Conservatives simply don't know economics

[AntonToo]

What on the left is the equivalent of a tax-cut cult that we have on the right?

The "evil greedy corporations should pay (we we decide based on our distaste of capitalism is) their fair share" cult.

Easiest question I'll get all day.
.

How is that an example of not understanding economics? You are clearly conflating two very separate things.

There is false understanding of economics and there are value judgements.

Corporate taxation is often a VALUE judgement, that is not inherently counter to any economic facts.

 

[The Derp]

I'm talking about making more money so they don't have to draw aide but dumbfuck liberals don't get it and blame the company instead.

They get aid now, as full-time workers.

 

[The Derp]

Supposedly? The words are right there, put it in bold for all to laugh at your dumb dishonest ass.

Why do you want to cut spending so much, anyway?

 

[Mac1958]

What on the left is the equivalent of a tax-cut cult that we have on the right?

The "evil greedy corporations should pay (we we decide based on our distaste of capitalism is) their fair share" cult.

Easiest question I'll get all day.
.

How is that counter to understanding economics?

You are clearly conflating two very separate things.

There is false understanding of economics and there are value judgements.

Corporate taxation level is a VALUE judgement, that is not inherently counter to any economic facts.

I have no doubt that, from your political perspective, you feel that is true.

I also have no interest in changing your mind about anything. There are plenty of people here from the other "side" who are more than willing to wrestle with you about this.
.

 

[AntonToo]

What on the left is the equivalent of a tax-cut cult that we have on the right?

The "evil greedy corporations should pay (we we decide based on our distaste of capitalism is) their fair share" cult.

Easiest question I'll get all day.
.

How is that counter to understanding economics?

You are clearly conflating two very separate things.

There is false understanding of economics and there are value judgements.

Corporate taxation level is a VALUE judgement, that is not inherently counter to any economic facts.

I have no doubt that, from your political perspective, you feel that is true.

I also have no interest in changing your mind about anything. There are plenty of people here from the other "side" who are more than willing to wrestle with you about this.
.

I see, so what you are interested in is just to assert stuff without stating why it is you believe what you do.

To me that's a sign that you believe what you believe without much basis.

 

[martybegan]

The unfunded part comes from them overestimating the rate of return on the investment fund for the pensions. They say 8.5% a year, so we only have to add X from the general fund, when they really only get 3%, and then don't change X to make up the difference.

Again, that's on a year-by-year basis and assuming the economy doesn't expand. You canont possibly know what revenues will look like years from now. You cannot possibly know what revenues will look like months from now. So how can you possibly say the benefits are unfunded when you admit you don't even know what revenues will be down the line?

And i notice you don't talk about the real issue, CUTTING FREAKING SPENDING.

Cutting spending achieves no economic gains. All it does is increase costs for consumers. For example, when Brownback cut taxes in KS, the state was plunged into a budget crisis. To solve that crisis, Brownback cut education spending. Those cuts to education spending were directly responsible for the KS State Board of Regents raising tuition costs. Raising tuition costs means students have to borrow more. Which means if/when they graduate, they are burdened with debt that delays them starting a family and/or buying a home. And when there's a cooling of the housing market, what do you think happens to the economy as a whole???? Come on man, use your head! Think things through! Abandon ideology.

Currently funding the liabilities seen in some pensions would require 100%+ rates of return down the road.

Cutting spending makes government do what it was supposed to do, not what progressive airheads want it to do.

 

[The Derp]

Currently funding the liabilities seen in some pensions would require 100%+ rates of return down the road.

So we're talking about two different things; the ROI on pensions, and the funding of pensions. The ROI is not something the State can control, it's something the market controls. The funding of pensions is something the State can control, and my point is that you cannot wail about unfunded pension liabilities without first figuring out how far down the line these liabilities go. So is it over a period of 10 years? 20 years? 50 years? Is there even a period at all? I think when people interject pension liabilities into debates, they're not thinking about what that actually means. All they focus on is the big, scary number...but that number is over what period of time? Because if you say there's a $1T pension liability, that sounds bad. But when you say that liability is over the course of 50 years, it starts to look less bad and less of a concern. For instance, if the liability is $1T over 50 years, that's only $20B a year. So what period of time are we talking about with regard to the pension liability? Or are you guys just throwing out numbers in the hopes you can scare people into doing what you want as your ideology dictates? Because that's what I think you're doing. Scaring people in order to push through an ideological agenda that has no merits.

Cutting spending makes government do what it was supposed to do, not what progressive airheads want it to do.

OK, first of all, your subjective view of what government can or cannot do is irrelevant here. Secondly, if you remove government spending, which makes up about 15% of the economy, with what are you replacing it? Do you assume that the private sector will just increase its spending in order to make up for the drop in government demand? Why would you think that? When has that ever happened before? Hasn't the opposite always been the case? That when private sector spending drops, the government steps up to fill the demand void? That was the principle behind both of Bush the Dumber's fiscal stimulus in 2001 and 2008 that Conservatives supported. So why do you only support something when a Conservative does it, and bash it any other time?

 

[martybegan]

Currently funding the liabilities seen in some pensions would require 100%+ rates of return down the road.

So we're talking about two different things; the ROI on pensions, and the funding of pensions. The ROI is not something the State can control, it's something the market controls. The funding of pensions is something the State can control, and my point is that you cannot wail about unfunded pension liabilities without first figuring out how far down the line these liabilities go. So is it over a period of 10 years? 20 years? 50 years? Is there even a period at all? I think when people interject pension liabilities into debates, they're not thinking about what that actually means. All they focus on is the big, scary number...but that number is over what period of time? Because if you say there's a $1T pension liability, that sounds bad. But when you say that liability is over the course of 50 years, it starts to look less bad and less of a concern. For instance, if the liability is $1T over 50 years, that's only $20B a year. So what period of time are we talking about with regard to the pension liability? Or are you guys just throwing out numbers in the hopes you can scare people into doing what you want as your ideology dictates? Because that's what I think you're doing. Scaring people in order to push through an ideological agenda that has no merits.

Cutting spending makes government do what it was supposed to do, not what progressive airheads want it to do.

OK, first of all, your subjective view of what government can or cannot do is irrelevant here. Secondly, if you remove government spending, which makes up about 15% of the economy, with what are you replacing it? Do you assume that the private sector will just increase its spending in order to make up for the drop in government demand? Why would you think that? When has that ever happened before? Hasn't the opposite always been the case? That when private sector spending drops, the government steps up to fill the demand void? That was the principle behind both of Bush the Dumber's fiscal stimulus in 2001 and 2008 that Conservatives supported. So why do you only support something when a Conservative does it, and bash it any other time?

"Only" 20 billion a year? These funds are supposed to cover themselves, with only contributions required by the State to the funds during an employee's work time. They are not supposed to rely on general fund outlays to remain solvent.

You are one of those people that argues the mechanics and not the root issues with various situations.

15% overhead via government is a generous figure, considering the multiple layers of government we have.

And as for "what will these people do?" They will find other jobs, or god forbid, make other jobs.

 

[Mac1958]

What on the left is the equivalent of a tax-cut cult that we have on the right?

The "evil greedy corporations should pay (we we decide based on our distaste of capitalism is) their fair share" cult.

Easiest question I'll get all day.
.

How is that counter to understanding economics?

You are clearly conflating two very separate things.

There is false understanding of economics and there are value judgements.

Corporate taxation level is a VALUE judgement, that is not inherently counter to any economic facts.

I have no doubt that, from your political perspective, you feel that is true.

I also have no interest in changing your mind about anything. There are plenty of people here from the other "side" who are more than willing to wrestle with you about this.
.

I see, so what you are interested in is just to assert stuff without stating why it is you believe what you do.

To me that's a sign that you believe what you believe without much basis.

As I said, it's my profession. I've long since given up having asymmetrical conversations with people who only see one side of an issue, when I see both. I'm afraid I just don't see the point.
.

 

[The Derp]

"Only" 20 billion a year? These funds are supposed to cover themselves, with only contributions required by the State to the funds during an employee's work time. They are not supposed to rely on general fund outlays to remain solvent.

Well, "supposed to" isn't a legitimate point of contention. We were "supposed to" find WMDs in Iraq. Tax cuts were "supposed to" pay for themselves. Trump was "supposed to" build a wall. So let's stop playing pretend here and deal in reality. Whether or not the State overestimates its ROI isn't the fault of the State. It's the fault of the market, where the State is investing these pensions. So the State only makes those estimations because that's what the market tells them it will be in order to secure the business for whatever entity is managing the pension. And this gets to a part of Dodd-Frank you Conservatives wanted to repeal; the part where investors have to put the interests of those whose funds they are investing above their own. So if a fund is telling a pension manager that it's going to get X return, the fund is liable for that and has to be honest. Now why on earth would Conservatives support repealing such a thing? Because Conservatives want to wreck pensions in order to get rid of them. Like what you do with budgets when you pass tax cuts; you produce deficits, then use those deficits as an excuse to push through cuts to spending that your ideology dictates. It's pretty shady, dude. And transparent as cellophane.

Oh, and I was just using that $1T as a made-up number. But I notice how you seize on it because you have no real argument here.

You are one of those people that argues the mechanics and not the root issues with various situations.

No, that's what you're doing. Mostly because you don't even understand what you're talking about. But it wouldn't be the first time a Conservative waxed idiotic on a message board, and it certainly won't be the last. The root cause of unfunded pension liabilities is...undefined because you cannot predict what revenues or returns you will see 1, 5, 10, 20, 50, 100 years down the line. Pretending you can only makes you look like a poseur and peacock. So you have a conclusion in search of a problem. Which is backwards, but entirely typical for those on the right who lack critical thinking skills.

15% overhead via government is a generous figure, considering the multiple layers of government we have.

WTF are you talking about? Overhead? What? I think you're getting tripped up in your own rhetoric now. What has 15% overhead? Did you mean a 15% ROI? Put down the pipe. Crack is whack.

And as for "what will these people do?" They will find other jobs, or god forbid, make other jobs.

First of all, I never asked that question. Secondly, do you think that magic is how you make up for the lack of government demand you've stripped out of the economy, reducing it by 15%? That 15% of the economy is made up with government spending, not overhead. What an idiot. Why are you even allowed near a computer?

 

[The Derp]

As I said, it's my profession. I've long since given up having asymmetrical conversations with people who only see one side of an issue, when I see both. I'm afraid I just don't see the point..

Then don't post on the message board if you're just gonna be a lazybones.

 

[martybegan]

"Only" 20 billion a year? These funds are supposed to cover themselves, with only contributions required by the State to the funds during an employee's work time. They are not supposed to rely on general fund outlays to remain solvent.

Well, "supposed to" isn't a legitimate point of contention. We were "supposed to" find WMDs in Iraq. Tax cuts were "supposed to" pay for themselves. Trump was "supposed to" build a wall. So let's stop playing pretend here and deal in reality. Whether or not the State overestimates its ROI isn't the fault of the State. It's the fault of the market, where the State is investing these pensions. So the State only makes those estimations because that's what the market tells them it will be in order to secure the business for whatever entity is managing the pension. And this gets to a part of Dodd-Frank you Conservatives wanted to repeal; the part where investors have to put the interests of those whose funds they are investing above their own. So if a fund is telling a pension manager that it's going to get X return, the fund is liable for that and has to be honest. Now why on earth would Conservatives support repealing such a thing? Because Conservatives want to wreck pensions in order to get rid of them. Like what you do with budgets when you pass tax cuts; you produce deficits, then use those deficits as an excuse to push through cuts to spending that your ideology dictates. It's pretty shady, dude. And transparent as cellophane.

Oh, and I was just using that $1T as a made-up number. But I notice how you seize on it because you have no real argument here.

You are one of those people that argues the mechanics and not the root issues with various situations.

No, that's what you're doing. Mostly because you don't even understand what you're talking about. But it wouldn't be the first time a Conservative waxed idiotic on a message board, and it certainly won't be the last. The root cause of unfunded pension liabilities is...undefined because you cannot predict what revenues or returns you will see 1, 5, 10, 20, 50, 100 years down the line. Pretending you can only makes you look like a poseur and peacock. So you have a conclusion in search of a problem. Which is backwards, but entirely typical for those on the right who lack critical thinking skills.

15% overhead via government is a generous figure, considering the multiple layers of government we have.

WTF are you talking about? Overhead? What? I think you're getting tripped up in your own rhetoric now. What has 15% overhead? Did you mean a 15% ROI? Put down the pipe. Crack is whack.

And as for "what will these people do?" They will find other jobs, or god forbid, make other jobs.

First of all, I never asked that question. Secondly, do you think that magic is how you make up for the lack of government demand you've stripped out of the economy, reducing it by 15%? That 15% of the economy is made up with government spending, not overhead. What an idiot. Why are you even allowed near a computer?

No, its the fault of the State when they intentionally set the supposed ROI to high to allow them to contribute less at the time of investment.

And hey asshole, easy with the wall of text. if you want me to respond keep it short and sweet.

Again, blah blah blah text wall. Smart people can make their point without responding to blathering.

Government IS overhead, its what we have to make the rest of the country run smoothly. 15% of GDP to government is too much.

 

[martybegan]

As I said, it's my profession. I've long since given up having asymmetrical conversations with people who only see one side of an issue, when I see both. I'm afraid I just don't see the point..

Then don't post on the message board if you're just gonna be a lazybones.

Or maybe we just respond to people who don't feel the need to make themselves seem smarter by typing large volumes of wasted words.

 

[Mac1958]

As I said, it's my profession. I've long since given up having asymmetrical conversations with people who only see one side of an issue, when I see both. I'm afraid I just don't see the point..

Then don't post on the message board if you're just gonna be a lazybones.

I'll do as I please, but thanks for the input.
.

 

[The Derp]

Or maybe we just respond to people who don't feel the need to make themselves seem smarter by typing large volumes of wasted words.

Is that supposed to be an attack on me? The reason I write a lot is because I am not a simpleton who has to have things boiled down to monosyllabic words that are easy to read and spell. That's why Conservative ideas are always so stupid.

 

[martybegan]

Or maybe we just respond to people who don't feel the need to make themselves seem smarter by typing large volumes of wasted words.

Is that supposed to be an attack on me? The reason I write a lot is because I am not a simpleton who has to have things boiled down to monosyllabic words that are easy to read and spell. That's why Conservative ideas are always so stupid.

No, its an observation. and I prefer to stick to the K.I.S.S principle when on these boards. it makes it easier for people to respond to me, and unlike you, I don't need to load my posts up with useless filler in a desperate attempt to appear "smart"

 

[The Derp]

No, its an observation. and I prefer to stick to the K.I.S.S principle when on these boards. it makes it easier for people to respond to me, and unlike you, I don't need to load my posts up with useless filler in a desperate attempt to appear "smart"

So because I write long posts, it makes you feel stupid? Wow, dude. Get a grip.

 

[martybegan]

No, its an observation. and I prefer to stick to the K.I.S.S principle when on these boards. it makes it easier for people to respond to me, and unlike you, I don't need to load my posts up with useless filler in a desperate attempt to appear "smart"

So because I write long posts, it makes you feel stupid? Wow, dude. Get a grip.

No, because you write long responses to short posts I assume YOU are stupid. It's a cover mechanism for the less intelligent, a grasp for quantity over quality.

 

[Iceweasel]

Supposedly? The words are right there, put it in bold for all to laugh at your dumb dishonest ass.

Why do you want to cut spending so much, anyway?

For 20 trillion reasons.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

liberals believe that food stamps and unemployment checks drive the economy

First of all, unemployment benefits are earned. Secondly, SNAP is what drives corporate profits because corporations pay their workers so little, they qualify for benefits like SNAP. Walmart, for example, costs taxpayers about $6B a year in income-based benefits. Walmart's profits last year were $14B. So we subsidize nearly half of Walmart's profits.

Walmart, for example, costs taxpayers about $6B a year in income-based benefits.

This claim is dumber than your usual BS.

If WalMart replaced every welfare recipient employee with a worker not collecting welfare, would welfare expenses increase or decrease? Why?