G.O.P. 2011: Sacrificing tomorrow for a better today

[PlaysLikeMyung]

Talking to people about the economy, I'm absolutely stunned at the number of people who think that raising taxes won't help the national debt. Like. Seriously. They think taxes aren't good for anything.

[Super Dude]

The only suggestion that makes any sense in better management of the nation's funds and eventually paying off the national debt is a combination of cuts in spending with a raising of taxes.

This.  It's just gotta be the right things and the right amounts of each.

Lower education spending = lower quality teachers and lower quality and outdated textbooks = lower quality classes = mediocre education

I agree with quite a bit of what you've said in this thread, but pouring money into a cause does not make it better.  Spending more on education will not give us better teachers, better schools, a better system, and ultimately better educated kids.


-J

Washington DC spends more per student than any other city in America. The students still perform worse than the rest of the country.

Actually Detroit and Flint take that title, proudly or not.  Detroit more so than Flint, and hundreds of millions of dollars have been poured into those programs over the last 50 years.  Hence my saying that it's a problem of both spending and distribution of said spending.

[hefdaddy42]

The people who decide how education money is spent aren't actual educators.  That's why it doesn't work.

[orcus116]

And the funding that education does get is usually spent on dead end programs like Special Education before other more useful programs.

[juice]

The people who decide how education money is spent aren't actual educators.  That's why it doesn't work.

This.

[Super Dude]

Interesting article related to this, again from the Times.  I'm too lazy to do the whole quote thing, so just click it: https://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/19/opinion/19blow.html?hp

The article is called "Empire at the End of Decadence."

I will however put up the graphic provided:

[orcus116]

I attribute Food Insecurity to bad spending habits more than anything.

[Super Dude]

Probably.  The article itself has more of what prompted me to post this here; that chart is just the icing on the cake.

[orcus116]

Some of those things on the chart are a bit misleading, though, considering how arbitrary the ratings assignments are. Like the difference between Best and Worst in the Math is like 10. Most of them are really close it's just scaled in a way to show certain countries to show America in a worse light to prove the point of the article.The prison one is pretty sad, though.

[j]

Yeah like anything else, I think it just has to be taken with a grain of salt.  I mean everybody knows Americans are relatively fat and unhealthy, our students "underperform" in math and science compared to some countries, and there are large disparities in income.  With regard to that last one though (a little off topic), I've never understood why income equality is something we're supposed to strive for?

As for the taxation discussion, you'll never hear a politician announce that they're going to raise taxes.  Even though it obviously has its uses and is necessary at times, nobody will ever advertise it because it will make them unpopular.  Perfect case of the public not necessarily knowing what's best for them, although that certainly doesn't mean that the elected officials know any better.

-J

[King Postwhore]

My beef about taxation, and I'll give an example, is when they add a tax that they say is temporary, it's not.  For example, 25 years or so ago the local government in Mass got to add toll boths in certain area's to help with building a new mass pike.  The tolls were temporary.  But, to this day they are still here and the cost of those toll are 10x larger.  The allocation of funds are now used in another area of the state and yet these toll were there for one purpose.  I've always been of the believe that yes, there will always be cost of living and the taxes would be at equil level.  But the money isn't even used for it's purpose and then, the government backed out of the promise of a temporary tax.

As I've got older I've trusted the government less on how they spend our tax money especially in these hard times.

[Super Dude]

Except what do you lose on funds that are nevertheless geared towards ensuring the public good?

[King Postwhore]

Except what do you lose on funds that are nevertheless geared towards ensuring the public good?

I get you.  It's more of the feeling of my taxes being miss handled or wasted.  Also promises broken again.  Basically, I'm a jilted girlfriend.

[Cool Chris]

"Temporary" Taxes

Goddam I am glad someone else hates this as much as I do. They put a tax to the voters, emphasizing it will be for only x number of years. So the voters say 'well, sure, we'll vote for that tax if it is only for x years.' Then once x years is over, they bring up the tax again for a vote, and say 'But this isn't a NEW tax, it is one that was already approved!'

[j]

Except what do you lose on funds that are nevertheless geared towards ensuring the public good?

I get you.  It's more of the feeling of my taxes being miss handled or wasted.

I'm with you 100% on this, and I don't think it can be fixed in this system.  I can't believe ANYBODY trusts this government to actually effectively, intelligently, and responsibly allocate resources for the "public good".

-J

[Super Dude]

We used to, not sure what happened to that...

[Perpetual Change]

It's not a matter of trusting the government's general competence. It's a matter of trusting them more than anyone else.

[William Wallace]

It's not a matter of trusting the government's general competence. It's a matter of trusting them more than anyone else.

And it's arguably the stupidest decision we can collectively make. Why in the hell centralizing power in hands of a relatively few people seems like a good idea eludes me. If anybody wants evidence of what that mindset leads to, I suggest a look at the present situation in California.

[Perpetual Change]

And it's arguably the stupidest decision we can collectively make. Why in the hell centralizing power in hands of a relatively few people seems like a good idea eludes me.

As opposed to...?

[PlaysLikeMyung]

It's not a matter of trusting the government's general competence. It's a matter of trusting them more than anyone else.

And it's arguably the stupidest decision we can collectively make. Why in the hell centralizing power in hands of a relatively few people seems like a good idea eludes me. If anybody wants evidence of what that mindset leads to, I suggest a look at the present situation in California.

Why would you need more people? Then it'd just be one giant clusterfuck.

I still fail to understand your "government can't do anything right" mindset

[Super Dude]

It's not a matter of trusting the government's general competence. It's a matter of trusting them more than anyone else.

And it's arguably the stupidest decision we can collectively make. Why in the hell centralizing power in hands of a relatively few people seems like a good idea eludes me. If anybody wants evidence of what that mindset leads to, I suggest a look at the present situation in California.

Why would you need more people? Then it'd just be one giant clusterfuck.

I still fail to understand your "government can't do anything right" mindset

This.  I was having a discussion with my father and brother last night about the political views of Thomas Jefferson, and his idea of statist rather than central government.  It dawned on me that the time in which Jefferson espoused those beliefs were a time before fast travel was possible, before nations interacted on the level that they do today.  Most politics happened within the nation, and therefore politics occurred on a smaller scale, in which it would make sense to divide government by state.  If one were to bring Thomas Jefferson into the 20th century, to say nothing of the 21st, so he could see the United States interacting on the world stage with Europe, a bunch of Middle Eastern countries, and even Russia, he would say that the system of statist politics is outmoded in a world where events occur on the world stage.  The state model is too small-scale for the world in which we're living, and government should consequentially get bigger.

This is of course disregarding the fact that politics should not kneel to the wisdom of the ancients, as Americans so often and mistakenly do.

[King Postwhore]

I would want them to be more accountable.  People seem to vote for the same person despite of a offcials past history.  A good example is Deval Patrick.  Governor of Mass.  The man never accomplished one thing he said when rinning for office.  His main push was for lowering taxes on land property when in fact in his first term taxes rose.  Here is a few of his mishandling of our taxes.

"In the early months of Patrick's administration, a series of decisions the governor later conceded as missteps brought substantial unfavorable press. These included spending almost $11,000 on drapery for the governor's state house suite, changing the state's customary car lease from a Ford Crown Victoria to a Cadillac, and hiring a staff assistant (who had previously helped chair his election campaign) for the Commonwealth's first lady at an annual salary of almost $75,000".

 He did reimburse after extreme pressure from all sides.  Doesn't that say enough that he had to be pressured into reimbursing instead of doing the right thing with our taxes?

"Later in the same month Patrick again came under fire, this time for contacting Citigroup Executive Committee chair, and former Clinton Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin on behalf of the financially beleaguered mortgage company Ameriquest, a subsidiary of ACC Capital Holdings, that had been accused of predatory lending practices and of which Patrick is a former board member. Both Citigroup and ACC Capital Holdings have substantial holdings in Massachusetts. Patrick attempted to deflect criticism claiming he was calling not as governor but as a private citizen. Later Patrick backed down, stating "I appreciate that I should not have made the call. I regret the mistake."

Another bad decision.

"In December 2008, Patrick faced criticism from Massachusetts Republicans for the hiring of attorney and real estate consultant Dana Harrell to the newly created position of state Director of Real Estate Services. Harrell is a neighbor of Deval Patrick in Milton, and he and his wife have contributed to the governor's election campaign and to the Democratic State Committee. The appointment to the $120,000-per-year position came at a time when the state faced a $1.4 billion revenue shortfall which may cause Patrick to layoff 1,000 state workers and cut state aid to towns and cities.

Another bad decision.  Yet he was re-elected for a second term??  Why?

[Perpetual Change]

This.  I was having a discussion with my father and brother last night about the political views of Thomas Jefferson, and his idea of statist rather than central government.  It dawned on me that the time in which Jefferson espoused those beliefs were a time before fast travel was possible, before nations interacted on the level that they do today.  Most politics happened within the nation, and therefore politics occurred on a smaller scale, in which it would make sense to divide government by state.  If one were to bring Thomas Jefferson into the 20th century, to say nothing of the 21st, so he could see the United States interacting on the world stage with Europe, a bunch of Middle Eastern countries, and even Russia, he would say that the system of statist politics is outmoded in a world where events occur on the world stage.  The state model is too small-scale for the world in which we're living, and government should consequentially get bigger.

This is of course disregarding the fact that politics should not kneel to the wisdom of the ancients, as Americans so often and mistakenly do.

It was also a time before people people from broad research spectrums held conferences because they weren't sure how the world was going to manage to feed itself 40 years from now, let alone where people were going to live and how they were going to dispose their waste.

But, as always, it boils down to ideology that says there's no problem big enough as to require a semi-compulsory collective effort to solve. And even if there is, just denying it exists will suffice for now...

[orcus116]

Another bad decision.  Yet he was re-elected for a second term??  Why?

Cause it's Massachusetts and Republicans are evil there.

[Nigerius Rex]

Why would you need more people? Then it'd just be one giant clusterfuck.

The resources the government of California consumes just to pay for state mandated initiatives it has created without even considering the original and arguably the most important duties of a state government is mind boggling. Unfortunately we are in a situation that is already past the point of unmanageable clusterfuck.

I still fail to understand your "government can't do anything right" mindset

It seems like a cheap response, but the truth of the matter is their track record speaks for itself.

The system in its current state is too twisted, too cumbersome, and too bloated to provide cost efficient and timely solutions to any problems which is funny considering the great majority of our debt has been accrued with the intention of helping the needy and improving the quality of life for everyone involved with the promise of stability. Super Dude you bring up that a larger government is needed to handle the larger volume of information that needs to be processed on a national level but the ironic thing about that school of thought is that it fails to take into account that the larger an organization gets, especially one without natural self regulation and with a complex and convoluted chain of command and legislative process like that of the current state and federal government, the slower it responds to any type of crisis of the moment and the closer it comes to collapse. Saying that a very small government that never changes size can and will manage its duties in the face of an ever changing and growing world on a national level would be naive, however how does that relate to the funding of unsustainable and costly social programs?

If the government has failed thus far to provide a reasonable cost effective solution while being so intensely intertwined into the lives of everyone currently, why is the best solution to raise taxes and give them the ability for further oversight? It seems to me we either need to reform now with massive cuts in every area of spending, or to let the beast die as a decrepit bankrupt monster and begin anew.

[King Postwhore]

Another bad decision.  Yet he was re-elected for a second term??  Why?

Cause it's Massachusetts and Republicans are evil there.

And that's what scares me that people vote like that.  If a guy is that bad, vote for the alternative.  If it were me and a Republican was in office and was that bad, I'd vote For a Dem.

[orcus116]

Patrick would have to murder someone live on TV himself before the voters would even consider voting him out before a Republican. I remember his 06 campaign and he had supporters that rivaled Obama in terms of how hardcore they were.

[rumborak]

It seems like a cheap response, but the truth of the matter is their track record speaks for itself.

There's also the element that people aren't interested in actually making it work. All I see in US politics is playing local interests against each other. The idea of "compromise" almost doesn't exist in the current political vocabulary, it's really just pork-barreling and behind-the-scenes trades, and direct or indirect sabotage of the other players.
You can hate it all you want, but one of the reasons why China is going straight up is not just because of the number of people, but also because they combine their forces much more efficiently, and aren't caught up in internal power struggles all the time.
Is it surprising? Not really, the US is a victim of its own success. Every time you have a good situation for too long, internal strife develops. Things have to get worse before the public is willing to set the squabbles aside and work together again.

rumborak

[King Postwhore]

Patrick would have to murder someone live on TV himself before the voters would even consider voting him out before a Republican. I remember his 06 campaign and he had supporters that rivaled Obama in terms of how hardcore they were.

I know.  Plus most wanted him there because of the free handouts Mass gives and they didn't want a Rep to rock the boat.  

Also, Rumbo.  Well said.

[rumborak]

Patrick would have to murder someone live on TV himself before the voters would even consider voting him out before a Republican. I remember his 06 campaign and he had supporters that rivaled Obama in terms of how hardcore they were.

I thought the most recent Republican candidate was pretty good actually.

rumborak

[King Postwhore]

Patrick would have to murder someone live on TV himself before the voters would even consider voting him out before a Republican. I remember his 06 campaign and he had supporters that rivaled Obama in terms of how hardcore they were.

I thought the most recent Republican candidate was pretty good actually.

rumborak

Charlie Baker.  I did too.  It goes to show you how strong a groups political leanings are in certain areas.

[rumborak]

Well, in my case I still considered Patrick the better candidate. Baker had a few weird things in his agenda that I thought were inappropriate for the situation of Massachusetts. For example, you don't lower taxes if your state is in heavy debt.

rumborak

[King Postwhore]

Well, in my case I still considered Patrick the better candidate. Baker had a few weird things in his agenda that I thought were inappropriate for the situation of Massachusetts. For example, you don't lower taxes if your state is in heavy debt.

rumborak

I guess the best way to put it was that it was a close race in a strong Democratic state that showed it's displeasure.  We will now see if Patrick responds to that.

[PlaysLikeMyung]

Well, in my case I still considered Patrick the better candidate. Baker had a few weird things in his agenda that I thought were inappropriate for the situation of Massachusetts. For example, you don't lower taxes if your state is in heavy debt.

rumborak

But taxes are evil!

[Super Dude]

Well, in my case I still considered Patrick the better candidate. Baker had a few weird things in his agenda that I thought were inappropriate for the situation of Massachusetts. For example, you don't lower taxes if your state is in heavy debt.

rumborak

But taxes are evil!

No more taxes forever!