Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

50 Years Of Government Spending, In 1 Graph

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–76 of 76 posts

Re: 50 Years Of Government Spending, In 1 Graph

#71

Post by aneth »

aurelianito wrote: post #43
aneth wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a claim that requires some justification. Gas in many countries is far cheaper than in the US, and the reason it is more expensive in others is heavy taxation and regulation, not lack of coercive negotiations.

I'll bite. The second gulf war was officially called OIL (Operation Iraqi Liberation). See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GoSBqs6y8uM and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq#Military_...

Yes, the Iraq war had much to do with protecting the world oil supply. While the oil and gas industry is heavily subsidized, that war did not give the US a better deal on oil than anyone else. While it may have impacted oil prices, it did so globally.

Re: 50 Years Of Government Spending, In 1 Graph

#72

Post by anamax »

_delirium wrote: post #67
anamax wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That seems like a problem for the regular budget to sort out I agree. My point is that the problem exists now. > I don't think it's an acceptable option to retroactively say that some of the Soc. Sec. taxes won't be paid back to Soc. Sec., I didn't suggest default. I'm just pointing out that the "drag" has already started. > and just kept for the general fund. If that happened, then it's basically been a regressive…

Re: removing the cap, that was in the case, which is vaguely proposed on and off, that Social Security will never get the money back from its mythical "lockbox", and instead the money will be retroactively turned into just general-treasury money. If it's just general-treasury money, then the Social Security tax is a general-revenue tax (not one earmarked for Social Security benefits), but as a general-revenue tax it'…

> but as a general-revenue tax it's a regressive one.

SS is not a general revenue tax - taxes don't have contribution-based payouts.

If you're suggesting that SS payouts should be completely means tested, you're opening the biggest can of worms. The SS recipients that complete means testing would most affect are among the most politically active people in America.

When I was younger, I used to argue against SS and the like as old-people welfare. I didn't see why my money should go to to folks who were better off than me. My age-cohorts disagreed.

Soon the subsidies will start flowing my way....

Re: 50 Years Of Government Spending, In 1 Graph

#73

Post by ekianjo »

ajross wrote: post #66
ekianjo wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Usually mass-media use the worst examples of libertarians to make fun of the whole concept/idea behind it. That's a common fallacy used to fight different kind of groups, when they are not mainstream and opposed to the current "approved way of thinking". EDIT: Hayek, Nobel Prize in Economy in 1974, is one of the most well-known libertarians out there: http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economics/laureates/1... Hi…

To be fair: the source of this discussion was a verifiably distortionist graph produced by a very mainstream libertarian think tank. To my mind, you're simply arguing the converse fallacy. The fact that there are smart people who hold any given opinion doesn't mean that the group associated with that opinion is worthy of praise. Basically: Hayek being "right" about something doesn't make the Cato institute "not true…

It's not just about being worthy of praise. I am just making the point that "libertarian" is a too generic term to put everything and everyone in a single bag. There are anarcho-libertarians, libertarians who support the idea of a balance between government and private investment, and many other variations.

I think the only generic you can say about libertarians is that : they care about freedom of property and consider government intervention in private affairs with criticism. Beyond this point, the commonalities disappear, and there is a wider range of opinions among libertarians than in any other political group out there. There is no real "dogma", while Von Mises and Hayek are more or less recognized as Thought leaders for some of them.

I did not claim, by the way, that Hayek was "right" about anything, I just wanted to show one of the figureheads of some parts of the movement. Getting a Nobel Prize does not mean anything to me, and I personally feel very strongly that the recent Economy Nobel Prize Jo Stiglitz does not know what he is talking about (he's just an old school Keynesian, and even Keynes himsel admitted in being wrong later in his life). Stiglitz has a clear political agenda that has nothing to do with actual economic sense.

Re: 50 Years Of Government Spending, In 1 Graph

#74

Post by _delirium »

anamax wrote: post #72
_delirium wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Re: removing the cap, that was in the case, which is vaguely proposed on and off, that Social Security will never get the money back from its mythical "lockbox", and instead the money will be retroactively turned into just general-treasury money. If it's just general-treasury money, then the Social Security tax is a general-revenue tax (not one earmarked for Social Security benefits), but as a general-revenue tax it'…

> but as a general-revenue tax it's a regressive one. SS is not a general revenue tax - taxes don't have contribution-based payouts. If you're suggesting that SS payouts should be completely means tested, you're opening the biggest can of worms. The SS recipients that complete means testing would most affect are among the most politically active people in America. When I was younger, I used to argue against SS and th…

> SS is not a general revenue tax - taxes don't have contribution-based payouts.

Did you miss this part of my comment?

> in the case, which is vaguely proposed on and off, that Social Security will never get the money back from its mythical "lockbox", and instead the money will be retroactively turned into just general-treasury money

Especially in the last Social-Security-reform debate a few years ago, there were serious proposals that the Social Security tax surplus notionally held in bonds will never be repaid to Social Security, and therefore reform proposals should be made which allows SS to be solvent under the assumption that it will never get its bonds repaid.

If that happens, a significant part of the past 20 years' Social-Security tax money will not be used for SS payouts, but will be kept by the general treasury. In that case, SS will retroactively have been, in part, a regressive general-revenue tax.

If 100% of the Soc. Sec. money collected is eventually used to pay Soc. Sec. obligations (i.e. SS is able to call its bonds), then my argument doesn't apply. I'm not confident that will happen, though.

Re: 50 Years Of Government Spending, In 1 Graph

#75

Post by rickyconnolly »

aurelianito wrote: post #55
rickyconnolly wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was called Operation Iraqi Freedom. OIF

It was renamed as Operation Iraqi Freedom after the public relations nightmare it generated. Just look at the links I posted before.

That's a pretty silly oversight. Somewhat akin to the supervillain revealing the details of his plan to the captured secret agent.

Re: 50 Years Of Government Spending, In 1 Graph

#76

Post by aurelianito »

rickyconnolly wrote: post #75
aurelianito wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was renamed as Operation Iraqi Freedom after the public relations nightmare it generated. Just look at the links I posted before.

That's a pretty silly oversight. Somewhat akin to the supervillain revealing the details of his plan to the captured secret agent.

Yes. It was really silly.
Post reply on HN