@ Kaner - I am very disinclined to agree with you. The point of debate, since it is being engaged in by mere observers, is both to inform and to learn. none of us here are in a position to affect change directly, so I would rather discuss these issues with those who can both understand and discuss them with me. If I wanted to debate with a fifth grader, there is a elementry school down the street from my house.

on a second note - where in all that verbosity above did you get the impression that we were talking about a 'post-american' or a non-post-american world. this was not at all a subject of our discussion. Indeed, one could rightly assume that given the subject matter, the US stimulus bill under consideration, that this is an explicitly American subject for discussion among Americans. If a non-American wants to engage in that discussion, does that not, by itself reflect that we are still in an American dominated world (assuming that the discussant is interested b/c of the effect an American stimulus and the American economy will have on their own nation)

as for verbage and verbosity - what can I say - I like SAT words ;)

@invictus - indeed.

@Hereard - I couldn't agree more.

@ no one in particular - maybe my vocabulary is scaring away potential debate - people seem perfectly willing to debate with diplomat - why not me??? :-(

Babak, I can't speak for others - and presumably those you have scared away won't be answering the question... I don't understand Kaner's issue that he is expressing... words like "elucidating" and "ad-hominum" are hardly American-specific. We all should be able to readily find such concepts in most English speaking High Schools - these are, of course, not jargon in the slightest. I can only theorize... 1) you may have picked a topic that is surprisingly uncontroversial - despite what media might want you to believe, 2) you explain yourself well and are not overly emotional - that eliminates most debate about what it is you mean and avoids flame wars (yes, that last is jargon - deal with it, Kaner) - unfortunately I think that confusion and anger fuel most of these political threads, 3) you have long posts - to me they are quite readable -and help support your view (easy for me to say when I agree with you, perhaps) - but to some, fatigue and boredom may set in in the 30 seconds it takes to read your post... these people should, in my opinion, drink less energy drinks, put down the remote, and maybe read a book - or at least a long poem - once in a while... it hardly seems like it's your problem. If someone comes across a word they don't know, we all have computers right in front of us - and we can find the definition of that word in about 20 seconds... come on guys, it's good for you...

Dexter -

it is entirely possible that this forum may not be the most appropriate place for this discussion - but eh - watch'ya gonna do?

so let me ask this, since I agree with you that much of the controversy is the random generation of the media...

what do you make of the arguments the Republicans make (and invictus repeated)? How can the Dems better respond?

and the perennial question - why are the Senate dems so damn spineless?

Yeah I find that there are a lot of people on the Internet that can't stand complicated, what I would called nuanced language, and deride it as "pompous". This is surprising given that this is supposed to be the Information Age and a definition is, as you said Dexter, at our fingertips now more than ever. I can't tell you how much I hate being called a "snotty nosed pompous brat" just because I'm not out of high school and I deign to go outside the 10,000 words some of my more colloquial peers use. Honestly the words aren't hard to understand, or use.

hahaha ... he said 'deign'

seriously though - could not say it better myself Thucydides.... (an aptly named profile name if I ever heard one)

Babak: "what do you make of the arguments the Republicans make (and invictus repeated)? How can the Dems better respond?"

Well, actually i think that you made some of the best arguments I've seen for government services... and, indeed, Invictus gave you a tip of the hat and didn't (couldn't?) respond to most of your points... his primary response was the old saws about bureaucracy and unions (both of which, of course, are present in private industry) and the profit motive. See in conservative thought no one can do good work simply because they have pride about their job and want to help others or because they love their job... greed is the only motivator that conservatives understand or respect. To them it is teh wonderfool engine of prosperity and invention - and nothing else can get us there. Of course, as we've seen recently, the profit motive often gets us executives with huge salaries and huge bonuses and golden parachutes as their companies get destroyed. I'm just complaining at this point. I don't know how to get through to conservatives on the unique role, and benefit, of government. I think it goes back to some very basic vision of how the world works - and little to nothing can shake it. It's like arguing religion.

"and the perennial question - why are the Senate dems so damn spineless?" - I'm still pondering that one - but mostly I would account for it because of: 1) sloth and incompetence, 2) they really are in their core rich folk who, with few exceptions, truly relate better with their GOP bosom buddies than they do with the poor and middle class that they supposedly are fighting for... they may even think that they believe much of the liberal line - but their gut says otherwise, 3) arrogance (they know better than the public does)... currently the GOP is displaying this more than the dems on the topic of the stimulus, 4) naiveté that suggests that being "reasonable" includes compromising with unreasonable people, 5) a virtual inability to vote in lock-step as the GOP does (this, of course, both a strength and a weakness... and emblematic of the different philosophies). Obama is great... but isn't it something how much he sticks out... that shouldn't be the case... I can count on one hand how many of Congress are truly honorable, articulate, and effective... Shouldn't this work attract more smart, effective, idealists than it does?

"See in conservative thought no one can do good work simply because they have pride about their job and want to help others or because they love their job... greed is the only motivator that conservatives understand or respect."

If by greed you mean self benefit then yes. What incentive does anyone have to do a job well if they are paid the same if they do it poorly? That's essentially what a government job, or any job that isn't entwined with merit, is. When I worked in retail as just a floor monkey during summers with no possibility (or desire) for advancement I would see people obviously shoplifting and look the other way. What do I care really if corporate loses twenty bucks on an iron?

As to saying I can't respond to Babak's points, I could, but what good would it do? He's obviously as set in his beliefs as I am. We can't change the world in this here Diplomacy forum, so why both dissecting and refuting these long posts which he obviously put a lot of thought into.

All your insults at the Grand Old Party also get nowhere. I don't know if you meant it that way, but it comes across as the Republicans are hopelessly wrong about every issue and the Democrats have the only fixes for the problems. They're all incompetent.

Regarding self-benefit - you argue my point. You believe that greed/self-benefit is the only motivator. This view shapes your conservative stance - as my view shapes my liberal stance. I guess I agree that our differences run deep and that we're not likely to change each other.

As to the GOP, yes - I have a very low opinion of that organization these days. That was, by the way, not the case in the past. The GOP has drunk the neo-con/supply-side/help the rich/torture people/start wars/crush the middle-class koolaid. The fact that they were lock-step with Bush says a lot toward that conclusion. I don't have to go back to TR to find reputable Republicans (though I do like TR)... Ford was a good Republican president, Nixon had his strengths as president, Ike was reasonable in most regards... I don't necessarily think that Dems have it together - they have serious problems in their party as well.

Interesting snippet: The average tax rate paid by the richest 400 Americans fell by a quarter to 17.2 percent through the first six years of the Bush administration and their average income doubled to $263.3 million, new IRS data show.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aOTRqZpdyxz4&refer=us

I know this is slightly off topic but that thing about tax rates in the States...I'm British and our average tax rates are through the roof. What is the highest tax rate an American is likely to pay?

I think the average is around 30%, but no one really understands the tax code. Even the people who write it.

That's not including the money working people today flush down the toilet for Social Security and other, more sneaky taxes, of course

Of course :P thanks for the info.

"I think the average is around 30%"

I think it may even be higher than that. But to put it into perspective, the American Revolution was fought in part by a mere 10% tax aggregate. Here we are at triple that number...and the rape continues.

"but no one really understands the tax code. Even the people who write it."

Consider that that is by design.

My recent bonus (no, I don't work for a company getting any benefits from any stimulus) was taxed 40 f-ing percent. I got $600 of a $1K bonus. You ask where? Feds, SSN, State, County, and City. It all adds up. 40 f-ing percent. It's un f-ing believable!

And the taxes aren't providing us any better service. The State of California is officially broke!

We need more pissed off people.

We are a nation that was founded on the principles of a fair tax. What happened to us?

The only fair tax is a flat tax.

Adam Smith (early economist, proponent of capitalism, writer who coined the phrase "the invisible hand" in regards to the market) stated this in support of progressive taxation:

"The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."

I just believe people should keep their money, and if it needs to be taken everyone should give the same. Maybe that's naive and idealistic, but that's what I think. If it were up to me we wouldn't even have income taxes. I voted for Ron Paul.

Invictus, consider this as a variation on the flat tax: tax a flat percentage of disposable income (after basic living expenses)... so, someone making $30,000 might be taxed nothing, but someone making $40,000 or $100,000 would be taxed a flat rate, say 25%, on that additional $10,000 or $70,000, respectively. Does that seem fair? Oh, and capital gains would be taxed at the same rate or perhaps higher than labor... certainly not lower as it is now.

I guess I don't see a bright line between my money and the community's money... just as I don't see one between my money and my family's money. We have responsibilities to our fellow man. Just as we have a responsibility to raise our children or to serve our country in time of war - we have a responsibility to help those in need and to contribute to the greater good. ...and I don't see that as something that people should be able to opt out of if they don't feel like it. And it seems to follow - that if one of the purposes of government is to provide for those in need that we would not be taking from those in need to fund such programs. If in my household I have a sick mother and a young child yet I am gainfully employed I do not require that they each give me rent. Maybe I'm naive and idealistic in a socialistic way.

@Dexter: " If in my household I have a sick mother and a young child yet I am gainfully employed I do not require that they each give me rent."

What if you had a 23 year old who just doesn't see the value in working more than the 10 hours a week that McDonalds will give him so that he can afford to buy his cigarettes and beer? After all he's perfectly content living with you, since you keep the lights on, the water running and somehow everytime he opens the fridge, there milk in it!.

He has no idea how it gets there, but he certainly isn't going to give up all those freebees to actually CONTRIBUTE to society - hell, no! that's WORK!!

Just trying to point out using your microsociety of a houshold analogy, the problem with socialism. It isn't the sick mother or the helpless child - it the goddamn lazy adult child living at home who's never learned the value of effort, because he's found his minimum-work / maximum-benefit equilibrium.

I know I joined this discussion late, but I always feel bad for Invictus having to defend the conservative viewpoint all by himself on the website full of libs, so every now and then I have to give him a support-hold against all of the attacks. Diplomat tries, but keeps fumbling the orders.

So - a few points:
1) To the original question ... Against. Why? Because it's a goddamn spending bill! not a stimulus bill. I don't have a problem with all of the infrastructure related items in it - but it's NOT going to stimulate the damn economy! It's just going to get a lot of shit approved that we can't afford right now.

Spending bills follow a different process - for one, they can be fillibustered in the senate - this one can't because it's improperly labeled as a Stimulus bill, containing very little stimulus - but a hell of a lot of spending.

2) Someone said Capitalism and Communism both fail their ideal due to greed. I agree with most of what that writer had to say about ideals, but I'd like to point out that pure capitalism does indeed fail because of greed (maximize-benefit), but pure communism fails because of laziness (minimize-effort).

Everyone has different maximums and minimums, but that's essentially how we've evolved through nature. It's built in. A successful society recognises this and models their government accordingly.

3) Taxes - Dexter - what you propose is essentially what we currently have - a progressive tax. it just has a few more levels and is therefore more closely aligned with the ideals you are a proponent of - progressively higher taxes for higher incomes. As long as this doesn't approach rates that are deamed confiscatory, then I think it's a fair way to go.

But reform is greatly needed. You can lower all levels if you just close the damn loopholes. See the problem is that the really rich, unscrupulous people end up paying less in taxes than the poor as a percentage, because there are so many damn loopholes - hell, half of BO's cabinet nominees are rich, tax-dodging Democrats who want to raise OTHER peoples taxes because they know it won't affect them!

I would be in favor of any tax system that is automatic, fair and that shares the burden of the cost of living in society - not equally (as a flat tax) but fairly. There are many different ideas - consumption tax, fair tax, etc. but for chrissake make it simple.

Thank you, philcore.

The perfect stimulus bill would be to abolish the income tax to let people keep their whole paycheck (or nearly whole, I doubt Social Security can be got rid of). Can you imagine the stimulus of trillions and trillions of dollars let loose on the economy? And the mountains of money we'd get in foreign investment? The government could be run, after effective cost cutting, on other taxes like tariffs and such due to the ridiculous growth which would come about.

Again, I realize that's rather idealistic and probably will never occur. One can hope, though.

phil - I actually agree with most of what you just said.
Re: the lazy 23 year-old - yes, he is not doing his part... all hands to the wheel should be the expectation. Someone who chooses to be a bum - who is able bodied and chooses not to work full-time should not get any welfare. To eliminate welfare (as some conservatives would have) is to throw the baby out with the bathwater. It simply has to be appropriately policed - as with anything.
Re: the stimulus bill - oh it seems to me that it would stimulate the economy... I'm not clear on your distinction between spending and stimulus... The intent is to spend to put people to work, to build infrastructure and green energy etc., and to get money moving in the economy... that is intended to stimulate the economy (from several angles). This approach is not unlike the WPA and other New Deal programs... which worked.
Re: taxes, I agree with everything you said.

Well, green energy is a racket and THAT'S the bubble we need to worry about bursting. We've created an industry which is totally dependent on government subsidies for its existence. You may think I'm crazy, but if ever a people set themselves up for a fall, it's the West with the green energy craze.

Invictus, abolish the government is what you are essentially proposing. Which is all fine and idealistic - but one thing I never get about libertarians is how close they are to being anarchists - yet I have never heard one admit it. If you don't trust people to run a government how can you trust them to run a society without any checks or balances or law? Somalia here we come. That said, I think that one of the most important necessary changes is for many government programs to be streamlined/rethought and in some cases eliminated... and more than that, the ability and motivation to fire incompetent staff and managers needs to be present. Obama's promised examination of programs - and elimination of unnecessary ones... let's see how he delivers. I am inclined to believe his intent... but every president since Reagan has promised such things - no one has delivered much of note.

Invictus, really? Was rail a racket and a bubble when the government subsidized it a century and a half ago? Sometimes a new industry needs a government influx to spread it quickly for the sake of the economy... Power distribution, roads, and internet also come to mind.