Property taxes, in general, reduce the amount of money that home-owners have to purchase houses. They are the exact inverse of a subsidy! Reducing that inverse is not a subsidy, it's just less of an anti-subsidy.
But that's an insane way to view subsidies. Because _any_ amount of money the government gives you for _any_ reason is "technically" an "income tax reduction". Tax rebates for energy efficient cars or solar power or whatnot: they're reducing your income tax to encourage some particular course of behavior. Just because they've reduced the amount they're taking from me doesn't mean they aren't "providing monetary assistance" in the way of a subsidy.
And in 'government subsides, the third party is 'the government', and this is usually done via taxes refunds, or via special loans.
Yet you seem to think that tax refunds for property tax and mortgage interest payments aren't subsidies? (http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2761449&cid=39561095). You seem to have a very specific definition in mind of "subsidy".
You know, it's astonishing how the government subsidizes medical care so much via those things that many doctors are refusing to accept them because they pay so poorly.
It's like a government subsidy, but with a negative charge! They're subsidizing things with anti-money!
Well then maybe we should stop spending half a trillion a year on it, caus' it certainly seems like real money to me (especially when it's being extracted from my paycheck).
I understand what you are saying, but continuing to refrain from taxing something is not really 'subsidizing' it.
Except that it is. Just as the American populace is subsidizing all those rich billionaires that are avoiding paying their fair share of taxes by exploiting tax loopholes. The mortgage subsidy is a significant subsidy towards homebuying. Anyone who has bought a house will easily contest to that. You can afford way more than you normally would be able to with that subsidy (like ~20-25% "more house").
Absolutely. You have a life-threatening condition, I have you in my hospital, therefore I can charge you whatever your life is worth for your care.
Not true. For one, that would only be true of emergency care (where you literally have no time). Secondly, you would never die, since EMTALA still exists -- at worst, you shirk on the bill. For all other healthcare concerns (which compromise the vast majority of our healthcare expenses), if one healthcare provider tells you to go to hell if you don't pay blackmail rates, you go to another -- believe it or not, someone will always be willing to take your money at a reasonable price. If not, there's either some massive conspiracy/collusion of every single doctor out there ("price fixing", which is already illegal in the US) --or-- there's artificial constraints (read: government) interfering with the market.
This isn't true in UHC countries like Canada or France or Sweden, so why would it be true in the U.S.? In UHC countries, annual per capita spending is around 55% of what it is in the U.S. (in 2010, $3,900 to $7,400), and they have better aggregate outcomes
Because that's an apples to oranges comparison and hardly fair. You're talking different cultures, different exercise habits, different diets, different stress levels, different population densities/sizes, etc, etc, etc. And Canada isn't even a great example of UHC, since it's program is implemented at the province/state level -- it's NOT a federal program. The "single payer insurer" in Canada is the province, not the federal government. Those provinces also have the option to opt out of the program and pay no federal taxes toward it. And there are a bunch of people in the US who have far less opposition to state single payer than federal.
As far as I understand Obama's proposed cutting the defense budget by 1% and you're calling that "draconian" when Ryan is calling to cut close to 100% out of three different social programs. Does that seem odd to you?
1%? Do you have facts to fact that up? All the reports I've read have indicated calls for around half a trillion over a decade, not counting the "automatic trigger" cuts that will hit defense spending in January. That's another half trillion. So A trillion divided by 10 years is 100 billion a year. If your 1% number was correct, that would mean our current annual defense budget is 10 trillion dollars.
You are attempting to justify the system as it stands now. Stop it.
If it makes ya feel better, I always vote third party. But I'm just saying -- a spendy Republican in office isn't quite as disastrous as a spendy Democrat.
On what, exactly? Seriously... look into it. Then a little deeper. You're almost there.
Let's see...bailouts that amounted to a gigantic handout to CEOs in the banking industry and stimulus that didn't stimulate. Seems to me that it was an equal waste of money in about a tenth of the time. Your turn...
It mentions the "other side" has a proposal to cut $4 trillion.
No, it mentions the Gang of Six has a plan to cut $4 trillion -- that gang is bi-partisan, half democrat and half republican. And they are not the same amount of reductions, since the Gang of Six plan is heavily reliant upon revenue increases rather than cuts (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/272274/ryan-dissects-gang-six-plan-andrew-stiles). The Ryan plan is 4 trillion in actual cuts, including tackling entitlement reform, something all politicians (even Obama) acknowledges is necessary to put a real dent in the deficit battle: (quote from my original article link: "lawmakers in both parties, and President Barack Obama, have said there is no way to make a significant dent in projected deficits without some action to overhaul Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid, which make up 60% of the budget.")
except the Republicans refuse to cut a single cent from defence
Which plan did you look at? The Ryan plan calls for half of the defense cuts requested by the Obama administration. So I hardly define that as "unwillingness to cut a single cent". They're willing to reduce defense spending, simply not by the draconian amounts Democrats want. On the other hand, I can make the statement that Democrats aren't willing to cut a single cent from entitlement programs. Because not a one has proposed any real reform of those programs yet.
tax cuts would overwhelmingly benefit the wealthiest Americans
Well it's not a perfect plan, but like I said before -- it's far better than what the other side has brought to the table. Entitlements need to be addressed.
I think the evidence favors the liberal viewpoint: during that entire 30 years, the distribution of wealth has gotten nothing but worse, every single year. Why shouldn't the liberals still be favoring expansion of government given that very basic fact?
Because a HUGE assumption is made there that this gap is increasing from lack of government rather than presence of government. Where do you think the subsidies comes from? Or the sweet tax loopholes? Or hell, do you think the bulk of social security money or medicare goes to people who need it? The elderly are, after all, the richest segment of our society: http://seniorliving.about.com/od/lawpolitics/a/senior_pop_demo.htm
"INCOME AND WEALTH
$108,885 - Median net worth in 2000 of households headed by seniors age 65 and older.
Householders under the age of 35 had a median household net worth of $7,240."
That's nearly 50% of our total tax bill transferring wealth from the poorest people (the sub 35 year old working class) to the richest people (the elderly). And you think that isn't a factor in the wealth gap?
It's ideological preconceptions that lead you to believe you need more government -- you've already assumed the cause of the wealth gap and the necessary fix. Hell, if I see government size increase for 30 years and see a corresponding rise in the income gap, my natural "initial conclusion" is to assume they're related, not the opposite (and that's especially true when it's been shown time and time again that politicians are in bed with corporations).
Nobody is arguing for blind faith in science. The important thing is to challenge scientific claims with evidence. No conservative bothers with evidence.
Sometimes it's the lack of evidence (or weakness of that data) that is making them question in the first place. Climate change, for instance, is based on very weak science -- why do opponents need to produce evidence of their own when they can simply state that your evidence is weak? It's like a religious person demanding a scientist provide evidence of the non-existence of God.
Liberals and conservatives are exactly the same when they get into office.
Not exactly the same. Liberals come with the added downside of potentially starting massive expensive handout programs that quickly become politically suicidal to get rid of or reform because dumb people like "free" money. At least the Republicans fuckups tend to be wars that end or tax cuts that are repealed or bills that are changed. We don't exactly have that luxury dealing with the aftermath of a liberal agenda. We can only pray the Supreme Court strikes down the healthcare bill. Because if not, I guarantee that thing will persist for a good 30+ years.
It's hard not to spend money when you inherit two wars and the biggest financial collapse since the Great Depression.
Actually, no it's not. But your ideological blinders will prevent you from seeing that. Or are you really going to tell me that fattening up those CEO's wallets with those bank bailouts truly was necessary?
Because the current government isn't doing enough to balance the social injustice created by poorly constrained capitalism.
And the OP's point is that in a liberal's mind, the "current government" is NEVER "doing enough" to balance the social injustice. At least in my 30+ years as I've watched government grow larger and larger and larger, I've yet to see a single liberal go "yup, we're close to where we need to be". It's always "we need more". At least the fiscal conservative/libertarian can look at the current situation and say "hey, X years ago the government was way smaller, things are getting out of control". The liberal can't say "hey, you guys have been slashing our benefits left and right for X years, we need more handouts!". This is why I find the fiscal conservative side more sensible -- because prevailing trends favor their argument whereas the liberals appear as if they'll never be happy until government controls everything.
Sounds to me that fiscal conservatism and social liberalism fit better as a whole with the Democratic party.
My personal experience at least has proven otherwise -- far more Republicans I know lean socially liberal than Dems I know that actually spend one iota thinking of cost/total picture before passing legislation. But I guess that's circumstantial.
For all that there is a strong valuing of "skepticism" in much of liberal thought, there is an inherent lack of it when it comes to experts.
That's just the tip of the iceberg. There's an inherent lack of it when it comes to anything other than religion. In fact, all the "skeptic meetings" I've gone to trying to find people of like mindsets have pretty much just been liberal atheists God-bashfests.
Are you fucking blind and deaf or how else did you miss all the evidence and models backing it up? Do I have to make a Google search for you? Are you going to tell me that until you can duplicate global warming in your very own Earth you aren't going to belive any of it?
So you're saying it's not reasonable to doubt a conclusion that:
- is not falsifiable
- lacks repeatability
- lacks constants
- is based on a small subset of data (comparable to "total climate history")
- etc/etc
This is far weaker "science" we're dealing with than "lab experimental" science, and we treat it as such.
I would argue the idiot wing of the left is not as bad as the idiot wing on the right. Not because they are lesser idiots, but because they have almost no political influence whereas the idiot wing on the right has a frightening amount of influence on American politics.
Really? Between bailouts and stimulus and healthcare, etc, etc, they passed nearly 3 trillion in legislation in 2 years (ya know, when they had complete control of government) -- considering the monumental size of these efforts, I believe you'd hard pressed to prove they didn't have influence. And given what a clusterfuck the bailouts were (see 99% movement), I find it hard to believe you can claim they aren't equally disastrous.
Slashdot Mirror
But that's an insane way to view subsidies. Because _any_ amount of money the government gives you for _any_ reason is "technically" an "income tax reduction". Tax rebates for energy efficient cars or solar power or whatnot: they're reducing your income tax to encourage some particular course of behavior. Just because they've reduced the amount they're taking from me doesn't mean they aren't "providing monetary assistance" in the way of a subsidy.
Yet you seem to think that tax refunds for property tax and mortgage interest payments aren't subsidies? (http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2761449&cid=39561095). You seem to have a very specific definition in mind of "subsidy".
Well then maybe we should stop spending half a trillion a year on it, caus' it certainly seems like real money to me (especially when it's being extracted from my paycheck).
Except that it is. Just as the American populace is subsidizing all those rich billionaires that are avoiding paying their fair share of taxes by exploiting tax loopholes. The mortgage subsidy is a significant subsidy towards homebuying. Anyone who has bought a house will easily contest to that. You can afford way more than you normally would be able to with that subsidy (like ~20-25% "more house").
Not true. For one, that would only be true of emergency care (where you literally have no time). Secondly, you would never die, since EMTALA still exists -- at worst, you shirk on the bill. For all other healthcare concerns (which compromise the vast majority of our healthcare expenses), if one healthcare provider tells you to go to hell if you don't pay blackmail rates, you go to another -- believe it or not, someone will always be willing to take your money at a reasonable price. If not, there's either some massive conspiracy/collusion of every single doctor out there ("price fixing", which is already illegal in the US) --or-- there's artificial constraints (read: government) interfering with the market.
Because that's an apples to oranges comparison and hardly fair. You're talking different cultures, different exercise habits, different diets, different stress levels, different population densities/sizes, etc, etc, etc. And Canada isn't even a great example of UHC, since it's program is implemented at the province/state level -- it's NOT a federal program. The "single payer insurer" in Canada is the province, not the federal government. Those provinces also have the option to opt out of the program and pay no federal taxes toward it. And there are a bunch of people in the US who have far less opposition to state single payer than federal.
1%? Do you have facts to fact that up? All the reports I've read have indicated calls for around half a trillion over a decade, not counting the "automatic trigger" cuts that will hit defense spending in January. That's another half trillion. So A trillion divided by 10 years is 100 billion a year. If your 1% number was correct, that would mean our current annual defense budget is 10 trillion dollars.
If it makes ya feel better, I always vote third party. But I'm just saying -- a spendy Republican in office isn't quite as disastrous as a spendy Democrat.
Let's see...bailouts that amounted to a gigantic handout to CEOs in the banking industry and stimulus that didn't stimulate. Seems to me that it was an equal waste of money in about a tenth of the time. Your turn...
No, it mentions the Gang of Six has a plan to cut $4 trillion -- that gang is bi-partisan, half democrat and half republican. And they are not the same amount of reductions, since the Gang of Six plan is heavily reliant upon revenue increases rather than cuts (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/272274/ryan-dissects-gang-six-plan-andrew-stiles). The Ryan plan is 4 trillion in actual cuts, including tackling entitlement reform, something all politicians (even Obama) acknowledges is necessary to put a real dent in the deficit battle: (quote from my original article link: "lawmakers in both parties, and President Barack Obama, have said there is no way to make a significant dent in projected deficits without some action to overhaul Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid, which make up 60% of the budget.")
Which plan did you look at? The Ryan plan calls for half of the defense cuts requested by the Obama administration. So I hardly define that as "unwillingness to cut a single cent". They're willing to reduce defense spending, simply not by the draconian amounts Democrats want. On the other hand, I can make the statement that Democrats aren't willing to cut a single cent from entitlement programs. Because not a one has proposed any real reform of those programs yet.
Well it's not a perfect plan, but like I said before -- it's far better than what the other side has brought to the table. Entitlements need to be addressed.
Hey, I'm not the one trying to claim money spent during my term of office was the fault of the guy before me. Look in the mirror, sir/maam.
Because a HUGE assumption is made there that this gap is increasing from lack of government rather than presence of government. Where do you think the subsidies comes from? Or the sweet tax loopholes? Or hell, do you think the bulk of social security money or medicare goes to people who need it? The elderly are, after all, the richest segment of our society: http://seniorliving.about.com/od/lawpolitics/a/senior_pop_demo.htm
"INCOME AND WEALTH
$108,885 - Median net worth in 2000 of households headed by seniors age 65 and older.
Householders under the age of 35 had a median household net worth of $7,240."
That's nearly 50% of our total tax bill transferring wealth from the poorest people (the sub 35 year old working class) to the richest people (the elderly). And you think that isn't a factor in the wealth gap?
It's ideological preconceptions that lead you to believe you need more government -- you've already assumed the cause of the wealth gap and the necessary fix. Hell, if I see government size increase for 30 years and see a corresponding rise in the income gap, my natural "initial conclusion" is to assume they're related, not the opposite (and that's especially true when it's been shown time and time again that politicians are in bed with corporations).
Fair enough, but it certainly gives us reason to not trust the results with the same degree of certainty that we do traditional empirical testing.
Sometimes it's the lack of evidence (or weakness of that data) that is making them question in the first place. Climate change, for instance, is based on very weak science -- why do opponents need to produce evidence of their own when they can simply state that your evidence is weak? It's like a religious person demanding a scientist provide evidence of the non-existence of God.
Have you ever thought that maybe, just maybe, your facts aren't as "solid" as you perceive them to be?
Not exactly the same. Liberals come with the added downside of potentially starting massive expensive handout programs that quickly become politically suicidal to get rid of or reform because dumb people like "free" money. At least the Republicans fuckups tend to be wars that end or tax cuts that are repealed or bills that are changed. We don't exactly have that luxury dealing with the aftermath of a liberal agenda. We can only pray the Supreme Court strikes down the healthcare bill. Because if not, I guarantee that thing will persist for a good 30+ years.
You do realize that Obama spent more in his first year than the entire 10+ year cost of the Iraq war?
Ummm, 4 trillion in cuts is "maintain a permanent deficit"? http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703806304576240751124518520.html
It's certainly a hell of alot more than the other side is bringing to the table.
Actually, no it's not. But your ideological blinders will prevent you from seeing that. Or are you really going to tell me that fattening up those CEO's wallets with those bank bailouts truly was necessary?
And the OP's point is that in a liberal's mind, the "current government" is NEVER "doing enough" to balance the social injustice. At least in my 30+ years as I've watched government grow larger and larger and larger, I've yet to see a single liberal go "yup, we're close to where we need to be". It's always "we need more". At least the fiscal conservative/libertarian can look at the current situation and say "hey, X years ago the government was way smaller, things are getting out of control". The liberal can't say "hey, you guys have been slashing our benefits left and right for X years, we need more handouts!". This is why I find the fiscal conservative side more sensible -- because prevailing trends favor their argument whereas the liberals appear as if they'll never be happy until government controls everything.
My personal experience at least has proven otherwise -- far more Republicans I know lean socially liberal than Dems I know that actually spend one iota thinking of cost/total picture before passing legislation. But I guess that's circumstantial.
How's that self-serving bias working out for you?
That's just the tip of the iceberg. There's an inherent lack of it when it comes to anything other than religion. In fact, all the "skeptic meetings" I've gone to trying to find people of like mindsets have pretty much just been liberal atheists God-bashfests.
So you're saying it's not reasonable to doubt a conclusion that:
- is not falsifiable
- lacks repeatability
- lacks constants
- is based on a small subset of data (comparable to "total climate history")
- etc/etc
This is far weaker "science" we're dealing with than "lab experimental" science, and we treat it as such.
Not all Science is testable and repeatable (see global warming).
Really? Between bailouts and stimulus and healthcare, etc, etc, they passed nearly 3 trillion in legislation in 2 years (ya know, when they had complete control of government) -- considering the monumental size of these efforts, I believe you'd hard pressed to prove they didn't have influence. And given what a clusterfuck the bailouts were (see 99% movement), I find it hard to believe you can claim they aren't equally disastrous.