Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
Wanting something doesn't mean you can afford to buy it. If you can't afford to buy it, then it doesn't matter how much you want it, because you're simply not buying and thus not putting your dollars into effect. For economic purposes, it only matters if you're buying things, not whether you want them.
As for raising taxes: Taxing the rich a little more gives the government more dollars to use to put into stimulus packages, spend on road improvement, hire teachers with, use for welfare spending so that the poor people finally have money to spend. (At a certain level of wealth you can only spend so much money before you simply have a bunch of it just sitting there. The poor can't afford to accumulate like that.)
Lots of reasons for raising taxes, really.
edited 7th Dec '12 10:00:36 AM by AceofSpades
![]()
because most tax increases disproportionately target the rich.
And the rich easily have the money to give (5% of a millionaire banker's income per year is nowhere near as damaging to his lifestyle as it is to a guy who makes a mere 50,000 a year). Money that can be funneled into government programs that help give the poor further ability to spend and drive the economy upwards.
In short. taxes are generally good because theyre the easiest way to force people to stop hoarding excessive wealth and funnel said wealth to people who need it.
edited 7th Dec '12 10:00:49 AM by Midgetsnowman
It's also why aggressive use of austerity during a downturn via cuts in welfare programs is often counter-productive, rather than the saving it appears on paper. If those on the bottom rungs have fewer means to purchase even the basic things, not only do they suffer as a consequence... so does the local economy around them.
If all your money is going towards rent and food with nothing left over, you can't afford new shoes or winter tyres (even if you need them).
This can feed back into the general depression, making it more severe.
edited 7th Dec '12 10:05:34 AM by Euodiachloris
Yep. Its also why the argument of "they dont really need welfare. they'd spent it on T Vs instead of food anyhow" is silly because yes, maybe they would. But buying a TV also STIMULATES THE ECONOMY
It would take longer for business cycle to restabilize.
Actually, Democrats want higher taxes for the rich and lower taxes for middle class, because the latter are better customers (and generally because they need it more).
But the main reason Congress calls for tax raise (and spending cuts) is to lower the debt and avoiding deficit spending. Debt and economy are separate but related issues. A bad decision might hurt the economy, but you can still force the debt to reduce (or at least not increase) if you don't spend more than you take in with taxes. If you do, that's a deficit.
The question with the fiscal cliff is whether to raise the debt more than we already have - and if not, how we're going to balance the cuts/taxes. And if Congress can't vote on a newly agreed plan by January, the previous plan will do that for us. That's the automatic cuts and tax raises.
edited 7th Dec '12 10:05:27 AM by Trivialis
It's basic multiplier effect. If you give one person 1 million dollars, they only *have* to spend, let's say 100 thousand of it. (I'm pulling these numbers out of my ass, but the principle is sound.) If you give that 1 million dollars to 100 thousand people, then it's very likely that all of that money will be spend (because they need to spend *all* of it to meet basic needs and wants), and thus, act as stimulus to the economy. Taxing the rich is a was to ensure money is in the hands of people who will use it, and who need it.
edited 7th Dec '12 10:06:03 AM by DrTentacles
so in other fun news, Suzanne Venker and Fox news is doubling down on her idea of a "war on men" by saying women (like herself) are naturally and biologically built to serve man and be subservient to them.
edited 7th Dec '12 10:06:32 AM by Midgetsnowman
![]()
![]()
![]()
she neatly steps around that by arguing that women can work if they want to, but should remember just because they work doesnt mean they should argue with their man (who she also insists every woman needs one of) over who is lord of the house.
@Triv: far as I can tell, her agument boils down to "okay. women are seperate but equal to men now, so we can embrace being what we really are once again instead of lying to ourselves that we actually have goals and dreams other than housewifery"
edited 7th Dec '12 10:11:37 AM by Midgetsnowman
A normal economy is level, with minor hills and dips. An economy going too fast is like a steep downhill slope. Money chases scarce goods and you have to slow the car down somehow to avoid losing control. An economy going too slowly is like a steep uphill slope. If you don't accelerate — give the car more gas — then it slows down and may never reach the top.
As a gross simplification, the government's gas pedal is spending; and the government's brake pedal is interest rates and tax rates.
edited 7th Dec '12 10:21:32 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"..course, the other new article on TP is also kind of horrifically distasteful. Apparently the NRA is claiming if Jovan Belcher's girlfriend had owned more guns, she could have shot him dead without dying herself therefore the murder-suicide is all the fault of her for not owning moar guns.
because as we all know, a shootout in a home with a child and an older woman also in it is a great idea.
edited 7th Dec '12 10:18:52 AM by Midgetsnowman
....well, it worked, didn't it? The Cold War never went hot.
Anyway, I lost all respect for the NRA as a legitimate political advocasy group (as opposed to a shill for the right) when they continued to vehemently oppose Obama despite the fact that he expanded gun rights during his first term. The only people who hate Obama more than gun rights groups are gun control groups.
Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.I do think maybe it was an inappropriate comment at the time.
But I don't like that site's general tone. It's too reliant on take-that moments. Like it waits on conservatives to make yet another gaffe, and highlights it for everyone, even if it's taken out of context. It doesn't try to look at the context in good faith and parse the real message with perhaps good intentions, before it starts to judge it.
so, she doesn't want to set women back 200 years, she just wants women to return to the role of having all the burden of maintaining "lasting love" placed back onto the women, aka where women were about... 200 years ago*?
so much doublespeak and glittering generalities I can't even decipher it
You can't even write racist abuse in excrement on somebody's car without the politically correct brigade jumping down your throat!
She's got so much Newspeak and Double Think going on, she's practically into linguistic compound interest territory.
@Euo: the "she should have owned a gun and shot him" argument is apparently their retort to a news anchor arguing that if Belcher didnt have access to guns it wouldnt have happened. So no, I dont think the concept of "everyone not owning 15 guns" figures into their worldview.
edited 7th Dec '12 10:32:38 AM by Midgetsnowman

Again, thank you all for letting me...assimilate...your knowledge and add your genius to my own.
Fighteer, bear with me. I'm really, really, really knew to this concept:
Please elaborate in separate post.
What would've happend if the Fed just let it ride?
Why is it basic economic theory is challenging me, but this explanation of unmitigated greed and blatant fiscal rape...I understand all too well?
But then, why are people arguing for a tax increase? That seems like the opposite of "give people more spending money"?
edited 7th Dec '12 9:54:22 AM by TheStarshipMaxima
It was an honor