Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

It's a start, but we will also have to raise some taxes. Or at least get rid of the many loopholes.

It's just stupid when people are yelling "YOU HAVE TO CUT SPENDING, except this, this, this, and that."

The left doesn't want to touch Medicare and Medicaid. The right doesn't want to touch defense.

They all will have to take a hit if we are serious about cutting spending. Raise the taxes a bit and the hit is less.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
It's also stupid to talk about cutting taxes while complaining that we don't have enough money to cover our spending.

labmouse42 wrote:Warren taught law at several universities throughout the country, while researching bankruptcy and middle-class personal finance.
Warren has written several best-selling books on personal finance.
Warren has published studies on bankruptcies and medical bills.
Warren was the chair the five-member Congressional Oversight Panel created to oversee the implementation of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act.
Warren long advocated for the creation of a new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, an agency designed to "make basic financial practices such as taking out a mortgage or loan more clear and transparent while ferreting out unfair lending practices,"

This is what makes her an Academic. An ivory-tower type. She has an incredibly astute academic, theoretical background, like much of the Obama administration. She's an expert on bankruptcy law and public administration.

None of this makes her qualified to run a business, nor has she ever, nor does she actually have experience in managing a balance sheet. This doesn't mean she's stupid, but in a world where our #1 problem is the expansion of entitlement spending, the need for austerity, AND the need for intelligent tax hikes, finding yet another shiny thing to spend money on, even under the guise of 'investment', is stupid.

You say I'm borderline strawman, but listing relatively unrelated credentials and making the conclusion that she's competent within a field (like financial investment) is borderline Appeal to Authority.

d-usa wrote:It's a start, but we will also have to raise some taxes. Or at least get rid of the many loopholes.

No we don't have to raise taxes actually. CUT EVERYTHING.
Now in the real world I am amenable to something called negotiation. However, like Greece, drastic cuts are needed.

FYI I'm down with letting the "falling off the cliff" event happen in December. Thats only 1/3 the deficit FYI.

sourclams wrote: finding yet another shiny thing to spend money on, even under the guise of 'investment', is stupid.

On this fact we disagree. If one invests intelligently, even by through taking a debt, one can increase their overall future fortune.

An example on a personal level of this would be a student loan. While a $60,000 student loan may cause you to pay interest, the average college graduates yearly income is $26,000 higher than non-college graduates -- meaning that even with the debt the long term income will be greater.

Investing into education/research pays the same dividends for a country. Take NASA for example. How many inventions are owed to NASA thus far?

Frazzled wrote:Cut the budget across until it matches revenues. Use 2010 as the baseline for revenues ( expenses can't surpass). CUT EVERYTHING.
How's that?

To be perfectly frank it's pretty silly. Why pick out 2010 as the optimum level of taxation?

What is the deal with absolutely, 100% refusing to consider an increase in taxes as part of the move to sustainable government expenditure?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sourclams wrote:This is what makes her an Academic. An ivory-tower type. She has an incredibly astute academic, theoretical background, like much of the Obama administration. She's an expert on bankruptcy law and public administration.

None of this makes her qualified to run a business, nor has she ever, nor does she actually have experience in managing a balance sheet.

That's just empty populist rhetoric. This idea that can-do plucky practical experience somehow trumps academic knowledge is piffle.

The US expanded and developed an extremely highly skilled economy that can pay wages roughly equal to the richest in the world, and it did this in part because it had an education system equal to any in the world. What didn't help was the USA somehow having more plucky can-do street smart people, because that is not a thing.

This doesn't mean she's stupid, but in a world where our #1 problem is the expansion of entitlement spending, the need for austerity, AND the need for intelligent tax hikes, finding yet another shiny thing to spend money on, even under the guise of 'investment', is stupid.

Talking about entitlement spending and infrastructure spending as if they're somehow the same thing is kind of stupid, actually. Roads. Fornightly payments to single mums. Not the same thing.

You can have one, the other, or both. Totally independant of each other.

I know, we could go back to 1945 when income tax on incomes over 500,000 was something like 95% (IIRC)?

After all, it didn't seem to slow down the wealthy much at the time...

sourclams wrote:This is what makes her an Academic. An ivory-tower type. She has an incredibly astute academic, theoretical background, like much of the Obama administration. She's an expert on bankruptcy law and public administration.

None of this makes her qualified to run a business, nor has she ever, nor does she actually have experience in managing a balance sheet.

Emphasis above mine - sure, but she isn't trying to become the CEO of a business. She is running for the US Senate. I've never understood the meme that government is a business because while there are some shared elements, they simply are not the same thing and do not require the same qualifications.

sourclams wrote:
You say I'm borderline strawman, but listing relatively unrelated credentials and making the conclusion that she's competent within a field (like financial investment) is borderline Appeal to Authority.

No it isn't. Not all. Appeal to authority would require an appeal to Warren by way of her position.

Also, 'it is good for the long term of the country to invest in infrastructure' doesn't really need an economics degree to be a justifiable statement. It's one of those things that's just true, and that everyone accepted was really fething obviously true, until a Democrat said it.

sebster wrote:Also, 'it is good for the long term of the country to invest in infrastructure' doesn't really need an economics degree to be a justifiable statement..

Investing in infrastructure is more than just bridges and roads as well. Another example of infrastructure spending is laying more fiber, allowing for a faster internet connection between cities and to your house.

Take Netflix on demand. If you have been enjoying watching streaming movies, its because of the increased fiber infrastructure (and increased router technology). We do not know what business opportunities will be available in the future as we continue to build our infrastructure.

The question is "How much of our GDP should we spend on infrastructure development/maintenance?" If someone tells you 0%, they they are being silly. The US population is increasing and we need roads to those new homes/stores/jobs to support the growing population. Do we need to spend as much (percentage wise of GDP) as China? Probably not -- China still has much of their population who are still living in a 3rd world rural life.

dogma wrote:No it isn't. Not all. Appeal to authority would require an appeal to Warren by way of her position.

What labmouse quoted as Warren's credentials is pretty much textbook "Appeal to Inappropriate Authority"; she's an authority in an unrelated field.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

sebster wrote:You can have one, the other, or both. Totally independant of each other.

You miss the broader point. Warren has continuously been in favor of more spending, bigger spending, larger government involvement, and more direct intervention for... ever.

Which is fine, except we're at the point where we've literally run out of the revenue to have even one, not to mention 'other', or 'both'.

Let's sideline this discussion for 6 months, when it'll become shockingly apparent just how big an issue this is.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sebster wrote:Also, 'it is good for the long term of the country to invest in infrastructure' doesn't really need an economics degree to be a justifiable statement. It's one of those things that's just true, and that everyone accepted was really fething obviously true, until a Democrat said it.

Yeah you'd think that but it's very possible to invest in the completely wrong type of infrastructure. Rail for public transportation has failed in various parts of the country because outside of the most metropolitan areas, there's simply a preference for cars and the existing road infrastructure supports it. Largely subsidized by local government, and now a white elephant.

Or take Falcone's jaunt into Wireless infrastructure with Lightsquared; he lost a fantastic amount of money inappropriately investing into that. And this is a guy who was one of the more astute investors, globally.

If "investing in infrastructure" simply worked, there'd be more of it. That's the problem when broad-brush types try to paint very specific applications of capital with a broad brush; there's plenty of room to fall through the cracks and create waste.

sourclams wrote:
What labmouse quoted as Warren's credentials is pretty much textbook "Appeal to Inappropriate Authority"; she's an authority in an unrelated field.

An appeal to an inappropriate authority is not an "appeal to authority". An appeal to an inappropriate authority is "false attribution."

Though neither are relevant here as her fields are (arguably) relevant.

sourclams wrote:What labmouse quoted as Warren's credentials is pretty much textbook "Appeal to Inappropriate Authority"; she's an authority in an unrelated field..

Some of them there, I will grant you, others were not.

Your statement was this

sourclams wrote:showed that she has no conceptualization of "the economy" beyond Government mandates and redistribution.

Take these two examples from my list.
* Warren was the chair the five-member Congressional Oversight Panel created to oversee the implementation of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act.
* Warren long advocated for the creation of a new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, an agency designed to "make basic financial practices such as taking out a mortgage or loan more clear and transparent while ferreting out unfair lending practices,"

One would be hard pressed to oversee the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act and have 'no conceptualization of "the economy".'
One would be hard pressed to set up the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and have 'no conceptualization of "the economy".'

You then said this -- which has nothing to do with your strawman of 'no conceptualization of "the economy".'

sourclams wrote:None of this makes her qualified to run a business, nor has she ever, nor does she actually have experience in managing a balance sheet.

Where in your strawman post did you say 'running a business' or 'balance sheet'? Instead of acknowledging that you were pushing a strawman, you changed your statement to include 'running a business' or 'balance sheet'

If you persist on denying that you had a strawman and that the counter points were all "Appeal to Inappropriate Authority", your going to start looking like Harry Reed.
Your a smart guy, just quit when your ahead, and we can move on to other productive discussions instead of nit-picking logic and critical thinking

sebster wrote:What is the deal with absolutely, 100% refusing to consider an increase in taxes as part of the move to sustainable government expenditure?

A lack of grasp of mathematics, statistics, finances... a political grandstanding to gather votes... a lack of sanity...

All of the above?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ouze wrote: I've never understood the meme that government is a business

Not much to understand. Just a bunch of idiocy based off of an ignorance of how both businesses and government work.

Also, political grandstanding.

Frazzled wrote:

Easy E wrote:Yeah, everyone know the govrnment has no business trying to build infrastructure. I mean, that's unprecedented in human history!

What an idiot this Warren lady is.

Also, is it possible that we could reshuffle financing priorities or create an infrastructure bonding bill instead of raising taxes?

You missed that whole $1.5TRILLION DEFICIT EVERY YER FOR THE NEXT TEN YEARS thing I take it?

And what happens to tax revenue when you can't ship anything anywhere and the whole economy collapses? What happens to tax revenue when the 70-year-old power grid collapses? What happens to tax revenue when the telecommunications networks collapse? Without maintenance, these are VERY REAL POSSIBILITIES!

Yes, we need to reduce the deficit. We ALSO need to manitain infrastructure, because the cost of NOT doing it is far higher.

It's like maintaining your car. Sure, you can save a thirty bucks NOW by not getting that oil change. It'll cost you three grand for a new engine down the road. Which one is more cost-effective?


The real problem in America (and I'm just as guilty as Frazz in my own way) is that nobody wants to work together anymore. It's always "my way or the highway', if I don't like your solution it's EVILBADWRONG! Whatever happened to compromise?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:

d-usa wrote:I take Republican deficit complaints seriously as soon as they are willing to cut defense spending and are willing to address the fact that people will have to pay more taxes. Pretty much the only reason I have respect for Oklahoma Senator Coburn.

If you really care about the deficit then you cannot have sacred cows.

Cut the budget across until it matches revenues. Use 2010 as the baseline for revenues ( expenses can't surpass). CUT EVERYTHING.
How's that?

And watch yet another wave of economic collapse hits the country as billions of dollars are abruptly removed.

There are retired people out there that depend - UTTERLY DEPEND - on their Social Security checks. They cannot work for medical reasons, and even if they could their work skills are 20 years and more out of date. Your plan could well put many of them out on the street. Many of them also utterly depend on Medicare as well, and without it their medical conditions WILL kill them.

Want that on your conscience?

It's a drop in the bucket, but the FIRST thing that needs to go is Congressional benefits. They don't need the hefty retirement package they get. Once they leave office, let them have the same options the REST of us have to live with.

ALL the government agenices need a serious increase in personel efficiency, and much of the work can be done with a updating of agency computer systems. Do you have any idea how many times I've seen computers in government offices running DOS programs... painfully slowly?

The military needs a trim too. The paper-pushers need to be there, but right now the support tail is so big it wags the combat-arms dog! Procurement needs streamlining too; we study stuff to DEATH so it costs ten times as much as it needs to... and STILL basic flaws creep in (like the problems in the F-22 O2 system - how on earth did that get messed up? We've been putting O2 systems into aircraft since the B-17 at least!).

But if we get reckless with the cuts, we do more harm that good. What good is a balanced budget... if the country has collapsed?

Oh god the F35.

Biggest waste of money the Air Force has ever done. Ever.

Billions of dollars spent, costing several hundreds of million per craft, for a mediocre craft that's average at everything, good at nothing, and cannot fulfill any combat roles better than any craft we already have- even vehicles designed in the 1970s are better designed and funciton better than the F-35.

Melissia wrote:Oh god the F35.

Biggest waste of money the Air Force has ever done. Ever.

Billions of dollars spent, costing several hundreds of million per craft, for a mediocre craft that's average at everything, good at nothing, and cannot fulfill any combat roles better than any craft we already have- even vehicles designed in the 1970s are better designed and funciton better than the F-35.

Is it bigger than the B-1?

Is it bigger than the B-1?

Smaller then a carrier?

I mean money cost/wasted wise.

Melissia wrote:Oh god the F35.

Biggest waste of money the Air Force has ever done. Ever.

Billions of dollars spent, costing several hundreds of million per craft, for a mediocre craft that's average at everything, good at nothing, and cannot fulfill any combat roles better than any craft we already have- even vehicles designed in the 1970s are better designed and funciton better than the F-35.

Pah. No one beats the Navy when it comes to pointless, staggering, waste.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zumwalt_class_destroyer

Supposedly 10 of them would equal one battleship. If the Advanced Gun System didn't explode when firing and it did not have some really alarming tendencies in rough seas. And they cost more individually then all three Iowa class battleships did collectively.

GAO found that the cost of upgrading existing battleships to modern standards would cost 500,000 each. As opposed to the 3billion + for each Zumwalt. (3 billion down, additional 4 billion over it's lifetime)

So we're spending billions to produce a weapons platform worse then one we already have which is, by the Navy's own admission, ten times better at a fraction of the cost.

But any cuts in defense spending will ENDANGER OUR VERY EXISTENCE.

But any cuts in defense spending will ENDANGER OUR VERY EXISTENCE

We need to stop poking around Mars then

The Martians will teach us magic powers which will supersede weapons, bud. Valentine Michael Smith will show you the way.

BaronIveagh wrote:
GAO found that the cost of upgrading existing battleships to modern standards would cost 500,000 each.

I really doubt that number.

dogma wrote:

BaronIveagh wrote:
GAO found that the cost of upgrading existing battleships to modern standards would cost 500,000 each.

I really doubt that number.

500,000 bars of gold

Frazzled wrote:

dogma wrote:

BaronIveagh wrote:
GAO found that the cost of upgrading existing battleships to modern standards would cost 500,000 each.

I really doubt that number.

500,000 bars of gold

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for extending the life of effective, existing platforms. Its just that 500,000 dollars won't even by me a Ferrari Enzo, let alone bring a ~65 year old ship up to modern standards.

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

dogma wrote:

BaronIveagh wrote:
GAO found that the cost of upgrading existing battleships to modern standards would cost 500,000 each.

I really doubt that number.

500,000 bars of gold

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for extending the life of effective, existing platforms. Its just that 500,000 dollars won't even by me a Ferrari Enzo, let alone bring a ~65 year old ship up to modern standards.

Yes but $15,000 will buy you a proper Ducati, with matching Italian girlfriend. Yes!

dogma wrote:
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for extending the life of effective, existing platforms. Its just that 500,000 dollars won't even by me a Ferrari Enzo, let alone bring a ~65 year old ship up to modern standards.

$500,000. Most existing battleships underwent overhauls already in the late 1980's/early 1990's (notice the Mo, for example, has modern CIWS and Tomahawk launchers), so you're not updating them from 1945, you're updating them from a generation ago. The primary thing that was needed to bring them up to date was that the crew quarters needed to be changed to have accommodations for both men and women. (I'm not gaking you)

The other item was minor electronics and fire fighting upgrades.

BaronIveagh wrote:
$500,000. Most existing battleships underwent overhauls already in the late 1980's/early 1990's (notice the Mo, for example, has modern CIWS and Tomahawk launchers), so you're not updating them from 1945, you're updating them from a generation ago. The primary thing that was needed to bring them up to date was that the crew quarters needed to be changed to have accommodations for both men and women. (I'm not gaking you)

The other item was minor electronics and fire fighting upgrades.

I'm aware that it isn't an upgrade from 1945, but you're still talking about a 20 year gap. You also have a history of getting things horribly wrong, so I will not believe you without a source.

BaronIveagh wrote:

dogma wrote:
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for extending the life of effective, existing platforms. Its just that 500,000 dollars won't even by me a Ferrari Enzo, let alone bring a ~65 year old ship up to modern standards.

$500,000. Most existing battleships underwent overhauls already in the late 1980's/early 1990's (notice the Mo, for example, has modern CIWS and Tomahawk launchers), so you're not updating them from 1945, you're updating them from a generation ago. The primary thing that was needed to bring them up to date was that the crew quarters needed to be changed to have accommodations for both men and women. (I'm not gaking you)

The other item was minor electronics and fire fighting upgrades.

the evaluated cost may be $500'000, but when you involve the shoddy cheapskate laborforce that north america has bred, they will find a host of other problems that need fixing and fix them too, and cause a giant pile of damage in the process that will require fixing, making that a $1.5 million bill for each ship. Then add the over time on top of that and it keeps racking on. Or maybe you've forgotten what cost-plus did to the american economy back a few years ago?

We have some asshats replacing the swill in our community before finishing up work and handing us over to the city. Only two sections needed to be replaced, for a total of 4 meters of concrete. They tor our half of the swills in the area, for a total of 40 meters of concrete, property damage, and left a pile of other fatal hazards for us to deal with, like an electric fence, electric water, surprise broken saw blades and power tools left lying around. The estimated cost of work: Less than $5'000. Actual cost of work? well over $20k. That's private firms for you.