Gas Bandit's Political Thread V: The Vampire Likes Bats
- Thread starter GasBandit
- Start date
The best part about this is that guy behind Boehner looking really hurt about it. "Senpai didn't notice me..."The love that dare not speak its name -
Yes, that's Nancy Pelosi that John Boehner is smooching.
The love that dare not speak its name -
Yes, that's Nancy Pelosi that John Boehner is smooching.
Then John Deere needs to change the oil and put diesel in the fucker...
Necronic
Staff member
So if anyone has forgotten about this, I know I had, the governor of Kansas Sam Brownback chose to make massive cuts to income taxes in the state on the assumption that it would increase tax revenue. You know. Reaganomics, Laffer curver, all that jazz. He called it "an exciting experiment in action" or something like that. This was...like 4 years ago.
Whelp, the results of that experiment are coming in.
http://www.kansascity.com/opinion/opn-columns-blogs/yael-t-abouhalkah/article19078119.html
I haven't seen a Midwestern state so far underwater since the Great Flood of 1993.
Seriously though. Can we just admit that there is a limit to how much revenue you can gain from cutting taxes? The Laffer curve is bounded ffs, that's one of the only things we know about it.
Whelp, the results of that experiment are coming in.
http://www.kansascity.com/opinion/opn-columns-blogs/yael-t-abouhalkah/article19078119.html
I haven't seen a Midwestern state so far underwater since the Great Flood of 1993.
Seriously though. Can we just admit that there is a limit to how much revenue you can gain from cutting taxes? The Laffer curve is bounded ffs, that's one of the only things we know about it.
GasBandit
Staff member
It doesn't say what the before and after percentages were on the taxes... Reagan cutting taxes from 70% to 29% doubled revenues, but yeah, obviously cutting from, say, 29% to 10% would probably not do that.
whoa, slow down let's not say something completely fucking crazy that we can't take back
Necronic
Staff member
Ha, yeah. Don't get me wrong. Fuck Reagan. But taxes were out of control, I think the tax cuts we saw in his administration did some good. The rest of the stuff? Not so much.
The thing is that the republican logic behind tax cuts never really makes sense. They say that if you cut tax rates then you will increase revenue, and if you increase revenue you will make up for the lower tax rates. Which makes a degree of sense, we have much lower tax rates now than we did in the 70s and we still bring in good revenues. But they also always cage it with a desire to cut spending. If decreasing taxes will have a net neutral response then wtf is with cutting spending?
I prefer Gasbandits logic of just saying "fuck entitlements" for it's own sake. It's at least more honest.
The thing is that the republican logic behind tax cuts never really makes sense. They say that if you cut tax rates then you will increase revenue, and if you increase revenue you will make up for the lower tax rates. Which makes a degree of sense, we have much lower tax rates now than we did in the 70s and we still bring in good revenues. But they also always cage it with a desire to cut spending. If decreasing taxes will have a net neutral response then wtf is with cutting spending?
I prefer Gasbandits logic of just saying "fuck entitlements" for it's own sake. It's at least more honest.
GasBandit
Staff member
Because no matter how much taxes bring in, they always want to spend more. Case in point... we're bringing in more tax money than we ever have... and we're also outspending that money by more than 3 to 1. It doesn't matter HOW much you collect in revenue, if you spend multiple times that.
Cutting deficit spending? What's wrong with trying to get spending under control? The government doesn't have any "curb" to their spending habits, heck, they try to call a reduction in an increase of spending an overall cut. Try telling your creditors that you are going to spend another $6000 dollars over your credit limit, and pay them $2000 and call it even. Tell 'em that and see how it goes for you, because that's about what Congress is doing to us.
We can't even begin to talk austerity until we're willing to make massive cuts to military spending. Really, anything else is a drop in the bucket until we start cutting it.
GasBandit
Staff member
Necronic
Staff member
That chart doesn't include debt service, the vast majority of which was incurred by wars.
ed: Oh wait, yes it does, and it puts our debt service at 4.63%.
Seriously guys? You think that's a problem?[DOUBLEPOST=1429811458,1429811054][/DOUBLEPOST]Anyways, I've always found the deficit argument to be a little ridiculous. Most people come from the stance that debt is inherently bad, which is a terrible viewpoint. Debt is a tool, and one that should be used. It should be used responsibly of course, but it should be used. Not having a national debt would be indicative of much more serious mismanagement of our economy than our current level of debt. Of course there are levels of debt that are unsustainable, but I see no reason to believe that we are there.
That said, Debt is not an issue only as long as we have good Credit. Credit is one of the most valuable things we have in this country, arguably the single most valuable thing that America owns. Damaging our national credit is one of the most dangerous things that you can do, and Republicans chose to do that last year as part of a political stunt.
When deficit hawks damage our credit for the sake of reducing our debt I can only shake my head at the complete economic idocy that we, the electorate, perpetuate in our leadership.[DOUBLEPOST=1429811609][/DOUBLEPOST]Wait are you counting the VA as an entitlement expense and not a military one?
ed 9: Ok nm I can't tell which piece of the pie is which in that chart.
ed: Oh wait, yes it does, and it puts our debt service at 4.63%.
Seriously guys? You think that's a problem?[DOUBLEPOST=1429811458,1429811054][/DOUBLEPOST]Anyways, I've always found the deficit argument to be a little ridiculous. Most people come from the stance that debt is inherently bad, which is a terrible viewpoint. Debt is a tool, and one that should be used. It should be used responsibly of course, but it should be used. Not having a national debt would be indicative of much more serious mismanagement of our economy than our current level of debt. Of course there are levels of debt that are unsustainable, but I see no reason to believe that we are there.
That said, Debt is not an issue only as long as we have good Credit. Credit is one of the most valuable things we have in this country, arguably the single most valuable thing that America owns. Damaging our national credit is one of the most dangerous things that you can do, and Republicans chose to do that last year as part of a political stunt.
When deficit hawks damage our credit for the sake of reducing our debt I can only shake my head at the complete economic idocy that we, the electorate, perpetuate in our leadership.[DOUBLEPOST=1429811609][/DOUBLEPOST]Wait are you counting the VA as an entitlement expense and not a military one?
ed 9: Ok nm I can't tell which piece of the pie is which in that chart.
GasBandit
Staff member
So if 18 trillion in debt (and 120 trillion in unfunded liabilities) isn't "too high" to be spending 9 trillion on an income of 3 trillion... what is? Seriously, what would you define as "too high," and why? And once that point is reached, how can you possibly expect the federal government to decide "ok, NOW is when we stop spending.. because we've done nothing but grow the entitlement culture for decades upon decades, but now that people are more dependent upon the government dole than ever before, now is when it makes political sense to have austerity."
Hint: That point is passed. As has been pointed out numerous times, there is never such thing as an actual budget cut, no federal program has ever gotten smaller, and no politician will ever be the one to commit career suicide by telling baby he can't have any more lollies.
GasBandit
Staff member
Inflation doesn't even come close to accounting for the deficit.
Necronic
Staff member
Wait what? Where are you getting 9 trillion? The deficit is like 500 bil.[DOUBLEPOST=1429820236,1429820085][/DOUBLEPOST]
Not exactly the "doom and gloom" everyone always seems to cry. Just a blip in 2009 which is totally in line with post recession Keynesian actions.
GasBandit
Staff member
9 trillion is the spending budget, not the deficit. And the tax intake is 3 trillion. The math works out to a little more than 500 billion there.
That's not billions, that's percentage of GDP. And Keynes is shit, and makes everything worse. It did under FDR, and it sure as hell did this time as well.
Not exactly the "doom and gloom" everyone always seems to cry. Just a blip in 2009 which is totally in line with post recession Keynesian actions.
Necronic
Staff member
I just get the impression in conversations like this that people think that logic of money in your personal life is the same as the logic of money at this scale, or even in a business. It absolutely isn't. The truth is that most people think of money incorrectly in even their home life.
Like consider student loans. Lots of people talk about how they got through college with no student loans, like that was a bit accomplishment. But technically, if you have no debt in the form of a student loan then you fucked up. That's because the cost of capital for a student loan is so absurdly low, it's simple enough to take that money and flip it into a low fee index fund. In 2008-2014 there was over 100% return on most index funds. You could have easily borrowed over 100k in that period and doubled it.
Or consider your retirement savings. Standard wisdom is that you should always be contributing to retirement right? If you have a company match this is still true, but if you don't it's technically a mistake to do that if you have credit card debt.
Or hey, what about tax returns. People love those right? Getting a tax return is actually indicative of a serious mismanagement of funds. You just loaned out money for over a year at zero % interest. You know what you should do? Borrow the money. You should, technically, always owe money come tax season, you should owe the maximum possible amount (past a certain amount you get penalized), and you shouldn't send that check in a day before the 15th.
Of course not one of these statements is something anyone would suggest for personal finance, because for the most part it requires a trained professional to spend a lot of time crunching a lot of numbers to do this successfully.
But guess what? Large companies and governments actually HAVE lots of people crunching numbers. That's how companies figure things out like the economic benefit of having you carry the company credit card on your credit. Or why some very large companies will make almost all of their payments at the 30 day mark on a net 30 purchase.
Real finance is complicated as fuck.
Like consider student loans. Lots of people talk about how they got through college with no student loans, like that was a bit accomplishment. But technically, if you have no debt in the form of a student loan then you fucked up. That's because the cost of capital for a student loan is so absurdly low, it's simple enough to take that money and flip it into a low fee index fund. In 2008-2014 there was over 100% return on most index funds. You could have easily borrowed over 100k in that period and doubled it.
Or consider your retirement savings. Standard wisdom is that you should always be contributing to retirement right? If you have a company match this is still true, but if you don't it's technically a mistake to do that if you have credit card debt.
Or hey, what about tax returns. People love those right? Getting a tax return is actually indicative of a serious mismanagement of funds. You just loaned out money for over a year at zero % interest. You know what you should do? Borrow the money. You should, technically, always owe money come tax season, you should owe the maximum possible amount (past a certain amount you get penalized), and you shouldn't send that check in a day before the 15th.
Of course not one of these statements is something anyone would suggest for personal finance, because for the most part it requires a trained professional to spend a lot of time crunching a lot of numbers to do this successfully.
But guess what? Large companies and governments actually HAVE lots of people crunching numbers. That's how companies figure things out like the economic benefit of having you carry the company credit card on your credit. Or why some very large companies will make almost all of their payments at the 30 day mark on a net 30 purchase.
Real finance is complicated as fuck.
GasBandit
Staff member
John B. Taylor, Milton Friedman, Tyler Cowen... Don't pretend Keynes is economic gospel.
... Where the hell DID I get 9 trillion? I know better than that. This is what I get for posting while working >_< Forget everything I said about 9 trillion. It's 4 trillion. I think I got 9 trillion from that's how much the federal debt has gone up since 2008.
Necronic
Staff member
It's actually 3.6, but yeah, I think you got the 9 from 4 + 5.00, happens to the best of us.
Bu yeah, Keynes is not gospel. That was one of the mistakes of the 70s, they thought deficit spending was a limitless cure. But that does not make Keynes shit either. Keynesian policies have their time and place, generally when you are in economic dire straights. A small amount of deficit spending is always a good thing though.
See this is he mistake both sides make. One side crows that it's all Keynesian. The other crows it's all Austrian. It's the exact same way that both sides can only see one side of the laffer curve. The truth is way more complicated.
At the scale we are talking about money is....damn near magical. You can literally will it into being, within a certain set of wizardly rules, and get away with it. Shit is really really complicated.
Bu yeah, Keynes is not gospel. That was one of the mistakes of the 70s, they thought deficit spending was a limitless cure. But that does not make Keynes shit either. Keynesian policies have their time and place, generally when you are in economic dire straights. A small amount of deficit spending is always a good thing though.
See this is he mistake both sides make. One side crows that it's all Keynesian. The other crows it's all Austrian. It's the exact same way that both sides can only see one side of the laffer curve. The truth is way more complicated.
At the scale we are talking about money is....damn near magical. You can literally will it into being, within a certain set of wizardly rules, and get away with it. Shit is really really complicated.
people in conversations even in this actual thread don't understand that at the scale of the largest world economy, debt isn't the same thing as when you owe credit card payments
Necronic
Staff member
One way it really is similar though is in your credit rating. Your interest rates are going to closely track your credit rating. And if I give a large indication to my creditors that I won't meet my debt obligations, if I'm either a credit card holder or a country, I'm going to take a hit to my credit rating. Which we went through as a country and can thank the "fiscally responsible" right.
Kinloch, Missouri--mayor voted in, police and government officials resign, now other police block mayor from city hall to prevent swearing in.
Some are trying to turn this into a race issue because the new mayor is black, but it's really about ethics in game journalism.
Some are trying to turn this into a race issue because the new mayor is black, but it's really about ethics in game journalism.
I'm only seeing reports that this happened, not any justification for why it did. You kind of need a legal reason to impeach a mayor...
Voter fraud is what I read is alleged. People registered at vacant homes type of stuff. About 50 people total voted.[DOUBLEPOST=1429935076,1429934980][/DOUBLEPOST]There is also an incoming alderman who was "impeached" along with the mayor for the same reason, I think, but if so that was entirely ridiculous since he ran unopposed.