or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Dead Man Walking: The President Obama won't be reelected thread.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Dead Man Walking: The President Obama won't be reelected thread. - Page 19

post #721 of 886
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Still peddling that trickle down nonsense? If that really worked ( given that the top 1% are still getting big breaks in their taxes ) we would have been out of the bad jobs market a long time ago.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Demand creates jobs.  Please, SDW, tell me what percentage of companies is going to hire more workers than they need to meet current demand?

 

No, it doesn't.  

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Do you hire more workers after receiving a tax cut and a lower demand forecast?

 

No...isn't that exactly what Obama proposes...tax cuts for "creating jobs?"  

 

In all seriousness, you're conflating micro and macroeconomics to an extent.  Obviously demand forecasts are important to individual corporations.  You might also call these "sales forecasts."  But that is far different from Demand Side economics, which in real practice does not work and does not create jobs.  In actuality, Supply Side works.  Supply side lowers taxes on society's producers, enabling them to produce more goods and services.  This, in, turn, causes prices to fall...which creates demand, which creates jobs.  We saw this clearly in the 1980s.  For all the crowing about Reaganomics and its deficits, the basic fact is that it works.  The economy rebounded dramatically and millions of jobs (and billions in revenue) were create despite the lower tax rates.  

 

But you can't accept this.  You cannot accept that someone making a lot of money gets a tax reduction.  Like most lefties, you're counting other people's money before you even have it.  To you, it's a immoral (IMMORAL!) to let a business or individual keep more of their own money.  And despite mountains of evidence, you continue to fail to understand that taxation is not zero sum.  Cutting X tax rate by Y does not mean Revenue=X-Y.  What you fail to understand is that while we take a smaller slice of the pie, the overall pie is growing.  Again though...you can't or won't grasp this.  It's been tried three times, and worked every time...yet you cannot see through your quasi-socialist lenses.  

 

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by marvfox View Post

Obama will win the 2012 election with no problem at all. It is in the bag.
 

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #722 of 886

Demand creates jobs.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post 

No, it doesn't.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

 

which creates demand, which creates jobs.

hNzMG.jpg

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #723 of 886

And you accuse others of quoting things out of context. You completely ignored the rest of what he said.

 

Production is what creates jobs.

 

Production may be started with the speculation that someone will buy the products (demand) and is sometimes (even often) wrong. But it is production that creates jobs. But demand in the way you are talking about it doesn't create jobs, production does.

 

There is tons of demand for tons of things. Many of which will never ever be produced. Production (sometimes) creates the jobs to fulfill this demand. Production often even creates jobs when there isn't any actual demand (these operations go bankrupt of course...unless they're government projects.)

 

You might take a closer look at Say's Law for a better understanding of this. Some of what Say had to say about the entrepreneur also provides insight into the order and relationship of things.


Edited by MJ1970 - 5/20/12 at 10:32am

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #724 of 886

That has to be the funniest BR post I've seen in a long time.  He took my comment completely and absolutely out of context....so much so that it meant exactly the opposite of what he claimed.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #725 of 886
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

That has to be the funniest BR post I've seen in a long time.  He took my comment completely and absolutely out of context....so much so that it meant exactly the opposite of what he claimed.  

 

Well, in his defense, he did also post a pretty picture that was intended to bolster his "argument."

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #726 of 886
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

That has to be the funniest BR post I've seen in a long time.  He took my comment completely and absolutely out of context....so much so that it meant exactly the opposite of what he claimed.  

You gave a long string of arguments leading to a creation of demand, which you then say in turn creates jobs.  Do you not follow your own logic?  Now, you may say that demand should be somehow created via supply side (voodoo) economics, but don't try to claim that demand doesn't create jobs.  

 

Dissect that sentence.  You said lowering taxes serves as the impetus to increase supply, reducing prices, increasing demand, and finally creating jobs.  In your very own links of your chain of reasoning (which I contest are very weak), you say that the higher demand will create jobs.  So let me get this straight.  In your world, someone lowers taxes.  You, the businessman, say, "Great, now that I have all this extra money, I should make more goods.  Gee, now that I've made more goods, I better lower these prices so people buy them.  Yay, people bought them because they were now cheap enough!"

 

Are you really claiming that our current job woes are a result of companies not having enough money to make enough supply to lower prices sufficiently to create enough demand so that they can hire more people?  Really?

 

And still, you fail to see that the two links in the chain that are adjacent--demand and jobs--don't need all of that voodoo supply side nonsense preceding it.  If aggregate demand were to increase because middle and lower classes had more of a disposable income, wouldn't companies see that and hire more people to increase production to meet the higher demand?  Are you really claiming that companies don't have enough access to capital?

 

 

http://business.time.com/2012/05/07/why-arent-there-more-jobs/

 

 

 

Quote:
2. Corporations are not using their profits to hire additional workers
While the overall economy has failed to make up the ground lost during the recession, corporations have recovered nicely. According to a study by researchers at Northeastern University, during the first nine months of the recovery, pretax corporate profits rose by $388 billion while total wages and salaries rose by only $68 billion. Of the total, therefore, corporate profits received 85%. By contrast, in four previous recoveries since 1980, the share going to corporate profits averaged just 19%. As a result, corporate profits are now at their highest level since World War II. But U.S. corporations are just letting their cash pile up — nonfinancial companies in the S&P 500 now have more than $1 trillion on hand, compared with less than $700 billion before the recession started. And to the extent that they are using that cash, it’s to make acquisitions, repurchase stock or raise dividends, not to create lots of new jobs

 

 

Profits are up.  Many companies are posting record profits.  The pigs at the top won't share it with those who actually create the products and provide the services.  Wages have not kept up with productivity.  Perhaps if they had, there would be enough disposable income for the 99% to keep demand high.

 

 

QZmND.jpg


Edited by BR - 5/21/12 at 1:11am

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #727 of 886
That's a nifty chart, BR.

What year did Nixon take the dollar off the Gold Standard, effectively embracing Keynesianism as U.S. economic policy? 1971.

And wouldn't you know it, that's around the same time those 2 lines on the chart start to grow further apart. Curious.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #728 of 886

Correlation does not imply causation.  Show me evidence that what you claim has more of an effect than the decades of pro-business, anti-labor, anti-union policies (or any effect for that matter).

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #729 of 886

Why don't you admit once and for all Romney is a venture capitalist who cares about himself and making money. Bain capital is a perfect example of this.People losing their jobs and Romney laughing all the way to the bank.
 

post #730 of 886

BR:

 

Originally Posted by BR View Post



 

 

Quote:
You gave a long string of arguments leading to a creation of demand, which you then say in turn creates jobs.  Do you not follow your own logic?  Now, you may say that demand should be somehow created via supply side (voodoo) economics, but don't try to claim that demand doesn't create jobs.  

 

Oh boy.  Are you actually now claiming that the full context of your claim wasn't directly stimulating demand creates jobs?  This is the distraction and partisan nonsense you engage in.  You'd much rather play semantics than discuss the actual issue.  

 

 

Quote:
Dissect that sentence.  You said lowering taxes serves as the impetus to increase supply, reducing prices, increasing demand, and finally creating jobs.  In your very own links of your chain of reasoning (which I contest are very weak), you say that the higher demand will create jobs.

 

You can deride my reasoning all you want.  Supply Side works.  It's not what I "say," it's what's been proven.  There really is no way around that for you.  

 

 

 

 

Quote:
So let me get this straight.  In your world, someone lowers taxes.  You, the businessman, say, "Great, now that I have all this extra money, I should make more goods.  Gee, now that I've made more goods, I better lower these prices so people buy them.  Yay, people bought them because they were now cheap enough!"

 

In my world, I understand the laws of supply and demand.  Apparently you live in a different world. 

 

 

 

 

 

Quote:
Are you really claiming that our current job woes are a result of companies not having enough money to make enough supply to lower prices sufficiently to create enough demand so that they can hire more people?  Really?

 

No.  But nice strawman.  

 

 

 

Quote:
And still, you fail to see that the two links in the chain that are adjacent--demand and jobs--don't need all of that voodoo supply side nonsense preceding it.  If aggregate demand were to increase because middle and lower classes had more of a disposable income, wouldn't companies see that and hire more people to increase production to meet the higher demand?  Are you really claiming that companies don't have enough access to capital?

 

Ahh...now we come to it.  How, pray tell, are you going to give the middle and lower classes more disposable income?  That is the real issue. 

 

 

 

 

Quote:

http://business.time.com/2012/05/07/why-arent-there-more-jobs/

 

 

 

 

 

Profits are up.  Many companies are posting record profits.  The pigs at the top won't share it with those who actually create the products and provide the services.  Wages have not kept up with productivity.  Perhaps if they had, there would be enough disposable income for the 99% to keep demand high.

 

 

 

lol.gif  Well that solves it.  Soak the rich.  That's the way to get the economy moving!  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #731 of 886
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Correlation does not imply causation.  Show me evidence that what you claim has more of an effect than the decades of pro-business, anti-labor, anti-union policies (or any effect for that matter).

 

Irony kills. Apply this reasoning to your own pretty picture graph and claims related to it. Try hard but not too hard because you actually might complete a thought.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #732 of 886
Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

 

 Supply Side works.  It's not what I "say," it's what's been proven.  There really is no way around that for you.  

 

Evidence?  I'm pretty sure the last decade is evidence to the contrary.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #733 of 886
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

 

 Supply Side works.  It's not what I "say," it's what's been proven.  There really is no way around that for you.  

 

Evidence?  I'm pretty sure the last decade is evidence to the contrary.

I'm pretty sure it isn't evidence to the contrary so take THAT.

 

Owwwwwww.... you just got told so bad!!!!

th?id=I4646171642889432&pid=1.1

 

Bill Maher thinks you are stupid, and an asshole! Unicorns just raped your mom because you are so dumb!

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #734 of 886
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Evidence?  I'm pretty sure the last decade is evidence to the contrary.

 

 

Ahh yes..I had forgotten!  You think that we're actually engaging in supply-side stimulus, and have been since 1981.  Right on.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #735 of 886

For the first time ever we cut taxes while launching two wars.  The economy sucks and our deficits skyrocketed.  Romney's solutions?  MORE TAX CUTS, MORE WARS!  Yeah, we just didn't have enough of those the first time around when he was in a different cult and named George W. Bush (you do know that Romney has assembled a team of Bush advisors, right?).

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #736 of 886

I'm sure glad Obama didn't extend the Bush tax cuts and get us into more wars. Oh, wait...

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #737 of 886
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

For the first time ever we cut taxes while launching two wars.  The economy sucks and our deficits skyrocketed.  Romney's solutions?  MORE TAX CUTS, MORE WARS!  Yeah, we just didn't have enough of those the first time around when he was in a different cult and named George W. Bush (you do know that Romney has assembled a team of Bush advisors, right?).

 

Yes, BR...and what was the result in terms of revenue and economic growth? Employment?  The deficits didn't come from cutting taxes.  Some came from the post 9/11 war and security spending, but much of it was from other sources.  Our deficits did not "skyrocket," either.  The highest deficit before the 2008 crisis was about $400 billion, or 4 times less than the current deficit.  

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

I'm sure glad Obama didn't extend the Bush tax cuts and get us into more wars. Oh, wait...

 

lol.gif

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #738 of 886
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

I'm sure glad Obama didn't extend the Bush tax cuts and get us into more wars. Oh, wait...

To the former, it was compromise that helped bring about the Affordable Care Act.  Shocking--compromise.  Still think it should have been extended for the 99% and ended for the 1%.  With regard to the wars, we're out of Iraq, Afghanistan is drawing down, and Libya is absolutely not comparable to either of those.  So, really funny one liner you have there but ultimately you're full of shit on this one.  

 

Romney wants to significantly cut far more taxes for the richest Americans while raising them on the poorest--at the same time starting a war with Iran.  Yeah...Obama and Romney sure are the same!  Don't be a fool.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #739 of 886
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

The deficits didn't come from cutting taxes.  

 

The deficits reduced revenue.  Like it or not, there are two parts to the equation here--inflow and outflow.  Bush increased the outflow while reducing the inflow.  You have to be fucking blind not to see how catastrophic that can be.  You are delusional that you think reducing the inflow doesn't affect the deficit. 

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #740 of 886
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

To the former, it was compromise that helped bring about the Affordable Care Act.  Shocking--compromise.  Still think it should have been extended for the 99% and ended for the 1%.  With regard to the wars, we're out of Iraq, Afghanistan is drawing down, and Libya is absolutely not comparable to either of those.  So, really funny one liner you have there but ultimately you're full of shit on this one.  

 

Romney wants to significantly cut far more taxes for the richest Americans while raising them on the poorest--at the same time starting a war with Iran.  Yeah...Obama and Romney sure are the same!  Don't be a fool.

 

Romney does not want to "start a way with Iran."  And no, the Bush Tax cuts getting extended wasn't merely a compromise on Obamacare.  The GOP didn't vote for Obamacare, so there was no compromise there.  The Dems extended the Bush cuts because they knew that politically, they had to.  

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by BR View Post

The deficits reduced revenue.  Like it or not, there are two parts to the equation here--inflow and outflow.  Bush increased the outflow while reducing the inflow.  You have to be fucking blind not to see how catastrophic that can be.  You are delusional that you think reducing the inflow doesn't affect the deficit. 

 

You're incorrect and still proceeding from the false assumption that taxation is zero sum.  I'm not sure how many more times this has to be explained to you or how much historical precedent it will take for your to understand.  

 

1.  Revenue has been right around 20% of GDP (less, actually) whether the top tax rate is 28%, 40% or 91%.  

2.  You assume that revenue would have been "X" without taxes being cut, and that it was "Y" after taxes were cut.  This cannot be assumed, because the overall "tax pie" changes in size due to the overall economy's health.;  

3.  Despite lower tax rates on "the rich," government revenue hit a record in 2007.  While revenue initially dipped after the Bush tax cuts, by 2005 revenue had matched or exceeded pre-cut revenue.  In constant 2005 dollars, government revenue was actually higher in 2007 than it was in 2000, when we had the old Clinton rates.  Link.

4.  The same is true of the Reagan tax cuts, which were far more dramatic.  In 1980, revenue was $517 Billion (unadjusted).  In 1984, revenue was $666 billion (unadjusted).  Unadjusted for inflation, this is a 29% increase despite the lower rates.  In 2005 constant dollars, this is 10% increase in revenue, despite the lower rates.  How do you explain this?  

 

 

So no, BR.  Inflows have not been reduced by the lower rates, unless you're talking about the few years immediately after the cut.  That's because those cuts take 2-3 years to work their way into the economy ("lag").   And you can't claim that we would have had more revenue, because you're then discounting the importance of the health of the economy.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #741 of 886

Are you factoring in population growth and economic growth unrelated to tax levels in all those figures?

 

Also, German companies seem to be doing just fine under their much higher tax burdens.  Plus, their citizens get access to college and healthcare on the cheap.  

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #742 of 886
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Are you factoring in population growth and economic growth unrelated to tax levels in all those figures?

 

Yes it would be helpful try and correct for those factors. The problem is that economies are complex things wherein stuff like population and/or economic growth can be affected by fiscal (specifically tax) policy.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Also, German companies seem to be doing just fine under their much higher tax burdens.

 

Well it may be doing "just fine" in your own estimation. I don't know if we can put any kind of objectively measurable metric to "doing just fine." That's a subjective statement.

 

The better point of analysis is whether, all other things being equal, an economy grows more, faster, better, etc. under higher or lower tax levels (or whatever metric you wish to evaluate).

 

 

While it's difficult (or impossible) to have controlled laboratory-like experiments for economic questions, we have:

 

  1. examples of what happens at relative extremes in comparable places (e.g., East/West Germany, North/South Korea)
  2. examples of what happens across time...enough examples in fact that, while correlation does not prove causation, strongly suggest that the increasing liberalization of economies (privatizing government functions, lowering taxes, deregulating industries, opening trade, etc.) leads to greater economic growth, prosperity and wealth creation...and vice versa
  3. present day examples comparing relatively more economically free countries to relatively less economically free countries and their wealth, prosperity, economic growth, stability, etc. and the overall well-being of their respective populations
  4. deductive reasoning centered around the long and well understood laws of economics related to supply & demand (and their affect on prices of all kinds like wages, rents, interest rates, product prices, etc.), marginal utility, division of labor, trade, comparative advantage, etc.
 
All of this stuff can help us make pretty reasonable predictions while lacking the precision possible in the physical sciences (for obvious reasons), are still reasonable in terms of the pattern, directory and trajectory of results coming from certain actions, policies, etc. For example it is reasonable to predict that if the price of something rises over time, less of it will be demanded (and vice versa). This comports with our understanding of our own behavior and the reasonable expectation of everyone else's behavior. We cannot predict with precision the time lags or degree of demand reduction relative to the degree of price increase in most cases. But we generally know that demand will go down for things the more expensive those things get and up the less expensive those things get.
 
One thing this leads us to be able to (correctly) predict is that when you increase the cost of something like work (through higher income taxes), labor (through increased mandates for employer provided benefits or wages), investing (through higher taxes or increased regulation)...you will, on the whole get less of those things than you would absent those policies.
 
This is not really a terribly controversial idea except among the less economically literate and knowledgeable masses (which, BTW, includes most of the mainstream media and most elected officials.)
 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Plus, their citizens get access to college and healthcare on the cheap.  

 

You'd think so, but I'm betting that's not true.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #743 of 886
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

To the former, it was compromise that helped bring about the Affordable Care Act.  Shocking--compromise.  Still think it should have been extended for the 99% and ended for the 1%.  With regard to the wars, we're out of Iraq, Afghanistan is drawing down, and Libya is absolutely not comparable to either of those.  So, really funny one liner you have there but ultimately you're full of shit on this one.  

 

Romney wants to significantly cut far more taxes for the richest Americans while raising them on the poorest--at the same time starting a war with Iran.  Yeah...Obama and Romney sure are the same!  Don't be a fool.

 

So Obama extended the Bush tax cuts to pass Obamacare...even though there wasn't a single Republican who voted for Obamacare. What compromise?

 

And Libya's different from Iraq and Afghanistan how? Because we killed people differently there? Because we're supporting the CIA-created Al Qaeda there instead of fighting it? We're already conducting black ops in Syria and who knows where else. The establishment is waiting for any excuse to attack Iran (I think Israel will make the first move). Our military is deployed to more places around the world than at any other time in our history (we're still in Iraq, despite what Obama and the mainstream media say). And you honestly claim that Obama is any better than Bush or Romney on this?

 

The richest individuals and corporations are pumping millions into BOTH the Obama and Romney campaigns - Obama actually has a slight edge over Romney on fundraising, last I heard.

 

Tell me, if libertarianism favors the rich and big corporations as you and many others claim, why are they not supporting Ron Paul? Curious.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #744 of 886
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

 

So Obama extended the Bush tax cuts to pass Obamacare...even though there wasn't a single Republican who voted for Obamacare. What compromise?

 

And Libya's different from Iraq and Afghanistan how? Because we killed people differently there? Because we're supporting the CIA-created Al Qaeda there instead of fighting it? We're already conducting black ops in Syria and who knows where else. The establishment is waiting for any excuse to attack Iran (I think Israel will make the first move). Our military is deployed to more places around the world than at any other time in our history (we're still in Iraq, despite what Obama and the mainstream media say). And you honestly claim that Obama is any better than Bush or Romney on this?

 

The richest individuals and corporations are pumping millions into BOTH the Obama and Romney campaigns - Obama actually has a slight edge over Romney on fundraising, last I heard.

 

Tell me, if libertarianism favors the rich and big corporations as you and many others claim, why are they not supporting Ron Paul? Curious.

 

Obviously you and I have some difference between us on foreign policy/military affairs, but damn....well said. 

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #745 of 886
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Are you factoring in population growth and economic growth unrelated to tax levels in all those figures?

 

Also, German companies seem to be doing just fine under their much higher tax burdens.  Plus, their citizens get access to college and healthcare on the cheap.  

 

No, I did not adjust for population growth.  As MJ states, that's quite complicated.  I do find it hard to believe that you're claiming simple population growth would account for the difference.  I suppose it has some impact, though population growth does not necessarily mean employment/taxpayer growth.  As for economic growth, that's the entire point.  The economy and therefore tax base grows due to the lower rates.  That's how this works, BR.  

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

 

Yes it would be helpful try and correct for those factors. The problem is that economies are complex things wherein stuff like population and/or economic growth can be affected by fiscal (specifically tax) policy.

 

 

 

Well it may be doing "just fine" in your own estimation. I don't know if we can put any kind of objectively measurable metric to "doing just fine." That's a subjective statement.

 

The better point of analysis is whether, all other things being equal, an economy grows more, faster, better, etc. under higher or lower tax levels (or whatever metric you wish to evaluate).

 

 

While it's difficult (or impossible) to have controlled laboratory-like experiments for economic questions, we have:

 

  1. examples of what happens at relative extremes in comparable places (e.g., East/West Germany, North/South Korea)
  2. examples of what happens across time...enough examples in fact that, while correlation does not prove causation, strongly suggest that the increasing liberalization of economies (privatizing government functions, lowering taxes, deregulating industries, opening trade, etc.) leads to greater economic growth, prosperity and wealth creation...and vice versa
  3. present day examples comparing relatively more economically free countries to relatively less economically free countries and their wealth, prosperity, economic growth, stability, etc. and the overall well-being of their respective populations
  4. deductive reasoning centered around the long and well understood laws of economics related to supply & demand (and their affect on prices of all kinds like wages, rents, interest rates, product prices, etc.), marginal utility, division of labor, trade, comparative advantage, etc.
 
All of this stuff can help us make pretty reasonable predictions while lacking the precision possible in the physical sciences (for obvious reasons), are still reasonable in terms of the pattern, directory and trajectory of results coming from certain actions, policies, etc. For example it is reasonable to predict that if the price of something rises over time, less of it will be demanded (and vice versa). This comports with our understanding of our own behavior and the reasonable expectation of everyone else's behavior. We cannot predict with precision the time lags or degree of demand reduction relative to the degree of price increase in most cases. But we generally know that demand will go down for things the more expensive those things get and up the less expensive those things get.
 
One thing this leads us to be able to (correctly) predict is that when you increase the cost of something like work (through higher income taxes), labor (through increased mandates for employer provided benefits or wages), investing (through higher taxes or increased regulation)...you will, on the whole get less of those things than you would absent those policies.
 
This is not really a terribly controversial idea except among the less economically literate and knowledgeable masses (which, BTW, includes most of the mainstream media and most elected officials.)
 

 

 

You'd think so, but I'm betting that's not true.

 

Excellent post.  It also lays bare BR's views and lack of knowledge about how economies tend to grow.  He is running around looking for any example to justify his dogmatic belief (oh, the irony) in higher taxes and more government control.  When he finds an economy that is "doing well" (whatever the hell that means, as you point out), he tries to point to that as proof his theory is correct.  

 

As you also note, this is really not all that controversial a topic.  Business may succeed with a higher tax burden, but it's in spite of that burden, not because of it.  The more we tax, the more we negatively affect growth.  Therefore, we should only tax to fund essential government functions and services...hence the spending part of the equation.  But BR thinks that government can spend out money more effectively (and more morally) than we can, necessitating even higher taxes, which further depress growth...which in turn causes people like him to scream about "greedy fucking evil corporations."  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #746 of 886
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

The economy and therefore tax base grows due to the lower rates.  That's how this works, BR.  

 

Correlation does not necessarily imply causation.  You make the assertion that the economy grew due to the lower rates.  Prove it.

 

We also differ on what we consider to be essential government services.  I contend that not letting anyone die from lack of healthcare, exposure due to lack of shelter, or starvation from lack of food are all essential.  I contend that higher education should not come with crippling debt.  To provide for those, taxes need to be raised.  (Although, if you add up the cost you pay for your individual premiums & college education and add that to your effective tax rate, you'd find that you'd be paying much less in a single payer system)

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #747 of 886
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

I contend that not letting anyone die from lack of healthcare, exposure due to lack of shelter, or starvation from lack of food are all essential.

 

 

Yes, and yet the government's involvement of every single one of those things is making them less affordable, especially for the poor so it has to compensate by providing public housing (disaster), food stamps (abused and dependency inducing) and now health care.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

I contend that higher education should not come with crippling debt.

 

Good for you.

 

Do I get to contend whatever I want?

 

I contend that people should be magically transported from place to place whenever they wish. I contend that people should be able to have steak dinners for the cost of a Big Mac. I contend that people should be able to live comfortably while only working for half the year.

 

We can contend all sorts of shit.

 

But then there's reality. There's the reality that stuff costs things. This is an inescapable fact not some conspiratorial construction of greedy people. It is reality. That's where we live.

 

So, thanks for sharing your opinion about how the world should work. The rest of us are stranded in reality. It's incredibly ironic how you so often accuse me (and others) of living or dreaming from some Utopian perspective while being blissfully blind your own Utopian dreams.

 

BTW...education (both higher and lower) is yet another thing where government's meddling has actually raised costs for everyone.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

To provide for those, taxes need to be raised.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

(Although, if you add up the cost you pay for your individual premiums & college education and add that to your effective tax rate, you'd find that you'd be paying much less in a single payer system)

 

Why is that everyone who disagrees with you much prove their claims, but you are exempt from this requirement?

 

Prove your claims.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #748 of 886

You act like what I say is so ludicrous, yet many countries are striving for similar goals--many of which are doing quite well. 

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #749 of 886
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

You act like what I say is so ludicrous...

 

Not at all. I merely asked you to prove your claims. The first which implied that the only pathway to affordable education was through government action in the form of higher taxes. Your second simply asks us you take your word for it that single payer is, ipso facto, the least expensive option for both health insurance and education.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #750 of 886

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_health_expenditure_(PPP)_per_capita

 

 

Rank Country Total
health
expenditure
per capita
PPP US$
Total
health
expenditure
% of
GDP
1  United States 7,960 17.4
2  Norway 5,352 9.6
3  Switzerland 5,144 11.4
4  Netherlands 4,914 12.0
5  Luxembourg 4,808 7.8
6  Canada 4,363 11.4
7  Denmark 4,348 11.5
8  Austria 4,289 11.0
9  Germany 4,218 11.6
10  France 3,978 11.8
11  Belgium 3,946 10.9
12  Ireland 3,781 9.5
13  Sweden 3,722 10.0
14  Iceland 3,538 9.7
15  Australia 3,445 (2008) 8.7 (2008)
16  United Kingdom 3,487 9.8
17  Finland 3,226 9.2

 

We're doing it wrong.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #751 of 886
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_health_expenditure_(PPP)_per_capita

 

 

Rank Country Total
health
expenditure
per capita
PPP US$
Total
health
expenditure
% of
GDP
1  United States 7,960 17.4
2  Norway 5,352 9.6
3  Switzerland 5,144 11.4
4  Netherlands 4,914 12.0
5  Luxembourg 4,808 7.8
6  Canada 4,363 11.4
7  Denmark 4,348 11.5
8  Austria 4,289 11.0
9  Germany 4,218 11.6
10  France 3,978 11.8
11  Belgium 3,946 10.9
12  Ireland 3,781 9.5
13  Sweden 3,722 10.0
14  Iceland 3,538 9.7
15  Australia 3,445 (2008) 8.7 (2008)
16  United Kingdom 3,487 9.8
17  Finland 3,226 9.2

 

We're doing it wrong.

 

 

Maybe we should make up a bunch of taxes and rules to fix it. MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!

post #752 of 886

Well, the folks that have more rules and taxes spend a lower percentage of GDP on healthcare, a lower amount of money per capita, and have better health outcomes.  So, yes, let's make up a bunch of taxes and rules to fix it.  That seems like a good idea we should adopt based on solid evidence of it working elsewhere.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #753 of 886

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Correlation does not necessarily imply causation.  You make the assertion that the economy grew due to the lower rates.  Prove it.

 

Here's the thing:  I think you're being intellectually dishonest again.  I think you know very well that tax cuts stimulate the economy.  So "proving it" will likely be impossible...at least to your satisfaction.  What we do know is that we've had three tax cuts in modern history (Kennedy, Reagan, Bush) in which a good portion of the rate reduction was in the top bracket.  All three were followed by robust economic growth, which in turn led to more--not less--revenue.  For most reasonable people, batting 1000 is pretty decent evidence.  But hey...this is you we're talking about.  

 

 

 

Quote:
We also differ on what we consider to be essential government services.

 

Yes, I believe we do.  

 

Quote:
contend that not letting anyone die from lack of healthcare, exposure due to lack of shelter, or starvation from lack of food are all essential.

 

I actually agree with you here.  But the fact is we already do have systems and programs in place to address all of these.  No one with a life threatening health condition is refused treatment.  We do have homelessness and starvation, but we also devote significant resources to dealing with those issues.   

 

 

Quote:
 I contend that higher education should not come with crippling debt.

 

So you have the right to affordable higher education? You have to be kidding me.  College is not a right.  In fact, we have too many people going to college as it is.  And the more the government subsidizes the cost, the worse the tuition rates get.  

 

 

 

Quote:
To provide for those, taxes need to be raised.  (Although, if you add up the cost you pay for your individual premiums & college education and add that to your effective tax rate, you'd find that you'd be paying much less in a single payer system)

 

Did I read that right?  Are you advocating "single payer" for college education, too?  lol.gif   

 

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #754 of 886
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Well, the folks that have more rules and taxes spend a lower percentage of GDP on healthcare, a lower amount of money per capita, and have better health outcomes.

 

And how many of those outcomes are derived directly from the rapid advancement of American health care technologies?

The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #755 of 886
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

And how many of those outcomes are derived directly from the rapid advancement of American health care technologies?

 

True, but just as importantly, these "outcomes" are self-reported (by country) and often measured very differently...and some of the "outcomes" in the US are the result of self-preventable health problem not to mention problems and deaths unrelated to the level or quality of healthcare at all.

 

This is what happens when you try to distill something as complex as healthcare of an entire country into a couple of statistics like (dollar) cost and life expectancy or infant mortality, etc.

 

Having said all of that, the health care and health insurance markets in the US are definitely sub-optimal. The problem is that BR's prescriptions won't fix them. The problem in these markets is too much government meddling, not not enough.


Edited by MJ1970 - 5/23/12 at 4:37pm

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #756 of 886

And yet, the evidence still contradicts what you claim when looking at markets that have MORE government involvement.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #757 of 886
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

And yet, the evidence still contradicts what you claim when looking at markets that have MORE government involvement.

 

Actually it doesn't at all. But don't let that get in the way of your dogmatic adherence to a flawed interpretation of things.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #758 of 886

Yup, the countries where patients don't have to file for medical bankruptcy totally have this whole healthcare thing wrong.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #759 of 886
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Well, the folks that have more rules and taxes spend a lower percentage of GDP on healthcare, a lower amount of money per capita, and have better health outcomes.  So, yes, let's make up a bunch of taxes and rules to fix it.  That seems like a good idea we should adopt based on solid evidence of it working elsewhere.

 

You are talking about averages with homogenous populations in a monoculture. That is not the U.S. and although this has been explained to you dozens of times, until you can compare apples to apples, no one is going to listen to you.

 

The U.S. is a multi-ethnic and multicultural country right now. The fact that not all cultures are equal in terms of their values and also given the fact that regardless of what platitudes we want to believe, numbers deal with reality.

 

The countries that have overall great economies right now are all fair traders and all net exporters, especially of energy. Germany, Canada, Denmark, all exporters. They all benefit from currency arrangements as well in my opinion. That said a snapshot is note a movie and Germany, Denmark and others are right next to or explicitly involved in the Euro which is just about to go belly up and suffer several upheavals. Many of these countries are on the positive end of demographics that are about to go radically negative.

 

Obama could have pressed for fair trade. He could have sought to end currency manipulation but instead has watched the fed print away and join the club to a deeper degree. He could have asked the Senate for a budget. He could have asked to stop borrowing a billion a year and sought real health solutions.

 

Why don't you show us which of your lovely countries is practicing economic growth via massive borrowing and stimulus?

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #760 of 886

US National Debt 15 Trillion USD. The US National Debt ~DOUBLED~ in the past 10 years compared to what it was from ~all of history~ before that.

 

514px-USDebt.png

 

 

50% or so of that owned by foreign entities, mostly Japan, China, etc. Check this out. China sells US stuff. China Loans US money to buy Chinese stuff. US wants to buy more Chinese stuff. China loans US more money, China sells more stuff to the US which the US buys using Chinese money. Something's seriously wrong here. Who's really buying what? Answer: China is buying the US lock stock and barrel, and it has been happening for over 10 YEARS now.

 

US Debt-To-GDP now 100%. Greece was at 100% for several years since 2000 then in the past five years or so it ballooned to 110%, 120%, 150%, and... Well, you know what happened. Worthless currency (post-Euro, even then the Euro can barely stand on its own), worthless economy, worthless government, worthless productivity. Cradle of millennia of modern humanity down the toilet in just a few decades.

 

100% Debt-To-GDP doesn't mean your car will break down, but your gas indicator is showing EMPTY and the only next gas station is ten miles behind you. You wonder if you even ~have~ enough gas to go backwards to fill up. 

 

Also, Greek debt crisis also because their numbers were bollocks most of the time. See "IOUSA The Movie" and you'll realise 15 Trillion is the tip of the DEBT ICEBERG once Social Security, Medicare and so on are accounted for. Iraq War? Bush Cuts? Nasa? Excessive Spending? Even if you solved that 100% tomorrow, you only take a tiny sliver of the total debt including "hidden" debts.

 

Social Security surplus is used to finance the debt making things look better than it is. As I understand, all Social Security taxes from people goes into the fund for a year. It then pays out to people who claim it that year. Right now there is some "left over" each year. But this is dropping rapidly, and all this "left over" money is all used up each year anyway in the federal budget. So, about right now, Social Security will now have to pay out MORE than it gets from people, so Social Security will just catastrophically add to the debt. Not saying a safety net from people is not important, but if you make your safety net for from banana leaves, then it's no safety at all.

 

Get this as well. It is claimed that the Social Security "Surplus" is still there, except, oops, when you open the bank vault there's a nice little IOU from the US government saying "will pay u back 2morrow a few trillion USD I promize! xxx"

 

Don't be fooled by partisanship. As Steve Jobs alluded to when he spoke to Fox Corp, "liberal-conservative" no longer means anything. It is the great illusion of choice, freedom, justice and power. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_reform


Edited by nvidia2008 - 5/24/12 at 6:52am
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Dead Man Walking: The President Obama won't be reelected thread.