CEOs who receive billions in subsidies want to keep their subsidies, but cut Social Security and other welfare programs.

[DaShi]

It's simple. More money for the rich = deflation. More money for the poor = inflation. Clearly the only recourse a society has it is to form a plutocracy led by an malleable dictator. Only that will ensure that the poor are best off.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Increasing public sector wages is about the worst thing, long term you could do. More government spending = more debt.

If indexed to inflation, you ideally see deficit/GDP stay consistent, ceteris paribus - (which is what really matters anyways).

The best thing the government could do is to stop fighting the deflation. Cut spending. Let the market crash. Let everything fall apart. It will suck short term, but this time next year, the government would have it's fiscal house in order and things would be better.

That totally worked in 1929.

Also, no cite for Friedman?

Since you have an irrational dislike for Wikipedia (likely because it tends to contradict you, as reality generally does), I saw no need.

[Ben Kenobi]

If indexed to inflation, you ideally see deficit/GDP stay consistent, ceteris paribus - (which is what really matters anyways).

Again, indexing it provides no net benefit over not indexing it. Indexing also increases the inflation rate, which punishes those who save, and rewards certain classes of workers that we already have too many of at present. We need to be cutting back government wages rather than stealth increases.

That totally worked in 1929.

Worked in 1921, and every other recession previous and wasn't followed in 1929, where government spending went up, not down. Cut spending, let the recession be short and sharp - had this been done in 2008 - we'd be in the midst of a booming economy today.

Since you have an irrational dislike for Wikipedia (likely because it tends to contradict you, as reality generally does), I saw no need.

Wikipedia isn't a reliable source. Lacking a reliable source for your BAM, I can only conclude that you were lying about Friedman.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Again, indexing it provides no net benefit over not indexing it.

Aside from doing what the policy is meant to do. Keeping track with inflation is hardly "stealth increase" - its to prevent stealth decrease.

Worked in 1921

Wrong. The downsizing of the government happened under Wilson's watch and prior to the Depression of 1921. The President's Conference on Unemployment led to increased relief to the unemployed and President Harding increased tariffs.

Here:



See how it goes UP at 1921?

[Alexander's Horse]

cut defence spending

[Ben Kenobi]

Aside from doing what the policy is meant to do. Keeping track with inflation is hardly "stealth increase" - its to prevent stealth decrease.

What's wrong with cutting the size of government?

As for 1921 - I'm distracted by the massive spike and subsequent drop by Wilson.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

How is middle class spending reduced, if minimum wage is keeping pace with inflation by having minimum wage indexed to inflation? And how would this move the middle class down to the lower class? A significantly higher minimum wage would move the working poor up to the lower rung of the middle class.

1) Middle class spending does not equal Middle Class spending power
2) The presumption that increases to minimum wage would similarly translate to middle income wages is not a given. In fact they likely will lag. Hence as inflation eats away the bang for the middle class buck and their wages do not keep pace with inflation they progressively slide until such time as they are ultimately lower class.
3) The preusmption that this in any way improves the standing of the working poor is unproven. Further the implications are very likely adverse for everyone but them. Particualry the middle class who can least afford loss of spending power.

[Dinner]

They keep saying they want to do away with the mortgage interest deduction and the charitable deduction. I wouldn't mind seeing the mortgage interest deduction capped but as a home owner I don't want to see it go away. Sure, interest rates are really low now but just 30 years ago they were 18% and that kept many a family from falling out of the middle class. Charitable deductions should also be done away with or capped. People should be giving out of the goodness of their hearts not because they want a kick back from uncle sugar.

[kentonio]

Hilarious watching the normal corporate shills cheering for the billionaires.

You endlessly repeat the same pathetic ideas which have been proven time and again to result in nothing but income inequality, civil unrest and suffering. You're cheerleading for the age of the Railroad Barons, and in a way I wish you could experience it, so you can see exactly what ends up happening to people just like yourselves when things go inevitable wrong.

[DinoDoc]

They keep saying they want to do away with the mortgage interest deduction and the charitable deduction. I wouldn't mind seeing the mortgage interest deduction capped but as a home owner I don't want to see it go away. Sure, interest rates are really low now but just 30 years ago they were 18% and that kept many a family from falling out of the middle class.

Why do other countries (Canada for instance) real estate markets work perfectly well without the government giving it such a direct subsidy?

[giblets]

They keep saying they want to do away with the mortgage interest deduction and the charitable deduction. I wouldn't mind seeing the mortgage interest deduction capped but as a home owner I don't want to see it go away.

Of course not. As a homeowner you'd rather see people who don't own homes pay higher taxes to make up for the revenue shortfall.

[Felch]

Wrong. The downsizing of the government happened under Wilson's watch and prior to the Depression of 1921. The President's Conference on Unemployment led to increased relief to the unemployed and President Harding increased tariffs.

Here:

See how it goes UP at 1921?

I agree that if we're going to bother with the minimum wage, it should be indexed for inflation.

I think that the graph is showing steady government spending. In a depression, the GDP would be slightly contracted, so if spending were kept steady its percentage share would be slightly increased. I don't care to look up the actual numbers though, so I can't be certain.

[Felch]

Charitable deductions should also be done away with or capped. People should be giving out of the goodness of their hearts not because they want a kick back from uncle sugar.

Let me guess; you don't claim very many of these. I don't either. But I'm content with letting people who do give to charity get a little help with their taxes. If the worst thing somebody could say about our tax code is that it rewards charity, then I'd be fine with that.

Ideally we wouldn't tax income at all. A land value tax is easy to administer, impossible to evade, and has no excess burden of taxation. Supplement it with something like the Fair Tax, and you could close every loophole in the book while still keeping the tax burden on the poor to a minimum.

[snoopy369]

Of course not. As a homeowner you'd rather see people who don't own homes pay higher taxes to make up for the revenue shortfall.

To be fair, I think now is the wrong time to be losing this deduction. The people hardest hit during the recession - and in part caused it - are the people paying a ton of interest on mortgages. How many additional people would be driven bankrupt or foreclosed upon if you took thousands away from them in mortgage interest?

I'm a home owner, and in the long run I'd be all for removing this deduction (and instead rolling in a small increase in the personal exemption). Admittedly I pay little enough mortgage interest that it won't affect me much (yay for buying at the right time!), my property taxes are far higher than my mortgage interest - but even if I did I think I'd support phasing out that exemption as long as it came along with other tax code revisions.

[MrFun]

Which is good because minimum wage is a ****ing stupid idea in the first place. Its saving grace is that it's low enough to only matter to high school age kids.

Without minimum wage, we would see a skyrocketing number of workers go onto welfare.