[besson3c]

Let's leave out the debates of economic stimulus and its effectiveness for this particular thread.

My question is this, and I mean this in a non-strawmany way, because this is rhetoric I'm unable to cut through - I don't know if the right in particular recognizes this or not...

Do you agree that sometimes the costs of cutting something or not having a particular program are greater than having it? Do you agree that sometimes you have to spend money to make money?

I know I've asked this before, but I don't recall those past thread(s) really going anywhere, and just to prevent the same fate here I'm not trying to insinuate that we should not cut a whole bunch of stuff, that deficits don't matter, etc. I'm not defending any particular policy nor am I insinuating anything other than that it is bothersome that the rhetoric has seemingly become "look at a particular program, make some sort of emotional/ideological statement about how you feel about it and whether or not it deserves tax payer money". The debate never seems to focus around how much money is saved or lost by the program if it were cut, what the precise ramifications would be economically and culturally, negative consequences, etc.

Of course there are programs that are worth cutting, but as a musician I'm sort of worried about governments going on cutting orgies and killing off things that have a positive economic and cultural influence so that they can provide the appearance of cutting stuff and being productive, or else use the rhetoric and overall national push to cut spending as a means to justify cutting programs they are simply ideologically opposed to with no coherent economic justification. The arts (which I'm sure will be a victim, and is why I mention my being a musician) can not only have an obvious cultural benefit, but they can be a massive source of revenue and jobs as well. I'm sure that those of you in other areas, for instance education, are or will be worried too?

What can be done to illustrate that specific programs and spending is/can be profitable (whether direct or indirect), and to fight against politicians that may want to cut these things for the wrong reasons?

Also, please keep in mind that I'm not at all suggesting that *all* programs can be profitable and worth funding, nor am I even saying that this is a rule-of-thumb, I'm simply saying that some *can* be, and that I believe strongly that politicians are more than happy to act against our best interests for their own selfish reasons (I'm assuming that this is pretty obvious too). This is the basis of my concern.

[subego]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I'm sort of worried about governments going on cutting orgies

They want to cut orgies now?

You'll pry my orgy out of my cold, dead...

[Jawbone54]

Real quick and I'm out of here...

When we throw around a figure like "14 trillion dollars," it sounds imaginary. It's not imaginary. We actually owe over $14,000,000,000 to other human beings, and eventually our little gravy train is going to end. If we don't get our spending under control, then our future is incredibly bleak.

I know you're involved in the arts, and I believe culture is important, but why is the government expected to prop up the arts? If something isn't capable of sustaining itself, then it's probably not worth saving. Culture is not the government's responsibility. The National Endowment for the Arts, for instance, is an absolute joke (insert obligatory Piss Christ callback here).

Originally Posted by besson3c

Of course there are programs that are worth cutting, but as a musician I'm sort of worried about governments going on cutting orgies and killing off things that have a positive economic and cultural influence so that they can provide the appearance of cutting stuff and being productive, or else use the rhetoric and overall national push to cut spending as a means to justify cutting programs they are simply ideologically opposed to with no coherent economic justification. The arts (which I'm sure will be a victim, and is why I mention my being a musician) can not only have an obvious cultural benefit, but they can be a massive source of revenue and jobs as well. I'm sure that those of you in other areas, for instance education, are or will be worried too?

Everyone whose area of interests or even livelihood are in danger of being axed by budget cuts is going to do their best to justify why they deserve to be kept in the budget. We're nearing an economic crisis, and tough decisions need to be made. Everyone feels that their passion supersedes everyone else's. What we need to focus on as a country is what our government is supposed to be funding.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

Real quick and I'm out of here...

When we throw around a figure like "14 trillion dollars," it sounds imaginary. It's not imaginary. We actually owe over $14,000,000,000 to other human beings, and eventually our little gravy train is going to end. If we don't get our spending under control, then our future is incredibly bleak.

Nobody here disagrees with that. It is beyond me why this is constantly repeated.

I know you're involved in the arts, and I believe culture is important, but why is the government expected to prop up the arts? If something isn't capable of sustaining itself, then it's probably not worth saving. Culture is not the government's responsibility. The National Endowment for the Arts, for instance, is an absolute joke (insert obligatory Piss Christ callback here).

Well, your "if something isn't capable of sustaining itself then it is probably not worth saving" is a pretty silly argument, popularity and value often have little to do with each other, but otherwise, I agree that this is a program worthy of being cut in times such as this. However, it is also not worth the consternation and allowing yourself to be manipulated by rhetoric where it exists either, because the amount of grant money awarded is very small in relation to the overall budget. I'm not saying that this means that the program should not face being cut because of this, just that it's small potatoes.

That being said, the NEA is worthy of existence, grants for arts projects and national initiatives are a good thing, but this could be replaced by some philanthropic group, some non-profit org, or possibly even some private sector company or something.

Everyone whose area of interests or even livelihood are in danger of being axed by budget cuts is going to do their best to justify why they deserve to be kept in the budget. We're nearing an economic crisis, and tough decisions need to be made. Everyone feels that their passion supersedes everyone else's. What we need to focus on as a country is what our government is supposed to be funding.

But what I want to focus on here is not grant money and programs similar to the NEA, but programs that are unnoticed money makers that are being threatened.

[besson3c]

Actually, I'm sort of on the fence about the NEA... It is perfectly fathomable that art that comes out of this program that is publicly viewable could make a lot of money in tourism and other forms of consumption, as well as create jobs and salaries which increase tax revenue and our GDP.

I guess I would have to see more data before making up my mind about the NEA.

[ghporter]

"The arts" does not solely involve neo-Cubists with only three colors and not enough meds. Poetry, literature, theater, music, these are all "arts," and not nearly enough people seem to get that.

I think the Republicans got caught being super-childish in their spiteful push to defund NPR (and only NPR from all of CPB). And I think they were underhanded in calling for completely eliminating funding for Planned Parenthood in very late negotiations. On the other hand, I think Democrats need to actually step back a few paces and look at the Great Society as a general failure with far more unintended consequences than really helpful consequences (generational dependence on Welfare is one such failure). But the biggest thing I wish they'd all do is GROW THE F UP and stop acting like it's a game that one side or the other wins. Because the current way they do things winds up with Americans losing. Big time.

[mduell]

With the weaselly way you've worded it, the answer is of course yes.

Meanwhile, the fed is printing $100B a month to buy treasuries and the big national debate is over $30B a year. We're two orders of magnitude away from the right scale for the discussion.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Do you agree that sometimes you have to spend money to make money?

Ugh. I despise the misuse of that term. The type of spending money you're talking about doesn't 'make' money, and you know it.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Nobody here disagrees with that. It is beyond me why this is constantly repeated.

Because apparently the message isn't getting through. Imagine if you made $50k/yr and your annual household budget was $64k and you were talking to a financial counselor about your situation. Can you imagine any scenario or cause for a recommendation of additional spending? For example, by spending $23k on that classic car, you might be able to sink an additional $5k into it and sell it for $32k, but is this feasible if you can't pay the utility bills to keep your lights on? Worse, are you going to borrow the money from your prospective buyer? See, we like to complicate matters in order to justify this policy or that and both sides of course are masters at it, but this is in fact why we are where we are today. The time to talk about spending is not when you can't afford to keep the lights on without borrowing to do so. What you'll talk about in this scenario is what you'll give up to balance revenues with expenditures.

It is not about bravery, it's about who is actually thick enough to talk about spending at this point.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

"The arts" does not solely involve neo-Cubists with only three colors and not enough meds. Poetry, literature, theater, music, these are all "arts," and not nearly enough people seem to get that.

What if they get it and still believe these have no place under Federal funding?

I think the Republicans got caught being super-childish in their spiteful push to defund NPR (and only NPR from all of CPB). And I think they were underhanded in calling for completely eliminating funding for Planned Parenthood in very late negotiations.

Where are you getting your facts?

Push to defund Public Broadcasting Heats Up - WSJ

• House Republicans voted last month to cut $86 million from the CPB’s $430 million appropriation for fiscal year 2011, which runs through September.
• “The issue about taxpayers funding public broadcasting isn’t about who gets hired or fired,” Sen. Jim DeMint (R., S.C.) said in a statement. “It’s about two simple facts: we can’t afford it and they don’t need it.”
• Mr. DeMint and Sen. Tom Coburn (R., Okla.) have introduced legislation to zero out public funds for the CPB, which helps fund NPR.

The funds begin @ CPB and funnel through NPR and PBS, all of which would be affected by a defunding of CPB. NPR is the popular focus because of recent NPR management slop, but it is simply false to claim the push to defund is aimed exclusively at NPR. The push to defund Planned Parenthood is not "underhanded", it is ideological and you should expect nothing less. PP is duplicative, unnecessary, and profitable on its own w/o Federal funding and is the premier provider of one of the most contentious procedures on the planet. This is what happens when the side in minority plays hardball with the budget the only way it can. Granted, it's paltry, but it's a start and it gets the average Joe thinking about what is more important than keeping the lights and heat on.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

The push to defund Planned Parenthood is not "underhanded", it is ideological and you should expect nothing less. PP is duplicative, unnecessary, and profitable on its own w/o Federal funding and is the premier provider of one of the most contentious procedures on the planet.

...birth control?
srsly

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Because apparently the message isn't getting through.

Exactly. This is why I won't post more in this thread. Any "dissenters" are shut down with

Nobody here disagrees with that. It is beyond me why this is constantly repeated.

What's the point ?

To sum it up: many people want to have their cake and eat it, too. Once you point out that this is childish, they attack you, or go off on tangents, twist your words or do something else to distract.

-t

[subego]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

...and profitable on its own w/o Federal funding

You keep mentioning this, but it just doesn't match with my understanding.

PP is a non-profit. It's illegal for them to have profits.

It's true they spend less than they have, but any properly managed organization is going to do this if possible. If you don't, the only way you can deal with an unforeseen circumstance is with a loan. It's a cash reserve.

What should be noted is PP's reserve stays about the same percentage every year*. If PP had 100MM in excess last year, and has 100MM in excess this year, that means they spent last year's 100MM, otherwise they'd have 200MM in the reserve.


*For one recent year, this isn't the case, because Bernie Madoff stole enough to clean out their entire reserve. It's an extreme example, but it's precisely why it's unwise not to have a reserve.

[Dork.]

Who is brave enough to acknowledge that spending cuts alone can't balance this budget, and we'll have to raise taxes to get the job done?

Clinton managed to balance the budget, but that was after he raised taxes, and before Bush's tax cuts. (Although some credit the balanced budget to Newton Leroy Gingrich, Ph.D. instead.)

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Because apparently the message isn't getting through. Imagine if you made $50k/yr and your annual household budget was $64k and you were talking to a financial counselor about your situation. Can you imagine any scenario or cause for a recommendation of additional spending? For example, by spending $23k on that classic car, you might be able to sink an additional $5k into it and sell it for $32k, but is this feasible if you can't pay the utility bills to keep your lights on? Worse, are you going to borrow the money from your prospective buyer? See, we like to complicate matters in order to justify this policy or that and both sides of course are masters at it, but this is in fact why we are where we are today. The time to talk about spending is not when you can't afford to keep the lights on without borrowing to do so. What you'll talk about in this scenario is what you'll give up to balance revenues with expenditures.

It is not about bravery, it's about who is actually thick enough to talk about spending at this point.

How is it thick if it will literally and undeniably cost more to cut something? What is thick is doing things that will cost more money than not.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

Who is brave enough to acknowledge that spending cuts alone can't balance this budget, and we'll have to raise taxes to get the job done?

Clinton managed to balance the budget, but that was after he raised taxes, and before Bush's tax cuts. (Although some credit the balanced budget to Newton Leroy Gingrich, Ph.D. instead.)

Yup, it's kind of amusing how nobody wants to talk about the mere possibility of raising taxes.

We'll also have to keep working at health care if we are to really solve our problems, it is off-putting that that intense debate seems to have completely halted in its tracks. It's like we can only care about what is in front of our faces right now, and what is in front of our faces is determined by the media, which is determined by what can be spun into infotainment.

That sounds really dark, which is why I think that Obama should force Patrick Stewart to make TV spots where he assures everybody that everything will be fine.

[besson3c]

For the record, all I'm looking for is a little acknowledgement that I have a point here and I'll stop belaboring this so that the right can go back to belaboring how broke we are and how we should cut unnecessary spending, as if this is revelatory.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

Who is brave enough to acknowledge that spending cuts alone can't balance this budget, and we'll have to raise taxes to get the job done?

Ah, to heck with my resolve.

Interesting point you mention.

US Revenue in % of GDP: http://www.deptofnumbers.com/blog/20...PJEixeECpG.png

What does this tell us ?
It basically doesn't matter what tax rates you set, there is a certain limit how much you can "squeeze" out of people.

Fact: even if you raised taxes to 100%, it would still not be enough to balance the Budget. It's pretty clear that we have a SPENDING problem, not an INCOME problem.

Let's use some common sense: when you decide your personal Budget, you start with your income, and adjust your level of spending according to it. The VARIABLE is the spending, because it can be much easier directly changed and influenced than income.

I have yet to see a real life scenario where you can first start with a spending Budget, and then in a meaningful, realistic way just decide to set the income accordingly to make it work. That's just not how Budgeting works.

I've done Budgeting in big international companies for more than 15 years. The spending is ALWAYS a function of income, not vice versa.

-t

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

For the record, all I'm looking for is a little acknowledgement that I have a point here

You almost do. "Sometimes spending is better than not" would better be proved by examples like police, fire, garbage and sewer. Then progressing down the relevance scale we pass by schools, transportation infrastructure, communication infrastructure, parks, environmental protections, zoning, copyright enforcement, etc. Once you actually pass over publicly funded popular arts and land on publicly funded unpopular arts, you're way outside your self-described mandate of "sometimes spending is better than not." This is more like "always spending is better than not." Does this make sense?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

...birth control?
srsly

Including what I understand to be the absolute least effective brand of male condom available? Synergy!
foshizzle

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

You almost do. "Sometimes spending is better than not" would better be proved by examples like police, fire, garbage and sewer. Then progressing down the relevance scale we pass by schools, transportation infrastructure, communication infrastructure, parks, environmental protections, zoning, copyright enforcement, etc. Once you actually pass over publicly funded popular arts and land on publicly funded unpopular arts, you're way outside your self-described mandate of "sometimes spending is better than not." This is more like "always spending is better than not." Does this make sense?

Not really, because I've never made any inferences that always spending is better than not, or even as a rule of thumb spending is better than not. I've just been saying that it *can* be, and this possibility ought not be overlooked.

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Ah, to heck with my resolve.

Interesting point you mention.

US Revenue in % of GDP: http://www.deptofnumbers.com/blog/20...PJEixeECpG.png

I'm not saying we don't have a spending problem, but it's folly to say that the tax cuts of the past 10 years don't matter.

I did find this interesting site:
Federal State Local Government Revenue in United States 2011 - Charts Tables

where you can create some interesting graphs. I think I'll try and see if any of these will show up if I link to the images:

First, the total income tax revenue since 1970 (in billions)


Holy cow, it works! Now, since you and besson3c are both financial geniuses, you know that $1 from 1970 is not worth the same as $1 today. Here is the same graph, only this time all the dollar values are adjusted for 2005 values:



Looky here! We see an increase over the years, the big run-up in the Clinton years, then the drop-off due to the Bush tax cuts, but then we see revenue come back (and even surpass 2000's revenue) in 2007. I wasn't expecting that!

Was that due to the supply-side fairy working its magic? Maybe. Let's look at one last graph, this time revenue vs. GDP:



I think this gives us a better picture of what the income tax burden actually is: what percentage of the country's production ends up being paid in income tax. And all throughout the three decades prior to 2000, the percentage was steady between 11% and 14%. Even the height of the tax increases under Clinton never really got above 15%. Then Bush came along, and the % vs. GDP hit the floor again. It increased in 2007 (I wonder what caused that, that was before the bailouts after all!), but the estimated % vs. GDP is forecast to go through the floor going forward.

I don't know what the right value for tax income vs. GDP is. Nor do I know whether these numbers can really be relied upon: I literally found this site just now. But, if accurate I think it puts the lie to the "taxed enough already" folk: taxes are not too high right now, in fact they may be at the lowest value relative to GDP in quite a while. Now, if that's all we need to run our government, that's fine. We can (and should) find areas to cut. But we should have found our spending cuts before cutting taxes. That would have been the responsible thing to do. As it stands, we are in a ton of debt right now and are being forced to make huge cuts all over the place, all because Bush had to have his tax cuts first.

Grover Norquist is laughing in his bathtub.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

How is it thick if it will literally and undeniably cost more to cut something? What is thick is doing things that will cost more money than not.

But you've not presented any examples of program-funding that would produce a literal and undeniable cost-savings. Here again it seems you're running an extremely open-ended ideal up the flagpole to see if there's any way it'll float left and when it doesn't you get frustrated with people for contributing to the experiment.

I gave you an example of a classic car besson; a work of art that with some additional creativity and work may earn you a few thousand dollars and may even put a couple mechanics to work for a week, but how much sense does this investment make when your outgo so far exceeds your income that you're not able to keep the lights on in the shop? It's like the guy at the casino gambling his mortgage in the hopes of winning big time after time until he loses the house. It's thick and IMO downright insane. There are niceties and there are necessities. When you're as far into the hole as experts and everyone else keeps telling you that you are, the magazine subscription to Popular Mechanics (while possibly, occasionally useful) and expensive golf outings (that may produce an occasional client) must go.

That's just where we are right now and IMO another besson3c thought-experiment won't help spending on niceties make any more sense.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Not really, because I've never made any inferences that always spending is better than not, or even as a rule of thumb spending is better than not. I've just been saying that it *can* be, and this possibility ought not be overlooked.

Let me rephrase. Even though you didn't intend to imply this, your reasoning in fact does imply this. I am telling you this is how your reasoning stands, because you don't know. It's FYI, not AYK (as you know).

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

But you've not presented any examples of program-funding that would produce a literal and undeniable cost-savings. Here again it seems you're running an extremely open-ended ideal up the flagpole to see if there's any way it'll float left and when it doesn't you get frustrated with people for contributing to the experiment.

I gave you an example of a classic car besson; a work of art that with some additional creativity and work may earn you a few thousand dollars and may even put a couple mechanics to work for a week, but how much sense does this investment make when your outgo so far exceeds your income that you're not able to keep the lights on in the shop? It's like the guy at the casino gambling his mortgage in the hopes of winning big time after time until he loses the house. It's thick and IMO downright insane. There are niceties and there are necessities. When you're as far into the hole as experts and everyone else keeps telling you that you are, the magazine subscription to Popular Mechanics (while possibly, occasionally useful) and expensive golf outings (that may produce an occasional client) must go.

That's just where we are right now and IMO another besson3c thought-experiment won't help spending on niceties make any more sense.

I didn't think I needed to provide an example, because I figured that this principle was sound enough that we could wrap our heads around it existing, in theory.

None of us can really provide an example because there is a lot of data we don't have access to, but I'll present some hypotheticals to go along with the ones that Uncle Skeleton provided of the basic existence of police, fire, etc...

*If* there is clear data that shows that providing 50 cent condoms and teaching pregnancy prevention is effective, and if this can be provided in a particular program that has clear outcomes that can be traced back to its existence, the expenditure of a program like this make it a no brainer trading off the costs of a bunch of condoms, the administration of this, a social worker, whatever else vs. the costs of an unwanted pregnancy, the costs of having to pay for a child by a woman/couple who may have not wanted the baby because it couldn't have been afforded, the costs of support services for paying for the existence of this individual, etc.

*If* there is clear data that shows that easy access to pap smears, mammograms, colonoscopies, and other cancer screening stuff results in early cancer treatment due to these programs, again, kind of a no-brainer...

I'm sure you will want to pick apart these examples by saying that these services can be provided in other ways. You might be right, hence my "IF". I don't think any of us really can evaluate these sorts of services without a lot of data and research though, so hopefully the mere possibility of services like this helping will satisfy you, ebuddy.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

- charts showing income tax revenues -

Why no charts on government spending the past 40 years as % of GDP?

[Dork.]

If you've got 'em, post 'em!

Edit: it looks like the same folks run this site, so I can get those numbers there:

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Let me rephrase. Even though you didn't intend to imply this, your reasoning in fact does imply this. I am telling you this is how your reasoning stands, because you don't know. It's FYI, not AYK (as you know).

Is this one of your weird psychoanalysis things?

I appreciate you trying to help me improve my presentation of my reasoning, but I don't need somebody to try to tell me what my reasoning actually is, if that is what you are trying to do.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

*If* there is clear data that shows that easy access to pap smears, mammograms, colonoscopies, and other cancer screening stuff results in early cancer treatment due to these programs, again, kind of a no-brainer...

I'm sure you will want to pick apart these examples by saying that these services can be provided in other ways. You might be right, hence my "IF". I don't think any of us really can evaluate these sorts of services without a lot of data and research though, so hopefully the mere possibility of services like this helping will satisfy you, ebuddy.

Now you're just moving the goalposts in your experiment. It went from literal and undeniable to if, just maybe, and what if. In playing along, what if the services you'd cite as your examples could be run more efficiently and effectively another way entirely or what if they can be managed without Federal spending? Or... what if they're already Federally funded through another program and the program in question is duplicative? Then does the continued spending make sense? How much should we spend per day, the current $3.5 billion? $5.5 billion? $10.5 billion?

At what point do we say that sometimes spending is worse than not?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Now you're just moving the goalposts in your experiment. It went from literal and undeniable to if, just maybe, and what if.

No. My initial post outlined a high level concept, there was no experiment established with particular examples or particular incidents until my response to your post.

In playing along, what if the services you'd cite as your examples could be run more efficiently and effectively another way entirely or what if they can be managed without Federal spending? Or... what if they're already Federally funded through another program and the program in question is duplicative? Then does the continued spending make sense? How much should we spend per day, the current $3.5 billion? $5.5 billion? $10.5 billion?

At what point do we say that sometimes spending is worse than not?

If your scenarios are the case, then of course it makes sense to look at these options, and if these options suggest that it makes the most sense to disband the entire program altogether, than so be it.

You say that sometimes spending on a particular program is worse than not when it is. Do we agree that it is not always a given that spending = bad? That was my point.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

If you've got 'em, post 'em!

I was comfortable that it wouldn't be necessary. It certainly illustrates no lack of bravery with regard to spending.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

You say that sometimes spending on a particular program is worse than not when it is. Do we agree that it is not always a given that spending = bad? That was my point.

My point is that it really takes more courage to propose cuts than it does increased spending. No one has proposed eliminating all spending so the ideal is too ambiguous for fruitful discourse without derailing your thread out of the gate.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by besson3c

Is this one of your weird psychoanalysis things?

No I'm trying to communicate why you're wrong, since you don't seem to be grasping it. Everyone agrees that spending is "better," even "necessary," if your example is something like police, fire, garbage, sewer, etc. So the whole topic is kind of a straw-man. The actual contention is how big an umbrella this category of "no-brainers" should be (to use your term). You think it should stretch all the way out to the arts. Others of course don't think it should be that broad. But just focusing on you for a moment, if your umbrella is broad enough to include the arts, what isn't included, what won't you spend on? If you have to cut spending in a lean year, what would you cut, if anything?

It's like on a personal scale, you argue that "some things are worth buying." Conservatives think of things like food and clothing, but you are thinking of iPads. Now of course, iPads are definitely nice to have, and of course, in a good year we can afford them so we get them. But in a lean year, conservatives think about cutting iPad spending, and you balk at this cut. Is this an example of "sometimes spending is better" or "always spending is better?" Just because you want it to be an illustration of "sometimes spending" doesn't make it so.

In short: "sometimes spending is better than not" <-- as opposed to what? Another time? If not during the "great recession," what other time would that be?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

My point is that it really takes more courage to propose cuts than it does increased spending. No one has proposed eliminating all spending so the ideal is too ambiguous for fruitful discourse without derailing your thread out of the gate.

I think you might be surprised, there might be people who want to eliminate all spending. Thank you for acknowledging my point though...

I do agree that it takes more political courage to cut something, but on the other hand, the other point I had made was that it is easy for politicians to manipulate the public by saying they are going to cut stuff, getting their base behind that, and then cutting stuff simply to provide the appearance of them doing something productive, or else cutting the program purely on ideological grounds when there is no economic justification to cut the program.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

You keep mentioning this, but it just doesn't match with my understanding.

PP is a non-profit. It's illegal for them to have profits.

It's true they spend less than they have, but any properly managed organization is going to do this if possible. If you don't, the only way you can deal with an unforeseen circumstance is with a loan. It's a cash reserve.

What should be noted is PP's reserve stays about the same percentage every year*. If PP had 100MM in excess last year, and has 100MM in excess this year, that means they spent last year's 100MM, otherwise they'd have 200MM in the reserve.


*For one recent year, this isn't the case, because Bernie Madoff stole enough to clean out their entire reserve. It's an extreme example, but it's precisely why it's unwise not to have a reserve.

The point of stating the "excess" is that it is in fact an excess, known anywhere else as a profit. Yes, it is either good for all of us that PP is run so efficiently or bad for us that it receives this much more than is necessary. The fact that it is a "non-profit" organization is splitting hairs when in fact it sells revenue-generating units, rolls its excesses over, pays large sums of money to its officers at the national level, and as I understand it has amassed over $800 million in assets.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I think you might be surprised, there might be people who want to eliminate all spending.

I'd be surprised at even one person who would advocate the elimination of all spending.

I do agree that it takes more political courage to cut something, but on the other hand, the other point I had made was that it is easy for politicians to manipulate the public by saying they are going to cut stuff, getting their base behind that, and then cutting stuff simply to provide the appearance of them doing something productive, or else cutting the program purely on ideological grounds when there is no economic justification to cut the program.

My problem with this is that while you have very specific spending measures in mind, you won't mention them because they can't weather scrutiny or because you can't or don't feel like finding any information to support them. So... you're attempting to garner support for... really nothing at all.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

Holy cow, it works! Now, since you and besson3c are both financial geniuses

I'm sorry, but we are NOT playing in the same financial genius league. You are mistaken.

-t

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

I don't know what the right value for tax income vs. GDP is. Nor do I know whether these numbers can really be relied upon: I literally found this site just now. But, if accurate I think it puts the lie to the "taxed enough already" folk: taxes are not too high right now, in fact they may be at the lowest value relative to GDP in quite a while. Now, if that's all we need to run our government, that's fine. We can (and should) find areas to cut. But we should have found our spending cuts before cutting taxes. That would have been the responsible thing to do. As it stands, we are in a ton of debt right now and are being forced to make huge cuts all over the place, all because Bush had to have his tax cuts first.

I think it's pretty clear that from the TAX side of things, we can't fix this mess.
Personally, I think taxes are also a psychological issue: so if we can't squeeze out much more TOTAL money (in % of GDP) even when increasing taxes, we might as well lower them and let the people feel like the government is doing something good for them.

I just don't see how taxes should be used to "punish" or "approve / disapprove" of certain things, people or standing.

In the end, it comes down to government living above its means, politicians on both sides being disconnected from reality, and government growing like cancer, consuming and destroying ever more productive aspects of our economy and country.

-t

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

No I'm trying to communicate why you're wrong, since you don't seem to be grasping it. Everyone agrees that spending is "better," even "necessary," if your example is something like police, fire, garbage, sewer, etc. So the whole topic is kind of a straw-man. The actual contention is how big an umbrella this category of "no-brainers" should be (to use your term). You think it should stretch all the way out to the arts. Others of course don't think it should be that broad. But just focusing on you for a moment, if your umbrella is broad enough to include the arts, what isn't included, what won't you spend on? If you have to cut spending in a lean year, what would you cut, if anything?

Don't you have to actually understand my point before you can go about trying to enlighten me as to how I'm wrong? I never said that spending should be extended all the way to the arts, at least not necessarily. We'll need to back up a few steps if we are to continue this conversation.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

The push to defund Planned Parenthood is not "underhanded", it is ideological...

Which is probably why it's ridiculously stupid.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

PP is duplicative, unnecessary, and profitable on its own w/o Federal funding and is the premier provider of one of the most contentious procedures on the planet.

Planned Parenthood does not provide abortions. Apparently you need to be reminded of that as much as people need reminding of the $14 trillion debt.

Since its inception, Planned Parenthood has also reduced abortion rates by 33% for Americans, 50% in teenage pregnancies alone. It has reduced the transmission of STDs by 93%.

Republicans seem so hell bent on their ideological crusade that they completely miss the positive affects of Planned Parenthood. If Planned Parenthood has taught us anything it is that education has been the number one preventer of abortions and sexually transmitted diseases, not religious and ideological rhetoric.

Defunding it would be a huge disservice.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

No I'm trying to communicate why you're wrong, since you don't seem to be grasping it. Everyone agrees that spending is "better," even "necessary," if your example is something like police, fire, garbage, sewer, etc. So the whole topic is kind of a straw-man. The actual contention is how big an umbrella this category of "no-brainers" should be (to use your term). You think it should stretch all the way out to the arts. Others of course don't think it should be that broad. But just focusing on you for a moment, if your umbrella is broad enough to include the arts, what isn't included, what won't you spend on? If you have to cut spending in a lean year, what would you cut, if anything?

Don't you have to actually understand my point before you can go about trying to enlighten me as to how I'm wrong? I never said that spending should be extended all the way to the arts, at least not necessarily. We'll need to back up a few steps if we are to continue this conversation.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I'd be surprised at even one person who would advocate the elimination of all spending.


My problem with this is that while you have very specific spending measures in mind, you won't mention them because they can't weather scrutiny or because you can't or don't feel like finding any information to support them. So... you're attempting to garner support for... really nothing at all.

I think you generally are too consumed with arguing specifics when there are underlying principles and philosophies that deter any sort of agreement and obstruct any sort of context on these specifics. I don't think we can really have a conversation about spending without addressing the rhetoric and the balance which needs to exist, hence this thread.

[Kerrigan]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

...
Do you agree that sometimes the costs of cutting something or not having a particular program are greater than having it? Do you agree that sometimes you have to spend money to make money?
....

Yes. And yes. [see: military, police]. It would be going way, way too far to suggest that answering yes two either of those questions justifies having a record deficit and massively expanded federal government, as we have under Obama.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

Yes. And yes. [see: military, police]. It would be going way, way too far to suggest that answering yes two either of those questions justifies having a record deficit and massively expanded federal government, as we have under Obama.

It would be going way, way too far to suggest that anybody is suggesting that.

[Kerrigan]

But you support the Democrat spending agenda, correct?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

But you support the Democrat spending agenda, correct?

Define. Do you mean the budget that was passed?

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by subego 

They want to cut orgies now?

You'll pry my orgy out of my cold, dead...

Oh, hell no. What constitutes an orgy? Is it more than three but less than twenty?

Yeah, yeah, I'm derailing, bite me.

[Kerrigan]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Define. Do you mean the budget that was passed?

Democrat spending agenda = the spending programs that have arisen under Democrat congresses.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

Democrat spending agenda = the spending programs that have arisen under Democrat congresses.

Off the top of my head I can't even think of any new spending programs, so you'll have to help me out...

[Kerrigan]

Let me make it even more specific, so that you can't keep dodging the question. Do you agree with or support any of the United States Federal Budget legislations that have arisen under Democrat Party controlled sessions of the United States Congress?


Do you need any help with definitions? For example, with the word "congress" or "support?"