Isa
Member
FOREVER SECOND
Posts: 1,479
|
Post by Isa on Aug 7, 2011 12:20:55 GMT -8
In this thread, let political happenings be read, and let your opinions on those matters be heard!
---
So with Standard & Poor's lowering America's credit ratings...what will happen? Who's to blame? What path should America take now to avoid a further lowering?
I believe that most of the blame is to be found in the Tea Party camp, where it has previously been possible to reach a compromise these persons have taken their powers to awful extremes. Eventually taxes WILL need to be raised, whether these Congress members like it or not.
|
|
|
Post by garrinred on Aug 8, 2011 18:12:45 GMT -8
Greed is to blame. That is all.
|
|
|
Post by jorgen on Aug 9, 2011 16:18:55 GMT -8
Nothing big's going to happen, it's just a rebuke to the general retardedness of U.S. politics, which has always been silly, but taken to the extreme since the rise of Tea Party influence. But even if this rebuke is unheeded, the ramifications all seem really abstract in the grand scope of things. "Some numbers might be getting worse" is all I ever hear when comparing economic reports with immediate turmoil in the world, especially in the Middle East where real history is happening.
In other news, does anyone really know what set off the U.K. riots? It's not really "politics," but what I'm reading when skimming through reports is that a police officer shot and killed a man that was probably innocent, prompting a riot in London... which then expanded to riots all over the damned country. The scope of the riots don't seem to match what happened, a travesty though it may have been.
|
|
|
Post by Consumptus on Aug 9, 2011 18:13:07 GMT -8
Apparently, the situation in London brought up a bunch of socio-economic issues that escalated into even bigger socio-economic issues.
As for America, in my opinion everyone is to blame. The Tea Party accepted Obama's 800 billion tax increase, but then apparently he tried to get them to pass a 1.2 trillion tax increase. However, they are being silly. Tax breaks for the rich obviously isn't working. There is also a huge issue with foreign spending in my opinion. We are still paying for anti-Missle (read: Nukes) measures in Poland, etc. against the non-existant Soviet Union. We are still spending retarded amounts of money overseas that dwarf the Social Security and other government benefits.
However, I can't really defend my view as I am a bit ignorant as to specifics.
|
|
|
Post by garrinred on Aug 9, 2011 19:40:06 GMT -8
Tax breaks for the rich obviously isn't working. This.
|
|
|
Post by jorgen on Aug 10, 2011 5:20:45 GMT -8
You can claim excessive interventionism on the part of the U.S., but those costs don't dwarf Social Security. SS is huge; defense spending and health care spending are the only items on the U.S. annual budget that really compare to it, and defense spending entails a lot more than just paying to maintain foreign military operations.
|
|
|
Post by WaterWizard on Aug 10, 2011 13:02:42 GMT -8
I have always been for tax cuts for the rich. Always heard that they reinvest in the economy. However, lately I've been thinking that we need to make more tax brackets.
The "rich" bracket, the top bracket, goes all the way down to $250,000 earners. That is a big blunder. I think that $3,000,000 and up should be in another bracket... the $250,000 to $2,999,000 earners could stay the same. They're the ones making small businesses, and should NOT be taxed more or the whole nation suffers.
Also, reality check: America's "poor" are the richest poor people in the world. "Poor" people in America have 1 to 2 cars, 2 to 3 TVs, 1 to 2 gaming systems, air conditioning, etc. I am not in favor of giving out tax credits to people who don't pay any taxes. That's absolutely heinous; it's unconstitutional; it's 100% un-American.
~
To say "we need spending cuts" is the understatement of a lifetime. I'm in favor of privatizing just about everything.
An Education overhaul is what we need. We should privatize the education system. The US gov is doing an absolutely horrible job. If we privatize, there will be competition, which leads to efficiency, innovation, improved performance, etc. (and yes, lower income people will get discounts.) The less the government does and the more the market does, the better.
ughhhhhhh
|
|
Isa
Member
FOREVER SECOND
Posts: 1,479
|
Post by Isa on Aug 10, 2011 13:26:53 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by WaterWizard on Aug 10, 2011 14:51:45 GMT -8
Well, I'm an observant American, for starters, but here is one source. ~ Also, if your linking of an article on military spending is a response to my comments, I'm not sure how it relates(?). I am well aware of how much we spend on the military. The US spends more on our military than the rest of the world put together. Our armed forces are so far ahead of the rest, we could stop spending on the military for 5 years and be fine. The US spends about half of the federal budget on the military (including veterans). I think that is an outrageous waste of tax dollars. It is valid to point out, though, that, from the beginning, one of the main jobs of the federal government has always been to protect/defend the republic. However, there isn't much support for keeping the most-funded and most-powerful standing army in world history. ~ I don't identify with the 21st century Republican Party, by the way. I'm a libertarian. Socially liberal, economically conservative. I'm for limited government. Stay out of my bedroom, stay out of my wallet. ~ And I don't see the relevance of your article about Bachmann. I'm sure you'll explain later. I'm headed to church now. Which reminds me; I'll reply to the atheist/theist topic later tonight.
|
|
|
Post by Vaerris on Aug 10, 2011 14:57:47 GMT -8
Here's a conservative's perspective. I disagree with the belief that tax increases are inevitable or even desirable in order to balance the budget. I come from Wisconsin, and our governor just balanced the budget (surplus actually) without raising taxes, and things are going better than almost every state in the country. There is massive amounts that we are able to cut from at the federal level, especially in entitlements and military.
|
|
|
Post by posthuman on Aug 10, 2011 15:06:33 GMT -8
I'm currently reading about economics... maybe I'll be able to contribute more to this fiscal discussion in a couple weeks.
With that said, I agree with WW about tax brackets. The extremely rich should be contributing (taxed) much more than the moderately rich. I know many families that make around $200,000 a year, and they don't live like gods like the extremely rich tend to. There's a huge difference between making a few hundred thousand dollars a year and being a multi-millionaire.
I completely disagree with regard to education though--you're right WW that education's in the crapper right now, but education should not be some competitive corporate enterprise. It would become all about practical education, learning for a job. Education's purpose is much more important, and I think you'd agree with me here:
I look to the diffusion of light and education as the resource most to be relied on for ameliorating the condition, promoting the virtue, and advancing the happiness of man. —Thomas Jefferson
Also, social security is definitely broken.
|
|
|
Post by WaterWizard on Aug 10, 2011 15:11:33 GMT -8
Yeah, SS is totally broken. Also, to Vaerris and Posthuman, I added more to my post above.
I haven't decided what I think the best course of actual for education reform/overhaul. Privatization seems very appealing but I'm definitely open to other plans.
~
Vaerris, I'm so glad you said that about raising taxes vs spending cuts. I'll talk about that more later when Isa replies.
|
|
|
Post by posthuman on Aug 10, 2011 15:15:47 GMT -8
Ah, I can comment on the poor family thing as well. I'm pretty close to a member of a poor family: the mom works at the post office, the dad is on disability. Three kids, two in college. They have an LCD TV, an Xbox 360, and all the standard stuff.
|
|
Isa
Member
FOREVER SECOND
Posts: 1,479
|
Post by Isa on Aug 10, 2011 15:16:57 GMT -8
The links in the middle section of my post didn't really relate (hence the "slightly unrelated note" and "also unrelated" remark). I just didn't want to make an additional post for them but figured they'd be worth sharing.
And again, I'm stuck in front of the computer. My bus to Gothenburg leaves in less than 12 hours and I haven't started packing my bag. Sorry but no more extensive reply until the end of the weekend.
|
|
|
Post by garrinred on Aug 10, 2011 17:31:19 GMT -8
Ah, I can comment on the poor family thing as well. I'm pretty close to a member of a poor family: the mom works at the post office, the dad is on disability. Three kids, two in college. They have an LCD TV, an Xbox 360, and all the standard stuff. Why do you call this a "poor family"? Because the guy's on disability? Also, here in good old PA we decided to balance our budget without the tax thing........by cutting education! Isn't that wonderful? :-D
|
|
|
Post by garrinred on Aug 10, 2011 18:07:09 GMT -8
I have always been for tax cuts for the rich. Always heard that they reinvest in the economy. However, lately I've been thinking that we need to make more tax brackets. The "rich" bracket, the top bracket, goes all the way down to $250,000 earners. That is a big blunder. I think that $3,000,000 and up should be in another bracket... the $250,000 to $2,999,000 earners could stay the same. They're the ones making small businesses, and should NOT be taxed more or the whole nation suffers. Also, reality check: America's "poor" are the richest poor people in the world. "Poor" people in America have 1 to 2 cars, 2 to 3 TVs, 1 to 2 gaming systems, air conditioning, etc. I am not in favor of giving out tax credits to people who don't pay any taxes. That's absolutely heinous; it's unconstitutional; it's 100% un-American. ~ To say "we need spending cuts" is the understatement of a lifetime. I'm in favor of privatizing just about everything. An Education overhaul is what we need. We should privatize the education system. The US gov is doing an absolutely horrible job. If we privatize, there will be competition, which leads to efficiency, innovation, improved performance, etc. (and yes, lower income people will get discounts.) The less the government does and the more the market does, the better. ughhhhhhh WW.........I disagree with you.
|
|
|
Post by brookman on Aug 10, 2011 18:31:13 GMT -8
But you can't say why?? classic.
|
|
|
Post by jorgen on Aug 10, 2011 19:05:26 GMT -8
Uh, real poverty does exist in the U.S., anecdotes aside. Some fairly well-to-do people might be classified as "poor" itt (according to some heretofore unnamed convention), and official U.S. poverty statistics encompass way more than the stereotypical food-insecure population, but that's not the floor. Of course, whether these tax credits do provide aid to those individuals that need help is another matter entirely, but if they are providing palliation, revoking that in the name of having everyone pay their "fair share" seems to be substituting a tangible benefit for an intangible one. That seems to go against intuitive prioritization.
Also, in many places, air conditioning and a car are basically necessities. Yeah, really.
|
|
|
Post by Vaerris on Aug 10, 2011 19:06:28 GMT -8
I support Governor Corbett and my governor Walker in their education cuts, actually. The most nationally prominent governor to research in this matter is the governor of New Jersey, Chris Christie. One of the biggest problems with the education system is the power of the teacher's unions, as they prevent any change in the system to attempt to improve it, and they suck money into the union instead of directly towards school projects and where kids need it.
The main reason our rating was lowered was because of our debt. I don't believe we have a tax problem - we have a spending problem. Every economist will tell you that our level of spending is unsustainable and is projected to only grow if no major change is taken. Some economists suggest taxes (or expiring the Bush tax cut) to alleviate our deficit. I disagree. First I'd point you to look into the recovery of Texas and Wisconsin - look at the policies they've adopted and you'll realize why they've recovered so remarkably fast.
Taxes should not be done based on what seems 'fair', but on what makes economic sense. It seems fair for the super rich to contribute more because they can afford it, I don't disagree with that. But the problem with that is that it creates a huge disincentive for corporations, leading to either job losses, loss of quality/quantity of products, decreased pay or job opportunities, outsourcing, ect. It also scares the market, making it riskier to invest and spend. I'd rather follow a Reagan or Clinton example of recovery than a Carter/Obama malaise.
Economic policy should not be shaped by what seems fair or by emotions but rather on research and economic sense. In WI we have tax credits to businesses that create jobs - if they don't create the jobs, no tax credits. Practical way to use fiscal policy to create job growth. It seems like a simple solution to just raise taxes on rich people, but it's really more complicated than that.
|
|
|
Post by Vaerris on Aug 10, 2011 19:14:16 GMT -8
Concerning education - the teachers union and Democrats in my state (Wisconsin) argued that Governor Walker's budget would hurt kids, lead to many layoffs and bigger class sizes. The plan eliminated collective bargaining rights in public education and required teachers to pay some into their medical plans. By doing this, schools that were previously in debt balanced their budgets, and instead of hurting kids the opposite is occurring. With balanced budgets, the school boards have found more money for much needed projects that were previously going into the union. Some areas are actually hiring more teachers now and there are smaller class sizes. A few problems with the teachers union is that they prevent policy change (they are amazing lobbyists and campaigners), they use up a lot of money that could be better used for kids, and their contracts make it almost impossible to fire a bad teacher. In almost every business, if you don't perform well, you're out. Instead, bad teachers just stay until they have tenure and retire - I have experienced this firsthand and I expect some of you have as well. It's sad, because teachers play such an important role in kids' lives. I wanted to be a mathematician until I had a horrible math teacher that didn't care at all about kids. I became inspired by an amazing English and Sociology teacher, and now I'm getting into those fields. Our schools deserve the best possible teachers and they should be paid well for their careers, but the unions make this impossible. --------- WW - Privatization of the entire education system is not feasible. It'd end up hurting areas that can't afford a good education (inner city black children basically), and even with government benefits for them, good private schools and teachers would relocate to more affluent areas. To be fair, those same children are being hurt in the current system, but total privatization isn't much better for them. There should be expanded access to charter schools, voucher systems, the teachers union should lose power and the power should go back to the school administrators and community, teacher's pay should go up but they should have high expectations and subject to evaluations. These are generally considered conservative solutions, but they have been tried successfully by liberals too - see the following en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harlem_Children%27s_Zone
|
|
|
Post by t3h Icy on Aug 10, 2011 19:27:13 GMT -8
I'm poor! ;D
|
|
|
Post by brookman on Aug 10, 2011 22:07:12 GMT -8
Ya, fuck the teacher's unions. Unless I become a teacher. . .
|
|
|
Post by posthuman on Aug 10, 2011 23:31:28 GMT -8
The problem with getting rid of teachers unions is that we need a good way to measure teachers' performance: so how do we do this? Standardized testing causes teachers to teach for the test. What other options are there? General student performance, which can be subject to bad grading systems and/or issues not entirely related to the teacher (the kids, the school culture, the material itself). Student ratings of the teacher? All of the above?
We need accurate evaluation systems for teachers before we reduce the power of unions. I do agree somewhat with you though Vaerris, teachers should be accountable for how they teach.
I'm going to (hopefully) be a professor, and I believe tenure should come from both the number of top journal publications (as it largely is now), along with teaching performance. There are a bunch of professors who are great researchers, but terrible teachers--this isn't good and it needs to change.
|
|
|
Post by garrinred on Aug 11, 2011 9:38:22 GMT -8
Vaerris, I completely agree with you on education reform. However, just blindly cutting funds is not the way to do this. We need actual reform. The reform ideas you mentioned seem solid though.
Still don't really agree with you on taxation of the rich and corporations though.
I do agree completely with Jorgen though. While I'm not poor, I live in North Philadelphia, where I have the opportunity to see the true poor every day with my own eyes. It's not that bad right where I live, since it's by a university, but head a few blocks northeast and northwest and you see people who live in run-down housing struggling to make ends meet, certainly without flat screen tvs or xboxs, and in some (rarer) cases without even air conditioning or a car. Those who have air conditioning use ancient window units, and a car means one old car for an entire family. Let's not even get into how much they get paid compared to their bills and the cost of feeding their family, or their healthcare(ha!) or other things like that.
Also the public school district is utter crap, and has become even stinkier crap because of the recent budget cuts. The district had to fire teachers, in schools where class sizes were already bad. I'm friends with a third grade teacher who now has a class in the 40s. Third grade. It's ridiculous. One of my housemates has a job at another elementary school as a counselor/supervisor or something. She works with entire classes of kids aged 8-12 who lack basic reading and spelling skills. As she put it, "When an entire room of 10-year-olds can't spell the word 'face', you have a problem."
My point is that dismissing the poor as lazy people living very comfortable lives on freebies completely ignores the true poor, the ones who could actually use more help but aren't getting it. And it's not just Philly, though it might be worse there than most places, it's a lot of places throughout the country.
|
|
|
Post by posthuman on Aug 11, 2011 13:51:44 GMT -8
I suppose the family I referenced was lower middle class, but regardless, many people the government considers 'poor' may not actually be so poor. But, of course, poor people exist and education in crappy areas with large class sizes, bad conditions, etc. needs to be drastically improved.
|
|
|
Post by garrinred on Aug 11, 2011 14:34:06 GMT -8
So then what really needs to change is the qualifications for being considered "poor".
The so-called poor that are actually living comfy middle-class lives don't need as much government assitance as they're getting, while the true poor need more asistance than they're currently getting.
|
|
|
Post by brookman on Aug 12, 2011 4:25:16 GMT -8
Being homeless and jobless is more Darwin than anything, really. Live and let die.
|
|
|
Post by garrinred on Aug 12, 2011 5:46:02 GMT -8
Being homeless and jobless is more Darwin than anything, really. Live and let die. You really support that?
|
|
|
Post by jorgen on Aug 12, 2011 6:10:57 GMT -8
I thought this looked interesting when I came upon it. It all seems pretty reasonable, but the economy's pretty unpredictable, man, so it all still looks pretty speculatory. Still, I thought it was kinda neat that tuition and fees might not solely be crushing students, but the economy as a whole as well.
|
|
|
Post by jorgen on Aug 12, 2011 15:10:55 GMT -8
|
|