jamiethekiller wrote:re-doing the entire infrastructure of the country would do wonders to help this country. don't we have cities ready to fall in on themselves because of leaky sewers?

Forget the sewers, although Baltimore had a water main break near the inner harbor that was from the 1890, we have something stupid like 63,000 bridges that are on the unsafe list (like 1:9), our above ground power grid is susceptible to damage by unscheduled wind (how many people for how many days in the mid-Atlantic were effected by the derecho), etc. and so on. There is plenty of man power on the bench that a fair wage for a job could be renewed. Lets party like it is 1935.

pacino wrote:

Werthless wrote:The issue that I have is that counter-cyclical fiscal policy is a pipedream... no man-made government has the discipline to run a surplus in non-recessions.

why would we want to run a surplus, as a government?

To pay down or pay for the demand-side injections of stimulus that most folks endorse in recessions.

dajafi wrote:I think paying down the debt is a worthwhile thing to do. Not necessarily all the way to zero, but as a signal that we can get our shit together when we need to, the occasional surplus is pretty clearly a good thing.

The problem--and maybe you're hinting at this--is that Clinton's fiscal responsibility ultimately just enabled Bush to blow it all on non-stimulative tax cuts and dumb wars of choice. Unless there's bipartisan consensus as to what "fiscal responsibility" basically means, there's little incentive to do the prudent thing.

Basically, government doesnt know what to do with a surplus. We had the surges in stock prices in the late 90s fueling higher receipts, and all the governments say "hey, this money will last forever because we're in a new economy...blah blah blah we're idiots, let's spend it or cut taxes (depending on your party affiliation)."

Werthless wrote:

dajafi wrote:I think paying down the debt is a worthwhile thing to do. Not necessarily all the way to zero, but as a signal that we can get our shit together when we need to, the occasional surplus is pretty clearly a good thing.

The problem--and maybe you're hinting at this--is that Clinton's fiscal responsibility ultimately just enabled Bush to blow it all on non-stimulative tax cuts and dumb wars of choice. Unless there's bipartisan consensus as to what "fiscal responsibility" basically means, there's little incentive to do the prudent thing.

Basically, government doesnt know what to do with a surplus. We had the surges in stock prices in the late 90s fueling higher receipts, and all the governments say "hey, this money will last forever because we're in a new economy...blah blah blah we're idiots, let's spend it or cut taxes (depending on your party affiliation)."

I believe Gore wanted to set it aside specifically for social security, maybe Medicare too. I can't recall. I do recall quite clearly that early in the 2000s, Republicans argued that deficits created by tax cuts didn't matter. In essence, Bush's deficit expanding fiscal policies were exactly what he promised to do, and defending it was in fact party line, and it also justified Bush's Medicare expansion and then was also used for the Iraq war, the first time in US history where we had tax cuts during a war.

Werthless wrote:

pacino wrote:

Werthless wrote:The issue that I have is that counter-cyclical fiscal policy is a pipedream... no man-made government has the discipline to run a surplus in non-recessions.

why would we want to run a surplus, as a government?

To pay down or pay for the demand-side injections of stimulus that most folks endorse in recessions.

i agree with that. but, to what dajafi says, we don't do that. we want a now now now in tax cuts whenever we have a surplus. it happened with most municipal governments in the 90s and now they are screwed (but, of course, the pension crisis that wall street created is a bigger issue, but the point remains). we did it in the 2000s, starting with clinton and it was completely exacerbated by bush. then we added more debt for spurious reasons.

i'd just like to add debt while getting something in return. use it on infrastructure, both physical and through our populace, in a massive way and we'll see returns on it for years to come.

TenuredVulture wrote:

Werthless wrote:

dajafi wrote:I think paying down the debt is a worthwhile thing to do. Not necessarily all the way to zero, but as a signal that we can get our #$!&@ together when we need to, the occasional surplus is pretty clearly a good thing.

The problem--and maybe you're hinting at this--is that Clinton's fiscal responsibility ultimately just enabled Bush to blow it all on non-stimulative tax cuts and dumb wars of choice. Unless there's bipartisan consensus as to what "fiscal responsibility" basically means, there's little incentive to do the prudent thing.

Basically, government doesnt know what to do with a surplus. We had the surges in stock prices in the late 90s fueling higher receipts, and all the governments say "hey, this money will last forever because we're in a new economy...blah blah blah we're idiots, let's spend it or cut taxes (depending on your party affiliation)."

I believe Gore wanted to set it aside specifically for social security, maybe Medicare too. I can't recall. I do recall quite clearly that early in the 2000s, Republicans argued that deficits created by tax cuts didn't matter. In essence, Bush's deficit expanding fiscal policies were exactly what he promised to do, and defending it was in fact party line, and it also justified Bush's Medicare expansion and then was also used for the Iraq war, the first time in US history where we had tax cuts during a war.

too bad gore isn't a good politician. he's a good policy guy. and who needs those? clinton was a policy wonk too, but was a triangulator and overly deferred to greenspan. i dont think gore would've, if given the chance.

heck, bush 41 was a pretty bad politician and a pretty decent policy guy. he got rewarded for it by having a bunch of his party vote for ross perot.

jerseyhoya wrote:

The Nightman Cometh wrote:The more I read the more I think Ryan's biggest potential liability is with single women.

But the shirtless google searches

Assuming its gay men who want to hate fuck.

The Nightman Cometh wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

The Nightman Cometh wrote:The more I read the more I think Ryan's biggest potential liability is with single women.

But the shirtless google searches

Assuming its gay men who want to hate #$!&@.

lots of gay men are rich and want to keep their money, so it might just be trying to convert the catholic

pacino wrote:

Werthless wrote:

pacino wrote:

Werthless wrote:The issue that I have is that counter-cyclical fiscal policy is a pipedream... no man-made government has the discipline to run a surplus in non-recessions.

why would we want to run a surplus, as a government?

To pay down or pay for the demand-side injections of stimulus that most folks endorse in recessions.

i agree with that. but, to what dajafi says, we don't do that. we want a now now now in tax cuts whenever we have a surplus. it happened with most municipal governments in the 90s and now they are screwed (but, of course, the pension crisis that wall street created is a bigger issue, but the point remains). we did it in the 2000s, starting with clinton and it was completely exacerbated by bush. then we added more debt for spurious reasons.

i'd just like to add debt while getting something in return. use it on infrastructure, both physical and through our populace, in a massive way and we'll see returns on it for years to come.

It's weird--my town has raised its local sales tax a couple of times in recent years--they went up for a vote and passed easily. The most recent one voters were told (and I suspect they were told the truth) that if they didn't vote for the sales tax, city council would raise the property tax on its own. Our property tax is absurdly low to the point of practically non-existant, our sales tax, between state and local is approaching 10%. I think my neighbors are fucked in the head, but the argument is that out of towners (people who live in nearby unincorporated areas) pay for some of our police and fire protection. I think however it's a drag on our retail sector.

plus it is a regressive tax system

The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) does a report card every 3 years rating 15 categories of America's infrastructure.

2009 Report Card for America’s Infrastructure

(Here's the 20 mb pdf)

American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE)
The 2009 Report Card for America’s Infrastructure grades 15 categories of infrastructure. For the second time, America’s infrastructure rates a cumulative grade of D. While not all categories fare as badly or are plagued by the same problems, delayed maintenance and chronic underfunding are contributors to the low grades in nearly every category.

pacino wrote:plus it is a regressive tax system

Is it? I dunno about TV's municipal sales tax, but PA's state sales tax for instance doesn't seem to me to be regressive, since necessities like food and clothing are excluded.

The Nightman Cometh wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

The Nightman Cometh wrote:The more I read the more I think Ryan's biggest potential liability is with single women.

But the shirtless google searches

Assuming its gay men who want to hate fuck.

Normally, yes. In this case, no. I reserve the right to change my mind however after Romney/Ryan lose the election.

pacino wrote:plus it is a regressive tax system

So is a property tax, though most people don't realize it--they think renters somehow magically escape it.

Gonna be a close one tonight in the WI GOP Senate primary. If Thompson wins, he's a slight favorite over Tammy Baldwin in November. Hovde vs. Baldwin would be a tossup. - link to results

An all time favorite clip. Dude is so drunk.

jerseyhoya wrote:Obama conceded the bill was paid for by cutting Medicare and said he'd veto any attempt to change it. I'm sure there's plenty of nuance or accounting bs the ad is leaving out, but for a campaign ad this cycle, that one up there is pretty close to true.

....Democrats are going to shamelessly tell seniors that Romney/Ryan will take away their Medicare when the plan doesn't touch current beneficiaries or anyone 55 or older. Pointing out to them that Obama took hundreds of billions of dollars out of the program can help bring that to a draw and allow us to get back to talking about the economy without losing ground.

it may seem immaterial to you, but ACA's approach takes aim at the spending part of the equation - $ going to pay for avoidable readmissions, etc.

In contrast, Ryan/Romney throttles funding and essentially puts the burden of paying the newly-no-longer-covered share of bills for treatment on Medicare beneficiaries. (Ryan's essentially employed a time-honored stunt to "save" billions - simply adjust forecasting expectations for health care inflation, etc. You can't "prove" forecasts of his plan won't turn out hunky-dory, much like you can't "prove" Ayn Rand really believed all that atheism business at the very core of her - and apparently Ryan's - philosophy).

Neither has adequate specifics about changing how care is delivered, which is central to "solving the Medicare problem".

However, I think hanging your hopes on the strateregy you sketch in your last sentence is hoping a receiver pins a fluttering late-game toss to his helmet several dozen yards downfield. Kind of a once in a lifetime deal.

Big for the WI GOP to nominate Thompson. With Maine leaving and MA and NV being competitive, the GOP is probably going to need to pick up 5-6 seats to take back the Senate in November. It's definitely doable with (in order of pickup likelihood, IMO) Nebraska, North Dakota, Montana, Missouri, Wisconsin, Virginia, New Mexico, Hawaii, Florida in play...with us favored down through Wisconsin I think. Hell even Michigan, Ohio and Connecticut might turn into races. A lot depends on the top of the ticket, but it seems like it's gonna be really close.

to do what?

Make sure old people die hungry and other things the GOP favors