Notices
Results 1 to 48 of 48

Thread: Minnesota shuts down due to Republican greed

  1. #1 Minnesota shuts down due to Republican greed 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Nirgendwo und Ueberall
    Posts
    1,296
    Just because they refuse to tax the rich..hahaha..what stupid assholes...WHY on Earth wouldn't you tax the rich?!!!! What POSSIBLE argument could be made for not doing so?!!!


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2 Re: Minnesota shuts down due to Republican greed 
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Quote Originally Posted by gottspieler
    Just because they refuse to tax the rich..hahaha..what stupid assholes...WHY on Earth wouldn't you tax the rich?!!!! What POSSIBLE argument could be made for not doing so?!!!
    Pretty simple to answer. Only rich people hire others to work for them. So the argument is every dollar you tax a rich person is a dollar less they have to hire someone and thus grow the overall economy.


    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3 Re: Minnesota shuts down due to Republican greed 
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    2,318
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Quote Originally Posted by gottspieler
    Just because they refuse to tax the rich..hahaha..what stupid assholes...WHY on Earth wouldn't you tax the rich?!!!! What POSSIBLE argument could be made for not doing so?!!!
    Pretty simple to answer. Only rich people hire others to work for them. So the argument is every dollar you tax a rich person is a dollar less they have to hire someone and thus grow the overall economy.
    #1 At what level of wealth is a person rich?
    #2 Is the premise here that overall economic growth is dependent on the diffusion or the conglomeration of money?
    I was some of the mud that got to sit up and look around.
    Lucky me. Lucky mud.
    -Kurt Vonnegut Jr.-
    Cat's Cradle.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4 Re: Minnesota shuts down due to Republican greed 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Nirgendwo und Ueberall
    Posts
    1,296
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Quote Originally Posted by gottspieler
    Just because they refuse to tax the rich..hahaha..what stupid assholes...WHY on Earth wouldn't you tax the rich?!!!! What POSSIBLE argument could be made for not doing so?!!!
    Pretty simple to answer. Only rich people hire others to work for them. So the argument is every dollar you tax a rich person is a dollar less they have to hire someone and thus grow the overall economy.
    If they can afford hookers, personal jets and mansions they have some change to spare. I can't believe you're buying into the Republican ploy. You are a puppet to rich corporations. If it weren't for people like you, the wealthy people in this country wouldn't have so much power.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5 Re: Minnesota shuts down due to Republican greed 
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Quote Originally Posted by gottspieler
    If they can afford hookers, personal jets and mansions they have some change to spare.
    You made my point for me.
    With the exception of the hooker, because we're too stupid in the US to legalize, building and running jets and mansions takes lots of people-people who are working and should also be paying taxes and not bleeding the rest of the population for unemployment and food stamp money. Obviously, at both ends of the tax rates for the wealthy there's a point of diminishing returns-if their tax rate is zero everyone jobs are a plenty but there's no government for lack of income revenue. If the tax rate is too high, than there's no money left to employ anybody. Explanations related to this are sometimes called the Laffer curve.

    I've always been a Republic-albeit an increasing rare moderate one.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6 Re: Minnesota shuts down due to Republican greed 
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    Quote Originally Posted by gottspieler
    You are a puppet to rich corporations. If it weren't for people like you, the wealthy people in this country wouldn't have so much power.
    You're off your meds, man. What ridiculous shit you post, sometimes.



    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Quote Originally Posted by gottspieler
    What POSSIBLE argument could be made for not doing so?!!!
    Pretty simple to answer. Only rich people hire others to work for them. So the argument is every dollar you tax a rich person is a dollar less they have to hire someone and thus grow the overall economy.
    That's the argument, but there are plenty of holes in it. Far too simplistic, and the assumptions being made rarely come to fruition. Usually that money is reinvested, and not often used for any real job creation activities.

    Further, corporations have more cash on hand right now than we've seen in a long time, and they're not spending it. Same with the rich. If we cut their taxes further, and they have more cash on hand as a result, that doesn't change the central issue that demand is too low to stimulate further capital investments and increasing capacity.

    We need to create jobs more directly. Hoping that if we increase the already cash strong position of the rich it will somehow down the road increase the number of jobs is a bit too voodoo. Focused spending. Programs with clear objectives. Strategic and specific approaches. Enhancement of our infrastructure, energy and otherwise. That's the sort of thing we need, and we need fast and big.

    The rich have a shit ton of money already. It's clearly not doing what people say it should be. In short, evidence shows the claims to be false, yet people continue making them.



    Posted this morning:

    http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/201...t-the-problem/
    First, are corporations really awash in cash? Yes. Here’s corporate cash flow versus business investment spending; since not all investment spending comes from corporations, this actually understates the degree to which corporations are taking in more cash than they are willing to invest:




    Second, banks are also sitting on large amounts of cash that they aren’t lending:




    These aren’t abstruse points. On the contrary, the fact that corporations aren’t investing as much as they could has become a major right-wing talking point, with repeated claims that companies are holding back because of political uncertainty. Actually, they’re holding back because they don’t see enough consumer demand — but in any case, cash is not the problem.

    So it’s truly remarkable — an impressive case of doublethink — that the same people who decry the fact that firms and banks are sitting on cash insist that it’s totally vital that we give those firms and banks more cash, so that they can invest and create jobs.

    You see this in a number of contexts. The repatriation issue — in which we’re going to give companies a big tax incentive to bring cash home, and then sit on it or use it to buy back their own stock — is one.

    Another is the way Republicans are defending against attempts to curb things like the tax break on corporate jets; as Greg Sargent reports, they’re basically saying that if you take money away from “the wage payer offering a job”, you’ll reduce employment. Um, but those “wage payers” are sitting on lots of cash already, and not using it to pay wages or anything else.

    And then there are the banking issues. We mustn’t hold the banks accountable for the mortgage mess, or impose higher capital standards, or anything, because that would reduce their ability to lend; never mind the fact that if they wanted to lend, all they would have to do is withdraw some of those huge excess deposits they have at the Fed.

    So repeat after me: lack of cash at major corporations, both financial and nonfinancial, is not the problem with our economy. And showering more cash on these players will do nothing except, well, shower cash on these players.

    More here: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/201...of-scoundrels/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    I completely agree it's far too simple. I also agree infrastructure investments are about the most effective means posible to ultimately put people to work.

    The corporate tax models are complicated as well. I wouldn't tax them at all and derive all our tax revenue from sales tax, which most studies show is more stable and individual income taxes.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Nirgendwo und Ueberall
    Posts
    1,296
    You're off your meds, man. What ridiculous shit you post, sometimes.
    I've lost every ounce of respect for you I've ever had with that comment. You are blatantly ignoring reality if you think that what I've typed isn't true. You're a politically correct ass-kisser. Get over yourself.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    Quote Originally Posted by gottspieler
    I've lost every ounce of respect for you I've ever had with that comment. You are blatantly ignoring reality if you think that what I've typed isn't true. You're a politically correct ass-kisser. Get over yourself.
    So, in short, you asked a question, and Lynx_Fox presented an entirely valid answer.

    He did not comment one bit on his own stance, and you had the audacity to suggest he is "a puppet to rich corporations" and that if it weren't for "people like him the wealthy people in this country wouldn't have so much power."

    Now, I'm "blatantly ignoring reality" because I think what you typed was a horribly off the mark representation of Lynx_Fox and his stance on this matter, and also a completely made-up read on the words he typed, and for suggesting that you're not looking at the situation clearly I'm a "politically correct ass kisser."

    Is that about right? That's your stance? I'm just trying to figure out here how far away from reality your perceptions have become so I can hope to respond accurately. Thanks for any help you can provide in the matter.


    As an aside, I think this is the first time I've ever been called "politically correct." It's amazing what happens sometimes on the internet. Also, it's truly unfortunate and I'll surely be crying myself to sleep tonight because I've lost your respect given that you're such a pillar of wisdom, clarity, stability, and emotional calm.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10 Re: Minnesota shuts down due to Republican greed 
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Northumbria UK
    Posts
    1,043
    Quote Originally Posted by gottspieler
    Just because they refuse to tax the rich..hahaha..what stupid assholes...WHY on Earth wouldn't you tax the rich?!!!! What POSSIBLE argument could be made for not doing so?!!!
    Democratic Governor Mark Dayton wants to tax the rich until the pips squeak, well he did not actually say that, but it certainly sounds like a tax of envy. He wants his ass kicked, he is doing more harm than good.

    "What is happening in Minnesota will not improve its budget situation, because it has effectively destroyed a good percentage of its revenue streams, while maintaining most of its spending. The selection of things to cut is clearly aimed at inconveniencing people and making them angry, while the bread and butter of the Democratic handouts remain unaffected. If this were a true and honest shutdown, then we would see the revenue-generating and fee-based services remaining operational, while the scofflaws, fraudsters, and illegal aliens using Minnesota's safety nets as hammocks would find themselves kicked to the ground. People using public transportation would have to start paying the full price of their rides."

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/...t_ceiling.html
    .
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Quote Originally Posted by gottspieler
    You're off your meds, man. What ridiculous shit you post, sometimes.
    I've lost every ounce of respect for you I've ever had with that comment. You are blatantly ignoring reality if you think that what I've typed isn't true. You're a politically correct ass-kisser. Get over yourself.
    How is it ignoring reality to point out that poor people don't hire others to work for them? That's not republican propaganda--it's a fact. You didn't make any counter argument or add anything to the thread other than express an idiotic hatred against those who've been successful. You just went into personal attacks. I'm not a "a puppet to rich corporations." I am however an investor like nearly half the US population. Inow at least went to the trouble of pointing out with relevant sources that supply side economics doesn't work as well as it's supposed to.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    2,318
    What about small businesses? Most small business owner's aren't rich, but middle class. A significant portion of the gross income of that small business goes to paying the employees. Most of the money spent at small businesses stays in the local community.
    While the purchase of a jet provides for some manufacturing employment, and let's consider the pay and working conditions of a Chinese vs American operation and which jet you would want to fly in, the jet is not an essential piece of most business infrastructure, and the money spent on it has not hired anybody from the local community.
    I was some of the mud that got to sit up and look around.
    Lucky me. Lucky mud.
    -Kurt Vonnegut Jr.-
    Cat's Cradle.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    Only rich people hire others to work for them. So the argument is every dollar you tax a rich person is a dollar less they have to hire someone and thus grow the overall economy.
    How is it ignoring reality to point out that poor people don't hire others to work for them?
    Ignoring the vast and neither rich nor poor middle class is ignoring reality. It's the middle class that creates jobs. They do actually hire people to paint their houses, mow the lawn, do plumbing and electrical work. And they buy stuff which creates jobs for shop workers, manufacturers, truck drivers and so on. They go out to restaurants and entertainment and on vacations, keeping wait staff, hotel workers and actors in jobs. Most of them don't buy boats, although some do (bass boats more than yachts). Many of them buy cars and gasoline and hire people to service them.

    The Laffer curve says there's an optimum somewhere. It doesn't say where that optimum is so the best we can go on is the empirical evidence of the past few decades, which says we can lower taxes on those making high incomes and go into deficit, or raise taxes on high earners and reduce the deficit. I vote for the latter.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    2,318
    At this point it would be good for people to have an idea of what the Laffer curve is;
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve

    And I would like to offer a "Today's prime source of reason" award to Bunbury.
    Bunbury for POTUS! Hooray!
    I was some of the mud that got to sit up and look around.
    Lucky me. Lucky mud.
    -Kurt Vonnegut Jr.-
    Cat's Cradle.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Nirgendwo und Ueberall
    Posts
    1,296
    My point is that merely being a member of the Republican party at this point in time builds up the crazy fringe groups' power base. This isn't Abraham Lincoln's Republican Party. This is the evil it has become only relatively recently.

    The less Democrats around, the more often nutcases and money-grubbers will go unopposed. Many loyal Rebublicans will vote a straight ticket without considering all of the options. This is a fairly common occurence due to a feeling of identification with churches/family/friends within communities across America. This may not apply to you Lynx. Voting for Dems=being thought of as a traitor. My grandfather, for example, was upset with my younger brother for voting for Obama and would likely cry if I shared MY personal beliefs with him. I know personally of dozens of families who have bright children who grow up to be "outcasts" for thinking outside the box. They are often verbally beaten into submission and forced to agree with their parents. Some of these kids with potential never reach it because they've been "protected" from the evils of the world...from "liberalism", atheism, evolution, common sense...ideas that challenge the Bible as many conservatives interpret it. If you aren't part of the solution you are part of the problem. You may not be a nutcase yourself as a Republican but you are a nutcase-enabler. I mean you guys have Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann as potential presidential candidates...if you support a group that would even consider electing these people, are you not as guilty as the rest?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16 Re: Minnesota shuts down due to Republican greed 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Nirgendwo und Ueberall
    Posts
    1,296
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Quote Originally Posted by gottspieler
    Just because they refuse to tax the rich..hahaha..what stupid assholes...WHY on Earth wouldn't you tax the rich?!!!! What POSSIBLE argument could be made for not doing so?!!!
    Pretty simple to answer. Only rich people hire others to work for them. So the argument is every dollar you tax a rich person is a dollar less they have to hire someone and thus grow the overall economy.
    Wow. I agree that is a very simple answer. Too simple. Not only rich people hire others to work for them, as Giant Evil has pointed out...also, not every dollar goes into hiring people...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Quote Originally Posted by gottspieler
    My point is that merely being a member of the Republican party at this point in time builds up the crazy fringe groups' power base. This isn't Abraham Lincoln's Republican Party. This is the evil it has become only relatively recently.
    How did voting against McCain out of protest for nominating an anti-intellectual as his running mate build up the "crazy fringe groups" power base? I'm still a republican with a voice who's somewhat active in the party and be a lot more so after I retire from the military and become less vulnerable to perceptions of political bias.

    From my fox hole the democrats who live in this peter pan world of accepting over regulation and continuing to ignore our growing dept problems are every bit as dangerous as the republicans Gingrish correctly referred to a "social engineers."
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    From my fox hole the democrats who live in this peter pan world of accepting over regulation and continuing to ignore our growing dept problems are every bit as dangerous as the republicans Gingrish correctly referred to a "social engineers."
    Couldn't agree more. Luckily the Democrats you describe form a small minority of the party as a whole.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    Quote Originally Posted by GiantEvil
    At this point it would be good for people to have an idea of what the Laffer curve is;
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve

    And I would like to offer a "Today's prime source of reason" award to Bunbury.
    Bunbury for POTUS! Hooray!
    Thank you for your support. I shall wear it always.

    Sadly I already have three strikes against me:

    1. Wasn't born in the USA.
    2. I'm an atheist.
    3. TV puts 50 pounds on me.

    Actually there are lots more strikes but it only takes three. Come to think of it it only takes one - the first one. So we're off to the patriotic fireworks and a picnic with the Symphony - hope the rain holds off - and the Star Spangled Banner and all that. There'll be a tear in my eye for sure, but for the history? or the present?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Nirgendwo und Ueberall
    Posts
    1,296
    How did voting against McCain out of protest for nominating an anti-intellectual as his running mate build up the "crazy fringe groups" power base?
    A very good step in the right direction. :-D
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Nirgendwo und Ueberall
    Posts
    1,296
    This is what scares me:


    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/...n2917719.shtml

    (AP) The three Republican presidential candidates who indicated last month that they do not believe in evolution may have been taking a safe stance on the issue when it comes to appealing to GOP voters.

    A Gallup poll released Monday said that while the country is about evenly split over whether the theory of evolution is true, Republicans disbelieve it by more than 2-to-1.

    Republicans saying they don't believe in evolution outnumbered those who do by 68 percent to 30 percent in the survey. Democrats believe in evolution by 57 percent to 40 percent, as do independents by a 61 percent to 37 percent margin.

    The poll also said that those who go to church often are far likelier to reject evolution than those who do not. Republicans are likelier than Democrats or independents to attend church services, according to Frank Newport, editor in chief of the Gallup Poll.

    At the GOP's first presidential debate last month, the 10 candidates were asked which of them did not believe in evolution. Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee and Colorado Rep. Tom Tancredo raised their hands.


    If you are not an anti-intellectual Republican (concerning the biological sciences at least) you're in the minority.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    2,318
    I think it would be interesting to compare incident's of over regulation, compared to under regulation, having caused harm to human's.

    By the way, I own four biographies of Eisenhower. If he were here today to run for office, he would get my vote regardless of political affiliation, or candidate viability.
    As it stand's today, I would rather wipe my sphincter with my own hat and eat it than vote for any, but one, republican. The only republican I have, and will vote for, is Sam Reed.
    The reason being that he has, by virtue of deed, demonstrated dedication to preserving the democratic process by which I hope to prevent the economic royalist oligarchy from gaining power.
    The economic royalists's who have used the undemocratic and undue influence of wealth to pervert almost the whole of American politics.
    Hopefully that democratic process hasn't been compromised beyond the ability to regulate the predations of the economic royalist oligarchy upon the liberties of the common American.
    I was some of the mud that got to sit up and look around.
    Lucky me. Lucky mud.
    -Kurt Vonnegut Jr.-
    Cat's Cradle.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Quote Originally Posted by gottspieler

    At the GOP's first presidential debate last month, the 10 candidates were asked which of them did not believe in evolution. Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee and Colorado Rep. Tom Tancredo raised their hands.[/i]

    If you are not an anti-intellectual Republican (concerning the biological sciences at least) you're in the minority.
    Three of ten raised their hands. Mitt Romney, the current GOP front runner was there but didn't raise his hand. If pressed he'd probably give a half hearted answer mentioning made up concepts like macro evolution to placate the extreme religious base.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    Quote Originally Posted by gottspieler
    the country is about evenly split over whether the theory of evolution is true
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    2,318
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    Quote Originally Posted by gottspieler
    the country is about evenly split over whether the theory of evolution is true
    It would appear that Gott's is correct.
    http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1107/pol...on-creationism
    I was some of the mud that got to sit up and look around.
    Lucky me. Lucky mud.
    -Kurt Vonnegut Jr.-
    Cat's Cradle.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    America, a land so free that we aren't even enslaved by facts and evidence or basic education.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    1,268
    Pretty simple to answer. Only rich people hire others to work for them. So the argument is every dollar you tax a rich person is a dollar less they have to hire someone and thus grow the overall economy.
    Money which are directed to hire someone or to expend business aren`t usually taxed.Usually, only pure profits are taxed which are tax for personal consumption.
    Antislavery
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Gottspieler, I agree. You must be off your meds.

    Let me ask you this. Why do we need more tax revenues? isn't our government too big already?

    I don't know about you, but I think we have too many people relying on the government that should start relying on them self.

    My God...

    Today is the 4th of July. Any idea why we bacame a separate free nation?

    The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

    When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

    He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
    He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
    He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
    He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
    He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
    He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
    He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
    He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
    He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
    He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
    He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
    He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
    He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
    For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
    For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
    For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
    For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
    For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
    For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
    For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
    For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
    For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
    He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
    He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
    He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
    He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
    He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

    In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

    Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

    We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

    Click on image:

    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Please tell me where in our history has taxing the rich higher marginal rates resulted in a noticeable better revenue:



    However, lower taxes promote a greater economy. As long as you can lower tax rates and maintain that average 18.3% revenue, a greater economy will net greater tax revenues.

    Someone pointed out the "Laffer Curve." It's a good tool to learn.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Nirgendwo und Ueberall
    Posts
    1,296
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    America, a land so free that we aren't even enslaved by facts and evidence or basic education.
    You see, comments like this are the reason why I often respond harshly to people here. I thought we both agreed that anti-intellectualism and greed were negative things? That's what I 'm trying to say. I didn't major in Economics or PolySci, so I am not aware of all of the facts. You can enlighten me without being terse.

    It is true, however, that Republican greed is an evil that we need to fight.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    2,318
    Quote Originally Posted by gottspieler
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    America, a land so free that we aren't even enslaved by facts and evidence or basic education.
    You see, comments like this are the reason why I often respond harshly to people here. I thought we both agreed that anti-intellectualism and greed were negative things? That's what I 'm trying to say. I didn't major in Economics or PolySci, so I am not aware of all of the facts. You can enlighten me without being terse.

    It is true, however, that Republican greed is an evil that we need to fight.
    Um, Gott's. You need to work on your comprehension of context a little.
    With inow's statement he was agreeing wholly with your assessment of anti-intellectualism.
    Greed at that moment wasn't in the context of that bit of the discussion.
    Now let's work together to reduce Wild Cobra's assertions to the blatant absurdity that they are.

    @Wild Cobra, your first post is The Declaration of Independence.
    Which, while a profound and important historical document, does not comprise a body of law regulating internal activity of the United States of America.
    I believe you would want to reference The Constitution of the United States of America, which is a body of law.

    The chart in your second post only lists tax rates as % of GDP.
    It makes no mention of total receipts, or total receipts as % of GDP.
    Nor does it mention actual GDP in any context whatsoever.
    In fact that is no monetary axis whatsoever in the whole graph!
    Also the graph is so tiny as to be almost illegible.
    Are you attempting to obfuscate here Wild Cobra? Hmmm...

    Someone else mentioned the Laffer curve, I provided a link to the Wiki on it.
    Here it is again; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve.
    You really need to go read it, because according to the Wiki the Laffer curve is hypothetical and indefinite.
    Various proposed Laffer curves predict maximal return, on tax rates from about 25% to 70%.
    I was some of the mud that got to sit up and look around.
    Lucky me. Lucky mud.
    -Kurt Vonnegut Jr.-
    Cat's Cradle.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by GiantEvil
    The chart in your second post only lists tax rates as % of GDP.
    It makes no mention of total receipts, or total receipts as % of GDP.
    No, tax rates are the marginal rates. The two marginal plots are in percentage of tax rate. The other three are percent of GDP. Sorry it isn't specified, I figured I didn't have to explain to those versed in this topic.

    In order, Individual tax as % of GDP is the revenue the government get from individual tax filers. Bottom tax rate % is the lowest marginal tax rate. Top tax rate % is the upper marginal rate from individual tax filers. Corporate tax as a % of GDP is the revenue the government gets from corporate tax filers. Total tax as a % of GDP is the revenue the government gets from all revenue sources combines, which averages 18.3%
    Quote Originally Posted by GiantEvil
    Nor does it mention actual GDP in any context whatsoever.
    And that matters.... why?
    Quote Originally Posted by GiantEvil
    In fact that is no monetary axis whatsoever in the whole graph!
    And that matters.... why?
    Quote Originally Posted by GiantEvil
    Also the graph is so tiny as to be almost illegible.
    Are you attempting to obfuscate here Wild Cobra? Hmmm...
    Click on it to enlarge and/or get some glasses.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by GiantEvil
    @Wild Cobra, your first post is The Declaration of Independence.
    Which, while a profound and important historical document, does not comprise a body of law regulating internal activity of the United States of America.
    I believe you would want to reference The Constitution of the United States of America, which is a body of law.
    So, you don't think today being the 4th, has no relevance as to why I posted the decree that made the constitution possible?

    I specifically mentioned the 4th, and about becoming a free nation. The constitution didn't do that.

    Ask yourself "WHY" all this came to be.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    2,318
    @Wild Cobra.
    I see the, total revenue as % of GDP, line. It has been steady, i.e., there is no apparent correlation to top tax rate.
    I still don't see any actual GDP figures, or any per capita data.
    Your graph still doesn't provide any definitive proof of the effect's of a high or low top tax rate.

    You posted The Declaration of Independence in conjunction with assertions concerning tax revenues and the size of government.
    These would seem to be matters of law, and covered in The Constitution.

    As to tax revenues, without them how would we maintain our military forces? Which, as an aside, is a socialist endeavor, like football, the team takes precedence over the individual.
    Also we need infrastructure so goods can make it to market.

    As to the size of our government, as a democracy, the proper size for our government would be the size of the population taking part in that democracy.

    And as to people relying only on themselves, did only one person sign The Declaration of Independence of the United States of America?
    I was some of the mud that got to sit up and look around.
    Lucky me. Lucky mud.
    -Kurt Vonnegut Jr.-
    Cat's Cradle.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    However, lower taxes promote a greater economy.
    History shows your claim to be false... repeatedly. There is a balance. However, your mantra of "lower taxes at all costs" is not an accurate way to help the economy.


    http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/201...ewhat-wonkish/
    it might be worth thinking about this question in terms of a simple model of labor supply. Think of an individual facing a marginal tax rate t; and think of the amount this individual produces as depending on effort, which in turn depends on how much of his or her income the individual gets to keep at the margin, i.e., 1-t. Then a little calculus will show that whether a tax hike increase raises or lowers revenue depends on whether the elasticity of effort with respect to earnings — the percentage change in effort from a 1 percent rise in 1-t, the after-tax return to effort — is less or more than (1-t)/t.

    An example may make the point clear. Suppose that the top marginal tax rate is 20 percent, so that high earners get to keep 80 percent of what they make. Now raise the rate to 21 percent. This is a 5 (100*1/20) percent increase in the proportion of income collected in taxes; revenue will only fall if effort falls more than 5 percent. Meanwhile, the after tax return to effort falls 1.25 percent (100*1/80). So the elasticity of effort with respect to earnings would have to be more than 4 for revenue to fall.

    At a marginal tax rate of 50 percent, the break point is much lower; just 1. And so on.

    So what do we know about the elasticity of effort with respect to earnings? Well, history suggests that if anything it’s negative: real wages have trended up over time, but working hours have fallen. That’s not a paradox, because rising wages have an income as well as a substitution effect. When you get richer, you want in general to consume more of everything, and among the things you want to consume is leisure. Against this,you can buy more goodies with an additional hour of work; but the net effect can go either way.

    Now, someone might come along and point out that higher taxes aren’t the same thing as lower wages, because those taxes are generally used to finance a more generous welfare state — and this can wash out the income effect. That is, if you impose taxes that bring incomes after tax back to what they were in, say, 1960, but use the revenue to finance generous retirement benefits and free medical care, you should not expect people to work as hard as they did in 1960. And that’s a good point when we’re talking about the effects of high taxes/high benefits for people in the lower part of the income distribution.

    But it’s not very relevant to high earners, for whom welfare-state benefits are inevitably small compared with their overall incomes.

    So the way I see it, even quite high marginal tax rates on high earners — even rates in, say, the 70 percent range that prevailed pre-Reagan — are unlikely to put us on the wrong side of the Laffer curve by discouraging effort. High earners won’t work much less; they might even work harder, because it takes more effort to make enough to buy that fourth home.

    That doesn’t mean, however, that it’s OK to go back to Eisenhower-era 91 percent top marginal rates. The problem with super-high rates isn’t so much that they reduce incentives to work; it’s that they create huge incentives to avoid or evade.

    http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/200...e-laffer-test/
    So everything you’ve heard about how revenues have boomed since the Bush tax cuts is wrong. What really happened was that revenue plunged, as a percent of GDP, in the early Bush years, then staged a partial, but only partial, recovery. And that recovery seems to have run its course.

    UPDATE: Aha, I forgot to point out that GDP growth has not been exceptionally strong under Bush, so that I’m not cheating by looking at revenues as a percent of GDP. Check out Figure 2 here.

    Yet on the basis of this experience, both Bush and his would-be Republican successors are proclaiming that tax cuts actually increase revenue.


    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    As long as you can lower tax rates and maintain that average 18.3% revenue, a greater economy will net greater tax revenues.

    Someone pointed out the "Laffer Curve." It's a good tool to learn.
    There are challenges to the laffer curve, and the empirical data often doesn't support the ideological way in which people blindly follow it. People like it because it aligns with their worldview. Worldview comes first. If people looked at the data and used that as their foundation, they'd have a different worldview.


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_...empirical_data
    In 2005, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released a paper called "Analyzing the Economic and Budgetary Effects of a 10 Percent Cut in Income Tax Rates". This paper considered the impact of a stylized reduction of 10% in the then existing marginal rate of federal income tax in the US (for example, if those facing a 25% marginal federal income tax rate had it lowered to 22.5%). Unlike earlier research, the CBO paper estimates the budgetary impact of possible macroeconomic effects of tax policies, that is, it attempts to account for how reductions in individual income tax rates might affect the overall future growth of the economy, and therefore influence future government tax revenues; and ultimately, impact deficits or surpluses.

    The paper's author forecasts the effects using various assumptions (e.g., people's foresight, the mobility of capital, and the ways in which the federal government might make up for a lower percentage revenue). In the paper's most generous estimated growth scenario, only 28% of the projected lower tax revenue would be recouped over a 10-year period after a 10% across-the-board reduction in all individual income tax rates. The paper points out that these projected shortfalls in revenue would have to be made up by federal borrowing: the paper estimates that the federal government would pay an extra $200 billion in interest over the decade covered by the paper's analysis.

    http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...692027,00.html
    If there's one thing that Republican politicians agree on, it's that slashing taxes brings the government more money. "You cut taxes, and the tax revenues increase," President Bush said in a speech last year. Keeping taxes low, Vice President Dick Cheney explained in a recent interview, "does produce more revenue for the Federal Government." Presidential candidate John McCain declared in March that "tax cuts ... as we all know, increase revenues." His rival Rudy Giuliani couldn't agree more. "I know that reducing taxes produces more revenues," he intones in a new TV ad.

    If there's one thing that economists agree on, it's that these claims are false.

    We're not talking just ivory-tower lefties. Virtually every economics Ph.D. who has worked in a prominent role in the Bush Administration acknowledges that the tax cuts enacted during the past six years have not paid for themselves--and were never intended to. Harvard professor Greg Mankiw, chairman of Bush's Council of Economic Advisers from 2003 to 2005, even devotes a section of his best-selling economics textbook to debunking the claim that tax cuts increase revenues.

    http://blogs.ajc.com/jay-bookman-blo...nked-part-one/
    In the popular conservative version of the Laffer Curve, no debate over the location of Point A is even tolerated, because cutting tax rates is said to ALWAYS generate more government revenue.

    In effect, Region B, the part of the curve in which lower tax rates produce sharply lower government revenue, has simply been banished from the discussion.

    <...>

    Once you do that, however, the Laffer Curve no longer functions as a curve at all (see Figure Three). If lower rates always produce more revenue, as the right likes to claim, the Laffer Curve becomes the Laffer Line, and Point A, the sweetspot, stands at a tax rate of zero.

    While that makes no sense mathematically, politically it is an enormously appealing notion. It’s like telling someone with an obesity problem that the best way to lose weight is to always eat more ice cream — more times than not, their eagerness to believe overwhelms any skepticism.

    Or to paraphrase the argument:

    “Cutting taxes doesn’t add to the deficit, it’s how we fight the deficit!! Less is more, don’t you see?? Reagan proved it. Oh, and hand me that chocolate sauce and whipped cream, will you?”



    In short, I wonder how it's possible people keep claiming the mantra that tax cuts are always good when history shows they are not.


    http://www.epi.org/analysis_and_opin...than_tax_cuts/
    When it comes to reviving the economy, tax cuts do not work as well as smart public spending. That is economic common sense proven true by the past two attempts at tax-cut stimulus, in 2008 and in 2003-04. And yet, incredibly, we are starting to hear the same old tried-and-failed policies from conservatives and the GOP.

    <...>

    Let’s review 2008. The Democrats agreed to a stimulus in early 2008 that was all tax cuts, with about $50 billion of wasteful, unproductive business tax cuts added as the ‘price’ of approval by President Bush. Unfortunately, similar business tax cuts are included in the current bill. In addition, the 2008 package called for $100 billion in personal tax ‘rebates’. Only about one-third of the rebate checks, which ranged from several hundred to two thousand dollars per family, were spent. It was not an effective way to get the economy back on track.
    See Shapiro and Slemrod: http://www.aeaweb.org/annual_mtg_pap....php?pdfid=294.

    Even worse were the Bush tax cuts of 2003, which the administration claimed would generate 1.4 million jobs on top of the 4.1 million jobs that were expected to be generated over the eighteen months following June 2003. See: http://www.jobwatch.org/creating/bkg...ro_effects.pdf.

    EPI tracked the initiative’s effectiveness through a Web site, www.jobwatch.org, and found that it fell far short of its goals. Not only did the promised 1.4 million additional jobs not appear, but the 4.1 million jobs expected with no action also failed to materialize. In all, only 2.4 million jobs were created—1.7 million short of the administration’s projection without their new policy. Thus, by the Bush administration’s own metrics the tax cut program fell short by a total of 3.1 million jobs (149,000 pr month). For an analysis of how the Bush 2003 tax plan (The “Jobs and Growth"plan) fell short of its job claims, see: http://www.jobwatch.org/email/jobwatch_20050107.html.

    On what basis can the conservatives who embraced those failed initiatives now claim that tax cuts are the best policy?

    I don't suppose evidence is enough to change the mantra, though. As I said, it's worldview first, facts... whenever for these people (as opposed to having a worldview informed by facts).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Nirgendwo und Ueberall
    Posts
    1,296
    Um, Gott's. You need to work on your comprehension of context a little.
    With inow's statement he was agreeing wholly with your assessment of anti-intellectualism.
    Greed at that moment wasn't in the context of that bit of the discussion.

    Damn my hypersensitive trigger finger..lol...I had to much caffeine and was expecting an argument...sorry inow (about the last comment)...and, yes, I actually did forget to take my meds (no joke)...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Nirgendwo und Ueberall
    Posts
    1,296
    the democrats who live in this peter pan world of accepting over regulation and continuing to ignore our growing dept problems are every bit as dangerous as the republicans Gingrish correctly referred to a "social engineers."
    I don't know many people at all who are for "overregulation" as you put it..what constitutes overregulation? Too high taxes? Mandatory government programs in schools such as DARE? We must have different ideas of what constitutes overregulation because I see primarily good things coming from government intervention, such as useful social services.

    And Democrats and Republican alike are in debt.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    The direction this thread has taken just demonstrates the cleverness of the Republican ruse. The point of tax cuts, in the Republican creed, is NOT to increase government revenues (which history and common sense show is false anyway but that's beside the point).

    The point is to REDUCE government revenues so that social services have to be eliminated. Medicare, Social Security, food stamps, unemployment benefits and Medicaid are all anathema to conservatives. The goal is to "starve the beast" so that it dies and all the parasites living off those programs have to fend for themselves instead of living off of our hard earned dollars. Reagan was the first to try to put this into practice, but he was not man enough to admit what the real goal was. People like Bachmann now apparently have the balls to say what the program really is. It's good that it's out in the open, but threads like this one focus on the Republican red herring and prove that their trick is still working.

    They know it's a lie that lower taxes increase revenue, but they are not aiming for increased revenue - just the opposite.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    Quote Originally Posted by Bunbury
    Medicare, Social Security, food stamps, unemployment benefits and Medicaid are all anathema to conservatives. The goal is to "starve the beast" so that it dies and all the parasites living off those programs have to fend for themselves instead of living off of our hard earned dollars.
    Another thing they fail to acknowledge is how this approach fails to actually starve the beast. The beast continues to be very well fed, it's just that it's fed on dollars from creditors. In reality, the starve the beast approach does little more than increase borrowing (since internal revenues aren't there), and consequently our debt goes up.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    Quote Originally Posted by gottspieler
    Damn my hypersensitive trigger finger..lol...I had to much caffeine and was expecting an argument...sorry inow (about the last comment).
    You do this rather often. You do it at work. You do it in the street. You do it at stores. You do in restaurants. You do it online, and you do it over completely mundane and ordinary things. It might be time to realize what is the consistent variable in all of these emotional explosions and deal with it.


    Back to the topic at hand, from a normally rather conservative commentator:


    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/05/opinion/05brooks.html
    many important Democrats are open to a truly large budget deal. President Obama has a strong incentive to reach a deal so he can campaign in 2012 as a moderate. The Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, has talked about supporting a debt reduction measure of $3 trillion or even $4 trillion if the Republicans meet him part way. There are Democrats in the White House and elsewhere who would be willing to accept Medicare cuts if the Republicans would be willing to increase revenues.

    If the Republican Party were a normal party, it would take advantage of this amazing moment. It is being offered the deal of the century: trillions of dollars in spending cuts in exchange for a few hundred million dollars of revenue increases.

    A normal Republican Party would seize the opportunity to put a long-term limit on the growth of government. It would seize the opportunity to put the country on a sound fiscal footing. It would seize the opportunity to do these things without putting any real crimp in economic growth.

    The party is not being asked to raise marginal tax rates in a way that might pervert incentives. On the contrary, Republicans are merely being asked to close loopholes and eliminate tax expenditures that are themselves distortionary.

    This, as I say, is the mother of all no-brainers.

    But we can have no confidence that the Republicans will seize this opportunity. That’s because the Republican Party may no longer be a normal party. Over the past few years, it has been infected by a faction that is more of a psychological protest than a practical, governing alternative.

    The members of this movement do not accept the logic of compromise, no matter how sweet the terms. If you ask them to raise taxes by an inch in order to cut government by a foot, they will say no. If you ask them to raise taxes by an inch to cut government by a yard, they will still say no.

    The members of this movement do not accept the legitimacy of scholars and intellectual authorities. A thousand impartial experts may tell them that a default on the debt would have calamitous effects, far worse than raising tax revenues a bit. But the members of this movement refuse to believe it.

    The members of this movement have no sense of moral decency. A nation makes a sacred pledge to pay the money back when it borrows money. But the members of this movement talk blandly of default and are willing to stain their nation’s honor.

    The members of this movement have no economic theory worthy of the name. Economists have identified many factors that contribute to economic growth, ranging from the productivity of the work force to the share of private savings that is available for private investment. Tax levels matter, but they are far from the only or even the most important factor.

    But to members of this movement, tax levels are everything. Members of this tendency have taken a small piece of economic policy and turned it into a sacred fixation. They are willing to cut education and research to preserve tax expenditures. Manufacturing employment is cratering even as output rises, but members of this movement somehow believe such problems can be addressed so long as they continue to worship their idol.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,847
    Pretty simple to answer. Only rich people hire others to work for them. So the argument is every dollar you tax a rich person is a dollar less they have to hire someone and thus grow the overall economy.
    Does anyone actually buy that argument any more?

    We have something like seventy years of economic experience with tax hikes, tax breaks, and tax reductions, the latter two for rich people, to look at. And it doesn't take that much experience to notice the obvious:

    1) the money rich people keep is their profit - it's the stuff left over after they've hired everybody, and paid taxes on what's left. Wages to peons come before tax - they are deductions. Deductions are more desirable when taxes are high. Lowering rich people's taxes reduces the penalty for taking profit rather than hiring, encourages the rich to take profit in cash rather than expand their business, rewards private accumulation over community investment as their establishment of wealth.
    2) Rich people are mobile, and so is their money - what they take in profit is easily moved anywhere, in a big pile. So we see all this rich peoples' income going to China, Indonesia, the Cayman Islands, wherever. Taxes stay home, are spent under the jurisdiction of the taxing government.
    3) Taxes, unlike rich people's income accumulations, are actually spent on hiring and local purchasing so forth. The benefits alleged to possibly accrue from letting rich people manage the dollars are verifiable and inevitable fact in the disposition of tax monies.
    4) The rich benefit much more from government expenditure than anyone else - fro example, all the infrastructure and so forth for entire countries is part of their corporate resource base, profits them. They get a cut from every road in the State, not just the one they use to get to work. They make money on the educations of hundreds of high school grads, not just their own educations. Good police and fire departments protect millions of dollars of possessions and very great privilege of life of theirs. etc. So they owe much more of their total - a much higher percentage of their take - for their greater use of government supplied resources. Not taxing them enough to cover this disproportionate profiting from sound governance would be a market distortion.
    5) The rich have disproportionate influence on government. So allowing them to avoid paying for it - disproportionately, as a higher percentage of their wealth and income - means they don't have to pay for their own policies, the consequences of their own pressures and influence. Market distortion, again.

    And so forth.

    So bringing this around, we notice that in Minnesota the governor's proposal not only limits the tax hikes mostly to people making a million dollars a year or more - a fairly small percentage of even the rich - but in its effects restores part of the traditional tax rate structure that built the prosperity of Minnesota and its rich people in the first place. It's a small step toward a restoration of a setup that worked very well, and did not at all prevent the accumulation of quite substantial wealth.

    And the Republicans are shutting the entire State government down, to prevent that modest bit of sanity in difficult times.
    Quote Originally Posted by David Fucking Brooks
    But we can have no confidence that the Republicans will seize this opportunity. That’s because the Republican Party may no longer be a normal party. Over the past few years, it has been infected by a faction that is more of a psychological protest than a practical, governing alternative.
    Now he says this? If that man had any integrity, he would spend the rest of his hopefully short tenure as a national "pundit" apologizing to every decent citizen of the United States for his role creating this mess.

    And then shut up.

    You listen to these "moderate Republicans" talk you'd swear this Tea Party crowd was some kind of inexplicable recent aberration of what had been a Party of responsible, concerned, capable politicians. The Republican Party as a whole has been a pack of batshit fundies, warmongering lunatics, and fiscal incompetents since 1980. And the intellectually whored out, ethically brain-rotted David Brooks has been carrying their water for pay his entire career.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    More here from the IMF why current approaches toward curbing spending, contractionary policy, and implementation of austerity measures are misguided and fail the test of evidence and empiricism. In short, when we cut back on spending and try to reduce deficits in situations like the one we're in now with our economy, it hurts rather than helps, and that pain is felt far into the future.


    http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2011/wp11158.pdf
    This paper investigates the short-term effects of fiscal consolidation on economic activity in OECD economies. We examine the historical record, including Budget Speeches and IMF documents, to identify changes in fiscal policy motivated by a desire to reduce the budget deficit and not by responding to prospective economic conditions. Using this new dataset, our estimates suggest fiscal consolidation has contractionary effects on private domestic demand and GDP. By contrast, estimates based on conventional measures of the fiscal policy
    stance used in the literature support the expansionary fiscal contractions hypothesis but appear to be biased toward overstating expansionary effects.

    <...>

    This paper investigates the macroeconomic effects of fiscal consolidation in OECD economies, and assesses the evidence regarding the expansionary fiscal contractions hypothesis. Estimation results based on measuring discretionary changes in fiscal policy using cyclically-adjusted fiscal data––a practice often used in the literature––suggest that fiscal consolidation stimulates private domestic demand in the short term, providing support for the hypothesis. This result is consistent with a literature that finds that fiscal contractions can be expansionary. However, our analysis suggests that using cyclically-adjusted data to estimate the effects of fiscal consolidation biases the analysis toward overstating expansionary effects.

    In contrast, estimation results based on fiscal actions identified directly from contemporaneous policy documents provide little support for the expansionary austerity hypothesis. In particular, we compile an international dataset of fiscal policy adjustments motivated by a desire to reduce the budget deficit and not in response to current and prospective economic conditions using the Romer and Romer (2010) historical approach.

    Based on the fiscal actions thus identified, our baseline specification implies that a 1 percent of GDP fiscal consolidation reduces real private consumption by 0.75 percent within two years, while real GDP declines by 0.62 percent. The baseline results survive a battery of robustness tests. Our main finding that fiscal consolidation is contractionary holds up in cases where one would most expect fiscal consolidation to raise private domestic demand. In particular, even large spending-based fiscal retrenchments are contractionary, as are fiscal consolidations occurring in economies with a high perceived sovereign default risk.

    We also find that the decline in private consumption and private investment is mitigated by a rise in net exports associated with a fall in the value of the domestic currency. In line with the implications of standard models, this offsetting channel is less potent in economies with pegged exchange rates. The analysis can be extended, using this multi-country dataset, by exploring the effect of fiscal consolidation on the current account, thus contributing to the literature on the “twin deficits” hypothesis (see Bluedorn and Leigh (2011) for a start in this direction).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    At this point, anyone who continues to believe that we must reduce taxes and deficits now now now to help the economy is really doing little more than closing their eyes, plugging their ears, and going "la lala lalalalala... I can't hear you!" against all available evidence.


    Below is further evidence against the contraction approach from the BIS (in short, reduction of deficits, reduction of taxes, and contractionary politices in times like this cause long term negative impact to the economy, and the data is irrefutable... People can ignore it, but not rebut it... this is reality):


    http://www.bis.org/events/conf110623/perotti.pdf
    Alesina and Perotti (1995) and Alesina and Ardagna (2010) (AAP) have argued that, contrary to conventional wisdom, fiscal consolidations may be expansionary if implemented mainly by cutting government spending. IMF (2010) criticizes the data used by AAP and shows that all consolidations are contractionary in the short run. I argue that this criticism is correct in principle, and that there are other important limitations in the AAP methodology. However, the implementation of the IMF methodology has several problems of its own, that make an interpretation of the IMF results difficult. I then argue that because of the multi-year nature of the large fiscal consolidations, which are precisely those that can tell us more on the mechanisms at work, using yearly panels of annual data is limiting. I present four detailed case studies of fiscal consolidations, two (Denmark and Ireland) carried out under fixed exchange rates (arguably the most relevant case for many European countries today) and two (Finland and Sweden) after floating the currency.

    All four consolidations were associated with an expansion; but only in Denmark the driver of growth was internal demand. However, as in most exchange rate based stabilizations, after three years a long slump set in as the economy lost competitiveness. In the other episodes for a long time the main driver of growth was exports. In the second exchange rate based stabilization, Ireland, this occurred because the sterling coincidentally appreciated. In Finland and Sweden the currency experienced an extremely large depreciation after floating.

    In all consolidations interest rate fell fast, and wage moderation played a key role in ensuring competitiveness and allowing the decrease in interest rates. Wage moderation was supported by incomes policies that saw the direct intervention of the government in the wage negotiation process.

    These results cast doubt on at least some versions of the “expansionary fiscal consolidations” hypothesis, and on its applicability to many countries in the present circumstances.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    2,318
    Seem's pretty basic to me, zero investment equals zero return.
    I was some of the mud that got to sit up and look around.
    Lucky me. Lucky mud.
    -Kurt Vonnegut Jr.-
    Cat's Cradle.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Nirgendwo und Ueberall
    Posts
    1,296
    Well, I'm starting to believe that taxes are the least of our problems right now. Might I also remind everyone that if Michele Bachmann is elected President of the United States of America we no longer have to worry about wasting money on saving the environment because "CO2 is a natural byproduct of nature" and is "harmless".

    So...one of the most prominent members of the Rebuplican party at this time is:

    -a Creationist

    -believes that global warming is a myth

    -is against raising taxes for the rich

    -claims the Barack Obama and his supporters are Anti-American (she said this on MSNBC on Hardball with Chris Matthews)

    -said in an interview "only in France could you have suburban youth rioting because the welfare benefits aren't generous enough"...why shouldn't they protest? Does she want a totalitarian state?

    -is anti-gay marriage (go to youtube, type in Bachmann Marriage Video- 2004)

    Moderates see no problem with this?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    Bachman is a red herring; an unlikely candidate. I would fear Rick Perry a bit more at this point if he chooses to run, given that he has pretty much the same stance on each of those issues, and all without independents thinking he's batshit crazy. Bachman will suffer with the independent and democratic votes. Perry, not so much.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Nirgendwo und Ueberall
    Posts
    1,296
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Bachman is a red herring; an unlikely candidate. I would fear Rick Perry a bit more at this point if he chooses to run, given that he has pretty much the same stance on each of those issues, and all without independents thinking he's batshit crazy. Bachman will suffer with the independent and democratic votes. Perry, not so much.
    I hope to God he doesn't run.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    85
    i think that the rich should be taxed as if they are normal people this way they don't get to lose there oney that they worked for, and they don't not get taxed becouse that would be foolish and unfair.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •