Biden / Harris Focused Discussion

[Machismo]

I'm not the one saying a government department being required to reinvest any surplus revenue rather than just sitting on it is inefficient, rofl.

I watched as a fiscal quarter was ending, and they went around and asked what we could spend money on as quickly as possible. The officers all got PDAs (or was the early 2000'S), and they bought useless shit that had no value in our actual mission. Meanwhile, the gear that we'd been trying to get replaced for years, because it was utter shit... was still there. Sure, we were still using radios from the Korean War.

- - - Updated - - -

yes because that not how it works in any sense furthermore history has proven over the last 40 years, its the democrats who lower the deficit only for republicans to explode and the debt, followed by dems having to clean up gop's mess.

It's when a Democrat is in the White House, and Republicans are in control of Congress.

That's what happened with Clinton.

As for Obama, his deficits went up at the end, and the effects of the bailouts were no longer there.

[Elegiac]

I watched as a fiscal quarter was ending, and they went around and asked what we could spend money on as quickly as possible. The officers all got PDAs (or was the early 2000'S), and they bought useless shit that had no value in our actual mission. Meanwhile, the gear that we'd been trying to get replaced for years, because it was utter shit... was still there. Sure, we were still using radios from the Korean War.

So you'd rather your superiors just kept the money for personal use, like what happens in the private sector?

Also: you worked in a government department of the post-Reagan era. It's designed to be shitty to justify further cutting it, which is aberrant and not the norm.

[Machismo]

Ah yeah, you're one of those people who thinks the Tea Party was about fiscal responsibility and not people complaining that the President has too much melanin.

That's cute.

Nope, the Tea Party was a bunch of racist fucktards, which is why they disappeared when Trump won.

The Democrats got their asses handed to them in 2010, and Obama wasn't on the ticket.

- - - Updated - - -

So you'd rather your superiors just kept the money for personal use, like what happens in the private sector?

Also: you worked in a government department of the post-Reagan era. It's designed to be shitty to justify further cutting it.

Nope, I'd rather they never have spent it, instead of using it on a bunch of shit that was never needed, and had no value.

They could have simply not spent it, but that would mean they wouldn't get it for the next year. So, they wasted it on frivolous shit, so they could justify getting it the next year.

Government, ladies and gentlemen.

Even the idea of a 2-3% cut to government, sent you guys into a tailspin.

[Elegiac]

The Democrats got their asses handed to them in 2010, and Obama wasn't on the ticket.

Because the 2018 elections were not a reaction as a result of Trump.

[Machismo]

Because the 2018 elections were not a reaction as a result of Trump.

It was an indictment of Trump.

2010 can be considered an indictment of Obama, and the ACA was widely unpopular at the time. Or, had you forgotten?

It was quite the shellacking.

[Elegiac]

They could have simply not spent it, but that would mean they wouldn't get it for the next year.

So, you're saying that government departments do in fact have an efficiency incentive? Lol.

Private companies can not spend it and still get the same level of revenue, and this is viewed as a good thing because reasons™. It's a silly double standard.

2010 can be considered an indictment of Obama

Then why bring up that nonsense about Obama not being on the ticket?

2010 was a function of the Democrats dropping the ball at the state and local level, the increased rural/urban divide, and a racist reaction. Bitching about he ACA was the fig leaf for the last group.

[Machismo]

So, you're saying that government departments do in fact have an efficiency incentive? Lol.

Private companies can not spend it and still get the same level of revenue, and this is viewed as a good thing because reasons™. It's a silly double standard.

That's not efficiency, that is literally inefficiency...

I see we're having a problem with definitions.

[Kellhound]

Considering 2000 and 2016? Yeah, the GOP wasn’t representing the will of the people during those terms.

Neither candidate in 2000 or 2016 had the support of the majority of voters, and the GOP held both the Senate and the House.

[bladeXcrasher]

So you'd rather your superiors just kept the money for personal use, like what happens in the private sector?

Also: you worked in a government department of the post-Reagan era. It's designed to be shitty to justify further cutting it, which is aberrant and not the norm.

Problem with military spending is there is nothing to reward good spending. If you don't use up your budget, your next years budget is reduced to what you spent the prior year. That's the problem, you are punished for being fiscally responsible because you never know when you might actually need most or all of your $1M yearly budget.

[Kellhound]

Why any increase? Just a slight little 13 billion dollars. Do that for for a few years and suddenly we are near 800bn.

Because the US military is under funded for the tasks it is commanded to do.

[Elegiac]

Neither candidate in 2000 or 2016 had the support of the majority of voters, and the GOP held both the Senate and the House.

The Senate and the House are also not reflective of popular will, so.

- - - Updated - - -

Because the US military is under funded for the tasks it is commanded to do.

Maybe y'all should rein in your imperialist ambitions if you can't manifest them with your existing funds, then.

How good is colonialism neoliberalism war!

[Kellhound]

Cool: the military can get a raise when the civilian sector does.

Until that time they need to finish their existing high tech money pit before they can have dessert.

Most civilian government employees get raises every year.

[Zan15]

The earnings cap is a good thing, because there's also a cap on benefits.

No its not. If done right it can be one of the solutions needed.

the Social Security Administration’s Office of the Chief Actuary (OCACT) estimates that phasing in an increase in the taxable maximum (for
both contributions and benefits bases) to cover 90% of covered earnings over the next decade would eliminate roughly 20% of the long-range shortfall in Social Security. OCACT’s estimates also show that if all earnings were subject to the payroll tax, but the current-law base was retained for benefit calculations, the Social Security trust funds would remain solvent for over 40 years.

As for cutting benefits, we should have done it years ago. Once it becomes insolvent, then we'll get those benefits cut, regardless... and immediately. That's less than 15 years away.
.

It would be instantly funded with general tax dollars just like Medicare is today or every official would be voted out of office. It would be bailed out like just about every defunct govt program in the past.

More non Medicare tax money is used each year to fund the program vs actual money collected from the Medicare tax + premiums.

Once again, the solution for all Democrats... seems to be... raise taxes.

Wrong, they want a combination of things not just raising taxes. I just listed a bunch of them.

T

Fuck that, we've done it more than 20 times so far, and it hasn't fixed the issue. It's time to try something else.

We've actually raise the employment tax i believe over 24 times since its inception. That stopped with republican's in the 1990s.
Wasn't until this happened that these programs became technically insolvent.

and we were talking about increases like 7.51 to 7.65%. 6.06 to 6.2. 15.02 > 15.3 So on 100k that's $5.38 a week of which only half is from the employee.
Oh the horror!

[Elegiac]

That's not efficiency, that is literally inefficiency...

I see we're having a problem with definitions.

Yes: you view hoarding money as efficient, which is why I pointed out it's ridiculous for capitalists to complain about fiscal responsibility when their system is built around maximizing inefficiency for the benefit of a particular social class with the assumption that everyone else benefits.

[Zan15]

Most civilian government employees get raises every year.

well except for 2011-2013 where they got 0% but the military still got raises. There was a year or two in the 1980s as well.

[Machismo]

No its not. If done right it can be one of the solutions needed.

the Social Security Administration’s Office of the Chief Actuary (OCACT) estimates that phasing in an increase in the taxable maximum (for
both contributions and benefits bases) to cover 90% of covered earnings over the next decade would eliminate roughly 20% of the long-range shortfall in Social Security. OCACT’s estimates also show that if all earnings were subject to the payroll tax, but the current-law base was retained for benefit calculations, the Social Security trust funds would remain solvent for over 40 years.





It would be instantly funded with general tax dollars just like Medicare is today or every official would be voted out of office. It would be bailed out like just about every defunct govt program in the past.

More non Medicare tax money is used each year to fund the program vs actual money collected from the Medicare tax + premiums.



Wrong, they want a combination of things not just raising taxes. I just listed a bunch of them.





We've actually raise the employment tax i believe over 24 times since its inception. That stopped with republican's in the 1990s.
Wasn't until this happened that these programs became technically insolvent.

and we were talking about increases like 7.51 to 7.65%. 6.06 to 6.2. 15.02 > 15.3 So on 100k that's $5.38 a week of which only half is from the employee.
Oh the horror!

Once again... that's just another tax increase. Of course, that's simply increasing a tax on other people, and not on you. That's even worse.

And therein lies the problem, there's no incentive to actually fix the broken system, because people will just wait for the next guy to do it. meanwhile, future generations are going to be fucked over as a result. Social Security is the ultimate Ponzi Scheme.

At the end of the day, the retirement age should be increased, and we should reduce benefits. I have no desire to fuck over the wealthy, to pay for a fundamentally broken system.

[Stormspellz]

I watched as a fiscal quarter was ending, and they went around and asked what we could spend money on as quickly as possible. The officers all got PDAs (or was the early 2000'S), and they bought useless shit that had no value in our actual mission. Meanwhile, the gear that we'd been trying to get replaced for years, because it was utter shit... was still there. Sure, we were still using radios from the Korean War.

- - - Updated - - -



It's when a Democrat is in the White House, and Republicans are in control of Congress.

That's what happened with Clinton.

As for Obama, his deficits went up at the end, and the effects of the bailouts were no longer there.

then by your logic its gop's fault that last few years deficit went up (even though it was still about half of what he started with)

[Zan15]

Because the US military is under funded for the tasks it is commanded to do.

Nah, this is such falsehoods perpetrated by the military and its contractors.

We do not need to spend 10x more then the next 20 countries combined to do what is needed.

[Elegiac]

Social Security is the ultimate Ponzi Scheme.

Once again: it wasn't until folks like you started pushing to gut it.

Not every government is a post-Reagan government, sweaty. You're bitching about a curiosity of this country only.

[Machismo]

Yes: you view hoarding money as efficient, which is why I pointed out it's ridiculous for capitalists to complain about fiscal responsibility when their system is built around maximizing inefficiency for the benefit of a particular social class with the assumption that everyone else benefits.

If you are rating government efficiency on how much money they spend (with more money spent making them more efficient), then you seem to not understand what the word means.