Fiscal responsibility: suppose the govt "doesn't spend money it doesn't have."

[NAOS]

I'm not Jesus.

If you had been paying attention you would know I'm not a Repub. If you couldn't tell I am responding to you because I am tired of your smarter than thou, better than thou attitude and think you need a little opposition. See I can be as douchie as you are in every post.

really, dude, you're gonna have to stop being a stereotype if you want to be true opposition. But, when you do that, you'll find that we have plenty to talk about.

 

[One Brow]

As to the basis for a healthy diet for food stamps, yes I have looked into the pounds of each food by week per age and gender that make up the market basket. I am not going to dig into the details with you because it is pointless. What does have a point is that in real life, families are allowed to buy almost whatever they want on food stamps. The money given based on the basket is in regards to healthy foods, but any unprepared foods are allowed.

I agree that is a weakness and a fault. Food stamps are designed to cover a healthy diet, but healthy food is often more expensive than many of the unhealthy foods, as well as less appealing when you've been raised on the unhealthy foods.

However, outside of restricting what foods you can buy on food stamps, establishing a separate price structure for unhealthy foods so th=ey cost more on food stamps, o similar notions that make the food stamp program mush more regulated and complex, I'm not sure what the solution would be. If you just cut baqck on the funds, you force people to make th eunhealthy choice.

 

[Jazz Spazz]

I agree that is a weakness and a fault. Food stamps are designed to cover a healthy diet, but healthy food is often more expensive than many of the unhealthy foods, as well as less appealing when you've been raised on the unhealthy foods.

However, outside of restricting what foods you can buy on food stamps, establishing a separate price structure for unhealthy foods so th=ey cost more on food stamps, o similar notions that make the food stamp program mush more regulated and complex, I'm not sure what the solution would be. If you just cut baqck on the funds, you force people to make th eunhealthy choice.

True, then change what can be bought like they do with WIC and start there... reevaluate after.

 

[Jazz Spazz]

really, dude, you're gonna have to stop being a stereotype if you want to be true opposition. But, when you do that, you'll find that we have plenty to talk about.

I've seen how you talk to people, not sure I want to talk with you. How you talk to people is the main reason you get the reaction you get from me. You sure you are not Jesus, because you seem to condescend quite a bit.

 

[NAOS]

You sure you are not Jesus

unintended compliment.

 

[franklin]

Honestly I think it is a mixture of both.

The Left is too uneducated and focused on government as the answer to everything to make good change.

In short we are hosed.

Please spread that fear as wide and deep as you can for me. I can't wait to buy up more stock at depressed prices on a 2% HELOC. I'm being fully serious too.

 

[Stoked]

Please spread that fear as wide and deep as you can for me. I can't wait to buy up more stock at depressed prices on a 2% HELOC. I'm being fully serious too.

Why do you think I am spreading it...?

Do you have faith not in the system but the people running that system? I don't. I base this of the crap they are doing.

Congressional hearing on steroidss in baseball? Refusing to allow a vote on the budget? Give me a damn break! Boneheads the lot of them.

 

[Dr. Jones]

Both sides are overly wed to (a) trust in the naturalness of the market, (a) trust that private interests can and should deliver what the State "certainly can't", and (c) the individual's responsibility for his/her station in life.

I guess I might call this lack of education since there are plenty of long-standing social theories that illustrate how inadequate these platforms are.

EDIT TO ADD: The republican tendencies I mentioned above just really really get under my skin. I can't see how it is good for public discourse. Democrats can be too idealistically egalitarian and relativistic, but I find this easier to work with. Does this answer your question?

Thanks for the sincere answer. I find it difficult, if not impossible, to believe that any of these candidates are not more versed in historical economics than any of us here. So, assuming that's correct, for a moment, why don't they see things the same way? Is it because they're smarter and know more than us .. Or because they have each succumbed to the pressures of their party, lobbyists, campaign contributors, etc?

 

[northeast]

Some politicians are very smart and conscientious, but they are a minority that don't have a lot of power.
Those that are smart and do have power mostly do not have the best interests of society at heart.
They are beholden to special interests and political donors, and their own biases, which often is indeed support for an elite group, or at least a subsection of the population.
The bulk of politicians are too busy fundraising and forming alliances and trying to get re-elected and building their own assets than to spend much time thinking about the issues in this thread. They have lobbyists and pollsters and donors doing their thinking for them.
The good ones mostly burn out or get pushed out or marginalized. A few are killed if they prove too resilient.

 

[margodydek]

Thanks for the sincere answer. I find it difficult, if not impossible, to believe that any of these candidates are not more versed in historical economics than any of us here. So, assuming that's correct, for a moment, why don't they see things the same way? Is it because they're smarter and know more than us .. Or because they have each succumbed to the pressures of their party, lobbyists, campaign contributors, etc?

This is one of the reasons I hate politics. I equate it to the Cowboys. They could have the smartest coach in the world, but if Jerry doesn't take a back seat and let the smart people do their thing, they'll never win. Does that make any sense?

 

[NAOS]

Thanks for the sincere answer. I find it difficult, if not impossible, to believe that any of these candidates are not more versed in historical economics than any of us here.

I do think it's fair to question how well-versed a lot of congressmen and women are about social theories. You say "historical economics"... sure, there are a quite a few that know a lot about that, but it is dangerous to tell history from the point of view of economics if you are harboring presuppositions about competition, growth, modes of creating value, etc. My point was that both sides are overly constrained by these presuppositions and have a poor sense for what society is (most famously uttered by their godmother Thatcher who claimed that "society doesn't exist"). If you tell history like it is a bunch of egoistic, rationally-maximizing individuals coming together to form society (which can be reduced to the structure of their interactions), then you do have an uneducated view.

... but, I'll play along...

So, assuming that's correct, for a moment, why don't they see things the same way? Is it because they're smarter and know more than us .. Or because they have each succumbed to the pressures of their party, lobbyists, campaign contributors, etc?

My view is that they largely DO SEE THINGS THE SAME WAY, and that the average american over-exaggerates the difference between the two (the media helps with this, of course). If the fight is about making sure the State program behaves like a profit-driven corporate body or whether it should be a private venture, then I don't consider that to be much of a fight... The same logic/code undergirds both.

Pressures to obey this code don't come only from lobbyists. They come from Joe the Voting Plumber who thinks he knows what "money" is and how simply our problems would be solved if they "just stopped spending money they didn't have"... and he is ready to cast his vote on this issue.

 

[franklin]

Do you have faith not in the system but the people running that system? I don't. I base this of the crap they are doing.

Here's my general approach rambled together: Governments have always been corrupt and people have always fought vehemently over policy. This era is no different. People have worried that the world would soon come to an end since the beginning of recorded history yet it never has. Worrying incessantly about impending doom dampens our investing outlook and hurts our prospects. It also is self feeding and self defeating. Most people are well intentioned and want the world to be better tomorrow than it is today regardless of which side of the fence they live on. The US has the most deep, dynamic, & adaptable market the world has ever seen. We're becoming more civil & extending equal freedoms to new groups. The undeveloped world has watched the developed & is following suit. Mass economic liberations are happening in China, India, Brazil, Russia, & even Africa. Economies are becoming stronger & more dynamic on a world wide scale. Hundreds of millions are being lifted from poverty. We've been through the Great Depression, Civil War, a revolution, two world wars, & Jimmy Carter (j/k). All of these dwarf the problems of today that are petty in comparison. We defeated Hitler and Imperial Japan but we can't handle our trade gap or healthcare that's keeping us alive & healthy for longer than we're used to paying for? Please.

These powers will be harnessed by the optimistic, who will have the best chance of profiting from them. Successful business people have proven this to be true many times over. When people are screaming that California is going bankrupt I am looking for nice yielding municipal bonds. When people are screaming that China will dump our debt I am searching for products they will buy with all those dollars. When people are screaming about a collapse in Europe I'll be grabbing a travel magazine for deals in Rome & Paris.

So yeah, the world allegedly sucks & I don't give a damn. Carpe Diem...lemonade.