3 ms·

Those are orthogonal to each other. Lack of money is not a problem the US has, we can borrow what we needed and trim fat later. Lack of political will is the pr

Those are orthogonal to each other. Lack of money is not a problem the US has, we can borrow what we needed and trim fat later. Lack of political will is the problem. If the things you note were truly considered as problematic as you (rightly, in my opinion) view them by politicians and the public, then petty grievances would be put aside and progress would be made. Not enough of the public truly cares, and that in turn lets politicians ignore them or use them as pieces on a chessboard to be moved about and sacrificed as needed.

Retric 6y ago
Waiting only makes the situation worse. Medicare for all could be anything from a significant net savings to an insane increase depending on how it’s implemented. Kicking the can down the road just means larger debt payments in the future. Consider, getting a few stitches is usually more expensive than a dental filling even though it’s simpler, faster, etc. The difference is simply the amount of waste involved. Trimming the fat is difficult because that’s people’s income you’re cutting and they will fight you every step of the way. PS: Politics is not about petty grievances, but elections can be. Shaping the narrative is how you get people to vote against their own best interest.
- kbenson 6y ago
  > Kicking the can down the road just means larger debt payments in the future. > Consider, getting a few stitches is usually more expensive than a dental filling even though it’s simpler, faster, etc. And not getting those stitches can lead to scarring, or infection. There are things worse than debt. That said, I'm not saying we should just borrow the money to do what we want without considering if we should find a way to pay for it, I'm just saying for things that are really important, money is not an obstacle. The whole point of debt is to allow spending beyond your budget when it's deemed beneficial or necessary to do so. > PS: Politics is not about petty grievances Yes, petty grievances are a poor expression for what I was thinking, which is pet issues and turning everything into a chance to bolster your talking point to score political points.
  - Retric 6y ago
    Debt means very different things for the federal government than a personal checkbook. Debt doesn’t create resources or infrastructure from thin air, making it largely useless in an actual emergency. When we needed millions of N95 masks debt can’t simply conjure them from thin air, the same is true of oil or other critical resources. All debt can do is force the next administration to pay for your spending. Politically it seems great, but economically it’s almost completely worthless. It’s just another political game where you say it’s meaningless when you’re running things and a critical issue when the other party is in charge. A surplus is by far the more economically efficient option. Build strategic reserves when it’s cheap, and spend them when absolutely critical. But again spending when it’s not obvious you’re raising taxes is the crack cocaine for democracy’s.
    - kbenson 6y ago
      > When we needed millions of N95 masks debt can’t simply conjure them from thin air, the same is true of oil or other critical resources. I understand that, but that's not the context I understood we were discussing, which is "stop funding the military so we can start fixing these other problems like covid or opiates or whatever". In that context, my point was to say that funding for those initiatives is not the limiting factor. > All debt can do is force the next administration to pay for your spending. Which is perfectly acceptable and expected in an emergency. I doubt any future administration is going to say "if only Trump didn't spend so much on covid, we're really hurting from that." Going into debt over emergency needs for the country is pretty analogous to floating your house payment or rent on credit for a couple months while you get a new job. You pay for it later, but ultimately it's probably a much better investment than not doing it, as being out on the street has far greater negative consequences (and a negative feedback loop) than the debt usually has. In the same manner, reducing a recession or preventing a depression is generally money well spent. > A surplus is by far the more economically efficient option. Sure, but then the whole "reduce this so we can pay for that" doesn't really make sense. I don't think we're really in disagreement, I think we're just slightly contextually misaligned.
      - 6y ago
thomastjeffery 6y ago
> Those are orthogonal to each other. Budget is the intersection. Our defense budget was increased to $700 billion. It was already significantly more than every other country in the world, but the Trump administration decided to throw another $100 billion in for good measure. > Lack of money is not a problem the US has, we can borrow what we needed and trim fat later. We can also trim the fat right now, and reallocate spending from programs that murder foreigners to programs that help civilians. For whatever reason, that option doesn't often get brought up in the House. > Not enough of the public truly cares I don't think that's the case. The GOP and Trump's cabinet have been using their majority to stop any "socialist" legislature from being passed, while the literal majority of American votes were for a Democratic party presidential candidate. How much is enough? That's the real problem here. With first past the post voting and electoral college, some Americans' votes are favored over others, and most don't have a real opportunity to vote for the candidate they truly desire.
- kbenson 6y ago
  > Our defense budget was increased to $700 billion. That doesn't matter. Money is not the problem. Making helping people contingent on also lowering the defense budget doesn't magically make things easier because there's money for it, as money was never the problem. It just means you have two hard things to accomplish instead of one. > We can also trim the fat right now. My point was to say money is not the limiting factor. > The GOP and Trump's cabinet have been using their majority to stop any "socialist" legislature from being passed Let's not pretend the Democrats have been some bastion of good behavior. They've squandered any high ground they might have had through gamesmanship just as much as the Republicans, but to worse effect because they still try to present themselves as taking the high ground. > some Americans' votes are favored over others, and most don't have a real opportunity to vote for the candidate they truly desire. How is this different than it's ever been? The system was designed to be this way. States are supposed to be elevated and have power, only to be offset by the number of constituents they have. States are supposed to be far more important than just some county, they are individual polities with their own laws and are supposed to be used to experiment with different laws specifics of government, and traditionally they were. It's only with the ascendancy of the Federal government and Presidential powers over the last century or so that states have lost of lot of the power they used to hold. In a system where states are supposed to be able to implement their own systems and try new things, it makes sense to allow states themselves a bit more pull than the sum of their people, so they don't get steamrolled.

Retric 6y ago

Waiting only makes the situation worse. Medicare for all could be anything from a significant net savings to an insane increase depending on how it’s implemented. Kicking the can down the road just means larger debt payments in the future. Consider, getting a few stitches is usually more expensive than a dental filling even though it’s simpler, faster, etc. The difference is simply the amount of waste involved. Trimming the fat is difficult because that’s people’s income you’re cutting and they will fight you every step of the way. PS: Politics is not about petty grievances, but elections can be. Shaping the narrative is how you get people to vote against their own best interest.

kbenson 6y ago
> Kicking the can down the road just means larger debt payments in the future. > Consider, getting a few stitches is usually more expensive than a dental filling even though it’s simpler, faster, etc. And not getting those stitches can lead to scarring, or infection. There are things worse than debt. That said, I'm not saying we should just borrow the money to do what we want without considering if we should find a way to pay for it, I'm just saying for things that are really important, money is not an obstacle. The whole point of debt is to allow spending beyond your budget when it's deemed beneficial or necessary to do so. > PS: Politics is not about petty grievances Yes, petty grievances are a poor expression for what I was thinking, which is pet issues and turning everything into a chance to bolster your talking point to score political points.
- Retric 6y ago
  Debt means very different things for the federal government than a personal checkbook. Debt doesn’t create resources or infrastructure from thin air, making it largely useless in an actual emergency. When we needed millions of N95 masks debt can’t simply conjure them from thin air, the same is true of oil or other critical resources. All debt can do is force the next administration to pay for your spending. Politically it seems great, but economically it’s almost completely worthless. It’s just another political game where you say it’s meaningless when you’re running things and a critical issue when the other party is in charge. A surplus is by far the more economically efficient option. Build strategic reserves when it’s cheap, and spend them when absolutely critical. But again spending when it’s not obvious you’re raising taxes is the crack cocaine for democracy’s.
  - kbenson 6y ago
    > When we needed millions of N95 masks debt can’t simply conjure them from thin air, the same is true of oil or other critical resources. I understand that, but that's not the context I understood we were discussing, which is "stop funding the military so we can start fixing these other problems like covid or opiates or whatever". In that context, my point was to say that funding for those initiatives is not the limiting factor. > All debt can do is force the next administration to pay for your spending. Which is perfectly acceptable and expected in an emergency. I doubt any future administration is going to say "if only Trump didn't spend so much on covid, we're really hurting from that." Going into debt over emergency needs for the country is pretty analogous to floating your house payment or rent on credit for a couple months while you get a new job. You pay for it later, but ultimately it's probably a much better investment than not doing it, as being out on the street has far greater negative consequences (and a negative feedback loop) than the debt usually has. In the same manner, reducing a recession or preventing a depression is generally money well spent. > A surplus is by far the more economically efficient option. Sure, but then the whole "reduce this so we can pay for that" doesn't really make sense. I don't think we're really in disagreement, I think we're just slightly contextually misaligned.
    - 6y ago

thomastjeffery 6y ago

> Those are orthogonal to each other. Budget is the intersection. Our defense budget was increased to $700 billion. It was already significantly more than every other country in the world, but the Trump administration decided to throw another $100 billion in for good measure. > Lack of money is not a problem the US has, we can borrow what we needed and trim fat later. We can also trim the fat right now, and reallocate spending from programs that murder foreigners to programs that help civilians. For whatever reason, that option doesn't often get brought up in the House. > Not enough of the public truly cares I don't think that's the case. The GOP and Trump's cabinet have been using their majority to stop any "socialist" legislature from being passed, while the literal majority of American votes were for a Democratic party presidential candidate. How much is enough? That's the real problem here. With first past the post voting and electoral college, some Americans' votes are favored over others, and most don't have a real opportunity to vote for the candidate they truly desire.

kbenson 6y ago
> Our defense budget was increased to $700 billion. That doesn't matter. Money is not the problem. Making helping people contingent on also lowering the defense budget doesn't magically make things easier because there's money for it, as money was never the problem. It just means you have two hard things to accomplish instead of one. > We can also trim the fat right now. My point was to say money is not the limiting factor. > The GOP and Trump's cabinet have been using their majority to stop any "socialist" legislature from being passed Let's not pretend the Democrats have been some bastion of good behavior. They've squandered any high ground they might have had through gamesmanship just as much as the Republicans, but to worse effect because they still try to present themselves as taking the high ground. > some Americans' votes are favored over others, and most don't have a real opportunity to vote for the candidate they truly desire. How is this different than it's ever been? The system was designed to be this way. States are supposed to be elevated and have power, only to be offset by the number of constituents they have. States are supposed to be far more important than just some county, they are individual polities with their own laws and are supposed to be used to experiment with different laws specifics of government, and traditionally they were. It's only with the ascendancy of the Federal government and Presidential powers over the last century or so that states have lost of lot of the power they used to hold. In a system where states are supposed to be able to implement their own systems and try new things, it makes sense to allow states themselves a bit more pull than the sum of their people, so they don't get steamrolled.