Discussion in 'Politics' started by Seattle, Jan 6, 2023.
Exactly. Ask pjdude.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
But when the options are:
1. Increase spending and decrease income or
2. Increase spending and increase income
Option 2 is better than option 1.
Sure, when the options are drive when drunk and go fast and drive when drunk and slow down, slow down is best but those aren't the only options or the best options.
If you don't think it's a good idea to eliminate the step up basis and if you don't think it's a good idea to double the capital gains tax then don't do it would be the logical response.
If you know it's not actually going to be paid for then the better response would be to cut back on spending.
When you know you can't pay for it, it makes no sense to add free pre-kindergarten to the list of things that you already aren't paying for.
Free ice cream would be nice but we know that there is a cost to everything so we draw the line somewhere. When the debt to GDP ratio is already 115%, adding free pre-kindergarten makes no sense regardless of the reasons you could offer up as to why it might be nice to have.
I don't see the logic of "more taxes and unneeded programs as being better than less taxes and unneeded programs" as being a serious argument. It's not one that would hold much weight in your personal life or in your business. If someone seriously offered up that kind of logic in a work meeting they would be laughed out of the room, wouldn't you agree?
That is exactly right. But when your options are narrowed down to those two, you choose the better of the two options.
Absolutely. But if your choice is to eliminate the step up basis and drive drunk, or eliminate the step up basis and NOT drive drunk, the latter option is preferable.
It would be great if we could make choices in a democracy that lead to ideal outcomes. We generally do not have that option. So we choose the best of several bad choices.
OK. You can "see" whatever you like. In the real world, we often have to make choices between less than ideal and WAY less than ideal.
I mean, an engineer can hold out for cheap, fast and good. But he will get beaten every time by the engineer who chooses two out of those three - even if you don't think that arguing against (for example) cheap is a "serious argument."
Of course, cheap, fast and good are all reasonable attributes as is any 2 of them.
As an engineer, is cheap and not good an acceptable choice when the other choice is expensive and not good? In most cases, the project would just be put on hold because "not good" is unacceptable.
Doubling capital gains taxes and eliminated the step up exemption is similarly not expectable or certainly a good argument could be made for that being the case. Otherwise, it's just a race to the bottom.
Sometimes yes. That's called an MVP - minimum viable product. If a startup is struggling for cash, then selling something (even if it's not very good) will provide funding to keep the company solvent - and fund improvements to that product.
And sometimes expensive, not good and fast is even chosen over expensive, not good and slow. The first cellphones, for example, were terrible AND expensive - but they were developed quickly. This established that cellphone design as an incumbent, which got that spectrum reserved for them, which was a huge win for that early cellphone operator (Motorola.)
Getting rid of the step up basis and doubling capital gains taxes punishes the wrong people (to say nothing of the economic disincentives) for an unnecessary spending program, IMO.
It's like killing the goose that laid the golden egg. It's shortsighted. It's really like saying, we can't stop the bad behavior but we can at least raise taxes and pay for it rather than, let's just stop the bad behavior.
Again, I agree. And if the choice was:
1. Keep capital gains like they are now and reduce spending to balance the budget
2. Increase capital gains taxes to balance the budget (given the increased spending)
Then option 1) is far preferable. Unfortunately those are not options that can realistically be voted for.
As usual you are arrogantly confident and completely wrong.
Please don't push your buttons ignorance on me
The statement in question was quoting your post.
To be clear: The statement, "Trying to reduce debt is going to destroy the global economy", is yours. It's right there in #17↑. That is, the statement in question is a juxtaposition of your invention, and thus something only you can explain.
Don't ever wonder why some things take a lot of words, especially when people are expected account for the extraordinary need of explicitly observing the difference between what someone said and what someone else says it means insofar as one person said something, and another person said something, and what that other person said is actually what that other person said. It's only confusing if we must explain it to someone who is confused for no apparent reason and thus cannot give any reference point by which others might help resolve that confusion. More directly: It can easily become confusing if there is confusion about why one is confused.
Which, in turn, is not at all unusual among conservatives.
This is ridiculous. The statement that you are attributing to me is a statement that PJdude made and I simply added the question mark as in "what are you talking about". You then jump in and say that it's my statement and then PJdude jumps in and says don't bring him into this discussion?
The whole crazy statement was made by PJdude, I questioned it, you questioned it and and now you say it's my statement. WTF?
Look at his rant in post 14. I'm just questioning that bit about lowering taxes destroying the "global economy"?
Let's take a look at this claim:
• Seattle in #17↑: "Trying to reduce debt is going to destroy the global economy?"
• Seattle in #33↑: "The statement that you are attributing to me is a statement that PJdude made and I simply added the question mark as in 'what are you talking about'", explaining, "Look at his rant in post 14."
• Reviewing #14↑ as indicated, we do not find the statement, "Trying to reduce debt is going to destroy the global economy". It's a hell of a run-on sentence, but, no, the phrase Seattle insists is PJ's does not exist in #14.
I do see attribution of societal ruin to an underlying mindset that misrepresents reality while discussing taxes, and while that point could be better crafterd, it's not necessarily wrong.
It's kind of like your bit on the "Achilles heal"↗ of liberalism and something about "economic illiteracy"; it's a narrative we've heard since the Reagan years, and doesn't really reflect reality. These generations of voodoo economics have brought us not quite to the brink of ruin, but we're closer to the chasm than any promised land, or even a hill upon which we might be a beacon. It's one thing if the dumbest thing Clinton did was adopt reaganomics, but that was what voters wanted and that's a big part of how he won; and, moreover, he helped balance the budget and set a pathway to paying off the national debt. It was Republicans who undid that. And it was a Republican president who tanked a war we didn't need to be in, an administration of oilmen having an oil fight, running up the debt and the price of oil. And let's not forget the glorious GOP tax bill, partially written in crayon, and how a lot of Trump's working-class supporters saw their tax bills increase; moreover, tax increases that occurred in 2021 were part of that 2017 GOP tax law. So, yeah, PJ isn't wrong; simplistic mush about spending and tax, with the regular talking points about GDP and budgets and no debate and all the same boo-hoo we hear from Republicans, anyway, is actually part of an historical discussion fouled nearly to the point of being delusional. That is, it's a fine discussion about fancy, but it is also true that Americans will destroy the place with this voodoo, and inasmuch as it's partisan, we should remember these are also the presuppositions of those who would murder government.
Inasmuch as PJ might sound at least a bit melodramatic about his expression, it does stand out that so-called moderate Republicans aren't really any different from the House Freedom Caucus. In fact, part of the reason we're having any discussion about a "House Speaker solution", at all, is because there isn't any real moderating influence against the House Freedom Caucus, who undermined Boehner and Ryan, and now have compelled McCarthy to concede so much that House Republicans want to keep the terms of agreement secret. The House GOP is so proud of itself that it wants to keep some House Rules secret, even from other members.
So, if this seems like a lot of words to make the point, the short form is to remind that, sure, I can accept that you really are that stupid, if you insist. It's like your cluelessness↗ about racism. The whole bit where ostensibly educated and informed people can't manage anything better than the murmur and buzz of base superstition is what it is, but, no, it's not credible, and neither are they.
We're not talking about "they". You and I are trying to have a conversation and all you can do (much like PJdude) is to get overly emotional and start ranting about whatever your biases are. I'm not praising the Republicans in Congress. You can't get past that.
If I post something that you think you've heard before, you say that's just conservative talking points. If it's something you haven't heard before, your response is "huh" or "are you just making this up?".
Relax, every comment isn't that polarized. If I said, I don't like the Republicans in Congress but I saw that one did bring a cute puppy into the chamber for the vote, you would go off in some manner. It's just who you are. I'll consider you a drama queen if you insist or as you might put it, I'll consider you that stupid if you insist but if I even phrase it that way...I'll get 10 more warning points although you won't get any warning points will you?
This is getting old. You responded to a long post of mine with nothing but "House Republicans" and to the next paragraph with nothing but "Huh". I implied that maybe you were dense and I got 10 warning points.
You are allowed to bait me and others by "implying that "we" might be stupid over and over but you don't get any warning emails do you?
I'll leave it at that.
While Seattle's straw man is its own question, we do have some new information emerging from the House of Representatives:
House Republicans are preparing a plan telling the Treasury Department what to do if Congress and the White House don't agree to lift the nation's debt limit later this year, underscoring the brinkmanship newly empowered conservatives will bring to the high-stakes negotiations over averting a U.S. default, according to six people aware of the internal discussions.
The plan, which was previously unreported, was part of the private deal reached this month to resolve the standoff between House conservatives and Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) over the election of a House speaker. Rep. Chip Roy (R-Tex.), a leading conservative who helped broker the deal, told The Washington Post that McCarthy agreed to pass a payment prioritization plan by the end of the first quarter of the year.
The emerging contingency plan shows how Republicans are preparing to threaten to not lift the nation's debt ceiling without major spending cuts from the Biden administration. Congress must pass a law raising the current limit of $31.4 trillion or the Treasury Department can't borrow anymore, even to pay for spending lawmakers have already authorized. Economists warn that not raising the debt limit could cause the United States to default, sparking a major panic on Wall Street and leading to millions of job losses.
(Stein, Caldwell, and Meyer↱)
While some easily enough understood our neighbor's pretense about "trying to reduce debt" was fallacious, the only real question, in light of the HFC-McCarthy deal to breach the debt limit, is why our neighbor, Seattle, didn't, or wouldn't. If the last twenty-two years, at least, haven't made the point that Republican bawling about debt is just a façade to mask their craven cruelty, it is unclear what will.
"Trying to reduce debt" probably sounds good when reaching around for a cheap zinger, but even setting aside the growing weight of indictment it suggests of a joker's naïveté, it's also didn't age well; if it took less than a week to be crucified by reality, the line from the day before—
—reads even worse.
To the one, sure, I get it; the point starts out as breeze-shooting, and according to fanciful articles of faith unshaken by history and living experience reminding otherwise. And, yeah, amping up a little to be some sort of zinger is as easy to do as it is a temptation. To the other, that deal between the House Freedom Caucus and the aspiring Speaker McCarthy was being forged right about the time we were to consider stopped clocks and who was right regarding the debt issue.
And, come on: Whatever else, we will always at least have that; it is, in its way, the stuff of legend. Someday, someone asks what's funny: 「Nothing, had to be there. Just, that made me think of the time this guy was doing that thing about Republicans and reducing the debt, and it turns out they were making the agreement to breach the debt ceiling quite literally as he was saying it.」
At the very least, it's more perfect than Donald Trump's phone call ... calls. Whatever.
Stein, Jeff, Leigh Ann Caldwell, and Theodoric Meyer. "House Republicans prepare emergency plan for breaching debt limit". The Washington Post. 13 January 2022. WashingtonPost.com. 13 January 2022. https://bit.ly/3iEJLuw
Your post, as usual, makes no sense.
I really don't think their agreeing to breach the debt is as funny or as ironic as you want to make out. I guess they could say "No! We're not going to increase the debt ceiling!" and so send the US into shutdown and default on its debt. But no sensible party would do that given the consequences it would have on their own and the global economy.
So this example you've used is nothing more than the Reps acting sensibly in as much as agreeing to increase the debt ceiling. And of course they'll use the opportunity to make political gains as a result of their agreement.
Using it as an example of how the Reps don't follow the principle Seattle is arguing they do seems to be rather weak and superficial.
Now, I'm not saying that they are all for reducing the debt. Heck, I think both parties breach the debt ceiling when in power (Trump presided over a lockdown for sure), but using this situation as an example of it is weak. After all, one can be forced into doing something even though their preference might be, and remains, the opposite. Being forced to act opposite their preference would only appear ironic if one ignores the situation they're in and looks superficially at the action alone.
Could you please explain that sentence?
How are they "acting sensibly in as much as agreeing to increase the debt ceiling" by telling McCarthy he can only be Speaker if he agrees to not increase the debt ceiling?
The idea that "no sensible party would do that given the consequences it would have on their own and the global economy" ignores history; these stunts have cost the country, before. I mean, you are aware Republican debt-ceiling theatrics have already cost the United States billions? Or did you not realize their 2011 stunt saw the U.S.government's credit rating downgraded ?
Now, you're not saying ... and, after all, both parties ... and it's bullshit. There is history, here, and your wide-eyed naïveté is superficial and unbelievable.
You said, "this example you've used is nothing more than the Reps acting sensibly in as much as agreeing to increase the debt ceiling", and, honestly, I would greatly appreciate if you could explain how that works.
(And if you have any insight into why people behave this way, please, shed some light on this asymmetric epistemic mystery.)
When any politician is presented with two options - vote to not raise the debt ceiling, and force the US into a shutdown and a default (an action that would destroy the US economy) or vote to raise the debt ceiling and avoid those outcomes - then a responsible politician will vote to raise the debt ceiling. Thus, in this particular case, republicans (and democrats) are acting sensibly.
The NEXT thing a responsible politician should do is to cut the budget to reduce the deficit (and eventually the debt) and to your point that is something republicans seem utterly unable to do. Boo on them. But that's the next step.
Separate names with a comma.