If you give a millionaire a tax break they're likely to invest that money into programs designed, by definition, to increase the amount of jobs and in turn help the economy. The only reason people such as bankers won't invest as much is due to regulation and the fear of not knowing what sort of regulation is in store for them in the future. I just feel that it's a more stable way of increasing spending to simply give individuals more money. Nobody is better at choosing what to spend their money on than themselves. There is always inefficient spending from the government, money gets lost in transition through their spending, that's fact. Remove the middle-man and more money is placed into the economy.

so you dislike every candidate that has ever run for president?

I just want to point out that, if you google "obama lies", then of course you'll find a bunch of people talking shit about Obama. This goes for every other political candidate, and most famous people in general.

As for the actual topic, I don't know shit about economy or American politics, but I do know that universal health care is very agreeable, and should be an obvious part of any country's policies. So if I was American, I'd probably vote for Obama. It's a nice bonus that he drags the country more towards the political average as well I'd say.

Quote from godmouth

I just want to point out that, if you google "obama lies", then of course you'll find a bunch of people talking shit about Obama. This goes for every other political candidate, and most famous people in general.

As for the actual topic, I don't know shit about economy or American politics, but I do know that universal health care is very agreeable, and should be an obvious part of any country's policies. So if I was American, I'd probably vote for Obama. It's a nice bonus that he drags the country more towards the political average as well I'd say.

There are plenty of problems with Obamacare, take a look at how easily paul ryan takes it apart:

Quote from Automaton

If you give a millionaire a tax break they're likely to invest that money into programs designed, by definition, to increase the amount of jobs and in turn help the economy.

You could say the same thing about low-income individuals. Except they don't have the option of storing their money in offshore bank accounts.

Not really, rich investors benefit the economy much more than thousands of low income people in that they're doing more than providing money, they're creating jobs and capital. Offshore banking is a different issue, perhaps one of the only good reasons for more regulation on that sort of thing.

What makes you think that anyone who's wealthy is going to use their money to create jobs and capital that ultimately benefit the economy? What programs are you even talking about?

This seems like another ideological debate that's going to wind up going nowhere. I mentioned a specific social program that has a documented 170% return on every dollar invested, an extremely reliable and beneficial program that also provides food to people who need it, and your response didn't really seem to address that.

Multinational investment bankers invest money via loans to businesses which helps the business expand and provide jobs and capital. More important than jobs is the capital, which in itself provides jobs.

That's because I'm not fully opposed to the idea that welfare can work. I accept that giving the poor food stamps could, and does, very well help the economy. I just don't believe it is as valuable as the alternative. What people forget is that the government is, to put it simply, the public. What we are really saying when we say "the government is spending money on such-and-such a social program which is benefiting the economy" is synonymous with "this organisation took our money off of us and spent it for us on this social program, except a portion of that money was lost in the transition".

Imagine a group of 100 people, all trading to get what they want. 5 people then come along and say they're in charge, and proceed to take some money off of everyone (more off the richer, less of the poor), and then proceed to spend that money on everything they possibly can. They also have to take some of that money to pay themselves and to pay for various expenses in tax collection etc etc. By DEFINITION more capital is produced through free trade than through government spending, it completely cuts out the middle man. Without talking about specific policies, programs etc, we can easily see that cutting out the middle man removes any loss of value and also the money gets spent on what the individual person wants it to be spent on, rather than some drug war that nobody wants.



I'd also say that there's nothing that the government can provide that charity can't. Forcefully handing out money to those who need it is no better than willfully handing out money to those who need it.

Well I was right that this would be ideologically focused, I don't want to spend this discussion trying to respond to your libertarianism like I did in that wiretapping debate.

From what I hear, Europeans don't really understand how large the US is. I live in Illinois, a state that's precisely in the middle in terms of size, 25th in the country. Yet it's larger than the entire country of England, and it's just one average sized state out of 50. The US is fucking huge, and with over 300 million people spread across all of it, I'm amazed you honestly think non-profit organizations would be capable of establishing a safety net for the poor across the entire country, in a way that'd be cheaper and better than the government.

"the money gets spent on what the individual person wants it to be spent on" -- you know how much food stamps cost? Someone who's married with one child pays about $35 a year for the nutritional assistance program, and that $35 also pays for the WIC food program, and the entire national school lunch program. For about 10 cents a day.


Without specific examples I can't really respond to what you're saying. Again, like the wiretapping argument, you're just explaining your ideologies without relating them to the world you think they're applicable to. All I know is our deficit has shrank by 20%, public sector jobs have been reduced by 600,000, stocks are up, spending is up, investments are up, income is up, corporate profits have never been higher, and you're saying Romney would be better because... he has a mathematically impossible tax plan? I don't get it.

I'm going to be honest, I completely forgot about Romney about a page ago. I honestly didn't know much about his economic plan or Obama's, other than the vague idea of one being more free-market oriented than the other, which I would agree to. I can't provide any empirical evidence to backup my points because I'm only talking ideology here, I don't pay attention to the news in the US. I should probably leave this debate after this post for that reason, but I'll just say a couple more things.

"I'm amazed you honestly think non-profit organizations would be capable of establishing a safety net for the poor across the entire country, in a way that'd be cheaper and better than the government."
There are 3 problems with this:
1) you can't separate a government program from all the other ones. When you talk about taxation and spending you're talking about all of it, because all of your money is collected and distributed as the government sees fit. The fact that the government spends money on things you may disagree with is a negative and needs to be taken into account when you try to judge whether government spending is a good thing.
2) the government is more ineffective with your money than you are yourself. In any situation this is the case. There's nothing that the government does that individuals cannot (the government is comprised of individuals), and when you combine that with the fact that the government withholds/essentially loses some of the money you give them before spending/investing it the only conclusion is that they're less effective.
3) I'm not saying a single organisation can do something as well as the government. It could, but then that would be just the same as the government. What I am saying is that there are many other ways, for instance doing things on a more local level via charity and insurances etc.

In response to the point on the prices of things, it's a commonly accepted view that under a free market the prices of such necessities will drop to such a low amount due to competition, and the average income (even of the poor) will increase so much through capitalism that it really shouldn't be an issue.

Anyway, you're right, this is very ideological and I probably shouldn't be in this debate if I don't really know examples of policies etc in the US. And with that I bid thee farewell.

Alright, then let's discuss ideology then, I guess

Quote from Automaton

1) you can't separate a government program from all the other ones. When you talk about taxation and spending you're talking about all of it, because all of your money is collected and distributed as the government sees fit. The fact that the government spends money on things you may disagree with is a negative and needs to be taken into account when you try to judge whether government spending is a good thing.

No one agrees on everything the government does, or how it spends its money (our defense budget is unsustainable and absolutely absurd), which is why the only way to discuss this is with specific examples of how it wastes money.

Saying "government spending is good/bad" requires separating government programs and discussing them individually, otherwise you have no way of defending your point. I don't judge people for thinking ideologically, but I have no way of relating to what they say without real world examples.

Quote from Automaton

2) the government is more ineffective with your money than you are yourself. In any situation this is the case.

Not one cent of mine would go towards oil subsidies, or paying for electricity in the US embassy in your country, or for any of the other random things that I wouldn't even know how to spend my money on if I tried. You're calling it "ineffective" because you assume there's waste involved in redistributing tax dollars, but every organization has wasteful spending. Every single one.

You can't call something ineffective without any mention of what it actually accomplishes. Otherwise your argument is completely theoretical and you have zero reason to assume it's true.

Quote from Automaton

In response to the point on the prices of things, it's a commonly accepted view that under a free market the prices of such necessities will drop to such a low amount due to competition, and the average income (even of the poor) will increase so much through capitalism that it really shouldn't be an issue.

Again, this is theoretical and non-specific. It's also impractical in a private market. How would a company generate revenue when it exists purely to give welfare to people making a certain amount under the poverty line? Purely through charity?

Doing things locally and small-scale means more overhead. More centers of operation, more staff, more resources, more usage of infrastructure, less consistency/availability, etc. And then of course, if this is to be paid for with charity instead of taxes, you need people to collect that charity. All of this adds up to the sort of "waste" you call the government ineffective for.

I'm sure some things can be done through the private market, but your arguments aren't substantive enough to convince anyone who doesn't agree that "government spending = bad". But like you said, you lack empirical evidence, so the only thing I can really do is tell you to actually find that evidence. Ideology without methodology is more or less insanity.