New Deal Coalition Retained: A Sixth Party System Wikibox Timeline

QueerSpear

Banned
The Congressman said:
Effectively yes. The right managed to control spending with the line-item veto amendment, and everyone likes lower taxes, so things like Amcare, the GMI, and certain future things which shall remain nameless for now ;) will be less opposed than OTL
Click to expand...

How is Amcare and Social Security funded with (implied) permanent lower taxes?
 

Prince Daemon Targaryen

QueerSpear said:
How is Amcare and Social Security funded with (implied) permanent lower taxes?
Click to expand...
Nightingale said:
Yeah, that's one question. I usually think that you should raise taxes on higher income people while lowering it for lower income people to do those things.
Click to expand...
Social Security and the GMI are funded through a payroll tax (just like Social Security and Medicare are funded today). Amcare is funded the same way Medicaid, TANF, food stamps, and other welfare programs are funded. The Wallace Administration structured Amcare and the GMI to replace most of the other government programs involved in health and welfare, and Reagan managed to keep the deficit not to high even after the tax cuts by repealing the Pendleton Act and the line-item veto amendment - the budget was cut through elimination of individual appropriations and through a massive cutback in the bureaucracy.
Basically, more services are provided to the people by cutting the overhead costs
 
Nightingale

Nightingale

The Congressman said:
Social Security and the GMI are funded through a payroll tax (just like Social Security and Medicare are funded today). Amcare is funded the same way Medicaid, TANF, food stamps, and other welfare programs are funded. The Wallace Administration structured Amcare and the GMI to replace most of the other government programs involved in health and welfare, and Reagan managed to keep the deficit not to high even after the tax cuts by repealing the Pendleton Act and the line-item veto amendment - the budget was cut through elimination of individual appropriations and through a massive cutback in the bureaucracy.
Basically, more services are provided to the people by cutting the overhead costs
Click to expand...

Kinda my sweet spot there. At least the truth is that government's not the problem: government inefficency is the problem, with regard to authority.
 
Nyvis

Nyvis

Except that's usually wishful thinking. It's not easy to get the same result with less cost. You can probably make the system better, but when you do the clean up to make it more efficient, something is going to suffer, and it's not a given it will recover with time.
 
Nightingale

Nightingale

Nyvis said:
Except that's usually wishful thinking. It's not easy to get the same result with less cost. You can probably make the system better, but when you do the clean up to make it more efficient, something is going to suffer, and it's not a given it will recover with time.
Click to expand...

That's the downside, I agree with that. IMO (I don't want this going to the Chat thread), that economic conservatives make decisions with too much wishful thinking. For example, they want a high risk pool for health care. But two reasons why it won't work are 1) You will never know when a person will get sick and therefore the budget is uncertain, and 2) Since you hadn't invested in more preventive systems such as Obamacare and (to a much greater extent) Universal Health Care, you can expect costs to run out of countrol since the diseases that could have been prevented and remedied at an earlier stage was not curee because they were deemed "non-high risk".

I find that conservative reasoning flawed: no economic and health situation is perfect, and that is why the economy must be tailored in a way that prevents excesses, such as crime, geeed, disasters, and health failures.

However, if there are really needless stuff out there, just remove it.
 
Last edited:

Free_Soil_Andrew

I did say at the time that government employment isn't really the driver of increasing spending IOTL and thus I didn't find the repeal of the Pendleton Act likely to help control spending growth.

Nightingale said:
You will never know when a person will get sick and therefore the budget is uncertain
Click to expand...

Uncertainty in the individual case does not imply uncertainty in the aggregate. Otherwise insurance would be impossible.
 
Nightingale

Nightingale

Free_Soil_Andrew said:
I did say at the time that government employment isn't really the driver of increasing spending IOTL and thus I didn't find the repeal of the Pendleton Act likely to help control spending growth.



Uncertainty in the individual case does not imply uncertainty in the aggregate. Otherwise insurance would be impossible.
Click to expand...

But then, if you pile them up, it becomes big. Many people get sick everyday, some for the worst diseases.

@The Congressman, so Japan's birth rate is above the replacement level? So no demographic crisis by ATL 2017?
 

Free_Soil_Andrew

At this point IOTL, Japan still had pretty robust productivity & economic growth, it's just slower than in the 50s and 60s, which is only to be expected as Japan caught up to other advanced economies. So unless one's vision of Japanese greatness is *Imperial* Japan was already great in the 80s.
 

Larm

Perhaps it would be more about restoring a perceived drop in prestige and unifying national identity if it were a slogan, it doesn't need to deal with the economy
 

Larm

But I mean isn't that his the congressman described mishimas policies?
Reigniting nationalism but without that pesky imperialism
 
Asami

Asami

Banned
Larm said:
Reigniting nationalism but without that pesky imperialism
Click to expand...

As OTL Japan demonstrates, divorcing the two is a very difficult thing to do. Particularly in a nation like Japan that still struggles to admit it's own guilt in the war, unlike Germany, who basically accepted responsibility for their crimes and vowed to never repeat 'em.
 
Nightingale

Nightingale

Free_Soil_Andrew said:
At this point IOTL, Japan still had pretty robust productivity & economic growth, it's just slower than in the 50s and 60s, which is only to be expected as Japan caught up to other advanced economies. So unless one's vision of Japanese greatness is *Imperial* Japan was already great in the 80s.
Click to expand...

Be careful with the bubble, though.
 

Prince Daemon Targaryen

Larm said:
But I mean isn't that his the congressman described mishimas policies?
Reigniting nationalism but without that pesky imperialism
Click to expand...
Asami said:
I fail to see how conducting a genocidal war on East Asia, and the instant sunshining of two Japanese cities counts as greatness. >_>
Click to expand...
Mishima is basically a soft Freyist. For example, he and his government are strong proponents of women's rights. They view more the pre-militarist Empire of Japan as the glory days, not the one that went into China
 
Asami

Asami

Banned
The Congressman said:
pre-militarist Empire of Japan
Click to expand...

That's difficult because there really wasn't a time that the Empire of Japan wasn't militarist. Almost immediately out of the gate of the Meiji Restoration, the power of the Imperial Japanese Army began to climb, leading into the horrors we saw. Meiji was perfectly okay with militarism, same with Komei and Shouwa (whose opposition to the likes of Fumimaro Konoe and Hideki Tojo being mute at best)

I see what you mean, though. An Empire of Japan sans militarism.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top