Jump to content

Taxes, the Deficit/Debt, and the Fiscal Cliff


HeloDude

Recommended Posts

I would like to know what you think the Democratic party's plan is for the future of this country. In other words, if your party had complete control, where would we be in 20 years? Speak to the welfare state/entitlement programs, debts and deficits, size and capability of the military, immigration, gun control and education. I'd like to hear your views and see if they line up with what we have seen over the last 4 1/2 years or so.

Ok, since you specifically want my opinion:

Entitlement Programs: Solvent, efficient, Medicare (or something other unified, universal system) expanded to cover everyone

Debts and deficits: move toward external debt sustainability, focus on economic growth as the best way to combat debt

Size and capability of the military: matched to expected threats while accounting for unknowns, recap a modest "peace dividend" as major wars wind down without hollowing out the force

Immigration: pathway to citizenship for current illegals, secure borders, greatly expanded and simplified legal immigration system, temporary guest worker program

Gun Control: universal background checks for all purchases

Education: honestly I'm not that knowledgable on education policy

So those are my personal views in the broadest strokes possible, although when you boil down complex public policy into one sentence it pretty much all sounds like BS. Obviously neither party is a monolith but if I were King for a day this is what we'd pursue in the areas you asked about.

Care to add your own answers or clarify why this is relevant to the conversation?

Edited by nsplayr
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just looking at your suggestion for Entitlement Programs, I see you have no concept of reality and failed in your study of history. Let's look at the mutually exclusive concepts in the same sentence and see if they make sense. First, we have "solvent" combined with "expanded to cover everyone". We also have "efficient" and "Medicare" (substitute government run, if you like, but you get the idea). The original Medicare program was budgeted for $16B in 1965 with a forecast cost of $60+ billion in 1980. The actual cost was $110+ billion in 1980. The smartest guys in the room made a 100% error in estimates. Last year, Medicare was something in the neighborhood of $415B. How is that cost curve looking in the future? LIberal utopians can't add, ignore history, and remind me of gamblers that keep going to Vegas saying "But if you let me borrow the money, my system will work this time."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Without relitigating a past conversation (that's still very much going on in public policy circles), I strongly believe that a unified/universal healthcare system, of pretty much any variety, would be more cost effective than the system we have today, with the added benefit of covering every single person. If you don't believe that, fine, but it's a whole other can of worms to open up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, since you specifically want my opinion:

Entitlement Programs: Solvent, efficient, Medicare (or something other unified, universal system) expanded to cover everyone

So those are my personal views in the broadest strokes possible, although when you boil down complex public policy into one sentence it pretty much all sounds like BS. Obviously neither party is a monolith but if I were King for a day this is what we'd pursue in the areas you asked about.

Care to add your own answers or clarify why this is relevant to the conversation?

Welfare? You know, food stamps, WIC, public housing, etc.

Unemplyment (federal subsidies)?

Taxes?

Minimum wage?

BTW, how do you make welfare solvent?

And lastly, since you didn't answer any questions on welfare and the current general welfare recipient mentality, let me clue you in. There is little work ethic and its all about gaining as much benefit as possible. They are experts at gaming the system to gain as much as possible. Its no longer the system it was intented to be, which was to help people get back up after falling upon hardship. Dems know this and count on the fear that Republicans want to take it all away and thus get the votes.

Out

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Welfare? You know, food stamps, WIC, public housing, etc.

Unemplyment (federal subsidies)?

Taxes?

Minimum wage?

What is this "Ask nsplayr about public policy" thread? I can continue to field questions but I'm not sure why you guys really care.

BTW, how do you make welfare solvent?

You make programs like social security and medicare solvent by ensuring they are adequately funded to pay out the level of benefits you anticipate. If there is a gap you either reduce future benefits or increase funding for the program...pretty simple concept at the big-picture level.

And lastly, since you didn't answer any questions on welfare and the current general welfare recipient mentality, let me clue you in.

I don't remember your question but ok, we've got your answer. My answer to what I think you were probably asking is that your views on the mentality of those in poverty are not the same as mine, and thus the policies I think are right are probably different too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You make programs like social security and medicare solvent by ensuring they are adequately funded to pay out the level of benefits you anticipate. If there is a gap you either reduce future benefits or increase funding for the program...pretty simple concept at the big-picture level.

So now I'm not only responsible for my own family, but someone else's also? Two questions for you...

1) How do you propose reducing future benefits?

2) How do you propose increasing funding?

I'm pretty sure I know your answer--just want to "hear" you say it...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You talking about social security or medicare specifically? Or some other program? Gotta be more specific if you want specific answers.

In broad terms you reduce future benefits by changing the program to include less generous benefits for future enrollees, you can even reduce benefits for current enrollees if you're feeling bold.

In broad terms you increase funding by either making the direct users of the program pay more (co-pays, payroll taxes, etc.) or you increase taxes in general and specifically divert that increase into that program, or you just divert more spending into that program while equally reducing spending on other things using the same revenue base.

Not rocket surgery here guys...take a class in public policy.

Edited by nsplayr
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You talking about social security or medicare specifically? Or some other program? Gotta be more specific if you want specific answers.

Specifics don't matter--you answered exactly as expected...

In broad terms you reduce future benefits by changing the program to include less generous benefits for future enrollees, you can even reduce benefits for current enrollees if you're feeling bold.

So explain to me again why I should be forced to support your family AND mine...

In broad terms you increase funding by either making the direct users of the program pay more (co-pays, payroll taxes, etc.) or you increase taxes in general and specifically divert that increase into that program, or you just divert more spending into that program while equally reducing spending on other things using the same revenue base.

How about we just get the government out of the entitlement business altogether?

Not rocket surgery here guys...take a class in public policy.

Public Policy 101: The Constitution

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you don't want your money contributing to the wellbeing anyone else except yourself and your family, you want the government to provide no "entitlement" benefits to its citizens whatsoever, and you're looking to base all rational analysis of public policy on one single source document rather than the boatload of additional available data.

Sounds like you don't want any government at all. There are places in the world where that can be arranged; I've been so some of them and maybe you have too.

Good luck with that and good luck selling your vision to the voting public!

Edited by nsplayr
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you don't want your money contributing to the wellbeing anyone else except yourself and your family, you want the government to provide no "entitlement" benefits to its citizens whatsoever, and you're looking to base all rational analysis of public policy on one single source document rather than the boatload of additional available data.

Sounds like you don't want any government at all. There are places in the world where that can be arranged; I've been so some of them and maybe you have too.

The "single source" was the agreement between the original 13 colonies (Articles of Confederation) that was then amended into the Constitution thereby producing a legitimate federal government instead of 13. Just like the ATO, if it doesn't fit with your idea of the changing times or the boatload of data, submit a change request instead of just setting it aside.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My point was not that the Constitution isn't valid, it certainly is since it's the source of the rest of our laws. It was that saying, "[sic] Base all public policy analysis off the constitution" is juvenile when there's obviously much more that goes into good public policy analysis than referencing a fairly short and in many ways (purposefully) vague document.

If you think Public Policy 101 = The Constitution you've clearly never taken Public Policy 101.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In broad terms you reduce future benefits by changing the program to include less generous benefits for future enrollees, you can even reduce benefits for current enrollees if you're feeling bold.

This administration is clearly willing to reduce benefits... In "broad terms" isnt that why we are in the financial situation we are in?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This administration is clearly willing to reduce benefits... In "broad terms" isnt that why we are in the financial situation we are in?

Are you missing a "not" in there or something? Question doesn't quite make sense as written.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You talking about social security or medicare specifically? Or some other program? Gotta be more specific if you want specific answers.

But here are my specific questions

Welfare? You know, food stamps, WIC, public housing, etc.

Unemplyment (federal subsidies)?

Taxes?

Minimum wage?

BTW, how do you make welfare solvent?

And lastly, since you didn't answer any questions on welfare and the current general welfare recipient mentality, let me clue you in. There is little work ethic and its all about gaining as much benefit as possible. They are experts at gaming the system to gain as much as possible. Its no longer the system it was intented to be, which was to help people get back up after falling upon hardship. Dems know this and count on the fear that Republicans want to take it all away and thus get the votes.

Out

But I get it. When someone shows you something that doesn't fit, you look the other way.

You know, I once knew a die hard liberal back in college, you know voted dem, wanted gays to serve in the military (before DADT), pro-choice, blah, blah, blah. That person went on to get married (I hear begrudginly taking the mans last name), had kids, stopped working (hubby made plenty), and over time, became one of the most conservative people I know (pro-life, marriage is between a man and woman, and so on). Its a phenomenon I've seen to varying degrees with people as they get older (wiser in my opinion). Maybe conservatism will hit you one day.

Out

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you don't want your money contributing to the wellbeing anyone else except yourself and your family, you want the government to provide no "entitlement" benefits to its citizens whatsoever, and you're looking to base all rational analysis of public policy on one single source document rather than the boatload of additional available data.

Exactly. Especially when it comes to charity, I want full control of my money. Give me one good reason my money should go to someone who chooses not to work...

Sounds like you don't want any government at all. There are places in the world where that can be arranged; I've been so some of them and maybe you have too.

Again, Public Policy 101. It's not government's job...

Good luck with that and good luck selling your vision to the voting public!

That's the kicker. People who would rather suckle on the government teat will always vote for that type of government. How do you think we got where we are?

I've seen it first hand. I grew up on a farm where my parents were at/below the poverty level. My older sister just turned 55 this year. She has two bachelor's degrees (Microbiology and Medical Technology) and two master's degrees that were "provided" by the government in the form of need-based scholarships, grants, and fellowships. It was during this time she realized that she doesn't have to work--Uncle Sugar will provide for her just fine. She hasn't held a job for more than 3 months, has been on some sort of entitlement program her entire life, and has had 2 illegitimate children just to keep the funds flowing.

So explain to me why we should be supporting this kind of person...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've seen it first hand. I grew up on a farm where my parents were at/below the poverty level. My older sister just turned 55 this year. She has two bachelor's degrees (Microbiology and Medical Technology) and two master's degrees that were "provided" by the government in the form of need-based scholarships, grants, and fellowships. It was during this time she realized that she doesn't have to work--Uncle Sugar will provide for her just fine. She hasn't held a job for more than 3 months, has been on some sort of entitlement program her entire life, and has had 2 illegitimate children just to keep the funds flowing.

Mind if use your story to press home the point?

Lets say that the govt no longer has the money or policy to give the sister a check/house/food credit card a month. Will the sister ask family for handouts? Maybe, but that charity only goes so far. Family will get tired easiliy of bailing out sis, especially when she is capable of work. Family may even say, if you want help, you need to drop sat/cable TV, go to a basic phone plan, stop eating out, trade the escalade in for a dodge, etc. ASAP, you will want sis earning her own keep and not sucking away the hard-earned money from family members.

My point is that the gov't has become enablers of laziness. When its so easy to get handouts, why work?

Out

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When its so easy to get handouts, why work?

And what is a liberal's (ie Nsplayr) response to this:

I agree that the victim mentality of some of those stuck in persistent poverty is a problem but I would not ague it's getting worse, certainly not worse than even our recent past.

More people on some form of welfare than ever before, whether it be food stamps, government housing, disability, Medicaid, etc, but yes, 'it's not getting worse' he says--give me a break. Oh and he also tried to argue that increases in out of wedlock births 'may not be a bad thing'...yes, more unmarried moms are definitely the way forward to prosperity <sarcasm>.

The Dems always play this game--they deny, shift the discussion, and then deny again if necessary. Just look at how the Dems vote and the statistics that arise from their policy--they WANT people relying on the federal government in one form or another. Then they are the ones saying 'look what we are doing for you...the other side wants to take it away'. If the Dems were serious about cutting spending then they would have never passed Obamacare, which the GAO is now saying will add $6 TRILLION to the long-term deficit.

NSplayr is correct when it comes to one thing--to him and the left, it's all about politics and winning elections.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its a phenomenon I've seen to varying degrees with people as they get older (wiser in my opinion). Maybe conservatism will hit you one day.

Out

As my high school government teacher said, everyone is a democrat till they have to grow up and pay taxes. I think for the most part that used to be true, now we have so many people on entitlements that they've never seen their paycheck drained to go to people who don't work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But here are my specific questions

My clarifying question was not toward you. Here are the answers to your questions, call it volume II of the nsplayer's guide to ideal public policy:

Welfare/food stamps/WIC/public housing: structure programs to help those truly in the most need in a generous way without incentivizing freeloading by those who could provide for themselves. This means getting rid of the welfare cliffs you see now where a person could work more and earn more money, but end up with less in their pocketbook due to a larger decrease in benefit payments. It's about having smart government, not less government IMHO.

Unemployment: combine further fiscal and monetary stimulus with a revamping of the corporate tax code to simplify and reduce rates to remain competitive in a global marketplace. I'm also a big fan personally of public works projects and having the government temporarily hire (or contract hire) those who are employed to undertake the large-scale but relatively low-skill jobs that need doing.

Taxes: I think the part of the fiscal cliff deal that was a mistake was making ~82% of the Bus tax cuts permanent; I think they should have been extended until we hit an economic benchmark considered healthy and then phased in again for all taxpayers. Kind of like what the Fed is doing with monetary policy...committing to extremely pro-growth policies (low interest rates, low taxes) in the short term until X is reached, then return to a more small "c" conservative set of policies after the long, slow recovery we're experiencing is complete.

Minimum Wage: should be indexed to cost of living/inflation/some similar measure providing automatic increases or decreases as necessary. One minimum wage for the entire nation, eliminate differences between states.

You also asked, "How do you make welfare solvent?" I'll ask you here, which program do you mean exactly? Generally it's not welfare that's driving deficits, it's the vastly larger programs like Medicare; the ways to make that program solvent long-term have been pretty extensively discussed by actual policy experts.

So there ya have it...always happy to share my view but I continue to be surprised why people seem to care so much. I'm not sure what I'm offering is much different than a fairly standard Democratic party platform and it's pretty clear I'm basically Captain Joe Schmoe Air Force nav; maybe ask your Congressman these questions and see what he comes back with.

But I get it. When someone shows you something that doesn't fit, you look the other way.

How so? What have you presented that doesn't fit with what I'm saying?

You know, I once knew a die hard liberal back in college, you know voted dem, wanted gays to serve in the military (before DADT), pro-choice, blah, blah, blah. That person went on to get married (I hear begrudginly taking the mans last name), had kids, stopped working (hubby made plenty), and over time, became one of the most conservative people I know (pro-life, marriage is between a man and woman, and so on). Its a phenomenon I've seen to varying degrees with people as they get older (wiser in my opinion). Maybe conservatism will hit you one day.

Cool story. I think I'm plenty grown up with a career and a kid and a mortgage not to be patronized that, "Oh well, one day when you grow up you'll be a conservative!" Come on...40% of non-hispanic whites 55 and older identify with the Democratic party...not sure how much older and wiser (or whiter) they need to get before suddenly seeing the light and crossing over to the GOP. You're right that the older you are the more likely it is that you'll be a conservative, but by no means is that the same as saying that everyone who gets older beyond a certain threshold of self-responsibility becomes a conservative.

Rash, the way you use the forums makes it very difficult to respond since you just edit my quote rather than typing your responses separately. FWIW.

If you want full control of your money (whatever that means...no taxes?) and don't think it's the government's job to help its people who are struggling, that type of arrangement can be hand in many areas around the world. It doesn't, however, exist in any advanced nation nor am I sure why anyone would want it to.

WRT your sister, obviously you know her and I don't, seems like you're in the best position to help in whatever way you think is best. If that informs your views on public policy more broadly great, but I'm not sure if personal anecdotes are really prescriptive for society as a whole.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And what is a liberal's (ie Nsplayr) response to this:

She seems like an idiot; our assistance programs should not be structured where they become a disincentive to work. I'm assuming that's pretty much what your response would be other than I think you personally would probably call her a "crack mom" since that's your go-to phrase for setting the tone.

If the Dems were serious about cutting spending then they would have never passed Obamacare, which the GAO is now saying will add $6 TRILLION to the long-term deficit.

That's an interesting conclusion to draw from that report...it's almost like you pulled the headline right from the National Review story about it...humm...

I'm not one that's ever argued that Obamacare is ideal or without fault (I would have wanted something much more of a clean-slate, but I'm guessing the President would have wanted that too), but here's the deal: it's the law, if you don't like it I'm sorry, the fight was valiant but you've lost very dramatically in both Congress and the Supreme Court. I'm absolutely done relitigating that particular fight.

NSplayr is correct when it comes to one thing--to him and the left, it's all about politics and winning elections.

It's not all about winning elections, I also think the Democratic party is leaps and bounds ahead when it comes to smart public policy, but that's all based on your own views to YMMV obviously.

One thing I think a lot of activists on both sides miss though is that, yes, it is somewhat about winning elections. If you fail to run the right candidates or talk about issues in the right way or support policies the public overwhelmingly supports, you will be unable to even have a seat at the table when it comes to governing. I know a lot of people here are libertarians but for those who are still part of the GOP, you guys always look up to Reagan as your idol and rightly so, politically at least in my opinion. He was able to forward conservative policies, talk to the American people in a positive way that inspired hope (compared to Carter's malaise-talk), and was able to absolutely crush the Democrats in his reelection bid because of it.

If you ever want to see that kind of victory again, one that might usher in a sweeping conservative agenda, there needs to be some thought and effort put into actually winning elections in the way that Reagan and other successful conservatives have in the past.

Having positive policy prescriptions and emotionally connecting with Americans who are working hard but struggling to get by should be your first thought when it comes to presenting a conservative solution to a problem; simply forwarding the most purist policy from the get-go and using a tone that alienates large swaths of the voting population is bad technique.

If and when the next Republican or conservative wins the White House, ask yourself if he followed that advice.

Edited by nsplayr
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ns.....Did you just reply to yourself? Minimum wage is a nogo for me, entry level job, you do not support a family on it, you are getting trained to do something therefore get paid ALOT less than anyone else, earn your raise, but that's a bigger can of worms than I will deal with on a forum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...