Obama's get rich quick scheme: Adopting a VAT Tax.

[Kuya]

Kuya, read your last sentence. You think raising taxes will help unemployment? And curing unemployment would mean you don't need the social service that liberals love, welfare.

You misunderstood. That is why i mentioned taxing and spending in the first sentence.

Furthermore, you also misunderstand modern "liberalism". Outside of America, that is. Social services aren't just for helping people in need, they're also for making life easier and more enjoyable for all of us. It's about pooling our resources as a society and enjoying the fruits of our collective labour. It's about making life easier, more secure, and happier.

[Atreides]

SOUNDS LIKE SOCIALISM

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

You misunderstood. That is why i mentioned taxing and spending in the first sentence.

Furthermore, you also misunderstand modern "liberalism". Outside of America, that is. Social services aren't just for helping people in need, they're also for making life easier and more enjoyable for all of us. It's about pooling our resources as a society and enjoying the fruits of our collective labour. It's about making life easier, more secure, and happier.

And all the evidence points towards that eventually bankrupting us.

[Kuya]

Is bankrupting a metaphor or are you equating a household to a soveign State? Anyway, if deficits and debts are a problem, then don't spend more than you make. Unless there's a recession/depression.

[Marootsoobutsu]

I think that before we discuss the proper implementation of tax and spending in government, we must first eliminate the virus known as modern American conservatism. It's anathema to good public policy. Otherwise, we'll be stuck debating whether taxes are evil while mass unemployment occurs/social services decay.

I cannot speak for all Conservative people out there, but my objection to socialist and pseudo-socialist policies of Europe, is that people are trying to compare European countries to America. It doesn't work well when you compare apples to oranges. Most of the social programs folks advocate, I would be fine with on a state level (provided states remember that they are states, not provinces or territories). Basically, the United States is far too large and too complex to centralize like, say, Sweden or even France can. Sweden (since it's everyone's favorite example), is basically the size (population wise) of North Carolina. Sweden is primarily composed of people whose families have lived in Sweden for generations, there is almost no racial, ethnic, cultural, or even religious diversity. While America has an "American culture", it's difficult to identify and for most it boils down to Constitution worship. The question of whether racial, ethnic, cultural, or religious diversity *should* impact social and legal programs... the reality is that, for better or worse (or both), they do. Attempting a uniform program on a *federal* level in the US involves vastly more money shuffling than it would in any other nation; limiting it to a state-by-state basis (particularly if states like California, Oregon, and Washington were split into more economic-geographic regions), would minimize that shuffling, and would allow people with at least a more immediate history and identify to come together on consensus.

And, it is (at least I think), important to note... that's basically what Europe is doing. Sweden, France, England, Denmark, and Germany may all have similar programs, but they implement them differently-- and they all have some programs, laws, or customs that differ from eachother, based on what their people have decided is worth having. I am all for Massachusetts having its health care system, while Washington has its, and Texas decides whether or not to have one on its lonesome. There are very different cultures between those three regions, and attempting to force a program on one, while not meeting the needs of your local ideology is asking for more fights than there really need to be. At the state level, I would allow for a lot more social assistance, especially if it comes with a demand that states are again accountable to their population. Right now, it's far too easy to say, "We were idiots, bail us out!" The focus is not local; it is central, and that's as sure a thing as any to tear apart a nation.

tl;dr: I'm conservative on a federal level; mildly left of center on a state level; damn-near socialist at a county level. Not because social programs don't work, but because they work better when they focus on people who are extremely similar, and fail dismally when pushed on diverse groups with brief (or no) common background.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

Is bankrupting a metaphor or are you equating a household to a soveign State? Anyway, if deficits and debts are a problem, then don't spend more than you make. Unless there's a recession/depression.

Metaphor for when a country issues debt which it can not repay, or issues debt that people do not believe it can repay, and all the consequences that come with it.

[Rhinox]

It's no wonder Uneducated white people tend to vote Republican.

Economy is in a surplus? Lower taxes and stop spending
Economy is in a major reccesion? Lower taxes and stop spending
Nations Deficit is expanding? lower taxes and stop spending

Never any middle ground

Tell me swampy why do you hate the Reagan tax cuts so much?

[Kuya]

I cannot speak for all Conservative people out there, but my objection to socialist and pseudo-socialist policies of Europe, is that people are trying to compare European countries to America. It doesn't work well when you compare apples to oranges. Most of the social programs folks advocate, I would be fine with on a state level (provided states remember that they are states, not provinces or territories). Basically, the United States is far too large and too complex to centralize like, say, Sweden or even France can. Sweden (since it's everyone's favorite example), is basically the size (population wise) of North Carolina. Sweden is primarily composed of people whose families have lived in Sweden for generations, there is almost no racial, ethnic, cultural, or even religious diversity. While America has an "American culture", it's difficult to identify and for most it boils down to Constitution worship. The question of whether racial, ethnic, cultural, or religious diversity *should* impact social and legal programs... the reality is that, for better or worse (or both), they do. Attempting a uniform program on a *federal* level in the US involves vastly more money shuffling than it would in any other nation; limiting it to a state-by-state basis (particularly if states like California, Oregon, and Washington were split into more economic-geographic regions), would minimize that shuffling, and would allow people with at least a more immediate history and identify to come together on consensus.

And, it is (at least I think), important to note... that's basically what Europe is doing. Sweden, France, England, Denmark, and Germany may all have similar programs, but they implement them differently-- and they all have some programs, laws, or customs that differ from eachother, based on what their people have decided is worth having. I am all for Massachusetts having its health care system, while Washington has its, and Texas decides whether or not to have one on its lonesome. There are very different cultures between those three regions, and attempting to force a program on one, while not meeting the needs of your local ideology is asking for more fights than there really need to be. At the state level, I would allow for a lot more social assistance, especially if it comes with a demand that states are again accountable to their population. Right now, it's far too easy to say, "We were idiots, bail us out!" The focus is not local; it is central, and that's as sure a thing as any to tear apart a nation.

tl;dr: I'm conservative on a federal level; mildly left of center on a state level; damn-near socialist at a county level. Not because social programs don't work, but because they work better when they focus on people who are extremely similar, and fail dismally when pushed on diverse groups with brief (or no) common background.

Plausible explanation, but you won't get to prove whether it works or not regardless of size and ethnic diversity as long as such a poisonous ideology that insists on the immorality of social programs exists. Besides, the problem with leaving it up to the states in America is that the states don't have the amount of liberty in domestic and foreign policy that the European States do. Granted, there are other problems with the kind of union Europe has.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

It's no wonder Uneducated white people tend to vote Republican.

Economy is in a surplus? Lower taxes and stop spending
Economy is in a major reccesion? Lower taxes and stop spending
Nations Deficit is expanding? lower taxes and stop spending

Never any middle ground

Tell me swampy why do you hate the Reagan tax cuts so much?

Not true, once rates are 0, they can no longer be lowered.

And if you're referring to his raising deficits, I think there was a lot he wanted to eliminate but did not succeed in doing.

And Kuya what is moral about one person being entitled to someone else's labor or property involuntarily?

[Kuya]

And Kuya what is moral about one person being entitled to someone else's labor or property involuntarily?

Would you ask this same question when prodded to share your things with your brother?

You have an obligation as an American (and a as a human being) to assist other Americans/human beings because they share a same existence as you. Whether this existence be referred to as American culture or mere human experience. You were not born in a vacuum. Society invested resources into your existence, both physically and ideologically. It is right, that you should give back to this society.

It would be preferrable if you thought this was right by pure intuition, but if you don't, then social mores will have to be imposed on you, like they are for many other things. And if you insist that you have no obligation to your fellow American/human, then hopefully you'll be able to go to some happy highly individualistic society where you can live happy and freely or whatever.

My hope is that this kind of thinking will become as cultarlly ingrained into human society as taboos against incest. And maybe we can one day make a small space station or some island somewhere and we can call it Rand Island where all the individualists can enjoy not being part of the human species, like they always wanted.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

Would you ask this same question when prodded to share your things with your brother?

You have an obligation as an American (and a as a human being) to assist other Americans/human beings because they share a same existence as you. Whether this existence be referred to as American culture or mere human experience. You were not born in a vacuum. Society invested resources into your existence, both physically and ideologically. It is right, that you should give back to this society.

This seemed to be the meet of your quote.

Yes, I would. The only difference is I would "feel" more inclined to voluntarily help b/c he is my brother. But being my brother does not entitle him to my labor or property. And while I do agree with the whole obligation thing, an obligation is different than being forced to do it against ones will, which is what a govt. does. Govt. has proven time and again it can't do what liberals want it to. See 60 minutes and medicare fraud.

And society has invested nothing in me.

[Rhinox]

No public education at all? no Federal loans of any kind ever?

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

Parents paid for the public education. And I think it's the other way around with the loans. If it wasn't I wouldn't have to pay interest.

[Rhinox]

Parents paid for the public education. And I think it's the other way around with the loans. If it wasn't I wouldn't have to pay interest.

Actually they didn't. They paid into a public pool to fund education which society deemed you had the right to. I don't know you personally but unless your parents can afford private school your parents didn't pay nearly enough in taxes to cover your education.

Btw it was my mistake. I meant Federal grants

[Kuya]

This seemed to be the meet of your quote.

Yes, I would. The only difference is I would "feel" more inclined to voluntarily help b/c he is my brother. But being my brother does not entitle him to my labor or property. And while I do agree with the whole obligation thing, an obligation is different than being forced to do it against ones will, which is what a govt. does. Govt. has proven time and again it can't do what liberals want it to. See 60 minutes and medicare fraud.

And society has invested nothing in me.

Organizing society is (and has never been) never an exact science. You misattribute to the modern formal institution of decision making the limits of our knowledge about human concoctions, which for some reason, humans are prone to lose control over and forget they even made it in the first place. It probably has less to do whether a governent institution can do it or not and more to do with the limits of our tools and knowledge, since a government institution does not make decisions autonomously.

Certainly there are things a government institution cannot do. For example, the transformation of a society from a hyper-individualistic one to an empathetic one is not something a government institution can do, but it can certainly take part in the effort. The many parts that compose the government cannot administrate everything; it is impossible.

And what you said is exactly the point: you "feel" inclined towards your brother, and that is the same goal we should have for society now. That most of us feel rightly inclined towards assiting others (after ourselves of course). That we no longer use the very hipster notions about how we shouldn't be taxed so others can have things we don't need ourselves. The aspiration is to have a society where this is the natural inclination, and the few who (hopefully very few) who disagree, can be forced via a government institution (this is certainly something the government can do!) to participate. Naturally, they should be given the option to forgoe participating, and leaving society, so they may go live in a bubble somewhere to wear ironic t-shirts.

[Ferion]

Kind of late, but...

So, we can't tax corporations ever or else they will just raise prices on us?

This isn't really true, for the most part. It is completely dependent on the goods that the company produces. If a corporation is hit with a new tax, they need to estimate the elasticity of their consumer's demand. This basically tells them that if they increase the price of their good by 1%, the quantity demanded will decrease by Y%. If the demand equation is very inelastic (price increases without really changing amount bought), then the company can pretty much force most of the tax onto the consumers. This usually only happens with goods that are a necessity. If not, then they need to optimize their profits by seeing what the best mix of paying the tax and losing buyers by increasing prices is. Taxing a corporation won't exactly help it, but it won't have the terrible effect that a lot of people seem to fear.

Edit: Also,

Not true, once rates are 0, they can no longer be lowered.

This is only partially correct. It is completely possible for the nominal interest rate to be negative. Nominal interest rates are a linear combination of inflation and real interest rates, (nominal interest rate) = (inflation + real interest rate). So if the U.S. is in a state of deflation and the real interest rate is small, then it is entirely possible for the nominal rate to be negative. Not to mention The Fed could, if they want, set the Federal Funds Rate to a negative value, the problem is that no one would want to make loans. There have been a couple pretty interesting ways suggested to make use of negative interest rates, just in case we ever need to resort to them to stimulate the economy. This is probably the most interesting: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/19/bu...my/19view.html

[Marootsoobutsu]

Plausible explanation, but you won't get to prove whether it works or not regardless of size and ethnic diversity as long as such a poisonous ideology that insists on the immorality of social programs exists. Besides, the problem with leaving it up to the states in America is that the states don't have the amount of liberty in domestic and foreign policy that the European States do. Granted, there are other problems with the kind of union Europe has.

The point is not that ethnic diversity means things won't work; the point is that ethnic diversity has created far more important issues that must be dealt with. It sucks that they have to be dealt with, but they do, because some people are dicks, and other people just think everyone not like them are dicks, or idiots. It's a hurdle that Sweden (and most of Europe), hasn't ever really had to deal with.

Size, though, is a very real issue. It is dramatically easier to manage ten people than a hundred, and when you're talking most European populations vs. America, the difference is greater by far. At the very least it's a logistical nightmare that Europe hasn't had to deal with, and the economic-geographical differences are likewise huge. What is the fair rate for, say, Wyoming vs. California? How about Buffalo vs. NYC? When does the rate change? Social programs require a quick flexibility as situations change on local levels, and a federal program in the US is simply too massive to account for that. Organize it by states? Compare Seattle to Yakima. Organize it by city size? Seattle's not that much bigger than Portland, but the Seattle area is huge by comparison, and has different costs of living (which vary somewhat noticeably based on whether or not Boeing has a huge contract operating right now or not), than other cities of similar market size. States offer a larger pool than counties, but are still (generally) small enough to be flexible. California and Texas have their own set of problems and "what about..."s, but met.

And there is a ton of historic precedent on that; logistics are the least appetizing part of managing any massive group of people, but it's where the efforts need to start. Solid, reliable, flexible logistical support is a force multiplier beyond any other, whether that force is money or people. Poor logistical networking (which the US has now in nightmarish proportions), is going to be a losing scenario, always, no matter how good the tactical plan is. And the larger the group your dealing with, geographically and in terms of population, the difficulty of managing it grows exponentially. If there were a way to have a logistically sound, powerful federal government, I might change my tune, but I've seen nothing to show that it's either here, on the way, or functionally conceived of. There is (I think), a plausible alternative, one that leads to more general satisfaction and less internal strife, models more closely the original constitutional model of the country while at the same time getting a more pleasant experience a la European advances.

[Vajra]

America sucks man, always seems like a bunch of poo flinging going on everyday, we can never get stuff done, I HATE HERE -_-...Why can't everyone just support the President so we can get stuff done, choose D for drive out of the ditch, and choose R to reverse into the ditch. Vote Democrats 2010. YES!

[Psion]

I just wish we would slash our goddamned military budget from like 700 billion to a more moderate 200 billion, if that. 300 billion of that freed up revenue per year could go to sciences. Cure the world of malaria? Supposedly only 20 million. Finally get fusion technology on fast track and make it viable? Probably 20 billion a year, if that. AI? who knows, but I doubt it costs that much to keep a bunch of programmers alive and working.

Rest could either go to fixing the freaking debt, or to fixing social security, or something.

Our military spending is well past the point of ridiculousness, and our money is far better invested elsewhere, not only for the betterment of humanity, but for economic benefits as well. As it is, we have no real cutting edge technology sans military spending, and with how inefficient it is, its not even close to enough bang for our buck. We're losing the technology war to china, japan, and hell, the rest of the world. At this rate the US is going to be a glorified third world country if we don't get back to focusing on civilian technology that applies to well, everyone, as opposed to defense spending that affects less people, and has a negative impact on those at the receiving end simply because the US feels like curbstomping a new victim.

I don't buy the fact that we're the good guys and all these people keep hating america and its freedoms because we're better than everyone else. The reason they keep hating and trying to kill us is because we ruined their lives and they want revenge, not because we're happy. Whoever heard of people trying to kill other people simply because they have a decent life? (I'm talking about a whole society here, not a few mentally ill people mixed in)

Maybe if we actually used some of our money to benefit all countries and stopped picking fights with everyone just to test our latest shiny laser gun, we wouldn't actually NEED defense, simply because no one would want to kill a country that makes their own country better all the time.

[Hyan]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...9580f071bd.png

This pic always makes me laugh.