Biden/Harris Legislative/Policy Discussions - Now with a Republican House starting 2023

[tshile]

You guys are wasting your time with this one. 
 

pro tip - don’t put in anymore effort than the person you’re responding to puts into their posts. 
 

anything else is wasting your time

[No Excuses]

I think the only place where you may find thoughtful analysis from a center-right perspective is the Economist. Although if you read it (or listen to it) weekly, you may come across as thinking that it’s a liberal magazine these days, but that’s more of a reflection of how far to the right American conservatism has swung. 

[goskins10]

1 minute ago, tshile said:

You guys are wasting your time with this one. 
 

pro tip - don’t put in anymore effort than the person you’re responding to puts into their posts. 
 

anything else is wasting your time

 

 

Only took me a few minutes. And I honestly wanted to know more for myself. So not really wasted time but I get your point. 

[No Excuses]

@tshile

 

Two of their recent pieces worth reading:

 

Changes to the corporate and capital gains tax rates

 

They also argued that the stimulus package was too big

[tshile]

2 minutes ago, No Excuses said:

I think the only place where you may find thoughtful analysis from a center-right perspective is the Economist. Although if you read it (or listen to it) weekly, you may come across as thinking that it’s a liberal magazine these days, but that’s more of a reflection of how far to the right American conservatism has swung. 

Ive found that to be true across the board...

 

Conservatives truly love themselves culture war. Ive yet to figure out what it is they actually gain out of it. 
 

seems like they enjoy being angry and yelling at people as opposed to, i don’t know, being adults?

[No Excuses]

Another good one published today, examining if the comparisons to FDR are justified:

[CousinsCowgirl84]

41 minutes ago, gbear said:

You are looking at only per capita earnings?  Are we happier than Europe?  What about life expectency?  What about how do we treat the worste off amongst us compared to Europe? What is life like for the median wage earner?  I don't know the honest answer to the last couple of  questions, but it comes at your per capita gdp in a slightly different way because it looks at the income distribution in a way that will better capture what most of us experience.  We have seen a lot of data in the past few years about the top 1% or even 10% and how different their life is from most of ours.

I’m not sure, the suicide rate (which I would say is a measure of unhappiness) appears to be about the same in Europe and The US.  
 

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/suicide-rate-by-country

 

 

 

24 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

 

for all the hand wringing about “socialist Europe!” those people don’t do anything to offer any other path. 
 

 

the alternative is of course the belief that assuming there is no perfect system, the system we have now isn’t all that bad. 

 

Anyway, at least we all agree that Europe is a good example of The direction Biden’s economic policy is heading, good or bad.

Edited April 29, 2021 by CousinsCowgirl84

[mcsluggo]

41 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

 

not to **** on you too much or annything... but a single graoh without any contextual analysis tells you NOTHING.   do you know what happened in the EU since 1990?   the EU bloc expanded and integrated most of the eastern block and Balkan republics into the fold.   thegraph also cherry picks its starting place EXACTLY at the end of the Volker money crunch in the US.      How do you think the US line would look if somewhere between 1980 and now you just plopped the Mexican and cafta countries onto the US line?     

[Corcaigh]

10 hours ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

 

but they pay more dollars.....  fair share is subjective....

They do no not necessarily pay more.

 

The marginal rate on ordinary income (for a single filer) above $518,401 is 37%. The long-term capital gains rate at that level is 20%.

 

People who make a significant portion of their income from capital gains are not paying their fair share.

 

As for EU vs US, the goal is not to be economically more like Europe. The goal is to use the enormous wealth-generating ability of the US system to do a better job of helping people out of poverty.

[TradeTheBeal!]

1 hour ago, tshile said:

You guys are wasting your time with this one. 
 

pro tip - don’t put in anymore effort than the person you’re responding to puts into their posts. 
 

anything else is wasting your time

Counterpoint:  Negative indicators have tremendous value.

 

If you are lucky enough to know someone who is absolutely wrong about everything almost all the time (and we do!!), then even when you’re uncertain about a position/course of action, you ask that person what they think and then simply DONT DO THAT.  
 

It’s a solid foundation for acquiring knowledge going forward.

Edited April 29, 2021 by TryTheBeal!

[PeterMP]

1 hour ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

 

 

Why compare to the EU?  They are natural resource poor compared to the US and are only part of Europe.  (Realistically, most of Europe is where it is economically because of the history.  Not because there is anything special over the last couple of hundred years about Europe.  They are just going to fall further and further behind the rest of the world unless the countries with natural resources decide to share.)

 

Why not compare to some more natural resource rich countries in Europe?

 

 

Doesn't look so impressive then.

 

(I'm generally against the federal government getting involved in paying for college (even community college) for students without federal oversight of the quality of the classes/programs.  I think it will lead to fraud with states generating essentially meaningless classes/programs/degrees to get federal dollars.

 

For many of the other issues, we essentially don't know because we don't actually have a good understanding of the relationship between federal debt and future economic growth.  Historically, that was one thing that economists agreed on (i.e. that more debt slowed future growth, but the extent of that relationship is being challenged today.)

 

 

 

Edited April 29, 2021 by PeterMP

[Corcaigh]

1 hour ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

 Anyway, at least we all agree that Europe is a good example of The direction Biden’s economic policy is heading …

I think we all agree on one thing in this thread, but that isn’t it.

[CousinsCowgirl84]

@PeterMP

 

I think you have to look at sample size, Norway and Denmark as much smaller population size than the US. The rich people there have to pay for less poor people. Also you divide by a smaller number so it’s easier for the smaller countries to have a higher gdp because more weight is given to the super rich. 

 

I agree with your other points. 

[PeterMP]

1 minute ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

@PeterMP

 

I think you have to look at sample size, Norway and Denmark as much smaller population size than the US. The rich people there have to pay for less poor people. Also you divide by a smaller number so it’s easier for the smaller countries to have a higher gdp because more weight is given to the super rich. 

 

I agree with your other points. 

 

That wouldn't be a sample size issue.  Sample size is related to how many times you've measured the value.

 

The flip is that is there should be more rich people to pay for the poor people.  (We have more billionaires than any country except for China.)

 

https://www.statista.com/statistics/299513/billionaires-top-countries/

 

If we have a larger percentage of poor people that our rich can't support them, then that's a direct indication that their government policies are better than ours (in terms of preventing people from being poor.)

[CousinsCowgirl84]

1 minute ago, PeterMP said:

 

That wouldn't be a sample size issue.  Sample size is related to how many times you've measured the value.
 

 

Sample size wasn’t the right word, pool, maybe.

 

1 minute ago, PeterMP said:

 

The flip is that is there should be more rich people to pay for the poor people.  (We have more billionaires than any country except for China.)

 

https://www.statista.com/statistics/299513/billionaires-top-countries/

 

 

I thought most the wealth in the US was held by 1 percent of the population. 

 

1 minute ago, PeterMP said:

If we have a larger percentage of poor people that our rich can't support them, then that's a direct indication that their government policies are better than ours (in terms of preventing people from being poor.)

Our poor are supported though. The vast majority of poor people gauge access to education, food, housing, medical care, cell phones, etc.

[tshile]

1 hour ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

the alternative is of course the belief that assuming there is no perfect system, the system we have now isn’t all that bad. 

It is faulty logic to say an alternative is “there is no perfect system” because it implies those on the other side of you view their current proposals as “perfect” and I’ve never evidence of that. Suggestions changes to make things better doesn’t imply you think those changes are perfect - rather just a step in a positive direction. 
 

for the most part a key part of intelligence, to me, is a constant willingness to change your opinions when presented with new information. It would be foolish to think these ideas are perfect and that there won’t be future information that will cause minds to change about what to do next. 
 

“isn’t all that bad” is nonsense. 
 

I firmly believe that the left is overly negative about what this country is, and in many cases I think it’d be helpful if we had a machine where you could simulate 5 years living somewhere else and say - here, go check it out and let’s talk when you’re done in an hour. Because I think a lot of people spend a lot of time ****ting on what we are without that context including what the rest of the world is and where we’ve come from and how we got here. 
 

but when you look at our current poverty rate, our current education rankings (not on our schools and universities because people travel from overseas to use our schools for a reason, rather the end outcome of where our own citizens sit compared to the rest of the world), and health challenges... saying it isn’t all that bad means:

- you don’t actually know what you’re taking about

- you yourself are doing fine but you have no empathy or understanding of how others are doing (intelligence issue)

- you don’t care for it like the people that aren’t doing so great and either want them to continue to be in that state, or simply don’t care if they remain in that state, but either way you certainly don’t want to ‘lose’ anything yourself to contribute to fixing it (which is awful a faulty path of logic anyways because most people who think they will ‘lose’ actually stand to benefit from an overall better society... but they aren’t smart enough to think on that level)

 

 

so thinking the whole “it isn’t that bad” shtick doesn’t really have a good look for you as a person. 

[CousinsCowgirl84]

1 hour ago, tshile said:

It is faulty logic to say an alternative is “there is no perfect system” because it implies those on the other side of you view their current proposals as “perfect” and I’ve never evidence of that.

 

 I’m not sure about that. I think you are making assumptions about my assumptions.

 

Quote

 

Suggestions changes to make things better doesn’t imply you think those changes are perfect - rather just a step in a positive direction. 

 

 

 

I agree, and a few ways to test a economic plan are to look at systems that are close to what is planned and evaluate their results (which is why I brought up europe) or to actually enact those policies and see what happens.

 

I agree that Europe isn’t a perfect analogue, but’s it’s pretty close.  And as @PeterMP pointed out, we are more resource rich than them. So maybe it will turn out different.
 

 But don’t accuse the rich of paying their fair share when per capital gdp is increasing and those rich people are essentially creating their wealth. FANG didn’t steal money from anyone, neither did the people that own/run them.

Quote

. 
 

“isn’t all that bad” is nonsense. 
 

 

it isn’t that bad. 

 

Quote

 

but when you look at our current poverty rate, our current education rankings (not on our schools and universities because people travel from overseas to use our schools for a reason, rather the end outcome of where our own citizens sit compared to the rest of the world), and health challenges... saying it isn’t all that bad means:

 

 

I don’t consider not being number one as being bad. But if you aren’t improving you are falling behind so I’m open to trying different things, even if I don’t really think they will be too successful.

We have tried some things and got lukewarm results. But, can you even fix economic problems without fixing other problems we have?

 

 

Edited April 29, 2021 by CousinsCowgirl84

[PeterMP]

38 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

But don’t accuse the rich of paying their fair share when per capital gdp is increasing and those rich people are essentially creating their wealth. FANG didn’t steal money from anyone, neither did the people that own/run them.

 

We have tried some things and got lukewarm results. But, can you even fix economic problems without fixing other problems we have?

 

First, I'd argue that we've had more than lukewarm results (while the war on ppverty doesn't start until the 1960s many of the Great Depression work, social policies (e.g. social security), the TVA, and post WWII policies (e.g. the GI bill) were an expansion of the US government that had a direct impact on poverty (the war on poverty started well before LBJ declared a war on poverty)):

 

Second, why are the wealthy getting all the credit for GDP per capitia going up (certainly the productivity of the average worker has gone up), and if they are keeping a larger share of it, then why is that important?

 

(And the larger issue in many cases (climate change) is that the wealthy are gaining money pursuing means that come with a broader costs that their increased share of the wealth is going to partly going to be able to protect themselves.

 

Even assuming it is the wealthy that are causing the GDP to go up, if they are driving up GDP in a manner that results in climate change, take most of the money, use that money to buy up the high land to protect themselves from some of the impacts of climate change (driving up the value of high land) and leave the rest of the population dealing with the consequences, how is that a good thing?

 

https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2021/03/us/climate-gentrification-cnnphotos-invs/

 

And that's me conceding the point that they are mostly responsible for the increase in GDP and not more/harder/more productive work by the average worker.)

 

 

 

Edited April 29, 2021 by PeterMP

[CousinsCowgirl84]

14 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

Second, why are the wealthy getting all the credit for GDP per capitia going up (certainly the productivity of the average worker has gone up), and if they are keeping a larger share of it, then why is that important?

 

The workers are the potential, the owners are the ones who direct that potential into something of value. .
 

Quote

 

Even assuming it is the wealthy that are causing the GDP to go up, if they are driving up GDP in a manner that results in climate change, take most of the money, use that money to buy up the high land to protect themselves from some of the impacts of climate change (driving up the value of high land) and leave the rest of the population dealing with the consequences, how is that a good thing?

 

Now many wealth generators are responsible for solutions to climate change though. I couldn’t imagine a system where a bunch of worker folks are going to solve climate change without people like Elon Musk and Bill Gates (AKA the super rich) directing them.

 

Quote

 

https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2021/03/us/climate-gentrification-cnnphotos-invs/

 

 

Edited April 29, 2021 by CousinsCowgirl84

[PeterMP]

11 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

 

The workers are the potential, the owners are the ones who craft that potential into something of value. 
 

 

Now many wealth generators are responsible for solutions to climate change though. I couldn’t imagine a system where a bunch of worker folks are going to solve climate change without people like Elon Musk and Bill Gates (AKA the super rich) directing them.

 

 

Why?

 

Without the workers, what does the owner have of value?

 

I can as easily say the worker craft the owners potential into something of value.

 

Why is the owner more important than the workers?

 

The number one solution to climate change is easy.  Consume less.  Guess in general who consumes the most?

 

(I've come to the conclusion that there are many "conservatives" that just don't believe they are important, special, or deserve the respect of their fellow humans.  The rich are special and they should be happy to take whatever they will give them.

 

And not that most of the wealthy are wealthy mostly because of luck and government policies.

 

Bill Gates is where he is mostly because of when and where he was born.  He was born at a time and place that allowed him to get computer training at a time for him to be well prepared to take advantage of the explosion in the personal PC market and then was able to leverage that position into questionable businesses practices to eliminate competition that would have slowed his business growth (i.e. Netscape).  Bill Gates had nothing to do with when he was born, who his parents were, where they lived, or the explosion in the PC market))

Edited April 29, 2021 by PeterMP

[TheGreatBuzz]

14 hours ago, tshile said:

So is there somewhere I can go to read a critical take on his speech?

 

it’s sad to say but even the places I used to find such things have gone off the deep end with Trump. I haven’t been impressed with a conservative take by it being thoughtful, factually accurate, and geared towards a problem/solution that doesn’t include pretending the problem doesn’t exist in.... I mean... the obama years...

 

something that goes deeper than “it’s expensive” and “job creators”

In general, I think S.E. Cupp usually puts together conservative-based discussion while also being a never-trumpet and generally hating on the GOP.

[CousinsCowgirl84]

7 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

Why?

 

Without the workers, what does the owner have of value?

 

I can as easily say the worker craft the owners potential into something of value.

 

Why is the owner more important than the workers?

 

I concede that the owners do not have much without workers. However, I think they produce more value that the workers because they create synergies in the companies they create.

 

 

 

7 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

And not that most of the wealthy are wealthy mostly because of luck and government policies.)

 

People aren’t rich because of mostly luck....

[PeterMP]

23 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

 

I concede that the owners do not have much without workers. However, I think they produce more value that the workers because they create synergies in the companies they create.

 

 

 

 

People aren’t rich because of mostly luck....

 

How much synergy do owners bring vs. workers?

 

Any actual data to back that luck isn't the major contributor to wealth because research disagrees.

 

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/making-sense/analysis-if-youre-rich-youre-more-lucky-than-smart-and-theres-math-to-prove-it

 

Your declerations do not make things so.

 

Bill Gates is largely where he is because as a high school student he had access to a state of the art computer system at a time when the vast majority of high school students had no access to a computer.  He had no say in the fact that he was born into that situation.

 

Edited April 29, 2021 by PeterMP

[CousinsCowgirl84]

 

Quote

 

Any actual data to back that luck isn't the major contributor to wealth because research disagrees.
 

 

I wonder which political ideology paid for those studies and that the thesis was that the study was designed to prove.

 

 

Empirical evidence is good enough for me.

 

from the article:

 

note that this paper has not been peer reviewed and the model relies on a computer simulation, rather than humans. 

 

 

Quote

 

 

 

 

Bill Gates is largely where he is because as a high school student he had access to a state of the art computer system at a time when the vast majority of high school students had no access to a computer.  He had no say in the fact that he was born into that situation.

 

 

 

So were millions of other people. Thousands went to that sane school. 
 

He is the one that made something.

Edited April 29, 2021 by CousinsCowgirl84

[goskins10]

 

This is a comedy bit by Bill Burr but it's spot on about who actually provides value. Warning - There is language.