US Government Shutdown- It's Over!... For Now

[Frievolk]

Speaking out of SoCal. Not true in the slightest. They like Trump because he owns the libs, who they identify with SJW’s. Sargon, Milo, Jordan Peterson, Ben Shapiro, these people are held in high regard here. Breitbart and Fox are held up as good sources, the mainstream media is pretty much the spawn of Satan, and “liberal” is used as an insult to shut down any actual debate.

Sound like caricatures, don’t they? Nah. This is SoCal conservativism in high school.

And they wonder why they're not welcome at colleges.

Surely, that cannot be! It's definitely the Academia having been infested by the marxist-liberalists :/

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

Welfare doesn't inherently stop people from working, but it reduces economic dynamism by shifting money (that could be instead invested) towards the poor in the form of consumption fodder.

Or, by providing money to more hands whom more directly engage in economic activities you increase demand which in turn incentivizes expansion to meet increased demand.

Arguably, invesent for the sake of invested leads to stagnation, as there is no actual need to invest in expansion of a business if demand does not increase first. Why wouldn't you invest further already if you anticipate a need to meet higher demand, and if there is kot a higher demand then why would you piss away money on something that won't make you more money.

Conglomerating wealth into fewer and fewer hands is a surefire means of reaching disaster, as there will be less money trveling through the economy being spent on goods amd other services.

"but welphar from big guvmt r ebil"- Fox news, probably

[British Tackeettlaus]

Welfare doesn't inherently stop people from working, but it reduces economic dynamism by shifting money (that could be instead invested) towards the poor in the form of consumption fodder.

Or, by providing money to more hands whom more directly engage in economic activities you increase demand which in turn incentivizes expansion to meet increased demand.

Arguably, invesent for the sake of invested leads to stagnation, as there is no actual need to invest in expansion of a business if demand does not increase first. Why wouldn't you invest further already if you anticipate a need to meet higher demand, and if there is kot a higher demand then why would you piss away money on something that won't make you more money.

Conglomerating wealth into fewer and fewer hands is a surefire means of reaching disaster, as there will be less money trveling through the economy being spent on goods amd other services.

This is correct. Concentrating wealth at the top is what actually damages economic dynamism, while Providing for the poor expands the consumer class and stimulates demand. A great deal of the wealth of the super rich and large corporations is not "working" for the economy, rather it is tied up in assets, invested in offshore accounts, and is generally not in use. The poor spend their money. And that is good for a market economy. This is why some economists like Krugman et al. generally support a welfare state.

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

Or, by providing money to more hands whom more directly engage in economic activities you increase demand which in turn incentivizes expansion to meet increased demand.

Arguably, invesent for the sake of invested leads to stagnation, as there is no actual need to invest in expansion of a business if demand does not increase first. Why wouldn't you invest further already if you anticipate a need to meet higher demand, and if there is kot a higher demand then why would you piss away money on something that won't make you more money.

Conglomerating wealth into fewer and fewer hands is a surefire means of reaching disaster, as there will be less money trveling through the economy being spent on goods amd other services.

This is correct. Concentrating wealth at the top is what actually damages economic dynamism, while Providing for the poor expands the consumer class and stimulates demand. A great deal of the wealth of the super rich and large corporations is not "working" for the economy, rather it is tied up in assets, invested in offshore accounts, and is generally not in use. The poor spend their money. And that is good for a market economy. This is why some economists like Krugman et al. generally support a welfare state.

This is the basic idea behind Keynesian economics. "Economic activity is driven by people spending money, and people don't spend money if they don't have any, so giving money to people in poverty is the best way to drive economic growth."

[Valrifell]

I'm not quite following your logic. How does welfare make people stop working?

Welfare doesn't inherently stop people from working, but it reduces economic dynamism by shifting money (that could be instead invested) towards the poor in the form of consumption fodder.

Friendly reminder that the poor are more likely to actually buy shit with their capital instead of investing it, which is inarguably a better use of money and helps the economy more.

[Thermodolia]

Welfare doesn't inherently stop people from working, but it reduces economic dynamism by shifting money (that could be instead invested) towards the poor in the form of consumption fodder.

Or, by providing money to more hands whom more directly engage in economic activities you increase demand which in turn incentivizes expansion to meet increased demand.

Arguably, invesent for the sake of invested leads to stagnation, as there is no actual need to invest in expansion of a business if demand does not increase first. Why wouldn't you invest further already if you anticipate a need to meet higher demand, and if there is kot a higher demand then why would you piss away money on something that won't make you more money.

Conglomerating wealth into fewer and fewer hands is a surefire means of reaching disaster, as there will be less money trveling through the economy being spent on goods amd other services.

Or a socialist state

[Woodfiredpizzas]

Welfare doesn't inherently stop people from working, but it reduces economic dynamism by shifting money (that could be instead invested) towards the poor in the form of consumption fodder.

Friendly reminder that the poor are more likely to actually buy shit with their capital instead of investing it, which is inarguably a better use of money and helps the economy more.

Welfare is not their capital unless it was given in a non governmental non tax based voluntary system. It’s at best stolen and at worst slavery money.

[Vassenor]

Friendly reminder that the poor are more likely to actually buy shit with their capital instead of investing it, which is inarguably a better use of money and helps the economy more.

Welfare is not their capital unless it was given in a non governmental non tax based voluntary system. It’s at best stolen and at worst slavery money.

Theft requires deprivation of another of their property. Who is being deprived by welfare?

[Woodfiredpizzas]

Welfare is not their capital unless it was given in a non governmental non tax based voluntary system. It’s at best stolen and at worst slavery money.

Theft requires deprivation of another of their property. Who is being deprived by welfare?

The person who gave their labor to generate that money.

[Valrifell]

Friendly reminder that the poor are more likely to actually buy shit with their capital instead of investing it, which is inarguably a better use of money and helps the economy more.

Welfare is not their capital unless it was given in a non governmental non tax based voluntary system. It’s at best stolen and at worst slavery money.

Technically it's slavery money in the sense that the capitalist necessarily exploits his employees to get that money in the first place. However, since the people getting these benefits are laborers, this is not a problem.

Unless you mean that the capitalist is the slave in this scenario. In which case, if slavery means owning yachts, where do I sign up?

[Ifreann]

Friendly reminder that the poor are more likely to actually buy shit with their capital instead of investing it, which is inarguably a better use of money and helps the economy more.

Welfare is not their capital unless it was given in a non governmental non tax based voluntary system. It’s at best stolen and at worst slavery money.

Taxes are theft?

[Des-Bal]

Theft requires deprivation of another of their property. Who is being deprived by welfare?

If you read that more carefully you'd see the implication that taxation is theft and using tax to support welfare is giving people stolen money.

[Farnhamia]

This discussion seems a trifle off-topic for a thread on the current US government shutdown, don't you know.

[Woodfiredpizzas]

Welfare is not their capital unless it was given in a non governmental non tax based voluntary system. It’s at best stolen and at worst slavery money.

Taxes are theft?

At best.

[Farnhamia]

Taxes are theft?

At best.

Not the topic.

[Woodfiredpizzas]

This discussion seems a trifle off-topic for a thread on the current US government shutdown, don't you know.

My bad Farn.

[Valrifell]

This discussion seems a trifle off-topic for a thread on the current US government shutdown, don't you know.

Tangentially related to the threadjack but more on-topic:

Is the IRS issuing tax returns or not? The administration said "yes" a few weeks ago and I've not heard anything since, but I know better than to take their word for it.

[Thermodolia]

Theft requires deprivation of another of their property. Who is being deprived by welfare?

The person who gave their labor to generate that money.

Wage labor is theft.

[Farnhamia]

The person who gave their labor to generate that money.

Wage labor is theft.

What did I just say?

[Thermodolia]

This discussion seems a trifle off-topic for a thread on the current US government shutdown, don't you know.

Tangentially related to the threadjack but more on-topic:

Is the IRS issuing tax returns or not? The administration said "yes" a few weeks ago and I've not heard anything since, but I know better than to take their word for it.

According to some friends of mine on the inside they where. However there was a deadline and that was the first week of January

[Thermodolia]

Wage labor is theft.

What did I just say?

I didn’t see that

[Des-Bal]

Tangentially related to the threadjack but more on-topic:

Is the IRS issuing tax returns or not? The administration said "yes" a few weeks ago and I've not heard anything since, but I know better than to take their word for it.

That position hasn't changed but the organization is warning that there may be delays if people keep walking out.

[Ifreann]

This discussion seems a trifle off-topic for a thread on the current US government shutdown, don't you know.

Tangentially related to the threadjack but more on-topic:

Is the IRS issuing tax returns or not? The administration said "yes" a few weeks ago and I've not heard anything since, but I know better than to take their word for it.

The last I remember hearing was that the Trump administration was recalling IRS workers, unpaid, to do the necessary processing to get the tax refunds out.

[Seangoli]

Tangentially related to the threadjack but more on-topic:

Is the IRS issuing tax returns or not? The administration said "yes" a few weeks ago and I've not heard anything since, but I know better than to take their word for it.

The last I remember hearing was that the Trump administration was recalling IRS workers, unpaid, to do the necessary processing to get the tax refunds out.

Interestingly, I read an article that a lot of people may be getting less back this year or may need to owe money because of employees and employers miscalculating tax withholdings. Allarently the IRS thinks that about 30 million household may have underpaid their federal taxes after they adjusted their withholdings to the new tax rates.

Which will be hilarious.

[Great Minarchistan]

Or, by providing money to more hands whom more directly engage in economic activities you increase demand which in turn incentivizes expansion to meet increased demand.

So by siphoning money from investment you encourage demand which by turn incentivizes investment even though you siphoned money away from it at first. Yep, makes sense and it's absolutely consistent with real-life economics too