#(opposes tax increases voice) who will donate towards the national debt?

[girderednerve]

okay continuing trend of doing my girlfriend's grad school homework as a bit

this week she was assigned to go mess around in 'federal balancing act: an interactive budget simulator' to get the federal deficit to below 3% of GDP by 2049; the assignment further stipulates that students must consider 'political feasibility.' this whole thing is very funny to me but i do think it is like, probably bad to present static & unexamined axiomatic ideas about federal spending & deficits or political feasibility to students. for one thing, the federal deficit (the 'national debt') is even more made up than most macroeconomics; it is a convenient rhetorical tool of the right-wing efforts to unmake postwar social programs, and, though it pains me to say, is more or less a reagan legacy. but it is fascinating, to me, that it works on people! setting aside my strong belief that the entire american state is (charli xcx voice) rotten right to the core, why do i as a random resident care if the government is in debt? not my business; i care if the government is working for me, which involves spending money. so there's that. the calculator itself is great because if you try to raise taxes too much, it gives you a cute little pop-up warning that you've exceeded the threshold over which the tax increases will cease to raise revenue, supposedly because the people you're taxing will be disincentivized to participate in productive activity. okay, maybe i guess, but the change that triggered this warning was trying to raise the top income tax bracket rate higher than 25% (before the kennedy-johnson tax cuts, in 1964, the top marginal rate was 91%). comedy jokes hour! these little pop-ups present themselves as objective facts describing firm economic laws in little words for the uninformed, but they're aggressively ahistorical. even working around this limit, it's extremely easy to "fix" the deficit; raise the corporate tax rate, raise the upper income bracket rates, apply a wealth tax, index has taxes to inflation, you're done without even having to mess around with capital gains which is good because it doesn't let you do that. so i moved over to the 'spending' tab to reallocate my hypothetical earnings, and there are weird assumptions there too. you can raise the retirement age for social security, but not lower it; you can implement medicare cost savings measures, but not expand eligibility; you can't touch unemployment insurance. there's something really sad to me in the idea that i must be looking to cut 'entitlements,' trim services, when if you look at them many of these programs operate with comparatively very small budgets, & demonstrated positive outcomes. & none of this deals with the idea of "political feasibility," which is an incredible phrase that usually means you can't take any really big swings at social improvement. i mean, also wildly ahistorical; thinking about my great-grandmother, who was a photo-of-FDR-on-the-wall conservative southerner. it's defeatist, i think; why are you telling a bunch of future public administrators that they should aim for as little as possible, prize efficiency, concede easily to austerity? like i know why, but stop it.

[enchantedbyhiddles]

Not at all! I understand our country was founded on violent revolution. However, as you said, it was a last resort (: I do not think America's situation is so dire to necessitate violent revolution, however, and I doubt it will ever become so dire in this modern day and age. I truly believe that change can be facilitated through peaceful means such as nonviolent marches, peace talks, and stand-ins (Like Standing Rock! Woohoo!) [continued]

very long from me and anon therefore behind a cut :)

As for condoning what Trump stands for… I suppose, by voting for him,I technically did. However, that’s not the way I see it. I highly doubt thatviolence against PEACEFUL protestors will be condoned by anyone, even Trump;and I believe the police should not be afraid to deal with violent protestors,if they pose a threat to themselves or others. With Planned Parenthood, itwould not be abolished but defunded – making abortions more expensive, yes,but not impossible to have. 

However, I vehemently oppose the defunding of Planned Parenthood. Ithink something many liberals forget is that, just like liberals themselves,conservatives do not all have the same mindset. It’s a spectrum ofpolitical belief. I am very, very socially liberal and I would be deeplydisappointed if Trump repealed any of the social reforms that President Obamaput into place – barring the ACA, which I oppose for numerous reasons that Ican’t squeeze into an ask, haha.

I do not support his rhetoric regarding Islam either; I think it’s abeautiful religion with a rich history. So, why did I vote for him? Ultimately,because the other issues are more important to me than social issues. Some maycall that selfish. Others may call it realistic. The economy, foreign affairs,jobs, illegal immigration, the national debt… Those are the most important tome and on those, I align with the Republican Party. I want America to be aplace that prospers for years to come.

I hate that I have to choose. Most young Republicans, I’ve found, aresocially liberal and are looking forward to the day when the stupid old onesdie out (myself included, though I’m registered independent). I don’t wantanyone to lose their rights, nor do I want to lose mine myself (I’m a woman!)But I have to put the issues closest to my own heart first and voteaccordingly, then hope that the rest aligns itself on the right side ofhistory.

First of all I have to apologise if this reply is anincoherent mess. I’m having a bit of a stressful day and my thoughts are notcompletely focussed on this. I’m sorry.

Okay, at least on revolutions we agree. ;) I don’t think we are at thatpoint either, where violent protest isthe last resort. I’m just not ruling it out at this point that thingsmight lead to this. That was the good part, thefollowing will be not so nice. I don’t want to be disrespectful towards you,but I will criticise what you did and why I think it is wrong.

I hate to say this, but yes you are utterly selfish,ignorant, and very naïve. You are nice and respectful to me and I do appreciateit, but that doesn’t change that I strongly disagree with most of what yousaid.

You ignored everything Trump said he wants to do, youignored everything others said he will do. All in favour of your idea that hewill make things better for you.

“I might be condoning him, but that’s not how I see it”,is lying to yourself. By voting for him you do condone it and there’s no excusefor that. You might not have made this your priority or based your decision onthis, but you aligned yourself with hate crimes and hate speech againstminorities. You support sexism and racism.

You also lied to yourself by wilfully ignoring all thepieces written about why Trump is a threat and why he has nothing to say aboutany political program he might have. Respectable news sources gave in-depthsthought pieces on international trade agreements, on immigration, economicalprogress, etc. Trump had nothing good to say about any of it. You made up inyour head a world where Trump brings you good things and ignored everythingthat showed signs to the contrary. You based your hopes on a candidate, who gaveyou nothing to justify this hope.

You might be that ignorant to blend it out, but socialissues are a main part of any legislation. Here in Europe (and that’s a matterof perspective and no judgement) we put the social parts above everything else,because even if the results might be not that different, the so called “Solidargemeinschaft”(rougly translated to solidary group) is a centrepiece of our governments. Thisleads to our approach to healthcare, retirement systems, social benefits,education, etc. I know that it is different in the USA, but I can’t wrap myhead around it. The idea that anyone would put other people’s rights at riskfor the mere hope of maybe a bit more money is totally alien to me.

I’m not familiar with all the details of the ACA, fromwhat I heard it is a good idea which wasn’t that good in execution. I canunderstand it if a person has issues with a certain program or law and hasthought about it.

To think that social issues will somehow evaporateinto thin air and solve itself doesn’t happen. It hasn’t ever happened and itwon’t ever happen. People don’t give up privileges and power without being challenged.It doesn’t have to be a revolution. Often people will help to change if theyare decent people and injustices are pointed out to them. That’s at least ahope I can support. But Trump has repeatedly stated that he’ll work against it.That he’ll reduce liberties and rights. Another issue where you totally ignoredwhat Trump said, because you are somehow believing in a fairytale of a greaterAmerica.

About violence against peaceful protesters: Trump hasalready condoned it and enforced it multiple times. During his rally a blackman was beaten for chanting “Black Lives Matter” and Trump said about it “Heshouted and was obnoxious. Maybe heshould have been roughed up”. There were other incidentswhere he simply said that if his supporters beat up people they are simply “passionate”.Screaming and shouting are peaceful protests.

Planned Parenthood is nicely condensed to be about abortion rights,which is not what it is about as I understand it. The biggerthreat is that another form of free health care got abolished. Defunding isclose to being abolished if an organisation needs money to function. How longdo you think they can work without the financial means? Again as a European itis strange to think that such a basic need is depending on donations by thepublic, because the state refuses to do so.

What is highly naïve is that you said you based yourvoting on his ideas of economic and foreign affairs. It is naïve at best,because he repeatedly said nothing on this. When asked he said he’d saynothing. So based on which of his plans did you base your opinion?

You are a Repuplican, which is obviously nothing I myself identify with in any way, but I can accept that as a political opinion, even though I find more than a few things highly problematic. Yet even leading republican party members said that Trump posed a threat to all those ideals, especially because he had absolutely no plan or ideas he voiced to anyone. All he ever said was hate speech and ignorant remarks towards minorities and that he would make America great again. He didn’t back it up with anything. No plan, no idea. He avoided every critical question about his programme and showed an incredibly lack of knowledge about basic ideas of international trade and organisations (He gave an interview last week for the first time about his international politics and every sentence was either “he won’t tell” or “he won’t go into detail” or the interviewer had to correct him, because he lied or said something wrong.) So everyone who fell for that is utterly selfish, ignorant, and naïve at best, because they put their hope on a hate monger.

We see now that his economy politics he set in motionwill lead to a huge rise in national debt. The first thing he did was to pullout of international treaties. The results of that are open, so this mightbring advantages to the US economics. Another thing he did is to propose toreduce the company taxes drastically. Sounds great for rich people, but whilethis probably will increase prosperity in short, long term this leads to a hugedebt that will cripple the USA in the future. Trump’s first act as a presidentwas to give away billions of dollars to rich people. This money is to be madein different places or it leads to less spending of the state, which will harmall state causes. Including funding of police forces, benefits, funding ofstate organisations, etc.

One of the only detailed plans he ever revealed wasthat he’d built a wall to Mexico. This wall will be funded with American taxmoney. The wall is revealed to be a stupid idea anyway, as it won’t decreaseillegal immigration, but will cost a lot of money. Your money. How is thathelping any?

All in all you voted for a misogynist, racist, hate monger and liar, because you don’t give a damn about other people and believe the liar when he said he’d make America great again, based on nothing.

I hope for you that you are rich, because otherwiseyou will suffer from a Trump presidency. You might have hoped for something better,but you fell for a con artist that only wants to make rich people richer andthe price is to be paid by the less fortunate and minorities.

I also hope that you’ll learn from this and will do better in the future. You say you hope for a more liberal Republican party that incorporates your ideals about rights for women and minorities. Maybe that is something you can work towards to, before it is too late. If you are against any Trump’s laws you have to oppose them even and especially since you are in his party. You have to use your voice or your hopes will be shattered. 

Again I’m sorry for this incoherent mess. I appreciateyour respectful messages, even if I have to disagree on nearly everything.