World Politics

Page 380 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
A

Anonymous

Guest
Scott SoCal said:
So your point is, in the current economy, raising income taxes will do what? Create jobs?
Lowering taxes didn't create jobs either. So your mantra is a bit played at this point.

If the goal is increased revenue, then how do you reconcile a higher income among the "rich" along with a higer percentage of that higher income collected in income tax with a lower top marginal rate? Is that not the goal of the progressives?
The gap between revenue and the money being spent is increasing. Your point is irrelevant. There is no way to close that gap under your tax policy.

I don't think the Michael Dell's in this country should be able to take advantage of farm subsidies to lower his taxable income. Close business loss carry-forwards. But also recognize human behavior and what happens when high income earners actually do when they feel over-taxed. And recognize what happens economically. If the goal is a thriving economy then I don't believe that raising taxes get us there. I could be wrong, but I don't think so.
High income earners are doing the thing you suggest they do under higher taxes, UNDER THE LOWER TAX RATE THEY HAVE RIGHT NOW. There is no market to sustain a "thriving economy." That is a fictional argument. The market of which you speak doesn't exist, and may never exist. We are in a period of contraction because we built an economy on consumerism and greed, and that cannot sustain itself. If you want to balance the budget (again, that is a fiction, because you really don't), then there is no way to do it without raising revenue. Period. The ACTUAL numbers don't work any other way. You can play the "well if we keep them low and base our numbers on what COULD happen, then we could THEORETICALLY balance the budget under our numbers" game if you want, but the REALITY is that you cannot do it without revenue increases based on what is happening now.

Your entire THEORY is based on the idea that we will rise from this recession fairy soon. It isn't going to happen, and no amount of Libertarian fiscal policy will change that. All it will do is make the lives of the majority of Americans worse.

But you are going to get your wish. Rick Perry will be our next president. He wins the south from top to bottom. And then the country will see the despair inherent in your ideas. The biggest problem is that Ginsburg will retire after the next election, and you will have a majority on the Supreme Court that will make it impossible for your destruction to be undone. I can foresee a constitutional balanced budget amendment AND a 2/3rds vote needed to increase taxes that cannot be undone. Not to mention the idiocy of conservative social policy ruling the land. We are screwed.

Too bad we don't have actual leadership in the Oval office. Take a look at JFK and compare to what we have today;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEdXrfIMdiU

Can you imagine how JFK would be absolutely savaged today?
You cannot compare a time of economic prosperity with today. Nice strawman. However, you will get no argument from me that Obama has shown weak leadership.

P.S. Can you imagine how Ronald Reagan would be savaged today by your side?

Tax all personal income over $200,000 and you will wind up with something like 1 Trillion dollars (slightly less, I believe). So additional revenue solves very little. We need the eonomy back to needing more labor. End of.

S&P told you to balance the budget which was of course declared "dead on arrival" by your side. Yet it's my fault.

Okay.
Cut, Cap, and Balance was idiotic and unworkable, but other than that...

No, what they said is that the atmosphere is so toxic that there is no shot at cutting the deficit. Even they aren't stupid enough to believe that a government that large will ever be able to sustain an ongoing balanced budget. They said that there wasn't a real chance of closing the gap. You cannot close the gap without increasing revenue unless you are basing your THEORY on PRETEND numbers.
 
Jun 22, 2009
4,924
0
0
Alpe d'Huez said:
Unfortunately the term "conservative" doesn't mean any more than liberal does. The real root of the problem is unmitigated corruption......

Really recommend you read Andrew Bacevich, a "conservative" in the traditional sense I think you'll admire (former Colonial who believes we should get out of all wars, and close half the military bases across the planet).....
I deliberately chose the term 'conservative' because I was being polite and restrained. What I actually meant was, 'deranged lunatic extreme right-wingers'.:p

I'm not sure if the term 'corruption' even covers it for me. The currently accepted American way of doing political and electoral business - in the very broadest sense - is, in my humble opinion, a system so thoroughly rotten and degenerate to the core, that there is nothing there worth saving. Blow the ****er up and start with an empty piece of paper.

I see that Bacevich is a professor of History and International Relations who has written a lot....perhaps you could point me at what you had in mind?

I was hugely disappointed when Obama let the military talk him into the great Afghan troop surge, if for no other reason than that he should have known (as anyone with a smattering of history knows) that no foreign power has ever achieved anything beyond the most short-term success in that country. In fact, every previous foreign power eventually withdrew with its tail between its legs, after spending huge amounts, losing far too many dead, and in the end achieving none of their goals.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Scott SoCal said:
Okay, you are glossing over how to increase revenue. Bush lowered rates and increased revenue. Reagan lowered rates and incresed revenue. JFK lowered rates and increased revenues.

The only way to increase revenues enough to close the budget gap is to grow the economy.
None of those economic climates are like the one we have today. That is the problem with your theory. Taxes are lower now than under Clinton, WHERE ARE THE JOBS? You whole mantra is that lower taxes >p00f< create jobs. WHERE ARE THEY? If your idea works every time, WHY IS IT NOT WORKING RIGHT NOW AS WE SPEAK? Rubes might not see through your rhetoric, but I do. There is no proof of you THEORY working in times of recession. All your ideas do at times like there is concentrate more wealth in fewer hands.

Note also that Reagan's policies led to another downturn shortly after his presidency. It didn't sustain itself, and history CLEARLY shows that. That, and you also conveniently forget that under Reagan, the tax burden was HIGHER than it is today. So...
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Thoughtforfood said:
None of those economic climates are like the one we have today. That is the problem with your theory. Taxes are lower now than under Clinton, WHERE ARE THE JOBS? You whole mantra is that lower taxes >p00f< create jobs. WHERE ARE THEY? If your idea works every time, WHY IS IT NOT WORKING RIGHT NOW AS WE SPEAK? Rubes might not see through your rhetoric, but I do. There is no proof of you THEORY working in times of recession. All your ideas do at times like there is concentrate more wealth in fewer hands.

Note also that Reagan's policies led to another downturn shortly after his presidency. It didn't sustain itself, and history CLEARLY shows that. That, and you also conveniently forget that under Reagan, the tax burden was HIGHER than it is today. So...
Economies are cyclical, always have been always will be. There was a downturn after Clinton too, so what?

What is different today? A total lack of confidence in leadership worse than but not unlike the Carter years. Law and proposed law that will substantially and significantly increase the cost of doing business, a government creating even more mandatory entitlements when we wil never be able to pay for the one's already on the books.

Two approaches:

Raise taxes substantially, spend another Trillion in "stimulus" and see what happens.

Unwind Obamacare, substantially reduce the corporate tax rate and tie the reduced tax load to mandatory corporate re-investment... and see what happens.

Again, the ONLY way out is sustained economic growth which will create huge revenue increases along with restraint in discretionary spending (yes, the military) along with sensible reforms (means testing included) on the mandatory spending side.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Scott SoCal said:
Economies are cyclical, always have been always will be. There was a downturn after Clinton too, so what?

What is different today? A total lack of confidence in leadership worse than but not unlike the Carter years. Law and proposed law that will substantially and significantly increase the cost of doing business, a government creating even more mandatory entitlements when we wil never be able to pay for the one's already on the books.

Two approaches:

Raise taxes substantially, spend another Trillion in "stimulus" and see what happens.

Unwind Obamacare, substantially reduce the corporate tax rate and tie the reduced tax load to mandatory corporate re-investment... and see what happens.

Again, the ONLY way out is sustained economic growth which will create huge revenue increases along with restraint in discretionary spending (yes, the military) along with sensible reforms (means testing included) on the mandatory spending side.
I honestly believe that the current recession is different in character and base genesis than the other recessions you mention. What we saw was the crash of the credit system of purchasing for materialistic reasons. I don't think you can patch that problem up and return to doing it the way we did for the past 25 years. That is why I think we are in this for the long haul, and the reason that I believe that we need to protect social welfare are raise taxes. I do not see a way to return to the economic model of the past 25 years because it was unsustainable, and that was the cause of the crash we witnessed.
 
Jul 9, 2009
6,625
0
0
Thoughtforfood said:
I honestly believe that the current recession is different in character and base genesis than the other recessions you mention. What we saw was the crash of the credit system of purchasing for materialistic reasons. I don't think you can patch that problem up and return to doing it the way we did for the past 25 years. That is why I think we are in this for the long haul, and the reason that I believe that we need to protect social welfare are raise taxes. I do not see a way to return to the economic model of the past 25 years because it was unsustainable, and that was the cause of the crash we witnessed.
Agreed, the only thing cyclical in this case is the argument in this thread.:cool:
 
Hugh Januss said:
Perhaps it is drawing to the point where the only cure is bloody revolution.
Does this mean I'll see you with the black bloc at the GOP Convention? ;)

Seriously though, I fully expect huge protests there, maybe even rioting. Could be at the Democratic convention as well, but it takes place later.

Problem? It would never get off the ground because no matter where it started it would immediately be labeled a Communist uprising and opposed by the very people it would ultimately benefit the most. I'm afraid we are phuked and there is no good way out.
I tend to think so as well. And I think TFF may be right, if Rick Perry can somehow placate the Tea Party in the primaries, he'll raise insane amounts of money and possibly take the presidency. With that we'll be going back to the Bush years with extended wars for oil, the tax cuts extended, no trade laws changed, and deep cuts in most social programs for the elderly and poor and government services you use but don't think of (NOAA, OSHA, etc.). Basically all the conservatives want. But it will be coupled with other social aspects such as banning abortion, gay rights, increase in the war on drugs, more racism towards immigrants, opening up schools to Christian prayer, etc.

None of that will improve the economy, which will remain as flat as it is now, or further recess for the bottom 98%, until there is radical change in the way the country is governed. Such as a full overhaul of the health care system, campaign finance and lobby reform, drastic military cuts, and a change in the tax structure. Basically the exact opposite of what the Tea Party/ conservatives want.

I'm still holding out hope that Michael Bloomberg will run an independent campaign. Not that he's an ideal candidate, but I'd definitely take him over all of my choices right now.
Amsterhammer said:
I see that Bacevich is a professor of History and International Relations who has written a lot....perhaps you could point me at what you had in mind?.
Sure, here is Bacevich interviewed about three years ago by Bill Moyers. He talks about his book which is excellent. It transcends the entire left/right nonsense. Maybe we can get a Bloomberg/Bacevich ticket?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Alpe d'Huez said:
Does this mean I'll see you with the black bloc at the GOP Convention? ;)

Seriously though, I fully expect huge protests there, maybe even rioting. Could be at the Democratic convention as well, but it takes place later.


I tend to think so as well. And I think TFF may be right, if Rick Perry can somehow placate the Tea Party in the primaries, he'll raise insane amounts of money and possibly take the presidency. With that we'll be going back to the Bush years with extended wars for oil, the tax cuts extended, no trade laws changed, and deep cuts in most social programs for the elderly and poor and government services you use but don't think of (NOAA, OSHA, etc.). Basically all the conservatives want. But it will be coupled with other social aspects such as banning abortion, gay rights, increase in the war on drugs, more racism towards immigrants, opening up schools to Christian prayer, etc.

None of that will improve the economy, which will remain as flat as it is now, or further recess for the bottom 98%, until there is radical change in the way the country is governed. Such as a full overhaul of the health care system, campaign finance and lobby reform, drastic military cuts, and a change in the tax structure. Basically the exact opposite of what the Tea Party/ conservatives want.

I'm still holding out hope that Michael Bloomberg will run an independent campaign. Not that he's an ideal candidate, but I'd definitely take him over all of my choices right now.


Sure, here is Bacevich interviewed about three years ago by Bill Moyers. He talks about his book which is excellent. It transcends the entire left/right nonsense. Maybe we can get a Bloomberg/Bacevich ticket?
There was also talk of a Bloomberg/Scarborough ticket, which I would vote for in a heartbeat.
 
Me too. They would have the connections, and plenty of cash. If there ever were a time for an independent ticket, now is it. (I came up with Bloomberg-Bacevich ticket, though I can't see Andrew wanting to run. I don't think he'd even want to be Secretary of State, or Defense.)

Meanwhile, according to IRS records, 1,470 millionaires in this country paid no federal taxes in 2009. Not one penny.

Actually, as noted a few pages ago, some 46% of the country paid no federal taxes. Plenty because of loopholes and trickery/bribery, many more because they are so poor there's nothing to take.
 
Jun 14, 2009
238
0
0
Thoughtforfood said:
There was also talk of a Bloomberg/Scarborough ticket, which I would vote for in a heartbeat.
Second that.

Reagan worshippers, turn your adulation to Volcker, who followed traditional Keynesian economics to jack interest rates and tackle inflation, then lower them again to boost growth. Reagan cut taxes by less than 1% of GDP and spent above the 40 year average by 2%. After his first cuts he realized that we needed revenue and allowed taxes to be increased three times. As they talked supply side, it was Keynesian economics that did the work. Going from 17% interest rates down to 6% was what spurred the economy of the 80s. It was the Nixon/Ford/Carter economic ineptitude that made things so bad that anything was an improvement.
The scrabbling of Greenspan in the 00s to try to sustain an unsustainable boom cycle removed any chance of the Fed being able to use interest rates to mitigate this recession.

Try this for a solution: Tax at the OECD average and cut health care spending to the OECD average. You'll have enough revenue and savings to meet current spending and plop another trillion plus a year to the national debt.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
RigelKent said:
Second that.

Reagan worshippers, turn your adulation to Volcker, who followed traditional Keynesian economics to jack interest rates and tackle inflation, then lower them again to boost growth. Reagan cut taxes by less than 1% of GDP and spent above the 40 year average by 2%. After his first cuts he realized that we needed revenue and allowed taxes to be increased three times. As they talked supply side, it was Keynesian economics that did the work. Going from 17% interest rates down to 6% was what spurred the economy of the 80s. It was the Nixon/Ford/Carter economic ineptitude that made things so bad that anything was an improvement.
The scrabbling of Greenspan in the 00s to try to sustain an unsustainable boom cycle removed any chance of the Fed being able to use interest rates to mitigate this recession.

Try this for a solution: Tax at the OECD average and cut health care spending to the OECD average. You'll have enough revenue and savings to meet current spending and plop another trillion plus a year to the national debt.
Art Laffer would disagree with you... and he was actually on the Reagan economic team.


I found this interview fascinating and this to be a particularly interesting:

Justin Fox: I think of somebody like Greg Mankiw, who generally wants lower taxes but at the same time in his textbook he goes off on the Laffer Curve.

Arthur Laffer: Why would he do that? Because I don't get it. I've never said all tax cuts pay for themselves. I never even said Reagan's tax cuts would pay for themselves.

The evidence I cited there on Kennedy, it's clear. Kennedy went from a deficit to a surplus with the tax cuts and the pro-growth policies. I do not believe that was luck. I don't believe that Reagan was luck. I don't believe that Bill Clinton was luck. I think Clinton did a great job as president.

JF: But Clinton had, very early in his first term ...

AL: One income tax hike cut that almost cost him almost everything. Then he became more Reagan than Reagan the day afterwards. He lost the House, he lost the Senate, he lost the governorships, he lost the state legislatures. And then he became more Reagan than Reagan: He got Nafta through Congress, against the unions, against his own party. He reappointed Reagan's Fed chairman twice. He (Clinton) signed welfare reform, that you actually have to look for a job to get welfare. He cut government spending as a share of GDP by 3.5 percentage points. No president ever has come anywhere near him on that. He had the biggest capital gains tax cut in our nation's history in '97. He got rid of the retirement test on Social Security. This guy was a great president and I voted for him twice.
This interview was done in December of 2007. Pretty good read.

http://curiouscapitalist.blogs.time.com/2007/12/07/talking_to_arthur_laffer_about/
 
Thoughtforfood said:
There is no way to close the budget gap without raising revenue. You can close your eyes and wish, click your heels together and say over and over "there's no place like home," or do whatever you like, but the fact is that IF you want to close the budget gap (I don't for one second believe Republicans want to do that. They have never done it before, and for all of the bluster of their rhetoric, their record speaks to the factual nature of their real objectives), you HAVE to raise revenue. Either by raising taxes, or doing away with a myriad of deductions. I heard a guy from CATO admit that last week.

Grover Norquist should be arrested for treason and forced to eat every one of the pledges idiotic lawmakers have signed.

I don't know if you are aware of this, but it is actually possible to institute a budget that has significant cuts to spending and revenue increases that will actually close the budget gap.
Grover Norquist (is that really a name of someone i should listen too?) :eek:perhaps the guillotine
 
May 18, 2009
3,492
0
0
Bbbbut bala verde as soon as everybody realizes supply side is the way to go then the poor will be sucked up into the uppler class like a giant economic hoover vacuum cleaner. Just you watch, ye of little faith.
 
May 13, 2009
3,042
0
0
Thoughtforfood said:
There is no way to close the budget gap without raising revenue. You can close your eyes and wish, click your heels together and say over and over "there's no place like home," or do whatever you like, but the fact is that IF you want to close the budget gap (I don't for one second believe Republicans want to do that. They have never done it before, and for all of the bluster of their rhetoric, their record speaks to the factual nature of their real objectives), you HAVE to raise revenue. Either by raising taxes, or doing away with a myriad of deductions. I heard a guy from CATO admit that last week.

Grover Norquist should be arrested for treason and forced to eat every one of the pledges idiotic lawmakers have signed.

I don't know if you are aware of this, but it is actually possible to institute a budget that has significant cuts to spending and revenue increases that will actually close the budget gap.
Just read an article that if the US taxed like Germany, it would produce a 3.5% budget surplus. But of course, taxing that much would destroy the economy, create large unemployment, and drive the job creators out of the country which is why Germany's economy is so deep in the crapper. Oh wait...
 
Dec 7, 2010
8,307
1
0
ChrisE said:
Bbbbut bala verde as soon as everybody realizes supply side is the way to go then the poor will be sucked up into the uppler class like a giant economic hoover vacuum cleaner. Just you watch, ye of little faith.
I have a hard time putting any faith into a "news source" that is called "motherjones".:eek: wth?

How about a tax increase and close the "deductions"/loopholes on the rich? Then cut the spending. Iraq and Afghanistan wars would be a huge cut in spending.

Get rid of the home ownership programs. Get rid of the food stamp system and replace it with a work for food program. :eek:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Cobblestones said:
Just read an article that if the US taxed like Germany, it would produce a 3.5% budget surplus. But of course, taxing that much would destroy the economy, create large unemployment, and drive the job creators out of the country which is why Germany's economy is so deep in the crapper. Oh wait...
I guess Angela never heard of Keynes, Krugman and Stiglitz.

Merkel Rejects New Stimulus Program as Economic Data Worsens

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aVVHVGBxRpz4&refer=worldwide

Defying Others, Germany Finds Economic Success

Germans steered clear of the debt-fueled consumption boom that many believe contributed to the financial crisis. During the recession, Chancellor Angela Merkel resisted the palliative of government spending that the United States and some European partners felt was crucial to restoring growth.

From the start of the financial crisis, Mrs. Merkel has been the leading advocate of fiscal austerity, a view that won out at the Group of 20 meeting in Toronto in June when the leaders of the world’s biggest economies promised to reduce their budget deficits.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/14/world/europe/14germany.html?pagewanted=2

German Chancellor Angela Merkel has been given the backing of her coalition cabinet for a fiscal austerity programme.

Berlin will cut the budget deficit by a record 80bn euros ($96bn; £66bn) by 2014.

The plan would cut the deficit by about 3% of GDP. The total deficit in 2009 was 3.1%, but is projected to grow to more than 5% this year
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10257902

3% of our GDP in 2010 would be about $450 Billion in cuts this year if my math is correct. Seems like that's what the "crazies" were asking for. Cut, Cap and Balance would have cut about $111 Billion next year and we all know how far that got.

Neither side is serious. We can all probably agree on that.


EDIT: One of these articles talks about how the German Govt is dealing with their employment issues. Pretty interesting and something we could do here.
 
May 13, 2009
3,042
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
I guess Angela never heard of Keynes, Krugman and Stiglitz.

Merkel Rejects New Stimulus Program as Economic Data Worsens

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aVVHVGBxRpz4&refer=worldwide

Defying Others, Germany Finds Economic Success



http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/14/world/europe/14germany.html?pagewanted=2

German Chancellor Angela Merkel has been given the backing of her coalition cabinet for a fiscal austerity programme.



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10257902

3% of our GDP in 2010 would be about $450 Billion in cuts this year if my math is correct. Seems like that's what the "crazies" were asking for. Cut, Cap and Balance would have cut about $111 Billion next year and we all know how far that got.

Neither side is serious. We can all probably agree on that.


EDIT: One of these articles talks about how the German Govt is dealing with their employment issues. Pretty interesting and something we could do here.
Except that Germany's tax policy isn't dictated by economic retards of the Grover Nordquist type. Merkels predecessor, Kohl, had the upper income tax bracket at 56% and introduced a new 7.5% tax just for the reconstruction effort of East Germany.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Cobblestones said:
Except that Germany's tax policy isn't dictated by economic retards of the Grover Nordquist type. Merkels predecessor, Kohl, had the upper income tax bracket at 56% and introduced a new 7.5% tax just for the reconstruction effort of East Germany.
So then the economic upturn in Germany is due to a 56% top marginal rate and/or comparatively high tax rates? If that's your take then do you think that would work here (to kick-start the economy/create jobs)?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Alpe d'Huez said:
Keep in mind though that Germany isn't bogged down in two plus wars, plus they have nationalized health care - two huge items completely off limits in discussion in this country by our brilliant politicians.

Okay, but Germany's economy is recovering. It was in the crapper with nationalized healthcare and it is now performing well with no change in their socialized medicine. To what do you attribute Germany's growth since 2008?
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
S General 11
Similar threads
2019 Rugby World Cup

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts