|
Armyman25 posted:The effect of NAFTA on the textile industry was huge. For about 5 years, maybe. After that both Mexico and the US lost textile jobs to China. Without NAFTA the jobs would have gone straight to China, so NAFTA effectively accelerated what was going to happen anyway.
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2014 05:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 07:54 |
|
|
Lee Harvey Oswald posted:So my state, Tennessee, is one of 22 states calling for a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget. There's no way this bullshit passes, right, even if a Republican wins in 2016? We have one in Minnesota. A couple of years ago the state had to shut down to meet budget goals. It's been that way for a long time. Edit: You mean for the national budget? I thought you were talking about state level stuff.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2014 05:42
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure that a majority of states have BBAs or, at least, laws. I'm pretty sure he was talking national. National BBA (except during time or war or national emergency) wouldn't be such a bad idea if we could get defense spending down to a reasonable level. We can't though and we're never really at peace these days so whoever would want to violate it basically could with impunity. Cliff Racer fucked around with this message at 08:15 on Mar 8, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2014 08:13
|
|
|
National balanced budgets would be an outright disaster, imagine the debt ceiling standoff stomping on a human face...forever. Even ignoring that the budget doesnt need to be balanced every FY to "balance" the budget now would be such a contraction it'd throw us back into true recession. I'm mixed on state level balanced budgets. I want to say 2/3 of the state's have them. On the one hand, states have little control over macro level fiscal, monetary, and economic forces. When I was getting my MPA I was often butting heads with people over the issue. The system as is works about okay during "normal" times but so much pain at the local level is because states and municipalities have had to impose austerity due to a drying up of stimulus (and then GOP reaction). Another issue is the credit agencies, who will pounce on any state or city because they're inherently based against governmental institutions.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2014 08:42
|
|
|
Yeah, balanced budget states tend to end up doing just ok during good years, and massively hosed over during bad years. While the non-balanced budget states have a lot more leeway both to react during bad years, and to stockpile improvements during good years.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2014 16:56
|
|
|
Balanced budget states can just cook the books via TIFS, municipal corporations, etc...
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2014 20:13
|
|
|
notthegoatseguy posted:Balanced budget states can just cook the books via TIFS, municipal corporations, etc... How is a TIF "cooking the books", at least with regards to a budget balance? The outlays of a TIF can't exceed the increment captured. It's not like it's a sneaky kind of borrowing mechanism.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2014 20:20
|
|
|
Doesn't Colorado's balanced budget law totally gently caress their schools and infrastructure?
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2014 21:16
|
|
|
Swan Oat posted:Doesn't Colorado's balanced budget law totally gently caress their schools and infrastructure? Yep! Also the "taxpayer bill of rights" bullshit that further requires that you can't raise taxes or spending above the rate of inflation without passing a (possibly 2/3?) majority ballot referendum. Luckily for Colorado at least some of its road infrastructure gets more federal spending then usual like the major mountain pass roads and tunnels.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2014 21:21
|
|
|
Swan Oat posted:Doesn't Colorado's balanced budget law totally gently caress their schools and infrastructure? Is there a balance budget law that doesn't totally gently caress schools and infrastructure? Just can't afford to train future workers or maintain the things keeping us from returning to candles and ox carts. Not and push through these vital tax cuts, that's for sure.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2014 21:42
|
|
|
Swan Oat posted:Doesn't Colorado's balanced budget law totally gently caress their schools and infrastructure? It totally does, TABOR doesn't help. In Colorado's case education is getting a kind of half super liberal half libertarian boost by pouring money into education from legalized weed taxes. It's not enough, but its a good start that finds a middle ground to raise funding between the conservative mountain folk and more liberal people who claim not to mind taxes until they have to pay them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2014 23:17
|
|
|
pig slut lisa posted:How is a TIF "cooking the books", at least with regards to a budget balance? The outlays of a TIF can't exceed the increment captured. It's not like it's a sneaky kind of borrowing mechanism. It is if you use wildly optimistic math to "estimate" (make up a huge loving number) the future intake and then make outlays based on those pie-in-the-sky figures. It operates on a similar principle to the  curve - instead of a flat tax cut, it's a portion being given back (as totally-not-quid-pro-quo to
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2014 23:19
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:It is if you use wildly optimistic math to "estimate" (make up a huge loving number) the future intake and then make outlays based on those pie-in-the-sky figures. It operates on a similar principle to the TIF outlays don't come from estimated future revenues. Sure the administrative body can overassess the property within the TIF, but that's a separate question from whether it can capture the anticipated revenue before reassessment actually occurs (which: it can't).
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2014 23:35
|
|
|
pig slut lisa posted:TIF outlays don't come from estimated future revenues. Sure the administrative body can overassess the property within the TIF, but that's a separate question from whether it can capture the anticipated revenue before reassessment actually occurs (which: it can't). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax-increment_financing posted:TIF creates funding for public or private projects by borrowing against the future increase in these property-tax revenues. Which is why California stopped pulling that poo poo - there's a bunch of places underwater on this scam because it turns out those revenues weren't the unicorn glitter and rainbows they were planned to be. Also in that article: specific, named examples where this poo poo basically funnels tax revenue into developer bank accounts while leaving the municipality scrambling to find room in the budget for services needed/rendered as a result of the development, I.e. an apartment block or housing subdivision. FAUXTON fucked around with this message at 07:26 on Mar 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2014 07:21
|
|
|
Cliff Racer posted:I'm pretty sure that a majority of states have BBAs or, at least, laws. I'm pretty sure he was talking national. It really would be a bad idea. Even ignoring the need for peacetime counter-cyclical spending, you want an average deficit that's approximately equal to economic growth, and even larger than that if the debt to GDP ratio has room to grow. Running no deficit would pay off the debt relative to GDP over time.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2014 13:40
|
|
|
The only way a balanced budget for a government can actually work, is if we open the balancing timescale to something on the order of 20-25 years. However, we have no way to meaningfully do that. Worse then balanced budget in itself though, is thing's like Oregon's "kicker" which makes building up long term surpluses impossible, since when there's a surplus over 2% the excess money must be immediately returned as tax refunds.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2014 17:03
|
|
|
Winkie01 posted:Bernie Sanders "I Am Prepared to Run for President of the United States" I really, really hope Bernie Sanders runs for president in 2016. I also hope that he will run as an independent or 3rd-party candidate and not as a Democrat. As a sitting member of the United States Senate, he is in a perfect position to challenge the legitimacy of the 2-party system. An independent or third party presidential campaign by United States Senator Bernie Sanders could not possibly be ignored by the major media outlets, right? And United States Senator Bernie Sanders would have to be included in the general election presidential debates, right? The exclusion of a sitting United States Senator from the general election presidential debates would be far more of an outrage than the exclusion of Ralph Nader! There is so much potential for a Bernie Sanders presidential campaign to serve as a cornerstone for the development of a viable and lasting leftist challenge to the 2-party system! I think it would be great if Sanders could convince some of the most progressive members of the United States Congress to split from the Democrats and join him in forming a new leftist political party. I would hope that such an endeavor would be supported by some of the existing leftist groups in the United States and by parts of the organized labor movement. The chance that a Sanders independent or 3rd-party presidential campaign could function as a launching point for a major long-term leftist political movement that challenges the 2-party system seems to me like it could be worth the risk of indirectly bringing about some victories for the Republicans in 2016.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2014 23:50
|
|
|
Third parties are not stable in the American system, and Sanders has no chance of being taken seriously as a candidate. Don't get your hopes up.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2014 23:59
|
|
|
Math Debater posted:I really, really hope Bernie Sanders runs for president in 2016. I also hope that he will run as an independent or 3rd-party candidate and not as a Democrat. As a sitting member of the United States Senate, he is in a perfect position to challenge the legitimacy of the 2-party system. An independent or third party presidential campaign by United States Senator Bernie Sanders could not possibly be ignored by the major media outlets, right? And United States Senator Bernie Sanders would have to be included in the general election presidential debates, right? The exclusion of a sitting United States Senator from the general election presidential debates would be far more of an outrage than the exclusion of Ralph Nader! Wrong - being the junior Senator from Vermont does not make you any more viable either in the media's eyes or in reality, nor any more entertaining, and therefore the major impetuses to cover an independent Sanders campaign or allow him into the general election debates simply aren't present. Plus, didn't Sanders say he would run as a Democrat?
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 00:15
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:Plus, didn't Sanders say he would run as a Democrat? Doesn't Sanders say in that article in The Nation that he hasn't decided whether he would prefer to run as a Democrat or as an independent?
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 00:20
|
|
|
Math Debater posted:I really, really hope Bernie Sanders runs for president in 2016. I also hope that he will run as an independent or 3rd-party candidate and not as a Democrat. As a sitting member of the United States Senate, he is in a perfect position to challenge the legitimacy of the 2-party system. An independent or third party presidential campaign by United States Senator Bernie Sanders could not possibly be ignored by the major media outlets, right? And United States Senator Bernie Sanders would have to be included in the general election presidential debates, right? The exclusion of a sitting United States Senator from the general election presidential debates would be far more of an outrage than the exclusion of Ralph Nader! Hahaha, what site did you get that from?
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 00:24
|
|
|
Math Debater posted:Doesn't Sanders say in that article in The Nation that he hasn't decided whether he would prefer to run as a Democrat or as an independent? He waffles, but he's really down on the hurdles that come with running as an indpendent. If he runs as a Democrat, he's at least going to get in the primary debates. It's basically all upside for him running as a Democrat.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 00:25
|
|
|
Math Debater posted:And United States Senator Bernie Sanders would have to be included in the general election presidential debates, right? Bernie will get a lot more bang for his buck running in the Democratic Primary, he's not any more likely to become President but it will give him a full year to be the pre-eminent gadfly (at least intellectually) to Hillary while the media desperately tries to turn a landslide into a contest. In the general he'll just be drowned out by the traditional blue vs. red narrative.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 00:27
|
|
|
He's basically a Democrat at this point anyway - he even fundraises for DSCC.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 00:28
|
|
|
Since I want the Democrats to win, I really hope Sarah Palin runs for president as a third-party candidate. Unfortunately the American electoral system means that a candidate who wants to effect change has to go through the primaries or just create a spoiler effect.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 00:30
|
|
|
AATREK CURES KIDS posted:Since I want the Democrats to win, I really hope Sarah Palin runs for president as a third-party candidate. Unfortunately the American electoral system means that a candidate who wants to effect change has to go through the primaries or just create a spoiler effect. Or run for a powerful position that isn't POTUS. You know, like a Senate seat.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 00:36
|
|
|
Okay, well Sanders suggests in that Nation article that the United States may be in need of a "political revolution." Are these the words of a Democrat? Is Sanders just posturing? I really am unsure of where Sanders truly stands on the political spectrum. But I am so vehemently opposed to the political status quo in the U.S. and to both major American parties that I would like for Sanders to burn his bridges with the Democrats completely and become more of a George Galloway-esque combative leftist firebrand. Anyone who's really serious about wanting to have a "political revolution" in the United States should not be phased by "spoiler" rhetoric and shouldn't wring their hands about the possibility of the lesser-evil party being defeated by the greater-evil party.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 00:40
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:Or run for a powerful position that isn't POTUS. You know, like a Senate seat. Right, good point. Math Debater posted:Anyone who's really serious about wanting to have a "political revolution" in the United States should not be phased by "spoiler" rhetoric and shouldn't wring their hands about the possibility of the lesser-evil party being defeated by the greater-evil party. 100,000 dead Iraqis would be inclined to disagree with this logic.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 00:42
|
|
|
Math Debater posted:Okay, well Sanders suggests in that Nation article that the United States may be in need of a "political revolution." Are these the words of a Democrat? Is Sanders just posturing? Perhaps if he tries hard enough he can become as influential in American politics as Ron Paul!
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 00:42
|
|
|
Math Debater posted:Okay, well Sanders suggests in that Nation article that the United States may be in need of a "political revolution." Are these the words of a Democrat? Is Sanders just posturing? Your interpretation of Sanders's politics based on one phrase is wildly incongruous with his actual behavior as a federal elected official.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 00:43
|
|
|
AATREK CURES KIDS posted:100,000 dead Iraqis would be inclined to disagree with this logic. Yeah, well I may be inclined to believe that the advancement of a revolutionary movement to defeat capitalism in the United States and throughout the world would be worth risking the deaths of millions of people for. Edit: So, uh, yeah, I really hope Sanders chooses the more radical option of running as an independent or third party candidate instead of running as a Democrat! If he insists on running as a Democrat, I would at least like for him to continue his campaign as an independent or 3rd party candidate after he inevitably is not nominated as the Democratic presidential candidate. Math Debater fucked around with this message at 01:06 on Mar 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 01:01
|
|
|
Math Debater posted:Yeah, well I may be inclined to believe that the advancement of a revolutionary movement to defeat capitalism in the United States and throughout the world would be worth risking the deaths of millions of people for. When you put it like that, who wouldn't be with you? Other than the millions of dead, of course. quote:Edit: So, uh, yeah, I really hope Sanders chooses the more radical option of running as an independent or third party candidate instead of running as a Democrat! If he insists on running as a Democrat, I would at least like for him to continue his campaign as an independent or 3rd party candidate after he inevitably is not nominated as the Democratic presidential candidate. If you want a crazy amazing show as Bernie fights the power live at the debates, you want him to run as a Republican. If you want to bring down the two party system then you've got to build a new part from the local positions up, finally capping your decades long struggle off with a presidential win. Of course then there will be a party realignment with one of the existing parties going the way of the Wigs and you being a proud member of half the viable US political parties.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 01:14
|
|
|
AATREK CURES KIDS posted:100,000 dead Iraqis would be inclined to disagree with this logic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution#Passage 40% of house democrats and nearly 60% of senate democrats voted to kill those 100,000 Iraqis.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 01:16
|
|
|
A third party is a pipe dream. Sanders, if he runs, will run as a democrat as the whole point of his candidacy is moving the democrats to the left.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 01:19
|
|
|
AATREK CURES KIDS posted:Since I want the Democrats to win, I really hope Sarah Palin runs for president as a third-party candidate. In the long term there is a lot more money to be made as a poo poo-stirrer but still a member of a major party. A third party run could alienate some people who might otherwise buy your merchandise or pay to hear you speak and wouldn't really get you any new fans. Screw up a third-party run badly enough and you might have to get a real job afterwards.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 01:29
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:A third party is a pipe dream. Sanders, if he runs, will run as a democrat as the whole point of his candidacy is moving the democrats to the left. I don't know a lot about Bernie, but I do know that if he runs as a third party candidate any eventual loss by the Democrats will have him crucified by most of the poster in this very thread.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 08:57
|
|
|
Demiurge4 posted:I don't know a lot about Bernie, but I do know that if he runs as a third party candidate any eventual loss by the Democrats will have him crucified by most of the poster in this very thread. Rightly so, helping the Republican candidate win is a bad thing (tm).
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 11:58
|
|
|
Demiurge4 posted:I don't know a lot about Bernie, but I do know that if he runs as a third party candidate any eventual loss by the Democrats will have him crucified by most of the poster in this very thread. I don't think he would want to do that which is the reason his impact would be in the primary, not the general.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 14:04
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:I don't think he would want to do that which is the reason his impact would be in the primary, not the general.  I understand why people would want him to be President, but he's not going to pull off a coup on Hillary like Obama did.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 14:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 07:54 |
|
|
Math Debater posted:I would like for Sanders to burn his bridges with the Democrats completely and become more of a George Galloway-esque combative leftist firebrand. So he should become a crackpot that defends murderous dictators?
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2014 14:22
|
|
