• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Teaching Economics to Liberals - Class is in Session

If you want to challenge my knowledge in economic matters...don't worry about my degrees or the lack thereof...just explain to me why taxpayers shouldn't be allowed to directly allocate their taxes.
Click to expand...

Isn't it obvious? You just made a thread that Liberals don't know economics. You apparently believe that 10's of millions of voter lack knowledge on a pretty important subject. Not to mention most voters typically are higher educated and have higher income than most non-voters. Oh...don't forget that Liberal voters also have a high representation of higher income and education when even compared with other voters.

So why do you think Liberals or any voter is able to effectively dictate where our nation should spend it's money? Even beyong that...how about information? How much information do most voters have about the running of the Government? From some of the posts on this board you get the impression that some folks think we're running a trillion+ deficit because of 14 dollar muffins.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Then it would be so easy to accept my challenge and demonstrate, clearly, how tax payers would be rational/efficient in allocating money for government spending, wouldn't it? Yet you guys have avoided this challenge like the plague. It sinks your position like a lead weight, so if I were you, I'D avoid it too. I know you can't accept this, as, like Xero, it causes intense cognitive dissonance, since much of your failed ideology hinges on irrational theories such as these.
Click to expand...

So are you saying most Americans are irrational with their money and would also do so in allocating their funds in the Gov't. departments they want to support? Why do you believe that? Sounds a little silly to me. Sure, there are irrational people out there but I think you give humanity way less credit than they deserve. You make it sound as though everyone will invest in useless things that don't matter to them, which is not the case.

I look at this topic in real terms, and from what I see in Gov't., this plan is no worse than the current one of lobbyists paying off the people you deem 'fit' to control the Nation's money. I would love to allocate my money to places I think would serve me better. In turn, if all people of every ideology and every background did this you would get a balanced system with the less funded (wastefull/useless) programs dropping off or severely underfunded, which may mean they are no longer useful to the people. You haven't proved that most/all people are irrational with their own money, so why ask for proof of people acting rational? These same 'irrational' people as you call them vote in the congress we have that squanders our money. So in turn, Congress must be irrational by your logic.

Of course it is subjective. Isn't it supposed to be? It is subjective to every part which makes up the whole.

This topic interested me so I had to join this forum. Perhaps I can learn a thing or two.
 
This topic interested me so I had to join this forum. Perhaps I can learn a thing or two.
Click to expand...

Welcome!

I look at this topic in real terms, and from what I see in Gov't., this plan is no worse than the current one of lobbyists paying off the people you deem 'fit' to control the Nation's money. I would love to allocate my money to places I think would serve me better. In turn, if all people of every ideology and every background did this you would get a balanced system with the less funded (wastefull/useless) programs dropping off or severely underfunded, which may mean they are no longer useful to the people. You haven't proved that most/all people are irrational with their own money, so why ask for proof of people acting rational? These same 'irrational' people as you call them vote in the congress we have that squanders our money. So in turn, Congress must be irrational by your logic.
Click to expand...


I agree a lot of this. I don't think Lobbyist are inherently a bad thing. People should have the right to lobby Congress. I think the revolving door and the cost of campaigns has turned it into a system where lobbyist write the bills. I do think that ultimately Congress members have much more information than the normal voter. I mean...you'd like to think it is their job, they get the reports from the agencies, there's now way humanly possible to expect voters to work their jobs, spend time with their families and have comb through agency reports on what the government professionals recommend.
 
obvious Child said:
Still can't believe these folks are hanging on to the idea that people would spend their time checking funding levels of government programs.

Do they realize just how expensive it would be and what a waste of government time merely to keep those websites updated?

In their poorly thought out quest for efficiency, they just created a monster of waste. Clearly some people here never learned the concept of unintended consequences.
Click to expand...

Seems to me politicians would still exist and have to prove to us, the taxpayers, WHY the program(s) they support should be funded. Monster of waste? Clearly Congress never learned the concept of unintended consequences when it decided, without the support of the majority of people, to occupy other countries in the interest of safety.
 
iliveonramen said:
Welcome!
Click to expand...

Thanks!

Congressmen/women gain from their knowledge on the public and private sectors, then spin the details to make it sound like its good for the people, when in fact it may very well hurt them. Most if not all politicians take lobbyist money to benefit the lobbyist's interest, how would taking money from taxpayers to benefit the taxpayers' interests be any different?

In a logistics sense, it would really be no different than now, except the lobbyists/Congress need to prove to the people who pay the taxes that their program/entitlement is worth it. People can learn from their mistakes, Congress I'm not so sure about. We are still fighting 'wars' we have no business in.

I don't know. The more I read about politicians and Congress, the more I detest them and feel the need to remove them from their ever increasing power over the people. They should act for the people, not the other way around.
 
I don't know. The more I read about politicians and Congress, the more I detest them and feel the need to remove them from their ever increasing power over the people. They should act for the people, not the other way around.
Click to expand...

I agree and feel the same way...I just can't help feeling that the world is too complicated for people to directly vote the Government budget. I'm definately sympathetic to the view point...at the same time whose going to send their tax dollars to the department of the interior which is in charge of regulating offshore oil rigs? It seems like it would be an extremely reactive system. Bridges start falling apart so people fund more for infrastructure. Oil rig blows in the Gulf Coast and people start over funding regulatory agencies.
 
JRSaindo said:
Congressmen/women gain from their knowledge on the public and private sectors, then spin the details to make it sound like its good for the people, when in fact it may very well hurt them. Most if not all politicians take lobbyist money to benefit the lobbyist's interest, how would taking money from taxpayers to benefit the taxpayers' interests be any different?

In a logistics sense, it would really be no different than now, except the lobbyists/Congress need to prove to the people who pay the taxes that their program/entitlement is worth it. People can learn from their mistakes, Congress I'm not so sure about. We are still fighting 'wars' we have no business in.

I don't know. The more I read about politicians and Congress, the more I detest them and feel the need to remove them from their ever increasing power over the people. They should act for the people, not the other way around.
Click to expand...
The Internet helps with the spin to some extent, so that part is looking up. They other part is getting involved a little. If a bill comes up and you have an opinion, let your Congressperson know it. (E-mails are cheap and easy.) If they don't seem to be listening to you then don't vote for them next time. It doesn't take a lot of effort to get involved enough to maybe make a difference. If all they hear is the lobbyist then of course they're going to vote that way - but how long did it take them to do an about-face on SOPA/PIPA? Despite popular belief we really can influence Washington.
 
As long as there was a good system in place for tracking funds for each agency and it wasn't manipulated, it could work. Unfortunately lots of other variables and human intervention with the system would cause lots of issues. Money talks and will buy you just about anything, even elections.
 
MoSurveyor said:
The Internet helps with the spin to some extent, so that part is looking up. They other part is getting involved a little. If a bill comes up and you have an opinion, let your Congressperson know it. (E-mails are cheap and easy.) If they don't seem to be listening to you then don't vote for them next time. It doesn't take a lot of effort to get involved enough to maybe make a difference. If all they hear is the lobbyist then of course they're going to vote that way - but how long did it take them to do an about-face on SOPA/PIPA? Despite popular belief we really can influence Washington.
Click to expand...

That is exactly what I am doing. I'm also posting alternate viewpoints and non-main stream sources for information on my Facebook page. So many times I hear from people, "If its not on CNN I don't believe it". How closed minded is that? I love hearing all sides. The lack of interest and the "I don't care" attitude is what keeps these crooks in power.

Anyway, back on topic...Congress is no better at spending my money than I am. I truly believe that. Its a sound concept, but in reality it seems like it would be one complicated mess. And on top of that, who would run the show and present the numbers/allocate the funds? How do the people know it would not be tampered with and numbers won't get skewed. Eventually it would become corrupt and be no better than what we have now.
 
Last edited:
CaptainCourtesy said:
This is nothing but a subjective definition with absolutely no substantiation for my challenge. You would need to define, OBJECTIVELY, irrational and waste, and show how it applies to the theory you are discussing... something that you have not done. Therefore, your "definition" is irrelevant. Please show how taxpayers would be rational/efficient in allocating money for government spending. No definitions, unless you decide to define "rational/efficient from an OBJECTIVE standpoint, not from "your opinion". Just the example/description of how taxpayers would demonstrate doing this. GO.
Click to expand...

You're the one making the argument that taxpayers would irrationally spend their money in the public sector. So I offered my definition of irrational spending: people intentionally wasting their own money. If you disagree with my definition of irrational spending...but you're unwilling to supply your own definition of irrational spending...then how can you say that I haven't met your challenge? How can you prove that I haven't met your challenge if you're unable to supply a definition of irrational spending?

Based on my definition of irrational spending...I have met your challenge. But clearly you think that I haven't met your challenge. Therefore, you must have a different definition of irrational spending. What's YOUR definition of irrational spending? Can you offer any examples?
 
JRSaindo said:
As long as there was a good system in place for tracking funds for each agency and it wasn't manipulated, it could work. Unfortunately lots of other variables and human intervention with the system would cause lots of issues. Money talks and will buy you just about anything, even elections.
Click to expand...

You don't appear to have worked in government. There are indeed many other variables, not the least of which are related to the ability to manage a government agency. Budget and personnel issues alone guarantee that the taxpayer choice system advocated by the OP will not work.
 
obvious Child said:
Absolutely nothing you posted addressed a single damn thing I said. Thanks for proving my first point about your inability to play in the big leagues.

I point out how your lunatic plan results in Congress essentially losing its Constitutional right to spend money and instead being turned into a commitee of plugging holes like a little dutch boy and that steaming load of **** is how you reply. I've seen pathetic responses before, but your's takes the recent cake.

And by the way, you just admitted Congress goes out the window as we completely move away from an actual budget. On your more second round of idiocy. A seriously decentralized government would be EXTREMELY inefficient. You'd have to duplicate things in every department. Waste would go through the roof. Furthermore, you just proved my point about why your plan is stupid. Your argument requires that everyone who pays taxes be constantly checking funding levels. I'd mock the sheer lunacy of your plan, but I think people already realize just how half-baked it is. On top of that, without reliable funding, it's going to be impossible to plan anything more then a few days out.
Click to expand...

Let's apply your argument to the private sector. According to your logic...it would be a good idea to restructure the private sector so that every single organization, firm, company and corporation was placed under one single corporation...Mega Corp. Rather than being able to directly purchase private goods ourselves....we would just give all our money to Mega Corp's collection agency and Mega Corp's committee would decide which of it's numerous sub organizations it gave our money to. According to your logic this would be a good idea. So can you show me any evidence where you have promoted this idea that you think is so good?

obvious Child said:
You have done absolutely nothing of value there. And you are still unable to prove how your plan doesn't make Congress into 535 little dutch boys plugging leaks with their fingers.
Click to expand...

What do you think you are? You're just a little dutch boy responding to shortages of the things that you value. When your stomach growls you plug the hole by purchasing food. When your shoes start getting old you plug the hole by purchasing new ones. When you want to learn about something you plug the hole by purchasing books.

Why do you think it's a good idea to allow 538 congresspeople to try and plug all the holes in the public sector? Just how many holes do you think there are in the public sector? Just how many fingers and toes do you think that 538 congresspeople have? Just how many fingers and toes do you think that 150 million taxpayers have?

obvious Child said:
You really aren't worth anyone's time here.
Click to expand...

You really don't think it's pretentious to make that value judgement for other people? Just because you might not be worth my time does not mean that you might not be worth other people's time.

You know how I know that I'm worth your time? Because you keep giving it to me. You know how you know that you're worth my time? Because I keep giving it to you. Economics is based on actions...not words. CLASS IS IN SESSION!!!
 
obvious Child said:
Still can't believe these folks are hanging on to the idea that people would spend their time checking funding levels of government programs.

Do they realize just how expensive it would be and what a waste of government time merely to keep those websites updated?

In their poorly thought out quest for efficiency, they just created a monster of waste. Clearly some people here never learned the concept of unintended consequences.
Click to expand...

Do you have to check a dental website everyday to see if you have a toothache or not? The public sector exists to address the demand for public goods. Who do you think demands public goods? Aliens from outer space? The public demands public goods. Either the government's supply of public goods matches the demand for public goods...or it does not. Either there's a dentist to fix your toothache...or there's not. Why wouldn't you want there to be a dentist to fix your toothache?
 
NAKED N00B said:
I'm not going to read through 25 pages of mindless dribble about the lean someone decides to show or the ridiculous idea of tax payers allocating funds.

How about you follow through on your promise to educate and tell me what should be done to fix the economy.
Click to expand...

What is economics? Economics is the study of scarcity. When something is scarce you don't want to waste it. You don't want to waste your time looking for gold just so you can throw the gold into a volcano. You might as well just throw yourself into the volcano while you're at it. What do you do with gold once you find it? You sell it to the highest bidder in order to maximize your profit. You want the most value for your effort. Everybody wants the most bang for their buck. Nobody wants their money wasted. You sacrificed your time looking for the gold. Therefore, you want your sacrifice to be worth it.

Here's what you're actually saying when you say that the economy needs to be fixed. You're saying that resources need to be used more productively. You're saying...well...rather than throwing gold into a volcano...let's sell it to the highest bidder. When I say that taxpayers should be allowed to directly allocate their taxes...I'm saying...well...rather than giving taxes to congress...taxpayers should be allowed to "sell" their taxes to the highest bidder. Which government organization will give them the most bang for their buck?

Taxpayers should have the opportunity to maximize the value they receive for their taxes. They sacrificed their time to earn their money...so it should be up to them to get the most bang for their buck in the public sector. This will greatly reduce waste. Why? Because nobody wants their money wasted. Therefore, giving taxpayers the freedom to choose which government organizations they give their taxes to will fix the economy.
 
Last edited:
Misterveritis said:
Classical liberalism, today known as conservatism, is what you are identifying. Today's liberals will have nothing to do with limited government. Nothing. The Constitution is anathema to today's liberals. All else, freedom and liberties, flows from limited government.
Click to expand...
Nope. Conservatives are economically liberal but socially conservative. They restrict the rights of gays and women. Liberals today are progressives, and the closest people to classical liberalism are libertarians.

This is evidence that you have not actually ready what Radical Karl wrote.
Click to expand...
I actually haven't, but Marxism has never existed in practice. His society would be classless and essentially have no government. That contradicts big government in the first place.

Regulating people and businesses to the point where they no longer "own" their property is similar in thrust to the seizure of private property by the communists. It is fascism but the two are very close in their goals to dominate, to control and to suppress the people for the benefit of themselves and the state. Statism is the more accurate term. But Marxism is close enough for most purposes.
Click to expand...
Marxism and Fascism are complete opposites, and their followers have always hated each other. You seem to think that they can just be used interchangeably to attack Obama without actually debating his policies.

I cannot recall saying that. He is a Marxist because his core beliefs are Marxist. Destroying capitalism through the use of the government's powers is a tactic. It is nothing more.
Click to expand...
What core beliefs? And he hasn't destroyed capitalism. Giant corporations every day underpay and exploit workers under the administration. That is impossible under Marxism.

Do you believe the one term Marxist flexible president Barack Hussein Obama can take us to communism without first destroying capitalism? Has that ever occurred anywhere else. I believe your thinking on this point is very shallow. It may be your undoing.
Click to expand...
You actually have no evidence to illustrate that Obama is a communist. His policies actually force us to buy from private companies! No capitalism has been destroyed.


This is shallow thinking. More than 80,000 regulations control every facet of our lives. This is tyranny. It is a tool to wreck individual freedom and capitalism.
Click to expand...
You mean freedom to put toxins in our food? If you know about history you know that life was hell before there were minimum standards for treatment of foodstuff facilities.

Hardly. But that you for the advice. I shall give it the attention it deserves.
Click to expand...
I doubt it.
 
Misterveritis said:
CC, it is in your blind spot. I believe you are incapable of seeing the truth. You know that you can spend your money better than anyone else. But you cannot bring yourself to accept that you are not alone. Everyone can spend their money better than anyone else. You have not challenged his theory. You have demonstrated its fundamental soundness. It is only your blindness that prevents you from seeing it.
Click to expand...

Wrong. Free-rider-ship. The idea of an invisible hand was invented by Smith, who didn't actually believe in a completely free market.
 
Misterveritis said:
Yeah. That is the tricky thing with language. Sometimes the meanings of terms flip. The smartest among us keep up with the subtle changes. The dull, quite frequently, do not.

Conservatism, today is roughly equal to the liberalism of the 18th century. It is what it is. Conservatives believe that the individual is sovereign. Liberals today believe the state is the only sovereign that matters. Conservatives believe that a constitutionally limited government protects the people's rights to life, liberty and property. Liberals want to do away with the Constitution as it is an obstacle that prevents them from doing as they wish. Conservatives believe that people should have the right to believe as they wish. Liberals believe the state is in the best position to decide what is right for the people.
Click to expand...

American Conservatives now want to preserve the existing order of what, in 1776, was a very progressive idea. It can vary by place as well - someone espousing your views in Iran would be considered dangerously liberal by their standards. Even some "Conservatives" here (Tigger comes to mind) find allowing individuals to make individual decisions to be dangerously liberal. Some think that women shouldn't vote, and to them the idea of letting women or minorities vote is dangerously liberal.

Your definition of a "Liberal" is so wrong, I won't even begin to try to correct it. You are confusing Conservatism with Libertarianism. Many Conservatives want the government involved in who you have sex with, and how you have sex with that person. That is not letting individuals do as they they please.
 
Xerographica said:
Let's apply your argument to the private sector. According to your logic...it would be a good idea to restructure the private sector so that every single organization, firm, company and corporation was placed under one single corporation...Mega Corp. Rather than being able to directly purchase private goods ourselves....we would just give all our money to Mega Corp's collection agency and Mega Corp's committee would decide which of it's numerous sub organizations it gave our money to. According to your logic this would be a good idea. So can you show me any evidence where you have promoted this idea that you think is so good?
Click to expand...

There its an inherent difference between allocating money on material goods and allocating proper funding for government agencies.



What do you think you are? You're just a little dutch boy responding to shortages of the things that you value. When your stomach growls you plug the hole by purchasing food. When your shoes start getting old you plug the hole by purchasing new ones. When you want to learn about something you plug the hole by purchasing books.

Why do you think it's a good idea to allow 538 congresspeople to try and plug all the holes in the public sector? Just how many holes do you think there are in the public sector? Just how many fingers and toes do you think that 538 congresspeople have? Just how many fingers and toes do you think that 150 million taxpayers
Click to expand...

specialized knowledge and its their job to know how much is needed to fund am agency.

Now, what I wouldn't mind seeing is you idea put into practice a different way. A referendum on various agencies, or on what those agencies do, could readily be justified and removes the hassle of having to waste resources on budget and watch dog groups.

Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk 2
 
xpiher said:
There its an inherent difference between allocating money on material goods and allocating proper funding for government agencies.
Click to expand...

Economics is about sacrifice. You sacrifice one thing that you value...in exchange for another thing that you value even more. Do you only make sacrifices for material goods? If people only sacrificed for material goods then how do you explain the non-profit sector?

xpiher said:
specialized knowledge and its their job to know how much is needed to fund am agency.
Click to expand...

So nobody in the non-profit sector has specialized knowledge? The part that I'm failing to explain to you is that funding isn't a matter of knowledge...it's a matter of demand. Funding is determined by demand. If you want to increase your funding then you increase the demand for your product/service by increasing your fundraising/advertising.

What happens when funding isn't based on demand? You end up with misallocated resources, diminished productivity and less prosperity for all.
 
iliveonramen said:
I agree a lot of this. I don't think Lobbyist are inherently a bad thing. People should have the right to lobby Congress. I think the revolving door and the cost of campaigns has turned it into a system where lobbyist write the bills. I do think that ultimately Congress members have much more information than the normal voter. I mean...you'd like to think it is their job, they get the reports from the agencies, there's now way humanly possible to expect voters to work their jobs, spend time with their families and have comb through agency reports on what the government professionals recommend.
Click to expand...

Your response was the 69th response that I've added to this list...Unglamorous but Important Things.

When it comes to the distribution of resources...we don't consider how much information the average taxpayer has compared to the average congressperson...we instead consider the total amounts of information held by each group. Taxpayers, as a group, have an infinitely greater amount of information than congress, as a group, does. This means that the distribution of public funds would be infinitely more productive if we allowed taxpayers to directly allocate their taxes.

As I mentioned before though, nobody would be forced to directly allocate their taxes. If taxpayers felt they lacked the necessary information then they would certainly have the option to just give their taxes to congress...aka their personal shoppers for public goods.
 
Xerographica said:
What is economics? Economics is the study of scarcity. When something is scarce you don't want to waste it. You don't want to waste your time looking for gold just so you can throw the gold into a volcano. You might as well just throw yourself into the volcano while you're at it. What do you do with gold once you find it? You sell it to the highest bidder in order to maximize your profit. You want the most value for your effort. Everybody wants the most bang for their buck. Nobody wants their money wasted. You sacrificed your time looking for the gold. Therefore, you want your sacrifice to be worth it.

Here's what you're actually saying when you say that the economy needs to be fixed. You're saying that resources need to be used more productively. You're saying...well...rather than throwing gold into a volcano...let's sell it to the highest bidder. When I say that taxpayers should be allowed to directly allocate their taxes...I'm saying...well...rather than giving taxes to congress...taxpayers should be allowed to "sell" their taxes to the highest bidder. Which government organization will give them the most bang for their buck?

Taxpayers should have the opportunity to maximize the value they receive for their taxes. They sacrificed their time to earn their money...so it should be up to them to get the most bang for their buck in the public sector. This will greatly reduce waste. Why? Because nobody wants their money wasted. Therefore, giving taxpayers the freedom to choose which government organizations they give their taxes to will fix the economy.
Click to expand...

My mistake. I thought this was going to be a thread about economics. I should have realized it was going to a cover for mindless ramblings of some pipe dream tax scheme. If you'd like to discuss macroeconomic policy in these critical times, I'd be happy to. If you'd like to hark on about this implausible nonsense, I'm going to pass on this thread.
 
NAKED N00B said:
My mistake. I thought this was going to be a thread about economics. I should have realized it was going to a cover for mindless ramblings of some pipe dream tax scheme. If you'd like to discuss macroeconomic policy in these critical times, I'd be happy to. If you'd like to hark on about this implausible nonsense, I'm going to pass on this thread.
Click to expand...

Tax choice is simply a test. It tests your knowledge of economics. Guess what? You failed the test. If you don't know how resources are efficiently allocated...then you don't know the first thing about economics. Why would I discuss macroeconomics with somebody that doesn't understand the first thing about economics? Why would I discuss macroeconomics with somebody that couldn't even make a single argument against allowing taxpayers to directly allocate their taxes?
 
rocket88 said:
Conservatism seeks to preserve the existing order at its core. Conservatives, at that time, were against American independence because it upset the existing order of being ruled by a King.

The American Revolution put forth some very progressive ideas for the time. The idea of no state religion, the right to speak your mind, elected government...all very upsetting to the conservatives then.
Click to expand...
Back then we would have been liberals. The meaning is the same but the label changed. Try to keep up. Conservatives today, as with liberals then believe in the same things. The individual is sovereign. The individual is more important than the state or the church. The state must be hemmed in with restraints and restrictions if the people are to remain free. The state's power must be divided in many ways to keep it from ever becoming too powerful and tyrannical.

Be honest for a moment. Which do you believe? Do you believe the people are sovereign or are we subjects of a stat that can do whatever it wants (so long as you agree with it)?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom