost reduction of several billion dollars per year, have we expanded government?" The question is: If they hire these accountants and they don't reduce the overall cost by several billion dollars, can we fire them? Also, who decides how long we are going to wait and see if they will be successful..and how long would be considered successful? 1 year? 5? 10? My other problem is that the Democrats will never admit when something just doesn't work. If a tax hike fails to improve the economy, we either didn't increase taxes enough (or fast enough) or the economy is so bad because of Bush that anybody in their position would have a problem. The faithful Democrat voter believes this crap and we get to keep repeating things that have already been shown to fail.
      - roc 16y ago
        > "When has increasing the size of the government EVER reduced the net cost?" Isn't that exactly what the CBO has estimated as the result of health care reform? A reduction in the deficit despite the increase in scope (and thus surely number of desks) of government? > "The question is: If they hire these accountants and they don't reduce the overall cost by several billion dollars, can we fire them?" I was making a point about the whole equation. If you absorbed my point you would already know that my answer is an unqualified "absolutely". > "If a tax hike fails to improve the economy" No-one has proposed that tax hikes will improve the economy. Tax hikes are proposed to reduce the deficit. Which, by definition, would depress the economy. I have to tell you, it's pretty difficult to talk to people who are so certain they know what the other party is thinking and how they will react.
        rick888 16y ago
        "Isn't that exactly what the CBO has estimated as the result of health care reform? A reduction in the deficit despite the increase in scope (and thus surely number of desks) of government?" I don't know if I believe it. I would have to see the numbers. For years, people have claimed how great France has been with it's many social programs. Now, after creating a society that is dependent on these programs, they can't even cut it a little bit (because they are running out of money) without violent riots in the streets. Also, Even though the deficit is reduced, overall quality has also been reduced. I have many relatives in Canada and they all come over here for any major surgery because of the waiting lists. Greece is very similar. I've heard from many Democrats that the reason it's doing so poorly is because they didn't get enough in taxes (not the ridiculous social programs that just don't work in the long-run). This is exactly what I am talking about. "If you absorbed my point you would already know that my answer is an unqualified "absolutely"." You say this now..and it does sound great. But reality shows that it never happens this way. Governments are generally very inefficient and bloated. They also have no incentive to save money since it all comes from the taxpayers. Running a successful government and a successful business aren't really that different. If you get funding from the government and you spend less, guess what happens? You get less money the next year...so most will spend it all, even though they don't need to. "I have to tell you, it's pretty difficult to talk to people who are so certain they know what the other party is thinking and how they will react." The best way to predict someone's future actions is to look at what they've done in the past. This is because for the most part, people don't change. This logic also applies to future spouses, friends, and bosses. I would really like the Democratic party to prove me wrong. It's not difficult to talk to me. You just don't have a very good convincing argument.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
mkramlich 16y ago
> and run political advertisements that claim they "passed legislation to help america's small businesses", etc. ... because they did.
mkramlich 16y ago
> that Obama claims will "Stimulate" it. ... that almost all economists agreed would stimulate it. Important clarification.
- mkramlich 16y ago
  A factually true sentence is downgraded to -1? Voting is broken here. I'm this close to never commenting on this site ever again.

by lzw 16y ago

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

roc 16y ago

> "For instance, the bill that massively increases the size of government, putting a permanent burden in taxation or inflation on the economy that Obama claims will "Stimulate" it." Which bill is it that massively increases the size of government?

harold 16y ago
Healthcare? Without debating the merits of the bill, there's no doubt that it represents a huge increase in government bureaucracy.
- roc 16y ago
  What's "huge"? Similarly, what's the benefit of considering "expansion" of government bureaucracy without the context of its budget impact? i.e. Is it meaningful to loathe an increase in the size of government if the effort will reduce the net cost of government? e.g. Suppose we could hire a thousand accounts at a hundred thousand dollars a year to go over the defense budget with a fine-toothed comb. If the effect of adding these accountants was a cost reduction of several billion dollars per year, have we expanded government? Looking at one side of the equation it's trivial to see that we have. But looking at the whole equation, in context, it's just as trivial to see that we haven't; not in any practical, useful sense. So pardon me if I'm deeply skeptical of people arguing about only one side of the equation and with subjective measurements to boot.
  - rick888 16y ago
    "i.e. Is it meaningful to loathe an increase in the size of government if the effort will reduce the net cost of government?" When has increasing the size of the government EVER reduced the net cost? "Suppose we could hire a thousand accounts at a hundred thousand dollars a year to go over the defense budget with a fine-toothed comb. If the effect of adding these accountants was a cost reduction of several billion dollars per year, have we expanded government?" The question is: If they hire these accountants and they don't reduce the overall cost by several billion dollars, can we fire them? Also, who decides how long we are going to wait and see if they will be successful..and how long would be considered successful? 1 year? 5? 10? My other problem is that the Democrats will never admit when something just doesn't work. If a tax hike fails to improve the economy, we either didn't increase taxes enough (or fast enough) or the economy is so bad because of Bush that anybody in their position would have a problem. The faithful Democrat voter believes this crap and we get to keep repeating things that have already been shown to fail.
    - roc 16y ago
      > "When has increasing the size of the government EVER reduced the net cost?" Isn't that exactly what the CBO has estimated as the result of health care reform? A reduction in the deficit despite the increase in scope (and thus surely number of desks) of government? > "The question is: If they hire these accountants and they don't reduce the overall cost by several billion dollars, can we fire them?" I was making a point about the whole equation. If you absorbed my point you would already know that my answer is an unqualified "absolutely". > "If a tax hike fails to improve the economy" No-one has proposed that tax hikes will improve the economy. Tax hikes are proposed to reduce the deficit. Which, by definition, would depress the economy. I have to tell you, it's pretty difficult to talk to people who are so certain they know what the other party is thinking and how they will react.
      - rick888 16y ago
        "Isn't that exactly what the CBO has estimated as the result of health care reform? A reduction in the deficit despite the increase in scope (and thus surely number of desks) of government?" I don't know if I believe it. I would have to see the numbers. For years, people have claimed how great France has been with it's many social programs. Now, after creating a society that is dependent on these programs, they can't even cut it a little bit (because they are running out of money) without violent riots in the streets. Also, Even though the deficit is reduced, overall quality has also been reduced. I have many relatives in Canada and they all come over here for any major surgery because of the waiting lists. Greece is very similar. I've heard from many Democrats that the reason it's doing so poorly is because they didn't get enough in taxes (not the ridiculous social programs that just don't work in the long-run). This is exactly what I am talking about. "If you absorbed my point you would already know that my answer is an unqualified "absolutely"." You say this now..and it does sound great. But reality shows that it never happens this way. Governments are generally very inefficient and bloated. They also have no incentive to save money since it all comes from the taxpayers. Running a successful government and a successful business aren't really that different. If you get funding from the government and you spend less, guess what happens? You get less money the next year...so most will spend it all, even though they don't need to. "I have to tell you, it's pretty difficult to talk to people who are so certain they know what the other party is thinking and how they will react." The best way to predict someone's future actions is to look at what they've done in the past. This is because for the most part, people don't change. This logic also applies to future spouses, friends, and bosses. I would really like the Democratic party to prove me wrong. It's not difficult to talk to me. You just don't have a very good convincing argument.

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

mkramlich 16y ago

> and run political advertisements that claim they "passed legislation to help america's small businesses", etc. ... because they did.

mkramlich 16y ago

> that Obama claims will "Stimulate" it. ... that almost all economists agreed would stimulate it. Important clarification.

mkramlich 16y ago
A factually true sentence is downgraded to -1? Voting is broken here. I'm this close to never commenting on this site ever again.