Sure, generally at least. However, the current situation is House Republicans maintaining those tax breaks while cutting those social programs. So in this case, it is a partisan issue.RuffDraft wrote:But tax breaks aren't really a Dem/Rep issue. Some Democrats might favor tax breaks given a certain scenario (such as if they have a vested interest in that company succeeding) and some Republicans might oppose them given another (like when a Democrat has a vested interest in that company succeeding, lol) or vice versa.
Indeed, which presents a conflict of interest, meaning that the statement should be taken more critically than usual. Now, do the sources cited at the bottom of the page support the conclusions? Recall that when I checked certain statements made by Glenn Beck, his sources did not.RuffDraft wrote:Also note that your source is the Center for American Progress--and oddly enough, the logo on the original graph is missing from the one above--who would also lose government funding if the Republicans have their way. So it is in their best interest to see the Republicans get shot down.
Indeed. No plausible plan would. As I pointed out earlier, completely cutting ALL discretionary spending, including all military spending, would not close the deficit. Prospects for future years are better due to predicted increased revenue (see again that revenue can and usually DOES increase).RuffDraft wrote:I remembered what I was going to say. I was going to add up the numbers on the both sides of that column. Cuz even cutting that wouldn't save the deficit that we have for this year alone.
More like $88.7 billion. Two of the numbers are in millions.RuffDraft wrote:Beginning with Tax Breaks For The Wealthy, I'm going to ignore the fact that they switch between FY11 and FY12. Those are projections. With that in mind, we have a sum total of $394.23 billion for this first year if we add up just those.
No need to assume. The sources are listed below the chart in the link I gave.RuffDraft wrote:and assuming those numbers are JUST for this year (if it turns out that's for more than just this year, that would be bending the truth, and a "nonpartisan" organization can't do that, can they?! I know, right?)--
$44.1 billion, actually. See below.RuffDraft wrote:is $43.4 billion (see at the bottom where it says $44 billion? They rounded wrong, how sad is that?).
Those are also in millions, not billions. Cutting all programs and tax breaks listed there would cut the deficit by about $132.9 billion.RuffDraft wrote:Now, added to that number the legal services (which are constitutional and therefore the least at risk of being cut), and the Family Planning thing (which admittedly does some good, although with education being what it is today, more people are aware of STDs and the need for contraception, so probably could be skimmed a bit), we come to a total of $780.4 billion. Now, DaCrum, to quote you again, in order to cut spending, "we need to do things nobody likes." The total combined of the above is $1,174.63 billion, or $1.175 trillion. Which still leaves a $475.37 deficit for this year alone.
Perhaps the revisions I pointed out above make it clearer that balancing the budget by cuts alone would do Very Bad things. A long-term balanced budget would reasonably take entitlement reform, some military cuts, and tax increases in addition to some cuts of the type being discussed. Also, much of the current deficit comes from the sharp drop in tax revenue from the recession. What do you think about BOTH taxes and spending?RuffDraft wrote:So!! Even if we were to cut the measly $43 billion and eliminate tax loopholes and make everyone pay what they are due, to the penny, and then eliminate every one of these programs (which, I'll admit that eliminating all of them would be very bad), we still wouldn't match the budget that President Obama has set forth for this country for THIS. YEAR. ALONE.
Why do you insist on talking about how much we tax when basic math can tell you the difference in how much we spend? Please, PLEASE consider my way of thinking, if only for a minute.
You had proposed that a change from the status quo would* result in another change from the status quo. The burden of proof is on you, since you're the one making the claim of what would happen. If you don't want to justify it, fine, but don't act like our positions are equal. On that note, recall that I wasn't proposing that a single world government would have to spend more on its military than the current situation. You had said that there would be "next to no need for military and war equipment" and, as I pointed out, while military expenses would probably be less than now, it would probably remain substantial, since military and military-like forces do a lot besides defend against foreign aggression. So, do you want to support your original claim that military spending in a single world government would reasonably drop to next to nothing? It would take some kind of quantitative analysis of the costs for what the military would be doing.Q.U. wrote:We're discussing a theoretical concept, and I'm giving the most general estimate possible. I don't see how diving into numerical analysis would help this argument any, because frankly I don't believe either of us can predict the results accurately enough, and take all necessary variables into consideration. If you have any theoretical reason for which a single country-state would have to spend more on peacekeeping than a collective of countries then by all means present it. Until then, I've shown my reasons for which I believe it would cost less. How much less will depend only on the details of the situation, which I don't think we need to specify any further.That's a conclusion that ought to come after a quantitative analysis. Care to do one to justify your claim?
*Or has already resulted in changes. Your initial statement implied that past consolidations should have resulted in greatly reduced military spending, though discussion since then has been more focused on a single world government..
Not really. By the Hague Convention, neutral territory is off-limits for forces of any combatants. Until Germany invaded, enemy forces were legally barred from entry to Belgium and Holland.Q.U. wrote:There are several reasons why Germany would have wanted to take over Belgium, as well as Holland. To begin with, it was a great counter-offensive starting point for its enemies.
And doing so would put Belgium on the side of the Allies, removing its neutrality. Keep in mind that NO part of France was occupied when Belgium was invaded. There was no need to use Belgium as a friendly landing area because all of France was available already.Q.U. wrote:Neutral as it might have been, Belgium did side with the French and British during that first World War, and Germany surely remembered that. If left untouched Belgium would come under more and more pressure from the Allied countries to allow them to land in their country to launch an offensive on occupied France as well as on Germany itself.
Unlike Switzerland, the Soviet Union had the force projection ability to be a threat to Germany. Hitler just didn't trust Stain not to invade. To use your earlier words, it was neutral, but it was a threat (in capability if not intention, and as you said, Hitler was a bit wonky).Q.U. wrote:Lastly, I don't think we should give this much credit to German's "pros and cons" analysis, in case of reasons why conquering Switzerland would bring less profit than it would cost. Hitler was in charge, and if he followed such rules he'd never have attacked the Soviets in the first place.
For combined population and GDP, the values are added. GDP per capita is derived from the combined figures.Q.U. wrote:Switzerland has a population and GDP (PPP) of about 7.8M and $315B, for a little over $40K per capita. Nigeria has about 152M and $374B, for about $2460 per capita. Fusing Switzerland and Nigeria would produce a country with a population of about 160M and GDP (PPP) of about $689B, for about $4300 per capita. If Switzeria / Nigerland spent per capita for its military what Switzerland does today ($526), military spending would be about 12% GDP, compared to Nigeria's actual military expenditure of about 1.5% GDP. In absolute terms, Switzerland really is more militarized than most places in the world, despite its neutrality and your use of it as an example of a place with the "huge weight" of maintaining a military off its shoulders.So what now, you fuse the countries by averaging all the valuesIf Switzeria / Nigerland spent per capita for its military what Switzerland does today ($526)
This is missing the point. You had given Switzerland as an example of the level of militarization a single world government could achieve (supposedly as a reduction in militarization associated with unification). The concern is therefore absolute (not percent of GDP) military expenditure per capita. Both Switzerland and Nigeria currently spend in the neighborhood of $5B annually for their militaries. However, Nigeria has about 20x the population of Switzerland. It doesn't matter for this that Switzerland's ~20x greater expense per capita is accompanied by greater economic activity per capita. Switzerland has many more active military personnel than Nigeria (in total, not just per capita), and they are much better equipped. If Nigeria tried to achieve a level of militarization comparable to Switzerland, it would have to increase its military personnel by about 30x and its expenses by about 20x, which would consume more than 20% of its GDP. Keep in mind that additionally, about a third of Switzerland's population is subject to compulsory military service, and non-active personnel keep their weapons at home. Just procuring enough small arms for a comparable portion of the population would strain Nigeria's military budget. Having much greater GDP per capita lets Switzerland maintain a much higher level of militarization than Nigeria despite spending a smaller percent of GDP on it. The world has the resources available to achieve global Switzerland-like militarization, but that would represent an increase from the present situation.Q.U. wrote:but when it comes to military expenditure you use the plain value of Switzerland? That's not consistent. Be consistent and take an average of both, then you'd see how militarised it would really be.
Firstly, both Nigeria and Switzerland spend 0.8% of their GDP on military, so you don't have to average anything there. It would be $5.5B spent on military. ...
So no, Switzerland spends more GDP, and more GDP per capita on military than many militarised countries. But that's only because it is still a very low % of their GDP and % of their GDP per capita.
Those are mostly concerned with crops, livestock, and pharmaceuticals. Human genetic engineering remains legal, and for the most part, unregulated.Q.U. wrote:Most countries have a blurred line of legality in case of genetic engineering. The biggest regulators are the Cartagena Protocol and the ICGEB. In some countries they push more (like in the USA trying to force them to sign it), in others they push less (China), some countries are lax with legal status of genetic engineering (Brazil), and others are in general publicly hostile towards any of it (UK).Anyway, human genetic engineering is generally NOT illegal (care to cite any laws to the contrary?) Certain kinds of genetic modification will probably be made illegal in some places when they get closer to practicality (non-therapeutic embryo modification, say). Keep in mind that we're talking about dealing with the negative consequences of genetic drift caused by the removal of selection pressures, meaning therapeutic changes like susceptibility to type 1 diabetes. I don't see that becoming illegal.
Source: http://library.thinkquest.org/04apr/007 ... ional.html
We see richer schools being more effective (better educational achievement), not necessarily more efficient (educational achievement per dollar spent).Q.U. wrote:Because we can see richer schools being much more efficient?Why are you confident that the peak efficiency has not been passed?
Right. In fact, my explanation earlier involved it specifically NOT being linearly dependent.Q.U. wrote:Nobody said that efficiency is or always has to be linearly dependent on all its variables.
If the system is in the region where increasing funding makes it more efficient, decreasing funding by X% will result in decreasing measures of performance by more than X%. If the system is in the region where increasing funding makes it less efficient but more effective, decreasing funding by X% will result in decreasing measures of performance by less than X%. Which do you think represents the state of US schools?Q.U. wrote:And in fact, there is no reason for which decreasing the funding by 10% would decrease the results by more or less than 10%,
No, they mean very distinct things. Efficacy is performance, and efficiency is performance PER DOLLAR. Abolishing public education and relying on unpaid volunteer tutors would achieve very low systemic performance, but very high efficiency because it would cost very little per student taught.Q.U. wrote:Either way, whether you call it efficiency or efficacy it virtually means one thing.
Sure, standardized test scores are an incomplete measure of education, but they're easy to reference. Since you claimed that "Really, I strongly believe that it doesn't matter who runs the schools, private investors or government selected bodies, if you pump enough money into them they will become more efficient." it implies that you had a standard in mind by which to evaluate the performance of schools, and that you didn't think that complicating variables mattered much in aggregate. What measure do you propose?Q.U. wrote:Again, depends on how well the money is spent. It's hard to answer your question, since you didn't give me any point of reference. ...Quantifying the efficiency of education is somewhat nebulous, but do you think that increasing school funding by 10% would increase standardized test scores by more or less than 10%?
It is hard to make predictions, however, since there are so many other variables which affect the scores that it becomes a truly moot estimate. ...
seeing as other factors change their effect on the school's efficiency in teaching as the efficiency changes. We have dynamic variables to work with. ...
Especially since I never once said that the efficiency of a school can be calculated solely on the standardised test results. In fact, I deem that to be a gross and naive oversimplification. Education is too abstract for us to simplify it like that.
One way to fuel deficit spending is to print money. That introduces new money into the economy. Printing is done all the time to replace currency as it physically wears out and to expand the money supply as the economy grows. Another way is to borrow money, which does not introduce new money into the economy. Which do you think leads to a debt that has to be paid off, and which do you think can encourage inflation?RuffDraft wrote:Well, right now, we're printing money because we don't have any available to use, what with the way we're spending it.DaCrum wrote:Also, how does increased tax revenue lead to hyperinflation now?
It's been higher than GDP in the past, and it's turned out fine. Notably, it was brought down with restraint on deficit spending, in part due to higher taxes. Check out the 1990s on that graph.
You are aware that inflation represents a larger amount of currency for each real good, right? That means that a hundred-fold increase in prices would take about a hundred-fold increase in the money supply if real growth is zero. However, we're quite a ways from that. Notice that while the currency supply is increasing at a decent if historically unremarkable pace, M2 (which is what matters more for inflation) has trailed by a few percent for the last couple years. This relates to what I said before about how a breakdown of the financial system actually causes the money supply to shrink (even if the physical currency supply may increase), potentially causing deflation. And there was actually mild deflation in 2009.RuffDraft wrote:If the value of the dollar devalues to the point where the price of food, etc begins to rise sharply, we have begun hyperinflation. At the point when government has to force companies to raise their wages just so people can afford to buy food, etc, it's already happened. ...
Imagine a loaf of bread costing $300 or more. You remember what happened to Germany, don't you? Of course you do, cuz we were all alive back then and learned from history's mistakes...
Actually, both are due to a single factor - the price of oil. Much of the price of food represents the energy expenditure of growing and transporting it, and much of that is done with oil derivatives. Does the recent rise in oil price surprise you? Anyone with a passing understanding of economics could have predicted it years ago. It dropped during the financial crisis due to falling demand. Now that economies are picking up again, demand is increasing, and as before, it's running into pretty much flat production capacity. While oil is a significant part of modern economies, it is not the only part, and an increase in the price of oil contributes to but does not dominate inflation. Inflation is now actually lower than during most of the last decade.RuffDraft wrote:There are signs to hyperinflation. If you don't know that they exist, please go down to the local gas station and check what the price of gas is. Then, go to the local grocery store and notice the rise in the price of a loaf of bread. In 2000, the price of a loaf of bread (average) was about $1.10 or so. As of 2010, it was over $2.80. And while there are other factors at play, I doubt that an increase of 154% is due to scarcity of yeast. Yes, and wheat, okay?
And how is that supposed to work? What you described is an increase to personal rather than corporate tax, and business expenses like wages and production costs are tax deductible anyway. The cost to produce things would not increase, so the optimally profitable production amount and price would not change.RuffDraft wrote:Let us say, at this stage in the colorful game known as Economics that congress likes to play with our money, they raise the top marginal tax rate to 90% for people who make over $5M/yr--just for the sake of argument. There becomes a disincentive to create jobs and grow, and the price of food, etc would likely further rise as well, in order to keep paying their workers that same level.
Actually, unions in the US were at their most powerful in the 1950s and 1960s. Current union membership in the US is around 12%. Norway has union membership higher than the US did at any time. The point of unions is to negotiate on behalf of workers, who ordinarily have a very weak position when negotiating with employers. Ideally, this results in a more competitive labor market and a better-working society. Problems arise, like in other markets, when any party wields too much power. Looks like Norway's doing fine though.RuffDraft wrote:There was growth because the unions had not overpriced labor to the point where they ruined the industries, which later made many jobs go away.BeeAre wrote:yeah, i am confused on this point because the 1950s were famous for their economic growth despite the 90% tax rate for the highest brackets
In Norway, do they have unilaterally aggressive labor unions like in the US?
I rest my case.
Outsourcing happens when foreign labor becomes cheaper than domestic. Whether or not domestic workers are unionized or not doesn't matter much when employers have access to a country where the cost of living is, say, 1/10 what it is in the US. A saying I heard somewhere relates that $20/hour non-union workers can compete against $30/hour union workers, but not against $0.50/hour Chinese workers. Do you think that they can? They can indeed, so long as productivity is at least 40x as high, accounting for additional factors. That's not an easy advantage to maintain though, and it's getting harder as China modernizes.
Considering that GE does outsourcing now with an effective tax rate of about -60% (yes, negative), I think that there will be outsourcing regardless of the tax rate. Care to explain how raising the corporate tax rate is supposed to lead to outsourcing when wages are exempt form corporate tax?RuffDraft wrote:So, there's outsourcing with LOW taxes, and you want to RAISE them?BeeAre wrote:because i don't think there was anything like "destroy[ed] big business" there's already a significant amount of "outsource a lot of jobs overseas" despite the extremely LOW taxes, and there was nothing that you could say "cause[d] hyperinflation"; how odd!
How do you define "anti-rich"? What did Eisenhower and "others" do to justify that label? And if he was "anti rich" while presiding over better growth than the present, what does that say about the merits of "anti-rich" policies?RuffDraft wrote:No, just anti-rich, like you, and others.BeeAre wrote:Hmmmm. Was Eisenhower, the president for the majority of the 50s because of his work as Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces during World War II, in fact an anti-business president?
How is Media Matters supposed to conduct a boycott of Beck? It's not like they had advertising to pull. Perhaps you meant to say that Media Matters encouraged other organizations to pull advertising, and some organizations freely chose to do so.RuffDraft wrote:Actually, he lost advertisers because they were threatened with boycotts by Media Matters and other extreme Left-Wing groups who want to see Beck and FoxNews taken off the air.EagleMan wrote:As much as I would love the irony, it is a bit muddled. They (Beck and Fox) probably just came together and decided it was best to discontinue the show. Beck was acting as a lightning rod for controversy and lost many advertisers on his show.
Well, if advertisers were coerced by a shadowy cabal that works for George Soros, it would kind of tie in with some other statements.BeeAre wrote:it does not matter how advertisers were pulled away from glenn beck.
Coyote's expression there was close to mine as I was reading your post above.RuffDraft wrote:Totally ignoring everything except Valhallen right now.
Hah! It's like some mutated snake thing.
Oh, Valha, you prankster, you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3pk_9LWLoM0RuffDraft wrote:Also: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADDaAuFFOHI
Much of that reduces to [item in the news] -> [non sequitur one-liner]. Pretty much clappy humor. I suppose it's a matter taste, but she doesn't really substantiate the implied points.RuffDraft wrote:And again.Awesome. lolJodi Miller wrote:Betty White is set to star in a TV show that pranks the elderly. Mmm, I believe we already have something like that. It's called: Obamacare.