Are the GOP rooting for total economic collapse?

[JohnT]

I was trying to explain all this to my 9 year-old this morning and the best I could come up with was this:

"When they go to college, a lot of kids get their first credit card and run up a $1,000+ debt on it, whereupon they go to their parents who do the following:

1. Take the card
2. Tell the kid to live within their means
3. Pay it off

Tea-tards think like this - they assume that if they remove the government’s “credit card”, then that’s all it will take to restore something they call “fiscal sanity”. However, they forgot #2 and #3 - because they refuse tax increases, they have no plan for the government to live within their means, and definitely no plans for paying it off." (Yes, I used the phrase tea-tards to my 9 year-old. Sue me.)

Anyway, yes, I truly believe that there are people out there who think this problem is just as easily solved as that. We’ll just take away the credit card - that’ll show 'em!

[Whack-a-Mole]

@JohnT

Anyway, yes, I truly believe that there are people out there who think this problem is just as easily solved as that. We’ll just take away the credit card - that’ll show 'em!

I agree.

I think the Tea-Tards think raising the debt ceiling = spending more money.

They do not understand raising the debt ceiling is about paying off debt already incurred.

Now, one might say by perpetually raising the ceiling encourages more spending. To extend your analogy it would be like letting the kid keep the credit card and getting the credit card company to raise the debt limit.

There is something to that I think.

[RickJay]

@Broomstick

MOST Libertarians I’ve met seem, as you put it “totally radical” though of course my experience is not a scientific poll. ALL the Tea Party people I’ve met strike me as delusional, though, again, I’m sure there are moderates out there, I’m just not running into them.

Damned if I could find it right now, but there was a lengthy article (which has been linked to before on the SDMB) by a liberal journalist who went to a Tea Party convention and was amazed by how many rational, moderate folks were there.

But what he also noticed is that the moderate, rational ones voiced a lot of dissatisfaction with the movement, either its radical direction of the social conservatism its candidates espoused. He found many people there who wanted smaller government but who were baffled and frustrated by candidates babbling about gay marriage and such.

So maybe in political parties, bad members drive out good.

[Der_Trihs]

@Robot_Arm

And the people who make these decisions never find their jobs going to overseas workers. Has anyone heard of a company firing its U.S. executives and hiring lower-cost replacements in a foreign country? Toyota has its headquarters in Japan and runs factories in the U.S. at a profit, so we know the model works; yet no American company has taken this obvious step to improve its bottom line.

Of course; corporations are run for the benefit of the executives, not due to some abstract desire for the good of the company. They aren’t going to fire themselves. Which by the way is why cutting taxes doesn’t work to attract companies or keep them from moving. If you want to attract companies or get them to stay, you shouldn’t try to “attract the company”, it’s just a thing; you should try to attract the executives who actually control it. We treat companies like people so much that we tend to forget they aren’t. A good golf course and private school do more to attract a company than do tax cuts - the company won’t care about that, but the people who actually run it will.

[septimus]

One thing is really funny.

One way to avoid Federal borrowing is simply to give all Federal employees a 25% pay cut (I don’t know if that’s the right percentage). This will contribute to recessionary pressure, but so would GOP proposals, so this seems in accord with their objective. I’ll let the GOP geniuses work out the details; should we cut military salaries more or less than civilian salaries? etc. etc.

But here’s the punch-line. You can bet when the Emergency Federal Paygrade Reduction Act of 2011 is approved by Congress, any pay cuts will not apply to Congress.

[Czarcasm]

@RickJay

So maybe in political parties, bad members drive out good.

I think it’s more like loud members drive out quiet members. Irrational rage is loud, and thoughtful deliberation is quiet.

[Try2B_Comprehensive]

@The_Other_Waldo_Pepper

I’m not looking for an abstraction; it’s a concrete question. How much should I pay someone to paint my house?

I’m not denigrating the work. Possibly you are; possibly you’re not; tell me. How much ought I pay the guy?

It’s not fantasyland, in that I’d genuinely pay a guy to paint my house right here in the real world and everything. But, assuming arguendo that you have a point, how about the following? Say I want to be the employer for multiple workers – in the real world, even – who don’t merely paint houses, but build them, which is work you might be less eager to denigrate. I know how much I would pay those guys to build houses; how much ought I pay those guys to build houses?

Is that concrete example still too abstract? Is the work still too prone to denigration on your part? How about I hire an auto mechanic to repair my car – or maybe open a car-repair shop, where the auto mechanics I hire can, y’know, repair cars. I know how much I would pay; how much ought I to pay?

Still too abstract? Still too prone to your denigration? How about truck drivers who transport stuff from coast to coast? How much should I pay them, either for a single transaction (if I sell my house and move across the country with all my belongings) or as employees in my fleet (if I open a cargo-shipping corporation)?

If you don’t like those concrete examples, then, by all means, supply other ones.

But we’re talking about the looming ‘crisis’ caused by the wrangling over whether and how to raise the debt ceiling. My links provide an answer to ‘what ought we do’ with this problem. It is a political question, not really an economic one. From Political Liberalism:

In Political Liberalism Rawls introduces the political conception of justice that people with conflicting, but reasonable, metaphysical and/or religious views would accept to regulate the basic structure of society. What distinguishes Rawls’ account from previous conceptions of liberalism is that it seeks to arrive at a consensus without appealing to any one metaphysical source - hence the idea of “political liberalism,” contrary to John Locke or John Stuart Mill, who promote a more robust cultural and metaphysical liberal philosophy. Rawls’ account is an attempt to secure the possibility of a liberal consensus regardless of the “deep” religious or metaphysical values that the parties endorse (so long as these remain open to compromise, i.e., are “reasonable”). The ideal result is therefore conceived as an “overlapping consensus” because different and often conflicting accounts of morality, nature, etc. are intended to “overlap” with each other on the question of governance.

The problem is that the Tea Partiers are getting overly hot and bothered about their economic philosophy (it’d be charitable to characterize it as ‘comprehensive’, but let’s forget how bone-headed it is for now. And yes, Rawls was more concerned with metaphysical/religious views, but frankly it is getting hard to tell the difference between libertarian economic theory and a religion, so let’s let that go too for now). The result is that they have become unreasonable and unable to compromise. Rawls points out the way for groups with incompatible philosophies to nonetheless arrive at a consensus. That’s what I think we should do. But it only works if all the groups concerned are represented by reasonable spokespeople. Right now that isn’t the case and that’s why we may get screwed.

How much should You pay a painter, mechanic, etc? Contact their union and inquire as to the going rate.

Running a company of painters, mechanics or what-have-you? Tie their pay in a fair way to what you charge for their services. Obviously the company can’t be run into the ground- it is profit or bust in this world. But treating all laborers like a bunch of burger-flippers isn’t going to cut it either. I need to locate an old thread to explain this better. I’ll come back.

[Whack-a-Mole]

@Czarcasm

I think it’s more like loud members drive out quiet members. Irrational rage is loud, and thoughtful deliberation is quiet.

Squeaky Wheel Gets the Grease Theory?

[Evil_Captor]

@Whack-a-Mole

Squeaky Wheel Gets the Grease Theory?

Would explain why politics is such a noisy, greasy mess.

[gonzomax]

@Der_Trihs

Raising taxes and fees while lowering services and wages for the bottom +90%, while doing the opposite for the top few percent.

Ending inheritance taxes , eliminating trading fees, allowing tax shelters including off shore banking, hedge fund managers making mega millions and paying 15 percent.