mdk

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

<Snipped quote by mdk>
How certain can we be that the $7.8 trillion will be injected into the US economy? What incentives do the tax cut's beneficiaries have to invest their newfound savings into the US, as opposed to other countries?

@catchamber

I think all we have are Trump's claims. But he's trustworthy, right guys?

@POOHEAD189

Well, Trump's claims, and a 3.1% GDP growth in the second quarter of the first term. And the killing of TPP, the renegotiation of NAFTA, the withdrawal (/renegotiation? Where did we land on that?) of Paris Accords, etc. Trump is doing a shitload of business-friendly things, so much so that lowering the corporate tax rate at this point wouldn't even be the biggest thing he's done for American business. The whole idea is to reestablish the US as the best place to do your business. Remember, the Left used to be pissed off that he was TOO protectionist, what with all the tariff threats. I think a reasonable person would look at the evidence and conclude that this is a genuine goal, and -- for the time being, at least -- it's working.

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

Perhaps I misheard him. I'll ask him tomorrow. Though come to think of it, he could have meant Trump's tax cuts costing the U.S. 7.8 trillion dollars.

@POOHEAD189

over a decade. Another way to phrase that same stat, though, is that Trump's tax plan will inject 7.8 trillion into the economy over the next decade. Plus, we're talking about an opinion based on a projection based on a summary based on an idea -- from the same source:

Ned Davis Research earlier this year ran a scenario analysis to illustrate the drag on earnings should interest expenses no longer be deductible. It calculated that a 20 percent tax rate would boost profits by 7.2 percent, but once those deductions are removed, the benefit shrinks to 2.6 percent. In other words, about two-thirds of the gain from tax cuts would be wiped out.

Those simplified deductions Trump talked about on the campaign trail are going to preserve a lot of tax revenue while saving everybody a lot of time, money, and effort come filing season.

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

Also something I knew (but not to this extent) was that our 7 trillion dollar deficit per year would almost be met if we halted military spending. Not to say we should halt it entirely, but even though we spend more on defense than any country (and more than many countries combined) we'd still be 20 trillion in debt, and the american work force would need to work for free 3/4ths out of the year to even get close to helping pay the debt the U.S. is in. Cutting military spending entirely would barely get us on track.

@POOHEAD189

That would be surprising, since the DoD budget is $574b, and the entire federal budget (all of it) is $4.1t. Honestly don't know where your numbers are coming from.

Edit: okay so the 2017 deficit is $440b, not $7t. So technically yes, that would work once. Then again, this is what our spending looked like when we ran that deficit. We spent twice the DoD's budget on unemployment benefits. So..... you know..... perhaps running >3% GDP growth will cut those unemployment numbers while also driving up revenue. But that's a pipe dream.

... jk Trump already did that

Double Edit: Also, we should be spending less than we are on the military. Not nearly the kind of cuts most people are talking about -- parity with other nations is the stupidest defense strategy of all time ever -- but we are wasting money and we can save a lot of it without draconian cuts.

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

<Snipped quote by mdk>

I'm with you here. To the victor the spoils and devil take the hindmost. However I am not convinced that immigration, even immigration of skilled labor, actually benefits the american worker. It might benefit the corporate bottom line or move some stats in a government bureau around in a way that could be construed as beneficial but that isn't the same as helping the working american.

@Kratesis

America has the best Chinese food in the world.

That is my response to that.

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

This thing you're describing is the paradox of security versus privacy. It's a really standard thing but the rule is that you always trade like so; security <-----------------> privacy. For every step towards security you take, your citizens will have less privacy, and for every step towards privacy.. you get the point.

@Odin

Generally/simply, yes. Specifically/precisely, I think it's missing the mark a bit... There's no intrusion on privacy (well not publicly at least). A policy has been created to monitor public speech via social media. The spectrum doesn't really apply, because there was never any reasonable expectation of privacy in the first place.

Now take something like British web police -- that's a security vs. privacy matter. The US policy doesn't really do anything like that yet, though it's not hard to imagine taking that step after this one.

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

<Snipped quote>
That's still stupid. You're creating brain-drain and making that place have worse living conditions, and you are creating more divide in the world in quality of life, with subsequently more pollution and such. So you're still wrong.

@Andreyich

what do I care what happens to the country they came from? I'M AN AMERICAN! If you legally immigrated, YOU'RE AN AMERICAN TOO! So the two of us are the only people I care about in this scenario. Immigration policy as altruism -- you're right -- that's totally backwards, and it probably does more harm than good. But I don't expect my government to be altruistic. I want America to do what is best for America. If that means brain-draining Cambodia, you know, I'll bring the chopsticks.

Insofar as immigration benefits my country, I am totally in favor of immigration. This will necessarily result in a better life for those who immigrate, which is fantastic and all, but that's not my point at all. My purpose is national self-interest.

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

Why let in just a bit of a problem when you can let in none of it at all?

@Andreyich

If you vet potential immigrants properly, you minimize the risk of admitting future murderers -- and then you get to add some real brains and goodness to your list of national resources. Good immigration is an asset. Uncontrolled immigration, poorly vetted immigration, illegal immigration -- these are what cause problems. Just ask Francistan.

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

snip

@Odin

Gotcha.

Yeah, it's inefficient. Still... I mean let's stick with ocean analogies. There are not a whole lot of shark attacks in a given year -- but we still try to protect ocean-goers from sharks. If the lifeguard blows that shark-whistle (do they have shark whistles? Shark alarms? Shark cowbells, I bet it's cowbells). If the lifeguard rings that shark-cowbell, you get your butt out of the damn water.

I think the government has to be a little paranoid -- it's their job. NSA phone monitoring is a LOT paranoid, and it's probably a violation of civil liberties, and I'd like it to stop. Browsing facebook is a happier medium, and like I said I'm still not crazy about it -- but I understand why it's happening, and they're not literally insane for thinking it up.

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

Sounds like you're dragging a net through the ocean that doesn't have many fish to begin with. But, we'll see.

@Odin

I don't quite get your meaning.

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

Doesn't mean caution is warranted. The threat in America is about as real as Godzilla when it comes to immigrants, compared to Europe.

@Odin

Not so fast... Also, ISIS has second-generation and the like.

I could keep going but you get the point. This isn't a fictional threat.

Now it's true -- Europe's situation is worse. Europe is closer, Europe is taking more refugees in. Europe is getting hit more -- except of course for Poland, which takes in zero refugees and has suffered zero attacks. A stats analyst could probably find a pattern there, but that's beside the point. If we know Islamist terrorism is a threat, and we know that Europe -- taking more refugees from areas with Islamist movements -- suffers a greater number of attacks... Doesn't that justify restrictions on refugee intake from those same areas? Our national interest would seem to dictate precisely that course of action.