8-Bit Scholar posted:

Maybe so. My experience is more with rural communities than the urban poor, so my perspective is different in this, but what I see is a lot of local agencies--particularly schools--who are essentially slaves to a pithy federal handout that doesn't really ever address the budget issues in these towns. Populations are drying up too, and when school populations decrease, so does their budget. With a system that has a very distant moneylender doling out allotments to those who deserve it, you end up with a "one size fits none" solution. Maybe the Dept of Education will give ten thousand dollars to a school to buy more computers. But maybe this school doesn't need computers, maybe it needs something else--a specialized piece of equipment, or structural repairs or better curriculum tools. Sometimes it works out, sometimes it doesn't, and overall the result is that small towns feel very alienated by a government who is clearly more interested in urban populations than rural ones.

It seems to me that matters like education, and a lot of social issues as well, would be best left to state governments. The Federal government honestly has enough to do with the maintaining of a standing army, regulating taxes, passing national budgets, defense decisions, and general global issues. In my mind, a community is well aware of what it needs or wants--even if, like in Texas, those needs and wants begin and end at football.

There's no elegant solution, but in my state I've seen education budgets shrink and a major ecological disaster occur as a direct result of mistakes or poor decisions made by federal agencies. It seems to me that local governments could stand to be empowered, so that their knowledge of the realities of their community might be better applied to actionable solutions.

ManDingo posted:

News flash if you take any ideology to the extreme you end with with a pretty hosed up system. There are good things we can take from libertarianism in the right quantities. One of those I think doesn't get enough of the spotlight is making the small business more accessible. I honestly feel empathy for the fast food employee struggling to get by. When you think about it though I'm pretty sure that guy probably could make a pretty good burger. I'd much rather eat one of those instead of what McD's is serving. I think it would be awesome to see him gather a few of his coworkers and set up a bbq next door. I just I hope I could get there to buy one before the government shuts him down.

8-Bit Scholar posted:

It seems to me that matters like education, and a lot of social issues as well, would be best left to state governments.

ManDingo posted:

News flash if you take any ideology to the extreme you end with with a pretty hosed up system. There are good things we can take from libertarianism in the right quantities. One of those I think doesn't get enough of the spotlight is making the small business more accessible. I honestly feel empathy for the fast food employee struggling to get by. When you think about it though I'm pretty sure that guy probably could make a pretty good burger. I'd much rather eat one of those instead of what McD's is serving. I think it would be awesome to see him gather a few of his coworkers and set up a bbq next door. I just I hope I could get there to buy one before the government shuts him down.

Roylicious posted:

Except they're loving awful at it and at least half the states in the union would collapse if you did this.

ANIME IS BLOOD posted:

this kind of condescension is what is fueling the trump campaign hth

Roylicious posted:

Uh okay except it is true just look at the budget numbers. You think individual states have the tax base to adequately fund programs by themselves without federal grants? So then why don't they just do that when the federal government waves its club and goes 'if you don't comply with X, no more funding.' That's how they got the drinking age to be 21 nationwide, among other things.

If you're right and the states don't need the federal government then don't take federal grant money. But they do, because they know they need it.

Roylicious posted:

Libertarianism isn't even good capitalism. It's just selfish baby poo poo that wants to reject the social contract while still benefiting from it.

ANIME IS BLOOD posted:

because, like 8-bit explained, the money is often getting funneled into places the school doesn't actually need while other necessities go unattended, and then they fail anyway

ANIME IS BLOOD posted:

opposition to federal control of everything is definitely this, and not rooted in the fact it's become a giant pork barrel for corporate lobbyists at all

Roylicious posted:

I mean by that logic, F35 is a total poo poo show program so obviously the government can't handle military administration so obviously they shouldn't be allowed to. Privatize the military!

fyodor posted:

Libertarians LOOOOVE trains.

Roylicious posted:

Opposition to big government control is not strictly the domain of libertarianism. Libertarianism is just the dumb overreaction.

ManDingo posted:

That's fine I have no attachment to the word. However I have to point out there is exactly one candidate in opposition of big government and he's calling himself a libertarian.

ManDingo posted:

That's fine I have no attachment to the word. However I have to point out there is exactly one candidate in opposition of big government and he's calling himself a libertarian.

Milton Friedman posted:

'One of the great mistakes is to judge policies and programs by their intentions rather than their results.'

Roylicious posted:

Uh okay except it is true just look at the budget numbers. You think individual states have the tax base to adequately fund programs by themselves without federal grants? So then why don't they just do that when the federal government waves its club and goes 'if you don't comply with X, no more funding.' That's how they got the drinking age to be 21 nationwide, among other things.

If you're right and the states don't need the federal government then don't take federal grant money. But they do, because they know they need it.

quote:

8-Bit Scholar posted:

The problem is is that the Fed hasn't respected states rights for quite awhile. Recall how Marijuana Dispenseries would get raided by federal troopers even though they were legally allowed to operate in their states. Obama in particular has ended his tenure as president with a downright monarchical approach, just issuing executive orders willy nilly about this and that.

ManDingo posted:

Yeah I'm from Wisconsin and now live in the Twin Cities. You'd be surprised how many people commute from Wisconsin to save several thousand dollars in taxes each year. I guess if you are a union person then yeah Walker is the antichrist. That system needed to be shaken up I'm not sure that was the way to do it however. Such is life in politics.

Roylicious posted:

I don't disagree with this and I think that yes, there are some things that should remain under state discretion that the federal government shouldn't interfere with. But again, this isn't libertarianism. That's just believing in the federal system already established. Has the federal executive branch gathered too much power? Yeah I think so definitely but libertarians don't offer any real solution other than to just bitch and point to corruption.

8-Bit Scholar posted:

It's really why labels such as these are no longer useful. Both "libertarianism" and "socialism" have come to represent so many different things that their technical meaning is lost and their colloquial meaning is varied.

Gary Johnson represents much of what libertarians ought to be, which is an emphasis on empowering common people, allowing communities to decide on issues that concern them, and to open the presidency up to transparency, to meet with people and talk to them face to face. He's also the one candidate who'd probably do the least harm, and would eliminate the War on Drugs and probably dissolve the NSA, two big positives in my book.

Roylicious posted:

Look Walker is just as much of a political lying scumbag as anyone else. You think him being a libertarian changes anything?

ManDingo posted:

Who is saying he's a libertarian?

Gary Johnson believes in a social safety net. Is he a socialist then?

ManDingo posted:

Sorry I was talking about Walker being a libertarian.

Roylicious posted:

Dude wants to eliminate all taxation and replace it with a flat 23% sales tax that will absolutely buttfuck our economy have no doubt.

8-Bit Scholar posted:

Precisely. And to that end, I personally think we could stand to add more socialist elements to our society--particularly in fixing our hosed health insurance problem, preventing health insurance companies from turning a profit (like pretty much every other first world capitalist country does), providing some semblance of a universal health care system, as well as doing something to address the student loan debt problem. Outlawing private prisons is also an absolute necessity.

It's great to not be limited by ideological labels and try to find active solutions to problems!

ManDingo posted:

So how does lower taxation negatively affect the economy? Do you assume if it's not taken and funneled through some giant bureaucracy then people will bury it under a tree. Maybe they'll spend it on wants and needs.

Roylicious posted:

And there's no way 23% is going to cut it anyway so either that needs to be higher (even worse for the economy) or you're talking about ending tons of programs and departments that society relies upon such as education and letting them go private.

ManDingo posted:

So now high taxes are bad for the economy? Pretty sure there would be an allowance for necessities (food, doctor, shelter, transportation) up to a certain income threshold. That's even assuming he'll get everything he wants to the letter (he won't). I couldn't even tell you what it would do to me personally. I need to hand some dude with a calculator a stack of papers and $150 and he tells me what my effective rate is. But what I do know is making the system less complex and thus way harder to dodge would be an improvement.

ManDingo posted:

So now high taxes are bad for the economy?

quote:

Pretty sure there would be an allowance for necessities

Maoist Pussy posted:

Also, more fascism, such as mandatory weight-loss training, mandatory laser hair removal, and sexier uniforms.

Roylicious posted:

So, basically, your argument is "I don't know specifics but what I do know is SOMETHING is wrong and he is promising to make things better in a different way than the others! I don't know how his policies would affect me or others in our daily lives, by god I just am sick of all this.'

Which is understandable but surely you realize that's kind of not based on anything solid? For all you know he is speaking a lot of eloquent pretty words with the full intention of not helping you out whatsoever. Look at the policies actually advocated and do some research for yourself as to how they would affect things. Otherwise you're just basing your beliefs on emotions.


Anything that is going to negatively impact aggregate demand is bad for the economy. This is basically any taxation of course but obviously you need to fund things like a judiciary, military, etc.

It's not just about 'high taxes,' it's about who is taxed at what rate and why. If you can't even tell me how his tax policies would affect your effective tax rate then how can you seriously be sitting there supporting them? For all you know you'll end up paying more in taxes and getting less back in benefits.


There would be, but think of it like this: nVidia produces a chip that costs $500 retail, based on their production costs and R&D costs and whatnot. If people have money to spend, they'll buy luxury goods like a new GPU. nVidia needs to make more chips to meet demand, they build more factories and provide more jobs which allows them to lower prices based on economies of scale which further stimulates demand for their product and so on.

If people can only afford necessities like food/doctor/clothes, they are going to buy less GPUs. nVidia might not sell enough units to justify opening new factories. They might even end up laying employees off if sales lag enough. That has a knock on effect as well, but a bad one.

Just look at the share prices of retail companies if you don't believe me. Even WalMart is starting to struggle because simply put people ain't got poo poo to spend on goods/services they don't absolutely need. So the solution is raise the effective tax rate on the average person so they can cut business taxes? That isn't going to save any companies and no one is going to invest in growth if there is no profit to be made. They'll just thank you for the tax cut and raise the stock dividend.

ManDingo posted:

Well that settles it, full communism now.