*sigh* Koz, you can yell "there is no money! I really mean it!!" as often as you'd like. The problem is it is empirically not true. We can see this is not true because we can see examples of countries where there is literally no money. Greece, for instance, has pretty much no money. They don't make it themselves, they have astronomically high tax rates and enormous entitlements and outlay commitments. On top of that their economy and populace is so dysfunctional that it is virtually impossible for them to collect more than what they're collecting now, or at least not in any politically plausible manner. In Greece there is no money. The United States is not Greece. The tax rates are low, there's lots of room for them to rise. The tax system and economic system is sound. Tax evasion is a problem but it is not endemic. The money is there. The government could take it (a note, I strongly oppose raising taxes alone enough to cover the deficit, such a move would be economically dangerous). Yes, in some states and municipalities, there is very little money that's easily or politically feasibly collectable (Ca springs to mind) and obviously someone is going to have to tell the electorate there to face the music but this is a side show. Even in CA there is not a titanic amount of change needed to fix their finances, the economy is there to tax, the programs are there to cut, the state can do it.
And of course finally there is the printing press. Do you hear the bedlam? That's the sound of every invesor in the world begging the US to print them dollars and begging the Treasury to sell them bonds (at negative effective interest rates!) the money is there. This is not a situation that can last, obviously, and I certainly don't think a blasé indifference to the fundamentals of the country's finances would allow this favorable market to go on forever (some other large economy in the world is eventually going to get its act together) but at the moment, yes Koz, the money is there.
We can see states where "there is no money". The US is not one of those states. The US financial crisis is an artificially manufactured one produced in Washington by politicians playing politics. A green eye shadow accountant could balance the budget in twenty minutes; hell the newspapers had apps out to let you balance it yourself not long ago. You can bet the Italy, Spain or Greece's politicians would sell their children into penury to be in our shoes with only artificial debt problems to deal with. Over and over the Democrats have reluctantly (very reluctantly) allowed that cuts are needed hither and yon. Over and over the GOP has done much as you have; covering their ears and shrieking "there is no money" but it's not true no matter how much they or you repeat it. Just like you they're probably going to have to face up to the fact that revenues are going to have to rise even as expenses get cut. This is a simple fact, there is no constituency in the country for a 100% cut based solution to the problem. The party of old white government program (retirement and healthcare) dependant voters is not going to do enforce this. Neither is their opposition.
Except, of course, the memo you’re positing is flat out wrong. The US is taking in historically low amounts of revenue for instance, 1940's levels in fact. If tax revenue was increased even to 2000 levels then that'd be a significant amount of money. Or, if raising taxes doesn’t work for you there is always borrowing: investors are currently –paying the US government to take their money- by accepting treasury bonds that pay zero interest (once you factor in inflation it’s a negative return). So the memo is flat out wrong.
I’d hazard that the memo more accurately says “Some of the money is there, but people want to know which way you’re going to collect it and what you’re going to cut to make up the difference so they know what to expect. Sort the politics out!” And in the case of that memo I’d say the dems and the GOP are respectively only getting half the memo each.
Everyone makes an assortment of mistakes. No surprise there. He's had his share of hits as well as misses. Oh I checked and you recall partically correctly. Coburn supported the plan and every single other republican on the comittee opposed it, so the original point stands.
Last I heard Obama was graciously letting the GOP nomination process have the limelight. He's giving that way. Heh.
Jay, I used to think that myself. I went from "Surely someone pays him to say this" to "Noone would pay him to say this" to "this is performance art" but I finally settled on "No artist is this comitted to a role; this dude's believes what he writes."
Hogwash. Coburn flat out stated the plan was going nowhere because it included tax increases and Ryan voted against it. They didn't change their tune until Obama abandoned the thing. For the record I consider abandoning his own deficit plan one of Obama's biggest errors in his presidency.
Obviously I'm no fan of republicans, sure, but mainly because I find them incoherent. As for me personally? My preferred policies would be generally what was proposed by Obama's deficit comission: taxes increased with loopholes eliminated and simplification (which would result in a lower numeric tax rate but a higher amount of revenue generated by said tax); reforms to entitlements, a vigerous cut to defense spending etc.
My pragmatic policy preferences (recognizing that no politician in the arena at the moment wants what the deficit comission proposed) are the natural expiration of the Bush tax cuts, the mandatory sequestrations from the debt ceiling showdown and then we'll have to see where we stand vis a vis the deficit at the point.
I'm pretty sure that was common knowledge round these parts.
Roger if you gleaned from anything I wrote that I'm in favor of some non-economic force compelling the devolution of our argricultual sector into small farms then I apologize but you've misread me.
As Mike has pointed out with the example of microbreweries there are a great number of niche markets that large farms and agricultural conglomerates simply don't notice and tend to pave over. Those are valuable niches for heritage, biodiversity, cultural and economic reasons. I'd submit that if we remove agricultural the odds seem good that more of these niches would be discovered to the general benefit of everyone involved.
I must protest that I'm not caricaturing anything and the post you've referenced is one of Koz's standard lines of arguement. I didn't mean to imply it's one I've seen you deploy since to my feeble recollection you haven't.
Koz, I am not literally quoting you but I'm nigh on doing the next best thing. Our arguements always go like this.
You assert deficit reduction is a priority.
I observe that multiple deficit reduction options were presented which included tax increases and spending cuts.
You switch suddenly to unemployment concerns, ruling tax increases unacceptable because it'll not help with unemployment.
This is your classic response, so I'm not making this arguement up, it's what you have yourself asserted. Now maybe this trick works somewhere with someone but it doesn't hold water with me and I don't think it holds water with anyone else around here either.
My own humble two cents: Tom does have a strong tendency to duck and weave when arguing; he does have a penchant for strategically deploying a cloud of indignation with complaints of discourtesy or accusation that everyone is dishonestly liberally biased and similar such complaints. This can be annoying.
That said he's also an erudite and clever writer, has a good sense of humor and is full of interesting anecdotes and stories. Yes, he can be huffy and he will stick you with a shiv in a debate one moment and then swoon onto the fainting couch the next but on balance he's a good gentleman to have around (so are you incidentally) if for no other reason than to present his alternative points of view.
Also I have a huge crush on his gigantic sunglasses logo (strictly platonic I assure you Tom) which is rivaled only by my tendency to stare at Jaybirds cat picture logos like a mesmerized gecko.
There really are a lot of reasons. Diversified smaller farms are good for rural economies and communities and increase the vibrancy of city peripheries. They can draw tourism via u-pick and bed'n breakfast setups. As Mike noted they promote crop diversity and broad scale farming which is less vulnerable to weather phenomena, biological black swans and also reduces transportation costs. Also while small farmers in general are a favorite stump icon for politicians they don't generally lobby very effectively unlike major agribusinesses so they'd improve the odds of us getting US agriculture in general off of the abomination of public subsidy. This in turn suggests hopes of toppling king corn off his perch in the American diet with all the fallout of improved health outcomes that promises.
Blaise, you might be interested in this article from the Atlantic. Podponics; a company in GA is actually making money and operating as a going concern by using old shipping containers to grow lettuce much like you mused. Personally I'm all for it, hydroponic and high density farming has enormous economic and ecological promise.
I'd say there's probably a need for both corporate farms and high end niche local farms. It needn't be an either/or proposition (especially in the US with its crazy oodles of arable land).
Who else would you says is reliably left wing? E.D. is the roaming comet in the League solar system but most of the others, while having occasional left wing views, run more libertarian than liberal.
"Deficits are important, we have to decrease the deficits!!!" Okay then lets cut spending and raise taxes.
"But that'll increase unemployment." I thought you said deficits were what were important? If you wanna cut the deficit you need to cut spending and raise taxes. If your primary concern is employment then keeping taxes lower and spending the same is the better route.
"No, we need to cut deficits and lower unemployment now." Okay and how do you propose we do that?
"Cut taxes on wealthy individuals and slash government spending by astronomical amounts! Lay off government employees, decrease government assistance to poor people!" But that'll increase unemployment, a lot! Laying off public servants increases unemployment; poverty assistance programs are some of the most quickly spent dollars in the market so slashing them also causes unemployement, giving more taxes to the wealthy in this market may help a little but with things so unsettled they're more likely to just park it under a mattress or in government treasury bonds. If unemployment is your primary concern then this would be contrary to that goal.
"We have to reduce the size of the government!" Wait, what? Where did that come from??
Heck, both Frum and Bartlette were heaved from conservative dominated instututions not even for being liberal but merely for being inadequately crackpot right-wingy.
I'm not unfond of Stannis mostly because I was more fond of the older generation than their children which leaves Stannis sortof a last man standing. Plus ya gotta respect his stubborn lawfulness.
I suppose it depends on what we're talking about... if I were choosing a GOP nominee well then sure, Ron Paul is great! Certainly better than the rest of em. If he were running against Obama? Well personally I can't really afford a compliant Paul presidency with a GOP majority so of course I'd pick Obama. Maybe if the Dems were going to pick up the house I'd entertain the possability for the sake of novelty.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “I’ll Be the First to Admit I’m Biased…”
*sigh* Koz, you can yell "there is no money! I really mean it!!" as often as you'd like. The problem is it is empirically not true. We can see this is not true because we can see examples of countries where there is literally no money. Greece, for instance, has pretty much no money. They don't make it themselves, they have astronomically high tax rates and enormous entitlements and outlay commitments. On top of that their economy and populace is so dysfunctional that it is virtually impossible for them to collect more than what they're collecting now, or at least not in any politically plausible manner. In Greece there is no money. The United States is not Greece. The tax rates are low, there's lots of room for them to rise. The tax system and economic system is sound. Tax evasion is a problem but it is not endemic. The money is there. The government could take it (a note, I strongly oppose raising taxes alone enough to cover the deficit, such a move would be economically dangerous). Yes, in some states and municipalities, there is very little money that's easily or politically feasibly collectable (Ca springs to mind) and obviously someone is going to have to tell the electorate there to face the music but this is a side show. Even in CA there is not a titanic amount of change needed to fix their finances, the economy is there to tax, the programs are there to cut, the state can do it.
And of course finally there is the printing press. Do you hear the bedlam? That's the sound of every invesor in the world begging the US to print them dollars and begging the Treasury to sell them bonds (at negative effective interest rates!) the money is there. This is not a situation that can last, obviously, and I certainly don't think a blasé indifference to the fundamentals of the country's finances would allow this favorable market to go on forever (some other large economy in the world is eventually going to get its act together) but at the moment, yes Koz, the money is there.
We can see states where "there is no money". The US is not one of those states. The US financial crisis is an artificially manufactured one produced in Washington by politicians playing politics. A green eye shadow accountant could balance the budget in twenty minutes; hell the newspapers had apps out to let you balance it yourself not long ago. You can bet the Italy, Spain or Greece's politicians would sell their children into penury to be in our shoes with only artificial debt problems to deal with. Over and over the Democrats have reluctantly (very reluctantly) allowed that cuts are needed hither and yon. Over and over the GOP has done much as you have; covering their ears and shrieking "there is no money" but it's not true no matter how much they or you repeat it. Just like you they're probably going to have to face up to the fact that revenues are going to have to rise even as expenses get cut. This is a simple fact, there is no constituency in the country for a 100% cut based solution to the problem. The party of old white government program (retirement and healthcare) dependant voters is not going to do enforce this. Neither is their opposition.
"
Except, of course, the memo you’re positing is flat out wrong. The US is taking in historically low amounts of revenue for instance, 1940's levels in fact. If tax revenue was increased even to 2000 levels then that'd be a significant amount of money. Or, if raising taxes doesn’t work for you there is always borrowing: investors are currently –paying the US government to take their money- by accepting treasury bonds that pay zero interest (once you factor in inflation it’s a negative return). So the memo is flat out wrong.
I’d hazard that the memo more accurately says “Some of the money is there, but people want to know which way you’re going to collect it and what you’re going to cut to make up the difference so they know what to expect. Sort the politics out!” And in the case of that memo I’d say the dems and the GOP are respectively only getting half the memo each.
"
Everyone makes an assortment of mistakes. No surprise there. He's had his share of hits as well as misses. Oh I checked and you recall partically correctly. Coburn supported the plan and every single other republican on the comittee opposed it, so the original point stands.
Last I heard Obama was graciously letting the GOP nomination process have the limelight. He's giving that way. Heh.
"
Jay, I used to think that myself. I went from "Surely someone pays him to say this" to "Noone would pay him to say this" to "this is performance art" but I finally settled on "No artist is this comitted to a role; this dude's believes what he writes."
"
Hogwash. Coburn flat out stated the plan was going nowhere because it included tax increases and Ryan voted against it. They didn't change their tune until Obama abandoned the thing. For the record I consider abandoning his own deficit plan one of Obama's biggest errors in his presidency.
"
It's important to understand that Republicans don't fail, they're only failed.
"
Obviously I'm no fan of republicans, sure, but mainly because I find them incoherent. As for me personally? My preferred policies would be generally what was proposed by Obama's deficit comission: taxes increased with loopholes eliminated and simplification (which would result in a lower numeric tax rate but a higher amount of revenue generated by said tax); reforms to entitlements, a vigerous cut to defense spending etc.
My pragmatic policy preferences (recognizing that no politician in the arena at the moment wants what the deficit comission proposed) are the natural expiration of the Bush tax cuts, the mandatory sequestrations from the debt ceiling showdown and then we'll have to see where we stand vis a vis the deficit at the point.
I'm pretty sure that was common knowledge round these parts.
On “Sic Semper Tyrannis!”
If you'll excuse me I am overdue to stick a barbed pin into my Mark Penn vodoo doll.
On “Farmers Forging Partnerships”
Roger if you gleaned from anything I wrote that I'm in favor of some non-economic force compelling the devolution of our argricultual sector into small farms then I apologize but you've misread me.
As Mike has pointed out with the example of microbreweries there are a great number of niche markets that large farms and agricultural conglomerates simply don't notice and tend to pave over. Those are valuable niches for heritage, biodiversity, cultural and economic reasons. I'd submit that if we remove agricultural the odds seem good that more of these niches would be discovered to the general benefit of everyone involved.
On “I’ll Be the First to Admit I’m Biased…”
Of course Tom, you're welcome.
I must protest that I'm not caricaturing anything and the post you've referenced is one of Koz's standard lines of arguement. I didn't mean to imply it's one I've seen you deploy since to my feeble recollection you haven't.
"
Koz, I am not literally quoting you but I'm nigh on doing the next best thing. Our arguements always go like this.
You assert deficit reduction is a priority.
I observe that multiple deficit reduction options were presented which included tax increases and spending cuts.
You switch suddenly to unemployment concerns, ruling tax increases unacceptable because it'll not help with unemployment.
This is your classic response, so I'm not making this arguement up, it's what you have yourself asserted. Now maybe this trick works somewhere with someone but it doesn't hold water with me and I don't think it holds water with anyone else around here either.
"
My own humble two cents: Tom does have a strong tendency to duck and weave when arguing; he does have a penchant for strategically deploying a cloud of indignation with complaints of discourtesy or accusation that everyone is dishonestly liberally biased and similar such complaints. This can be annoying.
That said he's also an erudite and clever writer, has a good sense of humor and is full of interesting anecdotes and stories. Yes, he can be huffy and he will stick you with a shiv in a debate one moment and then swoon onto the fainting couch the next but on balance he's a good gentleman to have around (so are you incidentally) if for no other reason than to present his alternative points of view.
Also I have a huge crush on his gigantic sunglasses logo (strictly platonic I assure you Tom) which is rivaled only by my tendency to stare at Jaybirds cat picture logos like a mesmerized gecko.
On “Farmers Forging Partnerships”
There really are a lot of reasons. Diversified smaller farms are good for rural economies and communities and increase the vibrancy of city peripheries. They can draw tourism via u-pick and bed'n breakfast setups. As Mike noted they promote crop diversity and broad scale farming which is less vulnerable to weather phenomena, biological black swans and also reduces transportation costs. Also while small farmers in general are a favorite stump icon for politicians they don't generally lobby very effectively unlike major agribusinesses so they'd improve the odds of us getting US agriculture in general off of the abomination of public subsidy. This in turn suggests hopes of toppling king corn off his perch in the American diet with all the fallout of improved health outcomes that promises.
"
Oh.. yeah the link: http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2011/10/is-this-the-future-of-farming/247391/
"
Blaise, you might be interested in this article from the Atlantic. Podponics; a company in GA is actually making money and operating as a going concern by using old shipping containers to grow lettuce much like you mused. Personally I'm all for it, hydroponic and high density farming has enormous economic and ecological promise.
"
I'd say there's probably a need for both corporate farms and high end niche local farms. It needn't be an either/or proposition (especially in the US with its crazy oodles of arable land).
"
Or maybe they'll go to war over bacon access. In Israel they fight over water so imagine what they'd do to each other over bacon.
On “I’ll Be the First to Admit I’m Biased…”
Who else would you says is reliably left wing? E.D. is the roaming comet in the League solar system but most of the others, while having occasional left wing views, run more libertarian than liberal.
"
Ah yes, the standard bait and switch shuffle.
"Deficits are important, we have to decrease the deficits!!!" Okay then lets cut spending and raise taxes.
"But that'll increase unemployment." I thought you said deficits were what were important? If you wanna cut the deficit you need to cut spending and raise taxes. If your primary concern is employment then keeping taxes lower and spending the same is the better route.
"No, we need to cut deficits and lower unemployment now." Okay and how do you propose we do that?
"Cut taxes on wealthy individuals and slash government spending by astronomical amounts! Lay off government employees, decrease government assistance to poor people!" But that'll increase unemployment, a lot! Laying off public servants increases unemployment; poverty assistance programs are some of the most quickly spent dollars in the market so slashing them also causes unemployement, giving more taxes to the wealthy in this market may help a little but with things so unsettled they're more likely to just park it under a mattress or in government treasury bonds. If unemployment is your primary concern then this would be contrary to that goal.
"We have to reduce the size of the government!" Wait, what? Where did that come from??
On “The Tort of Political Discrimination”
Fair enuff, I stand corrected.
"
Heck, both Frum and Bartlette were heaved from conservative dominated instututions not even for being liberal but merely for being inadequately crackpot right-wingy.
On “Ron Paul Would Be Worse For Civil Liberties And Peace Than Obama”
Ditto
On “The Winds of Winter Sample Chapter”
I'm not unfond of Stannis mostly because I was more fond of the older generation than their children which leaves Stannis sortof a last man standing. Plus ya gotta respect his stubborn lawfulness.
On “Enough Already with the Ron Paul This and the Ron Paul That”
Agreed Katherine.
On “Why I Support Ron Paul”
I suppose it depends on what we're talking about... if I were choosing a GOP nominee well then sure, Ron Paul is great! Certainly better than the rest of em. If he were running against Obama? Well personally I can't really afford a compliant Paul presidency with a GOP majority so of course I'd pick Obama. Maybe if the Dems were going to pick up the house I'd entertain the possability for the sake of novelty.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.