nsplayr

That's not the point at all, although charity giving is an important thing I would hope everyone would ratchet up as they have more and more disposable income. The point is that the system writ large should be setup to encourage a more equal distribution of wealth. I happen to think a more equal distribution of wealth is healthier for our society, for our economy, and ultimately for our economic and national security and that our tax and regulatory systems could be changed to encourage those types of changes. I happen to be one of the 90% of people who would like to see a more equal distribution...that doesn't mean perfectly equal or anything close to it. But MORE equal, that's something that has the support of 9 our of 10 Americans and so if you're the 1 of 10 who's ideal system is similar to our current one, perhaps it's you who should do the explaining. 90% of Americans aren't socialists/communists I'm pretty sure, although I'm sure those accusations are coming (and have been said before when this topic comes up).

Valid...I could give a shit about wealth inequality if 100% of the population was 25% above the poverty line and there was good social mobility up and down the ladder. Those things are never gonna happen, got it, little idealism here. What's problamatic is when you have a very, very small cadre of extremely wealthy and a vast underclass that's below, at, or near the poverty line and without the means to move up the social ladder effectively. Luckily for us we still have relatively good social mobility (up at least, people already at the top rarely move down even when they're stupid and incompetent). I think that helps alleviate a lot of the social pressures of massive wealth inequality...it's the very American hope that one day you or your children will finally make it and move on up to the East side.

To answer your last question, nope. If you don't understand that you can be for higher taxes on the wealthy or a more equal distribution of wealth among the U.S. population (or at least a system that encourages that end-goal), yet still want to end up on the top of the pile through hard work and smart investment/wealth creation, you don't understand the argument at all.

The "ideal" distribution graphs were taken from data found in this study. It goes further and shows the ideal distributions of men vs women, the rich vs the poor, etc., although none of the differences in gender or wealth really made meaningful differences in what that person thinks is ideal. Lots of good data to back up their conclusions, the video posted just aggregates the results of this study plus some other data and presents it graphically. People can know what they want without knowing the truth. The thing that's disturbing is that people are correct that our current distribution of wealth is less equal than they would ideally want...the main thing they're wrong about is the scale of the difference between their stated ideal and what actually exists.

True statement, just seems "interesting" that the results of our wealth creation system in this country have produced such astronomical gains for a very lucky few (good for them, they figured out how to win based on the rules of the game), and everyone else who has seen their wealth and wages either fall or at best stagnate. I don't begrudge anyone who's wealthy as long as they did it without breaking the rules, I hope to be wealthy someday myself and have a plan to get there. I also happen to be a fan of looking at those rules which are changeable (tax code, financial regulations, et al) and asking, after examine the results of the current set, "Is this the result we really want to create?" There are significant political consequences to extremely imbalanced wealth distributions within a population, we seem to keep chugging along either because we haven't reached what the people consider a tipping point in their decision to get mad about it or (more likely IMHO, which the video supports) people just don't know the true situation. If 90% of your population wants a more equal distribution of wealth (they do), they think it's a little out of whack favoring the rich, and the actual no-shit truth is that it's cartoonishly out of whack favoring the rich, what political consequences does that have for the country?

Whoa, the C-27 is gone! New banner looks good.

JS, Good discussion on all points. I would agree although in my situation in particular I'm putting it toward extra principle on the house in an effort to erase negative equity. Even buying in 2009 the market continued to go down and although there's been some nice recovery lately we're still slightly underwater. What I'm trying to do is accelerate my principle paydown schedule so that, in my assessment of my life situation, the market can continue to rise, my principle can continue to fall faster than before, and they can at least meet in the middle before I get PCS orders and/or decide to sell the house otherwise. If I had positive equity and could sell the house today and break even or even make money I probably would invest that extra principal payment money and likely will if the market recovery and/or my own extra payments put me in a place where I could punch out from this house and not lose money in the process. The way I figure it the weakest link in my financial situation is being underwater in the house so I think it's justified to put extra money toward rectifying that even if I could do slightly better by investing that money elsewhere. This is especially since (hypothetically) having sell the house at a loss would be a significant problem in the short- to medium-term whereas the gains from investing rather than paying down principal is more of a long-term benefit.

Right, we had paid off ~$10K in principle in the first 4 years of the original loan. When I said the principle increased, it was not higher than the original amount we borrowed when we first bought the house, just higher than the amount of our payoff to the first bank due to rolling in closing costs. The break-even then for the refi is when, based on both the new rate and continuing to pay the same amount we were used to (i.e. additional to the principle), we return to the same amount of principle owed. That is only 7 months down the road. After that we benefit from both owing less principle than under our original schedule due to the extra principle payments each month as well as having a lower monthly payment so that if things change (PCS -> rental, etc.), we can in fact pay the bank less if need be. Good advice, I didn't know it was possible to ask them to recalculate the loan or whatever they wanna call it...I'll ask them about it.

Yea, I ride in airplanes once in a while. What, you don't want her vote for your preferred party or candidate? I think we've ID'd the problem right there...if I support a particular candidate for office I hope they win with 100% of the vote (ok, that's a little Saddam-esque, but you get my point). Not so much into writing people off...if they wanna give their support for policies my candidate is proposing, great, welcome to the team. Don't worry, my illustrious career in the AF isn't going much further in all likelihood, although I have attained the prestigious rank of Captain despite the several hoops one now has to jump through to make it that far. Again, if there's a movement out there in the political world that's more interested in orthodoxy than electoral victory it won't last very long. It's doesn't have to be about "whatever it takes to get votes," but at a minimum you need to not turn people off with extreme policies or harsh rhetoric or write them off as unlikely to support you before you even begin.

Just set this up with my recent refi. We gained 4 more years on our new note vs the old one (had had our original loan for 4 years) but we'll continue to make the same monthly payment despite saving about $250 per month due to the lower rate, with the extra each month going to principle. The break-even point of being back to the same level of principle remaining, even including closing costs that got rolled in, was 7 months. It's all black after that so when we do eventually sell, we'll be well ahead on paying down the principle vs the old loan.

The YMMV country! I just don't get the fascination with having states with radically different policies, are we one nation or what? That's a whole different story though, no need to respond. Private charity can be very efficient but it has no scale. A better combination to me is a partnership between private charity and government programs aimed at raising people out of poverty and providing a minimum level of security for everyone. The recession of 2008/2009. What I'm saying is the "entitlement mentality" (not total number of people receiving government assistance) today is not worse than it has been in the past.

In my most recent posts here it's been extremely broad brushes on almost every major domestic issue...not sure how you want me to back everything up with facts without extreme violations of TLDR. On top of that, some things are based on your worldview; I'm hoping everyone's worldview is backed up by facts but there is an aspect of what you think is right, what fits with your values. Liberty and security are often held up as opposite values, and while that's not entirely true, neither value is right or wrong, in fact I'd say they're both "right." If you argued for a policy that ensured more liberty and I argued for one that ensured more security (hypothetically), would that be based on emotion and thus null and void in your view? So you'd rather her be dead then dependent on help from the rest of society? I think I know the answer but giving you a fair shot. If she voted for Democratic party candidates in the past, which we don't know but it seems likely if she voted at all, good on her. If that's the case she's an idiot based on what she said in the video but I'll absolutely take her vote for my party or my candidate. If you're not interested in getting voters to vote for your party or your candidate in elections, you really aren't interested in governing. Academic debates on what policies are best are all in good fun, but until you're able to govern (or influence those who govern) what you believe in doesn't really mean sh*t in terms of impacting the country. Because that's not what they said at all. Under one possible forecasting model for the future, Obamacare, if its cost control measures are not fully implanted or sustained as intended, will add 0.7% of GDP to the debt. That's an entirely different conclusion than "X will cause Y," which is what the headline and Sen. Sessions who ordered the study implied for obvious reasons. Since I and probably the rest of the party believe that the cost control measures in Obamacare will in fact control costs more than the previous baseline (i.e. no change to healthcare law), there's no disconnect. It's also hard to argue that, "Well, they supported something in the past that led to deficits, they must not be serious about deficit reduction!" since both parties are guilty as charged then. Like I said before, Obamacare is signed, sealed and delivered, let's focus on other things. The Dems say they want to reduce the deficit by a certain set of policies, the GOP wants to reduce the deficit with a different set. Our assessments differ, big surprise. Because politicians engage in politics does not make it "all about politics" in my opinion. Well it's an issue for the GOP...do they want to remain fully pure to their current ideological positions or do they want to win national elections? If that becomes an either/or (not sure we're there yet), I guarantee ideological positions will be the thing that changes. The Dems today are very different on a lot of things than they were in the late 1970s and early 1980s when they got run out of power, I expect the GOP will evolve in a similar fashion in order to continue to have a role in governing the nation.

I did admit I didn't read the question fully, bad on me, I'll take the spear on that. Beyond that, slow your roll.

She seems like an idiot; our assistance programs should not be structured where they become a disincentive to work. I'm assuming that's pretty much what your response would be other than I think you personally would probably call her a "crack mom" since that's your go-to phrase for setting the tone. That's an interesting conclusion to draw from that report...it's almost like you pulled the headline right from the National Review story about it...humm... I'm not one that's ever argued that Obamacare is ideal or without fault (I would have wanted something much more of a clean-slate, but I'm guessing the President would have wanted that too), but here's the deal: it's the law, if you don't like it I'm sorry, the fight was valiant but you've lost very dramatically in both Congress and the Supreme Court. I'm absolutely done relitigating that particular fight. It's not all about winning elections, I also think the Democratic party is leaps and bounds ahead when it comes to smart public policy, but that's all based on your own views to YMMV obviously. One thing I think a lot of activists on both sides miss though is that, yes, it is somewhat about winning elections. If you fail to run the right candidates or talk about issues in the right way or support policies the public overwhelmingly supports, you will be unable to even have a seat at the table when it comes to governing. I know a lot of people here are libertarians but for those who are still part of the GOP, you guys always look up to Reagan as your idol and rightly so, politically at least in my opinion. He was able to forward conservative policies, talk to the American people in a positive way that inspired hope (compared to Carter's malaise-talk), and was able to absolutely crush the Democrats in his reelection bid because of it. If you ever want to see that kind of victory again, one that might usher in a sweeping conservative agenda, there needs to be some thought and effort put into actually winning elections in the way that Reagan and other successful conservatives have in the past. Having positive policy prescriptions and emotionally connecting with Americans who are working hard but struggling to get by should be your first thought when it comes to presenting a conservative solution to a problem; simply forwarding the most purist policy from the get-go and using a tone that alienates large swaths of the voting population is bad technique. If and when the next Republican or conservative wins the White House, ask yourself if he followed that advice.

My clarifying question was not toward you. Here are the answers to your questions, call it volume II of the nsplayer's guide to ideal public policy: Welfare/food stamps/WIC/public housing: structure programs to help those truly in the most need in a generous way without incentivizing freeloading by those who could provide for themselves. This means getting rid of the welfare cliffs you see now where a person could work more and earn more money, but end up with less in their pocketbook due to a larger decrease in benefit payments. It's about having smart government, not less government IMHO. Unemployment: combine further fiscal and monetary stimulus with a revamping of the corporate tax code to simplify and reduce rates to remain competitive in a global marketplace. I'm also a big fan personally of public works projects and having the government temporarily hire (or contract hire) those who are employed to undertake the large-scale but relatively low-skill jobs that need doing. Taxes: I think the part of the fiscal cliff deal that was a mistake was making ~82% of the Bus tax cuts permanent; I think they should have been extended until we hit an economic benchmark considered healthy and then phased in again for all taxpayers. Kind of like what the Fed is doing with monetary policy...committing to extremely pro-growth policies (low interest rates, low taxes) in the short term until X is reached, then return to a more small "c" conservative set of policies after the long, slow recovery we're experiencing is complete. Minimum Wage: should be indexed to cost of living/inflation/some similar measure providing automatic increases or decreases as necessary. One minimum wage for the entire nation, eliminate differences between states. You also asked, "How do you make welfare solvent?" I'll ask you here, which program do you mean exactly? Generally it's not welfare that's driving deficits, it's the vastly larger programs like Medicare; the ways to make that program solvent long-term have been pretty extensively discussed by actual policy experts. So there ya have it...always happy to share my view but I continue to be surprised why people seem to care so much. I'm not sure what I'm offering is much different than a fairly standard Democratic party platform and it's pretty clear I'm basically Captain Joe Schmoe Air Force nav; maybe ask your Congressman these questions and see what he comes back with. How so? What have you presented that doesn't fit with what I'm saying? Cool story. I think I'm plenty grown up with a career and a kid and a mortgage not to be patronized that, "Oh well, one day when you grow up you'll be a conservative!" Come on...40% of non-hispanic whites 55 and older identify with the Democratic party...not sure how much older and wiser (or whiter) they need to get before suddenly seeing the light and crossing over to the GOP. You're right that the older you are the more likely it is that you'll be a conservative, but by no means is that the same as saying that everyone who gets older beyond a certain threshold of self-responsibility becomes a conservative. Rash, the way you use the forums makes it very difficult to respond since you just edit my quote rather than typing your responses separately. FWIW. If you want full control of your money (whatever that means...no taxes?) and don't think it's the government's job to help its people who are struggling, that type of arrangement can be hand in many areas around the world. It doesn't, however, exist in any advanced nation nor am I sure why anyone would want it to. WRT your sister, obviously you know her and I don't, seems like you're in the best position to help in whatever way you think is best. If that informs your views on public policy more broadly great, but I'm not sure if personal anecdotes are really prescriptive for society as a whole.

Are you missing a "not" in there or something? Question doesn't quite make sense as written.

My point was not that the Constitution isn't valid, it certainly is since it's the source of the rest of our laws. It was that saying, "[sic] Base all public policy analysis off the constitution" is juvenile when there's obviously much more that goes into good public policy analysis than referencing a fairly short and in many ways (purposefully) vague document. If you think Public Policy 101 = The Constitution you've clearly never taken Public Policy 101.

So you don't want your money contributing to the wellbeing anyone else except yourself and your family, you want the government to provide no "entitlement" benefits to its citizens whatsoever, and you're looking to base all rational analysis of public policy on one single source document rather than the boatload of additional available data. Sounds like you don't want any government at all. There are places in the world where that can be arranged; I've been so some of them and maybe you have too. Good luck with that and good luck selling your vision to the voting public!

You talking about social security or medicare specifically? Or some other program? Gotta be more specific if you want specific answers. In broad terms you reduce future benefits by changing the program to include less generous benefits for future enrollees, you can even reduce benefits for current enrollees if you're feeling bold. In broad terms you increase funding by either making the direct users of the program pay more (co-pays, payroll taxes, etc.) or you increase taxes in general and specifically divert that increase into that program, or you just divert more spending into that program while equally reducing spending on other things using the same revenue base. Not rocket surgery here guys...take a class in public policy.

Like he's going to become an 18X and get another 6 year commitment or he's going to be a 12U and remain a "nav?" There's a big difference...12U used to exist and got turned off. Any interested nav or ABM can apply to be an 18X (via URT) the same way they could apply to UPT, it's been that way since 18X was created if I'm not mistaken. What I'm surprised is that they didn't leave the 12U pathway open as a way to pull in more people, rather they volunteered or not.

Awesome video...can't get it to embed.

What is this "Ask nsplayr about public policy" thread? I can continue to field questions but I'm not sure why you guys really care. You make programs like social security and medicare solvent by ensuring they are adequately funded to pay out the level of benefits you anticipate. If there is a gap you either reduce future benefits or increase funding for the program...pretty simple concept at the big-picture level. I don't remember your question but ok, we've got your answer. My answer to what I think you were probably asking is that your views on the mentality of those in poverty are not the same as mine, and thus the policies I think are right are probably different too.

Without relitigating a past conversation (that's still very much going on in public policy circles), I strongly believe that a unified/universal healthcare system, of pretty much any variety, would be more cost effective than the system we have today, with the added benefit of covering every single person. If you don't believe that, fine, but it's a whole other can of worms to open up.

Ok, since you specifically want my opinion: Entitlement Programs: Solvent, efficient, Medicare (or something other unified, universal system) expanded to cover everyone Debts and deficits: move toward external debt sustainability, focus on economic growth as the best way to combat debt Size and capability of the military: matched to expected threats while accounting for unknowns, recap a modest "peace dividend" as major wars wind down without hollowing out the force Immigration: pathway to citizenship for current illegals, secure borders, greatly expanded and simplified legal immigration system, temporary guest worker program Gun Control: universal background checks for all purchases Education: honestly I'm not that knowledgable on education policy So those are my personal views in the broadest strokes possible, although when you boil down complex public policy into one sentence it pretty much all sounds like BS. Obviously neither party is a monolith but if I were King for a day this is what we'd pursue in the areas you asked about. Care to add your own answers or clarify why this is relevant to the conversation?

If you're curious I'd check out the whitehouse.gov issues page and the 2012 Democratic Party planks, I'm pretty sure the answers are 6-9 seconds of googling away. I'm sure you know those things are aspirational rather than realistic, but it's not like this information is hidden.