Numbers Game?

[AVG-JOE]

For example, tax breaks for the rich means that there will be more private investment capital available which will foster economic growth and more jobs, so by benefiting the rich, everyone benefits.

Where has that worked? The Bush tax cuts have been in place for over a decade and we saw some of the worst job losses in our country's history as a result. What were the tax policies in this country when it had it's most thriving middle class?

Where did it work? How about after the 2001 Clinton recession,when the economy was back on track in 18 months? Compare that to the Obama stimulus where we still haven't seen much growth. Under Bush the UE rate was about5% on average. Under Obama it's been over 8 1/2 every day of his term.

Face it. If 'trickle down' was a viable basis for economic policy making, Bush II would have been able to afford his wars.

Undoubtedly, he was probably counting on that, and reality on the ground shoved it straight up his ass. The first decade of the 21st century is all the proof history needs to debunk 'Trickle Down' as a policy thesis that government can use to create jobs.

Fair and simple taxes for all, public budgets that are balanced by law, transparency in all things politics and then build an economy that your kids can drive to the stars.

Rocket Science.

Or is it?

 

[dblack]

Please get off this high-horse of this being some sort of game of L -vs- R with a 'winner take all' mentality.

Yeah... good luck with that one.

 

[The Rabbi]

Where has that worked? The Bush tax cuts have been in place for over a decade and we saw some of the worst job losses in our country's history as a result. What were the tax policies in this country when it had it's most thriving middle class?

Where did it work? How about after the 2001 Clinton recession,when the economy was back on track in 18 months? Compare that to the Obama stimulus where we still haven't seen much growth. Under Bush the UE rate was about5% on average. Under Obama it's been over 8 1/2 every day of his term.

Face it. If 'trickle down' was a viable basis for economic policy making, Bush II would have been able to afford his wars.

Undoubtedly, he was probably counting on that, and reality on the ground shoved it straight up his ass. The first decade of the 21st century is all the proof history needs to debunk 'Trickle Down' as a policy thesis that government can use to create jobs.

Fair and simple taxes for all, public budgets that are balanced by law, transparency in all things politics and then build an economy that your kids can drive to the stars.

Rocket Science.

Or is it?

So the fact that UE was about 5% for most of Bush's presidency is proof his tax cuts didn't work?

 

[AVG-JOE]

Please get off this high-horse of this being some sort of game of L -vs- R with a 'winner take all' mentality.

Yeah... good luck with that one.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvFLKyAGzzI]Imagine | Playing For Change - YouTube[/ame]

 

[AVG-JOE]

Where did it work? How about after the 2001 Clinton recession,when the economy was back on track in 18 months? Compare that to the Obama stimulus where we still haven't seen much growth. Under Bush the UE rate was about5% on average. Under Obama it's been over 8 1/2 every day of his term.

Face it. If 'trickle down' was a viable basis for economic policy making, Bush II would have been able to afford his wars.

Undoubtedly, he was probably counting on that, and reality on the ground shoved it straight up his ass. The first decade of the 21st century is all the proof history needs to debunk 'Trickle Down' as a policy thesis that government can use to create jobs.

Fair and simple taxes for all, public budgets that are balanced by law, transparency in all things politics and then build an economy that your kids can drive to the stars.

Rocket Science.

Or is it?

So the fact that UE was about 5% for most of Bush's presidency is proof his tax cuts didn't work?

The fact that unemployment was 5% during the Bush years is proof that the Clinton tax policy, coupled with a congress constrained by PAYGO worked.

The fact that the Bush tax and spend policy drove the economy off a cliff only five years after PAYGO expired is just icing on the evidence.

The proof that trickle down STILL doesn't work is most easily seen in the current distribution of wealth curve.

 

[The Rabbi]

Face it. If 'trickle down' was a viable basis for economic policy making, Bush II would have been able to afford his wars.

Undoubtedly, he was probably counting on that, and reality on the ground shoved it straight up his ass. The first decade of the 21st century is all the proof history needs to debunk 'Trickle Down' as a policy thesis that government can use to create jobs.

Fair and simple taxes for all, public budgets that are balanced by law, transparency in all things politics and then build an economy that your kids can drive to the stars.

Rocket Science.

Or is it?

So the fact that UE was about 5% for most of Bush's presidency is proof his tax cuts didn't work?

The fact that unemployment was 5% during the Bush years is proof that the Clinton tax policy, coupled with a congress constrained by PAYGO worked.

The fact that the Bush tax and spend policy drove the economy off a cliff only five years after PAYGO expired is just icing on the evidence.

The proof that trickle down STILL doesn't work is most easily seen in the current distribution of wealth curve.

Let me get this straight: The Clinton tax policy, which was replaced in 2001, was responsible for the low rate of UE up to 2007? Really? Is that your final answer?
Because when UE rates are mentioned you default to wealth distribution. Would you rather have a steeply progressive tax system that provides equal outcomes?

 

[AVG-JOE]

So the fact that UE was about 5% for most of Bush's presidency is proof his tax cuts didn't work?

The fact that unemployment was 5% during the Bush years is proof that the Clinton tax policy, coupled with a congress constrained by PAYGO worked.

The fact that the Bush tax and spend policy drove the economy off a cliff only five years after PAYGO expired is just icing on the evidence.

The proof that trickle down STILL doesn't work is most easily seen in the current distribution of wealth curve.

Let me get this straight: The Clinton tax policy, which was replaced in 2001, was responsible for the low rate of UE up to 2007? Really? Is that your final answer?
Because when UE rates are mentioned you default to wealth distribution. Would you rather have a steeply progressive tax system that provides equal outcomes?

I told you what I want - Fair and simple taxes, public budgets that are balanced by law, and transparency in all things politics. But this thread isn't about policies in particular, this thread is about using the statistics of things like the wealth distribution graph to judge policy makers on their job of pursuing policies that benefit the greatest numbers of people participating in any given economy.

Well that, and giving the folks who believe that policy should favor any given group to explain why that group should be favored over the rest of the citizens.

Shall I put you down for favoring favoritism based on your belief in the Trickle Down Theory? Just 'cause I disagree doesn't make your opinion less valid as an opinion.

 

[The Rabbi]

OK, so it has nothing to do with tax cutting policy, even though such policies have been shown to work whenever they're tried.
You seem to want two things: a fair (undefined) tax policy and an equal distribution of wealth. You understand that there are always people who are more motivated or more talented or have more of what someone else is willing to pay, right? So you will never have an equal distribution of wealth.
Arguably the trends we have seen over the last 15 years are the result of globalization and workers losing protections and forced to compete in the marketplace.

 

[Flopper]

Like I said Brother, fair and simple taxes, public budgets balanced by law and transparency in all things politics.

And the use of a distribution of wealth graph is not a comment on a particular or general economic policy, it's simply a gauge to see how 'government' is doing in its endeavor to serve the statistical greatest number of people.

And that's the basic difference between the left and right. Those on the left believe that government should directly serve the people's various needs and those on the right believe the government best serves the needs of the people by facilitating the efforts of the people to provide for themselves and those close to them.

I made ABSOLUTELY no claims about policy on either side of the aisle. My thesis is that public policies should be pursued that benefit the statistical greatest number of people in an economy and the distribution of wealth chart is a reliable gauge to measure the results for comparison.


While I have made statements of policy in the thread, they were posted in a separate context and they are my own. I see few successful politicians on either side of the aisle advocating for fair and simple taxes, public budgets that are balanced by law and/or transparency in all things politics.

There is nothing wrong with your thesis that public policies should be pursued that benefit the greatest number of people. Most policy makers believe that their initiatives do just that. Democrats feel that healthcare reform is in the common good just as Republicans feel that reducing the taxes of the wealthy will lead to economic expansion which is also in the common good. It is the individual policies that should be debated because most policy makers feel they are working toward the common good.

 

[The Rabbi]

Republicans are not in favor of reducing taxes for the wealthy. That is a Dem talking point/distortion.

 

[AVG-JOE]

And that's the basic difference between the left and right. Those on the left believe that government should directly serve the people's various needs and those on the right believe the government best serves the needs of the people by facilitating the efforts of the people to provide for themselves and those close to them.

I made ABSOLUTELY no claims about policy on either side of the aisle. My thesis is that public policies should be pursued that benefit the statistical greatest number of people in an economy and the distribution of wealth chart is a reliable gauge to measure the results for comparison.


While I have made statements of policy in the thread, they were posted in a separate context and they are my own. I see few successful politicians on either side of the aisle advocating for fair and simple taxes, public budgets that are balanced by law and/or transparency in all things politics.

There is nothing wrong with your thesis that public policies should be pursued that benefit the greatest number of people. Most policy makers believe that their initiatives do just that. Democrats feel that healthcare reform is in the common good just as Republicans feel that reducing the taxes of the wealthy will lead to economic expansion which is also in the common good. It is the individual policies that should be debated because most policy makers feel they are working toward the common good.

Ahhhhhhh... but the PROOF is in the analysis of the statistics that show what segments of the population, if any, appear to be favored by any given set of policies.

The two points I continue to drive toward are:
1) SHOULD the goal of public policy making be to benefit the greatest numbers of people and
2) Ass-u-me-ing that should be the goal, what statistics should we use to judge those we entrust with the task of writing policies?

 

[dblack]

Ahhhhhhh... but the PROOF is in the analysis of the statistics that show what segments of the population, if any, appear to be favored by any given set of policies.

The two points I continue to drive toward are:
1) SHOULD the goal of public policy making be to benefit the greatest numbers of people

This is a really important question we should all be discussing. Again, the answer, in my view, depends entirely on whether we're talking about government policy or not. You seem to want us to merge them:

Noteworthy at this moment is that by 'society' I meant any organized human activity tasked with pursuing 'public policies' that you, the writer answering the question, care to judge.

Your nation and your society are synonymous in the context of the question.

... but I can't. The reason, and the reason I think this is such an important issue to discuss, is that government is fundamentally different than voluntary human activity. Because we give government the exclusive authority to use violence to achieve it's ends, those ends should be tightly constrained. We should only use it where conformity is essential.

So, when it comes to government, I have to answer your first question with "no". I don't think the purpose of government is to provide 'benefit' - it's to protect our freedom and make it possible for us to seek our own benefit, based on our own values and goals. I certainly don't want the government, whether it represents the will of the majority or not, defining the good life and push all of us toward that end.

 

[alan1]

So why do so few control such a high percentage of your planets resources?

I'm not sure what that has to do with what I said.

I'm talking about the tyranny of the majority.

Perhaps you could connect the dots between what I said, and what you are asking.

Sorry... your comment about the brilliance of the founders threw me off. I assumed you were praising the founders for the pluralistic and democratic aspects they managed to weave in to our early documents, not the wealth protection for white property owners that was a necessary compromise to keep things moving because of the political environment they found themselves in.

America however is a great example... Current policies do NOT benefit the greatest number of people and there's proof.

If current public policies in America benefited the statistical greatest number of people, the national distribution of wealth curve would form a balanced bell curve. Currently it does not.

A bell curve still has 1%'ers at both ends.
Just saying.

 

[California Girl]

The happiest place on earth is socialist....

For the past decade, social scientists and pollsters have given elaborate questionnaires to hundreds of thousands of people around the globe. Two of the largest studies that rank the happiness of countries around the world are the World Map of Happiness from the University of Leiscester and the World Database of Happiness from Ruut Veenhoven of Erasmus University Rotterdam. All the happiness surveys ask people basically the same question: How happy are you?


"The answer you get is not only how they feel right now, but also how they feel about their entire life," explained Dan Buettner, who has studied happiness and longevity around the world through his Blue Zones project Buettner said that if you mine all the databases of universities and research centers, you'll find that the happiest place on earth is ? Denmark. Cold, dreary, unspectacular Denmark.

Could the Danes really be the happiest people in the world? When ABC News anchor Bill Weir traveled there to find out, he asked random Danes to rate themselves in terms of happiness, on a scale of one to 10. Many people rated themselves at least an eight, and there were several nines and 10s. Finally, one grouchy Dane came along who said she didn't believe Danes were so happy. But then she quickly conceded that she herself felt rather content with her life, and said Danes in general had very little to complain about.
Danes do have one potential complaint: high taxes. The happiest people in the world pay some of the highest taxes in the world -- between 50 percent and 70 percent of their incomes. In exchange, the government covers all health care and education, and spends more on children and the elderly than any country in the world per capita. With just 5.5 million people, the system is efficient, and people feel "tryghed" -- the Danish word for "tucked in" -- like a snug child.
Those high taxes have another effect. Since a banker can end up taking home as much money as an artist, people don't chose careers based on income or status. "They have this thing called 'Jante-lov,' which essentially says, 'You're no better then anybody else,'" said Buettner. "A garbage man can live in a middle-class neighborhood and hold his head high."

Denmark: The Happiest Place on Earth - ABC News

So leave. It's fine. We'll survive without your sorry ass.

 

[whitehall]

Does it make sense to you to pursue, as a society, policies that benefit the greatest numbers of people?

The question is who determines what policies and whether they benefit the greatest number of people. We try to elect the politicians who best reflect our core values but sometimes we lose and sometimes we make mistakes but we still have the good old Constitution to guide us. Don't we?

 

[Flopper]

I made ABSOLUTELY no claims about policy on either side of the aisle. My thesis is that public policies should be pursued that benefit the statistical greatest number of people in an economy and the distribution of wealth chart is a reliable gauge to measure the results for comparison.


While I have made statements of policy in the thread, they were posted in a separate context and they are my own. I see few successful politicians on either side of the aisle advocating for fair and simple taxes, public budgets that are balanced by law and/or transparency in all things politics.

There is nothing wrong with your thesis that public policies should be pursued that benefit the greatest number of people. Most policy makers believe that their initiatives do just that. Democrats feel that healthcare reform is in the common good just as Republicans feel that reducing the taxes of the wealthy will lead to economic expansion which is also in the common good. It is the individual policies that should be debated because most policy makers feel they are working toward the common good.

Ahhhhhhh... but the PROOF is in the analysis of the statistics that show what segments of the population, if any, appear to be favored by any given set of policies.

The two points I continue to drive toward are:
1) SHOULD the goal of public policy making be to benefit the greatest numbers of people and
2) Ass-u-me-ing that should be the goal, what statistics should we use to judge those we entrust with the task of writing policies?

The answer to your question: SHOULD the goal of public policy making be to benefit the greatest numbers of people? seems obvious. For most policies the answer is yes, however there are certain policies that clearly do not serve the majority but are supported by the majority such as policies protecting the civil rights of the disabled and financial aid to victims of disasters. These clearly do not serve the majority, but are supported by the majority out of a sense of morality.

With a policy concerning taxing, a job stimulus bill, a defense appropriation, entitlement, or other such policies, opinions as to whether the policy benefits the majority or it's the moral thing to do is likely to vary greatly. To this there is no clear answer. We may feel that a policy that provides much needed relief to some segment of society is the moral thing to do, but we may also recognize that it's injurious to some degree to society as a whole. Basically, this is a major reason we have government to make the hard decisions, to weight the good for the many against the needs of the few.

 

[alan1]

There is nothing wrong with your thesis that public policies should be pursued that benefit the greatest number of people. Most policy makers believe that their initiatives do just that. Democrats feel that healthcare reform is in the common good just as Republicans feel that reducing the taxes of the wealthy will lead to economic expansion which is also in the common good. It is the individual policies that should be debated because most policy makers feel they are working toward the common good.

Ahhhhhhh... but the PROOF is in the analysis of the statistics that show what segments of the population, if any, appear to be favored by any given set of policies.

The two points I continue to drive toward are:
1) SHOULD the goal of public policy making be to benefit the greatest numbers of people and
2) Ass-u-me-ing that should be the goal, what statistics should we use to judge those we entrust with the task of writing policies?

The answer to your question: SHOULD the goal of public policy making be to benefit the greatest numbers of people? seems obvious. For most policies the answer is yes, however there are certain policies that clearly do not serve the majority but are supported by the majority such as policies protecting the civil rights of the disabled and financial aid to victims of disasters. These clearly do not serve the majority, but are supported by the majority out of a sense of morality.

With a policy concerning taxing, a job stimulus bill, a defense appropriation, entitlement, or other such policies, opinions as to whether the policy benefits the majority or it's the moral thing to do is likely to vary greatly. To this there is no clear answer. We may feel that a policy that provides much needed relief to some segment of society is the moral thing to do, but we may also recognize that it's injurious to some degree to society as a whole. Basically, this is a major reason we have government to make the hard decisions, to weight the good for the many against the needs of the few.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uoEJ-D2bgc0]Davy Crockett - Not Yours to Give - YouTube[/ame]

Or text if you prefer, Not Yours To Give

These clearly do not serve the majority, but are supported by the majority out of a sense of morality.

I find nothing moral at all about taking the wealth from one person under the guise of charity. Each can be charitable or not with their own wallet, don't force your chosen charity upon me because you think it to be moral. From my sig line,
"Using politicians as your means to enforce your theft may be legal, but that doesn’t make it right."

 

[AVG-JOE]

Ahhhhhhh... but the PROOF is in the analysis of the statistics that show what segments of the population, if any, appear to be favored by any given set of policies.

The two points I continue to drive toward are:
1) SHOULD the goal of public policy making be to benefit the greatest numbers of people

This is a really important question we should all be discussing. Again, the answer, in my view, depends entirely on whether we're talking about government policy or not. You seem to want us to merge them:

Noteworthy at this moment is that by 'society' I meant any organized human activity tasked with pursuing 'public policies' that you, the writer answering the question, care to judge.

Your nation and your society are synonymous in the context of the question.

... but I can't. The reason, and the reason I think this is such an important issue to discuss, is that government is fundamentally different than voluntary human activity. Because we give government the exclusive authority to use violence to achieve it's ends, those ends should be tightly constrained. We should only use it where conformity is essential.

So, when it comes to government, I have to answer your first question with "no". I don't think the purpose of government is to provide 'benefit' - it's to protect our freedom and make it possible for us to seek our own benefit, based on our own values and goals. I certainly don't want the government, whether it represents the will of the majority or not, defining the good life and push all of us toward that end.

Oh... let me make myself perfectly clear on this point - the thesis of this question is all about government policies.

Obviously, changes in the goals of public policy making WILL have lasting impact on those who write policies for privately organized human activity, but the goals of those who write policy for private organizations will always be dictated by the goals of the organization.

With regards to the word 'benefit' in the question, it has nothing to do with a 'government benefits'.

When I ask if the goal should be to 'benefit' the greatest numbers of people, I basically mean "Whose lives will change in a positive way versus whose lives will be impacted negatively versus whose lives won't be effected at all?"

Tax cuts are a great example - 'What percentage of the American population benefits from the cut?'
War is another good example - 'What percentage of the American population benefits from this expenditure of the resources required to prosecute it?'
Congressional redistricting - 'What percentage of the States population benefits from this map?'
Infrastructure development - 'What percentage of the city's population benefits from this bridge?'

 

[dblack]

With regards to the word 'benefit' in the question, it has nothing to do with a 'government benefits'.

I'm not sure I see a clear distinction. I'm not talking about entitlement payments here - I'm talking about the general idea of assigning government the goal of creating positive outcomes for people. This is what I'm opposed to. It's the difference between government protecting our right to pursue happiness and trying to create 'happiness' for us.

When I ask if the goal should be to 'benefit' the greatest numbers of people, I basically mean "Whose lives will change in a positive way versus whose lives will be impacted negatively versus whose lives won't be effected at all?"

Right. I think I understand where you're coming from. But I also think it presumes that goal of government should be to change our lives in positive ways. The implicit problem in this is that government must first define what constitutes the 'positive' and that's the rub. It will always be a subjective judgment, always up to the individual in question and not something that can be, or should be, subject to majority rule.

Tax cuts are a great example - 'What percentage of the American population benefits from the cut?'
War is another good example - 'What percentage of the American population benefits from this expenditure of the resources required to prosecute it?'
Congressional redistricting - 'What percentage of the States population benefits from this map?'
Infrastructure development - 'What percentage of the city's population benefits from this bridge?'

And in all of these, I would propose that consideration of 'who benefits' shouldn't be a primary consideration. Policy decisions should be based on - as much as possible - protecting our rights equally, not on adjusting the policy to benefit specific groups, no matter the size of the group. They should be about equal protection of the law, not ensuring the most positive outcomes for the most people. To repeat a theme - I want government that maintains fair ground rules and lets us pursue our own outcomes.

 

[freedombecki]

Ahhhhhhh... but the PROOF is in the analysis of the statistics that show what segments of the population, if any, appear to be favored by any given set of policies.

The two points I continue to drive toward are:
1) SHOULD the goal of public policy making be to benefit the greatest numbers of people and
2) Ass-u-me-ing that should be the goal, what statistics should we use to judge those we entrust with the task of writing policies?

The answer to your question: SHOULD the goal of public policy making be to benefit the greatest numbers of people? seems obvious. For most policies the answer is yes, however there are certain policies that clearly do not serve the majority but are supported by the majority such as policies protecting the civil rights of the disabled and financial aid to victims of disasters. These clearly do not serve the majority, but are supported by the majority out of a sense of morality.

With a policy concerning taxing, a job stimulus bill, a defense appropriation, entitlement, or other such policies, opinions as to whether the policy benefits the majority or it's the moral thing to do is likely to vary greatly. To this there is no clear answer. We may feel that a policy that provides much needed relief to some segment of society is the moral thing to do, but we may also recognize that it's injurious to some degree to society as a whole. Basically, this is a major reason we have government to make the hard decisions, to weight the good for the many against the needs of the few.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uoEJ-D2bgc0"]Davy Crockett - Not Yours to Give - YouTube[/ame]

Or text if you prefer, Not Yours To Give

These clearly do not serve the majority, but are supported by the majority out of a sense of morality.

I find nothing moral at all about taking the wealth from one person under the guise of charity. Each can be charitable or not with their own wallet, don't force your chosen charity upon me because you think it to be moral. From my sig line,
"Using politicians as your means to enforce your theft may be legal, but that doesn’t make it right."

Alan, that is an absolutely amazing bit of wisdom from a mere frontier farmer of the push plow, but how I wish we had his good sense of what the United States Constitution is, we would be better guardians of it. I, like Davy Crockett, learned something today from the words of that farmer, and because of it, a rep is coming your way for sharing, as soon as I have a rep to give you. Thanks for the reminder of what the Constitution's intent was. We have buried the Constitution under a demand for autobahns across America, I think, and we are electing people who want to muzzle the Founders, for once and for all, although I believe that had already taken place by WWII.